michael^3 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:She is dead. Healthcare is for living people. We do not publicly fund the healthcare system so they can spend money to treat dead people to ensure the survival of a non-person because the father wants it. The fetus was not a person yet immense resources were pumped into allowing it to be born. It's completely unjust that a dead person recieved medical care at the cost of living people who actually would have benefitted from it.

The baby is only alive because we as a province paid for a dead person to recieve medical care, denying living people who could have benefitted from it, to keep a non-viable fetus alive for the sake of the father's emotions. It is utterly unjust to society as well as setting a terrifying precedent that a) non-viable fetuses are to be treated as people ie: ensuring their survival and b) dead women's bodies are to be utilised for the reproductive wishes of others.

I pay taxes to provide people with medical care, not corpses and I certainly don't pay taxes to gestate non-viable fetuses at the behest of the father. He should have been required to pay those bills, not me. Fetuses aren't entitled to medical care because they aren't people. Neither are dead bodies. He demanded a dead body recieve medical care fore the sake of the non-viable fetus inside it and we paid for it.

And now we're spending fuck knows what a day to keep the baby alive in an ICU because the father insisted on using his dead wife's body to incubate it to the point it could be born alive and we will continue paying it's healthcare costs, which will be immense, for the entirety of it's life because it gave someone the warm fuzzies to permit a father to utilise his dead wife's body for his own purposes on the province's dime. And don't forget that extra day we kept the woman's dead body on life support! We paid for that too and it wasn't to benefit this fetus. It sure wasn't to benefit the dead woman. It was exclusively so she wouldn't "die" on the day the baby was born. We paid for a day of life support to spare feelings. WTF?

If you ever run into that boy I hope you're gonna be a bit nicer to him than you're being now.

Rumraket wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

The right to abort is something the family inherits when the mother dies?

Not using a dead woman as an incubator =/= abortion, FYI.

Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

Why's the fetus so damn important to you that you want to legislate what other people can or cannot do with their bodies?

Rumraket wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:We could cut abortions by 90% tomorrow with universal sex ed and access to birth control, but the anti-choicers won't support that because it fails to achieve their primary goal of turning women into public property.

Also a point which is consistently ignored by the wombfetishists.

NineOneFour wrote:

Tacticus wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:
Your definition of "human being" excludes identical twins. That's an idiosyncratic definition that probably no one else in the world subscribes to.

If you want to "move past" that issue, you should start referring to the fetus as a "fetus", like everyone else does.

You are wrong. Identical twins still have DNA unique from every other person and most importantly different from the parents. Therefore it cannot be said that at any stage of development whatever after the formation of the zygote that either twin is not a human being distinct from its parents. Since the pro-abortion argument depends on de-humanizing the fetus by claiming that it is not an independent living organism but is tissue of the mother and nothing more, it's no wonder that you are niggling so much. It's very common for pro-abortion advocates to staunchly resist the very idea that a fetus is a human being because if they admit this obvious scientific truth their entire excusing of abortion is revealed as the bullheaded hypocrisy that it actually is. A "fetus" is a description of a stage of development of the organism, it is not a species identification label. It's a human fetus, which by definition means it's a human being at a particular stage of development. The same applies to all of the other labels for the various stages of development of the human being in utero subsequent to the formation of the zygote. There is simply no scientific dissent on this biological fact.

As I said, we can rationally discuss when a fetus might be entitled to human rights protections during its development as a matter of political and social policy, but there simply is no debate to be had about the biological nature of the organism living inside the woman after the formation of the zygote. To deny its nature as a human being is pedantic irrationality and denialism and absolutely nothing else.

So, how about sperm?

NineOneFour wrote:

Tacticus wrote:

Once the mother has died, she has no rights and the ethical and moral duty of the physician is to "do no harm" to another living human being that may be inside the corpse.

Uh, no, the dead still have rights. You cannot toss a corpse into a trash dumpster, for example.

NineOneFour wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

michael^3 wrote:If the woman did not abort before she "died" we have to assume she wanted to carry the pregnancy to terms. To respect her wishes the doctors should make a reasonable attempt to save the baby.

The situation is obviously different when she is being given an invasive medical treatment in order for the pregnancy to continue. Consent is needed for that.

Consent is meaningless for a dead person.

Really? Then organ donation should not be voluntary.

If she's had the foresight to make her wishes known in advance, then there's no further decision to be made.

What is this? Lack-of-foresight shaming?

