Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
July 4, 2017 at 10:48 pm (This post was last modified: July 4, 2017 at 11:21 pm by Losty.)
(July 4, 2017 at 10:06 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:
(July 4, 2017 at 8:59 pm)DogmaticDownSouth Wrote:
@ Everyone – I have at no point in THIS argument commented on the morality or permissibility of abortion. If you think I have then I suggest you re-read the argument I have made on post #1. The multitude of statements that generally boil down to “I think abortion is moral because of any reason” simply do not apply to my argument. Again, if you truly wish to engage in a conversation then I think it prudent to know what we are talking about. I have yet to see a single critique of my fundamental argument, which is unfortunate, but I suppose a tacit acceptance that the rational must be sound. Again if the rational is not sound, then I still await an on point rebuttal of my treatise. All I see are criticisms either unrelated to my proposal (ie the overall morality of abotion, which again I do not address!!!!) or a few concerns about potential concerns about financial repercussions of my proposal that I will address below. I have yet to see a direct critique of the proposal itself.
I
will summarize it again as succinctly as possible.
IF the moral rational for abortion is the concept of bodily autonomy THEN
EITHER bodily autonomy is absolute and it is therefore moral to terminate a term infant immediately prior to delivery (complete bodily autonomy of the mother) and therefore morally consistent legislation should support this right at all times → this is the necessarily conclusion to the absolute bodily autonomy argument as far as I can see, if you have a logical rational for why it is not then please let me know.
OR bodily autonomy is NOT absolute.
If you suscribe to the former then I personally find your moral compass lacking and would like to have an independent conversation on how you came to your conclusion on a seperate thread or as PM. If you subscribe to the later then bodily autonomy is NOT absolute and I would propose that a more morally consistent position would be allowance of termination of the pregnancy (bodily autonomy of the mother to not continue a pregnancy) while respecting the bodily autonomy of the growing human organism by delivering the fetus and attempting resuscitation and salvage.
Decision to destroy the fetus should not be given to the mother as she has demonstrated a conflict of interest definitionally by electing to terminate the pregnancy. Independent adjudication on behalf of the fetus may determine that termination is indeed the most moral decision (eg in situations of terminal congenital conditions), but again that decision must be made independent of the incubation vessel who wishes to terminate the pregnancy.
That is as clear as I can make it. I would ask that you engage the topic I have proposed rather than the one you want. Everyone seems to have the right to create their own threads and if you want to discuss why abortion is moral because there are less starving children in Antarctica or whatever then please start that thread and if interested in that topic I will engage you there.
There seem to many of you that do not ascribe to the supposition that a fetus is a right bearer, as such the bodily autonomy argument may not be your rational for abortion. I have created 2 separate threads to engage in these SEPERATE questions – what moral justification besides bodily autonomy do you use to support the position that abortion is moral? I will engage on those questions there. What is required for a human organism to be considered a rights bearer? I will engage those questions there.
Thanks…
Now specific critiques
@Tizheruk – not sure I understand the statement, maybe a typo that is confusing me. Please repost or contact me and would like to address further so I can understand your position.
@ Losty – You haven’t read my post nor addressed my argument. Read above and try again. Comment#2 – was at ignoramus not me but the term you are looking for is hypothetical. All situations are hypothetical until they occur. Laws address the hypothetical situations that may arise in the future.
I personally don’t think the motivation for terminating the pregnancy is salient to it’s permissibility. After all Sandra Yates believed in good faith that drowning her children would allow them to enter heavan and she was willing to sacrifice her own soul to hell and in her rational she was committing the greatest sacrifice, does her motivation absolve her of her culpability?
@ Tazzycorn – You either ignored or didn’t read my post where I specifically posted I AM NOT HERE TO DICTATE MY VIEWS BUT TO PROPOSE A MORAL ARGUMENT that may CONVINCE you.
@ignoramus – I like the quote about what side of the mother’s skin is the baby on. Good imagery. Question is reasonably on point. Essentially the mother is performing a self abortion (method not withstanding) immediately prior to delivery. That was essentially my question as well. I'm not sure I believe motivation shuold have much to do with it. If she has the infant's best interests in mind then independent adjudication should support the decision as well.
