Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP]

[quinnsong]

There's a perfectly logical point to declare a fetus to be a person. It's called BIRTH! What in the holy fuck is WRONG with you people????? You take something so simple, so obvious, so natural, so traditional, and you turn it into a TV game show! "Uh, I'll take 48 hours after the first feeble evidence of functionality of the adrenal system for $500, Alex."

I disagree! What THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? How can YOU turn something so obvious, so traditional , so natural as a viable human being into a blob of cells? "I'll take 27 weeks when my womb is no longer necessary for survival of said blob for $2000, Fraggle."

 

[Kittamaru]

It's not a "child" until it is BORN! You're playing games with the language!

Do you really think that the Linguistics Moderator, of all the people here, is going to fall for that bullshit?

You're doing the same thing that the Chinese, the Russians before them, the Germans before them, and probably dozens of other tyrannical governments did before them. You can't find a way to make a convincing point, so you just start redefining words in hopes of confusing us into believing that you're right.

Right right, my apologies - you are so hung up on language that you can't see the point behind it. Right, let me fix that:

you are being just as hateful towards the developing child-to-be

Anywho, stop trying to change the subject.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

you are being just as hateful towards the developing child-to-be

All right, I won't complain if you add the suffix "to-be."

And yes, if that were my wife's survival, or merely her physical health, or hell even just her mental health, that was at stake, that "blob of cells" will come in second-place every time. Even if it's called a "child-to-be."

Anywho, stop trying to change the subject.

Huh??? You people are bastardizing the language in order to manipulate our emotions! I know very well what that means: You can't win your argument with honest methods.

This is why your crowd had to redefine "anti-abortion" as "pro-life," even though the truth is that many abortions are performed to save the mother's life.

Oddly enough, they also redefined "pro-abortion" as "pro-choice," even though every single one of us can agree on one thing: the fetus doesn't get a choice.

There's a very good reason that Religious Redneck Retard is the perfect name for these people. Their cognitive skills are pathetically weak!

 

[Kittamaru]

All right, I won't complain if you add the suffix "to-be."

And yes, if that were my wife's survival, or merely her physical health, or hell even just her mental health, that was at stake, that "blob of cells" will come in second-place every time. Even if it's called a "child-to-be."

Which, as I have said repeatedly is just fine - if there is a legitimate reason for it, the abortion should happen no matter what time in the pregnancy it is. Otherwise, why hasn't the decision been made already?

Huh??? You people are bastardizing the language in order to manipulate our emotions! I know very well what that means: You can't win your argument with honest methods.

Okay, let me ask this: If there is no medical reason to abort the child, why shouldn't the fetus be given consideration, especially if the mother has already carried it for 7 or 8 months? Because, honestly, I can't understand such a line of reasoning.

This is why your crowd had to redefine "anti-abortion" as "pro-life," even though the truth is that many abortions are performed to save the mother's life.

Don't you dare even try to lump me in with the "end abortion" crowd... that is just blatant misrepresentation of my stance and my ideals. If the abortion is necessary to save the mothers life, then by all means, do it. If it is, however, possible to save the mother and the fetus, perhaps that should be considered as well.

Oddly enough, they also redefined "pro-abortion" as "pro-choice," even though every single one of us can agree on one thing: the fetus doesn't get a choice.

A redesignation I never quite understood.

There's a very good reason that Religious Redneck Retard is the perfect name for these people. Their cognitive skills are pathetically weak!

Apparently not... because unfortunately, it seems like the ones trying to outright ban abortion are winning. So... if the "Religious Rednecks" fighting against abortion are apparently winning... then just how "retarded" are the other side of this debate, hm?

Pick your words carefully Fraggle... as you flaunted just a few moments ago, you ARE the Linguistics moderator, after all.

 

[billvon]

You people are bastardizing the language in order to manipulate our emotions! . . . There's a very good reason that Religious Redneck Retard is the perfect name for these people. Their cognitive skills are pathetically weak!

Nope. no attempt to use language to manipulate emotions there.

