Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Planned Parenthood exposed (Page 13)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
If you don't have a abortion, a person lives. Get one, someone does not live. The end result of abortion is that a person does not exist. Play semantic games all you want but the result will always be the same.

Or a person dies, if dead, necrotic tissue is forced to remain in their body for months.

At least you've backed away from the grossly inaccurate assertion that it's "the point" and apparently conceded that fetal death just an incidental result.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
what I mean by that is that you will get more mileage for abortion rights by focusing on a woman's autonomy over her own body, rather than dehumanizing the fetus. dehumanization by class in order to justify homicide has a very bad history with the human race.

Not true Pete. There's no way you'll get more mileage from a logical argument that requires people wanting to preserve abortion rights to admit that they are killing people to do so, than you'll get from allowing them the mental coverage that they are not killing real people.
quote:
Termination of a Blastocyst terminates human life but does not terminate A human life.
Based on what logic? You acknowledge that this is just an opinion correct? Unless we're talking the 80's The Thing (from outerspace) I'm not aware of a world where your spilled drop of blood has a potential to develop into a new human being.

You're just playing a definitional game here.
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
No argument with this concept, but it goes both ways. Describing every abortion as the killing of an unborn baby is an attempt to equate the removal of a clump of cells in the very early stages of pregnancy with destroying a full term neonate. I think that is a harmful and false equivalency. Note that the mainstream of the pro-life side already concedes limitations on abortion later in the pregnancy when the comparison to an infant is more viable.

Not sure it's an attempt to equate, rather than a simple statement of belief. Pete is correct, that one could still believe in abortion rights and accept that even a clump of cells is a person.

But I think your implication is wrong, people don't hold this position as a tactic. It would be an odd cynical duck that doesn't have a problem with aborting a clump of cells but equates a full term fetus with the clump of cells to restrict that abortion anyway. They make the argument because they believe aborting the cells is itself wrong.

I may be the exception, but I pretty much do hold as Pete suggests, I think the clump of cells is a person with rights, but that those rights cannot outweigh the rights of the mother to control her own body. As I said before, at viability there is no longer a conflict and abortion should no longer be legal. I even think when we get to a future where we can remove and tank grow a baby abortion should be outlawed. I look forward to the day, when the state takes the baby and forces both the mother and father to pay child support to bring back balance in how we treat the responsibility issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrotolin:
No, a clinical abortion as provided by PP or a similar provider has a point- that point is to terminate a pregnancy; to allow a woman full choice in deciding how to manage her body and her health. Fetal death is a common and unavoidable consequence of it. But it is not the point or goal of providers offering the service.

I completely disagree with this statement, and think it's actually false. By implication, abortion providers should be willing to remove the fetus alive if death is not the point, and they clearly are not so willing. There's no mistake here, a live underdeveloped child is not an acceptable result of an abortion and hence death is a point.

Removing a dead fetus, is not to my knowledge controversial for anyone, and as you seem to enjoy pointing out to Pete, completely irrelevant to the thread.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Unless we're talking the 80's The Thing (from outerspace) I'm not aware of a world where your spilled drop of blood has a potential to develop into a new human being.
That's irrelevant to his point. Otherwise you have to hold people accountable for every unused sperm and egg cell, and every embryo discarded after an IV fertilization process. Heck, with more advances in cloning technology, then any cell with a readable set of DNA becomes a potential human life.

quote:
By implication, abortion providers should be willing to remove the fetus alive if death is not the point, and they clearly are not so willing.
They are not only willing to, but legally required to where the fetus is independently viable and doing so would not increase the risk of the procedure. That's a nice example of blatantly false propaganda that you've tried to provide as factual evidence, though.

quote:
Removing a dead fetus, is not to my knowledge controversial for anyone, and as you seem to enjoy pointing out to Pete, completely irrelevant to the thread.
Except that bans on abortion would, de fact, ban doing it, and of course the point wasn't that they're controversial but rather that they demonstrate that the life of the fetus is incidental to the process.

quote:
I even think when we get to a future where we can remove and tank grow a baby abortion should be outlawed. I look forward to the day, when the state takes the baby and forces both the mother and father to pay child support to bring back balance in how we treat the responsibility issue.
If the state is going to require such extraction, then the state must also take full responsibility in reflection that it is the one that asserts that it is taking that child as its own. That's a horrific violation of individual rights that you're proposing, for apparently, little reason other than to impose a moralistic punishment on people not behaving the way you want them to.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
if you don't know why I said what I said, either educate yourself or simply ask me. Don't toss around brainless accusations.

