Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

I completely do not understand.

There's a very simple flaw that some of you are being utterly blind about: the fliers were distributed to a lot more women than had abortions. This opens up a large possibility of false responses. Your sample is not women who had third trimester abortions, it is a whole bunch of women, a small number of whom are known to have third trimester abortions. We see lies on social media all the time, why do you think this case is somehow immune to that?

I find the whole thing fishy, and the fact that multiple people on here seem to have missed this very damning bit makes me strongly suspect that that was the intention.

For what purpose would these women lie, other than you thinking that women are liars? What would be accomplished by it?

 

[Emily Lake]

I wonder what they are measuring. Because, the last I knew there was no organized brain activity until the 7th month. Before that it's static, not a signal.

Have you done the math for how many weeks that 7th month is?

 

[Emily Lake]

Sentience is not binary but a scale.

Is location one of the scales involved?

Special pleading duly noted. A developed healthy 30 week old fetus is just as innocent and deserving of life as any other 30 week old fetus (baby in the womb) or baby (fetus born). Yet you are willing to sacrifice that fetus in certain situations.[

I'm not willing to sacrifice either of them for non-medical reasons. I am willing to concede self defense when it's a choice between the mother's life and the baby's.

You on the other hand are willing to sacrifice the one in the womb for any reason whatsoever, including no reason at all. Yet you are not willing to sacrifice the delivered premie under any circumstances that I've seen.

I would say you've got me thoroughly trounced when it comes to special pleading.

 

[Emily Lake]

Am I being mistaken in reading you think the husband has the right to force the birth of a child after an arbitrary threshold?

Not really. I think society has a right to disallow murder after a certain developmental threshold, except in cases where it's a choice between two lives.

I do, however, think that in a healthy relationship the father should be involved in the decision. And I can't imagine how a marriage would survive if the mother wants to abort a child that the father really wants. That doesn't mean he gets to dictate that she have birth... just that it seems like the kind of thing that would lead to divorce. It also seems very sad.

 

[Emily Lake]

My stance is that I am not responding to your ugly disgusting hypotheticals.

Play your sick games with someone else.

I will now conclude that you are full of it, and either haven't bothered to examine your own principles, or you're aware that your principles are contradictory and full of special pleading, or you are afraid to say what you really think because you don't want to deal with the bullshit witch hunt I've been through.

 

[laughing dog]

Is location one of the scales involved?

No.

I'm not willing to sacrifice either of them for non-medical reasons. I am willing to concede self defense when it's a choice between the mother's life and the baby's.

You on the other hand are willing to sacrifice the one in the womb for any reason whatsoever, including no reason at all. Yet you are not willing to sacrifice the delivered premie under any circumstances that I've seen.

I would say you've got me thoroughly trounced when it comes to special pleading.

Of course you would. Doesn’t make it true. In fact I pretty sure you’re misusing the term special pleading.

Please stop mischaractetizing my position. The decision to have an abortion should be left to the woman and her physician. People always have reasons for their decisions. So your claim that I think no reason at all is acceptable is bogus.

BTW, explain again how aborting a perfectly healthy 24 week old fetus is okay but killing a perfectly healthy 24 week old premie is not.

 

[Arctish]

Me: What is your personal opinion on whether children should be legally allowed to kill their parents when those parents hit age 70?

This is a weird question.

If the 70 year old parents are living independently then it's pretty much a universal belief that no one has the right to kill them. But if they aren't independent, that gets complicated.

In some societies children have a responsibility to care for their elderly parents even if it means living in grinding poverty with no way to afford an education, to marry, to have a career, or have children of their own. In other societies there is no such expectation. Adults can cut off their parents from support and walk away with little to no negative social consequences.

If the parents are literally using their adult child's lungs to supply oxygen, their food intake to provide nutrition, their liver and kidneys to deal with toxins and waste, robbing their bodies of calcium to keep their elderly bones in good shape while their offspring develops dental problems due to calcium deficiency, and putting a strain on their offspring's body from which their offspring might never recover, that's a huge imposition. Do the 70 year olds have a right to demand the use of their offspring's body like that? Do the offspring of 70 year olds have a right to separate from their parents?

