'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by visceral_instinct, Feb 12, 2011.

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    the one in womb of course
    If you didn't smear words to the effect "but a zygote isn't a person" my argument wouldn't be so prevalent


    And you use this term to distinguish between an abortion and a double homicide (in the case of a pregnant woman being murdered)?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    I'm not sure how this is relevant to a person crushing the skull of a new born child, or injecting Methotrexate, or piercing the fetus's brain with a metal rod, or pulverizing it before vacuuming it out with a large syringe.

    Your arguments are getting weirder.

    I mean isn't the detail of "death by natural causes" conspicuous by its absence in the case of murder investigations?

    Or do you mean to voice an idea similar to this ....

    Heidi herself says, "I believe that all young people are survivors of abortion, just like I am, because they too could have been killed under the current policy of our government, which declared us "non-persons" when we were in the womb."




    that you wouldn't give a straight answer



    The only thing botched about it was that the abortionist wasn't due to come in the office for another 3 hours

    Now compare the injuries she would have sustained if she popped out 3 hours later ....

    neither do I ... yet even I have a rudimentary understanding of different literary contexts for the word

    You think FMLTWIA is a degrading term?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    who do you associate it with?
    men?


    as far as I can remember, I only referred to Lucy as a whore - a two faced one to be precise - and even then, only once (and even then, only in jest since I popped it midstream during a goading fest of hers) - It might be just me, but I don't think that rates as often usage ... and as a further question for thought, I'm not sure how you extrapolated that to include all women.
    In fact I am not sure that we are even working with the same literary context for the word

    (BTW you called me a fucking retard on occasion - do you consider all men fucking retards? Or is it that you have a personal chip on your shoulder against people with birth defects - regardless whether they received them through botched abortions or not?)
    re·tard 2 (rtärd)
    n. Offensive Slang
    1. Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.



    do you think that the only literary context for "whore" is to be engaged in performing sexual acts for money?


    Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion", a result of a job not well done.

    There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment. Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and had me transferred to a hospital.

    http://joseromia.tripod.com/gtext.html

    (cough cough)

    I'm not sure what you are asking.

    Maybe you can help by explaining how you fit into the aborted child's picture and why this lends credibility to your opinions

    I'm not sure you understand - if she popped out in the audience of someone legally permitted to crush her skull (the standard procedure for dealing with gasping fetuses) the scenario would have been completely different

    I think that you have personally bought into the pseudo-liberalism that abortion was sold on - so you are full of arguments about "controlling womens' bodies, giving people the choice etc etc" while simultaneously remaining blind to the ghastly hypocrisy of such arguments.



    What can we say to these people to sympathize with them and rationalize abortion at the same time? "We’re sorry that you’re missing a limb as a result of that failed abortion, but that abortion attempt was in your mother’s best interest as well as yours and society’s and the world's"? Or, "Your injuries are awful; better technology and skill should have been available to abort you correctly so that you would not have lived to either 'enslave' your mother or suffer yourself"?

    Just a gentle reminder of the overbearing consequences of your so called freedom of choice ....
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    The OP poses a great question.
    Thus its longevity.
    It's a vital question in the debate.

    Why should hard cases decide the matter?
    Either you believe that the growing collection of cells has no rights until it is able to exist independently of its mother, or you believe that the growing baby inside its mother is an individual, with individual rights.

    In fact, by far the largest number of abortions in the world are abortion as a form of contraceptive.
    If the Abortion just disposes of an accretion of unwanted growth.
    A potential baby, if the host and potential mother decide to let it grow.
    That isn't a problem.
    Just chop it out. Why mention rape?

    As I say, the OP poses a great question.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    So the personal is political when it suits you, but not when it does not?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Yes, but which one have I condemned to death?

    Care to name one?

    A zygote isn't a person. It is as much a person as a blood clot. Unless you name them as well and hope it calls you daddy?

    Yep. Law is grand is it not?

    Ah, I love it when you get all emotional and try to appeal to hysterics..

    It is relevant because the majority of pregnancies result in a natural abortion.

    Usually before the mother is even aware she was pregnant.

    Do you have any idea just how dangerous it is to be a fetus? Any at all? Why do you think it is often deemed a parasite? The mother's body will often eject or expell the fetus, usually in the first couple of weeks and usually before the woman is even aware that she is pregnant.

    To get through it is like a lottery.

    I am still waiting for you to provide proof for your claims about me by the way. So either link it and substantiate your claims that I am "pro-abortion" and all the rest of the clap trap you have accused me of or shut up.

    And?

    She was born alive. Even if the abortionist had been there, her coming out alive means that he could not complete the proceedure as you are alluding he would have.

    Do you understand now?

    What do you think would have happened if she had been delivered alive 3 hours later?

    Think about that answer very carefully and take out the hysterics and fear mongering.

    So to understand or have rudimentary understanding of the word "whore" one automatically knows what "FMLTWIA" means?

    Ya, sure.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Where did you find the term? Is it something you have seen often in researching to have "rudimentary understanding" of the word?

    I know exactly what the whore means. But it is not something that I tend to attribute or call people. I guess, unlike you, I don't view women as being whores because they are sexually active and/or are pro-choice.

    No one. It is not something I even consider. I mean we already know who you associate it with. Women.

    Of course. So much so that you asked me if I'd attribute the term to my own daughter if I found out she was "giving" oral sex.

    Nope. You see, for me to see someone as a "fucking retard", that someone would have to be special. A special case where the stupidity and inanity of the individual is so strong that the only term that applies is "fucking retard". I guess if you had a birth defect, be it physical or mental, it wouldn't really matter. Being a dickhead is something that is equal opportunity. You can have a birth defect or not and still be a dickhead. Trying to hide your dickheadedness behind a birth defect does not make you less of a dickhead or less of a fucking retard. And I meant fucking retard in the sense that one is a twat. Just in case you weren't sure of course.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You mean prostitution?

