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 15)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even after cell differentiation begins, I believe the majority of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. This is not generally regarded as a crime or a tragedy.

Following DW's point, eventually we might have the tech to provide artificial wombs for any stage of gestation, and decide to do transplants rather than kill the fetus or embryo. So there has to be some kind of dividing line between "being with rights whose life we will save rather than allow it to die in the abortion" and a previous stage. I'm not talking about "dehumanizing", I'm talking about some kind of rational limit to the degree to which we invade and intervene to ensure pregnancies never fail to produce persons. So where's that line? We can't avoid it once the issue of rescue as part of abortion is part of the picture.

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 
Yes, there are strong arguments to make to meet the burden of proof to say an embryo should not be legally treated as a human being. I personally go with fully realized human infant brain waves, which appear at 10 weeks) as the line for unrestricted elective abortion. (NOTE THAT IS ONLY 2 WEEKS SHY OF THE 3 MONTH RULE IN ROE V WADE!)


But reasonable informed and honest persons can disagree on embryos.

The blastocyst issue is really obvious and unambiguous when we have the facts. Like I said, the blastocyst is alive, and is life, but cannot be termed 'A life'. You could make a thousand babies from a single blastocyst or just create a nerve or a gum socket or an eyeball.

[ December 02, 2015, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

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 don't count weeks, just run a brain wave test. How's that for a line, Sci-fi? Wanna join the pro-brain party? In the fine tradition of the US abortion debate, We can call everyone who disagrees with us "anti-brain" [Smile]
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 
That sounds like a reasonable line, Pete, although many Christians, just as an example, will never agree with that.

Do you think it would really constitute an invasion of a woman's rights to have the terms of an abortion be that the embryo or fetus is safely extracted, provided it carries no threat to the woman? As I see it the issue of 'woman's right' stems from the idea that the state cannot require of a woman that her body be subjected to a pregnancy. But I don't see how her right to determine what happens to the embryo or fetus should enter into it.

Right now stopping the pregnancy requires aborting the embryo or fetus, but once that's not so I don't see how her right to choose what happens to her body should extend to her also having the right to determine what happens to the 'body' of the embryo or fetus.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 
Brain wave test sounds reasonable. How hard is it to check?

Fenring, for the foreseeable future, any procedure that could remove the embryo or fetus would present a significant risk of complications. That strikes me an invasion of rights.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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 NobleHunter:
Fenring, for the foreseeable future, any procedure that could remove the embryo or fetus would present a significant risk of complications. That strikes me an invasion of rights.

Right, but that's only a technological 'coincidence.' The moment it's safe to do the question will arise and have to be dealt with. For the purposes of our discussion we seem to be talking about the principles behind people's positions, not just the restrictions our methods put on which part of our principles we can reasonably enact right now.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 
I suspect by the time we get the ability to do it without it being invasive surgery, unintended pregnancy will be far easier to avoid.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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 NobleHunter:
Brain wave test sounds reasonable. How hard is it to check?
.

Not sure how hard to check noninvasively in utero, and that's what it would have to be to be reasonably imposed as a test. Hope someone here with an academic account could look that up. Seems it can't be that hard or we would not have the knowledge we have about that pattern.

Yes, many of my fellow Christians would fight this tooth and nail because it sets an ethical and even an arguably MORAL standard for elective abortion. And would also by implication allow for some elective euthanasia.

"Fenring, for the foreseeable future, any procedure that could remove the embryo or fetus would present a significant risk of complications. That strikes me an invasion of rights"

Is seems to me that the threshold dispositive fact is not the degree of intrusion, but rather:

The Difference between the procedure VA the abortion procedure that would have been used, as far as infusion goes.

I doubt that any fetal removal procedure will ever be less intrusive than RU-486 on a 2 month embryo. But delivering a live baby may very well be reasonable in comparison to a D&X procedure.

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 NobleHunter:
I suspect by the time we get the ability to do it without it being invasive surgery, unintended pregnancy will be far easier to avoid.

That depends on where the research money goes. And if fetal protection laws are in the wind, I suspect there will be more money in the convenient birth control kitty.

I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.

Best way to reduce abortion is more universal birth control.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I suspect by the time we get the ability to do it without it being invasive surgery, unintended pregnancy will be far easier to avoid.

That depends on where the research money goes. And if fetal protection laws are in the wind, I suspect there will be more money in the convenient birth control kitty.

I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.

Best way to reduce abortion is more universal birth control.

I don't think it's a bad idea, but it's a tough sell when cases are going to the supreme court over religious beliefs about birth control. Republicans (because they court the votes of those who think birth control is a sin) would play the eugenics card.
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 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.

Easily, yes. Cheaply? Not since Congress extended medical patents to twenty years. That's the problem with our fascist health care system.Orient that a Republican bill has made Americans subsidize cutting age medicine for the rest of the world.

So the rich will have convenient safe birth control a quarter century before the poor. This has the effect of concentrating wealth among fewer people.

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:
I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.
RISUG is looking very effective and promising:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance

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 scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I suspect by the time we get the ability to do it without it being invasive surgery, unintended pregnancy will be far easier to avoid.

That depends on where the research money goes. And if fetal protection laws are in the wind, I suspect there will be more money in the convenient birth control kitty.

I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.

Best way to reduce abortion is more universal birth control.

I don't think it's a bad idea, but it's a tough sell when cases are going to the supreme court over religious beliefs about birth control. Republicans (because they court the votes of those who think birth control is a sin) would play the eugenics card.
Lots of folks who think birth control is a sin will still like the idea of privately taking money to get safely sterilized. Like SSM there will be a gap between the surveys and the election results.
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 Pyrtolin:
quote:
I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.
RISUG is looking very effective and promising:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance

That's awesome! Thank you! Even more convenient. A five minute procedure you could do on a coffee break. The government could refurbish a bloodmobile to run out to parks and high population areas, sterilize guys and write checks. Kind of like an under the belt tooth fairy.
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 NobleHunter:
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.

Getting a fetus out of the womb safely won't exactly require Star Trek technology, but on the other hand even in Star Trek time I doubt they've solved people being irresponsible or accidents happening.
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 
And fully reversible when you actually decide that you're ready to go.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 
It's not necessarily about getting the fetus out of the womb, it's about reliable development once it's out. Not to mention doing it without slicing the mother open or otherwise permanently altering her body.

If birth control turns into a one and done procedure with near-perfect reversibility the effect of accidents and irresponsible decisions would be greatly reduced.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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 
I just imagined a story idea where in the near future this reversible procedure has become so standard that people do it without even giving it a second thought. Then a major disaster strikes, like a Captain Tripps style contagion, and after celebrating their immunity the survivors realize with horror that there is no doctor around to reverse the procedure and that they will be the last generation of Americans.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 
Because boys who haven't yet had the procedure won't grow up and procreate? People who are not doctors are unable to figure it out?
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 
How about some alien visitation / abduction that is a like an intellectual rapture?

But I like that first story idea more...

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 kmbboots:
Because boys who haven't yet had the procedure won't grow up and procreate? People who are not doctors are unable to figure it out?

Hey give me a break, I don't even have an editor yet.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 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 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.

Reproduction is easily controlled right now. From abstinence, 100% effective, to contraceptives that are more than 99% effective. These methods of control range from completely free and available to every songle person on the planet to as cheap as a cup of coffee in America and available for the asking.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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 Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.

Reproduction is easily controlled right now. From abstinence, 100% effective, to contraceptives that are more than 99% effective. These methods of control range from completely free and available to every songle person on the planet to as cheap as a cup of coffee in America and available for the asking.
I think what he means is that the success rate of these is worse than advertised. One fails when you become weak, and the other fails when you are irresponsible or incompetent. With a simple surgical procedure that carried no risk there would be no scenario of screwing things up.
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 Rafi:
From abstinence, 100% effective, to contraceptives that are more than 99% effective.

Abstinence has about the worst failure rate of any plan, because people simply don't follow through on it. And even more, people that tr to apply it are generally less prepared with backup and contingency plans to compensate for first line failures. and far more likely to hide and fail to promptly deal with those failures than people who are more honest about what they'll likely end up doing and prepare for it properly, never mind having a clear idea of what their follow plan of action is in the worst case scenarios.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  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