Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

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

?

Do I support this proposition?

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

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Anti-abortion: No

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Pro-choice: Yes

    61.5%
  4. Pro-choice: No

    15.4%
  5. Other (Please explain below)

    23.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    ETA: I should have put this in spoilers since it was merely a response to Bells' offtopic rambling about how abused she is.

    Yeah, sure, I notice the guy wasn't banned. Also notice that I didn't post an official complaint about his behavior or the fact that he wasn't banned for it. I really wasn't too concerned bout it. It showed he was a bit mental. So what? I'm actually kinda glad it happened. I didn't realize how much of my personal information was on that blog and what was available to be seen, such as my real name. I don't care what strangers on this forum see really. but I do have an ex-husband out there who has kidnapped my son before and held him in Pakistan for nearly 3 years before I was able to recover him. So bringing to light what was easy to discern from my blog did me a huge favor in being able to hide from my ex-husband. Honestly, I owe the guy my gratitude for bringing it to light. Personally, i think you and Jame R over reacted in my particular case, but since you couldn't have known how I would actually feel, by terms of this forum you did what was necessary, considering that I have heard other members have been stalked and had their lives threatened on here.

    It's also nice to see you reminding me of how much power you have over me as a moderator. That's not intimidation at all.


    You know what though, you are right. What a fool I have been. What a terrible person I am. How can I not recognize the pain you have suffered in your life. Surely any decent person wouldn't dare expect you to be able to hold rational discussion and see the world objectively after the horrifying experiences you have suffered. Shame on me for expecting you to make sense. I will never make that mistake again. I promise, I won't. You poor poor thing, I am so SORRY.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I'm sorry, I don't see what Seagypsy did wrong. She disagrees with your assertion that Asgard is bullying, and points out your hypocrisy in the process. Where are the attacks on your health, your son, etc.? Or are those just as imaginary as this invisible slight is?

    You know, for someone who says such obscenely personal things about others, you sure have some thin skin.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I'm sorry, I don't see what seagypsy did wrong. She disagreed with your claim that Asgard was being a bully or controlling, and pointed out your hypocrisy in the process. That's the worst of it? Where are the attacks on your health and your son, etc.? Or are those just as imaginary as this one?

    You know, for someone who makes such obscenely personal comments about other posters, you sure have thin skin.

    At any rate, it's long past time that you gave up your mantle as a moderator. You are arguably the biggest flamer/insulter on this forum, you are constantly involved in these kinds of incidents, and while others suffer bans and infractions for far less, you remain unscathed. Enough is enough. Time to go.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Agreed. Very well put. oh... and very accurately put. Objectivity is important and someone that exaggerates to the point of absurdity is not objective at all. I really wish the Admin would examine the flaming and threats "I'm well within my rights to ban you for this and that" and personal attacks, rather than assuming that Mods must be Mods for a very good reason.
     
  8. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    This is true and fact is, almost everyone on this topic got out of hand.
    Trippy, Bells, Physbang, seagypsy and myself.
    However, all of the above mentioned appear to be trying very hard to keep it under control even if suffering moments of Letting Go.
    Sticking to the facts isn't always so easy when trying to show that the facts must be valid and getting called a liar every single step of the way, which was utterly uncalled for.

    The examples Bells provided earlier rebutted your comparison to Triage. The catholic hospitals were not practicing Triage, they were instituting dogma.
    You're applying a double standard here, where you're saying it's ok to kill another human brain because she was distraught- yet it if she had killed a 2 year old, would you give her that same credit? No, she'd go to prison. No judge would give her that credit even if you would. That is not how the standard works even if you wish to distort it as a political issue.

    Think of the precedent you are trying to set.
     
  9. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Garbage, GeoffP.This ain't the theater. I have not enjoyed nor missed this kind of circus.
    Agreed. But this does not mean that we can consider woman as totalitarian and autonomous units, disregarding the point where another human is involved.

    Long ago, I asked what the problem is and you never answered.

    Bells, if woman only get third trimester abortions if it's medical- if the law enforces that- what is the problem? Why is it that you believe that she must have the right to "kill" regardless of the reasons, even if not medical?
     
