Full Video: President Obama Speaks at the Planned Parenthood Gala

Obama strongly supports women’s rights
Politics • Views: 36,891
YouTube

Obama asserted that “an assault on women’s rights” is underway across the country, with bills introduced in more than 40 states to limit or ban abortion or restrict access to birth control or other services.

“The fact is, after decades of progress, there’s still those who want to turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century,” he said. “And they’ve been involved in an orchestrated and historic effort to roll back basic rights when it comes to women’s health.”

President Obama gave a speech this morning at the 2013 Planned Parenthood Gala, becoming the first US President to address the group and prompting the usual unison chorus of shrieking and freaking from right wing media and blogs. The full speech is viewable above, and here’s the roll call of right wing reactions:

Doug Powers and Michelle Malkin are freaking out.
Anti-choice propaganda site Lifenews is freaking out.
CNS News is freaking out.
Weasel Zippers - freaking out.
Michelle Malkin is also freaking out at twitchy.com.
Jim Hoft, Dumbest Man on the Internet? Freaking out.
Also freaking out: the Daily Caller.
breitbart.com joins the mass freak-out with several posts.
And of course, Sarah Palin is freaking out too.

Well done, Mr. President.

Jump to bottom

195 comments
1 Eclectic Cyborg  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:30:28pm

I can’t help but wonder if he did this on purpose just to troll the RWNJs…

2 Decatur Deb  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:34:56pm

There go his chances of re-election.

3 Stephen T.  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:38:36pm

I hope that this is the start of Obama’s move to the left.

4 Dr Lizardo  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:38:39pm

re: #2 Decatur Deb

There go his chances of re-election.

OH NOES! NO THIRD TERM?!

//
The wingnuts freak out over everything. Makes me wish I was President - you have no idea how much fun I could have reciting Fatiha to open a press conference.

5 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:40:12pm
6 Charles Johnson  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:41:11pm

Someone immediately started ranting about “murdered babies” to me on Twitter. Blocked.

7 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:41:36pm

DERP

8 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:42:08pm
9 DO WINGNUT WORDS SHOW THEY EVOLVED BRAINS?11!!  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:42:24pm

The right wing is gonna’ totally react to this with their usual grace, compromise and diplomacy.//////////////////////////////////////////////////

10 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:42:57pm

re: #9 DO WINGNUT WORDS SHOW THEY EVOLVED BRAINS?11!!

The right wing is gonna’ totally react to this with their usual grace, compromise and diplomacy.//////////////////////////////////////////////////

Poo flinging zoo monkeys?

11 Lidane  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:43:17pm

Obama to RWNJs:

Image: umadbrah.jpg

12 DO WINGNUT WORDS SHOW THEY EVOLVED BRAINS?11!!  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:44:28pm

re: #10 EPR-radar

Wow! SNAP! Harsh. What did a poo flinging zoo monkey ever do to you?

///

13 Lidane  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:46:31pm

re: #2 Decatur Deb

There go his chances of re-election.

Another Democrat snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

///

14 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:47:30pm

Wingnut’s views on sex, in a nutshell:


15 ramex  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:47:35pm

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with an abortion is a good guy with an abortion.

16 Lidane  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:48:49pm

re: #14 Vicious Babushka

Related:

Image: birthcontrol.jpg

17 DO WINGNUT WORDS SHOW THEY EVOLVED BRAINS?11!!  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:49:03pm

re: #14 Vicious Babushka

Most wingnuts, sorry, all wingnuts I know are also against birth control.

18 kirkspencer  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:51:23pm

re: #16 Lidane

while that’s true, if the shooter doesn’t have to pay for the damage he doesn’t care whether he unloads or not.

That’s why while I think the idea of male contraceptives are great, women should be given every defense they can get.

19 erik_t  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:52:24pm

re: #14 Vicious Babushka

Wingnut’s views on sex, in a nutshell:

Have protected sex?! FUCKING RINO

20 kirkspencer  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:52:43pm

re: #17 DO WINGNUT WORDS SHOW THEY EVOLVED BRAINS?11!!

Most wingnuts, sorry, all wingnuts I know are also against birth control.

Not all of them are against it. But they cannot seem to believe me when I say there’s active resistance, that states will forbid education on using them and some groups are actively campaigning to overturn Griswold.

Even when I send the links.

21 DO WINGNUT WORDS SHOW THEY EVOLVED BRAINS?11!!  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:53:33pm

re: #19 erik_t

I know! Who let that Marxist into the Republicans big-small tent?

22 kirkspencer  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:54:13pm

re: #14 Vicious Babushka

Wingnut’s views on sex, in a nutshell:

And when the protection fails, does the man pay a price?

23 engineer cat  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:55:16pm

protected sex

condoms can leak

this has been another public service announcement from reality

24 Lidane  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:55:54pm

re: #18 kirkspencer

Honestly, I wish men were the ones who had to worry about getting pregnant. That way, birth control would be covered by insurance, the morning after pill would be found in every bar right next to the bowl of beer nuts, and sex ed would be mandatory.

25 DO WINGNUT WORDS SHOW THEY EVOLVED BRAINS?11!!  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:56:04pm

re: #20 kirkspencer

It’s amazing how blind they will let themselves be. My wingnut in laws along with their church friends are against abortion and birth control. Because allowing birth control was the slippery slope that lead to abortion. Sorry. Lead to Legalized safe abortion

26 Kragar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:56:39pm

re: #14 Vicious Babushka

Wingnut’s views on sex, in a nutshell:

Would that be the protected sex the GOP does everything in the world to prevent kids from learning about and denying people access to?

27 Kragar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:58:12pm

Political Sex Ed:

The GOP will say or do anything in their power to fuck you.

28 CuriousLurker  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:58:50pm

re: #1 Eclectic Cyborg

Are you still here, EC?

29 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:59:03pm

re: #24 Lidane

Honestly, I wish men were the ones who had to worry about getting pregnant. That way, birth control would be covered by insurance, the morning after pill would be found in every bar right next to the bowl of beer nuts, and sex ed would be mandatory.

and abortion would be a sacrament.

30 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:01:19pm

re: #25 DO WINGNUT WORDS SHOW THEY EVOLVED BRAINS?11!!

It’s amazing how blind they will let themselves be. My wingnut in laws along with their church friends are against abortion and birth control. Because allowing birth control was the slippery slope that led to abortion.

For once, the slippery slope has some degree of validity.

Either women have bodily autonomy (in which case, birth control and abortion are both rights), or they are chattel (in which case neither birth control nor abortion are rights).

31 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:02:07pm

At the risk of being flamed to death.

OK, so that a list of different sites freaking out, does that mean that there’s no reasonable opposition or restriction on abortion rights that we can understand even if you disagree with them.

I find this debate on abortion to almost never get to a healthy level on both sides, and any restriction on abortion often seen with outright hostility that is similar in reaction to what some (including me) consider sensible restriction of gun rights. And yes, I understand the fundamental difference between gun rights and reproductive rights, but hopefully all reading this get my point.

Flame away.

32 kirkspencer  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:04:17pm

re: #31 ElCapitanAmerica

At the risk of being flamed to death.

OK, so that a list of different sites freaking out, does that mean that there’s no reasonable opposition or restriction on abortion rights that we can understand even if you disagree with them.

I find this debate on abortion to almost never get to a healthy level on both sides, and any restriction on abortion often seen with outright hostility that is similar in reaction to what some (including me) consider sensible restriction of gun rights. And yes, I understand the fundamental difference between gun rights and reproductive rights, but hopefully all reading this get my point.

Flame away.

Sure. What’s a “healthy level”?

33 Lidane  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:06:44pm

re: #31 ElCapitanAmerica

When a gun becomes part of a man’s body the way a uterus is part of a woman’s body, then we’ll talk.

34 DO WINGNUT WORDS SHOW THEY EVOLVED BRAINS?11!!  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:07:57pm

re: #31 ElCapitanAmerica

I was trying to allude to that earlier. It may be hard to remember but there was a time when the left compromised with the right on abortion. Even after it was legalized this new (and I say new because protestants use to be for abortion until they were radicalized) were pushing for compromise with it. Which leftist kept giving in a little here a little more there and a little more still. When I was young I remember leftists being awfully forgiving to them. Unfortunately, for the right, and with the takeover of the right by the religious right, that has changed. There is no compromising with them. Let me repeat that, with them.

35 erik_t  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:08:03pm

re: #31 ElCapitanAmerica

At the risk of being flamed to death.

OK, so that a list of different sites freaking out, does that mean that there’s no reasonable opposition or restriction on abortion rights that we can understand even if you disagree with them.

Fairly classic example of framing that answers the question before it’s asked.

36 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:08:13pm

re: #31 ElCapitanAmerica

For my part, I see no value in any laws specifically regulating abortions. Ordinary standards of medical ethics should apply, and are more than enough to prevent travesties like an abortion in the 8th month for the hell of it.

Passing laws just screws things up. E.g., an abortion ban with an exemption for ‘life of the mother’ sounds like a concession to humanity, but that concession is smaller than one might think.

The risk to the mother’s life must be proved to someone’s satisfaction before an abortion can proceed under it. What degree of raging infection is to be deemed ‘life threatening’ etc.

37 wrenchwench  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:09:01pm

re: #31 ElCapitanAmerica

At the risk of being flamed to death.

OK, so that a list of different sites freaking out, does that mean that there’s no reasonable opposition or restriction on abortion rights that we can understand even if you disagree with them.

I find this debate on abortion to almost never get to a healthy level on both sides, and any restriction on abortion often seen with outright hostility that is similar in reaction to what some (including me) consider sensible restriction of gun rights. And yes, I understand the fundamental difference between gun rights and reproductive rights, but hopefully all reading this get my point.

Flame away.

What restrictions are needed? No third trimester abortions, except to save the life of the mother? That restriction is already there.

What else is needed?

38 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:09:04pm

re: #31 ElCapitanAmerica

At the risk of being flamed to death.

OK, so that a list of different sites freaking out, does that mean that there’s no reasonable opposition or restriction on abortion rights that we can understand even if you disagree with them.

The reasonable restriction on them is to leave it between a woman and her doctor, or, at best, a medical ethics board. There really isn’t any point to anything else. Say you make it illegal after 30 weeks. The only people seeking to get an abortion that late in the stage will be those who were unable to get one before 30 weeks despite definitely wanting to get one, those whose lives or health are in danger, and those who are going nuts. The latter two are obviously a medical, not a legal, problem, and the first only occurs where there’s lack of abortion access.

There really aren’t any women carrying fetuses around for 32 weeks just ‘cuz and now they’re going to get an abortion because ho-hum.

So regulation and restriction on abortion as a serious medical procedure makes sense, but there is no sense in criminalizing it at all.

39 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:11:29pm

re: #38 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

By now, I’m certainly not in favor of putting any number of weeks X into the law where extra hoops have to be gone though after week X.

The RWNJ response to this would be to mandate X + 1 weeks of ‘counseling’.

40 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:12:20pm

re: #33 Lidane

When a gun becomes part of a man’s body the way a uterus is part of a woman’s body, then we’ll talk.

Totally missed my point.

41 Targetpractice  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:12:36pm

re: #38 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

The reasonable restriction on them is to leave it between a woman and her doctor, or, at best, a medical ethics board. There really isn’t any point to anything else. Say you make it illegal after 30 weeks. The only people seeking to get an abortion that late in the stage will be those who were unable to get one before 30 weeks despite definitely wanting to get one, those whose lives are in danger, and those who are going nuts. The latter two are obviously a medical, not a legal, problem, and the first only occurs where there’s lack of abortion access.

There really aren’t any women carrying fetuses around for 32 weeks just ‘cuz and now they’re going to get an abortion because ho-hum.

So regulation and restriction on abortion as a serious medical procedure makes sense, but there is no sense in criminalizing it at all.

It is the treatment of abortion as something other than a medical procedure, as some sort of illicit activity, that is what separates America from so much of the rest of the First World. The segregation, whether implicit or implied, of abortion from regular medicine has allowed the argument that it should be regulated in a more restrictive manner.

42 wrenchwench  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:13:17pm

re: #40 ElCapitanAmerica

Totally missed my point.

Which you anticipated in your comment, so maybe you knew the analogy should have been avoided.

43 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:15:27pm

re: #31 ElCapitanAmerica

No one has ever shown me any valid reason for any restriction on it. Between a patient and her doctor & the government simply needs to STFU & STFD.

44 blueraven  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:15:50pm

re: #37 wrenchwench

What restrictions are needed? No third trimester abortions, except to save the life of the mother? That restriction is already there.

What else is needed?

No abortions for gender selection…again, already against the law.

I would be interested in hearing the other “reasonable restrictions” ElCapitanAmerica thinks are appropriate..

45 GeneJockey  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:16:33pm

re: #31 ElCapitanAmerica

The thing is, those most vocal in opposition to abortion rights also tend to oppose contraception. A couple years ago, I would not have believed this, but the vehemence of the reaction to the contraceptives rule for the ACA clarified it considerably.

The best way to reduce abortion is to provide affordable contraception and the education that goes with it. That’s a lot of what Planned Parenthood does, so the most effective thing opponents of abortion could do would be to support Planned Parenthood, or the equivalent. They could even set up an equivalent that provided all the same services, except that one - fund it with all the money they spend fighting reproductive rights.

That they don’t tells you a lot about their motivation. If you still don’t grasp their motivation, go suggest to a Pro-Lifer the idea I’ve just outlined. You’ll get a quick education.

46 Lidane  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:17:00pm

re: #40 ElCapitanAmerica

Totally missed my point.

Not at all.

Comparing gun control to abortion makes no sense. Guns are not part of a man’s body. It is not a man’s body or his autonomy at stake when we debate guns. It’s a terrible analogy.

47 kirkspencer  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:19:02pm

re: #32 kirkspencer

And having said that…

I used to be someone who agreed with the idea there should be some restrictions on abortions - no very late term abortions being the most typical. Two things changed my mind.

Thing one, I was often in Wichita in the summer of 1991 (aka summer of mercy). After experiencing the venom of the “merciful ones”, it became clear that there was no compromise to their position. It is hard to hold anything like a discussion when the other side holds an absolute decision.

Thing two is I’ve become more educated. Thing is, you cannot legally force a person to participate in a medical activity to save another person’s life. You cannot make them share or give blood, you cannot force them to donate a kidney, nothing. Except, apparently and only for some people, when that other person is prenatal.

I’m still bothered by the idea of allowing abortions in the 9th month. I’m bothered because the fetus is viable, and it would be almost as easy to give a C-section. But there are a lot of moral, legal, and practical questions with that - not least: “Who will care for the child?” And because of both experience and legalities I find myself saying that if the other side insists on zero compromise, well, so be it.

48 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:21:22pm

re: #41 Targetpractice

It is the treatment of abortion as something other than a medical procedure, as some sort of illicit activity, that is what separates America from so much of the rest of the First World. The segregation, whether implicit or implied, of abortion from regular medicine has allowed the argument that it should be regulated in a more restrictive manner.

It is a category error —- a medical procedure is being dealt with in provisions of the criminal law.

49 blueraven  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:21:31pm

re: #46 Lidane

Not at all.

Comparing gun control to abortion makes no sense. Guns are not part of a man’s body. It is not a man’s body or his autonomy at stake when we debate guns. It’s a terrible analogy.

Also a man does not have to feed, clothe, care for and educate that gun for the next 18 years, at the least. They dont have to take it to the doctor, find day care so they can work…it is ridiculous to compare the responsibility of having a child to that of owning a gun even with the caveats.

50 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:27:18pm

re: #47 kirkspencer

…
Thing two is I’ve become more educated. Thing is, you cannot legally force a person to participate in a medical activity to save another person’s life. You cannot make them share or give blood, you cannot force them to donate a kidney, nothing. Except, apparently and only for some people, when that other person is prenatal.

…

To add to this point, consent is required to take organs from the dead. Thus, the RWNJ position on abortion arguably gives women less rights than corpses.

51 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:27:25pm

re: #37 wrenchwench

What restrictions are needed? No third trimester abortions, except to save the life of the mother? That restriction is already there.

What else is needed?

I often wondered if we’ve settled, even scientifically, when “life” starts. I don’t really get why this debate gets charged with so much religious sentiment, when there’s some fundamental questions we need to settle at the scientific level.

For example, have we really settled more strict criteria on when life starts? This whole debate kind of needs that, and sometimes you hear of viability, but viability has nothing to do with life as technology allows premature babies to live earlier and earlier than before. Additionally, we don’t consider sick people that need medicine and technology (and are not “viable”) not not be alive.

Let’s narrow it down, let’s say cognition equals life, we know fetuses reach different levels of cognition while inside the womb. However, we don’t know much of how self aware they are at the different stages. I think there’s a general consensus that pain can be felt by a fetus in the 3rd trimester, the inability to feel pain doesn’t mean you are not a cognitive being that has some level of self awareness.

So what I’m saying is, sometimes more than talking about the legislative part of this issue more work needs to be done on defining these things so we can guide the ethics of it, and I still feel there’s too much we don’t know and we keep arguing about an aspect of humanity we don’t and should know more about.

We have this idea that the 3rd trimester is it, but as always one would reasonably understand that this is not always the case and there’s probably at least some range around that time period that should be better understood, and questioning it or looking for more answers on it shouldn’t be seen as an attack against women, but a necessary duty to understand what life means.

52 Targetpractice  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:28:59pm

Perhaps the reason that there are no “reasonable” discussions on abortion is that one side has made clear their final goal is a total ban on abortions. Their means of reaching that in recent decades has been to chip away at the laws, passing increasingly restrictive laws in the name of “safety” and “women’s health.” Or, as we’ve seen in the last couple years, they’ve ceased arguing that it’s for the health of the woman and instead now using junk science to argue the “welfare of the child.”

53 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:29:13pm

re: #43 William Barnett-Lewis

No one has ever shown me any valid reason for any restriction on it. Between a patient and her doctor & the government simply needs to STFU & STFD.

But we already have restrictions on abortions as pointed out by many posters here, are you saying you are against all restrictions, against some of the existing restrictions, or against new restrictions in addition to the ones we have?

54 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:30:54pm

re: #51 ElCapitanAmerica

98% of all abortions take place within the first 20 weeks, though. The problem, if there is one, of late-term abortion— which I wrote at length about above, and you seem to have skipped over— is not one shared by the vast majority of abortions.

Did you read my post?

55 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:30:54pm

re: #46 Lidane

Not at all.

Comparing gun control to abortion makes no sense. Guns are not part of a man’s body. It is not a man’s body or his autonomy at stake when we debate guns. It’s a terrible analogy.

I’m not comparing guns to reproduction, I’m comparing that both sides use the slippery slope arguments that make it sound like any law/restriction is just and ends to a total ban.

I mean, you can keep saying how guns are not part of the body, a ridiculous argument that nobody is proposing (at least not here), or maybe I can find a better slippery slope analogy so we can move on.

56 blueraven  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:31:05pm

re: #51 ElCapitanAmerica

The problem is, when life begins has no set scientific method. So republicans have been trying to define this as “at conception” for years. Hell even before conception for many, as they are opposed to the morning after pill and some other BC methods.

57 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:32:08pm

re: #53 ElCapitanAmerica

But we already have restrictions on abortions as pointed out by many posters here, are you saying you are against all restrictions, against some of the existing restrictions, or against new restrictions in addition to the ones we have?

Clear it all out. I can’t think of any useful purpose served by abortion laws that can’t better be dealt with via medical ethics.

58 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:33:26pm

re: #56 blueraven

The problem is, when life begins has no set scientific method. So republicans have been trying to define this as “at conception” for years. Hell even before conception for many, as they are opposed to the morning after pill and some other BC methods.

It particularly amuses me that religious dogma on when life begins has _evolved_ over time, as abortion became a political issue.

59 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:33:42pm

re: #53 ElCapitanAmerica

None are needed. It’s medical procedure. Period.

60 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:35:06pm

re: #56 blueraven

The problem is, when life begins has no set scientific method. So republicans have been trying to define this as “at conception” for years. Hell even before conception for many, as they are opposed to the morning after pill and some other BC methods.

But not everybody believes life beings at conception, however I don’t think we’ve settled that “life begins exactly at the start of the 3rd trimester”. There’s some people that think that life beings when you are born, however that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be working towards a better definition.

I see some people object to focusing on this saying late term abortions are rare, I don’t know how that diminishes the argument that we’re not taking care of the fundamental question. What is life and when does it begin?

61 Targetpractice  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:35:10pm

re: #51 ElCapitanAmerica

Goes to my argument above, one side sees “life” as something that begins at conception, that a being has been created and thus abortion at any point after that is tantamount to murder. They have latched onto arguments about “fetal pain” and “heartbeat” because all proposals to define life as beginning at conception run into the reality that they’d be making various forms of birth control as well as IVF illegal. But their ultimate goal is such a law for the purpose of outlawing abortion on the grounds of protecting that “life.”

62 klys  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:35:43pm

re: #51 ElCapitanAmerica

If the goal of restriction on abortion is to save a life, which seems to be what you’re saying with this whole discussion of when life begins, I’m going to guess you’d also like a reasonable discussion over compulsory organ and marrow donation?

63 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:36:01pm

re: #59 William Barnett-Lewis

None are needed. It’s medical procedure. Period.

So you believe abortion should be legal/allowed with no restrictions up to and right up to the second before birth?

64 wrenchwench  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:38:09pm

re: #51 ElCapitanAmerica

re: #51 ElCapitanAmerica

So what I’m saying is, sometimes more than talking about the legislative part of this issue more work needs to be done on defining these things so we can guide the ethics of it, and I still feel there’s too much we don’t know and we keep arguing about an aspect of humanity we don’t and should know more about.

The question is not one of ‘life’. Nobody says a fertilized egg is not ‘life’. It is alive from the moment of fertilization until death. But it is not a person. that’s where the philosophical discussion lies.

We know that the pregnant person is a person. Why does this not trump the discussion of when the fetus is a person? The point of laws is to protect people, not to ‘guide the ethics’ of anything. When the fetus is viable, it gets protection, but not so much that the woman is allowed to die for the sake of the fetus (unless she opts to do that, which happens).

We have this idea that the 3rd trimester is it, but as always one would reasonably understand that this is not always the case and there’s probably at least some range around that time period that should be better understood, and questioning it or looking for more answers on it shouldn’t be seen as an attack against women, but a necessary duty to understand what life means.

Women are under attack. You can look for more answers about what life means, but it becomes obvious when that search for meaning is part of the attack on women. When it is done not by scientists, but by people who reject science, I know that someone has an agenda against me.

65 GeneJockey  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:38:45pm

re: #51 ElCapitanAmerica

I often wondered if we’ve settled, even scientifically, when “life” starts. I don’t really get why this debate gets charged with so much religious sentiment, when there’s some fundamental questions we need to settle at the scientific level.

Humans are always looking for clear distinctions where they don’t exist. There is no moment ‘when “life” starts’. Spermatozoa and ova are both alive, and human, before they fuse and become diploid. That newly diploid cell is alive, and human, but it’s not really A human yet. That happens over the course of months. Even when we’re born, we’re only partly formed, and take decades to reach maturity.

There is no watershed moment, before which no life exists and after which it does.

66 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:38:49pm

re: #63 ElCapitanAmerica

So you believe abortion should be legal/allowed with no restrictions up to and right up to the second before birth?

Seriously, dude, could you have a gander at my post? An ‘abortion’ at 1 second before birth would just be a delivery. It’s not a scenario that actually occurs.

67 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:38:51pm

re: #62 klys

If the goal of restriction on abortion is to save a life, which seems to be what you’re saying with this whole discussion of when life begins, I’m going to guess you’d also like a reasonable discussion over compulsory organ and marrow donation?

That sounds like an interesting discussion, but to be honest I don’t see it even remotely related to what I’m discussing … I’m not arguing for active policies to save all lives (a nice goal, btw) I’m just pointing out that at least for me, I find the definition of life and when it begins incomplete and it seems like a fundamental question that needs to be researched more to continue the “abortion debate”.

I’m also not saying we should outlaw anything while we seek those answers, and I do like some of the ideas that people propose to “lower abortions”, those goals should be shared by most and sadly they’re not.

68 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:39:09pm

re: #65 GeneJockey

We don’t even have a definition of life that works.

69 blueraven  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:39:27pm

re: #58 EPR-radar

It particularly amuses me that religious dogma on when life begins has _evolved_ over time, as abortion became a political issue.

As a mother who loves my children more than I could even imagine, I get the uncomfortable feeling that abortion brings about for some. That is fine. I dont like abortion. I wish it was unnecessary. But…it is necessary, and I will fight for that right for my daughter with all my being.


The Right has not compromised one little bit. If they had worked as hard to prevent unwanted pregnancy, sex education and more access to BC, as they have to undermine roe v wade, we might have fewer abortions today.

70 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:39:49pm

re: #67 ElCapitanAmerica

When life begins really doesn’t matter. The placenta is just as ‘alive’ as the fetus, by any measure except for cognition.

71 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:40:00pm

re: #63 ElCapitanAmerica

So you believe abortion should be legal/allowed with no restrictions up to and right up to the second before birth?

Why do you think laws over and above normal medical ethics are necessary to prevent these imaginary cases of abortion for the hell of it during labor?

72 GeneJockey  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:41:05pm

re: #68 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

We don’t even have a definition of life that works.

Humans love definitions, and categories, and watershed moments, but nature generally doesn’t work that way.

73 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:42:10pm

re: #63 ElCapitanAmerica

Yes.

74 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:42:26pm

re: #64 wrenchwench

re: #51 ElCapitanAmerica

The question is not one of ‘life’. Nobody says a fertilized egg is not ‘life’. It is alive from the moment of fertilization until death. But it is not a person. that’s where the philosophical discussion lies.

Good point, I’m going to continue to say “life” or “alive” because the term personhood has a lot of political baggage, but I get your point, and hopefully you get mine (a human being that is alive and has rights?).

We know that the pregnant person is a person. Why does this not trump the discussion of when the fetus is a person? The point of laws is to protect people, not to ‘guide the ethics’ of anything. When the fetus is viable, it gets protection, but not so much that the woman is allowed to die for the sake of the fetus (unless she opts to do that, which happens).

I have issues with using “viability” as a reference point to defining a human life, and his/her rights. Specially when viability keeps being a moving target due to technology.

Women are under attack. You can look for more answers about what life means, but it becomes obvious when that search for meaning is part of the attack on women. When it is done not by scientists, but by people who reject science, I know that someone has an agenda against me.

Agreed. So what I’m saying is people should focus and agree more on the scientific basis of this, not drive the research, but use those findings to guide policy, ethics, etc.

75 Targetpractice  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:43:04pm

re: #72 GeneJockey

Humans love definitions, and categories, and watershed moments, but nature generally doesn’t work that way.

Indeed not. A single cell is every bit as “alive” as an old man. A fetal pig is every bit as “alive” as a fetal human. Even if one wishes to argue instead something like cognition, of when a mass of developing flesh develops a consciousness, again there is no set timeline. There is no definitive point at which the brain lights up and a “life” is created.

76 Lidane  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:43:12pm

re: #67 ElCapitanAmerica

When life begins doesn’t matter.

The question you should be asking is whether or not you trust a woman to make her own decisions about her body and her life.

77 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:43:33pm

re: #67 ElCapitanAmerica

That sounds like an interesting discussion, but to be honest I don’t see it even remotely related to what I’m discussing … I’m not arguing for active policies to save all lives (a nice goal, btw) I’m just pointing out that at least for me, I find the definition of life and when it begins incomplete and it seems like a fundamental question that needs to be researched more to continue the “abortion debate”.

I’m also not saying we should outlaw anything while we seek those answers, and I do like some of the ideas that people propose to “lower abortions”, those goals should be shared by most and sadly they’re not.

FWIW, I see this definition of life issue as having essentially zero relevance. For the sake of argument, I’ll concede the fetus is a living person. If so, by what right does it occupy the mother’s body for nine months and use it for life support (if it is against her will)?

This argument (violinist argument) has been around for decades.

78 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:43:54pm

re: #74 ElCapitanAmerica

Hey, the scientific basis of ‘when life begins’ is never going to be answered, for reasons already given. We don’t have, and never will have, a firm definition of ‘life’. We do have a definition of what a human is, and it involves cognition.

Are you really just skipping all my posts? I realize you’re talking to a lot of people, but it’s a little odd.

79 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:43:59pm

re: #71 EPR-radar

Why do you think laws over and above normal medical ethics are necessary to prevent these imaginary cases of abortion for the hell of it during labor?

I haven’t really talked about laws, sure call it “medical ethics”, same points I’m making apply. Not sure why you get that impression …

80 klys  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:46:44pm

re: #67 ElCapitanAmerica

That sounds like an interesting discussion, but to be honest I don’t see it even remotely related to what I’m discussing … I’m not arguing for active policies to save all lives (a nice goal, btw) I’m just pointing out that at least for me, I find the definition of life and when it begins incomplete and it seems like a fundamental question that needs to be researched more to continue the “abortion debate”.

I’m also not saying we should outlaw anything while we seek those answers, and I do like some of the ideas that people propose to “lower abortions”, those goals should be shared by most and sadly they’re not.

Bodily autonomy. You cannot force someone to donate bone marrow to save a life, even if they are the only match - and someone who needs a bone marrow transplant is unquestionably alive. What makes the embryo/fetus worthy of special protection that a woman can be forced to donate her body (which is not something that comes without risk to her) when denying a bone marrow transplant for a living person, even if they will die as a result, is acceptable?

Really, when life begins doesn’t matter at all.

81 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:47:20pm

re: #78 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

Hey, the scientific basis of ‘when life begins’ is never going to be answered, for reasons already given. We don’t have, and never will have, a firm definition of ‘life’. We do have a definition of what a human is, and it involves cognition.

Are you really just skipping all my posts? I realize you’re talking to a lot of people, but it’s a little odd.

I thought I answered one … yeah, there’s a lot of replies, don’t take it personally.

I did make a point about cognition, let me use that word instead of “life” which I see why people are having problems with.

I used to study cognitive science when I was researching AI in Computer Science (before I became frustrated with the state of AI), and it’s a well developed science with one little problem; we still don’t know how the human mind really works (hence why we can’t synthesize it). But I don’t think we have a good foundation or even enough people defining when cognition is reached by a fetus, and I think the argument sometimes get distracted by “pain” and “viability” which again I don’t think define cognition at all.

82 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:47:42pm

re: #79 ElCapitanAmerica

I haven’t really talked about laws, sure call it “medical ethics”, same points I’m making apply. Not sure why you get that impression …

Big difference. If a law is involved (e.g., an abortion ban with a mother’s life exception), then someone has to prove the threat to the mothers life before it can proceed. How bad does the sepsis have to be before it is legally ‘life-threatening’? and other odious questions arise.

On the other hand, medical ethics are included in the “between the woman and her doctor” ideal, since the doctor is always bound by those ethics.

83 Decatur Deb  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:49:27pm

There is still a language problem with “when life starts”. It started (probably) in the primordial soup. This discussion is really about “when does an individual with individual human rights start?”

84 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:49:37pm

re: #80 klys

Bodily autonomy. You cannot force someone to donate bone marrow to save a life, even if they are the only match - and someone who needs a bone marrow transplant is unquestionably alive. What makes the embryo/fetus worthy of special protection that a woman can be forced to donate her body (which is not something that comes without risk to her) when denying a bone marrow transplant for a living person, even if they will die as a result, is acceptable?

Really, when life begins doesn’t matter at all.

OK I get your point, I was thinking of something else (kind of a social responsibility to save lives).

But bone marrow is not a cognitive being, that’s kind of the big difference. A fetus is attached to a woman, but the whole debate is around when that fetus becomes a human being with rights; which is why people talk about viability, but like I mentioned, viability keeps moving earlier and earlier, so that’s an argument that I think even pro-abortion rights people are not comfortable with.

85 wrenchwench  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:50:20pm

re: #74 ElCapitanAmerica

Good point, I’m going to continue to say “life” or “alive” because the term personhood has a lot of political baggage, but I get your point, and hopefully you get mine (a human being that is alive and has rights?).

You can’t avoid the political baggage by avoiding the word. You can’t give rights to the fetus without taking rights away from women.

I have issues with using “viability” as a reference point to defining a human life, and his/her rights. Specially when viability keeps being a moving target due to technology.

That target is not moving as much as you imply. Very premature babies suffer greatly, sometimes for their entire lives.

Agreed. [with this:

Women are under attack. You can look for more answers about what life means, but it becomes obvious when that search for meaning is part of the attack on women. When it is done not by scientists, but by people who reject science, I know that someone has an agenda against me.]

So what I’m saying is people should focus and agree more on the scientific basis of this, not drive the research, but use those findings to guide policy, ethics, etc.

You response does not indicate agreement. The guide for policy and ethics should be based on the autonomy of women, not on the science of reproduction.

86 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:51:09pm

re: #82 EPR-radar

Big difference. If a law is involved (e.g., an abortion ban with a mother’s life exception), then someone has to prove the threat to the mothers life before it can proceed. How bad does the sepsis have to be before it is legally ‘life-threatening’? and other odious questions arise.

On the other hand, medical ethics are included in the “between the woman and her doctor” ideal, since the doctor is always bound by those ethics.

Fair point, that’s one of the better explanations I’ve seen to the “between a woman and her doctor” explanations. I’m kind of not talking about laws right now, so I think what I’m asking/talking about would apply to ethics or laws … the fundamental questions still stand.

87 klys  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:52:07pm

re: #84 ElCapitanAmerica

OK I get your point, I was thinking of something else (kind of a social responsibility to save lives).

But bone marrow is not a cognitive being, that’s kind of the big difference. A fetus is attached to a woman, but the whole debate is around when that fetus becomes a human being with rights; which is why people talk about viability, but like I mentioned, viability keeps moving earlier and earlier, so that’s an argument that I think even pro-abortion rights people are not comfortable with.

The person receiving the bone marrow donation - the one who will die without the donation - is a cognitive being. A human being. With rights. But their rights do not extend to forcing another person to keep them alive.

The bone marrow is merely representative of what the female body is providing for the embryo/fetus.

88 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:54:36pm

re: #81 ElCapitanAmerica

I thought I answered one … yeah, there’s a lot of replies, don’t take it personally.

I did make a point about cognition, let me use that word instead of “life” which I see why people are having problems with.

I used to study cognitive science when I was researching AI in Computer Science (before I became frustrated with the state of AI), and it’s a well developed science with one little problem; we still don’t know how the human mind really works (hence why we can’t synthesize it). But I don’t think we have a good foundation or even enough people defining when cognition is reached by a fetus, and I think the argument sometimes get distracted by “pain” and “viability” which again I don’t think define cognition at all.

Viability is just the Roe standard. I agree it’s a bad one. But ‘life’ is more impossible, literally impossible, to define. Cognition is available to us— we do know, for example, that babies don’t become truly conscious until several months after they’re born. But even the bare minimum of cognition we can be really certain isn’t occurring until about six months in, for absolutely basic-anywhere-human-like cognition.

And again, 98% of abortions occur before 20 weeks. Having restrictions on ‘abortion’ doesn’t make any sense, from the point of view of cognition or of viability or of anything else other than a mystical belief in personhood.

So you’re not actually asking about restrictions on abortion, you’re asking if there should be restrictions on late-term abortion. They really are very different, and different situations apply.

I would challenge you to find any women who are having abortions past 30 weeks for any reasons other than danger to their health, depression or other mental illness, or because they were prevented from attaining one before 30 weeks. In each of these cases except the last, a doctor is the best gatekeeper, rather than the law. The last case of late-term is becoming more and more common because of restrictions, but is still very rare, and the easy fix for it is to increase access to abortions.

Also, you keep asking “Do you think there should be no restrictions” and people keep saying it should be medical ethics, and you seemed to imply that wasn’t any restriction at all. But then you say that you’re not just focusing on laws, so medical ethics would be regulation and restriction. If a clearly depressed woman who two months ago was committed to having the child approaches a doctor for the abortion, no ethical doctor will give her one.

89 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:54:54pm

re: #86 ElCapitanAmerica

Fair point, that’s one of the better explanations I’ve seen to the “between a woman and her doctor” explanations. I’m kind of not talking about laws right now, so I think what I’m asking/talking about would apply to ethics or laws … the fundamental questions still stand.

In abortion debates, I tend to focus narrowly on the question of what (if anything) should be legislated specifically with respect to abortion. That is essentially the only point of possible contention regarding public policy.

90 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:54:55pm

BTW, I expected to be nuclearly blown ure: #87 klys

The person receiving the bone marrow donation - the one who will die without the donation - is a cognitive being. A human being. With rights. But their rights do not extend to forcing another person to keep them alive.

The bone marrow is merely representative of what the female body is providing for the embryo/fetus.

An abortion is a radically different procedure (and action) than not giving bone marrow to another person.

91 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:56:57pm

re: #84 ElCapitanAmerica

But bone marrow is not a cognitive being, that’s kind of the big difference.

No, you don’t understand. Someone, person A, needs person B’s bone marrow to live. We don’t mandate that person B give that marrow. Even if there is a parental relationship.

The fetus, which, if you think it’s a person, is person C, needs far more than person D’s marrow, they need them to provide long-term care and go through all sorts of physical hell, but let’s just consider it equivalent. Why does the fetus, as Person C, have a claim to Person D when person A doesn’t have a claim to person B?

92 klys  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:58:09pm

re: #90 ElCapitanAmerica

BTW, I expected to be nuclearly blown u

An abortion is a radically different procedure (and action) than not giving bone marrow to another person.

I’m interested to hear why you think this.

93 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 3:59:15pm

re: #92 klys

I’m interested to hear why you think this.

Well, i think an abortion is very different than giving bone marrow. But the comparison you’re using is actually between carrying the fetus to term and giving bone marrow.

94 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:00:11pm

re: #88 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

Viability is just the Roe standard. I agree it’s a bad one. But ‘life’ is more impossible, literally impossible, to define. Cognition is available to us— we do know, for example, that babies don’t become truly conscious until several months after they’re born. But even the bare minimum of cognition we can be really certain isn’t occurring until about six months in, for absolutely basic-anywhere-human-like cognition.

And again, 98% of abortions occur before 20 weeks. Having restrictions on ‘abortion’ doesn’t make any sense, from the point of view of cognition or of viability or of anything else other than a mystical belief in personhood.

So you’re not actually asking about restrictions on abortion, you’re asking if there should be restrictions on late-term abortion. They really are very different, and different situations apply.

I would challenge you to find any women who are having abortions past 30 weeks for any reasons other than danger to their health, depression or other mental illness, or because they were prevented from attaining one before 30 weeks. In each of these cases except the last, a doctor is the best gatekeeper, rather than the law. The last case of late-term is becoming more and more common because of restrictions, but is still very rare, and the easy fix for it is to increase access to abortions.

Also, you keep asking “Do you think there should be no restrictions” and people keep saying it should be medical ethics, and you seemed to imply that wasn’t any restriction at all. But then you say that you’re not just focusing on laws, so medical ethics would be regulation and restriction. If a clearly depressed woman who two months ago was committed to having the child approaches a doctor for the abortion, no ethical doctor will give her one.

Dude, that’s a good but long reply, then you say I’m ignoring your posts … I just can’t keep up! :-)

I get that late term abortions are rare, and that most cases (all?) people don’t do them for the fun of it. However, call me obstinate, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the best possible definitions of when that cognitive human being in the womb has rights as an individual (my best attempt to not say “life”/”alive”, for now).

I’m glad you agree that viability is not a good standard, so part of the discussion is just what is a good standard or should there be one at all? I don’t know what a better standard is, but I’m interested in finding out.

Last paragraph is against ethics vs laws, I’ll be honest I haven’t really been focusing too much into that. I see the argument for ethical standards, I’m not sure how they dictate that there can’t be *any* laws, like we already have some. That’s why I was asking if people were against current restrictions, and a lot of those who responded were clear they’re against them.

95 GeneJockey  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:00:42pm

re: #90 ElCapitanAmerica

An abortion is a radically different procedure (and action) than not giving bone marrow to another person.

Look at it the other way - being forced to give carry to term and give birth is a much bigger deal than giving bone marrow. That’s what we’re talking about - what may we force one person to do for another?

96 Targetpractice  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:00:58pm

re: #84 ElCapitanAmerica

OK I get your point, I was thinking of something else (kind of a social responsibility to save lives).

But bone marrow is not a cognitive being, that’s kind of the big difference. A fetus is attached to a woman, but the whole debate is around when that fetus becomes a human being with rights; which is why people talk about viability, but like I mentioned, viability keeps moving earlier and earlier, so that’s an argument that I think even pro-abortion rights people are not comfortable with.

Women right’s advocates are not comfortable with the argument that there’s a set point after which a woman’s body ceases being her own and she becomes little more than a walking incubator. Setting a point-of-no-return at 20 weeks, and saying to pregnant women past that point “Sorry, that’s a person you got there, you’re in for the duration” is stripping them of their rights.

97 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:01:29pm

re: #90 ElCapitanAmerica

…

An abortion is a radically different procedure (and action) than not giving bone marrow to another person.

Let’s turn things around here. What would you like to seen enacted into the law regarding abortion, and what would be the basis for these laws? You can assume any answer you please to your life questions, if that simplifies the response.

98 klys  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:01:55pm

re: #93 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

Well, i think an abortion is very different than giving bone marrow. But the comparison you’re using is actually between carrying the fetus to term and giving bone marrow.

re: #95 GeneJockey

Look at it the other way - being forced to give carry to term and give birth is a much bigger deal than giving bone marrow. That’s what we’re talking about - what may we force one person to do for another?

Said it better than I did. I appreciate the distinctions.

99 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:03:05pm

re: #94 ElCapitanAmerica

I get that late term abortions are rare, and that most cases (all?) people don’t do them for the fun of it. However, call me obstinate, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the best possible definitions of when that cognitive human being in the womb has rights as an individual (my best attempt to not say “life”/”alive”, for now).

I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t have the best possible definition, though. I have no clue why you think I am. I just don’t think it’ll change anything about policy when we do. It’ll still be best to leave it between women and their doctors.

I’m glad you agree that viability is not a good standard, so part of the discussion is just what is a good standard or should there be one at all? I don’t know what a better standard is, but I’m interested in finding out.

Why do you keep ignoring people saying the standard should be what’s determined between the mother and the doctor to be ethical?

Last paragraph is against ethics vs laws, I’ll be honest I haven’t really been focusing too much into that. I see the argument for ethical standards, I’m not sure how they dictate that there can’t be *any* laws, like we already have some. That’s why I was asking if people were against current restrictions, and a lot of those who responded were clear they’re against them.

You’ve lost me. You just said you weren’t necessarily talking about laws:

I’m kind of not talking about laws right now, so I think what I’m asking/talking about would apply to ethics or laws … the fundamental questions still stand.

So are you or not talking about laws?

100 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:05:34pm

re: #91 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

No, you don’t understand. Someone, person A, needs person B’s bone marrow to live. We don’t mandate that person B give that marrow. Even if there is a parental relationship.

The fetus, which, if you think it’s a person, is person C, needs far more than person D’s marrow, they need them to provide long-term care and go through all sorts of physical hell, but let’s just consider it equivalent. Why does the fetus, as Person C, have a claim to Person D when person A doesn’t have a claim to person B?

OK, let me tweak it and see if I can state my objection or if I’m screwing up what both of you are trying to say.

Take away the bone marrow, say person B needs food. Person A has a parental relationship to person B, we wouldn’t agree that it’s good for person A to NOT feed person B … that is if we agree person B has rights and is a person, which is dependent on A.

Let’s say that’s an unfair modification to what you are laying out, from a more biological point of view, abortion is an invasive procedure. In your comparison person B doesn’t get the bone marrow transplant that person is going to die of natural causes.

In the abortion scenario, you actually have to “kill” person B, you just don’t let the fetus stay in and hope it dies you have to actively do something to make that happen. Which is why I don’t see why it’s a good comparison …

101 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:09:19pm

re: #100 ElCapitanAmerica

OK, let me tweak it and see if I can state my objection or if I’m screwing up what both of you are trying to say.

Take away the bone marrow, say person B needs food.

No, I won’t. person B doesn’t need food. Person B needs far more than food, they need something that could potentially kill them.

Your analogy completely and utterly fails immediately, because you just compared carrying a fetus to term and delivering it, something which is still, in this day and age, killing one out of ever 4,800 women in the US. It causes permanent physical harm to an order of magnitude greater women.

It is not, at all, in any way, comparable to providing food. Not from the standpoint of the woman, or of the fetus.

Do you understand?

102 Lidane  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:09:45pm

re: #100 ElCapitanAmerica

Take away the bone marrow, say person B needs food. Person A has a parental relationship to person B, we wouldn’t agree that it’s good for person A to NOT feed person B … that is if we agree person B has rights and is a person, which is dependent on A.

Except that a parent handing an apple or a sandwich to a child to feed them is radically different from the relationship between a pregnant woman and the fetus she’s carrying. Try and figure out why.

103 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:10:07pm

re: #99 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

You’ve lost me. You just said you weren’t necessarily talking about laws:

So are you or not talking about laws?

I do think that it’s more important to have a better definition/standard beyond viability. I think that would affect ethics and yes laws. What I was saying earlier is that I wasn’t focusing on laws, but of course what I’m saying would inform laws/ethics.

BTW, I don’t disagree with the current restriction on 3rd trimester abortions with an exception for life of the mother. I’m a bit surprised it seems I’m in the minority (only one) even on that one point, because most of you are suggesting that shouldn’t even be in the law.

104 klys  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:13:25pm

re: #100 ElCapitanAmerica

OK, let me tweak it and see if I can state my objection or if I’m screwing up what both of you are trying to say.

Take away the bone marrow, say person B needs food. Person A has a parental relationship to person B, we wouldn’t agree that it’s good for person A to NOT feed person B … that is if we agree person B has rights and is a person, which is dependent on A.

Let’s say that’s an unfair modification to what you are laying out, from a more biological point of view, abortion is an invasive procedure. In your comparison person B doesn’t get the bone marrow transplant that person is going to die of natural causes.

In the abortion scenario, you actually have to “kill” person B, you just don’t let the fetus stay in and hope it dies you have to actively do something to make that happen. Which is why I don’t see why it’s a good comparison …

Without what it gets from the woman’s body, the embryo/fetus would die naturally.

I support the right of women to decide that they do not want to put their body through the risks of pregnancy. Just like we support the right of people to decide that they do not want to donate their organs even when they are dying and it has no impact on their future quality of life - despite what this means for people waiting for organ transplants. And those people waiting for organ transplants are undeniably alive.

That is why the debate over when ‘life’ begins has no meaning for me in this argument.

105 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:13:30pm

re: #101 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

No, I won’t. person B doesn’t need food. Person B needs far more than food, they need something that could potentially kill them.

Your analogy completely and utterly fails immediately, because you just compared carrying a fetus to term and delivering it, something which is still, in this day and age, killing one out of ever 4,800 women in the US. It causes permanent physical harm to an order of magnitude greater women.

It is not, at all, in any way, comparable to providing food. Not from the standpoint of the woman, or of the fetus.

Do you understand?

Reply applies to Lidane too;

Geez, I’m not comparing feeding a kid with giving birth to one, but somebody else brought up the bone marrow transplant analogy. Why didn’t either of you object that donating bone marrow doesn’t compare AT ALL to giving birth (which I , as a man can do one and not the other???).

What I mean that poster was making a point about a donation that somebody would have to be forced to do, and applying biology to it, and I think that’s a weak argument because people also depend on others to provide things that are not in their body to survive.

At the end of the day, the person that needs the bone marrow transplant will die of natural causes (person B), without anybody actively doing a procedure that kills that person. Not the case with abortion at all.

106 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:14:57pm

And with that, I have to head out. Thanks for a respectful and positive (at least for me) discussion on this topic. I’ll read some of the other replies once I get back …

107 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:15:04pm

re: #63 ElCapitanAmerica

So you believe abortion should be legal/allowed with no restrictions up to and right up to the second before birth?

Here we go again.

108 klys  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:15:42pm

re: #107 Vicious Babushka

Here we go again.

Did you save me a slice of pie?

109 sagehen  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:15:44pm

re: #94 ElCapitanAmerica

However, call me obstinate, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the best possible definitions of when that cognitive human being in the womb has rights as an individual (my best attempt to not say “life”/”alive”, for now).

I’m glad you agree that viability is not a good standard, so part of the discussion is just what is a good standard or should there be one at all? I don’t know what a better standard is, but I’m interested in finding out.

We *do* have a standard definition, we use that standard in hospitals every day to determine when is the end of a human life. Brain activity, it’s a person. No brain activity, it’s a package of parts that can be removed and passed around to others.

110 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:17:54pm

re: #103 ElCapitanAmerica

I do think that it’s more important to have a better definition/standard beyond viability. I think that would affect ethics and yes laws..

Again, most of the research on cognition shows that babies don’t attain what we’d classify as ‘consciousness’ until after birth. So what if that’s true? What if even a one month old baby isn’t technically humanly conscious? Cognition has just as much of a problem with it as viability, really. There is not one firm moment where you become conscious or cognitively aware; it is obviously something that happens on a continuum.

BTW, I don’t disagree with the current restriction on 3rd trimester abortions with an exception for life of the mother. I’m a bit surprised it seems I’m in the minority (only one) even on that one point, because most of you are suggesting that shouldn’t even be in the law

Tell me what the point of criminalizing it is. Let’s say there is some evil, evil woman out there who wants to get an abortion because she suddenly decided, after 7 months of enduring pregnancy, that she doesn’t want one because she wants to go to Aruba. Whatever. I’m not sure such a woman has ever existed, but let’s say she does.

In the world where acquiring such an abortion is flatly illegal, she’ll find a back-alley abortionist to do it. Or she might try some ‘home remedy’. or she’ll be too scared to and have the baby and be an absolute shit to it.

In the world where acquiring such an abortion is legal, but under the control of medical ethics, a doctor would almost certainly be too worried that she was mentally disturbed in some way to give her the abortion. She would find a back-alley abortionist, or a legally-practicing one who was known to lack ethics. Or she’d be too afraid and have the kid and be an absolute shit to it.

There seems to be some idea that by criminalizing it we would reduce the number. This might be true, it might not. To me, I think that you might wind up with fewer abortions in a world where it was entirely left between woman and doctor because more women who were just depressed got the care they need since they sought out their doctor, whereas in the criminalized world a woman at that stage would know it was illegal and so would seek out an unethical or criminal doctor. So there’s also reason to believe criminalizing late-term abortions increases the number of them that occur, along with the number of suicides in women.

111 klys  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:18:04pm

re: #109 sagehen

We *do* have a standard definition, we use that standard in hospitals every day to determine when is the end of a human life. Brain activity, it’s a person. No brain activity, it’s a package of parts that can be removed and passed around to others*.

* With either the person’s prior expressed consent (like signing the organ donation on the driver’s license) or the consent of the family.

112 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:18:09pm

re: #109 sagehen

We *do* have a standard definition, we use that standard in hospitals every day to determine when is the end of a human life. Brain activity, it’s a person. No brain activity, it’s a package of parts that can be removed and passed around to others.

Argh … I really have to go.

That’s a simplistic “standard” (and not used, viability is currently), low level (primitive) brain activity starts around the 6th week

OK, really out now …

113 Targetpractice  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:18:51pm

The “ethics” business is a rather pointless bit. It would not be ethical for a doctor to override his patient’s decision based upon an artificial construct, namely a legal definition of when life/viability/cognition begins. If his patient wishes to terminate her pregnancy and he does not feel comfortable with doing so, then he should refer her to a doctor who will perform the procedure and move on. It is her decision, not his, and giving him that power is by no means ethical or right.

114 wrenchwench  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:19:02pm

re: #103 ElCapitanAmerica

I do think that it’s more important to have a better definition/standard beyond viability. I think that would affect ethics and yes laws. What I was saying earlier is that I wasn’t focusing on laws, but of course what I’m saying would inform laws/ethics.

BTW, I don’t disagree with the current restriction on 3rd trimester abortions with an exception for life of the mother. I’m a bit surprised it seems I’m in the minority (only one) even on that one point, because most of you are suggesting that shouldn’t even be in the law.

If all the law said was that a woman must consult with a doctor before obtaining an abortion, why would restrictions be needed? A doctor is not going to abort a deliverable baby without a really good reason. And if a woman is asking for that, a doctor will get her the help she really needs, some mental health care.

I do think that it’s more important to have a better definition/standard beyond viability.

I get that you think ‘viability’ is too imprecise, and its definition may change faster than laws do. But I don’t get why the standard need to be based on the fetus. Shouldn’t the standard be based on the undisputed personhood of the woman involved?

115 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:20:12pm

re: #108 klys

Did you save me a slice of pie?

I put it out on the buffet table this morning.

116 klys  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:20:57pm

re: #114 wrenchwench

I get that you think ‘viability’ is too imprecise, and its definition may change faster than laws do. But I don’t get why the standard need to be based on the fetus. Shouldn’t the standard be based on the undisputed personhood of the woman involved?

BUT BABIES!!!!1

And to be fair, that’s not where this discussion is, but that’s to some extent the underlying assumption. Either we have a right to bodily autonomy or not. If we do, then abortion is the decision of the woman, preferably in conjunction with the father and the advice of her doctor. If not, I am all about setting up compulsory organ donations.

117 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:23:15pm

re: #105 ElCapitanAmerica

Reply applies to Lidane too;

Geez, I’m not comparing feeding a kid with giving birth to one.

Yes, you did. The comparison between bone marrow and giving birth is workable, if limited, for these reasons:

1. Both things are medical procedures
2. Both things carry limited, but significant risk to health and life.

Giving someone food does neither.

Do you understand?

At the end of the day, the person that needs the bone marrow transplant will die of natural causes (person B), without anybody actively doing a procedure that kills that person. Not the case with abortion at all.

Why does the procedure being active or inactive matter from a standpoint of ethics or anything? I don’t follow.

118 GeneJockey  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:23:36pm

re: #116 klys

BUT BABIES ZYGOTES!!!!1

FTFY - they don’t give a crap about actual babies.

119 klys  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:24:49pm

re: #118 GeneJockey

FTFY - they don’t give a crap about actual babies.

True enough.

One of my girlfriends just had her first - he’s six months old now. Kind of adorable. Reminds me why I am perfectly happy to hand them all back off after about 5 minutes.

She asked me if I was really sure and it’s like yes, yes I am.

120 wrenchwench  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:25:15pm

re: #116 klys

And to be fair, that’s not where this discussion is, but that’s to some extent the underlying assumption. Either we have right to bodily autonomy or not. If we do, then abortion is the decision of the woman, preferably in conjunction with the father and the advice of her doctor. If not, I am all about setting up compulsory organ donations.

People want standards so that women are not allowed to make a decision they would disagree with. But that is the woman’s right, or should be.

121 klys  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:29:44pm

re: #120 wrenchwench

People want standards so that women are not allowed to make a decision they would disagree with. But that is the woman’s right, or should be.

I think it can almost be traced back even further: do women have the right to decide when they get pregnant?

I suspect I probably wouldn’t be surprised by the number of people (men in particular) who think the answer to that is no.

122 GeneJockey  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:31:11pm

re: #120 wrenchwench

People want standards so that women are not allowed to make a decision they would disagree with. But that is the woman’s right, or should be.

Which is why I figure my having a Y chromosome instead of another X means I don’t have a dog in the fight, and it’s not my place to tell the double X types what they may and may not do.

123 klys  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:32:33pm

re: #122 GeneJockey

Which is why I figure my having a Y chromosome instead of another X means I don’t have a dog in the fight, and it’s not my place to tell the double X types what they may and may not do.

Your support and common sense approach is still appreciated though.

124 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:34:46pm

re: #113 Targetpractice

The “ethics” business is a rather pointless bit. It would not be ethical for a doctor to override his patient’s decision based upon an artificial construct, namely a legal definition of when life/viability/cognition begins. If his patient wishes to terminate her pregnancy and he does not feel comfortable with doing so, then he should refer her to a doctor who will perform the procedure and move on. It is her decision, not his, and giving him that power is by no means ethical or right.

Not necessarily. If a woman comes to a doctor’s office with a demand to abort a viable fetus for no apparent reason, mindless compliance is not the right answer.

Since I’m not in favor of any laws that would make this illegal, I want medical ethics to be operative here —- it shouldn’t be much of a stretch to find that the doctor’s duty of care extends to a fetus that is clearly medically viable.

125 Targetpractice  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 4:52:59pm

re: #124 EPR-radar

Not necessarily. If a woman comes to a doctor’s office with a demand to abort a viable fetus for no apparent reason, mindless compliance is not the right answer.

Since I’m not in favor of any laws that would make this illegal, I want medical ethics to be operative here —- it shouldn’t be much of a stretch to find that the doctor’s duty of care extends to a fetus that is clearly medically viable.

Fair enough, and pretty much what I was just getting ready to write. No offense to ElCapitan, but what I’m reading is the general “happy middle” argument that I’ve seen on so many other topics. The idea that both sides are equally extreme, equally unreasonable, and thus the way to “solve” the matter is to get them to agree to certain terms that will allow a mutually agreeable conclusion.

Thing is, women’s rights advocates are anything but unreasonable. They disagree, to the point of making it unlawful, with performing late-term abortions except under certain circumstances. Yes, those circumstances are a target for abuse by those whose religious views forbid them from agreeing with an abortion, but the same would be true for an arbitrary point in fetal development when they become a “person.”

The same can’t be said of the “pro-life” crowd, which has set their goal as “no abortions, period,” and worked for decades to that goal. It’s why they obsess with things like “viability” and “fetal pain,” because those are markers that they can use to push the window for legal abortions farther and farther back. And they are not simply set on banning abortion, but also contraceptives and all forms of sexual education that does not begin and end with “Don’t fuck.”

126 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 5:00:28pm

re: #125 Targetpractice

One way I like to look at abortion is as both a political issue and (much less relevant to the usual discussions) as an ethical issue.

Politically, the US anti-choice movement is a bunch of cavemen who want women to be docile, barefoot and pregnant. This is simply a statement of fact. There is no compromise with US anti-choicers, and any/all legislation put forth by anti-choicers can and should be opposed simply because of its source.

Ethically, things are more nuanced. (Which is another reason to keep laws out of the picture. Laws are very blunt instruments.)

127 Jimmah  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 5:01:57pm

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s a fucking concern troll.

128 Targetpractice  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 5:12:31pm

The question asked earlier was should abortion be legal up to the point of birth. The answer is “Yes,” but not because women’s right advocates are evil bastards who don’t care about little babies. It’s because their primary concern is for the living, breathing person whose life should come first. As cruel as it may sound, a woman can have other children or even adopt children who have no parents. Sacrificing her life for a single child is neither ethical nor moral.

129 Charles Johnson  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 6:04:44pm

re: #128 Targetpractice

The question asked earlier was should abortion be legal up to the point of birth. The answer is “Yes,” but not because women’s right advocates are evil bastards who don’t care about little babies. It’s because their primary concern is for the living, breathing person whose life should come first. As cruel as it may sound, a woman can have other children or even adopt children who have no parents. Sacrificing her life for a single child is neither ethical nor moral.

Yes. That’s why anti-choicers will probably call me an extremist, but I would like to see NO LAWS regarding who can have abortions, or when they can have them, or any other condition. We should and can trust women to make this decision responsibly, and in the rare instances where they don’t, there are already mechanisms in place to seek justice.

We can also trust our doctors to act responsibly and ethically. There should be no laws restricting abortion.

130 Charles Johnson  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 6:16:18pm

And to expand a little more, by restricting the availability of abortion, the religious right and the Republican Party are actually creating the conditions that allow people like Kermit Gosnell to exist and flourish. And we know what that looks like, because we’ve been there before.

I was really glad to see Obama making the same point I’ve made many times at LGF, that the social conservative wing of the GOP is trying to roll back all the human rights progress of the past 50 years, and replace it with a religiously-based fantasy agenda.

131 EPR-radar  Fri, Apr 26, 2013 6:27:38pm

re: #130 Charles Johnson

And to expand a little more, by restricting the availability of abortion, the religious right and the Republican Party are actually creating the conditions that allow people like Kermit Gosnell to exist and flourish. And we know what that looks like, because we’ve been there before.

I was really glad to see Obama making the same point I’ve made many times at LGF, that the social conservative wing of the GOP is trying to roll back all the human rights progress of the past 50 years, and replace it with a religiously-based fantasy agenda.

The thriving of lethal abortionist quacks under a regime where abortion is illegal is a feature, not a bug.

Punishment for slutty behavior is required, after all. /// dripping

132 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 12:12:42pm

re: #129 Charles Johnson

Yes. That’s why anti-choicers will probably call me an extremist, but I would like to see NO LAWS regarding who can have abortions, or when they can have them, or any other condition. We should and can trust women to make this decision responsibly, and in the rare instances where they don’t, there are already mechanisms in place to seek justice.

We can also trust our doctors to act responsibly and ethically. There should be no laws restricting abortion.

“there are already mechanisms in place to seek justice”

I think one of those mechanisms is that 3rd trimester abortions are illegal if the life of the mother is not in danger, so I’m a bit confused; you say you’d like to see NO LAWS limiting anything regarding abortion but seem to reference one in the end.

The bit about trusting people to do the right thing confuses me a bit, having laws doesn’t mean that we distrust all people … surely we don’t think most people think murder is a good thing, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a law against it. That’s a bit of libertarian logic that I have some trouble fully understanding …

133 Charles Johnson  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 12:16:08pm

re: #132 ElCapitanAmerica

There’s nothing “libertarian” about this. And no, I was not talking about 3rd trimester laws. I’m sure you can figure it out.

134 Charles Johnson  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 12:16:21pm

re: #127 Jimmah

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s a fucking concern troll.

Yup.

135 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 12:18:41pm

re: #133 Charles Johnson

There’s nothing “libertarian” about this. And no, I was not talking about 3rd trimester laws. I’m sure you can figure it out.

Gotcha. Some people were including that earlier in the discussion though, including the guy that you replied to (Targetpractice). It sounded like you agreed with him, guess not …

136 Charles Johnson  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 12:19:05pm

re: #99 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

Why do you keep ignoring people saying the standard should be what’s determined between the mother and the doctor to be ethical?

I’d say it’s because there’s a very clear agenda at work here, despite the numerous attempts at diverting attention away from it.

137 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 12:31:44pm

re: #136 Charles Johnson

I’d say it’s because there’s a very clear agenda at work here, despite the numerous attempts at diverting attention away from it.

I’d like to know what my agenda is, I thought I was pretty clear on some of this, that I feel frustration that we don’t really know more about or have a clear definition of when “life begins”, which I conceded later that might be better defined as; when the fetus becomes a conscious being/or as somebody said a person with individual rights that may be separate from the mother. I wasn’t really focusing, nor am I interested in laws criminalizing the actions of mothers to be honest, and I’m not against what some say should be “ethical standards” instead of laws that should rule these things.

However, I think it’s clear that even here there’s some fuzziness about if laws have any part in the first place, as you replied to a person who doesn’t think 3rd trimester abortions should be banned by law.

I also have to say, most people responded reasonably, even though I expected to be flamed to hell. However, I noticed today (or last night) my posts started getting a hell of a lot of down votes; which is OK, but the one that got -10 (about if it should be legal to abort a baby up to just before childbirth) …. somebody actually answered with a yes … so to those who down voted it, I’m not sure why you objected to the question when somebody deemed it worthy to reply with their opinion on that matter.

I’ll like to also clarify, somebody was saying I was proposing some “middle ground position”, saying all sides were equally extreme … I said no such thing. I was raising the question about something better than “viability” or “moment of conception” as things that we should put more effort in science to define. That’s not intended as a middle ground of any sorts, it’s intended at a desire to get closer to a science based (not emotional, religious or political) answer. If you see that as a “compromise position”, you are missing the point.

138 moderatelyradicalliberal  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 12:34:46pm

The question isn’t when life begins. The question is under what circumstances should women be forced by law to give birth against their will.

The anti-choicers aren’t pro-life. They are pro-forced birth.

139 klys  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 1:22:26pm

re: #137 ElCapitanAmerica

I’d like to know what my agenda is, I thought I was pretty clear on some of this, that I feel frustration that we don’t really know more about or have a clear definition of when “life begins”, which I conceded later that might be better defined as; when the fetus becomes a conscious being/or as somebody said a person with individual rights that may be separate from the mother. I wasn’t really focusing, nor am I interested in laws criminalizing the actions of mothers to be honest, and I’m not against what some say should be “ethical standards” instead of laws that should rule these things.

[…]

I’ll like to also clarify, somebody was saying I was proposing some “middle ground position”, saying all sides were equally extreme … I said no such thing. I was raising the question about something better than “viability” or “moment of conception” as things that we should put more effort in science to define. That’s not intended as a middle ground of any sorts, it’s intended at a desire to get closer to a science based (not emotional, religious or political) answer. If you see that as a “compromise position”, you are missing the point.

The science based answer means nothing here. We cannot compel someone to donate a portion of their body to support a person who is unequivocally alive and has rights.

You have yet to explain what makes pregnancy different that this should be allowed.

140 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 2:44:09pm

re: #139 klys

The science based answer means nothing here. We cannot compel someone to donate a portion of their body to support a person who is unequivocally alive and has rights.

Yet, today most countries that allow abortion place legal limits around viability, which is an limit “based on science”, although it might not be the most perfect one (and it’s not black and white, and no criteria will ever be binary and deterministic).

You have yet to explain what makes pregnancy different that this should be allowed.

Pregnancy is entirely different than donating a body part to support another person that is not biologically connected and dependent on you. Additionally, and you have said you don’t agree, the act of not donating a body part (1) is very different than actively deciding to terminate a life (2).

(1) In most cases, another person can do it for you. Not so with pregnancy
(2) In one, you omit of doing something and the person dies of natural causes. Abortion is not comparable to that, if you look beyond the end result (death)

141 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 2:46:13pm

re: #138 moderatelyradicalliberal

The question isn’t when life begins. The question is under what circumstances should women be forced by law to give birth against their will.

The anti-choicers aren’t pro-life. They are pro-forced birth.

Many (most) pro-choicers place restrictions on when “should women be forced by law to give birth against their will”, as I don’t see them lobbying to eliminate all restrictions on 3rd trimester or late term abortions.

The reason for it is based on a scientific definition of viability, so you may think it doesn’t matter, but today that’s the criteria that is used.

142 wrenchwench  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 2:54:20pm

re: #137 ElCapitanAmerica

I’ll like to also clarify, somebody was saying I was proposing some “middle ground position”, saying all sides were equally extreme … I said no such thing. I was raising the question about something better than “viability” or “moment of conception” as things that we should put more effort in science to define. That’s not intended as a middle ground of any sorts, it’s intended at a desire to get closer to a science based (not emotional, religious or political) answer. If you see that as a “compromise position”, you are missing the point.

Science can’t answer this one for you.

It really is political. Does the woman have full autonomy or not?

143 klys  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 2:59:33pm

re: #140 ElCapitanAmerica

Yet, today most countries that allow abortion place legal limits around viability, which is an limit “based on science”, although it might not be the most perfect one (and it’s not black and white, and no criteria will ever be binary and deterministic).

Limits placed based on viability tend to exist for ethical reasons.

Pregnancy is entirely different than donating a body part to support another person that is not biologically connected and dependent on you. Additionally, and you have said you don’t agree, the act of not donating a body part (1) is very different than actively deciding to terminate a life (2).

(1) In most cases, another person can do it for you. Not so with pregnancy
(2) In one, you omit of doing something and the person dies of natural causes. Abortion is not comparable to that, if you look beyond the end result (death)

Even if you are the only match for a person and they will die if you deny the donation, there is no way to compel you to do so. No one will file a murder charge against you.

Denying a woman the ability to choose to have an abortion is requiring her to donate her body for the use of the fetus/embryo. You have given no reason why you feel this is reasonable but it would be unreasonable to compel organ and bone marrow donation.

144 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:09:27pm

re: #142 wrenchwench

Science can’t answer this one for you.

It really is political. Does the woman have full autonomy or not?

Viability is determined by what? Science. So I don’t know why you say that.

The existing law makes it so there are clear limits on when you can have a 3rd trimester abortion, are you against those?

145 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:15:51pm

re: #143 klys

Limits placed based on viability tend to exist for ethical reasons.

Even if you are the only match for a person and they will die if you deny the donation, there is no way to compel you to do so. No one will file a murder charge against you.

Denying a woman the ability to choose to have an abortion is requiring her to donate her body for the use of the fetus/embryo. You have given no reason why you feel this is reasonable but it would be unreasonable to compel organ and bone marrow donation.

I have, they’re different. You don’t agree, you think letting somebody die of natural causes is the same as performing an abortion. Not sure why it’s controversial to see the difference between both?

Also, the existing law places limits on abortion today, so it’s already the case that; “Denying a woman the ability to choose to have an abortion is requiring her to donate her body for the use of the fetus/embryo”.

146 wrenchwench  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:18:48pm

re: #144 ElCapitanAmerica

Viability is determined by what? Science. So I don’t know why you say that.

The existing law makes it so there are clear limits on when you can have a 3rd trimester abortion, are you against those?

I think they are unnecessary.

Does the woman have full autonomy or not?

147 klys  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:23:20pm

re: #145 ElCapitanAmerica

I have, they’re different. You don’t agree, you think letting somebody die of natural causes is the same as performing an abortion. Not sure why it’s controversial to see the difference between both?

Also, the existing law places limits on abortion today, so it’s already the case that; “Denying a woman the ability to choose to have an abortion is requiring her to donate her body for the use of the fetus/embryo”.

I have not said that I agree with the current laws on the books. I believe that the decisions should be left to the woman in question and her doctor. I am unaware of any other class of medical decisions that are the subject of such legal scrutiny, and I believe the law should stay out of any of those, because it rarely is capable of addressing the nuances of each individual situation.

You are making differences between the two because you want there to be differences; otherwise the argument you have falls apart. After all, the question of “when life begins” matters very little if you admit that bodily autonomy allows us to make decisions about what is allowed to be done with our own bodies even at the cost of someone who is obviously alive. Essentially, you are saying that a man’s autonomy over his body is absolute but a woman must relinquish hers to the embryo/fetus.

148 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:25:26pm

re: #147 klys

You are making differences between the two because you want there to be differences; otherwise the argument you have falls apart. After all, the question of “when life begins” matters very little if you admit that bodily autonomy allows us to make decisions about what is allowed to be done with our own bodies even at the cost of someone who is obviously alive. Essentially, you are saying that a man’s autonomy over his body is absolute but a woman must relinquish hers to the embryo/fetus.

I’m saying they’re different because I think they’re different.

I also think there’s a big difference between a sentient being inside a human’s body, vs the decision to take out a part of my body to be inserted into somebody else.

149 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:30:20pm

re: #146 wrenchwench

I think they are unnecessary.

Does the woman have full autonomy or not?

And we don’t agree, I do think 3rd trimester abortions should be illegal outside of there being a threat to the life of the mother.

While I think viability is an imperfect answer, it’s at this moment, a better answer than “conception”.

So yes, I think autonomy becomes more restricted as the child grows closer to being a fully developed human.

BTW, I want to point out how there’s quite a bit of people here saying they don’t agree with the current law and that I find it ironic my question about “do you support abortion up until just before childbirth” being voted down so much; when many would answer “yes” to it.

150 Interesting Times  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:36:58pm

re: #149 ElCapitanAmerica

…my question about “do you support abortion up until just before childbirth” being voted down so much; when many would answer “yes” to it.

Because you asked it in a disingenuous, concern-trollish, “do you still beat your wife” tone.

I also think there’s a big difference between a sentient being inside a human’s body, vs the decision to take out a part of my body to be inserted into somebody else.

Why are they different? Can you explain?

151 klys  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:38:30pm

re: #148 ElCapitanAmerica

I’m saying they’re different because I think they’re different.

I also think there’s a big difference between a sentient being inside a human’s body, vs the decision to take out a part of my body to be inserted into somebody else.

If you don’t go through with an organ/marrow donation, a sentient being will die.

If I don’t go through with a pregnancy, a embryo/fetus will die.

You’re fine with the first but seem to have problems with the second. I point out that both of these are situations that offer risks to the person undergoing them (who is also a sentient being).

Why don’t you trust women and their doctors to make the decisions that best fit their situation? Why do you think that you, as a man not in the situation, should be legislating what women can do with their bodies?

152 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:42:02pm

re: #150 Interesting Times

Because you asked it in a disingenuous, concern-trollish, “do you still beat your wife” tone.

No I didn’t, I asked it because it become unclear if we were talking about existing limits, or additional limits. I thought it was “additional limits”, but then it became fuzzy. I asked it in an absolute manner, to get clear answers. Got some, because a lot more people than I thought oppose even restrictions on 3rd trimester abortions.

Why are they different? Can you explain?

One is a sick person dying of natural causes due to an act of omission.
The other is a person, potentially killing a healthy (viable?) sentient being that is not dying, but is naturally dependent on a host.

153 klys  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:45:14pm

re: #152 ElCapitanAmerica

No I didn’t, I asked it because it become unclear if we were talking about existing limits, or additional limits. I thought it was “additional limits”, but then it became fuzzy. I asked it in an absolute manner, to get clear answers. Got some, because a lot more people than I thought oppose even restrictions on 3rd trimester abortions.

One is a sick person dying of natural causes due to an act of omission.
The other is a person, potentially killing a healthy (viable?) sentient being that is not dying, but is naturally dependent on a host.

That host, by the way, is a sentient being that does not want to be a host if they are considering this choice. Why do you give more weight to the embryo/fetus than to the woman?

154 wrenchwench  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:47:51pm

re: #149 ElCapitanAmerica

And we don’t agree, I do think 3rd trimester abortions should be illegal outside of there being a threat to the life of the mother.

While I think viability is an imperfect answer, it’s at this moment, a better answer than “conception”.

So yes, I think autonomy becomes more restricted as the child grows closer to being a fully developed human.

This is where the argument starts. You realize of course that a newborn is not a fully developed human? And a fetus is not a child? If the argument is important, the terminology is important. Your choice of terms reveals some of your position in the argument.

Once you base your argument on the development of the fetus and not the autonomy of the woman, it’s all a sliding scale from fertilization to birth. My autonomy becomes an arbitrary matter in someone else’s hands.

BTW, I want to point out how there’s quite a bit of people here saying they don’t agree with the current law and that I find it ironic my question about “do you support abortion up until just before childbirth” being voted down so much; when many would answer “yes” to it.

I attribute some of the downdings to the way you phrased your comment in #63:

So you believe abortion should be legal/allowed with no restrictions up to and right up to the second before birth?

You are drawing a conclusion about his beliefs that was not expressed in his statement. Whether you were correct or not, it’s a rude thing to do.

Supporting the right of a woman to have an abortion whenever she wants or needs one is not identical to making it ‘legal/allowed with no restrictions up to and right up to the second before birth’. There would be restrictions based on medical ethics and reality.

155 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:50:11pm

re: #151 klys

If you don’t go through with an organ/marrow donation, a sentient being will die.

If I don’t go through with a pregnancy, a embryo/fetus will die.

Hum … no, the pregnancy is naturally going to happen. Not “going through with it” means you have to kill the embryo/fetus. The way you phrase it is not supported by basic biology.

You’re fine with the first but seem to have problems with the second. I point out that both of these are situations that offer risks to the person undergoing them (who is also a sentient being).

Because one has the distinct aspect that you have to actively kill that life, not let it die by inaction.

Why don’t you trust women and their doctors to make the decisions that best fit their situation? Why do you think that you, as a man not in the situation, should be legislating what women can do with their bodies?

Because there’s a fundamental question that has to be asked, and that is when does that sentient being beging to have rights. I guess you think it happens the millisecond that person exits the womb, I think the answer is more grey and should be informed by science.

I also trust most people to be rational, it doesn’t mean I’m against laws though.

156 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:53:54pm

re: #154 wrenchwench

You are drawing a conclusion about his beliefs that was not expressed in his statement. Whether you were correct or not, it’s a rude thing to do.

No more rude than saying I have some hidden agenda (having an agenda and diverting attention to it).

He said BTW;

None are needed. It’s medical procedure. Period.

I asked it because I wanted to see if he really mean NO restrictions. Maybe it could have been phrased better, but the more I think about it the more I think that it was a valid question based on the answers I’m getting.

157 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 3:58:33pm

re: #155 ElCapitanAmerica

Because one has the distinct aspect that you have to actively kill that life, not let it die by inaction.

Why is this a big ethical deal for you? If there was a guy sitting in front of you, in the same room as you, and all that needed to happen was for you to donate your blood to keep him alive, do you think you should be forced to donate blood?

What is this huge gap between action and inaction for you ethically? What changes about the ethical calculus?

158 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:00:15pm

re: #156 ElCapitanAmerica

I asked it because I wanted to see if he really mean NO restrictions. Maybe it could have been phrased better, but the more I think about it the more I think that it was a valid question based on the answers I’m getting.

You’re not really listening to the answers, though. Read this again— or perhaps for the first time:

Tell me what the point of criminalizing it is. Let’s say there is some evil, evil woman out there who wants to get an abortion because she suddenly decided, after 7 months of enduring pregnancy, that she doesn’t want one because she wants to go to Aruba. Whatever. I’m not sure such a woman has ever existed, but let’s say she does.

In the world where acquiring such an abortion is flatly illegal, she’ll find a back-alley abortionist to do it. Or she might try some ‘home remedy’. or she’ll be too scared to and have the baby and be an absolute shit to it.

In the world where acquiring such an abortion is legal, but under the control of medical ethics, a doctor would almost certainly be too worried that she was mentally disturbed in some way to give her the abortion. She would find a back-alley abortionist, or a legally-practicing one who was known to lack ethics. Or she’d be too afraid and have the kid and be an absolute shit to it.

There seems to be some idea that by criminalizing it we would reduce the number. This might be true, it might not. To me, I think that you might wind up with fewer abortions in a world where it was entirely left between woman and doctor because more women who were just depressed got the care they need since they sought out their doctor, whereas in the criminalized world a woman at that stage would know it was illegal and so would seek out an unethical or criminal doctor. So there’s also reason to believe criminalizing late-term abortions increases the number of them that occur, along with the number of suicides in women.

And answer the question:

Tell me what the point of criminalizing abortion, even late-term abortion, would be. What would be the outcome?

159 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:02:03pm

BTW on the bone marrow example, I hadn’t thought about that … re: #157 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

What is this huge gap between action and inaction for you ethically? What changes about the ethical calculus?

Because I don’t think this is a binary thing? The law even makes such distinctions between letting somebody die and actively killing a person (and the different levels of charges when you actually kill somebody). Don’t think I’m so alone in seeing the different ethical/moral levels there …

BTW on donating blood, I don’t think the law reflects this but I do think a parent should be compelled to donate blood to their child (let’s say a minor) … although I don’t think the law says that.

It’s a bit similar to a parent refusing not to allow a blood transfusion due to religious reasons, don’t agree with that either (although that’s different from what you’re saying).

160 klys  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:08:09pm

re: #159 ElCapitanAmerica

BTW on the bone marrow example, I hadn’t thought about that …

Because I don’t think this is a binary thing? The law even makes such distinctions between letting somebody die and actively killing a person (and the different levels of charges when you actually kill somebody). Don’t think I’m so alone in seeing the different ethical/moral levels there …

BTW on donating blood, I don’t think the law reflects this but I do think a parent should be compelled to donate blood to their child (let’s say a minor) … although I don’t think the law says that.

It’s a bit similar to a parent refusing not to allow a blood transfusion due to religious reasons, don’t agree with that either (although that’s different from what you’re saying).

You still don’t get charged with *anything* for not donating. Not even the charges that exist for death by omission. Because we, as a society, recognize a right to bodily autonomy.

Unless you have a uterus. Then some people get really weird about it.

161 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:09:41pm

re: #158 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

You’re not really listening to the answers, though. Read this again— or perhaps for the first time:

Tell me what the point of criminalizing it is. Let’s say there is some evil, evil woman out there who wants to get an abortion because she suddenly decided, after 7 months of enduring pregnancy, that she doesn’t want one because she wants to go to Aruba. Whatever. I’m not sure such a woman has ever existed, but let’s say she does.

Just to be clear, I’m not making an argument for criminalizing anything that’s not already criminalized, unless there’s a good reason to move earlier/or later the demarcation that we have today of late abortion (3rd trimester).

I don’t know if such a woman has existed, the reasons for late term abortions are varied … (see Guttmacher poll)

en.wikipedia.org

There seems to be some idea that by criminalizing it we would reduce the number. This might be true, it might not. To me, I think that you might wind up with fewer abortions in a world where it was entirely left between woman and doctor because more women who were just depressed got the care they need since they sought out their doctor, whereas in the criminalized world a woman at that stage would know it was illegal and so would seek out an unethical or criminal doctor. So there’s also reason to believe criminalizing late-term abortions increases the number of them that occur, along with the number of suicides in women.

And answer the question:

Tell me what the point of criminalizing abortion, even late-term abortion, would be. What would be the outcome?

I don’t think the outcome would significantly reduce abortions, I agree with most here that contraception, education, etc would reduce that (which we agree ironic that some of those are opposed by people who oppose abortion).

I just think it’s not unreasonable to define limits, like we do today, and to restrict abortions along a clear definition or set of criteria … admitting that such criteria will likely not be a deterministic magical number.

162 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:10:39pm

re: #159 ElCapitanAmerica

Because I don’t think this is a binary thing? The law even makes such distinctions between letting somebody die and actively killing a person (and the different levels of charges when you actually kill somebody). Don’t think I’m so alone in seeing the different ethical/moral levels there …

But you’re the one treating it like a binary thing, like because the abortion is ‘active’ that it’s extremely different ethically. Pregnancy is the only time when a person can accidentally wind up in the situation— why does anything change just because it’s active vs. inactive? You’re just asserting it does, but take me through the logic of it.

It’s a bit similar to a parent refusing not to allow a blood transfusion due to religious reasons, don’t agree with that either (although that’s different from what you’re saying).

It’s not in the least bit similar to that, no. I have no idea why you think it is.

163 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:11:32pm

re: #160 klys

You still don’t get charged with *anything* for not donating. Not even the charges that exist for death by omission. Because we, as a society, recognize a right to bodily autonomy.

Unless you have a uterus. Then some people get really weird about it.

As I mentioned, personally I would think it’s criminal for a parent not to donate blood to their child, including parents without uteri.

164 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:12:14pm

re: #161 ElCapitanAmerica

Just to be clear, I’m not making an argument for criminalizing anything that’s not already criminalized, unless there’s a good reason to move earlier/or later the demarcation that we have today of late abortion (3rd trimester).

I’m asking you what the point of criminalizing it at any point is.

You haven’t yet answered.

165 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:12:49pm

re: #163 ElCapitanAmerica

As I mentioned, personally I would think it’s criminal for a parent not to donate blood to their child, including parents without uteri.

What about organs and/or bone marrow?

166 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:14:03pm

re: #164 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

I’m asking you what the point of criminalizing it at any point is.

You haven’t yet answered.

It should be illegal because that is a viable living human being, as defined by the law today and it is wrong to kill it.

167 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:15:18pm

re: #165 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

What about organs and/or bone marrow?

In my view, same for bone marrow.

Not so for donating organs, but again I don’t think these things are similar at all.

168 klys  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:19:06pm

re: #163 ElCapitanAmerica

As I mentioned, personally I would think it’s criminal for a parent not to donate blood to their child, including parents without uteri.

Why only parents and their children?

After all, it’s about saving sentient beings lives.

Also, pregnancy is a little more uncomfortable and risky than blood or bone marrow donations. FYI.

169 wrenchwench  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:19:12pm

re: #156 ElCapitanAmerica

No more rude than saying I have some hidden agenda (having an agenda and diverting attention to it).

He said BTW;

I asked it because I wanted to see if he really mean NO restrictions. Maybe it could have been phrased better, but the more I think about it the more I think that it was a valid question based on the answers I’m getting.

The fact that you responded to my second point and not my first reveals your (not very) hidden agenda. Your agenda is to tell women that they have autonomy unless they are pregnant. That leads to telling women they have autonomy except when they might become pregnant.

That means women don’t have autonomy.

I don’t think I’m going to change your mind about that.

170 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:19:29pm

re: #158 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

Tell me what the point of criminalizing it is. Let’s say there is some evil, evil woman out there who wants to get an abortion because she suddenly decided, after 7 months of enduring pregnancy, that she doesn’t want one because she wants to go to Aruba. Whatever. I’m not sure such a woman has ever existed, but let’s say she does.

Not Aruba, but still …

“Mother jailed for eight years after aborting baby at 39 weeks”
dailyrecord.co.uk

171 wrenchwench  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:22:15pm

re: #161 ElCapitanAmerica

Just to be clear, I’m not making an argument for criminalizing anything that’s not already criminalized, unless there’s a good reason to move earlier/or later the demarcation that we have today of late abortion (3rd trimester).

There will always be ‘a good reason’ in somebody’s opinion for giving rights to a fetus by taking them away from a woman.

What do you think of the Hyde Amendment?

172 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:24:12pm

re: #169 wrenchwench

The fact that you responded to my second point and not my first reveals your (not very) hidden agenda. Your agenda is to tell women that they have autonomy unless they are pregnant. That leads to telling women they have autonomy except when they might become pregnant.

That means women don’t have autonomy.

I don’t think I’m going to change your mind about that.

Hidden agenda? I answered your question of autonomy in 149;

“So yes, I think autonomy becomes more restricted as the child grows closer to being a fully developed human.”

Full autonomy until 3rd trimester starts unless the life is at risk.

Not sure if I’m going to change your mind on my “hidden agenda”, the whole point of me putting up with everybody telling me who I’m evil for restricting rights is to have a discussion not to hide my point.

173 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:25:40pm

re: #171 wrenchwench

There will always be ‘a good reason’ in somebody’s opinion for giving rights to a fetus by taking them away from a woman.

What do you think of the Hyde Amendment?

I don’t agree with the Hyde Amendment, as long as the funds comply with the restrictions as they exists. If the law changed to cover abortion at any point, I would agree with it.

174 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:25:42pm

re: #166 ElCapitanAmerica

It should be illegal because that is a viable living human being, as defined by the law today and it is wrong to kill it.

I’m not sure why you keep putting in stuff like ‘as defined by the law today’ when I’m asking for your opinion. If we’re talking about realistically viable fetuses, we’re talking about a tiny percentage of all abortions. Sure, viability is a moving target, but it can be said to be common sense that if we need to go to extraordinary measures to save the fetus, it’s not ‘viable’ in an ordinary sense of the word. So we’re talking about a really, really tiny percentage of abortions.

My goal is for the number of these abortions to be as low as possible. This is achieved mainly by increasing access to abortion earlier and increasing health education and knowledge. This is also, I think, achieved by putting a woman in a position of trust with her doctor, and continuing strong ethics in the medical field.

I think that criminalizing it is going to have the opposite effect. I think that criminalizing late-term abortions on any level, even with exceptions carved out, will cause more women to seek out illegal abortions, as they did before. A woman who wants an abortion at seven and a half months isn’t likely to be dissuaded by illegality, especially if she has the resources to travel somewhere where it isn’t illegal. And then what if a woman goes away pregnant and comes back not? Will you launch an inquiry?

175 wrenchwench  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:26:01pm

re: #158 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

You’re not really listening to the answers, though. Read this again— or perhaps for the first time:

Tell me what the point of criminalizing it is. Let’s say there is some evil, evil woman out there who wants to get an abortion because she suddenly decided, after 7 months of enduring pregnancy, that she doesn’t want one because she wants to go to Aruba. Whatever. I’m not sure such a woman has ever existed, but let’s say she does.

In the world where acquiring such an abortion is flatly illegal, she’ll find a back-alley abortionist to do it. Or she might try some ‘home remedy’. or she’ll be too scared to and have the baby and be an absolute shit to it.

In the world where acquiring such an abortion is legal, but under the control of medical ethics, a doctor would almost certainly be too worried that she was mentally disturbed in some way to give her the abortion. She would find a back-alley abortionist, or a legally-practicing one who was known to lack ethics. Or she’d be too afraid and have the kid and be an absolute shit to it.

There seems to be some idea that by criminalizing it we would reduce the number. This might be true, it might not. To me, I think that you might wind up with fewer abortions in a world where it was entirely left between woman and doctor because more women who were just depressed got the care they need since they sought out their doctor, whereas in the criminalized world a woman at that stage would know it was illegal and so would seek out an unethical or criminal doctor. So there’s also reason to believe criminalizing late-term abortions increases the number of them that occur, along with the number of suicides in women.

And answer the question:

Tell me what the point of criminalizing abortion, even late-term abortion, would be. What would be the outcome?

I favorited this one.

176 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:28:00pm

re: #167 ElCapitanAmerica

In my view, same for bone marrow.

Not so for donating organs, but again I don’t think these things are similar at all.

Donating a kidney has a slightly lower chance of killing you than pregnancy does, in the US, by the way. Can you explain why yes to bone marrow but no to organs?

And should the parent be arrested for failure to donate, or simply forced to donate?

177 klys  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:28:12pm

re: #172 ElCapitanAmerica

Hidden agenda? I answered your question of autonomy in 149;

“So yes, I think autonomy becomes more restricted as the child grows closer to being a fully developed human.”

Full autonomy until 3rd trimester starts unless the life is at risk.

You have failed to explain why the fetus or embryo should be able to overrule the woman’s bodily autonomy when there are no other situations where we allow someone to do that, despite the fact that their death will be a result (organ or bone marrow donation).

178 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:29:39pm

re: #174 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

I’m not sure why you keep putting in stuff like ‘as defined by the law today’ when I’m asking for your opinion. If we’re talking about realistically viable fetuses, we’re talking about a tiny percentage of all abortions. Sure, viability is a moving target, but it can be said to be common sense that if we need to go to extraordinary measures to save the fetus, it’s not ‘viable’ in an ordinary sense of the word. So we’re talking about a really, really tiny percentage of abortions.

My goal is for the number of these abortions to be as low as possible. This is achieved mainly by increasing access to abortion earlier and increasing health education and knowledge. This is also, I think, achieved by putting a woman in a position of trust with her doctor, and continuing strong ethics in the medical field.

I think that criminalizing it is going to have the opposite effect. I think that criminalizing late-term abortions on any level, even with exceptions carved out, will cause more women to seek out illegal abortions, as they did before. A woman who wants an abortion at seven and a half months isn’t likely to be dissuaded by illegality, especially if she has the resources to travel somewhere where it isn’t illegal. And then what if a woman goes away pregnant and comes back not? Will you launch an inquiry?

My personal opinion is that late term abortions are unacceptable outside of a doctor saying the life of the mother is at risk.

With the rest of your post, I mostly agree, but I don’t think it means we should legalize all late term abortions because at that point we’re dealing with a viable human being.

179 wrenchwench  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:31:11pm

re: #173 ElCapitanAmerica

I don’t agree with the Hyde Amendment, as long as the funds comply with the restrictions as they exists. If the law changed to cover abortion at any point, I would agree with it.

So poor women have even less autonomy than a woman who can afford an abortion when she needs one. And you agree with that. And if well-off women had fuller autonomy, poor women would have even less, under your view.

So your a misogynist who wants to impose his views on all women, especially poor ones.

180 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:31:43pm

re: #177 klys

You have failed to explain why the fetus or embryo should be able to overrule the woman’s bodily autonomy when there are no other situations where we allow someone to do that, despite the fact that their death will be a result (organ or bone marrow donation).

Because the law recognizes a viable fetus with rights, and those rights have to start at some point. If you don’t agree with that, then you have to provide a clear definition of when they start, and start lobbying congress to change the law as it is now.

181 klys  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:33:19pm

re: #180 ElCapitanAmerica

Because the law recognizes a viable fetus with rights, and those rights have to start at some point. If you don’t agree with that, then you have to provide a clear definition of when they start, and start lobbying congress to change the law as it is now.

…

But you’re totally ok with killing a human being with full rights by omission. Because you have bodily autonomy.

182 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:33:52pm

re: #179 wrenchwench

So poor women have even less autonomy than a woman who can afford an abortion when she needs one. And you agree with that. And if well-off women had fuller autonomy, poor women would have even less, under your view.

What the heck? I said I disagree with the Hyde Amendment under current conditions, and you say this?!?!? WTF?!!?

Did you read my response??? This is really getting out of hand now …

So your a misogynist who wants to impose his views on all women, especially poor ones.

Wow.

183 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:34:49pm

re: #181 klys

…

But you’re totally ok with killing a human being with full rights by omission. Because you have bodily autonomy.

I’m not OK with it at all, but I recognize and see a big distinction.

184 wrenchwench  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:36:45pm

re: #182 ElCapitanAmerica

What the heck? I said I disagree with the Hyde Amendment under current conditions, and you say this?!?!? WTF?!!?

Did you read my response??? This is really getting out of hand now …

Wow.

Is this the ‘flaming’ that you anticipated when you posted your first comment on this thread?

185 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:37:05pm

re: #184 wrenchwench

Is this the ‘flaming’ that you anticipated when you posted your first comment on this thread?

Yup.

186 wrenchwench  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:38:02pm

re: #185 ElCapitanAmerica

Yup.

Sorry it took so long.

187 klys  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:38:11pm

re: #183 ElCapitanAmerica

I’m not OK with it at all, but I recognize and see a big distinction.

So far, the only distinction that comes across seems to be “but you’re killing babies”.

Nothing to do with rights or viability.

188 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:41:13pm

re: #187 klys

So far, the only distinction that comes across seems to be “but you’re killing babies”.

Nothing to do with rights or viability.

I don’t know what you want me to reply besides saying; yes I think they’re the same you’re right even thought I think it’s different to actually make a decision to *kill* something, vs letting it die.

189 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:43:53pm

re: #178 ElCapitanAmerica

My personal opinion is that late term abortions are unacceptable outside of a doctor saying the life of the mother is at risk.

With the rest of your post, I mostly agree, but I don’t think it means we should legalize all late term abortions because at that point we’re dealing with a viable human being.

You’re kind of spinning your wheels. I’m saying we can take two approaches. One is to take the medical approach— to increase access to abortion and education about pregnancy, which will cut the numbers of late term abortions down from the already tiny percentage they are to an even tinier percentage. The figures you have cited back me up on this. This also means a woman seeking a late-term abortion will approach her doctor about it, and the doctor has the chance to see if it’s just depression or some other reason that has brought this on.

Or you can take the criminal approach. I assume this means you want either the doctor or the woman arrested for the crime, or both. In that case, the woman is likely to either travel out of state to obtain the abortion, if she has funds for it, or find a back-alley doctor to do the abortion. The likelihood of her not having the abortion increases, but it doesn’t just make it a certainty. The chance of her dying in the abortion rises greatly.

I think that we can rely on the ethics of doctors and their self-policing to prevent the tiny, tiny percentage— and remember, all this talk, all of it, has been about a tiny percentage of all abortions, an absolutely minuscule one— of cases where a woman seeks an abortion at 8 months because she suddenly decided fuck it. Gosnell is the incredibly horrifyingly rare exception, not the norm. But we can only rely on them in an atmosphere of openness and trust.

To put it another way: Even if we completely agreed that yes, third-semester abortion is ethically sticky so let’s take a look at it, it’s being ‘concerned’ about a tiny percentage of abortions. Meanwhile, the GOP is blocking abortion access all over this country, shitloads of it, which is actively causing late-term abortions.

190 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:45:07pm

re: #188 ElCapitanAmerica

I don’t know what you want me to reply besides saying; yes I think they’re the same you’re right even thought I think it’s different to actually make a decision to *kill* something, vs letting it die.

Of course it’s different, but why is it an important difference?

191 klys  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:47:46pm

re: #188 ElCapitanAmerica

I don’t know what you want me to reply besides saying; yes I think they’re the same you’re right even thought I think it’s different to actually make a decision to *kill* something, vs letting it die.

I think that this discussion has hit the point where it’s done. You’ve established that you think that having a uterus means a woman has to give up her right to make decisions over her body, at a point which makes you comfortable. I don’t understand why my bodily autonomy should be ceded at a point just because it makes you feel better - a point that you’re willing to move.

The instant of birth is a clear, unambiguous marker. I am comfortable with having full rights start at that point. I think that medical ethics and discussions between a woman and her doctor are sufficient to address all situations leading up to that point. You don’t.

I’ve done my best to have a good-faith discussion and I appreciate your response in kind. I think you’re wrong; you probably think the same. The difference here is you’re advocating more restrictions on me.

192 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:51:23pm

re: #191 klys

I’ve done my best to have a good-faith discussion and I appreciate your response in kind. I think you’re wrong; you probably think the same. The difference here is you’re advocating more restrictions on me.

Thanks, I appreciate your responses too. I would say, and I know this is small consolation, that I hadn’t thought about the bone marrow example so you’ve given me something to consider … while it doesn’t change my mind at this point, it does help me understand a bit more why somebody wouldn’t agree with what I’m saying.

193 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:53:30pm

re: #190 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

Of course it’s different, but why is it an important difference?

I see an act of omission differently than the opposite.

But to put it more clearly, naturally both conditions would produce different outcomes and I think that *is* an important distinction.

194 klys  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:54:23pm

re: #192 ElCapitanAmerica

Thanks, I appreciate your responses too. I would say, and I know this is small consolation, that I hadn’t thought about the bone marrow example so you’ve given me something to consider … while it doesn’t change my mind at this point, it does help me understand a bit more why somebody wouldn’t agree with what I’m saying.

I’m perfectly happy to say that I would like to see the number of abortions reduced through better accessibility of contraception, better sexual education, and better support for families. I think this is something we can agree on and work towards.

I just feel strongly abortion should be available, as an option, for a woman as necessary, based on discussion with her doctor. I hope I’m never in a situation where I need to find out how I personally feel about making that choice. I’ve done what I can to avoid it. But I want that choice there for me, for my sisters, and for the women in the future. Instead it’s vanishing for far too many women as an option today.

195 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Sat, Apr 27, 2013 4:58:24pm

re: #193 ElCapitanAmerica

I see an act of omission differently than the opposite.

But to put it more clearly, naturally both conditions would produce different outcomes and I think that *is* an important distinction.

I don’t get what you mean by ‘naturally’, nor why it’s an important distinction. You seem to be wildly conflating two very different arguments— your’e saying that the late-term abortion is wrong because you consider the fetus to be a human being at that point, so where is this argument about what will happen, what does that have to do with anything?

You seem to keep broadening out from just the tiny corner case of late-term abortion to more general arguments.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Trump’s “Stolen Election” Lie Based on Evidence From Pervy Bathroom Cam-Spy OK, this really takes the cake. If you have relatives that still cling to the “election was stolen, dadgum, I jes’ KNOW IT … This should be a slight remedy to the stubborn madness Thanks to online anonymity, the ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
Yesterday
Views: 72 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
3 days ago
Views: 175 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 5
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 420 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1