To be clear im talkin about late term... an i thank the reason some people are tryin to poo-poo the "reinserted" hypothetical is... cause they dont want to face the implications such a scenario brangs to light.!!!
A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
To be clear im talkin about late term... an i thank the reason some people are tryin to poo-poo the "reinserted" hypothetical is... cause they dont want to face the implications such a scenario brangs to light.!!!
I must disagree markedly with the description of the fetus as a 'parasite' at any point. My discord, naturally, is drawn from biology: the fetus is putatively a descendant of the mother carrying it, and successful transmission of her genes requires that she - and putatively her mate, which underscores the need for selectivity and choice - must expend energy and resources to promote its persistence. If the foetus were a parasite, then its existence would generally be actually inimical or detrimental to the mother host and this parasite would then transmit its own genes - which she naturally does not share - onto its offspring at her expense. That would be actually parasitic per se.
Of course, it must also be said that my foundation for this case may be null and void in cases of alien implantation of foetuses. Aliens (1985) in particular is probably a special case within the larger realm of this special case of legality and morality.
By "parasite" I mean simply the fact that, without the mother, the fetus would not survive, as well as the fact that the fetus is a substantial draw upon the mothers body, though I admit parasite was perhaps not the correct term to use.
I don't disagree with much of this.
My view is that at a certain point, be it 24 weeks, 26, 20 or whatever stage one considers the foetus to be viable, at that point I think they have a right to live, and that right must be protected by the state if not by the mother.
The woman of course gets to determine what happens to her body... But only in so far as it does not jeopardise the "person" inside her (if that is what we deem to call it once viable).
Where I would disagree is perhaps in what mitigations there are for terminating beyond the point of "personhood".
If the woman unfortunately did not realise they were pregnant until after this point, then I do not consider this suitable mitigation.
The life of the mother being at risk would be, but that would be for the mother to decide as to whose life to prioritise.
If the mother is unaware or has not made the decision until after the foetus is deemed a person, then the mother just has to consider it an unfortunate accident, the effects of which they will mostly get through in a few months. They needn't keep the child once delivered, and yes, it may leave emotional issues, even possibly physical ones, but accidents do happen. And an unwanted pregnancy is an accident. If someone leaves a wound to fester such that they need an arm amputated, that is their fault and they should deal with the consequences. If they leave an unwanted pregnancy too long, then the consequences of that too is for them to take responsibility for.
But responsibility must be taken. And responsibility at that stage is for both lives. And if the state deems the woman to be a risk to the person being carried, then they should be duty bound to protect the person that otherwise has no protection.
This is my view.
I don't hold to the notion of "personhood" from conception, but from when viable. And up to the point of personhood I would probably concur that the woman can do what she likes. But until I am exposed to someone on the cusp of that point, given my lack of knowledge in biology, I could not say how grey the border is, nor how wide.
If I was closer to the subject matter I might bring the point of personhood forward to when the nervous system is developed, but at the moment I think viability is a reasonable starting point.
Bells
Staff member
But?
My god you're still going..
Out of all the crap you just spouted, this one stood out because it pretty much summed up your position...
That sentence requires a "but"?
Ah joys, let me guess, you're one of those.
There is no "but" you dolt. Women are human beings full stop.
We aren't commodities. Just because we "carry an additional human being" does not mean there is a "but". A "but" implies a loss of our status as human beings.
Also, you obviously did not read the links I provided otherwise you'd see how and why laws being created by ultra right wing religious dickwads are criminalising pregnancy, to the point where women are being arrested and forced into operating theater's for c-sections without their consent, one even died as a result of these measures. Others are being charged with murder and attempted murder and child endangerment for consuming small amounts of alcohol or for not taking the drugs their doctors want them to take or for having a drug problem. It's so bad that one woman was arrested and held in prison for endangering her unborn child that she ended up being placed in a position that the only way for her to not be in jail was to have an abortion. If you have issues with how that criminalises pregnancy and women, then yeah, do some reading. There is a plethora of it out there. The latest abomination in Tennessee means that if a woman had or has a drug habit, then she could be imprisoned if she is pregnant - the law makes sure to be distinct that it targets illegal drugs, when the reality is that the larger portions of women who are addicted to drugs while pregnant are addicted to prescription medication.
