Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
She does.
You’d guess the answer is no? You’re not sure this is an impossibility? In a complete natural birth the placenta, cord and fetus are delivered as a set. The placenta and umbilical cord wither within a few days and detach from the baby. So your implied notion that such a physiological connection between mother and adult offspring is ludicrous. It boggles the mind to think that someone would resort to such a work of fiction to illustrate a point regarding personhood.
Isn’t faux indignation precious?
That same fetus that you claim is robbing the mother of her life choices before birth, when she chooses to keep it, continues to do so for another 18 years. By comparison, making the choice to keep it 4-5 months earlier at the point of viability doesn't seem unreasonable.
In the article you linked, Dr. Susan Robinson stated that she does not perform full term abortions because the lack of medical facility in her clinic could not ensure a safe outcome.
More on the reality of Dr. Robinson’s late term work.
If only Dr. Robinson had the legal option advocated by Tiassa and yourself, she could naturally deliver full term fetuses and simply kill them before cutting the cord.
One of her colleagues, Dr. Kermit Gosnell almost had it right by your standard.
Remember Kermit, it’s cut the spinal cord first, then the umbilical.
And because this non-binding agreement says nothing about the rights of a viable fetus, we must assume none exist?
Here's another toothless international construct to satisfy the polar absurdity of your extreme position.
And you want killing a delivered late term healthy fetus prior to umbilical severance included in your ideal reality.
It’s not a joke, and not only about depression.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Just to reiterate something here, since it seems that you and EF seem to believe that I and others advocate murder. When a woman is in labour, for example, then no, you cannot abort, not legally and not safely. Because if you do that, it is murder. Now certainly, you can try to argue about stuffing it back into the womb as a point of discussion in a 'what if' scenario, it does not mean that I will take your argument seriously.
As for the lotus birth technique, which sees some parents leaving the placenta attached for up to a week before it detatches.. Ermm no. I'll pass. Certainly, they now recommend waiting for about an hour before cutting it and just leaving the baby on the breast immediately after birth, but 6 days? No thanks.
I find stupid analogies more precious.
Stuffing it back into the womb? Really?
Perhaps you can show me or explain to me why deciding to keep a baby could result in a death sentence to the woman if once it reaches viability and say, she falls ill, then her personhood flies out the window and the personhood of the foetus becomes paramount? Perhaps you can explain to me why forcing women to die to comply with your belief of personhood is acceptable? Is it reasonable to consign women to possible death sentences once they decide to keep the baby?
If the mother falls ill, should the personhood of her viable foetus be factored in whether she is treated or not?
Because those who advocate personhood from any period (especially those in this thread) do not believe that the mother's chances should be factored in. If she has a shorter life expectancy, well tough luck to her, the person she is carrying in her womb has more value. Say, for example, a 7 month pregnant woman has a massive heart attack. She is still alive when she arrives in the hospital. Should she be treated and given the necessary drugs to ensure she stays alive? Or should they take time to figure out whether she has a chance or not because the medication could damage the foetus? What about if she has cancer? Should a woman, pregnant with a viable foetus, be denied medical care if she is terminal because said life extending care could damage the "person" in her womb? I mean, look at you as a prime example. You have withdrawn her individual rights for 18 years.
These are the realities of personhood.
The personhood at viability state of pregnancy has seen women forced to die and denied treatment and medical care because said care could harm the person in her womb.
I want you to show exactly where I said that a baby could be killed once it is out of the womb?
Because you see, this kind of intellectual dishonesty isn't going to wash with me. I have seen wayyyyy too many people like you try to pull this exact stunt. And frankly, it's stupid.
Also, to respond to your misrepresentation of Dr. Robinson, she also clearly states that anywhere near full term, she will not perform the abortion because it is unsafe.
Lovely, good to see you have decided to suck on the teat of pro-lifer's and use the same exact stupid arguments they spout. This is absolutely despicable. No pro-choice would ever support what he did. Ever. But hey, pro-lifer's won't ever regard that, will they. Gosnell was a murderer.
I like how you disregard her reaction to terminating a full term pregnancy..
Any person who misrepresents another person's argument and resorts to one which questions whether a baby could be stuffed back into the uterus after its umbilical cord was re-attached should never, ever, complain about what they perceive to be an extreme position of another person.
Ever.
Also, the treaty, signed by all of those Latin American countries? I take it you missed all the links about rape victims being forced to give birth to the babies of their rapists, or the 17 year old girl who was forced to die because she was denied an abortion and denied life saving cancer treatment because it would harm the "person" she was carrying.. Is this acceptable to you?
Or how about the link from the WHO which deems the lack of abortion and contraceptive health care to women, especially in countries that ban abortions, are seeing thousands of women dying every year and that it has reached pandemic proportion.. Do you think the foetus' right to exist should invalidate the mother's rights to living? What about if it's viable? Here is yet another reality of what you deem to be the "toothless international construct":
A poor woman living in a rural area, she became pregnant for the second time while suffering from lupus (an autoimmune disease) that had already compromised one of her kidneys. As soon as she found out she was pregnant (and she had barely survived her first pregnancy) she went to the doctors and they diagnosed that she was carrying an anencephalic foetus, a foetus that does not develop a brain. So it was not only a pregnancy that was going to put her life at risk, but this was also an unviable pregnancy—a foetus that was going to die as soon as it was born.
