PDA

View Full Version : Rick Santorum: "Rape is a Good Thing"


Pages : [1] 2

Davian93
01-24-2012, 09:09 AM
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/23/409242/santorum-to-rape-victims-make-the-best-out-of-a-bad-situation/?mobile=nc

Yeah, I cant imagine why this guy shouldn't be President. I'm also ashamed that my former state elected him to the Senate not once but twice.

What an ass.

confused at birth
01-24-2012, 09:11 AM
he really deserves his name:mad:

Gilshalos Sedai
01-24-2012, 09:31 AM
*facepalm*

frenchie
01-24-2012, 10:56 AM
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/23/409242/santorum-to-rape-victims-make-the-best-out-of-a-bad-situation/?mobile=nc

Yeah, I cant imagine why this guy shouldn't be President. I'm also ashamed that my former state elected him to the Senate not once but twice.

What an ass.

Well Dav, that because you're from a part of the state that doesn't qualify as Pennsyltucky. For most PA, he is a fair representative of the people.

ShadowbaneX
01-24-2012, 11:24 AM
Reading that made me feel slightly ill. At least on the bright side he's doing everything he can to not get himself elected.

Res_Ipsa
01-24-2012, 12:18 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/23/409242/santorum-to-rape-victims-make-the-best-out-of-a-bad-situation/?mobile=nc

Yeah, I cant imagine why this guy shouldn't be President. I'm also ashamed that my former state elected him to the Senate not once but twice.

What an ass.

I guess that is why you needed the quotes :P He did not say rape was a good thing. In point of fact your own article header says what he was saying. You do not have to have an abortion after a rape. My cousin is a product of rape, and my aunt and uncle did not believe in abortion and advocated she should keep the baby. This is actually a pretty recent development in the story for my family, as that side of the family kept it pretty close to the vest. Or at least me finding out about it.

More to the point, your saying that "rape is a good thing" is categorically misleading.

Davian93
01-24-2012, 12:20 PM
Not really. He basically says that rape victims should be happy with the "gift" they received and love the child. Yes because if anyone has ever been around a real rape victim, a constrant reminder of said rape is what they really want.

Also, is Mr. Pro-life going to actually support programs for that new single mother or is he going to call her a dirty welfare queen and cut those services as he tried to do repeatedly when he was a Senator?

Yeah, I thought so.

Durvasha
01-24-2012, 12:22 PM
I wont answer for Davian, but I wasnot misled. I clicked on the link, read it, and still agree with him. You are right Res that "you do not have to have an abortion", but that is not what Santorum is saying. He is saying, "You should not have a chance to abort, your choice doesnot matter."

I am all with "Do not have to have" but not with removing any option.

And Dav is right. Gift = something good. Unless you are being sarcastic and calling STDs a gift or something like that.

Edit: Davian seems to have too much time on his hands today, as do I :D

Davian93
01-24-2012, 12:24 PM
I wont answer for Davian, but I wasnot misled. I clicked on the link, read it, and still agree with him. You are right Res that "you do not have to have an abortion", but that is not what Santorum is saying. He is saying, "You should not have a chance to abort, your choice doesnot matter."

I am all with "Do not have to have" but not with removing any option.

Nothing says "separation of church and state" like attempting to impose catholic church beliefs on everyone in the country.

Zombie Sammael
01-24-2012, 12:26 PM
I guess that is why you needed the quotes :P He did not say rape was a good thing. In point of fact your own article header says what he was saying. You do not have to have an abortion after a rape. My cousin is a product of rape, and my aunt and uncle did not believe in abortion and advocated she should keep the baby. This is actually a pretty recent development in the story for my family, as that side of the family kept it pretty close to the vest. Or at least me finding out about it.

More to the point, your saying that "rape is a good thing" is categorically misleading.

Everyone knows what he actually said; that a child born of rape was still a "gift from God" regardless of how it was conceived. That isn't outright saying rape is a good thing, but the child wouldn't exist qithout the rape, so it's skirting incredibly close.

No-one is making a woman who is raped have an abortion. It's down to her if she wants to or not. But forcing a woman to have, even to raise, a child who is a constant reminder of a horrific event is compounding an already incredibly cruel situation. No disrespect to anyone in your family, but i think it takes incredible strength to do that, and may be as dangerous to the child as to the mother.

Davian93
01-24-2012, 12:39 PM
I do find it interesing that you could take the following away from Frothy's words: God is the reason you were raped. So rape is a bad thing that God made happened (which theologically is a bit shaky given the Christian belief in bad things stemming from Satanic influences) or you could argue the flip side that God sees it as a "gift" (again, Frothy's word, not mine) and thus rape is a good thing. So he's either being theologically unsound or saying Rape is a good thing because God wanted you to get this gift...becuase you know, God likes rape or something.

Come to think of it though, God never really asked Mary if she wanted to have Jesus, he kinda just told her it was gonna happen and that she should make the best of it as it was a gift...so, did the Holy Spirit rape Mary too?

I'm starting to get confused here...

Gilshalos Sedai
01-24-2012, 12:41 PM
I do find it interesing that you could take the following away from Frothy's words: God is the reason you were raped. So rape is a bad thing that God made happened (which theologically is a bit shaky given the Christian belief in bad things stemming from Satanic influences) or you could argue the flip side that God sees it as a "gift" (again, Frothy's word, not mine) and thus rape is a good thing. So he's either being theologically unsound or saying Rape is a good thing because God wanted you to get this gift...becuase you know, God likes rape or something.

Come to think of it though, God never really asked Mary if she wanted to have Jesus, he kinda just told her it was gonna happen and that she should make the best of it as it was a gift...so, did the Holy Spirit rape Mary too?

I'm starting to get confused here...


Don't try to makes sense out of Santorum. The man has a passing acquaintance with logic. (Meaning the Sonic Boom as it flies overhead can be heard for miles.)

Brita
01-24-2012, 12:48 PM
Come to think of it though, God never really asked Mary if she wanted to have Jesus, he kinda just told her it was gonna happen and that she should make the best of it as it was a gift...so, did the Holy Spirit rape Mary too?

I'm starting to get confused here...

And the slippery slope begins ;)

Zombie Sammael
01-24-2012, 01:15 PM
I'm starting to get confused here...

Nah, he won't be able to help.

Crispin's Crispian
01-24-2012, 01:35 PM
Also, is Mr. Pro-life going to actually support programs for that new single mother or is he going to call her a dirty welfare queen and cut those services as he tried to do repeatedly when he was a Senator?


This should be the real take-away from the article.


No-one is making a woman who is raped have an abortion. It's down to her if she wants to or not. But forcing a woman to have, even to raise, a child who is a constant reminder of a horrific event is compounding an already incredibly cruel situation.
I don't disagree, and I don't like the idea of forcing the matter, but it does make me a little sick that the child is to be considered nothing more than a "product" or a "horrific reminder." But once that child is born, is it less of a person? I'm just trying to clarify, because there's an additional slippery slope here.

There's really nothing good about this situation, but I think I do get what Santorum was trying to say. Sure, he has an ulterior motive--I get that.

Zombie Sammael
01-24-2012, 02:20 PM
This should be the real take-away from the article.


I don't disagree, and I don't like the idea of forcing the matter, but it does make me a little sick that the child is to be considered nothing more than a "product" or a "horrific reminder." But once that child is born, is it less of a person? I'm just trying to clarify, because there's an additional slippery slope here.

There's really nothing good about this situation, but I think I do get what Santorum was trying to say. Sure, he has an ulterior motive--I get that.

Once the child is born, they are a person (obviously). I would say that no one human being is intrinsically more valuable than any other, so they're not less of a person. But that compounds the problem. That person deserves as much love and compassion as much as any other. I'm certainly not going to do women who have children conceived via rape a massive disservice by saying it's impossible, but I do think it takes incredible strength to overcome the fact of how a baby came to be and who their father is and provide that level of love and compassion. I don't think every woman is capable of that, and i don't think we should expect them to be. Plus, a woman who is raped May be even less capable of providing for a baby on a purely practical level than a woman who has an unplanned pregnancy from consensual sex. Better she have the right to choose.

Ishara
01-24-2012, 07:35 PM
All that rhetoric just days after Obama made very clear that he will support a woman's right to choose as per Wade vs. Roe? Or, perhaps Santorum's statements are in spite of Obama's statement? To further show just how different/ more conservative than the nefarious Obama?

When a woman is raped and a pregnancy results, the only issue that should be considered is what she wants. End stop.

Terez
01-24-2012, 10:10 PM
I doubt it's in response to Obama. This is a pretty consistent hot-button issue for conservatives, and Santorum is one of them.

AbbeyRoad
01-24-2012, 11:02 PM
The content of the article wasn't as bad as the title of the thread suggests. I don't like the way he worded his opinions, and don't agree with his opinions, but the concept of abortion isn't as cut and dry as many make it out to be. There is a duality to our views of abortion as a whole. For example, if I, as a physician, prescribe a drug that accidentally kills a fetus, I can be charged with malpractice equivalent to having caused the death of a 'born' human being. Similarly, if a drunk driver is found at fault for an accident which kills a pregnant mother, he can be charged with two counts of manslaughter, not one. So, in some ways, the courts indirectly define fetuses as legally human. Some states also allow abortions up to 7 months pregnancy, though many stop at 6. So, in the U.S. you can legally terminate your fetus when it is almost fully formed, yet one day later you are charged with murder.

I can understand why someone would be opposed to abortions under any circumstances, especially hard-lined Christians whose religious beliefs require them to never abort as well. That being said, he needs to work on wording his views more efficiently and picking his battles. I have several colleagues, especially among pediatricians and neonatologists, who are hard-line pro life liberal democrats. And I can't really blame them, seeing as how they see developing infants in utero on a daily basis and know first hand how developing fetuses are very much alive.

EDIT:

Edited to add that although I am a man I do understand that pregnancies can be terribly difficult on the body and mind. However, there are great adoption agencies that do great things. 2 years ago I convinced my second cousin, who conceived an accidental pregnancy, to hold off the abortion and make an educated decision before she does something so final. After some discussion, she finally decided to continue the pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption, which I thought was a very brave decision. 2 months before the child was born, she realized she couldn't give her up and decided to raise her. Now I have a new wonderful little girl in my life, and my cousin is a phenomenal mother, and her boyfriend turned out, despite all odds, to be a great father. My nephew was adopted, and no one loves their child more than my sister loves that boy.

Obviously, all cases are different, but adoption is a very viable alternative to abortion for any mother struggling with the decision. I imagine it's hard, but I always recommend to my patients to make the decision best for the child in any circumstance (and sometimes adoption is the best decision for their child), and I think many young mothers rush into abortion because it is the easy option, but not the best option for their child, obviously.

Firseal
01-25-2012, 01:19 AM
Don't try to makes sense out of Santorum. The man has a passing acquaintance with logic. (Meaning the Sonic Boom as it flies overhead can be heard for miles.)

Gilshalos, don't lie. Santorum is on intimate terms with logic. Or at least I have to assume he is.

You can't despise something as much as he does purely rational thought without having spent time exposed to it.

And Abbey, no, it isn't the best option in some, if not many or most, cases. But the point is it is an option. Taking it away, as many like Santorum advocate, will not solve any problems and will in point of fact invite new ones. Even if you put to side all the moral questions and the question of primacy of right, abortion is still like alcohol. We've seen what making laws against it leads to, and like many issues which are unenforcable, trying to legislate it away is vainglorious at best.

eht slat meit
01-25-2012, 03:17 AM
The content of the article wasn't as bad as the title of the thread suggests.

In my experience, paraphrased political quotes are like the Rush Limbaugh show - very little reflection of reality.

That said, there's a fantastic comment in that article's commentary section that sums it up far better than I could. Really, there has to be a point when one realizes that a principle is being taken to such an extreme that it's as harmful as that which it is intended to counter.

GonzoTheGreat
01-25-2012, 04:35 AM
Two questions about this:

1. If the rapist gives another gift, should the victim accept that too?
For instance, if the rapist hands out a cheap necklace, should the victim "make the best out of a bad situation" and wear the thing for the rest of her life? Based on the reasoning this right wing politician gave, the answer is a clear yes.

2. How about the actual rapist?
Would it not be a good idea if Santorum paid some attention to that side of the story too, and started campaigning to make sure that any rapist has to pay child care for the next 2 decades, whether or not an actual child is a result of the rape? If nothing else, that would really give the victims something with which they could "make the best out of a bad situation".
But no, he does not seem to have any thoughts at all for the possibility that the father might have any obligations here. Only the mother is supposed to deal with the consequences, apparently.

Terez
01-25-2012, 05:32 AM
Two questions about this:

1. If the rapist gives another gift, should the victim accept that too?
For instance, if the rapist hands out a cheap necklace, should the victim "make the best out of a bad situation" and wear the thing for the rest of her life? Based on the reasoning this right wing politician gave, the answer is a clear yes.Are you saying Tuon is a rapist? Or Mat?

GonzoTheGreat
01-25-2012, 05:43 AM
Are you saying Tuon is a rapist? Or Mat?
It does seem that Santorum would agree with Tuon that Egwene should wear her necklace again, doesn't it?

As for Mat: I don't think he is really of the opinion that those who get a gift from him should always keep it:
Groggily, he moved by instinct, without thinking. The blade came out of his sleeve, left his hand as if floating through jelly. Only then did he realize what he had done and stretch out desperately, trying to snatch it back.

Terez
01-25-2012, 06:41 AM
It does seem that Santorum would agree with Tuon that Egwene should wear her necklace again, doesn't it?Sure, but we're talking about Leilwin here.

GonzoTheGreat
01-25-2012, 07:07 AM
Sure, but we're talking about Leilwin here.
Leilwin got Mat pregnant? Could you give me a book and chapter reference to that?

Terez
01-25-2012, 07:28 AM
Felix said it so it must be true.

Davian93
01-25-2012, 07:30 AM
Felix said it so it must be true.

Sounds like someone forgot to wear their cape for protection.

fdsaf3
01-25-2012, 08:57 AM
....getting back on track.....

Reading the book Breaking the Abortion Deadlock by Eileen McDonagh was a transformative experience for me. In it, she outlines several arguments for why framing abortion as an act of choice misses the point. At its core, abortion is a matter of consent: the pregnant mother must consent to the pregnancy.

There are several ways this point is made, not all of which I agree with. I'd suggest to anyone interested in a different take on the abortion debate to pick it up and read it. She's likely to offend you (or at least rub you the wrong way) even if you're on the same side, but she makes an interesting case nonetheless.

Edited to add that although I am a man I do understand that pregnancies can be terribly difficult on the body and mind.

I'm not sure a man can "understand" what a woman's body goes through during pregnancy. I think the term you're looking for is "appreciate".


Your story is nice, and it makes me happy that the child is in a happy home.

I think you make a few really bad assumptions in your post, though. The biggest one to point out is this:

I think many young mothers rush into abortion because it is the easy option, but not the best option for their child, obviously.

I don't know what makes people who are opposed to abortion assume that abortion would ever be considered the "easy option". How callous do you think people are? Granted, I'm sure there are some women out there who view abortion as not a big deal. But for women I've met, interviewed, and gotten to know who have had abortions, the decision was incredibly difficult. To say that they were conflicted about their decision would be an understatement.

The bottom line for me when someone makes a pro-life argument is that they are essentially saying that a woman, once pregnant, must necessarily give up her body, her health, and risk of significant consequences because she is pregnant. In cases of rape, a woman must first bear the effects of a horrific crime and then be subjected to nine months of physical duress? Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Ivhon
01-25-2012, 09:49 AM
I'm pretty sure that for every individual story of choosing to go ahead with the pregnancy and keeping the child that ends up in rainbows and soft-batch cookies (and don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the happy endings), there is an untold story of abuse, neglect and worse when a woman is convinced to keep the pregnancy/baby against her initial judgment.

Again, I don't disparage the happy ending - I'm simply saying that the happy ending stories are generally told with a subtext and implication that every time a mother changes her mind and does not abort there is a beautiful happy ending without acknowledging that there is a mixed bag of results. Sometimes keeping the child is a miracle....sometimes it is a disaster...sometimes "god's gift" is the mother turning her life around after an abortion instead of being stuck in unsupported financial ruin.

There is no clear answer, none at all. Personally, I would prefer the adoption route be used whenever possible. However, I am a MAN and therefore my voice is secondary in the debate.

I will close with this. If men carried children to term, the right to choose would not be an issue. If women had overwhelmingly dominant legislative power, the right to choose would not be an issue. However, religious and legislative power is still centered on men in this country so we find ourselves in a situation where laws are made by those who are untouched and unfazed by the consequences of their decisions about other people's bodies and lives. It is absolutely unconscionable to me that legislation continually gets introduced - by and large by men - that compounds the indignity and lack of choice of rape by adding the additional indignity and lack of choice of forcing those selfsame victims to "deal with it" - emotionally and financially. It is Shariah law promulgated by the selfsame people who rail most vehemently against it. And it sickens me.

Bryan Blaire
01-25-2012, 10:03 AM
As much as I personally don't like the thought of abortion, similarly AbbeyRoad said "knowing about the development of a fetus", that doesn't mean you should take away the choice. I have never understood the train of thought where because you believe something is a sin, someone else's choosing to take that type of action/thought somehow impacts your standing/soul, especially if you are the type of individual who disavows all responsibility and connection to anyone else on other issues. Santorum is a dingle-berry.

Ishara
01-25-2012, 10:53 AM
....getting back on track.....

Reading the book Breaking the Abortion Deadlock by Eileen McDonagh was a transformative experience for me. In it, she outlines several arguments for why framing abortion as an act of choice misses the point. At its core, abortion is a matter of consent: the pregnant mother must consent to the pregnancy.

I wonder if you could expand on that? Do you mean that a woman can choose to become pregnant? (cause I can tell you, more than one woman on this board could tell you otherwise), or that a woman must agree to be pregnant before she is? (again, we could come up with examples to the contrary), or that a woman's diasgreement with her pregancy ends it?

I'll admit to being confused, and I further have no intention of reading said book, so I'd appreciate some clarification.

Is consent not a choice?

Crispin's Crispian
01-25-2012, 11:03 AM
I don't know what makes people who are opposed to abortion assume that abortion would ever be considered the "easy option". How callous do you think people are? Granted, I'm sure there are some women out there who view abortion as not a big deal. But for women I've met, interviewed, and gotten to know who have had abortions, the decision was incredibly difficult. To say that they were conflicted about their decision would be an understatement.
This drives me nuts, and I'm a man. And it drives me nuts that the majority of people in power can never really understand the decision that has to be made, and how it would affect them.

The bottom line for me when someone makes a pro-life argument is that they are essentially saying that a woman, once pregnant, must necessarily give up her body, her health, and risk of significant consequences because she is pregnant. In cases of rape, a woman must first bear the effects of a horrific crime and then be subjected to nine months of physical duress? Sorry, but I don't buy it.I've made the point several times but it often seems to get lost. If you look at the situation with the view that the fetus (or even blastocyst) is a person, it's much easier to understand the argument. I'm not saying that view is correct, but I do think vehemently pro-choice advocates tend to overlook the fundamental difference here. Once you come to believe that the fetus is its own person, the woman's choice is no longer paramount. How can it be? The "my body, my choice" rational breaks down, because it's not entirely your body.

Crispin's Crispian
01-25-2012, 11:08 AM
I wonder if you could expand on that? Do you mean that a woman can choose to become pregnant? (cause I can tell you, more than one woman on this board could tell you otherwise), or that a woman must agree to be pregnant before she is? (again, we could come up with examples to the contrary), or that a woman's diasgreement with her pregancy ends it?

I'll admit to being confused, and I further have no intention of reading said book, so I'd appreciate some clarification.

Is consent not a choice?

I was curious about this, too. Fortunately, Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Abortion-Deadlock-Choice-Consent/dp/0195091426)has a nice synopsis:

McDonagh reframes the abortion debate by locating the missing piece of the puzzle: the fetus as the cause of pregnancy. After exposing the myths on this subject, her exacting analysis presents the scientific and legal evidence that the ultimate source of pregnancy is the fetus. The central issue then becomes what the fetus, as an active agent, does to a woman's body during pregnancy, whether that pregnancy is wanted or not. McDonagh graphically describes the massive changes produced by the fetus when it takes over a woman's body. As such, pregnancy is best depicted not as a condition that women have a right to choose but rather as a condition to which they must have a right to consent.

Abortion, therefore, does not rest on the intensely debated principle, stated in Roe, that women have a right to be free from state interference when choosing privately what to do with their own bodies. Instead, as McDonagh's book explains, abortion rights flow inevitably from women's more established right to consent to what another agent does to their body. Specifically, women have a right to resist an unwanted intrusion by a fetus as well as to receive help from the state to stop such an intrusion.

If you view the fetus as a separate entity from the mother, you can frame the debate in terms of the mother accepting the changes that fetus is making to her body.

eht slat meit
01-25-2012, 11:08 AM
Two questions about this:

1. If the rapist gives another gift, should the victim accept that too?
For instance, if the rapist hands out a cheap necklace, should the victim "make the best out of a bad situation" and wear the thing for the rest of her life?


He's rather obviously making a distinction between the gift of human life and a cheap trinket. It is not the _act_ of procreation that makes a human life a gift, but that life itself.

Let me put it this way: As a child of adoption, I know next to nothing about the circumstances of my conception other than very limited medical records. It might have been an accident of carelessness, a father who just didn't care, a family with limited resources, or something nastier. Don't know, don't really want to. The point is this:

_My_ life, no matter what circumstances led to my conception, is no less a gift from God than that of someone who was born into a normal household.

2. How about the actual rapist?
Would it not be a good idea if Santorum paid some attention to that side of the story too, and started campaigning to make sure that any rapist has to pay child care for the next 2 decades, whether or not an actual child is a result of the rape? If nothing else, that would really give the victims something with which they could "make the best out of a bad situation".

Partial agreement on this, so long as a child is conceived; if they are not, payment should be rendered into the foster care system of whichever state the rapist resides. The victim isn't the only one paying for their actions.

fdsaf3
01-25-2012, 11:37 AM
If you view the fetus as a separate entity from the mother, you can frame the debate in terms of the mother accepting the changes that fetus is making to her body.

Thanks for posting that.

I think in analogies, and this is a particularly enlightening one (at least it was for me).

Say you live in a city with a central park which has a nice jogging trail. Unfortunately, your city has a problem with joggers being attacked after sunset. Your city posts signs all around the trail letting people know that there is a significant chance that they will be attacked should they choose to jog on the trail after sunset.

Now, say you go jogging on the trail after sunset and get attacked. Does being warned of the likely effects of your decision to go jogging mean that you can't hold your attackers responsible for what they did? I'm going to bet you'd say no.

In similar fashion, McDonagh argues that having unprotected sex (consensual or not) is not the causal event which leads to pregnancy. That act is the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterine wall. Much as you would be free to pursue remedies if you are attacked in the park (knowing what the consequences might be), you are free to react to getting pregnant (even if you knowingly and consentually had unprotected sex).

I don't say this with the expectation that everyone agrees. Most of my class disagreed with this point of view, and we had a long and heated debate about it. I just think it's an interesting way to look at the prickly issue of abortion and remove some of the more sensationalized aspects (loose women having reckless unprotected sex, for example).

edit:

I checked out the Amazon page for the book you found, and I was shocked to see the price so high. I bought my copy used for like $12 in 2006. $50 seems like a ripoff. I'd rather lend you my copy than see someone pay that much for a book they can probably find at the local library.

GonzoTheGreat
01-25-2012, 11:41 AM
If you view the fetus as a separate entity from the mother, you can frame the debate in terms of the mother accepting the changes that fetus is making to her body.
I've said before that women who want an abortion should get a restraining order, demanding that the fetus stay at least 200 yards away from them. That would make sense: the rapist himself doesn't have a right to stay in the victim as long as he likes either, after all.

_My_ life, no matter what circumstances led to my conception, is no less a gift from God than that of someone who was born into a normal household.
Are you now calling God the rapist?

If not, then you would have to make up your mind: is the life a gift from the rapist or is it a gift from God?
If the latter, why shouldn't one be allowed to refuse that gift, by the way?

All that talk about "gift of life" seems to assume that women have a "duty to accept".

eht slat meit
01-25-2012, 12:02 PM
If not, then you would have to make up your mind: is the life a gift from the rapist or is it a gift from God?

You do not separate the sexual act from the conception of life, and that is the difference between us.

Sex can occur without reproduction, and reproduction can occur without sex. It's that spark of life at conception that is the gift from God, not the act of procreation or lab-creation.

If the latter, why shouldn't one be allowed to refuse that gift, by the way?

I'm not arguing against being allowed to refuse the gift, and I'm pretty sure I stated that already. I'm saying that the comparison of life to a cheap trinket is absolute garbage.

Yes, that's a subjective view, and you are personally feel free to consider your life nothing more than costume jewelry that wouldn't matter a lick if it were thrown away without a second thought.

All that talk about "gift of life" seems to assume that women have a "duty to accept".

You inferred it, I did not imply it. Any gift can be rejected, and I don't think that God would hold it against them to do so, because God's better than the petty and spiteful behavior we humans get up to.

Note: I'm of the middle ground, not the so-called "pro-life" and "pro-choice" schools of thought.

Ivhon
01-25-2012, 12:08 PM
Note: I'm of the middle ground, not the so-called "pro-life" and "pro-choice" schools of thought.

Can you elaborate? I'm curious as to the qualities that you would consider "middle ground." This is one debate in which I really don't see it. Therefore I would love to have it pointed out to me.

AbbeyRoad
01-25-2012, 02:47 PM
I don't know what makes people who are opposed to abortion assume that abortion would ever be considered the "easy option". How callous do you think people are? Granted, I'm sure there are some women out there who view abortion as not a big deal. But for women I've met, interviewed, and gotten to know who have had abortions, the decision was incredibly difficult. To say that they were conflicted about their decision would be an understatement.
Try working in a clinic. I've seen women continue get abortions after having had more than 3. True story. It is a very serious and irrevocable decision, and many young women have no grasp on the magnitude of said decision.

The bottom line for me when someone makes a pro-life argument is that they are essentially saying that a woman, once pregnant, must necessarily give up her body, her health, and risk of significant consequences because she is pregnant. In cases of rape, a woman must first bear the effects of a horrific crime and then be subjected to nine months of physical duress? Sorry, but I don't buy it.
No, the bottom line of the pro life argument is that a woman has no right to kill another living person, and a fetus is certainly alive and developing.

I'm pretty sure that for every individual story of choosing to go ahead with the pregnancy and keeping the child that ends up in rainbows and soft-batch cookies (and don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the happy endings), there is an untold story of abuse, neglect and worse when a woman is convinced to keep the pregnancy/baby against her initial judgment.
There certainly is. That's why adoption agencies exist; for mothers who don't want to kill their unborn child, but don't feel they can raise the child themselves.

However, religious and legislative power is still centered on men in this country so we find ourselves in a situation where laws are made by those who are untouched and unfazed by the consequences of their decisions about other people's bodies and lives.
I can't imagine having to go through a pregnancy, but I have seen enough to know that developing fetuses think and feel; women can get an abortion up to 6-7 months into their pregnancy (depending on the state), during which time the baby is almost fully developed, can think and process information, and has already developed a very strong emotional connection with the mother. 'Terminating a pregnancy' is more than ridding oneself of an inconvenience, or terrible mistake, or reminder of a bad situation; it is killing an unborn person that is very much alive. The baby is growing and developing; just because it is contained in the body of the mother does not make it any less alive.

As much as I personally don't like the thought of abortion, similarly AbbeyRoad said "knowing about the development of a fetus", that doesn't mean you should take away the choice. I have never understood the train of thought where because you believe something is a sin, someone else's choosing to take that type of action/thought somehow impacts your standing/soul
Who is talking about sin here? The operational term is 'murder,' which I'm sure you would object to if the baby were born. Should mothers be able to dump their children into trash cans after they are born, because the baby came from their body? Just because you cannot see the child with your eyes does not mean the child cannot think and feel. The child is not an inanimate object until it is ejected from the uterus; it is living and growing and changing and thinking.

If I, as your physician, gave you a drug that resulted in the death of your child during your 5th month of pregnancy, would you sue me? Did I merely cause you some 'bodily harm' that can be rectified when you have another child (and the time and energy and emotional trauma of pregnancy is the only negative for you), or did I kill an unborn person?

Pro choice enthusiasts often fail to realize the fundamental idea of pro life enthusiasts; the fact that it can't be a choice if you view the unborn child as a living person.

Zombie Sammael
01-25-2012, 03:01 PM
Try working in a clinic. I've seen women continue get abortions after having had more than 3. True story. It is a very serious and irrevocable decision, and many young women have no grasp on the magnitude of said decision.


No, the bottom line of the pro life argument is that a woman has no right to kill another living person, and a fetus is certainly alive and developing.


There certainly is. That's why adoption agencies exist; for mothers who don't want to kill their unborn child, but don't feel they can raise the child themselves.


I can't imagine having to go through a pregnancy, but I have seen enough to know that developing fetuses think and feel; women can get an abortion up to 6-7 months into their pregnancy (depending on the state), during which time the baby is almost fully developed, can think and process information, and has already developed a very strong emotional connection with the mother. 'Terminating a pregnancy' is more than ridding oneself of an inconvenience, or terrible mistake, or reminder of a bad situation; it is killing an unborn person that is very much alive. The baby is growing and developing; just because it is contained in the body of the mother does not make it any less alive.


Who is talking about sin here? The operational term is 'murder,' which I'm sure you would object to if the baby were born. Should mothers be able to dump their children into trash cans after they are born, because the baby came from their body? Just because you cannot see the child with your eyes does not mean the child cannot think and feel. The child is not an inanimate object until it is ejected from the uterus; it is living and growing and changing and thinking.

If I, as your physician, gave you a drug that resulted in the death of your child during your 5th month of pregnancy, would you sue me? Did I merely cause you some 'bodily harm' that can be rectified when you have another child (and the time and energy and emotional trauma of pregnancy is the only negative for you), or did I kill an unborn person?

Pro choice enthusiasts often fail to realize the fundamental idea of pro life enthusiasts; the fact that it can't be a choice if you view the unborn child as a living person.

And anti-choice types often ignore the fundamental truth: it's not one life we're talking about, it's two. By focusing so much on the life of the child, which cannot survive without its mother, you ignore completely the life of the mother, who can think and feel and make the decision which is right for them. Adoption isn't the answer. That just has the effect of identifying and shaming a woman who "couldn't cope with raising a child", making it all the more difficult when they do choose to raise a child.

Terez
01-25-2012, 03:21 PM
I can't imagine having to go through a pregnancy, but I have seen enough to know that developing fetuses think and feel; women can get an abortion up to 6-7 months into their pregnancy (depending on the state), during which time the baby is almost fully developed, can think and process information, and has already developed a very strong emotional connection with the mother.Don't most abortions occur within the first 2 months? I think we would all prefer for them to be earlier rather than later. The 72-hour pill is great for rape situations. And then there is RU-486 which, oddly, is opposed more strongly than surgical abortion by pro-lifers.

I would prefer that abortions be limited to the first trimester except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. No exceptions for rape, since that would encourage false accusations, and there's no reason why you can't get all that sorted in the first trimester even if you've been raped.

Tomp
01-25-2012, 03:36 PM
Well, in the spirit of the thread title, how about necrophilia.
For you who don't enjoy Mitchell's opinion and rants ignore this.
For the rest of you: The merits of necrophilia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B_Yw-JAnuw


By the way, I don't take light on the subject matter. My opinion is much in line with Terez's in this case.
Other than that, I have nothing to add to the discussion that hasn't been said already.

eht slat meit
01-25-2012, 03:43 PM
Can you elaborate? I'm curious as to the qualities that you would consider "middle ground." This is one debate in which I really don't see it. Therefore I would love to have it pointed out to me.

There's no neat & tidy ideology or political party to wrap my thoughts on the subject into and present as a package, so the best I can do here is identify it piecemeal:

1. I believe that whether it originates from a creator or natural process, life... that is human life itself, the result, and not the process of making it... is a precious gift...
1a. ... and like any precious gift, if it does more harm than good to the recipient, should be returned to sender in a manner that is respectful and acknowledges the tagless value of that gift.

2. I believe that choice must be a necessary part of the process, but strictly regulated. Both lives are precious, mother and child.

3. I believe that people on the _extremes_ of both sides of this debate, calling themselves pro-life and pro-choice respectively (not all prolifers or prochoicers, mind you), are an abomination against the ideals they claim to stand for, and that those who stand with them do their cause grave disservice by tolerating their continued support.

4. Abortion as a means of contraception is disgusting.
4a. Treating one life as sacred to the detriment of not only other lives, but that same life as well, is equally disgusting.

That's just scratching the surface, but captures the ideas that really matter to me.

And yes, I don't expect that people to accept this as middle-ground, because anything less than absolute support these days is considered vile opposition. I've been accused of being both pro-lifer and pro-choicer by one or the other.'

I don't buy into that, because when you start arguing details, those extremes fall apart.

These opinions do not matter to me, for reasons I've pointed out in #3. If someone is so wrapped up in their own view that they cannot see anything that does not follow in lockstep with them as anything but opposition, then they are basically the blind man standing on their own grave...

... without hope of light or redemption, or nifty kewl OP tricks.

AbbeyRoad
01-25-2012, 03:54 PM
Don't most abortions occur within the first 2 months? I think we would all prefer for them to be earlier rather than later. The 72-hour pill is great for rape situations. And then there is RU-486 which, oddly, is opposed more strongly than surgical abortion by pro-lifers.
The vast, vast majority are in the first trimester. I certainly think second trimester abortions should be illegal. If they have to happen, the earlier the better since development really advances in the second trimester.

Mifepristone is opposed more strongly than surgical abortion? Strange, it's so much less invasive...

I would prefer that abortions be limited to the first trimester except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger.
When the baby threatens the mother's life, I side with the mother every time.

Terez
01-25-2012, 04:13 PM
Mifepristone is opposed more strongly than surgical abortion? Strange, it's so much less invasive...I have heard the argument that 'it's too easy', as if the surgical experience is required to be some kind of deterrent.

fdsaf3
01-25-2012, 04:21 PM
Try working in a clinic. I've seen women continue get abortions after having had more than 3. True story. It is a very serious and irrevocable decision, and many young women have no grasp on the magnitude of said decision.

Oh, so I'm supposed to just roll over and play dead because I'm not a doctor working in a clinic? What a relief. :rolleyes:

You made it seem as though abortion was an easy choice. My experiences working with women who have had abortions performed indicate otherwise.


No, the bottom line of the pro life argument is that a woman has no right to kill another living person, and a fetus is certainly alive and developing.

I'm doubting you read my post carefully. Your response screams two things loud and clear:

1. You seem to have a particular definition of 'personhood' that will never be resolved satisfactorily for everyone. I'm not going to waste time debating semantics.

2. As I said in my previous post, sanctimonious pro-life people ignore the burdens being pregnant place on a woman. It really does boil down to that for me. All the talk about murder and innocent life and all that is obfuscation and sensationalism. It's meant to tug at heart strings.

There certainly is. That's why adoption agencies exist; for mothers who don't want to kill their unborn child, but don't feel they can raise the child themselves.

Do you even take yourself seriously when you post in such inflammatory language? It's just so obviously illogical and hyperbolic that it seems like you're not really trying to say anything that's going to inspire intelligent response. Maybe you don't want, I suppose.

I can't imagine having to go through a pregnancy, but I have seen enough to know that developing fetuses think and feel

Holy shit. You should write a paper and get it published. I mean, if you can sense what fetuses think and feel, that's an amazing development.


women can get an abortion up to 6-7 months into their pregnancy (depending on the state)

Of course, laws vary widely by state. You make it seem as though getting a late-term abortion is as easy as picking up a gallon of milk, which it obviously isn't. I can see we're generalizing for dramatic effect at this point.

'Terminating a pregnancy' is more than ridding oneself of an inconvenience, or terrible mistake, or reminder of a bad situation; it is killing an unborn person that is very much alive.

Cool, now we're back to making broad, sweeping generalizations based on our individual morals.


The baby is growing and developing; just because it is contained in the body of the mother does not make it any less alive.

See above about debating semantics, generalizing codes of behavior based on an individual moral standard, etc.

Who is talking about sin here? The operational term is 'murder,' which I'm sure you would object to if the baby were born. Should mothers be able to dump their children into trash cans after they are born, because the baby came from their body?

This is ridiculous. Again, I'm trying really hard to take what you're saying seriously. I just can't when you post stuff like this.


lots of stuff

I'm really tired of responding to this stuff, so I'm just going to quit...except for this last bit.


Pro choice enthusiasts often fail to realize the fundamental idea of pro life enthusiasts; the fact that it can't be a choice if you view the unborn child as a living person.

Sure, if we all accept your obviously not universally shared moral perspective this wouldn't be an issue. But since you're A) acting morally superior, and B) trying to impose your morals on an issue which is far more complex and nuanced than your black and white world view makes it out to be, there are going to be problems.

I wouldn't have so much of an opinion on this if people weren't so sanctimonious about it on both sides of the issue. But for whatever reason that seems to be the type of person who feels strongly about this.

Terez
01-25-2012, 04:24 PM
I agree that people are sanctimonious on both sides of the issue, but Abbey is just talking about medical facts here. We know when babies start thinking and feeling. The pro-choice enthusiasts try to act like it's somehow irrelevant, but it isn't. This from a raging liberal.

Also, I should add that I have seen persuasive arguments for allowing second- and even third-trimester abortions when there is a serious birth defect.

Davian93
01-25-2012, 05:26 PM
I have heard the argument that 'it's too easy', as if the surgical experience is required to be some kind of deterrent.

You have to punish the sinner...

Durvasha
01-25-2012, 05:39 PM
A few opinions:

1. I would believe a lot of pro-lifers if they followed same logic in the case of all lives, not just the unborn ones. I cant put it better than Dav did in one of the first posts, so I wont even try to.

2. Second, until and unless we have means to make sure that every fetus will be carried to full term, the 100% personhood argument is pure sophistry. Once we have that, I would support pro-lifers, if we can make some facility where unwanted fetuses are transferred to incubators, and all data are erased about donating mothers. Pro-life scientists should perhaps focus on making that a reality. Otherwise, I think Gonzo's solution, while callous, is the best one for unwilling mothers. If it is a person with legal rights, it is a person with legal liabilities. Just keep him away from the unwilling mothers. I am semi-serious.

3. AR, if you support mother's life above a child's in life threatening pregnancies, you already see the child as less human than the mother. How much less? can anyone quantify it?

4. Religious sin, or moral crime: I do not want other persons belief's or more's to affect my life or someone who does not have them. Identify clear hazards to society and make them illegal. Abortion never was one of those.

5. About Abbey's experience of women coming for multiple pregnancies, if they do not have valid medical reasons, I do not want them as a mother to any child anyway. I have seen the impact that bad mothers can have on children.

6. Adoption is a good choice, as everyone says, but only if the mother cares. But why should a person subject herself through nine months of hell just to give up an unwanted child, to an unknown fate? I have met only one woman, who said she enjoyed the pregnancy. Additionally, I do not think that all adopted children have heavenly life. So, if my wife is pregnant and we cannot have children at the time, I would advise abortion. It is her decision, but I will not feel any virtuous just because I delivered a child to uncertain fate. I have seen people agonizing about abortion, yes, but I have seen a lot lot lot more agonizing about giving up a child. It has messed up two lives to my own personal knowledge. I will never forget the time I had to tear away a beloved cousin who was crying at the adoption agency to find out where her child was (who she had given up for adoption a few months ago). The husband could do nothing, as she had already slapped a domestic violence suit on him because he tried to stop her the first time. The story is in now way typical, but I do not think it is unique either.

7. Finally, let us remember that we are arguing about aborting children but we started from aborting pregnancy from rape. And if we apply a rule to one, slowly it will be extended to the other.

8. Epilogue (since the previous one was final): I would even support post natal abortion. If a mother (mentally sound, criminally flawless .. and passing all other necessary checks) thinks that her unmarried/unengaged child should never have been born, state should listen to her and carry out a post natal abortion. :D "purely joking. But I have seen another cousin, whose mother will happily apply this law :("

Sorry to Butt into the discussion. These are just my opinions, gathered from my own personal, non-medical, non-lawyerly and comparatively sheltered life.


Edit: Terez, the fetus's feeling and thinking really is not relevant to me. For me, the fetus is not a person, until it can live outside the womb. If you can put him/her in an incubator and continue the life, then he/she is a child and aborting will be a crime. Of course, the child should be put into the incubator, then and there, and mother should be banned to ever try to seek out any info on the child. Again, just an opinion, of course.

fdsaf3
01-25-2012, 06:00 PM
I agree that people are sanctimonious on both sides of the issue, but Abbey is just talking about medical facts here.

Medical facts heavily peppered with personal moral bias, maybe.

We know when babies start thinking and feeling. The pro-choice enthusiasts try to act like it's somehow irrelevant, but it isn't. This from a raging liberal.

Interesting. Two issues with this statement.

1. I'm not up to date on reading regarding this particular issue. Saying "we know when babies start thinking and feeling" implies definitive research and findings on the subject. Not that I doubt its existence, but if you would be so kind as to provide evidence of this so I can read it and catch up I would be grateful.

2. I take issue with the generalization that all pro-life enthusiasts (strange terminology here - I'd be hesitant to call anyone in the abortion debate an "enthusiast") ignore the fact that fetuses will eventually be born and grow into people. You have to admit, that's a really broad generalization. If you go back to my first post in this thread, you will hopefully (assuming I was clear enough) see that in my experience women who have had abortions understand the enormity of their decision to have the procedure done. From my conversations with these women, it was never an issue of devaluing the potential of their unborn child.

Terez
01-25-2012, 06:15 PM
Medical facts heavily peppered with personal moral bias, maybe.Sure, but you didn't seem to treat these as separate issues, which I feel is important in debates like these, or we get a pendulum effect.

I'm not up to date on reading regarding this particular issue. Saying "we know when babies start thinking and feeling" implies definitive research and findings on the subject. Not that I doubt its existence, but if you would be so kind as to provide evidence of this so I can read it and catch up I would be grateful.Here's a referenced summary (http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetal-pain.shtml) written from the pro-choice bias.

eht slat meit
01-25-2012, 06:27 PM
1. I'm not up to date on reading regarding this particular issue. Saying "we know when babies start thinking and feeling" implies definitive research and findings on the subject. Not that I doubt its existence, but if you would be so kind as to provide evidence of this so I can read it and catch up I would be grateful.


I believe that there is definitive research in the cognitive development of babies, as that was 101-level psychology class stuff.

However, that was post-natal development, not the fetuses.

Cognitive development studies would be a starting point, but you'd have to branch off in your search to get a clearer understanding of fetuses, I expect.

Seeker
01-25-2012, 09:51 PM
Do you guys wanna know why I hate abortion threads? It's because everyone who posts becomes an "expert" on what is probably one of the most morally ambiguous and difficult situations that a human being can find herself in.

Yes. Herself.

Which brings me to my first point. It really bothers me when men - especially trolls like Rick Santorum - chime in with opinions on abortion. The fucking arrogance! Even a child born of rape is a blessing? Abortion is a crime? Easy for you to say, asshole, you'll never have to make the choice. For the entirety of your useless life, you were never in danger of ever becoming pregnant. So, could all the guys in this thread - myself included - just pause for a sec and consider how our position might affect our decision-making skills.

Could we maybe entertain the idea that this might be an issue where men should have no say at all?


It bugs the shit out of me when guys talk about this issue in pedantic tones. I don't care what side of the argument they take; I don't care if they say "A fetus has thoughts and feelings" or "Adoption will only worsen the mother's pain." Because we have no basis on which to form these opnions. None whatsoever. It's like a blind man talking about which shade of red looks better.

And the reason it bothers me is that there are women out there right now who are faced with this choice. Now, I admit that the liklihood of one of them stumbling across Theoryland is pretty rare but Rick Santorum is another matter. How many pregnant young women might his speech have affected? How many of them might have been rape victims? Do you suppose he thought about that before he went and shot off his mouth? I doubt it.

How easy it is to condemn someone when you never have to make the choice, when you never have to face the consequences. The man disgusts me.

So, I would really like it if the lot of us could be careful and respectful because we never know who might be reading our comments or if they might be causing harm to someone we've never heard of.

Res_Ipsa
01-25-2012, 11:03 PM
Oh, so I'm supposed to just roll over and play dead because I'm not a doctor working in a clinic? What a relief. :rolleyes:

Tag, I am in. You should not project your own inadequacies onto another's argument. Please tell us, in non-histrionic language where you can find Abby saying you have to be a doctor working in a clinic or you have no valid opinion on abortion.


You made it seem as though abortion was an easy choice. My experiences working with women who have had abortions performed indicate otherwise.

Ah, so personal experience is a valid argument tool. More on that later, but do not confuse this blurb as you having said something intelligent.

I'm doubting you read my post carefully. Your response screams two things loud and clear:

1. You seem to have a particular definition of 'personhood' that will never be resolved satisfactorily for everyone. I'm not going to waste time debating semantics.

In point of fact it is not semantics, considering the legal definition of when a person is a person is the major focus when it is abortion and when it is murder. And if you are judging the validity of the argument by a lack of universal appeal, than you really have no clue what the point of arguing is.


2. As I said in my previous post, sanctimonious pro-life people ignore the burdens being pregnant place on a woman. It really does boil down to that for me. All the talk about murder and innocent life and all that is obfuscation and sensationalism. It's meant to tug at heart strings.

So the term "sanctimonious" is not intended to appeal to the opposite side of the spectrum? If what you were saying is correct you would argue the point as is, instead of using your own sensational language in presenting a non-argument as an argument.

As for my argument, are there no women who are "sanctimonious and pro-life"? Your argument fails on a very basic level, the "us or them" mentality where you fallaciously present your side as well-reasoned.

Do you even take yourself seriously when you post in such inflammatory language? It's just so obviously illogical and hyperbolic that it seems like you're not really trying to say anything that's going to inspire intelligent response. Maybe you don't want, I suppose.

Generally the people that scream about logic, use the least amount of it. Case in point, you.

Holy shit. You should write a paper and get it published. I mean, if you can sense what fetuses think and feel, that's an amazing development.

I thought you did not use "heart string" logic and hyperbole? More to the point, as Terez point out, we do know when pain comes into the equation.


Of course, laws vary widely by state. You make it seem as though getting a late-term abortion is as easy as picking up a gallon of milk, which it obviously isn't. I can see we're generalizing for dramatic effect at this point.

No, in point of fact you are the one generalizing. She used a specific example where you responded with a generalization of her argument. You just package it as if she is the one doing it which you present it as an argument (falsely). Basically, you are attempting to guide the conversation and put words in her mouth which you did in the first place.

Cool, now we're back to making broad, sweeping generalizations based on our individual morals.

You use "we're" like it was ever both of you. Hint, it is just you. Remember this?

"sanctimonious pro-life people ignore the burdens being pregnant place on a woman"


Clearly, everyone should argue using another person's belief system. Or maybe the only way to argue is based on your own personal beliefs and experiences, what is it you think you are doing?



See above about debating semantics, generalizing codes of behavior based on an individual moral standard, etc.

Your argument is fairly childish.

This is ridiculous. Again, I'm trying really hard to take what you're saying seriously. I just can't when you post stuff like this.

You are not really making any points. Instead, you are using what is a deceptive argument practice. The best way of describing it is as if there is a 2 year old screaming "nuh ugh" as loudly as they can in the vain attempt that someone does not remember the point in the first place.


I'm really tired of responding to this stuff, so I'm just going to quit...except for this last bit.

Clever. You are the first person ever who says, in effect, that someone's argument is so worthless that they cannot be bothered with it anymore . . . and then they bother with it.


Sure, if we all accept your obviously not universally shared moral perspective this wouldn't be an issue. But since you're A) acting morally superior, and B) trying to impose your morals on an issue which is far more complex and nuanced than your black and white world view makes it out to be, there are going to be problems.

"Impose your morals on an issue which is far more nuanced than your black and white world view . . ."

Again, you are not making an argument. When I was first in undergrad, when presenting a view that someone disagree with, I was often told that I should step away from my own personal biases and judge the argument in light of that. Undoubtedly, that is a valid point in a purest sense, but most often the people saying it are so blindly oblivious that they are violating their own rule in the first place when they utter it. The duplicity is obvious, they are telling you, that your arguments are wrong in the first place because you have not considered another's position and treated it as valid, when that is precisely what they are doing. I very much doubt you will comprehend the point but I am making this argument to anyone who may be swayed, which is the real point of any argument between two positions.

I wouldn't have so much of an opinion on this if people weren't so sanctimonious about it on both sides of the issue. But for whatever reason that seems to be the type of person who feels strongly about this.

I noticed that when you swoop into a thread, your standard response is that what you are commenting on is so stupid that you just cannot deal with it. I am not really appealing to your sense of honesty here, but rather the other frequent posters who will hopefully see you for the annoying twit you are. It is easy to say things on the internet, but you strike me as dishonest when you post because you claim to be interested in having an intelligent argument but frequently you just resort to "you suck" while holding out the other person as doing it. It is like you broke wind in a crowded area and whispered to everyone near you it must have been "that guy."

Firseal
01-26-2012, 12:30 AM
Pro choice enthusiasts often fail to realize the fundamental idea of pro life enthusiasts; the fact that it can't be a choice if you view the unborn child as a living person.

Or they do, and do not believe it. After all, we are not talking about a separate being at this point. It potentially is, if allowed to continue, but the fetus is essentially a parasitic organism that cannot survive separate from the host. It's also got factors in common with a beign tumor; it grows swiftly within the body, not harming it but taking with the body's consent resources and energy that could be used elsewhere, and changing the whole body. Moreover, parasite or tumor or living being, if allowed to grow it as surely changes the lives of it's mother, her kith and kin (or those who receive it in adoption) irrevocably.

You could say that these are unfair comparisons. In many ways they are. But so is saying a developing fetus that cannot survive without the mother is a separate human being with all the rights and priveleges thereof. The argument that terminating the fetus is the same as killing a human being is just as facetious as calling an unwanted one a parasite or tumor to be purged. It just clouds the issue and skews the choice that the possible mother has to make in the direction of the one making the position that it is either.

Call a fetus a fetus. A potential, but only potential, being. Call the choice to have it or not a choice to have it or not. Because saying that it is intrinsically better to surrender three to seven more months and go through an experience that many women refer to as incredibly painful as better, because people who are not them say it is morally better to do so and give the child away than be done with it fast and easily earlier, that's again skewing things so what you want seems to be the best choice.

The end of the day, there is no best choice.

Because life isn't simple. Certainly not the lives of women making these choices, which all three proposed will alter everything that comes after. You can say there are choices you prefer, you can say that in your views it can't be a choice because you believe something that the woman does not. But you aren't the women in question, and whatever moral high ground you may have ends at their door. They can view what is happening to their body however they like, and if they are determined to seek remedy you do not approve of they will. The only way you even get to be part of the discussion, or the only way you should, is if at the end of the day the wishes of the woman in question trump anything you many desire.

Ishara
01-26-2012, 07:02 AM
I was curious about this, too......If you view the fetus as a separate entity from the mother, you can frame the debate in terms of the mother accepting the changes that fetus is making to her body.
That was super helpful - but "re-framing" the issue still comes down to choice? does it not? Besides which (and this is tongue-in-cheek), I know a LOT of pregnant woman who are excited to be mother's and not exactly thrilled at the ridiculous changes the fetus is making to her body! ;)



Pro choice enthusiasts often fail to realize the fundamental idea of pro life enthusiasts; the fact that it can't be a choice if you view the unborn child as a living person.

Listen, I don't know many (any?) pro-choice people who think that abortion should be considered a form of birth control. I certainly don't. I don't mean to dismiss what is obviously a belief based on your personal experiences as a medical professional. That's going to colour your perspective and inform your choices and opinions - and lord knows you're entitled to them!

You're an intelligent guy, and a generally thoughful poster, but I find that your use of perjorative terms such as "kill," "murder" and "unborn person" extremely unhelpful in the overall discussion. The language is designed to elicit an emotional response and automatically sets those who disagree with you (even a little) as supportive of acts of murder, which in fact, they're not.

I mean, maybe you're dumbing it down for us, but before a self-sustaining (let's say 24 weeks) fetus becomes a fetus, it's an blastocyst and an embryo first. Is terminating a pregancy at either of those stages, when it is truly a ball of cells with no proven or imagined ability to think or feel acceptable to you? You've stated that you're far more supportive of first trimester abortions than you are of 2nd (or even 3rd), but in most countries, abortion is only legally allowed for reasons not related to the mother's health in the first trimester. I would suggest that your experiences are not the norm when it comes to seeing frequent 2nd (or 3rd) trimester abortions.

Even if you accept that a fetus, at officially 7 weeks (I believe), is a living person you have to agree that it cannot survive outside of the mother's body on it's own, even with the assistance of all the neo-natal care in the world. The fact that it is "alive" doesn't negate the choice, as you suggest above. It makes the choice a hard one (this is not like deciding what to have for lunch), but it is still a choice, and it should still be afforded to all women.

Res_Ipsa
01-26-2012, 07:19 AM
Even if you accept that a fetus, at officially 7 weeks (I believe), is a living person you have to agree that it cannot survive outside of the mother's body on it's own, even with the assistance of all the neo-natal care in the world. The fact that it is "alive" doesn't negate the choice, as you suggest above. It makes the choice a hard one (this is not like deciding what to have for lunch), but it is still a choice, and it should still be afforded to all women.

A 1 day old cannot survive w/out care, nor can a 1 year old or even a 3 year old. I never understood the appeal of the viability argument. What I am doing is Reductio ad absurdum to highlight a deficiency in all of the viability arguments. I could easily make the claim that those w/ severe mental or physical handicaps are not viable lives at any point and argue for voluntary termination at any point in the lifespan. To me, that sounds overly harsh and methodical. I believe that life beings at conception instead of some arbitrary date. As to what is an arbitrary date, it is almost like the difference between a 17year old 1 day from being 18 and an 18 year old, each being carded while trying to buy some cigarettes.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-26-2012, 08:05 AM
Or they do, and do not believe it. After all, we are not talking about a separate being at this point. It potentially is, if allowed to continue, but the fetus is essentially a parasitic organism that cannot survive separate from the host. It's also got factors in common with a beign tumor; it grows swiftly within the body, not harming it but taking with the body's consent resources and energy that could be used elsewhere, and changing the whole body. Moreover, parasite or tumor or living being, if allowed to grow it as surely changes the lives of it's mother, her kith and kin (or those who receive it in adoption) irrevocably.

Somewhat relevant to this discussion, I was a few hours away from never being born because the Smart Doctors told my mom that she wasn't pregnat, she had a tumor and had to be operated ASAP.

She did a little prisonbreak and ran away from that hospital for a 2nd opinion though so, you know, all's well that ends well, I suppose.

Seeker is quite right: it's very hard to generalize because every woman's experiences and beliefs are different. The reason my mom fought so hard to make sure I was *not* a tumor is that she had had a miscarriage a few years before and it had taken her a lot of courage to even try to get pregnant again. Someone else might have believed the doctor's assessment and gotten the tumor removed no questions asked.

As for my opinion, abortion should be legal end of story. The reason isn't even moral, it's practical. If you make anything illegal, there will still be many people who want to do it and they'll find ways. back-alley "doctors" with coathangers, mostly, but also deliberately throwing oneself down the stairs, asking the bf to punch you in the gut and other lovely means of ridding oneself of an unwanted pregnancy - which in turn means that a procedure that could be safe for the mother and any future children she may have in the future will most probably become a game of Russian roulette.

From what I understand, the large majority of women who opt for abortion do so because they either feel they cannot care for the child at that point in their lives or they find out the fetus has a genetic problem and wouldn't live a full normal life (in some cases wouldn't even reach full term) - meaning, these women don't abort because they never want children but because they will not risk having that child.

Therefore, logically, making abortions illegal would make a LOT of people miserable: the unwilling mothers who didn't dare the Russian Roulette option and are stuck with the baby or stuck with regrets about giving the baby up for adoption, the children who feel unwanted an unloved, and the women who did go for the Russian Roulette option only to get their lives in order and then disover that they can never have children, all the while internally grieving the one that they could have had.

fdsaf3
01-26-2012, 08:07 AM
blah blah blah

Woah. For someone who presumes to have a clear understanding of logical argumentation, your lecture of my logical fallacies contains no shortage of logical fallacies. I could spend the next 15 minutes of my life writing a detailed response about this, but I really have better things to do. Life is too short.

Tell you what: I don't really care what you think of me. If you need to tell yourself that I'm an annoying twit, that's fine with me. I really don't care. Have fun.

Oh, and I'm sure that to you this means that I've committed another logical fallacy, or that "you win" or whatever. That's fine with me too.

Davian93
01-26-2012, 08:20 AM
Somewhat relevant to this discussion, I was a few hours away from never being born because the Smart Doctors told my mom that she wasn't pregnat, she had a tumor and had to be operated ASAP.

She did a little prisonbreak and ran away from that hospital for a 2nd opinion though so, you know, all's well that ends well, I suppose.

Seeker is quite right: it's very hard to generalize because every woman's experiences and beliefs are different. The reason my mom fought so hard to make sure I was *not* a tumor is that she had had a miscarriage a few years before and it had taken her a lot of courage to even try to get pregnant again. Someone else might have believed the doctor's assessment and gotten the tumor removed no questions asked.

As for my opinion, abortion should be legal end of story. The reason isn't even moral, it's practical. If you make anything illegal, there will still be many people who want to do it and they'll find ways. back-alley "doctors" with coathangers, mostly, but also deliberately throwing oneself down the stairs, asking the bf to punch you in the gut and other lovely means of ridding oneself of an unwanted pregnancy - which in turn means that a procedure that could be safe for the mother and any future children she may have in the future will most probably become a game of Russian roulette.

From what I understand, the large majority of women who opt for abortion do so because they either feel they cannot care for the child at that point in their lives or they find out the fetus has a genetic problem and wouldn't live a full normal life (in some cases wouldn't even reach full term) - meaning, these women don't abort because they never want children but because they will not risk having that child.

Therefore, logically, making abortions illegal would make a LOT of people miserable: the unwilling mothers who didn't dare the Russian Roulette option and are stuck with the baby or stuck with regrets about giving the baby up for adoption, the children who feel unwanted an unloved, and the women who did go for the Russian Roulette option only to get their lives in order and then disover that they can never have children, all the while internally grieving the one that they could have had.

Abortions rates are actually lower now than they were when it was illegal...at least in the US. The rate of women dying in back-alley abortions is also far lower too for some odd reason.

Ishara
01-26-2012, 09:40 AM
A 1 day old cannot survive w/out care, nor can a 1 year old or even a 3 year old. I never understood the appeal of the viability argument. What I am doing is Reductio ad absurdum to highlight a deficiency in all of the viability arguments. I could easily make the claim that those w/ severe mental or physical handicaps are not viable lives at any point and argue for voluntary termination at any point in the lifespan. To me, that sounds overly harsh and methodical. I believe that life beings at conception instead of some arbitrary date. As to what is an arbitrary date, it is almost like the difference between a 17year old 1 day from being 18 and an 18 year old, each being carded while trying to buy some cigarettes.

Well, let me put this another way (and be assured that viability is not the only reason, or even the main reason that most pro-choice folks support choice): a blastocyst is about as "alive" as the mold you find in your sour cream. It's a bundle of cells, that's all. To ascribe sentience is stretching it. My mentioning viability at all was in response to AR's references in hi spost, not as a means to justify my own position.

Firseal
01-26-2012, 09:43 AM
yks, my point was simply that if you can say that an unborn being is a person, for the purpose of creating an emotional, pathos response to sway an argument, you could do the opposite with other definitions. I find the whole argument that something that cannot in any way, shape, or form survive independantly should be argued for as a unique and separate individual to be disingenous.

Call the unborn what they are. You can go with fetus, or any of the other terms. Take it by steps if you like. But trying to weigh the argument by saying that something that is not yet an individual is precisely that and must be treated as such prior to that becoming is false pretenses.

Look, this is a massively divisive issue. Which is why I just argue that the choice must be allowed, and offered to every individual, and that some individuals should not have the right to decide it for others. I make no moral arguments, or points on right or wrong, or demonstrations of good or bad decisions made by others, save those to counter what I view as attempts to derail the argument entirely with other such gambits.

I used to believe that the simpliest solution was correct, and it was mentioned further up. Men have no intrinsic right in this argument anyway, and thus our entire gender should bugger off about it. But realistically, the opponents to allowing half our population a free choice (regardless of what choice they make, and in some cases regardless of the preconditions and parameters involved in that choice) are never going to do that. The only way this issue stays as a personal freedom issue rather than an argument of degree of forbidding, is if people are willing to fight for the right to it's fullest degree. If the fullest degree is not fought for, there are too many who will strive to make sure there is no degree of choice or freedom in this issue at all.

And once again I have wandered off down an odd digression of ideas. Oh well. There it is.

Crispin's Crispian
01-26-2012, 11:09 AM
yks, my point was simply that if you can say that an unborn being is a person, for the purpose of creating an emotional, pathos response to sway an argument, you could do the opposite with other definitions. I find the whole argument that something that cannot in any way, shape, or form survive independantly should be argued for as a unique and separate individual to be disingenous.

There are two points to make here. First, stating the argument is not the same as using it rhetorically for emotional impact. I don't personally know Abbey's beliefs, but if you look carefully you'll see that I said almost exactly the same thing he did a few posts earlier. In both of our posts, we are pointing out that most pro-choice arguments seem to ignore the fundamental fact that pro-lifers usually think of the fetus as a person. If you start from the perspective that is isn't, you're missing the point. In other words, the debate must begin with personhood.

Second, you didn't address Res's argument that the viability argument is subjectively applied. Christopher Reeve couldn't survive without 24-hour care and a respirator. I don't know what Stephen Hawking needs, but given that he can only move his finger I'm guessing he is not truly viable without similar or even more care that Christopher Reeve needed.

You could argue that both of these men were able to communicate and were therefore obviously sentient. But that's not a fair argument either. A baby under six months or so has not had the chance to develop communication, and probably not independent thought beyond instinct. How do you know if it is sentient? An unborn child at six months might have about the same communicative ability as a newborn, but everyone believes a killing a newborn is murder.

So you need to define your terms a little better.


But trying to weigh the argument by saying that something that is not yet an individual is precisely that and must be treated as such prior to that becoming is false pretenses.

That's a straw man. If a person believes a fetus is a person, that belief informs their arguments. Don't tell them their belief is invalid simply because it injects emotion into the debate. It's not an attempt to derail, which goes back to my first point.

