Is "When Does Life Begin?" a Scientific or Moral Question? Both?

[Dan McClellan]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  I am not aware of any constitutional rights attaching to animals.  I am also not aware of animals being given "a degree of personhood" under the law.  (Edit to add: I take this back.  I have heard of bequests to animals in a will being upheld in the law, though I am open to correction on this point.)

Again, CFR that such laws are "based on {animals being granted under the law} a degree of personhood."

Again, CFR that animals have "rights."  Which ones?

No laws are reflectively based on attribution of personhood to animals, but our attribution of personhood is an intuitive dynamic that explains why certain animals enjoy more legal protections than others.  

Quote

And if we can extend constitutional rights to animals, why not in utero babies?

They do have rights. It's why elective abortions cannot take place beyond viability.

Quote

But it is enforced.  Not perfectly, but it is enforced.  The law recognizes people of all races as persons.

Fair enough.   

Quote

The example where the personhood of both individuals is assumed, right?

To very different degrees. One of them is deceased, after all.

Quote

One could just as easily say that "the right to live and the right to privacy are not even remotely comparable rights."

But it would be ludicrous to compare the right to own another human being to the right to privacy or life.  

Quote

I acknowledge that.  I am proposing that we change that.

And I'm pointing out that there aren't adequate reasons to do so. 

Quote

For a long time, the Constitutional right to property held by slave owners took priority over the slaves' rights to life and liberty.  But we changed that.

For a very good reason. Anti-abortion rhetoric is primarily a question of identity politics. I don't have time to continue to respond to every single point, particularly when we keep repeating ourselves. Let me just ask you a question, though, if you don't mind. Is your ultimate goal to reduce as much as possible the occurrence of abortion or just to criminalize abortion?

[Dan McClellan]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Which is automatically "infalliby correct"?

No, but it is the governing force. There is no meaningful way to delineate a conceptual category apart from understanding its conceptual prototypes, which are products of social convention. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  I can "want to legislate {my} opinion" and be "open to differing opinions about it."

Thanks,

-Smac

Okay got it. You are open to other people’s opinions but are willing to put them in jail if they act on them. If that’s your definition of “open” more power to you!

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Quote

For a long time, the Constitutional right to property held by slave owners took priority over the slaves' rights to life and liberty.  But we changed that.

For a very good reason. Anti-abortion rhetoric is primarily a question of identity politics.

No, it's not.  Opposition to abortion transcends race, religion, ethnicity, cultural identity, socioeconomic status, geography, and so on.

3 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

I don't have time to continue to respond to every single point, particularly when we keep repeating ourselves.

No need.  I think we have both had our say.  Thanks.

3 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Let me just ask you a question, though, if you don't mind. Is your ultimate goal to reduce as much as possible the occurrence of abortion or just to criminalize abortion?

The former. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I don't understand.  I can "want to legislate {my} opinion" and be "open to differing opinions about it."

Thanks,

-Smac

Okay got it. You are open to other people’s opinions but are willing to put them in jail if they act on them.

In terms of enacting legislation?  Yes.

As for putting people in jail?  Yes as to abortion providers.

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If that’s your definition of “open” more power to you!

Quoth Aristotle: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Dan McClellan]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, it's not.  Opposition to abortion transcends race, religion, ethnicity, cultural identity, socioeconomic status, geography, and so on.

No need.  I think we have both had our say.  Thanks.

The former. 

Thanks,

-Smac

But criminalizing abortion is not an effective means of reducing the occurrence of abortion. Research has consistently shown all around the world that criminalizing abortion only nominally reduces the rate of abortion while increasing the risk associated with all abortions. That research also shows that the most effective means of reducing the occurrence of abortion is to reduce the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies, since absolutely all elective abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies. Policies that increase access to comprehensive sex education, to contraception, and to women's healthcare far more effectively reduce both unwanted pregnancy and abortion. In light of this, it is truly bewildering that the overwhelming majority of all opponents of abortion also strongly oppose each of those three policies until you realize that opposition to abortion and opposition to those three policies all fall under the rubric of controlling the agency of women. So tell me, what specifically have you done to promote increased access to comprehensive sex education, to contraception, and to women's healthcare? Keep in mind insisting that women just need to make better choices is another manifestation of precisely the same "controlling the agency of women" rubric so firmly embedded in right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. In other words, it's a reification of identity politics.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/15/2019 at 9:37 AM, smac97 said:

Study: 95 Percent of Biologists Say Life Begins at Conception

............................................

when does human life begin?...............................

