Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 44 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15229777
The only way to save those lives is to interfere with the rights of women to make choices about what happens to their own bodies.
You can try and change minds, but the bottom line ought to be their body, their choice.
You can argue about the rights and wrongs of abortion as people have doing for many years, but it comes down to a person’s own conscience.

No other person is harmed by a woman deciding to end her pregnancy. Comparing the death of an actual child to the death of an embryo is pretty shameful in my opinion.

While those poor children were being shot to death in Texas, hundreds of embryos were being flushed down the toilet without anyone except the woman concerned knowing a thing about it, unless she chose to tell anyone.

You break your heart over those embryos if you want. I prefer to save my compassion for the families of the murdered children.
No more birthdays or christmases. No more kisses and hugs from grandparents. No more playing games with their friends. Never, ever again.

You try telling those families the death of their child is of no more importance than the death of an embryo.
#15229778
Unthinking Majority wrote:
You seem to think a fetus is not a child and that this is backed by science. That seems absurd.



It's definitional.

Which doesn't help you, so you indulge your more creative impulses.
#15229780
Don't worry @Unthinking Majority POD and his ilk are perfectly fine with people breaking the law and then whining when there are consequences.

If a woman sets out to get an abortion in a state where it is a crime, and contacts a co-conspirator doctor or other person who is equally willing to commit a felony so that she can have the convenience of an abortion without traveling to the next state over where it is likely legal and free, and has a bad outcome, we are supposed to believe that we should have sympathy for her. We should have pity for her. Not for having an illegal abortion but for being an unmitigated dumb shit.
#15229782
Drlee wrote:Don't worry @Unthinking Majority POD and his ilk are perfectly fine with people breaking the law and then whining when there are consequences.

If a woman sets out to get an abortion in a state where it is a crime, and contacts a co-conspirator doctor or other person who is equally willing to commit a felony so that she can have the convenience of an abortion without traveling to the next state over where it is likely legal and free, and has a bad outcome, we are supposed to believe that we should have sympathy for her. We should have pity for her. Not for having an illegal abortion but for being an unmitigated dumb shit.


Yes, you should feel for her.

Enough that you do not want her to die. I do not want criminals to die, even really bad ones. I have this idea that all people should enjoy rights, not just those who follow my particular moral code.
#15229786
Yes, we bloody should feel for her. Sorry for her and outraged that it’s going to be necessary, at what is best is a vast deal of inconvenience, to obtain healthcare she should have by right within a short distance.
And for what reason? Certainly not to save the lives of innocent children.
#15229887
I spent enough time defending law abiding citizens to waste much more worrying about felons.

Unless that pregnant woman has written all her representatives, marched in all the parades, donated her widows mite and basically shouted for her rights from the rooftops, then I have no sympathy for her. The answer to this problem lies with women. They have the votes if they want the rights they can have them.

Seriously. Why should I give one rats ass about women's rights when in my city of 1.5 million they got about 300 protesters to show up on a Saturday. There were more counter protesters.

It is quite obvious that women who want this right to have an abortion cannot be bothered to walk a mile for it. Or even scribble a sign and stand around for awhile. But don't worry honey bunch. I will still buy you flowers and hold the door open for you. You ladies just leave this nasty government stuff to we menfolk. We know how to make it all nice for you. We always have.

Remind me again why we men gave women the vote?
#15229934
Anyway, back to the topic:

Alito so far has made two important errors:

1. He incorrectly argued that there has been a tradition of banning abortion , when his own sources show otherwise.

2. He also errs when he claims that it is impossible to assess the impact that abortion rights have had on women and other people who get pregnant. The records show that the SCOTUS received this exact assessment not long ago.

He also makes much of popular will, arguing that those who support access to abortion can do so through elections. He neglects to mention that four out of five justices supporting this removal of rights were appointed by presidents who did not get a majority of the popular vote. He also ignores the fact that most US citizens do want access to legal abortion.

At this point, I am starting to think he is trolling.
#15229937
I suspect that, if left to direct referendum, most (maybe all) states would allow on-demand abortion in some form, at least during first trimester like in most European countries. This is regardless of fetal personhood or any single person's ethical position about abortion.
#15229961
@Pants-of-dog
1. He incorrectly argued that there has been a tradition of banning abortion , when his own sources show otherwise.


The vote in the SCOTUS was what? So he did not "Incorrectly argue" anything

2. He also errs when he claims that it is impossible to assess the impact that abortion rights have had on women and other people who get pregnant. The records show that the SCOTUS received this exact assessment not long ago.


:lol: :lol:

You just make a joke of yourself when you post idiotic statements like this: "...women and other people who get pregnant". There ARE no other people who get pregnant.

There may be some untreated/undertreated people with Gender Identity Disphoria who are dressing like men and get pregnant but they are women.

God man. Sometimes lefties just make me ill.

It is posts like this that make me happy to be a conservative, and, now that it appears we have won this one, can move on to stop more of this lunacy.

Women do not care about this law anyway. That is clear from their reaction. Lukewarm by a few and nothing from the majority. But never fear. The patriarchy is alive, well and happy to be doing since the stone age.
#15229963
wat0n wrote:Again, see my 3-week old post: I don't know if fetuses are people.

How come you don't know? You don't care to know?
More importantly... if you don't know if they are people or not... what is your stance on abortion? Do you support banning abortion or are you OK allowing abortions to continue?

Since you don't believe they are, I am trying to see where to draw the line by playing the fetal personhood advocate.

You don't need to bother doing such silly gymnastics. I have been very clear since the beginning of the thread (and in the past on other threads) that the line is not mine to draw. I don't think it is the judges to draw either. As far as I am concerned, it is the pregnant woman and her doctors/healthcare providers' line to draw.

@Unthinking Majority believes otherwise so when asking him, I play the fetal non-personhood advocate.

So you are an equal opportunity A hole? :knife:

Basically, I'm applying the Socratic Method to get good arguments for both positions.

The first step would be to get your arguments in order. Arguing personhood as a reason to ban abortion when it has never been a core principle of my support/rejection of abortion is silly. This is, btw, a strawman.
All of this goes in flames when your "approved reasons to get an abortion" none of them are immune to the same personhood argument that you think is important on this question... basically you are defeating your own [admittedly weak] points.

It's tempting, but is it ethical to burden the victim for something she did not do? Is this proportional?

Really? The fetus did not harm the woman... She gets to abort it because "it is an inconvenient"? Why do you think that the rape victim should have the power to end the life of a person when this life is not posing any sort of danger to her? The rapist is long gone, maybe even in jail, but you still think this fetus must die?

I would regard the woman having the abortion in this case as acting out of something akin to necessity, which in some states (not all, I'll grant you that) is a valid defense for homicide.

What?

The fact that the rapist could be dead is immaterial here. Hitler's mom is not directly responsible for Hitler's actions but the rapist would be directly responsible for the pregnancy since it's a direct result of the rape.

So what if he is responsible for the pregnancy?
Let me ask you this... you also support abortions in the case of mothers that got pregnant but their partner is a domestic abuser (NOT A RAPIST, the partner just gets drunks and hit her from time to time).
Its the same shit... a despicable person responsible for getting someone pregnant. These mothers also get the @wat0n special and get to abort for free (from consequences that is)?

Again, proportionality.

You keep saying this bullshit. It is time you explain exactly what you mean by "proportionality". It seems to me "I get to choose what I see right and what I see wrong".

It's clearly not the same situation as the woman who finds she's 2 months pregnant.

Well, this is nonsense. If your argument against rape revolves around personhood, and you spent 3 weeks trying to argue that there should not be any sort of treatment difference between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the born because both are "persons"... but now... when faced with a situation in which the raped woman could potentially kill the newborn... you back down and hide behind this "proportionality" nonsense that you just made up. When I said, that birth is the event that separates the rights of the 2 individuals you keep talking nonsense... now it seems that you are trying to make an argument that birth makes a difference, except... under your paradigm of personhood, it does not.

Out of necessity, not because they want to.

And what necessitates that the pregnant woman murders her unborn child?

It's clearly not the same situation as the woman who learns about the pregnancy early on. In your scenario, the rape victim can end it immediately without killing the fetus, in the more common one (it's rare for women to learn about their pregnancy while in labor) she doesn't have that option.

But you clearly misunderstand the whole point of the argument. The argument is not there for you to risk stratify how likely it is for this set of events to occur in this particular manner. The argument is there so that you get an opportunity to identify the logic sinkholes of your arguments. From a "personhood" paradigm... a person fetus, is not different from a person newborn. Therefore... why do you make a distinction if I kill it while a fetus or while a baby?
Do you realize this is EXACTLY the case against abortion but just backwards? When you argue that a fetus is a person and thus abortion is murder... this is exactly the issue that you put yourself into.

It's not that complicated, and I'm sure you understand it.

Your logic? No. I don't think I can.

Since I don't have a clear position

I don't believe you. Only people of conviction twist themselves into a knot of weak arguments to defend their point.

I care about it, I'd still see if it's possible to convince the victim not to have the abortion.

Well, if you think abortion = murder, you should do more than convince, you should prevent at all cost, even jail if necessary. Restraining a person for a few month must certainly be entertained as to save the life of an innocent child doesn't it?

But I would not prevent her from making the choice since she's clearly not responsible for the pregnancy.

It does not matter, she is pregnant, and an abortion would be murder. You don't get to murder someone because someone wronged you.

I would not punish the victim for something she's not responsible for.

But you would punish the person inside her? Capital punishment? Murder is a worse crime than rape, how is it that you are entertaining allowing someone to willfully and knowingly commit a worse crime? This is the "socratic method" that you talk about? Seems pretty barbaric to me.

Do you think this is enough to consider a fetus a non-person?

Personhood is irrelevant. Furthermore, the decision of wether a fetus is or not a person does not follow from the consequences of them being or not a person. In other words, what you are asking is backwards.

The pregnant woman doesn't have one, and not working can perfectly harm the fetus and lead to a miscarriage as well. It's not the same situation, really.

What do you mean? Follow your doctor's advise. Ofcourse she had one.

Well, it goes to show why the fetal personhood question is complicated.

Not much, it is irrelevant on this topic though.

You can't go on and say that a 37-week fetus 1 second before birth is not a person while it is one 1 second after, as you in fact did, and expect no pushback either.

