Oklahoma passes insane abortion measures over veto

[Alphawolf55]

"Stop using "life" as a synonym for "full legal personhood", you dishonest twat. There is "life" in a petri dish full of bacteria."

Start learning how to read, you idiot. I never said it was life, I merely questioned why other people aren't allowed to believe it is if they believe something else.

Do not lie to my face, you goddamned dishonest little shit. Anyone can see in your previous post that you say a person differentiating between a person and a fetus "really doesn't consider it life".

"Yes, the dog's life does have some legal protection. But no one in his right mind would ever say that a woman should be physically tortured with agonizing pain against her will, in order to save a dog's life."

You honestly see child birth similar to torture?

What part of "physical trauma and pain" do you not understand, exactly? Did you flunk grade-school health class? Do you not understand how childbirth works? If I forcibly subjected a prisoner to as much pain and trauma as a woman experiences in childbirth, I would be charged with violating the goddamned Geneva Convention.

It is obvious to me that you are so monstrously ignorant that you think childbirth involves a package being delivered by a stork. Either that, or you are such a sociopathic misogynist that you think the pain and physical trauma associated with childbirth somehow "don't count" because it is a woman's natural place to undergo such things.

You're officially a fucking retard. Point out where I said a fetus is life.

[Darth Wong]

Torture usually is a punishment and usually is meant to cause pain to accomplish something or coerce something. If you made a woman have birth as punishment for having sex that could be considered torturous but child-birth itself I don't know if I can agree falls into it, but I could be wrong.

If it's forcibly inflicted on you against your will, it's torture. What part of this exceeds your intellectual capacity? Are you saying that if I torture you for kicks but not to extract information, then it's not torture?

[Darth Wong]

You're officially a fucking retard. Point out where I said a fetus is life.

If you didn't say it, then you are a fucking retard, because a fetus obviously is life. What I accused you of is using the word "life" where you should be using the term "legal personhood". You're so goddamned stupid that you don't even understand what you're being accused of. But I suppose I shouldn't expect any better from someone who is too mentally incapacitated to understand that the pain and trauma of childbirth would be considered torture if forcibly imposed on a prisoner against his will.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I'm just saying my sister just had her first child and she'd consider that insulting, in fact most pregnant women I did found it insulting whenever suggested any sort of disability.

So you counter the established fact that pregnant women have their physical capabilities severely limited for the duration of the pregnancy with... a personal anecdote?

Torture usually is a punishment and usually is meant to cause pain to accomplish something or coerce something. If you made a woman have birth as punishment for having sex that could be considered torturous but child-birth itself I don't know if I can agree falls into it, but I could be wrong.

Torture involves large amounts of pain and duress, pregnancy involves large amounts of pain and duress. What part of this is so damned difficult for you to comprehend?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm just saying my sister just had her first child and she'd consider that insulting, in fact most pregnant women I did found it insulting whenever suggested any sort of disability.

That depends on their attitude toward the fetus now doesn't it? A pregnant woman who wants the fetus would find it insulting. A pregnant women who is forced to carry the fetus would consider it disabling.

True but what are the odds? For example there's a 1 in 10,000 chance that you'll die during pregnancy, but there's also a 1 in 10,000 chance you'll die in a car accident.

1 in 10 suffer from pregnancy induced depression, 5% will develop pregnancy induced diabetes, 5 in a thousand suffer severe but non-lethal morbidity.

Torture usually is a punishment and usually is meant to cause pain to accomplish something or coerce something. If you made a woman have birth as punishment for having sex that could be considered torturous but child-birth itself I don't know if I can agree falls into it, but I could be wrong.

It does it the woman never wanted to give birth in the first place cunt-stick

[Darth Wong]

Hey Alphawolf55, would you consider it "torture" if we forcibly subjected you to electroshock, put clothespins on your balls, and rammed a baseball bat up your ass? After all, there are people out there who have voluntarily done that to themselves, and we're not doing it to extract information, so by your logic, it's not torture, right?

[Alphawolf55]

You're officially a fucking retard. Point out where I said a fetus is life.

If you didn't say it, then you are a fucking retard, because a fetus obviously is life. What I accused you of is using the word "life" where you should be using the term "legal personhood". You're so goddamned stupid that you don't even understand what you're being accused of. But I suppose I shouldn't expect any better from someone who is too mentally incapacitated to understand that the pain and trauma of childbirth would be considered torture if forcibly imposed on a prisoner against his will.

Are you seriously that fucking angry over semantics? What are you a fucking child?
Now, I know you're very special and you're not use to people calling you on your retarded and ridiculous behavior (seriously you flip out over the littlest shit like a goddamn child) but follow this slowly. Are fetus life? Yes. Do they have legal personhood? No. But we were talking about how Christians view things, when Christians say a fetus is alive, they don't mean a clump of cells, they mean something with a soul. For Christians life IS a synonym for personhood, so when I say why can't they consider it life, it means the same thing as personhood and you should know that. Every pro-life person raises signs about how it's life not how it's personhood.

Now to be civil, I'm honestly sorry if it's a pet peeve of yours but you seriously got angry over the stupidest thing. When people talk about whether a fetus is alive, they aren't arguing over whether it has cells, they're arguing whether it constitutes a person. Is it correct terminology? No, but it's the language 99% of the participants of the debate use.

Also to answer your question about child birth. When you put it that way I can understand why you rightfully call it torture.

[Darth Wong]

You're officially a fucking retard. Point out where I said a fetus is life.

If you didn't say it, then you are a fucking retard, because a fetus obviously is life. What I accused you of is using the word "life" where you should be using the term "legal personhood". You're so goddamned stupid that you don't even understand what you're being accused of. But I suppose I shouldn't expect any better from someone who is too mentally incapacitated to understand that the pain and trauma of childbirth would be considered torture if forcibly imposed on a prisoner against his will.

Are you seriously that fucking angry over semantics? What are you a fucking child?

Nice case of projection, moron. When I describe your bullshit in insulting terms, it's not an emotional outburst; it is my honest assessment of the stupidity of the things you are saying.

Now, I know you're very special and you're not use to people calling you on your retarded and ridiculous behavior (seriously you flip out over the littlest shit like a goddamn child) but follow this slowly. Are fetus life? Yes. Do they have legal personhood? No.

Funny how you dismiss it as mere semantics in order to rant about what a bad person I am, but then you concede that the answer is completely different depending on which term you use.

But we were talking about how Christians view things, when Christians say a fetus is alive, they don't mean a clump of cells, they mean something with a soul. For Christians life IS a synonym for personhood, so when I say why can't they consider it life, it means the same thing as personhood and you should know that. Every pro-life person raises signs about how it's life not how it's personhood.

Why the fuck should this discussion be framed in the misleading terminology preferred by Bible thumping anti-abortionists?

Now to be civil, I'm honestly sorry if it's a pet peeve of yours but you seriously got angry over the stupidest thing.

So it's "stupid" to distinguish between two things you admit are totally different concepts now? How is it "stupid" to demand that you stop using grossly misleading terminology?

When people talk about whether a fetus is alive, they aren't arguing over whether it has cells, they're arguing whether it constitutes a person. Is it correct terminology? No, but it's the language 99% of the participants of the debate use.

Wrong. It is deliberately misleading language that is used primarily by anti-abortionists.

Also to answer your question about child birth. When you put it that way I can understand why you rightfully call it torture.

Fine. Now answer the original point I made when I first described it as torture: a point you ignored and evaded by pretending that it was unreasonable to do so.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Are you seriously that fucking angry over semantics? What are you a fucking child?

No. It is not semantics. There are very real philosophical differences between those two terms, and not only have you confused those meanings in your poorly thought out, shabbily constructed arguments, but you have used that same confusion to attack others and have not taken the correction with a gracious "mae culpa" like you should.

re fetus life? Yes. Do they have legal personhood? No. But we were talking about how Christians view things, when Christians say a fetus is alive, they don't mean a clump of cells, they mean something with a soul.

