Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP]

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, May 11, 2014.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,211
    Exactly. If a half-delivered, bawling baby is a person, then a zygote must also be a person. They must be exactly the same. That's the only possible rational argument you can make.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    So... now the woman is too weak to say no? Or are men supposed to make all your decisions for you Bells? If that is your viewpoint... well, sorry love, but the dark ages called... they want their philosophy on a womans role in the world back.

    Why doesn't the woman ask the man to use protection? Or say no to sex? And men can't get their "tubes tied" (tube Ligation) as they don't have the parts for this... they can, however, get a vasectomy. All of these are valid options... at no point did I say they were not, though it is interesting that you, once again, attempt to misrepresent what I said in order to try and paint me as a misogynist.

    What do you mean "these people"? Are you sexist Bells, or just intentionally offensive to anyone who doesn't support your ideals?

    Oh... so if a woman who doesn't want children gets pregnant during consensual sexual intercourse, it isn't her fault? Interesting... what, did she just accidentally fall on top of the mans penis and it just so happened that seminal discharge occurred? Lets break it down: The woman can 1) Use birth control pill/patch/implant 2) Utilize a diaphram and spermicide 3) Utilize a vaginal ring 4) Utilize a cervical cap 5) Utilize the Morning After pill 6) Utilize a spermicidal sponge 7) Use an IUD 8) Use a female condom 9) Require the man to use a condom 10) Tube Ligation 11) Abstain from sexual intercourse 12) Utilize non-vaginal sexual intercourse (both 11 and 12 are likely to leave her unfulfilled)

    Lets see what the man can do: 1) Use a condom 2) vasectomy 3) Require the woman to use some form of birth control (note, it is much easier to prove a man has a condom on, than it is to prove a woman is using birth control) 4) Abstain from sex 5) Withdrawl Method (not even close to a reasonably effective solution as pre-ejaculate can sometimes result in pregnancy) 6) Request non-vaginal sexual intercourse (which more than likely isn't going to be as satisfying for the woman)

    Of these options, both tube ligation and vasectomy are pretty much considered permanent, though they can be undone with some difficulty. Requiring the woman to use birth control... well, she can lie about it and say she is when she isn't, and most forms of birth control take some time to take effect; as a result, this means that the woman must be responsible, take the pills/shots/et al as prescribed and wait long enough to ensure they are functional - unless of course you feel the man should control her life to the extent that he ensures this to be true. Realistically speaking, the ONLY options the man has that are entirely in his control are A) Condom B) Abstain and C) Non-Vaginal Sex... so three options, two of which would leave the woman unfulfilled. Conversely, the woman has nine options (as one is permanent and two are likely to leave her unfulfilled)...

    So, yeah, I would say that, unless you want the man to be "controlling", it is up to the woman to be responsible in this case.

    Well... yeah. If she gets pregnant when she doesn't want to be... considering all the ways she could AVOID getting pregnant, I would say she has been irresponsible. Obviously, if she is raped or in an abusive relationship then that's another story altogether (and the man in question should simply be castrated as to ensure he NEVER procreates) but I am focusing on that which we can reasonably modify - intentional, deliberate, and consensual behavior. Then again...

    We have people that go absolutely hysterical when their motives are questioned...

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,019
    Sorry love?

    Firstly, stop using such terms when speaking to me. Your use of such terms towards me is demeaning and as you and I both know Kitta, you use them only to demean and insult and remind me of my place. I have repeatedly told you that this is unacceptable, stop doing it.

    Secondly, you keep blaming women who get pregnant with unwanted pregnancies. It's the woman's fault. She's irresponsible if she falls pregnant. And all the sexist clap trap you keep saying.

    Well you are a misogynist. How lucky for you I respect the moderator's forum to not list all the sexist and misogynistic names you have called me or referred to me by.

    Anyone who deems such women who are pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy irresponsible.

    Can you say where I said "men" in that comment to Fraggle?

    And if that is the case, it is entirely up to the woman what happens afterwards.


    Then again her reasons for getting an abortion are none of your business. Since you know, it's "up to the woman to apparently be responsible in this case", if she feels it is responsible to get an abortion when she wishes, it's none of your concern.

    Indeed.

    Kind of like the hacks who disregard science and start arguing that a 27 week old foetus is a conscious, feeling child or baby.

    Yes. It is a great source of news about how pro-lifer's/anti-abortion supporters are denying women their bodily rights. The latest news is the heartbeat laws and attempts to ban abortion pills commonly used as the morning after pill or emergency contraception pill or in the first few weeks of pregnancy.

    So someone disagrees how one story was reported.. Okay.. And?

    He disagreed with her dismissal of the study that advised of the risk of men who father children after they are 35. Paul Raeburn, the author of the article you linked has written a memoir about raising children with depression and bi-polar disorders, which the study being discussed appears to be connected to. It is hardly unusual that he would take umbrage at someone dismissing the risks.

    Hardly. They believe and support it is a woman's right to choose.

    They also believe that forcing women (even rape victims) to have probes inserted into their vagina's without consent because they want to have an abortion, in the bid to try to convince and shame these women against aborting in the first and second trimester is unacceptable.

    In most societies, using coercion and forcing women to have things inserted into their vagina's without consent is sexual assault and/or rape. However for the pro-life crowds, this is acceptable. Even if the woman is a rape victim.


    LifeSiteNews huh?

    I think it is disturbing that anyone, especially a moderator of this site would even refer to or use that site as a basis for their argument. Do you want to know why?

    They are so vocal that they made it onto the Ring Wing Watch site for their rampant homophobia, their arguments to ban abortions completely, to restrict sex education and to restrict access to contraceptives.

    Some examples of who you are now using as reference points in your argument:

    I thought to myself, surely they must be wrong. Surely Right Wing Watch must be wrong. So I went back to LifeSiteNews, off the link you provided and read up about them.

    Ermm okay..

    If they're publishing essays praising the anti-gay laws in Uganda that basically call for killing gays is anything to go by, that is somewhat terrifying.

    Moving on..

    Okay...

    *Cough*


    You really need to start double checking your sources Kitta. Using a homophobic website that is not only anti-all abortions and want to ban it completely, but are also against sex education and against making it easier to access contraceptives, to support your claims...

    Wow Kitta

    Good work.

    Perhaps you really should just stick to yahoo answers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 13, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Its mother. Its carrier. Its life force. The person who decides. The person who triumphs and controls because its very sustenance depends on her life and therefore her sustenance. In short a woman is to a fetus its god. Its the god that can grant it good health or bad, future or no future, protection or no protection, life or death. She is the "mother goddess" who can grant it "personhood" or oblivion. That's who 'she' is to 'it'.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2014
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,019
    Giggity..

    Women rejoice!

    We should rejoice, because of men like Senator Pete Kelly from Alaska.

    Why should we rejoice because of men Like Pete Kelly?

    The stupid started here:

    That's right ladies. He wants bars to hand out and/or provide pregnancy tests so women can nip down to the loo, pee on a stick before she buys a drink.

    If you thought the queue for the women's toilets were bad before, imagine it after that.

    Correction.. It's not a bad goal to try to drive home the message about the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant.. However it is costly. There are more cheaper options available that would reduce the numbers of children born with FAS. So did he go for this option. Oh no. Good old Pete had more left to give women..

    Soooo.. Pete..? You think women should be peeing on a stick each time she goes to a bar, but you don't think birth control to prevent falling pregnant is a good idea?

    Yes, I know, the desire to hold up a 'you're a dumbass' sign is strong, but really, Pete, well he's looking after us girls. He's happy for the State to fund pregnancy tests in bars, but provide funding for birth control to actually not fall pregnant - especially if you are an alcoholic or frequent binge drinker, as Pete seems to believe many women are? Well fuck that.

    Let us check what 'science' says on the issue..

    Poor Pete Kelly.

    He even had a good cry at everyone laughing at him..

    Pregnancy tests kiosks?

    Bahahaaa..

    Yeah okay, you can hold up the sign now..
     
  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well now that's very curious. Very curious indeed. Was I tired when I wrote that, and did I miss your inference, or is it a little too strange? Or did I catch you in the middle of an edit? I'm going to have to have that one checked. Very odd indeed.

    Appropriate to what?

    But this social panic is in evidence again:

    Your frustrated rage is starting to leak out. Those pathetic little criteria in which I ask only for some semblance of a threshold representing the onset of identity. Tch! Here's the existential panic again:

    So because the numbers are low, there should be no law regarding it.

    I wonder if, for a moment, you've ever just stopped and thought about what you're trying to argue: because it's rare, there should be no law about it. The willful way in which you just dismiss the moral implications of the argument based on incidence are startling: not even so much as a whiff at the concept of personhood in late development, the kids are not all right because it just doesn't happen that often. Well, hell, neither does murder, or kidnapping. I suppose those don't bother you either.

    I don't think we've established exactly why you're panicking.

    Has that been established?

    Ah: so because you are an incorporate person, I have no say on any of your actions. Excepting of course the putative person in the uterus. I realize that until it springs from the womb and hates you for thinking about pre-emptively killing it, it's just a mass of cancerous cells, but I think there might be reasons to think that it expresses elements of 'personhood' (ooh, that word!) possibly slightly before the second it crosses the dim firebreak of the human crotch so that you can lay eyes on it. Or do I malign Tiassa's concept here?

    Well, most societies include what we conventionally refer to as laws; you may have come across these in your work. Now, I'm all for the infrequent scofflaw. Cross against the lights, snarking off a cop, a little speeding and throwing eggs at Halloween - all good fun, and to hell with the social fascists. But when more serious matters are on the table, I have a little more respect for it. I recognise and appreciate its protections. You could argue that a murder or a rape a few counties over doesn't affect me either, but I don't think I'd see it that way. Whether or not my people are safe, it is a moral failing that other people are not; this to my mind is the basis of individual sociality. I'm sure your head must be tumbling over how it's possible for an agnostic to have such a position - where could it possibly come from? you might ask, God? - but I assure you that it is there. I merely base my hold on this morality on what I hope is an unflinching requirement for even behaviour. (Hence some of my recent complaints regarding moderation on SF; I think you have noticed these also.) Let me illustrate this with a question for you to answer, for a change: if a woman I don't know is murdered by her boyfriend, why should I care? She's not my girlfriend.

    Not a great believer in sentience, are we? I'm not hugely surprised by that; but I wonder if complex things are 'babble' to you when it's convenient to represent them as such, and not at other times. Do you think you've ever attacked someone for calling one of your points 'babble'?


    Saith the pot. Anyway, if you are 27 weeks pregnant and you don't want it there and abort it, you will probably be arrested and go to jail unless you have a valid reason for doing so. I appreciate that, as a socialist, you're deeply immersed in the laissez-faire philosophy of the free-market, but I think you have to appreciate where things are now and the moral and intellectual basis on which my recommendations are being posed to improve them. Mind you, under my system you might well have such rights, depending. But absolute assertion is not going to carry the day. We're a social society, Bells. We regulate.

    I've made the case above more concretely but I'm worried about your failed parsing of sentience: do you not believe in such a thing, or not understand it?

    And, naturally, neither shall you without reason. :shrug:
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Keeping up with the Jonesing

    Ah, as someone who appears to reject any evidence that even mildly contradicts your claim, I don't think you really have the right to be making such dismissals. For example, the article you cite at the end of your post doesn't contradict any of my positions, yet you unreservedly cite it as "rejecting" sumpin-or-other about... someone or other. What's it meant to do for this argument? Maybe instead of scraping up an unrelated article as an emotional reaction to the overall existence of the concept reasoned limitations on abortion, you could address specific points instead. This line was particularly humorous WRT the 'dim line' breakpoint, although I expect the author was talking about earlier developmental points:

    Maybe you've taken your marching points from the misinterpretation of a similar piece? I don't think it'll be helpful at this point but I don't think she meant right up to birth.
     
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    You're good on two for four there. You are not it's "life force". It's animus is its own. But assertion is not the solution to the argument.
     
  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    There's that m-word again - is this the ultimate problem here? The men expressing an opinion? Because this has come up before.
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,019
    The only one panicking about 'amg they're killin' babies' is you and a few others.

    I quite liked the pro-life cartoon by the way. Very cute.

    So, still can't answer the question?

    What about the mother?

    Who will save her?

    Or too busy worrying that 'women are killin' babies'?


    I am just curious about the combined obsession about it.

    But the numbers are exceptionally low. Would be lower if women were able to access abortions more easily. So why do you wish to impose restrictions?

    What needs to be restricted about it that is not already?

    For example, you know the women getting 3rd trimester abortions that many of them do so because they are not able to obtain one earlier for a variety of reasons. The simple solution to that is to make it more widely available to women. Bang, large drop in that 1%.

    What kids are not alright?

    Murder and kidnapping?

    What does either of those have to do with this discussion?

    You do understand the differences between murder and kidnapping, don't you? It is the harming or killing of another person.

    An abortion is the ending of a potential person. I mean if we are going to impose restrictions on women because they may murder potential people, then you may as well start policing their sanitary pads and tampons every week, because I can assure you, waaayyy more get flushed than implanted..

    But lets talk about the "concept of personhood". So it's a whiff? Not a gale force fart? Okay.. Soooo once again, what about the mother and her personhood? It must be separate from the foetus, correct? Since you know, the foetus is apparently now its own little person. But it is existing inside another person. So who has the dominant rights? Whose body is it again? Ah yes, the mother's. It's her body, her uterus, her life that is in limbo, her possible job that she cannot work in and her possible children that she cannot feed and keep sheltered if she cannot work due to being in the 3rd trimester and then having to endure births. Now, whose body is it again? Whose rights are paramount if it's her body and existing inside her body?

    I'll use an analogy. Say someone visits your house. You own that house, you care for it, you pay for the insurance costs, you maintain it, mow the lawn, keep it clean, etc. It is your house. Your little castle. Someone comes over to visit. Lets say your inlaws. After 27 weeks of their staying in your house, you are sick of them. You don't want them there anymore, you weren't able to get rid of them earlier because after 10 too many glasses of wine, you said suuuurree stay as long as you want.. You want them gone. By now, so does your wife and your children. Do you have rights over your house? Do you have the right to say 'please leave, I don't want you here'? Do you think you have the right to pack up their things and leave them outside the front gate and change the locks? It's your house, yes? The answer to those questions is yes. You have every single right to your house and you have every single right to have your unwanted guests vacate your property. Now, imagine people come and sit outside your house when they hear you plan on kicking out your inlaws. And they start wailing and waving placards around telling you that your inlaws have squatter's rights over your house now and you are not allowed to kick them out until they are ready to leave. Do you say 'suurree Mummy and Daddy, here, have the main bedroom, I'll sleep in the garage!'? Or do you say to the protester's outside 'mind your business, this is mah house, git off mah lawn!'?

    Your inlaws meanwhile have chained themselves to the middle of your bed because they really want to enjoy some time with their daughter and think you are the outsider and they don't think you should be having regular nookie with their daughter either. They dig in, they start making you sick. You try to get into your bed for a lie down and they knee you in your bladder so you have to keep peeing all the time. YOU DON'T WANT THEM THERE.. But they won't leave. It is now 28 weeks since they arrived. They have rediverted their mail to your house, changed your phone number to their number, gained access to your bank accounts and are spending it all. Your father in law is now wearing your jockey shorts around the house and sitting in your chair.. Your chair GeoffP.. YOUR CHAIR.. He's ruining your arsegroove.. Even worse, at night, after the kids go to bed, he takes off his pants because he's a nudist and he sits nakey in YOUR CHAIR!.. Since they refuse to leave, you call the police and request they get involved to have them removed.

    Now, this can either go in two ways. They can either say certainly, be right over.

    Or, if there are vague squatter's laws in place that some feral dickhead not connected to you passed a law deeming that inlaws are not allowed to be removed from one's residence, they turn around and say 'nah, sorry mate, they are squatters in your house, we can't do jack, they have rights to that house too, you'll just have to leave them there until they are ready to go'... And then they reprimand you for being so horrible that you'd want to kick out your inlaws.. such lovely little old people who deserve a chance, since you know, they are old and need looking after..

    So, what about your rights?

    Who will look after poor widdle GeoffP?

    Now, imagine this feral dickhead you don't even know has deemed by law that you are not allowed to remove them and put restrictions in place saying that they can only be removed if they start poisoning you with their bad cooking, if you have a heart attack or stroke from their continued unwanted presence.. You have a few options..

    1) You can keep putting up with it until week 40, where they are then supposed to leave for a cruise.

    or

    2) Hire private security guards to have them removed, breaking the law and have you risk being sent to jail for 10 years.

    So, what about your rights?

    I'm not the one begging for restrictions and ignoring scientific fact because less than 1% utilise their rights over their body.

    You misunderstand. It's not panic. It is disgust that people wholly unconnected to me seem to believe that they should have more say or rights over the contents of my uterus. And as a result, they have imposed laws that attempt deny those rights from day one of a pregnancy, endanger my health and life if I miscarry or fall ill, cause me great stress and emotional trauma if I am a victim of rape or incest.

    Yes, it has.

    Your father in law now starts making jokes about how English people are in-breds..

    How is that restriction and ban put in place by that feral dickhead going along for you?

    Your father in law starts telling the kids that you beat their mother and they start looking at you as if you are a monster. He also tells them that they can start calling him Daddy.. Since he's a better father figure for them than you are..

    Still happy to have them there because feral dickhead thinks they belong there and their rights to your house and all in it are equal to yours and that you need to maintain that house for them to live in it? Or do you believe it's your house and you should be allowed to demand they leave or have them removed?

    Well there was a Bishop and some priests who saw a molar pregnancy as containing elements of "personhood" and a molar pregnancy can turn cancerous. What a perfect example GeoffP!

    You notice a skid mark on your favourite chair. You suspect it's the pantless father in law. You feel greatly repulsed as the waft of unwashed arse drifts up into your nostrils, but you are denied the right to remove them from your house until they cross the threshhold of your front door into the dim light outside that you can have your house back..

    Should you be allowed to remove them from your house? You don't want them there! It's your house.

    You are talking about laws that apply to people. You know, they are born, not connected by an umbilical cord to any other person.

    A foetus is a potential person. So is your sperm for that matter. It has the potential to one day be a person. Do you render your clothes each time some guy wanks? Should there be laws to protect the potential people going to waste in tissues?

    Sentience in an unborn? No. Actually, I do not.

    I don't believe in spirits either, nor do I believe in souls or that babies come from heaven and that if they die, they go to heaven as little angels.

    Actually no I won't.

    There are abortion providers who provide abortion services in the 3rd trimester and do so legally.

    When and if you ever become king of the world, we can talk about your system. Until such a time, you system applies only to your womb, or your house...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    With remarks about gun rights and what not?

    Ermm yeah suuurree.. You made your case.

    As I said, I can get one whenever I choose to get one.

    In short, 'you're not the boss of me!'..

    My body, my womb, my rights. Not yours.

    However, here is the problem. Laws are being created and enacted to restrict access to birth control, the morning after pill, abortion providers are being shut down or forced out of business, or regulations are being imposed by them to make it nearly impossible for women to access these services very early on. Now this is a bad thing. If women are not able to access abortions or birth control or things like the morning after pill, then it will mean that women will be forced to wait until later on to abort their unwanted foetus. No one likes abortions. In an ideal world, there would be none. But we are not in an ideal world. Instead, we are in a world where extreme right pro-life groups are doing what they can to force women into having babies, by any means necessary, hence their opposition and demands for abstinence only education, restricting and even banning birth control, making it impossible for women to access abortions, and in too many cases, women's lives are being put at risk, some are even dying, because Bishops without medical degrees are making medical decisions about things that do not concern them.. Now even you would have to admit that this is not acceptable. By any stretch of the imagination. Not only do these measures result in women being forced to have abortions later on, but there is also the inherent risk to teenagers in particular because they aren't even being taught about safe sex or pregnancies or the inherent dangers of unprotected sex.

    If you want to reduce third trimester abortions, then you need to increase access to birth control, sex education, morning after-pills and abortion services, so that women are not being put in a position where they have to wait for months before they can access one. This is simple logic. If you impose restrictions and bans, then women will simply risk their lives in getting one anyway. I don't think women having to die for such services is acceptable. Do you?

    Hence why I ask, who will save the woman?

    Saving the woman means making it easier and cheaper to access birth control pills, morning after pills, abortion services so that she is able to make her choices and access those services when she needs to. Instead of having to wait for months because she has to travel to the other side of the country to be able to get an abortion.

    The best thing you can do is to put a late term abortionist out of business because women no longer need that service since they are able to access what they need much earlier on.

    So while you chortle about 'haw haw haw, there are restrictions in place', remember, those restrictions means more women being forced to wait until later to get an abortion. Unless of course this is the plan all along and you intend to force women to have babies they do not want? I'd guess the answer to that is no.

    Enjoy the inlaws!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 13, 2014
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,019
    You would only feel offended by my saying "men like Senator Pete Kelly from Alaska" if you are a man like Senator Pete Kelly from Alaska.

    Are you like him?

    Honestly, you'd pitch a mini fit if I had said 'like someone who likes the colour blue'..
     
  15. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    *shrugs* I'll stop labeling you when you stop labeling me, fair deal?

    So... by saying that the woman should take some of the responsibility (unless, of course, you WANT the man to take all of it, in which case the man would be controlling the woman) I'm apparently saying it is entirely the woman's fault... what a deliriously paranoid view of the world you have.

    Personally, I don't give a damn if you wanted to list it all... your penchant for throwing colorful adjectives at people is well known.

    You didn't need to say men... you implied it quite well. It is much the same as if I were to walk up to a Back Panthers meeting and say "What's wrong with you people"... only in that case I would likely be beaten to within an inch of my life and then arrested for "hate speech". Fortunately for you, your misandry isn't illegal.

    So... you don't want to hold the woman responsible for her actions... yet you want to leave the choice entirely in her hands... and then blame the man for whatever the result is? Sounds like escapism to me.

    Then why is this debate even occurring, hm?

    Oh come off it - you're just upset that your attempt at mudslinging and slander was a disgraceful failure. The science is there - the only reason it isn't a universally accepted fact is 1) The zealots in the "pro abortion" shout extremely loudly and are working to redefine pain not as a physical response but an emotional one... which is sadly funny since that would mean the worlds view on animal rights has been for naught 2) We can't actually ASK the fetus "Does this hurt?".

    Indeed, it is a great source if you want only the opinions that support your side of the story, instead of the whole truth.

    The point is that, much like you, that website spins things harder and faster than your average jet turbine

    Then we should abolish child support, since apparently the choice to get pregnant or not is entirely the woman's now.

    They also believe exterior ultrasounds should be banned... despite the fact that they are incredibly useful in determining fetal development. Or would you rather we go back to the dark ages where nobody knows anything about the child until it is born?

    Not at all - nobody can "force" the woman to do anything. However, in a civilized society, it is generally considered the "right thing to do" to find out everything you can and do everything you can to ensure a healthy baby... or, again, we could go back to the dark ages. Up to you.

    Actually, the point is quite valid... much as you can link spindoctoring and politikal tripe as "source", so can others.

    Interesting, but unrelated to abortion. This is a classic example of a red herring.

    Might want to see a doctor about that cough.

    And you should do the same, since your sources are on the entire opposite side of the spectrum. I rather thought the irony of it was delicious, like a perfectly cooked steak.

    Indeed - the location of the source matters not when it comes to good debating, so long as the evidence within is valid. Something you, as a moderator of a science forum, SHOULD know.

    Then again, if you had your way, it sounds like instead of equality the end result would be an almost Amazonian like society... but I digress, since that is neither here nor there.
     
  16. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    ... oh dear Gods... why is this moron holding public office?

    Interesting... by that logic, I would assume you would have no problem with, say, underage drinking (my body, my decision), hard drugs (my body, my choice), voluntary human sacrifice (if they wish to sacrifice themselves, more blood for the blood god, more skulls for the skull throne), public displays of affection/indecency (don't like it, don't look - you can't make me clothe my own body), and other such things that, by your definition, are the persons choice and thus nobody can say anything about it...

    I also have to wonder... are you an anarchist? I mean, from the sounds of it, you don't think anyone should have the right to establish rules and regulations over anyone else... were that the case, then what is to stop the country dissolving into absolute chaos?
     
  17. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Conception vs. Birth: Between Two Extremes

    And yet, you’re arguing for zero restrictions.

    Ah-ah-ah…more time, more human, more wrong. That’s how they see it, whether you like it or not. That so-called 1% will thwart all your efforts. Just because you’re consistent at the other end of the spectrum doesn't mean you're more right, and you wonder why you’re losing ground.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there." –Jalal ad-Din Rumi
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,019
    He is just one..

    In Arizona they are attempting to overturn the foetal heartbeat laws, and if they are successful, then once there is a foetal heartbeat, the woman cannot abort.. Which would mean that form 6 weeks into the pregnancy (when most women do not even know they are pregnant), if they live in Arizona, they cannot obtain an abortion. This will result in women having to take longer, try to find the time (if they are working), child care (if they have children), trying to raise the funds (travel costs, accommodation if required, payment for the abortion and all the scans and care that come with it) etc, to get interstate to be able to obtain an abortion. Which could very well mean that many women may end up having to wait well until they are in their 2nd trimester to be able to get an abortion, if not later. Now, impose restrictions on such a woman because, you know, she waited so long, she will obtain one illegally and risk her life in the process.

    Now do you understand why restrictions to abortion services will end up killing women?

    If you want less 3rd trimester abortions, make reproductive health care services more readily available earlier, instead of imposing laws that restrict access to even the morning after-pill or the very safe abortion pills (which are very effective in those first few weeks), which is much safer and much cheaper and does not involve medical or surgical intervention.

    Pretty much. So long as you don't get into a car and slam into someone else and you're just doing it to yourself, it is your choice.

    If you must know, I am a stronger supporter and believer of legalising drugs. But if you want to take hard drugs, that is your choice. I lost a cousin and countless friends to drug addiction. It was their choice. The drug laws certainly did nothing to help them. On the contrary, the laws and restrictions meant that they refused medical care when they needed it out of fear they would be arrested.

    If they just want to commit suicide for whatever god they believe in, ermm okay?

    I don't have a problem with stuff like this.

    I'm not of the 'OMFG it's a nipple!! A NIPPLE.. WHO WILL THINK OF THE CHILDREN' brigade. I've traveled overseas enough times and have seen men, women and children standing in canals by the road way, butt naked bathing themselves, going to the toilet, etc.. If I was that much of a moral prude, I'd never leave the country or watch tv for that matter.

    I am also a firm supporter of euthanasia and if someone wants to kill themselves after being ill, etc, then I don't believe anyone who is not them, should have the right to demand they continue to suffer.

    I'm actually a left wing commie. Also a godless heathen and if my fundamentalist religious relatives are to be believed, destined for hell unless I repent before their lord.

    I am not a total anarchist. I think laws that prevent harm to others are necessary, sadly. For example, I believe laws that would prevent me from running you over with my car because you took too long crossing the street and I was in a tad of a rush, are valid laws. Just as I think any laws that would prevent me from tasering pensioners who dither in front of me as I am trying to do the bolt through the supermarket to get out of there as soon as possible is probably a good thing. I don't believe I should have the right to steal your 'stuff', harm you or your family or anyone else for that matter, I don't believe that people should be allowed to own guns because too many people, in particular, innocent children are killed, I don't believe in wars that are held for political or economic reasons, but I am a firm and somewhat rabid supporter of human rights. I don't believe any woman should ever be pressured to have an abortion or to not have an abortion, or to have a child or not have a child for that matter. I am also a very firm believer in people having a right to privacy and for me, sex, sexual partners, decisions to have children and when, are probably some of the most private aspects of one's life.

