Abortion

[Mythbuster]

One of the common arguments I hear against abortion is this:



The Unborn Victims of Violence Act already recognizes the "person hood" of prebirth children killed in over 60 listed acts of violence where the attacker can be charged with MURDER if the child is killed in a criminal act.

I ask the readers who are reading this, to contemplate for yourselves how a child in the womb in the event it is killed in an act of violence can be considered a "person" and their killer can be charged with MURDER.... while the same child in the same womb killed by it's mother for what ever reason SHE decides is necessary for her needs is somehow something LESS than a person. This disparity alone should cast doubt about the Constitutionality of abortion on demand.

Let's get a few things straight: I am very much pro choice. I believe in free and accessible access to abortion to any mother needing it. I was wondering what a few good ways to refute this argument would be.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Abortion is done by the consent of the parents. Murder is not, killing somebody who is pregnant and intending to keep the child is murder. Just like aborting a child 8 months into the pregnancy is as well. An abortion done a month into the pregnancy is nothing short of a procedure.

[PhoenixAsh]

That law was instituted to protect women from abuse and violence. Abortion is specifically exempt from the law.





`Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children



`(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.



`(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.



`(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--





`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or







`(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.





`(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.



`(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.



`(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:





`(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1),



and (i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.




`(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).







`(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).





`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--





`(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;







`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or







`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

[Sasha]

@ op, thats rich,
lots of this legislation was passed because of "pro-life" pressure and exactly because of this it is opposed by pro-choice supporters.
it is and was often planned as a legal backdoor to elevate the unborn fetus to personhood
here in the netherlands you can only get aditional charges of murder/manslaughter of a unborn baby if the baby in-question is in fact viable outside of the womb. i.e. the moment that abortion is illegal anyway.
and for us that support abortion rights 100% its not a question of personhood or not to begin with, its about bodily autonomy and self-determination of the mother

[Nox]

If people don't believe in abortion that's fine, they can avoid abortion themselves.

If they try and force their views upon others or look down upon others for having had abortion, they are showing the main problem with religion as a whole.

When a baby is in the womb, during the period where abortion is illegal, that baby's brain and organs are not fully developed, therefore it is fully reliant on the mother to remain alive, therefore it is less than a human.

[Mythbuster]

@hindsight. Thanks a lot! I will use that info. Where did you get it?

[CommieTroll]

therefore it is less than a human.

I don't understand how it can be ''less of a human'', how could it be anything other than a human? The unborn child is created by the father's sperm and the mother's egg, the DNA of two humans, so it couldn't be anything else? Arguments such as ''it isn't human until it is born'' are just a moral cop out for people that support abortion. You are ending a human life but that life doesn't have meaning because it hasn't experienced the meaning that makes life precious.That's the only view I will share with a pro lifer. To all users who might troll me after thay hear this: I'm Pro-Choice, I fully support a mother's right to choose. That's just my opinion, I don't see how it could be seen as reactionary.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm afraid what constitutes 'humanity' is very much a grey area.

A person is a bundle of cells, sure. We'd look pretty foolish trying to do stuff if our consciousness wasn't physically located. But not every bundle of cells is a person. Some are bananas, some are squid, some a lumps of shit. Is a fertilised egg a human? Not really. It can't watch TV, play tennis, open a bank account. Or breathe, or eat on its own. There is no evidence that it posseses consciousness. So what exists before this is something that may well become a human. It is not in itself human.

Leaving souls and other metaphysical shit out of it, there's no reason to presume that any foetus younger than 20 weeks will survive. Even after that viability only becomes more than 50% from about 23 weeks.

People injured in catastrophic accidents may also be unable to survive without artificial aid, but we're confident about ascribing consciousness to them. We have evidence for that. People whose consciousness has left them, get their machines turned off. This is not murder because an essential component of humanity, consciousness, is deemed to be missing.

What's the difference between someone who has had consciousness but it has been deemed to have departed, and a bundle of cells that have no evidence for ever having had consciousness, even if that bundle has fingers? The difference is that we know that a person has already been conscious. Their humanity is not in doubt. The attempt ot extend personhood backwards in time to the point where conception occurs is just religious mumbo-jumbo, in my opinion.

[The Stalinator]

What's the difference between someone who has had consciousness but it has been deemed to have departed, and a bundle of cells that have no evidence for ever having had consciousness, even if that bundle has fingers? The difference is that we know that a person has already been conscious. Their humanity is not in doubt. The attempt ot extend personhood backwards in time to the point where conception occurs is just religious mumbo-jumbo, in my opinion.

amen.

A fetus isn't really going to give a shit if you kill it. It has about the same consciousness as a dead man anyhow.

I'm always going to assert that the mental health and stability of a woman's life is more important than the potential life of a child that has never been conscious of its own existence.

[thriller]

Would I be super fucking pissed if someone who attacked my pregnant girlfriend killed the fetus? You better believe it. But the rage I have, or anyone else has, for this act of violence does not make the fetus magically become a baby. To me, that's like charging a woman with murder for even having a miscarriage, because it was her body that did it. So to me that argument is bogus.
And to all those idiots in Wisconsin and elsewhere who put up those stupid billboards that have a picture of a baby and state: "Every baby is a miracle, life begins at conception" I have one question: Was Hitler a miracle?

[Mythbuster]

!Thriller! has just made an excellent point. Since it is the woman that has that right.

[Nox]

I don't understand how it can be ''less of a human'', how could it be anything other than a human? The unborn child is created by the father's sperm and the mother's egg, the DNA of two humans, so it couldn't be anything else? Arguments such as ''it isn't human until it is born'' are just a moral cop out for people that support abortion. You are ending a human life but that life doesn't have meaning because it hasn't experienced the meaning that makes life precious.That's the only view I will share with a pro lifer. To all users who might troll me after thay hear this: I'm Pro-Choice, I fully support a mother's right to choose. That's just my opinion, I don't see how it could be seen as reactionary.

