1. #6921
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Premium
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    15,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    They changed "fetus" to "unborn child" in the referendum, and “citizens of the state” to "State of Ohio" in the summary. Would those changes make a difference? Personally, I don't think it will. In the first place, how many people actually read the whole referendum cover to cover? I think that, after Issue 1, the votes for and against the reproductive rights referendum in Ohio are already pretty much set in stone. It is too late to change people's minds now.
    Ah yes, vague emotional language meant to fuck with people. What do people think of when they hear 'fetus'? A clump of cells that looks weird and creepy, that clearly can't survive on its own. What about 'unborn child'? They think of something like eight months along in development that could theoretically survive on its own. Clearly that definitely won't sway anyone with thoughts of "protecting babies from being terminated despite being perfectly healthy and ready to be born"... sigh.

  2. #6922
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,176
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    Ah yes, vague emotional language meant to fuck with people. What do people think of when they hear 'fetus'? A clump of cells that looks weird and creepy, that clearly can't survive on its own. What about 'unborn child'? They think of something like eight months along in development that could theoretically survive on its own. Clearly that definitely won't sway anyone with thoughts of "protecting babies from being terminated despite being perfectly healthy and ready to be born"... sigh.
    Brought to you by the same people who call children "Underage man/woman", pedophiles are "Attracted to underage adults" and probably soon rapists will be "Strangers with benefits".
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  3. #6923
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Premium
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    15,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    Brought to you by the same people who call children "Underage man/woman", pedophiles are "Attracted to underage adults" and probably soon rapists will be "Strangers with benefits".
    Those are new to me. I mean, "underage man/woman" I can almost see, if I squint super hard. I've called plenty of underage people "young man" or "young lady", but that's more of a title thing, something you say to be respectful, not a legal thing. What's their reasoning behind the second? "Oh, other countries consider them to be legal adults, but we don't."? Stupid as hell. If that was fine, people wouldn't be prosecuted for traveling to other countries to diddle people we consider minors, but we DO, so the (theoretical) argument is dumb.

    Strangers with benefits... yikes.

  4. #6924
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    probably soon rapists will be "Strangers with benefits".
    Nah, won't be that...most sexual assault victims know their attacker.

    It'll just be "Attempting to give someone the joy of motherhood"

  5. #6925
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    What's their reasoning behind the second?
    The only reasoning for any of that would be to minimize the reality of their dogshit beliefs.

  6. #6926
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Nah, won't be that...most sexual assault victims know their attacker.

    It'll just be "Attempting to give someone the joy of motherhood"
    I mean they've already gone on record and said that a woman's body can shut down a rape pregnancy so I wouldn't doubt that what you're saying is a possible reality for these loons.
    “You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X

    I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)

  7. #6927
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    "We" means "society" here, dingus.
    I was simply pointing out how ridiculous your post is.

    "Just be thankful we don't do that anymore (yet)"

    The people who call for that sort of punishment are generally the least likely to be able to stomach the reality—something you are clearly quite detached from.

  8. #6928
    https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09...as-new-mexico/

    A rural Texas county that borders New Mexico is expected to consider a proposal Thursday that would make it illegal to travel on its roads seeking an abortion.

    The proposed blockade in Cochran County, home to about 2,500 people, is the latest example of a Texas county attempting to restrict access to its highways to certain people — a move abortion-rights activists and legal scholars say is unconstitutional and meant to stoke fear.
    In which Republicans continue to express a general dislike of freedom and seek to restrict travel for people who are pursuing legal medical care in other states.

  9. #6929
    Quote Originally Posted by Wewlad View Post
    I was simply pointing out how ridiculous your post is.

    "Just be thankful we don't do that anymore (yet)"

    The people who call for that sort of punishment are generally the least likely to be able to stomach the reality—something you are clearly quite detached from.
    Man, I missed this place. Where else can you get outrage and saying that lying is wrong?

    (Well, Twitter, but...)
    Banned from Twitter by Elon, so now I'm your problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brexitexit View Post
    I am the total opposite of a cuck.

  10. #6930
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Man, I missed this place. Where else can you get outrage and saying that lying is wrong?

