whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Sexuality, Reproduction, & Abortion => Topic started by: screwtape on May 15, 2014, 05:06:47 PM

Title: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 15, 2014, 05:06:47 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/08/emily-letts-abortion-video

A young woman vids her abortion.  She's not conflicted, not emotionally wracked and not disturbed.  Just relieved.  Which royally pisses off the forced birthers.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Nam on May 15, 2014, 05:12:32 PM
Yeah, I saw a minor clip of that on TV yesterday. I figured there'd be some noise about it. I wouldn't want to watch the whole vid, though. Not my cup of tea.

-Nam
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 15, 2014, 05:17:19 PM
The fact that she's not disturbed will be used as an argument that women who get abortions enjoy them. Which, to be fair, in this case and IMO, seems to be what's happening.[1] Doesn't mean the morons who want every single woman on Earth to give birth to their unwanted children ("forced birthers" is a good term for them; kudos, screwtape) are right about their bullshit, though.

Semi-off-topic: Abortions are fucking gross. Then again, so are most (all?) operations.
 1. I'm preparing for something I hope won't be necessary, but will most likely come once members read that sentence.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Nam on May 15, 2014, 05:26:30 PM
The comment section's boring. Too PC.

-Nam
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 16, 2014, 07:07:26 AM
The fact that she's not disturbed will be used as an argument that women who get abortions enjoy them. Which, to be fair, in this case and IMO, seems to be what's happening

I don't think that is the perspective they push, though.  I think the anti-abortion side - and practically everyone else, for that matter - pushes the idea that it is an emotionally traumatic experience, a decision frought with angst and turmoil, with life long psychological implications.  They try to make it sound as horrible as possible to discourage them.  This woman showed that is not necessarily the case, at least not for everyone. 

I have long said that abortion should not be dealt with as if it were a grave and tragic thing as a default.  Treat it like every other routing medical procedure.  If you broke a finger, you'd go to the doctor and have it fixed.  If you had an infection, you'd go to the doctor and have it treated.  If you have an unwanted pregnancy, you'd go to the doctor and have it terminated.  In each case there is relief that the procedure was available. 

The whole idea pushed by Clinton - make them rare but safe - was misguided.  It was an attempt to negotiate with people who do not negotiate and the end result was to give credence to a dumb belief - that abortions are something bad.

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 16, 2014, 07:16:24 AM
I don't think that is the perspective they push, though.  I think the anti-abortion side - and practically everyone else, for that matter - pushes the idea that it is an emotionally traumatic experience, a decision frought with angst and turmoil, with life long psychological implications.  They try to make it sound as horrible as possible to discourage them.  This woman showed that is not necessarily the case, at least not for everyone.
<snip>

It was my understanding that pregnant women were pumped full of hormones by their own brains, so that they love their child before it's even actually a child. To terminate something you love is a traumatic experience for anyone. Just talk to anyone who's played Portal and has a heart. And that's just a game. To have a life form you love growing inside you makes you more emotionally involved.
I say this not to discourage women from having abortions (although I am anti-abortion/pro-life[1]), but to point out that it is a traumatic experience for them, and that this woman having done what she did doesn't help to get rid of forced birthers. In fact, it reinforces their position.
 1. In the true sense of the words: I think abortions are bad and that life should be preserved. I am also pro-choice: I think women should be able to choose if they want an abortion or not. I also think you should stick to the term "forced birthers" when describing people such as the ones in your OP.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 16, 2014, 08:09:21 AM
It was my understanding that pregnant women were pumped full of hormones by their own brains,

I think that is a progressive process that accumulates over time.  In the earliers stages, those feelings are less acute.

 
that this woman having done what she did doesn't help to get rid of forced birthers.

I don't think that was the goal.  I think her point was to show that abortion - for those who want it or need it - is not necessarily a horrible, scarry experience that leaves women emotionally devestated.  For most women who have them, it is a "godsend".

In fact, it reinforces their position.

I don't see how.  I've never seen the other side say "women enjoy abortions".  I've only ever seen them stress the negative. 
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 16, 2014, 08:13:16 AM
I think that is a progressive process that accumulates over time.  In the earliers stages, those feelings are less acute.

Makes sense.

I don't think that was the goal.  I think her point was to show that abortion - for those who want it or need it - is not necessarily a horrible, scarry experience that leaves women emotionally devestated.  For most women who have them, it is a "godsend".

Maybe, but I doubt it will accomplish that goal.

I don't see how.  I've never seen the other side say "women enjoy abortions".  I've only ever seen them stress the negative. 

I recall links on this forum where forced birthers said that women wanted to have multiple abortions for kicks (paraphrasing).
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 16, 2014, 10:50:41 AM
I recall links on this forum where forced birthers said that women wanted to have multiple abortions for kicks (paraphrasing).

I've seen where they castigate women for using it as birth control.  But I do not remember seeing a case as you describe.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: blue on May 16, 2014, 11:11:09 AM
I recall links on this forum where forced birthers said that women wanted to have multiple abortions for kicks (paraphrasing).

I've seen where they castigate women for using it as birth control.  But I do not remember seeing a case as you describe.

I know this is anecdotal evidence, but in my high school years I went to a Christian school[1] school and when we protested or had chapel it was said that some women were so twisted they had abortions for kicks. Not super common, but I have heard sentiments like that expressed. Much less now then back in the 80's and 90's, but on the other hand I left that culture 16 or so years ago. But even then it was from the same people who believed in satanic ritual abuse so they were already primed to believe fantastical things.
 1. http://www.aurorachristian.org/
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 16, 2014, 11:13:16 AM
okay. there is a datapoint.  I stand corrected.  Do you, blue, think that this story makes the case for idea?  Do you think she had the abortion for kicks?  Or did she have it for a good reason and felt good about it?
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: blue on May 16, 2014, 11:48:43 AM
I don't think she had the abortion for kicks at all, I doubt anyone does. I am in total agreement with your point earlier up thread

I have long said that abortion should not be dealt with as if it were a grave and tragic thing as a default.  Treat it like every other routing medical procedure.  If you broke a finger, you'd go to the doctor and have it fixed.  If you had an infection, you'd go to the doctor and have it treated.  If you have an unwanted pregnancy, you'd go to the doctor and have it terminated.  In each case there is relief that the procedure was available. 

I admire what she did, because it is a great thing. I do see that she is going to be vilified and the forced birthers are going to lose their shit. She's going to achieve boogeyman status. What she did will fill in some of their narratives and will feed an awful narrative, but honestly that'll drive people away faster I think in the medium to long run.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 16, 2014, 12:25:41 PM
I read some of the comments after the clip.  I though one in particular was kinda interesting.

This person said that she should not make it look so easy and be so happy about it.  because 1 in 4 wanted pregnancies end in miscarriage.  This person thought it was callus of her to post it unless she was regretful and upset.


That got me thinking about the real world.  I think that this person is right.  as such there are people who have diseases which affect mobility so we should not allow competitive sports because there are people who could never compete because of the lot in life they have been given.  We should also ban all valedictorian speeches because not all people are as smart as the valeditorian and it might make them feel hurt because their abilities are less than the high achiever.

Just because some people can not have children and want them does not mean that I should have to be sad at my ability to shoot out 4 kids? :)
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 16, 2014, 02:39:00 PM
^ heh.  I almost missed the sarcasm.

Someone had pointed out how awful it was because there are people who want kids and cannot have them but this woman "threw away a perfectly good baby".  Yeah, sorry, no.  Other people's inability to conceive/ have kids do not obligate me to do anything.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 16, 2014, 02:41:39 PM
^ heh.  I almost missed the sarcasm.

Someone had pointed out how awful it was because there are people who want kids and cannot have them but this woman "threw away a perfectly good baby".  Yeah, sorry, no.  Other people's inability to conceive/ have kids do not obligate me to do anything.

Not to mention that it wasn't a baby. It was a fetus.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 19, 2014, 08:25:57 AM
Not to mention that it wasn't a baby. It was a fetus.


A fetus is a baby but for time, desire and luck, they are the same thing.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 19, 2014, 01:49:43 PM
Not to mention that it wasn't a baby. It was a fetus.


A fetus is a baby but for time, desire and luck, they are the same thing.

So, by your logic, when I accidentally swallow a seed, I'm actually swallowing a tree!
Or, put it in another way, you're saying that I should complain that the lottery first prizes when I entered (twice, IIRC) weren't deposited in my bank account. After all, if it wasn't for all the differences, the numbers would be the exact same ones.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 19, 2014, 02:41:13 PM
Not to mention that it wasn't a baby. It was a fetus.


A fetus is a baby but for time, desire and luck, they are the same thing.

So, by your logic, when I accidentally swallow a seed, I'm actually swallowing a tree!
Or, put it in another way, you're saying that I should complain that the lottery first prizes when I entered (twice, IIRC) weren't deposited in my bank account. After all, if it wasn't for all the differences, the numbers would be the exact same ones.

well I know of at least one guy who was growing a pine tree in his lungs.

I have gone through this with my thumper friends.  I do find it difficult differentiate between say 6 month old fetus and a baby except for it's residence.  It has a 50/50 chance of survival outside of the mom.  Yet it is still called a fetus.  Physically, Chemically, organ system wise, it is a baby.  If they carve it out of mom with heroic efforts they can keep 1 out of 2 alive and they will develop normally.  So why would you not call that a baby?  but for the residence it is a baby after 6 months.  Now a Blastocyst has the same DNA as a finished human other than interruptions biologically it is not dog, cat or bird.  It is a little developing human being.  Personally I say 1st trimester, it does not have a brain and therefore can not be hurt so have at it suck it out and it will be as if it was never there.  It will sense no loss, has no fear. 

But finding the dividing line between protected human and fetus I think is a little fuzzy at times.  For me when the brain has all major regions i think that survival of the mother becomes the only reason for abortion.  Prior to that break out the hoover.

At what point do you think a fetus is a human worthy of protection?   Is it viability, conception, or is the vagina the dividing line?  Why?   Why not during the first month post partum?  The baby still does not really have a sense of self and it is still not fully developed.  So why do you choose your dividing line?

I am pro-abortion but I can not answer my friend so I put it to you? 


As for my comment, I do consider it what ever the parents do from the first moments after conception. 
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 19, 2014, 03:58:09 PM
well I know of at least one guy who was growing a pine tree in his lungs.

I call bullshit. Plants can't grow without sunlight.

I have gone through this with my thumper friends.  I do find it difficult differentiate between say 6 month old fetus and a baby except for it's residence.  It has a 50/50 chance of survival outside of the mom.  Yet it is still called a fetus.  Physically, Chemically, organ system wise, it is a baby.  If they carve it out of mom with heroic efforts they can keep 1 out of 2 alive and they will develop normally.  So why would you not call that a baby?  but for the residence it is a baby after 6 months.

I'm not seeing a counter to my lottery ticket argument. You're ignoring the differences in order to assume they're the same.
Also, if you think a 50% chance of survival is enough, you're wrong, plain and simple. At 34 weeks (not even 8 months), the viability of a fetus is >98% (according to Wikipedia). That's 1 out of every 50 that die, without help from medical care (other than for the birth itself, I think).

At what point do you think a fetus is a human worthy of protection?   Is it viability, conception, or is the vagina the dividing line?  Why?   Why not during the first month post partum?  The baby still does not really have a sense of self and it is still not fully developed.  So why do you choose your dividing line?

A fetus is never a human. That's why it's a fetus. Which is not to say that it's not worthy of protection.

As for my comment, I do consider it what ever the parents do from the first moments after conception. 

So your actual opinion is irrelevant. You leave it up to the parents to decide.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: magicmiles on May 19, 2014, 04:43:12 PM

Someone had pointed out how awful it was because there are people who want kids and cannot have them but this woman "threw away a perfectly good baby".  Yeah, sorry, no.  Other people's inability to conceive/ have kids do not obligate me to do anything.

Well, it wouldn't obligate you to go out specifically and have a baby. But if you're having one anyway....

even then, you are correct in that you aren't obligated to have the baby and make it available for adoption. But imagine if we always operated on the principle of "I'm not obligated". Imagine the joy you can bring, giving life.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 20, 2014, 08:56:33 AM
Imagine the joy you can bring, giving life.

Imagine the torment you can create by bringing a baby into a family of five just scraping by, having a healthy baby.  Now imagine if that baby were sick.

Imagine the suffering you can create if you are not equipped to raise a child or if you harbor some annimosity to the baby because you were forced to bring it into the world.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Jag on May 20, 2014, 09:11:05 AM
Imagine all the children that age out of the foster care system every year, having missed the window of opportunity to be adopted as an infant. Imagine all the judgments and criticism one faces by being obviously pregnant and not returning from the hospital with a baby. Imagine all the guilt that gets piled onto an unwillingly pregnant girl who does not believe she is prepared to be a mother, followed by all the condemnation she gets for "giving her baby away to be raised by strangers".

Imagine the real world, the one we actually live in - not the fantasy world where all problems have easy solutions -  before making short-sighted flippant suggestions that address the symptoms instead of the problems.

If the problems we face (society at large) were easy to solve, we would have already solved them. If all you have to offer are simplistic solutions to complex problems, try thinking a little harder.

edit: grammar
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 20, 2014, 10:55:10 AM
A fetus is a baby but for time, desire and luck, they are the same thing.

Yeah, and an egg is a chicken.  And dinner is poo. 
Your argument is moot.


But finding the dividing line between protected human and fetus I think is a little fuzzy at times. 

It is.  So it goes will all gradual processes.  When is an evolving species a different species?  Which individual was the first human?  What is the exact second the milk goes bad?  It is not a bright red line.  So we draw one at birth, because it is simple. 

And anyway, just whose uterus is it?  That is the central question to me.  Who has the rights to the uterus?  You can say a fetus is a person all you want.  You can guarantee the fetus is the next Einstein or jesus.  But what it comes down to is who owns the uterus.

At what point do you think a fetus is a human worthy of protection?

The human brain does not finish developing until the early 20s.  Frankly, you could make a strong argument that there should be no penalty to killing teens.



But if you're having one anyway....

go ahead, finish the thought.  If you're having one anyway... what? 

As a father, you ought to know that having a kid knocks the hell out of a woman.  And it is potentially lethal.  So I don't see why anyone should be guilted into carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.  Especially when there are tons of kids who could be adopted but are not.

But imagine if we always operated on the principle of "I'm not obligated".

That's pointless statement, Miles.  No one said there are no obligations in the world.  There is nothing wrong with doing things for other people's joy, but I think an individual's life and body are a higher priority.


edit - fixed quote
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 20, 2014, 11:21:57 AM
It is.  So it goes will all gradual processes.  When is an evolving species a different species?  Which individual was the first human?  What is the exact second the milk goes bad?  It is not a bright red line.  So we draw one at birth, because it is simple. 

And anyway, just whose uterus is it?  That is the central question to me.  Who has the rights to the uterus?  You can say a fetus is a person all you want.  You can guarantee the fetus is the next Einstein or jesus.  But what it comes down to is who owns the uterus.

