Is Abortion Murder?

[Bells]

Having been convinced by the persuasiveness of your arguments, I too am a Dry Foot convert, with leanings towards infanticide.

I would suggest you speak to a doctor sooner rather than later. Because your arguments are showing violent tendencies which can cause harm to women, and now also to children.

We know of women who have sought legal late third trimester abortions and been denied, and we don’t know how many such abortions happen illegally. We also know of women who were willing to illegally self abort at late stages of pregnancy. Nearly a third of all deliveries done in the US are by cesarean section, with this in mind, I thought that we should attempt to meet the needs of this desperate, neglected class of women by giving them a safer legal alternative.

The so called safer legal alternative you are recommending for women in the third trimester is only for a minute few women who have complicated pregnancies that endanger their lives and are for the second trimester, not the third trimester.

Do you also wish to kill women now as well as having "leanings towards infanticide"?

Please seek help.

HysterOtomy, not hysterECtomy.

Hysterotomy abortion is a form of abortion in which the uterus is opened through an abdominal incision and the fetus is removed, similar to a caesarean section, but requiring a smaller incision.[1] As major abdominal surgery, hysterotomy is performed under general anaesthesia, and is only used in rare situations where less invasive procedures have failed or are medically inadvisable (such as in the case of placenta accreta). It is used between the 12th and 24th week of pregnancy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterotomy_abortion

Basically a hysterotomy is an abortion via C-section. While it may carry greater risk than abortion procedures preformed earlier in pregnancy, it is no more dangerous than a C-section, at least to the mother. As I mentioned above, women and their physicians commonly accept the use of C-section for delivery of a live fetus, it’s only fair to extend this choice to those who desire to deliver a dead one.

Perhaps you should read your link first:

Hysterotomy abortion is a form of abortion in which the uterus is opened through an abdominal incision and the fetus is removed, similar to a caesarean section, but requiring a smaller incision.[1] As major abdominal surgery,hysterotomy is performed under general anaesthesia, and is only used in rare situations where less invasive procedures have failed or are medically inadvisable (such as in the case of placenta accreta).[2] It is used between the 12th and 24th week of pregnancy.[2]

This method has the greatest risk of complications out of all the abortion procedures.[2] Health officials in the United States warned practitioners against performing hysterotomy abortion in an outpatient setting after it led to the deaths of two women in New York during 1971.[3][4] The rate of mortality of abortion by hysterotomy and hysterectomy reported in the United States between 1972 to 1981 was 60 per 100,000, or 0.06%.​

I find the fact that you left out the next paragraph, which points out the dangers of the procedure and why it should be rarely used because of the risk it poses to women, interesting. Are you now also leaning towards killing women with dangerous medical procedures? Considering you are now leaning towards murdering babies and the like.

Please seek help.

 

[Capracus]

The so called safer legal alternative you are recommending for women in the third trimester is only for a minute few women who have complicated pregnancies that endanger their lives and are for the second trimester, not the third trimester.

A cesarean/hysterotomy termination is employed at any point deemed necessary during pregnancy. How do think serious surgical complications are addressed in third trimester abortions? As I mentioned earlier, while presenting more risk than other abortion procedures, a c-section done at 35 five weeks in the guise of a termination is no more dangerous to a mother’s health than a c-section done at 39 weeks for a live birth. My point was that however dangerous you perceive any late term abortion procedure to be, it’s still going to have no more risk than a live birth delivery. So if a women desires to terminate her pregnancy at full term, at least from a maternal health standpoint, she would be justified in doing so. Remember, we believe that a woman should have the right to abort at any time during pregnancy.

Do you also wish to kill women now as well as having "leanings towards infanticide"?

Did you wish to die in the process of giving birth via your own c-section? Shouldn’t a woman have the right to endure the same risk to terminate a pregnancy?

My new found leanings towards infanticide are inspired by the writings of your fellow countryman Peter Singer. He takes our arguments in favor of late term abortion and extends them postnatally.

III. The Sanctity of Human Life

Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?

A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.

Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn’t your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?

A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that’s a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.

http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html

I find the fact that you left out the next paragraph, which points out the dangers of the procedure and why it should be rarely used because of the risk it poses to women, interesting. Are you now also leaning towards killing women with dangerous medical procedures? Considering you are now leaning towards murdering babies and the like.

This method has the greatest risk of complications out of all the abortion procedures.[2] Health officials in the United States warned practitioners against performing hysterotomy abortion in an outpatient setting after it led to the deaths of two women in New York during 1971.[3][4] The rate of mortality of abortion by hysterotomy and hysterectomy reported in the United States between 1972 to 1981 was 60 per 100,000, or 0.06%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterotomy_abortion

The high risk associated with hysterotomy abortions was due to the fact that they were performed in under qualified facilities. The current mortality rate of a c-section delivery in the US is about 13 per 100,000. Are you saying that a third of women who bring a pregnancy to term in the US have a death wish?

 

[Bells]

A cesarean/hysterotomy termination is employed at any point deemed necessary during pregnancy. How do think serious surgical complications are addressed in third trimester abortions? As I mentioned earlier, while presenting more risk than other abortion procedures, a c-section done at 35 five weeks in the guise of a termination is no more dangerous to a mother’s health than a c-section done at 39 weeks for a live birth. My point was that however dangerous you perceive any late term abortion procedure to be, it’s still going to have no more risk than a live birth delivery. So if a women desires to terminate her pregnancy at full term, at least from a maternal health standpoint, she would be justified in doing so. Remember, we believe that a woman should have the right to abort at any time during pregnancy.

It is only used in very particular cases and for particular reasons, such as for when the placenta has grown into the uterine wall or even through it.

Are you seriously suggesting that women would voluntarily abort a viable foetus after 35 weeks in this fashion? And perhaps scar them for life and possibly even reduce their chances of being able to conceive and deliver again if left so late. There is a reason why it is so rare and not recommended unless absolutely necessary for the mother's health or if the foetus is later term and non-viable or will cause complications and she is unable to deliver vaginally and why it is recommended for first and second trimester in those rare cases.

Because if that is what you are suggesting, then please, again.. seek help.

Did you wish to die in the process of giving birth via your own c-section?

I actually did very nearly die in the process of giving birth via a c-section due to severe complications when I was induced. What is your point?

Shouldn’t a woman have the right to endure the same risk to terminate a pregnancy?

You have got to be joking.

Or trolling.

Or you are really stupid if you think this is going to fly.

Are you suggesting that women should be risking their lives to terminate a pregnancy? If that is the case, get a coat hanger and set up shop in your bathroom. A hysterotomy is rare for a reason, because it should only be used in very particular instances and can lead to death or permanent scarring of the uterus, which can risk the woman's life during a later pregnancy. Is this acceptable to you?

My new found leanings towards infanticide are inspired by the writings of your fellow countryman Peter Singer. He takes our arguments in favor of late term abortion and extends them postnatally.

I see. So now you not only support the protection of paedophiles and providing them with male victims that look like children and think NATO should be providing them to paedophiles in the armed forces, but you also support dangerous operations on women and the killing of children who have been born.

Peter Singer also said that sex with animals is not really a bad thing if the animal is not harmed. So perhaps you should find new philosophical heroes to worship or be inspired by.

The high risk associated with hysterotomy abortions was due to the fact that they were performed in under qualified facilities. The current mortality rate of a c-section delivery in the US is about 13 per 100,000. Are you saying that a third of women who bring a pregnancy to term in the US have a death wish?

Only if you are a gormless tool. Are you?

The morbidity rate of hysterotomy is around 17%.

A c-section is a dangerous and major operation that can have lasting complications afterwards. Which is why medical bodies say it should be the last resort, because it can impede and endanger future pregnancies and the woman in particular if she wishes to have more children in the future. I mean, your trolling is reaching new levels and frankly, I am now very concerned for the welfare of the women and children around you. Because you are clearly a dangerous and deranged individual.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Wait, isn't that the person who wanted woman to be infertile and now talking about human life?

Are woman just baby factories to you, Capracus?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

... sex with animals is not really a bad thing if the animal is not harmed.

this is also the primary argument of rapists & sociopaths as well, oddly enough
(especially serial offenders who are escalating into worsening behaviour)

this type behaviour is also typical of serial offenders who believe (in their narcissistic sociopathic minds) that as long as they get what "they" want and no one is "hurt" (usually meaning themselves) then it is OK to do what they wish
in the case of their belief, "hurt" usually means:
(starting out - pre escalation) 1- damaged in any capacity that cannot be physically healed with modern medicine, meaning death. they do NOT consider psychological trauma to be "hurt" nor do they consider it should count against them
(ending up- post escalation) 2- anything that may cause personal harm to self. sociopaths don't consider the rights, feelings or anything about their targets
(Anatomy of Motive & Descent into Darkness, John Douglas)

this seems to be a similar problem with trolls, from what i've noticed

You have got to be joking.

Or trolling.

Or you are really stupid if you think this is going to fly.

or all of the above, Bells...

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I'm still here. You can tell me how stupid I am (like so many other members) but you haven't.

Easy pickens.

 

[GeoffP]

I see. So now you not only support the protection of paedophiles and providing them with male victims that look like children and think NATO should be providing them to paedophiles in the armed forces, but you also support dangerous operations on women and the killing of children who have been born.

Is this Singer's position or what is going on here?

 

[Bells]

Is this Singer's position or what is going on here?

That is Capracus' position on paedophiles in the Afghan army, who rape little boys. He argued that NATO should provide them with young male prostitutes who look like young boys so as to a) not destablise the armed forces as he believes it would be if they were rightfully arrested and charged with raping children and b) that these young male looking prostitutes could easily pass as young boys and would be doing it for the greater good of society. The horror show starts here. Read with caution.

Capracus has also made spurious and offensive comments in this thread that defied all logic and he continues to make them. One can hope that he is merely trolling, because if he is not, then it will be a cause for concern for those unfortunate enough to be around him on a day to day basis. There are times when ignorance is bliss GeoffP, and trust me when I say this, that this is one of those times it is best to simply not understand what is going on.