    (Well, Twitter, but...)
    Yes, all you did was say lying is wrong, not publicly espouse your psychopathic fantasy. /s

    And to think you hated lying so much.

  11. #6931
    Quote Originally Posted by Wewlad View Post
    Yes, all you did was say lying is wrong, not publicly espouse your psychopathic fantasy. /s

    And to think you hated lying so much.
    Well, it's the part that you clearly took umbrage with.
    Banned from Twitter by Elon, so now I'm your problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brexitexit View Post
    I am the total opposite of a cuck.

  12. #6932
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Well, it's the part that you clearly took umbrage with.
    And you're still apparently unable to own what you posted. Playing dumb won't help you.

  13. #6933
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Speaking of features and bugs, North Carolina legislators had an opportunity to craft a better bill, but sadly, moral compunctions would not allow that. Opinion piece commenting on and citing an article by Duke physicians in the New England Journal of Medicine:

    National Review

    I would laud legislators that are seeking bans on abortion with exceptions to reach out to medical doctors on how to define and what constitutes conditions putting the mother's life or the baby's life at substantial risk. But this article points out that lawmakers are sometimes turned down, and cites doctors at Duke University refusing to do so. The story on poorly crafted exceptions in the language appears to have two sides. One, doctors feel compunction in aiding a law they oppose, superseding feelings towards lessening harm as a result of passed legislation. In doing so, their profession is complicit in criticism directed at the laws by stating that their exceptions are poorly crafted. It also mitigates the force of certain appeals consisting of claims that the laws' unintended ambiguity on certain cases of fetal defect/life-threatening conditions was, in-fact, maliciously crafted to achieve ambiguity.

    I don't have access to the medical journal, so can't quote the entirety of sections that were quoted in the article from it. I wish and hope that this is an on-going discussion among doctors on the ethics of advising legislators. If you don't want shitty laws, advise and advocate for less shitty laws. If you don't want to get your hands dirty in laws you oppose as a whole, then kindly don't complain when they're less well-crafted and have to go through years of court wrangling and uncertainty. One nasty little consequence of this process is giving the impression that the progressive position is tolerating bad 6-week 12-week and 15-week bans, in the hopes of getting better representatives and better future laws with criticism of their defects. It might be political successful (time will tell), though very morally questionable, to say, "I oppose this bill for being rushed and poorly-written ... and object on moral grounds for using my medical expertise and time to advise better writing."
    I have a question, has anyone ever stated that the fetus does not have a right to life? I haven't heard that by pretty much anyone, even people who want abortion all the way up to the day before birth. However, people have said, along with myself, that the fetus does not have a right to use someone else to sustain its own life. If the person who is sustaining said life stated that they do not want to do so, the fetus has no right to demand in any way to force said sustaining.

    This goes with anything. If someone is having kidney failure, they do not have a right to demand usage of dialysis machines to keep themselves alive. If they need a blood transfusion to live, they do not have a right to demand blood from another person in order to live.

    The moment you remove bodily autonomy from someone, you pretty much make them a slave.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09...as-new-mexico/



    In which Republicans continue to express a general dislike of freedom and seek to restrict travel for people who are pursuing legal medical care in other states.
    Ahh yes, I wonder how they will pay to enforce this. I figure it is the same mentality that goes into wanting to build a wall at the border while forgetting that people can just go around said thing.

  14. #6934
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,450
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    I have a question, has anyone ever stated that the fetus does not have a right to life? I haven't heard that by pretty much anyone, even people who want abortion all the way up to the day before birth.
    I'm probably one of the strongest advocates for unrestricted abortion rights here, so here's my point of view on that question, point by point to make it easy to follow and see where any disagreements might occur.

    1> Rights are a legal framework that only exist for human beings.

    2> A human being is defined under the law in pretty much all jurisdictions I'm aware of (Canada, USA, and UK in particular) as some variant of "a child who was born alive".

    3> A fetus, by definition, has not been born, and thus cannot fall under that legal definition, and thus has the same capacity to have "rights" as a toaster.

    4> Yes, birth is an arbitrary point, but live birth is also a clear and determinate binary state, and any earlier establishment of being a "human being" would be just as arbitrary and far less determinate. The commencement of heartbeats or coherent brain activity are talked about, but that becomes a question of when they're detectable, not when they actually start, and it's not clear without pretty invasive testing.

    And most importantly;
    5> The whole question of "right to life" is fundamentally moot in any case, because right to life never trumps bodily autonomy in any other instance, and I have yet to see any argument that it should in the case of pregnancy. If you want to argue that abortions must not directly harm the fetus in its removal, by all means make that argument, but if you're trying to deny abortion rights, you're attacking womens' bodily autonomy in a way that you'd never apply in any other circumstance and I can't see how you rationally justify it here.

    Once you acknowledge #5, the arbitariness mentioned in #4 ceases to be terribly meaningful because it doesn't apply to this circumstance as a criticism, and for pretty much any other it's just fundamentally not relevant. If you can think of a non-abortion-related instance where there's a meaningful discussion to be had there, by all means, bring it up.

    I would agree that a fetus doesn't have a "right to life", the same way it doesn't have a "right to free speech", because it's not a legal person. But this doesn't actually inform my stance on abortion rights at all; I can freely concede this point for the sake of the argument, and do regularly in this thread, precisely because it's so fundamentally irrelevant. I could also point to myriad demonstrations where people implicitly admit they agree that a fetus isn't actually a person; the religious types making these arguments so strongly generally don't hold funereal services for miscarriages, especially ones occurring in the first trimester, which they certainly would if they actually believed these were people, right? See also investigating miscarriages as potential homicides, which no one argues for, and so on. It's a tenet I can concede because it doesn't actually affect my position in any way, but it really does just boil down to an emotional argument maliciously used by people who, themselves, don't actually believe that position to be true. They're just hoping to shame their enemies into poor choices that favor their position.

    However, people have said, along with myself, that the fetus does not have a right to use someone else to sustain its own life. If the person who is sustaining said life stated that they do not want to do so, the fetus has no right to demand in any way to force said sustaining.

    This goes with anything. If someone is having kidney failure, they do not have a right to demand usage of dialysis machines to keep themselves alive. If they need a blood transfusion to live, they do not have a right to demand blood from another person in order to live.

    The moment you remove bodily autonomy from someone, you pretty much make them a slave.
    If you think bodily autonomy should not trump right to life, you're inherently arguing that your body should be open to forced harvesting of tissue or spare organs, by the government, for the purpose of saving the life of another person. If they need blood for transfusion, and you're a match, you don't get to say "no", you'll be taken by force if you resist. Does anyone actually support this? Of course not!

    Because they don't actually believe right to life trumps bodily autonomy. That's never been what the debate's about. It's very specific to forcing pregnancy on those who don't want to continue with it, denying them the freedom to choose for themselves. That's why this is the only case where this comes up, and not any of the other instances where bodily autonomy and right to life conflict.


  15. #6935
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    I have a question, has anyone ever stated that the fetus does not have a right to life? I haven't heard that by pretty much anyone, even people who want abortion all the way up to the day before birth. However, people have said, along with myself, that the fetus does not have a right to use someone else to sustain its own life. If the person who is sustaining said life stated that they do not want to do so, the fetus has no right to demand in any way to force said sustaining.

    This goes with anything. If someone is having kidney failure, they do not have a right to demand usage of dialysis machines to keep themselves alive. If they need a blood transfusion to live, they do not have a right to demand blood from another person in order to live.

    The moment you remove bodily autonomy from someone, you pretty much make them a slave.
    I think the calculus changes a bit once the developing baby is fully capable of surviving outside the womb; where its bodily autonomy should receive some importance. If you think viability, or the unborn baby's ability to survive outside the womb, changes nothing for you, then I'd really question whether you actually believe the "right to use someone else to sustain its own life" matters. I don't subscribe to some "right to life" that's unchanging throughout pregnancy, though I know others who do. The unborn baby is surely worth more consideration as a separate body than your kidney. Maybe you would consider how a prematurely delivered, post-viability baby suddenly receives more rights than a kidney found outside your body, and you'd find the DNA within more consistent with the identity of a different individual.

    But may I remind you that my posting here was referencing an article on to what extent doctors do or ought to offer input on restrictive bills on abortion, as regards some claims that these bills do not contain well-written exceptions to early-term abortion bans. I appreciate some conversational equity on the main body of the post, before launching into a tangent that you allege you haven't heard anybody say. Or maybe, you might quote exactly which sentences of my post you wish to respond to, because some "right to life" does not actually appear there.
    Last edited by tehdang; 2023-09-28 at 11:17 PM.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  16. #6936
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,450
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I think the calculus changes a bit once the developing baby is fully capable of surviving outside the womb; where its bodily autonomy should receive some importance. If you think viability, or the unborn baby's ability to survive outside the womb, changes nothing for you, then I'd really question whether you actually believe the "right to use someone else to sustain its own life" matters.
    This is a question of medical ethics, not abortion rights. If a fetus is viable, the safest means of removing it, if doing so is necessary, is by inducing an early birth.

    You're again trying to focus on the rarest of circumstances as if that speaks to the general, not realizing there are already clear answers in place for those circumstances.

    The unborn baby is surely worth more consideration as a separate body than your kidney. Maybe you would consider how a prematurely delivered, post-viability baby suddenly receives more rights than a kidney found outside your body, and you'd find the DNA within more consistent with the identity of a different individual.
    Different DNA is one thousand percent irrelevant. Some people are chimeric and have more than one type of DNA. Others have identical twins (or triplets, or more) who share their DNA, so neither's DNA concretely identifies them as an individual. This is not an argument anyone who understands science would ever use, because it's so willfully dishonest. It's an intentionally bullshit premise only pushed by extremists.


  17. #6937
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is a question of medical ethics, not abortion rights. If a fetus is viable, the safest means of removing it, if doing so is necessary, is by inducing an early birth.
    Honestly, it seems like conservatives think that doctors are all unethical, immoral monsters who simply can't wait to throw a freshly born baby into the baby aborting/crushing machine or something. It's like they've never met a medical professional, much less one specializing in reproductive health care. Which honestly wouldn't be shocking at all.

  18. #6938
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Honestly, it seems like conservatives think that doctors are all unethical, immoral monsters who simply can't wait to throw a freshly born baby into the baby aborting/crushing machine or something. It's like they've never met a medical professional, much less one specializing in reproductive health care. Which honestly wouldn't be shocking at all.
    Given how many of these same Conservatives can't seem to fathom how someone can be a good person if they don't have God telling them to be good, it makes me seriously wonder if they're just sociopaths who would happily do heinous things to other people if only they were allowed to, and genuinely think everyone else is as terrible as they are.

  19. #6939
    Quote Originally Posted by Wewlad View Post
    And you're still apparently unable to own what you posted. Playing dumb won't help you.
    I'm not denying anything, I'm judging your morality.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I think the calculus changes a bit once the developing baby is fully capable of surviving outside the womb; where its bodily autonomy should receive some importance. If you think viability, or the unborn baby's ability to survive outside the womb, changes nothing for you, then I'd really question whether you actually believe the "right to use someone else to sustain its own life" matters. I don't subscribe to some "right to life" that's unchanging throughout pregnancy, though I know others who do. The unborn baby is surely worth more consideration as a separate body than your kidney. Maybe you would consider how a prematurely delivered, post-viability baby suddenly receives more rights than a kidney found outside your body, and you'd find the DNA within more consistent with the identity of a different individual.

    But may I remind you that my posting here was referencing an article on to what extent doctors do or ought to offer input on restrictive bills on abortion, as regards some claims that these bills do not contain well-written exceptions to early-term abortion bans. I appreciate some conversational equity on the main body of the post, before launching into a tangent that you allege you haven't heard anybody say. Or maybe, you might quote exactly which sentences of my post you wish to respond to, because some "right to life" does not actually appear there.
    Again, what proof is there that you believe any of this?
    Banned from Twitter by Elon, so now I'm your problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brexitexit View Post
    I am the total opposite of a cuck.

  20. #6940
    Women have miscarriages all the time, so apparently God is perfectly fine with abortions. He performs them himself.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •