Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Radical_Initiator » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:25 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:Yes, just like when you give consent to go sky diving, you give consent for the outcome of landing safely, and for the outcome of falling to your death.


So glad you used that analogy.

No, what you're saying is that jumping out of a plane is consenting to a messy high velocity death, and that parachutes shouldn't be allowed.


Gah, I'm going to side with Garm here. These analogies are getting tangled in the suspension lines of extended metaphors and are likely to fall victim to the terminal-velocity impact of having nothing what-the-fuck-soever to do with the real point at hand.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Angua » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:25 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:
Belial wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:Yes, just like when you give consent to go sky diving, you give consent for the outcome of landing safely, and for the outcome of falling to your death.


So glad you used that analogy.

No, what you're saying is that jumping out of a plane is consenting to a messy high velocity death, and that parachutes shouldn't be allowed.


No, Im saying should you consent to jump out of a plane, there is a possibility of your parachute failing, and you agree that its ok if you fall to your death.

You don't agree to it though, you don't have a choice - if there was some way of teleporting you away from falling to your death or catching you then you would use that.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Роберт » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:26 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:
Belial wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:Yes, just like when you give consent to go sky diving, you give consent for the outcome of landing safely, and for the outcome of falling to your death.


So glad you used that analogy.

No, what you're saying is that jumping out of a plane is consenting to a messy high velocity death, and that parachutes shouldn't be allowed.


No, Im saying should you consent to jump out of a plane, there is a possibility of your parachute failing, and you agree that its ok if you fall to your death.

I called it!

Now, what if your parachute failed and someone else has the ability to save you. Should that be made illegal so you're forced to face the consequences of skydiving?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby DSenette » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:27 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:
Belial wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:Yes, just like when you give consent to go sky diving, you give consent for the outcome of landing safely, and for the outcome of falling to your death.


So glad you used that analogy.

No, what you're saying is that jumping out of a plane is consenting to a messy high velocity death, and that parachutes shouldn't be allowed.


No, Im saying should you consent to jump out of a plane, there is a possibility of your parachute failing, and you agree that its ok if you fall to your death.

this is mind numbingly insane.

anyone who has consensual sex should either choose a 100% effective method of birth control, or they should be forced to carry a baby to term.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Garm » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:28 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:
Belial wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:Yes, just like when you give consent to go sky diving, you give consent for the outcome of landing safely, and for the outcome of falling to your death.


So glad you used that analogy.

No, what you're saying is that jumping out of a plane is consenting to a messy high velocity death, and that parachutes shouldn't be allowed.


No, Im saying should you consent to jump out of a plane, there is a possibility of your parachute failing, and you agree that its ok if you fall to your death.

You don't agree to it though, you don't have a choice - if there was some way of teleporting you away from falling to your death or catching you then you would use that.


Trigger warning:

Spoiler:
Or maybe your dad or step-dad comes in one night, holds you down, and makes you jump out of a plane, only someone took your right to a parachute away or made it so you had to watch a recording of a doctor reading a script before you could get a parachute.... too bad you'd already jumped.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby podbaydoor » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:29 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:
Belial wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:Yes, just like when you give consent to go sky diving, you give consent for the outcome of landing safely, and for the outcome of falling to your death.


So glad you used that analogy.

No, what you're saying is that jumping out of a plane is consenting to a messy high velocity death, and that parachutes shouldn't be allowed.


No, Im saying should you consent to jump out of a plane, there is a possibility of your parachute failing, and you agree that its ok if you fall to your death.

And the man in this analogy will NEVER face the possibility of falling to his death, only the woman. That is fundamentally unequal. How does it feel to be making pronouncements about other people's right to prevent their deaths when you know you will never have to deal with it, ever? That's the equivalent of what you're saying.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:29 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:What if someone is going to be raped, sexually assaulted, or seriously harmed, but not necessarily killed?


I would say it might be appropriate, but the difference being those are not consensual situations. A pregnancy by consensual sex does not fit into your line of reasoning.


Yes, it does. Just not in the way you think. For argument's sake, let's suppose the fetus is a person. If a woman has consensual sex with a man, that does not imply she is not giving consent to the fetus (a different person) to enter her body. Because the fetus is not the man who she had sex with. It is a different person entirely. Much like, just because my wife consents to have sex with me, does not imply that she necessarily consents to have sex with anyone who is not me. Therefore, the fetus' use of her body is non-consensual unless she explicitly allows it. Moreover, the fetus causes harm to the woman's body. It causes swelling, bloating, aches, pains, vomiting, to name a few. It violates her sexual organs on its way out and causes extreme pain. Consent between two people does not imply that a third party also has consent, regardless of the third party's relationship to the other two. This is the problem with your position: you can't have it both ways; if you want the fetus to be a person, then you have to treat it like a person in all respects--it isn't a logical consequence of some activity, it is a participant; if you don't want it to be a person, then you should have no reason to deny people the right to mitigate those consequences in whatever way they choose.

Drumheller769 wrote:Yes, just like when you give consent to go sky diving, you give consent for the outcome of landing safely, and for the outcome of falling to your death.


Uh, no, you don't consent to die when you go skydiving. That doesn't even make sense. You recognize it as a risk, and you do everything in your power to mitigate the risk. At best, you "consent" only in the sense that you sign a waiver saying that you won't hold the skydiving company accountable if you die. But you don't consent to dying itself.
Last edited by LaserGuy on Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:29 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Xeio » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:29 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:No, Im saying should you consent to jump out of a plane, there is a possibility of your parachute failing, and you agree that its ok if you fall to your death.
This is why most people bring back up parachutes (like more than one form of contraception, or abortions).

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Jessica » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:29 pm UTC

Secondary parachutes exist for a reason.
ninja'd
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Garm » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:31 pm UTC

Have I mentioned how annoying it is when people argue by analogy?
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Radical_Initiator » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:31 pm UTC

Garm wrote:Have I mentioned how annoying it is when people argue by analogy?


I happened to catch it, at least.

Edit: No! Wait! This is exactly like a situation in which a woman consents to eating a tapeworm, only the tapeworm isn't actually alive until she swallows it ... Or maybe it's like a tractor-trailer driving toward a stopped school bus filled with nuns! Yeah! And then they all explode, and the tapeworm eats Cleveland, and abortion should be legal, right?
Last edited by Radical_Initiator on Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:34 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I looked out across the river today …

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby DSenette » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:32 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:What if someone is going to be raped, sexually assaulted, or seriously harmed, but not necessarily killed?


I would say it might be appropriate, but the difference being those are not consensual situations. A pregnancy by consensual sex does not fit into your line of reasoning.


Yes, it does. Just not in the way you think. For argument's sake, let's suppose the fetus is a person. If a woman has consensual sex with a man, that does not imply she is not giving consent to the fetus (a different person) to enter her body. Because the fetus is not the man who she had sex with. It is a different person entirely. Much like, just because my wife consents to have sex with me, does not imply that she necessarily consents to have sex with anyone who is not me. Therefore, the fetus' use of her body is non-consensual unless she explicitly allows it. Moreover, the fetus causes harm to the woman's body. It causes swelling, bloating, aches, pains, vomiting, to name a few. It violates her sexual organs on its way out and causes extreme pain. Consent between two people does not imply that a third party also has consent, regardless of the third party's relationship to the other two. This is the problem with your position: you can't have it both ways; if you want the fetus to be a person, then you have to treat it like a person in all respects--it isn't a logical consequence of some activity, it is a participant; if you don't want it to be a person, then you should have no reason to deny people the right to mitigate those consequences in whatever way they choose.
this...

your buddy calls you up and asks if he can come live in your house (that you own) for a while because he's down on his luck. you consent to him doing so for an agreed upon time frame, however, a few minutes into the transaction, his buddy shows up and moves in to your house too.

just because you agreed for your buddy to occupy your property (put his penis in your vagina) doesn't mean you also consented for him to invite someone else along (implant a baby in your uterus)
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Xeio » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:32 pm UTC

Garm wrote:Have I mentioned how annoying it is when people argue by analogy?
I argue by analogy like an atom covalently bonds!

Drumheller769
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 7:46 pm UTC
Location: ♞♞♞

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Drumheller769 » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:33 pm UTC

You do agree to dying, you have to sign a form that says you agree to accept any and all consequences for partaking in sky diving. Also, I chose that analogy because it was an either or choice, you either sign and fly, or you don't, superman will not save you. And by consent to dying, I mean accepting the consequences, would it be better to say acknowledge the fact you may die?



