"Women are Hosts"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by ElectricFetus, Apr 1, 2017.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member


    So Almighty god who knows when a sparrow falls thinks? its more than likely that her body caused the parasitic issue

    and on that basis

    the woman will go to hell

    So no need burden of proof

    Straight to hell

    Do not pass go and collect redemption

    Glad we sorted out how loving god is

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    She told her lover that she was pregnant 4 months earlier, and was researching abortions a couple of months later, so it’s not like the pregnancy caught her by surprise. She had ample time to secure a legal abortion, but apparently got careless and went over the limit.

    We don’t know if she delivered a deceased child, because this deceptive woman is the only eye witness. She may have delivered a live baby and killed it post delivery, which would explain her reluctance to reveal the location of the remains.

    Society collectively grants or denies her rights. As a member of that collective, you share in that responsibility. Was society wrong to condemn her actions? Sarah Catt is the only one living who knows what happened, her victim is still waiting to be dug out of the ground to tell its side of the story. She created her desperate situation; she had ample time to procure an earlier abortion but chose to wait too long. And then to make matters worse, she chose to abort a full term fetus in an apparent attempt to hide the results of the pregnancy from her husband and everyone else.

    That’s the reality of her situation.

    So you want to bump up the legal limit to say 30 weeks to accommodate clients like Sarah? If Sarah was negligent at 24 weeks, who says she’d be any more reliable at 30. If you want to improve the safety of abortion, then encourage sexually active women to monthly monitor their state of pregnancy, so that needed abortions can be preformed as early as possible.

    As Bells mentioned earlier, a fetus at that gestational age would be delivered rather than aborted, and due to its irreversibly impaired condition, would be condemned to a death outside the womb. If abortion or delivery is a necessity to save lives of mothers or “babies,” then those options ethically should be in play.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    The timeline in the article you linked seems all over the place.

    What is concerning about that case is the fact that the judge was so biased (he is deeply involved in the pro-life movement and his sentence was deemed so excessive and harsh, that on appeal, it was halved), but mostly that no psychological evaluation was ever done or ordered by the court, despite the history this woman presented with before the court.

    The defendant gave a child up for adoption in 1999, the court was told.

    She later had a termination with the agreement of her husband, tried to terminate another pregnancy but missed the legal limit and concealed another pregnancy from her husband before the child's birth.

    How, given her history, was she not given a psychological or psychiatric evaluation?

    Also, from the timeline you posted, no effort was made to offer her any help when she tried to procure an abortion on two occasions, before she researched it online.

    The case is a tragedy, because this woman received absolutely no help, and by the looks of it, received no help when she exhibited similar behaviour in regards to past pregnancies.

    This isn't an issue of being careless and went over the limit. This is an issue of a woman with what appears to be issues with being pregnant and even attempting to deny or lie to others and perhaps even herself, about her pregnancies and her history shows this and she received no help at all in all of that time.

    She shouldn't have been sent to jail. She should have been sent to get psychiatric help.

    This woman is clearly disturbed, Capracus.

    And she has never received help for any of it. And the baby could very well have been stillborn.

    Look, she isn't the first woman who attempted to deny or hide her pregnancy, and if she killed the baby after it was born, she would not be the first either.

    I think what this case shows is that she was and probably remains, deeply disturbed, in dire need of help.

    How cruel of you, Capracus.

    Given her history, the appearance of trying to terminate previous pregnancies, giving one child up for adoption, concealing pregnancies in the past, it proves that she seems incapable of coping with pregnancy, childbirth or being a 'mother'.

    What is damning in this case is that when she tried to procure an abortion on two different occasions, no one flagged her as requiring help, or even offering her counseling. Nothing was done. By your timeline, they simply told her to start her antenatal classes and treatment. The fact that she had gone there for an abortion should have flagged the fact that she would not be interested in antenatal classes.

    I think her sentence was cruel and unusual and I also think that instead of sending her to prison, she should have been given psychiatric care.

    And frankly, her case is a prime and shining example of why late term abortions are necessary and why counseling should be made available to women who seek late term abortions, especially once they have reached the point where it is no longer feasible to obtain an abortion due to how far along she may be.

    Her case is exceptionally rare and hardly a standard for late term abortions. But it certainly shows why this service is necessary and why more support needs to be given to women in her situation.

