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 14)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  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:
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.
And actually, the normal case is multiple choices from the above. In a normal pregnancy, the mother's body ends up reabsorbing some of the cells throughout the development process and using them for its own purposes despite retaining the different DNA.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
The end result of abortion is that a person does not exist.

And this is why it is useless to have these arguments. If you think an embryo is equivalent to a teenager, of course you think abortion is sick. If you think an embryo is equivalent to the epidermis, you think abortion is about as awful as a pedicure. Which is why some on this thread have tried to define when this moment occurs in human development, at the moment when brain activity occurs (which is the current definition of life at the end of a human life).

The counter argument - nope, it is a human life from implantation, is the same argument that gets made against the determination of brain death. Parallels also exist in the harvesting argument - that people are only being declared brain-dead so the hospital can sell their organs. Also, in the right to euthanasia, which is the ultimate control over one's body - the right to stop breathing - and yet which also remains illegal even when the individual in question can speak for themselves.

I suspect we talk more about abortion than brain death and euthanasia because of both the scale and the greater dissonance of ending a completely healthy life, but they are points on the same trident. Also, completely unresolvable by argument, I suspect.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  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 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.
wow, you really got me there. /sarcasm. If you are unwilling to read additional interference in the way I have no doubt you knew it was written, ie that such interference requires an intentional act and sometimes an extraordinary feat of science then your just being difficult. Do you think breathing requires as much intent as walking now?

For the avoidance of doubt, I also acknowledge that a blastocyst can be generated in places, ways and locations that require extraordinary measures to cause it to have a chance to successfully develop into a human.
quote:
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?
So no, you can't provide proof of your nonsensical reformulation. I'll give you another chance to prove me wrong by citing to examples of women who seek to terminate a fetus by abortion and are given a live baby instead (generally speaking such a baby would be severely premature, and almost certain represent a massive liability risk to such doctor and/or the mother as it grew older). Citing to laws that prohibit or restrict late term abortions are pretty meaningless.
quote:
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?
I said your word games were silly. I put a zero weight on your assertion that laws that prohibit aborting live fetuses would have to restrict aborting dead ones. There's absolutely no logical reason that it would follow as a necessity, other than your apparent belief that the rest of humanity is too stupid to understand such a distinction. It'd be like saying that laws prohibiting voluntary amputation of a limb (intended to prohibit aiding the mentally in intentionally harming themselves) places a risk on medically necessary amputations.
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
"Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. "

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

No, the first is a belief in rights, the second is an agreement with the specific exercise of those rights. We can support any number of rights of other people and be completely opposed to how they choose to exercise them.
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:
. If you are unwilling to read additional interference in the way I have no doubt you knew it was written, ie that such interference requires an intentional act and sometimes an extraordinary feat of science then your just being difficult.
That is exactly how I read it, and until the point of viability that is exactly what's required. (And even after our current point of viability)

A blastocyst, simply allowed to have nutrition will remain a blastocyst, or perhaps split into multiple blastocysts. It takes enzymatic action to specialize the cells- they'll specialize into whatever organ they're placed with, and it's only though active processing in the womb that they actually start to from the organs of a new individual being (or perhaps multiple if the blastocyst happens to split before the specialization process begins)

quote:
Do you think breathing requires as much intent as walking now?
Amusingly enough, your position is the one that says they're effectively both automatic. I'm pointing out that walking takes specialized external training to promote walking, it doesn't happen simply by instinct, the way breathing does. Embryonic cells can only become a human body if shaped into on by the mother's enzymes; the cells on their own, even properly nourished, will not instinctively form a human body on their own.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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:
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.
I guess you just don't understand what "nutritive environment" means. You mention enzymatic action as if it is somehow apart from this. "Oh, it can have a nutritive environment, but it still needs enzymes!" Why do you assume that such enzymes are not part of the environment I mentioned? As others suggest, you're playing word games to squirm out of your wrong statements.

Adults live in a cushy bag of atmosphere surrounding the planet, and if you take it away they die. A fetus sits in a cushy bag of nutrients too. Wow, big difference. The human brain isn't finished basic development until around age 20. Just the fact of requiring the surrounding materials to survive or grow cannot be a factor in determining whether a being has rights. Of if it is a factor you need to draw an arbitrary line at some age and admit it's arbitrary. This is actually totally all right, and such a position would be both logical and consistent. But you aren't content to say this, you want to be able to state some universal law that makes you correct by definition. Sorry to tell you but you can't. That's what makes this debate so difficult.

quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
I suspect we talk more about abortion than brain death and euthanasia because of both the scale and the greater dissonance of ending a completely healthy life, but they are points on the same trident. Also, completely unresolvable by argument, I suspect.

