Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Nov 1, 2012.

?

Do I support the proposition? (see post #2)

Poll closed Nov 11, 2013.
  1. Anti-abortion: Yes

    22.2%
  2. Anti-abortion: No

    5.6%
  3. Pro-choice: Yes

    44.4%
  4. Pro-choice: No

    16.7%
  5. Other (Please explain below)

    11.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Notes on Excrement

    What, in your opinion, is the compromise between truth—here defined as factual accuracy—and untruth?

    It's one thing to talk about both sides and the superficial manifestations of behavior, but quite another—and rather dishonest, in fact—to demand parity between two different things.

    In practice, your argument is exactly excrement; it has no practical value.

    In trying to establish this bizarre parity, you've come so far as to make fallacious demands. And the reason you're doing so is, apparently, one of informational ignorance or simple cognitive failure.

    You should try dealing in reality sometime. It really helps your credibility.

    Alternately, you could try making sense.

    There are problems about the comparion of paradigm valences there, but it is also reasonable to point out that some Muslims are bending over backward to ward off the terrorism. Some are even giving their lives. And when the terrorists score a win, those Muslims don't celebrate and congratulate one another.

    Think of it this way:

    (1) Misogyny: There are reasons why people perceive misogyny, including demonstrable disdain toward considering the negative impacts of the policy on women. This could, of course, be at least partially addressed by a rational, affirmative assertion of personhood, but here we are, fourteen months into this discussion and over forty years since Roe, and everyone is still waiting. And it would be one thing if those offended by the charge would put up some sort of rational response instead of whining about insults. Yeah, we get it; they don't like being called misogynists. They just want to behave misogynistically and how dare anyone call them out. But that's the thing; that second sentence is what they don't respond to. They can certainly make a rational argument that their behavior isn't misogynistic, but they're not even trying to do that. Think of those people of the classic David Duke persuasion; you know, they're not racist, but them coloreds is just criminals. So anti-abortion advocate wants this and this and this. But what about these impacts? I don't know, they won't discuss them. And when those impacts include challenging the gains toward equal standing in society women have achieved in recent decades, yes, there is more than just a whiff of misogyny about it.

    (2) Terrorism: This one isn't hard, unless one isn't paying attention to the issue in general. There is and has for years been a low-key, persistent wave of terrorism against abortion clinics and medical professionals. And while it is one thing to condemn terrorism and say one has no part in it, that also means that often we must accept that openly encouraging murder doesn't contribute to that person's murder, and generally must accept that anti-abortion advocates are happy to enjoy the spoils of a terrorist's victory.

    (3) Religious Extremist: In the first place, this life at conception defined as fertilization argument is based on mid- to late-twentieth century decontextualizations of Scripture. Secondly, that decontextualization is issue-specific, and does not hold consistent in the advocates' outlook throughout the theology°. Add to that the observable fact that this is a movement attempting to impose a religious outlook on other people through force of law, according to an unsubstantiated and perhaps insupportable thesis. Are we getting close, yet? Advocacy of violence, and even those who don't are willing to enjoy the gains? What, is it because they're mostly Christian, and not Muslim, that we need to give them a pass?​

    Here's a question for you: One day your brother gives you a hundred thousand dollars. The next day, the police show up with proof that he robbed a bank. Do you tell the cops that they can't call your brother a bank robber? Of course not. Now, here's the second part: Do you insist that you're not a bank robber, didn't rob the bank, and thus are entitled to keep the money?

    You do realize that we're all familiar with this phase of the discussion? You know, the one that suggests you have no idea what's going on in this thread? As evidenced by your late inquiry into fourteen months worth of shorthand. Or, you know, asking people to repeat what has been pointed out.

    The actual issue Bells and Syne were discussing and your own quest to convince pro-choice to take a dive.

    The problem really is the disrespect you're showing other people by constantly insisting on changes of subject.

    I'm sorry, did you say rationally?

    Where is the rational, affirmative assertion of personhood? Not just these fourteen months in particular, since we're on the point about stonewalling, but also the last forty-plus years? If it's so obvious that we should be able to see it as self-evident, why can't they explain it?

    A fine hypothesis. Once we've appropriately struck the historical record and general rules of logic, you might actually have a chance of demonstrating it.

    That is to say, have at it.

    You like to make those stiff generalizations, but your specifics are pretty much impotent.

    Every single one of them that isn't out there demonstrating in support of Dr. Means, so that abortion services can restart in Wichita, and the policy debate can continue without the spectre of terrorism.

    Like I said, they're happy to harvest the fruit.

    I would think the answer to that rather quite obvious. Earlier this month, Aitizaz Hasan gave his life to stop a suicide bomber from killing schoolchildren. In 2012, Malala Yousafzai took a bullet to the head for the sake of her schoolmates.

    Who is going to take the blast for Dr. Means or her patients? You know, the doctor who was threatened with bombing if she provided abortion services in Wichita? And who was that anti-abortion activist who took a bullet for George Tiller?

    What Hasan and Yousafzai have done is extraordinary. It's true, not everyone has the courage to face mortal fear. But, to the other, anti-abortion activists are celebrating their victory in Wichita.

    What, you can't tell the difference?

    And there's your conflation again. But there are a couple of things, here.

    (1) Personhood was conceded at the outset. Does that make it off limits? No, not specifically. But when it is the discussion one insists on having in lieu of the topic, it is a willful attempt to change the subject. And when that willful attempt to change the subject hinges on a refusal to make any affirmative assertion, the result is that the only reason we can't discuss personhood here and now is because the only discussion of personhood the anti-abortion advocates want to have is intended to distract from the question of what LACP does to women.

    (2) You've been on this weird reconciliation trip, insisting that pro-choice make all sorts of concessions like validate fallacy and ignore history; you have also been told why pro-choice is not in a conciliatory, conceding mood. We are now onto a digression about whether or not it is appropriate to even consider why pro-choice is not prepared to simply surrender as you ask. And now here you are with this?

    (3) Perverts? It is an inevitable consideration when the answer to public policy is to police women's sex lives. We've discussed this point and why it is important before. If you are not willing to rationally address the issue, then quit complaining.​

    No, you had to manipulate words in order to craft this one.

    The discussion at hand was Syne's attempt to manipulate pro-choice into pro-life in order to inflate support for anti-abortion policies. This opened a discussion of extremism. Bells responded by describing her idea of extremism as it relates to this subject. Syne then whipped out the classic insult that one only finds something extreme because they disagree with it. Bells retorted by explaining what she finds extreme. And, you know, you and I have been through this before, too; pro-choice is not in a conciliatory mood because we're far too accustomed to this routine. So your digression is just that, a digression.

    What? You object that I find it adorable when people declare themselves the victor in an internet discussion?

    Don't bother apologizing; her language only made it appear how you were looking for it to appear. That is, this one's entirely on you.

    If I call a black man a nigger, but do it politely? Look, here we can come back to the whole question the GOP is wrangling with. If the fundamental message is offensive, is there really a suitable way to say it?

    In the abstract, LACP is an intriguing proposition. But the discussion also has real effects. Those real effects do, in fact, influence people's responses to this persistent behavior.

    No, I have said your demand for proof of negative is ridiculous because, in addition to being fallacious, there is no way to make a reasonable argument when the other side won't listen. I have also pointed out that personhood was granted at the outset with the intention of exploring other issues. One of those issues has been to demand we set aside the topic to argue over what has already been conceded.

    The avoidance of the subject is thematically consistent with the misogyny thesis. As I have reiterated multiple times, now, it may be that the problem with the topic proposition is that in order to suspend a woman's human rights she must first have them.

    And you will never accomplish that goal as long as your method is fallacious.

    That's actually nearly funny, given that I've offered my argument for why I have a dryfoot abortion policy. What's lacking from the discussion is an affirmative assertion of personhood. The effect is demonstrable, and recorded. Pro-choice expresses its concerns about the impacts. Anti-abortion says those concerns are wrong, but won't discuss what the actual impacts will be.

    So we're down to pointing out the misogyny? Sometimes, that's the way it goes. Yet your characterizations of the situation seem willful in their disregard for that history. Why is this?

    What is so important about this issue that you're willing to disregard history, manipulate other people's words, pretend you have no clue what's going on in the discussion, and all these other classic trollbait maneuvers? You know, making demands for fallacy, declaring yourself the victor, and all that?

    We need to call pro-lifers names? This isn't about them being a bunch of poopy-pants booger-eaters. This is about fundamental questions of life and quality of life, and the side demanding this argument isn't willing to take part in good faith. After a while, yes, they get called out on the behavior. And what's that? Warranted or not?

    What is this determination to give over to bullies? Oh, goodness, they're treating that person horribly, but it might hurt their feelings to tell them that they're treating someone horribly, so I'm not going to get involved. How does that even make sense? When it gets down to the point that one can address the charge by simply answering the point, but refuses to do so in order to complain about the charge?

    Fine with me. And thank you for the insight into your methods of botchery.

    Please set the precedent by proving a negative.

    Furthermore, you will be under the challenge of doing so when the judges of your argument have already decided that nothing you say will persuade them.

    I mean, that's all you're asking of others.

    You're still on it, even as you ask for the information:

    "Women's rights are unimportant if we don't prove that mass murder is not taking place."

    Prove that the fetus is not a person? That mass murder is not taking place?

    Hello?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° does not hold consistent in the advocates' outlook throughout the theology — This is a long theological discussion, but the basic gist of it is that if a phrase from Jeremiah applies to God's blessing of life and therefore a rejection of abortion, it also applies to God's blessing of life and therefore the Divine Will that homosexuals should exist. But the first rule of religion in politics is that the doctrine asserted is issue-specific, and should not be carried outside those confines.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Feeding the troll

    ElectricFetus


    I had hoped that you would not need a 'I'm speaking to a 3 year old' explanation. In other words, I had hoped that you were honest enough to actually acknowledge the purpose of the post. Alas, no. Here we are. I am going to type this out as simply as I can for you, so that you do not once again, ask the exact same questions that has been answered so many times now, that I am about to macro it and keybind it for your pro-life trolling self.

    1) You are approaching this from position of absolute privilege. There is no risk that you will ever be arrested or detained if you lived in a place that may have resulted in your breathing in fumes (I say may here because there was no evidence that she was breathing in any fumes). I could go on, but you get the point, yes?

    2) The cases in the study show one thing and it shows it blatantly. Those women had not broken any laws and had they not been pregnant, they would not have been arrested.

    3) Pregnant women risk having the state take custody of their womb for no apparent reason - such as disagreeing with a treatment option by a doctor or if a drug addict who is pregnant so much as asks for help, she can be arrested and imprisoned and given no pre-natal care, made to fall ill and suffer numerous infections while in jail - which I can assure you poses a bigger risk for a foetus - which means that women who need help will simply not seek pre-natal care.

