Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 05-26-2019, 06:27 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
[Wanders into thread]

Sometimes I think humanity would be better off if we were an egg laying species.

My position is that abortion is a woman's right, based on the right of bodily autonomy. I also believe that access to reproductive health care--including but not limited to abortion--is a social positive. However I realize it is impossible to convince anyone of this if they don't already believe it.

[wanders far far away from thread]
There are plenty of women who were raised with a pro-life mindset, and then one day they were confronted with two options. Face shame, disappointment, and ridicule from friends and family while raising a child alone with no job or financial resources. Or have an abortion and remain a beloved daughter, sister, and church member...and still have hope of a successful career, marriage, and family.

Personally, I used to be rather agnostic about abortion, as someone who is not sexually active. But lurking on discussions like this one woke me up to the broader implications of equating a fetus with a person. It may "look" good as a law, but you better believe the regulations that follow would not be good.
  #302  
Old 05-27-2019, 12:56 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,281
As I said in the other thread, the solution is right in front of us: a compromise position that has broad support in public opinion (but virtually no support among the people who shout at each other: I'm a very rare exception).

--Allow abortion on demand in the first trimester (not just the six weeks in "heartbeat" bills, which is just not long enough to be practical) but ban virtually all abortions after that point.

--Require abortion clinics to offer them to all comers, even if they can't pay: they can be hounded by bill collectors later, just like with other urgent medical care (I'd prefer this aspect of our health care system be eliminated entirely, but that's a broader scope than this topic).

--Get rid of the bullshit laws in red states that throw up a snarl of red tape to make it difficult for clinics to locate there.

--Provide a robust safety net, including social workers trained in maternal care and parenthood generally, to support teenagers and other young or low income women who choose to keep their babies.

--Require all children in public schools to receive comprehensive (not abstinence-only) sex ed. No excusal even if parents request such.

--Provide regularly refilled buckets of condoms in the bathrooms of middle schools and high schools.

(If parents are so scandalized by this, they can homeschool or send their kids to a private school.)

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-27-2019 at 12:59 AM.
  #303  
Old 05-27-2019, 02:27 AM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
There are plenty of women who were raised with a pro-life mindset, and then one day they were confronted with two options. Face shame, disappointment, and ridicule from friends and family while raising a child alone with no job or financial resources. Or have an abortion and remain a beloved daughter, sister, and church member...and still have hope of a successful career, marriage, and family.

Personally, I used to be rather agnostic about abortion, as someone who is not sexually active. But lurking on discussions like this one woke me up to the broader implications of equating a fetus with a person. It may "look" good as a law, but you better believe the regulations that follow would not be good.
I'm not saying people don't change their mind about passionately held beliefs. I'm just saying no one changes those beliefs based on people shouting at them. They change them because of real life experiences, as you said.
  #304  
Old 05-27-2019, 03:42 AM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
As I said in the other thread, the solution is right in front of us: a compromise position that has broad support in public opinion (but virtually no support among the people who shout at each other: I'm a very rare exception).

--Allow abortion on demand in the first trimester (not just the six weeks in "heartbeat" bills, which is just not long enough to be practical) but ban virtually all abortions after that point.

--Require abortion clinics to offer them to all comers, even if they can't pay: they can be hounded by bill collectors later, just like with other urgent medical care (I'd prefer this aspect of our health care system be eliminated entirely, but that's a broader scope than this topic).

--Get rid of the bullshit laws in red states that throw up a snarl of red tape to make it difficult for clinics to locate there.

--Provide a robust safety net, including social workers trained in maternal care and parenthood generally, to support teenagers and other young or low income women who choose to keep their babies.

--Require all children in public schools to receive comprehensive (not abstinence-only) sex ed. No excusal even if parents request such.

--Provide regularly refilled buckets of condoms in the bathrooms of middle schools and high schools.

(If parents are so scandalized by this, they can homeschool or send their kids to a private school.)
I don't see how this would be a compromise at all to pro-lifers.
  #305  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:03 AM
you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
As I said in the other thread, the solution is right in front of us: a compromise position that has broad support in public opinion (but virtually no support among the people who shout at each other: I'm a very rare exception).
You do know that free and accessible contraceptives is something most of them oppose almost as much as abortion, right? Other than banning abortion after 2nd trimester, your proposal is a bra-burning liberal’s wet dream.
  #306  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:52 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,281
The "other than..." part has earned me plenty of incoming fire from pro-choice liberals, I assure you.

But sure: this isn't right smack in the middle of the two most extreme camps. I am a Democrat, after all.
  #307  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:13 AM
Annie-Xmas is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 54,110
Since men don't get pregnant, they see carrying a "child" inside your body for nine months, with all the physical and psychological changes women go through at such a time, as "a temporary minor inconvenience." Anything men don't do is minor or even "nothing."
  #308  
Old 05-28-2019, 04:42 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Since men don't get pregnant, they see carrying a "child" inside your body for nine months, with all the physical and psychological changes women go through at such a time, as "a temporary minor inconvenience." Anything men don't do is minor or even "nothing."

Ahem.


https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/186296...public-opinion
Quote:
In Gallup’s time-series data, women are modestly more likely to say abortion should be legal under all circumstances but also slightly more likely to say abortion should never be legal...women are slightly more likely than men to describe themselves as pro-life.

Apologies if I just blew your mind.
  #309  
Old 05-28-2019, 04:47 PM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Ahem.


https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/186296...public-opinion



Apologies if I just blew your mind.

Women and men may have different reasons for being "pro-life".

Sorry if I blew your mind.
  #310  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:12 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,281
My mind is not blown, because I'm well aware that women who have had children (who are, I strongly suspect, overrepresented in the "pro-life" contingent) have a much deeper understanding of what it means to carry an unborn child inside you than I possibly could.
  #311  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:05 PM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
She was pregnant, now she's not. Pretty open and shut case to me. Ask her if she wants to take a plea bargain, or face a jury or a bunch of religious fanatics.
I would not criminalize negligence resulting in the death of the fetus. Miscarriages are, unfortunately, just a part of life. It serves no purpose to punish the unfortunate woman who loses her baby, as if losing the baby isn't punishment enough. I don't want that situation to occur and I definitely won't support a law that encourages the prosecution of a woman simply because she used to be pregnant, she is not pregnant now, and she did not deliver a baby.

I would however support a law criminalizing gross negligence resulting in the death of the fetus. The distinction is important. Gross negligence only occurs if the mother intentionally disregards reasonable caution. If the mother intentionally disregards reasonable caution as to the safety of the fetus, and as a result the fetus dies, then I would support a fine or possibly jail time.

As to the investigation or prosecution, a mere anonymous allegation of gross negligence resulting in the death of a fetus, without specifics, is not enough to investigate. If the allegation or "tip" is anonymous, there is no credibility and no possible testimony in a court of law. Without specifics, there is nothing for the police to follow up on. The only option is to question the (possibly grieving) mother, which in my opinion would be inappropriate. Why is it inappropriate? Because women miscarry all the time, it's usually not due to gross negligence, and it is already extremely upsetting to lose a child. Sending in police to question a woman after miscarriage could easily exacerbate stress and tension and just isn't worth it unless the police have solid evidence of gross negligence.

What about questioning spouses, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances? Miscarriage is an extremely personal plight and having the police spread the news across town is wrong for the same reasons.

What does that leave the police with? An source with very specific information about text messages or an online purchase might be enough to convince a judge to sign a warrant - probably not. A credible source such as a mandatory reporter might enter a suspicion to the case file, and enough of these suspicions could provide a reasonable basis for some sort of warrant.

Then we have the special case of the husband or boyfriend, the would-be-father. The father has special status because it is his child too. There is no other reason to afford him special status except that he has standing to claim injury. Ideally the father and mother are on the same page regarding the loss of the fetus, but sometimes that doesn't happen. The father is free to sue in civil court on the basis that the mother's gross negligence resulted in the death of his child. He also might be able to testify against the mother in criminal court (federal court allows this but I'm not sure if all states do). It makes sense for the state to investigate a possible crime if the father makes a credible complaint with specific details the police can follow up on. Otherwise, they should tell him "we'll make a note of it but we can't go about searching houses unless a judge agrees that there is probable cause" or "I'm sorry but we can't go and interrogate a grieving young woman who just lost her baby because her ex-boyfriend thinks she stretched the wrong way. I'll take your name and number for the record but nothing is going to come of it. You might want to talk to a lawyer about starting a civil case."

Once the investigation is under way, it is up to the prosecutors whether to question possible witnesses and the mother herself. If a witness offers testimony, eg: a source or the father reached out to the police department, these people should be questioned notwithstanding the above reservations. Otherwise the DA should refrain from making it known that they are investigating anything - they should avoid questioning the mother or friends and acquaintances out of a respect for the mother's privacy and a presumption of innocence. If the father initiates a civil case, the privacy is already shattered so police can investigate if they think the complaint is credible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And [whether the garbage truck worker knows the risks] matters how? He still dies due to someone else's negligence.
Negligence, yes. Gross negligence? Not necessarily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And so is unintentional homicide.
The position I take in this thread is opposed to unintentional homicide as applied to the effects of a woman's actions upon her own pregnancy unless there was gross negligence. You would need to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that she recklessly disregarded the safety of the fetus, and that this disregard lead to the death of the fetus. Gross negligence is a higher bar than mere manslaughter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
So, it's not about the fetus then, it is about limiting the control over a woman's body.
It's all about the fetus. I don't want to prevent women from controlling their own body any more than is necessary to protect the life of the fetus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
So you are fine with her miscarrying half a dozen babies before she finally delivers a live one?
If they were natural miscarriages and she was not grossly negligent during the first six pregnancies, I would be "OK" with it. I wouldn't be happy about it, and neither should she, but she does not deserve to be prosecuted.

If they were not natural miscarriages, that is, if the first six miscarriages were actually induced abortions, I still might not have an issue. It depends on whether her doctors thought she had a reasonable chance of successful pregnancy, and whether each abortion was medically necessary.

I would not have a problem with her insurance, including state insurance, asking to scrutinize the doctors opinions after-the-fact. I would have a problem if this scrutiny affected her care, that is, I will have no "waiting for the doctors to sort it out with insurance".

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
There is no doctor in the world that is going to approve such an action. They are on the hook. If they have 100 patients, and each of them have a 90% chance of delivering their baby, that mean that the state is going to be going after them for the 10 that turned out to not be ":reasonable chances".
Perhaps you do not realize that doctors are already on the hook for every single procedure they perform. You can bet that every hospital worries about the insurance issues and malpractice suits for every procedure performed under the sun. Ideally the doctors don't think about it while they are working on patients. The only exception is for emergency room procedures, which are required regardless insurance, and people still worry about malpractice in the emergency room.

So what does this mean for abortions? Well if the abortion is in the emergency room, as in this woman will bleed to death in ten minutes unless we remove the fetus, insurance doesn't matter and the doctors must immediately remove the fetus. You bet the insurance company will consider raising a dispute, and claim the abortion was medically unnecessary. I'm sure they do it now. I think the law says you have to pay for ER visits up front, then dispute later, but I might be wrong on that.

If the abortion is not in the emergency room, as in the woman isn't about to die, then unfortunately all of the trickery currently defiling our health care system kicks in. Prior authorizations, flat-out denials, etc. I'm against all of that stuff and would welcome a law that bans such nonsense.

Now where does the state get involved? The state doesn't actually run the medical board, but the medical board operates under the authority of the state. So technically when someone files a formal complaint against the doctor, the medical board is obliged to investigate. You may not realize this but any old Joe can write a nasty letter to the state medical board. Insurance companies can do it too. I feel like most of these complaints have no basis and are thrown out by the medical board's team of reviewers. The ones that get through means the medical board found probable cause for a violation of state law or medical ethics, and cause innumerable headaches for doctors. The medical board (not the state, but operating under state authority) requests copies of all the pertinent records, holds a hearing, has doctors review the evidence, and punishes or exonerates the doctor in question. Punishment could mean a fine, loss of medical license, or even referral to law enforcement authorities.

The state can also get involved if the state is paying for the abortion via state-run or state-financed insurance. In this case the provider is liable for the amount reimbursed by the state for services performed, although a complaint might be made to the medical board as described above.

So in short, every doctor is already dealing with that threat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
So you would prosecute a woman for getting pregnant if she really wanted a baby but had a high chance of miscarriage.

Make up your mind.
Yes, I would prosecute a woman for getting pregnant if she really wanted a baby but had a high chance of miscarriage and knew about it. I didn't realize I contradicted this somewhere else. The "really high chance" would mean a doctor said "if you become pregnant there isn't a reasonable chance that the baby will survive" preferably followed by "you can be prosecuted for having sex with this condition if it results in pregnancy and pregnancy ends in abortion, which it will". If the condition is permanent the doctor might add "you are eligible for sterilization if you so wish, that way you can keep having sex". If it is temporary, the doctor might recommend waiting to have sex. If after all of that, the woman still has sex, then yes, I would prosecute her. I wouldn't recommend jail time if she had a bona fide wish to birth the child, possibly just the cost of the abortion and legal fees. I try not to be a monster.

I'll try and address the rest later tonight.

~Max
  #312  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:20 PM
drachillix is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: 192.168.0.1
Posts: 9,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
The mystery here is WHY does their religion tell them these things? As much as their religion would like us all to believe it is the unvarnished word of God, the exact tenets and teachings of religions are decided upon by the people who run the churches.

Those people have decided that sex is naughty, and people who engage in it must "face consequences", whether or not those people are practitioners of their religion. The consequences of sex are much deeper for women than men, so they bear the brunt of these religious attacks.
I always felt that the origins of the rule were simply this:

Aborted babies don't join the church, and never turn into tithing members of the church and or extensions of its power base. Its about power by growth.
__________________
Rumor has it, I fix computers. Sometimes it even works after I fix it...
  #313  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:02 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
The mystery here is WHY does their religion tell them these things? As much as their religion would like us all to believe it is the unvarnished word of God, the exact tenets and teachings of religions are decided upon by the people who run the churches.

Those people have decided that sex is naughty, and people who engage in it must "face consequences", whether or not those people are practitioners of their religion. The consequences of sex are much deeper for women than men, so they bear the brunt of these religious attacks.
They hate non-reproductive sex. IIRC, the Mosaic laws specify that a man is supposed to wait so many days after his wife has finished menstruating before having sex with her again- which just so happens to be about when she's due to ovulate again. And the strange double meaning of the term sodomy- both anal sex and oral sex- which amounts to "putting a penis where it's not going to produce any children". And of course the story of Onan, whom God punished for practicing a crude form of birth control.

And yet despite this obsession with fecundity, you have the extreme opprobrium towards women who have sex outside of marriage. If children alone were the point you'd think that women would have been encouraged to have as many as possible, husband or no husband. Yet virtually all pre-industrial societies have every sanction up to and including the death penalty for out of wedlock sex.
  #314  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:46 PM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
SPOILER:
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think the only disagreement here is whether the fetus has the right to life. If I am correct, that is the simple answer to the original post.

~Max
Yeah, that is exactly what the debate is, you cannot assume that you have already won the debate and everyone agrees with you when all you have done is assert that you believe your opinion to be true. Nothing has any right to anything at all. Rights are things that we, as a society and civilization, decide to extend to others, because we wish them to reciprocate and grant them to us as well. What reciprocal right are you offering me in order to convince me that a non sentient clump of cells has more rights than the host of those cells wishes to extent to it?
Reciprocal right? It's too late for that, you will never again be a clump of cells.
Exactly my point. What benefit does it give to those who are already here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I care about murder, because I don't want to be murdered. I care about theft, because I don't want to be stolen from. I'm just a touch too big for my mother to change her mind and decide to abort me at this point, so what benefit do I get out of granting the right to other fetuses that protects them from the wishes of their mothers?
You don't get any benefit from this. You already "have yours" and I've "got mine". The freedoms of future potential people can only be secured at the cost of present and future people's freedoms. Just like future environmental issues to a senior citizen today.
No, environmental concerns are for everyone. We all need to have somewhere to live, and if we destroy this place, we are going to have a hard time finding another. If things go off the rails there, there may not be *any* future potential people, or at the very least, they will have their lives substantially degraded.

These are individual "potential" people that you are protecting at the cost of the actual people that exist now. Not the same thing at all.
There are older people who take the opinion that environmental issues do not concern them because they will die before the effects become apparent. It may affect their children and grandchildren, who they have great investment and emotional attachment to. But say there was some operation that would adversely affect the environment, not a few years or decades out but centuries in the future. The operation is necessary to prevent distress for people in the near-future but necessarily will kill people in the distant future, and only potential future people can suffer the consequences.
That's what we are doing now, with the use of fossil fuels to power our modern conveniences, and I am against the continuation of such short sighted acts. There's something to be said for kicking the can down the road, and hoping that our descendants will find solutions to the problems that we have created for them, but no, making future generations pay for our indulgences now is not a proposition that I agree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S.
That's what I'm comparing a law against abortion to. It doesn't offer any benefit to people existing right now, even if fetuses are people.
Your comparison completely breaks down and is invalid. The environment benefits everyone. Who does that fetus benefit?

Given the fictive process above, the environment of the future will not benefit anybody living today. But working to save it does disadvantage people here and now.
To some extent, sure, but we are talking about, once again, something that effects every, vs a fetus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S.
Let me give you a better analogy. Let's say you and your children are sick and in suffering. You can still function normally but life is uncomfortable. Doctors say you will all live but the suffering will not diminish. The devil visits and offers to cure you and your family and let everyone live a long and healthy life. In return, long after you and everybody you know are dead, he will kill some of your descendents and inflict the same disease upon the rest before making the offer again.
That would be a terrible deal that should not be taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S.
I think this example is also comparable to the abortion debate, if you accept the premise that fetuses have rights. Legalizing abortion is like agreeing to the devil's contract - untold numbers of persons will die but in return people can have sex without worrying about pregnancy or labor. Banning abortion is like refusing the devil's contract - innocent people will not die to the devil but in turn sex has consequences.
That's a terrible analogy. How exactly is legalizing abortion like visiting death and injury upon the future?

No really, I've seen bad analogies, and that is one of the worst. It doesn't actually have any connection to the topic, and neither it's premise nor conclusion follow in any logical fashion, and to top it off, it is predicated upon me condeding the entire argument and accepting the a fetus has rights, which is what the debate is actually about.
If a fetus has rights, my environmental and devil examples are perfectly applicable. Legalizing abortion is equal to visiting death and injury upon the future. Future potential people who die from smog or pollution or the devil are comparable to future potential people who die from abortion. Widespread abortions might make life easier for those living right now, but it means directly killing potential people.

Yes, I am assuming that a fetus has rights. I do so on purpose. I am not trying to convince you that fetuses have rights. I am trying to convince you that people on the other side of this debate aren't motivated by misogyny. Surely some are, but I set out to prove that it is possible to be a "pro-lifer" yet not be motivated by a desire to control women's bodies. For you to see my argument, you must adopt for the sake of argument that a fetus has rights. It's not hard to do - I did it.

I see too much talking past one another in debates. On television, radio, real life, even on this boards. If you aren't willing to consider the other side's point of view, don't debate their motivation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Because they want more than just control over women's bodies, they want control over society. They want to institute a theocratic authoritarian dictatorship, where they justify their whims by saying that they got them from the sky god. They want to shut down debate about the secular benefits of policies by declaring those policies to be or to enable sin in the eyes of their religion.

Just look at how much privacy and intrusion you are willing to impose upon society in order to get your way in regards to a bunch of clumps of cells. The point isn't the cells, the point is the disruption of society.
This is the debate I would rather have in this thread. What in the world prompted you to write this? Was it something I said? If I really were an anti-abortion advocate I still would not want to just impose my will upon others, I would want to convince them why the fetus has rights.

Unless... are you saying the rationale behind giving rights to a fetus somehow imply wanting "control over society", a "want to institute a theocratic authoritarian dictatorship" run on the whims of a "sky god"? That saying a fetus has rights means I want to "shut down debate about the secular benefits of policies by declaring those policies to be or to enable sin in the eyes of their religion"? Is that your understanding of the rationale underlying fetal rights?

Because surely that is not true. People might be ignorant, they might not realize that their position is baseless (I don't know myself). There is no way that many Americans want a "theocratic authoritarian dictatorship". If that is your honest assessment of the opposing side of the abortion debate, and not baseless and distracting hyperbole, I will address it directly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If you cannot answer these questions, then you shouldn't be imposing your will upon others.
I'm not trying to impose my will upon others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
So, torture is fine for you if it imposes your will on society. I disagree.
How did you come to this conclusion? Torture is not fine for me if it imposes my will on society. In the quoted scenario the woman would get her abortion, then be prosecuted for wilful negligence. She would not be left there pregnant if she could not handle pregnancy - the doctor still certifies abortion on medical grounds and the state has no prerogative to second-guess a doctor until after-the-fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
As you said, you are considering it from the perspective that the fetus is a person, have you ever tried considering that the woman is a person too? Try thinking of it from that perspective for a change.
I don't understand what you mean, because I have always considered the woman to be a person.

~Max
  #315  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:55 PM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
What if I have a child who needs regular blood transfusions, and a parent is the only one whose blood type matches. For that child to stay alive, the parent has to go through painful blood draws several times a week--enough blood loss to make them feel sick and woozy and unable to really work or function.

Can the state compel the parent to make those donations? For how long? Till the child is 18? Until the parent dies of old age? If the parent resists, can they be physically compelled--held in jail--or just prosecuted after the child dies?
If the child is already born, the state cannot compel the parent to make those donations. It is indeed only required if the child is a fetus still living inside the womb. Even then, the parent cannot be physically compelled except in absolute emergency situations - until a doctor (preferably her doctor) arrives. Physical restraints and stress and jail for pregnant mothers can't be too good for the baby, and should probably be avoided if at all possible. But I'm not a doctor.

~Max
  #316  
Old 05-29-2019, 12:06 AM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You are right, that is not what you said, but you did imply that the appeals would be answered in a timely way.
I implied no such thing. The medical appeal in an urgent situation needs to be timely. That is totally different from the legal appeal, which would only ever happen after the fetus is dead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You were saying that the cops could bust the door down if they suspected that she was doing something harmful to the baby, not that she was successful.
The cops are busting down the door because actual self-induced abortion, even attempted self-induced abortion was (I assumed) a crime in and of itself.

Drinking wine, smoking, doing laundry, and stretching are not crimes in and of themselves, even if there was a law on the books criminalizing gross negligence that leads to the death of the fetus. There is no safe amount of drinking or smoking while pregnant but doing either of those activities is no guarantee that the fetus will be killed.

That is the distinction - one is actually a crime with intent and actually kills the fetus while the other might cause a crime and might kill the fetus, but easily without intent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And, you've made this claim a few times that willful self induced abortion is a crime. Can you cite this, because that makes abortifacient drugs illegal, doesn't it? And they're not, at least not in most places.
I looked into it and to my surprise, you are right. I made the unfortunate mistake of trusting Wikipedia:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia;[url
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion#Law]Although[/url] Roe v. Wade made abortion more readily available throughout the U.S., it remains a crime in most jurisdictions for a woman to attempt to perform an abortion on herself.
I spent about an hour looking at state laws and only a couple of them actually criminalize self-induced abortion: Delaware (repealed '17), Idaho (overturned '12), Nevada, New York (repealed '19), Oklahoma, South Carolina, and now Alabama and Georgia if you've been following the news. A few different internet sources listed other states as anti-self-induced-abortion-states, but in the same breath admitted that those states were, according to their own courts, misapplying their own laws.

Nevada's laws criminalize self-induced abortion via drugs after 24 weeks without doctor's orders[1]; also via injury to the mother, arguably including self-inflicted injury, at any time[2]. Oklahoma's statutes explicitly prohibit self-induced abortion unless done under the direction of a physician[3]. South Carolina allows only for abortion in any case with the physician's consent[4], piles on additional requirements for the second and third trimesters, and makes it a misdemeanor for a woman to induce her own abortion any other way[5].

[1] NRS 200.210
[2] NRS 200.220
[3] OK Stat §63-1-733
[4] S.C. Code Ann. § 44-41-20
[5] S.C. Code Ann. § 44-41-80(b)

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I'm not. I'm just trying to see if you have a consistent position in regards to the life of the fetus over the rights of anyone else. So far, not so much.
I do think the fetus has rights but those rights don't always trump the rights of the mother. And I hope I'm not being arbitrary as to when the rights of one win over the rights of the other. All of this is assuming that the fetus has rights, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And you will impose your opinions of those subject upon others through legislative means.
I do not wish to pass a law without the general support of society. I hope that remark removes any lingering fears as to any tyrannical motive behind my position!

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Well, you do have to admit that at least some of them are. I don't think that many of them hate women, most of them just don't give two shits about women as long as they are able to control them.
Admitted, however, do not commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Someone who opposes the legalization of abortion is not necessarily a misogynist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Religious arguments do not belong in legislative debates...
Would you care to start a thread on that subject? Your short criticism of religion here has failed to convince me that religion has no place in political or legislative debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I don't know who is right either, which is why I do not presume to make the decision for others, and leave the decision to the person most invested and impacted by the decision, the mother.

If the decision is to be made by anyone else, then you have to answer all of the questions that I have posed, and more, if you want to continue to pretend that this is a balancing of rights, vs just a complete and naked desire to control the morality of other people.
Well, as I said the main arguments are of a "religious" nature. There are also secular arguments, none of them rigorous enough to convince me personally.

You were once a zygote, and I assume you desire your own self-preservation. What if your parents wanted to abort you? Could you still endorse a law that might have prevented your own existence? Does that make you a hypocrite? Or perhaps, do you distinguish your zygote and fetal predecessors from your "self"?

You say that the fetus is part of the woman's body. But what about the father's rights? A father can sue if his wife refuses to share custody of a child. Why do we say the child, once born, is the "father's son"? At what point does the father have some vested interest in the child? Is it at birth? When the father pays for food and housing? What if the mother pays for food and housing? How can it be that something goes from being part of the woman's body to being a joint responsibility of the man and woman?

What then of homicide laws which increase the penalty when a fetus and the mother are injured or killed? How is that consistent with the position that the fetus is not a person?

I concede that I am not up to the job of actually defending the anti-abortion position. Try as I may, I cannot personally justify any universal system of morals without assuming certain tenets of religion a priori. Your thoughts?

~Max
  #317  
Old 05-29-2019, 12:21 AM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by you with the face View Post
We already know what happens when you beat society over the head with “it’s too late to do anything if you get pregnant!” That kind of black and white messaging causes people to have children they can’t take care of. It causes people to become trapped in shot gun marriages that make everyone miserable. It causes women to kill themselves either through suicide or backalley abortions. What it doesn’t cause is an increase in responsible conduct high enough to offset the harms listed above. Humanity has a bad track record with abstinence.
My response to this is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Don't equate my position with the status quo before Roe v. Wade. I make exceptions for medical necessity and possibly rape victims, and I am all for sex education and state funding and availability of abortions that meet those criteria, and support services and even Planned Parenthood. I would even prefer to support measures increasing the availability of contraceptives, either because I support it or as a compromise (sinful women are better than dead sinful women and dead innocent babies). I support culpability of the father, and if I believe making sexual promiscuity a sin this applies to men as well as women.
Neither do I condition the morality of abortion upon being married.

~Max
  #318  
Old 05-29-2019, 12:32 AM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
I don't see how this would be a compromise at all to pro-lifers.
States may currently regulate abortions after viability (23-25 weeks, or the third trimester). States may also currently regulate abortions at any earlier time so long as they do not present an undue burden on the woman's constitutional right to an abortion (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).

SlackerInc's suggestion replaces that with a solid line at the end of the first/beginning of the second trimester. So that means the states have more regulatory power. In return the states provide social services, sex education, contraceptives, etc.

It would sound like a sweet deal except for funding and more importantly constitutional complications.

~Max
  #319  
Old 05-29-2019, 12:35 AM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by you with the face View Post
You do know that free and accessible contraceptives is something most of them oppose almost as much as abortion, right? Other than banning abortion after 2nd trimester, your proposal is a bra-burning liberal’s wet dream.
Even when I try and adopt a Catholic viewpoint, one living sinner is better than a living sinner plus a dead innocent. Contraception should be a point of compromise.

~Max
  #320  
Old 05-29-2019, 10:12 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I would not criminalize negligence resulting in the death of the fetus. Miscarriages are, unfortunately, just a part of life. It serves no purpose to punish the unfortunate woman who loses her baby, as if losing the baby isn't punishment enough. I don't want that situation to occur and I definitely won't support a law that encourages the prosecution of a woman simply because she used to be pregnant, she is not pregnant now, and she did not deliver a baby.
...

Once the investigation is under way, it is up to the prosecutors whether to question possible witnesses and the mother herself. If a witness offers testimony, eg: a source or the father reached out to the police department, these people should be questioned notwithstanding the above reservations. Otherwise the DA should refrain from making it known that they are investigating anything - they should avoid questioning the mother or friends and acquaintances out of a respect for the mother's privacy and a presumption of innocence. If the father initiates a civil case, the privacy is already shattered so police can investigate if they think the complaint is credible.
So, if I am hearing you correctly, you are leaving it to the fact that there will never be overly zealous prosecutions?

Even if there is no investigation, as you said, it would be going on in secret, so if a woman loses her baby, she now has to worry about getting a knock on the door from some police officers who would like to ask some questions, now that their secret investigation has determined that there is probable cause.

In an ideal world where the police and DA's never over reached, where they never used the power of the law as a bully whip, where the law is equally applied across racial and economic boundaries, that *might* be feasible.

In the world we live in, it will be used to harrass women when they are at their most vulnerable.
Quote:

Negligence, yes. Gross negligence? Not necessarily.


The position I take in this thread is opposed to unintentional homicide as applied to the effects of a woman's actions upon her own pregnancy unless there was gross negligence. You would need to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that she recklessly disregarded the safety of the fetus, and that this disregard lead to the death of the fetus. Gross negligence is a higher bar than mere manslaughter.
But you said that a fetus is a person. You don't have to be grossly negligent to be punished for a person's death, just regular negligence will do.

So, is a fetus a person, or is it a person only under certain (convenient) circumstances?
Quote:

It's all about the fetus. I don't want to prevent women from controlling their own body any more than is necessary to protect the life of the fetus.
But you will control women's bodies in the name of protecting the life of the fetus.
Quote:

If they were natural miscarriages and she was not grossly negligent during the first six pregnancies, I would be "OK" with it. I wouldn't be happy about it, and neither should she, but she does not deserve to be prosecuted.

If they were not natural miscarriages, that is, if the first six miscarriages were actually induced abortions, I still might not have an issue. It depends on whether her doctors thought she had a reasonable chance of successful pregnancy, and whether each abortion was medically necessary.

I would not have a problem with her insurance, including state insurance, asking to scrutinize the doctors opinions after-the-fact. I would have a problem if this scrutiny affected her care, that is, I will have no "waiting for the doctors to sort it out with insurance".
And what is a "reasonable chance"? I've asked this before, and you said you would leave it to the doctor's judgment.

But, a doctor doesn't just make a "judgement" out of the blue. They aren't trained to make independent judgements about things. They are trained to make judgements based on criteria that they have learned in doctor school and by following the literature. An oncologist doesn't look a a tumor and call for chemo, he compares the tumor against what the literature says, and follows the guidance and advice.

What guidance and advise are you giving these doctors? What criteria do they follow? Without these guidances, you are putting the doc on the hook without giving them and way of knowing where the line is. It's like someone asking what the speed limit is, and being told to just use your best judgement, and if we disagree with your judgement, then we'll give you a ticket.

Also, who will be creating this criteria? Will it be doctors, or will it be politicians?
Quote:

Perhaps you do not realize that doctors are already on the hook for every single procedure they perform. You can bet that every hospital worries about the insurance issues and malpractice suits for every procedure performed under the sun. Ideally the doctors don't think about it while they are working on patients. The only exception is for emergency room procedures, which are required regardless insurance, and people still worry about malpractice in the emergency room.
No, I do know this, but you are adding in another thing for them to be on the hook for, without even providing any guidance as to how they are to stay within the new rules. You will just prosecute them if you feel as though they broke the rules that you refuse to actually give them.
Quote:
So what does this mean for abortions? Well if the abortion is in the emergency room, as in this woman will bleed to death in ten minutes unless we remove the fetus, insurance doesn't matter and the doctors must immediately remove the fetus. You bet the insurance company will consider raising a dispute, and claim the abortion was medically unnecessary. I'm sure they do it now. I think the law says you have to pay for ER visits up front, then dispute later, but I might be wrong on that.
Not an ER doc or insurance adjuster, but I'm pretty sure all of that is incorrect.
Quote:
If the abortion is not in the emergency room, as in the woman isn't about to die, then unfortunately all of the trickery currently defiling our health care system kicks in. Prior authorizations, flat-out denials, etc. I'm against all of that stuff and would welcome a law that bans such nonsense.
As am I, but it is the same cohort that insists that a fetus should be considered a person that is also against reforming our medical system. But sure, many people die while waiting on insurance to approve a procedure. Insurance has no interest in the survival of the patient. That has nothing to do with reproductive rights. Insurance will gladly pay for an abortion, as an abortion is far cheaper than a delivery, especially a delivery that would be further complicated by the illness or trauma that brought the woman to the hospital in the first place.
Quote:
Now where does the state get involved? The state doesn't actually run the medical board, but the medical board operates under the authority of the state. So technically when someone files a formal complaint against the doctor, the medical board is obliged to investigate. You may not realize this but any old Joe can write a nasty letter to the state medical board. Insurance companies can do it too. I feel like most of these complaints have no basis and are thrown out by the medical board's team of reviewers. The ones that get through means the medical board found probable cause for a violation of state law or medical ethics, and cause innumerable headaches for doctors. The medical board (not the state, but operating under state authority) requests copies of all the pertinent records, holds a hearing, has doctors review the evidence, and punishes or exonerates the doctor in question. Punishment could mean a fine, loss of medical license, or even referral to law enforcement authorities.
Yep, that's how it works pretty much now. But what you are talking about is providing political guidance to a medical question.
Quote:
The state can also get involved if the state is paying for the abortion via state-run or state-financed insurance. In this case the provider is liable for the amount reimbursed by the state for services performed, although a complaint might be made to the medical board as described above.

So in short, every doctor is already dealing with that threat.
No, every doctor is dealing with the threat that if other doctors determine that they did what was not in the best interests of the patient, that they will face some sort of disciplinary action, which can be as little as requiring them to study up on a botched procedure before they can do it again. You are adding a political component.
Quote:
Yes, I would prosecute a woman for getting pregnant if she really wanted a baby but had a high chance of miscarriage and knew about it. I didn't realize I contradicted this somewhere else. The "really high chance" would mean a doctor said "if you become pregnant there isn't a reasonable chance that the baby will survive" preferably followed by "you can be prosecuted for having sex with this condition if it results in pregnancy and pregnancy ends in abortion, which it will". If the condition is permanent the doctor might add "you are eligible for sterilization if you so wish, that way you can keep having sex". If it is temporary, the doctor might recommend waiting to have sex. If after all of that, the woman still has sex, then yes, I would prosecute her. I wouldn't recommend jail time if she had a bona fide wish to birth the child, possibly just the cost of the abortion and legal fees. I try not to be a monster.
Yes, you contradicted this upthread. What is the really high chance? I guess what you are saying is that diabetics can't have children?
Quote:
I'll try and address the rest later tonight.

~Max
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
If a fetus has rights, my environmental and devil examples are perfectly applicable. Legalizing abortion is equal to visiting death and injury upon the future. Future potential people who die from smog or pollution or the devil are comparable to future potential people who die from abortion. Widespread abortions might make life easier for those living right now, but it means directly killing potential people.
Once again, the environment is a benefit to all of our descendants. Who is a fetus a benefit to?
Quote:
Yes, I am assuming that a fetus has rights. I do so on purpose. I am not trying to convince you that fetuses have rights. I am trying to convince you that people on the other side of this debate aren't motivated by misogyny. Surely some are, but I set out to prove that it is possible to be a "pro-lifer" yet not be motivated by a desire to control women's bodies. For you to see my argument, you must adopt for the sake of argument that a fetus has rights. It's not hard to do - I did it.
Well, yeah, we are talking past each other a bit, as I am explaining why I do not think a fetus should have any more rights than its mother chooses to grant it, both for moral and practical reasons.

If I assume that a fetus has rights more rights than the mother, then sure, such things make sense. But the same is true that if I believe that animals have more rights than people, then PETA's position makes sense. If I believe that pedophiles have more rights than children, then NAMBLA's position makes sense.

It is that precise thing that we are arguing in this thread, why should a fetus have any more rights than the mother chooses to extend it?
Quote:
I see too much talking past one another in debates. On television, radio, real life, even on this boards. If you aren't willing to consider the other side's point of view, don't debate their motivation.

This is the debate I would rather have in this thread. What in the world prompted you to write this? Was it something I said? If I really were an anti-abortion advocate I still would not want to just impose my will upon others, I would want to convince them why the fetus has rights.
And if you can't convince them that the fetus has rights, you will impose your will upon them, correct?
Quote:
Unless... are you saying the rationale behind giving rights to a fetus somehow imply wanting "control over society", a "want to institute a theocratic authoritarian dictatorship" run on the whims of a "sky god"? That saying a fetus has rights means I want to "shut down debate about the secular benefits of policies by declaring those policies to be or to enable sin in the eyes of their religion"? Is that your understanding of the rationale underlying fetal rights?
Well, yeah. Theocrats are a real thing. Dominionists and Fundamentalists and Young Earth Creationists (oh my), they really do exist, and they really do want to impose theocratic rule. They are not a majority, but they leverage their power through getting people to join them by deceptive feel good labels like "pro-life".

I don't think that is the motive of most of the rank and file of those who ascribe to pro-life, just as most of the people who donate to PETA are not for stealing dogs out of people's backyards and killing them in the back of a van. But, most of the rank and file don't really think about it, they see "pro-life" and they think, "Well, I am pro-life, so I will support the group that has that in the name."
Quote:
Because surely that is not true. People might be ignorant, they might not realize that their position is baseless (I don't know myself). There is no way that many Americans want a "theocratic authoritarian dictatorship". If that is your honest assessment of the opposing side of the abortion debate, and not baseless and distracting hyperbole, I will address it directly.
Not that many *want* a theocratic authoritarian dictatorship, but an unfortunate number will support those who do based on ideas like fetuses are people.

It's not enough to assume that a fetus is a person with rights to understand where they are coming from. It is necessary to understand why they feel that a fetus is a person with rights to understand where they are coming from. And the non-religious or imposing morality based arguments fall flat and are exposed for their hypocrisy for when they don't care about a fertilized egg from the time of conception to the time of the first missed period, and they don't care about that life once it has been born into the world.

I will only accept secular arguments for fetal personhood, and there is no secular argument to extending a fetus any more rights than the mother chooses to extend to it.
Quote:
I'm not trying to impose my will upon others.
You, the person behind the devil's advocate that you are playing? Sure, I suppose not. You as in the person I am debating here, yes, *you* do.
Quote:
How did you come to this conclusion? Torture is not fine for me if it imposes my will on society. In the quoted scenario the woman would get her abortion, then be prosecuted for wilful negligence. She would not be left there pregnant if she could not handle pregnancy - the doctor still certifies abortion on medical grounds and the state has no prerogative to second-guess a doctor until after-the-fact.
Okay, I suppose you are correct, she does have a choice. Sh can avoid the torture by going to jail.
Quote:

I don't understand what you mean, because I have always considered the woman to be a person.
You? or the persona that you are arguing from? The position that you are arguing from considers the woman to be less of a person than the embryo inside of her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I implied no such thing. The medical appeal in an urgent situation needs to be timely. That is totally different from the legal appeal, which would only ever happen after the fetus is dead.
Needs to be, heh. Yes, it does need to be, but it won't.
Quote:
The cops are busting down the door because actual self-induced abortion, even attempted self-induced abortion was (I assumed) a crime in and of itself.

Drinking wine, smoking, doing laundry, and stretching are not crimes in and of themselves, even if there was a law on the books criminalizing gross negligence that leads to the death of the fetus. There is no safe amount of drinking or smoking while pregnant but doing either of those activities is no guarantee that the fetus will be killed.
And if a fetus is a person, then there already is a law on the books that does criminalize regular negligence as well.
Quote:
That is the distinction - one is actually a crime with intent and actually kills the fetus while the other might cause a crime and might kill the fetus, but easily without intent.
And how do we tell without invesitgaions?

The result of fetal personhood is that many miscarriages will need to be looked at. Not all, just as most deaths are not investigated as homicide. But there will be suspension for any unexpected miscarriage that is not attended by a physician. Even if not prosecuted, there will be many grieving mothers subject to harsh questions from people who do not really consider her to be a person. There will be pressure to make an example of mothers who violate the laws.
Quote:

I looked into it and to my surprise, you are right. I made the unfortunate mistake of trusting Wikipedia:

I spent about an hour looking at state laws and only a couple of them actually criminalize self-induced abortion: Delaware (repealed '17), Idaho (overturned '12), Nevada, New York (repealed '19), Oklahoma, South Carolina, and now Alabama and Georgia if you've been following the news. A few different internet sources listed other states as anti-self-induced-abortion-states, but in the same breath admitted that those states were, according to their own courts, misapplying their own laws.

Nevada's laws criminalize self-induced abortion via drugs after 24 weeks without doctor's orders[1]; also via injury to the mother, arguably including self-inflicted injury, at any time[2]. Oklahoma's statutes explicitly prohibit self-induced abortion unless done under the direction of a physician[3]. South Carolina allows only for abortion in any case with the physician's consent[4], piles on additional requirements for the second and third trimesters, and makes it a misdemeanor for a woman to induce her own abortion any other way[5].

[1] NRS 200.210
[2] NRS 200.220
[3] OK Stat §63-1-733
[4] S.C. Code Ann. § 44-41-20
[5] S.C. Code Ann. § 44-41-80(b)
And what this will do will be to criminalize all forms of self abortion, up to and including plan B.
Quote:

I do think the fetus has rights but those rights don't always trump the rights of the mother. And I hope I'm not being arbitrary as to when the rights of one win over the rights of the other. All of this is assuming that the fetus has rights, of course.
Assuming that the fetus is a person with the rights that we grant a person created many moral quandaries. Quandaries that are intentionally created by those who want a fetus to be considered a person. The theocrats don't actually care about the fetus, they care about creating the quandaries, so that we spend all of our time arguing about the minutiae of whether a glass of wine counts as an attempt to self abort, while ignoring that they are imposing their religious preferences upon a secular nation.

The only logical and consistent way to consider the rights of the unborn is to extend to them the rights and protections that the mother wishes to extend to them.
Quote:

I do not wish to pass a law without the general support of society. I hope that remark removes any lingering fears as to any tyrannical motive behind my position!
But, would you use deception to get the general support of society? Those who you are arguing on the behalf of can and do.
Quote:

Admitted, however, do not commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Someone who opposes the legalization of abortion is not necessarily a misogynist.
No, many are not. Maybe even most are not. But the root of the desire to control reproductive rights is in the desire to control not just women, but society. You don't have to be a misogynist to think that women should stay at home and raise babies who will become uneducated and illiterate children, unable to organize against their oppressors, while the men toil in the fields until they are too tired to rebel. Nothing in that necessitates misogyny. That said, many of them do also hate and fear women.
Quote:
Would you care to start a thread on that subject? Your short criticism of religion here has failed to convince me that religion has no place in political or legislative debate.
How about hundreds of years of history. Name me one theocratic country in the modern world that you would like to live in.

You want a reason why religion has no place in political or legislative debate? Okay, because God told me it doesn't.

Have fun arguing against that.
Quote:
Well, as I said the main arguments are of a "religious" nature. There are also secular arguments, none of them rigorous enough to convince me personally.
Right, as I said, there is no secular reason to extend a fetus any more rights than its mother chooses to extend it. The rest is opinion justified by claiming that the sky god agrees.
Quote:
You were once a zygote, and I assume you desire your own self-preservation. What if your parents wanted to abort you? Could you still endorse a law that might have prevented your own existence? Does that make you a hypocrite? Or perhaps, do you distinguish your zygote and fetal predecessors from your "self"?
When I was a zygote, I didn't care about my self preservation. If I had been miscarried or intentionally terminated, I wouldn't have cared at all. I was a zygote, all I cared about then was about the ending of Game of Thrones. If I had been miscarried or intentionally terminated, I would not be here now to care whether or not I existed.

As I said in this or another related thread, I fear and avoid death because I have plans, and death would interrupt those plans. As a zygote, I had no plans to be interrupted.
Quote:
You say that the fetus is part of the woman's body. But what about the father's rights? A father can sue if his wife refuses to share custody of a child. Why do we say the child, once born, is the "father's son"? At what point does the father have some vested interest in the child? Is it at birth? When the father pays for food and housing? What if the mother pays for food and housing? How can it be that something goes from being part of the woman's body to being a joint responsibility of the man and woman?
A father can only sue to share custody if he is supporting the child, he is not suing because he is denied access to his half of genetic material, he is suing because he is paying for something that he is not getting. I'm not sure I've ever heard "father's son" outside of cheesy movies and possibly gangster shows.

None of this relates to the topic of abortion or fetal personhood, and sounds more like MRA complaints than any argument related to reproductive rights.
Quote:
What then of homicide laws which increase the penalty when a fetus and the mother are injured or killed? How is that consistent with the position that the fetus is not a person?
The mother with a desired pregnancy has plans for that baby. She has plans of raising that child. Someone else causing its death interrupts those plans. I am against laws that would actually consider it murder if a fetus dies, but I am for laws that would add an extra penalty on top, for inconveniencing those who did have plans for that child. That's really a balancing of parental rights, and fetal rights do not need to enter into it.
Quote:
I concede that I am not up to the job of actually defending the anti-abortion position. Try as I may, I cannot personally justify any universal system of morals without assuming certain tenets of religion a priori. Your thoughts?
You are correct that you cannot justify any universal system of morals without assuming certain tenets of religion, which is why imposing your morals on others is never justified, except through appeals to a sky god.

We can justify reciprocal rights. I don't want to be murdered, so I will lobby my community to not permit murder. I don't want to be punched in the face, so I will lobby my community to restrict violence. I don't want people to take my stuff, so I will lobby my community to disallow theft. This requires no religious tenets, only secular arguments as to how a policy would affect the community, and whether that would make the community a better or worse place, as determined by the criteria created by the community.

I can't not want to be aborted. If I am in a position to be aborted, then I can't care. If I'm not in a position to be aborted, then I don't care. There is no reciprocal right to be granted or recieved.

You gave it a good try, though, enough so that from time to time I forgot and thought you were actually defending the position, not just playing someone that did. Unfortunately, as you see from having tried to do so, there really is no way to justify their positions without appeals to an outside authority who conveniently only talks to them.
  #321  
Old 05-29-2019, 11:13 AM
you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,238
Right now, a couple struggling to have a baby can try as many times as they want, no matter how many miscarriages it takes to get there. Four or more miscarriages before a success occurs are not unheard of. Sometimes success never occurs. None of this is regulated by State.

Do you think it should, Max S?
  #322  
Old 05-29-2019, 01:22 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by you with the face View Post
Right now, a couple struggling to have a baby can try as many times as they want, no matter how many miscarriages it takes to get there. Four or more miscarriages before a success occurs are not unheard of. Sometimes success never occurs. None of this is regulated by State.



Do you think it should, Max S?
We can expect fertility clinics to charge a lot more for their services under an abortion ban. If you plant two embryos and only one "takes"...OMG WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT PRECIOUS BABY!!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
__________________
What the hell is a signature?
  #323  
Old 05-29-2019, 01:51 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
For you to see my argument, you must adopt for the sake of argument that a fetus has rights.
No, I don't. I only need to recognize that you think that it does.

For me to agree with your argument, I would have adopt not only the idea that a fetus has rights, but also that it has specifically the rights you're ascribing to it. But in order to see the argument, no, I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I'm not trying to impose my will upon others.
Sure you are.

If you were only trying to convince people to agree with you and to act accordingly, you wouldn't be proposing laws on the subject. You'd only think that laws are necessary if you're trying to impose your position by force of the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I do not wish to pass a law without the general support of society. I hope that remark removes any lingering fears as to any tyrannical motive behind my position!
You never heard of the phrase "tyranny of the majority"?

There have been plenty of times and places in which society generally supported laws that had the effect of tyranny on members of that society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Well, as I said the main arguments are of a "religious" nature. There are also secular arguments, none of them rigorous enough to convince me personally.
That's interesting. You're agreeing that you want to impose a particular religious view on people who don't believe that particular religious view.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
You were once a zygote, and I assume you desire your own self-preservation. What if your parents wanted to abort you? Could you still endorse a law that might have prevented your own existence?
Sure I can. I agree that my mother should have had the choice whether to carry me or not. (I'm not sure whether she felt that she did; she might, in her particular life, have had access to reasonably safe abortion even though it was illegal at the time. Too late to ask her now.)

If she'd decided not to, there wouldn't have been anything of me to be upset about it.

If she'd decided not to have sex at the particular time at which I was conceived, there also wouldn't have been anything of me to be upset about it. You seem to be strongly in favor of her having had the right to make that choice.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
You say that the fetus is part of the woman's body. But what about the father's rights? A father can sue if his wife refuses to share custody of a child. Why do we say the child, once born, is the "father's son"? At what point does the father have some vested interest in the child? Is it at birth? When the father pays for food and housing? What if the mother pays for food and housing? How can it be that something goes from being part of the woman's body to being a joint responsibility of the man and woman?
Because at birth it is no longer part of the woman's body.

So long as it is part of the woman's body, her right to her own body overwhelms the rights of anyone else to her body. After birth, that no longer applies.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Try as I may, I cannot personally justify any universal system of morals without assuming certain tenets of religion a priori.
Have you not noticed that non-religious people have systems of morals, some of them consciously developed?

They may not convince you; but your religion doesn't convince a lot of other people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
My mind is not blown, because I'm well aware that women who have had children (who are, I strongly suspect, overrepresented in the "pro-life" contingent) have a much deeper understanding of what it means to carry an unborn child inside you than I possibly could.
To attempt to move on from arguing with Max S. for a bit:

I've no idea whether women who've had children tend to oppose abortion rights; I certainly know some who are strongly pro-choice, but that's anecdote. (59% of women in the USA who had abortions in 2014 had already had children, for what that's worth.) But I do think I see a type of motive for opposing abortion in some people which hasn't been discussed and which has nothing to do with hatred.

I think many humans have a bad case of what I would call Everyone Must Really Be Like Me, Even If They Say Otherwise.

I've met women who flat out couldn't believe that there are women who don't want children. They wanted children. They were women. What they wanted must be Right and Proper and -- from that point some people who have a case of something like EMRBLMEITSO think 'therefore wanting something else is Wrong'. The people I'm thinking of didn't go there; they went somewhere else, and wound up with 'therefore other women must of course want children too, they're just deluded somehow into thinking that they don't and when they actually have kids it'll be just fine!'

No, sometimes it's not just fine. There really are women who don't want any children, and if they do wind up raising them there'll be hell to pay, often by the children.

And in the same fashion, I think there are people -- of all genders -- who want children, who were happy about pregnancy even if physically uncomfortable, and who remember how they anticipated the birth of children and how they thought about those fetuses and embryos and maybe even blastocytes and zygotes when they were within their/their partner's wombs. And they think, on some level of their minds, that that's really how every pregnant woman must feel about her pregnancy; and that women who say they don't want to carry the pregnancy are saying so not because they genuinely feel invaded, and/or desperate otherwise not to be pregnant, and/or think that what's inside them is an annoying clump of cells that's not inhabited by anybody; but that they can't actually feel like that, and therefore must be rejecting pregnancy for some trivial reason that can be put into the description of 'temporary inconvenience.'
  #324  
Old 05-31-2019, 07:28 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,380
It's too disheartening to read this thread. Right-wingers will sue to keep their plastic straws and happily support the torture of children, but want the police to investigate miscarriages.

Perhaps with these idiocies in full view Dopers will be more amenable to my suggestion:

Only female legislators should be allowed to vote on issues exclusive to women's bodies.
  #325  
Old 05-31-2019, 08:05 AM
Novelty Bobble is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 8,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
It's too disheartening to read this thread. Right-wingers will sue to keep their plastic straws and happily support the torture of children, but want the police to investigate miscarriages.

Perhaps with these idiocies in full view Dopers will be more amenable to my suggestion:

Only female legislators should be allowed to vote on issues exclusive to women's bodies.
I'm pro-choice and I think it is entirely an individual woman's choice as to how she reaches her decision and who she consults.
However, I don't think we should even consider gender-segregated voting.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #326  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:23 AM
enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Yes, I would prosecute a woman for getting pregnant if she really wanted a baby but had a high chance of miscarriage and knew about it. I didn't realize I contradicted this somewhere else. The "really high chance" would mean a doctor said "if you become pregnant there isn't a reasonable chance that the baby will survive" preferably followed by "you can be prosecuted for having sex with this condition if it results in pregnancy and pregnancy ends in abortion, which it will". If the condition is permanent the doctor might add "you are eligible for sterilization if you so wish, that way you can keep having sex". If it is temporary, the doctor might recommend waiting to have sex. If after all of that, the woman still has sex, then yes, I would prosecute her. I wouldn't recommend jail time if she had a bona fide wish to birth the child, possibly just the cost of the abortion and legal fees. I try not to be a monster.

I'll try and address the rest later tonight.

~Max
You should try harder.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #327  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:32 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
It's too disheartening to read this thread. Right-wingers will sue to keep their plastic straws and happily support the torture of children, but want the police to investigate miscarriages.

Perhaps with these idiocies in full view Dopers will be more amenable to my suggestion:

Only female legislators should be allowed to vote on issues exclusive to women's bodies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
I'm pro-choice and I think it is entirely an individual woman's choice as to how she reaches her decision and who she consults.
However, I don't think we should even consider gender-segregated voting.
I disagree to some extent. I don't think that we should have gender-segregated voting, but I do think that we should give a great deal of consideration to the possible effects of it. We've had gender segregated voting for most of the country's (and world's) history, and that segregation was that men voted on important issues, and women didn't get a voice.

It does seem a bit absurd that a bunch of old white guys make the choices that women have to abide by.

The ideal would be to get more women into office.
  #328  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:39 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
And in the same fashion, I think there are people -- of all genders -- who want children, who were happy about pregnancy even if physically uncomfortable, and who remember how they anticipated the birth of children and how they thought about those fetuses and embryos and maybe even blastocytes and zygotes when they were within their/their partner's wombs. And they think, on some level of their minds, that that's really how every pregnant woman must feel about her pregnancy; and that women who say they don't want to carry the pregnancy are saying so not because they genuinely feel invaded, and/or desperate otherwise not to be pregnant, and/or think that what's inside them is an annoying clump of cells that's not inhabited by anybody; but that they can't actually feel like that, and therefore must be rejecting pregnancy for some trivial reason that can be put into the description of 'temporary inconvenience.'

You're on the right track, although your point becomes a bit muddled at the end. If every woman felt this way, why would any of them want to end the pregnancy for the sake of "temporary inconvenience"?

What I would say is that I became much more tenderhearted about children generally after becoming a father. For example, in the movie "Trainspotting",

SPOILER:
there is a scene in which the group of heroin addicts is roused from their stupor by the screaming of one of the women, who has discovered her neglected baby is dead.


I first saw this movie before having children, and I didn't even remember that scene (while there were a couple others, a scatological one in particular, that were seared into my memory). I saw it again a few years ago, and this scene absolutely wrecked me.

In real world terms, I have become much more concerned since becoming a father about watching for abuse and neglect of children (and reporting it when appropriate), supporting nutritional programs in schools (like Michelle Obama's, which was sadly torpedoed by the Trump administration), etc. So my feeling about those things, and about abortion beyond a certain stage, is not "I assume you must feel the same about your kids as I do about mine" but rather "I care about your child, even if you don't". Does that make sense?
  #329  
Old 05-31-2019, 06:33 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You're on the right track, although your point becomes a bit muddled at the end. If every woman felt this way, why would any of them want to end the pregnancy for the sake of "temporary inconvenience"?
1) Every woman does not feel that way, and I never said that every woman does.

2) The women who do feel that way are not the ones having abortions.

3) I very much doubt that anybody's ending a pregnancy for the sake of "temporary inconvenience". It's the people who want to force others to stay pregnant who are using that phrasing.

I really don't see how you got the bit I quoted out of my post. My point was exactly that not everyone feels the same way; but not everyone recognizes that fact.

Last edited by thorny locust; 05-31-2019 at 06:34 PM.
  #330  
Old 05-31-2019, 08:52 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,281
Sigh. I understand what you were getting at: my point was that if pro-lifers believe that must be how other women feel, since they themselves feel that way, how does that jibe with their also believing that those same women are willing to end their pregnancies because of “temporary inconvenience”, which strongly suggests they don’t in fact feel the same way about pregnancy?
  #331  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:52 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 512
I think they don't understand that what the other women are feeling is not 'temporary inconvenience'; because they can't imagine that the other women are actually seriously upset about being pregnant.
  #332  
Old 06-01-2019, 09:26 AM
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Right-wingers will sue to keep their plastic straws
Not only that, but they support legislation to permit pink hunting outfits.

The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017