This is not some stupid definition game..

Remember Solomon's choice? Cut a baby in half and the baby dies. Cut a blastocyst in half, and it can grow into two Blastocysts. Put a blastocyst into a wound and it will become the sort of cells that fill in the gap. Like stem cells.

Stick two half-blastocyst together and they can inplant as a single human being, albeit a chimera composed of two different genetic identities.

Go read up on stem cell research. Focus on articles that do not mention abortion because the prolifers and prochoicers collude to dupe the public on this topic. A blastocyst is very much human life without being "a" human life.

Learn a little biology before you accuse me of dissembling on this topic again. I taught university Bioethics and with SB gone am probably the best educated here in that field, which is a sad thing.

[ December 01, 2015, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But I think your implication is wrong, people don't hold this position as a tactic. It would be an odd cynical duck that doesn't have a problem with aborting a clump of cells but equates a full term fetus with the clump of cells to restrict that abortion anyway. They make the argument because they believe aborting the cells is itself wrong.
I think you're crazy if you believe that pro-life messaging doesn't use word choice as a tactic. Next you're going to tell me that no politicians exploit the issue for political reasons.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Not true Pete. There's no way you'll get more mileage from a logical argument that requires people wanting to preserve abortion rights to admit that they are killing people to do so, than you'll get from allowing them the mental coverage that they are not killing real people. "

I meant on Ornery, where people are somewhat more intelligent and less brainwashed. My arguments actually have convinced two pro lifers on this forum over the years. Pyr's argument only works on the brainwashed. On people willing to snuff out their conscience with a magic word, because an authority figure says it's OK to kill.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr is correct that ABORTION PROVIDERS refer to the removal of a dead fetus as a type of "abortion" but this is not scientific usage. In the biological parlance, the operation would be called removal of a spontaneously aborted fetus. Obviously removal isn't abortion or else Cesareans would be abortion. It's typical hypocrisy for this debate to demand that fetus sympathists stop saying "baby" while parroting the antiscientific jabber that the industry used to blur the issue.


"Except that bans on abortion would, de fact, ban doing it, "

The most commonly proposed "ban on abortion" (and referred to as such by planned parenthood) is simply to remove the abortion EXCEPTION from the MURDER statute.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some of us are OK with "refusing to facilitate life" and view that differently than "killing". Is self defense still killing someone? Yes, but it's not the same as murder.


I'd like it if Seriati was correct and that a logical argument was enough. I think even here on Ornery, where people are somewhat more intelligent and less brainwashed, we can admit that logic is not enough. This is an emotional issue and a politically potent issue. Logic is rarely enough when a topic can be leveraged for votes.

As soon as you concede that you are "killing" or "murdering" then you are thrust into the emotional side which favors one political party in particular. Logic takes a back seat. You are KILLING a defenseless CHILD! There is no excuse!

So call it dishonest if you want, but attempting to contain the issue with logic and using language coldly stripped of emotion is necessary still. We are not (not enough or often enough at least) creatures of logic.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I meant on Ornery, where people are somewhat more intelligent and less brainwashed. My arguments actually have convinced two pro lifers on this forum over the years. Pyr's argument only works on the brainwashed. On people willing to snuff out their conscience with a magic word, because an authority figure says it's OK to kill.
Wow, it only took you two sentences to prove your own strange way of thinking only works in your own bubble chamber. Does it hurt to pat yourself on the back that hard while kicking someone else in the stomach at the same time?