    4) Refusing to have a c-section is NOT FUCKING ILLEGAL. Forcing women to undergo an unnecessary and dangerous surgery without their consent is immoral and a bunch of other words that you clearly lack the mental capacity or the integrity to understand.

    I mean I could go on forever about just how fucked up your questions and your debate is. Such as asking me for links about cases in a study - that has references for the very cases you are asking for links about. No, really, pure trolling in every single sense of the word.

    None of these women gave birth and "killed their babies". I have seen some dishonest and frankly retarded arguments on this site in all my years here, but you are taking the cake:

    Babies can die at any time during childbirth and there was no evidence that these women killed their children during child birth because they refused or delayed having a c-section or had a home birth.

    The reason Roe vs Wade explicitly did not assign personhood to the foetus at any point in pregnancy is because to do so would infringe on the woman's rights to privacy and to her body and because it would result in women being arrested while in labour if they dared to disagree with the advice of a doctor or if she did anything that any random person could constitute as a danger to the foetus. SO YOU'RE REPEATEDLY ASKING WHY IT HASN'T BEEN ASSIGNED TO A FOETUS HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED 40 FUCKING YEARS AGO.

    Or did you miss that? But your trolling and dishonest post made the point for me, once again.

    Do you know why?

    Because you do not even consider the woman's rights to her body and her choices. Arresting a woman in labour because she chose to have a home birth with a midwife and having her handcuffed to a gurney and transported to hospital while a special hearing was underway where she could not even have a lawyer representing her because her doctor felt she should have a c-section - no, really, you don't find anything wrong with this? She and her husband escaped the hospital and went to another hospital where she delivered naturally without incident. The reason you and your pro-life lackeys are misogynistic is because to you and your ilk, she does not matter. And once the baby is born, it ceases to matter. Do you see any of your pro-life lackeys protesting outside of the Catholic Church for the thousands of child abuse cases? Do you see any of them protesting for gun control? No, because kids killing other kids is their constitutional rights.

    For people like you, women are mere breeders. Commodities. Not worthy of any rights and your post sets out exactly why men and women like you believe that.

    Meanwhile, while you troll for an answer that was answered 40 years ago, you deliberately and hypocritically do not ask pro-lifer's what makes a fertilised egg "a person" and why they are so unwilling to deal with the reality of personhood in that regard, such as having to have women be investigated for possible homicide every month, since you know, most fertilized eggs, ahem, "person", comes out with her period instead of being implanted in her womb. You also do not ask them why this "person" should have more rights than the mother. Don't bother replying to me until you all actually display enough integrity and honesty to answer those questions.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2014
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Wait, I finally get it:


    THIS IS _NOT_ A DISCUSSION.


    Whoaaaa!


    This is Bells, Tiassa, Iceaura and occasionally a few others having a monologue.



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Then answer the question. What makes a foetus a person? What makes a fertilised egg a person?

    You have offered absolutely nothing in this thread. So it's time to put up.

    How and why is a fertilised egg through to a foetus a person worthy of more rights than the mother? I'd like links to show that it is a person with equal or more rights, so much so that women not committing crimes are being imprisoned for them.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    So, if I understand correctly, lightgigantic and wynn's "triage model" amounts to this:

    In every given case where a mother and unborn child are involved, medical professionals ought to make a judgment call about which of the two has a better chance of living a longer life. The wishes of the mother with respect to the unborn foetus should be overridden by the medical professionals judging the particular case; that is, they should be disregarded in the decision making process.

    It would seem that an unborn foetus, if it can be brought to term using medical technology, would have under many circumstances the average life expectancy of 70 years or so. In contrast, the mother, at the given time, has a life expectancy of perhaps 40-50 years. So, under this "triage" model, preference would almost always be given to taking all necessary steps to save the unborn foetus, even at the expense of the mother's life if necessary. It seems that the "potential" of the foetus overrides the actuality of the mother's life, her wishes, her life history, her rights as a human being.

    Do I have that right, lightgigantic and wynn? Is this the model you are advocating?

    Now, in the case under consideration, using this "triage" model, the mother who was brain-dead would not even be considered a person, so all steps should have been taken to preserve her body so that her "potential" child could be born. Is that a fair assessment of your views, too?

    Tell me: when, if ever, would consideration of the mother as a thinking, feeling human being ever come into consideration in your "triage" model?
     
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    And the idiocity continues ...


    :wallbang:
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Sincere Belief as a Murder Defense

    On Sincere Belief

    A confessed murderer wants a new trial. Scott Roeder, the man who proudly gunned down Dr. George Tiller in a Kansas church, has asked for a new trial because he was not allowed conviction on a lesser charge:

    Tiller was among a few U.S. physicians known to perform late-term abortions. Roeder had strong anti-abortion beliefs, equating Tiller's procedures with murder. Pickering noted Roeder also believed the doctor was violating Kansas law, though Tiller had been acquitted of misdemeanor state charges of violating late-term abortion restrictions weeks earlier.

    "We're talking about his view that this doctor is performing illegal abortions resulting in the deaths of others," Pickering told the court.

    During Roeder's trial, Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert allowed the confessed killer to testify to his beliefs but ultimately refused to let the jury consider the lesser charge after hearing all the trial evidence. The defense's tactic outraged Tiller's colleagues and abortion-rights advocates nationwide, who feared it gave a more-than-tacit approval to further acts of violence.

