Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays her chemo treatment for leukemia

  1. #31
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,529

    Re: Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays her chemo treatment for leukemia

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, you use government force to prevent the exercise of the right.


    That's what the right to lifers advocate.
    But, the purpose of government is to protect our rights, not to take any of them away.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #32
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays her chemo treatment for leukemia

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays her chemo treatment for leukemia - CNN.com



    Thank god we dont do this here in America.

    This is exactly why the core of the abortion debate is Woman's rights VS ZEFs rights. Anybody that denies that just isnt grasping reality.

    This is way I said if you grant person hood at conception it turns the woman in to a second class citizen for 9 months and she loses her rights, freedoms, and liberties.

    Now personally the article doesnt have enough info and theres nothing that says she factually died from not getting treatment but I would NEVER want the government treating women like this and taking their rights away and denying them needed treatments because it might impact the ZEF.

    Abortion isnt a "pretty" reality but its a reality none less and this is why I personally side with womans rights over ZEF rights. One has to be picked, cant have equal rights in this situation.


    Relevant, but should probably move to the abortion board.

  3. #33
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,960

    Re: Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays her chemo treatment for leukemia

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    It goes to the core because it shows factual proof how there can not be equal rights given to the woman AND the ZEF. It has to be one or the other many people fail to comprehend this fact, not saying you, just making a general statement.
    Yep, it has to be one or the other in each given circumstance.

    What it comes down to is, in each circumstance, who do you give the proverbial "benefit of the doubt" to in regards to whose rights to protect.

    No different than a 5 year old child and a mother. They both have "equal" rights. However, the state has to weigh when the rights of one are being used to the point where there's an unreasonable infringement upon the rights of the other.

    IE, the privacy rights of the mother means she can raise her child in her home how she see's fit. But the rights of the child to be safe and unharmed also are at play here, and if it comes a time when the actions by the mother in the privacy of her own home become so eggregiously in violation of the childs rights to safety and health, the state can take action. Or, the child has a right to be unharmed and so does the mother. If the child attacks the mother with a knife, attepmting to stab her, and she ends up killing the child the state may allow her to suffer no legal penalty because of self defense.

    Your basic assumption...that you can't always get exactly equal rights to the two...is correct. However, as is the case with most of those who have a distinct and unquestionable bias with the abortoin issue, you use your basic assumption to make numerous leaps that are founded in your bias to come to the conclussion you want.

    A desire for person hood at conception would not inherently, automatically, indicate that the person would support this kind of action anymore than it suggests that they'd be against self defense. It could easily be suggested that taking action to save one's life at the cost of the life of the one whose existance is leading to your death falls under self defense.

  4. #34
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,782

    Re: Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays her chemo treatment for leukemia

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yep, it has to be one or the other in each given circumstance.
    While we are only discussing opinion I agree that it isnt black and white and circumstance can and will be different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    What it comes down to is, in each circumstance, who do you give the proverbial "benefit of the doubt" to in regards to whose rights to protect.
    For me its easily the woman most times because she is already a born viable human being who is also a citizen, the ZEF is an unknown.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No different than a 5 year old child and a mother. They both have "equal" rights. However, the state has to weigh when the rights of one are being used to the point where there's an unreasonable infringement upon the rights of the other.

    IE, the privacy rights of the mother means she can raise her child in her home how she see's fit. But the rights of the child to be safe and unharmed also are at play here, and if it comes a time when the actions by the mother in the privacy of her own home become so eggregiously in violation of the childs rights to safety and health, the state can take action. Or, the child has a right to be unharmed and so does the mother. If the child attacks the mother with a knife, attepmting to stab her, and she ends up killing the child the state may allow her to suffer no legal penalty because of self defense.
    no this is TOTALLY different because of where the ZEF resides and how it comes to viability and its impact on the mother.
    Not even close to the same as a 5yr old who is already a born, human being, citizen. I dont see them the same at all. Now I understand how some might draw some parrallels but its a very bad example in my case because again of my first sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Your basic assumption...that you can't always get exactly equal rights to the two...is correct. However, as is the case with most of those who have a distinct and unquestionable bias with the abortoin issue, you use your basic assumption to make numerous leaps that are founded in your bias to come to the conclussion you want. .
    this is false and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
    What I actually do is place more value on the woman because she is already a born viable human being who is a citzen and already has rights.

    I dont use any assumptions or leaps at all.

    If you have the OPINION that my views are bias because I dont see a zygote as a womans equal you would be correct because I do not see them as equals. Now as the zygote grows and the woman made a choice to bare the future child and it becomes viable etc then the inequality cure changes quite a bit bringing them closer together.

    but again that would just be your opinion that my view is bias as I might have an opinion your view is biased if you view them as equal. See what Im saying. Not sure if thats what you meant but im sure you will explain if I Assumed wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    A desire for person hood at conception would not inherently, automatically, indicate that the person would support this kind of action anymore than it suggests that they'd be against self defense. It could easily be suggested that taking action to save one's life at the cost of the life of the one whose existance is leading to your death falls under self defense.
    This I agree with not all people that want personhood at birth fit into the same category I apologize if I suggested that but the issue is that once thats where the law starts all the other little special cases and scenarios etc become very tricky and its just my views the there should be very minute situations where the ZEF comes over the woman as long as its early in ZEF development.

    Good post btw
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #35
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,960

    Re: Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays her chemo treatment for leukemia

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    no this is TOTALLY different because of where the ZEF resides and how it comes to viability and its impact on the mother.
    Not even close to the same as a 5yr old who is already a born, human being, citizen. I dont see them the same at all. Now I understand how some might draw some parrallels but its a very bad example in my case because again of my first sentence.
    And there's the key. Those things you state rise to the levle that for you presonally, it doesn't seem the same thing in terms of being worthy of rights. That's how YOU feel. That's not a universal truth though, and it's not unreasonable to feel that simply because it's not born doesn't mean it deserves less. It largely comes down to ones own opinions and views on this issue because utlimately there is no universal light hanging over our heads that pops on when we suddenly hit the point where we should have rights.

    this is false and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
    What I actually do is place more value on the woman because she is already a born viable human being who is a citzen and already has rights.
    Correct, and that's your bias. You feel that being born and "viable" is more important and thus you base your assumptions and statements based on that as if your opinion of it is concrete fact. The fact that hse is born and viable is does not mean its a FACT she should have more rights or that she does have more rights in a natural or inherent sense.

    If you have the OPINION that my views are bias because I dont see a zygote as a womans equal you would be correct because I do not see them as equals. Now as the zygote grows and the woman made a choice to bare the future child and it becomes viable etc then the inequality cure changes quite a bit bringing them closer together.
    I don't have an opinion that your view is biased because you view it in that fashion. I had an opinion that your view was biased because it appeared you'd statied things that offshoot from the basic premise...that the two can't always be exactly equal...as if they were facts when in reality it'd simply be your opinoin. However, looking back, it appears I misread what you were stating potentially...as it seemed like you were suggesting that those who are in favor of personhood type laws AUTOMATICALLY, in ALL SITUATIONS, must be suggesting that the fetus always has the benefit of the doubt when it comes to rights in all situations. Such a suggestion would be based off bias and stereotyping of the other side, as it'd be factually incorrect. However, rereading your posts I see it was not quite that clear cut from you.

    This I agree with not all people that want personhood at birth fit into the same category I apologize if I suggested that but the issue is that once thats where the law starts all the other little special cases and scenarios etc become very tricky and its just my views the there should be very minute situations where the ZEF comes over the woman as long as its early in ZEF development.

    Good post btw
    Gotcha. And I understand your point. I'm a weird one in that I don't fall fully in the pro-life category, but I don't go to the lengths the typical pro-lifer is, and my thought process varies from both. In general, I do view a conceived child as a child on a personal level. However, I also fully recognize that it's not a clear cut situation and ultimately is one that comes down to societal agreement and concensus to give a definition to the notion of when one deserves rights and, more importantly, at what point those rights override the rights of others. I do think the comparison to laws regarding born children is apt, but not as a strict 1:1 but more as a generalized template. The constitutional side of me would ultimately like this to go to a state by state issue. The pragmatic side of me relaizes that's unlikely. As such, ultimately, recognizing that you're unlikely to get a sigificant and worth while concensus into when a the rights should begin, I view it as a sort of balancing beam due to uncertainty.

    In almost all cases, in the first trimester, I would err on the side of the rights of the mother. By the second trimester, I would begin to more strongly err on the side of the child, limiting it to only in situations where there's significant harm to the womans physical health, reported rape, or incest. By third trimester, I fully would err on the side of the child, limiting it only to situations where the womens LIFE is decidingly at risk (not just health). Federal funding should not be provided save for instances of reported rape or incest (primarily aimed at younger individuals who experience those things without financial means of undertaking the action themselves but who don't have parents who would support it [or hell, may be the individuals doing it]).

  6. #36
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,782

    Re: Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays her chemo treatment for leukemia

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And there's the key. Those things you state rise to the levle that for you presonally, it doesn't seem the same thing in terms of being worthy of rights. That's how YOU feel. That's not a universal truth though, and it's not unreasonable to feel that simply because it's not born doesn't mean it deserves less. It largely comes down to ones own opinions and views on this issue because utlimately there is no universal light hanging over our heads that pops on when we suddenly hit the point where we should have rights.
    no in this case thaey are factually different, not different on based how I feel but factually different. One is outside the mother, already a viable born human being and a citizen one is not. I see them different because they are



    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Correct, and that's your bias. You feel that being born and "viable" is more important and thus you base your assumptions and statements based on that as if your opinion of it is concrete fact. The fact that hse is born and viable is does not mean its a FACT she should have more rights or that she does have more rights in a natural or inherent sense.
    and like I said that would also be your bias if you viewed them equal. Im kinda lost though, have i stated anywhere that its fact the woman should come first? no I have not. I have only stated that its a fact they cant have equal rights. So im confused why you bring this up, i have even admitted this frequently. My issues isnt with those that choose the ZEF its with those that falsely claim the womens rights arent impacted at all when they do. Thats hogwash.

    (you answered below we were on different pagers but sort the same )



    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I don't have an opinion that your view is biased because you view it in that fashion. I had an opinion that your view was biased because it appeared you'd statied things that offshoot from the basic premise...that the two can't always be exactly equal...as if they were facts when in reality it'd simply be your opinoin. However, looking back, it appears I misread what you were stating potentially...as it seemed like you were suggesting that those who are in favor of personhood type laws AUTOMATICALLY, in ALL SITUATIONS, must be suggesting that the fetus always has the benefit of the doubt when it comes to rights in all situations. Such a suggestion would be based off bias and stereotyping of the other side, as it'd be factually incorrect. However, rereading your posts I see it was not quite that clear cut from you.
    oooooh thats where the confusion is, i see now and yes maybe i didnt state it clearly but you are corrected it would be foolish to assume they all felt that way and I know for a fact they do not. Gotcha now. I was really wondering tpoo because it did seem like you thought i was stating a fact about something i was missing. Guess the question above has been answered.



    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Gotcha. And I understand your point. I'm a weird one in that I don't fall fully in the pro-life category, but I don't go to the lengths the typical pro-lifer is, and my thought process varies from both. In general, I do view a conceived child as a child on a personal level. However, I also fully recognize that it's not a clear cut situation and ultimately is one that comes down to societal agreement and concensus to give a definition to the notion of when one deserves rights and, more importantly, at what point those rights override the rights of others. I do think the comparison to laws regarding born children is apt, but not as a strict 1:1 but more as a generalized template. The constitutional side of me would ultimately like this to go to a state by state issue. The pragmatic side of me relaizes that's unlikely. As such, ultimately, recognizing that you're unlikely to get a sigificant and worth while concensus into when a the rights should begin, I view it as a sort of balancing beam due to uncertainty.

    In almost all cases, in the first trimester, I would err on the side of the rights of the mother. By the second trimester, I would begin to more strongly err on the side of the child, limiting it to only in situations where there's significant harm to the womans physical health, reported rape, or incest. By third trimester, I fully would err on the side of the child, limiting it only to situations where the womens LIFE is decidingly at risk (not just health). Federal funding should not be provided save for instances of reported rape or incest (primarily aimed at younger individuals who experience those things without financial means of undertaking the action themselves but who don't have parents who would support it [or hell, may be the individuals doing it]).
    Im with you for the most part but I cant decided by trimester, because the first one ends at 12weeks thats still too early for me to switch I mean thers been lits of women that dont even know until that long,

    Ive stated that id be ok with a national cap around 20-22 weeks and then special individual circumstances after that, i wouldnt make it a hard cap but im probably pretty with you during the 3rd trimester 29+ weeks you should know whats going on and it better be a great reason like serious risk of life.

    but again all that aside you would never be one of the people i was referring to because you understand the fact that there cant be equal absolute rights in this situation.

    and again good post im glad we got back on track
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •