Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

What a pack of hypocrites

FR shouldn't you be shut up in a courner not speaking as per your wife's instructions insted of threatening seagypsy, after all HER opinion is the only valid one acording to you, infact I'm yet to hear you tell Tiassa to shut up because he has a dick

Tiassa as per your own quote "if you don't want the responsibility of a child don't have sex or get snipped, it's as simple as that"

Bells, congratulations, your bile makes me want to vote for Tony Abbott and I thought NOTHING could do that

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you. That couldn't be clearer. Now, I would like to hear from Bells, Tiassa, SG, and anybody else who has a dog in this race.

That's how I was reading it. But let's not open the door for further dispute.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good deal.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If I may, some people (Self included) struggle with leaving an accusation or misrepresentation unanswered. To not answer seems to validate it somehow.
What I suggest for those of us engaging in that is to use the spoiler! tags to wrap the off topic arguments to only be viewed if the reader chooses.

Such as here:

Spoiler

Off topic rant and self defensive sniping here. Oh, by the way, Asgaurd and Bowser thanks for confirming that readers are not fooled by some of the tactics used.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree and have already stated that it was inappropriate on my part to bring it up. Why you keep bringing it up though I have conceded fault in doing so is beyond me.

Why do you assume it was PM between me and you?

The entirety. Why do you bother posting links to posts that are long as hell. But not point out directly exactly where the answers are. I can link you to a page out of your diary, if it were posted publicly, and claim you confesses to being a transsexual, but unless I can point out the actual words that prove it, my claims would have no validity. And so it stands here. Your links are worthless since they do not quote the specific remarks in answer to my questions.

I can say the same about you.

And neither can I, so why don't we just drop the accusations of emotional instability and respond with actual data, or links that relate to the actual topic at hand? And remaining honorable while doing it.

No asking me to calm down isn't what is suppressing. Asking me to leave the debate IS.

Thank you.


You said:



"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."..

Quite a claim.[/quote] It sure is. And so is your claim that a fetus is not human until it has fully exited your vagina. That's a doozy.

Your only back up has been that two moderators have agreed with you. One seems a bit shaky since he won't post his real feelings out of fear of the wrath of his wife. But I get picked at for being supportive of my husband because I genuinely agree with him.

Hello!! I have been that woman 2 times, 3 if you give credit and assume every time the doctor tried to convince me it was true was for valid reasons.

Sure but you are claiming that a fetus is not human until it is fully outside the vagina. Tell me, does the cord also have to be cut before it is human? What medical background do you have to support your claims?

Not that your opinion matters, considering my view of you right now, but i really don't give a rats ass what some illogical irrational imbeciles think of my post. I am sure plenty think the same of yours. Who haven't you ever accused of being an idiot at some point, oh maybe Tiassa, but then Tiassa is in authority over you. I wonder if Tiassa took a different position in this thread or changed position would copy cat along side of him? You are right Tiassa has a track record of thinking for himself. You on the other hand have a track record of sucking up to Tiassa. If I am wrong, link me over to any thread and post number where you vehemently disagreed with Tiassa and badgered him in the same manner you are badgering us.

What can't you understand about it. I am asking you to provide support in your rebuttal. You seem to be asserting that aborting in the last trimester can save a mother's life. My doctor couldn't even come up with examples, I am asking if you know of any.

I find it ironic that you link me to a site that refers to aborted fetuses as babies. How dare they!?

I bolded something. The word LIKELY. She would likely be dead. Not the same as would definitely be dead. And they were aborting a pregnancy that was already dying. I knew a girl who had this happen. Her baby had actually been dead for 2 weeks before they removed it from her uterus. She found out because she started getting sick and had a fever. They checked the well being of her baby and could find no heartbeat. Though it was technically considered an abortion, they weren't even removing LIVING cells. They were removing a dead body from hers in order to save her life. I doubt the doctors in your article have any way of proving that if they had waited til the fetus was already fully dead that the mother would have certainly and unavoidably died. If the fact that cocaine MAY lead to miscarriage is not good enough for you then the fact that this dead fetus being inside her MAY have lead to her death is also unacceptable. Remember, you are the one who seems to want to deal with absolutes. Making an absolute claim that it is absolutely not human until absolutely born.

None of these women are doctors, how can they make such claims?

trouble with reading comprehension again? I clearly stated that I put the guilt on the doctor, not the anguished mother. Oh wait, this is your little lying technique again. ... carry on in your usual way.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nope.