'I think it would be best for them to go ahead and save my life, because it doesn't make sense to continue with my pregnancy if the baby won't survive,' she told reporters at the time. 'And I hope the court accepts this and they do what they need to do with my life, because I want to live.'
But in late May, her arguments were rejected by the court which ruled that El Salvador’s constitution is clear—abortion is illegal, irrespective of the circumstances. However, fortunately for Beatriz, her advocates had also approached the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and only hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling, it ordered doctors to proceed with treatment to protect her life and health.
A compromise was reached. Beatriz was given an induced birth rather than a termination. The child died soon after it was born.
The pregnancy has left a permanent mark on Beatriz’s health and wellbeing. She now requires a kidney transplant. Poor, caring for a one year old child and with expensive health needs, Beatriz will face many challenges in the future.
'I think it would be best for them to go ahead and save my life, because it doesn't make sense to continue with my pregnancy if the baby won't survive,' she told reporters at the time. 'And I hope the court accepts this and they do what they need to do with my life, because I want to live.'
But in late May, her arguments were rejected by the court which ruled that El Salvador’s constitution is clear—abortion is illegal, irrespective of the circumstances. However, fortunately for Beatriz, her advocates had also approached the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and only hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling, it ordered doctors to proceed with treatment to protect her life and health.
A compromise was reached. Beatriz was given an induced birth rather than a termination. The child died soon after it was born.
The pregnancy has left a permanent mark on Beatriz’s health and wellbeing. She now requires a kidney transplant. Poor, caring for a one year old child and with expensive health needs, Beatriz will face many challenges in the future.
Personhood, how fucking grand..
How about if a 12 year old girl is raped by her step father and falls pregnant.. Should she be forced to carry to term? What happens when the foetus becomes viable? Where are her fucking rights?
I would strongly suggest you show me where I said that it was acceptable to murder a delivered full term baby or, to use your stupid argument, stuff that lie back in.
Your ideal reality sees girls and women dying, by the thousands, because others have determined "personhood" based on their personal beliefs. You determine the point of viability, others here see it from conception and another sees personhood as being from the point of the first brain activity.
Which one of you is right? If a woman is 26 weeks pregnant and dying, should her rights to try to live for as long as she can be withdrawn because she is pregnant and her non-viable baby be forcibly removed from her womb without her consent because it might just be viable, thereby ensuring she just dies faster?
You seem to be arguing that if a woman is pregnant with a viable foetus, then she loses her rights over her body and her life - something you seem to believe she does for the first 18 years of her child's life.. And I thought EF's stance was fucked up. You took his to a whole new level of twisted.
I believe that a woman has rights over her own body, regardless of whether she is pregnant or not. You obviously disagree. So much so that you are willing to lie and misrepresent my stance on the issue and claim I have said things I clearly never said. Hell, you even claim that I advocate the murder of babies. I don't think a woman should lose her intrinsic human rights because she is pregnant, nor should she lose her life's choices. I mean sure, you might just be that guy who ties 'his woman' to the kitchen sink once she's pregnant with your spawn, because you believe she has given up her life's choices for 18+ years from the moment she decides to keep the baby. Reality and women's rights disagree with your stance and your position.
You mean women and young girls who often even deny to themselves that they are pregnant and refuse to acknowledge their pregnancy and then even the birth?
Researchers find that women who commit neonaticide have poor coping skills, dysfunctional or highly religious families, emotional isolation, and a conflicted pregnancy. These different circumstances contribute to the vicious cycle of denying and concealing a pregnancy, laboring in secret, and killing the newborn.
As I said, wait until you walk in the shoes of these women and men before you make generalised comments. I'd suggest stupid comments about how a woman is robbed of her future life's choices for the first 18 years of her child's life does not help in such situations. Just saying.
High and Lois Lane: ¿Whatchoo Smokin'? Edition
Isn't the day late/dollar short routine just screeching hilarious?
There's no point in asking him to support his statement; he can't, and it is unfair to expect that he should be able to.
I mean, it would be even funnier if this sort of thing was already on the record, such that our neighbor was actually grasping at straws and flinging some sort of rhetorical ejaculation at the wall in order to make a point and see if it sticks. And it would be even funnier if one of those posts that doesn't exist was actually a response to something else he'd said, such that we could say that he was aware of the issue before he wrote that bizarre post. Unfortunately, he beat us to the absurdist punch. I mean, really, if only we'd covered that before, we might complain that he's ignoring what we posted in order to attempt some deliberately inflammatory ruse, but since those posts don't exist, never existed, and cannot by any reasonable assertion of reality be suggested to existed—even in concept—there really is nothing to say but the obvious:
We owe such cleverosity our best awesome-striked admirabilitation.
Bells said:
Isn't the day late/dollar short routine just screeching hilarious?
There's no point in asking him to support his statement; he can't, and it is unfair to expect that he should be able to.
