The "Pro-Life-LITE" argument....how many times have you heard

the "pro-lifers" who self-righteously declare themselves "pro-life"....and state "Abortion is MURDERING a baby"....

but when asked "So? You want to make it illegal...ban it, nation-wide, right?"


Suddenly (in bit of political manuevering or just being recreant) say..

"No! Nobody or almost nobody wants to ban abortion. That's just hyperbole and propaganda from the feminists and pro-choicers to scare people!"

Wait a minute? You think abortion is "murder"?...but you DON'T want it made illegal?!?!?

 

I've never heard this one.

 

A poster on my "I accuse that woman" OP attempted to dismiss my hypothetical by claiming that there were only "some" "pro-lifers" ...some minimal number....who want to make abortion illegal.

On other blogs, I have also seen self-declared "pro-lifers" who say abortion is "murdering a child"....yet do NOT want it made illegal.

How would one explain that they consider an act "murder"....but do not want it criminalized?!?!?

BTW, I would also be interested in libertarians who live in fear of the Government controlling people's health care...but support the Government controlling people's reproduction. I have met them too. (Not an accusation...merely a question)

 

Libertarians respect the rights of the individual. Whether or not they believe fetuses are individuals varies... but I don't think you will find any libertarians suggesting it is ok to murder your 5 year old either.

- - - Updated - - -

Libertarians respect the rights of the individual. Whether or not they believe fetuses are individuals varies... but I don't think you will find any libertarians suggesting it is ok to murder your 5 year old either.

 

I've done other posts where I've tried to find someone who ACTUALLY believes in the "equivalency" of killing a five year old....and terminating a five week old pregnancy.

Needless to say the answers were not forthcoming or direct in almost all cases.

 

My argument is pretty simple - once the fetus has it's own brain it deserves full protection as an individual, prior to that abortion should be legal on demand since it doesn't meet the criteria for a human life until the brain is developed, and therefore isn't the govt's business since it's not a human life issue - this seems to be what we used to distinguish forms of life which deserve rights - ex. humans and animals have a brain - they are protected by the law from inhumane killing - plants however have no brain or individual awareness, and are not protected from killing despite still being a form of "life" and having their own DNA.

Early term abortion = fine, late term abortion = should only be legal to save the mother's life.

 

If you believe a zygote is the same as a human being the millisecond after conception, then it's hypocritical to hold that position - because if you actually believe that then it is no different than saying someone should have the "individual right" to kill their 5 year old either. If you say there's a difference then you don't actually believe that

 

I have never heard anyone say that. Conversely, I hear a lot of people on your side say things like, "I could never get an abortion, but I couldn't deny someone else the choice to get one," and "Personally, I am against abortion, but I'm not going to tell other people what to do."

Why are you against it if there's nothing wrong with it? That's not even a logical argument.

 

It's called not interfering in others peoples choices, you should try it sometime.

Just because I personally believe something is wrong does not give me justification to impose my personal beliefs onto another, for example I believe your 2nd Amendment is wrong, should I then be able to impose that view onto you, or would you start screaming about your constitutional right to bear arms being infringed. Pro-lifers seem to forget that the highest court you have as already found that abortion is a right .. so if I can't enforce my opinion on your right to bear arms why should you be able to enforce your opinion on abortion.

 

I don't believe in government, but recognize that abortion is murder and should be outlawed.

 

Well I do agree with that - I think some on both sides of the issue are hypocrites

Ex. I think people who are 100% "pro life" but say they are okay with rape/incest exceptions are hypocrites - because if they believe life begins at conception but are okay with 'killing a baby' if it was conceived thru rape or incest, then that's hypocritical. If they believe it's a human at the second of conception then that's no different than saying "I'm okay with a mother killing her 2 year old if it was conceived thru rape or incest"

And on the other side of the spectrum - some who are 100% 'pro choice' say they think 'human life' begins the millisecond before the baby leaves the womb, yet at the same time they say they they "wish abortion rates" were lower - but if it isn't a human life until it leaves the womb, then they shouldn't care.

Personally I don't believe that human life begins at conception - but I believe that it begins when the fetus' has a functioning brain (this seems to be how we distinguish human and animal life - which does have rights protecting it, from plant life - which is biologically a form of "life" and has it's own DNA, but doesn't have it's own brain or awareness).

Personally I think that "women's right's" should be totally irrelevant to the issue - if it's a human life then it deserves full protection - if it's not a human life then it's not the govt's business since it's an issue that only affects the individual. I'm not a biology expert but I don't believe that 1 millisecond after conception that an embryo is a human life - on the same note I don't believe that 1 millisecond before a baby exists the womb that a baby 'has no rights' simply because of a legal discrepancy either

 

Personally on your first point I agree, as to your second point I don't agree, the moment of birth is the one true place where there can be no conflict of rights. The fetus has exited the womb and is no longer a biological dependent on another person for it's survival, it may be socially dependent but that status encompasses anyone who is willing to care for it, the same is not true pre-birth. As a compromise I personally would be prepared to accept that upon the achievement of consistent brain wave activity abortion should be (as it is already) restricted, but this in no way means that I am being hypocritical in my beliefs. It is merely a compromise.

Rights are the defining issue in abortion, the pro-life camp seem to think that the right to life trumps any other right and that is simply not the case. The right to life can be removed by others under the guise of justification such as executions, war and self-defence .. Yet the right to own ones body and decide to what purpose that body is used has NEVER been taken away, even the most evil of murderers do not lose the right to refuse to have their blood, organs etc taken and that is true even after their death. I truly believe that if the right to abortion is removed it opens the door for governments to make other laws deciding when a persons body autonomy can be over ruled.

 

Sorry I disagree with that - I think that right to life is the most important one - I don't believe that early term abortion = killing a child since an embryo the second after conception has no brain - nevertheless if you take the 'human life' factor completely out of the equation, then the argument isn't much different than arguments for slavery (ex. a "legislature" unilaterally declaring that "negroes" aren't people totally irrelevant to the fact that biologically they are just as human as a white man).

I think that the abortion argument should be simplified to when human life begins. When the fetus is a human life, then it deserves just as much protection as a baby - prior to that though, abortiion should be legal on demand for any reason since "human life" isn't a factor in the equation, and it's not the govt's business to dictate to free men/women that they're "obligated" to give birth". If human rights were the only issue that was considered then the whole abortion debate would be over relatively easy (ex. when it's a human life it deserves protection - when it's not a human life, it's not the govt's business).

 

If there was no government how would abortion be outlawed ?

 

but as already shown the right to life is not the most important one, it can be removed . .where as the right to how your body is used has never been removed, no one, regardless, can be forced to give up any or all of their body in order to allow another to live, and I didn't say that the human life issue should be taken out of the equation all together, I just pointed out that it is not the inalienable right pro-lifers seem to think it is, the right to life does not trump the body autonomy of another person. You cannot sustain your own life by using another persons body or parts there of, not even the government can force you to do that, but they can force you to die.

It is a simple argument, the question should be when does a person lose the right to who, what, where and when their body is used . .the answer is never. where as the question of when does a person lose the right to life, the answer is when a government decides it based on arbitrary conclusions .. executions, war and self-defence are all examples of people losing their right to life. It only takes one justification for the removal of the right to life to show that that right is not inalienable. I can not think or find any justification for the removal of the right to body autonomy or self determination when it comes to who, what, where and when a person's body is used against their will.

 

True. But I also think it's extremely intellectually dishonest for abortion people to constantly play this card as if these two things are responsible for the majority of abortions when statistically they are a tiny minority that is only used as propaganda to justify massive cultural acceptance of wanton infanticide.

^And that was exactly my point. It's not even a logical position. But most of those people are just armchair moralists anyway. Trying to dictate the standards of society from a detached, elitist hipster ivory tower. I like to ask them how a few mere inches of flesh determines the difference between "person" and "non-person." If life begins at birth, then technically a child is still not a person 5 minutes before it is born. Despite the fact that it is not going to develop anymore between then and the time that it passes through the magical vagina gateway and gets granted its citizenship from the government like an immigrant. I'm sure you remember the story floating around the forum back around 2010 or 2011 where those two Australian "ethicists" were arguing for "post-birth abortion" claiming that newborns weren't people yet either. And really, by the aforementioned logic, who's to say they're wrong? If the children are not any different developmentally, then why draw the line at birth? Why can't you just draw it pretty much wherever you want? The whole thing just becomes this ridiculous slippery slope.

In reality, it's all just bull(*)(*)(*)(*) solipsistic talking points. Hypothetically, if most of those people were expecting and someone assaulted them or their wife and caused them/her to miscarry, there is no way in hell that they would just shrug it off as losing a clump of cells. They would be crushed that they lost their child and would suddenly demand "social justice." Which is what outs their attitude as ridiculously disingenuous and their position on life, itself, as completely illogical. To them, a child is not actually defined by any particular stage of development but only by whether or not it is wanted by its parents. Their only true definition of personhood hinges upon the subjective value that one "person" places upon another. And as long as they're not the one being dehumanized, themselves, then it's all good.

My take on it is this. At our core, we all know damn well when we're doing something wrong. But most of us are master bull(*)(*)(*)(*) artists. We lie to ourselves constantly to try to justify what we want instead of what we know we should actually be doing. This is the power of human rationalization. And we all do it to some degree. I did it this morning when I went to Starbucks and bought a frappuccino that I really didn't need and am going to have to bust my ass at the gym later to work off. On a smaller scale, rationalization just creates unnecessary hurdles in our personal lives that prevent us from being as fulfilled as we could be. On a larger scale, it is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history. I always compare abortion to slavery because I think the two are very similar in a lot of ways. And both are products of human rationalization. It's not that people two hundred years ago didn't recognize that owning another person was wrong. They just rationalized it as being acceptable. "You know, I bought this. It came from overseas. It looks different from me. It doesn't seem to be as smart. And it makes my work a lot easier. This is fine. There's nothing wrong with what I'm doing. Maybe I'll even buy a few more." Same basic concept with abortion. "You know, this hasn't really developed yet. So how much of a person can it really be? It looks different from me. It can't really think. And my life will be a lot easier without it. This is fine. There's nothing wrong with what I'm doing. I can always have another one later." In both cases, it's a blatant self-serving disregard for other human life. And the best proof of rationalization in this behavior can be found in the mandatory ultrasound argument. If a child in utero is not a person, then there is zero logical argument against looking at it before you kill it. Interestingly, some of these people try to argue that viewing an ultrasound "manipulates women into not having abortions." But how is that even possible if it's not a person? How can you be swayed by a picture of a clump of cells on a screen? I thought it was no different than a tumor. Isn't that what they always tell us? The truth is that being forced to look at what you are doing before you do it robs you of the ability to rationalize. Suddenly the act becomes very clear, you know exactly what you're doing, and your conscience kicks back in and you're forced to do the right thing.

 

Government ≠ law

 

I can say I have never heard that before. I've heard more of yes I do want to make it illegal. I'm pro-life leaning, meaning exceptions for danger to the mother, or fetus.

- - - Updated - - -

I think I remember one of these posts

 

Theres more then one criteria one can use to determine human life, if it were that simple, the debate would be over. I believe it is a human life once the chromosomes merge and make the 46/47 chromosomes. That si where human life begins to me.

 

Lots are trying to impose their views on the 2nd amendment and restrict it. That's what laws do. Impose a view that others have to follow. Nobody has forgotten the ruling that made abortion a right. Its the center of the arguments today, whether that ruling was constitutional

 

and what do you think and feel about those people who are trying to do this?

not all laws.

TBH I feel the debate has moved far beyond that point, other factors have been introduced and as such even if Roe were to be overturned (unlikely in my opinion) it would not necessarily mean the end to elective abortion.

 

I feel no constitutional right should be infringed.
Name a law that does not impose a view
Roe V Wade is not a law, so overturning it will not make abortion illegal, it would give the power back to the States to decide if they want abortion within their borders. This is what the constitution intended IMO, as the founding fathers intent was a weak federal government and a strong State government. I also feel their is no gray in the constitution. The constitution doesn't even mean what it originally did in a lot of cases, due to SCOTUS interpretations over the years.

 

Then I don't understand why you are against abortion, which is covered under the 14th amendment, you may not agree with that decision but it was taken by the highest court you have whose sole purpose is interpretation of the constitution as it relates to law, and I note that the original decision as taken by a set of judges that had a conservative majority and has been upheld despite times when SCOTUS has been a conservative majority since.

Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law. Some examples include cases to which the United States is a party, cases involving Treaties, and cases involving ships on the high seas and navigable waterways (admiralty cases).

You also have the problem of infringing the females constitutional right found in the 14th amendment of liberty - nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, - liberty is legally deemed as -

- Extract from Black's Law dictionary 9th Edition.

liberty. (14c) 1. Freedom from arbitrary or undue external restraint, esp. by a government <give me liberty or give
me death>. 2. A right, privilege, or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; the absence of a legal duty imposed on a person <the liberties protected by the Constitution>. [Cases: Constitutional Law ~1079, 3873.]

So in essence your assertion that "no constitutional right should be infringed" should include this.

Murder laws, they are accepted without any dispute as no one has the opposing view that to kill another human being willfully is acceptable.

Your right, though I didn't say it was a law, it is a constitutional right and state laws do not overrule the constitution. That is what the supremacy clause upholds, and it doesn't matter if you feel that this was what the constitution intended, neither you or I are the people who have trained and studied the constitution in order to make decisions as to it intent and meaning. It is an old set of 'rules' which were and are bound to be interpreted as time has moved on. The US could adopt a new updated constitution and in a few hundred years other people would be saying that due to interpretations it doesn't mean what it originally did, it happens in every country, with almost every law or constitution.

 

Honestly, this just makes me think you aren't thinking straight. How can you, in the exact same sentence say that you don't believe in government while saying something should be outlawed? Who is doing the outlawing and enforcing if there is no government?

- - - Updated - - -

But a government is necessary for there to be laws. Who is passing these laws and enforcing them?

 

You're getting statutory law mixed up with common law. They're separate concepts.