More soberly, you're demonstrating why Ornery has almost entirely lost its aura of authenticity and interest in open dialogue.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As soon as you concede that you are "killing" or "murdering" then you are thrust into the emotional side which favors one political party in particular"

I disagree with your placing killing as equivalent to murder. An educated person should recognise that living cells are killed all the time. We kill plants and animals for consumption.

The word kill can even be used AGAINST the ignorant prolifers who insist that medical use of stem cells is "murder" because the stem cells DON'T EVEN DIE. They simply grow into a living part rather than a living creature.

To the extent that euphemism obscure the truth, they do more harm than good.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree with your seeming assumption of what "an education person should recognize" or maybe, an assumption about the number of "educated persons" and how they are relevant to politics.

When you partake of a duel of logic against a person fighting from a foundation of passionate emotion, the result tends to be hate, contempt, fear or loathing. They use your "know it all attitude" as further evidence you are attempting to control others. It essentially becomes fuel for their cause not a counter to it.

Do you think that the general public on the pro life side of the debate can be persuaded to debate the issue from a foundation of logical opposition towards abortion. If so, what would encourage that to come about?

Or, if there are those who believe it's already the case and I'm being too partisan, spell it out for me.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
I meant on Ornery, where people are somewhat more intelligent and less brainwashed. My arguments actually have convinced two pro lifers on this forum over the years. Pyr's argument only works on the brainwashed. On people willing to snuff out their conscience with a magic word, because an authority figure says it's OK to kill.
Wow, it only took you two sentences to prove your own strange way of thinking only works in your own bubble chamber. *[snip Al's typical motive reading and smug personal attacks*].
I am sorry if in all your advanced years Ornery is the only place you have found educated and free thinking discursants

I meant Ornery specifically because this is the place Pyr was making the arguments that presumed that his listeners were brainwashed buffoons who can flip off their brain and conscience like Milgram Experiment subjects when an authority figure says "unperson"

It's foolish for you to presume I meant that Ornery is the only place that people have thinking caps. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming your response was not intentionally obtuse.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rather, it was acute. Ornery *used* to be a debate and discussion forum. In my advancing years I wish it were more like that.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW, with honest respect, I disagree that we disagree. [Smile]

I think that if you were to correctly restate what I said every educated person should know, that you would find yourself in agreement.

As to the relevance of education to politics, I have no position, so I cannot disagree with you there. I HOPE educated persons can make political debate more honest and informed. I THINK we have a moral duty to try. Do you disagree?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wish for the same. I guess that's sort of like hope with a dash of depression?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll also say that I regard the obvious falsity of the "personhood" brainwashing as the most proximate cause for most antichoice terrorism. Rather than "religion" being the cause of the pro life movement, it has simply provided a tradition by which a person can dissent from legal fatwas on personhood. Pro abortion personhood rhetoric drives many persons of conscience to church. Just as occurred with slavery 150 years ago. Deprived of any moral authority in their nihilistic government, many Americans turn to a god that they otherwise would never have considered believing in.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I wish for the same. I guess that's sort of like hope with a dash of depression?

I hear you, Brother.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Rather, it was acute. Ornery *used* to be a debate and discussion forum. In my advancing years I wish it were more like that.

Since dec 2000 when I created my Pete account, I never spent a month on Ornery without hearing someone bemoaning the good old days when there was better discussion. As I remember, 2003 was a particularly good year for nostalgia. Whole threads dedicated to the folks that had left, and the wonderful discussions we used to know. You 2015 nostalgics have nothing on the 2003 ones, sonny.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There was even a period of time in which the hypernostalgics would write big hyperventilating threads about how they were leaving Ornery, and why, and who was to blame, and then they would come back two days later under a different avatar and resume their old arguments.

Methinks the good old days weren't always good. But I do miss a lot of those we have lost. Best ones drifted away without funfair.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So call it dishonest if you want, but attempting to contain the issue with logic and using language coldly stripped of emotion is necessary still. "

Although I regard the Civil War as terrible, I am not convinced that one could have formulated an effective antislavery argument using language "coldly stripped of emotion." Also, the anti personhood argument is inherently violent. To fail to recognize that would feel wrong.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Although I regard the Civil War as terrible, I am not convinced that one could have formulated an effective antislavery argument using language "coldly stripped of emotion."
You are right.

