Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

[Landlord]

Is the baby in the womb considered a US citizen? If not, how does it have rights under US law? Also, if a baby in the womb does have rights, what does this mean for illegal immigrants who are pregnant? Do their babies have rights? 

These are all questions at the center of the debate. In addition to other questions that aren't matters of what is or isn't true, but what ought to be true. Our government still offers certain rights and protections to non-citizens. 

 

[Landlord]

We're not.

Pro-lifers are. Well, they're not talking about two adults, but they're talking about two equally human humans. Why is that wrong if they're convinced and convicted that there is a human person who can not defend itself or exercise its own rights?

 

[Nebfanatic]

These are all questions at the center of the debate. In addition to other questions that aren't matters of what is or isn't true, but what ought to be true. Our government still offers certain rights and protections to non-citizens. 

The fact of the matter though is currently a fetus IS NOT a US citizen. Therefore how can it have rights under the law that supercede a US citizen? 

 

[Landlord]

The fact of the matter though is currently a fetus IS NOT a US citizen. Therefore how can it have rights under the law that supercede a US citizen? 

Is it legal to kill a non-citizen?

Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution. Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any serious controversy among experts over this matter.

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/

 

[Danny Bateman]

Pro-lifers are. Well, they're not talking about two adults, but they're talking about two equally human humans. Why is that wrong if they're convinced and convicted that there is a human person who can not defend itself or exercise its own rights? 

I don't mind them having those beliefs. They're not scientifically sound but a person should be able to hold whatever religious beliefs or opinions they want.

Where we cross over into not OK territory is when they let such beliefs lead them to pass laws which trample on the rights of legally defined autonomous adults. Where life begins and what legally constitutes a person are not the same. The law is crystal clear here - viability is not when you can detect a heartbeat or at 6 or 8 weeks. So legally and scientifically, it's not two humans until around 22 or 23 weeks at earliest. Even so being born that early will likely result in debilitating developmental delays.

I have a lot of problem with religious creep into the government sphere. It can be used to justify a lot of bad things. The Chinese government currently has millions of Muslims in internment camps where they are tortured and re-educated and we barely talk about it. Religious beliefs lead many people to ignore ro deny climate change is occurring. If we cannot outvote those people it will literally doom future generations and the planet.

 

[Mierin]

 

[Landlord]

Science doesn't have an opinion on personhood or when a fetus becomes a human being. We don't even know what those terms mean. We don't even know what consciousness is. We don't know if souls exist, although most of us believe in them, and we don't know when they come and when they go. Believing that a fetus in a womb is a person is not scientific nor is it unscientific. Science does not say that isn't true; science isn't in the business of saying such things. 

At any rate, where did the laws that define autonomous adults come from? Who says what an autonomous adult, or an autonomous human, is? Oh, laws do? And we made those laws? Based on beliefs? But it's wrong for other people to try and make laws based on other beliefs? Okay got it. I think.

 

[Nebfanatic]

Is it legal to kill a non-citizen?

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/

No, but you brought up this point

If we were talking about two adult citizens, then one citizen's right to keep living does supersede another's right to keep 'autonomous' medical decisions that have a direct result on someone else's life.

Which really isn't valid in this situation. For one, we aren't even talking about 2 citizens, and as @Danny Bateman pointed out, we aren't even talking about 2 people scientifically. In regards to the law, I'd say the women citizens right to a medical decision supercedes a noncitizen non humans rights in the eyes of the law.

 

[schriznoeder]

1 U.S. Code § 8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

 

[Landlord]

Science has no definition or answer for when cells become a human being, so it is disingenuous to say that we aren't talking about people. That depends on who's talking. There is no right or wrong answer for whether or not a fetus is a person.

 

[Nebfanatic]

Science has no definition or answer for when cells become a human being, so it is disingenuous to say that we aren't talking about people. That depends on who's talking. There is no right or wrong answer for whether or not a fetus is a person.

Its not a person with rights under US law. How we feel morally about the issue doesn't matter. Can you think of another reason outside of religion to overturn Roe V Wade? Do you think the lawmakers who are currently attacking Roe V Wade are doing so from a seperation of church and state viewpoint? Many of the states passing these extreme laws also have laws concerning absinence only education. Do you think that policy is free of religious bias? Its fun to play devils advocate, but lets be real about this. 

 

[Landlord]

Can you think of another reason outside of religion to overturn Roe V Wade? 

I can think of many. None that I would personally believe are the right course of action, but that I can understand people's perspectives on.

The biggest reason would be if we have good reason to believe that that is a human person. That has nothing to do with religion. 

 

[Nebfanatic]

I can think of many. None that I would personally believe are the right course of action, but that I can understand people's perspectives on.

The biggest reason would be if we have good reason to believe that that is a human person. That has nothing to do with religion. 

That what is a human person? Do we have good reason to believe that? Who is we?

On top of this what is the end goal? No abortions? Because if so outlawing abortions is a terrible solution. I think the ones who want to outlaw abortion have a different end goal and that is to control women. 

 

[TGHusker]

The common point of agreement would be doing things like sex education and improving access to healthcare, including contraceptives, for women, so we can lower rates of unwanted pregnancies. Not crippling medical ethics or intimidating and punishing those with whom you disagree.

I have no problem with this at all.  We should do all we can to reduce the "need" of abortions.  

I don't mind them having those beliefs. They're not scientifically sound but a person should be able to hold whatever religious beliefs or opinions they want.

For years prior to and after Roe v Wade,  we were told it is 'just a mass of tissue'.  Prolifers knew otherwise.  Modern science of course with its ability to peer into the womb made it clear that 'it' wasn't just a mass of tissue.  So who was scientific in this debate?   So now that we can detect the heart beat, we see that the baby has its own, unique DNA and is developing clearly as a separate individual - we have to ask the harder questions - when do we start to protect that life?  

Can you think of another reason outside of religion to overturn Roe V Wade? 

1. Look no further than our own Declaration of Independence.   In fact it is to be 'self evident'.  The right to life.   The Declaration has references to the Creator but it is a political document.

2. The intrinsic value of all human life - when we devalue life in any form or time of development we devalue all life. When we devalue the weakest, we devalue all. When we devalue the immigrant, the handicapped, the aged person with memory loss,  the person of a minority race, the poor, or uneducated, we devalue all of life. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --

 

[Nebfanatic]

I have no problem with this at all.  We should do all we can to reduce the "need" of abortions.  

For years prior to and after Roe v Wade,  we were told it is 'just a mass of tissue'.  Prolifers knew otherwise.  Modern science of course with its ability to peer into the womb made it clear that 'it' wasn't just a mass of tissue.  So who was scientific in this debate?   So now that we can detect the heart beat, we see that the baby has its own, unique DNA and is developing clearly as a separate individual - we have to ask the harder questions - when do we start to protect that life?  

1. Look no further than our own Declaration of Independence.   In fact it is to be 'self evident'.  The right to life.   The Declaration has references to the Creator but it is a political document.

2. The intrinsic value of all human life - when we devalue life in any form or time of development we devalue all life. When we devalue the weakest, we devalue all. When we devalue the immigrant, the handicapped, the aged person with memory loss,  the person of a minority race, the poor, or uneducated, we devalue all of life. 

What about when we devalue a womens pursuit to happiness by making it practically illegal to get their tubes tied? And I know that is just a what about ism but this recent legislation has me pretty riled up. In my own life I am pro life and have made choices in my relationships based on this, but personally I also feel many of these laws attack and control women. We need to do a better job of protecting our women and children who are born before we go on a crusade to save all unborn children. Just my opinion. I know you are reasonable about this issue and I am mainly venting general frustration.