Fetal heartbeat and the abortion fight - Page 16 - 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.
#15011937
BigSteve wrote:I never said there were no arguments for allowing abortion at any point.


That is true.

Instead you incorrectly claimed I was unable to provide any. Rather than have you read the thread and my posts in order to see the argument I have provided, I thought it would be faster to cite the SCC argument since it is basically the same as the one I already mentioned.

There are no valid arguments.


The argument from bodily integrity:

1. Every person has the right to decide what their own body is used for.
2. Since everyone has that right, the state cannot compel someone to use their body in a way to which the person has not consented. Organ donations are voluntary, for example.
3. The state cannot compel this even when the use of a person’s body would save the life of another person. Again, the fact that organ donations are voluntary is a good example.
4. Since this is the case, the state cannot compel a woman to use her body to save the life of another person.
5. Even if we give the fetus personhood, the state cannot compel a woman to use her body to save the life of another person.

Please show how this argument is not valid.
#15011941
Pants-of-dog wrote:The argument from bodily integrity:

1. Every person has the right to decide what their own body is used for.
2. Since everyone has that right, the state cannot compel someone to use their body in a way to which the person has not consented. Organ donations are voluntary, for example.
3. The state cannot compel this even when the use of a person’s body would save the life of another person. Again, the fact that organ donations are voluntary is a good example.
4. Since this is the case, the state cannot compel a woman to use her body to save the life of another person.
5. Even if we give the fetus personhood, the state cannot compel a woman to use her body to save the life of another person.

Please show how this argument is not valid.


The difference between organ donation and a pregnant woman is that, besides cases of rape, the woman consented to participate in actions that she knew prior had the informed risk of creating another life, and thus is a problem of her own making. This is called informed consent. Of course it can be considered the fault of the father too, but regardless of the father's actions, the mother could have prevented the pregnancy unless she was raped, so she's still responsible.

The mother's actions created the life. She wants sex with no risks or responsibilities. She wants to have her cake and eat it too. Reality doesn't work like that. You can't fire bullets randomly in the air and then claim innocence and cry wolf when one of them hits another person. You knew the risks before you consensually engaged in the activity.

In cases of rape, there is no informed consent by the woman, and so in those cases your argument applies & so then abortion can be considered ethical when rape is involved.
#15011945
Unthinking Majority wrote:The difference between organ donation and a pregnant woman is that, besides cases of rape, the woman consented to participate in actions that she knew prior had the informed risk of creating another life, and thus is a problem of her own making. This is called informed consent. Of course it can be considered the fault of the father too, but regardless of the father's actions, the mother could have prevented the pregnancy unless she was raped, so she's still responsible.


Two things:

1. Consent to have sex does not mean consent to be pregnant. Much like getting into a car does not mean you consent to any possible injuries from accidents.

2. We do not withhold medical treatment from others just to teach them responsibility. Young men do not get refused emergency trauma car from high speed collisions because we want to teach them responsibility when it comes to driving.

This is, of course, an implicit admission that abortion law is about controlling women’s sexuality, and not entirely about the fetus.

The mother's actions created the life. She wants sex with no risks or responsibilities. She wants to have her cake and eat it too. Reality doesn't work like that. You can't fire bullets randomly in the air and then claim innocence and cry wolf when one of them hits another person. You knew the risks before you consensually engaged in the activity.

In cases of rape, there is no informed consent by the woman, and so in those cases your argument applies & so then abortion can be considered ethical when rape is involved.


Yeah, we need to teach that woman a lesson about having sex! :)
#15011947
Unthinking Majority wrote:The mother's actions created the life. She wants sex with no risks or responsibilities. She wants to have her cake and eat it too. Reality doesn't work like that.


That's actually exactly how reality works because we have many ways for women to control their reproduction. From contraception, to abortifacients, to abortion. It's actually how reality has been for thousands of years, with the women hating political force behind the forced-birth movement only appearing within the last century.

You yourself even describe pregnancy as a punishment for women who were just too sex starved to save themselves. You should reflect on how you view women.

And before you ask: I do not consider fetuses people, especially not people with rights that supersede a woman's.

Suntzu wrote:In practice strict abortion laws only serve to eliminate safe abortion. With the advent of cheap abortion drugs that are available through the mail, I don't see how abortion laws will have any real effect. :roll:


These abortion laws are mostly in poorer red states where sexual education has been purposely gutted to keep women ignorant of their bodies.
#15011954
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. Consent to have sex does not mean consent to be pregnant. Much like getting into a car does not mean you consent to any possible injuries from accidents.


But there are known possible outcomes of each, and being ignorant of those potential outcomes does not absolve someone from assuming responsibility for them.

If I don't want to get t-boned by someone who runs a light at an intersection, not getting into my car and staying home is a guaranteed way to avoid that. Likewise, if a woman doesn't want to consent to becoming pregnant, she shouldn't have sex...
#15011965
"We have a simple treatment that, if taken within 24 hours of a crash, fixes your car and any wounds suffered in the accident.

But you can't have it because you're a stupid slut who should have known better. Whore. WHORE! WHOORRRRRRE!!!!"

*Dozens of old white men representing the State Assemblies of Alabama, Georgia, etc. march into the hospital room chanting the word "whore" and tossing rotten fruit at an injured woman*

Like lmao seriously why are all the forced-birthers unable to describe pregnancy as anything other than a punishment or a catastrophic consequence? You sound like sadists. It just further reinforces the underlying truth of Conservative thought: The cruelty is the point.

[KS mod edit: rule 2]
#15011968
BigSteve wrote:But there are known possible outcomes of each, and being ignorant of those potential outcomes does not absolve someone from assuming responsibility for them.


No one said that ignorance absolved anyone of anything.

The point was that we do not use access to medical treatment as a way of teaching responsibility in any other situation, so why do you guys do it to women?
#15011997
Pants-of-dog wrote:The point was that we do not use access to medical treatment as a way of teaching responsibility in any other situation, so why do you guys do it to women?


"You guys"?

I haven't done it to anyone...
#15012001
:roll: He's not referring to you specifically, @BigSteve, but he is referring to any males who wish to put bans on abortions. Invariably, the argument ends up being about refusing access to medical treatment as a way of teaching responsibility.
#15012003
Godstud wrote::roll: He's not referring to you specifically, @BigSteve, but he is referring to any males who wish to put bans on abortions. Invariably, the argument ends up being about refusing access to medical treatment as a way of teaching responsibility.


I actually think abortion should be legal. I think it's an abhorrent practice, but I don't think the government should be in the business of telling women that they can't have one, simply because if the woman wants one badly enough, she'll get an illegal one, and that usually doesn't pan out well for anyone.

I have no religious beliefs on this matter, but I understand that many do and I respect the fact that they have a different opinion.

But, for me, I believe that once a fetus is viable outside the womb, abortion should be off the table. I don't know at what point that happens, but that's why we have doctors.

It doesn't take nine months for a woman to decide if she wants to have the baby or not; I just reject that very idea...
#15012006
Well look at that. Mark this day with a stone. I completely agree with BigSteve's last post.

I think I will have a beer.
#15012007
BigSteve wrote:But, for me, I believe that once a fetus is viable outside the womb, abortion should be off the table. I don't know at what point that happens, but that's why we have doctors.

It doesn't take nine months for a woman to decide if she wants to have the baby or not; I just reject that very idea...
Abortions after 24 weeks are exceedingly rare, and most doctors, even in Canada where abortion is legal, will not do an abortion after 24 weeks, unless the mother's life is in danger, or if there is some real medical factor.

Abortion should be between the pregnant woman, and her doctor. Full stop.

Yes, I agree with BigSteve, as well.
Last edited by Godstud on 14 Jun 2019 03:55, edited 1 time in total.
#15012008
I do not understand the idea that women exclusively can have opinions about this.

It's a question of moral truth that is applicable to everyone.

It's not as if we are discussing men dictating to women what they should consider fashionable. And, even if that were the case, women are very fond of taking cues on this from gay men as it is :lol: .
#15012009
Verv wrote:I do not understand the idea that women exclusively can have opinions about this.
She is the one who is pregnant. It's a biological fact.

Verv wrote:It's a question of moral truth that is applicable to everyone.
Morality is completely subjective.

Verv wrote:It's not as if we are discussing men dictating to women what they should consider fashionable. And, even if that were the case, women are very fond of taking cues on this from gay men as it is :lol: .
What has this got to do with anything? Do you know any homosexual males who have gotten pregnant, lately? :eh:

Abortion has nothing to do with "fashion".
#15012011
Godstud wrote:She is the one who is pregnant. It's a biological fact.


And the woman who is drinking alcohol while pregnant is the one who is pregnant. Yet, we all have a duty to prevent her from destroying the life of her child.

The heroin addict is the one shooting heroin into his body, right. Yet, we are the ones who have decided as well that it is immoral for people to abuse this substance and we will not enable them.

There are more exmaples.

There is an objective right & wrong, and it is something that we can have opinions on, regarldess of sex.

Morality is completely subjective.


Then why would it be wrong for me to insist on my opinion?

How would it be, then, wrong for men to insist on their pro-life stances?

Nothing is then right or wrong.

What has this got to do with anything? Do you know any homosexual males who have gotten pregnant, lately? :eh:

Abortion has nothing to do with "fashion".


It was a fun joke about how women value the opinions of gay men over themselves on something that gay men do not necessarily do (female clothing).

I was actually trying to keep it a bit light, believe it or not. I am bad at that, though. :lol:

But... I am drinking alcohol again, folks. Not in excess, heed you, but to the point of giggling a bit more easily than I should, so, RESPEK.
#15012013
BigSteve wrote:I actually think abortion should be legal. I think it's an abhorrent practice, but I don't think the government should be in the business of telling women that they can't have one, simply because if the woman wants one badly enough, she'll get an illegal one, and that usually doesn't pan out well for anyone.

I have no religious beliefs on this matter, but I understand that many do and I respect the fact that they have a different opinion.

But, for me, I believe that once a fetus is viable outside the womb, abortion should be off the table. I don't know at what point that happens, but that's why we have doctors.

It doesn't take nine months for a woman to decide if she wants to have the baby or not; I just reject that very idea...


The issue isn't that women are indecisive, it's that many states have effectively gutted Roe V. Wade through making abortion access nearly impossible. Either through restrictive laws such as mandating that abortion clinics have the same hallway width as hospitals which can accommodate multiple gurneys, requiring that the doctors who work there have completely unnecessary admitting privileges to the local hospital, etc.

Imagine if you're a young woman who discovers she's pregnant. You work minimum wage part time because you're in a small, economically depressed town. The nearest clinic is 200 miles away. There is no public transit to speak of. Aside from the cost of getting there, you're also legally required to get an initial consultation and then wait 24 hours before the operation is performed. Also, the doctor has to jam an ultrasound wand up inside you, make you listen to the heartbeat, and then shout "Abortion is murder!" in your face for 10 minutes because of further mandates from the old white men in the State Assembly.

So you either take two days off work and pay for four trips, or you pay for the trip but book a hotel as well. These are all costs of time and money that can easily be prohibitive.

But it's OK. Life is beautiful, and glorious, and the same state that has put every road block possible between you and the medical procedure you want will obviously provide for the child and help- oh, no, wait, the local Jefferson Davis Elementary is only open four days a week for 5 hours and doesn't have after school activities due to extremely low tax rates and stringent budget cuts. Also the lunch provided by the school for poor children is three and a half hot dog buns, because that technically meets the minimum nutritional requirements of an 800 calorie meal.

Have fun, single young whore mother who was not in a situation to raise a child. Remember that life is beautiful. Glad you didn't make the decision to abort!
#15012016
Godstud wrote:So, @Hindsite, making the woman have a baby and then have to fight for custody against her rapist is moral in your books? Really? This makes the woman the victim TWO times. What about justice? Isn't that also a Biblical thing, or does it not count when it comes to women?

We live in a democratic republic and each state has a right to vote on legislative laws of their choosing. If there is something about the law that is against our constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court decides the issue. That is obviously what will happen with the Alabama and Georgia laws and any of the other state laws that are controversial. I have no problem with these laws myself, since I believe abortion is equal to murder of a baby. I see no need to create more victims than necessary. There is a crime against rape and the rapist should be punished, but not by the murder of a baby in the womb.
#15012018
Verv wrote:And the woman who is drinking alcohol while pregnant is the one who is pregnant. Yet, we all have a duty to prevent her from destroying the life of her child.
No, we do not. It is her body and therefore her choice. There is no law, either that states that a woman cannot drink herself into a stupor, while pregnant, either.

Verv wrote:The heroin addict is the one shooting heroin into his body, right. Yet, we are the ones who have decided as well that it is immoral for people to abuse this substance and we will not enable them.
Most cities provide free needles so that there is some safety involved in the substance abuse. Some places even have free places for them to shoot up, in safety. This is not enabling, but providing some health safety net for them. Most states provide more for a heroin addict than for a pregnant woman. How telling is that?

Verv wrote:Then why would it be wrong for me to insist on my opinion?
You are free to have your opinion, but not to insist on it.

Verv wrote:Nothing is then right or wrong.
:lol: Cmon, Verv. That's being silly, and you know it.

Morality is subjective . One society(eg. Canada) might deem the right to have abortion as moral, whereas you and some assholes in Alabama, feel it is not. You'd rather remove the rights of a person in favour of a "potential" person. I find that morally objectionable. Mind you, that's my moral opinion on it. :D

Hindsite wrote:There is a crime against rape and the rapist should be punished, but not by the murder of a baby in the womb.
That baby was put there illegally. She was raped. She does not want to be pregnant 9 months because some asshole impregnated her by force. She should not have to take the health risks and mental stress simply to make you and the rapist feel good about themselves.

So you agree that the rapist should have parental rights? That's what Alabama suggests, since a woman who DID have a rape baby, now has to fight for custody of said baby. So much for pro-life. Pro-birth and then "we don't give a fuck after that" is what I see from your ilk.
#15012019
Godstud wrote:No, we do not. It is her body and therefore her choice. There is no law, either that states that a woman cannot drink herself into a stupor, while pregnant, either.

Well, there should be, since there is another life involved.

Godstud wrote: Most cities provide free needles so that there is some safety involved in the substance abuse. Some places even have free places for them to shoot up, in safety. This is not enabling, but providing some health safety net for them. Most states provide more for a heroin addict than for a pregnant woman. How telling is that?

I thought that was what Planned Parenthood is supposed to be about.

Godstud wrote:That baby was put there illegally. She was raped. She does not want to be pregnant 9 months because some asshole impregnated her by force. She should not have to take the health risks and mental stress simply to make you and the rapist feel good about themselves.

So you agree that the rapist should have parental rights? That's what Alabama suggests, since a woman who DID have a rape baby, now has to fight for custody of said baby. So much for pro-life. Pro-birth and then "we don't give a fuck after that" is what I see from your ilk.

That is what the courts are to decide in our system of government.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 22
Donald in the Bunker

Both Trump and SJWs would be an expression of sla[…]

https://www.reddit.com/r/2020PoliceBrutality/comme[…]

Am I racist in your opinion?

It's possible I'm just disinterested in debating […]

Imagine believing that the secret to not being a […]