U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[Deleted member 559230]

And while I don't agree with the pro-life group, I do feel like I better understand their position now.

This is something most liberals don't even try to do. I'm not sure why understanding what the opposition is thinking is shunned by them, but to tackle issues you need to know both sides of the issue at hand. Even though I dislike the liberal media I still visit their sites to see what they are thinking and doing. In fact most sites I visit reflect the attitude that abortion should be legal up until birth, which is weird because nothing magical happens at birth that makes the baby any more or less a baby.

 

[Lacius]

This is something most liberals don't even try to do. I'm not sure why understanding what the opposition is thinking is shunned by them, but to tackle issues you need to know both sides of the issue at hand. Even though I dislike the liberal media I still visit their sites to see what they are thinking and doing. In fact most sites I visit reflect the attitude that abortion should be legal up until birth, which is weird because nothing magical happens at birth that makes the baby any more or less a baby.

A pregnancy should be able to be ended at any time. If it's before fetal viability, it's an abortion. If it's after fetal viability, it's a birth.

 

[seany1990]

I didn't say I was a Republican. I said that's what a Republican would say.

I never said you were, I was sarcastically responding to the argument you made regardless of who believes it.

You must understand the arguments on all sides of an issue before you can have an informed opinion of your own.

Rich people good, poor people bad.

From that above statement I clearly understand the conservative position

 

[appleburger]

This is something most liberals don't even try to do.

This phenomenon is not unique to "liberals". It's a people thing. We're hard wired to pick a team and die on that hill. There are lots of studies that reveal how easily our opinions are manipulated by bias and the need to fit in. Some of the conformity studies were really shocking to me the first time I read about them. So, while its frustrating to see people lazily pick teams, it is human nature, to their credit. This is why if there's ever one single issue I will ever push, it's education.

...to tackle issues you need to know both sides of the issue at hand. Even though I dislike the liberal media I still visit their sites to see what they are thinking and doing

I feel this is certainly a healthy way to look at debate and testing your own assumptions & beliefs. It's not easy for us to do. It takes time and patience to allow yourself to possibly be wrong. We also have to accept that "knowing" the full story for either side of a debate on every issue, even just in the US, is nearly impossible. We're all ignorant and learning to some extent.

In fact most sites I visit reflect the attitude that abortion should be legal up until birth, which is weird because nothing magical happens at birth that makes the baby any more or less a baby.

Sites can say whatever they want, but the majority of Americans feel abortion should be legal/illegal depending on the circumstance: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/

The reality is that while the US has a two party system, there aren't simply two sets of beliefs, obviously. It's not two sides, it's fractal. Even within our government the Democrats and Republicans are split into more sub-groups than I can even bear to remember. So, while roughly half of the country picks a team and sticks to it, the rest of us make an effort to actually form an individual opinion, rather than selecting one and defending it without really knowing why we believe what we do.

So all that being said, I wouldn't put too much energy into what you're seeing on media outlets, as that's a very limited look into the issues at hand. I personally have never given the major news outlets for either side much credit at all. They are entertaining though, I'll give them that.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

I've really had it reading this.
So let's me ask the question. At what point are we calling this a baby?
All the "pro-lifers", because let's be honest it's more like anti abortion and nothing but that. You don't take into consideration of rape, you don't consider if condoms fail or birth control failing, you even said that it's the parents responsibility to take care of said child they are forced to carry. Forced being you cannot by law have an abortion. And nor will you take responsibility for forcing people to have that child but simply state that it's the person's problem to deal with.
At what point are we calling a baby a baby?
1 week? The immediate moment the egg is fertilized? At what point because this is getting ridiculous. People who are pro abortion have already substantiated that there is a defined acceptable point for abortion, that most of the public is okay. While here your wanting to enforce something the majority of people disagree with.
With this vague unclear "but your killing a baby" please define at what point is a baby a baby. Seriously. If you say the immediate moment sperm and egg meet and it's fertilized, that constitutes a baby. That's bullshit.

 

[KennyAtom]

At what point are we calling a baby a baby?

The moment any part of the baby is visible.

Also please learn grammar, I can barely read your mashed up sentences.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

The moment any part of the baby is visible

Okay, by this logic a Caterpillar is a butterfly right?

 

[appleburger]

The moment any part of the baby is visible.

That's not a good answer to the question. That makes it sound we're defining the baby as a quantum particle.

I'll try and re-ask my question to others from earlier. When does personhood begin? We can all agree that the sperm and egg themselves are not people, but they are organisms. At a certain point, we go from organism(s) to person.

Does the organism(s) become a person when the zygote is formed? Or does this happen when the brain activity begins? Does this happen at birth? Where's your line?

So far, I think everyone in this thread who's answered this has gone with "when the zygote forms" or "when brain activity begins", and those are the two most popular opinions, based on polls - but there are outliers who draw the line elsewhere.

 

[KennyAtom]

Okay, by this logic a Caterpillar is a butterfly right?

if it is in the cocoon, yes. otherwise, it is still a caterpillar.

I'll try and re-ask my question to others from earlier. When does personhood begin? We can all agree that the sperm and egg themselves are not people, but they are organisms. At a certain point, we go from organism(s) to person.

I'd say when the heartbeat starts, but i'm still really wary of aborting babies unless they're a product of rape or someone would die from giving birth.

 

[KennyAtom]

Honestly, all this reminds me of a few funny babylon bee articles.

https://babylonbee.com/news/pro-lif...st-burned-down-free-pregnancy-resource-center
https://babylonbee.com/news/dangero...court-to-demand-the-right-to-sacrifice-babies
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-enraged-they-may-have-to-drive-a-few-hours-to-commit-murder
https://babylonbee.com/news/authori...h-instead-of-traditional-brain-sucking-device

they're funny, but also partially true at the same time.

 

[appleburger]

if it is in the cocoon, yes. otherwise, it is still a caterpillar.


I'd say when the heartbeat starts, but i'm still really wary of aborting babies unless they're a product of rape or someone would die from giving birth.

I hear you. Let me be clear what you and I mean by "baby". When I refer to a baby, I'm talking about a human that has reached personhood. I would not call a sperm a baby, and by extension - you wouldn't call a zygote a baby. If I were to accept that a heartbeat is the beginning of personhood, we would then both agree that this organism, while human, is not a "baby" until the heartbeat is present. You are of course free to elaborate or re-explain if I'm misrepresenting your point.

So, you feel personhood begins when the heartbeat starts. I'll just refer to a human organism that's reached personhood as a "baby" to make this simple moving forward if you accept this, so far. We can build on that - I'm trying to get to where I fully understand why you think about this the way you do:

1) If a heartbeat is necessary for a baby to be present, then the lack of a heartbeat would mean there is no baby present, yet. If there is no baby present, then what is your objection to the abortion in this case?

2) If rape or inevitable death of the mother makes abortion okay with you, does this apply to late term abortions then, as well? Is it morally permissible to kill the baby in this case, or to not interfere and let the mother die, instead?

 

[KennyAtom]

1) If a heartbeat is necessary for a baby to be present, then the lack of a heartbeat would mean there is no baby present, yet. If there is no baby present, then what is your objection to the abortion in this case?

My objection is that I'm still wary of aborting anything that can become a baby. I wholeheartedly oppose abortion, but I suppose if it had to exist, I'd prefer it to be banned after a heartbeat is detected. (6 weeks into pregnancy)

2) If rape or inevitable death of the mother makes abortion okay with you, does this apply to late term abortions then, as well? Is it morally permissible to kill the baby in this case, or to not interfere and let the mother die, instead?

If the mother is going to die, then I'm fine with abortion, no matter how late. I'd prefer 2 people to survive, but if one's going to die to give birth to another, who would probably die right after as well, then i'd prefer one to survive, but otherwise it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[SyphenFreht]

My objection is that I'm still wary of aborting anything that can become a baby. I wholeheartedly oppose abortion, but I suppose if it had to exist, I'd prefer it to be banned after a heartbeat is detected. (6 weeks into pregnancy)

If the mother is going to die, then I'm fine with abortion, no matter how late. I'd prefer 2 people to survive, but if one's going to die to give birth to another, who would probably die right after as well, then i'd prefer one to survive, but otherwise it shouldn't be allowed.

