House Passes Anti-Abortion Bill

[Nulono]

When did I claim abortion was illegal? I've been saying it should be.

It won't do anything. All that will happen is women who don't want the baby will do black market or home abortions, thus not only resulting in an aborted baby, but also a life-threatened host. The same argument goes with drugs. I personally oppose drugs, but as Prohibition + the War on Drugs shows, it's better to have it legal + state regulated, than forced directly onto the black market just to please some moral holier-than-thous.

Personally, I have no problem with abortion, even though I wouldn't do it myself, nor could I even if I wanted to (I am infertile), but I find the above logic inescapable and objective in torpedoing the anti-abortion argument, as opposed to the whole "what is life?!" subjectivity battle.

Should we legalize rape, murder, or arson, so that they can be made safer?

[Tekania]

That's an absurd definition of personhood to begin with, to be limited purely based upon the dna footprint and biological composition of a thing. It would assentially DENY personhood to any other self-aware beings that aren't biological members of homo sapien sapien. Not an adequate definition at all... It must be scraped if reason it to prevail.

So you think it's more reasonable to define personhood in such a way as to exclude newborns and the mentally handicapped from legal protection? Not to mention self-awareness ISN'T the legal standard for personhood.

Yes, I do think it's more reasonable to do so. It's certainly far more reasonable than that of a self-aware creature of perfectly sound mind should be denied personhood under your irrational criteria.

[Takaram]

It won't do anything. All that will happen is women who don't want the baby will do black market or home abortions, thus not only resulting in an aborted baby, but also a life-threatened host. The same argument goes with drugs. I personally oppose drugs, but as Prohibition + the War on Drugs shows, it's better to have it legal + state regulated, than forced directly onto the black market just to please some moral holier-than-thous.

Personally, I have no problem with abortion, even though I wouldn't do it myself, nor could I even if I wanted to (I am infertile), but I find the above logic inescapable and objective in torpedoing the anti-abortion argument, as opposed to the whole "what is life?!" subjectivity battle.

Should we legalize rape, murder, or arson, so that they can be made safer?

Nope, because these trespass on the rights of other people.

[Nulono]

Should we legalize rape, murder, or arson, so that they can be made safer?

Nope, because these trespass on the rights of other people.

Then the issue is a red herring. If the unborn child is a person, the same applies.

So you think it's more reasonable to define personhood in such a way as to exclude newborns and the mentally handicapped from legal protection? Not to mention self-awareness ISN'T the legal standard for personhood.

Yes, I do think it's more reasonable to do so. It's certainly far more reasonable than that of a self-aware creature of perfectly sound mind should be denied personhood under your irrational criteria.

You think it's more reasonable to say that babies and the mentally handicapped have no rights than it is to say that an unborn child is a person?

[Takaram]

Nope, because these trespass on the rights of other people.

Then the issue is a red herring. If the unborn child is a person, the same applies.

An unborn fetus is not a person, ergo this isn't trespassing on another person's rights.

[Nulono]

Then the issue is a red herring. If the unborn child is a person, the same applies.

An unborn fetus is not a person, ergo this isn't trespassing on another person's rights.

An unborn fetus? Is there any other kind?

[Takaram]

An unborn fetus is not a person, ergo this isn't trespassing on another person's rights.

An unborn fetus? Is there any other kind?

You. The point.

[Tekania]

You think it's more reasonable to say that babies and the mentally handicapped have no rights than it is to say that an unborn child is a person?

Without a doubt... Of course, your use of mentally handicapped is somewhat of a deception, as being mentally handicapped would not necessarily qualify someone as not a person since the term can convey a wide scope of meaning.... Someone whose mind is defective in such a way that they have an issue descerning letters/numbers certainly isn't the same thing as someone whose mind is so destroyed they cannot control their own lungs of heart... So within certain constraints yes, most certainly.

[Nulono]

You think it's more reasonable to say that babies and the mentally handicapped have no rights than it is to say that an unborn child is a person?

Without a doubt... Of course, your use of mentally handicapped is somewhat of a deception, as being mentally handicapped would not necessarily qualify someone as not a person since the term can convey a wide scope of meaning.... Someone whose mind is defective in such a way that they have an issue descerning letters/numbers certainly isn't the same thing as someone whose mind is so destroyed they cannot control their own lungs of heart... So within certain constraints yes, most certainly.

If personhood is dependent upon self-awareness, anyone with the mental age of an infant would not qualify.

An unborn fetus? Is there any other kind?

You. The point.

What point? You mean your assertion?

[Takaram]

You. The point.

What point? You mean your assertion?

Yes, the subject of my post, rather than some grammatical redundancy.

[Tekania]

If personhood is dependent upon self-awareness, anyone with the mental age of an infant would not qualify.

Ok, yes... And? Are you in the habit of simply stating the obvious?

[Alien Space Bats]

Abolition didn't have basis in law, and in fact slavery was a constitutionally protected right. Abolitionists imposed their personal moral position on disagreeing Southerners.

And if you and your supporters can get 3/4 of the State legislatures in America to agree with you in passing an Amendment to grant full legal personhood to the unborn, then you'll be right where you want to be. Good luck with that.

For my part, I won't support such a thing. The most I could be persuaded to support would be an Amendment permitting the States to regulate or ban the practice of abortion in cases where the infant is or would become viable (in the course of its expected fetal development), and where there is no medical necessity for an abortion as judged by a practicing physician - but without granting the unborn any legal standing whatsoever. I would not support such an Amendment if it allowed States to impose criminal penalties for the practice of abortion (civil penalties would be as far as I'd go, to be assessed only against the practitioner of abortion services where they were deemed illegal), and I would insist that no penalty of any kind could be imposed on a pregnant women who lost her child, whatever the circumstances.

But that is absolutely as far as I'd go. No rights for the unborn.

[Nulono]

What point? You mean your assertion?

Yes, the subject of my post, rather than some grammatical redundancy.

All you said was "Fetuses aren't persons.".

If personhood is dependent upon self-awareness, anyone with the mental age of an infant would not qualify.

Ok, yes... And? Are you in the habit of simply stating the obvious?

Then they would have no right to live? And that is more reasonable than saying all human beings are persons, regardless of their mental capabilities?

[Takaram]

Yes, the subject of my post, rather than some grammatical redundancy.

All you said was "Fetuses aren't persons.".

Yes, fetuses are not considered people by our legal code or our society, so your argument that abortion is murder does not apply.

[Nulono]

Abolition didn't have basis in law, and in fact slavery was a constitutionally protected right. Abolitionists imposed their personal moral position on disagreeing Southerners.

And if you and your supporters can get 3/4 of the State legislatures in America to agree with you in passing an Amendment to grant full legal personhood to the unborn, then you'll be right where you want to be. Good luck with that.

For my part, I won't support such a thing. The most I could be persuaded to support would be an Amendment permitting the States to regulate or ban the practice of abortion in cases where the infant is or would become viable (in the course of its expected fetal development), and where there is no medical necessity for an abortion as judged by a practicing physician - but without granting the unborn any legal standing whatsoever. I would not support such an Amendment if it allowed States to impose criminal penalties for the practice of abortion (civil penalties would be as far as I'd go, to be assessed only against the practitioner of abortion services where they were deemed illegal), and I would insist that no penalty of any kind could be imposed on a pregnant women who lost her child, whatever the circumstances.

But that is absolutely as far as I'd go. No rights for the unborn.

No rights at all? 5 month premie = person, 10 month fetus = worthless?

[Tekania]

Then they would have no right to live? And that is more reasonable than saying all human beings are persons, regardless of their mental capabilities?

Yes, it is more reasonable. I think there is something wrong with this thread, you appear to simply repeating the obvious aspects of what I already stated, while I have been repeatedly affirming the validity of the same over and over again.

[Nulono]

All you said was "Fetuses aren't persons.".

Yes, fetuses are not considered people by our legal code or our society, so your argument that abortion is murder does not apply.

So? Plenty of groups weren't considered persons throughout history. Something isn't okay just because society says it is.

Then they would have no right to live? And that is more reasonable than saying all human beings are persons, regardless of their mental capabilities?

Yes, it is more reasonable. I think there is something wrong with this thread, you appear to simply repeating the obvious aspects of what I already stated, while I have been repeatedly affirming the validity of the same over and over again.

How is that more reasonable?

[Tekania]

How is that more reasonable?

It provides for a broader more robust definition of personhood, especially within the advancing concepts of our technology which will be applicable as our progression into the realm of artificial intelligence continues.... Alowing laws and philosophy to operate proactively with the future rather than reactively.... Pretty reasonable.

[Nulono]

How is that more reasonable?

It provides for a broader more robust definition of personhood, especially within the advancing concepts of our technology which will be applicable as our progression into the realm of artificial intelligence continues.... Alowing laws and philosophy to operate proactively with the future rather than reactively.... Pretty reasonable.

So it's more reasonable because it includes artificial intelligences, but mine isn't more reasonable because it includes babies?

[The Chaos Heart]

So we're arguing about our stances on abortion now?

I've posted this in another topic, but I suppose I'll bring it up now then. Since medically we consider the end of human life to be when brain activity ceases, then i think it only serves to make logical sense that we consider the beginning of brain activity in a fetus to be the beginnings of human life. This occurs roughly around 2 months (I think. Someone else can confirm.) into the pregnancy. Two months is plenty of time to figure out if you're pregnant or not, and decide whether or not if you want an abortion. I think this is perfectly reasonable.

[Tekania]

It provides for a broader more robust definition of personhood, especially within the advancing concepts of our technology which will be applicable as our progression into the realm of artificial intelligence continues.... Alowing laws and philosophy to operate proactively with the future rather than reactively.... Pretty reasonable.

So it's more reasonable because it includes artificial intelligences, but mine isn't more reasonable because it includes babies?

Yes, that is correct. Mine is more universally applicable.

[Nulono]

So we're arguing about our stances on abortion now?

I've posted this in another topic, but I suppose I'll bring it up now then. Since medically we consider the end of human life to be when brain activity ceases, then i think it only serves to make logical sense that we consider the beginning of brain activity in a fetus to be the beginnings of human life. This occurs roughly around 2 months (I think. Someone else can confirm.) into the pregnancy. Two months is plenty of time to figure out if you're pregnant or not, and decide whether or not if you want an abortion. I think this is perfectly reasonable.

Biologically, the fetus is alive. The medical definition is a pragmatic one; it was once the heartbeat, but we changed that once we could bring people back after cardiac arrest. Also, not everyone learns of their pregnancy in the first two months.

[Nulono]

So it's more reasonable because it includes artificial intelligences, but mine isn't more reasonable because it includes babies?

Yes, that is correct. Mine is more universally applicable.

Mine isn't universally applicable?

[Tekania]

Yes, that is correct. Mine is more universally applicable.

Mine isn't universally applicable?

No, it isn't... It's homiocentric.

[Nulono]

Mine isn't universally applicable?

No, it isn't... It's homiocentric.

Yours is sapient-centric. Your point?