Damn abortion protesters [Archive] - Page 2 - Straight Dope Message Board

Muad'Dib

04-05-2005, 09:56 PM

Muad'Dib, in this thread you have:

proposed making abortion illegal
proposed forcing reluctant pregnant women to carry to term, implying some sort of detainment
decreed that anyone who has medical reasons not to have children must abstain from sex, get permanently sterilized or make sure that they're using birth control with complete and total perfection; however, you have also
proposed that two of the most effective forms of birth control should be made illegal because they could prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg
decried the Pill, one of the two methods above, despite the fact that it is often the only effective treatment for menstrual problems; in such a situation, birth control is merely a side effect
suggested that miscarriages should be examined to make sure they weren't actually abortions

Do you not see, that to those who as fiercely believe that a fertilized egg does not have rights that trump the woman's as you fiercely believe it does, this is terribly restrictive and intrusive?

You want to talk about slavery? What would you call having all aspects of everyone's reproductive life overseen by the government, as you're apparently suggesting? Hell, you'd need a whole new branch of government for the registry and oversight of every fertile woman in this country. Just in case they get pregnant, of course. Can't let a single fetus go unmonitored for a single week, or else - BOOM! the mother might kill it while you're not looking. Women are stupid that way, you know. Poor things, they don't realize it's murder.

Don't be silly. Do we have any of that now? We have laws that protect the already born. Laws that hold parents responsible for those children and punish them if they let the children come to harm and we have all of that without some kiddie Gestapo. I would just like to see those same laws extended to the point of contraception.

Lord Ashtar

04-05-2005, 09:57 PM

I have as much a right and duty to try and stop you as people had 150 years ago to try and end slavery. They had to go to war to force their view on the south.
The American Civil War was not about slavery.

holmes

04-05-2005, 10:03 PM

No it was about states right...to have slaves.

Muad'Dib

04-05-2005, 10:06 PM

Lord Ashtar

04-05-2005, 10:09 PM

Can anyone on the anti-abortion side at at least agree that a freshly fertilized egg is not a fucking person?
I will. I believe life begins at conception.

Lord Ashtar

04-05-2005, 10:14 PM

No it was about states right...to have slaves.
What a simplistic view. But since I don't want to hijack any further, I'll drop it.

Fear Itself

04-05-2005, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by catsix
The estimate is that half of all those fertilized eggs fail to ever implant in the uterine wall. It's by no means a foregone conclusion that a fertilized egg will be a baby. That is irrelevent. A fetus not reaching full term is no different then a baby dying of natural causes. It does nothing to hurt my argument.Point of fact. A fertilized ovum is not a fetus. A fetus is the term for the stage of development that does not begin until eight weeks after uterine implantation. The stages of fetal development are as follows:

Zygote
Morula
Blastocyst
Embryo
Fetus

http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002398.htm

If you are going to throw around medical terms, you should at least know what they mean.

holmes

04-05-2005, 10:31 PM

Heh...open a Great Debates then. I dare you. Better yet do a search of the many others that already occurred.

Let's have lots of complicated explanations and rationale, for what basically comes down to one simple fact...what's you take, hmmm? Property Rights, State's Rights, The Hypocricy of the North? The right of self-determination? The Consitution allowed Slavery? Which is yours?

Make your case.

Thus ends my hijack.

Muad'Dib

04-05-2005, 10:31 PM

Point of fact. A fertilized ovum is not a fetus. A fetus is the term for the stage of development that does not begin until eight weeks after uterine implantation. The stages of fetal development are as follows:

Zygote
Morula
Blastocyst
Embryo
Fetus

http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002398.htm

If you are going to throw around medical terms, you should at least know what they mean.

This is technically true, but the words fetus and embryo have been popularized to mean an unborn child at any stage of development.

Lissa

04-05-2005, 10:37 PM

Fear Itself

04-05-2005, 10:38 PM

This is technically true, but the words fetus and embryo have been popularized to mean an unborn child at any stage of development.Which is one reason why we have so much problem communicating when we debate this issue; people are using the same terms to refer to two different things. The difference between a zygote and a fetus is vast and unambiguous.

Jenaroph

04-05-2005, 11:24 PM

Don't be silly. Do we have any of that now? We have laws that protect the already born. Laws that hold parents responsible for those children and punish them if they let the children come to harm and we have all of that without some kiddie Gestapo. I would just like to see those same laws extended to the point of contraception.
All right. Putting aside the complaints that Child Protective Services is extremely flawed (way too intrusive in some cases, totally negligent in others; that's all for a different thread) how, exactly, do we enforce these laws? What's the goal here - prevention of abortion, or punishment for those who commit it?

If it's prevention, (as ideally a live baby would be better than a dead one, right?) how do you keep a pregnant woman who really wants an abortion from having one, short of a 9-month imprisonment? How does law enforcment find out she's pregnant in the first place, in order to rule such a detention is necessary?

If you make birth control pills illegal because they MIGHT cause a fertilized egg to fail to implant, how does the government keep women from buying them from Canada? How does it prove a woman caught doing so is actually taking them for birth control purposes? If she's not currently in a sexual relationship with a man and can therefore have not caused the death of a fertilized egg, there has been no actual crime committed aside from the possession of an illegal drug. How do you separate such innocent users from those who MAY have caused fertilized eggs not to implant, without intruding into their sex lives? For that matter, how do you separate those who MIGHT have caused a fertilized egg to fail to implant, from those who actually DID?

On a similar note, how does the government tell if a woman has had an illegal IUD implanted?

How do you propose to examine women who have recently suffered miscarriages in order to make sure they weren't abortions? Detailed interviews? Court-ordered physical examinations? Would it be in her best interest to take the "leftovers" home with her in jar, to prove to the court they haven't been dismembered during a medical procedure?

If a couple who doesn't want children because of medical reason ends up getting pregnant anyway (ya know, birth control isn't 100% effective, even when used perfectly, and sterilizations have a certain failure rate) how do they go about getting an abortion to save the woman's life? I assume since it's not just a medical but also a legal issue, the court decides, based on medical information. What if some "activist judge" decides her reasons aren't compelling enough, and denies her request?

I'm just taking the cues from your statements in this thread. If you think these speculations are silly, rest assured a lot of people don't. The state of Virginia (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+ful+HB1677) has already tried to stick its nose into people's reproductive business. Don't believe for a minute there aren't people who wouldn't like to see rules like these enforced. It's that Cult of Life that is so dangerous.

Guinastasia

04-05-2005, 11:49 PM

Jenaroph

04-05-2005, 11:49 PM

I suppose I should pause from ranting and make my position clear.

I am pro choice, and ideally I would like to see an end to abortions.

NOT because they have been made illegal, but because nobody wants one anymore.

If the bloody photo protestors would spend half the time and energy that they spend screaming and waving signs (and BTW, how much did that Truck of Gory Fetus Death cost, anyway?) on (REAL) education, support and social programs, they could make a dent in the actual number of abortions in this country.

I commend you for helping your sister change her mind. But spouting off in here about all the draconian laws you'd pass if you could sure as hell isn't going to change OUR minds. It's clear this Cult of Life movement doesn't WANT to change minds; it just wants to tell everybody else how to live their lives, right down to the last gasp of breath. Why anybody thinks that ever goes over well is beyond me.

Muad'Dib

04-06-2005, 12:17 AM

Muad'Dib, fucking go to hell. You would honestly subject a woman who just had a goddamn miscarriage to a criminal investigation, adding insult to injury, just to prove she didn't induce an abortion? Go FUCK yourself!

That's what happened in Roumania, under Ceausceau, if I'm not mistaken. How DARE you. How fucking DARE you!

Keep your filthy paws off of MY UTERUS!!!

Grow up and calm down. How is that any different then a police investigation that parents are subjected to when a child dies suspiciously? Do you think that those are horrendous? Do you think that there should not be such investigations. I am talking about the death of a child, which is serious business. The laws that I have called for are no more draconian then the laws we already have to protect born children. They would only be extended to protect the unborn.

I dare because there is a human life at stake. I don't care about your uterus. I care about protecting the baby inside of it.

I am not a part of "the cult of life". I thought that Sciavo should have died. I support suicide for the terminally il, or even those who will not die but are in terrible suffering, part of having a right to life is the right to end it if you want to.

I just believe that life starts at conception, and have then followed that to its logical conclusions.

I don't expect to change any of your minds, as much as I expect any of you to change mine. This is a black and white issue that permits no compromise. I consider myself very Libertarian and I agree with you completely, if the unborn do not have human rights then anti-abortion laws would be a horrific abomination and I would fight tooth and nail to end such despicable laws. But I do grant the fertilized egg status as a human-being, and as such it would be a horrific abomination for me to night fight tooth and nail to protect it. Again, much like slavery, It will only be ended when one side forces the other to their demands just as we are currently forced to have legal abortion.

I have work to do. I'll respond to the other posts tomorrow.

Guinastasia

04-06-2005, 12:24 AM

Jeep's Phoenix

04-06-2005, 12:28 AM

Thank you, but I'm already quite grown up and I'm NOT going to "calm down." I cannot calm down when people are trying to make laws that may affect my own body.

And I would venture that many of my fellow female Dopers would agree with me.
Even though it will probably get me accused of whining (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310518), I'll agree with you there.

Arwin

04-06-2005, 04:36 AM

I just believe that life starts at conception, and have then followed that to its logical conclusions.

[...]

This is a black and white issue that permits no compromise.

[...]

But I do grant the fertilized egg status as a human-being, and as such it would be a horrific abomination for me to night fight tooth and nail to protect it. Again, much like slavery, It will only be ended when one side forces the other to their demands just as we are currently forced to have legal abortion.

Plain and simple, you're a fundamentalist. You take a position, based on an arbitrary belief not supported by arguments or science, and you then proceed to to empose it on others. The scary thing with fundamentalists is that it's never sure where they'll stop justifying the fight for their own cause. For some it's parading hideous posters that they have no business showing to children and people with bad experiences who can actually suffer and get nightmares from seeing them, for others it's flying planes into the World Trade Center.

The comparison with the slavery issue is outright ridiculous. The people being enslaved were sentient human beings with memory, no different from the people that enslaved them. It took a great effort on behalf of the slave owners to ignore the scientific fact that skin-color is really only skin-deep and the differences in looks belie a world of similarities, but they were motivated by one of the strongest of motivators - wealth.

Using the sanctity of life argument to forego any proper, scientific understanding of what life is, is a lot more like those who supported slavery than those who were against it. Answer some simple questions about how the value of an olive compares to that of a 35 year old Olive tree? What is consciousness? When does it arise? When is an Olive that grows on an Olive tree, no longer the Olive tree? Should an Olive tree make room for each and every olive that falls down and sprouts? The Olive tree is a lot more valuable than the Olive, to a near infinite degree.

The Olive tree vs Olive is a very simple example, but answering these questions in real life abortion scenarios is what it's all about. Should a parent risk foregoing a proper education in favor of a few cells that might turn into a human being if all goes well, or should the parent wait until he can provide a safe and stable environment for the child to grow up? The latter, as evolution has shown, is clearly the way to go. The value of a fertilised egg is negligible, compared to the availability of sperm and egg-cells set out against the importance of the investment of 18+ years that go into raising a child. Take an in vitro fertilisation, in which we can fertilise many eggs at once, and then usually choose only a few of those to implant. I bet you're against ivf too.

In the case of your sister, you are applying one example from personal experience and determining it is the right choice for a world of different circumstances that you know nothing of. Your sister could turn out right, and that's fine. But it doesn't mean it was the best choice. Nor does it mean that it will be the best choice for everyone else.

Your stance on sex is quite simply a failure to see that our whole civilisation has made large parts of our natural inclinations superfluous and some of them, like sex, can find better uses in society than for the preservation of our species. Ignoring the way the human works is what leads among others to child abuse in the Catholic Church, for which I hold the Catholic Church's ridiculous concept of celibacy fully responsible. By far a bigger threat to the preservation of the species is the overpopulation in countries like Africa and India.

In the meantime, any negative effect in terms of causing psychological harm in those that see the posters, even if it is small, is tremendously much more important than preventing a few cells from continuing their long path towards becoming a human being, and is so far a cry from being mass-murder that your suggestion of it alone is a grave insult to all those who have considered or had an abortion, as well as all victims of mass-murder and all their relatives.

Siege

04-06-2005, 05:07 AM

If I were absolutely sure that I never ever wanted to have kids, I would get a vasectomy. Why leave things to chance?
Sorry, bub. You would be. Here's a little chart published by the FDA. (http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html) Vasectomy has a lowest expected rate of pregnancy of 0.1% a typical use rate of 0.15%. For female sterilization, both are 0.5%, The most effective form of contraception, Norplant, which has a failure rate of 0.09% is no longer on the market.

As I said, we've had people on this very message board who've become pregnant despite using birth control, sometimes more than one form. I suppose having a hysterectomy would make it completely impossible to carry a baby to term, but it would not prevent ectopic pregnancies. By the way, why don't I hear the truly hard-core pro-lifers, the ones who would make abortion illegal even when the life of the woman is in danger, protesting the slaughter of innocents during ectopic pregnancies?

The protestors standing outside doctors offices or outside lunch wagons don't seem to be thinking about subtleties. They have no way of knowing whether the woman walking past them is seeking an abortion or looking for medical care for the aftermath of a miscarriage. They just call her a "baby killer" and worse. One reason I dislike these protestors so much is because to me they practice willful cruelty even to those who've committed no offense.

Muad Dib, when you or Lord Ashtar say, "just use birth control" or refer to not wanting to become pregnant because it's not "convenient", you look incredibly ignorant to those of us who have thought things through and are aware of how far from simple things are. I take responsibility for my life and actions as does my friend. However, nothing's 100% effective and nothing's 100% sure.

CJ

beagledave

04-06-2005, 06:22 AM

Point of fact. A fertilized ovum is not a fetus. A fetus is the term for the stage of development that does not begin until eight weeks after uterine implantation. The stages of fetal development are as follows:

Zygote
Morula
Blastocyst
Embryo
Fetus

http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002398.htm

If you are going to throw around medical terms, you should at least know what they mean.

Careful now...you don't want to be accused of being pedantic (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6023515&postcount=191) ;) (Although I suspect pro choice folks might get a pass ;) )

Malacandra

04-06-2005, 06:39 AM

Either quote for me the place where I said that, or quit trying to make me defend your strawmen.

Sorry catsix, I may have parsed this exchange wrongly:

( Muad'Dib
And you condemn millions by making abortion legal.

catsix
It already is legal. Thankfully people like you don't run my life.
...

You will keep your agenda out of my life whether you like it or not. )

I understood this to mean that you claimed that the present legality of abortion was a valid argument against outlawing it. If that is not what you meant then I was indeed beating the straw man, and I apologise.

I don't, for what it's worth, consider that the statistics on the number of pregnancies that self-terminate are valid grounds for acting to increase that number - any more than, say, the knowledge that my 93-year-old great-aunt has a 10% chance of dying before she turns 94 (this statistic completely tracta ex fundamento meo) justifies my turning this into a 100% probability to suit my own ends. But I cannot keep up with the pace of the argument going on here, as is evident from this post and the previous one being three pages apart, and I'd best just butt out, really.

Who_me?

04-06-2005, 06:44 AM

This is technically true, but the words fetus and embryo have been popularized to mean an unborn child at any stage of development.

Popularized by people who know no different... people who consider a zygote a human being.

PinkMarabou

04-06-2005, 07:19 AM

Thank you, but I'm already quite grown up and I'm NOT going to "calm down." I cannot calm down when people are trying to make laws that may affect my own body.

And I would venture that many of my fellow female Dopers would agree with me.

Yep, that would be me! Let them continue to spout their drivel. They are hypocrites until they can show me that they can account for every sperm or egg they have ever released (by their standards, masturbation would be manslaughter), they are strict vegans, and refuse to wear or use animal products of any sort. That's killing after all. ;)

Malacandra

04-06-2005, 07:24 AM

Yep, that would be me! Let them continue to spout their drivel. They are hypocrites until they can show me that they can account for every sperm or egg they have ever released (by their standards, masturbation would be manslaughter), they are strict vegans, and refuse to wear or use animal products of any sort. That's killing after all. ;)

Drivel3. "Unless you're a vegan you can't protest against murder"? And I'm talking murder as it's commonly understood, not abortion.

beagledave

04-06-2005, 07:31 AM

Popularized by people who know no different... people who consider a zygote a human being.

I'l be sure to pass your observation along to these folks (http://www.stanfordivf.org/pictures_embryo.html) ...

and these folks (http://www.gender.org.uk/about/04embryo/44_cncp.htm) ...

and these folks (http://www.visembryo.com/baby/) ....

or these folks (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=embryo) (note definition 1)

And, well you get the idea. Google is your friend if you want more links. The terms embryo (and sometimes fetus/fetal (http://pregnancy.about.com/od/fetus/) ) are often used as "short hand" in general parlance for the developing z/e/f.

I do find it interesting that so many pro choice folks refer to elective abortions on zygotes (or "clumps of cells" or "blood clots" etc..) ..when that never happens.

Guess you'll give those folks a pass, huh? ;)

PinkMarabou

04-06-2005, 07:56 AM

Drivel3. "Unless you're a vegan you can't protest against murder"? And I'm talking murder as it's commonly understood, not abortion.

If you're talking about murderes, I don't care what you do. But calling a woman a murderer for having an abortion reeks of hypocracy if you stand idly by while millions of animals are murdered. See the connection here? I also think you'd be a hypocrite if you're anti-welfare, pro-death penalty, pro-war. A killing is a killing is a killing afterall. ;)

What I'm getting at here is the pro-lifers like to hit the effect of the problem, not the cause. Abortion is NOT the cause. Of course you will have women who use it as birth control, but I'd wager that percentage to be pretty small. Unless you are actively volunteering with childcare, actively trying to make sure EVERY SINGLE WOMAN has healthcare (whether or not she can afford it), and bugging the Bush administration to fund NCLB, then you're a hypocrite.

Malacandra

04-06-2005, 08:24 AM

If you're talking about murderes, I don't care what you do. But calling a woman a murderer for having an abortion reeks of hypocracy if you stand idly by while millions of animals are murdered. See the connection here? I also think you'd be a hypocrite if you're anti-welfare, pro-death penalty, pro-war. A killing is a killing is a killing afterall. ;)

No, one can feel that a foetus has the human right to life that a meat animal does not, and I think you know that perfectly well. One can feel that a murderer should go to the chair while a helpless unborn should live. And so on.

What I'm getting at here is the pro-lifers like to hit the effect of the problem, not the cause. Abortion is NOT the cause. Of course you will have women who use it as birth control, but I'd wager that percentage to be pretty small. Unless you are actively volunteering with childcare, actively trying to make sure EVERY SINGLE WOMAN has healthcare (whether or not she can afford it), and bugging the Bush administration to fund NCLB, then you're a hypocrite.

I don't know about "wager", I think there are some statistics out there. But someone else on this thread has also advanced the fact that, in Sweden at least, assistance to single mothers hasn't meant a low rate of abortions.

And while I see what you are getting at, I don't think that I have to be shifting heaven and earth to provide better living conditions for those sectors of the population providing most petty criminals before I can argue that muggers and burglars should be locked up. Does that also make me a hypocrite?

Lord Ashtar

04-06-2005, 09:27 AM

Muad Dib, when you or Lord Ashtar say, "just use birth control" or refer to not wanting to become pregnant because it's not "convenient", you look incredibly ignorant to those of us who have thought things through and are aware of how far from simple things are. I take responsibility for my life and actions as does my friend. However, nothing's 100% effective and nothing's 100% sure.
First of all, when did I say "just use birth control"? I merely told you what I would do if I were certain I'd never want kids.

So if a man gets a vasectomy there's a 0.1% chance of a pregnancy. That means there's a 99.9% of no pregnancy. If your friends are as certain as you seem to think they are, then he should get snipped and she should get her tubes tied. Period. End of story.

eleanorigby

04-06-2005, 09:28 AM

PinkMarabou

04-06-2005, 09:30 AM

No, one can feel that a foetus has the human right to life that a meat animal does not, and I think you know that perfectly well. One can feel that a murderer should go to the chair while a helpless unborn should live. And so on.

But you are an animal and animals have lives, with feeling and emtions. And up until that child can live outside of the host body, it is not a human.

I don't know about "wager", I think there are some statistics out there. But someone else on this thread has also advanced the fact that, in Sweden at least, assistance to single mothers hasn't meant a low rate of abortions.

And while I see what you are getting at, I don't think that I have to be shifting heaven and earth to provide better living conditions for those sectors of the population providing most petty criminals before I can argue that muggers and burglars should be locked up. Does that also make me a hypocrite?

So we're back to "it's all the woman's fault" because she is the one who gets pregnant. Can you honestly say that every single sexual act that you've ever been a part of was for the inherent desire to produce offspring and not for pleasurable reasons?

Maybe we should fine men for ejaculating; wet dreams, masturbation, the whole shebang. Men need to take more responsibility of their actions, then women wouldn't get pregnant as much. I realize it takes two to make a pregnancy, but it seems we always get back to the woman. It's her fault because it's her body, so she should have to pay the consequences? This line of thought isn't fair to women. Because of the way we are built, it is always the woman who has to deal with it. Men can run off, not pay for their kid. Women, at minimum, are slaves to their body for 9 months where the father can just go on his merry way. It's not our fault we are the child-bearers, we can't help that. We're just trying to level the playing field here, equality and all that.

Were any of you pro-lifers virgins until you got married? Can you honestly say every single time you've had intercourse it was for baby making purposes only?

Malacandra

04-06-2005, 09:32 AM

Isn't there a term for "making up a point of view, ascribing it to your opponent, and ridiculing the hell out of it"?

Malacandra

04-06-2005, 09:39 AM

But you are an animal and animals have lives, with feeling and emtions. And up until that child can live outside of the host body, it is not a human. Begging the question.

This line of thought isn't fair to women. Because of the way we are built, it is always the woman who has to deal with it. Men can run off, not pay for their kid. Women, at minimum, are slaves to their body for 9 months where the father can just go on his merry way. It's not our fault we are the child-bearers, we can't help that. We're just trying to level the playing field here, equality and all that.

And this is the crux of the whole thing, isn't it? "I resent the fact that nature has, with crass regard for my dignity as a human being, seen to it that I cannot run away from a pregnancy the way a man can. I therefore demand that the playing field be levelled." All you're asserting there is your desire for access to abortion, not your right to it.

"Equality and all that." Maybe political ideals ought to be shaped to fit biology, and not the other way around. The bed of Procrustes, and all that. If it makes you feel any better, I despise men who run away from their responsibilities.

I snipped some of the obvious crap from your answer, you know, about masturbation and wet dreams. Was I a virgin when I got married? No. Has my every sex act been with the intention of producing a child? No. Did I however engage in sex with the awareness of a possible unintended consequence which I ought to acknowledge? Damn straight.

PinkMarabou

04-06-2005, 09:43 AM

It's not "pro-life"---it's pro-birth.

Love the fetus, hate the child. That's how they are. They don't care what happens once the kid is here, just get it here (so it can hopefully be another paying member to their church ;) ).

BTW, thank you for a wonderful post. It seems you and I have the same train of thought here. Women are once again the lower gender. Because of somethign we have no control over, our plumbing. Yeah, I think men should get a vasectomy until they are married, then have it reversed. I get so sick of it always being the woman.

Your post really touched me, thank you again.

Malacandra, what are you doing then if it disgusts you that men run away? Are you volunteering your time? Are you donating money to your state to pay for these children?

Lord Ashtar

04-06-2005, 09:55 AM

Love the fetus, hate the child. That's how they are. They don't care what happens once the kid is here, just get it here (so it can hopefully be another paying member to their church ;) ).
Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They'll do anything in favor of the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own.
-George Carlin

eleanorigby

04-06-2005, 09:58 AM

hang in there, Pink --time and tide will tell.

the vast majority of Americans support legal access to abortion--that does not mean that they are enamored of the idea or the act. They don't have to be. I agree with Clinton--ab should be safe, legal and rare --but then I vote to support social programs etc.

Hell, I was pro-choice but always said that MY choice would be to carry all pregancies to term, if I could. In theory, that was great--reality got in the way. If I could go back and do it again--I would make the same decision. I worry for my daughter, that she (if faced with such) will not be able to........

Life happens to people--which is something the anti-choice crowd completely ignores. There is only one algorithm available to them--and it is one that hurts real people. They don't see it that way. But they also don't see both sides of the issues, either. Sad.

I wanted to clarify something. When I posted that it is women who pay the price for the irresponsiblities of men, I was referring to rape and incest.

This thread has been hijacked to Cuba and back. Suffice to say that IMO, the protestors have a right to voice their position. IMO, they are doing themselves and their "cause" a grave disservice in the methods that they use.

Anaamika

04-06-2005, 10:04 AM

I've read about half the thread. I don't care to read anymore. I already know in the eyes of many people I'm less important than a clump of tissue.

I just wanted to come in here and say, I've had an abortion and it was not traumatic or horrible. It was the right & the only thing to do for me. I decided, with no other outside influence. I was 20 years old. Right now that little clump of tissue would have been 9 years old - I would be saddled with a 9-year old child.

The reasons why I did it are unimportant and will be believed by half the people in the thread and reviled by the other half. There is a thread around here in which I told my story, it's also on the website "I'm Not Sorry" under the name of "Elenia". I just wanted to make the point, that sometimes people can get through an abortion without being traumatized for life. Fence-sitters, really look into what an abortion entails. Don't look at anti-choice sites only. I saw what was left, it did not resemble a baby. I never thought twice.

Women should know they are more important than the fetus they are harboring. Abortion is a necesity and it is desirable as well. Not everyone who gets pregnant needs to be having kids or should be having kids, and I will not change my life around and spawn children to suffer the religious right or the anti-choice people.

There are plenty of unwanted, unfed, hungry, abused, suffering kids in the world already. It's against my moral beliefs to bring another kid into this world right now. My moral beliefs are as strong as the anti-choice people. If I ever want a kid, I will adopt one of the suffering. I suggest every single anti-choice person do the same, and then perhaps I'll give credence to your arguments. Every anti-choice person should adopt a child. Every. Single. One.

Guinastasia

04-06-2005, 10:13 AM

The protestors standing outside doctors offices or outside lunch wagons don't seem to be thinking about subtleties. They have no way of knowing whether the woman walking past them is seeking an abortion or looking for medical care for the aftermath of a miscarriage.
CJ

Or hell, what if she's there with a wanted pregnancy because she needs prenatal care?

Lord Ashtar, even today, women have a hard time finding a doctor willing to do surgical sterilization, especially if she's young and/or hasn't had children. Ask some of our female Dopers here about their experiences.

beagledave

04-06-2005, 10:22 AM

hang in there, Pink --time and tide will tell.

..the vast majority of Americans support legal access to abortion

I don't think that the word "vast" means what you think it does

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Even out of those who don't support making abortions illegal...a majority support various kinds of restrictions (parental or spousal notification, waiting periods etc..)

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

A lot of the polling data suggests mixed feelings on the topic (for example, more folks identify as "pro life" than "pro choice"..but that doesn't equate evenly to "making abortion illegal")

Quite honestly..a lot of the polling is push polling, skewed in both directions. If the questions are phrased in terms of "does a woman have a right"..the results are different than if the question is phrased "does a fetus have a right...".

Both sides do this..but one of the problems is that there is a bias in reporting. And before you roll your eyes TOO much about charges of bias, the bias has been extensively covered by David Shaw, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter at the Los Angeles Times.

The series predates the web..but it has been outlined here (http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/media/media.html) or here (http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/475MediaWatch%20--%2008-01-1990%20--%20Study%20Pro-Abortion%20Bias%20Detailed%20By%20L_A_%20Times.htm) . Hell some of the reporters even admit such...

A number of major reporters whose primary beat is abortion agreed with Shaw's conclusion. "I think that when abortion opponents complain about a bias in newsrooms against their cause, they're absolutely right," Boston Globe legal reporter Ethan Bronner told Shaw.

One of the activists interviewed was Douglas Gould, former vice president for communications at Planned Parenthood of America. Says Gould: "The language is everything." Comments Shaw: "In the abortion debate, the media's language consistently embraces the rights of the woman."

So again..if the debate (and polling questions) are framed as PP wishes...the results are different than if the debate and polling questions are framed more neutral (or as Right to Life folks would like).

Malacandra

04-06-2005, 10:22 AM

BTW, thank you for a wonderful post. It seems you and I have the same train of thought here. Women are once again the lower gender. Because of somethign we have no control over, our plumbing.

"Wonderful post" pronounced "snivel". Denying you the right to kill every foetus you conceive is not the same as making you "once again the lower gender". Denying you the right to kill every foetus you conceive is not the same as making state-controlled baby incubators. Also, in most cases you have plenty of control over your plumbing - not how you're plumbed, but what you do with it.

Yeah, I think men should get a vasectomy until they are married, then have it reversed. I get so sick of it always being the woman.

Very kind of you to draw the line at vasectomy, and not castration. I'm sure we would all willingly volunteer to have surgery performed on us to suit the convenience of another. But think on this: If all men have access to 100% effective contraception and use it, no problem. Ditto for all women. But if the uptake is lower, and you have multiple sex partners over time (as seems to be the norm and unlikely to change soon), you, the woman, can either: make 100% certain for yourself, or trust 100% of your partners. If 90% of women use the effective contraception, down go unwanted pregnancies by 90%. If you trust the man for it, and 90% of men use it, how are the unwanted pregnancies looking then? Still down by 90%? Why not?

Malacandra, what are you doing then if it disgusts you that men run away? Are you volunteering your time? Are you donating money to your state to pay for these children?

I'll answer that when you tell me the six things that most disgust you about modern society, and demonstrate that you are acting on all of them to the extent you ask of me. Otherwise, "hypocrite" yourself for demanding a standard of me that you don't hold yourself up to.

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 10:25 AM

I don't give a shit if "life begins" at conception. Me, I thought life began billions of years ago.

But I guess you mean that a unique life begins at conception. Me, I thought the sperm was alive, the egg was alive, and both were unique.

But I guess you mean that a unique human life begins at conception, by which you mean a life with a unique full set of human DNA. Me, I think that if you kill a person, it's not a defense that their DNA lives on in their identical twin.

I don't give a shit about that. It ain't human life that i want to protect: it's desires, experience, identity, hopes, dreams. A single-celled organism lacks all of these, and I don't give a shit about whether it's killed, whether that single-celled organism is a paramecium or a fertilized egg.

Come talk to me when it has any of desires, experience, identity, hopes, or dreams, and I'll be interested in protecting it. Until that point, I'll see your desire to protect it as imminently arbitrary and irrational.

Daniel

Malacandra

04-06-2005, 10:39 AM

Whereupon Daniel endorses infanticide.

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 10:43 AM

Whereupon Daniel endorses infanticide.
Gosh, weren't you the asshole complaining about straw men? Who'da thunk?

Hint: infants have desires.

Asshole.
Daniel

Siege

04-06-2005, 10:54 AM

First of all, when did I say "just use birth control"? I merely told you what I would do if I were certain I'd never want kids.

So if a man gets a vasectomy there's a 0.1% chance of a pregnancy. That means there's a 99.9% of no pregnancy. If your friends are as certain as you seem to think they are, then he should get snipped and she should get her tubes tied. Period. End of story.
I believe my friend and her husband have. The fact remains that there is a non-zero risk of pregnancy and that women have gotten pregnant when they have had their tubes tied and their husbands have had vasectomies. The fact remains that one of our own Dopers is in the curious position of being one of the first women to get become pregnant after undergoing the Essure procedure and passing the dye test which indicated her Fallopian tubes were blocked. Apparently, not blocked enough. :rolleyes:

I'm a programmer and the daughter of an engineer. I was trained that if a possibility exists, especially if there are known occurrences of that possibility, however remote, you allow for them. I drive carefully but not timidly, wear a seat belt, and remain aware of my limits and surroundings, thus doing all I can to reduce my risk of being in an auto accident as much as possible. That doesn't mean I won't be in one or that it's not a good idea for me to carry auto insurance even if my state didn't require it. In my own habits, the only ones I'm at liberty to discuss, I do take precautions and discuss what will happen if I become pregnant with the person involved before doing anything which could result in pregnancy. That doesn't mean it's impossible for me to get pregnant.

CJ

Syntropy

04-06-2005, 11:05 AM

And while I see what you are getting at, I don't think that I have to be shifting heaven and earth to provide better living conditions for those sectors of the population providing most petty criminals before I can argue that muggers and burglars should be locked up. Does that also make me a hypocrite?
Women who have abortions come from all walks of life. You're not being asked to shift heaven and earth to improve the life of someone who just held up a liquor store.
You want to know how to drastically reduce the number of abortions performed in this country? Fine. I'll tell you.
Pushing for funding sex ed in schools (detailed, clinical sex ed that will actually teach kids something) would be a wonderful start. Education goes a very long way toward fixing societal ills. Learning about a thing does not mean they're going to rush right out and do it. Conversely, not learning about something isn't going to stop them.
Talk to your daughters and sons about sex and the responsibility that goes with it. Be aware that by the age of 15, they are sexual beings, and telling a hormone with feet "NO!" is not going a realistic deterrent. Let them know that their having sex, while not what you want right now, will not result in them getting into trouble or being expelled from the family. Fear is a very big factor in what kids tell their parents. They'll be much more likely to come to you if they're not afraid of retribution for something that is, after all, a very natural occurence.
Stop lobbying against counselling being given in women's clinics. These women deserve to make an informed choice. Who knows? They may choose the adoption route. But unless the nurses there are allowed to give them all their choices and explain their options, how can they do that? They have to make a rushed choice that may not be best for them.
And last, but certainly not least: QUIT SPREADING MISINFORMATION. The fucking posters are lies. The commercials are lies. Start using factual information and quit screaming. No one is going to be willing to listen to you.

beagledave

04-06-2005, 11:08 AM

Gosh, weren't you the asshole complaining about straw men? Who'da thunk?

Hint: infants have desires.

Asshole.
Daniel

Since it's so obvious..

Please provide the cite that a newborn baby has desires.

(I assume we're not talking about biological needs for food etc, which of course a fetus needs as well...but something more philosophical like the rest of your list..."experience, identity, hopes, or dreams")

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 11:15 AM

Since it's so obvious..

Please provide the cite that a newborn baby has desires.

(I assume we're not talking about biological needs for food etc, which of course a fetus needs as well

A carrot needs sunlight, but a carrot does not desire sunlight. A fertilized egg needs nutrition, but a fertilized egg does not desire nutrition. An infant needs food, AND an infant desires food.

I'm not fucking providing you a cite that a newborn baby has desires.
Daniel

Shodan

04-06-2005, 11:26 AM

Syntropy

04-06-2005, 11:39 AM

How about "identity, hopes and dreams" then?

Regards,
Shodan
Do you not consider self awareness "identity" ?

Jenaroph

04-06-2005, 11:39 AM

Grow up and calm down. How is that any different then a police investigation that parents are subjected to when a child dies suspiciously? Do you think that those are horrendous? Do you think that there should not be such investigations.Comparing the death of an actual child to the spontaneous end of a pregnancy is comparing apples and oranges. Kids don't usually drop dead for no reason, so investigating their deaths is reasonable. The percentages I keep reading (http://www.cone-biopsy.org/miscarriage-hpv/miscarriage-percentage.html) are that about 10% of pregnancies end in the first trimester. My mother had one. My sister had one. They're the only two in my immediate family who've ever been pregnant. If you count unimplanted fertilized eggs, it may be as high as 50%. MOST women will have a miscarriage at some point in their lives. And some 1% of women are chronic miscarriers. So how far do you take an investigation of a couple who, by your definition, keeps losing child after child through no fault of their own? And again, HOW do you determine whether the loss of a pregnancy is through miscarriage or abortion? The most definitive way to tell would be a pelvic exam. I'm seriously asking about practicalities here. How much government interest is too invasive?
I am talking about the death of a child, which is serious business. The laws that I have called for are no more draconian then the laws we already have to protect born children. They would only be extended to protect the unborn.You've suggested you'd lock up a woman for the duration of her pregnancy to ensure she gives birth. How is imprisonment for a crime not commited not draconian? How is that comparable to punishing people for abusing their children? Do we lock up parents in case they might harm their kids? No, we lock them up AFTER we have evidence that they do so. (And sometimes not even then.)
I dare because there is a human life at stake. I don't care about your uterus. I care about protecting the baby inside of it.I find this quite telling. Why does the potential life always trump the actual life, 100% of the time?
I am not a part of "the cult of life". I thought that Sciavo should have died. I support suicide for the terminally il, or even those who will not die but are in terrible suffering, part of having a right to life is the right to end it if you want to.

I just believe that life starts at conception, and have then followed that to its logical conclusions.But not fully. What happens after the unwanted pregnancy is complete? What, pray tell, happens to all the unwanted babies after they're out of the women's uteruses you don't care about? Where do they go? Where do YOU think they should go? Put them up for adoption? By whom?

I don't expect to change any of your minds, as much as I expect any of you to change mine. This is a black and white issue that permits no compromise. I consider myself very Libertarian and I agree with you completely, if the unborn do not have human rights then anti-abortion laws would be a horrific abomination and I would fight tooth and nail to end such despicable laws. But I do grant the fertilized egg status as a human-being, and as such it would be a horrific abomination for me to night fight tooth and nail to protect it.It ain't black and white, no matter how much you want it to be. Even by allowing for people to have abortions for situations where the mother's life is in danger, you're introducing your own shades of grey. Medical risks are for every case different. Who decides how much of a risk the woman has to take, before an abortion is allowed? By these suggested laws, it'd be the government. I'd think a libertarian would be disturbed by that idea.

Again, much like slavery, It will only be ended when one side forces the other to their demands just as we are currently forced to have legal abortion.
Force. You keep introducing that concept. I only see one side trying to force anything. Nobody is FORCING anyone to have an abortion; it is an elective procedure and in the current religious political climate, is unlikely to be made mandatory. Yet you would FORCE women you'll never meet to bear children they don't want, to satisfy your view of what a pregnancy is, even though there is a large number of people who do not agree with that view. It is akin to forcing an entire country to live by the tenets of a certain religion, though a large number do not practice that religion. Why do you argue that this a good thing?

eleanorigby

04-06-2005, 11:49 AM

Bravo, Jenaroph

Very well put.

To me, if you are gonna postulate anti-choice--you have to go all the way. The minute you let in "well, if the mother is at risk.......or the baby grossly deformed and won't survive outside the uterus......." you have admitted to shades of gray and have lost your "but it's Life and must be at all costs" argument.

All of this is really beside the point--I do no share the same moral construct that the anti-choice people do. The difference is that I am not forcing my choices onto them...but they would on me.

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 11:57 AM

How about "identity, hopes and dreams" then?

What about 'em? I used the word "any" for a reason. If your concern is borne from something other than an incorrect reading of what I wrote, I'm afraid you'll need to elaborate.

Daniel

Lord Ashtar

04-06-2005, 12:05 PM

Lord Ashtar, even today, women have a hard time finding a doctor willing to do surgical sterilization, especially if she's young and/or hasn't had children. Ask some of our female Dopers here about their experiences.
Obviously I'm not very knowledgeable in how hard it is to get sterilized, but I would think Siege's friends (with their genetic problems or whatever it is) would have an easier time than most. I could be wrong.

Lord Ashtar

04-06-2005, 12:12 PM

And upon futher reading of the thread I see that they both have, making this a moot point.

Carry on.

andros

04-06-2005, 12:35 PM

I'm not fucking providing you a cite that a newborn baby has desires.

Of course you aren't. Because you can't.

robertliguori

04-06-2005, 12:39 PM

A tumor will never become self-aware or gain consciousness and therefore has no right to life.

Let's parse this, shall we?

If it will never become self-aware or gain consciousness, it has no right to life.

If I have an abortion, then the z/e/g will never become self-aware or gain consciousness.

Therefore, z/e/gs belonging to people who have abortions have no right to life. Conversely, those beloinging to people that don't abort or miscarry or otherwise have a mishap do have a right to life.

Whaddya know? Looks like Muad was pro-choice after all.

Lord Ashtar

04-06-2005, 12:44 PM

Of course you aren't. Because you can't.
Ever been around a newborn? Ever seen how much they cry? I'm pretty sure it's because they desire that they get fed. Maybe it's because they desire that their diaper gets changed. Perhaps they desire to be held.

Quit being so fucking stupid.

robertliguori

04-06-2005, 12:49 PM

Of course you aren't. Because you can't.

http://learn.vt.edu/courses/1/PSYC_2004_14289_200501/content/_906523_1/Development.pdf

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to cite my lecture notes for the psychology class I'm taking, but if I am (and Blackboard allows off-site links) look at pages 3-5.

andros

04-06-2005, 01:45 PM

Ever been around a newborn? Ever seen how much they cry? I'm pretty sure it's because they desire that they get fed. Maybe it's because they desire that their diaper gets changed. Perhaps they desire to be held.

You're "pretty sure." "Maybe." "Perhaps." Fine.

I'm pretty sure that maybe, perhaps, 2+2=5, for sufficiently large values of five.

Quit being so fucking stupid.

Quite being so fucking shrill. It's not my fault you're confusing an emotional argument with a logical one, and it's not my fault it's flawed. Obscenities aren't backing up your point.

Now, kindly explain to me why a newborn has desires and a fetus does not. And while you're at it, please provide the definition of "desire" you're using. Thanks.

robert, looks like Blackboard doesn't link out. Is that doc available elsewhere?

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 01:58 PM

Of course you aren't. Because you can't.
You must be insane.

I'm not providing you a cite for the bleedin' obvious, and I'm not going to defend myself any further against charges that I advocate infanticide, because I don't fucking advocate infanticide.

Look. I understand that your position is that it's okay to torture animals to death for fun, and you're justifiably defensive about that. BUt that doesn't mean it's okay for you to make up scurrilous lies about my position and ask me to defend them.

Daniel

andros

04-06-2005, 02:03 PM

You must be insane.

I'm not providing you a cite for the bleedin' obvious, and I'm not going to defend myself any further against charges that I advocate infanticide, because I don't fucking advocate infanticide.

Look. I understand that your position is that it's okay to torture animals to death for fun, and you're justifiably defensive about that. BUt that doesn't mean it's okay for you to make up scurrilous lies about my position and ask me to defend them.

Daniel

:shrug: Ok then. Apart from putting it on the record that I've made up no lies about your position, scurrilous or otherwise, I'm happy with that. You've established that your are arguing from emotion and your cite is "fuck you, I'm right."

I don't think you advocate infanticide. Never said you did. I would suggest, however, that you do your views little justice if you cannot back them up with something beyond "it's bleeding obvious." Fuck, man, that's the way Muad'Dib's operating, and you clearly don't care much for his angle, right?

andros

04-06-2005, 02:06 PM

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 02:06 PM

:shrug: Ok then. Apart from putting it on the record that I've made up no lies about your position, scurrilous or otherwise, I'm happy with that. You've established that your are arguing from emotion and your cite is "fuck you, I'm right."

You're seriously arguing that I'm arguing from emotion when I say that infants have desires?

Sorry, Charlie. That's an absurd position, and it's akin to asking for a cite that infants have vocal cords. The fact that it's gonna be difficult for me to pull up a cite on the bleedin' obvious is your problem, not mine. If you really want to set forth the argument that infants don't have desires, then YOU'RE the one that's going to need to do so: the common-sense conclusion is that the infant reaches for the breast because the infant desires nourishment, that the infant cries because the infant desires comfort, and so forth.

If you think that desires dont' play into it, then you're the one who needs to offer an alternate explanation, and further explain at what point in a human's development the desires first form, and what prompts this formation. Not me.

Daniel

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 02:09 PM

Oh, and why is insane to ask for my ignorance to be eradicated? I am unaware that newborns have desires in the sense that I understand the term. I want you to show me, so I can learn. When did that become insanity?
The insanity is not that you asked for a cite; the insanity is when you said that I couldn't give you one, implying that infants DON'T feel desires. If you'd just said, "Daniel, I don't think that infants have desires in the sense that I understand the term; can you clarify what you mean?" then I wouldn't have accused you of insanity.

But since you've explained that you're just not aware that newborns have desires in the sense that you understand the term, please let me know how you understand the term, and I'll be happy to explain myself.

Daniel

Lord Ashtar

04-06-2005, 02:09 PM

You're "pretty sure." "Maybe." "Perhaps." Fine.

I'm pretty sure that maybe, perhaps, 2+2=5, for sufficiently large values of five.

Quite being so fucking shrill. It's not my fault you're confusing an emotional argument with a logical one, and it's not my fault it's flawed. Obscenities aren't backing up your point.

Now, kindly explain to me why a newborn has desires and a fetus does not. And while you're at it, please provide the definition of "desire" you're using. Thanks.
Now you're just being obtuse.

Please show me where I argued in this thread (or any other, for that matter) that a fetus has desires. I'm arguing that a newborn baby does. It may be anecdotal evidence, but this isn't Great Debates.

I suggest you go ask a few mothers whether or not they think their newborn baby has desires.

Shodan

04-06-2005, 02:11 PM

What about 'em? I used the word "any" for a reason. If your concern is borne from something other than an incorrect reading of what I wrote, I'm afraid you'll need to elaborate.

Daniel
Actually, here's the quote:
It ain't human life that i want to protect: it's desires, experience, identity, hopes, dreams. A single-celled organism lacks all of these, and I don't give a shit about whether it's killed, whether that single-celled organism is a paramecium or a fertilized egg.

Come talk to me when it has any of desires, experience, identity, hopes, or dreams, and I'll be interested in protecting it.Did you mean "any one of"?

Or disregard if you like. It was a cheap shot. All pro-life/pro-choice arguments begin and end the same way:

"Assume the fetus is/is not a separate human life with rights to be protected". And then follow with rigorous logic from there.

Regards,
Shodan

andros

04-06-2005, 02:13 PM

All I want is evidence that newborns experience desire (along with operating definitions). I don't believe such evidence exists. Therefore, I don't believe you can provide that evidence. I would very much like to be proven wrong.

andros

04-06-2005, 02:19 PM

Now you're just being obtuse.

Please show me where I argued in this thread (or any other, for that matter) that a fetus has desires. I'm arguing that a newborn baby does. It may be anecdotal evidence, but this isn't Great Debates.

Truthfully, I had you briefly confused with LHoD. Apologies to you both.

See, if it can be established that newborns have desires and fetuses don't, then we have a valid demarcation point in the abortion debate.

(Why should it make any difference what forum we're in? Isn't it best to argue from reason regardless?)

I suggest you go ask a few mothers whether or not they think their newborn baby has desires.

Needs, sure. Desires? A bit trickier. Is a newborn sentient? Cognizant? Aware, in the strictest sense?

I'm sure most parents would like to believe that their newborn is all those things. But then, the Schindlers wanted to believe that their daughter Terri was going to start tapdancing at any second. What a parent wants to believe ain't necessarily so.

As another example, most parents want to believe that their kid is the smartest child in the world. They're all wrong.

Mine is.

andros

04-06-2005, 02:20 PM

The insanity is not that you asked for a cite; the insanity is when you said that I couldn't give you one, implying that infants DON'T feel desires.

Actually, you inferred incorrectly. I meant to imply that you cannot provide one because no such cite exists. Sorry for the confusion.

dublos

04-06-2005, 02:24 PM

Ever been around a newborn? Ever seen how much they cry? I'm pretty sure it's because they desire that they get fed. Maybe it's because they desire that their diaper gets changed. Perhaps they desire to be held.

Quit being so fucking stupid.

Umm.. and this would not apply to a newborn kitten, puppy, calf or chicken in exactly what way? (presuming one decided to diaper said newborn non-human)

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 02:26 PM

Actually, here's the quote:
Did you mean "any one of"?

Yes, of course--what else would "any of" mean?

[quote
Or disregard if you like. It was a cheap shot. All pro-life/pro-choice arguments begin and end the same way:

"Assume the fetus is/is not a separate human life with rights to be protected". And then follow with rigorous logic from there. [/QUOTE]

Nonsense. I'm not assuming that the fetus has no rights to be protected; I'm concluding that. An entity with no capacity for desire, identity, hopes, fears, etc. has no rights that can be violated. (The most common objection is that a person in a coma has none of these; this is incorrect, inasmuch as a comatose person has a discrete identity which may be described, and which is merely temporarily suspended).

andros, I'll go by the dictionary definition, which is "a wish or longing." An expression of hunger is an expression of desire. Infants express hunger. cite (http://depts.washington.edu/growing/Feed/Develop.htm#Hunger%20and%20Satiety%20Cues).

I'm not talking about high-level desires; I'm not saying that infants desire to hear Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, or that they desire to understand the nature of love. I'm saying they can express a very few very basic desires (a desire for warmth, a desire for food, a desire not to fall, a desire not to hurt, etc.), which is more than a single-celled organism can express.

Daniel

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 02:30 PM

Needs, sure. Desires? A bit trickier. Is a newborn sentient? Cognizant? Aware, in the strictest sense?

I think you need to explain your definition of "desires."

Daniel

Syntropy

04-06-2005, 02:35 PM

Oh, goodie. We've argued the taste out of the subject, but instead of letting it die a natural death we're being aggressively nitpicky about syntax.

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 02:37 PM

Oh, goodie. We've argued the taste out of the subject, but instead of letting it die a natural death we're being aggressively nitpicky about syntax.
I have no idea what you mean, least of all by "we've".

Daniel

Blalron

04-06-2005, 02:38 PM

Since it's so obvious..

Please provide the cite that a newborn baby has desires.

You are correct, which I why I personally don't view infanticide (morally) as being murder. I understand the need for society to draw a line at an arbitrary and easily definable point to be on the safe side (just like 21 is the legal drinking age) and I respect that. But there's nothing magical that occurs at the instant of birth that imbues a newborn with anything special that it didn't have moments before when it was still in the womb.

Syntropy

04-06-2005, 02:38 PM

LHoD, I want to have your children.

LavenderBlue

04-06-2005, 03:10 PM

I am so damned sick of reading all the anti-abortion people refer to pregnancy as an "incovenience." For many woman, myself included, pregnancy is anything but. Pregnancy means nine months of nausea, bloating, constipation, elevated blood pressure, bone loss, itchy skin, leg pain, back pain, interrupted sleep and enormous weight gain. The end result of a pregnancy is typically hours and hours of enormous pain followed by permanent scarring and aching breasts.

My last pregnancy forced me into the hospital for three weeks. I couldn't keep any food down and was in the worst pain I've ever experienced.

Under any other circumstances we would never force anyone to voluntarily go through such an ordeal. Why are some people so insistant that once a fertilized egg exists that none of this matters?

Given how unbelievably hard pregnancy so often is on a woman's body we should be down on our hands and knees heartily applauding every single woman who voluntarily gives birth.

Those who don't want to should be given our sympathies and understanding instead of stupid homilies by people who can't the difference between potential and actual life.

A woman who has an abortion needs a better method of birth control. She doesn't need some prick threatening her with a jail sentence, especially when said prick admits he doesn't particularly give a damn about her reproductive organs.

Muad'Dib,

You may not care about my uterus but rest assured I sure as hell do. I've seen some nervy statements by anti-abortionists but that particularly sentiment deserves a special little corner of contempt.

Fuck you for your open and callous disregard of my well-being and the continued health of all women around the world. I hope you never get married because you clearly don't care very much about any potential wife's body parts. I certainly hope you never father girls. You don't deserve to create a uterus if you don't care about what happens to it.

Muad'Dib

04-06-2005, 03:23 PM

Anyone who knowingly prevents a fertilized egg from coming to maturity may be a murderer under your paradigm.

Yes.

beagledave

04-06-2005, 03:48 PM

A carrot needs sunlight, but a carrot does not desire sunlight. A fertilized egg needs nutrition, but a fertilized egg does not desire nutrition. An infant needs food, AND an infant desires food.

I'm not fucking providing you a cite that a newborn baby has desires.
Daniel

Of course I didn't say "a fertilized egg" in my initial request to you..I said "fetus".

If you can't provide a cite that newborn baby "desires" food beyond the same biological desire/need that a fetus (or embryo does) than I think you've chosen to punt.

At least Blaron is being honest in saying he has no moral problem with infanticide.

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 03:53 PM

I think you've chosen to punt.

:weeps passionately

You caught me. I love me some infanticide.
Daniel

beagledave

04-06-2005, 03:54 PM

To further clarify my above point concerning "desire" for food.

A newborn only "expresses" a desire for food in the sense that he/she NEEDS to. He/she no longer has an umbilical cord supplying nutrition.

LHoD seems to be suggesting that there is a greater developmental progression between a baby born at 28 weeks..than a 36 week old fetus, because the baby has exited a uterus.

