[Brazelton] Roe v. Wade

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Shakey said:
Again, you think. Would you really believe that without your faith? You can say it’s based on philosophy and science, but you just spent how much time explaining why your faith did not allow for abortions to be done.
Click to expand...
I opposed abortion when I was an atheist, too. It seems to me that it is alive, and we shouldn't kill people.

figmentPez said:
The problem with this is that to reach your goal of protecting lives, you're sacrificing others because the people you've allied yourself with are not being in any way reasonable. They're denying abortion in cases of detached placentas, and fatal birth defects. They're denying abortion care in cases where the fetus is already dead. I know you're against those cases, but you've allied yourself with people who are willing to kill women because they get more political power for being pants-on-head stupid about the issue.

No matter what you think abortion laws should be like, overruling Roe v. Wade and allowing unchecked absurdity when it comes to states making whatever crazy laws they want about the issue is horribly harmful. To the point of being unconscionable. You're not arguing in favor of saving the unborn, you're arguing in favor of punishing women.

Moreover, you're arguing in favor of ALL the losses that will will come, losing access to birth control, losing LGBTQ+ rights, losing interracial marriage, etc. etc.

This is not an issue that exists in a vaccuum. If you want to deny bodily autonomy just because you think that life begins at a fertilized egg, then you've got to accept all the bullshit that follows. Because everyone is going to lose a lot of rights if people don't have a right to their own bodies.
Click to expand...
Just because odious people agree with me on something does not mean that I support them in general. I don't. If Donald Trump loves mozza sticks, well, me too, I still think he's a jerk and I wouldn't vote for him if I were American. There are odious politicians looking for angles on all sides and about all issues.

I believe this issue is preserving the bodily autonomy of the child. That's whose autonomy I worry about.

Bubble181 said:
The argument "a woman growing a baby is natural" is BS.
You are not killing a person, you are allowing another person to stop doing a lot of serious harm to their own body for the sake of another's.
As you have said: after birth a mother can refuse to give blood - which is pretty uneventful and unharmful - to keep her child alive. If the fetus is a life, there's no reason why she should not have the same right before birth. Let the fetus survive on its own if it can.
A pregnancy is, in many/most/nearly all cases, NOT just nine months, fire-and-forget. It radically alters your body AND mind forever. Hormonal balance, hip and pelvis adjustments, breasts getting bigger, often spinal movement which can cause hernias, blood flow changes, etc etc.
Not just asking, but FORCING someone to accept their personality will change and their body will change for something they didn't ask for and don't want, for some tortured reasoning of "it might be a human of you really squint and look sideways at a lot of science" is just morally wrong.
Also, as has been shown a billion times, it is NOT about saving or protecting lives. Otherwise, childcare and education world be free, maternal leave would be longer and better paid, and the same damn people wouldn't be advocating for the death penalty, gun freedom, and so forth.
Trying to claim it's about preserving life is only even remotely possible if you're totally consistent about it.
As-is, it's a power play to enforce a servile role for women.
Click to expand...
To take your example of 'let the fetus survive on its own if it can' - you wouldn't say this about a baby. A baby requires many people to support it in order to live. I don't think it is meaningfully different when the baby is exceptionally dependent on one person. In the case that the baby needs an organ, I agree. You can't force someone to give blood, a kidney, whatever. But if the mom vanished one night and the baby was left at a hospital, we certainly wouldn't say it's okay for staff to just go "Well I don't have to feed it, or notify anyone about this." There are certain things we would demand be done to take care of it, and we would consider it beyond negligence if they didn't.

You say I'm advocating for 'forcing' a woman to alter her body, I say you're advocating for 'forcing' a human life to die.

I am opposed to the death penalty, I believe in helping mothers, etc. But saying "People should not be killed in the womb," and "Mothers should receive mat leave" are more than just degrees of difference. One is clearly more pressing and dangerous.
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

Bubble181 said:
The argument "a woman growing a baby is natural" is BS.
You are not killing a person, you are allowing another person to stop doing a lot of serious harm to their own body for the sake of another's.
As you have said: after birth a mother can refuse to give blood - which is pretty uneventful and unharmful - to keep her child alive. If the fetus is a life, there's no reason why she should not have the same right before birth. Let the fetus survive on its own if it can.
A pregnancy is, in many/most/nearly all cases, NOT just nine months, fire-and-forget. It radically alters your body AND mind forever. Hormonal balance, hip and pelvis adjustments, breasts getting bigger, often spinal movement which can cause hernias, blood flow changes, etc etc.
Not just asking, but FORCING someone to accept their personality will change and their body will change for something they didn't ask for and don't want, for some tortured reasoning of "it might be a human of you really squint and look sideways at a lot of science" is just morally wrong.
Also, as has been shown a billion times, it is NOT about saving or protecting lives. Otherwise, childcare and education world be free, maternal leave would be longer and better paid, and the same damn people wouldn't be advocating for the death penalty, gun freedom, and so forth.
Trying to claim it's about preserving life is only even remotely possible if you're totally consistent about it.
As-is, it's a power play to enforce a servile role for women.
Click to expand...
The act of killing vs. doing nothing, resulting in a death, are arguably different things. I say that while in agreement with you.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Chad Sexington said:
Very early in our history, Augustine said that at three months an infant had a soul
Click to expand...
Augustine also thought that a fetus started out with a plant-like soul, then evolved an animal-like soul, before finally having a human soul. So I'm really disinclined to agree with him about anything on the matter of souls and abortion.

Just the sheer number of fertilized eggs that end in miscarriage makes me disregard any concerns about the "babies" involved. A least 10 - 25% of all fertilized eggs end in spontaneous abortion, but that's just known pregnancies. Recent scientific studies suggest that it may be 50% or more of all fertilized, implanted eggs that end up miscarrying, with a majority of those never even recognized as a pregnancy. When God designed a system where 50% of fertilized eggs die without being born, I am not at all worried about women choosing to control their own bodies.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

figmentPez said:
When God designed a system where 50% of fertilized eggs die without being born, I am not at all worried about women choosing to control their own bodies.
Click to expand...
But that's God... it's ok when He kills... women, children, every animal but 2 of each etc.
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

@Li3n said:
So you'd be fine with an abortion caused by the pregnant woman going on a hunger strike until the foetus becomes unviable ?
Click to expand...
Why would I be fine with that? What I said wasn't about me or my opinion until you made it about that. I only stated what others have argued.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Shakey said:
Well, our government doesn’t consider them citizens until they’re born, have a birth certificate, and have an SSN right? Otherwise I should have been able to claim my unborn child as a dependent.
Click to expand...
Questions of fœtal "life" v. "!life" aside, it does seem like being born is a requirement to decide some things, like faction. Or at least to give them a starting point. Prior to that moment, some of the baby's stats are still empty. And I don't mean "undecided" or "N/A," I mean more like "protean."

--Patrick
 
Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

figmentPez said:
Augustine also thought that a fetus started out with a plant-like soul, then evolved an animal-like soul, before finally having a human soul. So I'm really disinclined to agree with him about anything on the matter of souls and abortion.

Just the sheer number of fertilized eggs that end in miscarriage makes me disregard any concerns about the "babies" involved. A least 10 - 25% of all fertilized eggs end in spontaneous abortion, but that's just known pregnancies. Recent scientific studies suggest that it may be 50% or more of all fertilized, implanted eggs that end up miscarrying, with a majority of those never even recognized as a pregnancy. When God designed a system where 50% of fertilized eggs die without being born, I am not at all worried about women choosing to control their own bodies.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm trying to get at with Augustine. I think he was wrong, too.

As for natural miscarriages, yes, that's tragic. But if there were a disease with a 50% mortality rate, you wouldn't agree it's okay to kill anyone with the disease, just because it often ends in death.
 
Shakey

Shakey

Chad Sexington said:
That's what I'm trying to get at with Augustine. I think he was wrong, too.

As for natural miscarriages, yes, that's tragic. But if there were a disease with a 50% mortality rate, you wouldn't agree it's okay to kill anyone with the disease, just because it often ends in death.
Click to expand...
A case could be made for castle doctrine in that situation. If a sick person comes near me, and there would be a 50% chance of me dying because of it, they’re getting shot.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Chad Sexington said:
As for natural miscarriages, yes, that's tragic. But if there were a disease with a 50% mortality rate, you wouldn't agree it's okay to kill anyone with the disease, just because it often ends in death.
Click to expand...
I damn well would argue that it should be illegal to force someone to risk their own health to care for a person who had a disease with a 50% mortality rate, even if it meant that person would surely die.
 
Krisken

Krisken

Every time someone calls a fetus a child I'm a little sad for the state of education.
figmentPez said:
I damn well would argue that it should be illegal to force someone to risk their own health to care for a person who had a disease with a 50% mortality rate, even if it meant that person would surely die.
Click to expand...
In fact, that is true. It's why organ donations are voluntary and not required, even if you are dead. Thus, the "murder" argument holds no water

I'd also point out that a woman's own body sees a fetus as an invading force and takes steps to remove it.
 
Tress

Tress

I can’t wait to see what happens when a person from a “bounty” state (citizens can sue a person for $10k for getting an abortion) gets an abortion in a state like California, which just passed a law saying that residents cannot be sued by people outside of California for getting, performing, or assisting with abortions.

How will SCOTUS justify fucking over states’ rights to let conservatives sue California doctors?
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

I mean, that’s just going to make authorities think that any long periods of “data missing” while near any abortion clinic means you must’ve stopped there.

tmi.papost.org

The Pepsi Syndrome<span>-Saturday Night Live</span>

Did you live in central Pennsylvania in the spring of 1979? To mark the 40th anniversary of the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, WITF is working on a series about the accident and its impact. That includes new documentary television programs, radio features and a range of online content.
tmi.papost.org tmi.papost.org

—Patrick
 
D

Dubyamn

Chad Sexington said:
I am opposed to the death penalty, I believe in helping mothers, etc. But saying "People should not be killed in the womb," and "Mothers should receive mat leave" are more than just degrees of difference. One is clearly more pressing and dangerous.
Click to expand...
No one is not more pressing and dangerous. You are advocating for women to die who didn’t need to die. Forcing women to care their pregnancies to term against their will is going to kill some because they die due to complications during childbirth. Sure you say you want an exception in case of the health of the mother but due to the fact that there will be laws against it doctors will choose to not risk their licenses over a 10% chance or a 5% chance and women will die because of it. Women are going to die because their partners. Murder is already the number one cause of deaths during pregnancy and now that women can’t terminate their pregnancies you’ve only increased the dangers of them being murdered by their partners.
To say that supporting mother’s isn’t pressing and dangerous is utter nonsense. And let’s not forget this is America where not only will these women die because they are forced to carry their pregnancy to term but their families will have to pay thousands for the privilege.
 
Celt Z

Celt Z

Dubyamn said:
Women are going to die because their partners. Murder is already the number one cause of deaths during pregnancy and now that women can’t terminate their pregnancies you’ve only increased the dangers of them being murdered by their partners.
Click to expand...
We just sadly had another one of those this week. A 20-yr-old woman was shot in the face and killed while her 3-month-old baby was with her, by the baby's father. They were out to meet with the father because he said he had things to give the baby. There had previously been domestic charges filed.

...But hey, NY is still a pro-choice state, so let's see how "protecting those babies" is going in the rest of the country! Well, a 10-yr-old Ohio girl was forced to travel to Indiana to receive an abortion because she was past the 6 weeks deadline. So, a 5th grader, who on top of the trauma of being sexuality assaulted, now has to be shipped to another state just to receive appropriate medical attention. She lost her right to her body, her privacy, and she's not even out of elementary school yet!

Which babies are we protecting again? The ones that might become babies someday? Because we're not protecting the ones that are already here.
 
mikerc

mikerc

Dubyamn said:
No one is not more pressing and dangerous. You are advocating for women to die who didn’t need to die. Forcing women to care their pregnancies to term against their will is going to kill some because they die due to complications during childbirth. Sure you say you want an exception in case of the health of the mother but due to the fact that there will be laws against it doctors will choose to not risk their licenses over a 10% chance or a 5% chance and women will die because of it. Women are going to die because their partners. Murder is already the number one cause of deaths during pregnancy and now that women can’t terminate their pregnancies you’ve only increased the dangers of them being murdered by their partners.
To say that supporting mother’s isn’t pressing and dangerous is utter nonsense. And let’s not forget this is America where not only will these women die because they are forced to carry their pregnancy to term but their families will have to pay thousands for the privilege.
Click to expand...
Women dying needlessly is not the only cruelty these laws cause. Miscarriages will still happen and in places which have the strictest anti-abortion laws, time and again women who are going through that will also have to deal with being investigated for murder. Some of them will be convicted and forced to go to jail.
 
HCGLNS

HCGLNS

Hold up, so with that civil forfeiture bullshit, they don't need to prove anything to take your stuff.

So with abortions being illegal, cops could suspect a woman driving a car of going somewhere to get an abortion, giving them probable cause to seize her car as an instrument of crime!?
 
D

Dubyamn

mikerc said:
Women dying needlessly is not the only cruelty these laws cause. Miscarriages will still happen and in places which have the strictest anti-abortion laws, time and again women who are going through that will also have to deal with being investigated for murder. Some of them will be convicted and forced to go to jail.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't think there's any bottom to the fucked up stuff that's coming down the pike because of these laws. Just found that going into more detail was just going to make my point that supporting mother’s is absolutely pressing and dangerous more bloated than I liked.
 
Celt Z

Celt Z

HCGLNS said:
Hold up, so with that civil forfeiture bullshit, they don't need to prove anything to take your stuff.

So with abortions being illegal, cops could suspect a woman driving a car of going somewhere to get an abortion, giving them probable cause to seize her car as an instrument of crime!?
Click to expand...
In Texas, yeah. And probably other places soon.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member


I'm too depressed to go searching for confirmation of this, but I really hope doctors have some plan to deal with ectopic pregnancies in Texas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top