Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ah yes bells, you still think smoking around a child ok?

And YES bells, chosing not to have kids now is a deal breaker for me, sorry im funny like that, kind of like how not haveing sex with other people was a deal breaker for you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Insert Title Here)

If I might, then, skip ahead (while also looking back) for a moment:

Well, it has to do with certain implications:

Tiassa: The functional problem I encounter, then, is trying to draw a line at which a woman can no longer abort. If purely elective D&X (partial birth abortion) was more common, it is possible I would try to figure another line.

Seagypsy: This debate (late term personhood vs personhood at birth) is off topic but since it keeps getting addressed. The statistics that Neverfly and I found indicate that late term abortion is mostly elective and only rarely for the preservation of the life of the mother or for sake compassionate euthanasia for a diseased or deformed fetus.​

Generally speaking, D&X is the procedure used in late-term abortions when there is a medical reason to do so. D&X is a powerful controversy in abortion politics; the anti-abortion argument would have us believe that a "partial birth abortion" is something undertaken on a whim; it is not. The general question of late-term abortion is a broader issue; your point on late-term abortions seemed a bit off as a response to considerations of D&X; hence, my note on referring to a specific method, and why the response about late-term abortions in general seemed odd.

Back to the points in order:

I would disagree insofar as D&X is such a controversial issue because it pushes about as close to the dry-foot line as one can get: The cervix is dilated, the fetus partially extracted, and then killed. The difference motivating Congressional action against D&X is found in the term "partial birth abortion". Insofar as the anti-abortion movement in general hopes to end the medical abortion—

—I would agree that a dead "person" is all the same to them, but they have chosen to make a specific point about D&X.

Well, about the only answer I can formulate is to point out that we do have a crime of passion provision in the law. A shot to the head is probably a better way to die than having the skin flayed from your still living body until one subdues to shock or blood loss. The law, at present, generally seems to think so.

Well, let us be specific: "the idea that a woman, two-thirds or more through a pregnancy, would decide to abort on a lark ... is a stock myth of the anti-abortion canon".

I feel comfortable standing on that point. I mean, sure, I'm only male, but I can't figure how it comes about that a woman would wait until the third trimester, endure the swollen body parts and stretch marks, take the bazillion kicks in the bladder, suffer the sore back and joints, and even spend the money on wardrobe, only to wake up one morning and say, "Hell, I'm tired of this. I think I'll have an abortion."

All are fine maybes, to be certain, but are there case histories in the literature?

There is nothing I can reasonably say here; after all, it's a circumstance I will never experience personally.

I can't prove to you that God doesn't exist. The fact that I know how to make flying ointment (the key ingredients are clove oil to irritate the skin at the temples in order to access the capillaries, and hashish oil to do the "flying"), cannot be said to be conclusive evidence that there has never been a witch who actually hopped on a besom and flew through the air.

What I'm getting at is that while I would not be at all surprised when someone brings me the literature on a case reflecting such caprice, I will also need more conclusive proof that it is a common occurrence.

One would certainly hope that these sorts of discussions do move people to research and learning. To the other, a lot of this is familiar ground; this is hardly the first exploration of some depth I've undertaken on the subject. Indeed, looking back to the topic post, much of what I've learned and understood over the years brought me to a certain nexus in the political season that inspired the underlying question about the implications of LACP.

The question of methods arose for the reasons I mentioned above, trying to figure the application of your general consideration of late-term abortion to the particular consideration of D&X.

I don't disagree with your point, but there is a functional challenge. An image I can't seem to use enough:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Rachel Maddow Show, June 23, 2011​

What you're looking at is part of a political fight that took place in Kansas. There is some irony about Republicans trying to use bureaucratic red tape to eliminate abortion services, of course, but that's beside the point. Essentially, with three clinics providing abortion services remaining in Kansas, officials went out, figured out what building codes they could enact that would force all three to close down, and passed a law intended to accomplish that goal. These regulations included things like closet space. They gave the clinics something like seventy-two hours to fall into compliance, and of course they could not. The area highlighted in red would have been an abortion-free zone for lack of any clinic providing such services; unfortunately for Republicans, one clinic managed to stay open.

