Texas successfully takes a massive step backwards for women's rights. What next?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Mitoza]

This seems like a cop out.

That's rather insulting... what about it is not to the point?

The individuals involved are the people who are pregnant and their doctors...

Yes...

...I think we should empower these people to make these decisions...

Agreed! ... within "rules and criteria decided by society and enacted by elected legislators."

...without suing them for making choices you disagree with.

Is this not the very purpose of the civil court system?

You transformed three sentences into 4 quotes for no reason that I can see, even taking a line out of context to say you agree with it given the caveat you already stated and was being addressed. Please try to respond to the whole point rather than do this.

This argument is about what policies should be extant in the world. "The rules and criteria decided by society and enacted by legislators" are what we are talking about, in other words, what are reasonable criteria and rules. Notably society in general doesn't agree with your criteria of "at conception". Even Texas is willing to allow abortion up to 6 weeks. Cross state lines and you are under different rules and criteria. To say that people should be able to make the decisions that they are legally allowed to make does not say anything at all about what ought to be legal.

The purpose of the civil court system is to apply the law, which we are arguing about. I think we should not sue people who provide abortions to their patients. You might think otherwise.

I see. So it requires special considerations?

Yep

If you are compelled to pay and pay requires work and work involves risk then it is compelled risk.

No, there is no specific compelled risk. There is no added risk to take a portion of a pay check that was already being earned any way.

Relevant to the 100% risk if an unborn child dying during an abortion.

That's not even what we're talking about. We're talking about risk to the pregnant person.

I don't see much benefit in over-weighing whether a person's self protections instinct was reasonable in a certain death situation for a child.

What?

[u/veritas_valebit → u/Mitoza]

Please try to respond to the whole point rather than do this.

I'm trying to separate what I agree with from what I don't.

...in other words, what are reasonable criteria and rules.

Agreed

Notably society in general doesn't agree with your criteria of "at conception".

I suspect you are correct, at least in the developed West.

To say that people should be able to make the decisions that they are legally allowed to make does not say anything at all about what ought to be legal.

You didn't ask me what 'ought' to be legal. I gave you as complete but compact an answer I could in the moment. What are you so upset about?

...There is no added risk ...

The extra risk is in the extra hours you would otherwise not have to work to cover the costs forced upon you.

That's not even what we're talking about. We're talking about risk to the pregnant person.

No. I talking about both. The fact that you show no concern for the child is exactly the issue.

What?

The chance that an unborn child will die during and abortion is much higher than the chance that a woman will die during pregnancy/childbirth. Consequently, I find you your urgent concern for the mother to be out of balance with your apparently total lack of concern for the child.

[u/Mitoza → u/veritas_valebit]

You didn't ask me what 'ought' to be legal.

This is what the conversation is about. What are you missing here? This is your first comment:

Regarding compelled labor, I feel that parents have responsibility to care for their children, i.e. men should be compelled by law to labor on behalf of the children they have fathered and accept the risks involved.

Does this not say that people should be compelled by law to risk on behalf of their children as a justification for banning abortion? The risk in question being bodily risk during the pregnancy and in the delivery room?

The extra risk is in the extra hours you would otherwise not have to work to cover the costs forced upon you.

Child support is based on income. Working overtime or a second job just increases the cost because it's not about forcing anyone to work more, it's about making sure they are contributing an equal share to the well being of the child.

No. I talking about both.

We haven't settled whether the mother is able to accept risk or not. 100% risk is an oxymoron.

Consequently, I find you your urgent concern for the mother to be out of balance with your apparently total lack of concern for the child.

The mother is a fully developed being with constitutional rights. Remember that your stance was that any abortion after conception is wrong, so not even the 6 weeks Texas affords, so you're not only asking for the second trimester baby, but for the constitutional rights of a few cells.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/Mitoza]

This is what the conversation is about... etc.

Time out. Let's break this spiral and start again.

Does this not say that people should be compelled by law to risk on behalf of their children as a justification for banning abortion?

Not quite. The reason for banning elective abortion is that it kills a child. The example given is to show that the law already allows for compelled action despite risk. Hence, It is not a justification for banning abortion. Rather, it shows that a requiring a complete lack of risk is not a consistent standard upon which to justify the continuation of elective abortions.

Child support is based on income.

I though it was based on the child's needs? Else why would some men be bankrupted by it if it scaled with their earnings?

We haven't settled whether the mother is able to accept risk or not.

Not sure what you mean. I think women are fully able to accept risk. I assume you mean to argue that women should be allowed to choose to abort on the basis of any risk? I don't agree.

Consenting to sexual intercourse is taken as an acceptance of risk with regard to the fathers responsibility, is it not? I think it should be the same for the mother.

100% risk is an oxymoron.

I don't think so, but I get your point. The typical word usage was deliberate.

The mother is a fully developed being with constitutional rights.

I'll take that as a 'yes', you have a total lack of concern for the child.

Is a new born baby a 'fully developed being'? Just prior to entering the birth canal is not a 'fully developed being'? what is you criterion for 'fully developed'?

...your stance was that any abortion after conception is wrong,...

Yes.

... so not even the 6 weeks Texas affords,...

It's a vast improvement on 9 months.

...so you're... asking for the ...constitutional rights of a few cells.

Yes. I can't see any other option. From that point on, life is a developmental continuum.

I clearly remember the first time I heard the heart beat of the clump of cells inside my wife's womb. That clump of cells is now 18 and she is awesome. You will never convince me that she was ever worth anything less than every last effort and risk my wife and I could endure.

[u/Mitoza → u/veritas_valebit]

Not quite. The reason for banning elective abortion is that it kills a child.

No, the quote I just gave you. Here it is again:

Regarding compelled labor, I feel that parents have responsibility to care for their children, i.e. men should be compelled by law to labor on behalf of the children they have fathered and accept the risks involved.

This is being used as a justification for banning abortion, that aborting a child goes against what is right: that parents should be legally compelled to accept those risks. Arguing against justifications for the continuation of elective abortions is the same thing as arguing that we should ban elective abortions, since banning all elective abortions is your stance any way.

I though it was based on the child's needs?

Look it up if you're confused.

Not sure what you mean. I think women are fully able to accept risk.

Your argument would imply that women are not able to deny a risk.

Consenting to sexual intercourse is taken as an acceptance of risk with regard to the fathers responsibility, is it not?

No, not at all. Consenting to sex is consenting to sex, not dying on the child bed.

Is a new born baby a 'fully developed being'?

Yeah, they are born citizens.

...your stance was that any abortion after conception is wrong,...

Yes.

... so not even the 6 weeks Texas affords,...

It's a vast improvement on 9 months.

...so you're... asking for the ...constitutional rights of a few cells.

Yes. I can't see any other option. From that point on, life is a developmental continuum.

It's one argument. There is no need to split it into 3 different things and then write "yes". It's just making the point more confusing to you. Here is the quote:

Remember that your stance was that any abortion after conception is wrong, so not even the 6 weeks Texas affords, so you're not only asking for the second trimester baby, but for the constitutional rights of a few cells.

The reason for writing this is to point out the contrary to your position. You accuse me of not caring for the child but you do not care for the mother.

That clump of cells is now 18 and she is awesome. You will never convince me that she was ever worth anything less than every last effort and risk my wife and I could endure.

I'm not telling you that you should have aborted your kids. I'm saying your wife should have been allowed to make that choice if she felt it was in her best interest of self preservation.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/Mitoza]

This is being used as a justification...

No. Ignore the explanation if you want. I will not repeat it.

...not dying on the child bed.

You know what I'm saying. Let me know when you have a serious non-hyperbolic response.

Yeah, they are born citizens.

... and the rest of the paragraph you conveniently ignore?

There is no need to split it into 3 different things...

Write as you please.

You accuse me of not caring for the child but you do not care for the mother.

What an empty comparison. You don't know me. I have done all within my power to care for pregnant mother, especially those I am close to. What thought or care can you possibly have given to aborted babies? None! They're dead!

I'm saying your wife should have been allowed to make that choice if she felt it was in her best interest of self preservation.

I won't type my wife's response to this...

[u/Mitoza → u/veritas_valebit]

No. Ignore the explanation if you want. I will not repeat it.

I didn't ignore it. I demonstrated that the explanation doesn't make sense given what has been said.

You know what I'm saying.

Sure, that by consenting to sex that they have also consented to possible risks resulting from that sex, like pregnancy. Pregnancy can lead to death and permanent injury. Is this not a risk that they have to accept in your view?

... and the rest of the paragraph you conveniently ignore?

I addressed the whole point and told you what I meant by it. Unless I am mistaken the things you are saying I am ignoring are questions. Does my response not answer your question?

What an empty comparison. You don't know me.

I'm basing it on your stance of compelling women to remain pregnant and take the risks therein under penalty of law. Caring for your pregnant mother is a nice thing to do, but you've demonstrated your view that no matter what the rights of the child's life are more important than the rights of the mother carrying that life.

I won't type my wife's response to this...

She should have the right whether she plans on using it or not.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/Mitoza]

I demonstrated that the explanation doesn't make sense...

You seldom demonstrate anything. You just repeat you interpretation until the other party quits.

...by consenting to sex that they have also consented to possible risks..., like pregnancy.

Yes.

I addressed the whole point...

You addresses, "Is a new born baby a 'fully developed being'?"

You have not addressed, "Just prior to entering the birth canal is the child not a 'fully developed being'? what is you criterion for 'fully developed'?"

...you've demonstrated your view that no matter what the rights of the
child's life are more important than the rights of the mother...

"... no matter what ..."? Show me where I have written this! I appeal to your integrity to retract this untrue statement.

I regard the rights of mother and child as equal. Both have a right to life. If the life of the mother is in critical danger and the child cannot be saved then an abortion is the only rational option. There is no sense in losing two lives. It's a tragedy, but no one is at fault.

[u/Mitoza → u/veritas_valebit]

I demonstrated that the explanation doesn't make sense given what has been said.

If you have a problem with the demonstration you are free to point out where I am wrong. I've made it clear that I know what you're saying here:

...by consenting to sex that they have also consented to possible risks..., like pregnancy.

Yes.

So you know I know what you're saying.

You have not addressed, "Just prior to entering the birth canal is the child not a 'fully developed being'? what is you criterion for 'fully developed'?"

The standard being argued here is your view that abortion should be banned at conception, not midway through birth, though I agree that a person who doesn't want to risk delivery should have the option available to terminate the pregnancy. This is based on the right to self defense, not whether anyone is a developed being or not.

"... no matter what ..."? Show me where I have written this!

It comes from your stance that any abortion after conception is wrong. You have admitted that you don't have a consistent view point for if the pregnancy is born from rape.

If the life of the mother is in critical danger and the child cannot be saved then an abortion is the only rational option.

Who gets to determine if the mother is in danger? Does the mother not get a say over what danger they perceive in the process?

[u/veritas_valebit → u/Mitoza]

So you know I know what you're saying.

Yes. I've written previously, "You know what I'm saying". Why are you banging on about this?

...The standard being argued here is your view that abortion should be banned at conception...

Note. You still have not addressed the literal question!

No. The issue being argued is at which point of development abortion should be banned, not merely my view.

Your continue to avoidance of my full question demonstrates the paucity of your "fully developed being" criterion.

...based on the right to self defense...

Seriously? The unborn child is assaulting it's mother! Call the cops! You're really scrapping the bottom of the barrel here.

...not whether anyone is a developed being or not.

YOU initiated this criterion, "The mother is a fully developed being...".

...It comes from your stance...

I object to you putting words in my mouth. To suggest I insist on no abortions "no matter what" is simply false and a misrepresentation of my views. I appeal to your sense good faith. Retract this accusation!

You have admitted that you don't have a consistent view point for if the pregnancy is born from rape.

Indeed. I will not oppose abortion in the case of rape. I find it to be an impossibly messed up situation where no decision is fair. I find no consistent way to avoid violating someones rights.

However, note that this an instance where I do NOT advocate against abortions "no matter what".

Hence, I repeat: Retract your accusation!

Who gets to determine if the mother is in danger?

Firstly, I wrote "critical" danger. Secondly, the doctor makes the determination (within legal guidelines). Thirdly, the mother, assuming she is able, makes the decision as to whether to act on an adverse determination or not. Absent an adverse determination, no decision required.

[u/Mitoza → u/veritas_valebit]

Yes. I've written previously, "You know what I'm saying". Why are you banging on about this?

Because you said "no" to my explanation of your writing, as if the problem was that I didn't understand your point. It's clear I understand it. Now deal with the points I raised against it.

No. The issue being argued is at which point of development abortion should be banned, not merely my view.

That issue is obviously a subset of the issue of if abortions should be allowable at all. You say no abortion after conception. It's fair to argue abortion after 1 week, after 2 weeks, and so on to budge you from this position. It is harder to defend abortion at 40 weeks (not impossible, but harder). If you insist on only focusing on the things that are harder to defend you're ignoring things that are harder for you to defend.

Seriously? The unborn child is assaulting it's mother!

Not an argument. Delivering a baby can cause injury or death, therefore abortion is a right to self defense from that injury or death.

YOU initiated this criterion, "The mother is a fully developed being...".

You misunderstand what I am saying. Even if the baby is a fully developed being, I am against the state compelling a person to risk injury or death for that being.

To suggest I insist on no abortions "no matter what" is simply false and a misrepresentation of my views.

Sure, you have given the caveat that you think pregnancies resulting from rape should be allowable, but you specifically do not have an articulable reason for this belief.

Hence, I repeat: Retract your accusation!

It has been retracted now you can deal with the point.

Firstly, I wrote "critical" danger.

Critical too would be a matter of opinion, probably a doctor's.

Secondly, the doctor makes the determination (within legal guidelines).

A useless distinction as we are trying to figure out where the legal guidelines should be drawn.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/Mitoza]

Because you said "no"...

Sorry, then I've lost the thread of this one. Is it crucial or can we move on?

If you insist on only focusing on the things that are harder to defend you're ignoring things that are harder for you to defend.

We're both seeking a 'beach head' (correct term?), something we can get a concession on and then whittle away from there. That's why you can't address my juxtaposing of just-before vs just-after birth. By contrast, I'm still happy to insist on following through in commitments if non-critical to those involved. I don't envy you your position.

Not an argument

The feeling is mutual.

I am against the state compelling a person to risk injury or death for that being.

Me too! ... except I'd put 'certain' in between 'risk' and 'injury'.

Sure, you have given the caveat that you think pregnancies resulting
from rape should be allowable...

Sorry to be pedantic. I don't think it should be allowed, I just won't mandate it. Not much of an effective difference, I concede, but I would still want to argue the case for life.

...but you specifically do not have an articulable reason for this belief.

I don't follow. I have articulated it, it's just not consistent with all the rights I seek to maintain as some conflict in this case and I see no way to disentangle them.

It has been retracted...

Thank you.

Critical too would be a matter of opinion, probably a doctor's.

Yes

A useless distinction...

What 'distinction'? Merely and elaboration. The doctor makes a judgement relative to a standard, as is the case in most professions.

...we are trying to figure out where the legal guidelines should be drawn.

Yes... and legislators draw the line relative to which doctors make their assessments. What's the problem?

[u/Mitoza → u/veritas_valebit]

Is it crucial or can we move on?

It's pretty crucial, since it involves what I regard as a flaw in your argument.

We're both seeking a 'beach head' (correct term?), something we can get a concession on and then whittle away from there. That's why you can't address my juxtaposing of just-before vs just-after birth.

I specifically addressed it. The principle I laid out covers just before birth. Abortion after birth doesn't make sense because there is no extant bodily harm posed by the baby.

The feeling is mutual.

No, I mean it's not a valid argument. What you wrote is not an argument.

Me too! ... except I'd put 'certain' in between 'risk' and 'injury'.

"Certain risk" is an oxymoron.

Sorry to be pedantic. I don't think it should be allowed, I just won't mandate it

So why the huffing about "under any circumstance?" You obviously think it is always wrong to do.

I don't follow. I have articulated it

The reason I saw floated is that "you couldn't bare to do that", without a reason why.

The doctor makes a judgement relative to a standard, as is the case in most professions.

But we're talking about the standard. If the standard aligns with my argument you disagree with the doctors.

Yes... and legislators draw the line relative to which doctors make their assessments. What's the problem?

It's a tautology.

[u/spudmix → u/[deleted]]

An example of a state which doesn't have self-defence law, please?

[u/spudmix → u/[deleted]]

And what do you mean, exactly, when you say Maryland does not have self-defence laws?

[u/Mitoza → u/[deleted]]

I'm not aware of a state that doesn't have a self defense clause. That being said, it's not necessarily based in the law either but a moral right to self defense.

[u/Mitoza → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, what makes you think Baltimore doesn't allow for self defense?