Pages

Thursday, April 10, 2014

No, I am not interested in "punishing" women for having sex


I went to law school. This has affected my way of thinking, for good and for ill. I am now fluent in legalese.

The purpose of legalese is to increase clarity. I realize that that's very difficult for non-lawyers to believe! But it's true, and in this post, I'll show you by translating some legalese. Please bear with me. I promise there's a pro-life point at the end.

It's been said that possession is nine-tenths of the law. I'm not sure that's right. Much of the law (I won't assign a number) is about the allocation of risk.

This is especially true of tort law. A tort is pretty much anything that causes damage to persons or property (other than damages that come out of violating a contract, which are handled, appropriately enough, by contract law). So torts encompass a wide range of things. If you ever go to law school, you will study many old-timey tort cases involving trains. But tort cases may also be about car accidents, slip-and-falls, dog bites, and all sorts of other routine matters.

Torts can be divided into two general categories. Intentional torts are instances where someone deliberately causes damage; for instance, punching somebody may not only lead to criminal charges, but also to a private lawsuit for the intentional tort of battery. Then there are the non-intentional torts, which are accidental. I've already mentioned some of those: slip-and-falls, and so on.

In a non-intentional tort, nobody has done anything criminal or morally abhorrent. But damage has been donein the form of hospital bills, a totaled car, or whatever elseand the court must decide who will foot the bill. Will it be the person who innocently caused the situation? Or will it be the person who innocently was minding her own business and was harmed by the situation? Neither option is ideal, but it has to be somebody. So the law's function is to allocate the risk of the accident.

When it comes to intentional torts, the court may not only order the perpetrator to pay for the actual costs of the damage, but also order additional payment to the victim"punitive damages," so called because their purpose is to punish the person who committed an intentional tort. But for non-intentional torts, punitive damages usually aren't on the table, because nobody needs to be punished; it's purely about compensation.

For non-intentional torts, a key concept is contained in the word "foreseeable." The court asks: who was in the best position to prevent this tort from happening? Put yourself in the shoes of the person being sued. Could that person have reasonably predicted that what happened was at least a possibility? If so, the risk will be allocated to that person. If not, the risk will be allocated to the victim.

The fact that something is foreseeable does not mean that it was intentional. (Remember, the fact that we're even talking about foreseeability probably means that it was a non-intentional tort.) A dog owner does not consent to her dog biting someone. A corporation does not consent to its employees doing stupidly dangerous things on the job. A grocer does not consent to a glass jar falling off of a shelf and injuring a customer. But they may still be liable for the damages caused by their torts. It happens all the time.

So when abortion supporters chant "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy!" and accuse the pro-life movement of wanting to "punish" sexually active women (as if babies are punishments, as opposed to human beings), my mind always goes to the concept of foreseeability. When a person has sexual intercourse, pregnancy is a foreseeable result. That does not mean that the sexually active person has done something wrong or deserves to be punished. Let me repeat that: saying that pregnancy is foreseeable is not a moral judgment. It's just an acknowledgement that, let's face it, the cause of pregnancy is not exactly mysterious!

So the question is: who will bear the risk of the situation? Will it be the sexually active person, who did not intend for pregnancy to occur, but who at least has some control over the situation? Or will it be the unborn child, who has no control over the situation whatsoever, and whose very life is at stake?

The answer to that question is very easy when two lawyers are speaking to each other in legalese: it's all wrapped up in that one word, "foreseeable." But when trying to have that conversation in plain English, instead of having one word, you have... well, you have this entire blog post.

So don't knock legalese. It's actually pretty useful.

1,389 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 1389   Newer›   Newest»
lady_black said...

If by "most living organisms" you mean plants and micro-organisms you would be correct. In more complex animal life, such as vertebrates, they all have brains, and the brain rules everything. Brain death is actual death, it's not a distinction. It is both clinical and biological death. I suppose it might be lucky for some transplant recipients to have the ability to temporary keep the pump working so the other organs do not begin to decompose immediately but that's all that's going on. The person is gone. Now do not confuse that with a vegetative state, permanent or temporary. The difference between tube-feeding and pregnancy ought to be evident to all but the most dim of thinking persons. The difference lies not in "possibility." The difference lies squarely in the mode of operation, and I think you know THAT, too. If you want to develop a method for tube-feeding an embryo or fetus please go for it. But you don't get to use anyone's body as the tube.

purrtriarchy said...

It's kind of funny, actually, that he doesn't want to talk about LEGAL issues in a comment thread about an argument that is primarily concerned with the LEGALITY of forced gestation...


He doesn't want to use 'personhood' as a metric, because it doesn't support his viewpoint. He wants to base it all one 'but it's got human DNA !!" However, 'simply human' would also grant personhood to skin cells, so he will have to do better other than simply appealing to h.sapiens DNA.


and yes, he's trying to win through semantics

lady_black said...

Not to mention, human corpses who also have human DNA, but are not legal persons.

Douglas Noble said...

No differently a zygote/embryo/fetus is only temporarily incapable of sentience and sapience.

If possessing sentience and sapience is your criteria for it raises questions about human life past birth. For example. newborns don't possess the self awareness to understand how a mirror works until about a year after birth. It becomes a fair question to ask if we should respect the sentience of something that can do little more than eat, sleep, cry and poop. Sentience isn't even uniquely a human trait. The intelligence of an adult domestic dog is considered to be that of an adolescent human. Should killing a dog be considered more heinous than killing a newborn?

Shouldn't human right be extended to all of humanity?

Douglas Noble said...

Whining about legalism? Um, appealing to legalism is an argument from authority. It's a logical fallacy. It's supposed to be considered something you DON'T want to do when engaging in a discussion with someone with an opposing viewpoint.


I think you should drop your cartoonish caricature notion of pro-lifers. I understand the stance that the mother's right to evict supersedes the preborn's right to life. I whole-heartedly support the right to bodily autonomy. I support legalizing recreational marijuana, I support gay marriage, legalizing prostitution, ending the moronic war on drugs, I support the right to die and death with dignity issue, I oppose ever bringing back the draft. So give me a chance when I say that bodily autonomy isn't sufficient to justify abortion:

In our society we place an obligation on parents to feed, clothe, shelter and meet the minimum needs of their children. If someone abandons or neglects their kids and any harm comes to them, EVEN absent any physical abuse, they can face some stiff charges and would be criminally liable if the neglect or abandon resulted in the child's death.

We don't apply the same meter in choosing to cease supporting a child that we do in choosing to terminate a pregnancy. Choice gets replaced with legal obligations. True, we can chose to not to parent a child, but we still have a duty to see that a proper transfer of guardianship is complete in the interest of the child's well being.

So what is true about "my body, my choice" that is untrue about "my money, my property, my time and my labor and effort, my choice"?

In antiquity, before surgical abortion, if a couple had an unwanted child, it was an acceptable practice to take the child out to the wilderness and abandon it, leaving it to the elements to take care of. Perhaps you have heard of the Greek tale of Oedipus where the king and queen of Thebes abandoned Oedipus to thwart a dire prophecy. It was not considered murder or any other crime in that day, but the couple was making a decision not to support and care for the child any longer. Should this be allowed today?

Douglas Noble said...

That is an egregious misconstruction of the logical syntax I have laid out. I am fine with talking about legal issues. I oppose an appeal to legalism (NOT THE SAME THING). When we say something like "stealing a car is wrong and should remain illegal" we should be able to justify WHY it is wrong to steal a car and not just be content to leave it at "because that's the law".

I used the slave population and corporations as examples of how legal personhood is not good grounds of granting the human right to life, but then you were talking about being a person outside of a legal or biological sense and I was asking you to qualify that.

Douglas Noble said...

I don't see how this is an attack on my foundational prolife tenets. The dead simply have no use for rights while the living do.

Douglas Noble said...

" He wants to base it all one 'but it's got human DNA !!" However, 'simply human' would also grant personhood to skin cells, so he will have to do better other than simply appealing to h.sapiens DNA."

purrtriarchy said...

The mindless have no use for rights either. Unborn humans are mindless. And potentiality is not actuality. Potentially developing a brain that is capable of sentience and sapience is not the same as actually possessing it.

purrtriarchy said...

There are objective traits associated with personhood. Zef's don't qualify. They aren't even sentient

lady_black said...

I absolutely agree. The dead have no use for rights. Those not born yet simply don't have any rights that the person carrying them doesn't choose to give them. And this comment was to another poster and addressed only what the other poster was saying. This blog is written with a (misguided and incomplete) legal premise.

lady_black said...

I concur in part and disagree in part. When discussing law, there is only appeal to law. In this situation, you are arguing that this blogger is arguing with an appeal to authority. No matter how incomplete and misguided it is. If you want to go with that, fine. End of discussion. If you want to debate it legally, he's still off-base. He would like you to believe that in tort law, any action that leads to "harm" to another is a tort. In fact, there are four components to a tort, and they all need to be satisfied in order to have a cause of action. He glibly slides right past the first component which is duty. There must be a duty owed by one person to another. Now in the case of pregnancy, what "duty" is owed to the conceptus upon which to base a tort? The duty to not conceive it? The duty to be sure it never comes to exist in a "needy condition" even while it is, as yet, non-existent? You see where I'm going with this, right? Maybe you don't, so let me lay it out for you. 1) There is (and can never be) any DUTY in law to someone who doesn't yet exist. 2) No duty, therefore no BREACH of duty. 3) CAUSE, both actual and proximal. Also non-existent. 4) DAMAGES. None. The conceptus is not in a worse position due to being conceived. There is only one way to return the conceptus to it's previous state of non-existence. And under the theory of tort law, no unjust enrichment is possible. So you see, legally the whole thing falls apart. Logically the whole thing falls apart. It's a fallacious legal argument.

Coyote said...

"No they are not "intrinsically linked." That's what birth control is for. That's what sterilization is for."

Contraception and sterilization (other than perhaps castration and ovary removal) are not 100% effective/efficient, though.

"Go ask any infertile couple how "intrinsically linked: sex and pregnancy are."

But in their case, something in their body is not working properly.

"I had a tubal ligation at age 26."

Good for you.

"I would argue that doing so is the antithesis of "consent to pregnancy." and in fact, was an overt act of hanging out a "no fetus welcome" sign."

Again, I am not the one who is making this argument. However, I am not sure about this, considering that even tubal litigation is not 100% effective/efficient.

"And if the tubal ligation had failed, I would have had an abortion so fast your pointy head would spin."

And just because you would have done something does not make this thing morally justifiable.

Coyote said...

"The various references to due process in the US Constitution. Unless you're going to seriously argue that infanticide doesn't deprive the infant of it's rights to due process, both substantive and procedural. I don't think you want to go there."

And what exactly will prevent these parts of the U.S. Constitution from being amended in that hypothetical scenario that enough people, politicians, judges, and states will think that the U.S. Constitution should be changed in regards to this?

"When you (just for a few examples) murder, steal, tell malicious lies, assault or falsely imprison someone you are depriving them of their constitutional rights. They are not "merely immoral." This is not a complete list of deprivation of rights, either. This is just to point out that laws that you may argue are based on morality are not just based on morality, but upon the violation of another's rights."

For reference, I support laws such as the one that you are talking about. However, again, in the hypothetical scenario that enough people, politicians, judges, and states will think that the U.S. Constitution should be amended in regards to this, what exactly is going to prevent the U.S. Constitution from being amended in such a way?

"Notice I didn't say "kill" but "murder." Some people believe killing is always immoral. That doesn't mean it's illegal. "Killing" is sometimes legal. "Murder" is a crime, thus always illegal."

I am already aware of the difference between killing and murdering, as well as of the difference between something being morally justifiable/morally unjustifiable and something being legal/illegal.

Coyote said...

"You need only go back as far as Romania under the care of a certain pro-natalist dictator."

I think that this is a very poor example considering that Ceausescu also banned contraception in addition to abortion.

In addition, while banning something does not necessarily end it, it does often result in this thing occurring less frequently. Frankly, *if all other factors remain unchanged*, then I don't see why this wouldn't be true in the event of an abortion ban as well.

Coyote said...

"Blah, blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Naturalistic fallacy."

Do you even know what the naturalistic fallacy is? The naturalistic fallacy is something that because something is natural, this thing is morally justifiable.

"I would argue that an infertile person's body is working exactly the way it's supposed to."

No, because if a human body develops properly, then it will not be infertile (short of sterilization, but that is a separate matter).

"Not every person is meant to be fertile,"

See my post above.

"and the default condition of the female body is non-pregnant."

Yes, and your point is?

Coyote said...

Please tell me how exactly you came to the conclusion that the only reason that this individual is making this argument is due to his religion.

Coyote said...

Depends on what can be passed. Of course, ideally, I suppose that I would say a couple of/several years of prison for the woman and 10-30 years in prison for the abortion provider. Of course, I support dropping all charges against a woman for getting an illegal abortion if she fully cooperates with the authorities afterwards in regards to tracking down her abortion provider and whatnot.

Plum Dumpling said...

One in every three women has had an abortion. Women have the same number of abortions whether they are legal or illegal. How do you propose to pay for arresting, trying and incarcerating them? How do you propose to fund building the jails to house them? Bond issues?


60% of women who have abortions have other children. What do you propose for them and how are you going to pay for it? Higher taxes? Borrowing? How do you propose to deal with their husband's loss of consortium? A man who loves his wife may have paid for the abortion and he wants her at home. Will you imprison him as well?


You are NUTS. And you are a rapist.

lady_black said...

Oh FFS! Look at the name of the blog! Thomas Aquinas?

lady_black said...

When did banning anything EVER make it less frequent? You mean like alcohol consumption, drug consumption and unlawful abortion? No, no and NO. What it does do is give rise to organized crime, black markets and tax evasion. As far as curtailing behavior that is human nature, no can do. As always, the rich can get anything they need, any time they want. The poor are criminalized.

lady_black said...

The fact that your hypothetical scenario will never happen. People do not want that. And it would be a disaster if they did.

lady_black said...

Human beings have a wide spectrum in what is normal. If the body "develops" properly, the result will be sexual maturity. Fecundity, not so much. Infertility is common in both males and females. For them, it's how they are made. Maybe a woman functions the way she should but has a shortened luteal phase. A male produces enough sperm but they are "lazy swimmers." Her body chemistry is hostile to sperm. Fertilization occurs, but her cycle will not permit implantation because the blastocyst is too slow getting there. There are dozens of reasons for fertility difficulties. A few might involve something being correctably "wrong." Others are just normal functioning for that particular person, and they are just less fecund than the average person. These are the people who will benefit from technology that gives a "boost" to nature, like IVF.

Coyote said...

"One in every
three women has had an abortion."

Maybe. You could be
right on this.

"Women have
the same number of abortions whether they are legal or illegal."

Source, please?
Frankly, I am extremely skeptical that this would be the case *if all other
factors/variables remained unchanged*. After all, I've heard of females saying
something along the lines of: "I did not get an abortion because it was
illegal at that time, but I would have gotten one if it was legal at that
time". However, I have *never* heard of females saying something along the
lines of: "I get an abortion back when abortion was illegal, and I would
*not* have gotten this abortion if abortion was illegal back then."

"How do you
propose to pay for arresting, trying and incarcerating them? How do you propose
to fund building the jails to house them? Bond issues?"

Actually, I *don't*
plan to seek out and arrest all of them or even most of them. As you implied, we
don't have unlimited resources. Thus, the main focus in regards to this should
be on tracking down and finding abortion providers, as opposed to tracking down
and finding the females which get illegal abortions.

Of course, it is also
worth noting that I support widespread contraception access to anyone who needs
it and that I support teaching comprehensive sex ed everywhere. These things,
if implemented, would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the
desire for abortions.

What exactly is the
percentage of the population which would provide illegal abortion services in
the event that abortion was made illegal?

"60% of women
who have abortions have other children. What do you propose for them and how
are you going to pay for it? Higher taxes? Borrowing? How do you propose to
deal with their husband's loss of consortium? A man who loves his wife may have
paid for the abortion and he wants her at home. Will you imprison him as well?"

Yes, higher taxes
could work, though again, I *don't* plan to seek the arrest of most females who
get illegal abortions. Thus, I don't think that your concerns here will be much
of an issue even in the event of an abortion ban. However, in the event that a
husband misses his wife who is in jail, or in reverse, such an individual can
try doing something illegal in order to get into jail as well (and this is true
regardless of whether or not abortion is/remains legal). I would discourage
having him or her do something illegal and land himself/herself in jail, but
that is a theoretical option for him/her.

"You are NUTS."

No, I don't think
so.

"And you are a
rapist."

Do you know what
exactly the definition of the word "rapist" is? I *never* raped
anyone at all, and I *never* intend to rape anyone at all at any point in the
future.

Coyote said...

Yes, the name of this blog refers to Thomas Aquinas. However, I am not sure if *all* of the arguments on this blog are *solely* based on religion.

Coyote said...