    And no, it is not my responsibility to judge her. I think it is society that needs to be judged simply because it turned its back on this woman, who clearly needed help and counseling long before this ever happened.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Clients like Sarah?

    Sarah clearly shows that women in desperate situations will risk their own lives to procure an abortion. Unless of course you wish to go back to the days of coat hangers and back alleys?

    Sarah's case shows that safe and legal abortions are a necessity and that help needs to be made available to the rare women like Sarah, who so desperately need it.

    You keep declaring she was "negligent", when her history clearly indicates that it was not negligence, but a deep seated issue that should have been flagged long before it got to this point.

    And if I want to improve the safety of abortion or reduce abortions, my encouragement would be for better sex education in schools, better and free access to all forms of birth control and access to the morning after pill, not to mention access to abortions up to the point where an abortion is no longer feasible, which is usually around the 30 to 33 week mark, and in such cases where that is not possible, that women be helped and supported, instead of being sent home and ignored for the duration, despite the clear history that in some cases like Sarah's, that this is not a normal pregnancy and that she needed care. She received none whatsoever.

    I would also recommend the shaming of women stops and respecting them as human beings with rights over their bodies start.

    In some cases, in rare cases where the woman is too ill to deliver and there is no chance of the child surviving, for example, they will do an abortion to save the mother's life in the very late stages of the pregnancy. It really depends on each individual case and it should be assessed individually as the need arises.

    The only type of abortion that does happen after 24 weeks is for fetal anomalies. Most abortions for fetal anomalies happen before 24 weeks, but a very small percentage happen later than that. The abortions that take place later do so because it takes time to do the ultrasounds and genetic testing. Sometimes a fetal MRI may even be needed.

    Sadly, some women are lied to by anti-abortion doctors in states with gestational age limits and get their genetic testing done on the late side because the doctor wants to try to take the possibility of an abortion off the table. I have personally heard of this happening.

    However, even with the most on-the-ball OB-GYN, it can still be a race to get all the information and give a pregnant person time to think it over before 24 weeks. Sometimes the drastic nature of the problem isn’t fully realized until the pregnancy progresses. Other times a woman is carrying a fetus incompatible with life and thought she would go to term and let nature take its course, but then she realizes she just can’t. Who among us should judge those women?

    When these procedures do happen, they could be an induction of labor, or some highly skilled providers can perform dilation and extraction procedures past 24 weeks. The closer to term (40 weeks), the more likely the procedure will be an induction of labor. So at 36 or 37 weeks, in most situations, the doctor will simply induce labor and after delivery not resuscitate the baby. However, there are rare medical situations where that might not be advisable, so the option of a dilation and extraction allows women in these situations to avoid a C-section.

    The facts are that 98.6 percent of abortions happen before 21 weeks. Most of the terminations at or after 21 weeks are very wanted pregnancies with serious fetal anomalies. Some are for the health of the mother and a very small percentage are for personal reasons. Almost all women who have later abortions for personal reason would have had the procedure sooner if they could have, so the very laws proposed by politicians who aim to restrict abortion (mostly under the false pretense of safety) actually lead to delays.
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Let me clarify this. (apologies in advance, Jeeves.)

    Jeeves posited an argument of the form "perhaps they should have thought of this before doing..."
    I simply cautioned Jeeves that "they should have thought of it beforehand" had far-reaching application.
    I had not intended to raise it as a primary argument, I was attempting to show where that kind of thinking led.

    How does that make a functional difference to her freedom?
    If she is restricted from doing things because she is breast-feeding, then she essentially doesn't have the right to do whatever she wishes with her body.

    It is impossible in practice to address every comment in a discussion of this level of activity. Each of us does what they can.

    I have no idea how you link that to putting words in people's mouths. That's a separate issue, whereby you reinterpret something I said in your words, as if that's what I'm saying.

    It is very apparent that shame is a huge issue with you. You have attempted to steer the topic that way several times.
    It is interfering with your objective discussion of issue-at-hand.

    I would point out that you tabled the issue of your personal sex life. Do you want that as part of the discussion or not?

    I have not done this.

    Again. You have an axe to grind. Grind it somewhere else.

    That's definitely a practical issue. I am arguing what I see as a more fundamental issue that is not getting the attention it may need: the actual life or death of a possible person.

    It is not my intent to solve every problem at once.
    That's called the Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.

    Pregnancy is an issue that affects both men and women. In both cases they are being irresponsible if they did not consider the consequences.

