The new GOP Bill. "Protect Life Act"

[Christos Anesti]

I made no assumption on whether the fetus is a person or not. I commented on what I believe is the endgame for the religious right.

I'm not part of the "religious right" so I can't speak on their behalf but I don't think they want to regulate what a mother can eat. Generally it's people associated with the left wing who are more interested in regulating food and drink in that manner in order to protect peoples health.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'm not part of the "religious right" so I can't speak on their behalf but I don't think they want to regulate what a mother can eat.

That is because they are still busy with abortion in general. They want to protect the child, and that includes making sure the mother is healthy.

Then again, many conservatives think that as long as the parent isn't killing the child, they should have the freedom to do what they want to them (to varying degrees).

 

[lawtonfogle]

To an extent I can empathize with the argument that a person should be able to do what they want with, or make use of, their body in the manner they see fit. Even in areas like drug use or prostitution I think a legitimate argument on those lines could be made. When the use of the body involves direct physical harm or even the death of another person we need to have limits though. That argument [do what I want with my body] doesn't hold much weight when it comes to abortion. It's on par with an argument like this: "If I want to ball my hand up into a fist and swing it forward really hard over and over when another person is standing in front of me then that is my right.... don't tell me what I can or can not do with MY fist, MY body." It involves more than one person. One the persons ends up dead.

It is more like "If I want you to stop touching me, I can force you to stop touching me. If this requires me to kill you, so be it. Of course, I can only go that far if there are no other ways to get you to quit touching me."

 

[Christos Anesti]

It is more like "If I want you to stop touching me, I can force you to stop touching me. If this requires me to kill you, so be it. Of course, I can only go that far if there are no other ways to get you to quit touching me."

It seems you are accepting that it is a person but you believe you would have the right to kill this person because for a nine month period this person would be in contact with another persons body? If a person was raped I could see them rationalizing it this way but certainly if a person had consensual sex and were knowledgeable of the fact that sex can lead to pregnancy I don't think it would be much of an argument at all. A person could simply refrain from having sex if they are so concerned about another person touching them. Sometimes actions have consequences and we have to live with them rather then disposing of the person who results from the action. I think one would also have to take into consideration that the child isn't in conact with another persons body due to any choice of their own but rather because of the choice of one (rape) or two (consensual) other people. The child can hardly help it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It seems you are accepting that it is a person but you believe you would have the right to kill this person because for a nine month period this person would be in contact with another persons body?

I see that it can be removed. If it can be removed without killing it (such as most later third term babies), then killing it should be murder. I support technology to be able to remove the baby even earlier without killing it.

If a person was raped I could see them rationalizing it this way but certainly if a person had consensual sex and were knowledgeable of the fact that sex can lead to pregnancy I don't think it would be much of an argument at all.

If a woman consents to sex, but half way through says no, it is rape to continue.

The big catch is with children, who by law cannot consent to anyone using their body. If a child gets pregnant, the courts should require them to get an abortion ASAP (unless they are emancipated, say via marriage).

A person could simply refrain from having sex if they are so concerned about another person touching them.

If Jill consents to sex with Bob, Joe still can't touch Jill.

Sometimes actions have consequences and we have to live with them rather then disposing of the person who results from the action. I think one would also have to take into consideration that the child isn't in conact with another persons body due to any choice of their own but rather because of the choice of one (rape) or two (consensual) other people. The child can hardly help it.

Ignorance is no excuse. Also, consent to sex does not equate consent to all actions that derive thereof.

 

[Christos Anesti]

That is because they are still busy with abortion in general. They want to protect the child, and that includes making sure the mother is healthy.

Then again, many conservatives think that as long as the parent isn't killing the child, they should have the freedom to do what they want to them (to varying degrees).

I haven't seen any evidence of that but I guess I can't say it's impossible. Even if it is correct it really doesn't prove much of anything regarding the issue of abortion though. Either abortion is the wrongful taking of an innocent human life or it isn't. Arguments about how conservatives think or how liberals think or if some conservative have faulty or illogical views on other issues (or are hypocrites, etc) are not particularly relevant imo.

