There's no such thing as the "war on women"

[Alceste]

He's repeated himself quite clearly. Regardless as to my opinion on this topic, I understand what he was conveying.

No he hasn't been clear. He originally said women are murderers after 12 weeks, then changed it to 20, then doubled down on 12 when Debater Slayer called him on it. Then he said fetal development should be how we determine when a fetus becomes a person. Then he said we should ARBITRARILY subtract a month or more from the earliest known viability stage for no reason at all. He's called women who have abortions "child murderers" consistently throughout the thread, then evaded a direct question as to whether he considers me a murderer because I had an abortion. (Risking a rule violation, people who refuse to answer such direct, simple questions are cowards and hypocrites).

All he's been clear about is that it really gets on his nerves that women don't have WAY MORE RESTRICTIONS on their reproductive choice. Does he have a reason? Nope. Just doesn't like it. Too much freedom for his taste. He wants to make sure WOMEN RISK DEATH by passing legislation that late term abortions must be undertaken only with ABSOLUTE PROOF of deadly risk - otherwise LIFE IN PRISON for the doctor. What doctor is going to take that risk? How is that EXACT SAME policy working in Ireland, anyway?

Yeah, I've got my panties in a twist, and I've got a right to be angry. This guy has never spent more than two minutes at a time thinking about abortion, unplanned pregnancy, motherhood or fetal development, and HE WANTS TO DECIDE what I can and can not do with my own body if I have another birth control failure. What business is it of his? What business is it of yours? If you don't believe in abortion, DON'T HAVE A FLIPPING ABORTION. I support you 100%.

And Yeah, I am ****** off, because women all over the US are currently having their reproductive choices steadily eroded by guys like this - guys who stroll into the legislature and say "Meh, I've never spent TWO SECONDS IN MY ENTIRE LIFE thinking about what it's like to experience an unplanned pregnancy, but I think women have way too much freedom these days. Hey, guys! Let's do something about it!"

 

[Alceste]

Wow, someone else read what I said and found one single inconsistency and then you, who has read nothing I said including my posts which you quoted, just assume everything I said was inconsistent.



I've put quite a bit of thought and research into it. I know it bothers you that I didn't buy your only argument, which was simply "men are mean to women (I paraphrased)", but it's going to take a little bit more for me to accept murdering children than "some guy was mean to you once".

Pro-tip: if a man tells you can't murder children, he isn't doing it because you're a woman, he is doing it because he doesn't like people murdering children.

So, you still refuse to reveal your groundbreaking method of determining the EXACT DATE a woman becomes a murderer for having an abortion?

 

[Alceste]

How is anybody going to prove any of this in a court of law?

And complicating matters further, many of us don't know the exact dates of our periods- not to mention birth control that makes you not have a period really- and certianly not one with any real clarity.

If you're really going to jail a woman for murder over an EXACT date, then you really had better be %100 sure of the exactness of the date.

Yes, NIX, thank heavens you have understood my point. That makes it feel a lot less like bashing my head against a brick wall. Freethinker wants to see a whole lot of women and their doctors in prison for life, but has NO WAY TO ESTABLISH their guilt or innocence in a court of law.

 

[freethinker44]

My gripe is, when you go to bed on the last night of your "twentieth week" you are not a murderer if you had an abortion, and you just carry on with your business. If you wake up the next morning and get an abortion, you go to prison for the rest of your life. That's what "free thinker" is proposing we adopt AS A LAW. You've jumped in to defend him, so I'm inviting you to demonstrate that it is possible to establish WHICH DAY a pregnant woman should go to prison for life for having an abortion.

You keep dancing around the question. How do you propose we determine WITH TOTAL PRECISION, and BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT which specific day of her pregnancy a woman makes the transition from exercising her legal right to reproductive choice and being a child murderer worthy of LIFE IN PRISON.

If it's medically necessary she is good, which I have said multiple times and you've ignored multiple times apparently. But hey look, you have two arguments now: men are mean, and my argument is inconsistent. Congratulations, pretty soon you will have something coherent and valid.

So? Do you have an answer? Even "free thinker" doesn't seem to know whether it's supposed to be twelve weeks or twenty, hence his totally ridiculous and completely arbitrary barriers he wants to erect for women prior to twenty weeks - all of which would only serve to delay her ability to obtain the desired procedure at the earliest opportunity - just to cover is enormous personal "I dunno" zone.

How is giving them three months to decide whether or not go through with pregnancy going to delay them from getting an abortion at the earliest opportunity? I'm pretty sure most sane people know whether they plan on conceiving a child. It doesn't take me three months to decide to wear a condom. If you don't want kids but got pregnant, go get an abortion. How hard is that. You have three months to decide something you knew before you even conceived. How does that cause a delay in getting an abortion at the earliest opportunity?

 

[freethinker44]

He's called women who have abortions "child murderers" consistently throughout the thread, then evaded a direct question as to whether he considers me a murderer because I had an abortion. (Risking a rule violation, people who refuse to answer such direct, simple questions are cowards and hypocrites).

OMG, you're abortion was, what, 5 weeks?

Here was my response to your question in big blue and red underlined letters.

0 to 20 weeks = abortionAfter 20 = murder

I gave you the benefit of doubt and assumed you were intelligent enough to figure it out. Apparently I was wrong, my apologies, believe me I won't make that mistake again.

So here it is for the special people:
5 WEEKS IS NOT MURDER

You see, 5 is between the numbers 0 and 20.

 

[NIX]

If it's medically necessary she is good, which I have said multiple times and you've ignored multiple times apparently. But hey look, you have two arguments now: men are mean, and my argument is inconsistent. Congratulations, pretty soon you will have something coherent and valid.



How is giving them three months to decide whether or not go through with pregnancy going to delay them from getting an abortion at the earliest opportunity? I'm pretty sure most sane people know whether they plan on conceiving a child. It doesn't take me three months to decide to wear a condom. If you don't want kids but got pregnant, go get an abortion. How hard is that. You have three months to decide something you knew before you even conceived. How does that cause a delay in getting an abortion at the earliest opportunity?

Some women don't realize they are pregnant.
Some women don't have the ability and resources to go and get an abortion on their own, and they have no one to turn to.
Some women are young- still girls really- have disfunctional families, no one to turn to and can focus on nothing but their own fear. They may live in hiding until they can hide it no longer.
Some women live in abusive situations.

As the statistics show, the percentages of abortions go down drastically as the length of pregnancy increases. However, there are actually reasons for the few later term abortions that take place. Just because you cannot imagine what they might be, doesn't mean they don't exist. Nor does it mean they are not valid reasons as the woman involved is concerned.

 

[freethinker44]

Some women don't realize they are pregnant.
Some women don't have the ability and resources to go and get an abortion on their own, and they have no one to turn to.
Some women are young- still girls really- have disfunctional families, no one to turn to and can focus on nothing but their own fear. They may live in hiding until they can hide it no longer.
Some women live in abusive situations.

This justifies murder to you?

As the statistics show, the percentages of abortions go down drastically as the length of pregnancy increases. However, there are actually reasons for the few late term abortions that take place. Just because you cannot imagine what they might be, doesn't mean they don't exist. Nor does it mean they are not valid reasons as the woman involved is concerned.

We have been over this about 150 posts ago. I posted a bunch of numbers, got the counter-argument "but men are being mean to women", then I posted more numbers, then got the argument, "but men are still mean to women".

So let's just avoid all that because I am not doing a bunch of research again, so just get it over with and tell me men are being mean to women and we can just pretend you ignored all the statistics I post so I don't have to actually post it, because it's late here so I am going to bed.

 

[NIX]

This justifies murder to you?

You seemed completely stumped as to why a woman who did not want to have a child wouldn't just go and have an abortion within the first three months. "How hard is that?" was your quote.

I'm simply pointing out that for some women 'that' can be as hard as being impossible.

As to the wording of your response above I will say for the sake of brevity that there are many kinds of deaths. Many people walk around dead inside. This is not living. They are killed by the people who surround them and by the society they live in.
None of this is justified. Unfortunatley however, this is how it is.

 

[Alceste]

If it's medically necessary she is good, which I have said multiple times and you've ignored multiple times apparently. But hey look, you have two arguments now: men are mean, and my argument is inconsistent. Congratulations, pretty soon you will have something coherent and valid.



How is giving them three months to decide whether or not go through with pregnancy going to delay them from getting an abortion at the earliest opportunity? I'm pretty sure most sane people know whether they plan on conceiving a child. It doesn't take me three months to decide to wear a condom. If you don't want kids but got pregnant, go get an abortion. How hard is that. You have three months to decide something you knew before you even conceived. How does that cause a delay in getting an abortion at the earliest opportunity?

You're not "giving them" anything. The right to privacy (which includes the right to make private medical decisions without government interference) is not yours to give. The court already reached a decision: women have the right to do as they please about an unplanned pregnancy without "free thinker"s personal stamp of approval.

Please quote the post where I said "men are mean". I said people who cannot answer simple, direct questions (do you think I am a murderer, for example) are cowards and hypocrites. I think men who think what happens in a woman's own body is ANY of their business are both delusional and overstepping the bounds of their authority.

But most men are not like that, as you can see from the posts of Dustin, Debater Slayer, Badran, Sunstone, Kilgore Trout, Penguin and half a dozen other men who have chipped in on this conversation.

It's just you and MM on your side of the debate, and it's rather arrogant of you to suggest that the two of you represent the opinions and attitudes of men in general (mean or otherwise). Probably also quite offensive to all those lovely men l just mentioned.

 

[Alceste]

OMG, you're abortion was, what, 5 weeks?

Here was my response to your question in big blue and red underlined letters.

I gave you the benefit of doubt and assumed you were intelligent enough to figure it out. Apparently I was wrong, my apologies, believe me I won't make that mistake again.

So here it is for the special people:
5 WEEKS IS NOT MURDER

You see, 5 is between the numbers 0 and 20.

So we're back up to twenty now? Twelve is out of the picture? What about your arbitrary "I dunno" zone? That vast expanse of time when you want to label women as murderers "just in case" a fetus could survive at twelve weeks? If anything prior to day one of week twenty one is not murder, why the massive zone of arbitrary restrictions between 12 and 20 weeks? "Three months is long enough" is not a real answer. It only shows you've never been in a position where you don't know whether or not you're pregnant, but you think you might be.

It's not as if we wake up the morning after coitus and go "Aha! That one took! Start the clock!"

 

[Alceste]

You seemed completely stumped as to why a woman who did not want to have a child wouldn't just go and have an abortion within the first three months. "How hard is that?" was your quote.

I'm simply pointing out that for some women 'that' can be as hard as being impossible.

As to the wording of your response above I will say for the sake of brevity that there are many kinds of deaths. Many people walk around dead inside. This is not living. They are killed by the people who surround them and by the society they live in.
None of this is justified. Unfortunatley however, this is how it is.

That kind of clear thinking is why there should be women on any panel discussing women's reproductive rights. Every woman knows the discovery of an unexpected pregnancy doesn't dawn on you at the very instant of conception. The whole first month is pretty much a wash. Then there are a couple weeks of trying to remember when your last period was, wondering if your boobs are more tender than usual. Then there's however long it takes to put a pee test on your list of things to do and get around to it. Then there's double checking with a doctor, whenever you can get an appointment. After that point, every unnecessary obstacle only causes more delay, which is purportedly what "free thinker" claims he wants to avoid. How long it takes each individual woman to get through that process depends on a whole host of factors that are really nobody else's business. It does not seem at all implausible to me that many women don't know they are pregnant for the entire first trimester. And even for those that do, it often takes more than a week or two to decide whether or not you want to start or expand a family. That's a lifelong commitment. Not only to supporting a dependent, but also potentially being inescapably tied to the father.

Only a person who has never spent a moment in his life contemplating these basic facts of life for women would ever say something as simplistic and inane as "three months is long enough" and call the whole thing settled.