    You mean whore as being something perverted. I don't view prostitution as being perverted. I know several prostitutes and most of them have loving families that they are trying to feed and educate and house. As I said, whores is not something that I attritute to anyone really. Obviously you do. In fact, we know you do.

    Hmmmm..

    "There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment. Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and had me transferred to a hospital."


    "Cough Cough" indeed..

    Had it been as you have been dishonestly trying to imply, the nurse would simply have taken her away and either waited for the doctor to arrive or 'crushed her skull' right then and there. I think the fact that they immediately sent her to the hospital should tell you something, shouldn't it?

    No where. That's the thing, it is none of my business and I have no right to foist my opinion and force women to do as I say or believe. Do you comprehend that bit?

    And I do not think you quite understand that because she came out alive, the doctor could no longer cruss her skull and would have been required by law and by his medical license to administer medical aid to her, just as the nurse did. The person who was legally permitted to crush her skull in utero is also a doctor and has an oath he has to legally oblige by. Had she been born in his/her presence, that person would have been required by his/her oath to provide medical aid. Do you understand now?

    Do you understand that when you take a way a woman's right to choose, you are controlling her body?

    And here is a gentle reminder of what you wish to impose on girls and women:


    "A medical ethics panel in Romania refused to grant an abortion to an 11-year-old who had allegedly been raped by her uncle, a hospital official said."

    (Source)


    Now you tell that little girl that she still doesn't get to have a say. She didn't get to have a say when she was raped and she still won't get to have a say when she is forced to give birth to her rapist's child. You tell her being forced to have her rapist's child is the moral decision.

    And that is if she is lucky and actually survives.

    But do you want to see a perfect example of the overbearing consequences of your ideals?

    The report "The total abortion ban in Nicaragua: Women's lives and health endangered, medical professionals criminalized" is the first Amnesty International study examining the human rights implications of the denial of abortion when the life or health of a woman or girl is at risk, including when she is a victim of rape or incest.

    ------------------------------------------------------

    The new Code introduces criminal sanctions for doctors and nurses who treat a pregnant woman or girl for illnesses such as cancer, malaria, HIV/AIDS or cardiac emergencies where such treatment is contraindicated in pregnancy and may cause injury to or death of the embryo or foetus.

    It even goes as far as punishing girls and women who have suffered a miscarriage, as in many cases it is impossible to distinguish spontaneous from induced abortions.

    ------------------------------------------------------

    "Nicaragua’s ban of therapeutic abortion is a disgrace. It is a human rights scandal that ridicules medical science and distorts the law into a weapon against the provision of essential medical care to pregnant girls and women," said Kate Gilmore, Amnesty International’s Executive Deputy Secretary General at a press conference in Mexico City as she returned from a visit to Nicaragua.

    "Nicaragua’s Penal Code is a callous and cynical artefact of the political wheeling and dealing that took place in the country’s 2006 elections. Today, however, it punishes women and girl children for seeking life saving medical treatment and doctors for providing it."

    -------------------------------------------------------

    Obstetricians, gynaecologists and family doctors in Nicaragua told Amnesty International that under this Penal Code they can no longer legally provide effective medical treatment for life threatening diseases in pregnant women and girls because of the potential risk to the foetus.

    One doctor told Amnesty International that she prays she will not receive a patient with an anencephalic pregnancy (a condition which means the foetus cannot survive) because of the prospect of telling the woman she will be compelled to carry the pregnancy to full term, despite its devastating physiological and psychological impact on the woman.

    "There’s only one way to describe what we have seen in Nicaragua: sheer horror," said Kate Gilmore. "Children are being compelled to bear children. Pregnant women are being denied essential including life saving medical care."

    "What alternatives is this government offering a 10-year-old pregnant as a result of rape? And to a cancer sufferer who is denied life saving treatment just because she is pregnant, while she has other children waiting at home?" said Kate Gilmore.





    (Source)


    Welcome to the reality of your supposedly moral idealogy, LG. And the reality, the more you look into countries where abortion is banned in all cases is even more gruesome. Well I consider it awful, but you probably think this is perfect:



    First, since there are no exceptions to the criminalization of abortion in El Salvador, women who were raped or whose pregnancy endangers their lives may not get an abortion. It’s all illegal.

    In the interview, Hitt cited what happens in the case of an ectopic pregnancy – one where the fertilized egg does not drop into the uterus, but is instead caught in the fallopian tube. In all cases of such a pregnancy, the fetus dies. If the fetus isn’t removed, it will continue to grow until it ruptures the woman’s fallopian tube and causes massive internal bleeding, which could lead to the woman’s death.

    In El Salvador, doctors can only monitor an ectopic pregnancy until either the fetus dies or until the rupture of the fallopian tube occurs. Otherwise an abortion is illegal.

    Furthermore, if a doctor performs an examination of woman and finds evidence of an abortion, he must report her to the authorities, who procure a search warrant for the woman’s vagina. A state-hired “forensic vagina specialist” then examines the woman for proof of her crime. (Yes, this is an actual job title.)

    And everyone involved in an illegal abortion can be prosecuted, including the abortionist, woman, and anyone who knew about the procedure – a boyfriend, say, or mother – but didn’t turn the woman in.



    (Source)

    Tell me, is this moral to you? Is this what you want?

    Just a "gentle reminder' of what 'no-choice' entails.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2011
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    They are not his ideals, though.

    As he has repeated many times, and made clear why.
     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I'm not sure ... were we talking about you denying womb rights or are you trying to change the topic?

    except in the case of double homicides involving pregnant women ... and except in the case of botched attempts at abortions .... and except in the case of women seeking abortions for that matter too




    a mere sparkle compared to the sophistry of political language - take relying on the use of "viable" to make a distinction between a pregnancy and a double homicide as a prime example ...


    by what? talking about the technical aspects of abortion in scientific terms?

    And a majority of standard abortions involve consenting persons, which bears an uncanny similarity to your standard homicide investigation.

    I mean its not like you get off the hook for killing someone in a bathtub merely because of majority of people who die in bathtubs slip on the soap or something.




    Do you have any idea how much that danger factor increases if one is a fetus in an abortion clinic?
    (must be at least 1 000 000 000 000 000 times more dangerous than a child who never sees the inside of an abortion clinic"
    A fetus is a parasite?
    I don't think so.
    A parasite cannot be the same species as the host.
    I think you are attempting to shroud the topic in political bs again

    Now imagine having won the lottery and someone comes along and intentionally steals it from you - that is an accurate picture of the ethical implications of abortion
    once again, your contributions on this thread clearly show which side of the fence you are on



    THE REALITY OF PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION


    THE COURT: An affidavit I saw earlier said sometimes, I take it, the fetus is alive until they crush the skull?

    THE WITNESS: That's correct, yes, sir.

    THE COURT: In one affidavit I saw attached earlier in this proceeding, were the fingers of the baby opening and closing?

    THE WITNESS: It would depend where the hands were and whether or not you could see them.

    THE COURT: Were they in some instances?

    THE WITNESS: Not that I remember. I don't think I have ever looked at the hands.

    THE COURT: Were the feet moving?

    THE WITNESS: Feet could be moving, yes.




    You're really naive to this stuff, aren't you?

    How do you crush a babies skull while its still in utero and see its feet and arms?




    I mean if you called me a "fucking retard" I am pretty sure you are familiar with "stupid bitch" or "slimy asshole" or "crazy cunt" or any of several hundred other lewd antonyms for "decent person"

    I read about it in a thesis paper about contemporary language in the technological age ... but actually I wasn't aiming at something so high brow. I just thought it served as a good example of how the use of the word whore can find its use in contexts other than what you have been whining about for the past ten pages. I don't know why you are being such a dopey bitch about it all.
    I usually don't describe other people genitals as abscessed, or describe their views as caked up shit in their rectum, or suggest that they are like a dog on heat because they agree with another person, or describe my posts as like aggressive attacks with red hot pincers on my opponents anus either ... but in the midst of such a hearty contribution of colorful terms, I thought "two faced whore" would be a welcome addition to her cheerful expressions. Whether she was talking about woman's rights or the price of eggs in china was irrelevant.

    For some reason lexicographers don't suffer from your writer's block

    whore
       /hɔr, hoʊr or, often, hʊər/ Show Spelled [hawr, hohr or, often, hoor] Show IPA noun, verb, whored, whor·ing.
    –noun
    1.
    a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.

    Is this a radical take on feminism? The refusal to accept that common usage of "whore" includes gender assignment?
    /grabs popcorn

    actually I asked whether that's what would be racing through your head if you found FMLTWIA on her mobile (assuming you were up on the latest communication trends) , since as far as this thread is concerned, it appears that you only capable of one literary context for the word "whore"

    thanks for proving my point
    If you can use the word "fucking retard" outside of the traditional context of "retard", you can also do the same with "whore" as in the case of "two faced whore" (or even FMLTWIA) ... unless of course you are a fucking retard

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    No
    I mean "whore"

    Do you think the only literary context for it is to be engaged in performing sexual acts for money?




    Well yeah, what else would you expect a staff nurse to do?
    carry out the procedure and place their future career and financial life savings at the mercy of legal persecution?

    What does it tell me?

    Nurses don't perform surgical procedures (like abortions for instance ... even if they are as straight forward as crushing the skull).
    Doctors do.

    What does it tell you?




    So you wouldn't be foisted to give an opinion of a woman killing her child under any sort of circumstances?


    I could provide numerous links to suggest otherwise but I think its time you got off your lazy ass and try to find an authoritative link to back up your dishonest assertions about abortion techniques and practices.
    get yourself educated


    Do you understand that choosing to kill one's child not only controls it but kills it?

     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2011
  10. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    @LG

    "the statistics of surviving rape and even child birth are a zillion times higher than the statistics of surviving abortion"

    And what of the tens of thousands of women who become so desperate that they get a botched abortion either self-induced or performed by someone who doesn't know what they're doing? Where does your moral ideology stand on their deaths which also include losing the fetus? Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions it simply amounts to more deaths, you know that 'double homicide' you and Signal are always quacking about.
     
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    14 000 deaths a day is a tall figure to top don't you think?

    LRILSSC

    (quote from way back when in this thread : bringing in legislation that doesn't have a foundation in the ethics of the society it is to be implemented in is a failed piece of legislation in everyone's books ...., or as I will be saying from now on, LRILSSC)

    If any other discussion on ethics is not met by an immediate need to illegalize what was deemed inappropriate, its not clear why you bring such narrow thinking here ... what to speak of citing the problems of immediately illegalizing it as valid excuse to prohibit any degree of investigation or regulation into the practice
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2011
  12. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    No. No I wouldn't agree with that at all. Women are conscious independent people...with legal rights. Fetal growth potential cannot be equated with those who are actually living. All you are saying is that you are willing to sacrifice the lives of women AND their unborn...but especially the lives of women. I think that's proof enough of your misogyny.

    Its not deemed inappropriate, there are more people who believe a safe abortion more appropriate than those who wish to see it illegal.
     
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Nobody is independent.
    Your persistent lobbying for society to provide facilities for abortions clearly proves this.

    As for your use of "conscious" and "people", they simply work out an identical language of unconsciousness that kept black people dis-empowered and victim to a host of injustices for hundreds of years

    As for legal rights, that depends who, where and what you are so its not the strongest argument ... I mean its not like the legal rights of plantation owners did much for black people 200 years ago

    given that persons have survived abortions despite the best intentions, you have a blurred definition

    I am saying that whatever half baked figures you pull out, you don't get anything close to 14 000 ... and I am also saying that you are bringing narrow thinking to a discussion on ethics if you think the only option is to legalize or illegalize it.

    As a practical example, a discussion on the ethics of pregnant mums chain smoking might bring a host of measures to the fore (like education, professional advise from medical professionals etc). If someone came along and attempted to disband all such discussion by citing how impractical it is to illegalize it ("What are you going to do? set up ultrasounds at all the places that sell cigarettes?"), what would you think?
    eh?

    Unless you've got a good argument for vox populi being the final last word in the ethical soundness of an idea, you are saying absolutely nothing ....

    (Did the popularity of utilizing blacks as slaves make the deed any less barbaric?)
     
  14. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    pardon
    i require the services of a few good death dealers
    am i in the right place or did i make a wrong turn?
    thanks

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    On Aesthetics, Extremity, and Reality, Among Other Things

    What is the functional comparison you're after with that? Or are you just assembling sentences that have the appearance of relevance without any functional consideration at all?

    "Declaring that one must be dependent in order to have access to justice"? What does that even mean?

    As to protecting the defenseless or dependent? I have long made an argument about the absurdity of absolutism, and some have suggested that I venture into hyperbole.

    In 2009, the Virginia legislature considered a bill requiring the reporting of all fetal deaths to authorities. SB 962 did not distinguish between abortion and miscarriage. As I've noted in this and other threads, that is problematic. Responding to SB 962, I wrote:

    While it doesn't call for homicide investigations, SB962 presents an interesting possibility. Imagine down at the Fetal Death Investigations office any number of employees absolutely drowning in paperwork. The number of miscarriages reported is a mere fraction of the number that occurs. A woman might experience some pain and drop some blood into the toilet or some-such, and there are several possibilities. One of those, of course, is a miscarriage. And it might be the first and only sign she had that she was pregnant. Of course, it might also just be her body clearing blood from a uterine bruise after especially vigorous sex. So either the office of FDI, or whatever it ends up being called, might end up swamped with "maybe" reports, or thousands of women might end up in breach of the law, even if they don't know they've had a miscarriage. Ignorance is not bliss before the law, after all.​

    It was a thread about why men shouldn't have to pay child support, so I'm not surprised that prohibitionists didn't take it up at the time.

    I presented the argument in 2008, for example:

    A question for the anti-abortionists:

    A woman miscarries. If life begins at conception, we should, then, investigate this death under unknown circumstances. How much money and how many hours are you willing to spend investigating every miscarriage that occurs?

    And I mean every miscarriage. In 1997, my partner aborted a fetus that was already dead. How much should have been spent investigating how that fetus came to never come alive? (Its heart never started beating, as far as anyone can tell.)

    In 1990, a teacher at my high school nearly died during a miscarriage. Because she was a Catholic, she refused to undergo a D&C when it was discovered that the fetus was developing without a brain, and had zero chance of being born alive. It took her months to recover from the health damage. When should the investigation have started? While she was pregnant? Right after the miscarriage? After she had time to recover and bury evidence?

    How many women who are anti-abortion would accept that each of their menstrual issues should be screened for a fertilized egg, in order to ensure that a death does not go unnoticed?​

    As far as prohibitionist responses go:

    "Miscarriages and intentional baby-killing by the vicious mother are not the same. Any woman who could kill her baby is a soulless monster with an evil spirit imo." (Sandy)

    The resulting discussion is actually quite interesting; the prohibitionist was unwilling to discuss the implications of life at conception—we should not be surprised. And while Madanthonywayne insisted that "there's no comparison between that and aborting a normal, healthy baby", it would seem that such a sentiment is not universal among the prohibitionist movement, as the Virginia bill suggests.

    Reiterating the point in that particular thread, we finally got an answer—two weeks and over 340 posts after the proposition was introduced. And it is strikingly similar to your own:

    • "That is absurd. Even someone who does consider killing an embryo murder would not support such a policy as it would be impractical." (Madanthonywayne)

    • "who amongst us would advocate passing extreme legislation that doesn't have the social foundation to be practical?" (Lightgigantic)

    Three years later, then, my response to your point about extreme legislation is the same as it was then:

    So, while it sounds great as a political slogan, it's too expensive for reality? .... If impracticality is a reason to not try to do important things, where would humanity be?​

    As extreme or socially untenable as you might think such policies to be, it is, as I asserted then, a matter of integrity. These are the implications of life at conception in the pro-life context.

    Indeed, as I noted earlier in the thread, "I can envision a world that completely outlaws abortion, but the reality is that nobody would go along with it." And as I advised in a later post: "... I'm considering the practical outcomes of the abstract assertion that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder."

    In 2001 I inquired: "[W]hen a woman has a miscarriage, do we investigate and possibly then indict her for murder?" I clarified the question:

    After all, how do we know that the mother didn't do something to cause the miscarriage? Or, at any rate, to not prevent it. Did she fall down the stairs? If [she] wore socks on a wood staircase, then she is negligent in the death of what you claim to be a life. If she took a medicine, even one listed as safe for pregnant women, without first consulting her doctor, then she has been negligent. Manslaughter, then?​

    A year ago, Rev. Debra Haffner explained:

    Seventeen years ago this spring, I miscarried a very wanted pregnancy at 16 weeks. I had joyfully announced my pregnancy to my church community the day before, when I woke up with cramping and spotting. As the doctor performed the sonogram, we saw that the fetus had never developed past an eight-week embryo. We grieved for the baby who was not to be born that following fall. As I searched for answers to what had happened, I remembered that, right around eight weeks, I had used a hot tub several times at a day spa. I've never known if that was the cause of my pregnancy loss.

    Under new legislation passed by the Utah state legislature (and awaiting the governor's signature), I might have been charged with criminal homicide. As unbelievable as that sounds, the proposed law states, "the killing or attempted killing of a live unborn child in a manner that is not abortion shall be punished as...criminal homicide." Any "reckless act of the woman" that results in fetal death is criminal homicide. According to the ACLU, "reckless" could mean not wearing a seatbelt, should a car accident result in miscarriage. It could mean that women in physically abusive relationships who did not leave but ended up losing their fetuses in an altercation could be charged. It could mean ignoring the warnings for pregnant women not to go on roller coasters or in hot tubs.

    It should be noted that in the face of widespread criticism and condemnation, the bill's sponsor introduced a revised version. Governor Gary Herbert signed the new version, and vetoed the old. Still, though, the case arises from a rather chilling episode in which a teenager, facing limited options°, paid a friend to beat the hell out of her in order to cause a miscarriage. The assailant pleaded guilty under second degree attempted murder, but was sentenced under the anti-abortion statute—third-degree attempted killing of an unborn child. The girl was remanded to state custody until her twenty-first birthday, but was released in October because of how the statute was written. Judge Larry Steele asserted that according to the law, "a woman who solicits or seeks to have another cause an abortion of her own unborn child cannot be criminally liable". (Aguilar)

    Planned Parenthood's Melissa Bird says the same questions that so alarmed the bill's earlier critics still apply to the rewritten version that was just signed into law.

    "What happens to women who are in abusive relationships?" she asks. "What happens if a woman threatens to leave the abuser, falls down the stairs and loses the baby? What if the abuser beats the woman and causes a miscarriage? Could he turn her in? Who would the prosecutor believe? What happens if a drug addict who's trying to get clean loses her baby? Will she be brought up on murder charges?"

    Rep. Wimmer claims such women would not be prosecuted because they didn't knowingly act to terminate their pregnancies. But Bird says that is not necessarily the point.

    "Even if the prosecutor doesn't take the case, nothing precludes a woman from being brought to the attention of law enforcement in the first place," she said. "What we're doing is driving women underground and preventing them from getting health care and prenatal care."

    FOX News, among others, reported last week:

    A Georgia state representative has reintroduced an anti-abortion bill that would make miscarriages a felony if the mother cannot prove there was no "human involvement."

    The legislation from Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican, would make all abortions, described as "prenatal murder," illegal based on the belief that all life begins at conception. The bill's definition of "prenatal murder" excludes miscarriages "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever" in causing them. Anyone convicted would face the death penalty or life behind bars.

    So let us reconsider your complaint of extremity.

    Three states in three years have attempted to attach life at conception, in the anti-abortion context, to legislation pertaining to miscarriages.

    How would one go about enforcing these laws?

    The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution obliges the states to provide every "person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

    If life begins at conception, those fertilized ova are people. By law, they cannot be denied equal protection. Is the cause of death natural, or was there human agency? If there is an identifiable possibility of human agency, that avenue must be pursued. Saying it's too complicated to enforce equal protection under the law for an entire class of "people" would constitute an abdication of sworn duty by judges, prosecutors, and police officers.

    And yet the argument seems, consistently, to be that enforcing life at conception with any reasonable degree of integrity is an untenable proposition. Madanthonywayne rejects the idea as absurd and impractical. You call the proposition extreme and question its practicality.

    Perhaps we might consider that if the implications of the principle are too great and complex to enforce consistently, there is a functional problem with the principle.

    In a wanted pregnancy, a woman shares her body with the fetus. In an unwanted pregnancy, that fetus is a parasite.

    Most everyone around here knows I leech off my family to some degree. Except my family chooses to not see it that way. However, as regards your point, there is a difference between accepting money from my mother to pay a traffic ticket before I lose my license and feeding on her blood.

    Ordinarily, I would presume one capable of comprehending that difference, but your argument doesn't exactly reflect that understanding. Do you really not see the difference?

    My general position is that I don't like late term abortion, but I'm not about to assert that outlook as a basis for law. One might also consider the definition of a late term abortion. Twenty weeks? I don't have a problem with it at all. Twenty-seven weeks (e.g., beginning of third trimester)? Nope. Intact D&E beyond the thirtieth week? In the first place, in 2000, intact D&E accounted for 0.2% of abortions in the United States (Rovner). To the other, it seems late term abortions in general come about for complex reasons°, including failure to recognize pregnancy or wrongly estimated gestation (71%), difficult arrangement for abortion (48%), familial stress (33%), difficult decision to abort (24%). The bottom line is that I would not presume to interfere in a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy at any time. What is taking place is contained within her body, and as such it is her dominion, and thus her decision.

    As to smoking six packs a day—or even some more realistic excess—or smoking crack, that, too, is to the mother's discretion. It is an unfortnate reality of human nature, but I haven't the moral authority to do much more than point out that if the pregnancy is wanted, she ought to give the fetus as much chance as possible.

    And if I ever happen to knock up a crackhead, yes, that will be my burden to carry if the child arrives in a difficult condition, but that's the point. After fertilization, my part begins either by her say-so or the child's arrival, whichever comes first. That is, if she wants me to participate in the pregnancy, I will certainly do so; if she wants me to stay away, I will certainly do so. If she chooses to carry to term but does not wish to raise the child, I will ask—and fight, if necessary—for my paternal rights and undertake the parenting adventure without her.

    Jodi Jacobson reminded, in the wake of the Tiller assassination, of a narrative gap in the story: the nature of late term abortions. Reading through her article, you'll find not only that late term abortions are statistically rare—between one and one and a half percent—but also that they are heavily regulated by law, and in Tiller's case Kansas law required two independent diagnoses regarding the health of the mother. Jacobson asserts that:

    ... much of the media and talking heads pontificating on this subject have constantly focused on Tiller's being "one of the very few doctors who perform late-term abortions," without providing any context as to why he did so and under what circumstances.

    As a result, the dominant narrative is one which perpetuates an assumption that people are electing to have late-term abortions for the sake of convenience. This public perception is shaped by the constant intonement that Tiller was "killing babies" coming from irresponsible journalistic hacks like Bill O'Reilly, the suggestions by Chris Matthews that women are blithely electing to abort fetuses that are viable outside the womb, and the statements of inconsistent moralizers like Will Saletan that "there are cases where there's no real medical situation other than some teenager in denial and it went on for five months [where the argument is] you should make an exception because of the so-called mental health of the girl."

    The narrative is one in which women are shamed for choosing abortion, no matter the circumstances, and in which Dr. Tiller is portrayed even indirectly as a despicable aide in their shame.

    This narrative is so pervasive that even among those who consider themselves pro-choice, many people are left to wonder: Are these women just waking up one day, deciding over coffee they are tired of being pregnant, and opting for an abortion at 24 weeks? Are there a lot of third trimester abortions? Are they just, as Chris Matthews likes to call them, "elective procedures?"

    And that narrative is incorrect, as Jacobson goes on to explain.

    On the contrary, this either/or policy is obvious arbitrary and absurd since there are obvious ethical considerations (when I say obvious, I mean even obvious for those who give the green light to abortion) for a mum who is taking drugs or requesting an abortion three days before it is due.

    Jacobson further asserts:

    The Guttmacher brief notes that:

    • 37 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.
    • 24 states initiate prohibitions at fetal viability.
    • 5 states initiate prohibitions in the third trimester.
    • 8 states initiate prohibitions after a certain number of weeks, generally 24.​

    The circumstances under which procedures are permitted after that point vary from state to state. For example:

    • 29 states permit abortions to preserve the life or health of the woman;
    • 4 states permit abortions to save the life or health of the woman, but use a narrow definition of health;
    • 4 states permit abortions only to save the life of the woman.​

    Some states require the involvement of a second physician when a later-term abortion is performed. Nine states require that a second physician attend in order to treat a fetus if it is born alive. Ten states require that a second physician certify that the abortion is medically necessary.

    Abortions three days before the due date are generally not carried out without very good reasons. Indeed, doctors in the U.S. who perform such procedures without good reason risk the wrath of the law.

    It would seem you're basing your point in this case on myth and hyperbole.

    Yeah, well, show me an ultrasound of a fetus hoeing rows of cotton in the womb, and you might have a point.

    Given the higher birth rate among the less affluent, it's hard to figure what point you're trying to make there.

    Aesthetics don't have to be arbitrary. Indeed, some aspects of human aesthetics are inherent, such as our favoring of the 5:8 ratio.

    But this aesthetic is arbitrary. The inconsistency about how the life at conception principle is applied—e.g., emotional appeal of exceptions—reveals the political side of the assertion. As I asserted earlier, "They don't want to be seen as hostile to rape survivors."

    In this case, the prohibitionist aesthetic is, functionally, a lack of integrity—and a telling one, at that.

    Ideally, societal norms are not arbitrary or rooted in aesthetics.

    It's not purely about legislation. Rather, it's more about the integrity of applicable legislation. If we ignore the implications of the principles upon which a piece of legislation is founded, the principles are not genuine.

    If the principle is good enough to tell women what to do, it's good enough to tell women what to do. Making exceptions for the sake of the authoritarians' egos is a stupid and, ultimately, destructive way to go about the discussion.

    Rape and incest exceptions are purely aesthetic. Even in those cases that stake the life of the mother, the reality is that she got pregnant, and thus the life at conception argument should choose the innocent fetus over the woman it might destroy.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° limited options — It should be noted that the Utah case highlights any number of problems surrounding the abortion debate. The nearest service provider to the young lady was in Salt Lake City, three and a half hours away from where she was. Ninety-three percent of Utah counties have no abortion service providers within their boundaries. Dr. William Adams, who operates one of the Salt Lake City clinics, explained:

    "I became an OB/GYN in 1973, the year abortion became legal. Since then, it's only gotten worse,"

    "I see women from southeastern Idaho, western Wyoming, and occasionally some from eastern Nevada .... They don't have providers there" ....

    ..... "Nothing really surprises me anymore .... What saddens me is the fact that no one wants to defend abortion, not even the women who have one. We're not even teaching our kids how to be responsible so they won't get pregnant or get STDs."
    (Aguilar)​

    Indeed, the Utah Senate refused last year to allow debate on legislation that would have permitted—speak nothing of obliged—comprehensive sex education to students in the public school system. Perhaps as a result, Utah youth (ages 15-24) are statistically more likely to contract chlamydia than chicken pox or influenza. According to student activist Emma Waitzman, who campaigned in her high school for comprehensive sex education:

    ""We talked to legislators who said, 'If you really want to share the information, then do it yourself' .... We said, 'No, it's not our responsibility. It's yours.' I couldn't believe a grown man was saying this to me. Are we going to have to teach ourselves?" (ibid)​

    And one parent explained:

    "We're a predominantly LDS [Latter-day Saints] state. It's conservative here. I am LDS myself. I go to temple. I totally believe in this church. I believe in abstinence only, but I have four girls and I would be a fool to think that all of my children are going to choose abstinence. I grew up in this state and almost everyone was having sex. Let's get real." (ibid)​

    This is the sort of climate that leads exactly to such horrific outcomes.

    Of course, the solution is not to rectify those circumstances, but, rather, to retreat even further into religion and politics.

