Vagina!

[Coreece 190]

touché, touché

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[davjohns 1]

Quote

>AGAIN, this is only relevant if you buy into the emotional argument that abortion
>is about men trying to control a woman's body. It assumes there is no child involved
>anywhere in the equation.

If we assume there is no child in the equation (potential or realized) then it's not an issue; it's akin to deciding whether to remove an ovarian cyst.

The reason it is so contentious is precisely because there is a potential child involved. No one assumes otherwise.

I have to disagree. If you would look at the post I responded to, they are decrying that men are trying to control women and that is the totality of the problem. I am pointing out that people are concerned about an unborn child. It is not about controlling women. Pretending the only issue is controlling a woman's body is posing an emotional argument that avoids the legitimate issue.

Is there a child inside the woman or not? If not, she can do as she likes. I have no desire to control her body in any manner so long as she is not harming another. If there IS a child in there, however, society has a legitimate interest in protecting that child and there is a question of how to balance the child's rights with the mother's.

These arguments that it's the woman's body and nobody else can speak to the matter are all distractions from a genuine concern.

I think you are agreeing with me, but missed the post I was responding to. Not sure.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

When do you think a fertilized egg becomes a baby? And once it's a baby, how far should one go to make sure it's treated like a full-up human being?

Wendy P.

That's my question, exactly. If it is a child, we are not discussing a woman's right to control her body. We are discussing a child's right to live. If it is not a child, everyone definitely needs to back off. The problem is, I can only tell the difference before fertilization. I understand that's my problem, but I really don't think anyone else can tell, either.

Is it a child when it has a heartbeat? How about limbs? Brain activity? Fingers? Movement? Can live outside the uterus without support? Cries? Walks? Pays taxes?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 906]

When it commits a violent felony and is eligible for the death penalty???

[davjohns 1]

Quote

When it commits a violent felony and is eligible for the death penalty???

Okie doke. Normiss says you can't abort the fetus until it commits a felony.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wmw999 2,602]

I think at the very least brain waves, and maybe even somewhere after that. To me, viability is the test, and for life-incompatible birth defects (anencephaly, trisomy 13, Tay Sachs), then for the whole of the second trimester. The third trimester is pretty much for saving the life of the mother -- if she so chooses. A mother should get to say that she's OK with taking a chance on her life, too.

We use cessation of brain waves as a determinant of when to remove care in post-birth people. The family can make that decision even if the person has not made a clear choice.

There aren't happy endings in this discussion, are there.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[davjohns 1]

I like the reasoning behind using brain activity as a measure. I see an issue with the analogy. Left alone, the fetus will develop brain activity. Left alone, the incapacitated person is unlikely to. Still, it is the best thought out position I have heard on the subject. Given the other problems surrounding the issue, I think this is an excellent position to take.

Thanks, Wendy!

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Another option would be to carry the baby to full term, allow it to be born, and then put it up for adoption. Sure beats killing it. 10 out of 10 babies would agree.

[billvon 3,132]

>Another option would be to carry the baby to full term, allow it to be born, and then
>put it up for adoption.

A very good option; one that is better than the alternatives 99.99% of the time.

[davjohns 1]

Of course, that option eliminates the room for error.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wmw999 2,602]

It also significantly impacts the mother. There is a danger of death, and there is significant expense in having a baby. Not every mother will have someone willing to pay for her delivery -- that only works if you're white and cute .

Maternal death rate in the US is 24/100,000. Pre-eclampsia is about 4%.

The opprobium that meets a woman who has a baby out of wedlock, or who gives up her baby, is significant. Not every young woman is strong enough to deal with it.

To go along with the brain waves thought is the way that people who lose pregnancies deal with them. No one buries a 10-week fetus. MAYBE 20 weeks, but even then the hospital very commonly disposes of the (yes, respectfully). That would indicate that it's not really a beloved child to most people at that point.

The thing is that for some people, they WILL in fact mourn every period as a lost opportunity. And others thank their lucky stars for every period. People WILL have sex. I'd still like to see free birth control, including the morning-after pill. Yes, it allows poor people, and people with poor judgment, to have fun. Such is life.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Sure beats killing it. 10 out of 10 babies would agree.

Well, you have no way of knowing that.

[normiss 906]

Wonderfully stated.
Thank you.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

I see an issue with the analogy. Left alone, the fetus will develop brain activity. Left alone, the incapacitated person is unlikely to.

Ya, it's called a red herring...I don't have my fishing license yet so I just let it go.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Sure beats killing it. 10 out of 10 babies would agree.

Well, you have no way of knowing that.

Sure I do. I'll just ask the live ones. You ask the dead ones and we will compare notes.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sure beats killing it. 10 out of 10 babies would agree.

Well, you have no way of knowing that.

Sure I do. I'll just ask the live ones. You ask the dead ones and we will compare notes.

You think a baby will understand the question? Or maybe you mean once they're adults.... but then there are people who commit suicide or spend their lives miserable; they might not agree with you.

There are good arguments against abortion, but what you think the baby wants is not one of them.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

I see an issue with the analogy. Left alone, the fetus will develop brain activity. Left alone, the incapacitated person is unlikely to.

Ya, it's called a red herring...I don't have my fishing license yet so I just let it go.

I don't think so. But I agree that it is a minor issue and barely worth mentioning.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wmw999 2,602]

It's an area with no clean, clear answers, unless you're willing to ignore the logical extensions.

If it's a baby as soon as it's conceived, then you need to consider things like:

whether you should prosecute mothers who don't eat well and have low birth weight babies as a result

whether you need to prosecute mothers who do drugs during pregnancy (some states do now)

whether you need to enforce human burial requirements and coroner's involvement on miscarriages

does child welfare need to get involved when a pregnant mother doesn't do bed rest when the obstetrician recommends it

what to do when the miscarriage happens so early that the woman doesn't even know she's pregnant

Of course, I'm sure there wouldn't be any additional responsibilities on fathers; they're put-upon enough just having to pay child support sometimes

Or maybe we just agree that there really aren't clear answers in all cases. I find most of the suggestions above to be abhorrent and over-the-top, just to make it really clear.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[davjohns 1]

Agreed. Very difficult area in which I'm perfectly happy saying I have no good answers for every situation.

And I agree that many men skip out on responsibility for their actions. Nature gave them that option without extending the same option to the mother. Then, there are some men who are responsible and pay for someone else's decisions after they make a bad one.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

I'm sure there wouldn't be any additional responsibilities on fathers; they're put-upon enough just having to pay child support sometimes

...and when they choose not to, they're thrown in jail...funny how that works.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[wmw999 2,602]

Quote

...and when they choose not to, they're thrown in jail...funny how that works.

Often they aren't. But even if they are, then the state ends up paying even more for the irresponsible parent than if they just paid welfare ignoring them.

Plenty of non-custodial parents do pay their child support. But plenty don't. If the custodial parent isn't collecting welfare, the state has no interest in making sure that it's collected. Therefore, a lawyer (at cost) is required, and that usually means name-calling between the parents (at cost to the child).

Is it really surprising that plenty of custodial parents just blow it off, if they can make it without the money?

And yeah, it's not just fathers. Non-custodial mothers don't always pay, either.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[normiss 906]

Family court is not a happy place for anyone involved.
It seems to show some at their worst.

[davjohns 1]

Exactly. Another part of the issue is the disparate burden on a single mother. If there was a way to make deadbeat dads pay up, it would help alleviate the anxiety of a mother to be.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 906]

My experience through family court was an eye opener.
I have always done my best to both pay child support as well as support my girls. In every way I can.

I always felt the threat of jail time for not paying. I was arrested and spent three days in jail for non-payment during a period of two years being unemployed for eight months.
I was employed when they took me to court, was paying, was paying extra 20% to cover the arrears. They gave me thirty days to pay almost $8,000 to be current. When I said there was no way as I didn't make that much in thirty days, I was removed from court for contempt. They wouldn't even tell me where I could turn myself in.
So, thirty days later, I had paid all but $3900 and was summarily arrested and jailed with a "purge bond". It took the jail three days to get me my wallet so I could use a credit card.
My cell mate (weird!) was in on same charge, was given a 6 month sentence, and would be rearrested on release for non-payment during incarceration.

The system will also take any IRS tax refunds, driver license, professional licenses, passport, 50% of unemployment, and any and all other monies they can locate and take.

I understand the intent.
The result is fucked up.

I still will never understand how the hell the deadbeats get away with it.

[Shotgun 1]

I've been reading a little more about the story you originally posted, and while I don't know if she should have been "hushed," she doesn't seem to have anything useful or intelligent to say on the subject of abortion. She seems to just be enjoying the attention she's getting from making a smart-ass comment with the word "vagina" in it.

And then there is the woman who tried to introduce a bill to make vasectomies illegal unless the man's life is in danger.... WTF???

Thanks, ladies, for representing women in a way that makes us look unable to have a rational thought on an important issue.