[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 44 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



>HEADLINE CHANGED

A poll by Quinnipiac University finds Americans back the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision by a 63-31 percent margin.

https://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/Connelly-Public-backs-Roe-v-Wade-abortion-13060902.php
>>
The public supports the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which legalized abortion across America, by a two-to-one margin, according to a nationwide poll taken on the eve of President Trump's appointment of a new justice.

The Quinnipiac University poll found Americans back Roe v. Wade by a 63-31 percent margin, with 60 percent-plus support among both men and women.

Republicans, Trump's political base, oppose the ruling by 58-36 percent but, noted Quinnipiac, "Every other listed party, gender, educational, age and racial group" backed the historic ruling.

The appointment of an anti-abortion justice could put the ruling in jeopardy. "Justice Kennedy was the deciding vote TWICE in support of access to safe, legal abortions: President Trump's nominee could reverse decades of settled law," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Tweeted on Monday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a floor speech, accused Democrats of "scare tactics."

Legal analysts, who have studied states' efforts to restrict choice, have concluded that abortion would quickly be made illegal in at least 17 states should the Supreme Court overturn the Roe v. Wade decision.

On another hot button issues, the Quinnipiac Poll found Americans evenly divided on the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision upholding the third version of Trump's Muslim travel ban.

"It's a draw on barring travel from some largely Muslim countries, but there is no ambivalence on abortion as Americans dig in and say, 'Hands off Roe v. Wade'," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll.

The poll also showed Democrats with a 50-41 percent lead in a generic ballot of which party Americans intend to vote for in the 2018 mid-term elections.

The Quinnipiac Poll interviewed 1020 American voters between June 27 and July 1. The poll has a margin of error of plus/minus 3.7 percent.
>>
Link to the poll itself:

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2553

Interestingly the opinion isn't split amongst party lines - about a third of Republicans like the Roe decision and about a sixth of Democrats oppose it.
>>
>>268707
>Quinnipiac University
>Acceptance rate
>74%
gee sounds like a rigorous academic institution
>>
>>268722
What does that have to do with their polling procedures?
>>
>>268725
as i implied very sacrastically before, im sure they conducted a very rigorously accurate poll
>>
>>268727
Well, here's the data >>268712

See for yourself.
>>
>>268707
I'm sure racism plays some part in the rise of pro abortion sentiments.
>>
>>268732
How does that work?

You might be right, I just want to know your reasoning.
>>
>>268735
People becoming aware that a disporportinal amount of abortions are done on blacks and hispanics.
>>
>>268732
>>268735
>>268739
Also, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist
>>
>>268739
>People becoming aware that a disporportinal amount of abortions are done on blacks and hispanics.
disproportional amount of births are atributed to blacks and Hispanics
>>
>>268742
Yannow you can do something about that, lol
>>
>>268747
give them exclusively free abortions because historically they are historically disciminated against, and charge white people for abortions
>>
>>268749
I was mostly thinking of...yannow...just have more sex...
>>
>>268742
That strengthens the argument for not against.
>>
>>268753
This. I doubt they WANT to have so many mouths to feed, but birth control is both expensive and underfunded, in part thanks to the same religious opposition that is trying to get Roe overturned.

It's like the Christian Conservatives WANT to drown the country in a ride of brown babies.
>>
>>268727
>conducted a very rigorously accurate poll

I'm generally as suspicious as you. Most pollsters are practical frauds looking to justify positions and invented policies.

But as these things go, Quinnipiac is pretty decent in their conduct. They publish the raw data along with very matter-of-fact reports. (The media spins them every which way, but the statistics part of it is pretty good as these things go.)

Anecdotally: I was called twice. (Once out-of-the-blue and again for a followup six months later.) The questions were phrased very specifically to permit the capture of the whole range. The questioners themselves were friendly in general and practically robotic when it came to the actual asking. When they published the results, I found my oddball right there.

So while I suspect the conduct of the poll is fair, what we should definitely be questioning is why /this/ poll /now/?
>>
>>268773
I suspect Quinnipiac put this together when justice Kennedy retired, anticipating that the Roe v Wade decision would be a matter of import in the nomination process to replace him.

Given the results, I'm inclined to think it was a good call.
>>
>>268764
Condoms are damn near free unless you want to get the fancy ones
>>
>>268732
> I'm sure racism plays some part in the rise of pro abortion sentiments.

Try reading before you shitpost:
Whites: 62% in favor
Blacks : 71% in favor
Hispanics: 59% in favor

Between brown and white babies, there's only a 3% difference. Well within the 3.7% margin of error.

If I were to guess, I'd guess that opposition is more due to religious grounds than racist.
>>
>>268792
> Condoms are damn near free
The smallest sizes may be free. If you have a monster cock like I do, the cost of material and reinforcement goes up significantly.
>>
>>268707
Is this surprising? Individual freedoms and control over one's own body trumps hurt feelings and government control every time, or at least it should.
>>
>>268798
yeah i second that, the condoms i buy need reinforcing struts, truss bars and flanges, otherwise i just smash them to pieces with my monster cock
>>
>>268801
my condoms require a core maintaining active nuclear fusion otherwise they collapse under the great mass of my cock and form neutron stars
>>
>>268777
>Quinnipiac put this together

The polls are sponsored. Who sponsored this one?
>>
I'm going to assume this actually means that most Americans support abortion rights, and not that most support the Roe v. Wade decision as written. Unfortunately no one cares about running things by the book so as long as the end result is what they want they're fine with letting justices legislate from the bench.
>>
>>268707
I always love how every time there is a new conservative justice, the Democrats come out in full Demagogue mode talking about how Roe vs Wade will be overturned.