There are people who are swayed more by logic and people who are swayed more by emotions. Those more swayed by emotion are (IMO) more inclined to focus narrowly and ignore or dismiss long term repercussions or collateral damage.

Abortion is about weighing two unjust results. A woman forced to carry a child to term and all the physical and emotional distress that entails; and an a life ended before it's even drawn a breath. Neither is "acceptable" morally.

So we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Shockingly, which is MORE evil is not unanimously agreed upon.

The pro-life side, correctly (or instinctively?) leverages the emotional argument. This is death! The top of the pile of "bad things" we are talking about. You don't need to think this through or understand the big picture. This is a sweet innocent baby being ended by a selfish mother who could have chosen not to have sex in the first place.

The Pro-choice side has already lost the morality fight. As awful as being condemned to being an unwilling incubation chamber and subjected to all the physical and psychological changes that entails, it is now measured against death. Worse yet, if you view it as the child inflicting these things on the mother, without malice or intent at all and balance that that against what the woman wants to do to the child, you've lost again.

So how do you summon up moral indignation and righteous fury for the woman against a fetus? Who is the outlet for that emotional focus? I don't see how there can be one. A woman should have freedom! And this potential baby is an oppressor? No, it's the government's opposition to my ability to make... You've stopped listening haven't you?

So you are right, stripping emotion out of anti-slavery arguments wouldn't have been prudent. You likely COULD do so, but it is much easier to get someone to realize they should be just and moral when the flip side is just inconvenience and loss of profit. It takes dehumanizing and emotional detatchment to maintain slavery. An emotional plea works to counter that. This is why the pro-life movement is employing it here.

I don't fault them that tactic. I fault them for being dishonest about the sacrifices they are demanding of the women they wish to refuse abortions to. They are morally content with possibly ruining one or more lives to save a life. It shouldn't be an easy choice.

Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. It's about acknowledging there is a painful and serious choice that has lasting repercussions.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. "

I agree. I consider you, fenring, myself, and many others pro choice. Otoh those that justify abortion by dehumanizing the fetus with the "personhood" shibboleth are pro abortion. They may or may not also be pro choice, depending on whether they think a woman has the right to decline an abortion. No one who thinks that parents courts and guardians should be able to compel a woman to abort, should be called "pro choice" among educated discursants

[ December 01, 2015, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think most of them are not "pro-abortion" but one of two things Pete.

1. They are not honest enough with themselves to realize they ARE willing to choose the woman's right to choose if it means ending a life.

2. They have no faith that the right to choose can survive an honest (as I see it) statement of that the choice is in the current political climate.

I don't believe there is a statistically relevant amount of people who are conspiring to keep population down by being pro-abortion or those who want to promote the issue just to spit in the face of the religious moralists out there.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
3. The personhood argument is sometimes valid (such as very early term)
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To me, the personhood argument is meaningless. I understand its validity from a legal justification standpoint though.

A pregnancy is viable or not. The time in that pregnancy doesn't enter into it for me. But I'm not charged with drafting law which explains WHY my decision is acceptable and should be respected by others. THAT is where the personhood argument comes into play.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"
I don't believe there is a statistically relevant amount of people who are conspiring to keep population down by being pro-abortion or those who want to promote the issue just to spit in the face of the religious moralists out there.,"

If you mean statistically as part of the population, then I agree. But as part of the Supreme Court, 1/9,=11.11%, Justice Stephens was "statistically relevant" in a matter of speaking.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
3. The personhood argument is sometimes valid (such as very early term)

I'd rather speak of arguably measurable attributes such as sentience, than resort to quasi religious legal fictions to dehumanize by class.

Absence of recognizable human brain waves doesn't single out a class of humans for unpersoning. It rather creates the protected class, rather than creating exclusions. We say the law protects humans with human brainwave patterns. That says when abortion cannot be done without restriction other that mother's request. And also when one can pull the plug.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
if you don't know why I said what I said, either educate yourself or simply ask me. Don't toss around brainless accusations.

This is not some stupid definition game..

***

Learn a little biology before you accuse me of dissembling on this topic again. I taught university Bioethics and with SB gone am probably the best educated here in that field, which is a sad thing.

I think that I wrote that too aggressive, apologies. However, I don't think it necessarily follows that because a Blastocyst can be manipulated that its not a human life. Biology is not necessarily a convincing argument against philosophy, which is what I meant by asserting that it was your opinion (note, I didn't say it was unjustified).

Maybe we could highlight it with another example, is Caitlin Jenner a man or a woman?
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
That's irrelevant to his point. Otherwise you have to hold people accountable for every unused sperm and egg cell, and every embryo discarded after an IV fertilization process. Heck, with more advances in cloning technology, then any cell with a readable set of DNA becomes a potential human life.

No, I said blood was different, so would be sperm, unfertilized eggs and DNA, none of which could ever develop into a new human being without additional interference.

Discarded embryos are certainly a trickier issue. I'm sure you are not surprised that opinions vary on them.
quote:
quote:
By implication, abortion providers should be willing to remove the fetus alive if death is not the point, and they clearly are not so willing.
They are not only willing to, but legally required to where the fetus is independently viable and doing so would not increase the risk of the procedure. That's a nice example of blatantly false propaganda that you've tried to provide as factual evidence, though.
Can you provide proof of your extraordinary claim that women who go in for an abortion are sometimes presented with a live baby they didn't ask for (as a result of an intentional decision by the abortionist to deliver a live baby)? Or am I completely misunderstanding what you seem to be implying.
quote:
quote:
Removing a dead fetus, is not to my knowledge controversial for anyone, and as you seem to enjoy pointing out to Pete, completely irrelevant to the thread.
Except that bans on abortion would, de fact, ban doing it, and of course the point wasn't that they're controversial but rather that they demonstrate that the life of the fetus is incidental to the process.
Nothing about what you said follows logically, people and laws are not mindless. I see no evidence that there is any likiehood that a ban on abortions would require that women carry dead fetuses to term. It doesn't remotely demonstrate your point that the life of the fetus is incidental to the process.
quote:
If the state is going to require such extraction, then the state must also take full responsibility in reflection that it is the one that asserts that it is taking that child as its own. That's a horrific violation of individual rights that you're proposing, for apparently, little reason other than to impose a moralistic punishment on people not behaving the way you want them to.
Lol, its exactly identical to the current standard requiring a male to pay child support to a female that chooses to carry a baby not wanted by the male to term. And it's exactly the same argument about responsibility that imposes those costs. But I'm glad you agree its a horrible violation of the individual rights of men today.

[ December 01, 2015, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My problem with recognizing rights of the fetus is that it leads inexorably towards significant infringements on the rights of pregnant women. It's the foundation of the criminalization of miscarriage which I find particularly odious. If the rights of the fetus never supersede the rights of the woman, then it doesn't really have rights does it?

Fetal rights allows for the criminalization of behavior that may be potentially harmful to the fetus. If you're pregnant (or might be) smoking or drinking or horseback riding could be illegal. If rights come into conflict, there's nothing that says the most reasonable interpretation will prevail.

quote:
single out a class of humans for unpersoning.
Pete, this is what I mean by "pre-suppose the fetus is a person or a non-technical definition of human." The argument only works if the premise is that a fetus is human (for non-trivial values of human) has already been accepted.
quote:
Maybe we could highlight it with another example, is Caitlin Jenner a man or a woman?
That depends on what you mean by "man" and "woman". Those terms reflect a specific model of how to categorize people. Weren't you just complaining about the inadequacy of certain models?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Since dec 2000 when I created my Pete account, I never spent a month on Ornery without hearing someone bemoaning the good old days when there was better discussion. As I remember, 2003 was a particularly good year for nostalgia. Whole threads dedicated to the folks that had left, and the wonderful discussions we used to know. You 2015 nostalgics have nothing on the 2003 ones, sonny.
That explains the un-self-aware bubble you sit within. Even now you're able to pat yourself on the back for being here forever and already having passed through nostalgia while dismissing my own regrets about this place. It's good to be an elder, eh?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glad you caught the irony even though you didn't get that I was being intentionally ironic when I waxed nostalgic about past nostalgia.

