![]() |
|
Register | All Albums | FAQ | Donate | Calendar | Mark Forums Read rel="nofollow">Mark Forums Read
Notices |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#61 | |||
See, moose love the Pats too!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Great White North
Posts: 15,069
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $742705
My Mood
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
One of the most disingenuous things I see from pro-choice activists is the notion that all women are pro-choice and that anti-abortion measures are the work of a small minority of evil white men.
Except, you know, the data doesn't bare that out at all. Men and women are equally likely to be pro-life, AND the pro-life and pro-choice positions share almost equal support across the US. It's the same bullshit you saw when black people chose not to vote for Obama. 'You're not a real woman if you aren't pro-choice!' Plus, of the portion of the population that is pro-choice, I would expect that a majority of them DO support drawing lines RE: when an abortion is OK/not OK. Laws like we see in NY are absolutely not what most people are looking for, even those who are pro-choice. The average person is far more sensible, but the pro-choice activists would have you believe that all women everywhere demand NO restrictions on abortion, period. Including the right to let a baby born during a failed abortion attempt die. Regardless of my opinion of abortion itself, it's hard not to be disgusted with how people talk about it. Last edited by mooseontheloose; 05-23-2019 at 08:05 AM.. |
|||
__________________
![]() |
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#62 | ||||
WTF
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Gelatinous, Mass
Posts: 11,655
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $611080
My Mood
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
|
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#63 | ||||
Done. And. Done.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Circumlocuting around New England...
Posts: 19,168
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $1485488
My Mood
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Great points. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro |
||||
__________________
"You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books, You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me, You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self. " Walt Whitman, Song of Myself |
|||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#64 | |||
IIWII
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,564
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $1145021 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
__________________
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WP-lrftLQaQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe> |
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#65 | |||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Eagle River, Ak
Posts: 5,538
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $0 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#66 | ||||
Why Be Normal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Windsor, CT
Posts: 20,749
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $814875
My Mood
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Viability is certainly a definable, and practible, criteria, however it suffers from two fundamental issues. The first is that by definition, it is a function of medical science. What is "viable" today was not viable 50 years ago, and in the future, that point of "viability" will occur earlier in the pregnancy. As such, it is not a definition that is based on a principle, but on technology. So for example, a woman in Africa would not have a "person" at the same point in her pregnancy as one in a developed country. Alternatively, 50 years from now a "person" could come into existence at a point in the pregnancy where they wouldn't today. Personally, I prefer legal concepts to be based on principles and not something that can vary both temporally and spatially. Also if it becomes possible to extract a fertilized egg, then by definition, conception would be the point at which it is "viable", since we have already demonstrated with in vitro fertilization that one can implant a fertilized egg in a woman and have it come full term. If someone develops an artificial womb, that makes it even easier. Second, as medical technology pushes the envelope to have premature births survive, what % success rate does one require before one says that "viability" is possible? Or if we use the concept of "extreme" efforts,or any other similar phrase, to define that threshold, how does one define that? After all, there are neonatal care practices done today that are "routine" that were considered "extreme" in the past. Again, we have a moving target, based on technology, and not a definable principle. |
||||
__________________
I AM PATRIOTS "Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, "Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Patriots again and that son-of-a-f*cking-bitch Belichick". Paraphrasing George S. Patton |
|||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#67 | |||||
Why Be Normal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Windsor, CT
Posts: 20,749
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $814875
My Mood
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
The problem is that the two sides aren't talking about that question. Each is assuming their own definition applies and the other side is a nattering nabob for clearly saying something that doesn't make sense based on their definition. If one doesn't think another person is present, then the idea that it is up to the woman and her doctor is 100% correct. If one thinks another person is present, then it is perfectly logical to ask about the rights of this other person. Quote:
I agree with you 100% that prior to that happening, it is a woman's right. After that point, it isn't simply a question of a woman's right because there are two people involved. Do you agree that if there are two persons involved, that the rights of both parties should be considered? If no, why not? To be clear, I'm not saying that the rights of either party must be granted precedence, merely that the question be considered as any other case where the rights of two individuals are in conflict. So I will repeat Moose's question. When do you think that second person comes into existence? I freely admit I don't know the answer to this question. |
|||||
__________________
I AM PATRIOTS "Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, "Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Patriots again and that son-of-a-f*cking-bitch Belichick". Paraphrasing George S. Patton |
||||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#68 | |||
Registered User
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,116
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $151830
My Mood
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#69 | |||
post tenebras lux
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: IN the world, but not OF the world
Posts: 18,393
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $509541
My Mood
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
__________________
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." -MLK Jr. |
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#70 | |||
WTF
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Gelatinous, Mass
Posts: 11,655
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $611080
My Mood
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#71 | ||||
No filter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sharon
Posts: 24,300
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $699657
My Mood
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() Amazing comments from all of the men in here. And by amazing I mean, pathetic. |
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#72 | ||||
See, moose love the Pats too!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Great White North
Posts: 15,069
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $742705
My Mood
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Perhaps you're not talking about me specifically, but I have no clue how anything I've said could be labeled as 'pathetic'. Nor many other posters. Instead of slandering, it might be worth defending your position and explaining where you think others have gone wrong. There are direct questions posed to you (and/or other confidently pro-choice people) that have gone unanswered. It's a bit disappointing that attempts to really debate or discuss a contentious issue so often lead nowhere, here and elsewhere. |
||||
__________________
![]() |
|||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#73 | ||||
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 13,940
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $885865 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
So we know that 22 weeks is realistically the cut off, anything earlier ....is considered a miscarriage already. Most cases DRs won’t attempt to save any live births before the 22week mark. It’s consider it unethical to attempt as their lungs and brains just aren’t developed enough and the amount of pain isn’t worth it. Because of the lack of organ development they won’t survive anyway even with more technology it would be unethical to attempt. It’s just a drawn out painful death. At 22 weeks a little over halfway through the baby is a fully formed and developed enough to obtain personhood, IMHO. Even at 22 weeks survival outside the womb is only at 21%. Going by your 50 year mark medical science will have come up with a drug induced miscarriage and “abortions” in the clinical sense could be obsolete ![]() 38 states have fetal homicide laws supported by both sides of the equation.... prochoice still won’t consider the rights of the unborn fetus or unborn child only the mother rights. In their view, the debate concerning “fetal homicide” hinges on the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women. ![]() I think we both agree we’re just using a different terms ie reasons to establish what personhood means to us. ~Dee~ |
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#74 | ||||
Why Be Normal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Windsor, CT
Posts: 20,749
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $814875
My Mood
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
My issue with "viability" being the definition of "personhood" is that it is not based on a fundamental philosophical principle. Yes, I understand your comments about the 22 week mark, but my point is that limit is a function of how advanced medial science is. Yes, as of today, there isn't much that doctors can typically do for a premature birth that happens prior to 22 weeks, but that is really a function of the present state of medical science. 50 odd years ago, what was the likelihood of survival of a premature birth? Much lower than today. That isn't due to any change in the principle of "viability", but of the status of medical science. Also, as I said before, in many underdeveloped countries, they don't have the same medical facilities as in the West, so for them the threshold of "viability" is well after 22 weeks. Does that mean the developing fetus has not achieved "personhood" in those countries? To be clear, I'm not saying your idea of figuring out at what point between conception and birth a "person" comes into existence, is invalid, simply it is a moving target, both temporally and spatially. I personally don't like moving targets for questions like this. I would prefer a definition based on a principle that won't change. Maybe such a definition isn't possible. |
||||
__________________
I AM PATRIOTS "Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, "Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Patriots again and that son-of-a-f*cking-bitch Belichick". Paraphrasing George S. Patton |
|||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#75 | ||||
Why Be Normal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Windsor, CT
Posts: 20,749
Posting Frequency
Casino cash: $814875
My Mood
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
I think we can resolve most of the issues if you were to tell us when you think the developing fetus becomes a "person". "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. IMHO, it happens at some point between conception and birth, and I don't have an easy answer as to exactly when that is. I do know that prior to that threshold being crossed, the question of abortion is 100% an issue between the woman and her doctor. After it, that is no longer the case. After it, there are two persons involved, and as with any other circumstance where the rights of two people are in conflict, it is reasonable and just that some equitable balance of their individual rights be determined. As with all such cases in our legal system, sometimes the rights of person A are recognized as having priority, and sometimes person B has priority. |
||||
__________________
I AM PATRIOTS "Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, "Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Patriots again and that son-of-a-f*cking-bitch Belichick". Paraphrasing George S. Patton |
|||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|