Santorum: If abortion becomes illegal, doctors should face criminal charges

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by IP, Oct 4, 2011.

  1. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    It is intentionally vague, because hashing it out would take forever. But I'll elaborate a bit. To say that there is a cut-off point, say 3rd trimester, is impossible. The fetus may be viable, but it does not preclude the fact that the life of the carrier (I won't use mother, because that is a lie) is still, albeit infinitesimally small, in danger. So, saying that it is self-defense means it is self-defense the entire pregnancy.

    But, here is where it becomes, again, philosophically difficult to differentiate, and why it would take forever to nail down every scenario. At some point, the carrier has made an agreement to forgo a claim of self-defense. Equate it to thus: if you get in a car with a drunk, and they put you in danger with their driving, can you kill the driver, take control of the car, and claim self defense? Legally, probably not. Morally, ethically? Also probably not. You made a choice to get in the car.

    With pregnancy, you don't get to make the choice. Biology makes the choice for you. You make the choice to have sex, but not get pregnant. Thus, once you know you are pregnant, you terminate, or you continue. If you continue, you may lose your claim to self-defense. If you terminate, you maintain your claim.

    As for me, if I get in a car with someone who puts me in danger, I feel I have the right, in self-defense, to take action to preserve my own life, even if I originally made the decision to get in the car, unless I escalate the situation by suggesting that the driver drive 100 mph on a curvy road, in which case then I lose all claims.

    If the carrier choses to continue with the pregnancy, but later feels their life is in danger by the pregnancy, then I support termination. Even if the fetus is viable, regardless of the length of time into the pregnancy.

    And we can complicate it even further by discussing partial birth abortion. Once the fetus is clear of the carrier, the fetus is now no longer the carriers, and in no way affects the carrier. A claim to self-defense is not viable. Partial birth abortion thus carries two moral obligations. Protection of life of the new baby (1st obligation) by using all available medical interventions to sustain life (2nd obligation).

    Thus, it is unlikely that partial birth abortion can be an effective claim against self-defense, and is thus murder. Up until that point, though, viable as the fetus may be, the carrier still has claim to self-defense, regardless of position in the pregnancy.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2011
  2. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    Don't know how anyone could perform a partial birth abortion and then sleep at night.

    But anyhoo, I like the car analogy. Your concept of self-defense is very clear now. Gracias.
     
  3. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Partial birth isn't abortion so much as killing a baby, from where I am standing.
     
  4. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    There are some abortions that are performed as partial birth. Often, not even known to the mother. There was a dude a few months ago, I think in Chicago [was actually Philly], that was arrested for not only partial-birth, but also full delivery, and then termination. The mothers were unaware, or claimed to be unaware. He then had the audacity to preserve several of the babies in formaldehyde in his office.

    That is worlds beyond unacceptable, but is often fuel to anti-abortion sentiment because of the ghastly nature, and the association with "abortion" in such a context.

    kpt, what is the term for the procedure where the fetus is dismantled piece by piece? I think only one area around here does it, and that is somewhere in Georgia. It is gruesome, and also used to fuel anti-abortion sentiment, even though it has some medical use. Generally if you see anti-abortion protests with a head removed, or in pieces with arms and legs removed from the trunk, this was the procedure used.

    Can't remember name, and don't have a good enough background to know its usefullness, medically.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2011
  5. JohnnyQuickkick

    JohnnyQuickkick Calcio correspondent

    i guess i was speaking strictly biologically in differentiating it from a part of the woman's body. obviously there is more to a human than being a "distinct genetic code".
     
  6. JohnnyQuickkick

    JohnnyQuickkick Calcio correspondent

    This just seems to be very circular to me, I'm sorry if I'm just not getting it.
     
  7. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Not sure what ya mean by circular. What are your specific disagreements?
     
  8. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    Hysterotomy or D & X maybe?
     
  9. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Don't want to be a father, then cut your balls off?
     
  10. JZ1124

    JZ1124 Active Member

    Same here Droski, sorry to hear it. I spent today at the hospital with my wife because of some issues. I couldn't imagine what you guys went through.
     
  11. NYY

    NYY Super Moderator

    Everything okay?
     
