Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:38 AM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't believe this is an opinion I've espoused.
The position you're arguing utterly depends on that "opinion you're not espousing", though, so you either HAVE to "espouse" it or your argument immediately implodes due to absent premises.

A: This law says that clumps of cells are people and that (therefore) killing it is murder! That's insane!

B: It's not insane.

A: But the only way that the law wouldn't be insane is if killing clumps of cells was murder!

B: It's still not insane.

A: Are you saying that killing clumps of cells is murder?

B: No.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Of course there are. Everything from we need them as soldiers in Vietnam to we don't want to have to clean their brains up off the highway to drugs are bad. Those are "myriad reasons", and they're all examples of us, as a society, denying people their "body autonomy".
And the current reason you're putting forward is "no reason at all whatsoever that I'm willing to "espouse" even for the sake of argument".
  #552  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:48 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't really want to see this thread side-tracked into a discussion about forced organ donation.
But bringing up the Draft is o.k.?
  #553  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:48 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malaclypse the elder View Post
The alternative is a growing number of beings that are severely deformed, note severely, that cause huge costs to society on every level even before such quality of life that they have being abysmal. That is unacceptable.
At least in the US, the vast majority of abortions are not performed because of severe fetal deformity. Unless you have a cite to the contrary...

Regards,
Shodan
  #554  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:56 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
The position you're arguing utterly depends on that "opinion you're not espousing", though, so you either HAVE to "espouse" it or your argument immediately implodes due to absent premises. ...
I don't think it does, but maybe it would help if you could clarify what the position you think I'm arguing is which requires a belief that abortion is "murder".
  #555  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:56 AM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm saying it's a rare enough edge case that, even if I did think it was a good idea, it's not very common and therefore doesn't merit as much attention as the far more common abortions.

I don't really want to see this thread side-tracked into a discussion about forced organ donation. If you want to start another thread to debate it, go right ahead. I might even join in, but I'll tell you that it's not a subject I've spent much time fleshing out a firm position on.
ISTM that that's a failure of consistency, or possibly outright hypocrisy, on your part. You apparently found it worth your while to "flesh out a firm position" on the acceptability of legally forcing a woman to provide the use of her blood and organs (often with very damaging physical and psychological consequences) to a fetus she doesn't want simply because the fetus would otherwise die. In fact, your position on that topic is so firm that you devote substantial "time, money and energy" to the cause of enforcing compliance with your views on the part of everybody else, whether they agree with you or not.

That being the case, I don't see how you can possibly justify not having an opinion on the violation of bodily autonomy of people who are not pregnant women to preserve the lives of people who are not in utero embryos or fetuses. If you're okay with legally requiring continuation of pregnancy to preserve the life of a fetus, but not okay with legally requiring organ donation to preserve the life of a born person, on what grounds do you make that distinction? Is it that you think the lives of fetuses are somehow more valuable than the lives of adults with organ failure, or that you think the bodily autonomy of pregnant women is somehow less important than the bodily autonomy of potential organ donors, or what?

Your refusal to examine the moral consistency of your position is coming across as not wanting to look too closely at your beliefs for fear you might have to confront some hypocrisy in them.
  #556  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:57 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
But bringing up the Draft is o.k.?
I felt it was a relevant rebuttal to the assertion that "There are plenty of laws saying what we can’t do with our bodies, and few, if any, saying what we must do."
  #557  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:58 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's a rare enough edge case that, even if I did think it was a good idea, it's not very common and therefore doesn't merit as much attention as the far more common abortions.

I don't really want to see this thread side-tracked into a discussion about forced organ donation. If you want to start another thread to debate it, go right ahead.
Why should there be another thread about it? It's in this thread because it's clearly analogous to the thread topic.

If you don't like people drawing comparisons between forced organ donation and forced carrying of a pregnancy to term, then maybe you're in the wrong thread.
  #558  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:59 AM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think it does, but maybe it would help if you could clarify what the position you think I'm arguing is which requires a belief that abortion is "murder".
That abortion at week seven should be banned based on the thingy in the tummy being a human person that shouldn't be murdered.
  #559  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:02 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I felt it was a relevant rebuttal to the assertion that "There are plenty of laws saying what we can’t do with our bodies, and few, if any, saying what we must do."
Yeah, women and men both had plenty of laws saying what we had to do with our respective bodies, back before 1973.

Not sure how that's relevant to 2019.
  #560  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:05 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
ISTM that that's a failure of consistency, or possibly outright hypocrisy, on your part. You apparently found it worth your while to "flesh out a firm position" on the acceptability of legally forcing a woman to provide the use of her blood and organs (often with very damaging physical and psychological consequences) to a fetus she doesn't want simply because the fetus would otherwise die. In fact, your position on that topic is so firm that you devote substantial "time, money and energy" to the cause of enforcing compliance with your views on the part of everybody else, whether they agree with you or not.

That being the case, I don't see how you can possibly justify not having an opinion on the violation of bodily autonomy of people who are not pregnant women to preserve the lives of people who are not in utero embryos or fetuses. If you're okay with legally requiring continuation of pregnancy to preserve the life of a fetus, but not okay with legally requiring organ donation to preserve the life of a born person, on what grounds do you make that distinction? Is it that you think the lives of fetuses are somehow more valuable than the lives of adults with organ failure, or that you think the bodily autonomy of pregnant women is somehow less important than the bodily autonomy of potential organ donors, or what?

Your refusal to examine the moral consistency of your position is coming across as not wanting to look too closely at your beliefs for fear you might have to confront some hypocrisy in them.
It seems sort of easy to make that distinction actually.
  #561  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:08 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Yeah, women and men both had plenty of laws saying what we had to do with our respective bodies, back before 1973.

Not sure how that's relevant to 2019.
No, no, the massive problem with the 'draft' argument is that he's blatantly ignoring that when we impinge in body autonomy we do it for reasons. Him trying to divert the discussion away from those reasons to the "okay, but if we had reasons then banning abortion would be totally justified!" is stupid horseshit, and it's also the whole point of the draft thing.
  #562  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:10 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
At least in the US, the vast majority of abortions are not performed because of severe fetal deformity. Unless you have a cite to the contrary...

Regards,
Shodan
Do I need to come up with cites that roughly the same crowd that's against abortions has also fought contraception access (e.g. Hobby Lobby) and sex ed other than abstinence-only?

All those pro-life evangelicals have fought against teens being allowed easy access to contraceptives because the idea of their darling little girl fucking some boy gives them hives. And to them, that's been consistently more important than all the 'murders' that happened because little Janie got knocked up and needed an abortion.

Bill Clinton, when running for President in 1992, said he wanted abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare." And we libruls would love to make sure every American woman and girl of child-bearing age can get whatever form of contraception would work best for her, to minimize the number of abortions that happen because the woman didn't want to be pregnant in the first place.

Where does the resistance to this come from? Not from the left, bro.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 05-22-2019 at 12:10 PM.
  #563  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:12 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I felt it was a relevant rebuttal to the assertion that "There are plenty of laws saying what we can’t do with our bodies, and few, if any, saying what we must do."
You think it supports your position, while the much closer analogy concerning transplants obviously doesn't. I can see why you don't want to talk about the latter.
  #564  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:16 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
I'm saying it's a rare enough edge case that, even if I did think it was a good idea, it's not very common
Picking up on this claim to note: Actually, it's not at all rare for people to die for lack of a transplant that could be provided by a living donor, such as a kidney, part of a liver or lung or intestine, bone marrow, etc. There are at least tens of thousands of people who die in the US each year due to not getting such a transplant. At a conservative estimate, that's at least 1-2% of the number of abortions that occur annually.

So it's definitely not the sort of minuscule "edge case" likelihood that you're trying to make it out to be. If you spend, say, a thousand dollars a year on fighting for legally enforced pregnancy continuation, then proportionally you ought to be spending ten to fight for legally enforced live donation of organs, if the saving of lives really does matter to you so much more than bodily autonomy.
  #565  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:19 PM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,345
So there’s no myriad of reasons to breach body autonomy, at all.

Your corpse has enough body autonomy that I can’t harvest your organs for donation, (to save numerous lives!), unless you so consented while alive.

But it’s okay for the state to breach women’s body autonomy to protect a bundle of cells with only the potential to become a person.

And the heartbeat indicator is pure, utter nonsense. It is NOT the measure by which we routinely decide life is over. Lots of beating hearts are disconnected from life support because there is no brain activity. Brain death is the measure.

Straight up misogyny to my eyes.
  #566  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:27 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
It seems sort of easy to make that distinction actually.
I'm inferring until further notice that if you did actually have a logically and morally consistent way to make such a distinction, you would have stated it, rather than merely insinuating in a ten-word drive-by post that you could state one if you wanted to.
  #567  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:28 PM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post

In a democracy we vote on those obligations either directly or indirectly via representatives. The populace won’t be in 100% agreement and some will be unhappy. Do you have a better mechanism?
How about, if half the people believe ‘meat is murder’, and half don’t, then you do as your beliefs dictate and leave others to do the same? Any other solution allows one half to be oppressed by beliefs of the other. Half of the population will always be oppressed, whichever side is currently on top. THAT’S unworkable!
  #568  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:35 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
ISTM that that's a failure of consistency, or possibly outright hypocrisy, on your part. You apparently found it worth your while to "flesh out a firm position" on the acceptability of legally forcing a woman to provide the use of her blood and organs (often with very damaging physical and psychological consequences) to a fetus she doesn't want simply because the fetus would otherwise die. In fact, your position on that topic is so firm that you devote substantial "time, money and energy" to the cause of enforcing compliance with your views on the part of everybody else, whether they agree with you or not.

That being the case, I don't see how you can possibly justify not having an opinion on the violation of bodily autonomy of people who are not pregnant women to preserve the lives of people who are not in utero embryos or fetuses. If you're okay with legally requiring continuation of pregnancy to preserve the life of a fetus, but not okay with legally requiring organ donation to preserve the life of a born person, on what grounds do you make that distinction? Is it that you think the lives of fetuses are somehow more valuable than the lives of adults with organ failure, or that you think the bodily autonomy of pregnant women is somehow less important than the bodily autonomy of potential organ donors, or what?

Your refusal to examine the moral consistency of your position is coming across as not wanting to look too closely at your beliefs for fear you might have to confront some hypocrisy in them.
I've said previously in this thread that there are already a variety of ways that the government violates the bodily autonomy of its citizens. I don't agree with all of them, but I don't have an issue with others. To the extent that you think someone who opposes some forms of violation of bodily autonomy but not others is a hypocrite, I suppose I'm guilty as charged, but I submit to you that I'm hardly unique in that regard. It's a not uncommon view. For example, looking just at the issue of abortion, the viewpoints that it should be illegal in all circumstances and legal in all circumstances are minority positions. The most common position is that it should be legal in some circumstances and illegal in others. Are those people all hypocrites in your eyes because they find "forcing a woman to provide the use of her blood and organs" acceptable in some circumstances and unacceptable in others? Is a generally pro-choice person who nevertheless opposes partial birth abortions a hypocrite?
  #569  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:44 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
That abortion at week seven should be banned based on the thingy in the tummy being a human person that shouldn't be murdered.
Ahhh, I think I see where your confusion lies. My position is not that "the thingy in the tummy" shouldn't be "murdered", but that it shouldn't generally be killed absent some really good reason. I don't regularly use the word "murder" to describe the act of killing the "the thingy in the tummy" because:

1) "murder" is a legal definition for a particular form of ending a human life that I don't think is applicable to the act of abortion, and

2) "murder" is a word laden with connotations that tend to draw a lot of emotion into a debate. For example, elbows' "meat is murder" position.
  #570  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:46 PM
Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I've said previously in this thread that there are already a variety of ways that the government violates the bodily autonomy of its citizens. I don't agree with all of them, but I don't have an issue with others. To the extent that you think someone who opposes some forms of violation of bodily autonomy but not others is a hypocrite, I suppose I'm guilty as charged, but I submit to you that I'm hardly unique in that regard. It's a not uncommon view. For example, looking just at the issue of abortion, the viewpoints that it should be illegal in all circumstances and legal in all circumstances are minority positions. The most common position is that it should be legal in some circumstances and illegal in others. Are those people all hypocrites in your eyes because they find "forcing a woman to provide the use of her blood and organs" acceptable in some circumstances and unacceptable in others? Is a generally pro-choice person who nevertheless opposes partial birth abortions a hypocrite?
Where are you at on birth control? I don't mean to derail the thread, but I think it is pertinent to the discussion. The people sponsoring these types of bills in Ohio also seem to want to remove coverage for certain forms of birth control. Birth control seems to prevent the evil abortion thing from being a thing.

Quote:
OHIO: A bill to stop insurance from covering abortion could affect birth control, too.

Ohio also recently passed a “heartbeat” ban, but its legislators are now debating yet another abortion-restriction bill, to stop most insurance companies from covering abortion services unless the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life. The bill defines this kind of abortion as a “nontherapeutic abortion.” And as in Georgia’s bill, there’s some curious language: This one says that so-called nontherapuetic abortion “includes drugs or devices

used to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”

Such a broad definition could include common birth control methods like the pill and IUDs, Jaime Miracle, deputy director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, told the Statehouse News Bureau. An IUD can cost as much as $1,300, according to Planned Parenthood.
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/...abortion-fight
__________________
I promise it’s not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #571  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:46 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
How about, if half the people believe ‘meat is murder’, and half don’t, then you do as your beliefs dictate and leave others to do the same?
Especially in cases where, as on the issue of abortion, the prohibitionist view is based purely on religious/spiritual belief.

The idea of full personhood with full legal rights (in addition to its unique and massive "right" to be physically sustained by using an existing person's body) inhering in a fertilized ovum from the instant of fertilization onward has no basis other than doctrines of faith. These may be theological doctrines of "ensoulment" by a deity, or arbitrary claims about what's owed to the ovum's "potential" as a person.

All other arguments for prohibiting abortion---that it will be better for women's physical or mental health, that it will make women better and more caring mothers, that it will improve our morals as a society---are completely unsupported by evidence (and in some cases, directly contradicted by evidence). Ultimately, the anti-abortion position rests on nothing more than the personal beliefs "I think this is what God wants" or "I choose to regard a non-sentient cluster of cells as a fully human person".
  #572  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:47 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Ahhh, I think I see where your confusion lies. My position is not that "the thingy in the tummy" shouldn't be "murdered", but that it shouldn't generally be killed absent some really good reason.
And who gets to decide how good the reason is??
  #573  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:50 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Ahhh, I think I see where your confusion lies. My position is not that "the thingy in the tummy" shouldn't be "murdered", but that it shouldn't generally be killed absent some really good reason. I don't regularly use the word "murder" to describe the act of killing the "the thingy in the tummy" because:

1) "murder" is a legal definition for a particular form of ending a human life that I don't think is applicable to the act of abortion, and

2) "murder" is a word laden with connotations that tend to draw a lot of emotion into a debate. For example, elbows' "meat is murder" position.
Fair enough. So you would in fact disagree with the idiocy in the laws under discussion where they say that say that fetuses are people, then?

Also, why shouldn't the thingy be killed? Does it owe you money that won't be paid back if it's killed? Because that would be a good reason not to want it killed.

Last edited by begbert2; 05-22-2019 at 12:51 PM. Reason: typo
  #574  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:51 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
And who gets to decide how good the reason is??
Politicians, of course!
  #575  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:59 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
And who gets to decide how good the reason is??
As octopus has pointed out, we live in a democracy, so we all do, or at least we should all get to if a handful of judges hadn't taken it upon themselves to decide for us.
  #576  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:59 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 209
Not that this really matters, but...

Alabama Public Television Refuses To Air Episode Of ‘Arthur’ With Gay Wedding

The takeaway here is that the Great State of Alabama will vigilantly shield children from gay cartoon mice, but if they get knocked up by a rapist they can go piss up a rope.
  #577  
Old 05-22-2019, 01:01 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
As octopus has pointed out, we live in a democracy, so we all do, or at least we should all get to if a handful of judges hadn't taken it upon themselves to decide for us.
So every time a woman wants to get an abortion, the whole US gets a vote on whether or not she has a good reason?
  #578  
Old 05-22-2019, 01:07 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
So every time a woman wants to get an abortion, the whole US gets a vote on whether or not she has a good reason?
Yeah-Let's have a National Abortion Election every month.
  #579  
Old 05-22-2019, 01:08 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
To the extent that you think someone who opposes some forms of violation of bodily autonomy but not others is a hypocrite, I suppose I'm guilty as charged, but I submit to you that I'm hardly unique in that regard.
Sure, but usually when we find ourselves supporting positions that seem contradictory, we have reasons that explain our support in a more consistent way. Or else we just acknowledge that our positions are somewhat inconsistent and arbitrary because that's just how we feel about it, and we don't really care whether it's rational.

In the case of forced continuation of pregnancy versus forced live donation of organs, you don't seem to have bothered to try to establish even a shred of consistency. You're completely in favor of violating pregnant women's bodily autonomy to preserve the existence of embryonic or fetal cells that have little to none of the capabilities of a human person. Yet you're completely apathetic about accepting the loss of tens of thousands of lives annually, lives of indisputably human persons, to avoid violating the bodily autonomy of potential organ donors by forcing them to donate organs.

Are you admitting that that's just irrational and you don't care, or are you saying you have rational justification for it? Because from where I'm sitting, your position looks like a typical baked-in response to the assumptions of a traditionally patriarchal and religious culture: namely, a fetus is a baby, a woman is a vessel to bear a baby, God made woman to be a mother and rejoice in bearing her baby, and so on and so forth.

ISTM that most people holding such views don't really take forced continuation of pregnancy seriously as a violation of bodily autonomy, the way they'd take forced kidney or even bone marrow donation seriously as a violation of bodily autonomy. Because a woman being pregnant is just fulfilling her nature, and if she only stopped being so selfish and started appreciating this precious gift from God she wouldn't want an abortion anyway.
  #580  
Old 05-22-2019, 01:27 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Fair enough. So you would in fact disagree with the idiocy in the laws under discussion where they say that say that fetuses are people, then?

Also, why shouldn't the thingy be killed? Does it owe you money that won't be paid back if it's killed? Because that would be a good reason not to want it killed.
Here's what I posted earlier in this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
My personal belief is that life begins at conception. My understanding about the "when does it become a person?" debate is that we're really trying to decide, as a society, when and to what degree we bestow that life with legal rights. My preference would generally be to see it happen earlier in the pregnancy than usually happens today, but I am not particularly wedded to the idea that it must be at the point when our current medical instrumentation is capable of measuring the heartbeat (~6 weeks).
Does that help you understand my view? Or do you still have questions?
  #581  
Old 05-22-2019, 01:43 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
... In the case of forced continuation of pregnancy versus forced live donation of organs, you don't seem to have bothered to try to establish even a shred of consistency. You're completely in favor of violating pregnant women's bodily autonomy to preserve the existence of embryonic or fetal cells that have little to none of the capabilities of a human person. Yet you're completely apathetic about accepting the loss of tens of thousands of lives annually, lives of indisputably human persons, to avoid violating the bodily autonomy of potential organ donors by forcing them to donate organs.

Are you admitting that that's just irrational and you don't care, or are you saying you have rational justification for it? ...
I am neither "completely in favor of violating pregnant women's bodily autonomy" nor "completely apathetic about accepting the loss of tens of thousands of lives annually [due to lack of donated organs]". As for the latter, there are other potential sources for organ donations besides forcing it on people. For example, we could legalize the sale of one's own organs to save lives of those whose needs are not met by the current system. Or we could make more of an effort to encourage organ donation upon one's passing.

As to the former, earlier in this thread, I posted this (regarding pregnancies that result from rape):

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... Anyways, as I've said already, I don't have a firm position on the issue yet. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale is appropriate, not unlike what Georgia has, where the woman is given the more time (22 weeks instead of 6 weeks) to decide whether to abort or not. I'm open to hearing other plans that try to balance the competing interests of the innocent baby's right to life and the victimized woman's right to avoid further trauma. ...
Does that:

1) dispel the notion that I'm "completely in favor of violating pregnant women's bodily autonomy"

2) do anything to assuage your concern that my views "don't really take forced continuation of pregnancy seriously as a violation of bodily autonomy"?

I certainly consider my views rational. I recognize that there are competing interests at play here: between the pregnant woman who may not wish to carry the pregnancy to term and the life growing inside of her that has some vested interest in continuing to live and grow.

In your post, you accused the pro-life side of being too dismissive of the pregnant woman's interests, yet you seem particularly dismissive about interests of the life of the child. You've called it "a clump of cells" and "embryonic or fetal cells that have little to none of the capabilities of a human person". What are your views on, for example, third-trimester abortions?
  #582  
Old 05-22-2019, 01:53 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
So every time a woman wants to get an abortion, the whole US gets a vote on whether or not she has a good reason?
Yeah, like every time a driver drives down the road there is a national debate for that one stretch of road’s speed limit? Actually, laws are passed that codify the collective decision. Now trouble occurs when a judge rules something that is popular is illegal and then you have these decade long fights.
  #583  
Old 05-22-2019, 02:00 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Yeah, like every time a driver drives down the road there is a national debate for that one stretch of road’s speed limit? Actually, laws are passed that codify the collective decision. Now trouble occurs when a judge rules something that is popular is illegal and then you have these decade long fights.
That's funny. I thought trouble occurs when people try to force their religious views on a populace whose right to have an abortion has already been declared Constitutional.
  #584  
Old 05-22-2019, 02:21 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Do I need to come up with cites that roughly the same crowd that's against abortions has also fought contraception access (e.g. Hobby Lobby) and sex ed other than abstinence-only?
No, you don't need to, since it has nothing to do with whether abortions in the US are done for reasons of severe fetal deformity.

Regards,
Shodan
  #585  
Old 05-22-2019, 03:50 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I am neither "completely in favor of violating pregnant women's bodily autonomy" nor "completely apathetic about accepting the loss of tens of thousands of lives annually [due to lack of donated organs]". As for the latter, there are other potential sources for organ donations besides forcing it on people.
True, and likewise there are other and much more positive ways for decreasing the number of abortions besides legally forbidding women to get one. Improved access to birth control, for example, does a much better job of reducing unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions than abortion bans do.

If you really want to effectively diminish the prevalence of abortion in this country, joining the crusade of a bunch of anti-birth-control anti-sex-ed anti-woman religious zealots to criminalize the procedure is a pretty lousy way to do it. Making reliable birth control and sex education much more easily available, along with improving social programs that support women and children and make it less likely that an unplanned pregnancy will ruin a woman's life, is a much better way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
As to the former, earlier in this thread, I posted this (regarding pregnancies that result from rape):

Quote:
... Anyways, as I've said already, I don't have a firm position on the issue yet. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale is appropriate, not unlike what Georgia has, where the woman is given the more time (22 weeks instead of 6 weeks) to decide whether to abort or not. I'm open to hearing other plans that try to balance the competing interests of the innocent baby's right to life and the victimized woman's right to avoid further trauma. ...
Does that:

1) dispel the notion that I'm "completely in favor of violating pregnant women's bodily autonomy"

2) do anything to assuage your concern that my views "don't really take forced continuation of pregnancy seriously as a violation of bodily autonomy"?
Somewhat; and thanks for the recap, which is different from the impression I got from your subsequent remarks about your investment in "protecting innocent lives". But not all that much, tbh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
I recognize that there are competing interests at play here: between the pregnant woman who may not wish to carry the pregnancy to term and the life growing inside of her that has some vested interest in continuing to live and grow.
What is problematic about this is the vagueness of the status of what you call "the life growing inside of her" in terms of personhood. There are many forms of "life" that can grow inside a person that don't have and will never attain personhood of their own. An embryo or fetus is obviously different from those forms in some ways, but that doesn't mean that we must automatically assign it the status of a person with "some vested interest" right from the get-go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
In your post, you accused the pro-life side of being too dismissive of the pregnant woman's interests, yet you seem particularly dismissive about interests of the life of the child.
What child? My view is that calling an early-term fetus, much less an embryo or blastocyst, a "child" or a "baby" is an ideology-driven fiction rather than a biologically realistic description. Now if a pregnant woman wants her own fetus described as her "child" or her "baby" from the instant of conception onwards, that's her choice and I'm happy to comply with it. But for anyone else to talk about an embryo or early-term fetus in the abstract as a "baby" or "child" is just religious propaganda.

Of course, as I noted, gestation in its complete form is the process of turning an embryo and then a fetus into a baby that undeniably is a person. Just as it's unrealistic and arbitrary to declare that a fertilized ovum immediately possesses full personhood, it would be unrealistic and arbitrary to declare that a full-term baby shortly before delivery possesses no personhood.

Anywhere we decide to draw the line in the gestation process between "not-person" and "person" is going to be arbitrary, but at least we can make it somewhat less unrealistic. I would say that somewhere around the start of the third trimester is a reasonable point to consider that a woman's right to bodily autonomy starts to be outweighed by the fetus's increasing rights as a person

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
What are your views on, for example, third-trimester abortions?
Well, by your reasoning, they would be "rare enough edge cases" that are "not very common" and so not really worth "fleshing out a firm position" about. Abortions after the 21-week mark occur about as frequently as people with organ failure dying from lack of a live-donable transplant.

If we're going to take a less lackadaisical approach, though, I think it's reasonable to default to the position that decisions about third-trimester abortions should be left to a pregnant woman and her doctor, since the overwhelming majority of such late abortions occur in wanted pregnancies for overriding medical reasons. I have no problem with legal prohibition of elective third-trimester abortions, that is, ones that a doctor doesn't see any medical reason for, in keeping with the above remarks about the growing personhood of a late-term fetus.

Assuming, of course, that early-term elective abortions are allowed and accessible. If a woman has ample opportunity to terminate an unwanted pregnancy at will in its first several weeks, then I think that would substantially weaken the bodily-autonomy argument for elective abortion applied to late-term pregnancy. But if early-term abortions become more difficult to get, then you can probably expect to see a lot more later-term ones, and you pro-lifers will largely have yourselves to thank for it.
  #586  
Old 05-22-2019, 04:03 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Here's what I posted earlier in this thread:



Does that help you understand my view? Or do you still have questions?
How about: What is the position you're trying to argue for, what is your support for that position, and why should we accept the things that support your position as being relevant and valid?
  #587  
Old 05-22-2019, 04:37 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
That's funny. I thought trouble occurs when people try to force their religious views on a populace whose right to have an abortion has already been declared Constitutional.
You don't think that a secular person could say something like how he or she has viewed ultrasounds before and, damn, that sure looks like a human life in there, so I think there needs to be something more than the woman's sole and irrevocable choice before we kill that thing?

We give a stray dog more protection than that, so is it inconceivable that a non-religious person might have a problem with abortion on demand?
  #588  
Old 05-22-2019, 04:46 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You don't think that a secular person could say something like how he or she has viewed ultrasounds before and, damn, that sure looks like a human life in there, so I think there needs to be something more than the woman's sole and irrevocable choice before we kill that thing?

We give a stray dog more protection than that, so is it inconceivable that a non-religious person might have a problem with abortion on demand?
See, this is why it's important to be really, really clear about what stage in the development process we're talking about. Just like there's a difference between a walnut, a sapling, and a tree, thingys in womens' tummys go through a lot of different stages before they apply for retirement and move into a rest home. Not all the stages need to be treated the same.

Not that I've taken a poll of the universe, but I suspect that most secular folk think that the thingys in tummies start out as definitely-not-people, end up as definitely-people (presuming all goes well), and on the way there may spend a lot of time as the former before becoming the latter.

And of course it may not matter if they're people - there are a lot of place in america where you're allowed to shoot an intruder in your house if they don't leave promptly when requested. Even if the intruder is a person! Presuming that a woman has as much sovereignty over her body as a man has over his castle, there are arguments to be made that the woman should be able to evict/kill her intruder at any point. And again, those arguments are basically castle laws.
  #589  
Old 05-22-2019, 04:48 PM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,345
What some random guy thinks, ‘sure looks like a human life’, to him, does not, in ANY way whatsoever mitigate that duly elected representives and their appointed judiciary bodies, in compliance with the countries processes, have determined .... that abortion IS constitutional.
  #590  
Old 05-22-2019, 04:53 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
What some random guy thinks, ‘sure looks like a human life’, to him, does not, in ANY way whatsoever mitigate that duly elected representives and their appointed judiciary bodies, in compliance with the countries processes, have determined .... that abortion IS constitutional.
Of course abortion is constitutional. Or did you mean to say that it is, as currently held in the United States, a woman's constitutional right placing it outside the democratic process? The basis for Roe and Casey are spurious at best and the dissents in those cases point out much better than I could why that is the case.

The random guy is a voter just like anyone else. His opinion doesn't control the policy outcome, but like everything else in a representative democracy, the people should be able to vote on it. We wouldn't have this nearly 50 year old national struggle which is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court if it hadn't overstepped so long ago, and if Republican presidents could support real conservatives instead of the Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter...possibly now Roberts ilk.
  #591  
Old 05-22-2019, 04:59 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
See, this is why it's important to be really, really clear about what stage in the development process we're talking about. Just like there's a difference between a walnut, a sapling, and a tree, thingys in womens' tummys go through a lot of different stages before they apply for retirement and move into a rest home. Not all the stages need to be treated the same.

Not that I've taken a poll of the universe, but I suspect that most secular folk think that the thingys in tummies start out as definitely-not-people, end up as definitely-people (presuming all goes well), and on the way there may spend a lot of time as the former before becoming the latter.

And of course it may not matter if they're people - there are a lot of place in america where you're allowed to shoot an intruder in your house if they don't leave promptly when requested. Even if the intruder is a person! Presuming that a woman has as much sovereignty over her body as a man has over his castle, there are arguments to be made that the woman should be able to evict/kill her intruder at any point. And again, those arguments are basically castle laws.
I've argued against this analogy earlier in the thread. A burglar is an aberration, an act outside the normal bounds of human conduct and worthy of punishment.

A child inside his mother's womb, like I was and like you were, is not such a thing, and it would be ridiculous for a court of law to hold that the very way that we all came into existence was an act of criminality or an invasion/intrusion into someone else.

Under that analogy, if the woman chose not to abort, then the child should face some sort of criminal/juvenile/corrective punishment once born.
  #592  
Old 05-22-2019, 05:09 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I've argued against this analogy earlier in the thread. A burglar is an aberration, an act outside the normal bounds of human conduct and worthy of punishment.
I don't know that this applies to just burglars - you can have anyone forcibly removed, if you have ownership of the property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
A child inside his mother's womb, like I was and like you were, is not such a thing, and it would be ridiculous for a court of law to hold that the very way that we all came into existence was an act of criminality or an invasion/intrusion into someone else.

Under that analogy, if the woman chose not to abort, then the child should face some sort of criminal/juvenile/corrective punishment once born.
If you willingly allow somebody to stay on your property for nine months, I'm not sure you can press charges for that after the fact. (Though maybe you can; I'm no lawyer.)

And as I said, this is a position that some people take - and not entirely without logical justification. If they really have control over their bodies, they can have *anyone* evicted.

Now, there's possibly a period after the thingy has become a person and before it can survive in the world outside. This is somewhat more problematic, because it's probably legally frowned on to toss squatters out when its 70 below outside and they're certain to die. That is a situation that the "eviction rights last to the last second" folks will have to defend their stance for.

Myself, though, I'm willing to just assume that the vast, vast, vast majority of abortions take place before the thingy becomes a person in the first place, and thus there's no problem at all. The exceptions are probably just that: exceptional, and presumably demanded by medical necessity in virtually all cases.
  #593  
Old 05-22-2019, 05:11 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
... Anywhere we decide to draw the line in the gestation process between "not-person" and "person" is going to be arbitrary, but at least we can make it somewhat less unrealistic. I would say that somewhere around the start of the third trimester is a reasonable point to consider that a woman's right to bodily autonomy starts to be outweighed by the fetus's increasing rights as a person ...
Thanks for your thorough post, sincerely.

This paragraph is, I think, the central crux of the matter. There are relatively few people in the country that want elective abortion to be legal right up until birth. There are also relatively few people that want it illegal in all circumstances. Most people seem to understand that there's a developmental process taking place and with it comes something of a sliding scale of rights / recognition of personhood. We're engaged in a national conversation about where to draw that rather arbitrary line. You said you'd prefer the tipping point to be the start of the third trimester. Georgia said it wants it to be when a heartbeat is detected. I don't think either perspective is so wildly unreasonable that the people espousing them ought to be castigated as we so often do to each other.

For the sake of being better informed, here is a poll that I think does a good job of illustrating where the American people are, collectively, on the matter:

Quote:
Six in 10 U.S. adults think abortion should generally be legal in the first three months of pregnancy. However, support drops by about half, to 28%, for abortions conducted in the second three months, and by half again, to 13%, in the final three months.
  #594  
Old 05-22-2019, 05:22 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Thanks for your thorough post, sincerely.

This paragraph is, I think, the central crux of the matter. There are relatively few people in the country that want elective abortion to be legal right up until birth. There are also relatively few people that want it illegal in all circumstances. Most people seem to understand that there's a developmental process taking place and with it comes something of a sliding scale of rights / recognition of personhood. We're engaged in a national conversation about where to draw that rather arbitrary line. You said you'd prefer the tipping point to be the start of the third trimester. Georgia said it wants it to be when a heartbeat is detected. I don't think either perspective is so wildly unreasonable that the people espousing them ought to be castigated as we so often do to each other.

For the sake of being better informed, here is a poll that I think does a good job of illustrating where the American people are, collectively, on the matter:
And note from the poll that even in the first trimester, only 45% believe it should be legal based solely upon a woman's choice.

This idea, even pushed by the article, that people support the basic idea of Roe is not born out by the numbers.
  #595  
Old 05-22-2019, 05:47 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You don't think that a secular person could say something like how he or she has viewed ultrasounds before and, damn, that sure looks like a human life in there, so I think there needs to be something more than the woman's sole and irrevocable choice before we kill that thing?
Sure, a secular person could say that. Secular people can be emotionally manipulated like anyone else.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #596  
Old 05-22-2019, 06:08 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,491
HD's poll links are on point. The hardcore extremists on both sides strawman the shit out of their opponents. For pro-choicers, it's all about mocking people whose religion leads them to believe even a blastocyst is a "baby". And everyone in the middle (including me) rolls their eyes at the idea that a "clump of cells" is the same as a baby. But then the pro-choice activists take it too far by supporting laws like the one in Virginia, which make everyone in the middle (including me) horrified. (Tomndebb had a good post on this point.)

The second trimester is where the argument should really be joined. Extrapolating from Ditka's Gallup poll cite, my view (that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, but illegal in the second and beyond) was the single most widely held 20 years ago, when it was as high as 41 percent. It is now down to 32 percent, and has been overtaken by the belief that it should be banned even in the first trimester, which has risen from 36 to 40 percent. The belief that it should be legal in the first and second trimesters, but not in the third, is held only by 15 percent, up from 13 percent in 2000. And support for legal abortion in all three trimesters is steady at 13 percent, as it was in 2000.

So politically, my group is a clear swing faction that should get a lot more attention. And in fact we really ought to have the leverage to make policy line up fairly perfectly with our preferences. After all, the pro-lifers aren't likely to actually oppose us when we push for second trimester abortion bans, just because that doesn't go far enough. Likewise, the pro-choice side needs us even more: we make up 53 percent of those who don't want to ban first trimester abortion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Besides, if you really believed abortion was literally murder, wouldn’t it be worth going to prison for?

Definitely not. I wouldn't even go into a burning building to save some kids inside, unless they were my own flesh and blood. Heck, I wouldn't go into a smoldering building to save a bunch of orphans, not even if I thought there was a 95% chance I could get out safely.

I don't think I'm unusual, either (although most people won't say it out loud). Heck, Peter Singer points out that most people won't even do the equivalent of wading into a shallow pond (ruining their expensive suit in the process) to save a drowning child.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Do I need to come up with cites that roughly the same crowd that's against abortions has also fought contraception access (e.g. Hobby Lobby) and sex ed other than abstinence-only?

Again, this is the easy fight, like fish in a barrel. I support comprehensive sex ed, so strongly in fact that I refused to give my teenage daughter permission to attend the sex ed segment of her health class, because it was abstinence only. (My wife and I got her some good materials on contraception and safe sex.) But I'm for a hard ban on abortion after the first trimester. How do you feel about that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I don't know that this applies to just burglars - you can have anyone forcibly removed, if you have ownership of the property.

Actually, no. I can't call the cops and tell them to remove my nine year old daughter, who is currently minding her business in her room, there only because my wife and I created her and provided her a domicile, as the law requires us to.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice to look at.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-22-2019 at 06:10 PM.
  #597  
Old 05-22-2019, 06:31 PM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
like everything else in a representative democracy, the people should be able to vote on it.
There are a number of things in a representative democracy that I don't think "the people" should be able to vote on.

I don't think "the people" should be able to vote on whether people of, say, a minority religion or physical characteristic should be enslaved, for instance. Or forbidden to vote. Or forbidden to learn to read. Or forbidden quite a lot of other things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I'm for a hard ban on abortion after the first trimester. How do you feel about that?
Including for medical reasons?
  #598  
Old 05-22-2019, 06:37 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Including for medical reasons?

Depends on how that's defined. If all you need is one doctor citing vague "health risks" of pregnancy (which are true for any woman), then that doesn't fly with me. If it's more like the kind of bioethics panel you'd have to convene to agree to sacrifice one of a pair of conjoined twins to give the other a better chance? Then sure.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice to look at.
  #599  
Old 05-22-2019, 08:29 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Actually, no. I can't call the cops and tell them to remove my nine year old daughter, who is currently minding her business in her room, there only because my wife and I created her and provided her a domicile, as the law requires us to.
Why would you call the cops? If you wanted to give up custody of and responsibility for your daughter, you're better off calling a family lawyer and arranging an adoption. The point is, a mechanism exists if you need it and as far as I know, lawmakers aren't trying to deny it to you for political gain.
  #600  
Old 05-22-2019, 08:47 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Most people seem to understand that there's a developmental process taking place and with it comes something of a sliding scale of rights / recognition of personhood. We're engaged in a national conversation about where to draw that rather arbitrary line. You said you'd prefer the tipping point to be the start of the third trimester. Georgia said it wants it to be when a heartbeat is detected. I don't think either perspective is so wildly unreasonable that the people espousing them ought to be castigated as we so often do to each other.
If it's going to be a "conversation", then it has to be conducted in good faith with respect for the facts. This is something that the abortion-ban movement tends not to be very good at, or to care very much about.

For example, this arbitrary but warm-fuzzy-sounding popular "pro-life" talking point about "detecting a fetal heartbeat" at six weeks, when the fetus is the size of a pea. As this article notes,
Quote:
[...] the governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, signed a law called HB 481, which will, starting in 2020, effectively prohibit abortion in the state after the sixth week of pregnancy, when doctors can sometimes detect electrical activity in the fetal cells, a signal that is sometimes referred to as a “fetal heartbeat.”
But this is long past the point of the formation of the fetal heart and the start of its activity, as you can learn from actual sources on embryology:
Quote:
The human heart is the first functional organ to develop. It begins beating and pumping blood around day 21 or 22, a mere three weeks after fertilization. This emphasizes the critical nature of the heart in distributing blood through the vessels and the vital exchange of nutrients, oxygen, and wastes [...]
So this notion of the so-called "detection of a heartbeat" at six weeks, a good three weeks after the typical fetal heart has begun operation, is meaningless except as a propaganda move. If the anti-choice movement was serious about any specific biological milestone, such as the circulation of blood by the heart, as the marker of full human personhood, then they'd demand bans on abortion after three weeks. But they know that allowing a window not even as long as a full menstrual cycle for permissible abortion would be rightly seen by pro-choicers as a completely ridiculous insincere "compromise".

No, six-week "fetal heartbeat bills" have got jack-shit to do with any actual biological stage of fetal development. They're simply a PR ploy to encourage people to imagine "listening" to the "baby's" "heartbeat", an experience we've all had with our own heartbeat and/or those of other people, and forget the fact that this six-week "baby" is a pea-sized blob that would make you shriek in disgust if you saw something like it while cracking open a chicken egg.

And the anti-abortion movement is chock-full of these sorts of PR ploys that try to stir emotions while misrepresenting facts (e.g., tales like "women regret abortions", "abortions increase breast cancer risks", "abortions are racist genocide", etc. etc.). Any honest "national conversation" about abortion needs to involve calling them on their bullshit.
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 11:14 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