Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Pyrtolin

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
General Comments / Re: What if taxes...
« on: February 25, 2016, 05:40:17 PM »
How would you account for new issuance of money in such a system? (Forgetting where money would come from in the first place if  you're starting for scratch) Who makes the call on net expansions to the money supply? Without that, you're doomed to failure no matter what unless you're also supposing that the overall population is fixed or shrinking and there's not going to be any economic growth.

It pissed Al and Pyr off that I'd been persuaded, and they griped to no end that I was a bad guy for not being previously persuaded prior to actual facts being made available.
Please refrain from making stuff up about me.

You're quibbling on semantics and justifying homicide on a technicality.
No, I'm pointing to my meaning. You're the one trying to change the meaning of what I said by redefining the words that I used to suit your needs. It's not a productive game to play.Address my meaning, state your meaning; keep it honest.

I'm also not justifying anything. I could think that any given instance is completely unjustified. It doesn't matter- it's not my decision to make and I have no business forcing others to justify themselves to me, even if I disagree with their motives.

  Word games don't change the moral equation if the baby is healthy and viable, and if there's no medical threat or significant procedural inconvenience to bringing it out alive versus vivisecting it and taking it out in pieces.
Sure. I've explicitly said that the moral calculus is not relevant to my position. That's a personal matter, and people should be free to be wrong in the opinion of others. The law should have no jurisdiction over the choice, because there is no way to assert jurisdiction without a completely unacceptable violation of personal autonomy and self determination.

Yes there is- the decision to not have a live child is justification unto itself.

If the child is healthy and viable and third term, she's already "had" it.
Not if it's still in her body. Having it involves it successfully exiting her body alive. You're quibbling on semantics here in a way that would change the meaning of what I said instead of addressing what I said.

Your position may have been consistent, but so was your obfuscation.  How many times did Fenring try and get you to explain the details?  A heck of a lot.
And I replied a heck of a lot. No obfuscation, just your made up accusations here to try to take the argument ad hominem instead of sticking to the actual principles.  Stop with the sleaze already.

Which is a position that I agree with, however, its not the current state of anyone's law.  In fact, the law is extremely certain that it prefers the opposite result, with an absolutely binding financial liability imposed at the moment of conception.
And the law is wrong on that account and should be changed. When we're talking in the abstract ideal case, then the current state of law is irrelevant except as examples of what should be changed.

And even if we dropped the financial element, it does nothing to address the presumed moral/ethical dilemma that you have created by taking away the man's decision about reproduction at a time when there is no borne person, but just a "part" of a woman that she can choose to use to take away his right to control his own reproduction.
She cannot and should not have the right to take sperm from him without his permission. She should have no more legal control over his body than she should have over her's. That's perfectly equal. NEither can force the other to use their body's internal organs or fluids for something against their will.

It's not unreasonable to weigh the rights of a viable fetus versus the inconvenience or even risk to a woman and decide that past the point of viability we'd require an attempt to save the life of a fetus absent a compelling risk of physical harm to the mother.
You can, but in doing so you automatically declare that women need to sacrifice bodily autonomy to the public contro; it's impossible to do without saying that women are not entitled to autonomy as a right.

But there is no argument on earth that would make it unreasonable to argue in favor of saving a viable fetus where it can be done without material risk to a mother (I get some might also hold to the zero risk standard, though again its not unreasonable to require a minimal level of risk here).
From any position that seeks to consider the woman as a fully equal person it's impossible to reconcile, because it's impossible to force her to have a live birth without violating her choice of how to use her body.

  Of course, from your position, you'd also hold that we have to provide a termination style abortion, even if a live birth were demonstrably safer, and there's really not a good reason for that to be the case.
Yes there is- the decision to not have a live child is justification unto itself.

By the way, by glossing over the man's right to control his own reproduction on the same terms as a women, you've already established that you think women should have greater rights over reproduction than men (not equal rights).
He can control his own on the same terms- in fact the law already comes down on his side and says we cannot force him to contribute sperm to inseminate anyone. You're confusing biological difference with equal rights.

I'm not concerned about late term abortions.  I'm concerned that killing a viable fetus is unjustifiable if it can be removed at low risk to the woman carrying it.  I don't care why she wants it out, that's her decision not mine.
It's perfectly justifiable if the woman chooses to not give birth that is, in and of itself, a justification. That you find it distasteful or disagree with the justification should not entitle you to dictate to others what they can or cannot do in regards to the use of their body for reproduction.

Out of curiosity, since you make this claim, what percentage of women desiring an abortion are turned away from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers because of a lack of ability to pay?
Looks like about 60% are delayed or unable to outright access care because of the costs involved.

he authors studied women seeking abortion care from “last stop” providers around the U.S., defined as facilities that offer abortion services at the latest gestational age limits among any facility within 150 miles. Women turned away from these providers because they presented too late were asked to list the barriers that prevented them from seeking care earlier in the pregnancy. Nearly six in 10 reported that travel and procedure costs prevented them from seeking an abortion earlier, while about half delayed seeking care because they did not immediately recognize that they were pregnant. Women also cited insurance problems, not knowing where to get care and not knowing how to get to a provider as barriers to accessing abortion services. About one-quarter (28%) of women denied an abortion were eventually able to obtain one from a different provider, while the remaining three-quarters continued their pregnancy.

Which, while a good idea to support young families, will make little actual difference as no child is raised in "several months," they take years.  Women aren't lagging in pay because they give birth and are out for a few months, they lag in pay after they stay home for years getting kids from birth into school.
Which wouldn't be necessary with equal access to paid leave and free public child care so that either parent could choose to work or not as needed instead of forcing one to stay home, particularly in light of the prejudices that pressure women to be the parent that takes the hit- punishing women socially who do not choose to stay home and men socially that do.

And since none of those things address the ethical issue they are all in the category of nice to have but irrelevant.
They're relevant because they're proper uses of law. The law should not address the ethical issues here, but rather leave people free to make their own choices eve other feel that it's the wrong choice because it's impossible to assert jurisdiction without actively violating the right of the woman in question to bodily autonomy and effectively force her to serve as a breeding tank for the state once her choice in the matter is negated.

And it's odd to me that you think these are "paternalistic" restrictions.
They seek to actively dictate the behavior of others and remove personal choice from the equation in favor of enforcing on particular moral opinion where individuals should be free to be wrong in the eyes of others and handle disagreements through respectful social discourse, not legal dictat.

"Which is where the right to control her reproduction comes from, because her reproduction is a function of her body."

But crushing a baby's head is not a function of her body.  There are Yogis who claim they can stop their hearts, but none that I know of who claim that they can use their autonomic muscles to vivisect viable third trimester fetus in the womb.
And? That's not relevant to anything I said. She has the right to control her body, that includes the right to choose not to reproduce.

So after pages of confusion and apparent denial, we're left back where started.
MY position has been consistent, so lay off the snide false accusations.

Pyrtolin does require that a mother be entitled to kill a fetus, even if it could be removed without harm to the mother.  This isn't about the legal basis for why abortions are permitted (which is far more limited) but rather about adherence to an absolutist philosophical position.
Something that I made abundantly clear when the conversation forked between what should be and how situations under current law should be handled.

  Specifically, that any protection of an unborn but viable fetus would unconscionably constrain the right of a woman to decide if she will reproduce and become a mother.  Not clear why a man's right to control his reproduction and decide if he becomes a father terminates at the moment of insemination, but a woman's continues from that point without interruption until the second before a baby exits her body (and we can't just argue that its because of the physical issue of the fetus being in her body, if the mother has an independent right unrelated to that physical issue as Pyrtolin implies).
It's not the man's body, thus not his call as to what it can or cannot be used for. He can choose to walk away at any point, so already has the freedom to choose not to be a father without and need for medical facilitation. I've already made it clear that legal force should not be applied to him any more than is should be to her. (Once agreements that amount to a contract have been made, that changes, for sure, but that's out of context here)

In any event, it's not unreasonable to reject Pyrtolin's additional invented right, much as we've already rejected any male right to control his reproduction after insemination, which leaves us with the actual legal right of a woman to control her own body.
Which is where the right to control her reproduction comes from, because her reproduction is a function of her body.

It's not unreasonable to weigh the rights of a viable fetus versus the inconvenience or even risk to a woman and decide that past the point of viability we'd require an attempt to save the life of a fetus absent a compelling risk of physical harm to the mother.
It's entirely unreasonable, because it means violating control of her body in favor of the state dictating its use for the purposes of others. It's a lazy way of addressing the concern that actively communicates that women are less entitled to rights then men are.

If you are really concerned about late term abortion then address the primary causes of it. Ensure that sufficient funding for abortion is available so that women don't have to spend months coming up with enough to afford it, pushing them into the later term. Ensure that all people have sufficient low/no cost access to health care such that all pregnancies are noticed early and none slip through the cracks till the last minute. Ensure that all people have access to good, comprehensive sex education and birth control such that unplanned pregnancies are almost unheard of. Ensure that sufficient income support exists for all people and families such that the choice to have a child is financially neutral. Ensure that men and women have access to several months worth of fully paid family leave and create the expectation that both will take it in the event of a birth or other family emergencies so that there's no excuse for suppressing the pay and employment opportunities of women based on the expectation that they'll be forced to take time out for child care.

The list goes on. There are many, many things that can be done that have real effects on the frequency of need for late term abortion that justify themselves without regard to abortion and also involve protecting rights rather than using paternalistic restrictions at the very end of the game that actively infringe on the rights of women.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 19, 2016, 04:56:19 PM »
Glad you're more open minded about that that the college counter protesters that attacked and vandalized such memorials.
Were they tasteful, nonjudgemental memorials? Or were they willful attempts to call negative attention and shame on women who've had abortions? There's a fine line between the two. It's possible that the protestors were overly sensitive after dealing with constant attack, but it's not a call that can be made without understanding what actually happened on the ground.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 19, 2016, 04:40:13 PM »
You'be been jumping at shadows like a tweaked in withdrawal throughout this discussion. Just look at what I last quoted from you If that's not suspicion, what do you call it?
I call it pointing out your continued attempts try to speculate on my beliefs and motives instead of sticking to presenting your views and opinions on the topic. I don't care if you actually do get some things right- it's still out of line because it's pure speculation. If you want to make the case for any particular public figure acting in bad faith, that's one thing- but constant categorical axe grinding against  wide, diverse groups to cast them in a bad light is exceptionally tiresome.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 19, 2016, 04:23:08 PM »
OK, you don't see politicians proposing legislation at a funeral as a "traumatic assault"?  What about pro lifers creating a grave-like memorial in a cemetery to commemorate dead fetuses? Is that a "traumatic assault"?
Shoving a graphic sign in someone face. Actively harassing people attempting to visit a clinic.

If they want to put a tasteful and respectful shrine somewhere, that's their business. Heck, they may even find that many women who've needed an abortion will even appreciate it so long as they're allowed to visit it on their own terms and not be harassed and shamed in the process.

General Comments / Re: Justice Scalia dead
« on: February 19, 2016, 04:19:05 PM »
The equivalent law is the one that prohibits hospitals from turning away sick patients because of a lack of ability to pay.
Which is why it's reasonable to charge a tax to pay for that service, and even to waive it for people who have secured an otherwise approved form of payment.

Why is it necessary, in your opinion, that reproductive control must also entail killing the fetus in situations where doing so is not a requirement of terminating the pregnancy? Note that this is a matter of defintion, and I'm asking why you believe that only this definition of reproductive control is satisfactory?
Reproductive control is inseparable from personal autonomy. There is no other definition that ensures that she has full control over the choice to not give birth if she chooses not to. That's the axiomatic principle at play here. If she does not want to give birth, it's actively intrusive on her will and person for the law to demand otherwise. It's not the business of anyone other than her to make that choice, as the body giving host to the reproductive process, with assistance of her choice of properly licensed and trusted health professional to help her fully understand her choices and their ramifications.

I don't see this businessman asking the court to get the women to give him his money back.
And I submit that the contract you support constitutes a greater personal violation.
Sounds like the contract wasn't clear on exactly what the boundaries were, and it seems like the people that he was contracting with weren't exactly in a position to fully understand what he was asking or freely turn down the offer. I don't think that the issue here is that it would be impossible to write up a good contract in such a situation, but rather than he seems to have imposed predatory terms on vulnerable people.