"When did banning anything EVER make it less frequent?"

Alcohol consumption might be one such example (though for reference, I *oppose* banning alcohol), as could something such as child porn or even things such as killing Jews (after all, how many Jews exactly were killed when it was illegal somewhere in comparison to when it was legal in Nazi Germany and in Nazi German-controlled territories).

"You mean like alcohol consumption, drug consumption and unlawful abortion?"

Actually, it did appear to work in regards to Prohibition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

" Though popular opinion believes that Prohibition failed, it succeeded in cutting overall alcohol consumption in half during the 1920s, and consumption remained below pre-Prohibition levels until the 1940s,[2] suggesting that Prohibition did socialize a significant proportion of the population in temperate habits."

In regards to illegal abortions, I *have* heard of cases where females who wanted to get them did not get them due to abortion bans being in place. However, I *have not* heard of the reverse--meaning that I have *never* heard of a case of a female getting an abortion when abortion was banned which she would *not* have gotten if abortion was legal at that time.

"What it does do is give rise to organized crime, black markets and tax evasion."

You appear to be question-begging here by making the assumption that abortion is morally justifiable. Else, one can utilize your statement here to advocate legalizing things such as child porn.

"As far as curtailing behavior that is human nature, no can do."

Actually, I do *not* think that this is always the case.

"As always, the rich can get anything they need, any time they want."

They can't get child porn even if they want it, now can they?

And as for this part, it depends on how many areas criminalize something. If something is criminalized throughout the entire world, then not even the rich will be able to get anything that they want.

"The poor are criminalized."

Yes, though not always (after all, a poor person can sometimes afford to travel somewhere else where something is legal as well). And again, the rich don't always avoid the impact of criminalization.

Coyote said...

"The fact that your hypothetical scenario will never happen."

And yet this does *not* make my question in regards to this any less valid. Thus, due to the fact that even the U.S. Constitution is capable of being amended, my point about the law ultimately being based on someone's morality appears to be correct.

"People do not want that."

Precisely, because it is *not* something that they consider to be morally justifiable.

"And it would be a disaster if they did."

I am not so sure about this. After all, I was talking about changing the U.S. Constitution so that human infants will no longer be considered to be persons. This would mean that infants would no longer have various rights, but this will not affect anyone else's rights. Of course, you could consider it to be a disaster if you consider infanticide to be morally unjustifiable, but then again, if one considers infanticide to be morally justifiable, then I am not sure that such a scenario/outcome will be a disaster from that individual's perspective/point of view.

lady_black said...

Yeah, but the ones that refer to pregnancy as the "telos" of sexual intercourse are based on religion. What kind of secular person, pro-life or not, believes that pregnancy is always the goal of sexual congress? I'll tell you something as a fact of biology. If pregnancy were the goal of sexual intercourse, we would have estrus cycles which would be the only time we would be sexually receptive. Most animals do, I'm sure you're aware of that fact. Human beings and a few other primates are different in that we engage in sex for a variety of reasons. Pleasure, pair bonding, emotional expression, reconciliation, and yes, sometimes for reproductive purposes.

Coyote said...

"Human beings have a wide spectrum in what is normal."

Maybe.

"If the body "develops" properly, the result will be sexual maturity. Fecundity, not so much. Infertility is common in both males and females. For them, it's how they are made. Maybe a woman functions the way she should but has a shortened luteal phase."

So, to clarify: in regards to a luteal phase, there is no specific length as to what a luteal phase should be? In other words, is there a difference in the length of the luteal phase even among females who don't have much, if any, trouble conceiving?

"A male produces enough sperm but they are "lazy swimmers." Her body chemistry is hostile to sperm. Fertilization occurs, but her cycle will not permit implantation because the blastocyst is too slow getting there. There are dozens of reasons for fertility difficulties. A few might involve something being correctably "wrong." Others are just normal functioning for that particular person, and they are just less fecund than the average person. These are the people who will benefit from technology that gives a "boost" to nature, like IVF."

You might make good points here.

Of course, for the sake of my own interest and for the sake of debate, I am curious as to how someone else might try responding to you in regards to this.

Unicorn Farm said...

Attention, moron: that little scenario you outlined is merely the state exercising its power to to imprison people in order to force women to gestate. That is inherently coercive. I can't believe you're stupid enough to even suggest that.

Choosing between your LIBERTY and allowing someone to use your body against your will is not a choice.

Would you think it is not coercive for the state to tell you that you must allow a man to have anal sex with you or you will be given jail time?

Unicorn Farm said...

Why such a light punishment for the woman who has an abortion?

Unicorn Farm said...

"That's what birth control is for."

And yet no contraception is 100% effective/efficient."


You keep saying that. Her point isn't that birth control reduces the chance of pregnancy to zero, just that it is literally revoking consent to pregnancy.


Try to keep up.

Unicorn Farm said...

"Also, based on this, a pro-lifer can simply argue that females should be
paid for completing a pregnancy or something along those lines."

"A pro-lifer can simply argue that blacks get paid for picking cotton or something along those lines."

Do you EVEN hear yourself?

Unicorn Farm said...

"Of course, you might be guilty of begging the question here, since not everyone agrees with you in regards to this"

Oh, god no! Don't tell me she's begging the question!

It's pretty damned clear that everyone in society agrees we don't take organs from one person to give to another. There are just some lunatics out there that think that rule doesn't apply to pregnant women. And yet, I've never EVER seen one person rationally explain WHY that rule shouldn't apply to pregnant women.

Unicorn Farm said...

Moron. The right not to be deprived of life without due process of law. Your cloying demands for "source[s] please" aren't cute.

Unicorn Farm said...

You keep whining about question-begging, and yet you have never explained the answer to the question: WHY do you think that fetuses should be entitled to other people's bodies?

"Yep, though just like with one's other property, I could see certain
cases where someone else might be justified in using your body in order
to survive."

What are these scenarios?

Just answer it if you think its so justifiable, which you apparently do.

Unicorn Farm said...

Says the a**hole who thinks that threatening women with imprisonment if they refuse to breed doesn't constitute force.

purrtriarchy said...

There was once a poster on here who said that everyone should be forced to donate their body to save a life, even if the person they were saving was a convicted murderer.

Unicorn Farm said...

I appreciate the "consistency" although some how I doubt this person was actively advocating for mandatory donation, except from those slutty sluts who open their legs.

These people are demented.*

I saw some a** posting on Live action today (where I am, of course, banned) stating that the fetus appeared in the uterus and thus literally owns it. Is it possible I've never heard anything more stupid?



*No offense to those suffering from dementia.

purrtriarchy said...

stating that the fetus appeared in the uterus and thus literally owns it

Yeah, that's a pretty common secular argument.

kristine kruszelnicki used it when she debated Matt Dillahunty back when she represented SPL.

They love their naturalistic fallacies, they really do. They can't appeal to god, so they have to appeal to nature.

Unicorn Farm said...

I've seen it often enough, that nature gives a right to the uterus, but that was one of the rare times I've seen one of them literally say "the fetus owns it."

I presume that a decent chunk of them must be so ideologically driven that they delude themselves, but the remainder just sound like they've been lobotomized.

Unicorn Farm said...

And BTW, I did also read the "responsibility objection" piece you referenced, and yup, I agree with you 100%. It's a complete failure of an argument for all the reasons you stated.

purrtriarchy said...

Thank you!


Chalkdust, an occasional poster here, has been working on some of those ideas as well. Once I see her I would like to show her your post on the legalities.

Unicorn Farm said...

Please do, and I'm glad you found it helpful. Spread it far and wide. It really overcooks my grits when people misuse the law like that.

BJ Survivor said...

And, still, you have yet to bring forth even *one* example besides pregnancy. We're still waiting...

Coyote said...

That's because I don't think that anyone asked me for one before.

Anyway, one other example can be a case where Person A stabs Person B in the kidney, where Person B needs a new kidney as a result of this stabbing, where there is a shortage of available kidney matches, and where Person A has a matching kidney for Person B. I don't think that Person A should be physically forced to donate a kidney to Person B, but I do think that Person A should be punished in some way for refusing to donate a kidney to Person B (*in addition* to any punishment which Person A will get for stabbing Person B).

BJ Survivor said...

Shouldn't human rights be extended to all of humanity?
Yes, which is why unfettered access to safe abortion must remain an option. Bodily autonomy is a basic human right. Please, give me one other instance in U.S. law where one person has the right to commandeer another's body (including blood, bone marrow, kidney, partial liver, etc.) in order to preserve hir own life?


You cannot. It's only with pregnant persons that people like you think it's perfectly okay and reasonable to demand such a thing.

BJ Survivor said...

No man has ever been on the hook to support a woman while she is pregnant. He is only on the hook to provide material support to his child once it has actually been born. If it's stillborn, he will be under no obligation whatsoever, unlike the woman, who had to take on all the physical, financial, and social risks of the pregnancy until either the elective abortion/stillbirth/childbirth.


While the unborn child is not a person under the law, the actual (born) child absolutely is.


Again, your "analysis" fails.

Coyote said...

"No man has ever been on the hook to support a woman while she is pregnant. He is only on the hook to provide material support to his child once it has actually been born. If it's stillborn, he will be under no obligation whatsoever, "

Am I disputing this part? No, I'm not.

"unlike the woman, who had to take on all the physical, financial, and social risks of the pregnancy until either the elective abortion/stillbirth/childbirth."

False comparison, considering that a voluntary sacrifice is *not* the same thing as an involuntary sacrifice.

"While the unborn child is not a person under the law, the actual (born) child absolutely is."

Yep, and this still does not undercut by argument here.

"Again, your "analysis" fails."

Nope, because you do not appear to have made an actual attempt to rebuke my argument here.

Here is a video for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb1kxD_JSbs

How about you make an attempt to respond to the points in it?

BJ Survivor said...

*Sigh.* You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that all fertilized eggs will implant and then will become live babies if left alone to do so. You are sorely mistaken. While we cannot quantify how many zygotes fail to begin dividing to create a blastocyst, we do know that anywhere from 20-70% of blastocysts fail to implant. Of those that implant, 1/3 of them will be sloughed off during menstruation, typically well before the woman even knows she is pregnant. About 1/3 of established pregnancies will spontaneously abort during the first trimester, which is why most women/couples refrain from announcing the pregnancy until safely into the second trimester. That's an awful lot of death, yet I don't see "pro-lifers" trying to mitigate this holocaust of unprecedented proportion.


Other phenomena that belie that facile pronouncement, include:


* Gestational trophoblastic disease, which includes hydatidiform mole and choriocarcinoma, among others. If z/b/e/f are persons because human DNA = person, then so are these.


* Fetus in fetu. Ditto.

* Parasitic twin. Ditto.


* Tetragametic chimerism, in which two or more zygotes or early embryos fuse to form one individual. So, wait, if a zygote is an individual, then are tetragametic chimeras two (or more) persons in one body?

BJ Survivor said...

For one, that doesn't even look remotely human. All vertebrate embryos look the same for a large part of the first trimester. You also seem to are operating under the fallacy that fertilized egg always = baby. Not so. They also become gestational trophoblastic tumors, such as hydatidiform mole and choriocarcinoma, among others. They also become fetus in fetu and parasitic twins.


In any event, no person has any sort of right to commandeer the body of another person to preserve hir life, so you will have to come up with a better argument than "it's a baby!" to justify removing that right for women and only women and granting that right to z/b/e/f and only z/b/e/f.

BJ Survivor said...

This is a human rights issue.

Agreed. But as much as you love insensate clusters of barely differentiated human tissue, they are not deserving of more rights than any born person does to demand the use of another person's body against her will. Women have every right to make their own medical decisions, even if those decisions will hurt the feelings of a panty-sniffing stranger.

Also, once a woman is pregnant, there are risks of maiming, infertility, and death whether or not she aborts. Those risks all come with *getting pregnant*.

First trimester abortion is 14 times safer than pregnancy and childbirth. The later in pregnancy the abortion, the greater the risks, which is why unfettered access to first trimester abortion should be a priority.

BJ Survivor said...

Apparently not if you are a pregnant woman, according to "pro-lifers" both secular and otherwise. Sounds an awful lot like rape, doesn't it?

purrtriarchy said...

A dude on TFA, who claims to be a feminist, just told me that he does not believe in bodily autonomy. At all. However, he opposes mandatory forced organ donation and probably slavery as well.

So, this 'feminist' only opposes bodily autonomy for *women*.

BJ Survivor said...

And that's the way it always is with forced-gestation "feminists." Bodily autonomy is only for men, dontcha know. But this is totally compatible with feminism. Oy vey!

BJ Survivor said...

Well, since you are only arguing that it is pregnant people and only pregnant people who do not have a right to bodily autonomy, then you are, in fact, discriminating against women. We are aware that "pro-lifers" do not think that women should have any rights over their own bodies and we vehemently disagree.

BJ Survivor said...

Don't you know that a man's wallet is totally more important than the well-being of a child. And obviously it's way, way more important than the well-being, health, and life of any woman, anywhere. But this is not to be construed as indicative of misogyny. Oh, no. It's just the natural order of things.

BJ Survivor said...

You've been asked this over and over again. Anyway, again, you haven't provided an example where another person can demand (and get) the use of another's body to preserve his life.

BJ Survivor said...

This really should not be a difficult concept. The z/b/e/f is not a person, but the infant is. That's because the infant has been born and is now viable offspring.


Men are never on the hook for financially supporting a woman they've impregnated while she is pregnant. They are not financially responsible for the labor and recovery from the labor, either, nor for any complications she may have sustained secondary to the pregnancy or labor process. If the woman has an abortion, spontaneous or elective, the man is off the hook. If the pregnancy results in a stillbirth, the man is off the hook. A man is only materially responsible for the actual, born child (viable offspring) once childbirth is completed.


For someone who waxes on and on about the immorality of abortion, it's mystifying that you would advocate letting your own offspring starve. Do I really have to point out to you how evil that is?

BJ Survivor said...

Sorry, but materially supporting your child is not a "sacrifice." It's what adults are required to do both legally and ethically. It's what the woman who bore and birthed your child will do.


Personally, I think it pretty stupid to have children with someone who doesn't want to have them with you, but then I have absolutely zero problem with availing myself of an abortion should the need arise. You are apparently an immoral deadbeat who on the one hand wants to outlaw abortion and on the other hand wants not to be required to provide for any offspring he just doesn't feel like providing for.

BJ Survivor said...

Yes, which is why the "pro-life" position is reprehensible. The "pro-life" position is that women are a sub-class of human being who have no right to make their own medical decisions in regard to pregnancy. The "pro-life" position grants prenates a right no other human being has: the right to commandeer another person's body against that person's will.

BJ Survivor said...

Except that in "pro-life" world, corpses have more rights than fertile females. After all, we cannot take tissues and organs from a corpse without prior permission from the now-deceased or hir next of kin.

BJ Survivor said...

But, of course, this waste-of-carbon only thinks that consent doesn't matter for pregnant females and only pregnant females. And it thinks it's perfectly a-okay to refuse to provide material support for any offspring it doesn't wish to provide for. And we're supposed to believe it's "pro-life." It's been outed as purely anti-woman. What a disgusting excuse for a human being.

Coyote said...

"You keep whining about question-begging, and yet you have never explained the answer to the question: WHY do you think that fetuses should be entitled to other people's bodies?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv_GZuhY_9c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di09C7BTRpo

These two videos above respond to Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist scenario, but it appears that the arguments in them can also be applied in a general sense.

"What are these scenarios?"

One of them would be Person A stabbing Person B in the kidney and thus causing Person B to need a new kidney. In such a scenario, I would support giving Person B a claim on Person A's kidney if Person A's kidney is a match for Person B and if there is currently a shortage of available kidneys.

"Just answer it if you think its so justifiable, which you apparently do."

Already done.

Coyote said...

Who exactly was this person?

Coyote said...

What piece exactly are you talking about?

Coyote said...

Can you please show me where exactly this post is located?

Coyote said...

Because many of these females would not have gotten abortions without the assistance of an abortion provider. Also, in order to avoid wasting too much money on these females in prison and whatnot.

purrtriarchy said...

She ran them all past you already.

purrtriarchy said...

I don't recall.

BJ Survivor said...

Actually, I oppose having bodily autonomy be that broad for everyone, both males and females.
Your actions and what you say you stand for belie this assertion. Try again.

BJ Survivor said...

Cow, pigs, fish, etc. are all more deserving of personhood than z/b/e/f. This is because they actually have the neural structures necessary for sentience, unlike z/b/e/f (until very late in the pregnancy).

BJ Survivor said...

