One spouse killing the other happens MUCH more than 0 times, so I think we should focus on that potential concern and therefore come to the conclusion that marriage should be illegal in all states. Just in case!
3 Likes
Good research. Where are the references? Would love to see the ref. list. Thanks!!
Then … why are you so mad keen to have the government deny women the autonomy you assert you support?
2 Likes
I can’t because in my opinion this decision is between a female patient and her doctor; I should have no input with respect to another person’s medical procedure.
I appreciate the fact that you have thought long and hard about something that could have impacted you and your wife. And please understand that I’m not telling or asking you to change your opinion. I was just questioning whether non-Catholic hospitals would terminate a pregnancy during labor of a mother changed her mind. If the mother’s life is in danger*, this changes the equation; but as a matter of choice, I find it hard to believe this happens in the United States.
Thank you for your input, and I apologize if you think I’m judging you because I’m not.
*edit: forgot to add viability of the baby in equation
2 Likes
Glad you asked to clarify. To be clear: I’m not. Autonomy is really important. I’m a fan of the component of the Roe v. Wade ruling that sets the line at viability. So if a pregnancy is post-viability (in which case a termination isn’t called an “abortion” anyway), I think that the lines blur, and that the unborn child (not a sesame seed at this point) has some rights too.
1 Like
I largely agree. I have a science-based worldview, and I put a lot of weight in a doctor’s opinion. However, I think that there will always be rogue doctors, and the law needs to cover the edge cases.
Interesting that you mention Catholicism here. I was raised Jewish (I’m not at all religious, but it is my race/culture). Judaism has a more reasonable view of when life begins (not at conception), and holds a stronger line in protecting the life of the mother over that of her unborn child.
We now have this thingy called “Google”, and it’s on the “Internet”.
Hope that helps @ lesisdefinitelymore…
One spouse killing another is already illegal. Marriage and having children are fine.
Should the doctor be able to refuse where it isn’t medically necessary? There are many things that people wouldn’t start doing en masse if it suddenly became legal or possible. I agree that better access to education, healthcare and abortion early on can make this much less likely, but the issue for me is whether there is any consideration for the foetus in this issue. This is also personal for me, because my adopted son was abandoned in a park within one week of his birth (maybe with the intention of letting him die, maybe in order to be found - in either case, he was in pretty bad condition when they did find him). Better conditions would certainly have made a difference (this was China, not America) and I’m not against late abortion in circumstances where the life and health of mother or child are at risk, but I can’t agree to the idea that the pregnancy should be allowed to be terminated without the recognition that this is a human being that is capable of living outside the womb.
There are plenty of abortion survivors who won’t go away either - they’ve got websites, Facebook groups and everything! I’m pretty sure the Republicans are aware of them. While the women weren’t necessarily in labour at the time, the fact that the children survived the abortion and often exposure and lack of medical care afterward shows that they were well within the limits of viability at the time of abortion.
Merely stating a fact. Not speaking on her behalf. But I do recognize the difficulty of facing a situation such as this.
As well, what is the point in disregarding a family member affected by this very phenomenon?
A friend of mine just got trained by ACCESS Women’s Health Justice to provide crash space and transportation for women who have to travel to our area to get access to abortions. Because this is a thing, in 2015, in the United States (AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!), “first world country.”
We’re fielding a bowling team to raise funds for AWHJ. We’re The Ballopian Tubes. (Yes, there will be a t-shirt.)
Donations would certainly be welcomed from anyone thusly inclined.
6 Likes
Straw General
3 Likes
no. Reductio ad Absurdum is a debate tactic which is appropriate when discussing the jumping off of bridges and the selling of valuable federal real estate to unsuspecting dupes, or other fraudulent examples created for effect.
BUT
When you use such a tactic around the subject of rape, you rather prove you’ve lost the plot.
3 Likes
And here are the ones -I- was referring to.
I’ve been patient, but clearly you came by to crusade, drop turds in the punchbowl, and generally remind us all how wrong it can be to be Right.
1 Like
you have a ‘convenience based wordview’ and you freely contradict yourself. Several times in this conversation you keep disrupting. I cited a few just above.
But by all means, keep telling us what is the correct conclusion to draw about you and your intent as you dance around issues, cleverly doubletalking around sensitive topics. We need your guidance father figure… we need to be told what your words REALLY MEAN to us. Keep knowing best for other people. That never leads to abuses of power or freedom.
And we will totally believe you over our own lying eyes when you tell us you’re here in good faith and we’re not offended. You know best!!!
Did you know that the sort of discussion you’re having… retraumatizes people? You do now.
What is your compulsion? Mine is to point out someone talking out both sides of their mouth with the grace of a teenager, and unclear motives.
Keep it up, the devil SO needs you advocacy on these issues… and it keeps you indoors.
to just allow women to
as if you get to deign to ALLOW people to do things… Pharoah.
Stop debating -other peoples- rights. Give up YOUR OWN if you’re so into restricting freedoms, but not any elses but your own!
You’re just not entitled to them. My opinion though, You’re entitled to that. I’d hate to cheat you of it.
4 Likes
callous: not feeling or showing any concern about the problems or suffering of other people
example: a selfish and callous young man
There are a handful of people who claim this. Meanwhile, there are significantly more babies who live after being buried alive in an earthquake, yet we don’t assume this means all babies will live if put in similar conditions.
You wrote a very short post comprised of a list of inciting adjectives, with absolutely no information about how you (or she) was affected.
Every single person on this thread is either directly affected or a family member to someone who is directly affected “by this very phenomenon”.
Don’t just drop a flaming bag of excrement, ring the doorbell, and run away. Join the discussion if you want. You probably have something unique to contribute. So say it.
1 Like
Definitely - although most adults wouldn’t survive those conditions either. My point is that abortions do happen where not only would the foetus have survived a birth at that stage in development, but it also survived some pretty determined attempts to end its life, followed in some cases by abandonment for hours with exposure and lack of food. Most abortions, even at this stage, will be successful. However, this shows that the ones who survived were not fragile or on the border of being viable at the time of the abortion. I’m not claiming that this is common, but there seems to be the suggestion that it is practically unknown, which it isn’t.
As far as I can see, abortion is a very difficult ethical topic - an unfertilised egg is not a person and has no rights. Monty Python songs aside, I don’t know anyone who disagrees with that. After birth, a baby has 100% personhood. This is pretty uncontroversial, but certainly not a universally held position - as you can see in other countries and as has been suggested by actual ethicists:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
It may be quaint, but I find that sentiment morally repulsive (although I’ll admit that babies are pretty useless for the first year, compared to other newborn mammals). Leaving those two (non-existent and fairly rare) extremes aside, we are left with the problem that the foetus goes from 0% person to 100% person entirely within a woman’s body. The only way to make the ethics straightforward is to say that the foetus suddenly gains 100% personhood at conception or birth. Neither are particularly scientific: the first is often based on an idea of the soul and ignores development. The second also ignores development and focuses solely on the woman. Claiming that abortion is only a women’s issue begs the question, because it assumes that the foetus has 0% personhood throughout the pregnancy and is irrelevant to the discussion. For this reason, even if late term abortions were unknown, it would be a question that is worth asking as it strongly relates to the underlying rationale behind why people are persons or not, and why they should have rights or not.
Actually, the medical definition is breathing air. Babies don’t do that until a few moments after being born. If they don’t ever breathe after coming out, they’re considered stillborn.
Until they can breathe on their own, they are literally a parasite living off their host. (Usually a very wanted parasite!)
1 Like
That’s a pretty arbitrary and convenient definition, which has very little to do with development. A newborn may have respiratory distress syndrome and be unable to breathe on its own, while a late term foetus only needs to be born to breathe. Nursing babies are also parasites, if you want to put it that way.
