Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Nov 1, 2012.

?

Do I support this proposition?

Poll closed Nov 1, 2013.
  1. Anti-abortion: Yes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Anti-abortion: No

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Pro-choice: Yes

    61.5%
  4. Pro-choice: No

    15.4%
  5. Other (Please explain below)

    23.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    The context had become muddled due to the extremely long multi-quote posts and flaming at that point. Thank you for clearing this up and it appears we have some agreement, here. I do not believe a woman should be required to endanger her life in order to give birth, either.
    I pointed this out in the analogy you quoted about being a solider.
    You cannot assume that the context was clear, several readers read- where each of three of you all said the same words when repeatedly asked directly if it was human and you were not asked in the context "if the mothers life was in danger." You must have assumed that was the context, at that point.
    Additionally, you later clarify your position on abortion which I have said was your position all along- That a mothers life in danger is irrelevant- you believe she has the right to kill another out of a whim or want, not a self defensive measure. Will return to this.
    Agreed, yet he termed it a 'textbook example of intellectual dishonesty' while wording it as "Neverfly was mangling the English Language."
    It's amazing how one can accuse another of being misleading while lying his ass off.
    I also agreed with this, repeatedly, which not only was ignored, but used by Tiassa to declare me a misogynist. No bias at work, there...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    No, clarity is much easier to attain when you do no flame, throw around ad homs like a badly behaving mere member instead of a Moderator. You're behavior throughout has been hostile and condescending and it creates confusion, defensiveness and defies clarity. Complaining after the fact if you were misunderstood is not the problem of those on the receiving end of your tirades. It was your presentation at fault. I'm leaving this one outside of spoiler tags. Who was expected to disregard most of your words (Sneering ad hom attacks) while giving merit to the few words (Valid arguments)?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    This is the crux of the matter and why your claims that you were referring to only when a mothers life was in jeopardy are false.
    You have clarified here, that the fetus, even 30 seconds before birth, has no "personhood" and that the mother has full rights to choose whether to murder it or not. Not because her life is in danger and as an act of self defense, but as an act of callous murder when she simply does not wish to have the damned thing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    However, if 30 seconds after birth she makes this decision, it's an ugly baby- whatever- she is prosecuted for murder. This line drawn is arbitrary and rejects the humanity of the baby involved in order to coldly justify a sour political position.
    Your claims fall flat when you say that your words were taken out of context. You believe that she gets all the rights and the other "person" gets zero rights to live; it's life is in danger, it should be allowed the right to defense.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,600
    I am going to assume you are male and I do not mean this in a negative way or a sexist way here. But in the sense that you have never suffered or endured the joys that 9 months of pregnancy entails. Again, I am not shutting you out here because of your sex, but because of your lack of experience in pregnancy as such. And I will explain why.

    Your example of the 30 second rule is absurd.

    I do not know a single woman who would elect to go through her whole pregnancy, only to get to the end and say 'umm you know what? I don't want to do this'.. And yet, you are saying that a woman would go through 40 weeks of pregnancy and then 30 seconds before she delivers it, decides 'nup, not doing this, the baby could be ugly' and decide to abort.

    In fact, I do not know nor know of any woman who would reach the third trimester after enduring the sheer joys and bliss of the first two trimesters, because you know, the first two are an absolute party and hellishly fun (yes, that is sarcasm) and then go 'Nah, can't be shagged' and decide to abort. Especially as you are trying to say, 30 seconds before she delivers.

    So the whole premise of your argument is, frankly, ridiculous.

    When I said that even 30 seconds before its birth that it has no personhood, I was clear in the sense that in Australia, at least, if anything goes wrong even at that point in time, the primary goal of the doctors is to save the mother first and the unborn child second. I made that very clear and even used my own frankly horrific experience as an example.

    I think it may have been Tiassa who pointed out at one point in this thread that when a woman decides to abort in the third trimester, there is usually a very valid reason and not just because she has simply changed her mind. Because frankly, I cannot understand why you seem to think that it would be easy for a woman to put herself through 30 or so weeks of pregnancy and then simply change her mind on a whim.

