WakeandBake
Well-known member
Well, I really don't believe that you do given your canon of posts over the years. This is about your religion and politics. You display zero compassion for born babies as far as I can tell. just sayin
Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate
- Thread starter Wrangor
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
RChildress107
Well-known member
FWIW I personally think personhood and thus full citizenship begins at birth. However, given the rarity of third trimester abortions and the fact that most are for the life of the mother anyway I'm willing to concede the point.
And of course full personhood isn't necessary to receive state protection, no one has argued otherwise. But in the case of abortion the state's interest in protecting the alive, but not yet a person fetus must be weighed against the mothers liberty interest.
The state has an interest, albeit a small one, in protecting a fetus post conception. However, it lacks the theoretical ability to ultimately protect a fetus prior to viability.
I personally would say that the states interest becomes compelling at the ~28 week mark just to be on the safe side, but realize reasonable minds can disagree on this point (up to viability).
2016: when you disagree with someone about the best policies, you almost certainly hate babies.
RChildress107
Well-known member
My position is that personhood is not possible without consciousness which requires a certain level of brain function which a fetus obtains (at the very earliest, in reality it probably comes much later) around 28 weeks. No matter how many times you try and mis-state it.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Over the top about "hating babies" but I think there's a lot of credence to WakeandBake's point that there's one hell of a lot of interest invested into the pro-life movement - a level of compassion which is unmatched post-birth. The views underlying the pro-life vantage point on moral grounds are not very consistent vis-a-vis other areas (namely war) for most conservatives, and from your posts on here JHMD, not very consistent for you either.
RChildress107
Well-known member
Basic reading comprehension for the win.
Forgive me for being confused by this post:
Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
oh I don't know, birth maybe. Let's not pretend that going from being inside the womb, totally dependent on another specific human to breathing on your own out in the real world is comparable to crossing the street.
Regardless of whether you think a 39 week old fetus is a person, you can't deny that birth brings about a fundamental change in the existence of that being.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
you don't hate babies, you just don't really care about babies of people you don't know like you profess to on these threads about abortion. You zig zag from policy discussion when you get bested and start the emotional appeals like you really give a shit, but when you look at your overall positions on everything else it rings hollow.
We should use this thread to talk about the pros and cons of terminating (potential?) human life on demand. We should use other threads to talk about the Iraq War or whether or not you and I agree that the Welfare State has created a system that does intergenerational damage to family structures (including the babies that live in them).
This is the thread where you guys dazzle me with the upside of the War on the Inconvenient.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Pointing out ideological inconsistencies underlying your views on abortion relative to other issues is within the purview of this thread's topic. It's probing at what the actual crux of the issue is on which you're basing your decision. WnB seems to be pointing out that your alleged position "protecting people from barbaric murder" does not gel with other areas where you do not seem to be as interested as you are here in "protecting people from barbaric murder." That's certainly on topic and pertinent.
It is true that WnB and I disagree on whether there should be a healthy limit to the amount of public assistance an able-bodied person should be able to draw over the course of their lifetime. Not sure that is the same thing as indifference to the termination of 950,000 prenatal non-persons last year.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
You also, at multiple times in the past which may have all be tongue in cheek, advocated for an essential "carpet bombing" of a large portion of the Middle East which would assuredly result in a large number of "barbaric murders" of persons.
RChildress107
Well-known member
I said I would consider charging a mother with murder for a third trimester abortion draconian. You said "But 24 hours after birth it's fine to charge the mother with murder? What's the difference?" (Or something to that effect.
I responded that the difference was obviously birth. I said nothing about personhood (though I do personally think birth is the proper line) but was merely pointing out that even if a third trimester fetus is a person (it might be after 28 weeks or so) birth is still a pretty major event and it would be a non-arbitrary place to draw a line.
You are forgiven for not being able to follow a logical train of thought. It's not your fault.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
The only reason I expand the discussion to other forms of state-sanctioned baby killing is because we have argued these points of 'personhood' et al ad nauseum. The only thing left to do is to compare this form of baby-killing and avoidable baby-suffering to all the other forms we walk through our day-to-day lives either advocating against or ignoring, IMO.
If the United States of America took a pro-life position, then it should be an honest one that included primarily no death penalty, no preemptive wars (at the least) in population centers, no drone strikes in civilian areas, and secondarily advocate robust programs to fight hunger and disease among its citizens, robust health care for all, robust education programs etc that are not constantly in danger if defunding and attack from small-government advocates with outdated, unproven, and disingenuous economic plans that run counter.
If the United States of America took a pro-life position, then it should be an honest one that included primarily no death penalty, no preemptive wars (at the least) in population centers, no drone strikes in civilian areas, and secondarily advocate robust programs to fight hunger and disease among its citizens, robust health care for all, robust education programs etc that are not constantly in danger if defunding and attack from small-government advocates with outdated, unproven, and disingenuous economic plans that run counter.
It is true that I view the lawful application of military power when lesser instruments of power have failed differently than terminating an inconvenient life with the adoption option left on the table. I'm also in favor of the State taking the life of a convicted killer because I believe the death penalty is a deterrent to other potential offenders. If that's the gotcha moment WnB is looking for to take a pass on his views on the issue of abortion, "congrats."
It would be just as tempting to point out the overlay of the Venn Diagrams of the BLM crowd with the Pro-choice crowd (where a black mother is five times more likely to terminate the life of her baby than a white mother; I guess Developing Black Lives Don't Matter...), but that's also a crappy argument.
How about we just focus on this thread's issues, and you all can tell me what's unacceptable about publicly funded adoptions (paid for by a tax levied on 5% of the net investment income of the top income tax bracket)? What if we started adding to the array of "choices" these mothers have?
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Publicly funded adoptions aren't "unacceptable" to me, but it also doesn't address the legal issue underlying the state mandating a woman carry a fetus to term.
myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
I have argued that. What the hell is partial personhood?
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
JH is an expert
Quite the opposite; that seems like a topic best suited for someone wishing to draw the line after conception but before full-up personhood.
RChildress107
Well-known member
I should have said actual. The state has an interest in protecting anything under its jurisdiction, loving it not, human or not, person or not. A "living" organism that has the potential to become a person is probably worthy of some protection from the state, but if that protection infringes on the rights of actual persons, the rights of actual persons should trump the state's interest in protecting potential persons.