Well, I don't have to because personhood is irrelevant. The thing that changes when the fetus is born... is that it is no longer tied to the body of his/her mother and thus this newborn's rights can be analyzed and protected as an individual, regardless of wether this newborn is or not a person. Personhood did not change during birth, his "living accommodations" did, and therefore, now his fate is somewhat independent of that of the mother.

And your examples show how personhood does in fact matter, and not just for abortion.

No it does not. And if you were sincere on your arguments you would have immediately realized when put in a situation of MURDERING a "person" if this person happens to be the misfortunate conclusion of a rape act.

No. In those cases, the woman clearly did not want to end pregnancy.

Or maybe they were just waiting to see how stretchy her belly gets before having an abortion at the very last minute.

Is there a law forcing us to have strong positions in all issues? :knife:

You do have a strong position. If not... what are the last 3 weeks about then?
:lol:

@XogGyux would say fetuses are more like stem cells than children during the whole pregnancy, up to a second before birth and regardless of its development.

That is not remotely what I would say.
#15229996
XogGyux wrote:How come you don't know? You don't care to know?
More importantly... if you don't know if they are people or not... what is your stance on abortion? Do you support banning abortion or are you OK allowing abortions to continue?


It depends, really.

If fetuses are people, I'd ban on-demand abortion but would allow it in cases like preserving maternal life or from serious bodily harm, if the fetus is dead or so seriously deformed as to be incompatible with life (to spare the mother from the risk of continuing with the pregnancy). In the case of rape, the punishment would go for the rapist and not the victim, as an aggravant.

If fetuses are not people, I see no reason to ban on-demand abortion. I'd discourage it, especially late-term abortion since there are alternatives to killing the fetus and early delivery may be safer for the woman, but that's about it.

Since I don't know if fetuses are people, I don't have a clear position about on-demand abortion as you can see. But even if they are, there are reasons to allow abortion under some circumstances.

XogGyux wrote:You don't need to bother doing such silly gymnastics. I have been very clear since the beginning of the thread (and in the past on other threads) that the line is not mine to draw. I don't think it is the judges to draw either. As far as I am concerned, it is the pregnant woman and her doctors/healthcare providers' line to draw.


I don't know. I don't think this is a good precedent should the question of personhood arise in a different context.

XogGyux wrote:So you are an equal opportunity A hole? :knife:


Yes.

XogGyux wrote:The first step would be to get your arguments in order. Arguing personhood as a reason to ban abortion when it has never been a core principle of my support/rejection of abortion is silly. This is, btw, a strawman.
All of this goes in flames when your "approved reasons to get an abortion" none of them are immune to the same personhood argument that you think is important on this question... basically you are defeating your own [admittedly weak] points.


Well, I'd say the fetal personhood problem is precisely why this is a topic at all. I highly doubt many people would care about abortion otherwise.

I don't see how my points are weak. FWIW you can find analogous situations involving adults where we'd accept killing another person is acceptable. Regrettable, undesirable, but acceptable.

XogGyux wrote:Really? The fetus did not harm the woman... She gets to abort it because "it is an inconvenient"? Why do you think that the rape victim should have the power to end the life of a person when this life is not posing any sort of danger to her? The rapist is long gone, maybe even in jail, but you still think this fetus must die?


I can see why we wouldn't want to extend her agony, particularly since she isn't at fault (since she gave no consent). And again, this would not go unpunished, the rapist would get a longer sentence.

And no, this isn't "using pregnancy to punish people". If you accept to become responsible for another person, even implicitly, you have to just face the result of your choices or negligence. But the victim of a crime isn't really responsible if we accept her to be one.

XogGyux wrote:What?


Maybe you should look it up?

XogGyux wrote:So what if he is responsible for the pregnancy?
Let me ask you this... you also support abortions in the case of mothers that got pregnant but their partner is a domestic abuser (NOT A RAPIST, the partner just gets drunks and hit her from time to time).
Its the same shit... a despicable person responsible for getting someone pregnant. These mothers also get the @wat0n special and get to abort for free (from consequences that is)?


No, because if he didn't rape her then she did give consent and assume the risk.

Being an asshole is not enough. Rape has a clear meaning and consequence here.

XogGyux wrote:You keep saying this bullshit. It is time you explain exactly what you mean by "proportionality". It seems to me "I get to choose what I see right and what I see wrong".


XogGyux wrote:Well, this is nonsense. If your argument against rape revolves around personhood, and you spent 3 weeks trying to argue that there should not be any sort of treatment difference between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the born because both are "persons"... but now... when faced with a situation in which the raped woman could potentially kill the newborn... you back down and hide behind this "proportionality" nonsense that you just made up. When I said, that birth is the event that separates the rights of the 2 individuals you keep talking nonsense... now it seems that you are trying to make an argument that birth makes a difference, except... under your paradigm of personhood, it does not.


XogGyux wrote:Well, I don't have to because personhood is irrelevant. The thing that changes when the fetus is born... is that it is no longer tied to the body of his/her mother and thus this newborn's rights can be analyzed and protected as an individual, regardless of wether this newborn is or not a person. Personhood did not change during birth, his "living accommodations" did, and therefore, now his fate is somewhat independent of that of the mother.


Is the damage to the pregnant rape victim to wait for 4 hours to deliver the fetus comparable to the damage to the fetus arising from a late term-abortion? Probably not, FWIW 4 hours could be the same time she takes to schedule and get an abortion so her agony wouldn't need to extend for longer. But waiting for 7 months? I can imagine it is, and if it were possible for the fetus to survive then I'd also be against an abortion and for an early delivery.

And this is not as arbitrary as drawing the line where we care about fetuses at already having the baby delivered. You hinted at it yourself, at e.g. 37 weeks the pregnancy could be ended by just inducing birth since the fetus has already developed for all intents and purposes - you don't HAVE to kill the fetus in the process of terminating the pregnancy for the sake of the woman's bodily autonomy. That argument is clearly not valid here.

You have yet to explain what's the ethics behind killing that fetus, and remember, since you say this isn't about the fetus' personhood, that it obviously doesn't matter at all, so please assume it is one. If it doesn't matter then pray tell me why would you kill another person when you can achieve exactly the same goal without doing so.

In fact, under your definition of when this 37-week fetus is now worthy of protection (namely, it becomes a child as soon as it's not tied to its mother anymore, meaning it's out of the womb and its umbilical cord has been cut out - your own words, as per the last quote) it would be just fine if you got the fetus outside the womb and repeatedly stabbed it to death, but only if you didn't cut the umbilical cord before doing so, since it would still be a fetus and not a child. I'm open to accept this standard but only if you can explain with detail what makes this moment so special as to make this kind of thing okay, and you are totally free to find a bioethical source that does it for you, if not then this is very arbitrary (far more than what I said about making an exception to abortion in the case of rape) and one doesn't need to accept it at all.

Oh and you're also assuming the fetus isn't a person if you are okay with letting another person, its mother, choose to kill it for whatever reason. You claim personhood doesn't matter but in reality, and you said it yourself, being dependent on someone else to live doesn't make you less of a person. Hence, by simple elimination, the fetus isn't a person under your view. That's okay, it's a legitimate choice to make - but ideally it shouldn't be arbitrary.

XogGyux wrote:And what necessitates that the pregnant woman murders her unborn child?


Sparing her from the grave psychological damage arising from reliving the rape, every time she looks at herself in the mirror, until delivery.

By the way, the "threat to life or serious injury" standard would also apply if a professional acting in good faith assessed the pregnancy was so psychologically damaging for the woman, she'd be likely to attempt to seriously injure herself or commit suicide because of the pregnancy. The standard of proof here would not be lax, but I'd definitely consider this extreme situation to fall within that "risk to life" standard.

XogGyux wrote:But you clearly misunderstand the whole point of the argument. The argument is not there for you to risk stratify how likely it is for this set of events to occur in this particular manner. The argument is there so that you get an opportunity to identify the logic sinkholes of your arguments. From a "personhood" paradigm... a person fetus, is not different from a person newborn. Therefore... why do you make a distinction if I kill it while a fetus or while a baby?
Do you realize this is EXACTLY the case against abortion but just backwards? When you argue that a fetus is a person and thus abortion is murder... this is exactly the issue that you put yourself into.


Then you are not understanding my argument. It's precisely because I don't know if a fetus is a person or not that I'm putting myself in the case it is. But, honestly, even if the fetus isn't a person I find it hard to justify the late-term abortion when there's a less deadly alternative involved. Clearly, bodily autonomy isn't a good argument when the same goal (terminating pregnancy) can be achieved without killing the fetus. Same for avoiding the continued victimization of this woman, since either procedure will terminate her obviously unwanted pregnancy. So why would you find killing the fetus acceptable, except because we have agreed beforehand it isn't a person and that's it? Can you find any acceptable reason for having a late-term abortion instead of just a regular childbirth in this scenario you proposed yourself?

Thus far what I'm walking with from our conversation is that we don't know if fetuses are people or not, we can't find a clearly convincing reason either way, but the older the fetus is the more likely it is to be one. I don't find this too helpful if you ask me, but I suppose it's something.

XogGyux wrote:I don't believe you. Only people of conviction twist themselves into a knot of weak arguments to defend their point.


One thing I'm convinced about is that the morality of abortion depends a lot on whether the fetus is a person or not. Yes, that is something I'm clearly convinced of.

XogGyux wrote:Well, if you think abortion = murder, you should do more than convince, you should prevent at all cost, even jail if necessary. Restraining a person for a few month must certainly be entertained as to save the life of an innocent child doesn't it?


XogGyux wrote:It does not matter, she is pregnant, and an abortion would be murder. You don't get to murder someone because someone wronged you.


XogGyux wrote:But you would punish the person inside her? Capital punishment? Murder is a worse crime than rape, how is it that you are entertaining allowing someone to willfully and knowingly commit a worse crime? This is the "socratic method" that you talk about? Seems pretty barbaric to me.


It depends on why the abortion is being performed, actually. Firstly, not all abortion is murder even if the fetus is a person. Killing someone to save another person's life, or your own, is not murder it's tragic.

Secondly, acting under duress can perfectly excuse killing someone else and I would not count it as murder either. In fact legally it usually counts as manslaughter, I think. And you can avoid any charges in some states if it's not duress but necessity, e.g. you needed to kill someone else to prevent the death of others.

This is true in general, not just when dealing with fetuses. And these are tragic situations.

In the case of rape, I accept a rape victim is under necessity when she seeks an abortion.

