I don’t know whether it’s the content or the ghastly color design of this page. Seriously — here’s a sample of what they think looks good on the screen:
Jebus, that color combination hurts my eyes.
Oh, wait, no…it’s the content. It’s like a collection of the most ignorant arguments against abortion anyone could find — and they triumphantly present each bit of glib inanity, and follow it up with Checkmate, Pro-Choicers!
I’m not going to even try to dig into all of their idiotic cliches, but here’s a couple that represent a major pet peeve of mine — the conflation of “life” with “deserving all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of an adult woman.”
If we found something on Mars with a heartbeat, we would call it “alive.”
Checkmate, Pro-Choicers
Oh, sure, and then we’d let it vote, marry it, and let it own an ice cream shop in Philadelphia. This has never been an argument about what is alive or not; a fetus is alive. But merely being alive has never been sufficient criteria for giving something human rights. We don’t even need to go to Mars to find things with heartbeats that we willingly turn into Happy Meals, poison if we find them in our kitchens, or turn into pets. We are selective in the assignment of human status, and having a pulse or breathing are the very least of them, and are definitely not sufficient.
A zygote meets all of the scientific qualifications of HUMAN life at the moment of conception.
Checkmate, Pro-Choicers
How interesting. I’m always amused when I see these bozos insist indignantly that they’ve got science behind them. And what are these “scientific qualifications”? List them, please.
The problem here is that there are scientific markers we could use to define whether something is of human descent, but they tend to be fairly reductionist and don’t provide a good indication of the kinds of sociological distinctions we want to make with the word “human”: it’s not just the zygote at the moment of conception that is human, but so is the sperm and the oocyte, as are cancers and HeLa cells. And when you look at cells as being of human origin, that still doesn’t help you in the slightest in determining whether a cell has rights.
Waving a flippant hand in the direction of undefined “scientific qualifications” is useless. Tell me what the specifics are, and I promise you, I can shoot them down one by one. How do I know that? Because the people who put these lists together are ignoramuses, every time.
(via Pandagon)
joey
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-abortion-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123
[B]etween 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born.
That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion.
I’m sorry, which is “the revolver with the fewer bullets” again? Let me give you a hint — it’s NOT simply waiting. But thanks for playing.
“We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective” @ 496;
I am put in mind of the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes – there is joey, doing the rhetorical equivalent wondering about buck naked despite the fact that people are constantly telling him he is not wearing anything, while all the time demanding that everyone admire the fine stitchwork and embroidering on his wonderful new garment, even when the cops finally turn up to arrest him for indecent exposure.
Still, it could be worse. If it was Illithid, he would be complaining that the cops are only arresting him because he is one of teh poor oppressed menz, and that he would certainly consider putting some clothes on… but only if the WPC (woman police constable, for the non-Brit Pharynguloids) agrees to sleep with him first…
Shorter joey:
Save teh babez because half of them will be male. Fuck the women (figuratively and literally) ’cause bitches ain’t shit!
And who are you to assume a woman won’t do this unless she has a fucking good reason not to? Like, I don’t know, this kind of reason. Have you read that link yet?
Why? If she still wants to end her pregnancy she has the right to do so. She doesn’t have to deal with the higher risks, because if the risks are that high choosing induced labour to terminate her pregnancy is, wait for it, irresponsible and cruel.
Who gets to assess the risks? Her doctor. Who gets to determine which procedure(s) are recommended for that particular pregnancy? Her doctor. Who gets to decide which of the recommended procedures should be carried out? The woman, informed by her doctor. Not you. Never you.
See right there…how does he think it looks to ignore people pointing that out?
@ joey;
Bearing in mind that, as a function of her bodily autonomy, the woman has the right to end the pregnancy at any time, then in this case the “revolver with only one bullet” option is abortion, not induced delivery, from the perspective of the foetus that might otherweise grow up with severe complications through being born prematurely. I know you are going to advocate forcing the woman to wait until term and then give birth, but as Peggin points out, forcing a birth carries a not insubstantial risk to the woman’s health, and so hardly constitues the “revolver with only one bullet” from the perspective of the woman – who is afterall, an established adult with full personhood, unlike the foetus.
To demonstrate the stupidity of your suggestion that the only allowable way to end pregnancies beyond 24 weeks should be by induced birth – it highlights the arbitrary nature of the 24 week cutoff point.
No – she has the right to end the pregancy at any time, and in cases where the foetus would be so premature as to compromise viability, such as at 25 weeks, then that pregnancy should be ended by abortion. Do not attempt to insert your forced birth ideology as an assumed premise of the debate.
For the umpteenth time – the woman’s right to end her pregnancy at any time, including by abortion when the foetus is not truly viable (and not using your perverted definition of ‘viability’), is emphatically not the same thing as killing a child on a whim. You have tried that feeble semantic ploy several times, and it has failed. We are on to you. Why are you so sure that simply repeating the same moronic statement like a manatra will achieve a different result?