 

[NIX]

That kind of clear thinking is why there should be women on any panel discussing women's reproductive rights. Every woman knows the discovery of an unexpected pregnancy doesn't dawn on you at the very instant of conception. The whole first month is pretty much a wash. Then there are a couple weeks of trying to remember when your last period was, wondering if your boobs are more tender than usual. Then there's however long it takes to put a pee test on your list of things to do and get around to it. Then there's double checking with a doctor, whenever you can get an appointment. After that point, every unnecessary obstacle only causes more delay, which is purportedly what "free thinker" claims he wants to avoid. How long it takes each individual woman to get through that process depends on a whole host of factors that are really nobody else's business. It does not seem at all implausible to me that many women don't know they are pregnant for the entire first trimester. And even for those that do, it often takes more than a week or two to decide whether or not you want to start or expand a family. That's a lifelong commitment. Not only to supporting a dependent, but also potentially being inescapably tied to the father.

Only a person who has never spent a moment in his life contemplating these basic facts of life for women would ever say something as simplistic and inane as "three months is long enough" and call the whole thing settled.

Absolutely. It's not a slight towards men, it's simple common sense. Only women are going to have a first hand grasp of the experiences particular to women. It is arrogant of men to think they can sit in for women so flippantly in regards to such a HUGE PERSONAL issue that they will never face or potentially go through as men. No man will EVER face (even potentially) the conviction or punishment of the law these men are trying to put in place. It's a very convenient place to be sitting. Until maybe it's a wife, or a daughter... and they begin to understand.....

 

[Alceste]

Absolutely. It's not a slight towards men, it's simple common sense. Only women are going to have a first hand grasp of the experiences particular to women. It is arrogant of men to think they can sit in for women so flippantly in regards to such a HUGE PERSONAL issue that they will never face or potentially go through as men. No man will EVER face (even potentially) the conviction or punishment of the law these men are trying to put in place. It's a very convenient place to be sitting. Until maybe it's a wife, or a daughter... and they begin to understand.....

The irony is that many of their wives, daughters, female friends etc. have actually had abortions and they don't even know it. It's not like they give out commemorative tee shirts at the clinic. Most women prefer to keep it private, especially around people who casually use the words "abortion" and "murder" interchangeably.

 

[NIX]

The irony is that many of their wives, daughters, female friends etc. have actually had abortions and they don't even know it. It's not like they give out commemorative tee shirts at the clinic. Most women prefer to keep it private, especially around people who casually use the words "abortion" and "murder" interchangeably.

Shame on the women though that have had abortions and still take a public political stance against abortion because they are afraid to come out against their family members and social circles. To keep your own personal business personal, especially in the face of derision is completely understandable. To be a self serving hypocrite in regards to such an important right is quite another.

 

[Alceste]

Shame on the women though that have had abortions and still take a public political stance against abortion because they are afraid to come out against their family members and social circles. To keep your own personal business personal, especially in the face of derision is completely understandable. To be a self serving hypocrite in regards to such an important right is quite another.

Tell me about it. Of all the anti-choice voices out there, the ones that cause me the most outrage are the ones who just take a day off picketing the clinic for their own abortion, then go right back to it. I'd be OK with throwing those ones in jail, if only hypocrisy were illegal.

 

[dawny0826]

My gripe is, when you go to bed on the last night of your "twentieth week" you are not a murderer if you had an abortion, and you just carry on with your business. If you wake up the next morning and get an abortion, you go to prison for the rest of your life. That's what "free thinker" is proposing we adopt AS A LAW. You've jumped in to defend him, so I'm inviting you to demonstrate that it is possible to establish WHICH DAY a pregnant woman should go to prison for life for having an abortion.

You keep dancing around the question. How do you propose we determine WITH TOTAL PRECISION, and BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT which specific day of her pregnancy a woman makes the transition from exercising her legal right to reproductive choice and being a child murderer worthy of LIFE IN PRISON.

So? Do you have an answer? Even "free thinker" doesn't seem to know whether it's supposed to be twelve weeks or twenty, hence his totally ridiculous and completely arbitrary barriers he wants to erect for women prior to twenty weeks - all of which would only serve to delay her ability to obtain the desired procedure at the earliest opportunity - just to cover is enormous personal "I dunno" zone.

He's conveyed personal opinion and that which he agrees would be reasonable, under the auspices of law.

He PERSONALLY feels that anything after the 12th week (venturing into the second trimester) should be illegal, but, supports the legality of allowing women the ability to choose an elective - non-medically necessary abortion, by the 20th week.

You've invented all of this bull **** that you're claiming he said about women prior to the 12th week. Seriously, read his posts again.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That kind of clear thinking is why there should be women on any panel discussing women's reproductive rights. Every woman knows the discovery of an unexpected pregnancy doesn't dawn on you at the very instant of conception. The whole first month is pretty much a wash. Then there are a couple weeks of trying to remember when your last period was, wondering if your boobs are more tender than usual. Then there's however long it takes to put a pee test on your list of things to do and get around to it. Then there's double checking with a doctor, whenever you can get an appointment. After that point, every unnecessary obstacle only causes more delay, which is purportedly what "free thinker" claims he wants to avoid. How long it takes each individual woman to get through that process depends on a whole host of factors that are really nobody else's business. It does not seem at all implausible to me that many women don't know they are pregnant for the entire first trimester. And even for those that do, it often takes more than a week or two to decide whether or not you want to start or expand a family. That's a lifelong commitment. Not only to supporting a dependent, but also potentially being inescapably tied to the father.

Only a person who has never spent a moment in his life contemplating these basic facts of life for women would ever say something as simplistic and inane as "three months is long enough" and call the whole thing settled.

And because you're a woman I accept everything you've laid out. You would be the best person to determine your medical options and your financial future on these matters.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Absolutely. It's not a slight towards men, it's simple common sense. Only women are going to have a first hand grasp of the experiences particular to women. It is arrogant of men to think they can sit in for women so flippantly in regards to such a HUGE PERSONAL issue that they will never face or potentially go through as men. No man will EVER face (even potentially) the conviction or punishment of the law these men are trying to put in place. It's a very convenient place to be sitting. Until maybe it's a wife, or a daughter... and they begin to understand.....

or a mistress....

Scott DesJarlais, Pro-Life Republican Congressman And Doctor, Pressured Mistress Patient To Get Abortion (UPDATE)

A pro-life, family-values congressman who worked as a doctor before winning election as a Tea Party-backed Republican had an affair with a patient and later pressured her to get an abortion, according to a phone call transcript obtained by The Huffington Post.

(Part of the transcript of the conversation as reported by Huffington Post. Note: I removed some of the editorializing and just posted some of the conversation itself.)

"You told me you'd have an abortion, and now we're getting too far along without one,"


"You told me you would have time to go with me and everything,"



"I said, if I could, I would, didn't I? And I will try," "If I can [find] time, you're saying you still will?"


"Yeah," the woman answers.


"This is not fair to me. I don't want you in my life," the woman says.


"Well, I didn't want to be in your life either, but you lied to me about something that caused us to be in this situation, and that's not my fault, that's yours,"


"Well, it's [your] fault for sleeping with your patient,"

"Well, it's [your] fault for sleeping with your patient,"


"If we need to go to Atlanta, or whatever, to get this solved and get it over with so we can get on with our lives, then let's do it,"

“Well, we’ve got to do something soon. And you’ve even got to admit that because the clock is ticking right?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

He's conveyed personal opinion and that which he agrees would be reasonable, under the auspices of law.

He PERSONALLY feels that anything after the 12th week (venturing into the second trimester) should be illegal, but, supports the legality of allowing women the ability to choose an elective - non-medically necessary abortion, by the 20th week.

You've invented all of this bull **** that you're claiming he said about women prior to the 12th week. Seriously, read his posts again.

I've read his posts. I've responded. He has yet to respond to me. My posts have included the numbers concerning fetal viability, so his personal views don't match up to common medical ethics and the observations and practices of neonatalogists. He has not countered or acknowledged any of these ethics that match up to federal law concerning viability. All you have acknowledged - which all of us have too - is his simple personal opinion.

Problem is, his personal opinion does not match up anywhere close to the opinions of those who practice medical ethics. This is why I asked if he has researched Roe vs. Wade, and understands what it entails.

 

[dust1n]

What a surprise! Completely ignored. Literally, absolutely ignored:

What concrete, scientific sources did you provide that state a fetus isn't viable after 5 months?

I don't know what you are talking about here.

If I am understanding you correctly, you have been saying the 12 weeks mark should be the time in which abortion should be limited because that is when the baby becomes viable. I agree with you that if a baby is viable, an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But we know that up to 21 weeks, or less, that a baby is in no way viable. It's a 0% viability rate until twenty weeks.

This is common knowledge at this point:

Chances for Survival

Further:

"According to Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, viable of a fetus it means having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability. Viability is not an intrinsic property of the fetus because viability should be understood in terms of both biological and technological factors. It is only in virtue of both factors that a viable fetus can exist ex utero and thus later achieve independent moral status. Moreover, these two factors do not exist as a function of the autonomy of the pregnant woman. When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998). In Portugal, the mortality increase significantly with GA<25 weeks. At 25 weeks mortality was 44.4% and at 26 weeks was 24.4% (I. Macedo et al. Matemidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa, Lisbon, 2000). In Poland during last years we observe also a very significant decrease of perinatal mortality. There are several aspects of fetal viability: ethical, social, psychological and medical. Ethical aspects There is a compelling conceptual and clinical reason to reject Primum non nocere as the primary principle of perinatal ethics; virtually all medical interventions involve unavoidable risks of harm, for example, amniocentesis. If Primum non nocere were to be made the primary principle of perinatal ethics, virtually all of perinatal medicine would be unethical. Social aspects Greatly increased advances in perinatal medicine lead on one hand to a high quality of care expected and demanded by both the health care professionals and patients, but on the other hand the resources available for responding to the expectations and demands are becoming increasingly stretched. Even in the high-income countries, the available resources are scarce in relation to these demands a high quality of care expected and demanded by both the health care professionals and patients, but on the other hand the resources available for responding to the expectations and demands are becoming increasingly stretched. Medical aspects During the preconceptional period the most important actions are: family planning, education, analysis of previous obstetrical miscarriages and prevention of congenital malformations (folic acid). Pregnancy presents several problems, which can significantly influence fetal viability. Proper management of these problems can improve perinatal outcome. Among others prevention of prematurity is the most important goal of contemporary perinatal medicine. Enhancement of fetal viability There are several possibilities to enhance fetal viability. The most important are: organization of perinatal care, introduction of new technologies to perinatal medicine, intensive fetal therapy and early detection of fetal distress. Three levels system of perinatal care, transport in utero, introduction and promotion of new methods, continues education of staff are characteristic for the modern organization of perinatal medicine. Echocardiography, Color Doppler Energy, 3D sonography, prenatal diagnosis (cordocentesis, analysis of fetal cells in maternal blood,.), fetal pulse oximetry, mathematical analysis of the signal are the methods which should be used at the highest level of perinatal care. Today, the prospect of survival is only about 1 in 10 at 23 weeks, and if the child lives it is more likely to be handicapped that not. At 24 weeks the chance of a normal survivor is about 50%, and after this the odds are in favor of a normal survivor. Considering this data, intensive care should be an optional choice for fetuses at 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and should be offered to every fetus at 25 weeks or more."

Limits of fetal viability and its enhancement. [Early Pregnancy. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI

Anything before 21 weeks, there is 0% viability, and every science related thing will attest to that fact.

Still waiting...

Your stance has been confusing because your very first post in the thread was this:



Since then, you've argued some pretty restrictive stuff regarding what you would allow a pregnant woman to do between 12 and 20 weeks. Then after 20 weeks, it's the slammer for her.

Doesn't matter that your restrictions don't line up with common medical ethics, either. 20 weeks is nowhere near viability. Neonatal staff won't even resucsitate a fetus after your hard red line for abortion access because of the chance of survival being so small.

Have you researched Roe vs Wade? What do you know about the case, and what do you know about how fetal viability is discerned?