"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[henry quirk]

Life, liberty, property.

My life, my liberty, my property.

I claim them, defend them; I expect you'd do the same.

Comes down to 'self-ownership' or 'self-possession'. As a deist, I certainly can bring Crom into the discussion, and -- no -- I don't have to 'guess as to what god's will is' (as a deist, Crom's will is pretty plain to me), but I don't have to cuz common sense suffices.

Simply...

If I claim myself as my first, best property, then, sensibly, I must assume others claim themselves similarly. If most folks, at any given time, in any given place, claim themselves, then it is sensible to assume it's normal and natural for human individuals to (attempt to) 'self-own'.

So: if what a pregnant woman carries is a person, it's sensble to assume that person too would claim him/herself.

So: as I've been hammering home, over and over, the foundational question (the question that precedes all other considerations) is...

Is what a pregnant woman carries a person or is it just meat?

[Gary Childress]

Yep. That's what I've been askin', over and over, across multiple threads.

If what a pregnant woman carries is just meat, then what happens to that meat is her decision.

If what a pregnant woman carries is a person, then -- no -- she doesn't have carte blanche.

So: seems to me, until 'we' arrive at consensus (on what a person is, on when meat transitions to person), 'we' ought to err on safety's side and assume what a pregnant woman carries 'is' a person (at the very least, 'we' ought to assume she carries a person in the second & third trimesters).

Are embryos "persons"? It seems like "erring on the side of caution" could also apply to the opposite (imposing parenthood on people who don't want to be). Perhaps it is better to "err on the side of caution" and allow people to continue to have abortions so long as they are performed at a relatively early stage. Apparently most legal abortions (66%) are performed in the first trimester. And 92% are performed within the first 13 weeks.

[Immanuel Can]

Are embryos "persons"? It seems like "erring on the side of caution" could also apply to the opposite (imposing parenthood on people who don't want to be). Perhaps it is better to "err on the side of caution" and allow people to continue to have abortions so long as they are performed at a relatively early stage.

Except that, if we prevent abortions, there's no chance that anybody dies. If we perpetuate them, babies die -- and (maybe) they're people.

So "err on the side of caution" is decidedly an anti-abortion bit of advice.

Apparently most legal abortions (66%) are performed in the first trimester. And 92% are performed within the first 13 weeks.

It depends on where you are.

But even were it true in all cases, what gives you the confidence that you have in hand a human in the second trimester, but a second before, at the end of the first trimester, you don't? And given differential rates of development, how would that even make sense?

[Gary Childress]

Are embryos "persons"? It seems like "erring on the side of caution" could also apply to the opposite (imposing parenthood on people who don't want to be). Perhaps it is better to "err on the side of caution" and allow people to continue to have abortions so long as they are performed at a relatively early stage.

Except that, if we prevent abortions, there's no chance that anybody dies. If we perpetuate them, babies die -- and (maybe) they're people.

So "err on the side of caution" is decidedly an anti-abortion bit of advice.

Or maybe they aren't "people". Then you could be strapping millions of reluctant people with parenthood, potentially contributing to human misery.

[henry quirk]

"Are embryos "persons"?"

I don't know: do you?

#

"It seems like "erring on the side of caution" could also apply to the opposite (imposing parenthood on people who don't want to be)."

No, seems to me you can't force parenthood on a body that doesn't wanna raise a kid. But surely we can agree that innocents ought not be offed just for convenience's sake.

#

"Perhaps it is better to "err on the side of caution" and allow people to continue to have abortions so long as they are performed at a relatively early stage. Apparently most legal abortions (66%) are performed in the first trimester. And 92% are performed within the first 13 weeks."

This works for me. I think 'ensoulment' happens with development of brain. Personally: I'd lay the cut-off at eight weeks.

(Please note: the stats on abortions will vary depending on your information source. Frankly: I don't think, at this point, anyone knows how many abortions are performed globally, or at what point in pregnancy most abortions occur.)

#

"Or maybe they aren't "people"."

Mebbe not. 'We' best figure it out.

[Gary Childress]

(Please note: the stats on abortions will vary depending on your information source. Frankly: I don't think, at this point, anyone knows how many abortions are performed globally, or at what point in pregnancy most abortions occur.)

We're talking about LEGAL abortions. There is data on that.

[henry quirk]

[Gary Childress]

IF embryos are people.

[Immanuel Can]

Or maybe they aren't "people".

You'd need to prove that, before killing any.

Then you could be strapping millions of reluctant people with parenthood, potentially contributing to human misery.

Not a bit.

Every woman has the right to her own body...meaning she has the right to choose suitable partners, to abstain at any time, and to use contraception if she wishes. Women have no shortage of choices about their body; what they're looking for is our approval for a (potentially) wicked "choice" that takes place after she's already (in at least 92% of the cases) made bad earlier choices.

If a woman misbehaves, or if for any reason she fails to prevent, she has the option of putting a child up for adoption, in a society desperate for healthy infant adoptees; so again, the choice all along has been the woman's. If you put a child up for adoption, you know you did something good for the child, and were unselfish at the end, even if, perhaps, you were irresponsible or errant at the start. And that's a whole lot easier to live with than knowing you killed a child.

There's no "reluctant parenthood," and the "human misery" of abortion is a thing you don't even mention. Abortion victims (women) tend to have a lot to say about it, though.

The woman always has many choices...the child, none at all.

[RCSaunders]

RCSaunders wrote:

It is not a challenge for me. I think it is too bad it is used as a social or political issue. Like all true ethical questions, only the principles should be involved, the woman, the father if reasonable, and medical personnel. Otherwise it's nobody else's business.

But it's also the foetus's business.

Of course, the fetus is definitely one of the principles and is free to contribute its own opinion. I'm sure you'll point out the fetus cannot speak for itself and that someone else will have to speak for it. The only individuals who know enough to speak for a fetus (or a very young child) are those who produced it--not you, not society, not the government, and not any of those who live to interfere in other's lives.

How do I know the parents will make the right choice? I don't, but I certainly would trust the parents of a child to make a right choice before any bureaucrat, politician, or government employee such as a welfare worker or cop.

Modern ethics includes universally applying human rights ...

There is no such thing as, "rights:" Untrue Things People Believe--Rights

[Gary Childress]

Or maybe they aren't "people".

You'd need to prove that, before killing any.

Then you could be strapping millions of reluctant people with parenthood, potentially contributing to human misery.

Not a bit.

Every woman has the right to her own body...meaning she has the right to choose suitable partners, to abstain at any time, and to use contraception if she wishes. Women have no shortage of choices about their body; what they're looking for is our approval for a (potentially) wicked "choice" that takes place after she's already (in at least 92% of the cases) made bad earlier choices.

If a woman misbehaves, or if for any reason she fails to prevent, she has the option of putting a child up for adoption, in a society desperate for healthy infant adoptees; so again, the choice all along has been the woman's. If you put a child up for adoption, you know you did something good for the child, and were unselfish at the end, even if, perhaps, you were irresponsible or errant at the start. And that's a whole lot easier to live with than knowing you killed a child.

There's no "reluctant parenthood," and the "human misery" of abortion is a thing you don't even mention. Abortion victims (women) tend to have a lot to say about it, though.

The woman always has many choices...the child, none at all.

It's not just women. It applies to men also. Some men don't want to be parents either. Not all men are pro life. And men can be just as "wicked", leaving a female to care for infants alone. Unfortunately there are irresponsible people in this world, and probably those are the people that you don't want to be parents to begin with. So it could be for the best that they don't become parents.

[henry quirk]

Sumthin' as yet undetermined in a way that satisfies everyone, so: 'we' should err on safety's side.

#

" I certainly would trust the parents of a child to make a right choice before any bureaucrat, politician, or government employee"

Indeed. I agree. Thing is: I'm not sure choosing to end what a pregnant woman carries is the 'right choice'.

-----

Goin' with the 12 year old to a place neither of us wants to be (familial obligation), so: more later

[Immanuel Can]

It's not just women. It applies to men also.

Men also have many choices, starting with whom they impregnate, and when.

...men can be just as "wicked", leaving a female to care for infants alone.

I agree. And men should be taught not to do that, and be made responsible when they do. But even in extremis, the woman is not stuck: she has always got the more moral option of adoption.

[Gary Childress]

But even in extremis, the woman is not stuck: she has always got the more moral option of adoption.

As it currently stands, not all babies are adopted. Take away the right to an abortion and you'll probably multiply the number of unadopted children significantly. Is it better to grow up in squalor and misery or is it better in that case to never have lived?

[RCSaunders]

So: as I've been hammering home, over and over, the foundational question (the question that precedes all other considerations) is...

Is what a pregnant woman carries a person or is it just meat?

It doesn't matter at all unless you're intending to force whichever view you have on anyone else.