This kind of thing is hardly surprising from the religious backed right. I mean shit, in some parts of the US, you can even be arrested for even thinking about an abortion.
So you don't think this criminalises pregnancy? So much so that you need clarification?
It targets women specifically. Men are exempt from this of course. And here is the biggest hypocrisy of it all.. A man over 35 years of age who gets a woman pregnant increases the risk of that baby developing autism spectrum disorder.
So a woman who has a glass of wine and is well under the legal limit can be arrested for endangering her child because she is pregnant and a woman who refuses to take particular drugs because she had kicked her drug habit earlier on and does not need to take drugs can be and are arrested and jailed and a woman who chooses to not have a c-section can be arrested and forced to have a c-section against her will because she apparently broke the law and endangered her child (in one case, both the mother and the baby died as a result of the forced c-section) and a you don't think this criminalises pregnancy in any way? Really?
Right, whatever you say..
You pretty much made your points clear and it was all summed up with one sentence.. "Women are human beings, but".. Anything else that comes after that is just you attempting to make excuses for your offal. There is no "but".
My god you're still going..
Out of all the crap you just spouted, this one stood out because it pretty much summed up your position...
"Women are human beings, but"?
That sentence requires a "but"?
Ah joys, let me guess, you're one of those.
Commonly referred to as the “fetal pain bill” by Georgian Republicans and as the “women as livestock bill” by everyone else, HB 954 garnered national attention this month when state Rep. Terry England (R-Auburn) compared pregnant women carrying stillborn fetuses to the cows and pigs on his farm. According to Rep. England and his warped thought process, if farmers have to “deliver calves, dead or alive,” then a woman carrying a dead fetus, or one not expected to survive, should have to carry it to term.
There is no "but" you dolt. Women are human beings full stop.
We aren't commodities. Just because we "carry an additional human being" does not mean there is a "but". A "but" implies a loss of our status as human beings.
Also, you obviously did not read the links I provided otherwise you'd see how and why laws being created by ultra right wing religious dickwads are criminalising pregnancy, to the point where women are being arrested and forced into operating theater's for c-sections without their consent, one even died as a result of these measures. Others are being charged with murder and attempted murder and child endangerment for consuming small amounts of alcohol or for not taking the drugs their doctors want them to take or for having a drug problem. It's so bad that one woman was arrested and held in prison for endangering her unborn child that she ended up being placed in a position that the only way for her to not be in jail was to have an abortion. If you have issues with how that criminalises pregnancy and women, then yeah, do some reading. There is a plethora of it out there. The latest abomination in Tennessee means that if a woman had or has a drug habit, then she could be imprisoned if she is pregnant - the law makes sure to be distinct that it targets illegal drugs, when the reality is that the larger portions of women who are addicted to drugs while pregnant are addicted to prescription medication.
This kind of thing is hardly surprising from the religious backed right. I mean shit, in some parts of the US, you can even be arrested for even thinking about an abortion.
So you don't think this criminalises pregnancy? So much so that you need clarification?
It targets women specifically. Men are exempt from this of course. And here is the biggest hypocrisy of it all.. A man over 35 years of age who gets a woman pregnant increases the risk of that baby developing autism spectrum disorder.
It feels wrong, viscerally, if an addicted woman uses drugs while eight months pregnant. But, the truth is that the risks of harm are higher when men over 35 knowingly (and with no addiction) procreate. According to Dr. Deborah Frank, associate professor of pediatrics at Boston University School of Medicine, "there are small but identifiable effects of prenatal cocaine-crack exposure on certain newborn outcomes, very similar to those associated with prenatal tobacco exposure. There is less consistent evidence of long term effects up to age six years." On the other hand, when a man is older than 35 it "boosts a child's risk of developing autism spectrum disorder between five to 20-fold." Do you consider this harmful compared to "small" drug-related impacts up to the age of six?
