Anonymous #1 12w

Because of a compromise between ignorant lawmakers

10

Anonymous #2 12w

You disagree with term limits?

4

Anonymous #1 12w

yes

1

Anonymous #1 12w

Yes

-1

Anonymous #3 12w

This was clearly a sped comment and yall upvoted lol

3

Anonymous #1 12w

depends on what state you’re in. for example, in florida abortions are banned after 6 weeks. most women don’t find out about being pregnant until after that. the age of a fetus is not dated by the day the egg was fertilized but rather the day the egg dropped. this means that you could have an unfertilized egg dropped for 3 weeks and it get fertilized on that third week and now you’re already three weeks pregnant. and you won’t get symptoms until about 4 weeks.

8

Anonymous #5 12w

and the recommended time for testing is two whole weeks after conception, meaning that before you actually know you could already be 5 weeks pregnant meaning you have ONE week to make a life changing decision in florida and go through all the steps to get a legal abortion. most people have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to abortion and the timeline of how it works. and you don’t find out about these things unless you are actively living through it or work in healthcare.

1

Anonymous #5 12w

Yeah I would agree the term limits in Florida are way too soon, I think somewhere in the 20-24 week range is reasonable

6

Anonymous #1 12w

The term limit is there to make sure that nobody aborts a human conscious experience. Seems to begin around 20 weeks

6

Anonymous #2 12w

Why would you not draw the line at 20-24 weeks it is such an easy point

3

Anonymous #6 12w

then reconsider it as if it said a social security number that would be applied to every fetus rather than birth certificate.

3

Anonymous #6 12w

see the problem is sometimes it is medically necessary due to genetic abnormalities, the health of the mother, and if the baby dies inside the mother. this DOES happen and without proper access to medical care more women will die because they don’t have the option to get an abortion. this broad cutoff made by lawmakers does not take into account the extenuating circumstances surrounding late term abortions and why women might need to get them.

6

Anonymous #4 12w

Does a human only have value because they have a social security number or a birth certificate? I think this is a flawed point. It is not a document that gives a person’s life intrinsic value.

-2

Anonymous #6 12w

but i think it’s completely wrong to abort a HEALTHY baby late term but this is not something that’s common at all

3

Anonymous #5 12w

Health of the mother is a completely different issue. If u had a born child that was gonna harm or kill a parent, and the only way to prevent that harm was to kill that child, everyone would agree u can kill the child. It is a matter of self defense, but that’s a different conversation from when personhood begins

-2

Anonymous #4 12w

That’s fine, but the intuition ur hinting at goes both ways, the pro lifer would have to start giving ssns or whatever else at conception, but the pro choicer would have to do the same thing at 20-24 weeks or wherever, which seems equally unreasonable. Unless ur okay with abortion up to birth, which is consistent, then, but also seems unreasonable for different reasons

-1

Anonymous #6 12w

we are talking about abortions and the laws surrounding it. i’m bringing up the fact that every type of abortion as defined under the law is medically necessary in some capacity and the laws surrounding it based on emotions about “when personhood begins” are just stupid. everyone is allowed to have an opinion on something but making laws that refuse women proper healthcare based on this argument that a fetus’s life is sacred is completely ignorant.

3

Anonymous #6 12w

All I’m saying is this idea of documentation is a completely separate issue than the morality of abortion. The main argument it not about when we should give people ssns

1

Anonymous #6 12w

the point is that it’s ALL absurdity. none of what OP said is ever actually going to occur. considering a fetus to have the same rights and moral obligation from others as a whole person would with thoughts and ideas and feelings and opinions is just ridiculous.

1

Anonymous #7 12w

I’m not saying humans only have value as a social security number. I’m not taking a moral stance, I’m speaking peaking on a purely legal basis. Legally speaking, the government doesn’t recognize you as a person before you are born. You may think that’s wrong or right, but I’m not making subjective judgements, I’m making objective statements of the way our polity functions

1

Anonymous #5 12w

No what’s stupid is thinking a descriptive conversation about what the law is can tell us prescriptively what the law ought to be. One is either not equipped to have that convo or disingenuous. Even if u define “having an abortion” as “medically necessary” u still then have to have the prescriptive convo of “should every medical necessity occur”

-1

Anonymous #4 12w

In the syntax of ur comment here is I think the answer which is the thing we’re trying to protect is a “person” which is a thing with “thoughts and ideas and feelings” or an experience. Human conscious experience seems to be associated with the pre frontal cortex and other structures in the brain, which seem to form fully around 20-24 weeks, which seems like a decent place to say the “person” begins

1

Anonymous #6 12w

i don’t think that having laws regarding women’s healthcare based on men’s perspective of the female anatomy is right. especially since these laws aren’t based on medical research but rather the feelings surrounding what counts as a human life. you’re implications that abortions aren’t medically necessary is just based on this rhetoric that people get abortions just because they feel like it. i believe that if someone needs an abortion they should have access to one.

1

Anonymous #3 12w

Maybe the upvoters were jokers like you… why does this app make everyone think they are the smartest person to ever post lol

9

Anonymous OP 12w

But that’s not the convo nobody’s asking what’s descriptively the case, they’re asking what prescriptively should be

1

Anonymous #6 12w

Well I made the post, and the post is meant to describe what’s the case in order to point out that what pro-lifers wish they could prescribe it to be is against the norms of how we treat fetuses legally…

1

Anonymous #6 12w

So it actually literally is the convo

1

Anonymous OP 12w

I understand the distinction between description and prescription is difficult to grasp sometimes, but let’s try a little bit. You’re not describing that what pro lifers want is different from what the law is, ur prescribing that because of that difference, they should have a different position. This means ur general prescription is “if ur moral claim diverts from the law, then u should change ur moral claim” which is not a good take

1

Anonymous #6 12w

The thing here is no one is really going 20+ weeks then doing a completely elective abortion. If you really want I’m not opposed to some obscenity law that punishes abortion fetishists (yeah there’s like a handful of these people in the country but its actually repulsive and im kink shaming)

1

Anonymous #5 12w

Nobody disagrees that “if someone needs an abortion, then they should have one” or if they are, those people are stupid. what people are disagreeing about is “what counts as an abortion someone needs to have.” Unfortunately, when it comes to prescriptions or ought statements, unless u believe in some sorta objective value system, is gonna come down to vibes and intuition

1

Anonymous #6 12w

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I know reading is hard, but let’s try a little bit. I have said time and again I AM NOT MAKING MORAL JUDGEMENTS. I’m saying that hey, this is how the law tends to treat fetuses. Pro-lifers want to proscribe abortion, and I am saying that what they want the law to be is incongruent with how the law is, and that they should change their policy proposals to fit the existing structure.

1

Anonymous discotheque 12w

I’m not sure what this means I think the big convo is about “when is there a person worth protecting” then secondarily “what is a person worth protecting” and it seems like we refer to the conscious experience for that, and that conscious experience is at least heavily tied to the brain structures that develop at around 20 weeks

1

Anonymous #6 12w

It’s “if your proposed law doesn’t fit with the law you should change it”

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Let’s go over this ground again and maybe notice a few more landmarks—ur position is “if moral prescription not in line with law, then change moral prescription.” That is ur prescription. U are not describing that people’s morals aren’t in line with the law, ur prescribing that that shouldn’t be the case. We know this, because if u refer to ur comment, you’ll find the word “should” which is a thing that must be justified

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Yeah but you don’t believe that obviously if it were the law that abortion is illegal in all circumstances, ur position would be that shouldn’t be the case, and u would argue it just as strongly

1

Anonymous #6 12w

I can’t tell if you’re missing the point to rage bait or because you’re genuinely dumb but either way, I’ve explained it to you, take it or leave it

1

Anonymous #6 12w

Also how do you know what my position would be, I’ve made no hint to my moral leanings on abortion

1

Anonymous OP 12w

“Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” is the contribution you’ve made to the convo

1

Anonymous #6 12w

Just because you can’t understand the semantic meaning doesn’t mean it’s not there sweetie

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Another semantically empty statement

0

Anonymous #6 12w

And the landmark you missed is the proscribe means to officially ban or make unlawful…

1

Anonymous #6 12w

Explain to me how it’s semantically empty to say that a meaning could be there even if you are not cognizant of it?

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Because it advances nothing in the convo it’s can be the case that me not cognizing a meaning doesn’t imply there not being one, and also be the case that that this persons claims are semantically empty

0

Anonymous OP 12w

Bro what? That’s not what prescribe means at all

1

Anonymous #6 12w

Nuh nuh no PROscribe is what I said in my post. I know your were talking about moral prescription but I was talking abt smth else

1

Anonymous #6 12w

Me clarifying what I’m saying advances nothing because I’m not saying anything new, not because there is no meaning. And nothing you said about the meaning is more likely than the opposite

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Let’s do communicating ideas 101: people don’t describe things in vacuums, they describe them in contexts of conversations. U did not randomly bring up that the legal position of pro lifers is not congruent with existing practice of law, u brought it up because it demonstrates, presumably, that the pro lifers position should change, or, at least, be informed by the description in a way it isn’t rn, or why was it brought up

0

Anonymous #6 12w

Yes, but I’m not saying their moral position should change, I’m saying their legal one should. Why is it taking this long for you to get that?

1

Anonymous #6 12w

I can tell someone finished freshman year in their philosophy major and got too big for their britches

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Why is it taking u so long to understand that is a prescription? “If ur position on what the law should be isn’t in line with existing law, then u should change it.” This is literally the reason I said, “if abortion were illegal, then ur position on what the law should be regarding abortion wouldn’t be impacted” the two convos are completely separate ie. description vs prescription

1

Anonymous #6 12w

My post was “if fetuses were people legally, this is what the law would look like” that is a description of a hypothetical. But feel free to tell me why that’s not a description

1

Anonymous OP 12w

I can’t remember exactly who said this, some philosopher king no doubt, something like “if ur proposed law doesn’t fit with existing law, you should change it.” Unless the meaning of “should” has changed recently, I think that’s a prescription

1

Anonymous #6 12w

Ah but I didn’t say that in my post

1

Anonymous #6 12w

And my description of what I said in my post is what started all of this isn’t it?

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Oh my bad I didn’t know that u were just describing in a vacuum. In that case, it’s not just ur replies that are meaningless, ur initial contribution was meaningless. I thought the purpose of language was to convey meaning, but I didn’t know I was speaking to a gigachad who uses language for the sake of it, and seeks to communicate nothing

1

Anonymous #6 12w

Oh my god dude I’m not describing in a vacuum, I was just fucking describing

1

Anonymous OP 12w

People do not unpromptedly formulate thoughts into language and communicate them. They do it, because they want to bring about a certain experience in the recipient, and they want that, because they have an aim. Whether u admit it or not, it is obviously the case that u brought up the legal description because u think it cuts against the pro life argument. I’m saying that it doesn’t do that. Not that pro choice is wrong, not that pro life is wrong, just ur argument doesn’t weigh on it

1

Anonymous #3 12w

A lot of people on here unironically believe what you said lmao

-4

Anonymous #9 12w

It’s funny ash lol

0

Anonymous #9 12w

I mean it’s one of those statements where it can be true or false depending on which lens you’re looking at it through

1