Who is this "we"? People talk about euthanasia plenty. Many Christians in particular have both abortion and euthanasia at the top of their lists of things they have a problem with. In the long run I suspect the euthanasia issue is going to be more society-defining than the abortion issue will be.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 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:

I'll give you another chance to prove me wrong by citing to examples of women who seek to terminate a fetus by abortion and are given a live baby instead (generally speaking such a baby would be severely premature, and almost certain represent a massive liability risk to such doctor and/or the mother as it grew older).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Jessen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldenburg_Baby
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Ohden

Are a few cases. IN all cases, the child was put up for adoption, not forced on the parent that was attempting to end their pregnancy.

quote:
Citing to laws that prohibit or restrict late term abortions are pretty meaningless.
quote:

Laws that require a viable child that survives an abortion attempt to be treated as if they were a successful live birth are not laws that prevent late term abortions.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr2175

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:
You mention enzymatic action as if it is somehow apart from this. "Oh, it can have a nutritive environment, but it still needs enzymes!" Why do you assume that such enzymes are not part of the environment I mentioned?
Because they are not nutrients. They're outside agents acting on the cells. OTherwise you're back at the point where sperm, eggs, and any cell that contains a full set of genetic information is equally covered as a potential human, since they could, with sufficient outside action, be-purposed into a new human body.
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:
Adults live in a cushy bag of atmosphere surrounding the planet, and if you take it away they die.
But the body of the human in question uses the air to promote its own development. The air does not actively repurpose human cells in ways that are required for the human to develop. (In fact, we call the things in the air that repurpose human cells to their own ends "viruses" and tend to need to fight them off)
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:
Of if it is a factor you need to draw an arbitrary line at some age and admit it's arbitrary.
There really is not arbitrary limit. There's the point where a woman is making her own health decisions about her own body, with expert advice as necessary, and there's the other side of the line where choices are being made on behalf of a distinct being outside of her own body. Any law that says that she cannot make her own choices about her own health and her own body is an impingement on her rights to self determination.
We already acknowledge that we cannot compel people to donate organs, marrow, or even blood to others, regardless of critical need or invasiveness. Except that we seem to be making a one off exemption that only affects women by forcing them to actually give host to another and put themselves at considerable risk, without regard to their express wishes and desires as to whether their body can be used this way.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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:
quote:
Adults live in a cushy bag of atmosphere surrounding the planet, and if you take it away they die.
But the body of the human in question uses the air to promote its own development. The air does not actively repurpose human cells in ways that are required for the human to develop. (In fact, we call the things in the air that repurpose human cells to their own ends "viruses" and tend to need to fight them off)
Except that even this isn't true. We have symbiotic relationship with all kinds of organisms including bacteria, without which we would die. Viruses, not as far as I know. But active living agents that keep us alive? Yes.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 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:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Adults live in a cushy bag of atmosphere surrounding the planet, and if you take it away they die.
But the body of the human in question uses the air to promote its own development. The air does not actively repurpose human cells in ways that are required for the human to develop. (In fact, we call the things in the air that repurpose human cells to their own ends "viruses" and tend to need to fight them off)
Except that even this isn't true. We have symbiotic relationship with all kinds of organisms including bacteria, without which we would die. Viruses, not as far as I know. But active living agents that keep us alive? Yes.
Not to the degree that they're repurposing our cells to their own ends. Even in the case of symbiosis, they simply provide us with materials that our bodies then use according to its programming. In fetal development, that programming is being put in place. This isn't nutrition, this is active reshaping to a degree that would be considered a grave infection under any other circumstances.

Also, note- the cells in question would not die without such action on them. They would continue to live and thrive. We have multiple such cultures for research purposes doing just that. They simply would remain a collection of cells and never spontaneously decide to develop into a human body.

[ December 02, 2015, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

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 Pyrtolin:
[QB]
quote:

I'll give you another chance to prove me wrong by citing to examples of women who seek to terminate a fetus by abortion and are given a live baby instead (generally speaking such a baby would be severely premature, and almost certain represent a massive liability risk to such doctor and/or the mother as it grew older).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Jessen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldenburg_Baby
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Ohden

Are a few cases. IN all cases, the child was put up for adoption, not forced on the parent that was attempting to end their pregnancy.