  10. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    This is very disturbing. And here is a primary problem of taking sides:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/26/us/an-abortion-rights-advocate-says-he-lied-about-procedure.html

    Sorry about the multiple posts- had to get caught up.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058

    If an airplane crashes in bad weather, in a region that is difficult to access, and only a small rescue team is able to arrive at the site, while there are 300 injured passengers (who are all, obviously, granted personhood), and the rescue team perform triage, which may mean that some people are left to die -
    - yes, there probably are people who would sue the rescue team for murder.

    I suppose the family of a felon who was convicted with the death penalty and executed could sue the government for murder too.


    It is because of fear of being sued that various institutions and companies instate policies that are intended to protect them against possible lawsuits, but tend to create very messy situations that are impossible to resolve and bring a lot of suffering to some, or all involved.


    I think that your insistence on relegating an unborn to the status of tissue or at least non-personhood is fueled at least partly by this fear of being sued.
    And this fear is apparently based on the total decontextualization of the situation in which the homicide occurred.


    There is such a thing as non-culpable homicide. Google it, although as a lawyer, you should know about it.
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,445
    -_-

    If they grant personhood to the foetus, then women will be denied third trimester abortions even if it is medical. Think about it, if they are denying abortions in the first and second trimester while she is miscarrying, what do you think they are going to do in the third trimester if she falls ill?

    Granting personhood means that the unborn, regardless of which trimester it is in, will have equal rights and protection at law as the mother. What this does is it recognises the unborn as a person and if the mother falls ill, she will not be able to get an abortion if it is medically required as the doctors performing the abortion could find themselves charged with murder (since killing a person is deemed murder). What it also means is that if she does anything to endanger the foetus, such as wear heels, as one example, and she trips over and they decide that she would not have tripped if she wore flat shoes, or as Tiassa's examples point out in the OP, she could find herself charged as well if it results in a miscarriage.

    In short, granting personhood means that the unborn has equal recognition and protection from harm from any source, be it the mother wearing heels and tripping over, for example, or the mother falling ill and being denied medical assistance if said assistance means terminating her pregnancy. We are already seeing that in hospitals run or owned by the Church. Now imagine that applying for the whole pregnancy everywhere, for all women. Read the Bill being proposed in Kansas, which would effectively make any abortion illegal. Or other bills and legislation proposals that were brought up in this thread, which states that life begins at the point of conception and personhood in this instance, would apply from then.
     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Per your reasoning then, people involved in vehicular collisions, people who live or work in a building that has caught fire, airplane passengers etc. should be stripped of personhood too, and relegated to the status of "tissue,"
    so that rescue teams, firefighters, airplane companies etc. don't find themselves sued for murder!


    Ah, to hell with it, why not just strip everyone of personhood status, so that anyone can kill anyone and nobody gets sued!
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,445
    And if that applied in this instance, this thread would not exist.

    However we are seeing, with clear evidence from hospitals that are administered by the Church, where women miscarrying are denied medical care if it means said care would result in terminating her pregnancy or 'ending life'.

    So you can claim what you want about how it should be if they grant personhood, that is not what is actually happening.

    At all.

    It is not because doctors are afraid of being sued. It is because doctors face being charged with murder if they terminate a pregnancy, even if it saves the life of the mother.

    So we can wax the lyrical about how it should be all we like, how it is absurd, etc.. And we can apply the standards you are attempting to apply.

    What you cannot do is deny the fact that some hospitals are operating along the lines of granting personhood and it is a prime example of what would happen over all if all States approved of such forms of legislation.
     
  15. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Which is a problem. The problem is not with your attitude or with my attitude- but the extremist pro-lifer attitude.

    If a doctor failed to save a woman's life, he'd get sued. If he intentionally causes harm, he would be prosecuted.

    So why not do the same to that catholic priest that put people in harms way due to his extremist views? Instead of re-defining personhood in an arbitrary manner and pandering to him, keep the standard of personhood and hold him to the same standards as everyone else.

    The precedent you set by defining personhood out of convenience and not holding the extremist accountable is more disturbing.
     
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    No. The problem is radical decontextualization.


    And then there can be additional laws regulating non-culpable homicide, as is already done in other areas where issues of culpable and non-culpable homicide apply. Problem solved.

    Your solution is just as short-sighted as the one you object to. It's as if neither you nor your opposition has much trust in the principles on which the legal system is built.
     
  17. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153

    I'd vote for that law, but then I am an oddity. I don't see life as a right. I see it as a privilege. I believe the concept of rights is a delusion. Nothing is really a right if someone else can take it from you. Maybe if we all treated our lives as privileges that others bestow upon us , knowing at any moment that privilege can be rescinded at any time for any reason, we may all be a little bit kinder to one another. Bearing in mind most humans do not enjoy killing but we may be motivated to kill someone who presents themselves as being of a particularly nasty personality type that no one would be upset over losing.

    This is after all how our society really works. If enough people decide you are no longer "entitled" to your right to live, it is taken away. Only the state is usually the only one who can take it legally. But by way of vote, we as a society decide by consensus who shall have the privilege to live and who should not. Rights simply do not exist, IMO.
     
  18. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    You will need to elaborate on this.
    So that you make sense. Wherein lies the problem (I'm about to attack your character) with you constantly switching viewpoints in debates. One moment you're telling the theist where he's to get off and the next moment telling the atheist how wrong he is for telling the theist to get off. So frankly, you words carry little merit. Elaborate. Explain the reasoning.

    Here's how I see it: Enforce the law.
    If the law is that a woman may abort 1st, 2nd trimesters- then women have that right.
    If the law says that 3rd trimester has established personhood, then the woman may not abort unless her life is in danger since the law currently supports people who kill another (Even full grown human) if their life is in danger.

    If anyone disregards those laws, such as an extremist pro-lifer that disregards the personhood of the mother, they must be prosecuted under the law.

    To set a precedent in which we allow the right to kill another human brain out of convenience smacks in the face of everything that our society has tried to lay down, stand for, uphold.


    Everything I've said should satisfy Bells Criteria and my criteria and most reasonable persons criteria. The extremist viewpoints, pro-life or pro-choice are extremist- fringe- unworthy of speculation.
     
  19. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    Maybe the problem is that churches are allowed to administer hospitals. I don't see why religious extremists are allowed to sit in positions where they get to dictate who lives and dies. Perhaps health care should be taken away from the private sector.
     
  20. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Taking it away from the private sector would only wrap it up in red tape, bureaucracy etc. The more government run, the worse people get treated and the more paperwork must be done. I mean, think about it... Everytime you deal with a government agency, you have to jump through enough hoops to tire a seal, wait forever and hardly ever hear back from them without harassing them. When they do talk to you- they are rude and dismissive.

    No, enforcing the law, even on priests, should be sufficient. Write-word the laws in the proper way, to protect the mother. Protect personhood.
     
  21. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    I like wynn's idea better. No red tape. No waiting in line.
     
  22. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Our modern society disagrees with this.

    I don't though and while I see no need to advocate it, here, as it would do no good in this thread. In the end, it's the only real way to go and only true to our nature, which our current society resists hands down resulting in such current insane dilemmas.
    Our modern society makes no sense at all and here is one consequence of our resistance, which is almost religious in its determination.

    Then again, I'm a bit apocalyptic.
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,445
    What we know from the studies presented for third trimester abortions is that all of them have what you would deem a valid reason, ie, women aren't just changing their minds and getting an about having a child in the third trimester and deciding to abort. In other words, women are not aborting for convenience in the third trimester, but for actual valid reasons in the context of this thread. So I think denying women even medically necessary abortions is towing a very very fine line. Looking at the Catholic administered hospitals which were detailed in the links of that report I provided earlier, women are ending up in intensive care and nearly dying because doctors are being ordered to wait or are scared to act to save the mother. Look at the case where the pregnancy was actually in the vagina. The woman went septic and nearly died and the doctor who ended up treating her had to cut the umbilical cord when no one was looking so that he could treat her, as that meant the foetal heartbeat had stopped. That is, to me personally, an appalling situation. The mother was near death at that point and had he not taken those steps, she would probably have died. Regardless of the trimester, no person should ever be placed in that type of situation deliberately.

    The scary thing is, of course, is that the Church is buying up the management of more and more hospitals across the world.

    And freedom of religion. If you forced a priest to adopt a standard that contradicted with their religious teachings, then you would be infringing on his rights to his beliefs.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page