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.

500 replies
  1. Star Seed
    Star Seed says:

    "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!"
    ^^^^ Exactly.

    Reply
  2. Janet Susan
    Janet Susan says:

    Well said! Labeling pregnancy as "punishment", Obama and those who think like him regarding abortion are making a moral judgment against unborn children and assigning motive to those who chose to respect and protect that newly created human being. I have come to notice that often when I hear Person A saying to Person B "you're judging me", Person A is judging Person B.

    Reply
  3. Dexter Pearce
    Dexter Pearce says:

    I've actually been outlining for torts the last week so this definitely resonates with me lol. Abortion obviously comes up in Con Law, but I never thought to connect it with tort law. Thanks for both the insight and quick review (unfortunately the issue of foreseeability can be broken down so much more). Back to studying.

    Reply
  4. JDC
    JDC says:

    True. In fact, whenever someone calls me (or someone else) judgmental, I like to point out that calling others judgmental is judgmental.

    Reply
  5. Rebecca Rose Downs
    Rebecca Rose Downs says:

    This was really a great article! The title was what drew me in, but since I have friends in law school whom I'm trying to get to see the pro-life perspective and because I am hopefully attending law school myself (to impact the pro-life movement, actually), I found this article extremely helpful!

    I try to be not judgmental, or at least less judgmental than I was. It's not kind and it's also not going to help our movement. I hope I have succeeded in being non-judgmental in my articles about consent to sex being consent to pregnancy.

    This article, however, does so quite naturally. Kudos to you, Secular Pro-Life!

    Reply
  6. Pro Life Pagans
    Pro Life Pagans says:

    When a woman consents to sex, it's foreseeable she could get pregnant. When a man consents to sex, it's foreseeable he could get someone pregnant.

    Reply
  7. frankbellamy
    frankbellamy says:

    This argument is circular. It doesn't make sense to ask if the risk should be on the unborn child if you don't start with the assumption that the unborn child is a person who can be harmed by the risk. Pro-choice people do't. If you start from a pro-choice position, then the foreseeable thing is the pregnancy and the following abortion, and yes, that's the risk of sex, but a baby is not. That's a consistent position that this foreseeability question does not undermine.

    Reply
  8. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Supporting bans on most abortions is no more "punishing people for having sex" than forcing people to pay child support is "pushing people for having sex".

    Reply
  9. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Keep in mind that if the prenatal offspring/child is *not* a person, though, then I don't see a convincing rationale as to why males should *not* get a child support opt-out in at least some cases of legally consensual sex.

    Reply
  10. Vita
    Vita says:

    That is why it is important to keep the personhood question out of pro-life debates. Without any fear of contradiction we can say this is an innocent human life. Debating whether or not it is a person is not helpful and not necessary.

    Reply
  11. frankbellamy
    frankbellamy says:

    When you use the word human, though, you are just dodging the issue. It's easy for a pro-choicer like me to acknowledge that not all life that is biologically human is morally valuable. So just observing that it is biologically human doesn't get you anywhere. If you want to convince anyone, you still have to explicitly take on why you think it matters morally.

    Reply
  12. Tara
    Tara says:

    except the fact that paying child support does not carry the risk of physical injury, disability or death and I am not just talking about the cases of mother's life in danger when the risk is known. you are comparing two very very different things.

    Reply
  13. Kelsey
    Kelsey says:

    If you don't start with the assumption that the unborn child is harmed in an abortion, then yes, this argument isn't going to get you anywhere. But the trend in pro-choice circles seems to be to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn but justify abortion *anyway* on women's rights grounds. So that's what this blog post speaks to.

    Reply
  14. katsrva
    katsrva says:

    Many people in the old South considered slaves less than human and accorded them less than full moral status.
    Remember, the Constitution originally counted slaves 3/5 as much as free persons toward representation in Congress – using them as nothing more than political pawns. Then there are the numerous Supreme Court, and other legal decisions in our history that began with stripping Black people of the right to claim or even be considered as human.
    I think we can all agree that arguing that some humans are more human than others is morally reprehensible.

    Reply
  15. Vita
    Vita says:

    Nope the word human is a word that we can both agree on. I am not dodging the issue.

    We can agree that you are for allowing the killing of human beings. We can not agree that you are for the killing of persons because you have a different standard of personhood than I do. So why not use the terms that we agree with each other on?

    Why does it matter morally when some humans are okay to kill and others are not? Well I would say that it is hard to tell which human beings should be protected and which ones we should be permitted to kill. When does someone achieve the status of having moral worth and who is worthy to decide which humans have moral value and which humans do not?

    How can you prevent a eugenic and slippery slope from starting once you have a group (any group) of humans deciding which other humans deserve life and should be legally protected?

    Reply
  16. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Actually, this might not necessarily be true. After all, what if all of the money which a male spend in child support payments ends up making the difference in regards to whether or not he can afford to be cryogenically preserved and then revived afterwards and/or whether or not he is able to afford anti-aging technology and thus to extent his lifespan?

    Also, I think that your objection here is not particularly valid. After all, a punishment is still a punishment regardless of its magnitude.

    Reply
  17. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Glad to hear!

    For the record, no offense, but I want to point out that I respect pro-choice positions much more if they are similar to yours.

    Reply
  18. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Good points! Also, I want to point out that one might be able to argue that some cases of pregnancy can be considered to be a lesser sacrifice than paying child support for 18+ years.

    Reply
  19. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "But the trend in pro-choice circles seems to be to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn but justify abortion *anyway* on women's rights grounds."

    If this is the case, then it *might* be harder for pro-choicers to make a more solid case in favor of their position. Honestly, I personally think that the best pro-choice argument(s) might very well be those which argue which, while acknowledging the humanity of prenatal humans, argue that prenatal humans are *not* persons/worthy of having rights due to the fact that they currently don't have sufficient mental abilities to have personhood/rights.

    Reply
  20. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Why does it matter morally when some humans are okay to kill and others are not?"

    Well, one can likewise ask this: Why does it matter morally when some living things (including non-humans) are okay to kill and others are not?

    Reply
  21. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "I think we can all agree that arguing that some humans are more human than others is morally reprehensible."

    Yes, but this is *not* the argument that an intelligent person would make here. An intelligent person can make the argument that some humans should be considered persons/worthy of having rights while other humans are not. This is not a morally rephrenseible position because one can argue that it isn't much different from giving personhood/rights to some living things (including non-humans) but not to other living things.

    Reply
  22. Jim
    Jim says:

    I don't find your "tort" theory of forced reproduction persuasive. The analogy is attractive at first blush, but it fails in several respects:

    1. As anyone who went to law school should know, remedies in the torts context are specifically designed to return the victim to the status quo ante. In the case of an unborn child, the claim is that her parents negligently caused her to exist. What's the status quo ante, exactly? Non-existence? There's no coherent theory of damages that would justify allowing the child to inhabit the mother's body against the mother's will.

    2. Moreover, there are reasons why torts remedies heavily favor money damages, rarely (if ever) resorting to the use of physical force. Even if an unborn child could establish damages, those damages would be expressed in the form of money, and not in the form of forced reproduction.

    3. All of this presumes that an unborn child (I'm going out of my way to use your terminology here) can even qualify as an aggrieved party in a torts context. I'd argue he or she can't, but that's probably outside the scope of this post.

    4. You personally may not have the subjective intent to "punish" women, and I agree that a negligence-like standard is not per se punishment (but rather a system to require individuals to internalize the cost of their actions), but there is substantial and persuasive evidence of a subjective intent to punish women by non-secular pro-lifers.

    5. The use of contraceptives would seem to change this calculus. Is it reasonably forseeable (not just forseeable, reasonably forseeable – the actual negligence standard) that a pregnancy would occur with the use of a condom? How about birth control? A vasectomy? All three? Where do you draw the line? If every single instance of unintended pregnancy qualifies as a form of negligence, the theory falls apart because there's no possibility that precautions will relieve a person of liability.

    Best,
    J

    Reply
  23. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    You might have some good points here. That said, this post was not addressed at me, so I will only respond to a couple of points here right now:

    "5. The use of contraceptives would seem to change this calculus. Is it reasonably forseeable (not just forseeable, reasonably forseeable – the actual negligence standard) that a pregnancy would occur with the use of a condom? How about birth control? A vasectomy? All three? Where do you draw the line? If every single instance of unintended pregnancy qualifies as a form of negligence, the theory falls apart because there's no possibility that precautions will relieve a person of liability."

    Well, there are (and should be) things such as a hysterectomy, ovary removal, and castration (Yes, castration, as in the removal of one's testicles).

    "2. Moreover, there are reasons why torts remedies heavily favor money damages, rarely (if ever) resorting to the use of physical force."

    One can argue that even in the event that most abortions are banned, females should still be physically able to try getting abortions if they want to (as in force will not be used to prevent them from being this). These females and/or their illegal abortion providers will simply get prosecuted if they are discovered to have actually done this.

    Also, I am tempted to take offense at your phrase "forced reproduction" here, considering that reporduction has already occurred before a woman gets an abortion.

    Reply
  24. Michelle Ewing
    Michelle Ewing says:

    "mental abilities" is a dangerous way to go and gives broad support for eugenics. I understand that are rights are given at birth, but why not before?

    Reply
  25. Sounder
    Sounder says:

    This doesn't address everything you mentioned, and I know nothing about tort law, but perhaps it could be argued that the tort the parents caused to the unborn child (or unborn human I guess, if you prefer an unloaded term) was causing her to be in a needy, dependent, and helpless state. While obviously she can't be returned to a non needy and helpless state since she hasn't yet been in one, remedying that damage, so to speak, would entail either providing care, or if possible finding someone else to provide care, until such a time as the child is no longer needy and dependent.

    Reply
  26. Jim
    Jim says:

    Thanks for your response. I think clarifying my terms could help resolve some of the issues you're having.

    First, when I say "forced reproduction," I'm using a process-centered definition in which I understand the term "reproduction" to encompass multiple stages (as opposed to a single act of conception). I think this is consistent with the scientific definition, and colloquial definitions as well; I'm not sure that we'd say a woman "reproduced" if she conceived but later miscarried. If it would be easier, substitute "forced pregnancy." The important part is that it's forced, because we're talking about using state power to prevent her from voluntarily terminating her pregnancy.

    Second, when I say "precautions," what I really mean is "reasonable precautions." I don't think anyone would argue that castration is a reasonable precaution to protect against pregnancy. My issue is that it's no longer a "negligence" standard (or non-intentional tort) if it's impossible to mitigate your risk by taking reasonable precautions. For example, when you drive a car, there are certain precautions you're supposed to take – pay attention, be licensed, have mirrors, etc. On the other hand no one would argue that covering the exterior of your car in pillows and limiting your speed to 3 mph would be a reasonable precaution, even if doing so would prevent more accidents.

    Third, I was giving the author the benefit of the doubt by assuming that she would not advocate state prosecution. Why? Because the second criminal charges (as opposed to civil suits like torts) are introduced into the equation, we begin talking about "punishment" in its most classical sense – criminal sanctions. Since we're not talking about "punishment," I assumed that was off the table.

    Lastly, I'd like to offer one last tort-centered analogy to support point #2. Imagine that you engaged in negligent behavior and injured someone, damaging their kidneys in the process. Under a tort theory, a court would not order you to donate a kidney to the victim. Not even temporarily.

    Reply
  27. Jim
    Jim says:

    Yeah, that occurred to me, but I'm still not clear what the damage is. The negligent act, according to the author, is causing the unborn child to exist. Or, more generously, causing the unborn child to exist in a needy/dependent/ helpless state. Is that *worse* than being non-existent? In what sense was the child damaged by the negligent act? This is essential to the logic of a tort.

    Perhaps we could argue that the normal rules for damages should not apply (though that would obliterate the torts analogy), and that the negligent act of accidental conception creates a dependence by the child upon the mother, thus creating an obligation to allow the child to use the mother's body. Even conceding all that for the sake of argument, I'm not sure how we could sanction the mother for violating the child's rights under a non-"punishment" approach.

    Reply
  28. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    For the record, I myself am on *your* side on the abortion and on the personhood issue, at least based on my current views.

    However, many people already use current mental abilities to determine personhood (at least based on their views). After all, many people would probably oppose giving pigs, cows, chickens, fish, et cetera personhood due to the fact that they do not have sufficient mental abilities.