All three of your examples are of failed abortions, not of intentional preservation of the fetus. Please retract your statements.
quote:
quote:
Citing to laws that prohibit or restrict late term abortions are pretty meaningless.
quote:

Laws that require a viable child that survives an abortion attempt to be treated as if they were a successful live birth are not laws that prevent late term abortions.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr2175

Such laws are completely irrelevant to your extraordinary claim. No one disputes that you can't murder a child that was accidentally born live instead of killed as a fetus. Nothing so far backs your claim that the abortionist would intentionally deliver a live fetus if it was viable, instead of killing it in utero.

Can you not ever just admit you overstated something?

[ December 02, 2015, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

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:
All three of your examples are of failed abortions, not of intentional preservation of the fetus.
Six of one, half dozen of the other, since those are also all of the cases in which preserving the life of the child does not represent additional risk to the woman in question. Unless you're ignoring the explicit qualification in my claim to try to make me show evidence of something that I was not talking about?
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 Pyrtolin:
quote:
All three of your examples are of failed abortions, not of intentional preservation of the fetus.
Six of one, half dozen of the other, since those are also all of the cases in which preserving the life of the child does not represent additional risk to the woman in question. Unless you're ignoring the explicit qualification in my claim to try to make me show evidence of something that I was not talking about?
Lol, I'll remind you of your actual claim:
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.
You've presented no circumstance where your response to me is valid. No evidence that any abortionist would ever seek or act to preserve the life of the fetus in connection with an abortion. Preservation of babies accidentally borne in no way responds to my claim that they are unwilling to remove the fetus alive.

Your hanging your hat on the concept of zero-risk to the mother (which no credible doctor would every claim there is a non-zero risk, even if the risk is trivial, while the child is in utero), makes the entire set for which your counter-assertion would be true ZERO cases. In short your assertion that I was engaging in blatantly false propaganda has been refuted, and revealed as nothing but sophistry on your part.

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:
In short your assertion that I was engaging in blatantly false propaganda has been refuted, and revealed as nothing but sophistry on your part.
No, we've just highlighted _why_ it's false propaganda. Specifically because it hand waves away the fact that forcing a live birth significantly ratchets up the risk of the procedure. It pretends that there's a way to magically pop the baby out without introducing risk, while clinical abortion processes seek to minimize risk.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr, if you think the pro-choice community at large would support the notion of saving a viable fetus when a woman requested an abortion then you're so far removed from reality that you may as well be discussing the moon landing. There would be riots in the street if a woman went in for an abortion and they decided to give her a live baby instead.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 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:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Pyr, if you think the pro-choice community at large would support the notion of saving a viable fetus when a woman requested an abortion then you're so far removed from reality that you may as well be discussing the moon landing. There would be riots in the street if a woman went in for an abortion and they decided to give her a live baby instead.

Indeed- that would be exposing her to significant risk without her consent. You're missing the point here, which is the argument form the other side essentially pretending that a forced birth is a minimal to no risk procedure when it suggests that there's "no reason" that doctors shouldn't choose that over an abortion, which has a much lower risk level by the very nature of the procedure.
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:
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.
And actually, the normal case is multiple choices from the above. In a normal pregnancy, the mother's body ends up reabsorbing some of the cells throughout the development process and using them for its own purposes despite retaining the different DNA.
Cool! That fits my point even better. I thought 2/3 of blastocysts just flushed out. Can you help me source that? (Not an obligation, but would appreciate a pointer if you remember where you learned it.

My lover used to do bio research, and I'lol ask if she knows about that when she gets done w work.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Pyr, if you think the pro-choice community at large would support the notion of saving a viable fetus when a woman requested an abortion then you're so far removed from reality that you may as well be discussing the moon landing. There would be riots in the street if a woman went in for an abortion and they decided to give her a live baby instead.

That is actually the law in Illinois.
quote:
720 ILCS 510/6: Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.
In fact, 13 states require that a separate physician for the fetus is in attendance. I couldn't say whether they give her the baby, though.

[ December 02, 2015, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kmbboots, that's interesting but I wonder whether it actually results in anything in real life. Do you have some evidence that women in Illinois regularly go in for abortions and come out with a baby? I guess I'd have to ask as well what the law there is in terms of how late in the term an abortion can happen. If the law only permits abortions at such a time that the fetus is undeveloped then the point would be moot since there would be zero overlap between abortion procedures and fetuses that could be viable.

But rethink things for a moment in hypothetical terms: what if, early in the pregnancy, a method could be employed to accelerate gestation of the fetus/embryo such that when the abortion was performed it could be saved. Do you think most pro-choice women would applaud this novel way of saving the fetus while still not having to carry it to term, or do you think they would be against this procedure? Since this is a hypothetical it would be a guess, but I'm curious to hear what you think would happen.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 don't think social services (who I expect would be involved in that case) would let her "come out with a baby". I think the more pertinent question is does she sign away parental rights there on the spot? Does the state pursue her for child support?

I think you are right that there are SOME women who would prefer the "finality" of a terminated pregnancy over guilt for abandoning a child. But there, I think the decision to disregard the wishes of a mother is consistent with our legal traditions.

Pro-choice is about a woman's decision to bring a child to term, it is not, (despite what Rafi seems to suggest) about the right to end a life without repercussions.

[ December 02, 2015, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, I think that accelerating a pregnancy would have serious physical consequences for the woman who was pregnant. If, on the other hand, one could remove the fetus to an artificial womb with no more risk to the woman than an abortion would be, I would not be against it. I would also entertain the notion of requiring both parents contributing financially to the welfare of the child until it is adopted though I think insisting that they raise the child would be a mistake.

I also think that we would have to come up with a humane and responsible way of providing for the welfare of a lot of unwanted babies but I still think that is preferable to requiring unwilling parents to do so.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 
Not to mention safer for the infant...
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 D.W.:
I don't think social services (who I expect would be involved in that case) would let her "come out with a baby". I think the more pertinent question is does she sign away parental rights there on the spot? Does the state pursue her for child support?

I think you are right that there are SOME women who would prefer the "finality" of a terminated pregnancy over guilt for abandoning a child. But there, I think the decision to disregard the wishes of a mother is consistent with our legal traditions.

Pro-choice is about a woman's decision to bring a child to term, it is not, (despite what Rafi seems to suggest) about the right to end a life without repercussions.

I agree with you and this was sort of my point. But I suspect that more than just some women would object to the effort of finding ways to save the baby. I'm speculating, of course, but based on how I've heard many people talk about the issue it seems that their objective in going for an abortion is to make the problem go away. What I'm saying - to use Pete's term - is that I suspect many pro-choice proponents are also pro-abortion.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 
That's part of why I side with Pete that dehumanizing is a poor tactic to justifying abortion. Medical science (excluding a resurgent dark age) will force the issue eventually.

I suppose we may get to a point where birth control is 100% effective and universally accessible first...

Anyhow, framing it as a women's rights issue is (easily IMO) defensible, but (unfortunately to most/many) results in the fetus never developing into a child/person. Once both can be satisfied, we will see those who just want to make the problem go away as monsters.

Some of us already do... yet support the right to an abortion despite that.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems like the Illinois rule bans abortions after the viability of the fetus, except for the health and safety of the mother. That is when the rule KMBoots comes into play, where a post-viable fetus is being aborted to preserve the health of the mother. It's tough to say from a distance what that actually means, as the health and safety exceptions can be interpreted anywhere from proof of a physical harm, to completely free choice on the abortion eradicating the base rule.

Has it every actually been implemented?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It has been the law for 40 years so I imagine. How would I know?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Not to mention safer for the infant...

Well, yes. That is why it is preferable. Although given our history with orphanages...
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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:
Originally posted by D.W.:
That's part of why I side with Pete that dehumanizing is a poor tactic to justifying abortion. Medical science (excluding a resurgent dark age) will force the issue eventually.

I think that's why the personhood question is actually important. Eventually, if society wants, it will be feasible to rescue fertilized eggs from their likely doom and ensure that they develop into human beings. If we think that would be a pretty damn silly thing to do, then we need some answer to when it becomes something we should try to save.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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:
Do you have some evidence that women in Illinois regularly go in for abortions and come out with a baby?
If they go in for an abortion, hey go in for an abortion. If the go in for a delivery they go in for a delivery. The choice surrounding viability and risk doesn't magically happen midstream, it dictates the procedure used before the process even begins.
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:
I agree with you and this was sort of my point. But I suspect that more than just some women would object to the effort of finding ways to save the baby. I'm speculating, of course, but based on how I've heard many people talk about the issue it seems that their objective in going for an abortion is to make the problem go away. What I'm saying - to use Pete's term - is that I suspect many pro-choice proponents are also pro-abortion.
That's why there's a careful counselling process ahead of time to explore all the possible options and associated risks and ensure that the woman is making the choice she wants of her own free will.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 
That's a good point scifibum. Removing the "life or death" question from the hands of the woman/mother sounds all well and good. Until you consider that the decision still has to pass the even less personal State questions of, "Who pays for these children? What impact does it have on our population levels?"
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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:
quote:
I agree with you and this was sort of my point. But I suspect that more than just some women would object to the effort of finding ways to save the baby. I'm speculating, of course, but based on how I've heard many people talk about the issue it seems that their objective in going for an abortion is to make the problem go away. What I'm saying - to use Pete's term - is that I suspect many pro-choice proponents are also pro-abortion.
That's why there's a careful counselling process ahead of time to explore all the possible options and associated risks and ensure that the woman is making the choice she wants of her own free will.
Something tells me you're only hearing what you want to hear, so I'll spell out what several of us are saying: If a woman could both decide what happens to her body, and if the fetus could also be saved with no risk to her, someone who's pro-abortion would contest the state's right to save the fetus anyhow. You keep talking about the woman's choice and free will as if that's what the discussion is about. As far as I know the participants here all agree on that already. The point is whether the fetus also has rights, even though those don't supersede the mother's rights. But in a case where the mother could terminate the pregnancy and the doctors could arrange for that termination to also not terminate the fetus, the pro-choice argument fades away and the pro-abortion issue arises.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 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:
But in a case where the mother could terminate the pregnancy and the doctors could arrange for that termination to also not terminate the fetus, the pro-choice argument fades away and the pro-abortion issue arises.
We can already do that, that's called a scheduled C-section. Which is fine, if the woman is willing to consent to that procedure and give the child up for adoption. And Planned Parenthood does arrange those for women who want them and have no other complications that need to be urgently addressed.

But any suggestion that the doctor suddenly switch which procedure is being used without active and informed consent from the patient due to anything but immediate medical emergency is a violation of her rights.

If you go in to have your appendix out and wake up and are told "Oh we decided to grab some marrow while we had you open, since you're a good match for this other patient that needed it, it would be a legal and ethical violation of your rights, right? I mean, if we could update the process so that you'd feel no physical negative affects from it yourself, you'd be more likely to consent to it out of the gate, but doing it without your permission would still be bad practice.

The same goes here, particularly at the technology point we're talking about. If we're effectively capable of developing an embryo from fertilization to viability, then there's even less of a point of taking one from an unwilling host to give to someone else, instead we should create one from willing donors.

So long as the baby is developing within a woman's body, it needs to be the woman's call as to what happens to it and what procedures she will or won't consent to. Any less is subsuming her rights in favor of control over her. You cannot force her to submit to a live birth of any sort without curtailing her rights to personal autonomy, since the developing child is part of her right up to the moment that it's born. So long as it's part of her, she should have sole jurisdiction over whatever rights she chooses to extend to it, not any other external legal entity.

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:
Cool! That fits my point even better. I thought 2/3 of blastocysts just flushed out. Can you help me source that? (Not an obligation, but would appreciate a pointer if you remember where you learned it.

My lover used to do bio research, and I'lol ask if she knows about that when she gets done w work.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/babys-cells-can-manipulate-moms-body-decades-180956493/?no-ist
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/your-babys-leftover-dna-is-making-you-stronger/381140/

Those are some top of the heap links. It's solidly established that it happens, hte questions lie mostly in what the effects on health are.

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 
From the last of those:
quote:
A 2004 study found the presence of male genes in 21 percent of women overall—even among those who had only given birth to daughters, had a miscarriage, underwent an abortion, or had never been pregnant. Researchers speculate the unknown DNA could have come from a miscarriage these women never recognized, or from an older brother who transferred cells to their mother, who in turn passed the genes onto subsequent children. Or—here’s where the science starts to feel like sci-fi—women could have picked it up through sexual intercourse, traces of past lovers never lost.

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 
Thank you Pyr! Can't wait to show my better half. She was very curious at lunch.
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:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
That's part of why I side with Pete that dehumanizing is a poor tactic to justifying abortion. Medical science (excluding a resurgent dark age) will force the issue eventually.

I think that's why the personhood question is actually important. Eventually, if society wants, it will be feasible to rescue fertilized eggs from their likely doom and ensure that they develop into human beings. If we think that would be a pretty damn silly thing to do, then we need some answer to when it becomes something we should try to save.
Do is talking about fetuses. Not of unemployed fertilized eggs. All reasonable and informed persons agree a fertilized egg is not a human being. It's a bundle of stem cells, which are sometimes used to create a human being, and more often either flushed or used to make spare parts.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are a lot of unreasonable and uninformed people out there making law.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 kmbboots:
There are a lot of unreasonable and uninformed people out there making law.

And interpreting it as well, sad to say. There are SCOTUS majority opinions that classify prevention of implantation as a form of "abortion.". And I am talking the very same justices who are MI's credited as ruling for a woman's sovereignty over her body. The Carhart decision reads more like a physician's sovereignty over a female patient's body
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  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