So a woman who has a glass of wine and is well under the legal limit can be arrested for endangering her child because she is pregnant and a woman who refuses to take particular drugs because she had kicked her drug habit earlier on and does not need to take drugs can be and are arrested and jailed and a woman who chooses to not have a c-section can be arrested and forced to have a c-section against her will because she apparently broke the law and endangered her child (in one case, both the mother and the baby died as a result of the forced c-section) and a you don't think this criminalises pregnancy in any way? Really?
Right, whatever you say..
You pretty much made your points clear and it was all summed up with one sentence.. "Women are human beings, but".. Anything else that comes after that is just you attempting to make excuses for your offal. There is no "but".
Hyperbole, hyperbole: it ain't no shakes on reality
That is a well-phrased and succinct delineation. Exactly. Agreement also with the discussion of mitigations thereon.
I've committed careless concatenation of cranial/central nervous system development and viability previously, but this is also very salient, IMHO. Viability or brain or both? I don't know.
Heavens! I didn't swallow your arguments and kept arguing. This surely must be one for the record books. Or one version of them, anyway.
Of course. Are you going to pretend you're unfamiliar with conjunctions now? Come on: even I couldn't be prevaricated on to believe that. You speak English, Bells. Look, just tell me which it is you want me to believe about you, and I'll see what I can do.
Ah! More vaporous character assassination! I'd missed that about you.
This is not a criminalisation of "pregnancy". Please describe a recent legal development criminalising "pregnancy". Thankyou.
There certainly is. I'm talking to her. Well, one end, anyway. Pardon: just a little joke.
That is a well-phrased and succinct delineation. Exactly. Agreement also with the discussion of mitigations thereon.
I've committed careless concatenation of cranial/central nervous system development and viability previously, but this is also very salient, IMHO. Viability or brain or both? I don't know.
Heavens! I didn't swallow your arguments and kept arguing. This surely must be one for the record books. Or one version of them, anyway.
Of course. Are you going to pretend you're unfamiliar with conjunctions now? Come on: even I couldn't be prevaricated on to believe that. You speak English, Bells. Look, just tell me which it is you want me to believe about you, and I'll see what I can do.
Ah! More vaporous character assassination! I'd missed that about you.
This is not a criminalisation of "pregnancy". Please describe a recent legal development criminalising "pregnancy". Thankyou.
There certainly is. I'm talking to her.
Well, one end, anyway. Pardon: just a little joke.Geoff, I think you are intentionally missing Bells point there. She is irate that anyone could tag a "but" onto a humans "life condition"... ergo, it is like saying 'You are human, except when (X) happens' That is silly... women are human beings, end of story. They have rights over their body, end of story. The fetus has rights as well, end of story. Wait, conflict, sometimes the woman's rights and the fetus' rights don't coincide... who wins out?
I bow to your penultimate common sense and fine judgement, Quinn.
Your servant, madam.
:thankyou:
But me no buts, or butts
I think you miss the point I missed.
What I'm trying to do is help Bells here. See, I'm pretending that she just forgot the role of 'but' in the conversation. There's no real traction to be had in attacking the use of a conjunction. I realise, of course, that she's trying to track in the old rub about the person who is not a racist "but", here, but it just doesn't carry water. I'm well within reasonable usage without assertion to say "Yes I think women are human beings, but..." If I had then said something like "but they jest don't a-know whut they is about" then her "but" to the "but" would be passable. As I didn't, and wouldn't, then essentially it's a half-assed attempt at an argument terminator.
Oh, hell, you're probably right. I'm being too hard on her.
It's clearly a whole-assed attempt, IMHO. Sorry about that; effort counts, in finger-painting and finger-pointing both.
Well, her stance is no different from "fetuses are humans but". It's implied. Are we really going to dissect language now in an effort to win points? Strikes me as vicious, or whatever that term was.
This being said, have you chosen a side to moderate for and from? You haven't brought up Bells short on any of her absurd and false assertions yet. Or which were you preparing to correct her on first? What about the post above where she compares me to Georgia Republicans, who hold opinions - explicitly described in the article - that I do not. Seems a good place to start. :shrug:
Well I had thought from your comments above that it was a mixed decision process, with the woman in some cases and the fetus in others. Since you're challenging me on a "but" that serves as a three-letter preamble to my expression of opinion that seemingly differs not a whit from your own, previously-expressed position, are you then also in this "but"? But you surely can't be! That but was just a segue to sheer evil. Wasn't it? But then, why are you here with me on it? Kitta, if I were to go back up the thread, would I find you butted any "buts" in?
God, the possibilities are endless.
I think you miss the point I missed.
What I'm trying to do is help Bells here. See, I'm pretending that she just forgot the role of 'but' in the conversation. There's no real traction to be had in attacking the use of a conjunction. I realise, of course, that she's trying to track in the old rub about the person who is not a racist "but", here, but it just doesn't carry water. I'm well within reasonable usage without assertion to say "Yes I think women are human beings, but..." If I had then said something like "but they jest don't a-know whut they is about" then her "but" to the "but" would be passable. As I didn't, and wouldn't, then essentially it's a half-assed attempt at an argument terminator.
Oh, hell, you're probably right. I'm being too hard on her.
It's clearly a whole-assed attempt, IMHO. Sorry about that; effort counts, in finger-painting and finger-pointing both.
Well, her stance is no different from "fetuses are humans but". It's implied. Are we really going to dissect language now in an effort to win points? Strikes me as vicious, or whatever that term was.
This being said, have you chosen a side to moderate for and from? You haven't brought up Bells short on any of her absurd and false assertions yet. Or which were you preparing to correct her on first? What about the post above where she compares me to Georgia Republicans, who hold opinions - explicitly described in the article - that I do not. Seems a good place to start. :shrug:
Well I had thought from your comments above that it was a mixed decision process, with the woman in some cases and the fetus in others. Since you're challenging me on a "but" that serves as a three-letter preamble to my expression of opinion that seemingly differs not a whit from your own, previously-expressed position, are you then also in this "but"? But you surely can't be! That but was just a segue to sheer evil. Wasn't it? But then, why are you here with me on it? Kitta, if I were to go back up the thread, would I find you butted any "buts" in?
God, the possibilities are endless.
Sorry Bells, but that's just... really stupid.
Hell, I laugh at the whole goddamn human species because I think they're mostly tools.
But I never forget I'm one of them.
Well, there's your misogyny for you.
In the end, that's what the abortion debate comes down to: either women are recognized as persons or not.
Well, I'm afraid that simply isn't so. :shrug: You're self-defining with an absolutist opinion on an issue that contains lots of room for mitigation. I don't suppose there's any room for debate or discussion with you on it.
Well said sir...I couldn't agree more.
The world is a giant toilet, (or "loo") and we are turds... Some just smell worse than others.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
The thread was started by a Sciforums moderator in a fit of full-frontal trolling.
Then that sorry thing was subsequently hijacked by our Sciforums moderators again and transformed into another political thread.
I don't believe that any Sciforums moderators have any formal academic exposure to or even any real interest in religion, philosophy or the philosophy of religion. But several of them are political ideologues to their very core. What's more, our ideologues have no apparent self discipline and their behavior is childishly self-indulgent.
Apparently under the new regime, the Religion forum is to become yet another political forum. As for me, I'm not the least bit interested in discussing politics with anyone on Sciforums.
I actually found it quite revealing that atheists should be held to a higher standard than everyone else.
The basic premise here seems to be that the followers of a particular a belief system (or lack of one, in this case) are, or should be, more intelligent. In that case, Tiassa has committed a grave error.
Mine smells like Sandalwood, for the record.
I liked him in that movie. My favourite devil.
Bells
Staff member
I know someone who found out she was pregnant when she was about 30 weeks into her pregnancy. She was over-weight, which hid the pregnancy, she never once stopped menstruating, she didn't have any symptoms that would otherwise raise her suspicions. Should she have been denied an abortion because she found out so late?
