Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP]

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, May 11, 2014.

  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Who has made such an argument?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Nobody is. What's missing is any hint from you guys as to what the relevance is, what changes in the consequences of assigning personhood accrue at viability and not before?

    The topic is the consequences of assigning personhood to a developing fetus. If these consequences are different before and after viability, that would be of course relevant - what are these differences?
    Then the failure to provide or discuss any of that relevance, despite the claimed interest and inveterate repetition, is yet odder.

    It's the thread topic, the major avoided philosophical issue in this matter, and an important feature of current US political discussion and endeavor.

    The observation was that essentially all her ordinary civil rights, including explicitly by stipulation the two customary or generally assumed "rights" you claimed, would be revocable by the State at its discretion, according to its duty to protect the fundamental rights of the State-protected person she is incubating. That is inherent in the physical situation - the person being protected by the State is inside her.

    No, it doesn't. 13, 14 pages now, and you still haven't got a handle on the OP?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    In a phrase: the same ones that don't. Why must personhood be assigned? I don't think I included it explicitly in my earlier descriptions of my model, and if I did it was of little legal or biological consequence to me at least. Let's say that we did absolutely need such a term: and? Law is a weak thing. It dances to the pipes of those that play it; how would the slippery slope presumably ensuing if someone called a 27 or 30 or 33 week fetus-baby (that was for Bells) a person be different than the slippery slope that pro-life advocates use right now? Or is it that fitting a biological descriptor based on viability or neurology or pain reception as a "person" is so outre that it could not fail to be extended to earlier developmental stages? Is that the problem you envision?

    My apologies. What I should have written was why does it matter? or is that strictly necessary? My answer is that it isn't. I choose neither, between DF and PAF; and DF cannot be a rhetorical tool if it is the contrary argument. Developmentally, DF is no more a bright line than pain reception.

    And also her; hence the medical stipulation. You surely cannot be representing the situation such that the only person is now the fetus?

    Don't be silly, please. Personhood is not required for my proposition. I note, for example, that you avoided this question above:

    So: in which states or districts do current abortion laws use "personhood" in their deadline setting? Surely any other intermediary benchmark between PAF and DF must be based on a concept of personhood?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    The relevance is that:
    1) People tend to agree that it is morally wrong to kill a fetus that is capable of living on its own
    2) After viability, a woman who wants her pregnancy terminated can do so without killing the fetus - and that is a relevant change
    3) The Supreme Court agrees that the point of viability is VERY relevant, and it is legal to restrict abortions after that point

    >what changes in the consequences of assigning personhood accrue at viability and not before?

    A developing fetus accrues more rights as it develops. It has very few rights (i.e. very little "personhood") at first, although in many states it does have the right to not be killed by a third party (i.e. a thief who shoots a pregnant woman in the abdomen will be convicted of homicide if he kills the fetus, even if he does not kill the mother.) As it develops it gains more rights, and thus more personhood. There is a large gain in rights at the instant of birth, but at that point there are still a lot of rights the baby does not yet have. In the US it does not become a full person, with all the rights any person has, until they are 21.

    See above for three.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    (Insert Title Here)

    There are two people involved in elective abortions that I necessarily trust.

    The first is a pregnant woman. While it is true that women are human, and humans imperfect, legislatures and voters often presume that having two X chromosomes means one is inherently stupid. Listen to those who defend state-mandated ultrasounds; they're trying to help women make responsible decisions? Hey, women are doing okay on their own; they haven't wrecked the species, yet, and in truth I don't think they've done nearly as much damage as men. So, you know, let us not imitate those among our Republican and Christian neighbors presuming women inherently incompetent to make decisions about what takes place in her body.

    The second is a doctor. While it is true that people like Kermit Gosnell exist, that will be true regardless of what laws we pass. But the question of, say, if an "infant's feet is even a little bit wet" (then again, "Who has made such an argument"?) is a delusional fantasy. As Bells has noted, everything gets even more complicated around thirty-three weeks; if a woman requests a nonmedically indicated abortion that late in gestation, any responsible doctor is going to explain the problems with that. You can probably find a doctor who will do it, and do it well, but the vast majority of doctors who perform abortions would hedge, regardless of abortion politics, on the question of whether it is ethical to do that to a pregnant female patient. We're talking about a major procedure that is pointless compared to the obvious alternative.

