Page 28 of 56 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 558

Thread: Roe v Wade is on deck

  1. Top | #271
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,155
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,810
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post

    I definitely believe that third trimester abortions must be allowed.

    My issue is that the must NOT be compelled, nor at any stage of pregnancy.

    The ONLY valid decision maker is the girl or woman herself, except in instances where she is medically so compromised that she cannot make such a decision (I.E. she's comatose or something similar) and where terminating the pregnancy is less traumatic than continuing to birth. Medical providers can ethically decline to perform an abortion but they cannot compel an abortion if the mother is able to participate in decision making. (Example where a medical provider could make the decision: The mother has been so injured in an accident that she is unconscious and that to attempt to continue the pregnancy would harm her)

    Other parents and prospective caregivers have a say in whether they wish to raise the child but not in whether the child is born.

    A fetus is not a parasite.

    A parasite is an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
    A fetus is not a parasite. A fetus IS parasitic. As I have said, the consent must come at all times to give care through the primary care giver. If they do not consent to additional buy-in of consent, no additional buy-in can be made. Another party, not even the husband, may not be considered until their consent is accepted by the primary party, or until it is born and the mother is no longer THE primary caregiver. That can only happen, at a minimum, when the mother decides she is keeping it. That decision creates the relationship of faith and trust and opens the door to additional, if tentative, investiture.

    But make no mistake, all fetal life is parasitic until the event of consent happens.
    A fetus is not parasitic.

  2. Top | #272
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,155
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,810
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post

    What are you talking about?

    When you say easily available you mean prescription hormonal birth control?

    I have no idea what OTC drugs you need.

    I think we need to do research on self induced abortion and see how far along would be safe.

    Then we need to allow doctors to prescribe drugs that allow woman to do it safely.
    As per the Wiki article, Mifepristone, a medication often used for the treatment of uterine fibroids, also known as RU-486, is a medication typically used in combination with misoprostol, a common ulcer medication, to terminate pregnancies.

    So, all you have to do, as a woman, is seek out treatments for fibroids and then get treatment for a stomach ulcer. These are medications that are available, on their own, generally without a prescription.

    It is common for organizations to provide the components to women in jurisdictions where actual prescriptions for the pill are forbidden.
    You realize that in order to seek out treatment for fibroids, you must first be examined for fibroids and are only prescribed the medication if it is deemed to be safe and effective to remove your particular fibroids?

    A pregnancy would be obvious under such an examination. In fact, a pregnancy would be specifically screened for prior to devising any treatment plan.

    If you are not found to have fibroids, you would not receive the medication to eliminate the fibroids.

    In all likelihood, if you were found to be pregnant and to have fibroids, you would not be given the medication to eliminate fibroids. You might be so prescribed to eliminate the pregnancy but with fibroids present, it is unlikely that you would be given the medication because of the chance of complications/extensive bleeding.

  3. Top | #273
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    6,135
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    9,046
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post

    What are you talking about?

    When you say easily available you mean prescription hormonal birth control?

    I have no idea what OTC drugs you need.

    I think we need to do research on self induced abortion and see how far along would be safe.

    Then we need to allow doctors to prescribe drugs that allow woman to do it safely.
    As per the Wiki article, Mifepristone, a medication often used for the treatment of uterine fibroids, also known as RU-486, is a medication typically used in combination with misoprostol, a common ulcer medication, to terminate pregnancies.

    So, all you have to do, as a woman, is seek out treatments for fibroids and then get treatment for a stomach ulcer. These are medications that are available, on their own, generally without a prescription.

    It is common for organizations to provide the components to women in jurisdictions where actual prescriptions for the pill are forbidden.
    You realize that in order to seek out treatment for fibroids, you must first be examined for fibroids and are only prescribed the medication if it is deemed to be safe and effective to remove your particular fibroids?

    A pregnancy would be obvious under such an examination. In fact, a pregnancy would be specifically screened for prior to devising any treatment plan.

    If you are not found to have fibroids, you would not receive the medication to eliminate the fibroids.

    In all likelihood, if you were found to be pregnant and to have fibroids, you would not be given the medication to eliminate fibroids. You might be so prescribed to eliminate the pregnancy but with fibroids present, it is unlikely that you would be given the medication because of the chance of complications/extensive bleeding.
    The point is that these medications can and will be made available, and have been, at appropriate doses through international effort to pregnant women who wish to terminate their pregnancy, and the laws of those places declare the use of these illegal for that end -- even when legally acquired through such circumstances as having had both fibroids and ulcers, or having friends who had one or the other and aren't shitty.

    My point is that the law in those places DOES NOT protect the privacy of the mother.

    That is the only point of this tangent. They have criminalized even putting a pill in your own body, and this in itself is anethma.

    And yes, fetuses are parasitic. By their nature they rely on the unconsented life and organs and body of another to survive without offering survival benefit to the host organism.

  4. Top | #274
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,155
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,810
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post

    You realize that in order to seek out treatment for fibroids, you must first be examined for fibroids and are only prescribed the medication if it is deemed to be safe and effective to remove your particular fibroids?

    A pregnancy would be obvious under such an examination. In fact, a pregnancy would be specifically screened for prior to devising any treatment plan.

    If you are not found to have fibroids, you would not receive the medication to eliminate the fibroids.

    In all likelihood, if you were found to be pregnant and to have fibroids, you would not be given the medication to eliminate fibroids. You might be so prescribed to eliminate the pregnancy but with fibroids present, it is unlikely that you would be given the medication because of the chance of complications/extensive bleeding.
    The point is that these medications can and will be made available, and have been, at appropriate doses through international effort to pregnant women who wish to terminate their pregnancy, and the laws of those places declare the use of these illegal for that end -- even when legally acquired through such circumstances as having had both fibroids and ulcers, or having friends who had one or the other and aren't shitty.

    My point is that the law in those places DOES NOT protect the privacy of the mother.

    That is the only point of this tangent. They have criminalized even putting a pill in your own body, and this in itself is anethma.

    And yes, fetuses are parasitic. By their nature they rely on the unconsented life and organs and body of another to survive without offering survival benefit to the host organism.
    There is zero difference biologically between a fetus that is welcome and one that the mother intends to abort. Even among those who the mother decides to terminate are many very much wanted pregnancies.

    I understand in common parlance, fetuses are often referred to as parasites. This is the incorrect use of a specific biological term that has specific, defined meaning. A parasite feeds on the host of another species. Whether it not an organism or fetus is a parasite dies not depend on any way on whether the host consents.

    You are also mistaken in believing that no long term or even life long benefits are not conferred upon a mother’s body, even if the pregnancy is terminated.

  5. Top | #275
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    11,922
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    20,962
    Rep Power
    97
    Ftr, the woman is not a “mother” until she gives birth to a baby. She is a pregnant woman. Calling her a mother drives her into a category she has not consented to occupy.

  6. Top | #276
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,155
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,810
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Ftr, the woman is not a “mother” until she gives birth to a baby. She is a pregnant woman. Calling her a mother drives her into a category she has not consented to occupy.
    Point taken but the given position is that a girl or a woman is mother to the fetus in biological terms. She may or may not have consented to be pregnant in the first place or to continue the pregnancy to any particular point. That does not change the biological relationship to the fetus.

    Biologically speaking, there is zero difference between an unwanted fetus and one which is wanted by the person carrying the pregnancy.

  7. Top | #277
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,344
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    8,716
    Rep Power
    68
    A person’s a person, no matter how small.

  8. Top | #278
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    4,638
    Rep Power
    25
    A new born baby is just as parasitically reliant as an unborn baby in terms of the provision of warmth and nutrition garnered from another human being.

    The disgusting (nazi) notion that its morally OK to destroy a human being based on this selfish concept of parasitic 'inconvenience' is what really lies at the heart of the pro-abortionists arguments.

  9. Top | #279
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,155
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,810
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    A new born baby is just as parasitically reliant as an unborn baby in terms of the provision of warmth and nutrition garnered from another human being.

    The disgusting (nazi) notion that its morally OK to destroy a human being based on this selfish concept of parasitic 'inconvenience' is what really lies at the heart of the pro-abortionists arguments.
    No, that's not what parasite means.

    Germany, under Nazi control was characterized by the suppression of the birth control movement, increasing restrictions on grounds for legal abortion, and severe penalization of performers of illegal abortions. During the war, racial grounds were virtually the only basis for legal abortion.

    To attempt to control a woman's body and her reproduction choices is a tenet of Naziism.

    I know of absolutely no single person who had an abortion for 'convenience.'

  10. Top | #280
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    973
    Archived
    3,259
    Total Posts
    4,232
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post

    People who want Roe V Wade to remain untouched do not necessarily limit themselves to wanting Roe V Wade as law of the land because of the issues contained within. There is other rationale. For (many) women, it does indeed boil down to whether or not they can be coerced into effectively allowing the use of their body to benefit some other (potential) person without their consent. Breaking it down to being forced to donate organs is, in part, an attempt to get those (men) opposed to abortion to develop some empathy. I would wager almost no person would want to be told that they have been designated the organ donor for some individual, much less if that donation came with mandated medical appointments, mandated diet and mandated abstinence with respect to alcohol and most drugs, including over the counter drugs. I would wager that virtually all people would vehemently object even if they were only being asked to donate a single lobe of their liver, which would regenerate inside their body.
    Perhaps. I’m not familiar enough with any data to speak positively as to what “People” do. The same is true for me regarding “(many) women,” and such quantities really isn’t relevant anyway. This isn’t an argument or dialogue by numbers or grouping.

    Rhea made a specific argument and it wasn’t a good argument, and bad arguments isn’t going to engender “empathy.”

    And I can concede your “wager” regarding forced organ donation, but that has nothing to do with Roe and Rhea hitched her argument and the consequences to Roe and a reversal of Roe.

    Which, by the way, I do think whether to procreate is a right of privacy. But Rhea’s bad arguments aren’t compelling.
    I think that Rhea makes perfectly good arguments.

    To me, the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining Roe V Wade is that the state has the right to compel another human being to use their body in a particular way. Individuals have the absolute right to make medical decisions that they feel are in their own best interests and this right should not be over ridden by the state. Nor does the state have the right to compel reproduction in any way of any person.
    Arguing a reversal of Roe leads to the result of forced organ donation on the unstated premise Roe forbids the State from telling a woman she must allow a fetus to use her body and its organs, is “perfectly good arguments”? If you think that is a good argument, tell me how and why.

    A reversal of Roe doesn’t lead and wouldn’t lead to forced organ donation, in part because the decision carved out an exception to State power to forbid abortion where the mother’s health is jeopardized by the pregnancy amd that would include the risk of loss of a body organ. So, no, this part of her argument doesn’t constitute as a “perfectly good argument.” Another reason the argument is deficient is because forced organ donation isn’t analogous to a pregnancy.

    To me, the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining Roe V Wade is that the state has the right to compel another human being to use their body in a particular way
    Like they do already with use of drugs, alcohol, tobacco use, age of consent to engaged in sexual conduct, service to the country through one of the military branches, how many spouses one may lawfully have, determining the age to consent to marriage, age limits to purchase and view sexually explicit material, shall I go on? The State has been exercise a “right to compel a tiger human being to use their body in a particular way” for centuries and in many ways.

    Maybe you agree with some or all of those instances where the State is dictating how people cannot behave in regards to their own body or what they must do with their body. So, you want to draw a lines then, right? Let’s draw a line with procreation and limit State power in this area. Fine. Why? Why draw the line here legally? And where in the Constitution is there support for such line drawing?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •