Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

That is not my sole argument. I don’t think the state should interfere with a woman’s medical decisions. If a healthy pregnant woman decides an abortion is her best medical option and her physician agrees to perform one, then neither you nor I anyone else should be able to interfere.

I think once the fetus is delivered is a demarcation that is easy to observe and maintain.

You think 28 weeks (which cannot be measured exactly) is the demarcation even though there is substantively little between 27 snd 28 weeks. You’re fine with murdering 27 week babies in utero.

You are both fine with murdering 27 week babies in utero.[

Once medical technology improves, your magic number will fall.

Hope that will be true.

How thoughtful of you to hope more women will be forced to give birth against their will.

I am thinking of all those babies who were killed. They had no say in their fate.
You would not accept that fate for any other person so why the unborn?

Why should women not have a say in their fate?

There are 2 people involved. The unborn and the mother. It's not just their fate, rather them and their child.

A baby, once born, has little or no say in anything in its life first some time. And it appears to people who think like you, none at all if they be female and become pregnant.

It is very good that we consider the child worthy of being looked after once born. Why does the geospatial location of the child i.e. inside the womb mean it is not looked after but rather subject to being killed?

Why is the fetus, completely dependent on t upon the woman, considered to have its life presumed to take precedence over hers?

Why are women not worthy of bodily autonomy?

Why is the unborn human not considered worthy of living? Or body autonomy?

We, as humans, also have a most wonderful habit of looking after the helpless or those who cannot look after themselves.

A fetus is not autonomous. It cannot survive outside the mother’s body. It depends upon her heart, her lungs, her brain, her circulatory system, kidneys, digestive system, immune system: all of the woman’s body’s functions make the fetus’ continued existence possible.

You are not required to donate your kidney or part of your liver or a lobe of your lung even if it means a baby will die if you do not. You are not even required to donate a unit of blood. Not even if you are dead.

No one is required to allow anyone else to make use of their body, in whole or just parts of it, even if it is the only chance that someone has to live.

Why are your rights to your own body greater than the rights of a woman to her own body?

 

[Tigers!]

That is not my sole argument. I don’t think the state should interfere with a woman’s medical decisions. If a healthy pregnant woman decides an abortion is her best medical option and her physician agrees to perform one, then neither you nor I anyone else should be able to interfere.

I think once the fetus is delivered is a demarcation that is easy to observe and maintain.

You think 28 weeks (which cannot be measured exactly) is the demarcation even though there is substantively little between 27 snd 28 weeks. You’re fine with murdering 27 week babies in utero.

You are both fine with murdering 27 week babies in utero.[

Once medical technology improves, your magic number will fall.

Hope that will be true.

How thoughtful of you to hope more women will be forced to give birth against their will.

I am thinking of all those babies who were killed. They had no say in their fate.
You would not accept that fate for any other person so why the unborn?

Why should women not have a say in their fate?

There are 2 people involved. The unborn and the mother. It's not just their fate, rather them and their child.

A baby, once born, has little or no say in anything in its life first some time. And it appears to people who think like you, none at all if they be female and become pregnant.

It is very good that we consider the child worthy of being looked after once born. Why does the geospatial location of the child i.e. inside the womb mean it is not looked after but rather subject to being killed?

Why is the fetus, completely dependent on t upon the woman, considered to have its life presumed to take precedence over hers?

Why are women not worthy of bodily autonomy?

Why is the unborn human not considered worthy of living? Or body autonomy?

We, as humans, also have a most wonderful habit of looking after the helpless or those who cannot look after themselves.

A fetus is not autonomous. It cannot survive outside the mother’s body. It depends upon her heart, her lungs, her brain, her circulatory system, kidneys, digestive system, immune system: all of the woman’s body’s functions make the fetus’ continued existence possible.

You are not required to donate your kidney or part of your liver or a lobe of your lung even if it means a baby will die if you do not. You are not even required to donate a unit of blood. Not even if you are dead.

No one is required to allow anyone else to make use of their body, in whole or just parts of it, even if it is the only chance that someone has to live.

Why are your rights to your own body greater than the rights of a woman to her own body?

The two instances mentioned above apply to women and men. They do have autonomy. In both cases you or any potential donor are not the cause of the baby or persons death or injury, illness.

An abortion is the cause of the unborn human's death.

 

[Toni]

That is not my sole argument. I don’t think the state should interfere with a woman’s medical decisions. If a healthy pregnant woman decides an abortion is her best medical option and her physician agrees to perform one, then neither you nor I anyone else should be able to interfere.

I think once the fetus is delivered is a demarcation that is easy to observe and maintain.

