Next thing you will be challenging me to a fist fight out the front of the department of social security at 10am tomorrow
:shrug:
Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
:shrug:
I think a survay would be good enough, what your asking for could be invasion of privacy.
I'm pretty sure abortion doctors are well tracked.
I think it part of public health, preventing unwanted children from being born, sounds pretty good to me.
Is that an available option? Do you usually hang out at the SS office around 10? I'm sure you can collect a lot of "data" that way. :shrug:
Can you explain how this one scenario makes me pro-life? Am I advocating that life begins at conception? Am I advocating that abortions be made illegal? That scenario only proves I make an exception for a extreme scenario to remain ethically consistant, one that may in fact be purely hypothetical. Considering how much noise Bells makes about hypothetical situations not counting it seem unfair that I be judged by a diffrent standard.
I don't plan to ever marry, I don't need to explain to you my sexual prefrence as frankly its a long explaination, but marriage to a women or man is not for me. Again as explained before "years early" could not happen under my ethical framework for if she going to die after a full term pregnancy then there is no need to abort: just do a cessection before birth.
Am I suppose to care about your revulsion? How about this I'm disgusted you think a mother has the right to murder a viable fetus to buy a few extra weeks of life.
Lead by example
Or did you miss that I was offering a reference to where it was?
it would be even nicer if you would demonstrate your claim of "my rape advocacy" rather than hysterically bantering it around in a loaded question format in a thread already championing the cause of hysteria.
:shrug:
so did you miss how that is not where the subject was introduced in its first instance?
Or did you miss that I was offering a reference to where it was?
it would be even nicer if you would demonstrate your claim of "my rape advocacy" rather than hysterically bantering it around in a loaded question format in a thread already championing the cause of hysteria.
:shrug:
Probably the prime location for hysterical people with unresolved conflict issues to get to the bottom of things.
:shrug:
Last edited:
One notable aspect of this post is that the presence of the last line indicates that the entire post is purposeful, conscious.
The poster's agenda is to misrepresent "what and why people are saying things", deliberately. And they are aware of that - self aware. All that word salad and deflective foggery is calculated, the opportunities for personal insult arranged and foreseen.
That is not just trolling: it's sociopathic. Providing a platform for that poster is abetting a mental illness.
Mod Hat — The clock is running
Mod Hat — The clock is running
It should be noted that we have reached a crossroads. Actually, we've passed this way a few times before.
In recent weeks, this thread has escalated from the blatant misogyny of trolling in order to suppress a discussion of a woman's human rights to sexual harassment and rape advocacy.
The staff has, in response to a moderator policy inquiry, explored of late the question of open insults versus bad faith. The underlying proposition seemed dysfunctional, but as we could not reconcile the terms, this thread, which was the genesis of that inquiry, was allowed to follow its natural course.
EM&J is my responsibility. I have chosen to let this run as long as it has, and now members have escalated to a new valence of offenses.
There will be repercussions. They will be severe.
The proposition underlying the policy dispute we've undertaken has fallen through. Not even its original advocate is willing to push the case.
What a waste.
I would advise some of our members to start composing their explanations, justifications, pleas for mercy, or condemnations of everyone else in the world, except to be frank, I don't care. You had your chances, and now you've gone too far. We have tolerated advocacy of bad behavior to the point that such behavior no longer has an advocate; the behavior has overwhelmed what would otherwise be its protection.
Again, what a waste.
There comes a point when ignorance is no excuse. To the other, that checkpoint is somewhere in the dusty nowhere we have already traversed.
Say whatever you need to say. The clock is running, and zero hour is whatever time we manage to wade through this abhorrent display of hatred and bigotry.
Mod Hat — The clock is running
It should be noted that we have reached a crossroads. Actually, we've passed this way a few times before.
In recent weeks, this thread has escalated from the blatant misogyny of trolling in order to suppress a discussion of a woman's human rights to sexual harassment and rape advocacy.
The staff has, in response to a moderator policy inquiry, explored of late the question of open insults versus bad faith. The underlying proposition seemed dysfunctional, but as we could not reconcile the terms, this thread, which was the genesis of that inquiry, was allowed to follow its natural course.
EM&J is my responsibility. I have chosen to let this run as long as it has, and now members have escalated to a new valence of offenses.
