Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP]

[GeoffP]

Ironic irony?

For all the moral outrage, I notice the outrageous lack of anything objective.

Not so: you've made some objective points, I'm sure. I mean, I can't find any offhand, but let's think positive.

This personhood argument is really taking place in the real world, and what is rather distressing about it is the blithe disregard for what some people are about to do if they get their way. The people who advocate these policies? Well, I can understand why they don't want to discuss the implications; what is puzzling is why people who would claim to not support FAP are going out of their way to distract discussion from these issues.

Well, there's this thing about posting an valid alarm in the OP - hey, there's that objective stuff; see? positive thinking - and then tacking up the comments of one of the guys who are taking an informed and actually more liberal perspective on the issue as an example of FAP beside that alarm as being kind of intellectually dishonest, or maybe just hysterical in its extremism. I laugh to think that such points as I added actually prolong the period of putative abortion, and are in fact a genuinely objective support of greater abortion rights, which you bitch about endlessly but can't seem to locate. I guess 'objective' is objective only when you can see a fetus, as if it's magically stepped in the room; My Little Personhood would be a better description, really (I'm sure that show's just packed with magic and sparkles also).

You know, it's interesting how a bunch of allegedly rational people not so much disagree with the conflict proposed but, rather, are apparently unable to see it.

Oh, yes, yes, that's exactly what the problem was: not your false dilemma, not the false equivocation. No, no: it was us, unable to have immediately garnered the meaning of the overt, obvious legal process you cited. "Why don't you support me absolutely?" Well, shit, I don't know. Maybe look around and think for a second?

So what is it? Are you, personally, still pissed about being raked over the coals for buying into one of the dumbest forms of Devil's advocate in history? Well, what did you expect? The dryfoot question becomes a necessary question in the discourse under any PIU standard.

If you're unacquainted with mathematics, biology and reality.

If there is an objective resolution to the conflict of two people's equally protected rights conflicting when one person occurs inside and is dependent upon another person, I would suggest finding that argument would be a bit more useful an endeavor than making up insane fantasies to justify your confusion and horror.

Well, that's that then. Everyone on SF, take notice: Tiassa does not believe in satire. A "political twist of the knife", sure; but aside from that - which he uses as a tool for blatant misrepresentation - please don't try to use this with him, as it scares and intimidates him. Or maybe we could use it if we preface each such comment with: "Like, imagine if". Maybe that would clear up the pretend outrage you're exuding - and, by the way, what you're doing (and this is ironic) is actual fake outrage. It's as though you decided to take up "I'm rubber and you're glue" as an actual debating stance, instead of something the rest of us gave up when we left primary school. Do other people who bump unfortunately into you feel some empathetic social compulsion to validate this behaviour of yours?

When an atheist must fall back to a vague, unspecified, subjective moral authority in order to invoke an abstract moral duty to limit abortion access, it is pretty clear there is something else driving their shock and horror and moral outrage toward an observable, objective fact.

Ah, there it is! Again, atheists can have no morality, since it can't be imbued by an all-knowing skyfather, whereas centuries of religious holocaust are surely example enough of the better angels of theism. Good bigoted tie-in there, Ethics Champ. I mean, I thought that was a rhetorical device also, but here you use it without refinement, so one is forced to conclude that's your actual belief.

I could go into the long, long list of intellectual disjunct that you wallow in - selected the point at which you can see a baby as the magical point of personhood rather than something more tied into cognition; for example, is a brain-dead baby a person? - but it's a waste of my time. This will probably do for a summary:

What you find ironic? Consider that while even our neighbor Geoff is shocked and appalled by the implications of dipping his toe into such vile, misogynistic, polluted waters, you dove right the hell in—and set the gold standard.

And with that, you cement your position in ranks of the satire-challenged. And you really think that it's everyone else who's desperately pursuing logical fantasies in order to swell up their egos?

Be warned: some of the above may contain sarcasm.

If you can't detect it, get an adult to interpret it for you. I'm sure you know at least one, or that one is assigned to your case file.

 

[Tiassa]

Hopping Clods

Ah, there it is! Again, atheists can have no morality, since it can't be imbued by an all-knowing skyfather, whereas centuries of religious holocaust are surely example enough of the better angels of theism. Good bigoted tie-in there, Ethics Champ.