That said, enough of it is enough. I don't know about others who also followed the other discussion in the other thread that he turned into a horror show, and who followed the freak show earlier on in this thread when he said things that disgusted so many people, but really, enough is enough.

 

[GeoffP]

I had a scan of it just now.

Okay... so while I'm known for adopting a logical, even utilitarian stance on issues... and while admittedly, yes, male prostitutes would 'serve' of their own volition, presumably... that is a bit fucked up. I'm not sure, given the historical premise, how one would change that behaviour (well, counseling, maybe, education, I suppose), and still that suggestion is fairly fucked up. At the same time, sure, the entire construction of everything about Afghanistan is enough to make one just stop and scream repeatedly, clawing at one's face. I mean, if one were to ask "Hey, what's Satan up to today?" I think I could provide some advice as to where one might locate him. Assuming it wasn't Washington, of course.

I'm going to take Bells' oblique advice and flee this issue screaming. That seems the sanest choice.

 

[Bells]

Wait, isn't that the person who wanted woman to be infertile and now talking about human life?

Are woman just baby factories to you, Capracus?

He said he would not have a problem with state sanction reversible sterilisation when they reach an age when they are fertile and then if they wish to have children, they would require certification:

If the state is going to criminalize late term abortions, then it’s up to women to make sure that they remain aware of their maternal status, and the state should facilitate this goal by offering no cost pregnancy screening.

I would have no problem with the state requiring reversible sterilization for all individuals reaching a state of fertility. Those who wished to exercise the privilege of parenthood could be trained, certified and allowed to do so, just like any other social activity that has significant health and safety implications. Why require certification to operate a car or a plane, but not to conceive and raise a child?

Yes, that men and women should be certified to ensure that they possess the means and technical skill to adequately raise a child before being allowed to conceive.

Let’s say a simple, safe and reversible method of sterilization or contraception is developed, and when children reach the age of 12 they are essentially vaccinated against fertility. So in my country, you wouldn’t need additional contraception to live out your dream of a nymphomaniac prostitute. If your career as a prostitute was sufficiently prosperous, and you could demonstrate a required degree of parenting skills, you would be permitted have the procedure reversed in order to conceive.

As well as what can only be considered inciting someone to violence, after that individual had stated that he saw abortion as mass murder and suggesting he was planning on possibly going to an abortion clinic to try to protest and talk women out of getting abortions.. On top of saying he would urge his daughter to have an abortion if she told him she was pregnant, I don't think it's so much as considering women to be baby factories as desiring absolute control over their reproductive processes.

 

[James R]

Capracus:

A cesarean/hysterotomy termination is employed at any point deemed necessary during pregnancy. .... So if a women desires to terminate her pregnancy at full term, at least from a maternal health standpoint, she would be justified in doing so.

You start by saying a caesarian or hysterectomy is justfied if necessary, but you end with saying a termination is justified if a woman desires it. The one doesn't seem to be related to the other.

Is this your position? Or are you trying to erect a straw man of some kind?

Remember, we believe that a woman should have the right to abort at any time during pregnancy.

Is this what you believe, or what you think somebody else believes? Who is this "we" you refer to?

My new found leanings towards infanticide are inspired by the writings of your fellow countryman Peter Singer.

Ok.

He takes our arguments in favor of late term abortion and extends them postnatally.

Does he argue in favour of late-term abortion? Where does he do that, exactly?

Did you read the interview extract that you quoted?

III. The Sanctity of Human Life

Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?

A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.

Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn’t your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?

A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that’s a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.

http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.htmlhttp://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html

http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html
(Emphasis mine, because you appear to have missed parts of the interview with Singer.)

Do you understand Singer's argument?

 

[tali89]

You don't deal with reality much, do you?
Where, exactly, did I or anyone else aside from you, say that a woman and her physician should have the right to terminate at any point including during labour?

So now you're contending that a woman should not always have the right to terminate the life of something that is inside her body? That's the first time in this thread you've even suggested as such, and I'm real curious given your constant browbeating of anyone who has suggested that this is a grey area. At what point do you think a woman should be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy?

 

[tali89]

Strangely, there doesn't appear to be much argument in the thread. I don't think anyone is in question as to the morality of using some rough guideline of viability as a delimiter for arbitrary abortive rights; everyone seems to be rejecting the end-term absolutism position, and no one could seriously suggest a forward delimiter of conception, because that would be madness.

So, perhaps we can generate some - civil - argument using a further pass. Does a mother have the right to abort a fetus after or before this fuzzy limit on basis of physical or mental deformity? As a biologist, I suppose I must take the position "Yes", but I recognize that this may be highly immoral. (Before I get pilloried by either side, let me add that, being neither a politician nor even voting these days, my ability to influence the legal status of such a decision rapidly approaches nil.)

So, without anyone flying off the handle, is this correct or incorrect, morally?

Well, the problem here is that a number of individuals appear to be arguing from emotion and political ideology, rather than fact and logic. Putting forward even the most innocuous of statements has posters pigeon-holed into a number of views that they don't actually hold. For example, being portrayed as being in favor of coercing women into having abortions if you advise your daughter (who is ill-equipped for childbirth and childrearing) to undertake the procedure. Or more comically, claiming you want to control a woman's womb for simply postulating that perhaps a human doesn't achieve 100% personhood immediately after sliding out of the birth canal.

How does one have an honest discussion with such disingenuous individuals?

 

[Capracus]

It is only used in very particular cases and for particular reasons, such as for when the placenta has grown into the uterine wall or even through it.

Technically a hysterotomy is the incising of the uterus, which is an integral component of all c-sections. A hysterotomy abortion is one that involves removing a dead fetus by way of an incision of the uterus, if it were a live fetus it would be a c-section delivery. Some of the same complications that warrant a c-section in a live birth are also present during third trimester IDX procedures, such as uterine wall insufficiencies caused by previous c-sections, and whether the fetus is alive or dead, at times the only way to successfully address such complications is by way of uterine incision.

Are you seriously suggesting that women would voluntarily abort a viable foetus after 35 weeks in this fashion? And perhaps scar them for life and possibly even reduce their chances of being able to conceive and deliver again if left so late. There is a reason why it is so rare and not recommended unless absolutely necessary for the mother's health or if the foetus is later term and non-viable or will cause complications and she is unable to deliver vaginally and why it is recommended for first and second trimester in those rare cases.

The handful of stand alone abortion clinics that specialize in late term abortions are not equipped to adequately perform surgeries such as c-sections, that’s why they don’t do them. In a well equipped surgical center, removing a terminated late term fetus by c-section would essentially be the same as delivering a live one, but due to various social issues they only engage in such practices in cases of emergency. Whether the fetus is alive or dead, the risk to a mother’s health from a c-section is the same. If mainstream surgical centers offered IDX procedures, they could likely be done full term as well, with correspondingly less risk to the mother. What ever it takes to accommodate a mother determined to terminate her pregnancy, regardless of reason or gestational age of the fetus, it’s her body and her choice.

I actually did very nearly die in the process of giving birth via a c-section due to severe complications when I was induced. What is your point?

You were not denied the surgical services necessary to deliver at full term, and a woman desiring to terminate at full term should have the same option.

Are you suggesting that women should be risking their lives to terminate a pregnancy? If that is the case, get a coat hanger and set up shop in your bathroom. A hysterotomy is rare for a reason, because it should only be used in very particular instances and can lead to death or permanent scarring of the uterus, which can risk the woman's life during a later pregnancy. Is this acceptable to you?

As I explained above, removing a dead fetus via c-section is the same as delivering a live one, and the heath risks are identical for the mother. If women are willing to accept the risk of a c-section for a live birth, then it’s not unreasonable for them to accept an identical risk for a termination. It’s their choice.

I see. So now you not only support the protection of paedophiles and providing them with male victims that look like children and think NATO should be providing them to paedophiles in the armed forces, but you also support dangerous operations on women and the killing of children who have been born.

My views on abortion and infanticide are evolving. You and Tiassa convinced me that the value of a fetus at any stage of development cannot exceed the value of the mother’s health and personal aspirations. Singer makes some equally compelling arguments regarding infants, so maybe over time I’ll come to adopt his philosophy as well.

Peter Singer also said that sex with animals is not really a bad thing if the animal is not harmed. So perhaps you should find new philosophical heroes to worship or be inspired by.

Considering the myriad of ways we abuse animals, I think that having sex with them would be the least of their worries. I would say buggery trumps butchery any day of the week.

Only if you are a gormless tool. Are you?

The morbidity rate of hysterotomy is around 17%.

You do understand the difference between mortality and morbidity, don’t you?

The morbidity rate in that study in India was 17%. The mortality rate was 0%.

Thus, hysterotomies were associated with a morbidity of 17% and serious morbidities (defined as need for unexpected surgeries and prolonged febrile illness) in 9.6% patients. Multiple blood transfusions were required in cases with antepartum bleeding. There was no mortality. Mean hospital stay was 7.4 days

http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/NJOG/article/viewFile/11136/8994

A c-section is a dangerous and major operation that can have lasting complications afterwards. Which is why medical bodies say it should be the last resort, because it can impede and endanger future pregnancies and the woman in particular if she wishes to have more children in the future.

And due in part for the desire of expedient deliveries on the part of mothers and doctors, c-sections tend to be over used in the US. I don’t disagree; vaginal births and terminations should be the method of choice when possible.

I mean, your trolling is reaching new levels and frankly, I am now very concerned for the welfare of the women and children around you. Because you are clearly a dangerous and deranged individual.

What, you think I’m going to open my own clinic?

You start by saying a caesarian or hysterectomy is justfied if necessary, but you end with saying a termination is justified if a woman desires it. The one doesn't seem to be related to the other.

A hysterotomy/cesarean section are virtually the same procedure in live birth and termination, while the vaginal procedures are not. A mother at full term facing a c-section delivery could choose to either deliver a live baby or a dead fetus depending on her personal preference. The only thing preventing the termination would be jurisdictional statutes and a willing surgical team.

