A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Bells]

Part of the issue is that there are some (especially the more hard-line religious folk) who feel that abortion at any time for any reason should be banned.
Then, there are people (few and far between thank goodness) that view abortion as a "perfectly acceptable means of contraception" that should be available at any time.

Obviously, these two groups tend to spark a lot of conflict.

Can you cite which women view abortions as a means of contraception?

Do you have a link to that quote? How many women view abortion as a "perfectly acceptable means of contraception"? I know hundreds of women. Not a single one of them view abortion as a form of contraception.

In that case, she should have the abortion as early as possible - and then go on some serious contraceptives to ensure this doesn't happen again until she wants to have a child.
However, if she waits to the third trimester or later, then adoption should be the go-to option - after all, at that point you would subject the fetus to pain and suffering (not to mention the horrors of what can happen if the abortion fails) and, honestly, if she has gone that long without doing something about it, then there is an air of irresponsibility about it. Granted, there are situations that would exempt one from this, but still.

Irresponsibility..

As noted and supported with evidence, women are often prevented for a variety of reasons from being able to access one earlier on in the pregnancy. Do you have evidence that women are waiting until the third trimester and subjecting themselves to a much harder and more complicated procedure which poses greater risks to their well being because she just didn't bother to get it done sooner? That she's just a slack arse who is simply irresponsible? Studies? Anything?

21.6 million women, 68,000 deaths, millions scarred for life - women who obtained unsafe and illegal abortions because to do so safely and legally was a "no go option". Do you have any proof that making it illegal will mean that women will simply not get or have abortions past what you have pegged as the foetal pain mark?

In all truth, do you actually and honestly think that women who need abortions aren't going to get them one way or the other? 68,000 deaths and millions scarred for life.. Is this an acceptable figure in your opinion? WHO view it as a pandemic. And it is wholly preventable if women were able to access safe and legal abortions. So do you honestly think that a woman who needs an abortion in the third trimester is not going to get one anyway? Would you prefer she obtains it illegally and in an unsafe and dangerous environment? Or that she is able to access one in a safe and legal environment where she can be counseled and helped to perhaps consider her other options? Yes or no?

 

[Bells]

I am a woman and I consider myself a full person. I also consider a third trimester fetus a person, too. Quite the dilemma, NOT! We all have limits put on us, male and female. Why is the female special in this regard?

Ah Quinnsong..

As a woman, let me ask you this..

Prior to Roe vs Wade up to and more than 5,000 women died every year in the US from unsafe and at the time, illegal abortions. Many more were permanently scarred due to complications during and after the procedure.

In 2008, the world wide figure of women who died as a direct result of unsafe and illegal abortions was around 68,000. This is wholly because these women did not have access to safe and/or legal abortions. In countries where abortion is restricted or illegal, women went to backyard practitioners. Many of them die and even more end up scarred for life.

Do you think limiting abortions will mean fewer abortions? Do you think women simply won't have them if they are illegal in the third trimester? Do you think a 'female' should have access to safe and legal abortions? If you put a limit on that at say, third trimester, those women are still going to get them if they need them. So in light of that, should these women be denied a safe and legal way to abort? Or should they, in their desperation, find themselves forced to go to a person with a large syringe with bleach or a coat hanger?

I have asked these questions a few times now and all I keep getting in response is 'needs to be limited'. Great. Wonderful.

However no one has been able to acknowledge the fact that limiting safe and legal abortions won't mean that women won't have them. They'll still have them. But they will risk death and permanent scarring and infertility to do so. Is this appropriate and acceptable? Or are females so not special that they somehow deserve risk of death and permanent injury? Is there any medical condition for men that would require them to have to seek backyard practitioners that results in risks to their lives and permanent injury and scarring? So why are women being made special in regards to the fact that so many of them are being forced to have to consider such dangerous and deadly options?

 

[billvon]

I am a woman and I consider myself a full person. I also consider a third trimester fetus a person, too. Quite the dilemma, NOT! We all have limits put on us, male and female. Why is the female special in this regard?

Uh oh. You don't agree with the approved consensus. Prepare to feel the wrath of the moral majority here.

 

[Balerion]

"People will do it anyway" is hardly a reason to endorse an action.

 

[Gremmie]

Of course she has the right to abort. But I think there should be a cut-off point, barring obvious circumstances.

My bad...

Haven't slept in a couple of days...

What I mean to say is, I believe in a woman's right to choose...

Now, yes, I agree if a woman makes no choice by the third trimester, she should either raise said child, or, give it up for adoption. But, aside from that, it's her body, and her choice.

 

[Balerion]

My bad...

Haven't slept in a couple of days...

What I mean to say is, I believe in a woman's right to choose...

Now, yes, I agree if a woman makes no choice by the third trimester, she should either raise said child, or, give it up for adoption. But, aside from that, it's her body, and her choice.

But It's also someone else's body. Once we get Into the third trimester, that kid is a kid. He's gotta have rights too.

 

[Tiassa]

Fair and Reasonable, Indeed

Anything wrong with that statement?

Lack of context for application?

Are you saying, such as it is, that women are human, sure, but they're the ones who get to give birth to the offspring ... so it's only fair to suspend their human rights?

And then, through the "but" we go on to explain some additional situations that also need to be taken into consideration when it comes to "woman" due to circumstances which they are sometimes found in that men can not be.

Well, okay, it would appear you really are saying that.

How does the additional information or situation you think needs to be taken into consideration warrant the suspension or diminution of a woman's human rights?

How often, really, does that "but" work out nicely?

Sure, women are people, but they can have babies, which means sometimes they can't have their human rights.

Sure, Iraqis are people, but there was a war on.

Sure, Nigerians are people, but there's oil there.

Sure, the Fourteenth Amendment says Equal Protection, but that's too hard to figure out so we're just going to skip it.

Take one that some would disagree with: Sure, men are human, but they're dangerous.

You know, like, sure, rape is bad, but she should have taken more precautions to prevent it. Effectively, a society tells women to beware of all men. It's like the time the guy made the grenade analogy reducing men to mechanical processes; in defense of Infinite Protection Advocacy, some are willing to escalate the stakes to, "Men should be locked up".

Then again, it's funny how that particular but usually works. Well, sure, men shouldn't rape, but ....

Okay, maybe "funny" is the wrong word.

Notice how the but, as applied for men, awards them privilege. And look at how advocates of this outcome, such as Geoff by proxy of his outright refusal to acknowledge the issue—you know, so he could complain about generalizations: Here, let me be offended by the "generalization" society demands you make in the name of your own safety. And let me glibly refuse any evidence that such a demand exists—run screaming from the issue.

It's not exactly a rational argument they're putting forth..

So let's try one more but:

Sure, rational discourse is preferred, but our neighbor doesn't want it.​

It would be amusing if it wasn't so dysfunctional, this determination to keep things irrational and vicious so he can pretend to be morally outraged.

If people want rational discourse, they ought to try it. Otherwise, they end up complaining irrelevantly about people instead of ideas, like opening threads ostensibly to explore specific issues and using that discussion to further one's complaints about a moderator.

The "but" was not to point out an exception to the identity of "human" but to express an addition to that identity that is borne solely by "woman".

As such, GeoffP's usage seems fair and reasonable, as he was using it to promote such a difference.

As I noted yesterday:

What he ignores is something that is important because it is at the heart of this particular chapter in the thread. Remember that this is a proposition of personhood versus guaranteed equal protection of all people, and the question of what happens when one of those "people" exists inside another.

At the time the fetus emerges and exists outside the mother's body, this question disappears.

Until then, what remains unanswered is the question anti-abortion advocates spent fifteen months avoiding ... in the thread containing the post that is the centerpiece of this part of the thread.​

And, of course, his response is to refuse the context of the issue he is criticizing.

That's not just irrational, it's flat out dishonest.

And why would he do that?

"My definition is a simple and biologically valid one: late-term infants are rapidly getting to the state of cogitation. Even the 95% of the time they appear to spend in sleep-state is still... sleep-state."​

Quite simply because his definition trumps any consideration of law. He effectively refuses any consideration of how his definition can be implemented in society. And why? Well, many would suspect it has to do with the fact that people making his argument generally know how bad it sounds if they acknowledge the suspension of a woman's human rights.

Dryfoot is a bright line, both existentially and ontologically. That's the point. Any earlier line one wishes to declare inherently runs into this question of what happens when one person's rights must necessarily assert governance over the inside of another person's body.

And until that question is resolved, that but our neighbor proposes is just another excuse to suspend a woman's human rights, thus curtailing and denigrating her humanity.

I could certainly come up with a genuinely and functionally "nasty" compromise based on viability, but it is so not good for women that it wouldn't actually help their human rights. It would, in fact, generally destroy women's standing in society by proxy of its downstream effects.

But the thing is that such a compromise would only come up in trading away women's human rights. Because that's what personhood in utero demands.

Fertilization-Assigned Personhood is currently in the Judiciary Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives. And they are going out of their way to put this conflict of rights front and center:

A BILL​

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 TO CHAPTER 1, TITLE 1 SO AS TO ENACT THE "PERSONHOOD ACT OF SOUTH CAROLINA", WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE FOR EACH BORN AND PREBORN HUMAN BEING VESTS AT FERTILIZATION, AND THAT THE RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION, GUARANTEED BY SECTION 3, ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE, VEST AT FERTILIZATION FOR EACH BORN AND PREBORN HUMAN PERSON.

(South Carolina H.3233; BLOCK CAPS sic.)​

So ... how is this going to work? That's the question that remains unanswered, and our neighbor wants to pick bones in order to revive that discussion without ever addressing the question, and all so he can have a hissy-cow.

It is a calculated rhetorical sleight, and nothing more.

Thus you are unreservedly correct: Fair and reasonable, indeed.
____________________

Notes:

South Carolina General Assembly. "H.3323: Personhood Act of South Carolina". 120th Session, 2013-2014. SCStateHouse.gov. May 9, 2014. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/3323.htm

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Ah Quinnsong..

As a woman, let me ask you this..

Prior to Roe vs Wade up to and more than 5,000 women died every year in the US from unsafe and at the time, illegal abortions. Many more were permanently scarred due to complications during and after the procedure.

In 2008, the world wide figure of women who died as a direct result of unsafe and illegal abortions was around 68,000. This is wholly because these women did not have access to safe and/or legal abortions. In countries where abortion is restricted or illegal, women went to backyard practitioners. Many of them die and even more end up scarred for life.

Do you think limiting abortions will mean fewer abortions? Do you think women simply won't have them if they are illegal in the third trimester? Do you think a 'female' should have access to safe and legal abortions? If you put a limit on that at say, third trimester, those women are still going to get them if they need them. So in light of that, should these women be denied a safe and legal way to abort? Or should they, in their desperation, find themselves forced to go to a person with a large syringe with bleach or a coat hanger?

I have asked these questions a few times now and all I keep getting in response is 'needs to be limited'. Great. Wonderful.

However no one has been able to acknowledge the fact that limiting safe and legal abortions won't mean that women won't have them. They'll still have them. But they will risk death and permanent scarring and infertility to do so. Is this appropriate and acceptable? Or are females so not special that they somehow deserve risk of death and permanent injury? Is there any medical condition for men that would require them to have to seek backyard practitioners that results in risks to their lives and permanent injury and scarring? So why are women being made special in regards to the fact that so many of them are being forced to have to consider such dangerous and deadly options?

" Is there any medical condition for men that would require them to have to seek backyard practitioners that results in risks to their lives and permanent injury and scarring? So why are women being made special in regards to the fact that so many of them are being forced to have to consider such dangerous and deadly options?"

Seems like you'r arguein aganst you'rself... ie... it seems to me because women are diferent... they are a special case.!!!

 

[Bells]

"People will do it anyway" is hardly a reason to endorse an action.

Endorse what? Abortions? Roe vs Wade made abortions legal. Do you think that case was an endorsement of abortions?

Or endorse the rights of women to be able to safely access one?

So how do you propose women be stopped from access them illegally? We know they will have an abortions regardless. 68,000 women dying a year and millions more scarred for life around the world is clear proof of that..

Do you think allowing those women to have one safely is an endorsement? Or do you think using their deaths and permanent injury is a good deterrent? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Gremmie]

But It's also someone else's body. Once we get Into the third trimester, that kid is a kid. He's gotta have rights too.

I think you misunderstood what I'm saying...

My opinion is, a woman has the right to choose to raise a child or not...

Yeah, if a woman isn't ready to have a child, contraception should be opted for.

But, let's be honest, a lot of us guys think with the wrong head, and shit happens.

I believe a woman has the right to not have a kid, if she wants. But, yeah, this decision should be made early on...

I'm tired as all hell, and don't feel like scrolling pages back... But, who said some shit about shoving a baby back in it's mother, then aborting it?... Really?

 

[Balerion]

I think you misunderstood what I'm saying...

My opinion is, a woman has the right to choose to raise a child or not...

Yeah, if a woman isn't ready to have a child, contraception should be opted for.

But, let's be honest, a lot of us guys think with the wrong head, and shit happens.

I believe a woman has the right to not have a kid, if she wants. But, yeah, this decision should be made early on...

I agree.

I'm tired as all hell, and don't feel like scrolling pages back... But, who said some shit about shoving a baby back in it's mother, then aborting it?... Really?

He was pointing out the absurdity and cruelty of the dry foot concept.

 

[Bells]

" Is there any medical condition for men that would require them to have to seek backyard practitioners that results in risks to their lives and permanent injury and scarring? So why are women being made special in regards to the fact that so many of them are being forced to have to consider such dangerous and deadly options?"

Seems like you'r arguein aganst you'rself... ie... it seems to me because women are diferent... they are a special case.!!!

Wow..

And even out of that, you still can't answer the question.

For men and women who are so quick to state limits need to be imposed, why are you all so 'mum' when it comes to the reality of imposing limits? What? You all actually think that women just won't have them? We know they do.. 21 million women do so regardless of limits.. per year.

