[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[The Alma Mater]

As for the case regarding bone marrow transplants, I see what you mean, and that is certainly another moral predicament where a life is on the line. However, the difference lies in that in that in many abortions, the mother is not at risk and is making the decision for economic reasons, for the purpose of personal expediency (e.g. to pursue a career, to not have the responsibilities of a mother, to please parents unhappy with the father of the child, etc.), or as a form of birth control. Again, I am not the right person to debate with over the most extreme medical cases regarding abortion because it isn't one that I am fully prepared for. However, I will say that there are nuanced arguments both pro-life and pro-choice in such cases, and I will say that there are cases where that entire weight of the mother's life being on the line does not apply and that those cases of expediency are of a wholly different nature insofar as the moral trade-off is concerned. In the case where the mother is pursuing the abortion out of expediency, I would argue, that is not justifiable (though I do personally believe that society should provide assistance for low-income and young mothers to ensure they and their child have a proper quality of life and recognize that currently having a child can greatly alter a woman's life).

It’s worth note bone marrow donation is exceptionally low risk compared with pregnancy.

Severe Side Effects/Risks
According to the National Marrow Donor Program, 2.4% of people who donate bone marrow experience a serious complication. Very few bone marrow donors suffer any long-term complications from their donation.

Around the world, researchers looked at over 27,000 people who had donated bone marrow in 35 countries. Of these people, there was one death and 12 serious events (mostly heart related) that were felt to be related to bone marrow donation.

And the “inconvenience” is much lower.

Mild Side Effects/Risks
After donating bone marrow you may be sore in the region of your hip for a week or slightly more. Among those who donated bone marrow as part of the National Marrow Donor Program, the majority of people experienced some back and hip pain for a few days, as well as fatigue. Side effects of anesthesia may also include a sore throat and nausea.


The procedure may be done as an outpatient, or you may spend a few days in the hospital. Some medical centers recommend taking 7 to 10 days off of work following the procedure, but some people feel up to returning to work much sooner. The median time (that is, the time after which 50% of people had and 50% hadn't) to get completely back to "normal" was 20 days.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-risk ... ow-2252482

There’s no real argument that makes forced pregnancy allowable that makes forced marrow donation disallowable.

So why don't we actually ? Force people to donate blood, bonemarrow etc to save the lives of other humans that is ?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

It’s worth note bone marrow donation is exceptionally low risk compared with pregnancy.



And the “inconvenience” is much lower.



https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-risk ... ow-2252482

There’s no real argument that makes forced pregnancy allowable that makes forced marrow donation disallowable.

So why don't we actually ? Force people to donate blood, bonemarrow etc to save the lives of other humans that is ?

Because forcing people to do things with their body is a violation of the most basic right there is.

[The Free Joy State]

So why don't we actually ? Force people to donate blood, bonemarrow etc to save the lives of other humans that is ?

Because forcing people to do things with their body is a violation of the most basic right there is.

Can we repeat that louder for the people at the back?

So -- to summarise -- if we cannot and will not force people to donate bone marrow to the maintenance of another life (because it violates their basic rights), we cannot force a woman to donate her body to the maintenance of a foetus, because...

[The New California Republic]

Because forcing people to do things with their body is a violation of the most basic right there is.

Can we repeat that louder for the people at the back?

So -- to summarise -- if we cannot and will not force people to donate bone marrow to the maintenance of another life (because it violates their basic rights), we cannot force a woman to donate her body to the maintenance of a foetus, because...

There will either be silence in response, or a pleading to emotion that this is somehow a special case because it involves an innocent or some other such shit.

[The Free Joy State]

Can we repeat that louder for the people at the back?

So -- to summarise -- if we cannot and will not force people to donate bone marrow to the maintenance of another life (because it violates their basic rights), we cannot force a woman to donate her body to the maintenance of a foetus, because...

There will either be silence on response, or a pleading to emotion that this is somehow a special case because it involves an innocent or some other such shit.

Believe me, I don't expect the sentence to ever be finished.

I've been waiting a long time to hear why overturning McFall v. Shimp is not a pro-life priority (seeing as that ruling guarantees bodily sovereignty, even if a person's life is at stake, and all).

[Luna Amore]

There will either be silence on response, or a pleading to emotion that this is somehow a special case because it involves an innocent or some other such shit.

Believe me, I don't expect the sentence to ever be finished.

I've been waiting a long time to hear why overturning McFall v. Shimp is not a pro-life priority (seeing as that ruling guarantees bodily sovereignty, even if a person's life is at stake, and all).

Because it's a completely different question.

Should you be required to save someone vs should you be allowed to actively end a person's life. You can moralize that without the donation they will likely die so you are morally suspect, but with abortion, you are specifically arguing whether bodily sovereignty should allow you to end a life. They simply aren't the same question.

Now if there's some case of someone demanding a donated organ back post-op, then yeah, that would be a comparable scenario and should be overturned.

[Galloism]

It’s worth note bone marrow donation is exceptionally low risk compared with pregnancy.



And the “inconvenience” is much lower.



https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-risk ... ow-2252482

There’s no real argument that makes forced pregnancy allowable that makes forced marrow donation disallowable.

So why don't we actually ? Force people to donate blood, bonemarrow etc to save the lives of other humans that is ?

Bodily autonomy?

[The New California Republic]

Believe me, I don't expect the sentence to ever be finished.

I've been waiting a long time to hear why overturning McFall v. Shimp is not a pro-life priority (seeing as that ruling guarantees bodily sovereignty, even if a person's life is at stake, and all).

Because it's a completely different question.

Should you be required to save someone vs should you be allowed to actively end a person's life. [...]

The fetus isn't a person.

[Luna Amore]

Because it's a completely different question.

Should you be required to save someone vs should you be allowed to actively end a person's life. [...]

The fetus isn't a person.

Ok.

[The Free Joy State]

The fetus isn't a person.

Ok.

That's what the law generally says. You can disagree and want to change it, but that is what the law says.

Believe me, I don't expect the sentence to ever be finished.

I've been waiting a long time to hear why overturning McFall v. Shimp is not a pro-life priority (seeing as that ruling guarantees bodily sovereignty, even if a person's life is at stake, and all).

Because it's a completely different question.

Should you be required to save someone vs should you be allowed to actively end a person's life. You can moralize that without the donation they will likely die so you are morally suspect, but with abortion, you are specifically arguing whether bodily sovereignty should allow you to end a life. They simply aren't the same question.

Now if there's some case of someone demanding a donated organ back post-op, then yeah, that would be a comparable scenario and should be overturned.

Actually, it is pretty comparable:

Robert McFall depended on the one person who could save his life -- his cousin, David Shimp.
The foetus depends on the mother for its life.

David Shimp was the only match.
The mother is the only person the foetus can be attached to (until very late in the pregnancy, it can't be removed and remain alive).

David Shimp opted not to allow his cousin to use his body for his medical use.
In an unwanted pregnancy, the mother opts not to let the foetus use her body for its medical use.

David Shimp had the right to do that because his personal autonomy could not be usurped (although the judge actually found his decision not to donate his body "morally indefensible").
The mother has the right to abort because her bodily autonomy cannot be usurped (although many pro-choice advocates are uncomfortable with abortion).

Bodily sovereignty allows someone to protect it using the minimal force necessary.

If someone is robbing you, you are allowed to defend yourself. If you suffer a home invasion, you are allowed to get that burglar out. If someone is raping you, you are allowed to use force to defend yourself (and, no, I am not saying the foetus is a rapist). If someone comes to stay in your home, and refuses to leave, you can get the police to evict them.

With a foetus, there is only one method that allows the woman to maintain her bodily sovereignty. Sadly, it leads to the death of the foetus.

[Luna Amore]

Ok.

That's what the law generally says. You can disagree and want to change it, but that is what the law says.

It's a pointless response.

Imagine if we were debating the death penalty and every time you made a contrary post someone responded with "It's legal."

We're discussing the concept. Whether it is currently legal doesn't speak to whether it is right. Otherwise, this thread should have been locked one post in with that as a response.

So I'm not engaging posts like that. They are the foam packing peanuts of discussion. I'd rather get down to something of substance.

I'll have to respond to your post in full later. Phone typing ain't fun.

[The Grims]

That's what the law generally says. You can disagree and want to change it, but that is what the law says.

It's a pointless response.

Imagine if we were debating the death penalty and every time you made a contrary post someone responded with "It's legal."

We're discussing the concept. Whether it is currently legal doesn't speak to whether it is right. Otherwise, this thread should have been locked one post in with that as a response.

So I'm not engaging posts like that. They are the foam packing peanuts of discussion. I'd rather get down to something of substance.

I'll have to respond to your post in full later. Phone typing ain't fun.

It is also not a person in the sense that it has no personality. No brain after all.
While someone who needs a blood transfusion is.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

It's a pointless response.

Imagine if we were debating the death penalty and every time you made a contrary post someone responded with "It's legal."

We're discussing the concept. Whether it is currently legal doesn't speak to whether it is right. Otherwise, this thread should have been locked one post in with that as a response.

So I'm not engaging posts like that. They are the foam packing peanuts of discussion. I'd rather get down to something of substance.

I'll have to respond to your post in full later. Phone typing ain't fun.

It is also not a person in the sense that it has no personality. Ko brain after all.

Technically late stage fetuses do have brains but having a brain is unrelated to being a person.

[The Grims]

It is also not a person in the sense that it has no personality. Ko brain after all.

