Roe v Wade is on deck

[ideologyhunter]

I was trying to figure out what YFW means.

Yahweh's Fawning Weasel (a term of distinction in OT times.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The abortion indu$try is doing just fine thanks to the casual willingness of wimmin to use abortion as birth control.

Abortion on demand. <<<see that word there? DEMAND. There's plenty of demand in this market notwithstanding your belief that (smart, educated, rational, liberated,) women would always prefer alternative methods of birth control.

...one of which is not being a slut. #leisure

As always, the so-called "pro-life" crowd exposes their true agenda--it's about regulating sex, not about the fetus.

Pardon me for my naive belief that theres a relationship between pregnancy and intercourse.

You're just doubling down on defending your error.

Your position makes it very clear it's about punishing the woman, not protecting the fetus.

The number of truly pro-life people is minuscule.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll agree to abortion in the case of rape if you agree to ban elective abortion for non-rape pregnancy. Deal?

Nope. Because you know your disingenuous rape pregnancy cannard is a mere fraction of the hundreds of thousands of birth control convenience lifestyle abortions.

And once again you show your true colors.

The method of conception is irrelevant. There are only two cases:

1) It's a person. Abortion should only be permitted in situations where you would be permitted deadly force in self defense.

2) It's not a person. Forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy is a major burden to her, the state has no basis to compel this.

If you really want to reduce abortion, how about good sex education and free availability of long acting contraception with no hoops to jump through. Other means of contraception should be subsidized.

 

[Toni]

I'll agree to abortion in the case of rape if you agree to ban elective abortion for non-rape pregnancy. Deal?

Nope. Because you know your disingenuous rape pregnancy cannard is a mere fraction of the hundreds of thousands of birth control convenience lifestyle abortions.

And once again you show your true colors.

The method of conception is irrelevant. There are only two cases:

1) It's a person. Abortion should only be permitted in situations where you would be permitted deadly force in self defense.

2) It's not a person. Forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy is a major burden to her, the state has no basis to compel this.

If you really want to reduce abortion, how about good sex education and free availability of long acting contraception with no hoops to jump through. Other means of contraception should be subsidized.

Whether or not the fetus is considered a person, the woman or girl certainly is a person who should have the full rights to make decisions with regards to her own body. Why isn’t the woman’s personhood sufficient?

 

[zorq]

I'll agree to abortion in the case of rape if you agree to ban elective abortion for non-rape pregnancy. Deal?

Nope. Because you know your disingenuous rape pregnancy cannard is a mere fraction of the hundreds of thousands of birth control convenience lifestyle abortions.

1) It's a person. Abortion should only be permitted in situations where you would be permitted deadly force in self defense.

2) It's not a person. Forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy is a major burden to her, the state has no basis to compel this.

What about this variation on 1)? It is a person. But it is a person who is unlawfully trespassing, physically harming, and stealing from another person without their consent. The property owner has the right to remove and evict unwanted squatters who are actively causing physical harm and emotional distress. Victims of theft, assault and trespass have no burden to continue to support their transgressors in any other context.

 

[TomC]

I'll agree to abortion in the case of rape if you agree to ban elective abortion for non-rape pregnancy. Deal?

Nope. Because you know your disingenuous rape pregnancy cannard is a mere fraction of the hundreds of thousands of birth control convenience lifestyle abortions.

1) It's a person. Abortion should only be permitted in situations where you would be permitted deadly force in self defense.

2) It's not a person. Forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy is a major burden to her, the state has no basis to compel this.

What about this variation on 1)? It is a person. But it is a person who is unlawfully trespassing, physically harming, and stealing from another person without their consent. The property owner has the right to remove and evict unwanted squatters who are actively causing physical harm and emotional distress. Victims of theft, assault and trespass have no burden to continue to support their transgressors in any other context.

You would have a point.

IF zygotes were some sort of free floating parasite drifting around, looking for a host to invade.
But they're not.

Zygotes are utterly dependent humans created by the choices made by parents. Created by a process very well known and understood.

A more apt comparison would be people who lock someone in a basement without consent. Then they decide that providing minimal sustenance is inconvenient so they want to kill the prisoner.
Tom

 

[Toni]

What about this variation on 1)? It is a person. But it is a person who is unlawfully trespassing, physically harming, and stealing from another person without their consent. The property owner has the right to remove and evict unwanted squatters who are actively causing physical harm and emotional distress. Victims of theft, assault and trespass have no burden to continue to support their transgressors in any other context.