Is this what you believe, or what you think somebody else believes? Who is this "we" you refer to?

After countless discussion with Tiassa and Bells about their Dry Foot policy, I’ve finally come to accept their premise that a woman should have the unrestricted right to abort a fetus at any point in her pregnancy.

Does he argue in favour of late-term abortion? Where does he do that, exactly?

The article was cited to address his view on infanticide, there are others covering his views on abortion.

Those who wish to deny the foetus a right to life may be on stronger ground if they challenge the first, rather than the second, premiss of the argument set out above. To describe a being as 'human' is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions: membership of the species Homo sapiens, and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being. If 'human' is taken as equivalent to 'person', the second premiss of the argument, which asserts that the foetus is a human being, is clearly false; for one cannot plausibly argue that a foetus is either rational or self-conscious. If, on the other hand, 'human' is taken to mean no more than 'member of the species Homo sapiens', then it needs to be shown why mere membership of a given biological species should be a sufficient basis for a right to life. Rather, the defender of abortion may wish to argue, we should look at the foetus for what it is - the actual characteristics it possesses - and value its life accordingly.

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm

 

[Tiassa]

Personal Priority

​

That said, enough of it is enough. I don't know about others who also followed the other discussion in the other thread that he turned into a horror show, and who followed the freak show earlier on in this thread when he said things that disgusted so many people, but really, enough is enough.

It seems worth noting just how personal the issue is for some people. This latest fork in our neighbor's roadworn rump roast offers a taste of its fundamental components, and what stands out is the idea that he is the spunky sauce that nobody likes, including him, that he is determined to serve because it makes a personal point. You know, the kind of willful bad chef who thinks he's making a grand statement by rollng the whole thing in excrement before bringing it to the table.

And, you know, it's true, it is an artistic statement; the thing about such statements, though, is a question of conceptual integrity, of consistency throughout the service. While most artists who would wreck food for such a purpose don't intend the food to be eaten, our neighbor would hope to make everyone sick so he can stand in front of the mirror and tell himself how good a chef he is.

It's almost like a proverbial cry for help, excecpt we don't know if he's plotting to go Poplawski all over the responders.

Think of the missing components; he still needs all doctors to be Kermit Gosnell.

To wit:

"You were not denied the surgical services necessary to deliver at full term, and a woman desiring to terminate at full term should have the same option."​

And cancer patients should have the right to treat with leeches. And OB/GYNs should offer to torture depressed women. You know, give them all their options. And that goes for men, too, you know? That is to say, why not gelding as a standard testicular cancer treatment? And it's true, there are very few doctors who will cut away the stones if there is another way to go about it. But as any sensible person recognizes, jumping the ladder like that, bypassing sensible medicine in order to invent a context of risk and drama is exactly the sort of bad practice people tend to expect doctors to avoid.

What makes anyone think introducing that sort of regression helps any discussion progress?

Well, in this case, we have a clue:

"My views on abortion and infanticide are evolving. You and Tiassa convinced me that the value of a fetus at any stage of development cannot exceed the value of the mother’s health and personal aspirations. Singer makes some equally compelling arguments regarding infants, so maybe over time I’ll come to adopt his philosophy as well."​

Intended as some manner of vicious satire―or, perhaps, vicious complex―the only thing our neighbor achieves is self-pardoy.

"Considering the myriad of ways we abuse animals, I think that having sex with them would be the least of their worries. I would say buggery trumps butchery any day of the week."​

The underlying point, it would seem, is to propose that only some manner of wild-eyed, radical fool can assert what we refer to as dryfoot. This is a continuing slapstick sketch in which our neighbor reminds that philosophy is the sort of thing anybody can do at any time, and thereby illustrates the proposition that a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.

The whole problem is trying to shortcut what appears an irreconcilable problem. It's the similar glitch as we saw in the sixteen months arguing over LACP, personhood, and bargaining away women's human rights. There is no satisfactory answer to the conundrum if one actually advocates the personhood argument; the usual response is a watch-the-birdie sleight of rhetoric, but firing a turducken at the space shuttle does not bring so subtle a result, and our neighbor has on this occasion exactly no real capacity for subtlety.

In the end, though, the failure to comprehend the dryfoot proposition does not exist in a vacuum; consider the proposition of acknowledging the humanity and human rights of women, full stop↑. As you're aware, the two concepts are inextricably intertwined. Our neighbor quite clearly has not figured out how to address that relationship, which in turn might also speak to this strange symptom of juxtaposing his aesthetics with illusion, or, such as the function resolves, comparing his aesthetics to his own aesthetics.

Infinite loop? Flat circle? One-turn maze?

Sad thing is, apparently such egocentrically-driven complexes can have even more simplistic manifestations↑. That is to say, you know, it happens every once in a while that a competitive swimmer with plenty of experience gets a bad vector off the blocks, or somehow just misses the routine, and can end up with severe injuries from hitting the bottom of the pool. And it really does sound ridiculous until you're watching them strap a swimmer to the board just in order to get out of the pool, but, you know, it happens, and it's horrifying, like, not at all funny like a the cartoon swan dive into the empty pool with all the cuckoos and sparklies and piano-key teeth.