Well, some micro-organisms are not considered to be alive because they cannot survive on their own; they need a host.

That can also be applied to foetuses in the early stage of development.

[Dumb]

@ op, thats rich,
lots of this legislation was passed because of "pro-life" pressure and exactly because of this it is opposed by pro-choice supporters.
it is and was often planned as a legal backdoor to elevate the unborn fetus to personhood
here in the netherlands you can only get aditional charges of murder/manslaughter of a unborn baby if the baby in-question is in fact viable outside of the womb. i.e. the moment that abortion is illegal anyway.
and for us that support abortion rights 100% its not a question of personhood or not to begin with, its about bodily autonomy and self-determination of the mother

I always have a frustrating time refuting the argument that it's unprincipled to recognize the bodily autonomy and self-determination of the mother without recognizing the same of the fetus/unborn baby.

CommieTroll - What is "the meaning that makes life precious"?

[CommieTroll]

CommieTroll - What is "the meaning that makes life precious"?

I have no idea, I'll tell you when I find out......

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Every woman has the right to choose whether or not she aborts.Any laws which obstruct her will are laws which obstruct freedom.

[El Louton]

Every woman has the right to choose whether or not she aborts.Any laws which obstruct her will are laws which obstruct freedom.

Agreed. Nuf said.

[Dumb]

Every woman has the right to choose whether or not she aborts.Any laws which obstruct her will are laws which obstruct freedom.

What good does that argument do when a reactionary tells you, "What about freedom for the unborn baby, huh?" We can't pretend that we aren't making a choice between competing claims for freedom, and I find it hard to argue in any principled manner that right-wing claims for "freedom" of the "unborn baby" are invalid simply because they are not being made by the intended beneficiary.

DISCLAIMER: I am 100% pro-choice; what I am expressing is frustration at the inadequacy of certain pro-choice rhetoric. I am not arguing against the pro-choice position, but I am asking for help in developing a stronger case in favor of abortion rights. At the moment, all I have to go on is vague intuition.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What good does that argument do when a reactionary tells you, "What about freedom for the unborn baby, huh?" We can't pretend that we aren't making a choice between competing claims for freedom, and I find it hard to argue in any principled manner that right-wing claims for "freedom" of the "unborn baby" are invalid simply because they are not being made by the intended beneficiary.

DISCLAIMER: I am 100% pro-choice; what I am expressing is frustration at the inadequacy of certain pro-choice rhetoric. I am not arguing against the pro-choice position, but I am asking for help in developing a stronger case in favor of abortion rights. At the moment, all I have to go on is vague intuition.

I would simply reply that organic constructs which are not alive do not have access to freedom any more than a chair would have freedom.I am not handy with statistics but I am certain that someone else here could give you some helpful data which proves that a fetus is not a human during certain stages.

[redtex]

I think abortion is an issue used by politicians to distract and divide people and is best left to each individual woman as to what to do with her own body.

That being said, the use of the fetus murder law as an argument against abortion, is just another distraction. The law was passed by pro-life authoritians and only means that pro-life authoritarians recognize the "person hood" of "prebirth children".

[tir1944]

I would simply reply that organic constructs which are not alive do not have access to freedom any more than a chair would have freedom.
Organic:
characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms



I am not handy with statistics but I am certain that someone else here could give you some helpful data which proves that a fetus is not a human during certain stages.What is it then?

[¿Que?]

@ op, thats rich,
lots of this legislation was passed because of "pro-life" pressure and exactly because of this it is opposed by pro-choice supporters.
it is and was often planned as a legal backdoor to elevate the unborn fetus to personhood

Basically this. And I would add furthers the desired ends of the prison industrial complex to boot. More time for criminals equals more money in the pockets of the capitalists profiteering from building prisons and prison labor.

So since the premise is flawed, any conclusion derived from it must be flawed as well. I mean, you can reach correct conclusions from flawed premises, but it would not constitute any type of knowledge and in any case that's an unrelated philosophical problem we don't need to get into here.

[Blake's Baby]

... We can't pretend that we aren't making a choice between competing claims for freedom, and I find it hard to argue in any principled manner that right-wing claims for "freedom" of the "unborn baby" are invalid simply because they are not being made by the intended beneficiary...

Why? I don't think any pretence is necessary.

'Competing claims':
1 - women, who wish to abort a foetus;
2 - ?????

Has any aborted foetus ever sued? Got a lawyer to issue a writ? Taken their case to the European Court of Human Rights? Foetuses cannot have 'rights' because the concept of rights only applies to those capable of excercising them. This is why animals don't have 'rights' either, this is why brain-dead coma patients don't have 'rights' - they certainly can't lodge an appeal against medical opinion deciding that they have no meaningful chance of recovery.

Rights only apply to self-conscious beings. As we have no evidence that foetuses have self-consciousness, they also have no 'rights'. Until the point that they become viable and the state steps in to arbitrate on these 'competing claims'.

The idea that anti-abortionist activists can claim to speak for 'the unborn' is ridiculous. They are self-appointed advocates for 'personhood rights' for things that aren't (yet) persons. Honestly, I'd be happier to grant 'human rights' to chimps and bonobos.

[blake 3:17]

You poor Americans, the debate becomes a series of hurdles of legalistic and moralistic BS. Rather than debating anti-choice idiots, spend your time defending abortion, contraception and family planning services.

In Canada there is no law on abortion. The main struggle at present is the erosion of accessible services. Women in rural areas or smaller urban areas may have to travel huge distances at a lot of expense to have an abortion.