serial_crusher: The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!

Note that your argument earlier was that if women want to avoid nine months of pregnancy and labor, they have to not have sex.

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

The big difference there is that the EMTs usually don't have to kill anybody else to help you out. If you were looking at a broken leg with 9 months worth of rehab time, the EMTs wouldn't be justified in killing a bystander to harvest his leg and give you a transplant.  You'd have to just suck it up and do your 9 months of rehab.

Exactly! And in this case, the woman is the bystander who isn't required to help the fetus with 9 months of rehab, even if it'll die.

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.

That's a different question, having to do with acceptable risk. My question was why you believe that it's consent.
For example, you can reduce the probability of fatal car accidents by driving slowly, only during the day, in nice weather, and wearing your seatbelt, but if you want to avoid them altogether, you have to choose not to drive... But that doesn't mean that you consent to dying if you do drive.

Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.

Agreed, just like the pregnant woman can't take back the sex. However, she has multiple options to select from to deal with that, just like you have the option to go get some money from the ATM or have your knees broken by the bouncer... but for some reason, you want to take away the "get some money" option. Do you consent to having your knees broken every time you gamble, just because it's a possibility if you're really unlucky? Of course not. At most, you consent to making a choice in the future as to what to do if you incur a debt, just like a woman who has sex, at most, consents to making a choice in the future if she gets pregnant.

serial_crusher: One of the common arguments I hear in favor of abortion is that regardless of the fetus's personhood or rights, it's wrong for another person to latch onto your body and use your organs without your continued consent. When I argue that consenting up front at the beginning of pregnancy locks you in to a 9 month commitment that you can't get out of, I'm told I'm a monster.

Yep. Mainly because you say that "if a woman has sex, she consents to a 9 month commitment, regardless of any of her attempts to avoid said commitment".
It's only consistent if you're anti-sex, which is monstrous.

Until now I never thought to ask the question, why is it ok to lock her in during the third trimester?

Pragmatism. Contrary to Nematoad's screed above, there aren't any women who change their mind during the last trimester and get an abortion. Rather, as ginandbacon said, late term abortions are due to horrible catastrophes that occur to mothers who want their babies. They deserve our sympathy and understanding of their choice when faced with such a horrible dilemma, rather than threats to beat them like baby seals. That's monstrous, too.

In one recent thread Theaetetus and I talked about possible advances in science allowing you to transfer an early-term fetus to a willing recipient instead of killing it. Her take seemed to be that killing it would still be ok, if the abortion procedure was safer for the mother than the transfer.

Yes, people are entitled to make medical decisions for themselves. Also, the fact that you presume that I'm female based on my argument is somewhat telling.

My two cents, the baby should come out in the way safest to the baby, only when a doctor (or biology) says it should come out.

Your two cents have previously advocated charging and convicting women who procure abortions with murder, "but maybe not sentencing them too badly," so I'mma say keep your change.

serial_crusher: Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake. It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.

Not really. Say your bookie needed a kidney or would die. Can your bookie force you to undergo surgery and 9 months of rehab so that they can have your kidney, against your will?
Even a person has no right to do that to another person, their own impending doom notwithstanding. Hence why the debate over whether an embryo is a person or not is irrelevant.

Nabb1: ikanreed: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way.  His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.

I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.

It's not a valid or invalid response in and of itself, it just seems odd for a person who I know to be intelligent and articulate to go that route. Disappointment more than anything.

As I said, how do you know I didn't make that chart? It seems now that you're just attempting to dodge my points, rather than actually responding substantively to them. "Oh, I'm disappointed... that's why I can't actually identify any flaws in your logic: crushing disappointment."
Frankly, your disappointment is not a valid response to my chart.

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

vygramul: Pro-choice and pro-life are both only in this context. Duh. That's the point.

Considering that women will face higher risks of complications and deaths due to the ban on D&X abortions, while the ban does not reduce the number of abortions at all since there are other, less safe procedures used, the "pro-lifers" are not pro-life even within this context.

serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

Nabb1: Most of that chart has nothing to do, at least directly, with anything I was asking about. I asked a rather pointed question, I think, and that chart doesn't really answer it.

Yes, it does - specifically, the right side. More specifically, the actions of anti-abortion folks are much more consistent with them wanting to control women than with them being pro-child. As I believe they intend the results of their actions, then I must logically believe that control of women is their intention. The chart then goes into specific examples of those consistencies.

Nabb1: And before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate over religion, the entire legal basis for abortion being legal is in the concept of rights, and not even any specific, enumerated rights...

Before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate about whether something isn't a specific, enumerated right, they should reread the ninth amendment.

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

How do you know I didn't make that chart?