What overturning Roe v. Wade could mean for birth control access, maternal care

Tocky on 17/10/2022 at 01:30

Quote Posted by Draxil

You're first statement is absolute nonsense, and your reasoning is a logical mishmash of false equivalence and reductio ad absurdum. The cell is a component part of the organism, and doesn't exist without the organism--it is living, but would be deemed cellular life. The organism is the organized and complete being that is deemed to posses human life, and it possesses that from conception. You're equating the tree and the forest.
.

LOL. Knowing a few debate terms you can falsely lob at someone does not mean you hit them with it. It has to apply and yours do not. The organism in question is not complete and does not possess that from conception. A thing which is forming is not complete. How can you not get that? What I'm equating is the seed with the tree. It does not become a tree until it bursts from the ground. Till then it is forming. You are literally doing the things you have just accused me of doing without the wit to understand you are. Amazing.

mopgoblin on 17/10/2022 at 02:50

You mean to tell me I've been cooking bread in the oven all these years like a chump, when I could have just mixed the ingredients and eaten the dough raw?

Starker on 17/10/2022 at 06:36

If a fertilised egg is the same as a fully grown child as far as human life is concerned, and using a morning after pill is the same as murder, then a vast number of women have also been unknowing killers through the ages when their bodies naturally rejected an embryo.

Yet, somehow we don't go around trying to preserve the life of every single fertilised egg the way we would try to protect a child nor do we mourn them when they fail to implant. I wonder why that is.

PigLick on 17/10/2022 at 12:41

because most of us are rational human beings and not utter dicks like draxil here.

Nicker on 17/10/2022 at 13:16

Still, PigLick, we do need to hear how the other side sees things....

[video=youtube;dFRETIn1ho8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFRETIn1ho8[/video]

Dia on 17/10/2022 at 15:29

Quote Posted by Draxil

Since when is it necessary to have experiential knowledge to have an opinion on a topic or to know truth?

Since it is women's rights to bodily autonomy and safe reproductive healthcare that are on the verge of being destroyed and not men's rights. And to whose truth do you refer?? The truth of a woman whose birth control failed her, the same birth control method she was using to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, or the truth of a woman who was impregnated by her rapist and doesn't believe she should be forced to carry an unwanted fetus, zygote, embryo that was fertilized during an act of brutality and savagery, or the truth of a woman who is experiencing an ectopic pregnancy and was just informed by her doctor that she has to lie there in dire agony until a.) there is no doubt that the embryo is dead or dying, or b.) until her fallopian tube ruptures and she bleeds to death internally??? None of the above examples concern you at all, ergo, you really have no right to sit in judgment or delude yourself into thinking your opinion matters in the least to women who are losing their basic rights to make decisions regarding their own bodies.

Quote Posted by Draxil

How did a gunman killing a bunch of kids halfway across the country directly affect you? How does me owning an AR-15 directly affect you?

False equivalency. Kids being massacred in their own classrooms doesn't involve the personal rights of women to bodily autonomy and safe reproductive healthcare. You're talking about already-born children, btw, not bloody clumps of non-sentient, non-viable cells, einstein. Monsters with guns who shoot innocent already-born children to death affect us all because those monsters are a threat to society, a threat to our already-born children; abortion threatens society how, exactly?? I refer again to my original question of how a woman's abortion directly affects you and the answer is still the same: it doesn't. You can own a dozen AR-15s and it's no skin off of my nose; it's when you go on a killing spree and murder living, breathing children that affects everyone in this country. Still has absolutely no bearing on my rights to bodily autonomy and safe reproductive healthcare, though.

Quote Posted by Draxil

And I have kept religion out of this--my entire line of reasoning against abortion is the blatantly obvious deduction that human development is an uninterrupted spectrum that can be traced from death all the way back to the genesis of life, and that the genesis of life in the organism we call human beings is obviously the mating of the male and female sex cells. I hold the not unreasonable view that human life should be protected, and that lines drawn at various points on the timeline of a human life at which life is worth or isn't worth protecting are entirely arbitrary.

Still none of your business, skippy. Religion, like politics, has no place in my uterus. That you would stubbornly protect a non-sentient, non-viable bloody clump of cells over the life of a sentient, living, breathing woman is reprehensible to me and smacks of misogyny.

Quote Posted by Draxil

"Forced birth" must be the latest twisted euphemism that goes out in the pro-choice memos.

So what would you call forcing a woman to carry an unwanted zygote, embryo or early-term fetus to term and delivery, then?? The woman, for whatever reason, chooses not to continue the pregnancy but the state is mandating that she has to and that she has to give birth to an unwanted fetus. I'd call that forced birth, which is the equivalent of rape; a woman does not want to be sexually assaulted but the rapist forces her to submit. Same difference. Also, forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term is slavery, which was abolished over a century ago. Not that that fact matters to misogynists who are absolutely drooling over the prospect of being able to exert their will on women.

Quote Posted by Draxil

Let's say that my wife and I have decided we are tired of being parents to our five children; they are expensive, needy, time consuming, keep us from enjoying time with our friends, time with each other, and pursuing our "best lives". We have no grounds to have them taken from us as far as the state is concerned; they are ineligible for foster care or adoption unless we abuse them or prove ourselves unfit to have them by destroying our own health and careers. So we're going to murder them, or pay the pediatrician to poison them at their next visit.

Oh good Lord. False equivalency. Again. You're talking about the actual murder of sentient, already-born children, ffs. Just stop. Bottom line: your misogynistic opinions regarding whether or not women should have the same rights as men to bodily autonomy have already been noted and invalidated as such. And again, all I'm hearing when I read your posts is 'I have a penis and that makes me superior to women' and, 'I am a kingly stud because I've turned my wife into a broodmare whose sole duty is to keep giving birth to my babies in proof that I am a kingly stud'. Give it a rest. I'm done arguing with a sexist asshat who keeps inferring that any woman who has an abortion is an irresponsible, wanton slut. Get a vasectomy and do humanity's gene pool a big favor. *smh*

Starker on 18/10/2022 at 04:18

Yeah, I'm not getting what's supposed to be euphemistic about state-forced pregnancy when it's pretty much accurately describing it. For what exactly is it an euphemism for? When that 10-year-old child we talked about earlier in this thread had been forced to carry to term, for example, what else would you describe it as?

An euphemism is a word or an expression that is meant to pretty up an undesirable or unpleasant reality, in order to make something seem better than it actually is, such as "enhanced interrogation", "department of defence", or "targeted killing" instead of torture, department of war, and assassination, respectively.

PigLick on 18/10/2022 at 06:46

a euphemism for "rape is ok"?

Draxil on 19/10/2022 at 02:27

Quote Posted by Tocky

You're caught up with nouns for the same organism. A fetus isn't a baby, a baby isn't an adult, an acorn isn't an oak tree. These are all separate nouns for stages of development of an organism. Like calf, cow, puppy, dog, kitten, cat, gosling, goose. A fetus, a baby, and an adult are all the same organism (homo sapiens), an acorn and an oak tree are both the same organism (quercus stellata, to use a variety common in Mississippi). As far as the thing "forming" not being complete--no shit, Sherlock. It's by no means complete at birth, either. The cardiac system, the heartbeat of which can be detected at 5 weeks development, doesn't reach maturity until a man is in his 20's, the neurological system until about the age of 25, the skeletal system about the same. The reproductive organs don't reach maturity until the end of puberty, usually in your mid to late teens. A newborn is certainly no more sentient than a child in utero, and yet we extend protection to newborns. Why? Location, location, location as the real-estate agents say. None of that changes the nature of what you're killing in utero. It's the same organism, the same person, from zygote to adulthood if you allow him/her to survive that long. It is indisputably living and indisputably an organism of the species homo sapiens; a human as opposed to a human cell. That's the scientific fact of the matter--what you're arguing for is that, since it's not completely formed to an arbitrary point of political acceptability, it's ok to kill it.