I mean, it would be even funnier if this sort of thing was already on the record, such that our neighbor was actually grasping at straws and flinging some sort of rhetorical ejaculation at the wall in order to make a point and see if it sticks. And it would be even funnier if one of those posts that doesn't exist was actually a response to something else he'd said, such that we could say that he was aware of the issue before he wrote that bizarre post. Unfortunately, he beat us to the absurdist punch. I mean, really, if only we'd covered that before, we might complain that he's ignoring what we posted in order to attempt some deliberately inflammatory ruse, but since those posts don't exist, never existed, and cannot by any reasonable assertion of reality be suggested to existed—even in concept—there really is nothing to say but the obvious:
Touché.
We owe such cleverosity our best awesome-striked admirabilitation.
Capracus... just... just stop, okay? I try to look at an argument from every possible viewpoint, and I REALLY cannot understand where you think Bells is suggesting that it's somehow wrong to perform an abortion, yet perfectly okay to murder the baby once delivered. I CANNOT read that ANYWHERE in what she has posted without, at the very least, vastly distorting what she is saying, omitting key phrases/words, and some degree of simply making up new phrases that were never stated... in all honesty, it's kind of like watching a political debate...
Why is it murder? By the 'dry foot' model it would not be murder to kill a fetus at the mother's request while she in labor, because it is not yet outside her body, therefor is not a person and has no rights. So please explain the ethics you use to derive that it is murder.
I think I've repeatedly told you it is in fact factored in: Again deciding to save a fetus over it mother would only work out in certain extreme situations, and would not be an easy or "fun" decision. And again by the viability model the decisions would be limited to removing the fetus now or do X for mother, there would be no allowance for forcing the mother to remain gestating without what ever treatment she needs, the worse result would be forcibly removing the fetus at once then beginning (supposedly fetus killing) treatment on the mother. There would be no withholding treatment for the mother other then what is needed to keep her alive for a c-section, after which time she would be treated like any person.
I would think once she wants to keep the baby she willing to risk death, the doctors would simply be implementing her wishes. Of course the doctors will do what ever they can to save both the mother and the fetus at that point.
It may change how she is treated, the fetus may need to be removed via c-section first, that all. Imagine this: a women suffering from some kind of medical condition that requires emergency c-section of the fetus for it to live, but she objects to having a c-section, because she is endangering a viable fetus at that point there are several options that could be considered.
A) force her to have the c-section against her will, to save the fetus.
B) do not do the c-section as she request and if the fetus dies charge her with murder.
The latter would not violate her rights to control of her body, although it would mean the state having to pay for years if not decades for her incarceration. Of course we could say a viable fetus is not a person and thus forgo the murder charges, but we would need an ethical argument on why a viable fetus is not a person, again the only thing that separates it from a baby is that it is still inside the mother. Again being viable it could, like a baby, live outside the mother. So we would need to implement the 'dry foot' model and declare a fetus, viable or not, devoid of personhood or rights and ethically allow a mother to kill it at any stage of pregnancy were it is still inside her.
If the fetus is viable the considerations should be: "she we remove the fetus?" and "Would doing so increase or reduce its chances of survival AS WELL AS the mother chances of survival?"
Again, it's viable, so remove the fetus, then begin chemo. Since the fetus is viable, removing it would only take a few hours at most, a minor delay for chemotherapy.
In some of those cases the fetus was not viable yet, clearly your confusing goverment mismanagement with ethics. I might as well say that the reality of personhood is sometimes innocent people are sentence for murder, therefor we should not have murder charges. No of course we should keep murder as a federal crime and perhaps we should make the system less corruptible and reduce the rate of such errors if justice. The same would apply to the cases you bring up, that perhaps the justices system should not rack up BS charges on drug addicts, that a set of policies needs to be developed to determine what to do with viable fetuses in a manner that optimize the health of fetus and hostess rather then a hog-peg of random state and even county level judicial officials just making it up as they go. That would be a more pragmatic and realistic solution then demanding we forgo all goverment intervention.
No, not at all, but that has nothing to do with the viability argument for personhood.
Again with this case: if it is either her life or the fetus's life we would need other metrics to determine what to do. She terminally ill and won't make it to a complete pregnancy, and your saying that removing the fetus will killer her, continuing the pregnancy will kill her as well just at a later date, assuming the fetus is normal (insert eugenic standards) it would make sense via the viability model to remove it. Your arguing on the other hand that a women that is dying has to right to take her child to the grave with her.
Well I don't know what Capracus is arguing, but I have been arguing that if the fetus is viable the rights of the fetus needs to be considered as well as the rights of the women, not that the women losses any rights.
Agree, but just like we allow exceptions like you can't imbib this or that chemical into your body, we could allow exceptions for a pregnant women that refuse life saving medical care for their viable fetus.
Agree, but we do need to determine when personhood begins, and if we use the viability model it starts to begins while it is still inside the women and thus she could under very specific situations find her rights overridden by the rights of the fetus. Of course one solution would be the 'dry foot' model but that leads to the ethical allowance of what you your self call murder. Another solution would be a "no surgery against objections" policy, this would allow a pregnant women to successfully stave off any surgeries against her will, regardless if that kills the fetus, but would allow the state to charge her with murder afterwards... that may be more acceptable to you then forcing her to undergo a c-section against her will.