If someone trapped in your house (I don't know because a floor collapsed as they were visiting) you have decided you want them to leave but they can't can you kill them?

Once you have allowed this fetus to become viable, you can not simply kill it IMO.  Since that point is a little gray lets call it the third trimester.  I think all efforts at that point need to be made to get the person out safely.  I think the fetus has rights once it has a brain and nervous system connected to that brain.  You can evict the person as long as it safe to do so.  But I think your right to kill it are off the table somewhere around viability.  Just as you can't just shoot the person trapped in your house.  The only exception is if that person is somehow threatening your life.  So there is a grey time in my mind where you do lose some of your rights.  Somewhere between the Beginning of the third trimester and relatively safe c-section.  From my perspective Kill it all you want up until it has all the systems up and operational.  Essentially I define a human as a sentient being, if it has a brain capable of thought then I believe you have missed the abortion boat. 

 

The human brain does not finish developing until the early 20s.  Frankly, you could make a strong argument that there should be no penalty to killing teens.


Do you seriously believe that?  I most certainly do not.  post vagina you are a fully vested human with all the rights IMO.  I get a little fuzzy from mid third trimester to vagina barrier.


As a father, you ought to know that having a kid knocks the hell out of a woman.  And it is potentially lethal.  So I don't see why anyone should be guilted into carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.  Especially when there are tons of kids who could be adopted but are not.
 

I agree to a point but I do not think it is too much to ask for you to decide to kill it before it is a feeling, thinking being, within in a 6 month time frame.  I also would never demand she put her life in danger.  If there is a medical risk associated with continuing the pregnancy to a reasonable level for delivery then the baby's gotta go.  But if it is 9 months in I don't think you just choose to break it into little chunks you probably should have to try and get it out alive as long as that proceedure does not increase sigificantly mortality risk to the mother. 


Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Mrjason on May 20, 2014, 11:45:44 AM

I do find it difficult differentiate between say 6 month old fetus and a baby except for it's residence.


This is a big difference

It has a 50/50 chance of survival outside of the mom. 

Normal babies have a 1/1 chance of survival outside of the mom. Unless of course you take the perspective that but for time, desire and luck, they are already a corpse.  ;)
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 20, 2014, 11:49:44 AM
Normal babies have a 1/1 chance of survival outside of the mom. Unless of course you take the perspective that but for time, desire and luck, they are already a corpse.  ;)

Aww. I wanted to make that argument. :(
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 20, 2014, 12:29:49 PM

I do find it difficult differentiate between say 6 month old fetus and a baby except for it's residence.


This is a big difference

It has a 50/50 chance of survival outside of the mom. 

Normal babies have a 1/1 chance of survival outside of the mom. Unless of course you take the perspective that but for time, desire and luck, they are already a corpse.  ;)

I think where I do really start falling off the fence when I try to decide a punishment for someone who has a late term abortion for the heluvit.  Would I put them in jail for murder?  No!

would I fine them? Maybe but probably not.

I am not really strong in my beliefs but I absolutely would never consider helping a mom kill her 1 hour old infant by ripping off limbs and crushing it's skull.  I can't imagine doing the same 1 hour before delivery.

Killing something that cannot survive on it's own prior to having a brain, I will help doc with the hoover and we can suck that little sucka out .  But after viability I think it is dang close to murder.  Little different than killing the guy in the floor collapse so we can move forward with the renovations.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 20, 2014, 12:37:49 PM
Killing something that cannot survive on it's own prior to having a brain, I will help doc with the hoover and we can suck that little sucka out .  But after viability I think it is dang close to murder.  Little different than killing the guy in the floor collapse so we can move forward with the renovations.

Still ignoring that:
A: 9 month-old fetuses have a ~100% survival rate (much higher than when their brains just recently formed).
B: You might as well consider them dead right away, as per your "time" "logic".
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Jag on May 20, 2014, 02:52:41 PM
But after viability I think it is dang close to murder.  Little different than killing the guy in the floor collapse so we can move forward with the renovations.

There's no state in the US that permits abortion without exception (ie: rape, or life of the mother is at stake) past 24 weeks - which happens to coincide with a 50/50 chance at survival outside the womb.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 20, 2014, 02:59:48 PM

If someone trapped in your house (I don't know because a floor collapsed as they were visiting) you have decided you want them to leave but they can't can you kill them?

What?  I do not understand your sentence. Please clarify.  Or don't, because it sounds like it is going to be a horrible analogy.  Like, the house is a uterus and your adult guests who would be happy to leave just cannot are a fetus.  Try a different one, because I cannot fart loud enough to describe what I think of this one.

Once you have allowed this fetus to become viable, you can not simply kill it IMO.

You are confusing "can" with "ought". 

Essentially I define a human as a sentient being, if it has a brain capable of thought then I believe you have missed the abortion boat. 

Any sentient being?  Like, dogs?  Cats?  Whales & dolphins?  If sentience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience#Philosophy_and_sentience) is where you draw the line, they you must be some kind of vegan, yes?  Because it is believed that animals also have varying degrees of sentience.  Or did you not mean sentience?  Did you mean something else? 

Also, how do you know when they become sentient (or whatever you mean)?  Just because the hardware is there does not mean it is being used.

What if they are not fully sentient until the "terrible twos"?  Would it be okay to kill them then?
 
Do you seriously believe that?  I most certainly do not.

Which?  That the brain is not fully developed until early 20s or that it should be open season on teens?

post vagina you are a fully vested human with all the rights IMO.

1. we've not defined what a "fully vested human" is, so I don't know what you mean.
2. rights are a leagal concept quite apart from fetal development.
3. I don't care about your opinion.  In fact, I'm sick of it.  I can find an unsupported opinion anywhere.  I don't even need to ask for them.  They are as common as air.  I care about positions that are supportable through facts and reason. Try doing that.  It would be novel.

 
I agree to a point but I do not think it is too much to ask for you to decide to kill it before it is a feeling, thinking being, within in a 6 month time frame.

It is debatable just how much thinking an infant does.  And it is not a binary option.  Different portions of the brain appear to develop at different times. So the question would be, how much or what kinds of brain activities constitutes a person?[1]

And dogs think.  So, what level of thinking is required to consider something a "person"?

I also would never demand she put her life in danger.

Sure you would.  By saying at some point a woman is obligated to carry a pregnancy to term, you are saying she must take a risk of dying in childbirth.[2]  It is a low risk, but it happens all the same.  The mortality rate for women having an abortion is much lower.

So, what about her health?  Would you demand she put her health at risk?  I'd guess yes, since you are willing they risk their lives...



A: 9 month-old fetuses have a ~100% survival rate

They don't.
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20110523/study-gives-new-view-of-full-term-pregnancy
http://www.marchofdimes.com/loss/neonatal-death.aspx
 1.  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/)
(not science, exactly, but still...) http://babyworld.co.uk/2011/10/how-your-babys-brain-develops/ (http://(not science, exactly, but still...) http://babyworld.co.uk/2011/10/how-your-babys-brain-develops/)
"When a baby is born, its brain is about one quarter developed"
 2. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/03/why-are-american-women-dying-childbirth-201438161633539780.html (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/03/why-are-american-women-dying-childbirth-201438161633539780.html)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maternal-deaths-in-childbirth-rise-in-the-us/2014/05/02/abf7df96-d229-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maternal-deaths-in-childbirth-rise-in-the-us/2014/05/02/abf7df96-d229-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html)
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 20, 2014, 03:20:45 PM
A: 9 month-old fetuses have a ~100% survival rate

They don't.
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20110523/study-gives-new-view-of-full-term-pregnancy
http://www.marchofdimes.com/loss/neonatal-death.aspx

3.9/1000=0.39%
100% - 0.39% = 99.61%
Given that I used a tilde to indicate "approximately", I think that was a fair approximation.
(I used the data from the first link)
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Jag on May 20, 2014, 03:36:06 PM
Tilde marks can be misunderstood, depending on which "logic language" (unsure how to say that correctly) you follow. In the logic process I was taught, a tilde represents "not" or "it's not the case that...", but I know that's not the meaning intended or used in all methods. So I actually interpreted your post to say "it is not 100%", which isn't quite the same as "it is approximately 100%".

Not looking to argue over this, just making an observation.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 20, 2014, 03:37:55 PM
Tilde marks can be misunderstood, depending on which "logic language" (unsure how to say that correctly) you follow. In the logic process I was taught, a tilde represents "not" or "it's not the case that...", but I know that's not the meaning intended or used in all methods. So I actually interpreted your post to say "it is not 100%", which isn't quite the same as "it is approximately 100%".

Not looking to argue over this, just making an observation.

True. It is this way in MATLAB. I had forgotten about that. I'm just used to it meaning "approximately".
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: magicmiles on May 20, 2014, 11:23:07 PM
Especially when there are tons of kids who could be adopted but are not.


Could you provide links to establish that claim? I'm not challenging it necessarily, but it does run counter to what I have assumed to be the case.

I'd google it, but, you know, lazy Australian.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 20, 2014, 11:40:35 PM
prolly in here somewhere:
https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/statistics/adoption.cfm

Ithaca College is a fairly respectable school, in the same town as Cornell University.
http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/230/adoption.htm
professor Duncan's credentials
http://faculty.ithaca.edu/cduncan/
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: magicmiles on May 20, 2014, 11:48:36 PM
The link for "Children in Public Foster Care Waiting to be adopted" is broken. Ah well. It's not topic I have a huge desire to discuss at the moment.

Edit to add: I did read Prof Duncan's piece. It was intelligent and well written. It does seem to point to the likelihood that if abortion was made illegal the supply of babies would out-strip demand. I will say, though, that having been at the birth of both my kids, I would be surprised if the number of mothers/parents deciding to keep their baby after all wasn't more like 50% rather than the 33% tentatively suggested. But that's just my guess.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 21, 2014, 08:03:10 AM
But after viability I think it is dang close to murder.  Little different than killing the guy in the floor collapse so we can move forward with the renovations.

There's no state in the US that permits abortion without exception (ie: rape, or life of the mother is at stake) past 24 weeks - which happens to coincide with a 50/50 chance at survival outside the womb.

I happen to agree with this policy.  Although the rape one I find a little unusual.  I see no problem demanding the rape victim make up their mind in the first 24 weeks.  Unless they were held captive and the choice was denied them.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 21, 2014, 08:04:59 AM
I happen to agree with this policy.  Although the rape one I find a little unusual.  I see no problem demanding the rape victim make up their mind in the first 24 weeks.  Unless they were held captive and the choice was denied them.

Or, maybe, you know... They were traumatized beyond rational thought for months? Ever heard of soldiers? PTSD? That shit doesn't go away easily. Doesn't go away at all, actually. Just decreases with time. Sometimes not even that.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 21, 2014, 08:26:00 AM
...if abortion was made illegal...

a small but important distinction - "if women did not have abortions and still had the same fertility rate". 

We know what would happen if abortion was made illegal.  Rich women would travel to places where abortion was legal to have them safely done.  Poor women would resort to desperate measures and subject themselves to great risk.  That's what it was like in the US before 1973.   Women died. 

And also remember, Miles, that many of the people who want to make abortion illegal are the same ones who want to keep comprehensive sex education out of schools and have no interest whatsoever in promoting good birth control, or women's and children's services.  Though they do not admit it, what they are doing is trying to enforce their version of karma.  That is, they want "promiscuous women" to get what they think they deserve.  It is all very punative.

Old post from a xian member (and a real piece of sht) who's not been around in a while:
Abortion is an excuse for women to not have to face the music of the mistake they made when they had unprotected sex.

Of course. And it's about your reckless and wanton lasciviousness and disregard for the consequences therein too, I suppose?  ::)
Of course it's about punishing someone for their mistakes. That's what justice is all about. You of all people should know the value of failure.
If sluts are "mentally" fit to make a decision regarding sexuality they are mentally fit to bare a child and should, by law, be forced to.
...
Adoption takes up little resources. It is perfectly viable. There's no reason an innocent life should suffer because the mother is a whore.
I can't make it simpler.

Check off which category I'm referring to in this thread:

A) Whores/sluts who have abortions because they can't keep their legs closed.

B) Regular women in general.

here he shows how much he respects women:
I mean, in Canada we have NO abortion laws. We have what's called "partial-birth" abortion, which basically means the stupid cunt can't make up her mind in time and is essentially "having" the baby when she decides to abort it half way through labor.

Kinda makes you want to go to canada and punch him in the face, no?

I would be surprised if the number of mothers/parents deciding to keep their baby after all wasn't more like 50% rather than the 33% tentatively suggested. But that's just my guess.

that's possible.  But is that what we want?  There is a saying which I did not understand until quite late in life - revenge is a dish best served cold.  I remember Khan saying it in Star Trek 2.  I did not get the point of the saying - that you should wait until you have cooled off to think about revenge because you will be thinking more rationally and will be less likely to do something stupid, like want revenge. 

This is true of all good decision making.  You do not want to do it (if you can avoid it) in the heat of the moment when emotionally or hormonally charged.  So if a woman has excellent reasons for not wanting a baby


edit: blah! I don't know what happened to the rest of my post.


... So if a woman has excellent reasons for not wanting a baby... then she has an excellent reason that probably ought not be usurped by emotions and hormones in the heat of the moment.  Those make a terrible basis for good decision making.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Jag on May 21, 2014, 09:09:59 AM
Let's follow the ideas that miles is putting forward.

How are we going to ensure that pregnant women (who would have a legal abortion if the option is on the table) are taking the proper care of themselves to have a healthy baby? Is she eating right? Getting enough sleep and exercise? Is she avoiding alcohol and cigarette smoke?  Is she doing all the little things that doctor's recommend for the best outcomes? Chain the knocked-up slut to the bed, duh, because if we care so much about the baby being born, we damn well better be doing whatever we can to ensure that it's healthy as well, right?

Or we can run with the idea that post-delivery, she might change her mind in the midst of the hormonal flood that accompanies childbirth and the weeks and months that follow. That's the basis of good decision making for the rest of your life, isn't it? By all means, in a state of heightened emotions with her brain chemistry all kinds of f'ed up, make the emotional decision to be a parent regardless of her previously recognized lack of capacity to do it well.

Great ideas, really. Keep 'em coming, simplistic, short-sighted "solutions" are the theist stock in trade.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 21, 2014, 09:27:01 AM

If someone trapped in your house (I don't know because a floor collapsed as they were visiting) you have decided you want them to leave but they can't can you kill them?







What?  I do not understand your sentence. Please clarify.  Or don't, because it sounds like it is going to be a horrible analogy.  Like, the house is a uterus and your adult guests who would be happy to leave just cannot are a fetus.  Try a different one, because I cannot fart loud enough to describe what I think of this one.
I think you are the example of the smartest guy in the room I think you are capable of working on it even as flawed as it is.  Can you kill someone if their life causes you inconvenience and their survival is predicated on your inconvenience?


