Pervert versus Baby killer

[hoping2retire35]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/30/alabamians-vote-roy-moore/

Maybe a decent write in candidate will show up.

[GuitarStv]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

[scantee]

Rapist pedophile versus Steward of civil rights

FTFY. Dead simple choice for anyone who isn't completely depraved.

[RetiredAt63]

That was an incredibly slanted piece.  But given the biography of the author, it isn't surprising.

Tully Borland is associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University. He is a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, father of five, and superhero against the dark forces of political correctness. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter @BorlandTully.

Anyone know a philosophy professor at a secular university to run this piece by?

[Gin1984]

That was an incredibly slanted piece.  But given the biography of the author, it isn't surprising.

Tully Borland is associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University. He is a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, father of five, and superhero against the dark forces of political correctness. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter @BorlandTully.

Anyone know a philosophy professor at a secular university to run this piece by?

"Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family."
Gross

[RetiredAt63]

That was an incredibly slanted piece.  But given the biography of the author, it isn't surprising.

Tully Borland is associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University. He is a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, father of five, and superhero against the dark forces of political correctness. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter @BorlandTully.

Anyone know a philosophy professor at a secular university to run this piece by?

"Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family."
Gross

The age difference actually used to be common, since the future husbands were expected to be established in life.  I knew someone whose fiance rescued her from Hong Kong before the Pacific part of WWII started.  He was 20 years older than her - but early 20s and early 40s.

The large family thing - if a woman marries at 20 and gets pregnant fairly soon after that, she can still have lots of children - say 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37 and 40.  That gives a family of 7.  The impetus of early marriage was that people died young of all sorts of causes.  But of course childbirth is more hazardous for young mothers, so child-birth in mid-teens is not really recommended.

[dycker1978]

I cant even reply well to this.  We have the pussy grabber in chief in charge and now this article is pushing for a pedophile to be elected here.  I thought that the USA considered them self civilized.  These actions seem to be a step back.

[Gin1984]

That was an incredibly slanted piece.  But given the biography of the author, it isn't surprising.

Tully Borland is associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University. He is a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, father of five, and superhero against the dark forces of political correctness. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter @BorlandTully.

Anyone know a philosophy professor at a secular university to run this piece by?

"Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family."
Gross

The age difference actually used to be common, since the future husbands were expected to be established in life. I knew someone whose fiance rescued her from Hong Kong before the Pacific part of WWII started.  He was 20 years older than her - but early 20s and early 40s.

The large family thing - if a woman marries at 20 and gets pregnant fairly soon after that, she can still have lots of children - say 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37 and 40.  That gives a family of 7.  The impetus of early marriage was that people died young of all sorts of causes.  But of course childbirth is more hazardous for young mothers, so child-birth in mid-teens is not really recommended.

And women used to be basically owned by their fathers/husbands.  So, now, it is gross because that implication.  And regardless your example was a 20 year old woman, not a teenager.

[GuitarStv]

That was an incredibly slanted piece.  But given the biography of the author, it isn't surprising.

Tully Borland is associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University. He is a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, father of five, and superhero against the dark forces of political correctness. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter @BorlandTully.

Anyone know a philosophy professor at a secular university to run this piece by?

"Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family."
Gross

The age difference actually used to be common, since the future husbands were expected to be established in life. I knew someone whose fiance rescued her from Hong Kong before the Pacific part of WWII started.  He was 20 years older than her - but early 20s and early 40s.

The large family thing - if a woman marries at 20 and gets pregnant fairly soon after that, she can still have lots of children - say 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37 and 40.  That gives a family of 7.  The impetus of early marriage was that people died young of all sorts of causes.  But of course childbirth is more hazardous for young mothers, so child-birth in mid-teens is not really recommended.

And women used to be basically owned by their fathers/husbands.  So, now, it is gross because that implication.  And regardless your example was a 20 year old woman, not a teenager.

Are you trying to tell me that Roy Moore romancing 14 year old children might not driven by a wholesome desire to have a bigger family?

[Hotstreak]

That was an incredibly slanted piece.  But given the biography of the author, it isn't surprising.

Tully Borland is associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University. He is a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, father of five, and superhero against the dark forces of political correctness. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter @BorlandTully.

Anyone know a philosophy professor at a secular university to run this piece by?

"Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family."
Gross

The age difference actually used to be common, since the future husbands were expected to be established in life. I knew someone whose fiance rescued her from Hong Kong before the Pacific part of WWII started.  He was 20 years older than her - but early 20s and early 40s.

The large family thing - if a woman marries at 20 and gets pregnant fairly soon after that, she can still have lots of children - say 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37 and 40.  That gives a family of 7.  The impetus of early marriage was that people died young of all sorts of causes.  But of course childbirth is more hazardous for young mothers, so child-birth in mid-teens is not really recommended.

And women used to be basically owned by their fathers/husbands.  So, now, it is gross because that implication.  And regardless your example was a 20 year old woman, not a teenager.

Are you trying to tell me that Roy Moore romancing 14 year old children might not driven by a wholesome desire to have a bigger family?

It doesn't seem likely.  For some voters though, his pro-life position is all that matters.  If someone truly believes that Doug Jones' support of abortion rights is the same as support of the murder of defenseless babies... that's horrific enough of a thought that other issues don't matter anymore.

[GuitarStv]

That was an incredibly slanted piece.  But given the biography of the author, it isn't surprising.

Tully Borland is associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University. He is a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, father of five, and superhero against the dark forces of political correctness. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter @BorlandTully.

Anyone know a philosophy professor at a secular university to run this piece by?

"Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family."
Gross

The age difference actually used to be common, since the future husbands were expected to be established in life. I knew someone whose fiance rescued her from Hong Kong before the Pacific part of WWII started.  He was 20 years older than her - but early 20s and early 40s.

The large family thing - if a woman marries at 20 and gets pregnant fairly soon after that, she can still have lots of children - say 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37 and 40.  That gives a family of 7.  The impetus of early marriage was that people died young of all sorts of causes.  But of course childbirth is more hazardous for young mothers, so child-birth in mid-teens is not really recommended.

And women used to be basically owned by their fathers/husbands.  So, now, it is gross because that implication.  And regardless your example was a 20 year old woman, not a teenager.

Are you trying to tell me that Roy Moore romancing 14 year old children might not driven by a wholesome desire to have a bigger family?

It doesn't seem likely.  For some voters though, his pro-life position is all that matters.  If someone truly believes that Doug Jones' support of abortion rights is the same as support of the murder of defenseless babies... that's horrific enough of a thought that other issues don't matter anymore.

Who doesn't like murdering babies though?  They're so damned tasty . . .

[RetiredAt63]

That was an incredibly slanted piece.  But given the biography of the author, it isn't surprising.

Tully Borland is associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University. He is a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, father of five, and superhero against the dark forces of political correctness. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter @BorlandTully.

Anyone know a philosophy professor at a secular university to run this piece by?

"Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family."
Gross

The age difference actually used to be common, since the future husbands were expected to be established in life. I knew someone whose fiance rescued her from Hong Kong before the Pacific part of WWII started.  He was 20 years older than her - but early 20s and early 40s.

The large family thing - if a woman marries at 20 and gets pregnant fairly soon after that, she can still have lots of children - say 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37 and 40.  That gives a family of 7.  The impetus of early marriage was that people died young of all sorts of causes.  But of course childbirth is more hazardous for young mothers, so child-birth in mid-teens is not really recommended.

And women used to be basically owned by their fathers/husbands.  So, now, it is gross because that implication.  And regardless your example was a 20 year old woman, not a teenager.

Exactly, she was an adult.  And if not for WWII, she would have been closer to 25 than 20 when they married.  14 reminds me of pioneer times, when everyone aged really fast because of all the hard work, and women often died in their 20s and 30's.  But their husbands were usually a lot closer to them in age.  Also, as my arithmetic shows, even with a 3 year baby spacing, you can have a big family without having a child bride.

Jerry Lee Lewis (the rocker) married his 13 year old first cousin once removed when he was 23 - even then it was a scandal and severely damaged his career, not sure whether it was her age or the close blood relationship.  And "only" a 10 year difference.

This is just icky in so many ways.

[I'm a red panda]

Abortions after 20 weeks are rare. They are even rarer still to be in cases of unwanted babies. Women who terminate pregnancies after 20 or even after 24 weeks are generally making a heartbreaking choice they believe is best for their family, and often best for their baby. Limiting these options is horrific and does nothing to "save lives" of generally viable babies (healthy fetuses are typically terminated very early in pregnancy).

[Monocle Money Mouth]

Maybe I'm out of touch on this but abortions seems to be a pretty rare occurrence in general. I've never met a woman that has had one performed.

That being said, the abortion rhetoric from the right is insane in this U.S. To hear them talk, you'd think an abortion was a yearly occurrence for all females from the moment they hit the age they could menstruate so all that precious fetal tissue can be harvested.

[RetiredAt63]

Maybe I'm out of touch on this but abortions seems to be a pretty rare occurrence in general. I've never met a woman that has had one performed.

You may know women who have had abortions, but it is not something they probably talk about much.  It is a hard decision to make no matter the circumstances.  I didn't know which of my women friends had had a miscarriage until I had one, and then the sympathy and reassurances and shared stories came out.

Back to abortions, I am guessing that they are more common in places where reliable birth control is difficult to access.   

[Davnasty]

It doesn't seem likely.  For some voters though, his pro-life position is all that matters.  If someone truly believes that Doug Jones' support of abortion rights is the same as support of the murder of defenseless babies... that's horrific enough of a thought that other issues don't matter anymore.

Unfortunately I agree that it pretty much just comes down to this. The author really didn't need to write that whole article, he just needed to reconfirm with those who think abortion is murder and remind them that the issue takes precedent over all else.

One thing I do wonder is if his position is that all abortion is murder or only if it is after 20 weeks which is supported by Doug Jones, or does he have some other standard for when it becomes murder. Either way he's not only calling Doug Jones a worse person than a child molester but also every politician and every person who agrees with Jones.

Based on the way hoping2retire35 began this thread I assume he would agree with the author that anyone who feels this way about abortion is worse than a child molester. If I am wrong please correct me h2r35, but if not I hope you are willing to read and really listen and consider the opinions of those who disagree with you. If you are going to call me a supporter of baby murdering I hope you have put a considerable amount of time and thought into understanding abortions and why people have them. I avoided posting a response to this topic initially because the idea of debating abortion makes my head spin and I don't intend to join the debate, but I would ask that if you feel strongly enough about the issue to condemn those who disagree with you, please take some time to learn about abortions and do some research into the statistics around them. I'd recommend you begin with the question "Does making abortion illegal actually reduce the abortion rate?"

[calimom]

This article is so gross and so twisted. It's impossible to explain away preying on children. And the weird irony is that if Roy Moore had actually been able to score with one of these teenagers and she'd gotten pregnant, she likely would have had an abortion. Can't have the Assistant D.A. found guilty of having sex with a minor! Let alone the out of wedlock thing that makes conservatives batshit crazy.

[scottish]

This article is so gross and so twisted. It's impossible to explain away preying on children. And the weird irony is that if Roy Moore had actually been able to score with one of these teenagers and she'd gotten pregnant, she likely would have had an abortion. Can't have the Assistant D.A. found guilty of having sex with a minor! Let alone the out of wedlock thing that makes conservatives batshit crazy.

That is a good observation.

[DarkandStormy]

Doug Jones (successfully) prosecuted a criminal case against members of the KKK who killed little girls in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing.

Roy Moore hit on, was romantically involved with, and sexually assaulted young girls.

Your choice could not be more stark, Alabama.

[gobius]

Maybe I'm out of touch on this but abortions seems to be a pretty rare occurrence in general. I've never met a woman that has had one performed.

You may know women who have had abortions, but it is not something they probably talk about much.  It is a hard decision to make no matter the circumstances.  I didn't know which of my women friends had had a miscarriage until I had one, and then the sympathy and reassurances and shared stories came out.

Back to abortions, I am guessing that they are more common in places where reliable birth control is difficult to access.

I know a young lady who had one at 15.  I'm very close to her sister so that's how I know.  Outside of their immediate family and perhaps a few others I doubt anyone knows.  She had a husband afterward (they are divorced now) who was very anti-abortion and I doubt he knew.  I'm sure some of my female relatives have had them or at the very least taken a morning after pill.  I don't know any who have actually said they have had one so I'm guessing they keep it pretty quiet.  It may be different in other parts of the country (my family is from a rural area of the Midwest).

[Monocle Money Mouth]

Maybe I'm out of touch on this but abortions seems to be a pretty rare occurrence in general. I've never met a woman that has had one performed.

You may know women who have had abortions, but it is not something they probably talk about much.  It is a hard decision to make no matter the circumstances.  I didn't know which of my women friends had had a miscarriage until I had one, and then the sympathy and reassurances and shared stories came out.

Back to abortions, I am guessing that they are more common in places where reliable birth control is difficult to access.

I know a young lady who had one at 15.  I'm very close to her sister so that's how I know.  Outside of their immediate family and perhaps a few others I doubt anyone knows.  She had a husband afterward (they are divorced now) who was very anti-abortion and I doubt he knew.  I'm sure some of my female relatives have had them or at the very least taken a morning after pill.  I don't know any who have actually said they have had one so I'm guessing they keep it pretty quiet.  It may be different in other parts of the country (my family is from a rural area of the Midwest).

I heard a rumor about a girl that went to my high school that had an abortion. I was in a Catholic school and I heard she got kicked out because of the abortion.

I get why most woman would not be super vocal about having one. It's kind of a downer subject even if you are pro-choice.

[hoping2retire35]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

So it is non-human?

What about a fetus makes it ok to kill(refraining from 'murder' to keep things more academic less moral) but not a baby? Passing thorough the birth canal; exposure to fresh air (for the c-section babies)? Enlighten me?

There is no ignorance; it is the cornerstone of the argument.

[Kris]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

So it is non-human?

What about a fetus makes it ok to kill(refraining from 'murder' to keep things more academic less moral) but not a baby? Passing thorough the birth canal; exposure to fresh air (for the c-section babies)? Enlighten me?

There is no ignorance; it is the cornerstone of the argument.

Arguments can certainly be begun on a cornerstone of ignorance.

The fact is, when an embryo becomes a baby human along the continuum of fertilization, implantation, and viability is up for debate, and far from having consensus.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/

But then, I suspect you know that already, but choose to argue from your position anyway.

[J Boogie]

It's kind of a downer subject even if you are pro-choice.

There aren't many things that can suck the air out of a room quite like it.

It conjures up horrific imagery on par with the holocaust, but with the holocaust at least we've got a common enemy and a victory that ended it.

When the subject comes up part of the unpleasantness is feeling that someone might express disgust about the views of the other side, who might be right there in front of them.

[GuitarStv]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

So it is non-human?

What about a fetus makes it ok to kill(refraining from 'murder' to keep things more academic less moral) but not a baby? Passing thorough the birth canal; exposure to fresh air (for the c-section babies)? Enlighten me?

There is no ignorance; it is the cornerstone of the argument.

I didn't argue at all that a fetus isn't human.  I argued that it isn't a baby.

A baby is a very young child, newly or recently born.  A fetus is an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

When you call someone who supports abortion a 'baby killer' you are lying - either through ignorance (as I assumed) or as a conscious attempt to manipulate the reaction of others by using the wrong term.  (You're also lying because someone who supports abortion doesn't necessarily kill fetuses . . . that's typically left to medical professionals, but we can just chalk that up to yet another false equivalence.)

As to your unrelated deflection question . . . my personal inclination would be to classify a fetus as somewhere between human and non-human.  At the earliest stages, a fetus is little more than a collection of cells starting to arrange themselves - no organs, nervous system, effectively no brain.  Typically people aren't as emotional about abortion at this stage (even less so before sperm meets egg - aborting via contraception).  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.  There's also a lot of grey area in between (usually where the argument is) because there's no clear flip of a switch where we can go 'That's a human' or 'That's not'.

[I'm a red panda]

  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.

Almost none of the 20- and 24- week bans take into account health of the fetus.

So why is it OK to remove a baby from life support and allow them to die, and not OK to remove a non-viable fetus from the life support of the womb? But instead force a mother to carry the child until they are born to allow them to die?

Politicians who think they know better than doctors have personally ruined my life. I will never ever ever forgive the state of Iowa.

[Davnasty]

  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.

Almost none of the 20- and 24- week bans take into account health of the fetus.

So why is it OK to remove a baby from life support and allow them to die, and not OK to remove a non-viable fetus from the life support of the womb? But instead force a mother to carry the child until they are born to allow them to die?

Politicians who think they know better than doctors have personally ruined my life. I will never ever ever forgive the state of Iowa.

I get emotional about the subject and the ignorance that surrounds it and I've never even had to deal with it personally. I'm sorry iowajes.

[GuitarStv]

  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.

Almost none of the 20- and 24- week bans take into account health of the fetus.

So why is it OK to remove a baby from life support and allow them to die, and not OK to remove a non-viable fetus from the life support of the womb? But instead force a mother to carry the child until they are born to allow them to die?

Politicians who think they know better than doctors have personally ruined my life. I will never ever ever forgive the state of Iowa.

I was thinking/talking about perfectly healthy/complication free pregnancies.  My apologies.  There are certainly special cases where it does make sense to allow late stage abortions.

[partgypsy]

I am not going to argue when does an zygote, embryo and fetus become a baby, but no I do not agree that someone who is pro choice is a "baby killer". A person who is pro choice may never have an abortion. They simply support the rights of females to have or not have a legal abortion, and that decision is between the woman and their doctor. It is a personal medical decision. None of your business! It is illegal everywhere to have an abortion of a fetus which can survive on it's own, so the whole argument of "baby killer" is specious. It really boils down to believing whether women have rights over their own body, or not. It's that simple. Religious arguments are not relevant in this case because there is separation of church and state, and the government is not forcing anyone to have abortions.

I remember having a conversation with an older African American pastor, and talking about children, etc. He relayed he was with his wife, and the struggles she had during pregnancy, and unlike the first child, was present during the 2nd labor. He said, "I was always adamantly pro-life. Life is sacred. But after seeing what she went through, I understand it is the women's choice whether she chooses to bear a child or not. It is not for us men to decide." I never made any mention of my views. But his acknowledgement made me feel incredibly grateful. I am a women, who has never had an abortion but has had two children. So all the men out there who are pro-life, I am 2 better than you because you will never bear a child, and I've bore and been through labor twice, and yes it is not your right to tell me what to do with my body.

[partgypsy]

  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.

Almost none of the 20- and 24- week bans take into account health of the fetus.

So why is it OK to remove a baby from life support and allow them to die, and not OK to remove a non-viable fetus from the life support of the womb? But instead force a mother to carry the child until they are born to allow them to die?

Politicians who think they know better than doctors have personally ruined my life. I will never ever ever forgive the state of Iowa.

This is a good point. Before Roe vs Wade, my MIL had an IUD and got pregnant. The fetus was not viable (tangled up in IUD). However as it was before Roe versus Wade, she could not get an abortion. She had to carry a non-viable fetus until her health was  in danger, and then it was "delivered". Obviously a lot more traumatic thing to go through than an early term abortion. This is just one of many scenarios that will happen if this decision is put in the hands of politicians versus the woman and her doctor.

[J Boogie]

So all the men out there who are pro-life, I am 2 better than you because you will never bear a child

This is a strange thing to say. I don't think the functions of one's gender makes them better than someone else who lacks those functions. I imagine you probably don't consider yourself better than barren women too, but the logic of your argument would include them.

Apologies if english is your second language and you did not mean it in the way that it reads.

[I'm a red panda]

  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.

Almost none of the 20- and 24- week bans take into account health of the fetus.

So why is it OK to remove a baby from life support and allow them to die, and not OK to remove a non-viable fetus from the life support of the womb? But instead force a mother to carry the child until they are born to allow them to die?

Politicians who think they know better than doctors have personally ruined my life. I will never ever ever forgive the state of Iowa.

I was thinking/talking about perfectly healthy/complication free pregnancies.  My apologies.  There are certainly special cases where it does make sense to allow late stage abortions.

Most everyone only thinks of unwanted pregnancies when they think of abortions.  I've even had people say "those cases are so rare that we can't consider them" to justify legislation preventing termination in cases like mine (we did not know there was anything wrong with the baby until 25 weeks. After consultation with specialists we found he had about a 5% chance of surviving labor, and a 0% chance of surviving to a year. If he was the "miracle baby" everyone tells you about, as a reason to not allow medical termination, and did survive, his life would have been tragic.

So, if you are pro-choice- please, never ever ever listen to "by 20 weeks women have had enough time to make up their mind". It is not just about not wanting babies.


(Oh- and late term abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester is not performed by ripping a baby limb from limb. The vast majority, unless there is a medical complication that prevents it, are vaginal deliveries of intact babies. The baby is given a shot to stop their heart before the induction is started, and the provider verifies the heart is stopped. Many women who terminate late for medical reasons are given the opportunity to hold their babies, which should more appropriately be termed fetuses.)


Note that in third trimester, there really isn't such thing as a termination for the health of the mother- at that point the baby can just be delivered, and if the baby is healthy have decent outcomes. Health of the mother is an issue in second trimester.

[Cromacster]

One statistic I've always found curious about states in the southeast/gulf states.  They tend to have low/lower abortion rates, but also have some of the highest infant death rates in the US.  No idea if there is correlation, but it's interesting.

Alabama Abortion Rate: 9 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 (rank 29)
Alabama Infant Death rate: 8.7 per 1,000 live births (rank 50)

Mississippi Abortion Rate: 4 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 (rank 44 or lowest among states that record this data)
Mississippi Infant Death rate: 8.2 per 1,000 live births (rank 49)

National Abortion Rate: 12 per 1,000 women aged 15-44
National Infant Death Rate: 6.1 per 1,000

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/infant_mortality_rates/infant_mortality.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortion-rate/
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/infantmortality.htm

[hoping2retire35]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

So it is non-human?

What about a fetus makes it ok to kill(refraining from 'murder' to keep things more academic less moral) but not a baby? Passing thorough the birth canal; exposure to fresh air (for the c-section babies)? Enlighten me?

There is no ignorance; it is the cornerstone of the argument.

I didn't argue at all that a fetus isn't human.  I argued that it isn't a baby.

A baby is a very young child, newly or recently born.  A fetus is an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

When you call someone who supports abortion a 'baby killer' you are lying - either through ignorance (as I assumed) or as a conscious attempt to manipulate the reaction of others by using the wrong term.  (You're also lying because someone who supports abortion doesn't necessarily kill fetuses . . . that's typically left to medical professionals, but we can just chalk that up to yet another false equivalence.)

As to your unrelated deflection question . . . my personal inclination would be to classify a fetus as somewhere between human and non-human.  At the earliest stages, a fetus is little more than a collection of cells starting to arrange themselves - no organs, nervous system, effectively no brain.  Typically people aren't as emotional about abortion at this stage (even less so before sperm meets egg - aborting via contraception-(WHAT, so female periods, and teenage boys...those count in your mind???).  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.  There's also a lot of grey area in between (usually where the argument is) because there's no clear flip of a switch where we can go 'That's a human' or 'That's not'.

second bold; Guilt by association. "I support the holocaust, but I don't work at the camp." "I support the genocide, but I don't carry a machete." No, we all bear responsibility for the actions of those we support.

last bold; what is it about viability makes someone have value? Preemies, disabled people; I think they have value.

first bold; So you are ok killing some people?

I get it, it is a tough decision. A woman has to temporarily give up some liberties in order to bring a child through labor. Is that worth killing another person over?

Lots of emotion, I probably should think of some less emotional example, just trying to make the point. To me it boils down to the above argument. What makes a person? To be honest, you are correct we do not know. Considering we are talking about potential death of another human being let us go with safest possibility. The loss of a life out weighs the loss of some of another's temporary liberty.

[Gin1984]

  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.

Almost none of the 20- and 24- week bans take into account health of the fetus.

So why is it OK to remove a baby from life support and allow them to die, and not OK to remove a non-viable fetus from the life support of the womb? But instead force a mother to carry the child until they are born to allow them to die?

Politicians who think they know better than doctors have personally ruined my life. I will never ever ever forgive the state of Iowa.

I was thinking/talking about perfectly healthy/complication free pregnancies.  My apologies.  There are certainly special cases where it does make sense to allow late stage abortions.

Those are not "special cases" but the majority of cases.