Wow like 10 posts in a minute: I'm arguing by analogy because everyone thinks Im being a jerk while, except for Lazar, ignoring the other half of my argument, now to read his post....

Edit LaserGuy*
The Great Hippo wrote:Arguing with the internet is a lot like arguing with a bullet. The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Роберт » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:33 pm UTC

Great, everyone agrees Drumheller769's argument is idiotic. Now the thread can move on to more interesting and less obvious things.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Belial » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:34 pm UTC

Garm wrote:Trigger warning:

Spoiler:
Or maybe your dad or step-dad comes in one night, holds you down, and makes you jump out of a plane, only someone took your right to a parachute away or made it so you had to watch a recording of a doctor reading a script before you could get a parachute.... too bad you'd already jumped.


And with that, let's talk about rape exceptions:

They don't actually exist.

Because if you have to prove you were raped before you have an abortion, it's not a real rape exception: many rapes are unproveable, and court cases generally take longer than the term of a pregnancy anyway. Likewise, reasonable doubt (which is there to protect the accused) is designed to err on the side of allowing guilty people to walk free rather than innocent people be jailed (in theory anyway). When applied to this situation, it means you're erring on the side of forcing rape victims to give birth rather than let an unraped woman have an abortion

If you don't have to prove that you were raped, then it's just "are you willing to tell a harmless lie to a government official in order to get healthcare". The ban may as well not exist except for show.

Rape exceptions are thrown into laws to pacify people who don't really care and aren't going to think for more than five minutes about how they're implemented.

So let's stop pretending like we can somehow exclude rape victims from this conversation: if you favor forced-birth, you favor forced-birth for rape victims.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Роберт » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Belial wrote:So let's stop pretending like we can somehow exclude rape victims from this conversation: if you favor forced-birth, you favor forced-birth for rape victims.

Which, if the reason for forced-birth is protecting the rights of Schrodinger's baby, makes sense anyway. The reason Schrodinger's baby is there does not affect the rights of Schrodinger's baby or the woman carrying it.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby DSenette » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:37 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:You do agree to dying, you have to sign a form that says you agree to accept any and all consequences for partaking in sky diving. Also, I chose that analogy because it was an either or choice, you either sign and fly, or you don't, superman will not save you. And by consent to dying, I mean accepting the consequences, would it be better to say acknowledge the fact you may die?



Wow like 10 posts in a minute: I'm arguing by analogy because everyone thinks Im being a jerk while, except for Lazar, ignoring the other half of my argument, now to read his post....

Edit LaserGuy*

no, your argument was "a woman who becomes pregnant after having consensual sex should not be able to get an abortion".

then you go on to make analogies about how when you participate in an activity, you should know what all the possible outcomes of those activities are, and prepare accordingly to prevent the outcomes you do not want.

what you're ignoring is that abortion is one of those preparations for preventing an unwanted outcome.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

Drumheller769
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 7:46 pm UTC
Location: ♞♞♞

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Drumheller769 » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:40 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:You do agree to dying, you have to sign a form that says you agree to accept any and all consequences for partaking in sky diving. Also, I chose that analogy because it was an either or choice, you either sign and fly, or you don't, superman will not save you. And by consent to dying, I mean accepting the consequences, would it be better to say acknowledge the fact you may die?



Wow like 10 posts in a minute: I'm arguing by analogy because everyone thinks Im being a jerk while, except for Lazar, ignoring the other half of my argument, now to read his post....

Edit LaserGuy*

no, your argument was "a woman who becomes pregnant after having consensual sex should not be able to get an abortion".

then you go on to make analogies about how when you participate in an activity, you should know what all the possible outcomes of those activities are, and prepare accordingly to prevent the outcomes you do not want.

what you're ignoring is that abortion is one of those preparations for preventing an unwanted outcome.


Again, not my whole argument, please get it all.

@LaserGuy: The fetus is not a participant, it is a result of a consensual act between 2 people, its a possible outcome.

@Dsenette: the other half you are ignoring is I do not think a woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus's right to life in any situation except rape, or where the mother's life is in danger.
The Great Hippo wrote:Arguing with the internet is a lot like arguing with a bullet. The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Jessica » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:42 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:@Dsenette: the other half you are ignoring is I do not think a woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus's right to life in any situation except rape, or where the mother's life is in danger.
Why then? If a woman doesn't consent to sex, or they don't want to die, they get bodily autonomy, but if they don't consent to having a child, or giving birth, or going through 9 months of hormone changes, they don't get bodily autonomy?

How can you tell?
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby podbaydoor » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:42 pm UTC

Okay, so a walking, talking, thinking human being with dreams, memories, families, and friends, is worth less than a thing that doesn't have a brain for most of its existence. Good to know.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Belial » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:43 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:@Dsenette: the other half you are ignoring is I do not think a woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus's right to life in any situation except rape


See "Rape exceptions, existence of (outside the land of pretend)" above.

Congratulations, I just made your viewpoint simultaneously more consistent and more awful.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby DSenette » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:46 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Belial wrote:So let's stop pretending like we can somehow exclude rape victims from this conversation: if you favor forced-birth, you favor forced-birth for rape victims.

Which, if the reason for forced-birth is protecting the rights of Schrodinger's baby, makes sense anyway. The reason Schrodinger's baby is there does not affect the rights of Schrodinger's baby or the woman carrying it.

and everyone that supports that possibility should be forced to pay in to support said baby, pay for it's medical care pre and postpartum, and take turns housing the gremlin till it's 18. otherwise, fuck them for bringing another unwanted, uncared for child into the world

Drumheller769 wrote:
DSenette wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:You do agree to dying, you have to sign a form that says you agree to accept any and all consequences for partaking in sky diving. Also, I chose that analogy because it was an either or choice, you either sign and fly, or you don't, superman will not save you. And by consent to dying, I mean accepting the consequences, would it be better to say acknowledge the fact you may die?



Wow like 10 posts in a minute: I'm arguing by analogy because everyone thinks Im being a jerk while, except for Lazar, ignoring the other half of my argument, now to read his post....

Edit LaserGuy*

no, your argument was "a woman who becomes pregnant after having consensual sex should not be able to get an abortion".

then you go on to make analogies about how when you participate in an activity, you should know what all the possible outcomes of those activities are, and prepare accordingly to prevent the outcomes you do not want.

what you're ignoring is that abortion is one of those preparations for preventing an unwanted outcome.


Again, not my whole argument, please get it all.

@LaserGuy: The fetus is not a participant, it is a result of a consensual act between 2 people, its a possible outcome.

@Dsenette: the other half you are ignoring is I do not think a woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus's right to life in any situation except rape, or where the mother's life is in danger.
what jessica said, and, again, you're saying the same thing in different words.

if a woman becomes pregnant through any means other than rape, and her pregnancy isn't causing her life to be in direct danger, then she should be forced to carry her baby to full term. no matter what the other possibilities are.

like:
condom broke
IUD failed
condom was sabotaged by a fuckface partner
you thought you loved the guy, and he loved you, so you were all like, fuck yeah i wanna have a baby with this guy and live together forever, but then a week or two after you did the do without a condom he split, and you don't have the ability to take care of this child if it comes to full terms, let alone pay for prenatal care, or the birth itself, and you don't have any family to take care of you, and shit, if only there was another option other than having this baby

etc...
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:50 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:@LaserGuy: The fetus is not a participant, it is a result of a consensual act between 2 people, its a possible outcome.


So the fetus is not a person, then, from your point of view? Because if it is a person, then it needs consent to use another person's body. If it is not a person, then it is a parasite or a tumour, and can be treated medically if the woman wants it to be. The consensual act between the man and the woman does not imply any sort of consent between the woman and any other person.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Роберт » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:51 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:
Роберт wrote:
Belial wrote:So let's stop pretending like we can somehow exclude rape victims from this conversation: if you favor forced-birth, you favor forced-birth for rape victims.

Which, if the reason for forced-birth is protecting the rights of Schrodinger's baby, makes sense anyway. The reason Schrodinger's baby is there does not affect the rights of Schrodinger's baby or the woman carrying it.

and everyone that supports that possibility should be forced to pay in to support said baby, pay for it's medical care pre and postpartum, and take turns housing the gremlin till it's 18. otherwise, fuck them for bringing another unwanted, uncared for child into the world
Sure, we (the taxpayers) should definitely be paying any needed "child support". Isn't that obviously part of
promote the general Welfare
?

LaserGuy wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:@LaserGuy: The fetus is not a participant, it is a result of a consensual act between 2 people, its a possible outcome.


So the fetus is not a person, then, from your point of view? Because if it is a person, then it needs consent to use another person's body. If it is not a person, then it is a parasite or a tumour, and can be treated medically if the woman wants it to be. The consensual act between the man and the woman does not imply any sort of consent between the woman and any other person.

This argument is also ridiculous. Just because it's a person doesn't mean it chose to be there any more than the woman chose to be pregnant.
Last edited by Роберт on Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Drumheller769
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 7:46 pm UTC
Location: ♞♞♞

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Drumheller769 » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:51 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:@Dsenette: the other half you are ignoring is I do not think a woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus's right to life in any situation except rape


See "Rape exceptions, existence of (outside the land of pretend)" above.

Congratulations, I just made your viewpoint simultaneously more consistent and more awful.


In your above above statement - I am not referring to rape in a pressing charges sense, it's as you said the woman claims she is raped(yes she could lie) but as it is the woman getting the abortion and she is choosing I think we can say she wont lie to herself .

@pod and Jessica: Its that both the lives of the mother and the fetus are sacred, neither should be sacrificed for the other, not that one is worth more. To your point about life experience Pod, yes its completely likely that they get the abortion and survive and go on to invent a cure for HIV, but the same could be said of the fetus. I'm saying you cant place one life over another in the circumstances I have outlined, which also I feel align closely with our legal system. Look at various trials and see when it was acceptable for a person to use lethal force, and when not.
The Great Hippo wrote:Arguing with the internet is a lot like arguing with a bullet. The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Garm » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:52 pm UTC

podbaydoor wrote:Okay, so a walking, talking, thinking human being with dreams, memories, families, and friends, is worth less than a thing that doesn't have a brain for most of its existence. Good to know.


And to top it off, once the fetus becomes a baby (by being born, one way or another), these morons no longer care about its existence.

Since no one bothered to answer my leading question, I'll just go ahead and start talking about what I wanted to talk about. Hundreds of thousands of embryos are discarded every year by fertility clinics yet this is okay. No outcry from the anti-abortion crowd (the really vocal bits of it anyway, I'm sure there are people out there whose moral stances are consistent, they just don't generally make the news) despite amendments like this that would define an embryo as a person, but apparently only insofar as concerns a woman. Embryo in a woman: Person, must be carried to term. Embryo in a test tube: Not a person, can be flushed down toilet or washed down a sink.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Drumheller769
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 7:46 pm UTC
Location: ♞♞♞

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Drumheller769 » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:52 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:@LaserGuy: The fetus is not a participant, it is a result of a consensual act between 2 people, its a possible outcome.


So the fetus is not a person, then, from your point of view? Because if it is a person, then it needs consent to use another person's body. If it is not a person, then it is a parasite or a tumour, and can be treated medically if the woman wants it to be. The consensual act between the man and the woman does not imply any sort of consent between the woman and any other person.


It is a person created as a result of the other 2 parties actions.
The Great Hippo wrote:Arguing with the internet is a lot like arguing with a bullet. The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:53 pm UTC

Garm wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Garm wrote:Why must there be consequences for sexual activity?


Let's see..... Uh maybe an analogy might be in order. Why might playing with balloons filled with nitro glycerin have consequences? Why might driving at high speed with a blindfold have consequences? Because there might be predictable, and unpleasant outcomes, maybe. Consequences of some type are always the product of any activity. In the end it won't matter what anyone thinks if the amendment passes and gets a pass from the Supreme Court. It will be the law. And then the consequences may be severe.


No, no analogies. Arguing by analogy is just a method to obfuscate the fact that you're arguing about a believe or a subject that you don't fully understand or can't explain. That's fine and all but I really am curious as to why we need to have "consequences" for sexual activity. Here, I use consequences in the pejorative sense since possible consequences (or more properly the results/outcome/effects) of sex are pleasure and increased intimacy but neither of those really enter into our conversation. Note that all of your analogies dovetail nicely into this pejorative sense of what consequences ought to be which might tell us something about your views on abortion and pre-marital or non-marital sexual activity (though also might not, I don't know). So let me rephrase my question:

Why must sexual intercourse between two people who do not desire children result in negative consequences?


It doesn't. Removing the outliers, and speaking exclusively to consensual sex, the negative consequences might occur if the coupling produces a pregnancy. Since their is no common point of view about the morality or legality of terminating a pregnancy, than the law gets to butt in. And all laws aren't written by sympathetic legislators. So in a practical sense there you go. Negative consequences, maybe. You can tap dance, slide, grease up, but you can't control all the variables. Having the woman assume responsibility is not about blaming her, it's about the fact that she bears most of the potential consequences, and the expense, and the possible biological and emotional fallout. Blame natural selection or God, whichever suits you, you would be foolish not to anticipate the possibility.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Роберт » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:55 pm UTC

Garm wrote:Embryo in a woman: Person, must be carried to term. Embryo in a test tube: Not a person, can be flushed down toilet or washed down a sink.
That certainly seems inconsistent (or consistent with the idea that it's really just about f***ing women over).

If a fertilized egg is considered a person, it should be considered a person regardless of its location. (Full disclosure: I think the same thing about a viable fetus.)
Last edited by Роберт on Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Belial » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:55 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:In your above above statement - I am not referring to rape in a pressing charges sense, it's as you said the woman claims she is raped(yes she could lie) but as it is the woman getting the abortion and she is choosing I think we can say she wont lie to herself .


So what you're saying is that you're pro-choice, but you think everyone should choose birth of their own accord?

Okay, that's nice. I still think you're crazy and wrong, but it's a benign, harmless kind of crazy and wrong.

We're talking about people who want to make it illegal. Which would require you to actually implement some way of verifying the rape assertion.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Drumheller769
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 7:46 pm UTC
Location: ♞♞♞

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Drumheller769 » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:55 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:
if a woman becomes pregnant through any means other than rape, and her pregnancy isn't causing her life to be in direct danger, then she should be forced to carry her baby to full term. no matter what the other possibilities are.

like:
condom broke
IUD failed
condom was sabotaged by a fuckface partner
you thought you loved the guy, and he loved you, so you were all like, fuck yeah i wanna have a baby with this guy and live together forever, but then a week or two after you did the do without a condom he split, and you don't have the ability to take care of this child if it comes to full terms, let alone pay for prenatal care, or the birth itself, and you don't have any family to take care of you, and shit, if only there was another option other than having this baby

etc...



Yes, a starving man is not allowed to murder you for your lunch. Lack of means does not give leave for murder.
The Great Hippo wrote:Arguing with the internet is a lot like arguing with a bullet. The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Jessica » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:56 pm UTC

Stop using analogies.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

Drumheller769
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 7:46 pm UTC
Location: ♞♞♞

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Drumheller769 » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:56 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:In your above above statement - I am not referring to rape in a pressing charges sense, it's as you said the woman claims she is raped(yes she could lie) but as it is the woman getting the abortion and she is choosing I think we can say she wont lie to herself .


So what you're saying is that you're pro-choice, but you think everyone should choose birth of their own accord?

Okay, that's nice. I still think you're crazy and wrong, but it's a benign, harmless kind of crazy and wrong.

We're talking about people who want to make it illegal. Which would require you to actually implement some way of verifying the rape assertion.


Im pro-life, but would rather the government stop dictating to me what I should think is moral and they should stay outta my religion, as also my religion should stay outta government.
The Great Hippo wrote:Arguing with the internet is a lot like arguing with a bullet. The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.

Drumheller769
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 7:46 pm UTC
Location: ♞♞♞

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Drumheller769 » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:57 pm UTC

Jessica wrote:Stop using analogies.

The analogy explains the point: Lack of means does not give leave for murder.
The Great Hippo wrote:Arguing with the internet is a lot like arguing with a bullet. The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:58 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:@LaserGuy: The fetus is not a participant, it is a result of a consensual act between 2 people, its a possible outcome.


So the fetus is not a person, then, from your point of view? Because if it is a person, then it needs consent to use another person's body. If it is not a person, then it is a parasite or a tumour, and can be treated medically if the woman wants it to be. The consensual act between the man and the woman does not imply any sort of consent between the woman and any other person.


It is a person created as a result of the other 2 parties actions.


So what? It still does not have the right to use another person's body for its own purposes without permission, and that permission may be withdrawn at the mother's discretion. And, as I said, it not only is using her body for its own purposes, but is causing her major physical discomfort for an extended period of time as well, capped off by an incredibly painful and violating experience when it finally gets around to moving out.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Роберт » Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:00 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:In your above above statement - I am not referring to rape in a pressing charges sense, it's as you said the woman claims she is raped(yes she could lie) but as it is the woman getting the abortion and she is choosing I think we can say she wont lie to herself .


So what you're saying is that you're pro-choice, but you think everyone should choose birth of their own accord?

Okay, that's nice. I still think you're crazy and wrong, but it's a benign, harmless kind of crazy and wrong.

We're talking about people who want to make it illegal. Which would require you to actually implement some way of verifying the rape assertion.

Well, really, they could just make it perjury to get an abortion. Like, you want an abortion, so you say you were raped (whether you were or not).

Someone gets angry about things and takes you to court saying you weren't raped. Court decides. If the court decides you definitely weren't raped, but you said you were so you get an abortion, you gave false testimony, and are convicted of perjury. It could be implemented that way.

Of course, it wouldn't be in the real world...
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Drumheller769
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 7:46 pm UTC
Location: ♞♞♞

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Drumheller769 » Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:01 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:@LaserGuy: The fetus is not a participant, it is a result of a consensual act between 2 people, its a possible outcome.


So the fetus is not a person, then, from your point of view? Because if it is a person, then it needs consent to use another person's body. If it is not a person, then it is a parasite or a tumour, and can be treated medically if the woman wants it to be. The consensual act between the man and the woman does not imply any sort of consent between the woman and any other person.


It is a person created as a result of the other 2 parties actions.


So what? It still does not have the right to use another person's body for its own purposes without permission, and that permission may be withdrawn at the mother's discretion. And, as I said, it not only is using her body for its own purposes, but is causing her major physical discomfort for an extended period of time as well, capped off by an incredibly painful and violating experience when it finally gets around to moving out.



It has a right to life brought about by their choices, and now we are back to where we differ on opinion.
The Great Hippo wrote:Arguing with the internet is a lot like arguing with a bullet. The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.

User avatar
iChef
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:33 pm UTC
Location: About 5 cm. south of the ring finger, USA.

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby iChef » Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:01 pm UTC

Personally, as a Catholic, I am against abortion. Aside from rape the has only been one person in all of history who has been pregnant by "accident", and she was Jesus' mom so I guess I'm okay with that. In my personal life I have used abstaining from sex as my number one method of birth control and it works great. I am okay with condoms as well, but they are not fool proof.

That being said I think it is totally 100% wrong to legislate my religion. If other people want to have abortions that is their choice that they should have the freedom to make. This law is bad for women, bad for men and bad for the country. As a true conservative (but not a Scotsman, my family is English) I don't want politicians anywhere near my or anyone else's doctor. There are some cases where an abortion may be needed. The one excuse that makes me sick is 'because i don't want to take care of a kid". If you are old enough to know where babies come from, you need to take responsibility for your actions. This childish immature attitude is at the root of many things that are currently wrong with our country (borrowing tons of money with no idea how to repay, starting stupid wars with no idea how to get out). This goes equally for men (which I am) if you are not ready to be a father, a real father not just cutting child support checks, then maybe having sex isn't a great idea. Or if you are going to use birth control better be ready to be in that 1% where it is not effective.

That being said this Amendment is a completely stupid idea. One of the founding values of this country is the ability to freely practice your religion without forcing anyone to do the same, if this was a Sharia law Amendment these same people would be screaming about how the terrorists are taking over the country and America is doomed and Oh me yarm freedom of religion. I think conservatives in this country need a serious idiotectomy. Although that would probably only leave a few thousand of us left....

I also see the way this amendment is worded as a slippery slope. We are only one more law away from turning the situation under my computer desk into the Holocaust.
Those whom God loves, he must make beautiful, and a beautiful character must, in some way, suffer.
-Tailsteak author of the Webcomics 1/0 and Leftover Soup

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Роберт » Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:02 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:So what? It still does not have the right to use another person's body for its own purposes without permission, and that permission may be withdrawn at the mother's discretion. And, as I said, it not only is using her body for its own purposes, but is causing her major physical discomfort for an extended period of time as well, capped off by an incredibly painful and violating experience when it finally gets around to moving out.

Stop saying idiotic things. Let's say a fetus is a person. Just because it's a person doesn't mean it's the one "getting around to moving out". It's not the one who put itself there any more than the mother is the one who put it there.

Another argument useful for little more than categorizing those who use it.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests