You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 11, 2016, 06:08:15 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: I love PA... not....  (Read 2459 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2012, 11:15:12 AM »
Well, with the tumor it's a question of inaction vs. action, as well as certain vs. uncertain outcome.

A person with a tumor may die from it, or may not.  If you remove the tumor, it's because you believe that the person will most likely die, and take preventative steps towards that happening.

Continuing that analogy, a pregnant person may have a baby, or may not.  If you remove the baby, it's because you believe that the person will most likely have a baby, and take preventative steps towards that happening.

If you didn't believe the person's life was at risk, you wouldn't remove the tumor.  Similarly, if you didn't believe that the woman was going to have a baby, you wouldn't abort it.

A tumor has no rights; most would say that a person does.  A fetus becomes a baby becomes a child becomes a teenager becomes an adult.  I just don't see why one transition is more important when all are, if not inevitable, sufficiently expected to induce an abortion.

I agree.  I do not feel that the argument of "somebody else will do it if I don't" is acceptable.

Again, I consider this equivalent to euthanasia, and the levels of life and death.

If a baby survives the abortion procedure, we treat it as a normal infant, giving it health care and all such.  Obama voted against this, by the way.  I don't disagree with the law by any means, but to me, this feels more like the Spartan method of seeing if your kid comes back alive in order to really respect him.  We failed to kill it, so therefore it's alive?

To me, the only point that makes sense to claim that another life exists is when, through no further action on your part, a child will exist.  While I agree that birth could be seen as that point due to labor and such, I don't think most people would claim that a nine month old fetus that's fully capable of coming out isn't really a baby until it takes its first breath.

Trying to demarcate a point on the pregnancy when it's actually a baby doesn't seem realistic to me personally.  Do we go by when it looks alive?  When it first gets eyes, a brain, hands?  Without getting into euthanasia topics, a person without such organs (on life support, presumably) is still considered to be a person in many respects.  It's even considered a double homicide if a pregnant woman is murdered.

I really don't know how to explain any better than this.  According to the law, if I fire a bullet at someone and it hits a sheet of bulletproof glass that I didn't see, I've still attempted murder.  If I had successfully committed that act, a person would not be alive who would otherwise be.  The argument that "maybe s/he would die anyway" does not hold for reasons already explained.

Then again, maybe I should just ask if people see any correlation between abortion and euthanasia.  I may be fighting a meaningless argument if people do accept abortion but also agree with euthanasia.  Could I get someone to comment on this part and let me know if I'm crazy for seeing a connection there?

Thank God.  I guess I just didn't hear about it while I was in college.  Thanks for the info.

As a stupid question, though, if a woman elects to get a partial birth abortion, why would she even try to seek damages?  Is this part of the bill just to make absolute certain, or did you add in the bit about the mother not being able yourself for sake of clarity?

I put in bold the part that I am addressing. What you said is not true. Doctors remove benign tumors all the time that do not pose a serious risk to a person's life. The doctor and patient choose to remove it for comfort sake, appearances, etc. If people started protesting the removal of tumors because they are 'alive' and growing, I'd be calling that stupid as well.

The point of the matter is really very simple. There is no reason the government needs to be sticking it's nose in the business of women and their doctors. The government does not stick it's nose into men's medical business right? What this boils down to is a group of people trying to force their beliefs, their morals, onto everyone around them. Yes, I agree that partial birth abortions are horrible and do not need to be done unless it is medically necessary. Beyond that - no one should have a say so in what a woman decides to do with her body. And as Callie said, forcing a woman to go through an unnecessary medical procedure before getting an abortion is traumatic. It's cruel.

P.S. While The Onion is not a real news reporting agency - I think this video pretty much sums it up.

http://www.theonion.com/video/new-law-requires-women-to-name-baby-paint-nursery,14393/


Offline Shjade

Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2012, 11:58:59 AM »
Well, with the tumor it's a question of inaction vs. action, as well as certain vs. uncertain outcome.

A person with a tumor may die from it, or may not.  If you remove the tumor, it's because you believe that the person will most likely die, and take preventative steps towards that happening.

Continuing that analogy, a pregnant person may have a baby, or may not.  If you remove the baby, it's because you believe that the person will most likely have a baby, and take preventative steps towards that happening.

If you didn't believe the person's life was at risk, you wouldn't remove the tumor.  Similarly, if you didn't believe that the woman was going to have a baby, you wouldn't abort it.

A tumor has no rights; most would say that a person does.  A fetus becomes a baby becomes a child becomes a teenager becomes an adult.  I just don't see why one transition is more important when all are, if not inevitable, sufficiently expected to induce an abortion.
You make large assumptions here. If you remove a tumor, it's because someone came to you to remove a tumor. Most likely your reason for removing it is you're being paid to do so; that it may save a life could also be a motivation, but it's not the sole reason a person will undertake such an action, nor should it be assumed that this is the driving motivation for the action. These assumptions will get you into trouble when trying to discuss action by coloring it with your perception of motive.

A baby is aborted because of a request to have a baby aborted, as a preventative measure for the possibility of birth, not to counteract the guarantee of such; nothing is guaranteed. By your reasoning, you seem to be saying that because the potential for future life is there, life is already there and, moreover, that life is independent of its mother, despite a total inability to live on its own or, indeed, having anything resembling independence or individuality. If you accept that point of view, then any form of birth control prior to conception is equally destructive, killing babies before they've even had a chance to experience being a nerveless, brainless packet of cells growing in a womb.

Even abstinence is outright refusing to assist babies in taking their first breaths, those selfish, murdering bastards with their genital restraint! They're almost as bad as those men and women who kill cancer patients by not going to medical school to become doctors, thereby never gaining the skills they need to treat cancer patients.

Really, how far do you want to go with that kind of argument? It's an extension of pre-crime theorizing; whatever might happen in the future hasn't happened yet. It's nonsensical to act as though it's already tomorrow today. You can't charge an assassin with murder for a planned assassination he was going to execute next week; you charge him with conspiracy to commit murder, probably illegal possession of weapons, etc. You know, things he's actually done.

Quote
I agree.  I do not feel that the argument of "somebody else will do it if I don't" is acceptable.
Then why did you essentially support this argument by saying killing someone is meaningless if they were going to die anyway regardless of your actions? If someone else is going to do it even if you don't, then your doing it is similarly meaningless and, as such, there should be no problem doing it, right?

Offline vtboy

Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2012, 12:03:20 PM »
And as Callie said, forcing a woman to go through an unnecessary medical procedure before getting an abortion is traumatic. It's cruel.
That, and "transvaginal ultrasonic probe" sounds like something brought to us via Roswell, New Mexico.

Just sayin'

Offline SerephinoTopic starter

Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2012, 01:29:55 PM »
A good point has been brought up.  If you kill a pregnant woman it's double homicide, but the mother can kill it?  Can you really have it both ways?  A fetus is a person when you want it, and not when you don't.  That really irks me.  You can have two women both 20 weeks along, and one gets murdered.  There's outrage, and the murderer gets charged with two murders because technically he killed two people.  The other woman suddenly changes her mind and wants rid of the fetus.  She feels she has the right because since it can't live independent of her it isn't a person.

Somebody really needs to make up their mind.  A tumor really is just a mass of cells.  It's overgrown tissue that will never be anything other than bigger overgrown tissue.  If it's cancer, it will kill the person. If not, it would still keep growing, and possibly cause other health problems by squeezing out other organs.

A fetus slowly becomes a mini human.  It gets a nervous system, organs, a heartbeat, it's own blood supply, eventually can move and react to stimuli.  And eventually it will born and become a person instead of just indefinitely getting bigger and bigger.  And no, a person without one specific organ is not suddenly not a person.  It's the package as a whole.  It's apples and oranges anyway because you're comparing a fetus that hasn't been born to someone who has.

Unfortunately, women get to deal with this because they're the ones who have babies.  I don't think I'm unreasonable with my views.  I don't consider a fetus a baby until it has a functioning nervous system.  That takes several months, and if you've already been pregnant that long....  I understand it's a tough decision for most women, but surely it can be done before that point.

Offline Shjade

Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2012, 01:51:24 PM »
If you kill a pregnant woman it's double homicide, but the mother can kill it?  Can you really have it both ways?

I can't say I like the way that works either. It leaves things far too ambiguous and adds to the confusion about this whole topic. I figure if we go the route of abortion being okay because of X Y or Z reason disconnecting gestation from birth, then in a situation like the above the murderer shouldn't be charged with double homicide.

He should instead be charged with 1 count of murder and 1 count of illegal/unsolicited/whatever-word-you-want-to-use abortion.

Offline AndyZ

Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2012, 02:56:44 PM »
Ah, okay, I see the confusion.  I probably shouldn't be trying to post on here after sleep deprivation, so this will be my last post for a while.  Please bear with me as I'll try to catch up before passing out.

You make large assumptions here. If you remove a tumor, it's because someone came to you to remove a tumor. Most likely your reason for removing it is you're being paid to do so; that it may save a life could also be a motivation, but it's not the sole reason a person will undertake such an action, nor should it be assumed that this is the driving motivation for the action. These assumptions will get you into trouble when trying to discuss action by coloring it with your perception of motive.

A baby is aborted because of a request to have a baby aborted, as a preventative measure for the possibility of birth, not to counteract the guarantee of such; nothing is guaranteed. By your reasoning, you seem to be saying that because the potential for future life is there, life is already there and, moreover, that life is independent of its mother, despite a total inability to live on its own or, indeed, having anything resembling independence or individuality. If you accept that point of view, then any form of birth control prior to conception is equally destructive, killing babies before they've even had a chance to experience being a nerveless, brainless packet of cells growing in a womb.

Even abstinence is outright refusing to assist babies in taking their first breaths, those selfish, murdering bastards with their genital restraint! They're almost as bad as those men and women who kill cancer patients by not going to medical school to become doctors, thereby never gaining the skills they need to treat cancer patients.

Really, how far do you want to go with that kind of argument? It's an extension of pre-crime theorizing; whatever might happen in the future hasn't happened yet. It's nonsensical to act as though it's already tomorrow today. You can't charge an assassin with murder for a planned assassination he was going to execute next week; you charge him with conspiracy to commit murder, probably illegal possession of weapons, etc. You know, things he's actually done.

There's a difference between action and inaction, though.  Let me try to explain.

Many would agree that if you see someone drowning in a lake, you should go out and save them.  This implies that via inaction, if you do absolutely nothing, that person will die.  However, this does not require you to stand out by the lake all day to make sure nobody drowns.  That would be an action, voluntarily taking a step towards that end.

On the one hand, you have pretty much certainty of a death if you fail to act.  On the other, you're relegated to the madness of the might-have-beens.

That's probably not a very good explanation, so if need be, I can go further into it when I'm awake.

Quote
Then why did you essentially support this argument by saying killing someone is meaningless if they were going to die anyway regardless of your actions? If someone else is going to do it even if you don't, then your doing it is similarly meaningless and, as such, there should be no problem doing it, right?

This was my mistake for the wrong word.  What I meant by "meaningless" would probably be better summed up in "pointless."  If I hated someone, but they were dying already of something and would be dead by the end of the day, I'd watch to make sure they're dead but I wouldn't see any reason to kill them myself just to make sure they know it was me.  Especially when they're going to die anyway.

I was trying to say that the very act in killing someone was to make sure that they're dead.  I didn't mean that it's right and/or moral to kill someone.

Apologies that that was unclear.

I put in bold the part that I am addressing. What you said is not true. Doctors remove benign tumors all the time that do not pose a serious risk to a person's life. The doctor and patient choose to remove it for comfort sake, appearances, etc. If people started protesting the removal of tumors because they are 'alive' and growing, I'd be calling that stupid as well.

You're right, I forgot cosmetic surgery.

She feels she has the right because since it can't live independent of her it isn't a person.


See, there's a bit I have trouble with also, because a baby can't live independently either.  However, a parent is considered to be responsible for their child, to the effect of jail time for negligence and/or abuse.  If you have a child, you're required by law to take care of them.  It would follow that the same would be required for the fetus.

I think I remember stories about a child suing his father because his dad was doing something that knowingly caused birth defects and the child ended up deformed, but I can't remember where or how; it might have just been a fiction story.

I can't say I like the way that works either. It leaves things far too ambiguous and adds to the confusion about this whole topic. I figure if we go the route of abortion being okay because of X Y or Z reason disconnecting gestation from birth, then in a situation like the above the murderer shouldn't be charged with double homicide.

He should instead be charged with 1 count of murder and 1 count of illegal/unsolicited/whatever-word-you-want-to-use abortion.

Very logical.  I like this idea.


Alright, off to bed.  Sorry if this post isn't clear, and a small request: Please don't assume that I'm for the bill just because a lot of things don't make sense to me.  I take a decent amount of pride in being neither Democrat nor Republican.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2012, 02:58:25 PM »
A good point has been brought up.  If you kill a pregnant woman it's double homicide, but the mother can kill it?  Can you really have it both ways?


Yes, for the same reason that a woman can have a hysterectomy without facing charges, but someone attacking her and removing her uterus is assault. The difference is in the choice itself. Like it or not, a fetus cannot survive without its mother and is part of her body up until it becomes viable (which, I believe, is at about 23 weeks now). It is, regardless of what you would do, her decision, her body, her choice, her conundrum. If she chooses not to do anything and deliver the baby, well, her choice has lined up with your morality and you can rejoice. If she chooses not to have the baby, it doesn't line up with your morality, but it is still her choice. Her body. Her choice. Period.

Although due to current legislation, it would not be her choice at 20 weeks, as that would already be termed a late-term abortion and therefore it would be illegal. It is her choice up to about 14 weeks.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2012, 03:06:17 PM »
I have sat and considered how to respond to this without coming across uncivil. I realize everyone has their own opinion and I respect that everyone does.

But, if you are saying in your opinion that life begins when the fetus has a nervous system then you might want to actually look up what time frame that is. Weeks 6 and 7 of pregnancy are when the brain of the fetus forms into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible. It is also the time when tissue forms that become the vertebra.

Now, I don’t know about other women but I can tell you that I did not find out I was pregnant till I was 8 weeks pregnant TWICE. If the time for abortion went by your measure - I would have been denied as soon as I found out.

And you make the assumption that women just up and change their minds about having a child. It comes across as if you are saying women are fickle minded and that an abortion is some easy decision. Now, I am sure there are some women out there that have been very flippant about choosing to have an abortion, but I can tell you the few people I have known that have had abortions struggled with the decision. It was not easy for them and they, to this day, deal with the emotional consequences of that decision.

Trying to make it harder for a woman to have an abortion is flat out wrong. It is cruel. It is nothing more than people being unable to butt out of what is not their business. You* do not get the right to tell me (or any other woman) what I can and cannot do with my body just because you think your morals and beliefs are right. If you do not have a say in whether I have my breasts enlarged or I have my stomach stapled then what in the hell makes you think you have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my reproductive system? When do I get to tell you what you can do with yours?

It is a serious violation of privacy, and while my next example is not as polarizing as abortion, it should make you stop and think for a moment. What if the holier than thou politicians turned their attention to what goes on in your bedroom? What if they suddenly started actually punishing those old, old laws that says anything other than missionary style sex between a man and a woman was illegal and everyone had to have a camera installed in every room of their house to make sure citizens abided by it?

It is the same violation of privacy. The same violation of personal choice. You would not like it at all if people started butting their nose into your sexual life, so why would you think it is okay for you to demand the government to violate the privacy of every single woman?


*For simplicities sake I am using ‘you’ to denote the collective that demand ultrasounds and other harsh measures be implemented. It is in no way meant to signify you personally.

Offline SerephinoTopic starter

Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2012, 04:22:47 PM »
Again, women have to deal with this because they are the ones that carry the babies.  Their decision effects something that in time will become a living breathing person with feelings.  That's why people have strong opinions and feelings.

I did say I understand it's a difficult decision.  However...  My boyfriend used to work with this one girl.  She got knocked up being an idiot.  At first she was so happy about it.  Then her boyfriend dumped her, and she changed her mind.  One of my boyfriend's aunts used to get pregnant to trap men.  She kept the babies even when the men didn't stay, but I'd be willing to bet there are women out there that won't, just like my boyfriend's coworker, A.  I'm not saying all or most women are like that, but they're out there.  I live next to one.  They use babies as a means to and end, and when it no longer serves their purpose they get rid of it; personal responsibility free.  I won't pretend this doesn't effect my opinion.  After all, we are formed by personal experience.

Also, I used the words fully functioning.  Just because the tissue is there doesn't mean it works.  Movement, which requires working nerves, starts happening at about 15 weeks.  Senses begin to develop at about 23 weeks.  I could've said having a heartbeat, but that happens much earlier.

No, I wouldn't like laws being made about what I can or can't do in my own bedroom.  However, there isn't anything I could possibly do that would kill a potential life, so that's another argument that isn't entirely relevant.  All people have a right to life, otherwise murder would be legal, and the subject of debate is when does a fetus become a person.  The fetus may be inside the woman, but that's kind of how biology works.  If men were the ones having babies, then all of this would effect men.

If you've allowed a fetus to live inside your womb for, say, 18 weeks, you're about halfway done anyway.  I've never said a woman shouldn't have a choice.  I'm saying decide while it's still a clump of cells.  If women aren't fickle and won't change their minds on a whim, why is that so terrible?  It's been said here before most abortions happen in the first trimester anyway.  It may be a woman's body, but eventually a fetus becomes a human body that will live or die depending on what the mother does.  Nothing else a person can do in their own bedroom carries that kind of weight, unless you're saying the decision to have an abortion is as easy as deciding what position to have sex in.

And before anyone jumps on that emotional club, no, I don't believe a woman should be punished for spontaneous miscarriage or an accident.  Accidents happen, and I don't think anyone should be punished for something that is truly an accident.

Something else I wonder... Would I be getting such opposition and outrage if I were a woman with the same opinion?  Would I be judged so harshly?  I have to wonder how many of my female writing partners will dump me because of my opinion.  Though, I'm not against abortion period, only late term abortion.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2012, 04:40:43 PM »
It's not about being fickle and changing one's mind on a whim, and I have to admit that characterization of women in that fashion is more than a little asinine. It's largely about the fact that the first 8 weeks are not always enough time to discover that there is a pregnancy. So current legislation is forcing a woman who found out at, say, 10 weeks of pregnancy to make the decision of whether to have an abortion in less than a month. I don't understand how forcing what should be a weighty decision in less time is beneficial to anyone. Perhaps someone can explain that to me.

I did say I understand it's a difficult decision.  However...  My boyfriend used to work with this one girl.  She got knocked up being an idiot.  At first she was so happy about it.  Then her boyfriend dumped her, and she changed her mind.  One of my boyfriend's aunts used to get pregnant to trap men.  She kept the babies even when the men didn't stay, but I'd be willing to bet there are women out there that won't, just like my boyfriend's coworker, A.  I'm not saying all or most women are like that, but they're out there.  I live next to one.  They use babies as a means to and end, and when it no longer serves their purpose they get rid of it; personal responsibility free.  I won't pretend this doesn't effect my opinion.  After all, we are formed by personal experience.

I'm wondering if you'd rather use said child as a punishment? If someone doesn't want personal responsibility, are they really going to make a decent parent? Are you really suggesting - as it appears that you are - that someone be forced to carry a child to term, be forced to raise a child, because they make personal decisions that you don't agree with? And that's supposed to honestly be better for the child?

I mean, really?

Something else I wonder... Would I be getting such opposition and outrage if I were a woman with the same opinion?  Would I be judged so harshly?  I have to wonder how many of my female writing partners will dump me because of my opinion.  Though, I'm not against abortion period, only late term abortion.

I guess it depends on whether or not you feel that your choices and your morality should affect my body. If that is the case, it doesn't matter if you're male, female, other, or all. I think that people who think that what they feel is wrong with regard to their bodies should inform the choices of what others make are overstepping their bounds. Your morality has nothing to do with my choices. Whether you're for or against late term abortions has nothing to do with the conversation I have with my doctor if I find myself with an unwanted pregnancy. Someone else has no business entering into that conversation, at all, whatsoever. It is between me and my doctor. It has nothing, nothing, to do with anyone else unless I choose to include them.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2012, 04:44:38 PM »
In this matter I do not look at the gender of the person saying it. I say my opinions to male and female alike - an example is my mother who is extremely pro-life. I do respect the opinions of those that are pro-life. I just think that some with extreme views need to step back and ask themselves if they would like having their rights taken away from them the way they want to take them away from pro-choice people.

Offline SerephinoTopic starter

Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #36 on: February 26, 2012, 04:52:03 PM »
It's not about being fickle and changing one's mind on a whim, and I have to admit that characterization of women in that fashion is more than a little asinine. It's largely about the fact that the first 8 weeks are not always enough time to discover that there is a pregnancy. So current legislation is forcing a woman who found out at, say, 10 weeks of pregnancy to make the decision of whether to have an abortion in less than a month. I don't understand how forcing what should be a weighty decision in less time is beneficial to anyone. Perhaps someone can explain that to me.

Before you start calling me asinine, show me where exactly I said all women are like that.  I said they're out there, and I've known a few personally.  Other than that I am done with this conversation because, you know what, it's asinine to call someone asinine over an opinion, especially when you judged it right off, and took it out of context.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 04:55:17 PM by Serephino »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2012, 05:00:20 PM »
I used the same terminology you did: women. Not 'some' women. Not 'women who were stupid'. You said women. I said women. That's not out of context; that's taking your context and responding to it.

Offline SerephinoTopic starter

Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #38 on: February 26, 2012, 05:01:25 PM »
I'm locking this topic myself before I go from upset to something much worse.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: I love PA... not....
« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2012, 05:06:52 PM »
Probably for the best if you can't bring yourself to step away instead of locking it. In the future, the better option, however, is to step away from the computer and deal with it, rather than locking down an entire conversation. Even staff doesn't do that unless there have been several instances of locking and they haven't worked.