Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 42 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15229472
@Unthinking Majority

If you think that fetuses are real people deserving of life, then supporting bans on abortion does not help keep these unborn children alive.

Also, do you think pregnant people have a right to life?
#15229523
XogGyux wrote:If? Didn't you spend the last week trying to make an argument for it? What's going on, having 2nd thoughts?


Again, see my 3-week old post: I don't know if fetuses are people.

Since you don't believe they are, I am trying to see where to draw the line by playing the fetal personhood advocate.

@Unthinking Majority believes otherwise so when asking him, I play the fetal non-personhood advocate.

Basically, I'm applying the Socratic Method to get good arguments for both positions.

Wiki wrote:The Socratic method (also known as method of Elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate) is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. It is named after the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates and is introduced by him in Plato's Theaetetus as midwifery (maieutics) because it is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding.

The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions.

The Socratic method searches for general commonly held truths that shape beliefs and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, explore definitions, and characterize general characteristics shared by various particular instances.


XogGyux wrote:How about you prevent the homicide. Ban the rape victim from killing the innocent unborn person.


It's tempting, but is it ethical to burden the victim for something she did not do? Is this proportional?

I would regard the woman having the abortion in this case as acting out of something akin to necessity, which in some states (not all, I'll grant you that) is a valid defense for homicide.

XogGyux wrote:No it was not. The rapist could be in jail, damn, the rapist could have been shot the day after the rape and be long gone by the time abortion occurs. As much as you would want to blame the rapist for the abortion, it does not make sense. It is like blaming Hittler's mom for the holocaust...
The logic you propose is bizarre to say the least.


The fact that the rapist could be dead is immaterial here. Hitler's mom is not directly responsible for Hitler's actions but the rapist would be directly responsible for the pregnancy since it's a direct result of the rape.

XogGyux wrote:Who cares, maybe she does not want to hear the cry of the child of the rapist. Who cares... You seemed to have no issue with abortions in case of rapists before... you gonna blame it on the rapist anyway, so who cares if this woman kills a newborn or a near-term fetus?


Again, proportionality. It's clearly not the same situation as the woman who finds she's 2 months pregnant.

For starters, in this case where the victim learns of the pregnancy while in labor, she can deliver the baby immediately, while the woman who finds she ended up pregnant only 2 months in would need to wait for several months to be able to close this chapter.

XogGyux wrote:You are the one that wants to allow women to kill people as long as those people are sons/daughters of rapists :lol: .


Out of necessity, not because they want to.

XogGyux wrote:So you don't seem so sure now...


It's clearly not the same situation as the woman who learns about the pregnancy early on. In your scenario, the rape victim can end it immediately without killing the fetus, in the more common one (it's rare for women to learn about their pregnancy while in labor) she doesn't have that option.

It's not that complicated, and I'm sure you understand it.

XogGyux wrote:Neither does the back and forth since.


I beg to disagree. Since I don't have a clear position, it's not strange that I may argue for both depending on who I'm talking to, just to learn different arguments.

XogGyux wrote:As despicable as a rapist might be, he/she is not responsible for everything that happens after the rape. He is not responsible for an abortion, if you truly believe abortions should be banned due to fetus being person, then you should also protect this unborn person. You are OK ignoring body autonomy of a woman that was NOT raped to save a live, but suddently, in the case of a raped one... you don't seem to care about the same life being saved.


I care about it, I'd still see if it's possible to convince the victim not to have the abortion. But I would not prevent her from making the choice since she's clearly not responsible for the pregnancy.

I would not punish the victim for something she's not responsible for.

XogGyux wrote:If the victim is looking for an abortion... and that abortion is considered murder... then yes, the victim is at fault for the murder.
Again, if you rape me, and I shoot you in the middle of the trial, after you are in custody. I am going to jail for murder. You cannot just murder someone and blame it on someone else.


The second scenario looks more like vengeance and actually I'd suspect the rape would be a mitigating factor. But leaving that aside, the pregnant victim did not choose to end pregnant. It's as simple as that.

If she had an abortion, it would also not go unpunished.

XogGyux wrote:Precisely. Thus, she must be liable for speeding while pregnant for fetal endargerment, and if she has a miscarriage as a result of an accident she has to go to jail for manslaughter.


If that's how it would work if a passenger died as a result, yes.

Again, fetal personhood has consequences beyond abortion and bodily autonomy. In this case, the woman clearly did not want to have an abortion yet this type of penalty does follow from considering the fetus a person.

Do you think this is enough to consider a fetus a non-person?

@Unthinking Majority what do you think about this scenario? A pregnant woman speeds, crashes and has a miscarriage as a result. Do you consider this to be manslaughter? It would if she was with a born child in the car.

XogGyux wrote:No? If your doctor tells you, don't let your todler inside the hot car, and you do it and the todler dies... aren't you criminally negligent? How is this different from your doctor telling you not to do something, you do it anyway and results in miscarriage? (death of a fetus).


I can see why the toddler scenario makes sense, but in that case there would be an alternative (worst case scenario, bring him with you or make daycare arrangements). The pregnant woman doesn't have one, and not working can perfectly harm the fetus and lead to a miscarriage as well. It's not the same situation, really.

XogGyux wrote:Fine... lets switch it a bit. You slip in the mall, there is a clear, obvious sign that warns against walking in the wet. It is no longer an accident, there is a warning, you were negligent walking despite the sign.


If you'd be charged for killing another person under those circumstances, then yes, you would be charged if the fetus is regarded to be a person. Unlike the above case, there's an alternative to wearing flops for both the pregnant and non pregnant.

XogGyux wrote:NO lol. All I am seeing you have no answers for those questions that are problematic for you, and when you do, you have bad answers.


Well, it goes to show why the fetal personhood question is complicated. You can't go on and say that a 37-week fetus 1 second before birth is not a person while it is one 1 second after, as you in fact did, and expect no pushback either.

And your examples show how personhood does in fact matter, and not just for abortion.

XogGyux wrote:Absolutely it does.


No. In those cases, the woman clearly did not want to end pregnancy.

If you leave your toddler inside a car and he dies, it doesn't mean you never wanted to have one :roll:

XogGyux wrote:The personhood status of the fetus is irrelevant.


Oh yes it is. There would be penalties in most scenarios if the victim was someone we agree is a person, like a toddler.

XogGyux wrote:Wow. nice non-committal answer.


Is there a law forcing us to have strong positions in all issues? :knife:

Unthinking Majority wrote:Hair isn't alive, for one.


Fair, then consider stem cells. Why are fetuses more like children than stem cells?

Are they more like children than stem cells e.g. during the first trimester of pregnancy?

I want to understand where you are coming from. @XogGyux would say fetuses are more like stem cells than children during the whole pregnancy, up to a second before birth and regardless of its development. Would you say fetuses are more like children throughout the pregnancy, regardless of fetal development? Why or why not?
#15229534
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Unthinking Majority

If you think that fetuses are real people deserving of life, then supporting bans on abortion does not help keep these unborn children alive.

Also, do you think pregnant people have a right to life?


Actually banning abortion does keep unborn children alive. Some of them but not all of them. In typical liberal fashion you cannot embrace better on the path to perfect.

And the stupid question of the day: "Also, do you think pregnant people have a right to life?"

Pregnant people are alive. And they drive cars and watch Price is Right. Nobody is advocating killing them.

They want abortions mostly for convenience. If they are physically threatened by a birth then they can get an abortion.
#15229552
Drlee wrote:Actually banning abortion does keep unborn children alive. Some of them but not all of them. In typical liberal fashion you cannot embrace better on the path to perfect.


No.

Studies show that jurisdictions with complete bans on abortion have the same abortion rate as the most permissive.

There seems to be very little correlation between banning abortion and lowering abortion rates.

And the stupid question of the day: "Also, do you think pregnant people have a right to life?"

Pregnant people are alive. And they drive cars and watch Price is Right. Nobody is advocating killing them.


Banning abortions is not correlated with lowering abortion rates, but it is correlated with a higher maternal mortality rate from unsafe abortions.

So, while people who are advocating for abortion bans may not intentionally be advocating for killing pregnant people, that is the impact of their policies.

They want abortions mostly for convenience. If they are physically threatened by a birth then they can get an abortion.


Why should that matter?
#15229586
@Pants-of-dog No.

Studies show that jurisdictions with complete bans on abortion have the same abortion rate as the most permissive.

There seems to be very little correlation between banning abortion and lowering abortion rates.


Post your proof. I disagree.

Banning abortions is not correlated with lowering abortion rates, but it is correlated with a higher maternal mortality rate from unsafe abortions.

So, while people who are advocating for abortion bans may not intentionally be advocating for killing pregnant people, that is the impact of their policies.


Irrelevant but I would like to see your proof. And not some emotional right to life blog.

