Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Politicians instigating discussion and debate on this topic are probably just trying to detract from more immediate problems, like the global economic crisis.

But when a quarter of the workforce is unemployed and the economic predictions look grim, questions about the value of human life are likely to surface anyway.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If a person can be born with lasting consequences of mistreatment (such as from chemicals) during such a period of their life, obviously they have recourse to personhood ... unless you think that, say, that their are no contextualizing issues of culpability/responsibility for a woman who smokes/drinks during pregnancy.

 

Notes Around

Well, our neighbor does not appear to be arguing on principle, but, rather, is simply looking for kitchen sinks to douse in gasoline, set alight, and throw at the discussion. That is to say, note that his comparison overlooks that there is no law preventing him from addressing his medical condition, e.g., influenza. Same with his E. coli analogy. The whole point of the "personhood" idea is to prevent a woman, by force of law, from addressing her own medical status in a specific way. (I also find it interesting, because there really isn't any cure for viral diseases; perhaps cancer would be a better analogy insofar as there is no law saying you cannot seek medical removal of a tumor. Say what you want about comparing a fetus to a tumor; one of the problems of analogies is that they are imprecise, but the underlying point is that his statement, "I can say my general rights are suspended if I'm sick with Influenza just as validly", is idiotically wrong. If there is some law that prevents him from treating his flu, we can start exploring whatever point he's trying to make with the influenza and E. coli analogies.)

Well, technically, he doesn't. Not yet. But I'm pretty sure he eats with his mouth, and not through an umbilical cord; I'm quite certain he sleeps in a crib or bed, or even on the sofa or living room floor sometimes as infants are prone to doing, and not inside his mother's body. I think these two states of existence—inside another person's body or not—are significantly different; our neighbor Neverfly considers this an arbitrary distinction. A woman's body, apparently, is not a valid consideration.

The enforcement of that young person's rights does not require that we strip a woman of hers. Additionally, any sacrifice of rights you might suggest on the part of parents raising a child are, in principle, shared by both parents. I'm a male; I never face the suspension of my human rights required by a life at conception "personhood". But I am also a father; oh, my, I cannot necessarily spend my days behaving like I did before I was a father. Of course, I also don't consider it a violation of my rights to not be allowed to be drunk when working in the classroom at my daughter's school.

I do find it suggestive, at least, that while I have tried to propose a set of conditions based on the logical implications of life at conception "personhood" (LACP), there are as yet no votes either for or against the proposition from anyone identifying as anti-abortion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

It's not hard to understand why LACP is aesthetically attractive to some people. What is harder to comprehend is their unwillingness to countenance the implications of LACP. While the details of the proposal might seem complicated—and, to that end, they are incomplete insofar as there are more implications I haven't yet identified in my own perspective, or figured out how to express—the underlying question is simple enough: Okay, fine, institute LACP. Now, what are we going to do about the implications?

I can understand why an abortion access advocate might accept the compromise. And as one who cannot endorse any suspension of a woman's humanity for the fact of pregnancy, I well understand why an abortion access advocate would reject the compromise. Is it reasonable to conclude that nobody who has voted in this poll is actually anti-abortion? Based on the actual responses within the poll, it would not seem a reasonable conclusion.

Indeed, I would ask you (and some others) to consider posts by our neighbor Bowser. He and I have a long history of disagreeing on various issues, sometimes quite furiously. And we will certainly, should this run long enough, find something to disagree about if we choose to focus on it. Meanwhile, he is actually trying to work within the confines of the proposition. See #7 and 22 for very specific examples of this. So even if he and I end up in sharp disagreement, the one thing I can't accuse him of is running from the issue. While our neighbor Bowser is wrestling with those implications, it would seem there are many who are simply trying to ward them off.

Did the slaves exist inside their owners' bodies?

Do you recognize that existing within someone else's body is different from existing in an independent physical reality? Or do you reject that difference?

The functional juristic problem that arises with LACP is that in order to enforce the equality of the "person" growing inside a woman, that other woman must surrender governance over what occurs within the physical confines of her body. It would seem that anti-abortion activists would prefer, by and large, to simply avoid this issue.

• • •​

I would say the bit where he asks Bells, "How, exactly, do you justify this very selfish and arbitrary line you've drawn?" makes it quite clear. But we can certainly try to resolve this point more clearly:

Do you recognize a difference between an organism growing inside a woman's body and one that exists outside of anyone else's body?