Such an outcome would provide something of a challenge to providing transportation.

In Kansas, a doctor actually moved her practice to Wichita to ensure there was at least one clinic providing abortion services. Anti-abortion advocates attempted the same sort of intimidation—including distribution of the doctor's home address and other vital information—that circulated in advance of the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. Someone even threatened the doctor's life.

After Kansas, Mississippi tried a similar bureaucratic stunt, but the politicians, feeling cocky, actually bragged that they were successfully using government to end abortion services in the state. With that on the record, a court quashed the attempt.

And if domestic terrorists get their way, the question of abortion access will be settled simply by making it too dangerous to the doctors to provide services.
____________________

Notes:

Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. June 23, 2011. Television.

—Transcript. June 24, 2011. MSNBC.com. November 7, 2012. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43527601/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/ ​

Dryden, Rebekah. "#Kansas abortion ban starts tomorrow (UPDATE: One clinic remains)". The Maddow Blog. June 30, 2011. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. November 7, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...ban-starts-tomorrow-update-one-clinic-remains

Deam, Jenny. "Doctor struggles to fill role of slain Kansas abortion provider". Los Angeles Times. March 5, 2012. Articles.LATimes.com. November 7, 2012. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/05/nation/la-na-kansas-abortion-20120305

Conaway, Laura. "Federal judge blocks law that would close only abortion clinic in Mississippi". The Maddow Blog. July 1, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. November 7, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...uld-close-only-abortion-clinic-in-mississippi

 

love the sexisum bells, your basically accusing me of being evil for wanting children, how funny. Sooo you think you partner should be compleatly passive, get you pregant when you want and pay but if you dont want kids just accept that. Look at your children and tell me that if someone stopped you having them, even if it was your husband that you would be evil for leaving and finding someone who WOULD give them to you.

As for the other thing, yes you DO have a responsibility to protect your children, if you cause a child FAS then you deserve to be held responsible for that just like the couple who left there children to die by stavation.


http://www.google.com.au/search?sou...484ab4e877cef36&bpcl=37643589&biw=557&bih=461
are all these women evil too because they want to leave there husbands because there husbands dont want children?

 

yes my relationship is so disfuntional that we are together and starting a family, hows yours?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nah, shes eatting the burritos i made for her

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And you know dam well that there is a difference between alcohol and smoking while pregnant and eating a ham sandwich

Of course thats what i would expect from your level of dishonesty

If you HAD a husband what would you do if he smoked with your children in the car?

 

Why does this thread seem to gravitate towards the personal? BTW: My family just fell together. It started with a long relationship without commitment until our first child entered the picture. Everything came together from that point onward. Children can give structure to a relationship.

 

the funny part is bells know dam well PB feels the same way, she wants people charged with child endagerment for what they do when pregant, further more she wants parents to be required to get a licence before being able to have children because she thinks 99% shouldnt be allowed to breed.

 

Distraction and Digression

I've been sort of leaving his posts aside insofar as his views of women are the one thing I really disagree with him about. I don't see the point in following the distraction.

To the other, though ...

... while I certainly get you on this point, it's a balancing act, because "pressuring and threatening to abandon one's spouse or partner if the spouse or partner does not comply to your wishes" actually can be a tool for rebuilding the relationship. For instance, I'm certainly a believer in personal liberty, but you might recall some of the stories I told about my relationship with my daughter's mother. We don't fight much these days, but I do know, from her having said so in a moment of dispute, that she resents the fact that I got so much more time with my daughter in the early years. Of course, it's not really helpful, in such moments, to remind her how much of that imbalance involves cocaine, more booze than is healthy, sleeping in the car behind the pub, and searching for healthy and stable relationships with barflies who describe their marriages as immigration shams. It's not so much that I could tell her to clean up or I was out of there—I had no place to go and would lose a custody fight. But I'm only making the point, to be honest, in order to avoid reminding that when our neighbor chides that I once told him, "if you don't want the responsibility of a child don't have sex or get snipped, it's as simple as that", it was in reference to his proposition that if a woman won't get an abortion when the father of the fetus wants her to, he ought to be excused from child support.

