Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

As I’ve stated, I don’t think that I can or should nor should any legislature decide by what criteria someone else must utilize when making decisions with respect to their health and their own desires and needs.

Quesstion I asked: What is your personal belief about the acceptability of X
What you respond: I don't think I should have an opinion

At which point you proceed to be a snotrag to those of us who do have an opinion.

So clearly you HAVE an opinion, but you don't want to SAY your opinion. Either you think it's morally acceptable and appropriate for an abortion to be performed up to the due date with no medical reason whatsoever... or you do not. If you want to say you have no opinion, then have no opinion - neither for nor against those of us who do have an opinion.

You can shove your demands right up your ass.

 

[laughing dog]

A fetus at any stage of development is less sentient than the mother. Forcing a pregnant woman to deliver a child against her will is morally depraved in my opinion.

A toddler is also less sentiate than the mother.

And not inside the mother.

Defending a 30 week developed baby against injury and death because it's outside the womb, while condoning the murder of a 30 week developed baby inside the womb seems morally depraved to me.

You condone the murder of a 30 week developed baby if its birth threatens the life of the mother.

Do you condone the murder of a 30 week developed baby if its birth does not threaten the life of the mother?

I have stated that numerous times: in the womb - abortion should be legal. That is unequivocal. So to anyone participating in the thread, paying attention and using basic reasoning would know the answer to your question is yes.

So either you are not paying attention or are just plain stupid or you are trying to make some obscure point. My point is that Emily condones murdering a 30 week developed baby inside the womb which makes her response more than ironic.

 

[laughing dog]

A fetus at any stage of development is less sentient than the mother. Forcing a pregnant woman to deliver a child against her will is morally depraved in my opinion.

A toddler is also less sentiate than the mother.

Defending a 30 week developed baby against injury and death because it's outside the womb, while condoning the murder of a 30 week developed baby inside the womb seems morally depraved to me.

You seem to have this fantasy that women carry a fetus abd somewhere around week 30, age just goes: I don’t think I want this baby, walks into a clinic abd they say okey dokey.

That’s some pretty fucked up fantasy you have going on. Like, maybe you should see someone about this.

Maybe do some reading about why women have later abortions.

The reasons for termination of pregnancy in the third trimester - PubMed

One-third of late terminations of pregnancy could have been avoided by more efficient screening in the second trimester. However, because fetal prognosis is not always clear when a malformation is diagnosed, postponing the decision until fetal development allows more thorough evaluation and may...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A consecutive series of 956 terminations of pregnancy performed for fetal anomalies in singleton pregnancies, 305 of which were in the third trimester and 651 in the second.

Main outcome measures: Indications for termination of pregnancy; process leading to late termination of pregnancy; maternal morbidity.

Results: One hundred and thirteen (37%) third trimester terminations of pregnancy were associated with false negative resulted from the results of earlier screening tests. In 15 terminations (5%), the decision was postponed, although the poor fetal prognosis was established earlier. In 55 (18%) the diagnosis was not possible earlier than the third trimester, and in 122 (40%) the diagnosis was possible earlier but the poor prognosis for the fetus was not established until the third trimester. Maternal morbidity due to termination of pregnancy was similar in the second and third trimester.

When women terminate a pregnancy late in the pregnancy it is not the outcome they wanted.

You don't get it. It is possible that someone, somewhere will want an abortion after 29 weeks even though there is no "approved" reason for it and get one. That is sufficient reason to deny all other women who have an "approvable" reason for getting one from getting an abortion.

 

[thebeave]

Do you know why women have never been drafted? Because sufficient numbers of women have always volunteered to fill every role that women were allowed to have.

I've not been able to find any supporting evidence for this. Citation? The only real reason I've come across is that they've never been drafted because they were never included in any conscription laws.

 

[Toni]

I've not been able to find any supporting evidence for this. Citation? The only real reason I've come across is that they've never been drafted because they were never included in any conscription laws.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/453/57/

Congress' determination that any future draft would be characterized by a need for combat troops was sufficiently supported by testimony adduced at the hearings so that the courts are not free to make their own judgment on the question. And since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft, and Congress' decision to authorize the registration of only men therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause. The testimony of executive and military officials before Congress showed that the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than "equity."