There will be repercussions. They will be severe.
The proposition underlying the policy dispute we've undertaken has fallen through. Not even its original advocate is willing to push the case.
What a waste.
I would advise some of our members to start composing their explanations, justifications, pleas for mercy, or condemnations of everyone else in the world, except to be frank, I don't care. You had your chances, and now you've gone too far. We have tolerated advocacy of bad behavior to the point that such behavior no longer has an advocate; the behavior has overwhelmed what would otherwise be its protection.
Again, what a waste.
There comes a point when ignorance is no excuse. To the other, that checkpoint is somewhere in the dusty nowhere we have already traversed.
Say whatever you need to say. The clock is running, and zero hour is whatever time we manage to wade through this abhorrent display of hatred and bigotry.
Certainly hope the process involves more than you and bells explaining to each other why you are right.
Given that I am probably on the menu, its a bit hard to offer an explanation of "my rape advocacy" when you purposely refuse to discuss it outside loaded questions .
:shrug:
That 1% of the annual one million abortions comes out to 10000. So out of that not so small number, do you know the specifics and fetal age associated with each of these cases? Since the vast majority of abortions are done for non-medical reasons, you don’t think that some percentage of these late term procedures also fit that criterion?
Where have I suggested that a mother must sacrifice her life for that of her fetus? Pregnancy is not normally considered a death sentence, and the risk of carrying a late term fetus to delivery is statistically equal to that of a late term abortion. When a pregnancy legitimately threatens the life of a mother, and the only resolution is to sacrifice the fetus, then the fetus loses.
Talk about twisting, where have I advocated killing women, fetuses or babies?
So all of my previous links regarding actual late term abortions and neonaticide were just so much asspullery.
Oh I get it; I’m a misogynist for advocating a policy that the vast majority of women would support over yours. Does this statistical reality make you and Tiassa misogynists too?
I’m a misogynist for presenting an abstract example to demonstrate the absurdity of your personhood belief. Oh, and for asking you to weigh yourself on the sun.
Just to be clear, the only evidence of me advocating the needless death of anything in this thread is in your own demented mind, because it most definitely isn't in any of my posts.
Speaking of supporting things fatal, who was it dispite evidence to the contrary, issued a blanket excuse of depression to women who commit neonaticide?
Then why advocate for the right to have it done?
Bells
Staff member
The how's and the why's..
Capracus
You are advocating for personhood from viability, yes?
Women are being forced to die because of the application of personhood from viability. Read the countless links provided in this thread of women who are, quite literally, forced into situations where they die, because they are ill and they are denied the ability to medicate themselves, seek treatment or abort after the 24 week viability mark, because they are pregnant. So when you say to me 'your position is absurd, because I support a woman's right to choose her own life', you might perhaps understand where I am coming from.
I have provided link after link, even an interview of an abortionist who performs late term abortions and all set out, clearly, how and why women seek out abortions in their third trimester and when she and others like her will and will not perform the abortion.
My dry foot policy is a very simple one, but also a reasonable one, given the circumstances of reality and not the land of turn a woman into a Turducken fantasy you tried to bring to the table. The very few women who do have a late term abortion do so for reasons that are valid to them. So what I believe is that women are more than capable of making these decisions for themselves and their families without the obscene arguments made about the 'what if you stuffed it back in, can she abort it then' and the vivid description of a murderer who killed live and born babies. The reality of late term abortion and the pain some women have to endure leading up to it, during and after is not something that can ever be explained to you.
I don't dictate what a woman should or should not do. Because I believe women are the ones who have to make this decision and they should be free to make a decision that will affect their lives and their bodies as they see fit. It's their life and their body, not mine. So I am not going to call a woman who finds herself in that kind of situation a murderer, whatever the reason that led her there. Nor will I bring up the specter of a Turducken to damn her actions or choices, because she's 'murdering a baby, so why not just kill it after it is born' argument you seem to have going on here.
A late term abortion is not a lifestyle thing, it's not because she doesn't want to be lumped with a baby and has just changed her mind after enduring the horrors of early pregnancy and all it entails and gotten to late term and gone 'bleh, can't be shagged anymore, I want to kill it'. It doesn't actually work that way in real life. It might be portrayed that way, but that's not reality. The doctor who performed such abortions was also very clear about that. The decision to abort is never one that a woman makes lightly, certainly not in late term after the point of viability. It is a harrowing experience and a harrowing choice. Hence why I don't stand over women and browbeat them about their choices or their bodies by making retarded arguments about 'what if it's stuffed back in, can it be aborted then' and certainly do not compare their choice or my support for their choice as murdering born babies.
When you continuously use arguments of 'what if's', to me and to others here, you are simply trying to find new and extreme ways to kill a woman. That she is facing an absolutely horrific choice, you disregard that. Completely and utterly. I suppose it could be why you are able to come up with such horrifying false scenarios that do not exist in real life in your protest for my dry-foot argument that a woman is the one who controls and should always have the say about what goes on in her body.
That you callously believe that she does not take into consideration the foetus she is terminating, well, that just shows just how little you actually get it.
Capracus
You are advocating for personhood from viability, yes?
Women are being forced to die because of the application of personhood from viability. Read the countless links provided in this thread of women who are, quite literally, forced into situations where they die, because they are ill and they are denied the ability to medicate themselves, seek treatment or abort after the 24 week viability mark, because they are pregnant. So when you say to me 'your position is absurd, because I support a woman's right to choose her own life', you might perhaps understand where I am coming from.
I have provided link after link, even an interview of an abortionist who performs late term abortions and all set out, clearly, how and why women seek out abortions in their third trimester and when she and others like her will and will not perform the abortion.
My dry foot policy is a very simple one, but also a reasonable one, given the circumstances of reality and not the land of turn a woman into a Turducken fantasy you tried to bring to the table. The very few women who do have a late term abortion do so for reasons that are valid to them. So what I believe is that women are more than capable of making these decisions for themselves and their families without the obscene arguments made about the 'what if you stuffed it back in, can she abort it then' and the vivid description of a murderer who killed live and born babies. The reality of late term abortion and the pain some women have to endure leading up to it, during and after is not something that can ever be explained to you.
I don't dictate what a woman should or should not do. Because I believe women are the ones who have to make this decision and they should be free to make a decision that will affect their lives and their bodies as they see fit. It's their life and their body, not mine. So I am not going to call a woman who finds herself in that kind of situation a murderer, whatever the reason that led her there. Nor will I bring up the specter of a Turducken to damn her actions or choices, because she's 'murdering a baby, so why not just kill it after it is born' argument you seem to have going on here.
A late term abortion is not a lifestyle thing, it's not because she doesn't want to be lumped with a baby and has just changed her mind after enduring the horrors of early pregnancy and all it entails and gotten to late term and gone 'bleh, can't be shagged anymore, I want to kill it'. It doesn't actually work that way in real life. It might be portrayed that way, but that's not reality. The doctor who performed such abortions was also very clear about that. The decision to abort is never one that a woman makes lightly, certainly not in late term after the point of viability. It is a harrowing experience and a harrowing choice. Hence why I don't stand over women and browbeat them about their choices or their bodies by making retarded arguments about 'what if it's stuffed back in, can it be aborted then' and certainly do not compare their choice or my support for their choice as murdering born babies.
When you continuously use arguments of 'what if's', to me and to others here, you are simply trying to find new and extreme ways to kill a woman. That she is facing an absolutely horrific choice, you disregard that. Completely and utterly. I suppose it could be why you are able to come up with such horrifying false scenarios that do not exist in real life in your protest for my dry-foot argument that a woman is the one who controls and should always have the say about what goes on in her body.
That you callously believe that she does not take into consideration the foetus she is terminating, well, that just shows just how little you actually get it.
Oh, the irony.
That would also require a radical change in attitudes toward sex and toward heterosexual relationships in general, and also toward the topic of the meaning of life as such.
So far, it appears that many people prefer a reduced quality of life to changing the way they go about life.
Misogyny is not ancient at all, it is very modern, and often found among those who are its vocal opponents ...
The dry foot model has the fault that a fetus has no rights what so ever until the moment it leaves the women body, thus allowing abortion at any time the fetus is still inside the mother, later term abortions are technically ethical up to the moment of birth, no reason is needed. The counter arguments given to this have been flawed or fallacious.
First counter arguement: No women would abort that late, every women comits late term abortions for good reason.
I find this rather misyogenistic for it implies that all women's behavior is fundemental preditictable. Aside for the fact some women to comit murder, murder their children and even murder their infatns moments after birth, it suggest that somehow that it's impossible for a women to even want to murder it moments before birth. I'm sure most women do have late term abortions for good reason, just like most women don't comit murder, but it is impossible to say not a single women who as ever live, alive today, or will ever live would want a later term abortion for frivilous reasons.
The next problem is it does not discrimate time. Somehow an abortion moments before birth is impossible, yet what is the diffrence between that and 35 weeks, or 30 weeks or even 24 weeks? In all those cases the fetus is technically viable, its probablity of survive if removed goes from 50% at 24 weeks to nearly 100% by 40, is there a probabiliy other then 50% that makes the dividing line? The next coutner argument tries to provide this but fails.
Counter argument #2: No doctor would do an extremely later term abortion, or at least without good reason.
Here the point at which an abortion is ethical or not is given to doctors to decide. Aside for being arbitary and assuming all doctors are perfectly ethical, this argument defeats the idea of the 'dry foot' model optimizing women's rights, for it allow doctors to strip women of the right over their body. If a women wants an abortion and the doctor says no, then her rights have been oppressed as the 'dry foot' model dictates she has full rights to her body up until the fetus is not in her anymore and yet a doctor has strip her of that control.
Counter argument #3: It is not realistic.
late term abortions do in fact happen, in real life, yes they are rare and yes they are usually done for extreme medical reason, but the 'dry foot' model does not require that later term abortions be done for special reason, and as discribe before it's unrealistic to assume that it never has been and never will be done for poor reasons.
Counter argument #4: Your just finding new ways to kill women! you hate women, you misogynistic troll, stupid, terrorist, pedophile...
Aside for breaking rules on name calling this is not a counter arguement. Pointing out that later term abortions happen and could be forbiden in specific circumstance by my ethics does not mean I hate women, or want women to die. This "arguement" generlizes any scenario given as to being about all women and thus the outcome is applied to all women. For example:
"A women holds a gun to a childs head and claims she is going to kill it, I advocate that everything be done to stop her, including killing her if need be."
Would be interpreted as me wanting to kill all women.
Countar argument #5: Any hypothetical arguement, either being a generlization of a real event or purely hypothetical, can't be used.
Why? No reason is given other then #4 or that it is somehow not realistic, dispite the fact that is based on real events (later term abortions happen).
Finally the mods have now openly threaten punishment but have not specified whom or what comments specifically they find in violation. I would assume that my arguement that replying to trolls is like giving them blowjobs is a problem, it was done it poor taste and I appologize, I did not mean to suggest, as Bell's claims, to actually give a troll a blowjob.
First counter arguement: No women would abort that late, every women comits late term abortions for good reason.
I find this rather misyogenistic for it implies that all women's behavior is fundemental preditictable. Aside for the fact some women to comit murder, murder their children and even murder their infatns moments after birth, it suggest that somehow that it's impossible for a women to even want to murder it moments before birth. I'm sure most women do have late term abortions for good reason, just like most women don't comit murder, but it is impossible to say not a single women who as ever live, alive today, or will ever live would want a later term abortion for frivilous reasons.
The next problem is it does not discrimate time. Somehow an abortion moments before birth is impossible, yet what is the diffrence between that and 35 weeks, or 30 weeks or even 24 weeks? In all those cases the fetus is technically viable, its probablity of survive if removed goes from 50% at 24 weeks to nearly 100% by 40, is there a probabiliy other then 50% that makes the dividing line? The next coutner argument tries to provide this but fails.
Counter argument #2: No doctor would do an extremely later term abortion, or at least without good reason.
Here the point at which an abortion is ethical or not is given to doctors to decide. Aside for being arbitary and assuming all doctors are perfectly ethical, this argument defeats the idea of the 'dry foot' model optimizing women's rights, for it allow doctors to strip women of the right over their body. If a women wants an abortion and the doctor says no, then her rights have been oppressed as the 'dry foot' model dictates she has full rights to her body up until the fetus is not in her anymore and yet a doctor has strip her of that control.