Look, this is a massively divisive issue. Which is why I just argue that the choice must be allowed, and offered to every individual, and that some individuals should not have the right to decide it for others. I make no moral arguments, or points on right or wrong, or demonstrations of good or bad decisions made by others, save those to counter what I view as attempts to derail the argument entirely with other such gambits.

I feel just about the same way. I just have to counter arguments that completely ignore the issues brought up by the other side (whichever one that is).

I used to believe that the simpliest solution was correct, and it was mentioned further up. Men have no intrinsic right in this argument anyway, and thus our entire gender should bugger off about it.
I think this argument (used by you and Seeker both, now) is an attempt to derail the debate by invalidating the opinion of 50% of the population.

That being said, go back to my first point. If you're a man who believes strongly that an unborn child is a person and thus that killing said person is murder, you're just supposed to back off because you're not a woman? That would be ridiculous in any other circumstance.

Zombie Sammael
01-26-2012, 11:19 AM
I think when people are talking about viability or personhood, what we really ought to be focusing on is individuality. A foetus at a certain stage might be able to think and feel etc, but unlike Stephen Hawking or Christopher Reeve, it cannot survive without reliance on another person. That isn't the same thing as survival based on a mechanical contraption, or even survival based on being cared for. At that stage, it is still reliant upon the mother's body to survive, and as such, it can't truly be considered to be an individual separate from the mother. Stephen Hawking might be reliant on a number of contraptions to survive, but he isn't reliant directly upon another person's body to survive.

Crispin's Crispian
01-26-2012, 12:48 PM
I think when people are talking about viability or personhood, what we really ought to be focusing on is individuality. A foetus at a certain stage might be able to think and feel etc, but unlike Stephen Hawking or Christopher Reeve, it cannot survive without reliance on another person. That isn't the same thing as survival based on a mechanical contraption, or even survival based on being cared for. At that stage, it is still reliant upon the mother's body to survive, and as such, it can't truly be considered to be an individual separate from the mother. Stephen Hawking might be reliant on a number of contraptions to survive, but he isn't reliant directly upon another person's body to survive.

I think you're splitting hairs considerably. Who is going to feed Stephen Hawking? The same type of person who feeds an infant: a caregiver. Sure, you can hook him up to some kind of contraption to feed him, but you could do the same thing to a baby born two months premature.

Zombie Sammael
01-26-2012, 01:16 PM
I think you're splitting hairs considerably. Who is going to feed Stephen Hawking? The same type of person who feeds an infant: a caregiver. Sure, you can hook him up to some kind of contraption to feed him, but you could do the same thing to a baby born two months premature.

The caregiver who gives care to Stephen Hawking* consents to that. A woman does not consent to becoming pregnant, nor, in the world the anti-choicers envisage, remaining that way. Consent is the distinction, and the right to self-determination.

*or the thousands of other severely disabled people who are not as rich and famous as Stephen Hawking.

Durvasha
01-26-2012, 01:17 PM
I think you're splitting hairs considerably. Who is going to feed Stephen Hawking? The same type of person who feeds an infant: a caregiver. Sure, you can hook him up to some kind of contraption to feed him, but you could do the same thing to a baby born two months premature.

That is why I mentioned Incubation potential. It should not be a person if it cant survive out of mother's womb in an incubator. If the incubator can keep him/her alive, then by all means, he/her should be awarded the status of a person, and mother has no right to kill him, only to expel him. Of course, she should not be expected to pay for incubation and associated costs. If State wants to keep the baby alive, state should pay for those costs.

eht slat meit
01-26-2012, 01:23 PM
That is why I mentioned Incubation potential. It should not be a person if it cant survive out of mother's womb in an incubator. If the incubator can keep him/her alive, then by all means, he/her should be awarded the status of a person, and mother has no right to kill him, only to expel him. Of course, she should not be expected to pay for incubation and associated costs. If State wants to keep the baby alive, state should pay for those costs.

There's a point at which you have to realize that this much cold and clinical calculation of what constitutes a person simply isn't going to convince someone that such ideology is the _moral or right_ path.

Ivhon
01-26-2012, 01:28 PM
I think you're splitting hairs considerably. Who is going to feed Stephen Hawking? The same type of person who feeds an infant: a caregiver. Sure, you can hook him up to some kind of contraption to feed him, but you could do the same thing to a baby born two months premature.

...and that baby would in all likelihood die while Stephen Hawking didn't.

You can meet an infants biological needs, but without human (or at least mammalian) contact it will most likely fail to thrive and die. Even if it doesn't, it will be so cognitively, emotionally and developmentally impaired that Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeve are impossible futures. I would wager that many children who die from failure to thrive are born to mothers for whom abortion was not an option. Which mothers then have to add a nice heaping of guilt to what likely is an already shattered self-esteem.

Not saying that this is universal by any means.

Also I get your point loud and clear, Muttley, re: men deserving an opinion and the totality of belief. I deserve an opinion on the matter and to have that opinion heard. I do not deserve to force another person to live by my beliefs.

Even defining life as starting at conception, one is faced with the moral and ethical dilemma of what does more damage? Killing the human being or allowing that human being to ruin the lives of countless others (including increased chances of becoming violent, criminal, etc if brought into an unloving household) with still no guarantee of survival? EDIT: Not gonna Godwin - so if we choose that the individual life is more important than the potential to damage countless others, then we should not have killed Bin Laden or Saddam. Yes, I know they made choices that an un/newborn cannot make. But then, the rape victim did not choose that either. No way out on any argument on either side - really there is not.

There are no cut and dry answers - nightmare and miracle scenarios abound on both sides of this argument. With no universally applicable solution, we must treat things situationally (with no guarantees there, either). And to do that, in this case, implies Choice.

Durvasha
01-26-2012, 01:46 PM
There's a point at which you have to realize that this much cold and clinical calculation of what constitutes a person simply isn't going to convince someone that such ideology is the _moral or right_ path.

ESM, if you think that you can convince others of Morals and Rights that they already don't hold, I wish you luck in all such future endeavors. If there were a right answer, we would have found it out by now and been at peace. I have seen such debates rising every few months in theoryland and I dont think I have seen anyone conceding that they were wrong and they have seen the light now.

In your opinion, I am advocating murder. In my opinion, you are advocating slavery. you will say slaves are better than dead. I will say death is better than slavery. And we will continue ad-infi... (Sorry, i dont know Latin. I barely know English.)


But as Abbeyroad already said, he puts mother's life above the unborn child. I think that any physician will never make any such judgement calls on any other people. (Let's save the son not the aged father or I will save the grandchild as the grandfather will be dead in a few months anyway). So, this is a unique debate where the personhood already has a reduced value than the born one. The distinction already exists. It is just a matter of interpreting which one is stronger.

Ivhon
01-26-2012, 01:54 PM
ESM, if you think that you can convince others of Morals and Rights that they already don't hold, I wish you luck in all such future endeavors. If there were a right answer, we would have found it out by now and been at peace. I have seen such debates rising every few months in theoryland and I dont think I have seen anyone conceding that they were wrong and they have seen the light now.

In your opinion, I am advocating murder. In my opinion, you are advocating slavery. you will say slaves are better than dead. I will say death is better than slavery. And we will continue ad-infi... (Sorry, i dont know Latin. I barely know English.)


But as Abbeyroad already said, he puts mother's life above the unborn child. I think that any physician will never make any such judgement calls on any other people. (Let's save the son not the aged father or I will save the grandchild as the grandfather will be dead in a few months anyway). So, this is a unique debate where the personhood already has a reduced value than the born one. The distinction already exists. It is just a matter of interpreting which one is stronger.

That is AR's personal ethic. I do not think that you can conclude that his stance is either objective or consensus (which is not to denigrate that stance). Doctors are people too and they see life through their lenses. There may well be MD's that place the child's life over the mother's. I would be curious (but not curious enough to fish through the entire medical ethics code) if there is an official stance by the AMA. Kinda would be surprised if there were...

Durvasha
01-26-2012, 01:57 PM
Such debates remind me of an interesting one that I had in Saudi Arabia with an Indian "born-again" muslim. He was in the same company as me, and an all round nice guy. The subject was freedom in Islam. I dont know how we got there as I try not to get into such debates in real life.

Me: Freedom means freedom to all, and your religion has no such freedom for women.

Him: What do you mean? Our women have complete freedom?

Me: Huh? what about Burqah?

Him: WHat has that got to do with Freedom?

Me: If they can't even choose their clothes, how can they be free?

Him: hey! does freedom mean you will make your wife dance naked on crossroads?

Me: If I ever have a wife, I will never "Make" her dance naked.

Him: Hah! there goes your freedom.

Me: Nah! look at the word I used. I wont "Make" her. If she wants to, I wont "Stop" her.

Him: Are you even a man???

Me: Did I say that I would stay with her if she starts dancing fully naked? I have my own freedom too, that I can legally use.

Him: See! That is why we have Burqah.

Me: huh? where did that come from, again?

Him: Burqah is in our religion. You can't go against god's wishes for freedom. You will go to hell.

Me: well, if I am truly free, I should be able to choose "hell", shouldnot I?

Him: Women donot know enough to chose the right path.

Me: Then teach them.

Him: we teach them Quran.

..... After a long fruitless struggle, I gave up. And the guy even didnot keep a beard himself. He was always clean shaven :D .

What is it than can blind the best of reasonable, educated, most caring people?

Crispin's Crispian
01-26-2012, 01:58 PM
The caregiver who gives care to Stephen Hawking* consents to that. A woman does not consent to becoming pregnant, nor, in the world the anti-choicers envisage, remaining that way. Consent is the distinction, and the right to self-determination.

*or the thousands of other severely disabled people who are not as rich and famous as Stephen Hawking.

That's a separate argument. A caregiver's consent is not what gives personhood to those who cannot care for themselves.

Durvasha
01-26-2012, 02:01 PM
That is AR's personal ethic. I do not think that you can conclude that his stance is either objective or consensus (which is not to denigrate that stance). Doctors are people too and they see life through their lenses. There may well be MD's that place the child's life over the mother's. I would be curious (but not curious enough to fish through the entire medical ethics code) if there is an official stance by the AMA. Kinda would be surprised if there were...

I am sorry Abbey if I generalized out of your personal beliefs. But Ivhon, that is the line I have heard from most Doctors in Nepal. I do not know if there is such guideline among doctors, but I have never heard anyone saying that they will save child's life.

Come to think of it, I have read in some second class melodramatic Hindi novels, where the doctor asks the father/husband: "I am sorry I can only save one of them. Should I save the mother or the child?" Fortunately, none of my numerous relatives have had to make that call. So, I dont know if it is a common practice or just like the 15mins DNA confirmation in CSI.

tworiverswoman
01-26-2012, 02:18 PM
Argument is all ABOUT using words to sway someone else to your side, so chastising people for using words to do just that is a bit on the silly side, IMO. :)

Abbey, I will agree with you that "life" begins at conception. But I have to agree with Ishara that the "life" is roughly equivalent to the stuff that grows in the back of the fridge, though hopefully the stuff in the fridge does NOT have the potential to become an independent, sentient being some day.

And this is the heart of the argument. I cannot apply the word "person" to a bunch of cells that are still in the assembly stage. You did a good job of undercutting the validity of the "viability" argument when you mentioned Reeves and Hawking, but there's still a real distinction between someone who's been damaged into a helpless state, and an unborn fetus, especially in the first trimester.

As to the article which actually STARTED this thread... Davian, please stop twisting things into something they're not. You are deeply contemptuous of "the other side" when THEY do it, so don't adopt it as a tactic for your own views. What he DID say was offensive enough, so it really didn't need the extra distortion. On the other hand, Freedom of Speech means he's entitled to say what he thinks, and aren't you glad you KNOW what he thinks? Otherwise you might vote for him.

And given his starting point, I can even understand his premise - the child of rape isn't responsible for the rape, so that's not a good excuse to "murder" it. The victim of the rape, however, may want no part of anything so intimately involved with the rapist as cells from his body growing inside of her. I have no idea what the statistical numbers are regarding abortions of fetuses produced by rape. I have a gut feeling that the percentage of rapes that produce fetuses can't be all that high, and ah... I find a google search tells me the following: Pregnancy as a result of rape occurs in about 5 percent of fertile female victims.(1) Preexisting pregnancy should be determined, preferably by a serum human chorionic gonadotropic beta subunit assay, and treatment for the prevention of pregnancy should be offered to the patient. Several pregnancy prophylaxis options are listed in Table 2. The 1 percent failure rate and teratogenicity of postcoital medications should be explained to the patient. Nausea may be controlled with any preferred antiemetic agent. All postcoital pregnancy interventions are ineffective after 72 hours." It's hard to get a handle on real numbers. That was actually an old article from 1991. I have to add that following links to articles about human trafficking is really depressing.

In the end, it comes down to my personal mantra: "There is no one true way." Personal beliefs that differ from another's personal beliefs are always going to create arguments, sometimes civil and ordered, sometimes involving foaming at the mouth and/or sharp pointy objects. What makes the abortion argument different from most is the silent presence of the third party, the unborn potential human being.

Try working in a clinic. I've seen women continue get abortions after having had more than 3. True story. It is a very serious and irrevocable decision, and many young women have no grasp on the magnitude of said decision. Your personal experience is a valid barometer for you and a good platform to base your argument from, but ... damn, I'm having trouble articulating this... statistics only prove that there's no damn thing you can't prove with statistics. I've read your statement several times now, and each time I get a brand new angle on it. The most recent one was, "Damn... what is WRONG with these people that they get pregnant so often that this is the only option they see?" Seriously. I don't deny your experience, but I refuse to take these people as the NORM.

If you re-read the quote you posted from fdsaf3 (I always hear that in my head as "fudd-saf" -- what the hell are we supposed to do with a "name" like that!?) ... anyway, if you read it again, you'll note that he did admit that there might be people who "don't view abortion as a big deal" which I feel makes your point in advance. But MOST women in his experience, and in mine and that of the majority of us, do NOT make that choice lightly, casually, or without full understanding of what it really means.

Those who believe in their hearts that abortion is murder of a human being are never going to change their minds, but the rest of us believe that an unborn fetus does not yet hold that title. There is at least some science behind our denial. There does not appear to be anything behind the other except "the sanctity of life" -- which drags up that whole "religious" aspect again. There are so many definitions of what constitutes "life" that its a subject fit for contentious argument all on its own. What the argument MIGHT be focusing on is the definition of "human being."

Crispin's Crispian
01-26-2012, 02:18 PM
...and that baby would in all likelihood die while Stephen Hawking didn't.

You can meet an infants biological needs, but without human (or at least mammalian) contact it will most likely fail to thrive and die. Even if it doesn't, it will be so cognitively, emotionally and developmentally impaired that Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeve are impossible futures. I would wager that many children who die from failure to thrive are born to mothers for whom abortion was not an option. Which mothers then have to add a nice heaping of guilt to what likely is an already shattered self-esteem.So it's a timing issue, again. I could open the argument to people with severe enough brain injury that cognition (as we know it) and human interaction is virtually impossible, but I don't want to do that right now.


Also I get your point loud and clear, Muttley, re: men deserving an opinion and the totality of belief. I deserve an opinion on the matter and to have that opinion heard. I do not deserve to force another person to live by my beliefs.I know what you mean, but I think this again misses the point. Everyone agrees that murder should be prohibited, so the question is quite thorny. If you see a murder happening, you want to try to stop it, and no one would fault you for trying. In any situation besides abortion, such a "morally-based" intervention would be A-OK.


Even defining life as starting at conception, one is faced with the moral and ethical dilemma of what does more damage? Killing the human being or allowing that human being to ruin the lives of countless others (including increased chances of becoming violent, criminal, etc if brought into an unloving household) with still no guarantee of survival?
Not to be sanctimonious or pedantic, but this argument holds no water for me. You're going to measure the worth of a life based on the potential harm it might cause? How are you measuring that potential versus the potential for good? Are you also then devaluing the lives of children in other situations where there could be a horrible outcome?

EDIT: Not gonna Godwin - so if we choose that the individual life is more important than the potential to damage countless others, then we should not have killed Bin Laden or Saddam. Yes, I know they made choices that an un/newborn cannot make. But then, the rape victim did not choose that either. No way out on any argument on either side - really there is not.
Bin Laden and Saddam were killed for the things they did, not the things they might have done. Or, at least, the things they might have done had been pretty well established by the things they actually did.


There are no cut and dry answers - nightmare and miracle scenarios abound on both sides of this argument. With no universally applicable solution, we must treat things situationally (with no guarantees there, either). And to do that, in this case, implies Choice.

Hmm... I may have surpassed my ability to appear objective on the matter while still being open to all the arguments. I guess that's the Chameleon thing. I have tried very hard not to argue for either side of this issue.

Davian93
01-26-2012, 02:18 PM
I am sorry Abbey if I generalized out of your personal beliefs. But Ivhon, that is the line I have heard from most Doctors in Nepal. I do not know if there is such guideline among doctors, but I have never heard anyone saying that they will save child's life.

Come to think of it, I have read in some second class melodramatic Hindi novels, where the doctor asks the father/husband: "I am sorry I can only save one of them. Should I save the mother or the child?" Fortunately, none of my numerous relatives have had to make that call. So, I dont know if it is a common practice or just like the 15mins DNA confirmation in CSI.

Mother...not even a question for me. We can always have another kid or adopt.

So I guess I'm pro-choice.

I could open the argument to people with severe enough brain injury that cognition (as we know it) and human interaction is virtually impossible, but I don't want to do that right now.



Um...the nearest relative already has that choice:

http://www.tampabay.com/multimedia/archive/00114/b4s_screengrab0325_114044c.jpg

Note: I deliberately went with the cartoon version over the real thing due to the graphic nature of it.

Sukoto
01-26-2012, 02:29 PM
The caregiver who gives care to Stephen Hawking* consents to that. A woman does not consent to becoming pregnant, nor, in the world the anti-choicers envisage, remaining that way. Consent is the distinction, and the right to self-determination.

You're talking about cases of rape, right? Because if it's not rape, a woman is most certainly taking on the risk of becoming pregnant, as is the man risking fathering a child. How is that not consent?

I believe personhood is not the only legal debate that needs to happen. I get the feeling a lot of people think that sex and reproduction are somehow two completely different and separable things, when they are not inseparable. Biologically, they are not inseparable unless we do something quite unnatural to separate them, i.e. contraception.

I think contraception is perfectly acceptable, but it is not 100% effective. Women can still get pregnant even if men use condoms, or if women take pills or use other forms of contraception. There is always a possibility of pregnancy when a man and a woman have sex. So, while I do not try to make other peoples' decisions for them, I do think, for the good of society, that people need to take more responsibility for their choices. Neither women nor men should be allowed to claim they did not choose a pregnancy, except in cases when sex was not a choice.

Zombie Sammael
01-26-2012, 02:43 PM
That's a separate argument. A caregiver's consent is not what gives personhood to those who cannot care for themselves.

Not the consent in itself, rather the possibility of choice. A pregnant woman cannot choose to stop giving aid to a child. The caregiver of a disabled person can. That individuality is what separates a foetus from a person, imo.

You're talking about cases of rape, right? Because if it's not rape, a woman is most certainly taking on the risk of becoming pregnant, as is the man risking fathering a child. How is that not consent?

I believe personhood is not the only legal debate that needs to happen. I get the feeling a lot of people think that sex and reproduction are somehow two completely different and separable things, when they are not inseparable. Biologically, they are not inseparable unless we do something quite unnatural to separate them, i.e. contraception.

I think contraception is perfectly acceptable, but it is not 100% effective. Women can still get pregnant even if men use condoms, or if women take pills or use other forms of contraception. There is always a possibility of pregnancy when a man and a woman have sex. So, while I do not try to make other peoples' decisions for them, I do think, for the good of society, that people need to take more responsibility for their choices. Neither women nor men should be allowed to claim they did not choose a pregnancy, except in cases when sex was not a choice.

If I choose to play football, I may break my leg. That does not mean that by choosing to play football I am consenting to have my legs broken. Sex carries with it a chance of pregnancy, but that does not mean that a woman who chooses to have sex has chosen to be ome pregnant. Essentially, this throws up a gender discrimination issue, since a man cannot become pregnant. No-one would ever say that a man who chooses to have sex, protected or unprotected, has consented to becoming pregnant. It's about whether it's "okay" for a woman to have sex or not, and who gets to choose what she does with her body. I think it should be her.

Crispin's Crispian
01-26-2012, 03:23 PM
Not the consent in itself, rather the possibility of choice. A pregnant woman cannot choose to stop giving aid to a child. The caregiver of a disabled person can. That individuality is what separates a foetus from a person, imo.

But the choice of the caregiver has no bearing on the personhood of the disabled. I don't follow your argument.


If I choose to play football, I may break my leg. That does not mean that by choosing to play football I am consenting to have my legs broken. Sex carries with it a chance of pregnancy, but that does not mean that a woman who chooses to have sex has chosen to be ome pregnant. Essentially, this throws up a gender discrimination issue, since a man cannot become pregnant. No-one would ever say that a man who chooses to have sex, protected or unprotected, has consented to becoming pregnant.
Does that mean a man can refuse to pay child support, because he did not consent to conceiving a child?

This argument makes no sense to me, unless you're talking about rape, as Sukoto pointed out.

When you play football, you're assuming the risk of a broken leg. You won't find a football club in the world that doesn't make you sign a waiver indemnifying them from liability should you get injured. That's because the prevailing belief is that your choice equals your risk.

Crispin's Crispian
01-26-2012, 03:27 PM
Abbey...

You did a good job of undercutting the validity of the "viability" argument when you mentioned Reeves and Hawking, but there's still a real distinction between someone who's been damaged into a helpless state, and an unborn fetus, especially in the first trimester.
~cough, cough~

What the argument MIGHT be focusing on is the definition of "human being."
That's kind of what I've been going for. Alas...

Zombie Sammael
01-26-2012, 03:34 PM
But the choice of the caregiver has no bearing on the personhood of the disabled. I don't follow your argument.



Does that mean a man can refuse to pay child support, because he did not consent to conceiving a child?

This argument makes no sense to me, unless you're talking about rape, as Sukoto pointed out.

When you play football, you're assuming the risk of a broken leg. You won't find a football club in the world that doesn't make you sign a waiver indemnifying them from liability should you get injured. That's because the prevailing belief is that your choice equals your risk.

To deal with the second part first, I think that a woman who has sex should not be assumed to take on a greater risk or burden should the outcome be an unexpected pregnancy than a man. I think it is acceptable for people to have sex and we shouldn't place a greater burden on one group of people for choosing to do that.

For the other part, I'm not sure if you're following me. It's not the person choosing to give care that makes the person; if Stephen Hawking's caters decide to stop caring for him, it doesn't make him not a person. It is the ability to choose that determines that, and a pregnant woman can't make that choice.

AbbeyRoad
01-26-2012, 04:07 PM
Oh, so I'm supposed to just roll over and play dead because I'm not a doctor working in a clinic? What a relief.

You made it seem as though abortion was an easy choice. My experiences working with women who have had abortions performed indicate otherwise.
It never is. But just like not all people make educated, enlightened decisions, not all potential mothers make educated, mature decisions.


2. As I said in my previous post, sanctimonious pro-life people ignore the burdens being pregnant place on a woman. It really does boil down to that for me. All the talk about murder and innocent life and all that is obfuscation and sensationalism. It's meant to tug at heart strings.
No, it isn't. The point was to bring a second opinion to the debate, since everyone responded so vehemently initially to the idea that anyone could side with any other ideology than pro choice. The unborn child's existence is completely contingent on the mother; this puts enormous stress on the mother. I know. But we are dealing with two lives here, not just one. A one month old child's life depends on a mother providing as well, but that doesn't mean her life is not valuable. There are stages of development wherein a developing child begins to think and respond to external stimuli. Aborting at this stage, which is perfectly legal, is morally ambiguous at best.

Holy shit. You should write a paper and get it published. I mean, if you can sense what fetuses think and feel, that's an amazing development.
Sarcasm aside, I believe you know what I meant. I am not a neonatologist, but I work with neonatologists who know a lot more than I about fetal development, and who have evidence to support that developing fetuses do begin to think, feel, and respond to stimuli during stages of fetal development, particularly when thalamocortical connections form around 25 weeks, which are vital to pain receptors. And there are states in the U.S. that legally allow aborting at 25 weeks. I can't accept that.

Of course, laws vary widely by state. You make it seem as though getting a late-term abortion is as easy as picking up a gallon of milk, which it obviously isn't. I can see we're generalizing for dramatic effect at this point.
For the record, this is the only reason I even entered the discussion; the fact that second trimester abortions happen. They should not. Period. Yet, they are legal in many states in the U.S. It is unacceptable.

Sure, if we all accept your obviously not universally shared moral perspective this wouldn't be an issue. But since you're A) acting morally superior, and B) trying to impose your morals on an issue which is far more complex and nuanced than your black and white world view makes it out to be, there are going to be problems.
These are not "my morals." For the record, having no uterus, I am not pro life. However, I would not describe myself as pro choice. I recognize that it is legal for women to terminate pregnancies, and if ever I am asked I strongly recommend any alternative to abortion. I also believe no abortion should ever occur during the second trimester of a pregnancy, unless the mother's life is at risk. However, this is subject of much debate with my colleagues, and I thought I would share one of their perspectives, since the debate had become completely one-sided. I'm sure a lot of us become jaded from working in clinics and seeing young women walk in with multiple abortions, and treat it like it is not a life-changing decision. It is also easy to become cynical when you are a neonatologist, watch a young mother through months of her pregnancy, help her make decisions to improve her uterine conditions for optimal infant health and development, see the fetus start to develop, and then have the mother terminate the pregnancy. It also doesn't help that doctors who prescribe a drug that results in stillbirth can be sued for malpractice equivalent to if they prescribed a drug that resulted in the death of a 'born' person. I thought I would represent some opinions from people who deal with this issue on a daily basis; including some who perform abortions and hate every second of it.

AR, if you support mother's life above a child's in life threatening pregnancies, you already see the child as less human than the mother. How much less? can anyone quantify it?
Not less human. I view it as Sophie's choice. If one is threatening the life of another, and it is one or the other, I would place the mother's life, who has to undergo the burden of pregnancy and has the ability of higher level reasoning, over the developing life of an unborn infant.

Adoption is a good choice, as everyone says, but only if the mother cares. But why should a person subject herself through nine months of hell just to give up an unwanted child, to an unknown fate? I have met only one woman, who said she enjoyed the pregnancy. Additionally, I do not think that all adopted children have heavenly life.
Not all adopted children have good living conditions. But not all don't. I just think that life is an amazing thing, I dedicate my life to preserving life, and I think giving someone a chance to live is preferable to not giving them a chance, if at all possible.

It potentially is, if allowed to continue, but the fetus is essentially a parasitic organism that cannot survive separate from the host.
What about an infant, who would die within a day or two if not tended to around the clock? Obviously, the two are not precisely the same, but an infant could not survive long on its own, either.

You're an intelligent guy, and a generally thoughful poster, but I find that your use of perjorative terms such as "kill," "murder" and "unborn person" extremely unhelpful in the overall discussion.
Agreed.

I mean, maybe you're dumbing it down for us, but before a self-sustaining (let's say 24 weeks) fetus becomes a fetus, it's an blastocyst and an embryo first. Is terminating a pregancy at either of those stages, when it is truly a ball of cells with no proven or imagined ability to think or feel acceptable to you?
I don't want to get too technical into fetal development, but I can generally accept first trimester abortions if the mother feels there is absolutely no alternative. However, I think that if there is any possible alternative, it is preferable. I am not, nor have I ever been, a mother. As such, I can't make decisions for anyone, especially someone who is undergoing something I can't understand. However, abortions are ideologically the antithesis of everything I try to do professionally. I am trained to propagate life, not end it before it can begin. My profession colors my opinion on the subject, certainly, and abortions are hard for me to accept.

I would be curious (but not curious enough to fish through the entire medical ethics code) if there is an official stance by the AMA.
There is not. I try to save both, but if one puts the other's life in danger and there is no possible way to save both, I would make a judgement call. It is up to every individual physician to make that decision; there is no consensus.

The most recent one was, "Damn... what is WRONG with these people that they get pregnant so often that this is the only option they see?" Seriously. I don't deny your experience, but I refuse to take these people as the NORM.
It is not the norm on a general level, certainly. However, the inner city clinics I have worked in have a many demographic constituents who are probably not representative of the "norm." My experiences have simply colored my views, but I try to stay as open-minded as possible.

Firseal
01-26-2012, 04:26 PM
First off, Crispin

A: As to why I did not respond to Res' point - I didn't know he made one because I blocked him within a day of first encountering him. Thus I cannot respond to any point he makes because I cannot read them.
Appologies.

B: The type of argument used matters. It does. There are different types (pathos, logos, ethos) and different ways in which they can be utilized. I find that bring in your pathos arguments and attempting to frame the discussion entirely based on them - or in other words, defining the argument on your terms, based on your morality and emotional stances - to be unfair when it shunts out the emotions of the other side. Trying to form the debate around the personhood of the fetus rather than the matter of choice for the adult presupposes that the fetus is a person, and brings in unnecessary emotional tangles. As such, this is a pathos argument I find to be disquieting, since it tries very hard to make the debate less about the mother's rights than about making an undeveloped organism that is not yet a person into her partner in the discourse as to what she can do with her body and her future, in some cases make the fetus her equal, and framing the argument from there. It just... I try to avoid pathos arguments when I can.
This isn't to say I am good at it, but I try.

C: Definition of terms. I agree with Blaise. A rational, intelligent being which, even if it can't feed and care for itself is an independant human being. A being which has no ability to survive on it's own, carry on a rational and reasonable standard of living, and function separate from another existance, is not an individual when it comes to life choices. And before you jump on me, this is recognised by the medical profession in other cases. I'm not an expert, but even I know that when patients become too sick and fall below a standard of life, they can be terminated by the order of their closest living relative. Yes, someone brought up Terri, so I am not the first to make this point, but let's not pretend that we don't have standards for living people to be defined as expendable, and the choice then hinging on family. We just decide to stigmatize it sometimes.
As to a fair standard of communication? You yourself said it. A fetus isn't capable. Period. Yes, that's because it 'hasn't had a chance'. Talk about straw man arguments - they must be allowed to develop until we can assertain if they will become individuals. Denying the choice to the individual who is carrying them in their body, and at that point rendering the question moot.
More, you talk about a baby under six months. I speak of a fetus. If it's a baby, it's born and out and obviously someone's made some decisions about it's care and future not to mention carried it for nine months or so, and it's already gone through the zygote, embryo, fetus, and infant stages. Unless you are using baby as a blanket term for all of them. A baby is an individual that someone has chosen to carry to term and deliver. A fetus is potential, and even today, not all of them even make it to baby this issue aside.

So you want a definition of terms? A fetus is a potential human that cannot survive outside a mother's body.
Another is that a being with absolutely no standard of life survives based on the willingness of those around it to keep it alive.
The issue of the legitamacy of abortion isn't so much about either as it is about any given fertile woman to decide if she wants to carry one of the former inside her for most of a year, then make life altering choices as to what she and it will do with the rest of their lives.

D: Me and Seeker aren't trying to derail the debate. Note that both him and me continued in it. We just bemoan that people who will never pay the highest cost for how it is decided rule over how the debate is framed, not to mention are the loudest, most influential people in it.
But let's explore this a moment more. Is it so wrong that people who are mostly free of the consequences unless they chose to be refrain from telling the people most affected how they are allowed to act or what choices are open to them? If a man thinks it is personally abhorent, and murderous, to abort a child, then he should get a sign, sit in front of an abortion clinic, and that sign should say, "Willing to support you until delivery and your child until they are adult." He should be willing to back it up. Because he's taking away their choice to do otherwise. Just saying that they shouldn't do it isn't enough. Saying it is against his morals, his ethics, his view of how the world works isn't enough. If someone who is isolated from the issue wants to rule how it ends, then he should be willing to take on the responsibility for the result. In this case the result would be children with parents unwilling or incapable of taking care of them.
But so many on the side of forbidding don't want to make that choice - or, in many cases, realize that the sheer number of children they then become responsible for will swamp them. So it isn't just carry the child to term, but be responsible for it yourself. Because we'll make you do it, but the rest? You. Just you.

Do I think people who have no bearing on this issue should stay the hell out? Yes. Which includes men - the only ones with a possible say should be the fathers, and only when they are willing to take every shred of responsibility for the fetus, and the child that it may be, that the mother isn't. However, this won't happen. Which means the argument continues, and as little as I like anything political, I have to have a voice in it because the only other thing to be is silent and watch another choice die.
Is it horrible that this fantasy eliminates 50% of the population from the debate, as you point out? HELL NO. It'd be glorious. It'd be so glorious.

Crispin's Crispian
That being said, go back to my first point. If you're a man who believes strongly that an unborn child is a person and thus that killing said person is murder, you're just supposed to back off because you're not a woman? That would be ridiculous in any other circumstance.

You are conflating a pregnant woman with a murderer to make a point. Let me conflate to make a point as well. If a woman has something she does not want in her body's reproductive system, and a man insists it stay, is that not invasion similar to rape?

You want to call allowing abortion murder? I call forbidding it rape. Both can be supported, and are equally stark, harsh points. Both are ugly.

(Great. All women who want to choose are murderers and all men who don't want them to are rapists. What this issue does to us... what it does to us. Also, I may have crossed a line. I may also not care.)

Melodrama aside, your description holds as much (which is to say, as little) water as mine. A woman can't murder what isn't yet a human, and individual belief doesn't change that a fetus doesn't qualify. Mine doesn't hold water because elimination of choices and freedom and reducing the amount of control a woman has over her own body isn't rape. But it isn't treating them as they should be treated. As individuals with life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue their own happiness. Not to mention our equals, rather than a lesser gender we can dictate to because we don't like how they deal with an issue that is unique to their half of the species. At best? We can debate. But we have as much right to tell them what to do with their wombs as straight people do telling homosexual ones who they can spend their lives with.

So, yeah. Anyway, other points.

E:
Ivhon
I deserve an opinion on the matter and to have that opinion heard. I do not deserve to force another person to live by my beliefs.

I could not agree more. I also applaud your point that that, all else aside, and all futures unknowable, the only good response is to allow situational freedom to make the best choice possible.
My only addition is that I would assert that the one most affected by the choice should be the one who gets the ultimate say.


Durvasha
In your opinion, I am advocating murder. In my opinion, you are advocating slavery. you will say slaves are better than dead. I will say death is better than slavery. And we will continue ad-infi... (Sorry, i dont know Latin. I barely know English.)

This? I also applaud. Taking away someone's freedom to chose isn't quite slavery, but it's a step in that controlling, arrogant direction. I went with a different imposition, but yours is equally (and regrettably so) valid.
Also, it would be 'ad infinitum', meaning to [or 'towards'] infinity. A equally useful one, in this case, would be ad nauseum - to the point of nausea


Toriwo
Argument is all ABOUT using words to sway someone else to your side, so chastising people for using words to do just that is a bit on the silly side, IMO.

I wasn't saying that argument is wrong. I was just disagreeing with his pathos methodology thereof. Granted, I went very close to it myself, so I am currently residing in the glass house, but pathos rhetoric is so easily abused because those who go for it first often attempt to use it to get an end run around their audience's reason.
Also as to the original root of this thread - I've heard enough prior from this canidate that any chance of me voting for him has gone the way of the Mayan civilization. Anything more he exposes is just better reason to wave goodbye.


Blaise
Many points

...
God, it's weird agreeing with you.


Sukoto
I think contraception is perfectly acceptable, but it is not 100% effective. Women can still get pregnant even if men use condoms, or if women take pills or use other forms of contraception. There is always a possibility of pregnancy when a man and a woman have sex. So, while I do not try to make other peoples' decisions for them, I do think, for the good of society, that people need to take more responsibility for their choices. Neither women nor men should be allowed to claim they did not choose a pregnancy, except in cases when sex was not a choice.

Thing is, dealing with the issue is taking responsibility, even if we don't like with the meathod of how others have borne their duty to themselves, their futures, their family, and their society. So long as they deal with it themselves, with the choices availible to them, that is not the issue. But the way you phrase it, you seem to think that one particular choice is an evasion of responsibility, as if it is not as life changing. Perhaps for some it isn't, but it's just as easy to be an irresponsible parent as it is to be one who avoids the condition of parenthood altogether. More, someone being irresponsible with multiple children is less likely to damage lives around them than someone being irresponsible with multiple children sent to adoption or multiple children aborted. If you want to talk about this as a frame of what taking responsibility for the self entails based on how it affects the culture and people around the person taking or not taking the mantle of parent on themselves, that doesn't necessarily mean that having multiple children - especially unwanted ones - is a good thing.

Also, and light help me here, is Blaise's point. Just because you perform an activity means that you want certain possible outcomes of that activity. If he plays a sport it doesn't mean he wants a broken leg. But that's not a good example. A broken leg heals in a few months. A pregnancy, for whatever reasons, is most of a year, and up to eighteen years after that depending on choices made. A better one would be someone noticing something happening that, for good or ill, they need to report to authorities, or the public. Whistleblowers find themselves in such situations. They know that neither choice is easy, but whichever one they make they will have to live with for a long time, and that they cannot even imagine all the consequences down any of the roads before them.

Davian
Note: I deliberately went with the cartoon version over the real thing due to the graphic nature of it.

In this issue? Really? The long knives have been out between these camps for decades, no need to get squeemish now.

Firseal
01-26-2012, 04:34 PM
When you play football, you're assuming the risk of a broken leg. You won't find a football club in the world that doesn't make you sign a waiver indemnifying them from liability should you get injured. That's because the prevailing belief is that your choice equals your risk.

Does that mean that you do not deal with the broken leg when it happens? Make whatever choices you do about how you are treated, and what therapies you take, and whether or not you play football again afterwards?

Are you free to make these choices? Or does someone tell you what you can or cannot choose? If someone is telling you what you can do with and for your broken leg, or offering aid, money, rehabilitation, medical pay, insurance payouts, succor and remedy?

Do you have choice?
Are you dictated to?
Is the responsibility ultimately yours?

The Unreasoner
01-26-2012, 05:04 PM
I would consider myself pro life, but I could at least understand the desire to abort a fetus conceived by rape, or if the mother's life is in danger. I accept killing if it's in self defense, so I could understand protecting the physical health of the mother, and I doubt many women could emotionally handle giving birth to a fetus conceived in rape.

But if you conceive in consensual and unprotected sex, I have no pity for you if you decide to get an abortion. At all. Especially since the rights of the father are all but ignored.

Frankly I don't get the pro-choice logic at all. A fetus is alive. A DNA test would show it's human, and not the same organism as the mother. Left to nature, it would become undeniably human at some point. What if a 5 month pregnant woman is killed? Is the murderer charged with only one murder if the woman wanted to kill the thing off anyway, but two otherwise? It's reductio ad absurdum, the ability to construct impossible hypothetical proves the assumptions wrong.

AbbeyRoad
01-26-2012, 05:10 PM
What if a 5 month pregnant woman is killed? Is the murderer charged with only one murder if the woman wanted to kill the thing off anyway, but two otherwise?
2 always. Even if the mother is 1 week pregnant.

Sukoto
01-26-2012, 05:36 PM
To deal with the second part first, I think that a woman who has sex should not be assumed to take on a greater risk or burden should the outcome be an unexpected pregnancy than a man. I think it is acceptable for people to have sex and we shouldn't place a greater burden on one group of people for choosing to do that.

For the other part, I'm not sure if you're following me. It's not the person choosing to give care that makes the person; if Stephen Hawking's caters decide to stop caring for him, it doesn't make him not a person. It is the ability to choose that determines that, and a pregnant woman can't make that choice.

But she can. Abortion is a choice, legal or not. But you're really distorting the notion of choice, I think. It's as if you think people should not only get to choose their actions, but they have the right to choose the consequences of their actions as well. It just doesn't work that way. No laws or definitions of personhood are going to change the biological results of sex. That's why I think people should be talking more about responsibility than about personhood. Whether or not abortion is legal.

Crispin's Crispian
01-26-2012, 05:59 PM
To deal with the second part first, I think that a woman who has sex should not be assumed to take on a greater risk or burden should the outcome be an unexpected pregnancy than a man. I think it is acceptable for people to have sex and we shouldn't place a greater burden on one group of people for choosing to do that.
I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't really see abortion as the answer to this. She still has to take on a greater burden, though yes it is less if she aborts. But in any case a woman is still responsible for her actions, right? Just because the consequences are different doesn't make her less responsible, as long as she is a willing partner.

(But again, this is part of why the child support system exists--both a man and a woman risk pregnancy when having sex, and it's not fair for the man to just walk away leaving her with the burden of raising the child.)

For the other part, I'm not sure if you're following me. It's not the person choosing to give care that makes the person; if Stephen Hawking's caters decide to stop caring for him, it doesn't make him not a person. It is the ability to choose that determines that, and a pregnant woman can't make that choice.
The pregnant woman's choice doesn't affect the personhood (or otherwise) of the child either.

Crispin's Crispian
01-26-2012, 06:02 PM
Does that mean that you do not deal with the broken leg when it happens? Make whatever choices you do about how you are treated, and what therapies you take, and whether or not you play football again afterwards?

Are you free to make these choices? Or does someone tell you what you can or cannot choose? If someone is telling you what you can do with and for your broken leg, or offering aid, money, rehabilitation, medical pay, insurance payouts, succor and remedy?

Do you have choice?
Are you dictated to?
Is the responsibility ultimately yours?

That's beside the point, Firseal. ZS said:

If I choose to play football, I may break my leg. That does not mean that by choosing to play football I am consenting to have my legs broken. It's a poor analogy, obviously, but my point is that just because a woman doesn't want to become pregnant doesn't mean she should accept the risk of such when she has sex. It's the same for a man, though as discussed in the other post the consequences are different.

Durvasha
01-26-2012, 10:08 PM
I would consider myself pro life, but I could at least understand the desire to abort a fetus conceived by rape, or if the mother's life is in danger. I accept killing if it's in self defense, so I could understand protecting the physical health of the mother, and I doubt many women could emotionally handle giving birth to a fetus conceived in rape.

But if you conceive in consensual and unprotected sex, I have no pity for you if you decide to get an abortion. At all. Especially since the rights of the father are all but ignored.

Frankly I don't get the pro-choice logic at all. A fetus is alive. A DNA test would show it's human, and not the same organism as the mother. Left to nature, it would become undeniably human at some point. What if a 5 month pregnant woman is killed? Is the murderer charged with only one murder if the woman wanted to kill the thing off anyway, but two otherwise? It's reductio ad absurdum, the ability to construct impossible hypothetical proves the assumptions wrong.

First, this is not about pity. Who are you to have pity? why do they need pity? and especially why your or mine pity? Nobody is appealing for pity here. We are talking about the right of a woman, the uncontested right to her own body. Rights are not given with pity.

Second, I can destroy my liver with Alcohol. I can kill my lungs with Smoking. I can jump from a building and break my leg. You cannot force me to drink. You cannot stay in the same room and smoke, by law. You cannot throw me from a building. If I drink and drive at 100 mph, I will not be charged with trying to commit suicide (is that even a crime anymore?). If a pregnant woman drives at 100 mph and miscarriages, she will not be charged with murder or manslaughter (I hope).Is it a crime for her to smoke or drink? (I really don't know). The situations are not compatible. Why not? If you can answer this, may be you can answer your own last paragraph.

Third, you circled the original issue nicely. "You would" so graciously understand a raped woman's "desire" for abortion. Great. But would you deign to grant her heart's desire? or are you going to say, "I understand, but, em, uh, ah, you know you cannot kill a child"?

eht slat meit
01-26-2012, 10:25 PM
In your opinion, I am advocating murder... you will say slaves are better than dead.

As a matter of fact, that is not my opinion, nor is that anything I would say in response to your position, because like the counter-balance you are suggesting to your own views, it is not an attitude I condone or hold any sympathy for.

Neither murder nor slavery are justifiable, but I don't believe that the true abortion issue involves slavery nor murder. These are just buzzwords put forth by extremists and made into slogans for entire sectors of the movement, even those that don't believe them.

Take my response for exactly what I _wrote_, and that is a negative judgment of what is basically using a cold and clinical assessment to create a foundation for morality.

It's certainly true that I can expect to change the minds of neither side, but there are some arguments that are worse than others and that is one of them.

It's one of those arguments that gets increasingly more ridiculous each time I hear it, and I've even see people go so far as to compare the fetus to aquatic reptiles and parasitic insects. All, of course, to further redefine and diminish the role of the fetus as a person.

I don't hold with that view, no matter how minor the divergence it is taken to, but like I said... I don't hold with the other extreme either. A fetus is no more a fully realized person with all the rights of a normal person than is a comatose, autistic, or otherwise radically infirm person.

The question is not whether they are a person, but how far their rights should be diminished.

And that IS a line we draw and actively practice on a day-to-day basis, one that is firmly grounded in law.

Frenzy
01-27-2012, 12:34 AM
Hmm... what's missing from Dick Santorum's sanctimonious prattle about what women should do with their post-rape lives... oh yeah! the part about bringing the rapist to justice.

pissant little details...

Terez
01-27-2012, 02:04 AM
"It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning 'private' moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm. " — Rick Santorum (http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30), Penn State graduate

GonzoTheGreat
01-27-2012, 04:09 AM
Hmm... what's missing from Dick Santorum's sanctimonious prattle about what women should do with their post-rape lives... oh yeah! the part about bringing the rapist to justice.
What would that rapist have to do with it?
He isn't carrying a new living person inside him, is he?

Once we're at the point where this debate is relevant, the rapist's job is done.
Frenzy, I'm surprised that you have such a shallow understanding of right wing morals that you didn't see this yourself.

Zombie Sammael
01-27-2012, 06:01 AM
I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't really see abortion as the answer to this. She still has to take on a greater burden, though yes it is less if she aborts. But in any case a woman is still responsible for her actions, right? Just because the consequences are different doesn't make her less responsible, as long as she is a willing partner.

(But again, this is part of why the child support system exists--both a man and a woman risk pregnancy when having sex, and it's not fair for the man to just walk away leaving her with the burden of raising the child.)

The pregnant woman's choice doesn't affect the personhood (or otherwise) of the child either.

Okay, I'm going to have to say something that sounds fairly extreme in order to explain this properly, so please try not to be upset or offended.

It is the ability of someone else to decide whether or not to care for a person which, in my view, defines personhood. Regardless of whether the mother chooses to have an abortion or not, she cannot choose, whilst that baby is inside her, to stop caring for it. Her body will continue to nourish it regardless of what her feelings on the matter are. In my opinion, this makes it not a person, even if you can say "Oh, well the baby is distinct from the mother" or "It can feel", etc. Prior to birth, it's essentially in a parasitical relationship with the mother. That's a horrible way to describe an unborn baby, but it's the only wording I can think of that accurately indicates why it's not a person. Once it is born and outside her body, the mother can choose, if she so wishes, to not care for the child in any way. Prior to that, she cannot make that choice, so it's not a person, just a part of her, even if it can be regarded medically as distinct.

As to the other part, it's essentially about gender equality, which as you acknowledge, child support is an attempt to create anyway. But a man doesn't have to go through biological changes just because he's lucky (or unlucky) enough to have fertilised his partner during sex. Neither should we force a woman to.

GonzoTheGreat
01-27-2012, 06:05 AM
As to the other part, it's essentially about gender equality, which as you acknowledge, child support is an attempt to create anyway. But a man doesn't have to go through biological changes just because he's lucky (or unlucky) enough to have fertilised his partner during sex. Neither should we force a woman to.
That's precisely what the discussion is all about, so I do not think that you can assume it as an absolute moral standard. There are indeed lots of people who do think that forcing women to undergo all that fuss is not only allowed, but actually mandatory.

Zombie Sammael
01-27-2012, 06:08 AM
That's precisely what the discussion is all about, so I do not think that you can assume it as an absolute moral standard. There are indeed lots of people who do think that forcing women to undergo all that fuss is not only allowed, but actually mandatory.

I'm not suggesting it is an absolute moral standard, but I hope it would help some people to realise this is a question of gender equality as well as of self-determination and old-fashioned morality.

Crispin's Crispian
01-27-2012, 10:55 AM
That's precisely what the discussion is all about, so I do not think that you can assume it as an absolute moral standard. There are indeed lots of people who do think that forcing women to undergo all that fuss is not only allowed, but actually mandatory.

I had a huge response written up to Firseal yesterday, but work interfered and I had to close the window. No time to rewrite it. :mad:

In any case, Gonzo nailed the crux of the matter, to an extent.

Lots of people who think an unborn child is a separate person from the mother think that a mother should have to go through pregnancy and give birth. They think this because they believe that it is indeed a child, and that killing that child would be murder.

Lots of other people think that the life of the child, such as it is, should be secondary to the mother's freedom to choose whether to be pregnant and whether to bear a child.

The crux of the matter is when and if an unborn child is ever to be identified as a separate person. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with right-wing or left-wing "morals," or with rhetoric or chauvinism. All of those things have only clouded the debate.

Crispin's Crispian
01-27-2012, 11:26 AM
First off, Crispin

A: As to why I did not respond to Res' point - I didn't know he made one because I blocked him within a day of first encountering him. Thus I cannot respond to any point he makes because I cannot read them.
Appologies.
No need to apologize. I understand.

Trying to form the debate around the personhood of the fetus rather than the matter of choice for the adult presupposes that the fetus is a person, and brings in unnecessary emotional tangles. As such, this is a pathos argument I find to be disquieting, since it tries very hard to make the debate less about the mother's rights than about making an undeveloped organism that is not yet a person into her partner in the discourse as to what she can do with her body and her future, in some cases make the fetus her equal, and framing the argument from there.
This is fallacious logic, Firseal. The whole basis of a pro-lifer's stance is that fetus is on equal terms with the mother, so it is not just a rhetorical technique to evoke an emotional response.

C: Definition of terms...

And before you jump on me, ...

First of all, I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not here to tell you your beliefs about personhood, etc. are wrong--I would not do that. I have been arguing mainly to point out the fundamental differences between the opposing sides, and why I think the debate always skirts the real issue. That said, if I find logical holes or discrepencies, I like to point them out and make arguments. Just because I find your argument illogical does not mean I am idealogically opposed to you or your point of view.


A fetus isn't capable. Period. Yes, that's because it 'hasn't had a chance'. Talk about straw man arguments - they must be allowed to develop until we can assertain if they will become individuals. Denying the choice to the individual who is carrying them in their body, and at that point rendering the question moot.
In terms of communication, a fetus is not that developmentally different from a newborn. Yet when a woman leaves a baby to die in a bathroom garbage can, she is a callous killer. I don't like the double-standard.

More, you talk about a baby under six months. I speak of a fetus. If it's a baby, it's born and out and obviously someone's made some decisions about it's care and future not to mention carried it for nine months or so, and it's already gone through the zygote, embryo, fetus, and infant stages. Unless you are using baby as a blanket term for all of them. A baby is an individual that someone has chosen to carry to term and deliver. A fetus is potential, and even today, not all of them even make it to baby this issue aside.
I apologize for not being more clear. I said an unborn baby at six months, meaning a fetus in the sixth month of pregnancy. This was not an attempt to inject pro-life rhetoric into the debate.

So you want a definition of terms? A fetus is a potential human that cannot survive outside a mother's body.
Another is that a being with absolutely no standard of life survives based on the willingness of those around it to keep it alive.Many babies are born one or two months premature and do not require incubation or a huge amount of extra care to live. It's not that common, but would you say those babies are less human than babies born at term?

The issue of the legitamacy of abortion isn't so much about either as it is about any given fertile woman to decide if she wants to carry one of the former inside her for most of a year, then make life altering choices as to what she and it will do with the rest of their lives.Don't be ridiculous. It's about both of these issues.

But let's explore this a moment more. Is it so wrong that people who are mostly free of the consequences unless they chose to be refrain from telling the people most affected how they are allowed to act or what choices are open to them? If a man thinks it is personally abhorent, and murderous, to abort a child, then he should get a sign, sit in front of an abortion clinic, and that sign should say, "Willing to support you until delivery and your child until they are adult." He should be willing to back it up. Because he's taking away their choice to do otherwise. Just saying that they shouldn't do it isn't enough. Saying it is against his morals, his ethics, his view of how the world works isn't enough.
And what should such a man do if he sees that same woman being attacked by a rapist? Should he hold a sign saying, "I will pay your bus fare and buy you a porn mag if you don't rape her?" Or should he do his best to intervene?

OK, so I might be injecting some pathos into the argument, but really--that's how a pro-lifer views abortion. It's not just a polite moral disagreement, Firseal. Again, so many staunchly pro-choice activists miss this point entirely.

If someone who is isolated from the issue wants to rule how it ends, then he should be willing to take on the responsibility for the result. In this case the result would be children with parents unwilling or incapable of taking care of them. But so many on the side of forbidding don't want to make that choice - or, in many cases, realize that the sheer number of children they then become responsible for will swamp them. So it isn't just carry the child to term, but be responsible for it yourself. Because we'll make you do it, but the rest? You. Just you.

I absolutely, 100% agree with you.

Do I think people who have no bearing on this issue should stay the hell out? Yes. Which includes men - the only ones with a possible say should be the fathers, and only when they are willing to take every shred of responsibility for the fetus, and the child that it may be, that the mother isn't. However, this won't happen. Which means the argument continues, and as little as I like anything political, I have to have a voice in it because the only other thing to be is silent and watch another choice die.
Is it horrible that this fantasy eliminates 50% of the population from the debate, as you point out? HELL NO. It'd be glorious. It'd be so glorious.See above. You're missing the point.


You are conflating a pregnant woman with a murderer to make a point. Let me conflate to make a point as well. If a woman has something she does not want in her body's reproductive system, and a man insists it stay, is that not invasion similar to rape?

You want to call allowing abortion murder? I call forbidding it rape. Both can be supported, and are equally stark, harsh points. Both are ugly.

(Great. All women who want to choose are murderers and all men who don't want them to are rapists. What this issue does to us... what it does to us. Also, I may have crossed a line. I may also not care.)
The difference is that I'm doing no such thing. I am not trying to conflate abortion with murder to make a rhetorical point. That pro-lifers believe abortion is murder is the point!

[Melodrama aside, your description holds as much (which is to say, as little) water as mine. A woman can't murder what isn't yet a human, and individual belief doesn't change that a fetus doesn't qualify.
See above.

Mine doesn't hold water because elimination of choices and freedom and reducing the amount of control a woman has over her own body isn't rape. But it isn't treating them as they should be treated. As individuals with life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue their own happiness. Not to mention our equals, rather than a lesser gender we can dictate to because we don't like how they deal with an issue that is unique to their half of the species. At best? We can debate. But we have as much right to tell them what to do with their wombs as straight people do telling homosexual ones who they can spend their lives with.Congratulations on figuring out what it means to be a feminist. And I use that term with no disdain or derogatory meaning. I agree with you 100%, except that you're still missing the point that to a pro-lifer, the fetus is also an individual that deserves a chance at "life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue their own happiness."

I'm hopeful that your final paragraph to me was not an attempt to paint me as a chauvinist. I'm willing to look past that right now, but just keep in mind that you would be an idiot to attempt such a thing.

Ishara
01-27-2012, 12:35 PM
There are stages of development wherein a developing child begins to think and respond to external stimuli. Aborting at this stage, which is perfectly legal, is morally ambiguous at best.
...
I am not a neonatologist, but I work with neonatologists who know a lot more than I about fetal development, and who have evidence to support that developing fetuses do begin to think, feel, and respond to stimuli during stages of fetal development, particularly when thalamocortical connections form around 25 weeks, which are vital to pain receptors. And there are states in the U.S. that legally allow aborting at 25 weeks. I can't accept that.
...
For the record, this is the only reason I even entered the discussion; the fact that second trimester abortions happen. They should not. Period. Yet, they are legal in many states in the U.S. It is unacceptable.
...
However, abortions are ideologically the antithesis of everything I try to do professionally. I am trained to propagate life, not end it before it can begin. My profession colors my opinion on the subject, certainly, and abortions are hard for me to accept.


I found your post to be super helpful, Abbey Road - and I had lost sight of the fact that you were trying to inject another voice into the discussion, so thanks for reminding us all. The piece I highlighted in your post spoke to me, and I certainly appreciate the impact it has on your opinions.

I'll admit that from a personal perspective, I have great difficulty with the concept of abortions being used as birth control, especially where the 72-hour pill is available as a viable (and safer) option. I am also deeply uncomfortable with the idea of 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions (excepting where the life of the mother is at risk), so much so that thinking about it too much is stressful, if I'm being honest. It's abhorrent to me to consider the abortion of a fetus after the 1st trimester, precisely because of the things you mention above. My best friend is a neo-natal nurse and I have heard too many stories of littles ones being born far too early and thriving to not think so.

But I'm not convinced that you can forbid those without impinging on the ability to elect first trimester abortions.

Living in Canada, and having the health care system that we do means that we have to take the bad to get the good. That means accepting abusers of the system, and the ones who deliberately do themselves harm and cost the system money (like smokers, for instance) to be able to know that health care is accessible to all. I guess if think about it that way, then I have to do the same with abortions. I live in a province where it is legal and safe to have them. I don't know at what point they are no longer legal (although 16 weeks is occuring to me, not sure why?), or when they are no longer performed though. If I'm honest, I'd almost rather not know. Maybe Canada walks the line between allowing them as a choice (and one of many for pregnant women) while not allowing 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions except for medical reasons - that would be where my own moral compass lies, and I could be happy with that, but I'll also admit to wanting my cake and eating it too.

Cor Shan
01-27-2012, 01:46 PM
Sorry Ish, no time limits according to Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

Ishara
01-27-2012, 02:51 PM
That was an interesting read....no time limits, and no abortion laws at all in Canada (save those limiting protesting outside of clinics) but it seems that it's due to abortion laws not being a priority in Canada politically speaking, as opposed to us being lefty-pro-choicers. So, there's that. Hmmm.

Tree Brother
01-27-2012, 03:17 PM
A woman does not consent to becoming pregnant, nor, in the world the anti-choicers envisage, remaining that way. Consent is the distinction, and the right to self-determination.

I am sorry. This made me laugh a little, and this is not that type of discussion.

The only person who does not consent to becoming pregnant is one who has been raped.

I think it is a very rare case, that a person engaging in the act that can cause pregnancy does not know how babies are made.

There are ways to make pregnancy less likely, but not 100%.

In Russian roulette, there is a chance that you will die. But if you play...

And I am not so sure this is not the same as the jogging example. But maybe it is close.

Zombie Sammael
01-27-2012, 03:28 PM
I am sorry. This made me laugh a little, and this is not that type of discussion.

The only person who does not consent to becoming pregnant is one who has been raped.

I think it is a very rare case, that a person engaging in the act that can cause pregnancy does not know how babies are made.

There are ways to make pregnancy less likely, but not 100%.

In Russian roulette, there is a chance that you will die. But if you play...

And I am not so sure this is not the same as the jogging example. But maybe it is close.

As I tried to explain above, it is a gender discrimination issue. As a man I know there are many reasons why I might want to have sex, quite apart from procreation. Women share those feelings, so why should they be held to a higher standard of responsibility than a man purely because of an accident of birth? You can also get an STI from having sex, but I don't think you'd be saying that if you have sex you're consenting to that. It basically comes down to whether you think women have as much right to self-determination as men or not. Anything less than pro-choice and you're saying a woman is less than a man, purely because she is a woman.

Tree Brother
01-27-2012, 03:41 PM
As I tried to explain above, it is a gender discrimination issue. As a man I know there are many reasons why I might want to have sex, quite apart from procreation. Women share those feelings, so why should they be held to a higher standard of responsibility than a man purely because of an accident of birth? You can also get an STI from having sex, but I don't think you'd be saying that if you have sex you're consenting to that. It basically comes down to whether you think women have as much right to self-determination as men or not. Anything less than pro-choice and you're saying a woman is less than a man, purely because she is a woman.

That is an excellent argument. Every time a man has sex, there is a chance he may get an STD. He can choose his partner to make that chance less. He can use protection to make that chance less. But the risk is there.

When a woman has sex, she not only has a chance of an STD, she also has the chance of a pregnancy. Again, time of month & protection can reduce that risk, but it is still there.

A thrill seeker who jumps out of an airplane risks the chance that the parachute does not open, and he/she will die. The risk may be quite low, but he/she consents. And will have signed a document saying so.

A woman is NOT less than a man. However, you could say sex carries more risks for a women.

Now. If you were a woman, and you had your choice between Aids and a pregnancy, which would you choose? *

The callous person (you can infer my views on this subject) will say a pregnancy. You can end that with a pill, or procedure -- again, both have risks. STD's are harder to "treat".

--

* Note: No one gets this choice, and pregnancy is not a disease. Just trying to make a point.

Cor Shan
01-27-2012, 05:59 PM
Well aside from the ones which are pretty freaking easy to treat, according to some poor suckers I know.

tworiverswoman
01-27-2012, 06:02 PM
I think when people are talking about viability or personhood, what we really ought to be focusing on is individuality. A foetus at a certain stage might be able to think and feel etc, but unlike Stephen Hawking or Christopher Reeve, it cannot survive without reliance on another person. That isn't the same thing as survival based on a mechanical contraption, or even survival based on being cared for. At that stage, it is still reliant upon the mother's body to survive, and as such, it can't truly be considered to be an individual separate from the mother. Stephen Hawking might be reliant on a number of contraptions to survive, but he isn't reliant directly upon another person's body to survive.
Consent is the distinction, and the right to self-determination.
...
Not the consent in itself, rather the possibility of choice. A pregnant woman cannot choose to stop giving aid to a child. The caregiver of a disabled person can. That individuality is what separates a foetus from a person, imo.
...
For the other part, I'm not sure if you're following me. It's not the person choosing to give care that makes the person; if Stephen Hawking's caters decide to stop caring for him, it doesn't make him not a person. It is the ability to choose that determines that, and a pregnant woman can't make that choice. Your argument is really hard to follow, but let me see if I got it. You appear to be focusing on "choice" here, which is kinda what the point of "pro-choice" is, isn't it? And if I understand you correctly, what you're trying to say is that, once the pregnancy begins, the mother's body grows the fetus no matter what her personal wishes might be. She can't call in sick and let someone ELSE take over for a day. And she can't quit the job.

So the only way for her to have any say in this is to be able to choose whether or not to abort.

