2020 US Presidential election

[John Cracker]

So what we've gained from this is that you're fine with abortion but just want the states to be able to determine it. That makes little sense imho. If a state is going to restrict and disadvantage or discriminate against a specific population or socio-economic class thats a Federal issue.

No, i'm not fine with it, I think ideally it would be illegal except in the case of the life of the mother, but for social reasons I think the most realistic path would be for the states to decide, a federal ban would require a social shift. And I have already siad that the solution for poor woman would be for a government subsidy if they needed it for medical reasons.

[jamescfm]

.

[John Cracker]

No, i'm not fine with it, I think ideally it would be illegal except in the case of the life of the mother, but for social reasons I think the most realistic path would be for the states to decide, a federal ban would require a social shift. And I have already siad that the solution for poor woman would be for a government subsidy if they needed it for medical reasons.

From this quote it sounds like what you mean is that you know most people disagree with banning abortion (for good reason) but that you want to be able to enforce a ban in those states with reactionary Republican governments.

I'm saying that I know that most people are pro abortian, but their are many states were most people are anti abortian, I think the roe vs wade should be overturned, and while I want abortian to be illegal except in the case of the life of the mother I think the most realistic path is to let states decide, since a ban enforced by the federal government would require a cultural shift.

[Wu Han]

Luckily, misoprostol and mifepristone are so cheap and widespread that even if you empower the State to violate the bodily integrity of half the population, abortion will likely continue unabated. Millions of pregnancies will continue to be safely terminated; you are completely powerless to stop it.

Nonetheless, in countries where the principle of bodily autonomy is not extended to women, and where medical abortions are illegal, botched abortions represent 8 to 11 percent of all maternal mortalities. Oh well. I suppose the sacrifice of 1 in 10 pregnant women (and their precious fetuses) is the price you have to pay to have your theology enforced by the State.

Continuing on the theme of bodily autonomy, a fetus is fully physiologically dependent on its host's body, unlike born human beings. Even if a fetus had some sort of "right to life," it has no right to use and depend upon another person's body. If your child desperately needs an organ transplant, and you are a perfect match, the State doesn't force you to give your organs to your child even if your refusal will result in that child's death.

People have the right of ownership over their own bodies in a free society.

Question, what do you think about IVF?

[jamescfm]

.

[John Cracker]

Just to really emphasise the above point, a 2012 study on the subject suggested that abortion was over 14 times safer than childbirth for the mother in the United States. If your concern is truly with the sanctity of life then it would seem that abortion is actually a remarkably effective way to protect it.

It can prottect it when the mothers life is at risk, other than that you are terminating one life to possibly protect another life to which to my knowledge isn't usually at a high risk of dying, thats a bit like terminating musslims becuase they might be part of ISIS.

[John Cracker]

Luckily, misoprostol and mifepristone are so cheap and widespread that even if you empower the State to violate the bodily integrity of half the population, abortion will likely continue unabated. Millions of pregnancies will continue to be safely terminated; you are completely powerless to stop it.

Nonetheless, in countries where the principle of bodily autonomy is not extended to women, and where medical abortions are illegal, botched abortions represent 8 to 11 percent of all maternal mortalities. Oh well. I suppose the sacrifice of 1 in 10 pregnant women (and their precious fetuses) is the price you have to pay to have your theology enforced by the State.

Continuing on the theme of bodily autonomy, a fetus is fully physiologically dependent on its host's body, unlike born human beings. Even if a fetus had some sort of "right to life," it has no right to use and depend upon another person's body. If your child desperately needs an organ transplant, and you are a perfect match, the State doesn't force you to give your organs to your child even if your refusal will result in that child's death.

People have the right of ownership over their own bodies in a free society.

Question, what do you think about IVF?

Well their not harming the baby or the mother to my knowledge, so based off what I know it doesn;t seem that bad, but I don;t know the pros and cons of it so my opinion might change.

By that logic poor people have no right to depend on the state for basic food and housing, if the mother doesn't want the child becuase she can;t raise the child or isn;t ready to be a mother thats fine, but just put the child up for adoption, you don't need to kill it. And yes in a free society people have a right of ownership over their bodies, and since by definition they are people, that right should be extended to them (to the degree that is is extended to children becuase they obvisouly can't make desicions on their own).

[jamescfm]

.

[John Cracker]

Aside from being incredibly inflammatory this is a profoundly terrible analogy. Abortion is not an act of religious genocide (which is what you just compared it to), it is the act of an individual woman asserting her right to autonomy over her body to make a decision that is in her best interest. Foetuses are not persons, as we clarified earlier.

In your earlier comments you suggested that they are "life" and that this is the basis for denying a women the right to do as she pleases with her body. If this is truly your view then I hope you share my views on the rights of living animals not to be killed for purposes of human consumption (they are certainly life if foetuses are). If not then I might suggest that you are playing semantic games to avoid the admission that your position is based entirely on a Biblical view of what constitutes a person.

The point you make about adoption here is truly terrible. Leaving aside the fact that bringing a child into the world without knowing whether it will be able to receive a stable home is somewhat questionable, you literally just acknowledged that childbirth is far riskier (fourteen times at least) than abortion. Essentially what you are asking is that a woman put her own life at risk for the sake of giving birth to a child she does not believe she can raise because you believe that every word of an ancient book is divinely inspired. Don't you understand how totally ludicrous and authoritarian that is?

Despite your assertion once again that foetuses should possess rights you have presented no meaningful argument in favour of the claim that foetuses are intelligibly persons. As I mentioned above your previous claim was that they are persons because they are living. Once again this creates some bizarre conclusions (I am reasonably confident that koalas are not persons, for example). Even if we take you to mean "living things with human DNA" then the conclusion is questionable: my left arm is a living thing with human DNA but it is not a person.

Life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Fetuses grow, so by definition they show signs of life.

Person: A living human. Often used in combination.

Since fetuses are human and by definition they are living then they by definition are a person.

Murder: The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

By definition abortian is murder unless their is a justifiable cause.

Childbirth may be riskier, but that shouldn't justify the taking of another human life. Right now we are playing the game of deciding who's rights are more important which is a very dangerous game to play, the mother certainly has the right to life so if her pregnancy is threatening her life then abortian is justified as self defense, however the fetus also has the right to life. My positon is essaintly that the fetuses rights end were the mothers rights begin and the mothers rights end were the fetuses rights begin.

[Wu Han]

Well their not harming the baby or the mother to my knowledge, so based off what I know it doesn;t seem that bad, but I don;t know the pros and cons of it so my opinion might change.

I presume here you're responding to my question on IVF. I'm sorry to be the person to tell you, but according to a study published by the Yale School of Medicine, nearly 1.5 million embryos created for IVF treatments were discarded (or rather, murdered, in your phraseology) between 2004–2013. Does your opinion change? Are women who seek IVF committing an act of mass murder when their bodies, on average, reject the majority of embryos implanted? If so, what should be the legal status of IVF and assisted reproduction?

By that logic poor people have no right to depend on the state for basic food and housing, if the mother doesn't want the child becuase she can;t raise the child or isn;t ready to be a mother thats fine, but just put the child up for adoption, you don't need to kill it. And yes in a free society people have a right of ownership over their bodies, and since by definition they are people, that right should be extended to them (to the degree that is is extended to children becuase they obvisouly can't make desicions on their own).

First, the operative word in my post was "physiologically." People living in poverty can physiologically exist even if the State does not exist; fetuses, on the other hand, cannot survive without a host womb. Second, I don't believe the State should have the power to force a parasitic physical dependency on anyone (carrying a fetus to term). Return to my very basic example regarding organ donation: should the State force you to donate your organs to save your child? If you say yes, at least you're being consistent in your rejection of bodily autonomy. Finally, we have not concluded that fetuses are "people," the most I'm willing to concede is that they are "living."