Its more that Bells is neglecting providing a consistent ethical framework for saying its ok to have an abortion.
Sometimes she uses the viability or "dry foot" to justify it.
Sometimes she uses the argument that it impeaches on a womans freedom by dint of responsibility issues of parenthood.
lightgigantic:
If you claim is that Bell's ethical framework is inconsistent on this issue, then you should be able to come up with a hypothetical situation for which the inconsistent portions of Bell's framework would demand two different outcomes (i.e. allowing the abortion on a certain set of grounds while denying it on another set of grounds).
Can you point to any such example?
If you claim is that Bell's ethical framework is inconsistent on this issue, then you should be able to come up with a hypothetical situation for which the inconsistent portions of Bell's framework would demand two different outcomes (i.e. allowing the abortion on a certain set of grounds while denying it on another set of grounds).
Can you point to any such example?
Irony and a Bad Scene From a Two-Bit Horror Flick
The irony of this sort of point arising now is that it is so late after the fact.
I always come back to the question of what sort of doctor would perform a D&X to accommodate a last-second demand for abortion. It may be a woman's right to make such a demand, but it's also a doctor's right to refuse on ethical grounds—and, what, really, is she going to do at that point, shop around for another OB/GYN who will accept a patient in labor for a D&X? I mean, sure, if I really try, I can invent a reason why that right should remain open. You know, what if at the last minute they all realize it's not a human baby but a giant monster-lout fallen off a giant, wingless bat.
I mean, at this point, why not? Since they're not paying attention, let's try some high-fuel, hip-with-the-kids calculated irreverence. You know, like youth pastors.
No, seriously, I got nothin'. I mean, at this point I'm wondering if I should reiterate a whole bunch of stuff, or if I'll just have to reiterate the reiteration next week. And given that it would be a reiteration of reiterating reiterated reiterations, there comes a point where even futility quits reiterating itself.
Such is life.
____________________
Notes:
Savage, Dan. "Youth Pastor Watch". Slog. April 29, 2009. Slog.TheStranger.com. February 9, 2014. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/04/24/youth-pastor-watch
Bells said:
The irony of this sort of point arising now is that it is so late after the fact.
It is easy enough to accept that one need not be a pervert in order to dive into these political cultures; it can happen as easily as having a favorite football team or through complex consideration. But once one dives in, they are awash in an environment in which those who have a certain set of negative aesthetic preferences about sex and sexuality are constantly seeking out sordid ideas and events to make their point.
It's kind of like the rape fantasies spun by infinite protection advocates, or gay sex fantasies devised by paranoid homophobes. The seem to have a much sexier—albeit dirtier—idea of what sex is like among their neighbors than those of us who really don't give a damn how the neighbors fuck.
If you revisit the annals of anti-abortion advocacy, you'll find all sorts of twisted inquiries. You know, what if a woman decides to have an abortion after the baby leaves her body but before the umbilical cord is cut in order to take revenge against a boyfriend she thinks cheated on her? That sort of thing. And it really does occur to one to wonder how another might come to that question. I mean, really, what kind of doctor would actually do that? Well, we have an idea, because it seems Kermit Gosnell was perfectly willing to kill children after they emerged from the womb.
They get one every few years. Indeed, if we held "Christianity" to the same standard, what would we say of the steady, low-key barrage of arson and terrorism that occasionally peaks in a murder? We can no more imagine that deviant bloodlust to be representative of Christianity than a Kermit Gosnell would represent doctors who perform abortions. Certainly, such terrorism is becoming more prominently recognized as part of the anti-abortion movement specifically, but that transference to Christianity in general would be inappropriate.
It's kind of like the rape fantasies spun by infinite protection advocates, or gay sex fantasies devised by paranoid homophobes. The seem to have a much sexier—albeit dirtier—idea of what sex is like among their neighbors than those of us who really don't give a damn how the neighbors fuck.
If you revisit the annals of anti-abortion advocacy, you'll find all sorts of twisted inquiries. You know, what if a woman decides to have an abortion after the baby leaves her body but before the umbilical cord is cut in order to take revenge against a boyfriend she thinks cheated on her? That sort of thing. And it really does occur to one to wonder how another might come to that question. I mean, really, what kind of doctor would actually do that? Well, we have an idea, because it seems Kermit Gosnell was perfectly willing to kill children after they emerged from the womb.
They get one every few years. Indeed, if we held "Christianity" to the same standard, what would we say of the steady, low-key barrage of arson and terrorism that occasionally peaks in a murder? We can no more imagine that deviant bloodlust to be representative of Christianity than a Kermit Gosnell would represent doctors who perform abortions. Certainly, such terrorism is becoming more prominently recognized as part of the anti-abortion movement specifically, but that transference to Christianity in general would be inappropriate.
—Tiassa, 24 January, 2014
I always come back to the question of what sort of doctor would perform a D&X to accommodate a last-second demand for abortion. It may be a woman's right to make such a demand, but it's also a doctor's right to refuse on ethical grounds—and, what, really, is she going to do at that point, shop around for another OB/GYN who will accept a patient in labor for a D&X? I mean, sure, if I really try, I can invent a reason why that right should remain open. You know, what if at the last minute they all realize it's not a human baby but a giant monster-lout fallen off a giant, wingless bat.