You think 28 weeks (which cannot be measured exactly) is the demarcation even though there is substantively little between 27 snd 28 weeks. You’re fine with murdering 27 week babies in utero.

You are both fine with murdering 27 week babies in utero.[

Once medical technology improves, your magic number will fall.

Hope that will be true.

How thoughtful of you to hope more women will be forced to give birth against their will.

I am thinking of all those babies who were killed. They had no say in their fate.
You would not accept that fate for any other person so why the unborn?

Why should women not have a say in their fate?

There are 2 people involved. The unborn and the mother. It's not just their fate, rather them and their child.

A baby, once born, has little or no say in anything in its life first some time. And it appears to people who think like you, none at all if they be female and become pregnant.

It is very good that we consider the child worthy of being looked after once born. Why does the geospatial location of the child i.e. inside the womb mean it is not looked after but rather subject to being killed?

Why is the fetus, completely dependent on t upon the woman, considered to have its life presumed to take precedence over hers?

Why are women not worthy of bodily autonomy?

Why is the unborn human not considered worthy of living? Or body autonomy?

We, as humans, also have a most wonderful habit of looking after the helpless or those who cannot look after themselves.

A fetus is not autonomous. It cannot survive outside the mother’s body. It depends upon her heart, her lungs, her brain, her circulatory system, kidneys, digestive system, immune system: all of the woman’s body’s functions make the fetus’ continued existence possible.

You are not required to donate your kidney or part of your liver or a lobe of your lung even if it means a baby will die if you do not. You are not even required to donate a unit of blood. Not even if you are dead.

No one is required to allow anyone else to make use of their body, in whole or just parts of it, even if it is the only chance that someone has to live.

Why are your rights to your own body greater than the rights of a woman to her own body?

The two instances mentioned above apply to women and men. They do have autonomy. In both cases you or any potential donor are not the cause of the baby or persons death or injury, illness.

An abortion is the cause of the unborn human's death.

Withholding your blood when you know blood supplies are low and there is a disaster means that someone might die. If you know your kidney is a match for someone in kidney failure Abd you do not choose to donate your kidney, you are costing that person their life.

Why do you have that right?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why is the unborn human not considered worthy of living? Or body autonomy?

We, as humans, also have a most wonderful habit of looking after the helpless or those who cannot look after themselves.

Is that why Texas passes a ban, but yet no support for pregnant women?

I'm tired of the lie about the compassion of the pro-life movement. It has absolutely nothing to do with life.

 

[Bomb#20]

If I give you a list of offenders, what do you propose to do to resolve the problem?

Review their offenses, silly! What else would you expect?
Once we find them culpable we can review the severity of their transgressions and proceed with the appropriate retributions.
You want a sentence to be prescribed before the evidence is even shown!
Shame on you B20. Cough up the list so we can get started. I’m breaking out my retribution outfit in eager anticipation!
View attachment 54837

E: Phase 1 is steal underpants. Phase 3 is profit!
B: What’s phase 2?
E: Phase 1 is steal underpants!

Why are you fabricating nonsense about me? You’re the one who wants a sentence prescribed; I didn’t ask for any. You aren’t a moderator and the offense isn’t against the TOU, so I don’t see how you’re going to carry out any sentence you think up. And I gave you a list and you ignored it and snipped it out when you quoted me. So you misrepresented me twice in that post. Did you do that out of stupidity or was it deliberate? If you did it deliberately, then now the list has two entries.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Toni, this is not a goddamn game! You are trying to get a whole category of homicides reclassified as justifiable; if you succeed in persuading people then the foreseeable consequence is that more of those homicides will occur. Emily is trying to talk you out of the course you’re on because she wants to prevent those homicides. You have every right to disengage and walk away from the discussion, but that’s not what you’re doing. You’re making ad hominem attacks on her and me, telling us to drop our attempts to explain what’s wrong with your arguments, and then continuing to make bad arguments. You have every right to never attempt to come to grips with the reasons why what you say makes no sense; you do not have the right to have me and Emily help you make believe you made a strong case for legalizing more homicides.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think once the fetus is delivered is a demarcation that is easy to observe and maintain.

You think 28 weeks (which cannot be measured exactly) is the demarcation even though there is substantively little between 27 snd 28 weeks. You’re fine with murdering 27 week babies in utero. Once medical technology improves, your magic number will fall.

I don’t think it’s a magic number, and I’ve gone through a lot of effort to provide my reasoning. I think it’s an appropriate and reasonable number. There’s no way to make it absolutely perfect, but 28 weeks is one week more than what most doctors consider viable.

You think it is reasonable and appropriate. So why are the conception people wrong? They think their position is reasonable and appropriate.

My entire approach is based on finding the point where most people will mostly agree, then adding a smidge to be safe.

Agree on what? There are a lot of people that aren't hedging over 26 to 28 weeks... they want 0 weeks. Your position doesn't remotely take their thoughts into account.

It might not be perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than no line at all.

I think the interesting thing is your 'middle road' is actually what you want, and not a compromise at all. The whole partial birth abortion ban was a red herring to begin with from the Pro-"Life" movement.

 

[Elixir]

You’re the one who wants a sentence prescribed

Do you REALLY think I want a sentence prescribed?
As The Donald would ask, “Are you stupid?” Sarcasm, facetiousness and humor in general, lie well beyond the scope of the American conservative. Probably the lib’ruls’ fault for jading them.

 

[Bomb#20]

You’re the one who wants a sentence prescribed

Do you REALLY think I want a sentence prescribed?
As The Donald would ask, “Are you stupid?” Sarcasm, facetiousness and humor in general, lie well beyond the scope of the American conservative. Probably the lib’ruls’ fault for jading them.

In the words of the master, “My bad — let me rephrase for your benefit.” You’re the one advocating having a sentence prescribed. Yes, I got the sarcasm. Why are you attacking me with sarcasm, facetiousness and humor in general? You appear to be maliciously trying to create the impression in your readers that I advocated having a sentence prescribed, and you’re doing it in response to a post in which I argued against that proposal. If you have an honorable reason for behaving in such a way, it is not apparent.

 

[Elixir]

You are trying to get a whole category of homicides reclassified as justifiable

Sheesh. Pot, kettle.

 

[Bomb#20]

That is not my sole argument. I don’t think the state should interfere with a woman’s medical decisions. If a healthy pregnant woman decides an abortion is her best medical option and her physician agrees to perform one, then neither you nor I anyone else should be able to interfere.

I think once the fetus is delivered is a demarcation that is easy to observe and maintain.

You think 28 weeks (which cannot be measured exactly) is the demarcation even though there is substantively little between 27 snd 28 weeks. You’re fine with murdering 27 week babies in utero.

You are both fine with murdering 27 week babies in utero.[

Once medical technology improves, your magic number will fall.

Hope that will be true.

How thoughtful of you to hope more women will be forced to give birth against their will.

I am thinking of all those babies who were killed. They had no say in their fate.
You would not accept that fate for any other person so why the unborn?

Viability is currently at about 24 weeks. If that falls to 23, the fetuses that will consequently survive are the 23-week ones, so that’s who you’re calling “persons”. Why do you think a 23-week fetus is a person?

 

[Bomb#20]

You are trying to get a whole category of homicides reclassified as justifiable

Sheesh. Pot, kettle.

What homicides am I trying to get reclassified as justifiable?

 

[Elixir]

None, B.
As I think you know, it’s about characterization of others motives.
Maybe you missed that or are simply deflecting as is your habit, and you’re good at it. Practice, presumably.
I will try not to direct any further commentary your way that is not materially accurate to the best of my ability, and apologize for confusing you.

 

[Tigers!]

That is not my sole argument. I don’t think the state should interfere with a woman’s medical decisions. If a healthy pregnant woman decides an abortion is her best medical option and her physician agrees to perform one, then neither you nor I anyone else should be able to interfere.

I think once the fetus is delivered is a demarcation that is easy to observe and maintain.

You think 28 weeks (which cannot be measured exactly) is the demarcation even though there is substantively little between 27 snd 28 weeks. You’re fine with murdering 27 week babies in utero.

You are both fine with murdering 27 week babies in utero.[

Once medical technology improves, your magic number will fall.

Hope that will be true.

How thoughtful of you to hope more women will be forced to give birth against their will.

I am thinking of all those babies who were killed. They had no say in their fate.
You would not accept that fate for any other person so why the unborn?

Viability is currently at about 24 weeks. If that falls to 23, the fetuses that will consequently survive are the 23-week ones, so that’s who you’re calling “persons”. Why do you think a 23-week fetus is a person?

The union of a human egg with a human sperm starts the beginning of an entity that is surely human. We call human entitys persons.

 

[Tigers!]

Why is the unborn human not considered worthy of living? Or body autonomy?

We, as humans, also have a most wonderful habit of looking after the helpless or those who cannot look after themselves.

Is that why Texas passes a ban, but yet no support for pregnant women?

Why Texas does not (apparently) support those who need it is is to me unfathomable. We (Aust, US etc.) have plenty of money to piss up against walls.
We could easily provide support, financial, emontional, medical etc. to help these women and their children but choose not to. More shame on us.

I'm tired of the lie about the compassion of the pro-life movement. It has absolutely nothing to do with life.

I am glad (well sort of ) that at least some of these fora will call a spade a spade and acknowledge that we are speaking of the killing of people here.
Then they try to kid me by saying they really want to look after people.

 

[Tigers!]

A fetus is not autonomous. It cannot survive outside the mother’s body. It depends upon her heart, her lungs, her brain, her circulatory system, kidneys, digestive system, immune system: all of the woman’s body’s functions make the fetus’ continued existence possible.

The feus is indeed not autonomous. Why then is it considered disposable? Or lives and dies at the behest of 2 people, mother and doctor? There is no other time in a human's lifecycle where it is considered permissible to decide if they live or die because of the decision of 2 other people. So why here?

You are not required to donate your kidney or part of your liver or a lobe of your lung even if it means a baby will die if you do not. You are not even required to donate a unit of blood. Not even if you are dead.

No one is required to allow anyone else to make use of their body, in whole or just parts of it, even if it is the only chance that someone has to live.

Why are your rights to your own body greater than the rights of a woman to her own body?

The two instances mentioned above apply to women and men. They do have autonomy. In both cases you or any potential donor are not the cause of the baby or persons death or injury, illness.

An abortion is the cause of the unborn human's death.

Withholding your blood when you know blood supplies are low and there is a disaster means that someone might die.

I donated blood for 39 years until told I could no longer due to a medical condition. I am well aware of what blood donations can do.

If you know your kidney is a match for someone in kidney failure Abd you do not choose to donate your kidney, you are costing that person their life.

Yes but I am not directly causing their death. Their death will tragically, occur because of other factors that I did not cause nor initiate.

Why do you have that right?

See above.
An abortion directly causes the death of another human.

[Though this discussion has raised another issue I had never considered before. The "Good Samaritan" laws. What is the overlap, if any, between a Good Samaritan law and not giving a 'bodily' donation to help others?]

 

[Toni]

Sadly, many times people decide whether or not someone lives or dies. This is aside from criminals or our justice system. In mass emergencies, medical personnel triage patients according to severity of injuries and sometimes, who has injuries that are likely survivable. Doctors and families make decisions about whether to continue all sorts of medical treatment or whether to let the patient die.

You have not made a case for why a fetus, a potential new living human, takes precedence over an already living human beings

 

[laughing dog]

The union of a human egg with a human sperm starts the beginning of an entity that is surely human. We call human entitys persons.

You do. We don’t. And there’s the rub.

BTW, your view means a woman impregnated by a rapist who gets an abortion in a baby killer. In fact a woman using a morning after pill is a baby killer.

 

[Elixir]

You have not made a case for why a fetus, a potential new living human, takes precedence over an already living human beings

AFAIK the protocols are still to save the mother when it’s a one or the other choice.
The argument “she can make more” is specious though IMO. I mean, the fetus can hypothetically “make more” soon enough if it lives.
To me it’s more “she is coming on a vacation with six of our friends next summer and we always go to her house for thanksgiving and reminisce about grade school, and doesn’t she have an amazing garden?” … things about the mother that would break the hearts of everyone she knew if she died.
Can’t say that kinda stuff about little … uh … what were you going to name him or her?
(Oh, and besides, she owes me money and I’ll never see it if they let her kick the bucket! I can’t really go after the little uh… what was the name again? I’m not even sure the fetus is liable in this State!)

 

[Toni]

You have not made a case for why a fetus, a potential new living human, takes precedence over an already living human beings

AFAIK the protocols are still to save the mother when it’s a one or the other choice.
The argument “she can make more” is specious though IMO. I mean, the fetus can hypothetically “make more” soon enough if it lives.
To me it’s more “she is coming on a vacation with six of our friends next summer and we always go to her house for thanksgiving and reminisce about grade school, and doesn’t she have an amazing garden?” … things about the mother that would break the hearts of everyone she knew if she died.
Can’t say that kinda stuff about little … uh … what were you going to name him or her?
(Oh, and besides, she owes me money and I’ll never see it if they let her kick the bucket! I can’t really go after the little uh… what was the name again? I’m not even sure the fetus is liable in this State!)

Or she has other children who need their mother. Or other family members or friends who need her.

Imagine this scenario: A family is traveling down a highway, mother who is pregnant, father, and two children under 10. They are t-boned and the father is killed instantly. The two children are injured and so is the mother, so severely that the pregnancy urgently threatens her survival. It seems fairly obvious that the two children who are injured need their mother more than they need the potential sibling.