    As for eugenics, I see where you are coming from. However, the thing is that I don't think that this position can be considered a eugenicist (or more accurately a negative eugenicist; after all, positive eugenics is *not* a bad thing) position due to the fact that this position is not advocating violating the rights of persons and due to the fact that this position is not saying that all non-persons should be exterminated or euthanized or sterilized or whatever. Rather, this position simply has a different position on who deserves to be considered a person.

    Reply
  29. tara
    tara says:

    um did you even read what I said?? how come for example becoming permanently disabled is 9 months versus 18 years?? my point is that pregnancy is something that carries the risk of physical danger and harm. paying child support… not so much.

    Reply
  30. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Pregnancy does not threaten the life of a woman in most cases. As for health, how exactly are you defining it? That said, I might very well be willing to get punched hard and to have my arm hurt for a while in exchange for getting $100,000.

    Reply
  31. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Pregnancy is not a "death penalty" in 99% of cases. Also, a fine of $100,000+ is an *enormous* fine for most people and could possibly/theoretically make the difference in regards to being able vs. not being able to afford medical technology to increase one's lifespan.

    Reply
  32. Tara
    Tara says:

    pregnancy might not be life threatening but it can cause many problems in a woman's body. I listened to Clinton's debate with Matt. His ideology would force a woman to remain pregnant even if it results in her being crippled. quite sadistic and twisted. and yea if only the pain of child birth were comparable to the being punched in the face!!!

    Reply
  33. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "pregnancy might not be life threatening but it can cause many problems in a woman's body."

    I am not disputing this part.

    "I listened to Clinton's debate with Matt. His ideology would force a woman to remain pregnant even if it results in her being crippled."

    Well, unfortunately, if one considers prenatal human beings to be persons, then I can see where Clinton is coming from (though I seriously hope that such a situation with a dichotomy would rarely or never occur) quite sadistic and twisted..

    "if only the pain of child birth were comparable to the being punched in the face!!!"

    I didn't say that it was equivalent. Of course, can't a woman (generally) give birth via C-section?

    Reply
  34. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    I'm not sure that health insurance will immediately cover such medical technologies once they are developed.

    And for the record, I myself support the ACA (also known as Obamacare) as well.

    Reply
  35. Jim
    Jim says:

    re: forced reproduction. Again, I favor a process-focused definition of reproduction as opposed defining reproduction as an individual act (why then use the word "conception," ever?). But since we both know what the other means, we've agreed on an alternative term, and this point really doesn't matter much, I'll move on.

    re: reasonable precautions. Well, in a torts context, juries define what "reasonable" means. But for non-borderline, non-technical cases (medical malpractice, for example) cases, this often requires little more than the application of common sense. It is reasonable to expect a person to do X? The pillows/3mph example illustrates an unreasonable precaution. I would argue that voluntary, irreversible castration is an equally unreasonable precaution, and I'm surprised to be debating that.

    Lastly on that point, responding to your response to my car analogy: wouldn't castration *also* eliminate the purpose of having reproductive organs in the first place?

    Re: non-legal explanation. Not really my area of expertise, but I'll give it a go. Basically, we have separate civil and criminal court systems. Civil courts have the power to issue *some* remedies (injunctions) requiring specific behavior (more usually prohibiting certain behavior) but they generally aren't empowered to do things like take people's organs, imprison them, and so on. Imprisonment is a power criminal courts have, but even they can't take people's organs, etc. because the 8th amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment.

    Reply
  36. Lieutenant Nun
    Lieutenant Nun says:

    The other issue is that young childless women will and do have an almost impossible time getting a tubal ligation. Doctors won't do it because people often change their minds. And no doc is going to perform an unnecessary hysterectomy or castration on someone!

    And many of the people who have abortions already have kids or want to have them later. In the end, its about family planning. Which is why talk of permanent sterilization when people reach puberty is utterly ridiculous.

    And poor people will still be screwed, because they won't be able to afford the best contraception and/or sterilization!

    Reply
  37. Lieutenant Nun
    Lieutenant Nun says:

    Its a death penalty for about 800 per year. Near death for thousands more. Permanent injury and disability for millions

    But, those 800 dead women are just a statistic, right?

    Reply
  38. Lieutenant Nun
    Lieutenant Nun says:

    C section is expensive, has its own set of dangerous complications, and is major surgery. I would not want to be tortured by vaginal birth or have my abdomen cut open with a big knife to save any life. Punishment indeed.

    Reply
  39. Lieutenant Nun
    Lieutenant Nun says:

    Female slaves were also traded like livestock, raped and forced to give birth until they dropped dead from exhaustion. They often tried to abort these pregnancies using herbs. Does this make them as morally corrupt as the slavers?

    Reply
  40. Janet Susan
    Janet Susan says:

    Actually, even if there is assistance through the ACA, it is assistance, not coverage for all a person's healthcare with no cost. ACA–and many other financial assistance programs which help cover the cost of healthcare–still leaves many who have no earned income source and who are very ill with huge gaps in their financial healthcare needs. I see this every day in my work as an RN. There is no way to cover every healthcare financial need for the numerous indigent patients, and they are still then left unable to afford needed health care and meds.

    Also, just because you won't be refused does not mean you won't wait way too for health care. There are still too many poor patients and not enough doctors willing and able to work for gov't programs. I see this on a regular basis in my work as well.

    Reply
  41. Janet Susan
    Janet Susan says:

    Yeah, and for aborted babies, the death penalty is 100%, which is an injustice to those small humans. This is a human rights issue. 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*.

    Reply
  42. Jim
    Jim says:

    I actually responded to exactly that analogy below, before knowing about this one. A civil court would not require you to donate your kidney to the person, even temporarily. Civil courts generally aren't empowered to do things like that, nor are criminal courts (due to the 8th amendment). The remedy is still compensatory damages (medical bills, lost wages, future lost wages, etc.), possible punitive damages for gross negligence (note that the author kinda got this point wrong. Serious non-intentional torts still may warrant punitive damages, a "punishment"), and possibly money for wrongful death/loss of consortium/etc.

    I'd object to the notion that the womb is "designed" for anything, or that the mere fact of its primary function necessarily leads to any moral prescriptions. That sounds like the naturalistic fallacy to me. But as you say, that's another argument.

    Reply
  43. Vita
    Vita says:

    You are correct that my claims are speciest. My claim is that being human is a sufficient condition to have a right to life. That is not to say that being Vulcan does not entail the same right to life as being human.

    As for your example of killing a dog for fun you are correct that it is morally wrong to kill that dog just for fun. You seem to implicitly place the killing of a dog for fun on a different level of "wrongness" than killing another human being for fun (if I am wrong on this please correct me).

    So I will freely admit to being a speciest I think the crux of this issue really deals with ageism. You seem to believe that a human being gains value at a particular stage of development then a certain stage of the life cycle is given preference (in this case adulthood) as being more valuable.

    Reply
  44. frankbellamy
    frankbellamy says:

    Telling me that you think this other nonhuman things have moral value is beside the point. Telling me that you think humanness is merely a sufficient condition doesn't answer the basic question: why is it a sufficient condition? The burden is on you to give a reason.

    Reply
  45. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    No, it's not just a statistic.

    Back to my overall point here, though: It doesn't make sense for pro-choicers to hastily generalize and to accuse all anti-abortion people of wanting to "punish" women for having sex when some/many pro-choicers also support "punishing" people for having sex, but simply in a different way.

    Reply
  46. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "The other issue is that young childless women will and do have an almost impossible time getting a tubal ligation. Doctors won't do it because people often change their minds."

    And yet I have heard of at least one case where a male in his 20s got a vasectomy done by a doctor. Double-standard much?

    "And no doc is going to perform an unnecessary hysterectomy or castration on someone!"

    How exactly are you defining "unnecessary" here?

    "And many of the people who have abortions already have kids or want to have them later. In the end, its about family planning."

    Yes, I know this. This still does not necessarily make abortion morally justifiable.

    "Which is why talk of permanent sterilization when people reach puberty is utterly ridiculous."

    Well, there *are* options other than this which are (and which should be) available. However, can't one also get one's sperm and/or eggs frozen? I am aware that this solution is not perfect, but then again, some things in life are not perfect.

    Also, there genuinely *are* some people which are not interested in *ever* having their own biological children.

    "And poor people will still be screwed, because they won't be able to afford the best contraception and/or sterilization!"

    I support changing this to make these things (much) easier for poor people to afford.

    Reply
  47. Lieutenant Nun
    Lieutenant Nun says:

    How exactly are you defining "unnecessary" here?

    Not a medical need. The same reason doctors won't do non-reversible tubal ligations and remove limbs at people's requests. Also, they could get sued if later on the person has second thoughts and wants their balls back!

    Reply
  48. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Not a medical need."

    And is getting a vasectomy caused a medical need?

    "and remove limbs at people's requests."

    False analogy, considering that I am talking about sex-/gender-specific body parts here.

    "Also, they could get sued if later on the person has second thoughts and wants their balls back!"

    And is there no way for doctors to have their patients sign something beforehand which prevents them from using these doctors afterwards? Heck, I think that Dr. Murray Kimmel had his patients sign something like this before he castrated them (on their request, of course).

    Also, again, I want to point out that there is the risk of people trying to do these things themselves and/or trying to do these things "in back alleys" (both of which are (much) more dangerous) if they are unable to do them in safe, medical settings.

    Reply
  49. Lieutenant Nun
    Lieutenant Nun says:

    Vaesctomy is not major surgery and is reversible. Castration is the removal of an organ and docs will view it ad doing harm. Which is also why they are reluctant to do tubal ligations and other non reversible operations.

    Listen, I am with you here. Just telling you what the reality is.

    Reply
  50. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Vasectomy is not major surgery and is reversible."

    Actually, I don't think that vasectomies are reversible in many cases. I can try providing data for this if you are interested.

    Also, as far as I know, circumcision is not completely reversible. One can regrow the foreskin, but it takes a lot of time, and I've heard that it still isn't the same as not getting one's foreskin removed in the first place.

    "Castration is the removal of an organ and docs will view it ad doing harm. "

    Yes, though, again, a sex-/gender-specific organ. As for doing harm, again, more harm can very well occur if these individual try doing this themselves and/or "in back alleys". In fact, this is a case where the pro-choice "back alley argument" appears to make sense regardless of what one's position on the abortion issue is.

    "Which is also why they are reluctant to do tubal ligations and other non reversible operations."

    OK, fair enough, though as I've said before, there *might* be some hypocrisy here on their part.

    "Listen, I am with you here. Just telling you what the reality is."

    Thanks for clarifying.

    Yeah, the reality is regards to this is rather unfortunate. 🙁 That said, hopefully I myself am eventually able to find a doctor to castrate me if I decide to go down this road in the future (I myself am gender-fluid and the idea of eventually getting a sex change and becoming a woman does seem pretty appealing to me; however, as a side note, the thought of killing off all of the sperm in my body and becoming permanently sterile (well, at least we are able to create and implant ovaries into trans-people) is an extremely nice thought for me).

    Reply
  51. Lieutenant Nun
    Lieutenant Nun says:

    I forgot about circumcision. I oppose it when done to babies. It is a violation of bodily autonomy. It has become so normalized, however, that people don't see it as a violation.

    Reply
  52. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Good to hear. I agree with you on this. I also think that someone should be above a certain age (say, 18) in order to get it done in non-emergency situations.

    Reply
  53. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    Do you have evidence for this? I believe you're making this number up because the number of women who died from illegal abortions in 1972 (the year before Roe v. Wade) was 39.

    In fact, in 1967, six years *before* Roe v. Wade, Alan Guttmacher (past president of Planned Parenthood) wrote: “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life" (“Abortion — Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,” in The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berkeley, CA: Diablo Press). The reality is that abortion, even in the early term, is only marginally safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.

    Reply
  54. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    It depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking to someone like Peter Singer who denies prenatal personhood, then you have to have the conversation. I agree that the discussion of personhood is really pretty useless if you understand the term "person" to mean "an entity with basic rights like the right to life." In that case, you're just being redundant. I don't think it's necessary but I'm prepared to have the discussion if someone denies it.

    Reply
  55. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    The argument is not circular. First, every article on this blog does not have to make a case that the unborn child is a person. Needless to say, that case has been made countless times on this blog.

    Second, embryologists are in agreement that the unborn are human beings. So if you look past the "personhood" label and just ask if it's right or wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, then it's quite obvious that this argument doesn't beg the question.

    Reply
  56. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    That's not evidence. I can randomly say the names of organizations, too, but that's not evidence. I provided evidence that your figure is incorrect.

    Reply
  57. Lieutenant Nun
    Lieutenant Nun says:

    Each year in the U.S., about 800 women die of pregnancy-related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. That's about 2% of births per year. 25% will suffer permanent physical maiming or injury.An

    additional 34,000 barely avoid death. Maternal death in the US is about 21/100,000, or about 0.021%
    A 27.22% risk of permanent injury, disability and even death. Is this not enough risk for you? Should you be forced to risk this to preserve life?

    Should anyone? Why do you get to choose for women? Why is your view on risk assessment more valid than the person who is actually facing the risk?

    Data modeling suggesting 21/100,000 US maternal mortality rate

    In 2004/2005, 1.7 million women per year suffered adverse health effects

    http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/campaigns/demand-dignity/maternal-health-is-a-human-right/maternal-health-in-the-us

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/why-are-so-many-u-s-women-dying-during-childbirth/article_dd916b4b-38f0-5bae-ba42-ddee636e4cf4.html

    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/10/torn-apart-by-childbirth

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-buzz/opera-singer-suing-hospital-episiotomy-left-her-severe-162302400.html

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/03/why-are-american-women-dying-childbirth-201438161633539780.html

    http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/more-us-mothers-dying-despite-expensive-care

    childbirth (stats for U.S.):

    Postpartum depression: 5 to 25%
    PTSD from childbirth: 5.9%
    Miscarriages: 11 to 22% (related: ectopic pregnancies and early pregnancy hemorrhages)
    Maternal mortality in the U.S: 21 per 100,000 live births
    Stillbirths: 1 in 160
    Pre-eclampsis: 6-8%
    Post-partum hemorrhage: 13%

    Pregnancy worsens lupus, thyroid disease, and diabetes.

    Reply
  58. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    Sorry, for some reason I was thinking you were talking about abortion-related deaths (of which there are fewer). However, even statistics regarding pregnancy-related deaths can be misleading. One reason is because there are many complications from prior abortions that are not diagnosed, and when she dies in a future pregnancy, rather than being attributed to the abortion she had it is attributed to a pregnancy-related death. Plus, as Guttmacher wrote back in 1967 (which I indicated in a previous note), having an abortion would be unlikely to prolong or even save her life. Plus, if the child is viable, then the hospital would deliver the child, not go through with an abortion.

    Aside from that, according to a link I found from the CDC (and I noticed that none of the links, or at least I don't think any of the links, that you gave are from reputable sources), 650 women die from pregnancy-related deaths. Still a large number, but smaller than the one that you gave:

    http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-relatedmortality.htm

    Reply
  59. frankbellamy
    frankbellamy says:

    It does beg the question. If you ask me whether it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, my answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no, so we haven't gotten anywhere.

    Reply
  60. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    It doesn't beg the question, for the reasons given in my comment that you have completely ignored. If you want to argue whether or not it's permissible to kill the unborn, find one of those articles and debate on it.

    Reply
  61. Michelle Ewing
    Michelle Ewing says:

    Yes! abstinence, outercourse, or anal as I say! With all the fun things that can't get you pregnant, vaginal sex can be boring! And if you stick to the plan, these options are fool proof!

    Reply
  62. Michelle Ewing
    Michelle Ewing says:

    For single moms, child support is an average of 60% of her income! she does get "pay back" for the costs of having the baby, and most of the time more. trust me, fathers "feel the pain" from bringing a child into existence!

    Reply
  63. Michelle Ewing
    Michelle Ewing says:

    I'm not sure if a ftm would want to be penetrated. and mtf would have to have the surgery. I would be interesting to know how functioning a reconstructed vagina is though.

    Reply
  64. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    In cases of FtM, I meant that this individual would be the one who will *be penetrating someone else*.

    And Yes, an MtF would need to have the surgery beforehand if we are talking about vaginal intercourse.

    Reply
  65. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    "It's easy for a pro-choicer like me to acknowledge that not all life that is biologically human is morally valuable."

    "Morally valuable" is interesting phrasing but I'm pretty sure of what you're getting at.

    Someone laying in a hospital bed that is brain-dead is alive and human. We don't deny their humanity but if laying comatose while artificially sustaining life by machinery is going to be the rest of one's life, then continuing life is moot.

    He would hold little moral value. Am I right?

    Reply
  66. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Get a refund from your "law school" immediately. I could have written your treatise on tort law with my paralegal degree, and it does not apply to pregnancy. No person is legally required to undergo personal risk for another person's benefit, even if you consider the fetus as a person, which the law does not and cannot. But let's go a little further with your theory of fetus as "person." If another person is endangering my life, intentionally or unintentionally, I have the right to stop that attack with lethal force. I have the right to resist rape with lethal force. I have the right to stop someone from the attempted unauthorized seizure of any part of my body with lethal force. You cannot take from me so much as a pint of blood for someone else's use.

    Reply
  67. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    And so, how do you return the fetus to the status of non-need? I don't think you'll like the answer. No one has any right to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. The only thing that can be done is restoration to the previous condition. In this case, non-existence. Money is often used to attempt to make people "whole" in the event of a tort. If I cause you to need a kidney (just for example) that doesn't entitle you to one of mine. However, if I'm liable, I could be held responsible for considerable medical expenses. In cash, not in kind.

    Reply
  68. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Vasectomy is not based on need. Neither is tubal ligation. They are ALWAYS voluntary, never done as an emergency. However, No doctor will castrate a male or female or perform a hysterectomy simply because a man or woman wants it done. It's just too drastic a method to be used merely as contraception. It's unethical to remove healthy organs. Now if the person has cancer, it's pretty much a no-brainer. Or in the case of the uterus, fibroids or endometriosis, hysterectomy will be considered if nothing else works and the woman has no future fertility concerns. "changing one's mind" after sterilization isn't grounds for a lawsuit. That's why we have informed consent. Sterilization is sometimes reversible, but should always be considered permanent. However, we aren't dogs or cats, and it's not done via spaying or neutering.

    Reply
  69. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Vasectomy and tubal ligation should always be considered permanent, and should never be obtained with the idea that you can later change your mind.

    Reply
  70. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    That is the one exception to removing healthy organs. It's necessary to complete a sex change. And actually, I believe they use some of the tissue to construct new sex organs. It's never done for contraception.

    Reply
  71. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    My dad was circumcised at age 60 due to phimosis. Ask him if he wishes it had been done when he was a baby. It's strictly optional, but needing to have it done later is much worse. That's the chance you take.

    Reply
  72. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Child support is not a punishment. It's something you do when you make a baby."

    By that rationale, neither is abortion.

    "Nine months. Yeah right."

    Pregnancy *does* generally last for around nine months.

    "Like she doesn't also pay for the next 18 years."

    False comparison, considering that this is voluntary on her part and involuntary on his part.

    "Cry me a river, deadbeat."

    I don't have children. Thus, your assumption here about me is incorrect.

    Reply
  73. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Using a similar rationale, I can say that one's prenatal offspring needs to use one's body in order to survive, while a pregnant woman generally does not need to stop being pregnant.

    Reply
  74. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "No person is legally required to undergo personal risk for another person's benefit, even if you consider the fetus as a person, which the law does not and cannot."

    Um … the draft? Also, what exactly do you mean by "cannot"? Why *can't* the law consider the fetus to be a person?

    "But let's go a little further with your theory of fetus as "person." If another person is endangering my life, intentionally or unintentionally, I have the right to stop that attack with lethal force. I have the right to resist rape with lethal force. I have the right to stop someone from the attempted unauthorized seizure of any part of my body with lethal force. You cannot take from me so much as a pint of blood for someone else's use."

    Keep in mind, though, that one can argue that females shouldn't literally be forced to remain pregnant, but should rather simply be prosecuted if they illegally get abortions in the event of an abortion ban and if someone finds out about these illegal abortions.

    Reply
  75. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Yes, and how frequent is phimosis, exactly?

    Also, what about the risk of a male getting depressed due to getting circumcised back when he didn't have a choice in the matter? Interestingly enough, I have actually met someone like that on Facebook, and he *does* appear to be a real person and everything.

    Reply
  76. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Also, a useful piece of advice:

    If you act obnoxiously, then people could be less likely to listen to what you have to say.

    Reply
  77. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Vasectomy is not based on need. Neither is tubal ligation. They are ALWAYS voluntary, never done as an emergency."

    I never said that these things were based on a need.

    "However, No doctor will castrate a male or female or perform a hysterectomy simply because a man or woman wants it done. It's just too drastic a method to be used merely as contraception. It's unethical to remove healthy organs."

    Go look up Felix Spektor (sp?) and Murray Kimmel. Also, I am not sure that it is always unethical to do this–just like with the back-alley abortion argument that pro-choicers love to use, it is better to remove one's gender specific body parts in a safe, medical setting than to risk having this individual try unsafely doing this procedure himself/herself or "in a back-alley" by someone who is inexperienced.

    "Now if the person has cancer, it's pretty much a no-brainer. Or in the case of the uterus, fibroids or endometriosis, hysterectomy will be considered if nothing else works and the woman has no future fertility concerns."

    I am not disputing any of this.

    ""changing one's mind" after sterilization isn't grounds for a lawsuit. That's why we have informed consent."

    I never said anything to the contrary of this.

    "Sterilization is sometimes reversible, but should always be considered permanent."

    No–it should always be something which has a risk of being permanent, but even sterilization (or at least some sterilization) is not 100% effective/efficient.

    "However, we aren't dogs or cats, and it's not done via spaying or neutering."

    And why exactly is it done via spaying or neutering for cats and for dogs?

    Reply
  78. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Also, here's a useful piece of advice based on your comment below:

    "It's really out there, like the idiot who was arguing if he had to pay child support, he might not be able to afford to be cryogenically preserved. Laughable."

    Name-calling, insulting, and ridiculing people is not going to get you anywhere and is simply going to make you look like an ass or a douche. I am not sure if you are intelligent enough to comprehend this, but oh well. I am uninterested in discussing things with people who are "potty-mouths" and who are unable to remain civil.

    Also, you have yet to actually rebuke this statement of mine. If you know with 100% certainty that cryogenic preservation does not work, then go ahead and present your evidence for this here.

    Reply
  79. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Also, here is a useful piece of advice based on your comment below:

    "It's really out there, like the idiot who was arguing if he had to pay child support, he might not be able to afford to be cryogenically preserved. Laughable."

    Name-calling, insulting, and ridiculing people is not going to get you anywhere and is simply going to make you look like an ass or a douche. I am not sure if you are intelligent enough to comprehend this, but oh well. I am uninterested in discussing things with people who are "potty-mouths" and who are unable to remain civil.

    Also, you have yet to actually rebuke this statement of mine. If you know with 100% certainty that cryogenic preservation does not work, then go ahead and present your evidence for this here.

    Reply
  80. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I'll quote the drill instructor in the movie "Stripes." Son, there ain't no draft no more. Even so, suppose there were. Yes, at one time young men were conscripted for military service. They could seek conscientious objector status and serve in other non-combat positions. Draftees are also actually paid for their service. It isn't simply taken from them without compensation as pregnancy does to a woman. Now as to your question about why a zef can't be considered a legal person. There is the body of a pregnant woman, to which two persons cannot simultaneously claim rights of use. Your body belongs to you, and I cannot walk up to you and demand that you breathe for me, even if I were your child, and even if I would die if you didn't. If I need something from your body, it must be with your consent. That's how it works. Of course women cannot legally be forced to remain pregnant, and they should not be prosecuted for refusing to remain pregnant under any circumstances.

    Reply
  81. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    But there is no right to use the body of another. Actual children do have the right to support from both parents.

    Reply
  82. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Well when you make a silly claim like motherhood only involves nine months, you can pretty much expect to be ridiculed for it. That isn't an argument even a five year old would make.

    Reply
  83. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Well, if she chooses not to parent, then neither will she be receiving child support. Here's why: Child support is not the right of the mother and the obligation of the father. It's the right of the child, and the obligation of the non-custodial parent. The custodial parent is presumed to be providing material support simply by virtue of providing material needs and care for the child. If you don't want to pay support, take custody yourself and do the heavy lifting of single parenthood. Women are ordered to pay support if they are non-custodial parents. The language of family law is gender-neutral.

    Reply
  84. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No one cannot, because it is not a valid argument. You are never owed the use of someone else's body.

    Reply
  85. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    You can put your ad-hominem argument away. I never said cryopreservation "doesn't work" although at this time it doesn't work. I could make a similar argument about how men shouldn't be required to pay child support because they might not be able to afford a ticket to a space shuttle to Mars after we ruin this planet. But it's a dumb argument for the same reason. There has been no one brought back from death, ever. And there is no colony on Mars. Am I saying neither will ever happen? No. I'm saying they are at present, a fantasy. A child with a right to be supported by both parents is a reality. You might consider that some arguments are worthy of ridicule, because they have no basis in reality or logic. And I haven't been a potty-mouth. You're just making that up, like your argument about cryogenic preservation.

    Reply
  86. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I have seen a few patients develop phimosis late in life. I wouldn't call it "frequent" but neither is it extremely rare. One reason it is not frequent is because most men who are now in that age group were routinely circumcised. It's impossible to extrapolate from such a small group. I have never actually met anyone who was depressed because they were circumcised as infants. But there are more benefits than simply avoiding phimosis. Circumcision has been shown to lower transmission of certain STDs to both men and by extension, their female partners. I had my sons done as infants because it was "the thing to do" at the time. That's not the best reason but I don't regret having done it. I have no strong opinion one way or the other about it. There seem to be benefits and drawbacks, some religions require it, and it's strictly a personal preference. Babies don't get to make any of their own decisions, so that is really not a persuasive argument.

    Reply
  87. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Because they are dogs and cats, and not human beings. Dogs and cats do not engage in sex for fun, so no harm is done to them to deprive them of their gonads to keep them from reproducing, and reducing undesirable behavior that is part of them being sexually whole. We primates function sexually quite differently. Actually, some breeders do keep vasectomized toms and sires around to keep the females from constantly cycling in and out of heat. It's a consideration to be made if someone is a professional breeder. For pets, it's too expensive to be practical, and will not stop undesirable behavior like spraying.

    Reply
  88. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Because you cannot "opt" the child out of it's rights once there is a child. The child is not a party to any agreement you may form, and cannot be bound by it. I'm sure it sounds good to people who don't know how the law works. But it's legally impossible. The fetus is not capable of agreeing with you that you do not owe support to it once it's born.

    Reply
  89. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Legally it won't work. The law views child support as the child's right. Therefore neither parent can unilaterally remove that right. They can only choose not to act upon it on behalf of the child. Such a contract is, however, legally non-enforceable due to the child not being a party to the contract.

    Reply
  90. frankbellamy
    frankbellamy says:

    My understanding is that child support is not a matter of contract law at all, it is a matter of family law, which can be tweeked just like any other law. Also, my memory of 1L contracts is that a contract between an adult and a child is binding upon the adult but not the child.

    Reply
  91. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    One *can* argue that, but one would sound like an a** for talking out of both sides of one's mouth. Keep in mind that one knows, if one is honest with one's self, that coercing gestation via threat of imprisonment is, indeed, *forcing gestation*.
    Better luck next time.

    Reply
  92. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    Why do you think needing something automatically gives you the right to it?
    As Lady Black keeps telling you, no one has the right to use another person's body. Ever. Full stop.

    Reply
  93. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    "Of course, can't a woman (generally) give birth via C-section?"
    A huge part of me would *love* to see someone come along and cut your abdomen open with a big knife. Something tells me you wouldn't be so glib about it.

    Reply
  94. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    You should consider reading my rebuttal post, above. I am a lawyer who practices in this area. The Secular Pro-life analysis is deeply flawed. It gets basic torts principles wrong.
    The article does not provide support for the author's assertion- that foreseeability of a result means you consent to it.

    Reply
  95. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I'm speaking, of course, of any contract that the custodial parent will not seek support from the non-custodial parent. You are correct that child support is part of family law. It's the right of the child, and there is no such thing as "opting out."

    Reply
  96. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "A huge part of me would *love* to see someone come along and cut your abdomen open with a big knife. Something tells me you wouldn't be so glib about it."

    I don't think that I ever said that I would love it. However, I *do* hope that an opportunity will eventually come with technological advancements which will allow me to experience this. If I actually do this, and if I will still remember this blog at that point in time, then I will make sure to tell you about my experience in regards to this.

    Reply
  97. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "You can put your ad-hominem argument away."

    I do not think that I ever made an argumentum ad hominem attack on you, since I never said that your position on something is invalid due to a personal characteristic/trait of yours.

    "I never said cryopreservation "doesn't work" although at this time it doesn't work. I could make a similar argument about how men shouldn't be required to pay child support because they might not be able to afford a ticket to a space shuttle to Mars after we ruin this planet. But it's a dumb argument for the same reason. There has been no one brought back from death, ever. And there is no colony on Mars."

    Yes, these things are fantasies at the present, but nevertheless there is the possibility that someone who is currently alive will eventually benefit from these things if he/she is able to afford these things. This was my point in regards to this.

    "A child with a right to be supported by both parents is a reality."

    You are aware that the child can acquire the money to be fed from other sources, correct?

    " You might consider that some arguments are worthy of ridicule, because they have no basis in reality or logic."

    First of all, I don't think that I made any logical fallacies here. Secondly, the cryogenic preservation argument does not have *no* basis at all in reality. After all, we already have cryogenic preservation–whether or not it will work is a question which will be answered in the future, though. My point here was about the possibility of cryogenic preservation working in the future, a possibility which even you acknowledge exists.

    "You might consider that some arguments are worthy of ridicule, because they have no basis in reality or logic."

    Yep, though in such cases, I will ridicule the arguments, rather than the person(s).

    "And I haven't been a potty-mouth."

    Calling someone an idiot and figuratively telling someone to cry you a river isn't exactly pleasant behavior.

    "You're just making that up, like your argument about cryogenic preservation."

    Actually, I don't think that I was making anything up. As for cryogenic preservation, I don't think that I stated anything inaccurate about it–after all, my assertion that it working is a possibility appears to be correct.

    Reply
  98. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Wouldn't this be considered an example of begging the question on your part (at least from the perspective of morality), though? After all, not everyone agrees with the current law in regards to this. Heck, as of right now, I am tempted to say that I do not and that I would not agree with the current law in regards to this *even if* I was pro-choice.

    Reply
  99. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Why do you think needing something automatically gives you the right to it?"

    I don't think that I ever said anything of this sort.

    "As Lady Black keeps telling you, no one has the right to use another person's body. Ever. Full stop."

    And once again, wouldn't this be considered an example of question-begging (at least from the perspective of morality)? After all, not everyone agrees with the current law in regards to this.

    Reply
  100. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "I have seen a few patients develop phimosis late in life. I wouldn't call it "frequent" but neither is it extremely rare. One reason it is not frequent is because most men who are now in that age group were routinely circumcised. It's impossible to extrapolate from such a small group."

    Thank you for this information.

    " I have never actually met anyone who was depressed because they were circumcised as infants."

    Yeah, I don't think that this is frequent, but it might occur.

    "But there are more benefits than simply avoiding phimosis. Circumcision has been shown to lower transmission of certain STDs to both men and by extension, their female partners."

    Yes, I have heard of that as well. I am not completely sure if it is accurate (I simply didn't do much research on this), but even if it is accurate, one can simply respond that this problem can be (at least largely) avoided if males refuse to have sex with someone without first finding out whether or not this individual has STDs and/or without wearing a condom.

    Also, I have heard that circumcision might reduce the amount of pleasure that a male feels in that area. In addition, I have also heard that even with foreskin restoration, which a long process, a male might not feel as much pleasure in that area than if he was never circumcised to begin with. I don't know if these things are correct, but they are worth researching and keeping in mind (unless they are/will be debunked, of course).

    "I had my sons done as infants because it was "the thing to do" at the time. That's not the best reason but I don't regret having done it."

    Yeah, I myself got circumcised as well in a brit milah back when I was a baby.

    "There seem to be benefits and drawbacks, some religions require it, and it's strictly a personal preference."

    In regards to religions requiring it, I don't consider it to be a convincing argument. After all, we (rightfully) have separation of religion and state in this country. In addition, one can use one's religious beliefs to justify things such as female genital mutilation and whatnot, which I am sure that almost everyone will oppose.

    "Babies don't get to make any of their own decisions, so that is really not a persuasive argument."

    Actually, I am not sure that I agree with this. After all, in regards to circumcision, we are talking about something which possibly has irreversible consequences and where the good from it does not indisputably outweigh the bad from it. Thus, I don't think that circumcision can be compared to parental decisions such as vaccination.

    Reply
  101. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    I am not sure that your reason here is a valid one. After all, eunuchs are still capable of having sex with hormone replacement therapy, as well as without hormone replacement therapy in some cases. In addition, since reproduction is no longer an option for them, pretty much the only reasons that eunuchs would have sex would be for pleasure, for pair bonding, et cetera.

    In addition, I would like to point out that getting castrated appears to make sense if one wants to avoid risking unwanted pregnancy and if one is willing to deal with the consequences of castration. After all, no contraception is 100% effective/efficient, and thus, if a male is sexually active and wants to avoid the risk of unwanted pregnancy as much as possible, then it might be better for such a male to get castrated than to have an unwanted pregnancy occur later on and for him to get shamed, ridiculed, and/or insulted by pro-choicers such as yourself for not wanting to pay child support.

    Also, if you have a response to my "back-alley" argument, then please let me know. Thank you.

    Reply
  102. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    And why exactly can't the law be changed in regards to this? I am arguing this from the perspective of morality, not from the perspective of legality. However, it is worth noting that many, if not most or all, of our laws are based on someone's morality.

    Reply
  103. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    It might depend on how one defines *force* here. I do agree that it is probably an example of coercion, though.

    Of course, hypothetically speaking, with such an argument, a woman *can* decide to go to jail instead of remaining pregnant. After all, using such an argument, one might oppose even having the authorities use physical force to prevent a woman from getting an abortion or from purposely inducing a miscarriage (which isn't much different)–rather, they will simply give her the appropriate amount of jail time afterwards.

    Reply
  104. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "I'll quote the drill instructor in the movie "Stripes." Son, there ain't no draft no more."

    Yes, I am aware of this part. Of course, the U.S. government does have Selective Service right now.

    "Even so, suppose there were. Yes, at one time young men were conscripted for military service. They could seek conscientious objector status and serve in other non-combat positions."

    OK, but hypothetically, what if all or almost all males which were drafted sought conscious objector status? Would all of them get such a status?

    "Draftees are also actually paid for their service. It isn't simply taken from them without compensation as pregnancy does to a woman."

    This pay wouldn't have much value to them if they are killed in action, though.

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

    "Now as to your question about why a zef can't be considered a legal person. There is the body of a pregnant woman, to which two persons cannot simultaneously claim rights of use. Your body belongs to you, and I cannot walk up to you and demand that you breathe for me, even if I were your child, and even if I would die if you didn't. If I need something from your body, it must be with your consent. That's how it works. Of course women cannot legally be forced to remain pregnant, and they should not be prosecuted for refusing to remain pregnant under any circumstances."

    The thing is, though, that one can argue that while embryos and fetuses should be considered persons, they shouldn't be allowed to use someone else's body without his or her consent. Of course, you might be guilty of begging the question here, since not everyone agrees with you in regards to this.

    Reply
  105. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    As a side note, I did hear an interesting argument about how consent to sex *is*, in fact, consent to pregnancy. This isn't an argument which I use, but it might not be completely lacking in merit.

    Reply
  106. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Abortion is legal."

    Yes, and I disagree with the current law in regards to this.

    "You must have faith in and love government."

    I suppose that it depends on what exactly we are talking about here. I approve of some of the things which the government does, but not other things.

    "Here is how much good it did the government the last time they tried it. 11,000 abortions over 6 years until abortion was made a choice."

    Let me check that data and get back to you on this.

    "Cry me a river."

    LOL!; Will do! 😉

    Reply
  107. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    I just checked that source. However, I am not sure what relevance exactly the info in your source here has to my arguments.

    Reply
  108. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "You cannot make inferences"

    If the inference here is that abortion bans will not make abortion go away, then I was already aware of that. However, the pro-life argument in regards to this is that while an abortion ban will not end abortion, it will very likely reduce the number of abortions *if all other factors remain unchanged*.

    Are there any other inferences which you were making here?

    "but you feel capable of running my sexual/family life?"

