International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

cosmicaug 15th July 2022 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856315)
I believe it an extreme example intended to minimize the humanity of the fetus. Similar to referring to a fetus as a parasite, which we have seen plenty of here, by numerous members.

A fetus is functionally a parasite. Does qualifying it like that help?

Warp12 15th July 2022 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13856370)
A fetus is functionally a parasite. Does qualifying it like that help?


I just don't see any reason to refer to it as such, other than to dehumanize it. On one hand we have Republicans making it sound as though every abortion is of a loving, bouncing baby...on the other end we have liberals referring to the unborn as parasites.

How about some middle ground?

shuttlt 15th July 2022 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13856370)
A fetus is functionally a parasite. Does qualifying it like that help?

Words are violence.

cosmicaug 15th July 2022 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13854970)
I always said bans on abortion would be a nightmare to enforce. It already happening.
And it just going to get worse.In the end, what might doom this is simply people decideing to ignore the law. Think Prohibition on steroids.

Here it is happening:
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/15/1111383520/texas-abortion-laws-prosecutors

But it amounts to grandstanding both on the side of the D.A.s from liberal jurisdictions as well as from the others. Why?

Quote:

But the most clear and direct way to challenge such a law would be to wait for a non-local prosecutor to file charges, and then for the defendant to make the argument in court that the charges should be dismissed, Laurin said.

With a felony conviction and jail time on the line, few potential defendants may be willing to take the risk.
Because no doctor is going to be the one risking being the test case.

So, ironically, this law won't be needed because it won't ever get challenged.

How is that for being a nightmare to enforce an abortion ban?

Of course, individuals will still get medication in the mail, etc.; and as long as we do not have a federal abortion ban they will travel out of state (though some Republicans are talking about trying to stop that too —I imagine that such would be slapped down by SCOTUS).

If it goes federal, it will be like before 1973 but, because of good abortifacient medications, with better outcomes for illegal abortions. If it ever comes down to a federal ban, there's nothing else that makes the current time special in a way that makes abortion more difficult to enforce.

Shalamar 15th July 2022 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13856274)
Sometimes we do, if the mother's life is at stake but she's in a state that doesn't allow that as an exception.

There are plenty of examples where a fetus does kill the woman.

A shame this is ignored.

Stacyhs 15th July 2022 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856371)
I just don't see any reason to refer to it as such, other than to dehumanize it. On one hand we have Republicans making it sound as though every abortion is of a loving, bouncing baby...on the other end we have liberals referring to the unborn as parasites.

How about some middle ground?

Fact: Before 18 weeks gestation at the very earliest, and probably closer to 30 weeks, a fetus is not a sentient being.

Oh, no! I'm 'dehumanizing' a fetus! Get out your pearls, Warp!



Quote:

It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...%20information.


ETA: I don't see any reason to refer to women as "split tails" other than to degrade them.

Warp12 15th July 2022 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 13856422)
There are plenty of examples where a fetus does kill the woman.

A shame this is ignored.


It is pretty rare, at 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births.

There were over 600k abortions last year. What was the mortality rate on those fetuses?

Stacyhs 15th July 2022 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 13856422)
There are plenty of examples where a fetus does kill the woman.

A shame this is ignored.

We need a law to stop this slaughter of innocent women!

Warp12 15th July 2022 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13856424)
Fact: Before 18 weeks gestation at the very earliest, and probably closer to 30 weeks, a fetus is not a sentient being.

Oh, no! I'm 'dehumanizing' a fetus! Get out your pearls, Warp!


ETA: I don't see any reason to refer to women as "split tails" other than to degrade them.


Yawn. Already clearly proven as being sarcastic commentary. But also entirely irrelevant. This is about abortion and the fetus, which you consistently refer to as a "parasite".

Shalamar 15th July 2022 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13856426)
We need a law to stop this slaughter of innocent women!

Looks like Texas is working to... encourage it.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07...abortion-laws/

Stacyhs 15th July 2022 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856425)
It pretty rare, at 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births.

There were over 600k abortions last year. What was the mortality rate on those fetuses?

Most of those were zygotes, not fetuses. A zygote becomes a fetus after week 10. Ninety-three percent of abortions occur by week 13. Spare me the 'baby killing' hyperbolic rhetoric when it comes to something that isn't sentient (able to perceive or feel things).

What next? Dog owners having an unwanted pregnancy of their dog who got out of the yard terminated by the vet being bought up on animal abuse charges?

Quote:

Over four in ten (43%) abortions occur by six weeks of gestation, just over a third (36%) are between seven and nine weeks, and 13% at 10-13 weeks. Just 7% of abortions occur after the first trimester.
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-po...united-states/

thaiboxerken 15th July 2022 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13856382)
Words are violence.

And violence is free speech, to Republicans.

Stacyhs 15th July 2022 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856427)
Yawn. Already clearly proven as being sarcastic commentary

Yeah...sure it was. Pull the other one, Warp.

Quote:

But also entirely irrelevant.
Nope. You want to clutch your pearls about a scientific fact being used to 'dehumanize' a fetus and then complain about you being called out for 'dehumanizing' women by referring to them as 'split-tails'? Someone call 91irony!


Quote:

This is about abortion and the fetus, which you consistently refer to as a "parasite".
"Every accusation is a confession" comes to mind when it's YOU who keeps bringing it up. Just as you have done here.

johnny karate 15th July 2022 04:10 PM

We shouldn't use dehumanizing language to refer to a fetus, but calling women "split-tails" is just good comedy.

- Person who actually expects to be taken seriously

lionking 15th July 2022 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13856450)
We shouldn't use dehumanizing language to refer to a fetus, but calling women "split-tails" is just good comedy.

- Person who actually expects to be taken seriously

Particularly when “slut” is more economical.

Stacyhs 15th July 2022 04:28 PM

The lawyer for the doctor who performed the abortion on the 10 years old rape victim has sent a cease and desist letter to Todd Rokita, the Indiana AG. He keep repeating accusations that are false such as the doctor having "a history of failure to report" abortions. This particular abortion was reported by Dr. Bernard to the IN Dept. of Health on July 2, three days after the procedure.




Just checking: has anyone seen the cases of doctors performing 'abortions' on women 8 months pregnant for non-medical reasons that Warp claims we need a law against?

Warp12 15th July 2022 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13856463)
Just checking: has anyone seen the cases of doctors performing 'abortions' on women 8 months pregnant for non-medical reasons that Warp claims we need a law against?


Tell me why the law should allow for it?

Why not just write it out? Why make it specifically allowable?

Makes zero sense. You can't justify it, clearly. What a stretch.


Are you against outlawing it? Yes or no?

dudalb 15th July 2022 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13856284)
I agree. The idea of a fetus becoming a 'person' upon reaching viability had some sense behind it. This personhood "at conception" is just ludicrous. THIS is NOT a "person":


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1c1237f86a.jpg

It's ridicilous.
I admit I have qualms about really late term abortions,( but this "from conception" is ridiculous.

Stacyhs 15th July 2022 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856464)
Tell me why the law should allow for it?

Why not just write it out? Why make it specifically allowable?

Makes zero sense. You can't justify it, clearly. What a stretch.


Are you against outlawing it? Yes or no?

You provide evidence of doctors performing non-medical based terminations of 8 month pregnancies and I'll answer your questions. And while your at it, how about those "ever increasing demands" you claimed Dems were making you clamed exists days ago? Clearly you can't on either.

Warp12 15th July 2022 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856464)
Tell me why the law should allow for it?

Why not just write it out? Why make it specifically allowable?

Makes zero sense. You can't justify it, clearly. What a stretch.


Are you against outlawing it? Yes or no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13856474)
You provide evidence of doctors performing non-medical based terminations of 8 month pregnancies and I'll answer your questions.


Ultimate attempted dodge. Wow.

Stacyhs 15th July 2022 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13856470)
It's ridicilous.
I admit I have qualms about really late term abortions,( but this "from conception" is ridiculous.


"Really late term abortions" don't exist unless for medical reasons. Those would be induced deliveries or C-sections. This is something the anti-choice people keep pushing in order to fear monger. Which is why Warp cannot produce examples of it.

Stacyhs 15th July 2022 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856475)
Ultimate attempted dodge. Wow.

Absolutely. You've been dodging both my questions for some time now. Why should I answer your questions, which came after mine, when you refuse to answer mine? Are you entitled to answers but I'm not? Wow.

And I noticed you conveniently snipped the long-standing request for examples.

Regnad Kcin 15th July 2022 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 13855569)
Fox News asks: "what was the 10 year old wearing when she was ‘raped?’"

Tweaked that for you.

Stacyhs 15th July 2022 05:23 PM

We all know this 10 year old was willing as a woman can't get pregnant from being raped. Right, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), PA Rep. Stephen Freind (R), North Carolina state Rep. Henry Aldridge (R) and Judge James Leon Holmes?

bruto 15th July 2022 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856464)
Tell me why the law should allow for it?

Why not just write it out? Why make it specifically allowable?

Makes zero sense. You can't justify it, clearly. What a stretch.


Are you against outlawing it? Yes or no?

The issue here is a right, and the right involves who is given the choice. You want the government to have the choice, and others want the woman to have the choice.

When you start fine tuning a right, it stops being a right. The government doing the fine tuning has abolished the right. It's gone.

Whether it is proper to perform an abortion at a certain point might better be left to the laws and ethics of the medical profession, rather than, as in this case, to the religious bigotries of people who have shown themselves in many cases to be ignorant, often crazily so, and applied to pregnant women themselves.

Of course, it is a valid (if arguable) point of view to believe that, owing to one's religious belief, or one's ideas of what constitutes human life, and so forth, it is indeed correct and proper to abolish the right. But I think if you do that, you owe it to yourself at least, to consider very carefully whether you believe that the people now assuming the authority are, indeed, better equipped to do the job - whether the result of that will actually produce a net benefit to the people.

Of course that's a fraught, difficult, and infinitely arguable issue, but when you think about this, I believe you really should think, along with everything else, about whether you believe the overturning of Roe V. Wade, with all its ramifications and implications, will improve the society we live in, will be of actual benefit to the people of the United States.

Warp12 15th July 2022 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13856497)
The issue here is a right, and the right involves who is given the choice. You want the government to have the choice, and others want the woman to have the choice.

When you start fine tuning a right, it stops being a right. The government doing the fine tuning has abolished the right. It's gone.

Whether it is proper to perform an abortion at a certain point might better be left to the laws and ethics of the medical profession, rather than, as in this case, to the religious bigotries of people who have shown themselves in many cases to be ignorant, often crazily so, and applied to pregnant women themselves.

Of course, it is a valid (if arguable) point of view to believe that, owing to one's religious belief, or one's ideas of what constitutes human life, and so forth, it is indeed correct and proper to abolish the right. But I think if you do that, you owe it to yourself at least, to consider very carefully whether you believe that the people now assuming the authority are, indeed, better equipped to do the job - whether the result of that will actually produce a net benefit to the people.

Of course that's a fraught, difficult, and infinitely arguable issue, but when you think about this, I believe you really should think, along with everything else, about whether you believe the overturning of Roe V. Wade, with all its ramifications and implications, will improve the society we live in, will be of actual benefit to the people of the United States.


So, can you tell me, do you support a woman having a legal right to abortion at 8 1/2 months, without medical cause?

Stacyhs 15th July 2022 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856501)
So, can you tell me, do you support a woman having a legal right to abortion at 8 1/2 months, without medical cause?

So, can you give me examples of a woman having an abortion at 8 1/2 months without medical cause?