For the record, if I've not made it clear enough, I'm pro-choice, despite the fact that I want the decision to be made after some SERIOUS thought is given to it. However, if I've boiled down your argument correctly, I have to disagree with the way you've tried to link it to the "personhood" of the fetus in question. Whether or not the mother has a choice in bearing to term or not is completely irrelevant to the status of the fetus inside her. It's not a tapeworm, It's a potential person. However, until it's reached a certain stage of development (and I'm not knowledgeable enough to address that issue - so far we're in some loose agreement of around 140-170 days) the fetus is below some threshhold of "being-ness" that makes it clear-cut murder to abort. After that it is going to be more difficult to accept that it should be in anyone's power to choose to terminate, without some compelling reason. "I've changed my mind" feels a little ... weak, to me. Nevertheless, I'm STILL pro-choice, even in the second tri-mester, with that caveat. At some point it does become murder.

Someone brought up Child Support payments from the rapist. My brain hurts. I absolutely agree that, in the event a rapist creates a child, and the mother bears it to term, he should most certainly end up paying the cost of upkeep - but my mind boggles at the PRACTICAL aspects of that situation. More rapes go unreported than not (I've seen estimates ranging from 25% to 95% so I guess it's a fair bet that your guess is as good as mine as to how many...) and more than 80% of all reported rapes are committed by someone known to the victim. So I guess it's not inconceivable. But the thought weirds me out a little, at the same time it makes me feel a tad viciously amused. Such justice...

Zombie Sammael
01-27-2012, 06:18 PM
Your argument is really hard to follow, but let me see if I got it. You appear to be focusing on "choice" here, which is kinda what the point of "pro-choice" is, isn't it? And if I understand you correctly, what you're trying to say is that, once the pregnancy begins, the mother's body grows the fetus no matter what her personal wishes might be. She can't call in sick and let someone ELSE take over for a day. And she can't quit the job.

So the only way for her to have any say in this is to be able to choose whether or not to abort.

For the record, if I've not made it clear enough, I'm pro-choice, despite the fact that I want the decision to be made after some SERIOUS thought is given to it. However, if I've boiled down your argument correctly, I have to disagree with the way you've tried to link it to the "personhood" of the fetus in question. Whether or not the mother has a choice in bearing to term or not is completely irrelevant to the status of the fetus inside her. It's not a tapeworm, It's a potential person. However, until it's reached a certain stage of development (and I'm not knowledgeable enough to address that issue - so far we're in some loose agreement of around 140-170 days) the fetus is below some threshhold of "being-ness" that makes it clear-cut murder to abort. After that it is going to be more difficult to accept that it should be in anyone's power to choose to terminate, without some compelling reason. "I've changed my mind" feels a little ... weak, to me. Nevertheless, I'm STILL pro-choice, even in the second tri-mester, with that caveat. At some point it does become murder.

Someone brought up Child Support payments from the rapist. My brain hurts. I absolutely agree that, in the event a rapist creates a child, and the mother bears it to term, he should most certainly end up paying the cost of upkeep - but my mind boggles at the PRACTICAL aspects of that situation. More rapes go unreported than not (I've seen estimates ranging from 25% to 95% so I guess it's a fair bet that your guess is as good as mine as to how many...) and more than 80% of all reported rapes are committed by someone known to the victim. So I guess it's not inconceivable. But the thought weirds me out a little, at the same time it makes me feel a tad viciously amused. Such justice...

You've understood what I was saying correctly. I know it is hard to follow, but i believe it to be correct and also the simplest resolution of the question, as it is based in practical reality: until the child is out of its mother's body, it is a part of her, not a separate being. Once it is no longer part of its mother, it is to be considered a person, but not before then. Arguments about its capacity to feel in the womb merely distract from the practical truth that until it is born it is not separate. I agree that it isn't a tapeworm and I used the word "parasite" purely because it is the best descriptor, but there is obviously a big difference between pregnancy and illness.

Tree Brother
01-28-2012, 03:25 PM
Someone brought up Child Support payments from the rapist.

Why just in the case of rape? If a woman chooses to keep the child (rather than abort, or give up for adoption), why shouldn't the father provide support.

Some would say that is unfair, since it is the woman's decision to keep the child. But still, it was the guys decision to help create it.

Davian93
01-28-2012, 06:59 PM
Why just in the case of rape? If a woman chooses to keep the child (rather than abort, or give up for adoption), why shouldn't the father provide support.

Some would say that is unfair, since it is the woman's decision to keep the child. But still, it was the guys decision to help create it.

You put your piece in, be prepared to pay...sometimes for up to 21 years depending on the state.

She says she's on birth control and you dont need a condom...WEAR A DAMN CONDOM!!!

GonzoTheGreat
01-29-2012, 03:38 AM
Why just in the case of rape? If a woman chooses to keep the child (rather than abort, or give up for adoption), why shouldn't the father provide support.
Elementary, my dear Tree Brother. If it isn't rape, then the father has already explicitly agreed to paying. Otherwise, the woman would not have consented, and it would've been rape after all.

Things can be really simple if you just think them through in advance.

Tree Brother
01-29-2012, 09:13 AM
IMO, there are two issues.

1) People do not want to take responsibly for there actions.
2) There is a lack for respect for life, in general.

I really feel for women who are in the position of making the decision for abortion. This really should be a hard decision. Abortion means killing your future child. What if this is your only chance for a child?

If Steve Jobs's mother had gone through with abortion, he would not have been adopted, and produced all the iProducts people love so much.

Anyway, my point is that people shoud think ahead. Make the decision that they will accept the consequences, a child, before they decide to have sex.

If they did this, there would be less chance for agonizing decisions over whether to abort a potential child.

GonzoTheGreat
01-29-2012, 09:31 AM
In hindsight, having some foresight would indeed have been advisable in many cases.
Using my foresight, I doubt many people will manage to live up to this standard, though.

So, using a more evidence-based view of human nature, I think that the abortion issue will remain with us for quite a while. Which means that it boils down to the question of: "Who gets to decide what happens inside a woman's body?"
1. The woman herself.
2. Some random assortment of clerics, priests and other busybodies.

tworiverswoman
01-30-2012, 02:02 PM
Tree Brother, the reason I only mentioned child support by rapist fathers is because it's not, to my knowledge anyway, addressed much. Generally speaking, in the case of consensual sex, if the father of a child is identified by the mother, and they aren't married, child support is more or less routine, as long as she takes the time to go through the process.

I can't say I know this first-hand, of course, but as the payroll person I know we get child support garnishment notices on some of our employees, for varying amounts. I have no idea how the amounts the father is required to pay each month is determined. At least one of my employees has seven children by four mothers, one of whom he lives with. The demands add up to about 2.5 times the legal garnishment amount, which is something I hadn't realized through most of last year.

Deadbeat dads were a really serious problem before automatic garnishment became the law. Now, as long as the father is employed, he can't really avoid paying. But I have no idea whatever if rapists who create a child ever end up in the child support system. If I was a rapist victim who chose not to abort and had the child, getting that check every week or month would be like getting the rape on instant replay for years on end. Ugh.

As for "thinking ahead" in more normal sex... well... I don't remember "thinking" being top priority at ALL when it might have made a difference.:p


So, using a more evidence-based view of human nature...For some reason, this just made me laugh like hell. Probably because so DAMN many people have pie-in-the-sky views of how they want human nature to BE, instead of dealing with how they ARE. I get tired of "If people would only ... [insert some unlikely thing here]"

Terez
01-30-2012, 07:39 PM
How can you garnish someone's wages when they're in prison unless they're at a labor camp? Even then, with what they get paid, child support would likely take everything they had.

tworiverswoman
01-30-2012, 08:07 PM
Google tells me the "average" sentence across all 50 states for rape is 6-8 years. (!)

Child Support lasts a lot longer than that.

On the other hand, how hard is it for a convicted rapist to find work after release? I would imagine that it would be EXTRAORDINARILY difficult. I'm not particularly sympathetic to their problems, but I wonder what they have to do to live after release.

I did find an interesting cluster of articles about someone trying to claim relief from child support because HE was raped by the mother in question.

Terez
01-30-2012, 08:10 PM
And of course, then there is the fact that most rapes aren't reported. Or at least, that's the theory. And some aren't convicted.

bowlwoman
01-30-2012, 09:07 PM
I doubt it's in response to Obama. This is a pretty consistent hot-button issue for conservatives, and Santorum is one of them.

Santorum is a hot-button issue for conservatives? :P

Cor Shan
01-30-2012, 10:11 PM
On the other hand, how hard is it for a convicted rapist to find work after release? I would imagine that it would be EXTRAORDINARILY difficult. I'm not particularly sympathetic to their problems, but I wonder what they have to do to live after release

Theft, same as most ex-cons.

(I actually have no idea if that's true or not - but I do know one of the main flaws of the current system is that it does make it hard for excons to work - which often results in repeat offenses.)

bowlwoman
01-30-2012, 10:17 PM
A 1 day old cannot survive w/out care, nor can a 1 year old or even a 3 year old. I never understood the appeal of the viability argument. What I am doing is Reductio ad absurdum to highlight a deficiency in all of the viability arguments. I could easily make the claim that those w/ severe mental or physical handicaps are not viable lives at any point and argue for voluntary termination at any point in the lifespan. To me, that sounds overly harsh and methodical. I believe that life beings at conception instead of some arbitrary date. As to what is an arbitrary date, it is almost like the difference between a 17year old 1 day from being 18 and an 18 year old, each being carded while trying to buy some cigarettes.

A fetus born at 24 weeks has an 50% chance of survival with massive amounts of neonatal care and most likely neurological damage (not to mention lack of lung and eye development). I and every woman I've known pregnant who wants to keep her child prays for that 24 week date, because at that point you know there's a shot your baby will survive. The odds of viability go up as each week of the late-second and third trimesters go by. HOWEVER, the 24-week target is the one you have all your hopes pinned on. So no, viability is definitely not arbitrary. The fact is that a fetus under 24 weeks cannot survive outside of the womb. Not with love and tenderness, not with breastfeeding, not with adoption, not hooked up to tubes in an incubator in a neonatal unit.

And yes, a newborn requires extensive care. As does a toddler and a child. But to me that doesn't lessen the pure biological issue of development and viability. And making sure every child has food, shelter, and love is a debate for a different thread.

Regardless of your opinion and belief on when life begins, the physiology of a fetus's survival shouldn't be up for debate. Notice I did not say emotionality, spirituality, psychology, anthropology, or sociology. I'm talking about biology--the fundamental mechanics of how a human body works and if the fetus is old enough, big enough, strong enough and developed enough to survive being in the world.

Before I was pregnant I was wishy washy on the abortion issue. Now that I have two spawn, I can say that I am so adamantly pro-choice it's not funny. There is no person who should be able to tell me what to do with my body. My husband is the only one who even has a modicum of say-so, and while I believe he and I should make these decisions 50-50, it's still ultimately my body and I have to deal with the very real consequences of a pregnancy.

I loved being pregnant. I love my two girls. I did not love being gestational diabetic and subsequently developing Type II after back-to-back diabetic pregnancies. I do not enjoy the postpartum depression that I'm still working through, even though my youngest is 3 1/2. I'm still ticked off that I can't sit for more than an hour stretch without my sciatica acting up and have to take prescription antacid meds for my acid reflux, both byproducts of pregnancy. Because I'm the one who has to deal with these very real post-pregnancy issues, yeah, no one gets to order me around on that score.

Not everyone shares my opinion. That's fine. Don't have an abortion. Share your viewpoints with others IF THEY ASK FOR YOUR ADVICE. But don't think you have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own personal self. I think, therefore I am.

As for Rick Santorum, yeah, he's an ass, but I've thought that for years now anyway.

Terez
01-30-2012, 11:40 PM
I am reading The Great Derangement by Matt Taibbi (written in 2007), and Santorum gets a couple of mentions. I like this one:

It's the first week of November 2006, and I'm reclining in a state of mild-to-heavy sedation in a large and lifeless Marriott Hotel suite in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I'm here covering the midterm elections for Rolling Stone (specifically I'm here to poke a stick in the political corpse of Christ-humping senator Rick Santorum, who is about to lose his seat in a landslide), and while most of "progressive" America is popping the champagne corks, reveling in what looks like a stirring, throw-the-bums-out end to the Bush revolution, I'm feeling sick to my stomach.

The yellow legal pad covered with fevered scribbles lying next to me on the bed tells the story. My notes indicate that hours earlier, at 10:46 p.m., media demigod Barack Obama appeared on CNN, saying that the Democratic victory heralded "change" and a "new direction," adding that the party anxiously awaited the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton report on the Iraq conflict. Later, at 11:58, Rahm Emanuel—slimy brother of even slimier Hollywood superagent Ari Emanuel—promises "change" and a "new direction." At 12:09 Harry Reid comes on the tube His approximate quote: "All across America, from the deserts of somewhere to the streets of somewhere else, there is in the air the winds of change!" Roars, cheers from the crowd at this, then he adds: "We're headed in a new direction!" Reid points out that the Baker-Hamilton report should offer some insight into what to do about the whole Iraq business.

Seven minutes later, at 12:16, it's Nancy Pelosi's turn. "Never have we made it more clear that we need a new direction," she says. "Mr. President, we need a new direction!" She adds that she anxiously awaits the Baker-Hamilton report, which should help point the way forward in Iraq. At 12:24, someone asks Barack Obama, who is back on the air for what seems like the eight hundredth time tonight—the Dems are doing some serious brand-ID work this election—what he thinks the election results mean. Surprisingly, he says that it "confirms in my mind that the American people are eager to move in a new direction."

At 1:12 a.m., it's Dianne Feinstein's turn to speak. She says the elections are "a signal for a change in direction."

Apparently we need a new direction. We also need change. As for Iraq, that's a tough one, but let's wait for the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton report, which might help us figure this shit out.

At some point in the midst of all of this, hurrumphing "political analyst" Jeff Greenfield comes on-screen. Commenting on the Democratic talking points, he has this to say: "They look to be very focus-group-tested for maximum appeal."

Says this approvingly, smiling, with admiration. I reach over to the night table, feel around for the bottle, eat the last of my pills...Good book.

Isabel
01-31-2012, 12:27 AM
A fetus born at 24 weeks has an 85% chance of survival with massive amounts of neonatal care and most likely neurological damage (not to mention lack of lung and eye development).

I do want to correct a few things. When I look at Wikipedia the survival rate is 50% at 24 weeks.
Also it's a chance of survival with a lot of handicaps and problems.

So it's not a big chance to survive and live a good live at 24 weeks.

Ofcourse you do need to treat those children and give them a fighting chance.

I had been very lucky. I was born at 27 weeks (27 years ago). So I am all for treatment, but don't pretend things will be fine if you reach 24 weeks.

Davian93
01-31-2012, 07:21 AM
So basically, preemies are welfare queens that milk the system for massive benefits/support?

Makes me sick just to think about it...do these kids not have bootstraps?

GonzoTheGreat
01-31-2012, 07:25 AM
Makes me sick just to think about it...do these kids not have bootstraps?
They're not convicted rapists, so they aren't allowed to steal them, so no.

bowlwoman
01-31-2012, 10:40 AM
I do want to correct a few things. When I look at Wikipedia the survival rate is 50% at 24 weeks.
Also it's a chance of survival with a lot of handicaps and problems.

So it's not a big chance to survive and live a good live at 24 weeks.

Ofcourse you do need to treat those children and give them a fighting chance.

I had been very lucky. I was born at 27 weeks (27 years ago). So I am all for treatment, but don't pretend things will be fine if you reach 24 weeks.

That's right. 85% is 28 weeks, the start of the third trimester. At 24 weeks you have better than 50/50 odds. Thanks for clearing that up.

And I wasn't saying things are fine at all at 24 weeks. I'm just saying that's the first time a fetus statistically has a fighting chance outside of the womb. There have been a few births before 24 weeks where the baby survived, but those were considered miracle babies and AFAIK, they've all had lots of problems.

My uncle was born in 1956 at 6 months, probably the 24-26 week mark. He's always been small (5'1" in a family with all the other men topping 6'), and he's developed Grave's disease and assorted eye problems. I have to wonder how many of his problems in his 50s can be directly attributed to the fact he was born so early.

bowlwoman
01-31-2012, 10:45 AM
So basically, preemies are welfare queens that milk the system for massive benefits/support?

They also LITERALLY milk the system.

Mothers' Milk Bank at Austin (http://www.milkbank.org/)

Note their mission statement:

Our Mission
The Mothers' Milk Bank at Austin is a non-profit organization whose mission is to accept, pasteurize and dispense donor human milk by physician prescription, primarily to premature and ill infants.

Ungrateful whippersnappers! /sarcasm

Seriously, the Austin Milk Bank is pretty awesome for helping infants in need. I would love to donate, but my meds make me inelegible.

Tomp
01-31-2012, 03:49 PM
Have you seen this suggested Bill (http://www.themarysue.com/virginia-rectal-exam-amendment/)in Virginia.

I think it's only fair.

bowlwoman
01-31-2012, 04:05 PM
Have you seen this suggested Bill (http://www.themarysue.com/virginia-rectal-exam-amendment/)in Virginia.

I think it's only fair.

FINALLY! A lawmaker with some sense.

I love this. Tables are turning, boys. You better get ready for the shitstorm that's coming.

Isabel
01-31-2012, 11:40 PM
That's right. 85% is 28 weeks, the start of the third trimester. At 24 weeks you have better than 50/50 odds. Thanks for clearing that up.

And I wasn't saying things are fine at all at 24 weeks. I'm just saying that's the first time a fetus statistically has a fighting chance outside of the womb. There have been a few births before 24 weeks where the baby survived, but those were considered miracle babies and AFAIK, they've all had lots of problems.

That's true :) Around 24 weeks babies have a fighting chance.


My uncle was born in 1956 at 6 months, probably the 24-26 week mark. He's always been small (5'1" in a family with all the other men topping 6'), and he's developed Grave's disease and assorted eye problems. I have to wonder how many of his problems in his 50s can be directly attributed to the fact he was born so early.

Wow that is amazing :) He had been very very lucky around that time!

fdsaf3
02-01-2012, 12:45 AM
If Steve Jobs's mother had gone through with abortion, he would not have been adopted, and produced all the iProducts people love so much.



This argument really bothers me. We all want to think that the bundle of cells in a developing fetus will grow up to be happy and successful - what if the next Beethoven was aborted!? But the opposite is also possible: you could be aborting the next Jeffrey Dahmer. Of course, these outcomes are extreme.

Anyway, my point is that people shoud think ahead. Make the decision that they will accept the consequences, a child, before they decide to have sex.

If they did this, there would be less chance for agonizing decisions over whether to abort a potential child.

I don't know if you read the post I made a few pages ago about jogging in the park, but if you didn't read it I'd ask that you do so now. There is a school of thought out there that suggests the woman choosing to have unprotected sex (even if we assume the sex was consensual) does not force her into going through with the pregnancy. The distinction is that sex isn't the causative precursor to becoming pregnant - the fertilized egg attaching itself to the wall of the uterus has that role.

eht slat meit
02-01-2012, 02:34 AM
The distinction is that sex isn't the causative precursor to becoming pregnant - the fertilized egg attaching itself to the wall of the uterus has that role.

Rather ludicrous distinction when you consider that except in special circumstances, sex is -always- the causative precursor to becoming pregnant, and is in fact an integral part of the procreation process. The distinction seems to serve only a narrow and not altogether honest purpose, somehow separating the pregnant woman from the sex act.

The reality is that, whether the act was willing or not, the act that resulted in the pregnancy - not an egg spontaneously fertilizing and attaching itself to the uterus wall in some pseudo-divine act of virginal reproduction.

Whether someone needs to face the consequences of their own irresponsible behavior or not is a cold moral judgment that doesn't need to be based on a ridiculous distinction like that.

tworiverswoman
02-01-2012, 08:28 PM
Non medically-induced pregnancies are the occasional result of having sex. If they happened EVERY TIME a couple had sex, human social structures would be DAMN different than they are now. (Read A Mote In God's Eye for an alien perspective on that - good book).

And I 100% concur with fdsaf3's distaste for mourning the potential geniuses lost to abortion, given that there's just as good odds that the aborted fetus would be a disaster to all.

fdsaf3
02-01-2012, 09:22 PM
Rather ludicrous distinction when you consider that except in special circumstances, sex is -always- the causative precursor to becoming pregnant, and is in fact an integral part of the procreation process. The distinction seems to serve only a narrow and not altogether honest purpose, somehow separating the pregnant woman from the sex act.

The reality is that, whether the act was willing or not, the act that resulted in the pregnancy - not an egg spontaneously fertilizing and attaching itself to the uterus wall in some pseudo-divine act of virginal reproduction.

Whether someone needs to face the consequences of their own irresponsible behavior or not is a cold moral judgment that doesn't need to be based on a ridiculous distinction like that.

I'll ignore the unwarranted condescension in your post and simply respond to the content. I would politely suggest to you that you do the same in your future posts.

It's not splitting hairs and it's not an inconsequential distinction. Sexual intercourse in and of itself is an insufficient causative precursor to getting pregnant. Elementary biology tells us this. Perhaps you are assuming that sexual intercourse carries with it, unconditionally, the requirement that the male ejaculates in or around the vaginal area. Of course, this is an unwarranted assumption. But even if it happens, it's still not a causative precursor to getting pregnant. The woman must be in the proper stage of ovulation, for example.

Again, refer to the jogging example I posted before. I kind of feel like this is a really good metaphor for this debate that there isn't much of a rebuttal for.

SonofElvis
02-01-2012, 09:25 PM
FINALLY! A lawmaker with some sense.

I love this. Tables are turning, boys. You better get ready for the shitstorm that's coming.

Ummm, If you're putting something in my booty, perhaps YOU should be prepared for the storm.

bowlwoman
02-01-2012, 09:42 PM
Ummm, If you're putting something in my booty, perhaps YOU should be prepared for the storm.

Repped. That was good.

eht slat meit
02-01-2012, 09:56 PM
I'll ignore the unwarranted condescension in your post and simply respond to the content. I would politely suggest to you that you do the same in your future posts.

That IS a response to the content. You may consider my attitude towards that content a personal judgment, if it is a view you hold, but that's your issue, not mine. Understand also, that if you take that tack, I will hold you to the same standard, and consider your dismissal of my own "school of thought" condescension as well.

I do not have to treat the Scientologists school of thought with respect, nor do I have to treat this with respect. Arguing points is as much courtesy as I'll give it, rather than simply dismissing it with a laugh.

The content is ludicrous, and not reflecting reality. Yes, there -are- exceptions such as in vitro fertilization, but as a general rule, pregnancy is a byproduct of intercourse. No, not all unprotected sexual intercourse results in pregnancy.

It's not splitting hairs and it's not an inconsequential distinction. Sexual intercourse in and of itself is an insufficient causative precursor to getting pregnant. Elementary biology tells us this. Perhaps you are assuming that sexual intercourse carries with it, unconditionally, the requirement that the male ejaculates in or around the vaginal area. Of course, this is an unwarranted assumption. But even if it happens, it's still not a causative precursor to getting pregnant. The woman must be in the proper stage of ovulation, for example.

Again, refer to the jogging example I posted before. I kind of feel like this is a really good metaphor for this debate that there isn't much of a rebuttal for.

There is no rebuttal, because it's a terrible metaphor.

In short, it does not reflect reality. Yes, there -are- exceptions such as in vitro fertilization, but as a general rule, pregnancy is a byproduct of intercourse. No, not all unprotected sexual intercourse results in pregnancy. Yes, certain conditions must be met for that pregnancy to happen. And yes, all of these things are inconsequential to the actual issue: Women do not (normally) get pregnant without an act of sexual intercourse, whether that act be willing or not.

That it happened under some specific set of circumstances, in a window of unfortunate opportunity, doesn't have a bearing. Not all sexual intercourse is causative of pregnancy, but almost all pregnancies are historically caused by sexual intercourse.

It is that latter point that is relevant here.

The problem you seem to have with this is that you appear to reason that choice of engaging in the sex act necessarily leads to the logic that a woman must bear the consequences of that action. It's not a point I hold with, even when the woman had a choice in the matter.

Understand that the egg attaching to the wall is part of a process that was initiated by the sex act, and the juxtaposition of the sperm with the egg is also a result of that act, and except in special cases, none of happens without sexual intercourse. You are substituting correlation for causation, and it doesn't work.

fdsaf3
02-01-2012, 11:11 PM
That IS a response to the content. You may consider my attitude towards that content a personal judgment, if it is a view you hold, but that's your issue, not mine. Understand also, that if you take that tack, I will hold you to the same standard, and consider your dismissal of my own "school of thought" condescension as well.

I haven't been dismissive of anything you've posted. I don't agree, but I haven't been dismissive. Please, by all means, point out to me the posts I've made which you feel I acted condescendingly towards you. For the record, I try and remain civil when disagreeing with people here. I'll admit I'm not perfect at it (see previous posts where I disagreed with Res for examples), but I do try.

The content is ludicrous,

Again with the arbitrary determination of what is and is not ludicrous. Where do you get this authority? More importantly, why do you expect me to accept it?

and not reflecting reality. Yes, there -are- exceptions such as in vitro fertilization, but as a general rule, pregnancy is a byproduct of intercourse. No, not all unprotected sexual intercourse results in pregnancy.

It all depends on where you put the emphasis in the chain of determinism. You are cutting it off at "having sex eventually causes pregnancy". You could easily extend that to "driving in the car on the way to dinner prior to having sex ultimately results in pregnancy". It's extreme, I admit, and not a statement I'm willing to defend. I'm merely pointing out to you that you ascribe some sort of binding causality to having sex with pregnancy, and I simply hold a different view.

There is no rebuttal, because it's a terrible metaphor.

I have an unfair advantage in this conversation because I've had it before. You might (or might not) be surprised that the feelings you're having about the metaphor were pretty universal in the class discussions we had on it. As a class, we went through a lot of these same discussions and conversations. At the end of the day, I can't force you to buy into an argument. What I can do, however, is politely suggest that you refrain from loosely throwing around words like "ridiculous" and "terrible metaphor". If you expect the tone of a conversation to remain civil, it would behoove you to avoid such loaded words.

In short, it does not reflect reality. Yes, there -are- exceptions such as in vitro fertilization, but as a general rule, pregnancy is a byproduct of intercourse. No, not all unprotected sexual intercourse results in pregnancy. Yes, certain conditions must be met for that pregnancy to happen. And yes, all of these things are inconsequential to the actual issue: Women do not (normally) get pregnant without an act of sexual intercourse, whether that act be willing or not.

That it happened under some specific set of circumstances, in a window of unfortunate opportunity, doesn't have a bearing. Not all sexual intercourse is causative of pregnancy, but almost all pregnancies are historically caused by sexual intercourse.

And all are caused by the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterine wall (assuming I haven't forgotten my high school biology lesson...) So isn't my argument better based on the fact that 100% > 99.9%?

It is that latter point that is relevant here.

The problem you seem to have with this is that you appear to reason that choice of engaging in the sex act necessarily leads to the logic that a woman must bear the consequences of that action. It's not a point I hold with, even when the woman had a choice in the matter.

No...For one thing, I think you might have out-clevered yourself. I don't follow what you're saying here. I don't think you've understood my position, though. I believe that a woman still has the right and opportunity not to bear the consequences of having unprotected sex. I feel like I've been clear on this point. Either way, there appears to be a miscommunication between us here.

Understand that the egg attaching to the wall is part of a process that was initiated by the sex act, and the juxtaposition of the sperm with the egg is also a result of that act, and except in special cases, none of happens without sexual intercourse. You are substituting correlation for causation, and it doesn't work.

Minor nitpick: outercourse can lead to pregnancy as well. Not that it matters to this conversation (note I am not calling this a debate, despite what others might think). I'm merely pointing it out for your edification.

Also, trust me, I know the difference between correlation and causation. You're preaching to the choir, brother.

The argument I'm expressing is an effort to reframe the contentious and hotly debated issue of choice. By framing abortion as being an issue of choice, opponents can play up moral issues which are inconsequential if the issue is framed in another way. The reason I appreciate this new frame is because the moral issue of choice is an intractable problem. If somehow we all switched paradigms and considered pregnancy as a matter of consent and not choice, I feel like progress towards a more universally acceptable policy would be possible.

bowlwoman
02-01-2012, 11:26 PM
And all are caused by the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterine wall (assuming I haven't forgotten my high school biology lesson...) So isn't my argument better based on the fact that 100% > 99.9%?

So, can we say that sexual intercourse can indirectly cause pregnancy?

Yes, I agree with fdsaf3 that the direct cause of a successful pregnancy is a zygote attaching to the uterine wall, in its basic biologic and semantic terms. That act is pretty much the only way it can happen, regardless of the method of conception.

Aha! Method of conception. Sexual intercourse is one method, in vitro is another, and using a turkey baster with donated sperm is another. All of these methods can potentially create a zygote, which is the first ingredient in a successful pregnancy. Without the zygote, pregnancy does not happen. But the act of conception itself != pregnancy, because too often the fertilized egg created during conception does not result in pregnancy because the cells never attach to the uterine wall.

So, you can't have a pregnancy without conception, but you can have conception without a pregnancy. THAT's the fundamental difference. And it stands to reason that if a woman can take steps to prevent conception, why can't she then take steps to prevent pregnancy?

eht slat meit
02-01-2012, 11:59 PM
Please, by all means, point out to me the posts I've made which you feel I acted condescendingly towards you.

"I kind of feel like this is a really good metaphor for this debate that there isn't much of a rebuttal for."

That's dismissal, out of hand, any and all rebuttals.

That's not really the point I am getting at here, however. My point is that I am attacking the content, just as you insisted I do. If you are going to take that personally, then I will do the same when you attack my content. You want to retain civility, then lead by example.

Again with the arbitrary determination of what is and is not ludicrous. Where do you get this authority? More importantly, why do you expect me to accept it?

Right there is a fine example. Dismissing my argument as arbitrary. How dare you! I should take that as condescension, right? No, because we are all entitled to our opinions. That's what mine is, and I believe that my opinion is based soundly on a lack of substance in your argument.
I don't expect you to accept it. I am doing what people do in forums - expressing their opinion on a subject and defending my point. Just like you, I do not accept others to accept my school of thought.

It all depends on where you put the emphasis in the chain of determinism. You are cutting it off at "having sex eventually causes pregnancy".

-You- are cutting it off before that point. -You- are attempting to, by your own admission, reframe the debate in a manner that substantiates your argument.

You could easily extend that to "driving in the car on the way to dinner prior to having sex ultimately results in pregnancy".

I could not. Why not? Because, as a rule, pregnancies don't result from driving in a car. They do, however, as a rule, result from sexual intercourse. Not all, nor even most sexual intercourse results in pregnancy, but the converse is true, almost all pregnancy results from sexual intercourse.

I'm merely pointing out to you that you ascribe some sort of binding causality to having sex with pregnancy, and I simply hold a different view.

I have clarified that there I see no binding causality. I have stated that, as a general rule, pregnancies result from sexual intercourse. There are exceptions, most of which have come with modern technology, but they are not even close to representing the general rule of "where pregnancy comes from". In vitro being the primary example, because pregnancy from wet humping has got to be a joke.

I have an unfair advantage in this conversation because I've had it before. You might (or might not) be surprised that the feelings you're having about the metaphor were pretty universal in the class discussions we had on it.

Not surprised. My opinion of the argument's substance has yet to shift in the course of this conversation.

What I can do, however, is politely suggest that you refrain from loosely throwing around words like "ridiculous" and "terrible metaphor".

If you want respect for your viewpoint, build it into a credible argument. A poorly written metaphor that you are unwilling to defend and an attempt to "reframe" the argument as justification does not an argument make.

My standard for "civility" is based on whether I attack you instead of the point you are making. Attacking you - uncivilized. Attacking your point - civilized. If I start promoting something completely outside of mainstream, I expect to have my ideas mocked. It comes with the territory.

And all are caused by the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterine wall (assuming I haven't forgotten my high school biology lesson...) So isn't my argument better based on the fact that 100% > 99.9%?

Pregnancy, by definition, begins at the point which the egg is fertilized. As I've agreed, not all fertilizations result from sexual intercourse, but framing an entire argument based on an exception rather than the rule makes zero sense to me.

I believe that a woman still has the right and opportunity not to bear the consequences of having unprotected sex. I feel like I've been clear on this point. Either way, there appears to be a miscommunication between us here.

To an extent, I agree. The sense I'm getting from this discussion, however, is that you feel I'm somehow deliberately undermining your argument out of an agenda.

The argument I'm expressing is an effort to reframe the contentious and hotly debated issue of choice. By framing abortion as being an issue of choice, opponents can play up moral issues which are inconsequential if the issue is framed in another way.

And the problem I have with that is that it's an attempt to make a complex argument into a gordian knot by radical oversimplification and use of metaphors that are inappropriate to the situation.

Both sides want to "frame" the debate. It's not a desire I hold any sympathy for, as it's an attempt by both sides to hold every else hostage to their own views.

Both arguments have merit, and that's why a line exists in law, and will continue to exist, because the natural lines aren't as clear as either side wants to make them.

bowlwoman
02-02-2012, 12:21 AM
I have clarified that there I see no binding causality. I have stated that, as a general rule, pregnancies result from sexual intercourse. There are exceptions, most of which have come with modern technology, but they are not even close to representing the general rule of "where pregnancy comes from". In vitro being the primary example, because pregnancy from wet humping has got to be a joke.

You're talking about conception here. Conception does not equal pregnancy.

Pregnancy, by definition, begins at the point which the egg is fertilized.

No. Conception begins at the point at which the egg is fertilized. It can take up to a week for the zygote to physically travel from the Fallopian tubes to the uterus. If and when the zygote attaches is the point at which the pregnancy begins, the mother's hormones start spiking, and hCG is produced (the hormone the pregnancy tests look for). A pregnancy is dated from the first day of the last menstrual period, before said ovulation and conception even took place. That's how a pregnancy lasts 9 months but 40 weeks. The extra 2 weeks are from the beginning of the woman's cycle before she even ovulates.

eht slat meit
02-02-2012, 12:33 AM
No. Conception begins at the point at which the egg is fertilized. It can take up to a week for the zygote to physically travel from the Fallopian tubes to the uterus. If and when the zygote attaches is the point at which the pregnancy begins, the mother's hormones start spiking, and hCG is produced (the hormone the pregnancy tests look for). A pregnancy is dated from the first day of the last menstrual period, before said ovulation and conception even took place. That's how a pregnancy lasts 9 months but 40 weeks. The extra 2 weeks are from the beginning of the woman's cycle before she even ovulates.

Pregnancy, by -definition-, that is medical definition, cold clinical definition, begins with fertilization. From medicine.net:

"Pregnancy: The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body."

That -development- begins at the moment the egg is fertilized, what is referred to as conception.

LMP paper-based dating doesn't make that period of time any less a part of the pregnancy.

bowlwoman
02-02-2012, 01:56 AM
Pregnancy, by -definition-, that is medical definition, cold clinical definition, begins with fertilization. From medicine.net:

"Pregnancy: The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body."

That -development- begins at the moment the egg is fertilized, what is referred to as conception.

LMP paper-based dating doesn't make that period of time any less a part of the pregnancy.

Legitimate research is your friend:

The Implications of Defining When a Woman Is Pregnant (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html)

According to both the scientific community and long-standing federal policy, a woman is considered pregnant only when a fertilized egg has implanted in the wall of her uterus; however, state definitions of pregnancy vary widely.

Code of Federal Regulations -- Title 45, Part 46 -- Protection of Human Subjects - source: US Department of Health and Human Services (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/ohrpregulations.pdf)
Code of Federal Regulations -- Title 45, Part 46 -- Protection of Human Subjects - source: United States Government Printing Office (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title45-vol1/pdf/CFR-2009-title45-vol1-part46.pdf)

Subpart B, §46.202 -- Definitions
(f)Pregnancy encompasses the period of time from implantation until delivery. A woman shall be assumed to be pregnant if she exhibits any of the pertinent presumptive signs of pregnancy, such as missed menses, until the results of a pregnancy test are negative or until delivery.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Fact Sheet -- Tool Kit for Teen Care, second edition (http://www.acog.org/~/media/Departments/Adolescent%20Health%20Care/Teen%20Care%20Tool%20Kit/Contraception.ashx?dmc=1&ts=20120202T0249370448)

Each month an egg is released from the female ovary (ovulation). If the egg is met by a sperm, the egg can become fertilized and attach to the inside of the womb or uterus (implantation). Pregnancy occurs when the fertilized egg is implanted.

fdsaf3
02-02-2012, 10:41 AM
Lots of stuff

Unfortunately I don't have time today to respond to you, and by the time I do have time to respond I fear this will be an outdated conversation.

There are two points I want to make. I hope you understand that it is not my intention to be dismissive or ignore your post. I simply lack time to form a cogent response.

1. I've honestly been trying to remain civil and engage in polite conversation with you during this exchange. If you feel slighted or insulted with my responses, it has been through an oversight on my part. I apologize if I wasn't careful enough with my words to avoid such an unfortunate complication.

We appear to both agree and disagree with each other. I feel this happens often when reading posts on internet forums, and happens especially often here on Theoryland. There seems to be something in the water to make people split hairs and argue points into the ground that's not present on other internet forums or discussion boards.

I hate that everything has to be framed as a debate here. I much prefer an open market of ideas where conversations flow. I do not enjoy formal argumentation and debate because very little of that conversation has to do with understanding the content of what someone writes. In my experience here, once a "debate" starts up all hope of positive resolution or progress ends. People get entrenched in their viewpoints, they get defensive about criticism (perceived or real, it does not matter), and things typically degenerate. I've participated in enough of these to recognize how what I contribute to discussions can lead to that unfortunate outcome, and I'm in the process of making intentional efforts to change how I post. To be frank, and this is not a judgment on any individual, I just have better things to do with my time than have a debate on the internet with someone who is usually absolutely convinced I'm an idiot.

2. I think there's a general understanding of civility and decorum which is lacking on this discussion board. Some of the older users fall victim to this, but in my experience it's generally the newer users who are most adamant about being right and asserting their intellectual dominance. As I've said in this post, no, I am not perfect. I acknowledge this fact up front. But I do try to remain civil even while disagreeing. Maybe I'm naive, but it is my worldview that things are just better when people are civil. My comments in previous posts encouraging you to do this have somewhat gone unheeded; this doesn't make me upset or angry, this makes me a little sad. I'm not going to be a punching bag, but neither am I going to respond in kind. I'd much rather respond in kindness. I'm all about raising the level of discourse.

eht slat meit
02-02-2012, 12:22 PM
Legitimate research is your friend:

The Implications of Defining When a Woman Is Pregnant (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html)


Let's stick to discussing medical opinions on the subject, unless you seriously expect me to take the raging pack of failure that is Federal government as an authority or expert on anything.

After reading more of what you've provided, it seems that from the lay perspective, my understanding of definitions is correct, and that much of the medical profession has a somewhat different understanding of the process that isn't accurately represented by those definitions.

The source you quote refers to medical experts in a very vague fashion, singling out one group, yet it's clear with any amount of extended searching that this is not a matter of consensus, and as subject to interpretation by various medical experts who could be claimed to have agendas, like anyone else involved in the argument.

Even if I step away from this argument, ignore the whole debate of what pregnancy is, or simply accept the definition you put forward, it doesn't really change anything:

Implantation is not spontaneous, does not happen by itself. It is part of a process initiated by the fertilization resulting from sexual intercourse. It's quite literally point A to point B process - point A might be different for rare exceptions like in vitro or... god help us, wet humping... but that is where it is initiated. The sexual act.

To put it in a very crude fashion, the bullet might be technically what blows someone's brains out, but it's the person sticking a gun in their face and pulling the trigger that caused them to die. Implantation resulting from fertilization, resulting from sexual act.

Trace it to it's roots.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-02-2012, 12:24 PM
Pregnancy, by definition, begins at the point which the egg is fertilized.


Uh, you're wrong on this point. Pregnancy begins when the zygote attaches to the uterine wall. Also know as implantation.

Unless you want to write to Wikipedia and tell them they're talking out their ass?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy


Initiation

Although pregnancy begins with implantation, the process leading to pregnancy occurs earlier as the result of the female gamete, or oocyte, merging with the male gamete, spermatozoon. In medicine this process is referred to as fertilization; in lay terms, it is more commonly known as “conception.” After the point of fertilization, the fused product of the female and male gamete is referred to as a zygote or fertilized egg. The fusion of male and female gametes usually occurs following the act of sexual intercourse, resulting in spontaneous pregnancy. However, the advent of artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation have made achieving pregnancy possible without engaging in sexual intercourse. This approach may be undertaken as a voluntary choice or due to infertility.

Emphasis mine. Fertilization is NOT the same as a pregnancy, medically speaking.

And considering Wikipedia agrees with my reproductive endocrinologist, I'm going to take that as proof enough.

bowlwoman
02-02-2012, 12:34 PM
Uh, you're wrong on this point. Pregnancy begins when the zygote attaches to the uterine wall. Also know as implantation.

Unless you want to write to Wikipedia and tell them they're talking out their ass?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy



Emphasis mine. Fertilization is NOT the same as a pregnancy, medically speaking.

And considering Wikipedia agrees with my reproductive endocrinologist, I'm going to take that as proof enough.

Yeah, I even went whole hog and pulled out the federal government's definition of pregnancy AND the definition from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and linked to the appropriate documentation, but eht slat meit (he? she?) dismissed their definitions because

Let's stick to discussing medical opinions on the subject, unless you seriously expect me to take the raging pack of failure that is Federal government as an authority or expert on anything.

After reading more of what you've provided, it seems that from the lay perspective, my understanding of definitions is correct, and that much of the medical profession has a somewhat different understanding of the process that isn't accurately represented by those definitions.

The source you quote refers to medical experts in a very vague fashion, singling out one group, yet it's clear with any amount of extended searching that this is not a matter of consensus, and as subject to interpretation by various medical experts who could be claimed to have agendas, like anyone else involved in the argument.

You would think that the professional organization of doctors and researchers who, oh, I don't know, actually monitor a woman before, during, and after pregnancy might actually know what they're talking about. Apparently not.

Not to mention, s/he completely dismisses the government's definition on the issue because they're not "medical" experts, but that's just completely ironic because it was Santorum spouting off about wanting to change the government's stance on the whole thing that opened up this thread.

At this point, I think it's fair to paraphrase South Park: eht slat meit and logic just don't mix.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-02-2012, 12:35 PM
Yeah, I even went whole hog and pulled out the federal government's definition of pregnancy AND the definition from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, but eht slat meit (he? she?) dismissed their definition because



You would think that the professional organization of doctors and researchers who, oh, I don't know, actually monitor a woman before, during, and after pregnancy might actually know what they're talking about. Apparently not.

I really can't do much more than point out the legal and medical definition. At this point (to quote South Park), eht slat meit and logic just don't mix.

It'll be a relief to know that when we do go through IVF, I'll be pregnant, it'll just be in the petrie dish.

bowlwoman
02-02-2012, 12:44 PM
It'll be a relief to know that when we do go through IVF, I'll be pregnant, it'll just be in the petrie dish.

No, the petrie dish will be pregnant.

You know now if you have a boy, you'll have to call him Pete Tree Sedai.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-02-2012, 12:45 PM
No, the petrie dish will be pregnant.

/sagenod

I stand corrected.

Crispin's Crispian
02-02-2012, 12:47 PM
At this point, I think it's fair to paraphrase South Park: eht slat meit and logic just don't mix.
Well, are you arguing about definitions of pregnancy or the ultimate point? I agree that pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation, but what difference does that really make to the "consequences" argument?


fdsaf3 seemed to be arguing that women should not have to take responsibility for their pregnancy because sex isn't the precursor--implantation is. Is that really the argument? In the vast majority of cases, how does implantation get started?

But let's get down to brass tacks: if unprotected sex isn't a determinant of responsibility, what is? And further, does that mean men are off the hook for child support? I mean, they had little to do with implantation besides some helpful stimulation of hormones.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-02-2012, 12:49 PM
Well, are you arguing about definitions of pregnancy or the ultimate point? I agree that pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation, but what difference does that really make to the "consequences" argument?


fdsaf3 seemed to be arguing that women should not have to take responsibility for their pregnancy because sex isn't the precursor--implantation is. Is that really the argument? In the vast majority of cases, how does implantation get started?

But let's get down to brass tacks: if unprotected sex isn't a determinant of responsibility, what is? And further, does that mean men are off the hook for child support? I mean, they had little to do with implantation besides some helpful stimulation of hormones.

If unprotected sex is the determinate of responsibility... then why didn't the guy insist on a condom?

eht slat meit
02-02-2012, 01:09 PM
Yeah, I even went whole hog and pulled out the federal government's definition of pregnancy AND the definition from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and linked to the appropriate documentation, but eht slat meit (he? she?) dismissed their definitions because

He.

I realize you probably haven't been following my posts in this thread, but I'm pretty sure I already indicated that I don't follow Santorum's lack of logic. He's just another government tool playing the president game. I don't have any more respect for him than anyone else, and I certainly DO NOT consider him any sort of expert on the subject.

You would think that the professional organization of doctors and researchers who, oh, I don't know, actually monitor a woman before, during, and after pregnancy might actually know what they're talking about. Apparently not.

I've already acknowledged that they're probably accurate, but that other medical experts disagree with them on the subject, as already hinted at in the link you kindly provided.

Not to mention, s/he completely dismisses the government's definition on the issue because they're not "medical" experts, but that's just completely ironic because it was Santorum spouting off about wanting to change the government's stance on the whole thing that opened up this thread.

In short, nothing ironic about it. Santorum is government, not a medical expert, and unlike the folks you mentioned, doesn't have an opinion that counts.

Don't assume that because I'm disagreeing with you on a point, that I agree with Santorum. Hell, I'm not even a pro-lifer.

At this point, I think it's fair to paraphrase South Park: eht slat meit and logic just don't mix.

Had you actually been following LOGIC and say... reading my posts to actually understand what I think about Santorum, then you would quickly realize that you've not just put your foot in your mouth, but shoved it down your throat.

Go back and read what I wrote about that before attempting to drag government creeps like Santorum into an argument and assert views I don't even hold to for me.

eht slat meit
02-02-2012, 01:11 PM
If unprotected sex is the determinate of responsibility... then why didn't the guy insist on a condom?

Clearly, then, both parties are responsible. Decision-making capacity, however, should not be the man's. I realize that puts me at odds with what other guys may think, but I feel that as a guy, if you're going to take that risk, you have to be willing to shoulder the cost.

eht slat meit
02-02-2012, 01:15 PM
Uh, you're wrong on this point. Pregnancy begins when the zygote attaches to the uterine wall. Also know as implantation.

Unless you want to write to Wikipedia and tell them they're talking out their ass?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

Why would I do that? Wikipedia already acknowledges the controversy, even if you don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy#Definitions_of_ pregnancy_beginning

While I might ignore some sources outright (federal government and santorum) as worthless, I will acknowledge that of the Obstetric folks. However, I also acknowledge that there is more than just the surface dynamic of "is/is not" that is being played to here.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-02-2012, 01:19 PM
Clearly, then, both parties are responsible. Decision-making capacity, however, should not be the man's. I realize that puts me at odds with what other guys may think, but I feel that as a guy, if you're going to take that risk, you have to be willing to shoulder the cost.

I used to be rabidly pro-choice. It was the woman's decision, the man didn't enter into it. Until I got married to someone who really wanted to be a father and who would be a good one.

I honestly think that if two reasonable, consenting adults have an unexpected pregnancy that they should discuss it and the man should be allowed to request that the woman keep the child until it's born and then just give it to him with no expectation of child support required. (I also think that in some cases some men should be given that same break on child support, but I, too, am in the minority on this.)

I do not, however, want the above situation legally mandated as it would be abused beyond belief and the child would suffer the most for it.

I still think abortion, therefore, should remain legal and safe in all circumstances. It's just not one I or any of my female relatives will ever avail themselves of except in extreme cases.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-02-2012, 01:21 PM
Why would I do that? Wikipedia already acknowledges the controversy, even if you don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy#Definitions_of_ pregnancy_beginning

While I might ignore some sources outright (federal government and santorum) as worthless, I will acknowledge that of the Obstetric folks. However, I also acknowledge that there is more than just the surface dynamic of "is/is not" that is being played to here.


Thanks for ignoring the rest of my points.

Like I said, by your definition, the petrie dish will be pregnant during an IVF procedure.

Crispin's Crispian
02-02-2012, 01:33 PM
If unprotected sex is the determinate of responsibility... then why didn't the guy insist on a condom?
Doesn't matter. He's still responsible. Unless sex isn't the determinant, in which case wearing a condom would simply be a goodwill gesture.




I honestly think that if two reasonable, consenting adults have an unexpected pregnancy that they should discuss it and the man should be allowed to request that the woman keep the child until it's born and then just give it to him with no expectation of child support required. (I also think that in some cases some men should be given that same break on child support, but I, too, am in the minority on this.)

I do not, however, want the above situation legally mandated as it would be abused beyond belief and the child would suffer the most for it.

This is how I feel. I argue on principle for the man's rights, and to an extent on the practical level you point out here.

bowlwoman
02-02-2012, 01:43 PM
Well, are you arguing about definitions of pregnancy or the ultimate point? I agree that pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation, but what difference does that really make to the "consequences" argument?

For this particular exercise, I'm being completely pedantic about the definition of "pregnancy." Having had five years of fertility problems and finally having two beautiful kids, it's a subject that I know a lot about and soapbox on a lot. It does matter to the consequences argument because of birth control, Plan B, IUDs, etc. Slippery slope there.

fdsaf3 seemed to be arguing that women should not have to take responsibility for their pregnancy because sex isn't the precursor--implantation is. Is that really the argument? In the vast majority of cases, how does implantation get started?

This is fdsaf3's original comment that sparked this whole thing:

In similar fashion, McDonagh argues that having unprotected sex (consensual or not) is not the causal event which leads to pregnancy. That act is the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterine wall. Much as you would be free to pursue remedies if you are attacked in the park (knowing what the consequences might be), you are free to react to getting pregnant (even if you knowingly and consentually had unprotected sex).

... I just think it's an interesting way to look at the prickly issue of abortion and remove some of the more sensationalized aspects (loose women having reckless unprotected sex, for example).

I don't think fdsaf3 was arguing that women don't have to take responsibility. Quite the opposite. The woman needs to think in terms of her biology when thinking of pregnancy. I think the argument is that men and especially women need to look at pregnancy from a different perspective, and that starts with a fundamental shift in language, causality, and societal mores. Women should be allowed to perceive pregnancy as any other medical condition that affects them and treat it or not treat it accordingly.

But let's get down to brass tacks: if unprotected sex isn't a determinant of responsibility, what is? And further, does that mean men are off the hook for child support? I mean, they had little to do with implantation besides some helpful stimulation of hormones.

It still takes two to tango. Until they perfect creating a viable embryo from two eggs, it still takes an egg and a sperm to make a baby. That fact isn't in dispute.

And it actually brings it right back to the start of this thread, that Santorum is an ass because he wants to force women to keep a baby that's a result of rape. No comments on her physical or mental well-being, no mention of bringing the rapist to justice. That's the problem. Because of the way most people view pregnancy, people like Santorum can spout off those incendiary comments and get the peanut gallery nodding right along with him.

bowlwoman
02-02-2012, 01:44 PM
blah blah blah.

I never mentioned Santorum. I just said you were wrong about the definition of pregnancy.

Crispin's Crispian
02-02-2012, 03:06 PM
For this particular exercise, I'm being completely pedantic about the definition of "pregnancy." Having had five years of fertility problems and finally having two beautiful kids, it's a subject that I know a lot about and soapbox on a lot. It does matter to the consequences argument because of birth control, Plan B, IUDs, etc. Slippery slope there.I do agree there, and this is one of the dangers of the so-called "personhood" ballot measures.


I don't think fdsaf3 was arguing that women don't have to take responsibility. Quite the opposite. The woman needs to think in terms of her biology when thinking of pregnancy. I think the argument is that men and especially women need to look at pregnancy from a different perspective, and that starts with a fundamental shift in language, causality, and societal mores. Women should be allowed to perceive pregnancy as any other medical condition that affects them and treat it or not treat it accordingly. I hate to do it, but this goes right back to the "life begins at" discussion. A pro-lifer is going to argue that the fetus also has rights that are violated if it is aborted.

Anyway, this is fdsaf3's passage I was talking about:

There is a school of thought out there that suggests the woman choosing to have unprotected sex (even if we assume the sex was consensual) does not force her into going through with the pregnancy. The distinction is that sex isn't the causative precursor to becoming pregnant - the fertilized egg attaching itself to the wall of the uterus has that role.
I am certainly not suggesting that anyone can force a woman to be pregnant, but the line of reasoning that attachment is the precursor and not sex seems ridiculous. It removes any agency from the situation and treats pregnancy like a disease the woman accidentally caught.

I could argue that shifting the perspective to pregnancy as a medical condition of the mother, rather than as a life-giving act, is simply a rhetorical attempt dehumanize the fetus. I do not believe that women should be forced to be pregnant, but neither am I at all comfortable with later-term abortions. There's a slippery slope either way. Once you remove agency, a fetus of any age can be treated as a parasite. But at the same time, once you ban abortions of any kind, you're only a few steps away from banning them all.

It still takes two to tango. Until they perfect creating a viable embryo from two eggs, it still takes an egg and a sperm to make a baby. That fact isn't in dispute. This seems either inconsistent or a double-standard. It takes two to tango, but it's really neither of the two that is responsible for the pregnancy? The pregnancy happens of its own medical free will, or doesn't?

And it actually brings it right back to the start of this thread, that Santorum is an ass because he wants to force women to keep a baby that's a result of rape. No comments on her physical or mental well-being, no mention of bringing the rapist to justice. That's the problem. Because of the way most people view pregnancy, people like Santorum can spout off those incendiary comments and get the peanut gallery nodding right along with him.

No argument here.

Tomp
02-02-2012, 03:57 PM
If you outlaw "medically supervised abortion" there is still a certain percentage (don't know the exact number, but all from 10%-90%) that will do it "the other way".
That other way can be coathangers, alcohol or other hazardous methods.

Either way it is a decision that is never made lightly.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-02-2012, 04:23 PM
Either way it is a decision that is never made lightly.


On that, I'll have to agree to disagree with you. There are some for which this is their primary form of birth control.

I don't agree with their choice in this, but I'll respect the hell out of their right to make it and I'll fight tooth and nail for them to keep that option.

Because the alternative is so much worse.

eht slat meit
02-02-2012, 04:47 PM
I never mentioned Santorum. I just said you were wrong about the definition of pregnancy.

And I quote:

"Not to mention, s/he completely dismisses the government's definition on the issue because they're not "medical" experts, but that's just completely ironic because it was Santorum spouting off about wanting to change the government's stance on the whole thing that opened up this thread."

Maybe that wasn't directed at me, maybe it was about some other ironic soul of indeterminate gender, but it certainly seemed to me that you were taking me to task for the apparent double-standard of ignoring one set of asshole politicians while paying attention to another asshole politician.


-----
Gilshalos, I'm not ignoring your points and I'll respond to the rest of your stuff when I have more time to do so; I'm posting between dealing with other things IRL right now and am limited to things that are easily responded to.

bowlwoman
02-02-2012, 06:40 PM
And I quote:

"Not to mention, s/he completely dismisses the government's definition on the issue because they're not "medical" experts, but that's just completely ironic because it was Santorum spouting off about wanting to change the government's stance on the whole thing that opened up this thread."

Maybe that wasn't directed at me, maybe it was about some other ironic soul of indeterminate gender, but it certainly seemed to me that you were taking me to task for the apparent double-standard of ignoring one set of asshole politicians while paying attention to another asshole politician.

-----
Gilshalos, I'm not ignoring your points and I'll respond to the rest of your stuff when I have more time to do so; I'm posting between dealing with other things IRL right now and am limited to things that are easily responded to.

No, sorry if it came across that I was directing the Santorum comment at you. I was just remarking on the fact that you were dismissing the very subject that started the whole discussion in the first place. Nothing specifically to do with Santorum other than he's the one who said the sound byte.

Durvasha
02-02-2012, 08:21 PM
If you outlaw "medically supervised abortion" there is still a certain percentage (don't know the exact number, but all from 10%-90%) that will do it "the other way".
That other way can be coathangers, alcohol or other hazardous methods.

Either way it is a decision that is never made lightly.

A reason I am against banning abortion is this. At a time, a survey showed that, almost 50% of women in Nepalese jail were due to abortion related cases. Not to mention other few, who had left new borns in the bushes or threw in the river. Few of these women were homicidal maniacs. They did it because of the straitjackets that our laws had put them in. It is more about women unfortunately without access to birth control, or whose birth controls malfunctioned. Please let us not argue about how they got pregnant. Marital infedility is a separate issue. I hope no one agrees that denying abortion to enforce marital fidelity is a good idea.

eht slat meit
02-02-2012, 11:16 PM
No, sorry if it came across that I was directing the Santorum comment at you. I was just remarking on the fact that you were dismissing the very subject that started the whole discussion in the first place. Nothing specifically to do with Santorum other than he's the one who said the sound byte.

What he said can be taken a couple of ways, either as a deep respect for unborn life that considers it a gift from God, no matter what the origin... or a deeply assholish use of rape and incest victims as a means of advancing a political cause.

While I dislike the titling of the thread, I dismiss it because I consider Santorum to be firmly in the camp of the latter. Some politicians may even be genuine... on both sides... but I wouldn't consider the lot as a whole or in part to be experts worthy of having their opinion consulted. They're far too prone to using it to advancing their political careers to be trusted.

eht slat meit
02-02-2012, 11:29 PM
I honestly think that if two reasonable, consenting adults have an unexpected pregnancy that they should discuss it and the man should be allowed to request that the woman keep the child until it's born and then just give it to him with no expectation of child support required. (I also think that in some cases some men should be given that same break on child support, but I, too, am in the minority on this.)

I do not, however, want the above situation legally mandated as it would be abused beyond belief and the child would suffer the most for it.


These were the rest of the points that I apparently needed and failed to respond to, and after taking a look back, I see why.

Because I agree with this. I don't consider it a topic of dispute. Sure, the man should be allowed to make that request, but that doesn't mean he should have any expectation of having it honored.

It's not his body to be put at risk. And no, I don't believe in giving them a break on child support if the woman chooses to keep it. As I've stated elsewhere in the thread, I consider it disgusting to use abortion as a means of birth control, and that's all that such a request is, an attempt to get the man off the hook and out of responsibility for an act he participated in. I accept the general practice of abortion, but not as a cheap cop out like that. IMO, those exceptional cases would have to be mighty darn special.

There's a thing about the pregnant petri dish that keeps cropping up elsewhere and I'll point out that it was already addressed and my response was ignored or overlooked in order to keep bringing that up. Go back and read my posts about the general rule and exceptions if you really care about what I think on that subject.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-03-2012, 08:31 AM
There's a thing about the pregnant petri dish that keeps cropping up elsewhere and I'll point out that it was already addressed and my response was ignored or overlooked in order to keep bringing that up. Go back and read my posts about the general rule and exceptions if you really care about what I think on that subject.

Looked for it, couldn't find it, didn't ignore it.

eht slat meit
02-03-2012, 11:46 AM
Looked for it, couldn't find it, didn't ignore it.

Fair enough, I'll dig it up as soon as I get home. It had to do with some tangential IVF issues that I'd raised and had been integrated into the discussion a few pages back... with fdsaf, I think.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-03-2012, 11:54 AM
Fair enough, I'll dig it up as soon as I get home. It had to do with some tangential IVF issues that I'd raised and had been integrated into the discussion a few pages back... with fdsaf, I think.

Considering I came in after that, I can hardly be accused of ignoring you, can I. I'm not rereading the whole thread.

GonzoTheGreat
02-03-2012, 12:17 PM
Considering I came in after that, I can hardly be accused of ignoring you, can I.
Yes, you can!

[i]Sorry, that was the previous presidential campaign, I now remember.

Tree Brother
02-03-2012, 05:13 PM
Is anyone familiar with the following?

Abortion - Breast Cancer Link (http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/medicalgroups/index.htm)

This doesn't have a whole lot to do with the original topic.

One more thing those few people who consider abortion their primary form of birth control should think about.

This does make one wonder why the Susan G. Komen foundation funds abortion (The reason being that abortion, like breast cancer, is as a women's issue).

Isabel
02-03-2012, 09:02 PM
Tree Brother: are there any real scientific researches which weren't sponsored by the christian fundamentalists that proof that breast cancer and abortion is related?
It feels really fishy to me that it's mostly christian organisations which claim that. That could also be because they don't like abortion and would claim anything to stop it.

--

Hereby the wikipedia article:

The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis posits that induced abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer.[1] In early pregnancy, levels of estrogen increase, leading to breast growth in preparation for lactation. The hypothesis proposes that if this process is interrupted by an abortion—before full maturity in the third trimester—then more relatively vulnerable immature cells could be left than there were prior to the pregnancy, resulting in a greater potential risk of breast cancer over time. This mechanism was first proposed and explored in rat studies conducted in the 1980s.[2][3][4]

The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been the subject of extensive scientific inquiry, and the scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer. This consensus is supported by major medical bodies,[5] including the World Health Organization,[6] the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[7][8] the American Cancer Society,[9] the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,[10] and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.[11]

Pro-life activists have continued to advance a causal abortion–breast cancer link,[5] and in the United States they have sought legal action to present abortion as a cause of breast cancer when counseling women seeking abortion.[12] This political intervention culminated when the George W. Bush Administration altered the National Cancer Institute website to suggest that abortion might cause breast cancer.[13] In response to public concern over this intervention, the NCI convened a 2003 workshop bringing together over 100 experts on the issue. This workshop concluded that while some studies reported a statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion,[14][15][16] the strongest scientific evidence[17] from large prospective cohort studies[18][19] demonstrates that abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,[20] and the positive findings were considered to be due to response bias.[21]

The ongoing promotion of a link between abortion and breast cancer is seen by others as part of the pro-life "woman-centered" strategy against abortion.[22][23][24] Pro-life groups maintain they are providing legally necessary informed consent,[25] a concern shared by some politically conservative politicians.[26] The abortion–breast cancer issue remains the subject of political controversy.[5]

--

Cor Shan
02-03-2012, 10:21 PM
I was going to post that but I was just going to point out that the groups were biased, not actually look stuff up.

eht slat meit
02-04-2012, 12:54 AM
Considering I came in after that, I can hardly be accused of ignoring you, can I. I'm not rereading the whole thread.