XogGyux wrote:Personhood is irrelevant. Furthermore, the decision of wether a fetus is or not a person does not follow from the consequences of them being or not a person. In other words, what you are asking is backwards.


Maybe, but in this case we don't seem to know if fetuses are persons or not. If we don't we can perfectly try an inductive approach (find situations and evaluate how would a reasonable person would act, as if the fetus was a person or as if wasn't one, and try to infer what the rules that define the fetus' personhood could be) instead of a deductive approach (start from premises, if they are correct we arrive to a conclusion).

What you want me to do, then, is to take a premise (e.g. "fetuses are people") and make me assume it's true, when I'm telling you I don't know if that's the case. By assuming it's true, then if fetuses are indeed persons then this pregnant woman who speeds due to her negligence, crashes and has a miscarriage would indeed be committing a manslaughter since if she was with someone we agree is a person, like her child or a friend, she would likely be. However, I ignore if most people would agree with that type of charge if the only death is due to a miscarriage. Possibly not.

XogGyux wrote:What do you mean? Follow your doctor's advise. Ofcourse she had one.


So what should she do, starve to death? That doesn't seem to be too good for the fetus, though...

XogGyux wrote:Or maybe they were just waiting to see how stretchy her belly gets before having an abortion at the very last minute.


Is this supposed to be a serious argument?

XogGyux wrote:You do have a strong position. If not... what are the last 3 weeks about then?
:lol:


Sure, my strong position (and I made it clear 3 weeks ago) is that personhood is key to this debate.

XogGyux wrote:That is not remotely what I would say.


Is it okay to kill stem cells?

Is it okay to kill children?
#15230019
wat0n wrote:It depends, really.

I'll have a hard time believing that someone that ties himself into a pretzel pushing inconsistent arguments that oftentimes culminate into contradicting views don't already hold an opinion on the matter.
Contradicting: Fetus are people and that is why there should not be abortions, meanwhile, if the pregnancy is inconvenient such as in rape/incest/ it is then OK to kill the fetus (people).
Contradicting: OK to do abortion if rape, but if the fetus is born, then it is not OK to kill the newborn. Even though, you are assuming that the fetus is a person and that the newborn is a person... if both are the same, why is it OK to abort/kill fetus but not the newborn? After all, they are both people and this is the argument that you are using to oppose all other abortions.
Your points are contradicting, this is what tends to happen when you hold a view and then you try to make the facts and arguments fit your view.

Since I don't know if fetuses are people

Well, if this is the only thing that is holding you back to make an opinion, don't you think you ought to figure this out before having this debate? Your position is "I don't know my position"? :lol:

there are reasons to allow abortion under some circumstances.

Not based on the arguments that you have provided.

I don't know. I don't think this is a good precedent should the question of personhood arise in a different context.

The question of personhood is not arising here either. You are trying to insert it but it does not really serve your purpose, furthermore, it comes with a lot of baggage, once you say you cannot do abortions because "a person dies" you are really stuck with the tragedy of forcing pregnancies that are the result of rape, incest, major fetal abnormalities, etc.

Well, I'd say the fetal personhood problem is precisely why this is a topic at all.

Well I'd say you are wrong.

I highly doubt many people would care about abortion otherwise.

Don't be naive, 8/10 people that claim they care about abortion they don't really care all that much. It is all a political stunt and virtue signaling. These people that want to save "the live of the unborn" don't give a shit about the thousands of kids (actual kids that can speak, run, play football, work in the farm, etc). Or the ones that are senselessly murdered by mass shooters.

I don't see how my points are weak.

That might be an issue.

FWIW you can find analogous situations involving adults where we'd accept killing another person is acceptable.

I'll take you on that claim. Can you show me an analogous situation in which person A commits a crime and harms person B, and then person B is able to legally Kill person C, days or weeks after the original crime and without the immediate availability of person A (assume person A is in jail shortly after committing the crime in question).

I can see why we wouldn't want to extend her agony, particularly since she isn't at fault (since she gave no consent).

Well, that is a whole bunch of nonsense. You are clearly making arbitrary rules as you go as to fit whatever code of conduct you have predetermined in your mind.
I'll make it a bit better for you. Say a woman just came out of an orgy. She was fucked by ~10 dudes, all of them ejaculated on her. She is going home... but on her way home, a guy in the alley rapes her. 20 weeks later she finds out she is pregnant, she wants an abortion. Does she get the abortion or not? 1/10 chances she kills the rape baby, 9/10 she kills a non-rape baby and 10/10 chances she kills an innocent fetus :lol: . Let's see which weird rule you come up with now...

And again, this would not go unpunished, the rapist would get a longer sentence.

Again, that is nonsense. You cannot have a third party commit a crime in behalf of a criminal in custody and add the sentence to the criminal in custody.

And no, this isn't "using pregnancy to punish people".

Well, it is... If you force the pregnancy to term on someone "because they were not taking the necessary protection" then it is a punishment for not taking the necessary protections. If you ban abortion because fetus are people... you cannot fucking make exceptions in which you are allowed to kill those people when it is convenient. What sort of moral ambiguity are you trying to push here?

If you accept to become responsible for another person, even implicitly, you have to just face the result of your choices or negligence.

People can change their mind. You can change your mind and leave the apartment you leased, you can return the fridge that you just bought, you can get a divorce from the person you just married. Furthermore, this is bullcrap when you consider a good portion of these are stupid teenagers that don't know what they are doing and/or people with substance/drug/gambling problem, etc.

Maybe you should look it up?

What?

No, because if he didn't rape her then she did give consent and assume the risk.

Being an asshole is not enough. Rape has a clear meaning and consequence here.

LOL, do you come with these on the spot?

Is the damage to the pregnant rape victim to wait for 4 hours to deliver the fetus comparable to the damage to the fetus arising from a late term-abortion? Probably not, FWIW 4 hours could be the same time she takes to schedule and get an abortion so her agony wouldn't need to extend for longer. But waiting for 7 months? I can imagine it is, and if it were possible for the fetus to survive then I'd also be against an abortion and for an early delivery.

You are focusing on the wrong part. This is a thought experiment to point out the inconsistencies of your arguments. For instance, a few days ago you seemed to be convinced that there was no difference between a fetus vs a newborn because both are people, but now you seem to be more willing to allow certain abortions, but apparently, you want to introduce some sort of arbitrary time windows and/or requirements for it. So what is the deal? 30day money back guarantee? what are the limitations for this "special case abortion" that a rape victim can get? how many days after the abortion, your magesty @wat0n suggest the victim can get the sweet relief of an abortion?

You have yet to explain what's the ethics behind killing that fetus, and remember, since you say this isn't about the fetus' personhood, that it obviously doesn't matter at all, so please assume it is one. If it doesn't matter then pray tell me why would you kill another person when you can achieve exactly the same goal without doing so.

A million times.... Nothing to do with personhood. If a person, wants another person out of their body, they should be able to do it.

In fact, under your definition of when this 37-week fetus is now worthy of protection (namely, it becomes a child as soon as it's not tied to its mother anymore, meaning it's out of the womb and its umbilical cord has been cut out - your own words, as per the last quote) it would be just fine if you got the fetus outside the womb and repeatedly stabbed it to death, but only if you didn't cut the umbilical cord before doing so, since it would still be a fetus and not a child.

That is not remotely what I have said.
You can certainly analyze and apply all situations from the point of view of the fetus/newborn and try to maximize it's well being at all times in so forth it does not supersede the body autonomy of the mother until such time it is no longer sharing the same body. You cannot just "stab it to death" because it is clearly in opposition to the best interest of the newborn to do so, and not-stabbing the fetus does not come into conflict with the mother's body autonomy.

I'm open to accept this standard

Then you are a butcher. This is not something I have suggested or that is compatible with my views at all.

but only if you can explain with detail what makes this moment so special as to make this kind of thing okay

Explained to you a billion times by now. At the moment of birth, the newborn no longer shares a body with the mother and now he has a body autonomy that is independent of that of the mother.

Oh and you're also assuming the fetus isn't a person

I am not assuming anything of the sort. I told you, the fetal personhood is irrelevant. Irrelevant means that if the fetus is a person the outcome is the same as if the fetus is not a person. It is completely, utterly irrelevant.

if you are okay with letting another person, its mother, choose to kill it for whatever reason.

:moron:

You claim personhood doesn't matter but in reality, and you said it yourself, being dependent on someone else to live doesn't make you less of a person.

OMFG. How many times you need someone to tell you.... IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE FETUS IS OR NOT A PERSON. It is irrelevant.

Sparing her from the grave psychological damage arising from reliving the rape, every time she looks at herself in the mirror, until delivery.

So you would be OK with murdering someone to avoid the psychological pain and/or embarrassment?

By the way, the "threat to life or serious injury" standard would also apply if a professional acting in good faith assessed the pregnancy was so psychologically damaging for the woman, she'd be likely to attempt to seriously injure herself or commit suicide because of the pregnancy. The standard of proof here would not be lax, but I'd definitely consider this extreme situation to fall within that "risk to life" standard.

We have methods to mitigate risk of suicide. Why not commit the woman to a psychiatric facility were she can be taken care off during her pregnancy, ensure no suicide, and then after delivery stabilize her psychiatric illness and discharge her home after pregnancy?

It's precisely because I don't know if a fetus is a person or not that I'm putting myself in the case it is.

OMG. Its like we are watching a black and white movie... and you keep saying every 5 minutes that you are not sure if the car they are driving in the money is red or blue... the movie is black and white, it is irrelevant. Personhood is irrelevant...

But, honestly, even if the fetus isn't a person I find it hard to justify the late-term abortion when there's a less deadly alternative involved.

You see? You defeat your own fucking argument. Your objection is that "if it is a person = no abortion" but now you are "well even if it is not a person = no abortion if late". Why? if it is not a person why does it matter if it is early or late abortion? If your argument relies on personhood, if you assume it is not a person... why does it matter at all? As I have said, personhood is utterly irrelevant, everytime you say something you keep contradicting yourself.

Clearly, bodily autonomy isn't a good argument when the same goal (terminating pregnancy) can be achieved without killing the fetus.

And to the extent that this can be achieved, it should be done. I refer you to the graph showing that the vast majority of abortions occur prior to 20 weeks, only ~1-2% occur after 20 weeks. The idea of having someone offer you "you can abort now at 37week or we can just have a delivery" is some sort of twisted parallel universe nonsense.