[jrhampt]

I find the above argument, that women should be required to give up their liberty temporarily in order that a fetus might survive, somewhat comparable to trying to legally mandate that each person donate, say, a kidney in order that people with stage 4 ckd might live. 

[partgypsy]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

So it is non-human?

What about a fetus makes it ok to kill(refraining from 'murder' to keep things more academic less moral) but not a baby? Passing thorough the birth canal; exposure to fresh air (for the c-section babies)? Enlighten me?

There is no ignorance; it is the cornerstone of the argument.

I didn't argue at all that a fetus isn't human.  I argued that it isn't a baby.

A baby is a very young child, newly or recently born.  A fetus is an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

When you call someone who supports abortion a 'baby killer' you are lying - either through ignorance (as I assumed) or as a conscious attempt to manipulate the reaction of others by using the wrong term.  (You're also lying because someone who supports abortion doesn't necessarily kill fetuses . . . that's typically left to medical professionals, but we can just chalk that up to yet another false equivalence.)

As to your unrelated deflection question . . . my personal inclination would be to classify a fetus as somewhere between human and non-human.  At the earliest stages, a fetus is little more than a collection of cells starting to arrange themselves - no organs, nervous system, effectively no brain.  Typically people aren't as emotional about abortion at this stage (even less so before sperm meets egg - aborting via contraception-WHAT, so female periods, and teenage boys...those count in your mind???).  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.  There's also a lot of grey area in between (usually where the argument is) because there's no clear flip of a switch where we can go 'That's a human' or 'That's not'.

second bold; Guilt by association. "I support the holocaust, but I don't work at the camp." "I support the genocide, but I don't carry a machete." No, we all bear responsibility for the actions of those we support.

last bold; what is it about viability makes someone have value? Preemies, disabled people; I think they have value.

first bold; So you are ok killing some people?

I get it, it is a tough decision. A woman has to temporarily give up some liberties in order to bring a child through labor. Is that worth killing another person over?

Lots of emotion, I probably should think of some less emotional example, just trying to make the point. To me it boils down to the above argument. What makes a person? To be honest, you are correct we do not know. Considering we are talking about potential death of another human being let us go with safest possibility. The loss of a life out weighs the loss of some of another's temporary liberty.

Hoping to retire. You are again making specious arguments. Pro choice means that it is not in the realm of politics for politicians to decide this. It is something personal and medical between the woman and the doctor. In fact, people who are pro-life often cause more suffering of life. They close down planned parenthood clinics, and other clinics where women get STD testing and prenatal care. So by their very politics, they make even planned pregnancies more unsafe for both the fetus and the mother. How is that pro-life? So for me if you are pro-life, you are pro restriction of reproductive care for females.

Preemies and disabled people ARE viable. They have both been born. Unless there is some addendum to Roe vs Wade that says it's OK to put to death preemies and disabled people I'm not aware of.

OK killing some people. Again we disagree that an embryo or fetus is a "person". Legally speaking they are not. They do not have the same rights. As far as killing some people, I assume you are also against the death penalty, correct?

Your definition of a person (I am assuming you believe it begins at conception) is a religious and personal one, not a scientific or legal one. 

You will have to understand, me as a female, reading threads started by men who are never going to be in a position of being accidently pregnant, calling for policies that essentially try to control women's bodies (who often happen to be the same people who try to restrict or eliminate sex education, access to birth control and eliminate funding for clinics where women get care for their women bits) does rub me the wrong way. Maybe in the same way that someone who is ardently pro-gun, feels about someone trying to restrict their gun rights. 

Oh yes, if you are pro-life, you must be pro-gun regulation right? I mean the only purpose of guns are to shoot and kill things, I guess that goes without saying. 

[asiljoy]

  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.

Almost none of the 20- and 24- week bans take into account health of the fetus.

So why is it OK to remove a baby from life support and allow them to die, and not OK to remove a non-viable fetus from the life support of the womb? But instead force a mother to carry the child until they are born to allow them to die?

Politicians who think they know better than doctors have personally ruined my life. I will never ever ever forgive the state of Iowa.

I was thinking/talking about perfectly healthy/complication free pregnancies.  My apologies.  There are certainly special cases where it does make sense to allow late stage abortions.

Those are not "special cases" but the majority of cases.

^^^^ This ^^^^^

[Gin1984]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

So it is non-human?

What about a fetus makes it ok to kill(refraining from 'murder' to keep things more academic less moral) but not a baby? Passing thorough the birth canal; exposure to fresh air (for the c-section babies)? Enlighten me?

There is no ignorance; it is the cornerstone of the argument.

I didn't argue at all that a fetus isn't human.  I argued that it isn't a baby.

A baby is a very young child, newly or recently born.  A fetus is an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

When you call someone who supports abortion a 'baby killer' you are lying - either through ignorance (as I assumed) or as a conscious attempt to manipulate the reaction of others by using the wrong term.  (You're also lying because someone who supports abortion doesn't necessarily kill fetuses . . . that's typically left to medical professionals, but we can just chalk that up to yet another false equivalence.)

As to your unrelated deflection question . . . my personal inclination would be to classify a fetus as somewhere between human and non-human.  At the earliest stages, a fetus is little more than a collection of cells starting to arrange themselves - no organs, nervous system, effectively no brain.  Typically people aren't as emotional about abortion at this stage (even less so before sperm meets egg - aborting via contraception-WHAT, so female periods, and teenage boys...those count in your mind???).  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.  There's also a lot of grey area in between (usually where the argument is) because there's no clear flip of a switch where we can go 'That's a human' or 'That's not'.

second bold; Guilt by association. "I support the holocaust, but I don't work at the camp." "I support the genocide, but I don't carry a machete." No, we all bear responsibility for the actions of those we support.

last bold; what is it about viability makes someone have value? Preemies, disabled people; I think they have value.

first bold; So you are ok killing some people?

I get it, it is a tough decision. A woman has to temporarily give up some liberties in order to bring a child through labor. Is that worth killing another person over?

Lots of emotion, I probably should think of some less emotional example, just trying to make the point. To me it boils down to the above argument. What makes a person? To be honest, you are correct we do not know. Considering we are talking about potential death of another human being let us go with safest possibility. The loss of a life out weighs the loss of some of another's temporary liberty.

Women DIE because of pregnancy.  In fact, the more restrictions on a woman's autonomy, the higher rate of maternal death.  Second, in NO other case am I or any other person required to give up ANY autonomy to keep someone alive, not blood, marrow, or organ.  And trust me, from giving birth twice, none of those are less physically traumatizing than pregnancy and birth, and my first pregnancy was an easy one. 

[partgypsy]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

So it is non-human?

What about a fetus makes it ok to kill(refraining from 'murder' to keep things more academic less moral) but not a baby? Passing thorough the birth canal; exposure to fresh air (for the c-section babies)? Enlighten me?

There is no ignorance; it is the cornerstone of the argument.

I didn't argue at all that a fetus isn't human.  I argued that it isn't a baby.

A baby is a very young child, newly or recently born.  A fetus is an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

When you call someone who supports abortion a 'baby killer' you are lying - either through ignorance (as I assumed) or as a conscious attempt to manipulate the reaction of others by using the wrong term.  (You're also lying because someone who supports abortion doesn't necessarily kill fetuses . . . that's typically left to medical professionals, but we can just chalk that up to yet another false equivalence.)

As to your unrelated deflection question . . . my personal inclination would be to classify a fetus as somewhere between human and non-human.  At the earliest stages, a fetus is little more than a collection of cells starting to arrange themselves - no organs, nervous system, effectively no brain.  Typically people aren't as emotional about abortion at this stage (even less so before sperm meets egg - aborting via contraception-WHAT, so female periods, and teenage boys...those count in your mind???).  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.  There's also a lot of grey area in between (usually where the argument is) because there's no clear flip of a switch where we can go 'That's a human' or 'That's not'.

second bold; Guilt by association. "I support the holocaust, but I don't work at the camp." "I support the genocide, but I don't carry a machete." No, we all bear responsibility for the actions of those we support.

last bold; what is it about viability makes someone have value? Preemies, disabled people; I think they have value.

first bold; So you are ok killing some people?

I get it, it is a tough decision. A woman has to temporarily give up some liberties in order to bring a child through labor. Is that worth killing another person over?

Lots of emotion, I probably should think of some less emotional example, just trying to make the point. To me it boils down to the above argument. What makes a person? To be honest, you are correct we do not know. Considering we are talking about potential death of another human being let us go with safest possibility. The loss of a life out weighs the loss of some of another's temporary liberty.

Women DIE because of pregnancy.  In fact, the more restrictions on a woman's autonomy, the higher rate of maternal death.  Second, in NO other case am I or any other person required to give up ANY autonomy to keep someone alive, not blood, marrow, or organ.  And trust me, from giving birth twice, none of those are less physically traumatizing than pregnancy and birth, and my first pregnancy was an easy one.

Yes, and it's not a temporary limitation. Physically bearing a child permanently changes your body. As stated before you can develop complications or die from being pregnant and/or going through  labor. Oftentimes women (or teenagers) who decide to give birth to give it up for adoption, cannot at that point give up the child, thus changing their life permanently. This is not a trivial decision.

[GuitarStv]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

So it is non-human?

What about a fetus makes it ok to kill(refraining from 'murder' to keep things more academic less moral) but not a baby? Passing thorough the birth canal; exposure to fresh air (for the c-section babies)? Enlighten me?

There is no ignorance; it is the cornerstone of the argument.

I didn't argue at all that a fetus isn't human.  I argued that it isn't a baby.

A baby is a very young child, newly or recently born.  A fetus is an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

When you call someone who supports abortion a 'baby killer' you are lying - either through ignorance (as I assumed) or as a conscious attempt to manipulate the reaction of others by using the wrong term.  (You're also lying because someone who supports abortion doesn't necessarily kill fetuses . . . that's typically left to medical professionals, but we can just chalk that up to yet another false equivalence.)

As to your unrelated deflection question . . . my personal inclination would be to classify a fetus as somewhere between human and non-human.  At the earliest stages, a fetus is little more than a collection of cells starting to arrange themselves - no organs, nervous system, effectively no brain.  Typically people aren't as emotional about abortion at this stage (even less so before sperm meets egg - aborting via contraception-WHAT, so female periods, and teenage boys...those count in your mind???).  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.  There's also a lot of grey area in between (usually where the argument is) because there's no clear flip of a switch where we can go 'That's a human' or 'That's not'.

second bold; Guilt by association. "I support the holocaust, but I don't work at the camp." "I support the genocide, but I don't carry a machete." No, we all bear responsibility for the actions of those we support.

Just to be clear . . . supporting an abortion in the case mentioned by iowajes is the same as committing genocide in your eyes?

last bold; what is it about viability makes someone have value? Preemies, disabled people; I think they have value.

What about sperm?  Or unfertilized eggs?  They have value too . . . as a matter of fact, it's the same potential value that a fetus or a baby has.  What is it about viability that makes you want to protect a fetus but not sperm and eggs?  Or do you collect every sperm for future use when you masturbate?

first bold; So you are ok killing some people?

I want to be able to end my own life if I end up in extreme pain due to illness when I get older, so . . . yeah.  Absolutely.  I'm completely fine with killing a fetus that will not survive childbirth.  I'm also OK with pulling the plug on a brain dead patient in a hospital who has no real chance of resuscitation.

Life isn't always the glorious gift that your religion has brainwashed you into believing.

I get it, it is a tough decision. A woman has to temporarily give up some liberties in order to bring a child through labor. Is that worth killing another person over?

We've already had people in this thread report very valid reasons to terminate a pregnancy.  Reasons that had nothing to do with 'temporarily giving up some liberties'.

Lots of emotion, I probably should think of some less emotional example, just trying to make the point. To me it boils down to the above argument. What makes a person? To be honest, you are correct we do not know. Considering we are talking about potential death of another human being let us go with safest possibility. The loss of a life out weighs the loss of some of another's temporary liberty.

Ha.  Yeah.  You've used the terms 'baby killer' to refer to someone who supports the right to access to an abortion.  Then you compared these people to workers in a nazi concentration camp, and folks who are eager for genocide.  I wonder why this has been an emotional discussion . . .

Personally, I think that people who are completely against abortion should be required to raise all of the children that they 'save'.  You've already said that losing temporary liberty is OK with you.  This way you can put your liberty where you say others should.   Of course, you should also be responsible for disposing of the bodies of the children who were going to be aborted because of terminal illnesses and incurable diseases.