What about women who are made to wait several weeks, by law, before they are allowed to access an abortion? Such laws are designed to try and force women to get past the 'cut off date' where abortions are legally obtainable. Or the cases where pregnant women are put in jail for asking the nurse or considering abortions, so that they are unable to get one before the cut off date?
To be clear, very few women get late term abortions. And those that do do not do it for silly reasons or because she's just slack. No woman would put herself through that on a mere whim. Because it is harrowing, painful, mentally draining and it haunts you for the rest of your life. And these are done in the safety of a hospital or clinic with specialised and experience staff. Imagine if the ability to access these legally is taken away and desperate women facing awful real life situations feel compelled to then visit a backyard abortionist?
I may disagree with abortions as much as I want. But knowing that women will have them regardless, I'd rather they be able to have them safely when they need them.
This is why I object to rules like the 27 week bans, and the like. Because women who desperately need them after those dates will get them regardless and if there is no way for them to do it safely, then the results are disastrous. Why? As history shows, women who cannot access safe and legal abortions will simply obtain an unsafe and illegal abortion. Prior to Roe vs Wade, the reality for women in the US was frankly horrific.
ABORTION WAS criminalized throughout the U.S. between the late 1800s and 1973. But during that time, millions of women sought and obtained abortions anyway.
Of these, tens upon tens of thousands died from illegal abortions or complications arising from them. One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year.
Some of these deaths were the result of the abortions themselves, but many more were from infection and hemorrhaging afterward. Because of the fear of being punished and socially ostracized, many women--and their doctors--kept their real condition a secret.
Of these, tens upon tens of thousands died from illegal abortions or complications arising from them. One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year.
Some of these deaths were the result of the abortions themselves, but many more were from infection and hemorrhaging afterward. Because of the fear of being punished and socially ostracized, many women--and their doctors--kept their real condition a secret.
To put it into some perspective, and I figure GeoffP will use analogies about murder once more to counter these figures, but yeah, the WHO deems the risk from unsafe and illegal abortions to be so high and the number of deaths and illness from them is so high that the WHO state it is a pandemic. And it is wholly preventable. The WHO's report found:
But hey, what do they know?
When I see people like GeoffP and the countless politicians and religious pro-lifer's demand that restrictions be imposed, that like GeoffP states, cut off points be put in place to make it illegal for a woman to access an abortion in the 3rd trimester if there is no health issues or rape issues involved, for example, I think about these reports.
Do people actually think that if a woman really needs an abortion that she won't get one? Let's just say a line is drawn in the sand at GeoffP's 27 weeks. Wonderful. No non-medically 3rd trimester abortions will ever happen again, right? Do people actually believe this will be the case? Third trimester abortions are more dangerous and the woman is more at risk the later she leaves it, so to speak. Now, should women be allowed or able to access safe abortions? If lines are drawn in the sand at say, 27 weeks, this closes the door on her being able to access a safe and legal abortion. If it's illegal after that point unless it is medically necessary, then what are her options? She will do what the 21.6 million of other women around the world resort to and that is simply get an illegal and unsafe abortion. She will then become part of that statistic. And as a third trimester abortion, the risk to her life increases dramatically, especially if she is doing it in an unsafe, unsanitary environment.. If you think such places do not exist, then you only have to read up on Dr Gosnell.
It is wonderful in theory to imagine that women simply will not get an abortion if it is deemed illegal after a certain point. Saving the child. Sounds awesome on paper. After all, if you put in a cut off point, she simply won't get one, correct? What woman would obtain an abortion if she legally cannot obtain one? 21.6 million women is a clear indication that they do get it regardless, 68,000 women die as a result of unsafe and illegal abortions and millions more are scarred for life as a result.
This is the reality of bans, arbitrary timelines and restrictions, making abortions illegal.. So when GeoffP waves his arms about and scoffs at the fact that I do think it is a woman's choice and I think bans and limits are dangerous, this is why. 21.6 million women and over 68,000 deaths and millions permanently scarred every single year..
Bells
Staff member
- Status