Page 31 of 56 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 558

Thread: Roe v Wade is on deck

  1. Top | #301
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,175
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,830
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    That is an extension of laws, that exist in every state, which would send you to jail for child desertion or child abandonment if you DIDNT ensure the child was continuously cared for.

    Thanks for helping me make my argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    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.
    A baby ingests its own food, breaths its own air. It is not "just as parasitically reliant".
    Yeah...the baby drives to the supermarket and buys his "own food".
    An intellectually disabled person is unable to drive to the supermarket to buy their own food. Does that make the disabled 'parasitically reliant?'

  2. Top | #302
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,175
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,830
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    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.
    A parasite takes. It has the means to just take without permission.

    It is not something that some other organism freely gives to.
    Yes. This is what "parasite" evokes, and entirely what the ethical qualm people ought feel when they hear the word would be justly pinned on.

    This is the usage when applied to "fetus": something some other organism does not give freely to, but which takes without permission.

    It is the event of "consent" which removes this ethical problem.

    Thus I could call a tick a "parasite" but if it's my friend/pet (ew...) "calling it a parasite" isn't applicable due to the connotation attached to usage of the term, in the same way calling an unwanted fetus such IS applicable to the connotation
    Referring to an unwanted fetus as a parasite is absolutely an intellectually dishonest way to refer to an unwanted fetus. Unwanted fetus is quite sufficient into itself. Terming a fetus parasite/non-parasite based on some subjective description as being 'unwanted' or 'wanted' is illogical. The word fetus has a meaning. The word parasite has a meaning, and a particular meaning when used to describe an organism.

    Girls and women are allowed to make whatever medical choices they deem appropriate, generally under advice of their chosen medical provider. This is not related to any spurious denotation of fetus as parasite. Women and girls have the right to make decisions with respect to their bodies. Full. Stop. They have such right even if it is upsetting or inconvenient to others and even if it means that a fetus is aborted rather than carried to term. Full Stop.

  3. Top | #303
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,175
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,830
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post

    Of course, none of the examples I gave were the permanent loss of an entire organ. That was on purpose. You’d still have the rest of your bone marrow, the other kidney, the rest of your liver, the rest of your blood. I chose “donations” that would be analogous. And of course, pregnancy does indeed include the risk of entire organs, or their function, permanently as well. But my examples didn’t ask you to understand that far. You might argue that one kidney is an entire organ, but it does not leave your body without function, still you can take that one out if you’re not able to see the analogy.

    You are hinting that you are a woman who is the “in group” and that you understand this. My apologies for misgendering you all this time, I did not realize this, I will correct that going forward. But your words do not appear to understand this impact on a woman’s organs in pregnancy, so I don’t know what to make of that, but it is not trivial.

    As Toni points out - the purpose of the analogy is in part to try to engender some scrap of empathy from men on the magnitude of the effect of pregnancy on a human body. It is also in part to say, “if we decide women’s body’s are vessels without autonomy that can be compelled to donate the use of their organs, including permanent change to the function of those organs and risk of loss of function, then we need to rightly decide that ALL people’s bodies can be similarly coopted by the state whenever another human needs it.”



    My argument may never be pursuasive to you. It would certainly never be pursuasive to the men who would seek to coerce me to donate the use of my organs. Many arguments for civil rights in history were not pursuasive to the people who sought to deny them.

    But my argument has logic and the analogy is sound. If the law would force my body to be used to provide life-preserving function to another human, then any body should be available to be forced to provide life preserving function to another human. To say that only women can be forced is a violation of civil rights.




    Every pregnancy presents that risk, and again it doesn’t have to be to *lose* an organ, it can damage the function of the organ.


    Whereas your posts are consistent with someone who hasn’t read or studied the opinion. Do I need to illuminate for you the Holding and reasoning of the case? Or can you be bothered to read what it is you want to defend? Otherwise, I can explain how overturning Roe doesn’t lead to your implications but you aren’t going to understand unless you actually know what the Court held in Roe and its reasoning.
    Since Roe limits the coercion of the woman to donate the use and function of her organs to the third trimester, overturning will remove that limit and enable the coercion at earlier points in the pregnancy. Some states are tryign to make that point be when the pregnancy does not even include a functioning person; before it has a working brain, indeed - when it is merely 2 cells.

    That is why I entered the dscussion with this post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Remember when the “centrists” said that progressives were being hysterical about the “unfounded fear” that the right to abortion would ever be at risk?
    Oh, you thought I was just mimicking the reasoning used by male justices in 1973.

    Why on earth would I limit myself to that?
    Oh gee, why would any rational person think that? Oh, maybe because you referenced a specific opinion, Roe v Wade, and then opined of the implications to follow, by example, if the decision is reversed.
    And that means my objections about the harm its reversal would cause are limited to the harms those justices could envision? Again, why would I limit my understanding of the harm to their limited understanding of the harm?

    I envision much more harm than they did. That was my point in the discussion, that I addressed with this post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    It’s my opinion that if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned, stating that a woman’s body can be coerced to have her organs operate for the sake of another being, that it is now legal for ANY human to have the use of thier body coerced for any other human who needs it.

    If someone needs a kidney, and Newt Gingrich s a match, he **MUST** donate his kidney.
    If someone needs bone marrow to live and Marjorie Taylor Greene is a match, she MUST donate, whether the timing is conveninet or not, and as many times as is necessary.

    It doesn’t matter if it leaves the donor in a compromised physical state, it does not matter if it will harm your career or your family, or your education. You MUST ALWAYS be a donor whenever another person’s life rides on your donation. Or you are charged with murder.

    Donating marrow does not result in the “loss of an organ”
    You may argue that having one of your two kidneys removed constitutes a “loss of an organ,” I’ll withdraw that from the list (even though women with undiagnosed kidney disease can go into complete renal failure due to pregnancy)
    Replace it, if you like, with forced blood donation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post




    And yet you’ve made poor arguments for “abortion rights” and have not demonstrated how a “harm” to “abortion rights” leads to “harm the rights of anyone who wants to protect their own body.” The poor analogies of organ donation isn’t persuasive and to properly support what you’ve said requires an understanding of the law regarding “abortion rights.”


    Second, I never denied “organs are at risk of loss.” As a matter of fact, I accounted for it at the top of page 13 (on my iPhone) when I said, “doesn’t permit the potential mother to lose a body organ, or greatly risk doing so…”
    Every pregnancy presents that risk, and again it doesn’t have to be to *lose* an organ, it can damage the function of the organ.


    Whereas your posts are consistent with someone who hasn’t read or studied the opinion. Do I need to illuminate for you the Holding and reasoning of the case? Or can you be bothered to read what it is you want to defend? Otherwise, I can explain how overturning Roe doesn’t lead to your implications but you aren’t going to understand unless you actually know what the Court held in Roe and its reasoning.
    Since Roe limits the coercion of the woman to donate the use and function of her organs to the third trimester, overturning will remove that limit and enable the coercion at earlier points in the pregnancy. Some states are tryign to make that point be when the pregnancy does not even include a functioning person; before it has a working brain, indeed - when it is merely 2 cells.

    That is why I entered the dscussion with this post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Remember when the “centrists” said that progressives were being hysterical about the “unfounded fear” that the right to abortion would ever be at risk?
    Oh, you thought I was just mimicking the reasoning used by male justices in 1973.

    Why on earth would I limit myself to that?
    Oh gee, why would any rational person think that? Oh, maybe because you referenced a specific opinion, Roe v Wade, and then opined of the implications to follow, by example, if the decision is reversed.
    And that means my objections about the harm its reversal would cause are limited to the harms those justices could envision? Again, why would I limit my understanding of the harm to their limited understanding of the harm?

    I envision much more harm than they did. That was my point in the discussion, that I addressed with this post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    It’s my opinion that if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned, stating that a woman’s body can be coerced to have her organs operate for the sake of another being, that it is now legal for ANY human to have the use of thier body coerced for any other human who needs it.

    If someone needs a kidney, and Newt Gingrich s a match, he **MUST** donate his kidney.
    If someone needs bone marrow to live and Marjorie Taylor Greene is a match, she MUST donate, whether the timing is conveninet or not, and as many times as is necessary.

    It doesn’t matter if it leaves the donor in a compromised physical state, it does not matter if it will harm your career or your family, or your education. You MUST ALWAYS be a donor whenever another person’s life rides on your donation. Or you are charged with murder.

    Donating marrow does not result in the “loss of an organ”
    You may argue that having one of your two kidneys removed constitutes a “loss of an organ,” I’ll withdraw that from the list (even though women with undiagnosed kidney disease can go into complete renal failure due to pregnancy)
    Replace it, if you like, with forced blood donation.
    Of course, none of the examples I gave were the permanent loss of an entire organ. That was on purpose. You’d still have the rest of your bone marrow, the other kidney, the rest of your liver, the rest of your blood. I chose “donations” that would be analogous.
    My god, no donation is “analogous” because donation of an organ IS complete loss of the bodily organ but neither a pregnancy or Roe requires a woman to lose or risk loss of an organ. Hence, your “donation” of an organ by order of the State isn’t analogous and doesn’t follow from a reversal of Roe.
    Every girl and woman who is pregnant does risk the loss of her own life by continuing a pregnancy. Pregnancy can indeed exacerbate many underlying conditions which may or may not have been previously diagnosed. And it can cause serious medical conditions related wholly to the pregnancy.

    Here are some serious complications of pregnancy:

    high blood pressure can cause stroke, heart attack.

    pre-eclampsia and eclampsia which is caused by increased blood pressure and can cause kidney damage as well as heart damage, risk of stroke and death for mother and baby. Sounds like organs at risk to me

    HELLP syndrome which causes damage to the liver

    placenta previa can cause severe hemorrhage of the mother (and baby)

    placenta abruption can cause severe hemorrhage and death of mother and/or baby.

    Exacerbation of underlying conditions such as diabetes (and can cause gestational diabetes).

  4. Top | #304
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    4,638
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Does that make the disabled 'parasitically reliant?
    You tell me.
    You're the one cherry picking which human life is and isn't valued. I think life is sacred. You're the one saying some lives aren't valuable enough to allow them to make it down the birth canal.

  5. Top | #305
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,175
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,830
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Does that make the disabled 'parasitically reliant?
    You tell me.
    You're the one cherry picking which human life is and isn't valued. I think life is sacred. You're the one saying some lives aren't valuable enough to allow them to make it down the birth canal.
    No. I see life as sacred but to me, that includes girls and women's lives, as well.

    It is difficult to claim that all life is sacred and then to be fine with forcing unwilling girls and women to risk their lives to give birth. Clearly, the lives of girls and women are not sacred or of value.

    It is difficult to claim that all life is sacred when adequate nutrition, shelter, medical care, education and more is so far out of the reach of too many in this country, in this world. Including girls and women who are pregnant.

    I believe that all life is sacred but I have had to make enough end of life decisions to believe very, very, very firmly that it is wrong to insist on unwanted heroic measures when there is no possibility of meaningful or tolerable life. Those who insist on extreme measures for mom or dad are mostly consulting their own fears, rather than their loved one's best interests.

    When girls and women choose to have an abortion, they are choosing life--their own life.

  6. Top | #306
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,354
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    61,297
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Does that make the disabled 'parasitically reliant?
    You tell me.
    You're the one cherry picking which human life is and isn't valued. I think life is sacred. You're the one saying some lives aren't valuable enough to allow them to make it down the birth canal.
    You who want a pregnant woman to carry to term regardless of its effect on her life. So you are the one cherry-picking which human life is and is not valued.

  7. Top | #307
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,850
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,403
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    Yes. This is what "parasite" evokes, and entirely what the ethical qualm people ought feel when they hear the word would be justly pinned on.

    This is the usage when applied to "fetus": something some other organism does not give freely to, but which takes without permission.

    It is the event of "consent" which removes this ethical problem.

    Thus I could call a tick a "parasite" but if it's my friend/pet (ew...) "calling it a parasite" isn't applicable due to the connotation attached to usage of the term, in the same way calling an unwanted fetus such IS applicable to the connotation
    Referring to an unwanted fetus as a parasite is absolutely an intellectually dishonest way to refer to an unwanted fetus. Unwanted fetus is quite sufficient into itself. Terming a fetus parasite/non-parasite based on some subjective description as being 'unwanted' or 'wanted' is illogical. The word fetus has a meaning. The word parasite has a meaning, and a particular meaning when used to describe an organism.

    Girls and women are allowed to make whatever medical choices they deem appropriate, generally under advice of their chosen medical provider. This is not related to any spurious denotation of fetus as parasite. Women and girls have the right to make decisions with respect to their bodies. Full. Stop. They have such right even if it is upsetting or inconvenient to others and even if it means that a fetus is aborted rather than carried to term. Full Stop.
    A developing fetus fits the definition of "parasite".

    It survives by being attached to another animal that supplies all it's needs.

    If you are going to kill something then thinking bad thoughts about it is pretty minor.

  8. Top | #308
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    6,146
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    9,057
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    Yes. This is what "parasite" evokes, and entirely what the ethical qualm people ought feel when they hear the word would be justly pinned on.

    This is the usage when applied to "fetus": something some other organism does not give freely to, but which takes without permission.

    It is the event of "consent" which removes this ethical problem.

    Thus I could call a tick a "parasite" but if it's my friend/pet (ew...) "calling it a parasite" isn't applicable due to the connotation attached to usage of the term, in the same way calling an unwanted fetus such IS applicable to the connotation
    Referring to an unwanted fetus as a parasite is absolutely an intellectually dishonest way to refer to an unwanted fetus. Unwanted fetus is quite sufficient into itself. Terming a fetus parasite/non-parasite based on some subjective description as being 'unwanted' or 'wanted' is illogical. The word fetus has a meaning. The word parasite has a meaning, and a particular meaning when used to describe an organism.

    Girls and women are allowed to make whatever medical choices they deem appropriate, generally under advice of their chosen medical provider. This is not related to any spurious denotation of fetus as parasite. Women and girls have the right to make decisions with respect to their bodies. Full. Stop. They have such right even if it is upsetting or inconvenient to others and even if it means that a fetus is aborted rather than carried to term. Full Stop.
    A developing fetus fits the definition of "parasite".

    It survives by being attached to another animal that supplies all it's needs.

    If you are going to kill something then thinking bad thoughts about it is pretty minor.
    Not to mention the fact that it is really just a shorthand for "I do not consent to be attached to this thing that has attached itself to me." That carries all the anything I need for my position to be the right one in this regard: it hinges on consent. One is perfectly within all their rights to take all measures drive a separation and ensure their continued survival afterwards.

    For that matter I would expect consent even in an otherwise symbiotic relationship. Without that, and even an organ that literally makes me immortal would be to me a "parasitic" thing.

  9. Top | #309
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,175
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,830
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    Yes. This is what "parasite" evokes, and entirely what the ethical qualm people ought feel when they hear the word would be justly pinned on.

    This is the usage when applied to "fetus": something some other organism does not give freely to, but which takes without permission.

    It is the event of "consent" which removes this ethical problem.

    Thus I could call a tick a "parasite" but if it's my friend/pet (ew...) "calling it a parasite" isn't applicable due to the connotation attached to usage of the term, in the same way calling an unwanted fetus such IS applicable to the connotation
    Referring to an unwanted fetus as a parasite is absolutely an intellectually dishonest way to refer to an unwanted fetus. Unwanted fetus is quite sufficient into itself. Terming a fetus parasite/non-parasite based on some subjective description as being 'unwanted' or 'wanted' is illogical. The word fetus has a meaning. The word parasite has a meaning, and a particular meaning when used to describe an organism.

    Girls and women are allowed to make whatever medical choices they deem appropriate, generally under advice of their chosen medical provider. This is not related to any spurious denotation of fetus as parasite. Women and girls have the right to make decisions with respect to their bodies. Full. Stop. They have such right even if it is upsetting or inconvenient to others and even if it means that a fetus is aborted rather than carried to term. Full Stop.
    A developing fetus fits the definition of "parasite".

    It survives by being attached to another animal that supplies all it's needs.

    If you are going to kill something then thinking bad thoughts about it is pretty minor.
    No, I've posted the biological definition of parasite upthread. I'll post it again:
    par·a·site
    /ˈperəˌsīt/

    noun
    1.
    an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
    "the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes"
    Human fetuses and human mothers (biological term here) are of the same species.

    Moreover a fetus DOES confer some benefits to its biological mother. Data suggests that having an early full term pregnancy confers some protection against breast cancer. Fetal cells can also provide benefits to mothers, migrating to damaged tissue and repairing tissue, including cesarean incisions.

  10. Top | #310
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,850
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,403
    Rep Power
    81
    The definition game.

    Definition of parasite

    1 : an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host

    2 : someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite

Posting Permissions

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