    I wouldn't say I am an anarchist. A pain in the backside, sure. A contradiction, certainly.

    Certainly, laws are essential in a society. It is a way to avoid anarchy.

    But people also have a right to privacy and I think reproduction is an exceptionally private matter and I do not think that the Government should involve itself in women's choices about it. Getting an abortion is something that is very private, and it is between the woman, her doctor and the father of the foetus (assuming he is around). The woman, since it is her body and whether she wants the father's input and/or support in the matter and the doctor who may or may not choose to perform the abortion based on his medical assessment of his patient (the woman). Doctors who perform 3rd trimester abortions won't abort a full term foetus, for example, because it is too risky for their patient. So they do turn women down if they are too close to term. But people ignore that as well and give the impression that women are aborting full term foetuses. Abortion specialist dealing with 3rd trimester pregnancies won't do them because they are too dangerous. So yeah..
     
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Say a pregnant woman is shot in the stomach by her psycho husband because he figures the baby is not his. The baby dies, the woman lives. Will the husband be convicted for murder?
     
  20. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    This might answer your question.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,019
    Because you like using sexist labels?

    I have let you know enough times now that it isn't acceptable. I am not your love, little miss, little princess, bitch, and all the other ridiculous platitudes one uses to demean women. So cut it out.

    No, I am saying that you keep reiterating the same myth, even though you were provided with more than enough evidence to educate you that it is just a myth and you need to stop referring to it as though you are correct.

    Going to mansplain your sexism now?

    Oh so now you are implying things that aren't even there..

    Last I checked, the women who are pro-life aren't men.

    So yeah, please stop misrepresenting what is actually said.

    Well since you deem her solely responsible if she falls pregnant, whatever happens afterwards should be entirely her decision and her responsibility as she sees fit, no?

    I don't know? Why do you feel the need to be here at all? This thread is about discussing politicians and pro-lifer's who wish to impose on women's rights. You have yet to provide any articles or raise any discussions about the actual thread topic. All you are doing here is complaining against something or other that actually has nothing to do with you at all.

    Do you have an answer to the questions posed in the OP?

    What happens to the mother's freedoms and her rights once personhood is legally given to her foetus?

    Wait.. what?

    So the reasons scientists are unable to prove foetal pain is because pro-abortionists re-define pain as not being a physical response but an emotional one? (woo woo conspiracy theory alert!) .. I mean heaven forbid it's not because they do not have the evidence. Because well, this being a science forum and all, of course lack of evidence means that it's a grand type of conspiracy by "pro-abortionists" to shout really loudly and it is they, damn them! who are redefining "pain".. Science be damned!.. That's a whole level of woo right there Kitta.

    And because you can't ask the foetus if it hurts?

    Ummm..

    Well it beats conspiracy theory sites that go on about gays, gay marriage and abortion being part of this global war on Christian family values.

    Umm actually no.

    See they tend to provide links to scientific studies to back up their opinions.

    Your LifeSiteNews links provide running commentary on gay conspiracies and how Obama is letting gays subvert society into the Godlessness or some shit.

    I see you have a firm grip on those straws..

    Well if you have already made up your mind to abort, why are you going to be interested in foetal development?

    The irony of the pro-life crowd stance is that they are all for forcing women to get them if they want to have an abortion. But if a woman who is on the poverty line without health insurance needs one for her wanted pregnancy, well, the pro-life crowd complain about welfare and having to provide it and do not think they should be funding any maternity care for poor people.

    And women do.

    However when because of the dark ages mentality that views women as being breeding cows, and thus, all their choices must be removed, from sex education to birth control, to access to early abortions, then what happens? I mean shite, they are even complaining about providing maternal care for poor uninsured women who want to have babies.

    Umm scientists disagree with each other all the time. It does not mean the site is invalid. She was dismissive of the risk of men over 35 having children, he felt the risks were valid - which given his children's issues, he has a vested interest.

    You are referring to sites that are complaining about gay conspiracies to destroy families and how there is apparently an international battle of some sort going on because of gays, gay marriage, abortion, cloning (*chortle*) as points of authority.

    Well I guess given that you believe the reason scientists cannot prove pain as you believe it is in the apparently conscious and feeling "child" in the womb is because of pro-choicers, I should not be too surprised.

    Germs are made to be spread!

    I actually refer to a range of sources, especially scientific sites when discussing science. You know, sites that do not believe that "that abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality and all other moral, life and family issues are all interconnected in an international conflict affecting all nations,"...


    Well if the alternative is LifeSiteNews, you cannot be any worse off with yahoo answers.

    Naw..