Nope, not an involuntary sacrifice. If a man willy-nilly puts his little swimmers out there into, say, a pro-life woman (because he can't be arsed to communicate with women he has sex with) and she gets pregnant, that resulting child is, in fact, his offspring. Just because abortion is legal doesn't mean that a woman must be forced to have one against her own conscience. Further, in many parts of the nation there are so many obstacles to obtaining one that it might as well be illegal. The man had his chance to prevent impregnating the woman, but couldn't be arsed to do so. MRAs like to whine that this is some gynocratic conspiracy, but it's just biology. Women just have a longer window in which to decide whether or not to create a child since pregnancy happens in their bodies. I'm aware that it angers MRAs that they cannot force women to abort or carry as they see fit, but they'll just have to grow up and realize that women are autonomous persons who get to make their own medical decisions. Again, why anyone would want to gestate and birth a child by someone who clearly doesn't want to be involved is beyond me, but then I don't anthropomorphize mindless clusters of human tissue.

Chandler Klebs said...

"Let me repeat that: saying that pregnancy is foreseeable is not a moral judgment. It's just an acknowledgement that, let's face it, the cause of pregnancy is not exactly mysterious!"

That is one of the few things that we can all agree on.

Kala said...

You fail to address what happens if the pregnancy is not "foreseeable," like when someone is raped, or if someone is misdiagnosed as infertile, or is on birth control and it fails? Are you saying that no one should ever have sex unless they are ready to have the baby, even if they do not think pregnancy is "foreseeable?" Would an abortion be okay if the pregnancy was not "foreseeable?" And if so, why? Let's not pretend pro-life people care whether or not the pregnancy was foreseeable. They care that the fetus is not killed. But suddenly the death of the fetus is not a horrible thing if the pregnancy can be proven to be "unforeseeable?" The life is less precious? Because the argument they always make is that God has planned this, or life is precious, babies are a blessing, the innocent human being is being murdered, etc. But all of this magically goes away if the pregnancy was unforeseeable, right?
Do all people truly understand that pregnancy can result from sex? Do you really, truly think that a 13 year old boy or girl really and honestly thinks that pregnancy can happen to them, or do they just think it is something that happens to everyone else? Is pregnancy foreseeable if someone is brain-damaged? Or if they are mentally ill?
Should all people on medications that could be dangerous to a fetus stop taking them if they are having sex (because it is foreseeable that, even if they take precautions against pregnancy, a pregnancy could still result and the medications could be harmful to the fetus), or should they just go ahead and get sterilized if they want to continue having sex?
Or maybe you think pregnancy is foreseeable for every person who has the organs that enable them to become pregnant? So, since I don't want kids, and there is a chance pills can fail and I may be raped, I should definitely go ahead and get my uterus and ovaries removed, because unless they are removed, the "risk is foreseeable," even if slight.
And while we're talking legalese, let's mention that abortion is actually legal. It is an appropriate, legal solution to an unwanted pregnancy, even if it was foreseeable, just as cholesterol medication is available for anyone with poor cholesterol, even if the poor cholesterol was "foreseeable." No one will tell that person "well we don't think you should be allowed to have this medication, because your condition was "foreseeable."

Should pregnant women be heavily monitored by the government and health professionals while they are pregnant, to make sure they do not do anything that could cause "foreseeable" damage to the fetus--like walking up or down stairs, eating anything but perfectly healthy foods, drinking caffeine, driving a car or crossing the street? Because the poor innocent fetus's life is at stake, foreseeably so, during any and all of these activities.
Also, say you agree, and cases of rape or otherwise non-foreseeability can warrant an abortion. Awesome. How are these people to prove the rape, or otherwise unforeseeable situation? In court? Will they need a lawyer? And how quick will this process of proof be--many rape cases take longer than 9 months to conclude, and by then it would be too late. Also, rape victims have sometimes have consensual sex before and after a rape takes place--do we need to DNA test these fetuses to make sure they are the result of a rape, or do we just assume it is the result of the rape, or do we assume that since she was having consensual sex, even though someone else raped her, she did foresee the possibility of pregnancy--just not by the rapist. But since the pregnancy was foreseeable, let's deny the abortion.
I'll stop here because I could go on a lot longer, and this is already a tl;dr for most people, I'm sure.

purrtriarchy said...

TL DID Read:)

Well said. If fetuses = children, then everything you wrote about should be implemented.

Jane Doe said...

Also fun fact: As abortion exists and is effective, abortion is a foreseeable outcome of pregnancy, and thus of sex. So really what people who can get pregnant should be taking into consideration is whether or not they are ready, able, or willing to A.) Be pregnant, B.) Raise a child, C.) Put a child up for adoption, D.) Have a miscarriage, E.) Have an abortion.
Abortion is a foreseeable outcome of pregnancy.
Abortion=Foreseeable.

Ann Morgan said...

You're making a really big logical jump here, which is that you are assigning legal personhood to an embryo, such that you equate the embryo to an actual person involved in a traffic accident. The fact that pregnancy is a 'foreseeable' consequence of sex or that the embryo's 'very life is at stake' does not equate to legal personhood. I could just as well point out that getting ticks is a foreseeable consequence of walking outside, therefore removing the ticks from my body should be illegal, on the grounds that I could have foreseen getting ticks and the tick's 'very life is at stake'.

Timothy Griffy said...

May I add that, in holding women strictly liable for having sex translates perfectly well as trying to punish women for having sex?

kitler said...

Which is what the dishonest twit Simon JM is doing. He says: duty of care = gestation or prison.

And he is lying and saying that it isn't punishment or even a false choice.

Timothy Griffy said...

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. While you are right to caution against over-generalization, arguments that boil down to "she opened her legs, she gets what she deserves" are a dime a dozen among pro-lifers. Some of them do it explicitly, others try to use the so-called responsibility objection. The result is the same.

Timothy Griffy said...

"(Besides, I think that the unborn human has a greater right to the womb
than a stranger has to my kidney regardless of the circumstances, due to
the unique responsibilities of the parent/child relationship and the
fact that the womb is designed specifically for the use of an unborn
human. But that's another argument.)"

That is an argument I'll take you up on by pointing out that is exactly what we do NOT do. We do not try to force fathers to give up even a pint of blood (let alone their kidneys or livers or lungs) to their children. We do not even do it to mothers (after the child is born). Nor is there any movement to get this to happen. Even most "pro-lifers" wouldn't require it except from pregnant women and then only for the duration of pregnancy.

So what makes pregnancy different? That the uterus is "designed" for the use of an unborn human? That is a theological judgment, not a scientific one.

That there are "unique responsibilities of the parent/child relationship"? Then why would the demand to require offspring to use the woman's body apply only to pregnant women and only for the duration of pregnancy? That has got to be the most patently bald instance of "pro-lifers" out of both sides of their mouths.

Timothy Griffy said...

I am a pro-choicer, but that is exactly the type of argument I would shy away from. I agree with Michelle Ewing that "mental abilities" is a dangerous way to go.

Timothy Griffy said...

"In regards to illegal abortions, I *have* heard of cases where females
who wanted to get them did not get them due to abortion bans being in
place. However, I *have not* heard of the reverse--meaning that I have
*never* heard of a case of a female getting an abortion when abortion
was banned which she would *not* have gotten if abortion was legal at
that time."

I'm a bit confused with this statement. Could you clarify your point?

"Yes, though not always (after all, a poor person can sometimes afford to
travel somewhere else where something is legal as well). And again, the
rich don't always avoid the impact of criminalization."


No, not always. But it happens enough that lady_black's generalization is justified.

Timothy Griffy said...

It would be interesting to have an argument that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy that isn't completely lacking in merit. I won't hold my breath, though.

Coyote said...

"I'm a bit confused with this statement. Could you clarify your point?"

My point here was that if all else remains equal, then abortion bans will almost certainly reduce the abortion rate.

"No, not always. But it happens enough that lady_black's generalization is justified."

It might have some merit to it, but nevertheless, if something is morally unjustifiable, then I don't see why one shouldn't try reducing the frequency of it even if some people will have greater opportunities than other people to still do this thing/activity in the event that this thing/activity is made illegal.

Coyote said...

Again, I am not making this argument, though I am unsure that it is completely without merit.

Again, the argument is that if one consents to A and B is a possible outcome of A (regardless of the odds) as a result of biological processes, then consent to A is implied consent to B.

As a side note, lady_black's claim about draftees being paid actually appears to back up the *anti-draft* case here, considering that volunteers also get paid, and as far as I know, they got paid the same amount of money that draftees did. Thus, while draftees got paid for their service, they did *not* get paid for *being forced* to serve and to have their bodies be used for something which they did not want it to be used for. Also, saying that it is okay to violate one's bodily autonomy if one gets paid/compensated for it afterwards (which appears to be what lady_black is saying/implying here) is a very poor argument, since a similar argument can be used to state that forced abortions, forced sterilizations, et cetera are morally justifiable if the people involved get paid/compensated for this afterwards. This is why I myself don't particularly respect the views of pro-choicers who don't oppose the draft in *all* cases.

Coyote said...

I am sorry for not responding to you sooner. Anyway, I can't find your last post here, but I think that in it, you asked if castration removes the point of having sexual organs. In response to this question of yours, the answer is No, since eunuchs are still capable of having sex with and sometimes without hormone replacement therapy.

Coyote said...

If you dislike this argument, then how exactly do you justify denying rights/personhood to viable non-human animals?

Timothy Griffy said...

"My point here was that if all else remains equal, then abortion bans will almost certainly reduce the abortion rate."

The facts won't bear you out here. In fact, just the opposite appears to be the case. See http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/rate-of-abortion-is-highest-in-countries-where-practice-is-banned-6292070.html. Usually all banning abortion does is make it unsafer for the woman.

"It might have some merit to it, but nevertheless, if something is morally unjustifiable, then I don't see why one shouldn't try reducing the frequency of it even if some people will have greater opportunities than other people to still do this thing/activity in the event that this thing/activity is made illegal."


Then the key is to figure works in achieving the goal and do it. Western Europe has the lowest rate of abortion in the world, even though it probably has the fewest restrictions. Start your search there.

Timothy Griffy said...

Non-sequitur. The reasons I have for shying away from that type of argument have nothing to do with my reasons for denying rights/personhood to non-human animals.

Coyote said...

"The facts won't bear you out here. In fact, just the opposite appears to be the case. Seehttp://www.independent.co.uk/l.... Usually all banning abortion does is make it unsafer for the woman."

I said that will almost certainly be true *if all else remains equal*, meaning that all other factors (contraception accessibility, the frequency of correct contraception usage, the frequency of comprehensive sex ed, et cetera) would need to be the same in all countries and areas. Obviously all other factors are *not* equal everywhere in real life, which is why the data which you posted here doesn't necessarily back up your point here.

"Then the key is to figure works in achieving the goal and do it. Western Europe has the lowest rate of abortion in the world, even though it probably has the fewest restrictions. Start your search there."

Actually, I am wondering if Western Europe's abortion rate will be even lower in the event of an abortion bans *and if* all other factors remain unchanged. Also, I think that Western European abortion laws are actually more restrictive than U.S. abortion laws in the sense that some/many Western Europe countries only allow first-trimester abortions, whereas this is not the case here in the U.S.

Coyote said...

Maybe I should have been clearer here, but what exactly are your reasons for denying rights/personhood to non-human animals?

Timothy Griffy said...

To tell you the truth I don't have a general theory undergirding my thoughts about animal rights. I just have a hodgepodge of stances on what is permitted and what is not.

Timothy Griffy said...

"Actually, I am wondering if Western Europe's abortion rate will be even
lower in the event of an abortion bans *and if* all other factors remain
unchanged."

Not an experiment I'm willing to undertake considering the increased risks to the women who would still get back-alley abortions.

"Also, I think that Western European abortion laws are
actually more restrictive than U.S. abortion laws in the sense that
some/many Western Europe countries only allow first-trimester abortions,
whereas this is not the case here in the U.S."

In some senses yes, in some senses no. Abortion is often covered by the universal health care systems in Western Europe, unlike the US, where the Hyde Amendment prohibits public funding to be used for abortion. Abortion in Western Europe isn't under constant legal siege the way it is here in the US. Women in Western Europe don't typically have to wade through a crowd of "counselors" harassing them the way they do in the US.

Timothy Griffy said...

"Again, the argument is that if one consents to A and B is a possible
outcome of A (regardless of the odds) as a result of biological
processes, then consent to A is implied consent to B."

Like I said, I wasn't holding my breath. Why limit the consent to things that occur as a result of biological processes? If I take a medicine knowing there is a risk of a bad outcome, have I consented to that outcome? That is a biological process. Moreover, does that mean I should be left without remedy should the bad outcome occur?

"As a side note, lady_black's claim about draftees being paid actually appears to back up the *anti-draft* case here, considering that volunteers also get paid, and as far as I know, volunteers got paid the same amount of money that draftees did. Thus, while draftees got paid for their service, they did *not* get paid for *being forced* to serve and to have their bodies be used for something which they did not want it to be used for. Also, saying that it is okay to violate one's bodily autonomy if one gets paid/compensated for it afterwards (which appears to be what lady_black is saying/implying here) is a very poor argument, since a similar argument can be used to state that forced abortions, forced sterilizations, et cetera are morally justifiable if the people involved get paid/compensated for this afterwards. This is why I myself don't particularly respect the views of pro-choicers who don't oppose the draft in *all* cases."


Then fear not. I do oppose the draft.

lady_black said...

Yeah that WOULD be unreasonable. Tort law doesn't operate with the theory of bodily donation. Even if someone dies. That is also compensated with money. Thus it has always been.

lady_black said...

Then you are admitting you do want to punish women. How honest of you. And how totally wrong.

lady_black said...

What is a "late term abortion?"

myintx said...

How about if a toddler attached to your leg when you walked out the door? Could you 'choose' how you want to get rid of the toddler? Could one of those 'choices' involved killing it? NO - because he or she is a human being, not a tick. You would have to 'choose' a method of removing the toddler that didn't involve killing it.

vulgarism said...

Throw it in the wood chipper.

myintx said...

troll

vulgarism said...

If you are going to make stupid arguments then you had better expect to be mocked.

Ann Morgan said...

You're still trying to insert your big logical jump, which is that you are defining an embryo - which has no brain activity - as a toddler - which does have brain activity. In other words, you're handwaving and defining it as a moral and legal person. But lets pretend they are the same thing. In that case, if I remove the toddler from my leg intact, the toddler will be fine. So can I assume that if I remove an embryo from my uterus intact, that would be ok with you? A toddler can survive just fine without being on my leg, so if an embryo is the same thing as a toddler, it should be just fine not being attached to me.

myintx said...

What was stupid was comparing an unborn child to a tick.

vulgarism said...

Do youyou believe that zygotes are rational?

myintx said...

Human zygotes are human beings.


Killing an unborn child has the same main result as killing a newborn - a human being is denied a chance at life. Killing a child - born or unborn - because it is inconvenient or unwanted is wrong. There IS help out them for women facing unexpected pregnancies.

vulgarism said...

Answer the question.

Are zygotes rational?

myintx said...

A toddler cannot survive on it's own (for very long)... If you remove that toddler from your leg, you are obligated to care for it - i.e. keep it alive - until it can be handed off to someone who can care for it. You cannot kill it, or leave endangered on the streets. So, you should not be able to kill your unborn child either - which means he or she should remain attached until he or she is born and can be handed off. (unless the woman's life is truly endangered from the pregnancy and abortion is the only way to save her life).


A child - born or unborn - is a human being and should have a basic human right to life. A child - born or unborn - should not be killed because he or she is unwanted.

myintx said...

doesn't matter. An unborn child at any stage is a human being and should have a basic human right to life.

vulgarism said...

Why won't you answer the question?

Clinton believes that zygotes are rational. Surely you agree with Clinton , yes?

Timothy Griffy said...

The right to life doesn't grant it a claim to the woman's body.

Timothy Griffy said...

Once again, the right to life does not grant someone a claim to another person's body parts. A toddler is not attached to another person's body for life support. And that makes all the difference in the world.

Timothy Griffy said...

A newborn is not violating anyone else's bodily autonomy. When unwanted, a prenate does. Learn and understand the difference.

Plum Dumpling said...

A zygote does not meet the definition of 'human being.' Words have meaning.

myintx said...

If that toddler is attached to your leg, you detach it in the middle of the street and there is no one around, you are effectively the guardian of that toddler. You cannot walk away (if that child gets hurt and they find out you left it alone, you could possibly face charges). You are effectively using your body to take care of that toddler until someone else arrives. You OK with someone saying they don't want to use their 'body parts' to take care of a toddler until it can be handed off safely?

myintx said...

Yes it does.

myintx said...

It doesn't matter in the debate. I don't have to agree with all pro-lifers. I'm not a sheeple. Do you agree with all pro-aborts? Some are OK with abortion up until viability only. Some will fight to the death for the 'right' to kill an unborn child up until birth.

Plum Dumpling said...

Prove it.

Coyote said...

First of all, I want to point out that I have gradually backtracked from my politically anti-abortion position and that I currently simply want to analyze this whole issue.

If I was still looking at this from a politically anti-abortion perspective, then I might say that it should depend on the circumstances. If a woman got sterilized or used some contraceptive device such as an IUD before she got pregnant (these are things which are capable of being proven), then perhaps she should pay some sort of fine or something like that, with the option of having all charges dropped if she fully cooperates with the authorities afterwards. Otherwise, her punishment might be something such as 1-5 years in prison, with the option of having all charges dropped if she fully cooperates with the authorities afterwards.

myintx said...

If it's not a human being, what is it?


It's an individual organism that is a member of the species Homo Sapiens. An unborn child IS a human being. A trip down the birth canal does not a human being make.

Plum Dumpling said...

Here is one medical definition of 'human being'. Notice that a fetus does not make the cut until 8 weeks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4078859

Another definition of human being from the medical dictionary. A fetus definitely does not make the cut until it is born.

hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Plum Dumpling said...

An embryo is human, it is alive, it may be unwanted. Too bad so sad.


It is not a human being.


It becomes a human being at the earliest at 8 weeks gestation according to the theory I gave you the abstract for in which humanity is correlated with brain function.

myintx said...

Definition of fetus from Merriam Webster: a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born



See the words HUMAN BEING.


If it's a human being at 8 weeks, it has to be a human being at 7.9 weeks.... It doesnt magically turn into one at 8 weeks as it's the same being, just at a different stage of development. One doesn't 'grow' into a human being.


Don't really care what the Talmund says.

Plum Dumpling said...

I take it you have never learned hierarchy of sources? They teach that in HS English.
You cannot function intellectually as well as high school student but you want to be IN CHARGE OF MY SEXLIFE and my FAMILYLIFE? When sexpigs like you fly.

myintx said...

Your NIH source used the word 'suggests' in the first sentence, lol..


I don't really care about your sex life.. and if you're killing to control the size of your family - we absolutely need laws to protect the innocent victims - born or unborn.

Ann Morgan said...

Now you are handwaving in two ways rather than one. First of all, you are STILL trying to equate an embryo to a legal person by conflating it with a toddler. On what grounds exactly do you do so that would exclude sperm, cancer, animals, and brain dead motorcycle accident victims? Secondly, you are claiming I have a legal obligation not merely not to kill toddlers, but now to keep them alive indefinitely. By that principle, can I expect you to sell you computer and all your other worldly goods to buy food for starving 3rd world toddlers? Or do you just want to be compassionate with other people's lives, time, bodies, and money, but not your own.


Another fallacy in your argument, if you accept that I can't kill toddlers hanging on my leg supposedly because it is immoral to kill toddlers (and not because you merely are trying to use the toddlers as an excuse to appropriate my leg and other body parts), then it cannot be moral to kill toddlers anywhere else, either. such as in my garage. Society obviously does not regard embryos as actually having a real 'right to life' in this regard, since extra embryos are routinely created in labs for in vitro fertilization and destroyed if not used. The creation of an embryo in such a fashion is far MORE of a 'foreseeable outcome' of this process, and the embryo should therefore be far more protected than it is for recreational sex, since the goal is the deliberate and specific creation of embryos. That being the case, if the embryos were actually real persons, with a real 'right to life', the operators of such fertility clinics should all be tried for mass murder. Yet they aren't. Why? Because people realize that embryos do not actually have a 'right to life', they are not actually persons, if destroying them in the laboratory is not murder, then neither is destroying them in the uterus, people simply handwave and claim the latter is in order to control women's bodies.

Coyote said...

First of all, I am not the type of individual who blindly sticks to his or her pre-existing political positions no matter what. Thus, I have gradually backtracked on my politically anti-abortion position and instead simply want to examine this entire issue to determine which political views I should have on this issue.

That said, when I wrote that post, I think that I stated that I want to punish women for getting illegal abortions, and from a politically anti-abortion perspective, this position appears to make sense.

Coyote said...

An abortion which is done after viability (and for the record, I think that I was asking about *elective* late-term abortions here). Or am I using the wrong term here?

Timothy Griffy said...

Merriam only reflects common usage, it does not determine the meaning of the term in scientific, medical, philosophical, legal, or religious circles. The Talmud is an example.

fiona64 said...

Thank you for admitting what we all know is true of the anti-choice anyway: it is about punishing women for daring to have non-procreative sex.

myintx said...

embryo and toddler are just 2 of the stages of the life cycle of a human being.... sperm, cancer and animals are NOT human beings. A brain dead person is dead - an unborn child is not.


Having a toddler directly in your care is not the same as a toddler in another country. You have a duty of care if a toddler wanders into your garage. You cannot kick it out on the street and have him or her be run over.


There are many people against destruction of embryos in IVF labs and there are many people against abortion from fertilization. A majority of people in this country are against killing unborn children after 12 weeks - that means a majority of people in this country are against a fundamental part of Roe V Wade. That horrible SC decision needs to be overturned.


Abortion laws are not about controlling anyone - just as much as murder laws are not about controlling anyone - they are about protection the vulnerable among us. Children - born and unborn - should be protected from being killed because they are inconvenient or unwanted.

myintx said...

The right to life means no innocent human being should be killed.

Ann Morgan said...

A brain dead person is dead? Excuse me? On what grounds? It's heart is beating, it's blood is circulating. Because it has no brain activity? If those are the grounds, then I really hate to break this to you, but neither does an embryo under the age of 6 months. Go get some actually medical information rather than your sad feelies.

**Having a toddler directly in your care is not the same as a toddler in another country. You have a duty of care if a toddler wanders into your garage. You cannot kick it out on the street and have him or her be run over.**

In other words, you want to limit the right to life of toddlers to only SOME toddlers, such that it will inconvenience other people but not yourself. And again, I don't have an obligation to keep a toddler alive by caring for it indefinitely because it wanders into my garage. If you want to spend the money to do that, I will not stop you.

**There are many people against destruction of embryos in IVF labs** Those who are against it are admittedly at least consistent in their ethics. But the problem is this: what do they propose be done with these embryos? Are they to be kept frozen forever? At some time they will eventually become nonviable (dead). Are they going to recruit women to have them implanted. That's going to be a lot of women. Will they put them in artificial wombs if such a thing is ever invented? At whose expense? Wiithout a real answer to that, they really don't have a coherent plan, all they have done is congratulated themselves on having sad feelies and deciding that something - they've no idea what - must be done, and haven't thought their course through to the end.

Ann Morgan said...

And, btw, you are still conflating embryos with persons, without stating on what grounds you do so.

Ann Morgan said...

btw, I've converted to hinduism and have decided that tapeworms have a right to life. So if you get infected with worms by eating sushi or raw ground beef, that is simply a predictable result of doing so, and it should be illegal for you to take medicine to get rid of your tapeworms. It's not about controlling you, it's about the fact that the tapeworm's very life depends on it.

Timothy Griffy said...

"Having a toddler directly in your care is not the same as a toddler in
another country. You have a duty of care if a toddler wanders into your
garage. You cannot kick it out on the street and have him or her be run
over."


I do not. A toddler wandering into my garage is trespassing and I am completely within my rights to kick off my property--just as I would with anyone else. Hell, in some states I could just shoot the kid and be done with it.

Plum Dumpling said...

"I don't really care about your sex life."

...............
Liar. Childbirth is part of female sexuality.

Coyote said...

If that is genuinely the case for all politically anti-abortion people, then why exactly do some/many politically anti-abortion people support keeping gay sex legal?

fiona64 said...

The vast majority of anti-choicers are anti-GLBT as well. And a significant, vocal subset are anti-contraception.

Your honesty is refreshing amongst your ilk, I will give you that. You come right out and say women should be punished for terminating unwanted pregnancies; the rest of you dance around it.

lady_black said...

There is no such thing.

lady_black said...

Women have never been punished for having an abortion. Even when it was illegal.

myintx said...

You would be incorrect.

Plum Dumpling said...

Thank you. Facts will not penetrate. It will go on repeating the same things. It does not think. It does not learn.

Plum Dumpling said...

You did not read it.

Plum Dumpling said...

Then how come the state can execute people, many of whom upon further investigation have been declared innocent.

Plum Dumpling said...

Liar.

Plum Dumpling said...

That is because there is still a scientific debate about when life begins and abortion. That paper is a scientist asserting that brain activity makes a person alive and a 'person.'
Your BS is not supported by science.

myintx said...

They are the SAME human being...

myintx said...

A brain dead person will NEVER have brain activity again. An unborn child at 6 weeks will most likely have brain activity at some point if not killed or miscarried. BIG difference.


Yes you do have an obligation to care for a toddler that wanders into your garage. If the police find out a toddler wandered into your garage and you kicked him or her out and then he or she gets run over by a car, you could be in trouble with the law.


Regarding IVF Embryos, I would support any legislation limiting the number of eggs that can be fertilized at one time to just what they need for the implantation. And, if there happen to be any left over, the parents must pay the storage fee, use them OR put their embryos up for adoption (yes, there have been infertile couples that have adopted embryos and had them implanted). Since more people are for abortion bans after 20, 12 and 5 weeks than for complete abortion bans with IVF bans too, I am focusing on supporting legislation that is more likely to get passed in the short term. The first goal is to overturn the mistake known as Roe V Wade. Then states can pass laws their people want to restrict the senseless killing of unborn children.

myintx said...

You would put the child in jeopardy if you were right next to a busy street and you detached the toddler and walked away without ensuring it's safety (i.e. his or her mother was right there to pick up her child).

myintx said...

People make mistakes... Doesn't make ANY of the killing right. Sure would be nice if the number of unborn children aborted was as low the number of guilty criminals executed.

myintx said...

Which one are you?

Plum Dumpling said...

So if the state kills innocent people it is kool with you. But a woman must never get an abortion?

myintx said...

I never said that...

Plum Dumpling said...

So you just type shit but you do not bother to read it?

myintx said...

nope...do you?

Plum Dumpling said...

Nuh uh.

Timothy Griffy said...

Yes, but we were discussing a situation where non one was around, remember? And if the mother *is* around, I could give her a piece of my mind for letting her child run wild and attach itself to my leg.

Timothy Griffy said...

Okay, just shooting the kid is a bit of an exaggeration, but being completely within my rights to kick the kid of my property is not.

myintx said...

Yes, we were discussing a case where no one is around to take the child - that would include being near a busy road where people driving their cars might not see a toddler dart into the street.. in that case you have a duty of care to take care of the toddler until he or she could be safely handed off.

myintx said...

You wouldn't have the right to kick a toddler off of your property unless you were able to hand him or her off SAFELY. You have a duty of care responsibility. Should be that way with an unborn child. If a woman doesn't want her unborn child, she should give the baby up for adoption when he or she is born (i.e. hand the baby off SAFELY - duty of care).

Timothy Griffy said...

I would not have the duty of care since I am not the toddler's de jure guardian. The only limit I have is that I use reasonable means in ejecting the trespasser. What happens to trespassers after they are off my property is not my concern.

Timothy Griffy said...

If it is a busy road, then a) someone is around and b) I wouldn't be out in the middle of the street to begin with.

myintx said...

It's possible you could be charged with child endangerment if you kicked a toddler off your property without ensuring his or her safety.

myintx said...

If it's busy road, you'd have to ensure someone stops first and shows intent to take care of the toddler. And, I said 'near a busy road' - e.g. on the sidewalk.

Timothy Griffy said...

No, you said, "in the middle of the street and there is no one around." You made no mention that the street was busy, and you specified that no one is around. If the street is busy, then by definition someone else is around. Now, if the street were busy, then it is likely the attached toddler is hindering my ability to escape the significant danger of bodily harm or even death. In which case, it is clear that I may detach the child because I am in NO case required to risk injury or death for someone else.

Ella Warnock said...

It puts the lotion in the
basket . . .

Timothy Griffy said...

It is possible that I could be charged. It is also possible that I could be charged with reckless endangerment for kicking a homeless person off my property even though doing so risks the person freezing to death. Overzealous prosecutors do all sorts of things.

The question then, in either case, is how far such a case can/will be taken. Would such a case even make it to trial? And if it does, would I be convicted? And if I were convicted, would the conviction stand up under appeal? Obviously I may be wrong, but I don't think the courts are going to want to place restrictions on something that under normal circumstances is well within my rights. At least, not without specific legislation to back them up.

myintx said...

You holding a toddlers hand (on a sidewalk) and calling 911 is not risking injury... you leaving a toddler unattended while cars go by is risking injury to the child.. but, like most pro-aborts you don't care about anyone other than yourself.

Plum Dumpling said...

I say the state executes the innocent and you say 'People make mistakes ...?'
Okay.
Women do their mistakes just like Jehovah and the State do. They abort them. And it is therefore KOOL.

Suba gunawardana said...

Unlike a zef, a toddler doesn't occupy your body or depend on your body for life support. You have a perfect legal right to remove the toddler off your leg & place him back on the ground, They are the responsibility of their parent/guardian, who should have been watching out for them and not letting them hang on to the legs of strangers :)

myintx said...

And, how many mistakes has the government made in executions? 1 or 2 maybe for the whole population? Lets get the number of abortionsthat have nothing to do with the woman's life being truly ednangered down to that many

myintx said...

Yes, parents DO have a responsibility to watch out for their offspring - that responsibility should start when their offspring are created - at fertilization!
And, my guess is if you took a toddler off of your leg and left him or her there unguarded and were caught on video camera doing so you could be in trouble if the child ended up running in the street and getting run over.

Plum Dumpling said...

No thank you. Your offer is bogus.

Timothy Griffy said...

No, that wouldn't be. However, you were talking about being in the middle of a busy street! Amazing how you have to keep changing the conditions of the thought experiment just to get anywhere close to where you want to go. And even then, you still haven't established that I am in any way responsible for the toddler. It is the guardian's job to keep the kid away, not mine.

And don't confuse what is permissible with what I would actually do.

lady_black said...

No, I am NOT obligated to care for a toddler who is hanging onto my leg. I cannot kill it, but I am not obligated to allow it to hang onto my leg, nor must I babysit one.

lady_black said...

Wrong, myintx. The law doesn't require good Samaritan-ism. The duty of care one assumes by the act of assuming custody of one's *own* child doesn't extend to a child that happens to wander on to one's property. The typical reaction would be to keep an eye on the child, and call the police to remove it (assuming the person doesn't know who the parent is). But it's not a legal requirement to do so.

lady_black said...

Nope. Only if it were YOUR OWN toddler.

lady_black said...

That's too bad. The law doesn't compel people to good Samaritan acts.

fiona64 said...

If myintx believes that Good Samaritan-ism is required, maybe we should hand her one of the children currently being detained in Texas refugee centers. After all, she's so "pro-life" and is all about "saving children." And this would be the ultimate Good Samaritan act.

fiona64 said...

Consent is not ongoing. Consent to intercourse is not consent to gestation.

fiona64 said...

Or do you just want to be compassionate with other people's lives, time, bodies, and money, but not your own.


That just about covers it with myintx. On another board (from which she was banned for trolling), we asked her what she did to help the hungry and homeless, since she is so "pro-life."

Her response was positively Dickensian: she said that the hungry and homeless should just walk up to the local jailhouse and ask for food and a place to stay.

lady_black said...

Leave it in her garage.

fiona64 said...

There you go; then she'd be obligated to care for the child.

fiona64 said...

She seems to believe that the mere presence of the toddler in her asinine example renders all adults present in loco parentis, which is simply not so.

fiona64 said...

Pretty funny that the same woman (myintx) who claims Erick Munoz "murdered" his already-dead wife by having life-support withdrawn from her pregnant corpse is now flapping her lips about brain-dead people.

fiona64 said...

My question, in myintx' asinine example, remains the same: where the hell is the mother, that this random kid keeps running up and latching on to strangers?

fiona64 said...

She's the queen of moving goal posts, in case you haven't figured that out already.

fiona64 said...

As Varid used to say back in the AOL days: If it's a separate individual, it can move out and get a job and a cute apartment.

fiona64 said...

She's already told us that she's pro-death penalty.

Plum Dumpling said...

I DESPISE HER.

Plum Dumpling said...

I miss her. I wonder how she is doing.

fiona64 said...

And, how many mistakes has the government made in executions? 1 or 2 maybe for the whole population?tabula rasa embryos that you can pretend are little people by projecting your emotions onto them. Real, actual *persons* who were innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted and/or executed.

Your naivete is breathtaking.

Plum Dumpling said...

Agree. There is no discernible brain activity before 8 weeks. Let us try to get women to abort quicker before the embryo can be considered alive and human at all as this scientist suggests.

fiona64 said...

I'm in touch with her on Facebook. She's doing well.

lady_black said...

That's EXACTLY RIGHT. What *would* I do about an unattended toddler on my property? Keep an eye on it and call the police. Because I'm a good person like that. But what am I *legally required* to do? Absolutely nothing.

Plum Dumpling said...

Good to hear. One of my favorite people in this world.

Timothy Griffy said...

That's why I'm confronting her with it.

myintx said...

There is also research that says a human beings life begins at fertilization. Let's err on the side of caution :)

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 1389   Newer› Newest»