The simple answer is that it doesn't.  Life is continuous.  Sperm and ova are both alive, and come from living beings, as part of a continuous chain of being.  There was no beginning and there shall be no end -- God being upset with Onan in coitus interruptus, thus wasting his seed.

As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court set the standard for life at viability outside the womb, which gets ever earlier with advances in technology.  What they might say in the future is up in the air, but with 3 Jews and 6 Roman Catholics on the Court it is anyone's guess.  Meantime, we are a nation of laws, not biologists, nor religionists.

On 7/15/2019 at 9:37 AM, smac97 said:

To be sure, I think there are limited circumstances where a genuine moral conundrum can arise as pertaining to abortion (rape, incest, life of the mother). But these are, AFAICS, quite rare. .........................

The Church's position on abortion is both clear (see here, here and here) and yet also nuanced (see here)...............

The Roman Catholic POV does not allow nuances.  What happens then?

What I would like to see the pro-life people do, in addition to opposing abortion, would be to take a pro-life stance on infant mortality by ardently supporting pre-natal care for the expectant mothers and good post-natal care.  The real thing, not just pretend, as it is now.  I want to see the evnagelical and Roman Catholic pro-life people actively demonstrating against separation of babies from their mothers at the border, and a refusal to allow babies and toddlers to be held in squalid conditions on the border.

This should apply equally to those who hold the Proclamation on the Family in high esteem:  Why aren't they objecting to the assault on the families which show up at the border seeking asylum?  Do LDS members of Congress and LDS General Authorities pull out all the stops to seek proper treatment of families on the border -- including emergency tents, food, showers, etc., from Welfare Square in SLC?  When have we clothed the naked, fed the hungry, and visited them in jail?  WWJD?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

Now please answer this question: Take your scenario and replace the "baby or the embryos" with "your newborn son or a total stranger."  You would save your newborn son, I assume?  Does that mean that in so doing you deny the humanity/personhood of the stranger?

Subjectively.

Raw, in-the-heat-of-the-moment emotion.  It's a Sophie's Choice, so not much room for contemplation of my "basis."

You created the hypothetical, remember?

No.  The two are in many ways comparable.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’d save my own kid because I value his life more. It’s not analogous because I never proclaimed otherwise. You on the one hand state that embryos should be treated by the law the same as a newborn, but on the other hand choose the one over the thousands. You say you believe they should be treated equally, but in action for you they aren’t even close. Your action doesn’t match your belief.

 

Let’s look at it from another angle, would you divert money from combating childhood leukemia in order to buy fridges to preserve embryos that would have been destroyed? 

Should women who perform a so called “compassionate transfer” be charged with murder?http://www.voicesinbioethics.net/newswire/2017/2/17/sw388nseb7x0o0e0odngdp5q3m0yg1

Should we start figuring out how to do better gamete testing so that we can cut down on the number of spontaneous abortions? 

Should we investigate spontaneous abortions to make sure the mother was being responsible in her care for the fetus?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

............................

Quote

3 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Let me just ask you a question, though, if you don't mind. Is your ultimate goal to reduce as much as possible the occurrence of abortion or just to criminalize abortion?

The former. ......................

What should we do with hard core objection by Roman Catholics to the sin of contraception (which by the way prevents abortion)?

Edited July 16, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The simple answer is that it doesn't.  Life is continuous.  Sperm and ova are both alive, and come from living beings, as part of a continuous chain of being.  There was no beginning and there shall be no end -- God being upset with Onan in coitus interruptus, thus wasting his seed.

