Overturn Roe v. Wade?

[Weird Harold]

I'm sorry you didn't like my analogy.

I just din't see how yu can compare mandatory donation of vital organs to sperm -- whether it's donated or left to crust up on the sheets. Sperm, Eggs, and Embryos are hardly vital organs and I've never suggested that a woman be forced to give up an unborn child she WANTS. I proposed something to deal with the result of NOT WANTING an unborn child.

It's hard to explain the attachment to the physicality of loved ones. It seems irrational.

It sometimes is irrational but not as often as you might think IF I was ever talking about loved ones. I'm not, nor have I been, talking about the disposition of 'loved ones;" I've been discussing what can be done to save those who are UNLOVED!

An analogy that may help. ...

I. Suppose a 'rational' lawmaker come around and says. " OK, but your choice ends when all brain activity ceases after you 'pull the plug'. Depending on what the hospital has heard from the local med school, your wife's body will go there for dissection purposes. Your choice ended with death; what do you care if she's burned or dissected. Further your wife stated no desires to the contrary; left unchcked the box 'You may NOT donate my body to a medical school.' "

I can imagine you caring, even though it's 'irrational.'

Aside from the fact that you're talking about the fate of loved ones and postulating a law that flies in the face of centuries of traditions that is even less likely to get passed than what I propose, I, personally, would donate the body for research and/or organ donation without any law requiring me to do so.

However, that is MY personal choice, and I can understand religious and/or emotional reasons to decide the other way for a loved one.

The parallel, need I state it, is a woman's right--whatever irrational feeling there is-- to dispose of her embryo/ fetus as she wishes. Indeed I've heard of burial after miscarriage (how irrational is that?)

Burial after a miscarriage certainly does NOT sound like "an unwanted child" to me. I can understand sorrow and a need for closure when a child that was eagerly awaited miscarries.

I don't understand how that relates to what a woman who DOES NOT WANT a child and feels strongly enough about NOT WANTING a child that she's willing to KILL it before it can be born.

I guess what I don't understand is the contention that any woman would prefer insuring the unwanted child is dead and gone instead of just being satisfied with it being gone.

I can understand why some women would hate an unborn child enough to want it dead enough to insure that it was dead and then put it in blender to make sure it was dead. But that kind of hate for an unborn child is rare, I think.

I'm sure that the reasons for wanting an abortion are as numerous as abortions are, if not more numerous. I'm equally certain that most of them boil down to some variation of "I don't want to be pregnant and my wants come before the life of my unborn child."

What I proposed only comes into play if a woman chooses to bring it into play by choosing to terminate her pregnancy.

As I pointed out in my last post, the technology that would make rescuing an unborn child would also give a woman another choice -- transfering her unborn child to an artificial womb for her convenience or to protect her health; assuming that pregnancy and not parenthood is the problem.

I've also mentioned before that such a law in advance of the technology should drive the development and refinement of the technology to free women from being slaves to their wombs and make the law more than a token concession to the pro-life element.

I've also said I don't think there is the chance of a mouse in 400HP blender on puree of what I propose becoming law, because it doesn't address the real issues -- the desire to put sex back into the closet and limit it to the missionary position between married couples once month when the woman is most fertile.

That specific goal of the "religious right" and 99.9999% of their other goals, I vehemently disagree with.

This discussion has been profitable -- I've learned a lot about what people's real positions are and how they argue about emotionally charged issues. It's been fairly civil and intelligent, but I find I keep repeating myself because people simply refuse to address the points directly.

I say here's a plan to deal with unwanted and unloved unborn children and people argue that someone who loved their unborn child and wanted it wouldn't accept my plan and ignore the fact that such a person would NOT be affected by it.

I propose plan that deals with a single specifc aspect of the debate -- a decision already made to abort -- and get arguments that it doesn't provide any provisions for birth control, or that it does nothing to reduce the number of abortions.