I mean, at this point, why not? Since they're not paying attention, let's try some high-fuel, hip-with-the-kids calculated irreverence. You know, like youth pastors.
No, seriously, I got nothin'. I mean, at this point I'm wondering if I should reiterate a whole bunch of stuff, or if I'll just have to reiterate the reiteration next week. And given that it would be a reiteration of reiterating reiterated reiterations, there comes a point where even futility quits reiterating itself.
Such is life.
____________________
Notes:
Savage, Dan. "Youth Pastor Watch". Slog. April 29, 2009. Slog.TheStranger.com. February 9, 2014. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/04/24/youth-pastor-watch
Bells
Staff member
But what if it could...
The argument is surreal. No woman could abort while in labour or even at full term for that matter. Why? Because no doctor would do it and frankly, what woman wants 40 weeks to abort? Who does this?
Less than 1% of abortions occur in the 3rd trimester. Of those, the majority are because of an issue with the foetus or a medical condition that has arisen with the mother. It is only a minute few who elect to abort for other reasons, and as the article states, those reasons are usually because they did not know they were pregnant or their miscalculated the due date or something has happened to warrant the woman desiring an abortion. I know a woman who had a late term abortion and it was a harrowing experience. She and her husband were both devastated at having to abort a much wanted child, and frankly, it nearly destroyed her. This is never a decision that is taken lightly or made on a whim.
So you can perhaps imagine my disgust at the flippant attitude pro-lifer's use in this thread, and turn it onto a nightmarish freak-show. From asking me 'what if you could re-attach the umbilical cord and stuff it back in the womb, can it be aborted then?' to obscene and offensive accusations of 'you support killing new born babies with umbilical cords still attached!', I am left to wonder how and why these men believe that I or other women would support such ridiculous arguments against abortion? I mean really, is reality not fancy enough that these men must delve into the depths of one's imagination to dream up the most ridiculous scenarios? And here I thought the most ridiculous thing I had seen in regards to giving birth to a child was when the midwife placed the placenta in a dish and shoved it in front of my very shocked nose (child birth was a shocking experience, I still remember the feeling of 'what the hell is happening to me?'..) and asking me if I wanted to keep it? There was no happy haze, there was just this sense of horror over having popped out 3.5kg's of a small human being who was plopped on my breast and I was trying to figure out 'what the fuck do I do now?'.. "Ermmm, why do I want to keep it?", I asked the midwife. She smiled benevolently at me and told me that some want to keep it as a souvenir and some even eat it.. "Errr no, NO! Thanks, I'll ermm pass"..
You know those times when you just wished you had not asked and just said no? That was one of those moments and sadly, it is one of the most memorable parts of giving birth to my first child. It's what remains stuck in my mind. Now, as surprising as that answer was, I have to admit, Capracus has managed to top that, in so far as the subject of 'abortion' will always be dominated by the frankly ridiculous "what if you could reattach the umbilical cord and stuff it back into the womb, could you abort it then?".. As much as that midwife's comments about placentas made the after birth glow/sheer terror/no idea what he fuck just happened to me moment into a nightmarish freakshow, the moronic questions in the last few pages have turned this one into a nightmarish freakshow..
I have put up with stupid and inane arguments from pro-lifer's before, but this latest invention from that faction of this site's population is worrying in the extreme. The level of fanaticism, to the point where distortions and misrepresentation, to outright and deliberate lies written because I refuse to give their freakish, side show scenarios any serious consideration.. Well, there's always a first time, I suppose.
What if indeed..
1) What if could be stuffed back into the womb after reattaching it's umbilical cord?
2) What if you kill it after it is born and not yet detached from the umbilical cord?
I have to wonder though, the real life horrors imposed on women are not enough? We have to contend with psychotic men who want to think up of new ways to kill a woman?
The argument is surreal. No woman could abort while in labour or even at full term for that matter. Why? Because no doctor would do it and frankly, what woman wants 40 weeks to abort? Who does this?
Less than 1% of abortions occur in the 3rd trimester. Of those, the majority are because of an issue with the foetus or a medical condition that has arisen with the mother. It is only a minute few who elect to abort for other reasons, and as the article states, those reasons are usually because they did not know they were pregnant or their miscalculated the due date or something has happened to warrant the woman desiring an abortion. I know a woman who had a late term abortion and it was a harrowing experience. She and her husband were both devastated at having to abort a much wanted child, and frankly, it nearly destroyed her. This is never a decision that is taken lightly or made on a whim.
So you can perhaps imagine my disgust at the flippant attitude pro-lifer's use in this thread, and turn it onto a nightmarish freak-show. From asking me 'what if you could re-attach the umbilical cord and stuff it back in the womb, can it be aborted then?' to obscene and offensive accusations of 'you support killing new born babies with umbilical cords still attached!', I am left to wonder how and why these men believe that I or other women would support such ridiculous arguments against abortion? I mean really, is reality not fancy enough that these men must delve into the depths of one's imagination to dream up the most ridiculous scenarios? And here I thought the most ridiculous thing I had seen in regards to giving birth to a child was when the midwife placed the placenta in a dish and shoved it in front of my very shocked nose (child birth was a shocking experience, I still remember the feeling of 'what the hell is happening to me?'..) and asking me if I wanted to keep it? There was no happy haze, there was just this sense of horror over having popped out 3.5kg's of a small human being who was plopped on my breast and I was trying to figure out 'what the fuck do I do now?'.. "Ermmm, why do I want to keep it?", I asked the midwife. She smiled benevolently at me and told me that some want to keep it as a souvenir and some even eat it.. "Errr no, NO! Thanks, I'll ermm pass"..