@mh brwer – My point is that the question of financial responsibility is a DIFFERENT question from the question of bodily autonomy. I would argue that your thought process that it is better for a human right bearer to be destroyed then live a life of potential poverty or reduced emotional support necessarily leads to the question why not destroy any human right bearer that could potentially be in these situations? What is the moral distinction unless you don’t feel the fetus is a right bearer then see my seperate thread above and we can discuss that SEPERATE topic. However if you agree that a fetus is a human right bearer then there is no logical or moral distinction.
Not sure why you think I didn’t go into practice. What do you practice? I’m a cardiologist so I will freely admit I have NO IDEA about advances in neonatology or pediatric critical care medicine, why should I? Do you keep up with the latest staining techniques in pathology and the current processing algorithms for 3 tesla MRI machines? I don’t and it has nothing to do with my clinical practice.
What percentage of abortions is irrelevant to the moral argument itself. You do realize that murder accounts for approximately 0.7% of all deaths in America, should we not have laws or moral arguments about that as well?
How do you know when a fetus is viable. Have you independently developed a fetal viability test? Great vailidate it and publish the results and that would be GREAT tool to help this discussion., Otherwise , if you clinical practice medicine as you also claim then you would know that there are very few absolutes. I can scarcely recall a time when I have told a family that their loved one will certainly not survive unless I have hard evidence that they already havent (ie brain death) and am withholding further care. I have certainly told countless families that the situation is grim or dire and the likelihood of meaning recovery is slight and further resuscitation would most likely be futile. That is subtle to important distinction admitting that our knowledge is not absolute. That is my point with the fetus. We do not definatively know that the fetus is not viable unless we attempt salvage and it proves for itself that it cannot survive. Current laws allows for the termination of 20 week gestation infants where data clearly supports a >0% survival.
The way you change societal morality to convince people what they once thought may not be correct, this is no different than any other change in societal morality from inter-racial policies to homosexuality to woman’s sufferrage. I agree with you in the sense that if I want to change societal morality then I should band with others, but I disagree with the term force. Again I have expressedly stated my goal is to either have you convince me my argument is not sound (still waiting) or CONVINCE you to reconsider your moral position. NEITHER ONE is forcing anything. So you seem to be making a straw-man attack.
My point about destroy a viable fetus is not what the law IS but rather what is the logical conclusion of the bodily autonomy argument dictates the law SHOULD BE. If you don’t ascribe to that conclusion then you necessarily don’t believe that bodily autonomy is absolute. I would hope a doctor could keep up. Maybe corn fed doctors can't? Shouldn't joke, the cold weather may freeze your brain. Lot's of friends and some family have been through Creighton medical school and residency/fellowships.
@Mister Agenda – See my point above. This conversation has NOTHING to do with withholding abortions from anyone. Period. If you disagree please point to a single part of the argument that I have made that advocates for withholding abortions. I specifically state that abortions are to be performed but that the more morally consistent position is to either accept that bodily autonomy is not abosolute and consider a procedure that terminates the pregnancy without destroying the fetus OR that bodily autonomy IS absolute and the termination of a viable term infant is therefor moral.
@minimalis assuming you are joking or a psychopath.
You brought up medical school, now cardiologist. Why didn't you bring up cardiologist originally? Let me guess, hoping I/we would buy the lie and let you skate. Again, put up or shut up. What school, when graduate, last name, state licensed in. Otherwise it's all bullshit. I keep up with enough neonatology to know the advances you wish were available are not. You claim "not my field so I'm allowed ignorance". You claim to be medical but can't make an informed medical argument. Still calling bullshit.
And you are talking about abortion, don't try to side step. Where are you getting these 20+ weekers that you/state need to make a choice for if not from abortion? So,.... you want to change abortion.
How do you know when a fetus is viable? Have you developed a test? Hold the phone, a cardiologist who knows nothing about neonatology but knows brain death and has the family in the room when performing resuscitation? Yeah Ethyl, let me clear out all the other nurses and techs and tell you why we're stopping. Pretty dense for a cardiologist. Wait, I know, you're going to say you used the wrong word. I don't think you went into practice based on the ignorance you are demonstrating. I don't even think you went to medical school, maybe didn't graduate high school.
Fetal viability knowledge comes from attempts to keep alive premature births.
It's not about body autonomy but who has human rights and when. You want to give a nonviable fetus a human right. Great, you and your supporters contact the court. When you put forward a change to the law then come back. Until then you're wasting time.
Why should an independent person, or the state, be given the choice of what fetus is salvaged and who does and does not get to decide continuation of life more than the parent? The life you are describing is not sustainable without heroic medicine, lots and lots of it. You want that spent (time, resources, and money) on one life rather than thousands of non fetal lives that could be saved.
Lets say a pregnant woman comes in and for some reason you/state don't think she will be a good mother. Lets say she went into premature labor because of diet and yet the child is viable. Do you take the child away? Do you sterilize her because you/state know better about her body and abilities than her? Where the hell do you draw the line in the nightmare you'd like to set up?
And an extension of your position does bring up finances, quality of life and available of care. You address none of that. You sir, are amoral.
I've heard this same argument here before. Did you have a prior account here?
Alright dipshit, it;s on.. If you want to make personal attacks let's go....
I said medical school becuase THAT'S WHERE I INTERACATED WITH THAT PATIENT are you that fucking dumb? do you NOT know how to become a cardiologist. For someone who claims to be graduate of the class of 1983 University of Nebraska Medical Center -> looked at their site and found the class, NO ONE with your name.. I would ASSUME you know you go to medical school FIRST, then you do residency (3 years internal medicine) and THEN you do fellowship (3 years of general cardiology). If you don't then your a fucking liar about being in the medical profession.
What is yoiur so called field? As an ADULT CARDIOLOGIST I DON"t READ A FUCKING THING ABOUT NEONATOLOGY. I don't have any fucking overlap in my field. I have enough to keep up with general cardiology, echocariography, nuclear medicine, and congestive heart failure as well as arrythmia, primary prevention, and device therapy. I don't fucking care about advances in pediatric (except when they pertain to my kids) OB GYN, psychiatry, surgery, pathology, radiology, hell even medicine subspecilities unless the OVERLAP with what I am doing. I have enouugh to read and keep up with. PERIOD. IF you were practicing you would know that too, so I definately call bullshit.
I'm talking about abortion BECAUSE IT INTERESTS ME, I have a position and would like to know if that position is logically sound, AS I STATED ON THE ONSET. Who knows my motive better - you or me? Name on piece of evidence that I have stated that I am INSENSERE in my questions.
What do you mean WRONG WORD? CARDIOLOGIST IS THE MY TITLE DUMBASS, Even a basic layman knows that you are so fukcing stupid I think you make shit up just to sound dumb, because I find it hard to believe someone with > 3 neurons could be so dumb.
Brain death is a medical term, I rely on my neurology collegues to tell me they feel that they are brain dead and if so THEN when I talk to the family I will tell them that further care is futile, and ONLY IN THAT SITUATION do I use ABSOLUTE terms, I was VERY clear about that. I never stated I made the diagnosis of brain death, only after the diagnosis has been made. I never said the family was in the room while performing resucitiont. I SPEAK WITH FAMILIES ALL THE FUCKING TIME. I talk about CODE status when the patient ISN'T FUCKING CODING DUMB ASS. If a patient presents late after a prolonged VF arrest and how has a pulse but no neurological function, I ask my neurologiy collegues to se them and if they determine that the patient no longer has evenal stem functions then I talk witht he family and state that revascularization is futile. If they are 90 years old and have an EF<10% and come in in HF, then I talk with the family about considering DNR because IF they arrest then the chance of meaningful recovery is very low based on previous experience, I DON'T JUST FUCKING WITHOLD CARE. ANY ONE WITH EVEN 1 DAY of CLINICAL EXPERIENCE WOULD KNIW THESE THINGS THERE I CALL BULLSHIT ON YOU you postering bogus, piece of smelly anal drippings.
I don't share my personal credentials because my credentials DONT MATTER TO MY MORAL ARGUMENT> MY arguemtent stands or falls wehter I'm a cardiologist, neonatologist, pulmonologist, janitor, drug dealer, line cook, or politician.
You don't seem to know the definition of a CONVERSATION. As I STATED on the onset, I'm here to DISCUSS, not Dictate, so why do you keep going back to go to the court and force your opinoin.
Not a single one of your attacks has been AT THE ARGUMENT I HAVE PROPOSED. I can only suppose you are either TOO stupid to understand it or unable to critique it. May be you are a surgeon then.
There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable.[1] According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[4] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive.[1] A baby's chances for survival increases 3-4% per day between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and about 2-3% per day between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation.
Our society has dictated that we al lhave a right to procreate, even though I agree some do a better job then others. I have not proposed a metric to test if a person is fit to be a parent, so why are you arguing that I have. I have not proposed a metric to state a person needs a certain income to be a parent, why are proposing that I have?
Can you address on STEP of the argument that I proposed? I have yet to hear anything other than you don't like the conclusion, address the argument dumbass.
I may have posted here before, don't remember, if I did ti was a while ago. I have more important things in my life ,but occasisinally when I have some down time I do like to engage in these discussions to help with my own growth. I've posted on a few forums in the past, this may or may not be one, honestly don'r remember. I NEVER CLAIMED I HADN'T THOUGH. is there are rule against posting here?
You lack intellectual honestly and much of your statements make me believe that you lack honesty in general.
Moderator Notice Quote fixed. Please be careful not to put your response in a quote of someone else. Thank you
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
July 4, 2017 at 11:19 pm (This post was last modified: July 4, 2017 at 11:21 pm by DogmaticDownSouth.)
(July 4, 2017 at 10:53 pm)Lutrinae Wrote: A woman's body, a woman's choice.
That is about as invested as I will get in this subject.
Not related to anything I said Why are you here?
(July 4, 2017 at 10:53 pm)Losty Wrote:
(July 4, 2017 at 8:59 pm)DogmaticDownSouth Wrote: @ Losty – 1)You haven’t read my post nor addressed my argument. 2)Read above and try again.
1) correct
2) no
**quote slightly altered by me
Then why are you commenting?
Do think iit is intellectually honest to critize an argument you havent read? how about a movie you havn't seen or a song you haven't heard?
You can do what you want, but I will call you out on intellectual dishonesty.
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
July 4, 2017 at 11:28 pm
(July 4, 2017 at 11:19 pm)DogmaticDownSouth Wrote:
(July 4, 2017 at 10:53 pm)Losty Wrote: 1) correct
2) no
**quote slightly altered by me
Then why are you commenting?
Do think iit is intellectually honest to critize an argument you havent read? how about a movie you havn't seen or a song you haven't heard?
You can do what you want, but I will call you out on intellectual dishonesty.
I commented because I had an opinion at least vaguely related to the thread topic and I felt like sharing, a right I have as a member of this forum.
Do you think it's honest of you to accuse me of criticizing your argument when we both know damn well that I never even addressed your argument?
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay
0/10
Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
July 4, 2017 at 11:56 pm
(July 4, 2017 at 11:28 pm)Losty Wrote:
(July 4, 2017 at 11:19 pm)DogmaticDownSouth Wrote: Then why are you commenting?
Do think iit is intellectually honest to critize an argument you havent read? how about a movie you havn't seen or a song you haven't heard?
You can do what you want, but I will call you out on intellectual dishonesty.
I commented because I had an opinion at least vaguely related to the thread topic and I felt like sharing, a right I have as a member of this forum.
Do you think it's honest of you to accuse me of criticizing your argument when we both know damn well that I never even addressed your argument?
True, you freely admitted you didn't read my arguement.
I nevere said you didn't have a right to coment, if you actually read my posts you would see that I have repeatedly ASKED people (and clearly stated that I cannot order) to comment on what I said
If not intellectually honest then certainly offensive. If you were in an live conversation and some stated I haven't listened to what you said but I think your asking the wrong questions then do you think that it's intellectually dishonest and offenssive? that was your exact quote by the way - I think your asking the wrong question -> If you haven't read my thread then how do you know what question I'm asking?
I did see that you support a woman having the right to abort a fetus at anytime for anyreason, so I must assume that you (we EACH have our own moral compass, a woman may choose to abort a fetus even if she feels it morally wrong) feel that this action is morally permissible? My question was to each of you, which way does YOUR moral compass point?
And where could that needle lead.
As I have stated repeately if you believe that it is morally permissible to abort a viable fetus mere moments from delivery for any reason (no matter if this happens all the time, rarely, or not at all) then you are logically consistent. If you don't then you should acknowlege that bodily autonomy is not absolute. If you have read my acutal posts this is the question I was asking.
Again if you have no problem with that scenerio then you are logically and morally consistent. I would morally disagree with you, but that is my right and yours. There is no arbitrator of morality, only action (the law).
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
July 5, 2017 at 12:06 am
(July 4, 2017 at 10:48 pm)DogmaticDownSouth Wrote:
(July 4, 2017 at 10:06 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: You brought up medical school, now cardiologist. Why didn't you bring up cardiologist originally? Let me guess, hoping I/we would buy the lie and let you skate. Again, put up or shut up. What school, when graduate, last name, state licensed in. Otherwise it's all bullshit. I keep up with enough neonatology to know the advances you wish were available are not. You claim "not my field so I'm allowed ignorance". You claim to be medical but can't make an informed medical argument. Still calling bullshit.
And you are talking about abortion, don't try to side step. Where are you getting these 20+ weekers that you/state need to make a choice for if not from abortion? So,.... you want to change abortion.
How do you know when a fetus is viable? Have you developed a test? Hold the phone, a cardiologist who knows nothing about neonatology but knows brain death and has the family in the room when performing resuscitation? Yeah Ethyl, let me clear out all the other nurses and techs and tell you why we're stopping. Pretty dense for a cardiologist. Wait, I know, you're going to say you used the wrong word. I don't think you went into practice based on the ignorance you are demonstrating. I don't even think you went to medical school, maybe didn't graduate high school.
Fetal viability knowledge comes from attempts to keep alive premature births.
It's not about body autonomy but who has human rights and when. You want to give a nonviable fetus a human right. Great, you and your supporters contact the court. When you put forward a change to the law then come back. Until then you're wasting time.
Why should an independent person, or the state, be given the choice of what fetus is salvaged and who does and does not get to decide continuation of life more than the parent? The life you are describing is not sustainable without heroic medicine, lots and lots of it. You want that spent (time, resources, and money) on one life rather than thousands of non fetal lives that could be saved.
Lets say a pregnant woman comes in and for some reason you/state don't think she will be a good mother. Lets say she went into premature labor because of diet and yet the child is viable. Do you take the child away? Do you sterilize her because you/state know better about her body and abilities than her? Where the hell do you draw the line in the nightmare you'd like to set up?
And an extension of your position does bring up finances, quality of life and available of care. You address none of that. You sir, are amoral.
I've heard this same argument here before. Did you have a prior account here?
Alright dipshit, it;s on.. If you want to make personal attacks let's go....
I said medical school becuase THAT'S WHERE I INTERACATED WITH THAT PATIENT are you that fucking dumb? do you NOT know how to become a cardiologist. For someone who claims to be graduate of the class of 1983 University of Nebraska Medical Center -> looked at their site and found the class, NO ONE with your name.. I would ASSUME you know you go to medical school FIRST, then you do residency (3 years internal medicine) and THEN you do fellowship (3 years of general cardiology). If you don't then your a fucking liar about being in the medical profession.
What is yoiur so called field? As an ADULT CARDIOLOGIST I DON"t READ A FUCKING THING ABOUT NEONATOLOGY. I don't have any fucking overlap in my field. I have enough to keep up with general cardiology, echocariography, nuclear medicine, and congestive heart failure as well as arrythmia, primary prevention, and device therapy. I don't fucking care about advances in pediatric (except when they pertain to my kids) OB GYN, psychiatry, surgery, pathology, radiology, hell even medicine subspecilities unless the OVERLAP with what I am doing. I have enouugh to read and keep up with. PERIOD. IF you were practicing you would know that too, so I definately call bullshit.
I'm talking about abortion BECAUSE IT INTERESTS ME, I have a position and would like to know if that position is logically sound, AS I STATED ON THE ONSET. Who knows my motive better - you or me? Name on piece of evidence that I have stated that I am INSENSERE in my questions.
What do you mean WRONG WORD? CARDIOLOGIST IS THE MY TITLE DUMBASS, Even a basic layman knows that you are so fukcing stupid I think you make shit up just to sound dumb, because I find it hard to believe someone with > 3 neurons could be so dumb.
Brain death is a medical term, I rely on my neurology collegues to tell me they feel that they are brain dead and if so THEN when I talk to the family I will tell them that further care is futile, and ONLY IN THAT SITUATION do I use ABSOLUTE terms, I was VERY clear about that. I never stated I made the diagnosis of brain death, only after the diagnosis has been made. I never said the family was in the room while performing resucitiont. I SPEAK WITH FAMILIES ALL THE FUCKING TIME. I talk about CODE status when the patient ISN'T FUCKING CODING DUMB ASS. If a patient presents late after a prolonged VF arrest and how has a pulse but no neurological function, I ask my neurologiy collegues to se them and if they determine that the patient no longer has evenal stem functions then I talk witht he family and state that revascularization is futile. If they are 90 years old and have an EF<10% and come in in HF, then I talk with the family about considering DNR because IF they arrest then the chance of meaningful recovery is very low based on previous experience, I DON'T JUST FUCKING WITHOLD CARE. ANY ONE WITH EVEN 1 DAY of CLINICAL EXPERIENCE WOULD KNIW THESE THINGS THERE I CALL BULLSHIT ON YOU you postering bogus, piece of smelly anal drippings.
I don't share my personal credentials because my credentials DONT MATTER TO MY MORAL ARGUMENT> MY arguemtent stands or falls wehter I'm a cardiologist, neonatologist, pulmonologist, janitor, drug dealer, line cook, or politician.
You don't seem to know the definition of a CONVERSATION. As I STATED on the onset, I'm here to DISCUSS, not Dictate, so why do you keep going back to go to the court and force your opinoin.
Not a single one of your attacks has been AT THE ARGUMENT I HAVE PROPOSED. I can only suppose you are either TOO stupid to understand it or unable to critique it. May be you are a surgeon then.
There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable.[1] According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[4] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive.[1] A baby's chances for survival increases 3-4% per day between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and about 2-3% per day between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation.
Our society has dictated that we al lhave a right to procreate, even though I agree some do a better job then others. I have not proposed a metric to test if a person is fit to be a parent, so why are you arguing that I have. I have not proposed a metric to state a person needs a certain income to be a parent, why are proposing that I have?
Can you address on STEP of the argument that I proposed? I have yet to hear anything other than you don't like the conclusion, address the argument dumbass.
I may have posted here before, don't remember, if I did ti was a while ago. I have more important things in my life ,but occasisinally when I have some down time I do like to engage in these discussions to help with my own growth. I've posted on a few forums in the past, this may or may not be one, honestly don'r remember. I NEVER CLAIMED I HADN'T THOUGH. is there are rule against posting here?
You lack intellectual honestly and much of your statements make me believe that you lack honesty in general.
Moderator Notice Quote fixed. Please be careful not to put your response in a quote of someone else. Thank you
I do!
*Puts hand up*
Me! Choose me!!
Though, technically, I'm a cardio-thoracic surgeon with a minor specialty in emergency medicine.