Why Reality Blows Up Anti-Abortion Rhetoric

[Vol8188]

I don’t know about your percentage but it does seem that a very large amount of abortions are being used as birth control which is nuts since birth control and the morning after pill are so readily available.

It’s gone from initially being about safe, rare and legal to don’t you dare tell me what to do.
My opinion is that it’s become a warped virtue signal of personal power for many women, the ultimate of all control, the control over life and death.

99%. I’ll find the data in a second

 

[DynaLo]

Non Sequitur.

The right to an abortion IS of course a right granted by the government.

Abortion is not a right. You won’t find it anywhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. It’s a can that has been kicked down the road since Roe v Wade so many times it has become rusty and deformed and no longer resembles its original form.

 

[DynaLo]

We can't live in a completely lawless community can we?

I was referring to the giving of sole authority to the overlord government. I’m a state’s rights gal and believe laws governing the people should be predominantly grounded in the state one resides in. Don’t like the state laws, move to one you like. It’s asinine to think what may be appropriate in Cali or NY is arbitrarily appropriate in TN or WVA.

 

[85SugarVol]

I was referring to the giving of sole authority to the overlord government. I’m a state’s rights gal and believe laws governing the people should be predominantly grounded in the state one resides in. Don’t like the state laws, move to one you like. It’s asinine to think what may be appropriate in Cali or NY is arbitrarily appropriate in TN or WVA.

 

[PKT_VOL]

As a pro-choicer, I listen to the rhetoric of anti-abortionists with great interest. I respect their tenet that having an abortion is akin to 'murder', but naturally I don't agree with it. I also respect their tenet that having an abortion is 'wrong', and agree that ending a life via abortion is very sad and absolutely a last resort.

However, I also recognize that from a pragmatic standpoint, their vision of an "abortion-free America" is simply short-sighted and wholly unworkable. Why?

Most of the problems with the anti-abortion view stem from their position that a human fetus is, in fact, a human being with the same inalienable right to life that you and I have as living, birthed people. The position is that both a fetus IN THE BODY and a delivered baby OUT OF THE BODY both have the right to life, and that their lives should not be ended by the mothers. Unfortunately, here's where the train falls off the tracks...

(1) If a fetus and a (birthed) baby have equal rights, then by definition, a fetus has all the legal rights of a birthed baby;

(2) These rights include - amongst other guaranteed rights to all Americans - the right to citizenship and to a social security number. As such, once a mother is determined to be pregnant, the fetus is now a citizen and must immediately be issued a SSN by the government;

(3) Under the Affordable Care Act, the fetus is now also required to have health insurance, so parents must enroll the fetus upon determination of pregnancy. Also, the fetus is now a dependent, and can be deducted when filing income taxes;

(4) Further, within our legal system, all citizens have the right to due process and a fair trial when crimes have allegedly occurred. Moreover, it's illegal to incarcerate an American citizen without due process. Consequently, if the mother of a fetus commits a crime and is found guilty, it's illegal for the citizen fetus to be incarcerated in any institution - given the obvious presumption that the fetus did not, and could not - commit a crime. Net result: No pregnant women can be legally held in any institution;

(5) As no pregnant women can be incarcerated with an innocent fetus inside the mother, it stands to reason that any rational woman facing potential incarceration will, therefore, become pregnant to avoid incarceration;

(6) Similarly, no legal citizen of the United States can be deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Therefore, no fetus conceived within the United States can legally be deported, as that fetus has all the rights of other 'normal' citizens. End result: No illegal immigrants who are pregnant in the US can be deported. See also (5) above;

(7) Further, the loss of any fetus for any reason that includes 'malignant behavior' by a mother shall be considered from a legal standpoint as manslaughter or potentially murder. For example, a mother gets drunk, wrecks her car while driving, and loses her fetus to stillbirth from injuries sustained in the accident. Given the equal legal rights of the fetus, the state would have to proceed with prosecution of the mother on manslaughter charges or murder if the act was premeditated. Regardless, the mother would face significant incarceration equivalent to the manslaughter/murder of a birthed human.

These are just some of the absurd realities awaiting an America where we consider fetuses to have the same rights as birthed humans. Our country is based on a clear system of inalienable rights to all citizens. Exceptions are not made. Period.

Having said that, I believe the better route for anti-abortionists is as follows: Volunteer to adopt an unwanted baby. If, as some anti-abortionists claim, there are legions of like-minded folks in our nation who don't want another single fetus aborted, then set up a National Adoption System. Have everyone sign up to adopt a fetus that would otherwise be aborted.

The above is not congruent with this:

Until when and if this ever happens (it won't), then feel free to live and breathe by Roe v. Wade and the law of the land that 60% of the American public supports.

 

[McDad]

The above is not congruent with this:

Been a while. Nice to see you posting again.

 

[NEO]

As a pro-choicer, I listen to the rhetoric of anti-abortionists with great interest. I respect their tenet that having an abortion is akin to 'murder', but naturally I don't agree with it. I also respect their tenet that having an abortion is 'wrong', and agree that ending a life via abortion is very sad and absolutely a last resort.

However, I also recognize that from a pragmatic standpoint, their vision of an "abortion-free America" is simply short-sighted and wholly unworkable. Why?

Most of the problems with the anti-abortion view stem from their position that a human fetus is, in fact, a human being with the same inalienable right to life that you and I have as living, birthed people. The position is that both a fetus IN THE BODY and a delivered baby OUT OF THE BODY both have the right to life, and that their lives should not be ended by the mothers. Unfortunately, here's where the train falls off the tracks...

(1) If a fetus and a (birthed) baby have equal rights, then by definition, a fetus has all the legal rights of a birthed baby;

(2) These rights include - amongst other guaranteed rights to all Americans - the right to citizenship and to a social security number. As such, once a mother is determined to be pregnant, the fetus is now a citizen and must immediately be issued a SSN by the government;

(3) Under the Affordable Care Act, the fetus is now also required to have health insurance, so parents must enroll the fetus upon determination of pregnancy. Also, the fetus is now a dependent, and can be deducted when filing income taxes;

(4) Further, within our legal system, all citizens have the right to due process and a fair trial when crimes have allegedly occurred. Moreover, it's illegal to incarcerate an American citizen without due process. Consequently, if the mother of a fetus commits a crime and is found guilty, it's illegal for the citizen fetus to be incarcerated in any institution - given the obvious presumption that the fetus did not, and could not - commit a crime. Net result: No pregnant women can be legally held in any institution;

(5) As no pregnant women can be incarcerated with an innocent fetus inside the mother, it stands to reason that any rational woman facing potential incarceration will, therefore, become pregnant to avoid incarceration;

(6) Similarly, no legal citizen of the United States can be deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Therefore, no fetus conceived within the United States can legally be deported, as that fetus has all the rights of other 'normal' citizens. End result: No illegal immigrants who are pregnant in the US can be deported. See also (5) above;

(7) Further, the loss of any fetus for any reason that includes 'malignant behavior' by a mother shall be considered from a legal standpoint as manslaughter or potentially murder. For example, a mother gets drunk, wrecks her car while driving, and loses her fetus to stillbirth from injuries sustained in the accident. Given the equal legal rights of the fetus, the state would have to proceed with prosecution of the mother on manslaughter charges or murder if the act was premeditated. Regardless, the mother would face significant incarceration equivalent to the manslaughter/murder of a birthed human.

These are just some of the absurd realities awaiting an America where we consider fetuses to have the same rights as birthed humans. Our country is based on a clear system of inalienable rights to all citizens. Exceptions are not made. Period.

Having said that, I believe the better route for anti-abortionists is as follows: Volunteer to adopt an unwanted baby. If, as some anti-abortionists claim, there are legions of like-minded folks in our nation who don't want another single fetus aborted, then set up a National Adoption System. Have everyone sign up to adopt a fetus that would otherwise be aborted.

Until when and if this ever happens (it won't), then feel free to live and breathe by Roe v. Wade and the law of the land that 60% of the American public supports.

2 is incorrect. The government does not force a SS number at birth and it is a choice. It is only required to be issued if they want to claim them as a dependent on taxes. SS numbers can be gained later in life.

6 is incorrect. Conception does not make one a citizen. Birth in a country normally does. There are exceptions but most times it does apply. Conception does not.

7 is incorrect. Some states already charge for two murders if you kill the mother and the fetus dies. Nothing changes here.

There is more but you are already wrong on half your points.

 

[norrislakevol]

Abortion is a gray area and it always will be. The 15 week rule is about the best you can do I think. By that time you can have all the tests done to see if the baby is healthy. You also know by that time if the mother is healthy enough to carry it. Anyone who has been raped also has had the time to make the decision by then. Abortion as a means of birth control is wrong in my opinion, but you cannot legislate morality in the end. No real reason to decide to have an abortion when you are going to have a healthy baby, rape and incest free. The fathers right to have the child in their arms is another strong thing for women to consider....but a lot do not.

 

[Vol8188]

Imagine being this stupid. “If you allow us to set our own abortion laws, we will just leave!”

 

[MontyPython]

2 is incorrect. The government does not force a SS number at birth and it is a choice. It is only required to be issued if they want to claim them as a dependent on taxes. SS numbers can be gained later in life.

6 is incorrect. Conception does not make one a citizen. Birth in a country normally does. There are exceptions but most times it does apply. Conception does not.

7 is incorrect. Some states already charge for two murders if you kill the mother and the fetus dies. Nothing changes here.

There is more but you are already wrong on half your points.

Your responses are wrong and/or misguided.

(1) SSN's. You are correct that SSN's are "optional". So is wearing pants in public. Anyone who fails to get an SSN# is either Amish, an idiot or an Amish idiot;

(2) You've missed my point on citizenship. If we go with the premise that a fetus is a child with all the rights of a born child, then as I stated, it is a citizen as is (nearly) all children born in the US;

(3) You've also missed my point on fetuses that die due to malignant behavior by the MOTHER, not a third party. So your claim is wrong.

 

[Vol8188]

Your responses are wrong and/or misguided.

(1) SSN's. You are correct that SSN's are "optional". So is wearing pants in public. Anyone who fails to get an SSN# is either Amish, an idiot or an Amish idiot;

(2) You've missed my point on citizenship. If we go with the premise that a fetus is a child with all the rights of a born child, then as I stated, it is a citizen as is (nearly) all children born in the US;

(3) You've also missed my point on fetuses that die due to malignant behavior by the MOTHER, not a third party. So your claim is wrong.

Help me understand what I’m missing about your argument. Here’s my understanding of what you’re saying and what’s wrong with it:

1. Anti abortion crowd is incorrect in their view that the baby has rights because they do not have all the rights they would have after birth.

2. Because of this you believe some abortions are okay but you still don’t support all abortions because you believe the infant does have a right to life?

Am I misrepresenting your argument or is your argument not contradictory of your own views?

 

[MontyPython]

You wrote a 500 word essay proclaiming an unborn child has no rights. Does an unborn child have a right to life?

Yes, I believe yes an unborn child has rights. A fetus is a different story.

 

[MontyPython]

Help me understand what I’m missing about your argument. Here’s my understanding of what you’re saying and what’s wrong with it:

1. Anti abortion crowd is incorrect in their view that the baby has rights because they do not have all the rights they would have after birth.

2. Because of this you believe some abortions are okay but you still don’t support all abortions because you believe the infant does have a right to life?

Am I misrepresenting your argument or is your argument not contradictory of your own views?

Heh. My position is as follows: If we're going to label a fetus as a human being at age ___ in the womb, then at that point, that human being has all the rights of a born child.

 

[Vol8188]

Heh. My position is as follows: If we're going to label a fetus as a human being at age ___ in the womb, then at that point, that human being has all the rights of a born child.

So at some point, you do believe an unborn child has all the rights of any other child in America? Is that accurate? If so, we agree. We may disagree on when exactly that point is, but it seems we aren't far off in our views.

 

[hog88]

Imagine being this stupid. “If you allow us to set our own abortion laws, we will just leave!”

Commmmmmmme on SCOTUSSSSSS! You can do it!

 

[MontyPython]

So at some point, you do believe an unborn child has all the rights of any other child in America? Is that accurate? If so, we agree. We may disagree on when exactly that point is, but it seems we aren't far off in our views.

Mostly, but there are situations where an abortion should still be legal... so I guess an unborn child's rights are limited in my view. Regardless, I'm good with establishing a date at which a fetus does become a human which gets people all riled up.

 

[Orangeburst]

What a hill to die in for the Radicals.

 

[NEO]

Your responses are wrong and/or misguided.

(1) SSN's. You are correct that SSN's are "optional". So is wearing pants in public. Anyone who fails to get an SSN# is either Amish, an idiot or an Amish idiot;

(2) You've missed my point on citizenship. If we go with the premise that a fetus is a child with all the rights of a born child, then as I stated, it is a citizen as is (nearly) all children born in the US;

(3) You've also missed my point on fetuses that die due to malignant behavior by the MOTHER, not a third party. So your claim is wrong.

Either way your first point is now moot as the social would simply be given at birth along with the name and you clearly said conceived in your original post which is not the same as born.

The fact is we already have laws that give children less rights that adults and even some adults have less rights than 21 year olds.

A 2 year old cannot vote, buy a drink, drive a car, or gamble so limiting the rights of a newborn is something we already do.

 

[GVF]

I am fine with them being equal rights, taxes, birth right, SSN, etc. they are already covered by health insurance with the mom, so that's not a change. The incarceration thing has been a reason for deferment, I would be fine with that being a standard for pregnant women.

The car crash thing is the only question, and for that I would just treat it the same as any (born) child in that situation. However the state law handles If drunk mom crashes and her child dies in the passenger seat, can be the same application for unborn.

Nothing new, just a whole lot of consistency, which is not something the pro choicers handle well.

So how was this some great refute to the prolife argument?

Same conversation has been had elsewhere and the baby killers continue to play semantics and avoid what's in front of them. I look forward to this argument for a third or fourth time in a couple years after you fail to address the points, again.

If an unbirthed child is not yet a real person, then how does someone that murders a pregnant woman get charged on two counts?

 

[NEO]

Mostly, but there are situations where an abortion should still be legal... so I guess an unborn child's rights are limited in my view. Regardless, I'm good with establishing a date at which a fetus does become a human which gets people all riled up.

When the child can scream in pain as it’s being murdered would be a good date.

 

[Vol8188]

Mostly, but there are situations where an abortion should still be legal... so I guess an unborn child's rights are limited in my view. Regardless, I'm good with establishing a date at which a fetus does become a human which gets people all riled up.

So you’re okay with stating something like at 18 weeks (or some other time frame) a fetus now has all rights of any other person?

If I’m understanding you we really aren’t that far off in our views. That’s what annoys me about a lot of the anti and pro abortion rhetoric. Most of us believe the same thing, that abortion up until a point should be legally accepted.

My issues are with those on the hard left who support the idea of no limits on abortions. Like when mayor Pete (who’s father is a well known Marxist) stated “it should be up to the woman”. That means you should be able to have an abortion at anytime for any reason

 

[MontyPython]

When the child can scream in pain as it’s being murdered would be a good date.

Well given that a fetus' lungs are filled with fluid that might be difficult. Regardless you're actually advocating last trimester. Jeeeeeesh.

 

[Septic]

gosh.

If R vs. W is overturned or severely kneecapped the only real wedge issue left will be gunz.

That seems boring.

 

[Vol8188]

gosh.

If R vs. W is overturned or severely kneecapped the only real wedge issue left will be gunz.

That seems boring.

I'm having a hard time understanding why the left sees this as such a terrible thing. The worst case scenario is a woman may have to drive to another state to receive care.

 

[TheDeeble]

gosh.

If R vs. W is overturned or severely kneecapped the only real wedge issue left will be gunz.

That seems boring.

Left/Right should just say we're going to table any further debate about abortion or guns for 20 or so years and focus on the important things.