Not luck. The doctors gave no valid reasons for suggesting that an abortion would save my life. Especially considering that abortion can lead to the death of a woman as well. And they had to admit it. And they had to admit that they had no way of determining that I would survive the abortion or the delivery. They seems sure that I was going to die no matter what. So if the odds are against me but I can allow my child to live in spite of my own death it only makes sense. Save the one that seems to have the best chance of survival. And so we did, and as it turned out the doctors simply had ulterior motives for encouraging the abortions. One even admitted to it.

Who the hell is Akin?

So it was an adolescent retort... still not a rebuttal. Thank you.

sure ...Come everybody let's do the twist!!

Doing all the things you just denied.

Not biting back huh? have you seen the length of your post?

So the debate is finished then? Yay! Though I doubt you will remain silent to me. Please prove me wrong. Stop responding to me. Please.

So? That's your opinion, not a fact. No human being can go through life with opinions that please everyone. The fact that YOU see my views this way is quite comforting to me.

Don't know the meaning of the word "ILK". Look it up, your ignorance is not my problem. If you are given to the delusion that you are completely unique in your philosophies or perceptions of the world, that is also not my problem.

No that is not what I am referring to at all.

bla bla bla you sound like a broken record. "I can't offer a good rebuttal so will claim posts stand as testimony." Sure go ahead because our posts as well as yours DO INDEED stand as testimony. Anything else. Btw, I notice after saying i wasn't worth debating with, you still continued to debate my remarks on and on and on in the same thread after you made such a claim. All bluff I guess.

OMG now I am misogynistic? Holy shit! you are a trip. Omg.. ok at this point, I will give you the thread because you deserve nothing but ridicule at this point.

You are absolutely right! I was such a fool. Silly me from now on before posting I will ask you to approve my position before posting. Because apparently any opinion other than the ones you approve of is completely invalid. I am going to erect a temple in your honor Bells, because obviously you are the pinnacle of truth and reason, the only truth that matters in a fucked up world.

Have a nice night.

 

This will eventually look like a duplicate post since the original went to mod queue. I'm sure Tiassa wont mind deleting the duplicate.

The following is my response to Bells, those who prefer to not read the response to flaming feel free to ignore. Otherwise if it tickles you all pretty like to see someone attempt to put someone else in their place feel free to click the spoiler

Spoiler

I agree and have already stated that it was inappropriate on my part to bring it up. Why you keep bringing it up though I have conceded fault in doing so is beyond me.

Why do you assume it was PM between me and you?

The entirety. Why do you bother posting links to posts that are long as hell. But not point out directly exactly where the answers are. I can link you to a page out of your diary, if it were posted publicly, and claim you confesses to being a transsexual, but unless I can point out the actual words that prove it, my claims would have no validity. And so it stands here. Your links are worthless since they do not quote the specific remarks in answer to my questions.

I can say the same about you.

And neither can I, so why don't we just drop the accusations of emotional instability and respond with actual data, or links that relate to the actual topic at hand? And remaining honorable while doing it.

No asking me to calm down isn't what is suppressing. Asking me to leave the debate IS.

Thank you.

It sure is. And so is your claim that a fetus is not human until it has fully exited your vagina. That's a doozy.

Your only back up has been that two moderators have agreed with you. One seems a bit shaky since he won't post his real feelings out of fear of the wrath of his wife. But I get picked at for being supportive of my husband because I genuinely agree with him.

Hello!! I have been that woman 2 times, 3 if you give credit and assume every time the doctor tried to convince me it was true was for valid reasons.

Sure but you are claiming that a fetus is not human until it is fully outside the vagina. Tell me, does the cord also have to be cut before it is human? What medical background do you have to support your claims?

Not that your opinion matters, considering my view of you right now, but i really don't give a rats ass what some illogical irrational imbeciles think of my post. I am sure plenty think the same of yours. Who haven't you ever accused of being an idiot at some point, oh maybe Tiassa, but then Tiassa is in authority over you. I wonder if Tiassa took a different position in this thread or changed position would copy cat along side of him? You are right Tiassa has a track record of thinking for himself. You on the other hand have a track record of sucking up to Tiassa. If I am wrong, link me over to any thread and post number where you vehemently disagreed with Tiassa and badgered him in the same manner you are badgering us.

What can't you understand about it. I am asking you to provide support for your counter claim. You seem to be asserting that aborting in the last trimester can save a mother's life. My doctor couldn't even come up with examples, I am asking if you know of any.

I find it ironic that you link me to a site that refers to aborted fetuses as babies. How dare they!?