    Roeder raised multiple issues in his appeal, but the Supreme Court's hearing focused mainly on whether jurors should have been allowed to consider the lesser charge. The justices did not say when they would rule.

    The justices questioned Pickering for more than an hour, twice the amount of time set aside for her arguments. In contrast, Assistant Sedgwick County District Attorney Boyd Isherwood didn't use his full half-hour in defending Roeder's first-degree murder conviction and "Hard 50" sentence.

    Justice Dan Biles asked Pickering whether, in line with her legal arguments, someone who morally opposed ending life support for an otherwise dying patient would face the lesser charge if he or she shot a doctor who shut off a ventilator at a family's request. Pickering acknowledged her position could lead to such a result.

    Justice Eric Rosen asked about someone with a strong belief that, because smoking leads to deadly illnesses, selling tobacco products places others in imminent danger.

    "That gives someone the right to go out and kill the CEO of Philip Morris?" Rosen said, referring to the tobacco company. "It's the same principle."

    Pickering said the health harm would not be immediate enough to warrant the lesser charge in such a situation, and she emphasized that she was arguing only that the jury should have been allowed to consider the lesser charge in Roeder's case.

    "You're saying this statute, this jury question, will be applicable any time anyone wants to shoot a doctor," Biles responded.

    The justices also struggled with Pickering's argument that Roeder believed unborn children were at imminent risk from Tiller, noting that the doctor's clinic was closed at the time and he wasn't scheduled to perform abortions for another 22 hours.

    "There weren't going to be any abortions performed at the church," Justice Lee Johnson said.


    (Hanna)

    There is no mention whether or not anti-abortion advocates rallied outside the courthouse to denounce Roeder's terrorism.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Hanna, John. "Kan. court skeptical of defense in Tiller shooting". Associatd Press. January 29, 2014. Hosted.AP.org. January 31, 2014. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ABORTION_SHOOTING_APPEAL
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    If in your understanding of personhood you limit yourself only to mainstream materialistic notions, then, obviously, the unborn is not a person and has minimum rights.

    To understand why and how the unborn is a person, you'd first need to move beyond mainstream materialistic notions of personhood to begin with. And be willing to rethink your current convictions about what it means to be a person - what it means for you, or anyone, to be a person.
    I'm not sure you're willing or able to do that.


    That the unborn has more rights than the mother - that's entirely of your own making.
    Nobody in this thread argued for such a proposition.


    Applying the triage model to, for example, a pregnancy with serious complications would not automatically result in letting the mother die in the hopes to save (or not kill) the unborn.

    It is the fanatics among Catholics, and their fanatic opponents, who come to the idea that applying the triage model in such situations would mean to let the mother die in the hopes to save (or not kill) the unborn.

    Assessing viability, costs, the state of available technology, and possibly some other factors, a decision can be made as to what to do. In many cases, this means an abortion or premature delivery.

    But certainly not those horror scenarios we hear about from some Catholic hospitals where the woman is half dead and the unborn doesn't appear to be viable, but the hospital stalls until one or both of them die.
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Rhetoric 101

    And once again, the question is deflected. And it would seem your argument is that she would understand personhood if only she would accept your presuppositions, which, incidentally, you seemingly refuse to enumerate.

    Just in terms of the actual devices of discourse, how is that supposed to work?

    Great. Another negative assertion. Could you tell us something about what your triage model is, as opposed to repeatedly complaining about what it isn't?
     
  13. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Again, not pro-lifer or trying to troll you, geez.

    No I don't get this point. I can be arrest and detained for making methamphetamine, and "breathing the fumes", which is what she was doing. Was charging her with endangering her child a dick move by drug zealot legal enforcers, probably, but it does not answer the question if she has responsibilities to the child she wanted to bring to the world and for which the state will have to take care of. You see instead of thinking about everyone privilege we should also ask do we have any responsibilities, sure it my privilege I could do what ever I want and murder other people for shits and giggles but it is my social responsibility to restrain my self and even be punished for failing to do so. Likewise is a pregnant women also responsible for her fetus? I'm not sure it may depend if she intends to bring it to term, if it is viable, what actions she specifically doing to it, moral questions abound. But some answers would make it justifiable to charge some of these women for crimes, I guess you would rather a fetus have no rights what so ever, I'm fine with that and in fact if you could provide an ethical reason why, beyond the a women rights are so paramount for some unexplained reason, I might be won over.

    Aah no many of these women had in fact broken laws, from making and selling methamphetamine, cocaine use, opiate use, etc, etc, I guess paint huffing might be a free-bee though, I'm not sure.

    yeah that failing of the state, but it does not answer the moral questions: should a women have the right to endanger her fetus, if or if not she wants to bring it to term? if your answer is well the state if going to fuck it up and make it all worse so they shouldn't my reply would be well why not focus on making the state do better, provide forcibly pre-natal care and drug rehab for drug addict pregnant women for example? Maybe drug addicts need treatment and not prison time, but that another discussion.

    C-sections are technically safer then vaginal birth.

    http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20120313/are-repeat-c-sections-safer-than-natural-birth
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-planned-caesareans-safer-natural-births.html

    Now am am inclined to agree, a women should give birth how ever she wants to, I would think most women would choose to take the safest options they can for themselves and their baby, but some women don't, they have silly ideas in their head, now should the state intervene, to protect both the citizen and the citizen to be born? I guessing you say no, I'm fine with that, I want a reason though.

