Roe v Wade is on deck

[untermensche]

The force is not on the woman.

She can perform an abortion on herself. Maybe absurd but she has that freedom if she has any privacy. If the state allows any privacy it allows a woman to do anything to her body.

The force is on other people besides the woman.

They can't perform an abortion for her.

The end result for most woman would be to not have an abortion but it is not the state telling a woman what she can do with her body in private.

You have a right to a defense in the court... you just don't have a right to a lawyer.

The lawyer can't use any defense they want.

They can't do whatever they want.

The defense has to be one recognized in the law.

The lawyer has limitations.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What lawyer? No doctor, no lawyer. If a woman can perform a medical procedure on herself alone, she can easily defend herself in court alone.

 

[untermensche]

The force is not on the woman.

She can perform an abortion on herself. Maybe absurd but she has that freedom if she has any privacy. If the state allows any privacy it allows a woman to do anything to her body.

The force is on other people besides the woman.

They can't perform an abortion for her.

The end result for most woman would be to not have an abortion but it is not the state telling a woman what she can do with her body in private.

Except that in these draconian places, getting a couple OTC or easily available prescription medications and combining them off label to produce that outcome all on your own is still considered illegal.

What are you talking about?

When you say easily available you mean prescription hormonal birth control?

I have no idea what OTC drugs you need.

I think we need to do research on self induced abortion and see how far along would be safe.

Then we need to allow doctors to prescribe drugs that allow woman to do it safely.

 

[untermensche]

What lawyer? No doctor, no lawyer. If a woman can perform a medical procedure on herself alone, she can easily defend herself in court alone.

The doctor can fix her ruptured appendix. He just can't do everything. Like remove her head.

Even if she demands it.

A doctor can do all things to save her from imminent death or disability.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What lawyer? No doctor, no lawyer. If a woman can perform a medical procedure on herself alone, she can easily defend herself in court alone.

The doctor can fix her ruptured appendix. He just can't do everything. Like remove her head.

Even if she demands it.

A doctor can do all things to save her from imminent death or disability.

So you just want to arbitrarily limit a woman's ability to see a doctor.

 

[untermensche]

What lawyer? No doctor, no lawyer. If a woman can perform a medical procedure on herself alone, she can easily defend herself in court alone.

The doctor can fix her ruptured appendix. He just can't do everything. Like remove her head.

Even if she demands it.

A doctor can do all things to save her from imminent death or disability.

So you just want to arbitrarily limit a woman's ability to see a doctor.

They can see all the doctors they want to.

The doctors have limits.

They can't cut off her head if she demands it.

 

[Toni]

You make a very valid point.

I am well aware of the rarity of third semester abortions and the reasons that almost all are performed. I *do* have a concern that the state or an individual could compel an abortion in the third trimester. It has happened in China. I've had a friend who was compelled to have an earlier unwanted abortion by her then spouse. I tend to look for unintended worst case scenarios...

I would further agree that third trimester abortions must be allowed to happen, also for whatever reason. Of course most of this arises from my decidedly abnormal view that "life" of the kind that is invoked in the sentence "life must be cherished and respected" doesn't start until the people to be involved with caring and nurturing for that specific life have consented to do so. As humans are brought to consummate their consent to this being a life, through their contribution of care (and through the gateway of consent of primary care givers), that is when a life becomes invested. To terminate a life with agency so vested with the consent of the involved, would make those involved "humans who have betrayed the trust of a life they consented to care for".

Now, maybe it's just me but that is fairly clearly in the circle of "bad faith".

It is that moment of consent that makes all the difference in the world, not for sex but for keeping it.

I'm still going to maintain that the geometry of that moment of consent says a lot of the person making that decision. It's undeniably their decision as the primary caregiver at that stage to not consent, whatever that means to the parasitic life inside them.

I definitely believe that third trimester abortions must be allowed.

My issue is that the must NOT be compelled, nor at any stage of pregnancy.

The ONLY valid decision maker is the girl or woman herself, except in instances where she is medically so compromised that she cannot make such a decision (I.E. she's comatose or something similar) and where terminating the pregnancy is less traumatic than continuing to birth. Medical providers can ethically decline to perform an abortion but they cannot compel an abortion if the mother is able to participate in decision making. (Example where a medical provider could make the decision: The mother has been so injured in an accident that she is unconscious and that to attempt to continue the pregnancy would harm her)

Other parents and prospective caregivers have a say in whether they wish to raise the child but not in whether the child is born.

A fetus is not a parasite.

A parasite is an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you just want to arbitrarily limit a woman's ability to see a doctor.

They can see all the doctors they want to.

The doctors have limits.

They can't cut off her head if she demands it.

Do you care to provide a better argument? She can't get cancer treatment because doctors can't cut of her head if she demands it either. She can't get birth control either because of decapitation limitations, no matter much she wants her head cut off.

 

[Jarhyn]

You make a very valid point.

I am well aware of the rarity of third semester abortions and the reasons that almost all are performed. I *do* have a concern that the state or an individual could compel an abortion in the third trimester. It has happened in China. I've had a friend who was compelled to have an earlier unwanted abortion by her then spouse. I tend to look for unintended worst case scenarios...

I would further agree that third trimester abortions must be allowed to happen, also for whatever reason. Of course most of this arises from my decidedly abnormal view that "life" of the kind that is invoked in the sentence "life must be cherished and respected" doesn't start until the people to be involved with caring and nurturing for that specific life have consented to do so. As humans are brought to consummate their consent to this being a life, through their contribution of care (and through the gateway of consent of primary care givers), that is when a life becomes invested. To terminate a life with agency so vested with the consent of the involved, would make those involved "humans who have betrayed the trust of a life they consented to care for".

Now, maybe it's just me but that is fairly clearly in the circle of "bad faith".

It is that moment of consent that makes all the difference in the world, not for sex but for keeping it.

I'm still going to maintain that the geometry of that moment of consent says a lot of the person making that decision. It's undeniably their decision as the primary caregiver at that stage to not consent, whatever that means to the parasitic life inside them.

I definitely believe that third trimester abortions must be allowed.

My issue is that the must NOT be compelled, nor at any stage of pregnancy.

The ONLY valid decision maker is the girl or woman herself, except in instances where she is medically so compromised that she cannot make such a decision (I.E. she's comatose or something similar) and where terminating the pregnancy is less traumatic than continuing to birth. Medical providers can ethically decline to perform an abortion but they cannot compel an abortion if the mother is able to participate in decision making. (Example where a medical provider could make the decision: The mother has been so injured in an accident that she is unconscious and that to attempt to continue the pregnancy would harm her)

Other parents and prospective caregivers have a say in whether they wish to raise the child but not in whether the child is born.

A fetus is not a parasite.

A parasite is an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

A fetus is not a parasite. A fetus IS parasitic. As I have said, the consent must come at all times to give care through the primary care giver. If they do not consent to additional buy-in of consent, no additional buy-in can be made. Another party, not even the husband, may not be considered until their consent is accepted by the primary party, or until it is born and the mother is no longer THE primary caregiver. That can only happen, at a minimum, when the mother decides she is keeping it. That decision creates the relationship of faith and trust and opens the door to additional, if tentative, investiture.

But make no mistake, all fetal life is parasitic until the event of consent happens.

 

[Jarhyn]

The force is not on the woman.

She can perform an abortion on herself. Maybe absurd but she has that freedom if she has any privacy. If the state allows any privacy it allows a woman to do anything to her body.

The force is on other people besides the woman.

They can't perform an abortion for her.

The end result for most woman would be to not have an abortion but it is not the state telling a woman what she can do with her body in private.

Except that in these draconian places, getting a couple OTC or easily available prescription medications and combining them off label to produce that outcome all on your own is still considered illegal.

What are you talking about?

When you say easily available you mean prescription hormonal birth control?

I have no idea what OTC drugs you need.

I think we need to do research on self induced abortion and see how far along would be safe.

Then we need to allow doctors to prescribe drugs that allow woman to do it safely.

As per the Wiki article, Mifepristone, a medication often used for the treatment of uterine fibroids, also known as RU-486, is a medication typically used in combination with misoprostol, a common ulcer medication, to terminate pregnancies.

So, all you have to do, as a woman, is seek out treatments for fibroids and then get treatment for a stomach ulcer. These are medications that are available, on their own, generally without a prescription.

It is common for organizations to provide the components to women in jurisdictions where actual prescriptions for the pill are forbidden.

 

[Toni]

I definitely believe that third trimester abortions must be allowed.

My issue is that the must NOT be compelled, nor at any stage of pregnancy.

The ONLY valid decision maker is the girl or woman herself, except in instances where she is medically so compromised that she cannot make such a decision (I.E. she's comatose or something similar) and where terminating the pregnancy is less traumatic than continuing to birth. Medical providers can ethically decline to perform an abortion but they cannot compel an abortion if the mother is able to participate in decision making. (Example where a medical provider could make the decision: The mother has been so injured in an accident that she is unconscious and that to attempt to continue the pregnancy would harm her)

Other parents and prospective caregivers have a say in whether they wish to raise the child but not in whether the child is born.

A fetus is not a parasite.

A parasite is an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

A fetus is not a parasite. A fetus IS parasitic. As I have said, the consent must come at all times to give care through the primary care giver. If they do not consent to additional buy-in of consent, no additional buy-in can be made. Another party, not even the husband, may not be considered until their consent is accepted by the primary party, or until it is born and the mother is no longer THE primary caregiver. That can only happen, at a minimum, when the mother decides she is keeping it. That decision creates the relationship of faith and trust and opens the door to additional, if tentative, investiture.

But make no mistake, all fetal life is parasitic until the event of consent happens.

A fetus is not parasitic.

 

[Toni]

What are you talking about?

When you say easily available you mean prescription hormonal birth control?

I have no idea what OTC drugs you need.

I think we need to do research on self induced abortion and see how far along would be safe.

Then we need to allow doctors to prescribe drugs that allow woman to do it safely.

As per the Wiki article, Mifepristone, a medication often used for the treatment of uterine fibroids, also known as RU-486, is a medication typically used in combination with misoprostol, a common ulcer medication, to terminate pregnancies.

So, all you have to do, as a woman, is seek out treatments for fibroids and then get treatment for a stomach ulcer. These are medications that are available, on their own, generally without a prescription.

It is common for organizations to provide the components to women in jurisdictions where actual prescriptions for the pill are forbidden.

You realize that in order to seek out treatment for fibroids, you must first be examined for fibroids and are only prescribed the medication if it is deemed to be safe and effective to remove your particular fibroids?

A pregnancy would be obvious under such an examination. In fact, a pregnancy would be specifically screened for prior to devising any treatment plan.

If you are not found to have fibroids, you would not receive the medication to eliminate the fibroids.

In all likelihood, if you were found to be pregnant and to have fibroids, you would not be given the medication to eliminate fibroids. You might be so prescribed to eliminate the pregnancy but with fibroids present, it is unlikely that you would be given the medication because of the chance of complications/extensive bleeding.

 

[Jarhyn]

What are you talking about?

When you say easily available you mean prescription hormonal birth control?

I have no idea what OTC drugs you need.

I think we need to do research on self induced abortion and see how far along would be safe.

Then we need to allow doctors to prescribe drugs that allow woman to do it safely.

As per the Wiki article, Mifepristone, a medication often used for the treatment of uterine fibroids, also known as RU-486, is a medication typically used in combination with misoprostol, a common ulcer medication, to terminate pregnancies.

So, all you have to do, as a woman, is seek out treatments for fibroids and then get treatment for a stomach ulcer. These are medications that are available, on their own, generally without a prescription.

It is common for organizations to provide the components to women in jurisdictions where actual prescriptions for the pill are forbidden.

You realize that in order to seek out treatment for fibroids, you must first be examined for fibroids and are only prescribed the medication if it is deemed to be safe and effective to remove your particular fibroids?

A pregnancy would be obvious under such an examination. In fact, a pregnancy would be specifically screened for prior to devising any treatment plan.

If you are not found to have fibroids, you would not receive the medication to eliminate the fibroids.

In all likelihood, if you were found to be pregnant and to have fibroids, you would not be given the medication to eliminate fibroids. You might be so prescribed to eliminate the pregnancy but with fibroids present, it is unlikely that you would be given the medication because of the chance of complications/extensive bleeding.

The point is that these medications can and will be made available, and have been, at appropriate doses through international effort to pregnant women who wish to terminate their pregnancy, and the laws of those places declare the use of these illegal for that end -- even when legally acquired through such circumstances as having had both fibroids and ulcers, or having friends who had one or the other and aren't shitty.

My point is that the law in those places DOES NOT protect the privacy of the mother.

That is the only point of this tangent. They have criminalized even putting a pill in your own body, and this in itself is anethma.

And yes, fetuses are parasitic. By their nature they rely on the unconsented life and organs and body of another to survive without offering survival benefit to the host organism.

 

[Toni]

You realize that in order to seek out treatment for fibroids, you must first be examined for fibroids and are only prescribed the medication if it is deemed to be safe and effective to remove your particular fibroids?

A pregnancy would be obvious under such an examination. In fact, a pregnancy would be specifically screened for prior to devising any treatment plan.

If you are not found to have fibroids, you would not receive the medication to eliminate the fibroids.

In all likelihood, if you were found to be pregnant and to have fibroids, you would not be given the medication to eliminate fibroids. You might be so prescribed to eliminate the pregnancy but with fibroids present, it is unlikely that you would be given the medication because of the chance of complications/extensive bleeding.

The point is that these medications can and will be made available, and have been, at appropriate doses through international effort to pregnant women who wish to terminate their pregnancy, and the laws of those places declare the use of these illegal for that end -- even when legally acquired through such circumstances as having had both fibroids and ulcers, or having friends who had one or the other and aren't shitty.

My point is that the law in those places DOES NOT protect the privacy of the mother.

That is the only point of this tangent. They have criminalized even putting a pill in your own body, and this in itself is anethma.

And yes, fetuses are parasitic. By their nature they rely on the unconsented life and organs and body of another to survive without offering survival benefit to the host organism.

There is zero difference biologically between a fetus that is welcome and one that the mother intends to abort. Even among those who the mother decides to terminate are many very much wanted pregnancies.

I understand in common parlance, fetuses are often referred to as parasites. This is the incorrect use of a specific biological term that has specific, defined meaning. A parasite feeds on the host of another species. Whether it not an organism or fetus is a parasite dies not depend on any way on whether the host consents.

You are also mistaken in believing that no long term or even life long benefits are not conferred upon a mother’s body, even if the pregnancy is terminated.

 

[Rhea]

Ftr, the woman is not a “mother” until she gives birth to a baby. She is a pregnant woman. Calling her a mother drives her into a category she has not consented to occupy.

 

[Toni]

Ftr, the woman is not a “mother” until she gives birth to a baby. She is a pregnant woman. Calling her a mother drives her into a category she has not consented to occupy.

Point taken but the given position is that a girl or a woman is mother to the fetus in biological terms. She may or may not have consented to be pregnant in the first place or to continue the pregnancy to any particular point. That does not change the biological relationship to the fetus.

Biologically speaking, there is zero difference between an unwanted fetus and one which is wanted by the person carrying the pregnancy.

 

[Trausti]

A person’s a person, no matter how small.

 

[Lion IRC]

A new born baby is just as parasitically reliant as an unborn baby in terms of the provision of warmth and nutrition garnered from another human being.

The disgusting (nazi) notion that its morally OK to destroy a human being based on this selfish concept of parasitic 'inconvenience' is what really lies at the heart of the pro-abortionists arguments.

 

[Toni]

A new born baby is just as parasitically reliant as an unborn baby in terms of the provision of warmth and nutrition garnered from another human being.

The disgusting (nazi) notion that its morally OK to destroy a human being based on this selfish concept of parasitic 'inconvenience' is what really lies at the heart of the pro-abortionists arguments.

No, that's not what parasite means.

Germany, under Nazi control was characterized by the suppression of the birth control movement, increasing restrictions on grounds for legal abortion, and severe penalization of performers of illegal abortions. During the war, racial grounds were virtually the only basis for legal abortion.

To attempt to control a woman's body and her reproduction choices is a tenet of Naziism.

I know of absolutely no single person who had an abortion for 'convenience.'

 

[James Madison]

People who want Roe V Wade to remain untouched do not necessarily limit themselves to wanting Roe V Wade as law of the land because of the issues contained within. There is other rationale. For (many) women, it does indeed boil down to whether or not they can be coerced into effectively allowing the use of their body to benefit some other (potential) person without their consent. Breaking it down to being forced to donate organs is, in part, an attempt to get those (men) opposed to abortion to develop some empathy. I would wager almost no person would want to be told that they have been designated the organ donor for some individual, much less if that donation came with mandated medical appointments, mandated diet and mandated abstinence with respect to alcohol and most drugs, including over the counter drugs. I would wager that virtually all people would vehemently object even if they were only being asked to donate a single lobe of their liver, which would regenerate inside their body.

Perhaps. I’m not familiar enough with any data to speak positively as to what “People” do. The same is true for me regarding “(many) women,” and such quantities really isn’t relevant anyway. This isn’t an argument or dialogue by numbers or grouping.

Rhea made a specific argument and it wasn’t a good argument, and bad arguments isn’t going to engender “empathy.”

And I can concede your “wager” regarding forced organ donation, but that has nothing to do with Roe and Rhea hitched her argument and the consequences to Roe and a reversal of Roe.

Which, by the way, I do think whether to procreate is a right of privacy. But Rhea’s bad arguments aren’t compelling.

I think that Rhea makes perfectly good arguments.

To me, the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining Roe V Wade is that the state has the right to compel another human being to use their body in a particular way. Individuals have the absolute right to make medical decisions that they feel are in their own best interests and this right should not be over ridden by the state. Nor does the state have the right to compel reproduction in any way of any person.

Arguing a reversal of Roe leads to the result of forced organ donation on the unstated premise Roe forbids the State from telling a woman she must allow a fetus to use her body and its organs, is “perfectly good arguments”? If you think that is a good argument, tell me how and why.

A reversal of Roe doesn’t lead and wouldn’t lead to forced organ donation, in part because the decision carved out an exception to State power to forbid abortion where the mother’s health is jeopardized by the pregnancy amd that would include the risk of loss of a body organ. So, no, this part of her argument doesn’t constitute as a “perfectly good argument.” Another reason the argument is deficient is because forced organ donation isn’t analogous to a pregnancy.

To me, the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining Roe V Wade is that the state has the right to compel another human being to use their body in a particular way

Like they do already with use of drugs, alcohol, tobacco use, age of consent to engaged in sexual conduct, service to the country through one of the military branches, how many spouses one may lawfully have, determining the age to consent to marriage, age limits to purchase and view sexually explicit material, shall I go on? The State has been exercise a “right to compel a tiger human being to use their body in a particular way” for centuries and in many ways.

Maybe you agree with some or all of those instances where the State is dictating how people cannot behave in regards to their own body or what they must do with their body. So, you want to draw a lines then, right? Let’s draw a line with procreation and limit State power in this area. Fine. Why? Why draw the line here legally? And where in the Constitution is there support for such line drawing?