Ohio judge strikes down parts of state's 6-week abortion ban

choiceone · Sep 9, 2024

Cosmo said:
Because it was absent from you original criteria, and only tacked on after the absurdity of your original criteria was exposed by having it apply to other behaviors that don't take place most of the time.

I applied your criteria for normalcy to sleep (another bodily function) and it turns out sleep is abnormal according to your own criteria (the originally presented criteria):

This is you adding more criteria to your absurd original claim to make it less ridiculous. So much for being "logically, naturally, culturally, empirically" anything.

1) You claimed pregnancy was normal. I countered that it was abnormal because it occurred for so much less time than non-pregnancy. However, earlier I had noted that pregnancy involves partial immunosuppression and symptoms of illness, e.g., morning sickness.

The point is that pregnancy is abnormal for two reasons. One is that it is not the presumed healthy state of the body and the other is that a woman ordinarily spends far more time not being pregnant, just as the average person spends far more time in a healthy rather than ill state.

2) To challenge my criteria for normalcy, you noted that we spend more time awake than asleep and asked if this made sleep abnormal. But there is a problem in the comparison. All people experience both waking and sleep states and regular diurnal sleep is needed for health and survival of the individual person, but not even all women experience both non-pregnancy and pregnancy, and pregnancy isn't needed for health and survival of individual women.

4) But I went further. Just as pregnancy is not needed for an individual woman's survival, so the sex that causes the pregnancy is unneeded for the survival. You seem to think I have made my case ridiculous by this reference to sex. However, we have an instinct that makes us sleep and can't continue to stay awake without taking a sleep break, but many people can easily control their supposed instinct to have sex and therefore don't have it or get pregnant at all.

I fail to see that my case is ridiculous, so if you still think so, you'll need to explain.

Cosmo said:
Any state can pass abortion rights. Roe has nothing to do with it. It's gone. Give it a rest.

Decades earlier Roe was a thing. Decades before that it was not. And now it isn't again. Constitutionality in that regard has been restored.

Roe had great influence on the thinking of people in the US and the world about abortion. Because of that, it became an historic SC decision. "The British are coming! The British are coming!" is no longer said as a warning to the American revolutionaries, but to suppose it was nothing and is now just gone is to have no appreciation of its historical and psychological value.

You seem to think that the overwhelming majority of pro-choice people in the US and the free world will all go back to being just as they were before Roe v Wade ever existed. This will not happen.

Do you not realize that we will work toward a Constitutional amendment to make individual autonomy a basic personal right unchallengeable by a state anti-abortion law because of Roe's existence?

You appear to think you and the anti-abortion forces have done something you haven't. Yes, you murdered Roe v Wade in cold blood. Rejoice that you killed a living thing in a crime of liberticide, but understand that it is because of the immortal spirit of that decision that you have completely "underestimated the depth of outrage" you have made a permanent condition in our hearts - which we will pass to later generations.

You see, we will never go back and we will refuse to let the anti-abortion people go back, too.

Cosmo · Sep 9, 2024

choiceone said:
1) You claimed pregnancy was normal.

Not really. It was you that started the normalcy/abnormalcy debate.

choiceone said:
I countered that it was abnormal because it occurred for so much less time than non-pregnancy. However, earlier I had noted that pregnancy involves partial immunosuppression and symptoms of illness, e.g., morning sickness.

So does puberty.

In conclusion, puberty serves as a point of inflection in autoimmune susceptibility in MS and EAE, particularly in females. There is evidence that disease activity in MS may increase

Effect of puberty on the immune system: Relevance to multiple sclerosis - PMC

Puberty is a dynamic period marked by changing levels of sex hormones, the development of secondary sexual characteristics and reproductive maturity. This period has profound effects on various organ systems, including the immune system. The ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Add in menstrual pains, and there are your checkboxes:

Signs of illness (pain from menstrual cramps).
Immune system changes-related increased vulnerability to certain conditions.
Is present less than it is absent (people spend most of their lives NOT in puberty).

So is puberty abnormal?

choiceone said:
The point is that pregnancy is abnormal for two reasons. One is that it is not the presumed healthy state of the body and the other is that a woman ordinarily spends far more time not being pregnant, just as the average person spends far more time in a healthy rather than ill state.

2) To challenge my criteria for normalcy, you noted that we spend more time awake than asleep and asked if this made sleep abnormal. But there is a problem in the comparison. All people experience both waking and sleep states and regular diurnal sleep is needed for health and survival of the individual person, but not even all women experience both non-pregnancy and pregnancy, and pregnancy isn't needed for health and survival of individual women.

That's more criteria you're tacking on. But again, it would also apply to puberty, as it is possible not to go through it.

choiceone said:
4) But I went further. Just as pregnancy is not needed for an individual woman's survival, so the sex that causes the pregnancy is unneeded for the survival. You seem to think I have made my case ridiculous by this reference to sex. However, we have an instinct that makes us sleep and can't continue to stay awake without taking a sleep break, but many people can easily control their supposed instinct to have sex and therefore don't have it or get pregnant at all.

I fail to see that my case is ridiculous, so if you still think so, you'll need to explain.

Roe had great influence on the thinking of people in the US and the world about abortion. Because of that, it became an historic SC decision. "The British are coming! The British are coming!" is no longer said as a warning to the American revolutionaries, but to suppose it was nothing and is now just gone is to have no appreciation of its historical and psychological value.

You seem to think that the overwhelming majority of pro-choice people in the US and the free world will all go back to being just as they were before Roe v Wade ever existed.

No, I don't.

choiceone said:
This will not happen.

Do you not realize that we will work toward a Constitutional amendment to make individual autonomy a basic personal right unchallengeable by a state anti-abortion law because of Roe's existence?

Yeah, whatever. Dems couldn't even pass a Congressional law. A Constitutional amendment is many magnitudes more difficult to get.

choiceone said:
You appear to think you and the anti-abortion forces have done something you haven't. Yes, you murdered Roe v Wade in cold blood.

All that was done was Constitutionality was restored.

choiceone said:
Rejoice that you killed a living thing in a crime of liberticide, but understand that it is because of the immortal spirit of that decision that you have completely "underestimated the depth of outrage" you have made a permanent condition in our hearts - which we will pass to later generations.

You see, we will never go back and we will refuse to let the anti-abortion people go back, too.

choiceone · Sep 13, 2024

Cosmo said:
Not really. It was you that started the normalcy/abnormalcy debate.

No, I didn't. Anyone who thinks the average pregnancy is healthy is an idiot. A pregnant woman can reasonably say she has a health reason for an abortion.

Cosmo said:
So does puberty.

Effect of puberty on the immune system: Relevance to multiple sclerosis - PMC

Puberty is a dynamic period marked by changing levels of sex hormones, the development of secondary sexual characteristics and reproductive maturity. This period has profound effects on various organ systems, including the immune system. The ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Cosmo said:
Add in menstrual pains, and there are your checkboxes:

Signs of illness (pain from menstrual cramps).

Immune system changes-related increased vulnerability to certain conditions.

Is present less than it is absent (people spend most of their lives NOT in puberty).

So is puberty abnormal?

That's more criteria you're tacking on. But again, it would also apply to puberty, as it is possible not to go through it.

First, cramps can be overcome by diet by most individuals - low sugar and high protein intake starting a week before an anticipated period, used for two or more months, typically works.

Second, all pregnant women have the same immune system changes, regardless of other aspects of health.

Puberty is not a temporary and repeatable problem but an age-related permanent change.

Virtually no person manages to escape going through puberty. It's true that some people manage to escape going through pregnancy, too, but a woman can be impregnated by rape. Similarly, one can have many more separate acts of sex without getting pregnant, but on average, 22.5 such acts can result in pregnancy.

Cosmo said:
No, I don't.

Yeah, whatever. Dems couldn't even pass a Congressional law. A Constitutional amendment is many magnitudes more difficult to get.