    The actuarial considerations alone suggest that even in the coldest context, doctors have more reasons to not perform elective abortions in the latest stages of gestations, and those are based on considering the health of the pregnant female patient. Hospitals have every reason to want doctors to follow their ethical noses on this one, and insurance companies have every incentive to demand such outcomes.

    Dry-foot, to me, is an abstract rhetorical proposition resulting from the fact that it's not my rights being bargained away in restricting abortion.

    But these personhood proposals bring that concept squarely into focus, because they create a conflict by which dry-foot is a bright-line resolution; whatever else you want to assert for an earlier abortion threshold encounters this conflict. The functional question of how to resolve the conflict is the important one, because right now there are two bills with some possibility of passing in the states. We already know the outcome in Oklahoma, since the court struck this from the 2012 ballot as facially unconstitutional. But either Oklahoma or South Carolina might well find itself in a position to haul this conflict into federal court not on the basis of PIU in general, but FAP specifically.

    The fact that some human beings of either sex are less competent and functional than others does not warrant so broad a response. Consider running a battery of tests on men, under mandate of law, each year, including cystoscopy, to make sure they're as clean as can be, and then having the doctor lecture the man on the morality of sexual caution. I guarantee you that when the dust settles, men are going to be really, really pissed at whatever obligations they might be required to undertake as a result of personhood.

    The question, of course, is whether a personhood statute can withstand constitutional scrutiny. Right now, the answer is apparently, no. Personhood advocates, naturally, are not pleased; they also seem to be a little confused about why they can't violate the U.S. Constitution. (The U.S. Supreme Court refused Personhood Oklahoma's appeal.) Which is why the Oklahoma legislature is trying to pass the stricken ballot measure as a piece of legislation, as if that will help. South Carolina is also trying to figure out how to pass a personhood law. But this hasn't made it to federal court, yet. I would simply ask, then, as I have Geoff, what you think is going to happen when one of these states forces the issue into federal court?

    For me, sure. Unrestricted access. Whatever aesthetic notions might sway me to suggest it's unfair to abort at a given point in a pregnancy are my aesthetics. As a question of law, however, the framework of my society is such that my aesthetics can be suited if one somehow persuades me to stop trusting women, as such, and stop trusting doctors, which would also be part of convincing me rationally—existentially and ontologically, primarily—that the organism in utero trumps the person it exists inside.

    However other people wish to govern a woman's body, I can promise that personhood in utero is a very dangerous way to go about it. And, you know, like Billvon said back in November, 2012 (in the early days of the fifteen-month thread someone decided to revive in the atheism thread), there is a rational way around the implications of personhood in utero—simply ignore the Constitution.

    And I would ask you to consider a specific reality: There are already fetal protection laws in many states, ostensibly passed to protect pregnant women from domestic abuse and other violence; these laws are, instead, being used to prosecute women who are drug addicts, or have mental health problems, and become pregnant, or even women who have simple accidents. Additionally, do you know where the geuinely unethical medical professionals are? I mean, sure, we can always point to outliers like Kermit Gosnell, but consider the professional in New Mexico who deliberately sabotaged a woman's IUD and then refused to correct the issue under a conscience clause? Doctors who will lie to their patients in order to reduce the potential for an abortion. That whole, hopefully outlying, mess at JPHS last year. The doctor who took out a court order to confine a pregnant woman in the hospital for nonmedically indicated bedrest, purporting to be guarding against miscarriage, and ultimately having every appearance of contributing to miscarriage. The aged doctors who go on to legislative careers—one pops up in the news once or twice a decade—pushing against "rape exceptions" for anti-abortion laws because they're a doctor and they can tell you a woman just can't medically get pregnant from a rape because the juices ain't flowin', or the tubes are all spastic, or what the hell ever. And look at how far that excrement made it. It actually had an effect on the last presidential election, and contributed to Democratic gains in the U.S. Senate[sup]†[/sup]. Personhood will, in addition to striking abortion, prohibit two of the most popular and effective methods by which women can "take responsibility for themselves". And the question is coming. It will arrive in federal court, with some probability of doing so before 2016, although it will be interesting if South Carolinia or Oklahoma move before the midterm. But the point is, the question is coming. And still—a year and a half we've been trying to have this discussion about what happens when one of these laws is enacted and enforced—people demand we talk about something else.