Once you have allowed this fetus to become viable, you can not simply kill it IMO.

You are confusing "can" with "ought".
You are right.  Can is not synonymous with ought.  I can do just about anything I want from mass murder to rape, however I ought not.   If you want to mince words.  90% of the use of the word can’t on this site should be immediately replaced with ought.  Again I think in all of your brilliance you can deal with the fact that people use cant in place of ought frequently.

Essentially I define a human as a sentient being, if it has a brain capable of thought then I believe you have missed the abortion boat. 

Any sentient being?  Like, dogs?  Cats?  Whales & dolphins?  If sentience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience#Philosophy_and_sentience) is where you draw the line, they you must be some kind of vegan, yes?  Because it is believed that animals also have varying degrees of sentience.  Or did you not mean sentience?  Did you mean something else? 

Also, how do you know when they become sentient (or whatever you mean)?  Just because the hardware is there does not mean it is being used. What if they are not fully sentient until the "terrible twos"?  Would it be okay to kill them then?

I am sorry but I consider a human a human when brain is hooked to nervous system, when the fetus has a 50/50 chance of survival. 




 
Do you seriously believe that?  I most certainly do not.

Which?  That the brain is not fully developed until early 20s or that it should be open season on teens?

Are you really this dense.  You seem to have no moral boundaries.  Do you believe that an argument could be made to kill people post vagina to early 20’s?  If so can you please detail the argument?


post vagina you are a fully vested human with all the rights IMO.

1. we've not defined what a "fully vested human" is, so I don't know what you mean.
2. rights are a leagal concept quite apart from fetal development.
3. I don't care about your opinion.  In fact, I'm sick of it.  I can find an unsupported opinion anywhere.  I don't even need to ask for them.  They are as common as air.  I care about positions that are supportable through facts and reason. Try doing that.  It would be novel.

Ok we have established you don’t like my opinion and since we are being personal here.  I find you to be rude and belligerent. 



 
I agree to a point but I do not think it is too much to ask for you to decide to kill it before it is a feeling, thinking being, within in a 6 month time frame.

It is debatable just how much thinking an infant does.  And it is not a binary option.  Different portions of the brain appear to develop at different times. So the question would be, how much or what kinds of brain activities constitutes a person?[1]

And dogs think.  So, what level of thinking is required to consider something a "person"?

I also would never demand she put her life in danger.

I don’t know.  I would think that some balance between the safety of abortion might be achieved by doing a c-section a week or 3 early and the life of the child who is able to survive outside the mother??? 

BTW thankfully 50 of 50 states agree with me on the subject of third trimester abortion. If mom waits more than 26 weeks then her rights are restricted due to her unreasonable,  Life of the mother being the only reason for later term abortion.

I don’t believe the life of the mother should be unduly put at risk.  But if she waits 26 weeks then she probably is stuck with the results of her procrastination.
 1.  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/)
(not science, exactly, but still...) http://babyworld.co.uk/2011/10/how-your-babys-brain-develops/ (http://(not science, exactly, but still...) http://babyworld.co.uk/2011/10/how-your-babys-brain-develops/)
"When a baby is born, its brain is about one quarter developed"
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 21, 2014, 10:52:50 AM
Can you kill someone if their life causes you inconvenience and their survival is predicated on your inconvenience?

It depends on the situation.  Me and a guy in a lifeboat are adrift in the ocean.  There is not a lot of water.  I beat him to death with an oar, eat the meaty parts, and feed the rest to the sharks.  Maybe make a parasol out of his skin to protect me from the sun.  Yes, I may do that and it is legally supported. 


Again I think in all of your brilliance you can deal with the fact that people use cant in place of ought frequently.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

I am sorry but I consider a human a human when brain is hooked to nervous system, when the fetus has a 50/50 chance of survival. 

So, now you are changing your criteria?  Revision is a fine and admirable in light of new, better data.  But I just want to be clear that is what you are doing.  Sentience is out and hardware is in?  Is that what you are saying?  And it does not matter how functional the brain or nervous system are?

What qualifies as a brain?   As I pointed out, at birth a baby's brain is only 1/4 developed.  So what qualifies as a brain?  10% of adult median?  5%?  Any ol' lump of neural cells?

Are you really this dense.

No, you were sufficiently vague in the phrasing of your question that I had no idea what you were asking. It was a genuine question.

You seem to have no moral boundaries. 

I have lots of moral boundaries.

Do you believe that an argument could be made to kill people post vagina to early 20’s?  If so can you please detail the argument?

Sure, I believe an argument can be made.  That does not me I find it to be a acceptable or persuasive argument.  I am not going to post it here because it would be off topic. 

You seem to be missing the points being brought up against your positions or, rather than address them, attempt to counter less important topics.

Ok we have established you don’t like my opinion and since we are being personal here.  I find you to be rude and belligerent. 

No, that's not it.  Not at all.  You've missed the point (again).  My point is not that your opinion is stupid.  My point is your opinion is all you have posted.  "I think blah blah blah" is boring, common and rather self centered.  Your posts end up looking like "I, I, I. Me, me, me".  On the other hand, "I think blah blah blah because of XYZ..." is what I am looking for.  It engages others.  It shows effort.  You've not done that and that was what I was pointing out.

I've put forth the effort.  And rather than thinking about what I've said, you've focused on emotions, your own and what you perceive mine to be.  So not only do I think you are being lazy with regards to your own posting, you are being lazy with regards to mine as well.  I do not think that is very respectful.

I would think that some balance between the safety of abortion might be achieved by doing a c-section a week or 3 early and the life of the child who is able to survive outside the mother??? 

1. I don't see how that addresses the whole stack of ideas I brought up above this quote.For example, you've not addressed whose uterus it is and this reply does not inform.
2. Could you please rephrase that, because I cannot tell what you are trying to communicate?   The same with the rest of the post

Look, I don't mind discussing this with you.  But you are going to have to put in more effort.  That includes spell check and proof reading along with better arguments.  I am not going to keep putting in the effort and getting just uninformed opinion in return.

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 21, 2014, 01:01:35 PM
Quote
I would think that some balance between the safety of abortion might be achieved by doing a c-section a week or 3 early and the life of the child who is able to survive outside the mother??? 

1. I don't see how that addresses the whole stack of ideas I brought up above this quote.For example, you've not addressed whose uterus it is and this reply does not inform.
2. Could you please rephrase that, because I cannot tell what you are trying to communicate?   The same with the rest of the post

Look, I don't mind discussing this with you.  But you are going to have to put in more effort.  That includes spell check and proof reading along with better arguments.  I am not going to keep putting in the effort and getting just uninformed opinion in return.

I addressed the "who's uterus is it any way" argument.  You did not like my analogy.

As for (me, me, me, I, I, I) complaint, I choose to write from a belief perspective because this subject is not science but philosophy, morality and opinion.  Science does not say what is right or wrong.  The question is not one exclusively with a yes or no answer.  The question of whether something should be conferred rights is philosophical.  You choose to answer it with belief stated as fact.

As stated above, with the exception of life of the mother third trimester abortions are illegal.   This is a good thing and I support it.  You arbitrarily choose the vagina as the barrier for when rights are bestowed.  I arbitrarily choose viability. 

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 21, 2014, 01:15:51 PM
Can you kill someone if their life causes you inconvenience and their survival is predicated on your inconvenience?

It depends on the situation.  Me and a guy in a lifeboat are adrift in the ocean.  There is not a lot of water.  I beat him to death with an oar, eat the meaty parts, and feed the rest to the sharks.  Maybe make a parasol out of his skin to protect me from the sun.  Yes, I may do that and it is legally supported. 


Actually it really does not depend.  You seem to confuse inconvenience with life threatening.  With respect to inconvenience, your analogy would be more aptly stated thusly 

"It depends on the situation.  Me and a guy in a row boat with no oars (we threw them away) and we are adrift just off the coast (well within sight of land).  We have limited food and water.  I beat him to death with an oar, and eat the remaining subway sandwich, all while waiting for the visible local fishermen to approach."

Hey there is a remote chance you could have drifted to sea and a slight chance that no boats would have seen you.   So you must have been justified in killing him.  The fact that you would have in all reason have survived is irrelevant there was a chance of a problem.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: magicmiles on May 21, 2014, 04:50:25 PM
just an FYI to Screwtape, you've attributed some quotes to yourself rather than epidemic in reply 41
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: magicmiles on May 21, 2014, 05:01:42 PM
Let's follow the ideas that miles is putting forward.

How are we going to ensure that pregnant women (who would have a legal abortion if the option is on the table) are taking the proper care of themselves to have a healthy baby? Is she eating right? Getting enough sleep and exercise? Is she avoiding alcohol and cigarette smoke?  Is she doing all the little things that doctor's recommend for the best outcomes?

Why wouldn't they? These women aren't monsters you know. I doubt they have any desire to bring a maimed baby into the world.


Chain the knocked-up slut to the bed, duh, because if we care so much about the baby being born, we damn well better be doing whatever we can to ensure that it's healthy as well, right?

Knocked up slut? What? That's a terrible thing to say.


Or we can run with the idea that post-delivery, she might change her mind in the midst of the hormonal flood that accompanies childbirth and the weeks and months that follow. That's the basis of good decision making for the rest of your life, isn't it? By all means, in a state of heightened emotions with her brain chemistry all kinds of f'ed up, make the emotional decision to be a parent regardless of her previously recognized lack of capacity to do it well.

I'm not suggesting the mother would make the decision in the first 24 hours you know.


 

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 21, 2014, 05:07:11 PM
Why wouldn't they? These women aren't monsters you know. I doubt they have any desire to bring a maimed baby into the world.

They could be unaware of the risks. My mom had a work colleague who smoked (heavily) during her pregnancy. She ended up having a spontaneous abortion.

Knocked up slut? What? That's a terrible thing to say.

It's how you (forced birthers[1]) view women who want to have an abortion because they believe they're not ready for a child.

I'm not suggesting the mother would make the decision in the first 24 hours you know.

How long then? When is a while too long? One week? Two weeks? Maybe two and a half? 132 hours?
 1. Thanks screwtape for the term.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Jag on May 21, 2014, 05:13:56 PM
Let's follow the ideas that miles is putting forward.

How are we going to ensure that pregnant women (who would have a legal abortion if the option is on the table) are taking the proper care of themselves to have a healthy baby? Is she eating right? Getting enough sleep and exercise? Is she avoiding alcohol and cigarette smoke?  Is she doing all the little things that doctor's recommend for the best outcomes?

Why wouldn't they? These women aren't monsters you know. I doubt they have any desire to bring a maimed baby into the world.

The woman in question does not have a desire to bring ANY baby into the world. Is this really that hard to understand?


Chain the knocked-up slut to the bed, duh, because if we care so much about the baby being born, we damn well better be doing whatever we can to ensure that it's healthy as well, right?
Knocked up slut? What? That's a terrible thing to say.

Compared to what?


Or we can run with the idea that post-delivery, she might change her mind in the midst of the hormonal flood that accompanies childbirth and the weeks and months that follow. That's the basis of good decision making for the rest of your life, isn't it? By all means, in a state of heightened emotions with her brain chemistry all kinds of f'ed up, make the emotional decision to be a parent regardless of her previously recognized lack of capacity to do it well.
I'm not suggesting the mother would make the decision in the first 24 hours you know.

So, in this reply you've established that you do not know how the adoption process works but are quite comfortable endorsing it anyway, and that you have clearly never taken a basic psychology course.

I think I'll just stick with my last line again as you quite nicely demonstrated my point yet again.

Great ideas, really. Keep 'em coming, simplistic, short-sighted "solutions" are the theist stock in trade.

edit: horrible formatting, still not right
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: magicmiles on May 21, 2014, 05:16:01 PM
Why wouldn't they? These women aren't monsters you know. I doubt they have any desire to bring a maimed baby into the world.

They could be unaware of the risks. My mom had a work colleague who smoked (heavily) during her pregnancy. She ended up having a spontaneous abortion.

I don't see why they would be any more unaware of the risks than anybody else.


Knocked up slut? What? That's a terrible thing to say.

It's how you (forced birthers[1]) view women who want to have an abortion because they believe they're not ready for a child.
 1. Thanks screwtape for the term.

I've never used the term or thought it. And lets not forget its sometimes a mater of simply not wanting a child rather than not being ready for it. Although I do recognise that wanting a child goes a long way to being ready for it.


I'm not suggesting the mother would make the decision in the first 24 hours you know.

How long then? When is a while too long? One week? Two weeks? Maybe two and a half? 132 hours?

I don't know.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Chronos on May 21, 2014, 05:19:32 PM
A young woman vids her abortion.  She's not conflicted, not emotionally wracked and not disturbed.  Just relieved.  Which royally pisses off the forced birthers.

May it happen every day.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: magicmiles on May 21, 2014, 05:20:25 PM


So, in this reply you've established that you do not know how the adoption process works but are quite comfortable endorsing it anyway

I'm learning about the adoption process as the thread progresses. I never claimed it was the definitive alternative to abortion. I'm exploring it as an option.


Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 21, 2014, 05:21:23 PM
I don't see why they would be any more unaware of the risks than anybody else.

Because idiots want to keep every child in the dark about sex. No talk about sex, contraceptives, pregnancy, STD's, and so on. Nothing. They want everyone to politely wait until marriage to lose their virginity.

I've never used the term or thought it. And lets not forget its sometimes a mater of simply not wanting a child rather than not being ready for it. Although I do recognise that wanting a child goes a long way to being ready for it.

If you don't want a child, you're not ready for it. It's not "going a long way to". It's "if A, then B". If you don't want a child, but are forced to care for one anyway, you will mistreat it, even if unintentionally.

I don't know.

Give it some thought then.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Jag on May 21, 2014, 06:14:12 PM
I'm learning about the adoption process as the thread progresses.

NO miles, you're doing no such thing. You're reading tiny isolated snippets of ideas, opinions, and facts. You learn about something by putting forth a wee bit of effort and investigating for yourself.

At least now I understand the nature of our fundamental disconnect - we have very different opinions about what constitutes knowledge, regardless of the topic under discussion. Silly me, I thought it was limited to god beliefs. I'll take responsibility for that error in judgment, it was entirely my bad. I'll adjust my expectations accordingly.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: magicmiles on May 21, 2014, 06:31:35 PM
It's just a discussion forum on the damn internet. A quick reading of linked articles is all that's really required. I don't actually intend to involve myself in trying to reform the USA's laws you realise.

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Jag on May 21, 2014, 06:56:25 PM
Yes miles, I understand where you draw your lines now, and will make allowances for them. I had a few mistaken assumptions about you, and I recognize that I am the one in error here. You are welcome to live your life exactly as you see fit.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 22, 2014, 07:51:39 AM
I addressed the "who's uterus is it any way" argument.  You did not like my analogy.

It was an inapt analogy with little merit.  We are not talking about someone in my house.  We are talking about someone in my body.[1]  The people inside it were not invited and are not currently friends.  Sure, I left the front door open and had a party, but I did not ask anyone to stay.  I was not planning on having guests and they require more food and attention than I currently have resources to provide.  All I am doing is kicking them out.  If they cannot survive outside my house, well, tough.  I am under no obligation to support them.

So, have I sufficiently demonstrated how poor an analogy and argument that was?

I suggested you try another, but you did not take me up on it.  So, I'll throw out another lifeline.  Try this: don't use an analogy.  Give me a straight forward explanation as to why a another person[2] has more rights over your own body than you do.

As for (me, me, me, I, I, I) complaint, I choose to write from a belief perspective because this subject is not science but philosophy, morality and opinion.

Science is involved, and facts do matter.  So leaving those out of the discussion does you no favors.  It means your opinions are based on nothing but how you feel.  And philosophy is more than just tossing around opinions.  You may not know it, but philosophy is extremely rigorous.  A philosophy student does not get to just say "I feel that I am a brain in a jar".  No, no.  You get an "F" for turning in that paper. 


The question is not one exclusively with a yes or no answer. The question of whether something should be conferred rights is philosophical. 

I do not disagree with any of that.  Again you seem to have missed my point entirely.

Sorry ep, you apparently cannot give me what I am looking for.  You've made your opinion known, repeatedly, and I think that is the best we can expect.  So please pardon me, I am going to bow out from our discussion now.

 1. I'm a guy, but let's personalize this and say my body.
 2. we will suppose for argument's sake that a developing fetus is a person.  That is not a concession.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 22, 2014, 07:53:29 AM
just an FYI to Screwtape, you've attributed some quotes to yourself rather than epidemic in reply 41

thank you. 
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 22, 2014, 08:35:42 AM

Science is involved, and facts do matter.  So leaving those out of the discussion does you no favors.  It means your opinions are based on nothing but how you feel.  And philosophy is more than just tossing around opinions.  You may not know it, but philosophy is extremely rigorous.  A philosophy student does not get to just say "I feel that I am a brain in a jar".  No, no.  You get an "F" for turning in that paper. 

This science you speak of?  Can you cite any of the work done that determinse personhood? Right and wrong?

Can you tell me where science has spoken authoritatively on the differences between a 9 month old fetus inside the womb, and the magical transformed Baby the instant it is removed? 
The Fetus 1 second prior has no rights and the baby 1/10th of a second later is a human with rights???




Oh yeah I just thought of it.  You have your party, you supply booze to your guests, one leaves your house and is killed due to your action of supplying them booze.  There is ample case law that indicates that you are responsible for your guests well being if you are responsible for their state of inebriation.  I also wager that you could be held liable for your guest's well being if you were to kick them out into sub freezing temperatures knowing that they could not survive.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Azdgari on May 22, 2014, 08:55:58 AM
Oh yeah I just thought of it.  You have your party, you supply booze to your guests, one leaves your house and is killed due to your action of supplying them booze.  There is ample case law that indicates that you are responsible for your guests well being if you are responsible for their state of inebriation.  I also wager that you could be held liable for your guest's well being if you were to kick them out into sub freezing temperatures knowing that they could not survive.

And he pointed out, in the post you mainly ignored, that a body is not the same as a house.  Rights to one's body are not the same as rights to one's property.

He invited you to explain yourself without an analogy.  If one has a valid point to express by analogy, then that point can also be expressed without an analogy.  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 22, 2014, 09:20:50 AM
Oh yeah I just thought of it.  You have your party, you supply booze to your guests, one leaves your house and is killed due to your action of supplying them booze.  There is ample case law that indicates that you are responsible for your guests well being if you knew of their state of inebriation.  I also wager that you could be held liable for your guest's well being if you were to kick them out into sub freezing temperatures knowing that they could not survive.

And he pointed out, in the post you mainly ignored, that a body is not the same as a house.  Rights to one's body are not the same as rights to one's property.

He invited you to explain yourself without an analogy.  If one has a valid point to express by analogy, then that point can also be expressed without an analogy.  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with.

Sorry but there is no direct analog.  Again this is mostly philosophical.  But my above I was addressing the error in his analogy.

If you can think of a way I can present a direct analogy or even better a scientific argument for the reason that a baby/(fetus), in utero, deserves less rights than a human house guest.

Both were in essence invited guests, both resided in their location for a long time before the decision to kick them out was reached, both has a high likelihood of survival .  Then rather than calling a cab or having a c-section, they are kicked out in an unsurvivable situation.

In both situations I believe the people are obligated to not cause harm to their respective guests regardless of the inonvenience to them. 

I am hoping that someone will come up with the scientific/ethical/moral/ or logical reason why you should be able to kill a baby 1 second and it is a crime to kill them the next.  Especially when calling the cab is an option.

Of course the point is rendered somewhat moot, because it is illegal to kill a fetus in the third trimester unless there is an imminent serious risk to the mother.

So legally there is no argument to be made. If mom can't get her act together before 6.? months then she is stuck with it.  The law seems to back my analogy.   You and your body can become subserviant to another if you are irresponsible beyond a certain level.

You can arbitrarily use science to explain that the fetus refers to a forming human that resides in the womb and that regardless of when it is born it is called a baby.  These two terms have but one distinguishing feature their location.   

Science can also say that a forming human with 8 months gestation can sense pain.

Beyond that we are stuck in personal opinion.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 22, 2014, 09:30:44 AM
Let it go, ep.  I'm not iterested.  You are not in my weight class. 
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 22, 2014, 10:21:16 AM
Let it go, ep.  I'm not iterested.  You are not in my weight class.

I am quite sure our relationship is that of you being a light weight and me being heavy weight, both morally and intelletually speaking.  Probably even got a few pounds of fat on you as well.

Thanks to my school system I might say I do have a disadvantage grammatically.  But you fail to see that you are making judgement based upon your personal beliefs.  Not science, not legal, but from your gut.   I see where you are coming from and I just happen to bestow human rights earlier than you.  For you it is in the 20's and for me the third trimester.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Mrjason on May 22, 2014, 10:54:30 AM
I just happen to bestow human rights earlier than you.  For you it is in the 20's and for me the third trimester.

Why?
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on May 22, 2014, 10:56:49 AM
I am quite sure our relationship is that of you being a light weight and me being heavy weight, both morally and intelletually speaking. 

Of course you are, little fella.  That is known as the [wiki]Dunning Kruger effect[/wiki].
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Azdgari on May 22, 2014, 11:57:26 AM
Oh yeah I just thought of it.  You have your party, you supply booze to your guests, one leaves your house and is killed due to your action of supplying them booze.  There is ample case law that indicates that you are responsible for your guests well being if you knew of their state of inebriation.  I also wager that you could be held liable for your guest's well being if you were to kick them out into sub freezing temperatures knowing that they could not survive.

And he pointed out, in the post you mainly ignored, that a body is not the same as a house.  Rights to one's body are not the same as rights to one's property.

He invited you to explain yourself without an analogy.  If one has a valid point to express by analogy, then that point can also be expressed without an analogy.  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with.

(... unrelated bs ...)

If you meant to ignore what I said in my post, epidemic, then it would have been more polite and honest to simply ignore the post rather than pretending to address it.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 22, 2014, 03:11:41 PM
I just happen to bestow human rights earlier than you.  For you it is in the 20's and for me the third trimester.

Why?

Why not?   I consider a viable human to be a human with rights???  Why wouldn't you?

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 22, 2014, 03:16:09 PM
Why not?   I consider a viable human to be a human with rights???  Why wouldn't you?

What kind of rights? Would you allow them to have sex? Get a tattoo? Drink? Smoke? Do drugs? Get a job? All this regardless of age, of course. Or are you saying that a viable human isn't actually a human?
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 22, 2014, 03:20:49 PM
Oh yeah I just thought of it.  You have your party, you supply booze to your guests, one leaves your house and is killed due to your action of supplying them booze.  There is ample case law that indicates that you are responsible for your guests well being if you knew of their state of inebriation.  I also wager that you could be held liable for your guest's well being if you were to kick them out into sub freezing temperatures knowing that they could not survive.

And he pointed out, in the post you mainly ignored, that a body is not the same as a house.  Rights to one's body are not the same as rights to one's property.

He invited you to explain yourself without an analogy.  If one has a valid point to express by analogy, then that point can also be expressed without an analogy.  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with.


(... unrelated bs ...)

If you meant to ignore what I said in my post, epidemic, then it would have been more polite and honest to simply ignore the post rather than pretending to address it.


I am all ears,  give me an example of what you are looking for.   I did address your point but not to your satisfaction .  I can not think of how to express it with out analogy.   

I have done direct explaination.  If the fetus is viable, then it is human.  If it can live outside the woman then perhaps you should not be allowed to kill it.   If it feels pain perhaps you should not inflict it.   Studies have indicated that personality is partially formed in utero meaning that there is a functioning brain that is capable of storing information.  If it were removed at 7.5 months it would have an extremely good chance at living out a full and normal life.   


Do you think we as a society should not allow people to kill infants and toddlers?  Can you please explain why we should not be allowed to kill infants and or toddlers?
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 22, 2014, 03:22:03 PM
Why not?   I consider a viable human to be a human with rights???  Why wouldn't you?

What kind of rights? Would you allow them to have sex? Get a tattoo? Drink? Smoke? Do drugs? Get a job? All this regardless of age, of course. Or are you saying that a viable human isn't actually a human?

Well we can start with a right to draw breath.  They are probably a little young for sex.  Why do they intrigue you sexually? :)
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 22, 2014, 03:44:54 PM
Well we can start with a right to draw breath.  They are probably a little young for sex.

Either they're humans, and therefore have the same rights as a human, or they're not, and therefore don't have the same rights as a human. Make up your mind.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Azdgari on May 22, 2014, 03:59:11 PM
Oh yeah I just thought of it.  You have your party, you supply booze to your guests, one leaves your house and is killed due to your action of supplying them booze.  There is ample case law that indicates that you are responsible for your guests well being if you knew of their state of inebriation.  I also wager that you could be held liable for your guest's well being if you were to kick them out into sub freezing temperatures knowing that they could not survive.

And he pointed out, in the post you mainly ignored, that a body is not the same as a house.  Rights to one's body are not the same as rights to one's property.

He invited you to explain yourself without an analogy.  If one has a valid point to express by analogy, then that point can also be expressed without an analogy.  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with.

I am all ears,  give me an example of what you are looking for.   I did address your point but not to your satisfaction .  I can not think of how to express it with out analogy.

Well then, there you go.  Case closed.  You have no valid point.  This doesn't mean that you're wrong; it doesn't disprove what you're saying.  What it means is that you are unequipped to argue it, as you don't understand your own position.  If you did, then you could explain it directly, without explaining something else you feel is similar.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Mrjason on May 23, 2014, 04:49:45 AM
What kind of rights? Would you allow them to have sex? Get a tattoo? Drink? Smoke? Do drugs? Get a job? All this regardless of age, of course. Or are you saying that a viable human isn't actually a human?

Well we can start with a right to draw breath.  They are probably a little young for sex.  Why do they intrigue you sexually? :)

Here you recognise that rights are dependant on the developmental stage of the human or potential human in question.

Just because something can become a person doesn't mean that it should be treated the same as an actual person.

you've answered this question.

Why not?   I consider a viable human to be a human with rights???  Why wouldn't you?

Why did you infer that there was something inherently sleazy about OAA asking if it was ok for fetus' to have sex?
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 23, 2014, 06:37:23 AM
Well we can start with a right to draw breath.  They are probably a little young for sex.

Either they're humans, and therefore have the same rights as a human, or they're not, and therefore don't have the same rights as a human. Make up your mind.

I see that you are correct, rights are at least in some part dependent on age or stage of developement.  I concede that.  I also agree with societies general belief (Laws) that when a fetus in utero reaches viability that it has the right to life.  Society has spoken and the logic is sound.

As to the statement   ".  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with"  I would like to hear Azdgari explain why we should not kill our children.  If he can not do so then this is apparently not a valid point then should we eliminate child welfare laws???

If you agree with laws against parents murdering their children, it should be simple for you to express it.  Perhaps I will learn something in the process of how to express myself without analogy.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 23, 2014, 12:52:08 PM
I see that you are correct, rights are at least in some part dependent on age or stage of developement.  I concede that.

Do you also concede that a fetus (in fact, anyone under the age of approximately 25 years old) is underdeveloped (not fully developed)?

I also agree with societies general belief (Laws) that when a fetus in utero reaches viability that it has the right to life.  Society has spoken and the logic is sound.

Society also thinks homosexual relationships are an abomination. Society is wrong.
I'd also like to see the evidence for your claim. As far as I can tell, it's just you. Abortion is quickly becoming acceptable in every developed[1] country.

As to the statement   ".  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with"  I would like to hear Azdgari explain why we should not kill our children.  If he can not do so then this is apparently not a valid point then should we eliminate child welfare laws???

I can think of at least one reason for keeping children alive, and it's not even an emotional one. I don't know if Azdgari will post it, though I'm sure he'll at least think about it.
 1. USA doesn't count.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 23, 2014, 03:16:49 PM
I see that you are correct, rights are at least in some part dependent on age or stage of developement.  I concede that.

Do you also concede that a fetus (in fact, anyone under the age of approximately 25 years old) is underdeveloped (not fully developed)?

I agree with it, our brains do develop through out much of our life.  (But we do for some reason protect life as a virtually absolute right after the womb [exception being crime])


I also agree with societies general belief (Laws) that when a fetus in utero reaches viability that it has the right to life.  Society has spoken and the logic is sound.

Society also thinks homosexual relationships are an abomination. Society is wrong.
I'd also like to see the evidence for your claim. As far as I can tell, it's just you. Abortion is quickly becoming acceptable in every developed[1] country.
 1. USA doesn't count.

Society can be wrong, and society can be right.   I agree that we should not treat homosexuality as an abomination.  I think killing babies is wrong after the second trimester.  you also need to trim in your argument a little for me, I have never said abortion was wrong.  I only question if there is a point when one should demand birth over abortion due to fetal development and semi autonomous viability.  America and the UK prohibit abortion in the third trimester and the uk has taken this rule and restricted it recently.  formerly they were 28 weeks and now the moratorium is 24 weeks.  I agree with abortion being legal but it seems as if western countries have restrictions on it as a rule.  France is even tighter at 14 weeks, germany first trimester.  All countries have varying degrees of exception for late term abortions for the health of the mother.  I am not going to look at the laws from each country but it seems as if it is virtually universal that right to life extends into the womb at some point in most countries.


Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 23, 2014, 04:02:01 PM
I agree with it, our brains do develop through out much of our life.  (But we do for some reason protect life as a virtually absolute right after the womb [exception being crime])

So why do people get access to all the rights a fully-grown human does if they're not fully grown?

Society can be wrong, and society can be right.

Isn't it amazing how society just happens to be wrong when you disagree with it and just happens to be right when you agree with it? Reminds me of christians and the Bible.

I think killing babies is wrong after the second trimester.