    Sexual life? No. Family life? Yes, but only in cases where I try to prevent morally unjustifiable things.

    Reply
  109. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Also, I would like to point out that sperm donors, if they do everything correctly, are *not* forced to pay child support.

    Pro-child support choice arguments often state that the male should be considered to be (something similar to) a sperm donor.

    Reply
  110. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Also, I suppose that your point here raises the question of why someone who did not (from a pro-choice perspective) exist yet (at least in any meaningful sense) when an agreement was made should have any say in regards to this agreement?

    Reply
  111. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Well when you make a silly claim like motherhood only involves nine months, you can pretty much expect to be ridiculed for it"

    I never said that motherhood only involves nine months, though. This appears to be a strawman of what I said here. I said that pregnancy lasts for nine months, which is accurate.

    "That isn't an argument even a five year old would make."

    No, but once again, I am not making this argument.

    Reply
  112. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    You come anywhere near my daughters in real life to enforce this agenda and I will rip your twig off, nail your berries to the wall, and urinate on your spasming bleeding dying body. So, come onna my house. FBI LOOK SHARP. This is the Roeder personality.

    Reply
  113. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Well, if she chooses not to parent, then neither will she be receiving child support."

    Do you mean if she will get an abortion, or what?

    "Here's why: Child support is not the right of the mother and the obligation of the father. It's the right of the child, and the obligation of the non-custodial parent."

    I am already aware of this, but once again, using the current law to argue your case when not everyone agrees with the current law in regards to this appears to be an example of question-begging.

    "The custodial parent is presumed to be providing material support simply by virtue of providing material needs and care for the child. If you don't want to pay support, take custody yourself and do the heavy lifting of single parenthood."

    Couldn't one ask for joint custody, though?

    Also, I already knew all of this, though frankly, I would probably prefer to get castrated and to avoid such a situation in the first place.

    "Women are ordered to pay support if they are non-custodial parents."

    Yep, as they should.

    "The language of family law is gender-neutral."

    Maybe, but this might not apply to the law *overall*.

    Reply
  114. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Actually, I don't think that you are correct on this, and I don't think that there even is a correct answer in regards to this. It might depend on one's personal preferences and personal priorities.

    Reply
  115. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    I don't think that I said anything of this sort.

    However, I am curious in regards to this — how much less painful, if at all, is a C-section compared to giving vaginal birth?

    Reply
  116. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Just because there isn't such a right doesn't necessarily mean that there shouldn't be such a right, though.

    Reply
  117. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "You come anywhere near my daughters in real life to enforce this agenda and I will rip your twig off, nail your berries to the wall, and urinate on your spasming bleeding dying body. "

    Actually, I myself am *against* using physical force to enforce abortion bans (if such bans are in place).

    Also, I am not in law enforcement, so I am not going to be enforcing any laws.

    In addition, though, if your statement about nailing berries refers to castration, and if you are a qualified medical professional, then I might be willing to accept your offer of castrating me.

    "So, come onna my house. FBI LOOK SHARP."

    I suspect that this is a troll statement, considering that I never intended to come over to your house.

    "This is the Roeder personality."

    Actually, I am vehemently against taking the law into one's own hands, especially when it pertains to issues such as abortion. Thus, individuals such as Scott Roeder are obviously vile scum.

    Reply
  118. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    I'm not saying you're wrong, and if I'm mistaken, I'd like to be enlightened… but if that were the case, I would think there'd be no need to differentiate being brain dead and dead.

    In any case, in my question we can replace a brain dead person with a man in a coma with no indication of ever recovering. I was curious if that is what he meant by human life that holds little moral value.

    Reply
  119. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    We share common ground here that a human and a person may not be the same thing. Our slave population were considered 3/5ths persons. Corporations are considered people. So we have an example of humans being given a partial personhood status and an example of a non-human entity being a person.

    Personhood exists as a legal concept but justifying abortion on grounds that the preborn isn't a person is an argument from legalism; it brings nothing edifying to the discussion.

    Reply
  120. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Such a thing as natural persons exists. And the unborn do not qualify as natural persons, in a legal or moral sense.

    Reply
  121. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    "Natural person" is a legal concept to differentiate from a non-human entity that is legally a person (corporation, club, government entity)

    If you speak of personhood in a sense outside of describing a legal entity or a human being, then you are using personhood as an insipid concept. You may as well say, "The unborn doesn't have a soul yet."

    Reply
  122. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    You're just wanting to play games with semantics.

    Let me guess. 'Human' is your only marker, right?

    Reply
  123. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    I'm totally not playing games with semantics. How do you demonstrate having personhood in a non-legal or non-biological sense?

    Reply
  124. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Persons are those who have been born and have not yet died. Therefore a woman is a person. A fetus isn't.

    Reply
  125. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    There is no differentiation. Dead is dead. Brain dead persons are usually removed from respirators once decisions have been made about organ donation. And they cannot be maintained for long periods of time in the first place. Decomposition will begin to occur regardless of any measures taken. I've cared for such patients. It's not a pretty sight. And no I do not consider a brain dead human to be a person. It's a corpse.

    Reply
  126. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Are you freaking kidding me??? There should be laws forcing people to give the use of blood, organs and tissues to another person??? Not in a free country, pal. Your body belongs to you. I cannot demand the use of ANY part of your body for my own use, even if I were your child, and even if I would die without it. The courts have been very clear about this. We don't even do that to criminals.

    Reply
  127. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    It's true for the early abortions you were saying were only "marginally safer." Now as time goes by, the risks become higher. But abortion at any stage is safer than pregnancy and birth. Bear in mind that abortion means prior to viability. After viability it becomes a delivery or birth. Even if it's a stillbirth.

    Reply
  128. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Being that the same anesthesia (epidural) is used for both, none. There is MORE post procedure pain with a C-section, because after all, it's major abdominal surgery. There are also higher risks to both woman and child. No one should be having a C-section unless it's medically indicated.

    Reply
  129. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    BOTH parents have to support the child. It's not like after birth she is off the hook for supporting her child. It doesn't work that way. Only SHE is pregnant got nine months, though. So no it can never be less a sacrifice.

    Reply
  130. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Are you freaking kidding me???"

    No, I'm not.

    "There should be laws forcing people to give the use of blood, organs and tissues to another person???"

    It depends on how exactly you are defining "force" here and depends on the specific circumstances.

    "Not in a free country, pal."

    I am not sure that what I am advocating here (again, only in specific circumstances) is particularly against freedom.

    "Your body belongs to you."

    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.

    "I cannot demand the use of ANY part of your body for my own use, even if I were your child, and even if I would die without it. The courts have been very clear about this. We don't even do that to criminals."

    You appear to be guilty of question-begging here, considering that not everyone agrees with the current law in regards to this. As for criminals, I would probably support applying this idea to them as well.

    Reply
  131. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Out of genuine curiosity, though–what about a late-term abortion vs. a delivery/birth? Which one of these is safer?

    Reply
  132. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    You appear to be overlooking the fact that parents can give their offspring up for adoption, including through the utilization of safe-haven laws (which, frankly, I am wondering if females can utilize *in practice* without the consent of the infant's father).

    Thus, in these specific cases, I appear to have accurately compared pregnancy vs. child support payments.

    Reply
  133. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No I do not mean if she aborts. If she aborts neither will be a parent of a minor child, thus support is not anissue. I mean if she relinquishes the child for adoption. Joint custody is the rule. Joint physical custody is only workable if the two parties are geographically close, as in… in the same school district. Schools are funny like that. They expect the student's primary physical address to be within their district. Now suppose that's workable logistically. The higher earning parent will still be on the hook for *some* child support because the formula works according to income. And I don't care if "some people" don't agree with the law as it is. The law is the law, and it will never change. Children will ALWAYS be entitled to the support of both parents. It's the right of the child and has nothing to do with any alleged rights of parents. It's very bad public policy to bastardize children, and it just won't happen.

    Reply
  134. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Thanks for this info.

    Out of curiosity–are C-sections shorter (in regards to time) than vaginal birth is?

    Reply
  135. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    You are not saying those exact words. But when you are implying that nine months of pregnancy are less a sacrifice than 18 years of paying child support, you are magically erasing the fact that BOTH parents pay to support their children for 18 years. You cannot make that argument, it just doesn't work. It's not "just nine months and she's then off the hook." That's not based in reality.

    Reply
  136. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "No I do not mean if she aborts. If she aborts neither will be a parent of a minor child, thus support is not an issue. I mean if she relinquishes the child for adoption."

    Thanks for clarifying this.

    "Joint custody is the rule. Joint physical custody is only workable if the two parties are geographically close, as in… in the same school district. Schools are funny like that. They expect the student's primary physical address to be within their district. Now suppose that's workable logistically. The higher earning parent will still be on the hook for *some* child support because the formula works according to income."

    Thanks for this info.

    "And I don't care if "some people" don't agree with the law as it is. The law is the law, and it will never change. "

    Someone could have just as easily said in 1800 or in 1900 that the law in regards to gay marriage or whatever will never be changed. Unless you have a crystal ball, you are incapable of knowing for sure what will occur in the future.

    Also, though, I want to point out that if you are arguing from the perspective of morality that your position on a particular issue is superior, then Yes, you *do* appear to be guilty of begging the question here. If you are simply stating the law without arguing in favor of a specific position, then I don't see a need for you to do this considering that I myself already know what the currently law is in regards to this.

    "Children will ALWAYS be entitled to the support of both parents. It's the right of the child and has nothing to do with any alleged rights of parents. It's very bad public policy to bastardize children, and it just won't happen."

    Actually, the idea which I previously proposed in regards to this might not result in much negative consequences in regards to this.

    Reply
  137. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    You appear to ignore the fact that I was only talking about *involuntary* sacrifices, though.

    In the event of an abortion ban and in a case where a woman gives birth and places her offspring up for adoption afterwards, the only *involuntary* part is the pregnancy, which lasts for around nine months.

    Thus, my comparison of the woman's *involuntary* sacrifice in such cases vs. a man's *involuntary* sacrifice in regards to paying child support still appears to be a valid one.

    Reply
  138. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No, you don't "get it." A minor child doesn't have any say in ANY agreement, simply because they are minors. That isn't to say a minor child has no rights. One of the rights of a minor child is to be supported by both biological (or adoptive) parents. That right belongs to the child, and cannot be abrogated by ANY agreement between two adults. No court will enforce such an illegal contract. In other words, even if the two parents make such a contract, it is not legally binding. She can change her mind at any time, and if she is ever in need of public assistance for the minor, the state will force her to seek support. And she will win. With the exception of any pass-through, the state will take the support as reimbursement.

    Reply
  139. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Thanks for clarifying this. That said, theoretically speaking, the law *can* be changed in regards to this.

    Reply
  140. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Sperm donors are anonymous. The male who impregnates a woman known to him is not an anonymous donor, and can never be considered as being in the same legal position. It's abominable public policy, and not in the best interest of the child.

    Reply
  141. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Sperm donors are anonymous."

    Is this *always* the case, though?

    I will respond to the rest of your post after you respond to this part.

    Reply
  142. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Who told you that? That's like saying choosing to drive is consent to an automobile accident. Or hunting is consent to being shot. Pregnancy is a possible outcome of having sex, but that isn't the same as consent.

    Reply
  143. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    It doesn't matter whether they agree or not. That is the position of the law. People have sued in an attempt to gain rights to the bodies of others for the purpose of preserving their life. Guess who lost?

    Reply
  144. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "No consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Who told you that?"

    Does it really matter who told me this?

    That said, here is a blog post about this:

    http://thomists.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/consent-to-sex-is-consent-to-pregnancy/

    If you are interested in writing a response to it over there, then go ahead and do so.

    "That's like saying choosing to drive is consent to an automobile accident. Or hunting is consent to being shot. Pregnancy is a possible outcome of having sex, but that isn't the same as consent."

    I am not sure if the driving and hunting analogies fit here, considering that sex and pregnancy are intrinsically linked; I am not sure if this is true of these other two examples.

    Reply
  145. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "It doesn't matter whether they agree or not."

    Actually, it *does* matter if you are debating this from the perspective of morality and moral justifiability.

    "That is the position of the law. People have sued in an attempt to gain rights to the bodies of others for the purpose of preserving their life. Guess who lost?"

    Yes, I am aware of the current law in regards to this. Thus, I don't see a need for you to have made this part of your post.

