Oklahoma passes insane abortion measures over veto

[Alyrium Denryle]

I support four of the five laws with the exception of the one protecting doctors from lawsuits if they do not talk about the fetus' handicaps.

Good. Because if you supported that you would be no better than the doctors who ran Tuskegee.

I furthermore think fetuses are human life and thus abortion should be illegal except to the save the life of the mother.

Please provide a definition of "human life" that grants a fetus protection. A single cell in my body is human life. If I pop a zit I am killing or thousands of cells. What you want to say is a "person". Now, I understand your definition of person is based upon that of a soul. However not everyone holds this position and it is not OK for you to make that very subjective evidence-free assessment law. Particularly because we have this thing called religious freedom which prevents the government from making laws favoring one religious position over another. As it is now, the government allows individuals to make their own choices, which is the neutral position when it comes to ethical questions like this.

So, provide a secular justification for this position.

I will note by the way that of known pregnancies, 20% or so end in miscarriage. So if abortion is murder, God is the greatest abortionist of them all.

I also think the idea "Pro-Lifers/Anti-Abortionists Are Misogynist" argument is rubbish as if pro-lifers/anti-abortionists were really misogynist they would prefer to allow the fathers of the fetuses to perform abortions if they wish.

That does not follow at all.

He said he used this analogy frequently in public debates, and used in this discussion, so I felt I should point out what I feel are flaws in his argument. I dislike it when poor analogies or arguments are used and tolerated simply because people (such as myself) agree with them, and I thought this one was a fairly inaccurate analogy.

You lack reading comprehension skill. I specifically stated that I used it for the purpose of tricking my opponent. It is part of a rhetorical bait and switch of course the argument has holes in it. The hole that my opponent takes tells me what set of traps to lay.

This is a terrible analogy UNLESS this is a situation where spores do this all time.

That is pretty much assumed yes.

Okay, maybe I'm being blind, but this seems like a dishonest analogy to make for abortion. One MAJOR difference, is that there is no choice with regards to being hooked up to the violinist as compared to the choice of a women to have sex (exception for rape).

Wow. You mean the logical hole in the argument I explicitly set out to exploit? Who would have thought! The whole point is to find those who think that consenting to sex in one instance is equivalent to consenting to pregnancy and that said consent cannot be revoked. Go back to school and learn how to fucking read.

The other difference is that you are not biologically responsible for the violinist's situation. The violinist was hooked up (to a complete stranger), against your will, using artificial methods.

Which is just an extension of the above. If I leave my door unlocked to give up my right to shoot someone who enters my home with the intention of harming me? No. That is the point. Rights ethics generally hold that rights are inviolate unless explicit consent is given and maintained. This analogy finds those who think there is an exception. That somehow the rules that apply everywhere else do not apply to women.

There is also the fact that most of the pro-life movement (as far as I've seen) stops caring about a person after their born. Which means they will have a fundamentally different view of the life of an adult versus that of a fetus with regards to your responsibility for it and its "right to life."

Also part of the trap. If they make an argument that leads me to suspect that is true for an individual person, I have a response prepped.

And from my personal perspective, it is a flawed analogy because you have far MORE reason to save the violinist than a fetus and because it is a one-off thing, as opposed to the lengthy process of child-rearing.

And again. It is a rights based argument. In that ethical system rights are inherrent and it does not matter who the person is. Any deviation from this is an inconsistency in their ethical system I can exploit.

[Akhlut]

I will note by the way that of known pregnancies, 20% or so end in miscarriage. So if abortion is murder, God is the greatest abortionist of them all.

Only 20%? My DevBio textbook said that only 6 in 20ish fertilized eggs result in a full-term pregnancy, naturally.

[Captain Seafort]

I will note by the way that of known pregnancies, 20% or so end in miscarriage. So if abortion is murder, God is the greatest abortionist of them all.

Only 20%? My DevBio textbook said that only 6 in 20ish fertilized eggs result in a full-term pregnancy, naturally.

Aly said known pregnancies - my guess would be that most miscarriages occur before the woman realises she's pregnant.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I will note by the way that of known pregnancies, 20% or so end in miscarriage. So if abortion is murder, God is the greatest abortionist of them all.

Only 20%? My DevBio textbook said that only 6 in 20ish fertilized eggs result in a full-term pregnancy, naturally.

Aly said known pregnancies - my guess would be that most miscarriages occur before the woman realises she's pregnant.

You hit the nail on the head.

[Molyneux]

Coming a bit late on this, but that is just plain unconscionable. I certainly hope that whatever licensing board is relevant to this would revoke the license of any doctor who tries to hide behind that second law.

Honestly, the first does not sound horrible to me in principle - with the notable exception of requiring a vaginal ultrasound (seriously? What the fuck were they thinking?) - but that second law is wrong, no matter what you think of abortion itself.

[Anguirus]

A...bizarre idea to be sure. Your grasp of human sexual biology is perhaps even more appealing than your sexual ethics and debating skills. How exactly can a father abort his own fetus? Such a procedure necessarily involves the mother.

Umm, I feel kinda dirty for being able to think of this, but I'm pretty sure a good, solid kick to the mother's stomach would do the job.

Evil, yes, but if you don't consider women to be people...

Well, that does *involve* the mother...

[General Mung Beans]

That's inconsistent with the position that a fetus and a mother are of equal worth. Do you have a justification for your position?

Well if it's really a life for life the woman should come first however for most abortions that is not the case.

Evidence?

If abortion becomes even slightly harder to get a few thousand women will give up so even if the rate is reduced from say 1,000,000 abortions to 990,000 it will still happen.

A...bizarre idea to be sure. Your grasp of human sexual biology is perhaps even more appealing than your sexual ethics and debating skills. How exactly can a father abort his own fetus? Such a procedure necessarily involves the mother.

Or is this some sort of do-it-yourself abortion clinic, where if you put a baby in there, you can abort it legally as long as you perform the procedure on your partner yourself!

I meant where men can have real say in having the women get an abortion.

[Samuel]

Well if it's really a life for life the woman should come first however for most abortions that is not the case.

Er, that means that you hold the life of the fetus as less than that of the women. If they were equal, it would be acceptable to kill the mother to save the child.

[General Mung Beans]

They are human life alright - in the same way that your skin cells are human life or your sperm.

But unlike either they actually have a good chance of becoming full humans.

A fetus is however in no way comparable to a baby (later during pregnancy or after birth) since it literary is no more intelligent/self-aware/able to feel pain than most insects. The brain and nervous system are just not developed yet (remember, we are talking about early-term abortions here).

So you don't support late-term abortions? And by your logic comatose people can be killed at will as they are (temporarily) not self-aware.

Let me repeat a question that came up earlier in this thread:
A fertility clinic is on fire.
Inside are:
-a little child (let's say a 12-year old girl)
-a box with 500 fertilised, frozen human egg cells - all of those could grow into a fetus and finally a baby if they are implanted.
You can only safe one of those and no one else is around to help - you have to decide which one you want to safe.
So, which one is it going to be?

They're not fetuses yet so I'd save the girl. Again as I've said above I will in a case involving a fetus and a full grown human save the latter but in most abortion cases it is done only because the mother does not want the fetus.

[Samuel]

But unlike either they actually have a good chance of becoming full humans.

Actually since every human cell holds the same genetic information with the right triggers you can get a clone of the origional.

So you don't support late-term abortions?

Most people tend to get a bit iffy on late term abortions. Of course, women are assumed to be competant enough to realize they have been pregnant for six months and hopeful act accordingly, so it isn't a major issue.

[General Mung Beans]

Would you support a woman with a failing liver killing her child for his liver? It seems to me that you're tacitly admitting that you do not consider a fetus truly equivalent to a child, by virtue of making an exception for saving the life of the mother.

As I've said a full human's life comes first in such cases but certainly that doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws protecting the fetus at all.

PS. Have you ever written an argumentative essay in your life? All you ever do is state your opinion, your belief, your faith, without justifying it at all. How old are you? Have you ever gone to school?

I have written argumentative essays and have in posts on other boards (I will give you the names if you need proof) backed up evidence. I am thirteen and currently am in school.

[General Mung Beans]

Actually since every human cell holds the same genetic information with the right triggers you can get a clone of the origional

.

Yes but that's a very low probability.

Most people tend to get a bit iffy on late term abortions. Of course, women are assumed to be competant enough to realize they have been pregnant for six months and hopeful act accordingly, so it isn't a major issue.

Most late-term abortions are to save the lives of the mothers at least in the USA.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But unlike either they actually have a good chance of becoming full humans.

Not really. Only one 6 in 20 fertilized embryos makes it full term. Even if that were the case, the argument from potential you are using sets up an infinite regress such that refraining from any act that could produce a human is unethical, which is clearly silly.

Moreover, why do we have obligations to individuals who may exist but do not currently? I can understand having obligations to an abstract collection called "the future generation" but why do i have specific obligations toward an individual who may or may not exist?

So you don't support late-term abortions? And by your logic comatose people can be killed at will as they are (temporarily) not self-aware.

I do. However late term abortions do not necessarily need to be lethal. As for comatose people, the person still exists and we have obligations toward them. They are just not conscious. A fetus is not only unconscious, but there is no mind, no personality. It is not a person.

A brain dead individual is also not a person anymore because their brain, their mind, and everything that made them a person is gone.

Yes but that's a very low probability.

Where is that cut off line?

[Lord of the Abyss]

A fetus is however in no way comparable to a baby (later during pregnancy or after birth) since it literary is no more intelligent/self-aware/able to feel pain than most insects. The brain and nervous system are just not developed yet (remember, we are talking about early-term abortions here).

So you don't support late-term abortions? And by your logic comatose people can be killed at will as they are (temporarily) not self-aware.

Not at all the same; there's a major difference between a person being temporarily shut down, and between there simply being no one there.

And in late term abortions, either there's no hope for the fetus to survive anyway, or the mother risks serious injury or death.

[General Mung Beans]

Not really. Only one 6 in 20 fertilized embryos makes it full term. Even if that were the case, the argument from potential you are using sets up an infinite regress such that refraining from any act that could produce a human is unethical, which is clearly silly.