Here, review a paragraph:

But the problem remains functional. PIU/FAP advocates promote their policies seemingly without considering implications. Even proclaimed atheists can be found appealing to an abstract and subjective "moral authority" in order to sidestep the question. Still, whether it's "God" or "justice" or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" one appeals to, how does this work functionally?​

Here's a hint: When you click the link in that paragraph, you'll find a post that includes the following statement: "I don't think restricting late-term abortions is a solution, I think it's a moral duty." This is an unqualified appeal to subjective moral authority.

So think about that. We already know about the religious folks on the anti-abortion bandwagon, but this issue is so confounding that even atheists attempting to rationally argue their moral outlook are left with subjective appeals no less desperate than claiming God says so.

Perhaps if you weren't so busy thinking this thread is about you, you might have actually paid attention to what you're responding to. People will give you a certain benefit of the doubt at the outset, that perhaps you missed a contextual issue. But with repeated mistaken representations at the heart of your temper tantrum, all you're really doing is trolling. Would you please start dealing with reality?

 

[billvon]

But attention whore is gender neutral. You... ermm.. did get that, didn't you?

So just to be clear - calling someone a whore is acceptable on this forum as long as there is a genderless modifier near it.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Advice

Mod Hat — Advice

I notice some people still have some problems separating the question under discussion from their disdain toward this site's staff.

So just to be clear - calling someone a whore is acceptable on this forum as long as there is a genderless modifier near it.

This sort of issue is only confusing if one needs it to be. Attention whore is a long-used pejorative that is widely considered gender neutral. True, there is some controversy about the psychopathology of that neutrality, but we can worry about having that discussion when it will be something less of an exercise in futility and a bit more relevant to reality.

We have long tacitly allowed the term when it is reasonably applicable; if the membership would like that standard changed, they can certainly let us know.

Meanwhile, those who seem to think their role in this discussion is to distract in favor of personal disputes they have with others are running out of time to get relevant. No, really, some of the nitpicking really is that obvious, and we don't really believe certain members of our community really are as stupid as they portray themselves. This creates a problem, of course, in figuring out how much time and how many opportunities we ought to afford them to offer some sincere, constructive words in a discussion compared to pitching temper tantrums for the sake of ego gratification.

Policy questions and complaints about moderators belong in SFOG.

And I would advise members to bear in mind that some are not finding their posts edited or struck based on a very loose interpretation of relevance intended to afford them more opportunity to speak their minds; if that privilege cannot be used in any constructive manner regarding this thread, that interpretation can be easily and rationally tightened.

 

[Bells]

So just to be clear - calling someone a whore is acceptable on this forum as long as there is a genderless modifier near it.

What? You want to know how you can call someone a whore and not look like a throwback from the dark ages where such terms were used to describe women?

You know, it is pretty clear what is meant by the term. Because, you know, it's pretty FUCKING CLEAR what is meant by it. Since "attention whore" is used regularly as a descriptive term for people who like to be the center of attention. Unless of course you live in a cave where you are scraping two sticks together to try to start this magical new thing called "fire".

If you are looking for an excuse to call someone a "whore", then really, it's not going to go well for you. Because from your post, it sure looks that way. And I am sooooooooo not in the mood for this now that it's not even funny.

 

[billvon]

You want to know how you can call someone a whore and not look like a throwback from the dark ages where such terms were used to describe women?

No, I just want to know how you call someone a whore and not look like a throwback to the dark ages.

If you are looking for an excuse to call someone a "whore", then really, it's not going to go well for you.

So it only goes well for moderators. Got it.

 

[Bells]

No, I just want to know how you call someone a whore and not look like a throwback to the dark ages.

So it only goes well for moderators. Got it.

Yes Billvon.

Only I get to ever use the term "attention whore". Since you know, you are so disingenuous, not to mention inane, that you just leave that little bit out because you clearly have so little else to do with your time and you so desire to be the drama queen that you are going to try to pick this fight with me. What's wrong? Need my attention that much?

So yes, only I can say the words "attention whore". In fact, I may just claim ownership to it and buy the rights to the words. In fact, I might just buy out the rights to every word in the dictionary. Right after I abort the quintuplets as they are passing out of my birth canal. Because as a moderator, I am the KING OF THE WORLD.