So you think you could take a woman to court and force her to disgorge funds she received in consideration for an unconscionable rape contract?
Your question is broken; try again. I didn't say that it was impossible for such contracts to be badly written or otherwise unenforceable. Just that it was possible from reasonable variants to exist.

I applaud your use of my style against me (imitation flattery etc), but substantively unconscionable is not the same thing as "badly written.". Unless you think "well written" means written so artfully as to stupefy most judges into failing to enforce fundamental principles of contract law.  There are some lawyers who see it that way. I was never one of them.
By "well written" I mean that it properly protects the interests of all parties entering into the agreement with reasonable conditions and remedies in case of breach by either party. Essentially that it's perfectly conscionable so long as it's read by someone who gets the notion that kinky doesn't imply that it's automatically bad. If the terms are unconscionable, then it's a bad contract, regardless of the nature of content otherwise.

Not creatorship, physical domain.

Is physical domain a legal term I'm unfamiliar with that has necessary implications, or is it just a descriptor you're using to illustrate your opinion on the subject? If it's your term, why do you think physical domain implies rights over the thing within the domain such as life and death?
Because having control over the life or death of the unborn child is a simple necessity to establishing reproductive control.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 19, 2016, 03:51:59 PM »
Just saying that you are suspicious of fetal violins just as pro gunners are suspicious of gun violence violins.
On what basis? I've never expressed any such suspicions and I make an active effort to not engage in such speculation, rather sticking to simply presenting my position. I find it just as distasteful to accuse pro-lifers of dishonesty because of any emotional pleas that they might put forward as I do people in favor of gun control measures. (In regards to expressing their own emotions, at least. I do disagree with resorting to gross-out tactics and other similar traumatic assaults on other people in the process of trying to make their point, but that's a fair bit different than simple expression of personal emotion. I'd similarly object to graphic murder porn being used by gun control advocates)

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 19, 2016, 12:46:10 PM »
Is anyone other than Pyr going to pretend that they think that Abortion numbers are not higher than they would be
That's a vastly different assertion without the judgmental statement contained in "so high". You'll get a lot more agreement if you stick to pure comparison without implying judgement.

I would not, even in private, cast judgments on the rate of abortions, because I do not find it relevant. It will be what it will be, and it's not my place to judge it, so long as people are free to safely chose it when they feel they need it without legal override.

I'll make the argument that things that we should be doing anyway will help reduce the rate of abortion _to_ people, in public, that care about the rate of abortion in and of itself, but not in private where it simply does not matter because all of the things that might reduce it justify themselves on their own merits without having to resort to a completely incidental metric.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 19, 2016, 12:39:09 PM »

And what if it's the case that the counter-movement against this scenario (assuming you're correct) pursues the exact opposite - embracing emotional expression as an ideal and embrace it as a sign of social superiority?
Then you would have ample evidence to put forward. Asserting it as fact without evidence and despite it not being turei, however, makes for a false accusation.

So you think you could take a woman to court and force her to disgorge funds she received in consideration for an unconscionable rape contract?
Your question is broken; try again. I didn't say that it was impossible for such contracts to be badly written or otherwise unenforceable. Just that it was possible from reasonable variants to exist.

Because the choices of when and how to reproduce is tied directly to bodily autonomy. The law has no business forcing her to have offspring, even ones that she could give up, if she does not want to have them

Even if what you said is true, it's not unambiguously what you MEAN.  Because if she's gestated a healthy baby to the point of viability, she's already HAD it.
Please use "had" in the sense of "gave birth to" when reading my use of it in specifically that sense instead of trying to play semantic games.

The umbilical connects the child to the placenta, not the mother

So the child is "part of" mom's body while it's in her, but the placenta isn't?
I didn't say that. Your femur is connected to your hip, not your heart. They are both things inside your body.

The baby is connected to the placenta. They are both inside the mother's body. "Part of" is someone else's argument, not mine. You can say they're both part of if you want, you could just say that they're contained within, either is just as good, so far as I'm concerned. Point is, that, at that point, they may as well be on foreign soil with the mother being the legal entity that chooses whether or not to grant extradition or allow US legal rights and protections to extend past her skin.

Whoa!  So you think she can contract away her right to abort?  And her visitation rights to her gestational child?  Isn't that like contracting that someone can *censored* you whenever and not call it rape?
Careful, I think you understand contacts better than that. She can't surrender the right, but she can agree to reasonable penalties, including, at the very least, returning whatever payment or consideration she'd been given for entering the contract should she exercise that right and put herself in breach of contract.

I'm sure you could do something similar around consent as well, where, against, people are perfectly free to breach the contract by withdrawing consent, and thus may be bound by certain reasonable conditions that apply in such a case. It gets even more interesting in agreements around situations where someone has asked another person to help them engage in a complicated rape fantasy- where they work out formal terms, including some manner of safeword, for another person to action in active violation on nominal immediate consent. The balancing act between freedom and power in those gets very detailed.

So is it the fact that the child came from the mother's body that is most relevant, highlighting its origin, or is it the fact of the connectivity between them?
The connection is not really relevant. It's her body, it's her choice as to when and where that body reproduces. If she chooses not to reproduce, then she should not be forced to against here will. PUlling a live child out of her and forcing her to choose between keeping it and giving it up is not something that should happen if wants to choose not to have a live child.

If it's the latter, what would you say about a fetus that became spontaneously disconnect from the mother, such as the umbilical cord suddenly severing?
The umbilical connects the child to the placenta, not the mother. If they are somehow magically ejected from her body, then she has practically lost her chance to choose after the fact, but that's specifically because the child has already been born and is no longer inside her body.

Would she immediately lose all rights to decisions over the fetus since they're no longer physically connected? And if you mean the former, why should its origin dictate who gets to decide its life or death?
Because the choices of when and how to reproduce is tied directly to bodily autonomy. The law has no business forcing her to have offspring, even ones that she could give up, if she does not want to have them.

Some parents may take the attitude, for instance, "I gave birth to you so I have every right to smack you around" but we contest this kind of logic regarding people out of the womb. Why does "I made you so I decide if you live or die" apply when the fetus is still in the womb, then? Why does creatorship imply this kind of power?
Not creatorship, physical domain.

