6 ms·

> It takes some mental gymnastics to say that elective abortions to 24 weeks is a “human right” No one ever said that... and apparently you've entirely missed

> It takes some mental gymnastics to say that elective abortions to 24 weeks is a “human right” No one ever said that... and apparently you've entirely missed the ProChoice argument. Does a government have the right to prevent you from having an appendectomy? Where does the government end and you begin? ProChoice is about limiting absolute government authority, like, over your cells and junk. btw the rights in question are already in the Constitution. We generally refer to it as the Fourth Amendment, though an explicit line limiting what the government can do also lives in the Third Amendment. With the 3rd and the 4th Amendments, any ban on abortion is necessarily unconstitutional, in that we have a right to be secure in our persons free from government intrusion, and the government can't force anyone to take on a tenant, even if for only 9 months.

TimTheTinker 5y ago
Your remarks are a good summary of pro-choice arguments. There are also credible pro-life arguments. The 14th amendment's Equal Protection clause is arguably provides the strongest legal basis for banning abortion: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So the legal question is whether a baby that hasn't yet been born is a person - if so, their life ought to be protected by state laws in the same way they protect anyone else's life. It's a pretty straightforward question - is this baby an individual human being or not? I for one can't accept that I wasn't me while I was yet inside my mom (we know scientifically that after fertilization, I was a distinct human from my mom and dad) - and I see no reason to deny that personhood to fellow people. Answering in the affirmative, and various reasons for such an answer, forms the basis of the pro-life view. Zooming out a bit, pro-life people see abortion as a modern analog to slavery in the US (where enslaved African-Americans were viewed as 3/5 of a person), except that unborn babies are viewed as not a person at all -- and this framing is used to justify killing them, not merely enslaving them and denying them the right to vote.
- quantified 5y ago
  If you’re attached by an umbilical cord and that dependent on the womb’s environment, you are in no way individual. If I hadn’t made it out alive, I wouldn’t care about a thing, same as I won’t care 70 years or so from now. Would have been fine with not experiencing the life I’ve had.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    > If you’re attached by an umbilical cord and that dependent on the womb’s environment, you are in no way individual A newborn is completely dependent and isn’t meaningfully any more of an individual. Also can be killed at will?
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      A newborn is dependent on society. Anyone willing to take on its care can do so. A foetus is dependent upon its mother. Specifically. One person to whom it is biologically attached. Not society generally. Technology is advancing, but costs of transferring care are extraordinarily high, and outcomes quite uncertain.
    - quantified 5y ago
      Missing the umbilical cord. Feeds via mouth, not via nutrients taken from someone’s blood. Breathes air, not oxygen taken from someone’s blood. Physiologically separate. Didn’t kill mom in childbirth.
- slg 5y ago
  >Zooming out a bit, pro-life people see abortion as a modern analog to slavery in the US (where enslaved African-Americans were viewed as 3/5 of a person), except that unborn babies are viewed as not a person at all -- and this framing is used to justify killing them, not merely enslaving them and denying them the right to vote. I would argue the better slavery analogy is taking away the bodily autonomy of one individual and forcing them to go through an unwanted and dangerous process for the sole benefit of another individual. That would be like making it a legal requirement for us all to regularly donate bone marrow. Even if we acknowledge the fetus as a person, my rights over my body should still supersede anyone else's rights over my body.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    Parental responsibility doesn't stop there. Parents can be jailed for failing to take care of their children; imprisoned for life if their children die through neglect or abandonment; or almost literally enslaved, told what jobs to take and have their earnings confiscated. I haven't heard anyone seriously challenging the extent of parental responsibility, only when it begins.
    - slg 5y ago
      Except we don’t force this on people. We give parents the opportunity to opt out through adoption.
      - leereeves 5y ago
        Only if that's considered to be in the child's best interests. For example, older children can't be given away without their consent, fathers generally can't terminate their responsibility without the mother's consent, and it must be done in a manner that protects the child (not simply abandoned).
        slg 5y ago
        >Only if that's considered to be in the child's best interests. I don't have to argue against you. I can just point to the leaked draft that argues against you. It specifically cites safe haven laws which allow people to anonymously put their child up for adoption. These laws have no consideration on what the child's life would be like with their biological parents or after they become a ward of the state. The mere existence of those laws is legal precedent that it is acceptable to abdicate care over a child post-birth. Why shouldn't that be possible pre-birth?
- zaccusl 5y ago
