Total abortion ban proposed in Indiana

[HoughMade]

If you're anti-abortion, no it's not. If you're calling it murder, then under what circumstance is murder ok? Because someone else was harmed? I might add, the person being murdered, is innocent of the crime committed against that someone.

If the various politicos could get together to ban abortion with a rape exception, I'd take that right now even though I don't believe in killing the innocent under any circumstances. It's a step in the right direction. Anyone offering that?

 

[jamil]

From what I've seen, the use of a murder charge with the victim being a fetus is used when there is, for whatever reason, not enough evidence to prove the guilt of the person who in some way harmed the mother-to-be.

While that SHOULD mean that the accused was then freed, there are times we all know that someone is guilty, but they are not found so in court. OJ Simpson was one example. Not guilty is not the same thing as innocent.

The point at which life begins is the sticking point to all of this. We cannot say that someone has ended a life that has not begun, simply because something has to begin before it can end. Some religions (Catholicism, for one) define that point even before conception, and interfering with conception occurring is sinful in that view. Some say that life begins AT conception. Others say life begins at birth, while still others say the point at which life begins is when the fetus is capable of living outside the womb, which is to say, to breathe, to feed, etc. Each of these has good arguments in its favor and each has points by which it can be argued against. As long as that question remains one of opinion rather than objective fact, to call the termination of a pregnancy "murder" could include filing murder charges against a 16 year old kid who goes to the pharmacy to buy a pack of rubbers, as equally as the doctor performing the procedure, or the prospective father-to-be who does not want to be, and punches the prospective mother-to-be in the abdomen until she miscarries.

In the latter, a quick google tells me that, say 15 punches in the belly could constitute 15 different battery charges, which could quickly add up to 40-some-odd years as a guest of the state, and that doesn't include any charge involving death.

I take issue with the fact that under a total abortion ban, even if Roe was no longer on the table, the woman who miscarries, aka spontaneous abortion, would then have to somehow prove her innocence of violating this law, possibly even having to prove that she didn't consume alcohol or any other substance that induced the miscarriage. Yes, that's worst-case, but not, I think, as outlandish as we might wish.

I'm not willing to trust the government not to push this to that point.

Blessings,
Bill

I think we're on the same page here.

 

[jamil]

I disagree (shocking, I know).

The myriad of laws we're subject too in differing jurisdictions already confuse and cherry-pick that point. If one can be charged with attempted murder of the unborn in some instances but not others, this is just a legal question of who gets an exception to do it and when.

I make no apologies that many of us have answers that others still consider unanswered. Perhaps we should all think more.

Believing a thing is not evidence that more thought was involved. Your standard is merely belief. Just believing the question is unanswered for you does not meet my standards. Society has a universally accepted, objective definition of murder. But belief in a religious answer that is unproven outside of that belief is not a basis for law in a religiously free society. Of course I don't mean that a free society is free from religion. Freedom of conscience is a foundation of a free society. But society should not compel people through laws that are uniquely religious.

All that to say this. religion has not answered the question of when it's "murder", to my satisfaction. In fact, to some of BoR's points, even religious beliefs on the matter are diverse enough that to encode one in law would disappoint others. I don't agree with late term abortions because there is ample evidence that at that point, the unborn baby is thinking and feeling.

 

[PaulF]

If the various politicos could get together to ban abortion with a rape exception, I'd take that right now even though I don't believe in killing the innocent under any circumstances. It's a step in the right direction. Anyone offering that?

Nobody is suggesting it, I think, because it is a compromise that neither "side" of this argument wishes to accept.

This is one of those topics where there are relatively few people that hold one of the two "extreme" positions: a) abortion absolutely=murder, or b) any prohibition against abortion is an absolute violation of individual liberty.

Everyone here knows where I stand on the topic, and the vast majority of people with whom I discuss this topic hold a much more "neutral" view that me. It's purely anecdotal, but my experience puts most "average" people somewhere in the large "no man's land" between the "activist" positions.

It is a truly contentious subject, but for every ardent "pro-lifer" there is someone out there like this to counter it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

From what I've seen, the use of a murder charge with the victim being a fetus is used when there is, for whatever reason, not enough evidence to prove the guilt of the person who in some way harmed the mother-to-be.

While that SHOULD mean that the accused was then freed, there are times we all know that someone is guilty, but they are not found so in court. OJ Simpson was one example. Not guilty is not the same thing as innocent.