Can you find any acceptable reason for having a late-term abortion instead of just a regular childbirth in this scenario you proposed yourself?

Yes. Many reasons.

Thus far what I'm walking with from our conversation is that we don't know if fetuses are people or not, we can't find a clearly convincing reason either way, but the older the fetus is the more likely it is to be one. I don't find this too helpful if you ask me, but I suppose it's something.

Oh boy.

One thing I'm convinced about is that the morality of abortion depends a lot on whether the fetus is a person or not. Yes, that is something I'm clearly convinced of.

:knife:

In the case of rape, I accept a rape victim is under necessity when she seeks an abortion.

You clearly want to justify having an abortion for these cases, you clearly understand that there is something wrong about it. But you have no means to reasonable justify it under your assumptions and arguments. It should be a clue that the assumptions and arguments are indeed incorrect.

Maybe, but in this case we don't seem to know if fetuses are persons or not.

Irrelevant.

What you want me to do, then, is to take a premise (e.g. "fetuses are people") and make me assume it's true, when I'm telling you I don't know if that's the case.

Well, the question of personhood is irrelevant.
But for the sake of argument, lets once again assume it is. Either way you gotta have a stance, this is a binary choice, either way you are harming an individual, either you harm the pregnant person or you harm the fetus. Inaction, in this case, is action.

However, I ignore if most people would agree with that type of charge if the only death is due to a miscarriage. Possibly not.

Weird.... isen't it?

Sure, my strong position (and I made it clear 3 weeks ago) is that personhood is key to this debate.

And I told you, and even proved to you, personhood is irrelevant. You can have a 20 year old person inside the uterus of a pregnant woman, this 20 year old guy's personhood is not even in question, and the woman should be able to abort this 20 year old guy.
Furthermore, all of the examples that you seem to be OK with for allowing abortions, none of them is "because the fetus was not a person". You allow an abortion from a pregnant woman, and the reason is not "the fetus of this rapist is not a person because rape-fetus cannot be people" but rather is "to spare her the pain to see herself in the mirror and sorrow" (paraphrase, I'm too tired to go back quote you".
#15230041
Drlee wrote:@Pants-of-dog

The vote in the SCOTUS was what? So he did not "Incorrectly argue" anything


I have no idea what vote you are discussing.

I am discussing Alito’s bait and switch. Feel free to read my posts for more detail.

:lol: :lol:

You just make a joke of yourself when you post idiotic statements like this: "...women and other people who get pregnant". There ARE no other people who get pregnant.

There may be some untreated/undertreated people with Gender Identity Disphoria who are dressing like men and get pregnant but they are women.

God man. Sometimes lefties just make me ill.

It is posts like this that make me happy to be a conservative, and, now that it appears we have won this one, can move on to stop more of this lunacy.

Women do not care about this law anyway. That is clear from their reaction. Lukewarm by a few and nothing from the majority. But never fear. The patriarchy is alive, well and happy to be doing since the stone age.


All of this is best ignored.
#15230088
XogGyux wrote:I'll have a hard time believing that someone that ties himself into a pretzel pushing inconsistent arguments that oftentimes culminate into contradicting views don't already hold an opinion on the matter.
Contradicting: Fetus are people and that is why there should not be abortions, meanwhile, if the pregnancy is inconvenient such as in rape/incest/ it is then OK to kill the fetus (people).
Contradicting: OK to do abortion if rape, but if the fetus is born, then it is not OK to kill the newborn. Even though, you are assuming that the fetus is a person and that the newborn is a person... if both are the same, why is it OK to abort/kill fetus but not the newborn? After all, they are both people and this is the argument that you are using to oppose all other abortions.
Your points are contradicting, this is what tends to happen when you hold a view and then you try to make the facts and arguments fit your view.


I think I've been able to explain why those cases are different, and in any event the responsibility is laid on where it belongs.

But speaking of inconsistency, let me remind you of your own words:

XogGyux wrote:The newborn might not even have anything that we can properly call consciousness until several months after birth. So most likely, nowhere in your video, is the answer. At minute 2:41 of the video, the umbilical cord is cut and the whole baby is outside. At this point in time, any sort of conflict about 2 entities sharing 1 body ceases to exist and we no longer care about the 2 entities having different interests as each entity's interest can be analyzed independently of each other. It has nothing to do with personhood, at all.


But after providing you with a case where a fetus would be killed out of uterus yet still be sharing in with the mother's body, you say:

XogGyux wrote:That is not remotely what I have said.
You can certainly analyze and apply all situations from the point of view of the fetus/newborn and try to maximize it's well being at all times in so forth it does not supersede the body autonomy of the mother until such time it is no longer sharing the same body. You cannot just "stab it to death" because it is clearly in opposition to the best interest of the newborn to do so, and not-stabbing the fetus does not come into conflict with the mother's body autonomy.


XogGyux wrote:Then you are a butcher. This is not something I have suggested or that is compatible with my views at all.


XogGyux wrote:Explained to you a billion times by now. At the moment of birth, the newborn no longer shares a body with the mother and now he has a body autonomy that is independent of that of the mother.


Yet now you are not so willing to say that the fetus is sharing the body with the mother, even though the umbilical cord hasn't been cut.

Get your act together: When does the fetus have interests that are independent to those from the mother? Now it will only happen once it's out? Why not 1 second before it's out?

Can you provide a rational reason based on your own definition above to now claim that stabbing a fetus still connected to the mother through the umbilical cord would be butchery? You set that definition, not me. And if you try to take it back, then address the questions in the previous paragraph.

XogGyux wrote:Well, if this is the only thing that is holding you back to make an opinion, don't you think you ought to figure this out before having this debate? Your position is "I don't know my position"? :lol:


As a matter of fact, yes. I want to test the different positions here, and see where it takes me.

That's exactly the point of our discussion for me.

XogGyux wrote:Not based on the arguments that you have provided.


I beg to disagree. Even if you don't like the case of rape, I think that I've been pretty clear that abortion to save the woman's life is okay even if the fetus is a person. I also showed why.

XogGyux wrote:The question of personhood is not arising here either. You are trying to insert it but it does not really serve your purpose, furthermore, it comes with a lot of baggage, once you say you cannot do abortions because "a person dies" you are really stuck with the tragedy of forcing pregnancies that are the result of rape, incest, major fetal abnormalities, etc.


So basically you prefer to avoid the debate (by effectively not considering the fetus is a person) purely out of convenience?

Wouldn't it be better to arrive to a more principled way to say why you'd just choose that?

XogGyux wrote:Don't be naive, 8/10 people that claim they care about abortion they don't really care all that much. It is all a political stunt and virtue signaling. These people that want to save "the live of the unborn" don't give a shit about the thousands of kids (actual kids that can speak, run, play football, work in the farm, etc). Or the ones that are senselessly murdered by mass shooters.


Yeah, and I also don't care that much. I wouldn't really vote based on it, and I have even less reasons to since my position isn't that clear.

I actually find the base personhood question more interesting.

XogGyux wrote:I'll take you on that claim. Can you show me an analogous situation in which person A commits a crime and harms person B, and then person B is able to legally Kill person C, days or weeks after the original crime and without the immediate availability of person A (assume person A is in jail shortly after committing the crime in question).


Yes. It can be excused under international law if B is a child soldier or only committed war crimes while he or she was one. I've seen cases of former child soldiers being prosecuted but only for crimes committed as an adult.

It can also work if person A is a mob boss and his associates (persons D, E, F,...) are pointing a gun to person B's head to make him kill person C. In that case, chances are person B would be declared guilty of murder but get no sentence. And that's if a jury doesn't just nullify.

But going back to the rape pregnancy scenario, what I'm pointing at is that you could argue that the continuation of the pregnancy amounts to the continuation of the rape, in a very concrete way. You don't have to agree with this view, if you don't want to, but it's not an untenable proposition. This isn't the only crime where something like this can happen, if you kidnap, then murder and afterwards hide the body, I know at least one jurisdiction which will say you're permanently kidnapping the victim until you say where to find the body.

XogGyux wrote:Well, that is a whole bunch of nonsense. You are clearly making arbitrary rules as you go as to fit whatever code of conduct you have predetermined in your mind.
I'll make it a bit better for you. Say a woman just came out of an orgy. She was fucked by ~10 dudes, all of them ejaculated on her. She is going home... but on her way home, a guy in the alley rapes her. 20 weeks later she finds out she is pregnant, she wants an abortion. Does she get the abortion or not? 1/10 chances she kills the rape baby, 9/10 she kills a non-rape baby and 10/10 chances she kills an innocent fetus :lol: . Let's see which weird rule you come up with now...


Figure out who's the father. DNA tests can do that during pregnancy. She'd also have enough time to do so.

If the possible fathers don't show up voluntarily, I am happy to force them under a court order. Some states allow the law to do so (oh but bodily autonomy).

XogGyux wrote:Well, it is... If you force the pregnancy to term on someone "because they were not taking the necessary protection" then it is a punishment for not taking the necessary protections. If you ban abortion because fetus are people... you cannot fucking make exceptions in which you are allowed to kill those people when it is convenient. What sort of moral ambiguity are you trying to push here?


Still don't see how it is punishment. If the fetus is a person, that feels more like taking responsibility.

You see it as punishment because you don't actually believe they are, but don't want to admit it for reasons.

XogGyux wrote:I am not assuming anything of the sort. I told you, the fetal personhood is irrelevant. Irrelevant means that if the fetus is a person the outcome is the same as if the fetus is not a person. It is completely, utterly irrelevant.


XogGyux wrote:A million times.... Nothing to do with personhood. If a person, wants another person out of their body, they should be able to do it.


XogGyux wrote:OMFG. How many times you need someone to tell you.... IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE FETUS IS OR NOT A PERSON. It is irrelevant.


XogGyux wrote:OMG. Its like we are watching a black and white movie... and you keep saying every 5 minutes that you are not sure if the car they are driving in the money is red or blue... the movie is black and white, it is irrelevant. Personhood is irrelevant...


XogGyux wrote:Irrelevant.


XogGyux wrote:Well, the question of personhood is irrelevant.
But for the sake of argument, lets once again assume it is. Either way you gotta have a stance, this is a binary choice, either way you are harming an individual, either you harm the pregnant person or you harm the fetus. Inaction, in this case, is action.


XogGyux wrote:And I told you, and even proved to you, personhood is irrelevant. You can have a 20 year old person inside the uterus of a pregnant woman, this 20 year old guy's personhood is not even in question, and the woman should be able to abort this 20 year old guy.
Furthermore, all of the examples that you seem to be OK with for allowing abortions, none of them is "because the fetus was not a person". You allow an abortion from a pregnant woman, and the reason is not "the fetus of this rapist is not a person because rape-fetus cannot be people" but rather is "to spare her the pain to see herself in the mirror and sorrow" (paraphrase, I'm too tired to go back quote you".


Ah, so now come up with the "if a woman was pregnant with another adult inside her it would be okay if she aborted him" (speaking of convoluted scenarios) because let me tell you right away that she'd be unable to claim necessity in that case. Legally, it would not be justified to just kill him. She'd be unable to claim her inconvenience of dealing with him for 9 months is less than the harm she caused this adult and thus she'd be charged for murder, get it? Your beliefs are irrelevant here.

So yes, it matters whether you like it or not. It would matter legally if fetuses were persons under the law (they aren't, which is why on-demand abortion is legal), and it matters ethically too. No, you can't just go on and say it doesn't matter just because.

XogGyux wrote:People can change their mind. You can change your mind and leave the apartment you leased, you can return the fridge that you just bought, you can get a divorce from the person you just married. Furthermore, this is bullcrap when you consider a good portion of these are stupid teenagers that don't know what they are doing and/or people with substance/drug/gambling problem, etc.


Yeah, right. Bet you can abandon a baby or a child if you regret being a parent and expect no consequence, can you? What kind of BS is this?

Why don't you just admit you don't believe fetuses are persons and be done with it? Yes, that means accepting this is the key issue here, but whatever. You can still logically support abortion regardless.

XogGyux wrote:You are focusing on the wrong part. This is a thought experiment to point out the inconsistencies of your arguments. For instance, a few days ago you seemed to be convinced that there was no difference between a fetus vs a newborn because both are people, but now you seem to be more willing to allow certain abortions, but apparently, you want to introduce some sort of arbitrary time windows and/or requirements for it. So what is the deal? 30day money back guarantee? what are the limitations for this "special case abortion" that a rape victim can get? how many days after the abortion, your magesty @wat0n suggest the victim can get the sweet relief of an abortion?


I'd wonder if you are coming with these convoluted scenarios in the spot. I already told you: In this case, where the fetus is unquestionably viable, she can just go to a hospital and induce birth. The victim who learns about the pregnancy two months in can't do that, not at that time at least. That's it. It's not arbitrary, if she could just deliver the baby immediately then yes of course she should. But she can't. Get it?

XogGyux wrote:So you would be OK with murdering someone to avoid the psychological pain and/or embarrassment?


You can't read that paragraph isolated from the following one.

XogGyux wrote:We have methods to mitigate risk of suicide. Why not commit the woman to a psychiatric facility were she can be taken care off during her pregnancy, ensure no suicide, and then after delivery stabilize her psychiatric illness and discharge her home after pregnancy?


Is it possible to do so without leading to a miscarriage or grave fetal injury? If you were trying to injure yourself while having a breakdown I'm guessing you'd also be restrained, but maybe I'm wrong.

XogGyux wrote:You see? You defeat your own fucking argument. Your objection is that "if it is a person = no abortion" but now you are "well even if it is not a person = no abortion if late". Why? if it is not a person why does it matter if it is early or late abortion? If your argument relies on personhood, if you assume it is not a person... why does it matter at all? As I have said, personhood is utterly irrelevant, everytime you say something you keep contradicting yourself.


I already told you: Whatever benefit for the woman can be realized by inducing birth, that's an alternative to abortion. What is so hard to understand here? I honestly don't get it.

Even if the fetus isn't a person, it is biologically alive. Your pet isn't a person yet it's alive. Same thing, and this idea is still correct.

This doesn't necessarily mean she should be legally compelled to give birth, if the fetus isn't a person. There's a fair room for debate. But it isn't unreasonable to say giving birth would be clearly preferable here.

XogGyux wrote:And to the extent that this can be achieved, it should be done. I refer you to the graph showing that the vast majority of abortions occur prior to 20 weeks, only ~1-2% occur after 20 weeks. The idea of having someone offer you "you can abort now at 37week or we can just have a delivery" is some sort of twisted parallel universe nonsense.


Let me ask you then: If a woman pregnant with 37 weeks came up wanting an abortion just because she wants to, would you do it, no questions asked? Or you'd tell her to just deliver it?

Would you seek the abortion route or you'd at the very least try to deliver the fetus? Would you refuse to do the abortion and refer her to someone else or you'd do it regardless?

XogGyux wrote:Yes. Many reasons.


Are they all based on saving the mother's life or from grievous injury?

XogGyux wrote:You clearly want to justify having an abortion for these cases, you clearly understand that there is something wrong about it. But you have no means to reasonable justify it under your assumptions and arguments. It should be a clue that the assumptions and arguments are indeed incorrect.


Indeed, of course I can tell there's something wrong. But you know what? That doesn't mean we should then just say "okay, we can kill fetuses just because". That's clearly a non-sequitur.

Instead, one may wonder what's special about this situation as opposed to others. That's it.

XogGyux wrote:Weird.... isen't it?


The right word is "interesting". That's when you ask someone who believes fetuses are like children and ask them if this woman who negligently crashes her car and has a miscarriage as a result should be charged for manslaughter or not, and why. That's how you press people to start questioning assumptions. And when they do, we can actually arrive to some truth or consensus just by reasoning if we're willing to.

Welcome to the Socratic method.

Spoiler: show
On the other hand, Socrates was killed for applying his method too often :D

But thanks for the good conversation
#15230099
wat0n wrote:I think I've been able to explain why those cases are different, and in any event the responsibility is laid on where it belongs.

Well, you have not. A woman seeking an abortion days/weeks after being raped is responsible for that abortion. Do I think she has good reasons to have an abortion? Sure, but she is responsible nonetheless for that abortion. When the doctor explains to her risks/benefits, she is agreeing to proceed, she is taking the responsibility. If she develops an anaphylactic reaction toward the abortion pill, she is the one that made the decision, if she dies, it is not the rapist that is responsible. She is responsible for the abortion, if abortion is illegal and/or punishable, she is the one that will suffer the punishment.

But after providing you with a case where a fetus would be killed out of uterus yet still be sharing in with the mother's body, you say:
Yet now you are not so willing to say that the fetus is sharing the body with the mother, even though the umbilical cord hasn't been cut.

Actually, once the fetus is out, there is very little physical connection with the mother's body. The fetal first breath and early hormonal changes will make it so that circulation patterns change, the blood flow through the umbilical cord will diminish/cease and the placenta will be delivered shortly after the baby so the connection will be cut naturally regardless of wether you take hemostats and scissors and physically clamp/cut the cord. This distinction of "you share a body until the cord is cut" is mostly for debate's sake rather than due to practical implications. You can imagine a scenario in which the baby needs to be defibrillated because of cardiac arrest during delivery and that such defibrillation, while the cord is still not cut, could deliver an electrical shock to the mother. In a practical sense, this makes little difference because the cord is easily and quickly cut. Your objections are meritless.

When does the fetus have interests that are independent to those from the mother?

The fetus can have interests that are independent from the mother at any point.
At 15 week gestation, if the mother wants an abortion, the fetal interests (continue to live) come directly into conflict with those of the mother (not wanting to be pregnant). This can happen at any time during the pregnancy and up to the delivery of the newborn.

Now it will only happen once it's out? Why not 1 second before it's out?

The interests are the same, but now he no longer depends on the mother's body to survive. I explained this to you priorly. I don't know if you are just slow or being deliverately obtuse.

Can you provide a rational reason based on your own definition above to now claim that stabbing a fetus still connected to the mother through the umbilical cord would be butchery?

When you do an abortion, you are not intentionally trying to kill the fetus. You are just trying to end the pregnancy and the fetus meeting its demise is the side effect. When you are "knifing a newborn" you are trying to harm this newborn.

As a matter of fact, yes. I want to test the different positions here, and see where it takes me.

Then you are doing it wrong.

So basically you prefer to avoid the debate (by effectively not considering the fetus is a person) purely out of convenience?

It is not out of convenience. The fetus not being a person, and the fetus being a person, the argument either way is the same, the body autonomy of the pregnant woman should not be violated. Therefore, wether it is or not a person is inconsequential and irrelevant to the argument. It is not a matter of convenience, it is a matter of relevance.

I actually find the base personhood question more interesting.

Go have a crack at it. Whatever you come up with at the end, would still be irrelevant for our argument regarding abortions.

Yes. It can be excused under international law if B is a child soldier or only committed war crimes while he or she was one. I've seen cases of former child soldiers being prosecuted but only for crimes committed as an adult.

It can also work if person A is a mob boss and his associates (persons D, E, F,...) are pointing a gun to person B's head to make him kill person C. In that case, chances are person B would be declared guilty of murder but get no sentence. And that's if a jury doesn't just nullify.

:moron: :knife:

But going back to the rape pregnancy scenario, what I'm pointing at is that you could argue that the continuation of the pregnancy amounts to the continuation of the rape, in a very concrete way.

No you can't. Raped by the fetus? You suggesting that the fetus be taken into custody and given a prison sentence (or perhaps juvi?) for raping his/her mother? This is fucking insane. Stop twisting yourself into a pretzel.

Figure out who's the father. DNA tests can do that during pregnancy.

Not available/expensive/logistic issues. This is not unrealistic, the rapist might not be under the custody and not know and the other "potential fathers" might not be known and/or readily available.
You are just trying to weasel yourself out of a silly position that you got yourself into by having shit logic.

If the possible fathers don't show up voluntarily, I am happy to force them under a court order.

What if the mother cannot even identify all the potential fathers. Maybe she comes up with 3 out of 10, Swingers party, alcohol then she had a traumatic event... that is going to mess up your memory :lol: . You are just trying to weasel out of silly positions that you got yourself into.

Ah, so now come up with the "if a woman was pregnant with another adult inside her it would be okay if she aborted him" (speaking of convoluted scenarios) because let me tell you right away that she'd be unable to claim necessity in that case. Legally, it would not be justified to just kill him. She'd be unable to claim her inconvenience of dealing with him for 9 months is less than the harm she caused this adult and thus she'd be charged for murder, get it? Your beliefs are irrelevant here.

So yes, it matters whether you like it or not. It would matter legally if fetuses were persons under the law (they aren't, which is why on-demand abortion is legal), and it matters ethically too. No, you can't just go on and say it doesn't matter just because.

Nonsense.

Why don't you just admit you don't believe fetuses are persons and be done with it?

It is completely irrelevant. I already addressed this fetus/personhood issue with you. Not revisiting it again.

You can still logically support abortion regardless.

Correct.

In this case, where the fetus is unquestionably viable, she can just go to a hospital and induce birth.

And what is "unquestionably viable"?

The victim who learns about the pregnancy two months in can't do that, not at that time at least. That's it. It's not arbitrary, if she could just deliver the baby immediately then yes of course she should. But she can't. Get it?

That is not the point of the thought exercise. If you say that "The key to determine if abortion should be legal or not is personhood" and then you assume fetus are person, it follows you think abortion should be banned. But then you introduce a loophole for people that were raped. Under this scenario, you allow the pregnant woman to abort, in essence, you are allowing this pregnant woman to kill a person (under your paradigm). I ask of you, why does it matter if this pregnant woman kills this person early on or late in the pregnancy or even after pregnancy? Why does it matter at all, in all scenarios she is killing a person and you are already OK with her killing this person because according to you, it is the rapist's fault anyway.
If you think my scenarios are convoluted, they are merely the logical conclusion of your inconsistent rules. If anything, an even better reason to stay away from your inconsistent thoughts.

Is it possible to do so without leading to a miscarriage or grave fetal injury? If you were trying to injure yourself while having a breakdown I'm guessing you'd also be restrained, but maybe I'm wrong.

You don't think doctors deal with depression during pregnancy? or with suicidal patients?

I already told you: Whatever benefit for the woman can be realized by inducing birth, that's an alternative to abortion. What is so hard to understand here? I honestly don't get it.

This sort of fantasy in which you get to choose between delivery and abortion exists mainly in your mind. The vast majority of what is reported as "late abortions" are of fetus just barely pas the 20wk mark at which point the odds of survival to hospital discharge with an aggressive and state-of-the-art neonatology team is in the single digits, the odds of survival without major cognitive and or disability are even tinier. Find me the line for the queue of the woman 37 weeks pregnant seeking an abortion and then we will discuss the topic, until such time, this is mostly a red herring that has no basis on reality.

Let me ask you then: If a woman pregnant with 37 weeks came up wanting an abortion just because she wants to, would you do it, no questions asked? Or you'd tell her to just deliver it?

Deal with her as with any other patient and/or pregnant woman. Ask why, try to get to the bottom of it.

Indeed, of course I can tell there's something wrong. But you know what? That doesn't mean we should then just say "okay, we can kill fetuses just because". That's clearly a non-sequitur.

:?: :knife:
WTF?
#15230105
XogGyux wrote:Well, you have not. A woman seeking an abortion days/weeks after being raped is responsible for that abortion. Do I think she has good reasons to have an abortion? Sure, but she is responsible nonetheless for that abortion. When the doctor explains to her risks/benefits, she is agreeing to proceed, she is taking the responsibility. If she develops an anaphylactic reaction toward the abortion pill, she is the one that made the decision, if she dies, it is not the rapist that is responsible. She is responsible for the abortion, if abortion is illegal and/or punishable, she is the one that will suffer the punishment.


Hell no. Yes, she takes a risk but if that happens I'm pretty damn sure the rapist will at least have to pay for damages in several states.

In fact, from what I can tell, there are states that consider pregnancy itself as a form of physical injury and others that consider it as a form of personal injury by law. Federally, whether pregnancy is a physical injury or not depends on the case.

You can check this paper out to have more details:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2241214

I highly doubt the rapist would get away with claiming that the victim's abortion is her own choice and that, as such, there's no injury to the victim.

XogGyux wrote:Actually, once the fetus is out, there is very little physical connection with the mother's body. The fetal first breath and early hormonal changes will make it so that circulation patterns change, the blood flow through the umbilical cord will diminish/cease and the placenta will be delivered shortly after the baby so the connection will be cut naturally regardless of wether you take hemostats and scissors and physically clamp/cut the cord. This distinction of "you share a body until the cord is cut" is mostly for debate's sake rather than due to practical implications. You can imagine a scenario in which the baby needs to be defibrillated because of cardiac arrest during delivery and that such defibrillation, while the cord is still not cut, could deliver an electrical shock to the mother. In a practical sense, this makes little difference because the cord is easily and quickly cut. Your objections are meritless.


You're clearly taking your initial standard back.

You're also drawing an arbitrary line where cutting the cord is no big deal but taking the baby out is. In reality, this can and should depend on a case by case basis, strictly in terms of risk for the mother. I suspect that for a 37-week old fetus it's going to be safer to just deliver it almost always.

It also has no bearing on why exactly would an abortion be better to end the pregnancy than carrying the baby to term.

XogGyux wrote:The fetus can have interests that are independent from the mother at any point.
At 15 week gestation, if the mother wants an abortion, the fetal interests (continue to live) come directly into conflict with those of the mother (not wanting to be pregnant). This can happen at any time during the pregnancy and up to the delivery of the newborn.


That's not the shtick you had initially. Either way, why wouldn't you respect the interests of both in the case of a 37 weeks old fetus?

You have yet to provide any cogent reason for that. In this case, there's clearly a way to respect both the fetal interest in remaining alive and the mother's interest in not wanting to remain pregnant.

XogGyux wrote:The interests are the same, but now he no longer depends on the mother's body to survive. I explained this to you priorly. I don't know if you are just slow or being deliverately obtuse.


No, their interests are not the same. Certainly not if the mother doesn't want this new child. Do you understand that?

XogGyux wrote:When you do an abortion, you are not intentionally trying to kill the fetus. You are just trying to end the pregnancy and the fetus meeting its demise is the side effect. When you are "knifing a newborn" you are trying to harm this newborn.


Yet if you perform a late-term abortion, instead of just inducing birth, you are effectively trying to kill the fetus. You cannot claim otherwise when there's an alternative that doesn't end with a dead fetus.

Is this too hard to understand? :eh:

XogGyux wrote:Then you are doing it wrong.


Not at all. The car crash example is a good one and I'll use it the next time I talk to a pro-life.

XogGyux wrote:It is not out of convenience. The fetus not being a person, and the fetus being a person, the argument either way is the same, the body autonomy of the pregnant woman should not be violated. Therefore, wether it is or not a person is inconsequential and irrelevant to the argument. It is not a matter of convenience, it is a matter of relevance.


If this was true, we would not place any limits on bodily autonomy yet we do.

XogGyux wrote: :moron: :knife:


You asked for examples, you got them.

XogGyux wrote:No you can't. Raped by the fetus? You suggesting that the fetus be taken into custody and given a prison sentence (or perhaps juvi?) for raping his/her mother? This is fucking insane. Stop twisting yourself into a pretzel.


I already explained why the pregnancy can be argued to be a continuation of the rape. Indeed, this is what would support the "personal injury" view of pregnancy as aggravating rape.

XogGyux wrote:Not available/expensive/logistic issues. This is not unrealistic, the rapist might not be under the custody and not know and the other "potential fathers" might not be known and/or readily available.
You are just trying to weasel yourself out of a silly position that you got yourself into by having shit logic.


If this woman was in an orgy, her 9 partners can be screened out. The price of paternity tests shouldn't be that much of an issue given these cases are unlikely to be common.

XogGyux wrote:What if the mother cannot even identify all the potential fathers. Maybe she comes up with 3 out of 10, Swingers party, alcohol then she had a traumatic event... that is going to mess up your memory :lol: . You are just trying to weasel out of silly positions that you got yourself into.


Find out who went to the party. Again, it's not impossible.

Also, penetrating a woman too intoxicated to consent counts as rape in several, if not all, states. Hint: Don't have drunken sex.

XogGyux wrote:Nonsense.


On the contrary, how can the injury to this aborted 20-year old match the 9-month inconvenience to the woman?

XogGyux wrote:And what is "unquestionably viable"?


It's old enough to have the same likelihood to survive birth as with a non-induced birth. You know, like a 37-week fetus.

XogGyux wrote:That is not the point of the thought exercise. If you say that "The key to determine if abortion should be legal or not is personhood" and then you assume fetus are person, it follows you think abortion should be banned. But then you introduce a loophole for people that were raped. Under this scenario, you allow the pregnant woman to abort, in essence, you are allowing this pregnant woman to kill a person (under your paradigm). I ask of you, why does it matter if this pregnant woman kills this person early on or late in the pregnancy or even after pregnancy? Why does it matter at all, in all scenarios she is killing a person and you are already OK with her killing this person because according to you, it is the rapist's fault anyway.
If you think my scenarios are convoluted, they are merely the logical conclusion of your inconsistent rules. If anything, an even better reason to stay away from your inconsistent thoughts.


I'm showing your scenario, which is definitely convoluted (how often do women learn they're pregnant while they're in labor?), is also a false equivalence.

Again: There's a way to end the pregnancy that doesn't end up with killing the fetus. If the fetus is a person there is absolutely no reason to have an abortion except if the woman would be risking her life or serious injury. Even rape doesn't cut it in this case, because if the pregnancy is a personal or even physical injury, it can be ended by inducing birth so the abortion is unnecessary. If you still decide to perform an abortion, then you are intentionally killing another person. You cannot claim otherwise since you have a way to end the pregnancy without doing so. It's not fundamentally different from stabbing a baby to death before cutting the umbilical cord.

XogGyux wrote:You don't think doctors deal with depression during pregnancy? or with suicidal patients?


They undoubtedly do, but having depression doesn't mean you're going to commit suicide :knife:

XogGyux wrote:This sort of fantasy in which you get to choose between delivery and abortion exists mainly in your mind. The vast majority of what is reported as "late abortions" are of fetus just barely pas the 20wk mark at which point the odds of survival to hospital discharge with an aggressive and state-of-the-art neonatology team is in the single digits, the odds of survival without major cognitive and or disability are even tinier. Find me the line for the queue of the woman 37 weeks pregnant seeking an abortion and then we will discuss the topic, until such time, this is mostly a red herring that has no basis on reality.


So what you are saying is that most doctors would refuse to accept a woman's request to abort a 37-week old fetus, but would be okay with inducing labor. Am I correct?

XogGyux wrote:Deal with her as with any other patient and/or pregnant woman. Ask why, try to get to the bottom of it.


She says "my body, my rules. I just want to". Would you perform the abortion or you'd deliver the baby?

XogGyux wrote: :?: :knife:
WTF?


You are the one treating bodily autonomy as absolute. If you are consequent about it then you have no business asking for reasons.

:roll:
#15230122
wat0n wrote:Hell no. Yes, she takes a risk but if that happens I'm pretty damn sure the rapist will at least have to pay for damages in several states.

In fact, from what I can tell, there are states that consider pregnancy itself as a form of physical injury and others that consider it as a form of personal injury by law. Federally, whether pregnancy is a physical injury or not depends on the case.

You can check this paper out to have more details:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2241214

I highly doubt the rapist would get away with claiming that the victim's abortion is her own choice and that, as such, there's no injury to the victim.

Again. This is all a construct of your imagination. If you go with the idea that fetus = person and abortion is killing this person/murder, an abortion even in the case of rape/incest = murder, period. The rapist is not at fault for the abortion, that is absolute nonsense. Furthermore, if you do an abortion of a fetus that is expected to die within the next few days after delivery (aka major malformations) you are still committing murder. You are not allowed to murder a terminal cancer patient with an expected life of a few days, so why would you be able to abort a fetus that has a similar life expectancy?
Defining this around personhood and ignoring body autonomy only gives you more headaches than solutions.

You're clearly taking your initial standard back.

You're also drawing an arbitrary line where cutting the cord is no big deal but taking the baby out is.

Any of these things only become a big deal when and if the interest of the mother and fetus differ and/or if mother is trying to exercise her body autonomy in a way that comes into direct conflict with the fetus. Apart from that, it really is not a big deal.

In reality, this can and should depend on a case by case basis, strictly in terms of risk for the mother.

The way you do a case by case is by not having a ban, and allowing the mother and her healthcare team to discuss options, risks/benefits and proceed accordingly. You cannot argue "its better case by case" and then turn around, say abortion is murder and ban abortion because fetus = person or some other crap like that.

I suspect that for a 37-week old fetus it's going to be safer to just deliver it almost always.

This is mostly in your head bro. As far as I can tell, there are no routine 37 week abortions. When situation becomes critical (healthwise) doctors administer medications to speed up the development of the fetus and to facilitate delivery. That is standard practice. The world is crazy, I am not gonna say that there has never been the case of a 37 week pregnant woman seeking for an abortion and/or a doctor willing to give it to her because it is possible that at some point in time you will find a wacky combination of that to give a couple of examples. That being said, that would be extremely rare... how rare? Well, the reported abortion rate for week > 28 in the US is in the single digit number for most states in the US, meaning that for the whole country, ~28w or older abortions are in the 100-200 range at top. Vast majority of these will skew towards the lower limit (aka 28, rather than TERM). While we don't have data regarding the reason for these abortions, it is likely that a large percentage are related to maternal/fetal health problems.
This unicorn of "37 week old fetus trying to be aborted instead of delivering the perfectly normal fetus" is a construct of a fearful imagination rather than an objective reality. What the public (not doctors, there is no such term as "late abortion" in medicine) calls late abortion.... is 20weeks+ and only ~1% of all abortions occur at this time, and the number is heavily skewed towards the lower end of the range.

That's not the shtick you had initially. Either way, why wouldn't you respect the interests of both in the case of a 37 weeks old fetus?

You should if you can. If it comes in conflict with the body autonomy of the parent, then we should honor the body autonomy of the parent.

You have yet to provide any cogent reason for that.

No, I have not. I have been consistent with my answers.

there's clearly a way to respect both the fetal interest in remaining alive and the mother's interest in not wanting to remain pregnant.

And if there is a way, it should be followed. But what you are suggesting is not even a realistic scenario.

No, their interests are not the same.

Yes. The interests pre-birth and post-birth are the same for each individual as compared to themselves prior to the birth. The only thing that changed is that they are 2 different entities with different bodies.

Certainly not if the mother doesn't want this new child.

And she does not have to want the new child or care for it. She can put it for adoption.

Do you understand that?

Certainly, do you?

Yet if you perform a late-term abortion, instead of just inducing birth, you are effectively trying to kill the fetus.

No, you are not.

You cannot claim otherwise when there's an alternative that doesn't end with a dead fetus.

The alternative is to violate the mother's body autonomy and to complete the pregnancy?
Or are you suggesting that we routinely induce 20w old fetus to try to keep them on life support? That is what you think is a more reasonable approach to the situation? Data from 2016 shows that out of 486 preterm @22w of gestation, only 186 survived the labor/delivery, of those 186, 140 did not receive any additional heroic measures and were allowed to die as their condition was deemed to be futile to escalate aggressive care. So that leaves ~46 from 486 initially for which aggressive treatment was pursued, of those, 2/3rd died anyway during care, which means from the initial 486, only about ~15 might have survived, and likely, they survived with some degree of disability either cognitive/physical or both. So... as you can imagine a scenario where you are 22w old pregnant, therefore we won't do a real abortion, we will just induce delivery, then we will poke and probe the baby for the next few months, perform a dozen different surgeries, pump a shiton of antibiotics, keep it on a ventilator, IV nutrition for months for a <5% chance that it will survive long enough to be discharged to an adoptive family that wants a disabled kid. This sounds like the plot of a horror film. Also, most importantly, the data is mostly for pre-term labor, majority of cases the woman went into labor, rather than induced by their doctors as a method of "abortion alternative", it is reasonable to believe that these babies delivered in this fashion might be different than those that had spontaneous pre-term labor.
This is nonsense. Delivery is not really an alternative to abortion in 999999/1000000 cases.

Is this too hard to understand? :eh:

Yes. It is utter nonsense.

Not at all. The car crash example is a good one and I'll use it the next time I talk to a pro-life.

I am always glad to contribute to the troll community.

I already explained why the pregnancy can be argued to be a continuation of the rape.

And I told you that this is nonsense.

If this woman was in an orgy, her 9 partners can be screened out. The price of paternity tests shouldn't be that much of an issue given these cases are unlikely to be common.

She had the orgies on a trip to the Netherlands and now she is back to texas, she does not know any of the participants or how to track them.
Don't weasel out.

Find out who went to the party. Again, it's not impossible.

Well, she was convinced by her college friends to participate on this orgy in the Netherlands, she had great time over there but she does not even know the guys names nor spoke much with them due to language barrier. She is unable to get the DNA samples to identify patternity.

Also, penetrating a woman too intoxicated to consent counts as rape in several, if not all, states. Hint: Don't have drunken sex.

Actually, she had all the drinking after the orgy. She was very mindful not to drink alcohol as alcohol can inhibit sexual drive. She got drunk at the end of the party when the guys didn't have enough energy to continue and she got bored.

On the contrary, how can the injury to this aborted 20-year old match the 9-month inconvenience to the woman?

It does not matter. He is dependent on that other's person's body and goodwill to continue the arrangement.
Do you think the inconvenience of you not receiving my ret dues is not overshadowed by me becoming homeless? It would be a life-changing event for me if I become homeless, for you? it is only a small financial loss that you can absorb, after all, you are a wealthy property owner aren't you? :lol:
Don't minimize the importance of body autonomy.

They undoubtedly do, but having depression doesn't mean you're going to commit suicide :knife:

Read what I wrote. We deal with depressed/suicidal pregnant women all the time. Ever heard of electroconvulsive therapy? We do that on pregnant women for refractory depression/suicidal/etc.

So what you are saying is that most doctors would refuse to accept a woman's request to abort a 37-week old fetus, but would be okay with inducing labor. Am I correct?

Forget doctors, most pregnant women that make it to 37 week are not seeking or considering abortion. And if presented with the 1 unicorn that does want an abortion at 37 weeks, her doctors will likely spend most of the time trying to figure out what is psychologically wrong with her that by the time they are done with her she would have given birth naturally anyways :lol: .
Now, while I'd be happy to entertain absurd propositions such as this one for the sake of the argument even on unrealistic scenarios such as this, the reality is the general public does not go into the details and data. When you go into a thread and drop "37-week abortions" and "late term abortions" idiots will go thinking that there is some sort of epidemic of 37week abortions going on. Let me stress that the term "late-term abortion" is not really a medical term, and when used, it usually describes abortions past 20weeks, which themselves are exceedingly rare (~1%). I don't have any data on 30w+ abortions, but it is likely in the range < 100 for the whole US given that the data for 24w+ and 28w+ is already a tiny number.

She says "my body, my rules. I just want to". Would you perform the abortion or you'd deliver the baby?

This is not how it works. Even though I have body autonomy I cannot just go to a doctor and ask to remove my L lung for funsies. After all, your body autonomy of not wanting to have a L lung does not supercede the surgeon's body autonomy of not having to perform the surgery :lol: . Anywhow... If a surgical intervention and/or prescription is being considered, risks and benefit is also discussed. Now, these are very rare cases and the motivations/reasons to consider an abortion should be discussed.

You are the one treating bodily autonomy as absolute.

Not really. Just important enough to be the major determinant on this issue.
#15230126
Loosely quoting a Benedictine Nun:

"I don't believe that most people who claim to be are "pro-life". If you don't want to pay to see the child fed, clothed, housed, educated and provided with health care, you are not pro-life; you are only pro-birth."
#15230129
Drlee wrote:Loosely quoting a Benedictine Nun:

"I don't believe that most people who claim to be are "pro-life". If you don't want to pay to see the child fed, clothed, housed, educated and provided with health care, you are not pro-life; you are only pro-birth."

Exactly.
#15230153
XogGyux wrote:Again. This is all a construct of your imagination. If you go with the idea that fetus = person and abortion is killing this person/murder, an abortion even in the case of rape/incest = murder, period. The rapist is not at fault for the abortion, that is absolute nonsense. Furthermore, if you do an abortion of a fetus that is expected to die within the next few days after delivery (aka major malformations) you are still committing murder. You are not allowed to murder a terminal cancer patient with an expected life of a few days, so why would you be able to abort a fetus that has a similar life expectancy?
Defining this around personhood and ignoring body autonomy only gives you more headaches than solutions.


And yet as you see several states are willing to consider pregnancy after rape as an injury, despite the prevailing positive cultural view on pregnancy.

I think I already addressed all the other ideas.

XogGyux wrote:Any of these things only become a big deal when and if the interest of the mother and fetus differ and/or if mother is trying to exercise her body autonomy in a way that comes into direct conflict with the fetus. Apart from that, it really is not a big deal.


XogGyux wrote:The way you do a case by case is by not having a ban, and allowing the mother and her healthcare team to discuss options, risks/benefits and proceed accordingly. You cannot argue "its better case by case" and then turn around, say abortion is murder and ban abortion because fetus = person or some other crap like that.


So if the mother told the doctor to repeatedly stab the fetus to death right before cutting the cord (because she doesn't want to be a mother) then it's not butchery anymore?

XogGyux wrote:This is mostly in your head bro. As far as I can tell, there are no routine 37 week abortions. When situation becomes critical (healthwise) doctors administer medications to speed up the development of the fetus and to facilitate delivery. That is standard practice. The world is crazy, I am not gonna say that there has never been the case of a 37 week pregnant woman seeking for an abortion and/or a doctor willing to give it to her because it is possible that at some point in time you will find a wacky combination of that to give a couple of examples. That being said, that would be extremely rare... how rare? Well, the reported abortion rate for week > 28 in the US is in the single digit number for most states in the US, meaning that for the whole country, ~28w or older abortions are in the 100-200 range at top. Vast majority of these will skew towards the lower limit (aka 28, rather than TERM). While we don't have data regarding the reason for these abortions, it is likely that a large percentage are related to maternal/fetal health problems.
This unicorn of "37 week old fetus trying to be aborted instead of delivering the perfectly normal fetus" is a construct of a fearful imagination rather than an objective reality. What the public (not doctors, there is no such term as "late abortion" in medicine) calls late abortion.... is 20weeks+ and only ~1% of all abortions occur at this time, and the number is heavily skewed towards the lower end of the range.


This still doesn't address the issue. I never said 37-weeks abortion are common, I've already posted 93+% of them happen before the 13th week. What I do want to know is if they are ethical or not.

It seems to me you'd be okay with one if the woman wanted to, regardless of risk, as long as she gives informed consent. Am I correct here? Why would this be ethical?

XogGyux wrote:You should if you can. If it comes in conflict with the body autonomy of the parent, then we should honor the body autonomy of the parent.


Please elaborate. If the woman says she wants an abortion no matter what, do you perform it? It's her bodily autonomy after all. You said she, as a consenting adult, has every right to do as she wishes as long as she's informed. OK. She chose to do that.

XogGyux wrote:No, I have not. I have been consistent with my answers.


Then giving a straight up answer should not be too hard. Would you perform an abortion to a 37-week pregnant woman who wanted one, after learning of the risks? Why or why not?

XogGyux wrote:And if there is a way, it should be followed. But what you are suggesting is not even a realistic scenario.


Oh, it is definitely possible, it just doesn't happen because I'm sure the majority of doctors would refuse to perform the abortion in that case. Am I correct?

XogGyux wrote:Yes. The interests pre-birth and post-birth are the same for each individual as compared to themselves prior to the birth. The only thing that changed is that they are 2 different entities with different bodies.


But the interests of both conflict with each other both pre- and post- birth. That's the point.

XogGyux wrote:And she does not have to want the new child or care for it. She can put it for adoption.


Uh oh, believe me, you don't wanna argue this.

XogGyux wrote:No, you are not.


Why not? You can terminate the pregnancy without killing the fetus, yet you chose to kill it instead.

XogGyux wrote:The alternative is to violate the mother's body autonomy and to complete the pregnancy?


Is it being violated in the 37th week?

XogGyux wrote:Or are you suggesting that we routinely induce 20w old fetus to try to keep them on life support? That is what you think is a more reasonable approach to the situation? Data from 2016 shows that out of 486 preterm @22w of gestation, only 186 survived the labor/delivery, of those 186, 140 did not receive any additional heroic measures and were allowed to die as their condition was deemed to be futile to escalate aggressive care. So that leaves ~46 from 486 initially for which aggressive treatment was pursued, of those, 2/3rd died anyway during care, which means from the initial 486, only about ~15 might have survived, and likely, they survived with some degree of disability either cognitive/physical or both. So... as you can imagine a scenario where you are 22w old pregnant, therefore we won't do a real abortion, we will just induce delivery, then we will poke and probe the baby for the next few months, perform a dozen different surgeries, pump a shiton of antibiotics, keep it on a ventilator, IV nutrition for months for a <5% chance that it will survive long enough to be discharged to an adoptive family that wants a disabled kid. This sounds like the plot of a horror film. Also, most importantly, the data is mostly for pre-term labor, majority of cases the woman went into labor, rather than induced by their doctors as a method of "abortion alternative", it is reasonable to believe that these babies delivered in this fashion might be different than those that had spontaneous pre-term labor.
This is nonsense. Delivery is not really an alternative to abortion in 999999/1000000 cases.


Then what you are saying is that 20-weeks old fetuses are not viable in your view. Am I correct?

Use the following definition of viability if you want: The probability the fetus will survive the induced birth is greater than or equal the probability of surviving a non-induced birth.

XogGyux wrote:She had the orgies on a trip to the Netherlands and now she is back to texas, she does not know any of the participants or how to track them.
Don't weasel out.


XogGyux wrote:Well, she was convinced by her college friends to participate on this orgy in the Netherlands, she had great time over there but she does not even know the guys names nor spoke much with them due to language barrier. She is unable to get the DNA samples to identify patternity.


She can always claim she was raped there too. As long as the gestational age fits the police rape report I'd presume it was the result of rape. But ideally, I'd go for the DNA testing.

Also, if she was intoxicated while in the Netherlands that'd be rape (where I live at least) so I'd act in consequence.

XogGyux wrote:Actually, she had all the drinking after the orgy. She was very mindful not to drink alcohol as alcohol can inhibit sexual drive. She got drunk at the end of the party when the guys didn't have enough energy to continue and she got bored.


More convoluted scenarios, heh?

XogGyux wrote:It does not matter. He is dependent on that other's person's body and goodwill to continue the arrangement.
Do you think the inconvenience of you not receiving my ret dues is not overshadowed by me becoming homeless? It would be a life-changing event for me if I become homeless, for you? it is only a small financial loss that you can absorb, after all, you are a wealthy property owner aren't you? :lol:
Don't minimize the importance of body autonomy.


Well, this was actually used during the pandemic - does the eviction moratorium ring any bells to you?

XogGyux wrote:Read what I wrote. We deal with depressed/suicidal pregnant women all the time. Ever heard of electroconvulsive therapy? We do that on pregnant women for refractory depression/suicidal/etc.


Leiknes et. al. (2013) wrote:This study aims to explore practice, use, and risk of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in pregnancy. A systematic search was undertaken in the databases Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, SveMed and CINAHL (EBSCO). Only primary data-based studies reporting ECT undertaken during pregnancy were included. Two reviewers independently checked study titles and abstracts according to inclusion criteria and extracted detailed use, practice, and adverse effects data from full text retrieved articles. Studies and extracted data were sorted according to before and after year 1970, due to changes in ECT administration over time. A total of 67 case reports were included and studies from all continents represented. Altogether, 169 pregnant women were identified, treated during pregnancy with a mean number of 9.4 ECTs, at mean age of 29 years. Most women received ECT during the 2nd trimester and many were Para I. Main diagnostic indication in years 1970 to 2013 was Depression/Bipolar disorder (including psychotic depression). Missing data on fetus/child was 12 %. ECT parameter report was often sparse. Both bilateral and unilateral electrode placement was used and thiopental was the main anesthetic agent. Adverse events such as fetal heart rate reduction, uterine contractions, and premature labor (born between 29 and 37 gestation weeks) were reported for nearly one third (29 %). The overall child mortality rate was 7.1 %. Lethal outcomes for the fetus and/or baby had diverse associations. ECT during pregnancy is advised considered only as last resort treatment under very stringent diagnostic and clinical indications. Updated international guidelines are urgently needed.


Hmmmm...

XogGyux wrote:Forget doctors, most pregnant women that make it to 37 week are not seeking or considering abortion. And if presented with the 1 unicorn that does want an abortion at 37 weeks, her doctors will likely spend most of the time trying to figure out what is psychologically wrong with her that by the time they are done with her she would have given birth naturally anyways :lol: .


So she will normally be denied the abortion then. Awesome, bodily autonomy is not being granted in this scenario.

XogGyux wrote:Now, while I'd be happy to entertain absurd propositions such as this one for the sake of the argument even on unrealistic scenarios such as this, the reality is the general public does not go into the details and data. When you go into a thread and drop "37-week abortions" and "late term abortions" idiots will go thinking that there is some sort of epidemic of 37week abortions going on. Let me stress that the term "late-term abortion" is not really a medical term, and when used, it usually describes abortions past 20weeks, which themselves are exceedingly rare (~1%). I don't have any data on 30w+ abortions, but it is likely in the range < 100 for the whole US given that the data for 24w+ and 28w+ is already a tiny number.


Yet the general public is not irrational in wanting clarity. Even more so if this will involve legislation.

XogGyux wrote:This is not how it works. Even though I have body autonomy I cannot just go to a doctor and ask to remove my L lung for funsies. After all, your body autonomy of not wanting to have a L lung does not supercede the surgeon's body autonomy of not having to perform the surgery :lol: . Anywhow... If a surgical intervention and/or prescription is being considered, risks and benefit is also discussed. Now, these are very rare cases and the motivations/reasons to consider an abortion should be discussed.


Would the abortion be denied after this discussion?

XogGyux wrote:Not really. Just important enough to be the major determinant on this issue.


You're still unclear. Would you perform an abortion on a 37-week pregnant woman who provides informed and free consent?

Drlee wrote:Loosely quoting a Benedictine Nun:

"I don't believe that most people who claim to be are "pro-life". If you don't want to pay to see the child fed, clothed, housed, educated and provided with health care, you are not pro-life; you are only pro-birth."


I was thinking about this the other day, and honestly we don't seem to be any nicer during pregnancy either. It's not like pregnant women can count the fetus as a dependent and get more social assistance than a mother.

At most the pregnant woman could get subsidies similar to those mothers get for their children, if so.
  • 1
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 59
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

It's more like they have come to terms that they […]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

@Rancid I don't know man. Republicans don't li[…]

@wat0n If you wish to argue for a situation t[…]

January 6 Hearings LIVE

@Saeko you think we will see twice impeached Tr[…]