Oklahoma Legislature passes bill that would criminalizing abortion procedures except to save a mother's life.

[soniqstylz]

Just now, Emn1ty said:

You've not read any of what I've posted. I'd say if the baby is already dead, then an abortion is moot. Just as shooting a dead body wouldn't be murder. Law isn't perfect, and it was rightly vetoed due to that fact.

 

Those people are not me, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Baby wasn't dead when they went in for the abortion (it was going to die anyway, however).  I guess you didn't read the article.

 

And since we're talking Oklahoma and contraception - http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/22/1627441/oklahoma-birth-control-poison/

[Emn1ty]

2 hours ago, soniqstylz said:

Baby wasn't dead when they went in for the abortion (it was going to die anyway, however).  I guess you didn't read the article.

 

And since we're talking Oklahoma and contraception - http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/22/1627441/oklahoma-birth-control-poison/

Like I have said multiple times in this thread. If there's a reasonable doubt that the baby won't survive birth, or the mother won't survive birth than an abortion is legitimate. Why don't you get that? Or are you too busy trying to crusade your opinion on me that you're not stopping to actually read what you're replying to?
 

[DefyTheOutcome]

On ‎22‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 2:44 AM, Emn1ty said:

I think our morals and ethics just don't align. You firmly believe that if the parents can't provide what you deem an adequate existence then there's justification to just end the life before it starts. You'll keep them from even having a go at life merely du to some statistical analysis and slippery slope logic.

This is effectively the same scenario as a person who is in a coma.  You know they will wake up, you know they will have no memory (retrograde amnesia) but you know they will also suffer upon doing so. By the logic you're providing, if you don't want to care for this person or believe that they won't be able to tolerate the amount of pain and suffering they will be exposed to then you are justified in euthanizing them before they have the chance to awaken.

You may want to rethink the value you add to a conversation if the only thing left you can produce are lousy analogies and pathetic ad-hominen character assassination attacks against me in a feeble attempt to gain some sort of moral high ground.

The Cocaine one was ridiculous but the Coma one is just sad.

There is no guarantee that a comatose person will ever wake from it: they could die or they could wake after days, weeks or months, they may recover fully, have long lasting side effects or be left in a miminal consciouness or in a worse irreversible permanent vegetative state.

You may want to document yourself on Terri Schiavo case or the Locked-in syndromes and to repeat what other said: biological cellular activity is not life

 

Back to the discussion, the mere statistics analysis are a reflexion of a reality: children thrive with caring parents who can support their children. Having children is a long-term adventure which requires maturity and adulthood. As they will be in charge and responsible of that 20+ years adventure, I want couples to be in control, to have the freedom of choice of if and when they want to have children.

[Emn1ty]

10 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

You may want to rethink the value you add to a conversation if the only thing left you can produce are lousy analogies and pathetic ad-hominen character assassination attacks against me in a feeble attempt to gain some sort of moral high ground.

 

 

I don't recall any ad hominem, please point it out.
 

11 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

The Cocaine one was ridiculous but the Coma one is just sad.

 

There is no guarantee that a comatose person will ever wake from it: they could die or they could wake after days, weeks or months, they may recover fully, have long lasting side effects or be left in a miminal consciouness or in a worse irreversible permanent vegetative state.

You may want to document yourself on Terri Schiavo case or the Locked-in syndromes and to repeat what other said: biological cellular activity is not life

This is the stipulation to make the analogy work, in order for the coma to be synonymous with a birth it must have similar factors; ie. they will wake up from it (cause obviously a child in most cases will awaken at birth) and they cannot have any past memory of their life (cause a newborn would have no memory prior to its birth, either). This is why it is called an analogy, not a factual statement. It's a demonstration of logic, and instead of focusing on the logic you've decided to focus on the nuances of what a coma is.

By your logic however a coma patient is not alive, even if you know they will wake up from it in 9 months time.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

20 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

You may want to rethink the value you add to a conversation if the only thing left you can produce are lousy analogies and pathetic ad-hominen character assassination attacks against me in a feeble attempt to gain some sort of moral high ground.

The Cocaine one was ridiculous but the Coma one is just sad.

There is no guarantee that a comatose person will ever wake from it: they could die or they could wake after days, weeks or months, they may recover fully, have long lasting side effects or be left in a miminal consciouness or in a worse irreversible permanent vegetative state.

You may want to document yourself on Terri Schiavo case or the Locked-in syndromes and to repeat what other said: biological cellular activity is not life

 

Back to the discussion, the mere statistics analysis are a reflexion of a reality: children thrive with caring parents who can support their children. Having children is a long-term adventure which requires maturity and adulthood. As they will be in charge and responsible of that 20+ years adventure, I want couples to be in control, to have the freedom of choice of if and when they want to have children.