I bolded something. The word LIKELY. She would likely be dead. Not the same as would definitely be dead. And they were aborting a pregnancy that was already dying. I knew a girl who had this happen. Her baby had actually been dead for 2 weeks before they removed it from her uterus. She found out because she started getting sick and had a fever. They checked the well being of her baby and could find no heartbeat. Though it was technically considered an abortion, they weren't even removing LIVING cells. They were removing a dead body from hers in order to save her life. I doubt the doctors in your article have any way of proving that if they had waited til the fetus was already fully dead that the mother would have certainly and unavoidably died. If the fact that cocaine MAY lead to miscarriage is not good enough for you then the fact that this dead fetus being inside her MAY have lead to her death is also unacceptable. Remember, you are the one who seems to want to deal with absolutes. Making an absolute claim that it is absolutely not human until absolutely born.

None of these women are doctors, how can they make such claims?

trouble with reading comprehension again? I clearly stated that I put the guilt on the doctor, not the anguished mother. Oh wait, this is your little lying technique again. ... carry on in your usual way.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nope.

Not luck. The doctors gave no valid reasons for suggesting that an abortion would save my life. Especially considering that abortion can lead to the death of a woman as well. And they had to admit it. And they had to admit that they had no way of determining that I would survive the abortion or the delivery. They seems sure that I was going to die no matter what. So if the odds are against me but I can allow my child to live in spite of my own death it only makes sense. Save the one that seems to have the best chance of survival. And so we did, and as it turned out the doctors simply had ulterior motives for encouraging the abortions. One even admitted to it.

Who the hell is Akin?

So it was an adolescent retort... still not a rebuttal. Thank you.

sure ...Come everybody let's do the twist!!

Doing all the things you just denied.

Not biting back huh? have you seen the length of your post?

So the debate is finished then? Yay! Though I doubt you will remain silent to me.

Please prove me wrong.

Stop responding to me.

Please.

I mean really..

So? That's your opinion, not a fact. No human being can go through life with opinions that please everyone. The fact that YOU see my views this way is quite comforting to me.

Don't know the meaning of the word "ILK". Look it up, your ignorance is not my problem. If you are given to the delusion that you are completely unique in your philosophies or perceptions of the world, that is also not my problem.

No that is not what I am referring to at all.

bla bla bla you sound like a broken record. "I can't offer a good rebuttal so will claim posts stand as testimony." Sure go ahead because our posts as well as yours DO INDEED stand as testimony. Anything else. Btw, I notice after saying i wasn't worth debating with, you still continued to debate my remarks on and on and on in the same post after you made such a claim. All bluff I guess.

OMG now I am misogynistic? Holy shit! you are a trip. Omg.. ok at this point, I will give you the thread because you deserve nothing but ridicule at this point.

You are absolutely right! I was such a fool. Silly me from now on before posting I will ask you to approve my position before posting. Because apparently any opinion other than the ones you approve of is completely invalid. I am going to erect a temple in your honor Bells, because obviously you are the pinnacle of truth and reason, the only truth that matters in a fucked up world.

Have a nice night.

 

Excellent suggestion. The spoiler tag would be most appropriate.

 

Absolutely let's get back on topic.

1. I believe that a human being has a right to protect his/her own life and that he/she should be under no legal obligation to put any life before his/her own.
2. I believe that the above point coincides with inalienable human rights.
3. in regards to the person-hood of an unborn child. I believe that a fetus becomes a person worthy of protection when it has reached a level of development where it stands a reasonable chance of long term survival outside the womb. It is my understanding that survival rates are quite high for births that happen anytime within the third trimester.
4. I believe if there is sufficient evidence to suggest the third trimester fetus is deformed or sick beyond any reasonable hope of recovery and that death of that fetus within the first year of life is statistically shown to be the most likely outcome, then an abortion along the terms of euthanasia is acceptable.
5. I believe if the doctor genuinely believes that the mother's life is in danger, even in late term, and that a live delivery option such as c section or early inducement of labor would reduce her chances of survival more than an abortion would, then the abortion is a reasonable action.
6. I believe abortion, up until the point of development I believe gives person-hood to the fetus, should remain legal for any reason the mother chooses to do so.
7. I personally do not like abortion. But I also do not like extreme body art. But I do not feel I have a right to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their own body so long as it does not violate the right of another person to exist. When it is a matter of choosing who survives refer back to the first point.

 

Todd Akin - that idiot that claimed that women have the ability to block getting pregnant when raped.

 

Oh that doofus, well I don't know, I doubt this, but maybe the guy was referring to the fact that a woman CAN get an abortion. LOL, ok ok, not funny I know. The guy is a pile of excrement. It takes too much psychosis to defend his position.

I had seen a reference to clay akin once in the thread as well. But I don't see how an American Idol winner would have any major affect on voting.

 

I am of the opinion that life begins at conception, so any issue of abortion weighs up that there are two lives in the balance, not one.
As for implications on abortion, I think that any social policy has to be backed up by the society its in otherwise it fails.
Discussing the massive legal implications for suddenly granting an unborn child its rightful state isn't a very realistic approach since we see historically that making the learning curve occurs through generations, not policy makers

 

I don't really have a dog in this fight but this is an egregious abuse of moderator powers. Trying to ban specific language that you do not want to see used is Orwellian at best. It would be akin to banning someone who uses "cold fusion" on the LENR thread because the moderator supports LENR, and feels that the term "cold fusion" reduces the legitimacy of the "technology."

 

Marketplace solutions and the learning curve of generations

I did want to point out that instead of policy makers, you're essentially leaving it to lawyers.

At least 38 of the 50 states across America have introduced foetal homicide laws that were intended to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent attacks by third parties – usually abusive male partners – but are increasingly being turned by renegade prosecutors against the women themselves.

South Carolina was one of the first states to introduce such a foetal homicide law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has found only one case of a South Carolina man who assaulted a pregnant woman having been charged under its terms, and his conviction was eventually overturned. Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy.

(Pilkington)​

While abortion access advocates were skeptical from the outset, believing these fetal homicide laws were a back-door to LACP, it is lawyers who are proving the point.

The problem with certain market-based solutions is that they take time, and during that time there will be many sacrificial lambs. I tried to make this point earlier in the thread:

Nor would one want me in charge if personhood was the rule; Equal Protection is a vital foundation of our society, and I would sacrifice as many lambs, send as many people to prison, wreck as many lives, as I must in order to make the point. Meanwhile, I would be remiss in my duty, as such, if I did not. Did a woman experience menstrual irregularity? We must investigate, in order to make sure a "person" has not died, and if we have evidence suggesting such a death, we must ensure that the defenseless "person" did not die by homicide.​

That isn't a matter of spite. Rather, it's how important Equal Protection is to our society. And here's the thing about the appearance of spite: This is why I think the concept of "personhood" at conception doesn't work. Can it be made to work? Perhaps, but at the same time, I'm not inclined to find out. The better ways, in my opinion, to reduce the number of abortions in society, are education and access to prevention tools. Yet, as we see in our political culture, these approaches, too, are objectionable.

In truth, I have a hard time separating abortion from issues of sexual conduct.

Have you ever seen a burn line in fighting wildfires? It's a risky maneuver; in the middle of a tinder-dry region, the theory is that by burning out enough area in the path of the wildfire that the blaze cannot cross. And while we can certainly declare our faith in fire crews, even they know that a controlled burn can erupt into something much worse in a heartbeat.

I raise this issue because it seems that leaping past sex education and contraceptive access to LACP, which is a politically viable set of assertions in our society, is metaphorically akin to putting out a fire by setting other things on fire, and the statistical result of ignorance and lack of access is like throwing gasoline on the fire to put it out.

Additionally, abortion is not the only aspect of self-governance that a woman loses under LACP. Sure, it's easy enough to point to smoking, drinking, or piles of cocaine, but it also pertains to work, traveling in a car, or even walking on a sidewalk. It pertains to a woman's exposure to anything that might endanger the organism growing inside her. In the name of Equal Protection, the organism inside the woman becomes superior, and while that might seem an emotional rhetorical appeal, the functional implications are tremendous.

I would also note that while our society sees much argument about the life of the mother, there is little talk of what actually drives the most part of late-term abortions. Yesterday, I excerpted a legal brief from Supreme Court hearings focused on late-term D&X (a.k.a. "partial birth abortion"). And as I noted, it's a soul-scarring read.

Nobody with a shred of human decency is going to drag an anti-abortion advocate into a hospital to watch a baby slowly and painfully dying of a disorder identified in utero, and say, "This child's suffering is all on you." But I also don't think enough people are considering the fact that their policy preference, LACP, would create such a situation.

The question of implications gauges the intent of LACP, and so far it really does seem to be about the War of the Sexes more than it is the children.

End hunger. Get the hundred-thousand-plus children in the United States who need stable homes into stable, loving homes. Our society spends so much argument on the rights of the unborn, even if that means the right of the unborn to be born into suffering. This doesn't make sense.

It's true, I reject LACP because its implications are unacceptable to my outlook. But if it ever becomes the law of the land, I would certainly hope we have some idea what we're getting ourselves into. And, yes, in truth, I think that, as a society, we will be blindsided by the implications of LACP if we don't give it some serious thought beforehand.

