Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

Late term abortions

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I have argued the thirteenth amendment in cases where I need judicial approval to get a young woman an abortion, yes.

That’s not really the same thing though, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unckeyherb said:

That’s not really the same thing though, right?

What isn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

What isn't?

Citing the 13th amendment in an argument versus calling someone a slave master that doesn’t believe in abortion. I understand that you want to draw a line from one to the other but it’s not the same thing. Either way, it doesn’t really have any import as to what we’re talking about here.  I’m sure you Are as eloquent there as you are here and I hope you got approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pepwaves said:

Ok, I couldn't resist jumping back in...it's Friday!

Fair enough. Our bodies do not have quite the same urge to eat a cheeseburger as they do to have sex. 

However, I think you could apply this to other choices and behaviors that have basis in evolution and evolutionary psychology. Take for example, the need to be part of a "group". This has an evolutionary basis. If our early ancestors weren't part of a group or tribe, they usually did not survive due to the many dangers that confronted them. This innate human need leads everyone to seek out inclusion in a group somewhere...and of course some people seek inclusion in groups that have potential to do horrible things (Nazis, KKK, MS-13).

If a person who was merely following his evolutionary need to be part of a group in order to survive life in his neighborhood murdered another person, how would you weigh choice and evolutionary needs in this scenario? Would responsibility come into play at all? Would that person be absolved of any responsibility for murdering another human being?

These examples are getting very convoluted and that's why I appreciated Sho Nuff's comment making light of things. But, my point in going down this rabbit hole is simply to say stances on both sides of the aisle, pro-life and pro-choice, are not as black-and-white as they are made to be. Nuance needs to be included in the discussion. Emotionally-loaded terms like "slavery" and "murder" aren't very helpful and often just serve to shut down discussion rather than further it. 

My personal stance is that I do not like abortion. In fact, I find it incredibly sad. However, I am also a man, and I have no idea what it is like to carry another being in my body for 9-10 months. I can only imagine what it feels like (and perhaps for some it does feel like "slavery"). I also am a Democrat and I vote for pro-choice politicians.  I do not really think Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it would lead to many other issues (i.e. women possibly having unsafe abortions). But, I wish there was a better way and I wish pro-choice politicians were also willing to talk more about their moral feelings on the issue. 

In the end, I defer to the woman in making a choice about their own body, even if I find that choice to be morally wrong. If I am ever in a situation where a friend or family member of mine tells me of their desire to have an abortion, I would do more listening than anything else. If they asked how I felt about abortion, I would tell them. And I would hope that they would trust me to continue walking life with them...no matter how I feel about what they might choose to do. 

The only comparable desires are those for food, shelter, and water.

If men got pregnant from unprotected sex, there'd probably be an abortion robot in the lobby of every hotel and every sports stadium and you'd get a free can coozy with every purchase.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unckeyherb said:

Citing the 13th amendment in an argument versus calling someone a slave master that doesn’t believe in abortion. I understand that you want to draw a line from one to the other but it’s not the same thing. Either way, it doesn’t really have any import as to what we’re talking about here.  I’m sure you Are as eloquent there as you are here and I hope you got approval.

First, I didn't call anyone a slave master for his beliefs.  If you'd like to have a semantic argument (apparently) we should have a genuine one.

I said I think "anyone who argues against women having choice in abortion decisions is essentially a slave master."

And I'm not sure why you think arguing the Amendment that made slavery illegal isn't the same thing, but let me assure you that I didn't just cite the 13th, I said that the State of Mississippi was bringing back slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

The only comparable desires are those for food, shelter, and water.

If men got pregnant from unprotected sex, there'd probably be an abortion robot in the lobby of every hotel and every sports stadium and you'd get a free can coozy with every purchase.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Exile was one of the most severe punishments because it essentially meant instant death once on your own. The need to be included in a group drives many choices we make. So, on some level I think it could even be called an "urge" like the urge to eat, drink water, find shelter, and reproduce. But, that's a separate discussion.

Agreed on the second part...but not sure if that's an argument for anything. We are the weaker sex after all. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, shader said:

Welcome to the conversation.  Thanks for bringing up the rape scenario.  Super helpful

Lighten up...it was a joke based on several conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pepwaves said:

I'm not sure I agree with this. Exile was one of the most severe punishments because it essentially meant instant death once on your own. The need to be included in a group drives many choices we make. So, on some level I think it could even be called an "urge" like the urge to eat, drink water, find shelter, and reproduce. But, that's a separate discussion.

Agreed on the second part...but not sure if that's an argument for anything. We are the weaker sex after all. ;)

Now, it's all I hope for at every party I go to.

Edit: I meant exile, but death would usually be fine.

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

First, I didn't call anyone a slave master for his beliefs.  If you'd like to have a semantic argument (apparently) we should have a genuine one.

I said I think "anyone who argues against women having choice in abortion decisions is essentially a slave master."

And I'm not sure why you think arguing the Amendment that made slavery illegal isn't the same thing, but let me assure you that I didn't just cite the 13th, I said that the State of Mississippi was bringing back slavery.

No, actually i thought I made it clear it was a conversation not worth having.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to not post in abortion threads on the internet because I admittedly have extreme views on the topic and nothing good ever comes from these discussions.  I believe a baby is a baby from the get go.  How can we know at what point life starts? At what point is there a soul? Even contraception and masturbation seem wrong to me on the same level although I understand why people disagree on that one.  I just personally can't get over the waste of life aspect of abortion, contraception, etc. 

And late term abortions? You might as well be slitting the baby's throat right after birth.  It's the same thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

No, actually i thought I made it clear it was a conversation not worth having.

I see. You’d just like to misstate my position and declare that the end of the conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite a lot of pro-life folks are OK with the idea of abortions in the case of rape.

Rape is wrong in large part because someone else is using another person's body against their will, and without their consent.

Could we not consider an unwanted pregnancy, rape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

I tend to not post in abortion threads on the internet because I admittedly have extreme views on the topic and nothing good ever comes from these discussions.  I believe a baby is a baby from the get go.  How can we know at what point life starts? At what point is there a soul? Even contraception and masturbation seem wrong to me on the same level although I understand why people disagree on that one.  I just personally can't get over the waste of life aspect of abortion, contraception, etc. 

And late term abortions? You might as well be slitting the baby's throat right after birth.  It's the same thing.  

You seem to care a lot about the unborn babies.

If the actions a mother takes result in the deformity, or death of their child, even without clear intent, don't you think the sanctity of life of the infant should be protected by prosecuting the mother to the fullest extent of the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not ok with abortion after rape.  So long as the mother's life is not significantly at risk by giving birth, the baby should be born.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, butcher boy said:

I'm not ok with abortion after rape.  So long as the mother's life is not significantly at risk by giving birth, the baby should be born.  

So you would force a woman to have a baby she never intended to even think about conceiving?

Yeah...Um just no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

So you would force a woman to have a baby she never intended to even think about conceiving?

Yeah...Um just no.

You're ok killing it?

Hint: This is why internet abortion discussions are a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, butcher boy said:

You're ok killing it?

Hint: This is why internet abortion discussions are a bad idea.

The thing about discussing abortion is that folks who oppose abortion put a lot of restrictions around protecting the sanctity of unborn life, and are more than willing to impose incredible restrictions on mothers, all without being intellectually consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adonis said:

The thing about discussing abortion is that folks who oppose abortion put a lot of restrictions around protecting the sanctity of unborn life, and are more than willing to impose incredible restrictions on mothers, all without being intellectually consistent.

The right to life trumps all. So when it comes to the life of the child, some restrictions against the mother do no compare.  Now, if the act of giving birth puts mother's life in danger for whatever reason, then I'd reconsider, but that is rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

The right to life trumps all. So when it comes to the life of the child, some restrictions against the mother do no compare.  Now, if the act of giving birth puts mother's life in danger for whatever reason, then I'd reconsider, but that is rare.

And if the actions of a mom result in the death of a child, you'd prosecute her for murder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, adonis said:

And if the actions of a mom result in the death of a child, you'd prosecute her for murder?

or manslaughter depending on the situation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

or manslaughter depending on the situation.  

What about neglect if she drinks or smokes?  Or makes other bad behavioral decisions that harm the baby?  That would be child endangerment, neglect, or abuse right?

Edited by adonis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

You're ok killing it?

Hint: This is why internet abortion discussions are a bad idea.

Yes...I’m ok with a woman who has gone through rape to not be forced to carry a reminder for 9 months and then give birth to the child...only to be forced with either raising that reminder or the ordeal of giving up for adoption.  And also forcing her to pay all the costs associated.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

I'm not ok with abortion after rape.  So long as the mother's life is not significantly at risk by giving birth, the baby should be born.  

Your wife, sister, mother, friend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, adonis said:

Quite a lot of pro-life folks are OK with the idea of abortions in the case of rape.

Rape is wrong in large part because someone else is using another person's body against their will, and without their consent.

Could we not consider an unwanted pregnancy, rape?

There is a significant body of work regarding the comparison of “forced birth” to rape. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

I'm not ok with abortion after rape.  So long as the mother's life is not significantly at risk by giving birth, the baby should be born.  

It seems odd for someone making the “build the wall even if it might save one American” argument to take this position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Yes...I’m ok with a woman who has gone through rape to not be forced to carry a reminder for 9 months and then give birth to the child...only to be forced with either raising that reminder or the ordeal of giving up for adoption.  And also forcing her to pay all the costs associated.

 

Yup.  You want to effectively end abortion? Sex education, health care, child care, end poverty, prosecute all sex crimes to the fullest extent of the law. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I see. You’d just like to misstate my position and declare that the end of the conversation?

That’s not what I did.  At all.  I would, however,  like to declare the end of the conversation about whether you’ve called people slave masters in court docs because I don’t care, it’s got nothing to do with this conversation and I don’t think you are capable of not having the last word.  Have at it and have a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:
58 minutes ago, adonis said:

Quite a lot of pro-life folks are OK with the idea of abortions in the case of rape.

Rape is wrong in large part because someone else is using another person's body against their will, and without their consent.

Could we not consider an unwanted pregnancy, rape?

There is a significant body of work regarding the comparison of “forced birth” to rape. 

I think it's a pretty legit comparison.

I didn't post that to make fun, but truly I think it's a legitimate perspective.  I'd be curious to hear other folks disagree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A forced birth would have both positives and negatives in the eyes of a pro-lifer, with the positives out-weighing the negatives in their opinion. Pro-choicers believe the negatives out-weigh the positives, and maybe don’t see any positives.

I’m not familiar with arguments that rape contains positives. It’s all negative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, adonis said:

I think it's a pretty legit comparison.

I didn't post that to make fun, but truly I think it's a legitimate perspective.  I'd be curious to hear other folks disagree with it.

I’m not as entirely sold as I probably should be on the argument, but I don’t dismiss it out of hand. 

I think the difficulty I have is that in the situation abortion occurs vs forced birth there only are body-and autonomy-invasive options.  You can give birth or have a surgical procedure or a chemical procedure... that’s kind of it.  I think it’s a much more effective argument for birth control being legal than it is for abortion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dgreen said:

A forced birth would have both positives and negatives in the eyes of a pro-lifer, with the positives out-weighing the negatives in their opinion. Pro-choicers believe the negatives out-weigh the positives, and maybe don’t see any positives.

I’m not familiar with arguments that rape contains positives. It’s all negative. 

A forced birth has positive outcomes for the party that isn’t the prospective mother.

There is absolutely a comparison to be made between the party that is forcing the birth in that case and the non-victim in your other scenario based on just this issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I’m not as entirely sold as I probably should be on the argument, but I don’t dismiss it out of hand. 

I think the difficulty I have is that in the situation abortion occurs vs forced birth there only are body-and autonomy-invasive options.  You can give birth or have a surgical procedure or a chemical procedure... that’s kind of it.  I think it’s a much more effective argument for birth control being legal than it is for abortion. 

But if you were a person who was OK with abortion (whatever method) in the event of rape, what meaningful distinction would you make that differentiates the wrong of rape from the wrong of forcing a woman to keep a baby she doesn't want, when both involve bodily invasion for the benefit of others and lack of consent to the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adonis said:

But if you were a person who was OK with abortion (whatever method) in the event of rape, what meaningful distinction would you make that differentiates the wrong of rape from the wrong of forcing a woman to keep a baby she doesn't want, when both involve bodily invasion for the benefit of others and lack of consent to the situation.

The fact that the fetus (which the arguer would call a baby) is also without agency in this situation and it simply compounds the wrong to commit what pro-life arguers say is murder simply because of the situation; if two people had been kidnapped and put in a room Saw-style and told they could both leave in nine months or one could leave immediately by killing the other, would it be morally acceptable to kill the other person? Some people would say no, and it’s not a crazy position.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

A forced birth has positive outcomes for the party that isn’t the prospective mother.

There is absolutely a comparison to be made between the party that is forcing the birth in that case and the non-victim in your other scenario based on just this issue. 

Sorry, I’m not seeing what you’re hinting at. At least I think you’re hinting at something without saying it explicitly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dgreen said:

Sorry, I’m not seeing what you’re hinting at. At least I think you’re hinting at something without saying it explicitly. 

I’m saying rapists would probably say they get some positives out of a rape. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

I’m saying rapists would probably say they get some positives out of a rape. 

Ok, I started to reply with something here and then deleted it because I started see more clearly what you’re saying. My initial reaction is still to disagree with the conclusion and will have think through it a little more. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

The fact that the fetus (which the arguer would call a baby) is also without agency in this situation and it simply compounds the wrong to commit what pro-life arguers say is murder simply because of the situation; if two people had been kidnapped and put in a room Saw-style and told they could both leave in nine months or one could leave immediately by killing the other, would it be morally acceptable to kill the other person? Some people would say no, and it’s not a crazy position.  

Magically the life of the child doesn't matter because of the actions of the father and the wishes of the mother.

It's like Schrodinger's baby.  The baby both matters and doesn't matter, until the point at which you know the intent of the mother and father during copulation.

Edited by adonis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, adonis said:

Magically the life of the child doesn't matter because of the actions of the father and the wishes of the mother.

It's like Schrodinger's baby.

Not at all. It just changes the calculations as to what someone’s morally required to do if they caused a situation.  It’s really not a crazy viewpoint, I just don’t agree with this particular formulation of it.  Mostly because I think the mother’s rights persist anyway.  

If you drive by a car accident and don’t stop, are you a scumbag? Probably not. If you cause a car accident and you don’t stop, that gets a little dicier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

Not at all. It just changes the calculations as to what someone’s morally required to do if they caused a situation.  It’s really not a crazy viewpoint, I just don’t agree with this particular formulation of it.  Mostly because I think the mother’s rights persist anyway.  

If you drive by a car accident and don’t stop, are you a scumbag? Probably not. If you cause a car accident and you don’t stop, that gets a little dicier. 

If someone is pro-life, they generally believe the unborn child has a life worth protecting at almost all costs.  If they're pro-life with the exception of rape/incest, then the value of the unborn life changes dynamically based on the actions of the adults involved in sex.  Was the sex wanted or unwanted that caused conception?  Were they close relatives?

The relative value of the life of the child fluctuates based on those variables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like, I don’t expect my wife to take a bullet for me. But if she’s screaming at some guy what a loser he is and how he’s too much of a wimp to ever pull the trigger, and why doesn’t he just shoot, it’s definitely her job to take the bullet.  These things matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, adonis said:

I think it's a pretty legit comparison.

I didn't post that to make fun, but truly I think it's a legitimate perspective.  I'd be curious to hear other folks disagree with it.

If I am understanding you correctly, I definitely disagree with it. Let me try to make sure I am understanding you correctly, though. I believe you’re saying rape is wrong (in part) because it’s forced use of someone’s body without their consent. And since a baby is using its mother’s body, (in an instance where the mom doesn’t want to give birth to that baby) it’s forced use of her body against her consent and therefore can be legit compared to rape? Is that correct? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, adonis said:

If someone is pro-life, they generally believe the unborn child has a life worth protecting at almost all costs.  If they're pro-life with the exception of rape/incest, then the value of the unborn life changes dynamically based on the actions of the adults involved in sex.  Was the sex wanted or unwanted that caused conception?  Were they close relatives?

The relative value of the life of the child fluctuates based on those variables.

I think those are both false premises. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

I think those are both false premises. 

Odd, I'd think that would be a pretty acceptable statement of their views.  Where have I erred?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that someone pro-life usually thinks that a fetus has a right to life that is more important than a woman’s right to not have her life interrupted or changed by a pregnancy as foreseeable consequences for her actions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, whiskey7 said:

If I am understanding you correctly, I definitely disagree with it. Let me try to make sure I am understanding you correctly, though. I believe you’re saying rape is wrong (in part) because it’s forced use of someone’s body without their consent. And since a baby is using its mother’s body, (in an instance where the mom doesn’t want to give birth to that baby) it’s forced use of her body against her consent and therefore can be legit compared to rape? Is that correct? 

Yes.

Much of the wrongness of rape comes from the invasion of a woman's body against her consent, being used in ways she doesn't want, for the benefit of another person.

It's not unreasonable to see an unwanted pregnancy meeting those same criteria.  If it's OK to abort in the case of rape, when the issue at stake is what the woman wanted for her body, why is it any less reasonable to consider unwanted pregnancy a form of rape, and be OK with terminating the pregnancy for a similar reason in that she doesn't consent to this other life-form using her body this way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, adonis said:

Yes.

Much of the wrongness of rape comes from the invasion of a woman's body against her consent, being used in ways she doesn't want, for the benefit of another person.

It's not unreasonable to see an unwanted pregnancy meeting those same criteria.  If it's OK to abort in the case of rape, when the issue at stake is what the woman wanted for her body, why is it any less reasonable to consider unwanted pregnancy a form of rape, and be OK with terminating the pregnancy for a similar reason in that she doesn't consent to this other life-form using her body this way?

I take this same sort of mindset into the indentured servitude argument, but it’s very similar. 

My most serious takeaway from many years of these discussions is that the biggest mistake liberals made in the public debate has been ceding the idea of morality as a basis for their position to conservatives. As though there’s no pure moral argument for abortion to be legal. 

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

I would agree that someone pro-life usually thinks that a fetus has a right to life that is more important than a woman’s right to not have her life interrupted or changed by a pregnancy as foreseeable consequences for her actions. 

 

And some of those pro-lifers, many in fact, make exceptions in the case of rape/incest.

In those cases, they're willing to set aside their standard view of the right to life of the fetus, based primarily on the disposition of the man and woman during sex.  

So you take a pregnant woman, and you can't tell what a pro-lifer of this disposition feels about the value of the life of the unborn child UNTIL you learn about the disposition of the mother and man involved in conception.  It's like Schrodingers cat.  At any given time, the value of a pregnant woman's baby's life is undetermined, until you get information on the disposition of the father to the mother during sex, or the degrees of family connection between the father and mother.

The entire value of the baby's right to life is based, in the case of rape, on the consent of the mother.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adonis said:

And some of those pro-lifers, many in fact, make exceptions in the case of rape/incest.

In those cases, they're willing to set aside their standard view of the right to life of the fetus, based primarily on the disposition of the man and woman during sex.  

So you take a pregnant woman, and you can't tell what a pro-lifer of this disposition feels about the value of the life of the unborn child UNTIL you learn about the disposition of the mother and man involved in conception.  It's like Schrodingers cat.  At any given time, the value of a pregnant woman's baby's life is undetermined, until you get information on the disposition of the father to the mother during sex, or the degrees of family connection between the father and mother.

The entire value of the baby's right to life is based, in the case of rape, on the consent of the mother.  

No.  They’re just saying that one isn’t morally obligated to preserve another’s life in every circumstance to one’s own detriment.

If you cause the circumstance though, you are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“It should be illegal to drive by a car accident and not stop to help people.”

vs.

”It should be illegal to cause a car accident and not stop to help people.”

The position toward the person who is hurt hasn’t changed. The position toward the obligation on the part of the driver has. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.