And when they do so they commit a false equivocation fallacy, because they use things like the fetal heartbeat and the like to argue for personhood. In other words they conflate the two terms "Life" (it has a metabolism) and "Person" (it is worthy of moral consideration) without making the connection between the two, and do so to the point that it is intellectually dishonest.

Why the fuck should this discussion be framed in the misleading terminology preferred by Bible thumping anti-abortionists?

Agreed.

[Alphawolf55]

No it's not an honest assessment. It's you having an emotional hissy-fit over the words someone else is using and instead of merely correcting or hey asking what my intent were you assumed I'm trying to trick or mislead you, even when I already said I agree with you when it comes to abortions.

See that's your problem. You see people being wrong or having different opinions as them deliberately trying to mislead people as if they are knowingly lying to people and trying to trick them but for what reason? Also if you don't think most Pro-Abortion people use the term life in debates then you haven't witnessed enough of them between Americans.

Which point? That it'd be torturous to force a woman to have birth? And that no one would make a woman go through torture to save a dog. Yeah I agree that'd be torturous. Though it sets up a different moral debate in some ways.

[Darth Wong]

No it's not an honest assessment. It's you having an emotional hissy-fit over the words someone else is using and instead of merely correcting or hey asking what my intent were you assumed I'm trying to trick or mislead you, even when I already said I agree with you when it comes to abortions.

Ah, so you're a mind-reader now? It's pretty obvious what's happening: when you insult someone, it is invariably from a position of emotional lashing-out instead of contempt, so you assume it must be the same for me.

See that's your problem. You see people being wrong or having different opinions as them deliberately trying to mislead people as if they are knowingly lying to people and trying to trick them but for what reason? Also if you don't think most Pro-Abortion people use the term life in debates then you haven't witnessed enough of them between Americans.

No, the conflation of "life" and "personhood" is highly misleading, and it was was done deliberately, just as the term "pro-life" is incredibly misleading and everyone knows it.

Which point? That it'd be torturous to force a woman to have birth? And that no one would make a woman go through torture to save a dog. Yeah I agree that'd be torturous. Though it sets up a different moral debate in some ways.

No, it takes us right back to the argument you made: the idea that the fetus may deserve legal "protection" even if it doesn't qualify as a full person. The problem I pointed out is that this "protection" is essentially torture. This is not changing the debate at all; it is simply pointing out what you have proposed, in less flattering language than you chose to use.

[Alphawolf55]

Are you seriously that fucking angry over semantics? What are you a fucking child?

No. It is not semantics. There are very real philosophical differences between those two terms, and not only have you confused those meanings in your poorly thought out, shabbily constructed arguments, but you have used that same confusion to attack others and have not taken the correction with a gracious "mae culpa" like you should.

re fetus life? Yes. Do they have legal personhood? No. But we were talking about how Christians view things, when Christians say a fetus is alive, they don't mean a clump of cells, they mean something with a soul.

And when they do so they commit a false equivocation fallacy, because they use things like the fetal heartbeat and the like to argue for personhood. In other words they conflate the two terms "Life" (it has a metabolism) and "Person" (it is worthy of moral consideration) without making the connection between the two, and do so to the point that it is intellectually dishonest.

Why the fuck should this discussion be framed in the misleading terminology preferred by Bible thumping anti-abortionists?

Agreed.

While there are philosophical differences between the terms, most of the time people in the terms of abortion are using the terms "life"" and "personhood" as the same. To get attack because someone uses the term life when 99% of the time people would know that you meant personhood (especially when you're not even arguing that the fetus has personhood) by it is semantics. Also you are wrong about another thing, I did apologize for the mistaken use of terms.


Also Wong, I never said a fetus may deserve legal protection. I think you are misunderstanding me and I sincerely apologize. Let me explain. Very often you and people on this board say that being against abortion is very rarely actually about protecting life (or personhood being the better term ) because they make exceptions in the case of rape, incest or the health of the mother. It's argued that this shows they don't really consider the fetus to have personhood because if they did, those excuses wouldn't be justified in allowing what is essentially the murder of an innocent victim, so obviously they're hypocrites right? What I was questioning is why the possibility isn't allowed that they can believe that a fetus is deserving of some protection but believing that the mother has more worth in certain circumstances. Which would be merely the adoption of unitarian principles which while a-lot of Christians would be against in theory isn't impossible. I'm honestly sorry if you thought I was advocating any particular stance on abortion.

