Responding to pro-choicers’ views on abortion

[Erikaspirit16]

Will never happen here.

I’m sure that’s what they said in El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Ireland. And yet…

Let’s try Georgia: "So a woman who was two months pregnant and obtained misoprostol to self-administer a medication abortion would be guilty of murder and could be imprisoned for life. And as Mark Joseph Stern [points out] “If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment.”

And I’ve got a problem: the pro-life position is that “abortion = murder.” Fine. But now you’re saying “most women seeking abortions [i.e., murdering their unborn babies] …are doing it because they are desperate…” I agree with you. But I also don’t think abortion at an early stage = murder. And yet you seem to be saying that a women who is an accessory (at best) to murder should not be punished. Again, I 'm looking for logical consistency in the pro-life position, and I’m not finding it.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But again, if the fetus is a “human being,” why are you placing this innocent human being in prison?

Because it doesn’t have a negative effect on the fetus so it doesn’t matter.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

There’s nothing to bury and I can see considering the expenses that such is not practical.

And yet Pence signed an Indiana law that provided for such burials…look it up.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That kind of undermines your point that it isn’t done then.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

My comment: But again, if the fetus is a “human being,” why are you placing this innocent human being in prison?

Your response:
Because it doesn’t have a negative effect on the fetus so it doesn’t matter.

But hey, I’m not the only one to see this inconsistency—
“This radical revision of Georgia law is quite deliberate: The bill confirms that fetuses “shall be included in population based determinations” from now on, because they are legally humans, and residents of the state. But it is not clear whether the bill’s drafters contemplated the more dramatic consequences of granting legal personhood to fetuses. For instance, as Georgia appellate attorney Andrew Fleischman has [pointed out], the moment this bill takes effect on Jan. 1, 2020, the state will be illegally holding thousands of citizens in jail without bond. That’s because, under HB 481, pregnant inmates’ fetuses have independent rights—including the right to due process. Can a juvenile attorney represent an inmate’s fetus and demand its release? If not, why? It is an egregious due process violation to punish one human for the crimes of another. If an inmate’s fetus is a human, how can Georgia lawfully detain it for a crime it did not commit?”

Huh. Logical consequences…

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

How is the fetus being punished?

 

[Sbee0]

I’m sure that’s what they said in El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Ireland. And yet…

I’m talking about HERE not other countries.

Let’s try Georgia: "So a woman who was two months pregnant and obtained misoprostol to self-administer a medication abortion would be guilty of murder and could be imprisoned for life. And as Mark Joseph Stern [points out] “If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment.”

Yes, I believe he wrote the Slate (again, a very left wing magazine) article that is whipping up this hysteria against this law. It is absolutely false that a woman will face any charges of any kind. Read the law. Clearly Slate didn’t.

And I’ve got a problem: the pro-life position is that “abortion = murder.” Fine. But now you’re saying “most women seeking abortions [i.e., murdering their unborn babies] …are doing it because they are desperate…” I agree with you. But I also don’t think abortion at an early stage = murder.

Human Life begins at conception. Deliberate termination of such life sounds like murder to me.

And yet you seem to be saying that a women who is an accessory (at best) to murder should not be punished.

No they shouldn’t. Their providers absolutely should though. The law got it right. Punishing women won’t do sweet zilch to stop abortions. Which is what pro lifers actually want.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

How is the fetus being punished?

It is imprisoned. No trial. No due process. Now, if it’s NOT a “human being” that’s not a problem. If it is, it is a real problem. Or, you can simply ignore this and be inconsistent and illogical. Your choice.

 

[Sbee0]

VanitasVanitatum:

How is the fetus being punished?

It is imprisoned. No trial. No due process. Now, if it’s NOT a “human being” that’s not a problem. If it is, it is a real problem. Or, you can simply ignore this and be inconsistent and illogical. Your choice.

Fetus is a human being.

Pro lifers are often accused of being anti science but I am afraid it’s not them that is anti science.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I can use the logic that since imprisonment doesn’t actually affect the fetus then it isn’t a punishment.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Using irrelevant arguments doesn’t help your case. This is about consistency so it would be best to answer their objections.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Punishing women won’t do sweet zilch to stop abortions

Nor will making abortions illegal. Eliminate the causes of abortion if you REALLY want to reduce/eliminate abortions.

As for the Georgia law, here is what Ronald Carlson, former trial lawyer and professor emeritus at the Georgia School of Law had to say:

" Carlson told us that because HB 481 did not amend 16-12-140, Georgia’s criminal abortion statute, it was “very likely” that the precedent set in Hillman would remain the status quo, but he noted that any ambiguity surrounding the new legislation could embolden prosecutors to attempt to charge a woman in her own abortion anyway: “Even though the punishment hasn’t been prescribed … in order to prosecute the woman, that doesn’t mean that an aggressive [District Attorney] somewhere will not bring a charge against a woman, just to test this out.” However, Carlson added, his understanding was that the “thrust of the law” still leaned towards protecting the woman from a criminal abortion prosecution.

The ambiguity to which Carlson alluded could come in the form of the second part of Georgia’s “criminal abortion” law, as contained in Section 16-12-141 of the Georgia Code, which sets out in detail what constitutes a criminal abortion. This is the section of the law that HB 481 did amend, declaring that, with certain exceptions, “No abortion is authorized or shall be performed if an unborn child has been determined … to have a detectable human heartbeat.”

“very likely”…“ambiguity”…“thrust of the law leaned toward…” Doesn’t sound too reassuring to me.

 

[Sbee0]

Using irrelevant arguments doesn’t help your case. This is about consistency so it would be best to answer their objections.

Not when their premise is false. The fetus is a life and a human being. That’s a scientific fact. There’s nothing to debate or discuss further on that. I do not deny science.

Now if the argument is about personhood and the merits of abortion - Personhood is philosophical and arbitrary and out of the realm of science. There is no marker to make someone a person that everyone will agree on. We’ve seen that in history. She wants to talk about consistency? With “personhood” there no such thing. Which makes it a poor argument.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

She’s not talking about personhood, but consistency in actions.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Eliminate the causes of abortion if you REALLY want to reduce/eliminate abortions.

Yeah, that’s not really possible and efforts are being made.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Punishing women won’t do sweet zilch to stop abortions

Nor will making abortions illegal. Eliminate the causes of abortion if you REALLY want to reduce/eliminate abortions.

Correct. Law alone won’t do it. Law + fix the cause will. It’s funny that people think pro lifers only care about one when they care about both all along.

As for the Georgia law, here is what Ronald Carlson, former trial lawyer and professor emeritus at the Georgia School of Law had to say:

" Carlson told us that because HB 481 did not amend 16-12-140, Georgia’s criminal abortion statute, it was “very likely” that the precedent set in Hillman would remain the status quo, but he noted that any ambiguity surrounding the new legislation could embolden prosecutors to attempt to charge a woman in her own abortion anyway: “Even though the punishment hasn’t been prescribed … in order to prosecute the woman, that doesn’t mean that an aggressive [District Attorney] somewhere will not bring a charge against a woman, just to test this out.” However, Carlson added, his understanding was that the “thrust of the law” still leaned towards protecting the woman from a criminal abortion prosecution.

The ambiguity to which Carlson alluded could come in the form of the second part of Georgia’s “criminal abortion” law, as contained in Section 16-12-141 of the Georgia Code, which sets out in detail what constitutes a criminal abortion. This is the section of the law that HB 481 did amend, declaring that, with certain exceptions, “No abortion is authorized or shall be performed if an unborn child has been determined … to have a detectable human heartbeat.”

“very likely”…“ambiguity”…“thrust of the law leaned toward…” Doesn’t sound too reassuring to me.

If you’re going to reference Snopes please provide a link next time.