    Reply
  146. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No they are not "intrinsically linked." That's what birth control is for. That's what sterilization is for. Go ask any infertile couple how "intrinsically linked: sex and pregnancy are. I had a tubal ligation at age 26. 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. And if the tubal ligation had failed, I would have had an abortion so fast your pointy head would spin.

    Reply
  147. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Well the law is the only thing that matters, isn't it? This isn't China where consent doesn't matter. It does matter. It's essential. Who cares about morality? The law doesn't deal in "sin" nor should it. The law deals with the constitutional, not with your morals.

    Reply
  148. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "That's what birth control is for."

    And yet no contraception is 100% effective/efficient.

    "That's what sterilization is for."

    Once again, no sterilization (except perhaps castration and ovary removal) is 100% effective/efficient.

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

    This is the result of something in their bodies not working as it properly should, though.

    "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. "

    I'm not so sure about this.

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

    This doesn't mean that your action/decision in regards to this is morally justifiable, though.

    Reply
  149. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Also, did you actually read that blog post (the link for which I posted)?

    If so, then it would be nice to see you respond on the comments for that blog post. Frankly, I am interested in hearing what the writer of this blog post's response to you will be.

    Reply
  150. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Blah, blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Naturalistic fallacy. I would argue that an infertile person's body is working exactly the way it's supposed to. Not every person is meant to be fertile, and the default condition of the female body is non-pregnant.

    "And yet no contraception is 100% effective/efficient." So what? Are you arguing that contracepting is consent to pregnancy, or would you say that it is a willful and demonstrable act of NOT consenting to pregnancy.

    Reply
  151. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Well the law is the only thing that matters, isn't it?"

    Not in a debate about what the law should be.

    "This isn't China where consent doesn't matter."

    I am not sure what your analogy in regards to China has to do here.

    "It does matter. It's essential."

    Once again, you appear to be guilty of question-begging here.

    "Who cares about morality? The law doesn't deal in "sin" nor should it. The law deals with the constitutional, not with your morals."

    I wasn't talking about "sin" here. And actually, many, if not most or all, of our laws are in fact based on someone's morality. As for the Constitution, even the U.S. Constitution can be amended. In addition, though, it is worth raising the question of whether any U.S. judges ever considered their own morality/political views when they were making their rulings/decisions.

    Reply
  152. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I'm not interested in hearing the ravings of a loon who insists that sex is consent to pregnancy. It is not. Consent to sex is consent to sex, period.

    Reply
  153. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    For the record, though, if this is not clear enough already, I *oppose* using physical force in regards to this.

    Reply
  154. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No the laws that are constitutional cannot be based upon subjective morality. The laws are based upon our Constitution. Morality is highly subjective. In other words, all things that are legal are not necessarily moral, and all things that are immoral are not necessarily illegal. For example, I believe gambling to be morally wrong. That doesn't mean I can stop you from buying a Powerball ticket, or going to the racetrack. What that means is that I MYSELF do not do those things. They are legal activities, and anyone who wishes to indulge in them is free to do so.

    Reply
  155. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    It doesn't matter what "people think" the law should be. We are a nation governed by a Constitution. We have freedoms to do things others don't agree with. You're a very paternalistic person aren't you? Believing that you must live according to what others approve of. Or to be more precise, others must live according to what you approve of. That's not freedom. I'm an adult and I don't need the approval of parental figures, i.e. *you.* Judges are supposed to be considering the law and not their own beliefs, and most of them do a splendid job of doing so. One who rules in opposition to what the law and the Constitution say are failing in their duty.

    Reply
  156. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "No the laws that are constitutional cannot be based upon subjective morality. The laws are based upon our Constitution."

    Really? Somehow I have my doubts about this. For instance, a law banning infanticide is Constitutional, but it is also based upon someone's morality.

    "In other words, all things that are legal are not necessarily moral, and all things that are immoral are not necessarily illegal."

    Yes, and I would actually like to take this a step further by saying that just because something is illegal does not mean that it is morally unjustifiable, and vice versa. For instance, I consider smoking marijuana to be morally justifiable (meaning that I would support changing the law in order to make it legal), but smoking marijuana is still illegal right now in many areas.

    "For example, I believe gambling to be morally wrong. That doesn't mean I can stop you from buying a Powerball ticket, or going to the racetrack. What that means is that I MYSELF do not do those things. They are legal activities, and anyone who wishes to indulge in them is free to do so."

    You seem to be confusing two concepts, though. One is something being moral/immoral, while the other something being morally justifiable/morally unjustifiable.

    To elaborate on this distinction:

    Something which is immoral is something which one does not want to do himself/herself but which one supports being legal. For instance, I myself think that adultery is morally wrong, but I still think that it should remain legal.

    Something which is morally unjustifiable is something which one does not want to do himself/herself and which one supports preventing others from doing (by supporting laws against it). For instance, I obviously consider rape to be morally unjustifiable, meaning that I would not do this myself and that I support having rape be illegal in order to prevent other people from committing this act.

    Reply
  157. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Ok, I read your blog entry. That is one person's religious opinion, which may be "truth" according to the tenets of his particular religion, which is Catholic faith. Religious beliefs are irrelevant as a persuasive argument. That's why they call it "faith" instead of "fact." This person is making claims based upon his religious beliefs that are absolutely not true, other than in his religious tradition. I can't take such arguments seriously, and they certainly cannot be codified into law.

    Reply
  158. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "It doesn't matter what "people think" the law should be."

    On the contrary, the people are the ones who vote to determine which politicians get into office. Politicians, in turn, determine which judges (which interpret the U.S. Constitution) get into office, and electing different politicians could result in different judges getting appointed and confirmed.

    "We are a nation governed by a Constitution."

    Yeah, obviously, though once again, it is worth noting that even the U.S. Constitution can be changed/amended.

    "We have freedoms to do things others don't agree with."

    Yep, we do.

    "You're a very paternalistic person aren't you? Believing that you must live according to what others approve of. Or to be more precise, others must live according to what you approve of. That's not freedom. I'm an adult and I don't need the approval of parental figures, i.e. *you.*"

    I do not consider myself to be any more paternalistic than other people. After all, I, just like other people, support making laws based on what I consider to be morally justifiable and morally unjustifiable.

    "Judges are supposed to be considering the law and not their own beliefs, and most of them do a splendid job of doing so. One who rules in opposition to what the law and the Constitution say are failing in their duty."

    In your opinion. Of course, it is worth pointing out that some parts of the U.S. Constitution might be open to interpretation, which in turn might mean that there is *no* one correct way to interpret these parts of the U.S. Constitution.

    Reply
  159. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    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. 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. 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.

    Reply
  160. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    It's just the personhood argument is an appeal to legalism and speaks nothing to the merit of if elective abortion SHOULD be legal. Even endangered species aren't persons, legally or biologically, but doing any harm to them, much less killing them, would be met with severe punishment.

    Reply
  161. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    By mentioning having cared for brain dead patients, it seems you bring relevant experience to this discussion and I'd grant you'd know what you're talking about. I just don't get why the term "brain dead" would be coined if it weren't implicit that the death were isolated to the organ. After all, most living organisms don't have brains.

    In any case, I was trying to grasp frankbellamy concept of varying degrees of the moral value of human life. Summarily accepting that brain dead is not an example for best illustrating this, I'll point to a man in a persistent vegetative state type of coma. And I'd understand what he'd mean by this would be an example of human life that holds little moral value. And in these cases a decision may be made whether to remove life support. If the next of kin wants to keep the patient alive, it's their dime; if the other, a decision is made to remove him from life support to allow for him to die.

    And that is what his concept of moral value of human life is, I get that.

    But I myself have been in a position where I had to make medical decisions on behalf of my wife who went unconscious from Guillain Barre Syndrome and her peripheral nervous system shut off and she had to be tube fed and put on a ventilator. Now with GBS, the nerves will regenerate in time and she'd return to relatively normal. But I couldn't imagine that I would be granted a decision to have her removed from a ventilator while in a vulnerable state. A next of kin's right to make medical decisions on behalf of a patient would not honor a 'kick them when they're down' move like this (or if I'm mistaken, then the system needs to be fixed).

    And this is the same key difference in the abortion discussion: a man who has stayed in a coma for more than a year are unlikely to ever recover, while embryo/fetus is transitional. If you asked me what is the point of keeping a man hooked up to life support to spend the rest of his life laying in a bed comatose, I'd say there probably is no point. But if asked what is the point of continuing life for a healthy embryo/fetus, I'd say the possibilities are endless.

    Reply
  162. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    That is resembling the legal concept of "natural persons" and is just an appeal to legalism and speaks nothing to the merit of if elective abortion SHOULD be legal.

    But to summarily accept the categorical claim for the sake of advancing the discussion, isn't the right to life known as a 'human' right?

    Reply
  163. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Your wife was already a sentient sapient being who was temporarily not using her capacities.

    A zygote is mere potential, and potentiality is not actuality. You will die a natural death someday, but that does not mean we can bury you now, simply because you have the potential to be dead. A zygote is no more a sentient being than you are a walking corpse.

    Reply
  164. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Its a person right. Since only persons are sentient/sapient. Once the cortex is dead, or if it never develops, the 'patient' is unplugged from life support, even if the primitive lower brain is capable of keeping the body going. Prenates are mindless, just like the beating heart cadaver – lower brain, but no higher brain function.

    Reply
  165. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    If someone forced another person into labor and servitude for life by means of physical abuse today, I would advocate harsh sentences from decades to life. During the post Civil War Reconstruction, slave owners weren't punished for generations of the institution of American slavery. Even that "ex post de facto" would apply, this is just what a sick, repressed society accepted as perfectly fine, and it was many, many, many years after the Civil War that prior slave states finally started to act right.

    This is just an awkward reality that I was born into. I'm not seeking getting revenge or bringing justice for aborted fetuses so much as I just want to make a difference. We have to first show what right is supposed to look like.

    Reply
  166. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    For natural persons, yes. But the right to life isn't absolute and you know it. There is no "right" to occupy, use, take, or conscript in any form, any part of a human being to further the life of another human being. You live in a nation of laws and whine about "legalism." You are free to go somewhere else. No practice this personal, intimate and private has ever been stopped or controlled by making it illegal. The government does not, and should not regulate such matters as the sexual conduct, and family planning of it's members. It simply doesn't work that way, and never has. There are many modern-day examples of what happens when you try, and history is full of them. You need only go back as far as Romania under the care of a certain pro-natalist dictator. That's the natural result of your dystopian panacea. I know it hurts your feelings to accept that the bodies of women aren't a national resource. But accept it you must. Any other course is a sure path to destruction.

    Reply
  167. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    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.

    Reply
  168. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    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

    Reply
  169. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    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?

    Reply
  170. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    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?

    Reply
  171. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    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.

    Reply
  172. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    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.

    Reply
  173. Douglas Noble
    Douglas Noble says:

    " 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."

    Reply
  174. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    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.

    Reply
  175. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

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

    Reply
  176. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    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.

    Reply
  177. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    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.

    Reply
  178. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "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.

    Reply
  179. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "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.

    Reply
  180. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "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.

    Reply
  181. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "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?

    Reply
  182. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    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.

    Reply
  183. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    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.

    Reply
  184. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    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.

    Reply
  185. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    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.

    Reply
  186. lady_black
    lady_black says:

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

    Reply
  187. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    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.

    Reply
  188. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "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.

    Reply
  189. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    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.

    Reply
  190. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "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.

    Reply
  191. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "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.

    Reply
  192. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    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.

    Reply
  193. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "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.

    Reply
  194. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    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?

    Reply
  195. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    "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.

    Reply
  196. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    "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?

    Reply
  197. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    "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.

    Reply
  198. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

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

    Reply
  199. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    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.

    Reply
  200. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

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

    Reply
  201. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    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.

    Reply
  202. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    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.

    Reply
  203. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    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.

    Reply
  204. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    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.

    Reply
  205. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    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.

    Reply
  206. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    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.

    Reply
  207. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    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.

    Reply
  208. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

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

    Reply
  209. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    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).

    Reply
  210. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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.

    Reply
  211. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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.

    Reply
  212. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "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?

    Reply
  213. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    *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?

    Reply
  214. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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.

    Reply
  215. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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.

    Reply
  216. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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?

    Reply
  217. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    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*.

    Reply
  218. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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!

    Reply
  219. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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.

    Reply
  220. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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.

    Reply
  221. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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.

    Reply
  222. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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?

    Reply
  223. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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.

    Reply
  224. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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.

    Reply
  225. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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.

    Reply
  226. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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.

    Reply
  227. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "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.

    Reply
  228. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    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.

    Reply
  229. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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.

    Reply
  230. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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).

    Reply
  231. BJ Survivor
    BJ Survivor says:

    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.

    Reply
  232. Chandler Klebs
    Chandler Klebs says:

    "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.

    Reply
  233. Kala
    Kala says:

    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.

    Reply
  234. Jane Doe
    Jane Doe says:

    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.

    Reply
  235. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    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'.

    Reply
  236. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

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

    Reply
  237. kitler
    kitler says:

    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.

    Reply
  238. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  239. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    "(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.

    Reply
  240. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  241. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    "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.

    Reply
  242. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  243. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "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.

    Reply
  244. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    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.

    Reply
  245. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    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.

    Reply
  246. Coyote
    Coyote says:

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

    Reply
  247. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    "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.

    Reply
  248. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  249. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "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.

    Reply
  250. Coyote
    Coyote says:

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

    Reply
  251. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  252. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    "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.

    Reply
  253. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    "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.

    Reply
  254. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    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.

    Reply
  255. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  256. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    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.

    Reply
  257. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  258. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  259. vulgarism
    vulgarism says:

    Why won't you answer the question?

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

    Reply
  260. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  261. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

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

    Reply
  262. myintx
    myintx says:

    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?

    Reply
  263. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  264. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    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.

    Reply
  265. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  266. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    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.

    Reply
  267. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    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.

    Reply
  268. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  269. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    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.

    Reply
  270. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  271. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    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.

    Reply
  272. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    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.

    Reply
  273. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    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?

    Reply
  274. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  275. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    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.

    Reply
  276. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  277. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    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.

    Reply
  278. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    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.

    Reply
  279. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    "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.

    Reply
  280. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

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

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

    Reply
  281. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    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?

    Reply
  282. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    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.

    Reply
  283. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

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

    Reply
  284. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

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

    Reply
  285. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    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.

    Reply
  286. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  287. myintx
    myintx says:

    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).

    Reply
  288. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  289. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  290. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  291. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  292. myintx
    myintx says:

    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).

    Reply
  293. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  294. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  295. myintx
    myintx says:

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

    Reply
  296. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  297. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  298. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  299. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  300. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    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.

    Reply
  301. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    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 🙂

    Reply
  302. myintx
    myintx says:

    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

    Reply
  303. myintx
    myintx says:

    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.

    Reply
  304. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    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.

    Reply
  305. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    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.

    Reply
  306. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    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.

    Reply
  307. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    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.

    Reply
  308. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    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.

    Reply
  309. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    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.

    Reply
  310. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    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.

    Reply
  311. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    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?

    Reply
  312. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    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.

    Reply
  313. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    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.

    Reply
  314. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    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.

    Reply
  315. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    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.

    Reply
  316. myintx
    myintx says:

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

    Reply
  317. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    You claim parental responsibility begins at fertilization. Then in the same breath you imply it's perfectly OK for a parent to let her toddler run wild & attach to a strangers leg, and trust the child's safety & life totally to the STRANGER while the mama goes on her merry way.

    If THAT's the kind of "parental responsibility" you advocate, as I always say, those children are better off dead.

    Reply
  318. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    EVEN IF the law required some degree of good Samaritanism, that would never extend to giving up your body parts, even an expendable thing such as your blood.

    Reply
  319. myintx
    myintx says:

    In the middle of the street or on the sidewalk by a busy street – doesn't matter.. in fact, it's even worse if you're in the middle of the street ..

    Even if you were in the middle of a busy street – people would be going about their business and they may not be paying attention to what you are doing. If you let that toddler go, he could dart into traffic and die. If you hold onto him, you could get to the sidewalk walking in between cars. If a video camera catches you pushing the child off your leg and going to the sidewalk by yourself leaving a toddler to die (and the toddler dies) it's likely that tape would be shown on the evening news and you could get arrested for child endangerment – even if you're not the parent.

    Reply
  320. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    There is no duty to care for a child that wanders onto your property, and therefore, no duty to give one's body to protect it.

    Reply
  321. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    myintx: I notice that you have repeatedly used the term 'human being' as if it were some sort of magical word, and are deliberately avoiding my repeated question as to what quality gives a human being rights or makes it a 'person', and whether or not an embryo has this quality.

    I've seen the same grammatical handwaving in almost all anti-abortion people, they want to grant 'human beings' rights based on a *mental* definition of the word 'human being', namely the fact that we have functioning brains, then sneakily, hoping that nobody will notice, switch instead to a *biological* definition of the word 'human being' so that they can sneak in embryos as being 'human beings' and therefore having rights, despite the fact that they do not qualify as 'human beings' under the mental definition that gives humans their rights.

    As for embryos, toddlers, adults, and the brain dead all being different stages of 'human beings' that is true enough, but not really relevent. The fact that one stage of a 'human being' may have certain rights does not automatically give those rights to other stages. This is why we don't allow healthy 40 year olds to be cut open and have their organs removed simply because their relatives request it, but do allow it to be done with brain dead 40 year olds. It's also why we don't allow toddlers to drive cars, or let adults take toddlers to wild parties to get drunk and have sex.

    The ludicrousness of your position becomes obvious with a few thought experiments. For instance, claiming that the life of an embryo is equal to the life of a toddler would seem to require that you save 100 embryos in petri dishes from a fire and let a 3 year old burn to death, if you could only save one or the other. It would also require that if a pregnancy would kill the mother, that she be required to carry it to term and die, if she is pregnant with twins.

    Not to mention the problems arising from granting personhood to embryos that arise because of the fact that in very young embryos, a single cell that seperates from the whole has the potential to become a twin. So if I have an embryo in a petri dish and remove a cell from it, if I let that cell die, am I now a murderer? How so, if the original embryo is still alive? And if you subscribe to the religious belief that the egg is ensouled upon fertilization then where does the extra soul come from if the embryo splits into twins several days after fertilization? Then there are additional problems caused by the fact that embryos can not only split, but merge, creating a single baby with two cell lines. Is this baby one person or two? How many souls does it have? Should it be put on trial for homocide for destroying it's own twin? If I kill such a person, should I be charged with one count of homocide or two?

    Reply
  322. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    Pretty typical of religious people. They wave their bibles all over the place when it comes to demanding that other people do what 'God' says (which pretty much amounts to what they CLAIM) God says, and that other people give up their own lives, time, and money, to be 'compassionate' to the cute object of their sad feelies at the moment. But when it comes to being moral themselves, or inconveniencing their own lives, time, and money to be 'compassionate', then all sorts of handwaving goes on. Such as myintx's contention that a toddler far away somehow has different rights than a toddler close by. Why? Because it might inconvenience her rather than me.

    Reply
  323. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    First of all, you are still equating embryos with children without having proven that is the case. Until you prove it, it isn't true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

    Secondly, sorry, it's not my job to indefinitely watch out for a toddler because it jumps on my leg.

    Also, I've noticed your 'slippery slope' in an effort to justify your desire to enslave me for the sake of things you have sad feelies about. A while ago, it was that I couldn't throw the toddler in the road. Now, I can't merely put it in a safe place, I have to 'guard it' for whatever indefinite length of time your sad feelies demand (meaning forever) to make sure it doesn't run into the road by itself.

    Maybe I feel like running in the road. Shouldn't you be obligated to come over and guard me forever to make sure I don't? Obviously I'm suffering from the same mental incompetence as a toddler, if I want to run into the road. So why shouldn't you have to come and guard me? Do I somehow have fewer rights than a toddler, because I'm farther away from you, or am I less cute so you don't have so many sad feelies about me, or is it just that it might inconvenience you rather than someone else?

    Reply
  324. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    That's exactly right. You are not obligated to do anything for that toddler. It doesn't matter if it is 40 below zero and it is freezing to death, you don't have an obligation to bring it in your house. You might, because you are a good person, but it's need does not create a 'right', nor does that equation change to any degree if the 'need' happens to be for some part of your body, including a toddler or embryo that 'needs' a blood transfusion, bone marrow, kidney, or a uterus. None of these 'needs' create a right to any of the above. Claiming that it does is advocating slavery.

    Reply
  325. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    **An unborn child at 6 weeks will most likely have brain activity at some point if not killed or miscarried. BIG difference.**

    Irrelevent. It doesn't have brain activity NOW. You could claim the same thing about an ova or a sperm. If you want to base your actions on what will happen in the future, how about this – if I put a dollar in the bank for long enough, the interest will eventually cause it to grow into a million dollars. Based on that, why don't you give me a mere $500,000 for the dollar in my pocket? After all, if an embryo is the same thing as a person because it will be one in the future, then a dollar is the same thing as a million dollars, because it will be a million dollars in the future. But let me guess – you only want to apply this principle when it inconveniences others and not yourself.

    Reply
  326. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    **Killing an unborn child has the same main result as killing a newborn – a human being is denied a chance at life.**

    First of all, you're still repeating the manta phrase 'human being' and avoiding the question of whether the zygote is a person.

    Secondly, your latest objection would imply that people be required to have sex as often as physically possible, rather than go to work or the movies or do anything else at all, lest a 'human being' be denied the 'chance for life', as failure to conceive every time a woman is fertile definitely is denying a 'human being' a 'chance for life'.

    Reply
  327. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    Again, evasion. Whether or not it is a 'human being' in a biological sense does not make it a person. Nor does it necessarily confer a full set of rights, or any rights.

    Reply
  328. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    Ova are alive too. If you aren't having sex at every opportunity, you are denying 'a human being a chance at life'. Let us err on the side of caution.

    It's possible that jellyfish, oysters, and chickens are mentally superior to human beings. So superior that we can't get an inkling of their superiority. So you should become a vegetarian. In fact, possibly plants can think, so you shouldn't really eat at all. Let us err on the side of caution.

    Reply
  329. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    You keep waving around the word 'human being' like some sort of magic wand, and evading the question of the existence of a brain. Can I assume by that standard that you'd be just fine with exterminating intelligent Martians?

    Reply
  330. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    So can I assume that you will let several dozen homeless people into your house so they don't freeze to death? Or does the 'right not to be killed' only include a claim on other people's bodies and property, but not your own body or property.

    Reply
  331. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    "In the middle of the street or on the sidewalk by a busy street –
    doesn't matter.. in fact, it's even worse if you're in the middle of the
    street .."

    Of course it's worse if I'm in the middle of a busy street. I've got a toddler hanging on my leg hindering my escape from bodily harm or death! Once again, I am not obligated in any case to risk my life and health for a child. If it is hindering my escape, I am perfectly well within my rights to detach it so I can get to safety.

    Seriously, you are right that it doesn't matter if it is the middle of the street or on a sidewalk by a busy street. The toddler is not my responsibility either way. It is the person who has legal charge of the child who is responsible, both to keep it wandering around attaching itself to other people's legs and from going out into the middle of a busy street. That is the person who will be charged with child endangerment. The fact that it attached itself to my leg in no way puts me in legal charge of the child.

    Reply
  332. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    **And, how many mistakes has the government made in executions? 1 or 2 maybe for the whole population?**

    Excuse me?! Exactly how many innocent civilians, real people, with real minds, some of them toddlers, are killed as 'collateral damage' in all the various non-declared wars the government gets involved in?

    Oh, I forgot. Toddlers in other countries don't have rights like embryos in our country. Or else their rights aren't a convenient excuse to punish other people for having sex.

    Reply
  333. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    **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.**

    Which pretty much goes to show your utter ignorance of medical procedures. There is a reason why they try to fertilize many eggs at once. It's because every step of the process has a fairly high and fairly unpredictable rate of failure. If they did not fertilize many spares, and attempt to implant more than one embryo, the rate of successful pregnancies would go down, and the length of time and the cost to achieve pregnancy would both go up. But I'm sure that medical realities can be handwaved away in favor of your sad feelies.

    **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).**

    In other words, according to you, not only does having sex make one a slave, but having a procedure done to fix fertility problems makes one a slave. I'm curious, what's your proposal for forcing people to pay the storage fee? Throwing them in jail if they won't? What if they go bankrupt in the future. How will you force them to pay money they don't have? And by what logic do people have to pay an unlimitted amount to keep embryos alive while you enjoy your party life rather than paying money to buy food to keep starving 3rd world children alive. Oh, I forgot, according to you, the right to life doesn't exist in 3rd world countries. So by that standard, if someone travelled by airplane to India to have IVF done, can I assume you'd have no problem with the extra embryos being destroyed, provided they were in India? Or is the real criteria not really the geographical location of the toddlers as you claim, but rather, whether or not their supposed rights can be used to inconvenience other people (but never yourself, somehow).

    You know, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it's a tough old world. One person's 'need' does not give them a blanket claim on other people's time, bodies, or property. Not even if their 'very life depends on it'. Nor if they are 'innocent and vulnerable'. Your sad feelies about it don't change that fact.

    Reply
  334. vulgarism
    vulgarism says:

    I have suggested to Myintx that she adopt an ivf embryo since, according to her, pregnancy is the equivalent of a teenager eating doritos on the sofa. She refuses. Her excuse for refusal to gestate is that *parents* have a duty to their children – she does not.

    Reply
  335. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    myintx wrote: **but, like most pro-aborts you don't care about anyone other than yourself**

    Umm, no. I care a great deal about many people. I would not, in fact, let a toddler run into a busy street. But that's irrelevent. The fact that I might care about a toddler and have all sorts of sad feelies about how 'innocent and vulnerable' it might be does not mean that the toddler now has some sort of blanket claim to enslave everyone else around it, which is what you would grant it.

    Reply
  336. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    Coyote wrote: **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.**

    Which is garbage. If I buy a large bag of chips and eat them, obviously I have consented to eat the chips. One possible result of that is that I might get an acid stomach. According to you, I now can't take medicine for my stomach, because I have 'consented' to have an acid stomach. Bullshit.

    Reply
  337. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

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

    No. If you put me under a general anesthetic, then I am 'temporarily incapable of sentience and sapience'. A zygote never had those properties. The fact that it may develope them in the future does not give it a claim on them now.

    Reply
  338. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    So, in other words, 'parents' have a duty to children, people with toddlers in their garages, hanging on their legs, or near busy roads have a 'duty' to children, everybody under every circumstance has a 'duty' to children, except her.

    Sigh. Honestly, that's the diametrical opposite of real compassion. Real compassion is something you do and sacrifice yourself, not something you force other people to do, so that you can satisfy your sad feelies with no effort on your part. At times, I bring orphaned birds home and give up much of my time, money, and sleep raising them to adulthood including feeding them, keeping them clean and warm, and eventually teaching them what to eat. I do NOT require that others comply with my particular compassion in this regard by giving up their time and money, or even no longer hunting birds, if that's what they prefer to do.

    Reply
  339. dudebro
    dudebro says:

    She also objects to having her precious tax dollars spent on helping the poor. She says that Obama needs to get people back to work! and that if a woman is poor, homeless, and just gave birth, that she should walk to the nearest church and they will hook her up!

    Yep, everyone else must give, everyone but myintx.

    Reply
  340. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    Dudebro – well, here's the deal. I do give a lot to the poor, mainly food (I dumpster dive a lot). Sometimes I give to the Salvation Army buckets. However, I object to having my tax money spent on the poor (in fact, I object to taxes altogether). It's not my job or anyone else's (in the sense that it must be imposed on us against our will) to take care of 'the poor' as defined by someone else because that someone might have sad feelies about them. However, neither is it the job of myself, or people with garages, or who had IVF treatments, or who don't want to be pregnant to have to take care of embryos, regardless of how many sad feelies myintx might have about them.

    Reply
  341. dudebro
    dudebro says:

    I am polar opposite to you, in regards to taxes, but at least you are consistent.

    The problem with many pro-lifers (and evangelicals) is that they want the rest of the world to live by their rules, rules that they don't necessarily follow.

    Reply
  342. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    LOL, consistency is admirable, though not necessarily moral, depending on what you are consistent about. Case in point, I got into an interesting conversation a while back with a pro-life advocate who claimed that an embryo was just as valuable and important in every way as a newborn baby. So I gave her a thought experiment, in which she was in a room in a hospital on fire. One one side of her were a stack of 100 petri dishes containing 1-celled fertilized zygotes. On the other side on her was a single newborn baby. I asked her, if she could only save either the petri dishes with the 100 zygotes, or the single newborn baby, which would she save. Her answer was that she would save the petri dishes.

    To give credit where credit is due, this woman was definitely logically consistent with her beliefs. Completely morally bankrupt by my standards, but definitely logically consistent. But all pro-life logic ultimately leads to a morally bankrupt point, as the only way for it to work is also pretty much the only way that the 'no child left behind' program works. There is no way to create real value where none (or very little) exist, regardless of how much handwaving you do. You cannot turn an idiot into a genius. However, you can turn a genius into an idiot by deliberately mangling it's education. Which is much what is done in the 'no child left behind program'. It would be better termed 'no child gets ahead', since that is the only way to really make it work.

    As for claiming a zygote is 'no less valuable' than a full term baby, the only way to make that work is by claiming a full term baby is NO MORE valuable than a zygote. Which is an inevitable result of trying to handwave away the importance of the brain, as all pro-lifers do. Without the brain, all you are left with is claiming some sort of close to zero 'value' (obviously not very much, and God knows on what grounds) for a collection of 'human DNA' that happens to meet very specific conditions that must be constantly tweaked if the pro-lifers are to continue in their pretense of handwaving away the significance of the brain, but to exclude things like cancer, the brain dead, or HELA cells.

    Reply
  343. dudebro
    dudebro says:

    You must *love* the "zygotes are inherently rational" argument. Sometimes I steal the most retarded pro life arguments and troll atheist/science blogs with them. Suffice to say, everyone laughs at me and accuses me of being a total fucktard. No wonder the denizens of SPL, LAN and Lifesite rarely venture out of their safe spaces

    BTW, pro lifers think that they have a clever way of evading the petri dish thought experiment. They will answer that the infant should be saved, because *sad feelies*, but that, intellectually, the zygotes and the infant are of equal worth. Its just that babies cry, and the parents night be upset if their kid dies, ya know?

    What a load of bullshit. Right there, they have essentially 'dehumanized' their precious zygotes. All things being equal, if you value zygotes so strongly that you will deny women bodily autonomy based on your *strongly held feelies* , then why on earth would you not *feel* for the 100 doomed zygotes and save the infant instead?

    PS "sad feelies" is awesome

    Reply
  344. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    I'm not particularly impressed by emotional terminology in arguments such as pro-lifers generally resort to. For instance 'abortion stops a beating heart'? Meaning what, exactly? The heart is a pump. A fish has a heart. There have now been people kept alive for some time with artificial hearts (prior to getting transplants). By the 'heart argument' am I supposed to think that they aren't people any more while hooked up to such devices waiting for a transplant match?

    Ditto for the words they like to throw around such as 'innocent' and 'vulnerable'. Which I suppose is supposed to inspire sad feelies, but ultimately, the terms are meaningless as to whether those traits grant any sort of rights. A glass Christmas tree ornament is 'innocent', as it hasn't committed any crimes, and 'vulnerable' as it can be very easily broken and is unable to defend itself. So am I supposed to conclude that it's fine if I go out and shoot a grown man who lifts weights and sometimes gets drunk and picks up women because he's not 'innocent and vulnerable', but that it's unacceptable for me to break the Christmas tree ornament?

    I'm also not impressed by people who evade arguments or who play 'heads I win, tails you lose' games as the pro-lifers like to do.

    Reply
  345. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    Also, Myintx, your assorted comments to the effect that if a fetus is considered to have rights at 6 months, why not 5 1/2 months, and why not 5 months, or 4 1/2, etc, ect, and why not 'let us err on the side of caution' and consider it human from the moment of conception' is a very common logical fallacy known as "Loki's wager" which holds the absurd assumption that because something cannot be precisely defined, it therefore cannot be discussed or acted upon at ANY point. It comes from a story about the Norse God Loki who put up his head as a prize in a wager with some dwarves. He lost the wager, and the dwarves came to collect his head. Not so fast, said Loki, he had said that the Dwarves could take his head, but he had said nothing about his neck. The dwarves were then in a quandary, because one part of his body was maybe his head, but maybe it was part neck, and they couldn't really decide where to cut. Finally, annoyed, the dwarves cut off his nose and also sewed his mouth shut for being a wise-ass.

    As for your 'erring on the side of caution', why does that get to be defined the way you want it to, in granting a 'right to life' to something with no brain? Why not 'err on the side of caution' and give all the rights to the person we definitely know for sure is human, the mother, rather than turning the person we know for sure is human into the slave of the embryo, that we don't know for sure is human?

    Reply
  346. myintx
    myintx says:

    Doesn't matter. A human being that has done nothing wrong shouldn't be killed just because he or she is inconvenient or unwanted.

    Reply
  347. myintx
    myintx says:

    By keeping an eye on the toddler, that is taking minimal responsibility, but if you throw that toddler on the street and endanger his or her life, you could be in trouble with the law.

    Reply
  348. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    What's so special about human beings, except the fact that we CAN run roughshod over all non-humans?
    If it's fine to kill non-humans "just because we can", why not zefs?

    Reply
  349. myintx
    myintx says:

    You coming over and attaching yourself to my leg would be different than a toddler coming over and attaching himself to my leg. Your physical size might be deemed as a threat. And, your mental incompetence might not be obvious as the dependence of a toddler on an adult.

    There would be a good case for a lawsuit against you (and possible arrest for child endangerment) if a toddler attached himself to your leg in the middle of a busy street, you detached him, left him alone, walked away without a care and he got hit by a car.

    Reply
  350. myintx
    myintx says:

    No, failure to conceive is not denying a human being a chance at life because a human being does not exist yet. Once a human being exists THEN it should be protected.

    "Personhood" is a legal definition. At one point in our history slaves weren't considered full people. LAWS were changed to recognize slaves as full people and give them the rights they deserve. Unborn children are human beings. They should have basic rights, just like people – a right to LIFE.

    Reply
  351. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    Not according to you, since you claim that people have an obligation to watch toddlers for an indefinite period, lest they wander into traffic.

    Reply
  352. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    An ova isn't human? Excuse me? Unless you think that human women have cow ovaries in their body, what you are doing is contradicting all your previous contentions, not to mention once again displaying your utter ignorance of biology, since an Ova is a 'potential human being' and during some stages of meiosis, does have a full complement of 46 Chromosomes. At the last stage, it does have only 23 chromosomes, but if we discount the absence of a mind in an embryo, because it will have a mind 'someday', then by the same token, should we not discount the absence of half the chromosomes in an ova, since it will once again have a full set 'someday'? Let us err on the side of caution.

    Also, babbling about jellyfish and oysters not being human is another evasion. You want to grant embryos rights, despite their not having a functioning brain, because we should 'err on the side of caution, but do not want to apply the same principle in a way that might inconvenience you. Since it is remotely possible that jellyfish and oysters are mentally superior to human beings, so superior that we can't even get an inkling of it, why should we not 'err on the side of caution' regarding their lives? After all, they are tiny, innocent, and vulnerable.

    Reply
  353. Timothy Griffy
    Timothy Griffy says:

    Even if they had a right to life, that wouldn't give them a claim to the woman's body for sustenance.

    Reply
  354. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    We are talking about an unattended toddler that wanders onto my property. Why on earth would I toss that toddler into the street? That being said, I don't owe that toddler ANY care. I don't have to take responsibility for it. I don't have to bring it inside my home. I don't have to feed it. I certainly don't have to babysit it until a responsible party arrives. If I knew who the parents were, I would call them and give them 5 minutes to retrieve their kid before I call the cops. Believe me, I am well aware that toddlers often wander off when parents are busy doing something else. For the safety of both myself and the toddler, the best thing to do is notify the police that an unknown toddler is on my property, and to come pick the child up. That doesn't even involve opening my front door, or putting my hands on someone else's kid. Which is usually a really bad idea, for obvious reasons (except for when first aid is obviously necessary to save the child's life.)

    Reply
  355. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    That woman is a liar. There is no one who, given the choice between evacuating petri dishes or a newborn, would choose the petri dishes. The really appalling part of the argument is that SHE KNOWS she's lying. A hundred petri dishes containing embryos is not as valuable as a single newborn.

    Reply
  356. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    They just don't want to admit, even to themselves, that a single born infant has far more value than 100 zygotes. And if they claim they would evacuate the zygotes and leave the infant to die, they are just liars. NOBODY would actually do that.

    Reply