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

[dust1n]

They should have gone for 12 weeks.

You should have gone over the last 500 posts, and you should have seen the second post said the same thing as you just said, and you could have seen all the arguments against it, but if that is too much to ask, I'll bite.

Why Apex, should they have gone for 12 weeks? Why possible reasons do you have for such an arbitrary selection?

 

[Apex]

You should have gone over the last 500 posts, and you should have seen the second post said the same thing as you just said, and you could have seen all the arguments against it, but if that is too much to ask, I'll bite.

Why Apex, should they have gone for 12 weeks? Why possible reasons do you have for such an arbitrary selection?

Cause God said so.

 

[dawny0826]

dust1n,

I apologize that I ignored this post and appreciate that you brought it to my attention. I'm not confident that my responses will be adequate, but, I will address you honestly.

What reasons? The only responses I ever got from freethinker regarding restrictions on women week 12-20 were a.) viability, b.) when "consciousness begins" (which I showed is also not possible until 22-24 weeks) and c.) because 12 weeks was enough time for a woman.

a. Freethinker and I are not on the same page in regards to viability. Per wikipedia.org (and that was suggested, via Roe. Vs. Wade), a fetus has less than a 40% chance of survival at 23 weeks. The chance of survival increases to 50-70% at weeks 24-25.

As I've stated, I am content with the current laws in Virginia, which allow for abortion through the second trimester (weeks 13-27). Second trimester abortions in Virginia must be attended by two MDs, if the fetus is suspected to be viable. These terminations must take place in a licensed hospital. Third trimester termination is not allowed, except in instances of life or health endangerment.

b. I can't accept that my 17 week old fetus wasn't concious, when she responded to my voice and loud noises. But, this is my personal opinion and drives my personal decisions.

c. This is where Freethinker and I agree and where I'm likely to disagree with a lot of you. If I didn't want a pregnancy, it would be terminated before I ventured into the second month of gestation. I do think it reasonable that women CAN both confirm and terminate pregnancy by 20 weeks. Again, my personal views do not negate my respect for Virginia law, as it currently stands.

I am being truthful when I tell you that such a ban would not impact the women in my life, UNLESS, the ban doesn't allow for therapeutic abortions because of fetal defect or abnormality. This is what makes me most uncomfortable about such restrictions.

I'm not really sure which one of those is practical. They are reasons for his determination, but he is in a debate forum providing these reasons for his position, and if his reasons don't support his position, then they are culpable to criticism. He certainly has the right the believes what he wants, but I don't see why anyone here shouldn't contend with those reasons he provided.

I'm not Freethinker. I defended that which I felt justified in defending. What do you want me to say?

We aren't in disagreement about 20 weeks being reasonable (save the typical exceptions), but freethinker set the date of twelve weeks long ago, and (unless I missed something) has never retracted that statement.

He did retract that statement and stated repeatedly that he translates, from a legal perspective, abortion prior to 20 weeks to be okay, but, anything afterwards to be murderous.

He and I are off by a couple of weeks on that, but, as I've stated before, I do agree with him that it's reasonable to abort prior to 20 weeks and I've provided ample information to support my thoughts.

 

[dawny0826]

You have been so ambiguous to this point by trying to reply to my concerns whilst addressing Alceste. I provided examples where he clearly stated he did not support elective abortions past twelve weeks of conception, directly to your posts, which were completely missed or ignored, and I've yet to see the retraction.

You missed his retraction regarding 12 weeks being the "cut off". It's there, bolded and in big letters, several times.

Funny that someone who came in after 400 posts and ft's disappearance can't read that from his posts, but the three people who engaged him into debate, patiently, after almost ten or so ignored posts and points on his part, and after probably 50-100 individual posts engaged in the discussion, all are pretty much of the general understanding that he was, in fact, ambiguous and often changed his wording.

He did acknowledge his error and admitted to not being able to provide the statistical data which was asked for. I don't understand what else you can expect from someone, in a debate, but, that's just my personal opinion.