In short, I really want to see someone try to justify why it's acceptable to have tens of thousands of women die each year and millions more permanently scarred because of limits imposed on abortions based on the personal opinions of people not connected to her. You're all so quick to argue she has rights and up to a point apparently. But not a single one of you is able to justify the horrendous figure that comes as a direct result of such limits to safe and legal reproductive health care. One claimed that making it legal and safe was apparently an endorsement.. So does this justify 68,000 deaths and millions scarred for life each year? Is this acceptable for you that so many women die or are maimed because they cannot access an abortion due to limits put in place to prevent them from accessing one safely?

 

[PhysBang]

Who says they don't have all the freedoms and rights of persons?

You?

Seriously, though, the anti-choice position is an anti-choice position. One wants to make it in place of all women.

 

[Gremmie]

I agree.



He was pointing out the absurdity and cruelty of the dry foot concept.

Ahh, OK.

But, who was the poster? Just curious.

 

[quinnsong]

Ah Quinnsong..

As a woman, let me ask you this..

Prior to Roe vs Wade up to and more than 5,000 women died every year in the US from unsafe and at the time, illegal abortions. Many more were permanently scarred due to complications during and after the procedure.

In 2008, the world wide figure of women who died as a direct result of unsafe and illegal abortions was around 68,000. This is wholly because these women did not have access to safe and/or legal abortions. In countries where abortion is restricted or illegal, women went to backyard practitioners. Many of them die and even more end up scarred for life.

Do you think limiting abortions will mean fewer abortions? Do you think women simply won't have them if they are illegal in the third trimester? Do you think a 'female' should have access to safe and legal abortions? If you put a limit on that at say, third trimester, those women are still going to get them if they need them. So in light of that, should these women be denied a safe and legal way to abort? Or should they, in their desperation, find themselves forced to go to a person with a large syringe with bleach or a coat hanger?

I have asked these questions a few times now and all I keep getting in response is 'needs to be limited'. Great. Wonderful.

However no one has been able to acknowledge the fact that limiting safe and legal abortions won't mean that women won't have them. They'll still have them. But they will risk death and permanent scarring and infertility to do so. Is this appropriate and acceptable? Or are females so not special that they somehow deserve risk of death and permanent injury? Is there any medical condition for men that would require them to have to seek backyard practitioners that results in risks to their lives and permanent injury and scarring? So why are women being made special in regards to the fact that so many of them are being forced to have to consider such dangerous and deadly options?

I have no need to parse here as the answer is simple, abortion should be made legal up until the third trimester everywhere in a perfect world. If a woman chooses to have an abortion after the third trimester (there are exceptions of course and those should be defined clearly, legally speaking) she should be prosecuted as the law deems just. Why isn't this limit on abortion good enough, Bells? Personally, I find the dry foot position horrendous and extreme, furthermore, it is harmful to the pro choice movement.

 

[Balerion]

Endorse what? Abortions? Roe vs Wade made abortions legal. Do you think that case was an endorsement of abortions?

I'm talking about late-term abortions, which have restrictions in some places In the US.

And according to studies, women tend to gdt later-term abortions because they're young, or poor, or less educated. I don't see these as viable reasons for late-term abortions.

So how do you propose women be stopped from access them illegally? We know they will have an abortions regardless. 68,000 women dying a year and millions more scarred for life around the world is clear proof of that..

You can't. But that's not a valid reason for making or keeping late-term abortions legal.

Do you think allowing those women to have one safely is an endorsement? Or do you think using their deaths and permanent injury is a good deterrent? I'm genuinely curious.

No you aren't. You're looking for a word or a phrase to latch onto out of context and claim victory.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

" Is there any medical condition for men that would require them to have to seek backyard practitioners that results in risks to their lives and permanent injury and scarring? So why are women being made special in regards to the fact that so many of them are being forced to have to consider such dangerous and deadly options?"

Seems like you'r arguein aganst you'rself... ie... it seems to me because women are diferent... they are a special case.!!!

Wow..

I've heard some sick crap to try to justify harm against women, but you take the cake.

Im not tryin to justify harm against women, i jus thank what you said is a weak argument in you'r tryin to justify that women shoud have the final say about abortion (even late term).!!!

Whether or not men "have to seek backyard practitioners that results in risks to their lives and permanent injury and scarring" is irrelevant to the rights you thank women shoud have.!!!

 

[Balerion]

Ahh, OK.

But, who was the poster? Just curious.

I honestly don't remember.

 

[Balerion]

You?

Seriously, though, the anti-choice position is an anti-choice position. One wants to make it in place of all women.

In what way are they lacking the rights of all people? And if it's basic rights they're talking about, why is It being argued that women are the only ones whose opinions matter?

 

[Gremmie]

I honestly don't remember.

Dammit, now I have to scroll back... Enquiring minds need to know. Meh.