And who gets to decide when to cease life support for elderly parents in the ICU if not their doctors and the adult children who are supporting them?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not really. I think society has a right to disallow murder after a certain developmental threshold, except in cases where it's a choice between two lives.

Cute, calling it "murder" before a "developmental threshold".

I do, however, think that in a healthy relationship the father should be involved in the decision. And I can't imagine how a marriage would survive if the mother wants to abort a child that the father really wants. That doesn't mean he gets to dictate that she have birth... just that it seems like the kind of thing that would lead to divorce. It also seems very sad.

So... the husband should also go to prison for murder if he helps his wife with what he and a doctor believes is necessary for her?

 

[Toni]

Not really. I think society has a right to disallow murder after a certain developmental threshold, except in cases where it's a choice between two lives.

I do, however, think that in a healthy relationship the father should be involved in the decision. And I can't imagine how a marriage would survive if the mother wants to abort a child that the father really wants. That doesn't mean he gets to dictate that she have birth... just that it seems like the kind of thing that would lead to divorce. It also seems very sad.

Much of the time, a decision with regards to abortion is very much a joint discussion between both biological parents. When it is not, there is usually a very good reason that indicates either that the father of the fetus is no longer in the picture for whatever reason, the father is unknown, or when the mother wants an abortion and the father opposes it. Most of the time, this involves a man who is more interested in controlling the woman and demonstrating his manhood by the number of offspring he can engender.

The thing is, in none of these cases is the father the one who is carrying the pregnancy. It is not his life that is at risk, it is not his health that is at risk. He is unlikely to be penalized in his employment or academic career if he is pregnant and frankly, once the fetus is born, he is far less likely to be involved in it's day to day care.

If men do not want the women they impregnant to have abortions then they should either prevent the pregnancy (vasectomy is very low risk and relatively inexpensive with a short recovery time) or be much more supportive: economically, physically, emotionally. They should do their part by voting for establishing and fully funding infrastructure that helps support pregnant people and young children. They should also strongly consider monogamy and commitment to a long term relationship with the mother of the fetus. They should provide good economic support, good physical and emotional support of the woman.

But again, third trimester abortions are very rare. They are not performed casually but in fact, are medically complex as any full term birth. When a pregnancy is terminated in the 3rd trimester, it is usually for very good and very sad reasons. It is generally not the outcome that the pregnant person wanted at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

BTW, explain again how aborting a perfectly healthy 24 week old fetus is okay but killing a perfectly healthy 24 week old premie is not.

At 24 weeks, a premie has about a 50% survival rate, and survivors have about a 40% chance of serious complications.

It’s a squishy line for me. At coin-flip odds, I don’t feel a strong impetus to argue against abortion being allowed. At 90% odds, I do.

What’s your argument for aborting a perfectly healthy 30 week? Oh yeah… location.

ETA: to be less snotty about it, I’m well aware that my line is arbitrary. I’m looking at it as pragmatically as I can.

First trimester is definitely “fetus” for me, and I don’t see a compelling argument that it should be viewed otherwise. It’s unable to survive outside the womb. Third trimester is definitely “baby” to me, and it’s highly likely to survive outside the womb. Premies at that stage of development regularly survive with minimal complications.

The transition is somewhere between those two stages. I don’t have an exact point, and I don’t think anyone does. It’s like that thing Billy posted ages and ages ago. The first part is definitely red. The end is definitely blue. In between there are varying shades of purple. I can’t specify exactly which letter of which word in which line is the clear division between purple and blue. The best and most reasonable thing I can do is point to a line that almost everyone will agree is blue, and make that the boundary.

It won’t be perfect, perfection isn’t possible. We’ll never have unanimity. But it’s obvious (excepting folks playing games and the unsound of mind) that from that line on, it’s definitely blue.

Same here. I can’t pinpoint the exact perfect moment when a fetus becomes a baby. But I can pick a point where no rational person would disagree on the grounds of development.

That’s what I’ve done.

 

[Emily Lake]

So... the husband should also go to prison for murder if he helps his wife with what he and a doctor believes is necessary for her?

