Personhood and Abortion Rights

[_Jersey Girl]

I can think of plenty of ways in which society responds to women that if they were changed, it might result in lessening the numbers of abortions there are today.

What are some of these ways?

I think I've already mentioned or at least alluded to some of the ideas I have in previous posts but they may have been obscured in the text of whatever I wrote. I'll start with this and see if you want to go beyond it.

The development of visible pregnancy transition centers.

[_honorentheos]

I should add the idea of higher rights is where the flaw exists. It may be there are competing rights such as when the life of the mother is threatened or some other evaluation is involved. But not first establishing when and under what conditions the fetus acquired the status necessary to have rights is avoiding something essential with a hand wave.

[_Jersey Girl]

When women have choice it means exactly that. I have the right to choose according to my own views as does the woman who sees things differently have the right to choose according to her views.

I see nothing wrong and everything right about that.

Thought experiment -

Does this hold true if we were talking about a mother choosing to have their baby smothered to death at 1 week old? 1 month old? 1 year old?

If you answer no, there is a point when the mother doesn't get to choose to end the life processes involved without the state enforcing a form of justice, you are effectively saying that the status of the fetus is not the same as that of a baby. And while you probably won't call it that, it's effectively saying the fetus lacks the status of being a person.

Let me clarify that the principal I try to attach and employ to the above is in reference to standing law.

So my answer in the case of the mother choosing to have her baby smothered is no. It's not lawful. It's not a choice.

Morally speaking, I think that both are taking a life. But, that's not what the law says.

I wish you would do more thought experiments.

[_Jersey Girl]

Does this hold true if we were talking about a mother choosing to have their baby smothered to death at 1 week old? 1 month old? 1 year old?

If you answer no, there is a point when the mother doesn't get to choose to end the life processes involved without the state enforcing a form of justice, you are effectively saying that the status of the fetus is not the same as that of a baby. And while you probably won't call it that, it's effectively saying the fetus lacks the status of being a person.

She will correct me if I am wrong, but I think she is saying that it is a person, but that due to history and many other factors, a Woman has earned a "higher right" over the rights of the fetus, to abort their child in the womb. She doesn't like it, but supports it.

I'm speaking in terms of standing law.

Nothing more, nothing less.

As to earning a "higher right". Here you are discussing personhood. I would rework that statement as follows.

While women have achieved the status of personhood, the personhood of the fetus and potential child has been at least temporarily sacrificed.

I say temporarily because as I tried to explain-->change comes slow.

Rome wasn't built in a day and all that jazz.

I think that we've seen places in our collective history where society has had to actually horrify itself before it begins to believe that change is necessary.

Trying to find a guy relatable example. The push for gun control as a response to mass shootings?

[_Themis]

You are twisting context. I said they do have the right, and I said I would probably go that way but that it was still wrong...again you are twisting my words and thoughts. It not a easy thing to deal with or decide...and it has nothing to do with non Rape Abortions.

And yes it is a innocent life...I said it was...this iss what I wrote,

I'm not twisting anything. I understand you think it is the wrong choice, but from what you have said, you seem to be saying a raped women should have the right to get an abortion even though you think it a poor choice. If this is correct, you are by definition saying the raped women has the right to end the life of her innocent unborn baby. This means the unborn baby does not have the same rights as everyone who has already been born. From what I can tell this is the same position of most of the anti-abortionists. Same for women whose health is at risk. Markk should a women whose life is at risk be able to abort her baby to save her life?

[_Jersey Girl]

Well. The debate is inherently arbitrary no matter how you parse it. So, we just have to pick an arbitrary line as a body politic and do the inevitable push and pull thing we do. That's as far as I feel confident speaking on a meta level.

Agree. That's why I hardly ever involve myself in a thread like this. It'll shoot off in any number of directions, there's no way to contain, organize, or define it, and we never reach a state of resolution.

Personally? Sure, I'll share because I have 23 minutes before kickoff.

You did this in 23 minutes. I couldn't have done this in 23 hours.

1) I don't think life has any inherent value on an existential, universal level. To me it just is. I've asked all sorts of people who claim life is valuable, and trying to get them to go beyond God or biology or a personal narrative is impossible because I think the question is impossible. What's the point of it all that justifies life having an assigned meaning?

I think we might say that the value of life is to ensure the survival of the herd (pack, race, species) but even that alludes to a higher purpose--why do we care about the survival of the herd to begin with?

Because we attach and bond. I'm willing to pass on this entirely. It's too cumbersome.

This leads me to...

2) Life is basically something that replicates itself. Some of it is pretty simple. Some of it is pretty complex in its recursiveness (life in life in life which creates complex organisms like antelopes and cats). This doesn't really assign humans any special status other than we can dominate other forms of life to secure our ability to replicate ourselves pretty efficiently at this point. But Life itself is no respecter of persons, things, and everything in between. We aren't special, as evidenced by the flu, ebola, a tiger eating one of us, or a man raping and strangling to death an infant. Life will kill us just as easily as we kill It. Life doesn't give a damn. And this doesn't even take into account of non-Life things that have a propensity to disabuse us of our self-appointed status as 'something special'. A gamma ray burst or a volcano reminds us that the Universe doesn't care about Life. Not even in the least.

Life gives zero "F"s. Some humans seem to give quite a lot of "F"s in terms of protecting, ensuring and maintaining their survival. Why? Instinct and for what reason or purpose do we possess that instinct to essentially preserve ourselves?

That puts me right back at attachment and bonding. But that's what I am oriented to.

