Society/Culture Reproductive Rights: Roe vs Wade, abortion, etc

[Gethelred]

Citations and %’s on this occurrence please?

It's a thought experiment. They're not saying it's occurred.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

It's a thought experiment. They're not saying it's occurred.

It's also a red herring fallacy and and only gets thrown out in discussions because it's the best gotcha question that someone can think of. This isn't arguing in good faith, it's baiting people into a line of argument that google search and weird blogs already gave them the answers for.

 

[Gethelred]

It's also a red herring fallacy and and only gets thrown out in discussions because it's the best gotcha question that someone can think of. This isn't arguing in good faith, it's baiting people into a line of argument that google search and weird blogs already gave them the answers for.

Have you followed the chat? Here's the answer:

Yes I do.

Thought experiments are useful because they explore the edges of what you or someone else things. In this case, it's not a red herring at all because Bloods actually thinks this and has provided - over the course of the conversation - why they think this.

Not all discussions on the SRP need be adversarial.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Have you followed the chat? Here's the answer:

Thought experiments are useful because they explore the edges of what you or someone else things. In this case, it's not a red herring at all because Bloods actually thinks this and has provided - over the course of the conversation - why they think this.

Not all discussions on the SRP need be adversarial.

I have followed the conversation. I respect that Bloods had the patience to try and engage with honesty however it appears by post #2821 they finally realized what they were dealing with.

 

[ElectricG]

I have followed the conversation. I respect that Bloods had the patience to try and engage with honesty however it appears by post #2821 they finally realized what they were dealing with.

Look, I felt like my questions weren’t being directly answered. Other people here seem to think he was explaining himself well and therefore I must be missing something or failing to read between the lines. That’s it.

He wasn’t “dealing with” anything other than a frustrated BF user.

 

[Bloods86]

I have followed the conversation. I respect that Bloods had the patience to try and engage with honesty however it appears by post #2821 they finally realized what they were dealing with.

I was happy enough to engage with the fringe case scenarios for a while. I'm not going to re-hash it, if some found my reasoning good, cool, if some didn't, ah well. I didn't for a second think I would change any minds anyway. Most people have pre-formed positions when engaging in this debate and it would take something pretty big to move them substantially.

I used to run straight to low frequency, fringe cases all the time, when I was arguing the opposite side to this debate. Although sometimes that was out of ignorance of them being fringe cases and not common practice. Because it's easier tbh, and where you can try and get people on an emotional level. It allows you, if you're not arguing from a religious perspective (e.g. where there's a god that knows of the unborn all the way through), to make claims about abortion being "morally fraught" for example (even if you haven't proved that for the vast majority of cases). So I get it.

 

[ElectricG]

I was happy enough to engage with the fringe case scenarios for a while. I'm not going to re-hash it, if some found my reasoning good, cool, if some didn't, ah well. I didn't for a second think I would change any minds anyway. Most people have pre-formed positions when engaging in this debate and it would take something pretty big to move them substantially.

I used to run straight to low frequency, fringe cases all the time, when I was arguing the opposite side to this debate. Although sometimes that was out of ignorance of them being fringe cases and not common practice. Because it's easier tbh, and where you can try and get people on an emotional level. It allows you, if you're not arguing from a religious perspective (e.g. where there's a god that knows of the unborn all the way through), to make claims about abortion being "morally fraught" for example (even if you haven't proved that for the vast majority of cases). So I get it.

Come on. I’m clearly trying to put a full stop on the whole thing by admitting that I may be misunderstanding your position. Do you really have to get the last word in like this?

 

[Bloods86]

Come on. I’m clearly trying to put a full stop on the whole thing by admitting that I may be misunderstanding your position. Do you really have to get the last word in like this?

I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to someone else who had thoughts on our exchange. I'm just pointing out that I knew what I was getting into. I even allowed for people not finding my reasoning satisfactory, like you've said you might have missed or not understood something.

 

[cartwright]

lol at all this "misunderstanding".

There is nothing that can be misunderstood here. Mind your business and leave women to make their own medical decisions.

 

[ElectricG]

lol at all this "misunderstanding".

There is nothing that can be misunderstood here. Mind your business and leave women to make their own medical decisions.

Omg you’ve solved it!

 

[Ghost Patrol]

lol at all this "misunderstanding".

There is nothing that can be misunderstood here. Mind your business and leave women to make their own medical decisions.

oh but his avatar is a woman, so clearly he understands them.

 

[cartwright]

Omg you’ve solved it!

You've made 211 posts in this thread. What part of "Mind your business and leave women to make their own medical decisions" are you not getting?

 

[ElectricG]

You've made 211 posts in this thread. What part of "Mind your business and leave women to make their own medical decisions" are you not getting?

Not an argument. If you haven’t been following, the last few pages have been about late term pregnancy where there are competing interests between the wishes of the mother and the unborn baby, who is at a point where it can clearly exhibit an interest in its own survival.

But I guess that’s all very simple and straight forward to you.

 

[cartwright]

Not an argument. If you haven’t been following, the last few pages have been about late term pregnancy where there are competing interests between the wishes of the mother and the unborn baby, who is at a point where it can clearly exhibit an interest in its own survival.

But I guess that’s all very simple and straight forward to you.

oh yeah, the fringe stuff. Not very common and most likely being considered due to, wait for it...... medical reasons.

Yes, it is very straight forward to most people.

 

[ElectricG]

oh yeah, the fringe stuff. Not very common and most likely being considered due to, wait for it...... medical reasons.

Yes, it is very straight forward to most people.

What are you even saying? If something is rare then… it’s fine?

What is your position on the termination of a healthy term baby who happens to not have passed through the birth canal? Should it be a criminal offence? Or just restricted by the AMA? Or it’s rare so who cares?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Not an argument. If you haven’t been following, the last few pages have been about late term pregnancy where there are competing interests between the wishes of the mother and the unborn baby, who is at a point where it can clearly exhibit an interest in its own survival.

But I guess that’s all very simple and straight forward to you.

How long do you think a baby could survive on it’s own after birth?

 

[ElectricG]

How long do you think a baby could survive on it’s own after birth?

Off the top of my head, a couple of days?
Edit: going somewhere with this, ghosty?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Off the top of my head, a couple of days?
Edit: going somewhere with this, ghosty?

The words you chose are quite odd. How does a new born baby clearly exhibit interest in its own survival?

 

[ElectricG]

The words you chose are quite odd. How does a new born baby clearly exhibit interest in its own survival?

Crying when it’s hurt, trying to move away from things causing it pain/discomfort, and signalling when it’s hungry.

What are you getting at, please?

 

[cartwright]

What are you even saying? If something is rare then… it’s fine?

What is your position on the termination of a healthy term baby who happens to not have passed through the birth canal? Should it be a criminal offence? Or just restricted by the AMA? Or it’s rare so who cares?

While these 'thought experiments' sound fascinating, please don't waste my time with them.

 

[ElectricG]

While these 'thought experiments' sound fascinating, please don't waste my time with them.

You said all this was straight forward. Are the current restrictions on late term abortions a paranoid concession to fringe thought experiments, or should we keep them in place? I only waded into this conversation because I saw (or wrongly perceived) someone implying they should be removed.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Crying when it’s hurt, trying to move away from things causing it pain/discomfort, and signalling when it’s hungry.

What are you getting at, please?

It's a thought experiment.

 

[cartwright]

so pharmacists are now too scared to administer medication, without approval from the patients doctor, that it's ... "not for an abortion".

Republican abortion bans restrict women’s access to other essential medicine

Many pharmacies and physicians are forced to deny patients access to drugs, such as methotrexate, that can be used to help induce an abortion

www.theguardian.com

Do women have any medical rights in the US anymore? At what point does the state have the right to control what medications an individual takes?
What about the right to privacy between the patient and the doctor? Now the chemist needs to know your business.

 

[Festerz]

oh but his avatar is a woman, so clearly he understands them.

Off-topic but that 'woman' is a reporter in Adelaide who several years ago made sensationalist and vile accusations on Adelaide TV against a young indigenous AFL player that were subsequently disproven. She and her employer have never issued an apology.

It has no relevance to this thread of course but neither has your comment.

Feel free to take a pot shot at my avatar if you like.

 

[Evolved1]

so pharmacists are now too scared to administer medication, without approval from the patients doctor, that it's ... "not for an abortion".

Republican abortion bans restrict women’s access to other essential medicine

Many pharmacies and physicians are forced to deny patients access to drugs, such as methotrexate, that can be used to help induce an abortion

www.theguardian.com

Do women have any medical rights in the US anymore? At what point does the state have the right to control what medications an individual takes?
What about the right to privacy between the patient and the doctor? Now the chemist needs to know your business.

Methotrexate is commonly used in treatment of autoimmune disorders. I really hope that's a one off.