Posted on 10/29/2023 11:28:22 AM PDT by daniel1212
"As expressed in a comment and somewhat revised here, the premise behind the typical justificatory arguments for abortion (“respecting individual autonomy and the right to make decisions about one's own body [??? emphasis added],”"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Not only is the word abortion not found in the Constitution, but the only body found in the Constitution is a reference to government entities.
So the so-called "constitutional" right to have an abortion is corrupt political party propaganda imo.
In fact, note that the now repealed 18th Amendment (18A) shows that the law can prohibit people from doing something with their bodies, 18A effectively prohibiting people from drinking alcoholic beverages.
"18th Amendment, Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."
The Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was a MAJOR constitutional scandal imo.
even if the form of the thing may change over time and be different, it is still the same thing, Abortion kills a different form of the same thing.
Correct.
Theoretically, the US Constitution protects individual rights regardless of what the majority wants. This is precisely why we are not a democracy. So, the question returns to whether the fetus is an individual worthy of protection... again, regardless of what the majority wants.
Of course they can, the Supreme Court did. The much praise afforded to the Supremes for upending Roe merely said that you had no federal right to kill your babies but the state was free to kill as many as they wanted to. This practice could have been called into question if the Supreme Court had recognized that babies are human, they didn't.
You’re right, from a “legal” and a practical standpoint.
But I was referring to an ontological one.
D@mn straight there is a football game or something coming up.
I always love taking on the “respecting individual autonomy” argument, since the fetus is both integral to the mother and simultaneously autonomous. It’s also useful to take them on with their “fetus = tumor” analogies:
The fetus is integral to the mother since he or she (that’ll drive ‘em crazy!) is not an abnormal growth (such as a tumor). Instead, he or she is part of the normal female biological process and integral to it. Thereby, killing the fetus breaks the autonomy of the mother’s designed and normal (as opposed to a tumor) body processes.
The fetus is autonomous, as he or she is entirely human in both immediate (contains the full human DNA) and potential form (unlike a tumor, which is just tumor).
Apparently a majority of Americans wants an abortion option, and theoretically that’s how our laws are made.
And a majority may affirm homosexual unions, and the list goes, but which progressive moral decline simply does not warrant giving up opposition and making that an issue and exposing the spurious arguments for it (which the MSM hides), which abandonment "progressively" leads to more.
Yes, we can vote for the most conservative candidate based upon policies and commencement, but we still are to put heat on such to obey,
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment: (Exodus 23:2)
And not content with murder of the unborn, once born, the Left seeks to make feelings determintive of gender!
Not really, that is how they are made in a Democracy and until recently we were a Republic, now not so much. Supremes often ignore the Constitution as well which is what allows us to crumble into chaos, they could have declared unborn babies were human they didn't. Care to ponder what the founders may have thought about whether babies are human or not?
It would be terrible if we found out that human life does indeed start at conception and all of those humans were murdered, sometimes brutally.
There is so little that we understand about nature and our humanity.
Takes 2 to tango.
Funny though how the sperm donors are never mentioned in the whole abortion debate. Never.
Maybe the mother would be less likely to terminate her baby if she had the support of the “baby daddy.”
“ You’re responding to the arguments you’ve memorized, not to the things I’m actually saying.”
Liberals do that a it.
“ We have other things to worry about.”
Which “other things” can you list?
The original question does not match the discussion. It asks for scientific evidence that defends pro-choice.
Nothing is cut and dry or easy to display. There are always if’s and all you can do is work with what you’ve got. And decisions of abortion should not be one of inconvenience. That is not scientific. That is the failure of the two people that literally screwed up. But there are other issues.
For many years after the aids virus hit the scene, many unmarried people asked for their prospective partner to have a negative test prior to the act. In four states, for a time, HIV was part of the marriage testing. (It was stopped rapidly.) But there are other types of testing. and most of it too late.
All pregnant people are offered screening tests during pregnancy to find any health conditions that could affect you or your baby. If your screening tests show that your baby has a higher chance of a serious condition, or if you have a family history of a certain condition, you may be offered diagnostic tests. These tests tell you for certain whether you or your baby has the condition.
Depending on the diagnosis, it may sometimes be possible to treat you or your baby while you are pregnant, or after your baby is born.
But some conditions found in babies may cause chronic illness, severe disability, stillbirth or the death of a baby soon after birth (neonatal death). These conditions are sometimes referred to as fetal anomalies disorders. Some rare pregnancy complications can risk your or unborn child’s life or health if you continue the pregnancy. Diagnostic tests are sometimes done at your nearest fetal medicine unit. This is a specialist service for pregnant people who need specialist care.
There are also occasions when the unborn child is deceased in the womb and it might be a problem carrying a child already expired to term especially if the life and health of the mother is involved.
The original question asked for scientific reasons. I offered a few. Like I said, I do not believe in abortion for birth control. But I also believe that the above scenarios do justify not banning abortion altogether. But it isn’t a cut and dry thing that should be left to the politicians to make laws for or against it.
wy69
It is not above my pay grade to realize that if something is growing inside as a result of sexual relations which normally results in birth of children, and which even has a pulse at around 5–6 weeks of pregnancy, then I should treat it as a child, which it is only increasingly manifest to be, versus treating it as a cancerous growth.
Which is basically a red herring as typically used in the debate, and was dealt with in my answer in showing that such constitute a very small minority of abortions.
Abortion is murder. Plain and simple.
“Which is basically a red herring as typically used in the debate, and was dealt with in my answer in showing that such constitute a very small minority of abortions.”
As I see it, this whole thread was an effort to decide the viability of abortion. I made it quite clear that I opposed the act being used as birth control. But I also said there are cases indicating that there were scientific reasons for it based upon health and safety and your thread to me indicated you knew of their existence.
Each life or death situation involving those small amounts of abortions you recognize should not be handled by politicians. How many people have to die, fetus, mother or both, to make the use of illegal, at that point, abortions by putting a one size fits all law that doesn’t cover those cases have to happen? You can’t have both. At least one is the lesser of two evils whether it’s good or bad. And that decision should remain with the prospective parents of the unborn and the doctor. Not some state legislator or federal court based upon congressional law. That’s what we got into with Roe. The whole exercise of that was to get the abortion issue back to the states where it can be retreated back to a medical issue and not a political one.
You can speculate on the moral issues of abortion under the conditions that most in their entries displayed here. However, that was not the question...scientific evidence was the request. They exist, you recognize them, but you don’t consider them viable until they reach a certain amount of existence. That wasn’t not the question.
wy69
So if a state decided that conservatives must be censored then that should remain at a state level? Issues end up in the SCOTUS due to be unresolved at lower levels.
You can speculate on the moral issues of abortion under the conditions that most in their entries displayed here. However, that was not the question...scientific evidence was the request. They exist, you recognize them, but you don’t consider them viable until they reach a certain amount of existence. That wasn’t not the question.
Yes, the question - by one who was being persuaded toward proabortion, did ask for scientific evidence for being "pro-choice," and I responded (originally to a comment) by attacking a fundamental proabortion argument which would be helped by scientific evidence, which is that abortion being justified in the case of expectation of actual death to the mother (mainly due to ectopic pregnancies or a dead baby = approx 2%) negates all pro-life arguments, as if that sanctions the vast majority of abortions.
My purpose was not simply to inform, but to counter the typical answers to this question. And Quora hid my comments from public view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.