That's why I'm drawing the cutoff line at conception.

Moreover, why do we have obligations to individuals who may exist but do not currently? I can understand having obligations to an abstract collection called "the future generation" but why do i have specific obligations toward an individual who may or may not exist?

Because they have a good probability of becoming human.

I do. However late term abortions do not necessarily need to be lethal. As for comatose people, the person still exists and we have obligations toward them. They are just not conscious. A fetus is not only unconscious, but there is no mind, no personality. It is not a person.

A brain dead individual is also not a person anymore because their brain, their mind, and everything that made them a person is gone.

A fetus like a comatose person but unlike a brain-dead individual will be fully human.

Where is that cut off line?

At conception.

[bilateralrope]

If abortion becomes even slightly harder to get a few thousand women will give up so even if the rate is reduced from say 1,000,000 abortions to 990,000 it will still happen.

Making abortions illegal doesn't reduce abortion rates, it just increases the rate of unsafe abortions. So why do you think that merely making abortions harder to get will reduce the abortion rate ?

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's why I'm drawing the cutoff line at conception.

Then you realize that God is the greatest abortionist of them all right? He murders 70% of all embryos. You have also not provided sufficient justification for your position that the mere fact that the embryo is human should make it worthy of moral consideration.

Because they have a good probability of becoming human.

Circular argument. I am referring to the general case. Why do we have obligations to potential persons who are not yet persons? Why do I have an obligation to ensure the existence of one Steven Smith?

A fetus like a comatose person but unlike a brain-dead individual will be fully human.

Under what justification? It has no mind, no personality. A comatose person possesses those things they just cannot use them. What justifies this position?

[Alphawolf55]

Is this argument making any acknowledged differences between 1st, 2nd term and third term abortions?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Is this argument making any acknowledged differences between 1st, 2nd term and third term abortions?

Mine is implied, but honestly for reasons other than lack of personhood I still support late term abortions provided they are non-lethal. eg. induced labor and the abdication of parental rights.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

So you don't support late-term abortions? And by your logic comatose people can be killed at will as they are (temporarily) not self-aware.

That's rather dishonest. Aside from what everyone else has pointed out, comatose people are also not dependent on a single specific individual to give up their right to life in order to survive.

[Alphawolf55]

Is this argument making any acknowledged differences between 1st, 2nd term and third term abortions?

Mine is implied, but honestly for reasons other than lack of personhood I still support late term abortions provided they are non-lethal. eg. induced labor and the abdication of parental rights.

So wait are you contending that a third term fetus has a lack of personhood? Also is it really an abortion at that point?

Also Oni, how is a woman giving up her right to life by carrying a baby for the full 9 months?

[Lord of the Abyss]

Not really. Only one 6 in 20 fertilized embryos makes it full term. Even if that were the case, the argument from potential you are using sets up an infinite regress such that refraining from any act that could produce a human is unethical, which is clearly silly.

That's why I'm drawing the cutoff line at conception.

Which is a point where the embryo is by no means a person in any way. It's an arbitrary point; you could just as easily pick egg & sperm production or first cell division or any number of other points; ethically, there's no importance to conception. It's still just a cell at that point just as it was two cells just beforehand.

Insisting that a woman's right to control of her body is subordinate to a few cells is an insult to her, endangers her and shows just how little respect you have for women. And yes, after you mentioning your age I do recognize you from elsewhere and see you are as misogynist here as there. You are a classic sex-is-bad, back-to-the-past, women should be terrorized into behaving "more traditionally" fundie.

Moreover, why do we have obligations to individuals who may exist but do not currently? I can understand having obligations to an abstract collection called "the future generation" but why do i have specific obligations toward an individual who may or may not exist?

Because they have a good probability of becoming human.

Unless the woman gets an abortion, in which case the probability is zero. You could use your silly "probability" argument to as easily claim that a woman who refuses sex or uses birth control is committing murder because she is negating all those people who would have the probability of being born if she hadn't.

A fetus like a comatose person but unlike a brain-dead individual will be fully human.

Irrelevant since it IS NOT at the time. Nor will it be if there's an abortion.

[Liberty]

Is this argument making any acknowledged differences between 1st, 2nd term and third term abortions?

Good question. I think this is important. I agree largely with Alyrium here. I'm only comfortable with lethal 3rd trimester abortion in the case of major disabilities (i.e., a life not worth living, etc) or life of the mother (and even that is very uncomfortable). First trimesters I'm 100% okay with, but 2nd trimester for me gets iffy after the point of viability. I'm curious about other people's thoughts, though.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So wait are you contending that a third term fetus has a lack of personhood?

Go back to school and learn to read. I said I support them for reasons other than lack of personhood.

Also is it really an abortion at that point?

Yes. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy prior to full term. After the point of fetal viability a late term fetus can be removed and still survive. Thus ending the pregnancy without killing it. It is like a partial birth abortion but without the partial.

[Alphawolf55]

Yes but just because you support something for reasons other then lack of personhood, doesn't mean you believe they do have personhood, it just means you have other reasons as well. I just wanted to clarify and make sure either way. Thank you for answering.