I propose a plan that reflects my personal belief that every unborn child deserves a chance at life and I'm accused of plotting a vast army of stolen babies as slave to work inmy Korean laundry, despite the fact that what I propose also removes every single restriction now in place on abortions and replaces them with a single condition that does NOT directly affect the mother or change the fact that she would no longer be pregnant -- as is the majority reason for seeking an abortion.

It's been real, and it's been fun, but it hasn't been real fun and I'm gone.

 

[Pure]

Hi WH,

You need not respond, of course, but I have a couple comments and a correction. I sense a deep frustration, and you certainly don't resonate to--or logically grasp-- the 'love' issue.


I believe I grasp your intent, and that, given your formulation of the problem, the solution is apt. That isn't stressed or said much by Sher or me because of disagreement about the formulation.
I HEAR:that IF the issue is end of pregnancy, compulsory transfer does the trick.

let me go to your statements in part

I say here's a plan to deal with unwanted and unloved unborn children and people argue that someone who loved their unborn child and wanted it wouldn't accept my plan and ignore the fact that such a person would NOT be affected by it.

I propose plan that deals with a single specifc aspect of the debate -- a decision already made to abort -- and get arguments that it doesn't provide any provisions for birth control, or that it does nothing to reduce the number of abortions.

I propose a plan that reflects my personal belief that every unborn child deserves a chance at life and I'm accused of plotting a vast army of stolen babies as slave to work inmy Korean laundry, despite the fact that what I propose also removes every single restriction now in place on abortions and replaces them with a single condition that does NOT directly affect the mother or change the fact that she would no longer be pregnant -- as is the majority reason for seeking an abortion.

OK, it was not an overall panacea. I hear that you're committed to birth control, MAP availability, and measures reasonable people take to eliminate what they think is killing (as opposed to posturing about it).

However the bolded sentence is not correct, or is seriously misleading.

It goes back to a question of mine you never answered, but kept pasting old material:
I'll rephrase: "In this embryonic period of a pregnant woman, of which another ('rescuer') has been made aware, and where that monied 'rescuer'/recipient-of-transfer, has qualified and posted the bond,

Does the woman have the legal right to make the choice to say to the doctor [and have it carried out]: "I don't want any transfer to this 'rescuer'. A simple abortion is what I've chosen and insist on."

Though you wouldn't say it, in fact the answer is 'no.'

That said, it's clear that you are imposing a restriction on abortions, where a monied rescuer shows up.

Above you say, removes every single restriction now in place on abortions . Perhaps, with no intent, you're trying to say,
_removes any restrictions now in place on 'ending pregnancies'_.

In effect, given your 'logic' you've, without ill intent perhaps, redefined 'abortion' to mean 'ending a pregnancy.'

What you're (or doctor or governement) saying then is "Sure, woman, I'll end your pregnancy as you wish, but the terms are as follows; you must allow transfer and preservation of the life."

That this is a misdefinition of abortion is clear, though I see how you would 'logically' arrive there:
Note: Merriam Webster Unabridged, often used by the SC. In agreement with Stedman's Medical Dictionary:

1 : the expulsion of a nonviable fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation -- compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

The term here, also in the medical dictionary is 'non viable'. Unable to live, iow. Implication: Being unable to live, it will be non living. What ends up in the suction jar for early suction DC, or on the table in a late, saline induction is a non living entity.

In any case, we needn't quibble over the words. If one wants to speak in your lingo, the prochoice position is this, reflected in Roe v. Wade, limited to the first trimester: A woman had a right, by choice, untrammeled by law, to end her pregnancy AND have a non living entity expelled from her. {I.e., 'abortion' in the usual sense.}

Emotions run high, and I'm sorry if you're upset. We've all contributed a bit, but as mature people we move past upset, and as far as productive, keep talking and trying to understand the 'Other.'

Best,
J.

 

[Weird Harold]

what I propose also removes every single restriction now in place on abortions and replaces them with a single condition that does NOT directly affect the mother or change the fact that she would no longer be pregnant


However the bolded sentence is not correct, or is seriously misleading.