And then there are the sort who take a night out in Tenerife and then dive into an empty swimming pool.

And I got nothin' for you about that. I mean, fucking shit happens, you know, but ... really?

(And if you crack your skull taking a bone-dry dive at a place called Playa de las Americas↱, it only makes it harder for me to not wonder if I'm watching a cartoon.)

Damn it ... I brought that up for a reason.

Never mind.
____________________

Notes:

Perry, Keith. "Brit holidaymaker fractures skull after diving into EMPTY swimming pool following night out in Tenerife". Daily Mirror. 2 February 2014. Mirror.co.uk. 10 October 2015. http://bit.ly/1MnGZko

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

It's almost like a proverbial cry for help, excecpt we don't know if he's plotting to go Poplawski all over the responders.

[sic]
it could also be a cry for attention as it is also intentionally offered in a thread typical of high emotion as well as strong beliefs...
but be forewarned, this is also typical of the intellectually adroit troll wishing to gain attention for actions that would normally be considered reprehensible.
(for example: pedophilia)

i would suggest that a Poplawski is always possible under the conditions present (high emotions and strong division between beliefs)

you could try to rule it out by using a method to moderate that would allow only evidence that is validated or commentary with evidenciary requirements that are typical of the scientific method, or at least legal proceedings (strongly enforced) But... that would only mean one would simply seek validation of beliefs thru any means necessary, including self-delusional interpretations of data. (most often associated with - mentally/psychologically incapacitated, religious fanatics or heavy conspiracist ideation )*

...and even then, there is no guarantee that an individual would not be capable of violence simply because it is difficult to predict what a person will do ...especially when their personal beliefs are challenged by others or they choose to be overly emotional and there is a literal match thrown into the flammable issue (as in: reprehensible opinion shoved into commentary by one who chooses to gain attention or is attempting to manipulate the conversation by any means or method).

This is the serious hazard highlighted during domestic confrontations, religions, or those who are mentally ill: you just never know what will happen

Damn it ... I brought that up for a reason.

Never mind.

I hope you can remember why you brought this up...



* you can see how fanatical beliefs can distort interpretations of reality and the examination of evidence can be ignored by reading the following:
The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637

 

[Tiassa]

​

I hope you can remember why you brought this up...

Actually, that's a form joke of mine, when the punch line isn't worth it; I was referring to a post I had linked↱ that made for the rhetorical version of leaping without looking. It's strange to me, but the whole thing doesn't seem complicated until I try to explain it, but that's largely because I don't quite understand the problem.

Dryfoot is a pretty straightforward concept: At the moment the organism exits outside the mother, with umbilical connection severed, there is exactly no question that we are dealing with two individual human beings.

And that's all it is.

Practically speaking, it represents a bright line: This is the moment at which there is no extant connection that can be argued subordinating dependency, such as a newly implanted zygote within a human female.

Dryfoot exists as a concept because the proposition arises; the prior phrase, "Life at conception", was always intended to mean, "Legal personhood at fertilization", and these recent years we have entered that phase of the dispute.

But dryfoot exists as a bright line. Here we have a woman: Her body, her choice, her right.. Now, in all the politicking over abortion access the question necessarily arises at what point the organism growing inside her may assert rights in order to suspend that right, that choice, that ownership of body. Dryfoot is a bright-line standard at which that question absolutely ceases to exist.

And that is all it is.

For whatever reason, some of our neighbors have a problem with that.

I explicitly defer to dryfoot. I will never be pregnant; this is not my right to bargain away.

In some Universe, this apparently means Bells must necessarily under all circumstances explicitly defer to dryfoot. I do not recall that she has explicitly established that as her own line; rather, she recognizes its functional station in the dispute, and would seem to consider it significant.

This is because of that other point I've been making, about acknowledging the huamnity and human rights of women, full stop.

The point is important because we hear, all too often, that of course someone supports women's rights, but ....

The thing is that women's rights are human rights. They're not some separate pool to be doled out in exchange for obedience, which really is an important point to make: obedience.

This is not irrelevant: Speaker Boehner has been foiled, pretty much every step of the way, by an intractable hardline subcaucus now calling itself the House Freedom Caucus. I mean, the guy has even faced a revolt led by a freshman Senator. Think of it this way: They won't even let him resign properly.

But one time, there was one time, Speaker Boehner caved to the hardliners and faced revolt straight up from the center; earlier this year, he had to pull an anti-abortion bill because the women and moderates in the Hosue Republican Conference said, "You are not going to do this." Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC02) ran point.

Cut to present. The House of Representatives is preparing to open a subcommittee hearing under the auspcies of the Energy and Commerce Committee. While we're all watching the debacle on the main stage, a fascinating farce is playing out in E&C.

