Roe VS Wade officially goes back before the Supreme Court - Page 7 - 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.
#15201037
Unthinking Majority wrote:Therefore kill the baby?



Therefore kill babies?



Therefore kill babies?



So the government doesn't give you free stuff therefore kill babies? That's stupid and evil.



Therefore kill babies? Wow, that's worse than Hitler.

You have a lot of excuses lined up to support the killing of babies.


There is no baby. A collection of tissue is not a baby. A 12-week fetus is no more of a baby than a kidney or a spleen.
Many times we have gone over this, apparently your recarcitrant "pro-life" vanished on the prospect of forcing a parent donate a bone marrow, a kidney, a piece of liver or even blood. Hopefully no parent would ever deny that to their child (assuming compatibility) but apparently, making it official and codifying this under law might be a bit too much for people like you. Yet, forcing a woman to deliver a baby... no big deal.
This week I admitted a woman a few weeks after her delivery. She was short of breath, we suspected peripartum cardiomyopathy, we confirmed it with an echocardiogram that showed her ejection fraction at only 15% (normal is 60%+). This is heart failure, at this EF, she can develop a deadly arrhythmia called ventricular tachycardia and drop dead. She is in her 20's, was completely healthy prior to her pregnancy.
Pregnancy is dangerous. It makes the woman anemic, it makes the woman immunosuppressed, it makes the woman have a higher chance of developing blood clots (and the gravid uterus presses on the blood return, which further increases the chances of developing clots in the legs that can dislodge and travel to the lungs and kill the woman).
An unwanted pregnancy is not "just an inconvenience". It is a live changing event. It has a relatively small (on a population level) but REAL chances of being lethal and/or disabling.
Forcing a human being to undergo this sort of body punishment out of spite "because you didnt use a condom" or any other dumb reason is inhuman.
#15201038
@Pants-of-dog
If responsibility is the key for accessing medical treatment, then we should not provide medical attention to people who drive irresponsibly. Or eat too much. Or decide to work in construction.


This kind of dismissive and frankly condescending argument is one of the reasons why conservatives frequently do not take liberals seriously. You missed the point for anti-abortion people entirely.

This is not about "medical attention". Pregnant people are rarely ill. If you want to discuss the occasional ill person then I am all ears. This is about the terminating of a pregnancy where there is a healthy fetus in a healthy mother.

2. Your comment trivializes the immensely difficult decision to abort a child. Immensely difficult for the mother and frankly difficult for some medical workers too. And the father who has no choice? His (potential) child is being destroyed also. And what about the times when others in the family know about the pregnancy. This could cause very traumatic consequences for the pregnant woman.

Comparing having an abortion to "eating to much" or driving irresponsibly is absurd and VERY insulting to women. And it ignores the indisputable fact that for the overwhelming majority of women it is a decision that is already extremely traumatic, and in most cases life-changing. One comment very frequently made by women who have had abortions (natural or induced) is that around the time they would have come to term they tend to think about what their child might have been like if allowed to be born.

Abortion is the absolute worst form of birth control. It is a myth that any significant number of women go lightly to the clinic and say, "lets have this sucker out in a hurry. I have a date tonight.

So when those on the left make light of the decision to have an abortion calling it nothing but a "choice" no more important that having too much pizza it hurts the issue to the core.

I am first to say that the country ought to fight hard to allow a woman to successfully have a baby. The free prenatal and delivery, help with child care, food and, of course, affordable housing that should be provided to allow a woman to choose life, speak not just some "choice". Not at all.

Elective abortion is serious. Very serious. It is a significant medical procedure and a major source of psychological trauma.

I hate the term "pro life" coming from people who in every other instance, do not give a shit about life. I hate the term "pro-choice" because it makes abortion seem like a menu item. Yes I am in favor of allowing a woman to choose an abortion prior to viability and then I do not care if they were raped by a crew of Cossacks, no abortion unless to save the life of the mother.

So POD, rethink your use of language in cases like this. Even though in my opinion a woman has the right to have an abortion, this does not mean that she ought to.
#15201040
ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not a Stalinist so I'm not going to apologize for China's state bureaucracy.

Note that the capitalist banking 'credit score' *isn't* the same thing as China's 'social credit score', though. That said, I don't laud it and I don't get into intra-bureaucratic / intra-governmental, or bourgeois-international internal politics.


Social credit is far more invasive than a financial credit score, particularly in the way China is doing it.
#15201044
Drlee wrote:
Comparing having an abortion to "eating to much" or driving irresponsibly is absurd and VERY insulting to women.



POD was knocking the / any use of a 'moral' yardstick -- you're purposely, wantonly *misconstruing* the meaning, for whatever that's worth.


Drlee wrote:
Yes I am in favor of allowing a woman to choose an abortion prior to viability and then I do not care if they were raped by a crew of Cossacks, no abortion unless to save the life of the mother.



This is mixed and unclear -- are you in favor of allowing a woman to choose an abortion prior to viability, or can there be no abortions unless it's to save the life of the mother -- ?
#15201045
Drlee wrote:@Pants-of-dog

This kind of dismissive and frankly condescending argument is one of the reasons why conservatives frequently do not take liberals seriously. You missed the point for anti-abortion people entirely.

This is not about "medical attention". Pregnant people are rarely ill. If you want to discuss the occasional ill person then I am all ears. This is about the terminating of a pregnancy where there is a healthy fetus in a healthy mother.

2. Your comment trivializes the immensely difficult decision to abort a child. Immensely difficult for the mother and frankly difficult for some medical workers too. And the father who has no choice? His (potential) child is being destroyed also. And what about the times when others in the family know about the pregnancy. This could cause very traumatic consequences for the pregnant woman.


I disagree with this. I think POD's stament was reasonable. One of the common objections from @Unthinking Majority (and others) is to claim "you brought it to yourself" implying that it is easy enough to use a condom and/or anti-conceptive.
Yes, it is easy enough to use a condom and/or anti-conceptive. It is also easy enough to exercise and eat healthy but we also see plenty of 300lbs+ cardiac/diabetic patients that also "brought it on themselves".
This sort of idea is cruel, inhuman and frankly, it misses the very complexity of the situation, the complexity that you are very aware that exists.

Indeed, many times this is very difficult for the mother, the father (if involved) and the medical professionals. Adding an extra, unnecessary layer of prohibition, complexity, is not helpful.

Comparing having an abortion to "eating to much" or driving irresponsibly is absurd and VERY insulting to women.

I cannot speak for his intentions. The point is, we shouldn't punish people with limitations to healthcare because of the decisions that lead them to where they are..

And the father who has no choice? His (potential) child is being destroyed also.

Why should the father have a say on how the mother's body is used? The father could have taken precautions himself to avoid an unwanted pregnancy (and therefore an unwanted abortion)?. This is a matter of body autonomy above all else. If the mother could safely "poop out" a tiny embryo and grow it in an incubator, I wouldn't give a crap if the embryo is destroyed or preserved/grown. What I think is inexcusable, is forcing the woman to carry and deliver an unwanted pregnancy. For whatever reason (genetic disorder of the fetus, maternal complication, financial hardship, depression, etc) or no reason at all. If I cannot use your body, to prolong my life... why should a woman have to use her's to prolong a fetus'?

Abortion is the absolute worst form of birth control. It is a myth that any significant number of women go lightly to the clinic and say, "lets have this sucker out in a hurry. I have a date tonight.

Agreed. If all the resources wasted on this nonsense were re-distributed to educating teens and providing reproduction health, abortions would likely be a fraction of what they currently are.

I hate the term "pro-choice" because it makes abortion seem like a menu item.

Well, the "pro-life" term is not much better either, it suggests that the rest are not pro-life. I am pro-life, I don't want shooters killing kids with unrestricted military-grade armament (or any other sort of guns), I don't like children being poisoned with lead, fumes or global warming, and I don't like abortions. I just don't think anyone should force another human being to carry out a pregnancy.
#15201047
ckaihatsu wrote:To be clear, this is basically the-bourgeoisie-vs.-the-bureaucracy squabble down through the millennia.

Excuse me. (yawn)


Nonsense. Getting your kids denied admission into college because of your score is not something that banks can do, but it can happen in China.

That's communism for you, in the real world.
#15201048
wat0n wrote:
Nonsense. Getting your kids denied admission into college because of your score is not something that banks can do, but it can happen in China.



Okay, I hear ya, but the analogue to that, under capitalism, is *money*. Sure, there are scholarships available and charity and such, but why should people be subjected to that kind of precariousness as a matter of course, in how the system operates -- ?

I'm going to balance carefully to stay away from any kind of involvement here, while reiterating that I'm not interested in light frothy conversations on the finer points of doing ruling class oppression, whether that's from merchants or bureaucrats, in any given country.


wat0n wrote:
That's communism for you, in the real world.



Well, it's Stalinism, anyway.
Last edited by ckaihatsu on 06 Dec 2021 03:42, edited 1 time in total.
#15201055
Drlee wrote:@Pants-of-dog

This kind of dismissive and frankly condescending argument is one of the reasons why conservatives frequently do not take liberals seriously. You missed the point for anti-abortion people entirely.


No.

@Unthinking Majority clearly discussed responsibility as a reason to withhold medical treatment.

I pointed out that this is a double standard.

We only apply this standard to pregnant people.

This is not about "medical attention". Pregnant people are rarely ill. If you want to discuss the occasional ill person then I am all ears. This is about the terminating of a pregnancy where there is a healthy fetus in a healthy mother.


If you think that doctors and medical professionals do not also deal with childbirth, then you are incorrect.

2. Your comment trivializes the immensely difficult decision to abort a child. Immensely difficult for the mother and frankly difficult for some medical workers too. And the father who has no choice? His (potential) child is being destroyed also. And what about the times when others in the family know about the pregnancy. This could cause very traumatic consequences for the pregnant woman.

Comparing having an abortion to "eating to much" or driving irresponsibly is absurd and VERY insulting to women. And it ignores the indisputable fact that for the overwhelming majority of women it is a decision that is already extremely traumatic, and in most cases life-changing. One comment very frequently made by women who have had abortions (natural or induced) is that around the time they would have come to term they tend to think about what their child might have been like if allowed to be born.


What is insulting to women is the fact that you give obese people, speeders, smokers, and dead people more rights than you give to pregnant people.

When you have stopped making that particular insult, then you can speak to me about being insulting.

Abortion is the absolute worst form of birth control. It is a myth that any significant number of women go lightly to the clinic and say, "lets have this sucker out in a hurry. I have a date tonight.

So when those on the left make light of the decision to have an abortion calling it nothing but a "choice" no more important that having too much pizza it hurts the issue to the core.


Strawman.

I am first to say that the country ought to fight hard to allow a woman to successfully have a baby. The free prenatal and delivery, help with child care, food and, of course, affordable housing that should be provided to allow a woman to choose life, speak not just some "choice". Not at all.

Elective abortion is serious. Very serious. It is a significant medical procedure and a major source of psychological trauma.

I hate the term "pro life" coming from people who in every other instance, do not give a shit about life. I hate the term "pro-choice" because it makes abortion seem like a menu item. Yes I am in favor of allowing a woman to choose an abortion prior to viability and then I do not care if they were raped by a crew of Cossacks, no abortion unless to save the life of the mother.

So POD, rethink your use of language in cases like this. Even though in my opinion a woman has the right to have an abortion, this does not mean that she ought to.


All of this is irrelevant to my claim. It does not seem to be a rebuttal or an argument.
#15201072
XogGyux wrote:There is no baby. A collection of tissue is not a baby. A 12-week fetus is no more of a baby than a kidney or a spleen.

WTF are you talking about? You're also a collection of tissue. But please, keep trying to dehumanize the fetus so you can sleep at night when you kill them. It looks like a baby to me:

Image

Pregnancy is dangerous.

So is being sucked out the womb.
#15201073
Godstud wrote:[usermention=23903]
I am sure you want to start imprisoning women for miscarriages next... That's your next step, right? Maybe a pregnancy registry after you ban all abortions, like what Poland is thinking of instituting?

I want all women to be killed if they have abortions. Oh wait no I don't because I don't believe in killing people, but you do.

You can try to paint me as a misogynist all you want, but you're the one killing babies, so I win ya baby killer. ;)

Foster care is the way to go. That never turns out bad... :roll:

What's a worse environment: a foster home or being sucked out the womb and thrown in the garbage and then incinerated?
#15201075
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, I hear ya, but the analogue to that, under capitalism, is *money*. Sure, there are scholarships available and charity and such, but why should people be subjected to that kind of precariousness as a matter of course, in how the system operates -- ?

I'm going to balance carefully to stay away from any kind of involvement here, while reiterating that I'm not interested in light frothy conversations on the finer points of doing ruling class oppression, whether that's from merchants or bureaucrats, in any given country.


Far better than an outright ban from the government to attend.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, it's Stalinism, anyway.


And that's how communism has worked in reality.

But you are right, we're digressing. Ultimately the issue of abortion, except for cases such as saving the mother's life or decreasing the risk of giving birth of an inviable fetus (which is just an extension of the former), depends on whether one believes the fetus is actually a person or not. I have no clear opinion on the matter.
#15201076
XogGyux wrote:I disagree with this. I think POD's stament was reasonable. One of the common objections from @Unthinking Majority (and others) is to claim "you brought it to yourself" implying that it is easy enough to use a condom and/or anti-conceptive.
Yes, it is easy enough to use a condom and/or anti-conceptive. It is also easy enough to exercise and eat healthy but we also see plenty of 300lbs+ cardiac/diabetic patients that also "brought it on themselves".

It's not about punishing the mom, it's about not punishing the child. Giving medical treatment to a fat person doesn't kill another person so there's no ethical reason to deny treatment.
#15201081
ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, I hear ya, but the analogue to that, under capitalism, is *money*. Sure, there are scholarships available and charity and such, but why should people be subjected to that kind of precariousness as a matter of course, in how the system operates -- ?

I'm going to balance carefully to stay away from any kind of involvement here, while reiterating that I'm not interested in light frothy conversations on the finer points of doing ruling class oppression, whether that's from merchants or bureaucrats, in any given country.



wat0n wrote:
Far better than an outright ban from the government to attend.



Um, *really* -- ?

If you're going to do East-vs.-West you've *got* to take the bad with the good -- poverty happens to still be a thing, unfortunately, but not-doing anything about it (West) is just as bad as if the 'no' directive came from a commissar, or whatever (East).

So, again, it's all ruling-class to me. Whatever you're doing I think Wikipedia beat you to it.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, it's Stalinism, anyway.



wat0n wrote:
And that's how communism has worked in reality.



Well, no, no one can really say that. The workers in the USSR never had collective control over their own labor and resulting production -- especially *where it went*.

You're thinking *religion* here, like 'original sin' or something, and then projecting it onto Marxism / communism. Not nice.


wat0n wrote:
But you are right, we're digressing. Ultimately the issue of abortion, except for cases such as saving the mother's life or decreasing the risk of giving birth of an inviable fetus (which is just an extension of the former), depends on whether one believes the fetus is actually a person or not. I have no clear opinion on the matter.



I'm afraid you'll have to *leave*, then. (grin)
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 19

Thermal Storage - Solar ICE https://www.youtube.c[…]

Meth and the homeless

To be fair, the root cause of meth addiction is t[…]

Again, calling the temperature at the end of the[…]

Is the US economy overheating

The inflation will go away when people go back to […]