At 11th Hour, Georgia Passes “Women as Livestock” Bill

redrumloa said:
A baby is a human being too. It is well established that you and other Whyzzat members think a baby outside of the womb and detached from a umbilical cord, breathing and heart beating, should be killed too.
Click to expand...

you owe me an apology... or you need to prove what you say is true.... im not letting this go... the only one allowed to impune my character is me... all you have to say is i am sorry i misspoke... in public or private... but im not dropping this until you do... i am not that man... and your words do not make me that man... only my actions... but somebody who doesnt know might read that and believe you...
 
red just doesn't understand that

  • you aren't like him
  • a fetus isn't a person
 
sweet potatoes are better for you than corn. taste better too. :D

most people in America (that big middle part, and I don't mean YOU, personally) don't realize that there are farms on Long island. True, there used to be more....in fact it was nearly all farms at one point. But there's still some...and we make wine, too.

Upstate NY is well known for apples (I've gone apple picking in the fall), among other stuff....and is basically very rural. I've been up to Albany (fishing in a nearby lake), Bear MT., the Catskills, Oneonta, NY , even Rochester, NY (sci fi con)

http://www.pickyourown.org/NY.htm
 
Thank you :D





I still attend local Amiga meetings, made my laptop mutiboot with win7 and Ubuntu and while I'm not an expert, do pretty good on my own....THAT alone makes me a nerd.

oh, yeah, i LOVE "The Big Bang Theory". and by that I mean i GET all the jokes
 
tell ya a little story... shortly after the first gulf war saddam had chased the kurds up into the mountains unhappy with them for their cooperation with us forces. having been stateside for a month i volunteered to go on a humanitarian aid mission to supply comfort to them. the boondoggle it became is another story but the part i want to leave you with is this... they lived in what amounts to a construction debris grade trash sack as a tent and they starve and die all around you... at one point i was walking with my buddy and i saw this mound of flies on the ground... i kicked at it wonderin what the hell was so yummy a bazillion flies would feast on it and as they moved away in some sick choreographed unison i see that its a small child... i shuddered and walked on... i dunno... place stunk so bad of fear desperation and utter hopelessness... i wretch from just thinking about it... couldnt even imagine bringing a child into that mess.... uve no idea... i dont either.... dont judge... karma is a bitch...
 
cecilia said:
a fetus isn't a person
Click to expand...

Well, Red might not be alone there. My understanding is that within the context of human gestation, the fetus is defined from the 9th week onwards. So, that means the entire period from then up until birth.

What is the reasoning behind your stance that a fetus is not a person at what, (presumably post-natal) point does the person begin to exist?
 
Karlos said:
Well, Red might not be alone there. My understanding is that within the context of human gestation, the fetus is defined from the 9th week onwards. So, that means the entire period from then up until birth.

What is the reasoning behind your stance that a fetus is not a person at what, (presumably post-natal) point does the person begin to exist?
Click to expand...
historically only women could carry a fetus to it's potential (not inevitable because miscarriages are WAY more common than most people realize, even in the 20th and 21st centuries).

for as long as women have had this responsibility they have understood that it's all a matter of resources. I, as a person already exist, have a history and in some cases have existing children. (I'm speaking as the universal women, now). I, as a person have already contributed to my society and if I have children have to remain Alive to care for them. If a pregnancy threatens that - and puts my existing children in danger, the fetus has to go. Too bad, so sad, but I take precedence. A fetus is just potential. Even Mother Nature knows that.

the reality is that marriage was invented BY men because they needed a way to prove that children "belonged" to them. And religions encouraged marriage because that ensured a continuing membership to the church putting money in the coffers. For this to work, women become property.

I have never bought the 'women as property' notion. I don't bother with any exact 'date or time frame' because it's not up to me. It's a decision that ONLY a women and anyone SHE cares to bring into this can make (doctor, husband). The religious HATE that women are in charge of their bodies and their lives. Well, too bad.

The facts are that pregnancy is not a simple thing and unless it's happening to me why should I have the nerve to tell someone else what to do about an immensely complicated thing? It's hard enough while it's happening - who wants busybodies buzzing around you to annoy you with their fantasies about what THEY want?
 
cecilia said:
historically only women could carry a fetus to it's potential (not inevitable because miscarriages are WAY more common than most people realize, even in the 20th and 21st centuries).

for as long as women have had this responsibility they have understood that it's all a matter of resources. I, as a person already exist, have a history and in some cases have existing children. (I'm speaking as the universal women, now). I, as a person have already contributed to my society and if I have children have to remain Alive to care for them. If a pregnancy threatens that - and puts my existing children in danger, the fetus has to go. Too bad, so sad, but I take precedence. A fetus is just potential. Even Mother Nature knows that.
Click to expand...

With respect, that's not really answering the question. Also, it prejudices the argument by presupposing that the only reason for abortion is that the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother (and her dependants) and hence any opposition is inherently "anti-woman". I seriously disagree. First of all, unless the implementation of said law is utterly bone-headed, the necessary safeguards should be in place to ensure that abortions after any legal limit can still be carried out where deemed medically necessary. In short, the situation you describe above should not happen.

Again, given your statement that "a fetus is not a person", the question is, at what point do you consider a live-born baby to be a person?

Is it the moment it clears the birth canal? Is it the moment it takes it's first breath and it's cardiovascular system reconfigures? Is it when it's not entirely dependent on it's mother for survival? When does "it" become a person in your view?

If you have any difficulty answering that, then perhaps you can equally understand why I can't readily share this view that a fetus is not a person. The reason is that this one word covers many distinct stages of human development. Allow me to clarify:

A fetus at 9 weeks has pretty zero chance of extra-uterine survival (even with medical intervention), nor has it developed to the level where we can reasonably suggest it has any self-awareness. It is, as you say, a potential.

A fetus at 26 weeks is still a fetus but in contrast with the above, has on average a 50% chance of survival (with medical intervention) and is more than likely sentient and probably sapient to some degree (adopting positions that it finds more comfortable and deciding to play football with your bladder in retaliation for your eating something too spicy being anecdotal examples).

A fetus in the last few weeks of gestation is still a fetus but is practically indistinguishable from a newborn and has almost the same chance of survival as a full-term, with only the most basic medical assistance.

I don't see how, given the spectrum above, how a fetus in the later stages of development can be considered any less a person than a newborn baby.

I seriously can't imagine you could ever say to a mother-to-be that loses her baby in the final days of her pregnancy "Come now, don't upset yourself. It wasn't a person, you know? Not really. Just a potential. Plenty more ovulations left to try again with."

the reality is that marriage was invented BY men because they needed a way to prove that children "belonged" to them. And religions encouraged marriage because that ensured a continuing membership to the church putting money in the coffers. For this to work, women become property.

I have never bought the 'women as property' notion. I don't bother with any exact 'date or time frame' because it's not up to me. It's a decision that ONLY a women and anyone SHE cares to bring into this can make (doctor, husband). The religious HATE that women are in charge of their bodies and their lives. Well, too bad.

The facts are that pregnancy is not a simple thing and unless it's happening to me why should I have the nerve to tell someone else what to do about an immensely complicated thing? It's hard enough while it's happening - who wants busybodies buzzing around you to annoy you with their fantasies about what THEY want?
Click to expand...

None of the above actually relates to the question I was asking :-/
 
Welcome to the "woman hater" club Karlos. You may want to go back and read this thread to see where everyone stands on infanticide. The conversation is no longer about abortion in the womb, but "abortion" of full term live births. The people you are trying to engage here have expressed approval for infanticide and straight up eugenics. Go back to that thread and read for yourself.
 
Here's a thought experiment:

Imagine it's 2112 and not 2012 and exo-wombs exist in which the most carefully screened and selected eggs and sperm from the parents to be are fused and gestated for 9 months, resulting in the virtual eradication of hereditary defects and other complications. Last but not least, women are no longer subject to having to undergo pregnancy to reproduce and as such pregnancy is no longer a gender issue. Suppose the law, however, adopted the idea that the infant was still technically gestating "with the parents" and required that they made regular visits to inspect it's development, to bond but also upheld their right to terminate without any upper limit on the time. In this hypothetical world, all the "strong" medical / criminal (e.g. rape) arguments for allowing termination are pretty much void, leaving only emotional, financial and lifestyle considerations.

So, halfway through a gestation, the parents decide they don't actually want the child and order the clinic to terminate it's gestation.

Is it still OK?
 
Karlos said:
Here's a thought experiment:

Imagine it's 2112 and not 2012 and exo-wombs exist in which the most carefully screened and selected eggs and sperm from the parents to be are fused and gestated for 9 months, resulting in the virtual eradication of hereditary defects and other complications. Last but not least, women are no longer subject to having to undergo pregnancy to reproduce and as such pregnancy is no longer a gender issue. Suppose the law, however, adopted the idea that the infant was still technically gestating "with the parents" and required that they made regular visits to inspect it's development, to bond but also upheld their right to terminate without any upper limit on the time. In this hypothetical world, all the "strong" medical / criminal (e.g. rape) arguments for allowing termination are pretty much void, leaving only emotional, financial and lifestyle considerations.

So, halfway through a gestation, the parents decide they don't actually want the child and order the clinic to terminate it's gestation.

Is it still OK?
Click to expand...

just as it is today it will be then as well... it will depend on the specific situation...

Karlos said:
With respect, that's not really answering the question.

None of the above actually relates to the question I was asking :-/
Click to expand...

I don't bother with any exact 'date or time frame' because it's not up to me. It's a decision that ONLY a women and anyone SHE cares to bring into this can make (doctor, husband).

actually it kinda does from my understanding...
 
if we're still arguing about abortion in 2112 our greatest failure won't be that we haven't resolved the issue, but rather our complete failure to become a society where things like that are only remembered parts of our societal history that are no longer necessary....
 
robert l. bentham said:
I don't bother with any exact 'date or time frame' because it's not up to me. It's a decision that ONLY a women and anyone SHE cares to bring into this can make (doctor, husband)
Click to expand...

Which is not an answer to the question I asked. To recap:

Cecilia stated, in no uncertain terms, "a fetus is not a person".

Hence I asked, "... at what, (presumably post-natal) point does the person begin to exist?"

This question had nothing to do with whose responsibility it is to decide whether or not a pregnancy continues or is terminated. It's a clear, unambiguous question posted in response to a clear, unambiguous statement of opinion.

It's my assumption from her statement that Cecilia considers a person to exist only after birth, but it's an assumption. I was hoping she'd be able to confirm it or correct it.
 
This question of the beginning of personhood is bigger than this one-dimensional argument about pro-choice versus pro-life.

As a tangental debate, suppose a late-term mother-to-be is violently assaulted resulting in the death of her unborn child in a premeditated attack intent on causing this outcome. What specifically is the perpetrator guilty of? If we are asserting that the fetus is not a person, then he cannot be guilty of murder in any degree. Presumably there is a lesser crime of "illegal termination" ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top