How to overturn Roe v. Wade

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 280
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
Contrary to very popular belief, on both sides, the 1973 Roe v. WadeSupreme Court decision will not be overturned in a single court case, even with a clear conservative majority on the Court as it has at present. Personally, I am skeptical of politics on the Court. The evidence of this attitude is apparent when one considers that, in spite of the apparent “political” leaning of the Court, it arrives at unanimous decisions a full 59% of the time over its history since 1789, when established. No other split decision of the Court has this plurality. 

Further, note that when Roewas decided, the 7-2 split decision included four Justices appointed by Republican Presidents. So much for partisanship on the Court. It is a popular, but unwarranted myth. 

Roeis a much more complicated decision to overturn. Of nearly 1,900 cases taken by the Court in its history, there have been but 200+ decisions later overturned.  There are too many variables, all of which would require a perfect storm of a single case to come before the Court in order for this generation’s Court to overturn Roe.That is not very likely to happen. 

I perceive three major points, all three of which must be completely revised in current law, not just Roe,which did not establish any law; rather, it merely agreed with several state laws, while requiring other states to amend their law on the subject.
Those three points are:

1.     The fetus is a human being and a person.
2.     The fetal/amniotic/umbilical/placental tissues share unique DNA separate and distinct from the mother.
3.     Privacy of a woman’s body does not extend to the fetus as described by the privacy discussion in the Roedecision.

Fetus is human: Once upon a time, even as late as the Roedecision, this was little more than assumption. And, while some still argue the point that a fetus is not human until birth, thus defining, they think, what it is not,they do not alternatively define by explanation what it is.
However, science has stepped in to demonstrate that by every definition of “human,” except one, the fetus exhibits every single characteristic of humanity; by DNA, by form/fit/function, and by biologic systems.

Currently, by one statute, however, a “person,” by definition, does not necessarily accept a pre-natal condition, although 1 US Code §8 does come very close to it. This will be the easiest, and likely the first point to be altered, and it may not occur in a Roe-related case.
The sub-set question becomes, if the fetus is human, does it share equal personhood rights even if unborn? Here, again, 1 US Code §8 comes up to, but does not cross that threshold. 

However, there is another statute, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which amended 18 US Code §1841 to recognize that any violence committed on a pregnant woman that also resulted in the death of the fetus would carry a dual charge of murder, which is, exclusively, the malicious cause of death with aforethought to a human being, a person.  Therefore, this statute recognizes the personhood of the unborn fetus.

Fetal… tissue is separate from mother.This point, as well, was nebulous until the human genome was completely mapped by the close of the twentieth century, twenty-plus years following the Roedecision.  By that time, DNA identification was becoming commonplace, and it was demonstrated by empiric evidence that fetal/amniotic/umbilical/placental tissues shared common DNA that was separate and distinct from the mother.
It was secondarily determined that not even blood was shared between mother and fetus, but that, rather, in the cellular attachment of the placenta to the inner uterine wall, there is a blood barrier similar to that in the lungs such that nutrients pass through the barrier, but blood does not. In the lungs, the barrier allows exchange of oxygen for carbon dioxide without internal loss of blood.

The separation feature is critical to a reversal of the Roedecision, which stipulates that a mother/fetal bond is physiologically and genetically cohesive and identical.

To tip that scale, the third point will require discussion: 

Privacy of a woman’s body. The privacy issue is nebulous, at best, even though the Roedecision cites amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, and 14 as descriptive of individual privacy even though only one, the 14th, contains any description of “privacy” at all, and in that context, the amendment verbiage relates only to one’s personal protection against unwarranted government search and seizure. One might argue that since, in many cases, the government is funding the abortion procedure, at least in some cases, that is exactly what abortion is. The other cited amendments do not even contain the words, “privacy,” or “private,” but, nor does the 14A. The discussion of the application of “privacy” is interpretive, only.

But, even physiologically, it is a leap from current demand of understanding the science to consider that the fetus is not a part of the woman’s body. Once truly understood by the simplicity of the true science, it becomes much clearer that the Roedecision got it wrong.