As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court set the standard for life at viability outside the womb, which gets ever earlier with advances in technology.  What they might say in the future is up in the air, but with 3 Jews and 6 Roman Catholics on the Court it is anyone's guess.  Meantime, we are a nation of laws, not biologists, nor religionists.

The Roman Catholic POV does not allow nuances.  What happens then?

What I would like to see the pro-life people do, in addition to opposing abortion, would be to take a pro-life stance on infant mortality by ardently supporting pre-natal care for the expectant mothers and good post-natal care.  The real thing, not just pretend, as it is now.  I want to see the evnagelical and Roman Catholic pro-life people actively demonstrating against separation of babies from their mothers at the border, and a refusal to allow babies and toddlers to be held in squalid conditions on the border.

This should apply equally to those who hold the Proclamation on the Family in high esteem:  Why aren't they objecting to the assault on the families which show up at the border seeking asylum?  Do LDS members of Congress and LDS General Authorities pull out all the stops to seek proper treatment of families on the border -- including emergency tents, food, showers, etc., from Welfare Square in SLC?  When have we clothed the naked, fed the hungry, and visited them in jail?  WWJD?

I think Jesus would obtain an accurate perception and understanding of the facts (as He did with the multitudes need for food), assess the value and competing purposes of His resources (as He did with the box of spikenard ointment), then seek and obtain the Father's will (as He did always).

Edited July 16, 2019 by CV75

[Ryan Dahle]

Smac,

The following points are my attempt to track the essence of your position:   

You are  arguing that we should change the law and essentially grant the legal rights of "personhood" to babies in utero at the time of fertilization (as accurately as that time can be deduced).

Your rationale is that the same core arguments for viewing a newborn baby as a person (a status that is essentially not debated) can logically be extended back to the moment of fertilization.

You find arguments to deny the status of personhood to babies in utero based on dissimilarities between them and recognized persons (newborns to adults) to be flawed, because essentially all of the dissimilarities are found to not effect the status of personhood in analogous situations (e.g. the mere lack of fully developed cognitive capacities, full awareness, etc. are non-determinative features of personhood).

You find counterarguments that essentially rely upon current laws and interpretations of the law to be essentially a moot point because your whole argument is that the law should be changed. You have used the social shift regarding the legal and social perception of slaves as an analogy for how this shift might take place regarding the view of babies in utero. 

You find appeals to the complexity of navigating moral issues (appeals to the arbitrary, nebulous, capricious, subjective nature of moral reasoning, both generally and in relation to this topic) to also be a moot point because we, as a society, still have to decide how we will act in regard to a number of moral issues, including this one. 

You are waiting for a response to your fundamental argument, which is that the core reasons for viewing a newborn baby as a person logically extend back to the moment of fertilization.

Is that more or less correct? It's hard to keep track of what is actually being argued with so many quibbles and tangential issues raised in the thread. 

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

On 7/16/2019 at 1:37 PM, Dan McClellan said:

But criminalizing abortion is not an effective means of reducing the occurrence of abortion.

If so, then a greater emphasis on persuasion rather than criminilization would be appropriate.

Quote

Research has consistently shown all around the world that criminalizing abortion only nominally reduces the rate of abortion while increasing the risk associated with all abortions. That research also shows that the most effective means of reducing the occurrence of abortion is to reduce the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies, since absolutely all elective abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies.

Well, not all.  Forced abortions are a thing in China, for example.

Quote

Policies that increase access to comprehensive sex education, to contraception, and to women's healthcare far more effectively reduce both unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

I'm fine with those.

Quote

In light of this, it is truly bewildering that the overwhelming majority of all opponents of abortion also strongly oppose each of those three policies until you realize that opposition to abortion and opposition to those three policies all fall under the rubric of controlling the agency of women.

Meh.  Not buying this.  And it certainly doesn't apply to me.

And again, half of women are "pro-life," so it's odd for you to play the Gender Card against them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 4, 2020 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I think Jesus would obtain an accurate perception and understanding of the facts€ (as He did with the multitudes need for food), assess the value and competing purposes of His resources (as He did with the box of spikenard ointment), then seek and obtain the Father's will (as he did always).

He might also act and feed the multitude immediately.  Doing the right thing is sometimes obvious, but maybe I'm too slow.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In terms of enacting legislation?  Yes.

As for putting people in jail?  Yes as to abortion providers.

Why the distinction for people in the womb? If I hire someone to murder for me, shouldn’t I be prosecuted? How do you justify the difference if both are the same (people)?

Edited July 16, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’d save my own kid because I value his life more.

Understood.  And in doing so you are not denying the personhood of the person you didn't save.

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You on the one hand state that embryos should be treated by the law the same as a newborn, but on the other hand choose the one over the thousands. You say you believe they should be treated equally, but in action for you they aren’t even close. Your action doesn’t match your belief.

Principled distinctions, I think.  We work with what we've got.

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Let’s look at it from another angle, would you divert money from combating childhood leukemia in order to buy fridges to preserve embryos that would have been destroyed? 

Too speculative.

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Should women who perform a so called “compassionate transfer” be charged with murder?http://www.voicesinbioethics.net/newswire/2017/2/17/sw388nseb7x0o0e0odngdp5q3m0yg1

I haven't given this enough thought.

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Should we start figuring out how to do better gamete testing so that we can cut down on the number of spontaneous abortions? 

I'm open to that.

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Should we investigate spontaneous abortions to make sure the mother was being responsible in her care for the fetus?

Absent evidence of misconduct?  No.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He might also act and feed the multitude immediately.  Doing the right thing is sometimes obvious, but maybe I'm too slow.

We are a lot slower than He, that is for sure!

[Dan McClellan]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If so, then a greater emphasis on persuasion rather than criminilization would be appropriate.

Providing knowledge and resources is far more effective than trying to persuade people not to have sex. 

Quote

 

Well, not all.  Forced abortions are a think in China, for example.

 

That's not a context I'm very familiar with, but that may be the case.

Quote

I'm fine with those.

Can you show me somewhere where you've advocated for them? 

Quote

 

Meh.  Not buying this.  And it certainly doesn't apply to me.

And again, half of women are "pro-life," so it's odd for you to play the Gender Card against them.

 

It's not odd. People seek social capital through carrying water for others structuring power against the interests of their social identities all the time. Also, "pro-life" does not mean "anti-abortion." Almost 20% of people answer "both" when asked if they're pro-life or pro-choice, and even more answer "neither," even though they have a position on abortion. These are identity markers, not firm declarations of policy positions. Only around 35% of women think abortion should be illegal in most cases, and almost 60% think it should be legal in most cases. A majority of men also support the legality of abortion in most cases.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/17/nearly-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/10/abortion-support-is-highest-its-been-two-decades-two-decade-high-challenges-roe-mount

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions

And almost nobody thinks identity politics applies to them, but it absolutely applies to everyone. Our very humanity is a function of identity politics, some are just more aware of its role in our ideologies than others.

[smac97]

Just now, Dan McClellan said:

Providing knowledge and resources is far more effective than trying to persuade people not to have sex. 

It's not either/or.

Just now, Dan McClellan said:

It's not odd. People seek social capital through carrying water for others structuring power against the interests of their social identities all the time.

Right.  So pro-choice women think for themselves, but pro-life women do not?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Understood.  And in doing so you are not denying the personhood of the person you didn't save.

Nice try. Here’s the difference: I’d be forever haunted by the decision. In theory, there might be a scenario where enough lives were on the line that I would choose the many over my own son. It would be a difficult choice. Because they are both people.

How about the fridge? Can you honestly say your choice to save the newborn keep you up at night? If the answer is no, and if the answer is that no number of embryos in the fridge is worth saving over the life a living breathing infant, then that tells you that the scenarios are different in a way that matters. What’s the difference? Embryos are not people. Not even close. Despite your professed belief to the contrary your proposed actions demonstrate otherwise. 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Quote

But scientific facts, in and of themselves, don't tell us anything about whether something is right or wrong.

But they help us develop an informed and reasoned basis for deciding "whether something is right or wrong."

Not exactly. All they do is help us decide if our pre-existing moral judgment (i.e., whether something is right or wrong) applies in some particular case.

So, for example, assume arguendo that you were raised Jewish and came to hold a moral belief that is wrong to eat certain kinds of animals.

Science could provide you with facts about all of the various species of animals on the planet, and it's true that you could use those facts to help determine whether or not some specific animal runs afoul of your moral code, but science doesn't actually tell you anything about whether it is right or wrong to abstain from eating pigs in the first place. 

 

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Understood.  And in doing so you are not denying the personhood of the person you didn't save.

Nice try.

Now who's dodging the point?

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Here’s the difference: I’d be forever haunted by the decision. In theory, there might be a scenario where enough lives were on the line that I would choose the many over my own son. It would be a difficult choice. Because they are both people.

So your subjective and personal guilt, or lack thereof, would be determinative?  I don't think so.

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How about the fridge? Can you honestly say your choice to save the newborn keep you up at night?

In a Sophie's Choice scenario?  No.

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If the answer is no, and if the answer is that no number of embryos in the fridge is worth saving over the life a living breathing infant, then that tells you that the scenarios are different in a way that matters.

But not in a way that requires me to deny the humanity of the unborn.

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What’s the difference? Embryos are not people. Not even close. Despite your professed belief to the contrary your proposed actions demonstrate otherwise. 

With respect, I disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

No, but it is the governing force. There is no meaningful way to delineate a conceptual category apart from understanding its conceptual prototypes, which are products of social convention. 

Ok, agree.

But what I was attacking was the posters allegation that it was his personal opinion which perfectly described our culture's social conventions with his statement "Here's how it is."

And now smac raises the issue of whether or not a social convention permitting rape is always malum in se.

I am a Gadamer guy and understand and agree with his hermeneutics, so you can probably deduce that I am all about social convention.

So here is a passage that I am sure you will be able to help us with the interpretation of social conventions:

Numbers 31 15

"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

¹⁶ Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

¹⁷ Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

¹⁸ But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Was that justifiable rape based on social convention?

Edited July 16, 2019 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

But criminalizing abortion is not an effective means of reducing the occurrence of abortion. Research has consistently shown all around the world that criminalizing abortion only nominally reduces the rate of abortion while increasing the risk associated with all abortions.

I'm skeptical of that. Although I'd also note that few are saying one should criminalize 1st term procedures. This seems an area one has to be very careful about how one is measuring rates and what exactly is criminalized. 

I also think most people make a distinction between the 3rd trimester, 2cd trimester and 1st trimester. My own view is that the embryo is not a person in the 1st trimester but is a developing body awaiting the sufficient complexity to receive a spirit. It's easy to think through why given the rate of spontaneous miscarriages in the 1st trimester. If each miscarriage was a death of a person then we'd have the vast majority of spirits never getting a chance to be born. If they are able to go to a different body then it might be wrong to have an abortion, but it really isn't analogous to murder. Murder is a horrible wrong because you're taking away a spirit's span of mortality. Now it may still be wrong for the same reason that cutting of someone's arm is wrong. But it's not murder in our theology as I understand it.

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

That research also shows that the most effective means of reducing the occurrence of abortion is to reduce the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies, since absolutely all elective abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies. Policies that increase access to comprehensive sex education, to contraception, and to women's healthcare far more effectively reduce both unwanted pregnancy and abortion. 

I agree with this - although again I have quibbles about what is measured. But I certainly agree sex education and easy access to contraception is something that will reduce abortions. The significant decrease in abortions over the past few decades is most likely primarily due to easier access to contraception.

Edited July 16, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The simple answer is that it doesn't.  Life is continuous.  Sperm and ova are both alive, and come from living beings, as part of a continuous chain of being.  There was no beginning and there shall be no end -- God being upset with Onan in coitus interruptus, thus wasting his seed.

As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court set the standard for life at viability outside the womb, which gets ever earlier with advances in technology.  What they might say in the future is up in the air, but with 3 Jews and 6 Roman Catholics on the Court it is anyone's guess.  Meantime, we are a nation of laws, not biologists, nor religionists.

The Roman Catholic POV does not allow nuances.  What happens then?

What I would like to see the pro-life people do, in addition to opposing abortion, would be to take a pro-life stance on infant mortality by ardently supporting pre-natal care for the expectant mothers and good post-natal care.  The real thing, not just pretend, as it is now.  I want to see the evnagelical and Roman Catholic pro-life people actively demonstrating against separation of babies from their mothers at the border, and a refusal to allow babies and toddlers to be held in squalid conditions on the border.

This should apply equally to those who hold the Proclamation on the Family in high esteem:  Why aren't they objecting to the assault on the families which show up at the border seeking asylum?  Do LDS members of Congress and LDS General Authorities pull out all the stops to seek proper treatment of families on the border -- including emergency tents, food, showers, etc., from Welfare Square in SLC?  When have we clothed the naked, fed the hungry, and visited them in jail?  WWJD?

This border issue is interesting to me. My professional career was in real estate investment management. I have an expert, intimate understanding of what it costs to build and maintain multifamily housing. FIrst, we are talk about a foreign people that are essentially invading another country in the attempt to abuse that nation's laws to gain entry i.e. asylum for economic benefits. Somehow, you assume that we need to magically have hundreds of thousands of family units available because these same individuals have children in tow - now many of those children belong legally to the adults is in question.  

Where does this money come from? Who is ready to spend the billions of dollars to construct the housing so that we can just willy-nilly care for illegal immigrants?  I am unaware of a single, major US city that does not have a homeless problem. You posit that we need to care for foreigners and ignore our own homeless. Why?  

If we could, it would be better to immediately load every illegal entry into the nation that would be sent to shelters, back on airplanes, trains, buses and take them back to their country of origin. 

It is not feasible for any country on the face of the earth to house illegal aliens. No nation can afford this degree of onslaught. Much better that our do-nothing Congress immediately institute a workable immigration policy, perfect the asylum laws, allow for a viable green card system, etc. to accommodate a feasible number of immigrants to the nation. 

Lastly, the only individual responsible for children entering into this nation illegally are the adults who brought them. No one else. 

I support a single-payer, national health policy that supports comprehensive health care for each citizen. If an individual demonstrates they are incapable of caring for the children they bring into this world - male and female - I have no problems sterilizing those individuals. With a national health policy, I see no need for abusers of the system. To be clear, I have a niece with three children under the age of six, unmarried, was unsure who the father was of the first child, and two other children came from the same man. The man is responsible for numerous children from multiple women and he should be sterilized along with those mothers that have similarly demonstrated an inability to care for multiple children out of wedlock. 

[Dan McClellan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's not either/or.

And yet you pivoted away from the demonstrably most effective means to mention only the non-legislative and non-effective one that is part of the "controlling the agency of women" agenda.

Quote

Right.  So pro-choice women think for themselves, but pro-life women do not?

That's pretty petty rhetoric. No one unilaterally thinks for themselves. Every human that has ever lived and will ever lives is governed by their socio-material relationships. Some people prioritize certain social identities and others prioritize others. The fact that the women who oppose abortion are in the minority is not a reflection of a lack of thinking, it's just a reflection of the intuitive perception of greater social capital and/or self-realization in internalizing and defending an anti-abortion ideology. Any one of a number of experiences or relationships could point someone in that direction or in another direction. If people were just aware of these dynamics instead of pretending they magically operate free from contexts, values, and biases, these discussions could be much more fruitful. Rather, we get the kind of deflective rhetoric above, which doesn't address my concern, but just attempts to obfuscate by using a strawman as a way to attempt to leverage the perception of my desire to appear politically correct.