Which is why I didn't accuse you of that, and speculated that you might have overlooked it instead:

"I'll point out that it was already addressed and my response was ignored or overlooked"

If you care enough to make such comments about my logic, but not enough to actually follow the full line of logic behind it, that's fine, but I can hardly be accused of reasoning that a petri dish can be impregnated if you don't really know enough about what I actually said to make the claim, can I?

Frenzy
02-04-2012, 02:05 AM
Well, are you arguing about definitions of pregnancy or the ultimate point? I agree that pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation, but what difference does that really make to the "consequences" argument?
it matters to those using implantation-blocking birth control methods.

eta: oh, and Santorum is an unmitigated ass. (just trying to stay on-topic)

GonzoTheGreat
02-04-2012, 03:01 AM
eta: oh, and Santorum is an unmitigated ass. (just trying to stay on-topic)
Which raises the obvious question: in the field of Republican presidential candidates, are there any mitigated asses?

Gilshalos Sedai
02-04-2012, 09:44 AM
Which is why I didn't accuse you of that, and speculated that you might have overlooked it instead:

"I'll point out that it was already addressed and my response was ignored or overlooked"

If you care enough to make such comments about my logic, but not enough to actually follow the full line of logic behind it, that's fine, but I can hardly be accused of reasoning that a petri dish can be impregnated if you don't really know enough about what I actually said to make the claim, can I?

Then link it or restate it if you want me to address it. Otherwise, your lack of logic remains.

eht slat meit
02-04-2012, 10:50 AM
Then link it or restate it if you want me to address it. Otherwise, your lack of logic remains.

For someone who suggests they value logic, that's an incredibly illogical claim, appealing instead to your own authority rather than any substance. If you're going to make an assertion about something I've said, maybe you should back it up with text instead of banking on bowlwoman.

Difference here, is that I -can- back up what I'm saying with my own quoted text, because in fact it's where I jumped into this conversation:

"consider that except in special circumstances, sex is -always- the causative precursor to becoming pregnant"

While it's not explicit, it doesn't need to be for anyone who can read the obvious connotation of "except in special circumstances". There is the general rule and then there are exceptions. The exceptions cover things like ... petri dishes becoming pregnant. Because they don't, and nobody said nor implied they do.

We can jump off onto a dozen little tangents, but that doesn't change the main gist of this conversation. That gist is something we apparently have to agree to disagree on, but it's rather illogical of you to make claims about my assertions without backing up your claims and expecting me to repeat things I've already said.

GonzoTheGreat
02-04-2012, 11:40 AM
"consider that except in special circumstances, sex is -always- the causative precursor to becoming pregnant"
Consider that except in special circumstances, being born is -always- the causative precursor to becoming a murderer.

That's true too, but it isn't enough to accuse your parents of having deliberately spawned a murderer, is it?

eht slat meit
02-04-2012, 09:35 PM
Consider that except in special circumstances, being born is -always- the causative precursor to becoming a murderer.


Being born makes someone become a murderer? How does that work?

I was talking about action, reaction here, not some sort of loosely connected chain of events. Not all sexual contact results in pregnancy, but almost all pregnancy results from sexual contact, because the special exceptions aren't anywhere near that common. IVF, for example, appears to be 236 cycles (procedures) per 100000 people. That's not even .002%. Add another 5000 per year for AI, and that's still only one in every 61K people.

So yeah, pregnancy as a rule generally results from sexual contact... not to sound pedantic, but that's the point of reproduction - the continuation of and population of a given species via sexual contact resulting in pregnancy and development of further life.

We're talking about the objective here, not the subjective judgments based on that process.

GonzoTheGreat
02-05-2012, 03:50 AM
But, as far as I can determine, the sub-issue here is: does having sex mean that you are consenting to become pregnant?
And, the issue I put forward as a direct analogue is: does having a child mean that you are consenting to bringing to producing a murderer?

Not every time people have sex does that result in a pregnancy. But it does happen. Not every child which is born becomes a murderer. But it does happen.
Sure, the frequencies may be a bit different, but still: most times when people have sex that does not result in a pregnancy, and most times when people have a child that does not result in a murderer.

eht slat meit
02-05-2012, 09:56 AM
But, as far as I can determine, the sub-issue here is: does having sex mean that you are consenting to become pregnant?


To that I would answer: No.

And, the issue I put forward as a direct analogue is: does having a child mean that you are consenting to bringing to producing a murderer?

To this, I can only answer it after it is fixed grammatically, because I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Looking back at that analogy, I'm not sure of that either, because it suffers from the same grammatical skew:

"consenting to bringing to producing a murderer"

"have a child that does not result in a murderer"

Is this a variation on the Einstein/Beethoven argument for pro-lifers? If it is, that's not one I buy into, either on the Einstein/Beethoven side or the Dahmer/Bundy side. What the unborn might become someday after birth is entirely a matter of natural or divine providence, whichever you believe in.

As I see it, the "sub-issue" is the real issue, and not secondary to pregnancy being a result of sexual contact.

There's a responsibility issue there that pro-lifers argue for, one that says: If the woman has sole rights and responsibilities over her own body, why is she permitted to violate her responsibility to the unborn child?

Because, in -their- view, she has a responsibility to the child, no matter what stage of development it's in.

GonzoTheGreat
02-05-2012, 10:03 AM
There's a responsibility issue there that pro-lifers argue for, one that says: If the woman has sole rights and responsibilities over her own body, why is she permitted to violate her responsibility to the unborn child?

Because, in -their- view, she has a responsibility to the child, no matter what stage of development it's in.
From some of them, that may be a genuine attitude. But a lot of pro-lifers are rather right wing, opposed to socialised health care (proving that they aren't willing to share in the responsibility for other people), in favor of the death penalty (proving that they aren't really interested in the sanctity of life) and so forth. Thus, many of them seem to be more concerned with forcing women to accept a responsibility those women don't want rather than with actually defending life.

Of course, in the case of the ones that are genuine about it, one might still ask "why should they have the right to assign responsibilities to others", but I guess that they then answer "because God gave them that right".

eht slat meit
02-05-2012, 10:22 AM
From some of them, that may be a genuine attitude. But a lot of pro-lifers are rather right wing, opposed to socialised health care (proving that they aren't willing to share in the responsibility for other people), in favor of the death penalty (proving that they aren't really interested in the sanctity of life) and so forth. Thus, many of them seem to be more concerned with forcing women to accept a responsibility those women don't want rather than with actually defending life.

True enough, but there's also the other side of the issue, those that claim to represent the sanctity of -choice-, but don't really. Unfortunately, the most honest in labeling themselves, are the extremists.

That's why I tend to prefer referring to 'anti-abortion' and 'pro-abortion', though the other is more convenient.

Of course, in the case of the ones that are genuine about it, one might still ask "why should they have the right to assign responsibilities to others", but I guess that they then answer "because God gave them that right".

The correct answer is: Because the law gives us that right. The law assigns responsibilities to parents, to politicians, and to people on every stratum of society. That 'right', better called privilege, stems from a social contract that is part of living in a larger society.

Whether the law -should- assign a responsibility is what's really in question, not whether it has the right.

GonzoTheGreat
02-05-2012, 10:43 AM
The correct answer is: Because the law gives us that right.
I would say that the law gives the opportunity, but not the right.

That's a bit of a semantic matter, though; a result of not having different words for "natural rights", "legal rights" and "other rights" (probably various types of those).

Durvasha
02-05-2012, 01:19 PM
The correct answer is: Because the law gives us that right.

Does it really? I thought the discussion arose because people want to change that law? Law is dynamic. It allows what we can do today. It may be changed tomorrow. That is what pro-lifers and IDers want to do. Change the law to impose their view on others. It is also funny that you donot believe in federal government's ability to define life, but you think that its laws are the absolute authority when it comes to forcing others to your views. (Please, It is not a personal attack. Just pointing out the contradiction. I cannot rephrase it better, because I am not native English speaker and do not know its subtleties)


Legal does not necessarily mean moral/ethical/right/correct.

eht slat meit
02-05-2012, 08:43 PM
Does it really? I thought the discussion arose because people want to change that law? Law is dynamic. It allows what we can do today. It may be changed tomorrow. That is what pro-lifers and IDers want to do. Change the law to impose their view on others.

And yet we do it every day, not just the pro-lifers and ID'ers, but all of us, enforcing our morality on society around us. Some of it to the good, some of it to the bad. Slavery immediately pops to mind, as well as any other civil rights legislation.

It is also funny that you donot believe in federal government's ability to define life, but you think that its laws are the absolute authority when it comes to forcing others to your views.

Absolute authority? No, and I did mitigate that "right" by pointing out that it would be better referred to as a privilege. The law is a tool, nothing more. A good one, but it can be abused.

Understand that I don't consider the "federal government" and "the law" interchangeable. The law is not a person, not subject to all a person's failings and nastiness. It simply does whatever we use it to do. The government, on the other-handed, is increasingly a great number of greedy and ambitious tools.

That is a fundamental difference between the two, and it's apples and oranges in comparing the them.

No offense taken.

Legal does not necessarily mean moral/ethical/right/correct.

That's true enough, but it's the avenue normally taken to enforce morality and ethics. DOMA, for another fine example. We might not agree with the results, and sometimes those results might downright suck, but... it is what it is.

eht slat meit
02-05-2012, 08:46 PM
I would say that the law gives the opportunity, but not the right.

That's a bit of a semantic matter, though; a result of not having different words for "natural rights", "legal rights" and "other rights" (probably various types of those).

If it comes down to that kind of philosophy, there's really no "right" given by God, society or anything else to enforce any sort of decency or standards. Everything goes, genocide, slavery, rape, etc. But people don't really want that, so we construct the mechanisms to prevent it from happening. Call it right, call it privilege, or anything, it's founded on subjective beliefs not on the objective.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-07-2012, 10:47 AM
For someone who suggests they value logic, that's an incredibly illogical claim, appealing instead to your own authority rather than any substance. If you're going to make an assertion about something I've said, maybe you should back it up with text instead of banking on bowlwoman.

Difference here, is that I -can- back up what I'm saying with my own quoted text, because in fact it's where I jumped into this conversation:

"consider that except in special circumstances, sex is -always- the causative precursor to becoming pregnant"

While it's not explicit, it doesn't need to be for anyone who can read the obvious connotation of "except in special circumstances". There is the general rule and then there are exceptions. The exceptions cover things like ... petri dishes becoming pregnant. Because they don't, and nobody said nor implied they do.

We can jump off onto a dozen little tangents, but that doesn't change the main gist of this conversation. That gist is something we apparently have to agree to disagree on, but it's rather illogical of you to make claims about my assertions without backing up your claims and expecting me to repeat things I've already said.

Uh... I'm the one who said a petrie dish can be pregnant according to your definition, not Bowlwoman. And your statement that you quoted, doesn't actually address my point.

If "pregnancy begins at fertilization" then a petrie dish can be pregnant. THAT is the logical conclusion to your statement that pregnancy begins at fertilization -- which is my only real issue with your arguments here, I'm not touching the rest. With the advent of IVF and technological solutions to certain infertility problems, most modern definitions of pregnancy have been adjusted to exclude the pregnant petrie dish and focus on pregnancy only being the function of a living animal. ie, Implantation.


This is not a matter of rhetoric and propaganda. this is a matter of science. And considering I've struggled with this for 8 years and been to several doctors to get the same explanation.... (and I won't go into my personal details here.) You're wrong in your definition. But hey, you're welcome to believe whatever you want.

So, if you're done accusing me of taking someone else's words and using them as my own, I'm out of this increasingly stupid "conversation" where logic and science apparently have no place.

eht slat meit
02-07-2012, 12:41 PM
Uh... I'm the one who said a petrie dish can be pregnant according to your definition, not Bowlwoman. And your statement that you quoted, doesn't actually address my point.

As I recall, Bowlwoman corrected you and you accepted that correction. Actually addressing the point:

No, the petrie dish will be pregnant.

Still, as you say, more to the point:
Pregnancy via fertilization and petri dishes are not mutually inclusive, and in fact have nothing to do with each other.

Whether you define a pregnancy by fertilization or by implantation, the actual pregnancy is defined by what is happening, an action between either elements of male/female physiology, or an act of implantation by the fertilized egg in its current environment.


Why? Take a look at ectopic pregnancy: a pregnancy defined by implantation somewhere besides the uterine cavity. This is still a pregnancy, even if it doesn't fit Bowlwoman's narrow definition of pregnancy as implantation in the uterine wall.

Pregnancy is a state of fetus, defined by (you claim) implantation. It may be extended to a host, but since a petri dish or any other mechanical assistance device can't be called a host, the state is solely held by the fetus.

Understand that this opens up the future possibility of the kind of pregnancy you're talking about, mechanical ectopic pregnancies that take place outside of the woman's body to sustain the viability of the fetus.

Note that you're taking the discussion in a different direction than I was actually discussing with fsdaf before you jumped in -

And all are caused by the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterine wall

Clearly, that isn't exactly true or ectopic pregnancies could not be considered pregnancies and the medical professionals that tells us they are would be lying to us. But they're not, and you'd have to be willfully ignorant not to recognize that not even fdsaf's statement was completely accurate under the light of the absolute accuracy you are insisting on.

Given that you weren't a part of that discussion, have no interest in enlightening yourself as to what it involved, it shouldn't be a surprise that you don't understand that there are nuances to what was discussed that don't involve your tangent.

So, if you're done accusing me of taking someone else's words and using them as my own, I'm out of this increasingly stupid "conversation" where logic and science apparently have no place.

The "logical" thing to do is make sure you know what you're talking about before taking someone else to task for ignorance.

But hey, to each, their own double standards.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-07-2012, 12:56 PM
As I recall, Bowlwoman corrected you and you accepted that correction. Actually addressing the point:



Still, as you say, more to the point:
Pregnancy via fertilization and petri dishes are not mutually inclusive, and in fact have nothing to do with each other.

Whether you define a pregnancy by fertilization or by implantation, the actual pregnancy is defined by what is happening, an action between either elements of male/female physiology, or an act of implantation by the fertilized egg in its current environment.


Why? Take a look at ectopic pregnancy: a pregnancy defined by implantation somewhere besides the uterine cavity. This is still a pregnancy, even if it doesn't fit Bowlwoman's narrow definition of pregnancy as implantation in the uterine wall.

Pregnancy is a state of fetus, defined by (you claim) implantation. It may be extended to a host, but since a petri dish or any other mechanical assistance device can't be called a host, the state is solely held by the fetus.

Understand that this opens up the future possibility of the kind of pregnancy you're talking about, mechanical ectopic pregnancies that take place outside of the woman's body to sustain the viability of the fetus.

Note that you're taking the discussion in a different direction than I was actually discussing with fsdaf before you jumped in -


Clearly, that isn't exactly true or ectopic pregnancies could not be considered pregnancies and the medical professionals that tells us they are would be lying to us. But they're not, and you'd have to be willfully ignorant not to recognize that not even fdsaf's statement was completely accurate under the light of the absolute accuracy you are insisting on.

Given that you weren't a part of that discussion, have no interest in enlightening yourself as to what it involved, it shouldn't be a surprise that you don't understand that there are nuances to what was discussed that don't involve your tangent.



The "logical" thing to do is make sure you know what you're talking about before taking someone else to task for ignorance.

But hey, to each, their own double standards.

An ectopic pregnancy is still a pregnancy, but a woman who's egg was fertilized and never implanted IS NOT AND NEVER WAS PREGNANT, regardless of where the egg was fertilized.

There, concise and succinct enough for you?

And I took Bowlwoman's "correction" as a joke. You did not. Therefore I went with what YOU stated. And ran with it since it was the next step in your argument.


As far as my "tangent" goes, I was addressing your assertions as to the nature of pregnancy which goes against everything my fertility doctors have explained. But hey, what do they know?

eht slat meit
02-07-2012, 01:45 PM
An ectopic pregnancy is still a pregnancy, but a woman who's egg was fertilized and never implanted IS NOT AND NEVER WAS PREGNANT, regardless of where the egg was fertilized.

And regardless of -where- it was implanted. Which means that it could be implanted outside a living host, and the fetus would still be in a state of pregnancy, but without a pregnant host. It would simply be a variant form of pregnancy.

What that means is that your argument is irrelevant, because it has no bearing on the location of fertilization and whether it does or does not constitute pregnancy.

[quote]And I took Bowlwoman's "correction" as a joke. You did not. Therefore I went with what YOU stated. And ran with it since it was the next step in your argument.

It was Bowlwoman's statement, not yours, not mine. Either it was a joke and you did not accept her claim, or you did and took it as your own. Either way, I refer you back to the original quote and poster. Which is not you.

And no, it's the next step in -your- argument, because you believe it can only logically lead there. I do not, and have expressly stated how and why I do not. A petri dish does not, and cannot get pregnant even IF it were true that fertilization began at pregnancy.

Why? Because pregnancy is not defined by the location in which it takes place, but by the action that resulted in it.

In short, address my actual assertions, and not what you want my assertions to be.

If you want to reduce everything to a single argument, about whether the point of fertilization is or is not a part of the pregnancy, then you'll be arguing alone because I've already moved on and beyond that point of conversation.

You've chosen to ignore that fact, because it's not convenient for the strawman that you're batting around.

Since you refuse to back up anything you assert about my claims, and continue to refuse to educate yourself as to what I actually said in that thread of conversation before you jumped in, I'm going to to take your assertion of my illogic for what it is: Rain calling water wet.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-07-2012, 02:45 PM
What strawman?

I took exception to your assertion that a pregnancy occurs on fertilization, which is contrary to everything I have ever been taught. And I listed a source, Bowlwoman listed several sources to back up her statement that I happened to agree with. You dismissed them as "governmental."

And you obviously haven't moved on. You're still addressing my supposedly stupid strawman with increasingly hostile ad hominem responses.

I never said pregnancy was
not defined by the location in which it takes place, but by the action that resulted in it.
I said that pregnancy was, by every source that's previously been listed by both myself and Bowlwoman, defined as occurring on implantation, not fertilization.

Otherwise, every woman who's eggs have been fertilized but never implanted had a miscarriage.

I don't care what this means for the abortion argument, I don't care what this means for your religious beliefs or your sanctity of your abortion argument. I was merely attempting to educate on a point of misinformation.

So, believe whatever you want. I'm done.

GonzoTheGreat
02-07-2012, 03:11 PM
And regardless of -where- it was implanted. Which means that it could be implanted outside a living host, and the fetus would still be in a state of pregnancy, but without a pregnant host. It would simply be a variant form of pregnancy.
Which, of course, means that abortion shouldn't be a big deal at all, as long as it doesn't harm the fetus. After all, the fetus could just go on being pregnant outside the womb, and in the trashcan (or wherever it ends up) for as long as it wants.

Somehow I doubt the pro-life crowd would accept that approach, though.

What that means is that your argument is irrelevant, because it has no bearing on the location of fertilization and whether it does or does not constitute pregnancy.
I am starting to get the impression that you have a somewhat peculiar idea of what pregnancy is. So I'll ask how you would evaluate a situation with a surrogate mother. Who in such a case would be pregnant, precisely?
If I understand your approach properly, it seems the fetus and the surrogate mother certainly, and possibly the petri dish, the sperm donor, egg donor and (perhaps) some bystanders too. Is that more or less an accurate representation, or did I forget anyone?

For the record, in that scenario, I would say that the surrogate mother is pregnant. I would not count the fetus as being pregnant, nor can I think of many* other cases where such a statement would make sense.

Otherwise, every woman who's eggs have been fertilized but never implanted had a miscarriage.
Makes sense. Hence the claims that with the most stringent "protection of life" laws, every fertile woman who has had sex should then be checked for the possibility of such a miscarriage, if it happens, a death certificate should be made up, and if no natural causes can be proven, then she should be prosecuted for murder. Peculiarly enough, that does not seem to be what the "personhood begins at conception" crowd wants, though they never give any actual arguments why this should not be how the police and prosecutors operate after their laws are adopted.

So, while you may think that it is just a stupid idea no one will ever take seriously, I do not share your faith in the availability of common sense in all jurisdictions where such laws might be adopted. I think that what you seem to dismiss is indeed a logical and reasonable consequence of the stance of one of the two parties in this debate.


* Naturally, nature being as weird as it is, there are possible exceptions. I've read about a case of where a mother was carrying twins, one of the two got stuck in the body of the other while still in the womb, and that was discovered much later, when the one that was "on the outside" was a teenager. I wouldn't count that as pregnancy, but I'm not sure I could argue strongly against it either.

eht slat meit
02-07-2012, 03:22 PM
What strawman?

The assertion that it was my argument. And I quote:

"And ran with it since it was the next step in your argument."

It was not the next step in my argument, nor an argument that I would have made or attempted to defend.

I took exception to your assertion that a pregnancy occurs on fertilization, which is contrary to everything I have ever been taught.

And had you actually stuck with that, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Note that I said by definition, it occurs in fertilization, and this is true... acknowledged by Wikipedia as an issue that clouds the debate on when pregnancy begins.

And I listed a source, Bowlwoman listed several sources to back up her statement that I happened to agree with. You dismissed them as "governmental."

The only sources I rejected were those from the government. I took into account the others.

Otherwise, every woman who's eggs have been fertilized but never implanted had a miscarriage.

As a miscarriage is defined by the expulsion of a -fetus- and not by the start of the pregnancy, that would be untrue.

I don't care what this means for the abortion argument, I don't care what this means for your religious beliefs or your sanctity of your abortion argument. I was merely attempting to educate on a point of misinformation.

Being right or wrong on this has absolutely no impact on my belief system, which is why I already addressed and laid that issue to rest many posts back. I -had- moved on, but apparently you feel you have to set me straight. It stops being education when you start speaking for what you think I believe.

Durvasha
02-07-2012, 03:23 PM
* Naturally, nature being as weird as it is, there are possible exceptions. I've read about a case of where a mother was carrying twins, one of the two got stuck in the body of the other while still in the womb, and that was discovered much later, when the one that was "on the outside" was a teenager. I wouldn't count that as pregnancy, but I'm not sure I could argue strongly against it either.

I read about that too. But it was sort of a tabloid and I didn't know whether to believe it. IIRC, the boy used to complain of stomach pain so some test was carried out. It was found that his twin was inside his body though I do not recall if the fetus was still alive. Now I am wondering, if the fetus was already dead, how come the sceptic did not spread inside the carrier's body too?

eht slat meit
02-07-2012, 03:39 PM
Which, of course, means that abortion shouldn't be a big deal at all, as long as it doesn't harm the fetus. After all, the fetus could just go on being pregnant outside the womb, and in the trashcan (or wherever it ends up) for as long as it wants.

AFAIK, mechanical ectopic pregnancy does not yet exist and is entirely theoretical. Natural ectopic pregnancy leaves most developing fetuses without viability, and I understand that it's a rare exception where the fetus survives.

It's unlikely there will ever be a resolution between pro-life and pro-choice. MEC could offer that resolution, if it were possible via technology to resolve a pregnancy without a living host... and such technology seems feasible with what we know... but the there's always the expense as well as the social issues.

Somehow I doubt the pro-life crowd would accept that approach, though.

They might if they actually believed the pro-choice crowd would honor the right to life of the fetus through MEC, but that would require concessions on both part... absolving the responsibility of the mother and acknowleding the rights of the unborn.

I don't see either concession as viable.

I am starting to get the impression that you have a somewhat peculiar idea of what pregnancy is. So I'll ask how you would evaluate a situation with a surrogate mother. Who in such a case would be pregnant, precisely?

Under that situation, it would be the natural mother until the developing fetus is transplanted into the surrogate. The fetus retains the pregnant state, and the new host becomes pregnant by association. It's simply a transfer of states. There's nothing that wildly different about it.

If I understand your approach properly, it seems the fetus and the surrogate mother certainly, and possibly the petri dish, the sperm donor, egg donor and (perhaps) some bystanders too. Is that more or less an accurate representation, or did I forget anyone?

I've stated elsewhere that it is only the fetus's host and a living host at that. If you're just looking to make snotty responses, we can stop pretending to have a conversation about this now.

Because bystanders? Really?

For the record, in that scenario, I would say that the surrogate mother is pregnant. I would not count the fetus as being pregnant, nor can I think of many* other cases where such a statement would make sense.

The mother is pregnant, the fetus is the pregnancy. English language, please.


Makes sense. Hence the claims that with the most stringent "protection of life" laws, every fertile woman who has had sex should then be checked for the possibility of such a miscarriage, if it happens, a death certificate should be made up, and if no natural causes can be proven, then she should be prosecuted for murder. Peculiarly enough, that does not seem to be what the "personhood begins at conception" crowd wants, though they never give any actual arguments why this should not be how the police and prosecutors operate after their laws are adopted.

I'm not a pro-lifer and do not subscribe to any of those arguments, nor do I consider them reasonable...


So, while you may think that it is just a stupid idea no one will ever take seriously, I do not share your faith in the availability of common sense in all jurisdictions where such laws might be adopted. I think that what you seem to dismiss is indeed a logical and reasonable consequence of the stance of one of the two parties in this debate.

... and do not feel that I need to step in line like a good little drone with other people who also think choice is necessary, just because they feel that a failure to frame the debate just so somehow infringes on them. If framing the debate that way is simply a tool of manipulation to get one's way, then there's no high ground.

You need your stance to be right because you feel that it adversely affects your arguments and position. I disagree. Even if I'm a hundred percent in the right, it doesn't change your position any whatsoever. It just gives pro-lifers a small point that doesn't and shouldn't reasonably affect a pro-choicer's stance.

And since neither budges and inch... it doesn't.

eht slat meit
02-07-2012, 03:40 PM
I read about that too. But it was sort of a tabloid and I didn't know whether to believe it. IIRC, the boy used to complain of stomach pain so some test was carried out. It was found that his twin was inside his body though I do not recall if the fetus was still alive. Now I am wondering, if the fetus was already dead, how come the sceptic did not spread inside the carrier's body too?

Not to sound like I'm trolling, but wasn't that straight out of Stephen King's "The Dark Half"?

GonzoTheGreat
02-07-2012, 03:42 PM
From what I remember of it, it was rather debatable whether it should count as alive or dead. It was basically a clump of ill-developed matter. So on the one hand, it was getting nutrients and such from the host body, and thus it could be counted as "alive". But on the other hand, it was effectively no more than some kind of tumor, and thus not really a "separate person" according to most definitions used for that, and thus one could also say that the undeveloped twin was not alive (hence dead).

No matter what, it was very clear that the "twin" could not possibly grow into a viable human anymore at that stage. But, using the extreme pro-life definitions, it nonetheless deserved the same level of rights and protections as the teenager who was suffering from this intrusion in his body. Which, of course, raises the question: was murdering this innocent justified?
Rick Santorum would probably have said no, but I'm not sure many here accept his rulings in this kind of thing.

GonzoTheGreat
02-07-2012, 03:59 PM
Under that situation, it would be the natural mother until the developing fetus is transplanted into the surrogate.I could be wrong, but I think that in such cases the fertilised egg is never inside the natural mother at all. From what I understand of the procedure, fertilisation takes place outside the body in these cases. Of course, since I've never actually gotten involved in this kind of thing, my knowledge here is rather undependable. It is likely that someone else on this board would be more up to date and more accurate in how this is done.

The fetus retains the pregnant state, and the new host becomes pregnant by association. It's simply a transfer of states. There's nothing that wildly different about it.
I still think that having a pregnant petri dish is nonsense. But I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

I've stated elsewhere that it is only the fetus's host and a living host at that. If you're just looking to make snotty responses, we can stop pretending to have a conversation about this now.
Then how can the fetus be in a "pregnant state" before it is implanted, when it is just in the petri dish (or test tube, more likely)?
Who or what is pregnant at that time?

I would say that pregnancy does not apply until implantation has occurred. To me, that seems to fit a lot better with the concept.

Because bystanders? Really?
Well, I was getting confused, so I thought to cover all bases, plus some extras.

The mother is pregnant, the fetus is the pregnancy. English language, please.
But, as I've indicated, there is at first a stage where there is no mother. At that point, all there is is a fertilised egg in a test tube. Does the concept of "pregnancy" apply at that time, and if so, to who or what?


I'm not a pro-lifer and do not subscribe to any of those arguments, nor do I consider them reasonable...
That's mighty fine. But also irrelevant, if the "personhood begins at conception" laws come to control how the justice system handles this situation. Which may very well happen, if enough people vote for them.


... and do not feel that I need to step in line like a good little drone with other people who also think choice is necessary, just because they feel that a failure to frame the debate just so somehow infringes on them. If framing the debate that way is simply a tool of manipulation to get one's way, then there's no high ground.
You may not like the idea any better than I do. But dismissing it merely because of dislike is somewhat naive if it can actually become law, as is the case.

You need your stance to be right because you feel that it adversely affects your arguments and position. I disagree. Even if I'm a hundred percent in the right, it doesn't change your position any whatsoever. It just gives pro-lifers a small point that doesn't and shouldn't reasonably affect a pro-choicer's stance.

And since neither budges and inch... it doesn't.
Frankly, I'm not at all sure what you're arguing for or against here. Of course, you seemed to be responding to something I said to Gil as if it had been a response to you, so it's possible that I'm not the only one who is confused. Then again, I definitely did not mean that only Gil would be allowed to react to it. I said it here, which makes it fair game for anyone who wants to respond.

eht slat meit
02-07-2012, 04:27 PM
I could be wrong, but I think that in such cases the fertilised egg is never inside the natural mother at all. From what I understand of the procedure, fertilisation takes place outside the body in these cases. Of course, since I've never actually gotten involved in this kind of thing, my knowledge here is rather undependable.

Situation-dependent. There are a great number of variations on IVF, depending on what procedure a situation calls for, categorized broadly as traditional or gestational surrogacy, but with a far larger # of case-specific procedures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology#Expansions_of_IVF


I still think that having a pregnant petri dish is nonsense. But I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.


Of course it is nonsense! Which is why I don't argue that the petri dish is pregnant. My understanding might be incomplete, but if I understand the transfer procedures... while unreliable to a great degree, a post-implantation pregnancy can still proceed in another host. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition, just extremely risky.

Which leads to a question that is inherent to the discussion of MEP. If an ectopic pregnancy occurs outside of a living host, due to advances in technology that make such a process viable, does it stop being a real pregnancy? Is the machine pregnant? Is the successfully born child not a real child? Of course not. Terminology reflects what we can and cannot do, which changes all the time.

Then how can the fetus be in a "pregnant state" before it is implanted, when it is just in the petri dish (or test tube, more likely)?

You are operating under the assumption that someone or something needs to be pregnant. I am not. Why does it need to? The procedure of the pregnancy might be uninterrupted, so much so that it must be assisted with ART (assistive reproductive technology), but does that make it any less a pregnancy? Why?


I would say that pregnancy does not apply until implantation has occurred. To me, that seems to fit a lot better with the concept.

It might to you, and like you say, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.


Which may very well happen, if enough people vote for them.

And that's entirely speculative, making it "irrelevant" as well. Ifs and maybes. The personhood argument doesn't shift the debate unless you let it change your mind.

You may not like the idea any better than I do. But dismissing it merely because of dislike is somewhat naive if it can actually become law, as is the case.

Anything can become law under the right circumstances, no matter how ugly or wrong. That doesn't mean to accept any argument I may dislike or disagree with simply to step in line. That's groupthink, and counterproductive to progress.

Frankly, I'm not at all sure what you're arguing for or against here.

Two points were raised. Both, in essence, were discussed here, the issue of a petri dish being pregnant (no, which we agree on) and the significance of that lack of pregnancy (which we do not agree on).

GonzoTheGreat
02-07-2012, 04:38 PM
You are operating under the assumption that someone or something needs to be pregnant. I am not. Why does it need to? The procedure of the pregnancy might be uninterrupted, so much so that it must be assisted with ART (assistive reproductive technology), but does that make it any less a pregnancy? Why?
Because that's the only way of making the concept make sense.

Consider the MEP you've mentioned: when would such a pregnancy end?
You wouldn't have an obvious change such as birth in this case, so you couldn't easily say when precisely the pregnancy ended.

Of course, if you use birth as the cutoff point, then that means that a woman can be half-pregnant: that's the case when half the baby has popped out. :p

eht slat meit
02-07-2012, 04:57 PM
Because that's the only way of making the concept make sense.

Consider the MEP you've mentioned: when would such a pregnancy end?

At such a point as the attendants feel the baby has sufficiently developed as to cut the cord. That's generally x-amount of time as with any pregnancy.

You wouldn't have an obvious change such as birth in this case, so you couldn't easily say when precisely the pregnancy ended.

Of course, if you use birth as the cutoff point, then that means that a woman can be half-pregnant: that's the case when half the baby has popped out. :p

That's what birth essentially is, as a matter of fact. A cut-off point as determined by the body. It's not always the best cut-off, as evidenced by premature and late births, and can function in ways as to shorten or threaten the life of the newborn. It's a biological process, and it operates within its own set of limitations.

Development -is- measurable, and when you know what to look for, you know when to end the process.

If that development were not measurable, then MEP would not be a viable technology, and this hypothetical situation would be a moot discussion.

Durvasha
02-07-2012, 05:08 PM
Not to sound like I'm trolling, but wasn't that straight out of Stephen King's "The Dark Half"?

I have not read "the Dark Half" and frankly, I am not going to. The Gunslinger :mad: slinged me a long way from King. And as I read that in a tabloid-sh magazine, I will not be too surprised if they lifted it out of a book and passed as a news item. I completely ignored it then. I recalled it now because Gonzo referenced it. btw, I read it long before I knew what internet(computer) was ( I used a computer for first time when I was 20, and it was for dos-based FORTRAN programming which turned the whole thing into torture. I did not found its recreational uses until I was 23).

bowlwoman
02-07-2012, 09:34 PM
And I took Bowlwoman's "correction" as a joke. You did not.

It was a joke.

Davian93
02-08-2012, 07:09 PM
Obligatory...

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-xxhi6JXQTTc/TzMcctmDHcI/AAAAAAAAAsk/JJ__C0EnE8w/s800/aborshun.gif

eht slat meit
02-08-2012, 07:25 PM
Obligatory...
snipped for unnecessary repitition

Most of that makes sense, though I find it interesting that some anonymous source nominated themselves the sole judge of what someone's reasoning for making an argument is.

That is the point, is it not? To keep people in line with what the "acceptable" thought process is, rather than tolerating self-motivated critical thinking?

GonzoTheGreat
02-09-2012, 03:31 AM
Most of that makes sense, though I find it interesting that some anonymous source nominated themselves the sole judge of what someone's reasoning for making an argument is.

That is the point, is it not? To keep people in line with what the "acceptable" thought process is, rather than tolerating self-motivated critical thinking?
But is that not also the core of the pro-choice argument: that the woman involved should be the one to reason out what her self-motivated solution to her problem is, rather than forcing her to keep in line with what others consider "acceptable" for her?

GonzoTheGreat
02-09-2012, 05:48 AM
An example of Santorum's sensitivity (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/08/1062930/-Rick-Santorum-s-campaign-sent-Hanukkah-greetings-with-New-Testament-message).

Terez
02-09-2012, 06:24 AM
An example of Santorum's sensitivity (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/08/1062930/-Rick-Santorum-s-campaign-sent-Hanukkah-greetings-with-New-Testament-message).No good Christian would pass up the opportunity to save Jews from eternity in hell.

eht slat meit
02-09-2012, 09:22 AM
But is that not also the core of the pro-choice argument: that the woman involved should be the one to reason out what her self-motivated solution to her problem is, rather than forcing her to keep in line with what others consider "acceptable" for her?

See, that's the point here. It's her choice, her right and her responsibility to choose what to do with her own body. The chart equates that choice with suffering and consequences, despite the fact that is blatant spin that completely contradicts the spirit of what pro-choice is.

The whole column is pinned to the notion that they don't actually have this right, and that we have to protect them. Condescending at best, ridiculous at worst.

But most likely just dishonest, because all it's -really- meant to do is control the debate, and keep people who believe that pro-choice is acceptable in line by insisting that only a certain narrative is acceptable in the debate.

So yes, she can choose to have an abortion, but it is not her choice nor right to make everyone else pay for it, nor to force others to violate their principles. That is exactly what at least one of those options on the chart is moving for, and it's not an argument that holds water after you realize that the reasoning behind it is a bullshit appeal to emotion in order to substantiate a power play.

Durvasha
02-09-2012, 12:32 PM
See, that's the point here. It's her choice, her right and her responsibility to choose what to do with her own body. The chart equates that choice with suffering and consequences, despite the fact that is blatant spin that completely contradicts the spirit of what pro-choice is.

The whole column is pinned to the notion that they don't actually have this right, and that we have to protect them. Condescending at best, ridiculous at worst.

But most likely just dishonest, because all it's -really- meant to do is control the debate, and keep people who believe that pro-choice is acceptable in line by insisting that only a certain narrative is acceptable in the debate.

So yes, she can choose to have an abortion, but it is not her choice nor right to make everyone else pay for it, nor to force others to violate their principles. That is exactly what at least one of those options on the chart is moving for, and it's not an argument that holds water after you realize that the reasoning behind it is a bullshit appeal to emotion in order to substantiate a power play.

First, did we read the same chart? I seem to have gathered something completely different from what you got.

Second, about violating principles, if a woman chooses to have abortion, whose principles are violated?

Third, about paying, I will just say that from saving life you have gone to saving money and principle. Normally, as debate proceeds, people fall back slowly to their core demands/needs. Is that what is happening here :p.

eht slat meit
02-09-2012, 03:30 PM
First, did we read the same chart? I seem to have gathered something completely different from what you got.

You might be looking at the elements of the chart separately, in terms only of surface value - that while these ideas (first column) are consistent with pro-choice values, they are also consistent
with wanting a woman to suffer the consequences of sex.

I'm looking deeper and seeing this for what I believe it truly is - enforced groupthink, utilizaing spin to paint any pro-choice advocates who don't fall in line into the same corner as pro-choicers who want to punish woman.

Because it's *spin*, and poorly performed spin at that, probably because the creator of that chart believes that true pro-choicers aren't likely to look beyond the surface.

I'm questioning motives here, and I don't know who created the chart... but what it comes down to is that I question it because of what it is trying to do. Debate control, at core, thought control.

Second, about violating principles, if a woman chooses to have abortion, whose principles are violated?

Nobody, so long as she's paying for it herself. The chart, however, suggests that women, or specifically poor women, should not have to pay for it themselves. Which is hooey. People aren't -entitled- to luxuries they can't afford, that's not consistent with reasonable or logical thinking.

Third, about paying, I will just say that from saving life you have gone to saving money and principle.

Abortion isn't about saving life, it's about choice. In extreme cases, where a woman's life is put at risk through the circumstances of childbirth, I have no objection to that. That's abortion being used as a life-saving procedure. I wouldn't even mind paying for it, because as I said... I think abortion as a means of birth control is a horrid practice, but the mother's life is still worth more than the fetus's and saving her life should be paramount under all circumstances.

Ishara
02-09-2012, 08:22 PM
Nobody, so long as she's paying for it herself. The chart, however, suggests that women, or specifically poor women, should not have to pay for it themselves. Which is hooey. People aren't -entitled- to luxuries they can't afford, that's not consistent with reasonable or logical thinking.



Um, this is just my crazy Canuckian sensibilities raising their ugly head, but healthcare is never a luxury. And also, why on earth would we consider an abortion a luxury that the public shouldn't pay for when a child that wasn't wanted will surely cost society moreso over the years?

Res_Ipsa
02-09-2012, 09:21 PM
Um, this is just my crazy Canuckian sensibilities raising their ugly head, but healthcare is never a luxury. And also, why on earth would we consider an abortion a luxury that the public shouldn't pay for when a child that wasn't wanted will surely cost society moreso over the years?

...

Durvasha
02-09-2012, 10:24 PM
The whole column is pinned to the notion that they don't actually have this right, and that we have to protect them. Condescending at best, ridiculous at worst.


How do what you say in the latter post, relate with this quote? And, don't we have this thread because of the fact that someone wants to take that right away? The column is more about why they want to take that right away, than about why they do not have that right. By the way, in my country women do not have that right. In many other countries too, it applies. So, it is not condescending. And many of the times, that right is taken away because of the similar logical arguments as the ones that you are giving here. So I found the table neither ridiculous nor condescending.

Again, have you ever tried to find out how many women use abortion as primary birth control measure? I too donot like that, but I do not support limiting other people's access to abortion just because some or even a lot of people misuse it. Before stopping it entirely, perhaps some way should be found to evaluate those cases where it is warranted.

by the way, in the last post, are you somehow replacing anti-choice with pro-choice in some of the cases? Some of what you say will make sense only if you are doing so. For example, I dont think that the first column is consistent with Pro-choice values at all except perhaps there are a few pro-choicers who do not want to pay for other people's abortion. (By the way, again, in some countries, women will pay for abortion without complaint if it was just made legal.)

A question: if mother's life is worth more than the fetus's, what exactly (in proportion of mother's life) is the fetus's life worth? I really want to find the answer to this question. After that, we can discuss the proportional worth of an infant's life vis. a vis. mother/father. Then we can try to quantify the worth of a two year baby. Or may be we should even try to quantify the fetus against the father?

Cor Shan
02-09-2012, 10:33 PM
...

Res, which costs more? Welfare for a child over 18 years, or an abortion?

Edit: not to mention the effect abortion has on crime.

Durvasha
02-09-2012, 11:01 PM
Res, which costs more? Welfare for a child over 18 years, or an abortion?

Edit: not to mention the effect abortion has on crime.

I have never seen a child over 18 year. :D

eht slat meit
02-09-2012, 11:11 PM
The column is more about why they want to take that right away, than about why they do not have that right.

It's about both. Not mutually exclusive.

By the way, in my country women do not have that right. In many other countries too, it applies.

That's fine. I'm talking about my country, not yours, though I see no reason why my country should be giving any other country money for abortions.

So, it is not condescending. And many of the times, that right is taken away because of the similar logical arguments as the ones that you are giving here.

If you acknowledge that the right of choice is the sole dominion of the woman than it IS condescending to suggest that she is being made to "suffer" the consequences of her actions. It's her choice, how is she suffering? Am I suffering because I don't have the option to choose to use a million dollar venue for my freedom of speech? Abortion is a luxury.

Before stopping it entirely, perhaps some way should be found to evaluate those cases where it is warranted.

Nowhere in this thread have I suggested stopping abortion in part, let alone entirely. I may not like it, but it's their -right-. Necessarily limited by law, but otherwise their right.

For example, I dont think that the first column is consistent with Pro-choice values at all except perhaps there are a few pro-choicers who do not want to pay for other people's abortion.

My point is that the chart attempts to draw the line between what is pro-choice, what is pro-abortion and what arguments are acceptable.

A question: if mother's life is worth more than the fetus's, what exactly (in proportion of mother's life) is the fetus's life worth?

It's a relative value, not something measured in something as heartless or cold as money. There is no way to assign real values to these.

Or perhaps there is, and the value of a child's life dramatically increases as it reaches the stage of childbirth, becoming equal in value to a mother's at the point of birth. At every stage prior to that, the mother's life should be given priority.

I don't see how the father fits in, since his opinion doesn't count, but feel free to enlighten me.

eht slat meit
02-09-2012, 11:14 PM
And also, why on earth would we consider an abortion a luxury that the public shouldn't pay for when a child that wasn't wanted will surely cost society moreso over the years?

First off, it's a luxury to someone who cannot afford it, just as that fancy Porsche over there sure as the dickens is a luxury on my budget. There are alternatives, and in my view (not a Canuckian), it can't be classified as "healthcare" when it's elective, unless it's to save the life of the mother.

Your dollar-based argument has no meaning to me. I don't base the value or lack of value of life on currency.

Cor Shan
02-10-2012, 01:04 AM
I have never seen a child over 18 year. :D

... stupid dangling modifiers.

GonzoTheGreat
02-10-2012, 04:27 AM
First off, it's a luxury to someone who cannot afford it, just as that fancy Porsche over there sure as the dickens is a luxury on my budget. There are alternatives, and in my view (not a Canuckian), it can't be classified as "healthcare" when it's elective, unless it's to save the life of the mother.
Using that same reasoning, getting help from the police when you've been robbed is also a luxury, unless you were killed during the robbery. After all, you do have the alternative of hunting down the robbers yourself and forcing them to give back the watch they stole, don't you?
So obviously, you and your fellow citizens shouldn't have to pay taxes to pay the salaries of police officers who are not actually on murder squads.

Are you sure you really want that minimalistic a government?

Res_Ipsa
02-10-2012, 07:16 AM
Res, which costs more? Welfare for a child over 18 years, or an abortion?

Edit: not to mention the effect abortion has on crime.

Oh, I am sure it is cheaper to have an abortion, but that is not the point (to me at least). A) You are assuming a child born in a low income home will remain such (isn't that the whole point of equal access to education) and B) Do we really want to be in the habit of treating a human life as a dollar figure? Not to mention that if you get into the "cost/benefit" to society argument, you begin to step into some dangerous areas of thinking. I have had this argument in the past, and I am not accusing anyone of anything, but I cannot agree with that line of thinking.

Ishara
02-10-2012, 07:28 AM
Oh, I am sure it is cheaper to have an abortion, but that is not the point (to me at least). A) You are assuming a child born in a low income home will remain such (isn't that the whole point of equal access to education) and B) Do we really want to be in the habit of treating a human life as a dollar figure? Not to mention that if you get into the "cost/benefit" to society argument, you begin to step into some dangerous areas of thinking. I have had this argument in the past, and I am not accusing anyone of anything, but I cannot agree with that line of thinking.

It certainly wasn't my intent to equate human life to a dollar sign, but I think that we need to re-examine the concept of equal access to education.

If you're born to a low inco,nme family, chances are that family lives in a low income neighbourhood and chances are the schools in that neighbourhood are not so great. It's a fact that people born in low incolme families are far more likely to stay in the cycle of poverty than they are to get out of it. But, that assumes that all possible abortions are a result of women in poverty, so I'm not convinced we should go down this road...

yks 6nnetu hing
02-10-2012, 07:48 AM
Oh, I am sure it is cheaper to have an abortion, but that is not the point (to me at least). A) You are assuming a child born in a low income home will remain such (isn't that the whole point of equal access to education) and B) Do we really want to be in the habit of treating a human life as a dollar figure? Not to mention that if you get into the "cost/benefit" to society argument, you begin to step into some dangerous areas of thinking. I have had this argument in the past, and I am not accusing anyone of anything, but I cannot agree with that line of thinking.

A) the (American) school system isn't equal opportunity, sadly. In theory, yes, in practice not at all.
B) Seeing as the original comment was made to oppose a comment (paraphrased) "Abortions are too expensive for the society to pay for" ... the truth is, not having legalized socially supported abortions is too expensive NOT to pay for. In the sense of both dollar-amount of raising a child as well as non-monetary social support, care, psychological aid etc such a child would need.

My best friend back in middle school regularly heard from her mom that she wasn't wanted - that fucks up a persons mind like you can't even imagine. Of course I'm happy that my friend exists, and she's happy too - but the fact remains, she's chronically depressed, has extremely low self-esteem and has had to flee the country to be as far away from her mother as humanly possible.

Res_Ipsa
02-10-2012, 09:41 AM
It certainly wasn't my intent to equate human life to a dollar sign, but I think that we need to re-examine the concept of equal access to education.

If you're born to a low inco,nme family, chances are that family lives in a low income neighbourhood and chances are the schools in that neighbourhood are not so great.

On average, low income neighborhood schools receive x5 the amount of funding than middle to higher income school districts. So it is obviously not amt the dollar spent but other conditions.

It's a fact that people born in low incolme families are far more likely to stay in the cycle of poverty than they are to get out of it. But, that assumes that all possible abortions are a result of women in poverty, so I'm not convinced we should go down this road...

Well there is a reason that you find Planned Parenthood's in those neighborhoods. Margaret Sanger did it deliberately for racial reasons.


A) the (American) school system isn't equal opportunity, sadly. In theory, yes, in practice not at all.

Have you been in an American school? I honestly do not know. You are right in effect but I do not think in practice. Taxes pay for all primary education. Lower income school districts receive more funds, and loans and grants (for secondary education) are given to lower income kids first. I actually had personal experience with.



My best friend back in middle school regularly heard from her mom that she wasn't wanted - that fucks up a persons mind like you can't even imagine. Of course I'm happy that my friend exists, and she's happy too - but the fact remains, she's chronically depressed, has extremely low self-esteem and has had to flee the country to be as far away from her mother as humanly possible.

Are you saying that your friend's experience is typical?

eht slat meit
02-10-2012, 10:28 AM
Using that same reasoning, getting help from the police when you've been robbed is also a luxury, unless you were killed during the robbery. After all, you do have the alternative of hunting down the robbers yourself and forcing them to give back the watch they stole, don't you?


If you're going to compare apples and oranges... or more aptly apples and gasoline, you need to realize that abortion and police are not similar levels of service.

Bodyguards, investigators and other security contractors are the next level of personal protection services and are... under the reasoning you're using, a far more accurate comparison to abortion. They provide more effective and skilled that is available elsewhere and at lower levels for a higher price.

Abortion and SC are not the minimum level of service in their respective areas. Both areas already provide much of the minimum level of service.

You can indulge in those costs, should you wish to enjoy that luxury, but it is a luxury, and not one that people should be expected to pay for someone who is by all accounts, responsible for themselves.

yks 6nnetu hing
02-10-2012, 10:50 AM
Have you been in an American school? I honestly do not know. You are right in effect but I do not think in practice. Taxes pay for all primary education. Lower income school districts receive more funds, and loans and grants (for secondary education) are given to lower income kids first. I actually had personal experience with.
no. I do however have first hand knowledge from a country that provides a large number of state-funded university spots every year. Has 99% literacy rate and ranks above US in most tests. I happen to know for a fact that even though all children have access to school and legal obligation to go to school either until the end of middle school or age 16, the quality of schools is not equal. I see no reason why this would be any more equal in US.


Are you saying that your friend's experience is typical? don't know about typical but I can't imagine it's extremely rare for unwanted children.

Crispin's Crispian
02-10-2012, 10:51 AM
On average, low income neighborhood schools receive x5 the amount of funding than middle to higher income school districts. So it is obviously not amt the dollar spent but other conditions.
Can you back that up with research and/or facts? And if so, can you show that the additional "funding" offsets the shortfalls from lack of tax revenue?


Have you been in an American school? I honestly do not know. You are right in effect but I do not think in practice. Taxes pay for all primary education. Lower income school districts receive more funds, and loans and grants (for secondary education) are given to lower income kids first. I actually had personal experience with.

With...? Anyway, I know a bit about American schools. In my experience, schools in lower income areas get less funding because there is lower tax revenue. Not sure where you grew up, but everywhere I've been and ever heard of, the "better" are in higher-income places.

Besides tax revenue, there is also parent participation. In higher income neighborhoods, my anecdotal evidence tells me parents have more time to participate and volunteer at the school. They also can afford to donate more to school fundraisers, which allow the school to make additional purchases of technology, supplies, etc.

Res_Ipsa
02-10-2012, 03:49 PM
Can you back that up with research and/or facts? And if so, can you show that the additional "funding" offsets the shortfalls from lack of tax revenue? additional purchases of technology, supplies, etc.

Yes I can back it up. I need to go into an old casebook and find it, so that may take a bit.

I remember Cato was one of the amicus briefs. This is not related to it, but here is one of their studies in Kansas City.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
Something to look at while I take a weekend to dig up the relevant case.


With...? Anyway, I know a bit about American schools. In my experience, schools in lower income areas get less funding because there is lower tax revenue. Not sure where you grew up, but everywhere I've been and ever heard of, the "better" are in higher-income places. additional purchases of technology, supplies, etc.

I grew up on Military posts and then went to private schools when my dad retired. As for "with" it should have said when I was applying in undergrad for grants and loans, I was unsuccessful because of my parents income. That was particularly frustrating bc they did not support me. As for graduate level, our law school sends out notices of jobs as well as scholarship opportunities and they are all for women and minorities. I kid you not. At a secondary level, grants and scholarships go to those making below a certain level (as they should) as a priority. Also, a single mother qualifies for a lot more assistance as well as grants on top of the federal programs already in place.

Besides tax revenue, there is also parent participation. In higher income neighborhoods, my anecdotal evidence tells me parents have more time to participate and volunteer at the school. They also can afford to donate more to school fundraisers, which allow the school to make additional purchases of technology, supplies, etc.

Well, I live in a donor part of the state, meaning my tax money goes to the poorer parts of the state, which in KY means most everywhere else.

Cor Shan
02-13-2012, 01:11 AM
What happens when you don't have available, safe abortions.

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/anatomy-of-an-unsafe-abortion/

Kinda gross, but that should have been obvious.

eht slat meit
02-13-2012, 11:12 AM
What happens when you don't have available, safe abortions.

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/anatomy-of-an-unsafe-abortion/

Kinda gross, but that should have been obvious.

I like how it ends by blaming the people that wouldn't pay for the operation rather than the malicious little piece of garbage that did that to her. Delightful lack of perspective, really.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-13-2012, 02:51 PM
I like how it ends by blaming the people that wouldn't pay for the operation rather than the malicious little piece of garbage that did that to her. Delightful lack of perspective, really.


How the hell did you get that out of it? (And no, I don't read comments -- so if that's where you're getting it... well... everyone has an opinion and they all stink.)

tworiverswoman
02-13-2012, 08:13 PM
How the hell did you get that out of it? (And no, I don't read comments -- so if that's where you're getting it... well... everyone has an opinion and they all stink.)I think he's referring to "You done good.” He said. And then he added, “Those bastards.” I knew he was referring not just to the physician who did this procedure, but to everyone in society who had contributed to a disadvantaged woman finding herself in such a desperate situation.Also, when I first read it I thought the woman had gone to a "back-alley abortionist" - then I read it again after reading one of the comments and realized that she went to a "real" doctor - but one who apparently offered discounted rates and who performed procedures he had no training in. Why someone couldn't bring charges against him I can't even guess.


Even so - the point the article is trying to make, very powerfully, is that abortions that cost more than a poor woman can afford can be just as damaging as prohibiting abortions altogether.


One of the commenters spoke rather crudely about how She knew when she opened her god damned legs how babies were made.OK people?And if she didnt why the hell is she having sex?? which just tells me he has no idea about how little power over their own lives some women have, especially if they are poor, immigrant, or from cultures heavily male-dominated.

eht slat meit
02-13-2012, 11:22 PM
How the hell did you get that out of it? (And no, I don't read comments -- so if that's where you're getting it... well... everyone has an opinion and they all stink.)

As TwoRivers stated, my statement was based on the article itself, not the comments. If someone sees fit to call me a bastard, I see fit to call them out on their bullshit. I'm not the PoS guilty of medical malpractice, and I don't have an obligation to pay for a procedure that I have nothing to do with, and no right (because it is the woman's right, obv) to a say on.

TWR:

More to the point, some relevant statistics:

In 2008, approx 260K abortions were performed, irrespective of social standing.
Approximate average cost of an abortion - $500
260K*500 = $130M



According to that Gallup poll, pro-choicers make up about 42% of the population. Assume that the "bastards" like me make up a very small amount of the pro-choice population, bringing it down to say %40. Knock off another %5 for error, just cuz I say so, and because a lower number favors people who will oppose my argument here.

Approximate population of the USA - 312M

312M*.35 = 109.2M

In short, get all of your pro-choice buddies to pool their money into a fund for poor women, shelling out $1.50 apiece each year.

Instead of demanding everyone else pay for it.

If you truly believe that everyone should have the cost of their abortion paid for, then pay for it. The argument is an illusion, and nothing more than an attempt by one side to control the other. It's about power, not about poor women.

And yes, I am blaming both sides equally here.

Isabel
02-14-2012, 12:06 AM
As TwoRivers stated, my statement was based on the article itself, not the comments. If someone sees fit to call me a bastard, I see fit to call them out on their bullshit. I'm not the PoS guilty of medical malpractice, and I don't have an obligation to pay for a procedure that I have nothing to do with, and no right (because it is the woman's right, obv) to a say on.

TWR:

More to the point, some relevant statistics:

In 2008, approx 260K abortions were performed, irrespective of social standing.
Approximate average cost of an abortion - $500
260K*500 = $130M



According to that Gallup poll, pro-choicers make up about 42% of the population. Assume that the "bastards" like me make up a very small amount of the pro-choice population, bringing it down to say %40. Knock off another %5 for error, just cuz I say so, and because a lower number favors people who will oppose my argument here.

Approximate population of the USA - 312M

312M*.35 = 109.2M

In short, get all of your pro-choice buddies to pool their money into a fund for poor women, shelling out $1.50 apiece each year.

Instead of demanding everyone else pay for it.

If you truly believe that everyone should have the cost of their abortion paid for, then pay for it. The argument is an illusion, and nothing more than an attempt by one side to control the other. It's about power, not about poor women.

And yes, I am blaming both sides equally here.

There is some flaw in your reasoning ;) You are assuming that people who are anti abortion and hugely religious don't commit abortion.
I think that is a flaw.

And besides as everyone else said it's quite normal that you pay for things you are against.

eht slat meit
02-14-2012, 12:22 AM
There is some flaw in your reasoning ;) You are assuming that people who are anti abortion and hugely religious don't commit abortion.
I think that is a flaw.

So the # of abortions increases, and chances are, so do the # of contributors, if anonymously. Because they know exactly how the bread is buttered, and on which side of the toast.

And besides as everyone else said it's quite normal that you pay for things you are against.

There's nothing "normal" or "right" about it unless the demand for that payment is justified. A control issue like this is not justified, it is a power-grab and nothing more.

Those who support it can certainly afford to pay for it, and demanding everyone else do so instead ... yeah, that's all about power and control. Not about the poor women.

GonzoTheGreat
02-14-2012, 04:20 AM
There's nothing "normal" or "right" about it unless the demand for that payment is justified. A control issue like this is not justified, it is a power-grab and nothing more.
That argument would seem a lot more believable if, say, paying for the War against Drugs were elective.

In that scheme, you would then have the following two options:
1. Pay the WaD taxes, and, if you use drugs, get prosecuted to the full extend of the law.
2. Do not pay the taxes, and those laws do not apply to you.

Do you think there's any chance whatsoever that such a scheme would be implemented?
If not, then why do you think it is anything more than a straw man when you propose something like that for a health care issue?

GonzoTheGreat
02-14-2012, 07:23 AM
This seems to fit in here. Someone is (somewhat obliquely, true) raising an important question:
How much would be acceptable (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201202120002)?
So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much.

Davian93
02-14-2012, 07:26 AM
I'm a Christian Scientist and dont feel any disease should be covered/funded by the gov't. Thus, get all the non-Christian Scientists together and have them pay for these treatments...it wont be too bad.



That's why your line of reasoning on abortion funding is BS.

yks 6nnetu hing
02-14-2012, 07:36 AM
I'm a Christian Scientist and dont feel any disease should be covered/funded by the gov't. Thus, get all the non-Christian Scientists together and have them pay for these treatments...it wont be too bad.



That's why your line of reasoning on abortion funding is BS.

um... pregnancy = disease?

how about polio - it is a contagious disease which is quite heavy not only to go through but has life-long consequences on the family as well as the child, however it's easily enough avoided by vaccination. now, THAT is a disease.

GonzoTheGreat
02-14-2012, 07:41 AM
um... pregnancy = disease?
The Y chromosome provides a very strong natural immunity. Useful, that.

how about polio - it is a contagious disease which is quite heavy not only to go through but has life-long consequences on the family as well as the child, however it's easily enough avoided by vaccination. now, THAT is a disease.
If God wants you to get that disease, then you should not try to prevent God from doing as He pleases, thus, you should not be vaccinated. And if God wants you not to get polio, then you won't get it, even if you aren't vaccinated. Thus, vaccination is to be avoided, so as to show your willingness to God's will. At least, that's the take of (many) Christian fundamentalists over here in the Netherlands.

Me, I think that if God were actually as magnificent as He is made out to be, then He could manage to infect someone even if that person had been vaccinated. Thus, vaccination would protect against random polio, but not against God's will. Of course, I'm not a Christian, so obviously I do not understand this matter.

yks 6nnetu hing
02-14-2012, 07:45 AM
If God wants you to get that disease, then you should not try to prevent God from doing as He pleases, thus, you should not be vaccinated. And if God wants you not to get polio, then you won't get it, even if you aren't vaccinated. Thus, vaccination is to be avoided, so as to show your willingness to God's will. At least, that's the take of (many) Christian fundamentalists over here in the Netherlands.

Me, I think that if God were actually as magnificent as He is made out to be, then He could manage to infect someone even if that person had been vaccinated. Thus, vaccination would protect against random polio, but not against God's will. Of course, I'm not a Christian, so obviously I do not understand this matter.

If God exists, he - in his infinite wisdom - has granted mankind the knowledge of vaccines, therefore vaccines are not to be shunned but rather to be used. If God wishes to Smite Thee, he'll do so in some other nasty way (such as autism), I'm sure.

Zombie Sammael
02-14-2012, 07:59 AM
If God exists, he - in his infinite wisdom - has granted mankind the knowledge of vaccines, therefore vaccines are not to be shunned but rather to be used. If God wishes to Smite Thee, he'll do so in some other nasty way (such as autism), I'm sure.

What if the vaccine has been developed using stem cell research*, or some other means of discovery God might have forbidden at one time or other?

*Hypothetically. I have no idea if stem cell research would be of any use in creating vaccines.

Ivhon
02-14-2012, 08:14 AM
I don't want to pay for US imperialism. So let's have all the people who support that pool their money and pay for it.

I don't want to pay Congressional salaries for people who vote against my interests at all times. So let's have the people who voted for them pay their salaries.

I don't want to pay tax credits for multi-billion/year companies. So let's have the people who believe in the supremacy of the corporation pay those tax credits.

I think the war on drugs is a total money-sink and therefore I should not have to pay for it. Let's have the anti-drug folks fund that.

Clearly I (almost certainly) will never get breast cancer, so why should I pay for that?

You don't get to line-item your tax contribution. Sorry. We all pay for stuff we don't support. God bless America.

yks 6nnetu hing
02-14-2012, 08:18 AM
What if the vaccine has been developed using stem cell research*, or some other means of discovery God might have forbidden at one time or other?

*Hypothetically. I have no idea if stem cell research would be of any use in creating vaccines.

where in the bible does it say that stem cell research is forbidden?

Zombie Sammael
02-14-2012, 08:31 AM
where in the bible does it say that stem cell research is forbidden?

I don't know. I know it doesn't say it in the Kick-Ass Bible Of Time-Travelling Jesus, which is the only Bible I ever use, but I assume it must say it in the King James version somewhere. Maybe between the bit about suffering a witch to live and the bit where Jesus goes to Mexico?