No woman carries a child to within 2-3 weeks of birth and then just decides to get rid of it. Only an idiot believe a woman does that. Which is why you cannot give me an example of this actually happening.

As has been said countless times but which you continue to ignore.

Warp12 15th July 2022 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13856503)
So, can you give me examples of a woman having an abortion at 8 1/2 months without medical cause?

No woman carries a child to within 2-3 weeks of birth and then just decides to get rid of it. Only an idiot believe a woman does that. Which is why you cannot give me an example of this actually happening.

As has been said countless times but which you continue to ignore.


So, can you tell me, do you support a woman having a legal right to abortion at 8 1/2 months, without medical cause?

theprestige 15th July 2022 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13856370)
A fetus is functionally a parasite. Does qualifying it like that help?

So is a newborn. But you recoil in moral disgust at the thought of 4th trimester abortions.

Shalamar 15th July 2022 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13856503)
So, can you give me examples of a woman having an abortion at 8 1/2 months without medical cause?

No woman carries a child to within 2-3 weeks of birth and then just decides to get rid of it. Only an idiot believe a woman does that. Which is why you cannot give me an example of this actually happening.

As has been said countless times but which you continue to ignore.

When a woman is going to 'abort' at such a time, it is always due to risk of health to the mother, or non-viability of the fetus.

And the woman is devastated, as it is a wanted child at this point.

A ban on such things would only injure or kill more womensplit-tails.

Stacyhs 15th July 2022 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13856506)
So is a newborn. But you recoil in moral disgust at the thought of 4th trimester abortions.

Wrong:
Definition of parasite
1: an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host "

How does a newborn harm a host? A newborn is dependent on another but not a parasite.

Stacyhs 15th July 2022 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 13856509)
When a woman is going to 'abort' at such a time, it is always due to risk of health to the mother, or non-viability of the fetus.

And the woman is devastated, as it is a wanted child at this point.

A ban on such things would only injure or kill more womensplit-tails.

:thumbsup: Try explaining that to some people. Even if the child is not 'wanted' in the sense of to keep and rear herself but to adopt out, the mother has chosen NOT to abort it.

bruto 15th July 2022 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856501)
So, can you tell me, do you support a woman having a legal right to abortion at 8 1/2 months, without medical cause?

I do not support doing it, but I support the right of women and their medical providers to be the ones who make such choices, rather than politicians.

Shalamar 15th July 2022 08:52 PM

A woman should have the right for an abortion, which should be a private decision between her and her doctor.

Skeptic Ginger 15th July 2022 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856550)
So, can you finally be the one to tell me, do you support a woman having a legal right to abortion at 8 1/2 months, without medical cause? It's an easy yes or no.

Insanity such as these laws has led to Roe being overturned, imo.

I have explained this several times, you don't like the answer so you distort it to something it is not.

People who want abortion legal throughout a woman's pregnancy are saying LEAVE IT UP TO THE WOMAN AND HER HEALTH CARE PROVIDER. Get the stupid legislators out of the business of practicing medicine without a license.

No women are asking for and no providers are granting abortions of a viable fetuses near term for which the provider then murders. And guess what, if they did they would be charged with murder.

You are distorting "get your laws off our bodies" to mean something it doesn't. It does not mean women want to murder near term infants, it means, sheesh, why would you need a law regulating abortion at all? Because that's what you think women are asking for when they are really saying legislators have no business regulating any abortions.

If you had cases of women getting on demand abortions at 8 months or whatever, fine write a law. But that's not happening. The only case dug up for this discussion was a serial murderer who was convicted of murdering infants.

Do we need a law that dictates when a terminally ill patient can decide to stop further treatment? OMG we need a law for that. How could the patient and the provider know when that was OK if there's no law defining that moment of decision? Cancer patients are going to refuse care too soon if we don't have a law defining when they can and can't stop treatment.

Stacyhs 15th July 2022 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13856607)
I have explained this several times, you don't like the answer so you distort it to something it is not.

People who want abortion legal throughout a woman's pregnancy are saying LEAVE IT UP TO THE WOMAN AND HER HEALTH CARE PROVIDER. Get the stupid legislators out of the business of practicing medicine without a license.

No women are asking for and no providers are granting abortions of a viable fetuses near term for which the provider then murders. And guess what, if they did they would be charged with murder.

You are distorting "get your laws off our bodies" to mean something it doesn't. It does not mean women want to murder near term infants, it means, sheesh, why would you need a law regulating abortion at all? Because that's what you think women are asking for when they are really saying legislators have no business regulating any abortions.

If you had cases of women getting on demand abortions at 8 months or whatever, fine write a law. But that's not happening. The only case dug up for this discussion was a serial murderer who was convicted of murdering infants.

Do we need a law that dictates when a terminally ill patient can decide to stop further treatment? OMG we need a law for that. How could the patient and the provider know when that was OK if there's no law defining that moment of decision? Cancer patients are going to refuse care too soon if we don't have a law defining when they can and can't stop treatment.

This reminds of an exchange I saw between Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) who kept asking witnesses if they supported "killing a child after it's born" or if they support giving a woman the right to make that decision as if a that happens. When they object to this, he talks over them and says he can only conclude they support "infanticide". This is pretty much what I'm seeing in this thread.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Warp12 15th July 2022 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey (Post 13856566)
No one has ever asked for this. No one.


It is law in VT. Seven states have no limit on pregnancy term for abortion.

Do you condemn law that makes it legal for abortion at 8 1/2 months, without medical cause? Yes or no?

Nobody seems to be willing to directly condemn this. Astoundingly.

Warp12 15th July 2022 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13856573)
I do not support doing it, but I support the right of women and their medical providers to be the ones who make such choices, rather than politicians.


So you do support the right of a woman to have an abortion for non-medical reasons, at as late as 8 1/2 months. You think that is acceptable law.

I think it is demented law.

Stacyhs 16th July 2022 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856627)
This is the result of asking for a pro-choice advocate to directly condemn abortion law that allows for non-medical cause abortions at 8 1/2 months.


No, this is the result of you feeling entitled to an answer to your question while refusing to answer mine which were asked well before yours.

Quote:

This is exactly what I mean when I say there is no compromise with the Dems on this matter. It is exactly why the scotus has smited Roe. Now, as previously stated, pro-choice advocates have lost nearly everything because they were unwilling to compromise on anything.

LOL! The SCOTUS's decision had ZERO to do with Dems not "compromising" and everything to do with their own religious ideologies.
Since 1973, the Dems have lived with states putting restrictions on how late an abortion could be performed among others and it's been the Republicans who have not wanted to compromise except where required by law. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Lukraak_Sisser 16th July 2022 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856627)
This is the result of asking for a pro-choice advocate to directly condemn abortion law that allows for non-medical cause abortions at 8 1/2 months.

This is exactly what I mean when I say there is no compromise with the Dems on this matter. It is exactly why the scotus has smited Roe. Now, as previously stated, pro-choice advocates have lost nearly everything because they were unwilling to compromise on anything.

I will answer your silly question

I am against such a law. Because the amount of women carrying a child to 8 1/2 month and then deciding to abort the pregnancy because they feel like it is exactly zero, whereas such a law would force a woman with a child that died during pregnancy or where a fatal defect is detected at that late moment would be forced into the agony of waiting until they can 'naturally' see their child dead two weeks later.

But you are firmly rooted in the myth of 'abortions as casual child control' and have shown little to no empathy for others in your posts, so I'm sure you will twist this into 'see, liberals want to murder children' regardless of actual facts.

I just am happy to live in a country where religion has lost it's grip on politics and where women are considered full citizens with the right to decided on something as traumatic as an abortion themselves. And guess what, your dark fantasies of lines of women near childbirth casually going for abortions just does not happen.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.