Everyone does. Killing a baby is wrong, regardless of age. A fetus, on the other hand, can and does put the mother through a lot of risk.
Wait, did you mean to say fetus?

you also need to trim in your argument a little for me, I have never said abortion was wrong.  I only question if there is a point when one should demand birth over abortion due to fetal development and semi autonomous viability.

Ignoring the "demand" thing (you don't own it, you don't get any say in it), sure there is. It's called "birth". At least that's the most objective one. We can also declare arbitrary rules as to what is human and what isn't.

America and the UK prohibit abortion in the third trimester and the uk has taken this rule and restricted it recently.

I say "USA doesn't count", you say "America". Unless you're referring to the continent, in which case I'll need to see one link per country in America, I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension.

formerly they were 28 weeks

Probably inspired by the movie "28 Weeks Later".

and now the moratorium is 24 weeks.

That's awesome. Give women less time to figure out if they want to let the fetus become a baby or not.
Also, kudos on using a (relevant) word I didn't know.

I agree with abortion being legal but it seems as if western countries have restrictions on it as a rule.  France is even tighter at 14 weeks, germany first trimester.  All countries have varying degrees of exception for late term abortions for the health of the mother.  I am not going to look at the laws from each country but it seems as if it is virtually universal that right to life extends into the womb at some point in most countries.

You're ignoring something that I don't think other people have mentioned. You're putting the fetus's life above the mother's. Why? Is a potential human somehow more valuable than a fully-grown human? Is a seed more valuable than a tree? Does it produce oxygen? Can it feed herbivores? If I cut a small piece from it and plant it somewhere, will it grow? Does it bear fruit? Likewise, can a fetus think? Can it feel (emotions; not physical sensations)? Can it express anything? Can it learn? Can it breathe? Can it even pee and/or poop? The answer to all these is "No; it cannot", and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.
Being able to experience physical sensations (having perception of the world) does not make one sentient. Are bacteria sentient? Are krill sentient? What about Octopuses' arms? They still move, feel, touch, and try to feed a non-existent body, even when detached from the body.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 27, 2014, 10:19:22 AM
I agree with it, our brains do develop through out much of our life.  (But we do for some reason protect life as a virtually absolute right after the womb [exception being crime])

So why do people get access to all the rights a fully-grown human does if they're not fully grown?

Well sticking to the right to life.  After birth it has rights.  If it is born 1 month early it has rights.  Physically an 8 month Fetus (we will stick with the word you can deal with) is no different than baby born in the 8th month.  Why does it magically get the right to life at the same stage of development because it resides outside?


Society can be wrong, and society can be right.

Isn't it amazing how society just happens to be wrong when you disagree with it and just happens to be right when you agree with it? Reminds me of christians and the Bible.
  Well I am sure you find anti gay marriage legislation,  As stated we all have things we find wrong with the law.  I think a fetus that is indestinguishable from a baby has a right to life.

I think killing babies is wrong after the second trimester.

Everyone does. Killing a baby is wrong, regardless of age. A fetus, on the other hand, can and does put the mother through a lot of risk.
Wait, did you mean to say fetus?

You are playing word games.  Excluding residence, can you tell me the destinguishing features of an 8 month old Fetus and a baby born at 8 months gestation?



America and the UK prohibit abortion in the third trimester and the uk has taken this rule and restricted it recently.

I say "USA doesn't count", you say "America". Unless you're referring to the continent, in which case I'll need to see one link per country in America, I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension.
  I think the onus is now on you to show me examples of countries that do not confer rights on fetus at some point during gestation.  As for your mincing of words again.  America when used all by its lonesome usually refers to the United States of America.  I am sure you knew this.  If not perhaps you need to work on expanding your horizons.


formerly they were 28 weeks

Probably inspired by the movie "28 Weeks Later".

yeah ummmm ok. :D



and now the moratorium is 24 weeks.

That's awesome. Give women less time to figure out if they want to let the fetus become a baby or not.
Also, kudos on using a (relevant) word I didn't know.

I don't know about you but sometimes we need to make decsions in less than 6 months.  Perhaps before killing something one should make the decision before it can potentially survive outside of you.

I agree with abortion being legal but it seems as if western countries have restrictions on it as a rule.  France is even tighter at 14 weeks, germany first trimester.  All countries have varying degrees of exception for late term abortions for the health of the mother.  I am not going to look at the laws from each country but it seems as if it is virtually universal that right to life extends into the womb at some point in most countries.

You're ignoring something that I don't think other people have mentioned. You're putting the fetus's life above the mother's. Why? Is a potential human somehow more valuable than a fully-grown human? Is a seed more valuable than a tree? Does it produce oxygen? Can it feed herbivores? If I cut a small piece from it and plant it somewhere, will it grow? Does it bear fruit? Likewise, can a fetus think? Can it feel (emotions; not physical sensations)? Can it express anything? Can it learn? Can it breathe? Can it even pee and/or poop? The answer to all these is "No; it cannot", and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.
Being able to experience physical sensations (having perception of the world) does not make one sentient. Are bacteria sentient? Are krill sentient? What about Octopuses' arms? They still move, feel, touch, and try to feed a non-existent body, even when detached from the body.

Well actually Babies can pee and poop prior to birth, I believe that it is well known that Fetuses can think at a babies level, learning mom and dads voice has been documented in utero, some personallity traits are supposed to begin forming in later stages of pregnency.  An 8 month old fetus is sentient it has more than feeling, it has thoughts, dreams, so it is definitely sentient.  I am confident that bacteria and krill do not dream, an octopus's arms are not sentient (First off an octopus's arms are called tentacles and they are not viable on their own.)

As for comparison to plants I am not sure you can compare a mamalian life cycle to a plant but a seed would be much more aptly compared to a  blastocyst, a seedling would be akin to a fetus.  I was just at Lowes and seeds are much less valuable than seedlings.  Young plants are worth more than seedlings and finally old plants are worth less Try to sell a 5 foot tomato plant with fruit on it:)

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 27, 2014, 01:35:48 PM
Well sticking to the right to life.  After birth it has rights.  If it is born 1 month early it has rights.  Physically an 8 month Fetus (we will stick with the word you can deal with) is no different than baby born in the 8th month.  Why does it magically get the right to life at the same stage of development because it resides outside?

Because the circumstances are different? Why does a man holding a gun on someone lose the right to live while that same man, not holding the gun anymore, doesn't?

Well I am sure you find anti gay marriage legislation,  As stated we all have things we find wrong with the law.  I think a fetus that is indestinguishable from a baby has a right to life.

But it is not indistinguishable from a baby. That's the whole point. I'll explain more below.

You are playing word games.  Excluding residence, can you tell me the destinguishing features of an 8 month old Fetus and a baby born at 8 months gestation?

Excluding their theistic beliefs, can you tell me the distinguishing features of a theist and an atheist?
You see why your point is moot (and that's the nicest way I can put it)? If you ignore the differences, obviously things will be the same. What you're saying is this:
P has X features in common with Q and Y different features. If you ignore Y, P=Q.
Which is illogical. You can't toss out the differences and just go "OMG! They're exactly the same!"

I think the onus is now on you to show me examples of countries that do not confer rights on fetus at some point during gestation.

They're what's known as "third-world countries", so I think you'll dismiss them.

As for your mincing of words again.  America when used all by its lonesome usually refers to the United States of America.  I am sure you knew this.  If not perhaps you need to work on expanding your horizons.

I am well aware of that. I am also aware that I said this:
I say "USA doesn't count", you say "America". Unless you're referring to the continent, in which case I'll need to see one link per country in America, I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension.
Bold mine for emphasis.
I think the last bit of the last sentence applies here as well.

Off-topic: I am also aware that what a lot of the world refers to as "North" and "South" America is simply called "America" by every geography teacher I've ever heard of.

formerly they were 28 weeks

I don't know about you but sometimes we need to make decsions in less than 6 months.  Perhaps before killing something one should make the decision before it can potentially survive outside of you.

Or... you know, give women the freedom to do with their bodies as they wish and not as you wish just because you're trying to protect what she thinks is a mistake and make her go through a very painful and potentially deadly (yes, labor can be deadly both to women and fetuses) procedure.
Tell me, do you also apply this decision when the fetus (once it's born and becomes a baby) is sick in a way that doesn't affect its brain? You know, something like dimorphism or Harlequin-type ichthyosis, which can be fatal (not a death sentence nowadays thanks to science) and very, very painful to the baby (remember; it's been born by now), parents, nurses, doctors, and just about everyone that sees it and can feel empathy or hear its screams of pain (which, even if you feel no empathy, will give you a headache).

Well actually Babies can pee and poop prior to birth,

Either they're babies or they're prior to birth, so this does not compute. However, assuming you meant "fetuses", I'll have to admit to using a little hyperbole there. Yes, technically speaking, fetuses do pee and poop. However, their urine gets reabsorbed into their bodies and mixes with the amniotic fluid. Poop, however, is somewhat (IMO; not in the opinion of the writer of the article I'll link you to) rare. Only 12% of fetuses poop in the womb, and doing so is very dangerous for it.
Link: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2667/do-unborn-babies-urinate-defecate-in-the-womb

I believe that it is well known that Fetuses can think at a babies level, learning mom and dads voice has been documented in utero, some personallity traits are supposed to begin forming in later stages of pregnency.  An 8 month old fetus is sentient it has more than feeling, it has thoughts, dreams, so it is definitely sentient.

Gonna have to see links to this.

I am confident that bacteria and krill do not dream, an octopus's arms are not sentient

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Invertebrates
Their arms catch food and try to feed the body, even when there's no body to feed. This may not be sentience (they're not self-aware), but they are intelligent.

(First off an octopus's arms are called tentacles and they are not viable on their own.)

One of the (male) octopus's arms is actually its penis, which is why I said "arms". In addition, octopuses can walk under water. Not kidding; google it. They bend their arms in such a manner that resembles feet, raise their other arms, and walk along the sea floor.

As for comparison to plants I am not sure you can compare a mamalian life cycle to a plant but a seed would be much more aptly compared to a  blastocyst, a seedling would be akin to a fetus.  I was just at Lowes and seeds are much less valuable than seedlings.  Young plants are worth more than seedlings and finally old plants are worth less Try to sell a 5 foot tomato plant with fruit on it:)

So, by your logic, better put everyone in prison. They might all become killers. Potential is worth more than actual accomplishments.

EDIT: Fixed quotes (thanks, sctrewtape).
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on May 27, 2014, 02:50:42 PM

Because the circumstances are different? Why does a man holding a gun on someone lose the right to live while that same man, not holding the gun anymore, doesn't?

Well in this case the only people holding the guns is the doc and the mom to be.



But it is not indistinguishable from a baby. That's the whole point. I'll explain more below.

This is an abitrary destinction.  You are choosing the location to determine whether something lives or dies. Where location is the only determining factor.  You might agree with this I don't unless the mothers life is in danger.


Excluding their theistic beliefs, can you tell me the distinguishing features of a theist and an atheist?
You see why your point is moot (and that's the nicest way I can put it)? If you ignore the differences, obviously things will be the same. What you're saying is this:
P has X features in common with Q and Y different features. If you ignore Y, P=Q.
Which is illogical. You can't toss out the differences and just go "OMG! They're exactly the same!"

No they are both people with a right to live regardless of their belief in a boogy man or lack there of.  Some differences really don't matter.  PS I have heard the Doctor call the fetus a baby many times.  It is really again all about perception.  Abortion clinic will call it a fetus and a OBGYN will often call it a baby.



They're what's known as "third-world countries", so I think you'll dismiss them.

Ok so third word countries are who you want to use as the benchmark for societies morals?

I am well aware of that. I am also aware that I said this:
I say "USA doesn't count", you say "America". Unless you're referring to the continent, in which case I'll need to see one link per country in America, I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension.
Bold mine for emphasis.
I think the last bit of the last sentence applies here as well

Off-topic: I am also aware that what a lot of the world refers to as "North" and "South" America is simply called "America" by every geography teacher I've ever heard of.
That has not been my experience Geography teachers would often speak of the Americas (note the s) when speaking of continents.  I also heard them refer to North America and South America when refering to specific continents.  But when the word America is used individually it usually refers to the country known as the USA.



Or... you know, give women the freedom to do with their bodies as they wish and not as you wish just because you're trying to protect what she thinks is a mistake and make her go through a very painful and potentially deadly (yes, labor can be deadly both to women and fetuses) procedure.
Tell me, do you also apply this decision when the fetus (once it's born and becomes a baby) is sick in a way that doesn't affect its brain? You know, something like dimorphism or Harlequin-type ichthyosis, which can be fatal (not a death sentence nowadays thanks to science) and very, very painful to the baby (remember; it's been born by now), parents, nurses, doctors, and just about everyone that sees it and can feel empathy or hear its screams of pain (which, even if you feel no empathy, will give you a headache).

anencephaly, massive torturous genetic disorders, discovered late term would be grounds for abortion in my opinion.  As for the risk to mom of birth.  I don't know the mortality stats for Natural vs C-section.  I don't know if they improve if you induce in the 7th month while the baby is small but viable and how an early birth compares with abortion risk.  I know that the risk to mother is extremely rare if there is not an underlying condition.   The risk to the baby is irrelevant when the alternative is abortion which is 100% fatal.


Either they're babies or they're prior to birth, so this does not compute. However, assuming you meant "fetuses", I'll have to admit to using a little hyperbole there. Yes, technically speaking, fetuses do pee and poop. However, their urine gets reabsorbed into their bodies and mixes with the amniotic fluid. Poop, however, is somewhat (IMO; not in the opinion of the writer of the article I'll link you to) rare. Only 12% of fetuses poop in the womb, and doing so is very dangerous for it.
Link: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2667/do-unborn-babies-urinate-defecate-in-the-womb


I did not say they pooped often only that your statements was wrong.




Gonna have to see links to this.

Babies bonding with mother and father's voice  here is a little link  (http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/forming-a-bond-with-your-baby-why-it-isnt-always-immediate)
 Personallity is also forming in utero (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-favorite-child/201010/personality-begins-birth)


Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Invertebrates
Their arms catch food and try to feed the body, even when there's no body to feed. This may not be sentience (they're not self-aware), but they are intelligent.[/url]


One of the (male) octopus's arms is actually its penis, which is why I said "arms". In addition, octopuses can walk under water. Not kidding; google it. They bend their arms in such a manner that resembles feet, raise their other arms, and walk along the sea floor.
  Interesting but ultimately kinda not what we are talking about.

As for comparison to plants I am not sure you can compare a mamalian life cycle to a plant but a seed would be much more aptly compared to a  blastocyst, a seedling would be akin to a fetus.  I was just at Lowes and seeds are much less valuable than seedlings.  Young plants are worth more than seedlings and finally old plants are worth less Try to sell a 5 foot tomato plant with fruit on it:)

So, by your logic, better put everyone in prison. They might all become killers. Potential is worth more than actual accomplishments.

