Abortion Clinic Workers Found Guilty of Stabbing Babies

[Yeekim]

Yeah, it mostly is. There could be the rare case where the mother is not capable of handling any surgery, and thus would be in the fine line of not being able to handle the c-section.

...which begs the question how exactly should she then be able to handle the "abortion" and what would it look like. Not that I'd really want to know, but still.

 

[El_Machinae]

An abortion is intensely safer than a c-section or a delivery. In fact, the partial-birth abortion is designed specifically for this concern. They're graphically horrific, yes, everyone involved knows that. The woman is being asked to make a hell of a choice, one I wouldn't wish on anyone. Risk two deaths, or save one life? It's a brutal, brutal calculation.

 

[GoodGame]

Basically, I'd summarize this thread's derailment (or post-OP content) as:


"My metric of personhood is right, not yours"

"No, my metric of personhood is right, not yours".

"Your metric is artificial and ideological."

"No, your metric is artificial and ideological."


It'd really be better if people just stuck to listing their metric (e.g. abortion is ok until week X, abortion is never ok because I believe in potential) and the pros and cons of using their metric.

 

[Quackers]

You completely ignored my argument, and you almost got away with it.

My point was that demonstrating that there not being a "significant difference in the sexes" in terms of opinion on this issue (even if 4% isn't a "significant difference") doesn't prove it isn't misogynistic.

It's not something people probably consciously do, however the "sanctity of life" argument is fundamentally undermined because it's an inconsistent metric that frequently degrades itself when its main proponents are also in favor of capital punishment and invasion of foreign lands.

My proposal is that "sanctity of life" is a false concept made up because "we don't want women to control their own bodies" doesn't look as good on a business card. Well, from a human rights perspective, that is.

Devolving it from human rights onwards, it invariably comes down to the rights of the woman to choose what to do with her body versus the rights of the fetus to live. Strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense to value the fetus over the mother especially because the fetus is in no way, shape, or form a producer and not even a human by the census' standards. Then you get into questions of whether or not the fetus is human enough to have a right to life to supercede the woman's right to choose.

What I want to know is this: why is it so absolutely disgusting a concept for a woman to have an abortion and not for Johnny Nobody to jack off evening after evening, murdering millions of potential humans?

And how come there's no penalty for women having periods wherein fertilized eggs are washed out of their system? If all unborn life is sacred, doesn't that make all women serial murderers? And then we get back into original sin, and how women are the cause of all of today's problems.

Because the pro-life argument fundamentally steps on the toes of women's rights and deigns to tell them what they can and cannot do is misogynist in and of itself, and if that weren't convincing enough it's worth it to point out the historical context: women have been oppressed in this way and others for the better part of three millenia. It's not as if there's no precedent and a strong, built-in male psyche for dominating the woman in all ways sexual, social, and political.



Well , if you skip over valid opposite-view points whenever they're raised against you I shudder to see how you're going to respond to my post!

"Well damnit, I don't have any points to reply with! I'll just accuse my opponent of not listening. Yes! Three debate points for me!"

What is all this blabber, are you responding to anything I've said or are you just ranting?

 

[Formaldehyde]

My main problem seems to be my lack of medical knowledge - I can not quite imagine a situation, where it would be necessary to kill the child in order to save the mother from some "imminent danger". If aborting the pregnancy at 8+ months is really necessary, why not perform an early c-section? Isn't this discussion entirely theoretical?

While I am also obviously no expert on this matter, there are a number of cases where the appropriate experts did recommend that late-term abortions be performed to protect the health of the mother. I certainly think the woman has the right to decide what to do under those circumstances.

 

[El_Machinae]

It'd really be better if people just stuck to listing their metric (e.g. abortion is ok until week X, abortion is never ok because I believe in potential) and the pros and cons of using their metric.

Okay, I believe that abortion is okay until 28 weeks, because that's when there's hints of sufficient cognition, and I think that cognition is important. Focusing on cognition solves all types of dilemmas (miscarried embryos, chimeric twins, two-headed babies, growing a person from a skin cell, etc.). It also allows us to theoretically apply the Golden Rule. If I were brain damaged so badly that I was effectively the neurodevelopment stage of 28 week fetus, regardless of recovery options, I would consider it okay to harvest my body for organs. At that stage, all of my memories would have been permanently destroyed (not just inaccessible), all real sentience would have stopped, there's no 'me' to recover or heal. It's basically a rephrasing of the question of whether *I* would want to be 'regrown' if that all that was recovered was my hand. No, it wouldn't be *me*.

It also satisfies other moral intuitions. An athletic woman who has her embryos fail to implant is one thing. An 8 month mother who jogs until she miscarries is another. A woman who has a period in the same month she has unprotected sex is relieved. A mother who miscarries an 8 month baby is horrified. A baby that dies in the ICU has a devastated mother.

 

[Lone Wolf]

There's an anti-abortion argument I haven't considered - no person has the right to keep living on the blood, tissue, or organs of another person. It works better then the "restricting rights over body" argument. After all, should someone be prosecuted for refusing to, say, undergo a brain marrow transplant to save someone's life?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

brain marrow?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Bone marrow. I was posting it when I really shoul've been sleeping