General Comments / Re: Apple's odd stand on privacy
« on: February 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM »
Backdoors are unethical and dangerous. They undermine the integrity of the product, damage the brand of any companies that agree to this, and will simply result in terrorists migrating to platforms not created by companies under the U.S. government's jurisdiction and control. They undermine all our collective security, and will without a doubt be used by the government for purposes far beyond catching terrorists, assuming they don't fall into the hands of criminals as well.

The last point there is key. The only way to keep a secret in a case like this is for there to be no secret. If the backdoor exists, it will be found and exploited. No assumption possible that it won't fall into criminal hands. Hackers, many with government funding and resources, are already searching for every possible unintentional exploit and backdoor; putting one there intentionally means that it will be found and used.

General Comments / Re: Pope Francis questions Trump's Christianity
« on: February 19, 2016, 11:49:40 AM »
I'd worry that the Pope's opinion would cost Trump some support, except that would be crazy on multiple levels.
The Pope's opinion is just another opportunity for Trump to create drama and grab headlines. MAybe even score some points with the Evangelicals that he's strutting to at the moment. The Pope couldn't have given him a better gift than a chance to mouth off at such a big authority figure.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 19, 2016, 11:30:32 AM »
don't accuse people earnestly seeking gun control measures as trying to be manipulative and seeing to trick people into ceding constitutional rights and I won't call you on it.

What if it's the case that some people earnestly seeking gun control measures are also trying to be manipulative and seeking to trick people into ceding constitutional rights? It's off limits to call attention to that fact?
If you can actually show evidence that it's a fact, then you're on decent ground. But that was not a specific accusation of bad faith- that was an accusation of any politician that reacts with open emotion to a devastating impact.

"There's good evidence that this politician is feigning an emotional reaction or is acting irrationally" is one thing. "Any expression of emotional impact by a politician is underhanded manipulation" is quite a different thing.

We're already a society that does massive damage to itself by holding up emotional repression as an ideal and open embrace of it as a sign of social inferiority. Doubling down on such with accusations like that just adds to the ongoing harm.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 19, 2016, 11:21:51 AM »
  Even though you might admit among folks that you trust that the fact that abortions are so high
Why would I admit something that's not true or relevant?
Abortion isn't relevant to abortion? 
"So high" is neither true, nor relevant. If you want less abortion, help create social change that makes abortion less necessary, don't come up with excuses to restrict the rights and freedoms of others, even when you find the choices they make distasteful.

I mean, I fully agree that many of the motivations you put forth are distasteful and not, in my opinion, good reasons for an abortion, but it's not the business of the law to enforce that. Women should be free to be wrong in our opinions and get abortions for what we feel are bad or pernicious reasons. If we want to discourage that, then we should address the cultural and economic factors that lead to such decisions directly and not take the lazy way out by stomping on their individuality and rights at the end of the line with legal paternalism that declares them incompetent to make their own choices.

Like I said, you have no grasp how to use that term.  You use relevance as if it were an absolute quality.  Do everyone a favor and stop using the word relevant without making it clear what X is or is not relevant to. 
Except you used it in reference to what _I_ would say about _my own_ beliefs. Thus I can confidently say that I'm fully qualified to judge that I find that judgement both wrong and irrelevant. I would not say such a thing because I do not believe it and I do not think it matters, nor would just about anyone that argues the same position that I do.

  I simply said their defensiveness and closeness resembles yours, and has similar triggers.
Except that "defensiveness" is pure motive speculation here.\, particularly when I was not addressing your arguments, but rather you decision to smear those that come from a different perspective.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 19, 2016, 11:08:29 AM »
Up to now, I have accused you of nothing.  Now, I accuse you of reading carelessly and responding to something I did not say.  You do this in most threads.  We actually get along in threads where you grasp what I said and respond appropriately.
HEy, don't accuse people earnestly seeking gun control measures as trying to be manipulative and seeing to trick people into ceding constitutional rights and I won't call you on it. Advance your ideas instead of trying to slime people coming from a different perspective.

  Look how brainlessly defensive you got when I was doing no more than proposing measures that you agreed with, better psych care and economic opportunity.
I didn't get defensive, I pointed out where you crossed the line from advocating things that we agree on to mean spirited attacks on other points of view. If you has stuck to advocating your ideas instead of deciding that you needed to get some digs in, then I wouldn't have had an issue.

It means producing a child from ones body. Generally a live one, though stillbirth and similar corner cases apply.

Yeah, I think we know that birth involves producing a child from someone's body. But you didn't actually answer my question. Does a wizard waving a wand and a fetus teleporting into a blanket count as "giving birth"? You are using a verb, and I want to know to which events this verb can be ascribed as happening.
The child came from the mother's body, right? It didn't just appear out of nowhere. She still has the sense on seeing it that it was what was growing inside of her and eventually removed as a fully developed child, yes? All of the examples are giving birth, because all of them are ways of extracting a live, fully develop child that had previously been gestating in her body.

My position relies entirely on the fact that it is within he body, regardless of its connection to her, and on the fact that no one should be allowed to force her to give birth if she chooses not to. Neither point has anything at all to do with the possible personhood of the child/fetus.

Since you didn't reply to my previous direct question about this, how do you define "giving birth" within your frame of thinking? Does it include birth canal, C-section, transporter technology, wizard with a wand, etc etc? If so, does this mean that you classify any process whatsoever of a human being entering the world that was once in her body as "giving birth"?
It means producing a child from ones body. Generally a live one, though stillbirth and similar corner cases apply.

Does this mean giving an embryo to a surrogate is "giving birth", since it was in her body and then afterward wasn't? (Is that what being born again means?)
Generally it was in a test tube first.t if it was done in utero, then extracted and implanted, there was no child developed enough to be considered live or stillbirth produced at that point.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 17, 2016, 05:12:57 PM »
That's because most of the population knows that most folks who weep about gun deaths are shedding crocodile tears and looking to suppress gun rights.
That's your assertion, not common wisdom.

Same as you feel when folks talk about abortion as an epidemic.
That it's a misapplication of a term that suggests that it grows and propagates itself because of exposure to others affected by it? That's a very confusing assertion. Abortion isn't contagious in the way that drug addiction and violence are.

  Even though you might admit among folks that you trust that the fact that abortions are so high
Why would I admit something that's not true or relevant?

does suggest a symptom of broader social diseases, lack of birth control, economic inequity, lack of opportunity, etc., you would rather avoid terms that folks that you distrust politically could use to ban abortion outright.
Those are appropriate channels to discuss if you want to talk about reducing the need for abortion, to be sure, but they justify themselves without regard to the frequency of abortion.

Ever since the burning of the Reichtag, we know that when a politician cries or talks angry at a funeral, he's planning to suppress constitutional rights.  When did you last see a politician making a big deal over someone's death and proposing, say, more medication and counseling?  That's not how the politics of grave dancing works.
And now were back to empty accusations instead of anything resembling meaningfully discussing actual issues.

it might be useful to remember that the primary use of the word "Slut" has, historically and today, most often had little to do with promiscuity, and has more to do with reinforcing socioeconomic status.
To the degree that it's still a term used to attack and denigrate women based on their sexuality and sexual behavior, that's not really a meaningful distinction. It does illuminate additional ways in which our culture demeans women, and even encourages their active participation in sexism, for sure.

It's unclear, though, what your point is here other than finding a way to cast bizarre aspersions others on completely made up pretenses.

Wayward, do you think that a surrogate should have less rights to abortion than a genetic mother?
Not less right to an abortion, but should have to deal with whatever obligations she agreed to in regards to it per the terms of the contract.

But Pyr's position rests entirely on the positive statement that the fetus is not merely part of the mother, as in has some measure of connectivity with her, but that it is the mother in terms of identity and until it's born it is not a unique person, human being, or is alive in any sense but is rather just a component of her body and that's it.
No it doesn't. My position relies entirely on the fact that it is within he body, regardless of its connection to her, and on the fact that no one should be allowed to force her to give birth if she chooses not to. Neither point has anything at all to do with the possible personhood of the child/fetus.

ou can't start redefining what a person is on the fly to justify insistence that certain human entities are not persons, especially when there is a political and social incentive for you to take that position.
I'm not, though. In fact, my point is that where any given person defines technical "personhood" is completely irrelevant here. What matters is legal recognition as an entity entitled to separate protection, something asserted by pure definition, not by biology or any other independent factor. And the law can't extend personhood and the accompanying rights and protection to a baby that hasn't been born without actively asserting a right to override the mother's individuality- without claiming to have more jurisdiction over the contents of her body than she does.

t's impossible to assign it any warily without violating a woman's sovereignty over her own body and asserting that people other than her have a right to force her to use it for their purposes rather than her own.

Not impossible at all, if you look at the 14th amendment.  Roe v. Wade could have, instead of creating the false and morally problematic construct of selective personhood, could have made abortion a traditional exclusion of JURISDICTION.
Which is absolutely what should be done, when we're talking in the ideal case. External legal jurisdiction should not apply to the child until afters it's born and can be safely counted as outside  of its mother's exclusive domain.

But when you call the fetus part of the woman's body, you've gone beyond mere legal sophistry and are spinning quasireligious legalisms into a false biology.  The twentieth century is littered with the bones of people's whose governments projected their political ideology into "science."  Don't go there.
Which I don't. That much is irrelevant here. Her body matters in as much as its her body that is supporting the pregnancy. Anyone that forced her to give birth against her will has effectively used her body to produce the child by negating her right to have a say in the matter.

Please QUOTE where I made such an accusation. Do not paraphrase. You don't have the skill for accurate restatement.

For all the "scrutiny," no one can tell us the availability of third term abortions, or what survivability info is given to patents, or what the breakdown is on what is deemed "medical necessity" to justify 3ed term abortion.
False accusation. You don't have the information, that doesn't mean the information isn't available. You've even actively debunked this notion in the past by criticising reasons given as if you had the medical expertise to meaningfully show them to be invalid. (See again: case where the mental impact of lack of sleep was cited among the reasons justifying an abortion)

You used the same stat that I always see Planet Parenthood advocates use to promote and enable limitless third term abortion. 
False accusation, particularly because third trimester abortions are naturally self-limiting; the only people that seek them out are those that have a significant need to be addressed.

Funny thing is, he's insisting on a woman's ability to make death dealing choices during a state of mind when he would not even credit her capacity to consent to have sex.
False accusation and misogynistic smear against women in general. Casting them as being incapable of making their own choices to justify you needed to think for them.

Well that kind of gets to the point. Not about just her body.  Aren't you really talking about the Susan Smith option?  Would you say that what SHE did is none of our business?  Her reproduction, her choice?
False accusation, one that makes an invalid comparison between actions before and after birth, despite actions after birth clearly not being in the context of the conversation.

First Pyr said that I wanted to force women to "incubate."
False accusation. I never said that you wanted to do that.

Certainly if you ran her onto the table with that song and dance you gave us with the general stat for all abortions, you have violated her.
False accusations- implications without evidence that women are mislead about the relative safety of the procedures used.

Myself, I would rather see a clear breakdown on the reasons for third abortion, in case there is something we could do as a society to give those mother's better choices.  Be it programs that protect from domestic violence, or laws that protect mother's who adopt out from child support claims, or even clear information on what options are out there.
False accusation- implies that current providers aren't already discussing and engaged in fighting for those options by suggesting that we should find was to present those options. If those are really your concerns then you shouldn't be making it harder to attain them by passing on unfounded attacks against the groups that are working hardest to support them.

Can we as pro choicers not ask to enforce Roe v Wade with regard to allowing 3ed term abortion only for genuine medical necessity?
Insertion of the word "genuine" there is a false accusation, because it implies, despite lack of evidence, dishonesty bout reported necessity. For legal procedures

You pretend not to have a conscience some times but I suspect you agree with me on this. Because you don't have to be religious to have a conscience to see that a viable healthy 8 month fetus thinks like a baby, looks like a baby, and shouldn't have it's brain scrambled just because mom decides raising her would be a drag.
False accusation and smear against women, trivializing their need.

If women are aborting late term because they don't know of any programs available to adopt out and be free of responsibilities, then society should know that in order to give these women better options.  If you believed half the things you claim to stand for, you would agree.
False accusation that PP and similar providers to not make an effort to make women aware of their options.

So telling doctors that medical necessity means actual medical necessity, like any other medical procedure, constitutes a "witch hunt"? 
False accusations implicit in suggesting that doctors need someone else to tell them what medical necessity really is.

Do you know who uses terms like "medical necessity" to justify killing a fetus because of its skin color? Is that the company you want to keep?
Representative of a whole host of false accusations and casting shade on medical professionals despite no evidence that any US practitioners are actually doing so, never mind the implicit false accusation that women seeking late term abortions in the US are doing so on such pretenses.

I think knowledge about these women's facts and circumstances (not propaganda but just understanding) could create an environment of more sympathy and humanity, and also help us create better options for these mothers to choose from.
And while this is absolutely true, you're here representing exactly the kind of propaganda and political attacks that are used to dehumanize and criminalize them that, in turn is used to justify not extending better options for them. The kind of smears and implicit accusations I quoted above are exactly what are used to suppress any progress on improved legal options, because it promotes the notion that women need to be told what to do, and can't be trusted to make their own choices anyway, so why bother giving them more choices than exactly the ones that the politicians want them to have?

You have to start with a basic trust that they can and will make decisions responsibly even if there's a chance that a few might make bad or distasteful choices if you want to actually open the door to policies that expand the menu of options for them to voluntarily pick between.

You don't know what research I have done and you have already misrepresented me enough on this thread. 
I know for sure that you're not at all familiar with the biological facts of the birthing process and sketchy on abortion procedures based on the arguments you've made (denying,m in particular, the fact that the head of the baby passing through the birth canal represents a serious risk, especially under induction, which forces it out faster and harder than natural processes),  so  either you haven't done even basic research or are being deliberately disingenuous in the arguments you're presenting. You also seem to have no idea of the standard counselling process that PP and similar provers use given the speculative comments you've made, which suggests that you've made little effort to actually contact them or people who've used their services to learn what their process is or what information they actually provide.

I know this is hard to argue rigorously, but you seriously think a person having unique DNA has nothing at all to do with what makes them a unique person? Not a singularly defining trait, but relevant at all?
Nothing at all. A person is a construct withing a neural network of some sort or another. We may be able to create completely digital persons in the foreseeable future, we already know mental conditions where a single body/brain hosts multiple persons within the same neural framework. If you really want to get pedantic in this direction, then personhood is an emergent property of a nervous system that emerges once it has interacted with its environment sufficiently to develop a sense of identity and learned to differentiate between itself and that environment.

Legal personhood, on the other hand, is something that's more convenient to assign at birth for the sake of assigning non-provisional rights and protections; it's impossible to assign it any warily without violating a woman's sovereignty over her own body and asserting that people other than her have a right to force her to use it for their purposes rather than her own.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 17, 2016, 01:35:15 PM »
Not from my experience.  Vegas cops were fast to prosecute gun and pot offenses, but generally steered clear of heroin traffic when I was there.  Do you have any figures to back your position?  I recognize my professional experience in NV from 2008 to 2011 is hardly comprehensive.
I could, within half an hour organize a free Narcan training session that would include scripts for any of the attendees to have some on hand in case of an emergency. I don't know of any similar accessible and free offerings for training in de escalation and gunshot wound treatment, along with free access to the medical supplies related.

Similarly, aside from at my church, where a group of members has addressing gun violence as primary cause that they working on organizing, discussion on the heroin epidemic comes up around me as a specific topic far more often than gun violence, including in radio news reporting, where the former comes up on its own frequently, while the latter rises and disappears in direct relationship to whether there's a recent national incident.

I see a lot more legal action going on at my state level on the heroine epidemic than I do on gun violence, including provisions to make Narcan more available specifically to try to contain the damage, not to mention a far larger portion of the population willing to acknowledge it as an epidemic where many try to pretend that gun violence somehow isn't.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 16, 2016, 05:56:47 PM »
According to The Week, Feb 19; page 13, 2014 saw 47,000 deaths in overdoses (mostly prescription opiates).  That's 50% HIGHER than the number of firearm fatalities.
Not to surprising. Opiate abuses is definitely a larger problem, especially in decaying small town environments where opportunities for employment, mobility and connection are much more limited. There's definitely proportionally more overall effort and attention going into fight opaite abuse than into gun issues, even if gun issues spile louder every once in a while because of clustered violence issues.

For all the "scrutiny," no one can tell us the availability of third term abortions, or what survivability info is given to patents, or what the breakdown is on what is deemed "medical necessity" to justify 3ed term abortion.
No, you just choose not to do the research for the information you want and cast that as no one telling it. And you also arbitrarily dismiss justifications that are given when you see them because you obviously know medical necessity much better than a doctor (see also: your prior dismissal of a justification that included the woman's mental health in regards to her ability to sleep and current children). Doctors have to file paperwork with the justification information, and that information is reviewed by trained auditors who can bring suit if the paperwork is incomplete or seems to otherwise not be in legal compliance.

Scrutiny of an opaque box is no scrutiny at all.  And if there are, as you say, no AMA investigations of abortion providers, that in itself is suspicious, since physicians in all other fields periodically have wrongdoings.
There are many, many investigations, they just consistently find that the doctors are holding up their responsibilities, because they're actually based on facts and not speculative and baseless accusations like the kind that you're presenting here.

It shows nothing relevant to the question of whether illegal abortions are occurring or not occurring.  And whether you like it or not, the states are permitted to declare certain later term abortions illegal. 
Except that pushing women into an an abortion without such counseling to determine their actual needs would be illegal, and is the only plausible illegal scenario that meets the otherwise baseless accusation that you're representing.

And even more of this whiny and irrelevant side track:
Are you debating yourself on this?  Absolutely no one, me included, has argued anything about counseling.  It's completely irrelevant to the question presented.
It will remain irrelevant to the questions being discussed no matter how many times you keep arguing about it with yourself.
It will never be relevant to the questions being discussed, irregardless of whether you once did a book report on it and really really want to bring it up so you can be correct about something in this debate.
Then stop bringing up the false accusation that makes it relevant, unless you actually have any kind of evidence at all that legal providers are performing procedures illegally.

Ahh!  There you have it, formal accusations!  Accordingly, without an accusation (which is directly against the patients interest to admit), such a process is not likely to occur.  Meaning you guessed it, the records have no meaningful relevance.
And with accusations? Since pro-life advocates have made them, county and state health and legal officials have made them in an attempt to dig for evidence of malfeasance? The accusations have been made, and the doctors are routinely cleared. I'm not sure why you think patients are really relevant here, since it's the people trying to invent the accusation that something illegal is happening that bring them, not the patients that need access to the procedures.

Now you're making things up for me to say?  I did not restrict anyone from anything they should have the power to do.  No more than it would be "restricting" someone's right to control their own reproduction to prohibit them from taking a newly born infant to be killed to control their own reproduction.
Okay, so you're backing away from the notion of interfering with doctors judging whether or not an abortion procedure is called for? Up till now you've been advocating for forcing them to not provide them if the fetus is viable and can be removed alive from the woman against her will. IF you're no longer advocating that, then you'r claim about not wanting to restrict anything is valid. If you're advocating for restrictions, then, well, you're advocating for restrictions and forcing people underground to find providers for the services they need because of the hurdles and lack of availability created by those restrictions.

The entire substantive and ethical basis for terminating a fetus is based on the preeminence of the rights of the mother at a time where there is an irresolvable conflict.  Without the irresolvable conflict, there is no real rational reason to allow a termination of a fetus, rather than just a pregnancy.
Sure. And without that conflict women choose to have the child. It's only when there is a conflict that the seek out an abortion.

"What misleading stats are you suggesting that are being presented? Or are you (still hung up on me grabbing the first thing ofI found off of Google) and (making false accusations of that being representative) "

Was that bad grammar, or did you just accuse yourself of making a false accusation?
That's just English being weak at celarly associating clauses,. the grammar is fine, and the meaning is pretty clear with an honest understanding of the context. I could have spent time editing and rewriting for clarity, or I could just give you the chance to choose between reading it honestly and going for a dishonest dig.

I put parentheses around the relevant phrases just in case you were actually confused.

You used the same stat that I always see Planet Parenthood advocates use to promote and enable limitless third term abortion.  And like the rest of those sordid enablers, when confronted on the misleading nature of what you said, you hurl false accusations and bury bad facts in misleading jargon.
It's used to advocate abortion as a choice in general. Deaths from coathangers and underground practitioners are more relevant to access to later term abortion arguments.

And "limitless" is absurdly deceptive, because it glosses over the fact that women only actually go looking for them in cases of serious need in the first place and instead promotes a deeply misogynist kind of slander against the women forced to seek out doctors who will provide such services.

And it's spent more time and effort on developing safety around live births.  It's entirely possible, at any point in time, for a live birth option to be safer or as safe as a termination style abortion, which at a minimum requires the insertion of foreign objects inside the women, and risks punctures and infection.
It's not, because there is still no point where the trivial risk of such exceeds the significant risk of a tear, especially under induction, from the head of the baby coming down the birth canal, not to mention that instruments are also inserted udner live birth situations in order to attach monitors. There is a significan, impossible to eliminate risk that's an inevitable part of any birth. The process by which that risk is mitigate is far, far lass risky, so any relevant improvements in birth safety also increas abortion safety, but the preferred late term technique, by definition, removes on of the biggests universal risks of birth.

And we have options for not having a child you don't want, including adoption, and even permissive abandonment.  No is forced to keep a child they don't want.
Bot of those involved having a child and giving it up. Neither involve not having the child in the first place.

Pretty much moots your objections, unless you're really just in favor of a right to kill.  You may be the first legitimate pro-death person.
That would describe the Chinese one-child policy where abortions were forced.

The risks to a healthy woman either way are not different enough to justify your position.
BAsed on what medical expertise on your part? Again, this is why we have doctors making the call an not amateurs that just make things up pretending that they're opinions are a substitute for real training and experience.

And why would I be, since such a woman would be completely irrelevant to the question?  No one any where has implied that a woman who changes her mind and chooses not to have an abortion is implicated in any way.
Because it shows that some are directed away from having abortions when it's not the most appropriate plan of action in a given situation. To the degree that the claim about illegal procedures being performed by licensed practitioners has any basis in reality, that's a counterargument to the only meaningful scenario under with an improper procedure might actually be occurring.

There is no formal review process of a doctor's medical decisions.
There are medical ethics review boards which absolutely can handle formal accusations about doctors behaving illegally or unethically and stip them of their licenses.

There are no periodic audits or other accountability associated with renewing a license.
you don't need a periodic audit (something that is handled by state health and legal departments in any case, including reviewing the required documentation submitted and taking doctors to task with the appropriate review boards if they're not in compliance) in order for people to file a claim against a given practitioner for ethics violations. Abortion providers invest a fair amount of time defending themselves from such claims by pro-life activists despite generally being foudn to be on hte level.

It's true that Gosnell got away with a lot because it wasn't always in the best interests of the victim to complain, it is however, more true that he got away with as much as he did because of the rabid and blind defensiveness of people as extreme as you are, who were more afraid of giving the pro life side a "victory" than they were concerned with actually helping the women who were being harmed.
That is unmitigated nonsense. It exactly people like him that people like me are out to prevent from having any kind of market in the first place. he can only exist at all because there are restrictions on safe, legal procedures that force women to go underground to get the services they need.

No one here has suggested anyone be forced into going underground. 
You absolutely do when you say you want to restrict the accessibility of legal options. If they have no option but to go to an underground provider to preserve their freedom to make their own choices regarding reproduction, then they've been forced underground. That's how things worked before Roe vs Wade allowed safe legal options, and that's where things move as that safe, legal access is being restricted again.
Simply put, counseling has nothing to do with whether a doctor has legitimately certified a health and safety issue that would make a late term abortion legal.  Absent such a cause, the current state of the law is that abortion can be made illegal, notwithstanding your preferred version.
And given that there are only about 4 clinics in the US that provide such late term services and they're under constant scrutiny, the notion that they're not properly counseling women about their options and helping them pick the procedure than most fits their needs is pretty absurd. People that are more familiar with the issue than you have tried to bring them up on ethics violations and consistently failed; what makes you think you have some magical insight that they've already failed to discover?

That's a good question, what if it were found that the abortion had more health consequences than the birth?
Then work would continue to develop a procedure that had fewer consequences. A point that we're already long past and why there is a current set of preferred procedures in any given situation. This argument only makes sense if you pretend that medical science hadn't already invested decades into sorting out safe methods.

  I don't think it changes Pyrtolin's answer at all, as he fundamentally seems to believe that a woman has an independent right to kill the fetus to prevent herself from becoming a mother (not clear what that right is based on, as it doesn't appear anywhere in the legal background, at least that I'm aware).
All people should have the full right to reproductive choice. The default should be that no one should be forced to have a child that they do not want to have. That's simple liberty and self determination.

There is disputable evidence that the mental health risks also increase.  None of which can outweigh an individual's choice to end a pregnancy, but all of which muddle the argument about termination abortions being required because they are safer.
That last bit is backwards. Techniques for abortions have been developed so that they are safer than normal birth when applied without putting the woman undergoing the procedure at greater risk.

But Pyr is assuming without any real world evidence that induced birth is more dangerous
I provided the specific evidence in terms of the explicit physics and biological factors at play. You can hem and haw all you want, but you can't change the actual facts of the situation, never mind the entire purpose of the process used specifically to make the procedure safer.

than his blender-womb extract baby as slushie solution.
That's a different and less preferred procedure specifically because making multiple cuts does provide a slight chance of laceration. Lower than the chance of the baby's skull ripping the perineum, (especially under induction, which greatly increases the risk that the skull will push too hard against the woman's perineum causing a tear) but still a risk.

And if the woman is agreeing to abort late term while being fed the sort of misleading health stats that Pyr and NARAL have foisted on the public, can she meaningfully give informed consent?
What misleading stats are you suggesting that are being presented? Or are you still hung up on me grabbing the first thing ofI found off of Google and making false accusations of that being representative of anything but the fact that Google can be used to find information? If you actually have some evidence of that claim, please feel free to put it forth, otherwise you're making up stuff where you've already demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea about what you're talking about.

Seems to me that the blender option creates all sorts of new dangers such as sepsis, internal cutting,
Which, again. is why the skull crushing option is preferred, despite your confusion of two different procedures here.

not to mention psychological trauma from guilt.
Which is roughly comparable to the psychological trauma of having abandoned a child when giving it up to adoption and much less than the ongoing trauma of raising a child that one was forced to keep. And that's without getting into the trauma that comes from being treated as less than human by being forced to have ones choices disregarded because moralistic lawmakers who know better than her have taken away her agency in the matter. There's going to be psychological fallout no matter what, but treatment for a willing choice is always going to be more easy to provide than treatment for a choice that was forced on her against her will.

And this is assuming that she bows to such legal subjugation instead of being forced to find an underground provider because she's blocked from the safe, legal avenue that should be available to her.

So from your re-direction attempt, should I assume you can't actually back your claim?
You've already preemptively declared that you're not honestly asking about women who were counseled into a different choice, so it's a good thing I didn't waste time on your wild goose chase over a made up issue here.

Why would ethics violation stats be relevant?  Are you under the impression that these doctors are subject to audit or review by persons empowered to review their decisions?
Yes. That's what their professional license involves. Doctors who behave unethically can have their medical licensing revoked by ethics panels that already review their practice.

It would be completely against the patient's self interest to admit they received an illegal abortion.
Which is why illegal operators like Gosnell are able to get away with predatory actions and why we need to remove the barriers to legal procedures so that hey're not forced back into going underground for them.

And it would be a complete waste of time, unless you could show they were denied an abortion rather than persuaded not to have one.
So you're not actually interested in evidence that doctors do counsel some number of women out of having abortions if better alternatives are available, just in slandering women and the doctors for trying to earnestly work out the best plan of care with made up accusations.

I see what you're saying. But his entire position has been the potential harm to the mother, not her right to control her pregnancy.
You're confusing responses specific to the topic of what constitutes danger to the mother under the current rules and responses on the overall general principle.

If she wants the pregnancy to end then that's her right, but she doesn't literally have the right to control every aspect of it. As Seriati points out, no one has the right to demand a shotgun abortion, for instance, and so a woman's right to 'control her pregnancy' is limited to either nourishing it or deciding to end it.
This is inside out a bit, especially with the absurd example, since it's not reflective of any medical procedure. A huge part reason that women should have full access to abortions is specifically so that they don't have to resort to shotgun abortions or other more traditional self-administered or unregulated procedures to terminate a pregnancy if they do not wish to give birth, especially in late term cases where the risks associated are very high.

I don't see where the notion of controlling every aspect of the termination of that pregnancy comes in to it. It seems like a made-up notion.
It is made up- it's a false claim to try to bury the basic principle at play in irrelevant minutia, by pretending that nitpicky process details within the scope of an expert carrying out the higher level request are equivalent to the higher level request, when the latter is the meaningful aspect.

In fact Pyr even said that if the fetus could magically be teleported out of the mother then there may be a point to be had,
Regarding safety, yes. But then that would get back to the larger issue of not being right to force her to have a child, unless you're intending to tell her that the bean disintegrated the child and close all records, etc... such that there's no chance of her later discovering that you secretly did trick her into giving birth, which opens up a boatload of ethical questions along with treating her like a baby factory.

Since no one disagrees that a woman should have the right to control her body I'm not sure what part of the conversation includes a debate over whether a woman should be made to incubate.
The part where she's forced to have a child she did not want to, thus serving as an incubator up to the point where birth happened, by whatever method by whoever denied her access to an abortion.

We are discussing conflicting rights and you keep reverting back to answering as if people are suggesting that women should have to incubate.
Because people keep suggesting that should have the power to force a woman to give birth even if she doesn't want to. That makes her _whole preganncy_ up to the point there she is forced to give birth, by induction, c-section, carrying to term, or what have you, incubation for whoever it is that has taken away her control of her body and reproduction and forced her to serve as their baby making tool.

But if you do think that fetus is a person you'd have to come up with a good reason, I think, not to take significant steps to protect it, no?
Absolutely. And the reason is that a woman who as not given birth year should have full control without legal interference over whether or not she gives birth. If she decides not to, then no one should have the power to force her body to be used for birth against her will. It is regrettable that the baby dies in that circumstance, but that's no different than someone who neds a transfusion, kidney donation, or the like dying because a compatible donor refuse to give up their organs.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9