    Too many human sacrifices, not enough time. Plus we'd have to kill too many birds for the feathered headdresses.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,211
    I'd like to welcome you, Kitt, to the illustrious list of people who Bells has called a misogynist. We're a varied group, with heretical ideas like "women are a lot like men" and "women have similar responsibilities as men." Some of us even have the absurd idea that a 39 week old fetus is not just a parasite; it might even have a few rights of its own. We come from all walks of life, and have all sorts of backgrounds, but the one common thread is that we are not extremist enough to be acceptable to Bell's sensibilities - and for that, kudos.
     
  23. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    And I have tried to make it clear that I think reproductive care NEEDS to be not only more readily available, but more affordable (or even made to be an assumed right). Laws restricting access to contraceptives... well, I have to question the motive of passing such laws - from a logical standpoint, I can't think of any reason for them, thus the only conclusion I can come to is that either A) Religious Fundamentalism or B) Corporate Lobbying is to blame. At which point, instead of fighting one another, we should instead turn our attention outward and focus our energies on fixing the issues that allow the "rich minority" to dictate policy for everyone.

    How do we prevent someone from slamming into someone else, or someone else's property? The simplest solution would be to impose laws on drinking and driving in general (as we have)... except those laws don't seem to be particularly effective. We could include a built-in breathalyzer into the steering wheel or dashboard that one must blow into (and pass) every time they wish to start the car... but that could quickly become troublesome and expensive (God help you if you used mouthwash before trying to go to work! WHOOPS, the car thinks you're smashed). It comes down to keeping the public safe vs not infringing on a persons rights to do to their own body what they will.

    Fair enough - I, myself, am indifferent to drugs - I don't use them... not so much out of some moral code, but because of personal preference. I can't stand not being totally aware of that which is going on around me. For a long while I was put on sleep aids to help combat my insomnia... they were awful. I would take them at dinner, and it would take about an hour for them to take full effect... but my memory was jacked up. Everything from about 10-15 minutes after taking them to however long it took for me to fall asleep was just gone. The next morning I would be groggy and incoherent for a time before i could shake the effects... my mother said it was almost like I was drunk. In terms of awareness... I could see stuff going on around me, but it didn't make sense... it was like I couldn't process the information. I hated it. *shrugs*

    The only issues I have with people using drugs are 1) The addiction can cause people to do crazy things if they can't afford them (which, admittedly, legalization SHOULD reduce the costs since part of the cost is the act of smuggling them in) 2) If they take these drugs, they should not expect the rest of us to "pick up the tab" as it were for their health care costs if they (the drugs or the person) cause themselves harm. 3) We need to ensure that their actions do not harm those around them in an indirect way (second hand smoke, used needles, etc)

    Fair enough, but what about when they start persuading/coercing/brainwashing "innocent bystanders" into doing so?

    Fair enough - the other day I saw a woman nursing in a local fast food joint I was eating at and couldn't help but smile... such a bonding experience, not to mention natural feeding of the child, should be an inalienable right. Some people started giving her dirty looks for it and I could see her getting nervous, so I made a point to go up to her and thank her for doing what she believed was best for her child. I ended up sitting at the table next to her until she had finished - if anyone was going to mess with her, they we going to have me to contend with.

    On the flip side, I don't think people should be able to have sex with a donkey at the local playground.

    You and I agree on this as well - if someones quality of life would be so poor as to make prolonging that life almost painful for them... then why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to end their own life? Obviously, if there is a treatment or option that would allow them to continue to live WHILE providing a good quality of life, then it should be taken into consideration. I just had a friend whos father finally passed away after several months in and out of the hospital, the last several weeks spent on life support, while cancer and increasingly worsening diabetes ravaged his body. He ended up having a partial stroke as well... if he had survived, it was estimated he may have never fully regained his mental faculties, he would have likely lost both feet at the ankle due to the diabetes... and for a while his family (excluding his son, who is the friend in question) couldn't make the decision to take him off the life support and simply be freed from such torment. His son, in the meantime, was livid that they would force him to live in such a poor state... he finally passed away last week, just minutes before they were going to take him off the life support.


    That is a god I will never worship... as far as the commie comment goes, I don't really see you as the "redistribution of wealth" type.

    This makes me wonder why we have fought so vehemently the past few days... because in a lot of ways we have the same viewpoints, often with just slightly differing specifics. I would argue with you about the idea of gun ownership, but at the same time I would argue against the "less gun control/NRA" crowd. I don't believe a woman should be pressured or coerced into making choices about her body, but rather should be given all the facts (and just the facts) and allowed to come to her own decision as soon as possible. Again, my only caveat is that the longer she waits, the more dangerous/complicated it becomes.

    Indeed, and it is something that absolutely needs to be fixed. Unfortunately the government has to be involved in order to keep things equal and standardized across the country (which, in itself, confuses me... we are fifty united but independent states with a central government who should only step in in times of need... not... whatever we are now)
     

Share This Page