Why not? That's what you want to punish women for.

NineOneFour wrote:

Tacticus wrote:
It's both excessive and absurd and logically and rationally ridiculous. Why? Because there is an obvious distinction between natural processes that occur which end up killing the fetus and a deliberate choice to engage in a medical procedure to terminate the fetus.

Nice try, but wrong.

If the fetus is an actual child, then my point above stands. If it is not, then what the mother chooses to do with it is not your concern. A living being does not stop being a living being because of how its life is ended. You cannot logically classify fertilized eggs as human beings ONLY if they get terminated by a medical procedure. They either are or they aren't.

It's just magical thinking on your part.

Game, set, match.

Deal with it.

scott1328 wrote:It is a common tactic of trolls and others to try to win arguments by threatening others with moderator action. You do this a LOT. It is enough to report a post you think is in violation.

In any case, your position is by definition "slut shaming" since the term was coined specifically to describe what you and m3 are doing.

Tacticus wrote:Take away the fallacious and scientifically preposterous claim that a fetus is not a human being and the entire pro-abortion house of cards collapses immediately.

Tacticus wrote:Your continued personal references that accuse members of wanting to "punish" or "slut shame" women are clearly trolling behavior and I would like the Moderators to examine this ongoing inflammatory and deliberately provocative behavior.

NineOneFour wrote:

purplerat wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

purplerat wrote:
As I pointed out to Michael, not using a dead woman's corpse as an incubator is not the same as abortion. So it's not a matter of transferring the right to an abortion from one person to another.

The decision to switch off the life support is still a decision to kill it.

So then by that logic every DNR = a hit job.

Yup.

Tacticus wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Tacticus wrote:
It's both excessive and absurd and logically and rationally ridiculous. Why? Because there is an obvious distinction between natural processes that occur which end up killing the fetus and a deliberate choice to engage in a medical procedure to terminate the fetus.

Nice try, but wrong.

If the fetus is an actual child, then my point above stands. If it is not, then what the mother chooses to do with it is not your concern. A living being does not stop being a living being because of how its life is ended. You cannot logically classify fertilized eggs as human beings ONLY if they get terminated by a medical procedure. They either are or they aren't.

It's just magical thinking on your part.

Game, set, match.

Deal with it.

The illogic you continue to propound frankly astonishes me. A living being is a living being is a living being. The only issue under examination between a natural death of a fetus through miscarriage or other natal anomaly and a voluntary at-will abortion is the mens rea of the individuals who consent to and perform the abortion.

We do not prosecute cancer patients for attempted murder because their cancer is trying to kill them. That's absurd.

Of course the blastocyst takes its chances against the natural biological obstacles it faces from formation to birth and beyond, clear to death. We are not discussing naturally-occurring biological issues that might result in a failure to implant or a later miscarriage any more than we are discussing fatal fetal abnormalities making the mother culpable in the criminal or ethical sense. We are discussing one or more persons making a conscious, premeditated decision to end the life of the fetus. Mens rea.

There is no mens rea inherent in a failure to implant, so your argument is beyond ridiculous.

NineOneFour wrote:Ok anti-choicers, let's take that idea to the next logical conclusion (yes, I know that logic and anti-choicerism are mutually exclusive, but work with me here). That means that every fertilized egg is the legal equivalent of a human being. Since fertilized eggs frequently do not implant in the uterine lining and are flushed with the menses (it's estimated that up to 70% of fertilized eggs fail to implant), and we do not have a reliable way to test the menses for the presence of a fertilized egg, ALL menstruation of sexually active women should be treated like a dead person's corpse. Used tampons and pads, the contents of menstrual cups, and the underwear and pants of those women who had a bit of an "accident" must be handled and disposed of in the same way a human body is. Further, every sexually active menstruating woman needs to contact the police after every period to inform them of the death of a human. Man, that's totally going to play havoc with our infant mortality and life expectancy rates. Can you imagine? We'd have an infant mortality rate of well over 50% and our average life expectancy would drop to somewhere around 12.

Of course, if all of that seems excessive and absurd, then maybe you do actually understand the difference between a fetus and a human being after all.

virphen wrote:Was the FUA amended so everyone has to pretend to take everyone else at their word when I wasn't looking?

Tacticus wrote:Take away the fallacious and scientifically preposterous claim that a fetus is not a human being and the entire pro-abortion house of cards collapses immediately.

purplerat wrote:

Tacticus wrote:
Once the mother has died, she has no rights and the ethical and moral duty of the physician is to "do no harm" to another living human being that may be inside the corpse.

The physician is not doing harm be letting the fetus die as it normally would inside the body of a dead woman.

We don't even need to get into personhood to see where the medical ethics are on this. Even a fully indisputable human person can be allowed to perish without any ethical issues if they cannot survive on their own without life support. This even applies to newborns (full term and premature) who lack the capabilities to survive on their own without life support. So now you are demanding that fetuses be given rights that even surpass that of actual people.

Tacticus wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

purplerat wrote:
Not using a dead woman as an incubator =/= abortion, FYI.

Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

Why's the fetus so damn important to you that you want to legislate what other people can or cannot do with their bodies?

Many people feel that a fetus is a living human being that is deserving of respect for its human rights. Some feel this occurs at fertilization, some at some other point in development. Using this perfectly rational assumption, when a woman carrying a fetus chooses an abortion she is making a life or death decision for the fetus without any regard for the rights of the fetus (if such exist). For the same reason that we don't allow a mother to drive a car full of her children into the ocean and drown everyone, many people believe that abortion is immoral and unethical because it is not just the woman deciding what to do with her body, it's the woman deciding what to do with a living human being that happens to be inside of her.

The anti-abortion position, like it or not, is founded in both science and long-standing social policy. We are all free to disagree with the social policy aspect of this debate, but not the science. It's increasingly clear however that the participants here in favor of at-will abortion must flatly deny the unassailable medical and scientific truths about a human fetus in order for their moral and ethical arguments, such as they are, to survive even the most cursory challenge.

Take away the fallacious and scientifically preposterous claim that a fetus is not a human being and the entire pro-abortion house of cards collapses immediately.

This is why so much time and histrionics are spent raving against scientific fact by pro-abortionists, for they have no rational argument if the fetus is recognized as a living human being, which is what both medicine and science acknowledge as fact.

Tacticus wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:We could cut abortions by 90% tomorrow with universal sex ed and access to birth control, but the anti-choicers won't support that because it fails to achieve their primary goal of turning women into public property.

Also a point which is consistently ignored by the wombfetishists.

It's ignored because it's utterly untrue.

Tacticus wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Tacticus wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:
Your definition of "human being" excludes identical twins. That's an idiosyncratic definition that probably no one else in the world subscribes to.

If you want to "move past" that issue, you should start referring to the fetus as a "fetus", like everyone else does.

You are wrong. Identical twins still have DNA unique from every other person and most importantly different from the parents. Therefore it cannot be said that at any stage of development whatever after the formation of the zygote that either twin is not a human being distinct from its parents. Since the pro-abortion argument depends on de-humanizing the fetus by claiming that it is not an independent living organism but is tissue of the mother and nothing more, it's no wonder that you are niggling so much. It's very common for pro-abortion advocates to staunchly resist the very idea that a fetus is a human being because if they admit this obvious scientific truth their entire excusing of abortion is revealed as the bullheaded hypocrisy that it actually is. A "fetus" is a description of a stage of development of the organism, it is not a species identification label. It's a human fetus, which by definition means it's a human being at a particular stage of development. The same applies to all of the other labels for the various stages of development of the human being in utero subsequent to the formation of the zygote. There is simply no scientific dissent on this biological fact.

As I said, we can rationally discuss when a fetus might be entitled to human rights protections during its development as a matter of political and social policy, but there simply is no debate to be had about the biological nature of the organism living inside the woman after the formation of the zygote. To deny its nature as a human being is pedantic irrationality and denialism and absolutely nothing else.

So, how about sperm?

How about them? They are tissue of the male right up until the chromosome package within them combines with the maternal chromosomes and aligns along the spindle apparatus, at which point the zygote, the first cell of the new living human being, comes into being.

Your sort of desperate niggling is evidence of the weakness of your argument. You cannot squarely face the true issue here, which is a social and political matter, not a matter of science or medicine, because if you admit it's a matter for social and political democratic determination, you lose the supposed ethical imperative implicit in the fallacious argument that the fetus is tissue of the mother's body until it leaves her body and therefore may be disposed of just as any other tissue of hers may be.

Once the debate becomes political and social, you stand to lose the supposed moral high ground you like to occupy in arguing for sovereignty of the female body. The increasingly desperate tone of your posts demonstrate how weak your argument actually is.