I saw where he made that retraction, too, which was a result of Alceste pointing it directly out to him, via the same criticism she still maintains. There is no way of knowing the cause of those pregnancies -- one can not assume the nature of them.

His data confirmed what we know from multiple resources - the majority of women who abort do so prior to 20 weeks gestation. It's a relatively small percentage. Like Freethinker, I cannot find specific data that explains how many out of this percentage are terminating pregnancies for medical or non-medical reasons.

I find it incredible you missed where he tried to use the statistics to say suggest all of them were bad, but you caught the retraction of it.

I take ownership for the fact that I've missed posts, dust1n. And whether or not he has an opinion that these women are "bad" or not, is a non issue to me.

So I should use more statistics incorrectly to determine how many late-term abortions are elective?.

Honey, all abortions are elective. Only a spontaneous abortion isn't elective.

And regardless as to reasons for terminating a pregnancy (thanks for posting stats) the percentage of women who terminate pregnancy from 20 weeks onward is low.

By the way, I don't even think either us really disagree that much on abortion at all. FT did, though.

Again, I agree with him that it's reasonable to terminate a pregnancy prior to 20 weeks gestation. And stats do support that the majority of women who abort are able to successfully do this.

Oh I see, so when you said "I have to add, that what amazes me about self-proclaimed feminists is that they tend to want rights for women, but, often undermine the ability of a woman to exercise intelligent and responsible choices," you weren't alluding to any of the self-proclaimed feminists in this thread.

Of course I was alluding to self-proclaimed feminists in this thread. I take ownership of that too. And I promise that I don't mean offense to individual people. I quite like the people here that I debate with.

But, I do tire of hypocrisy and excuse - in a broad sense. There are a lot of women in America that I can't relate to at all.

 

[dust1n]

Cause God said so.

God said 12 weeks? Where?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

For the sake of the thread to clear up any confusion - or add to it (lol). Here is FT's first response to the 20-week limit on abortions:

They are more lenient than me, I would have made it 12 weeks.

Then more rhetoric:

What gives women the right to murder children?

Then the position becomes rather ambiguous:

That all depends at what point you define a person. I would say at some point in the second trimester a fetus becomes a person. So I would consider abortion to be murder after the first trimester.

"At some point?" Not clear. Not specific. It's conjecture.

No, I am being honest. To me, there is a point where a fetus becomes a person and abortion becomes murder. I wouldn't say birth is the defining point of personhood either, that doesn't make sense, one hour before birth the baby is just an unformed mass? No, but I don't believe life starts at conception either. So there is a grey area between getting rid of an unformed mass, and murdering a child, from what I understand of pregnancy I would put that grey area somewhere in the second trimester. So to me, the moral thing would be to outlaw abortion after the first trimester.

Well, there he went back and drew the line again at 12 weeks to save any potential of murdering a child sometime in the second trimester. Which is still an ambiguous position.

I don't know. The 12 week mark is actually my compromise on the issue, I wouldn't be upset if abortion was banned completely, however I'm not going to push for it. The health of the mother being the exception here. If we can't save the child, not saving the mother would be equivalent to murder, IMO.

Compromise? But he wouldn't be upset if abortion was banned completely? So, elective abortions are ethical never? 12 weeks? 20 weeks? The position keeps changing rapidly.

20 Weeks. The question is why are people arguing with me? I haven't changed anything I have been saying since the beginning of the thread. It started when someone said life begins at birth and I disagreed and it took off from there.

Oh, that and because I said it isn't a womans issue. If a viable fetus is a person, than womens rights stop at the point the fetus becomes viable.

Well, glad that's cleared up now. 20 weeks, right?

There are no inconsistencies. 0 to 20 weeks = abortion. After 20 weeks = murdering children. That's why I use them interchangeably. They are two different terms that apply to two separate and distinct things. As you allude to above, there is not a distinct moment when the fetus goes from unformed mass to suddenly a person. In fact, it would be ridiculous to say that it is an unformed mass but give it 30 seconds and it will be a person. There is a development period. So,I would not be opposed to allowing abortion for medical reasons up to 20 weeks, and even after that but only in extreme life or death situations. But to keep the possible killing of unborn children to a minimum, I would restrict elective abortions to 3 months or the first trimester. Up to the 3 month mark, women can get abortions all day long for all I care, no questions asked. From 12 to 20 weeks, I would require women to get an evaluation from a doctor not performing the abortion to ascertain whether or not the woman does indeed have medical issues and an abortion is recommended (and I don't mean wanding her vagina either, a standard consultation would suffice and maybe a routine physical if required). After 20 weeks, abortion only if it will directly save the life of the mother.

I haven't been inconsistent, this is what I have been saying. It's confusing, I know, because I am not a conservative christian creationist so a lot of the stock arguments used against them don't really apply to me. It's a weird phenomenon, I don't know why, even my close liberal friends who know me and know my opinions about religion will still bring up why the bible is wrong about abortion to me, as if it will effect my argument at all.

So because of an ambiguous position on when it's possible that a fetus might be viable sometime in the second trimester, FT suggests that elective abortions can go on all day long up to the 12 week mark. But after that, he wants a second doctor not performing the abortion to decide whether the abortion is medically necessary before the woman can go in for the procedure.

All this without considering common medical ethics that clearly state when a fetus is viable between 22-24 weeks with a 50% chance of survival at around 24 weeks.

But no, it's 20 weeks is the hard red line, no excuses, no returns. It's prison time for any woman and the doctor performing the abortion if after that 20 week mark except to save the woman's life (and really, who gets to decide if a woman's life is really in danger?).

This is why I offered my research as a means of determining when exactly is a fetus viable. When it was suggested that he does not have to line his ethics up to the research, again I have to argue against ambiguity for the sake of sound ethics.

I hope this shows exactly how ambiguous the position has been throughout this exhausting thread. I don't envy him right now if he's lurking (it's difficult to have people talking about you like this). But I do argue against his points he's made that he's been consistent, clear, and in line with what is regarded as fetal viability.

And I've never brought up his political leanings or religious beliefs or lack of either.

 

[dust1n]

You missed his retraction regarding 12 weeks being the "cut off". It's there, bolded and in big letters, several times.

This is the only retraction of that sort I saw:

I can concede 22 weeks, but only for a medical reason. Really, three months is more than enough time to decide whether you want children or not. Of course there is the rare case a woman doesn't realize she is pregnant for a few months, but there is an exception to everything, we should limit the discussion to the average, healthy, reasonable person.

I was happy that I at least convinced him 20-22 weeks, whatever, whenever rape or incest or "medical necessity" (which is weird because I can't imagine a medical necessity before 20 weeks happening very often), or the "rare" exception of someone not knowing better, which also doesn't really make sense, since anybody can say they didn't know better.

He did acknowledge his error and admitted to not being able to provide the statistical data which was asked for. I don't understand what else you can expect from someone, in a debate, but, that's just my personal opinion.

You're right.

His data confirmed what we know from multiple resources - the majority of women who abort do so prior to 20 weeks gestation. It's a relatively small percentage. Like Freethinker, I cannot find specific data that explains how many out of this percentage are terminating pregnancies for medical or non-medical reasons.

The majority aren't, but that doesn't necessarily speak of other legitimate reasons. Either way, as many has pointed, it's just strange that we would focus so intently on >16,000 cases, when natural causes cause way more terminations. Literally on the order of millions.

But I don't disagree that any questionable late term abortions go unpunished (certainly not death sentence or life in prison, though).



I take ownership for the fact that I've missed posts, dust1n. And whether or not he has an opinion that these women are "bad" or not, is a non issue to me.

Honey, all abortions are elective. Only a spontaneous abortion isn't elective.

That's fair enough.

And regardless as to reasons for terminating a pregnancy (thanks for posting stats) the percentage of women who terminate pregnancy from 20 weeks onward is low.

NP. And thank goodness so. My understanding is the whole experience is much more... trying the longer one waits.

Again, I agree with him that it's reasonable to terminate a pregnancy prior to 20 weeks gestation. And stats do support that the majority of women who abort are able to successfully do this.

If that is what he actually thinks, that any abortion prior to twenty weeks is reasonable (well, not so much reasonable, but legal), then we are on all the same page.

Of course I was alluding to self-proclaimed feminists in this thread. I take ownership of that too. And I promise that I don't mean offense to individual people. I quite like the people here that I debate with.

But, I do tire of hypocrisy and excuse - in a broad sense. There are a lot of women in America that I can't relate to at all.

I knew it! I just feel bad for feminists too. Taking such title, especially if your a woman, is like... I'm not sure to say it... inviting all sorts of verbal harassment and often misinformed opinions. I don't think anyone meant to undercut you if they did, its hard to be consistently nice when people are accusing one of murder, or so fourth.


Thanks for the reply! I think you are very reasonable about the topic, and even more so, a precise writer with consistency. You speak very clearly and I appreciate that effort.

 

[dust1n]

dust1n,

I apologize that I ignored this post and appreciate that you brought it to my attention. I'm not confident that my responses will be adequate, but, I will address you honestly.

Whoops working backwards here... and thanks!

a. Freethinker and I are not on the same page in regards to viability. Per wikipedia.org (and that was suggested, via Roe. Vs. Wade), a fetus has less than a 40% chance of survival at 23 weeks. The chance of survival increases to 50-70% at weeks 24-25.

As I've stated, I am content with the current laws in Virginia, which allow for abortion through the second trimester (weeks 13-27). Second trimester abortions in Virginia must be attended by two MDs, if the fetus is suspected to be viable. These terminations must take place in a licensed hospital. Third trimester termination is not allowed, except in instances of life or health endangerment.

b. I can't accept that my 17 week old fetus wasn't concious, when she responded to my voice and loud noises. But, this is my personal opinion and drives my personal decisions.

c. This is where Freethinker and I agree and where I'm likely to disagree with a lot of you. If I didn't want a pregnancy, it would be terminated before I ventured into the second month of gestation. I do think it reasonable that women CAN both confirm and terminate pregnancy by 20 weeks. Again, my personal views do not negate my respect for Virginia law, as it currently stands.

A.) Agreement

B.) No need to dispute that or anything.

C.) I actually don't disagree with you here... I recognize that even making the decision, one of the most important decisions a woman might ever face, takes time and consideration, but I find it... basically immoral and selfish to purposefully wait until 16 or 20 weeks if one has known since, say, week 5. And I don't think such a decision would work out to the benefit to that woman anyway. But there is no real way to legislate for that.

 

[dust1n]

Oh, dawny, shoot, you were totally right. I never saw this post: I thought I must be going crazy from being in this thread too long.

20 Weeks. The question is why are people arguing with me? I haven't changed anything I have been saying since the beginning of the thread. It started when someone said life begins at birth and I disagreed and it took off from there.

Oh, that and because I said it isn't a womans issue. If a viable fetus is a person, than womens rights stop at the point the fetus becomes viable.

But I hope Mystic's post illustrates how confusing it was for all of us. He ended up going back to his position.

 

[dawny0826]

So because of an ambiguous position on when it's possible that a fetus might be viable sometime in the second trimester, FT suggests that elective abortions can go on all day long up to the 12 week mark. But after that, he wants a second doctor not performing the abortion to decide whether the abortion is medically necessary before the woman can go in for the procedure..

You may already be aware of this, but, what he's suggesting is already a reality in the United States:

Some states require the involvement of a second physician when a later-term abortion is performed.

[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings] [/FONT][/FONT]12 states require that a second physician attend the procedure to treat a fetus if it is born alive in all or some circumstances.