  "So the legal question is whether a baby that hasn't yet been born is a person" That's not the important question. The question is can one person be compelled to use their body to sustain another persons life. We can't even force DEAD people to use their body to sustain life (i.e., a person has to consent to donate organs before they die).
  - leereeves 5y ago
    - tragictrash 5y ago
      It's people like you that make the world hell to live in. You have no business telling anyone what to do with their body. What about your supposed encroachment of our freedoms? Does that not apply here? Oh, right, when it's the CDC making public health recommendations that's your freedoms being eroded, but when it's the government limiting a woman's autonomy, your all for it. You are insufferable.
  - TimTheTinker 5y ago
    > That's not the important question. This debate hinges entirely on a disagreement over which moral question is the most important.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      It isn't really about which is "more important" morally. Both sides agree that infants have some legal rights, the questions are whether one of those legal rights is having their mother to bear them to term against their mother's will and if so, when that right begins and how much risk the mother can be required to accept in doing so. Edit: One thing I don't see mentioned is how a ethically consistent Pro-Life stance seems to require support for state sponsored healthcare. Requiring people to bear the costs of pregnancy to achieve the state's moral obligations seems unreasonably cruel and counter productive if the infant's well being is the priority. Banning abortions without covering pregnancy costs seems more interested in imposing culture than in protecting the helpless.
- Maursault 5y ago
  The problem is, even if a fetus is a person, by all philosophical definitions of a person, pregnancy is only an ethical arrangement if the mother consents to the pregnancy.[1] If she does not, the fetus is, perhaps ironically, violating her human rights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
mmlkmlkm 5y ago
rayiner 5y ago
- zaccusl 5y ago
  This is a fallacious argument until you grapple with the reality that no HUMAN has the right to use another HUMAN to sustain life. It doesn't matter if a person is a fully grown adult that can cure cancer and world hunger, or a 1 year child. That person does not have the right to use another person to sustain their own life under any circumstances. You are arguing a strawman. The question is not if the fetus is "human" or "life".
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 5y ago
    > This is a fallacious argument until you grapple with the reality that no HUMAN has the right to use another HUMAN to sustain life. Says who? By that logic, abortion should be legal until birth, and even the most liberal countries in Europe reject that position. Virtually everyone, including the Roe itself, recognizes that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy has a limit. The question everyone grapples with is where to draw the line.
    - random314 5y ago
      Do you also support mandatory kidney transplants? It would help save another humans life. 99% of people need only one kidney. If your kidney is found to be a match for another kidney patient- you should be compelled to donate your spare kidney. I agree you have a right to bodily autonomy, but there has got to be a limit!
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    > This is a fallacious argument until you grapple with the reality that no HUMAN has the right to use another HUMAN to sustain life. Then why do I pay so much for welfare and Medicare? You're clearly okay forcing people to sustain other people on some level.
eternalban 5y ago
The embryo technically develops in a cavity of the “body” of the mother. It is neither limb nor organ (vital or not) of the ‘host organism’ (mother). It is a distinct organism. The open Q is at what point it is a ‘human being’ with associated rights. (Just for FYI, in Islam this transition is held to occur after the development of eyes after which abortion is not acceptable. [I believe this window of ‘choice’ for parents is the first trimester.]) > tenant Eviction is not something a landlord may decide on their own. Typically you have to take the tenant to court. Sometimes in fact they do end up staying rent free for months.
rayiner 5y ago
> We generally refer to it as the Fourth Amendment Help me understand what protections against warrantless “searches and seizures” has to do with the State regulating medical procedures? > 3rd amendment Which says: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner.” I’m at a loss. You understand the Constitution is a legal document, right? Not a sequence of metaphors and allegories? Is a fetus a “soldier?” No? Then the Third Amendment is irrelevant.
- Maursault 5y ago
  > Help me understand what protections against warrantless “searches and seizures” has to do with the State regulating medical procedures? I'm sorry, you have to read the first 11 words of the Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons > Which says: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner.” I’m at a loss. You understand the Constitution is a legal document, right? Not a sequence of metaphors and allegories? Is a fetus a “soldier?” No? Then the Third Amendment is irrelevant. I said the spirit of a right of abortion lives in this amendment. If the government bans abortions, this is precisely the same thing as effectively nationalizing fetuses and quartering them in bodies, yes, but also in houses, as those bodies live in houses. The point is consent... if a woman does not consent to a pregnancy... You really have to try very very hard not to see it. Well done.

TimTheTinker 5y ago

Your remarks are a good summary of pro-choice arguments. There are also credible pro-life arguments. The 14th amendment's Equal Protection clause is arguably provides the strongest legal basis for banning abortion: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So the legal question is whether a baby that hasn't yet been born is a person - if so, their life ought to be protected by state laws in the same way they protect anyone else's life. It's a pretty straightforward question - is this baby an individual human being or not? I for one can't accept that I wasn't me while I was yet inside my mom (we know scientifically that after fertilization, I was a distinct human from my mom and dad) - and I see no reason to deny that personhood to fellow people. Answering in the affirmative, and various reasons for such an answer, forms the basis of the pro-life view. Zooming out a bit, pro-life people see abortion as a modern analog to slavery in the US (where enslaved African-Americans were viewed as 3/5 of a person), except that unborn babies are viewed as not a person at all -- and this framing is used to justify killing them, not merely enslaving them and denying them the right to vote.

quantified 5y ago
If you’re attached by an umbilical cord and that dependent on the womb’s environment, you are in no way individual. If I hadn’t made it out alive, I wouldn’t care about a thing, same as I won’t care 70 years or so from now. Would have been fine with not experiencing the life I’ve had.
- rayiner 5y ago
  > If you’re attached by an umbilical cord and that dependent on the womb’s environment, you are in no way individual A newborn is completely dependent and isn’t meaningfully any more of an individual. Also can be killed at will?
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    A newborn is dependent on society. Anyone willing to take on its care can do so. A foetus is dependent upon its mother. Specifically. One person to whom it is biologically attached. Not society generally. Technology is advancing, but costs of transferring care are extraordinarily high, and outcomes quite uncertain.
  - quantified 5y ago
    Missing the umbilical cord. Feeds via mouth, not via nutrients taken from someone’s blood. Breathes air, not oxygen taken from someone’s blood. Physiologically separate. Didn’t kill mom in childbirth.
slg 5y ago
>Zooming out a bit, pro-life people see abortion as a modern analog to slavery in the US (where enslaved African-Americans were viewed as 3/5 of a person), except that unborn babies are viewed as not a person at all -- and this framing is used to justify killing them, not merely enslaving them and denying them the right to vote. I would argue the better slavery analogy is taking away the bodily autonomy of one individual and forcing them to go through an unwanted and dangerous process for the sole benefit of another individual. That would be like making it a legal requirement for us all to regularly donate bone marrow. Even if we acknowledge the fetus as a person, my rights over my body should still supersede anyone else's rights over my body.
- leereeves 5y ago
  Parental responsibility doesn't stop there. Parents can be jailed for failing to take care of their children; imprisoned for life if their children die through neglect or abandonment; or almost literally enslaved, told what jobs to take and have their earnings confiscated. I haven't heard anyone seriously challenging the extent of parental responsibility, only when it begins.
  - slg 5y ago
    Except we don’t force this on people. We give parents the opportunity to opt out through adoption.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      Only if that's considered to be in the child's best interests. For example, older children can't be given away without their consent, fathers generally can't terminate their responsibility without the mother's consent, and it must be done in a manner that protects the child (not simply abandoned).
      - slg 5y ago
        >Only if that's considered to be in the child's best interests. I don't have to argue against you. I can just point to the leaked draft that argues against you. It specifically cites safe haven laws which allow people to anonymously put their child up for adoption. These laws have no consideration on what the child's life would be like with their biological parents or after they become a ward of the state. The mere existence of those laws is legal precedent that it is acceptable to abdicate care over a child post-birth. Why shouldn't that be possible pre-birth?
zaccusl 5y ago
"So the legal question is whether a baby that hasn't yet been born is a person" That's not the important question. The question is can one person be compelled to use their body to sustain another persons life. We can't even force DEAD people to use their body to sustain life (i.e., a person has to consent to donate organs before they die).
- leereeves 5y ago
  - tragictrash 5y ago
    It's people like you that make the world hell to live in. You have no business telling anyone what to do with their body. What about your supposed encroachment of our freedoms? Does that not apply here? Oh, right, when it's the CDC making public health recommendations that's your freedoms being eroded, but when it's the government limiting a woman's autonomy, your all for it. You are insufferable.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  > That's not the important question. This debate hinges entirely on a disagreement over which moral question is the most important.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    It isn't really about which is "more important" morally. Both sides agree that infants have some legal rights, the questions are whether one of those legal rights is having their mother to bear them to term against their mother's will and if so, when that right begins and how much risk the mother can be required to accept in doing so. Edit: One thing I don't see mentioned is how a ethically consistent Pro-Life stance seems to require support for state sponsored healthcare. Requiring people to bear the costs of pregnancy to achieve the state's moral obligations seems unreasonably cruel and counter productive if the infant's well being is the priority. Banning abortions without covering pregnancy costs seems more interested in imposing culture than in protecting the helpless.
Maursault 5y ago
The problem is, even if a fetus is a person, by all philosophical definitions of a person, pregnancy is only an ethical arrangement if the mother consents to the pregnancy.[1] If she does not, the fetus is, perhaps ironically, violating her human rights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

mmlkmlkm 5y ago

rayiner 5y ago

zaccusl 5y ago
This is a fallacious argument until you grapple with the reality that no HUMAN has the right to use another HUMAN to sustain life. It doesn't matter if a person is a fully grown adult that can cure cancer and world hunger, or a 1 year child. That person does not have the right to use another person to sustain their own life under any circumstances. You are arguing a strawman. The question is not if the fetus is "human" or "life".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 5y ago
  > This is a fallacious argument until you grapple with the reality that no HUMAN has the right to use another HUMAN to sustain life. Says who? By that logic, abortion should be legal until birth, and even the most liberal countries in Europe reject that position. Virtually everyone, including the Roe itself, recognizes that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy has a limit. The question everyone grapples with is where to draw the line.
  - random314 5y ago
    Do you also support mandatory kidney transplants? It would help save another humans life. 99% of people need only one kidney. If your kidney is found to be a match for another kidney patient- you should be compelled to donate your spare kidney. I agree you have a right to bodily autonomy, but there has got to be a limit!
- dahfizz 5y ago
  > This is a fallacious argument until you grapple with the reality that no HUMAN has the right to use another HUMAN to sustain life. Then why do I pay so much for welfare and Medicare? You're clearly okay forcing people to sustain other people on some level.

eternalban 5y ago

The embryo technically develops in a cavity of the “body” of the mother. It is neither limb nor organ (vital or not) of the ‘host organism’ (mother). It is a distinct organism. The open Q is at what point it is a ‘human being’ with associated rights. (Just for FYI, in Islam this transition is held to occur after the development of eyes after which abortion is not acceptable. [I believe this window of ‘choice’ for parents is the first trimester.]) > tenant Eviction is not something a landlord may decide on their own. Typically you have to take the tenant to court. Sometimes in fact they do end up staying rent free for months.

rayiner 5y ago

> We generally refer to it as the Fourth Amendment Help me understand what protections against warrantless “searches and seizures” has to do with the State regulating medical procedures? > 3rd amendment Which says: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner.” I’m at a loss. You understand the Constitution is a legal document, right? Not a sequence of metaphors and allegories? Is a fetus a “soldier?” No? Then the Third Amendment is irrelevant.

Maursault 5y ago
> Help me understand what protections against warrantless “searches and seizures” has to do with the State regulating medical procedures? I'm sorry, you have to read the first 11 words of the Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons > Which says: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner.” I’m at a loss. You understand the Constitution is a legal document, right? Not a sequence of metaphors and allegories? Is a fetus a “soldier?” No? Then the Third Amendment is irrelevant. I said the spirit of a right of abortion lives in this amendment. If the government bans abortions, this is precisely the same thing as effectively nationalizing fetuses and quartering them in bodies, yes, but also in houses, as those bodies live in houses. The point is consent... if a woman does not consent to a pregnancy... You really have to try very very hard not to see it. Well done.