namatad: Need_MindBleach: Ah, and here's the moral grey area. An infant is obviously a person. A zygote is obviously not a person. (unless you're insane) Where does the personhood start?

well and all the abortion laws try to dance around and find this point.
is a sperm or egg a person? no
is a 3 month old a person? sort of - lol
is a 39 week fetus? yes
is a one week blastocyst ? fark no (refused to look and see what label was correct for one)

somewhere in the middle the line gets crossed. EVERYONE who is pro-choice agrees with this. (except the batshiat crazy ones ...)

Some people think only in absolutes and simply cannot imagine a moral conundrum or grey area. The idea that something may be morally murky and unknowable scares them.

RedVentrue: What you want is freedom to kill that other body, right?

No. I'm a dude. Women already have that right.

the_vegetarian_cannibal: RedVentrue: Need_MindBleach: RedVentrue: starsrift: RedVentrue: When you are pregnant, there is another body in there too. What you want is freedom to kill that other body, right?



Ah, and here's the moral grey area. An infant is obviously a person. A zygote is obviously not a person. (unless you're insane) Where does the personhood start?

If you have the genes of a human and are alive, you are a human.
But how do you define "alive?"
...aaaaand we're back to square one.


"You're not a human until you're in my phone book*." -- Bill Hicks

*Facebook, updated for 2012

ryant123: An awful lot of headlines lately have been euphemisms for the phrase "Republicans are moral criminals."

Well...... they are. Or at least a good majority of them are acting like they are, and the ones that aren't are doing nothing to denounce this behavior.

Need_MindBleach: So you consider a single cell a human?

So abortion shouldn't be legal once it is more than a single cell? At what point in gestation is that?

starsrift: RedVentrue: By that same extension, would not an infant be considered non-human, or the disabled. The same Fark off and die attitude could be applied to emergency room patients or anyone needing any kind of life support.

1. An infant, or a disabled person, or someone in a coma, or a elder on their deathbed, do not intrinsically cause harm to another person and deprive them of the rights to do what they wish with their bodies, in order to exist.
2. This attitude is applied to people on life support. Often with the graceful euphemism, "Pulling the plug".

That is REALLy cold.

Need_MindBleach: namatad:
somewhere in the middle the line gets crossed. EVERYONE who is pro-choice agrees with this. (except the batshiat crazy ones ...)

Some people think only in absolutes and simply cannot imagine a moral conundrum or grey area. The idea that something may be morally murky and unknowable scares them.

In fairness, part of that is the binary nature of any issue that's been politicized. In a perfect world, "Okay through the 2nd trimester, dire medical necessity only after that" would be a position one could stake out; but you can't do that when the terms of the argument are already a simple "yes" or "no."

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Physicians would be exempted from malpractice lawsuits if they withheld information that could prevent an abortion. In other words, a physician could choose not to tell a woman something important about her own health if the doctor thought the woman might seek an abortion because of that information. If the woman then suffered health problems, she would have no legal recourse.

Dear Christ. So your doctor knew something about your health, decided not to inform you, you suffer because of it, there is no recourse for their actions, and this is not only acceptable to the GOP but they are pushing to move in this direction? Why don't we just get rid of the medical profession in this country? I mean, if doctors don't need to inform you about what they find when examining you, then what's the farking point?

I'm emailing this link to a friend. She tried to hook me up with one of her friends. Her friend said she votes R. I immediately said "nice meeting you, best of luck" and left. Apparently that was rude and partisan of me. Seriously, if you're a woman and you support these people, you are damaged goods.

The best part is that the people pushing this through are the same people opposed to Obamacare because it lets politicians get in the way of the doctor-patient relationship.

RedVentrue: starsrift: RedVentrue: By that same extension, would not an infant be considered non-human, or the disabled. The same Fark off and die attitude could be applied to emergency room patients or anyone needing any kind of life support.

1. An infant, or a disabled person, or someone in a coma, or a elder on their deathbed, do not intrinsically cause harm to another person and deprive them of the rights to do what they wish with their bodies, in order to exist.
2. This attitude is applied to people on life support. Often with the graceful euphemism, "Pulling the plug".

That is REALLy cold.

You really want to go down the "life support" debate road? Really??? You do remember 2005 when the GOP tried to take up this issue, right? How did that work out for them?

SuperTramp: LadyHawke
Pretty much. Note that none of these new laws are designed to punish or shame men who get it on.


Of course not. "Sowing his wild oats" and all that...

"Men" like Rush Limpballs refer to women like me as "feminazis." In truth, they're scared shiatless by strong women, and angry about it, too. Along with religious nutjobs, they want us back in the kitchen, barefoot (and pregnant), a scarlett letter if we ever stray.

Well, considering that your FARK handle is already SuperTramp...

/sorry, couldn't resist

s2s2s2: Need_MindBleach: So you consider a single cell a human?

So abortion shouldn't be legal once it is more than a single cell? At what point in gestation is that?

No I don't think that, but I can you that a single cell definitely isn't a human, and whoever thinks so is putting ideology waaay before any sort of logic.

Need_MindBleach: Some people think only in absolutes and simply cannot imagine a moral conundrum or grey area. The idea that something may be morally murky and unknowable scares them.

It scares them because they don't know how to work through it and come to a decision for themselves. It is a lack of information processing skills and critical thinking skills - they are unwilling, or unable, to confront a a situation where they could face multiple "right answers." Instead, they turn to an authority to do their thinking for them.

What we're seeing today is (hopefully) the death pangs of a dying society - a society that thought they were set for life with a job at the factory and hasn't taken the opportunity to learn, or adapt, to the changes that have come over the last 30 years and has fallen back on religion and borderline authoritarian thoughts.

Sex for women has zero consequences right now, which is why so many women are so sexually irresponsible. If there's a real possibility that the bad boy who makes their giny tingle might knock them up and they'll have no recourse but to have his spawn, women just might start thinking a bit more about who they spread their legs for.

What women need right now is less sexual freedom, not more.

Dr Dreidel: RedVentrue: Dr Dreidel: RedVentrue: When you are pregnant, there is another body in there too. What you want is freedom to kill that other body, right?

No. There are cells with unique DNA, kind of like cancer (or the Dark Half condition, where you swallow a twin in utero).

// if fetuses are people, do we charge the survivor with manslaughter?
// after all, did the other fetus not have a full chance at life?

If the fetus were self aware at that point, I would say yes.

That's why I said "manslaughter", not "murder". You wanna make it "involuntary manslaughter"? I'm OK with that.

Shall we start testing every newborn for traces of another entity?

Also, you're basically admitting that a fetus is a consciousless meatsack, not unlike plenty of vegetables the state has no problem turning life support off for. Not a very strong support for your point.

// lost 3 grandparents that way
// I support the right to die with dignity (thankfully, Gramps had that same foresight), and the right to choose in medical matters of conscience

The fetus will develop consciousness in time whereas the meatsack will not. Once you start life support you must be willing to see things through to the full conclusion. Make a decision at the start of your action and live with it. All else is only dodging the responsibility and consequences of your actions. I believe the right to die with dignity belongs with the principle person involved. Everyone should have an advanced directive when reaching majority age.

JesusJuice: Sex for women has zero consequences right now, which is why so many women are so sexually irresponsible. If there's a real possibility that the bad boy who makes their giny tingle might knock them up and they'll have no recourse but to have his spawn, women just might start thinking a bit more about who they spread their legs for.

What women need right now is less sexual freedom, not more.

WWWAAAAA, women are sleeping with popular guys at bars and not me. Grow up and stop being such a creep and you might get laid.

Need_MindBleach: RedVentrue: Need_MindBleach: RedVentrue: starsrift: RedVentrue: When you are pregnant, there is another body in there too. What you want is freedom to kill that other body, right?



Ah, and here's the moral grey area. An infant is obviously a person. A zygote is obviously not a person. (unless you're insane) Where does the personhood start?

If you have the genes of a human and are alive, you are a human.

So you consider a single cell a human? I guess that makes getting my tonsils removed a crime against humanity.

No a zygote, embryo, fetus will develop into a human though.

Need_MindBleach: JesusJuice: Sex for women has zero consequences right now, which is why so many women are so sexually irresponsible. If there's a real possibility that the bad boy who makes their giny tingle might knock them up and they'll have no recourse but to have his spawn, women just might start thinking a bit more about who they spread their legs for.

What women need right now is less sexual freedom, not more.

WWWAAAAA, women are sleeping with popular guys at bars and not me. Grow up and stop being such a creep and you might get laid.

Nah, slut-shaming is much more likely to at least give him a moment of pleasure.

JesusJuice: Sex for women has zero consequences right now, which is why so many women are so sexually irresponsible. If there's a real possibility that the bad boy who makes their giny tingle might knock them up and they'll have no recourse but to have his spawn, women just might start thinking a bit more about who they spread their legs for.

What women need right now is less sexual freedom, not more.

STDs ring a bell?

RedVentrue:
The fetus will develop consciousness in time whereas the meatsack will not. Once you start life support you must be willing to see things through to the full conclusion. Make a decision at the start of your action and live with it. All else is only dodging the responsibility and consequences of your actions. I believe the right to die with dignity belongs with the principle person involved. Everyone should have an advanced directive when reaching majority age.

Sometimes even the best medical science can't tell you the full ramifications of an injury or a disease until time has passed or certain other conditions have resolved themselves. People can only do the best they can with what they have, and I will not judge someone for deciding to let their spouse go after the swelling goes down and the doctor says they can now say the coma is permanent.

I will also not stand in legal judgement over a woman with an unexpected pregnancy or an unexpected medical complication of pregnancy and tell her what she must or must not do. The choice to bear a child, whether healthy or not, is the most important decision a person can make and the person best able to make that decision is not me. It's not you, either, unless your uterus is on the line.

SuperTramp: LadyHawke
Pretty much. Note that none of these new laws are designed to punish or shame men who get it on.


Of course not. "Sowing his wild oats" and all that...

"Men" like Rush Limpballs refer to women like me as "feminazis." In truth, they're scared shiatless by strong women, and angry about it, too. Along with religious nutjobs, they want us back in the kitchen, barefoot (and pregnant), a scarlett letter if we ever stray.

Normally, I'd be saying that, yes, there are some misandrists out there (one group I read about honestly thought that father-love was 'an imitation' of mother-love)...

Yeah, today I'm a damn feminazi, and proud of it.

/Hands off my uterus, bud.
//Not in the least because it's currently leaking blood...
///Really, you do not know what living high on life is until your PMS gives you an endorphin\adrenaline mix. Farking. Epic.

RedVentrue: Need_MindBleach:
So you consider a single cell a human? I guess that makes getting my tonsils removed a crime against humanity.

No a zygote, embryo, fetus will develop into a human though.

So by stating that it will one day become a human, you're conceding that it isn't one. Good to know.

PsiChick:
From the pages of Too Much Farking Information, author PsiChick sweeps in once more with a pseudo-anonymous release across the bowels of the internets!

namatad: Republicat: namatad: Republicat: The world that Rick Santorum and the GOP want to live in: "These men, we've been told, are like war criminals. It's no excuse that what they did was legal at the time: their crimes are retroactive. They have committed atrocities and must be made into examples, for the rest. Though this is hardly needed. No woman in her right mind, these days, would seek to prevent a birth, should she be so lucky as to conceive."

LOL
I thought that that quote was familiar. LOL

Yeah, I'm reading that book right now. It's scary to think that this book (along with Julian Comstock) is the type of country that the Religious Right seems to want.

you just made my puke in my mouth. a LOT.
1984 wasnt scary enough. they had to toss the handmaid's tale into it? shudder

Am I a bad person for absolutely refusing to read The Handmaid's Tale? I know, classic literature and relevance to current politics, but I just find the concept way too scary.

"We want you to have your baby, no matter what. But after it's born, you are not entitled to anything and if you ask for anything or need assistance, we will label you a poor loser and do all we can that you suffer homeless and never have a refrigerator you worthless piece of trash. Love you."

- GOP

Peki: Agreed. My personal line is 3rd trimester; there'd have to be some extenuating circumstances for me to consider an non-medically necessary abortion after 6 months. However, I would NEVER tell another woman that just because I'm squeamish about getting one that late, she CAN'T. Abortion is hard enough, so I'm not going to judge any woman who's had to make that choice.

I would strongly urge her to think about adoption. If she's gone that long without aborting, chances are she doesn't want to have an abortion very badly anyway, and it would cause her a lot of anguish.

JesusJuice: Sex for women has zero consequences right now, which is why so many women are so sexually irresponsible. If there's a real possibility that the bad boy who makes their giny tingle might knock them up and they'll have no recourse but to have his spawn, women just might start thinking a bit more about who they spread their legs for.
What women need right now is less sexual freedom, not more.

I've been on Fark for ten years now. I've been celibate for almost that long. Hmmm, coincidence?

Need_MindBleach: JesusJuice: Sex for women has zero consequences right now, which is why so many women are so sexually irresponsible. If there's a real possibility that the bad boy who makes their giny tingle might knock them up and they'll have no recourse but to have his spawn, women just might start thinking a bit more about who they spread their legs for.

What women need right now is less sexual freedom, not more.

WWWAAAAA, women are sleeping with popular guys at bars and not me. Grow up and stop being such a creep and you might get laid.

This.

How in his mind does less sexual freedom for women equal more pussy for him?

LadyHawke: Surly U. Jest: JesusJuice: Sex for women has zero consequences right now, which is why so many women are so sexually irresponsible. If there's a real possibility that the bad boy who makes their giny tingle might knock them up and they'll have no recourse but to have his spawn, women just might start thinking a bit more about who they spread their legs for.

What women need right now is less sexual freedom, not more.

STDs ring a bell?

And pregnancy. But seriously, why does there *have* to be a "consequence" for sex? Why can't it just be something people do if they both want?

I would be interested to know how JesusJuice defines "sexual irresponsibility," and how it also applies to men.

Because sex is bad and you should feel bad for engaging in it. It's only okay if there's a chance of procreation, because Jesus smiles when babby is formed.

The article only looks at these states passing regressive legislation from one angle: women's rights over their own bodies. While they continue to obstruct on a national level in Congress, the swing of tea party nutters into power at the state level over the last election cycle has weilded many other attacks. Union and worker rights are getting trampled in many states, "job creating" high speed rail projects have been rejected by governors, and they've even managed to start drug testing welfare recipients while pounding their chests about fiscal responsibility. Voter ID laws are turning up and rosters are being caged even though there is no real evidence of fraud in any meaningful proportion. Racial profiling laws are being enacted as are laws prohibiting US courts from using Sharia law or whatever the hell they're afraid of there. How close are we to a law like SOPA passing?

The US is under attack all right. The generals are hiding in the 1% but it's easy to tell who is on the front lines doing their work for them.

So they're going to shut down all womens shoe stores?

starsrift: PsiChick:
From the pages of Too Much Farking Information, author PsiChick sweeps in once more with a pseudo-anonymous release across the bowels of the internets!

And now you know how I feel when there's a poop thread around here.

ArkAngel: Would this be the Hippocratic Oath that bans doctors from performing abortions?

No, the real one.

AverageAmericanGuy: ArkAngel: Would this be the Hippocratic Oath that bans doctors from performing abortions?

Come on now. It's just a clump of cells. No harm done, you know.

When the oath was devised, people thought sperm was made up of tiny people and weren't even aware of these "cells" of which you speak.

Now, if you want doctors taking the traditional oath, you're going to lose a lot of docs who would prefer not to swear by Greek gods and goddesses.

Link (new window)

I swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant

LadyHawke: Surly U. Jest: JesusJuice: Sex for women has zero consequences right now, which is why so many women are so sexually irresponsible. If there's a real possibility that the bad boy who makes their giny tingle might knock them up and they'll have no recourse but to have his spawn, women just might start thinking a bit more about who they spread their legs for.

What women need right now is less sexual freedom, not more.

STDs ring a bell?

And pregnancy. But seriously, why does there *have* to be a "consequence" for sex? Why can't it just be something people do if they both want?

I would be interested to know how JesusJuice defines "sexual irresponsibility," and how it also applies to men.

As I define it, "sexual irresponsibility" has more to do with responsibilities toward society than with personal responsibility.

This has to do with female hypergamy, the natural tendency of women to be attracted to the highest status men. In times past there were strict proscriptions on sexual behavior; ie. slut shaming. The sexual revolution and the general loosening of sexual restrictions accompanying it have created an environment where women are free to indulge their hypergamous natures. The result is a relatively small group of the most attractive and successful men monopolizing a vastly disproportionate number of women. It's a sort of soft polygamy with these women continually swapping around between this same group of men. This means a small percent of men sleep with a large percent of women, leaving a large percentage of men with no real chance to find a mate. Leaving men without mates is not healthy for society [Link (new window)], and indeed historical proscriptions against women's sexual expression can be seen through the the lens of maintaining a stable society by restricting female hypergamy.

JesusJuice: LadyHawke: Surly U. Jest: JesusJuice: Sex for women has zero consequences right now, which is why so many women are so sexually irresponsible. If there's a real possibility that the bad boy who makes their giny tingle might knock them up and they'll have no recourse but to have his spawn, women just might start thinking a bit more about who they spread their legs for.

What women need right now is less sexual freedom, not more.

STDs ring a bell?

And pregnancy. But seriously, why does there *have* to be a "consequence" for sex? Why can't it just be something people do if they both want?

I would be interested to know how JesusJuice defines "sexual irresponsibility," and how it also applies to men.

As I define it, "sexual irresponsibility" has more to do with responsibilities toward society than with personal responsibility.

This has to do with female hypergamy, the natural tendency of women to be attracted to the highest status men. In times past there were strict proscriptions on sexual behavior; ie. slut shaming. The sexual revolution and the general loosening of sexual restrictions accompanying it have created an environment where women are free to indulge their hypergamous natures. The result is a relatively small group of the most attractive and successful men monopolizing a vastly disproportionate number of women. It's a sort of soft polygamy with these women continually swapping around between this same group of men. This means a small percent of men sleep with a large percent of women, leaving a large percentage of men with no real chance to find a mate. Leaving men without mates is not healthy for society [Link (new window)], and indeed historical proscriptions against women's sexual expression can be seen through the the lens of maintaining a stable society by restricting female hypergamy.

Dude, no one is going to sleep with you. Ever. Even if you are the only legal possibility.

JesusJuice: LadyHawke: Surly U. Jest: JesusJuice: Sex for women has zero consequences right now, which is why so many women are so sexually irresponsible. If there's a real possibility that the bad boy who makes their giny tingle might knock them up and they'll have no recourse but to have his spawn, women just might start thinking a bit more about who they spread their legs for.

What women need right now is less sexual freedom, not more.

STDs ring a bell?

And pregnancy. But seriously, why does there *have* to be a "consequence" for sex? Why can't it just be something people do if they both want?

I would be interested to know how JesusJuice defines "sexual irresponsibility," and how it also applies to men.

As I define it, "sexual irresponsibility" has more to do with responsibilities toward society than with personal responsibility.

This has to do with female hypergamy, the natural tendency of women to be attracted to the highest status men. In times past there were strict proscriptions on sexual behavior; ie. slut shaming. The sexual revolution and the general loosening of sexual restrictions accompanying it have created an environment where women are free to indulge their hypergamous natures. The result is a relatively small group of the most attractive and successful men monopolizing a vastly disproportionate number of women. It's a sort of soft polygamy with these women continually swapping around between this same group of men. This means a small percent of men sleep with a large percent of women, leaving a large percentage of men with no real chance to find a mate. Leaving men without mates is not healthy for society [Link (new window)], and indeed historical proscriptions against women's sexual expression can be seen through the the lens of maintaining a stable society by restricting female hypergamy.


Isn't that from Professor Hardup's "Theory of Involuntary Celibacy"?

JesusJuice: LadyHawke: Surly U. Jest: JesusJuice: Sex for women has zero consequences right now, which is why so many women are so sexually irresponsible. If there's a real possibility that the bad boy who makes their giny tingle might knock them up and they'll have no recourse but to have his spawn, women just might start thinking a bit more about who they spread their legs for.

What women need right now is less sexual freedom, not more.

STDs ring a bell?

And pregnancy. But seriously, why does there *have* to be a "consequence" for sex? Why can't it just be something people do if they both want?

I would be interested to know how JesusJuice defines "sexual irresponsibility," and how it also applies to men.

As I define it, "sexual irresponsibility" has more to do with responsibilities toward society than with personal responsibility.

This has to do with female hypergamy, the natural tendency of women to be attracted to the highest status men. In times past there were strict proscriptions on sexual behavior; ie. slut shaming. The sexual revolution and the general loosening of sexual restrictions accompanying it have created an environment where women are free to indulge their hypergamous natures. The result is a relatively small group of the most attractive and successful men monopolizing a vastly disproportionate number of women. It's a sort of soft polygamy with these women continually swapping around between this same group of men. This means a small percent of men sleep with a large percent of women, leaving a large percentage of men with no real chance to find a mate. Leaving men without mates is not healthy for society [Link (new window)], and indeed historical proscriptions against women's sexual expression can be seen through the the lens of maintaining a stable society by restricting female hypergamy.

Im going to take a wild guess here, and say that women label you as "The Creepy Guy" or possible "The kid up looked up dolls skirts"