  12. JZ1124

    JZ1124 Active Member

    I think so. She was having contractions but they stopped them and she is having severe back pain which they though was causing the contractions. They speculated kidney stone or bladder infection but couldn't find anything. I guess we'll just keep an eye on things.
     
  13. JohnnyQuickkick

    JohnnyQuickkick Calcio correspondent

    First an aside, medical science has really introduced a lot of gray area into this discussion.

    OK on point:
    Maybe circular isn't really the right word I'm going for. Maybe the arbitrary assigning of "personhood" and a kind of fluid use of it. If the criterium for defining "personhood" is the ability to make your own choices, then what age does a baby become a person, and why isn't partial birth abortion or infanticide up to a certain age just as acceptable as abortion at an earlier stage?

    I guess the heart of my disagreement is I attribute personhood to conception/embryo/fetus based on my faith (which i was trying to leave out of the discussion because it adds that layer of seeming unwillingness to reason, but really in an issue like this it's core). And aside from that, just the potential person that's there to me is a person.

    PS I hadn't ever seen the self-defense argument applied to abortion before and that was very interesting. I almost feel like that situation isn't what the debate is about, though, because so many more abortions are a matter of convenience.
     
  14. Beechervol

    Beechervol Super Moderator

    Works with cattle.
     
  15. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Honestly, I think it is important to admit that religion/faith tends to inform one's stance and values when it comes to abortion.

    In the same breath, that fact is partly what lends me to err on the side of federal government leaving the issue to the individual.
     
  16. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I might not have been as clear as I had hoped. The person/human background information was just that, background information, dealing with the arbitrary and difficult nature of defining a "person" and defining a "human." Given the complexity of defining both, I find it to be an unnecessary and vague attempt to make the end result more palatable. If the action can be made "easier" by "de-humanizing," or "de-personalizing" the fetus, then the action is questionable. As such, I prefer to call it what it is.

    In short, I don't find that identifying whether a fetus is a "person" or a "human" is relevant to the justification of allowing for the choice of abortion. If we take your own question, regarding why partial birth abortion, or infanticide up to a certain age as the example, we can easily see why defining human and person unnecessarily complicates the issue, and is more of a rationalization than a justification. Which is why I don't find that defining person or human is necessary.

    There are several instances where killing (we could call it "taking a life," but we won't) a person or human is justifiable. One such instance is self-defense. We are justified in self-defense, and thusly do not need to define whether the individual we defend ourselves against is a person or a human. We take that vagueness completely out of the equation, but our action is still justified.

    So, whether a fetus is a person, potential person, human, pile of DNA or any other definition is not relevant to determining whether abortion is a justifiable choice. Thus, I take the stance that abortion is a justifiable choice, not because it isn't killing, not because it isn't taking a life, not because the fetus isn't a human, not because the fetus isn't a person and not because of years productivity lost... but because it is self-defense, which is justified against life; human, person or otherwise.

    Hope that clears up what I meant with the person/human background information.

    As an edit since I didn't address the convenience issue:
    Most actions of self-defense are of convenience. It is inconvenient to run away. It is inconvenient to allow an intruder in your home to just take all your stuff, while you lock yourself in your panic room. It is inconvenient to have a panic room. It is inconvenient to allow terrorists and rogue nations to harm your nation.

    That it is convenient to use lethal force in self-defense, in that it makes the attacker stop attacking you, which is quite convenient, is immaterial to the fundamental justification of self-defense.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2011
  17. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    thanks for the kind words guys. it wasn't easy, but she was bleeding so much right away (among other things) we knew there had to be a problem.
     
  18. NYY

    NYY Super Moderator

    Thats what happened with our first miscarriage. Docs did eventually find the culprit and medication helped with our daughter.
     
  19. justingroves

    justingroves supermod

    My wife and I have been extremely lucky, other than the morning sickness. We haven't had any complications other than her getting a flu like bug and getting dehydrated, which led to an emergency room visit for an IV (that ER trip almost get me arrested due to my acting like a "redneck" as my wife put it). In the grand scheme of things, that's really nothing though.
     
  20. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    I've heard more complication stories in this thread than I have my entire life. I guess my family comes from breeder stock. My family has kids early and late, and lots of them. I have 13 year old uncle, and a 12 year old sister.
     

Share This Page