    These FAP proposals—any PIU proposal, actually—are dangerous to pretty much everybody who doesn't live inside another person. And this question is coming. So what's the problem? The Turducken is amusing in the sense that you laugh because it's the nearest thing to decency one can manage. It is also significant of just how absurdly people want to talk about anything but reality when it comes to this question of a woman's human rights.

    And the response this community has generated? I just wish one of these folks running interference for the anti-abortion crowd under a ridiculous pretense of outrage founded in ignorance would actually have the courage to just come out and explicitly tell women to go fuck themselves. Because that is the tacit message. Over a year and a half, now: Women's human rights under an extant anti-abortion proposal? We demand you talk about something else.

    So for whatever reason it's important to you, yes, I technically do hold dry-foot as my standard, because it's not my body and rights at stake. And every argument attempting to persuade me to declare a stake in governing a woman's body tracks back to appeals to emotion and aesthetics, or else presuppositions of women's general stupidity or evil, and the general corruption of any doctor who will provide abortion services.

    And those appeals are excrement of particularly bovine metaphor.

    The data are clear; abortion access has contributed greatly to women's economic and educational access, and improved mental and physical health.

    FAP will take that away.

    My dry-foot assertion has no effect under the current Constitutional framework of the United States of America. But it does coincide with the first obvious bright line answering the conflict that emerges because of FAP and PIU assertions. So of course, some are outraged and demand we talk about anything else. After all, the fact of legislative efforts to bring this question to the fore, and which bring dry-foot into specific consideration, are irrelevant to the outrage and need to talk about anything else.

    So as it really seems to matter to you, yes, my answer to your inquiry is the same as it has always been, the same as I explained in the thread that seems to have sparked all this useless outrage—my resolution is to simply assert that what takes place inside a woman's body is her own business.

    And, yes, it's true, I do have my own aesthetics in this. Maybe if my society had a better regard for women in particular, and showed greater concern for the people who already exist in the world generally, perhaps I might feel differently. But in Nebraska, a female can be old enough to breed, but not old enough not to. They're prosecuting women for being drug addicts who become pregnant, or are mentally ill and become pregnant, or simply have accidents. And those laws were supposed to protect pregnant women from other people. One of the most notorious turns, indeed, is in South Carolina, where they are pushing a FAP bill. They're attempting to make that sort of sleight mandatory.

    We cannot disconnect the fact that the question arises from the circumstances that elevate it. I beg your pardon, then, if I am not amused by a year and a half of people throwing insane temper tantrums in order to avoid this discussion. I suppose I ought to thank you in that context, as you're only asking me to reiterate what's already on the record.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    [sup]†[/sup] A brief note aside, from the Pacific Northwest: Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) ran the Senate Democrats' election campaign; the scuttlebutt is that she was several down the list, with everyone ahead of her turning down the request from Majority Leader Reid for want of keeping the bruising loss they expected off their political record. Sen. Murray, on the other hand, guided the Democrats to a win. There's a reason she's number four in the Senate; there's a reason Reid puts her front and center on so many important issues. And the thing is, she knew exactly how to hit Republicans where it hurt when they gave her not so much an opening as an engraved invitation. But the GOP hasn't learned, has it? On they go, pushing in the states, and even introducing a perennial bill in Congress.

    Works Cited:

    Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. "In re Initiative Petition No. 395, State Question No. 761". April 30, 2012. The Oklahoma State Courts Network. May 22, 2014. http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=465514

    Minor, Jack. "Court's 'Pontius Pilate' move to open abortion challenge?". World Net Daily. May 14, 2012. PersonHoodOklahoma.com. May 22, 2014. http://personhoodoklahoma.com/news/2012/05/courts-pontius-pilate-move-to-open-abortion-challenge/
     
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    somehow... I know I will get flack for this... but I saw it and couldn't un-see it...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It's apparently part of a condom commercial XD

    But, honestly, I think proper education could potentially fix a LOT of the issues with "unwanted children" and such.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Makes the Point

    It's a fun one. And yes, proper education could potentially fix a lot of the issues. I'm not even going to get into the Venn overlap, here, between FAP advocates and sex education objectors.

    Oh. Right. Damn.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    It needs to start with the adults first..

    A county in Kansas has rejected a state grant for contraceptives, after a county commissioner opposed the grant because he incorrectly considers intrauterine devices (IUDs) to be an abortifacient.

    Commissioners voted 3 to 0 to reject the grant.

    “I am not going to stand before my God, and he is going to point his finger and say, ‘You aborted those kids,” Saline County Commissioner John Price said during a meeting Tuesday, according to an Associated Press report. “I think it is murder to take this [grant money]. To me it is murder, and I am not standing for it.”

    IUDs and other forms of contraception prevent pregnancy from occurring, and therefore cannot cause an abortion, as the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists explains here.

    The state grant, worth $6,064 from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, would have provided long-acting, reversible contraceptives for county health department clients. Jeanette Peroli, a nurse practitioner with the Saline County Health Department, told the Salina Journal that there is a list of patients who are interested in receiving IUDs from the department.

    Peroli said she had provided Price with information on why IUDs are not abortifacients but that Price was unconvinced.

    “If they were to convince me, these doctors, I would feel different,” Price said. “I studied this real hard. I just feel it’s wrong. You can’t change my thoughts.”

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

    Messages:
    13,938
    *facepalm* WHY... WHY ARE THE MORONIC CRO-MAGNUMS IN OFFICE?
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Because more uneducated and/or frankly awful people put them in office..

    It's a vicious cycle.

    Kansas is not alone. Most states that attempt to put in personhood measures tend to have laws that restrict sex education in some way, shape or form, and/or they restrict access to contraception. Louisiana is a prime example:

    The Louisiana House of Representatives struck down a bill this week that would have allowed the state Department of Education to ask teens questions about their sexual health.

    State law currently says that “students shall not be tested, quizzed, or surveyed about their personal or family beliefs or practices in sex, morality, or religion.” The new bill would have amended this to make exceptions for surveys about teens’ “risk behavior associated with chronic health conditions, including those related to sexual health.” Despite the public health framing, many members of the house were concerned that asking young people about sex would encourage curiosity and sexual behavior.

    The survey in question is party of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) System conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC works with states and cities across the country in an attempt to get an accurate picture of the risk young people are taking in their daily lives. The survey asks students about a whole host of topics, including seat belt and bike helmet use, violence, guns, alcohol, and drugs. It includes approximately a dozen questions related to sexual health—whether students have ever had intercourse, if they have had intercourse in the last three months, if they used condoms or other forms of birth control when they had intercourse, and whether they used alcohol or other drugs when they had intercourse.

    The survey has been conducted every two years since 1991, and public health experts rely on it to give them an understanding of what young people are doing, let them compare young people in different states, and help them identify trends over time. Louisiana participates in the YRBS but the only question about sexual health that students in that state answer is about whether they ever learned about HIV or AIDS in school. (Twenty-five percent of students in Louisiana say they never learned about this topic in school, compared to 16 percent nationwide.)

    Rep. Patricia Smith (D-Baton Rouge), the sponsor of the bill, said in her remarks that surveying teens on these other topics—like smoking and drinking—has led to better prevention programs and that the state should be doing the same thing for sex. Other lawmakers, however, were nervous that asking teens what they are doing sexually would give them ideas. Rep. Lenar Whitney (R-Houma) asked, “Won’t we desensitize children when asking them about sexual activity?”

    Smith countered with stats about teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in the state and argued that teens are clearly already desensitized. In fact, Louisiana’s teen pregnancy rate of 80 pregnancies per 1,000 young women ages 15 to 19 is higher than the national rate of 68 pregnancies per 1,000. The birth rate for teens is higher as well, with 45 births per 1,000 young women ages 15 to 19, compared to 31 births nationwide. The state also has an alarmingly high rate of HIV infection among young people, with 22.1 HIV cases diagnosed per 100,000 young people ages 13 to 19, compared to a national rate of just seven cases.

    Though there is little if any research on the effect of taking a survey, research into sexuality education programs has shown that talking about sex with young people does not encourage sexual behavior. Young people in programs that talk about both abstinence and contraception are no more likely to have sex than their peers not in the program, they do not have sex earlier than their peers, they do not have sex more frequently, and they do not have more sexual partners. In facts, students who get these messages are more likely to delay sex and more likely to use condoms and other contraceptive methods when they do become sexually active.

    Despite this research and the poor statistics on adolescent sexual health in Louisiana, the bill failed by a vote of 55 to 38.

    And this was not the state’s only legislative blow to sex education in the last few weeks. On May 14, a bill designed to expand sexuality education failed to pass in committee. The bill, also sponsored by Rep. Smith, would have required all schools to provide sex ed (currently it is optional) and would have required that such education be comprehensive, medically accurate, and age appropriate. The bill had been introduced three times in the last five years and failed every time. This time the House Education Committee voted 10 to 3 against the measure.

