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

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: 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.

Ah, so expressing their opinion is unacceptable, and apparently, unreasonable. May I introduce you to the First Amendment, wherein you are allowed to express your opinion of abortion, despite the fact that you may be male and therefore will never have one? Furthermore, there is nothing unreasonable in this. A peaceful assembly is also protected by the First Amendment, although apparently you only support that when it agrees with your view.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: 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?

This has got to be some of the worst logic I've seen here. These same statements are true for most crimes - how does a rape or murder or child molestation 5 states away directly affect you? It really doesn't, as the vast majority of crime doesn't affect the vast majority of the population, at least directly. That's still no argument for legality of these behaviors.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: 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?

This has got to be some of the worst logic I've seen here. These same statements are true for most crimes - how does a rape or murder or child molestation 5 states away directly affect you? It really doesn't, as the vast majority of crime doesn't affect the vast majority of the population, at least directly. That's still no argument for legality of these behaviors.

Except those actually harm people.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

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?

No, because at that point it isn't necessary. I've only stated that the requirement is the necessary force required to end the rights-violation... oh about FIVE FUCKING TIMES NOW.

Good fucking Christ I wish you would actually use that 8lb bag of jelly in your head once in a while.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

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?

No, because at that point it isn't necessary. I've only stated that the requirement is the necessary force required to end the rights-violation... oh about FIVE FUCKING TIMES NOW.

Good fucking Christ I wish you would actually use that 8lb bag of jelly in your head once in a while.

Okay, then I'll rephrase. Would you support the mother killing an obviously fully formed baby in the womb if she deemed it necessary?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

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?

No, because at that point it isn't necessary. I've only stated that the requirement is the necessary force required to end the rights-violation... oh about FIVE FUCKING TIMES NOW.

Good fucking Christ I wish you would actually use that 8lb bag of jelly in your head once in a while.

Okay, then I'll rephrase. Would you support the mother killing an obviously fully formed baby in the womb if she deemed it necessary?

Yes, please... and make me a soup out of the leftovers. I love dead babies! I'll take seconds!! :roll:

Listen, genius, can you think of a realistic instance where killing a fetus 24 hours before full term is actually necessary? Here's a hint, abortion is a medical procedure, and we leave the decisions about the necessity of medical procedures up to doctors, who are themselves subject to review boards.

It's time for you just to STFU. I'm sick of your tired and ridiculous nonsense.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

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?

No, because at that point it isn't necessary. I've only stated that the requirement is the necessary force required to end the rights-violation... oh about FIVE FUCKING TIMES NOW.

Good fucking Christ I wish you would actually use that 8lb bag of jelly in your head once in a while.

Okay, then I'll rephrase. Would you support the mother killing an obviously fully formed baby in the womb if she deemed it necessary?

Yes, please... and make me a soup out of the leftovers. I love dead babies! I'll take seconds!! :roll:

Listen, genius, can you think of a realistic instance where killing a fetus 24 hours before full term is actually necessary? Here's a hint, abortion is a medical procedure, and we leave the decisions about the necessity of medical procedures up to doctors, who are themselves subject to review boards.

It's time for you just to STFU. I'm sick of your tired and ridiculous nonsense.

What I think is necessary is irrelevant.

If the mother has a right to bodily integrity, does she have the right to abort a fetus a few days before birth if she deems it necessary? Or is it not her choice to deem what is necessary?

The point you are skirting around is obvious. A mother's right to bodily integrity, as with any other right, cannot take preference over an innocent person's right to life. The baby, at whatever point in the womb we say it is a human being, is innocent because it didn't choose to be there.

So:

At whatever point the unborn baby becomes a human being, the mother cannot invoke bodily integrity rights to kill it, because the baby is (1) a human being and (2) innocent.

So then back to square one. We need only decide at what point the baby becomes human.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Disagree. My argument is entirely secular.

Reasonable claim #1: Murder can be defined as killing an innocent person. Exceptions are made for self-defense, such as when the mother would die in childbirth. If you disagree here, we cannot contiue.

Reasonable claim #2: Negligent homicide can be defined as taking an action in disregard for the risk a person's life, which then costs them their life.

Reasonable claim #3: Person-hood certainly exists in a viable fetus at birth. If you dispute this, we cannot argue.

Reasonable claim #4: Fetuses become persons at some point. No scientist on earth could reasonably claim that a viable fetus isn't a person 5 seconds before birth.

Conclusion #1: Person-hood is bestowed at some point before [the] birth of a viable fetus.

Conclusion #2: If you abort your fetus after the point in Conclusion 1, then except for extenuating circumstances, you are guilty of negligent homicide at least, and murder at worst.


Is this not secular?

I've amended (with bolded text) your statement so that it's accurate. There seems to be a great deal of confusion between a "human life" and a "person." The two are not the same. That's why I've taken great pains to make clear what the central issue is. Because "human being" is ambiguous (does it mean "human life" or does it mean "person"?), I've change the words to made the distinction completely clear.

I've also introduced the concept of viability in #s 3 and 4, and in Conclusion #1. Viability (when a fetus becomes capable of surviving outside the womb without special support) is typically considered the essential characteristic that promotes a human fetus to person-hood status.

Viability occurs at approximately 6-months gestation. If you want to refer to a six-month-old fetus as a "baby", I don't have a problem with that. But before viability, a fetus is not a person, and using "baby" or "child" or any other term that implies person-hood as a synonym for a pre-viability fetus is not only incorrect, it's dishonest.

And with the amendments I've made, I agree with your statement.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Disagree. My argument is entirely secular.

Reasonable claim #1: Murder can be defined as killing an innocent person. Exceptions are made for self-defense, such as when the mother would die in childbirth. If you disagree here, we cannot contiue.

Reasonable claim #2: Negligent homicide can be defined as taking an action in disregard for the risk a person's life, which then costs them their life.

Reasonable claim #3: Person-hood certainly exists in a viable fetus at birth. If you dispute this, we cannot argue.

Reasonable claim #4: Fetuses become persons at some point. No scientist on earth could reasonably claim that a viable fetus isn't a person 5 seconds before birth.

Conclusion #1: Person-hood is bestowed at some point before [the] birth of a viable fetus.

Conclusion #2: If you abort your fetus after the point in Conclusion 1, then except for extenuating circumstances, you are guilty of negligent homicide at least, and murder at worst.


Is this not secular?

I've amended (with bolded text) your statement so that it's accurate. There seems to be a great deal of confusion between a "human life" and a "person." The two are not the same. That's why I've taken great pains to make clear what the central issue is. Because "human being" is ambiguous (does it mean "human life" or does it mean "person"?), I've change the words to made the distinction completely clear.

I've also introduced the concept of viability in #s 3 and 4, and in Conclusion #1. Viability (when a fetus becomes capable of surviving outside the womb without special support) is typically considered the essential characteristic that promotes a human fetus to person-hood status.

Viability occurs at approximately 6-months gestation. If you want to refer to a six-month-old fetus as a "baby", I don't have a problem with that. But before viability, a fetus is not a person, and using "baby" or "child" or any other term that implies person-hood as a synonym for a pre-viability fetus is not only incorrect, it's dishonest.

And with the amendments I've made, I agree with your statement.

Are you and I "persons"?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

What I think is necessary is irrelevant.

And so is what I think is necessary. LIKE I JUST SAID its up to the doctors. Why do I have to repeat myself so many fucking times when I talk to you?

If the mother has a right to bodily integrity, does she have the right to abort a fetus a few days before birth if she deems it necessary? Or is it not her choice to deem what is necessary?

I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.

The point you are skirting around is obvious.

No, the point is that you can't see beyond your own face.

A mother's right to bodily integrity, as with any other right, cannot take preference over an innocent person's right to life.

Abortions don't end any person's life. It ends the life of a zygote, embryo, or fetus.

The baby, at whatever point in the womb we say it is a human being, is innocent because it didn't choose to be there.

I ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOU WHY INNOCENCE IS IRRELEVANT.

At whatever point the unborn baby becomes a human being, the mother cannot invoke bodily integrity rights to kill it, because the baby is (1) a human being and (2) innocent.

No, at whatever point that it is less intrusive to deliver the fetus than to perform an abortion in order to remove the fetus from the woman's body, a mother cannot seek an abortion -- and that point is decided by doctors... LIKE I'VE ALREADY SAID.

So then back to square one. We need only decide at what point the baby becomes human.

No, you're still at square one because you seem absolutely incapable of reading my responses.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Disagree. My argument is entirely secular.

Reasonable claim #1: Murder can be defined as killing an innocent person. Exceptions are made for self-defense, such as when the mother would die in childbirth. If you disagree here, we cannot contiue.

Reasonable claim #2: Negligent homicide can be defined as taking an action in disregard for the risk a person's life, which then costs them their life.

Reasonable claim #3: Person-hood certainly exists in a viable fetus at birth. If you dispute this, we cannot argue.

Reasonable claim #4: Fetuses become persons at some point. No scientist on earth could reasonably claim that a viable fetus isn't a person 5 seconds before birth.

Conclusion #1: Person-hood is bestowed at some point before [the] birth of a viable fetus.

Conclusion #2: If you abort your fetus after the point in Conclusion 1, then except for extenuating circumstances, you are guilty of negligent homicide at least, and murder at worst.


Is this not secular?

I've amended (with bolded text) your statement so that it's accurate. There seems to be a great deal of confusion between a "human life" and a "person." The two are not the same. That's why I've taken great pains to make clear what the central issue is. Because "human being" is ambiguous (does it mean "human life" or does it mean "person"?), I've change the words to made the distinction completely clear.

I've also introduced the concept of viability in #s 3 and 4, and in Conclusion #1. Viability (when a fetus becomes capable of surviving outside the womb without special support) is typically considered the essential characteristic that promotes a human fetus to person-hood status.

Viability occurs at approximately 6-months gestation. If you want to refer to a six-month-old fetus as a "baby", I don't have a problem with that. But before viability, a fetus is not a person, and using "baby" or "child" or any other term that implies person-hood as a synonym for a pre-viability fetus is not only incorrect, it's dishonest.

And with the amendments I've made, I agree with your statement.

Are you and I "persons"?

Assuming you're not an AI algorithm that posts on web forums, then I'm reasonably sure that both of us are persons.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jackace
I'm not hounding anyone on their position on abortion. In fact I said it at least 2 times that no personal position matters in the argument I was making. How you can not see that is beyond me.

The OP said "I can understand someone who chooses abortion because she had an unplanned pregnancy. I can't understand someone who uses abortion as a means of birth control."

All I said was the 2 are the same thing and to try and say otherwise is not logical. You then blather on about how my personal opinion matters, I'm evading logic, etc. The logic and fact is both women used abortion as a form of birth control. Either it was right for both of them to do it or it was wrong for both of them. I don't care which you choose, but to say one is right and the other is wrong is just not logical, and makes no sense.

You are fixating on a semantic argument rather than addressing the intended meaning of the statement.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

What I think is necessary is irrelevant.

And so is what I think is necessary. LIKE I JUST SAID its up to the doctors. Why do I have to repeat myself so many fucking times when I talk to you?

If the mother has a right to bodily integrity, does she have the right to abort a fetus a few days before birth if she deems it necessary? Or is it not her choice to deem what is necessary?

I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.

The point you are skirting around is obvious.

No, the point is that you can't see beyond your own face.

A mother's right to bodily integrity, as with any other right, cannot take preference over an innocent person's right to life.

Abortions don't end any person's life. It ends the life of a zygote, embryo, or fetus.

The baby, at whatever point in the womb we say it is a human being, is innocent because it didn't choose to be there.

I ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOU WHY INNOCENCE IS IRRELEVANT.

At whatever point the unborn baby becomes a human being, the mother cannot invoke bodily integrity rights to kill it, because the baby is (1) a human being and (2) innocent.

No, at whatever point that it is less intrusive to deliver the fetus than to perform an abortion in order to remove the fetus from the woman's body, a mother cannot seek an abortion -- and that point is decided by doctors... LIKE I'VE ALREADY SAID.

So then back to square one. We need only decide at what point the baby becomes human.

No, you're still at square one because you seem absolutely incapable of reading my responses.

Again:

The baby at some point prior to birth becomes a human being (meaning it's no longer a zygote). After this point, bodily integrity rights are waived, because no infringement on any right can cost an innocent human being his or life.

I don't see how that's so disagreeable.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Disagree. My argument is entirely secular.

Reasonable claim #1: Murder can be defined as killing an innocent person. Exceptions are made for self-defense, such as when the mother would die in childbirth. If you disagree here, we cannot contiue.

Reasonable claim #2: Negligent homicide can be defined as taking an action in disregard for the risk a person's life, which then costs them their life.

Reasonable claim #3: Person-hood certainly exists in a viable fetus at birth. If you dispute this, we cannot argue.

Reasonable claim #4: Fetuses become persons at some point. No scientist on earth could reasonably claim that a viable fetus isn't a person 5 seconds before birth.

Conclusion #1: Person-hood is bestowed at some point before [the] birth of a viable fetus.

Conclusion #2: If you abort your fetus after the point in Conclusion 1, then except for extenuating circumstances, you are guilty of negligent homicide at least, and murder at worst.


Is this not secular?

I've amended (with bolded text) your statement so that it's accurate. There seems to be a great deal of confusion between a "human life" and a "person." The two are not the same. That's why I've taken great pains to make clear what the central issue is. Because "human being" is ambiguous (does it mean "human life" or does it mean "person"?), I've change the words to made the distinction completely clear.

I've also introduced the concept of viability in #s 3 and 4, and in Conclusion #1. Viability (when a fetus becomes capable of surviving outside the womb without special support) is typically considered the essential characteristic that promotes a human fetus to person-hood status.

Viability occurs at approximately 6-months gestation. If you want to refer to a six-month-old fetus as a "baby", I don't have a problem with that. But before viability, a fetus is not a person, and using "baby" or "child" or any other term that implies person-hood as a synonym for a pre-viability fetus is not only incorrect, it's dishonest.

And with the amendments I've made, I agree with your statement.

Are you and I "persons"?

Assuming you're not an AI algorithm that posts on web forums, then I'm reasonably sure that both of us are persons.

Were we persons at birth?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The baby at some point prior to birth becomes a human being (meaning it's no longer a zygote).

Persons are born. Period.

After this point, bodily integrity rights are waived, because no infringement on any right can cost an innocent human being his or life.

I already explained why this is false.

Repeating and re-repeating falsehoods will never make them true.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The baby at some point prior to birth becomes a human being (meaning it's no longer a zygote).

Persons are born. Period.

After this point, bodily integrity rights are waived, because no infringement on any right can cost an innocent human being his or life.

I already explained why this is false.

Repeating and re-repeating falsehoods will never make them true.

Like I said in my originating argument: If we can't agree that a person 5 seconds before birth is the same as a person 5 seconds after, then we cannot argue.

Where did you explain it was false?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Like I said in my originating argument: If we can't agree that a person 5 seconds before birth is the same as a person 5 seconds after, then we cannot argue.

You can believe that circles have pointy corners if you want, but you'd be just as wrong.

Where did you explain it was false?

In this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2330422

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The baby at some point prior to birth becomes a human being (meaning it's no longer a zygote).

Persons are born. Period.

After this point, bodily integrity rights are waived, because no infringement on any right can cost an innocent human being his or life.

I already explained why this is false.

Repeating and re-repeating falsehoods will never make them true.

Like I said in my originating argument: If we can't agree that a person 5 seconds before birth is the same as a person 5 seconds after, then we cannot argue.

Where did you explain it was false?

Well except for the fact 5 seconds before birth the baby relies on the mother for oxygen, and 5 secs after it doesnt

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Are you and I "persons"?

Assuming you're not an AI algorithm that posts on web forums, then I'm reasonably sure that both of us are persons.

Were we persons at birth?

Yes.

We became persons when we became viable fetuses at about six-months gestation.

To anticipate your next question:

Because there's no exact moment in time at which we can identify when a fetus becomes viable, it's clear that as gestation progresses, a shifting of rights must occur. Early in pregnancy (first trimester), the woman's rights dominate, and there should be virtually no restrictions on her right to abort.

Post-viability (third trimester), the fetus has become a person; and except for very special circumstances, abortions should be barred. Even when the woman's life is at significant risk, it may be possible to deliver the baby by caesarian and thus save both lives.

During the second trimester, as a maturing fetus approaches viability, its rights increase, and a woman's rights to abort decrease. It's during this period that issues beyond just "I want an abortion" must be considered, and the closer to the end of the second tri-mester the gestation is, the more difficult it should be for the woman to obtain an abortion.

Sorry. There's no "perfection" is all this. If you want a guarantee that absolutely, positively a viable fetus can never be mistakenly aborted, you're going to be disappointed. The solution is NOT to ban, say, all abortions at 5-months gestation, on the tiny chance that THIS might be the one-in-a-million fetus who could survive on its own outside the womb. But be comforted by the notion that abortions that late should be very difficult to obtain in any event.

Note also that the state of medical technology doesn't affect this. "Viable" does NOT mean "with amazing medical technology."

Guess what? What I've laid out above is pretty much a paraphrase of Roe v. Wade.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

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?

No, because at that point it isn't necessary. I've only stated that the requirement is the necessary force required to end the rights-violation... oh about FIVE FUCKING TIMES NOW.

Good fucking Christ I wish you would actually use that 8lb bag of jelly in your head once in a while.

Okay, then I'll rephrase. Would you support the mother killing an obviously fully formed baby in the womb if she deemed it necessary?

Yes, please... and make me a soup out of the leftovers. I love dead babies! I'll take seconds!! :roll:

Listen, genius, can you think of a realistic instance where killing a fetus 24 hours before full term is actually necessary? Here's a hint, abortion is a medical procedure, and we leave the decisions about the necessity of medical procedures up to doctors, who are themselves subject to review boards.

It's time for you just to STFU. I'm sick of your tired and ridiculous nonsense.

What I think is necessary is irrelevant.

If the mother has a right to bodily integrity, does she have the right to abort a fetus a few days before birth if she deems it necessary? Or is it not her choice to deem what is necessary?

The point you are skirting around is obvious. A mother's right to bodily integrity, as with any other right, cannot take preference over an innocent person's right to life. The baby, at whatever point in the womb we say it is a human being, is innocent because it didn't choose to be there.

So:

At whatever point the unborn baby becomes a human being, the mother cannot invoke bodily integrity rights to kill it, because the baby is (1) a human being and (2) innocent.

So then back to square one. We need only decide at what point the baby becomes human.

innocent ? if a 4 year old girl needs a kidney do you want the state to mandate that a healthy 4 year old has to give up a kidney to save her ? Or are 4 year old girls that need kidneys guilty and undeserving ?

I assume you think a woman that has intercourse is guilty of something and therefore has inferior rights compared to the innocent baby. Which is my point about your position, you don't think a pregnant woman has the same rights everyone else has.