You would have a point.

IF zygotes were some sort of free floating parasite drifting around, looking for a host to invade.
But they're not.

Zygotes are utterly dependent humans created by the choices made by parents. Created by a process very well known and understood.

A more apt comparison would be people who lock someone in a basement without consent. Then they decide that providing minimal sustenance is inconvenient so they want to kill the prisoner.
Tom

Nope. Not even close.

 

[TomC]

What about this variation on 1)? It is a person. But it is a person who is unlawfully trespassing, physically harming, and stealing from another person without their consent. The property owner has the right to remove and evict unwanted squatters who are actively causing physical harm and emotional distress. Victims of theft, assault and trespass have no burden to continue to support their transgressors in any other context.

You would have a point.

IF zygotes were some sort of free floating parasite drifting around, looking for a host to invade.
But they're not.

Zygotes are utterly dependent humans created by the choices made by parents. Created by a process very well known and understood.

A more apt comparison would be people who lock someone in a basement without consent. Then they decide that providing minimal sustenance is inconvenient so they want to kill the prisoner.
Tom

Nope. Not even close.

The depth of your insight is an inspiration to us all.
Tom

 

[zorq]

What about this variation on 1)? It is a person. But it is a person who is unlawfully trespassing, physically harming, and stealing from another person without their consent. The property owner has the right to remove and evict unwanted squatters who are actively causing physical harm and emotional distress. Victims of theft, assault and trespass have no burden to continue to support their transgressors in any other context.

You would have a point.

IF zygotes were some sort of free floating parasite drifting around, looking for a host to invade.
But they're not.

Zygotes are utterly dependent humans created by the choices made by parents. Created by a process very well known and understood.

A more apt comparison would be people who lock someone in a basement without consent. Then they decide that providing minimal sustenance is inconvenient so they want to kill the prisoner.
Tom

Nope, Even in that metaphor it doesn't work. I don't care if I left my basement door open, I don't care if it is common and well understood situation for uninvited guests to set up shop in basements. Visitors are not allowed. Uninvited guests who steal from me must leave. Uninvited guests who threaten to wreak havoc on my health are not allowed. I don't care how the guests arrived, I am within my rights to get rid of them.

 

[TomC]

I don't care how the guests arrived, I am within my rights to get rid of them.

Sorry.
If you force someone into a position, without their consent, the moral calculus changes hugely.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What about this variation on 1)? It is a person. But it is a person who is unlawfully trespassing, physically harming, and stealing from another person without their consent. The property owner has the right to remove and evict unwanted squatters who are actively causing physical harm and emotional distress. Victims of theft, assault and trespass have no burden to continue to support their transgressors in any other context.

You would have a point.

IF zygotes were some sort of free floating parasite drifting around, looking for a host to invade.
But they're not.

Zygotes are utterly dependent humans created by the choices made by parents. Created by a process very well known and understood.

A more apt comparison would be people who lock someone in a basement without consent. Then they decide that providing minimal sustenance is inconvenient so they want to kill the prisoner.
Tom

Enough with the damn analogies. Forcing a woman to give birth is like forcing a woman to endure pregnancy and give birth... and all the attached physical and mental complications, some quite permanent, that come along with it.

 

[zorq]

I don't care how the guests arrived, I am within my rights to get rid of them.

Sorry.
If you force someone into a position, without their consent, the moral calculus changes hugely.
Tom

Are you talking about the property owners or the trespassers? Nobody consented to the situation and the trespassers are forcing harm on on the property owners.

 

[TomC]

I don't care how the guests arrived, I am within my rights to get rid of them.

Sorry.
If you force someone into a position, without their consent, the moral calculus changes hugely.
Tom

Are you talking about the property owners or the trespassers? Nobody consented to the situation and the trespassers are forcing harm on on the property owners.

The parents consented. The fetal child did not.
Tom

 

[zorq]

No. Nobody consented. You clearly don't understand consent. Scary.

 

[Toni]

Are you talking about the property owners or the trespassers? Nobody consented to the situation and the trespassers are forcing harm on on the property owners.

The parents consented. The fetal child did not.
Tom

What is a ‘fetal child?’

 

[Toni]

Nope. Not even close.

The depth of your insight is an inspiration to us all.
Tom

Much deeper and more thoughtful and much more accurate than your ....grasp of human fetal development, pregnancy, or basic human rights as they pertain to women.

I'm pretty certain that you could not correctly place the following in order of development, without the use of google, much less define any of the following stages:

zygote
blastula
fetus
embryo

Yet you toss these terms around as if they all meant the same thing, and as if you had any knowledge or understanding of the terms. As if you had any credentials at all to lent a feather's weight to your opinion.

Go ahead and insult away. The source is duly noted.

 

[Rhea]

Are you talking about the property owners or the trespassers? Nobody consented to the situation and the trespassers are forcing harm on on the property owners.

The parents consented. The fetal child did not.
Tom

Nonsense. The woman may (or may not) have consented for the sperm to enter. She did not consent to whatever the sperm decided to do. She may have taken steps to prevent the sperm from doing anything. She may have been genuinely unaware of what the sperm could do (thanks to religionists preventing sexuality education). She did NOT consent to the sperm setting up shop and fertilizing an egg.

You all keep saying that pregancy is her fault somehow, as if today’s modern women MUST get pregnant and carry it, just because they want to have sex. But in reality, it is a position she is in by the deliberate efforts of people preventing her from having free and available access to both education and medication.


…. But here’s the thing. even if the woman is “responsible” for the sperm fertilizing an egg, and implanting in her uterus, and creating a connection to her organs, and needing her organs to survive, even if she is responsible for it’s dependent condition, she is still not obliged to provide the use of her organs - no more than the coal company CEO who is responsible for workers needing lung transplants, would be obliged to give his. No more than the drunk driver who damages his victim’s kidneys, creating a need to access the drunk’s kidneys, he is still not obliged t donate his body, even if he is at fault.


But to all those who are “against abotion,” and I put that in quotes deliberately because they are not, but to all of those, all you have to do is make sexuality education and free, available long acting reversible birth control available and you will eliminate 88% of abortions in 12 weeks.

But, you don’t.
So we know what really matters to you, by your actions.

Even your words, you spend all this time arguing against abortions, instead of arguing against the barriers to sexuality education and free and available long acting reversible birth control. Instead of supporting Planned Parenthood, who DOES give sexuality education and free and available long acting reversible birth control (as much as their funding can.) I do more work to stop abortions that you do.


So we know what really matters to you, by your actions.

Funny, innit?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll agree to abortion in the case of rape if you agree to ban elective abortion for non-rape pregnancy. Deal?

Nope. Because you know your disingenuous rape pregnancy cannard is a mere fraction of the hundreds of thousands of birth control convenience lifestyle abortions.

1) It's a person. Abortion should only be permitted in situations where you would be permitted deadly force in self defense.

2) It's not a person. Forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy is a major burden to her, the state has no basis to compel this.

What about this variation on 1)? It is a person. But it is a person who is unlawfully trespassing, physically harming, and stealing from another person without their consent. The property owner has the right to remove and evict unwanted squatters who are actively causing physical harm and emotional distress. Victims of theft, assault and trespass have no burden to continue to support their transgressors in any other context.

Note what I said about deadly force. Trespassing does not warrant deadly force. Stealing does not warrant deadly force. Squatting does not warrant deadly force. Causing emotional distress does not warrant deadly force.

The only thing on your list that might is physically harming--and in that case it comes down to the level of the harm.

(Note that I do not think there's any possibility it's a person until the brain starts to function--and that's in the 7th month.)

 

[zorq]

Sure, Loren, I know what you were posting, but I'm not advocating for deadly force.

I'm advocating for an eviction and a personal restraining order. If it's a person, I ought to be allowed the same legal options available to me in any other situation involving a dangerous unwanted trespasser.

For the xenophobic Republican types out there it might be worth mentioning that the trespasser is also totally undocumented and paperless and arrived in the country without notifying any government agencies. Can I call ICE to have them deport this dangerous interloper?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure, Loren, I know what you were posting, but I'm not advocating for deadly force.

I'm advocating for an eviction and a personal restraining order. If it's a person, I ought to be allowed the same legal options available to me in any other situation involving a dangerous unwanted trespasser.

For the xenophobic Republican types out there it might be worth mentioning that the trespasser is also totally undocumented and paperless and arrived in the country without notifying any government agencies. Can I call ICE to have them deport this dangerous interloper?

Calling it an eviction order doesn't change the fact that it's deadly force.