There is nothing else that happens between the merging of spermatozoa and ovum that could possibly be the the starting point of life. This isn't hypothesis, it's fact that's been proven by the successful treatment of infertility with IVF, where a lab conceived zygote is inserted directly into the uterus. An unfertilized egg in the uterus does jack-squat--likewise sperm. This is very basic biology. You said earlier in the thread you wished science could show when life started--it has. Conclusively. Human life is created and discarded in IVF labs all the time, and IVF doctors couldn't charge the enormous amounts of money they do if they were inserting "potential life" into a woman's uterus.

Quote:

Phatose
So why exactly do sex cells joining together constitute something worth protecting? Neither one on it's own was considered worth protecting.

It rather looks to me like you're claiming not to want to draw lines about what and when a life is worth protecting, but you've already done exactly that by deciding that fertilization is the genesis of a human life without providing much rationale for that.

You're not reading me clearly. Human life is worth protecting. Human life, the life of a new and distinct organism, starts at the merging of sperm and ovum-- a fact recognized and taught in embryology courses during medical school and born out by the laboratory practice of IVF. On their own, neither sperm nor egg constitute human life, but are rather the sex cells of the male and female of the species.

Quote:

Starker
If a fertilised egg is the same as a fully grown child as far as human life is concerned, and using a morning after pill is the same as murder, then a vast number of women have also been unknowing killers through the ages when their bodies naturally rejected an embryo.

Yet, somehow we don't go around trying to preserve the life of every single fertilised egg the way we would try to protect a child nor do we mourn them when they fail to implant. I wonder why that is.

Maybe because we don't all have reductio ad ab-fucking-surdum down to such a fine art as you. Chromosomal abnormality is the leading cause of miscarriage and failure to implant in pregnancy; it's nature taking its course. Women who wish to have children do mourn miscarriages and failure to conceive. I've known many.

Quote:

Starker
Yeah, I'm not getting what's supposed to be euphemistic about state-forced pregnancy when it's pretty much accurately describing it. For what exactly is it an euphemism for? When that 10-year-old child we talked about earlier in this thread had been forced to carry to term, for example, what else would you describe it as?

You're absolutely right. It's a dysphemism. It's offensive, stupid, awkward, inaccurate, and not surprising given its most frequent user. Pregnancy is a naturally occurring consequence of sex. For the state to forbid a third party from interfering with a naturally occurring event is by no stretch of the imagination the equivalent of the state being responsible for the original action. The state takes such actions all the time and it doesn't equate the state "forcing" an action--laws against murdering my children don't equate the state "forcing" parenthood (a natural consequence of birth, and despite Dia's claims not a false equivalent). Laws against pharmacists selling lethal drugs even to consenting adults doesn't mean the state is "forcing" people to live. Laws requiring you to abide by the contracts you legally entered into aren't the same as the state "forcing" you into those contracts. The fact is there are no laws punishing a woman for self-performing an abortion. Is it dangerous? Yes. Can you go to an emergency room and get treated after, and most likely survive? Yes. Will you cause permanent sterility? Pretty good chance, I'd say.

Dia likes to fall back on the 1 in a 1000 emotionally wrought cases to try to prove her point. Dia and her coven won't tolerate any restrictions on abortion for any reason; you asked earlier "who supports late term abortions". Dia--and the Democratic party. They support abortion far beyond the limits of anything allowed in Europe; if we had Estonia's abortion laws in the US, Dia would be marching in the streets demanding it be repealed. Way too restrictive. 12 weeks? Has to be done by an OB in a licensed facility? No sterilization of minors? REPRESSION! SLAVERY!

Nicker on 19/10/2022 at 03:53

"laws against murdering my children don't equate the state "forcing" parenthood "

There you go, begging the question again.

It's not so much that your opinion is oppressive, paternal and theistic. The problem is, you keep presenting your opinion as fact.

It isn't. Hence the logical fallacy, "begging the question".

Does abortion equal murder?

You say, YES. That's your opinion. YES not a fact and YES is not an argument. Transubstantiating your opinions into facts is as supernatural and delusional as turning stale wafers and cheap wine into divine flesh and blood.

I hope this helps prevent you chasing your tail further as it is getting you nowhere.