State control over one's body

[watu05]

My wife points out those who claim that the state has no right to tell one what to do with one's body (vaccines for example) are mostly the same people who say the state has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body in a much more imposing way (carry a pregnancy to term). I recognize the claim that a fetus is a individual as a justification, but the Texas law forbidding abortion after six weeks is on sketchy scientific grounds, as the fetus is unable to survive outside the womb at six weeks. Adding to that is that same group believes it is appropriate for the state to largely abandon the child once born because the child is an individual's responsibility.

Refusing to be vaccinated also involves harming others, and perhaps many more people that a single fetus. Pro-life individuals have shot people at abortion clinics as murderers. How do would they justify their endangering others perhaps fatally by not participating in public health actions?

 

[lawpoke87]

Ironic isn’t it. One group largely objects to abortion but is against vaccine mandates. One group largely supports abortion but also supports vaccine mandates. No one ever said politics isn’t filled with hypocrisy at times.

Am I on the right side supporting the right to an abortion (with some late term limitations) but oppose a federal vaccine mandate for Covid. I could support such a mandate given a different pandemic btw

 

[astonmartin708]

Ironic isn’t it. One group largely objects to abortion but is against vaccine mandates. One group largely supports abortion but also supports vaccine mandates. No one ever said politics isn’t filled with hypocrisy at times.

Am I on the right side supporting the right to an abortion (with some late term limitations) but oppose a federal vaccine mandate for Covid. I could support such a mandate given a different pandemic btw

You can support abortion and mandates. Abortions aren’t infectious and don’t threaten widespread public health.

 

[lawpoke87]

You can support abortion and mandates. Abortions aren’t infectious and don’t threaten widespread public health.

The anti abortion people would argue that abortions not only threaten the health of the unborn but result in certain death. More deaths per year than any pandemic in our lifetime. Not saying I agree but that is the argument.

 

[astonmartin708]

The anti abortion people would argue that abortions not only threaten the health of the unborn but result in certain death. More deaths per year than any pandemic in our lifetime. Not saying I agree but that is the argument.

I recognize that. They are wrong about that to a great degree, but I acknowledge the argument they make.

If anything, having fewer people overall means fewer undesired mouths to feed and an overall better quality of life (Though if your population growth stagnates too much that’s bad as well)

 

[lawpoke87]

I recognize that. They are wrong about that to a great degree, but I acknowledge the argument they make.

If anything, having fewer people overall means fewer undesired mouths to feed and an overall better quality of life (Though if your population growth stagnates too much that’s bad as well)

Sounds like an argument for limiting immigration into the US. Actually one I might have made in the past

 

[astonmartin708]

Sounds like an argument for limiting immigration into the US. Actually one I might have made in the past

Better solution: Annex Mexico Crimea style! Just imagine the world class soccer team we would have!

The return of Manifest Destiny!

I’m sure we’ll be welcomed like liberators. 😉

 

[watu05]

You can support abortion and mandates. Abortions aren’t infectious and don’t threaten widespread public health.

prohibiting abortions and requiring vaccinations arguably both save lives but the same groups support one and resist the other.

 

[URedskin54]

It’s a great day for unborn human beings, even if temporary. Gonna result in some unintended consequences for conservatives who thought they were being clever with how they crafted this bill though. Progs will copy in other laws

 

[astonmartin708]

prohibiting abortions and requiring vaccinations arguably both save lives but the same groups support one and resist the other.

Prohibiting abortions don’t save lives anymore than prohibiting condoms saves lives. I’m excited to see that statistic of unwed teenage mothers rise in Texas. Hope their welfare system can handle it.

 

[astonmartin708]

It’s a great day for unborn human beings, even if temporary. Gonna result in some unintended consequences for conservatives who thought they were being clever with how they crafted this bill though. Progs will copy in other laws

It may push Progressives to more aggressively push for expansion of the SC, considering the ruling wouldn’t have come out the way it did had Conservatives not straight up stolen a seat and thrown the balance of the court out of alignment with the political / moral leanings of a majority of the US.

 

[watu05]

Prohibiting abortions don’t save lives anymore than prohibiting condoms saves lives. I’m excited to see that statistic of unwed teenage mothers rise in Texas. Hope their welfare system can handle it.

Basically old white guys controlling the bodies of young women, especially poor women of color. For those with enough money to fly to another state and pay, it's not a big deal. No sweat for the well to do.

 

[URedskin54]

Basically old white guys controlling the bodies of young women, especially poor women of color. For those with enough money to fly to another state and pay, it's not a big deal.

This is why I won’t debate this stuff anymore. Just a cranky old white guy complaining about old white guys which of course has nothing to do with the underlying morality of the act. It’s just more deflection, which some people seem to only know how to do. One of the funniest things about leftists over the last few years is the habit of white dudes using “white men” as a pejorative.

 

[astonmartin708]

Are we going to ban the euthanization of dogs as well since many of them have far more actual cognizant abilities and a similar level of emotional attachment for their families as do unborn fetuses? Can I take up a lawsuit if I find out that my neighbor has euthanized his dog???

 

[lawpoke87]

Are we going to ban the euthanization of dogs as well since many of them have far more actual cognizant abilities and a similar level of emotional attachment for their families as do unborn fetuses? Can I take up a lawsuit if I find out that my neighbor has euthanized his dog???

Might consider that when we change our laws involving the killing of a fetus by a third party from an offense of murder. I support the right to an abortion but some of these arguments are borderline ridiculous.

 

[aTUfan]

Basically old white guys controlling the bodies of young women, especially poor women of color. For those with enough money to fly to another state and pay, it's not a big deal.

when im paying the bill, you bet!!

 

[astonmartin708]

Might consider that when we change our laws involving the killing of a fetus by a third party from an offense of murder. I support the right to an abortion but some of these arguments are borderline ridiculous.

Its not ridiculous. I just want to know how we define the value of a life and that we define it consistently for all things that have a life. At what point does a carbon based life become of value? We consider the lives of animals of some value because we wrote laws protecting them to some degree. Obviously we consider the lives of humans of value. I find it arbitrary that the life of an unborn organism would be considered greater than that of another organism with exponentially more capacity for thought, empathy, self preservation, and intelligence. Are we including the potential that the human might have some day? Because if that is how we’re grading then we probably need to rethink that a bit.

I’ve never been quite comfortable with the legal supposition that the ending of a pregnancy is tantamount to murder. I think there could be the potential for criminal and civil liability if a pregnancy was ended against the will of the pregnant, but it’s not automatically murder. Similarly how I don’t believe that assisted suicide is murder.

If a pregnant lady isn’t paying attention and trips on the sidewalk causing the termination of her pregnancy is she negligent for manslaughter? No.

If you hold a pre-born life in such high regard, you’re going to have trouble not extending those protections to other forms of life to the same standards because they hold many of the same characteristics. I feel as though the excuse for many people when they think that a fetus’ life should be considered worth protection always falls back to the Bible.

 

[lawpoke87]

….but if someone shoots the pregnant woman and the unborn baby dies it is murder or at least can be depending on the circumstances. No doubt it’s a complicated issue. One I’m not completely comfortable with the extremes of either side. Basically…pro choice but still uncomfortable with the actual act of killing an unborn 4 month old fetus.

 

[watu05]

The unvaccinated and unmasked pose a very real danger to others and have killed tens if not hundreds of thousands, yet their actions are celebrated by largely the right to life people who oppose abortion. That's the twisted logic for me.

BTW my wife's favorite quote of the day, "Who could have predicted that the Tabilan would so quickly take over the government of Texas?"

 

[astonmartin708]

….but if someone shoots the pregnant woman and the unborn baby dies it is murder or at least can be depending on the circumstances. No doubt it’s a complicated issue. One I’m not completely comfortable with the extremes of either side. Basically…pro choice but still uncomfortable with the actual act of killing an unborn 4 month old fetus.

I’m not a monster, in my head, logically I would say “personhood” starts after delivery, the same time that a medical insurance considers it, but in my heart I know it must start sometime before that it’s not just a “snap” and the fetus is now an infant. I would agree to certain limits on late term abortions. However 6 weeks is simply ridiculous. The fetuses show signs of life by a few weeks in, but they don’t show signs that differentiate them noticeably from other forms of life for a number of weeks. Yes, they develop eyes, fingers, toes limbs… so do monkeys, cows, etc…

I suppose I would argue that the earliest time an fetus could be considered human might be the earliest point at which it could survive a premature delivery without some sort of artificial womb being created to facilitate its continued development. (That’s a bit different than a premature baby who needs machine help to survive) currently that’s at 21 weeks.

 

[URedskin54]

BTW my wife's favorite quote of the day, "Who could have predicted that the Tabilan would so quickly take over government of Texas?"

If I'm the Taliban then your wife is an Aztec celebrating ritual human sacrifice

 

[watu05]

Red blooded Americans used to criticize dictatorships for making everyone into a snitch who spied on their neighbors and reported them to authorities, but that's exactly what this Texas law does to work around repeated SCOTUS precedents.

It will be interesting to see who is proud of this law and what the ramifications are in a couple of years.

 

[watu05]

The governor of ND is a good example of this 'paradox'. She was against public health measures as a champion of individual rights which let Covid take off in her state and now wants to take control of women's bodies. She may not be an old white guy, but she is acting like one.

Gov. Kristi Noem wants South Dakota abortion laws tightened after Texas' 6-week ban stands

Women can't elect to terminate a pregnancy in South Dakota beyond 22 weeks of gestation.

www.argusleader.com

 

[lawpoke87]

I’m not a monster, in my head, logically I would say “personhood” starts after delivery, the same time that a medical insurance considers it, but in my heart I know it must start sometime before that it’s not just a “snap” and the fetus is now an infant. I would agree to certain limits on late term abortions. However 6 weeks is simply ridiculous. The fetuses show signs of life by a few weeks in, but they don’t show signs that differentiate them noticeably from other forms of life for a number of weeks. Yes, they develop eyes, fingers, toes limbs… so do monkeys, cows, etc…

I suppose I would argue that the earliest time an fetus could be considered human might be the earliest point at which it could survive a premature delivery without some sort of artificial womb being created to facilitate its continued development. (That’s a bit different than a premature baby who needs machine help to survive) currently that’s at 21 weeks.

That’s always been my thinking as well. The problem is the viability point in time will continue to shrink as medicine advances. I have problems with the 6 weeks and likewise have problems with abortions after 21 weeks. I like you would like a uniform rule say 21 weeks. This is two issues we agree upon all in the same day 😱. Ripping apart a 21 week old fetus is still a gruesome task imo. I couldn’t do it.

 

[astonmartin708]

That’s always been my thinking as well. The problem is the viability point in time will continue to shrink as medicine advances. I have problems with the 6 weeks and likewise have problems with abortions after 21 weeks. I like you would like a uniform rule say 21 weeks. This is two issues we agree upon all in the same day 😱. Ripping apart a 21 week old fetus is still a gruesome task imo. I couldn’t do it.

I couldn’t euthanize dogs for a living either or work in a beef factory. It’s very sad. I acknowledge that. But sometimes sad is less important than the necessities of life.

 

[watu05]

TikTokers flood Texas abortion whistleblower site with Shrek memes, fake reports and porn

Critics of Texas’s new law have been filing hundreds of fake reports to the whistleblowing website in hopes of crashing it

www.theguardian.com

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

Is it alive? If not, what is it?
Is it human? If not, what is it?
Is it innocent? If not, what did it do wrong?
Does abortion intentionally end its innocent, human life? If not, what does it do?

 

[astonmartin708]

Is it alive? If not, what is it?
Is it human? If not, what is it?
Is it innocent? If not, what did it do wrong?
Does abortion intentionally end its innocent, human life? If not, what does it do?

Yes. Not necessarily. No.
There is a difference between ending a human life that is ongoing and preventing a human life from beginning.

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

Yes. Not necessarily. No.
There is a difference between ending a human life that is ongoing and preventing a human life from beginning.

You didn’t answer the second question on lines #2 and #3.

 

[aTUfan]

abortion is a religious or personnel decision , not political, not gov.

the only time the gov has control of my mind and body is the military.

 

[cmullinsTU]

That’s always been my thinking as well. The problem is the viability point in time will continue to shrink as medicine advances. I have problems with the 6 weeks and likewise have problems with abortions after 21 weeks. I like you would like a uniform rule say 21 weeks. This is two issues we agree upon all in the same day 😱. Ripping apart a 21 week old fetus is still a gruesome task imo. I couldn’t do it.

I consider myself pro-life but accept that we have Roe v Wade and despite my pro-life leanings I hate seeing states undermine federal rulings. What Texas is doing is wrong and if abortion is legal, which it is, 6 weeks is far too early. Most women don’t know they’re pregnant until AFTER 6 weeks unless they’re actively trying to get pregnant.

In summary, despite different political ideologies, I agree with you and Aston.

 

[astonmartin708]

You didn’t answer the second question on lines #2 and #3.

I already answered them in my previous posts. WHEN you define a living organism becoming human is subjective, but it has to be at a time that differentiates it logically (not emotionally or religiously) from other life forms. Abortion (and contraception) prevents a human life from beginning it does not end a human life. (Though it does end the emergence of a lifeform of sorts)

 

[astonmartin708]

I wonder how Texas came up with the 6 week mark and how arbitrary that is or if there is logic behind it.

Edit: I looked it up, 6 weeks is the the appearance of a heartbeat. I understand the desire to use that timeframe for emotional reasons. None of us tend to want to kill something innocent with a heartbeat. But logically, that restriction is completely arbitrary and goes against what our society deems acceptable in the dispatching of other life forms. We have no problem (in regulatory terms) empathetically ending the lives of game animals, fish, pets, or even people who might be redeemed but have committed violent / heinous acts. The detection of a heartbeat does not, in itself, make a life form human. We’re not that far off from robots that have what could be considered heartbeats after all.

 

[TU_BLA]

That’s always been my thinking as well. The problem is the viability point in time will continue to shrink as medicine advances. I have problems with the 6 weeks and likewise have problems with abortions after 21 weeks. I like you would like a uniform rule say 21 weeks. This is two issues we agree upon all in the same day 😱. Ripping apart a 21 week old fetus is still a gruesome task imo. I couldn’t do it.

The Roe decision actually references 20 weeks as the standard time at which a fetus can survive without extraordinary medical intervention.

 

[cmullinsTU]

even people who might be redeemed but have committed violent / heinous acts

I understand your premise and don’t know the answers. I’ve always struggled at what point a fetus is a human, it can be once the fetus exits the canal or is pulled out during a C-section. So I’m good with 20-21 weeks.

I quoted just this tiny snippet though because I’m against the death penalty and it made me curious if anyone else here is or if I’m in the minority? When the topic comes up in real life I’m typically the only person in a room against it.

 

[astonmartin708]

If the Texas government is going to mandate that a woman has to keep an unwanted fetus through delivery against her will for its own (pseudo)moral desires then it should not be allowed to mandate that she raise the resulting infant. If I were a judge that was forced by precedent to let this ruling stand, I would mandate that the state give multiple options to the woman upon delivery with what to do with the child. (Adoption, ward of the state, whatever) as well as fund the financial burden placed upon the woman given the healthcare necessary to deliver the fetus safely. And that should all come out of Texas’ pocket.

 

[cmullinsTU]

even people who might be redeemed but have committed violent / heinous acts

I understand your premise and don’t know the answers. I’ve always struggled at what point a fetus is a human, it can be once the fetus exits the canal or is pulled out during a C-section. So I’m good with 20-21 weeks.

I quoted just this tiny snippet though because I’m against the death penalty and it made me curious if anyone else here is or if I’m in the minority? When the topic comes up in real life I’m typically the only person in a room against it.

 

[astonmartin708]

I understand your premise and don’t know the answers. I’ve always struggled at what point a fetus is a human, it can be once the fetus exits the canal or is pulled out during a C-section. So I’m good with 20-21 weeks.

I quoted just this tiny snippet though because I’m against the death penalty and it made me curious if anyone else here is or if I’m in the minority? When the topic comes up in real life I’m typically the only person in a room against it.

I am. I’m actually against all killing, especially killing that is preventable. But I’m also practical. I understand that man makes war against his neighbor due to jealousy or fright. I understand that we kill to eat.

My preferred solution would be to minimize the amount of killing we need to do to keep humanity prosperous. (Don’t throw away a good hamburger patty that used to be a cow, and then go kill a deer for the sport of it. Only kill out of extreme necessity)

The same would go for abortions. I would prefer not to need them which is why I support as much contraception and sexual education as possible. (As well as the existence of parental households that instill values of preventing pregnancy until you are ready to have a child)

I’m of the opinion that we should always be grateful for the sacrifice of the lifeform that we have extinguished and how that sacrifice has positively effected our lives. Which is also why I wouldn’t want women being promiscuous and getting many, many abortions because it would be excessively selfish and immoral to kill life forms just for the sake of your pleasure.

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

WHEN you define a living organism becoming human is subjective, but it has to be at a time that differentiates it logically (not emotionally or religiously) from other life forms.

That organism is 100% human from conception on. It’s not a dog. It’s not a rose. It’s not a chair. It’s not any other kind of life form. It’s human. He or she has completely unique and distinct DNA from his or her mother (and every other human that has ever existed). Development from that point forward is a series of differences in degree, not kind. Conception is the only logical “line in the sand” that marks human life from non-life or from other forms of life.

Abortion (and contraception) prevents a human life from beginning it does not end a human life. (Though it does end the emergence of a lifeform of sorts)

False. The life that is ended is human. It scientifically and logically is not and cannot be anything else but human.

Also, I think it is wise to reflect on that fact that for anyone reading this, at one point in time, YOU were a single-celled organism.

 

[astonmartin708]

That organism is 100% human from conception on. It’s not a dog. It’s not a rose. It’s not a chair. It’s not any other kind of life form. It’s human. He or she has completely unique and distinct DNA from his or her mother (and every other human that has ever existed). Development from that point forward is a series of differences in degree, not kind. Conception is the only logical “line in the sand” that marks human life from non-life or from other forms of life.



False. The life that is ended is human. It scientifically and logically is not and cannot be anything else but human.

Also, I think it is wise to reflect on that fact that for anyone reading this, at one point in time, YOU were a single-celled organism.

A) I’ve never been swayed by the argument that I might not be here given my mom having an abortion. I honestly don’t care it makes zero difference to me. I would never know that I missed out on anything. It would be as if I were a tapeworm. Killed by Ivermectin.

B) The lifeform after conception has the propensity to be human. But it is not human anymore than a dog is human until it shows the characteristics that make humans human. Not a specific DNA chain mind you, because, after all we share many parts of our DNA with other life forms. A larvae is not a butterfly no matter how much you want to classify it as a butterfly.