Atheistforums.com

The Debate Hall => Informal Debates => Topic started by: viocjit on July 05, 2019, 04:47:12 PM

Title: The right to abort
Post by: viocjit on July 05, 2019, 04:47:12 PM
What do you think about abortion ?
I think it is a right needing to be protected.

In my country (France) you can abort one month and one week after the beginning of the pregnancy if drugs are used for abortion.
In my country (France) you can abort three month after the beginning of the pregnancy if surgery is used.
I think the delay must to be extended because many people living in France go in another country to abort because of delayed time.
For example in Netherlands and UK you have six month after the beginning of the pregnancy to abort and for this reason many women in France go abort in these countries.

I think what happens in USA about abortion is sad with these states that want to reduce situations in which abortion is a legal possibility.
I feel concerned as a human because I think it is a matter of individual liberty.
I feel concerned as a male because I don't forget one of my sexual partners will maybe face an abortion in her life.
If a day a woman with which I had a sexual intercourse say me she want to abort and ask my opinion. I would say her its her body not mine and let her do what she want.

I feel concerned as a Westerner because I don't forget USA is a country of the Western world that is considered like the reference for many things by non Westerners and could influence non Western countries.
Whats happens in a country of the Western world it can influence non Western country in a bad path.
Abortion is complicate in many non Western countries and I fear what's happens in USA will worsen the situation in these countries.

I feel concerned as a citizen of European Union (All citizens of a state member of European Union are also legally citizen of EU) because I don't forget abortion is fully illegal in Republic of Malta and only authorized in some situation in Republic of Poland and Republic of Cyprus.
I fear whats happens in USA will encourage no progression about the issue of abortion in these countries.

I feel concerned as a French citizen because nowadays abortion isn't under legal threat to be outlawed in France.
But nobody know what would be the situation in some decades.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Unbeliever on July 05, 2019, 05:00:04 PM
I think the laws against abortion in the U.S.A. are a violation of the separation of church and state. But I'm just one guy, with no influence at all on what anyone does. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the baby is still attached to the mother by the umbilical cord it's still part of her body, and she can do as she likes with her own body. Up to a point, that is, since the baby should be allowed to survive once it's viable. 
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: aitm on July 05, 2019, 08:04:09 PM
I would abide with the majority vote of all the female voting and only females voting.....once decided I still would not give a shit what others thought....a person should have the absolute right of their own body.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: viocjit on July 06, 2019, 11:11:15 PM
I have a legal question about abortion in the State of Georgia.
As the law will prohibit women to abort outside of boundaries of Georgia.
Abort outside of GA will be a matters concerning two places.
In my example these two places are Geo. and another place in which abortion is legal elsewhere in USA.

Legally , I doubt the law enforcement from the place in which abortion will take place will collaborate with Georgian authority unless they have an agreement with Georgia or state law prohibit people coming from a place in which abortion is illegal to abort in their state or a law prohibit non resident in their state to abort.
I can conclude it does means Georgian law will be de facto unenforceable if the woman is well organized to hide the fact she had an abortion in another American state because in my knowledge the authorities of the other state won't collaborate unless they have an agreement with the State of Peach or a state law prohibit people coming from a place in which abortion is illegal to abort in their state or a law prohibit non resident in their state to abort.

But does it exist federal law prohibit women prohibited by theirs state law to abort outside of their state if the state law specify that abortion is illegal even if theirs residents do it outside of its boundaries ?
In my knowledge it doesn't exist any federal law that say it explicitly but maybe it does exist a federal law that say it implicitly.
In this case a Georgian resident going in another state to abort would be committing a federal offense and in this case FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) would have its cards to play to investigate about those who had an abortion and others people in Georgia who helped the women.
I hope it doesn't exist a federal law to prohibit implicitly people to do something prohibited by their state in another state if their state law forbid to do this thing outside of its boundaries.
If it does exist a federal law that can be used to prosecute these women. Women who want to abort will need to go in another country than USA to avoid collection of evidences by FBI because authorities of the other country would not collaborate (Look the legislation of the other country to be certain authorities of this country won't collaborate and be certain to have an abortion. Go in the other country with a cover of tourist and don't speak of your project with your accomplices by electronical means. To reduce the risk of detection wait to be in the other country to contact clinic and doctors. I'm not incitating you to violate the law because I'm just recalling you the perfect crime doesn't exist).

