A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Tiassa, Mar 21, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    There is nothing wrong with labels that allow people to make informed choices, is there? Or do you want to make all the choices for women?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    So I look forward to hearing your plan for forced organ donation. Or do men have the right to refuse the use of their organs to people who need them?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Ah, not extraction, but eviction.

    The survival record is 25 weeks gestation. If the woman announced to the world her abandonment of the right to custody of the fetus, and if the fetus was viable, then transferred to an incubator, could someone homestead that right, and offer to care for the fetus? Hmm… that’s an interesting question, Randwolf.


    Dr. Walter Block, professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, provides an alternative to the standard choice between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" which he terms "evictionism". According to this moral theory, the act of abortion must be conceptually separated into the acts of (a) eviction of the fetus from the womb; and (b) killing the fetus. Building on the libertarian stand against trespass and murder, Dr. Block supports a right to the first act, but, except in certain circumstances, not the second act. He believes the woman may legally abort if (a) the fetus is not viable outside the womb; or (b) the woman has announced to the world her abandonment of the right to custody of the fetus, and (c) no one else has "homesteaded" that right by offering to care for the fetus.

    A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb. [Wikipedia]
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    I see "extraction" as a wonderful option... but it shoud still be the womans choice.!!!
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yes, and so do women.
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    You have problems with self restraint, don't you... Or do you just prefer to argue in illogical extremes for "lulz"?
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    You have problems with self restraint, don't you... Or do you just prefer to argue in illogical extremes for "lulz"?
  11. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Why? Why do you see "extraction" as a "wonderful option"? Wonderful for whom?

    What, precisely, are you referring to as "it" here? The right to carry the foetus to term opposed to some sort of state enforced "extraction"? Or the right to choose between this potential "extraction" or the assured death of the foetus she's carrying? Or both?

    Under the hypothetical (not so very far fetched) that I am setting up, the foetus can be "evicted / extracted" (foetus lives) or "aborted" (foetus dies) at an arbitrarily early age - who chooses? And why? Remember, "extraction" is an equal health risk to the mother as abortion.

    If I understood you correctly clueluss, the choice of extraction / eviction vs traditional abortion should still be the woman's prerogative, even under the conditions of my Gedanken, right? Regardless of who is paying for sustaining the life of said "extracted" foetus?

    Maybe so, I invite participants to argue such...

    As to you Timmy, sounds like more BS you're trying to stir. Try to clarify your position a little though, and let's hear you justify the one I inferred. Or renounce my inference, it sounds clueluss to me...
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Can we at least agree that abortion is a wedge issue that the oilgarchy uses to divide and conquer us.
  13. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    But you are demanding that women give up the use of their organs for fetuses. I suppose if you see an important moral difference between men and women, then that's OK.
  14. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    We could say that... I see what ya did there.

    But, let's be honest here... We have theists, and atheists here... The theists, will always be against abortion. Wait, let me clarify... For some, it's OK to abort females.

    As far as atheists go, some are pro-choice, some not.

    I just can't imagine telling a woman, sorry, the rubber broke, you have to carry this parasite in you for nine months, and then, you have to support it for 18 years...

    Before you attack me here, understand, I am in no way calling an embryo/fetus a parasite.

    Well, actually, they kinda are... I'm just saying if you don't want a child, or just know you can't raise it right, why should you be forced to give birth?

    ETA... Before you usual suspects even start...

    I made the blanket statement, that theists are almost always anti abortion. And, you mostly are.

    I know some of you find it viable in cases of rape or incest. So please don't use that as an argument.

    Every sperm is sacred, and a living being... Meh.
  15. Bells Staff Member

    I see..

    Did they mean women like the two women described above by an abortion provider?

    Also, could you please provide the link to the article you quoted? Because I found one that is virtually word for word, except a few parts were somewhat different, so I am curious as to which one is correct.

    So why did you even use the argument?

    I want you to think about something. Late term abortions fall into the smallest category of women who get abortions. About 1% of women get 3rd trimester abortions. I think in the States it works out to being about 11,000 women. Where do you think those women will go if you ban them? What recourse do you think those women would then have if they want to have an abortion? Since they can no longer obtain one safely - and there are only 3 doctors who perform late term 3rd trimester abortions (there used to be 4, but Dr Miller was murdered for the service he provided), where do you think these women are going to go? We know that if abortions are banned, access limited in any way, women are simply going to go by way of a backyard and unsafe and often deadly abortion. This is the reality. Is this acceptable to you? The WHO's directives are clear, women need to be able to access safe abortions to stop the pandemic. And you wish to restrict their access further?

    What is wrong with still having providers to cater for those 1% who obviously have valid reasons to have waited or found themselves in the 3rd trimester and needing an abortion? You can get late term 3rd trimester abortions now in several states. So it is available. Do you see a dearth of women just waiting until right to the end to abort? The greater majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. So even though it is available now, women aren't being "irresponsible" and leaving it too late. So what's wrong with how it is now? Why do you want to ban it so that those 11,000 women are put at direct risk per year? Where is the merit in that?

    What do you gain in knowingly and purposefully endangering 11,000 per year? Because these women are going to get one regardless if they need to have one. Personally, I'd rather they be able to access safe health care and not have to resort to Mary with her coat hanger or a shove down the stairs or punch to the stomach until she bleeds. Do you think this is acceptable?

    Or as Quinnsong dismisses, these women can simply be arrested and prosecuted. Ermm okay, so then we fall into the issue where these women won't then seek medical care if and when something does go wrong with a backyard abortion and that 68,000 dead and millions scarred for life figures just goes up. Women who miscarry later on in their pregnancy could find themselves being charged if they did anything that could have caused them to miscarry or naturally abort their baby. Don't think that's a possiblity? That's already happening now. Hundreds of women are in prison for miscarrying and stillbirths because they ingested something or came into contact with something that could have endangered the baby. Not directly did, but could have. So the mere possibility of danger to the foetus can result in women being jailed for many years. What do you think is going to happen if you ban abortions outright from 27 weeks?

    Because once you open that can of worms, how do you go back?

    What about women who were denied the ability from accessing an abortion earlier?

    What about women who were raped? What caveats would you put in place there? Will she have had to have filed a police report as proof that she was raped? Many victims of rape do not report it for various and obvious reasons. So how will you know she was raped? What happens to that large majority of women who do not report their rape? What about women who are raped at home by their abusive spouse?

    Danger to the woman? Okay.. Is her life really in danger? We already have politicians declare that a woman can simply carry it to term, even if the baby is dead. We already have hospitals forcing c-sections on women, some to their death, because of the 'danger to women' argument. Do you see the dangers of such rules and laws? What if the doctor disagrees that her life is in danger? We already have doctors letting women having to travel 90 miles for treatment for their miscarriage and the baby's arm sticking out of their cervix because there was still a foetal heartbeat. And we already have women going septic in some hospitals because of infections that set in after a miscarriage that the hospital refuses to treat due to a foetal heartbeat still being present. So they already ignore danger to the woman, what makes you think they are going to take notice of it in the 3rd trimester?

    So that's your response is it?

    Well I don't know. You already gave in to several myths about abortion in your previous response. What other ones can you think up?

    Noble goals and exemptions. The 1% of women who get 3rd trimester abortions have valid reasons. Women who are unable to access one earlier (there are some women who are even jailed to stop them from accessing one earlier) should not be forced to have to carry it to term against their will and they certainly should not be forced to having to consider an unsafe illegal abortion that could cost them their lives.

    You want to reduce the 1% figure? Make it easier and cheaper to access one in the first trimester. Provide safer and cheaper abortions earlier on and provide a safe place for women to be able to access them without the law and pro-lifer's continuously attempting to restrict them - to the point of threatening to kidnap women who are seeking earlier abortions. This is what women face when they attempt to get an abortion. Harassment, abuse, threats of kidnap, threats of death if they attend a reproductive health clinic. Not to mention the stigma involved, the financial cost that many younger and disadvantaged women cannot afford so they have to wait and save up for it, threats and harassment from their families, inability to access one in their state (with forced closures of clinics and laws enacted to restrict doctors ability to provide the service at all).. Then of course you run into the areas of the myths who claim that abortion is used often as a form of birth control, that women are simply irresponsible and don't get one earlier because they keep changing their minds and are somewhat slack.. All of this is what prevents women from getting one earlier. Banning 3rd trimester abortions won't reduce that figure. It'll just mean that women will be forced to resort to unsafe and often deadly alternatives.