    The study its self is vague, I had to look up each case individual for more information. You do relies that bias information can be present even in a study right? That in order to get a more "truthy" (trademark of Stephen Colbert I think) picture one need to look at multiple sources?

    I didn't say they did, but I would not doubt that there are cases where they do in fact kill their babies. True the state makes mistakes, but is the solution to forbid the state from any interference? Why do we even have a judicial system then? Ok how about this tell me at what point does it become wrong to kill a fetus, somehow as soon as it exit the women and is viable does it become a person instantly? At what point is it immoral for a women to kill it? These are question I asked before and you refuse to answer them, rather you bring up case studies of state abuse and insinuate we should avoid all state interference in this and get all inraged and insulting that I keep asking the same questions because that does not answer my questions! So I ask again: where exactly do were declare the state can't interfere? Simple question, no need to get angry, call me a troll or stupid and say my questions do not deal with reality for in fact it does.

    Now because I believe in an ethical framework and going to make a call on this, other who have been willing to answer my questions rationally and logically have helped me establish this position.

    After viability, if the fetus is normal and there are no serious medical issue endangering the health of the mother, a fetus is granted rights such that a mother could be punished for endangering it or even killing it, Roe vs Wade is in line with the state making such a call so it judicially practical and not simply a metaphysical moral stance but one that is in line with the law. Such a stance is not striping all women of rights, as before the 1st and 2nd trimester the fetus can be aborted at their discretion, even potentially for nefarious purposes like a medical soruces for stem cells or the like because it not a person for the at least three reasons: not viable, no consciousness, no social standing. After viability is deserving of some rights just as we grant some rights to animals and even virtual constructs like corporations, and one of those rights is not to be harmed or mistreated even by its mother who carried it that far for some reason. Will the state always get this right, no, and I believe laws can be implemented to reduce the rate of error by the state, to prevent the state form racking up dickish charges on drug addicts unfairly for example, but that does not change the moral standing I'm making that a fetus after viability deserves some rights. Do you disagree, how and to what point, what is your moral framework... other then outrage, which is not a ethical stand at all.

    I'm not an advocate of home birth, it increase the chances of death or injury to a women or child, but because medical science is so advance those chances are still low enough that I think it should be within a women right to decide how to birth a child, other then going out to woods and avoiding all medical intervention what so ever. So no I agree that the state should not force a women to have a c-section, unless it can proven the chance per specific case of harm are extraordinarily high, even suicidal.

    No that not why Roe vs Wade explicitly states, by all means quote it saying that "explicitly" with the whole so doctors can for women who are endangering their child in child birth to undergo specific medical procedures by force. The question of personhood is about what rights are to be granted to a fetus, even Roe vs Wade agrees some rights can be granted to a fetus, just not that of a full person as the constitution interprets the word.

    yes I must have miss that, I mean I been quoting from the majority opinion report of Roe vs Wade, but I most of missed the part about a fetus not only not being a person but so much so that it forbids the state from any intervention what so ever, and I quote parts which specifically say otherwise even, but you most of miss that I guess.

    That particular case, yes I do find things wrong with that, but does that mean we need to strip all rights from a fetus, ok then when, as long as it insider her, why? some of these are questions I have asked repeatedly now for pages and been ignored by you, although I'm glad your now trying the answer them, please do.

    Again lumping me in with them, demonizing us. No she does matter, risking her life matters to our society as well as risking the life of her baby, did the state make a mistake in this case, clearly yes!, but lets say in another case a women had a breached baby, what if she had some other condition that warranted a c-section or else risk death for her or her child, and she refused for some idiotic personal reason, and she and her baby died or was permanently injured, should the state just stand back and allow it, at what point does the state allow a citizen to be suicidally stupid? Sure in that specific case the state appears to be wrong, but where exactly would the state be right, I ask?

    I disagree, as a citizen of the state the baby matters a lot: not being brain damage or permanently sickly and a drain on the state may in fact be a valid concern! That is another reason I approve of abortion: to reduce the percentage of people destine to be deadbeats, criminals and drains on our society, ill raised and even unloved. But this also means that even in case where the child is wanted if the parents are particularly abnormal mentally, are criminals, drug addicts, etc, the state may be right to intervene, of course this needs to be balanced with the freedoms of the citizens in the manner of a democracy: tell you what make the citizens aware of this violations of their freedoms and get them to force legislative change.

    No but those are different concern. Are you suggesting that if other problems aren't being fixed or acknowledged that we should then not deal with this problem? Why deal with any problem then?

    No there not, you are simply making personal attacks against me, and not against my arguments.


    I repeatedly stated why a fetus is not a person in multiple posts now, you ignoring what I said repeatedly.

    I have, so when will you answer my questions?
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Notes on the Obvious

    The typos might be vital here, but as I read the point:

    Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

    (Blackmun)

    Or, as I have noted, in history, philosophy, and medicine life at conception is the extraordinary assertion.

    Actually reading the Roe decision can be instructive; to wit, Syne's earlier attempted sleight to construe Roe supporters as anti-abortion:

    Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute, and is subject to some limitations; and that, at some point, the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.