That said, it's clear that you are imposing a restriction on abortions, where a monied rescuer shows up.

Above you say, removes every single restriction now in place on abortions . Perhaps, with no intent, you're trying to say,
_removes any restrictions now in place on 'ending pregnancies'_.

In effect, given your 'logic' you've, without ill intent perhaps, redefined 'abortion' to mean 'ending a pregnancy.'

The red period should be an ellipses bcause you left out part of that sentence -- ... and replaces them with a single condition ...

I'm not sure why you consider it "ill intent" but the intent to redefine "abortion" was a deliberate intent.



[/B][/QUOTE] It goes back to a question of mine you never answered, but kept pasting old material: ...

Though you wouldn't say it, in fact the answer is 'no.'
[/B][/QUOTE]

I would not say it that time because I have said it, explicitly, at least three times previously and been ignored.

I've also said it in four or five different ways to explain that it is HER choice to agree or not. Once she chooses to agree to the single condition --that her unborn child must have a chance for rescue -- she is bound by her choice. The consequences of NOT agreeing are simply to remain pregnant or find another, extra-legal, option -- but that is only the same choices that are availabe to most women now, so nothing changes.

I'll say it one more time -- [size=large]NO[/size] A woman does not have a choice. Not once she decides to end her pregnancy and signs the request for termination and release of rights.

She has every choice in the world up until she signs that request/release including changing her mind and seeking some other option -- probing herself with a coathanger, having her boyfriend beat her womb with a baseball bat or even selling all of her posessions to finance a trip to timbuktu or bumfuk Egypt where the law doesn't apply.

I'm sorry if you're upset.

I'm only mildly upset that people keep ignoring answers and asking the same questions. I'm just tired of repeating myself.

So, one more time so I don't have tocome back and repeat myself again because you missed it, again:

[size=large]NO[/size] A woman does not have a choice. Not once she decides to end her pregnancy and signs the request for termination and release of rights.

 

[shereads]

She has every choice in the world up until she signs that request/release including changing her mind and seeking some other option -- probing herself with a coathanger, having her boyfriend beat her womb with a baseball bat or even selling all of her posessions to finance a trip to timbuktu or bumfuk Egypt where the law doesn't apply.

You are one twisted sick bastard, aren't you?

What are you trying to accomplish here, other than advertise yourself as psychotic?

 

[shereads]

Thank you, WH. For answering your own question more effectively than anyone else could have:

Why would a woman prefer to undergo an abortion than to risk giving a child to someone like you?

I've seen some sick things posted at porn sites, but your last post to this thread tops them all. You posed as someone searching for a solution to an issue that you already knew was painfully personal to some people here; based it all on non-existent technology; insisted that because you don't mind scattering babies around the planet into unknown circumstances, no reasonable person could possibly object; and finally, when your ire was up, revealed the man you really are: a closet woman-hater who thinks a fertilized egg is precious and a woman's soul is disposable.

What gave you the right to choose a vasectomy, by the way? Did you perform your own with a coathanger? Or were you allowed by law to have a medical procedure that some consider immoral, performed safely and with regard to your privacy and dignity? Should you have posted a notice in the newspaper and asked if anyone would like to have your semen? Then submitted yourself to a clinic to have it extracted from you with a needle? I imagine your love of all living things stops a little short of any personal discomfort for your testicles, but you haven't told us exactly how your Miracle Solution would extract an undamaged embryo from a woman without invasive surgery. Or how you'd go about ending a late-term pregnancy for a woman too ill to undergo a C-section or labor, without harming the fetus. Maybe all of your solutions are fantasies. I just hope your fantasies are not all as sick as this one.

For the first time since coming to Lit, I'm sorry to have met someone. Consider yourself un-met. And God help any woman involved with you - or any girl child in your care.

You're a powerful argument against anonymous adoption.

 

[Weird Harold]

What gave you the right to choose a vasectomy, by the way? Did you perform your own with a coathanger? Or were you allowed by law to have a medical procedure that some consider immoral, performed safely and with regard to your privacy and dignity?

Just to demonstrate you have no idea what you're talking about:

After my second daughter was born and after discussing it with my wife, I requested a vesectomy when shewas six weeks old.

I ws given a list of requirements that had to be met before I could get the vasectomy. Most of the requirements were people who had tocounsel me against a vasectomy, but one was a seven day "cooling off period."

I had to get my squadron commander (or his designated reperesentative) to sign a form.

I had to get the Chaplain's office to sign the form -- despite the fact my stated religious preference in my military records is "None." Getting that signature took an interview with the duty marriage counselor for an appointment with the Base Chaplain, who required me, an meeting with my wife, and a meeting with both of us.

Also, the form required me to write a statement of my reasons for requesting a vasectomy.

Last, but not least, the form required my wife's signature giving permission.

After seven days, I actually got the form to complete. It took ten days to get the form completed -- mostly because of the Base Chaplain's full schedule, another week for the medicl review panel to look at the form and agree that it was complete and my reason for the request was sufficient. Then I could actually schedule the vasectomy -- the first opening that fit my duty schedule was just over two weeks away.

In all, it took about 38 days to get the vasectomy that had been planned and agred to some six years earlier whenmy wife and I discussed how many children we'd have and how we'd prevent having any more than we wanted.

How does that compare to the restrictions on getting an abortion where you are?

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Sorry to tell you WH, but this is not the norm. Everything in the military is about covering their ass...not about your "cooling off" or anything else. My best-friend's husband went in for one consultation on Monday. Got an appointment for that Wednesday. Had outpatient snip-snip Wednesday morning and was clean as a whistle by Thursday morning. Not very congruous to what you described at all.

~lucky

 

[shereads]

deleted

 

[Weird Harold]

Sorry to tell you WH, but this is not the norm. Everything in the military is about covering their ass...not about your "cooling off" or anything else. My best-friend's husband went in for one consultation on Monday. Got an appointment for that Wednesday. Had outpatient snip-snip Wednesday morning and was clean as a whistle by Thursday morning. Not very congruous to what you described at all.

~lucky

I know my experience is not the norm -- now. My experience was twenty-five years ago, before vasectomies were considered reversible.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I know my experience is not the norm -- now. My experience was twenty-five years ago, before vasectomies were considered reversible.

Then what were you trying to prove?

~lucky

 

[Weird Harold]

Then what were you trying to prove?

~lucky

Nothing really, just illustrating that abortions are not -- or at least weren't in my experience -- medical procedure that gets hemmed in with silly restrictions because some moralist thinks anyone who wants the procedure is too stupid to really know what they want or why they want it.

It's also not the only medical procedure that someone thinks a spouse should have a right to veto.

The requirements and restrictions I encountered over a vasectomy were some of the SAME restrictions that have been proposed or are already in place regarding abortions. Of course, waiting for a vasectomy doesn't run the risk of pushing into the second trimester where the restrictions get tougher, but the obstructions and intent were basically the same.

 

[shereads]

Nothing really, just illustrating that abortions are not -- or at least weren't in my experience -- medical procedure that gets hemmed in with silly restrictions because some moralist thinks anyone who wants the procedure is too stupid to really know what they want or why they want it.

I propose a plan that reflects my personal belief that every unborn child deserves a chance at life

You're twins.

One of you believes that only moralists impose restrictions on medical procedures, and that such people believe that "anyone who wants the procedure is too stupid to really know what they want or why they want it."

That must also be the twin who worries about overpopulation.

The other twin evidently believes:

> that the month of red tape you endured to earn the right to have a vasectomy somehow equates with the loss of a woman's right to refuse to create a child.

> that any woman who would rather terminate her pregnancy than hand over a fetus to randomly selected strangers is "selfish and stupid."

3) that even a D&C at the earliest detectable stage of pregnancy is the same as "killing an unborn child."

4) that an unborn child's right to a chance at life supercedes a child's right to begin life free of addictions, fetal alcohol syndrome, congenital diseases or birth defects, and/or a "parent" whose motives for buying a fetus are unknown.

5) that since women "don't care about the disposition of the result" of an aborted embryo or fetus, women should also not care how you dispose of a living embryo or fetus.

6) that anyone with the financial wherewithal to "post bond" for an embryo is as good a parent as any child has a right to deserve; you are adamant about there being no need to question such a person's motives or capacity to be a parent, and you would impose not even the basic restrictions that the Humane Society imposes upon people who want a pet

7) that there is no unwarranted risk in entrusting a baby whose health, race and ethnicity and possible birth defects are unknown, to a parent whose motives and capabilities are unknown; a chance at life is worth the risk of child abuse, neglect or abandonment, by parents who think they paid for a healthy infant and receive an unpleasant surprise

8) that since you don't know or care whether you've fathered any children you didn't plan or want, no one else should care if they're forced to create children they didn't plan and don't want

9) that removing a live, undamaged embryo from a woman's uterus is no less invasive than a d&c

10) that removing a live, undamaged late-term fetus from the body of a woman whose physician says she can't survive child labor or a C-section is somehow possible without risk to her life; or that it's okay to risk her life (that's never made clear in your posts)

11) that the world is overpopulated but it doesn't matter

12) that fantasizing about an "embryo transfer device" is the same as proposing a solution to the issue of abortion

13) that talk of coathangers and beating wombs with baseball bats is acceptable behavior in a forum where women are discussing an issue that is deeply personal, and where at least one woman has said she had an abortion

14) that people who don't agree with you are somehow impaired

 

[Weird Harold]

You're twins.

I thought you promised to put me on ignore.

 

[shereads]

deleted double post

 

[shereads]

I was curious to see what other self-contradictory lunacy you'd define as rational debate, Herr Doktor. You didn't let me down.

I also realized that in allowing someone like you to shock me, I'm feeding your inflated sense of importance. It's not pleasant to watch a xenophobe expose himself to himself, but it's educational.

Do you have other rational, science fiction-based, coathanger and baseball bat related suggestions for the women your daughters will grow up to be? Or is the show over?

You owe an apology to every woman in this thread, and in this forum.

 

[Weird Harold]

I was curious to see what other self-contradictory lunacy you'd define as rational debate, Herr Doktor. You didn't let me down.

https://forum.literotica.com/member2.php?s=&action=addlist&userlist=ignore&userid=531

Here, since you obviously can't can't figure out how to keep your promise to put me on ignore.

 

[Pure]

bump

While the debate got white hot, and cooling is necessary and occurring (without change of position!), I think this topic is too valuable to let go, IF some area could be found. Unfortunately, the spectrum is narrow, here in some areas; very liberal. Even the pro-life persons do not have problems with birth control, condoms and morning after pills, afaik.

Let me pose this, to move the debate. If anyone else has suggestions, fine.

Is there such a (valid) moral position as *general* respect for life [for all living creatures]? What would it entail? Not eating animals? The Jain holy men, put a net over their mouths so that insects are not drawn in and killed.

How about not executing anyone? Religions and secular folks alike proclaim 'allegiance to life', but what's entailed: blocking suicide attempts? jailing Kevorkian?

The Bush administration and its supporters keep a number of 'life' issues on the agenda, from condoms to 'partial birth', from executing the retarded, to allowing further toxic pollution. Pollution of the meat food supply has already happened, and one might even wonder if the Biblical ban on 'eating blood', out of reverence for life, mightn't be well applied to animals of different species.

Of course the Christian right has positions on a lot of these 'life' matters, so one general question, knowing what we do, is, Are they consistent in efforts legally to ensure respect for life across some of the activities mentioned?

Do any posters have unusual mixes of views, such as anti abortion and pro captial punishment? Is there a problem in justifiying such a position?

J.

 

[minsue]

I'm sure I'm setting myself up to get burned for this, but here goes...

I am pro-choice, as I've already explained.

I am against capital punishment. While I feel there are definitely many, many people who, by committing heinous crimes, have forfeited their right to live I do not feel anyone has the right to kill them. I'm sure many out there view that is being incompatible with my pro-choice opinions, but I have a different definition of when a person becomes a person so it is not something I view as contradictory.

I would be vegan if I had the will power, but sadly I do not.

Let the ranting begin...

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Psst...Min...It's your opinion. Any ranting would be unreasonable, but watch out for it anyway as reason has a way of flying right out the window around here. (Also, duck and cover for the ensuing barrage of statistics that will most likely soon be crashing down around us.)

I, too, am pro-choice and anti-capital punishment. For many many reasons on both counts, but that's my stand. You're not alone, sweets.

Apparently, some lives are more important to fight for than others. Cross your fingers that false guilt doesn't befall you.

~lucky

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm sure I'm setting myself up to get burned for this, but here goes...

I am pro-choice, as I've already explained.

I am against capital punishment. While I feel there are definitely many, many people who, by committing heinous crimes, have forfeited their right to live I do not feel anyone has the right to kill them. I'm sure many out there view that is being incompatible with my pro-choice opinions, but I have a different definition of when a person becomes a person so it is not something I view as contradictory.

I would be vegan if I had the will power, but sadly I do not.

Let the ranting begin...

I don't see any problems with it at all. pro chocie and capital punishment are totally different issues. I myself was pro choice and pro capitalpunishment until this thread. But I am now pro choice and anti capital punishment. You are not alone.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

Psst...Min...It's your opinion. Any ranting would be unreasonable, but watch out for it anyway as reason has a way of flying right out the window around here. (Also, duck and cover for the ensuing barrage of statistics that will most likely soon be crashing down around us.)

I, too, am pro-choice and anti-capital punishment. For many many reasons on both counts, but that's my stand. You're not alone, sweets.

Apparently, some lives are more important to fight for than others. Cross your fingers that false guilt doesn't befall you.

~lucky

It would be hypocritical of me to expect no ranting on my opinions. If you read the various politic threads, you will see me ranting often about the opinions of others.

- Mindy, working on reforming the ranting...

 

[minsue]

I don't see any problems with it at all. pro chocie and capital punishment are totally different issues. I myself was pro choice and pro capitalpunishment until this thread. But I am now pro choice and anti capital punishment. You are not alone.

-Colly

I find myself curious as to what changed your views, but am afraid to ask and re-open up a can of worms that is better closed. I must go back and read.

 

[Guest]

But I am now pro choice and anti capital punishment.

Dear Colly, I seriously want to know why you changed here. If you don't want to say it on this thread, I would appreciate a PM, if you want.

As long as I'm here, I'm pro-choice and anti-capital punishment too (which, btw, I see as a PC term; I call it "murder by the state").

Perdita

 

[minsue]

Dear Colly, I seriously want to know why you changed here. If you don't want to say it on this thread, I would appreciate a PM, if you want.

As long as I'm here, I'm pro-choice and anti-capital punishment too (which, btw, I see as a PC term; I call it "murder by the state").

Perdita

Agreed there, but then I also think pro-life is a PC term. Many, of course, think pro-choice is a PC term and refer to it, instead, as pro-abortion.

I've forgotten my point now. Oh well, couldn't have been too terribly important, could it?

- Mindy

ps to Colly, would you consider adding me to the address list for that PM if you send it?

 

[lucky-E-leven]

It would be hypocritical of me to expect no ranting on my opinions. If you read the various politic threads, you will see me ranting often about the opinions of others.

- Mindy, working on reforming the ranting...

I've read your posts and from what I can tell your ranting is typically Minimal. And I didn't say you shouldn't expect any, just that it's a bit unreasonable.

~lucky