Ok, so we've established that you have exceptions to your stance abortion, which is good to hear, but let me ask you this:

We've seen recent cases where women that have had abortions been convicted of manslaughter at the least. Assuming this becomes a trend, punishing women who have abortions, do you also draw a line between when a punishment should be acceptable?

For example, in the hypothetical you presented above, should a woman have to abort due to medical necessity, should she be subject to the same punishment as a woman who got an abortion "willy nilly"?

 

[Deleted member 586536]

if it is in the cocoon, yes. otherwise, it is still a caterpillar.

Okay then, why are you calling fetuses, babies then? Yes the fetus has human DNA, and can look like a human. But it doesn't have the brain function to react to stimuli as a baby does. They are, if you will for a moment, haven't developed enough to be considered a baby. Akin to the caterpillar and butterfly.

A Caterpillar has butterfly DNA technically speaking, but as you clearly described here, just because the Caterpillar can/will later become a butterfly, does not classify it as a butterfly outright.

So I must ask again, where does the line between "this is definitely a baby that is conscious, and capable reacting to stimuli and "this is not"

 

[appleburger]

My objection is that I'm still wary of aborting anything that can become a baby. I wholeheartedly oppose abortion, but I suppose if it had to exist, I'd prefer it to be banned after a heartbeat is detected. (6 weeks into pregnancy)

If the mother is going to die, then I'm fine with abortion, no matter how late. I'd prefer 2 people to survive, but if one's going to die to give birth to another, who would probably die right after as well, then i'd prefer one to survive, but otherwise it shouldn't be allowed.

My objection is that I'm still wary of aborting anything that can become a baby. I wholeheartedly oppose abortion, but I suppose if it had to exist, I'd prefer it to be banned after a heartbeat is detected. (6 weeks into pregnancy)

I'm guessing this starts at conception for you and not before, then right? Let's assume for a moment we will obtain the ability to successfully make zygotes with all sperm and egg cells people produce. Would we be facing a moral dilemma if we opt to still "waste that seed"? Or does the "anything that can become a baby" notion begin with conception, and why? I'm asking this, because we've established that a baby becomes present at a heartbeat, but at what point does something that can become a baby become inevitable? One could argue then, that spilling seed is snuffing out the flame of life for all those sperm that otherwise would have a chance of reaching conception. What separates you from that argument (I have family members that have this stance)?

If the mother is going to die, then I'm fine with abortion, no matter how late. I'd prefer 2 people to survive, but if one's going to die to give birth to another, who would probably die right after as well, then i'd prefer one to survive, but otherwise it shouldn't be allowed.

That makes sense. Does this also apply to the rape victims?

 

[Foxi4]

It reads like you thought I wanted to say "abortion should be legal because of this 5% group", which was not my position, but given all the users on here arguing, it's very understandable why you'd lump what I said into the opinions of other pro-choice people on the thread. Very easy to do with this many voices in one place.

I call that a “wedge issue”. It’s what people use to dishonestly argue about policy. “This problem affects *insert infinitesimally small percentage of people here*, therefore you need to *insert policy here* for everyone, it’s only fair”. It’s a trick that makes you open a door you didn’t want to open, just a little bit, only for a flood to pour in immediately through the crack. Don’t worry, I wasn’t suspecting you of trying that with me - I’m too old for that, and dare I say, a little bit more well-versed than the average bear, so it wouldn’t work anyway.

 

[appleburger]

Okay then, why are you calling fetuses, babies then? Yes the fetus has human DNA, and can look like a human. But it doesn't have the brain function to react to stimuli as a baby does. They are, if you will for a moment, haven't developed enough to be considered a baby. Akin to the caterpillar and butterfly.

A Caterpillar has butterfly DNA technically speaking, but as you clearly described here, just because the Caterpillar can/will later become a butterfly, does not classify it as a butterfly outright.

So I must ask again, where does the line between "this is definitely a baby that is conscious, and capable reacting to stimuli and "this is not"

I actually have to call out something here - organisms respond to stimuli, it's not exclusive to human life. So, sperm, plants, starfish, etc. all respond to stimuli. It's part of the criteria for what makes something "alive".

The fetus is alive and an organism, by definition. However, so do sperm and egg cells - they also have human DNA, just with only half the chromosomes. This is why many consider the zygote to the be starting point of a human being. Personhood is debated to be anywhere within a range depending on who you ask. It's up for debate and is currently more philosophical than anything.

EDIT: nah I was wrong on this. Sperm cells aren’t considered organisms

 

[KennyAtom]

So I must ask again, where does the line between "this is definitely a baby that is conscious, and capable reacting to stimuli and "this is not"

When the heartbeat starts.

Also thank you for separating sentences instead of mashing them all together this time.

Ok, so we've established that you have exceptions to your stance abortion, which is good to hear, but let me ask you this:

We've seen recent cases where women that have had abortions been convicted of manslaughter at the least. Assuming this becomes a trend, punishing women who have abortions, do you also draw a line between when a punishment should be acceptable?

For example, in the hypothetical you presented above, should a woman have to abort due to medical necessity, should she be subject to the same punishment as a woman who got an abortion "willy nilly"?

honestly, I don't believe women who've gotten an abortion should be convicted of manslaughter at all, that's when it gets absurd. I do believe doctors who can be proven to have done abortions for women who don't fall under one of the 2 categories should be allowed to be sued though.

One could argue then, that spilling seed is snuffing out the flame of life for all those sperm that otherwise would have a chance of reaching conception. What separates you from that argument (I have family members that have this stance)?

I'd say that if we're going this route, then gay people are snuffing out any chances of life as well since they're not putting that sperm in women. Of course, that's a stupid argument, and so is saying spilling seed means you're as bad as abortion.

That makes sense. Does this also apply to the rape victims?

I'd say yes, since rape is a traumatic thing to go through, and you shouldn't be forced to hold a reminder of it at all, especially in cases of 12 - 17 year olds who shouldn't be a mother yet.

 

[Foxi4]

The fetus is alive and an organism, by definition. However, so do sperm and egg cells - they also have human DNA, just with only half the chromosomes. This is why many consider the zygote to the be starting point of a human being. Personhood is debated to be anywhere within a range depending on who you ask. It's up for debate and is currently more philosophical than anything.

I will offer a counterpoint to this. Sperm and eggs (gametes) have half of the individual donor’s DNA. A fertilised egg in the stage of cell division (zygote) has a complete sequence of DNA that is *dissimilar* to that of the sperm donor or the egg donor. As such, sperm is not an individual organism, but rather a part of, and an excretion of the sperm donor, while the egg is a part of, and an excretion of the egg donor. Upon combining, the resulting cell belongs to neither and becomes an independent entity.

 

[AleronIves]

When does personhood begin?

Okay then, why are you calling fetuses, babies then?

A big problem in the abortion debate is the lack of specific and accurate language when articulating your position. As I've already mentioned, intent is an important aspect of any argument. When anti-abortion advocates say things like "a fetus is a baby," it's easy to dismiss this with "a fetus is not a baby," but that doesn't really further the discussion. What do these statements mean, and what is the intent behind them?

The reason anti-abortion advocates don't get anywhere with this argument is because at face value, it doesn't encapsulate their true argument. Consider this example:

"A child is an adult."

This is demonstrably false. Both a child and an adult are humans, but they are at different points in the human growth process. A child is no more an adult than an adult is a baby. Therefore, when the anti-abortion advocates claim that "a fetus is a baby," it's easy to dismiss the argument as nonsense, because at face value, it is. However, if you're actually interested in having productive dialogue, you have to figure out the intent behind what anti-abortion advocates are trying to say, because they wouldn't keep saying this without reason. Based on @KennyAtom 's recent posts, we can reasonably conclude that when anti-abortion advocates say:

"A fetus is a baby."

What they really mean is:

"A fetus is a person."

Since Kenny has stated his position that abortion may be permissible if no fetal heartbeat has been detected yet, we can conclude that we actually agree on the same metric for when abortion should be permitted:

"Abortion is pemissible before the fetus attains personhood."

Kenny's threshold for personhood is a fetal heartbeat, whereas the threshold agreed upon by several other thread participants is brain development. Our positions are not so far apart, after all. We just need to use common language so that we can express our positions in a way the other side can understand.