Abortion or the day Roe died

[asdf]

For example why is it murder if the pregnant woman doesn't consent but not murder if she does? The act is the same from the point of view of the fetus.
...AFAIK the pro-choice is the more beset by logical problems...

Have you ever read Judith Jarvis Thomson's essay?

[dw]

No, link?

[asdf]

link?

1. PDF of the original journal article:
https://learning.hccs.edu/faculty/james ... rtion/view

2. A simple webpage version:
https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phi ... homson.htm

3. Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

Such a great read. A famous violinist, Henry Fonda, people pollen...

[brkriete]

The Christian Hell Holes will become increasingly isolated and irrelevant at the national level.

How do those in such hell holes/ red states reconcile their vehement anti vax stance (pro-choice) with similar strong thoughts on anti-abortion (pro-life), mental gymnastics or pure apples and oranges shit?

I don't know for sure and I doubt many people would express the cognitive dissonance this cleanly but I suspect the underlying Christian logic behind e.g., opposing both abortion and social safety nets boils down to something like this:

A fetus is without sin (hence why abortion is evil, it is killing an innocent).

Once it is born, it assumes the burden of original sin and becomes responsible for its own salvation.

[Hanley]

The act is the same from the point of view of the fetus.

But....not the mother's. Whose classification of said cells should be considered up to a necessarily vague/arbitrary point in time (this is not the domain of the rigor of the axiomatic).

And yes, of course the logic gets messy when you remove an arbitrary source of absolute truth.

[hector]

The Christian Hell Holes will become increasingly isolated and irrelevant at the national level.

How do those in such hell holes/ red states reconcile their vehement anti vax stance (pro-choice) with similar strong thoughts on anti-abortion (pro-life), mental gymnastics or pure apples and oranges shit?

I don't know for sure and I doubt many people would express the cognitive dissonance this cleanly but I suspect the underlying Christian logic behind e.g., opposing both abortion and social safety nets boils down to something like this:

A fetus is without sin (hence why abortion is evil, it is killing an innocent).

Once it is born, it assumes the burden of original sin and becomes responsible for its own salvation.

I'm not interested in, or capable of, arguing what true Christianity is, but the "don't kill" commandment doesn't carve out an exception allowing the murder of sinners. Abortion and murdering sinful adults should both violate the 5th Commandment.

[JonA]

The act is the same from the point of view of the fetus.

But....not the mother's. Whose classification of said cells should be considered up to a necessarily vague/arbitrary point in time (this is not the domain of the rigor of the axiomatic).

And at that vague arbitrary point in time, unmeasurable by science, without rigor or axiom and necessarily vague, a magical mystical force* materializes and infuses the cells with the essence of humanity and life and personhood?

* Not to be confused with BigSkyDaddy, that's just ridiculous!

[aurelius]

I'm not interested in, or capable of, arguing what true Christianity is, but the "don't kill" commandment doesn't carve out an exception allowing the murder of sinners. Abortion and murdering sinful adults should both violate the 5th Commandment.

the better translation is “though shalt no murder”. Clearly god is down with killing as he orders it or directly does it multiple times throughout the Bible.

[aurelius]

personhood?

Personhood is the crux of the argument. Which is a subjective designation. Casey establishes personhood begins with viability. Sure.

*unfairly, I am uninterested in arguing the issue of abortion in this thread. Rather focus on the ramifications of this action by SCOTUS. Just bored at a conference. Feel free to ignore.

[mikeylikey]

I'm not interested in, or capable of, arguing what true Christianity is, but the "don't kill" commandment doesn't carve out an exception allowing the murder of sinners. Abortion and murdering sinful adults should both violate the 5th Commandment.

the better translation is “though shalt no murder”. Clearly god is down with killing as he orders it or directly does it multiple times throughout the Bible.

Hence, the below venn diagram of people who support the death penalty in red, and people who oppose abortion in blue.


[image=purplecircle.jpg]

[hector]

I'm not interested in, or capable of, arguing what true Christianity is, but the "don't kill" commandment doesn't carve out an exception allowing the murder of sinners. Abortion and murdering sinful adults should both violate the 5th Commandment.

the better translation is “though shalt no murder”. Clearly god is down with killing as he orders it or directly does it multiple times throughout the Bible.

Yep. Bible's like nutrition science. You can cherrypick to support all kinds of interpretations.

But in terms of murder I don't (absent an old testament guide speaking in your ear giving you direct assassination orders) see how killing adults is ok but fetuses isn't. It's all killing/murder, assuming you consider the fetus to be a murderable person.

[dw]

The act is the same from the point of view of the fetus.

But....not the mother's. Whose classification of said cells should be considered up to a necessarily vague/arbitrary point in time (this is not the domain of the rigor of the axiomatic).

And yes, of course the logic gets messy when you remove an arbitrary source of absolute truth.

This particular point seems beyond messy to me. It's incoherent.

Imo the pro-choice position should be that inducing an abortion against the mother's will is not murder but a unique crime that is very serious mostly because of the psychological harm it would tend to cause the prospective mother. But still, a fetus is not a living human being and therefore cannot be murdered.

But regardless my point is that I don't see how the intellectual high ground can be claimed for the pro-choice side. The positions both seem fundamentally dogmatic to me. (As would be for that matter the laws permitting qualified infanticide that have existed in ancient societies.)

[Hanley]

The act is the same from the point of view of the fetus.

But....not the mother's. Whose classification of said cells should be considered up to a necessarily vague/arbitrary point in time (this is not the domain of the rigor of the axiomatic).

And at that vague arbitrary point in time, unmeasurable by science, without rigor or axiom and necessarily vague, a magical mystical force* materializes and infuses the cells with the essence of humanity and life and personhood?

* Not to be confused with BigSkyDaddy, that's just ridiculous!

It's taxonomy, difficult legal boundaries and incomplete science.

Resist that compulsion to to turn shit magical. You don't have to do it.

[EricK]

The act is the same from the point of view of the fetus.

But....not the mother's. Whose classification of said cells should be considered up to a necessarily vague/arbitrary point in time (this is not the domain of the rigor of the axiomatic).

And at that vague arbitrary point in time, unmeasurable by science, without rigor or axiom and necessarily vague, a magical mystical force* materializes and infuses the cells with the essence of humanity and life and personhood?

* Not to be confused with BigSkyDaddy, that's just ridiculous!

Nothing magical and mystical about the law establishing a boundary condition. Just like a 17 year, 364 day old person and an 18 year old are not meaningfully different, but they still have different legal classifications, rights and allowances.

[Hanley]

The act is the same from the point of view of the fetus.

But....not the mother's. Whose classification of said cells should be considered up to a necessarily vague/arbitrary point in time (this is not the domain of the rigor of the axiomatic).

And yes, of course the logic gets messy when you remove an arbitrary source of absolute truth.

This particular point seems beyond messy to me. It's incoherent.

That a mother/mother's will should be considered in the classification of a fetus is incoherent?

I'm going to disengage from your confusion. You seem to desperately want to appeal to absolute authority.

I did like your paragraph of nothing but questions. They're always charming.

[JonA]

The act is the same from the point of view of the fetus.

But....not the mother's. Whose classification of said cells should be considered up to a necessarily vague/arbitrary point in time (this is not the domain of the rigor of the axiomatic).

And at that vague arbitrary point in time, unmeasurable by science, without rigor or axiom and necessarily vague, a magical mystical force* materializes and infuses the cells with the essence of humanity and life and personhood?

* Not to be confused with BigSkyDaddy, that's just ridiculous!

Nothing magical and mystical about the law establishing a boundary condition. Just like a 17 year, 364 day old person and an 18 year old are not meaningfully different, but they still have different legal classifications, rights and allowances.

I agree that the age limit of 18 is arbitrary. But it's not very vague, is it? It's actually quite specific, easily measurable,
axiomatic, and quite rigorous as a result. It's not really subject to the whims of anybody.

[asdf]

Imo the pro-choice position should be that inducing an abortion against the mother's will is not murder but a unique crime that is very serious mostly because of the psychological harm it would tend to cause the prospective mother. But still, a fetus is not a living human being and therefore cannot be murdered.

Read the Thomson article. At least the violinist case. And then think about the difference between you unplugging yourself from the violinist and someone else unplugging the violinist after you've granted consent for the violinist to use your body.

[quikky]

Imo the pro-choice position should be that inducing an abortion against the mother's will is not murder but a unique crime that is very serious mostly because of the psychological harm it would tend to cause the prospective mother. But still, a fetus is not a living human being and therefore cannot be murdered.

Read the Thomson article. At least the violinist case. And then think about the difference between you unplugging yourself from the violinist and someone else unplugging the violinist after you've granted consent for the violinist to use your body.

I think that is a valid point. In essence, you are not obligated to keep the violinist alive so you can disconnect and not commit murder, while if someone else disconnects against your will, it is murder.

In the Wikipedia entry, the criticism of the violinist scenario is also quite valid. Specifically, that if we are not talking about rape but rather voluntary intercourse leading to conception, it is in essence a person being directly responsible for putting the violinist into such a situation. In that case, is it okay to disconnect, since your actions led to the violinist needing your body to survive? Essentially, you put someone on life support, and only you can keep them on it, and you choose to just disconnect it.

[dw]

The act is the same from the point of view of the fetus.

But....not the mother's. Whose classification of said cells should be considered up to a necessarily vague/arbitrary point in time (this is not the domain of the rigor of the axiomatic).

And yes, of course the logic gets messy when you remove an arbitrary source of absolute truth.

This particular point seems beyond messy to me. It's incoherent.

That a mother/mother's will should be considered in the classification of a fetus is incoherent?

That something is either a living human or not depending on the state of mind of a third party.

I don't know what you mean by the absolutist stuff but I guess I'm not supposed to ask you questions so it'll have to remain unclear.

[EricK]

I agree that the age limit of 18 is arbitrary. But it's not very vague, is it? It's actually quite specific, easily measurable,
axiomatic, and quite rigorous as a result. It's not really subject to the whims of anybody.

Pretty much the case if the freedom to choose abortion was solely within the domain of the pregnant woman up to some arbitrary cutoff point.