The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[jamil]

I would like to see how this debate would metamorphose were it to become possible to diagnose gay or transgender tendencies prenatally and people began aborting those children because of it

I suspect progressives would blow a gasket

I suspect it would violate the Book of DEI.

 

[jamil]

Biden is going all in on limitless abortion because polling has told his handlers that that is essentially the only thing the electorate favors him over Trump to handle

I think it will be pretty sweet for the left to find out the hard way that no limits on murdering your unborn children will NOT outweigh inflation and the economy and the invasion at the border as well as limiting choices for cars, stoves, furnaces etc - except with the bitter middle-aged wine women demographic. For all their faults, somehow I doubt the Islamists he is courting so desperately are particularly in favor of abortion or in fact any women's rights

It's the Democrats only play. But it's a big and effective play.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No one charged the unborn with a crime.

In your scenario the child is executed for no crime, not even an accusation. No matter how s/he came to be, s/he is innocent. Only in lawless societies is it permitted, encouraged, and celebrated for the innocent to be killed for no crime.

 

[BugI02]

Their 'crime' is that they're inconvenient for the mother, as is birth control apparently

 

[jamil]

In your scenario the child is executed for no crime, not even an accusation. No matter how s/he came to be, s/he is innocent. Only in lawless societies is it permitted, encouraged, and celebrated for the innocent to be killed for no crime.

"Executed" is a bit hyperbolic isn't it? I mean, we've gone from murdered to executed here in just a few posts.

I'll say this though. That case was too perfect. I'm curious about the timing. She was 6 months pregnant for crying out loud. Why did it take so long? The mom certainly knew she was pregnant. Seems like there were some curious circumstances around this. The perfect scenario to turn people sour on Republicans just happens to fall in their laps. And she's 6 months pregnant when she takes the emergency trip to Indiana.

 

[jamil]

Their 'crime' is that they're inconvenient for the mother, as is birth control apparently

...who happens to be 10 years old, and didn't ask to be ****ed by her mom's boyfriend or whatever.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Okay. Then let’s make sure I understand. You’re saying that what makes it immoral, or more immoral, to kill humans than lesser beings, is the apex factor, for lack of a better term.

Yes, I think you've got it.

I did give you mine, BTW. The short version of why it’s less moral to kill humans than other creatures is self preservation. I’ve said that murder is pretty universally immoral. Doesn’t matter what civilization across history. That notion runs throughout humanity for a reason.

Okay, thanks for laying that out, I'd missed it before. I think our starting premises may be close enough that I'd be fine using either one as a starting point for a discussion. In fact, your premise may even be a better starting point, because as you pointed out, if we ever discovered an alien species far more advanced than humanity, then suddenly humans aren't the highest life form any more, and any set of morals based on my proposed premise would fall apart.

One question: by self-preservation, I assume you mean preservation of the entire species, not just an individual's instinct to preserve their own, individual life, correct?

So if that’s your rationale, is there a threshold of how great humans have to be to deserve the special moral treatment? Or is it purely based on being the apex species?

These are precisely the questions that I start to ask, and the eventual conclusion I come to is that there is no concrete, logical line to draw. Every human being exists on a spectrum. A mentally handicapped two-year-old; a prodigal genius at the prime of his life; that same prodigal genius when he is 90 years old and suffering from dementia; someone in a coma; someone asleep; etc. Where on that spectrum can you point to a non-arbitrary line which divides those humans whom it is moral to kill (without any justification such as a crime they have committed, etc.) vs those whom it is immoral to kill?

I think we can go down the exact same road if we start with your premise. What is the threshold of how important an individual human has to be for the survival of the species in order to deserve special moral treatment? An 80-year-old woman long past the age of child bearing isn't exactly crucial to humanity continuing to propagate. So if we are making self-preservation our criteria, why would you believe it is immoral to kill her?

Ultimately this is my argument: Unless a line can be drawn that is logically consistent, non-arbitrary, and does not clearly conflict with universal human sensibilities (yes, I do agree with you to some degree on that bit) then you must either define every single individual human as a person, or you will find yourself with an untenable set of morals.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Alright, this is a majorly screwed up, and highly emotionally charged situation, but I'll do my best to dive in and give my honest answers without flinching.

For those who are on the abortion is always murder side. If the 10 year old gets an abortion after being raped, she willingly takes the abortion drugs (it's my understanding the Ohio girl was given these drugs in Indiana) did she commit murder?

Yes.

If so, what penalty should she face?

Imagine she had delivered a newborn baby, and her mother and a "doctor" had both handed here a bottle of milk and said, here, feed this to the baby and it will make the baby die. That's the moral equivalent, in my mind.

Start with whatever penalty should be given in that hypothetical situation, and then consider as a mitigating factor that in the actual real-life situation she had never seen her baby, had almost certainly been brainwashed by those around her telling her over and over that it's not really a baby, and then lessen the penalty accordingly.

In my opinion, I tend to be on the more lenient side. In either situation above, whether it's my hypothetical involving a newborn, or the real-life scenario, if I'm the grand arbiter who gets to decide everything, I'm going to say that a 10-year-old girl who is raped then pressured by her mother and "doctor" to kill her child is in need of a new home, some serious love and care, and probably a great deal of psychological help as well, and administering any sort of punishment to her is not going to do a whit of good for either her or society. Those who pressured her to commit the act of murder should be held more responsible. I just don't honestly think that a 10-year-old in that horrendous situation can be held fully responsible for her actions.

I'd like you to make your beliefs understandable to me. Maybe it is not understandable within my worldview. Give it a shot.

How far along was she? I think you said later on that she was six months pregnant.

What is your worldview on this? A while ago you posted a picture of a newly conceived zygote, and then a baby at something like 20 weeks, and said something to the effect that in your worldview the former was not necessarily immoral to kill, but the latter, being a human that could feel pain, dream, suck his/her thumb, and even survive outside the womb with the proper care, was different.

So I don't know that it's really a difference in worldview. A little bit ago we were both agreeing that it is immoral to kill a 6-months-gestation baby. The difference isn't in our morals, but in whether or not we are willing to bend our morals or carve out exceptions when faced with tough situations.

This was a very tough situation: a 10-year-old girl raped by her mother's boyfriend, who is now 6 months pregnant. But I have to ask, even in this awful scenario, is it too far removed from your worldview to at least consider the baby in the equation? I believe not. So if we're going to ask how we can do the least harm possible, would it really have been so awful to just do a C-section and try as best as possible to save the baby's life? There are so many couples waiting in line right now to adopt newborn babies, it's almost guaranteed that he/she would find a decent home. Going though a C-section isn't nothing, especially for a 10-year-old, but in this country, with our medical technology, the risk of irreversible harm or death is near zero. So is that harm really so awful that it can be counted a better option to end the life of a baby that can feel pain, kick, practice breathing, and possibly already recognize sounds from outside the womb?

 

[jamil]

Was just thinking about the divide and how there's really no common ground to be had. You pretty much either think abortion is literally murder or you don't. The nation can't really come together at all on this, but we do have a mechanism to handle this, but I'm not sure either side can agree to it completely. It's nothing new. We all know about it. Federalism.

Let the states who have a majority "is murder" electorate ban abortion completely. And then let the states who have a majority of whatever, they get to set their laws according to their constituents wishes. Yeah, if you live in red states, you'll have to travel to another state to get one. If you live in a blue or purple state you'll have to put up with what you think is murder. Or move.

But you ain't gonna do it. Because you can't abide another state violating YOUR principles.

"But it's murder!" says the reds, "we can't let murder go on in those states over there. We have to impose our morals on them."

"But muh choice!" says the blues, "we can't let those fascists take away women's choice in those states over there. We have to impose our morals on them!"

Trump is actually right in this. Leave it to the states. But we can't have nice things like federalism where people mind their states' own business, especially when there are morals to impose on the enemy.

AMax, I'll read your post later. Looks at first glance like you put a lot of thought into it, and I want take my time. Which I don't have now because I wrote this.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Alright, this is a majorly screwed up, and highly emotionally charged situation, but I'll do my best to dive in and give my honest answers without flinching.

Yes.

Imagine she had delivered a newborn baby, and her mother and a "doctor" had both handed here a bottle of milk and said, here, feed this to the baby and it will make the baby die. That's the moral equivalent, in my mind.

Start with whatever penalty should be given in that hypothetical situation, and then consider as a mitigating factor that in the actual real-life situation she had never seen her baby, had almost certainly been brainwashed by those around her telling her over and over that it's not really a baby, and then lessen the penalty accordingly.

In my opinion, I tend to be on the more lenient side. In either situation above, whether it's my hypothetical involving a newborn, or the real-life scenario, if I'm the grand arbiter who gets to decide everything, I'm going to say that a 10-year-old girl who is raped then pressured by her mother and "doctor" to kill her child is in need of a new home, some serious love and care, and probably a great deal of psychological help as well, and administering any sort of punishment to her is not going to do a whit of good for either her or society. Those who pressured her to commit the act of murder should be held more responsible. I just don't honestly think that a 10-year-old in that horrendous situation can be held fully responsible for her actions.

How far along was she? I think you said later on that she was six months pregnant.

What is your worldview on this? A while ago you posted a picture of a newly conceived zygote, and then a baby at something like 20 weeks, and said something to the effect that in your worldview the former was not necessarily immoral to kill, but the latter, being a human that could feel pain, dream, suck his/her thumb, and even survive outside the womb with the proper care, was different.

So I don't know that it's really a difference in worldview. A little bit ago we were both agreeing that it is immoral to kill a 6-months-gestation baby. The difference isn't in our morals, but in whether or not we are willing to bend our morals or carve out exceptions when faced with tough situations.

This was a very tough situation: a 10-year-old girl raped by her mother's boyfriend, who is now 6 months pregnant. But I have to ask, even in this awful scenario, is it too far removed from your worldview to at least consider the baby in the equation? I believe not. So if we're going to ask how we can do the least harm possible, would it really have been so awful to just do a C-section and try as best as possible to save the baby's life? There are so many couples waiting in line right now to adopt newborn babies, it's almost guaranteed that he/she would find a decent home. Going though a C-section isn't nothing, especially for a 10-year-old, but in this country, with our medical technology, the risk of irreversible harm or death is near zero. So is that harm really so awful that it can be counted a better option to end the life of a baby that can feel pain, kick, practice breathing, and possibly already recognize sounds from outside the womb?

I appreciate the effort and thoughtfulness you put into your posts, they always give me something new to think about.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Was just thinking about the divide and how there's really no common ground to be had. You pretty much either think abortion is literally murder or you don't. The nation can't really come together at all on this, but we do have a mechanism to handle this, but I'm not sure either side can agree to it completely. It's nothing new. We all know about it. Federalism.

Let the states who have a majority "is murder" electorate ban abortion completely. And then let the states who have a majority of whatever, they get to set their laws according to their constituents wishes. Yeah, if you live in red states, you'll have to travel to another state to get one. If you live in a blue or purple state you'll have to put up with what you think is murder. Or move.

But you ain't gonna do it. Because you can't abide another state violating YOUR principles.

"But it's murder!" says the reds, "we can't let murder go on in those states over there. We have to impose our morals on them."

"But muh choice!" says the blues, "we can't let those fascists take away women's choice in those states over there. We have to impose our morals on them!"

Trump is actually right in this. Leave it to the states. But we can't have nice things like federalism where people mind their states' own business, especially when there are morals to impose on the enemy.

AMax, I'll read your post later. Looks at first glance like you put a lot of thought into it, and I want take my time. Which I don't have now because I wrote this.

I agree with every point you made here.

 

[jamil]

I agree with every point you made here.

 

[jamil]

Yes, I think you've got it.

Okay, thanks for laying that out, I'd missed it before. I think our starting premises may be close enough that I'd be fine using either one as a starting point for a discussion. In fact, your premise may even be a better starting point, because as you pointed out, if we ever discovered an alien species far more advanced than humanity, then suddenly humans aren't the highest life form any more, and any set of morals based on my proposed premise would fall apart.

Humans have the capacity to conceptualize morality. If there's a far advanced civilization out there on the outer rim, to them it would probably be immoral to kill their type. But not ours. However, self-preservation still works. So I don't think we have to be the apex species to say it's immoral for our species to murder each other. But, in terms of self-preservation, whether preserving members of our group, or ourselves, idunno. Maybe we don't mind murdering them any more than we mind murdering bacon. Who knows. Maybe they taste like bacon.

One question: by self-preservation, I assume you mean preservation of the entire species, not just an individual's instinct to preserve their own, individual life, correct?

Both. Humans are social. We tend to socialize in groups. And we're also individuals. Much of our morality is based on groups. But also on individuals within the group. We have in groups and out groups. Even though we have pretty universal moral reasoning against murder, killing individuals or groups is often justified because they're the other. Tribes of people would face punishment if murdering people in their own tribes. They thought nothing of attacking other villages and murdering/maiming/raping/pillaging others. It was for the benefit of the tribe, so killing was justified.

Murderers who have a conscience and aren't just in a rage, often justify killing someone by "othering" them.

These are precisely the questions that I start to ask, and the eventual conclusion I come to is that there is no concrete, logical line to draw. Every human being exists on a spectrum. A mentally handicapped two-year-old; a prodigal genius at the prime of his life; that same prodigal genius when he is 90 years old and suffering from dementia; someone in a coma; someone asleep; etc. Where on that spectrum can you point to a non-arbitrary line which divides those humans whom it is moral to kill (without any justification such as a crime they have committed, etc.) vs those whom it is immoral to kill?

Well, I answered a little of this above. I think a logically consistent answer is that it is immoral to kill when it is unjust. The problem is defining unjust objectively. A lot of it is cultural. I made the point some time ago that even cannibals have rules against murder (unjust killing of a human). Some cannibals eat flesh and organs of other humans because they believed it would endow themselves with the same good characteristics of the...uh...meal. A lot of it was ritual.

I think we can go down the exact same road if we start with your premise. What is the threshold of how important an individual human has to be for the survival of the species in order to deserve special moral treatment? An 80-year-old woman long past the age of child bearing isn't exactly crucial to humanity continuing to propagate. So if we are making self-preservation our criteria, why would you believe it is immoral to kill her?

The point was about why would we put humans at the top of the moral framework to make us especially immoral to kill. My answer is self-preservation. Both group and individual. And we're applying the golden rule here, which I've said before is probably a root moral from which other morals flow. Don't kill people. Don't steal from people. Don't lie about people. Don't cheat on your spouse. Ans so on.

So from that standpoint, along with self-preservation, it seems self-evident that we should not kill people, even old people, without a good reason.

Ultimately this is my argument: Unless a line can be drawn that is logically consistent, non-arbitrary, and does not clearly conflict with universal human sensibilities (yes, I do agree with you to some degree on that bit) then you must either define every single individual human as a person, or you will find yourself with an untenable set of morals.

I don't mind defining every individual as a human, but do the same morals apply to this:



as this:



This is what I've been asking. Why does the former have the exact morality attached as the latter, to the point that one would say laws against murder, where the same penalties attach, should be equally applied to both. This is the crux which makes it very difficult for 2/3's of society to accept.

I don't see how, without a worldview that includes a belief in the concept of a soul, that they'd both be morally equivalent.

 

[Twangbanger]

...This was a very tough situation: a 10-year-old girl raped by her mother's boyfriend, who is now 6 months pregnant. But I have to ask, even in this awful scenario, is it too far removed from your worldview to at least consider the baby in the equation? I believe not. So if we're going to ask how we can do the least harm possible, would it really have been so awful to just do a C-section and try as best as possible to save the baby's life? There are so many couples waiting in line right now to adopt newborn babies, it's almost guaranteed that he/she would find a decent home. Going though a C-section isn't nothing, especially for a 10-year-old, but in this country, with our medical technology, the risk of irreversible harm or death is near zero. So is that harm really so awful that it can be counted a better option to end the life of a baby that can feel pain, kick, practice breathing, and possibly already recognize sounds from outside the womb?

If the "Legal Rights at Fertilization" movement is going to recommend cutting a baby out of a 10 year-old rape victim to award it to a childless couple, that's an own-goal worthy of Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock. "Do we give her a piece of leather to chew on?" The Handmaid's Tale commercials practically write themselves. The GOP would have a Huck Finn raft of sh.t coming their way.

That the LRF movement can't see this, is proof of the bubble chamber they live in. Because up until the 2022 midterms, they thought they were winning. They were openly telling each other stuff like, "I think the ultrasound pictures are winning people over." They thought the Pro Life Generation was here. They actually thought they could win on this. When the reality of 2022 set in...then Kansas, then Kentucky, then Ohio...the sense of shock was palpable.

The GOP FA. And they're FO.

 

[jamil]

Alright, this is a majorly screwed up, and highly emotionally charged situation, but I'll do my best to dive in and give my honest answers without flinching.

Yes.

I suspected that. Is there any consideration for the predicament and immature judgement of a 10 year old? At 10, even in today's ****ed up world, kids barely even know much about where babies come from.

Imagine she had delivered a newborn baby, and her mother and a "doctor" had both handed here a bottle of milk and said, here, feed this to the baby and it will make the baby die. That's the moral equivalent, in my mind.

I am not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if the girl, thinking that milk would kill the baby, gives the baby milk and it killed it, that's the moral equivalent of murder?

How do you feel about the idea of pre-crime then?

Start with whatever penalty should be given in that hypothetical situation, and then consider as a mitigating factor that in the actual real-life situation she had never seen her baby, had almost certainly been brainwashed by those around her telling her over and over that it's not really a baby, and then lessen the penalty accordingly.

She was allegedly almost 6 months pregnant (25 weeks). I can only imagine what they told her. But I doubt she fully understood. In your zeal to avenge the child, are you forgetting the plight of a 10 year old girl who didn’t ask for any of this?

If I were on that jury, I’d acquit. Having to endure all that is orders of magnitude more punishment than she could possibly deserve. A conviction would be a travesty of justice.

In my opinion, I tend to be on the more lenient side.

Does INGO have a jaw drop emoji? I'm only partly kidding. If that little girl is as guilty of murder as if she kill her baby after birth, I really don't know what to say about that. There are some extraordinary circumstances that put her in that place, that was none of her fault. And she's being advised by people who are probably not qualified. How the **** did a 10 year old end up 25 weeks pregnant without someone noticing! How did they let it get that far? If anyone were charged with the murder of the unborn (and I'm not calling that murder) it would be the rapist and the mother.

Other advisers, like the social workers and whomever were involved with this case, had political motives. Because like I said, that’s a choicer’s slam dunk. I’m not sure they played that game in the best interest of the child.

In either situation above, whether it's my hypothetical involving a newborn, or the real-life scenario, if I'm the grand arbiter who gets to decide everything, I'm going to say that a 10-year-old girl who is raped then pressured by her mother and "doctor" to kill her child is in need of a new home, some serious love and care, and probably a great deal of psychological help as well, and administering any sort of punishment to her is not going to do a whit of good for either her or society. Those who pressured her to commit the act of murder should be held more responsible. I just don't honestly think that a 10-year-old in that horrendous situation can be held fully responsible for her actions.

But you said yes, guilty of murder. And then you said, but mitigate the penalties because of the circumstances. And now you sound like you don’t think she should have any penalties. I think as you go over her situation, empathy is pushing away the thoughts of condemnation. Let those without guilt cast the first stone. That’s compassion. A fruit of the spirit.

If you’re right about the whole “god”
thing, on judgement day God will decide her guilt. And the mom. And the doctors and activists ****s.

How far along was she? I think you said later on that she was six months pregnant.

25 weeks is what one of the articles anout it that I read. Which is just under 6 months.

What is your worldview on this? A while ago you posted a picture of a newly conceived zygote, and then a baby at something like 20 weeks, and said something to the effect that in your worldview the former was not necessarily immoral to kill, but the latter, being a human that could feel pain, dream, suck his/her thumb, and even survive outside the womb with the proper care, was different.

My own worldview is that all life is special except for the ***damn bluebird that keeps ****ting on my truck. It’s extraordinary irresponsible to **** without thought about potentially creating a life. So there’s a moral responsibility there. But I would not call that murder.

I also think it’s immoral to cause undue pain. So I’m good with making abortion illegal after first trimester. I’ve seen conflicting research around this but there seems to be a consensus that perceiving pain is possible around 15 weeks. So first trimester is a little earlier but close enough.

But, about letting it go until 25 weeks, whomever is responsible for letting it get that far is either negligent or malicious. Idunno. Maybe she’s really large for a 10 year old and they legitimately did not notice. Whatever the case she’s not responsible for it. The adults in her life failed her.

So I don't know that it's really a difference in worldview. A little bit ago we were both agreeing that it is immoral to kill a 6-months-gestation baby. The difference isn't in our morals, but in whether or not we are willing to bend our morals or carve out exceptions when faced with tough situations.

This was a very tough situation: a 10-year-old girl raped by her mother's boyfriend, who is now 6 months pregnant. But I have to ask, even in this awful scenario, is it too far removed from your worldview to at least consider the baby in the equation?

I am. They’re both thrust into a situation not of their choosing. No matter if abortion or carrying to term, she’s got a lot of suffering going on. And worse if she has to carry it to term. The unborn child didn’t ask for any of this either. It’s a scale of harm. Either way. But to me the priority is the one who is breathing, thinking, feeling.

I believe not. So if we're going to ask how we can do the least harm possible, would it really have been so awful to just do a C-section and try as best as possible to save the baby's life? There are so many couples waiting in line right now to adopt newborn babies, it's almost guaranteed that he/she would find a decent home. Going though a C-section isn't nothing, especially for a 10-year-old, but in this country, with our medical technology, the risk of irreversible harm or death is near zero. So is that harm really so awful that it can be counted a better option to end the life of a baby that can feel pain, kick, practice breathing, and possibly already recognize sounds from outside the womb?

Like you said, it’s just a tough situation. The kind of philosophical situations you read about in ethics textbooks. In fact it’s so perfect, it almost seems contrived.

That’s obviously the better option for the unborn if we didn’t give due consideration to the girl in all this. The unborn was a victim of the rape too. It did not ask to be conceived. And never had the opportunity to contemplate it. And won’t. It’s now as if he or she hadn’t.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I don't mind defining every individual as a human, but do the same morals apply to this:

View attachment 348518

as this:

View attachment 348519

This is what I've been asking. Why does the former have the exact morality attached as the latter, to the point that one would say laws against murder, where the same penalties attach, should be equally applied to both. This is the crux which makes it very difficult for 2/3's of society to accept.

I don't see how, without a worldview that includes a belief in the concept of a soul, that they'd both be morally equivalent.

This is the part of your worldview that I'm trying to understand: Do you or do you not believe in equal rights for every human person? Because it seems to me that the point you keep driving at is that, without the concept of a soul, human rights have to exist on a spectrum, and human slowly gain rights as they develop more of their human traits.

What I don't understand is why you only apply this concept to babies in the womb? Do human persons also start to lose some of their rights as they lose their mental faculties? Or their ability to perceive pain? Like, what if I replace your two pictures and say:

I don't mind defining every individual as a human, but do the same morals apply to this:

as this:

This is what I've been asking. Why does the former have the exact morality attached as the latter, to the point that one would say laws against murder, where the same penalties attach, should be equally applied to both?

I don't see how, without a worldview that includes a belief in the concept of a soul, that they'd both be morally equivalent.

How would you answer that?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

If the "Legal Rights at Fertilization" movement is going to recommend cutting a baby out of a 10 year-old rape victim to award it to a childless couple, that's an own-goal worthy of Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock. "Do we give her a piece of leather to chew on?" The Handmaid's Tale commercials practically write themselves. The GOP would have a Huck Finn raft of sh.t coming their way.

That the LRF movement can't see this, is proof of the bubble chamber they live in. Because up until the 2022 midterms, they thought they were winning. They were openly telling each other stuff like, "I think the ultrasound pictures are winning people over." They thought the Pro Life Generation was here. They actually thought they could win on this. When the reality of 2022 set in...then Kansas, then Kentucky, then Ohio...the sense of shock was palpable.

The GOP FA. And they're FO.

I don't have any illusions. I don't believe for a moment that my position has any widespread political support.

What's your point, though? I'm not going to back down from these beliefs for political reasons. It's not happening.

If you want to say that I need to recognize that "Life at Conception no matter what" is politically non-viable right now, and that I may need to be willing to vote for candidates who are the best possible option right now, even when they don't 100% align with my beliefs, then, yes, I readily admit that.

But if you ask me about my true beliefs regarding this unfortunate situation, I'm not going to lie about it.

Let me ask you this: Why is it that if someone wants to cut the baby out of a 10-year-old's body, but they're sure to dismember or poison the baby first to make sure its dead, that's the compassionate and merciful thing to do; but if I suggest that maybe we cut the baby out in such a way that lets both the baby and the mother live, suddenly it's the most horrible, evil thing ever?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I suspected that. Is there any consideration for the predicament and immature judgement of a 10 year old? At 10, even in today's ****ed up world, kids barely even know much about where babies come from.

Yes.

I am not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if the girl, thinking that milk would kill the baby, gives the baby milk and it killed it, that's the moral equivalent of murder?

How do you feel about the idea of pre-crime then?

Okay, sorry, I didn't lay out the hypothetical very well at all. In my hypothetical, I meant that the bottle of milk was poisoned, and that the "doctor"/mother/social worker or whoever else was involved in pressuring her was telling her to feed the poisoned milk to the baby so the baby would die. Only they wouldn't use the word "baby" or "die", just like they don't use those words when talking about an unborn child. They would probably say something more like "This milk has special medicine that will make the organism that came out of you stop breathing, so that we can make it go away, and you won't have to be traumatized any more."

She was allegedly almost 6 months pregnant (25 weeks). I can only imagine what they told her. But I doubt she fully understood. In your zeal to avenge the child, are you forgetting the plight of a 10 year old girl who didn’t ask for any of this?

If I were on that jury, I’d acquit. Having to endure all that is orders of magnitude more punishment than she could possibly deserve. A conviction would be a travesty of justice.



Does INGO have a jaw drop emoji? I'm only partly kidding. If that little girl is as guilty of murder as if she kill her baby after birth, I really don't know what to say about that. There are some extraordinary circumstances that put her in that place, that was none of her fault. And she's being advised by people who are probably not qualified. How the **** did a 10 year old end up 25 weeks pregnant without someone noticing! How did they let it get that far? If anyone were charged with the murder of the unborn (and I'm not calling that murder) it would be the rapist and the mother.

Other advisers, like the social workers and whomever were involved with this case, had political motives. Because like I said, that’s a choicer’s slam dunk. I’m not sure they played that game in the best interest of the child.


But you said yes, guilty of murder. And then you said, but mitigate the penalties because of the circumstances. And now you sound like you don’t think she should have any penalties. I think as you go over her situation, empathy is pushing away the thoughts of condemnation. Let those without guilt cast the first stone. That’s compassion. A fruit of the spirit.

If you’re right about the whole “god”
thing, on judgement day God will decide her guilt. And the mom. And the doctors and activists ****s.

I think I must have done a very poor job of laying out my position.

What I'm trying to say is this: Objectively, by my definition of murder, yes, she did commit murder. If we define murder as the "unjustified, intentional killing of a human person", then this case fits that definition. Because in my book, any human being is a person, a human being at 6 months gestation was certainly killed here, and it was certainly intentional, and unless someone can prove that the baby committed a crime, it was also unjustified.

Now, ought she to be convicted of murder under the law? And if so, what should the penalty be? In my mind, those are separate questions. Sometimes there is a difference between what someone objectively did, versus how culpable they were for their own actions.

At the end of the day, you're right, I believe that God will decide guilt and administer punishment on judgement day. So, in a sense, I really don't believe in punishment, period. I believe that penalties administered under the law should never be punitive, and their sole purpose should be to protect society by discouraging recidivism, or locking up the perpetrator so they physically can't commit another crime.

Yes, I tend to be swayed emotionally a lot, and even someone like me has a different emotional reaction to the thought of a 6-months-gestation baby being killed than a newborn. That's why I posed, mostly for my own sake, the hypothetical of the girl being pressured by her mother and "doctor" to poison her newborn infant. And I reached the same conclusion: Objectively, morally, it was an act of murder she committed. But given her traumatic situation, there's no reasonable way to conclude that the fault really lies with her. So from society's point of view, she should be given help, not punishment.

25 weeks is what one of the articles anout it that I read. Which is just under 6 months.



My own worldview is that all life is special except for the ***damn bluebird that keeps ****ting on my truck. It’s extraordinary irresponsible to **** without thought about potentially creating a life. So there’s a moral responsibility there. But I would not call that murder.

I also think it’s immoral to cause undue pain. So I’m good with making abortion illegal after first trimester. I’ve seen conflicting research around this but there seems to be a consensus that perceiving pain is possible around 15 weeks. So first trimester is a little earlier but close enough.

But, about letting it go until 25 weeks, whomever is responsible for letting it get that far is either negligent or malicious. Idunno. Maybe she’s really large for a 10 year old and they legitimately did not notice. Whatever the case she’s not responsible for it. The adults in her life failed her.

"But, about letting it go until 25 weeks, whomever is responsible for letting it get that far is either negligent or malicious. Idunno. Maybe she’s really large for a 10 year old and they legitimately did not notice. Whatever the case she’s not responsible for it. The adults in her life failed her."

This I agree with.

I am. They’re both thrust into a situation not of their choosing. No matter if abortion or carrying to term, she’s got a lot of suffering going on. And worse if she has to carry it to term. The unborn child didn’t ask for any of this either. It’s a scale of harm. Either way. But to me the priority is the one who is breathing, thinking, feeling.


Like you said, it’s just a tough situation. The kind of philosophical situations you read about in ethics textbooks. In fact it’s so perfect, it almost seems contrived.

That’s obviously the better option for the unborn if we didn’t give due consideration to the girl in all this. The unborn was a victim of the rape too. It did not ask to be conceived. And never had the opportunity to contemplate it. And won’t. It’s now as if he or she hadn’t.

"But to me the priority is the one who is breathing, thinking, feeling."

The "one" who is breathing, thinking, feeling?

Well, I suppose the unborn child can't be literally breathing, because there's no air in the womb, but at 25 weeks, there is certainly feeling going on, and also some level of thinking, and even simulated "breathing", as the unborn child starts to stretch his/her lungs and practice breathing in the amniotic fluid.

This all drives at my above question regarding your concept of human rights. Because when it comes to the unborn, you seem to see those rights as existing on a spectrum that slowly moves the needle closer and closer to "personhood" the further along the baby gets. What I don't understand is why there would be a switch that suddenly flips as soon as the baby is outside the womb, and suddenly everybody's rights are equal.

Does a newborn baby have a significantly or qualitatively higher ability to think and contemplate his/her own existence than a 6-months-gestation baby does? A grown woman, or even a 10-year-old woman certainly has a higher ability to think/feel/reason than a newborn, so does a newborn have less moral value than an adult?

This is the part of your worldview that I don't get: If a 6-months-gestation baby has less moral "value" then a 10-year-old, shouldn't a newborn baby, then, too? Or a 2-year-old baby have less moral "value" than an adult? Or a mentally handicapped person less than one of sound mind?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"Executed" is a bit hyperbolic isn't it? I mean, we've gone from murdered to executed here in just a few posts.

Not at all. A crime was committed, in all likelihood. The only person punished for it was the only absolutely innocent person. We execute people for certain crimes. The person that died for it was either murdered or executed.

I guess, if an execution is unjustified, it should be considered a murder…so maybe you do have a point.

 

[KLB]

What I don't understand is why you only apply this concept to babies in the womb? Do human persons also start to lose some of their rights as they lose their mental faculties? Or their ability to perceive pain? Like, what if I replace your two pictures and say:

Yes they do lose their rights as they lose their facilities.