Counter argument #3: It is not realistic.
late term abortions do in fact happen, in real life, yes they are rare and yes they are usually done for extreme medical reason, but the 'dry foot' model does not require that later term abortions be done for special reason, and as discribe before it's unrealistic to assume that it never has been and never will be done for poor reasons.
Counter argument #4: Your just finding new ways to kill women! you hate women, you misogynistic troll, stupid, terrorist, pedophile...
Aside for breaking rules on name calling this is not a counter arguement. Pointing out that later term abortions happen and could be forbiden in specific circumstance by my ethics does not mean I hate women, or want women to die. This "arguement" generlizes any scenario given as to being about all women and thus the outcome is applied to all women. For example:
"A women holds a gun to a childs head and claims she is going to kill it, I advocate that everything be done to stop her, including killing her if need be."
Would be interpreted as me wanting to kill all women.
Countar argument #5: Any hypothetical arguement, either being a generlization of a real event or purely hypothetical, can't be used.
Why? No reason is given other then #4 or that it is somehow not realistic, dispite the fact that is based on real events (later term abortions happen).
Finally the mods have now openly threaten punishment but have not specified whom or what comments specifically they find in violation. I would assume that my arguement that replying to trolls is like giving them blowjobs is a problem, it was done it poor taste and I appologize, I did not mean to suggest, as Bell's claims, to actually give a troll a blowjob.
Monster Mash
Cloverfield. Alien.
What? Sure, they're movies, but the idea of an extraterrestrial or other monstrous creature seeding inside the human body and destroying them in order to be born is statistically more likely in the future than women suddenly deciding to have last-second D&Xs. Or doctors suddenly deciding to reattach umbilical cords and stuff babies back inside women.
And, well, you know, since this debate has some overlap with the real world—despite our anti-abortion neighbors protestations to the other—we might as well point out that I'm not the first to come up with this idea.
See #126 (December 5, 2012); click the spoiler button. See also #1029.
No, really. If your twisted fantasies are to be taken remotely seriously, then your serious answer is to consider a point already on the record from the anti-abortion side of the argument—monster movies.
Thus, you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you helped make sure this little person could come into the world and eat your heart out.
Look, you're pushing this argument on the basis of aesthetics; it's not enough to simply redefine reality, but you also need to redefine what people are saying to you.
Dry-foot is a very simple standard, yes. But it is also a bright-line standard; regardless of anything else, you and I can agree, I think, that at the point the baby is out of the womb and the cord detached, there is no question of personhood. It is also a pretty stable standard since there is no possibility of creep; it's not like "viability", in which anti-abortion advocates are now trying to push the threshold early enough that many women won't even know they're pregnant before the law—contrary to medicine—deems the fetus viable.
It's one thing to ask silly, fantastic questions.
It's another to keep pushing when there's an answer on the record.
And if you don't like monster movies as an answer, perhaps you should take a moment to consider the insanity of reattaching the umbilical cord and stuffing the baby back into the womb.
Give humanity enough time in this Universe, and we will find a doctor twisted enough to try that. Give the Universe all the time that it has, and if we last long enough, we'll see other species popping out of our bodies.
Look, it's a pretty abstract discussion when we are supposed to find some credibility, under the principle of charity in philosophical discourse, to accommodate those who cannot tell the difference between a blastocyst from the human centipede. (It's rumored the third chapter of the film series will feature a "centipede" of over five hundred humans ass-to-mouth; yeah, I would think the difference is pretty obvious, but apparently that's a snobby, elitist expectation.)
And, really, let us review the essential discussion of the thread:
I mean, really. Fifteen months. Sixteen hundred posts. Two threads. At some point, here, it would be nice to actually discuss the topic at some point.
And it's one thing that people have opinions. But, for instance, last week it happened that an associate of mine, who happens to be anti-abortion, got frustrated with talk of personhood; I don't entertain any discussion of abortion politics these days without putting this issue front and center—the subject has been avoided for too long. My associate, however, demanded that I stop inventing arguments for anti-abortion. I reminded him of bills, laws, and ballot measures in several states, as well as in Congress. And, yeah, I ripped him a new one over that. I probably shouldn't have, because I haven't heard from him in over a week.
But apparently—at least, taking him at face value—he was so pissed off at the LACP proposition because he was completely unaware that such legislation is in play. Furthermore, it seems he has forgotten how much of the anti-abortion movement relies on LACP regardless of whether they're pushing that specific legislation.
The only surprising thing is that someone so vocal on the issue should also be so ignorant of its dimensions and processes.
So, yeah. That people have opinions is one thing. That those opinions are devised in ignorance would certainly be a reason they weigh light on the scale.
I mean, if you look through this thread, you'll even find the argument that life itself is a tort.
Apply that apparent ignorance to the discussion. Okay, so someone is offended by the LACP projections. We get that. What, then, do the advocates expect to happen? Well, let's talk about other stuff instead. Fetal personhood, for instance. Sure it was conceded at the outset, but it's more important to rehash that than discuss what happens to a woman's rights under LACP according to equal protection and due process, guarantees of the supreme law of the land. And what about men's rights? Shit, there's also the rights of corpses. Oh, and by the way, what is this LACP you speak of? Why are you making it up? Nobody believes in that stuff. Oh, hey, and by the way: What if the umbilical cord was reattached and the baby stuffed back into the womb, would it cease to be a person?
No, really. You're hardly the worst of offenders on this count, but that really was some gold-standard deviance you showed us.
But think about it: Fifteen months ago, the question of legislation moving in the states and Congress—LACP—was put up against the law that would govern those laws—the United States Constitution. In that time, anti-abortion advocates at Sciforums have tried to divorce themselves from one of the fundamental concepts driving the anti-abortion movement in general, demanded discussion of anything but the topic proposition, and have proposed everything from life as a tort to reattaching the umbilical cord and stuffing the baby back into a woman in order to avoid the discussion.
Think about that, please.
The lessons are myriad; the only difference is how deeply we reach into the hat before pulling out the slip.
But fifteen months of determined avoidance make a very clear case. We're pretty sure about the anti-abortion movement in general, but this discussion has made it perfectly clear that in this community, the anti-abortion sentiment is driven not by any concern for the little "people" inside women, but instead the need to put women back in their proverbial places.
Capracus said:
Cloverfield. Alien.
What? Sure, they're movies, but the idea of an extraterrestrial or other monstrous creature seeding inside the human body and destroying them in order to be born is statistically more likely in the future than women suddenly deciding to have last-second D&Xs. Or doctors suddenly deciding to reattach umbilical cords and stuff babies back inside women.
And, well, you know, since this debate has some overlap with the real world—despite our anti-abortion neighbors protestations to the other—we might as well point out that I'm not the first to come up with this idea.
See #126 (December 5, 2012); click the spoiler button. See also #1029.
No, really. If your twisted fantasies are to be taken remotely seriously, then your serious answer is to consider a point already on the record from the anti-abortion side of the argument—monster movies.
Thus, you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you helped make sure this little person could come into the world and eat your heart out.
Look, you're pushing this argument on the basis of aesthetics; it's not enough to simply redefine reality, but you also need to redefine what people are saying to you.
Dry-foot is a very simple standard, yes. But it is also a bright-line standard; regardless of anything else, you and I can agree, I think, that at the point the baby is out of the womb and the cord detached, there is no question of personhood. It is also a pretty stable standard since there is no possibility of creep; it's not like "viability", in which anti-abortion advocates are now trying to push the threshold early enough that many women won't even know they're pregnant before the law—contrary to medicine—deems the fetus viable.
It's one thing to ask silly, fantastic questions.
It's another to keep pushing when there's an answer on the record.
And if you don't like monster movies as an answer, perhaps you should take a moment to consider the insanity of reattaching the umbilical cord and stuffing the baby back into the womb.
Give humanity enough time in this Universe, and we will find a doctor twisted enough to try that. Give the Universe all the time that it has, and if we last long enough, we'll see other species popping out of our bodies.
Look, it's a pretty abstract discussion when we are supposed to find some credibility, under the principle of charity in philosophical discourse, to accommodate those who cannot tell the difference between a blastocyst from the human centipede. (It's rumored the third chapter of the film series will feature a "centipede" of over five hundred humans ass-to-mouth; yeah, I would think the difference is pretty obvious, but apparently that's a snobby, elitist expectation.)
And, really, let us review the essential discussion of the thread:
"What happens to a woman's human rights under LACP?"
―What if the umbilical cord was reattached and the baby stuffed back into the womb, would it cease to be a person?
I mean, really. Fifteen months. Sixteen hundred posts. Two threads. At some point, here, it would be nice to actually discuss the topic at some point.
And it's one thing that people have opinions. But, for instance, last week it happened that an associate of mine, who happens to be anti-abortion, got frustrated with talk of personhood; I don't entertain any discussion of abortion politics these days without putting this issue front and center—the subject has been avoided for too long. My associate, however, demanded that I stop inventing arguments for anti-abortion. I reminded him of bills, laws, and ballot measures in several states, as well as in Congress. And, yeah, I ripped him a new one over that. I probably shouldn't have, because I haven't heard from him in over a week.
But apparently—at least, taking him at face value—he was so pissed off at the LACP proposition because he was completely unaware that such legislation is in play. Furthermore, it seems he has forgotten how much of the anti-abortion movement relies on LACP regardless of whether they're pushing that specific legislation.
The only surprising thing is that someone so vocal on the issue should also be so ignorant of its dimensions and processes.
So, yeah. That people have opinions is one thing. That those opinions are devised in ignorance would certainly be a reason they weigh light on the scale.
I mean, if you look through this thread, you'll even find the argument that life itself is a tort.
Apply that apparent ignorance to the discussion. Okay, so someone is offended by the LACP projections. We get that. What, then, do the advocates expect to happen? Well, let's talk about other stuff instead. Fetal personhood, for instance. Sure it was conceded at the outset, but it's more important to rehash that than discuss what happens to a woman's rights under LACP according to equal protection and due process, guarantees of the supreme law of the land. And what about men's rights? Shit, there's also the rights of corpses. Oh, and by the way, what is this LACP you speak of? Why are you making it up? Nobody believes in that stuff. Oh, hey, and by the way: What if the umbilical cord was reattached and the baby stuffed back into the womb, would it cease to be a person?
No, really. You're hardly the worst of offenders on this count, but that really was some gold-standard deviance you showed us.
But think about it: Fifteen months ago, the question of legislation moving in the states and Congress—LACP—was put up against the law that would govern those laws—the United States Constitution. In that time, anti-abortion advocates at Sciforums have tried to divorce themselves from one of the fundamental concepts driving the anti-abortion movement in general, demanded discussion of anything but the topic proposition, and have proposed everything from life as a tort to reattaching the umbilical cord and stuffing the baby back into a woman in order to avoid the discussion.
Think about that, please.
"Conceding personhood at fertilization, what happens to a woman's human rights under LACP?"
―We must reiterate the conceded argument, that a fertilized ovum is a person.
―We must discuss the rights of men.
―We must discuss the rights of corpses.
―What is this LACP straw man?
―What if the umbilical cord was reattached and the baby stuffed back into the womb, would it cease to be a person?
―We must discuss the rights of men.
―We must discuss the rights of corpses.
―What is this LACP straw man?
―What if the umbilical cord was reattached and the baby stuffed back into the womb, would it cease to be a person?
The lessons are myriad; the only difference is how deeply we reach into the hat before pulling out the slip.
But fifteen months of determined avoidance make a very clear case. We're pretty sure about the anti-abortion movement in general, but this discussion has made it perfectly clear that in this community, the anti-abortion sentiment is driven not by any concern for the little "people" inside women, but instead the need to put women back in their proverbial places.
Yes you are, in some cases at least. That seems self-evident in this remark:
The mother chose abortion, in this case to prolong her own life. You would deny that choice by force of law - as in: "if the extraction is going to kill her then and there so be it." Would you label that "pro-choice"? Do you need a dictionary to aid you here?
Ethically consistent? the only thing consistent about your "ethics" is that you place the potential life of a foetus over the life of the mother. It's really pretty obvious EF. To you, if the foetus is "viable" its rights outweigh the mothers. Every time. Right?
Purely hypothetical, eh? I think it's not much of a stretch to get from here:
The mother of a pregnant leukemia patient who died after her chemotherapy was delayed over anti- abortion laws is accusing doctors of not putting her daughter's health first. The 16-year-old's plight attracted worldwide attention after she had to wait for chemotherapy because of an abortion ban in the Dominican Republic. Doctors were hesitant to give her chemotherapy because such treatment could terminate the pregnancy -- a violation of the Dominican Constitution, which bans abortion. Some 20 days after she was admitted to the hospital, she finally started receiving treatment. She died Friday, a hospital official said.