(And to further clarify...this magical line in the sand of who gets to live and who gets to die is not MY line in the sand..I'm just pointing out the silly inconsistencies).

Blalron

04-06-2005, 03:59 PM

Yes.

Murders are probably happening in your hometown, and all you can do is bitch on a messageboard? If I truly believed a concentration camp was running in my neighborhood, I'd do everything in my power to put a stop to it, the law bedamned.

You lack the courage of your convictions, sir.

Jeep's Phoenix

04-06-2005, 04:02 PM

According to today's Technician (http://technicianonline.com/), I missed a set of photos where the group (which, I now learn, calls itself "Organization for Bio-Ethical Change") displayed photos from the Holocaust alongside the dead baby photos. Two letters are up in the campus forum; to access them, go to the above URL, click on "Download Today's PDF," and go to page 7.

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 04:03 PM

LHoD seems to be suggesting that there is a greater developmental progression between a baby born at 28 weeks..than a 36 week old fetus, because the baby has exited a uterus.

Incorrect. I've not yet discussed 28-week-old fetuses in this thread. I've discussed single-celled organisms. I agree that there's a gray area in between the two, but I disagree that there's any sense in treating abortions prior to (say) 12 weeks as moral issues.

Daniel

beagledave

04-06-2005, 04:03 PM

Murders are probably happening in your hometown, and all you can do is bitch on a messageboard? If I truly believed a concentration camp was running in my neighborhood, I'd do everything in my power to put a stop to it, the law bedamned.

You lack the courage of your convictions, sir.

That old canard?

What are you personally doing to stop the bloodshed happening in Iraq..howzabout the people being put to death via capital punishment in your own country?

Are you doing "everything in your power" to stop these evil actions..or just being a pussy on a messageboard?

beagledave

04-06-2005, 04:14 PM

Incorrect. I've not yet discussed 28-week-old fetuses in this thread. I've discussed single-celled organisms. I agree that there's a gray area in between the two, but I disagree that there's any sense in treating abortions prior to (say) 12 weeks as moral issues.

Daniel

1) Why are you discussing elective abortions performed on single celled organsims? They never happen.

2) You mentioned NO "gray area" in your post that I responded to..you drew a pretty firm line in the sand..

Come talk to me when it has any of desires, experience, identity, hopes, or dreams, and I'll be interested in protecting it. Until that point, I'll see your desire to protect it as imminently arbitrary and irrational.

Again by your line of reasoning...because a baby born at 28 weeks "expresses" a desire for hunger... it gets your "protection".

A 36 week old in utero fetus that doesn't "express" that same desire for hunger (because it doesnt need to) obviously doesn't.

Blalron

04-06-2005, 04:19 PM

That old canard?

What are you personally doing to stop the bloodshed happening in Iraq..howzabout the people being put to death via capital punishment in your own country?

What the hell can I do in Iraq at this point? The war is over, and any insurgent violence is beyond my control and not within my realm of knowledge to do anything to stop. If I went over there all gung-ho and tried to do something I'd probably just get kidnapped and become the next Nick Berg.

As for capitol punishment, what can I do, organize a prison break on death row? Yeah, that'll save lives. I recognize most of these people don't belong in society, I just don't think killing them is the proper way to remove them from society.

Are you doing "everything in your power" to stop these evil actions..or just being a pussy on a messageboard?

Those actions are too distant or too heaviliy guarded or too beyond my means for me to do anything about.

You personally could do a lot more to save unborn lives than I could to stop a prisoner from being executed. You could kidnap a pregnant woman who wants to get an abortion and chain her up until she gives birth. Sure, you'll go to prison but at least you saved a life!

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 04:20 PM

1) Why are you discussing elective abortions performed on single celled organsims? They never happen.

2) You mentioned NO "gray area" in your post that I responded to..you drew a pretty firm line in the sand..

The fuck are you talking about? I was responding to Muad, not to you; read his posts to understand mine. You're being ridiculous.

Again by your line of reasoning...because a baby born at 28 weeks "expresses" a desire for hunger... it gets your "protection".

A 36 week old in utero fetus that doesn't "express" that same desire for hunger (because it doesnt need to) obviously doesn't.

Thanks so much for explaining my line of reasoning! Do try to get it right next time.

I said that what matters is whether it *has* desires etc., not whether it *expresses* them. I only brought up whether it *expresses* desires when some asshole challenged me to prove that a neonate *has* desires. Clearly one can't express something one doesn't have. But that doesn't mean I moved the standard.

Perhaps if you showed a little less interest in proving how superior you were, and a little more interest in addressing what I actually say, this conversation could be more productive, what?

Daniel

beagledave

04-06-2005, 04:34 PM

What the hell can I do in Iraq at this point? The war is over, and any insurgent violence is beyond my control and not within my realm of knowledge to do anything to stop. If I went over there all gung-ho and tried to do something I'd probably just get kidnapped and become the next Nick Berg.

Well certainly you opposed the run up to the war..right? Plenty of folks did civil acts of disobedience and more both during this war and other war times events like Nam. Some of them ended up in jail.

But here you were, wasting time on the message boards.

As for capitol punishment, what can I do, organize a prison break on death row? Yeah, that'll save lives. I recognize most of these people don't belong in society, I just don't think killing them is the proper way to remove them from society.

You're really asking what can you do to change public policy? Have you protested in front of prisons..have you organized mass mailings to change the opinions of legislators..have you done ANYTHING beyond being on the boards?

I get it. You've done absolutely ZIP about atrocities beyond hanging around a message board (and voting, I guess)...but you hold others to a different standard.

Ayup.

beagledave

04-06-2005, 04:42 PM

The fuck are you talking about? I was responding to Muad, not to you; read his posts to understand mine. You're being ridiculous.

I guess I'm confused now...In your post on an earlier page (in response to Muad..you drew a line in the sand about who gets your "protection". In further posts on THIS page in response to me...you 'clarified" I guess what you meant by "desires". I'm pointing out that your line in the sand would allow a baby born at 28 weeks to get your "protection", but a 36 week old fetus to not get your protection. If my previous post was confusing, I apologize.

I said that what matters is whether it *has* desires etc., not whether it *expresses* them. I only brought up whether it *expresses* desires when some asshole challenged me to prove that a neonate *has* desires. Clearly one can't express something one doesn't have. But that doesn't mean I moved the standard.

Perhaps if you showed a little less interest in proving how superior you were, and a little more interest in addressing what I actually say, this conversation could be more productive, what?

Daniel

Well that's cute and all..but how does one know whether one "has" all of those wonderful attributes like desires and hopes and emotions unless they are expressed in some fashion?

Simple question then..does a 36 week old in utero fetus HAVE "desires, experience, identity, hopes, dreams"?

If so, how do you know?

If not...is it therefore not deserving of your "protection"?

Siege

04-06-2005, 04:43 PM

Yes.
Right. Shall I e-mail you my home address then so you can imprison me for the next 9 months? You see, I have had sex within the last week, and for all you know the birth control method I use may prevent implantation under some circumstance. Even I'm not sure whether it does or not, although from what I know of how it works, it follows logically that it might.

That is what you are demanding of us, whether you like it or not. Tell me, while you're imprisoning me, will you arrange for someone to pay my mortgage, car payments, and other bills, or am I on my own for that? If my employer fires me because I've been imprisoned for committing murder, my health insurance will lapse. Are you prepared to pay the medical bills involved in me giving birth if I do so or shall I just shove the poor kid into the world and let him take his chances? For that matter, I trust you will make arrangements for adoption for this putative child. Perhaps you'd care to raise him.

Tell you what. If you get to call me a "murderer" because I have used the pill which may, in some circumstances, prevent implantation, how about I get to call you a "slave master" because, if I am truly a murderer, you'd have me imprisoned against my will?

Oh yes. I suggest you never have sex with a woman who's on the pill or has an IUD or winds up using emergency contraception. That, sir, would make you an accessory to murder.

With no respect whatsoever,
CJ

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-06-2005, 04:47 PM

Simple question then..does a 36 week old in utero fetus HAVE "desires, experience, identity, hopes, dreams"?

If so, how do you know?

The tests on neonatal emotion have been performed in Syracuse; nonetheless, I believe that their results apply equally to babies in Asheville. Why would the infant's location (Syracuse or Asheville) change its neurological structure?

Similarly, why would the infant's location (inside or outside the womb) change its neurological structure?

Unless I see evidence that the act of being born enables an infant to feel the desires that a born infant expresses, I'll not think that the act of being born makes a difference.

So, to answer your first question, I'd say, "I think so."

To answer your second, I'd say, "Why wouldn't it?"

Daniel

Binarydrone

04-06-2005, 04:57 PM

Man, I really hate to have to say this but you people (and I mean all of you, on both sides of this issue) are really missing the big point here and dancing around the important societal implications of legislating that conception begins at birth.

For example, what will this do to carpool lanes? I mean, if a clump of cells is a person, then that should satisfy the two people or more requirement, right? And what about when they (the baby incubators, that is) go to the movies? Shouldn't the baby incubator have to pay for the clump of cells as well?

And the movies raise even stickier issues? Are you paying for a seat (in which case the incubator is only taking up one, so one ticket is ok) or are you paying for the experience of watching the movie (in which case, perhaps we need a week by week graduated price based on how well we think the clump of cells can hear in the womb). And holy shit, what about movie ratings! Should we let cell incubators attend anything but G rated movies?

Way to miss the big picture guys.

Syntropy

04-06-2005, 04:59 PM

You laugh. A woman in California successfully argued a case that, since she was pregnant, she should be able to use the carpool lane. Year or so ago, IIRC.

Binarydrone

04-06-2005, 05:02 PM

Sigh. I may have to give up being sarcastic as I can't keep up with how stupid people really are.

Muad'Dib

04-06-2005, 05:04 PM

All right. Putting aside the complaints that Child Protective Services is extremely flawed (way too intrusive in some cases, totally negligent in others; that's all for a different thread) how, exactly, do we enforce these laws? What's the goal here - prevention of abortion, or punishment for those who commit it?

The same as we enforce child protection laws today.
Prevention is more important than punishment.

If it's prevention, (as ideally a live baby would be better than a dead one, right?) how do you keep a pregnant woman who really wants an abortion from having one, short of a 9-month imprisonment? How does law enforcment find out she's pregnant in the first place, in order to rule such a detention is necessary?

Quite possibly. Just as we already lock up people who are a danger to themselves or others. There could be a removal of the fetus so it could be implanted in a willing mother if someone were dead set on killing the child.
I don't know how they might find out. It would probably be the case that they almost always only found out after it was too late, just as it is now with most crime.

If you make birth control pills illegal because they MIGHT cause a fertilized egg to fail to implant, how does the government keep women from buying them from Canada? How does it prove a woman caught doing so is actually taking them for birth control purposes? If she's not currently in a sexual relationship with a man and can therefore have not caused the death of a fertilized egg, there has been no actual crime committed aside from the possession of an illegal drug. How do you separate such innocent users from those who MAY have caused fertilized eggs not to implant, without intruding into their sex lives? For that matter, how do you separate those who MIGHT have caused a fertilized egg to fail to implant, from those who actually DID?

If taken properly they would not terminate a pregnancy.
If it really came to making the pills illeagal, we would prevent it the same as we try to pervent other drug trafficing.
It may very well prove difficult to enforce such laws. That does not make them wrong.

On a similar note, how does the government tell if a woman has had an illegal IUD implanted?

I missed something, why would an IUD be illegal?

How do you propose to examine women who have recently suffered miscarriages in order to make sure they weren't abortions? Detailed interviews? Court-ordered physical examinations? Would it be in her best interest to take the "leftovers" home with her in jar, to prove to the court they haven't been dismembered during a medical procedure?

Unless there was something suspicious about it, I doubt that the vast majority of miscarriages would be investigated.

If a couple who doesn't want children because of medical reason ends up getting pregnant anyway (ya know, birth control isn't 100% effective, even when used perfectly, and sterilizations have a certain failure rate) how do they go about getting an abortion to save the woman's life? I assume since it's not just a medical but also a legal issue, the court decides, based on medical information. What if some "activist judge" decides her reasons aren't compelling enough, and denies her request?

I have already stated that I support abortion to save a womans life.

beagledave

04-06-2005, 05:05 PM

The tests on neonatal emotion have been performed in Syracuse; nonetheless, I believe that their results apply equally to babies in Asheville. Why would the infant's location (Syracuse or Asheville) change its neurological structure?

Similarly, why would the infant's location (inside or outside the womb) change its neurological structure?

Thanks for the answer.

To answer YOUR question...I HAVE seen some folks on the boards(not you, obviously) suggest that the location IS important in terms of what "it" is..either neurologically or something else.

I guess I (and apparently others) am still unclear as to what you mean by "desires" when its stated in context with things like "identity, hopes and dream".

Those are philosophical, not biological concepts...but yet you narrowly define "desires" when it comes to newborns in terms of their needing/wanting nourishment, a biological construct.

My beagle "desires" food (way too often I might add). I'm not sure that you would ascribe hopes and dreams to her though. I don't think one does to an infant either...which is where the "infanticide" thinking comes from.

Muad'Dib

04-06-2005, 05:12 PM

It's clear this Cult of Life movement doesn't WANT to change minds; it just wants to tell everybody else how to live their lives, right down to the last gasp of breath. Why anybody thinks that ever goes over well is beyond me.

I don't want to force anyone to do anything that they don't want to do. But I am just being realistic in that I am fairly certain that no matter what I say I am not going to win over any hearts and minds today.

I am telling you how to live your life just as much as the government does when it says that you can't steal or kill people. If I am right then these new laws will need to be enforced just as much as the laws against murder that we already have.

beagledave

04-06-2005, 05:14 PM

I missed something, why would an IUD be illegal?

An IUD often prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. If the "line" is drawn at strict fertilization, as opposed to say implantation..then an IUD would violate that line.

Muad'Dib

04-06-2005, 05:17 PM

And I would venture that many of my fellow female Dopers would agree with me.

And I know that a majority of the country agrees with me. (http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982) Does that make it right?

beagledave

04-06-2005, 05:25 PM

And I know that a majority of the country agrees with me. (http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982) Does that make it right?

Since I jump on pro choice folks for this, I gotta be consistent. ;)

I think you're reading too much into the Zogby poll. If you look at a large number of differently worded polls..you get a simple majority of folks who believe something along the lines of "abortion is murder/manslaughter/taking of a human life" etc..

However you DON'T get the same majority that want to straight out outlaw it.

Many want restrictions (waiting periods..notification..no later term abortion) etc...but you won't get a simple majority who want to outlaw it all together..even excluding life of mother exception..which seems to be your position.

Muad'Dib

04-06-2005, 05:36 PM

Plain and simple, you're a fundamentalist. You take a position, based on an arbitrary belief not supported by arguments or science, and you then proceed to to empose it on others. The scary thing with fundamentalists is that it's never sure where they'll stop justifying the fight for their own cause. For some it's parading hideous posters that they have no business showing to children and people with bad experiences who can actually suffer and get nightmares from seeing them, for others it's flying planes into the World Trade Center.

No, I am not a fundimentalist. My view were reached through personal thought and debate, not "just cause". As I have already explained at the moment of fertilization the child stops being a potential and becomes an actual. Because it is a single cell is irrelevent, a unique human life has begun, to abort is to end that life. That the child is currently incapable of consciousness is irrelevent because it will eventually "wake up" (if not, then it is ok to kill it because it is not really human). It is no different than a person in a coma. The temporary inability to attain consciousness does not take away a persons human rights.

The comparison with the slavery issue is outright ridiculous. The people being enslaved were sentient human beings with memory, no different from the people that enslaved them. It took a great effort on behalf of the slave owners to ignore the scientific fact that skin-color is really only skin-deep and the differences in looks belie a world of similarities, but they were motivated by one of the strongest of motivators - wealth.

And to me the unborn are just as human as you or I and your inability to understand this is baffling to me. To me they are humans that are being denied their human rights just as the slaves were.

Using the sanctity of life argument to forego any proper, scientific understanding of what life is, is a lot more like those who supported slavery than those who were against it. Answer some simple questions about how the value of an olive compares to that of a 35 year old Olive tree? What is consciousness? When does it arise? When is an Olive that grows on an Olive tree, no longer the Olive tree? Should an Olive tree make room for each and every olive that falls down and sprouts? The Olive tree is a lot more valuable than the Olive, to a near infinite degree.

The Olive tree vs Olive is a very simple example, but answering these questions in real life abortion scenarios is what it's all about. Should a parent risk foregoing a proper education in favor of a few cells that might turn into a human being if all goes well, or should the parent wait until he can provide a safe and stable environment for the child to grow up? The latter, as evolution has shown, is clearly the way to go. The value of a fertilised egg is negligible, compared to the availability of sperm and egg-cells set out against the importance of the investment of 18+ years that go into raising a child. Take an in vitro fertilisation, in which we can fertilise many eggs at once, and then usually choose only a few of those to implant. I bet you're against ivf too.

1.A farmer just finishes planting his yearly crop. During the night hoodlams come and destroy all of the seedlings. Should they get in trouble? The seedlings have no value, you can't eat or sell them. You can only make a profit from mature plants. So the farmer has not lost anything of value then.

2.That is were we dissagree. I am not talking about a clump of cells that might turn into a human. I am talking about a clump of cells that already are human. That their current state is that of a clump of cells is irrelevent.

3.Yes, if IVF results in the destruction of fertilized eggs.

In the meantime, any negative effect in terms of causing psychological harm in those that see the posters, even if it is small, is tremendously much more important than preventing a few cells from continuing their long path towards becoming a human being, and is so far a cry from being mass-murder that your suggestion of it alone is a grave insult to all those who have considered or had an abortion, as well as all victims of mass-murder and all their relatives.

It is only an insult if I am wrong.

Muad'Dib

04-06-2005, 05:41 PM

Sorry, bub. You would be. Here's a little chart published by the FDA. (http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html) Vasectomy has a lowest expected rate of pregnancy of 0.1% a typical use rate of 0.15%. For female sterilization, both are 0.5%, The most effective form of contraception, Norplant, which has a failure rate of 0.09% is no longer on the market.

As I said, we've had people on this very message board who've become pregnant despite using birth control, sometimes more than one form. I suppose having a hysterectomy would make it completely impossible to carry a baby to term, but it would not prevent ectopic pregnancies. By the way, why don't I hear the truly hard-core pro-lifers, the ones who would make abortion illegal even when the life of the woman is in danger, protesting the slaughter of innocents during ectopic pregnancies?

I don't know and I don't care. I have already said that I don't agree with that.

The protestors standing outside doctors offices or outside lunch wagons don't seem to be thinking about subtleties. They have no way of knowing whether the woman walking past them is seeking an abortion or looking for medical care for the aftermath of a miscarriage. They just call her a "baby killer" and worse. One reason I dislike these protestors so much is because to me they practice willful cruelty even to those who've committed no offense.

Muad Dib, when you or Lord Ashtar say, "just use birth control" or refer to not wanting to become pregnant because it's not "convenient", you look incredibly ignorant to those of us who have thought things through and are aware of how far from simple things are. I take responsibility for my life and actions as does my friend. However, nothing's 100% effective and nothing's 100% sure.

CJ

You don't have a right to a risk free life. Every time you have intercourse you run the risk of pregnancy. A person must take responsibility for their actions.

robertliguori

04-06-2005, 05:44 PM

I don't want to force anyone to do anything that they don't want to do. But I am just being realistic in that I am fairly certain that no matter what I say I am not going to win over any hearts and minds today.

I am telling you how to live your life just as much as the government does when it says that you can't steal or kill people. If I am right then these new laws will need to be enforced just as much as the laws against murder that we already have.

Hmm.

Hypothetical: Muad'Dib's desired laws come to pass. If it can be shown that you knowingly and willfully caused an abortion, you are guilty of murder/manslaughter/etc.

What happens when a woman discovers she is pregnant, and ceases eating until she spontaneously aborts? Do we hook her up to a feeding tube? Restrain her, so she doesn't injure the fetus?

What is the legal status of a cell teased from a developing zygote? The same cell, after it is put back into the zygote? In one location, it has the 'potential' to develop into a person distinct from the zygote. In the other, it doesn't.

How will life insurance policies on zygotes work?

Does the survivior of a vanishing twin pair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_twin) face murder charges?

And finally, have I made the point that applying standards of personhood to something that is not a person by no stretch of science, sematics, or philosophy is a really, really silly idea?

Muad'Dib

04-06-2005, 05:45 PM

Yep, that would be me! Let them continue to spout their drivel. They are hypocrites until they can show me that they can account for every sperm or egg they have ever released (by their standards, masturbation would be manslaughter), they are strict vegans, and refuse to wear or use animal products of any sort. That's killing after all. ;)

Sperm and eggs do not have human rights. They are only potential humans and left to their own accord will never "wake up" into consciousness.

Animals do not have human rights because they also lack self-aware consciousness. The moment that some proves to me otherwise I will join PETA and become a militant vegan.

Siege

04-06-2005, 05:58 PM

You don't have a right to a risk free life. Every time you have intercourse you run the risk of pregnancy. A person must take responsibility for their actions.

If you're seriously insisting I remain celibate for the rest of my natural life, I have one suggestion for you. You go first! I asked if I could call you a slave-owner earlier. I take that back. It's an insult to slave holders. You are a hypocrite. I await your arrival at my place with handcuffs, but I assure you I will have company and you will not enjoy them.

You have just fucking well demonstated you have no regard for my human life and welfare. In my book that makes you worse than a murderer or a hypocrite; it makes you a sociopath.

A family friend of ours wanted children as badly as it's possible for a person to want anything, yet pregnancy after pregnancy ended in miscarriage. In order to carry her twin daughters to term, she had to spend 3 months confined to bed. With each miscarriage, she felt awful, that she'd failed as a woman. Yet you, in your arrogance, rather than leaving her alone to grieve the children she wanted more than anything else in the world would have her poked and prodded after each miscarriage only lest she have done the thing she was least likely to do, adding to her grief and pain. You arrogant sociopath!

Oh yes, if a woman who has been sterilized by having her tubes tied, so to speak, becomes pregnant despite that procedure, I believe she's at greater risk of an ectopic procedure. It has happened that women who've had hysterectomies have nevertheless have fertilized eggs try to implant. Are either of these types of women murderers? A neighbor of mine had two successive ectopic pregnancies, despite wanting more kids. Is she a murderer? She's a wonderful mother, I'll tell you that.

It seems particularly appropriate to leave you with this curse: since you believe every act of sexual intercourse (including oral?) has the potential to result in intercourse and many of the most effective forms of birth control can, in some circumstances, prevent implantation, may you never, ever have an orgasm again as long as you live. Yes, that does include by masturbation.

CJ

robertliguori

04-06-2005, 06:24 PM

No, I am not a fundimentalist. My view were reached through personal thought and debate, not "just 'OK. (http://www.accessv.com/~shawgrp/psychanimals.htm) cause".

Incorrect. As it stands, "A fertilized ovum is a human individual with the rights and responsibilities thereof" is a premise. If you have justification for it (beyond 'just because') feel free to post it.
As I have already explained at the moment of fertilization the child stops being a potential and becomes an actual. Because it is a single cell is irrelevent, a unique human life has begun, to abort is to end that life. That the child is currently incapable of consciousness is irrelevent because it will eventually "wake up" (if not, then it is ok to kill it because it is not really human).

Congratulations. You have completely failed to address the identical-twin issue.
Also, the z/e/g of a woman who has an abortion will never wake up. Therefore, it is not really human under your standard.

It is no different than a person in a coma. The temporary inability to attain consciousness does not take away a persons human rights.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but don't we declare people without brains legally dead?

And to me the unborn are just as human as you or I and your inability to understand this is baffling to me. To me they are humans that are being denied their human rights just as the slaves were.

Posited: the differences between a black man and a white one are just a teensy bit bigger than that between a newly fertilized ovum and an adult. Please tell me you agree to this.

1.A farmer just finishes planting his yearly crop. During the night hoodlams come and destroy all of the seedlings. Should they get in trouble? The seedlings have no value, you can't eat or sell them. You can only make a profit from mature plants. So the farmer has not lost anything of value then.

Apples and oranges. The hoodlums would still be up on vandalism charges if the farmer had sown his seeds in a salt plain.

2.That is were we dissagree. I am not talking about a clump of cells that might turn into a human. I am talking about a clump of cells that already are human. That their current state is that of a clump of cells is irrelevent.

And we are saying that clumps of cells (the really small ones, anyway) are not human by any reasonable standard.

3.Yes, if IVF results in the destruction of fertilized eggs.

Muad'Dib, sex results in the destruction of fertilized eggs. If a couple have sex and the lady becomes pregnant, there is a very good chance that the zygote will spontaneously abort. Moreover, as has been previously mentioned, there is no form of birth control that stop this from happening. Also as has been previously mentioned, if you have ever had sex, you could well be an accessory to murder.

Also on this note: wouldn't a good way to prevent these tragic deaths be to simply cordon off all men and only allow sex under controlled circumstances?

I don't know and I don't care. I have already said that I don't agree with that [making abortion illegal even when the life of the woman is in danger and protesting the slaughter of innocents during ectopic pregnancies].
I'd love to see the test that can discriminate between an ectopic pregnancy and, just as an example, an IVF zygote, or a zygote implanted in a mother who will die if the pregnancy is not immediately terminated and one who will commit suicide rather than bear the child.

Sperm and eggs do not have human rights. They are only potential humans and left to their own accord will never "wake up" into consciousness.

A fertilized ovum needs a prepared uterus, certain nutrients, a lack of certain chemical compunds, and a whole bunch of other things to 'wake up'. An unfertilized ovum needs all that, plus a sperm cell.

If you're allowed to posit based on percent chances that something will become a person with assloads of help from the enviornment....*checks watch*....then if you're male, you just comitted murder.

Animals do not have human rights because they also lack self-aware consciousness. The moment that some proves to me otherwise I will join PETA and become a militant vegan.

OK. I hope you like salad. (http://www.accessv.com/~shawgrp/psychanimals.htm)

Megan, a chimpanzee, is in training with Daniel Povinelli. She has had a mirror in her quarters for several months. Today, Povinelli is testing her self-awareness with a method developed by Gordon Gallup. This morning, Megan was anesthetized. While she was unconscious, a spot of bright red nontoxic ink was daubed on her forehead. Now it is afternoon and she is fully recovered from the anesthetic.

Sure enough, the chimp looks in the mirror and then scratches at the spot on her forehead. To some, this proves that Megan has recognized herself and is consciously self-aware.

Blalron

04-06-2005, 06:45 PM

Sperm and eggs do not have human rights. They are only potential humans and left to their own accord will never "wake up" into consciousness.

Embryos do not have human rights. Left to their own accord they will never wake up.

beagledave

04-06-2005, 06:46 PM

OK. I hope you like salad. (http://www.accessv.com/~shawgrp/psychanimals.htm)

You know what's hilarious?

When your own damn link betrays you.

Next time, try reading the ENTIRE link, genius.

The problem with Gallup's interpretation is that there are people who cannot recognize themselves in mirrors, and yet nobody doubts they are fully self-aware. Blind people cannot recognize themselves in mirrors but we have plenty of other indications that they are self-aware. People brought up in communities that do not have mirrors do not instantly recognize themselves when they are first shown their own reflection. There is also a form of brain damage called prosopagnosia, which leads to an inability to recognize faces. In extreme forms of prosopagnosia, the patient may not even recognize his own reflection.

Conversely, there are people who have problems with self-awareness, but who recognize themselves in mirrors normally. People who suffer from autism have an impaired ability to see themselves as others view them, and yet they recognize themselves in a mirror with no problem.

In light of these revelations, it does not make sense to treat mirror recognition in chimps as a measure of self-awareness.

::snicker::

Shodan

04-06-2005, 06:48 PM

Right. Shall I e-mail you my home address then so you can imprison me for the next 9 months? You see, I have had sex within the last week, and for all you know the birth control method I use may prevent implantation under some circumstance. Even I'm not sure whether it does or not, although from what I know of how it works, it follows logically that it might.

That is what you are demanding of us, whether you like it or not. Tell me, while you're imprisoning me, will you arrange for someone to pay my mortgage, car payments, and other bills, or am I on my own for that? If my employer fires me because I've been imprisoned for committing murder, my health insurance will lapse. Are you prepared to pay the medical bills involved in me giving birth if I do so or shall I just shove the poor kid into the world and let him take his chances? For that matter, I trust you will make arrangements for adoption for this putative child. Perhaps you'd care to raise him.

Tell you what. If you get to call me a "murderer" because I have used the pill which may, in some circumstances, prevent implantation, how about I get to call you a "slave master" because, if I am truly a murderer, you'd have me imprisoned against my will?

Oh yes. I suggest you never have sex with a woman who's on the pill or has an IUD or winds up using emergency contraception. That, sir, would make you an accessory to murder.

With no respect whatsoever,
CJ
Oddly enough, before Roe v. Wade, when abortion was illegal, we didn't seem to need to lock pregnant women up to prevent them from aborting. Why do you expect we would if Roe v. Wade is overturned?

Regards,
Shodan

robertliguori

04-06-2005, 07:21 PM

You know what's hilarious?

When your own damn link betrays you.

Next time, try reading the ENTIRE link, genius.
::snicker::

Read it yourself. Treating the dot test as logically equivalent to self-aware consciousness is a bad idea, because
a:] It can be (hah hah) aped, by a trained animal, and
b:] not everyone who demonstrates self-awareness can pass it.

This does not mean that the dot test is not an indicator of consciousness.

Arg. Once more, with fewer negatives:

This does not....dammit.

The fact that a dot test is not 100% correlated with self-aware consciousness does not mean that it's not a damn good indicator thereof. Moreover, there was no indication that Megan was trained to recognize the dot (if she was, someone please tell me). The other objection is specious: the claim is not that self-awareness is identical to passing the dot test, only that passing the dot test (without training) implies (colloquially, not logically) self-awareness.

Out of curiosity, what would be a good test for self-awareness? I hope it's good and rigorous, or Muab'Dib will have to start a campaign to Free ELIZA.

beagledave

04-06-2005, 07:33 PM

Read it yourself. Treating the dot test as logically equivalent to self-aware consciousness is a bad idea, because
a:] It can be (hah hah) aped, by a trained animal, and
b:] not everyone who demonstrates self-awareness can pass it.

This does not mean that the dot test is not an indicator of consciousness.

Arg. Once more, with fewer negatives:

This does not....dammit.

The fact that a dot test is not 100% correlated with self-aware consciousness does not mean that it's not a damn good indicator thereof. Moreover, there was no indication that Megan was trained to recognize the dot (if she was, someone please tell me). The other objection is specious: the claim is not that self-awareness is identical to passing the dot test, only that passing the dot test (without training) implies (colloquially, not logically) self-awareness.

Out of curiosity, what would be a good test for self-awareness? I hope it's good and rigorous, or Muab'Dib will have to start a campaign to Free ELIZA.

Wow.

Let me see if I got this straight.

You offer up a link to "prove" that chimps have self awareness.

The author of the page that YOU linked to says

In light of these revelations, it does not make sense to treat mirror recognition in chimps as a measure of self-awareness.

It almost seems that you're arguing against the point (and expect me to defend, I guess) made by the author of a web page that...

..wait for it...

YOU used as a cite.

Do you often use cites that don't support your case?
Do you often use cites that you don't even bother to read?

Wow. Just wow.

I know it's a bit embarrassing to get caught in a gaff...but you're not helping your case, dude.

Lord Ashtar

04-06-2005, 07:41 PM

I have to give it to Muad'Dib...at least he's being consistant.

andros

04-06-2005, 07:48 PM

I have to give it to Muad'Dib...at least he's being consistant.

Hell, I have a lot of respect for him. His conclusions are entirely consistent with his premises.

I disagree thoroughly with his premises, and with his conclusions. But I understand how he arrived at his premises, and what those premises are, and I understand how he reaches his conclusions from there.

robertliguori

04-06-2005, 08:04 PM

Wow.

Let me see if I got this straight.

You offer up a link to "prove" that chimps have self awareness.

Sigh. The author is offering his own opinion on the significance of the experiment. I do not agree with him about said significance. I do agree with him about the results of the experiment.

It almost seems that you're arguing against the point (and expect me to defend, I guess) made by the author of a web page that...

..wait for it...

YOU used as a cite.

One would hope that you could distinguish between the data and the analysis of the data.

A trained animal can pass the mirror test.

Of course, you are welcome to dispute that the experiment took place as described. In fact, I am having trouble finding a link to it myself.

Do you often use cites that don't support your case?
Do you often use cites that you don't even bother to read?

Wow. Just wow.

I know it's a bit embarrassing to get caught in a gaff...but you're not helping your case, dude.
Again, when I find a primary link to the study, I will post it.

If you would like a point-by-point of the bit from the article:

What of Megan, the chimp who wiped the ink off her forehead? Is she showing evidence of advanced consciousness? Gorden Gallup argues that for an animal to recognize itself in a mirror, it must have self-awareness in a form not so different from our own. He is impressed by the observation that great apes are the only mammals to show self-recognition in a mirror (although in the 1980s, Rober Epstein, Robert Lanza and B.F. Skinner demonstrated that, with training, even pigeons can pass Gallup's mirror test, which means it may not be so tough).

I have found no evidence that Megan was trained to respond to the ink.

The problem with Gallup's interpretation is that there are people who cannot recognize themselves in mirrors, and yet nobody doubts they are fully self-aware. Blind people cannot recognize themselves in mirrors but we have plenty of other indications that they are self-aware. People brought up in communities that do not have mirrors do not instantly recognize themselves when they are first shown their own reflection. There is also a form of brain damage called prosopagnosia, which leads to an inability to recognize faces. In extreme forms of prosopagnosia, the patient may not even recognize his own reflection.

Conversely, there are people who have problems with self-awareness, but who recognize themselves in mirrors normally. People who suffer from autism have an impaired ability to see themselves as others view them, and yet they recognize themselves in a mirror with no problem.

Had the article claimed that passing the mirror test was logically equivalent to being self-aware, this would be a valid criticism. This is not claimed.

In light of these revelations, it does not make sense to treat mirror recognition in chimps as a measure of self-awareness.

The author could use a course in basic logic. A->B does not mean that B->A, and given the nebulous nature of what is being tested for, it's damn easy to create false positives.

My request for a better experiment still stands, of course.

Guinastasia

04-06-2005, 08:21 PM

I have already stated that I support abortion to save a womans life.

Except under the system you propose, my "life" would be a life in reproductive prison.

If you're seriously insisting I remain celibate for the rest of my natural life, I have one suggestion for you. You go first! I asked if I could call you a slave-owner earlier. I take that back. It's an insult to slave holders. You are a hypocrite. I await your arrival at my place with handcuffs, but I assure you I will have company and you will not enjoy them.

You have just fucking well demonstated you have no regard for my human life and welfare. In my book that makes you worse than a murderer or a hypocrite; it makes you a sociopath.

A family friend of ours wanted children as badly as it's possible for a person to want anything, yet pregnancy after pregnancy ended in miscarriage. In order to carry her twin daughters to term, she had to spend 3 months confined to bed. With each miscarriage, she felt awful, that she'd failed as a woman. Yet you, in your arrogance, rather than leaving her alone to grieve the children she wanted more than anything else in the world would have her poked and prodded after each miscarriage only lest she have done the thing she was least likely to do, adding to her grief and pain. You arrogant sociopath!

Oh yes, if a woman who has been sterilized by having her tubes tied, so to speak, becomes pregnant despite that procedure, I believe she's at greater risk of an ectopic procedure. It has happened that women who've had hysterectomies have nevertheless have fertilized eggs try to implant. Are either of these types of women murderers? A neighbor of mine had two successive ectopic pregnancies, despite wanting more kids. Is she a murderer? She's a wonderful mother, I'll tell you that.

It seems particularly appropriate to leave you with this curse: since you believe every act of sexual intercourse (including oral?) has the potential to result in intercourse and many of the most effective forms of birth control can, in some circumstances, prevent implantation, may you never, ever have an orgasm again as long as you live. Yes, that does include by masturbation.

Siege, I nonsexually love you.

Siege

04-06-2005, 08:28 PM

Oddly enough, before Roe v. Wade, when abortion was illegal, we didn't seem to need to lock pregnant women up to prevent them from aborting. Why do you expect we would if Roe v. Wade is overturned?

Regards,
Shodan
You're right. Instead, pregnant women who wanted abortions sought them out by any means they could, including illegal ones. In addition to the infamous coat-hangar example, I've read of women douching with drain cleaner and other substances. A number of women (I don't know how many and I doubt I could find a cite both sides would consider valid) died from these abortions. Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. If I thought it would, I might well be in favor of it. Believe it or not, I, too genuinely would like to see a time when no one ever finds herself in a position where she even considers abortion, let alone has one. Unfortunately, I don't see how such a day can come about.

Back in the Winter of Our Missed Content, when I was still new to this message board, I started a GD thread asking people who believed abortion should be illegal what the penalty for having an abortion should be, and how it should compare to the penalty for rape. That thread was lost when the board went down, and I never did get an answer, although I did get some very interesting responses.

Just as surely as Muad Dib believes that having an abortion is murdering a baby, so I believe that making abortion illegal will cause women who cannot legally have abortions to die. It's a horrible choice: kill babies or kill women. Two and a half years ago, I was unemployed and suicidal. I did not have the financial or emotional resources to successfully carry a child to term. I barely had the financial and emotional resources to sustain myself, and that was only with the help of a very good therapist and some extremely good friends. A pregnancy would probably have pushed me over the edge into suicide if abortion was not available. I took all appropriate precautions, including not having sex. Unfortunately, last I heard, rapists don't stop to ask if you're on birth control. I wasn't raped and I didn't get pregnant. Yes, I know. The traditional retort is that most abortions don't happen as a result of rape, and yes, I am personalizing this. Here's the thing. If you try to tell me "That's different" or "But that's the exception", in my book you're no better than Dan Quayle who was ardently pro-life yet, when he was asked what would happen if one of his daughters became pregnant by a rapist, said that he would want her to have the option of having an abortion. That's all I'm asking for. Not for you to condone abortion as a good or desirable thing, but to have it safe and available when the alternative is carrying a child to term which one is financially, physically, or psychologically incapable of doing so, when abortion is, if not the best or ideal choice, the least bad one of those available.

CJ

Siege

04-06-2005, 09:06 PM

One last point before I turn in. The reason I have been so adamantly opposed to me becoming a parent is I suffered from severe, undiagnosed, untreated clinical depression until I was in my late 20's. One of the primary causes of that depression was the emotional abuse I suffered as a child. I could see the roots of that abuse in the way my grandfather raised my father and I had and have reason to believe the same potential existed in me. I consider it extremely immoral to bring a child into the world when I have reason to believe I'd abuse that child in the same way I was abused. I simply will not do it. Things have changed since then with the help of good treatment for depression and I'm now willing to concede that, with the right husband in the right circumstances, I won't necessarily repeat the pattern. Still, at the risk of sounding harsh or depressed, I would have severe qualms about bringing a child into the world knowing that I would do as badly by him or her as my parents did by me. I hate typing that; I do love them. I can't deny the damage done, though.

If I had chosen to have an abortion at any point in my life, I can see how it would look like an act of convenience to someone who doesn't know my story and who only knows the surface me. I've also read comparisons of abortion to child abuse. If abortion were the only way I had to prevent child abuse, then yes, I would do it.

I will also repeat, since some people seem a bit hard-of-seeing here that I have taken all appropriate precautions when I have been sexually active including discussing what happens if I become pregant with the gentleman involved at the time and reaching a consensus. One reason I do that is precisely because nothing is infallible.

CJ

Lissa

04-06-2005, 09:34 PM

Yes.

Just to be clear then, you are also opposed to in-vitro fertilization, the pill, IUD's and vigorous exertion, by the woman, within 48-72 hours after sex? All of these behaviors may knowingly result in a fertizlied egg not becoming a human.

And, the poster I referred to outlined some of your basic assertions. Once again, if your goal is truly noble, that is trying to really convince people of the validity of your viewpoint, you will need to address them.

Honestly, I have given you a lot of leeway since I understand this issue brings out the emotions on both sides, but you will have to address those topics.

There are others who oppose your viewpoint that I think go overboard, but you are advocating more than saving babies. You are advocating the reduction of civil liberties and the inclusion of government in private reproductive rights. You see, when you call for this, it means alot more than just professing a belief, you are forcing others to believe the same thing. You claim you are a libertarian, but that is very hard to believe given the draconic methods you have asserted should be used to advance your personal belief.

Bryan Ekers

04-06-2005, 09:48 PM

You don't have a right to a risk free life. Every time you have intercourse you run the risk of pregnancy. A person must take responsibility for their actions.
Seems to me that seeking out a safe medical procedure to resolve a problem is showing responsibility. Being irresponsible would be living in denial about the problem and making it worse as a result.

Lord Ashtar

04-06-2005, 10:10 PM

There are others who oppose your viewpoint that I think go overboard, but you are advocating more than saving babies. You are advocating the reduction of civil liberties and the inclusion of government in private reproductive rights. You see, when you call for this, it means alot more than just professing a belief, you are forcing others to believe the same thing. You claim you are a libertarian, but that is very hard to believe given the draconic methods you have asserted should be used to advance your personal belief.
Muad'Dib, have you ever taken the Political Compass Test (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)? If you don't mind my asking, where on the grid did you fall?

Muad'Dib

04-07-2005, 02:34 AM

It's not "pro-life"---it's pro-birth.

Think about it.

the anti-choice people really do not care about the infant once born--after that placenta (hell, after the water breaks)--you are on your own, baby-literally.

They won't support DCFS, social programs, ADC, you name it. I have found this true of most strident anti-choice people.

You have a right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". You do not have a right to anything else. It may be harsh but I see no contradiction there.

I am not "anti-choice", I am anti-abortion. I do not call your side pro-abortion, please show me the same respect.

And hence, their position comes clear: they are happy and willing to subjugate half the population of this country.
Women are NOT to have independent decision making capabilities, in fact, once pregnant.....a woman must take those pre-natal vitamins, enough B-12, stop smoking, no alcohol, no "rigorous sex"/horseback riding/exercise--she MUST be content to be, not herself, but VESSEL. What is next? Health camps for expectant moms--where all possible teratrogenic exposures are limited, all for the makings of the "ideal" baby? Think how much easier that checking up on those oh, so suspicious miscarriages would be if all the women were detained!

Sounds damned medieval to me.

And I say-why let the men off the hook? Why not have every post pubescent male screened for sperm count, instructed in condom usage and if found to be non-compliant with condoms, force sterilization?

Seems to me that that would take care of most unwanted pregnancies right there.

Again, you are building a strawman and are being silly. Women and men would be no more "subjugated" then they already are for the care of their born children. Do we have concentration camps now that force parents to give the most optimal upbringing for their born children? No.

What? That would be ROBBING the men of a what? A CHOICE or whether or not to have kids? A CHOICE of what to do with their bodies? How shocking.

Funny, that sounds alot like your goal to me. You are indeed robbing women of a CHOICE when you outlaw abortion. You know-WOMEN--those folks walking around, working, contributing to society, giving you head on Satuday noc--those people-who should have just as much CHOICE as you in this world.

I am not robbing them of a choice. I am saying that a legitimate choice never existed in the first place. Just as you do not have a legitimate choice to kill someone for looking at you funny, you do not have a choice to kill the unborn. The idea of its existence is a fallacy.

Muad admitted to this woman as vessel postulate a few posts back: "I don't care about your uterus".

Hmmm--well, I DO. And my uterus is NONE of your business--ever. It is the business of me and my doctor--and my husband--NOT b/c he is male and may impregnate me--but b/c I care deeply for him and share life decisions with him.the decision we made to have an abortion is none of your business, nor does is make us "murderers". It makes us humans who had to make a difficult decision and did so.

It is as much my buisness and the buisness of society as it would be if you shot a man walking down the street.

Muad:
I also find your position of "but it's ok in case the mother's life is at risk" to be weaselly in the extreme. Talk about your slippery slopes!
What of congenital anomalies, Muad ? Would you force a woman to carry to term a horrifically deformed fetus--afterall, that is Life, and must be Respected.

It is no more weaselly then laws that permit you to kill another in self-defense.

I have already stated that I support abortion in the case of defects so extreme as to prevent the child from ever gaining consciousness. I such a case it really is nothing more than a clump of tissue.

It is not Life that I really respect, it is self-aware consciousness.

What about rape? Did God send the Rapist for a reason--some Lesson the woman was to learn and will be revealed thru the carrying and caring for the Child?

And how about incest? Another Lesson for these pesky women who just want to be seen as people in their own right and not as Vessels of Male Seed?

I am not religous and my opinions are based on any religous teachings.
I am, however, conflicted about the case of rape and incest and am not ready to pronounce a decision about such situations. If forced, I would side with letting the child be brought to term because it is an innocent third party that deserves no punishment, especially not death, for the acts of some other evil person. It is one of the hallmarks of Western Civilization that we do not believe that the sins of the father are passed to the children.

How about it? Why do women pay the price-financially, emotionally, socially for the irresponsibilities of Men?

The father would be held just as responsible as the mother.

What of the psychological damage--indeed mental illness--that some women (few, thank God) would suffer d/t carrying an unwanted fetus to term? That's all to the good, eh? Who cares about her uterus or her mental health? She's just a woman---it's the Baby that counts.

This is Life we are talkiing about! And Life is Good and Just and Right.

She is not "just a woman". Stop trying to inject misogyny where there is none.
Those would be tragic and terrible occurrences that should be fought against as much as possible. No different than car related fatalities that are just as tragic and terrible and that we do all we can to prevent, but you don't see people advocating the outlaw of roads.

You people scare the hell out of me.

As do you I.

Muad'Dib

04-07-2005, 02:42 AM

Muad'Dib, have you ever taken the Political Compass Test (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)? If you don't mind my asking, where on the grid did you fall?

Economic Left/Right: 8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62

Pleasingly close to Milton Friedman.

Muad'Dib

04-07-2005, 02:59 AM

But you are an animal and animals have lives, with feeling and emtions. And up until that child can live outside of the host body, it is not a human.

Your first sentance is debatable, but even if I were to grant it, emotions and feelings do not grant "human" rights, self-awarnes and consciousness do.

The point at which a child could live outside the body is an arbitrary and indeffinite point, I see no difference in the child needing support inside the womb and the child needing suopport to live once outside of it. I say that a child is human at the point where its life begins, at conception.

So we're back to "it's all the woman's fault" because she is the one who gets pregnant. Can you honestly say that every single sexual act that you've ever been a part of was for the inherent desire to produce offspring and not for pleasurable reasons?

I don't see how anyone is saying that it is the womans "fault".

Of course not, humans primarily have sex for pleasure and intimacy. But don't forget that the ultimate purpose of sex is to make a baby. That is what you are doing in sex, working towards making a baby, even if that is the furthest thought from your mind. It is something that you must be prepared to take responsibility for.

Maybe we should fine men for ejaculating; wet dreams, masturbation, the whole shebang. Men need to take more responsibility of their actions, then women wouldn't get pregnant as much.

What? I am sorry, but I don't understand your point here.

I realize it takes two to make a pregnancy, but it seems we always get back to the woman. It's her fault because it's her body, so she should have to pay the consequences? This line of thought isn't fair to women. Because of the way we are built, it is always the woman who has to deal with it. Men can run off, not pay for their kid. Women, at minimum, are slaves to their body for 9 months where the father can just go on his merry way. It's not our fault we are the child-bearers, we can't help that. We're just trying to level the playing field here, equality and all that.

It is not the woman’s fault, but, yeah, it largely is the woman’s burden. Yeah it is not fair. Maybe if we were egg-laying creatures the burden could be shared equally, but part of being a mammal means that the female is stuck with the baby living of her through out gestation.

Muad'Dib

04-07-2005, 03:01 AM

Isn't there a term for "making up a point of view, ascribing it to your opponent, and ridiculing the hell out of it"?

Strawman.

Muad'Dib

04-07-2005, 03:24 AM

hang in there, Pink --time and tide will tell.

the vast majority of Americans support legal access to abortion--that does not mean that they are enamored of the idea or the act. They don't have to be. I agree with Clinton--ab should be safe, legal and rare --but then I vote to support social programs etc.

Depends on how you phrase the question. I support legal access to abortion. Albeit only when the mothers life is in danger or extreme birth defects.

Hell, I was pro-choice but always said that MY choice would be to carry all pregancies to term, if I could. In theory, that was great--reality got in the way. If I could go back and do it again--I would make the same decision. I worry for my daughter, that she (if faced with such) will not be able to........

Life happens to people--which is something the anti-choice crowd completely ignores. There is only one algorithm available to them--and it is one that hurts real people. They don't see it that way. But they also don't see both sides of the issues, either. Sad.

Again, I am not anti-choice, I am anti-abortion. Just as you are not pro-abortion, but are pro-choice.

Yes I do see both sides. I simply think that the other side is wrong. It is completely possible to understand both sides of an argument and then side with one or the other.

Malacandra

04-07-2005, 03:30 AM

Here I go hopping back on the bus again:

LeftHandOfDorkness lived up perfectly to the fourth syllable of his nick when he spouted forth about wanted to protect hopes, dreams, desires, etc, etc, and then argued that it was therefore OK to terminate a foetus because it lacks any of these, and then got snitty with me when I observed that he was endorsing infanticide. Arguing that a neonate has "desires" because it responds to stimuli is inane. It comes with some hard-wired reflexes - to cry when it is in need of food or in physical discomfort, to suck when a nipple is put in its mouth, to grasp a finger put into its hand - because infants that lack these reflexes would die. But it is known that late-term foetuses, at least, also respond to stimuli.

Dreams, hopes - it is highly improbable that a newborn can be shown to have these and that a foetus does not. As far as a sense of identity goes, I well remember the first time my son saw himself in a mirror and realized he was seeing himself. He had seen "another baby" in the mirror many times; he was, IIRC, well over a year before he turned to me and gave me a look that plainly said "That's me!".

You cannot draw a line at birth and say "Before this time, the foetus was unconscious and therefore inhuman." I'm not sure how far back or how far forwards (depending on your metric) you need to go to establish humanity, but the only difference birth makes is that the 40-week foetus becomes independent of the placenta and must breathe, feed and eliminate for itself.

To maureen and others:

I can't speak as to conditions in your country, but in mine the Government graciously permits me to take home about 70% of what my employer pays me. Out of that 70%, the Government further helps itself to £0.15 of every £1 I spend on anything but the barest essentials. Gas here costs 'prox six times what it costs in the States and the difference is entirely made up of tax. The local authorities collect about another 5% of my pos-tax income for emergency services and sanitation. There are probably other instances of Government graspology that I can't think of at the moment. Out of this a proportion of what I cough up is spent on healthcare and health education. Besides that, the newsstands are full of magazines aimed at teenage girls. Most of them are far more up-front about sex than adult women's magazines were a generation ago. It takes a display of wilful ignorance to be unaware of the causes of pregnancy and prevention for same. AFAIK contraception is free for the asking on the National Health Service.

Now I know that no contraceptive is 100% effective - I have known that since puberty, since even in the comparatively repressed early Seventies the information was not that hard to come by, and the discreet leaflet under the college door told me nothing I did not already know. But I should like to know whether the majority of abortions, in your country or mine, are attributable to failure of correctly-use contraception.

The taxation above does not make me a philanthropist, I agree. Still, I have yet to vote for a candidate who campaigned on a platform of reducing taxes by cutting health education and services. Besides the above, I'm afraid I only have a monthly subscription to UNESCO, to Dr Barnardo's and to Help The Aged to my credit. But "Do not your alms before men" ought to discourage me from making much noise about those.

I have been challenged to do more, to contribute more, to educate more, to reduce the need for abortion before I dare express an opinion against it. I therefore reasonably ask: What are your views on child slavery, on the controlling of prostitutes by organised crime, on the stoning of women, on bride-burning, on female "circumcision", on exploitation of illegal immigrant labour by criminal gangmasters? For it appears that you are not allowed to be disgusted by any such detestable practice unless you are donating both time and money to combat them.

First post of the day, excuse me if my connectivity with the argument is poor but it has moved on while I have been offline!

Best wishes,
Mal

Thank Ye Sai

04-07-2005, 03:36 AM

We define death as the point that brain activity cannot be detected. Why do we not also define the point at which it can as life.

Muad'Dib

04-07-2005, 03:36 AM

I've read about half the thread. I don't care to read anymore. I already know in the eyes of many people I'm less important than a clump of tissue.
1. I do not view it as a clump of tissue. I view it as a human being with the same rights as you or I.

2. I do not view women as less important than the babies they carry. If that was so I would not support abortion when the womans life is in danger.

I just wanted to come in here and say, I've had an abortion and it was not traumatic or horrible. It was the right & the only thing to do for me. I decided, with no other outside influence. I was 20 years old. Right now that little clump of tissue would have been 9 years old - I would be saddled with a 9-year old child.

So to avoid the inconvenience you killed the child. You could have given him up for adoption. Or you could have used birth-control and not gotten pregnant in the first place..

There are plenty of unwanted, unfed, hungry, abused, suffering kids in the world already. It's against my moral beliefs to bring another kid into this world right now.
So we should kill them because their lives are going to suck? Maybe I should euthanize much of the homeless to prevent them from suffering any further.

But you did bring one into the world, then you plucked it away.

Dunderman

04-07-2005, 03:42 AM

So to avoid the inconvenience you killed the child. You could have given him up for adoption.
Or she could have done exactly what she did, namely minimize the needless hassle caused by a simple mistake.

Malacandra

04-07-2005, 05:08 AM

Or she could have done exactly what she did, namely minimize the needless hassle caused by a simple mistake.

Yes, minimise the needless hassle caused by the simple mistake of granting Jews human rights in Europe. Someone had to say it.

Which brings us back to my hypothetical 93-year-old great-aunt... and the recognition that the question turns on the irreconcilable issue of whether (and when) the foetus has the human right to life. Since many thousands of words on these boards have yet to answer that one, or AFAIK sway one single person's opinion, why do we keep arguing?

Dunderman

04-07-2005, 05:10 AM

[godwin]Since many thousands of words on these boards have yet to answer that one, or AFAIK sway one single person's opinion, why do we keep arguing?
Hey, I have nothing better to do on a Thursday morning.

Arwin

04-07-2005, 05:38 AM

No, I am not a fundimentalist. My view were reached through personal thought and debate, not "just cause".

The level of your personal thought and debate is far below that of Al Quaeda's leader, who's arguments to harbor hostile sentiments to American influence I find a lot more compelling than your arbitrary decision to draw a line at a fertilised egg and treat two cells as a human with human rights from there.

As I have already explained at the moment of fertilization the child stops being a potential and becomes an actual.

Not really. An egg is fertilised en route from the ovary to the uterus, but the fertilised egg does not necessarily stop there. There are so many of such phases, that the point at which potential becomes actual is as valid taken from one second to the next as from one year to the next. I believe that self-awareness doesn't arrive until somewhere around the 3rd-4th year. For you it doesn't matter when, because since you take a black and white stance with no regard for the subtleties of life and with no real basis in reality.

Because it is a single cell is irrelevent, a unique human life has begun, to abort is to end that life. That the child is currently incapable of consciousness is irrelevent because it will eventually "wake up" (if not, then it is ok to kill it because it is not really human). It is no different than a person in a coma. The temporary inability to attain consciousness does not take away a persons human rights.

Your concept of potential and actual simply doesn't do justice to the meaning of life. On the one hand you consider the actual a human life, because it has the capability of consciousness, but at the same time it needs this consciousness to be able to be human - so as long as this doesn't happen, maybe until the 2nd or 3rd year, there's not really a human being, but a potential human being in the making. But this potential you still wish to grant the same human rights as all other humans, whether they have developed a consciousness or not - as long as they have the possibility of achieving a consciousness. And yet at the same time you do say that the mother's life is more valuable than the actual of the child, so human rights here do not equally apply. And all this from the premise that two cells merged change their status from potential to actual all of a sudden, though it's only one in many uncertain but equally important steps that eventually may or may not lead to a human being that then may or may not develop a consciousness.

Some people's admiration for your consistency is highly overrated.

And to me the unborn are just as human as you or I and your inability to understand this is baffling to me. To me they are humans that are being denied their human rights just as the slaves were.

Well, as above, your position is weird. If you could treat your 'actuals' as slaves, they wouldn't know it, wouldn't remember it, wouldn't complain, wouldn't be hurt, and so on, because they don't have those capabilities. Say that we'd extract a few stem-cells from a zygote or whatever without damaging it (it can afford to miss a few cells) that we sell to hospitals who in turn use it to save the lives of a few other people. It would never know unless we told him or her, and it wouldn't be affected.

1.A farmer just finishes planting his yearly crop. During the night hoodlams come and destroy all of the seedlings. Should they get in trouble? The seedlings have no value, you can't eat or sell them. You can only make a profit from mature plants. So the farmer has not lost anything of value then.

The material damage discussed in court were the hoodlums brought to justice would certainly be influenced by how much it would cost to repair the damages. If it is not to late in the season to replace the seedlings, then the costs would be the seedlings and the labor needed to replant them. However, when they destroy the harvest, the costs would be the purchase of the seedlings, all the labor needed to plant, maintain, water and so on ... material damage is going to be considerable larger, we're talking tenfolds at the very, very least.

But that's not even the point. You already indicated that you know what strawman means. The situation we're discussing here is whether or not the farmer can decide that it's a bad idea to invest the rest of the year in this field of seedlings. Say that he heard that the going rate for wholegrain was expected to be at an all time low next year so that all the investments he'd have to make would not nearly be compensated by the value of the crop come harvesting day, does he have the right to plow his land and grow something that was expected to be in demand. Or say that a terrible drought is predicted, or a plague of certain insects, or ... etc.

Instead, you're coming with an example that translates back as a pregnant woman being gangraped and miscarrying as a result. Now here's a woman who has decided she is willing to invest in this potential and already has invested some in it emotionally and financially, and she is robbed of her potential by force. The value of this potential is primarily psychological, with relatively little material value, and that psychological value is determined by whether or not the mother wants or does not want to invest. If not, then the potential is little more than a very disturbing and potentially dangerous parasite.

2.That is were we dissagree. I am not talking about a clump of cells that might turn into a human. I am talking about a clump of cells that already are human. That their current state is that of a clump of cells is irrelevent.

Your definition of human is whatever has the ability to develop a consciousness. That definition by itself is flawed, but even in that context, the point you take at which you decide to go from potential to actual is still completely arbitrary.

3.Yes, if IVF results in the destruction of fertilized eggs.

It usually does. And so your arbitrary and thoughtless position on actuals and potentials messes up yet another technological advancement that brings more healthy children into the world than it kills.

It is only an insult if I am wrong.

Then it is an insult.

Arwin

04-07-2005, 05:44 AM

Since many thousands of words on these boards have yet to answer that one, or AFAIK sway one single person's opinion, why do we keep arguing?

Since arguing still beats fighting. And for the benefit of those who are still forming an opinion (which some do with more care than others, granted).

And believe it or not, sometimes people do change their minds as they take in more information. And, what may come as a shock to some, this is not, in fact, a character flaw, but a good thing.

Malacandra

04-07-2005, 06:01 AM

Hey, I have nothing better to do on a Thursday morning.

Heh. I have. And I still don't seem able to stop myself. :smack:

calm kiwi

04-07-2005, 06:27 AM

1. I do not view it as a clump of tissue. I view it as a human being with the same rights as you or I.

2. I do not view women as less important than the babies they carry. If that was so I would not support abortion when the womans life is in danger.

So to avoid the inconvenience you killed the child. You could have given him up for adoption. Or you could have used birth-control and not gotten pregnant in the first place..

So we should kill them because their lives are going to suck? Maybe I should euthanize much of the homeless to prevent them from suffering any further.

But you did bring one into the world, then you plucked it away.

If abortions are murder are miscarriages manslaughter? Are eptopic pregnancies attempted murder by the fetus?

We have reached an age where medical knowledge saves many people from what would have been certain deaths. Thankfully it is also an age where women are not enslaved to unwanted pregnancy.

NO woman EVER sees abortion as the easy option (society makes sure that it is not easy) but it IS a perfectly valid option if it fits with a womans own morals.

Your morals are not the barometer.......HERS are.

PinkMarabou

04-07-2005, 07:41 AM

Your first sentance is debatable, but even if I were to grant it, emotions and feelings do not grant "human" rights, self-awarnes and consciousness do.

So then you wouldn't be opposed to me taking out a life insurance policy on the embryo when I found out I was 6 weeks pregnant? That way, if I miscarry (and any subsequent miscarriages), I get lots of money. You are in favor of your policy payments going up at least three-fold?

Malacandra

04-07-2005, 08:16 AM

PinkMarabou

04-07-2005, 08:59 AM

Better check out the actuarial rates. You might find that the premiums were punitive - and in that case, nobody's policy payments would be going up.

*finally finds a use for having been vaguely in the insurance business for years.

So paying possibly hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of women a year a nice lump sum of money won't make the rates go up? I'm no expert, but simple math tells me otherwise. I don't know any of the bits and pieces that goes along with insurance, but I don't see how a company can survive if they are paying several policies per week for miscarriages on top of the other policies they will be paying out. Maybe you can fight my ignorance here.

Malacandra

04-07-2005, 09:09 AM

So paying possibly hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of women a year a nice lump sum of money won't make the rates go up? I'm no expert, but simple math tells me otherwise. I don't know any of the bits and pieces that goes along with insurance, but I don't see how a company can survive if they are paying several policies per week for miscarriages on top of the other policies they will be paying out. Maybe you can fight my ignorance here.

Why yes, I can. Basically when you buy an insurance policy - let's say, covering you for five years - the company finds out all it can to determine the probability of you dying during that time, then multiplies that by the sum insured to work out what the premium ought to be, after adding a slice to cover costs, payouts to shareholders (if it ain't a mutual), and so on. IOW, if you're 50% likely to die during the next five years, then the company, if it'll touch you at all, will charge you as a premium a tad over 50% of what it expects to pay out. OTOH if you're 99.5% likely to live for five years then the premium's only 0.5% of the sum insured. So if a 6-week foetus has a lousy life expectancy, the premiums will be scandalously high.

Similar considerations apply to accident insurance and so on. E.g. mo'bike insurance is hideously expensive for highly desirable bikes in London because the theft figures are terrifying.

Knowing what I do of insurance companies, I'd think they'd be all up for insuring foetal lives! Sure, they'd pay out more, but they'd make good and sure they're raking in the premiums first, and they'd do all the sums they can to make sure they're not losing money on the deal.

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-07-2005, 09:58 AM

LeftHandOfDorkness[/b] lived up perfectly to the fourth syllable of his nick when he spouted forth about wanted to protect hopes, dreams, desires, etc, etc, and then argued that it was therefore OK to terminate a foetus because it lacks any of these, and then got snitty with me when I observed that he was endorsing infanticide. Arguing that a neonate has "desires" because it responds to stimuli is inane. It comes with some hard-wired reflexes - to cry when it is in need of food or in physical discomfort, to suck when a nipple is put in its mouth, to grasp a finger put into its hand - because infants that lack these reflexes would die. But it is known that late-term foetuses, at least, also respond to stimuli.

Dreams, hopes - it is highly improbable that a newborn can be shown to have these and that a foetus does not. As far as a sense of identity goes, I well remember the first time my son saw himself in a mirror and realized he was seeing himself. He had seen "another baby" in the mirror many times; he was, IIRC, well over a year before he turned to me and gave me a look that plainly said "That's me!".

You cannot draw a line at birth and say "Before this time, the foetus was unconscious and therefore inhuman." I'm not sure how far back or how far forwards (depending on your metric) you need to go to establish humanity, but the only difference birth makes is that the 40-week foetus becomes independent of the placenta and must breathe, feed and eliminate for itself.

And you live up to the first two syllables of your name when you tell me I endorse infanticide, despite the fact that, oh, I don't endorse infanticide. You may really want your political opponents to be evil, in order to hide your own desire to sexually torture puppies, but that's your problem, not mine.

Desires are a neurological phenomenon. Neonates have brains that are functionally similar to adult brains in this area: while their experiences are such that their desires are far more limited than adult desires, there is no reason to suspect that they lack desires.

I have never argued that abortion of 40-week fetuses is acceptable. Don't try to lump all your political opponents together. I've limited myself to arguing in this thread against Muad'dib's ridiculous idea that a blastocyte should be protected by human rights.

I have not argued that neonates have dreams or hopes. Perhaps you, in your zeal to prove your enemies are villainous, missed my conversation with Shodan on this point? Or perhaps you're hoping other people have as short an attention span as you have, and have forgotten it?

Daniel

eleanorigby

04-07-2005, 10:05 AM

You have a right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". You do not have a right to anything else. It may be harsh but I see no contradiction there.

Those are Constitutional rights, only. They are by no means a complete list. To be snarky, I could suggest that "the pursuit of happiness" includes an active sex life, but no kids.

I am not "anti-choice", I am anti-abortion. I do not call your side pro-abortion, please show me the same respect.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. YOU want to limit/end MY choices--that makes you anti-choice. You are also anti-abortion (except, of course, when there is PHYSICAL risk to Mom or baby is not viable.....question--aren't those "murders", too? Or is it a reduced charge/sentence? Manslaughter instead of murder one? What happens to those women--nothing? Oh, but if the woman has a history of post-partum depression and is suicidal or just plain blue once she discovers she is pregnant--that doesn't count? Just want clarify the crimes of record.

Again, you are building a strawman and are being silly. Women and men would be no more "subjugated" then they already are for the care of their born children. Do we have concentration camps now that force parents to give the most optimal upbringing for their born children? No.
You were the one who brought up detaining women while pregnant. I took that line of thought to a logical conclusion--and brought in the men, who seem to be somewhat lacking in your scheme of things. Where is their responsiblity? Where is their accountability? Why not give force vasectomies on those deadbeat dads? You have no problem limiting women's choices, why not men's, too?

I am not robbing them of a choice. I am saying that a legitimate choice never existed in the first place. Just as you do not have a legitimate choice to kill someone for looking at you funny, you do not have a choice to kill the unborn. The idea of its existence is a fallacy.

I have no idea what you are talking about here--what doesn't exist? What do you mean that a legitimate choice never existed in the first place? I speculated about sterilizing men to eliminate abortion--draconian? sure! but so is outlawing abortion. Forced sterilization doesn't "exist" b/c it has not been legislated....yet (heh)--but the PREMISE can be explored--or don't you deal in theories and ideas?

It is no more weaselly then laws that permit you to kill another in self-defense.

Oddly enough--some abortions are done in self-defense. The mother decides that for whatever reason, she cannot carry this pregnancy to term. What about the multiple implants done in fertility treatments? OFTEN, the docs advocate the "removal" of 1-2 implanted eggs--to ensure viability of the remaing embryos --what is that to you?

How ironic--the woman would be jailed for murder, under your system, but all she is trying to do is have kids! :eek:

I have already stated that I support abortion in the case of defects so extreme as to prevent the child from ever gaining consciousness. I such a case it really is nothing more than a clump of tissue.

Not just for that--you also said that you are pro-abortion IF the mom's life is in danger.....whatever happens to your prescient being then? Yup-baby killer, according to YOUR construct.

It is not Life that I really respect, it is self-aware consciousness.
Jeebus- people in coma don't have this. People with Alzheimer's/senile dementia/severe mental retardation don't have this--what are you advocating-wholesale slaughter at nursing homes? Now, that is radical.

I am, however, conflicted about the case of rape and incest and am not ready to pronounce a decision about such situations.

That is too bad-since it is happening now. Do we tell these folks that you'll get back to 'em?

It is one of the hallmarks of Western Civilization that we do not believe that the sins of the father are passed to the children.
No....we just let the women do all that.......

The father would be held just as responsible as the mother.

how ya gonna do that? Life would be quite different under your rule, eh? I firmly believe that all rapists and perps of incest should be found and dealt with, soundly
but think of the manpower needed to trace all molesters of nieces and daughters.....my mind boggles.

She is not "just a woman". Stop trying to inject misogyny where there is none.
Those would be tragic and terrible occurrences that should be fought against as much as possible. No different than car related fatalities that are just as tragic and terrible and that we do all we can to prevent, but you don't see people advocating the outlaw of roads.

If you don't see how comparing women to ROADS is misogynistic--I cannot help you. Mentall illness and post partum depression is not the same as a car crash--You cannot equate the two.

Plus, your analogy does not work: roads are there to be used by all people--some roads have restricted access and some are not paved or even posted. But if you have a car--you get to CHOOSE which route/road you take, AND you take your chances in that car.....just like if you are an adult--you get to CHOOSE to accept the pregnancy or have an abortion. Restricted access roads can be likened to third term abortions--or I could just continue to beat this comparison to death.

Mental health is as important as physical--sometimes, more so. (ask a schizophrenic or someone battling anxiety attacks which they would rather have--their disease or something like asthma--most would pick a treatable physical disorder).
Baby comes before Woman, in your eyes. You keep saying no, but yes, it does--potential Baby trumps actual Woman to you. That position is inherently misogynistic.

FWIW-again, I doubt highly that there is anyone who is thrilled about abortions. I do think that it is a cruel fact of life that these kind of decisions must be made.

Making abs illegal will not make them "go away"--it will make them dangerous and deadly. It wil occur with or without your approval--abortion is as old as man.

I dont' understand how making it dangerous makes you morally superior to anyone (the reverse could easily be argued) or how driving abortion underground makes things better for your "self-awareness consciousness". I, myself, would be incredibly self aware that I had driven some women to use a coat hanger or caustic chemical to hurt herself, possibly damage the fetus--even maim it w/o killing it etc.....where is your conscience then?

Malacandra

04-07-2005, 10:08 AM

Lord Ashtar

04-07-2005, 10:20 AM

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-07-2005, 10:20 AM

No, not at all. I do not seriously believe that you advocate infanticide; it was only that your argument did not draw a distinction that would disallow killing a newborn child. If we are in agreement that a genetically-human creature capable of any of the characteristics you ascribe to a human being ought to be classed as one, and therefore merit the right to life, we are singing from much the same hymn sheet.

I also disagree that a blastocyte is a human being, and I believe you and I, if we discussed this thoroughly, would end up, at most, arguing about where to put the line on the calendar. In that case I owe it to you to apologise for anything that reads like demonisation of you. This has been as much like a bar-room brawl as a debate, and you know how they work: sometimes the nearest person gets slugged for no reason.

I won't say for certain that a 30-week-fetus has the same rights as a 30-year-adult. Rights are a continuum, I think, not a binary setting, and I'm willing to grant rights according to the subject's capacity to appreciate them. That *does* mean that I'm a lot more interested in protecting the 30-week fetus than I am in protecting the 30-day embryo, though, and if a law is passed that disallows third-trimester abortions except in cases where the mother's health is endangered, I'm sure not going to be fighting that law.

(Incidentally, this means that I do think we should offer much stronger protection to certain animals, as I think that, for example, an adult chimpanzee is farther along the rights-continuum than a neonate).

I appreciate the apology, and apologize in turn for my puppy-torture comments.

Daniel

eleanorigby

04-07-2005, 10:25 AM

:eek:

OOPS!

Meant one thing, wrote another........ :rolleyes: (those eyes are intended for me!)

Malacandra

04-07-2005, 10:29 AM

Choice, shmoice. May I slap the living shit out of you for irritating me? No, of course I may not. But you are taking away my CHOICE! Yes, but the act I am intent on is despicable. Therefore it is not a CHOICE that I am allowed to exercise. Good gravy. Either something is permissible or it is not. If it is not, it is no defence to bleat that my CHOICE is being taken away by not allowing me to do it.

I personally would grieve for any woman who maimed herself or her foetus through a botched abortion. Nevertheless, if someone is intent on an illegal and immoral act, it is no responsibility of mine to protect them from the consequences of it.

Dare I say, pregnancy-free sex never has been a right throughout most of human history? It is only lately with the availability of contraception that is over 90% effective that we have embarked on a social revolution founded on the inane supposition that it is in fact 100% effective. I have no idea on what grounds you claim it as a right - at most, you can only assert it as something that you want.

Additionally, it has been explained time and time again that in cases where the mother's life is in danger, abortion is no more murder than any other act of self-defence. But it would be highly proper, I believe, to ask what proportion of abortions are carried out to save the mother's life.

(Daniel: Good enough for me.)

Stonebow

04-07-2005, 10:51 AM

I'll weigh in. I've been trying to follow the thread, but if someone else has made the point, I apologize in advance.

I am willing to concede a gray area in when a fetus is to be granted rights as a human. However, being a cautious man, I am willing to concede that human life begins at conception.

Here's the thing- it doesn't matter. I am very much pro-choice, not because of any arbitrary judgment on when life begins, but because no matter what, we as a society have no right to force someone to bear, host, and support that life with their bodies. We have become really blasé about pregnancy, ignoring the complications, strain, and all around misery that results from even the most wanted, routine pregnancy. Someone else made the point that abortion is less risky than pregnancy...doesn't that make make every case of abortion one of 'life or health of the mother'? Where does the woman's right to self defense kick in?

I would not want to be forced to be a life support vehicle for anyone else, and I don't think that the courts should be able force me to. That's what you're asking, those of you on the pro-life/anti-choice side.

Sure, there are instances where abortions are really not necessary, or even advisable...but that's not my call to make. That alternatives are always worse. Too often, it all boils down to 'this woman must shoulder the burden of her sexual behavior.' that's not the sort of thinking I want to be associated with.

Get back to me when you figure out how to remove a zygote and raise it to viability with no burden to the mother. get me past those 9-10 months of being enslaved and forced to bear the child. Then we can talk about being pro-life.

robertliguori

04-07-2005, 10:51 AM

Dare I say, pregnancy-free sex never has been a right throughout most of human history? It is only lately with the availability of contraception that is over 90% effective that we have embarked on a social revolution founded on the inane supposition that it is in fact 100% effective. I have no idea on what grounds you claim it as a right - at most, you can only assert it as something that you want.

That can be flipped around. We can (and have) just as easily said that a z/e/f does not have a right to a uterus with lining and a lack of certain chemical substances in the mother's bloodstream. In fact, this can be invoked in the exact same way that your slapping example can.

Additionally, it has been explained time and time again that in cases where the mother's life is in danger, abortion is no more murder than any other act of self-defence. But it would be highly proper, I believe, to ask what proportion of abortions are carried out to save the mother's life.

(Daniel: Good enough for me.)

Ooh. If we can have abortions for self-defence, can we also have them for trespassing, vandalism, theft, and invasion of property?

jsgoddess

04-07-2005, 11:49 AM

Get back to me when you figure out how to remove a zygote and raise it to viability with no burden to the mother. get me past those 9-10 months of being enslaved and forced to bear the child. Then we can talk about being pro-life.

You beat me to it.

Even to save a wonderful, educated, saintly adult, we wouldn't forcibly use someone else's body. We wouldn't steal organs, or even borrow them. We wouldn't force blood transfusions, or bed rest, or time off work.

We don't do these things even if it means the death of self-aware, intelligent, adult citizens. We don't do these things even if it means the death of persons we all acknowlege have all of the same rights we do. We don't do it for a pope or a president or a child prodigy. No one has the right to use someone else's body, not even for their own survival.

Guinastasia

04-07-2005, 12:05 PM

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-07-2005, 12:40 PM

If we could figure out a way to create an artificial womb, then maybe I'll agree that abortion should be more restricted. Of course, that raises the problem of what happens to the fetus. How many kids are out there that no one will adopt?

This gets to the place where I'm not completely happy with abortions. For fetuses that are 7 months along, there *are* artificial wombs available, more or less: they're called incubators. Fetuses at that age have a pretty high viability if they're born prematurely.

Would it be reasonable to say that, unless doing so would endanger the mother's health, a woman wanting to rid herself of a seven-month fetus should be required to birth the fetus via induced labor or C-section? I don't know.

If induced labor/C-section are extremely invasive procedures compared to late-term abortions, then I could see an argument that a woman has the right to choose the less-invasive procedure: in this case, I believe that existing rights with the fetus may be weighed against the existing rights of the mother.

But if the procedures are comparable, then I don't think a woman has the right to choose an abortion because giving birth and giving the child up for adoption would be emotionally traumatic (e.g., the pregnancy is the consequence of rape). However emotionally traumatic it may be, in these cases, the 7-month-old fetus, with its capacity for pain and pleasure*, and a capacity for desire, has rights that win out, in my mind.

As for the number of unwanted children out there, my understanding is that these unwanted children are all either older kids or kids with severe health problems (severely mentally retarded, etc.) Healthy adoptable infants are a rare treasure in the field of adoptions, and the waiting list is a mile long.

I don't have an answer for the question of late-term abortions: the balancing of rights that they entail is very difficult, I think, unlike the balancing of the rights of a woman versus the (nonexistent, I believe) rights of an embryo she carries.

Daniel

* I should've mentioned pain and pleasure before when I talked about the features that I look at when deciding whether an entity has rights.

Syntropy

04-07-2005, 01:06 PM

I do believe there should be specific time limits set on abortions. Barring health issues for the pregnant woman, I think the upper limit should be set somewhere between 16 & 20 weeks. After that point, unless you have a specific medical reason for delivering early (and after that point, it's delivering early), the baby should be carried to term.
I believe we covered this in another thread: It's far too traumatic and places too much stress on the infant's system to be born any earlier than is necessary, so inducing at 7 months shouldn't be an option.

Guinastasia

04-07-2005, 01:16 PM

Yeah, but how many seven month abortions are performed, except in very rare emergencies?

Syntropy

04-07-2005, 01:30 PM

Very few, to be sure. But there are still abortions performed at 24 weeks-ish, which makes me extremely uncomfortable. At 24 weeks, you've been pregnant for approximately 6 months, more than enough time to make a decision.
The reason I brought up delivering early was in response to Daniel's assertion:
For fetuses that are 7 months along, there *are* artificial wombs available, more or less: they're called incubators. Fetuses at that age have a pretty high viability if they're born prematurely.
Premature birth is one thing, but intentionally delivering early unnecessarily shouldn't be encouraged.

Lord Ashtar

04-07-2005, 01:41 PM

Sure, there are instances where abortions are really not necessary, or even advisable...but that's not my call to make. That alternatives are always worse. Too often, it all boils down to 'this woman must shoulder the burden of her sexual behavior.' that's not the sort of thinking I want to be associated with.
Why not? If you take the word "sexual" out, it turns into, "This woman must shoulder the burden of her behavior."

I don't see the problem with holding people accountable for their actions.

eleanorigby

04-07-2005, 01:46 PM

Where is the male in that shouldering of the burden of behavior?

You forgot to mention him.

Syntropy

04-07-2005, 01:54 PM

Lord Ashtar

04-07-2005, 02:21 PM

Don't be silly, eleanor, dear. Of course it's the woman's fault. She seduced him. She wore her skirt too short, her sweater too tight, he couldn't help himself, it's not his fault!

And after all, that's exactly the kind of way we want babies to be brought into the world, yes? Not viewed as products of love, but as punishment for a fuckup!
Sigh...fine. So if we make it not gender specific it becomes, "This person must shoulder the burden of their behavior."

I'll ask it again...what's wrong with holding people (male or female) accountable for their actions?

Syntropy

04-07-2005, 02:24 PM

Well, nothing, really. And people SHOULD be responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, men won't be held physically responsible for their actions. The body changes, the labor pain, the recovery; that's solely on the woman. Which is why I, for one, resent being told by any man that it's my responsibility, I didn't have to have sex, yadayadayada. It's very easy to be judgemental when you never have to go through the consequences.

I forget: Which comedian said that if men were to ever have to bear children, abortion would go up by 50%?

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-07-2005, 02:30 PM

Yeah, but how many seven month abortions are performed, except in very rare emergencies?

What brought this up in my mind was yesterday, talking with my wife about this thread, and she told me of a radio interview she'd heard with a woman who'd been raped and who said she didn't realize she was pregnant until she was seven months along; at that point, she got an abortion (having to travel to another state to do so), because she couldn't bear emotionally to carry the rapist's child to term.

That's a very difficult case, I think. Obviously the whole "take responsibility for your actions" argument doesn't apply in the case of rape: she never chose to have sex. And she didn't choose to wait till the last minute to get an abortion (stipulating for now that she really didn't realize she was pregnant, something I find bizarre). So we're basically weighing the rights of one completely "innocent" person against another completely innocent "person."

I'm really not sure how I feel about such cases. On the one hand, I don't feel it's appropriate to make her carry this rapist's fetus in her for an instant longer than she's comfortable with: Lord only knows I can't imagine the horror of doing that. On the other hand, by 28 weeks, that fetus would be viable outside the womb.

Thus my comment about inducing labor/performing a C-Section. Yes, that would be traumatic for the fetus; but it would not be as traumatic as an abortion would be, and it would serve the purpose of getting the fetus out of the woman, the only legitimate purpose that an abortion would serve. (If the woman in the example actively desired the death of the fetus, I don't consider that desire something that needs to be weighed).

I don't know. These cases are, to the best of my knowledge, vanishingly rare; at the same time, they're not imaginary. What's the right choice? Not what's the right choice for the victim of the rape, but what's the right choice for us as a society when we balance the rights of the parties involved and decide what will be the rape victim's legal choices?

It ain't an easy case.
Daniel

Syntropy

04-07-2005, 02:32 PM

Also, what kind of home life do you think a child will have when the mother is forced to have the baby? Do you really think she's going to see that child as a blessing? Let me clue you in, bub.
My mom got pregnant with me when she was 19. Pre Roe v Wade, and she'd seen her best friend butchered by a Mexican abortion clinic, so that was out. She and my dad got married. She resented the daylights out of the fact that she never got to go to school, never finished her degree, never got to be young. Does she love me? Most assuredly. But I was very aware that the reason she didn't become a vet was because she had me instead. I'll do whatever it takes to make sure no child ever has to feel that kind of guilt.

Stonebow

04-07-2005, 02:32 PM

Why not? If you take the word "sexual" out, it turns into, "This woman must shoulder the burden of her behavior."

I don't see the problem with holding people accountable for their actions.

eleanor and Maureen nailed it. There's no equality between the genders where this is concerned, and at present, I don't see any way in which it could be enforced.

I also don't like the idea of children as 'punishment' or 'burdens'...'expressions of love,' yes...I'll even settle for 'happy accidents'..but when a woman does not want to bear the burden of carrying a child to term, no force should be allowed to compel her to do so. To allow it is invasive, and grants authority to my neighbors that I'd rather they not have.

As jsgoddess points out, there's no other sphere in which we accept forced donations of organs. Why should the uterus be any different?

The simple answer tends to be that some people just don't like the idea of women fucking around, and will use any cudgel necessary to attempt to curtail it. I don't buy the idea that "sex=baby, get over it"...simply because it's not so. Never has been. Even when birth control was much less reliable, people took the risks to fuck around, and when it didn't work, some of them availed themselves of perfectly natural herbs and berries to give abort their pregnancies.

eleanorigby

04-07-2005, 02:37 PM

Stonebow

04-07-2005, 02:44 PM

I think we're seriously going to muddy the waters by considering rape victims in this discussion. The biggest reason- how do we know they were raped?

If we're discussing the rule of law here and not just our own moral opinions, rape should not make one bit of difference in the law. If you build the fabled 'rape, incest, life of the mother' exclusion into any restrictive laws, I will bet cash money that you'll have a sharp increase in the number of women claiming that they were raped. What would you demand then, to prove they were not lying? Would they have to name the perp? get an indictment? A conviction? I think that'd go over like a lead balloon.

Bear in mind, in the event that such a stupid piece of legislation were to pass, I would fully support someone lying about being raped to avoid being forced to bear a child. That's even given my strong feelings about those that fabricate rape allegations now.

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-07-2005, 02:44 PM

Yes, but who would pay for the hospitalizaiton of the infant? The woman? that is an undue burden on a crime victim. The rapist? Catch him first, and garnish his wages(if any)?

Hey, I am not for late term abortions--but look at the alternative above. How is this conundrum solved?

IMO, the woman was most likely obese and not aware of the "symptoms" of pregnancy, but also she may have been in a deep denial.

According to my ER nurse friends, it happens at least once a year--girl comes in and delivers a baby--she and parents didn't "know" she was pregnant......

Well, I'm in favor of socialized medicine, so if you're asking me, expectant mothers shouldn't have to pay for prenatal care.

It's possible the woman in the example was obese; that hadn't even occurred to me. Given her willingness to go to another state to abort the fetus at 28 weeks, it seems to me that she really didn't want to be carrying the rapist's fetus in her, and it seems pretty likely that she was in denial about it as long as she possibly could be. But the obesity theory makes sense.

I always wonder about those cases where women have babies not knowing they're pregnant; I suspect that denial figures pretty heavily in those cases. I mean, I've never been pregnant myself, but the signs of pregnancy seem to me to be pretty obvious.

Daniel

Muad'Dib

04-07-2005, 02:52 PM

I don't give a shit if "life begins" at conception. Me, I thought life began billions of years ago.

You are confusing one life, for all of life. They are two very different things.

But I guess you mean that a unique life begins at conception. Me, I thought the sperm was alive, the egg was alive, and both were unique.
[quote]
Yes, they are alive and unique, but they were not human. A fertilized cell, however, is alive, unique, and human.

[quote]
But I guess you mean that a unique human life begins at conception, by which you mean a life with a unique full set of human DNA. Me, I think that if you kill a person, it's not a defense that their DNA lives on in their identical twin.

I don't give a shit about that. It ain't human life that i want to protect: it's desires, experience, identity, hopes, dreams. A single-celled organism lacks all of these, and I don't give a shit about whether it's killed, whether that single-celled organism is a paramecium or a fertilized egg.

Come talk to me when it has any of desires, experience, identity, hopes, or dreams, and I'll be interested in protecting it. Until that point, I'll see your desire to protect it as imminently arbitrary and irrational.

Daniel

That is what I wish to protect as well. But I see the fertilized egg as having the same status as a man in a coma or under deep anesthesia. Currently without those "hopes, dreams" etc. but is not lacking in a right to life because it will eventually awaken to that higher state of mind.

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-07-2005, 03:01 PM

That is what I wish to protect as well. But I see the fertilized egg as having the same status as a man in a coma or under deep anesthesia. Currently without those "hopes, dreams" etc. but is not lacking in a right to life because it will eventually awaken to that higher state of mind.

My friend Brian loves punk music. He hates The Man. He makes a mean lasagne and can eat a prodigious amount of it. One day, he hopes to own a record shop in downtown Manhattan. He sculpts industrial metal sculptures in his free time.

And then he's hit by a car and collapses into a coma.

Quiz:
1) If Brian wakes up, what type of music will probably give him pleasure?
2) If Brian wakes up, who will he hate?
3) If Brian wakes up, what will his favorite food be?
4) If Brian wakes up, what will his dream job be?
5) If Brian wakes up, how will he express his artistic leanings?

My friend Julia discovers that she's four weeks pregnant.

Quiz:
1) If Julia gives birth, what type of music will give the child pleasure?
2) If Julia gives birth, who will the child hate?
3) If Julia gives birth, what will the child's favorite food be?
4) If Julia gives birth, what will the child's dream job be?
5) If Julia gives birth, how will the child express its artistic leanings?

Bonus question:
What's the difference between Brian and Julia's potential child?

Lemme answer the bonus question for you: Brian has a personality, complete with desires, dreams, hopes, fears, an identity, and so forth. That personality is suspended, just as mine is suspended for a split-second every time I sneeze; however, it has existed and it will exist, and we know what it looked like and we know what it will look like. If we kill Brian, then we kill an existant (albeit suspended) personality.

Julia's fetus has no personality--no desires, no dreams, no hopes, no fears, no identity, and no so forth. It's not that there's a suspended personality; the personality has never existed. Now, it may exist in the future, if Julia decides to carry the embryo to term and is lucky enough to be successful in doing so. But if Julia decides to abort the embryo, then no personality is destroyed: no desires, no dreams, no hopes, no fears, no identity is destroyed, because no has existed there.

That's why I do not equate a person in a coma, or a person sneezing, with an embryo.

Daniel

Blalron

04-07-2005, 03:18 PM

Yes, they are alive and unique, but they were not human. A fertilized cell, however, is alive, unique, and human.

Ok, what about an embryo that splits into two? Is each embryo unique? In what way?

What about when the embryos merge back together again? What happened to those two "unique" lives?

That is what I wish to protect as well. But I see the fertilized egg as having the same status as a man in a coma or under deep anesthesia. Currently without those "hopes, dreams" etc. but is not lacking in a right to life because it will eventually awaken to that higher state of mind.

The person in a coma has a previously established identity of personhood. The lifetime of memories, hopes, dreams, etc is already programmed into their brain. The fact that it's not currently active doesn't stop the personality from being in there somewhere.

It's the difference between destroying an empty canvass (which also had "potential") and destryong a Picasso painting. The unborn is an empty canvass. Nothing has been painted on it yet.

Muad'Dib

04-07-2005, 03:24 PM

I believe my friend and her husband have. The fact remains that there is a non-zero risk of pregnancy and that women have gotten pregnant when they have had their tubes tied and their husbands have had vasectomies. The fact remains that one of our own Dopers is in the curious position of being one of the first women to get become pregnant after undergoing the Essure procedure and passing the dye test which indicated her Fallopian tubes were blocked. Apparently, not blocked enough. :rolleyes:

I'm a programmer and the daughter of an engineer. I was trained that if a possibility exists, especially if there are known occurrences of that possibility, however remote, you allow for them. I drive carefully but not timidly, wear a seat belt, and remain aware of my limits and surroundings, thus doing all I can to reduce my risk of being in an auto accident as much as possible. That doesn't mean I won't be in one or that it's not a good idea for me to carry auto insurance even if my state didn't require it. In my own habits, the only ones I'm at liberty to discuss, I do take precautions and discuss what will happen if I become pregnant with the person involved before doing anything which could result in pregnancy. That doesn't mean it's impossible for me to get pregnant.

CJ

And so long as you engage in behaviors that carry those risks you must be prepared to take responsibility for those risks.

Syntropy

04-07-2005, 03:26 PM

And so long as you engage in behaviors that carry those risks you must be prepared to take responsibility for those risks.
You're a virgin, aren't you?

Muad'Dib

04-07-2005, 03:29 PM

A carrot needs sunlight, but a carrot does not desire sunlight. A fertilized egg needs nutrition, but a fertilized egg does not desire nutrition. An infant needs food, AND an infant desires food.

I'm not fucking providing you a cite that a newborn baby has desires.
Daniel

Although contreversial, I would tend to agree that a newborn has no desires, only needs. To desire something requires that you are able to form cancepts about that something. I do not believe that newborns are capable of forming concepts. I believe that newborns are tabula rasa and need to develop the ability to form concepts and desires.

Lord Ashtar

04-07-2005, 03:29 PM

You're a virgin, aren't you?
Ad hominem attacks don't help anyone.

Syntropy

04-07-2005, 03:35 PM

Nor do sanctimonious judgemental pronouncements, and yet here we are.

Blalron

04-07-2005, 03:40 PM

And so long as you engage in behaviors that carry those risks you must be prepared to take responsibility for those risks.

I believe abortion is taking responsibility.

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-07-2005, 04:13 PM

Although contreversial, I would tend to agree that a newborn has no desires, only needs. To desire something requires that you are able to form cancepts about that something.

Infants aren't tabula rasa. They have, and can, experience warmth and coldness, and hunger and satiety. There's no reason to suspect that they cannot desire warmth and satiety.

As I've later said, however, I should've included the capacity to suffer--to experience pain--as one of the traits of an entity whose rights I'll recognize. I'll also include the capacity to experience emotions.

You may justly accuse me of wanting to extend stronger protection toward chimpanzees if you'd like; but accusing me of advocating infanticide is absurd.

Daniel

MaxTheVool

04-07-2005, 06:36 PM

Yikes. This is an intimidating thread to jump into at this point, but...

First of all, I think this whole issue is a difficult and troubling one. Anyone who is 100% confident that they are exactly right about it, and happy with all the implications of that position, is either stupid or deluded.

Secondly, while I disagree strongly with Maud'Dib's position, I have to say that I feel that he is being hilariously and unfairly piled on. He's basically being polite and logical about things. He is NOT, himself, calling people murderers or waving grisly photos in their faces. But he's being accused of a number of things, from circular arguments to misogyny, which are totally unfounded, and I have to say, I'm pretty impressed by the extent to which he's sticking by his guns with basic good humor. In particular, if he says "I view that child in your belly as a full human being with a right to life, thus, I will not let you kill it", that does NOT mean that he values its life more than yours. His position follows perfectly if he values both your life and the life of the fetus equally, and would rather have it alive and you inconvenienced than it dead and you alive. Now, there are plenty of other problems I have with his position, but claiming that he has somehow demonstrated that he doesn't value the life of women, views them only as containers for men's seed, is something that is NOT supported by anything he has posted in this thread.

Anyhow, as to the situation at hand, the reason I disagree with Maud'Dib's position is that he is making everything black and white. In his view, something is either human or it isn't. There's a magic dividing line at which point things go from being meaningless collections of cells to Human Beings. And I don't think such a line can be drawn. Of course, the current laws also draw such a line, albeit at a different place. And the "human life begins at viability outside the mother" folks, of whom I'm basically one, ALSO draw such a line.

But no such line can be perfect... as has been discussed several times in this thread, there are plenty of examples that challenge any such line... brain dead people, badly deformed babies, Terri Schiavo, and Fred Phelps just to name a few.

So there's a good argument to be made that a 2-week-old-fetus is a human, and a good argument to be made that it isn't. (Let's not ignore the fact that both arguments are reasonable, by the way... Maud'Dib's belief that a 2-week-old fetus is human is hardly some random piece of idiotic BS that he just pulled out of his ass. I mean, it's not like he's saying "all bricks of swiss cheese that weight more than 3 pounds are human beings with full rights and responsibilties thereto". And in fact, the fact that so many people who are pro-choice also claim to be troubled by abortion, hope abortions are as rare as possible, etc., indicates to me that a lot of people, at some level, feel the attraction and solidity of that argument.) So, we're in a bit of a quandary. As God didn't leave us a notarized Is-It-A-Human-Being testing kit (well, at least, he didn't leave it to us non-Catholics), we, as a society, have to figure out where/how to draw the line in the overall best manner possible.

Thus, while it's obviously dangerous and troubling to be making life or death decisions based on how convenient we find the outcome to be, well, this is a dangerous and troubling topic, and I see no reason not to try to establish a policy which does as much good for people in general, both born and unborn, and families, and society as a whole, as possible.

Another thought: One of the troubling aspects of this whole topic is that thinking too much about whether fetuses are human can lead one to question whether babies are human, as has, in fact, happened several times in this thread. But is that such a horrible thing? There have been plenty of human societies in which a baby wasn't considered to be "real" in some sense until it was a year old, or learned to talk, or learned to walk, or had undergone a spiritual journey, or what have you. That seems pretty weird to us now, but there's nothing inherently inhuman or inhumane about it. And I'm sure that even if 10-month-old babies weren't considered truly human, it was generally not acceptable to randomly kill them for fun.

To look at it in a slightly grim fashion, I'm friends with a married couple who have twins who are almost a year old. If one of those twins had died during childbirth, it would have been difficult and horrible for the parents, but only a fraction of as bad as it would be if it happened now. Part of what makes us human is our interactions with other people and their knowledge of, and love of, us. And yes, there are all sorts of troubling implications of this line of thought...

Syntropy

04-07-2005, 06:48 PM

Good post, Max.
I suppose what has me most bent out of shape (to the point that I am actively trying to ignore him) is his attitude that sex is for making babies and making babies only, if you have sex, you should be prepared to have a baby. Such is factually not the case.
Also the attitude that, once a woman becomes pregnant, all other plans for her life cease to matter. School, career, travel, whatever; makes no difference.
It also seems there's a tendency by most pro-life people to disregard what happens after the pregnancy, as was alluded to earlier. There's a prevalant attitude of "you should have thought of that before you had sex." Considering that child is supposedly their concern, they have astonishingly little regard for said child as soon as it takes its first breath. Do they care if that child is born to someone completely ill equipped to care for it? No. That's her problem, "She should have thought of that before she had sex." Do they care if she's so overwrought emotionally that the child ends up neglected or abused? No. "She should have thought of that before she had sex." Do they care if that child is malnourished? Three guesses on the answer. And it's a pat answer, isn't it? Truly, how do you respond to something like that? How do you defend yourself against it, even though it's a huge pile of steaming horse shit?
It's the mother's problem, but it's the child that suffers. Not that they care. At least the child was born, and that's the main thing, after all. Suffering is good for the soul, right?

Bryan Ekers

04-07-2005, 06:58 PM

Secondly, while I disagree strongly with Maud'Dib's position, I have to say that I feel that he is being hilariously and unfairly piled on.

I've noticed that as well; that a few pro-choicers in this thread are seeming eager to let themselves get all frothed, as well an engage in spectacular feats of linguistic microsurgery and try to find ways to define a fetus as something other than a "person", "human", "alive", whatever.

Personally, I don't care if a fetus is human, alive, a person, sentient, Republican, socialist, ill-tempered, or mechanically inclined. While it's inside a woman's body, she can decide its fate becuase I value her rights more than its.

MaxTheVool

04-07-2005, 07:04 PM

Good post, Max.
I suppose what has me most bent out of shape (to the point that I am actively trying to ignore him) is his attitude that sex is for making babies and making babies only, if you have sex, you should be prepared to have a baby. Such is factually not the case.

I think I'm generally in agreement with you about this issue as a whole, but I think your use of the word "factually" is overreaching. It's hard to argue that the reason sex exists, and the reason it's so enjoyable, is to make babies. It's also hard to argue that there are all sorts of non-baby-related things that are associated with sex these days in our society. Like many things related to this issue, it's not black and white.

It also seems there's a tendency by most pro-life people to disregard what happens after the pregnancy, as was alluded to earlier.

I tend to agree. I do not, however, necessarily know if Maud'Dib shares that tendency. Nor does that tendency necessarily make his position wrong. Someone in the 1850's could have been an abolitionist who never gave a fig's thought to what happened to all the former slaves who, upon being freed, were still dirt poor, uneducated, and on the bottom rung of society. That may or may not make that person hypocritical (that's arguable), but it certainly doesn't make their abolitionist views incorrect.

As this discussion is just begging for yet another Wacky Hypothetical, suppose that a dear friend of yours was, through a freak accident, implanted into some innocent person's body, and will remain there for 9 months. So this innocent person suddenly is being parasitized by your friend. But your friend didn't ask for it. What should happen?

jsgoddess

04-07-2005, 07:18 PM

As this discussion is just begging for yet another Wacky Hypothetical, suppose that a dear friend of yours was, through a freak accident, implanted into some innocent person's body, and will remain there for 9 months. So this innocent person suddenly is being parasitized by your friend. But your friend didn't ask for it. What should happen?

The same thing that happens if my dear friend's kidneys fail. He lives or he dies based on the sacrifice of someone else.

MaxTheVool

04-07-2005, 07:32 PM

The same thing that happens if my dear friend's kidneys fail. He lives or he dies based on the sacrifice of someone else.

What if he was implanted into this person's body for one month? One week? One day? One hour?

What if the sole extent to which his presence there discomfited this person was a minor aching in the left pinky?

Again, I'm not trying to say I have all (or any) of the answers, just that almost every issue involved here is a murky one with lots of shades of grey.

jsgoddess

04-07-2005, 07:56 PM

If they figure out the connection to the aching pinky, yeah, they can stop it.

It's not up to me to decide for someone else what's too big a sacrifice. To Van Cliburn, that aching pinky might be a huge deal. To me, well I have aching pinkies all the time... :eek:

Blalron

04-07-2005, 07:57 PM

It's not that murky to me. Let's say I lay dying due to lack of blood and it turns out that I have an extremly rare blood type shared by only a handfull of people in the world.

As it happens, my neighbor has this rare type of blood, and he is the only one with the capability of saving my life.

Is my neighbor legally required to give up his blood to me? Morally, you can argue that he is. But should he be forced under penalty of law to give it up?

MaxTheVool

04-07-2005, 08:13 PM

Is my neighbor legally required to give up his blood to me? Morally, you can argue that he is. But should he be forced under penalty of law to give it up?

What if due to a drunken prank by a powerful demigod, we both wake up one morning to see that he IS already hooked up to a machine which is transfusing the blood into me. And what if he only has to remain hooked up to it for one more hour to allow me to live for a further year?

What if the drunken prank by the powerful demigod was a direct result of him getting into a drunken game of poker with that demigod?

jsgoddess

04-07-2005, 08:22 PM

It doesn't matter what I think of the sacrifice. What matters is what the person who has to make the sacrifice thinks.

Guinastasia

04-07-2005, 08:23 PM

I've noticed that as well; that a few pro-choicers in this thread are seeming eager to let themselves get all frothed, as well an engage in spectacular feats of linguistic microsurgery and try to find ways to define a fetus as something other than a "person", "human", "alive", whatever.

Personally, I don't care if a fetus is human, alive, a person, sentient, Republican, socialist, ill-tempered, or mechanically inclined. While it's inside a woman's body, she can decide its fate becuase I value her rights more than its.

A fetus is definitely "alive". It's definitely "human", (in that it is human, by species).

But a "person?" I would say potential person, but not an actual person.

The reason why I get so fired up is that it frightens me that people want so much control over MY body. Because I really do fear not being able to have control. If I were raped, for example, I would have to take the morning after pill, and if that didn't work, I'd have to have an abortion. I'm on meds that can't be stopped cold turkey, and would probably harm a fetus. Someday, if I PLAN to have a child, I can take steps with my doctor beforehand to switch to something else, and worry about it then. But an accidental pregnancy would be disaster. I can't just quit taking my meds-the withdrawal is horrible, plus the increased hormonal moodswings of pregnancy might land me in the loony bin. But if I kept taking them, I'd probably harm the fetus. So it wouldn't be right for me to continue a pregancy like that.

And then people like Muad'Dib come in, and just calmly talk about taking away my right to have control over my life. And making abortion illegal makes things a hell of a lot tougher for women. Again, I believe that abortion and birth control were illegal in communist Roumania to the point that MISCARRIAGES were investigated. And Muad'Dib, if he had his way, says he probably wouldn't have a problem with that.

Well, you know what? I do. That scares the hell out of me. The way we're seeing attempts by some segments of the religious right to ban sex ed, AND contraception. The way pharmacists are getting publicity when they refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. That my reproductive freedom is at risk.

This isn't some hypothetical-it really happens. There have been women who had to go through hell to get abortions, even when they're legal. Even for things like ectopic pregnancies (a long time ago, I read an article in some woman's magazine about someone who was refused one at the only hospital in the area her insurance covered-because they were Catholic. Even though it was a tubal pregnancy, and wasn't viable. She had to go a great distance to find a way to have an emergency abortion.)

So for some of us, this is a very personal, and very real possibility. And it pisses me off that many of the same people who say women should be forced to give birth are also screaming about social welfare-saying they should have control over their own money, not the government. So it's okay for the government to have control over my own BODY, and force me to support someone with it, but not for the government to collect taxes and support people?

It's just frightening.

Guinastasia

04-07-2005, 08:28 PM

What if he was implanted into this person's body for one month? One week? One day? One hour?

What if the sole extent to which his presence there discomfited this person was a minor aching in the left pinky?

Again, I'm not trying to say I have all (or any) of the answers, just that almost every issue involved here is a murky one with lots of shades of grey.

Sorry, I didn't see this until after I posted. The comparison is ridiculous. Pregnancy is a LOT harder on the body than a "minor aching." Let's see:

gestational diabetes
bone loss
dental disease
pre-eclampsia
hemorhaging
severe mood swings
post-partum depression
post-partum psychosis (which is what lead Andrea Yates to kill her kids)
varicose veins

And a whole list of other problems. Some of these can be FATAL. Women still die of childbirth in this day and age.

FaerieBeth

04-07-2005, 08:37 PM

What if due to a drunken prank by a powerful demigod, we both wake up one morning to see that he IS already hooked up to a machine which is transfusing the blood into me. And what if he only has to remain hooked up to it for one more hour to allow me to live for a further year?

What if the drunken prank by the powerful demigod was a direct result of him getting into a drunken game of poker with that demigod?

What if, due to the drunken prank of this demigod, I woke up with a man already in the process of having sex with me without my consent? The drunken demigod has assured this man that my magical vagina dew will enable him to live to a ripe old age and die peacefully in his sleep without ever knowing pain . If he doesn't have sex with me, he will die tomorrow. Should I just go ahead and let him finish since it was already started? Should I be forced by my government to have sex with him? I mean, it's not going to cause me anymore than some minor and fleeting discomfort...

::and the sound of the dueling banjoes of hyperbole starts in the background::

MaxTheVool

04-07-2005, 09:10 PM

Sorry, I didn't see this until after I posted. The comparison is ridiculous. Pregnancy is a LOT harder on the body than a "minor aching." Let's see:

gestational diabetes
bone loss
dental disease
pre-eclampsia
hemorhaging
severe mood swings
post-partum depression
post-partum psychosis (which is what lead Andrea Yates to kill her kids)
varicose veins

And a whole list of other problems. Some of these can be FATAL. Women still die of childbirth in this day and age.

Umm, I believe you've missed the point entirely. I'm not even REMOTELY trying to claim that actual pregnancy is in any way minor. Nor am I pro-life (or anti-choice). I'm just trying to explore an interesting question-space, and, by doing so, illustrate the extent to which I find the entire topic to be full of troubling gray areas...

There are three basic threads of pro-legal-abortion argument being put forth in this thread, as I see it:
(1) Making abortions illegal causes more problems than it solves (I agree with this)
(2) A fetus is not at all a human being, and thus irrelevant (I generally disagree with this... although I don't think a fetus is a human being, I also don't think it's "not at all" a human being or "irrelevant". Another gray area.)
(3) Given that a fetus (regardless of its humanity or not) is being kept alive via some level of sacrifice on the mother's part, the mother has an absolute right to cut off that sacrifice at any time for any reason

It's argument (3) that I'm trying to explore here. Thus we end up with wacky hypotheticals like the ones that FaerieBeth is (not without justification) making fun of.

But seriously... most of us would agree that if I have a rare blood type, I'm under no obligation to voluntarily donate it to save someone's life. But what if a sick baby's father, driven mad by grief, kidnaps me and begins a transfusion, and I regain consciousness in the middle of it. Can I, uhh, abort the transfusion? Can I yank the needle out of the baby without worrying about whether it's a needle designed for yanking? What if only 30 more seconds of blood will allow the baby to survive forever? What if I agreed to the transfusion, then change my mind partway through? What if I agreed to the transfusion while drunk but then changed my mind partway through?

(And please don't think that if you answer anything other than "you have an absolute right to total control over every part of your body at all times", I'm suddenly going to say "a-HA! Now you must admit that abortion is MURDER! Or else you're a HYPOCRITE! I GOT YOU!!!!" Which is not at all what I'm probing towards here...)

Another related topic is of conjoined twins... Does an adult conjoined twin have the right to request separation surgery if it is unlikely to harm him/her, but is far more hazardous for his/her sibling? What about parents of conjoined babies?

Muad'Dib

04-07-2005, 10:36 PM

Comparing the death of an actual child to the spontaneous end of a pregnancy is comparing apples and oranges. Kids don't usually drop dead for no reason, so investigating their deaths is reasonable. The percentages I keep reading (http://www.cone-biopsy.org/miscarriage-hpv/miscarriage-percentage.html) are that about 10% of pregnancies end in the first trimester. My mother had one. My sister had one. They're the only two in my immediate family who've ever been pregnant. If you count unimplanted fertilized eggs, it may be as high as 50%. MOST women will have a miscarriage at some point in their lives. And some 1% of women are chronic miscarriers. So how far do you take an investigation of a couple who, by your definition, keeps losing child after child through no fault of their own? And again, HOW do you determine whether the loss of a pregnancy is through miscarriage or abortion? The most definitive way to tell would be a pelvic exam. I'm seriously asking about practicalities here. How much government interest is too invasive?
[.quote]
I doubt that such investigations would be very common. Remember that it is sanctified in law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and an investigation is not begun unless there appears to be something fishy.

[quote] You've suggested you'd lock up a woman for the duration of her pregnancy to ensure she gives birth. How is imprisonment for a crime not commited not draconian? How is that comparable to punishing people for abusing their children? Do we lock up parents in case they might harm their kids? No, we lock them up AFTER we have evidence that they do so. (And sometimes not even then.)
I find this quite telling. Why does the potential life always trump the actual life, 100% of the time?

We imprison people who have not yet commited crimes all of the time. If it is believed that you will kill yourself you will be arrested and put in a hospital, unable to get out untill a doctor ok's you. You can also be locked up if it is believed that you will kill another person. If it is believed that you will harras or or harm another person a restraining order can be filed against you. Also, if it is believed that parents will harm their children the children are taken away.

Frankly though, the idea of losking up a woman to prevent her from aborting a pregnancy makes me feel ill. I don not at all like it and presumably and hopefully it would be a very rare occurance, I just do not see how, if you accept that human rights begin at conception, it is avoidable.

I do not believe it is a potential life. I believe it is an actual life. Also, as I have stated before, it does not trump the life of the mother. If I believed that I would not support abortion to save a mothers life.

But not fully. What happens after the unwanted pregnancy is complete? What, pray tell, happens to all the unwanted babies after they're out of the women's uteruses you don't care about? Where do they go? Where do YOU think they should go? Put them up for adoption? By whom?

Yes, adoption, or foster care. Perhaps we should bring back orphanages if needed.
I don not understand what you mean by "by whom".

It ain't black and white, no matter how much you want it to be. Even by allowing for people to have abortions for situations where the mother's life is in danger, you're introducing your own shades of grey. Medical risks are for every case different. Who decides how much of a risk the woman has to take, before an abortion is allowed? By these suggested laws, it'd be the government. I'd think a libertarian would be disturbed by that idea.

It is not a shade of grey. By threatening a mothers life the fetus becomes the agressor and therefore its life becomes forfit. You cannot live at the expense of anothers right to life. It all stems from the same respect for human rights and is not an exception to any rule.

Hust as now, a doctor would make the decision.

Force. You keep introducing that concept. I only see one side trying to force anything. Nobody is FORCING anyone to have an abortion; it is an elective procedure and in the current religious political climate, is unlikely to be made mandatory. Yet you would FORCE women you'll never meet to bear children they don't want, to satisfy your view of what a pregnancy is, even though there is a large number of people who do not agree with that view. It is akin to forcing an entire country to live by the tenets of a certain religion, though a large number do not practice that religion. Why do you argue that this a good thing?
J
ust as 150 years ago I would force the south to give up their slaves, despite there being many people who disagreed with it to satisfy my own view on the dignity of human life.

I ask you, what would not be a whim? When is it okay to force your ideas on another?

Again, I am not religious. This is not forcing people based on a whim or faith. That would something like saying that band X is the best band ever and trying to force others to agree. My views on abortion come from self reflection and debate, I look at the evidence and came to my conclusions, and by the nature of these conclusions they must be just as enforced as laws against theft or murder.

LavenderBlue

04-07-2005, 11:48 PM

You're a virgin, aren't you?

Considering that he's publically stated he doesn't care about anyone's uterus I sincerely hope so. That is not the position of someone who values women's lives.

I stumbled on this statistic today. I think it summarizes some of the points being made here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=571&e=6&u=/nm/20050407/hl_nm/un_health_dc_5
Some 68,000 maternal deaths, or just under 10 percent, are attributable to unsafe abortions, mostly in poor countries.

Making abortion illegal kills women.

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 02:03 AM

All of this is really beside the point--I do no share the same moral construct that the anti-choice people do. The difference is that I am not forcing my choices onto them...but they would on me.

Yes you are. You are forcing me to live in a country where abortion is legal. Just as the abolitionists were forced until the Civil War.

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 02:22 AM

Let's parse this, shall we?

If it will never become self-aware or gain consciousness, it has no right to life.

If I have an abortion, then the z/e/g will never become self-aware or gain consciousness.

Therefore, z/e/gs belonging to people who have abortions have no right to life. Conversely, those beloinging to people that don't abort or miscarry or otherwise have a mishap do have a right to life.

Whaddya know? Looks like Muad was pro-choice after all.

You are using two different meanings of "will never". The tumor will never gain consciousness because it is incapable by its nature of doing so. Where as a baby, by its nature, will.

Read the example I gave earlier:

A farmer just finishes planting his yearly crop. During the night hoodlums come and destroy all of the seedlings. Should they get in trouble? The seedlings have no value, you can't eat or sell them. You can only make a profit from mature plants. So has the farmer lost anything of value then? Since the crop was destroyed, does that mean that the seeds never had any value? Should the vandals be prosecuted, since, according to you, they did not destroy anything of value?

Bryan Ekers

04-08-2005, 02:26 AM

The seedlings have no value, you can't eat or sell them.

Can't you? You can buy seeds as snacks in most health-food stores.

But to address your analogy, if the farmer paid someone to destroy the seedlings, it's a-okay. If he didn't want the seedlings destroyed, a crime has been committed. I don't see why this should be difficult to grasp.

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 02:28 AM

I don't think you advocate infanticide. Never said you did. I would suggest, however, that you do your views little justice if you cannot back them up with something beyond "it's bleeding obvious." Fuck, man, that's the way Muad'Dib's operating, and you clearly don't care much for his angle, right?

Yes, all of this debate, discussion and intricate explanation, me trying to respond to every poster and their arguments, has only been me saying "Durrr, it's obvious!". :rolleyes:

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 03:08 AM

I am so damned sick of reading all the anti-abortion people refer to pregnancy as an "incovenience." For many woman, myself included, pregnancy is anything but. Pregnancy means nine months of nausea, bloating, constipation, elevated blood pressure, bone loss, itchy skin, leg pain, back pain, interrupted sleep and enormous weight gain. The end result of a pregnancy is typically hours and hours of enormous pain followed by permanent scarring and aching breasts.

My last pregnancy forced me into the hospital for three weeks. I couldn't keep any food down and was in the worst pain I've ever experienced.

Under any other circumstances we would never force anyone to voluntarily go through such an ordeal. Why are some people so insistant that once a fertilized egg exists that none of this matters?

Because I believe that egg to have a right to life.

Given how unbelievably hard pregnancy so often is on a woman's body we should be down on our hands and knees heartily applauding every single woman who voluntarily gives birth.

Those who don't want to should be given our sympathies and understanding instead of stupid homilies by people who can't the difference between potential and actual life.

Those that truly don't want to should use birth control or, if that is too risky for them, give up sex.

A woman who has an abortion needs a better method of birth control. She doesn't need some prick threatening her with a jail sentence, especially when said prick admits he doesn't particularly give a damn about her reproductive organs.

Muad'Dib,

You may not care about my uterus but rest assured I sure as hell do. I've seen some nervy statements by anti-abortionists but that particularly sentiment deserves a special little corner of contempt.

Fuck you for your open and callous disregard of my well-being and the continued health of all women around the world. I hope you never get married because you clearly don't care very much about any potential wife's body parts. I certainly hope you never father girls. You don't deserve to create a uterus if you don't care about what happens to it.

You misunderstood what I meant when I said "I don't care about your uterus". I did not mean "I don't care what happens to your uterus, the baby is most important". I meant that the baby was the point of the conversation. I have no interest in regulating your body like we do with cars. I am interested in saving the babys life.

Siege

04-08-2005, 05:47 AM

Ladies of the SDMB, I have a simple solution. Gentlemen (Muad Dib, this does not include you), you may not want to read the rest of this post. I intend to get a bit graphic.

Muad Dib, you have said that you believe that life should be protected from the moment of conception. You have also said that all miscarriages should be investigated to make sure they were not abortions and that forms of birth control which prevent implantation are abortifacients. A fertilized egg, a baby, which does not successfully implant in its mother's womb would therefore be considered a miscarriage, possibly a deliberate one. The following therefore follows logically from these two positions. Each month while she is menstruating, each woman shall be required to collect all of her menstrual discharge and send it to the appropriate government agency where it shall be inspected to see if it contains a fertilized egg. Any woman who is using birth control which interferes with her menstrual circumstances shall be required to collect all vaginal discharges and send them to the same agency. This should actually catch more "murderers" to use Muad Dib's phrase becase if a woman is not having monthly cycles, she does not have a hospitable environment for a fertilized egg to implant.

Actually, on a more serious note, Muad Dib, here's something for you to consider given your position that anything that prevents implantation causes an abortion. Breastfeeding itself disrupts the menstrual cycle and, according to this website from the American Academy of Family Physicians (http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000201/tips/31.html), can serve as effective method of birth control until a woman's monthly cycles return to normal. There are also several medical conditions, such as fibroids, cysts, etc. which make it difficult and potentially dangerous for a fertilized egg to implant.

You said this earlier:
Those that truly don't want to should use birth control or, if that is too risky for them, give up sex. As I said, I am using birth control and I'm comfortable with the small risk I'm taking. The thing is, if you look at that chart I supplied earlier, with the exception of male and female sterilization, the most effective methods of birth control all can in some circumstances prevent implantation, thus making them abortifcacients which you think should be illegal. Depo-Provera has the lowest failure rate at 0.3%, a rate which is even lower than female sterilization. I have now seen it listed as something which can prevent implantation, thus something which should be prohibited. The pill as used has the highest failure rate of 5%. If you switch to barrier methods which are intended to prevent sperm from getting to the egg to fertilize it, the lowest failure rate is for male condoms at 19%, nearly quadruple the rate for hormonal contraceptives. The lowest failure rates for barrier contraceptives used by women are 21% for the female condom, which can be dead hard to find in some places, or 20% for diaphrams and cervical caps which must be fitted by a doctor and the vaginal sponge which is no longer on the market. When you figure that the failure rate for "natural family planning", which I gather means the rhythm method, is 25%, the alternatives you're leaving us, while they may be better than nothing aren't so by much.

Female sterilization, by the way, involves blocking the Fallopian tubes and is not easily reversible. Since it has a failure rate of 0.5%, obviously eggs do become fertilized despite this on rare occasions, although I have no idea how rare that is compared to a fertilized egg implanting in the body of a woman who's using Depo-Provera. I suspect it's somewhat more common. It would stand to reason, however, that if an attempt has made to block the woman's Fallopian tubes, it would be more difficult for a fertilized egg to pass through the Fallopian tubes and implant thus making sterilization a method which prevents implantation, thus making it an abortifacient. Male sterilization, by the way, has the lowest failure rate at 0.15% but it, too isn't considered reversible and a lot of men aren't thrilled about the idea of doing it, even thought it's a far less invasive procedure for men than its equivalent for women.

Yes, I have thought these things through. Many years ago, when a wonderful man I loved dearly proposed to me, before we started having sex, I looked into the forms of birth control which were available, discussed them, and discussed what would happen even if, despite taking appropriate precautions, I became pregnant. It was the sensible, logical thing to do.

You say you've given your position careful thought and I'm sure you have. You're also taking your sister's experience into consideration and your nephew whom you obviously love dearly and whom you are happy to have as part of your life. I do consider that a good thing. By the way, that man I mentioned in the last paragraph also had a sister who became pregnant out of wedlock who chose to keep her baby and who ultimately gave birth to a little girl whom he, too, loves dearly, or did the last time I talked to him, many years ago. The thing is, when you say you're not sure of your position on rape or incest, when you say you're not aware that IUDs (it stands for Intra-Uterine Device, by the way) prevent implantation or when you say that you're against the pill because it prevents implantation, it shows to me that you haven't thought about the things which I as a woman who can get pregnant have thought about. I have a serious mental illness -- clinical depression. It has some genetic components and it appears to run in my family. I am morally obligated to take that into consideration when I think about bringing a child into the world. Rape is, thank God, unlikely. However, some very unlikely things have happened to me in my life. I don't use birth control when I'm not sexually active, which means that, if I am raped at such a time, I am at risk of becoming pregnant. The aftereffects of rape, coupled with my history of clinical depression are why I would insist on emergency contraception if that ever happened, not to making dead sure I got good, solid psychological as well as medical treatment. You, however, as your position stands, would take that option away from me.

No, I probably won't change your mind, but I at least wanted to try to explain to you why some us are reacting as we have been.

CJ

Left Hand of Dorkness

04-08-2005, 07:59 AM

You are using two different meanings of "will never". The tumor will never gain consciousness because it is incapable by its nature of doing so. Where as a baby, by its nature, will.

That's not two different meanings of "will never." In both cases (a tumor and an aborted fetus), the entity will never become sentient. The reasons for this lack of eventual sentience are irrelevant, since there will never be any rights to protect in the first place.

A farmer just finishes planting his yearly crop. During the night hoodlums come and destroy all of the seedlings. Should they get in trouble? The seedlings have no value, you can't eat or sell them. You can only make a profit from mature plants. So has the farmer lost anything of value then? Since the crop was destroyed, does that mean that the seeds never had any value? Should the vandals be prosecuted, since, according to you, they did not destroy anything of value?

Yes, the farmer lost something of value to him. The harm in this example wasn't to the seedlings, but to the farmer: his plans and his investments were destroyed. The farmer is an actual, real live human being with interests, hopes, fears, desires, an identity, etc. It is he, not the seedlings, that our laws against vandalism protect.

If the farmer doesn't care about the destruction of the seedlings, then no harm has been done.

The problem with your analogy is that the farmer is analogous to the woman looking for an abortion, and the seedlings are analogous to the fertilized egg. For your analogy to be relevant, the vandals would have to be violating the rights of the seedling.

Daniel

catsix

04-08-2005, 08:12 AM

Muad'Dib said:
Because I believe that egg to have a right to life.

Then you gestate it. You don't get to tell me that I have to.

What kind of asshole would volunteer someone else for a dangerous job that will have definite and guaranteed ill effects on their health? An anti-choice ass like you?

Those that truly don't want to should use birth control or, if that is too risky for them, give up sex.

I'm not giving up sex for the rest of my life because you think you have some business dictating what I do with my body.

I have no interest in regulating your body like we do with cars. I am interested in saving the babys life.

Then you can go ahead and 'save the baby's life' without my body. You don't get to tell me that I have to use my body to save a fetus. You want it saved so badly? Do it your fucking self.

Stonebow

04-08-2005, 08:48 AM

Muad'Dib, if you could, please give us your thoughts on forced organ donation, as has been brought up by myself and several other posters. If you responded to that point, I may have missed it.

Whatever the rights of a zygote/fetus, does a woman have an obligation to donate her body and its organs for the duration of the pregnancy, not to mention the delivery?

If so, do you support this system enough to include every other case where organ donation can save a life?

jsgoddess

04-08-2005, 09:43 AM

Another related topic is of conjoined twins... Does an adult conjoined twin have the right to request separation surgery if it is unlikely to harm him/her, but is far more hazardous for his/her sibling? What about parents of conjoined babies?

Incredibly difficult questions. Unlike the case of a pregnant woman or most other "organ borrowing" scenarios, conjoined twins basically have the same claim on the body. I don't have any answers. Not even close.

Syntropy

04-08-2005, 11:02 AM

A few things. First:

I believe abortion is taking responsibility.
Thank you. I didn't want that to get lost, and it's an assertion I agree with. When a woman chooses to have an abortion, she is taking responsibility for her actions. Does anyone here actually believe that having an abortion is no big deal, and the woman who has one just skips off and continues life as usual afterward? It's a painful procedure, and it's a horrible choice to have to make. Most women are very aware that they are terminating a life, and most of them grieve after doing so. Our bodies are built to bring life into the world; an abrupt ending of that, however necessary we view it to be, is still traumatic. Do any anti choice people believe they are telling her anything she hasn't already said to herself? Of course not. It's a decision she reached after taking careful consideration of both sides of the argument and weighing the consequences. That's what taking responsibility for your actions is. Making decisions then accepting the consequences based on those decisions.

Because I believe that egg to have a right to life.
That's fine. You're allowed to believe that. You're also allowed to believe Elvis is alive and bringing peanut butter and banana sandwiches for the rapture. What you're not allowed to do is force another citizen of this country to live according to your belief structure. I don't disagree with you that abortion is a bad thing. Just that it's not up to me or you as to whether or not a woman has one.

You are forcing me to live in a country where abortion is legal. Just as the abolitionists were forced until the Civil War.
No, we're not. Canada's north, Mexico's south, countries over the oceans both east and west. You are free to go live elsewhere if you don't like the rules here. As the pubbies are so fond of saying. And, your slavery comparison has been debunked several times. Clinging to it for dear life makes you appear willfully ignorant.

Siege

04-08-2005, 11:12 AM

Actually, I think abortion is legal in Canada, but illegal in Mexico. It's also illegal in Ireland and I'm pretty sure up until recently most forms of birth control were also illegal, as was divorce.

I'll also third the idea that abortion is sometimes the most responsible choice once a woman has become pregnant. Using an effective method of birth control. It occurred to me after I posted this morning that making hormonal birth control illegal because it has the potential to increase abortions is likely to make deliberate abortions more common by relegating women to less effective birth control. I use the word "deliberate" to distinguish between an abortion which occurs when a woman goes to a doctor and asks to have her pregnancy ended and those which occur when a fertilized egg doesn't implant because a woman is using hormonal birth control. It looks like a case of the good old law of unintended consequences to me.

CJ

eleanorigby

04-08-2005, 11:50 AM

Thank you. I didn't want that to get lost, and it's an assertion I agree with. When a woman chooses to have an abortion, she is taking responsibility for her actions. Does anyone here actually believe that having an abortion is no big deal, and the woman who has one just skips off and continues life as usual afterward? It's a painful procedure, and it's a horrible choice to have to make. Most women are very aware that they are terminating a life, and most of them grieve after doing so. Our bodies are built to bring life into the world; an abrupt ending of that, however necessary we view it to be, is still traumatic. Do any anti choice people believe they are telling her anything she hasn't already said to herself? Of course not. It's a decision she reached after taking careful consideration of both sides of the argument and weighing the consequences. That's what taking responsibility for your actions is. Making decisions then accepting the consequences based on those decisions.

thank you, Maureen .

I had my abortion in 2000-and sometimes I am visited by a ghost child in my head. He or she would be 5 now, in kindergarten and thriving, I imagine (my other 3 are, so I figure the odds would have been with this one). But would I even be here to see that child thrive?

But that child is not here and s/he is not here because of a decision I made--with my husband's input. I make no excuses for what I did. I looked at my sisters, both of whom are dead now(one at 42, the other at 46) from diabetes. I looked at my hx of gestastional diabetes--my last pregnancy was in the "high risk" category d/t GDM. I looked at the needs of my family and my own needs. And I said, "that risk is too high for me." After my abortion, I tipped into a devastating depression that I am just now getting "over". Yes, it is exquisitely painful when my youngest asks me for a lil brother or sister. I do not speak for all women here who ahve had abortions-some do make a clear eyed decision and move on.
Muad
Yes-I realize that having had an abortion makes me a "murderer" in your eyes.

Do you think that with the grief and mental health issues, along with other health issues (I have auto-immune problems) that I care for your opinion one iota?
Demonize the women who face this choice all you want--be glad that you never have to make it.

You will live your lfe and you will know women who have had abortions--I bet you know some right now, they just haven't made it public. You can keep your opinion and your deeply held convictions. That is your right and I concur with the upholding of that right.

But you do not have the right to enforce your opinion on me or any other female.

You know, we actually share the same "premise" here (not sure of the correct word to use)--we both want to control aspects of life--we differ in the focus of that control. There is no middle ground here-ironic that we should both have the same impetus and yet be unable to reach mutual grounds.

I think this is what the courts wrestle with--and there is no one answer that fits for all scenarios--that is my biggest difficulty with your POV.

And whoever made the claim that the pro-choice folks are "frothing" here is civillyinvited by me to go fuck themselves.

Arwin

04-08-2005, 12:10 PM

A farmer just finishes planting his yearly crop. During the night hoodlums come and destroy all of the seedlings. Should they get in trouble? The seedlings have no value, you can't eat or sell them. You can only make a profit from mature plants. So has the farmer lost anything of value then? Since the crop was destroyed, does that mean that the seeds never had any value? Should the vandals be prosecuted, since, according to you, they did not destroy anything of value?

That strawman of yours was already ... ehm ... turned into cheap tobacco right here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6030157&postcount=392

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 04:18 PM

Yes.
Right. Shall I e-mail you my home address then so you can imprison me for the next 9 months? You see, I have had sex within the last week, and for all you know the birth control method I use may prevent implantation under some circumstance. Even I'm not sure whether it does or not, although from what I know of how it works, it follows logically that it might. [/quote]

Only if you were determined to get an abortion.

That is what you are demanding of us, whether you like it or not. Tell me, while you're imprisoning me, will you arrange for someone to pay my mortgage, car payments, and other bills, or am I on my own for that? If my employer fires me because I've been imprisoned for committing murder, my health insurance will lapse. Are you prepared to pay the medical bills involved in me giving birth if I do so or shall I just shove the poor kid into the world and let him take his chances? For that matter, I trust you will make arrangements for adoption for this putative child. Perhaps you'd care to raise him.

The situation would and problems would be no different than those for a suicidal being held against his will in a hospital.

Tell you what. If you get to call me a "murderer" because I have used the pill which may, in some circumstances, prevent implantation, how about I get to call you a "slave master" because, if I am truly a murderer, you'd have me imprisoned against my will?
1. I have not called you a murderer and I do not think that you are one. A murderer realizes what he is doing, you do not.

2. No more a slave-driver than a judge that sentances anyone else to prison or into a hospital or to do community service.

Oh yes. I suggest you never have sex with a woman who's on the pill or has an IUD or winds up using emergency contraception. That, sir, would make you an accessory to murder.

With no respect whatsoever,
CJ

If I was aware of it, quite possibly.

Syntropy

04-08-2005, 04:24 PM

If I was aware of it, quite possibly.

As my father the cop is quite fond of saying: "Ignorance (of the law) is no excuse."

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 04:50 PM

Hmm.

Hypothetical: Muad'Dib's desired laws come to pass. If it can be shown that you knowingly and willfully caused an abortion, you are guilty of murder/manslaughter/etc.
Correct.

What happens when a woman discovers she is pregnant, and ceases eating until she spontaneously aborts? Do we hook her up to a feeding tube? Restrain her, so she doesn't injure the fetus?
Yes, just as we would lock up a potential suicide. I see this as no different from a mother refusing to feed her baby.

What is the legal status of a cell teased from a developing zygote? The same cell, after it is put back into the zygote? In one location, it has the 'potential' to develop into a person distinct from the zygote. In the other, it doesn't.

I don't know. That is an interesting question.

How will life insurance policies on zygotes work?

I don't know. That is something that will have to be worked out by the insurance companies.

Does the survivior of a vanishing twin pair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_twin) face murder charges?
[/quote]
Of course not. Would you convict a three-year old of murder? This is not even murder, it is an accidental death.

And finally, have I made the point that applying standards of personhood to something that is not a person by no stretch of science, sematics, or philosophy is a really, really silly idea?

There are many scientists and philosophers who would disagree with that.

Syntropy

04-08-2005, 05:03 PM

Correct.
Alright. What would be the potential charge for the father of said aborted fetus who was aware and approved or assisted financially or otherwise with said abortion?

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 05:06 PM

If you're seriously insisting I remain celibate for the rest of my natural life, I have one suggestion for you. You go first! I asked if I could call you a slave-owner earlier. I take that back. It's an insult to slave holders. You are a hypocrite. I await your arrival at my place with handcuffs, but I assure you I will have company and you will not enjoy them.

I am not insisting that you remain celibate for the rest of your life. I am saying that you must take responsibility for the risks you take. Now if you absolutely, positively never ever wanted to have a child then I would recommend never having sex again. Or, at least, vaginal sex.

You have just fucking well demonstated you have no regard for my human life and welfare. In my book that makes you worse than a murderer or a hypocrite; it makes you a sociopath.

I do very much care for your health and welfare. If I did not I would not support abortion in the event of a threatened mothers life.

How have I been hypocritical?

A family friend of ours wanted children as badly as it's possible for a person to want anything, yet pregnancy after pregnancy ended in miscarriage. In order to carry her twin daughters to term, she had to spend 3 months confined to bed. With each miscarriage, she felt awful, that she'd failed as a woman. Yet you, in your arrogance, rather than leaving her alone to grieve the children she wanted more than anything else in the world would have her poked and prodded after each miscarriage only lest she have done the thing she was least likely to do, adding to her grief and pain. You arrogant sociopath!

I would have done no such thing. Only if there were reason for suspicion that she were having abortions every time would something like that become a possibility.

Oh yes, if a woman who has been sterilized by having her tubes tied, so to speak, becomes pregnant despite that procedure, I believe she's at greater risk of an ectopic procedure. It has happened that women who've had hysterectomies have nevertheless have fertilized eggs try to implant. Are either of these types of women murderers? A neighbor of mine had two successive ectopic pregnancies, despite wanting more kids. Is she a murderer? She's a wonderful mother, I'll tell you that.

Of course they are not. They're lives were in danger.

It seems particularly appropriate to leave you with this curse: since you believe every act of sexual intercourse (including oral?) has the potential to result in intercourse and many of the most effective forms of birth control can, in some circumstances, prevent implantation, may you never, ever have an orgasm again as long as you live. Yes, that does include by masturbation.

CJ

It would be a little difficult to get pregnant from oral.

catsix

04-08-2005, 05:49 PM

Muad'Dib said:
I do very much care for your health and welfare. If I did not I would not support abortion in the event of a threatened mothers life.

Abortion is a hell of a lot less harmful to the physical health of a woman that continuing a pregnancy is.

You wanna save fetuses? Fine, save them. You'll just have to do without the help of unwilling women, because you don't get to tell us that we have to dedicate our bodies to your cause.

Guinastasia

04-08-2005, 05:58 PM

1. I have not called you a murderer and I do not think that you are one. A murderer realizes what he is doing, you do not.

I don't know what pisses me off the most-the way you calmly advocate what equates to reproductive prison for women, or the way you condescendingly tell us that "oh, you don't realize it, you just don't understand." Way to be respectful of women.

Oh, and don't tell us in one breath that you DO care about women, and do respect their health, but don't care about their uteruses (uteri?), just the fetus. Because my uterus IS a part of me-if it's in danger, so am I, snookums.

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 06:12 PM

Incorrect. As it stands, "A fertilized ovum is a human individual with the rights and responsibilities thereof" is a premise. If you have justification for it (beyond 'just because') feel free to post it.

I have. Several times.

Congratulations. You have completely failed to address the identical-twin issue.
Also, the z/e/g of a woman who has an abortion will never wake up. Therefore, it is not really human under your standard.

But it would have woken up. Just as a person under anesthesia will wake up. Therefore it is murder.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but don't we declare people without brains legally dead?

So you would have no problem with euthanizing everyone in a coma?

Not if there is a chance that they will wake up. An embryo will develop brains and become aware.

Posited: the differences between a black man and a white one are just a teensy bit bigger than that between a newly fertilized ovum and an adult. Please tell me you agree to this.

Irrelevant. The point is that they are both human, and just as during slavery, human-rights are being denied to one.

Apples and oranges. The hoodlums would still be up on vandalism charges if the farmer had sown his seeds in a salt plain.

Apples and oranges. If he had sown them on a salt plain then they would never have sprouted into seedlings. In my case the hoodlums would have been punished far more severely because they had destroyed the farmers crop for the year, those destroying his profits for the year. Sowing on a salt plain, those profits would never have come.

And we are saying that clumps of cells (the really small ones, anyway) are not human by any reasonable standard.

And that is where we disagree, and that is what all of my arguments are based upon.

Muad'Dib, sex results in the destruction of fertilized eggs. If a couple have sex and the lady becomes pregnant, there is a very good chance that the zygote will spontaneously abort. Moreover, as has been previously mentioned, there is no form of birth control that stop this from happening. Also as has been previously mentioned, if you have ever had sex, you could well be an accessory to murder.

Also on this note: wouldn't a good way to prevent these tragic deaths be to simply cordon off all men and only allow sex under controlled circumstances?
Sex does not cause the destruction of fertilized eggs. Disease, errors in transcription or just plain bad luck causes the death of those fertilized eggs. Just as driving a car does not accidents, drunk driving, not paying attention and blown tires cause them.

Wouldn't it be a good way to prevent more deaths by outlawing cars, electricity and natural gas? How many people die each year from them? Don't be silly.

None of that lessens the humanity of the fertilized egg. And if a woman is suicidal she would be put in a mental hospital as with any other suicide.

[quote]
A fertilized ovum needs a prepared uterus, certain nutrients, a lack of certain chemical compunds, and a whole bunch of other things to 'wake up'. An unfertilized ovum needs all that, plus a sperm cell.

If you're allowed to posit based on percent chances that something will become a person with assloads of help from the enviornment....*checks watch*....then if you're male, you just comitted murder.

So, all creatures need "assloads" of help to survive. We need an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. That atmosphere must be thick enough to block solar radiation. I need an entire ecosystem to support me with food and conditioning the atmosphere. I need lots of clean water, etc.

I do not understand your last sentence.

OK. I hope you like salad. (http://www.accessv.com/~shawgrp/psychanimals.htm)

You need more intelligence then that, but if it makes you happy, monkey is now off the menu.

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 06:13 PM

Embryos do not have human rights. Left to their own accord they will never wake up.

Left to their own accord a person in a coma will never wake up. Are they less human?

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 06:16 PM

Hell, I have a lot of respect for him. His conclusions are entirely consistent with his premises.

I disagree thoroughly with his premises, and with his conclusions. But I understand how he arrived at his premises, and what those premises are, and I understand how he reaches his conclusions from there.

Aww, I think you are swell also. :)

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 06:18 PM

Except under the system you propose, my "life" would be a life in reproductive prison.

You are not in any more of a prison then those in a "parental prison" for 18 years.

andros

04-08-2005, 06:24 PM

Yes, all of this debate, discussion and intricate explanation, me trying to respond to every poster and their arguments, has only been me saying "Durrr, it's obvious!". :rolleyes:

Not precisely what I meant. However, your fundamental premise is axiomatic. It is true because you accept it to be true. To you it is indeed "bleedin' obvious."

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 06:25 PM

Just as surely as Muad Dib believes that having an abortion is murdering a baby, so I believe that making abortion illegal will cause women who cannot legally have abortions to die. It's a horrible choice: kill babies or kill women.

The difference is that abortion directly results in the death of unborn children. Making abortion illeagel only indirectly results in the death of women. It is, again, like the car example. Driving a car is not a direct cause of accidents and death. Such tragedies happen only indirectl. Unlike, say, drinking poison, which directly causes death.

Two and a half years ago, I was unemployed and suicidal. I did not have the financial or emotional resources to successfully carry a child to term. I barely had the financial and emotional resources to sustain myself, and that was only with the help of a very good therapist and some extremely good friends. A pregnancy would probably have pushed me over the edge into suicide if abortion was not available. I took all appropriate precautions, including not having sex. Unfortunately, last I heard, rapists don't stop to ask if you're on birth control. I wasn't raped and I didn't get pregnant. Yes, I know. The traditional retort is that most abortions don't happen as a result of rape, and yes, I am personalizing this. Here's the thing. If you try to tell me "That's different" or "But that's the exception", in my book you're no better than Dan Quayle who was ardently pro-life yet, when he was asked what would happen if one of his daughters became pregnant by a rapist, said that he would want her to have the option of having an abortion. That's all I'm asking for. Not for you to condone abortion as a good or desirable thing, but to have it safe and available when the alternative is carrying a child to term which one is financially, physically, or psychologically incapable of doing so, when abortion is, if not the best or ideal choice, the least bad one of those available.

CJ

So long as I believe that a fetus has human rights, their can be no comprimise or exception on the issue.

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 06:38 PM

Just to be clear then, you are also opposed to in-vitro fertilization, the pill, IUD's and vigorous exertion, by the woman, within 48-72 hours after sex? All of these behaviors may knowingly result in a fertizlied egg not becoming a human.
In-vitro would have to be performed more carefully, one egg at a time instead of a batch of eggs. The IUD's, possibly. The pill, if taken correctly, prevents ovulation and fertilization. Vigerous exertion should be avoided, but would be an accidental death if it occured.

There are others who oppose your viewpoint that I think go overboard, but you are advocating more than saving babies. You are advocating the reduction of civil liberties and the inclusion of government in private reproductive rights. You see, when you call for this, it means alot more than just professing a belief, you are forcing others to believe the same thing. You claim you are a libertarian, but that is very hard to believe given the draconic methods you have asserted should be used to advance your personal belief.

It is no more of a reduction in civil liberties then those faced by parents of a born child.

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 06:41 PM

Seems to me that seeking out a safe medical procedure to resolve a problem is showing responsibility. Being irresponsible would be living in denial about the problem and making it worse as a result.

Say I owe Joe a lot of money. The due date has come and gone, but I still can't afford to pay Joe back. Joe is quite adament that I pay him now and is threatening to take me to court. So I shoot Joe in the head. Now, in a way, this is taking responsibility for the problem, Joe wanted money I could not pay him, so I shoot kill him, thus canceling the debt. But was it right to do?

Bryan Ekers

04-08-2005, 06:59 PM

I don't know what pisses me off the most-the way you calmly advocate what equates to reproductive prison for women, or the way you condescendingly tell us that "oh, you don't realize it, you just don't understand." Way to be respectful of women.

You're letting him push your buttons, you fertile nincompoop.

I notice how he's stopped responding to me, though. I guess I'm not emotional enough for him.

catsix

04-08-2005, 08:05 PM

Muad'Dib said:
So long as I believe that a fetus has human rights, their can be no comprimise or exception on the issue.

So long as the uterus is a part of my body, there will be no compromise in which you or anyone else is allowed any kind of say. My body, my choice. I will not ever allow you to control it. I will not ever tolerate you making my medical decisions. I will not ever allow you to insinuate yourself into my life that way. You, and your idiotic ideology of women, are not worth consideration.

FaerieBeth

04-08-2005, 08:26 PM

What happens when a woman discovers she is pregnant, and ceases eating until she spontaneously aborts? Do we hook her up to a feeding tube? Restrain her, so she doesn't injure the fetus?

And Muad'Dib sayeth...
Yes, just as we would lock up a potential suicide. I see this as no different from a mother refusing to feed her baby.

Just as an aside, have you ever given thought to changing your user name, Muad'Dib? I think Bene Tleilax would work nicely.

Axolotl tanks, anyone?

Guinastasia

04-08-2005, 08:32 PM

So long as the uterus is a part of my body, there will be no compromise in which you or anyone else is allowed any kind of say. My body, my choice. I will not ever allow you to control it. I will not ever tolerate you making my medical decisions. I will not ever allow you to insinuate yourself into my life that way. You, and your idiotic ideology of women, are not worth consideration.

See, now remember people like Muad'Dib the next time we have a feminism thread. People like him are the reason feminism exists.

Muad'Dib

04-08-2005, 09:24 PM

You're letting him push your buttons, you fertile nincompoop.

I notice how he's stopped responding to me, though. I guess I'm not emotional enough for him.

Eh? I am going through, page by page, trying to respond to everyone. I am sorry if I missed a post of yours.

Bryan Ekers

04-08-2005, 10:09 PM

Eh? I am going through, page by page, trying to respond to everyone. I am sorry if I missed a post of yours.

That's okay. I doubt you have any good answers for my questions, anyway.

Lord Ashtar

04-09-2005, 12:55 AM

So long as I believe that a fetus has human rights, their can be no comprimise or exception on the issue.
So long as the uterus is a part of my body, there will be no compromise in which you or anyone else is allowed any kind of say.
And there you go.

Muad'Dib

04-09-2005, 01:21 AM

You're letting him push your buttons, you fertile nincompoop.

I notice how he's stopped responding to me, though. I guess I'm not emotional enough for him.

Not emotional enough?! I have done everything I can to try to keep this thread civil. I am not trying to push anyone’s buttons and the last thing I want is some raving emotional poster. When someone gets emotional, especially with a subject like this, there is no point in continuing conversation with him or her. They no longer consider what you say. They just make up their minds about you, and then view all of your arguments through a lens of hate, disregarding any points you might make and twisting everything else to fit their pre-conceived notions about you. Any emotional poster is a waste of time and energy that I would rather spend on more sober debaters.

inkleberry

04-09-2005, 02:31 AM

In-vitro would have to be performed more carefully, one egg at a time instead of a batch of eggs. The IUD's, possibly. The pill, if taken correctly, prevents ovulation and fertilization. Vigerous exertion should be avoided, but would be an accidental death if it occured.
.

So, lemme get this straight.... Post sex I should avoid vigorous exertion on the off-chance I may have fertilized an egg?

What about my child-rearing and cooking duties? :rolleyes:

You are so rigid and extreme as to be a parody of pro-lifers.

I'll bet you are a real hit with the ladies, too.

$50 says you've never had sex in your life. Thankfully.

inkleberry

04-09-2005, 02:35 AM

Because I believe that egg to have a right to life.

Eggs in general, or just human?

And why "eggs"? What about Mr. Sperm? Is he not sacred as well as delicious?

Those that truly don't want to should use birth control or, if that is too risky for them, give up sex..

What about my son- 2 forms of birth control, but hey, surprise! BC isn't as safe or as effective as one might hope. Sterilization is restricted to people over a certain age in many cases. If this *really* bothers you, please lobby the holy hell out of your congress humans to fund more research into safe, effective, and reliable BC.

even sven

04-09-2005, 02:37 AM

Muad'Dib, I really hope you show this thread to any women you are planning to have sex with.

Muad'Dib

04-09-2005, 03:23 AM

We define death as the point that brain activity cannot be detected. Why do we not also define the point at which it can as life.

We don't define life that way, we define humanity that way (which is what I think you meant to say). I don't define human rights as beginning at brain function. I define it at conception, when that first unique cell is created and that individual life begins.

My point is that the cell will gain consciousness and therefore has the same status as a person asleep, under deep anesthesia, or in a coma.

Muad'Dib

04-09-2005, 03:24 AM

Or she could have done exactly what she did, namely minimize the needless hassle caused by a simple mistake.

By killing a child.

Muad'Dib

04-09-2005, 05:00 AM

The level of your personal thought and debate is far below that of Al Quaeda's leader, who's arguments to harbor hostile sentiments to American influence I find a lot more compelling than your arbitrary decision to draw a line at a fertilised egg and treat two cells as a human with human rights from there.
There is nothing arbitrary about it. In fact, to say that life begins at conception (whether right or wrong) is one of the only non-arbitrary points there is.
That is the point where a new life, a new creature, is created. It is a fact. Now whether you think that that life has human-rights is a separate issue, but it is undeniable that conception is the beginning, it is the point of creation.

Not really. An egg is fertilised en route from the ovary to the uterus, but the fertilised egg does not necessarily stop there. There are so many of such phases, that the point at which potential becomes actual is as valid taken from one second to the next as from one year to the next. I believe that self-awareness doesn't arrive until somewhere around the 3rd-4th year. For you it doesn't matter when, because since you take a black and white stance with no regard for the subtleties of life and with no real basis in reality.

My opinions are completely based on reality. As I have explained above and before, at no point does whim or faith enter into it. It is a scientific fact that conception is the point where human life begins. Forget for a moment about whether or not human-rights begin then, there is no way that you can rationally argue that conception is not the beginning of a new organism. Before that point there was only egg and sperm with different genetic codes from different creatures and the potential for a new creature to be formed. After conception potentiality has been rendered and a new life is the result.

Your concept of potential and actual simply doesn't do justice to the meaning of life. On the one hand you consider the actual a human life, because it has the capability of consciousness, but at the same time it needs this consciousness to be able to be human - so as long as this doesn't happen, maybe until the 2nd or 3rd year, there's not really a human being, but a potential human being in the making.
I agree that consciousness does not really begin until long after the birth, it is something that needs development and experience to occur.. But does this mean that you would claim that the killing of a 1-year-old is fine?!? By your own definition they are not yet human. So is it okay for a mother to kill her 1-year-old?

But this potential you still wish to grant the same human rights as all other humans, whether they have developed a consciousness or not - as long as they have the possibility of achieving a consciousness. And yet at the same time you do say that the mother's life is more valuable than the actual of the child, so human rights here do not equally apply. And all this from the premise that two cells merged change their status from potential to actual all of a sudden, though it's only one in many uncertain but equally important steps that eventually may or may not lead to a human being that then may or may not develop a consciousness.
1. I do not see it as a potential.
2. There are different shades of meaning to the word potential. Unless something goes wrong, a fertilized egg will attain consciousness. That is its nature. You use possibility in the sense that it would have to statistically go against its nature to achieve consciousness.
3.The mothers life is not more valuable. It is of equal value, as are all human lives when making such decisions.
4. When the egg and sperm meet a new creature is created. I have described and explained it multiple times and I don't really know what I can say to make it clearer to you. This is not a controversial point. You will not find a reputable geneticist, biologist, doctor, etc. who will not say that that is the point that a new creature, a new life, is created. Whether or not it has human-rights is a separate debate. But it is a fact that that is when a life begins.

Some people's admiration for your consistency is highly overrated.

To be logically consistent in how one views the world is a moral commandment. To be otherwise is to be either evil or insane.

Well, as above, your position is weird. If you could treat your 'actuals' as slaves, they wouldn't know it, wouldn't remember it, wouldn't complain, wouldn't be hurt, and so on, because they don't have those capabilities. Say that we'd extract a few stem-cells from a zygote or whatever without damaging it (it can afford to miss a few cells) that we sell to hospitals who in turn use it to save the lives of a few other people. It would never know unless we told him or her, and it wouldn't be affected.

Say we were to treat a man in a coma as a slave, he wouldn't know it, wouldn't remember it, wouldn't complain, wouldn't be hurt, and so on, because he does not have those capabilities. So it would be ok to treat him as such, or to maybe kill him?

The material damage discussed in court were the hoodlums brought to justice would certainly be influenced by how much it would cost to repair the damages. If it is not to late in the season to replace the seedlings, then the costs would be the seedlings and the labor needed to replant them. However, when they destroy the harvest, the costs would be the purchase of the seedlings, all the labor needed to plant, maintain, water and so on ... material damage is going to be considerable larger, we're talking tenfolds at the very, very least.

But that's not even the point. You already indicated that you know what strawman means. The situation we're discussing here is whether or not the farmer can decide that it's a bad idea to invest the rest of the year in this field of seedlings. Say that he heard that the going rate for wholegrain was expected to be at an all time low next year so that all the investments he'd have to make would not nearly be compensated by the value of the crop come harvesting day, does he have the right to plow his land and grow something that was expected to be in demand. Or say that a terrible drought is predicted, or a plague of certain insects, or ... etc.
Of course he has that right. And in exercising of that right what would have been a mature harvest of grain is destroyed.

Instead, you're coming with an example that translates back as a pregnant woman being gangraped and miscarrying as a result. Now here's a woman who has decided she is willing to invest in this potential and already has invested some in it emotionally and financially, and she is robbed of her potential by force. The value of this potential is primarily psychological, with relatively little material value, and that psychological value is determined by whether or not the mother wants or does not want to invest. If not, then the potential is little more than a very disturbing and potentially dangerous parasite.

1. I am sorry, but this paragraph does not make much sense to me. Gang raped?!
2. I do not view it as a potential, so do not argue from that standpoint to me.
3 Except that that "parasite", is a human being that the woman does not have the right to destroy willy-nilly.

Your definition of human is whatever has the ability to develop a consciousness. That definition by itself is flawed, but even in that context, the point you take at which you decide to go from potential to actual is still completely arbitrary.

As I have explained above and before, conception is not at all an arbitrary point. It is the point where that life begins.

It usually does. And so your arbitrary and thoughtless position on actuals and potentials messes up yet another technological advancement that brings more healthy children into the world than it kills.

Not if it is destroying fertilized eggs it is not.

Then it is an insult.
According to you.

Bryan Ekers

04-09-2005, 05:12 AM

I am not trying to push anyone’s buttons

By killing a child.

You're comical.

eleanorigby

04-09-2005, 06:05 AM

Muad said, "To be logically consistent in how one views the world is a moral commandment. To be otherwise is to be either evil or insane."

Hmmmm.

Meet the Thinkings: Mrs. Black and Mr. White.......

I am curious about Muad -are you married? Have kids? Dating? Sexually active?

I pity your sister with all my heart--it must have been easier to have the baby rather than listen to this righteous drivel day in and day out. I am glad your nephew is well and thriving. That's great. How is your sister doing? What of her earning potential/school/future prospects? Is the father (remember him-the psrem "donor"?) in any way contributing to the care of this laughing boy? Are you? Or do you just harangue people with your "truth" and preach (oh, I get that your not religious-not only religious people preach) rigidity of thought?

psst--rigidity of thought is a sign of mental illness. See above quote about "moral commandment".

Arwin

04-09-2005, 06:20 AM

There is nothing arbitrary about it. In fact, to say that life begins at conception (whether right or wrong) is one of the only non-arbitrary points there is.

I said it is an arbitrary point for deciding a human life with human rights begins. A more logical point would have been to do so at the point at which the baby leaves the mother, as it then becomes an individual capable of sustaining its own life or at least it's no longer dependent on the mother exclusively for survival.

Now whether you think that that life has human-rights is a separate issue

In our discussion, it is quite obviously not a separate issue, but THE issue.

I agree that consciousness does not really begin until long after the birth, it is something that needs development and experience to occur.. But does this mean that you would claim that the killing of a 1-year-old is fine?!? By your own definition they are not yet human. So is it okay for a mother to kill her 1-year-old?

I think I could find more compelling arguments for this than you would be comfortable with. But certainly a 1 year old is an independent being that can be taken care of without the mother, and the benefit for the mother of killing the child instead of giving it up is a completely different issue than at the beginning of conception.

1. I do not see it as a potential.
2. There are different shades of meaning to the word potential. Unless something goes wrong, a fertilized egg will attain consciousness. That is its nature. You use possibility in the sense that it would have to statistically go against its nature to achieve consciousness.

A fertile egg has the potential to become fertilised. A fertile sperm has the potential to fertilise an egg. A fertilised egg has the potential to nest itself in the uterus. Etc. It's a whole circle of life thing anyway. Now I agree with you that biologically, it makes sense to point at this part of the circle as the start of that circle. At the same time every step such as the point where two humans learn how to sustain themselves, become biologically fertile, fall in love and have sex, etc. are all equally important to the progression of that circle. That's what I wanted to point out for your 'potential/actual' denomination - as soon as you are not strictly talking about a biological standpoint but from a moral one, your point where you determine the start of a human life that should have human rights becomes arbitrary.

3.The mothers life is not more valuable. It is of equal value, as are all human lives when making such decisions.

The mother's life is most definitely more valuable. The only circumstance where it wouldn't be would be when this pregnancy was the last chance for humanity to perpetuate itself. That's the big point here. If you take your cues from biology, then you've very arbitrarily taken one point from biology but not another.

4. When the egg and sperm meet a new creature is created. I have described and explained it multiple times and I don't really know what I can say to make it clearer to you. This is not a controversial point. You will not find a reputable geneticist, biologist, doctor, etc. who will not say that that is the point that a new creature, a new life, is created. Whether or not it has human-rights is a separate debate. But it is a fact that that is when a life begins.

It is the point where a new blueprint is formed from mixing two old ones, yes.

To be logically consistent in how one views the world is a moral commandment. To be otherwise is to be either evil or insane.

Well if that is so, then what I've been saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if there are a fair few out here who would, well, not consider you a moral person at all.

Say we were to treat a man in a coma as a slave, he wouldn't know it, wouldn't remember it, wouldn't complain, wouldn't be hurt, and so on, because he does not have those capabilities. So it would be ok to treat him as such, or to maybe kill him?

I never brought up the man in the coma into this discussion, because not a comparable issue. A man in a coma is a human being that may or may not be temporarily unconscious. But he was conscious, and he could be conscious again, in which case he could suffer from the consequences of what is done to him while he is in the coma. Also, a man in a coma is a harvest, not a seedling that can be easily replanted, but a harvest of many years, or a large tree full of olives. He has developed many important skills, has friends, relatives, maybe people that depend on him.

Of course he has that right. And in exercising of that right what would have been a mature harvest of grain is destroyed.

1. I am sorry, but this paragraph does not make much sense to me. Gang raped?!

That's what your strawman of a group of hoodlums destroying the farmers field of seedlings translates to if taken as an analogy, yes.

Except that that "parasite", is a human being that the woman does not have the right to destroy willy-nilly.

It is a seedling on her turf that she can choose to invest in or consider weed, at her own discretion. Because it is her land, and she has every right to do with it as she will.

Not if it is destroying fertilized eggs it is not.

The chance of succes of one single egg being fertilised and then being successfully implanted is very small. Hence the procedure is typically done with multiple eggs. The small chance that everything works out typically resulted in quadruples or more. Nowadays, to increase the successrate further and decrease the likelihood of the pregnancy being successful (it should be clear that nature prefers one child at a time) if more than two implants succeed, some of them are sometimes aborted, iirc.

People who use ivf bring a life into the world where they otherwise wouldn't have. See, may statement is true even if ivf kills fertilized eggs in the process, because those eggs would never have been fertilized without ivf.

According to you.

Yes. But I'm pointing out that's how you come across to some people - might we wise to be aware of that. You may think you're being polite, but to many you're just being very hurtful.

Human rights were designed to protect people from suffering. They were not designed to protect a few cells that might one day have the capacity to suffer, but of which the forced protection of its so called rights causes a lot more suffering than it prevents.