As noted above, birth carries a higher risk for the woman, who is the one who actually possesses personhood, afterall.
Demanding that she waits before having an induced birth or natural birth still amounts to a forced birth ideology – you are still advocating a sick vision of procreative enslavement for women, and that position is still grotesquely unethical.
No one is being fooled by your idle hypotheticals. Your misogyny is glaringly evident to all.
I am often struck by the similarity in mindset bertween rape apologists and forced bithers – both ignore the personhood and fundamental humanity of women in favour of claiming that women’s bodies exist at the disposal of someone or something else.
The arguments (if such drivel can be graced with such a term) of rape apologist all boil down to the heinously misogynist idea that women are nothing more than living sex toys, and that their bodies exist for the sexual gratification of men. Equally, forced birthers like joey also ignore the personhood of women, and instead contend that women are nothing more than baby making factories.
A caual perusual of joey’s comments makes it abundantly clear that he has absolutely no problem whatsoever with the horrifying, agonising deaths of women occuring as a direct result of this dehumanising attitude, just so long as they discharge what he apparently considers to be their sole function first – acting as vectors through which teh babies can enter the world.
Forced birthers and rape apologists really are two sides of the same coin, and come the next thread dealing with rape culture, I wouldn’t at all be surprised to find joey there (assuming he doesn’t get himself banned first), self-righteously shaming those ‘sluts’ and explaining how it is that rape victims ‘ask for it’…
peeggin:
The context of Gregory’s russian roulette analogy was centered around the safety of the premature infant if it is born, not the woman. I agree, the woman is always at risk throughout her entire pregnancy. But that wasn’t the context of Gregory’s analogy.
—————–
Gregory:
In other words, the woman has the right to terminate the fetus. It’s just that the fetus has to be terminated inside the woman.
It is kept being pointed out to me that it is all about the woman’s right to terminate the pregnancy at any time, not about the right to terminate the fetus at any time. But what you and others have been arguing is more for the latter, since you object to any law that would restrict the termination of the fetus after a certain point.
The woman has the right to end her pregnancy through termination of the fetus at any time and for whatever reason. Is this not an accurate description of your stance?
No, the woman has the right to end her pregnancy.
Stop lying, you pathetic liar.
No.
Stop lying, you pathetic liar.
No.
Stop lying you pathetic liar.
(Incidentally, laws that restrict the termination of the fetus after a certain point, already exist. One of these laws is the current statutes concerning murder. No one here has actually expressly objected the ALL of these types of laws)
The revolver analogy is an inaccurate one for one simple reason.
There is another party involved. One who would, in fact, be the one who both loads the revolver AND pulls the trigger.
That’s the doctor.
It is the doctor’s right to decide, by dint of his or her training and skill, what is and is not appropriate to the clinical situation.
ONLY if the doctor deems that “both revolvers” are equally indicated does the woman get the right to choose which one she wants. If the doctor deems that only one of the “revolvers” is appropriate, the woman doesn’t get a choice between revolvers, she only gets the choice of taking that one revolver, or none.
You cannot compel the third party to pull the trigger of the revolver against his or her will.
Laws demanded induced birth and forbidding abortion after 24 weeks not only enslave women, they enslave doctors (some of whom are even men!).
joey really wants to just enslave everybody, doesn’t he?
Abortion is all about terminating the pregnancy. The fetus is irrelevant to that fact. As you can’t admit, because it weakens your weak and fuckwitted presuppositional argument.
Only in your unevidenced and delusional mind. Terminating the pregnancy need not always terminate the fetus. But often it does. There isn’t a one-to-one correlation, making your fuckwittery a lie. Typical of presuppositionalist to ignore the real facts if they refute their fuckwitted logic.
No, and it never has been. It is what you keep trying irrationally to claim, but it isn’t the truth. Medical ethics and state laws also come into play, which we admit, and you ignore those bits of reality. Which makes your statement a baldfaced lie.
What is apparent, is you don’t have an argument if you can’t and bullshit about what we claim. Typical of presuppositional liars and bullshitters to ignore the truth, and keep to their script. Which shows your lack of intelligence and cogency, since your script never had a chance of working here. We know the facts.
IF and only IF the doctor determines that induced birth is the medically appropriate procedure to do, based on the specific clinical circumstances of that individual case, and abortion is NOT the medically appropriate procedure to do.
THEN, and only THEN, the woman has just the choice of induced birth or continuing the pregnancy or seeking another opinion from another doctor.
IF the doctor determines that either induced birth or abortion and equally medically appropriate, based on the specific clinical circumstances of that individual case, THEN and only THEN does the woman have the right to choose one over the other (or neither).
joey continues to ignore the professional rights of physicians, in addition to everyone else’s.
And what exactly is the point of forcing the birth of a 25 weeks unwanted fetus so it most likely dies outside the woman or suffers serious health problems?
And why can’t you let the woman’s doctor determine whether induced birth is an acceptable/good solution to his/her patient’s particular situation?
That an obvious fact needs to be pointed out to you time and time again isn’t something you should be proud of, you know. Especially since one of the reasons we keep pointing it out to you is that you were stupid enough to suggest that our stance on abortion means we should be OK with a woman deciding that her newborn, that just happens to still be attached to her by the umbilical cord, should be killed.
Fucking idiot.
joey is so incompetent in his dishonesty that he completely fails to notice that this segues into an entirely different area of medical ethics, unrelated to the abortion debate completely.
And that is the issue technologically extending quantity of life without improving quality.
If you are diagnosed with an incurable brain tumor, I as a neurosurgeon can offer you an aggressive resection of the tumor followed by radiation and chemotherapy, which may extend your expected survival by maybe one year, compared to doing nothing. But the surgery carries a 40% or so risk of paralyzing you permanently on one side of the body, and the radiation and chemotherapy come with significantly debilitating side-effects that will severely limit the quality of the life you might experience.
You, thanks to your right to medical autonomy, have the right to decline this treatment. You can trade quantity of life for quality of life, if you so choose.
Now, if you got into a severe car accident and suffered a severe head injury with a large hemorrhage in your brain, severe enough that without intervention your chances of survival are basically zero, I as a neurosurgeon can, sometimes, save your life with a surgical procedure that evacuates the blood clot from your brain. However, if the hemorrhage has occurred in the wrong areas of the brain, you will be guaranteed significant permanent neurological disabilities in cognition and physical function.
Normally you would again have the right to refuse this treatment, to decide that this quality of life is not worth living, the choose to die instead of suffer, to in effect declare that, for you, zero quantity of life is better than X quantity of poor-quality life.
But by dint of your severe head injury, you are in a coma, and you cannot make that decision for yourself.
The decision falls to your next of kin. Your family will have to make that tough decision for you.
And this is exactly the same situation with a 24-week fetus. If induced live birth is performed, that 24-week fetus is turned into a 24-week preemie baby, a baby that has NO CHANCE of survival without massive invasive medical intervention. Medical intervention that might save its life, but will inflict significant pain and suffering, and leave an extremely high likelihood of serious permanent disability, which will inflict MORE pain and suffering, for the REST OF THAT CHILD’S LIFE.
The preemie child is not capable, anymore than the comatose head injured patient, of making its own medical decisions. The decision on whether to accept the medical treatment or decline it, the decision as to what is worth more, quantity of life or quality of life, falls then to the next of kin.
And who is a 24-week preemie baby’s next of kin? THE MOTHER.
A woman seeking to end a 24-week pregnancy is actually faced with three options:
1. Abortion (fetus is doomed).
2. Induced live birth, and then no further medical treatment for the newborn preemie baby (fetus is doomed).
3. Induced live birth, and then further medical treatment for the newborn preemie baby (fetus MIGHT have a chance).
The woman makes the choice of 1 vs 2or3 for herself, by right of her own autonomy. But the choice of 2 vs 3 falls to her as the surrogate decision maker for her preemie baby.
Option 2, however, is simply cruel, and few ethical doctors will agree to perform this if there are any other options on the table. So in most circumstances, the doctor exercises his or her professional right to take option 2 off the table as medically inappropriate. The woman doesn’t get to choose option 2.
Thus, in the situation where the doctor decides that either 1 or 3 are medically appropriate, a woman who chooses abortion is making TWO choices. The first is for herself to end her pregnancy. The second is for her potential child as surrogate decision maker – the decision that the likelihood of survival and the expected quality of that survival is too low to be worth the pain and suffering that would accompany it.
joey it seems not only wants to enslave women and enslave doctors, he also wants to enslave preemie infants, and force them to endure pain and suffering, on joey’s fiat, and deny them their right (as a human being!) to have their suffering ended for them by a surrogate decision maker.
Amphiox, #14:
Thank you for that, you make an excellent point. So excellent joey will almost certainly ignore it altogether.
@ Amphiox;
That is the scariest part about the likes of joey – any level of death, suffering and horror is acceptable so long as his forced birth obsession is serviced.
This is a person who can contemplate hundreds of thousands of women dying in needless agony due to complications in pregnancy or poorly executed backstreet abortions without the slightest twinge of empathy.
This is a person who would happily condemn extremely premature babies to a life blighted by the consequences of massively early delivery just as another gambit in a sick chess game ultimately aimed at denying pregnant women their bodily autonomy entirely.
And this is a person who considers his stance to be ethical – who does not even cleave to the indefensible position that the life of a foetus outweighs that of an adult woman, but rather that his personal sense of moral outrage and deepseated misogyny outweighs the lives of any number of women.
This is someone who would (if he but had the power) spill seas of blood to see half our species shackled to an archaic, patriarchal vision of woman-as-incubator.
It is bad enough that joey is nothing more than a whiny, misogynist troll with a hideously twisted sense of faux-morality and a tendency to endlessly repeat the same debunked arguments like a cracked LP record that spends his time stinking up teh intertoobs – the idea of such a person wielding any power over actual health policy doesn’t bear thinking about.
More than half. In addition to the 50.5% of population who are female, gooey the slavemaster would also shackle all the male preemie infants and all the male physicians and all the male friends and relations of the women and infants who will suffer and die as a direct consequences of the policies he wants to dictate.
This should easily top upwards of 3/4 of the human population.
And that, friends, is why I have no reservation branding Joey a fucking MONSTER.
Gregory Greenwood says:
joey quotes it and responds:
Your reading comprehension sucks, my friend. The pregnancy can be ended at any time for whatever reason. The fetus may or may not be terminated as a result, depending on which procedure is most indicated for that particular case. Oh, and which procedure is most indicated for each case? Not your decision, joey. Never your decision. Let the doctors do their job and let the women control their bodies.
Amphiox – I know you already have a Molly, but damn you deserve something for the way you’ve been on fire lately in this thread and others. Not only Amphiox, of course – a lot of you have been inspirational here – but some of those posts are particularly strong. Well maybe I can at least say thank you. joey himself has demonstrated that he is incapable of moral reasoning, ethical behaviour or compassion – but hopefully those reading can see this, thanks to you.
It’s not just joey who is having trouble with the concept of bodily autonomy. Look at this new “argument” from the site in the OP:
Not missing the point at all, right?
Amphiox:
So wait, are you saying that you’re actually in favor of laws that restrict termination of pregnancy through abortion after a certain point?
Nerd:
Nope. If the fetus really is irrelevant, then why exactly object to laws that, although allowing termination of the pregnancy at any point, restrict termination of the fetus after a certain point?
joey in all his Innocent Naïveté™, giving a whole new dimension to the obnoxious practice of JAQing off
Joey, what you claim somebody else says has nothing to due with your inane argument. You want something medical done. Show me your medical expertise, or shut the fuck up about medical solutions.
Because of noisy squicky fuckwitted idjits like you who think they can tell other people how they must behave according to their religious ideas. Why else Joey? You and your buddies power trips, forcing people to suffer. And you can’t even show that it should be restricted except by your presuppositions, not logic.
A baby has its own DNA at conception. It’s not YOUR BODY if it doesn’t have YOUR DNA
Cancer cells have different DNA* from host cells. Does that make cancer cells not YOUR BODY?
Conversely, identical twins do have the same DNA as each other. Does that mean that twin A has claim to twin B’s body?
*At least most of the time. There may be some that have epigenetic rather than genetic changes. Certainly most have identifiable genetic differences.
Also, the 25+ week old perfectly healthy fetus with a perfectly healthy mother who suddenly wants an abortion for no obvious reason? Still mythical. No examples given by Joey, several people have posted evidence that late abortions are all about fetal anomalies inconsistent with life and maternal risk.
Ah, but what about the woman who suddenly demands an abortion through termination of the fetus when the fetus is already outside her body but still attached to her by the umbilical cord? Must keep that in mind when legislating abortion. ‘Cause it totally happens and it’s totally relevant.
LOLwut?
Does that mean that if I were to get a kidney transplant, the new kidney wouldn’t count as my body?
Also:
I… wut. The absolute ignorance is astounding. I mean, I realize that most of the contributors are probably sheltered teenagers (considering that the blog author is a “stay at home daughter”), but come on.
Apparently the fucking stork gives us all babbys, someone just forgot to tell Darkfetus.
You ARE dense beyond any degree reasonable in a functioning person, aren’t you? I’ll try to pack this in a neat little packacke for you, which you seem to need so bad.
Those laws restrict women in exerting their bodily autonomy over their own fucking uteri, fetuses in having their substitute decision maker (the MOTHER, moron) make decisions about their health AND doctors in doing their job properly.
It is fucking legal overmeddling to a point where human rights and professional rights (that are granted by law, incidentally) are overridden.
@Keenacat
Don’t bother with him. He doesn’t care enough about his POV to argue it honestly so why should we?
I write mostly for the lurkers, as Joey can’t argue his case honestly. Joey thinks it can win by wearing us down with drivel. I have my “I survived *l*n Cl*rke” tee shirt. And I will have similar shirts from R*jkum*r and Joey.
Though he does offer an ongoing example of forced-birther dishonesty for any who care to read.
Where are your stats on 8.5 month abortions carried out on a whim, oh joey-the-would-be-dictator? Just how many cases can you find of women aborting in the last few weeks of pregnancy simply because they’d changed their mind? As opposed to instances of medical need, deliberated upon by the only people with the right or ability to assess them – namely the woman and her physician?
Seriously, could anyone read this thread without realising that joey is just desperate for a chance to follow his thin-end-of-the-wedge script – starting with arguing that abortion in circumstances that have never actually arisen needs to be specifically legislated against, so that he can then (he fondly imagines) start shifting the goalposts all the way to outlawing abortion under all circumstances. Tinpot Dictator of Daydream Dystopia he may be, but joey would love to enslave more women if he could.
This. Read this, joey. Read this and don’t post again until you understand it.
@Nightjar
Yes because that was never said before to him…and most certainty not repeatedly. This thread really raises the question: where is the line between “doing it for the lurkers” and “trying to drill through a brick wall with your face”
@Ing,
SIWOTI. I know it’s like “trying to drill through a brick wall with your face”, but sometimes I just can’t help it.
Also, I’d really like him not to post again until he understands it. Because it would mean he’d never post again. Ever.
Just wait for an other abortion themed post and watch joey play his silly games all over again, as if we do not have his record of outright lies and arguments that bare no semblance to reality.
Joey, why did you claim to be pro-choise when you first came here? Why do you argue that some women will wait until they are giving birth to have an abortion when it is so much earier to have a first trimester abortion? (Sharp sticks!) Why do you ignore over ninety percent of the responses to you? What to you get out of trolling, especially when you ideological allies are doing such a great job of restricting women’s access to contraception and abortion?
Wait. Why am I expecting honest answers from a bucket of shit?
@Janine
Can I interest you in my new line of diamond tipped nose bits?
keenacat:
In other words, there shouldn’t be laws that restrict the woman from choosing to terminate her fetus at any point during her pregnancy.
Right?
Your immune system contains cells with edited DNA strands, distinct from other somatic cells. Therefore, it’s not part of your body?
Large cells, particularly in your brain and liver, are polyploid; their DNA is different from that of other tissues. Therefore, your brain and liver are not part of your body?
Your gonads contain haploid cells. They have a different complement of DNA. Therefore, your gonads aren’t part of your body?
Cancer cells are genomically unstable and go through radical modifications; also, they are often triggered by genetic changes. Therefore, cancers aren’t part of your body?
Uniqueness of genetic complement is not sufficient reason to bestow the privilege of autonomy on a set of cells.
Still not proving your case Joey, and you can’t with fuckwitted questions. Here’s what you need to do:
1) Show conclusive evidence woman are terminating their feti for birth control reasons after week 24.
Since you can’t or won’t prove 1), there is no need to go further, as you don’t have a case, just bullshit OPINION.
Oh look Joeys starting over . Yay
Also, cows don’t have your DNA either. Does that mean the anti-choicers are all vegans in order to be consistent in their respect for different sequences of DNA?
Oh, but it gets better. Same ignorant idiot, responding to a message:
Guess what also is made up of living cells that grow and divide (and unfortunately are very good at it)?
Exactly.
Joey:
Jesus Christ, moron. We’ve been talking about terminating pregnancies, shit for brains.
You’ve gone beyond putting words into our mouths, to not comprehending a single damn thing anyone has said.
Who ties your shoes for you in the morning, dumbass?
It’s the joey-go-round! The nastiest, most boring “attraction” in the whole unfairground.
Nightjar:
Wait! I know this one!
Um…
… It’s Hitler, right?
Abso-fucking-lutely.
Yes Joey she should terminate at any time. And yes we should be allowed to take babies and kill, eat and/or use them as personal fleshlights at will because we are evil atheists who hate babies. Is that what you want to hear?
@49: After reviewing your link, I had no choice but to nominate you for a Molly.
Audley:
So why all the negative answers to this question?…
Would you object to a law that, although allowing termination of the pregnancy at any point, restricts termination of the fetus after a certain point?
If the answer is ‘no’, then it’s clearly not only about terminating pregnancies.
————–
ING:
Well, that would make the most sense given the position of absolutely no abortion restrictions. Wouldn’t you agree?
Since joey likes those ridiculous hypothetical situations that never actually happen to anyone ever, I’ve got one for him.
Say there’s a child who needs a heart transplant, and there are no suitable donors. Say the child’s father knows you have the same blood-type as his child, so he sneaks into your house at night and surgically attaches the child to you, so that your heart is now pumping blood for him, keeping him alive until a suitable heart can be found. You never planned on having the child attached to your body, and you certainly didn’t invite it, but there it is, all the same, depending on your body for it’s survival. It wouldn’t be that difficult to have the child removed, only requiring a minor surgical procedure, but if you have the procedure performed and remove the child from your body, he will die.
Do you have the right to detach yourself from the child? If so, why?
Chimeric individuals are born with two sets of DNA, in different parts on their body. It appears that gooey the slavemaster thinks these people are committing murder every time they clip their fingernails and brush their teeth.
*Oops, I meant “if the answer is ‘yes’…”
yes we should be allowed to take babies and kill, eat and/or use them as personal fleshlights at will because we are evil atheists who hate babies. Is that what you want to hear?
Is this what you want? I’m playing into your hand if only to get you to shut the ever loving fuck up.
People have called you on this game from the beginning and you still ignore the claims. You basically are walking around with pissed pants ignoring everyone telling you to go change your self
The answer, slavemaster gooey, is no for reasons of medical ethics COMPLETELY OUTSIDE of the abortion debate, as I and others have already explained.
Your dishonest question is NOT ABOUT abortion. It is about another area of medical and legal ethics. We have been ignoring this question to this point because IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO ABORTION, and we want to talk about ABORTION, and you, you pretentious arrogant prick, are NOT ENTITLED to tell us what we can and cannot discuss.
I see that fuckface will not touch my questions.
I am shocked!
Shocked! I tell you!
@Janine
He hilariously quote mined me as I was calling him out for that.
You don’t say! *pearl clutch*
*faint*
Still no evidence by Gooey that viable post 24 week feti are being terminated for reasons of birth control. Ergo, there is no problem for Gooey to suggest a solution to and he should shut the fuck up. You see Gooey, that is what happens when reality checks are done. You come up empty, with stoopidity covering your face….
peggin:
From strictly the “bodily autonomy” argument that has been given here, the answer is yes…you do have the right to detach yourself.
Okay, let’s slightly modify the hypothetical. Let’s say he can be surgically detached from me, but there is a chance he could survive. However, the chances for survival, even with significant medical intervention, are slim…like 30%. And even if he does survive, there is high risk of complications later in life.
Do you have the right to terminate him before the surgical procedure that detaches him from you body?
Hey Joey, let’s not.
God how I wished your mother detatched you
Should there be a law that restricts people like you, slavemaster gooey, from lying on the Internet? It is clearly unethical.
Should there be a law that restricts people from cheating on their spouses? It is clearly unethical.
Should there be a law that restricts men from lying to women about loving them in order to get laid? It is clearly unethical.
There are some things that are NOT APPROPRIATE to legislate irrespective of whether or not it may or may not be ethical some or even all of the time.
O_O
…Damn. So will I, when noms open for June. That comment needs rebroadcasted.
I will answer your question, slavemaster, when you demonstrate the medical technology that makes this hypothetical possible in reality.
NO.
I am not in favor of laws, arbitrarily imposed, that restrict the options of free individuals in highly variable, nuanced situations that are most effectively dealt with on an individual case by case basis by the individuals most affected by the circumstances at hand.
Because that is what TYRANTS do.
A baby, incidentally, DOESN’T have its own DNA at conception, or ever. It has half its mother’s DNA, and half its father’s DNA.
Barring about a hundred or so de novo mutations.
An amount of de novo mutations that every single somatic cell more or less carries as well. Two adjacent liver cells in anyone’s body, for example, will differ from one another by a several de novo mutations or so.
So forget the chimeric individual. EVERYONE commits murder every time they clip their nails, brush their teeth, pluck their eyebrows, cut their hair, or pass a bowel movement.
Amphiox:
How very libertarian of you.
Do you share this same consistency regarding the right of individuals to purchase/sell firearms?
Ah, can’t even get politics right. Total fail Gooey.
Category failure on your part Gooey, as we’re talking only abortion. Where is the evidence that there are viable feti being aborted for reasons of birth control Gooey???? Your inability to answer screams loud…
Do you share this consistency to banning toothpicks?
Pah pah pah…I taste adobe
Joey:
Hey dumbfuck! It’s clear that you didn’t even read my response. We are talking about terminating a pregnancy, which a woman should be able to end whether or not a fetus is viable. If you insist on confusing pregnancy/fetus and fetus/baby, then I have no choice but to remind you that I have said time and time again that no one here is pro-infanticide.
For emphasis: I’m not talking about terminating fetuses or infanticide, I’m talking about women’s bodily integrity.
However, to risk another go ’round, where are all of these mythical women who abort late in the second trimester/third trimester simply for birth control and not for medical necessity?
Amphiox:
Zuh??
joey,
I’m not asking you what other people here have said, I’m asking you what you think. And I’m not even talking about legalities here. I’m asking you if you personally think you have the moral right to remove the child from your body, despite the knowledge that doing so will result in the child’s death?
I guess that depends — does removing him alive put your own life at greater risk? Because a woman is 15 times more likely to die during or from complications related to childbirth than she is to die from a legal abortion. If the same is true here, then you should have the moral right to choose the procedure that presents the smallest amount of risk to your own life.
Oh look an honest reaction.
Joey:
Hitler outlawed abortion, numbskull.
Joey, you want to restrict freedom unnecessarily, just like tyrants. You are an authoritarian, thinking there is a moral purpose to what you do. But you can’t even prove there is a problem you are solving. All you know is you don’t like it, therefore it must be banned. Who the fuck cares what you think with personal liberty is stake???
Still no evidence that viable feti are being terminated…
I’d be interested to read joey’s answer to that question. How about it joey? Would you personally remove the child, in this hypothetical situation?
Mind you, I won’t hold my breath waiting for an honest answer …
So… abortion gives you 50% probability of becoming immortal? That’s fucking amazing! Everyone should get them!
P.S. Audley, your “Hitler” comment made me LLOL for realz.
Thanks, Forbidden Snowflake!
I mean, if Joey is going to continue to be an obtuse fucking moron, then I’m going to continue to Godwin this thread ‘cos I’m sick of actually wasting time on coherent arguments on that doucherocket.
Note how tyrant slavemaster gooey posts the
AFTER he posts the
reply to the exact same post.
So first it appears to at least comprehend the post enough to try to answer it. THEN it pretends not to.
Textbook intellectual dishonesty.
But who’s surprised?
As a matter of fact, precisely yes.
I believe that the persons should be as free to own a firearm as a women should be allowed to have an abortion.
But persons who are allowed to pull the trigger and fire a firearm should be required to receive training and demonstrate competency, and be regulated, monitored, and licensed with exactly the same degree of stringency and government oversight as a medical doctor is required to have before he or she is allowed, legally, to “pull the trigger on”, and perform an abortion.
It just so happens that in the case of firearms, the person who owns/buys the gun and the person who fires the gun is often the same person, while in abortion the woman who wants the abortion and the doctor who decides when, which, and if it is medically appropriate, and performs the abortion (or induced birth), are usually different.
So, if for example, it was decided to make the ownership and purchase of guns completely unregulated, but to instead strictly regulate the manufacture and sale of ammo such that anyone can own a gun, but only the properly qualified can fire a lethally loaded gun, I would have no problem with that, assuming such a law could be practically enforced.
Not really. See my #81.
So, to summarize for the tyrant slavemaster (again):
Laws against the abortion of late-term healthy fetuses for birth-control reasons (this being the specific scenario the slavemaster keeps perseverating over) are
1) HEAVY-HANDED; they arbitrarily impose restrictions of individual options for complex, nuanced, variable circumstances that are best dealt with at a LOCAL (ie individual) decision-making level.
2) UNNECESSARY; abortion of late-term healthy fetuses for birth-control reasons is so rare that the tyrant slavemaster has so far failed to provide documentation of a single, unequivocal case. Perhaps it does happen, sometime, somwhere, but the tyrant slavemaster has not established this, and has not established that they happen frequently enough to warrant the expenditure of legislative and executive resources that would be necessary to draft, debate, pass, and enforce such a law, resources which are limited in supply are sorely needed for other things, like, say, fixing the economy.
3) IMPRACTICAL; trying to enforce such a law would be a bureaucratic nightmare. How do you define healthy and viable? Can you even tell at 24 weeks? How do you prove in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt that the sole intent was birth control?
And so, for these three reasons, laws limiting late-term abortions should not be made. These three general considerations can be used to determine whether any law, on anything should or should not be made.
The question of whether or not it is ethical that the tyrant slavemaster perseverates on is irrelevant.
Sometimes a late-term abortion of a viable fetus for birth control reasons is ethical.
Sometimes it is not.
Sometimes it is appropriate.
Sometimes it is not.
Sometimes it is ethical but not appropriate.
Sometimes it is not ethical but still appropriate.
Sometimes it is both ethical and appropriate.
Sometimes it is neither ethical nor appropriate.
And to decide whether it is or is not ethical and/or appropriate requires an in-depth examination of the fine and specific, complex and nuanced, details of each case individually, on a case by case basis.
Sweeping generalizations cannot be made.
Sweeping generalizations are also what Tyrants do, when seeking to justify their tyrannies.
And also, that decision of ethicality is NOT TYRANT SLAVEMASTER’S TO MAKE. It is between the woman and her doctor and each of their respective consciences.
It’s getting depressing. Everyone blast’s Joey’s stupid points out of the water, and he just ignores it and carries on with his game.
Joey, you are a massive piece of shit. You don’t care about babies or children. You care about controlling women. That’s it, that’s all. I feel sorry for any female stuck in the same room as a dribbling, filthy, repulsive misogynist like you.
I’m not going to answer any of your hypotheticals. We’ve already established it’s another rhetorical ‘gotcha’ game. Misogynist woman-enslavers like you never fucking stop with it.
Do the world a favor Joey, go play in traffic. It’ll only hurt for a second, and then you’ll get to be with Jesus! You’d like that, wouldn’t you?
I look at it rather differently.
The more the tyrant slavemaster continues its intellectually dishonest behaviour, the more it exposes the utter poverty of its own arguments.
It is rather uplifting watching the idiot immolate its own credibility for observing bystanders, who are the audience for our arguments that actually matters.
@Amphiox
I think we’re performing for an empty theater.
Yeah, it’s probably done for the night, checking its script for tomorrow. It should be back eightish CT manana.
Perhaps.
But the performance is recorded.
Playback remains an option. So it is still worth the small amount of effort it so far takes.
I agree with Amphiox. Generally speaking, indications are that there are always more lurkers than commenters – and joey is doing a bang-up job of showing his hand here. He keeps grinding around and around on his joey-go-round, JAQing off with – demonstrably – absolutely no intention of actually engaging with anybody’s answers, ignoring the real suffering that results from preventing access to early abortion and returning to his hypothetical OH-BUT-what-if-a-woman-changed-her-mind-during-labour?!?!?? that never actually happen in the real world. I’d say returning like a dog to its vomit, except that I wouldn’t really want to malign dogs by the comparison.
Yeah, I mostly lurk, but I learn a lot from you guys.
Amphiox:
Lol. No, I understood your response right away. It just took me a few seconds to recognize that you BLATANTLY CONTRADICTED what you said a few posts earlier.
I documented your gross contradictions in #73. But let me summarize again…
1) I first suggested that you (and Gregory and others in this thread) oppose any law that restricts termination of the fetus at any point.
2) You then answered “no” and called me a “pathetic liar”. (You also mentioned that such laws currently exist and not everyone here objected to “ALL of these types of laws”.)
3) I then asked if you really are in favor of laws restricting termination of the fetus at any point.
4) You then answered “no”, that you are not in favor of such laws restricting termination of the fetus at any point.
But wasn’t (4) my original suggestion in (1) before you called me a “pathetic liar”?
Yup, on your part.
——–
So unregulation followed by a regulation side note. Sounds very similar to allowing termination of pregnancies to be entirely unregulated, but strictly regulating termination of fetuses. But you would have a problem with that.
———–
Understood. So why not simply say that the woman has the right to terminate her fetus at any time, even though it may or may not be ethical in certain cases? If you simply conceded that then we could have saved both of us a lot of time.
Hey moron!
If you had read Amphiox’s posts, you would know that (especially in your stupid ass 8.5 month scenario) abortion does not necessarily = terminating a fetus, shit for brains.
Joey’s still not showing any evidence viable feti are being aborted post 24 months. Ergo, he has no point unless he can show evidence with citations of that happening. All he has is mental masturbation, which goes in circles…
Circular thinking, the bane of the religious, and Joey has it in spades. The record is stuck, playing the same groove over and over.
Fixed. Stupid troll.
See, in those cases you like to fantasise about, like the woman who decides she wants an abortion for birth-control reasons just days before or even during labour, medical procedures that involve the termination of the fetus are off the table.
Why don’t you let doctors do their job, joey?
joey just keeps going round and round and round in the same little circle like a blinkered mule in a mill, flat-out ignoring some hundreds of responses. Might it be about time to TITTZT? Now that raj has left the building and all?
Nightjar
That’s really the biggest issue, isn’t it? When people like joey propose new laws saying that, after a certain point in the pregnancy, abortion is no longer an option, that the only options are induced pre-term labor or continuing the pregnancy, what they’re really trying to do is tie the doctor’s hands.
Even if they put in all kinds of caveats about the health and life of the mother, they’re still exposing the doctor to possible criminal charges, putting him in a position where he might be required to justify to a bunch of government bureaucrats without any medical expertise, exactly why the abortion he performed was medically indicated, and why he thought an abortion was the preferred procedure rather than inducing labor.
Which is going to make doctors more reluctant to perform abortions, even when they are medically indicated, which was the real goal of the law to begin with. Sure, women are going to die unnecessarily as a result, but the people writing these laws couldn’t give a crap about that. What difference does it make if a few women die, it’s what the the sluts deserve for having sex and getting pregnant in the first place.
I agree. Joey, you are intransigent and obtuse. You are now confined to TZT: do not post anywhere else or you will be banned.
You know, plenty of women do terminate their pregnancies right before their due date– they choose a date to have labor induced* that works best for them. It has nothing to do with terminating their fetus or infanticide.
*According to my pregnancy book, Tuesday is the most popular day to be induced, so mom and baby can be home by the weekend.
Wait… wha…?
Changing your mind about having a baby during labor happens ALL THE TIME! Sheesh. Every birth I’ve ever been involved in as either a mom or a labor coach had the mother at one point for at least a few seconds deciding to not go through with it. Birth is an unfamiliar biological imperative that anyone I’ve ever seen go through it would far rather opt out of at some point during the process and just have it not be happening. And that’s when things are going well! (I cannot imagine the full agony when things are not going well.)
Of course, no one actually stops or interferes with the birth at that point either. There’s that inconvenient biological imperative thingey again. Besides, stopping *labor* at that point would not actually help.
Joey – I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t you go apply your great intellect to the really burning question of how many angels can dance on the head of pin and if they get carried away with their dancing shenanigans and get pregnant, will their offspring be angels (because the parents are angelic) or demons (because angels ought not to be doing that and maybe a demon slipped in in disguise and led one astray!) and if it looks like the offspring is demonic, is god good with killing it during the birth process? That’s something you could really dig your grasp of god’s wishes and logic into!
And there was much rejoicing! For Our Squidliness hath ordained in his wisdom that his blog shall have many Threads, and that trolls shall be cast into TZT that the Threadizens may snine their coats and sharpen their fangs thereon. Praise Cthulhu.
Late, unlamented troll perseverated on its deliberately dishonest conflation of the fetus/pregnancy distinction to the bitter end, I see.
And it has the temerity to accuse other people of intellectual dishonesty.
None of which is surprising, of course.
@ Joey
You can cross the River Styx here: Link to TZT
Heh.
Also, yay for confinement of teh misogynist assclam!