[hoping2retire35]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

So it is non-human?

What about a fetus makes it ok to kill(refraining from 'murder' to keep things more academic less moral) but not a baby? Passing thorough the birth canal; exposure to fresh air (for the c-section babies)? Enlighten me?

There is no ignorance; it is the cornerstone of the argument.

I didn't argue at all that a fetus isn't human.  I argued that it isn't a baby.

A baby is a very young child, newly or recently born.  A fetus is an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

When you call someone who supports abortion a 'baby killer' you are lying - either through ignorance (as I assumed) or as a conscious attempt to manipulate the reaction of others by using the wrong term.  (You're also lying because someone who supports abortion doesn't necessarily kill fetuses . . . that's typically left to medical professionals, but we can just chalk that up to yet another false equivalence.)

As to your unrelated deflection question . . . my personal inclination would be to classify a fetus as somewhere between human and non-human.  At the earliest stages, a fetus is little more than a collection of cells starting to arrange themselves - no organs, nervous system, effectively no brain.  Typically people aren't as emotional about abortion at this stage (even less so before sperm meets egg - aborting via contraception-WHAT, so female periods, and teenage boys...those count in your mind???).  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.  There's also a lot of grey area in between (usually where the argument is) because there's no clear flip of a switch where we can go 'That's a human' or 'That's not'.

second bold; Guilt by association. "I support the holocaust, but I don't work at the camp." "I support the genocide, but I don't carry a machete." No, we all bear responsibility for the actions of those we support.

last bold; what is it about viability makes someone have value? Preemies, disabled people; I think they have value.

first bold; So you are ok killing some people?

I get it, it is a tough decision. A woman has to temporarily give up some liberties in order to bring a child through labor. Is that worth killing another person over?

Lots of emotion, I probably should think of some less emotional example, just trying to make the point. To me it boils down to the above argument. What makes a person? To be honest, you are correct we do not know. Considering we are talking about potential death of another human being let us go with safest possibility. The loss of a life out weighs the loss of some of another's temporary liberty.

Hoping to retire. You are again making specious arguments-may as well have called me a liar, very specious of you.... Pro choice means that it is not in the realm of politics for politicians to decide this. It is something personal and medical between the woman and the doctor. -this is why we have government, to intervene when someone's rights have been trampled and there is no simple way to remedy the injustice)In fact, people who are pro-life often cause more suffering of life. They close down planned parenthood clinics, and other clinics where women get STD testing and prenatal care. So by their very politics, they make even planned pregnancies more unsafe for both the fetus and the mother. How is that pro-life? So for me if you are pro-life, you are pro restriction of reproductive care for femalesspecious argument.

Preemies and disabled people ARE viable-because they are out of the womb and require intense care to be kept alive, not just 'natural', breastfeeding, cleanliness,etc. They have both been born(so, as I asked before what about fresh air(being "born") makes someone 'human'. Unless there is some addendum to Roe vs Wade that says it's OK to put to death preemies and disabled people I'm not aware of.

OK killing some people. Again we disagree that an embryo or fetus is a "person"(this is semantics). Legally(we are discussing the potential legal or illegality of the situation. tomorrow you statement could read "legally speaking they are human." see) speaking they are not. They do not have the same rights. As far as killing some people, I assume you are also against the death penalty, correct? nothing to do with the point, but yes

Your definition of a person (I am assuming you believe it begins at conception) is a religious and personal one, not a scientific or legal one. false, it is one of ignorance that no of us know, when life begins, what makes a person...since the gravity of killing (murdering another human is so great the best thing is to assume the most ( no pun intended) conservative viewpoint)

You will have to understand, me as a female, reading threads started by men who are never going to be in a position to be accidently pregnant, calling for policies that essentially try to control women's bodies (who often happen to be the same people who try to restrict or eliminate sex education, access to birth control and eliminate funding for clinics where women get care for their women bits) does rub me the wrong way. Maybe in the same way that someone who is ardently pro-gun, feels about someone trying to restrict their rights to owning guns. I am sorry you feel that way. I think all laws that concern our fundamental rights should be universal no matter our background or how we were born.

Oh yes, if you are pro-life, you must be pro-gun regulation right? I mean the only purpose of guns are to shoot and kill things, I guess that goes without saying. ( I am pro- life, liberty, etc), I also went hunting this weekend;)

part gypsy's bolds are my counters

fixing typos....

[hoping2retire35]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

So it is non-human?

What about a fetus makes it ok to kill(refraining from 'murder' to keep things more academic less moral) but not a baby? Passing thorough the birth canal; exposure to fresh air (for the c-section babies)? Enlighten me?

There is no ignorance; it is the cornerstone of the argument.

I didn't argue at all that a fetus isn't human.  I argued that it isn't a baby.

A baby is a very young child, newly or recently born.  A fetus is an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

When you call someone who supports abortion a 'baby killer' you are lying - either through ignorance (as I assumed) or as a conscious attempt to manipulate the reaction of others by using the wrong term.  (You're also lying because someone who supports abortion doesn't necessarily kill fetuses . . . that's typically left to medical professionals, but we can just chalk that up to yet another false equivalence.)

As to your unrelated deflection question . . . my personal inclination would be to classify a fetus as somewhere between human and non-human.  At the earliest stages, a fetus is little more than a collection of cells starting to arrange themselves - no organs, nervous system, effectively no brain.  Typically people aren't as emotional about abortion at this stage (even less so before sperm meets egg - aborting via contraception-WHAT, so female periods, and teenage boys...those count in your mind???).  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.  There's also a lot of grey area in between (usually where the argument is) because there's no clear flip of a switch where we can go 'That's a human' or 'That's not'.

second bold; Guilt by association. "I support the holocaust, but I don't work at the camp." "I support the genocide, but I don't carry a machete." No, we all bear responsibility for the actions of those we support.

last bold; what is it about viability makes someone have value? Preemies, disabled people; I think they have value.

first bold; So you are ok killing some people?

I get it, it is a tough decision. A woman has to temporarily give up some liberties in order to bring a child through labor. Is that worth killing another person over?

Lots of emotion, I probably should think of some less emotional example, just trying to make the point. To me it boils down to the above argument. What makes a person? To be honest, you are correct we do not know. Considering we are talking about potential death of another human being let us go with safest possibility. The loss of a life out weighs the loss of some of another's temporary liberty.

Women DIE because of pregnancy.  In fact, the more restrictions on a woman's autonomy, the higher rate of maternal death.  Second, in NO other case am I or any other person required to give up ANY autonomy to keep someone alive, not blood, marrow, or organ.  And trust me, from giving birth twice, none of those are less physically traumatizing than pregnancy and birth, and my first pregnancy was an easy one.

Just to be clear I am not saying anyone should have to give up their life for another. That is self defense 101.

Saying a miracle will happen or whatever is a personal decision and has no place in politics.

[wenchsenior]

Maybe if I accepted the conceptual parallel between abortion (which is a decision based on individual context and situation of the woman) and genocide (which is premeditated mass murder with the goal to wipe out an entire group because of a particular ideology), then maybe I would feel more turmoil about it.  But I don't remotely accept them as equivalent.

I just think the rights of the woman who has to physically create, bear, and then potentially support and rear the potential person take precedence over those of a fetus.  And in the titular example, the killing of an in utero person is in my opinion dramatically less evil than allowing a child molester to run loose and create suffering among people that already exist. 


I recognize a lot of people struggle with this, and I can kind of see why, but I don't really 'feel' why.  I also don't pretend to have a particularly coherent moral code that drives my position. I think most people who think they live by consistent moral codes are fooling themselves.

However, I freely admit I'm somewhat of an outlier in that I tend to approach 'value' of humanity with a biologist's eye first.  Objectively, on a world teeming with people who are by their very existence creating suffering for and destroying countless other species, not to mention destroying the systems that have sustained their own species' survival, there is a cold blooded argument to made that no individual human life should be valued above, e.g., that of any individual of a highly endangered species.   And  no potential human life that isn't already in existence should have any value at all compared with the people already in existence, particularly given the suffering of many existing humans due to resource shortages.

In practice, of course, I am not that cold blooded.  I assume my instinct would be to save a baby that was lying in the road about to be hit by a car before I'd save a baby [insert random severely endangered species], but that's because of instinctive emotional hard wiring, rather than any particular consistent moral code.   

All of these moral conundrums exist on scales of gray in my opinion.

Do you 'all abortion is murder' types also reject the death penalty? Most I've talked to support the death penalty, which seems strange to me. 

Can the abortion-is-murder people honestly say they value the life a already-existing, starving child of a different nationality, race, AND religion (e.g., black Muslim kid in some African country) as much as the life of starving kid of their own race and religion who lives next door to them?  If they can, they are vanishingly rare. Or lying to themselves.  We're wired to value our own 'tribe' more than other tribes.  And our own 'group' of 100 or so close associates more than other groups within our broader tribe. And our own friends and/or family more than other members of our group. 

I was a preemie, and probably should not have survived.  Personally, I'm glad I did survive of course; we all have an intrinsic desire to live.  However, I don't think I have any particular objective intrinsic 'value' just because I'm human. 

Anyway, these moral discussions are interesting, if not very consistent or logical. 

[jrhampt]

Women DIE because of pregnancy.  In fact, the more restrictions on a woman's autonomy, the higher rate of maternal death.  Second, in NO other case am I or any other person required to give up ANY autonomy to keep someone alive, not blood, marrow, or organ.  And trust me, from giving birth twice, none of those are less physically traumatizing than pregnancy and birth, and my first pregnancy was an easy one.

Exactly.  How appalled would you be if the government mandated that you donate an organ to save someone else's life?

[GuitarStv]

Women DIE because of pregnancy.  In fact, the more restrictions on a woman's autonomy, the higher rate of maternal death.  Second, in NO other case am I or any other person required to give up ANY autonomy to keep someone alive, not blood, marrow, or organ.  And trust me, from giving birth twice, none of those are less physically traumatizing than pregnancy and birth, and my first pregnancy was an easy one.

Exactly.  How appalled would you be if the government mandated that you donate an organ to save someone else's life?

"The loss of a life out weighs the loss of some of another's temporary liberty." - So, hoping2retire35 would be completely OK with that, assuming it's a lung or kidney.

He also donates all of his money to charities around the world.  Y'know . . . because otherwise he would be a giant fucking hypocrite retiring at 35 while the loss of his retirement fund could prevent people from starving in Africa.  The loss of life outweighs the loss of another's temporary liberty of course.  It's probably why he's so anti-firearms as well.  If it can save even a single life, what's a curtailment of liberty.

[hoping2retire35]

Women DIE because of pregnancy.  In fact, the more restrictions on a woman's autonomy, the higher rate of maternal death.  Second, in NO other case am I or any other person required to give up ANY autonomy to keep someone alive, not blood, marrow, or organ.  And trust me, from giving birth twice, none of those are less physically traumatizing than pregnancy and birth, and my first pregnancy was an easy one.

Exactly.  How appalled would you be if the government mandated that you donate an organ to save someone else's life?

I don't see how these are equivalent. Nor can I begin to build a logical paradigm to show how they are not.

[DarkandStormy]

There's a DJT tweet for every situation.

[Gin1984]

Women DIE because of pregnancy.  In fact, the more restrictions on a woman's autonomy, the higher rate of maternal death.  Second, in NO other case am I or any other person required to give up ANY autonomy to keep someone alive, not blood, marrow, or organ.  And trust me, from giving birth twice, none of those are less physically traumatizing than pregnancy and birth, and my first pregnancy was an easy one.

Exactly.  How appalled would you be if the government mandated that you donate an organ to save someone else's life?

I don't see how these are equivalent. Nor can I begin to build a logical paradigm to show how they are not.

You are saying a woman should have her body used to keep another alive, against her will, yet in no other circumstances is a person forced to have their body used to keep another alive even though things like blood donation, bone marrow and portion of organs do keep people alive.  All without killing or permanently damaging, much, the donor.  The damage to my body would be less to donate any of the above then either of my pregnancies/birth, with the exception of the organ and even that is debatable.  And again, one of my pregnancies was very easy.  So, they are not equivalent, pregnancy is worse but they both are about autonomy.

[partgypsy]

"Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. [...] These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment".
Blackmun, Stevens O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, 1992.