    See, the thing is, calling pro-choice people "pro-life" is a counterpoint to the term "pro-abortion". The point is to remind against the vicious caricature by which pro-choice actually wants all women to abort. Few pro-choice people are specifically "pro-abortion". Indeed, the slogan associated with Hillary Clinton that abortion should be safe, rare, and legal, is a product of this rhetorical conflict.

    However, we might note that long before Syne attempted his statistical manipulation, at least part of this point was on the record; see #29 above:

    While the term brings many a shiver, yes, I do believe abortion on demand is a woman's right. It is a logical consequence of the “her body, her choice” outlook ....

    .... [[T]here is a reason abortion access advocates stand such a firm line. Legalized abortion on demand is not without societal benefits. Women's physical health has improved, as has their educational and economic standing in society, and as a result their mental health as well. Some might find the access advocates' arguments about putting women back in their places somewhat hyperbolic, but it is also a logical outcome of granting our Puritan streak free rein ....

    .... It is difficult for many people on my side of the argument to not tie the question to a raft of other issues of consequence pertaining to sex and sexuality. For the other side, there is the strong persuasion of the eternal soul, and even those few non-religious folks who stand with the anti-abortion crowd cling to the LACP assertion like an article of faith. If it seems there is no middle ground, it is because that is how the issue is defined, and redefining it is not a task easily undertaken, to speak nothing of achieved.

    In that sense of redefinition, though, remember that the reason abortion access advocates don't like the term, “pro-abortion”, is that few, if any, actually like the idea of abortion. But the better way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Redefining the abortion debate in this context would also require major concessions from conservatives on other issues of consequence pertaining to sex and sexuality—namely sex education and birth control access. Otherwise, we're arguing over legislative goals that, taken in sum, degrade women's status in society.

    In other words, Syne's argument suggests that pro-choicers adhering to the Supreme Law of the Land are actually anti-abortion.

    It's also worth noting that the point about the Supreme Court's refusal to establish personhood at conception is also in that early post.

    Thus I would reiterate an earlier point in the form of a question: Why are we nine hundred posts into this thread, ignoring the topic of the discussion, and running 'round in circles asking pro-choice to rehash everything?

    No, really, what good does it do? After forty years what is clear is that pro-choice cannot nail down the rhetoric solidly enough to seal it against every evasion and fallacy. What is not clear, though, is how—other than through appeals to aesthetics and emotions—this personhood assertion with such tremendous implications, works. That is in no small part because we keep running around in these circles. The root cause of that, of course, is the lack of affirmative assertions regarding how LACP works.

    This whole thread was intended to explore how LACP works. Yet here we are, running around in fallacious circles (prove that something is not) and repeating points made fourteen months ago—and all of this, apparently, is the prerequisite, as you would have it, to discussing the impacts of LACP on women?

    The perversity of the public discourse regarding abortion is astounding. One might think pro-choice is expected to do all the work while being obliged to come to anti-abortion's conclusions. The problem, of course, is that while some would certainly reject that characterization, one might think it true because of first appearances. And accepting that it's not true requires that pro-choice need not make an affirmative assertion, that accurate labels for behavior nobody wants applied to them should be verboten, and that women are sufficiently and satisfactorily invisible. This is one of the most bizarre rhetorical arenas in Americana. It would be akin to arguing that the Universe is Ptolemaic, but demanding that scientists protesting that assessment conced that the Universe is Ptolemaic before engaging the argument.

    Or if the Ptolemaic question was based on the statement that the Earth is the Center of the Universe. (Logically speaking, it is, as I lived in the Center of the Universe, and it exists on Earth. This, of course, is a joke, as the signs leading into the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle include such a declaration, my favorite being, "Welcome to Fremont: Center of the Universe. Turn your watch back five minutes.") But if the dispute arose that based on the statement that the Earth is the Center of the Universe, what next?

    "I thought the heliocentric model was established and verified years ago."

    That's not what I mean. Quit trying to slander me as some fourteenth century dolt.

    "It's fairly well established that the Earth travels around the sun."

    That's not what I mean. Why are you trying to denigrate me by comparing me to a bunch of idiots?

    And so on, and so forth, round and round, &c.

    Maybe the CoTU advocates might eventually express what it is they actually mean? You know, instead of simply piling up the negative assertions?

    I mean, can you at least comprehend the difference between affirmative and negative assertions?

    What is the rational answer to a demand for proof of negative?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Blackmun, J. Harry. "Opinion of the Court". Roe v. Wade. January 22, 1973. Legal Information Institute. January 30, 2014. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#writing-USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Oh I am willing.

    So please answer the question. What makes a fertilised egg to foetus in utero a "person".

    Then you clearly have not been reading Fetus, Asguard, LG, Syne and even your own posts.


    And yet it does. It also results in mothers being arrested, detained and forced to have surgery, without their consent. C-sections are inherently dangerous. How or why would you force it on any person, especially if it is wholly unnecessary?

    Your triage model at work Britain:

    In a surreal case that’s lawyers are calling “unprecedented,” an Italian woman who was visiting the U.K. last year for work while pregnant with her third child says she wound up undergoing a forced caesarean and had her baby taken away from her. She is currently waging a legal battle to have her returned.

    The story, which broke Sunday in the Telegraph, is a harrowing one. The woman, whose family says she is bipolar and needs medication, had “something of a panic attack” in her hotel room, and called the police. After telling her they were taking her to the hospital to “make sure that the baby was OK,” she says she was shocked to find herself instead in a psychiatric facility, where she was restrained for several weeks. Eventually, after being told one morning she couldn’t have breakfast, she was forcibly sedated and woke up several hours to the news that her baby daughter had been removed by social services. Soon after, she was sent home without her child.

    Back home and back on her medication, the woman embarked on a quest to have her baby daughter returned to her. But the Italian court said that “Since she had not protested at the time, she had accepted that the British courts had jurisdiction – even though she had not known what was to be done to her.” And a British judge declared that “He could not risk a failure to maintain her medication in the future.” The woman’s American ex-husband and father of her eldest daughter even tried to plead for the baby to be sent to his sister in Los Angeles, but because the baby isn’t a blood relation to her, the court struck that down too.


    Do you think this is acceptable?


    Your triage model at work in the US:

    She was 27 years old, 26 weeks pregnant, a cancer patient at George Washington University Medical Center and close to death. The issue arose, should she undergo a Caesarean procedure? Her doctors doubted the fetus was viable yet; Mrs. Carder was too heavily medicated to make her own wishes clear, and her family believed that she would not want surgery that would probably shorten her life.

    But the hospital, saying that it feared potential legal liability if it made no effort to save the fetus, sought a judicial ruling. The judge, saying he was obliged to balance Mrs. Carder's interests against the Government's "important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life," ordered the surgery. The baby, a girl, lived for only two hours. Mrs. Carder, who regained consciousness, cried on being told her daughter was dead. Two days later so was she.

    Notice the ruling that the hospital had an interest in protecting the potentiality of human life, while disregarding her human life and forcing her into a surgery that did shorten her life and also killed her baby? Her human life was apparently not worthy of mention. Is this acceptable? You and your buddies have been fighting for the triage model for a while now. This is the triage model.

    Why do you just blame the Catholics?

    Certainly, they own the hospitals where much of these atrocities are occurring, but the pro-life movement that supports their actions and supports denying women reproductive health care stem from all denominations. I'd say in the US at least, a very large chunk of them are evangelicals and very much right wing.

    And in some cases it means keeping a dead woman alive to grow a "baby" without her permission or that of her next of kin and in others, it means forced dangerous surgeries that put the mother's life at risk or actually causes them to die, all without her consent or that of her next of kin. And then in others, your triage models have women being charged with murder or manslaughter for wanting to deliver naturally and in others, bills being drafted in the US, such as the one to deny women essential life saving treatment if they are pregnant. Is Kansas comprised entirely of Catholics?

    And now the Republican-dominated Kansas House and Senate have added another provision to its already prodigious collection of regulations seeking to give the state sovereignty over women's wombs. The Republican governor is certain to sign the monstrous bill in which this provision is contained. As the Kansas City Star warns in an editorial:

    That bill [...] extends the state’s “conscience” provision for medical personnel to include the right to refuse to refer a woman to an abortion provider, or prescribe or administer a prescription or treatment that terminates a pregnancy.

    Taken to its extreme, the legislation could empower doctors and medical staffers to refuse to provide birth control or even chemotherapy to a pregnant cancer patient.​

    Not only will this allow physicians to refuse to provide treatment on "moral" grounds, they will not be required to explain why they aren't providing the treatment, and they can also refuse to refer patients to other physicians would provide the treatment.

    An outrage? That hardly covers it. This is downright evil.

    Your triage model at work. Are you proud?

    From a pro-life site in the US, where they discuss the 'life of the mother':

    Consider preeclampsia and ectopic pregancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, often the baby tragically dies and sometimes, without proper medical care, so does the mother. But in many cases, both mom and baby have survived ectopic pregancy (see below for more)! A mom on the verge of death from preeclampsia is saved by a doctor (not by an abortionist) who delivers the baby. The only way that doctor would thereby become an abortionist is if that doctor then performed an overt act to kill the baby. Removing the baby is not the same as killing the baby. Saving the mother often requires delivering the baby, but never killing the baby. That baby may not survive the premature delivery but the child's death must not be the intent of the medical intervention. For every good doctor follows the Hippocratic Oath to first, do no harm.

    Society's attempt to justify killing unborn children leads to absurdities like the "exception" for the life of the mother in the partial-birth abortion ban. For the PBA "procedure" is not designed to save the mother but only to kill the baby. And partial-birth abortions, which are the intentionally breech, i.e., feet-first, delivery and then killing of these babies, were not performed by surgeons generally but only by abortionists.


    Note the part where they claim that exceptions for the life of the mother is absurd, they unfortunately get even worse:

    Ectopic Pregnancy and Intentional Killing: Abortion has so hardened the heart of the modern medical community that no thought is given to the unborn child who is growing outside of the uterus. While government and other "official" websites claim that the baby cannot survive ectopic pregnancy, in truth, hundreds of such babies are reported as surviving abdominal, ovarian, and tubal ectopic pregnancies. For the documentation of these babies wonderful survival, see the impeccably referenced paper, Ectopic Personhood, by Bill Fortenberry. In situ and even by transplant to the uterus (as documented below), the ectopic child often can survive. In so many cases though, the child will die and so might the mother unless a physician intervenes. Those who desire to justify abortion claim that such a complication proves their point because proper medical treatment for an ectopic pregnancy requires the intentional killing of the embryo. As demonstrated extensively by a number of medical studies, by Fortenberry, and uniquely, below, this is not true. But consider their motivation and the form of their argument.

    Those who try to undermine the biblical teaching of absolute morality will claim, for example, that Christians should not oppose suicide. They give examples such as a soldier throwing himself on a hand grenade or even Jesus Christ going willingly to the cross. However, suicide is the act of killing onseself intentionally. If that soldier could have saved himself and his buddies, he would have done so, for it was not his goal to kill himself but to save others, and thus, he is not guilty of commiting suicide. Likewise as Jesus Christ prayed at Gethesemane the night before His crucifixion, "if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me." Thus it was not His desire to kill Himself, but to save others. Lawyers speaking Latin refer to mens rea, i.e., the guilty mind, which distinguishes such heroic acts from the sin of suicide including, for example, the three instances of suicide in the Bible of Saul (apparently), Abimelech, and Judas Iscariot.

    The Latin word ectopia comes from the Greek ektopos meaning out-of-place. So a doctor who cannot save a mom's ectopic (out-of-place) child should not of course intentionally kill that child. But because of the modern disregard for the unborn child's life, many claim that the only valid medical treatment in many circumstances is to induce abortion by administering methotrexate, a drug lethal to the little one.



    There are no words.. No, really, I am speechless.

    Welcome to your triage model. Frankly, it makes me thankful I did not have a daughter.
     
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Why does it matter? Honestly I asked many different question that are very important for this topic. When exactly does a fetus become a person, when it born?, as soon as it leaves the mother? when it achieves viability? What rights do we grant a fetus, if any, what are the ethical ramifications of the answer to these questions, real world ramifications of our moral positions, all this ignored to disuse the nature of affirmative and negative assertions! Or to slander call pro-lifers and anyone that questions you (myself), trolls, extremist, perverts, etc! You see this only from the point of view of oppressing women, well the answer to those questions will determine how much women will be oppressed as well as other ethical ramifications, like if we can charge a murderer for double homicide if he kills a pregnant women, etc, etc.

    What good is all of this you ask, well this is an internet forum that was once, but as you pointed out, no longer dedicate to intellectual debate, I wish to debate these points intellectually, is that so wrong?
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Square Wheels

    Seriously?

    You notice what's absent from that point?

    The topic.

    One of the oldest desperate attacks in the book. It's not about disagreement, but conduct.

    An intolerable rhetorical twist. As much as pro-life likes to remind that there are two people involved, the one that doesn't get considered is the woman.

    Perhaps you might be able to provide an answer here: If LACP is so important to achieve, then why do the advocates refuse to discuss its effects and implications?

    Actually, that is a very problematic statement.

    That is to say: You wish to debate these points intellectually? Yet you refuse to make affirmative assertions and wonder why the difference between negative and positive assertions matters?

    Those are not intellectual standards. One is a fallacy, and the other is pure idiocy.
     
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    How so, it seem completely relevant to the topic to me!

    Are you agreeing with me? I would love to talk about our disagreement, if any, but instead all I get are insults.

    and the pro-lifer can simply say that pro-choicer don't consider the fetus. Now mind you I have considered the women, what her rights are and where exactly their limits are, as well as what rights we can grant to a fetus and when, why is no one else willing to consider such points? No says you the women is paramount, I ask is it always, should abortion be legal and morally correct no matter the stage of fetal development, exactly when and where do we declare personhood, does the fetus as any rights, specify... but no all I get for answer is "your a troll"

    I don't no, that not my concern as a pro-choice I ask why can't we pro-choicer can't have an ethical framework for why abortion should be legal, specify when a fetus has rights and what rights specifically, what would be the ethical consuqences, we we need to allow women to do what ever they want to their fetuses, would double homicide of a pregnant women no longer be applicable, way do some pro-choicers such as your self and Bells refuse to discuss these implications and effects?
    I believe I have made a lot of affirmative assertions so far. A women rights trumps a fetus, for she is a person. a viable fetus has some rights, for it is viable and could become a person, etc

    Why is a negative assertion so wrong, without them how can you state a fetus is not a person and does not have specific rights?
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Answer the Question, Please

    What Is This?

    What is this? In my hand?

    It's not a diamond.

    It's not an apple.

    It's not a Matchbox car.

    It's not a baby.

    It's not a cat.

    It's not a mobile phone.

    It's not my nutsack.

    What am I holding in my hand?
     
  20. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    This explains nothing, how is it not possible to state when a fetus becomes a baby? I can, I have, but you refuse to, why?
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Obvious Questions

    Answer the question, or is a bit of good faith too much to ask?

    Apparently so. If you're going to continue to make false assertions, well, you know what the word for that is, right?

    Are you going to complain if people use some form of the word "lie" to refer to your deliberate false statements?
     
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    You know that impossible. But it has nothing to do with declaring a fetus not a person, it is elementry to state what features a fetus lacks that are needed to be a person.

    I can quote my self making said statements, so no it not a lie.

    Here I'll do it again explicitily: a fetus becomes a baby at birth... how is that so hard?
     
  23. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    James,

    While I do not know what specifics they may be advocating, it seems pretty straight forward what a triage model would mean. Obviously the life of the mother is paramount, as the fetus cannot survive otherwise, and this being the case, a choice of which life to save (all things being equal) would favor the mother. Now if the chances of actually saving the mother are drastically less than saving the fetus, triage generally saves the one with the best chance to survive (which would include considerations of viability in the case of being unlikely to save the mother).

    Now I do not know if Wynn or LG further advocate abortion ONLY in this sort of situation (i.e. not including considerations of rape, etc.), so they are free to correct/amend what I have assumed here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page