    Oh, I do too. It's totally fallacious.

    As are yours.

    Men must have the same discussion, even if their consequences aren't as severe.

    The fact that women have uteruses is not sexist.

    Sexism occurs when someone is considered based on their gender when gender is not a relevant factor.

    The gender here, because of the particulars is a factor.

    Baseless assertion. Rejected.

    Men and women both have a responsibility.

    In the face of an abortion, which you continually trivialize.

    Not curtailed - are freely waived. A woman - or a man - who engaged in child care makes a choice to give up certain freedoms willingly.

    I am simply broadening the applicability.

    I am not. I have engaging in a discussion where actions and consequences are being civilly discussed.

    This is luscious. Your attempt to make this apersonal issue for you, and then blame me for it is ironic.
    You have inserted yourself into the discussion.

    You can't insert you personal story, and then accuse me of making this about you.

    If I were a lesser person, I'd invoke the word hypocrisy.

    Tell you what. If you'd like to agree that this is a wholly academic issue, no personal anecdotes, I am in full agreement.

    ... aaaaaaaaaaand your pet agenda.

    I counter by saying your personal agenda appears to be eating kittens.
    Where did that come from?
    Oh, I just pulled it out of my head and applied it to you. See how silly it looks when you read it on the page?

    This is a "begging the question" fallacy. you're using your conclusion as the premise.

    For the sake of the discussion (not for your personal circumstance) it is not a valid premise that a growing fetus is a "private matter". That's the very premise I am debating.
    My primary argument is that there are two lives involved.

    This is an ad hom. The status of the arguer has no bearing on the argument.

    You don't have children; you have no business concerning yourself with their welfare.
    You're not visually impaired; you have no business speaking about blindness.
    You don't own a car; you have no business being involved in automobile policy.

    Now that is sexist.

    And deeply derogatory.

    Bells, there is no limit to which you won't go to reduce a thoughtful, if animated, discussion to a schoolyard poo-flinging round. It's your go-to tactic.
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    All that being said, I'm glad this has been hashed out.

    I posited the validity of the 'perhaps they should have thought of that beforehand' argument and, through discussion, followed it to its logical conclusion.

    It doesn't work.

    For one, it's not actionable. Where does one go after such a declaration?

    For two, it doesn't inform the principle argument.

    So I concede the point. Mostly to Bells, partly to Jeeves.

    That brings me back my primary point: whether or not a fetus has an inalienable human right to live.
    I'm not asserting that it does, simply that I see some validity to it, and that - being a life or death issue - it shouldn't be dismissed.

    (I am mindful of the treatment of slaves, centuries earlier. It did not occur to many to consider slaves as more than talking animals. Some would be shocked at the idea that you couldn't simply shoot one on-sight. We acknowledge today that this view was myopic than a humanity point of view. But it took centuries.)

    So, if a fetus were to be considered to have such a right, then it means the issue of abortion does not involve only one life; it involves two.

    But I've gotten no further on that point.
  10. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Yes they both get souls... an the soul of the twin that was absorbed gets absorbed by the soul of the twin that lives.!!!

    Sinse this one soul has a double dose of holeyness its likely to have issues an many of these people turn out to be TV preechers.!!!

    Yes... just for fun God sometimes intentionally forgets thangs so he can be surprized when stuff dies.!!!
  11. Bells Staff Member

    How does breastfeeding deny her her rights to her body?

    To the one, she chooses whether to breastfeed or not. Secondly, the baby is not permanently attached to her nipple or a part of her body.

    She can choose not to breastfeed, just as she can choose to breastfeed.

    You are attempting to apply something that simply cannot be applied to this scenario.

    You are still avoiding that glaring issue.

    You really don't get it, do you?

    I don't feel ashamed. Just as women should not feel shamed or ashamed if they opt to have an abortion.

    Your repeated assertions about her irresponsibility, your repeated comments about how she forfeited her rights to her body if she has sex, your continuous comments about 'what did she think would happen', your comments about sex for reasons that are not tantamount for reproduction, is a means to shame women. You might not realise you are doing it, or perhaps you are and that is just the type of person you happen to be, at this point, I don't particularly care.. But your veering this conversation to my sex life and asking if I feel ashamed. It's kind of laughable really, because from my end, it just looks like a desperate attempt on your part to divert attention away from your belief that women forfeit or waive their rights to their bodies when they have sex.