Take a break, buddy. I don't dismiss what you said. I just put it into a wider context.

"Good to be an elder"
But hardly as much power or influence over the forum as having been a Mod.

"That explains the un-self-aware bubble you sit within."

I respectfully submit that I am more aware of my self than you are. That's a concept you should be able to grok.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH, most existant modern western codes of law and ethics presume that every living human is "is a person or a non-technical definition of human.". Even Dredd Scott and Row v Wade start with this as a presumption, albeit a reputable presumption. It's up to you to prove that an unborn child (as 5+month fetuses have been called for centuries and still are when people aren't posturing for politics)

Look up how Dredd Scott and Row resolve the human in-person hurdle to arrive at your "only technically human" conclusion. READ them because you won't believe me when I say that the court pulled a Tevye. Tradition, tradition, and without our traditions our lives would be as slippery as an embryo on the roof. Yes, the Supreme Court of these Secular United States of America actually cited medieval laws derived from Catholic Canon law, to arrive at the conclusion that since TRADITION did not punish a woman for abortion as much as for, say, infanticide, that a fetus was by tradition not a "person.". In other words SCOTUS assumed that there was NO special protection of a woman's bodily sovereignty, in order to declare the fetus in-person, ergo abortable.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, I said blood was different, so would be sperm, unfertilized eggs and DNA, none of which could ever develop into a new human being without additional interference.
In other words, none of those are any different than a human embryo, which also cannot develop into a human without active interference from the mother's body directing the cells in it to develop in a certain way. It's only once the fetus reaches the stage where it's independently viable that it's actually capable of developing into a new being independently, and even that's questionable, as it requires a huge amount of medical intervention to get it there until the last couple of weeks.

quote:
an you provide proof of your extraordinary claim that women who go in for an abortion are sometimes presented with a live baby they didn't ask for (as a result of an intentional decision by the abortionist to deliver a live baby)? Or am I completely misunderstanding what you seem to be implying.
Do you seriously need me to cite you the laws that specify that a fetus past he point of viability should be extracted alive if doing so poses no significant risk?

quote:
Nothing about what you said follows logically, people and laws are not mindless. I see no evidence that there is any likelihood that a ban on abortions would require that women carry dead fetuses to term.
IF you can't abort the pregnancy, how do you propose the dead tissue is removed? Cross your fingers and hope for a miscarriage in time to protect the mother, since any medical assistance in doing so would qualify as an abortion?

quote:
Lol, its exactly identical to the current standard requiring a male to pay child support to a female that chooses to carry a baby not wanted by the male to term. And it's exactly the same argument about responsibility that imposes those costs. But I'm glad you agree its a horrible violation of the individual rights of men today.
Absolutely. It's an absurd relic of badly designed moralistic law, if there had been no explicit pledge to provide support for a child. The state should be providing everyone with a sufficient baseline of support that there's no need to try to squeeze money out of people that otherwise have no real involvement. That's part of what it's fundamentally there for in the first place.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
No, I said blood was different, so would be sperm, unfertilized eggs and DNA, none of which could ever develop into a new human being without additional interference.
In other words, none of those are any different than a human embryo, which also cannot develop into a human without active interference from the mother's body directing the cells in it to develop in a certain way.
Correct. The right harps on the claim that the blastocyst is "a potential life" but that is one of the few things it is not.

A blastocyst is a clump of undifferentiated stem cells. It is already living, so calling it potential life is erroneous. It potentially could become an independent creature. Could become multiple living creatures. Could become part of a living creature. And potentially could become a tumor in a living creature, as too often occurs in stem cell research.

Pro abotlrtion twerps aren't the only ones screwing with language to brainwash when they talk about removing a dead body being "abortion". Toxic lifers argue that we "murder" blastocysts (called "frozen embryos" to minimize the uneducated) when we use them to create spare parts. But how can it be "murder" when nothing even dies? The blastocyst cells live on and multiply, according to their potential. Where is the murder?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
It's only once the fetus reaches the stage where it's independently viable that it's actually capable of developing into a new being independently, and even that's questionable, as it requires a huge amount of medical intervention to get it there until the last couple of weeks.

This line sounds reasonable until one notices that the slippery slope here is slippery indeed. If "independently viable" is to be your standard for whether an entity has rights then a newborn or even a young infant absolutely does not qualify. At first you need to force the thing to breathe on its own, and then for a year or two you need to literally force it to eat to make it survive. The effective difference in dependency between feeding an infant and feeding a fetus through umbilical cord is approximately zero. It can't do anything by itself and if you don't 'interfere' with the entity it will die.

And yet I don't suppose you'll accept having championed the idea of infanticide as a new form of abortion. So how do you draw the line between the two? The infant is outside and visible so it's too gross to think about doing that?

I could take the slippery slope further and suggest that even an adult is not independent in any kind of rigorous sense as people like to trick themselves into thinking. Take away the nutritive environment and the adult dies as well. You may think you "feed yourself" as an adult but such a simple statement would be omitting all of the factors out of your control that make eating possible, and for which a person can be nothing but be thankful that they're there. That is, in fact, the entire principle behind giving thanks for one's daily bread, as I understand it. It's a recognition that no one is independently self-sufficient.

So your standard as stated is surely insufficient to explain why a late-term fetus should be considered to not be a human being.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Do you seriously need me to cite you the laws that specify that a fetus past he point of viability should be extracted alive if doing so poses no significant risk?"

Does that include "risk" of mom being kept up with a crying baby or of having to pay child support?

Rough consequences I grant, but hardly a justification for de fecto infanticide.

Am just fine if the law stipulated significant risk of physical medical damage to the mother, or even significant risk of medical risk to the mother and created some oversight to make sure it was risk associated with the birth process rather than associated with being a mommy.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
If you don't have a abortion, a person lives. Get one, someone does not live. The end result of abortion is that a person does not exist. Play semantic games all you want but the result will always be the same.

Or a person dies, if dead, necrotic tissue is forced to remain in their body for months.

At least you've backed away from the grossly inaccurate assertion that it's "the point" and apparently conceded that fetal death just an incidental result.

I didn't, I think you just kind of scrub your mind that way. I don't blame you.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. "

Of course it is. You're just trying to hold it at arms length.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Take away the nutritive environment and the adult dies as well.
And there's your key. Prior to viability, if just provide a nutritive environment to the fetus, it will not continue to develop. A blastocyst in a nutritive environment will remain a blastocyst. Any time before its actually reached a point where all organs have been built beyond a certain point, they will stop developing without the enzymatic action from the mother's body that is actively programming the child's stem cells to become differentiates organ cells.

Even a viable, premature infant requires special lubricants to be applied to its lungs so that it can breathe, which is an exceptional measure that we go to to extend viability back beyond the point where simple nutrition is enough to basically maintain life.

And newborn infants do not need to be forced to breath or seek food. Place a newborn on its mothers belly and it will actually squirm its way up to her breast to eat, given a little time and gentle stimulation and it will start to breath air (the breathing reflex has already been active in the womb, it's just been 'breathing' amniotic fluid) It used to be standard practice to hurry the process along for medical expediency, but that's been falling out of favor.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"Do you seriously need me to cite you the laws that specify that a fetus past he point of viability should be extracted alive if doing so poses no significant risk?"

Does that include "risk" of mom being kept up with a crying baby or of having to pay child support?

You're confusing justification to have an abortion with procedural requirements in the process. And making judgments on facts of other peoples life that you don't have a full understanding of and have no business inserting yourself into.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14  15   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1