I mean, what good would it do to even mention that in this thread? It can only lead to further digression, which is why ... er ... um ....

Oh, right.

Damn.

 

Trippy, how do you justify the charge of "Emotional Abuse?
If a man is a family type of guy and wants kids, that does not insinuate that emotional abuse is involved. If one partner is wanting a career in a high profile corporation in Chicago and the other wants to live in Alaska, they must hash out the difference and come to a solution. Maybe it's splitting up, maybe it's a divide of several years in Chicago and retire in Alaska - but in the end, each is going to have their own wants and as a couple, they must discuss those wants and solve differences.
You absolutely cannot claim someone must be emotionally abusing the other for wanting kids anymore than you can claim it if one is saying, "We need to come up with an exercise routine and healthy diet."

Which is what creates this point of contention in the first place.
If a man sires a child, he's still obligated by law to provide for the child and take responsibility for the child.
Making claims of sexism against men for not being designed to carry children themselves is flat our absurd.

Quoting direct statistics is dishonest, now?

The only person that made that statement as an example was Bells.
I have pointed out that if a woman can abort for two trimesters, aside from her medical safety or a severe problem with the fetus, there is no justifying excuses for killing a human brain. You're justifying killing by saying people were indecisive. That makes absolutely no sense to me. I can understand the need to terminate late term if someone is in danger- but because they were indecisive? Come on! You don't let Bank Robbers off the hook for shooting a teller because he was "Scared" do you?! Killing Humans Because you were scared, pressured or indecisive is still wrong.

Reminder: This was from the same statistics and study that you posted first. She merely took what you presented and gave the breakdown.
So... hey Bells?

See above. You're saying that to the statistics that Trippy first provided.

Bells, how many times do I need to point out that you're in error before you will finally let go of the error?
I addressed this in post number 293. The only point I made about 1 minute before or after is the absurdity of the arbirtrary line. I never used that to claim that women actually have abortions done 1 minute before birth. Which, as with 209 and 233 you still have not addressed the issue. Perhaps you're avoiding it because you know that it's a logical and reasonable position you cannot refute using logic, and it undermines one of your claims. So you just seem to ignore it. Let me be blunt- You're well observed ignoring of rebuttals and points is glaring.

If true, this is fine. But that does not alter that the minority are cases of unjustified killing of a human brain. While we will allow a person to shoot another in self defense, we do not allow people to shoot at other drivers for cutting them off.

Hate to bust your bubble but that's normal and healthy human interaction. Women pressure men when they want children, marriage and bon bons, too.
Playing it off as if he's some abusive prick over that is absurd and I'm sure the vast majority of readers know better than to think your accusation here could possibly ever be taken seriously.

 

Neverfly, you state that "aside from her medical safety or a severe problem with the fetus, there is no justifying excuse for killing a human brain." This would seem to imply that after "a human brain" has formed the fetus' right to life becomes equivalent to that of the mother and the fetus should be granted "person hood status". Is that correct?

I understand your "self defense" analogy in third trimester abortions where the expectant mother's life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy to term and delivers. However, self defense does not apply to a situation wherein the fetus has serious defects but is viable.

If not self defense, what right does the mother have to abort a fetus only recently discovered to be seriously deformed yet quite capable of surviving for an indeterminate amount of time outside the womb? Because it is in the best interest of the entity you just granted "person hood"?

Neverfly and Seagypsie, do you endorse euthanasia? If so, what constraints to you place on that endorsement? I would imagine you would deem it unethical, immoral and hope that it remains illegal to euthanize a child two years of age because of some physical handicap right? How about a two month old? Two seconds after birth? Where is your "arbitrary line" for this? Or do you wish to withdraw support for late term abortions involving "a diseased or deformed fetus" or "a severe problem with the fetus"?

 

There is history involved here

I can only promise you, sir, that the dispute you're trying to judge here is much larger and longer-lasting than the present discussion.

Perhaps those ignorant of the past might find Bells a bit aggressive, but those who are aware of what has taken place in the past at least understand the reasons for the ferocity and magnitude of their disagreement.

 

Your source is a wordpress blog by the way. Not an official source but I gave it it's fair shake. I checked IT'S sources. Which was a study from Paris France.

- source (same source the blog Trippy quoted cites)

France restricts abortion beyond 12 weeks of gestation. So your data is irrelevant as you claim mine is. Also, the source of statistics I posted is the EXACT set of statistics YOU originally posted. So do you really wanna go there?

- source

If abortion is illegal in France beyond 12 weeks of gestation (sooner than the 16 weeks that you complained about in the statistics I posted, which were the same exact statistics you originally used btw) unless there is some medical risk to mother or fetus, why would you expect to have anyone aborting for any other reason there? Maybe we need to find statistics of reported reasons for third trimester abortions from a region of the world where there are no restrictions on abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Then we may actually get some valid statistics. I've been trying to find such statistics and cannot considering only 8 states in the US currently do not restrict third trimester or post viability (24-28 weeks) abortions. I think the majority of states restricting post-viability abortions puts a heavy skew on the previously posted statistics (i mean those posted by any of us) because if it is usually illegal to get an abortion post viability for any reason other detrimental health risks to mother or fetus, then it isn't likely to find many post viability abortions reporting any reason other than the presumed legal ones.

And you call me amateur?

 

Yes. This is the only logical way that I can see it. Prior to the establishment of the brain, it cannot be said to be a Human Being, I think. It can only be said to have potential. These shades of gray are all semantics. Given the fallacy of forcing a woman to carry a child, I reasonably think that a brainless clump of matter (for lack of a better way to describe it- it's not meant to offend) cannot be given greater due than what it is actually made of.
Once that brain is established, that's a Person, now. Killing that person for any reason other than self defense goes against the basic morality and rights of our current modern society. It is an odd exception- it stands out like a sore thumb.
That contradiction smacks of granting inhuman rights to a select group of people and in so doing, also denying existent rights (fatherhood) to the other group. The rather... selfish claims of sexism... really fall down at that point.

In a case like that, I must leave it, again, to the parents to choose. Even late term, if there are serious defects but the fetus can survive on it's own, I would be supportive of their making a hard choice on it. This is a bit like having a family member in the hospital on life support. granted, the roles are reversed, the principle is the same. That is, it's more about the living family at that point and the quality of life they can really offer to either a vegetable on life support or a severely deformed fetus that may be able to survive, but may have a low quality of life. Just because Hawking did a pretty good job with living in a wheel chair (From late twenties onward) doesn't mean every baby born with defects will be just like him. Many would have poor care or poor quality of life and only the family can make that call, not me.

I do. However, the point here relates to the above, not to non-deformed, normal in-womb humans that fall under the same protected status that you or I fall under in society since we're not brain-dead vegetables in a hospital ward.

 

My own personal view on this is that unless you're claiming that Bells and Asgaurd know eachother very well, personally, and that they have a dispute that is old and unknown to us- then making excuses for poor behavior because someone has a rough past is nonsense. I think I can safely say many here have had a very hard past, self included, and that doesn't grant us the right to be verbally abusive to others.

 

So, Trippy provided a study, bundling it's statistics that started at 16 weeks.
You then unbundled the statistics Trippy provided and listed Trippy's statistics in a break down.
Trippy then called it absurd you were using those statistics since they started at 16 weeks.
Bells commented on that, supportive of Trippy.
Trippy goes on to provide statistics that started at 12 weeks... from France.