The point at which life begins is the sticking point to all of this. We cannot say that someone has ended a life that has not begun, simply because something has to begin before it can end. Some religions (Catholicism, for one) define that point even before conception, and interfering with conception occurring is sinful in that view. Some say that life begins AT conception. Others say life begins at birth, while still others say the point at which life begins is when the fetus is capable of living outside the womb, which is to say, to breathe, to feed, etc. Each of these has good arguments in its favor and each has points by which it can be argued against. As long as that question remains one of opinion rather than objective fact, to call the termination of a pregnancy "murder" could include filing murder charges against a 16 year old kid who goes to the pharmacy to buy a pack of rubbers, as equally as the doctor performing the procedure, or the prospective father-to-be who does not want to be, and punches the prospective mother-to-be in the abdomen until she miscarries.

In the latter, a quick google tells me that, say 15 punches in the belly could constitute 15 different battery charges, which could quickly add up to 40-some-odd years as a guest of the state, and that doesn't include any charge involving death.

I take issue with the fact that under a total abortion ban, even if Roe was no longer on the table, the woman who miscarries, aka spontaneous abortion, would then have to somehow prove her innocence of violating this law, possibly even having to prove that she didn't consume alcohol or any other substance that induced the miscarriage. Yes, that's worst-case, but not, I think, as outlandish as we might wish.

I'm not willing to trust the government not to push this to that point.

Blessings,
Bill

From the moment of birth backward, when is the organism non-human? When we detect a heart beat? When it can feel pain? When it can earn its own keep? If we can't say for sure, seem to me the prudent thing ought to be we err on the side of precaution.

All of this other stuff about spontaneous miscarriage and some kid buying rubbers are akin to anti-gunners talking about blood in the streets when arguing for open carry or whatever.

 

[Bill of Rights]

From the moment of birth backward, when is the organism non-human? When we detect a heart beat? When it can feel pain? When it can earn its own keep? If we can't say for sure, seem to me the prudent thing ought to be we err on the side of precaution.

All of this other stuff about spontaneous miscarriage and some kid buying rubbers are akin to anti-gunners talking about blood in the streets when arguing for open carry or whatever.

As I said, there are valid arguments on both sides of all of the possible "points". All of the "kid buying rubbers" points being akin to anti-gunners would be, were it not for the fact that I'm a) speaking calmly and rationally, and b) correct that, taken to extremes, the law has many times been used as the sword instead of the shield. I respect that your view differs from mine. I celebrate that, in fact, because we are allowed to differ, and can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Erring on the side of precaution is fine, but for the fact that if we grant to government the power to rule an aspect of a person's free will and medical choices, we grant to them at the same time, the power to make those choices for us other than as we would make them. How many males do you want to see forced to undergo vasectomy or even castration, in an effort to reduce the population of our country? How many vaccines do you want to be forced to receive? etc., etc. We say that that can't happen here... Why not? Get a person in power who can make "recommendations", or even rules and policies, and we could see it in a period of only a few years. Who could predict in 2000 that we would have DHS, federal TSA violating honest citizens while seeking those ever elusive terrorists, "Patriot Act", and such things as Obamacare, only 16 years later? The TSA thing reminds me of Natasha and Boris trying to get Moose and Squirrel. Who would have predicted when Reagan called for Gorbachev to "TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" that the US would be more akin to Soviet Russia these few years later?

All I'm saying is I don't trust government to administer much, and even less when it comes to personal decisions. You are, of course, free to disagree. Ever hear a gun grabber say that?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

As I said, there are valid arguments on both sides of all of the possible "points". All of the "kid buying rubbers" points being akin to anti-gunners would be, were it not for the fact that I'm a) speaking calmly and rationally, and b) correct that, taken to extremes, the law has many times been used as the sword instead of the shield. I respect that your view differs from mine. I celebrate that, in fact, because we are allowed to differ, and can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Erring on the side of precaution is fine, but for the fact that if we grant to government the power to rule an aspect of a person's free will and medical choices, we grant to them at the same time, the power to make those choices for us other than as we would make them. How many males do you want to see forced to undergo vasectomy or even castration, in an effort to reduce the population of our country? How many vaccines do you want to be forced to receive? etc., etc. We say that that can't happen here... Why not? Get a person in power who can make "recommendations", or even rules and policies, and we could see it in a period of only a few years. Who could predict in 2000 that we would have DHS, federal TSA violating honest citizens while seeking those ever elusive terrorists, "Patriot Act", and such things as Obamacare, only 16 years later? The TSA thing reminds me of Natasha and Boris trying to get Moose and Squirrel. Who would have predicted when Reagan called for Gorbachev to "TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" that the US would be more akin to Soviet Russia these few years later?

All I'm saying is I don't trust government to administer much, and even less when it comes to personal decisions. You are, of course, free to disagree. Ever hear a gun grabber say that?

Blessings,
Bill

As calmly and rationally as you may be saying all of that Bill all that talk about forced visectomies and population control is more misdirection and predictions of "blood in the streets". What tends to get lost in all of this is an innocent human beings' life is being terminated. Their right to life and liberty are being violently and forcibly destroyed in the most heinous ways possible. Nobody that I know of or whose papers/columns I read have any interest at all in controlling what women do with their bodies and hold that the child is entitled to the same protections as everyone else. One of the legitimate functions of government is protecting life and liberty of the people it governs. If cannot agree when life begins and that the government ought to do its best to protect that, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to foresee a time when we'll allow when one stops being a viable human being after birth. I certainly don't want the government making quality of life decisions anywhere along the way---from conception to natural death. We all should be afforded equal protection under the law.

The TL;DR version: I don't see it as making a decision for anybody but protecting everybody under one of government's legitimate roles.

 

[hoosierdoc]

What, you want a woman punished with a baby?

 

[jamil]

As calmly and rationally as you may be saying all of that Bill all that talk about forced visectomies and population control is more misdirection and predictions of "blood in the streets". What tends to get lost in all of this is an innocent human beings' life is being terminated. Their right to life and liberty are being violently and forcibly destroyed in the most heinous ways possible. Nobody that I know of or whose papers/columns I read have any interest at all in controlling what women do with their bodies and hold that the child is entitled to the same protections as everyone else. One of the legitimate functions of government is protecting life and liberty of the people it governs. If cannot agree when life begins and that the government ought to do its best to protect that, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to foresee a time when we'll allow when one stops being a viable human being after birth. I certainly don't want the government making quality of life decisions anywhere along the way---from conception to natural death. We all should be afforded equal protection under the law.

The TL;DR version: I don't see it as making a decision for anybody but protecting everybody under one of government's legitimate roles.

If everyone believed life and rights are inherently conferred at conception, there'd be little argument about it. The problem is, most people don't agree on that. If you got that majority swung towards believing your way, eventually R v W would get overturned.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If everyone believed life and rights are inherently conferred at conception, there'd be little argument about it. The problem is, most people don't agree on that. If you got that majority swung towards believing your way, eventually R v W would get overturned.

If I got everybody swung towards believing my way, we wouldn't need to over turn RvW.

 

[jamil]

If I got everybody swung towards believing my way, we wouldn't need to over turn RvW.

And without it you have no political mandate to do it. You only have your belief.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And without it you have no political mandate to do it. You only have your belief.

Nooo...If everyone believed like me (on this issue), there'd be no need to overturn it because nobody'd be getting or performing abortions.

 

[jamil]

Nooo...If everyone believed like me (on this issue), there'd be no need to overturn it because nobody'd be getting or performing abortions.

I got that. But societies tend to make laws based on the most individuals believe. We had Sunday "blue" laws decades ago, when most people thought Sunday should be a day of rest. As people stopped believing that, those laws faded. Laws tend to follow belief.

Which brings up a point about progressivism. They realize this and try to flip it to get the law before the belief, and then the belief eventually follows. This happened with civil rights, R v W, Obamacare, gay marriage. I guess religious people who want all abortions to be illegal want to try the same tactic. Get the law changed anyway you can, using any political trick, even though the majority doesn't agree. I just don't see that as a viable tactic. It's the tactics of the left. I think it should be much harder to make laws, especially controversial laws, unless a significant majority wants it.

On RvW itself, I hate the decision. But mostly because of the precedent. Finding excuses to decide the constitutionality of a law based on the outcome you prefer is not the roll of the SCOTUS.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What, you want a woman punished with a baby?

huh?

 

[ATM]

Believing a thing is not evidence that more thought was involved.

But arriving at a belief based on an analysis of the evidence requires more thought than simply adopting a belief or choosing to believe nothing without any thought or in willful ignorance of the evidence. I'm not sure what your statement was attempting to address.

Your standard is merely belief.

You say merely as if all methods of arriving at a verdict on a matter were equally reasonable. This is not so.

Just believing the question is unanswered for you does not meet my standards.

I don't need you to answer any question, but I can recommend you think about it.

Society has a universally accepted, objective definition of murder.

Yes, basically it is deliberately killing a person.

But belief in a religious answer that is unproven outside of that belief is not a basis for law in a religiously free society.

You think religion is the only evidence one can analyze? What about biology? Ethics? Sociology?

Of course I don't mean that a free society is free from religion. Freedom of conscience is a foundation of a free society. But society should not compel people through laws that are uniquely religious.

Laws that are uniquely religious? That just strikes me as a silly notion outside of a theocracy.

All that to say this. religion has not answered the question of when it's "murder", to my satisfaction.

So look elsewhere, stop artificially limiting your analysis.

In fact, to some of BoR's points, even religious beliefs on the matter are diverse enough that to encode one in law would disappoint others.

Then don't encode anything based on any particular religion. I certainly haven't suggested that we do.

I don't agree with late term abortions because there is ample evidence that at that point, the unborn baby is thinking and feeling.

If that little person survives, I would like to strengthen the former and temper the latter - our society has them horribly reversed.

 

[hoosierdoc]

huh?

[video=youtube;nNbaig-D5pk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNbaig-D5pk[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

[video=youtube;nNbaig-D5pk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNbaig-D5pk[/video]

I'm missing how that relates to abortion. Surely you aren't reading into that when Obama says he doesn't want his young daughters, due to ignorance about safe sex practices being "punished with a baby," as meaning he wants them to get an abortion?

 

[jamil]

But arriving at a belief based on an analysis of the evidence requires more thought than simply adopting a belief or choosing to believe nothing without any thought or in willful ignorance of the evidence. I'm not sure what your statement was attempting to address.

Sure, if you've arrived at a belief because of thoughtful analysis. But belief itself isn't evidence that any thought or analysis went into it. Just because you believe you have answers doesn't mean you actually have the answer, and the fact that you believe isn't evidence that you put any thought at all into it. I'm not saying you didn't. You strike me as a thinking person, so I'm sure YOU did. And assuming you did, you've apparently included things in your analysis that don't meet my standards. Maybe I should have put it this way originally. You telling me you have the answer isn't evidence that you have the correct answer.

You say merely as if all methods of arriving at a verdict on a matter were equally reasonable. This is not so.

That's kinda my point. Obviously all methods of arriving at a verdict are not equally reasonable. Mere belief is not reasonable in my estimation. Again, your belief in your answer by itself isn't evidence that you have the right answer. And because you believe it doesn't mean the methods by which you arrived at your belief meets my standards. I hope that clears up what I'm saying.

I don't need you to answer any question, but I can recommend you think about it.

It's not that I haven't thought about it. I was once where you are in terms of belief. Don't take that as condescension. I'm just saying I was once near the same place in terms of belief, so I do understand where you're coming from. I made the same arguments then.

Let's get back to the question we're talking about. And that is, at what point does a new life have rights? If you don't have a religious viewpoint that God creates life and therefor the inherent rights thereof, and are armed only with an understanding of physiology and the biological process of the lifecycle, it is a more difficult question to answer objectively. Of course if you have a religious belief that makes the question more clear to you, you will believe the way you do. I did.

The whole point is not everyone believes the same as you. Your belief, by itself, is not justification on which to base laws for society. Unless society, collectively believes as you do, there is no moral mandate beyond our understanding of biology.

Yes, basically it is deliberately killing a person.

Right. So when does a new life become a person? For you, your religion informs your belief about that. For me, and most of society, we're back to the question.

You think religion is the only evidence one can analyze? What about biology? Ethics? Sociology?

Of course not. So, please convince me what knowledge of biology, ethics, or sociology, makes it objectively true that human rights begin at conception? You need belief in something else beyond that to arrive at that conclusion. And I'm not saying you're wrong for your religion informing your position. I'm saying that when your religious belief is the primary cause, you have no moral authority to impose laws on people who don't have the same religious belief.

Laws that are uniquely religious? That just strikes me as a silly notion outside of a theocracy.

Exactly. That's why most areas in the country got rid of Sunday "blue" laws decades ago. They were theocratic.

So look elsewhere, stop artificially limiting your analysis.

I limit my analysis to what is objectively true. The application of my analysis is limited by ethics. It is unethical and immoral to impose mere beliefs on society. Please don't get so hung up on "mere". By that I mean unproven.

Then don't encode anything based on any particular religion. I certainly haven't suggested that we do.

You have indeed implied it. As I understand your position, murder is the intentional killing of a person. And because of the position you're arguing, you seem to believe life reaches personhood at conception. As I've pointed out, you need a religious belief to arrive at your answer. Of course my assumptions about your answer is inferred from your arguments. I don't recall you stating emphatically that "personhood" begins at conception.

If that little person survives, I would like to strengthen the former and temper the latter - our society has them horribly reversed.

While I meant physical feeling, I completely agree with this point. There is an important role that feelings have in a person's life. Without feeling there is no joy, no compassion, no emotion, all of which is part of humanity, and being. But thinking needs to be in charge of the person, not feeling. When feeling takes over thinking, we start doing crazy stuff like handing out participation trophies.

 

[jamil]

I'm missing how that relates to abortion. Surely you aren't reading into that when Obama says he doesn't want his young daughters, due to ignorance about safe sex practices being "punished with a baby," as meaning he wants them to get an abortion?

That's how I took it.

 

[ATM]

...at what point does a new life have rights? ...when does a new life become a person?

Excellent responses, thank you. These two questions are worth the bulk of ongoing thought and discussion on this subject IMHO.

...I limit my analysis to what is objectively true.

Objective truth is not determined by consensus or even unanimity, though definitions may be determined and adjusted in that manner.

This would be its own conversation covering so much more than personhood.