    In contrast, another bill about sex education passed the Louisiana Senate Health and Welfare Committee Wednesday. This one restricts who can provide sex education in the schools. The bill, which passed the house last month, is intended to prohibit organizations like Planned Parenthood from conducting sexuality education classes in the school. As RH Reality Check recently reported, the bill’s house sponsor, Rep. Frank Hoffman (R-West Monroe), held a press conference attended by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal in which he said that if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, Louisiana already has a law in place that would immediately outlaw abortion. He added, “But until then, we want to make it as difficult as possible for the people doing that. This bill takes another step in that by not allowing these in-services in schools.”

    The bill is supported by Louisiana Right to Life and the Bioethics Defense Fund. Benjamin Clapper, executive director of Louisiana Right to Life, said in a statement that the bill is needed “to reassure Louisiana families that their children in state-funded elementary and secondary schools are not being targeted by individuals and organizations who have financial incentives to sell abortion.”




    But what do you expect from a State that is led by a Governor who wishes to outlaw all abortion, to the point where he is probably going to sign a Bill that will result in 3 out of its 5 clinics that provide abortions for first and into the second trimester, since you cannot access a third trimester abortion in the State? So what are the women who need an abortion supposed to do now?

    Bethany Van Kampen, board member of the New Orleans Abortion Fund, which assists low-income women who cannot afford their procedures, said in a statement that “Louisiana legislators have allowed ideology to trump medicine.”

    “This bill does not protect women; it is a back-door abortion ban,” Kampen said.

    To Louisiana’s west, in Texas, a similar law has already shuttered one-third of the clinics, with more expected to close this fall. To its east, the only thing keeping the last clinic in Mississippi open is a court order blocking another admitting privileges law. And Alabama’s version, which would leave only two clinics open in the state, is currently on trial in a district court in Montgomery. Yet another admitting privileges bill is on its way to the governor’s desk in nearby Oklahoma.

    The clinics would not be shutting for lack of demand. According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2011, women in those five contiguous states – Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma – had a total of 103,040 legal abortions.

    Nor are they closing because they pose a demonstrated risk to women. The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose the admitting privileges laws. And as Dr. Paul Fine, medical director of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which includes centers in Texas and Louisiana, testified in the Alabama trial this week, abortion is “extremely safe. It’s safer than getting a shot of penicillin.”

    “The risk of death from live childbirth is about 8.8 per 100,000,” Fine added, according to the Montgomery Advertiser. “The risk of death from abortion is about six per one million. The risk of death from childbirth is about 14 times high than that of abortion.”

    Louisiana has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country. It also severely restricts sexual education in schools.

    Unable to ban abortion outright until Roe v. Wade is fully overturned, southern legislators have resorted to admitting privileges laws that simply cut off the supply of safe and legal providers.



    They cannot even travel to neighbouring States because their restrictions are worse and most of the clinics in the neighbouring States were forced to close down due to similar legislation.

    This is what happens when people view women as being breeders, who should mind their place and who are wholly expendable.

    The irony of the right's and Jindal's support of demanding admitting privileges for doctors who perform abortions is so downright stupid when you consider that his budget recommendations (which appear to have passed) would result in women who are poor or cannot afford private health insurance should only be provided with a midwife or doula when they give birth, and not an obstetrician or even a hospital delivery room (that are apparently too expensive for women who receive Medicaid).. If that isn't bad enough, the unborn fetus apparently will get access to Medicaid..


    Over the last several months, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals made a series of announcements about LaMOMS, the state’s Medicaid program for pregnant women—first announcing cuts to the program, then a plan to reevaluate those cuts, and then that the cuts were being rescinded. Health Secretary Kathy Kliebert explained in a series of interviews with the Baton Rouge Advocate that this seesaw of decisions was caused by an unspecified change in federal policy related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

    The $11 million in cuts, which passed as part of the 2013-2014 state budget in June, were added back into the budget in November. But the reversal dictated that the category of women who were slated to be dropped from LaMOMS are now instead covered through the state’s Medicaid program for children, LaCHIP. This means that the Medicaid funds are now technically for “unborn children,” not for the pregnant women themselves, and these women will lose postpartum care coverage. These changes went into effect in January.

    [HR][/HR]

    Those in the 133 to 200 percent FPL range will now receive Medicaid through the state’s Medicaid fund for children, rather than through LaMOMS. Since the unborn fetuses will now be the ones receiving Medicaid, it’s unclear whether health services that don’t directly affect the fetus will be covered. Further, women will no longer receive the 60 days of postpartum care that is required through LaMOMS.

    Louisiana has the second highest infant mortality rate in the nation, and infants born to mothers who do not receive prenatal care are five times more likely to die. In early November, when Louisiana’s health department was still considering whether to rescind the LaMOMS cuts, March of Dimes released new statistics on preterm birth, showing that Louisiana had improved very little despite pledges to address the problem.

    “We urge policy-makers to expand insurance coverage, including Medicaid, for women of childbearing age,” the March of Dimes wrote on its “F” grade report card for Louisiana.

    In the area of maternal health, Louisiana’s situation is so bad that the state was singled out for censure at last year’s UN General Assembly Millennium Development meeting on maternal health. The state has high rates of maternal death, too few practicing obstetricians, and a high proportion of uninsured women—27 percent of women of child-bearing age have no insurance, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Given these serious problems, it’s alarming that LaMOMS was ever considered a target for budget reductions.

    Uninsured Louisianans in the 100 to 400 percent FPL range are indeed now eligible for ACA subsidies. But for those who don’t enroll in the ACA marketplace during open enrollment and then become pregnant, it’s important that Medicaid continue to provide these women with free, immediate care.

    In most Republican-governed states, pregnant women are eligible for Medicaid only during their pregnancy, but are then dropped from the program. This is the case in Louisiana, which provides little Medicaid to non-disabled adults: Only adults with dependent children who earn up to $2,727 a year are eligible. This means that if a low-income woman earns more than $2,727, she loses her Medicaid coverage 60 days after giving birth, when LaMOMS coverage ends.
     
  14. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Oh for fucks sake... so many people have this mindset of "don't talk about it and it will go away"... that isn't how this works. BOYS have a PENIS. GIRLS have a VAGINA. BOTH have HORMONES! Ultimately, they WILL want to figure out why these "private parts nobody talks about feel weird and make them feel good when they are touched"... good GRIEF, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out...

    I really, really loathe this mindset that sexuality is somehow "bad"... there is nothing wrong with it, and the more information you give a person, the better they can make an educated and practical decision about a subject... why WOULDN'T the same apply here?
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    For some religions it's a method of control. Lust causes sin, and you can only be forgiven via this one process within the church . . . don't worry, everyone sins, just confess and feel guilty about about it. And if you _do_ get someone pregnant, why, we have this other sacrament that applies, and then we'll have more upstanding church members in a few years.

    It would not be in some church's best interest for people to make better decisions.
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    It isn't just that though. The unborn "child" is covered for Medicaid, the woman carrying it is not. Nor is the woman eligible to even have a doctor present at the birth, or to give birth in a delivery room. The woman only gains coverage for her pregnancy in how said pregnancy affects the unborn "child". Women are expendable and as a result, their fetuses die along with them when they die. I mean this:

    In the area of maternal health, Louisiana’s situation is so bad that the state was singled out for censure at last year’s UN General Assembly Millennium Development meeting on maternal health. The state has high rates of maternal death, too few practicing obstetricians, and a high proportion of uninsured women—27 percent of women of child-bearing age have no insurance, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Given these serious problems, it’s alarming that LaMOMS was ever considered a target for budget reductions.

    So not only is sex education restricted, contraception and emergency contraception is restricted. They cannot access abortions easily.. Then they deny pregnant women who are poor, maternal health coverage and instead only provide Medicaid to the fetus she is carrying. She no longer matters.
     
  17. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    I misrepresented nothing; I posted the article fully aware of its intended purpose and the backlash received by the authors because of it. The article illustrates that the real life logic used to justify fetal termination would ethically justify the termination of a newborn. It doesn’t recognize childbirth as a relevant determinant of personhood because it has nothing to do with the attainment of the required state of cognition deemed necessary to experience it. Such a state of cognition does represent an objective milestone for the attainment of personhood, while childbirth on the other hand merely represents a waypoint reached relative to the ultimate determination of that state of cognition.

