I started this thread and moved these posts from the Trump thread. It developed as a robust discussion but really no longer specifically related to Trump.




I dont think this is correct. Dems did better than expected this midterm by getting Independent swing voters; the type of people who voted Trump in 2016 and voted Dem this midterm exactly because they support right to choose. The Dem base itself actually had a very weak turn out.

I doubt very many Democrats (if any) are making any appeal to anyone who believes abortion is murder and should be abolished.

I'm not a politician but as a Democrat my appeal to anyone who believes abortion is murder would be that making it a crime isn't going to reduce abortions in the long run in the US.

We have had a failed war on drugs for over 50 years. If anyone thinks that close to 100% of future abortions in states that have banned them won't be drug based then they are fooling themselves. People will learn that telling nobody they know about testing positive for carrying a child and then procuring the pills to abort will be the way to go.

The thing that nobody seems to be talking about is the fact that basically no women want to have an abortion (before they get pregnant). There are many ways to reduce the number of abortions in this country but most have been stymied by an amalgamation of right wing politicians who prefer that their party be in power to actually reducing the number of abortions we have. When Hickenlooper was Colorado's governor he instituted a way for 16+ year old girls in high school to get IUD implants for free (ACA rules) based on their choice - not needing their parents consent. The rate of pregnancy among teenagers dropped by over 50% as a result.

The other thing that nobody is talking about is that roughly 20% of pro life people who get pregnant (or their girlfriend's/wives/children) end up deciding to abort. So while it seems that this country is close to even on this topic it really is probably closer to 66% pro choice in the end. Some states will succeed in banning abortions but others surprisingly won't.

Ultimately if you believe that an abortion is equivalent to murdering an unborn child, then why isn't it a crime that the mother must be imprisoned (or executed) for? It is obviously for political reasons in that even more women would choose to oppose anti-abortion laws if that were the case. So it is hard to even respect that side of the argument.

They are making it a crime in many states.

These damn liberal government “conservatives” think it’s ok to give the government enough power to tel private citizens what to do with their own bodies.

Yup a cell is a baby so be careful with a human liver, finger, lung or w.e else , u will be accuse of murdering if u mishandle it …

Good!

False. Certainly, anyone ought as a rule to do what they want with their own bodies. But, the unborn baby is a unique human life.

Mother + Unborn Baby + "Doctor" = 3 human lives.

The mother and the "doctor" are conspiring to kill the unborn baby.

So, I don't believe (as a rule) that two persons should be allowed to conspire to kill a third person.

Do you?

So there is a fire at a hospital. In one end of the building is a six month old baby in the baby ward. in the other end are five test tubes, each with a fertilized egg, in the IVF unit. There is only time to go in one more time before the building collapses. Who do you save? The five test tubes, because they are five lives, and you let the one baby burn; or save the baby and let the eggs get hard boiled?

IMO most of those who claim that life begins at fertilization, and those lives are equal in every way to any other human life, would actually save the baby. I think that when everything is on the line, something deep inside them will tell them that an egg in a test tube is in no way equivalent to a baby crawling around the baby ward. They will instinctively know that a living baby is a human being while the fertilized eggs represent potential human life; but not an actual human being.

Now, if someone says nope, I'm saving the eggs, and they truly mean it, I respect that. I think their belief is a terrible one; but I respect that they have the courage of their convictions even in the face of dire circumstances.

There is another aspect of the "prolife" crowd that I think also illustrates the difference between what they claim and what they would actually do. All but the most extreme pro life groups do not support charging the mother who gets an abortion with murder. They are happy to charge the doctor, the nurse, the uber driver who takes the woman to the doctor's office. But they give the woman a pass. Yet if that same woman called up someone and said I will pay you money to kill my six month old baby, she would be charged with murder without question. So once again, most of these groups shy away from their own "convictions" when that position is taken to its logical conclusion in life and death situations.

What do you think? Would you save the baby, or save the test tubes with eggs and let the baby burn?

no one saves the test tubes. ever. you could up it to there are 100 petri dishes on a tray with fertilized eggs. everyone saves the live baby, because it's obviously ACTUALLY a baby and the test tubes/petri dishes are just goop in a tube. i think the anti-choice groups came up with some deflection to this hypothesis though..

also the second one is less about what is a baby and more about no groups support charging the mother because they understand its incredibly unpopular. they are fighting for a position that is ALREADY incredibly unpopular and fringe, they can't include support for an EVEN MORE unpopular and fringe position. they would absolutely LOVE to charge the mother in their ideal world. put her in the stocks for the whole town to see.

Most of the fringe far right crowd I know believe that mothers should be jailed for abortion, but they are also smart enough not to say that when making a public case against abortion. They know it will be easier to enact criminal punishments when abortion is already fully illegal, and they know that for now punishing doctors/uber drivers/etc is enough to generate fear in those they want to control.

I find your flippancy toward human life disgusting. (i.e. it's not nice)

Even so, I'll give a tentative answer to your question, because it's a good one.

I think I would save the baby because it has achieved sentience (i.e. the baby can experience pain).

Your question I think is an excellent and difficult one, which is why I'm only giving a tentative answer.

Do u consider a life form , without being sentient , having a soul ?

Great question! I don't have a great (or even good) answer to that. Which is another reason for me to rescue the one crawling-around baby instead of the five test-tube babies.

I don’t understand .
U consider a human cell being as value as a baby, even convincingly call it a baby itself and accusing murdering babies if a doctor removes that human cell from a mother belly …..
How can it be difficult to answer ?
Or it has a soul or it doesn’t at conception ?

Clearly 5 (in vitro cell) > 1 baby ?
Saving 5 souls > 1 soul ?

I already said I don't know at what point ensoulment occurs.

I also said that I would save the baby because it is sentient, while the test-tube babies are not.

The good news is that there is a roughly 0% chance that the Browser Dilemma will ever happen in real-life.

Even so, such dilemmas can be useful in drawing various distinctions.

But how can u pretend a cell is baby then ?
Are u suggesting a human being without a soul can exist?

I want to explain to you that until the umbilical cord is cut, the mother and soon to be child are one human. they are not two humans until that fleshy connection is severed and tied off and the baby is spanked and starts breathing air instead of oxygen via the mother

Does that makes sense to you?

what you're saying is that the federal government can tell people, under threat of being shot, what they can do with their own human body. Can you actually call yourself a conservative at that point? You literally trust the federal government to do what's right with 1/2 of the populations bodies. As a freedom loving, history respecting American, I cannot believe anyone would think that is a good idea.

I don't. The fertilized egg is a human life, though. Not a baby yet.

It's possible.

No.

This paragraph is irrelevant, since I reject your premise that an unborn baby and its mother are "one human."

Interesting that you think that a woman who has been pregnant for six months has two brains.

And if the baby is a boy, then the woman has a vagina and a penis, right?

As Mr. Spock would say: "Fascinating!"

So when does it become two bodies and what’s the deciding factor?

If it’s a boy, the woman has her body, and the body she is building. When do you think she is done building the second body? Is it before the birth or after?


do you think a woman that has been pregnant for six months has two brains?



Do you think a woman that has been pregnant for six months has one brain?

Please clarify

And not that I know, but I doubt the human penis is fully developed at 6 months en utero

I don't find this conversation interesting nor related to the thread topic (Trump). Those opposing abortion are generally clear that they view a fertilized egg as an independent human life, separate from the mother. If you view it from this perspective, then of course the government should get involved to prevent abortion as it does with any other murder. I don't agree with the premise, but there are no gotchas to be had if you accept life to begin at fertilization.

The real questions in my mind are why the religious are so set on that being the definitive start to life.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ms-republicans

"Trump blaming abortion for midterms flop shows ‘ship is sinking’, insider says"

we are discussing it because of how it affects/affected his campaigns

If one had to choose a somewhat arbitrary starting point, this is an extremely reasonable one.

The "still part of its mother" argument is the one that makes no sense to me from a biological perspective. Every cell in the egg has an identical double stranded DNA signature that is distinct from its mothers. If that doesn't make you a distinct life, then I dont know what does.

If you want to make some kind of argument it isn't an independent life yet, or isn't "human" yet, that is fine. But the "still part of its mother" doesn't work for me at all. When scientists do studies on mice fetuses (which there is a lot of) the fetuses are not labelled as

1. Part of mother #1
2. Part of mother #2
3. Etc.

--It is recognized they are distinct lifeforms, and are studied as such.

I thought we were discussing persons that get protection from the government due to their citizenship and the threat to their life.

When do they become a separate person, with separate rights?

so you're saying the fetus is not still part of the mother during pregnancy?

or the fetus is part of the mother during pregnancy? can you please clarify

I am speaking from a biological perspective. The fetus has a unique DNA signature that every one of its cells have, that is distinct from its mother. If you were doing an experiment that included the mother and fetus (such as determining if a therapeutic crossed the placental barrier), you would certainly regard them as distinct lifeforms.

When you start talking about rights and citizenship, you are obviously veering into social territory, where things are much more arbitrary and socially constructed. Which is why biology itself is more or less immutable, but social norms in human socieites are so different across space and time.

I dont even oppose abortion. But I am not going to pretend I am confused why someone else might consider the start of human life to be conception, and the "part of its mothers body" argument is a bridge too far for me personally, as I see no biological basis to support it.

A fetus is part of its mothers body as much as you are part of your house. The mother's body is the environment it is currently living in, where it is not adapted to live anywhere else and wont be for approximately 40 weeks. The real interesting thing to me is what we do if/when technological advances allow us to create artificial wombs. If we get to the point a fetus could live and thrive in an artificial womb, would the legal/moral imperative now be to just move them as opposed to terminating them?

That's certainly why this conversation started here, but it's definitely not what the conversation has become. Now, it's just the normal debate on abortion and makes no mention of Trump.

please answer the questions

When do they become a separate person, with separate rights?

so you're saying the fetus is not still part of the mother during pregnancy?

or the fetus is part of the mother during pregnancy? can you please clarify