Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Out-of-touch, Christian Nationalist, elitist Mastriano showed his true colors in an interview with Harrisburg's WITF. The extremist affirmed he would support prosecuting women who've had abortions:
Scott LaMar: My question is, again can you give me a yes or no, would that woman who decided to have an abortion, which would be considered an illegal abortion, be charged with murder?
Mastriano: OK, let's go back to the basic question there - is that a human being? Is that a little boy or girl? If it is, it deserves equal protection under the law.
LaMar: So, you're saying yes?
Mastriano: Yes, I am.
Absolutely disgusting. Pennsylvanians better send this guy packing to the likes of Iran or Russia. He'd fit in much better amongst those governments.
Yet here we have the nominee from a major political party, in a purple state, taking essentially the most extreme position possible on abortion--outlaw every single case, without exception, and subject those who have an abortion to criminal charges.
The GOP has truly lost its mind by letting this man represent them.
Out-of-touch, Christian Nationalist, elitist Mastriano showed his true colors in an interview with Harrisburg's WITF. The extremist affirmed he would support prosecuting women who've had abortions:
Scott LaMar: My question is, again can you give me a yes or no, would that woman who decided to have an abortion, which would be considered an illegal abortion, be charged with murder?
Mastriano: OK, let's go back to the basic question there - is that a human being? Is that a little boy or girl? If it is, it deserves equal protection under the law.
LaMar: So, you're saying yes?
Mastriano: Yes, I am.
Absolutely disgusting. Pennsylvanians better send this guy packing to the likes of Iran or Russia. He'd fit in much better amongst those governments.
Dr. Oz, who wants to represent Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate, says all abortions are murder. The GOP Senate minority is counting on Oz to help them pass their long sought federal abortion ban. The Republicans have stated their intent to criminalize women’s health freedom and arrest doctors & nurses for providing basic care.
Given the opportunity, Dr. Oz and his Republican pals will enact a federally mandated regime of forced birth in the USA. American women and the men who care about them are counting on Pennsylvania to help prevent this radical extremism.
Well, I would be twice guilty of murder then although my crimes occurred decades ago.
But here's the thing, Mastriano is being logically consistent. *If* you believe life begins at conception then perhaps the person (the pregnant woman) who is the living life-support for the biologically dependent human (fertilized egg), should they choose to discontinue the life support, is choosing to terminate the prospective life of the recently conceived person. Is that killing them? Murder?
So if this is worthy of a murder charge then what about people who are organ, blood or tissue matches for someone who is ill and dying. If someone whose blood type is O negative is bleeding out should I, being O negative, be forced to donate blood to this poor soul who can ONLY receive O negative blood because otherwise my refusal will cause their imminent death... if I don't comply am I guilty of murder? How about other tissue donations where I'm a match? Should I be forced to comply under threat of a murder charge? To donate one's body or the use of one's body voluntarily is a noble thing, but should not consenting to do it be a crime? Murder?
Conversations about when life begins are pointless. Questions about involuntary servitude and bodily autonomy are what people should be asking Mastriano and his radical ilk. Should Doug be obligated to donate a kidney or a chunk of his liver to someone on the transplant list? Oh right. That would be a NO. This biological servitude deal is only applicable to women who have sex with men.
Well, I would be twice guilty of murder then although my crimes occurred decades ago.
But here's the thing, Mastriano is being logically consistent. *If* you believe life begins at conception then perhaps the person (the pregnant woman) who is the living life-support for the biologically dependent human (fertilized egg), should they choose to discontinue the life support, is choosing to terminate the prospective life of the recently conceived person. Is that killing them? Murder?
So if this is worthy of a murder charge then what about people who are organ, blood or tissue matches for someone who is ill and dying. If someone whose blood type is O negative is bleeding out should I, being O negative, be forced to donate blood to this poor soul who can ONLY receive O negative blood because otherwise my refusal will cause their imminent death... if I don't comply am I guilty of murder? How about other tissue donations where I'm a match? Should I be forced to comply under threat of a murder charge? To donate one's body or the use of one's body voluntarily is a noble thing, but should not consenting to do it be a crime? Murder?
Conversations about when life begins are pointless. Questions about involuntary servitude and bodily autonomy are what people should be asking Mastriano and his radical ilk. Should Doug be obligated to donate a kidney or a chunk of his liver to someone on the transplant list? Oh right. That would be a NO. This biological servitude deal is only applicable to women who have sex with men.
"Life" begins at conception. That is an inarguable biological fact. The pertinent question for the abortion debate is a legal one, not a biological one. When does that "life" become a separate legal person from the mother with its own individual rights with the protection of the law? While a 2 cell zygote is most certainly a new life (it's DNA is distinct from the mother's at that point), is it really a separate legal person? There are only two non-subjective points to determine when the fetus becomes a separate person - at conception (so, yes, even a two cell zygote is a separate legal person and therefore, smoking or drinking during pregnancy is felony child abuse) or at birth (i.e. once the baby is born and breathing on its own, there is no longer any argument that it's not it's own person). Both of those views are considered extreme, but anything else is arbitrary. Why is 20 weeks the magic spot (or 24 weeks or 16 weeks)? If "viability" is the determining factor, that varies from fetus to fetus (some could survive outside after 20 weeks, some will still die after 30...). How can viability be determined? Do you have to try to birth it and resuscitate it (give mouth to mouth to a peanut)? What about the heartbeat laws? Why does a heartbeat determine a separate person? What about breathing? Breathing is just as important as a heartbeat to human survival, but that's never brought up because the baby doesn't take it's first breath until it's born, so that one is politically inconvenient for the heartbeat truthers. The real relative standard should be consciousness, but how do you determine if a fetus is conscious of its own surroundings? Ask it?
Since there is no consensus on this, as a libertarian, I prefer to set the law at birth and give people the freedom to decide for themselves what is appropriate. I personally consider late term abortions repugnant and barbaric (except in the case of a medical emergency for the mother), but "repugnant and barbaric" nor any other moral argument is not a valid basis for law, and laws should be meant only to protect people's rights, so the question is not "what is too morally abhorrent to tolerate" because that will get a different answer from everyone you ask, but rather "at what point is this a separate person" so that terminating it is a violation of its rights. An essential feature of true liberty is the ability to tolerate behavior that you yourself consider immoral/wrong, as long as it is not hurting someone else, and in exchange, everyone else will do the same for whatever it is you want to do.
"Life" begins at conception. That is an inarguable biological fact. The pertinent question for the abortion debate is a legal one, not a biological one. When does that "life" become a separate legal person from the mother with its own individual rights with the protection of the law? While a 2 cell zygote is most certainly a new life (it's DNA is distinct from the mother's at that point), is it really a separate legal person? There are only two non-subjective points to determine when the fetus becomes a separate person - at conception (so, yes, even a two cell zygote is a separate legal person and therefore, smoking or drinking during pregnancy is felony child abuse) or at birth (i.e. once the baby is born and breathing on its own, there is no longer any argument that it's not it's own person). Both of those views are considered extreme, but anything else is arbitrary. Why is 20 weeks the magic spot (or 24 weeks or 16 weeks)? If "viability" is the determining factor, that varies from fetus to fetus (some could survive outside after 20 weeks, some will still die after 30...). How can viability be determined? Do you have to try to birth it and resuscitate it (give mouth to mouth to a peanut)? What about the heartbeat laws? Why does a heartbeat determine a separate person? What about breathing? Breathing is just as important as a heartbeat to human survival, but that's never brought up because the baby doesn't take it's first breath until it's born, so that one is politically inconvenient for the heartbeat truthers. The real relative standard should be consciousness, but how do you determine if a fetus is conscious of its own surroundings? Ask it?
Since there is no consensus on this, as a libertarian, I prefer to set the law at birth and give people the freedom to decide for themselves what is appropriate. I personally consider late term abortions repugnant and barbaric (except in the case of a medical emergency for the mother), but "repugnant and barbaric" nor any other moral argument is not a valid basis for law, and laws should be meant only to protect people's rights, so the question is not "what is too morally abhorrent to tolerate" because that will get a different answer from everyone you ask, but rather "at what point is this a separate person" so that terminating it is a violation of its rights. An essential feature of true liberty is the ability to tolerate behavior that you yourself consider immoral/wrong, as long as it is not hurting someone else, and in exchange, everyone else will do the same for whatever it is you want to do.
I think you've both got a point, but yes, at the end of the day, the most important point is a) it is the woman's body b) it is the woman's relationality to the embryo/fetus and her interpretation of when that life begins. I think the question of when life begins is more than just scientific, but also philosophical. Obviously there are many different interpretations, so imposing one's own narrow definition should not be a political priority.
For the record, late term abortions are incredibly rare, and almost never happen out of a woman's laziness or indecisiveness. Why would a woman choose to put herself through that? They are almost always performed out of medical necessity.
For the record, late term abortions are incredibly rare, and almost never happen out of a woman's laziness or indecisiveness. Why would a woman choose to put herself through that? They are almost always performed out of medical necessity.
Exactly. "Late-term abortion" is a catch-all phrase often used by the "pro-life" crowd as a wedge in the abortion debate.
There's still an incredible amount of ignorance out there about medical complications that would lead a woman to opt for an abortion after 21 weeks (in most cases, the fetus would very likely die anyway, and in many cases, suffer greatly without termination).
It doesn't matter what a person interprets to be the "beginning of life." It doesn't matter. It's an irrelevant question in the context of law and politics. (Yeah, philosophically it might be fun to ruminate over, but that's fodder for conversation, not legislation.)
Even if a person has a fully autonomous 5-year-old kid, should they be legally required, coerced to the point of a potential murder charge, to donate body tissue to keep that kid alive? Certainly almost anyone would be more than willing, but that's a choice. It's not forced biological servitude. And would it apply only to parents or all people?
That would be a wild world to live in, but at least it would apply to men as well as women.
Dr. Oz, who wants to represent Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate, says all abortions are murder. The GOP Senate minority is counting on Oz to help them pass their long sought federal abortion ban. The Republicans have stated their intent to criminalize women’s health freedom and arrest doctors & nurses for providing basic care.
Given the opportunity, Dr. Oz and his Republican pals will enact a federally mandated regime of forced birth in the USA. American women and the men who care about them are counting on Pennsylvania to help prevent this radical extremism.
This turkey also needs to be shown the door, IMO
Let me start by saying that I am not voting for Oz or Mastriano, lest you think what I'm about to say indicates such. In response to what I bolded above, never gonna happen. I honestly don't know if that's the goal of the GOP Senate members, but I doubt it. And if it is, and if they actually tried that, expect a slew of lawsuits from Attorneys General around the country on Constitutional grounds. The 9th and 10th Amendments would like to have a word with these people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