    Granting rights to a developmentally qualified fetus to exist within a woman’s property (body) is akin to contractually granting a qualified renter the rights to occupy a dwelling. The occupation of that property may result in some inconvenience to the owner, but the owner ideally enters into the contract with full knowledge of their obligations to the renter. In essence the fetal contract is that by engaging in sexual intercourse the woman invited the residence of the developing fetus, thereby entitling it to certain rights of occupancy beginning midway through pregnancy. Restricting third term abortions would amount to a 90 day eviction notice to the fetus, and after delivery the woman and child are free to go their separate ways.

    How unfortunate, that the supposed cutoff for termination is limited by surgical competence. If it were not for the deficiency in medical facility, DF would become a reality, and we can only hope for the day when advances in medicine will deliver women from the bondage of pregnancy at every stage. Pray that God grants surgeons the skill to terminate to full term.

    Speaking of advances in medical facility, at such time that an artificial womb is realized, what gestational point does the fetus have to reach to gain rights of protection in that real estate?

    When you reproductively invite that other person to occupy your body. Like Kittamaru pointed out, that invite, like sex, is no accident.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2014
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    a woman's womb as real estate
    homestead laws apply?

    crazy subject

    personally, I consider abortion murder (removes a unique genetic structure from the gene pool)(maybe a loss? maybe a gain?)
    I also think that parents have a natural right to murder their own children
    I cannot understand why any parent would actually want to do this, but do not see any of this as something I would impose on another human being

    As Sara Palin said: "I would council for life."
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Ermm the backlash they received was because stupid and over-reactive people started screaming 'they want to kill our babies'.. When they were saying no such thing.

    Not exactly. It explored the ethics of the argument put forward by Michael Tooley. And people over-reacted. Just a few certain people misrepresented the supposed DF argument, which is pretty much a woman's choice stance. But hey, much better to just tell people that we want "to murder babies".

    Actually wrong. Just because it's there does not mean the owner of the property invites people to stay there. Squatters, as a prime example, are often removed if the owner does not want them there, even if there was an unlocked and open door at the front of the building. It also argued the ethics of what is now legal in some European countries, which is essentially euthanasia for children who are ill and have no hope of a future life.

    It's for the mother's safety. I mean I get it, that's unimportant to you, isn't it?

    It could be argued for and against in various ways. At least you won't get the chance to turn it into a turducken.

    Just because you invite someone into your home does not mean that they get to leave their houseplants there permanently for you to look after, maintain and grow.

    I mean I get it, she's just a fucking skank of a slut who opened her legs to any penis that was willing to give her a good time, to you.. You have, in a round about way, placed the responsibility and blame solely on the woman who lets herself get pregnant. Regardless of what you deem to be her "invitation" to fuck, does not mean that she alone has to bear the burden of a pregnancy she does not want. And sometimes, a woman is sleeping on her couch when someone breaks into her home, sees her sleeping in a dress to be an invitation and rapes her.. I find it ironic that in instances of rape, it's okay to "kill the baby", but in instances where the woman willingly has sex, well, then she's just the murderous slut if she decides to abort it. Your whole argument is hypocritical.

    It's not about the "baby".. It's about the woman.

    Because if you truly felt the fetus was a 'person' that deserved to be protected, then there would be no exception. Hence why your and the rendering of clothing from several others about the supposed DF policy is wholly and utterly hypocritical.

    It is never about the "baby". It never was and never will be.

    Because you all clearly prattle on about how there would be exemptions in cases of rape or if the mother falls ill.. So it's less of a "baby" or "child" if it is the result of rape or the mother falls ill and requires an abortion? What about if there is a case of fetal abnormality? It's less of a human? Less of a "child" or "person". So it's okay to "murder" those "children"? But if she has sex willingly? AMG SHE'S A FUCKING MURDERER!

    For people like you, Balerion, GeoffP and co, it's not about the "child" or wanting to protect "the children". It's about the woman who had sex. So yeah, can the hypocrisy about how much you care about the "children" or don't feel women should be allowed to abort in some circumstances because 'she's killing a child'. If it was really about the "child", there would be no exceptions, because it is no less a "child" or "baby" or "person" with those exceptions. It was never and is not about the fetus. It's about the woman who willingly and "reproductively" invited another person to fuck her.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2014
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Speak the Devil's name...

    I was going to let Balerion take this one, but I noticed my name below.

    So eviction may encompass death, then. Weren't you strongly against "stand your ground", earlier?

    Maybe instead of aspersions you could try arguments when dealing with others. They both start with "a", but that's no reason to get them confused.

    Interesting phrase. He personally is trying to do that, is he? And you told me before that you understood it was rhetorical. And now you don't again. Strange.

    Ninety days is permanent now, is it?

    Maybe instead of avoidance and hiding the issue, you should just come out and state explicitly what you're proposing. First, DF was meant to be a real functional limit, then it was an argumentative tool, and now apparently it's a real limit again. Choose one, and see below.

    No: it's that the aesthetic choice of the mother is being respected. Although, there actually is the implication of a eugenic perspective; I'm astounded you and Tiassa haven't jumped all over that, given your constant, farcical refrains to absolute reason.

    You're clearly deranged. Where have I made any such argument? For that matter, where has Capracus made any such point in actuality? Look, if you want to talk a pack of shit, that's your prerogative - to an extent. If you drag me into your stupidity, be assured that I will help you look stupid. Understand? At no time is it about the woman who had sex.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Those three are not clearly relevant - they are presented as consequences of viability in any fetus, without regard to formally established personhood. What was the point of them here?

    No, this is an issue not presumable - there are usually rights inherent to personhood, which must be defended by the State for any legal person (that's what a "right" is - something the State is obligated to defend). And how do you plan to handle the physical fact that a woman's former and normal rights must be overridden in any State defense of the rights of any person living inside her?

    Extraordinary metaphor, that.

    Shorthand - the woman is an incubator (a piece of real estate with no rights of its own), and she was transformed into that by having sex.

    Kind of like the standard contract you have with your neighbor, whereby if you pet his dog you have agreed to let it move into your house and kill your cat.

    There is no State in which the death of a second month embryo - a miscarriage - is automatically investigated as manslaughter, even in circumstances (second hand smoke, say) where a third party is strongly implicated. Horribly enough, the innocent little guy is often simply flushed down the toilet while still alive. No one calls a coroner, time of death is not determined, and so forth.

    All that would have to change, if a second month embryo were granted legal status as a person. Right?
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Assigning personhood to a developing fetus involves an increase in rights, moving from a non-person (no rights at all) to a full person (all rights.) These rights change before and after viability and at other points in fetal development. If you do not understand that, or would like another list of those rights, then let me know and I will repeat some what I have posted above when answering your question previously.

    It is not only presumable, it is explicitly stated by US law.
    Precisely. And as proven by fetal homicide laws, fetuses do have some rights inherent to personhood which are defended by the State. You may object to them but that does not change the fact that they exist.
    That is not a physical fact. A woman, for example, does not lose her right to vote, or her right to drive, or her right to life, or her right to free speech when she is pregnant, even though she contains a fetus that has some of the rights a person has. So your question is invalid.
    Correct. However, if a woman were shot in the abdomen by an assailant, and it killed the fetus, then in most states it IS investigated as manslaughter. They determine time of death, look for a suspect to arrest, analyze the murder weapon etc. That is an excellent example of how a fetus has SOME but not ALL the legal rights of personhood.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You have yet to address my question, or the OP issue. The matter at hand is the consequences of granting personhood to a developing fetus - obviously an increase in rights to the minimum defining "personhood", at least, and the obligatory presence of the State defending them - and then the means of resolving the direct and occasionally uncompromisable conflicts between those rights and the woman's. Clearly the ordinary rights of self defense and so forth are no longer enjoyed by the woman - they would abrogate every single right of the fetal person, as they would any person attempting to invade and parasitize someone - but what else?
    If a fetus has been granted status as a person, yes, she does. All those "rights" you listed (there is no right to drive, or explicitly to vote, in the US) would then be subject to adjudication by the State, and the State could deny her any of those that the State deems in conflict with the rights of the person dwelling inside her. In other words, she no longer enjoys them as rights the State is obligated to defend for her. That is because of the physical fact of the person's location, inside her, whose rights the State is obligated to defend.

    And examples of this actually happening have been posted for you to read, by Bells and Tiassa and others.

    They can restrict their interest to late term fetuses killed by assailants because the fetus is not otherwise (earlier, killed otherwise) a "person". They would be obligated to establish time and cause of death for any miscarriage, if it were of a legal person, correct? The deaths of persons are formally addressed by the State.

    Until it is declared a person. Then we ask: So how much of that deprivation of rights and forbearance of State obligation would still hold?
     

Share This Page