Birth Control vs. Abortion

[PRmerger]

Ok. And if you feel this way then of course support politicians that support this.

Sure.

It isn’t fair, but as a practical matter it cost more the other way (WIC, foster care, etc).

Thank you for acknowledging that it isn’t fair.

Not only isn’t it fair, but it’s inconsistent.

 

[Rau]

Oh good, you responded to the first two words of my post. But you haven’t explained how you arrived at that definition. And now I’ll repeat the rest of my request: Explain, under the auspices of that definition, why personhood, or the lack thereof, is a justified distinction with regard to abortion, and why it is somehow untouchable, but life isn’t.

The best she was able to do was to say that this is the position the secular law adopts. Thus, in the absence of any other insight, she declares that that which the law permits establishes what is moral.

 

[NM505StKate]

The best she was able to do was to say that this is the position the secular law adopts. Thus, in the absence of any other insight, she declares that that which the law permits establishes what is moral.

It isn’t about morals here. The court is not the one to make rulings based on morals. If it did one can ask whose morals are they supposed to follow. Through the research given during the trial SCOTUS ruled in favor of bodily autonomy. As science researched further it was discovered when the cerebral cortex developed and what it’s functions are. Since it was reasoned that before 21 weeks the fetus is not likely to survive and it has a small chance between 21 and 24 the fetus isn’t capable of living outside of the womb. Yes we have seen some rare cases where it can happen but again rare Is the key word here…

Since one of the functions of the cortex is olfactory, I assume, then before it is fully developed that the fetus cannot breath on its own. My own conclusion is that with this evidence a fetus isn’t a person until around the third trimester. Also late term abortions are very rare and usually occur when the mother’s life is at risk.

Also yes I do think that in cases of rape and forced incest the woman should be allowed to have an abortion.

 

[PRmerger]

It isn’t about morals here.

Of course it is.

That’s as absurd as saying “It should be illegal to discriminate against a man because he is sexually attracted to another man” and our saying, “It isn’t about morals here”.

Of course it is.

Also yes I do think that in cases of rape and forced incest the woman should be allowed to have an abortion.

I thought you said it wasn’t about morals here?

 

[Rau]

It isn’t about morals here. The court is not the one to make rulings based on morals.

We’d prefer its rules were not at odds with morals, right?

If it did one can ask whose morals are they supposed to follow.

In a democracy, we have to tolerate it drawing the line as the majority see fit. In some cases, conscience may demand we adopt a different stance ourselves.

Through the research given during the trial, SCOTUS ruled in favor of bodily autonomy. As science researched further it was discovered when the cerebral cortex developed and what it’s functions are. Since it was reasoned that before 21 weeks the fetus is not likely to survive and it has a small chance between 21 and 24 the fetus isn’t capable of living outside of the womb.

This of course is not an argument from morals. It’s an argument that rests on a “made up” principle that all young human life, prior to a stage of development, may be freely disposed of should a mother choose to do so.

My own conclusion is that with this evidence** a fetus isn’t a person **until around the third trimester.

It seems that the word “person” is introduced so as to separate the humans who may be murdered from those that may not. So baby Kate cannot be lawfully murdered the day after this point of development, but may be lawfully killed a few days prior.

Also yes I do think that in cases of rape which term includes: forced incest] the woman should be allowed to have an abortion.

This sounds like a kind of argument from morality. A child is less deserving of life according to his father’s actions. Murder of the innocent can be justified because of the way the child was conceived.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

St. Thomas Aquinas refers to this when he asks
whether human law should forbid all vice. It cannot
he says, “because human law is framed for a number
of human beings, the majority of whom are
not perfect in virtue. Therefore human laws do not
forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but
only the more grievous vices, from which it is
possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly
those that are to the hurt of others, without the
prohibition of which human society could not be
maintained; thus human law prohibits murder, theft
and such like.” Of course, we see
abortion as murder, but the problem is that many
others do not. We do not even have consensus on
the moral status of the early embryo. Therefore
overly restrictive laws which the majority of people
will not respect end up bringing about even worse
evils. p 34

chausa.org/docs/default-source/hceusa/winter-2017—full-issue.pdf?sfvrsn=8

 

[o_mlly]

Many people on the Left have made the argument that if the government were to cut off funding for “free” birth control, the number of unwanted pregnancies would go up which in turn would result in more abortions.

Is this a sound argument? And if not, what are some viable arguments to counter this claim?

If the medical school teachers permitted their students to cheat then more patients would die on operating tables resulting in more malpractice lawsuits. Where’s the good in that?