Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

I would suggest you re-read what I said before you once again misrepresent it and misrepresent what it is I did say.

Sorry to break this to you, but consciousness and when the brain has developed enough to feel pain, for example, is hardly open for debate.

I would strongly recommend you read up on foetal development and pay particular attention to the development of the thalamus (which doesn't really come into play until after 28 weeks).

Unless of course you think a anencephalic foetus is conscious, declaring it from as early as 22 weeks would entail the same level of consciousness. Even those born from 27 weeks run a higher risk of severe developmental abnormalities and other issues. Having seen a baby born in front of me at 25 weeks, it was a horrific experience and not one I would ever wish to relive, nor will I ever forget what it looked like. She sadly died a few days later. Thankfully, she was unable to feel any pain, or more to the point, she was unaware or incapable of recognising it as pain, since her neural development was at 27 weeks and so, she was not exactly conscious. But for her parents, it was a harrowing experience to have to watch her go through it.

Your 22 weeks point is interesting. I say it is interesting because with the case of Marlise Munoz, she was at 23 weeks when her life support system was turned off, yet you praised the sanity of that decision and event.

Reality, and by reality, we only have to look at the nightmare developing in some South American countries, has taught us that making abortion illegal results in women dying. Even in some cases in America, where a sick woman was precipitated towards her death sooner, because the hospital went against her doctor's recommendation and without her consent, removed the baby from her body at 26 weeks, which resulted in the baby dying within 2 hours and the surgery was so much for her, that she died a few days later.

I read an article a while ago, where a doctor was talking about women who were near death and who were pregnant. And the belief is that if she is carrying a viable foetus, then if she dies or goes into cardiac arrest and if after 4 minutes, they are unable to revive her, then they will cut the baby out and in some cases, in issues where it is a heart condition, it may actually help the mother. But in any event, the underlying premise of the article was that while she remains alive, she is the priority, but if she dies, then they do get the baby out. I think I may have even linked it in this thread.

At any rate, women don't abort for no reason when they are that deep in their pregnancy. Nor do those women disregard the foetus. I linked enough articles to support that.

Instead of you poring over their reasons and applying your personal values and judgement about whether you believe they are valid or not, can I suggest that you.. to put it bluntly, mind your own business? What may not be classified as valid to you is obviously valid enough for her to elect to go through with the procedure.

Once again, I am not going to apply anything to things that are so extreme, that they are unreal and unrealistic and exist solely in your imagination, nor will I take it seriously.

Until you have proof of such events, please do not make generalised comments based solely on what you think may be likely. There is no evidence for it. Quite the contrary.

And once again, why a woman aborts is her business, not yours.

 

I can't speak for my colleagues, but I generally don't interfere in somebody else's territory. I don't want one of you stomping into the Linguistics or A&C subforum to issue bans or close threads. I may make a snarky comment about the assigned moderator's way of dealing with something I see as a problem, but ultimately the responsibility is his.

You and Plazma can judge our performance and override our decisions, but it would be chaotic if we all had that authority.

Considering that she is one of the few female members participating in the thread and, as I've said more than once, nobody should give a flying fuck about any man's opinions on abortion, her proper role should be leadership.

Tiassa has more-or-less apologized for not moderating this thread more aggressively for 15 months. I can understand that, since he was a passionate voice in the discussion, making it difficult to be seen as an impartial judge. If I had been in his shoes I don't know if I could come up with a better way to deal with the problem retroactively.

And you may recall your role in establishing that policy, which was not so quiet at the time. You lambasted me for giving Gustav a ban for insulting my wife. I still wonder how you would react if someone made a remark like that about a member of your family, since you are, arguably, the most passionate of all the moderators.

As I already noted, I am loth to interfere in another moderator's bailiwick.

My attitude toward that situation would be "fuck it, I did my job." The complications we deal with here in the silicon world are trivial compared to the ones we encounter out in the carbon world. If we can't withstand the pressure here, how can we possibly survive out there?

I never followed this thread assiduously because the same comments were being made over and over and over again. I checked in once or twice a week, after three or four entire pages had been added, just to make sure no new points had been made, and indeed they hadn't. (And I have to point out that this is what you get when you let a bunch of people without uteri argue loftily about something that will never happen to them. The Vatican is their role model.) So I was not as outraged by the transgressions as I would have been if I were reading six of them every day. Had I been more aware of the level of discourse on this thread I would have, first: Harassed Tiassa until he was afraid to open his mailbox, insisting that he wasn't doing his job; second, Asked James why he was letting this happen; third, long before the 15 months had passed, Stomped in and issued a few bans myself in order to get the appropriate moderators' attention and in the meantime to clean up the thread. I guess I'll have to do that next time, but with a little luck there won't be a next time.

This discussion is an embarrassment to SciForums. Abortion is a hot topic; when people Google "abortion" this page on SciForums surely must come up in their hit list. Is this really what we want their first impression of our website to be???

Indeed, it is our tradition to ignore rule violations except for pornography, Nazism, and other things that would trap us in the filters of corporations, schools, and/or all of Europe. The simple reason is that most of our members are extremely immature, either chronologically or emotionally or both, so if we actually try to establish an adult level of discourse there won't be enough members left to keep the website in business.

 

One more time..

I am not going to discuss or apply something that cannot happen in reality because you want to delve once again into fantasy land. I have said this so many times now and you still keep asking me the same question. Abortion is not unrestricted up to full term, in other words, a woman cannot get an abortion at full term if the foetus is healthy. So your repeatedly asking me this question is based on a non-event - ie, it cannot happen. So why do you keep asking me this same question repeatedly when I have answered it repeatedly?

It is actually minimal. Its eyes can't even open yet.

It doesn't happen until after 28 weeks.

Which would be very much like a foetus that is at 22 weeks. It has no thoughts, it is not conscious, it cannot see, its movements are involuntary - like an anencephalic foetus.

Potential according to whom?

It was severely deformed due to the drugs the mother had been given and was existing in the deteriorating corpse of a woman without consent. There was no potential.

Or the State can mind it's own business and get out of women's sexual and reproductive organs.

As for the French woman, we do not know what her reasons are. They were valid and important enough for her to want to travel to the US to have it done.

Reality is bad enough for now, why delve into your fantasies?

I have absolutely no desire to discuss your impossible fantasies that cannot become reality. What's the point? Is it because you think you are going to win because you feel that I believe a certain way or another? That does not concern me Capracus. I have told you repeatedly that I will not apply what my beliefs are to something that cannot happen. So please stop asking me to. Because you are only wasting your time and mine.

Now you understand why I refuse to discuss something that is unreal and would exaggerate the issue further.

Whether she does or does not is none of my business.

It is not for me to impose my personal beliefs on her body.

 

This is a textbook example of trolling: stalling the forward progress of a discussion by continually going backward.

This is a perfect example of something you should be moderating. Yes, it's a discussion in which you are a participant, but the moderation would be procedural, rather than ideological or personal. So you'd be well within your rights to send this doofus to purgatory for a few days. And since he seems to enjoy repetition he'll probably come right back and do it again, so you can give him a longer vacation. With any luck, he'll end up with a permaban before the rational hemisphere of his brain takes over.

This is one of the reasons that this thread is going nowhere. Please stop complaining and do something about it! Sure, it's Tiassa's job, but this thread is big enough to overwhelm six moderators. I'm sure he won't mind your help regarding a procedural matter.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't post on this thread very often, so (as far as I can recall) the trolls have not yet broken the rules in a response to one of my posts. But when it happens I'll be sure to use my largest hammer.

 

Just as well this discussion is in EM&J then I guess.

 

*Chortle*

Let's just hope he does not read the rules of this site, since the word "trolls" is mentioned there several times. Probably accuse the admin of name calling.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But yes, I do get what you mean.

:m:

 

Why? Because I won't apply a standard or belief to something that is entirely made up in your head and doesn't happen in reality? Like when you asked if it could be stuffed back into the womb after being born? Or when you asked if it was still attached to the umbilical cord, if it could be aborted once born?

I provided you proof that what you are inventing does not and cannot happen and if it did, it would be deemed murder. So I correctly answered your questions. Just because you refuse to accept the correct answer, which is supported by studies and links and actual interviews with abortionist. You refused to accept it and instead kept misrepresenting what I was saying and inventing new unrealistic scenarios that do not occur in reality. And you are surprised that I refused to give it the time of day? Just because you think your invented unrealistic scenarios are pertinent does not mean I need to think the same. My beliefs apply to reality, you know, real life situations that have happened and continue to happen. Yours do not.

If you had bothered to notice, the responses you did get was disbelief that you were making this kind of thing up and refusal to give it any time of day as well. Not just from myself, but many others participating in this thread. Do you see any of us claiming sainthood?

Do not feel aggrieved that I won't give your made up stories the attention you believe it deserves. If you want me or others to give you the time you believe you deserve, then stop inventing scenarios and instead, use real life cases for the point of discussion. South America declared personhood from conception, you can start there as a guide for searches for cases. America is also inching closer in many States to declare personhood from conception to even points of non-viability (such as Marlise Munoz's case). Also excellent reference points for you.

I gave you many links that describe why women get late term abortions. You can start from some of the reasons listed there to have your argument. You don't need to make things up.

For example, you can say that a woman aborting at 30 weeks should not be allowed to abort if her reason is because a) she did not know she was pregnant; b) she miscalculated the dates; c) She was forced to wait due to legal restrictions where she lived which denied her the chance to get one earlier and she had gotten to the point where it's a case of too bad so sad, now she should simply just have it or deliver it alive; d) she waited for too long because abortions cost so much and is not covered in many instances and she took that long to save up for it.. These are all realistic situations and all, surprisingly enough, account for the less than 1% of women who have late term abortions that are not for medical reasons.

These are all non-medical reasons to abort - such as newly discovered major issues with a foetus that can only be determined at that point and not earlier.

But you did not do any of that. Instead, you applied an unrealistic standard - such as the re-attaching the umbilical cord and stuffing it back in argument, the aborting it as it's coming out during labour argument, the killing it after it's been born but still attached to the mother by the umbilical cord argument, the aborting it at 40 weeks... This does not happen in real life.

As I have repeatedly told you, Capracus, there is no need to make up scenarios.

 

The problem is that each time I attempted to respond to you within the boundaries of reality, you rejected it and demanded to know why I would not answer questions which apply to unreal situations that do not exist in reality because they cannot exist - with the exception being murderers. This should be answer enough for you.

Your point being?

If a woman is denied an abortion for a variety of reasons - such as none in her area and she cannot afford the funds to go to another State for one, for example, or if she is denied one pure and simple for whatever reason, the result is that she would be forced to continue with the pregnancy against her will. Think about it for a second. Pregnancy is not exactly a pleasant experience in many parts, women do still die in childbirth and there is a constant risk of things going wrong - trust me, I've experienced some of the worst that can go wrong, and at no time was it a pleasant experience. That being said, do you think it is acceptable to force a woman to continue with a pregnancy against her will? Should the State force her, by way of imprisonment, for example, to continue with the pregnancy without her consent and then force her to give birth to it or risk a very major operation without her consent which would then possibly restrict her chances of having more children in the future? Do you think this is acceptable?

This is the reality facing many women around the world, including in the US. Say she has reached 30 weeks and was unable to get an abortion earlier because she was unable to afford getting one and the father of the baby has abandoned her and she cannot afford the medical care required for the pregnancy. And she wants to abort and always has wanted to abort. Is it acceptable to make her remain pregnant against her will?

I think it actually puts you at an advantage.

Excellent!

Abortion is one of the safest procedures actually. Later term abortions as well.

My issue with determining what is acceptable and not acceptable or putting a restriction on what we think is necessary is that for some women, what we could deem unnecessary could very much be necessary. For example, you say it's just 2 more months and she could just deliver the baby. Sure. She can. But what if she cannot afford it? What if she has no support to go through with the pregnancy? What if she cannot afford the hospital care required when she does give birth? Is the State going to foot the bill? What if she is scared and terrified and alone? What if she was prevented from getting an abortion earlier through threats from others or because the area she lives in, simply has no abortion providers at all and to get one would mean going out of State, which is costly, so she has had to save up all that time to be able to get one? What if she will lose her job and thus her house and everything else that follows if she has to take time off work to recover from giving birth? What if she is alone and has other children to care for and cannot take time away to have a baby - who will look after her children?

These are all real life situations that women face and sometimes, she may feel that she has no real choice except to abort. Personally for me, I'd want to make everything possible for her to be able to give birth, but sadly, that is not something that can be done in real life. What you or I may deem unnecessary and cruel, for some may be the only choice. And when I look at it that way, I don't think I or anyone else should impose our own moral beliefs on others, because she will know what is right for her and her family and what is necessary. Do I like it? No. There is this belief that pro-choice want women to abort. Nothing could be further from the truth. We just recognise that there is a need for this service and it's better to provide it safely than to have women dying in pandemic proportions like they are in countries that have banned abortions.

Which was answered, but you refused to acknowledge those answers.

It is an exceptionally emotional issue.

It is absolutely awful. But for some, they feel it is necessary. Late term abortions is not something that women just do on a whim. It is an awful experience and a stressful one and devastating. Which is why I think the women going through that experience should be the ones to judge what is right for themselves. This is their life and ultimately, their choice.

Can a woman abort at 40 weeks? No. But who waits 40 weeks to decide to abort? There is a reason why late term abortions are so rare. And they are rare. And the way I see it, if you make it illegal, then more people end up dying. It would probably be better if the pro-life groups who spend millions of dollars campaigning for making abortions illegal used that money to improve education and living conditions of people who live in poverty and also to make health care more affordable and provide many of these women with more choices. Instead they push for reduced funding for health services, they don't want to teach sex ed comprehensively in schools and they want to restrict access to birth control - all of which makes it more likely that women get abortions. You know, give women that level of control. Alas, here we are.