Okay, but have you considered the likely consequences of such a law? I can understand if it’s “this is immoral and must be stopped, period”, but I’d still want to ask follow-up questions.
And if there’s a middle ground I’ve excluded, I cordially invite you to describe it.
Well, the fetus’ possible personhood has never been a critical element for me, is all I can say.
Another looong thread, which I have not read all of. (yeah, I know if I change my settings, it’ll only be 12 pages instead of 51, but really!) So sue me. Eventually I’ll get caught up.
This may be a slight hijack. Correct me if I’m wrong (seriously), but most of the people I know who protest against abortions are there for religious reasons, i.e “God” says it’s wrong. (Personal experience only, no data to back this up) (Not sure where he says that, but I can go with the flow.) But I can’t help but find it funny that folks who believe in an all-powerful being think he (or she) is too limited to accommodate those poor little souls who have been denied their chance at life this time around. Mr. Omnipotence can’t give 'em another shot? WTF kind of God is that?
Sorry. remind me not to post after serious birthday drinking ever again. I’ll be quiet now.
The middle ground is where the law is currently. Pretty much where I’m arguing from.
Probably would have lost my motivation for the discussion except for the people that think I’m arguing Classy’s side or something indistinguishable from it, and the ones that insist that the fetus has no more moral impact on the question than a hangnail.
A fertized egg isn’t a person, and a baby isn’t a non-person just before it’s delivered. Where we decide to draw the line is based on science, technology, eduction, counseling (in the broadest sense), and moral belief.
Every time I read something like this:
Read more: A 21-Week-Old Baby Survives and Doctors Ask, How Young is Too Young to Save? | TIME.com
I am deeply troubled, but still give the nod to maternal rights.
Seriously, when I’m agreeing with curlcoat you know something really fucking weird is going on.
The only thing troubling to me about saving a child born at 21 weeks is that there’s a lifetime of health problems, probably quite severe, ahead, in no small part because of the urge to “prove” that with the awesomeness of medical technology, we can save micropreemies. Saving is only the first of a countless number of steps, and none of the rest of them are nearly as advanced.
And having viability pushed back further and further only increases madness like certain states’ current efforts to cap any and all non-lifesaving abortions at 20 weeks (usually on spurious claims about fetal pain) without regard to the fact that it is at 20 weeks or shortly thereafter, by obstetric standards of care and physical necessity, that the anatomy scan is performed that can show when a fetus has an anomaly incompatible with life.
And of course, discussion of viability muddies the waters. Whether a fetus can or cannot live outside the body has little bearing when the body that it is in is unwilling or incapable of hosting it.
How you consider that the middle ground when its been pointed out to you repeatedly that access to comprehensive reproductive medical care of women in South Dakota is not functionally the same as those in New York? How does the federal law protect the reproductive rights of South Dakotan women?
Thank you for sticking around. I appreciate the opportunity to debate with you considering you’ve been nothing but respectful and reasonable in your discussion, despite the fact that I don’t agree with you on everything and I think you are avoiding some difficult questions.
A fertilized egg isn’t a person because the law hasn’t deemed it to be. “Person” is a legal and moral concept. It’s the basis on which society grants human rights. Human rights are also a societal concept, but are believed to be rights that are natural to living human beings. You consider a viable fetus a person, because you wish it to have the right to life, right? You base that right on the fact that it can survive independently of the mother, right? But until it is living independently of the mother, it is not a person and any right you grant it should not supercede the mothers right to bodily autonomy, because *no other human being *can do so.
From a moral standpoint, you believe every fetus should be allowed to live. From a moral standpoint, I believe every fetus should be wanted. I base that on the position that just being alive has less value than quality of life and bringing unwanted fetuses into the world significantly contributes to human suffering.
Everytime I read something like this:
Read more: http://www.liftingtheveil.org/foster04.htm
I am deeply troubled, but still give the nod to maternal rights.
This is not to say that every child born wanted is insusceptible to abuse or that every unwanted child should be aborted, but the unwanted child often has significantly more obstacles to quality of life than a wanted child. I can respect a woman’s decision to avoid those obstacles altogether.
Explain them. If you can a broken leg set on the same day, why shouldn’t a woman be able get an abortion on the same day? If you have to travel 45 minutes to hospital to get your broken leg set, why should a women have to travel four hours for an abortion?
The point is that if comprehensive medical care is unavailable, the community should be doing whatever it has to to make it accessible, but instead places like South Dakota are doing the exactly the opposite and consequently exacerbating an issue you have said you oppose: delaying abortions to later in the term. You’ve already said you will work against that here:
so why are you just brushing it off with comments like this:
And yet you haven’t responded to any of the valid points I brought up in that post. You immediately determined that it wasn’t worth debating because those policies won’t work in the U.S., despite the fact that those are the very policies you claim to support. You didn’t even bother to explain why they won’t work or even explore the differences between unwanted pregnancies in the Netherlands versus those in the U.S.
What makes you think I cherry picked a country with policies I like? It happens to be a) the one country with the lowest abortion rate in the entire world (a goal we are all striving for), b) with an abortion policy as restrictive as one you have stated *you *prefer. I explored why it was believed to work and provided you a link to back up that theory. You didn’t even read that link, did you? I picked a country with policies that *you *claim to support and then explored the history of how those policies can be implemented to reduce abortion, while providing comprehensive reproductive care to all of its women. I even noted that I’m not entirely comfortable with the policies of the Netherlands and questioned whether and what it provides for women that fall inside of their restrictions.
It’s easy to just brush off a position with telling someone they’re naive, but why don’t you back that up with some intellectual debate instead of just *dismissing *the whole discussion?
Oh, but it is! Because as long as I support the woman’s decision wrt the relevance of the state of the fetus within her, it doesn’t matter whether I deem the status of the fetus to be relevant. I’ve just respected her decision regardless of my position. Pro-choice. You either are or you’re not. At some point, you stop being pro-choice and start being anti-abortion, whereas my position is consistent throughout the pregnancy.
Again, since personhood is a legal status, not a scientific one, you are simply trying to get the law to reflect your morality. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but just because you feel granting personhood to a fetus is moral, it doesn’t mean you’re right. But still, even with personhood granted, your morals dictate that not all rights are sacrosanct, so it doesn’t even follow that a person can supplant the right of bodily autonomy to protect the right to life of another.
Why? Once born, it is no longer part of another human being?
Not from my point-of-view. It boils down to whether you should supplant one person’s bodily autonomy for the rights of another person. *My *morals dictate that you should not.
Federal law isn’t going to equalize access to many things you take for granted in an urban setting because of diminishing returns. You spend more and more to deliver services to an increasingly remote population. Not only are they remote, they’ll likely to have different views on the subject politically speaking
But we’re at the end of the line here. We’ve narrowed the discussion down to basically a single issue which neither of us agree upon.
But society can.
Please stop doing this. I do not believe every fetus should be allowed to live, nor do I consider them persons.
Certain I believe that society is responsible for supporting any fetus unwanted by the mother. There is a ton of demand for newborns out there.
Foster care is making a business out of pseudo-adoption. It shouldn’t be surprising that there is abuse there.
So can I.
Well, I poked around and I couldn’t tease out comparative data on the rates of the two procedures, but I’m thinking broken bones are a lot more common in patients, and broken bone care is more common among deployed rural doctors.
I did not claim the policies would not work. I simply claimed that many countries have different circumstances that would call into question cloning over their policies. The Netherlands are “slightly” more liberal than the US in general and that by itself would be a huge barrier in “borrowing” their ideas.
Because I don’t think it’s relevant. It seems to me if you propose the program, you have the obligation to demonstrate that it can work for the US population based on the political realities and attitudes of the population here.
I actually consider that a negative feature of your position. Your position gives NO credence to issues from the point of view of the fetus regardless of stage of development.
If the life of the mother and the life of the fetus are in conflict, I would choose the mother. If the preferences of the mother and the life of the fetus are in conflict, I would tend to support the rights of the fetus.
I can accept that. But this is where the argument pretty much ends. If you have an axiom you aren’t willing to give up or compromise, and I have one that’s opposed and I feel the same, there’s not much point in discussing further.
Especially when the net effects of the policies I support are the same as yours in all but a very few cases.
Every time I read something like that I wonder what sort of health issues that baby is going to have in later life due to being born that early, and what is essentially a selfish desire to keep the baby going no matter what the costs. Including to the baby itself. I wish the article had explained why they had to deliver that one so early.
Well, I let it go the first time but really. Are you all so dense that you don’t realize that when we are not on a subject you disagree with me on, such as supporting all these kids that should not be born, it isn’t going to be “fucking weird” to agree with my posts? Or do you only have one interest (pregnancy) and therefore find it “fucking weird” that it’s possible to agree with me on any part of that subject? Or is it that you are so rigid that any deviation from your one right way must result in a serious hate for anyone who dares to have their own opinions? Jesus.
The latter bit (political issues) is no damn excuse for making harder the already difficult logistical problem you describe in the former bit (concerning lower availability of services in lower-density areas).
Agreed. But you already knew that I disagree with rural assholes gerrymanding around the law.
IMO, you’re deliberately trying to associate my position with activities I in fact disagree with.
It is your right to hate, or like, whom ever you choose. I do feel pity for anyone who hates the already born just because they feel they are so much smarter, but claim to love a fertile human egg, who may well grow up to also be hated because they look at things differently.
Sounds a lot like the Taliban or usama Bib-Laden.Hitler hatrd the Jews because his biological father had deserted him. Sad, but hate lifts no one up. either the hater or the hated.
Are you Baker’s mommy? You need to get a better grasp on your own stupidity.
Quit the preaching imbecile.
Oh shut-up:rolleyes: Who the hell is usama Bib-Laden? Osama’s baby brother?
Nice to know that classyladyhp is maintaining her standard of eschewing discussion of the issues in favor of defending her right to be abusive of other posters.
IMO, you need to decide whether you’re describing the status quo, or defending your position. You don’t make it clear when you’re switching back and forth, if that’s what in fact you’re doing.
This is the pit. Isn’t that what it’s all about in this forum? Shut your trap BTW,
Eh, I’ll give it a go as an interested follower of this thread.** classyladyhp**, you’ve been instructed in all the logical fallacies you’ve shat and you’ve ignored the input of seasoned debaters who gave you every chance to counter productively. You’ve been confronted about your lack of consistency, and you’ve responded with childish insults. You’ve been given 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chances by seasoned board members to revise your argument, and you continue to lash out rather than consider/learn/revise your position so that it holds more water.
And you wonder why you’re being picked on? Because you finally admitted that your position isn’t rational, scientific, or reasonable, but is personal in nature based on your experience with a lost pregancy and with the occasional potshot at pro-choicers, you shored-up your stance with your personal interpretation of religion. (Some version of Christian, I’m guessing? Because your words and attitude do not reflect any of the tenets I’m familiar with, and while I’m no expert, I’m a product of the Bible Belt, and I’ve been a member of all the denominations save snake-handlers.)
So when you insult, curse, and generally malign other sincere posters, you come across as insincere in your own faith. Pit or not, if you make life decisions that affect yourself and others based on your faith, then you could, and should attempt to follow the tenets of said a little more closely. Since you clearly cherry-pick the tenets which match only your personal beliefs, you are fair game for insults. Not because it is the Pit. But because you fail to uphold the very faith you claim behooves you to value all forms of life from conception, implantation, gestation, and birth.
I’m not sure what religion classy is. They refused to tell me when I asked that simple question, claiming they didn’t believe I asked honestly, and told me it was none of my damn business.
My guess is also that classy is on the rolls of some Christian denomination, but perhaps is not all that involved in it. Behaving as classy does would alienate them from even some of the fundies.
Okay, okay, uncle, uncle! You win for the most ridiculous statement ever made regarding abortion, maybe even human nature, on the Dope.
Then don’t use “I don’t have time” as an excuse for not answering genuine questions, especially ones you specifically asked to have rephrased and then still ignored.
Must have ridden. Not rode.
