Abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.

MechaPilot

Explorer
If it's scientifically/morally/ethically accepted that the fetus is a person deserving of constitutional protection, it's really not that simple.

It's impossible to scientifically prove that a fetus is a person deserving of constitutional protection because deserving is a subjective concept.

Also, what is morally and ethically accepted is a criteria that doesn't hold much water for me. After-all, slavery, the internment of German and Japanese Americans, forcing Native Americans into reservations, only male property-owners being allowed to vote, the brutality of the inquisition, throwing Christians to lions in the colloseum, burning witches and heretics and men of science who went against what the church taught were all things that were accepted in their time.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
I think unequal quitting would result in more long term damage to society. Unequal layoffs end up meaning that the "haves" have jobs. Unequal quitting mean the "have nots" are the only workers.

High unemployment- especially if it is due to involuntary layoffs- lead to all kinds of economic chaos and societal instability & unrest.
 


Enkhidu

Explorer
It's impossible to scientifically prove that a fetus is a person deserving of constitutional protection because deserving is a subjective concept.

1. Is it possible to scientifically "prove" (really, model) the criteria for when a person becomes a person?
2. Are all persons automatically deserving of constitutional protections?
 


MechaPilot

Explorer
1. Is it possible to scientifically "prove" (really, model) the criteria for when a person becomes a person?
2. Are all persons automatically deserving of constitutional protections?

#1: I'm not sure. It depends on what criteria one uses for determining personhood.

Edit: For example, if you had a sentient parasite growing within you, would that be able to meet the criteria as well?

#2: There are plenty of people who are already born and are currently full-grown adults who are not given the full protections of the constitution. So, quite clearly, who is deserving appears to depend on who you ask even when personhood is not in doubt.
 
Last edited:

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
1. Is it possible to scientifically "prove" (really, model) the criteria for when a person becomes a person?
2. Are all persons automatically deserving of constitutional protections?

Even if you, hypothetically, could do so, you're still faced with the competing rights of persons. Does the state protect the rights of the fetus against its mother or does the state protect the rights of the mother against her fetus? Who gets priority and under what circumstances? Roe v Wade already drew a compromise between the two, but that compromise has pretty much been under assault from the day the decision was published.
 

sabrinathecat

Explorer
1. Is it possible to scientifically "prove" (really, model) the criteria for when a person becomes a person?
Really? Please show what scientific studies back up your claim. If it is possible, then it has already been done.

2: US citizens are routinely denied their constitutional protections. Examples, sadly, will lead directly to an off-topic rant. Short version: read or watch "Dirty Wars" by Scahill.
 


innerdude

Legend
I'm.....disheartened, saddened, I suppose, that in all this conversation, nothing has been said to effect that regardless of when you accept "personhood" in term of pregnancy, that every pregnancy represents the potential for human life.

Whether you believe "life" begins at conception, 18 weeks, 24 weeks, 30 weeks, a pregnancy represents an opportunity to bring another sentient being into the world. To enjoy life experiences. To explore their creative potential. To enjoy the privilege of living.

How many works of fiction have we lost to abortion? How many world-renowned paintings? How many symphonies and arias, how many songs? Can loss of potential be quantified this way? I don't know.

I personally believe that life begins at conception, but recognize that the world I live in has determined that until 24 weeks post-conception, an unborn child does not have a fundamental right to life.

This will likely not change, and any attempts to do so are likely futile at this point.

As a result, I can only offer the observation that under many circumstances, an abortion is tragedy, in the truest literal and metaphysical senses.

Obviously when the mother's life and health are at risk, or the child is the product of rape or incest, certainly a safe, legal abortion should be an available recourse. But in so many cases, an abortion is a tragic failure---and perhaps I am not fully without blame in the tragedy.

It's a failure on the part of the man and woman who initiated the pregnancy to evaluate the risks and take even the easiest of steps to prevent it if the pregnancy is unwanted.

It's a failure on the part of government and yes, concerned citizens unwilling to pay increased taxes to support health choices, increased opportunities for medical care, and general financial support for a woman who might choose to carry a pregnancy to full term. I would gladly double my current tax burden if it meant an immediate 50% reduction in the number of abortions performed annually in the United States.

In many cases it's a failure born of broken socioeconomics, of endemic poverty, lack of education and opportunity.

I also recognize that in some cases it is not a failure of any of these, but is a function of a lifestyle choice consciously made. Perhaps it would be these I would most hope to change.

If abortions will be deemed legal, so be it. My charge must then be to work to gently persuade those to choose a different course.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top