Now what would it be like if Your Mother decided to take advantage of Roe v Wade?? I would wager that you are also against The Death Penalty.

[DefyTheOutcome]

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

I don't recall any ad hominem, please point it out.

That

 

Quote

 

By the logic you're providing, if you don't want to care for this person or believe that they won't be able to tolerate the amount of pain and suffering they will be exposed to then you are justified in euthanizing them before they have the chance to awaken.

Besides trying to make me pass as someone who does not have any empathy, what was this supposed to achieve?

 

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

This is the stipulation to make the analogy work, in order for the coma to be synonymous with a birth it must have similar factors; ie. they will wake up from it (cause obviously a child in most cases will awaken at birth) and they cannot have any past memory of their life (cause a newborn would have no memory prior to its birth, either). This is why it is called an analogy, not a factual statement. It's a demonstration of logic, and instead of focusing on the logic you've decided to focus on the nuances of what a coma is.

By your logic however a coma patient is not alive, even if you know they will wake up from it in 9 months time.

This analogy is so far-fetched that it is beyond any form of salvation: A child to be born is not at all comparable to a comatose person.

The normal outcome of a birth is a new healthy child. A coma is a medical state that happened to a person after a dramatic accident: there is no "normal" outcome of a coma: your analogy fails because the time of waking from a coma is unknown and there is a total uncertainty on the after-effects. Families who have to deal with the distress of having members in coma would be pretty happy to have the certainty to know the time when the comatose person woud wake up and the after-effects he/she would suffer. That would help them decide for sure.

 

However,I will play but I can only give you the answer that would apply to me because all cases are different from each others as it is a freedom of choice of an individual: if ever I end up in a coma and that the only outcome is that I have disabilities so grave that I cannot take any care of myself, please, plug me out and if there is anything that can be taken to help someone, do not let it go to waste.

 

1 hour ago, Gary7 said:

Now what would it be like if Your Mother decided to take advantage of Roe v Wade?? I would wager that you are also against The Death Penalty.

This is totally irrelevant as it ends up in a what-if scenario of me not being there and therefore not being aware of any existence I would have experienced and as a rule, I do not deal in what-if scenarios.

[Emn1ty]

1 minute ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

That

 

Besides trying to make me pass as someone who does not have any empathy, what was this supposed to achieve?

It was a statement that our morals and ethics differ. You've clearly stated that you are in support of this practice, so unless you see something wrong with said practice then it's not ad hominem.

 

2 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

This analogy is so far-fetched that it is beyond any form of salvation: A child to be born is not at all comparable to a comatose person.

The normal outcome of a birth is a new healthy child. A coma is a medical state that happened to a person after a dramatic accident: there is no "normal" outcome of a coma: your analogy fails because the time of waking from a coma is unknown and there is a total uncertainty on the after-effects. Families who have to deal with the distress of having members in coma would be pretty happy to have the certainty to know the time when the comatose person woud wake up and the after-effects he/she would suffer. That would help them decide for sure.

 

However,I will play but I can only give you the answer that would apply to me because all cases are different from each others as it is a freedom of choice of an individual: if ever I end up in a coma and that the only outcome is that I have disabilities so grave that I cannot take any care of myself, please, plug me out and if there is anything that can be taken to help someone, do not let it go to waste.

Analogies aren't supposed to be things that represent real life scenarios, they are things the represent scenarios in general. It is not my fault you can't get passed the details, or maybe that's on purpose because it's all you have to go on. I know what a coma is, the debate here isn't about what a coma is. I also don't care about the emotional benefit knowing the outcome of a coma would have (in fact I wonder if some people would be relieved to know they could euthanize them in some scenarios, such as exorbitant medical bills and a lack of insurance coverage). None of this invalidates the analogy. It's about a specific set of factors, which I can present however I want to make the analogy work. Or are you asserting that analogies have to be 100% realistic/accurate/possible in order to be valid?

As for the second part, how would people know to do this without your prior consent? Some people may want to every second they can get regardless of the state of their lives. You cannot make that decision for someone else. Even a potential someone else. I don't even know why I'm using the word "potential" since I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that a fetus left to its own devices will become a child. So perhaps a better term is eventual person.

The realities of the matter are pretty straightforward. It will become a person if you do not prevent from doing so. To me, it's just lawyering around that fact. They're not a person yet, so they don't have to be treated as a person. It sounds very similar to a someone justifying beating their slaves because they aren't legally people, either. A clever use of wording and law. I'm perfectly fine with people deciding that the fact their fetus will eventually become a person if  no intervention is given doesn't present any moral or ethical issues to them personally. But to me the present argument of it being a private matter makes little sense. I could argue by the same token that assisted suicide is a private matter, wouldn't prevent me from jail time though. Nor does privacy resolve ethical or moral dilemmas; merely sidesteps them.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

35 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

That

 

Besides trying to make me pass as someone who does not have any empathy, what was this supposed to achieve?

 

This analogy is so far-fetched that it is beyond any form of salvation: A child to be born is not at all comparable to a comatose person.

The normal outcome of a birth is a new healthy child. A coma is a medical state that happened to a person after a dramatic accident: there is no "normal" outcome of a coma: your analogy fails because the time of waking from a coma is unknown and there is a total uncertainty on the after-effects. Families who have to deal with the distress of having members in coma would be pretty happy to have the certainty to know the time when the comatose person woud wake up and the after-effects he/she would suffer. That would help them decide for sure.

 

However,I will play but I can only give you the answer that would apply to me because all cases are different from each others as it is a freedom of choice of an individual: if ever I end up in a coma and that the only outcome is that I have disabilities so grave that I cannot take any care of myself, please, plug me out and if there is anything that can be taken to help someone, do not let it go to waste.

 

This is totally irrelevant as it ends up in a what-if scenario of me not being there and therefore not being aware of any existence I would have experienced and as a rule, I do not deal in what-if scenarios.

Well the deal with what if Roe v Wade never passed. Then what?? Killing babies is och but The Death penalty is wrong for most liberals. That is like The Catholic church being against abortion  and Birth Control. Strange..

[Vykranth]

12 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Analogies aren't supposed to be things that represent real life scenarios, they are things the represent scenarios in general. It is not my fault you can't get passed the details, or maybe that's on purpose because it's all you have to go on. I know what a coma is, the debate here isn't about what a coma is. I also don't care about the emotional benefit knowing the outcome of a coma would have (in fact I wonder if some people would be relieved to know they could euthanize them in some scenarios, such as exorbitant medical bills and a lack of insurance coverage). None of this invalidates the analogy. It's about a specific set of factors, which I can present however I want to make the analogy work. Or are you asserting that analogies have to be 100% realistic/accurate/possible in order to be valid?

Yes, I am asserting that analogies need to be realistic.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

As for the second part, how would people know to do this without your prior consent? Some people may want to every second they can get regardless of the state of their lives. You cannot make that decision for someone else. Even a potential someone else. I don't even know why I'm using the word "potential" since I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that a fetus left to its own devices will become a child. So perhaps a better term is eventual person.

This is why medical personal are looking for family members, for a legal guardian to figure out what to do.

For fetuses, the legal guardians are the parents and they have full authority.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

 

The realities of the matter are pretty straightforward. It will become a person if you do not prevent from doing so. To me, it's just lawyering around that fact. They're not a person yet, so they don't have to be treated as a person. It sounds very similar to a someone justifying beating their slaves because they aren't legally people, either. A clever use of wording and law. I'm perfectly fine with people deciding that the fact their fetus will eventually become a person if  no intervention is given doesn't present any moral or ethical issues to them personally. But to me the present argument of it being a private matter makes little sense. I could argue by the same token that assisted suicide is a private matter, wouldn't prevent me from jail time though. Nor does privacy resolve ethical or moral dilemmas; merely sidesteps them.

You are trying to go to the personhood amendment road. That is not going to work. A fetus is not a person.

 

4 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Well the deal with what if Roe v Wade never passed. Then what?? Killing babies is och but The Death penalty is wrong for most liberals. That is like The Catholic church being against abortion  and Birth Control. Strange..

Abortion is not killing babies, it is the freedom of choice of time and place to build a family and yes, I am against the death penalty because it is a totally unefficient deterrent to crimes, not counting the fact that it is applied differently according the race or the income of the condemned but this could be extended to the entire US justice system and this is for a separate discussion

[Emn1ty]

45 minutes ago, Vykranth said:

Yes, I am asserting that analogies need to be realistic.

My analogy was realistic. It presented a scenario which is not completely outlandish outside of knowing when someone would awaken. Yes, normally you cannot predict a coma but in regards to pregnancy you know (give or take a few weeks) when your child will be born. In order for this analogy to work, that condition must be met on both sides. And unless you can find another way to explain this scenario (which is why analogies are used, to explain abstract concepts in a way that's easier to understand and communicate for both sides) then you'll have to demonstrate why trying to equal out the situations to make the analogy valid in and of itself invalidates it. Outside of finding completely separate reasons to separate the two events because I am not asserting they are the same in every instance, but that given the conditions presented they would be analogous enough to form similar logical conclusions based on the given reasoning.

 

1 hour ago, Vykranth said:

This is why medical personal are looking for family members, for a legal guardian to figure out what to do.

For fetuses, the legal guardians are the parents and they have full authority.

By this logic, you should be able to euthanize a coma patient even if you knew they'd awaken because at the time of euthanasia the decision is not theirs but their guardian.

 

1 hour ago, Vykranth said:

You are trying to go to the personhood amendment road. That is not going to work. A fetus is not a person.

I am not going the "personhood" route. A fetus will inevitably become a person. And if you even begin to acknowledge that the fetus will inevitably have a life (especially when arguing their life wouldn't be worth living) you've already made the logical acknowledgement that they will be a person and will have a life that your decision will affect, thus meaning you're preventing them from having a decision in that life (which you acknowledge they will have). But despite all that, you still say they aren't a person. I agree, they're an eventual person, or a potential person.

But why does that distinction suddenly remove all moral and ethical responsibility?

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

1 hour ago, Vykranth said:

Abortion is not killing babies, it is the freedom of choice of time and place to build a family and yes, I am against the death penalty because it is a totally unefficient deterrent to crimes, not counting the fact that it is applied differently according the race or the income of the condemned but this could be extended to the entire US justice system and this is for a separate discussion

That depends on your point of view, Abortion is killing a life form, and some would say that being for abortion and against the death penalty is hypocritical. The convicts that are executed killed one or more people. They deserve  to die.  An unborn child that is thrown away with the trash has committed no crime. One cannot become more innocent.

[Stoffel]

On 5/23/2016 at 4:19 PM, Emn1ty said:

My analogy was realistic. It presented a scenario which is not completely outlandish outside of knowing when someone would awaken. Yes, normally you cannot predict a coma but in regards to pregnancy you know (give or take a few weeks) when your child will be born. In order for this analogy to work, that condition must be met on both sides. And unless you can find another way to explain this scenario (which is why analogies are used, to explain abstract concepts in a way that's easier to understand and communicate for both sides) then you'll have to demonstrate why trying to equal out the situations to make the analogy valid in and of itself invalidates it. Outside of finding completely separate reasons to separate the two events because I am not asserting they are the same in every instance, but that given the conditions presented they would be analogous enough to form similar logical conclusions based on the given reasoning.

 

By this logic, you should be able to euthanize a coma patient even if you knew they'd awaken because at the time of euthanasia the decision is not theirs but their guardian.

 

I am not going the "personhood" route. A fetus will inevitably become a person. And if you even begin to acknowledge that the fetus will inevitably have a life (especially when arguing their life wouldn't be worth living) you've already made the logical acknowledgement that they will be a person and will have a life that your decision will affect, thus meaning you're preventing them from having a decision in that life (which you acknowledge they will have). But despite all that, you still say they aren't a person. I agree, they're an eventual person, or a potential person.

But why does that distinction suddenly remove all moral and ethical responsibility?

Your whole analogy would work better if you would talk about somebody hanging on life support in stead of just being in a coma.

Fetus relies on the mother to survive, just like your patient depends on the machine to keep him alive.

 

I don't know what the deal in the USA is, but in Belgium i have to right to ask the doctors to pull the plug when, let's say my mom is on life support.

My mom would even have the right to declare that she never wants to be put on life support and i wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

 

I guess in Europe we are just a little bit ahead when it comes to making decisions about your own life.

[Emn1ty]

11 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

Your whole analogy would work better if you would talk about somebody hanging on life support in stead of just being in a coma.

Fetus relies on the mother to survive, just like your patient depends on the machine to keep him alive.

A fetus rely on medical personel, medical facilities and medical equipment to develop. This analogy is also intrinsically tied to time, because in the case of a child they would eventually be able to answer the question.  Thus why my analogy provides the stipulation of "you know when they'll awaken" because with a child you do know they will be awake and eventually able to make the decision on their own. If this were also true of a coma patient - knowing without a reasonable doubt they'd recover - I doubt you'd be given the ability to end their life before that time comes. And for all intents and purposes both are just a sack of cells with no function or awareness at the time of that decision.

 

16 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

I don't know what the deal in the USA is, but in Belgium i have to right to ask the doctors to pull the plug when, let's say my mom is on life support.

My mom would even have the right to declare that she never wants to be put on life support and i wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

It works the same in the US, but can only be done by those with the given authority (and as far as I know if expressly denied by the one under care prior to incapacitation then there is nothing you can do). The key difference here to not, however, is what I pointed out above. With a fetus, it's not an unknown factor as to when they will become cognizant of their situation. So while you have the assurance in the case of a coma that the person may never wake up and thus keeping them alive until their body gives out maybe a waste of resources and emotions; with a fetus that is just not the case.

It would be in effect deciding that you don't want to take care of the coma patient (or don't have the money to support them) despite knowing full well they will awaken in a specific amount of time (give or take a week). Completely nullifying any decision they might have at that point in time because it was inconvenient for you.
 

21 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

I guess in Europe we are just a little bit ahead when it comes to making decisions about your own life.

So ahead that you let mothers decide for their children whether or not their life is "convenient" for them (remember, 76% of US abortions are a matter of convenience).