    I have been involved and offered legal counsel and shelter to battered women who begged for abortions in the third trimester because their spouse/partner had threatened to kill her and her other children and family members if she did not. I have known women who have gone through agonising and horrific conditions and problems where the foetus was diagnosed with a deadly disorder or problem and they made the decision to abort to prevent further suffering to their unborn baby. But I have never in my time ever heard of a woman reach the third trimester and then change her mind like one might change their mind about what type of meat they want on their sandwich. Maybe you do and all good for you. But the fact that third trimester abortions are the rarest in that they constitute the absolute minority of all abortions (I think the figure is less than 3%?) and the absolute majority of even that small figure is because there is a medical problem, I'd have to say that you are clutching at straws because you are angry at 'something something'...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    No, they just deliver it in a back alley and throw the newly born into a dumpster.
    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-09-29/news/34167121_1_baby-boy-newborn-son-dead-infant
    Hmmm... seems they not only go all the way- they go all the way. Not only will they endure the pregnancy, they will endure the birth, too!
    Yes, they absolutely would abort last minute if they were permitted. If rather than being in a back alley or their bedroom or commode, someone came up to them and said, "Come with me, honey, we can help you kill it before birth" she absolutely would go with them. You claiming you do not personally know any is absurd, they end up in the news all the time. One famous one was - Whoopie Goldberg. With a coat hanger at 14 years old. That is an act of desperation. She could have seriously injured herself or even endangered her life doing that. That kind of frightened desperation amoung teenage girls absolutely can lead them to kill it last minute.
    Again, an argument from incredulity is a fallacy.
    Same here. I can privately send details of my participation as well as clip where my sons mom was on the news advocating that agency. What does this have to do with the actual question- Are you suggesting that ALL late term abortions are due to abusive jerks threatening women?
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    granting "personhood" status to unborn children is not within the parameters of lawyers - they simply stand to have a field day if such an amendment is granted (which of course results in a failed policy)

    as I said, the learning curve is navigated by generations, not policy makers. Opportunist (for good or bad) lawyers can certainly use their prowess in the court room to assert a certain social agenda, but if the needs of society are not addressed, it will not really do much (socially speaking) except increase bile secretions. IOW if you have a society that is compelled to a certain consequence (such as wholesale unwanted progeny) then that won't go away simply by making it illegal. Prohibition of alcohol is a good example of what I mean (did some people get arrested for alcohol consumption and distribution? yes. Did it ultimately achieve much? no). Usually if there is some sort of nefarious/dubious activity that society is inclined to (such as drug use, prostitution, gambling etc ... or even murder as in the case of warfare or even euthanasia if you want to start getting controversial) the act is regulated and the subject of various health campaigns (as opposed to giving them a complete green light for anyone anywhere anytime).

    IOW to simply point the inherent complications of establishing unborn children as people by a group of ambitious lawyers in a particular society doesn't suddenly render the premise false - it simply renders the premise as complicated (geez - if legal precepts were turfed out simply because they were complicated in certain situations law would be taught alongside woodwork classes at college). Just look at how complex black civil rights is in america, 150 years after the civil war .... You can point out how interpretation of the law (surrounding black civil rights) has lead to the sometimes unfounded persecution or deprivation of liberty by people of all colours, yet the narrative for establishing the precept by society has lead to a coloured american president being voted in (and still there are irregularities, contradictions, etc)
     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    granting "personhood" status to unborn children is not within the parameters of lawyers - they simply stand to have a field day if such an amendment is granted (which of course results in a failed policy)

    as I said, the learning curve is navigated by generations, not policy makers. Opportunist (for good or bad) lawyers can certainly use their prowess in the court room to assert a certain social agenda, but if the needs of society are not addressed, it will not really do much (socially speaking) except increase bile secretions. IOW if you have a society that is compelled to a certain consequence (such as wholesale unwanted progeny) then that won't go away simply by making it illegal. Prohibition of alcohol is a good example of what I mean (did some people get arrested for alcohol consumption and distribution? yes. Did it ultimately achieve much? no). Usually if there is some sort of nefarious/dubious activity that society is inclined to (such as drug use, prostitution, gambling etc ... or even murder as in the case of warfare or even euthanasia if you want to start getting controversial) the act is regulated and the subject of various health campaigns (as opposed to giving them a complete green light for anyone anywhere anytime).

    IOW to simply point the inherent complications of establishing unborn children as people by a group of ambitious lawyers in a particular society doesn't suddenly render the premise false - it simply renders the premise as complicated (geez - if legal precepts were turfed out simply because they were complicated in certain situations law would be taught alongside woodwork classes at college). Just look at how complex black civil rights is in america, 150 years after the civil war .... You can point out how interpretation of the law (surrounding black civil rights) has lead to the sometimes unfounded persecution or deprivation of liberty by people of all colours, yet the narrative for establishing the precept by society has lead to a coloured american president being voted in (and still there are irregularities, contradictions, etc)
     
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    i'm still having issues with the "your post is in the mod queue" ....
     
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    granting "personhood" status to unborn children is not within the parameters of lawyers - they simply stand to have a field day if such an amendment is granted (which of course results in a failed policy)

    as I said, the learning curve is navigated by generations, not policy makers. Opportunist (for good or bad) lawyers can certainly use their prowess in the court room to assert a certain social agenda, but if the needs of society are not addressed, it will not really do much (socially speaking) except increase bile secretions. IOW if you have a society that is compelled to a certain consequence (such as wholesale unwanted progeny) then that won't go away simply by making it illegal. Prohibition of alcohol is a good example of what I mean (did some people get arrested for alcohol consumption and distribution? yes. Did it ultimately achieve much? no). Usually if there is some sort of nefarious/dubious activity that society is inclined to (such as drug use, prostitution, gambling etc ... or even murder as in the case of warfare or even euthanasia if you want to start getting controversial) the act is regulated and the subject of various health campaigns (as opposed to giving them a complete green light for anyone anywhere anytime).

    IOW to simply point the inherent complications of establishing unborn children as people by a group of ambitious lawyers in a particular society doesn't suddenly render the premise false - it simply renders the premise as complicated (geez - if legal precepts were turfed out simply because they were complicated in certain situations law would be taught alongside woodwork classes at college). Just look at how complex black civil rights is in america, 150 years after the civil war .... You can point out how interpretation of the law (surrounding black civil rights) has lead to the sometimes unfounded persecution or deprivation of liberty by people of all colours, yet the narrative for establishing the precept by society has lead to a coloured american president being voted in (and still there are irregularities, contradictions, etc) ....
     
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    granting "personhood" status to unborn children is not within the parameters of lawyers - they simply stand to have a field day if such an amendment is granted (which of course results in a failed policy)

    as I said, the learning curve is navigated by generations, not policy makers. Opportunist (for good or bad) lawyers can certainly use their prowess in the court room to assert a certain social agenda, but if the needs of society are not addressed, it will not really do much (socially speaking) except increase bile secretions. IOW if you have a society that is compelled to a certain consequence (such as wholesale unwanted progeny) then that won't go away simply by making it illegal. Prohibition of alcohol is a good example of what I mean (did some people get arrested for alcohol consumption and distribution? yes. Did it ultimately achieve much? no). Usually if there is some sort of nefarious/dubious activity that society is inclined to (such as drug use, prostitution, gambling etc ... or even murder as in the case of warfare or even euthanasia if you want to start getting controversial) the act is regulated and the subject of various health campaigns (as opposed to giving them a complete green light for anyone anywhere anytime).

    IOW to simply point the inherent complications of establishing unborn children as people by a group of ambitious lawyers in a particular society doesn't suddenly render the premise false - it simply renders the premise as complicated (geez - if legal precepts were turfed out simply because they were complicated in certain situations law would be taught alongside woodwork classes at college). Just look at how complex black civil rights is in america, 150 years after the civil war .... You can point out how interpretation of the law (surrounding black civil rights) has lead to the sometimes unfounded persecution or deprivation of liberty by people of all colours, yet the narrative for establishing the precept by society has lead to a coloured american president being voted in (and still there are irregularities, contradictions, etc) ........>>>>
     
  13. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    I find it interesting that no one has addressed the question of Independent physical reality as a requirement for person-hood in light of conjoined twins where one is parasitic and the other has a full set of vital organs.

    I guess it was just a situation that has to be ignored in order to support our stated positions. I know it has me questioning my position, that the fetus must stand a reasonable chance of survival outside the womb if it were delivered early.
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,600
    You have rendered me speechless.

    As in, you are taking examples of women who murder their newborn babies for whatever reason, and usually, mental illness is a prime cause, and desperate teenage girls who are terrified and alone and as even you claim, act out of desperation and then saying "Come with me, honey, we can help you kill it before birth" because mentally ill women and desperate teenage girls reason well apparently... When I say that I do not know of any woman who would choose to or elect to go through 30 or so weeks of pregnancy and then change their minds about wanting to have a baby... And that is what you come out with in response.

    Wow.. Neverfly..

    No, really.. just.. wow..

    And not in a good way wow. But in a how intellectually dishonest can you be to apply such a fallacious argument.


    Here is what I said in full:

    It is clear that your level of dishonesty knows no bounds and you will twist things completely out of context and then lie through your teeth to apply a dishonest and fallacious argument based on your deliberately taking things out of context and attempting to portray things out of context. I want you to show me in that paragraph, where did I suggest that "ALL late term abortions are due to abusive jerks threatening women?"...

    Your dishonesty and trolling, yes, trolling, is noted Neverfly.
     
  15. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    You know what? I'm calling bullshit. Show, as I showed your dishonesty- SHOW that I "twisted" your words or was dishonest.
    You're rendered speechless when you claim that a girl wouldn't do what I demonstrated they will do. I think you're just miffed that your fallacy of incredulity did not fly.
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,600
    You took what I said completely out of context, cut out 3/4 of the paragraph which clearly demonstrated that I never said that or even indicated that "ALL late term abortions are due to abusive jerks threatening women" as you appear to be trying to insinuate that was what I was saying. Hell, even the part you quoted out of context and then attempted to fallaciously insinuate that I was saying that "ALL late term abortions are due to abusive jerks threatening women" shows that was not what I was saying.

    Such behaviour and actions are dishonest Neverfly.

    As your claims of what a desperate young girl would do..

    I said, clearly, that I did not know of a single woman who would choose to go through 30 or so weeks of pregnancy and then change her mind about wanting to have a baby in the third trimester.

    And you apparently seem to believe that desperate and scared young girls who find themselves pregnant, who most of the time do not even go to see a doctor and who usually hide the pregnancy from their family (as with the case of the young girl you linked) are somehow 'choosing' to go through 2 trimesters and then changing their mind about having a child? Really Neverfly?

    Is that what you believe when you described these young girls as being "desperate"? That these young teenage girls are choosing to have a baby and then changing their minds at the last minute? Do you actually expect me to take you seriously when you make such absurd arguments?
     
  17. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    Aren't many of these "desperate teenage girls" abandoning their babies precisely because they didn't have the right to choose earlier in their pregnancies? Because the law requires parental consent in many states for minors to have an abortion? I can't imagine that they would simply choose to carry a child to term if they had other options available to them. Same thing with back alley coat hangers. This is what happened before Roe v Wade, right?
     
  18. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Total failure, Bells.
    You always miss question marks, don't you? You did this to S.G. as well.
    I asked you if that was your claim. Observe:
    I asked you that because you took the time to write out that bit about how you worked with battered women...
    By the way, I notice how quick you are to fall back on the diagnosis that these girls are all "Mentally Ill..." Care to support that?
    And I said clearly that argument from incredulity is a fallacy.
    I am absolutely saying they chose to- are you suggesting that they did NOT choose to do so? The claim that "I had no choice" often fails- people always have a choice. They chose the weak route, perhaps, but made a choice, nonetheless. This is similar to how you typed all that out about battered women before- are you saying they are all forced into the behavior, all mentally ill, etc?
    No, Bells- you're making excuses. And my asking you to address those excuses is not dishonesty nor twisting your words. It's an effort on your part to simply dismiss the rebuttal with claims of force, mental illness, etc. of which you must provide evidence that they are mentally ill or had a gun held to their head instead of simply assuming what you want to assume in order to maintain your political position.
    A girl lying and hiding her situation is not an excuse to Kill.
    This is a valid point. I wonder how many of these acts of murder on newborns would be reduced if they could have aborted in the first trimester. Such statistics would be hard to come by. Another factor is post-partum depression.
     
  19. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Not in Australia it's not. Medicare pays for it and the age of medical concent is as low as 14, and not all these cases are of teenages either

    Found this one for example

    http://www.circleofmoms.com/debatin...rrupted-her-farmville-game-on-facebook-695603

    Though mental illness may be contributing to some of these deaths I have herd ALOT of cases where mum alone or mum and dad have been charged with murder

    One case which came up in the child protection course wa that of twin boys who staved to death (in Queensland I think), they weighed half or less than normal birth weight and they were 18? Months old. Though DOCS had been to the house multiple times the only time anything was done was when the older daughter went to a nabour begging for food and saying there was a smell coming out of the boys room (the smell of there rotting bodies)

    That was no teenager, that was no abusive father beating his wife, it was a pair of abusive parents neglecting there multiple children
     
  20. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    A point: The article I referred to and examples were in the United States. So his objection can apply.
     
  21. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    Maybe I should rephrase the bit I put in bold, then maybe someone will feel like they can give this a response.

    My rephrasing: If independent physical reality is what is required to count as a legal person-hood.....

    Are conjoined twins simply NOT entitled to person-hood?
     
  22. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    I agree Asguard. However, I was referring only to cases such as those alluded to by Neverfly - i.e. immediate abandonment at birth. Not so much situations involving death by abuse or neglect weeks, months or years later.
     
  23. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    deleted duplicate
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page