Why Reality Blows Up Anti-Abortion Rhetoric

[utvolpj]

Most kids don’t have social security numbers for a couple weeks. Took mine almost a month. That doesn’t change the argument.

The fact that you consider abortion wrong to begin with seems to imply you believe it’s murder.

The only real question is when do we consider life to begin? The heartbeat seems to be the most logical solution since it’s also our basis for when life ends.

What’s most grotesque about your argument is you seem to be proclaiming an equally viable baby if inside the womb can be slaughtered at any time the mother desires. Am I misunderstanding?

Accurate genetic testing can't be done at 6 weeks when the heartbeat is seen. So you essentially eliminate any choice based on scientific results

 

[Vol8188]

Accurate genetic testing can't be done at 6 weeks when the heartbeat is seen. So you essentially eliminate any choice based on scientific results

Why does genetic testing matter?

 

[utvolpj]

Why does genetic testing matter?

When does it not? It identifies possible issues early and allows for an informed decision. This is especially true when their are known genetic issues with either parent

 

[Vol8188]

When does it not? It identifies possible issues early and allows for an informed decision. This is especially true when their are known genetic issues with either parent

I can’t tel if a kid has autism until they’re a toddler. I’m not convinced having a disease is reason to be euthanized. The ultimate question is regarding life not regarding when can tell if they’re retarded and euthanize them

 

[LouderVol]

Baby killer is not accurate. It's simply a term used to demean and insult any opposition. Same with murderer, etc. Not exactly demonstrating open-mindedness

Baby is far closer to the truth than saying "it" is not alive or the other charged terms used to defend the choice of ending a life.

The science is settled, its alive and its human. The only debate is what protections are due to whom.

As I am generally uncomfortable with any assumption that decreases protection for any individual, I default to everyone should be protected. Similiar reasoning to why I am against the death penalty.

Protection of life is not something dependent on your nationality or citizen status in this country. As an example You cant go legally killing illegals, even though they arent citizens. So it's a moot point if it counts as a citizen or not.

My only reason in bringing citizenship up was it was in the OP. He was trying to use it as a gotcha, but it's irrelevant. I would much rather assume their citizenship if it gives them protection than the current default of no advocacy.

 

[utvolpj]

I can’t tel if a kid has autism until they’re a toddler. I’m not convinced having a disease is reason to be euthanized. The ultimate question is regarding life not regarding when can tell if they’re retarded and euthanize them

This is about genetic issues not diseases. They can do a test at 9-10 weeks and provide sequencing to identity possible issues. For example, some of these issues could cause a very short life to be lived in extreme pain of they're even born at all. That's something a parent might like to know about

 

[McDad]

Oh yeah when you defended a person with plenty of racist posts comparing a black woman a baboon. I remember you really went a long way to defend your buddy on that one. Guess everyone is entitled to council

I hope you would conclude in retrospect you got a bad take on me and that situation in the heat of the moment.

 

[TNVOLNAVY]

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.

Stopped reading after the first 3 words.

 

[Vol8188]

This is about genetic issues not diseases. They can do a test at 9-10 weeks and provide sequencing to identity possible issues. For example, some of these issues could cause a very short life to be lived in extreme pain of they're even born at all. That's something a parent might like to know about

By genetic issues you mean, genetic diseases. Let’s not pretend those are different. By possible issues you mean possible diseases.

What’s more important, the ability to euthanize the mentally ill or the preservation of life? I know where I stand on that question

 

[utvolpj]

By genetic issues you mean, genetic diseases. Let’s not pretend those are different. By possible issues you mean possible diseases.

What’s more important, the ability to euthanize the mentally ill or the preservation of life? I know where I stand on that question

Genetic issues are not diseases. When there are extra chromosomes or pieces of chromosomes in the wrong places we're no longer talking about someone being a slow learner. No doubt you clearly know where you stand and failed to read my post before responding

 

[Vol8188]

Genetic issues are not diseases. When there are extra chromosomes or pieces of chromosomes in the wrong places we're no longer talking about someone being a slow learner. You clearly know where you stand and failed to read my post before responding

Downes syndrome is not a disease? It’s an “issue”?

Even if you want to argue semantics, you’re avoidin the point. Will viable children with downes and other “genetic issues” be euthanized?

The obvious answer is yes

 

[McDad]

Most kids don’t have social security numbers for a couple weeks. Took mine almost a month. That doesn’t change the argument.

The fact that you consider abortion wrong to begin with seems to imply you believe it’s murder.

The only real question is when do we consider life to begin? The heartbeat seems to be the most logical solution since it’s also our basis for when life ends.

What’s most grotesque about your argument is you seem to be proclaiming an equally viable baby if inside the womb can be slaughtered at any time the mother desires. Am I misunderstanding?

OP's premise is flawed because there is a difference between an inalienable right granted by our Creator, LIfe, for instance, and the rights granted by our government, like a SS#.

Rights from Government are conditional. They are not necessarily applied equally to everyone. Children don't have the right to drive, vote, or serve in war. Their rights are limited. They aren't in full possession of their autonomy. They do have a right to life, however. The former poster, TRUT, made this point years ago and it holds true today. OP is equating those conditional right from government, full possession of autonomy, and rights from the Creator and they are not always equatable.

 

[hog88]

OP's premise is flawed because there is a difference between an inalienable right granted by our Creator, LIfe, for instance, and the rights granted by our government, like a SS#.

Rights from Government are conditional. They are not necessarily applied equally to everyone. Children don't have the right to drive, vote, or serve in war. Their rights are limited. They aren't in full possession of their autonomy. They do have a right to life, however. The former poster, TRUT, made this point years ago and it holds true today. OP is equating those conditional right from government, full possession of autonomy, and rights from the Creator and they are not always equatable.

I have a slightly different take on this. Government grants no rights, they only restrict, take away or limit the rights granted us by our creator.

 

[Vol8188]

OP's premise is flawed because there is a difference between an inalienable right granted by our Creator, LIfe, for instance, and the rights granted by our government, like a SS#.

Rights from Government are conditional. They are not necessarily applied equally to everyone. Children don't have the right to drive, vote, or serve in war. Their rights are limited. They aren't in full possession of their autonomy. They do have a right to life, however. The former poster, TRUT, made this point years ago and it holds true today. OP is equating those conditional right from government, full possession of autonomy, and rights from the Creator and they are not always equatable.

That’s a big problem on the left. The insane view that rights are just gifts from government. If you believe that, you have to accept the Holocaust, slavery, etc are all acceptable because none of those people had rights as determined by their government

 

[McDad]

I have a slightly different take on this. Government grants no rights, they only restrict, take away or limit the rights granted us by our creator.

I understand that point of view. There is a lot of validity to it.

 

[utvolpj]

Downes syndrome is not a disease? It’s an “issue”?

Even if you want to argue semantics, you’re avoidin the point. Will viable children with downes and other “genetic issues” be euthanized?

The obvious answer is yes

I'm sure it's possible. Are you willing to force every child be born even in the situation I described earlier (that you ignored in favor of the downs argument which was predictable)?

What gets lost in this is that there are parents who are actively trying for children and have taken years to figure out what's happening. But they just get limited in with the rest of the baby killers by those who don't care to understand their argument

 

[Vol8188]

I have a slightly different take on this. Government grants no rights, they only restrict, take away or limit the rights granted us by our creator.

I would only offer one minor critique.

I’d argue the reason we created governments was to protect rights but in practice you are correct. In practice they function more so to limit rights, but their intended purpose is protection of rights

 

[McDad]

That’s a big problem on the left. The insane view that rights are just gifts from government. If you believe that, you have to accept the Holocaust, slavery, etc are all acceptable because none of those people had rights as determined by their government

Libertairians, Constitutionalists , and others (although I can't name them right now) have well established ideals and principles on rights. They do a much better job than Rs and Ds distinguishing rights, where they begin, and where they end.

 

[Vol8188]

I'm sure it's possible. Are you willing to force every child be born even in the situation I described earlier (that you ignored in favor of the downs argument which was predictable)?

What gets lost in this is that there are parents who are actively trying for children and have taken years to figure out what's happening. But they just get limited in with the rest of the baby killers by those who don't care to understand their argument

Non viable is different than genetic diseases. So if you’re asking if I’m okay with terminating a non viable pregnancy caught by genetic testing? Yes.

But the idea that the timeframe for all abortions should be set in order for genetic testing is not an argument for non viable children. It’s an open embracement of euthanizing viable children.

 

[McDad]

I would only offer one minor critique.

I’d argue the reason we created governments was to protect rights but in practice you are correct. In practice they function more so to limit rights, but their intended purpose is protection of rights

We have as a society also agreed to give government the authority to make laws which are limiting to our rights.

 

[utvolpj]

Non viable is different than genetic diseases. So if you’re asking if I’m okay with terminating a non viable pregnancy caught by genetic testing? Yes.

But the idea that the timeframe for all abortions should be set in order for genetic testing is not an argument for non viable children. It’s an open embracement of euthanizing viable children.

So you have govt set a timeframe that essentially eliminate it all? Hooray govt who is clearly more educated than someone neck deep in it for years and their doctors

 

[VolStrom]

The bottom line to the abortion rights side is that it's a form of birth control, and probably 95% of all abortions are because someone got pregnant when they didn't want to.

 

[Vol8188]

So you set a timeframe that essentially eliminate it all? Hooray govt

Not at all. I’d have no issue with an exemption for non viable. You can set the limit at a heartbeat and then allow exemptions for kids who would die regardless.

 

[McDad]

This is one of the better discussions we've had. At least, in a long time.

Thanks to everyone who participated. I appreciate it.

 

[utvolpj]

The bottom line to the abortion rights side is that it's a form of birth control,

That is 100% wrong. Even Luther feels bad for how wrong you are