How the hell did you get to this from anything I said?

You cannot find me opining that mothers should go to jail. You’ve made that up out of thin air.

Stop it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Much of the time, a decision with regards to abortion is very much a joint discussion between both biological parents. When it is not, there is usually a very good reason that indicates either that the father of the fetus is no longer in the picture for whatever reason, the father is unknown, or when the mother wants an abortion and the father opposes it. Most of the time, this involves a man who is more interested in controlling the woman and demonstrating his manhood by the number of offspring he can engender.

The thing is, in none of these cases is the father the one who is carrying the pregnancy. It is not his life that is at risk, it is not his health that is at risk. He is unlikely to be penalized in his employment or academic career if he is pregnant and frankly, once the fetus is born, he is far less likely to be involved in it's day to day care.

If men do not want the women they impregnant to have abortions then they should either prevent the pregnancy (vasectomy is very low risk and relatively inexpensive with a short recovery time) or be much more supportive: economically, physically, emotionally. They should do their part by voting for establishing and fully funding infrastructure that helps support pregnant people and young children. They should also strongly consider monogamy and commitment to a long term relationship with the mother of the fetus. They should provide good economic support, good physical and emotional support of the woman.

But again, third trimester abortions are very rare. They are not performed casually but in fact, are medically complex as any full term birth. When a pregnancy is terminated in the 3rd trimester, it is usually for very good and very sad reasons. It is generally not the outcome that the pregnant person wanted at all.

For someone who claims they don’t have an opinion, you sure have a lot of opinions to share.

 

[Tigers!]

Much of the time, a decision with regards to abortion is very much a joint discussion between both biological parents. When it is not, there is usually a very good reason that indicates either that the father of the fetus is no longer in the picture for whatever reason, the father is unknown, or when the mother wants an abortion and the father opposes it. Most of the time, this involves a man who is more interested in controlling the woman and demonstrating his manhood by the number of offspring he can engender.

Broad bow. Any sources about the man being more interested in controlling the woman and demonstrating his manhood?
And a man not wanting an abortion to occur is not necessarily evidence that he is controlling. He may very well think that life is precious. But that thought is verboten.

The thing is, in none of these cases is the father the one who is carrying the pregnancy. It is not his life that is at risk, it is not his health that is at risk. He is unlikely to be penalized in his employment or academic career if he is pregnant and frankly, once the fetus is born, he is far less likely to be involved in it's day to day care.

The unborn is also at risk. But no one worries about that it seems.
Since men cannot lactate, yes the mother will be more involved in the day to day care.

If men do not want the women they impregnant to have abortions then they should either prevent the pregnancy (vasectomy is very low risk and relatively inexpensive with a short recovery time) or be much more supportive: economically, physically, emotionally.

You make it sound like the father has to do everything to prevent the pregnancy. Does the woman also not have some responsibility? We know what causes babies these days. It is not a mystery.

hey should do their part by voting for establishing and fully funding infrastructure that helps support pregnant people and young children.

How do you know they are not already doing these things?

They should also strongly consider monogamy and commitment to a long term relationship with the mother of the fetus. They should provide good economic support, good physical and emotional support of the woman.

Should the woman also not consider monogamy and commitment to a long term relationship with the father? Again it all seems to fall on the father. The father could do all of those things and more and yet still be denied any input into the life he helped create.

But again, third trimester abortions are very rare. They are not performed casually but in fact, are medically complex as any full term birth. When a pregnancy is terminated in the 3rd trimester, it is usually for very good and very sad reasons. It is generally not the outcome that the pregnant person woman wanted at all.

Very good Toni.
It's always the man's fault isn't? She falls pregnant, its his fault. She has the abortion, it is his fault.
That's what is seems you are saying.

 

[Toni]

Broad bow. Any sources about the man being more interested in controlling the woman and demonstrating his manhood?
And a man not wanting an abortion to occur is not necessarily evidence that he is controlling. He may very well think that life is precious. But that thought is verboten.

The unborn is also at risk. But no one worries about that it seems.
Since men cannot lactate, yes the mother will be more involved in the day to day care.

You make it sound like the father has to do everything to prevent the pregnancy. Does the woman also not have some responsibility? We know what causes babies these days. It is not a mystery.

How do you know they are not already doing these things?

Should the woman also not consider monogamy and commitment to a long term relationship with the father? Again it all seems to fall on the father. The father could do all of those things and more and yet still be denied any input into the life he helped create.

Very good Toni.
It's always the man's fault isn't? She falls pregnant, its his fault. She has the abortion, it is his fault.
That's what is seems you are saying.

Women do not fall by becoming pregnant.

Women do not need to fall to be pregnant.

Why do you think a man has equal rights over a woman’s body but not equal responsibility in preventing a pregnancy? Or supporting the expectant mother and the baby should it be born and live?

You realize that it is easier and less expensive for a man to be sterilized than for a woman? In fact, every single method of birth control available is cheaper for men and carries fewer risks and side effects compared with options for women.

No man’s life or health or career is ever at risk because he becomes pregnant.

Babies can thrive on formula as well as on breast milk.men can make bottles, either formula or breast milk, feed babies and change diapers and bathe them and rock them to sleep and get up 12 times a night.they rarely do so.

In the end, it is the woman’s life and the woman’s health that is at risk. The man’s preferences are subservient to hers.

 

[laughing dog]

At 24 weeks, a premie has about a 50% survival rate, and survivors have about a 40% chance of serious complications.

It’s a squishy line for me. At coin-flip odds, I don’t feel a strong impetus to argue against abortion being allowed. At 90% odds, I do.

What’s your argument for aborting a perfectly healthy 30 week? Oh yeah… location.

As is yours for premies 24 or 25 or 26 weeks old.

Your solution is open to your location issue. The only difference between our positions is the placement of the location.

 

[laughing dog]

For someone who claims they don’t have an opinion, you sure have a lot of opinions to share.

Toni did not say she had no opinions. Just no opinion about what decisions a pregnant woman should make in conjunction with her physician. She has been crystal clear on that. I fin’t sed how any honest and reasonably literate participant could mistake that.

 

[Tigers!]

Women do not fall by becoming pregnant.

Never claimed that they did. (I presume you mean 'fall' in the sense of being considered 'loose'?

Women do not need to fall to be pregnant.

Is this statement related to your previous one? In what sense is 'fall' being used?

Why do you think a man has equal rights over a woman’s body but not equal responsibility in preventing a pregnancy? Or supporting the expectant mother and the baby should it be born and live?

Of course the expectant father should support the expectant mother and the baby should it be born and live.
But he apparently has no say in whether the child is born.

You realize that it is easier and less expensive for a man to be sterilized than for a woman? In fact, every single method of birth control available is cheaper for men and carries fewer risks and side effects compared with options for women.

No man’s life or health or career is ever at risk because he becomes pregnant.

Career might depending upon whom he makes pregnant.

Babies can thrive on formula as well as on breast milk.men can make bottles, either formula or breast milk, feed babies and change diapers and bathe them and rock them to sleep and get up 12 times a night.they rarely do so.

They were precious times in my daughter's life with me.

In the end, it is the woman’s life and the woman’s health that is at risk.

And the unborn child.

The man’s preferences are subservient to hers.

You would never countenance a situation where the women's preferences are subservient to his.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course the expectant father should support the expectant mother and the baby should it be born and live.
But he apparently has no say in whether the child is born.

The father can make his view and wishes clear , But why the father should have the right to determine what the woman must do with her body.

 

[Elixir]

he apparently has no say in whether the child is born.

He has no skin (or other organs) in the game. He should - and usually does, have a “say”, but there’s no reason he should have ANY actual authority over the person whose life is literally on the line, and whose physiology is going to be permanently changed regardless of outcomes.

 

[Tigers!]

He has no skin (or other organs) in the game. He should - and usually does, have a “say”, but there’s no reason he should have ANY actual authority over the person whose life is literally on the line, and whose physiology is going to be permanently changed regardless of outcomes.

Since you say that the man has no actual authority then let's drop the pretence of the father having any say.