Missouri bill outlawing out-of-state abortion

@sleepyguy said
I would place the emphasis this way:

": based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

Because you are cherry picking one attribute of the fetus (being wholly contained) and conveniently ignoring all the attributes that affirm its individuality, such as the development of its own hear ...[text shortened]... egnant woman. A society that faces that question head on rather than ducking it is a more moral one.

The law IS NOT CONCERNED with Convenience or Necessity,
or your religious and/or moral beliefs.
According to current law, your law, my law, and
the law of the land, it isn't life until it is born.
-----------According to your theory, it ought to
be illegal for men to masturbate---You know, killing innocent life.

@sleepyguy said
I would place the emphasis this way:

": based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

Because you are cherry picking one attribute of the fetus (being wholly contained) and conveniently ignoring all the attributes that affirm its individuality, such as the development of its own hear ...[text shortened]... egnant woman. A society that faces that question head on rather than ducking it is a more moral one.

Why should such a "moral issue" be decided by the punitive force of penal laws imposed by the State? In a nation based on Lockean Natural rights and limited government, the most obvious place to decide such an issue is where Nature left it i.e. in the hands of women who are pregnant.

@no1marauder said
Why should such a "moral issue" be decided by the punitive force of penal laws imposed by the State? In a nation based on Lockean Natural rights and limited government, the most obvious place to decide such an issue is where Nature left it i.e. in the hands of women who are pregnant.

Because lives are at stake. Because many people believe the unborn have rights that require protection. Because, as SCOTUS seems about to affirm, there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution, nor does the Constitution prohibit citizens of the states from regulating or prohibiting abortion through their elected representatives.

@vivify said
The fact is that a woman should have the ultimate decision regarding what to do with her own body. Life isn't always black and white and removing a woman's right to choose will lead to terrible moral and social consequences.

The mother's body is not the only body in the equation. Many people believe that kid in there is a human being with rights, and therefore consider its destruction a terrible moral and social consequence.

Let's set aside pregnancies from rape, incest, or that threaten the life of the mother for a moment. Can we agree the vast majority of pregnancies don't fall into these categories, and are instead the result of two unrelated people deciding to have sex? And if so, can we also agree that those two people bear the responsibility for creating that precious thing which is more than just a clump of cells? I don't see a lot of grey area in these cases. Two people made a choice, created a life, both are responsible. Biology dictates a greater burden on the woman, obviously, but the man is no less morally obligated. Whether it really leads to a better society to allow that responsibility to be so easily shirked is also a grey area. I wonder, if Roe and Casey are indeed overturned, which states will be better to live in over time; the abortion on demand blue state recipients of unending abortion caravans, or the family oriented red states emphasizing the importance of family and personal responsibility. My money is on the latter.

I do wish to honestly acknowledge the weaknesses in my position. Yes, some pregnancies result from rape, and the logic of my argument would conclude that even those babies are babies too. I do believe the moral choice for a pregnant woman in that circumstance is to have the baby, but I would not want that imposed by law. The same for life-of-the-mother issues. I would not support physically intervening with any pregnant woman in any way to enforce a ban on abortion. I would instead go after the abortionists.

@sleepyguy said
I do believe the moral choice for a pregnant woman in that circumstance is to have the baby, but I would not want that imposed by law. The same for life-of-the-mother issues.

"Same for life-of-the-mother issues".

So you're saying that cases where the mother's life is in danger, abortion should still not be an option. Correct?

@vivify said
"Same for life-of-the-mother issues".

So you're saying that cases where the mother's life is in danger, abortion should still not be an option. Correct?

No, the opposite. Meaning "I would not want that imposed by law", same as for rape.
Sorry for the poor wording.

@sleepyguy said
No, the opposite. Meaning "I would not want that imposed by law", same as for rape.
Sorry for the poor wording.

Final question: would you think it was immoral to terminate a pregnancy if it meant saving the mother's life?

@sleepyguy said
Because lives are at stake. Because many people believe the unborn have rights that require protection. Because, as SCOTUS seems about to affirm, there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution, nor does the Constitution prohibit citizens of the states from regulating or prohibiting abortion through their elected representatives.

The Declaration does explain the idea of unalienable rights.

Not being enumerated in the Constitution should not be a reason to deny those rights to Americans. The function of the Constitution is to secure rights, not to deny them.

Unalienable rights should be just that. Unalienable.

@averagejoe1 said
Suzianne clarifies the thread. Let's wrap it up. Would have been nice to see some sources, though.

Pick up a dictionary some time.

@sleepyguy said
It's not up to either of us, is it? If a woman were to express an opinion on the role of spermatozoa in the world it would be illogical to say she wasn't allowed to speak on it.

Let's clarify the question. What is the Natural purpose of a uterus?

Mine hasn't done a damned thing for me except be a pain in the ass.

@kevcvs57 said
The mind boggles at thought of what non recreational sex might look like. Perhaps it’s when you do it for free.

I know what "non-recreational sex" looks like, and it's not pretty.

No stars. Do not recommend.

@vivify said
I agree with you that the unborn, regardless of what stage of development, shouldn't be regarded as some mere parasitic inconvenience.

The "viability" argument is moot, since the stage of viability gets earlier and earlier as technology advances.

"Fetal homicide" laws exist in many states which explicitly give the unborn the same protections as those who have been bo ...[text shortened]... fe has many grey areas. Abortion is one of those grey areas that a woman must be allowed to choose.

Well-said. Kudos.

@kevcvs57 said
I would say the same to misogynists about a woman’s right to choose
‘That’s life, get used to it’.

I don't quite get your meaning, but if everyone realized what you say, that we need to all get used to life, and our (chosen) places in it, it would be a smoother society. So I agree, just go with your flow, follow your plan, not someone else's, and make your own pie, instead of wasting your hours away trying to get tied up with someone else's pie. Go for it! Golly, I think I am preaching to myself !!!!!!
Kev, a woman could even say she did not 'choose' to be a woman, but she, too, better just get used to it. We agree!

@vivify said
I agree with you that the unborn, regardless of what stage of development, shouldn't be regarded as some mere parasitic inconvenience.

The "viability" argument is moot, since the stage of viability gets earlier and earlier as technology advances.

"Fetal homicide" laws exist in many states which explicitly give the unborn the same protections as those who have been bo ...[text shortened]... fe has many grey areas. Abortion is one of those grey areas that a woman must be allowed to choose.

It is indeed a grey area. One could argue, for instance, that there a two bodies, of course, but far be it from me!!

@suzianne said
The Declaration does explain the idea of unalienable rights.

Not being enumerated in the Constitution should not be a reason to deny those rights to Americans. The function of the Constitution is to secure rights, not to deny them.

Unalienable rights should be just that. Unalienable.

So anything that we 'want ' (the right you speak of, whatever it is) should be just given to me, even though the right is not enumerated in the Constitution? I wonder what Ben Franklin and John Adams and James Madison thought about, when that question came up, after they'd filed the Constitution at the Supreme Court ?
If I say I have a right to something, I can get it even if the Constitution doesn't mention it? Whew. Fun stuff. For fun reading, you do outdo Jimmm. Jestering is not the same as humor. Maybe comedy, but not humor.