...
The patient was 13 weeks pregnant.
...
The patient was 13 weeks pregnant.
to here:
The patient was 13 21 weeks pregnant.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/18/world/americas/dominican-republic-abortion/Do you really find that such a stretch to imagine? This is a real example of a real woman's death due to real legal restraints on abortion. But hey, it's all good with you right?
You see, I couldn't care less about your sexual orientation or lifestyle choices. That's the difference between me and your crowd. I don't give a hoot who is or isn't shagging who or when or where - that's your choice. I don't care if you get high or not - that's your choice. I believe a woman should be able to have a choice about what happens inside her own body. Do you see a pattern here yet EF?
The only relevance this remark regarding your plans to marry is that it affirms something. It affirms that you will never be directly affected by your proposition "if the extraction is going to kill her then and there so be it" because you're not a woman. Your life partner will never be directly affected by your proposition "if the extraction is going to kill her then and there so be it" because you will never marry or father a child. How very convenient for you to pass judgement and advocate force of law to proscribe something that will never even effect you at all, except in some abstract bruising of your "ethics". How pretentious can one get? Or, to borrow one of LG's little aphorisms: Will the irony never end?
Again as explained before you are being deliberately obtuse in your refusal to recognize the parameters and constraints set forth in the original hypothetical. It doesn't matter anymore though because your true colors bled through anyway.
Do you?
Fair enough.
So you want to explore ethics? You think your position has no grey areas?
At what point do the lifetime of disabilities imposed or potentially imposed do more damage than ending the fetus?
For example, Viability begins at around 24 weeks, at this age the fetus has about a 50% chance of surviving. Survivors have been documented as early as 21 weeks. So instead of making a calculated choice, weighing the merits and flaws, and considering the gravitas of the situation it's somehow more ethical to reduce it to a coin toss? Why not just have the surgeon perform the coin toss: "Heads I perform the procedure, tails I send her home."
A study of 241 children delivered between 22 and 25 weeks found 46% had severe or moderate disabilities, 34% were mildly disabled, and 20% were not. 12%, by the, had disabling cerebal palsy.
So, a baby delivered at 24 weeks (the current limit of viability) currently has a 50% chance of dying anyway and a 10% chance of leading a normal, healthy life free of disabilities, but this is more 'ethical' than a dry foot policy?
Addendum:
Let's take this a step further. Are we going to give children the right to Euthenasia? Or are we going to force them to live out low quality lives with debilitating disabilities? Is that more ethical?
No, the question then one becomes of ethics of a different kind.
At what point do the lifetime of disabilities imposed or potentially imposed do more damage than ending the fetus?
For example, Viability begins at around 24 weeks, at this age the fetus has about a 50% chance of surviving. Survivors have been documented as early as 21 weeks. So instead of making a calculated choice, weighing the merits and flaws, and considering the gravitas of the situation it's somehow more ethical to reduce it to a coin toss? Why not just have the surgeon perform the coin toss: "Heads I perform the procedure, tails I send her home."
A study of 241 children delivered between 22 and 25 weeks found 46% had severe or moderate disabilities, 34% were mildly disabled, and 20% were not. 12%, by the, had disabling cerebal palsy.
So, a baby delivered at 24 weeks (the current limit of viability) currently has a 50% chance of dying anyway and a 10% chance of leading a normal, healthy life free of disabilities, but this is more 'ethical' than a dry foot policy?
Addendum:
Let's take this a step further. Are we going to give children the right to Euthenasia? Or are we going to force them to live out low quality lives with debilitating disabilities? Is that more ethical?
Mod Hat — General stay
Mod Hat — General stay
We are, for the moment, turning our attention to the policy dispute, as this situation will have implications for the rest of Sciforums. A brief general stay is in effect.
To the other, that isn't going to help the people who have demonstrated deliberate intransigence over the course of fifteen months. You were warned at the outset.
Mod Hat — General stay
We are, for the moment, turning our attention to the policy dispute, as this situation will have implications for the rest of Sciforums. A brief general stay is in effect.
To the other, that isn't going to help the people who have demonstrated deliberate intransigence over the course of fifteen months. You were warned at the outset.
- Status