    Is that what you are doing? Or are you just the type of person who wants to delve into the sex lives of others to judge them perhaps?

    I had asked you if you thought that I, a woman, who has sex, whether you believe that means I forfeited any rights to my body as a result of it.. And you pretty much ignored it and then jumped to asking me if I was ashamed.

    Why did you do that?

    Oh but you have.

    Each time you have gone on and on about the sexual choices and decisions women make, you have pretty much shamed women. Because of the manner that you have chosen to do it.

    What do you think the whole abortion debate is actually about in the general scheme of things?

    What do you think the pro-life supporters actually argue and give attention to, Dave?

    It is not the man's body that is affected by it. The pregnancy does not occur inside of his body, but in hers. The consequences for him are minor compared to what it is and will be for her.

    And yet you have consistently argued that a woman forfeits or waives her rights to her body if she chooses to have sex.

    But you don't exactly address that discussion to men, do you? Your repeated arguments have been about her and her forfeited rights to her body when she has sex for reasons that are not to reproduce.

    Wow.. Talk about missing the point entirely.

    The fact that you believe that having a uterus means that one waives and/or forfeit's one's rights to one body if they choose to have sex is exceptionally sexist.

    The only people who are affected by this are women. You are specifically targeting women and suggesting that it is they and they alone who should forfeit and waive their fundamental human rights to their own bodies, if they dare to have sex for reasons other than to reproduce.

    And you do not see that as being sexist?


    But who carries the bigger responsibility in this discussion? Who stands to lose their rights over their own bodies, if people such as yourself get your way?

    How have I trivialised abortion?

    By repeatedly saying that women have rights to their bodies and that it is their decision and theirs alone?

    Oh no! How dare I suggest that women get to determine and decide what happens to their own bodies!

    A woman who falls pregnant and does not want it, is not "engaging in child care".

    You do understand the difference between a child that is born and foetus, yes? Because you keep trying to blur those lines.

    I do not consider someone repeatedly saying that women's rights to their own bodies are forfeited and waived if they are irresponsible enough to have sex without any intention of reproduction, as being civil.

    It is exceptionally offensive.

    I dare you to tell a woman in your realm of acquaintance that and see what her reaction is. Perhaps your wife or girlfriend. See how far you get.
  12. Bells Staff Member


    Oookay then.

    Abortion is a personal issue for all women, Dave. Because it is our bodies that you are talking about and it is our rights that you are trying to say should be forfeited or waived if we dare choose to have sex.

    I am sure you would be just as concerned if the discussion was about chemical castration of men as a forced form of birth control and being told that you would forfeit your rights to your gonads if you had sex without any intention of reproducing.

    My very well known personal story of being a woman who has two children?

    And you took that and tried to run with it and have been using my so called personal story to dodge answering a variety of questions about the issue of abortion.

    But definitely, let's leave the personal anecdotes out of it.

    So how about you answer the question about rape victims, victims of incest, sexual coercion. Why do you apply your right to life arguments to women who have consensual sex because you believe that there may be a competing interest and thus those women waive and forfeit their rights to their bodies, but you fail and refuse to respond to any questions posed by myself and at least one other member, about the lack of competing interest for women who are victims of rape, incest or sexual coercion.

    Why do you only apply those rules to women who have consensual sex? Is the foetus less of a life if it came from sexual assault?

    Just from one page..

    You are literally going out of your way to not only shame women by saying stuff like that, but also reminding them of their place in society and trying to control their behaviour. Another example:

    It is a private matter because it is happening inside the body of a woman and that matter is private and personal to her and her decision is hers alone and it should be kept between her and her doctor.

    Just because a woman is "growing a foetus", does not mean that her uterus or its contents enter the public realm or domain. It is her body and her decision and it is no one's business what she chooses.

    As I noted previously, it isn't your body and your fundamental human rights to your own body that is being infringed upon or threatened by people such as yourself who spout such ridiculous and obscene arguments.

    You honestly have no right to determine that a woman's rights to her body be forfeited if she chooses to have sex, just as you have no rights to a woman's body if she falls pregnant. What happens is entirely up to her.

    Then perhaps you should cease and desist in arguing that women forfeit or waive their rights to their own bodies if they choose to have sex, perhaps you should cease and desist in shaming women who have sex by declaring they are irresponsible and portraying this stereotype of women, as though abortion was something so flippant.