That is to say, Republicans preparing to (ahem!) "investigate" Planned Parenthood, as if the Chaffetz sideshow didn't hurt enough already, are dispensing with any pretense of running anything other than a political circus. The open argument right now is whether to limit subcommittee membership to E&C, or take the unusual step of opening seats to the entire House in order to stack the panel with movement stalwarts.

And as you might expect, all the interest groups are breaking out their scorecards.

Okay. Remember: Obedience.

The majority party gets eight slots, one of which is the chairmanship. That position is highly likely to go to Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, the vice chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and leadership’s pick to deliver the announcement of the investigative panel’s establishment.

Penny Nance, the president and CEO of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, said in a statement to CQ Roll Call she was satisfied with Blackburn as chairwoman. She also urged appointments ....

(Dumain↱)​

I should note that Rep. Blackburn (R-TN04) is infamous for appearing on cable news in order to argue that equal rights under law would be an insult to women.

Of course Concerned Women for America is satisfied.

Penny Nance, the president and CEO of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, said in a statement to CQ Roll Call she was satisfied with Blackburn as chairwoman. She also urged appointments for Republican Reps. Joe Pitts of Texas, Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey, Diane Black of Tennessee, Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, Vicki Hartzler of Missouri and Andy Harris of Maryland. (Nance said CWA was also enthusiastic about Reps. Mia Love of Utah, Martha Roby of Alabama, Ann Wagner of Missouri and Larry Bucshon of Indiana.)

A source familiar with discussions over appointments to the new committee said he was pushing for the inclusion of Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony List — a group that’s also been discussing membership options with Republican leaders — said it was important the committee provide “a platform for women who speak to this issue.”​

Two things here.

(1) Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC05) is a movement stalwart, notorious for appearing at an anti-abortion rally to stand on a dais in front of a wall of conservative male legislators and tell women to thank the men for coming out to stand with women on such an important issue.

(2) Ms. Dannfelser and others would prefer this be a platform for only a certain kind of woman.

Obedience:

A specific target is Rep. Renee Ellmers. The North Carolina Republican helped get a bill pulled from the floor in January that would have allowed a woman to have an abortion after 20 weeks only in a case of rape, incest or danger to her life, and only if the woman reported the rape to the authorities first.

Ellmers wasn’t the only Republican woman who found the language overly burdensome and fought to have it removed. But she led the charge, and the vote — scheduled to coincide with the annual March for Life — was postponed.

“Her actions last January betrayed the trust of the pro-life movement,” Nance said in a statement.

“Although her office has reached out to the pro-life coalition in an effort to mend fences, the wounds are still festering. While we appreciate her willingness to investigate Planned Parenthood, this is too important an issue to leave to anyone who could potentially distract from the overall mission of this Committee.”

Douglas Johnson, the federal affairs director at the National Right to Life Committee, was less charitable: “To now reward her with a seat on the special panel would be inappropriate, to put it mildly.”​

See, the idea of a subcommittee seat is not a duty of legislating to these people. At least, not for women. Then again, this isn't going to be a real hearing.

Ms. Ellmers is not obedient enough; thus, she does not get her reward.

And that's the same problem with those who argue that they support women's rights but ....

Women's rights are human rights; they are not prizes to be doled out in exchange for obedience.

And that is why our neighbors so fear the dryfoot proposition they also seem incapable of comprehending.

The problem for them is that in acknowledging the human rights of women, full stop, they make their case that much harder. It is a lot harder than arguing, "Sure, I support women's rights, but only the ones that satisfy my aesthetics."

Yet we see how important this is to some people. Our neighbor's descent into self-denigration is what it is in terms of descending into self-denigrating autoslappy, but in these moments it would behoove us to attend the details, which say so much more about his aesthetics than anything else he might purport.
____________________

Notes:

Dumain, Emma. "House GOP Looks Outside for Advice on Planned Parenthood Panel". 218. Roll Call. 7 October 2015. Blogs.RollCall.com. 10 October 2015. http://bit.ly/1LmiM8W

 

[Capracus]

It's almost like a proverbial cry for help, excecpt we don't know if he's plotting to go Poplawski all over the responders.

You may have persuaded me to devalue human life in utero, but unlike you and Poplawski, I have too much respect for first responders to plot their demise.

Think of the missing components; he still needs all doctors to be Kermit Gosnell.

To the contrary, I want all abortions to be the products of the best medical personnel, procedure and facility available, not the slaughterhouse operation run by Gosnell. And we certainly can’t allow doctors to violate Dry Foot and kill fetuses out of proper sequence as Gosnell did, they must be killed before they are delivered.

 

[Bells]

So now you're contending that a woman should not always have the right to terminate the life of something that is inside her body? That's the first time in this thread you've even suggested as such, and I'm real curious given your constant browbeating of anyone who has suggested that this is a grey area. At what point do you think a woman should be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy?

It would help if you stopped taking my words out of context and stopped acting like a troll. Just once. Try. Go on now.. Give it a go!

Technically a hysterotomy is the incising of the uterus, which is an integral component of all c-sections. A hysterotomy abortion is one that involves removing a dead fetus by way of an incision of the uterus, if it were a live fetus it would be a c-section delivery. Some of the same complications that warrant a c-section in a live birth are also present during third trimester IDX procedures, such as uterine wall insufficiencies caused by previous c-sections, and whether the fetus is alive or dead, at times the only way to successfully address such complications is by way of uterine incision.

Had you read the links you cited and the studies I cited, you would have seen that they have a high mortality rate and are not recommended unless absolutely necessary (ie when the placenta has burrowed into the uterine wall and the mother's life is in danger). But hey, keep ignoring that.

The handful of stand alone abortion clinics that specialize in late term abortions are not equipped to adequately perform surgeries such as c-sections, that’s why they don’t do them. In a well equipped surgical center, removing a terminated late term fetus by c-section would essentially be the same as delivering a live one, but due to various social issues they only engage in such practices in cases of emergency. Whether the fetus is alive or dead, the risk to a mother’s health from a c-section is the same. If mainstream surgical centers offered IDX procedures, they could likely be done full term as well, with correspondingly less risk to the mother. What ever it takes to accommodate a mother determined to terminate her pregnancy, regardless of reason or gestational age of the fetus, it’s her body and her choice.

They don't do them because they are rarely necessary and because they endanger the woman's life. What part of that don't you understand yet? Perhaps you could start by reading your own links which also state that they are not recommended because of the high morbidity rate. C-sections are also not recommended unless absolutely necessary, because it can endanger the woman's life and reduce her chances and endanger any future pregnancy she may have.

Really, how many times does this need to be repeated?

You were not denied the surgical services necessary to deliver at full term, and a woman desiring to terminate at full term should have the same option.

Doctors will not do it for good reason. Because a) unnecessary surgery that has a high morbidity rate and can endanger the woman's life and b) it's full term, which carries with it further ethical issues. You are free to go and petition for full term abortions at an abortion clinic if you like, but pro-choice people won't be protesting with you. You are advocating risking women's lives and committing murder, because at full term, the child would have to be delivered and then murdered by the doctor. I know, you are on an infanticide kick, but if you believe the dry foot policy supports murder, then it is clear you are simply trolling or being a perverted tool. Whichever one applies to you, please apply it.

As I explained above, removing a dead fetus via c-section is the same as delivering a live one, and the heath risks are identical for the mother. If women are willing to accept the risk of a c-section for a live birth, then it’s not unreasonable for them to accept an identical risk for a termination. It’s their choice.

Not really. The risk of this type of surgical cut can and does endanger the woman's life and her chance at conceiving in the future. As do c-sections for that matter.

As I said, you are free to take a pitchfork and go and protest for full term abortions, but you will not have any support for it, because you are now advocating increasing the chance of killing women, not to mention permanently scarring them and endangering their chances of a) conceiving again and b) carrying a future pregnancy to term without injury or risk to her or her child. Not to mention limiting how many children she can actually have.

Do you wish to restrict women in how many children they choose to have, Capracus? Because this is what you are again arguing.

Considering the myriad of ways we abuse animals, I think that having sex with them would be the least of their worries. I would say buggery trumps butchery any day of the week.

If we didn't think you could top your perverted argument in protecting and pandering to paedophiles, here you go and actually prove us wrong.

You are a fucked up individual.

You do understand the difference between mortality and morbidity, don’t you?

The morbidity rate in that study in India was 17%. The mortality rate was 0%.

Thus, hysterotomies were associated with a morbidity of 17% and serious morbidities (defined as need for unexpected surgeries and prolonged febrile illness) in 9.6% patients. Multiple blood transfusions were required in cases with antepartum bleeding. There was no mortality. Mean hospital stay was 7.4 days

http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/NJOG/article/viewFile/11136/8994

For god's sake:

An analysis of abortion mortality in the United States from 1972 to 1981 revealed a death-to-case rate of 4.9 per 100,000 abortions associated with D&E, 9.6 with instillation methods and over 60 with hysterotomy and hysterectomy. Little information exists concerning potential late sequelae of second-trimester abortion. D&E appears to be the safest method of second-trimester abortion available in the United States.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3897528

Prior hysterotomy is suspected to be a risk factor for uterine rupture, as many of the case reports involve women with scarred uteri.

http://www.glowm.com/section_view/heading/Labor Induction Termination of Pregnancy/item/443

Understand now?

 

[tali89]

tali89:
So now you're contending that a woman should not always have the right to terminate the life of something that is inside her body? That's the first time in this thread you've even suggested as such, and I'm real curious given your constant browbeating of anyone who has suggested that this is a grey area. At what point do you think a woman should be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy?

Bells: It would help if you stopped taking my words out of context and stopped acting like a troll. Just once. Try. Go on now.. Give it a go!

What words of yours have I taken out of context? You stated: "Where, exactly, did I or anyone else aside from you, say that a woman and her physician should have the right to terminate at any point including during labour?" That strongly implies that even you don't think that a woman should be allowed to terminate the fetus at any point during the pregnancy. So please clarify your statement. At what point during a pregnancy should a woman not be permitted to abort the fetus?