The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[jamil]

Yes.

The fetus.

This is the crux. As you said, it centers around "personhood".

Yes, otherwise killing someone in a coma wouldn't be harm, either.

That's not true. Do we know the person's brain can't perceive anything? Do we know the person will never regain consciousness? If there is really zero possibility of ever even thinking again, what harm is done by pulling the plug? Of course families hope. It's tragic. If there's any chance of enough brain activity to regain thinking again, yeah, that's harm. If not, it's just perceived hope an the cost of keeping the person technically alive. But who wants to make that call for a loved one? Truly tragic.

Because that's the only concrete point at which we can define a human life as beginning.

Why does that logically necessitate that this is the point at which we say it's a person? Again, understand that this discussion is about whether this is objectively true or not. Is this person hood state of being objectively true at the point of conception?

Also, while we're at it, I keep forgetting what the term is that you want to use. For me, human life=human person=someone with the same rights as anyone else. I think you said that you believe a human life begins at conception, but that life doesn't become a person until later on, is that correct? So maybe I need to phrase it that conception is the only concrete point at which we can define a human person as beginning. It makes no difference to me which way you phrase it; does it to you?

At the point where distinct DNA forms, it is technically human DNA, and it "be" so it's a "be-ing". So I'd agree that at that point it is human being. Person is really more than that I think. A set of attributes that make the fact that it has human rights apparent. At the point where it becomes distinct DNA, is that the point? It's been my contention that for people who believe in souls it is apparent compared with people who don't.

And this is the crux of my argument: taking some human lives*, and defining them as not human persons* is in itself harmful to society. One of the main reasons slavery was able to hang on so long was because long after humanity had mostly come to realize that enslaving other people is wrong, some clever folks decided to try to skirt this by claiming, oh, but even though blacks are humans, they're not really persons.

It's not for the same reason or purpose. I don't disagree with the bit about slavery, that people justified their actions by trying to reason that black people were not fully persons. So their belief was that there was no potential for black people ever to be fully persons. The contention here is that the point in which distinct DNA is formed will develop into a person, fully. It's not the sort of "othering" that was done to justify enslaving black people.

If you allow for the possibility of defining some humans as not being persons, that opens to door to anything.

If there's no point other than justifying an excuse to harm other humans, you have a point.

(*Again, if I'm using the wrong terminology here for you, let me know. Here I am using "human life" to mean any living organism that is a homo sapiens", and "human person" to mean a being that has all the rights we ascribe to "normal" human beings, like the right to life, etc.)

I don't really have a problem with that other than that to make sure we understand that it's not the rights that make the person. It's the person that makes the rights.

The trouble is every time I bring this up, you keep going back to "but, abortion has been practiced so much throughout history, so it can't be objectively immoral."

Nope! This is the point I've said a few different ways at last a half-dozen times. Whatever you think I mean by that, I don't think you're getting it quite right. I'm using it like this. At most I can say that you don't have a strong signal of its objective morality evidenced by it's universality. It doesn't mean that you're actually right or wrong.

But again I have to stress the importance of the moral objective principles we do agree on, and whether they apply to abortion. I think that I'd agree that abortion is wrong (and not necessarily murder) at the point where the unborn can perceive pain. I don't know when that is exactly. I'm not a scientist. But I do know its wrong to harm others, and feeling pain is harm. And we've already dealt with the harm argument.

That's the notion I'm trying to dispel by using the slavery analogy. As you said above with slavery "It's not so much that not enslaving people IS the objective moral. It's just the logical concrete application of moral principles makes it apparent."

I'll turn that back to you and say: It's not so much that not aborting children IS the objective moral. It's just the logical concrete application of moral principles makes it apparent.

So of course we're back at the million dollar question: what is this logical, concrete application of moral principles that I'm speaking of?

Well, the moral principle we start from, and both agree on, is "Don't murder."

What is murder? Intentionally killing an innocent person. I think we agree on that.

So let's talk about an intentional abortion. It's definitely killing, I think we agree on that as well. Innocent would be pretty hard to dispute, I would think.

The point of disagreement is on how we define "person."

Well, yeah, this is the crux we've been going on about. I'd just say I think murder is the unjustified killing of another person. But it's close enough not to quibble. The crux of the disagreement is still "person".

My contention; the very core of my argument, is that person must be defined as any living human: any living organism classified as homo sapiens. Any other definition that I have ever heard someone give is either a tautology, internally inconsistent, or it excludes certain people outside the womb who we ought to also consider human persons.

I don't agree that that must be the only definition. You've used the slavery argument to say they defined person in a way that justifies their belief. I can say that claiming this has to be the only definition might suit your belief.

But browsing the interwebz, many definitions list attributes beyond just being live while having human DNA.

So, to counter my above claim, can you provide your own definition of "person"?

For the purposes of morality, I think a minimum requirement would be that it can perceive pain. It's immoral to unjustly inflict pain on another living creature.

Here's a thought. If it's immoral to end living tissue that has distinct DNA, does it have to be human? What makes it more immoral for humans than any other tissue with distinct DNA?

The answer may reveal some things.

 

[jamil]

Ultimately, yes, the mother should get the same jail time as any other convicted murdered. If you want to get more specific, I would say a mother who gets an abortion should received the same sentence as a mother who kills her newborn child, as those two things are just about exactly the same from a moral perspective.

The reason I allow for a carve out, which again I must emphasize should be only a temporary measure, is simply as a consequence of abortion having become so deeply ingrained in our culture. So, for instance, if I lived in a culture where infanticide had been largely accepted for almost the entirety of living memory, I would similarly think it reasonable to provide temporarily lighter penalties than other types of murder once infanticide were made illegal. You do have to give the wider culture time to adjust their moral compasses back to where they should be, and trying to use harsh penalties as a cudgel to make it happen instantly can backfire.

Yes, abortion practitioners are serial killers. Kermit Gosnel, who practiced abortion by snipping babies' spines when they were mostly, or sometimes all the way, born, was literally convicted of being a serial killer under the laws of this country. That was the only difference; a few seconds and a few inches. If he had just been quicker with his scissors and got them all before they came fully out of the birth canal, he would've been 100% legal. Instead, he got a murder conviction. His case only went to trial because there were employees who took pictures and testified as to what he was doing. I have to wonder how many other times things like this went on but the evidence simply never came to light. Heck, a few years ago CMP got videos of prominent abortionists bragging about how they try to pull babies out as intact as possible in order to preserve organs for research. And did anything ever come of that? Oh yes, something did come of it, the people taking the videos were charged with violating the abortionists' privacy.

Sorry, I'm starting to go a bit down the emotional track here. I know you don't support those sorts of extremes. Anyways, to get back on point, yes, objectively speaking, I believe that if our laws were just, every abortion practitioner should be convicted of being a serial killer.

But I don't support the death penalty, even for serial killers. I realize this is something of a radical position to take, but perhaps we should save debating on that until we've reach some kind of stopping point for our debate about abortion.

I think that view is pretty far outside of Overton's Window, just like on the other side of it, Gosnel was far enough outside of Overton's Window he actually was convicted. To mainstream people, people who perform abortions are just medical practitioners. There's a joke in there but it's probably in poor taste even for me.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I think that view is pretty far outside of Overton's Window, just like on the other side of it, Gosnel was far enough outside of Overton's Window he actually was convicted. To mainstream people, people who perform abortions are just medical practitioners. There's a joke in there but it's probably in poor taste even for me.

I don't disagree with any of this.

 

[BugI02]

BTW, whether you agree with his positions on the issue or not, everyone should be thanking @jamil for his well-thought out discourse.

I don't write that much without charging for it.

How much to have jamil use less words?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Okay, so if you don't mind, I'll skip to the last bit, since I think it's the most crucial. If I missed any important points prior to this that I needed to address/answer, let me know.

Also, to keep the context, since I have trouble keeping tack of that with so many replies going on, everything I am quoting from your below is a response to my request for you to provide your own definition of "person".

For the purposes of morality, I think a minimum requirement would be that it can perceive pain. It's immoral to unjustly inflict pain on another living creature.

Okay, so when you say "minimum requirement" you're saying that's the baseline, right? I'm pretty sure I'm either misreading this, or you misspoke, because the way I read this it means a human being who was born with a condition that caused all their nociceptors to not work, and thus could never feel pain, is not a person.

Here's a thought. If it's immoral to end living tissue that has distinct DNA, does it have to be human? What makes it more immoral for humans than any other tissue with distinct DNA?

The answer may reveal some things.

"What makes it more immoral for humans than any other tissue with distinct DNA?"

Because homo sapiens is the only discovered species with the ability to think rationally. My terms may not be very technically precise here, but I'm trying to talk colloquially. Yes, other life forms can express some very limited amount of logic, but homo sapiens has an extremely clear, qualitative difference in the sorts of things we can express, understand, and experience. It takes our species to a level that no other life forms comes even close to approaching.

The trouble is, we cannot use this reason to construe that only homo sapiens who have fully reached their potential should count. Literally every single homo sapiens will go through at least one temporary stage of their life where they have realized very little of their ultimate potential. Some even in adulthood may not reach the same level of intelligence that a 40-weeks gestation baby has, but that doesn't change their intrinsic nature as humans.

"Here's a thought. If it's immoral to end living tissue that has distinct DNA, does it have to be human?"

Hypothetically, the answer is no, it doesn't have to be human. If we discover an alien species that has the same capacity for rational thought as humans, they would count as persons, too, in my book.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Because homo sapiens is the only discovered species with the ability to think rationally. My terms may not be very technically precise here, but I'm trying to talk colloquially. Yes, other life forms can express some very limited amount of logic, but homo sapiens has an extremely clear, qualitative difference in the sorts of things we can express, understand, and experience. It takes our species to a level that no other life forms comes even close to approaching.

Aw, man. Why do the homos have to get injected into everything these days??

 

[BugI02]

Okay, so let's get accurate. If you believe abortion is murder, what is a fair penalty for the mother? The practitioner? How would that work in the legal system? Would you want to create a special class of murder?

The practitioner would be the murderer in the first degree, as he/she knowingly wielded the instrumentation that ended a human life. In this scenario the 'mother' is an accessory to murder

In the case of chemically induced abortion, the 'mother' would scarcely be different than someone who poisoned or deliberately overdosed another human and would be charged accordingly

Viability and/or deformity/genetic mutations would be taken care of via prosecutorial discretion - something progressives seem to love them some of

 

[BugI02]

Who is that? I thought I was about the most anti-abortion guy on this board, except maybe Bug, but even I would vote for Trump again in a heartbeat (no pun intended.)

D'Accord

And my position on abortion is tempered by the old admonition about '... the art of the possible'. I would certainly support partial steps back from the brink as long as I believe more steps are possible (they don't have to be guaranteed)

One thing I don't see mentioned, that is occasionally on my mind, is that something like 25% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally without any intervention seeking that result. That many souls being ended barely started makes me wonder about how this reality fits within The Word and The Law. To my limited understanding it seems unnecessarily inefficient and I wonder what becomes of the souls

 

[BugI02]

I’ll get to this sometime this weekend. Too busy to out the time into it.

You could use fewer werds more concisely. Then it wouldn't take as long

 

[BugI02]

Here's another social construct which is morally wrong. Social canceling. Shunning isn't new. Social cancellation is shunning scaled up to societal level. It almost always involves character assassination through deception.

I hope someday discover all the morals it violates. But, to the progressives who started social cancellation, they say "traditional" morals are a tool of the white male patriarchy invented to oppress women, people of color, and LGBTQIA++++ people.

Social cancellation merely provides another valid premise for 'power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'

 

[Lucar186]

The pundits have blamed the red state losses during this recent election on their anti-abortion stance. If that is true, it looks like the majority of voters want abortion legal in all states. I'm not sure that this is the biggest issue that is on voters' minds, but I've been wrong before. Whatever, it looks like, as usual, Republicans don't know how to reach out to voters and get elected.

Or it might be that we ran loser candidates like Dr. Oz.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's true. But there are things that are near universally wrong that people recognize. Those are things we all agree on where our different world views don't collide. So what about the things we don't agree on? Progressives think that saying there are two genders is morally wrong. Well, that's like their opinion, man.

The question here. Is abortion literally murder? Beyond a certain point, yeah. I think it is. The main disagreement, unless one is an "up to birth" pro-abortion nutter, is the whole "from conception" thing. I can see why people who believe we have immortal souls would think that from the point of conception, abortion is murder. But then it's not true for people who don't believe in immortal souls. It's why we get caught up in the never ending "when is it a person" argument.

If there isn't an immortal soul, the fertilized egg develops into a person and isn't automatically one as soon as there is DNA distinct from the mother. I can't be sure of when, but I'd say certainly morality starts coming into play at least as soon as it can perceive pain. I don't see a secular reason before that why it's immoral prior.

But as I said, I'm not using just secular reasoning for my personal opinion. Which is, abortion is immoral at any point. I would not say to the point of calling it murder. But if we respect life and believe in personal responsibility, we don't **** around with life, casually. We should be serious and intentional about creating another life. Is that belief universally true? I dunno. Maybe someday after I'm long gone some wise person will convince everyone it is.

What is the definition of murder? As I understand it it is the intentional taking of a human life unjustifiably.

Is an unborn baby a human life? Yes. From the moment of conception.

When can one justifiably take a human life? Anywhere, do we allow people to take a human life based on the crimes of the father? The person’s age? Stage of development? No. Only with abortion.

Abortion is murder.

 

[DadSmith]

I'll add this.
Killing unwanted infants goes back thousands of years. When women didn't want a child they had it killed by the then abortion doctors aka Priests of molech.
Now they offer up their unwanted children to molech via abortion.
Humans haven't changed other than their methods of self centered worship aka idol worship.

 

[Tombs]

What is the definition of murder? As I understand it it is the intentional taking of a human life unjustifiably.

Is an unborn baby a human life? Yes. From the moment of conception.

When can one justifiably take a human life? Anywhere, do we allow people to take a human life based on the crimes of the father? The person’s age? Stage of development? No. Only with abortion.

Abortion is murder.

I would argue that exceptions do exist that make it permissible. When the mother's life is threatened, it would become an act of self defense, if the mother wanted to take that option.

This is why I think that is the best framework to find a morally sound allowance for abortion. I would also wager the majority of people in the country would be accepting of that standard.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I would argue that exceptions do exist that make it permissible. When the mother's life is threatened, it would become an act of self defense, if the mother wanted to take that option.

Of course. But rarely, approaching zero are abortions done because the mother’s life is in medical danger. Most, if not nearly all the time it’s done for retroactive birth control.

 

[Twangbanger]

If I kill a pregnant woman in a drunken car crash, can I be charged for the death of the fetus In some states? If so, that establishes rights to the fetus to not be killed without the state seeking punishment.

You missed my point. Here's what I said:

Twangbanger said:
We're talking about a RFRA case, and I'm establishing that Life at Fertilization (meaning a human being with legal rights) is a religious belief - not an established legal one, in any consistent manner, across the nation nor over time.


The fact the states can't agree on it, means that "Legal Rights Conferring Upon Existence of a Complete Set of Genetic Material" is not an established moral principle in America.

I'll add, for the benefit of some making a point about slavery, that abolishment of slavery is an established norm in America. That "point" was able to reach a state of universality, which "Legal Rights at Existence of a Complete Set of Genetic Material" has been unable to achieve.

 

[jamil]

How much to have jamil use less words?

$59.98. But, for a short time only, brevity is on sale for the low price of $29.99. And if you act now, we'll even throw in a jamil glossary of terms.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

$59.98. But, for a short time only, brevity is on sale for the low price of $29.99. And if you act now, we'll even throw in a jamil glossary of terms.

How much for the glossary of terms a la carte?

 

[Creedmoor]

$59.98. But, for a short time only, brevity is on sale for the low price of $29.99. And if you act now, we'll even throw in a jamil glossary of terms.

See, you had a Sig magazine and you settled for a Taurus errr Glock.

 

[jamil]

Okay, so if you don't mind, I'll skip to the last bit, since I think it's the most crucial. If I missed any important points prior to this that I needed to address/answer, let me know.

Also, to keep the context, since I have trouble keeping tack of that with so many replies going on, everything I am quoting from your below is a response to my request for you to provide your own definition of "person".

Okay, so when you say "minimum requirement" you're saying that's the baseline, right? I'm pretty sure I'm either misreading this, or you misspoke, because the way I read this it means a human being who was born with a condition that caused all their nociceptors to not work, and thus could never feel pain, is not a person.

C'mon man. In terms of being able to perceive pain. We don't know if a particular fetus will never be able to perceive pain. Regardless of whether it can or can't, it's of the type that can at a certain stage of development. Let's stick to reason here. The left image below is the stage at which you think it's murder. The right image, according to my google search, is about the earliest consensus at which it can percieve pain.



I think visualizing this, you'd likely get more people on board that would view abortions at the stage in the image on the right, than on the left.

"What makes it more immoral for humans than any other tissue with distinct DNA?"

Because homo sapiens is the only discovered species with the ability to think rationally. My terms may not be very technically precise here, but I'm trying to talk colloquially.

Colloquial is fine. No worries. As long as we get our points across.

Okay so the ability to think rationally is what makes it immoral to kill humans in the womb as apposed to any other creature? What's the rationale that makes thinking rationally makes it a moral issue then? And can I assume that if rationality is the basis for deeming abortion as immoral, would it be moral to go back and abort Biden voters?

Yes, other life forms can express some very limited amount of logic, but homo sapiens has an extremely clear, qualitative difference in the sorts of things we can express, understand, and experience. It takes our species to a level that no other life forms comes even close to approaching.

Okay, I think you've made a logical leap there. You'll need to explain why that makes it a moral issue for humans and not other critters.

And about rational thought. Some ****ing bird keeps ******** on my truck. I wash it off, and I see the ************ in a tree just cackling at me. Like he's mocking me. Telling me I'm just wasting my time. Because he'll just **** in the same place again. Every morning.

The trouble is, we cannot use this reason to construe that only homo sapiens who have fully reached their potential should count. Literally every single homo sapiens will go through at least one temporary stage of their life where they have realized very little of their ultimate potential. Some even in adulthood may not reach the same level of intelligence that a 40-weeks gestation baby has, but that doesn't change their intrinsic nature as humans.

"Here's a thought. If it's immoral to end living tissue that has distinct DNA, does it have to be human?"

Hypothetically, the answer is no, it doesn't have to be human. If we discover an alien species that has the same capacity for rational thought as humans, they would count as persons, too, in my book.

I dunno. I just want to rationalize why it's okay for me to kill that damn bird.