Couple with three sons abort twin boys conceived with IVF

[Cerpin Taxt]

Could have used a rubber.

So? Rubbers break, too.

"against my will"

Exceptions, of course, for cases of rape. If the sex was consensual, you basically invited that "invader."

Nonsense. This is simply a factual error on your part. Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to become and remain pregnant. Like I noted earlier, any waiver to the bodily rights violated in pregnancy must be explicit.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Translation:
You want to argue based on something that can never be settled.

It's quite settled. "Persons" are the objects of rights and duties under the United States Constitution, and "person" is a legal term. It's meaning is ultimately decided by the government.

Good job ignoring the rest of my arguments, tho. :thumbsup:

 

[Ichinisan]

Lol at people getting touchy because of this... People should abort for whatever damn reason they want to, who cares?

Imagine my parents wanted a girl and decided to abort me, it just means I wouldnt be here right now, and I wouldnt even know about it because I was never born in the first place, big deal!

People harmed? Zero

What if they destroyed your body 6 minutes after you passed through that magical orifice that transforms you into a human being? I mean, you wouldn't remember anything from the last several years...so it wouldn't matter.

 

[Ichinisan]

So? Rubbers break, too.


Nonsense. This is simply a factual error on your part. Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to become and remain pregnant. Like I noted earlier, any waiver to the bodily rights violated in pregnancy must be explicit.

There's simply no excuse for getting pregnant if you didn't want to. Pregnancy can be prevented even in cases of rape.

Of course, you're going to respond with an OBVIOUS exception, like: "What if you were held against your will after being raped?"

 

[Ichinisan]

Self-replicating human cells with unique DNA is created and destroyed in laboratories all over the world every day. Not everything which is human with unique DNA is a person, therefore. You're just arbitrarily saying that certain cells with unique DNA should be protected while others that match the same objective criteria are not.

Controversial practices are controversial? I had no idea!

 

[Ichinisan]

The equal protection of the constitution is distributed among all persons, and persons are born. It's right there in the 14th amendment.

Can't find it. Please show me.

Found this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Yeah...it's about citizenship and legal rights, not basic HUMAN rights (as far as I can tell).

 

[TheVrolok]

Translation: I don't like the facts, but I cannot refute them, so I'm just going to toss a few pot-shots and quickly exit the thread before I'm made to look foolish.

To equate pregnancy with a parasitic infection may be a fun discussion for a class on semantics, but to argue it realistically is absurdly pedantic and quite frankly, inane. I already know you're MO, so I know you're going to quote this and then simply state that you are right without a shadow of a doubt and then drop in some backhanded or overt slight to my intelligence. There's nothing to argue here, it's quite clear you enjoy being overly obtuse and pedantic and have a fervent desire to argue your point (which is to say restate it over and over as fact) ad infinitum. So now I'll exit the thread, because I am absolutely scared to death that you are going to prove how incredibly dumb I am, and squash my with your vastly superior intellect.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

To equate pregnancy with a parasitic infection may be a fun discussion for a class on semantics, but to argue it realistically is absurdly pedantic and quite frankly, inane.

A fetus is certainly a parasite. I have never described it as an "infection" however.

I already know you're MO, so I know you're going to quote this and then simply state that you are right without a shadow of a doubt and then drop in some backhanded or overt slight to my intelligence.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

There's nothing to argue here

Of course there isn't, because nothing I have said is false. You don't like the facts, but you cannot change them, so I suggest you learn to deal with them.

...it's quite clear you enjoy being overly obtuse and pedantic and have a fervent desire to argue your point (which is to say restate it over and over as fact) ad infinitum.

The facts are the facts. Anyone who thinks that they are different is welcome to challenge them. You do not because you know that I have said nothing unfactual. Why you are so discontent with this state of affairs is, frankly, beyond me.

So now I'll exit the thread, because I am absolutely scared to death that you are going to prove how incredibly dumb I am, and squash my with your vastly superior intellect.

I know, I already said that.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Can't find it. Please show me.

Found this:

You actually have to read past the first sentence, genius

No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yeah...it's about citizenship and legal rights, not basic HUMAN rights (as far as I can tell).

You're making a distinction where none exists. Our rights are our rights, and they are protected equally among all persons in the US.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There's simply no excuse for getting pregnant if you didn't want to.

That's simply preposterous, but plainly irrelevant anyway. Who needs an excuse? Excuse for what? It isn't criminal or negligent to have sex or get pregnant, so what needs excusing?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You'll never satisfy everyone by saying that "it's a human after [x] trimester."

Strictly speaking, we're not talking about "humans," we're talking about persons, and persons are born.

Again, if the government is allowed to decide which trimester, then it's deciding when I'm entitled to my basic human rights. If we allow government to decide such a thing as which trimester grants human rights, then gov't can revise that decision at some point. It could say just as easily say that birth is the point where I gain rights. Then it could redefine birth to mean only a "natural" birth.

Ok, so? That you are not happy with the way things work does not mean they don't actually work that way.

Hope you weren't delivered by cesarean section. The government might one day define that it's not technically "birth" and you don't have basic human rights.

Look, I'll easily stipulate that this is something that the government could do in principle, but if this actually happening is a legitimate fear of yours I suggest you consult a professional psychotherapist regarding your paranoid delusions.

That's quite a convincing argument! Let's see if I can out-do it:
No, conception is.

See what I did there?

Yes, you named a point in time significantly more arbitrary than birth. The fact is that at birth a fetus becomes a person, because among other notable differences, persons are able to respirate atmospheric oxygen and metabolize independently of another person.

 

[Ichinisan]

Translation: I don't like the facts, but I cannot refute them, so I'm just going to toss a few pot-shots and quickly exit the thread before I'm made to look foolish.

To equate pregnancy with a parasitic infection may be a fun discussion for a class on semantics, but to argue it realistically is absurdly pedantic and quite frankly, inane. I already know you're MO, so I know you're going to quote this and then simply state that you are right without a shadow of a doubt and then drop in some backhanded or overt slight to my intelligence. There's nothing to argue here, it's quite clear you enjoy being overly obtuse and pedantic and have a fervent desire to argue your point (which is to say restate it over and over as fact) ad infinitum. So now I'll exit the thread, because I am absolutely scared to death that you are going to prove how incredibly dumb I am, and squash my with your vastly superior intellect.

[I'm happy to oblige!]

Hmm.

To equate pregnancy with a parasitic infection may be a fun discussion for a class on semantics, but to argue it realistically is absurdly pedantic and quite frankly, inane.

A fetus is certainly a parasite. I have never described it as an "infection" however.

I suppose that a breast-feeding newborn is just as much a "parasite" as a blood-sucking tick or leech.

 

[Ichinisan]

You actually have to read past the first sentence, genius

No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You're making a distinction where none exists. Our rights are our rights, and they are protected equally among all persons in the US.

Laws and legal protection are not the same as human rights. Also, I don't see where it says that you have to be a born to be a person. It basically says: If you're subject to our laws, you are provided the same legal protections as anyone else.

This is not the same as basic human rights, which transcend laws.

 

[Ichinisan]

That's simply preposterous, but plainly irrelevant anyway. Who needs an excuse? Excuse for what? It isn't criminal or negligent to have sex or get pregnant, so what needs excusing?

Don't play dumb. An excuse to terminate the "parasite" (as you call it) which was allowed to form and didn't "invade" anyone. If you basically allowed it to happen and you didn't want the pregnancy, you are irresponsible.

I guess you consider the "pull out" method an adequate measure to prevent "parasitic invasion." If you don't take adequate measures, you invite the "parasite."

It's not a parasite...period.

 

[Ichinisan]

Strictly speaking, we're not talking about "humans," we're talking about persons, and persons are born.

Just keep saying that. Maybe you'll eventually convince me.

Again, if the government is allowed to decide which trimester, then it's deciding when I'm entitled to my basic human rights. If we allow government to decide such a thing as which trimester grants human rights, then gov't can revise that decision at some point. It could say just as easily say that birth is the point where I gain rights. Then it could redefine birth to mean only a "natural" birth.

Ok, so? That you are not happy with the way things work does not mean they don't actually work that way.

Translation: "Why should there be controversy over controversial things? Why don't you just allow individual rights to be gradually eroded?"

K.

Look, I'll easily stipulate that this is something that the government could do in principle, but if this actually happening is a legitimate fear of yours I suggest you consult a professional psychotherapist regarding your paranoid delusions.

I don't believe something like that would happen in my lifetime. We know that no government lasts forever, and we need to protect the principles that allowed our government to last as long as it has. The longer you can prevent the government from seizing total power and control over individuals, the better.

There are measures to make sure we don't become like Germany just before WWII. We'll gradually forget the intent and change / ignore this, at our peril.

Yes, you named a point in time significantly more arbitrary than birth. The fact is that at birth a fetus becomes a person, because among other notable differences, persons are able to respirate atmospheric oxygen and metabolize independently of another person.

Wow. You convinced me. Thanks for contradicting me so many times. So we should probably wait until they are born, but DON'T smack the baby's behind. Just immediately smother it...then it's OK. It's not a person, afterall, because it hasn't breathed air yet.

Using the same logic: A person can suck it's thumb. That's just as factual, isn't it? An unborn baby can also suck its thumb at some point. I could say, THAT is the point where it becomes a person! Then I could say it's a fact and say it over-and-over-and-over.

Nevermind, that's stupid. You haven't convinced me at all. I was absolutely correct in saying that conception is the least arbitrary point.

 

[ElFenix]

par·a·site   
[par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

:hmm:

 

[Ichinisan]

:hmm:

Even if you ignore the part that says "of another species," a breast-feeding newborn baby is a parasite by Cerpin Taxt's definition...just like a tick or a leech. By his logic, he believes it should be OK for the mother to kill or abandon it.

Intestinal worms, fleas, ticks, leeches, lice, crabs, etc...the law doesn't protect external parasites any more than internal parasites. So, Cerpin Taxt, let's stop comparing an unborn baby to a parasite unless you're willing to make the same comparison with a newborn baby.

 

[Triumph]

I'd just like to say that the comments in this thread are almost as sick as the twisted parents who would kill their own children because they're "not what they wanted." IMO you all have a fucked up sense of morality. "Her body her choice" is the biggest load of bollocks since the South arguing that slavery was necessary for their way of life. :thumbsdown:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Laws and legal protection are not the same as human rights.

I did not equate them.

Also, I don't see where it says that you have to be a born to be a person.

The Supreme Court does, so it really doesn't matter what you can or can't see.

It basically says: If you're subject to our laws, you are provided the same legal protections as anyone else.

And we're all entitled to be free from unwanted bodily occupiers.

This is not the same as basic human rights, which transcend laws.

Laws do not grant rights, but rather limit them. Again, you're making a distinction where none exists.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Even if you ignore the part that says "of another species," a breast-feeding newborn baby is a parasite by Cerpin Taxt's definition...just like a tick or a leech. By his logic, he believes it should be OK for the mother to kill or abandon it.

You can take your strawman and shove it right up your ass.

A fetus' parasitic behavior is a violation of a mother's rights. Period. Abortion is the means of ending that violation. Once a baby is born, it no longer violates her rights, and she can freely refuse to nurse it from her breast.

Intestinal worms, fleas, ticks, leeches, lice, crabs, etc...the law doesn't protect external parasites any more than internal parasites. So, Cerpin Taxt, let's stop comparing an unborn baby to a parasite unless you're willing to make the same comparison with a newborn baby.

Nonsense. A fetus is a parasite, and that is a fact. It behaves parasitically when it feeds from a mother's breast, sure, but she isn't being forced to feed it. She can bottle feed it or give it up for adoption. That you think my position is that its parasitic behavior alone is a justification for infanticide only reveals how little effort you've made to comprehend my position, either out of wanton disregard or simple lack of capacity.

