Texas v abortion

[TheMysteriousGX]

Fun fact: What you're referring to here actually has a damn close match in the case of a parasitic twin, a variation of the conjoined twin in which one effectively stops developing in utero and as such lacks an independent consciousness. To put it simply, it is functionally vestigial. Consquentially, the parasitic twin is not considered an independent person and tends to be surgically removed from the autonomous twin shortly after birth.

Hell, even for conjoined twins, the odds for survival are so astronomically low that the number of living twins that currently exist probably doesn't need all your fingers and toes to count them.

The exact situation tstorm proposed happened in Britain in 2000 and as the situation was going to invariably kill the both of them, the courts overrode the parent's objections and saved the stronger child

We don't know how to tell Gracie her sister died so she could live; EXCLUSIVE DILEMMA FACING TWINS' PARENTS DAILY Mirror BEST FOR REAL LIFE. - Free Online Library

Free Online Library: We don't know how to tell Gracie her sister died so she could live; EXCLUSIVE DILEMMA FACING TWINS' PARENTS DAILY Mirror BEST FOR REAL LIFE.(News) by "The Mirror (London, England)"; General interest

www.thefreelibrary.com

Life's messy like that.

 

[Trunkage]

What? No more?

Well, me personally, I'd be pointing out that the type of pregnancy determines how you are 'hooked up.'

There is a difference between intentionally hooking yourself up, unintentionally being hooked up and being forcibly hooked up.

IMO, The latter should be clearly have abortions made available. The first shouldn't need it. The unintentionally hooked up is the contentious one, and that's the issue when people relay this analogy. Edit: I think people need to spend more time setting up the conundrum that getting to the punchline

But, to your point, it's legal to be hooked up when it's someone choice to do it. Like taking a job that forces you to do work or take a vaccine, you are allowed to do something that would be seen as 'illegal' if you choose to do it

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

What? No more?

I'm pro that argument. If a child's parents are so shit at being parents that the child considers it criminal, the child should have more options to address that besides emancipation. But until the child is capable of communication, we're doing the "non-responsive medical patient" thing. Which, incidentally, do not include using somebody else's body without their consent to keep them alive

 

[gorfias]

Some of what I'm reading in this thread causes me concern that abortion on demand creates a coarseness and irreverence for the value of human life that the Texas law wants to challenge.
Example of that coarsening:
I'm marginally pro-choice but I'm not a religious fanatic about it. I understand it has costs.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Some of what I'm reading in this thread causes me concern that abortion on demand creates a coarseness and irreverence for the value of human life that the Texas law wants to challenge.
Example of that coarsening:

I'm marginally pro-choice but I'm not a religious fanatic about it. I understand it has costs.

Oh well, a YouTuber spent 2 whole days researching the case, who could possibly think the teenager with massive eating disorders had a stillbirth...
And, yeah I've posted this before, but reverence for human life? When we're talking about controlling people who are already alive?

Like, C'mon man, I just spent the last year and a half with conservatives telling me my grandma lived a long life and is gonna die eventually, so get back to work and die for the stock market. Reverence for human life my entire ass.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Some of what I'm reading in this thread causes me concern that abortion on demand creates a coarseness and irreverence for the value of human life that the Texas law wants to challenge.

The state with the most active execution chamber in the country sure does revere human life.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

And, yeah I've posted this before, but reverence for human life? When we're talking about controlling people who are already alive?

Holy shit that was hilarious and amazingly accurate. It's too bad pro-lifers and religious pro-lifers won't watch it, or if they do, they'll likely write it off entirely, cause that man speaks the god damned truth

 

[tstorm823]

But, to your point, it's legal to be hooked up when it's someone choice to do it. Like taking a job that forces you to do work or take a vaccine, you are allowed to do something that would be seen as 'illegal' if you choose to do it

Outside the analogy, it is never the child's choice.

I'm pro that argument. If a child's parents are so shit at being parents that the child considers it criminal, the child should have more options to address that besides emancipation. But until the child is capable of communication, we're doing the "non-responsive medical patient" thing. Which, incidentally, do not include using somebody else's body without their consent to keep them alive

You're attempting to sidestep the argument. You do not believe it should be legal to forcibly strap someone to yourself for 9 months. Eventually, you're going to have to concede that real point, which is to say that you're stressing "it's the only time that yada yada yada" to try and suggest some kind of societal inconsistency or hypocrisy to be against abortion, but the truth is that pregnancy is just genuinely different than all other circumstances.

 

[Trunkage]

Outside the analogy, it is never the child's choice.

If you're talking about abortions, generally becoming pregnant was never the woman's choice either.

The situation is what you call a shit sandwich

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You're attempting to sidestep the argument. You do not believe it should be legal to forcibly strap someone to yourself for 9 months.

That is correct. It should not be legal to forcibly strap yourself to someone for 9 months. However, we have a duty of care for unresponsive medical patients provided that care does not come from a coerced, involuntary, non-consenting provider. You cannot force a parent to donate blood to their child, and you cannot force a child to donate blood to their parent. But if you have a non-responsive child who would die without medical assistance, it's neither immoral nor unethical to keep them alive. You know, unless doing so involves strapping down an unwilling person and forcing tissue transfers. We'd rightly consider that monstrous in every other context.

I'm not "sidestepping" the argument. Quite frankly, I'm indulging your argument to a ridiculous degree. You desperately need pregnancy to be this unique, sacred thing that's not comparable to anything else, but it's really, really not. We know how it works. We'll probably have uterus transplants in my lifetime, provided we devote any resources to it at all. Artificial wombs aren't outside the realm of possibility. We've cloned other mammals.

Like I said: when we get the ability to pop out a fetus from anyone who wants it out at any stage of development and have it still become a child, and it's available to rich and poor alike, we can ban all the abortion you want.

 

[gorfias]

The state with the most active execution chamber in the country sure does revere human life.

How you respond to a transgression says something about how seriously you take the transgression. You tell your kids about a family heirloom that you treasure and one of the kids grabs it and breaks it and you shrug and go about your day, it does not appear you ever cared about it.
Someone intentionally takes an innocent life and you give them food, clothing, housing, medical care, recreational and educational facilities at the temporary cost of their liberty of movement (which under lockdown, we're kinda all expected to do now) and it doesn't look like you care much about murder.
I've recently become anti-capital punishment but I understand their thinking.

Oh well, a YouTuber spent 2 whole days researching the case, who could possibly think the teenager with massive eating disorders had a stillbirth...
And, yeah I've posted this before, but reverence for human life? When we're talking about controlling people who are already alive?

Like, C'mon man, I just spent the last year and a half with conservatives telling me my grandma lived a long life and is gonna die eventually, so get back to work and die for the stock market. Reverence for human life my entire ass.

Your dismissal of the idea that Skylar Richardson intentionally let a viable, born alive baby die is part of what I'm talking about. And that's only part of the story. The rest of it is her entire response, and why she had that response, to getting pregnant in the 1st place. Your blase response to the reality that we are mortal, but it is OK to seriously damage our economy, harm young people who may get permanently screwed up by this non-sense COVID response, cause other forms of death in this environment, such as people putting off needed medical care as they are in lockdown, etc. we're going through so that Grandma, who lived her life, may live another 2 years is kinda my point as well.

 

[McElroy]

Like I said: when we get the ability to pop out a fetus from anyone who wants it out at any stage of development and have it still become a child, and it's available to rich and poor alike, we can ban all the abortion you want.

I'll add 100% effective and cheap contraceptives with negligible side effects. If we want to think that the choice of having offspring is done right before intercourse, then the circumstances should truly allow that.

 

[tstorm823]

You desperately need pregnancy to be this unique, sacred thing that's not comparable to anything else, but it's really, really not. We know how it works.

Knowing how it works is exactly why we know it isn't comparable to anything else. Knowing how it works now is exactly why we should be stopping it now. The Roe V Wade status quo is based on a frankly medieval idea that there isn't a person in there until it's sufficiently developed and only then does a soul magically enter the body. You know what I'm saying is the future. You know what you're defending is the past. Why do you continue to rationalize what you know is wrong?

 

[bluegate]

Knowing how it works is exactly why we know it isn't comparable to anything else. Knowing how it works now is exactly why we should be stopping it now. The Roe V Wade status quo is based on a frankly medieval idea that there isn't a person in there until it's sufficiently developed and only then does a soul magically enter the body. You know what I'm saying is the future. You know what you're defending is the past. Why do you continue to rationalize what you know is wrong?

A soul, eh?

Talk about 'what you know is wrong'.

 

[tstorm823]

A soul, eh?

Talk about 'what you know is wrong'.

Did you not notice that the pro-choice side is in defense of the "there isn't a soul yet" position? Rephrase it to unconscious, or doesn't feel pain, or whatever humanizing thing you may think is relevant. The framework of "early abortions are fine but not after so many months" is the idea that at some point an abstract change transforms a fetus from a parasite into a person, and it was justified for centuries in religious terms. Changing the words to not say "soul" doesn't make the position more or less correct.

 

[Buyetyen]

Did you not notice that the pro-choice side is in defense of the "there isn't a soul yet" position? Rephrase it to unconscious, or doesn't feel pain, or whatever humanizing thing you may think is relevant. The framework of "early abortions are fine but not after so many months" is the idea that at some point an abstract change transforms a fetus from a parasite into a person, and it was justified for centuries in religious terms. Changing the words to not say "soul" doesn't make the position more or less correct.

You make shit up, dude. You really do.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

You know what I'm saying is the future. You know what you're defending is the past. Why do you continue to rationalize what you know is wrong?

Eeehhhh, don't be counting yourself as the one and only correct voice in a sea of naysayers. I've been reading every comment of the back and forth between you and other users, and I firmly believe you are incorrect. This isn't because of some truth denial. It is simply because I truly, to my core, disagree with you due to my personal beliefs, and will not agree with you no matter how you try and explain your stance.
And that's fine, people can disagree without having to be convinced of anything. I'm honestly wondering why you guys are still discussing this. I forget who said it on a forum thread many months back, but they said something along the lines of "Arguing with someone on the internet isn't going to change their minds." I believe that to a degree, when it's a topic that is clearly so ingrained in one's beliefs that they won't simply give them up just because of what someone else said. And this is a topic I know isn't gonna change anyone's stance, so, why expend so much time and energy trying to convince the other they're right/wrong?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Your dismissal of the idea that Skylar Richardson intentionally let a viable, born alive baby die is part of what I'm talking about. And that's only part of the story. The rest of it is her entire response, and why she had that response, to getting pregnant in the 1st place. Your blase response to the reality that we are mortal, but it is OK to seriously damage our economy, harm young people who may get permanently screwed up by this non-sense COVID response, cause other forms of death in this environment, such as people putting off needed medical care as they are in lockdown, etc. we're going through so that Grandma, who lived her life, may live another 2 years is kinda my point as well.

You don't get to tell me that that you're worried about other people not believing in the sanctity of life and then in the next breath tell me that my grandmother, who lost her husband and son-in-law last year for unrelated reasons, should be sacrificed for fucking economic reasons during a pandemic that's already resulted in people dying from treatable illnesses due to hospitals having full ICUs and having a death count in the millions.

Shit man, if permanently fucking your finances is a valid reason to let people die, you should be majorly in favor of abortion.

Knowing how it works is exactly why we know it isn't comparable to anything else. Knowing how it works now is exactly why we should be stopping it now. The Roe V Wade status quo is based on a frankly medieval idea that there isn't a person in there until it's sufficiently developed and only then does a soul magically enter the body. You know what I'm saying is the future. You know what you're defending is the past. Why do you continue to rationalize what you know is wrong?

Because I don't believe that the government should have the authority to strap someone down for forced tissue donations regardless of circumstances, have you not been paying attention?

Did you not notice that the pro-choice side is in defense of the "there isn't a soul yet" position? Rephrase it to unconscious, or doesn't feel pain, or whatever humanizing thing you may think is relevant. The framework of "early abortions are fine but not after so many months" is the idea that at some point an abstract change transforms a fetus from a parasite into a person, and it was justified for centuries in religious terms. Changing the words to not say "soul" doesn't make the position more or less correct.

The "soul" argument has really only come into vogue because the Bible thumpers keep using their holy book to make claims about The Beginning Of Life that their holy book doesn't actually back up. It's specifically referencing the Jewish interpretation of those same passages.

It's an argument based on the idea that you can't reason somebody out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

 

[Agema]

The Roe V Wade status quo is based on a frankly medieval idea that there isn't a person in there until it's sufficiently developed...

This is some weird-arse shit to pretend that science is religion.

There is no meaningful similarity between religion's postulated and hopelessly unproven concept of "soul", and scientific determination of an entity's capacity for feeling and cognition. Religions could handwave it away in the old days of complete ignorance. Now we know the process from conception to birth, religions are in the sticky position of having to justify when a soul that they can't hope to show exist or measure arrives, in a metaphysical puff of magic, into a bundle of cells. For which their answers consequently vary between evasion and bluster, as they have no choice otherwise.

There are plenty of equivalent and consistent rules in ethics and science. The rationale for switching off the life support of someone brain dead exists under a similar principle. It extends too to animals to a substantial extent: go ahead and stomp an ant, you're free to. Try stomping a cat, you'll face prosecution under animal cruelty laws - the difference being their measurable capacity for sentience.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

How you respond to a transgression says something about how seriously you take the transgression.

You take the transgression so seriously that you're willing to execute a person who didn't commit it, just to show how serious you are.

Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death

The rate of erroneous conviction of innocent criminal defendants is often described as not merely unknown but unknowable. We use survival analysis to model this effect, and estimate that if all death-sentenced defendants remained under sentence of death indefinitely at least 4.1% would be...

www.pnas.org

The National Academy of Sciences estimates that 4.1% of death row inmates are likely to be innocent of the crimes for which they will be executed. Oh, well, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right? I mean, their lives can't be used as an excuse to control others.