If that organism dies while inside a woman's body, how did it die? Is it a result of someone else's behavior? We can certainly invoke crack addicts and the like all anyone wants, but if a woman endangers the "person" inside her by returning to work, there is a case for negligent homicide. If a husband slams on the brakes to avoid a collision, and it turns out he was exceeding either the posted speed limit or a safe speed for road conditions, there is a case for negligent homicide.

Some data suggests the overwhelming majority of conceptions result in miscarriage. My former partner, the mother of my daughter, endured several miscarriages over the years. And while it's true that she smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol, and used drugs during that period of her life, the most prominent suspect is an Rh imbalance that, technically, comes from me. It is reasonable to suggest that, under LACP, couples have an obligation to ensure Rh compatibility, or a woman has an obligation to be dosed with Rhogam, before ever having heterosexual intercourse that might result in pregnancy.

But the fact of these miscarriages does not mean that the complexity of ensuring the Equal Protection of the "person" growing inside a woman excuses society from Equal Protection of the unborn.

You know, last night I indulged in fast food because it was quick, easy, and available, and I was hungry. Perhaps I should have sought out a woman and drawn nutrients from her blood, instead? It would have saved me eight dollars, after all. Do you not see a difference between eating a cheeseburger and taking my sustenance from a woman's blood? Is that really an arbitrary distinction?

Again:

"How, exactly, do you justify this very selfish and arbitrary line you've drawn?"​

Some people on the abortion access side of this argument think the fact of existing inside a woman's body and feeding on her blood is a different physical reality than existing on their own two feet and eating a cheeseburger, or strained peas, or Enfamil. But the difference of dependent and independent physical reality is, by Neverfly's argument, an arbitrary distinction. His argument erases a woman's humanity by reducing her independent physical reality to an arbitrary distinction. And if her independent physical reality is an arbitrary distinction without any rational foundation, then no, one is not doing anything wrong by beating or raping their wife; after all, she is a woman, and thus has no legitimate independent physical reality.

I would suggest the more relevant problem with his argument is that he's not thinking it through. Something might sound like a nifty zinger, but that does not mean it has no implications outside its immediate application. Just like LACP. It's not hard to figure why some people find the notion attractive. But, as we've seen in this thread, reconciling the implications is much more complicated.

The thread is intended to consider the juristic implications of LACP. I find it telling that both of you seem to be running from those implications.

Stand by your man, indeed.

Doesn't change the implications of his argument.

Like I said, the problem is more likely that he just needs to think it through.

Hey, you're the one trying to defend his denigration of a woman's human status to an arbitrary distinction.

Yep. I'm the sexist because I believe a woman's humanity is not an arbitrary distinction.

Wail a little louder. It still won't change the implications of his argument.

And who forced you to carry that child to term?

Shall I make an exception, then, and excuse you from humanity simply because you're a woman? Sorry, I can't do that. You're a human being, period.

I know, I'm such a sexist for that belief.

• • •​

Perhaps it is of no specific comfort, but I do find the spectacle they're putting on in trying to lob flaming kitchen sinks all over the place very nearly amusing. Ballista? Trebuchet? Catapult? Does it really matter?

The discussion has largely strayed from its intended purpose, and mostly because some people would prefer to pretend the implications of LACP don't exist, or are arbitrary, or some such.

I'm not certain how Equal Protection works in Her Majesty's realm in general, or Australia in particular, but in the United States, it really does throw a monkey at the wrench when it comes to LACP.

I think the answers I'm most interested in will be, when we finally get one, from those who identify as anti-abortion but also reject the proposition. I'll want to know why. Certes, you and I need not wonder why the other might reject the proposition, but if the argument grants the anti-abortion advocates what they want, why would they reject it?

It's clear to me our tag-team neighbors are just looking to blow the discussion up into a flame war. Of course, perhaps marital privilege these days means empowerment to suspend logic. I wouldn't call that a win for humanity, and it's not exactly funny, but yes, it gives me one of those absurd grins that comes when I must pause to legitimately wonder, "Am I really seeing this? Is this really happening?"

I mean, hell, I'm sexist for arguing that a woman is a human being. I don't know, am I supposed to elevate women to the status of deity, then? To stack divine obligation on their superiority? Normally, when I argue that a woman is a human being, it is in response to an argument that either declares or implies her inferiority.

Neverfly will let his own words speak for themselves. Very well. I think his words speak quite clearly.

(And I love it when misogynists pat their wives on the head: "You make me proud". Those moments make the point about womanhood and human respect more clearly than I ever could.)

 

One point Tiassa, you constantly try to bring up what would be concidered an acidental death and then claiming it would be a homocide, do you think that if a baby is in bed with its parents and they fall asleep and roll over on the child, a tragic acident, that they would be charged? Acidents happen and yes they are investigated by the coroner in order to put structures in place to hopefully reduce or prevent them happerning again however they aren't criminal offences. One of the kids my brother was at school with had a younger sibling who died of SIDS and though it was investigated no one was charged because SIDS is a reducible but ultimately natural causes (as far as we know right now because the causes aren't fully known)

Further more you ignore that there are lots of ristrictions on anyone with children, for instance if you were supposed to be looming after the child and you decide to get drunk and pass out and something happens to that child you WILL be charged with manslaughter, if you leave a child in the car because you CHOSE to go play the porkies you will be charged with murder. More children die from negligence than all other forms of abuse put together and yet using your own argument so what? What right has society got to force people to do anything right? So what if mum doesn't want to get out of bed and so the child goes hungry, and dirty to childcare, walking by herself along a busy highway (sadly a true case I belive and probably quite common), so what if this leads them to being hit by a car and killed, it's the women's (she is no mum) right to sleep if she wants to right? You can't force someone to do something they don't want to do. Of course the US still refuses to sign the treaty to agnologe that children are there own person with there own needs and wants rather than just property of the parents

 

I've always been on the fence where abortion is concerned, but my feet dangle on the pro-life side of the fence (more so after reading this thread). Rather than doing away with Roe v Wade, I might throw my support towards those organizations that encourage life. It's unfortunate that most, if not all, are centered around religious principles. Anyway, I do believe that life starts at conception, that there is great potential in every pregnancy, and that abortion is murder. MHO.

 

Tiassa,

You completely failed to answer any one of my questions. You only further pointed out your will and ability to twist and distort someone's words so that you can paint them into a monstrous target for you to use to promote your own self righteousness. You are right I AM a human. I feel recognizing the humanity of the unborn to be a human trait. I consider it inhuman to consider a child something other than what it is simply because you don't want it.

By your standards anyone who leaches off of anyone should be put to death. Do you want to start with orphans? They are being supported by our tax dollars and no one even wants them. Why not send them to gas chambers instead. It would likely be cheaper than all the red tape and overhead it costs to maintain homes and sustenance for them.

Tell me something, if a woman doesn't want a pregnancy, does she not figure that out before the third trimester? And if a woman's life only becomes endangered in the 3rd trimester, what good will abortion do that inducing early live birth can't do? In most cases, if the woman's life becomes endangered in the 3rd trimester, killing the baby is unnecessary and will be as traumatic as giving birth. So why needlessly kill something that is alive. It's like stopping to kill a kitten because you are running late to work. It serves NO purpose.

You call me and Neverfly tag teaming... LOL, fine, so what were you and Bells doing before I showed up? Oh that's right, tag teaming against Neverfly. Learn to look in a mirror before you go bitching about things.

Most of what you said I cannot respond to because it is just too twisted and mental to even attempt to make sense of. It sounds like the rant of a serial killer to me. And no one can speak logic and reason to a serial killer. Their reality is simply different than anyone else's.

Everyone's posts stand. perhaps all those accused of flaming... Tiassa, Bells, Neverfly, and myself, should step out of the discussion and see where it leads from here on.

Funny, for all the bitching of you and Bells you managed to send someone who was on the fence over the pro life side. Honestly, you make me want to go pro life because being associated with the likes of you is a scary concept.

 

I find your aversion to the term rather disturbing. I think people are able to make their own distinctions without censoring the opinions of others. Please don't.

 

Your accusation is a very large motivational assumption. Rather than come up with an intellectual response, you seek to attack my character through silly claims. You three have so much hostility dripping from your posts, it's a wonder you haven't called me a misogynist or some other absolute absurdity in your desperation. Oh wait, Tiassa does do that...

Calling them vampires now? That's not even close to reality... in fact, I've been told I will be banned for not using the wording that Fraggle Rocker deems I should use. Not only am I supposed to agree with your rather arbitrary and inhuman position, I'm supposed to express that in the manner that I'm told to:

Yes, you can compare them to refrigerators and vampires. Fascinating. But we cannot refer to them in a way much, much more accurately than fridges and vampires?
Tiassa claims we cannot know if it's showing signs of being human unless it is born. Bells and Fraggle both said to that: "Pretty much"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let's ignore technology, ultra-sounds and the like. All that must be ignored to maintain this position and perhaps discussing it will result in more character attacks and threats to ban.

Such stark denial of reality and threatening to ban others for calling that reality into question is pretty unbecoming of Moderators. It's just not very... scientific!
Meanwhile, the elites say this:

Hey Tiassa, the best you've come up with is ad hom attacks, Bells flaming and Fraggles threats. As I re-capped already, is that the best you can do to defend your position?
You obviously have never witnessed the arguments SeaGypsy and I have had LOL Trust me, I have no control over what she thinks. I even tried to calm her down for a change on this thread (You could not see that) and to no avail.
You claim that if someone does not agree with your arbitrary line drawn that they are somehow demeaning women? Hate to bust your bubble, but men did not design women as child birthers. We didn't do that. It's not a control issue Fraggle, it's an issue of life and death. And since well rounded reasonable arguments cannot be found, you just attack and insult and berate and threaten and abuse. All three of you need to come down off your podium and calm the hell down. You may be the authority and I may be a mere member. Frankly, JamesR is not going to halt your bad behavior- we all know that. But you still have the power of self control. I'd suggest you three take a step back and really examine how you're coming across here.

Character attacks and abusing your authority as Mods... Demanding we behave one way while you rationalize abusing others.
You're not trying to convince people that your argument is sound. You're trying to beat it into them.

I think this debate is done. It's not clear whose made the best arguments, but it is clear that a debate is simply disallowed.

 

I must admit, this thread has forced me to evaluate my own personal views on abortion. I just might act on them--just not sure where to turn. It's a shame this thread has become a contest of...whatever it is.

 

Really? I guess my penis is acting up too. oh that's right.... Why is it that anytime a man makes a statement a woman disagrees with he is declared to automatically be thinking with his penis? What a cop out. So any idea that a woman disagrees with and therefore declare to be wrong is automatically the result of the penis. And you imply that he is sexist? That's like saying that a white man who does not offer a black man who has a crappy resume a job is automatically doing it for reasons of race. It can't possibly be that he isn't qualified for the job.

Threatening mod action against anyone who doesn't agree with your view? Really Frag? YOU are stooping to this now? When I was pregnant, I considered all my fetuses children. I have a right to call my fetuses what I want. After all, they are just property right?

And claiming a man doesn't see a woman as a human being simply because he disagrees on timing of when an abortion should be legal is also inflammatory. Accusing his disagreement on his penis is sexist and inflammatory.

What you are failing to see is that the tone in which Bells and Tiassa are making is that the fetus is something horrid that attacks her. Neverfly and I have both stated that we are pro choice. I have known many women who have had abortions. Some of them I felt pity for because it was a traumatic decision for them and a traumatic experience. Some didn't think twice about it and getting abortions were as natural to them as discarding a used tampon. I did see them as child killers because, imo, they simply had no humanity in them.

yes he pointed it out and disagreed with the premise that potential alone equals human. What's your point?

And claiming a man doesn't see a woman as a human being simply because he disagrees on timing of when an abortion should be legal is also inflammatory. Accusing his disagreement on his penis is sexist and inflammatory.Saying a man's opinion is invalid because he has a penis should also be seen as trolling and inflammatory.

Using your mod status to bully your opinion on to others. Sad.

So we are restricted to medical terminology on this forum? because in common usage many many people refer to the fetus as a child. My ob/gyn always referred to my fetuses as babies, children, people. So while you want to go along and start enforcing rules coming out of your ass that we have to suddenly use only medical jargan I better NEVER see you use a term by its common usage rather than it's official one.

He CLEARLY said, "I don't know." for all your linguistic expertise you are having trouble with reading.

HIs post is clearly acknowledging his lack of expertise. Again your linguistics degree has failed you since you got so caught up in hunting down a witch that you completely failed to read what he said.

so your wife is sexist? oh that's right, its politically correct for women to be sexist but not men. I keep forgetting that.

Well by your rules:
Unlike yours, Fraggle Rocker,my opinions are independent of anyone else's, therefore entitled to more rights to be heard than yours. Your opinions are clearly dependent on your wife's permission to have them. So your opinions do not matter. Too bad your mind is not independent of hers. Because independence is required for legitimacy.

I base it on my observation that the crux of this debate is disagreement on when a fetus is human. How do you miss that having a fancy degree? Considering the pro-lifers are barely even involved in this discussion, the pro-choicers are simply disagreeing on when the fetus is human. There needs to be some official declaration so the debate can be settled. If science cannot directly be involved then it will fall on the votes of the masses. And you better have a better argument than the one you are presenting if you are going to convince the pro-lifers and moderate pro-choicers to agree that a fetus isn't a human until it is actually born. In the end, right and wrong can never be discerned here because there are no absolutes in such cases, you will only end up with majority rule and I am willing to bet the extremists on either side of this debate will be in the minority and stay pissed off. I'm ok with that because no one has the right to go through life unoffended.

OH really? Well my opinion is the same as his. Are you going to blame that on my penis? oh oh no you are going to accuse Neverfly of controlling me. yeah that's it. But in doing so you would see no reason why I may be offended by that accusation. Accusing him of controlling me accuses me of not being able to think for myself. I have held my position on abortion since I conceived my first child. I have had 4. And none of them are Neverfly's. My youngest was 4 years old when I met Neverfly. So don't insinuate that he does ANY of my thinking for me. In reality I have probably influenced him more than he has me.

sure no rule against it, but there is a rule that says we are to address members by their screen names and nothing else. And Bells does not call me madam when she is all agreeable with me and we are all getting along. She does it as an insult. But that's ok. I have decided to adapt my posting style to mimic hers when dealing with her. We will see how she likes getting her own medicine. And I will be giving you yours as well.

And you are parroting the pro-abortion(yes your ilk has crossed the line from pro-choice to pro-abortion,imo) faction by assuming all pro choicers agree with you. Well guess what? They don't. So it seems in discussion, only pro-abortionists are allowed to speak and anyone who is pro-life or moderate pro-choice will be threatened with moderation. That doesn't exactly make for open discussion does it?

No, that is how you believe it works. Plenty of expectant mothers who want their babies would argue differently. And the law has set precedents suggesting otherwise. Otherwise, a mugger who attacks a pregnant woman causing her to lose her fetus would only be charged with destruction of private property, instead of manslaughter. So apparently the laws say the fetus IS a person. Unless you would be willing to overturn every conviction of every person who maliciously and intentionally caused harm to a pregnant woman causing her fetus to perish. Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to tell a happily expectant mother who is brutally attacked and lost her fetus that it was merely destruction of private property which carries a very light sentence in comparison to manslaughter? Are you willing to tell her that she didn't lose a child, that she lost a clump of cells that don't really matter? What if this was a woman who had only been able to conceive after hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of services at a fertility clinic? What if she were the surrogate mother for an infertile couple? Will you tell the parents that since it wasn't part of either of their bodies, it shouldn't matter to them or that it was not the child they were desperately trying to have? Are you really that kind of monster?

oh ok so unborn child is ok but not child. is a cold beer any less a beer than a warm beer? adding an adjective to the beginning of a noun does not change the definition of the noun itself. Linguistics geek huh. but you miss that?

 

By ignoring science, ignoring facts, making threats, character attacks/ad hom attacks.
No, you're not having a debate, you're having a trample. See post number 92.
Frankly, I've been calmer than I usually am. As Tiassa refers to me as a mysogonist simply because I disagree with the arbitrary line you've drawn where you must ignore scientific evidence in "pretty much" claiming that a baby is not a baby, not a human, not a living thing 30 seconds before it's born even. All three of you have said this clearly- that it must be born to count as what it actually is. It's total nonsense and you know this since you three must resort to ad homs and threats, unable to refute my claim that it is a baby 30 seconds before it is born.
You're act of playing calm is starkly contradicted by your atrocious behavior.

I agree and I'm a part of that "Contest." Well, am I human or am I not? I have the ability to choose as well- to not take part in such an unscientific and biased attempt at a discussion.

 

I enjoyed her last post. But I do think this thread is getting a bit dramatic, involving nearly everyone except for myself.

Knowing many disagree with me, I will just reiterate that the "cluster of cells" in question is life. The potential for that life is remarkable. It should be protected as any other human life.

 

I've enjoyed your contributions, nonetheless. I'm simply trying to stay out of the mix by keeping to the sidelines as much as possible.

 

This insanity is too disruptive to carry on. I, too, need to find my place on the sidelines.

Perhaps. I reminded you that you actually do value the same things I do. I'm sorry to have used it, as it was cruel, but it's an apology, as I said before, because you vote on this issue, I believe it was justified to make you examine how contradictory you really are. Using intellectual dishonesty to justify using cocaine while nurturing an unborn etc. is despicable. So save the self righteousness. While I felt bad in pointing out your words on that topic, it was not 'despicable'- it was a harsh reality check. Lying is something that is despicable.

Agreed. As should Fraggle for his absurd threats, yourself for clear re-interpretation and ad homs and Tiassa for ad hom attacks and slandering such as "misogynist" for me having expressed pride at my own choice when she intelligently worded a post very well. It's been absolutely absurd and twisted. This flaming has totally reduced this thread to an incomprehensible bit of fluff.