 

[billvon]

>Oddly enough, they also redefined "pro-abortion" as "pro-choice," . . .
A redesignation I never quite understood.

I understand it. I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion, just as I am against smoking but think that people should have the choice to smoke if they want to (and if the smoke doesn't harm anyone else.)

 

[Kittamaru]

I understand it. I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion, just as I am against smoking but think that people should have the choice to smoke if they want to (and if the smoke doesn't harm anyone else.)

Fair enough I guess, makes sense in the idea that you are letting people have a choice despite not agreeing with their desire.

 

[iceaura]

If there is no medical reason to abort the child, why shouldn't the fetus be given consideration

The fetus should always be given consideration.

As every pregnancy carried to term presents a certainty of serious harm and a substantial risk of death to the pregnant woman, one of the considerations is whether and when and to what degree a particular developing human being (starting with the fertilized egg) should be given legal protection from the ordinary rights of self-defense all human beings, including women, expect to be able to exercise.

if there is a legitimate reason for it

When is there no legitimate reason to prevent serious harm and avoid the substantial risk of death?

 

[Kittamaru]

The fetus should always be given consideration.

As every pregnancy carried to term presents a certainty of serious harm and a substantial risk of death to the pregnant woman, one of the considerations is whether and when and to what degree a particular developing human being (starting with the fertilized egg) should be given legal protection from the ordinary rights of self-defense all human beings, including women, expect to be able to exercise.

When is there no legitimate reason to prevent serious harm and avoid the substantial risk of death?

So... you are claiming that giving birth carries with it a certain risk of death or harm? How do you figure... I mean, if that were true, then how did we, as a species, survive this long?

Hell, by that logic: Crossing the street carries with it the risk of being hit by a bus. Eating food carries with it the risk of getting fat. Breathing carries with it the risk of developing lung cancer from second hand smoke. Exercise is known for a fact to cause damage to muscle tissue (which is how the muscles get stronger). Does that mean we should stop doing all those? For that matter, the very act of living carries with it the certainty of death...

 

[billvon]

So... you are claiming that giving birth carries with it a certain risk of death or harm? How do you figure... I mean, if that were true, then how did we, as a species, survive this long?

Because MOST women survive giving birth. And if a woman gives birth to three children, but dies giving birth to the fourth, then she is (in terms of evolution) successful.

Hell, by that logic: Crossing the street carries with it the risk of being hit by a bus. Eating food carries with it the risk of getting fat. Breathing carries with it the risk of developing lung cancer from second hand smoke.

No. But you do have the right to decide to not cross streets because you don't want to accept the risk, and you have the right to decide what you eat. There are even laws against indoor smoking in many places so you can choose what kind of air you want to breathe.

 

[Kittamaru]

Because MOST women survive giving birth. And if a woman gives birth to three children, but dies giving birth to the fourth, then she is (in terms of evolution) successful.



No. But you do have the right to decide to not cross streets because you don't want to accept the risk, and you have the right to decide what you eat. There are even laws against indoor smoking in many places so you can choose what kind of air you want to breathe.

Then I fail to see your argument here, because the woman ALSO has the right to not have sexual intercourse, or to use protection, or to use contraceptives, or to have her tubes tied, etc...

 

[GeoffP]

Whoa, Bronco! Don't trample!

There's a perfectly logical point to declare a fetus to be a person. It's called BIRTH! What in the holy fuck is WRONG with you people????? You take something so simple, so obvious, so natural, so traditional, and you turn it into a TV game show! "Uh, I'll take 48 hours after the first feeble evidence of functionality of the adrenal system for $500, Alex."

Well of course: no answer to any question can be complex. Complexity comes from the devil, or from the devils who won't believe in the devil, or... well, whatever. Anyway: what exactly is so special about that point? No, really, as our neighbour likes to say: what's so special about it? The fetus is displaced in location? And.. what? Only then - does it enter a cognitive state approaching our own? How would we know this, exactly? I'm not adverse to your position, if logically supported: it's just that it doesn't seem compellingly different, neurocognition-wise.