    Men who argue what you have been arguing in this thread, write laws and policies who affect and restrict women's rights to their own bodies, Dave. Perhaps you should not mirror their arguments if you do not wish to be lumped into the same group who are and think that way.

    And there is no limit to how far you will go to argue for denying women's rights to their own bodies, not to mention avoiding multiple questions for various members in this thread about your issues surrounding the awful issue of abortion and women's rights.
  13. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    For the third and final time: I DID NOT say that!!!
    You keep quoting James R - who said it in the context of a guy having to pay child support for a baby that was carried to term by a woman who was being properly responsible for her action, and so should her partner be. And then you keep attributing it to me - in the context of not taking the exact same responsibility.
    Whereupon I asked how the goose and gander respectively fare in your scenario. Which you never answered, except to harp on the woman's forfeiting her rights, while the man walks away without a single stretch-mark.
    You chose to ignore, time after time, both the father's and society's role in unintended pregnancy.

    Don't need to apologize, but please stop doing it!
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2017
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    OMG Hah!

    All this time I thought your protestations were "That is not what I said; I said it differently."
    It never even occurred to me you meant "The one who said that wasn't me; it was someone else."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Apologies anyway.
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Nobody is dismissing it - everybody here agrees that at some stage of development the fetus becomes a person with rights to life and so forth only negligibly different from a child's - whatever those are.

    It's been a bootless point ever since you made it. Nothing follows from it.
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    No problem.... as far as that goes.
    But, it does underline another chronic problem: how carefully you read and which questions you ignore.
    Once more, on behalf of both James R and myself:

    Suppose for a minute that "rights" are not considered strictly in the sense of punishment after the right has been abrogated , but of long-term results.
    Just what are / what should be the respective consequences of untintended pregnancy for
    1. the male and 2. the female when the pregnancy is discovered
    1a. and 2a if she aborts
    or 1b and 2b if she decides to carry it to term and give birth
    and 1c and 2c if she decides to keep and raise the child
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    It's not intended to be manipulative. I just can't keep up with the sheer volume of the thread. So I have to choose my battles.

    I'm not trying to solve all problems here right away.

    I have stated more than once that I see a principle that need to be established upon which practical matters will hinge.

    I alluded the status of slaves from days of yore.
    If someone said "How can slaves be people? Who will tend our fields? We'd starve. It's just not practical." that would be an invalid rationale for deciding their personhood.

    Likewise: "How can women be allowed vote? Who will keep the home fires burning? It's just not practical."
    Can you imagine if women were continued to be denied their right to vote simply because it was highly impractical and highly problematic?

    Practical issues don't inform principles; principles inform practical issues.
  18. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Just the one windmill? The sheer volume is mostly you, repeating this same "problem" and everyone else saying it's already been solved.

    Nor, evidently, answer the simple questions arising your from your own goose-gander comment on the single current issue of personal responsibility for conception.

    Done, done and done. All autonomous adults, including women, have the right to make decisions regarding their own bodies. At least in progressive nations as of late 20th century.
    Entities without the capacity to make decisions or exercise rights aren't given any - though they may be offered protection. Each society establishes the rules and practices that work in its own mind-set and economic circumstances.

    And I refused to take that up, because the temptation was to great to compare taking away a pregnant woman's right of choice to slavery.

    On which planet?
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
  19. Bells Staff Member

    It's not just pregnant women. He went further than that.

    He was comparing the human rights of slaves, who are actual people, to the rights of a foetus - a non-person. Comparing the fundamental human rights of actual people, to giving rights to non-persons (the foetus)..

    I mean, frankly, it was one of those moments that the only I could do was facepalm. Because the shit-can that opens up, is just never ending.
  20. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    The current legal status of actual people has more ramifications than DaveC426913 was willing to consider when I and others have touched upon the value of human lives.
    I would really prefer to stay clear the slavery angle altogether: the issues are too many and complex - and not really applicable.
    I would prefer to keep abortion within the area of law pertaining to reproductive rights in 21st century North America.
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    And it can be argued that anyone who would seek to waste anyone's time with that heap of steaming, misogynistic bullshit ought never be trusted with anything under the sun ever again.
  22. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Wow! I missed that.

    I'm sure you got all of this history down to make such such a bold statement.

    Good for you.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The principle you keep asserting is long established, essentially, and almost completely beside the point.

Share This Page