Does anyone here consider themselves pro-choice, but this article bothers them?

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
the reason i am pro-choice is because i dont care about other peoples behavior that does not directly negatively affect me. i dont care about the people having abortions, i dont care about the aborted babies, i dont care about the doctors performing the abortions.

Thank you. How the fuck does something someone does 5 states away going to affect you? I don't give a shit if someone has an abortion. The option needs to be available legally, otherwise, as shown with EVERY OTHER ACTIVITY if you make it illegal, it will still happen. Now it will just happen in back alley clinics and women will die from complications from it more now that they are forced to go to unsanitary places to do it.

Think of the women. They obviously put out, and anandtech members need the number of women that put out to be high or else they risk die being a virgin.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: sandorski
"God" is still the most prolific Abortionist of them all put together.

Approximately 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion before the woman even knows she was pregnant. Of recognized pregnancies, one in five ends in miscarriage. God seems to be a huge fan of abortion.

Most abortions are performed early enough in the pregnancy that the foetus never even begins to develop a nervous system, so there is absolutely no chance of suffering (the exception being late term abortions, which I'm on the fence about, morally).

Perhaps the objection is to the idea of ending a potential human life. Well recent genetics research has shown us that every cell in our bodies is a potential life. Do you object to me scratching my ear and thereby causing a genocide the likes of which the world has never seen? Do you Christians have any idea how many potential human beings you left to crust up that sock in your laundry hamper this morning?

I'm a Christian but that is my faith... As a citizen of this country I look to what is right as I the citizen sees it... I think somewhere before viability it should be the womans choice to abort.. where that is should be based on her MD's advice etc.. but she should have that choice... I'd demand it if I were a woman... may not ever use it but I'd demand it..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As soon as you say God knows everything that will ever be, you destroy the concept of choice. I can't choose if somebody already knows what it will be.

When you say that life begins at conception you create a paradox. Life at conception eliminates a woman't choice regarding her body.

So if you are religious, it seems to me, you have to say that God aborts babies by knowing who will chose that, and that personal freedom does not exist. Of course the universe may not give a fig about being consistent but in most cases it seems like it wants to give that impression.

I wish we had better words to define what we mean. To say "Life begins at conception" to me means the same thing as a virus is life too... A virus in a person lives... I would rather say that "the potential for independent life exists at conception" That "viability of that potential exists at some point and potential is no longer an operative description when viability exists.. it is independent..."
I think a woman has the right to terminate the virus and the potential independent life forms. The virus has no human potential ergo no potential to fundamental rights to exist... the Fetus does and therefore viability is the key. However, I would say the likely hood of viability increases every day... from day one... where along that line is the cut off...
Ideally before day one... but after day one... for me personally never.. for you I'd support a point a month or so down that line... arbitrary but acceptable to me.

Disagree. A virus cannot be an adult human, or any human at all. Left to it's own nature, it will eventually become a dead virus. Left to it's own nature, a fetus will become an adult human being, as opposed to a human being at the earliest stage of development.

Who's to say that viability doesn't occur until 3 weeks after birth? As long as we're assigning arbitrary definitions to what a human being is, why should we not allow abortions after birth?

With reference to the para that starts with "Who's"... The term 'viability' has meaning in law. Society creates law. We live by law, ergo, assume usage of the term in context to mean "between conception and birth is a point at which this 'insert what you'd like to refer to this as; child, baby, embryo, etc.' can exist out side of the woman."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I hadn't gotten to the point of when a child becomes a human being.

My point is that since children are humans at some point before birth, we cannot ethically destroy them until we establish scientifically when that point occurs.

It is really irrelevant. No person has the unqualified right to occupy the body of another person against that person's will.

Perhaps, but the crime doesn't merit a death sentence.

It merits the necessary and sufficient force to end the violation of that person's right to bodily integrity. This is a well-established legal principle.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I hadn't gotten to the point of when a child becomes a human being.

My point is that since children are humans at some point before birth, we cannot ethically destroy them until we establish scientifically when that point occurs.

It is really irrelevant. No person has the unqualified right to occupy the body of another person against that person's will.

Perhaps, but the crime doesn't merit a death sentence.

It merits the necessary and sufficient force to end the violation of that person's right to bodily integrity. This is a well-established legal principle.

Wait a second. Has the child committed a crime?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I hadn't gotten to the point of when a child becomes a human being.

My point is that since children are humans at some point before birth, we cannot ethically destroy them until we establish scientifically when that point occurs.

It is really irrelevant. No person has the unqualified right to occupy the body of another person against that person's will.

Perhaps, but the crime doesn't merit a death sentence.

It merits the necessary and sufficient force to end the violation of that person's right to bodily integrity. This is a well-established legal principle.

So you have no problem killing the child 5 seconds before birth if the mother happens to request it?

Does it effect me in any way? I have zero say in what a woman does.

Oh and your scenario is absolute bullshit never happened never will strawman.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I hadn't gotten to the point of when a child becomes a human being.

My point is that since children are humans at some point before birth, we cannot ethically destroy them until we establish scientifically when that point occurs.

It is really irrelevant. No person has the unqualified right to occupy the body of another person against that person's will.

Perhaps, but the crime doesn't merit a death sentence.

It merits the necessary and sufficient force to end the violation of that person's right to bodily integrity. This is a well-established legal principle.

Wait a second. Has the child committed a crime?

Irrelevant.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I hadn't gotten to the point of when a child becomes a human being.

My point is that since children are humans at some point before birth, we cannot ethically destroy them until we establish scientifically when that point occurs.

It is really irrelevant. No person has the unqualified right to occupy the body of another person against that person's will.

Perhaps, but the crime doesn't merit a death sentence.

It merits the necessary and sufficient force to end the violation of that person's right to bodily integrity. This is a well-established legal principle.

Wait a second. Has the child committed a crime?

Irrelevant.

Has the child committed a crime? Yes or no.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Has the child committed a crime? Yes or no.

Generally speaking, no, but as I already stated, it is irrelevant. You have the right to defend your body from unwanted intrusions. For example, one has the right to defend himself with lethal force if necessary against a threatening somnabulist, despite that the lack of mens rea in the somnabulist makes impossible the establishment of criminal culpability.

There is precedent on the books for precisely this scenario.

But thanks for making me repeat myself.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Has the child committed a crime? Yes or no.

Generally speaking, no, but as I already stated, it is irrelevant. You have the right to defend your body from unwanted intrusions. For example, one has the right to defend himself with lethal force if necessary against a threatening somnabulist, despite that the lack of mens rea in the somnabulist makes impossible the establishment of criminal culpability.

There is precedent on the books for precisely this scenario.

But thanks for making me repeat myself.

Invading someone's privacy is a world away from being forcibly placed there and then charged with a capital crime.

If someone hasn't committed a crime, why should they be killed?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Has the child committed a crime? Yes or no.

Generally speaking, no, but as I already stated, it is irrelevant. You have the right to defend your body from unwanted intrusions. For example, one has the right to defend himself with lethal force if necessary against a threatening somnabulist, despite that the lack of mens rea in the somnabulist makes impossible the establishment of criminal culpability.

There is precedent on the books for precisely this scenario.

But thanks for making me repeat myself.

Invading someone's privacy is a world away from being forcibly placed there and then charged with a capital crime.

If someone hasn't committed a crime, why should they be killed?

A person doesn't get killed.

A mass of cells gets removed.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Invading someone's privacy is a world away from being forcibly placed there and then charged with a capital crime.

What the fuck are you talking about? This isn't a privacy issue. This is about a fetus violating the physical integrity of another person's body by physically attaching itself to that person, living inside them, forcibly extracting nutrients from that person's body, forcibly respirating from that person's blood stream, and forcibly injecting that person with hormones and waste. Nobody get to do that to another person without explicit consent.

If someone hasn't committed a crime, why should they be killed?

For the third fucking time: because it is the necessary force required to end the violation of the woman's rights.

Take 5 minutes to think before you respond again.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: MotF Bane


the only probably is that a fetus is not a baby, so your argument, as always, is mute.

Excellent, bickering about semantics because you don't want to have an intelligent discussion, and with poor word choice as a bonus.

Making clear the distinctions between a zygote, embryo, fetus and baby are in fact crucial to understanding the reasons why abortion is legal and will remain so.

Actually I think it's more important to understand the distinction between a woman and a uterus.

 

[LunarRay]

I think you all gotta accept the premise of some folks position.
IF they believe (accept as truth, a fact) that at conception a human exists then flowing from that their argument is accurate and defensible. They maintain this human child, baby or what ever has the same rights at that point as it does when it is 10 yrs old...

The only issue amongst anyone here is when do those rights of human hood apply to this entity... conception, birth or somewhere in between.

Both sides see this as like teaching a pig to fly... it does nothing but frustrate you and tick off the pig.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think you all gotta accept the premise of some folks position.
IF they believe (accept as truth, a fact) that at conception a human exists then flowing from that their argument is accurate and defensible. They maintain this human child, baby or what ever has the same rights at that point as it does when it is 10 yrs old...

A 10 year old does not have the right to occupy another person's body without that person's explicit consent, so no, their argument is not accurate nor defensible.

The only issue amongst anyone here is when do those rights of human hood apply to this entity... conception, birth or somewhere in between.

Personhood. The subjects of rights and duties under the U.S. Constitution are persons, and persons are born.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think you all gotta accept the premise of some folks position.
IF they believe (accept as truth, a fact) that at conception a human exists then flowing from that their argument is accurate and defensible. They maintain this human child, baby or what ever has the same rights at that point as it does when it is 10 yrs old...

The only issue amongst anyone here is when do those rights of human hood apply to this entity... conception, birth or somewhere in between.

Both sides see this as like teaching a pig to fly... it does nothing but frustrate you and tick off the pig.

when that entity has rights is only half the issue, at least for people who think a woman is a human being.

even if a zygote has full rights, those rights conflict with the rights of the woman. Denying a woman the right to control her own body is the equivalent of mandating kidney donations.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think you all gotta accept the premise of some folks position.
IF they believe (accept as truth, a fact) that at conception a human exists then flowing from that their argument is accurate and defensible. They maintain this human child, baby or what ever has the same rights at that point as it does when it is 10 yrs old...

A 10 year old does not have the right to occupy another person's body without that person's explicit consent, so no, their argument is not accurate nor defensible.

The only issue amongst anyone here is when do those rights of human hood apply to this entity... conception, birth or somewhere in between.

Personhood. The subjects of rights and duties under the U.S. Constitution are persons, and persons are born.

Well, not to be picky, but I don't think there's ever been an applicable case about a ten year old inhabiting another person's body.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Invading someone's privacy is a world away from being forcibly placed there and then charged with a capital crime.

What the fuck are you talking about? This isn't a privacy issue. This is about a fetus violating the physical integrity of another person's body by physically attaching itself to that person, living inside them, forcibly extracting nutrients from that person's body, forcibly respirating from that person's blood stream, and forcibly injecting that person with hormones and waste. Nobody get to do that to another person without explicit consent.

If someone hasn't committed a crime, why should they be killed?

For the third fucking time: because it is the necessary force required to end the violation of the woman's rights.

Take 5 minutes to think before you respond again.

I think you're intentionally missing my point.

Your example of shooting an intruder in your home is inaccurate, because an intruder has to intrude. A fetus was put there. You can't claim the child did anything wrong, because the child can't do anything in the first place. Hence, no crime has been committed.

What you are espousing is akin to dragging someone into your house and then shooting them in self-defense.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I think you're intentionally missing my point.

No, I get your point -- that's how I know how incredibly wrong-headed it is.

Your example of shooting an intruder in your home is inaccurate, because an intruder has to intrude. A fetus was put there.

No, it wasn't. The zygote quite literally implants itself into the uterine wall, subverting the woman's immune defenses in order to accomplish it. Learn some goddamned biology.

And regardless, there is no explicit waiver of the woman's rights when she has intercourse. There is no fetus to which to give consent. Moreover, there is nothing negligent about intercourse between two consenting adults, so there can be no duty owed to anyone as a consequence.

You can't claim the child did anything wrong, because the child can't do anything in the first place. Hence, no crime has been committed.

And it is irrelevant, for the FOURTH fucking time.

What you are espousing is akin to dragging someone into your house and then shooting them in self-defense.

No, what I am espousing is absolutely nothing like that.

Look, we can all agree that abortion is unfortunate, but it remains a fact that nobody can force a woman to have an abortion, and nobody can force a woman to remain an involuntary incubator, for the same exact reasons.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Look, we can all agree that abortion is unfortunate, but it remains a fact that nobody can force a woman to have an abortion, and nobody can force a woman to remain an involuntary incubator, for the same exact reasons.

Sounds good. Nothing is perfect, but it's the best solution available.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Time to go back to the old time system of throwing unwanted babies out in the alley for the rats to eat. Right!!

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Both sides sound fairly reasonable. The doctor has no need to be ashamed of what he has done; the protest leader is promising peaceful protests (I like his line about shooting someone not being pro-life); no signs of violence outside the clinic... it's going well.

Yeah, the pro-lifers sound fairly reasonable---not.
"The demonstrations are set to culminate Saturday with so-called Truth Trucks -- delivery trucks with giant rolling billboards of dismembered fetuses on the sides -- parking outside Carhart's clinic and canvassing area neighborhoods. Protesters carrying anti-abortion signs also are expected."

"Mark Gietzen, the driver of a truck for Operation Rescue, beamed with pride ahead of the protests. He stood outside his truck in Wichita adorned with a poster showing the dismembered hand of a fetus on a quarter. Across the top of the van, it reads, "Abortion is an ObamaNation.com."

Stay classy guys. I am not aware that pro-choice people are driving around with giant rolling billboards showing the bloody corpses of women who died of illegal abortions.

Don't like abortion, don't have one. I don't even think men should have any say in the matter, since they can't get pregnant. It's between a woman and her doctor.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think you all gotta accept the premise of some folks position.
IF they believe (accept as truth, a fact) that at conception a human exists then flowing from that their argument is accurate and defensible. They maintain this human child, baby or what ever has the same rights at that point as it does when it is 10 yrs old...

A 10 year old does not have the right to occupy another person's body without that person's explicit consent, so no, their argument is not accurate nor defensible.

The only issue amongst anyone here is when do those rights of human hood apply to this entity... conception, birth or somewhere in between.

Personhood. The subjects of rights and duties under the U.S. Constitution are persons, and persons are born.

Usually persons are born, yes that be true. Their point is that there is a distinction between being born and yet to be born but that it is a distinction without a difference as to the rights conveyed.
The super right Christian folks in my immediate family argue (with me alot) that once the DNA has met there is this human person already predestined to be what ever it is to be... all except the bit that becomes the mind (if I understand them). As this unborn person ages it progresses through stages. There is only the use of the mother's function that changes at birth. The mother nurses the child in a different manner. This child now learns to talk, walk and all that. The day before it is born it is simply an unborn child.
It now gets interesting. My historian better half has shown me several dozen references to the term "a woman being with child" being used by several of the founders including Jay, Hamilton and Madison. The argument there is that they made no distinction after conception until adulthood. I reply that the Constitution is silent on the issue of a Woman's rights as it relates to this issue so the point is irrelevant.
They would not accept your position regarding the 10 yr old invader as being germane to the subject of rights. This quote sort of sums that up. A pro-choice position "The pro-choice movement argues that in cases where human personhood cannot be proven, e.g. in pregnancies prior to the point of viability, the government does not have the right to impede a woman's right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy."

The above is how it is seen by some folks and perhaps not all would agree. One thing is certain. I've never seen so much venom spewed over this issue than any other and from only 50 feet away.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think you all gotta accept the premise of some folks position.
IF they believe (accept as truth, a fact) that at conception a human exists then flowing from that their argument is accurate and defensible. They maintain this human child, baby or what ever has the same rights at that point as it does when it is 10 yrs old...

The only issue amongst anyone here is when do those rights of human hood apply to this entity... conception, birth or somewhere in between.

Both sides see this as like teaching a pig to fly... it does nothing but frustrate you and tick off the pig.

when that entity has rights is only half the issue, at least for people who think a woman is a human being.

even if a zygote has full rights, those rights conflict with the rights of the woman. Denying a woman the right to control her own body is the equivalent of mandating kidney donations.

I've used various analogy too but to no avail. I think this is a Religious view over a rational one but they maintain it is a woman's view held by a majority of women. I'm trying hard to simply enjoy my view which I've stated many times but can't find the way to convince that I even have the right to express a view being a man. So I suppose to that extent I should hush up. As a citizen I must support a woman's right to choose with in limits. I am compelled to find that way since I agree with the settled law.
I'm not certain but suspect around my palatial estate A biparental zygote absent the man would be the preferred state of affairs. Guess that would be the perfect woman hehehehehe... she gave both parental DNA... (thought that was funny)

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I think you're intentionally missing my point.

No, I get your point -- that's how I know how incredibly wrong-headed it is.

Your example of shooting an intruder in your home is inaccurate, because an intruder has to intrude. A fetus was put there.

No, it wasn't. The zygote quite literally implants itself into the uterine wall, subverting the woman's immune defenses in order to accomplish it. Learn some goddamned biology.

And regardless, there is no explicit waiver of the woman's rights when she has intercourse. There is no fetus to which to give consent. Moreover, there is nothing negligent about intercourse between two consenting adults, so there can be no duty owed to anyone as a consequence.

You can't claim the child did anything wrong, because the child can't do anything in the first place. Hence, no crime has been committed.

And it is irrelevant, for the FOURTH fucking time.

What you are espousing is akin to dragging someone into your house and then shooting them in self-defense.

No, what I am espousing is absolutely nothing like that.

Look, we can all agree that abortion is unfortunate, but it remains a fact that nobody can force a woman to have an abortion, and nobody can force a woman to remain an involuntary incubator, for the same exact reasons.

In the case of a baby 5 seconds prior to birth, does the mother's rights to "bodily integrity" supercede the baby's right to life? Would you support a mother's choice to kill her baby at that stage?