You know those times when you just wished you had not asked and just said no? That was one of those moments and sadly, it is one of the most memorable parts of giving birth to my first child. It's what remains stuck in my mind. Now, as surprising as that answer was, I have to admit, Capracus has managed to top that, in so far as the subject of 'abortion' will always be dominated by the frankly ridiculous "what if you could reattach the umbilical cord and stuff it back into the womb, could you abort it then?".. As much as that midwife's comments about placentas made the after birth glow/sheer terror/no idea what he fuck just happened to me moment into a nightmarish freakshow, the moronic questions in the last few pages have turned this one into a nightmarish freakshow..
I have put up with stupid and inane arguments from pro-lifer's before, but this latest invention from that faction of this site's population is worrying in the extreme. The level of fanaticism, to the point where distortions and misrepresentation, to outright and deliberate lies written because I refuse to give their freakish, side show scenarios any serious consideration.. Well, there's always a first time, I suppose.
What if indeed..
1) What if could be stuffed back into the womb after reattaching it's umbilical cord?
No, this cannot happen because if anyone did that, it would be murder as it would kill the baby and the mother - for a variety of reasons. If you don't know what those reasons are, then I'd suggest a book on the women's reproductive organs and what happens in childbirth may be in order..
2) What if you kill it after it is born and not yet detached from the umbilical cord?
Once again, murder. No doctor would ever agree to abort at full term unless there was something catastrophically wrong with the foetus and no woman would wait until the moment of birth to decide to abort. It would also be illegal and downright impossible.. Not to mention, because for some weird reason, this needs to be established, no one in their right mind would abort during labour (it can also kill the woman for one thing), be they the woman or the doctor.
I have to wonder though, the real life horrors imposed on women are not enough? We have to contend with psychotic men who want to think up of new ways to kill a woman?
Jus' Nod Yer Pretty Li'l Head
Well, everybody needs to have a purpose in life. Who am I to complain if that's all God gave 'em?
And, really, I thought we'd been through this before: In the question of what happens to a woman's rights under LACP, the really important thing to consider is men's rights. I mean zygote rights. Oh, wait, sorry, the rights of a corpse. Damn it, I'm still wrong. It has something to do with Turduckens.
And I still think no food should ever begin with turd, regardless of whether or not it can be shot at an airplane.
Damn it! Turduckens are people, too!
Bells said:
Well, everybody needs to have a purpose in life. Who am I to complain if that's all God gave 'em?
And, really, I thought we'd been through this before: In the question of what happens to a woman's rights under LACP, the really important thing to consider is men's rights. I mean zygote rights. Oh, wait, sorry, the rights of a corpse. Damn it, I'm still wrong. It has something to do with Turduckens.
And I still think no food should ever begin with turd, regardless of whether or not it can be shot at an airplane.
Damn it! Turduckens are people, too!
Electric fetus is in the process of doing precisely that (or rather was ..... since there is only so much rampant ad homming one can reasonably tolerate before it becomes tiresome).
Kittamaru…just…just reread the comments if you think that Bells is suggesting abortion is wrong.
Here’s my beef with Bells in a nutshell. She defends Tiassa’s assertion that personhood begins when the umbilical cord of a delivered fetus is severed. This stance implies that a delivered fetus with an uncut umbilical cord is not a person and subject to the same rationale for termination that would apply if it were minuets, days, or weeks back in the womb. My suggestion that a full term fetus just prior to delivery should have the same right to life it enjoys after delivery was perceived by Bells as a grave assault on the sanctity of women’s rights and their health.
I agree with your general assessment of how the overall discussion has digressed into myopic posturing. Excluding my contribution of course.
Ditto. Just as a mother wouldn’t be expected to risk her life by running into a burning building to save her child, she wouldn’t be obliged to risk her life for the sake of a viable fetus.
Bells
Staff member
Unlike you, Kittamaru actually understands my position. You not only misunderstand it, but you have twisted it into something it is not.
As I and many many others have pointed out (over about 10 years now on this forum, at least), how many women do you think get to full term and go 'ermm nup, don't want to do this anymore, getting an abortion!'? No, seriously, how many?
And as has been pointed out so many times now, I am just about to keybind the phrase, less than 1% of women abort after the point of viability. The majority of those do so due to a health reason for the foetus or the mother or both, others because they miscalculated or did not know they were pregnant or were denied the chance to abort earlier (you can look up the numerous laws that demand women wait weeks before being able to access an abortion - which forces women into positions of having to abort after 24 weeks). So how about we look at realities instead of your perverse fantasies of how to murder a woman and her baby? You know, debate real life things.
The dry foot policy works as thus... Because the foetus is in the womb of its mother, its rights cannot trump the mother's. Applying personhood from that point on would mean that the mother loses all rights. If she falls ill or something happens, then she can lose her rights and in too many instances to count, women are being forced to die sooner or to simply die, because they are denied treatment or abortions when they fall ill. This is the nightmare that is personhood. Certaintly, if a woman decides to keep a baby, it should never mean that she should be forced into a death sentence if she falls ill for the sake of the child she is carrying. The mother's right to life should always be paramount in pregnancy. EF deems that if a woman is sick and she is pregnant, if she is terminal, then she should be forced to give her life to her foetus, even if it means killing her sooner, to protect her foetus. I find such an approach to be appalling. WOMEN HAVE INTRINSIC HUMAN RIGHTS. At no time should a woman be deliberately killed to get her baby out. In most states, this is deemed a crime and punishable as such. Just because she is sick does not mean she loses her basic human rights and it certainly does not mean that the rights of the foetus should trump her own.
So perhaps you can stop misrepresenting my argument and lying outright because you want to turn a woman into a fucking Turducken - in short, the argument you have now decided to adopt is merely you trying to find new ways to kill a woman and her child. And frankly, it is obscene. I have seen some sick shit from pro-lifer's, but you are taking the cake. Because heaven forbid you apply reality to your argument. Oh no, you went for the Turducken argument and then somehow or other have come to the belief that I support the murder of babies. At no time did I ever make that argument, so yes, you are making crap up to fit into your fantasies. I apply real life cases, you turn women into a Turducken and ask me "what if" in that scenario.
Then you CLEARLY have not been reading EF's posts.
ElectricFetus said:
So this is what you are arguing? Is a woman's life just not worth that much if she's sick and her foetus is viable? Sure, this is the kind of talk you hear about breeding livestock. For misogynists, of course it would apply to women as well. I mean you get the level of stupid of such a stance, don't you? Or are you simply blind to it? What am I saying, you're asking 'what if you killed a woman and a baby by stuffing a baby back in her womb after it has been born'..
Just to be clear, the only people making the argument to kill live babies here have been you and EF. No one else has. Doesn't that strike you as strange? At all? And the only people making the argument that killing a woman is acceptable has been you and EF. So yeah, what other twisted and sick ways are you two going to think up ways to murder a woman and her baby?
And the only people making moronic things up and directly misrepresenting what we have been saying and lying and applying a standard that DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY has been you, EF and the other pro-lifer's in this thread.
Bells
Staff member
Oh look, it's the peanut gallery..
In other words, you are here just to troll, AGAIN and once again, you have nothing of substance to add.. What a surprise.
will the irony never end?
Your hysteria simply prohibits you from discussing this subject like a sane human being.
:shrug:
Bells
Staff member
More trolling and zero substance from you. Again, no surprises there.
So your saying the ethics of doctors overrides the woman? Gee I wonder what ethics the doctors have? Remember doctors were the ones that demanded a women have a c-section even against her will.
There are 3.5 billion women on earth today and perhaps 50 billion since the dawn of man, now unlike you I don't claim to even suggest I know how ever single one of them thinks or thought, but for your information many women even today kill their newborns, many women have abortions, even later term abortions, but somehow you suggest there is this area right in-between in which it would be impossible to kill the fetus. Now I don't know "who" would do that, rather I'm asking if it would be acceptable by your ethics? That via the 'dry foot' model there is nothing unacceptable about it, as long as the fetus is still inside a women it has no personhood or rights, even just a moment before birth. Many later term abortions even function by induce labor and the fetus is killed while it half way out the womb, so technically many women have done this. I guess you could say who would kill a completely full term fetus while it's in natural labor? How does it gain rights then, why would say a 30 week old fetus have no rights while a 40 week one does? Why would natural labor give rights while induce labor does not?
Lets move this back to a simple question, you like simple questions: does a women have the right to kill a viable fetus for any reason she wants, yes or no? If yes then she could kill it even just before birth, bar how, for it is still just a viable fetus and not a baby... unless you have some ethical perspective that explains how a viable fetus becomes a person just before birth, then please do tell! If 'no' then the 'dry foot' model is not for you, you would need to explain why a women does not have that right, even if you think such a right is purely hypothetical.
How does rarity make it acceptable? If an event is rare enough does its novelty forbid it from being a crime?
Imagine a law was passed that centennials can kill anyone that happens to be able bodied and between 79-30 years younger then them, but they have to do it with their bare hands. Now sure probably no one that old could strangle anyone so much younger, but would that mean it ok to leave a law that allows murder on the books, because "it will never happen."?
And again with eugenics, remember when you say it acceptable for a fetus to be aborted because it has some medical condition your implemented a standard of eugenics, you need to explain why its ok to abort the crippled.
Now I don't see a problem with removing the fetus because the mother is endangered by the pregnancy, but since one needs to remove it while or after aborting it, I don't see why it can't be removed and not killed and put in an incubator instead. Do you?
I'm sure many murders are not taken lightly or made on a whim, many were probably also harrowing experiences even for the murderer... but all that does not make it acceptable, how then is killing a viable fetus for any reason acceptable?