Uh, no. The Religious Redneck Retards think that they are a majority, but they're just a pathetic special-interest group enjoying their Fifteen Minutes of Fame. Most women are pro-abortion and a large percentage of men are too. The anti-abortion crowd is definitely a minority.

Well thank the ungods that I'm not one of those people. But the conservative pro-choice crowd - of which I am one - seems to hold some reasonable reservations, as well they might.

Surely you've noticed that the anti-abortion movement is populated primarily by men. And surely you've noticed that most men don't really care about women except as sex objects.

After all, the primary driving force behind the anti-abortion movement is the Catholic Church, and they don't even allow women into their power structure!

Yeah! Those bastards! Fortunately, we wouldn't even think to try to prevent women from joining our power structure, and we have many questions and opinions. Not like the Catholic Church.

You're not going to get an answer. Haven't you figured out that these people don't give a flying fuck about the mother? They're all misogynists--even the women among them!

But there are other believers in antiscientific supernatural bullshit who are way ahead of you. They want to call the fetus a "person" at conception.

Unhellfire and nondamnation! Amen, Brother! And thank the not-gods we're not those people! And, since we're not, and since only a fool would think that we're carrying water for them since we explicitly reject their conception of life also, maybe we can just leave them on the shelf. We'll toss them some holy texts and some ammo; it'll keep 'em busy for hours, no worries.

Why do you think that such a middle ground is needed? Have you made a powerful argument that I missed? Or are you, too, caving into the Catholics?

We've covered a variety of compelling reasons for a middle ground. But the counter is unrooted: why would we think that the argument must be reduced to the extremis on either side of the distribution of opinion?

Yeah right. Don't you folks yet understand why we don't merely disapprove of the anti-abortion crowd? We HATE THEM because of their attitude toward our WOMEN.

:shrug: Okay, I guess.

Wait: your women? Frag, I hate to ask at this juncture, but are you doing some satire here?

My parrot clearly displays a high degree of cognition and sentience. Higher than the average Religious Redneck Retard. Your argument is pure bullshit.

All right, that's a 'no'. I don't know how smart your parrot is - I've seen them talk and all, but it's been my experience these days that having access to language is not an indicator of much of anything any more. If it was a 'person', though, would you euthanise it without reasonable cause?

 

[iceaura]

Then I fail to see your argument here, because the woman ALSO has the right to not have sexual intercourse, or to use protection, or to use contraceptives, or to have her tubes tied, etc...

1) What's the relevance? How do those additional "rights" affect a woman's right to self defense against serious bodily harm inflicted by other human beings?

2) No, actually, as the Florida State government reminds us, even an adult woman in some places has no such rights as you list there. Teenage girls, of course, lack most of them in most places.

3) The ability, as well as the right, is at issue.

 

[GeoffP]

Insuffragettes; or, Setting the Floor of the Debate

It's a means of changing the subject.

This should be good.

Think about it, no PIU advocate wants to actually come right out and say that the way to balance a conflict of equal rights is to rescind the pregnant woman's equal entitlement to human rights.

And with FAP bills and ballot measures popping up all over the United States—and these bills are invoking the "equal protection" of the zygote—the question is brought into sharp relief.

Not sure why we're fapping on about PIU. I guess this is a herring.

And for all the complaint about dry-foot, here's the thing: There is a way around it, and that is the point.

OMG OMG OMG - the great one is now going to tell us what the real plan was, all along, that didn't get mentioned until right now. I bolded the important part: a way, the statesman said. A single. Irrefutable. Way. One way. Only. And that way is:

However, that way around it would be to make a rational argument justifying the personhood of a zygote and answering the conflict of assertions of equal rights that give one "person" precedent and authority over another person's very body.

... That's it? So the only way to avoid FAPing is to declare the zygote a person.

Well. I have no words.

Okay, I have a few words: that is, hands down, the most desperately stupid false dichotomy I've ever seen. I really mean this. I mean everything I say, but the point really deserves to be underscored. The personhood of the zygote. I'm sure I'll get called out for not answering this to Tiassa's feigned dissatisfaction, but really - this is the kind of bullshit I'm expected to waste my time discussing. I'll make it short: if you really think there are only the two above possible arguments, then you impressively demolish even my cynical expectations of your intellectual myopia. There is, I'm almost certain, no worse possible argument to be made, or that has been made.

And notice what happens. Allegedly rational discourse must invoke abstract moral authority? Viability magically resolves the conflict of rights? Well, it's true, that particular argument didn't assert magic specifically, but it's still unclear what happens at viability to change the fact of this ontologically extraordinary, newly-categorized "person" exists inside another person.

Hey - hey, Tiassa - it's the, uh... removal of the obligation of dependence on the mother. I think I already mentioned that. This is sort of the basis of the "body" issue. Pass it on. Seriously, I know it's unclear to you, specifically, but that's not exactly a damnation at this juncture.

The reason PIU advocates want to focus on the third trimester is that they can keep making the appeals to

And that's where the argument really goes off the rails. I mean, sure, our neighbour believes that a little casual misrepresentation is no bad thing. In fact, I think he genuinely enjoys it.

No matter how monstrous or evil or outrageous our neighbor finds the dry-foot assertion, it is a logical, rational, observable threshold.

Well, it's none of those three except observable; and that fact is special if you're from someplace that's never heard of the sorcerer's arts called ultrasound. Oh, the wizardry of modern medicine! What will they think of next? It's particularly funny how your reference to rational really boils down to being able to see it with me peepers, without reference to any special characteristics characterising this point. Let's see what you can do here, when pressed: what's special about that point, Tiassa? Come on, don't be scared - explain exactly how it's different, and I'll show you a really magical trick.

We'll just conclude here; the remainder of your argument is just special pleading: I know Geoff - and every other person making the reasoned argument - explicitly reject the personhood of the zygote, encroachment into women's health and abject misogyny, but really, really, I know in my heart of hearts that this is actually what they desperately yearn for. In fact, more than that: I'll just continue to accuse them of that very thing without reference to their arguments, because their arguments don't reflect the point I so desperately need to make. So, instead, I'll talk about an offensive law that Republicans are attempting to pass in South Carolina. By juxtaposting them and this ridiculous bill, hopefully I can fling enough tar to make it look as though their motives are suspect. That about wrap it up, Tiassa?

I think it does. Sure, we could get into the ball-shattering absurdity of how the moderator of ETHICS feels he can just disregard the entire discussion for the purposes of stroking his own ego with a wildly pathetic run at guilt by non-association. Would that be better, Tiassa? And a cup of warm milk, perhaps, and to tell him that no matter what he does, his mummy really loves him. It's my fault, I guess: by their works ye shall know them, they say, and there's no question that by this point I should know 'them' well enough to know that no matter what I actually argued, or how well, it would just end up with you turning a blind eye and continuing to fling feces.

 

[Kittamaru]

1) What's the relevance? How do those additional "rights" affect a woman's right to self defense against serious bodily harm inflicted by other human beings?

2) No, actually, as the Florida State government reminds us, even an adult woman in some places has no such rights as you list there. Teenage girls, of course, lack most of them in most places.

3) The ability, as well as the right, is at issue.

1) The relevance is the same - just as I have the right not to cross the road because I MIGHT get hit by a vehicle, a woman has the right NOT to have sexual intercourse and get pregnant because she MIGHT die during childbirth. Statistically speaking, I'm more likely to get hit by a car than she is to die giving birth, at least in countries with modern medicine.

2) I think I missed something here - as far as I'm aware, no US Government body has legislated that a woman does not have these rights... sure, RELIGIOUS groups have tried to say so... but as some members here are so fond of saying, the religious nutjobs don't get to make the laws.

3) Their ability to use good judgement is an issue... the same could be said about such things as drugs, alcohol, driving the speed limit, sexually transmitted diseases, and taking duck-face selfies.

 

[Trooper]

I disagree! What THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? How can YOU turn something so obvious, so traditional , so natural as a viable human being into a blob of cells? "I'll take 27 weeks when my womb is no longer necessary for survival of said blob for $2000, Fraggle."

Will you tell me what you think about this article?

It seems obvious that we need a clear boundary to confer personhood on a human being and grant it a right to life. Otherwise, we approach a slippery slope that ends in the disposal of inconvenient people or in grotesque deliberations on the value of individual lives. But the endless abortion debate shows how hard it is to locate the boundary. Anti-abortionists draw the line at conception, but that implies we should shed tears every time an invisible conceptus fails to implant in the uterus -- and, to carry the argument to its logical conclusion, that we should prosecute for murder anyone who uses an IUD. Those in favor of abortion draw the line at viability, but viability is a fuzzy gradient that depends on how great a risk of an impaired child the parents are willing to tolerate. The only thing both sides agree on is that the line must be drawn at some point before birth.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/pinker.html

This woman basically holds the same position as, you know, them. For them, the question is not about when the magical journey of personhood begins. It’s all about location-location-location.

Abortion: how late is 'too late'?

 

[Bells]

I'm not sure now. I'm too fascinated by trying to figure out what the hell the above is supposed to mean.

Oh, right - yeah, the first sentence is bullshit, and it makes you a liar yet again. I think my patience is gone.

So you're not demanding restrictions and bans with exemptions for the 3rd trimester?

And there's the social panic again.

Aren't you the one going on and even naming all those who stand with you?

First off, I rather doubt that, because a) the source that's claiming it (reputation matters, you know) and b) because I just doubt that of Balerion. And of course, Balerion is one person. Even if he said exactly that - and that's very dubious - that would be one of 'us'. You're willing to let your slander stand as it applies to the others. Nice.

"One of us... One of us... One of us"..

How appropriate..

For one, I didn't say I don't care about a pregnant woman's safety past 27 weeks. I said that her safety isn't important to me when she's trying to kill her child.

In other words, when she's being a good incubator, then she's fine. But if she chooses to assert her rights over her body, then her safety within the context of possible death if she has to resort to a backyard abortion if a ban is in place and she does not fit your pathetic little criteria, then it is wholly unimportant.

And that's the thing about your combined freakish attitude. You care so little about the mother that you don't even care if she dies. She is unimportant. The only thing that matters is the child in her womb. And when that child is born, then bleh, fuck it, onto the next pregnant woman.

I'm stuck with Tiassa's Dilemma here again: do I believe that you really don't realise that the examples you cite don't have anything to do with the deadline I'm proposing, based off an actually objective analysis, and which is even more liberal than the present thresholds, or instead should I believe that you just ignored it? Do you know what an objective comparison is? What happens when you have no restrictions at all? Have you considered any of that? Or would that be too threatening to your political synthesis?

A third trimester abortion takes days, is exceptionally painful and traumatic.

In places where there are no restrictions, the figures are still below 1%.

Or are you of the belief that more women are simply going to wait until right to the end (even though I provided evidence by way of interviews with abortionists who perform 3rd trimester abortions which clearly state the safe cut off point is 33-34 weeks because it is too risky after that) or even to the 3rd trimester to endure 3-4 days of agonizing pain and then what is literally a 'birth' for fun or something?

So why this panic about 3rd trimester abortions?

Much less women have them, even in areas where they are legal.

So what's the deal?

Why do you wish to restrict it when it actually does not need restricting? If you want to remove the women who are apparently waiting that long because they cannot afford or access one earlier due to the fact that they may need to travel hundreds of miles to be able to access one in the first trimester and be put through ridiculous rigmaroles to be able to get one in the 1st trimester, from that group who get abortions in the 3rd trimester, then demand from your Government that they make abortions more widely available in the first and second trimester.

That would reduce that giant and apparently very stressful and very concerning 1% figure you're all so stressed about, dramatically.

Gee, a solution that provides women with more choices earlier on that does not equate forcing women to have to wait 'so long' to get one and you get what you want without imposing more restrictions on women.. Less third trimester abortions.

Because you're carrying a fetus in you that's viable and may be expressing elements of cognition or sentience; which is to say 'personhood'. (Op! There's that naughty word again.) Who the fuck are you to it?

I am the one carrying it in my uterus.

Who and what are you to me again?

Why the fuck should I care about what you think or want? You are a complete stranger. You are not the father or my doctor. You have nothing to do with me or with it. So why should I care about what you think or want?

Whether I abort it or not has no affect on you whatsoever. It has nothing to do with you.

Your emotive mystical psycho babble and "sentience", etc, mean diddly squat to anyone who is not your wife.

So, by argument of relationship, you should be allowed to terminate a late fetus whenever you want and for any reason you want. That's such a strange point to make. So, we need control over elements of society, and economy, but not your uterus and certainly not for the welfare of the viable organism inside it.

When my uterus affects 'elements of society and economy', then you can have control over it.

Until then, it is none of your business.

Why don't you just charge it with trespassing instead? Or you could fire some shots at it, a la "Stand your Ground". You could call it "Stand your Womb".

Well if I am 27 weeks pregnant and I don't want it there, I'll just abort it. What is it to you? Who are you to me and to the "baby" again?

No need to be stupid or use such stupid and emotive and unrealistic arguments.

As for all this crap: Sorry, you can't just affirm your way out of the argument on the very grounds of discussion. Comments flushed. (Pardon the pun.)

Actually I can.

It's my body.

You can't even answer who or what are you to me that I should care about what you think I do with my uterus. All you resorted to was emotional and frankly kinda stupid analogies that do not even apply to pregnancy or pregnant women and spouted emotional and mystical psycho babble about "sentience".

You don't agree with 3rd trimester abortions? Don't get one.

Your dilemma is solved.

 

[Bells]

I disagree! What THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? How can YOU turn something so obvious, so traditional , so natural as a viable human being into a blob of cells? "I'll take 27 weeks when my womb is no longer necessary for survival of said blob for $2000, Fraggle."

Well we are all blobs of cells.

We are fully made up of cells. So his analogy is correct.

And if you disagree with abortions, don't get one. No one should ever force you to get one. To have a child or not have a child is and should always be entirely your choice. Fraggle would argue just as vehemently against anyone who tried to force you to abort a wanted foetus. That's the thing, it is about choice.

---

Surely you've noticed that the anti-abortion movement is populated primarily by men. And surely you've noticed that most men don't really care about women except as sex objects.

After all, the primary driving force behind the anti-abortion movement is the Catholic Church, and they don't even allow women into their power structure!

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the woman is the murderous irresponsible bitch for wanting to murder her "baby".

Not to mention, what happens to our language and common sense if we start calling a blob of cells that can only survive in a specialized environment a person?

Oh you haven't been keeping up..

It's now a conscious, aware and feeling person. The language has changed.

Science? What science?!

It's hysterical.

And as for how these people describe the mother?

the woman ALSO has the right to not have sexual intercourse, or to use protection, or to use contraceptives, or to have her tubes tied, etc...

Like how he removes the man from that entirely?

Why doesn't the man not have sex, use protection or have his tubes tied?

But in the eyes of these people, if she gets pregnant, then she was irresponsible. It is her job to prevent falling pregnant.

You know, the irresponsible woman who deserves it and must be made to pay for her irresponsibility argument?

The language has changed, well sort of. When it comes to the foetus, it is now a feeling, conscious and aware child or baby. The language for the woman remains the same though. She's just the irresponsible woman who has sex, falls pregnant and then murders her baby.

People who support the woman's right to choose her reproductive options are supporters of murdering babies, as I have been accused of apparently being.

These are the confines of the language of their argument. They cannot operate outside of that, even when shown the scientific proof that they are in fact wrong.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I love women, but you can't run the world by yourselves any better than we can.

I completely agree.

 

[billvon]

Then I fail to see your argument here, because the woman ALSO has the right to not have sexual intercourse, or to use protection, or to use contraceptives, or to have her tubes tied, etc...

Definitely. That does not remove other rights that she has.