Remember that under the Fourteenth Amendment, women were not considered people insofar as fifty-two years passed before the Nineteenth. And even as the marketplace tried to give women the vote in the states, those laws, even when passed in the states, were repeatedly quashed.

Some would suggest that slavery was on its way out, anyway, suggesting that the Civil War and Thirteenth Amendment were unnecessary. Some would suggest that civil rights for people with dark skin was on its way, and thus Supreme Court decisions in Brown and Loving were unnecessary. The unspoken price, though, is the number of people who would suffer during the interim.

If we leave the implications of LACP to the learning curve of generations, how many times will we screw up? How many people will suffer?

That's why it's important to have this discussion on the front side.

Of course, I don't foresee LACP becoming the law of the land anytime soon, so perhaps the only real purpose of asking people to think about the implications is to make sure they understand what they're advocating.

And I find it interesting that when the personhood issue pushed to the fore in 2010, the response on the liberal and Democratic Party side of the aisle was to focus on hormonal birth control, in vitro fertilization, and other such medical aspects at risk. Perhaps the leading voices, be it members of Congress or the media commentariat, &c., thought it would be too complicated a discussion to undertake consideration of the broader implications. Judging by the discussion so far in this thread, they would have been right. To the other, it's also possible it just didn't occur to them; when one deals in superficiality, deeper implications often remain unnoticed.

But if people are going to advocate LACP, it would probably be a good thing to consider the wider implications; indeed, I cannot see why they wouldn't want to, unless this really is about political aesthetics instead of genuine concern for humanity.
____________________

Notes:

Pilkington, Ed. "Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges". The Guardian. June 24, 2011. Guardian.co.uk. November 5, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

 

My thanks to NeverFly, SG and LG for their honest replies. I'm not sure that Bells and Tiassa have offered theirs. I think I know where they stand, but I don't want to make any assumptions. If you could give us a clear statement, not a convoluted spill, that would be great.

 

birth (berth) a coming into being; act or process of being born.
complete birth entire separation of the infant from the maternal body (after cutting of the umbilical cord).
multiple birth the birth of two or more offspring produced in the same gestation period.
postterm birth birth of an infant at or after 42 completed weeks (294 days) of gestation.
premature birth , preterm birth birth of an infant before 37 completed weeks (259 days) of gestation.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/birth

So maybe you just not saying what you actually mean. Or maybe your position has changed.

Hmmm. Maybe I have been misunderstanding you. So you DO see a human fetus as a HUMAN? Even before it is born? Is this correct?

meaning

human fetus = human.

all human fetuses are human.

Am I interpreting you correctly?

And Tiassa, do you also agree that a human fetus is human?

 

So ... do you think a fetus is human? why is that question so hard to answer? Maybe your posts would be easier to understand if you just directly answered questions rather than blathering on about how someone cant read. YOU said a fetus is not human until it is born. You cannot deny it. The words are there plain as day. Now if you want to say you misspoke, that's fine with me. I will accept your clarification that you only meant is not a person, not that it isn't human.

So am I correct?
You believe a human fetus is human even before birth, but that this human is not granted personhood until after it is fully born?

I do not deny that Australian law says what you claim it says. I don't care about Australian law. So I don't read about it. I will take your word for it. Australians can govern themselves any way they like. I live in the USA. My opinions only count here.

Why do you bring up Australian laws when the thread is about American law makers? Does Australia have some right to tell us how to govern our own country? Is Australian opinion relevant in the making of American laws? Last I checked Australians cannot vote in US elections.

So back to the question. You clarified that you do not see the unborn child as one granted personhood. Does that mean that human does not equal personhood?

Please clarify your position. Do you see a human fetus as human? I am not asking you what any law says, I am asking for YOUR personal opinion. Is a human fetus a human?

Also note, all participants of this thread, excluding you, have continued to discuss this in a civilized manner. Would you like to join and do the same?

 

This post is very rational calm and makes sense. I agree with you 100%. The implications of LACP and the slippery slope it creates is terrifying.

It's interesting how people can anticipate corrupt misinterpretation and enforcement of laws such as ACTA but their objectivity and critical thinking goes out the door when it comes to anything that endorses a subjective philosophical or religious belief.

As far as your remarks about how no one would want you in charge if personhood was the rule. well you are wrong, I'd back you up. I don't subscribe to the idea that what is fair must be pretty or give you warm fuzzies all day.

 

Tiassa, concidering that corporations are "persons" in the US who was charged with murder over the collaps of liman brothers?