All that has to happen is that the vast majority of people over age 50 die, and there will be a much more amenable population. It's men over 50 who are the mainstay of anti-abortion people. If we calculate that the average age of death will be 80, it'll take about 30+ years to get rid of enough anti-abortion people.

Cosmo said:
All that was done was Constitutionality was restored.

Nope. There is a huge body of lawyers specialized in Constitutional law who don't agree with Dobbs. Though many would have preferred a different argument that the one in Roe, they considered bodily autonomy to be a constitutional right that would include the right of a pregnant woman to seek and receive abortion and the right of medical professionals to offer medical abortion as safer than childbirth. That is, legislators are not qualified to prevent abortion because they do not have the scientific training to weigh the hardship of childbirth relative to legal medical abortion.

Cosmo · Sep 13, 2024

choiceone said:
No, I didn't.

You're lying. Yes you did. In post #137.

choiceone said:
Anyone who thinks the average pregnancy is healthy is an idiot. A pregnant woman can reasonably say she has a health reason for an abortion.

First, cramps can be overcome by diet

More moving of the goalposts/tacking on additional parameters. Now all of a sudden the symptoms of illness parameter becomes symptoms of illness which cannot be overcome by diet. It's obvious you are making these rules up on the spot.

choiceone said:
by most individuals - low sugar and high protein intake starting a week before an anticipated period, used for two or more months, typically works.

Second, all pregnant women have the same immune system changes, regardless of other aspects of health.

Puberty is not a temporary and repeatable problem but an age-related permanent change.

So is Alzheimer's.

choiceone said:
Virtually no person manages to escape going through puberty. It's true that some people manage to escape going through pregnancy, too, but a woman can be impregnated by rape. Similarly, one can have many more separate acts of sex without getting pregnant, but on average, 22.5 such acts can result in pregnancy.

All that has to happen is that the vast majority of people over age 50 die,

Gonna be kinda hard to do when the life expectancy is in the mid-70s.

choiceone said:
and there will be a much more amenable population. It's men over 50 who are the mainstay of anti-abortion people. If we calculate that the average age of death will be 80, it'll take about 30+ years to get rid of enough anti-abortion people.

People's opinions often change as they age. But let's ignore that glaring hole in your theory right?

choiceone said:
Nope. There is a huge body of lawyers specialized in Constitutional law who don't agree with Dobbs. Though many would have preferred a different argument that the one in Roe, they considered bodily autonomy to be a constitutional right that would include the right of a pregnant woman to seek and receive abortion and the right of medical professionals to offer medical abortion as safer than childbirth. That is, legislators are not qualified to prevent abortion because they do not have the scientific training to weigh the hardship of childbirth relative to legal medical abortion.

As Joe Biden proved, scientific training is not required to legislate. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rm-who-needs-a-clip-that-can-hold-100-rounds/

BitterPill · Sep 13, 2024

Cosmo said:
So you consider abortion being illegal to be a particularly Nazi thing? You know abortion was illegal before Roe in plenty of states, right? And also that Nazi Germany had exceptions that allowed abortions, right?

Cosmo said:
Just pointing out that it's not particularly "Nazi" despite how much the left likes making ridiculous Nazi references whenever they disagree with someone.

Cosmo said:
Circumstantial. I don't think all such accusations are irrational, the same way I don't think all Nazi-type accusations are irrational. I just think THIS ONE is.

Cosmo said:
Which would place them somewhere between abortion-on-demand USSR and abortion mostly banned 1930s USA. So what is Nazi about it?

I am with you.

The Nazis get a lot of bad press, but they were great!

I especially admire what the Naxis did with retreads.

MAGA.

choiceone · Sep 13, 2024

Cosmo said:
You're lying. Yes you did. In post #137.

I went back to post #137 and could not find that I did what you say, so you're going to have to explain to me what you're talking about.

Cosmo said:
More moving of the goalposts/tacking on additional parameters. Now all of a sudden the symptoms of illness parameter becomes symptoms of illness which cannot be overcome by diet. It's obvious you are making these rules up on the spot.

Symptoms of an illness that can be overcome by diet that easily are nothing but symptoms of poor dietary choices. Pregnancy is not such a source - it can be forced on an unconscious individual by a crime.

Cosmo said:
So is Alzheimer's.

Sure, and would you let the legislature ban a successful medical treatment of Alzheimer's if one emerged and say, too bad, it's your fault? Gimme a break.

Cosmo said:
Gonna be kinda hard to do when the life expectancy is in the mid-70s.

The life expectancy has continued to rise, so I'm assuming that a quarter of a century from now, we have to use a higher age.

Cosmo said:
People's opinions often change as they age. But let's ignore that glaring hole in your theory right?

Not really on this issue. I read a study - was it from Pew Research Center? - that did a serious analysis of different groups' percentages of support for and opposition to abortion. Men over 50 were largely responsible for the opposition above 50%.

Cosmo said:
As Joe Biden proved, scientific training is not required to legislate. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rm-who-needs-a-clip-that-can-hold-100-rounds/

We're not talking about abortion. All I said is that legislators, being untrained as medical professionals, should not be making a decision as to health detriments of pregnancy and childbirth.

Cosmo · Sep 13, 2024

choiceone said:
I went back to post #137 and could not find that I did what you say, so you're going to have to explain to me what you're talking about.

It was when you started your normalcy/abnormalcy line of debate.

No, I'm saying that when the body does not function normally, one has the right to go to a doctor and seek treatment, and the doctor has the right to offer medical treatment that is medically recognized as restoring normal bodily functioning safely or has a rate of safety that exceeds what will happen if the doctor does nothing. Once medically induced abortion attained a rate of safety that exceeding the rate of safety of late pregnancy and childbirth, there was no reasonable excuse for treating it as illegal.

choiceone said:
Symptoms of an illness that can be overcome by diet that easily are nothing but symptoms of poor dietary choices.

So it is your position that if symptoms can be overcome with dietary changes, then those symptoms are not of a disease?

choiceone said:
Pregnancy is not such a source - it can be forced on an unconscious individual by a crime.

Sure, and would you let the legislature ban a successful medical treatment of Alzheimer's if one emerged and say, too bad, it's your fault? Gimme a break.

Does it kill a fetus in the process? If so, I'd let the states decide.

choiceone said:
The life expectancy has continued to rise, so I'm assuming that a quarter of a century from now, we have to use a higher age.

Not really on this issue. I read a study - was it from Pew Research Center? - that did a serious analysis of different groups' percentages of support for and opposition to abortion. Men over 50 were largely responsible for the opposition above 50%.

When the men over 79 die next year, the men that are 49.5 today will become "over 50."

choiceone said:
We're not talking about abortion. All I said is that legislators, being untrained as medical professionals, should not be making a decision as to health detriments of pregnancy and childbirth.

You should pass an amendment requiring legislators to be trained medical professionals then.

choiceone · Sep 14, 2024

Cosmo said:
It was when you started your normalcy/abnormalcy line of debate.

So it is your position that if symptoms can be overcome with dietary changes, then those symptoms are not of a disease?

No, I think the symptoms are still of a disease, but it's easy to recover from and protect against that disease. It's actually not that easy to protect pregnant women from some types of disease and they can get diseases that have no cure.

Cosmo said:
Does it kill a fetus in the process? If so, I'd let the states decide.

I don't care anything about a fetus if the woman pregnant with it doesn't care unless it's so advanced in development that it could survive easily by being born. That would be in the third trimester, and after 22 weeks, when doctors do not do abortions unless there is a fatal fetal anomaly or a very serious risk to the pregnant woman's survival or major health functions.

Cosmo said:
When the men over 79 die next year, the men that are 49.5 today will become "over 50."

You should pass an amendment requiring legislators to be trained medical professionals then.