As noted above, fetal… tissue DNA does not match the mother’s DNA. On that basis, alone, the fetal… tissue is not part of the woman’s body. Neither is food, one might argue. Organic food does not share her DNA, either, but it clearly becomes part of the woman’s body. More correctly, it is broken down digestively to its simple components, and is then either absorbed by her body, or evacuated, or, in the case of pregnancy, shared with the fetus until it comes to full-term.
It becomes apparent that the separation of mother and fetal tissue is elegant. It is intended that food be absorbed by the body as its first objective. Not so with fetal… tissue. The fetal objective is to become a separate, distinct, and wholly self-driven individual [or more in the case of multiple simultaneous births]. It is carried in the woman’s body, surrounded by it, much like a ping-pong ball is held in the closed fist, but, by birth, the fetal… tissue, all of it, is expelled from the mother’s body.

This point will likely be the last to change its paradigm, but it is certain to do so when the science, and the apparently conflicting legal statutes, are more generally understood and accepted as fact. The difficulty is that, during the nine months of gestation, the fetal… tissue certainly seems like part and parcel of the woman’s body.  The two previous points are going to have to change their paradigms before this third point is ever modified. Even then, to surrender a privacy that has been a part of society by Court precedent for two generations, and certainly interpreted as such for far longer, is a difficult legal demand, even for a scientifically-absorbed Supreme Court.

A couple of years ago, present and former Justices of the Court rendered commentary on the Roe v. Wade decision, including then Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who determined that the Roedecision certainly warranted a re-examination by the Court, at least, and potential overturning for a variety of reasons, including some of the points reviewed here.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@949havoc
Fetus is human:

Fetal… tissue is separate from mother.
These two points can be condensed to "the fetus is human and distinct from the woman's body".

The response is simple: irrelevant. Rapists are human and distinct from their victims as well, but I doubt many think this is justification for the violation their victims.

Simply put, there is no right to use the body of another without consent. 

Privacy of a woman’s body
Medical decisions are a private matter. Abortion is a medical procedure. As such, abortion is a private matter. 


Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 925
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
Rapists are human and distinct from their victims as well, but I doubt many think this is justification for the violation their victims.
Rapists intentionally violate their victims and thus get their rights removed. A fetus does not intentionally violate it's victim. 

Medical decisions are a private matter. Abortion is a medical procedure. As such, abortion is a private matter. 
Abortion is different from any other medical procedure as it involves the death of a human being. Though most medical procedures are private, the one's which involve the death of a separate human should at least be the business of that who is about to be killed. 

SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Bones
Rapists intentionally violate their victims and thus get their rights removed. A fetus does not intentionally violate it's victim. 
Intentional or not,  there is still no right to use the body of another without consent. 

Abortion is different from any other medical procedure as it involves the death of a human being. Though most medical procedures are private, the one's which involve the death of a separate human should at least be the business of that who is about to be killed. 
My medical decision to not donate my heart, kidneys, liver, and lungs involves the deaths of many human beings every day. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
A  foetus does not intentionally violate it's victim.
Something of a contradiction.


Pro-lifers would have us accept, that a foetus is a separate human entity.

Therefore, if the "victim" deems the foetus to be an unwanted intrusion, then the foetus is in fact, violating the "victim".


"Victim".....Your choice, not mine.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@SkepticalOne
Simply put, there is no right to use the body of another without consent.

havoc and their like are guilty of inciting and comminting virtual rape of women  and should  face criminal charges. 

Medical decisions are a private matter. Abortion is a medical procedure. As such, abortion is a private matter.

These immoral criminals are not interest in morals, fairness, justice or womens rights of privacy. There only interested in creating a false narrative and create a false set of  new truths ergo,

End-date-for-humanity 2232 { approx. }.

 


FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,977
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
God doesn't have any problem killing fetuses, why should Man?
Overall, the "average" risk of miscarriage is estimated to be between 12% and 15% of recognized pregnancies by 20 weeks gestation.
Remember that it is not a human until "first breath".
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
If an airplane and the individual inside, crash into my house, I have the right to shoot them, and toss their corpse from my house, your way of thinking?

Course it's 'usually worse, with 'most individuals shooting down the plane in the first place, causing it to crash into their own house.
Then claiming self defense against an event they themselves caused.

. . .

'Even worse by the individual in the plane being one's child, who again, is usually 'caused into crashing by the action of the homeowner.
But eh, if a lot of people aren't bothered by parents murdering their babies.
. . .
Certainly 'I'm not much, I suppose. Given I don't protest of spend time on activist activities, but that's much par the course for myself, and my beliefs.
Ah well.
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 925
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@zedvictor4
A  foetus does not intentionally violate it's victim.
Something of a contradiction.

Pro-lifers would have us accept, that a foetus is a separate human entity.

Therefore, if the "victim" deems the foetus to be an unwanted intrusion, then the foetus is in fact, violating the "victim".

"Victim".....Your choice, not mine.
This is akin to me locking a child in my basement, complaining about him crying and then exercising my right to kill him. After all, it is me he's annoying. 

Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 925
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
 there is still no right to use the body of another without consent. 
Consent was given when you had sex. 

Abortion is different from any other medical procedure as it involves the death of a human being. Though most medical procedures are private, the one's which involve the death of a separate human should at least be the business of that who is about to be killed. 
My medical decision to not donate my heart, kidneys, liver, and lungs involves the deaths of many human beings every day. 
But the people dying are not dying because of you. People dying from lung cancer were not placed in that position because of me.The fetus is dying because of your own inability to manage your sexual life. 

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Bones
Consent was given when you had sex. 
You do realize that consent can be withdrawn, right?

I mean - if you’re having sex, and demand that the other person stop, if they don’t - that’s rape. 

If you consent to donate a kidney, and you change your mind; if doctors  forces you to donate the kidney anyway, they could be charged with assault.


But hell: if this I the standard, we should not treat smokers for lung cancer - they consented to it by smoking. we should not treat anyone who is in a car accident - as they consented to the risk of injury by getting into the car.  No HIV therapy, or antibiotics for the clap - people made their bed.
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 925
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Ramshutu
If you consent to donate a kidney, and you change your mind; if doctors  forces you to donate the kidney anyway, they could be charged with assault.
But you did not put the person in need of a kidney transplant in the position they are in. In the case of abortion, the mother, in 99 percent of cases (real statistic) consented to having sex and only withdrew their consent on the basis that having a baby would "dramatically change their lives". Taking into account that a fetus is scientifically a human being, abortion is akin to allowing a mother kill their baby on the operating table on the basis that the baby would "dramatically change their lives". 

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Bones
But you did not put the person in need of a kidney transplant in the position they are in.
So?

In the case of abortion, the mother, in 99 percent of cases (real statistic) consented to having sex and only withdrew their consent on the basis that having a baby would "dramatically change their lives".
And?

Taking into account that a fetus is scientifically a human being, abortion is akin to allowing a mother kill their baby on the operating table on the basis that the baby would "dramatically change their lives". 
No it’s not. Abortion is the simplest and least medically risky procedure to a woman who doesn’t want to go through the consequences of pregnancy.

When the child has been born - and is in an operating table; a mother can still withdraw consent, and withdraw from that consequence with no risk to herself in a way that doesn’t harm the child.
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 925
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Ramshutu
But you did not put the person in need of a kidney transplant in the position they are in.
So?
Like I said to Zed, this is akin to me kidnapping a child into my basement, complaining about him crying and then asserting that I have the right to kill him as he is invading my property and trespassing.

In the case of abortion, the mother, in 99 percent of cases (real statistic) consented to having sex and only withdrew their consent on the basis that having a baby would "dramatically change their lives".
And?
If I killed my one month old baby, stood up in court and asserted that "I realised the baby would dramatically change my life and I didn't want that", how do you think that would stand. 

Taking into account that a fetus is scientifically a human being, abortion is akin to allowing a mother kill their baby on the operating table on the basis that the baby would "dramatically change their lives". 
No it’s not. Abortion is the simplest and least medically risky procedure to a woman who doesn’t want to go through the consequences of pregnancy.
It's also the one which guarantee's the death of a fetus. 

When the child has been born - and is in an operating table; a mother can still withdraw consent, and withdraw from that consequence with no risk to herself in a way that doesn’t harm the child.
This is exactly my point, the mother can still withdraw consent but she cannot kill the baby. She can give it up for adoption but she is not allowed to terminate the baby on the basis that it is an inconveniences to her. 
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Bones
Like I said to Zed, this is akin to me kidnapping a child into my basement, complaining about him crying and then asserting that I have the right to kill him as he is invading my property and trespassing.
No it’s not. Not even in the slightest, in any way shape or form, on the grounds that a) pregnancy in these scenarios is almost invariably unplanned or unintentional - analogies of consent, or other actions that are deliberate imply that individuals having sex know or intend to become pregnant - fail in this respect. So no, having sex and unintentionally becoming pregnant is not akin to kidnapping. B.) kidnapping can be remedied without risk by giving the child back - the least risk method of ending a pregnancy is abortion.

A better analogy, would be if you were drunk and agreed to give someone a piece if your liver. You change your mind when you fully come to terms with the long term impacts of missing a piece of your liver, and withdraw your consent; even though the recipient will now die as a result because its too late to arrange another transplant.

If I killed my one month old baby, stood up in court and asserted that "I realised the baby would dramatically change my life and I didn't want that", how do you think that would stand. 
But unlike pregnancy - when a child is born, you have options that don’t put you at risk.

It's also the one which guarantee's the death of a fetus.

This is exactly my point, the mother can still withdraw consent but she cannot kill the baby. She can give it up for adoption but she is not allowed to terminate the baby on the basis that it is an inconveniences to her.
She’s allowed to terminate the baby, on the grounds that it’s her body that the baby is in, and if she doesn’t want to go through all the medical risk of pregnancy, she has the absolute right to withdraw her consent - even if the only way to achieve that is the death of the fetus - due to her body autonomy.

SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Bones
Consent was given when you had sex. 
Nonsense. Consent has limitations. For one, it is limited to people in existence. How odd that I can consent to sex and that somehow translates to consent with some third party not in existence at the time. This reasoning is quite absurd.

My medical decision to not donate my heart, kidneys, liver, and lungs involves the deaths of many human beings every day. 
But the people dying are not dying because of you. People dying from lung cancer were not placed in that position because of me.The fetus is dying because of your own inability to manage your sexual life. 
If disallowing the use of one's body 'causes others to die', then my point stands. Either we can make medical decisions in private regardless of what others might need/want from us, or we are obligated to the needs/wants others might have regarding our body.  

Either you're killing people by being stingy with your organs, or... women have a right to make private medical decisions. It can't be both or neither - One or the other is true.
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 925
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Ramshutu
a) pregnancy in these scenarios is almost invariably unplanned or unintentional - analogies of consent, or other actions that are deliberate imply that individuals having sex know or intend to become pregnant - fail in this respect. So no, having sex and unintentionally becoming pregnant is not akin to kidnapping.
In the eye's of the law, intention matter very little. The fact of the matter is that scientifically a fetus is a human being and tautologically, abortion ends with the termination of a fetus. 

B.) kidnapping can be remedied without risk by giving the child back - the least risk method of ending a pregnancy is abortion.
I'll draw a comparison between kidnapping and abortion. 

  • I come home with a kid in my back trunk. 
  • I come home after a night of unprotected sex 

  • The kid is placed in my basement. 
  • The fetus is created in my stomach (yes I know this isn't how it technically works)

  • The kid becomes a burden. 
  • The fetus becomes a burden. 

  • I kill him.
  • I abort him. 

If I killed my one month old baby, stood up in court and asserted that "I realised the baby would dramatically change my life and I didn't want that", how do you think that would stand. 
But unlike pregnancy - when a child is born, you have options that don’t put you at risk.
The point isn't whether there are other options, I'm trying to draw a comparison. When it comes to abortion, there are only two options. 

  • Keep the baby. 
  • Kill the baby. 
As you opt for option two to be legal, I then draw the comparison to a 1 day old baby. If a mother does not want her baby, is it reasonable that she be given the options to 

  • Keep the baby. 
  • Kill the baby. 
You can say "there are other options", but that's not the point. There's no other option in abortion. These two are the only ones available. 

She’s allowed to terminate the baby, on the grounds that it’s her body that the baby is in, and if she doesn’t want to go through all the medical risk of pregnancy, she has the absolute right to withdraw her consent - even if the only way to achieve that is the death of the fetus - due to her body autonomy.
Are you in favour of abortion at the 9th month. 

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Lemming
Well....A crazy analogy.

But go for it.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
Just repeating what you stated.

That the Mother was in fact a victim, who was being violated.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Intentional or not,  there is still no right to use the body of another without consent. 
Well if consent is your concern then why are you okay with taking an unborn life when they didn’t consent to that?

Medical decisions are a private matter.
Not when our public tax payer dollars are funding it.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Life taking is an essential survival strategy.

We simply apply overthink to the issue and conjure up notions of specialness.

To which we then apply selective moral thinking.

And then come up with varying levels of specialness.

Sometimes cuddly wuddly little foetus.

And sometimes inconsequential  blob of organic matter.

You takes your pick, often relative to other notional influences.


Though the bottom line always remains the same.

No one is actually right.

And no one is actually wrong.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and no one can force me to donate a kidney even if I choose to make my living as a bartender and I am professionally responsible for some individuals kidney disease. See how that works? Consent to bartend is not consent to donate a kidney.

In particular anyone who believes in stand your ground laws must be in favor of abortion or logically inconsistent. 
(IF a person is justified using deadly force against someone they have never met who is on their porch THEN  they are definitely justified using deadly force on someone they have never met who is in their vagina.)
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
Well if consent is your concern then why are you okay with taking an unborn life when they didn’t consent to that?
...Because consent is not needed to act upon/make decisions for ones own body. 

Not when our public tax payer dollars are funding it.
That statement is misleading and wrong.

Tax dollars in general are not used for abortions. The Hyde amendment prevents the use of taxpayer funds on abortion EXCEPT for cases of rape, incest, or when someone's life is in danger. That is as it should be.

Secondly, taxpayer dollars ďo not invalidate rights. Listen to what you're saying, bud.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
No one is actually right.

And no one is actually wrong.
You can’t make that statement without knowing what those two terms actually mean.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
...Because consent is not needed to act upon/make decisions for ones own body. 
Except the unborn’s body isn’t its mothers body.

The Hyde amendment prevents the use of taxpayer funds on abortion EXCEPT for cases of rape, incest, or when someone's life is in danger.

That is as it should be.
So in other words it should be in those instances but not others? Why is that?

Secondly, taxpayer dollars ďo not invalidate rights. Listen to what you're saying, bud.
They do if the right being discussed is privacy because paying taxes isn’t a private matter it’s a public one, you can’t ask for privacy in regards to abortion yet in the same breath ask the American people to pay for it, it’s hypocritical.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
Except the unborn’s body isn’t its mothers body.
Irrelevant. Anything or anyone using her body for any purpose are subject to her sovereignty. 

The Hyde amendment prevents the use of taxpayer funds on abortion EXCEPT for cases of rape, incest, or when someone's life is in danger.


Are you disagreeing with my characterization of the Hyde amendment? If so, be explicit. Your link appears to substantiate my description. 

Secondly, taxpayer dollars ďo not invalidate rights. Listen to what you're saying, bud.
They do if [...]
No. You are acting as though rights are merely privileges. Rights aren't something that can be taken away like privileges. Rights are irrevocable (unalienable) - see Declaration of Independence.

Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
If life begins at conception then you should be issued at birth certificate as soon as it's proven you're pregnant for the "child" you're carrying. You should be able to receive any benefits that come from being a parent with a living breathing child like tax breaks, food stamps, wic or any other benefit that comes once the child's born if you qualify. If you engage in any behavior that's considered risky to the fetus then you should be able to be incarcerated in your child removed immediately upon its birth and you may never be allowed to have another child again due to abuse and neglect. This includes smoking, consuming any alcohol, driving at a high rate of speed, not wearing a seatbelt or any other behavior that could cause you to get hurt while pregnant. And finally a man should have to begin paying child support immediately if the pregnant woman is not married. Any man engaging in behavior that could put his pregnant girlfriend at risk for miscarriage should be incarcerated for attempted murder.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It seems Pro-life advocates generally push for personhood of the unborn in name only. Child support, government assistance, tax status, life insurance, etc., etc., are not commonly considered.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,977
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Doesn't God abort all humans at some point in their lives? Unfortunetly he does it when they can feel the most pain.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Bones
In the eye's of the law, intention matter very little. The fact of the matter is that scientifically a fetus is a human being and tautologically, abortion ends with the termination of a fetus. 
Ignoring the fact that intention is critical in almost every aspect of law - we weren’t talking about the law, we were talking about comparing abortion with kidnapping; and in this case intention is what makes both things critically different from each other.

I'll draw a comparison between kidnapping and abortion.

I come home with a kid in my back trunk.
I come home after a night of unprotected sex

The kid is placed in my basement.
The fetus is created in my stomach (yes I know this isn't how it technically works)

The kid becomes a burden.
The fetus becomes a burden.

I kill him.
I abort him.
I already, covered this in the specific part you quoted. Firstly, it’s not the same as in one example you’re intentionally and deliberately putting some in the position of danger. The second is that in the kidnapping case you have the option of “letting them go” - which you do not in the case of pregnancy; as this requires carrying to term and giving birth, which are all huge potential health impacts to the mother.

So yeah, other than these two examples being fundamentally different - you can argue they are superficially similar.

I even went so far as to give you a more specific and exact example - which you appear to have ignored in your response.

The point isn't whether there are other options
That there are no alternatives in one case that don’t put the mother at significant risk, or forces her go through pregnancy is a critical and central point.

I'm trying to draw a comparison. When it comes to abortion, there are only two options.

Keep the baby.
Kill the baby.
As you opt for option two to be legal, I then draw the comparison to a 1 day old baby. If a mother does not want her baby, is it reasonable that she be given the options to

Keep the baby.
Kill the baby.
You can say "there are other options", but that's not the point. There's no other option in abortion. These two are the only ones available.
That there are now less risky options to the mother in  1 day old child case whilst there is not when the child has not yet been born - is specifically and exactly what makes killing a born child not okay.

Are you in favour of abortion at the 9th month.
That actually depends; to save mother’s life - yup. If the child is not going to live,  or is going to be so profoundly disabled as to have minimal quality of life yep - I thinks that’s for the mother and doctor to decide.

At or near term, the risks and harm of having the child vs an abortion at this stage are nearly the same - so there’s clearly not as much compelling factor for the mother privacy and body autonomy: as credible alternatives exist to abortion that have similar risks to childbirth and the pregnancy but does not necessarily lead to the death of the child in these cases, abortion is no longer medically necessary to reduce harm.

That being said - and this is a separate issue - whether a given case matches that criteria, and means that abortion should not be provided due to other possibilities - is not something that your, I, or the government should be deciding in a blanket law. That should be something medical professionals should be working out with mothers to determine what’s in the true medical best interests of everyone.

Given that the overwhelming majority of abortions occur prior to the 3rd trimester, with 39% being chemical prior to 13/14 weeks - and given that the likelihood of a woman making it to 9 months of pregnancy without other issues and then suddenly deciding to have an abortion is close to 0; it’s not an issue that we really have to contend with.