For Discussion: A Brief Explanation of Aristotle, Quickening, and Abortion

[Darth Ovious]

I am pro-life, though I don't consider abortions prior to ~22-24 weeks to be murder, as personhood, at minimum, requires the capacity for differentiated sensation. I feel that the neurological development that occurs ~24 weeks is probablyactualpotential person with the suffering and well-being of an actual person, of course, but I would like to address the problem through increasing prevention and treatment services to the latter rather than extinguish the former.

So, I'm pro-life but because abortion (at least prior to a certain point) is not murder and because we're dealing with a potential person's "rights" in competition with an actual person's rights, I don't think that abortion can be outlawed wholesale. It can be significantly curtailed and, assuming strong prevention and support policies are in place, I would strongly support that. But it's an all-or-nothing response: simply outlawing abortion would greatly increase the suffering of actual persons and potential persons, as the number of children exposed to poverty would significantly increase and children in poverty face significantly higher exposure to various sufferings.

I don't know Sam. This still sounds like Pro Choice argumentation here. People from the Pro Choice movement do say things like "Well I would personally not do it but I don't think you can stop others from doing it". Your argumentation here is very similar in this respects.

It should also be noted that you are still a part of the political system, i.e. a voter and so therefore you still be able to speak your personal views. If you think that abortion is wrong then just say it and if others disagree then just say you are allowed your opinion on the matter like any other voter and it's to the government to decide what the majority favour is.

[Sam]

I don't know Sam. This still sounds like Pro Choice argumentation here. People from the Pro Choice movement do say things like "Well I would personally not do it but I don't think you can stop others from doing it". Your argumentation here is very similar in this respects.

It should also be noted that you are still a part of the political system, i.e. a voter and so therefore you still be able to speak your personal views. If you think that abortion is wrong then just say it and if others disagree then just say you are allowed your opinion on the matter like any other voter and it's to the government to decide what the majority favour is.

This was discussed in the other thread: acknowledging that something is legal is not the same as supporting it. I don't support, in any way, shape, or form, taking the Lord's name in vain. However, we cannot outlaw it. It's a constitutional right. By the same token, and for the reason I noted above, we cannot strip an actual person's rights based solely on the idea of a potential person's. We could make an argument about collective duty but that would have to be extremely robust, in my opinion, and weigh in on a utilitarian framework.

I focus my civic efforts on the things that have the most chance to positively affect the abortion rate, specifically arguing for increased access to free LARC methods, which have been shown repeatedly to dramatically decrease unwanted pregnancies.

[Sam]

As I said in the post above, I have no interest in trying to attack your arguments based on the ground rules you've laid out in this thread (stacking the deck in your favor), but I think you need to start being honest with yourself and others about what you really believe, because calling yourself "pro-life" is a lie.

If you're not going to take a (constructive) part in the discussion of the thread, there's no need for you to be in the thread. It's inappropriate to opine that someone's position is a lie while simultaneously saying that you won't participate in discussion.

If you can be constructive, keep on topic, and refrain from being uncivil, you're welcome to stay and make a case for your opinion.

[Mountain Man]

By the same token, and for the reason I noted above, we cannot strip an actual person's rights based solely on the idea of a potential person's.

Spoken like a diehard pro-abortionist...

[Sam]

Spoken like a diehard pro-abortionist...

Mountain Man, please refrain from posting in this thread anymore. I don't believe you have the capacity for self-governance.

[Mountain Man]

If you're not going to take a (constructive) part in the discussion of the thread, there's no need for you to be in the thread. It's inappropriate to opine that someone's position is a lie while simultaneously saying that you won't participate in discussion.

If you can be constructive, keep on topic, and refrain from being uncivil, you're welcome to stay and make a case for your opinion.

I have no desire to discuss the abortion argument with you when you've made it a point to stack the deck in your favor. Would you agree to a debate if the groundrule was that you couldn't lean on the "personhood" canard to defend your position? Of course you wouldn't.

But that's a different matter than you deceptively calling yourself "pro-life" when your every argument is classic pro-choice/pro-abortion. So I stand by my accusation that when you say, "I'm pro-life," you are, in fact, lying about what you really believe, and I will refrain from speculating why you do this. That's for you to come to terms with.

[Joel]

Where is the idea coming from that "person" didn't exist in law prior to Roe v Wade?
Surely the reason that "person" became associated with the abortion debate in the U.S. is the reference to "person" in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution, and the question of whether their references to "person" includes pre-born humans.

And from Roe: "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

[Starlight]

I focus my civic efforts on the things that have the most chance to positively affect the abortion rate, specifically arguing for increased access to free LARC methods, which have been shown repeatedly to dramatically decrease unwanted pregnancies.

It could be worth you (or Jaecp) making a thread looking at the data showing how (non-abstinence) sex-education and access to contraceptives have the effects of reducing teen pregnancy and lowering the rates of abortions. And also perhaps it is worth looking at the estimates of the rate of black-market abortions in areas where abortion is illegal.

I say this because I think a lot of the people on this forum (and in the US generally) who are anti-abortion don't have empirically-based views as to the best way to decrease the abortion rate.

[Sam]

It could be worth you (or Jaecp) making a thread looking at the data showing how (non-abstinence) sex-education and access to contraceptives have the effects of reducing teen pregnancy and lowering the rates of abortions. And also perhaps it is worth looking at the estimates of the rate of black-market abortions in areas where abortion is illegal.

I say this because I think a lot of the people on this forum (and in the US generally) who are anti-abortion don't have empirically-based views as to the best way to decrease the abortion rate.

We've (collectively) been through that discussion a few times in the past, if memory serves, with a focus primarily on LARC methods and the importance of free contraceptives (as opposed to even nominal costs). Might be worth revisiting, as I believe a LARC experiment in Colorado just wrapped up.

I'll give it some thought and try to find the study I'm thinking of.

[rogue06]

Almost immediately after Iran and Obama's victory over America the Iranian government coincidentally announced that they have discovered a large uranium reserve inside their borders

Source: Iran says finds unexpectedly high uranium reserve

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran has discovered an unexpectedly high reserve of uranium and will soon begin extracting the radioactive element at a new mine, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said on Saturday.

The comments cast doubt on previous assessments from some Western analysts who said the country had a low supply and would sooner or later would need to import uranium, the raw material needed for its nuclear program.

Any indication Iran could become more self-sufficient will be closely watched by world powers, which reached a landmark deal with Tehran in July over its program. They had feared the nuclear activities were aimed at acquiring the capability to produce atomic weapons - something denied by Tehran.

"I cannot announce (the level of) Iran's uranium mine reserves. The important thing is that before aerial prospecting for uranium ores we were not too optimistic, but the new discoveries have made us confident about our reserves," Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sam]

Almost immediately after Iran and Obama's victory over America the Iranian government coincidentally announced that they have discovered a large uranium reserve inside their borders

Source: Iran says finds unexpectedly high uranium reserve

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran has discovered an unexpectedly high reserve of uranium and will soon begin extracting the radioactive element at a new mine, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said on Saturday.

The comments cast doubt on previous assessments from some Western analysts who said the country had a low supply and would sooner or later would need to import uranium, the raw material needed for its nuclear program.

Any indication Iran could become more self-sufficient will be closely watched by world powers, which reached a landmark deal with Tehran in July over its program. They had feared the nuclear activities were aimed at acquiring the capability to produce atomic weapons - something denied by Tehran.

"I cannot announce (the level of) Iran's uranium mine reserves. The important thing is that before aerial prospecting for uranium ores we were not too optimistic, but the new discoveries have made us confident about our reserves," Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA.

© Copyright Original Source

Interesting, though this is not the thread you seek.

[Teallaura]

Where is the idea coming from that "person" didn't exist in law prior to Roe v Wade?
Surely the reason that "person" became associated with the abortion debate in the U.S. is the reference to "person" in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution, and the question of whether their references to "person" includes pre-born humans.

And from Roe: "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

No one said 'person' wasn't in law before Roe. Person and human were, and other than for abortion, are synonymous in legal terms. 'Personhood' however, is a new concept. Previous to Roe all you had to be was human to have the right to live. Post Roe, and increasingly outside abortion, you have to establish that you possess 'personhood' in order for your right to live to be protected.

Roe acknowledges the fetus' humanity, but denies its right to live based on 'personhood'. Never before had a human being been not considered a person under US law.

[Teallaura]

I actually came in to say I didn't think I'd get back to this. I still don't think so, but I'll take a day or two more to reconsider - since I can't seem to leave it alone...

[Sam]

No one said 'person' wasn't in law before Roe. Person and human were, and other than for abortion, are synonymous in legal terms. 'Personhood' however, is a new concept. Previous to Roe all you had to be was human to have the right to live. Post Roe, and increasingly outside abortion, you have to establish that you possess 'personhood' in order for your right to live to be protected.

Roe acknowledges the fetus' humanity, but denies its right to live based on 'personhood'. Never before had a human being been not considered a person under US law.

That's actually part of the OP; if you're willing, I'd be interested to hear how we square the statement:

Previous to Roe, all you had to be was human to have the right to live.

With the legal framework prior to the mid-1800s that only outlawed abortions after quickening.

[Sam]

I actually came in to say I didn't think I'd get back to this. I still don't think so, but I'll take a day or two more to reconsider - since I can't seem to leave it alone...

Ah, gotcha. Thread's not going anywhere fast; no hurry.