I know only one federal law that can be used to prosecute people who did something illegal in their state in another state but legal there.
This is the "Mann Act" also known as "White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910" or its long title "An Act to further regulate interstate and foreign commerce by prohibiting the transportation therein for immoral purposes of women and girls, and for other purposes."
This act can be used to prosecute people who want to have non-paid consensual sexual intercourse with his / her boy(girl)friend aged of 16 years old in a state in which legal age of consent is 16 if the person is from a state in which legal age of consent is 17 years old and crossing the borders to do sex (Cross to the state in which legal age of consent is 17 to go in another one for which legal age of consent is 16).

Wikipedia about Mann act : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Baruch on July 08, 2019, 03:37:32 PM
Since I don't support morality ... I can be pragmatic.  I know people won't stop being irresponsible.  And some pregnancies will be medically questionable.  So "free choice" abortion in the first trimester seems a good compromise (early enough to prevent undue trauma to fetus).  And I don't see the state being involved otherwise.  Just the pregnant woman and the doctor.  Not the father, not the parents.  Again for pragmatic reasons.  I don't see things in terms of "rights" ... so her "right" to have an abortion, or that of other parties to prohibit abortion are moot.  It is simply a circumscribed medical issue.  Ideally, abortion shouldn't be used for birth control, medically.  There are better methods.

In general, I am totally opposed to the notion of "human rights" or "entitlements".  These just open many ways for self abuse and sociopathy.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 04:31:42 AM
I think the answer is simple.  The woman decides.  It's her body.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 06:20:53 AM
I think the answer is simple.  The woman decides.  It's her body.

Yes, so she should be able to rob banks too.  How chivalric of you.  Did you support Patty Hearst after she turned?
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 06:35:22 AM
Yes, so she should be able to rob banks too.  How chivalric of you.  Did you support Patty Hearst after she turned?

If I argued like you do, I would ask how often you beat your pets and "sieg heil" your Hitler poster.  Do you even contemplate how weak your arguments are?
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 11:24:05 AM
If I argued like you do, I would ask how often you beat your pets and "sieg heil" your Hitler poster.  Do you even contemplate how weak your arguments are?

I used to be a Jew with Nazi edged weapons.  But not just Nazi ... US, other European, Japanese ...

So no, I don't have a Hitler poster, or a Stalin poster.  Haven't had those since I swore off US political parties.

I am not worried about impressing people.  I am surprised you haven't gotten a clear impression of that POV yet.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 07:05:59 PM
I used to be a Jew with Nazi edged weapons.  But not just Nazi ... US, other European, Japanese ...

So no, I don't have a Hitler poster, or a Stalin poster.  Haven't had those since I swore off US political parties.

I am not worried about impressing people.  I am surprised you haven't gotten a clear impression of that POV yet.

If I didn't know you, I couldn't have provoked you like that.  It was intentional.  Do you understand how often you promote Nazi political views?  Are you getting angry now?  You like to do that to others.  How is the shoe fitting?

You should take a week off (I took off a month , did you notice?) and re-think trying to play head games with others.  Most of us here are quite capable of that and...  don't.  I'm a bit more forward...

Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 08:35:45 PM
If I didn't know you, I couldn't have provoked you like that.  It was intentional.  Do you understand how often you promote Nazi political views?  Are you getting angry now?  You like to do that to others.  How is the shoe fitting?

You should take a week off (I took off a month , did you notice?) and re-think trying to play head games with others.  Most of us here are quite capable of that and...  don't.  I'm a bit more forward...

Do you understand you are an apparatchik for the communist party?  Yeah, I usually notice when someone tries to scare me into my "safe space"  but I don't have one, and I am not 20 years old.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Sal1981 on July 20, 2019, 08:45:50 PM
Since I don't support morality ... I can be pragmatic.  I know people won't stop being irresponsible.  And some pregnancies will be medically questionable.  So "free choice" abortion in the first trimester seems a good compromise (early enough to prevent undue trauma to fetus).  And I don't see the state being involved otherwise.  Just the pregnant woman and the doctor.  Not the father, not the parents.  Again for pragmatic reasons.  I don't see things in terms of "rights" ... so her "right" to have an abortion, or that of other parties to prohibit abortion are moot.  It is simply a circumscribed medical issue.  Ideally, abortion shouldn't be used for birth control, medically.  There are better methods.

In general, I am totally opposed to the notion of "human rights" or "entitlements".  These just open many ways for self abuse and sociopathy.
"Rights" is a human construct. A construct that works and is useful. However, I don't think anyone is entitled to anything, other than what can be forced by yourself, upon yourself.

If you want cohesion and a practical society, then you probably want to introduce tolerance into the system. This is the operant case for social cohesion, thanks in large part to the unspoken social contract: I won't bother you, if you won't bother me.


The result is the same for practicality as it is for rights, at least in this instance.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 09:14:44 PM
"Rights" is a human construct. A construct that works and is useful. However, I don't think anyone is entitled to anything, other than what can be forced by yourself, upon yourself.

If you want cohesion and a practical society, then you probably want to introduce tolerance into the system. This is the operant case for social cohesion, thanks in large part to the unspoken social contract: I won't bother you, if you won't bother me.


The result is the same for practicality as it is for rights, at least in this instance.

Exactly why I figure a compromise position is good enough (given then I am not going to get pregnant) and I already have figured out how to support my daughter if she gets pregnant.  These abstract concepts though, tend to turn into boulders rolling downhill, gathering moss etc.  Activists are like that.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 09:04:29 AM
Do you understand you are an apparatchik for the communist party?  Yeah, I usually notice when someone tries to scare me into my "safe space"  but I don't have one, and I am not 20 years old.

I love regulated capitalism.  If I suggested a liberal policy, you would call it "communist".  If I suggested a conservative policy, you would call it "communist".  You are already convinced I'm a communist for thinking businesses should be regulated at all.

And I don't know or want to invade your "safe space".
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 03:24:45 PM
I love regulated capitalism.  If I suggested a liberal policy, you would call it "communist".  If I suggested a conservative policy, you would call it "communist".  You are already convinced I'm a communist for thinking businesses should be regulated at all.

And I don't know or want to invade your "safe space".

Rhetoric.  We aren't playing nerf ball.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 03:32:07 PM
No, we're playing word games. And words don't even exist, except as immaterial, abstract constructs in the brains of humans. That's what human brains do, we pull concepts from the abstract realm and make them temporarily real. Some, like words, are only ephemerally real, while other things, like, say, buildings, last a little longer.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:35:40 PM
Rhetoric.  We aren't playing nerf ball.

But that's the standard Republican (notice I use their full party name) line.  They WILL call all Democratic candidates "socialist".  They are already doing it.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:37:53 PM
No, we're playing word games. And words don't even exist, except as immaterial, abstract constructs in the brains of humans. That's what human brains do, we pull concepts from the abstract realm and make them temporarily real. Some, like words, are only ephemerally real, while other things, like, say, buildings, last a little longer.


Not to upset you, but you are agreeing with Baruch.  He was talking about logograms in another thread.  Or this one earlier; it's hard to keep track.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 03:42:22 AM
But that's the standard Republican (notice I use their full party name) line.  They WILL call all Democratic candidates "socialist".  They are already doing it.

Not true.  Some of you are anarchists ;-).  Actually Republicans are more likely to be anarchist, but anarchism bridged the L-R gap.

And no, I don't use a weasel word like "progressive" or "socialist".  I don't care for "cultural Marxist" either.  Back in the 50s people still knew what those words meant.  Russian/Chinese 5th column.  I just use "communist".  But 21st century Marxism is different than 20th century Marxism, which is different from 19th century Marxism which is different from 18th century Marxism (aka French Revolutionaries).  I am more of an Edmund Burke guy.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

He was sympathetic to the complaints of the American Colonies, but opposed to the French Revolutionaries.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 03:45:37 AM


Not to upset you, but you are agreeing with Baruch.  He was talking about logograms in another thread.  Or this one earlier; it's hard to keep track.

Different string.  And I may have had a Spoonerism vis a vis logograms.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 12:27:57 PM
Not true.  Some of you are anarchists ;-).  Actually Republicans are more likely to be anarchist, but anarchism bridged the L-R gap.

And no, I don't use a weasel word like "progressive" or "socialist".  I don't care for "cultural Marxist" either.  Back in the 50s people still knew what those words meant.  Russian/Chinese 5th column.  I just use "communist".  But 21st century Marxism is different than 20th century Marxism, which is different from 19th century Marxism which is different from 18th century Marxism (aka French Revolutionaries).  I am more of an Edmund Burke guy.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

He was sympathetic to the complaints of the American Colonies, but opposed to the French Revolutionaries.

Nice of you to admit that Republicans are more likely to be anarchists.  It is true in the current political spectrum.

But anarchists are not really a problem.  They can't organize very well almost by definition.

I read an interesting article in 'The Washington Post' the other day that suggested that the true political differences in the US are not so much Rep/Dem (though we are forced to vote that way) so much as Conservative/Classical Liberal Theory vs Progressivism.  The idea being that Reps/Dems both believe in holding on to gains through limited govt while Progressives want to advance society via deliberate change into unknown territory using govt to implement new programs.

In that, I am a Progressive.  I trust deliberate and thoughtful improvement while Reps/Dems cling to the past.  As examples, I would be on a neutral de-gerrymandering committee.  I wouldn't be a mMyor, I would be a City Manager.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 07:19:47 PM
Nice of you to admit that Republicans are more likely to be anarchists.  It is true in the current political spectrum.

But anarchists are not really a problem.  They can't organize very well almost by definition.

I read an interesting article in 'The Washington Post' the other day that suggested that the true political differences in the US are not so much Rep/Dem (though we are forced to vote that way) so much as Conservative/Classical Liberal Theory vs Progressivism.  The idea being that Reps/Dems both believe in holding on to gains through limited govt while Progressives want to advance society via deliberate change into unknown territory using govt to implement new programs.

In that, I am a Progressive.  I trust deliberate and thoughtful improvement while Reps/Dems cling to the past.  As examples, I would be on a neutral de-gerrymandering committee.  I wouldn't be a mMyor, I would be a City Manager.

This is 100 years old.  Progressives were originally Scandinavian Americans circa 1920.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Unbeliever on August 05, 2019, 07:21:33 PM


Not to upset you, but you are agreeing with Baruch.  He was talking about logograms in another thread.  Or this one earlier; it's hard to keep track.
Well, Baruch's not always wrong, but when he is, it's a doozy! LOL
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 07:25:42 PM
Well, Baruch's not always wrong, but when he is, it's a doozy! LOL

If you care too, please go back and quote, in order (if multiple).  When I am doing a posting storm, it is hard to keep track.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 12:30:35 PM
This is 100 years old.  Progressives were originally Scandinavian Americans circa 1920.

No law against learning from other people...
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 12:34:55 PM
Not true.  Some of you are anarchists ;-).  Actually Republicans are more likely to be anarchist, but anarchism bridged the L-R gap.

And no, I don't use a weasel word like "progressive" or "socialist".  I don't care for "cultural Marxist" either.  Back in the 50s people still knew what those words meant.  Russian/Chinese 5th column.  I just use "communist".  But 21st century Marxism is different than 20th century Marxism, which is different from 19th century Marxism which is different from 18th century Marxism (aka French Revolutionaries).  I am more of an Edmund Burke guy.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

He was sympathetic to the complaints of the American Colonies, but opposed to the French Revolutionaries.

So, you want to eliminate all the awkward degrees of political thought so that you can have a clear dichotomy (yes redundant) to support your conspiracy ideas.  OK.  But stop bothering me with it.  I see multitudes of ideas.
Title: Re: The right to abort
Post by: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 10:47:24 PM
So, you want to eliminate all the awkward degrees of political thought so that you can have a clear dichotomy (yes redundant) to support your conspiracy ideas.  OK.  But stop bothering me with it.  I see multitudes of ideas.

If you want to claim to be the LBGT equivalent of political ideology (not gender fluid but political fluid) do so, but nobody will understand where you stand.  You are not as ideological as other posters, so I don't see your reason for complaining.