Technically late stage fetuses do have brains but having a brain is unrelated to being a person.

Why would not having a personality be unrelated to being a person?

[The New California Republic]

That's what the law generally says. You can disagree and want to change it, but that is what the law says.

It's a pointless response.

Imagine if we were debating the death penalty and every time you made a contrary post someone responded with "It's legal."

We're discussing the concept. Whether it is currently legal doesn't speak to whether it is right. Otherwise, this thread should have been locked one post in with that as a response.

So I'm not engaging posts like that. They are the foam packing peanuts of discussion. I'd rather get down to something of substance.

I'll have to respond to your post in full later. Phone typing ain't fun.

It isn't just legal definitions. The entire concept of personhood would need to be fundamentally rewritten if a few dozen cells counts as a "person"...

[Alvecia]

That's what the law generally says. You can disagree and want to change it, but that is what the law says.

It's a pointless response.

Imagine if we were debating the death penalty and every time you made a contrary post someone responded with "It's legal."

We're discussing the concept. Whether it is currently legal doesn't speak to whether it is right. Otherwise, this thread should have been locked one post in with that as a response.

So I'm not engaging posts like that. They are the foam packing peanuts of discussion. I'd rather get down to something of substance.

I'll have to respond to your post in full later. Phone typing ain't fun.

Whether something is or is not legal does not mean something is or is not right, this is true, but it can be one of many indicators.
Rarely are laws made irregardless of right or wrong, more they’re often informed by what is considered right or wrong.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Technically late stage fetuses do have brains but having a brain is unrelated to being a person.

Why would not having a personality be unrelated to being a person?

Having a brain and having a personality are two different things.
And yes, I do believe that it is unrelated on the grounds that the comatose are still people.

per·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
1.
a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
synonyms: human being, individual, man/woman, human, being, living soul, soul, mortal, creature, fellow; More
2.
GRAMMAR
a category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker first person, the addressee second person, or a third party third person.

The second definition is entirely irrelevant here, and a fetus is not generally considered to be an "individual" until birth.

[The Grims]

Why would not having a personality be unrelated to being a person?

Having a brain and having a personality are two different things.
And yes, I do believe that it is unrelated on the grounds that the comatose are still people.

per·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
1.
a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
synonyms: human being, individual, man/woman, human, being, living soul, soul, mortal, creature, fellow; More
2.
GRAMMAR
a category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker first person, the addressee second person, or a third party third person.

The second definition is entirely irrelevant here, and a fetus is not generally considered to be an "individual" until birth.

A comatose person has a brain. If they do not we do not call them comatose, but dead. We acknowledge they were persons because they had a brain which gave them thoughts and feelings and dreams and likes and dislikes.

A fetus has none of those. Until rather late in the pregnancy

[Alvecia]

Having a brain and having a personality are two different things.
And yes, I do believe that it is unrelated on the grounds that the comatose are still people.

per·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
1.
a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
synonyms: human being, individual, man/woman, human, being, living soul, soul, mortal, creature, fellow; More
2.
GRAMMAR
a category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker first person, the addressee second person, or a third party third person.

The second definition is entirely irrelevant here, and a fetus is not generally considered to be an "individual" until birth.

A comatose person has a brain. If they do not we do not call them comatose, but dead. We acknowledge they were persons because they had a brain which gave them thoughts and feelings and dreams and likes and dislikes.

A fetus has none of those. Until rather late in the pregnancy

Feel like you should clarify the difference between having a physical brain occupying space inside the skull, and having a working one, cause you’re starting to confuse me.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Having a brain and having a personality are two different things.
And yes, I do believe that it is unrelated on the grounds that the comatose are still people.

per·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
1.
a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
synonyms: human being, individual, man/woman, human, being, living soul, soul, mortal, creature, fellow; More
2.
GRAMMAR
a category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker first person, the addressee second person, or a third party third person.

The second definition is entirely irrelevant here, and a fetus is not generally considered to be an "individual" until birth.

A comatose person has a brain. If they do not we do not call them comatose, but dead. We acknowledge they were persons because they had a brain which gave them thoughts and feelings and dreams and likes and dislikes.

A fetus has none of those. Until rather late in the pregnancy

Having a brain and having a personality are two different things. Your computer might have a hard drive, but unless it's got some files and programs, it might as well not.

[The Free Joy State]

That's what the law generally says. You can disagree and want to change it, but that is what the law says.

It's a pointless response.

Imagine if we were debating the death penalty and every time you made a contrary post someone responded with "It's legal."

We're discussing the concept. Whether it is currently legal doesn't speak to whether it is right. Otherwise, this thread should have been locked one post in with that as a response.

So I'm not engaging posts like that. They are the foam packing peanuts of discussion. I'd rather get down to something of substance.

I'll have to respond to your post in full later. Phone typing ain't fun.

(If I wanted to be a smart-arse, I could point out that the death penalty is legal in far fewer countries and so arguably open to more debate as to legality...)

That said, a broader discussion than legality would be interesting.

It isn't just legal definitions. The entire concept of personhood would need to be fundamentally rewritten if a few dozen cells counts as a "person"...

Criminal codes, too, if people do want to prevent grave miscarriages of justice:
-- Having a drink at a wedding while pregnant could be construed as reckless endangerment, the same as drinking-driving.
-- What of women who take necessary medication that has a small but known risk of harming the foetus (either not knowing they were pregnant, or because there's no alternative for their medication) -- Would that be child abuse? Would it be assault against the foetus (it's considered assault to force another person to ingest medication against their will).
--If the pregnant woman refused certain medical treatments that the doctor recommended, would that be criminal neglect?
-- And, if the woman has a miscarriage, did she commit a crime? Minimally, if she had said she didn't want it (if she wasn't eating right and taking her vitamins), possible depraved indifference. And, if there's a chance it was deliberate -- Murder.

Incidentally, this isn't out of the realm of possibility, based on of things that have happened where there is foetal personhood:

In a 2013 study in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, it was discovered that 413 pregnant women between 1973 and 2005 had been forced to undergo interventions (including jail, detention in psychiatric wards, medication and surgery).

From the study:

After repeated police interrogations, Greenup “confessed” that the baby was born alive, and it died because she had failed to provide it with proper care. Greenup was charged with second- degree murder and was incarcerated. Eventually counsel for Greenup obtained her medical records, which revealed that the fetus could not have been older than between eleven to fifteen weeks and that prior to the miscarriage Greenup had been given Depo- Provera, a contraceptive injection that may cause a miscarriage if administered to a woman who is already pregnant. Greenup was finally released, but only after she agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanour
[...]
In 86 percent of the cases (n = 354), the efforts to deprive pregnant women of their liberty occurred through the use of existing criminal statutes intended for other purposes (see table 1). In those cases the charges most frequently filed were child abuse or child endangerment (n = 204).
Sixty- eight cases involved women who experienced miscarriage, stillbirth, or infant death. In all but six cases, prosecutors attributed the loss entirely to actions or inactions that occurred during the woman’s pregnancy. In forty- eight of those cases, women were charged under variations of the state’s homicide laws, including such crimes as feticide, manslaughter, reckless homicide, homicide by child abuse, and first-degree murder.
[...]
In Utah a feticide law was used as the basis for arresting and charging Melissa Rowland. Rowland gave birth to twins, one of whom was stillborn. Rowland was arrested on charges of criminal homicide, a first- degree felony, based on the claim that she had caused the stillbirth by refusing to have cesarean surgery two weeks earlier.
[...]
An Illinois abortion law stating that “an unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person for the purposes of the unborn child’s right to life” was cited as authority for forcibly restraining, overpowering, and sedating a pregnant woman in order to carry out a blood transfusion she had refused.

Full study here.

[Galloism]

It's a pointless response.

Imagine if we were debating the death penalty and every time you made a contrary post someone responded with "It's legal."

We're discussing the concept. Whether it is currently legal doesn't speak to whether it is right. Otherwise, this thread should have been locked one post in with that as a response.

So I'm not engaging posts like that. They are the foam packing peanuts of discussion. I'd rather get down to something of substance.

I'll have to respond to your post in full later. Phone typing ain't fun.

Whether something is or is not legal does not mean something is or is not right, this is true, but it can be one of many indicators.
Rarely are laws made irregardless of right or wrong, more they’re often informed by what is considered right or wrong.

Taxes would be more interesting.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

All this talk of personhood is just part of anti-choicer tactics to distract you from the issue at hand: We are not incubators. Nothing, not even a person, has any right to use our bodies against our will.

[Kowani]

Because fuck Alabama.

[Saiwania]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, period. You consent to an act - you do not consent to an unwanted outcome. And even if someone "consents" to getting pregnant, consent can be revoked. No one has the right to utilize the body of another person against their will, and fetuses are no exception.

"Not consenting to an unwanted outcome" -that is the most foolish logic I've ever seen in my life. If I use electricity, of course I consent to maybe being billed for it and being expected to pay for the cost of that energy being delivered. I know personal responsibility isn't a cool thing for a lot of people, but its still there.

Women who have sexual intercourse with men at mimimum, accept that there is a risk that they might get pregnant if they're not sterile. And a society is not obligated to give any woman an abortion if the majority within that society aren't inclined to do so. A woman who wants to avoid a pregnancy might have to pay a premium or to travel to some place that is willing to do that if where they're at doesn't like abortion in general and doesn't make it available.