They never mention the simple fact that it was passed under a conservative majority.

Of course, the Supreme Court isn't supposed to make policy, but merely make sure it is followed as written. I love how there is always this ends justify the means attitude about how the Supreme Court should always be in favor of whatever policy you want.

That's not their job, that's what Congress is for you terrible human beings.
>>
>>268707
>Americans back the Roe v. Wade
No shit.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/nov/25/cynthia-meyer/cynthia-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/
>>
>>268799
>Individual freedoms and control over one's own body trumps hurt feelings and government control
Yeah, killing people and calling it "choice" is muh freedoms. So easy, why can't every person be braindead like me?
>>
>>268994
fetuses aren't people
>>
>>268996
you're right
a human fetus is actually a squirrel
we all know that a human woman actually has a 50% chance to pop out squirrels, it's very weird why people pretend a human fetus is actually a human
>>
>>268997
just because you'll be a corpse one day doesn't mean you're a corpse right now
>>
>>268707
What did opinion polling say about slavery early on in the United States?
I think it was a similar ratio of 2:1. Maybe it goes back to not calling a human being a human being, is politically convenient for many.
>>
>>269002
Fetuses are unconscious
People who are asleep are unconscious.
If you do nothing the fetus will become conscious
If you do nothing the asleep person will become conscious
When will it become legal to murder people who are asleep?
>>
>>269002
yep
a fetus will be a corpse one day, doesn't mean it's a corpse in the womb
>>
>>269004
fetuses aren't people
>>
>>269008
you're right
a human fetus is actually a wombat
we all know that a female human actually has a 50% chance to pop out wombats, it's very weird why people pretend a human fetus is actually a human
>>
>>269009
just because an egg won't become a wombat doesn't mean it's a chicken
>>
>>269010
yep
an egg will be a dead chicken one day, doesn't mean it's a dead chicken inside the egg
>>
>>268997
It doesn't matter if a fetus is human, it is not a person because it's Personhood hinges on another and the rights of the actual person it's attached to matter because that person decides everything they can and should do for both of their survival by excising their rights.

the pregnant squirrel makes the decisions and is it's own squirrel. The fetus is just a passive entity that completely and totally relies on the squirrel to make those decisions,by giving the squirrel fetus rights to prevent SOME squirrel abortions you are impeding on the decision-making and rights of ALL pregnant squirrels.


Rights are built on necessity, not some dreamy bullshit about 'what even is human man, dude weed XDD what if a fetus is A LITTLE DUDE, DUDE', a fetus can't do shit with rights except not be aborted legally. those rights don't matter beyond that and is the only possible application to giving these things rights. What is it gonna do, move out?
>>
>>269012
Of course. By your logic, we can murder 1-day old infants, too. Their survival is completely dependent on other human beings. They're parasites.

Good to know we settled the debate once and for all. Absolute genius.
>>
>>269008
And neither are Humans who are asleep.
They aren't conscious, don't feel pain.
>>
>>269013
As soon as it leaves the mother you don't need to infringe on the rights of the person attached to it, so there's no reason to kill it unless it's suffering.

1 day old infants don't even really have rights, they have PROTECTIONS because they still can't decide anything, they can be put up for adoption or circumcised against their will and with no decision being up to them
>>
>>269011
an egg isn't a chicken at all
>>
>>269015
>so there's no reason to kill it
oh, we kill human fetuses for a reason?
what reasons could justify killing a person or its theoretical equivalent? I guess the mother can play god and decide, cool.
>>
>>269016
so, we don't incubate eggs for the purpose of having more chickens?
>>
>>269018
an egg will day become a chicken unless something happens to it, but it is not a chicken

similarly, a fetus will one day become a person unless something happens to it, but it is not a person
>>
>>269017
Yes, control over your bodily integrity is the only reason necessary.

If you had a deformed braindead brother attached to your stomach, I would definitely believe you have the right to kill him, I don't care if he could get better one day and I don't care if he's human. you're the one keeping both of you alive, you've done everything for both of you up to this point, it's your body and your right to make that call.

I would never exercise government overreach by giving your braindead brother protections that only serve to keeping him alive, because I believe that freedom serves the decision making of people, you're free to kill him and free to spare his life because the burden of that entity is yours and only yours literally.
>>
>>269020
yes, i have no problem with defining egg as "not a chicken"
The obvious problem is that a poultry farmer doesn't squash eggs because raising more chickens is in his best interest.
We don't kill fetuses because preserving human life is in our best interest. I call a fetus a human for the sake of brevity and convenience.
>>
>>269022
>deformed braindead brother attached to your stomach
Hypothetically, maybe.
>he has a chance to get better
Even hypothetically, no.
>he doesn't have a chance to get better
Hypothetically, yes.

It's a shame the vast majority of abortions happening right now are nothing like your hypothetical scenario. The vast majority of babies don't come out deformed, and the vast majority do survive until birth, they don't have a hypothetical "chance".