 

[moshquerade]

Would you two realize you aren't going to change each other's minds already?

 

[CZroe]

We're not talking about babies. Babies are born.

Nonetheless, any organism unconsensually occupying the body of a person, forcibly respirating and metaboizing from that person's bloodstream and injecting that person with hormones and waste does not and should not have a say in whether or not it can continue to violate that person in such a manner.

OK. They should not because you say they should not?

How's this?

We're not talking about babies. Babies are born.

Nonetheless, any organism unconsensually [encapsulating] the body of a person, forcibly respirating and metabo[l]izing [for] that person's bloodstream and injecting that person with hormones and [stealing] waste does not and should not have a say in whether or not it can continue to violate that person in such a manner.

They should not be able to violate the fetus because I said they should not!

And don't try to argue word choice ("but it's not a person!") because that is circular reasoning when the opposition is trying to convince you that it is.

What about babies that are delivered via cesarean section?

What about them? Are they not born?

In one piece. I guess it isn't birth if they were extracted in multiple pieces but is if they are not. Even by your logic, natural timing and expulsion has nothing to do with "birth." And yet you are the one saying it's not arbitrary! *rolls eyes*

Lol at people getting touchy because of this... People should abort for whatever damn reason they want to, who cares?

Imagine my parents wanted a girl and decided to abort me, it just means I wouldnt be here right now, and I wouldnt even know about it because I was never born in the first place, big deal!

[Surviving] People harmed? Zero

FTFY

Minor detail missing there.

Translation:
You want to argue based on something that can never be settled.

Got it!

NEWS FLASH: I'm arguing a different point. Don't like it? "TOUGH SHIT!" (as you like to say)

You'll never satisfy everyone by saying that "it's a human after [x] trimester." Again, if the government is allowed to decide which trimester, then it's deciding when I'm entitled to my basic human rights. If we allow government to decide such a thing as which trimester grants human rights, then gov't can revise that decision at some point. It could say just as easily say that birth is the point where I gain rights. Then it could redefine birth to mean only a "natural" birth.

Hope you weren't delivered by cesarean section. The government might one day define that it's not technically "birth" and you don't have basic human rights.

Even that assumes that it would be left at "birth." Why not when they are capable of seeing, hearing, and forming lasting memories? Why not when they reach a certain level of motor development? Why not the moment they can understand speech or the moment they can actually speak (whole new level of significance to the first words)? How about the moment they become legal adults? How about the moment they can drink alcohol legally? "Nope. Sorry. Born or not, you aren't a protected human being until you reach 21 years old and gain full rights in the eyes of the government. Good day, si- err, I mean, parasite."

So? Rubbers break, too.


Nonsense. This is simply a factual error on your part. Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to become and remain pregnant. Like I noted earlier, any waiver to the bodily rights violated in pregnancy must be explicit.

"Feeling good" isn't the purpose of sex. If you get pregnant or make someone pregnant in pursuit of that: Congratulations! You just found out why it feels good.

You seem to think that feeling good without pregnancy is a "bodily right" even without taking precautions against pregnancy and that this entitles you to do whatever you want to the fetus until it exits your body alive. The primary function of it feeling good is to promote sex. The primary function of sex is to procreate. To say that it's your right to divorce one from the other is fine. That's what contraception does. To say that it gives you the right to do anything you want to what is conceived without contraception is ludicrous. More specificly, how does that right transfer to unborn vs. born offspring? That argument is independant of the reasonings for having sex, so your whole point is irrelevant.

The whole argument is around when that offspring gains unalilenable rights (debatable) so that we can set legally protected rights (firmly defined as birth here in the US). Trying to argue about the mother's rights based on her intentions does not answer when the offspring is entitled to its own inalienable rights. And let's not use circular reasoning: "Because it's my right!" is just a legal right affirmed by Roe v. Wade, which is exactly what is being disputed. It's basically saying "Abortion is OK and should remain legal because it is legal and I think it's OK!"

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

:hmm:

If you're going to try to differentiate a fetus from a parasite on the sole basis that it happens to be the same species as its host, then you've tacitly conceded the point. A parasite is as a parasite does, and you've basically stipulated that a fetus does exactly what a parasite does, it just happens to be of the same species as its host.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Wow. You convinced me. Thanks for contradicting me so many times. So we should probably wait until they are born, but DON'T smack the baby's behind. Just immediately smother it...then it's OK. It's not a person, afterall, because it hasn't breathed air yet.

The depths of your stupidity know no bounds. I did not say that a being was not a person until it has breathed, so you are again, arguing against a figment of your imagination. Please try to concentrate on arguments that I actually make.

Using the same logic: A person can suck it's thumb. That's just as factual, isn't it? An unborn baby can also suck its thumb at some point. I could say, THAT is the point where it becomes a person! Then I could say it's a fact and say it over-and-over-and-over.

That isn't the logic I used, and quite frankly I don't think you could identify logic if it shat on your head.

Nevermind, that's stupid. You haven't convinced me at all. I was absolutely correct in saying that conception is the least arbitrary point.

Balderdash. I've give several very good examples of what differentiates a person from a fetus, and shown that the criteria upon which you wish to protect fertilized blastocysts are unreasonably vague. Of course, since your position is based on emotion and not reason, you are immune from rationality.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

OK. They should not because you say they should not?

No, because they do not. If I woke up tomorrow with a person attached to my body as life support against my will, he would not have a say in my decision to detach him.

How's this?

Pretty fucking ignorant and pathetic.

They should not be able to violate the fetus because I said they should not!

But that would fly in the face of basically every principle of individual rights and liberty in the history of the country. A fetus only benefits from it's relationship to its mother, so she cannot be violating its rights. Are you a fucking idiot?

In one piece. I guess it isn't birth if they were extracted in multiple pieces but is if they are not.

Ridiculous.

Even by your logic, natural timing and expulsion has nothing to do with "birth." And yet you are the one saying it's not arbitrary! *rolls eyes*

I really have no idea what idea what you're talking about.

"Feeling good" isn't the purpose of sex.

I'll decide what the purpose of sex is for myself, thank you very much.

If you get pregnant or make someone pregnant in pursuit of that: Congratulations! You just found out why it feels good.

I've never gotten anyone pregnant and it still feels good, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

You seem to think that feeling good without pregnancy is a "bodily right" even without taking precautions against pregnancy and that this entitles you to do whatever you want to the fetus until it exits your body alive.

Of course it's a right. Why wouldn't it be?

The primary function of it feeling good is to promote sex. The primary function of sex is to procreate.

Bullshit. I get to decide for myself what the purpose of my sexual acts are. There is no "User's Manual" for the human body that tells us what the purpose of each body part is. You are confusing behavior with purpose.

To say that it's your right to divorce one from the other is fine. That's what contraception does. To say that it gives you the right to do anything you want to what is conceived without contraception is ludicrous.

No it isn't, and I've given plenty of reason.

More specificly, how does that right transfer to unborn vs. born offspring? That argument is independant of the reasonings for having sex, so your whole point is irrelevant.

Again, you're blabbering and not making sense.

The whole argument is around when that offspring gains unalilenable rights (debatable) so that we can set legally protected rights (firmly defined as birth here in the US).

Nobody at any point before or after birth has the right to unconsensually occupy the body of a person, forcibly respirate from that person's bloodstream, inject that person's body with hormones and waste. I don't have the right to do that to you. You don't have the right to do that to me. A fetus does not have the right to do that to a woman. That's equal protection, beautifully fucking illustrated.

Trying to argue about the mother's rights based on her intentions does not answer when the offspring is entitled to its own inalienable rights.

It doesn't matter.

And let's not use circular reasoning: "Because it's my right!" is just a legal right affirmed by Roe v. Wade, which is exactly what is being disputed. It's basically saying "Abortion is OK and should remain legal because it is legal and I think it's OK!"

Roe v. Wade did not grant anybody any new rights.