 

[billvon]

Only I get to ever use the term "attention whore".

Reminds me of the right wingers who called Cindy Sheehan an "attention whore" for protesting after her son was killed in Iraq. Since it had the world "attention" in front of it, they argued, it was no problem to call her a whore.

You are in good company.

 

[Trooper]

Out of whose womb came the ice and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it, but Bells?

Let me guess, public defender?

 

[Bells]

Reminds me of the right wingers who called Cindy Sheehan an "attention whore" for protesting after her son was killed in Iraq. Since it had the world "attention" in front of it, they argued, it was no problem to call her a whore.

You are in good company.

You don't get to use that argument with me today. See, I have been called a whore. I have been called a slut, a bitch, a whore, a cunt, and every single other term you can think you can call a woman to degrade them.

As recently as a few days ago for that matter.

Actually, you don't get to use that argument with me ever. Do you know why?

Because your moral outrage is fake. You don't care about the words "attention whore".

You only care that I was the one who uttered it.

Because you did not even say boo when Shourya uttered the word "whore" in a sexual and derogatory way in your discussions with him. Nor did you say anything to Greatest I Am when he also used the word "whore" in a sexual and derogatory way. In fact, you dismissed it and argued that it was good not to teach your child to be a whore. You had absolutely no issue with using the term in that way. In fact, he kept making the argument about women being whores and you didn't say a single word about it. And you had no qualms about referring to the word and using it repeatedly and assigning it to women in particular.

So no, you don't get to clamber up on any fake morally outraged high horse with me. Ever.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR:

"Attention whore" is in wide use. Google brought up nine million hits.

Urban Dictionary defines it: Label given to any person who craves attention to such an extent that they will do anything to receive it. The type of attention (negative or positive) does not matter. Example: "You're such a goddamned attention whore!"​

It is used for both male and female targets. However the Huffington Post (hardly a reliable source for scholarly information) says that it is used more often for women. Assuming that this is true, it mirrors the usage of the word "whore" itself, which long ago lost its strictly-feminine sense, but is still used more often for a woman.

 

[billvon]

You don't get to use that argument with me today. See, I have been called a whore.

And now that you are a mod you get to do that to other people.

 

[Bells]

And now that you are a mod you get to do that to other people.

If I had called him a "whore" as in the sexual sense like you used the word more times than can be counted to describe women and prostitutes, then sure, you might have a point.

Really Billvon? What? Have nothing else to do today? Still so desperate to not answer the question in the OP that you have decided to venture down the 'inane road'?

Grow up.

And I'd suggest you stop misrepresenting what I actually said.

 

[GeoffP]

Devil's Advocate?

Here, review a paragraph:

But the problem remains functional. PIU/FAP advocates promote their policies seemingly without considering implications. Even proclaimed atheists can be found appealing to an abstract and subjective "moral authority" in order to sidestep the question. Still, whether it's "God" or "justice" or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" one appeals to, how does this work functionally?​

Oh, well, magically. You know, just like for theists. For even if atheists don't believe in God, why, God believes in them.

Or I could just answer like a geneticist: as the production of years of correct upbringing in a social society.

Hitchens' comment on the subject is interesting also.

But with repeated mistaken representations at the heart of your temper tantrum, all you're really doing is trolling. Would you please start dealing with reality?

I have to ask: which are these? You've burned up pages of the inter-tubes and have not identified them. So do you really believe this pretense? Are you now going to pretend that my call for a meaningful biological breakpoint is trolling? I suppose you'll soon descend into neo-Moderation, but do you really think your ideas could stand up in a fair marketplace? Your claims to speak for reality seriously cannot be taken seriously when you only seem to think a fetus exists when you can see it.

And what do you make of those magics such as ultrasound? Tiassa, you're a theist, aren't you? Do you think such things come from the Devil, or is there a place for 'white magic' in your pantheon?

Here's a hint: When you click the link in that paragraph, you'll find a post that includes the following statement: "I don't think restricting late-term abortions is a solution, I think it's a moral duty." This is an unqualified appeal to subjective moral authority.

So you don't feel any obligations to a subjective moral authority? Many other people do, Tiassa, theists and atheists both. If you want to call it a kind of irrationalism, go right ahead. We could talk about reciprocal altruism or permanent environmental effects of upbringing, but I sense you need to call it something else, and as I understand it, your prerogative is the only important one:

Mod Hat — Advice

I notice some people still have some problems separating the question under discussion from their disdain toward this site's staff.

This sort of issue is only confusing if one needs it to be. Attention whore is a long-used pejorative that is widely considered gender neutral. True, there is some controversy about the psychopathology of that neutrality, but we can worry about having that discussion when it will be something less of an exercise in futility and a bit more relevant to reality.

We have long tacitly allowed the term when it is reasonably applicable; if the membership would like that standard changed, they can certainly let us know.

Oh, so the term is okay if Bells or you use it against me. I see. And if I fight back, why, then I only prove the validity of its usage, don't I? It's a Catch-22.

Meanwhile, those who seem to think their role in this discussion is to distract in favor of personal disputes they have with others are running out of time to get relevant. No, really, some of the nitpicking really is that obvious, and we don't really believe certain members of our community really are as stupid as they portray themselves. This creates a problem, of course, in figuring out how much time and how many opportunities we ought to afford them to offer some sincere, constructive words in a discussion compared to pitching temper tantrums for the sake of ego gratification.

Policy questions and complaints about moderators belong in SFOG.

And I would advise members to bear in mind that some are not finding their posts edited or struck based on a very loose interpretation of relevance intended to afford them more opportunity to speak their minds; if that privilege cannot be used in any constructive manner regarding this thread, that interpretation can be easily and rationally tightened.

You demand again and again that we accept your false dilemma and you piggyback attacks against our character on it. You seem to think that it has some kind of logical authority merely because you say so. Support it. If it's so obvious that any argument against it is - what? 'nitpicking'? - then it should be easy to do so. You demand constructive argument. We have given you some. Now it is your turn.

 

[billvon]

Are you now going to pretend that my call for a meaningful biological breakpoint is trolling?

In an attempt to get the thread back on course* let's consider that.

To me "dryfoot" and "personhood at fertilization" are two cases of reductio ad absurdum; silly talking points that bear only a passing resemblance t any reality. It is clear to me that, halfway through delivery, a living baby has all the rights any other baby has. Likewise, it is pretty clear that a fertilized ovum, not yet implanted, has none of those, since its survival to term is, at that point, unlikely. It is pretty clear to me, personally, that the fetus slowly gains rights as it grows, in direct relation to both its similarity to a term baby and the ability to survive outside the womb. This has been codified in law in many places (laws on late term abortion in other countries, laws against fetal homicide here.)

So where are the lines? LucySnow proposed no abortions after viability other than for reasons of health of the mother, health of another child or non-viability of the fetus. That is a reasonable approach although I would not want to see such an outright ban, and "viability" is a tough line to draw nowadays. Denmark places a ban (with exclusions for health) at 12 weeks, which seems far too early. The US bans specific procedures for late term abortions and states have individual limitations, usually around 20-22 weeks or at viability.

While I would not want an outright ban I do think it makes sense to treat abortion very differently after viability, which realistically is somewhere between 21 and 25 weeks. At that point you are no longer dealing with a potential human, you are dealing with a living human who no longer absolutely needs maternal support to survive.

(* - challenge to Bells and Tiassa - see if you can make it through the next two pages without calling anyone any names.)

 

[GeoffP]

In an attempt to get the thread back on course* let's consider that.

To me "dryfoot" and "personhood at fertilization" are two cases of reductio ad absurdum; silly talking points that bear only a passing resemblance t any reality.

Precisely: we are invited again and again to choose between them, or more belatedly to 'consider' PUI en passant because others have argued FAP - specifically, at fertilisation. We counter: no. Neither is realistic, and sense suggests a more intermediate deadline. We present this again and again; and the counter is only "get real". As in: choose FAP or choose DF. We take neither. And I ask further: on what logical basis does DF rest? The happenstance of locale? But if viable, it can be removed. So is this a terminal case of trespassing, then?

It brings to mind the phrase our neighbour has adopted: get real.

 

[billvon]

Neither is realistic, and sense suggests a more intermediate deadline.

So where is that line and what does it represent?

 

[Capracus]

For all the moral outrage, I notice the outrageous lack of anything objective.

This personhood argument is really taking place in the real world, and what is rather distressing about it is the blithe disregard for what some people are about to do if they get their way. The people who advocate these policies? Well, I can understand why they don't want to discuss the implications; what is puzzling is why people who would claim to not support FAP are going out of their way to distract discussion from these issues.

What I and others have advocated is what is essentially the law here in the US, that abortion on demand is a woman’s right to the point of viability, and that after that point the state has the right to protect fetal life to the degree that such measures do not unreasonably burden the welfare of the mother. It doesn’t get more objectively real than that. As for not supporting FAP, other than expressing our opinion and voting accordingly, what do you expect us to do?

You know, it's interesting how a bunch of allegedly rational people not so much disagree with the conflict proposed but, rather, are apparently unable to see it. When people have to compare a woman's uterus to death row in order to get around the personhood argument, as if negligent homicide is on par with the questions of whether spanking is proper or children should be allowed to vote, it's pretty clear there is something else driving their shock and horror and moral outrage toward an observable, objective fact.

I see personhood for what it is, a gradual process of acquiring social privilege based on developmental milestones. Full term childbirth isn’t such a milestone; it’s a change of environment and activity that was a potentiality for the previous 3 months of development. At some midpoint in pregnancy a qualified cognitive state is achieved that allows for minimal sentience, this to me is brain birth and the genesis of our neurologic self, who’s end is marked by the absence of this state as defined by brain death. Minimal sentience, the same consistent line for beginning and end.

If a late term fetus is given protected status, then negligent abuse would be on par with that delivered to a like entity outside the uterus. Like treatment for like status is all I hear being advocated by myself and others, not special rights for mother, fetus or baby.

So what is it? Are you, personally, still pissed about being raked over the coals for buying into one of the dumbest forms of Devil's advocate in history? Well, what did you expect? The dryfoot question becomes a necessary question in the discourse under any PIU standard. If there is an objective resolution to the conflict of two people's equally protected rights conflicting when one person occurs inside and is dependent upon another person, I would suggest finding that argument would be a bit more useful an endeavor than making up insane fantasies to justify your confusion and horror.

I didn’t consider what you and Bells did in the previous thread a coal raking, more of a smoke blowing. I was disappointed that the two of you decided to turn an obvious question of fetal rights into a pointless examination of poultry fisting and human torture. I expected better of you back then, I don’t anymore.

 

[Bells]

And I was more disappointed that no one has been able to address the rights of the mother, even past the point of viability. If your standards were to be adopted, then the woman who was being kept on life support without her, her husband's and her family's consent to simply grow a baby would be an acceptable measure, since she was at the point of viability. Just as the case of saving the baby cost a woman her life and that of her baby, after she decided to push for cancer treatment to try to prolong her life and instead, she was forced into a c-section by the hospital, without her consent or that of her family and without her doctor's permission who stated the foetus could not survive. The baby lived for a few hours and by the time she came to, and found out the baby had died, she died a few days later because of the stress of the surgery. These are the dangers of viability and reality and personhood at any time in a pregnancy.

The reason I believe in the mother's rights to choose is simply that she is the only person going through her experience. I do not believe that she should lose her bodily integrity to the State or the community in such a way. And I certainly would never accept to have the State, who do not know me or my situation, to make that decision for me, without my consent or that of my family's consent. Which is ultimately what happens.

Abortion is strictly regulated. For a valid reason. The analogies of aborting at full term or while it is being delivered or even after, cannot happen in reality. Third trimester abortion providers will not abort past 33-34 weeks. This is the reality. Women do not wait that long because they simply could not make up their minds. The reasons women obtain abortions in the 3rd trimester is because of a newly discovered foetal abnormality that can only be discovered after the 27 week scan, sometimes even later, women who are raped and are in denial of what is happening to their bodies, which I can fully relate to because rape changes your perceptions of reality. It makes you want to hide and pretend it never happened. Having to contemplate being pregnant with your rapists baby, I don't even know how I would cope with something like that. Women who are unable to access an abortion earlier due to distance (90% of counties are without providers in the US.. think about how awful that is at the moment), financial reasons involved in having to travel, find someone to look after your children while you are away, take time off work.. This is not always possible for many women. Lucysnow posted a video of a woman who had a late term abortion in the atheist thread. This poor woman, who discovered a severe and possibly fatal foetal abnormality was forced to travel interstate to be able to access a late term abortion, it cost her a fortune, she had to find someone to stay with her children. This is what it is also like for women having abortions in the first and second trimester. These women have no choice. Would I want to demand that these women carry to term, against and without their consent because they have reached an arbitrary point in the pregnancy determined by the State? No, I can't do that.

The argument that women are somehow negligent is one that is steeped with a history of simply not trusting women to be able to do the right thing. So much so, that the big father State has to make the decision for her and her pregnancy, whether she likes it or not.

This is not even touching on what legally happens when you declare personhood. I have seen many people disregard it and believe that exemptions would exist. They do not. If a belief in personhood saw a hospital order a very sick woman to undergo a forced c-section, resulting in her death and that of her baby in the bid to save her baby, then it is clear that within the realm of competing interests, the baby will win out. Because once you declare personhood, then that person gains all the protections under law that a person automatically gets.

Because extending legal rights to fetuses could criminalize any conduct that might harm a fetus, a prenatal personhood law could chill doctors from providing the best medical care to pregnant women.... Physicians would similarly be at risk for helping a woman experiencing a miscarriage because they could be criminally prosecuted for harming the embryo or fetus.

Further, a prenatal personhood measure might subject a woman who suffers a pregnancy-related complication or a miscarriage to criminal investigations and possibly jail time for homicide, manslaughter or reckless endangerment. And because so many laws use the terms "persons" or "people," a prenatal personhood measure could affect large numbers of a state's laws, changing the application of thousands of laws and resulting in unforeseeable, unintended, and absurd consequences.​

Which is an inherently dangerous position to consider if you are a woman of child bearing age.

And I won't even bother touching on personhood as it would apply to IVF.

There is a reason why I was so disgusted by your turducken argument. Because you belittled women who find themselves in the situation where they are faced with having to access an abortion, this includes women who are facing having to abort due to a foetal abnormality, distance, etc.. Most importantly, you completely disregarded the woman's existence with your unrealistic and false analogy and you also applied an illogical argument and twisted it in such a way, knowing full well that late term abortions are heavily restricted.. You demeaned the woman to being not worthy of consideration. That the only thing that mattered is the "person" in her uterus. She no longer matters past the point of viability, so much so that you were using an analogy that would see her die.

The moment you declare personhood for a foetus, then the mother becomes a potential child abuser. From her consuming alcohol (even one glass) to any drugs or medications that she may take or be prescribed, to what foods she eats which can act as abortificants, to anything she comes into contact with, to her not wearing a seatbelt, to her doing anything that could harm the "person" inside her. Which leaves the door open to so many possibilities - such as wearing high heels while pregnant (risk of falling or losing one's balance), to being prescribed the wrong medication by the doctor and being arrested and charged for killing the baby in the process, as was the case with Michelle Marie Greenup, or doctors who feel that the person in utero is in danger and forcing women to have a dangerous invasive surgical procedures to give birth, without their consent, as happened to Laura Pemberton:

Laura Pemberton, a white woman, was in active labor at her home in Florida. Doctors, aware of this, believed that she was posing a risk to the life of her unborn child by attempting to have a vaginal birth after having had a previous cesarean surgery (VBAC). The doctors sought a court order to force her to undergo this surgical procedure. A sheriff went to Pemberton’s home, took her into custody, strapped her legs together, and forced her to go to a hospital, where an emergency hearing was under way to determine the state’s interest in protecting the fetus still inside her. While lawyers argued on behalf of the fetus, Pemberton and her husband, who were not afforded the opportunity to be represented by counsel, “were allowed to express their views” as she was being prepared for surgery. The judge presiding over the case compelled Pemberton to undergo the operation, which she had refused and believed to be unnecessary. When she later sued for violation of her civil rights, a trial-level federal district court ruled that the state’s interest in preserving the life of the fetus outweighed Pemberton’s rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Pemberton subsequently gave birth vaginally to three more children, calling into question the medical predictions of harm from a VBAC on which the court had relied.


​

Note the bold bits..

This is the reality of personhood.

Her rights disappeared completely. She was not even granted the right to legal representation in the court hearing that was set up in her absence.. Her foetus was granted a point appointed lawyer, she was denied even that right.

People who deem that there are exceptions.. This is the reality of what happens to a woman and is happening to pregnant women because people have deemed her foetus to be a person, with full legal rights while the mother had no legal rights whatsoever. Note how they were quick to declare that her foetus had Constitutional rights. She apparently lost all of hers..

And to me, that is unacceptable.

 

[GeoffP]

Rounding up

And I was more disappointed that no one has been able to address the rights of the mother, even past the point of viability.

This has been addressed numerous times: I think every single person puncturing DF as a license to evil has made this point at least twice. I've said it maybe as many as half a dozen: the deadline proposed, which is more liberal than current deadlines, is mitigated by medical concerns for the mother. Did you somehow miss this yet again? The reality of this is that everyone here has discussed those rights and each one has taken up a reasonable position on the protection of the mother.

I'm disappointed - again - that you have - again - ignored the arguments and comments of those on this thread opposed to your reprehensibly-floated idea and instead substituted a misrepresentation (which by this point some would call an outright lie) that allows you to continue voicing objections to a conundrum which does not exist. The bottom line is that you want DF; we get it. Believe me, after pages of it, we understand your objective. But no one here, and I suspect nearly no one anywhere, would support such a dangerously extremist stance. You want a statement on the rights of the mother after our bright line? Shared. You know, shared, like that thing people do to make a properly social society, neither demanding dominance nor submission.

Abortion is strictly regulated. For a valid reason. The analogies of aborting at full term or while it is being delivered or even after, cannot happen in reality. Third trimester abortion providers will not abort past 33-34 weeks. This is the reality. Women do not wait that long because they simply could not make up their minds. The reasons women obtain abortions in the 3rd trimester is because of a newly discovered foetal abnormality that can only be discovered after the 27 week scan, sometimes even later, women who are raped and are in denial of what is happening to their bodies, which I can fully relate to because rape changes your perceptions of reality.

Then effectively we - you and we - are in agreement. No woman would abort beyond this point save for overriding medical or other reasons, so there is no need to extend abortion rights to DF, which is a license to mayhem against viable fetuses.

There is a reason why I was so disgusted by your turducken argument.

Because you took it - actually or farcically - as an actual option, rather than a rhetorical-satirical tool. This is an elementary mistake, and it is not validated by further screed or pretension that the circumstances of the satire means Capracus wants women to die.

You and Tiassa both express this unrealistic and absolute belief in not so much as a slippery slope of personhood - and this would be wrong enough - but a simple cliff: once personhood at a stage is granted, you feel it must inevitably apply to all stages, or specifically that there exist those that will take it so. And? These people exist anyway and it is a cert that they take support from the existence of any limitations at all, which they churn into a personhood argument. We are not they, which you and Tiassa seem to have finally, grudgingly realised after many long pages of patient and sometimes not-too-patient explanation. Our reconsidered definition would move the deadline back in the ontological scale, a move that could only be taken as support for an integral FAP argument by idiots. Such people do exist, but our stance cannot possibly support fertilisation-line-individual personhood (FLIP) as it moves away from their preferred target date, and because the thinking elements of society have to do their bit also: legal challenges will occur. They must be fought.

Now, that doesn't mean it actually agrees with your DF stance. DF is chosen precisely because it puts all choice with the mother, abrogating any reasonable societal protections to the fetus under the assumption that all mothers will behave ethically because they're mothers. This is a bit tautological and not really supportable. Lots of very nice people make very nasty decisions under pressure and it is part of a social society's job to prevent people from being put in such scenarios by making some actions illegal. So, no, I appreciate your sentiments, but it's not what one would call a particularly smart deadline. The support argument has has - if you'll excuse me - it's legs cut out from under it by the advance of viability. How could it be otherwise?

S: The baby is reliant on me, and I'm aborting it.

R: The baby is biologically independent of you at this phase, and can be recovered. So we'll take it, and find someone who wants it.

S: No, it's still in me, so I'm killing it.​

It's not a trespasser or a parasite. How exactly can you argue for its death at this point? Will you invoke a kind of prenatal "stand your womb"? This among other things does not seem logical or ethical.

I don't know what you can possibly argue against the biological line at this point: all angles have been dealt with. You can't raise "medical reasons", for one thing. What is there left?