Fetal heartbeat and the abortion fight - Page 18 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15012087
Image



Jessica says she was continually raped years ago by her uncle, her mother's half-brother. Despite the evidence, including a DNA test, he was never convicted.

[...]

The man that raped Jessica still has visitation rights to her two children. The judge told Jessica she'd have to spend 48 hours in jail for each visit she denied her rapist.


Alabama, the "Shut up, whore," state.

Bring Sherman back to life and let him finish the job.
#15012092
Unthinking Majority wrote:"Sexist"? An abortion is not simply a "medical treatment". It's not like getting a wart removed. It's a medical procedure where the doctor kills a human life. The fact that men can't have babies is a biological reality nobody can control, that doesn't make it sexist. Are pregnancy tests and mammograms sexist?


What is sexist is the double standard where pregnant women are held to a different standard than anyone else.

Why should women have to pass your little test of moral responsibility but other people do not?

People who insist to always call the unborn baby a "fetus" and call abortions "medical treatments" or to deny that they are "people" until birth...it's all designed to de-humanize the unborn child, which then makes it morally acceptable to kill them. The Nazis dehumanized the Jews as "less than human" in order to make it morally acceptable in their minds to kill them, & slave owners & racists dehumanized african-americans to make slavery & Jim Crow morally acceptable.

Nobody says "Congrats you're having a fetus!". Or "well mom and dad, i've decided to keep the fetus!". Or "how's the fetus coming along?". Or "OMG, I had an affair & I'm pregnant with Jimmy's zygote!"

We're talking about human lives here for fucks sake!


Please note that my argument still stands even if we assume the fetus, or baby, has all the rights of a person, has full personhood, et cetera.

Killing a healthy unborn life that will turn into a fully developed human being just because it's inconvenient to carry a kid for 9 months, being too lazy to put it up for adoption if you don't want it (there's lots of gay couples etc who want to adopt etc), turning into a narcissistic selfish ass by proclaiming "by body by choice!", it's such immature BS. You made your bed, now lay in it. Don't make the baby pay for your bad decisions with it's life. When does THE BABY get consent in ANY of this, whether its created or destroyed?? Nobody gives a flying shit about the baby's life, it's all about the mother's inconvenience.


You seem to be saying that these women should act more responsibly and that limiting abortion will force them to be more responsible.

And the fact that a human life is at stake is only brought up in the context of forcing women to bring babies to term.

Because it is her responsibility, but it isn't the entirety of the argument. A gun owner is responsible for not shooting other people needlessly with his gun, a car owner is responsible for not running into pedestrians, but car and gun laws aren't simply tools to "teach responsibility", it's to protect innocent human lives.....LIKE A BABY!


Then why do we have laws that consider human lives to be less important than our right to do what we want with our bodies?

I've already shown how the organ donation comparison is illogical.


No, you have not.

Also, a person with healthy organs has no relationship or responsibility to a sick person, they didn't make them sick. On the other hand, a pregnant woman is fully responsible for the unborn child, and in fact her willful decisions/actions created its existence in the first place! Which she had informed consent before making that choice. See so I am pro-choice, i just think the choice comes before creating the human life.


And here you are again harping about making women more responsible.

This, combined with your disregard for the lives of babies in other contexts, is what makes people think these laws are about controlling women’s sex and not saving babies.

It's horribly immoral & cruel to create human beings and then kill them for literally any reason whatsoever just because you want sexy fun times without any repercussions. Sex feels good, but it's not simply a game for fun, it's not going to club dancing & getting drunk, sex is literally the biggest responsibility most any person will ever engage in throughout their lives, because we're talking about creating life and death here, this is the ability to play god. Evolution has even deemed it such because children are not mature enough to handle that responsibility of life and death & therefore cannot create life until puberty.

And we treat a mother's inconvenience as more important than the life of an unborn baby. Why do you literally give zero regard to the life of the unborn child? Is it ethical to abort the baby because "eww omg it's a girl, but i want a boy, kill it", because that's the policy we have now.

All these vegan social justice types are so morally upset if you kill an animal for food or milk a cow, but they support the killing of millions of unborn human lives & will even have THE NERVE to call you a women-hater if you disagree. The truth is they're hypocrites who act moral until they want to fuck without consequences, FULL STOP. Save the baby seals!!...Oh but bring out the Auschwitz ovens for the unborn kids. My body my choice to kill whatever humans I create WEEEEEEEEeeeeee!


Ok, so it is about responsibility.
#15012100
Once and for all:

We even respect the consent of dead people as being more important than saving lives. And we treat pregnant women as less important than dead people.


The right to decide donation or not is about what you do with your own body. Abortion is about what you do with someone else's body.

This has nothing to do with how we "treat" anyone. You may be offended by what women are asked to do when denied an abortion but your opinions are far from universal. One in five Americans believe abortion should NEVER be legal.

Before you try to craft an argument from the only one in five consider this:

65% say abortion should be illegal in the second trimester and a whopping 81% say it should be illegal under all circumstances in the third trimester. But exceptions......Not so fast. More than one if five would not allow third trimester abortions even if the mothers life were in danger. Three out of five would ban abortion in the third trimester even when the child is mentally disabled. Half would ban late term abortion in the case of rape and incest.

So there is nothing "logical" about your argument nor is it supported by the majority of women or men.

Fun fact. The statistics about abortion are surprisingly consistent with both sexes. Slightly more men believe abortion in the first trimester than do women. After that about the same.
#15012101
Drlee wrote:The right to decide donation or not is about what you do with your own body.
Abortion is about what you do with someone else's body.


Actually, in both cases, it is about what you do with your own body, with the knowledge that what you choose will affect someone else’s body.

This has nothing to do with how we "treat" anyone. You may be offended by what women are asked to do when denied an abortion but your opinions are far from universal. One in five Americans believe abortion should NEVER be legal.


The fact that a sizable minority of US citizens believe that we should always ignore consent when it comes to fetuses does not change the fact that abortion laws pose an obstacle for women trying to get them, and we do not create the same obstacles for other people seeking medical treatment because of their “irresponsible behaviour”.

Before you try to craft an argument from the only one in five consider this:

65% say abortion should be illegal in the second trimester and a whopping 81% say it should be illegal under all circumstances in the third trimester. But exceptions......Not so fast. More than one if five would not allow third trimester abortions even if the mothers life were in danger. Three out of five would ban abortion in the third trimester even when the child is mentally disabled. Half would ban late term abortion in the case of rape and incest.

So there is nothing "logical" about your argument nor is it supported by the majority of women or men.

Fun fact. The statistics about abortion are surprisingly consistent with both sexes. Slightly more men believe abortion in the first trimester than do women. After that about the same.


Again, the popularity of opinions has no bearing on their veracity or logical consistency with the rights we say we support.

If I said something illogical, show me how my logic is wrong.
#15012106
If I said something illogical, show me how my logic is wrong.


The law rarely has anything to do with logic. We are a representative democracy so our laws are based upon consensus of the majority, not logic. That is why your insistence that law be logical fails.
#15012137
So my argument was logical.


No it was not. It does not follow that because someone, acting from belief, does one thing that they must, in the service of logic, do another. Your argument is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

But you are ignoring my point.

The right to decide donation or not is about what you do with your own body.
Abortion is about what you do with someone else's body.


And we agree that the laws are not.


It is nice when laws are logical. Laws that restrict abortion often contain provisions that are completely logical. For example, the search for and codification of when a fetus becomes viable without the mother.

What is NOT logical is the law which says that a person assaulting a mother could be charged with the death of her unborn child yet the mother can kill that same child at will. Logic would dictate that the fetus is either a person to be protected or it is not.

Using your argument about body parts it would be just fine with you if an industry developed in which women became pregnant to sell their fetuses a few days before natural birth, for body parts. As you say, serving the greater good. After all. What would be the logical difference between the dead body from a car wreck and the dead body of the fetus?
#15012142
No it was not. It does not follow that because someone, acting from belief, does one thing that they must, in the service of logic, do another. Your argument is irrelevant to the subject at hand.


This does not show how my argument is illogical. Actually, it supports my argument.

The fact that people follow or create laws inconsistently does not impact my point that people follow and create laws inconsistently.

The interesting thing about this inconsistency is that it supports, and was probably caused by, sexism.

But you are ignoring my point.

The right to decide donation or not is about what you do with your own body.
Abortion is about what you do with someone else's body.


I did address this.

I pointed out that in both cases, the decisions made affect both people’s bodies.
#15012157
The fact that people follow or create laws inconsistently does not impact my point that people follow and create laws inconsistently.


Of course they do. I posted this already. Where is the argument? I can't imagine why this surprises you. I just posted this quote from Buckley.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”


The interesting thing about this inconsistency is that it supports, and was probably caused by, sexism.


I don't believe this is true. Sexism is the wrong term. When it comes to abortion I believe that opposition is frequently the result of religious beliefs* regarding the sanctity of life. Not biological sex. The fact that women are involved at all is simply a matter of biology. Abortion is not, in any argument I have heard, an attempt to oppress women.

I would be sympathetic to a woman arguing that she has been inconvenienced by her inability to have an abortion. Does this rise to oppression? Reasonable restraints against late term abortions, in my view, do not oppress women. And even if one could assert that they do oppress some women a very good argument could be made asserting that this 'oppression' is accomplished to prevent the killing of an innocent person.



*(This is not to say that there are not a great many atheists who believe in limiting, if not eliminating, abortion. There are.)
#15012158
Drlee wrote:Of course they do. I posted this already. Where is the argument? I can't imagine why this surprises you. I just posted this quote from Buckley.


Yes, people do act illogically, and this is my point. So thank you for supporting my claim.

I don't believe this is true. Sexism is the wrong term. When it comes to abortion I believe that opposition is frequently the result of religious beliefs* regarding the sanctity of life. Not biological sex. The fact that women are involved at all is simply a matter of biology. Abortion is not, in any argument I have heard, an attempt to oppress women.


Yes, it is sexist, because we only apply this “sanctity of life” argument when it comes to telling women what to do. We do not apply it when it comes to telling anyone else what to do.

And the fact that this is based on religion only supports my point, since traditional Christian beliefs are quite sexist.

I would be sympathetic to a woman arguing that she has been inconvenienced by her inability to have an abortion. Does this rise to oppression? Reasonable restraints against late term abortions, in my view, do not oppress women. And even if one could assert that they do oppress some women a very good argument could be made asserting that this 'oppression' is accomplished to prevent the killing of an innocent person.


Since no one mentioned oppression, this seems odd.
#15012161
Yes, it is sexist, because we only apply this “sanctity of life” argument when it comes to telling women what to do. We do not apply it when it comes to telling anyone else what to do.


On the contrary. It is used very frequently to do just that. Just to site a few examples, it is used frequently in arguments about war, the death penalty, euthanasia, and end-of-life/right to die care, medicine, welfare. And I should reiterate that the arguments about the sanctity of life are not always metaphysical; but we need not expand upon that here.

I swear by Apollo Physician, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture.

To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the physician’s oath, but to nobody else.

I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.

Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets.

Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I break it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me.[ ..... In all of those it applies equally to both sexes.
#15012167
Drlee wrote:On the contrary. It is used very frequently to do just that. Just to site a few examples, it is used frequently in arguments about war, the death penalty, euthanasia, and end-of-life/right to die care, medicine, welfare. And I should reiterate that the arguments about the sanctity of life are not always metaphysical; but we need not expand upon that here.


Please provide examples of how the sanctity of life argument is used. Thanks.
#15012173
Please provide examples of how the sanctity of life argument is used. Thanks.


I needn't do this. The examples are many, common and obvious to just about everyone. As a matter of fact I concluded by posting a very early one.

On edit I will point out that your own argument about organ transplant hinges on the sanctity of life argument.
#15012175
So, no examples. Without examples, it is impossible to analyse your claim.

And yes, I did mention sanctity of life when discussing organ donation. I did this to point out how we ignore the sanctity of life of the organ recipients and we respect the integrity of the body of the donor. When we look at pregnancy, we are inconsistent with that position.
#15012196
Godstud wrote:@Hindsite Nothing you said is an argument.

What I said is fact. There are a lot of rumors about it that are lies. I live in Georgia, so I present the facts for the Georgia abortion "heartbeat" law.

No, Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill Won’t Imprison Women Who Have Abortions

The law (set to go into effect in 2020) not only bans abortion when the baby has a “detectable human heartbeat” it declares the scientific, philosophical, and theological truth that an unborn child is a “natural person” under state law.

While abortionists can be prosecuted for performing unlawful abortions — and an attacker can spend the rest of his life in jail for killing a woman’s unborn child — Georgia’s heartbeat bill cannot be used to prosecute a woman for ending her own pregnancy.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/g ... abortions/
#15012204
So, a woman's allowed to abort her own baby, although in a very dangerous and unhealthy manner and not be prosecuted for it. How fucking noble... :roll:

Fuck off back to the Middle Ages, Georgia.
#15012227
Godstud wrote:So, a woman's allowed to abort her own baby, although in a very dangerous and unhealthy manner and not be prosecuted for it. How fucking noble... :roll:

I thought you were for a woman's right to choose to abort her own child. Make up your mind. :lol:
#15012229
:roll: Yes, by being able to seek a medical professional to do it safely, like anyone else who would do if they had an unwanted growth. These laws in these backwards places, make that medical help unavailable. They seek to put the woman's health in jeopardy, because the laws are made by callous misogynist males.

I suggest you do a home surgery next time you have any ailment, and tell me about the results. :knife:
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 22

Really? He called someone Pocahontas? BWWAHHHAAAAH[…]

July 19, Friday McDowell’s Federals bring forwa[…]

I think they hoped to get some money out of it.

Aus: Federal Election 2019

Somebody like Trump wouldn't last long as a Prime[…]