My stance on abortion

[Bill the Cat]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act still does not make a fetus a full person in that it is not stopping the murder of these persons.

It criminalizes the murder of the fetus as a separate crime UNLESS it is the mother (or her medical proxy) committing the murder.

[Jedidiah]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act still does not make a fetus a full person in that it is not stopping the murder of these persons.

[Bill the Cat]

I agree heartily with this. However to get it into law it will require a legal definition of human that includes the unborn.

It actually already exists. That's why the Democrats fought so hard to defeat Laci and Conner's Law.

[Epoetker]

I've always been pro-life, due to little things like a history of biology classes giving me a greater personal, scientific, and emotional level of experiences and contacts with people who may be called upon to perform abortions.

But since it's also a policy of mine to support whatever feminists and liberals most loudly decry(they keep talking about smashing patriarchy, which actually turns out to be pretty swell from a historical perspective,) I am also anti-choice, because pregnant women rarely make good ones alone.

(Teal and everyone else with doctoring and nursing experience, please stop nodding your heads now.)

[Jedidiah]

. . .I am somewhat surprised that you don't think the soul is imparted at some point in time. Where/how does it come into play?

The soul, IMHO is simply an aspect of the human being. It is always there from conception. I do not see this as some mysterious thing that gets inserted into a person giving them "personhood" at some point in time.

[Jedidiah]

I have never used a "soul" argument in my pro-life debates. I just use "the fetus is a human being" - which is different from some legal definition of "person" - it is a biological definition. It is a distinct human being from the moment of conception. It is alive, it grows, has unique DNA, and will grow into an adult human being one day, barring disease, accident or murder. We all started out like this.

I agree heartily with this. However to get it into law it will require a legal definition of human that includes the unborn.

[Sparko]

I have never used a "soul" argument in my pro-life debates. I just use "the fetus is a human being" - which is different from some legal definition of "person" - it is a biological definition. It is a distinct human being from the moment of conception. It is alive, it grows, has unique DNA, and will grow into an adult human being one day, barring disease, accident or murder. We all started out like this.


"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -- Ronald Reagan.

[Carrikature]

You're right, I am somewhat surprised that you don't think the soul is imparted at some point in time. Where/how does it come into play? I'm pleasantly surprised by your take on Imago Dei. For what it's worth, I don't think there's a way to reject it because there doesn't seem to be any way to know what it's supposed to describe. My rejection of it is mostly due to my lack of belief in God. I think you make a good point about legislative action. It's interesting to note that Roe v. Wade focused on right to privacy instead of the status of the fetus.

I heartily agree with this in society today. It may never have been true that our government system was reliably able to make good laws in the best interest of it's citizens. This was recognized to some degree by the nations founders when we were formed as a Republic rather than a Democracy. I would never want to live in a real democracy. This however moves well away from the topic at hand.

[Carrikature]

How about you explain yourself and what you are fishing for here first?

I like that gif!

[Bill the Cat]

Which kinds of life, since we're rejecting disputable distinctions here?

How about you explain yourself and what you are fishing for here first?

[Carrikature]

Which kinds of life, since we're rejecting disputable distinctions here?

I don't distinguish by quality or species type. However, I don't hold it as inviolate, either. When and how it can be violated is not something I've elaborated on, but perhaps I should.


I'm open to discussing disputable distinctions. Just because I'm not convinced doesn't mean I can't be.

[seasanctuary]

However, a general sanctity of life is something I can get behind.

Which kinds of life, since we're rejecting disputable distinctions here?

[Jedidiah]

Amen, Bill.

[Bill the Cat]

I am disappointed in the blatant contradiction in Public Law 108-212 that basically stipulates that the child in-utero is afforded separate legal protections from the mother, unless it it the mother (or her medically elected proxy) that is doing the harming of the child. On one hand, it validates the separate existence of the child in-utero, but makes an exception for abortion, which denies it.

[Jedidiah]

At the same time, I think our system is generally unable to make laws in the interest of its citizens. Where majority rules, long-term self-interest is not necessarily present.

I heartily agree with this in society today. It may never have been true that our government system was reliably able to make good laws in the best interest of it's citizens. This was recognized to some degree by the nations founders when we were formed as a Republic rather than a Democracy. I would never want to live in a real democracy. This however moves well away from the topic at hand.