Nope. Pregnancy is none of their business, at least before medical fetal viability, and one day, we will again have a constitution that recognizes that. The current reality is fortunately a blip on the screen of history.

Cosmo · Sep 15, 2024

choiceone said:
No, I think the symptoms are still of a disease,

And that's fine, but that's all it is: a totally unscientific "I think" from an anonymous internet personality.

choiceone said:
but it's easy to recover from and protect against that disease. It's actually not that easy to protect pregnant women from some types of disease and they can get diseases that have no cure.

I don't care anything about a fetus

I can tell. Unfortunately for you, lots of people in lots of states do.

choiceone said:
if the woman pregnant with it doesn't care unless it's so advanced in development that it could survive easily by being born. That would be in the third trimester, and after 22 weeks, when doctors do not do abortions unless there is a fatal fetal anomaly or a very serious risk to the pregnant woman's survival or major health functions.

Nope.

Fine, don't.

choiceone said:
Pregnancy is none of their business, at least before medical fetal viability, and one day, we will again have a constitution that recognizes that. The current reality is fortunately a blip on the screen of history.

choiceone · Sep 16, 2024

Cosmo said:
And that's fine, but that's all it is: a totally unscientific "I think" from an anonymous internet personality.

Nope. The overwhelming majority of medical professionals and their organizations recognize the substantive harm of childbirth.

Cosmo said:
I can tell. Unfortunately for you, lots of people in lots of states do.

I'm not interested in the emotional life of poorly educated or religiously hypnotized people.

Cosmo said:
Fine, don't.

Cosmo · Sep 16, 2024

choiceone said:
Nope. The overwhelming majority of medical professionals and their organizations recognize the substantive harm of childbirth.

Your repeated changes to the criteria of normalcy/abnormalcy since that line of discussion began is proof it is unscientific and you making shit up as you go along.

choiceone said:
I'm not interested in the emotional life of poorly educated or religiously hypnotized people.

Cool.

choiceone said:

choiceone · Sep 17, 2024

Cosmo said:
Your repeated changes to the criteria of normalcy/abnormalcy since that line of discussion began is proof it is unscientific and you making shit up as you go along.

Not long after Roe was overturned, one could find articles in the news that reported medical professionals saying it was time to acknowledge the damage done by childbirth.

Cosmo said:
Cool.

Thank you.

Cosmo · Sep 17, 2024

choiceone said:
Not long after Roe was overturned, one could find articles in the news that reported medical professionals saying it was time to acknowledge the damage done by childbirth.

Thank you.

That doesn't make it abnormal, which was your claim, followed by constantly changing criteria for normalcy/abnormalcy.

choiceone · Sep 19, 2024

Cosmo said:
That doesn't make it abnormal, which was your claim, followed by constantly changing criteria for normalcy/abnormalcy.

From a medical viewpoint, damage in childbirth is abnormal for a good reason.

No girl or woman ever has to have sex, and some are conned into it, seduced, or raped. No consensual sex act occurs without a human decision. Accordingly, pregnancy and childbirth are not at all natural because sex itself isn't purely natural when humans do it. Again, very few people have sex for more than an hour or two at a time, or on a daily basis, etc.

This means that a girl's or woman's body spends very little time having sex and being pregnant and giving birth. In the days when girls and women had fewer protections against pregnancy, e.g., the 19th century, about one out of ten women died in childbirth.

All of this - illness, injury, extreme pain, and permanent disability and death - aren't normal. What is normal is living your life with a minimum of illness, injury, pain, and disability and not dying of natural causes until you are at least in your fifties or sixties or, in a society that allows people natural freedom to patronize cultural healers, their seventies or later.

Cosmo · Sep 22, 2024

choiceone said:
From a medical viewpoint

No, this "abnormalcy" line of debate is from YOUR viewpoint. If it were from a medical/scientific viewpoint, you wouldn't tack on new criteria to rationalize your position all the time.

Ohio judge strikes down parts of state's 6-week abortion ban

Ignorance is Virtue

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency