Abortion doctor murdered in Kansas

DDL on 3/6/2009 at 22:35

Quote Posted by Phatose

I am saying that if we decide that a fetus is equivalent to human life, and a woman has sex - using precautions she knows can and do fail - then she better have a goddamn better reason then 'it's my body' before she can justify an abortion.

That's it. That's all. That one claim that was made earlier in the thread, that's what I'm arguing against.

And where does the guy fit into all this? Is he utterly and totally absolved of any responsibility, coz LOL NOT HIS WOMB?

And are you applying this "better have a good reason" approach to basically EVERY point after conception? Coz to be honest this is all just making you sound rabidly mental.

SubJeff on 3/6/2009 at 23:00

Quote Posted by Shadow

God, stop posting this horseshit.

Look, I'm pro-abortion, but even so these kinds of dumb 'arguments' are just strawmen. His whole argument is that the fetus is a separate person. If that's the case, then it isn't just the woman's body that's being affected.

Well that isn't the case and so what if its not just the woman's body being affected? The woman has the rights here and so she should.

Quote Posted by Phatose

a. We haven't decided that.

b. Even if we did; it is still totally dependent on the mother to survive up to very late on in pregnancy, and the notion that a woman should sacrifice herself or take risks regarding her health in order to allow (yes, allow) this other organism to live is so ludicrous that only the worst kind of idiot would insist on it.

You can argue all you want but causing an abortion by whatever means at any stage in pregnancy will not land a woman in trouble with the law in many countries. I can't argue for everywhere, but this is certainly true in the UK and from what Starr says the US. And the reason for this? Because the born have rights that the unborn do not. And the reason for that? So crazy assholes can't force a woman to have a child.

Most countries have very specific laws regarding consent to medical intervention of any kind, but the central tenet is the right to refuse - and that includes the right to refuse to have a parasite grow inside you for 9 months and possibly kill you. And if you don't think a foetus fulfills the definition of a parasite then go back to school.

Quote:

she better have a goddamn better reason then 'it's my body' before she can justify an abortion.

I'd like to take this specific point up further. The specific issue in this murder was that this doctor performed late term abortions. In the UK that means abortions that are performed later on in the pregnancy than would normally be allowed (because we have laws about that here too) and afaik the USA is the same as the UK on this - there has to be a specific reason for this to be allowed. So its not just a case of 'its my body' .

And all precautions can fail so I hope you're celibate or ready for the consequences.

Pyrian on 3/6/2009 at 23:14

Quote Posted by Phatose

The point, dear sir, is that any claims to that womb the fetus may have were absolutely granted to it by the mother - well, in most cases anyway, rape being the sole exception. And in light of that fact, simply taking it for granted that the mother's right to the fetus outweighs the fetuses right is unacceptable.

You say "unacceptable" where I might say "obvious". In general, "permission" both (A) implies that you had the right to deny such permission, and (B) is revocable. For example, if I invite you into my house, and then decide you're no longer welcome, you have no more right to remain in my house than if I'd never invited you in, in the first place. (In fact, in my state, I could potentially legally shoot you if you refused to leave - the difference would primarily be that you'd be assumed to be a threat if you entered without permission, but that distinction is not very applicable as a pregnancy is inherently a significant threat to the mother's life and most late-term abortions are even more so than usual.)

Quote Posted by Phatose

So lets maybe consider the possibility that her right to the body went right out the fucking window when she chose to share it.

Based on what, exactly? There's no legal precedent for that which I'm aware of, and quite a few legal precedents for the exact opposite. It is by no means a legal standard that choosing to waive a right removes that right at all, nevermind indefinitely.

SubJeff on 3/6/2009 at 23:35

I wonder if Phatose's agrees to losing his right to his body the moment he "shares" :eww: it?

Phatose on 3/6/2009 at 23:40

Permission my ass Pryian. The fetus did not opt in. You don't get to shoot someone for being in your house, even if you tell them to leave, if you drug them there and chained them to the fucking wall. And lets be blunt here, that's pretty much that fetus' situation.

Find me another legal situation where a person gets to call another into existence, and we'll talk about fucking precedent.

Subjeff: Yes, when there are reasons beyond 'it's my body, I do what I want' it's a different issue. I don't give a fuck - I'm arguing that 'it's my body, I do what I want with it' is not carte blanche here, as was claimed earlier in the thread.

And incidentally, married and fully aware of the consequences of sex.

Phatose on 3/6/2009 at 23:42

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

I wonder if Phatose's agrees to losing his right to his body the moment he "shares" :eww: it?

Dude, if I take actions that create another goddamned person in my colon, yeah, I pretty my lose my right to kill that person cause they're in my colon.

SubJeff on 3/6/2009 at 23:56

That sounds like discrimination to me.

Morte on 4/6/2009 at 06:52

Quote Posted by Phatose

Surely I can, apparently. You see, we're not going "ohmygodshehadsex!slut!whore!". I really don't care that she had sex,
except insofar as that it made her pregnant, fine by me. That ain't punishment, that's nature.

But now, since for the purpose of this discussion, we've already allowed the fetus is equivalent to a sentient being, then now we're weighing her right to control her body to it's right to exist. And claiming that you have the right to terminate a being you don't want in your uterus because it's your uterus doesn't carry a whole lot of fucking weight when you put it there.

In cases of rape, it's a different equation, because now the mother bears no responsibility for putting it there, and thus we have a broader picture to contend with.

I guess you are, so I will spell it out for you: On the one hand, you're claiming to be supremely concerned about the rights of the supposedly sentient fetus. One the other hand, you toss those rights straight out the window in cases of rape. If you actually were committed to the premise that this is an actual sentient being, you wouldn't care about the circumstances of how it came into being, because those are entirely outside its control.

It doesn't matter if you call it punishment, nature, or facing the consequences of their behaviour, you don't care about fetuses nearly as much as you care about the women's behaviour.

Rape exemptions and fertility clinics are a good litmus test for the "the fetus is a real human being with all the rights a real baby has" spiel. If you balk at denying a couple children, or forcing someone to carry their rapist's baby to term, then you don't actually believe that a clump of cells are worth as much as a real person, and should stop spewing that bullshit.

Kolya on 4/6/2009 at 07:06

Married or not, I doubt you are a woman, Phatose. So what if I claimed that the semen in your balls is a premature form of life and denied your right to do with it what you want? What if I came down to your house with a bunch of lusty fat women of child-bearing age and WE WOULD DECIDE about YOUR BODY?
Think about it next time you wipe a potential entire civilisation from your tummy with your gray tennis sock. That's not what nature planned, is it?

IT'S FUCKING GENOCIDE, PART TIME HITLER!

(consider the button pushed)

kidmystik101 on 4/6/2009 at 07:32

bahaha, I fucking love you kolya