    Personally, I'd rather women be allowed to access safe health care. But I guess that's just me.

    Why do you keep perpetrating this myth about 3rd trimester abortions?

    Enough literature has been provided to show that women who get 3rd trimester abortions are for the most part, prevented from accessing one earlier. So why do you carry on as if women are leaving it to that point because they couldn't decide?

    Do you want me to ask Fraggle to lecture you on the push to end the drug war laws?

    The decades-long global war on drugs has failed and it's time to shift the focus from mass incarceration to public health and human rights, according to a new report endorsed by five Nobel Prize-winning economists.

    The report, titled "Ending the Drug Wars" and put together by the London School of Economics' IDEAS center, looks at the high costs and unintended consequences of drug prohibitions on public health and safety, national security and law enforcement.

    "The pursuit of a militarized and enforcement-led global ‘war on drugs’ strategy has produced enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage," says the 82-page report. "These include mass incarceration in the US, highly repressive policies in Asia, vast corruption and political destabilization in Afghanistan and West Africa, immense violence in Latin America, an HIV epidemic in Russia, an acute global shortage of pain medication and the propagation of systematic human rights abuses around the world."

    The report urges the world's governments to reframe their drug policies around treatment and harm reduction rather than prosecution and prison.

    You were saying?

    The war on drugs policies is an absolute failure. Everyone recognises this. I'm surprised you actually went there as justification to deny women access to safe health care if they require an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

    How is he doing that?
  16. Balerion Banned Banned

    You realize Bells and him are making basically the same argument, right? She evej defends him in her latest post.

    Open your eyes, dude.
  17. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    A wonderful option for the mother... who might perfer extraction in which the child lives... opposed to abortion in which the child dyes... but extraction shoud still be the womans choice.!!!
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Oh I didn't realise that was not allowed. Burn him at the stake!
  19. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Do you really think you're going to count coupe amongst the dry foot policy advocates under my Gedanken Clueluss?

    You really are clueluss - this was set up two fold, as a honeypot for idiots and as a serious intellectual question. Because, it's only a matter of time till my hypothetical becomes reality. Then what? And your answer is to try to reframe in Sci time...

    Good luck with that, sincerely...
  20. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    I don't want to play with the clueluss, I want some serious answers. Where are you Tiassa, Bells, Balerion, Trippy, Kitt, and the rest? Weigh in Gremmie, Trooper and so forth... Where is Enmos? Does no one have an opinion on technology gone wild?
  21. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Nice edit,Timmy...
  22. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    *shakes head* I am going to gracefully withdraw from this... whatever you want to call it. All semblence of logical thought has gone out the window at this point, as we have, apparently, decided that a living, feeling, conscious human child is apparently worth less than a persons right to decide at the last moment "nah, I don't want that responsibility".

    Bells, you ask about those who have been "denied the ability to choose" until the last trimester - who is denying them their choice? Because whoever THAT is is the one that needs a good smack upside the head. As for the girls I'd heard talking about abortion as a form of birth control, I doubt it was for medical reasons, considering the discussions were something along the lines of, while they were discussing their highly promiscuous sexual escapades, someone bringing up the thought that they should be using a condom or birth control pill, and the resulting response being along the lines of "why should I bother spending money for something that might happen? besides, if I do miss a period or whatever I'll just end it then" as though it were no big deal. That was just terrifying to overhear... to think that people can think so incredibly LITTLE of a growing life.

    Let me ask you this, Bells: In a "civilized" society, what reasons are there for abortions to be necessary? I can only think of one - some medical reason in which the fetus is either nonviable, or carrying to term would endanger the mother. Excluding cases of rape or other sexual assault, there is no reason for a woman who doesn't want to have children to not use (or require the use of - lets face it, men have a responsibility in this as well to use protection!) SOME form of birth control; if that birth control fails (condom breaks, for instance), there are things such as the morning after pill to prevent impregnation. There is, quite literally, no non-medical reason to wait until that late in the game to decide you don't want to have the kid.

    Obviously, we don't live in a perfect world... that and the medical reasons are why there should be exceptions to it... none the less, there comes a point where a person HAS to accept responsibility for what they do to their own body... ending another life just because you were irresponsible is unacceptable... unless of course you would argue someone in debt should be allowed to just go and kill the person they owe the debt to as a means of terminating said responsibility (after all, what's one life weighed against another?)

    Anyway, this is probably going to be my last post on this issue... not only are we way off base of whatever perceived point this thread had, but we are going around in circles... it is obvious nobody here is actually absorbing and understanding what the other side is saying ... the battle lines are clearly drawn and nobody is willing to back down from them, so this entire conversation is moot.
  23. Bells Staff Member

    I would say that any and all options available to the mother should be offered. And women who get 3rd trimester abortions are often counseled on those options and asked to weigh up the options and in cases where it is a healthy foetus, they are oftentimes encouraged to deliver it and give it up for adoption if they have not weighed up those options. More often than not, these women know what they want and what they need for themselves and their families. They have factored in their options and I think it belittles them to assume they were just irresponsible and waited that long to decide. But this is also dependent on the time factor. If she is 30 weeks pregnant, the risks to the foetus having no issues that could affect later in life are reduced. Is society prepared to pay for its medical costs and able to place it in a home and with a family that will be able to reach its needs? Could she be charged or arrested or sued for having had the baby at 30 weeks to avoid aborting it?

    A third trimester abortion takes days. It is painful, uncomfortable, risky and can take up to 4 days if not more, depending on the woman's cervix and it destroys your mind. I know someone who went through it and it's been close to 15 years now and she still cries about it, she still cradles the baby clothes that she had bought for her baby who never got to wear it. This is not something trivial that women just decide to do as some in this discussion seem to believe. These women aren't changing their minds constantly for 6 months as Kitta seems to assume they do.

    I find such arguments to willfully and dishonestly ignore the reality that these women face and it sets a tone that women are either having abortions willy nilly as a way of birth control or they are just stupid or irresponsible. No woman would simply wait that long to have an abortion if she had the choice or the ability to have it sooner. It is long, painful, risky, stressful and emotionally draining for these women to go through this and I think trivialising it as though it's just a case of irresponsibility that led them to that point or their stupidity is offensive and demeaning. Then of course we delve into the realms by which some have tried to argue that women are waiting until just before the baby comes out to abort. This does not happen in reality. This is the reality that many women face:

    I read an interview with you recently where you talked about Aron Ralston, the mountain climber who cut off his hand in order to escape being trapped underneath a boulder. You said that women having third-trimester abortions need them the way that Aron needed to cut off his hand. Can you tell me more about that? What's the difference between how people perceive late abortions and what you see at your clinic?

    I think that the public perceives first of all that late abortion could be completely eliminated if people would only get their act together and have their abortions earlier, which is completely untrue.

    I also think that people assume that women do this casually—that they've known they were pregnant for thirty weeks and then were on their way down to the hair salon and they saw the abortion clinic and they decided to just walk in to avoid the inconveniences of motherhood. That also is completely untrue. No matter how available birth control and first-trimester and second-trimester abortion is, you are always going to have the need for later abortions. A woman would never do this casually. The procedure lasts three or four days, and is fairly disagreeable.

    Three or four days, I had no idea.

    Yes. It depends on what kind of a cervix you have, but in some cases it can go from Tuesday to Saturday.

    Can you tell me more about the "these people need to get their act together" argument?

    Well, a large percentage of our patients had no idea that they were pregnant. People go, "How could this possibly be?" Well, look at that reality show. It happens. Maybe you're a little heavy and you already have irregular periods, or you had intercourse once, several months ago, and the guy said he pulled out and there's no sex education in your school so you think everything's fine. Or you never have periods because you're very thin, or a doctor has told you you were infertile.

    I could tell you a million reasons why women who are perfectly smart—and they are, these are not stupid women—don't come to know they are pregnant. They have no weight changes, they don't feel sick, they don't feel movement, or if they do they think it's gas. Suddenly someone says, "Hmm, your stomach's looking big, have you taken a pregnancy test?" And the person may have taken a test, and it may have come out negative—I've had women that only got a positive on their third test. And either way they think they just got pregnant. They have no idea they're in their 24th week. So they make an appointment for an abortion, and it takes a few weeks, and they have their ultrasound and find out that they're at 27 weeks, which is too far for an abortion anywhere. So then what happens? They either give up or have a baby, or they go on the Internet and they find us.


    The decision on whether to carry out these abortions is up to you completely. In what sort of situation do you say no?

    It gets tricky, of course. The further along a woman is with a fetus that's healthy—that's really where it gets hard. If someone finds out about a significant fetal anomaly that's bad enough that they want to terminate the pregnancy, then I believe that's their discretion. Some feel like, "Sure, I can take care of a kid with Down's no problem," and then two months later they're told that the baby also has an irreparable cardiac defect. They're told that the baby will have to have a dozen surgeries in its first year, with a very small chance that it will live past a certain age. And in those cases I see it as the parents' discretion, if they think their child's life will be filled with too much pain and suffering.

    There's a disabled-rights side to this, and I don't doubt the ability of people with disabilities to find happiness and fulfillment in their lives, but what I have a problem with is the "I could have been aborted" line. Hell, I'm glad I wasn't aborted too! I just find that argument specious. When parents are saying, "We do not feel we can adequately cope with that issue," I believe them, and I don't think they'd have an easy time putting a child with severe disabilities up for adoption successfully.

    So how do you draw lines in the case of a healthy fetus?

    It's hard. Essentially I have to say to myself, "Is this a very compelling story?" And I feel very bad about that because who am I to say, "Well, it's compelling because you're 11," and then I see a similar case when the girl's 14 and I think, okay… but then, what if you're 15, what if you're 16? How do we draw these lines? What is the ethical difference between doing an abortion at 29 and 32 weeks? Is there a meaningful ethical difference? Can I justify it? Will I have to justify it, and to whom?

    It comes down to a question of safety, many times. If I feel that there is a likelihood that there will be complications, and I won’t be able to finish the procedure in the office—and we’re an office, not a surgery center—I will only do the procedure if there is a fetal anomaly. Not for elective procedures. And I say “elective” as if the woman is choosing between pairs of shoes, and it’s not like that, not even close, but I will turn that patient down. For example, in the movie, I had a patient from France and she just desperately did not want to be pregnant—but she was 35 weeks, and gestational age is plus or minus three weeks, so she could've been at 38 weeks, and that’s just too far along. It wouldn’t be safe.

    So when I hear about bans with exceptions for rape, for example, I think great. So how do you know she has been raped? Will she be required to file a police report? What if she does not, as so many rape victims do not file police reports? Will she be denied as a result?

    I don't think people participating in this discussion realise that 90% of counties in the US do not provide early abortions because they are banned or the doctors who provide them are driven out of town or threatened with death or laws are enacted which make it impossible for them to perform them, so in many instances, have no choice but to get one later.

    And all the doctors are very worried about that. I mean look at the last couple of years, there has been more restrictions against abortion passed than ever since Roe v. Wade. And just women being in a place where they just can’t get to a clinic, having to travel real far, low-income women having to raise the money to travel far and take time off work to get childcare—all this stuff that women have to go through just to get an early abortion, let alone a late abortion.

    Even for early abortions, there’s no provider in 90 percent of counties in the U.S. So I think that’s a big concern for the doctors—what’s going to happen with that in the future?

    This is the reality.

    So why do the people who advocate a ban for late term abortions refuse to discuss it or acknowledge it? How can they dismiss the fact that women will just seek unsafe and illegal options if they ban it, risking their lives in the process? How is this acceptable?

    I think any option available is great. But I also think that denying women based on preconceived and sexist notions that women are irresponsible, slack and the like that are so far from reality that it's not even funny to read about them anymore, will only result in women dying.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page