I never said or implied nothing of the sort.   I simply am saying that (I am going to use a word you don't like)

A baby in the womb who is viable for semi autonomous life (meaning able to be cared for by anyone) might deserve a right to live.  My arbitrary set point, is having the equipement to survive outside the mother and having a human brain.

As you aptly pointed beyond the life of the mother I think you are right that a certain quality of life should be weighted in as well when doing a risk assesment.

In closing I understand that you feel third world countries are doing things right and you believe that the destinction of the vaginal barrier is a reason to allow a fetus to be killed at the whim of the host.  I happen to be in agreement with most western countries regarding this subject.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on May 27, 2014, 03:03:26 PM
I'm checking out a video right now, so I'll just drop these links regarding risk to the mother and fetus during birth.
http://www.who.int/pmnch/media/press_materials/fs/fs_newborndealth_illness/en/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stillbirth#Prevalence (note the "one every 20 minutes")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death#Global_Trends (note the "650 women per year")
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Azdgari on May 27, 2014, 06:41:36 PM
Perhaps this might help:  Epidemic, where does one's right to life come from?  And how do we verify its presence, as opposed to its absence?
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Chronos on May 27, 2014, 08:57:27 PM
A right to life requires the option to not exercise the right.

I have the right to speak freely without hindrance from my government. I have the right to possess a firearm. I have a right to limit my government from unreasonable search and seizures of my person or property. I have the right to not incriminate myself.

I am not required to speak freely -- I can choose to keep my mouth shut. I do not have to possess a firearm -- I can never own or possess a firearm for my entire life. I do not have to endure a search of my person or property without my consent -- but I can choose to tell the police that they are free to search my car or home whether they have any reason to conduct a search or not. I have the right to not confess anything to any government representative that would immediately cause me to be arrested or prosecuted, but I can also blab under oath all I want.

A right to life requires that the fetus be able to consciously exercise the right to die (the only alternative). Since a fetus is unable to communicate, much less comprehend the circumstance of the question, it is impossible for the fetus to have a right that the fetus cannot exercise or otherwise choose to ignore. Furthermore, a born human at no time in his life has a right to life because that right has an assumption that the individual hasn't committed murder, for example. In other words, it's a conditional right. On certain conditions the right can be exercised.

If you believe that fetuses have a right to life, and I don't know how you arrive at that bungi cord logic, you have to admit that humans have a right to die. It's the only way to choose to not exercise a right to life.






Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on June 17, 2014, 09:37:07 AM
I'm checking out a video right now, so I'll just drop these links regarding risk to the mother and fetus during birth.
http://www.who.int/pmnch/media/press_materials/fs/fs_newborndealth_illness/en/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stillbirth#Prevalence (note the "one every 20 minutes")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death#Global_Trends (note the "650 women per year")

Ok I finally read you link and as expected it does not sufficently break down the maternal death rate to be significant to argument.

America and Europe have clauses in place that consider the medical risk to the mother after the 24 to 28 week deadline.  So of that 650 women who die per year,  assuming that everyone of them was denied an abortion in after the 24th week it is likely that many if not most had medical conditions that contributed to the death that would have allowed late term abortion.  So we have an unknown mortality rate because the statistics are not presented in a manner that corresponds to the law.


Lets start with 650 deaths, out of approximately 4,000,000 births.  We have a death rate of about 16.5 per 100,000.


How many of that 650 died prior to the cutoff?  Well ectopic pregnancy (http://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/0215/p1080.html) alone accounts for 10 to 15% of deaths earlier than the cut off 24 to 28 weeks. 
Ok now we are down to  553 or a rate of 13.825 per 100,000 affected by the law.  Since ectopic pregnancy is not the only high risk pregnancy we still have alot of room to reduce that 553 number.  We could reduce it by the number of women who would choose late term abortion with no medical necessity only about 25% of women choose abortion 

Abortion stats after the 24th week will be worse than 9.09 in 100,000 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html) How much worse it is may be up for debate because this statistic is based on the 21'st week but I assume the complications would rise substantially over the weeks following the 21'st week since stress on the mother and size of the baby are increasing.

Statistically abortion vs birth is starting to look closer to a wash as far as health of the mom.   That is as close as I can get the numbers with a quick scan of the internet. 

It is hard to make an apples to apples analysis. 
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on June 17, 2014, 09:41:51 AM
A right to life requires the option to not exercise the right.

I have the right to speak freely without hindrance from my government. I have the right to possess a firearm. I have a right to limit my government from unreasonable search and seizures of my person or property. I have the right to not incriminate myself.

I am not required to speak freely -- I can choose to keep my mouth shut. I do not have to possess a firearm -- I can never own or possess a firearm for my entire life. I do not have to endure a search of my person or property without my consent -- but I can choose to tell the police that they are free to search my car or home whether they have any reason to conduct a search or not. I have the right to not confess anything to any government representative that would immediately cause me to be arrested or prosecuted, but I can also blab under oath all I want.

A right to life requires that the fetus be able to consciously exercise the right to die (the only alternative). Since a fetus is unable to communicate, much less comprehend the circumstance of the question, it is impossible for the fetus to have a right that the fetus cannot exercise or otherwise choose to ignore. Furthermore, a born human at no time in his life has a right to life because that right has an assumption that the individual hasn't committed murder, for example. In other words, it's a conditional right. On certain conditions the right can be exercised.

If you believe that fetuses have a right to life, and I don't know how you arrive at that bungi cord logic, you have to admit that humans have a right to die. It's the only way to choose to not exercise a right to life.

Actually as stated way way before.  The right to life is commonly not a choice that needs to be made by the individual.  it is illegal to attempt suicide, you may not under any circumstances simply snuff out a baby 1 second after birth.  Society makes the rules or some would say god does.  But I think of god as just the collective society banding together and claiming that a super being is the source of their morals.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on June 17, 2014, 09:42:56 AM
Sorry, epidemic, but the fact that we lost two whole weeks of posts leaves me unwilling to go back to my old debates, including this one. Tell you what: you keep on trying to limit other people's free will and implicitly aiding in/causing their deaths while causing them unnecessary pain and suffering; meanwhile us rational folks protect free will, life, and quality of life, OK?
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on June 17, 2014, 09:59:16 AM
Sorry, epidemic, but the fact that we lost two whole weeks of posts leaves me unwilling to go back to my old debates, including this one. Tell you what: you keep on trying to limit other people's free will and implicitly aiding in/causing their deaths while causing them unnecessary pain and suffering; meanwhile us rational folks protect free will, life, and quality of life, OK?

Who is suggesting death, You are the one promoting it.  I am the one promoting life.  I inconjunction society in most first world nations am demaning personal responsibility and decision making over a multi month period before finally holding someone accountable for their inaction.  There are restrictions on free will.   I can not join the military if I don't do it before a certain date.  I cannot have an abortion if I don't do so by a certain unless there is serious risk of harm.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Azdgari on June 17, 2014, 10:47:20 AM
Perhaps this might help:  Epidemic, where does one's right to life come from?  And how do we verify its presence, as opposed to its absence?
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on June 17, 2014, 12:14:31 PM
Perhaps this might help:  Epidemic, where does one's right to life come from?  And how do we verify its presence, as opposed to its absence?

everyones right to life comes from society.  It is not some magical right bestowed.  it is one of the most uniform of rights around the world.   As humans it seems like the right to life is uniformly accepted as reasonably absolute for people who are already born with the exception of punishment for crimes comitted against others.  With Fetus and babies it gets a little more vague.  Each society has varying rules regarding this.  Our society and most if not all western societies seem to bestow rights beginning in the 24th to 28th week of gestation. 
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Azdgari on June 17, 2014, 12:41:03 PM
everyones right to life comes from society.  It is not some magical right bestowed.

Agreed.  Also I'm rather surprised you're conceding this, given your position.  It destroys your position.

it is one of the most uniform of rights around the world.   As humans it seems like the right to life is uniformly accepted as reasonably absolute for people who are already born with the exception of punishment for crimes comitted against others.

Broad opinion, yes.

With Fetus and babies it gets a little more vague.  Each society has varying rules regarding this.  Our society and most if not all western societies seem to bestow rights beginning in the 24th to 28th week of gestation.

The question then is "why".  It makes no sense to appeal to bestowing full right-to-life to something based on the argument that "it has a right to life".  That's circular.  So as I said earlier, you have no position that you even understand.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on June 17, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
My position is that if a baby 1 second after birth has a right to life.  An equally well formed baby in utero has the same right to life.  And my position is backed by societies the world over.




to you last statement.  Well it does become vague because the dividing line is a moving target.  Most of you folks take the abitrary vaginal barrier as to when right to life is bestowed.  I and much of the first world take viability to be the arbitrary point.  The only people without an arbitrarty standard are conception right to lifers.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Azdgari on June 17, 2014, 04:06:56 PM
My position is that if a baby 1 second after birth has a right to life.  An equally well formed baby in utero has the same right to life.  And my position is backed by societies the world over.

Your agreement with them is backed by the fact that they agree with you?  No other reaoning.  Okay.

to you last statement.  Well it does become vague because the dividing line is a moving target.  Most of you folks take the abitrary vaginal barrier as to when right to life is bestowed.  I and much of the first world take viability to be the arbitrary point.  The only people without an arbitrarty standard are conception right to lifers.

The question then becomes what your motivation is for forcing women to give birth.  You allude earlier to a sense of justice and retribution:
Quote
I inconjunction society in most first world nations am demaning personal responsibility and decision making over a multi month period before finally holding someone accountable for their inaction.

And of course, the total-anti-abortion folks already take steps to sabotage early abortion options in places where late abortion is not an option.  Which is the regime your position encourages.  How do you feel about that, assuming you have feelings?
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Jag on June 17, 2014, 04:11:49 PM
Assuming I understand who you are referring to when you say "conception right to lifers", I would argue that their position is the most arbitrary of all.

Why? Define the exact moment of conception, and then we can discuss it.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Mrjason on June 18, 2014, 06:21:39 AM
As humans it seems like the right to life is uniformly accepted as reasonably absolute for people who are already born with the exception of punishment for crimes comitted against others. 

reasonably absolute is an oxymoron, something is either absolute or it is qualified.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on June 18, 2014, 08:20:00 AM
Assuming I understand who you are referring to when you say "conception right to lifers", I would argue that their position is the most arbitrary of all.

Why? Define the exact moment of conception, and then we can discuss it.

Well there we have to disagree, I believe that theirs is the least arbitrary.  The moment of conception a new human DNA sequence is created, uniquely human.  It is simply the least formed state of a human but it is not zebra, gecko, elephant nor plant.  Their belief is that you protect the lifes of humans no matter the stage of development.  as was so aptly stated earlier, a 1 second old baby is not fully developed nor is a 20 year old.  To the purist right to lifer you protect human life no matter the stage.  90 years old and on a respirator in a persistent vegetative state protected, born with out a brain protected, 1 second after conception protected, cerebral palsy protected, retarded with an IQ of 10 protected.  I don't agree with their standard but they believe a unique human begins at conception.  PS as does science.


MrJason,
As for reasonably absolute.  Yes it is not the most accurate use of the word but I believe you understand.  It is the standard for human societies the world over with few exceptions so few as to be statistically insignificant.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Mrjason on June 18, 2014, 08:51:48 AM
MrJason,
As for reasonably absolute.  Yes it is not the most accurate use of the word but I believe you understand.  It is the standard for human societies the world over with few exceptions so few as to be statistically insignificant.

No it isn't, especially in the context that you were talking about, i.e. the right to life.
The right to life is a qualified right i.e. it is not absolute, you can be killed in certain circumstances, which you gave an example of.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on June 18, 2014, 09:49:20 AM
To the purist right to lifer you protect human life no matter the stage. 

Does this mean you are also against Capitol Punishment?  (Just this question only, let's not extend the thread to discuss.)
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on June 18, 2014, 11:02:47 AM
It is the standard for human societies the world over with few exceptions so few as to be statistically insignificant.

there are about a dozen things wrong with your reasoning and this idea.  Let me pick on just a couple.

What exactly is "right to life"?  Does that include a "right to be born" and a "right to someone else's uterus"?  If it includes a "right to be born", where do you draw the line on that and why?  Because I see the logical extension of that idea leading to ova rights and sperm rights. 


I expect an actual argument, with facts, not just a regurgitation of your opinions.  I know, that's asking a lot and I am likely to be disappointed. 

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on June 18, 2014, 02:37:04 PM
Perhaps these women should volunteer their uteruses and the rest of their lives to protect these precious unborn that supposedly mean so much to them.  Put some skin in the game.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Jag on June 18, 2014, 03:59:19 PM
Assuming I understand who you are referring to when you say "conception right to lifers", I would argue that their position is the most arbitrary of all.

Why? Define the exact moment of conception, and then we can discuss it.

Well there we have to disagree, I believe that theirs is the least arbitrary.  The moment of conception a new human DNA sequence is created, uniquely human.  It is simply the least formed state of a human but it is not zebra, gecko, elephant nor plant.  Their belief is that you protect the lifes of humans no matter the stage of development.  as was so aptly stated earlier, a 1 second old baby is not fully developed nor is a 20 year old.  To the purist right to lifer you protect human life no matter the stage.  90 years old and on a respirator in a persistent vegetative state protected, born with out a brain protected, 1 second after conception protected, cerebral palsy protected, retarded with an IQ of 10 protected.  I don't agree with their standard but they believe a unique human begins at conception.  PS as does science.

Yes, I understand where forced birthers draw the line - I've yet to meet a real live purist though.

I think you misunderstood my question. "Define the moment" = when exactly does conception occur? You've presented a philosophical view, but that's not what I asked.

And for the record, feel free to expand n your PS remark - what do you mean "unique human being begins at conception"? As best I can tell, you're saying that every human is unique - I agree but don't see the relevance, nor are you presenting much of anything when you say "as does science", as if "science" is an actual entity with awareness and opinions. People express opinions, fields of study do not.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on June 27, 2014, 12:28:05 PM
Charles Pierce on the recent SCOTUS decision to eliminate the buffer zone in front of clinics

Quote
What if the sidewalk counselors decide to open-carry? And, conversely, what if a woman in Florida, attempting to enter a clinic, feels threatened by the spittle-fringed howling of the protesters? Can she Stand Her Ground and just Zimmerman the lot of them with an AR-15? Inquiring minds want to know.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Buffer_Zone_Case
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: wright on June 27, 2014, 03:03:55 PM
^^^Some scary, legitimate points there. Anti-choice protesters aren't the most calm, self-disciplined people around.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on June 27, 2014, 03:27:12 PM
The Rude Pundit had a good post yesterday.  He had a photo of the little church some of the anti-choice people go to.  He suggested they get a dose of their own medicine.  He suggested that church be protested like they do abortion clinics. That the parishioners be video taped, photographed, photos of them with their phone number and home address be posted on telephone poles around the area. That their sidewalk be blocked bodily, and the protesters try to council the parishioners into pro-choice positions or to leave their church.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on June 27, 2014, 03:37:05 PM
^^^ That, I would like to see! ^^^
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on October 06, 2014, 01:35:16 PM
I’ve argued this for a long time.  Abortion is not a necessary evil.  It’s great.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17216/abortion_isnt_necessary_evil_its_great_pro_choice

I never understood why pro-choice folks conceded the framework to the anti-abortion crowd by talking about abortion in hushed, solemn voices and suggesting they too wanted to make it rare. 
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on October 06, 2014, 02:07:16 PM
I am in favor of legal, safe and rare but I would also like to see the stigma removed.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on October 07, 2014, 01:21:53 PM
I’ve argued this for a long time.  Abortion is not a necessary evil.  It’s great.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17216/abortion_isnt_necessary_evil_its_great_pro_choice

I never understood why pro-choice folks conceded the framework to the anti-abortion crowd by talking about abortion in hushed, solemn voices and suggesting they too wanted to make it rare.


I don't think it should be hushed because, because that allows so many to feel they are unusual for considering having one. 
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on October 08, 2014, 09:44:24 AM
I am in favor of legal, safe and rare

bold mine.  why do you add rare?  It is not that I want them to be frequent.  I have no opinion on the quantity or frequency.  I don't see the point of saying you want them to be rare.  It is like saying you want tonsilectomies to be legal, safe and rare.  I want them to be legal, safe and as frequent as they need to be.

If the anti-abortionists were willing to collaborate on programs like sex education, making birth control more available, aid for young, single mothers, etc, then I could see the sense in adding "rare" to your position.  It would signal a common ground where we could work toward a goal.  But they are not interested in that.  They want the opposite of all that. 

So why do you care if abortions are rare?  It does nothing to make them safe and legal.  It only concedes ground to the shitheels who want to end it.

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on October 08, 2014, 03:32:51 PM

If the anti-abortionists were willing to collaborate on programs like sex education, making birth control more available, aid for young, single mothers, etc, then I could see the sense in adding "rare" to your position.  It would signal a common ground where we could work toward a goal.  But they are not interested in that.  They want the opposite of all that. 


All of the above.  If they were more efficient, abortion would be a less frequent choice. I wish the common goal were possible.  Unfortunately most anti-choicers are completely unwilling.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on October 08, 2014, 03:48:07 PM
I am in favor of legal, safe and rare

bold mine.  why do you add rare?  It is not that I want them to be frequent.  I have no opinion on the quantity or frequency.  I don't see the point of saying you want them to be rare.  It is like saying you want tonsilectomies to be legal, safe and rare.  I want them to be legal, safe and as frequent as they need to be.

I know I'm not LoriPinkAngel, but I would also add "rare" to my position on abortion. My thoughts are the same as yours - I want abortions to be legal, safe, and as frequent as they want to be. However, I also want that frequency to be as small as possible (rare, if not outright non-existent, but never denied if requested and/or required). This is a conflation of a true pro-life position (someone who wants to preserve life) with a pro-choice position (someone who wants to give people freedom of choice). I don't like the idea of abortion, but I dislike the idea of restricting people's freedoms even more.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Nam on October 08, 2014, 07:06:12 PM
They only want freedom of choice for themselves, no one else.

-Nam
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on October 09, 2014, 09:11:29 AM
I don't like the idea of abortion, but I dislike the idea of restricting people's freedoms even more.

Why don't you like the idea of abortion?

Personally I love abortion, abortion is a gift to humanity, I just favor restriction on it once certain easily avoided milestones are met. 

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on October 09, 2014, 03:36:24 PM
Why don't you like the idea of abortion?

Like I said, it's a conflation of a true pro-life position with a pro-choice position.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: frank callaway on October 09, 2014, 04:56:30 PM
I am in favor of legal, safe and rare

bold mine.  why do you add rare?  It is not that I want them to be frequent.  I have no opinion on the quantity or frequency.  I don't see the point of saying you want them to be rare.  It is like saying you want tonsilectomies to be legal, safe and rare.  I want them to be legal, safe and as frequent as they need to be.

If the anti-abortionists were willing to collaborate on programs like sex education, making birth control more available, aid for young, single mothers, etc, then I could see the sense in adding "rare" to your position.  It would signal a common ground where we could work toward a goal.  But they are not interested in that.  They want the opposite of all that. 

So why do you care if abortions are rare?  It does nothing to make them safe and legal.  It only concedes ground to the shitheels who want to end it.

do you have an opinion on abortion limits...?  or do you consider third trimester late term abortion as equal to popping the 'plan b' pill...? 
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on October 10, 2014, 08:27:04 AM
do you have an opinion on abortion limits...? 

I have several.

I feel that the rights to a uterus should be limited exclusively to the owner of the uterus.  That would be the woman whose uterus it is.  Not her neighbor.  Not her husband.  Not her priest.  Not her state governor.  Not her congressman.  Definitely not Justice Antonin Scalia.  And not a fetus.

As I am sure you would feel you have an absolute right to sovereignty over your own body, so I believe she should have over hers.  So, if there is something in her uterus she wants out, out it should go.  I do not believe she should be limited by ultrasounds or waiting periods.  She should not be limited by having to drive many hours or out of state to have an abortion.  Nor should she have to endure being told lies mandated by religious zealots. 

And let's also be up front about this - third trimester abortions make up an infinitesimal fraction of all abortions and are pretty much exclusively done because the fetus is severely abnormal or because of health issues for the woman.  So I'm not at all panicked about a theoretical horde of women who are 9 months pregnant rushing out for abortions.  Nor do I think that would be a routine affair.  That is an absurd and unrealistic hypothetical concocted by people who fetishize the fetus.

I also feel an important limit would be to limit the harassment of clinic staff and patients by so-called "pro-lifers".  I feel the "pro-lifers" who do that ought to be treated as what they are - domestic terrorists.  I think they should be video taped, followed home, have their names, addresses and work places posted on the internet and have wanted posters with their faces on them platered around their community.  They should mind their own damn business, or be made social parriahs.


Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: frank callaway on October 10, 2014, 09:55:00 AM
So I'm not at all panicked about a theoretical horde of women who are 9 months pregnant rushing out for abortions.  Nor do I think that would be a routine affair.  That is an absurd and unrealistic hypothetical concocted by people who fetishize the fetus.

why would you be panicked at all?  after all, whether late term abortions are rare or not doesn't matter.  the point is, until the fetus travels through the birth canal (and some would argue even afterwards) it is not a person, or to be more precise, it does not have the rights of "person-hood".  i get it, it's your body and your choice.  it seems pretty cut and dry to me, and i tend to agree

i do however, question the wisdom in celebrating abortion - and the video in question attempts in a weird way to do just that.  it would be the same if a loved one was injured and permanently brain dead... would you celebrate the decision to pull the plug?  i mean after all, they're not really a "person" anymore... they're just a (rather large) clump of cells with zero brain activity.  yet families agonize over this type of decision because it's a loss.  there's nothing to celebrate at the loss of what once was a loved one... just like there's nothing to celebrate over the loss of potential.  grieve, perhaps... but i see no reason to happy about it.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on October 10, 2014, 10:57:06 AM
why would you be panicked at all?

As I said, I'm not.  But the implication usually being made by people who bring up late-term abortions is that it would become some sort of routine procedure and that is supposed to freak people out.  It is often nothing more than a scare tactic intended to emotionally agitate people.  It is the same with them making much ado about "partial birth abortions".  They do everything they can to conflate a developing fetus with actual babies. 

the point is, until the fetus travels through the birth canal (and some would argue even afterwards) it is not a person, or to be more precise, it does not have the rights of "person-hood".  i get it, it's your body and your choice.  it seems pretty cut and dry to me, and i tend to agree

I'm not even saying that.  I'm saying, I don't care if it is a person, it has no rights to someone else's uterus.  That is the argument I've not heard a credible rebuttal against.  You can go back and forth all day about what makes a person a person.  And I agree, it is a sliding scale with no hard line and grey areas.  Thus, it is difficult and contentious to find a resolution everyone can live with.  Going this route, I might agree to limiting late term abortions to health issues.  But once we look at sovereignty over one's own body, it becomes a lot simpler to me and I find no grey area. 

Imagine if a small man were attached to your liver, and if disconnected he would die.  I am sure some men would agree to let him stay attached and that is fine.  That is their choice.  But would it not be absurd to argue he had right to your liver?  Accepting that argument, you could conclude that the general populace could be drafted into organ donation, against their will.

i do however, question the wisdom in celebrating abortion

Why?  Would you celebrate the polio vaccine?  MRI technology?  Other medical procedures that save lives? 

I get that it might outrage some people.  But those are people who are already against it.  They have no qualms about outraging people with whom they disagree.  Neither do they have qualms about lying, deceiving, offending, harassing, assaulting and in some cases, murdering them.  So I see push back as fair game.

Imagine if some group of religious kooks tried to make blood transfusion illegal, and they started PR campaign making transfusion seem dangerous or immoral.  Would it not be right to push back against that?  Would it be wrong to say transfusion is great?

Abortions save lives and make people's lives better. 

it would be the same if a loved one was injured and permanently brain dead... would you celebrate the decision to pull the plug?

Interesting analogy.  I do not think it is apt, though.  There is a huge emotional difference to me between someone who actually developed and I got to know and love, and someone who did not exist because he or she never developed a personality.  There was never a relationship with the latter. 

However, setting the objection aside, if there were people trying to prevent me from carrying that out - see Terri Schaivo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case) - then yes, I think I would celebrate.  I probably would not pop a bottle of champaign, but I would be grateful for the ability to do it.  I would want my family to be able to terminate my body, if that situation arose, and move on.

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: epidemic on October 10, 2014, 11:07:29 AM
Imagine if a small man were attached to your liver, and if disconnected he would die.  I am sure some men would agree to let him stay attached and that is fine.  That is their choice.  But would it not be absurd to argue he had right to your liver?  Accepting that argument, you could conclude that the general populace could be drafted into organ donation, against their will.

I wondered that?   If I the father of a baby was a perfect liver match for my newborn son, could I be compelled against my will to surrender part of my liver to keep him alive?  Why or why not?

I will probably survive the operation, my child will probably live longer because of it,   Can I be compelled to do it as right to lifers propose to compel a woman to carry to term.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on October 10, 2014, 11:20:58 AM
^ sort of the point of the book My Sister's Keeper (http://).  A man and woman had a daughter who was sick and in need of a transplant.  So they had another kid solely for the purpose of being a donor.  The second kid got a lawyer because, wtf.

Of course, it is a novel, and thus, fiction, but still makes a good point.

crap.  I just read a true story recently about a guy who was sick and in need of an organ, but his brother would not volunteer, so the sick one sued the other, to compell him to donate.  Ultimately, he lost.  I cannot find it now and google is killing me.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: frank callaway on October 10, 2014, 11:39:46 AM
Imagine if a small man were attached to your liver, and if disconnected he would die.  I am sure some men would agree to let him stay attached and that is fine.  That is their choice.  But would it not be absurd to argue he had right to your liver?  Accepting that argument, you could conclude that the general populace could be drafted into organ donation, against their will.

i think that's a stretch... a better analogy would be - imagine a small man temporarily attached to your liver, he is attached because of a decision you made, (set aside the small percentage of rape and incest victims) and he will die if you detach him before such & such a date... after said date you're free to leave him forever... you can see the situation becomes a bit murkier...

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on October 10, 2014, 11:47:13 AM
Imagine if a small man were attached to your liver, and if disconnected he would die.  I am sure some men would agree to let him stay attached and that is fine.  That is their choice.  But would it not be absurd to argue he had right to your liver?  Accepting that argument, you could conclude that the general populace could be drafted into organ donation, against their will.

i think that's a stretch... a better analogy would be - imagine a small man temporarily attached to your liver, he is attached because of a decision you made, (set aside the small percentage of rape and incest victims) and he will die if you detach him before such & such a date... after said date you're free to leave him forever... you can see the situation becomes a bit murkier...

Not disconnecting the man and allowing said date to arrive could kill you. In addition, you are not free to leave the man forever, unless you want to become a social pariah.
Wanna keep trying?
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: frank callaway on October 10, 2014, 12:19:36 PM
Imagine if a small man were attached to your liver, and if disconnected he would die.  I am sure some men would agree to let him stay attached and that is fine.  That is their choice.  But would it not be absurd to argue he had right to your liver?  Accepting that argument, you could conclude that the general populace could be drafted into organ donation, against their will.

i think that's a stretch... a better analogy would be - imagine a small man temporarily attached to your liver, he is attached because of a decision you made, (set aside the small percentage of rape and incest victims) and he will die if you detach him before such & such a date... after said date you're free to leave him forever... you can see the situation becomes a bit murkier...

Not disconnecting the man and allowing said date to arrive could kill you. In addition, you are not free to leave the man forever, unless you want to become a social pariah.
Wanna keep trying?

ok, set aside the small percentage of rape victims, incest victims and pregnant women who would probably die as a result of child birth... but i think we all agree that the vast majority of abortions are carried out for reasons that are not due to health, rape or incest.

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons_2.htm

and furthermore, what do you mean "become a social pariah" by leaving the (once attached to your liver) little man...? let's say you give the man up to be adopted by someone who wants the little man... are women who give their children up for adoption considered "social pariahs"...?
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on October 10, 2014, 02:04:54 PM
ok, set aside the small percentage of rape victims, incest victims and pregnant women who would probably die as a result of child birth...

And the ones who used birth control and were unlucky enough to have it fail. As for the ones who "would probably die", depending on how you define "probably", it could very well be all of them. Childbirth is always painful and always potentially deadly.

but i think we all agree that the vast majority of abortions are carried out for reasons that are not due to health, rape or incest.

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons_2.htm

The ones carried out, yes. How about the ones that are denied?

and furthermore, what do you mean "become a social pariah" by leaving the (once attached to your liver) little man...? let's say you give the man up to be adopted by someone who wants the little man... are women who give their children up for adoption considered "social pariahs"...?

You're asking if having sex (naughty, naughty women!), becoming pregnant (if they didn't want to get pregnant, their bodies would have taken care of it!), having a child (see previous), and dumping them at an adoption agency (to be raised by the hardworking taxpayers of the world) will make someone a social pariah? Nah... I'm sure it won't.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: frank callaway on October 10, 2014, 03:28:32 PM
You're asking if having sex (naughty, naughty women!), becoming pregnant (if they didn't want to get pregnant, their bodies would have taken care of it!), having a child (see previous), and dumping them at an adoption agency (to be raised by the hardworking taxpayers of the world) will make someone a social pariah? Nah... I'm sure it won't.

MOD, I NEED A MOD OVER HERE (and i know you're watching because it says so on my avatar!!!)  this comment by OAA is flamebait... ^^^THIS is trolling, and not very interesting or humorous trolling either.  pay attention mods, do not be biased in your use of the "we're watching you" meter... see, these are the things you can learn from watching my posts.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on October 10, 2014, 04:06:54 PM
imagine a small man temporarily attached to your liver

but financially dependent for about the next 22 years.

he is attached because of a decision you made

but it was not a given that he would be attached.  I lost a game of chance.  Had I won, he would not have been attached.

he will die if you detach him before such & such a date

Like I said, other people might be fine with having him there.  But that still does not make my liver his liver.

you can see the situation becomes a bit murkier...

not really.  None of the changes you made to the analogy cede rights to my liver to someone else.  In the end, it is still my liver.  And if I get tired of shlepping around a guy, who is tiring me out, straining my liver (and other organs) and causing me to gain weight, I am not obligated to keep the little guy connected.  As I said, in the end, it is still my liver, not his.

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: frank callaway on October 10, 2014, 04:34:54 PM
but financially dependent for about the next 22 years.

but not if you sign away your "little man rights" and let the little man be adopted by another loving family...

not really.  None of the changes you made to the analogy cede rights to my liver to someone else.  In the end, it is still my liver.  And if I get tired of shlepping around a guy, who is tiring me out, straining my liver (and other organs) and causing me to gain weight, I am not obligated to keep the little guy connected.  As I said, in the end, it is still my liver, not his.

fair enough... i get what you're saying.  but we're men, and it may be easy for us to say... meh, just get it outta here... i changed my mind, (or whatever).  but for women, being pregnant is nothing like having a little man attached to your liver... for example, i might enjoy having a little man attached to my liver, especially if by being attached he could help suck up some of the alcohol i routinely pour down my gullet.  but i don't need to tell you that women are different.  women feel different when they're pregnant, just the idea of being pregnant is a game changer for most women.  so again, i'm not sure celebrating the decision to get an abortion as 'all fun and games' is the right message to send...
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on October 10, 2014, 05:57:55 PM
MOD, I NEED A MOD OVER HERE (and i know you're watching because it says so on my avatar!!!)  this comment by OAA is flamebait... ^^^THIS is trolling, and not very interesting or humorous trolling either.  pay attention mods, do not be biased in your use of the "we're watching you" meter... see, these are the things you can learn from watching my posts.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Chronos on October 10, 2014, 07:37:48 PM
And let's also be up front about this - third trimester abortions make up an infinitesimal fraction of all abortions and are pretty much exclusively done because the fetus is severely abnormal or because of health issues for the woman.  So I'm not at all panicked about a theoretical horde of women who are 9 months pregnant rushing out for abortions.  Nor do I think that would be a routine affair.  That is an absurd and unrealistic hypothetical concocted by people who fetishize the fetus.

I think the vast majority of women do not want others to know they are pregnant, so waiting until the third trimester lets that rabbit out of the hat (if not sooner). Getting an abortion in the third trimester would be rare by default.

I also feel an important limit would be to limit the harassment of clinic staff and patients by so-called "pro-lifers".  I feel the "pro-lifers" who do that ought to be treated as what they are - domestic terrorists.  I think they should be video taped, followed home, have their names, addresses and work places posted on the internet and have wanted posters with their faces on them platered around their community.  They should mind their own damn business, or be made social parriahs.

Yeah, these people have to stand in a public for this shit and since it would be newsworthy we don't have to obtain their permission to publish their images.

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: albeto on October 11, 2014, 08:35:53 PM
fair enough... i get what you're saying.  but we're men, and it may be easy for us to say... meh, just get it outta here... i changed my mind, (or whatever).  but for women, being pregnant is nothing like having a little man attached to your liver... for example, i might enjoy having a little man attached to my liver, especially if by being attached he could help suck up some of the alcohol i routinely pour down my gullet.  but i don't need to tell you that women are different.  women feel different when they're pregnant, just the idea of being pregnant is a game changer for most women.  so again, i'm not sure celebrating the decision to get an abortion as 'all fun and games' is the right message to send...

A video that dispels the lie that abortions are inherently traumatic and result in a lifetime of guilt and depression is hardly promoting abortion as "all fun and games." That argument would be silly if so many women weren't callously and deceptively conditioned to feel that way in the first place, or lied about expecting it (http://io9.com/5958187/what-happens-to-women-denied-abortions-this-is-the-first-scientific-study-to-find-out). Not all women welcome pregnancy, and not all men are emotionally unmoved enough to not recognize their game has significantly changed to know their wives/girlfriends/lovers are pregnant. The analogy of a little man doesn't work for me any more than an analogy of a wart does. A fetus is in constant development, much like a child is. As there is no one point we can conclude objectively and factually that a boy is now a man, there is no point in fetal development we can conclude a few cells is now a wee baby waiting to be born. Don't make the mistake of thinking all women think of the developing fetus as a wee baby waiting to be born, and never a development in process whose termination is a good idea under circumstances to which you may never be aware.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: frank callaway on October 13, 2014, 11:43:25 AM
Imagine if a small man were attached to your liver, and if disconnected he would die.  I am sure some men would agree to let him stay attached and that is fine.  That is their choice.  But would it not be absurd to argue he had right to your liver?  Accepting that argument, you could conclude that the general populace could be drafted into organ donation, against their will.

i think that's a stretch... a better analogy would be - imagine a small man temporarily attached to your liver, he is attached because of a decision you made, (set aside the small percentage of rape and incest victims) and he will die if you detach him before such & such a date... after said date you're free to leave him forever... you can see the situation becomes a bit murkier...

Not disconnecting the man and allowing said date to arrive could kill you. In addition, you are not free to leave the man forever, unless you want to become a social pariah.
Wanna keep trying?

ok, set aside the small percentage of rape victims, incest victims and pregnant women who would probably die as a result of child birth... but i think we all agree that the vast majority of abortions are carried out for reasons that are not due to health, rape or incest.

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons_2.htm

and furthermore, what do you mean "become a social pariah" by leaving the (once attached to your liver) little man...? let's say you give the man up to be adopted by someone who wants the little man... are women who give their children up for adoption considered "social pariahs"...?

o.k., alright, alright, alrighty.

listen up fellow wwgha posters... do you see the post above.  i posted a response noting that rape victims, incest victims and situations where the health of the pregnant woman was at stake made up a very small percentage of (the reasons for) abortion.  i back up this claim with the hard facts: http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons_2.htm

the facts are 0.5% of abortions are a result of incest.  1% a result of rape, and 12% a result of physical health problems.  So my claim that these reason make up a very small percent of the reasons women get abortions is truth, backed up by fact.

so can anyone tell me why OAA thought it necessary to give me a -darwin point for this comment with the explanation of (reason), and i quote:  "Rape and incest victims are NOT a "small" percentage"...

anyone...?  when the fact is that rape and incest victims make up less than 2% of overall abortions...?

this is why this site is a joke.  i have jaimehlers telling me it's "unprecedented" that i've racked up so many -darwin points so quickly to which i say, WOW what a shocker when i get them for posting facts.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on October 13, 2014, 12:45:06 PM
so can anyone tell me why OAA thought it necessary to give me a -darwin point for this comment

maybe he's a bad sport?
It could be no one likes you. 
Or, could it be he gave you the smite before you posted your link?  Let's look.

smite given: October 10, 2014, 11:48:34 AM
post with link posted:  Reply #120 on: October 10, 2014, 12:19:36 PM

So, you were smote approximately an hour and a half before you posted your evidence.  That's probably why. I think you confused which post of yours received the smite. 118 got the smite.

But whatever the reason, quit whining about it.  Karma is irrelevant and no one loves a whiner.

Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: frank callaway on October 13, 2014, 01:15:54 PM
so can anyone tell me why OAA thought it necessary to give me a -darwin point for this comment

maybe he's a bad sport?
It could be no one likes you. 
Or, could it be he gave you the smite before you posted your link?  Let's look.

smite given: October 10, 2014, 11:48:34 AM
post with link posted:  Reply #120 on: October 10, 2014, 12:19:36 PM

So, you were smote approximately an hour and a half before you posted your evidence.  That's probably why. I think you confused which post of yours received the smite. 118 got the smite.

But whatever the reason, quit whining about it.  Karma is irrelevant and no one loves a whiner.

fair enough.  if he did in fact give me the smite prior to my post with the referenced link, so be it.  however, if someone is going to smite someone else with a reason that is verifiable, perhaps it would be wise to "verify" said reason... not that i would expect OAA to have the wherewithal to do so...
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on October 13, 2014, 01:20:49 PM
however, if someone is going to smite someone else with a reason that is verifiable, perhaps it would be wise to "verify" said reason...

I quite agree.  Maybe he will acknowledge your correction with a balancing Darwin? 
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on October 13, 2014, 01:32:09 PM
however, if someone is going to smite someone else with a reason that is verifiable, perhaps it would be wise to "verify" said reason...

I quite agree.  Maybe he will acknowledge your correction with a balancing Darwin? 

I would, if I agreed with the "very small" categorization. 13.5% (health issues+rape+incest) is hardly "very small". It's over 1 out of every 8 women. Using this very same "logic", then world hunger in developing countries isn't so bad. It's "just" 15% of their combined population.[1]
 1. Source: http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Number_of_hungry_people_in_the_world
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Jag on October 13, 2014, 01:37:56 PM
I often wonder if people who think these are insignificant numbers would take the same position if the woman in question were their wife, sister, mother, girlfriend, or another close female, as opposed to a nameless, faceless woman on whom they feel comfortable passing harsh judgments.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: frank callaway on October 13, 2014, 02:29:59 PM
I often wonder if people who think these are insignificant numbers would take the same position if the woman in question were their wife, sister, mother, girlfriend, or another close female, as opposed to a nameless, faceless woman on whom they feel comfortable passing harsh judgments.

ain't nobody passing judgement around here... couple of things... the OAA smite in question only qualifies rape victims and incest victims.  go ahead, check out the smite.  so OAA is being a little disingenuous with his 13.5% comment.  to be fair though, i did include health issues in my original comment... so the question becomes, is 13.5% out of 100% very small...? or perhaps it's just "small", or "kinda small", or maybe it's extremely huge?  who the fuck knows...?  hey OAA... any thoughts on this...?
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Jag on October 13, 2014, 05:38:40 PM
^^^You quoted my post in an effort make your point, but my remark wasn't about the smite you're still complaining about. You neglected to address my post at all, even though you quoted it in it's entirety.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on October 13, 2014, 05:42:29 PM
<snip>

My thoughts:
Those statistics only apply to abortions that were carried out. They don't talk about abortions that were needed/wanted, but denied/impossible to acquire. With the current legislation and mindset, abortions are becoming increasingly difficult for women to procure, no matter the reason.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: Devils Advocate on October 15, 2014, 12:57:02 AM

You're asking if having sex (naughty, naughty women!), becoming pregnant (if they didn't want to get pregnant, their bodies would have taken care of it!), having a child (see previous), and dumping them at an adoption agency (to be raised by the hardworking taxpayers of the world) will make someone a social pariah? Nah... I'm sure it won't.

I seem to recall reading that the Spartans allowed infanticide up to a year after birth, if the baby was physically deformed. They would generally leave the baby on the rocks by the shore where it would get swept out to sea. I have to wonder if there were societal pressures in this regard. How deformed would it have to be? Would mothers (and/or fathers) be shamed by leaving a specimen that was simply not perfect?

What does it take to become a social pariah? Today, there is no scarlet A, but there are "forced birthers" (I like that term) that crowd a clinic and verbally harass even those who are only there for a pap smear.[1]

I also seem to recall that someone mentioned the idea (earlier in this thread) that there could be a good argument for eliminating certain teenagers, since their brains are not fully formed. I am prepared to make this argument, but I have my doubts that anyone would take it seriously.[2] I went through adolescence some years ago, and there may have been people that wanted to kill me, but I survived and apparently, most of you did too. But so how far could we take it? Is anyone up for a discussion of the pros/cons of whether to allow termination of life after birth and where to draw the lines regarding age/risk/species? When does it become socially acceptable to flush the baby alligator that has gotten too big?

If religion were eliminated from the face of the earth, could science and public policy justify infanticide for some time period after birth? Medical ethicists could have a field day...

I think this is why the U.S. Supreme Court came up with the trimester idea. As I understand the Roe v. Wade decision, in the first trimester, all abortions are the choice of the mother. In the last trimester, all abortions are forbidden (except possibly when there are extenuating circumstances), and the middle trimester is reserved to the states to regulate.

Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists are not satisfied with this middle ground. They want to eliminate all abortions, for any reason. (Which is why I like the term "forced birther". Some people have no compassion for the teenager who made a choice that was incomprehensible to them, so they discount its value. Yo, forced birthers, ever done anything you regretted later?)

Of course, not everyone is religious fundamentalist. There are those musteline Xians who want to interpret. Let's call the ones who will allow for abortion in cases of rape/incest/health in the first or second trimester "pro-life". They only force birth when they judge the woman to be unchaste.

I want to suggest that "pro-choice" believers have an opportunity to weigh in on the idea that the choice could be made after she sees what comes out.

When is it OK to eliminate a downs child? From all I have seen, the people born with downs syndrome are the most beautiful perfect people on the planet, with no cynicism or judgmentalness. Would that everybody were like them. I think it is a bummer that they live shorter lives than the rest of us.

But not all of us are Sarah Palin. 

What I mean is that not everybody has the capability to raise a child with special needs.[3] Half the people in the United States today have an IQ of 100 or below.[4]

And not all kids get parents. I would have a lot more sympathy for the so-called "pro-life" movement if there were not children abandoned to orphanages and foster homes. Forcing birth seems to me to be a cardinal sin (One Above All: could you include that in your liturgy?) against nature if nothing else because not all persons are going to survive, and the best human born to unavailable parents is not going to improve the human race (forgive me as I get Darwinistic) as much as a supposedly lesser human born to parents that care about his/her survival (whether the parents be homosexual, Muslim, or (god forbid) atheist).

So can we debate whether there is a point at which infanticide makes sense? 
 1. As far as you know. I have no direct evidence either way, and doubt that any exists, but I cannot imagine an abortion clinic protest that differentiated between clients of Planned Parenthood who were there for a medical checkup from those that wanted to discuss/plan/have an abortion
 2. But see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_juvenile_offenders_executed_in_the_United_States_since_1976
 3. Whether the child have downs, autism, cystic fibrosis, etc.
 4. Some might argue that Americans are dumber than others around the world. But what does IQ really mean? http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=682488
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: One Above All on October 15, 2014, 02:16:57 AM
One Above All: could you include that in your liturgy?

Dunno what you mean by this.

So can we debate whether there is a point at which infanticide makes sense? 

Killing someone never "makes sense". Best case-scenario, it's justified (someone's own life was in danger, killing one person saved more, and so on). That's my stance.
Title: Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
Post by: screwtape on October 27, 2014, 11:20:40 AM
a couple of good arguments.

1. according to the bible, life does not begin at conception, but at breathing.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/19/1285933/-Bible-Life-Begins-at-Breath-Not-Conception

2. other biblical arguments for abortion
http://americablog.com/2014/10/god-pro-choice.html