Which leads me to...

3) Abortion requires a status assigned to it, in order for it to be lawful or unlawful. It has to mean something to the body politic. I can't imagine, say, humans supporting abortion, if there were an apocalypse, and there were only 300 of us left over. The value we give women, fertility, and future progeny are probably related to the value we have for one another.

I keep coming back to survival instinct. If we were dealing with overpopulation (if?) and scarce resources, in order to ensure our survival (there it is again, survival) we might see the ability to terminate a pregnancy quite differently. We might see it as a reasonable solution to a complex problematic threat. Reduce the herd would be a quick and dirty solution.

Methods of birth control fail. Abstinence fails. Under certain conditions, forced sterilization and abortion might be the fail safe methods that we use as tools to survive. (there it is again)

Which leads me to...

4) We don't value one another very much outside what we can do for one another. But outside of that, any sort of inherent value is probably diminished as our population increases and we start to max out our resources.

I promise you that I am reading this for the first time and did not read it prior to making my above comments! I put quotes around your entire post and am going through it top to bottom.

This is why Conservatives don't care about spending resources on children once they make it out of the vaginal canal, and this is probably why Liberals don't really care if a fertilized egg makes it out of the vaginal canal at all. Whatever the case may be we're extinguishing millions of future adults because they're inconvenient to us as society.

Completely agree. In such cases where a mother chooses to terminate her pregnancy I don't see Conservatives-Republicans-or the Religious Right tripping all over themselves to provide for the potential child. I don't really know what the Liberal response is.

Which leads me to...

5) I'm kind of all in or all out on the issue of the value of Life. in my opinion, and my opinion only, I think we either cherish life (human in context of my post) and we try our best to stop killing it as much as we can in a way that produces a quality life for all involved, or we stop giving a damn because we're kind of full of crap on the issue. Personally, I'd like to see us tread lightly on all things, as much as we can, but since there is no inherent value in Life itself, in my opinion, I'm fine with pragmatism if it secures our future. I recognize my opinion has no real or firm philosophical consistency, but that's the nature of this kind of discussion.

That right there! It's exactly where I try to come from as an individual and what I think is the only way to decrease the number of elective abortions in this country. I think it requires a looooooong slog to even get close to reaching that place. I think it primarily begins one relationship at a time. I believe in the rippling effect. I believe that the relationships create the village. When the quality of the relationships rises, so does the village rise with it and reciprocal protections are the result.

6) Finally, I think if a woman has total right to determine whether or not a future adult gets to live, and a dude has no say in the matter, then I think he ought to be free to financially abort his obligation to give her money so she can use it to better the kid's life get her nails did.
- Doc

I would need more time to think about that. On first read, I agree with you. Some part of me thinks there is a better way. If I think of a better way, I'll put it on this thread.

When I commented earlier that you didn't disappoint, I didn't mean that you didn't disappoint because you shared my views. You share some of them, not all. You didn't disappoint because you cut through the BS just as I expected, you constructed your thinking right on the screen in a methodical and cogent way, it was a pleasure to read and consider this.

[Guest]

6) Finally, I think if a woman has total right to determine whether or not a future adult gets to live, and a dude has no say in the matter, then I think he ought to be free to financially abort his obligation to give her money so she can use it to better the kid's life get her nails did.
- Doc

I would need more time to think about that. On first read, I agree with you....

Get her nails did? Unbelievable.

[_Markk]

I'm not twisting anything. I understand you think it is the wrong choice, but from what you have said, you seem to be saying a raped women should have the right to get an abortion even though you think it a poor choice. If this is correct, you are by definition saying the raped women has the right to end the life of her innocent unborn baby. This means the unborn baby does not have the same rights as everyone who has already been born. From what I can tell this is the same position of most of the anti-abortionists. Same for women whose health is at risk. Markk should a women whose life is at risk be able to abort her baby to save her life?

Not a poor choice, a wrong choice...it has to do with human nature and as I wrote strength to do the right thing, which in the case of rape I doubt if I could be strong enough to do the right thing, but I hope I could.

You are trying, unsuccessfully, for what ever reason, to tie me into the current women's right to choose ideology, which I reject in favor of the child's right to live.

All unborn babies have the right to live, if I were to allow or agree to be part of a abortion, becasue of rape, that infringes on that child's right, and I am the guilty one, and the wrong person. Call me a hypocrite fine, I am on this, but I am just being honest with my feelings. And if I am not strong enough to get past having my wife give birth to, and me raise as my own, a baby by her and the person who raped her...and abort it, then who am I to say another person cannot do the same thing. That is the context

If you need to make it something more than that fine...

[_Themis]

You are trying, unsuccessfully, for what ever reason, to tie me into the current women's right to choose ideology, which I reject in favor of the child's right to live.

Lets keep it simple then. If you could make the laws of the land would you make abortion illegal for even women who have been raped?

[_Markk]

You are trying, unsuccessfully, for what ever reason, to tie me into the current women's right to choose ideology, which I reject in favor of the child's right to live.

Lets keep it simple then. If you could make the laws of the land would you make abortion illegal for even women who have been raped?

I don't know, that would be a tough one. In weakness maybe, in strength no. If I were King I would have to really weigh the greater good based on my baseline of morality and faith...which most here would disagree with. I would always have in my thought process that the child, whether conceived in love, lust, or rape... is a real person and it is not their fault.


My turn...

If you were King, when would abortions be allowed and when would they be restricted? Would you allow scientific experiments on a aborted child...and if so at what stages and if at stages what would be your reasoning?