But a better answer is this. So you are advocating that because people who are committing crimes are sometimes harmed in the process of doing these crimes, we ought to change the law? So get rid of the drinking and driving laws? Speeding?


Why should that matter?


We are way past this on this thread. If you have some new point to make, feel free to make it.
#15229596
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Unthinking Majority

If you think that fetuses are real people deserving of life, then supporting bans on abortion does not help keep these unborn children alive.

That's like saying rapes still happen therefore let's legalize rapes. What I do know is that allowing abortions to be legal does not help keep the unborn alive.

Also, do you think pregnant people have a right to life?

Yes
#15229597
late wrote:
It's a fetus, not a child.

Of course you think that. Because the only way people who support killing unborn human beings can sleep at night is to dehumanize them. That way they aren't really human, and therefore can be killed with little or no guilt.

This is how slave owners rationalized slavery, and Nazis rationalized the holocaust.
#15229620
wat0n wrote:So @Unthinking Majority what makes a fetus different from stem cells? Is it always a child or there's a developmental stage where it becomes one?

One is a living organism?

So I guess you're asking me when does a human become a human? Maybe when a fertilized egg firmly implants itself on the uteral wall and starts growing and being provided nutrients to do so?
#15229621
Drlee wrote:@Pants-of-dog No.



Post your proof. I disagree.


I understand why you disagree. The logic behind the "abortion saves lives" hypothesis is clear and intuitive.

It is also not true.

I found many articles by Googling "are abortion rates correlated with abortion bans".

Irrelevant


Please explain how abortion bans directly causing higher mortality rate for pregnant people is irrelevant to a discussion on the pros and cons of banning abortion.

Thanks.

[
but I would like to see your proof. And not some emotional right to life blog.


"relationship abortion bans maternal mortality".

The Stevenson study seems to be the most up to date and extensive.

But a better answer is this. So you are advocating that because people who are committing crimes are sometimes harmed in the process of doing these crimes, we ought to change the law? So get rid of the drinking and driving laws? Speeding?


It is only a crime because you criminalised it.

We are way past this on this thread. If you have some new point to make, feel free to make it.


Then why did you bring it up?

------------

Unthinking Majority wrote:That's like saying rapes still happen therefore let's legalize rapes. What I do know is that allowing abortions to be legal does not help keep the unborn alive.


I do agree that the uselessness of rape laws indicates that we need to radically change rape laws.

Are you arguing that the presence of other laws with minimal or no effect justifies another ineffective law?

Yes


Then please note that abortion bans are directly linked to an increase in the mortality rate of pregnant people.
#15229622
Unthinking Majority wrote:One is a living organism?

So I guess you're asking me when does a human become a human? Maybe when a fertilized egg firmly implants itself on the uteral wall and starts growing and being provided nutrients to do so?


OK. So for example in @XogGyux's case where a pregnant woman negligently speeds, passes a red light, crashes and ends up losing the baby should she be guilty of manslaughter?
#15229635
Unthinking Majority wrote:
Of course you think that.





It's the science, and therefore the law.

Religion is impermissible.

Read a couple medical ethicists, you'll become less hyperbolic..
#15229642
Pants-of-dog wrote:I
Then please note that abortion bans are directly linked to an increase in the mortality rate of pregnant people.

If you make a wilful decision to go to some shady pseudo doctor because you want to kill your fetus because you're too scared to tell your parents or your bf that you're pregnant instead of growing some balls and then giving it up for adoption that's your own decision. I feel bad for women in that spot but they aren't really a victim, they brought it all in themselves. I feel a lot worse for the real victim which is an innocent child the mother is trying to murder.

I don't understand why most people seem to feel more sympathy for the mother than the child.
#15229643
wat0n wrote:OK. So for example in @XogGyux's case where a pregnant woman negligently speeds, passes a red light, crashes and ends up losing the baby should she be guilty of manslaughter?

Maybe. I don't really know much about manslaughter laws to be honest.
#15229645
late wrote:It's the science, and therefore the law.

Religion is impermissible.

Read a couple medical ethicists, you'll become less hyperbolic..

None of my arguments about abortion are religious, because I'm not religious.

The next time a pregnant woman says "Omg I'm pregnant with Michael's fetus! I can feel the fetus kicking! The fetus is X weeks along." let me know.
  • 1
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 64
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

But please apply this to our own allies as well,[…]

We find a common ground with America. Biden admin[…]

The ACLU’s David Cole: Supreme Court Conservativ[…]

Joe Biden is doing great. His approval rating is […]