A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Tiassa, Mar 21, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    So a pregnant woman has no right to force a fetus to give up its bodily integrity? So no right to abortion, right?

    ...and, along those lines, if momma is gonna die due to fetus, tough shit!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,342
    You just lost the argument, right there.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    my opinion is when it develops a sense of self identity.
    this doesn't happen until some years after birth.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,342
    Well that solves a lot of problems for some people right there . . . you can wait to age 2 or so before you decide.
     
  8. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    A sense of self identity.
    So, it's OK to kill someone when they're asleep.
     
  9. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Maybe we should make it a crime to bring a kid into this world, at least until we get our act together. Poor kid.

    At least he/she won't be needing cold weather climate clothes, but might need some waders.
     
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    That... is a terrifying direction of thought leopold, truly it is. That would mean that severely mentally disabled persons are no longer people, as they lack the mental faculties to develop a sense of "self". It would mean those who suffer massive brain trauma and are in a coma are also no longer people...

    I'm assuming you did not intend for it to come out sounding like that... but yeah, people could (and would) take it to extremes like that.
     
  11. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    I think the word parasite is what he was referring to, Kitt. It was a joke.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Oh... OH. Okay, lol, fair enough. Sorry, minds a bit foggy at the moment. Between the antihistamines, being up since 5am, mothers day dinner and its preparations, and having a semi-sick wife... yeah, I'm kinda pooped XD
     
  13. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Sure, because you don't read the rest.

    Look, I understand that people don't like women. It's part of almost everything that people are taught and that people watch. Someday, hopefully, many of you will feel ashamed about your past actions and beliefs.
     
  14. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    The woman is not using the body of the fetus.
     
  15. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    This red herring smells bad... it's almost like you are trying to distract from the actual calling out of your argument by distracting readers by claiming that billvon (and others herein) are woman haters...

    No, but the womans choice still affects the body of the fetus (you know, by killing it without provocation)
     
  16. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Hi quinnsong,

    I’m not sure if this is current but the act specifically states the federal government cannot prosecute "for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman…has been obtained."

    "The woman’s right to carry her child to term extends not only to a woman’s right to have an abortion but to a woman’s right to carry her pregnancy to term and deliver a child in safety."

    http://www.iwu.edu/polisci/res-publica/2006/reinhart.pdf
     
  17. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I'm of two minds on it; on the one hand, in the event of rape, the womans right to use protection and avoid pregnancy at all is stripped away. In an ideal world, she should be immediately seen by a medical professional and be given the option of a "day after" treatment, ensuring that even if fertilization does occur, the embryo cannot embed and pregnancy is unlikely (virtually impossible).

    On the other... we dont' live in a perfect world... but even so, what reason would she have to wait until the third trimester to make this decision?

    As far as the childs rights to live - it is something I am torn on, but I don't have a good response to it - that is part of why I say the decision needs to be made as early as possible, to ensure that if abortion is the decision it does not cause undue pain... after all, you are killing it.
     
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Earlier in this thread, one of our neighbours made a petulant objection to the consideration of biology in selecting a deadline for abortion. This leaves no room for law he complained. Such a deadline, applied without benefit of applied political pressure, could interfere with the eventual goal of having no limitations to abortion at all; the latter is then the much-discussed 'dry foot' policy, law thankfully only in the mind of presumption.

    But if we were to construct abortion law, for some inexplicable reason, from legal considerations alone, would this not fall into the area of tort personal trespass? And then, if so, I wonder if this would be acceptable to our neighbour. Perhaps the fetus could be required to pay damages to the mother, or that the mother could then justify abortion at any point as self-defense - a kind of "stand your womb". I suspect the latter would be unfeasible; I suggested trying to fire some kind of warning shot across fetus' bow to scare it off of developing further, but this was not taken up further. Perhaps there's no legal room for it. Fetus as tortfeasor?

    Then again, if the object is just to exert dominance over the fetus - we are stringently reminded, again and again on this thread, that this is her body - then I suppose the neo-legal impulse would be found to be suddenly out of the question. Moving a goalpost back helps to prevent ending the game on the 'wrong' footing, of course.
     
  19. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Without provocation???? I can only assume that in your entire life you've never actually talked to a pregnant woman. I have, and I can assure you (with complete confidence that these women would vouch for its accuracy) that pregnancy is one gigantic disaster made tolerable only by the copious production of endorphins, with occasional interludes of steadily decreasing comfort.

    One even explained to this clueless male that pregnancy can quite accurately be compared to a large parasite that ruins your career, your education, your recreation, quite often your marriage, and any other activities that you consider important... and that it doesn't end with a successful delivery.

    You must be the last unreconstructed Male Chauvinist Pig from the 1950s if you don't understand what a fetus does to a woman's life--most especially a woman who never wanted a fetus in the first place and put all her faith in contraceptive technology.
     
  20. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    A fetus, by default, provides provocation: it makes use of the bodily function of a woman. That is something that requires consent; if a woman does not consent, then nothing should force the woman to continue that state.

    Again, allowing women to consent to what happens to their bodies is not something that is part of popular media and culture.
     
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I know full well what a fetus does to a womans body... I also, unlike some people around here, understand that, outside of unfortunate and extenuating circumstances, the woman has the ability to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place.

    The fact that you consider pregnancy a disaster is... deplorable. I can only assume you do not have any children?

    Let me tell you - my mother in law had several miscarriages and underwent several treatments to have a child because of her Endometriosis. It was a STRUGGLE for her to have a kid at all... and in the end, she had not one, but three kids - two were expected, one was a complete surprise.

    Talking with her... at NO point has she considered them a "disaster made tolerable only by the copious production of endorphins, with occasional interludes of steadily decreasing comfort."

    And once more... if the woman never WANTED a fetus in the first place, why WAIT six months or more to get rid of the goddamn thing?

    Are you daft? The woman consented when she had sex unprotected! I will reiterate my position once again since you are apparently incapable of figuring it out:

    Woman has sex and the condom breaks - get the morning after pill and be done with it.
    Woman has sex and birth control fails - a month later she misses her period, gets tested, and is pregnant - get an abortion.
    Woman gets raped - go to the police, get medical treatment, and get the proper medication to ensure pregnancy will not happen. Failing that, get an abortion ASAP.
    Woman gets knocked up by an abusive husband, is effectively placed under house arrest by said abusive husband, and only manages to escape eight months into the pregnancy - due to the extenuating circumstance (and one that I cannot believe is commonplace in the civilized world) she is granted a third-term abortion.

    WHAT is the problem here? The only reason you people can provide as to why third trimester abortions should be allowed without question is that it is "convenient" to give the woman that long to come to the decision. I say if she is that indecisive, then there is a much BIGGER issue at play, and that should be resolved.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.
     
  23. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    First of all late term abortions are rare. The Guttmacher Institute reports 6.2% of abortions were conducted between 13 and 15 weeks, 4.2% between 16 and 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks and 0.08% after 24 weeks. The Institute estimates that 1% of all medical terminations of pregnancies are done at or after 21 weeks, poor prenatal diagnosis etc. But that's not the whole of the answer. In 2008 GI did a study on late term abortions and found the majority who had a LTA for a non medical reason were young and poor without higher education, many were African-American. You had teens who waited too long because they had no adult to go to and were afraid to speak of the pregnancy. You had women who were unable to quickly come up with the money for an abortion. Others didn't have access to a provider. Some had multiple life crises that didn't allow them to make timely decisions. There were even incidents of young women who weren't even aware they were pregnant until it began to show.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page