How stupid do these anti-choicers think we are?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

So in my view, it’s absolutely accurate to refer to a fetus as a human being, or a child, or an unborn child.

What about a blstocyst before implantation? is that an unborn child too?

What about a recently implanted zygote?

@LavenderBlue

As I pointed out in an another thread, over seven hundred women in the US alone die each year from pregnancy and thousands more suffer serious consequences as a result.

13 in 100,000 pregnancy results in the death of the mother.

As long as we maintain an exception for the life and ehalth of the mother, there is no reason to assume that a ban on abortions would increase this rate (in fact the rate is likely to shrink as the population of mothers are supplemented with otherwise predominately healthy younger women who would otherwise have an abortion).

My girls and I and any other woman on the planet should not be forced into a pregnancy we don’t want because of your religious and moral beliefs.

Unless you wre rapes, you are not being forced INTO rpegnancy, you are being prohibited from ending your pregnancy.

A grown woman should always be more important than any fetus she carries. Men who believe otherwise should not be let near grown women.

You make itsound like the anti-abortionists are equating the woman’s life with the fetuses life. They aren’t they are comparing the fetuses life with the risks and inconvenience of pregnancy to a woman. Overstating your case in ways that are easily disproven makes you case seem weaker than it is.

@EverwonderWhy

Because thousands of already born people die every day because we do not grant them the right to violate the body autonomy of another person in order to survive. If their ‘right to life’ does not justify assailing the body autonomy of another person, how can fetal life? Even a corpse’s body autonomy can not be violated against their consent and they are already dead and don’t even need their body parts anymore! Why does a corpse’s body autonomy garner more respect than what you afford a pregnant woman?

This is a very good point. Why isn’t organ donation mandatory? I think hospitals should be able to harvest at least one kidney regardless of consent, if you can live a full healthy life on earth with one kidney, you should be able to do so in heaven as well and if not, I assume heaven has dialysis machines. Is that a tradeoff you would make? Mandatory organ donation for outlawing abortions? Probably not.

However, one difference might be the parent’s duty to its minor children.

Why do you think the state has the right to legally mandate the use of a pregnant woman’s body against her will, when the state does not mandate this of any other person? You don’t think this speaks volumes about women’s status in society. When only her body can be violated and no one’s else’s?

This is a silly argument.

Either women are equal citizens or they are not. What you are advocating for is NOT equality under the law, and that is why I am right and you are wrong.

You are wrong (doesn’t mean he’s right but if this is your argument then you are wrong).

@Snowboarder_Bo

As I noted in my post, no, it is not. Murder is seen in all societies, regardless of religion (or the absence of religion) as a bad thing.

Not always. There was a time when patriarchs held the power of life and death over members of their household. There was a time when killing a child under 5 was not considered murder. There was a time when killing a slave was not really considered murder. It is not clear that Abraham would eb guilty of murder at the time he was about to sacrifice his son.

@Bricker

So the ultrasound requirement is rationally related to protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child.

Not when you’re about to have an abortion its not. Its only purpose is to prevent abortions by shoving something up a woman’s vagina. It is clearly directed at preventing abortions, there is not legitimate health concern.

@Cyros

But you need not endanger yourself completing the rescue. As carrying a pregnancy to term does involve a danger to the mother doesn’t she have the option to act to remove that danger to herself?

Before you undertake rescue, you there is no duty to act, reasonably or otherise. Once you have undertaken rescue, you have a duty to act reasonably. Given a 13 in 100,000 mortality rate, I don’t know if it would be reasonble, if you wanted to extend the (inperfect) analogy.

@iiandyiiii

This seems to trivialize the real risk that pregnancy carries. Do you have any sympathy for a newly pregnant woman who does not want to increase her risk of death, even by what you deem a small amount?

0.013% Would you like a list of other activities that carry a 0.13% risk of death or greater?

@MaxTheVool

I’m strongly pro-choice and disagree with Bricker’s position and disagree with an enormous number of the ways he argues and debates on the SDMB and have said so at great length on my occasions… but your claim is groundless, patronizing and insulting. If we start with the premise that any embryo or fetus is a human life, which I emphatically do NOT but which I can’t dismiss out of hand, then a law forcing women to carry pregnancies to term is balancing CERTAIN DEATH for one human life versus a very serious impact on another human life, but one which is enormously smaller than CERTAIN DEATH. I think it’s entirely possible for someone to come to the conclusion that the ethically correct position is to force the woman to carry the baby to term, with absolutely no judgment about her being a whore being present or relevant at all.

I swear the pro-choice people in this thread are going out of their way to make facile and easily-dismissable versions of the pro-choice argument for some reason.

+1

@LavenderBlue

The one in three chance of serious and major surgery like a c-section that is currently faced by American women is not a small risk.

Yeah, most of those C-sections are elective. When my friends were having kids in NYC, almost every birth was a C-section. In fact it was a little difficult to find a good obstetrician who would do vaginal deliveries. The risk of complications goes waaaay down with C-section. I would take C-sections out of your quiver of arguments, its one of the things that has improved mortality rates for mother and child, the recovery is longer and more difficult than vaginal birth but its not much riskier than an abortion, the numbers are all pretty tiny.

@LavenderBlue

While the risk of death may be real if statistically insignificant, the risk of medical complications for many women most certainly isn’t.

So then maybe you can stop pretending that the risk of death is a driving factor. Frankly almost all abortions are elective and driven by things other than medical concerns. I think they happen to be valid concerns but in your drive to make this some sort of inalienable right, you overstate your case.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to say “I want an abortion because I want to finish high school or college” I think its a perfectly acceptable to say “I want an abortion because I was drunk and don’t even know this guy’s first name” I think its perfectly acceptable to say “I want an abortion because I already have 4 kids and I want all my kids to go to college” As long as you have that elective abortion in the first trimester.

@LavenderBlue

A good vaginal delivery is safer for all concerned and has a much faster rate of recovery.

It is my understanding that doctors push for c-section to reduce liability.

What we don’t need to do is force them into a pregnancy they don’t want.

Unless they were raped, noone forced them.

@elucidator

“Partial birth”, my ass! Is that an accepted gynecological term? Of obstetric scientific origin? You pretend to offer a rational argument while loading it with irrational and unreasoning buzzwords. Are you on the pseudo-scientific advisory board?

The term “partial birth abortion” is a construct of the anti-abortion crowd and adopted by the legislature. Kind of like the term “assault weapon” is a construct of the anti-gun crowd and adopted by the legislature.

@Bricker

Any HUMAN that’s alive is automatically not worth killing.

Hitler?

@Bricker

But if your infant child were wandering about the street, it would be a criminal violation to fail to assist your child.

Why the difference? Because society is willing to impose, upon the biological parent, duties that do not inure to the random passerby.

What if killing that one murderer would deter the murder of ten other innocents?

[quote=“Bricker, post:303, topic:662813”]

They’re both human beings. Killing the prisoner won’t being back his victims or save any more lives.[/qutoe]

Deterrence? Ever read the Lottery or watch Dragonslayer?

@Bricker

Sure. A zygote responds to the occurrence and frequency of cytoplasmic Ca[sup]2+[/sup] oscillations.

So does, bacteria right? How does that make it human life the way we understand it?

@Bricker

If you were to learn that every abortion facility has an ultrasound facility nearby, would that affect your analysis?

Unecessary medical procedures, regardless of who bears the cost, are still unecessary.

[Cyros]

@Bricker

They’re aware that they’re pregnant. They’re not permitting themselves to think of what that means: not a blob of tissue, but a tiny human being.

That is not a fact. That is your opinion.

What you really mean is that you wish to force women to go through a procedure that will cost them in time, may cost them in money, will certainly cost someone (government, charities, or whomever else is paying for these “free” ultrasounds), will be taking finite medical resources away from people with valid medical needs and contributing to the rising price of ultrasounds by artificially increasing demand. All of this in service to the fact that you can’t stand that others may have a different opinion than you on what constitutes a human being.

All of that is ignoring the fact that for some people it doesn’t even matter whether or not the fetus is a human being. Both myself and I believe Bryan Eker’s views on abortion do not depend on whether a fetus is human or not.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

Because I don’t agree that a functioning brain is the sine qua non of humanity.

@Bricker

Well, here’s my reasoning:

If some women see the ultrasound images and hear a detailed description of the development of the fetus, and decide as a result not to abort, it proves my theory.

Do you disagree with that?

@Bricker

They’re aware that they’re pregnant. They’re not permitting themselves to think of what that means: not a blob of tissue, but a tiny human being.

I thin the characterization of a zygote or blastocyst as a human or a blob of human flesh is assuming the argument away.

If we all agreed that a blastocyst was a tiny human being the abortion debate would look very different. Even you seem to agree when you say that you would not take one maternal death in ten in order to ban abortions. You just draw the line ina different place than most Americans.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

They’re aware that they’re pregnant. They’re not permitting themselves to think of what that means: not a blob of tissue, but a tiny human being.

I think that setting up laws of that sort is a troubling precedent. Certainly, I don’t think you’d support a law saying that any time a single woman under a certain age was found to be pregnant, and was considering keeping the baby, she’d first have to see a 2-hour presentation about the financial implications of raising a child, how it’s likely to cost her untold hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential future earnings, and what the likelihood is for a successful and prosperous life for that child compared to one born later in life when she’s (hopefully) married… and if she refuses to submit to all of that we forcibly abort her baby, or something like that.
Either the law is just intended to be a hassle/obstacle, in which case even you admitted you had reservations, or it’s intended to face someone who’s in the midst of making an important, personal, and TOTALLY LEGAL decision and provide them with a carefully selected extremely one-sided emotional appeal.

Should a woman who’s considering aborting be forced to get a bunch of balanced information about the issue just to ensure that she’s well-informed? Even then, the key word is “forced”, so I’d say probably not. But this law is like that, without the “balanced” part.

[MaxTheVool]

An analogy: The federal government has (simplifying things somewhat) declared that it is legal to sell and purchase handguns. Therefore the state of California can’t make it illegal to sell and purchase handguns.

Can the state of California pass a law saying that before you can purchase a handgun, you first have to watch a short film, made by an anti-handgun coalition, with cherry picked facts and anecdotes and images of handgun violence, specifically designed to paint handgun ownership as being as dangerous and violent and barbaric as possible? What if this short film is only viewable at a few locations in the state?

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

Well, here’s my reasoning:

If some women see the ultrasound images and hear a detailed description of the development of the fetus, and decide as a result not to abort, it proves my theory.

Do you disagree with that?

I disagree that women change their minds if shown an ultrasound image or told about the fetus- is that what you’re asking?

[iiandyiiii]

@Damuri_Ajashi

0.013% Would you like a list of other activities that carry a 0.13% risk of death or greater?

There are other risks besides the risk of death for pregnancy- injury, pain, alteration of their body, etc, in addition to my main complaint- that everyone (adult of sound mind) has (or should have) the right to expel anything from their body that they do not want inside.

[Bricker]

@iiandyiiii

I disagree that women change their minds if shown an ultrasound image or told about the fetus- is that what you’re asking?

OK, then that’s a good test.

If, a year from now, statistics show that none, or a vanishingly small percentage of women, changed their minds after the ultrasound and explanation, I’ll agree this law is useless.

And you…?

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

They’re aware that they’re pregnant. They’re not permitting themselves to think of what that means: not a blob of tissue, but a tiny human being.

Mini Me is a tiny human being. A fetus isn’t even crunchy.

Your superstitious belief in a soul doesn’t mean other people should live their lives to appease your delusion. What other stupid superstitious beliefs do you have? Do you believe in astrology? Should people be forced to act in accordance with their charts?

Ohh, should government money be spent on doing astrological charts for prisoners, so we can know when it’s permissible to parole them?

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

This seems to embody the same sort of attitude: I don’t care what the actual law says; because I am convinced of the wrongness of Zimmerman’s actions, I am willing to see the law ignored to impose some consequence on him, even acknowledging that the consequence is not mandated by the law.

Do you agree?

(a) what does that have to do with anything in this thread? Or are you just curious about my political philosophy? Nonetheless, you did answer my question, so…

(b) do I agree with what? The attitude that I see expressed in the post? Or the attitude that you ascribe to that poster? Or do I agree that your analysis of what the poster says is correct, regardless of whether I agree with his position?

[Acsenray]

@Bricker

OK, then that’s a good test.

If, a year from now, statistics show that none, or a vanishingly small percentage of women, changed their minds after the ultrasound and explanation, I’ll agree this law is useless.

And you…?

And you’re perfectly fine with making all these women and their families, many of whom might be dealing with all kinds of life problems, into guinea pigs for your little thought experiment?

[Lobohan]

@Acsenray

And you’re perfectly fine with making all these women and their families, many of whom might be dealing with all kinds of life problems, into guinea pigs for your little thought experiment?

Real human suffering matters little to Bricker. He only cares about a man in a dress in Vatican City.

[Bricker]

@Acsenray

And you’re perfectly fine with making all these women and their families, many of whom might be dealing with all kinds of life problems, into guinea pigs for your little thought experiment?

How many lives would be saved by this action?

Sure, I’m fine with it.

Are you fine with acknowledging that it will change minds?

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

(a) what does that have to do with anything in this thread? Or are you just curious about my political philosophy? Nonetheless, you did answer my question, so…

(b) do I agree with what? The attitude that I see expressed in the post? Or the attitude that you ascribe to that poster? Or do I agree that your analysis of what the poster says is correct, regardless of whether I agree with his position?

(c)

But it can be an essay question.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

(c)

But it can be an essay question.

There was no (c), leaving me confused and unable to respond.

[Acsenray]

@Bricker

How many lives would be saved by this action?

Sure, I’m fine with it.

Are you fine with acknowledging that it will change minds?

I am almost certain that it will change some non-zero number of minds.

Likewise, I am almost certain that that mandatory films as described by MaxTheVool would change some non-zero number of minds.

That doesn’t justify burdening (Citizen X’s) decision using the force of law based solely on (Citizen Y’s) opinion one way or another, whether we’re talking about abortion or gun ownership.

It is none of Citizen Y’s business to try to influence that decision through the force of law. Period.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

OK, then that’s a good test.

If, a year from now, statistics show that none, or a vanishingly small percentage of women, changed their minds after the ultrasound and explanation, I’ll agree this law is useless.

And you…?

I will still strongly oppose the law for the many other reasons I’ve outlined.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Bricker’s stopped responding to me.
I guess I won again.

[perfectparanoia]

I live in Canada where there are no abortion laws (i.e. you want an abortion? As long as you can find a doctor to do it, go for it!).

Every time I think of the pro-life standpoint, my mind is boggled. Where do they think these children are going to go? You think the mothers who wanted to abort them are going to treat them well? You think some pro-life couple is going to step forward for each of the approximately one million extra children that will be born each year?

Do you think that it would be good for the gains that women have made in the work force to have to stop any forward progression in schooling or their careers to have an unplanned child?

The reality is that none of the above is going to happen even if you make abortion illegal. The number of abortions will likely remain similar just be more dangerous.

I get it. Killing babies is bad. However, it has been done from time immemorial and will continue to be done regardless of the legality. At least we have the decency to do it before they are born (my great grandmother exposed two of her children…).

[YogSothoth]

@Bricker

Your arm is unambiguously yours, with a genetic makeup that is, uniquely, you. (Although I would point that society is actually prepared to step in and prevent you from chopping off your arm, so even this example fails).

The fetus is not. The fetus is, genetically, a separate human being.

Unless you have mastered self-reproduction via parthenogenesis[sup]*[/sup]… but I can’t say that here, lest I violate the rule concerning a mention of other posters going to fuck themselves.

• Yes, I know, not a precisely accurate summary of parthenogenesis. I went for the humor. Sue me.

A fetus, however, is made up of the genetic makeup of the mother and father. Your supposition is that because your arm is yours, you get to decide what happens to it. How far do you take that? If I donate an organ, can I get it back if I don’t like who its going to?

Again, I have to play the “so what” card. So what if the baby is not 100% your DNA? The mother completely feeds it, nourishes it, takes nutrients from her own body to grow it. It doesn’t come in contact with another environment for 9 months. That’s enough for me to say that the mother gets to decide what happens to it. So what if its not genetically identical to the mother? Who the fuck made genetic congruency the factor in determining abortion? Hell, if I get a transplant of some organ, are you saying I don’t get to have it removed?

And despite what society would think of me for chopping off my arm, its not a crime to do so, though its frowned upon. And the reasons for that prevention are certainly much much different from the objections to abortion.

Going back to my original post to you, which you have ignored still, so what if the baby is human or yours or genetically different or similar or whatever? Why should those factors override the will of the mother? You can make all of the arguments you want about why you think things are the way they are, but until you answer the “should” question, you’re simply being as arbitrary on this subject as you accuse others of being