No woman is being prosecuted for abortion. That isn’t happening no matter what hysteria a left wing magazine wants to instigate. Plenty of DAs in Georgia have already said as much.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The fetus is a life and a human being. That’s a scientific fact. There’s nothing to debate or discuss further on that. I do not deny science.

Well, I see you’re trotting out “personhood” again. Fine with me. Please do a search on exactly what scientists (biologist, geneticists, etc.) say–not what you WANT them to say, what they ACTUALLY say.

They say that a fetus (I’m using the term to describe any life in the womb from conception on) is certainly alive. No question about that. And they say that it has the potential to grow into a human being. But they do NOT say that the fetus is a “human being” in the sense that the pro-life movement uses the term. It should be obvious (?) that science can say nothing about the soul. Or about the legal rights that a fetus does or does not have. Or that aborting a fetus = murder. Or that it has any religious or ethical standing whatsoever. These are religious and/or philosophical questions, not scientific questions. So perhaps we agree on that–“personhood is philosophical and arbitrary and out of the realm of science.” I agree. And yet…you seem to be saying that the fetus is a “person” or “human being” with all sorts of connotations and consequences.

It’s funny that people thing pro lifers only care about one when they care about both [fixing the causes of abortion] all along.

So logically I should expect pro-life supporters to support free pre-natal care, free pediatric care, subsidies for having children, free day care for the poor, etc. etc., right? If so, terrific! And yet…I just don’t see that. I see the opposite. (And please don’t cite a list of religious/voluntary organizations who help mothers. That’s also terrific, but falls woefully short of what is needed.) Only the government can provide the support they need.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

If you’re going to reference Snopes please provide a link next time.

All you have to do is type a few words into Google and it will magically pop up. I’m not trying to disguise my quotations. I’m trying to save space!

 

[blackforest]

I’m concerned with the consistency of the Catholic position.

There are Catholic rituals, as well, as I pointed out to you.

Are funerals required in Catholicism? I never stopped to research this. It’s simply taken for granted that we hold them to pray for the departed and provide comfort and closure to the bereaved.

Looks like inconsistency or hypocrisy to me–saying one thing and actually doing another.

It isn’t, and I explained why. But whether or not it is happens to be irrelevant; even phonies and hypocrites can make a solid bioethical case against abortion.

Crazy people have “no cognitive concept of punishment” either. And yet they go to prison.

Mentally ill is the more appropriate term.
And I believe in giving them mental health treatment not locking them in cages. what crime did your hypothetical fetus commit?

A fetus goes wherever the mother goes - Starbucks, prison, or Wally World - with no knowledge of where s/he is or whether or not s/he is being “punished.” No judge punishes a fetus.

Try this consistency on for size: I wouldn’t mind prisons arranging for the babies to remain with their mothers for breastfeeding and round-the-clock care. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say the babies in prison are being “punished.”

You can’t cherry pick conclusions–either the fetus is a “human being” or it’s not.

S/he is. Or did you have another species in mind for this organism?

If you want to deny those consequences, great, but then you have to say that a fetus is NOT a human being. Consistency. Logic.

It’s really not that black and white. For very practical reasons, human beings receive different treatment based on their level of development.

I realize that you think you have a real winner/“gotcha” kind of set-up here. But so long as you can’t see that A) human beings exist in utero, B) they undergo various developmental phases from embryonic to geriatric, and C) these different phases of development may entail different circumstances and treatment . . . your argument crumbles.

 

[graciew]

So logically I should expect pro-life supporters to support free pre-natal care, free pediatric care, subsidies for having children, free day care for the poor, etc. etc., right?

We do have most of that care.Edited: all of it.
And yet the simplest as is that a child in the womb is a human being who should be cherished and kept safe in the womb is disputed …
What you want is unclear to me, what you may not want is clear: it is the baby.
But it has to be distorted until the understandable …
I do not and will probably never understand that.