For the marginal cases of the fetus harming the mother's life, or the fetus having 0% chance to live out birth, then you can make the claim that it's the mother's choice. I'm not arguing against the marginal cases.
>>
>>269024
I am giving an example where you have control over your bodily integrity over anyone else.

That the games you play to humanize embryos is semantics, the real argument is about protecting the rights of those that make those embryos and decide when and where they'll happen to begin with.

I do not give a shit about how the majority handle this topic or what their circumstances are, this is the rights of the individual, a fetus is inseparable from it's mother and therefore not an individual and does not deserve protection.

Rights protects the goals, needs, rights and responsibilities of the people, which is why the rights of the fetus and the braindead brother do not matter. They can be killed for the same reason braindead patients are killed, because their bodies are deferred to whoever is making the decisions.

I do not care if they can survive, life is about much more than survival. the
individuals that created that life can make a new one and instill it with an even better upbringing or find better circumstances that would serve to benefit future offspring over the one that's in them right now giving themselves and others even better opportunities, not just the baseline of living.
>>
>>269004
>>269009
>>269013
>>269014
Jesus Christ are you being deliberately obtuse or are you really that fucking stupid.
>>
>>269027
The claim that an embryo is a human isn't a semantic one. It's a biological and logical one. If your rationale for dehumanizing an embryo is that it's just a clump of cells, the reality is that so are you - you were just fortunate enough to not have been aborted. You can never separate the connection between fetus and human, therefore any attempt for you to delegate the appropriate level of rights a fetus should have is based on irrational assumptions.

So, we're back to square one. You think an embryo isn't human, and I think it is. You can funnel your focus on the "individual", but you can't prove to me that a fetus isn't an "individual", just because it's inseparable from the mother, whilst ignoring that it's biologically human and logically a part of the cycle of human existence
>>
>>269022
>you had a deformed braindead brother attached to your stomach
QUAAAAIIID
>>
>>269030
By that logic my dick can be considered a distinct entity from my body that deserves it's own protections.

Should I be arrested for battery because I rubbed one out the other day?
>>
>>269033
nah
your dick isn't a human being, and neither are your sperm cells
>>
>>269028
nice compelling argument
pro-lifers eternally btfo how will they ever recover
>>
>>269023
preserving nigger babies is in whos best interest again?
>>
>>269037
everyone, since actual sub 83 iq niggers are in Africa, and they don't do abortions there and the base lvl of iq is in a rising trend

in the non-shit world, widespread abortions just encourage more degeneracy. we just need smarter niggers, and fixing their culture is step one.
>>
>>269038
Fucking lol

You want them strung up when they steal food their parents can't afford

But when the parents are like 'I can't afford to raise a child' you've got all the sympathies in the world

Pull your head out of your ass
>>
>>269038
>we just need smarter niggers, and fixing their culture is step one
oh boy, you’re in for a real rude awakening pal
>>
>>269039
what?
you're strawmanning so hard, i can't quite tell what you're strawmanning
>>
I raise the core question.

What gives the government the authority here?

I don't see the 'intervention from abuse' angle - how often does a terminally ill patient get taken off life support at the request of their legal guardian?

I feel like any sort of ban here is government overreach.
>>
>>269042
>What gives the government the authority here?
the theory goes that the fetus is a person (which in all honesty checks out since its impossible to draw an arbitrary line when someone becomes a person other than the point of conception since they possess all their dna) and therefore that person has a right to life and aborting it is murder.

Then there is the argument that since the baby is in the womb and dependent on the mother then the mother should have the ability to abort it but children outside the womb are also dependent on parents and we punish parents who hurt/kill them.

The last important factor (and the deciding one imo) is that niggers and spics have the highest rate of abortion and without it, white people would be outbred, displaced, and genocided at a faster rate than is currently occuring and would speed up the collapse with the west. In addition, only the lowest IQ and most degenerate whites (liberal) have abortions so this cleans our own gene pool in a time where natural selection is almost entirely eliminated and therefore we’re becoming stupider and weaker every generation.
>>
>>269043
I...dont agree with that reasoning...but it sounds like you want the ruling upheld, so...yay?
>>
>>269044
in all honesty i dont believe the supreme court has the constitutional authority to make a ruling like that and technically it should be left to the states. However until other such unconstitutional rulings such as Brown v. Board of Ed are also overturned then yes it should stand.
>>
>>269045
NOW I'm curious. The Brown decision was largely about the whole 'separate but equal' clause being by definition impossible to enforce, and that was, and is, empirically true. What's your objection?
>>
>>269028
The arguments about people being unconcious also applies to people who are asleep.
Making the argument that someone is temporarily unconcious and if nothing is done will become conscious applies to both.
>>
>>269030
>therefore any attempt for you to delegate the appropriate level of rights a fetus should have is based on irrational assumptions.

nah, it's based on functional reality. this clump of cells pays taxes, votes and can decide at any moment to fall down the stairs.

Sorry dawg but until you can cheaply separate the fetus from the mother, the mother is gonna be the most important, Individuals aren't inseparable from a host body, A living parasite isn't an individual. I will die one day but that doesn't mean I'm already dead, same with fetuses, they aren't individuals because they'll be out of the womb one day. We're talking about right here and now.
>>
>>269047
Private institutions have a right to remain segregated
>>
>>269114
unless they're open to the general public, in which case they factually do not.
>>
>>269096
fetuses are factually individuals given that they have a unique set of DNA not found in any other individual. this isn't up for debate. if it doesn't share your exact DNA, it's not you. if it's a human, then it has equal rights. fetuses factually satisfy both criteria.
>>
>>269020
So what you are saying is that chicken eggs are somehow different species from chickens until the moment they hatch, at which point their species is set to 'chicken'?

Fertilized chicken eggs are developing chickens. Human fetuses are developing humans. They don't "become humans later". They are humans now.
>>
>>269133
>Fertilized chicken eggs are developing chickens
and dead chickens are dead chickens, but the fact that your statement becomes self-evidently nonsense when you remove the qualifier indicates that"developing", like "dead", indicates that they are in a fundamental way not chickens

an acorn is a "developing oak tree" but it's not an oak tree
>>
>>269136
an oak sapling is an oak tree

playing semantic games won't make your position justifiable FYI. clump of cells arguments justifies almost any sort of murder.

technically a "developing" human can't even survive on their ownuntil about 12~ years of age, is it then justifiable to let a 2 year old starve to death if they become inconvenient for you?

anybody who can justify the "abortion" (euphemism for murder) of a helpless child for convenience is a damaged human.
>>
>>269140
>an oak sapling is an oak tree
and an acorn isn't

>is it then justifiable to let a 2 year old starve to death if they become inconvenient for you?
if a man needs a blood transfusion to live and i don't give it to him i may have done something quite bad, but i haven't done anything illegal and the state shouldn't be able to punish for it
>>
>>269145
except the fact that he needs support is your fault (for the most part) in which case it should probably be illegal to refuse to aid him if he will die as a result

besides that's not really the same thing anyway- you choosing not to give blood is a choice, whereas "abortion" is you choosing to kill your child (because giving blood is an autonomic process wherein you are not significantly harmed for the most part)

it's not even the same and even if it were it probably doesn't matter.

abortion is murder, if you want to try to justify murder that's on you but at least it is true that it fits basically the definition of murder: you, or someone acting as a proxy for you, terminates the life of another human.
>>
>>269146
Carrying a pregnancy to term is much more dangerous than donating blood, I would think.
>>
>>269148
and yet there are people responsible for it and escaping that responsibility involves murder. if you do not want children, take steps to make sure that they are never conceived. there are plenty of options available.
>>
>>268707
The majority of the public wants Roe v. Wade to stay, but then again the majority of the public agrees with legislation that has been blocked by Roe v. Wade. I think most people have no idea what Roe v. Wade does.
>>
>>268707
So?
It's still gonna go away.
>>
>>268976
Blacks themselves support abortion.
>>
>>269034
>sperm cells aren't human but embryos are
Okay
>>
>>269195
Define what you believe constitutes a human being
>>
>>269201
that's a political landmine if I ever heard one.

Better idea: define a woman's right to privacy and medical authority over her own body. Or better yet, define when she is the arbiter of a child (or potential child)'s well being.
>>
>>269206
So you refuse to define what a human being is despite that being the entire crux of the massive debate you and that other dumbass were having all day? And then you have the audacity to throw out a bunch of your own questions to try and obfuscate this fact? Shameful
>>
>>268707
Where this poll at because I sure as hell don't back it up.
>>
>>269209
I can see why anon did not define a "human being". That is something that is difficult to define. When do you define when a collection of cells become a "human being"?
Where the line is defined is subjective and heavily reliant upon a range of other definitions that are also subjective.

So who then is qualified to objectively make the definition. At this point....no one. Not even you with your mountain of presuppositions and and beliefs inherent in you world view.

So, let the woman herself decide. She is as qualified as anyone to make the decision.
>>
>>269211
That is meaningless.
So the poll result is not valid because no one asked you the question?
Are you that consumed with your own self-importance that your opinion alone determines the results of a poll?
>>
>>269211
that's not how polls work...
>>
>>269215
The reason I asked is because the definition of when a person is a person is critical when arguing about abortion. You yourself reiterated the common position that it is "just a clump of cells," but isn't that also what a person is? I do not claim to have the answer to this question and I don't suspect that anyone else here can either, but without knowing each person's stance on what a human being is, we just get unproductive squabbling. You get a "gender = sex" debate where neither side seems to understand the others position.

>where the line is drawn is subjective
But there needs to be a line drawn for legal reasons. If we let each judge decide on a case by case basis, that would be a nightmare for everyone involved. I understand why you want to preserve everyone's right to make up their own mind, but that is simply not an option when discussing legality.

Simply put, if you are going to argue about abortion, at least be willing to state where you think the line should be drawn
>>
>>269225
There does not need to be a line drawn based on that measure. If a question is inherently unanswerable you do not ASSUME ONE OF THE POSSIBLE ANSWERS.

You find a different measure.
>>
>>269232
Then how do we determine when an abortion can or cannot be performed? Legally a determination needs to be made between when it is acceptable to perform an abortion. You can try and pussyfoot around this all you want, but it absolutely is essential to draw a line based on when a person is a person to separate abortion from murder
>>
>>269245
>draw a line
Yes. Let us-
>draw a line based on when a person is a person
Nooo, wrong. You are NOT going to be able to answer that without opening yourself up to a bunch of really dumb logical traps. Use the rights of the mother vs the authority of the government instead.

At what point does the rights of the mother lose out to the government's mandate to ensure life, liberty, and th pursuit of happiness? It's a much more answerable question. How much government power is too much?
>>
>>269260
You need to first define what the rights of the abortee are before looking at the rights of the aborter. If the fetus is a person, it has rights. That is why we need to first define if the fetus is a person or not before even beginning to discuss what rights the mother has. The government doesn't come into play until much later in this debate.

If the idea of whether a fetus is a person or not opens the door to logical fallacies, doesn't that kind of show that this may be something that shouldn't be glossed over when writing laws?
>>
>>269195
>I don't know the difference between a gamete and a zygote
I don't know why you think you're qualified to debate this when you clearly have no understanding of basicy biology or reproduction.
>>
>>269225
>at least be willing to state where you think the line should be drawn
The reason if didn't is because drawing a line is
1. it is so hugely problematic that I, and most probably no one. is qualified to do so
2. stating where I would draw the line is you invitation for me to label myself so that I can be subject to mindless, unreasoning, reasoning shorthand knee jerk reactions labels are designed for. The context of this debate is already so toxic and awash with people who would rather react than discuss.

As far as the law is concerned. Yes, there does need to be a distinction made from murder. But is the law (i.e. the law makers) any more qualified to make such a distinction? Which "higher authority" should we resort to?
The Supreme Court?
A body of lawyers whose judgments are subject to their own boas or who ever was in the White House that appointed them or the context of the times in which they live (e.g. are black people property or humans?).

Perhaps the authority of a book written bronze aged people who thought it ok to stone women and would today say that Texas being hit by a hurricane was because Texas was disobeying God?

In the absence of a reliable authority and the need for a judgement call I am going for the woman to choose.
>>
>>269270
So your entire argument is that we need to draw a line in order to properly legalize abortion, but that no one is qualified enough to make the distinction and thus we should just wild west it and let everyone arbitrarily decide for themselves what is and is not right?
>>
>>269270
Not the other anon, but I think the decision should be made by the states according to what the people in each state believe, and not by the supreme court making a clearly ridiculous decision to force their own beliefs onto the entire nation.

Your non-answer says that you believe personhood begins at birth (or that the mother's comfort overrides the unborn child's life), since I assume you agree with murder laws regarding newborns. Just say that instead of trying to hide behind rhetorical questions and declaring your perfectly absurd opinion that the potential criminal should be allowed to decide whether their actions constitute a crime.
>>
>>269272
No.

And no further should we arbitrarily assume DNA as a distinctive factor, when that argument can be used to define the cleaning of a petri dish containing HeLa cells as murder!

Don't you see? Defining a human exactly under law is a terrifying prospect. What about test tube babies? Cyborgs, like people with pacemakers or respirators/continuous dialysis, who are incapable of living without technological support?

A line drawn with this brush will not make things easier. It will make them much, MUCH harder.

>>269268
>If the idea of whether a fetus is a person or not opens the door to logical fallacies, doesn't that kind of show that this may be something that shouldn't be glossed over when writing laws?
Absolutely. So you need to answer the legality of abortion while sidestepping that impossible question.
>>
>>269273
You have just perfectly and (in)eloquently proven anon correct by first pidgeonholeing him into a strawman position, and then tearing it down on emotional grounds.

No one is arguing that and you are fighting air. Stop it.
>>
>>269273
>says that you believe personhood begins at birth (or that the mother's comfort overrides the unborn child's life).
You're wrong. idk what to believe. (lol "believe" - that it he real issue here).
I am not trying to hide behind any thing.
But you are wrong about my position.
>that the potential criminal should be allowed to decide
And there we go. Using deliberate and unnecessarily loaded language.
This is why we can't discuss shit these days.

>to decide whether their actions constitute a crime.
That is a ridiculous statement. Why would I advocate that the mother determines if it is a crime? There are legislative bodies and courts for that sort of thing. Do you not understand how these thing work?
>>
>>269277
But if each woman is allowed to arbitrarily decide for themselves whether abortion at one time point or another is legal or not, that is a legal nightmare. Is there a time limit the is placed to prevent them deciding a 4 year old is abortable? There have to be strict limitations outlining when abortion is and is not acceptable and you can't just throw up your hands and say women are free to do whatever they want.

>you need to answer legality while sidestepping that question
That question IS the problem with the legality of abortion. Whether or not the fetus has rights is where all of the abortion debate stems. By sidestepping that, you are only opening the door to legal challenge and the massive headache we have today.

This would essentially be like saying that execution should be legal, but there should be no guidelines for when it is warranted and the executioner gets to decide on a whim regardless of what anyone else says. I know you are going to claim this is a strawman, but seriously you need to think about the legal consequences for the bullshit, every woman is final arbiter position you are proposing
>>
>>269278
>strawman position
He literally said that he believes abortion should be the mother's decision, and I don't think that it's too ridiculous to assume that he agrees killing a newborn is murder. Please point out where I created a false representation of his views, because that honestly wasn't my intention.

>you are fighting air
I know, which is why I posted his beliefs as I understood them hoping I could get him to commit to something instead of continuing to dodge the question.

>>269280
>you are wrong about my position
Then what is your position? You say that abortion should be up to the woman, and my assumption was that you agree with murder laws starting at birth. Is any of that wrong?

>deliberate and unnecessarily loaded language
I used it because the absurdity of your position stands for itself. You're claiming that because not everyone will agree on the particulars of a law we should all just shut up and let anyone who thinks it's okay do it. There's no sense there and your stance doesn't deserve anything more than the response I gave it.

>There are legislative bodies and courts for that sort of thing. Do you not understand how these thing work?
What the fuck is this now? This whole time you talk about how judges and lawmakers are unfit to make the decision and now you act like I'm an idiot for playing by your rules? Fuck off, kid.
>>
>>269284
>be allowed to decide whether their actions constitute a crime.
Did you not read your own post? The mother is NOT deciding if her actions constitute a crime. She does not have that authority. Perhaps, the founders should have written another branch of government into the constitution., pregnant women.
"Pregnant women are hereby granted full authority to enact laws as their whims dictate"

>You say that abortion should be up to the woman, and my assumption was that you agree with murder laws starting at birth.
You what?
How?
I don't even...
Oh wait...
>assumption
Ok.
I see what you did there
In the absence of evidence just assume?
ok
>>
>>269285
You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.

Take this as a victory if you like, but I'm done talking with you. I trust that anyone with a brain who reads our exchange will come out of it agreeing with my statement above regardless of their beliefs on abortion. I hope for your own good that you're only pretending.
>>
>>269272
Why do humanity, animals, or anything else receive legal status at all? Because we're sentient beings and we can suffer, ergo we're entitled to consideration.

If something is too neurologically rudimentary to have a sense of self or desires for its future, killing it painlessly is by itself an ethically neutral act. The important difference between pre-human matter and human where ethics are concerned is whether one is sentient enough to have at some point had a desire to live. Because killing one at that point with impunity sets a precedent that endangers the rest of us. Society would be a shitty place if all of us feared being killed painlessly just for convenience. Even then, the relationship between a person and the developing person inside of them is complex enough that I don't think it can be a single line that differentiates worthy of full rights from worthy of no rights. There has to be more of a gradient of legal statuses if the desire is to protect freedom of all concerned as best as possible.

Using whether a clump of matter *could* develop sentience and desires for its future to distinguish non-human from human is too loose a standard to be practical, because there are theoretically an infinite number of humans that could be produced, but the cost to humans would certainly be too great if we treated any action that failed to allow their development as tantamount to murder.

Any other standard is either unscientific, religiously motivated and thus doesn't belong in legislation, or is arbitrary.
>>
>>269289
>unscientific
Find one biologist who argues human life starts somewhere other than at conception.
I'll wait.
>>
>>269287
>You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.
omg that insightful post has got me
you found me out
I am so ashamed
I am so horrible
<rips open a beer "My work here is done">
>>
>>269290
Define life.
Are the ingredients there? Yes
Is it life? What is the scientific definition of life?
To attach the word life with the word science has so many problems and shows a lack of understanding of what science is.
How do you measure life?
What constitutes "life"?
How do you observe "life"?
If I put a load of dna with another load of dna do I have life?
>ffs
>sigh
>>
>>269270
>As far as the law is concerned. Yes, there does need to be a distinction made from murder. But is the law (i.e. the law makers) any more qualified to make such a distinction? Which "higher authority" should we resort to?
>The Supreme Court?
>A body of lawyers whose judgments are subject to their own boas or who ever was in the White House that appointed them or the context of the times in which they live (e.g. are black people property or humans?).
That's a good point. You are making a similar argument that anti abolitionists did. There's a famous quote from that era
Fernando Wood, Democratic congressman said “Congress must not declare equal those whom God has created unequal.”
Was it beyond the pale for government to declare slavery illegal? That black people and white people are equal under the eyes of the law? Its fundamentally the same question in both cases. Who is and isn't a person, and who does and doesn't have rights.
>>
>>269306
Perhaps it's the role of the plantation owner to decide who is and isn't human?
>>
>>269306
Let's try coming at this from th e opposite direction.

Define a human life in such a way that it doesn't result in a dumb legal side effect.

Let's see if you can actually SOLVE this puzzle. We're telling you it can't be done and you clearly don't believe us, so take a crack at it.
>>
>>268707
>63-31 percent margin.

Democrats polling democrats.

Felon kills a pregnant female and they get charged with two homicides.

Women aborts a fetus, it is not a life.

Democrat logic.
>>
>>269322
>Quinnipiac university
>Democrat
???
>>
>>269322
A woman has a right to decide what goes on in her own body. Some random guy who attacks her and causes a miscarriage or the death of both does not.
>>
>>269335
Your literally arguing a woman can murder as long as specific conditions are met
>>
>>269346
Contrary to popular belief the vast majority of women who get an abortion do not do it out of malice. They usually do it because they don't have many options available to them. Aside from the rising costs of childcare and cost of living childbirth is a potentially life threatening procedure. Most women are able to give birth without complications but there's always a possibility. If your child would be non-viable or have a severe deformity it does not always make since for you to want to go through with it.

You don't understand anything and are just arguing from an emotional standpoint.
>>
>>269206
I'll step right on that landmine, because someone needs to. I will provide some context though, because generally every single instance is a case-by-case basis that requires specific thought.

First and foremost, the act of conceiving a child carries a certain amount of weight with it, and with that weight, comes responsibility. Assuming that such a conception was consensual, IE it came about due to the interaction of two parties, a man and a woman, who in understanding of their actions engaged in procreation, now have a responsibility to the unborn child, specifically, to provide reasonable care for its well being until it's birth. This isn't -just- a responsibility of the woman, but also of the man who sired the child -- he's just as culpable for his offspring, despite not residing in his body, as the lady who carries it, and as such should be expected to care and provide for the child and its mother to the best of his ability. In the same line of thinking, Child Support for already born children exists, providing precedent for this line of thinking.

Now that the general expectation of expecting parents is lined out (That the two responsible for the child's conception have an obligation to provide care for the developing child), the specific circumstance of the mother can be addressed. Due to reasons of nature, the ability to carry children to term is solely the domain of women. This a humongous undertaking, and should rightfully be given the respect it is due because it is absolutely required for the continuation of the human species in general. It is not expected that every couple or every individual woman engage in procreation, just that the ones that do understand exactly the gravity of their situation. In this case, it's not just the responsibility of caring for the child -- it's also the fact that pregnancy introduces medical risks beyond normal for the woman herself.
>>
>>269361
Unfortunately, the risks are unavoidable, but they aren't unknown. If the risks are known, and the events leading to conception are performed in full understanding of their consequences, then it can be said that the responsibility of care of the future child now lies on the couple that conceived it, with all risks that entails. If one did not accept the risks associated with pregnancy, the best course of action is to avoid the state that would lead to conception, either by taking preventative measures or by abstaining entirely.

Note, however, the exceptions to these clauses. First and foremost, if conception happened against one’s will (IE Rape, incest, etc), that violates the first clause, in that the conception happened with the full consent of both parties. Therefore, the woman had no choice in her future state of pregnancy, and no agency in taking steps to mitigate the risk to her individual health, and thus cannot be expected to assume responsibility for the child. Second, the risks of childbirth and pregnancy are known, and a reasonable amount of risk can be assumed in average cases. After a certain threshold, risk to the expecting mother exceed what can be considered an “expected level of risk,” at which point the expecting mother has a right to protect herself, in the same way self-defense is used as a justification in a trial. You cannot expect a woman carry a child to willingly doom herself when the child she carries rises to that level of risk as first and foremost, the individual has a responsibility to protect themselves.

What all this boils down to, in the most general of terms is simple – do not engage in activities that can lead to conception if you aren’t willing to bear the responsibility of the risks involved. Part of the burden of living in an educated society is accepting the consequence for one’s actions.
>>
>>269362
And what about rape?
>>
>>269361
>>269361
>he's just as culpable for his offspring
does this mean that the mans consent should also be required for abortion?
>the ability to carry children to term is solely the domain of women
no argument
my argument is that i agree that both the man and the woman are responsible for the creation of the (potential) life, should they not both be responsible for its death if they choose to terminate it?
>>
>>269363
>And what about rape?
who the fuck cares, were talking about the 99% of the time case, not the statistical abnormalities.
that would be like in discussions about illegal immigation talking about building a wall and having you be like "what about undocumented australian aborginals entering our country?"
>>
>>269362
> if conception happened against one’s will (IE Rape, incest, etc), that violates the first clause,

If a fetus is legally considered a US citizen with all the legal rights granted post birth, then you cannot make an exception for rape, incest,

The fetus cannot be held responsible for the actions leading to its own conception. By the 5th Amendment, a US citizen cannot be denied life without due process.

Furthermore, 2013 estimates place the number of spontaneous miscarriages at 15 to 20 percent (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/17/miscarriage-cause_n_4116712.html). Are all those women to be held guilty of involuntary manslaughter? If one is to be held absolutely responsible for the fetus, then sexual intercourse in general may meet the consideration of the reckless disregard required for conviction.

If sexual intercourse is deemed reckless disregard, then isn't the father also legally responsible for the involuntary manslaughter of miscarriage?

Good luck putting 40 percent of the population in jail.
>>
>>269363
>Note, however, the exceptions to these clauses. First and foremost, if conception happened against one’s will (IE Rape, incest, etc), that violates the first clause, in that the conception happened with the full consent of both parties.
>>
>>269365
Ideally, the man's consent for termination isn't a factor at all because termination isn't possible outside of extraneous health complications to the woman, at which point, the law states she can defend herself much in the same way a person under the threat of bodily harm from a more mature assailant (A Mugger, robber, etc) can defend themselves. It's a nebulous distinction where the risk to the mother becomes great enough to trigger such a clause since all pregnancy carries a health risk, but one that can be decided on via a case by case basis. If the woman's life is threatened, it's ultimately her decision how to best preserve it, despite the idea that the child is partially the man's.

I'm almost certain if my previous ruling was law, there would exist clinics that would be very quick to define any minor risk as cause to allow for abortion, but I would say that's an issue that can be worked out at a later date. But under ideal circumstance, the male has the same burden of care as the woman in the sense that he helped conceive the child and thus is expected to do all in his power to bring it to term.
>>
>>269373
> much in the same way a person under the threat of bodily harm from a more mature assailant
Wrong. In the case of a mugger or robber, the court may prove malicious intent.

Unless you can prove to 12 people that the fetus intended to be conceived to a mother and thus put her life in danger, the analogy does not hold.

A closer analogy would be if you had a heart attack behind the wheel of a car and crashed it while you were passed out. You can hardly be held responsible if you had no intention of having the heart attack.
>>
>>269380
>A closer analogy would be if you had a heart attack behind the wheel of a car and crashed it while you were passed out. You can hardly be held responsible if you had no intention of having the heart attack.

At the same time, you can't be held responsible for taking action to preserve your own life, despite the fact that the out of control vehicle was caused by tragic circumstance and not not willful malice. You don't hold the person having a heart attack responsible, but you absolutely can take measures to preserve your own life by dealing with the oncoming vehicle, and if the driver winds up injured or dead because of it, it's simply your reaction to the situation. A baby is much the same way -- it didn't intend to cause harm, and some risk of carrying a child is known, but if carrying it to term will result in the death of the mother, then a choice must be made.

In this way, it'd be less trying to prove to 12 jurors that the fetus had an intention to cause harm and more that action was needed to preserve the life of the mother.

>>269369
As above, circumstance can lead to action being required to preserve the life of the individuals. Even though the fetus might be a person by law, so too is the mother, and balance between the two must be struck. The mother accepts that pregnancy carries a nominal amount of risk, but above a certain threshold, can't be expected to face certain death for her child under state coercion.

Miscarriages are a tragic accident during the course of pregnancy, and unless it can be shown that the mother or father acted with reckless disregard towards the baby's life, this remains nothing more than a tragic accident. What this does mean is that if one of the parents does take provable action towards intentionally endangering the life of the child, either through direct action or neglect, they can be hold responsible. This already exists within how charges can be held for harming a pregnant woman to the point of miscarriage.
>>
>>269415
> if carrying it to term will result in the death of the mother, then a choice must be made.
On what Constitutional grounds does the mother's life supercede her child?

> can't be expected to face certain death for her child under state coercion.
How can you expect the child to face certain death for its mother under state coercion?

My point: if a fetus is considered a US citizen from the point of conception, then it CANNOT be medically terminated without due process of law. Under NO circumstances. At NO time. No ifs. No ands. No buts.

The 5th and 6th Amendments are very clear on this.
>>
>>269461
>on what grounds does the mother's rights supersede the child
In a life threatening situation, I imagine a case could be made for "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine."
>>
>>269461
But you're inducted into the U.S. at birth. Birth certificate and all that.

Fetus ain't been born yet. Not a citizen.
>>
>>269004

Using your logic cutting a tree down is murder because it killed an almost concious being...also every time you jerk off you would be considered a mass murderer.

Their are no real arguments why abortion should be illegal other then religious ones.
>>
>>269631
he was using the other guy's logic, dummy
>>
>>269346
it is factually correct to say that any US citizen can murder as long as specific conditions are met (although those conditions being met would make it not be considered murder, just as abortion under certain conditions is not considered murder)
>>
>>269136
this is the most pathetically, embarrassingly stupid fucking post in the entire thread
>>
>>269631
>every time you jerk off you would be considered a mass murderer.
See >>269269

>no real arguments
Let's look at murder laws - I picked Nebraska at random:
>A person commits murder in the first degree if he or she kills another person (1) purposely and with deliberate and premeditated malice, or (2) in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any sexual assault in the first degree, arson, robbery, kidnapping, hijacking of any public or private means of transportation, or burglary, or (3) by administering poison or causing the same to be done; or if by willful and corrupt perjury or subornation of the same he or she purposely procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person. The determination of whether murder in the first degree shall be punished as a Class I or Class IA felony shall be made pursuant to sections 29-2519 to 29-2524.
Whether abortion is murder or not depends on how you define "person." One definition of person could be "a living human," which would, biologically, start personhood at fertilization of the egg and would provide legal protection to the unborn child, making abortion illegal. Nothing religious about it.
>>
>>269487
> I imagine a case could be made for "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine."
Those are state statutes. NOT federal.

Castle doctrine only applies when the intention of the attack is to cause imminent death to the property's owners. You cannot execute Jehova's witnesses because they walk onto your property and ring your doorbell when you're watching football in your underwear. No matter how much you would like to.
>>
>>269493
> Fetus ain't been born yet. Not a citizen.
My point exactly. The fetus may be human, and it may be alive in the sense that it processes nutrients and (at some stage) has a beating heart, but until it is born, its rights are secondary to the right of privacy of the mother (ie., control over her own body).

However, it does possess partial protection from the 5th and 14th Amendments. Murder a pregnant woman, may be tried as a double homicide.
>>
>>268707
>A poll by Quinnipiac University

Lemme guess sample = 1001 liberals and 208 conservatives = muh polls.
>>
>>269631
>also every time you jerk off you would be considered a mass murderer.
If I do nothing the sperm in my testicles become babies?
>>
>>269939
Possibly, are you a hermaphroditic organism
>>
>>269905
> Lemme guess
You guessed wrong.

The sample was roughly divided - 24% Republican, 29% Democrat, and 38% Independent. The rest didn't declare a political affiliation.

Try reading the data instead of being spoon fed by Faux News.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.