    ° for complex reasons — These numbers are culled from a 1987 survey. Admittedly old statistics, the numbers still speak to the complexity of the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

    Works Cited:

    Virginia General Assembly. SB962: Fetal deaths; when occurs without medical attendance, mother, etc., must report within 24 hours. January 14, 2009. RichmondSunlight.com. February 28, 2011. http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2009/sb962/fulltext/

    Haffner, Debra. "Criminal Miscarriage, or Miscarriage of Justice?" The Huffington Post. February 26, 2010. HuffingtonPost.com. February 28, 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-debra-haffner/criminal-miscarriage-or-m_b_478607.html

    Aguilar, Rose. "Utah Governor Signs Controversial Law Charging Women and Girls With Murder for Miscarriages". AlterNet. March 9, 2010. AlterNet.org. February 28, 2011. http://www.alternet.org/rights/1459...women_and_girls_with_murder_for_miscarriages_

    Clark, Stephen. "Georgia Lawmaker's Anti-Abortion Proposal Could Punish Women for Miscarriages". February 26, 2011. FOXNews.com. February 28, 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-abortion-proposal-punish-women-miscarriages/

    United States Constitution. 1992. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. Februrary 28, 2011. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution

    Rovner, Julie. "'Partial-Birth Abortion:' Separating Fact from Spin". National Public Radio. February 21, 2006. NPR.org. February 28, 2011. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5168163

    Wikipedia. "Late-term abortion". January 13, 2011. Wikipedia.org. February 28, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

    Jacobson, Jodi. "Late-term Abortions: Facts, Stories and Ways to Help". The Huffington Post. June 3, 2009. HuffingtonPost.com. February 28, 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jodi-jacobson/late-term-abortions-facts_b_210614.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2011
  16. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Persistent lobbying? :roflmao:

    Abortions are permitted in the US. Isn't it YOU who have to lobby? Why have there been people with your ideas hanging in front of abortion clinics with signs harassing people? Hell it is your camp that's busy at work isn't it? I would say it's you who are doing the 'lobbying'.

    Dependent? Do you agree that you are dependent on the majority of Americans who are pro-choice? I find myself completely independent from you and people like you? So why is it you don't think you are independent from myself and all the people who think as I do?

    Oh please the only people who liken abortion to skin color are people like Paul HIll...and yourself. Geez you're in such great company! :bugeye: You're attempts to equate the unborn with the born is prevalent only among the intellectually lazy, pandering to emotion does not change the fact that slaves black slaves were independent free agents unlike that which exists in the womb. Could a slave survive without its slave master? YES! You cannot say this for a zygote. So you might as well use it on those who accept your definition of 'what is life' and what makes a person a person. You might as well save it for those who cry crocodile tears every time they wash their hands and living cells are sloughed away. Oh by the way you mentioned late term abortions, only 1% of all abortions are late term.

    But you still have not addressed this:

    "Where does your moral ideology stand on their deaths which also include losing the fetus? Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions it simply amounts to more deaths..."

    All you are suggesting is that its okay for 10,000 conscious, breathing, thinking, feeling women to die. Is it okay for you? Is it a necessary trade off? I mean its just the life of a woman right, how could that possibly compare to that which is nameless and does not breath, think or feel? Is it that you believe women only exist to serve other's through their womb? Her life is subservient to that which is not even yet born? Come on spit it out. We're all curious as to what you really believe concerning those you would call whores.

    LG: Unless you've got a good argument for vox populi being the final last word in the ethical soundness of an idea, you are saying

    Listen eunuch you are not the the judge and jury on ethics. Your ethics do not and cannot override my own. Ethics are decided by society, there is no universal standard. If your personal ethics forbid you from having an abortion then I would suggest you refrain from having one.

    ...Oh yeah you don't have those options

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    You did provide a link earlier about funding didn't you?
    gawd we have been through this before

    If you have state legislated abortion clinics it is technically impossible to argue that persons receiving the services independent from the state

    Living in a separate country, not really.

    But even if I were, again this vox populi argument of yours is pretty weird.

    I mean how does a majority (or for that matter, even a minority) support for an idea make the act more ethically sound?

    Regardless you find yourself as dependent so you might as well quit pretending you are independent as some qualifier to tread on the rights of those who are dependent on you



    Err - the analogy isn't a suggestion at the inherent racism against black running rife within the pro-abortion camp.

    Its a suggestion that just as a black slave was framed in a language of unconsciousness that made them victim to a host of injustices, so are children in the womb
    Once again if dependence plays a role in determining whether you have rights or not, practically no one has rights since practically everyone lives in a state of dependence ... which no doubt includes mothers dependent on the services of state legislated abortion clinics

    A woman can also survive a back street abortion too, so what the hell are you complaining about, eh?


    Can you say it for Gianna Jessen?
    Why mention later term abortions at all?
    Why should they be a problem in your books?

    Whatever figures you dream up, they can only be a subset of the figures estimating the numbers of abortion (unless you can substantiate the double fatalities occurring at a rate greater than 50%)
    If it was 10 000 a day, it would still be less than the numbers of aborted children
    So far the only reason you have given for a woman being the sole concern in the problem is that she is independent of the child (you have also stated that the child is dependent, but that's not a valid distinction since everyone exists in a state of dependence). The degree that it is necessary or not is the degree that one understands justice issues are primarily about regulating the acts of those one is dependent on .. IOW it depends whether one thinks it is necessary to compound power in those who already have it or whether justice is meant specifically for protecting the weak.


    you mean teenagers with FMLTWIA on their mobile?
    Or do you mean a particular rabid pro-abortion contributor on sci (but who could have just as easily been referred to as a "crazy bitch" or a "stuck up cow" on account of her bipolar bouts) designated as one in a half-hearted manner amidst a liturgy of her name calling and insults?

    Well that was a bad argument for vox populi (complete with an ad hom) being the final last word being final last word in the ethical soundness of an idea, but I asked specifically for a good one.

    Does that mean you have given up on this one and want to move on to another?
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2011
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Ask him what he thinks about abortion when rape or incest is the cause of the pregnancy. Ask him what he thinks if a 12 year old girl falls pregnant to her father after he rapes her.

    Then you might get some idea about his "ideals".

    You have accused me of condemning children to death. Care to point out which child in particular?

    Do you even know the stages of development in the womb? Do you know what a zygote is?

    As opposed to the emotional 'they're killing babies' example from you?

    Not at all. It is the appeal to emotion and your callous disregard for what happens when abortion is banned and women die as a result of being denied basic medical treatment because they are pregnant and the treatment could be detrimental to the fetus. Apparently in your ideal world, when a woman is pregnant, she forfeits any of her rights to life and should forget about receiving even basic medical care, even if her life is in danger.

    The majority of standard abortions involve consenting mothers with valid reasons. A murder victim, on the other hand, does not consent to having some random individual walk up and shoot them in the head for example.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Do you have any idea that the majority of abortion clinics are actually family planning centres where pregnant women go for day to day check-up's to ensure the pregnancy is going as planned?

    So the safety factor of a fetus in such a clinic is actually quite high, since the majority of pregnant women who go there do not get abortions but are striving to maintain a healthy pregnancy.

    It is parasitic in nature.

    It leeches everything from the mother and the mother is forced to consume vast amounts of vitamins and minerals to keep herself healthy during the pregnancy and for the long term.

    Fall pregnant and you might get a clue.

    You are not making sense.

    The majority of pregnancies actually do result in a miscarriage, usually within the first few weeks, before the woman is even aware she was pregnant.

    Yes. Of not having twats like you determining the fate of my reproductive organs.

    No. I am overly realistic. You on the other hand are carrying on as if a fertilised egg should have priority of life over that of the mother and all else and then having the gall to compare it to a live human being (eg slaves).

    Easily, with the right equipment.

    I do not consider you to be a decent person.

    I know many prostitutes who are decent people, most of them are. But the use of "whore" is derogatory and intended to demean a woman, just like "nigger" when used by whites was known to be used solely to demean a coloured person.

    I'm dopey due to the sheer amount of drugs I am using.

    But you used it for a reason and you do view women that way. I think that says more about you than it does about the word itself.

    No. You just view women as whores and think they have no rights over their own bodies and wish to force your beliefs about their wombs onto them, regardless of what they think of it.

    Yes. But your use of the word is to demean and insult.

    Do you know if Lucy has sex for money? No. You did not. So your calling her a whore was based on what exactly?

    As I said, you'll have to excuse me if I don't read up on the latest trend on how it is further possible to demean a woman. You, on the other hand, seem to.


    And as I also pointed out, whore is not something I would ever attribute to my own daughter, no matter what she was doing.. in other words, I could never envisage myself referring to my daughter as a whore. Would you do so with your own daughter?

    Retard can also entail being mentally deficient. I think you are.

    And it is worse for you because you choose to be mentally deficient.

    It's not something I sit there and delve on.

    As I said, whore is not something in my day to day language use.

    I guess we know it's not the same for you.

    You attempted to say that had the doctor been there, she would have been killed after she was born. We both know that would not have been the case.

    It tells me that you know little. Nurses often perform surgical and medical proceedures.. Such as being the only one there when a woman gives birth (midwife), for example.

    I don't consider a zygote to be a "baby".

    And yours is meant to be honest when it comes from a religious pro-life site?

    Oh I am. But you see, I was educated at a university and not from religious anti-abortion and pro-life sites on the internet.

    A zygote is not a child. A 12 week old fetus is not a "child".

    And why does the fetus have more right to life than the mother?

    Why do her rights no longer matter LG? What do you think of the countries who have banned abortion entirely and women die because they are denied basic medical care and treatment because it could harm the fetus? Do you think it is fair to condemn a woman to death simply because to give her basic medical aid would endanger her fetus? Is that fair to you? What do you think of a ban and law that has women with ectopic pregnancies bleeding to death internally and in agoinising pain because to treat her would mean aborting a doomed fetus anyway, since a fetus cannot continue outside of the womb? What do you think of forcing a woman to remain pregnant with a non-viable fetus (one that would die before birth due to severe complications) until she is made to deliver it after it is dead inside her?

    Do you understand that this is what you are advocating in this thread?

    Do you have any idea of just how repugnant that is? You are advocating and pushing for the life of the fetus at the expense of the mother. It is obvious you view women as being secondary and I think this thread has proven that without a doubt.

    You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge what a ban on abortion entails, can you?

    You keep harping on about Jessen while happily ignoring that a ban on abortion is to condemn women to certain death in many instances. Why is Jessen more important than women who bleed to death because of an ectopic pregnancy because of a law that prevents her treatment because she is pregnant?

    Where is the integrity of condemning women to death because they are pregnant?

    The fact that you wish to deny women who are victims of rape and incest the right to access an abortion tells me of just how little you value those women as people and how you only view women as being incubators.
     
  19. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106


    This isn't rocket science either since this kind of situation isn't easy no matter how you look at it. There's still clear moral judgement in this situation so no abortion in the case of rape or incest unfortunately however if the mother's life would be in danger that changes circumstances very clearly so yes on the abortion for the 12 year old girl who is raped by her father since her life could be in danger during childbirth due to being of such young age.
     
  20. SilentLi89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    263

    Not with modern technology. She could easily give birth via C-section or even a natural birth at 12. People just feel bad because she obviously isn't a "slut" she was the victim of a crime. Again abortion is usually about the women having them more than it is about the babies being killed.
     
  21. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    The moral problem in this is the baby killing.
     
  22. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    banning abortion is not about saving lives. its about pushing their beliefs on others
     
  23. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    no baby is being killed. its only a baby after it is born.
     

Share This Page