I think thst should a draft be instituted in the future, women would be included . Unless under this administration or of similar political bent.

 

[thebeave]

Sorry I cannot offer a citation. It was what I was taught in history class many years ago. Yes, the ‘official’ stance has always been something like women were too delicate/potential or actual mothers to engage in the business of war but in fact if/when they are actually ‘needed’ in the military, they get drafted. See Israel which is the only country off the top of my head that leaks to mind who conscripts women.

Of course women left behind took over the ‘male’ ’ jobs when the boys were away.

In more modern war efforts, women served in various non-combat roles in the military, either as enlisted personnel or as civilians. Long ago, I very briefly worked for the Army as a civilian. Not war time, though.

Women have always served, even when it meant disguising their sex. And of course as nurses, etc.

I am not dismissing at all the efforts of women in supporting wartime (and peacetime) needs here and abroad. The sacrifice is/was much needed and appreciated. Citing what you were told in history class a half century ago as proof of your claim though, is pretty weak. A lot of what we were told about our nation's history is crap and propaganda I think you know that. Not to mention how our memories get distorted over time.

 

[Jarhyn]

I often wish that people would invest as much time and energy, thought, and even money into devoting necessary resources to make abortions less often the best option.

Well, you see, the problem is that it's way more expensive to spend enough money to make having a kid viable as an option backed by fiscal support, and it's way less expensive to try and make abortion the not-best option via a demand backed by a threat, and I will die defending this hill I stand on that the goal is to railroad people into kids they can't afford so as to keep the population POOR.

If we look at it from that angle, everything makes sense and falls perfectly into place. How can the powerful and the wealthy keep the masses poor and under their thumb if they spend all that money financing people in a way that prevents the thing that was supposed to keep them poor?

 

[Toni]

I am not dismissing at all the efforts of women in supporting wartime (and peacetime) needs here and abroad. The sacrifice is/was much needed and appreciated. Citing what you were told in history class a half century ago as proof of your claim though, is pretty weak. A lot of what we were told about our nation's history is crap and propaganda I think you know that. Not to mention how our memories get distorted over time.

Hi,

I updated my post with a reference to the USSC case in 1981.

Did not mean to pull a switcheroo on you but I was fairly certain there must be case law..and did not see you on the forum.

My apologies.

Anyone reading this: he was responding to the previous wording of my post. I didn’t realize he was currently in the board or I would have made a completely separate post. I just thought it would be cleaner to replace my recollections with actual USSC ruling.

Not his fault: it was me.

Again, my apologies.

I’m the idiot here.

 

[laughing dog]

I've not been able to find any supporting evidence for this. Citation? The only real reason I've come across is that they've never been drafted because they were never included in any conscription laws.

Correct. But the real question is the reasons for the omission/exclusion of women from conscription laws.

 

[Toni]

Correct. But the real question is the reasons for the omission/exclusion of women from conscription laws.

See my heavily amended post. USSC ruled that because conscription was only to fulfill necessary roles and because women were excluded from combat and enough women volunteered to fill the roles they were allowed to fill, it is not dis promontory to exclude women from the draft.

 

[Emily Lake]

And not inside the mother.

So what? Your argument made a claim to sentience. Do you believe that location impacts sentience?

You condone the murder of a 30 week developed baby if its birth threatens the life of the mother.

No, I condone killing in self defense.

I am okay with killing the baby rather than killing or seriously injuring the mother. When it's a trade between the two lives, I fall on the side of the mother. This principle holds for all people, as long as it's an actual imminent threat.

On the other hand, I am NOT willing to kill the baby rather than inconveniencing the mother or making her temporarily unhappy. When it's a trade between a life on one hand and comfort or joy on the other, the life wins out. That principle holds across the board for me.

This is a core aspect of the non-aggression principle, which is something I value highly.

 

[Emily Lake]

Shh. Do not say that last sentence too loudly. Some will get ideas.

Oh I'm sure someone will. Someone always does. There are always some people who want to argue from human species exceptionalism, as if somehow the fact that our brains are (arguably) more cognitively complex means that we're no longer subject to the pressures of evolution or nature. Being able to override our base instincts isn't uniquely human - we regularly train dogs, birds, horses, and other domesticated animals to override their instincts as well. But we're still animals, and reproduction still works the way it's always worked, and the continuity of our species still depends on reproduction, and despite the wishcasting of some people... the innate urge to reproduce is one of the strongest instincts on the planet.

At this point, I expect Jarhyn to pop in with some technomagical rant about "breeders" and other silly crap. The desire to have sex is a direct result of the urge to reproduce, even if we've managed to interrupt the delivery of sperm to egg. The very fact that we find sex desirable and pleasurable is the result of the evolutionary pressure to pass on our genes.

 

[Emily Lake]

Because its less effort?

True - it doesn't require actually reading and considering my perspective or my argument.

 

[Emily Lake]

“It must happen because I made it up in my head.” Plus clinics are just crawling with doctors who are delighted to perform abortions all day long. They make so much money!!

Bitch please. Just because non-medical late abortions happen very rarely doesn't mean they don't happen at all - which is the idiotic argument you keep making. At this point, you should just hop on board Loren's train and go ahead and opine that the women in that other study were clearly making it all up for political reason and lying for jesus.

 

[Emily Lake]

There are always enough women who volunteer to fill any and all roles that women were allowed to hold.

That's still not the claim you made, Toni.

Yes, the roles that women have been allowed to hold have been limited (and still are in most parts of the world). I'm not contesting that.

Your claim was that women haven't been drafted because there are always enough female volunteers. The implication is that if the military were to find itself lacking volunteers for the roles that women are allowed to hold, they would start drafting women.

I think you're wrong. I don't think the reason that women aren't drafted is because enough volunteer. I think the reason that women aren't drafted is because the continuation of a society is absolutely dependent on enough women staying alive.

If there were to be too few females volunteering for the roles that women are allowed to hold... I very strongly suspect that drafted men would be assigned to those roles before a draft of females was ever even considered. Women would likely only be drafted as a last resort.

That's the reason.

Now - whether or not I agree with that reason is a completely different question. Turns out I don't. I believe that equal rights should come with equal responsibility. I don't think women should be excluded from conscription. I think it would make it more complicated though - there'd need to be some way to ensure that at least one parent is excluded from draft so that kids aren't left parentless.

 

[Emily Lake]

Where did I direct that at you? Specifically.

It was a general statement. For a general audience.

Fair enough. I'm prickly and defensive. I assume the reasons for that are obvious.

Ooooh! We're only capturing the immediate prior post in quotes now! Hooray! Thank you @RayJ !!!!

 

[Emily Lake]

You can shove your demands right up your ass.

Fine. I will take that as an admission that you do have an opinion, but that you aren't willing to state your opinion. I'll leave it up to other people to form their own judgements about why.

 

[Emily Lake]

I have stated that numerous times: in the womb - abortion should be legal. That is unequivocal. So to anyone participating in the thread, paying attention and using basic reasoning would know the answer to your question is yes.

Yes, you have been consistent about that. I think your position is illogical and special pleading. In particular, I think it's special pleading to make murder allowable, which is something I oppose.

So either you are not paying attention or are just plain stupid or you are trying to make some obscure point. My point is that Emily condones murdering a 30 week developed baby inside the womb which makes her response more than ironic.

No I don't condone murdering a 30 week developed baby inside the womb - I condone killing in self defense, when it's a choice between the life of the baby and the life of the mother.

Do you believe that killing someone in self defense is murder? Or do you draw a moral distinction between those two things?

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, you see, the problem is that it's way more expensive to spend enough money to make having a kid viable as an option backed by fiscal support, and it's way less expensive to try and make abortion the not-best option via a demand backed by a threat, and I will die defending this hill I stand on that the goal is to railroad people into kids they can't afford so as to keep the population POOR.

If we look at it from that angle, everything makes sense and falls perfectly into place. How can the powerful and the wealthy keep the masses poor and under their thumb if they spend all that money financing people in a way that prevents the thing that was supposed to keep them poor?

Your conspiracy theories have no place among rational people.

 

[Toni]

Fine. I will take that as an admission that you do have an opinion, but that you aren't willing to state your opinion. I'll leave it up to other people to form their own judgements about why.

My opinion is that my opinion counts only with respect to what I would do. I know from experience that what I thinkI would do under X circumstance isn’t necessarily what I would really do under the same x circumstance.