[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings] [/FONT][/FONT]9 states unconstitutionally require that a second physician certify that the abortion is medically necessary in all or some circumstances.

Source: State Facts About Abortion: Virginia


Disagreeing with him is one thing, but, what he's suggesting is already a reality in some states, regardless of Roe vs. Wade. Virginia requires a second physician to participate in 2nd trimester abortions where viability is suspected. However, second trimester abortions are legal throughout the duration of the trimester (13-27 weeks)

What he hasn't done is acknowledge Roe vs. Wade. That would certainly have been helpful for the purposes of this thread. But, he isn't suggesting anything new, really.

But no, it's 20 weeks is the hard red line, no excuses, no returns. It's prison time for any woman and the doctor performing the abortion if after that 20 week mark except to save the woman's life (and really, who gets to decide if a woman's life is really in danger?).

Where did he mention prison time? I'm lost on that one. I haven't found anything that suggests that mothers would be investigated and possibly tried for murder if they seek abortion services after 20+ weeks. In some states, 20 weeks is already the deadline, with or without this proposed ban.

 

[dawny0826]

Oh, dawny, shoot, you were totally right. I never saw this post: I thought I must be going crazy from being in this thread too long.

But I hope Mystic's post illustrates how confusing it was for all of us. He ended up going back to his position.

It's all good.

 

[NIX]

I wonder how many women who spontaniously aborted after the cut off date would wind up under investigation, on trial, and even convicted of murder.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You may already be aware of this, but, what he's suggesting is already a reality in the United States:


Source: State Facts About Abortion: Virginia


Disagreeing with him is one thing, but, what he's suggesting is already a reality in some states, regardless of Roe vs. Wade. Virginia requires a second physician to participate in 2nd trimester abortions where viability is suspected. However, second trimester abortions are legal throughout the duration of the trimester (13-27 weeks)

What he hasn't done is acknowledge Roe vs. Wade. That would certainly have been helpful for the purposes of this thread. But, he isn't suggesting anything new, really.

Fair enough. I disagree with the state statutes, but my argument has been trying to find clarity and not ambiguity.

Where did he mention prison time? I'm lost on that one. I haven't found anything that suggests that mothers would be investigated and possibly tried for murder if they seek abortion services after 20+ weeks. In some states, 20 weeks is already the deadline, with or without this proposed ban.

Right here, Dawny. Finally found it in this thread on page 35:

3 months for non-medical abortions is what we disagree on. I really do consider a viable fetus to be a distinct human life with every human right I would grant to any human being. And like I have said from the beginning, if there is a medical problem, every attempt should be made to save the mothers and the fetuses life, but if we can only save one I would save the mother since she has a higher chance of survival.

We probably disagree on more though. For example, I would consider the only acceptable medical condition for an abortion to be to save the mothers life or the most extreme cases like that. Also, I would consider getting a non-medical abortion after 20 weeks to literally be murder and I would send both the woman and the doctor to prison for the rest of their lives, or whatever the statute commonly says for similar crimes.

 

[dawny0826]

Right here, Dawny. Finally found it in this thread on page 35:

Okay. I absolutely missed that before.

This is his opinion. It doesn't represent fact.

 

[NIX]

I am being truthful when I tell you that such a ban would not impact the women in my life, UNLESS, the ban doesn't allow for therapeutic abortions because of fetal defect or abnormality. This is what makes me most uncomfortable about such restrictions.

Dawny, If you would equate a 24month fetus with a new born infant to the extent of murder charges (which I'm pretty sure these laws would advocate), why do you make an exception for defect or abnormality in the case of a fetus and not a newborn? Wouldn't you consider it murder to kill a new born/infant due to defects or abnormality? Or should we also be able to kill newborns, or anyone for that matter, over abnormalities and defects? All things are equal, or they're not.

What you're really saying in this, is they're not (equal).

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Okay. I absolutely missed that before.

Well, it's understandable. I didn't want to misrepresent him, and I swore that I read it, but threads with many pages are difficult to navigate from time to time.

How many women are arrested for abortions?

Do you guys remember the Gosnold case in PA? This was the physician who made mad money on performing unsafe abortions on women. Some of these babies were born alive and he severed their spinal cords.

Abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell convicted of first-degree murder - U.S. News

Law enforcement didn't go after the mothers. They went after the physicians and employees who murdered the babies.

It's the responsibility of physicians to uphold the law and medical ethics. I am not fully confident of this, but, I'm thinking that women are less likely to be prosecuted for abortions than their attending physicians.

Their attending physician has the responsibility to deny service if gestation exceeds the legal limitations.

I agree with that. There's also some legislation that attending physicians can require a second physician to assist in late term abortions to treat the newborn if it is born alive. It also reduces liability on the doctors part from my understanding. I do need to read up on that given that I would prefer the induced labor and delivery after viability.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My hypothetical scenario about forced vasectomies is just as absurd as forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy and criminalizing abortion.

Now, pray tell, what men's issues do you think would be a fair trade for women making decisions on? Let's keep it relevant and make it about what is specifically going to happen with men's bodies or parts of their bodies. I'll even throw one in just to get things started: would it be right to decide which men who are suffering from testicular cancer or prostate cancer are going to receive treatment? We could look at testicular cancer and prostate cancer as blessings from God if we want to put a theocratic spin on it just to further shame men into thinking they're not worthy of deciding what to do with their own bodies to save their health or their lives.

I'll wait patiently. opcorn:

I am actually on your side in this debate, but this sounded like a challenge, and I can't ignore a challenge, no matter how much my self-preservation instincts are telling me to run...

How this, then...?
I would be okay with an all female panel with a token male determining whether or not to introduce mandatory prostate cancer screening.
It doesn't work as much of an invasion of privacy these days, since it's just a blood test, so I'll backdate the legislation 15 years, and they can decide whether men need the old finger up the date.

That's as close as I could get.


PS. 'By backdating 15 years' I mean pretend it's 1998. Not 'hey, I'll go and get 15 fingers up the backside'...ahem...

 

[Alceste]

You may already be aware of this, but, what he's suggesting is already a reality in the United States

That's interesting information, but it is not what was suggested. (Mystic dug it up for us, bless her) He would require that the "medical necessity" of having an abortion after week twelve be established in advance by a doctor with no involvement in the abortion procedure. Otherwise, no legal, safe abortion. It didn't have anything to do with treating a fetus if it turned out to be viable during the procedure. It was simply a barrier - an obstacle - to make it very difficult for many women to obtain abortions after week 12, and impossible for most.

Where did he mention prison time? I'm lost on that one. I haven't found anything that suggests that mothers would be investigated and possibly tried for murder if they seek abortion services after 20+ weeks. In some states, 20 weeks is already the deadline, with or without this proposed ban.

He did in fact say "life in prison for both the woman and the doctor" for any procedure after 20 weeks where it was not absolutely certain that the mother would otherwise die. I haven't got Mystic's patience to dig it up for you, but would obviously involve a criminal investigation and have to be processed through a court. That implies that the 12-20 week restriction would also be a matter for criminal prosecution if his arbitrary "medical necessity" obstacle was violated, but he I acknowledge he didn't say that explicitly.

Edit: I see Mystic found it, the trooper. I missed the word "non-medical" though, and I don't have any idea what that means.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Lol, all things are equal, or they're not? Yeah, that's pretty much the two choices. And you know what the answer is? Nothing is equal. Equality exists only in an abstract sense. I treat you equal. 1 equals 1. It doesn't exist in real life though...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Trent Franks: 'The Incidence Of Rape Resulting In Pregnancy Are Very Low'

WOW...!!!! He went all "Todd Aiken"....

I heard that 19 Republican "men" and one Democrat (man) voted for this bill and for it to proceed to the House......