Also while Wong I would agree that using life and personhood as the same might be highly misleading in an intellectual stance you have to remember it's not like they know a fetus isn't a person but are trying to convince others it is, they honestly believe it. They may hold views that are contradict that view but they still hold it.

[Samuel]

While there are philosophical differences between the terms, most of the time people in the terms of abortion are using the terms "life"" and "personhood" as the same.

No they use the requirements for life and the value of personhood. They use whichever definition is convienient at the time.

What I was questioning is why the possibility isn't allowed that they can believe that a fetus is deserving of some protection but believing that the mother has more worth in certain circumstances.

Hence the "torture to save life of a dog" analog.

[Serafina]

While there are philosophical differences between the terms, most of the time people in the terms of abortion are using the terms "life"" and "personhood" as the same. To get attack because someone uses the term life when 99% of the time people would know that you meant personhood (especially when you're not even arguing that the fetus has personhood) by it is semantics. Also you are wrong about another thing, I did apologize for the mistaken use of terms.

You honestly don't see what's wrong with that, do you?

Their terminology is wrong, therefore using it is equally wrong.

Life does not equal personhood. The right-wingnut bible-thumping equality-hating "pro-lifer" definition doesn't even make sense when you use their own terminology - after all, they do not refer to animals are dead, do they?
To elaborate:
They use the term "life" as in "has a soul" and is therefore a "human being with all human rights".
However, they do not use another term (the opposite, dead) on things that don't have a soul (according to their beliefs) - or can you show me someone refering to animals as "dead"?

You don't get to use wrong terminology just because someone else does - wether it is a vocal group or not carries no weight on this.


And get over the damn insults, you bloody brainshit. We fucking insult each other over wrong terminology all the fricking time, don't be so childish and over-sensitive. No one gives a damn when you are insulted, particulary if it was justified.

[Alphawolf55]

Yes I understand, I was just clarifying that I wasn't advocating such an opinion but questioning whether anti-abortionist could hold it without compromising their morals.

Though I must ask, what is everyone's opinion on 2nd and third trimester abortions?

[Plekhanov]

That when asked the question:

What should the punishment for seeking an abortion, having an abortion or performing an abortion be?

Nearly all pro-lifers at most suggest that the doctor should loose their license is further proof that the anti-choice movement is in reality all about trying to control sexuality by inflicting unwanted pregnancies upon "sluts" not about saving the lives of people.

If they genuinely believed a foetus to be a person anti-choicers would want all those involved in abortions charged with murder, yet only those on the extreme of the movement take that position.

[Serafina]

*snip*

In response to that, some say "well, we only say that because there are so many doctors, most of them don't think it's wrong and thus we should not apply the full extent of the law."

By that wonderfull logic, it's ok to murder when it's accepted enough and/or you don't know any better.
(luckily, abortion isn't and no punishment at all is required).

[Molyneux]

Yes I understand, I was just clarifying that I wasn't advocating such an opinion but questioning whether anti-abortionist could hold it without compromising their morals.

Though I must ask, what is everyone's opinion on 2nd and third trimester abortions?

Personally? I'd be in favor of limiting third-trimester abortions to cases where the life of the mother is at risk. Second-trimester is more murky.
But in any case where the mother's life or well-being is threatened, abortion must be an available option. I can't agree with anyone who says otherwise.

[SirNitram]

I feel I need to interject briefly on this 'life = personhood' statement. By that measure, each and every bacterial infection this person has fought off is equal to mass murder. It's clearly a load of malarky. What about zygotes? Blastocists? Or do you want to go as far as The Pill Kills folks and say it kills the egg and sperm, which they claim are babies.

Is it any wonder people don't give their preferred claims trash?

As for abortions.. 3rd trimester is where I, personally, would want a line drawn... Except it's not my goddamn choice. I have no right to judge things for a woman in what is a very personal thing, and neither do hordes of picketers, politicos, or people trying to pretend they're moderate by playing golden mean.

[Alphawolf55]

But do you consider a third trimester fetus to have personhood?

[Liberty]

Again, if we could make first trimester abortions more easily available and obtainable, the question of second and third trimester abortions would almost disappear, except in the case of life of the mother or serious disability.

And as someone who has gone through childbirth, and without meds, that would be a damn good torture method if they could find a way to simulate it in prisoners. Not that I'm advocate that, I'm just saying.

And it goes beyond childbirth, way beyond that. Consider the following. When I first got pregnant close to two years ago, there could have been one of two outcomes:

1) abortion. My life goes back to normal just like that, and I go back to studying, hanging out with friends, and doing whatever the heck I want.

2) carrying the child to term. My life goes wacky for nine months. During the first trimester I have so many food aversions that I literally cannot find anything to eat that doesn't make me want to vomit, and I end up force feeding myself to keep the hunger at bay. During the entire pregnancy I have to pee every half hour, literally. I have to leave to use the bathroom in the middle of class, and I get up like six times a night. I also can no longer sleep on my stomach, which is the only way I ever slept before. During the third trimester, my nipples leak colostrum at random times, leaving me to try to cover up wet spots in the middle of class. My belly grows until rolling over at night literally takes serious effort. Finally, I give birth in excruciating pain. I cannot have sex for two months after this, not that I would want to; my have stitches in my perineum, and my entire vaginal area is stretched and incredibly sore. After I pee I can't wipe; instead I squirt water onto my private area and cringe while it stings. And during this time, of course, I am caring for a newborn baby, who wants to be nursed every two hours, rain or shine, night or day. For some reason, the baby poops every time I feed her, while I feed her, and most of the time her diaper does not contain it. I have to change the baby's clothing around five times a day, and rinse out the poop. As she grows, this goes away, but other problems arise. As she begins to move around, I have to keep her away from everything that might hurt her, from computer cords to pennies. She drops a nice bowl on the floor and it shatters. She chews a key off of my cell phone. But most of all, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, I am attached to this child, continually having to watch her, comfort her, feed her, change her, and cater to her every whim. It's like having a ball and chain; I'm literally stuck with this small human, and I'm responsible for her very survival. My life is not my own. My freedom is gone. I always have to think of this small child before I think of myself.

So consider. This is the choice a woman must make when she gets pregnant. Granted, if she wanted to get pregnant, wants a baby, etc, as I did, the choice is not that difficult. I love my daughter dearly, and wouldn't give her up for the world. But what of a woman who didn't want a baby, who isn't financially stable or even in a stable relationship? What of her?

[Alyrium Denryle]

But do you consider a third trimester fetus to have personhood?

Maybe. Depends on when in the third trimester. After month seven when it can feel pain? I would be willing to consider it worthy of some moral consideration. My ethics are not anthropocentric and do not depend on whether something is a person. Until then... meh

[Molyneux]

But do you consider a third trimester fetus to have personhood?

That's a loaded question. How are you defining "personhood"?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I'd consider 'personhood' to be the point that the average human starts developing sentience and independent thought, because this is the point where humans can comprehend and question things that they experience, rather than just merely react to them. If I remember correctly, this usually doesn't happen until several months after birth.

Before anyone tries to trip me up with, "Well why aren't you for 3rd trimester abortions or just killing them after they're born but before they've reached that age?", you have to consider the question of independence. Very late term fetuses and newborns are wholly dependent on other people for survival. But the difference between them and fetuses is that theoretically *any* person who's willing to donate the time, money and energy can effectively take care of them, while the fetus is dependent on one specific person (namely the mother it's growing in) and nobody else. If there were an effective, reliable way to transplant a growing fetus from an unwilling mother to a more willing recipient that didn't involve significantly more distress than abortion already causes, I would be all for it.