Roe v Wade is on deck

[GenesisNemesis]

Perhaps more to the point… do you think that a baby prematurely delivered at 28 weeks is not a person, and that the mother should have the right to opt for the killing and destruction of that premie?

I don't think that my opinion matters. The decision needs to be made by the mother and her medical provider.

There are many times where I suspect you're responding with a knee-jerk reaction based on what you assume I might secretly mean rather than a considered response to what I've actually said.

This is one of those times.

There are many times when I think that you fail to comprehend what I write.

My position is that the decision needs to be made by the woman and her doctor. <rest snipped>

Toni, focus. You are clearly answering a different question from the one Emily asked. Drop your preconceptions of what you think she asked and read the original question again, carefully. You keep giving answers about abortion. She did not ask you an abortion question.

No, you are both overestimating my willingness to continue to play games. I've stated over and over that my opinion does not matter, that the decision is left to the woman and her doctor and that all other arguments for/against do not matter.

You think that you and Emily are engaging in some some sort of 4D chess game level of intellectual/moral discussion.

You are not.

Oh well, we tried. There’s no saving some people. If you want to go on saying over and over that you think that after a baby has been born alive his postpartum mother and her doctor should be allowed to murder him, knock yourself out.

Toni never said that. Try to live up to the standards you expect of other posters.

Nope, only Bomb#20 (well, and certain others) are allowed to make wild assumptions about other posters, that could easily be refuted because no pro-choice person believes what he's claiming in the first place, and never argues for that for specific reasons he can easily just look up. But if you make a wild assumption about them, then it's unfair.

 

[Toni]

To be fair, I think that Bomb#20 is making wild statements in an attempt to goad me into continuing a discussion/defending myself against baseless accusations.

Maybe it's just my faulty memory but I thought that goading is against the TOU?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

To be fair, I think that Bomb#20 is making wild statements in an attempt to goad me into continuing a discussion/defending myself against baseless accusations.

Maybe it's just my faulty memory but I thought that goading is against the TOU?

I've broken the rules more than a few times myself so I'm not one to talk.

 

[Toni]

To be fair, I think that Bomb#20 is making wild statements in an attempt to goad me into continuing a discussion/defending myself against baseless accusations.

Maybe it's just my faulty memory but I thought that goading is against the TOU?

I've broken the rules more than a few times myself so I'm not one to talk.

I'm sure I have as well. I have the issue fixed on my end, so...

 

[Elixir]

Oh wow. Thread drift is so cool.
GN says they have "broken rules more than a few times", which raises an important question that we should answer before we launch our full on retribution campaign.
Is more weight given to the number of times a poster has broken rules, or is more weight given to the number of rules they have broken?
Personally I think the latter, because one could continually break and re-break some given rule just out of habit, whereas breaking numerous rules identifies one as a truly ill-intended renegade. Like, getting an abortion while in Texas, then doing it again in Louisiana and again in Alabama and once more in Mississippi wouldn't be nearly as bad IMO, as having an abortion in Texas then holding up a bank in Nashville, then shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die.
What say ye?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I am definitely an ill-intended renegade. 100%.

Oh wow. Thread drift is so cool.
GN says they have "broken rules more than a few times", which raises an important question that we should answer before we launch our full on retribution campaign.
Is more weight given to the number of times a poster has broken rules, or is more weight given to the number of rules they have broken?
Personally I think the latter, because one could continually break and re-break some given rule just out of habit, whereas breaking numerous rules identifies one as a truly ill-intended renegade. Like, getting an abortion while in Texas, then doing it again in Louisiana and again in Alabama and once more in Mississippi wouldn't be nearly as bad IMO, as having an abortion in Texas then holding up a bank in Nashville, then shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die.
What say ye?

I think accusing someone of being pro-killing babies is far worse than anything I've accused others of being, personally.

 

[Toni]

I am definitely an ill-intended renegade. 100%.

Oh wow. Thread drift is so cool.
GN says they have "broken rules more than a few times", which raises an important question that we should answer before we launch our full on retribution campaign.
Is more weight given to the number of times a poster has broken rules, or is more weight given to the number of rules they have broken?
Personally I think the latter, because one could continually break and re-break some given rule just out of habit, whereas breaking numerous rules identifies one as a truly ill-intended renegade. Like, getting an abortion while in Texas, then doing it again in Louisiana and again in Alabama and once more in Mississippi wouldn't be nearly as bad IMO, as having an abortion in Texas then holding up a bank in Nashville, then shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die.
What say ye?

I think accusing someone of being pro-killing babies is far worse than anything I've accused others of being, personally.

Again, I think the intention was to goad me into responding and playing Bomb#20’s game.

I don’t particularly care what Bomb wants or what they think of me, or whether they think k my argument hold up or my reasoning or positions are sound.

I view participating in these pages as informal discussion, not debate, friendly or formal.

 

[Emily Lake]

I still think you are confusing allowing abortions at any stage of development and not having a specific list of conditions that must be met in order to justify them, with having no regulations or medical ethics at all.

The code isn't the important thing, providing needed medical care is.

For all intents, I agree - providing MEDICAL care matters. When there's no medical need and the fetus can survive on its own with very high likelihood of survival and very low likelihood of problems, I see no meaningful difference between them and a premie. If you wouldn't support the killing of a premie on the basis of it being inconvenient for the mother, then you shouldn't support abortion at the same stage of development.

The only difference is geography. And that's not a meaningful difference to me.

I get it that you don't trust doctors and their patients to always make the calls you want them to make, but no one can accurately predict what doctors and their patients might be facing over the course of a pregnancy. IMO we must allow doctors and pregnant women to make those choices about treatments, code or no code, because they are the ones with the information needed to make the best choice.

What are you considering to be in the realm of "best choice"? Can you outline a scenario in which you would support a third trimester abortion and which you believe I would oppose?

 

[Emily Lake]

Perhaps more to the point… do you think that a baby prematurely delivered at 28 weeks is not a person, and that the mother should have the right to opt for the killing and destruction of that premie?

I don't think that my opinion matters. The decision needs to be made by the mother and her medical provider.

There are many times where I suspect you're responding with a knee-jerk reaction based on what you assume I might secretly mean rather than a considered response to what I've actually said.

This is one of those times.

There are many times when I think that you fail to comprehend what I write.

My position is that the decision needs to be made by the woman and her doctor. They can use whatever criteria they wish, the doctor is free to decline if he feels that processing will violate his professional ethics. He’s free to make recommendations for counseling or another provider.

Their criteria dies not need to match mine.

When I was very young, I could not imagine wanting to have an abortion.

There was a circumstance some years later that had I been pregnant. I would have gone to any lengths to end the pregnancy, even if it meant ending my own life.

I have helped women procure abortions. They did not necessarily use the sane criteria that I thought I would use if I were in their situation. But it was their body and their life and not mine. I helped them find safe, legal, compassionate care.

If that is not explicit enough for you, I do not care.

I am not interested in splitting theoretical hairs over difficult decisions that some women find they need to make. I absolutely would not want anyone impeding my right to make such decisions for myself and procure the medical help I felt necessary, whether that was to terminate my pregnancy or to carry the pregnancy to term.

I find such discussions to be abhorrent.

No more.

@Toni... do you realize that you've just supported killing premies?

 

[Toni]

Perhaps more to the point… do you think that a baby prematurely delivered at 28 weeks is not a person, and that the mother should have the right to opt for the killing and destruction of that premie?

I don't think that my opinion matters. The decision needs to be made by the mother and her medical provider.

There are many times where I suspect you're responding with a knee-jerk reaction based on what you assume I might secretly mean rather than a considered response to what I've actually said.

This is one of those times.

There are many times when I think that you fail to comprehend what I write.

My position is that the decision needs to be made by the woman and her doctor. They can use whatever criteria they wish, the doctor is free to decline if he feels that processing will violate his professional ethics. He’s free to make recommendations for counseling or another provider.

Their criteria dies not need to match mine.

When I was very young, I could not imagine wanting to have an abortion.

There was a circumstance some years later that had I been pregnant. I would have gone to any lengths to end the pregnancy, even if it meant ending my own life.

I have helped women procure abortions. They did not necessarily use the sane criteria that I thought I would use if I were in their situation. But it was their body and their life and not mine. I helped them find safe, legal, compassionate care.

If that is not explicit enough for you, I do not care.

I am not interested in splitting theoretical hairs over difficult decisions that some women find they need to make. I absolutely would not want anyone impeding my right to make such decisions for myself and procure the medical help I felt necessary, whether that was to terminate my pregnancy or to carry the pregnancy to term.

I find such discussions to be abhorrent.

No more.

@Toni... do you realize that you've just supported killing premies?

I realize that you are joining Bomb#20 in misrepresenting my position and in attempting to goad me into continuing this dishonest and abhorrent exchange.

No means no.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why should I have a preconception that someone who is pro-choice would be OK with killing a premature baby, when it's obviously outside of the womb?

Why does geography matter to you?

Is a 35 week human outside the womb any more developed than a 35 week human inside the womb? What meaningful difference in the development and survivability is there between those two that leads to one of them being a human with a right to not be murdered, and the other one a non-entity that can be killed and disposed of at will?

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps more to the point… do you think that a baby prematurely delivered at 28 weeks is not a person, and that the mother should have the right to opt for the killing and destruction of that premie?

I don't think that my opinion matters. The decision needs to be made by the mother and her medical provider.

There are many times where I suspect you're responding with a knee-jerk reaction based on what you assume I might secretly mean rather than a considered response to what I've actually said.

This is one of those times.

There are many times when I think that you fail to comprehend what I write.

My position is that the decision needs to be made by the woman and her doctor. They can use whatever criteria they wish, the doctor is free to decline if he feels that processing will violate his professional ethics. He’s free to make recommendations for counseling or another provider.

Their criteria dies not need to match mine.

When I was very young, I could not imagine wanting to have an abortion.

There was a circumstance some years later that had I been pregnant. I would have gone to any lengths to end the pregnancy, even if it meant ending my own life.

I have helped women procure abortions. They did not necessarily use the sane criteria that I thought I would use if I were in their situation. But it was their body and their life and not mine. I helped them find safe, legal, compassionate care.

If that is not explicit enough for you, I do not care.

I am not interested in splitting theoretical hairs over difficult decisions that some women find they need to make. I absolutely would not want anyone impeding my right to make such decisions for myself and procure the medical help I felt necessary, whether that was to terminate my pregnancy or to carry the pregnancy to term.

I find such discussions to be abhorrent.

No more.

@Toni... do you realize that you've just supported killing premies?

Her response was clearly in reference to an abortion not a live birth. So she supports killing premies as much as you support women dying in forced labor.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yeah, you feel the need to come rescue the damsel in distress.

…. It might be worth considering why this forum tacitly allows dishonest and malicious falsehoods about some - but only some - members. …

I don’t think that’s what’s going on. I think the forum allows that about everyone — I don’t recall ever seeing anyone infracted or even edited for libeling other people. The statistical imbalance in who you’re seeing it done to looks to me like it reflects who the preferred targets are of the subset of members who go in for that sort of behavior.

Hoo boy, if you could put names and faces to those infractors, we could clean this place up in a hurry!

The heck are you on about? I just said there aren’t any. Dishonest and malicious falsehoods about other members aren’t a TOU violation.

My bad - let me re-phrase for your benefit;
if you could put names and faces to those writing dishonest and malicious falsehoods about other members, we could clean this place up in a hurry!

You do this. About me. Fairly regularly.

 

[Emily Lake]

Perhaps more to the point… do you think that a baby prematurely delivered at 28 weeks is not a person, and that the mother should have the right to opt for the killing and destruction of that premie?

I don't think that my opinion matters. The decision needs to be made by the mother and her medical provider.

There are many times where I suspect you're responding with a knee-jerk reaction based on what you assume I might secretly mean rather than a considered response to what I've actually said.

This is one of those times.

There are many times when I think that you fail to comprehend what I write.

My position is that the decision needs to be made by the woman and her doctor. <rest snipped>

Toni, focus. You are clearly answering a different question from the one Emily asked. Drop your preconceptions of what you think she asked and read the original question again, carefully. You keep giving answers about abortion. She did not ask you an abortion question.

No, you are both overestimating my willingness to continue to play games. I've stated over and over that my opinion does not matter, that the decision is left to the woman and her doctor and that all other arguments for/against do not matter.

You think that you and Emily are engaging in some some sort of 4D chess game level of intellectual/moral discussion.

You are not.

Oh well, we tried. There’s no saving some people. If you want to go on saying over and over that you think that after a baby has been born alive his postpartum mother and her doctor should be allowed to murder him, knock yourself out.

Toni never said that. Try to live up to the standards you expect of other posters.

Toni literally said that the decision of whether or not to kill a prematurely delivered baby is up to the mother and her doctor. Then she doubled down on that and reiterated her view.

I'm of the opinion that Toni did not actually read and consider what I wrote. Apparently, neither did you.

And I even took the time to bold the question so it stands out, then I bolded and colored the response so that it's easy to look back up and say "oh, no I didn't read that".

 

[Emily Lake]

I am definitely an ill-intended renegade. 100%.

Oh wow. Thread drift is so cool.
GN says they have "broken rules more than a few times", which raises an important question that we should answer before we launch our full on retribution campaign.
Is more weight given to the number of times a poster has broken rules, or is more weight given to the number of rules they have broken?
Personally I think the latter, because one could continually break and re-break some given rule just out of habit, whereas breaking numerous rules identifies one as a truly ill-intended renegade. Like, getting an abortion while in Texas, then doing it again in Louisiana and again in Alabama and once more in Mississippi wouldn't be nearly as bad IMO, as having an abortion in Texas then holding up a bank in Nashville, then shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die.
What say ye?

I think accusing someone of being pro-killing babies is far worse than anything I've accused others of being, personally.

Again, I think the intention was to goad me into responding and playing Bomb#20’s game.

It wasn't Bomb's "game", and it wasn't a game at all. It was my question - right there in bold font.

You responded that the decision on whether or not to kill a prematurely delivered baby should be up to the mother and her doctor, and nobody else should have an opinion on it - not even you. You even doubled down on your view that mom and doc can decide whether or not killing that premie is the best option for the mother.

It's not Bomb's fault you didn't read.

 

[Emily Lake]

@Toni... do you realize that you've just supported killing premies?

I realize that you are joining Bomb#20 in misrepresenting my position and in attempting to goad me into continuing this dishonest and abhorrent exchange.

No means no.

Toni, you seem to be misrepresenting your own position. Nobody is trying to goad you into anything.

Look - and I mean really actually look:

Perhaps more to the point… do you think that a baby prematurely delivered at 28 weeks is not a person, and that the mother should have the right to opt for the killing and destruction of that premie?

I don't think that my opinion matters. The decision needs to be made by the mother and her medical provider.

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps more to the point… do you think that a baby prematurely delivered at 28 weeks is not a person, and that the mother should have the right to opt for the killing and destruction of that premie?

I don't think that my opinion matters. The decision needs to be made by the mother and her medical provider.

There are many times where I suspect you're responding with a knee-jerk reaction based on what you assume I might secretly mean rather than a considered response to what I've actually said.

This is one of those times.

There are many times when I think that you fail to comprehend what I write.

My position is that the decision needs to be made by the woman and her doctor. <rest snipped>

Toni, focus. You are clearly answering a different question from the one Emily asked. Drop your preconceptions of what you think she asked and read the original question again, carefully. You keep giving answers about abortion. She did not ask you an abortion question.

No, you are both overestimating my willingness to continue to play games. I've stated over and over that my opinion does not matter, that the decision is left to the woman and her doctor and that all other arguments for/against do not matter.

You think that you and Emily are engaging in some some sort of 4D chess game level of intellectual/moral discussion.

You are not.

Oh well, we tried. There’s no saving some people. If you want to go on saying over and over that you think that after a baby has been born alive his postpartum mother and her doctor should be allowed to murder him, knock yourself out.

Toni never said that. Try to live up to the standards you expect of other posters.

Toni literally said that the decision of whether or not to kill a prematurely delivered baby is up to the mother and her doctor. Then she doubled down on that and reiterated her view.

Anyone who reads in the context and who can reason above the 2nd grade level would have clearly understood she mean an abortion and nothing else.

I'm of the opinion that Toni did not actually read and consider what I wrote.

Yet, you feel the need to double down on the misinterpretation after Toni has objected to it. While you maintain complaints of others misinterpreting your position!!!

Apparently, neither did you.

No, I read the posts in the context of the discussion like a normal person. You should try it sometime.

 

[Emily Lake]

Perhaps more to the point… do you think that a baby prematurely delivered at 28 weeks is not a person, and that the mother should have the right to opt for the killing and destruction of that premie?

I don't think that my opinion matters. The decision needs to be made by the mother and her medical provider.

Her response was clearly in reference to an abortion not a live birth. So she supports killing premies as much as you support women dying in forced labor.

Her response clearly indicates that she didn't read the question being asked. And she keeps doubling down and defending the answer she gave to my question - which was very clearly NOT about abortion.

I'll go out on a limb and add some explanation. As Bomb #20 rightly pointed out, this is not a single catch-phrase belief, but a relatively complex chain of logic, where one step leads to the next.

I take as a fundamental premise that the killing of other humans is immoral. My view of morality - which will likely not align with the views of others - is that the determination of morality is premised upon actions, not thoughts. It is actions that we judge, and none of us are mind readers. In some situations, a person is presented with a choice of "lesser evils". Sometimes there is no moral option available, and we can only choose that which is the least immoral. Killing in self defense or defense of another is still immoral, but less so than being the aggressor. In the most extenuating of circumstances, killing another may be considered a necessity and perhaps rise so far as to be considered morally neutral.

When it comes to babies, the degree of development matters a great deal to me. Early in the pregnancy, the fetus has no chance of survival outside the womb. At this stage, if the mother chooses to abort, I have no objections. The fetus isn't yet a separate being in any meaningful sense - no more so than an egg is a chicken. It can become a chicken, but it's not there yet.

The farther along the pregnancy gets, the more that egg becomes a chicken in and of itself. At some point, there's no meaningful distinction between a baby inside the womb and a premie outside the womb - the only difference is location. They're developmentally the same, with the same degree of complexity, brain activity, response to stimuli, and ability to feel discomfort and pain.

At around 28 weeks of development, a prematurely delivered baby has about a 90% survival rate, with a low risk of complications.

If you wouldn't support the killing of a prematurely delivered baby due to inconvenience or cost, then I don't think you should support the killing of a baby inside the womb for those reasons.

If the baby is debilitated or deformed in a way that means it's unlikely to thrive, then I view it in the same way I view DNR and living wills - don't perform extraordinary effort to prolong a life that will result in suffering. If there is a risk to the mother's life or healthy, then I view in the same way I view killing in self defense - undesirable but necessary and justifiable.

Barring those situations, I have not yet seen a cogent argument that supports killing a healthy baby, but does NOT also support killing a prematurely delivered baby of the same developmental stage.

If you have a good and convincing argument for why there is a meaningful difference in the humanity of each of those 28 week old individuals other than location, please have at it.

 

[Toni]

Perhaps more to the point… do you think that a baby prematurely delivered at 28 weeks is not a person, and that the mother should have the right to opt for the killing and destruction of that premie?

I don't think that my opinion matters. The decision needs to be made by the mother and her medical provider.

There are many times where I suspect you're responding with a knee-jerk reaction based on what you assume I might secretly mean rather than a considered response to what I've actually said.

This is one of those times.

There are many times when I think that you fail to comprehend what I write.

My position is that the decision needs to be made by the woman and her doctor. <rest snipped>

Toni, focus. You are clearly answering a different question from the one Emily asked. Drop your preconceptions of what you think she asked and read the original question again, carefully. You keep giving answers about abortion. She did not ask you an abortion question.

No, you are both overestimating my willingness to continue to play games. I've stated over and over that my opinion does not matter, that the decision is left to the woman and her doctor and that all other arguments for/against do not matter.

You think that you and Emily are engaging in some some sort of 4D chess game level of intellectual/moral discussion.

You are not.

Oh well, we tried. There’s no saving some people. If you want to go on saying over and over that you think that after a baby has been born alive his postpartum mother and her doctor should be allowed to murder him, knock yourself out.

Toni never said that. Try to live up to the standards you expect of other posters.

Toni literally said that the decision of whether or not to kill a prematurely delivered baby is up to the mother and her doctor. Then she doubled down on that and reiterated her view.

I'm of the opinion that Toni did not actually read and consider what I wrote. Apparently, neither did you.

And I even took the time to bold the question so it stands out, then I bolded and colored the response so that it's easy to look back up and say "oh, no I didn't read that".

Emily: I stated repeatedly that I am done with this discussion and that I find your hypotheticals to be abhorrent and disgusting.

You have pointed out that you believe that I did not correctly read your last disgusting hypothetical —and you are perhaps correct. Like you, I have other things going on in my life.

Despite your understanding that I did not read something correctly you are persisting in berating me and attempting to drag me into a discussion that I do not wish to be part of, especially given you are willing to continue after you acknowledge that I probably made an error.

I do not think that this is the type of discussion that is likely to change anyone’s mind. Particularly when some participants are being blatantly disingenuous.

I’m really done.

 

[Emily Lake]

Perhaps more to the point… do you think that a baby prematurely delivered at 28 weeks is not a person, and that the mother should have the right to opt for the killing and destruction of that premie?

I don't think that my opinion matters. The decision needs to be made by the mother and her medical provider.

There are many times where I suspect you're responding with a knee-jerk reaction based on what you assume I might secretly mean rather than a considered response to what I've actually said.

This is one of those times.

There are many times when I think that you fail to comprehend what I write.

My position is that the decision needs to be made by the woman and her doctor. <rest snipped>

Toni, focus. You are clearly answering a different question from the one Emily asked. Drop your preconceptions of what you think she asked and read the original question again, carefully. You keep giving answers about abortion. She did not ask you an abortion question.

No, you are both overestimating my willingness to continue to play games. I've stated over and over that my opinion does not matter, that the decision is left to the woman and her doctor and that all other arguments for/against do not matter.

You think that you and Emily are engaging in some some sort of 4D chess game level of intellectual/moral discussion.

You are not.

Oh well, we tried. There’s no saving some people. If you want to go on saying over and over that you think that after a baby has been born alive his postpartum mother and her doctor should be allowed to murder him, knock yourself out.

Toni never said that. Try to live up to the standards you expect of other posters.

Toni literally said that the decision of whether or not to kill a prematurely delivered baby is up to the mother and her doctor. Then she doubled down on that and reiterated her view.

Anyone who reads in the context and who can reason above the 2nd grade level would have clearly understood she mean an abortion and nothing else.

Sure. And anyone who can read and reason above a 1st grade level would have taken the opportunity I presented and revised their response to the question I actually asked, rather than continuing to defend an answer to a question that I did not ask.

My original response was to assume she hadn't read thoroughly. Granted, I was snippy about it... but I still put in the effort to make it clear what question I asked and to demonstrate how Toni's response did NOT seem appropriate. I even when to far as to actually say that I believe Toni didn't actually read, and responded to what she imagined I was saying rather than what I actually said.

At that point, Toni stuck by her response.

Now you might be 100% right that she was talking about abortion. But the fact remains that I did not ask about abortion. I asked a question about prematurely delivered babies, and I asked for a reason. Toni was given multiple opportunities to re-read, and to consider what was asked, and to alter or clarify her response. She chose to do none of those things.