Not trying to be controversial .... just a question

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Yes, Scarlett, you are. You believe it’s lawful and just to force people to birth children in any/all circumstances. Own that. 

I will not. I am politically neutral and I do not vote on any law. Nor am I attempting to change the world.  I am only expressing my belief.  That I will own.  

[Sneezyone]

23 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

Okay, so let us say that every fetus is a person.

So what? If my life and health are being threatened by a person, I am allowed to defend myself. I am allowed to use even deadly force to keep myself safe. People have even been acquitted of murder simply because they *believed* that they were being threatened, even in situations where they quite obviously were not.

And it's not just my life and health! In many areas, you can successfully defend yourself against a murder charge by claiming that it was your *home* or *property* that was threatened.

A pregnancy in a ten year old is ALWAYS a threat to the child's life and health, both physical and mental. A pregnancy is potentially a life-threatening event in nearly all cases, and certainly always is a risk to somebody's physical and mental health, not to mention their financial stability.

I have a right to protect myself against people who threaten my life and health, even if that requires deadly force.

After all, this is the USA - all guns, all the time, right?

Fortunately, Chrystul Kizer is getting a second bite at the apple. Oh sorry, not relevant, too much to consider ill-treated babies cum kids? Not ‘right to life’ enough?

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I will not. I am politically neutral and I do not vote on any law. Nor am I attempting to change the world.  I am only expressing my belief.  That I will own.  

I didn’t say anything about a vote. I said a view. You break it, you buy it.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I didn’t say anything about a vote. I said a view. You break it, you buy it.

Are you suggesting I should have no view of abortion?  I don’t really understand what you are trying to say.  
 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Scarlett

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, KeriJ said:

This. This is the point.  Whether or not it is a baby is the entire foundation to the argument. If it is a baby, then it should be legal to kill babies, in or out of the womb.

But Scarlet is right, it is not an extreme minority who think a fetus is a baby.

Yes, yes it is an extreme minority who think embryos=babies. Being amongst those who share that view may provide false assurances of sanity. That will become increasingly clear in the months and years to come as surveys hone in on the tragic consequences of that view.

[Tanaqui]

Quote

But Scarlet is right, it is not an extreme minority who think a fetus is a baby.

 

61% of US Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

So, yes, it's a minority - and regardless of how large that minority is, I'd say that anybody who thinks that the life of a fetus outweighs the life or health of the parent has a rather extreme view.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Are you suggesting I have no view of abortion?  I don’t really understand what you are trying to say.  
 

 You’ve made your view crystal clear.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Tanaqui said:

 

61% of US Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

So, yes, it's a minority - and regardless of how large that minority is, I'd say that anybody who thinks that the life of a fetus outweighs the life or health of the parent has a rather extreme view.

It is possible for the majority to be wrong.  

[SKL]

3 hours ago, MEmama said:

Honest question—why are “pro life” folks angry? They just won a 50 year fight? 

I don't know that pro life folks are angry.  We agree that RvW was wrongly decided in the first place and states should make laws about abortion if they want to.

Sad, yes, because the loudest reactions can be summarized as "how to I make sure my potential future grandchildren can be killed if they don't come at a convenient time?"  And also because of the narratives our own kids are hearing at school/camp and on social media.

Also a bit frustrated because there are very few places where it's safe to admit we agree with the 2022 court on this matter.

[MercyA]

2 hours ago, J-rap said:

Well yes, certainly there have been times throughout the history of the world and even our country.  But your saying "Because some people think the youngest human beings should only have their lives legally protected if they are wanted" kind of opens up a different discussion.  First, at what point is an egg and a sperm a human being?  You are saying one thing, others say another.   Secondly, assuming you're referring to abortions, I can tell you that the women I know who have terminated a pregnancy did not do it because they're unwanted.  That's kind of a strong accusation. 

As to your first question, from the time of conception the zygote is both human and living. Given time and nutrition--the same things we all need--they will continue to grow through the various stages of life: zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, etc. The differences between them and us are the same differences between us and an infant--size, level of development, degree of dependence. None of these differences, in my view, are sufficient to remove someone's right to life. In any case we should err on the side of not killing someone, regardless of the fact that they are young, or dependent, or not yet as developed as we are.

Secondly, as I already noted, I'm sorry for my lack of clarity in my previous post. I was trying to say that when a person is charged with two murders when a pregnant woman is killed through homicide, it is because that woman's baby was wanted. The same protection would not apply if her baby was not wanted. Of course there are many reasons for abortion, the vast majority of which have to do with whether or not the embryo or fetus was intentionally conceived and whether he or she is burdensome in some way. 

[Tanaqui]

15 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

You act as if society has never referred to an unborn child as a baby.  It is really common where I live for sure.  

I know lots of people who refer to their pets as their babies, and call themselves "pet parents".

This is rather twee, and it doesn't actually afford my cat any rights.

Quote

And also a natural ending  pregnancy is much different than deliberately ending one.  

Why? If you think that a zygote is a person, and you think every person's life matters, why is it different?

Edited July 6, 2022 by Tanaqui

[Farrar]

For me, this thread is really illustrative of why I don't know if we're going to make much progress around this issue. As I've said, I think the view that a fetus is a person is absurd on a basic scientific level. It's also a minority view in America, but not an extreme one. And it's a very hard one to overcome because it's very morally black and white.

[Scarlett]

13 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Yes, Scarlett, you are. You believe it’s lawful and just to force people to birth children in any/all circumstances. Own that. 

 

7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I didn’t say anything about a vote. I said a view. You break it, you buy it.

 

5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Are you suggesting I should have no view of abortion?  I don’t really understand what you are trying to say.  
 

 

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 You’ve made your view crystal clear.

I apparently have not if you believe I am demanding and forcing my view and belief on others.  

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Are you suggesting I should have no view of abortion?  I don’t really understand what you are trying to say.  
 

I think she's saying you are a horrible person if you disagree with her.

PS you are far from alone, as you know, and yes, just about everyone I know considers an embryo a baby.

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

You act as if society has never referred to an unborn child as a baby.  It is really common where I live for sure.  

No ma’am. Colloquially, people refer to fetuses in utero as ‘babies’ all the time. I did, both for my birthed and adopted children. They weren’t, either of them, mine to care for or control until birth/breath. Ok, maybe the one I carried in utero, but I always had the sense that my luck would run out.

[Corraleno]

12 minutes ago, SKL said:

Men have used abortion to cover up rape and incest, and I don't hear any outrage around that.  Abortion doesn't take away the problem from the victim of rape/incest, only from the perp.

That is a total straw man. Everyone who believes women have the right to bodily autonomy believes that includes the right to choose or not choose to have an abortion. No one thinks it's perfectly OK for rapists to force victims to abort. Abortion cannot undo the rape itself, but for a victim who chooses it, it can prevent the added physical and psychological trauma of basically being raped again by a state government that does not feel she has the right to her own body, just like the rapist did.

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

That is a total straw man. Everyone who believes women have the right to bodily autonomy believes that includes the right to choose or not choose to have an abortion. No one thinks it's perfectly OK for rapists to force victims to abort. Abortion cannot undo the rape itself, but for a victim who chooses it, it can prevent the added physical and psychological trauma of basically being raped again by a state government that does not feel she has the right to her own body, just like the rapist did.

Theoretically.  But we know that especially dependent children and dependent, abused spouses/partners are regularly coerced to abort.

[Pam in CT]

re acts of commission ("active measures," put another way) vs acts of omission ("choosing to do nothing")

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

Humans currently all eventually die. The ability of other humans to prolong that eventuality has varied through out history and varies now depending on how much money you have and where you live.  Yet most people believe it is wrong to look at an ill person and say ‘ well, this is inconvenient or too costly, let’s give them a pill that kills them now’.   
 

Obviously many disagree.  

"A pill that kills them now" is, certainly, an act of commission.  But while there are a handful of places that permit patients to choose to end their *own* lives through physician-administered medication, that the patient has decisionmaking agency to my mind makes those circumstances pretty different from abortion.

A closer decision, that occurs pretty regularly IRL, would be end-of-life decisions in cases where the patient is, forex, in a coma, or otherwise not sentient, and family members are in the (heartbreaking) phase of having to determine when to terminate life supports. Unplugging the machines *is* an act of commission.  So too -- hospital ethicists generally concur -- is terminating food and fluids.  A life is at stake.  Personal agency isn't possible. Who should decide, and on what basis?

 

There are a LOT of public policies that result in loss of life -- some acts of commission (ie capital punishment, LE misconduct, gun violence); others acts of omission (ie prisoners denied access to emergency treatment, mortality to treatable diseases in a society without universal healthcare). It is striking how *rarely* the pro-life language gets attached to any *other* public policy than abortion.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Pam in CT

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

I don't know that pro life folks are angry.  We agree that RvW was wrongly decided in the first place and states should make laws about abortion if they want to.

Sad, yes, because the loudest reactions can be summarized as "how to I make sure my potential future grandchildren can be killed if they don't come at a convenient time?"  And also because of the narratives our own kids are hearing at school/camp and on social media.

No maam, how do I make sure my grandchildren arrive when my children/our family is ready and able to care for them (because there’s no way in hades I’m letting one go to a do-gooder who can’t see the full spectrum of life) isn’t what you just said. You just admitted you agree with SCOTUS and no police are knocking on your door. I think you’re safe.

[MercyA]

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

I would add that the ever so ‘rare’ criminal conception raised its head, publicly, within 7 days of these trigger laws going into effect. That doesn’t strike me as rare. At all.

According to the stridently pro-choice research organization the Guttmacher Institute, abortions are due to rape less than 0.5% of the time. 

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/tables/370305/3711005t3.pdf

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Theoretically.  But we know that especially dependent children and dependent, abused spouses/partners are regularly coerced to abort.

WE don’t know anything of the sort.

[KungFuPanda]

I think as a society we have decided that women are sacrificial.  We could require men to donate bone marrow to children to save many many lives, but that would be "too invasive." We could require organ donation to keep someone alive, but that would be "too invasive" and "too risky" and "just ridiculous" and "I might die."  Seems like a slippery slope to me and all the arguments like "I don't know that person" or "I didn't decide to create that person" apply in either situation. 

[Tanaqui]

Quote

Men have used abortion to cover up rape and incest, and I don't hear any outrage around that.  Abortion doesn't take away the problem from the victim of rape/incest, only from the perp.

If you don't hear outrage over rapists getting away with their crimes, you must be willfully covering your ears and going "LALALALALALA!!!!"

 

I don't see any reason to care about your opinion on *this*.

Edited July 6, 2022 by desertflower
False accusation

[Sneezyone]

Just now, MercyA said:

According to the stridently pro-choice research organization the Guttmacher Institute, abortions are due to rape less than 0.5% of the time. 

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/tables/370305/3711005t3.pdf

That’s based on self-reports. No one in my family (and there are multiple) ever , EVER participated in surveys of this nature.

[Tanaqui]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

That’s based on self-reports. No one in my family (and there are multiple) ever , EVER participated in surveys of this nature.

Do you think that those surveys are picking from a non-representative slice of the population?

[MercyA]

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Of course they do. Still, people with disabilities have shortened life spans and reduced access to robust healthcare (COVID bore this out) too. There are much bigger issues with LIVING, BREATHING humans that could realistically/logically consume the time/energy of pro-life individuals than what happens in a 10yo’s uterus. What so many seem to want is birth without any social responsibility/obligation. We literally saw that view championed on the other thread. I find that to be the ultimate hypocrisy.

I think we can and should care about more than one thing at a time. And, yes, I agree with you about the hypocrisy of many pro-lifers. 

I do think the insistence on talking about "breathing" human beings is a little odd. People don't become less human just because they are in an oxygen tent or on a ventilator. 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, MercyA said:

I think we can and should care about more than one thing at a time. And, yes, I agree with you about the hypocrisy of many pro-lifers. 

I do think the insistence on talking about "breathing" human beings is a little odd. People don't become less human just because they are in an oxygen tent or on a ventilator. 

Less human, no. Less competent and more dependent, yes. Hence, my DNR. In the absence of that, my DH/KIDS reign.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Do you think that those surveys are picking from a non-representative slice of the population?

I think they’re picking from a slice that’s willing to respond. I never do. The last 10 years have been instructive about how that data is used.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Sneezyone

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Pam in CT said:

re acts of commission ("active measures," put another way) vs acts of omission ("choosing to do nothing")

"A pill that kills them now" is, certainly, an act of commission.  But while there are a handful of places that permit patients to choose to end their *own* lives through physician-administered medication, that the patient has decisionmaking agency to my mind makes those circumstances pretty different from abortion.

A closer decision, that occurs pretty regularly IRL, would be end-of-life decisions in cases where the patient is, forex, in a coma, or otherwise not sentient, and family members are in the (heartbreaking) phase of having to determine when to terminate life supports. Unplugging the machines *is* an act of commission.  So too -- hospital ethicists generally concur -- is terminating food and fluids.  A life is at stake.  Personal agency isn't possible. Who should decide, and on what basis?

 

There are a LOT of public policies that result in loss of life -- some acts of commission (capital punishment, LE misconduct, gun violence, others acts of omission (prisoners denied access to emergency treatment, mortality to treatable diseases in a society without universal healthcare). It is striking how *rarely* the pro-life language gets attached to any *other* public policy than abortion.

Actually it has been controversial when there were public cases about ending life support, especially when the support was just tube feeding and bodily care.

However, there is still quite a contrast between caring for a comatose individual for potentially decades - which involves quite a bit of daily physical action and expense - vs. allowing an embryo/fetus to simply continue growing in a womb for some months until a safe birth can occur.

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

WE don’t know anything of the sort.

Well some of us know it and apparently others prefer not to know it.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, SKL said:

Actually it has been controversial when there were public cases about ending life support, especially when the support was just tube feeding and bodily care.

However, there is still quite a contrast between caring for a comatose individual for potentially decades - which involves quite a bit of daily physical action and expense - vs. allowing an embryo/fetus to simply continue growing in a womb for some months until a safe birth can occur.

Yes, parents fighting spouses for control of end of life care. I will say it here and everywhere, if my mother, ever, EVER, contradicts my wishes…use these posts in court. My DH knows me better than she ever has or will.

[Tanaqui]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

I think their picking from a slice that’s willing to respond. I never do.

Do you think that people who have an abortion after rape are particularly unlikely to respond? Because what you're suggesting is that all the statistics and all the actual data needs to be thrown out. And I'm just not willing to do that unless we have some serious evidence that it's flawed - not "I personally didn't answer this survey and I don't think anybody else I know did either".

[SKL]

25 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

No this was not me.  I think you'd better go edit that out.

Edited July 6, 2022 by SKL

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

If deliberately ending a life is worse than letting someone die by withholding life-saving measures, then by that logic there should be no exceptions for the life of the mother. If her life is at risk because of pregnancy, then doctors should refuse any treatment that would result in the death of the fetus.

I disagree. In that case there are two patients. Doctors should try to save both. Sometimes that is not possible. That is not the same thing as a direct act of killing. 

[KungFuPanda]

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

Theoretically.  But we know that especially dependent children and dependent, abused spouses/partners are regularly coerced to abort.

Without this option, the murder rate just goes up.  Men like that find a way.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Do you think that people who have an abortion after rape are particularly unlikely to respond? Because what you're suggesting is that all the statistics and all the actual data needs to be thrown out. And I'm just not willing to do that unless we have some serious evidence that it's flawed - not "I personally didn't answer this survey and I don't think anybody else I know did either".

Yes, I do. I think both admitting that the sex was Non-consensual, coerced, or forced is hard and also that moving on is prioritized over data gathering.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Sneezyone

[WildflowerMom]

Just now, KungFuPanda said:

Without this option, the murder rate just goes up.  Men like that find a way.

And what do they think happens to babies who are born into that?   

[J-rap]

15 minutes ago, MercyA said:

As to your first question, from the time of conception the zygote is both human and living. Given time and nutrition--the same things we all need--they will continue to grow through the various stages of life: zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, etc. The differences between them and us are the same differences between us and an infant--size, level of development, degree of dependence. None of these differences, in my view, are sufficient to remove someone's right to life. In any case we should err on the side of not killing someone, regardless of the fact that they are young, or dependent, or not yet as developed as we are.

Secondly, as I already noted, I'm sorry for my lack of clarity in my previous post. I was trying to say that when a person is charged with two murders when a pregnant woman is killed through homicide, it is because that woman's baby was wanted. The same protection would not apply if her baby was not wanted. Of course there are many reasons for abortion, the vast majority of which have to do with whether or not the embryo or fetus was intentionally conceived and whether he or she is burdensome in some way. 

I'm okay agreeing to disagree here.  But life is very complicated and extremely difficult decisions are part of the human experience here.  That doesn't always make a choice wrong, or even right.  Sometimes a choice exists outside of that black and white framework.

[KungFuPanda]

2 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

And what do they think happens to babies who are born into that?   

Horrible things.  I'm saying women's lives are at much greater risk when abortion is made illegal.  One of those risks is being killed by their partner.  legal abortion saves lives in many ways.

[Scarlett]

25 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

I know lots of people who refer to their pets as their babies, and call themselves "pet parents".

This is rather twee, and it doesn't actually afford my cat any rights.

Why? If you think that a zygote is a person, and you think every person's life matters, why is it different?

Scratching my head here. You don’t see a difference in a pregnancy ending from no one’s fault vs deliberating terminating the pregnancy? 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Scratching my head here. You don’t see a difference in a pregnancy ending from no one’s fault vs deliberating terminating the pregnancy? 

Unless they’re my family? No. Both are none of my freaking business.

[SKL]

11 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

None of that 10-year-old conversation had anything to do with what you accuse me of above.

I think you'd better delete what you wrote about me because I'm about to report you if you don't.

Edited July 6, 2022 by SKL

[bolt.]

16 minutes ago, SKL said:

Actually it has been controversial when there were public cases about ending life support, especially when the support was just tube feeding and bodily care.

However, there is still quite a contrast between caring for a comatose individual for potentially decades - which involves quite a bit of daily physical action and expense - vs. allowing an embryo/fetus to simply continue growing in a womb for some months until a safe birth can occur.

Nobody is arguing with *allowing* and embryo/fetus to continue growing in someone else's uterus for some months. Lot's of women *allow* that to take place inside of their bodies. That's fantastic. Nobody argues with them when they *allow* that process. The word *allow* implies that someone *asked for permission* and that permission was granted.

The argument is about what happens when someone does not want to allow that process. Is the embryo/fetus somehow morally entitled to stay there anyways? Using someone else's body as a life support system without their consent? Even though severing the connection between them is a simple and widely available healthcare procedure?

Various governments have supported the idea that the fetus/embryo is legally entitled to non-consensual form of bodily life support from women under their jurisdiction. They have criminalized women doing things to their own bodies which would cause their bodies to cease the life-support functions for the fetus/embryo. This is why it is an unjust government action.

Does a woman choose whether or not to continue allowing this dependent relationship to happen in her own body?

Or does a government mandate that she must provide it whether she consents or not?

(And also: What is "a safe birth"? And where can women go to secure such a thing?)

Edited July 6, 2022 by bolt.

[Corraleno]

4 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I disagree. In that case there are two patients. Doctors should try to save both. Sometimes that is not possible. That is not the same thing as a direct act of killing. 

Abortion "to save the life of the mother" often does require "a direct act of killing." If a "direct act of killing" is always wrong, then it's absolutely wrong to directly kill a fetus to prevent the mother from dying. Doctors should just let nature take its course and see who survives. That way no one is being "murdered," they're just being allowed to survive or die "naturally."

That is the logical outcome of your stance — and one that many pro-lifers actually endorse. If you believe that direct acts of killing should be allowed to save the life of the mother, then we simply disagree about when directs acts of killing are acceptable, and who gets to make that decision: women and their doctors or politicians? 

[Scarlett]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Unless they’re my family? No. Both are none of my freaking business.

Well I can agree with that.  As mentioned several times I am not trying to control anyone. But this is a discussion about abortion and you are expressing your opinion just like the rest of us.  
 

 

[SKL]

And how do you define "consent" in this context?  Is it not consent if I consent to sex knowing that a pregnancy may occur? 

These are matters for the state lawmaking process.  People will disagree, but that is always the case with the legislative process.

[Tanaqui]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

None of that 10-year-old conversation had anything to do with what you accuse me of above.

I think you'd better delete what you wrote about me because I'm about to report you if you don't.

 

So you definitely do not hold that opinion? Definitely, positively, absolutely? Because I gotta say, I am really certain I remember you saying that over there.

Not that it matters, because you know what? "What you wear affects your risk of rape" is also, as far as I'm concerned, reason enough to reject your opinion on... everything. Literally everything, if you still believe it.

[Scarlett]

This board is not about thoughtful discussion. It is about who ever is the loudest and the nastiest shutting everyone else down. 

I have really thick skin and I have posted here a very very long time.  I can only imagine how many people just don’t post because it is brutal here.  
 

I guess that is how the cultural of a board is formed over time and I guess SWB is ok with it.  

[WildflowerMom]

6 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

Horrible things.  I'm saying women's lives are at much greater risk when abortion is made illegal.  One of those risks is being killed by their partner.  legal abortion saves lives in many ways.

You know what bothers me so much in these arguments?  The absolutely lack of recognition about what happens to those children once they are born into horrible situations.  This isn’t some fantasyland.  All is not ok just because that baby is birthed.    Abusers keep beating the sh*t out of their families, except now there’s one more body to beat, rape, abuse.   But at least the baby is here, right??   Now we can breathe easy.  No abortion took place.  
/s

 

it is heartbreaking what I see and hear from extremist prolifers who really don’t give a damn. 
 

[Tanaqui]

11 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Scratching my head here. You don’t see a difference in a pregnancy ending from no one’s fault vs deliberating terminating the pregnancy? 

No. Why would I? That doesn't make any sense.