 

[Christos Anesti]

If a woman consents to sex, but half way through says no, it is rape to continue.

Makes sense to me. I think that is how the law views it as well.

If Jill consents to sex with Bob, Joe still can't touch Jill

If you are using "Joe" as a name for the baby they conceived then yes Joe would have every right to be in Jill's body. Joe didn't ask to be conceived or sneak into her womb when she wasn't looking. It's Jill's "fault" that Joe is there in the first place. I know people hate this idea for some reason but people do need to take responsibility for their actions. Especially when failing to do so would lead to the death of another person.

Do you think a mother has a duty to feed her children? She consented to sex and giving birth but what if she decided not to consent to doing that with her body ( i.e. moving her legs in such a way as to go to the store and then moving her arms in such a way as to pick food up and put in the shopping cart...etc..). Do people have any responsibilities whatsoever for their children?

 

[Belk]

I haven't seen any evidence of that but I guess I can't say it's impossible. Even if it is correct it really doesn't prove much of anything regarding the issue of abortion though. Either abortion is the wrongful taking of an innocent human life or it isn't. Arguments about how conservatives think or how liberals think or if some conservative have faulty or illogical views on other issues (or are hypocrites, etc) are not particularly relevant imo.

I keep seeing that word in conjunction with abortion. Is there some reason a person who is not innocent is less deserving of life then someone who is? What defenition of innocent are we even using?

 

[brindisi]

I don't disagree. But I'm a practical person. I'm concerned about the practical effects of our laws. The biggest problem I have with pro-lifers is that their only legal approach to abortion seems to be criminalization. Criminal law is such a blunt instrument. If abortion is criminalized, how do you deal with the hard cases? What hoops will a sick woman have to go through in order to get a necessary medical procedure? Will there have to be hearing before a judge? And are we going to have over-zealous prosecutors second guessing physicians as to whether an abortion was really necessary? Conservatives talk about government intrusion into our health care and our personal lives. Don't you see how this could be an egregious example of such? Aren't there ways to reduce abortions without using the police power of the state?

I understand your concern about the practical effects of our laws, but my position is not primarily based on legal solutions. I am pro-life because my concern for the sanctity of human life leaves me no alternative but to reject any attempt to describe a fetus as nothing more than a clump of cells, or merely a “potential” human being. But I’m also politically libertarian, which leads me to reject government involvement to every extent possible. Government regulation or legislation is almost never a good answer, and almost always leads to corruption and loss of individual freedom.

The way to reduce the tragedy of abortion to only those relatively rare instances where there is no alternative but to sacrifice one life to save another is by building a strong moral foundation in our communities. I very much admire the way John Woolman, the 18th century itinerate Quaker preacher - who spent a lifetime advocating against the evil of slavery - succeeded in leading all Quaker meetings to eventually take strong anti-slavery positions. He changed hearts and minds a few at a time until their fervent morality led the entire American Quaker community to reject slavery. No legislation was required within that community, with a strong moral foundation, to reject that evil when slavery was still largely seen as just a normal part of the human condition.

I firmly believe that when a people lose their moral foundation, there is no amount of government regulation, or legislation, or power that can maintain a civil society.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams, October 11, 1798

 

[lawtonfogle]

I haven't seen any evidence of that but I guess I can't say it's impossible. Even if it is correct it really doesn't prove much of anything regarding the issue of abortion though. Either abortion is the wrongful taking of an innocent human life or it isn't. Arguments about how conservatives think or how liberals think or if some conservative have faulty or illogical views on other issues (or are hypocrites, etc) are not particularly relevant imo.

It is relevant because if we consider the baby to be alive legally, then laws dealing with child protection will apply. For example, a mother who drinks alcohol while pregnant is intoxicating her child far beyond any safe limit, and thus should be punished just any parent who gave their 1 year old too much alcohol. If the child dies from this, then it should be considered no different than if a parent gave enough alcohol to a 1 year old to kill them.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Makes sense to me. I think that is how the law views it as well.



If you are using "Joe" as a name for the baby they conceived then yes Joe would have every right to be in Jill's body. Joe didn't ask to be conceived or sneak into her womb when she wasn't looking. It's Jill's "fault" that Joe is there in the first place.

Just like it is Jill's fault for consenting to sex that some man is inside her. But when she says no, it means they have to get out.

I know people hate this idea for some reason but people do need to take responsibility for their actions. Especially when failing to do so would lead to the death of another person.

Such as unhealthy living by a pregnant woman.

Do you think a mother has a duty to feed her children? She consented to sex and giving birth but what if she decided not to consent to doing that with her body ( i.e. moving her legs in such a way as to go to the store and then moving her arms in such a way as to pick food up and put in the shopping cart...etc..). Do people have any responsibilities whatsoever for their children?

Only in so far as to care for them up till removal. At any point a parent can decide to terminate parenting by putting their children up for adoption. Some states even have drop off areas where a parent (often a young mother of newborn) can leave the child, no questions asked. They only must take care of it till that point, much like a pregnant mother must take care of the child till the removal procedure can take place. For example, if a mother is pregnant in the third trimester, she must take care of the child for the couple hours or days it will take for doctors to induce premature birth.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I keep seeing that word in conjunction with abortion. Is there some reason a person who is not innocent is less deserving of life then someone who is? What defenition of innocent are we even using?

It's bad enough to take the life of a person who is guilty of a heinous crime (I also oppose the death penalty ) but to take the life of a child who hasn't wronged anyone is an even more obvious transgression of moral law.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Only in so far as to care for them up till removal. At any point a parent can decide to terminate parenting by putting their children up for adoption. Some states even have drop off areas where a parent

What if they don't want to feed their child but they also don't want to do that with their body (take it to a drop off point) ?

 

[Belk]

It's bad enough to take the life of a person who is guilty of a heinous crime (I also oppose the death penalty ) but to take the life of a child who hasn't wronged anyone is an even more obvious transgression of moral law.

It is? Why is it a worse transgression? Would it be worse for someone to take the life of a fetus then my life? Why or why not?

 

[Christos Anesti]

Such as unhealthy living by a pregnant woman.

If the unhealthy living was done with the specific intent of killing the child in the womb and resulted in that then it could be comparable morally. If a mother unintentionally ended up causing major harm or even death to her child by smoking crack or using some other drug then the case would probably be less clear cut. If you are simply talking about a mother drinking coffee or eating at McDonalds then the results would be so far removed from the death sentence of abortion as to not even be comparable.

 

[Christos Anesti]

It is? Why is it a worse transgression?

I didn't say it was a worse transgression. I said it was a more obvious transgression. Many people are not aware that it is wrong to kill someone who has wronged them but even they understand that you don't kill the innocent. At least in killing a person guilty of a crime you could contrive a plausible excuse. Even a person with a very coarsely informed conscious should know that you don't kill the innocent. It takes a more refined conscious to know that you don't kill your enemies either.

Would it be worse for someone to take the life of a fetus then my life? Why or why not?

No. Both would be murder.

 

[Belk]

I didn't say it was a worse transgression. I said it was a more obvious transgression.



No. Both would be murder.

So the innocent portion is, in point of fact, superfluous? So why include it?

 

[Christos Anesti]

So the innocent portion is, in point of fact, superfluous? So why include it?

Not all people agree with me that no one should be killed. They feel that it is ok to kill the guilty. For those people I'm stressing that the child is innocent.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Unless you directed the question to me, I do not feel obligated to search for it - at my inconvenience - to answer it, just because you demand that I do. I note, however, that you've avoided my questions. Too difficult to answer I suspect?

Sorry you have avoided my questions. You cannot answer mine.

 

[lawtonfogle]

What if they don't want to feed their child but they also don't want to do that with their body (take it to a drop off point) ?

It is like when the woman yells stop with sex. There is a reasonable amount of time for the man to stop before it becomes rape.

In the same way, there is a reasonable amount of time for the parent to have to still take care of the child. But this is not measured in months.