This is an internet forum, take what you get in stride, what ever they say don't show the incredible amounts of anger and disgust that you have shown, for that is what trolls love to see. Consider how readily you call someone a troll you should know that many of the things you said turn trolls on, for example you say that being asked to eat the baby's placenta was less disgusting than them, you might as well be giving them a blowjob.
Well I can't speak for them, but the "shove it back in" argument is not against abortion, it just revealing a flaw in the 'dry foot' model, even if it is purely hypothetical. As I pointed out before there are other models that make abortion ethically acceptable that would not suffer from making that particular scenario acceptable even if only hypothetically, a combination of which could provide you with all you want ethically and yet consistently.
How do you know none of them are women?
Hey some women (even after having babies mind you) do still claim it was a 'magical' process for them or some other appeal to nature BS, oh and some women eat it. Goes to show how great you are at claiming you know what no women will or will not do.
Since many later term abortions involve inducing labor, it is a fact that *someone*, both women and doctor, have killed a fetus, while it in "labor". Again you might say "well no one would kill a fetus while its in natural labor at full term" and again I would say many have killed it right afterward even, and why does natural labor and full term make that unacceptable? Back to the question if the hypotheticals disgust you so much: can a women abort a viable fetus for what ever reason she wants? why or why not?
JamesR pointed out we require to discuss hypotheticals.
I pointed out that EF is doing precisely that.
You (continue to) respond like a hysterical fool.
I challenge you *not to* continue to respond to EF in your clearly illustrated hysterical ad hom smearing fashion.
Bells
Staff member
You would have to be one of the most dishonest hacks to ever grace this site.
I know they can't get an abortion during the birth or just before the baby is born, do you know why? BECAUSE NO DOCTOR WILL PERFORM SUCH A PROCEDURE. How many god damn times does this need to be repeated? Or are you just going to keep lying to make a point that cannot exist in reality? No, really, how many times?
Nope. That is at the discretion of the abortionist. Roe vs Wade applies the 24 week scale of viability. Do women abort after this point? Yes. Should she have a right to? Yes. However common sense also prevails here, something you and Capracus are clearly lacking and you have instead attributed arguments that are so extreme to myself and others, because you are too god damn dim to apply real life situations and have instead adopted a 'what if' dumbarse and moronic scenarios that could not exist in reality.
I even linked an interview with one of the few doctors who perform late term procedures and she clearly states, she will not abort past 35 weeks because it is too close to term. She even clearly states, she will not do it at 35 weeks because it could be at 37 weeks since calculating the exact age is so difficult.
So really, how about we apply real life situations and stop making the most moronic stuff up? For example:
Okay, I need to ask. Are you mentally disabled? Slow? Have suffered a brain injury? Because how many god damn times does this need to be repeated?
NO, SHE COULD NOT KILL IT EVEN JUST BEFORE BIRTH!
Understand now? Or do I need to have it tattooed on your forehead? The doctor who did do that is up on murder charges and rightly so.
Did you even read why it is so rare? And why it is legal?
At all?
Or are you just going to lie some more?
Wait no.. here we go again.. more fantasies on how to kill people..
WILL YOU FUCKING STOP LYING AND MAKING CRAP UP?
I would rather discuss the subject matter at hand instead of delving into your sick and perverted fantasies about murdering people, you dolt.
You do realise, the only person who has made the argument for eugenics has been you, right?
So why are you lying and applying it to me and others? So perhaps you can answer your own retarded question.
What?
Do you think this is not something that is considered? Again, stop making crap up. If a woman is 24 weeks pregnant (the line of viability) and she cannot survive a c-section because she needs urgent life saving treatment, and for the foetus to survive, it needs to come out by a c-section... Which would you choose? Well since you already established that if a woman is sick, then she just isn't worth that much to you, so we already know what you would pick if your "breeder" is ill.
Because a foetus is not a person and viability does not always mean 'will survive'.
Your right, I had forgotten the level of perverts I was dealing with. For example, thus far I have been compared to a plethora of things and had the title of supporting murder of babies assigned to my name. Now here you are saying that I might as well give trolls a blow job because "gasp", I actually apply reality to my argument. Because it isn't sexist at all to tell a woman that when she deals with men like you, then I might as well just give trolls like you a blowjob. And you have the nerve to say that I should not show my disgust at the display of misogyny and just downright stupidity I have seen here? Really, you sit there and wonder how to kill a woman and you are surprised that I react with disgust? You fucking sit there and determine that if a woman is terminally ill, then she just isn't worth that much or worth considering and you expect me to just, well, get on my fucking knees and suck you off, because if I find people like you offensive and disgusting, well, that's just giving you what you want, so I should just suck your dick right off the bat? I'll put it this way, I'd have rather have eaten the placenta.
Actually no. What it clearly shows is a level of stupidity rarely seen on this site. And we've dealt with many stupid people in the past.
I mean I could come up with all sorts of weird fantasies that cannot ever exist in reality to destroy another person's argument, but hey, reality is sick enough.
Your point?
Well yes dumbass, which is why the midwife asked me if I wanted it. Did you notice I never said that no woman would want to eat her placenta? It was already established that some do. But again, it's much easier for you to lie than deal with reality, yes?
Oh wow.. it just gets more stupid and more dishonest with more lying...
- Status