Why Do You Post In The Abortion Threads?

[Henrin]

Most of this is so intentionally dense I don't even know how to respond to it.

I'm pretty sure I'm not being dense...

An innocent actor does not change the right of the person being imposed upon to preserve there rights.

I never said the fetus was innocent or not. That is not connected to my point.

People who are not a threat ought not to be punished - i.e. an innocent actor like a man who consensually had sex with a woman and she accidentally became pregnant, or my friend if she had displayed the exact same psychosis without the physical violence.

Correct me if I'm wrong but how are the two results similar based on what you said earlier? You said that rights are based on consent and added that anything that causes harm to someone is violating their rights. It would appear by the way you think of pregnancy that the man has harmed the woman and while consent was given he still violated her rights. Why is it that you won't punish him for it? Your logic doesn't flow all that easily or is there something you aren't telling me that is a factor? If not, your logic to me is faulty.

If some sort of counter-act is required to re-establish personal rights, then it ought to be, even if it is against an innocent actor - like my friend becoming violent during psychosis, or an unwanted ZEF. Priority belongs to the person who is under threat - regardless of why, regardless of whether the threat is wicked in intent, and regardless of whether there even is an indentifiable actor causing the threat. Personal rights are about THE PERSON'S rights. How there rights have come under threat is not important. What is important is that they be maintained.

How they came under threat IS part of the topic as certain things don't have the ability to do so. It has nothing to do with intent or being innocent(whatever that means). It has to do if it has the ability to do it. What you are talking about simply doesn't.

That is why medical care is a right, even though there may not be any specific source causing the threat. That is why self-defense is a right, even if the actor is insane or being coerced. That is why abortion is a right, even though the ZEF lacks intention, and the man's intention is often benign.

Self-defense is a right because violence is occurring by a party that has the ability to do it.
Medical care can't possibly be a right by your own admission as it violates the consent rule.

How can you say you're "picking both" if you have no intent, by your own admission, of actually protecting both? That is the most blatant sort of callous dishonesty.

I never admitted such a thing. I just won't baby them through it, but if it becomes serious I'm all for stepping in.

 

[AGENT J]

When science is able to safely ( meaning safe for both the woman and the ZEF ) remove a ZEF from a womans uterus
dearing the early part of the woman's first trimester then I say yes please remove that ZEF from any woman who does not want to remain pregnant.

It would be workable solution to most. (myself included).

As a woman whose health was serverly affected both short term and long term during my pregnanies I would never insist that a woman who does not want to be pregnant has to carry that pregnancy to full term and thus take the chance of ruining that woman's health.

I agree partial, the stance on abortion and peoples rights and freedoms will not change.

BUT if science/technology changes I would be open to suggestions

second BUT, we would also have to have the issue of how to deal with "potentially" 1 million+ orphans

currently foster care is already over run

we would need facilities, man power and LOTS OF MONEY from somewhere.

 

[Ikari]

But we're discussing abortion, not birth control. Contraception's somewhat irrelevant at that point, wouldn't you say?

Were it a discussion of prevention over cure, I'd agree with you.

Well it's not even that. One says that if you make abortion illegal, you've forced the woman to adhere to your whim and removed her choice. I said that's not necessarily a true statement since, baring rape, there was always a choice made. An argument can be made that the woman made a choice, acted on it before abortion even became a topic to discuss. And as such you are not removing all choice in the matter, that there does stand an ultimate choice made and acted upon which snowballed the entire system.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Correct me if I'm wrong but how are the two results similar based on what you said earlier? You said that rights are based on consent and added that anything that causes harm to someone is violating their rights. It would appear by the way you think of pregnancy that the man has harmed the woman and while consent was given he still violated her rights. Why is it that you won't punish him for it? Your logic doesn't flow all that easily or is there something you aren't telling me that is a factor? If not, your logic to me is faulty.

In the case of unwanted pregnancy, the threat to rights does not come from the man directly. It doesn't manifest as the man. It manifests as a ZEF. So, assuming the sexual act was consensual, the defense of rights is aimed at the ZEF, not the man.

Like I've said, cause is not very relevant. What's relevant is the manifest threat to rights. That is the ZEF, not the man. The fact that the man played a part in that manifestation doesn't matter. Assuming sex was consensual, and he did not intend for it to happen, he is not the threat.

As another example, back to my friend who had the psychotic break. She was a victim too. She attacked him out of genuine fear for her daughter, whom she thought he was going to kill. She thought that because she was having delusions, but that is irrelevant. There was no wickedness in her actions. She didn't desire to hurt anyone.

The cause was schizophrenia. But in that moment, the woman manifesting schizophrenia was the one holding the knife. Therefore, victim or not, regardless of the fact that she was not the cause, she was the threat to his rights, and thus she was where his defense was aimed.

How they came under threat IS part of the topic as certain things don't have the ability to do so. It has nothing to do with intent or being innocent(whatever that means). It has to do if it has the ability to do it. What you are talking about simply doesn't.

It obviously doesn't, otherwise we wouldn't consider medical care a right. Medical problems are often causeless, or with such a diffuse series of causes that trying to figure out what they are is simply a waste of time. Also, in most cases, there is no "doing" of anything. There's no willful process behind the manifestation of sickness.

If you were correct about this, medical care would be a right if you're assaulted, but not if you have a stroke. But you still have a right to medical care, whether you are assaulted or have a stroke. We don't delineate between obviously causal and willful violation of rights, and causeless and will-less violation of rights. Because it's irrelevant. It is still a violation of rights.

Self-defense is a right because violence is occurring by a party that has the ability to do it.
Medical care can't possibly be a right by your own admission as it violates the consent rule.

But it is. If you go to the ER, they are obligated to treat you whether or not you can pay. We therefore do consider it a right - by law. The UN considers it a right. Remember, human rights are human constructs. Humans largely consider medical care, on some level, to be a right. We disagree about the degree, but most of us to agree on emergency life-saving care, at the very least.

The withdrawing of consent in this case is expressed by desire to be treated, and therefore desire to no longer be sick. You can also express your consent to be sick - by refusing treatment, or getting a DNR, or whatever else.

 

[Medusa]

in order to express what i believe about this issue.

 

[Ontologuy]

If the ZEF can survive outside the OEM (your word not mine) womb during the first trimester only by using a artificial womb and she does not want to carry it then it needs to be moved to that artificial womb.
The word viability indicates it can survive outside the womb.

It seems like YOU ( meaning you personality ) are trying to change the meaning of the word of viability.
.

Roe's legitimate state interest in protecting prental life means that at viability the state takes a legitimate interest in the well-being of the prenatal from there on out.

If the OEM environment is safe and sound for the viable ZEF and the OEM is not at qualifying medical risk, and if the transfer procedure places the ZEF at risk, the state is within its Roe bounds to step in with an injunction to prevent the undue risk to the well-being of the prenatal the state has a legitimate interest in protecting.

This isn't personal; this is simply an accurate understanding of the law.

 

[choiceone]

Why would I not go to the doctor?

How is saying that nature can't violate your rights equal to ignoring everything and just letting myself die? This line of questioning only has the potential to be a trap so hopefully I triggered the trap to get it over with.

Yes, let me accommodate you. A woman discovers she cannot eat without vomiting and keeps fainting. She goes to the doctor. The doctor says, "You're pregnant. If you go on being pregnant, you will give birth to a child, but that entails continuing to vomit and faint and may make it harder for you to breathe. You may need to quit your job unless your boss is accommodating." She says, "I don't want to continue vomiting and fainting. I don't want to have trouble breathing. I can't afford to quit my job but my boss has a fit if we take a lot of sick days. If I get unpregnant, will I be well again?" If you have the right to take care of your health and livelihood, buster, she has the right to take care of hers.


I see from your answer on the pregnant rape victim that her being suicidal is not sufficient for you as dictator to allow her to have an abortion, but you're gracious enough to let her have one if her pregnancy becomes life-threatening. Since you're not gracious enough to let her have one to avoid being permanently paralyzed from the neck down or becoming permanently blind or psychotic, I think she had better just commit suicide if you become the dictator.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Roe's legitimate state interest in protecting prental life means that at viability the state takes a legitimate interest in the well-being of the prenatal from there on out.

If the OEM environment is safe and sound for the viable ZEF and the OEM is not at qualifying medical risk, and if the transfer procedure places the ZEF at risk, the state is within its Roe bounds to step in with an injunction to prevent the undue risk to the well-being of the prenatal the state has a legitimate interest in protecting.

This isn't personal; this is simply an accurate understanding of the law.

No, it isn't. Fetal viability in the field of medicine means expressly the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb if born. Putting it in a fake womb does not mean it's viable. You have simply changed the life support system.

The potential of the FETUS to survive outside the UTERUS after birth, natural or induced. Fetal viability depends largely on the FETAL ORGAN MATURITY, and environmental conditions.

Fetal Viability (definition)

Viable Fetus – A fetus that would be able to live outside the uterus if born as defined by experts.

NCFR Resources: Definitions

 

[Henrin]

In the case of unwanted pregnancy, the threat to rights does not come from the man directly. It doesn't manifest as the man. It manifests as a ZEF. So, assuming the sexual act was consensual, the defense of rights is aimed at the ZEF, not the man.

So we are back to the ZEF and away from the man in which YOU made the topic. You appear to want to act like you never said that the man was at fault when you clearly did. That is fine.

Like I've said, cause is not very relevant. What's relevant is the manifest threat to rights. That is the ZEF, not the man. The fact that the man played a part in that manifestation doesn't matter. Assuming sex was consensual, and he did not intend for it to happen, he is not the threat

Wouldn't that still make the man responsible as his sperm put the ZEF into existence? If he never did that it could never start chemical reactions of the WOMAN and the ZEF. Does this mean the woman just violated her own rights because her OWN chemical reaction is what started it? Are you starting to see the problem of calling nature a violation of your rights?

As another example, back to my friend who had the psychotic break. She was a victim too. She attacked him out of genuine fear for her daughter, whom she thought he was going to kill. She thought that because she was having delusions, but that is irrelevant. There was no wickedness in her actions. She didn't desire to hurt anyone.

I see..sorry for misunderstanding then.

The cause was schizophrenia. But in that moment, the woman manifesting schizophrenia was the one holding the knife. Therefore, victim or not, regardless of the fact that she was not the cause, she was the threat to his rights, and thus she was where his defense was aimed.

True, but the law in which you think is the origin of your rights says it doesn't much matter if he is killed.

It obviously doesn't, otherwise we wouldn't consider medical care a right.

We don't consider it a right. What country do you live in? I thought you were a US citizen? Is that not correct?

Medical problems are often causeless, or with such a diffuse series of causes that trying to figure out what they are is simply a waste of time. Also, in most cases, there is no "doing" of anything. There's no willful process behind the manifestation of sickness.

Money comes from somewhere that takes effort to earn. If medical care was a right you would be violating the consent rule by needing the money of others. You would also call for actions that DO take the work of someone else, and not simply those actions that don't. In fact, this entire topic in order for it be done usually someone else does it.

It really doesn't matter how the sickness manifests itself as we are talking about the CARE, not the sickness.

If you were correct about this, medical care would be a right if you're assaulted, but not if you have a stroke. But you still have a right to medical care, whether you are assaulted or have a stroke.

Medical care is not a right, period.

We don't delineate between obviously causal and willful violation of rights, and causeless and will-less violation of rights. Because it's irrelevant. It is still a violation of rights.

So you are violating other people rights by making medical care a right. Thanks for admitting it.

But it is. If you go to the ER, they are obligated to treat you whether or not you can pay.

So you mandated that people have to be treated and therefore violated rights of other individuals? How exactly does that make it a right? That is the opposite of rights.

The UN considers it a right.

The UN is mister irrelevant in the room. They also consider Internet a right, but is there any proof the US considers it one? Is there any prove that all the members of the UN consider it one? Nope. What they say about rights is irrelevant.

Remember, human rights are human constructs. Humans largely consider medical care, on some level, to be a right. We disagree about the degree, but most of us to agree on emergency life-saving care, at the very least.

This idea of degrees is inconstant nonsense. Do you agree?

The lack of consent in this case is expressed by desire to be treated, and therefore desire to no longer be sick. You can also express your consent - by refusing treatment, or getting a DNR, or whatever else.

Your consent rules obviously means nothing to you or you don't really understand it all that well as you throw it around all to easily. You do realize there is two parties involved? If someone wants treatment is a desire, nothing more. If someone gives them treatment is the actual debate and where your consent rule fails to be upheld.

 

[choiceone]

What a turdpile of a comment.



You're a liar, or you just set your goalposts such that they cannot be reached, then claim victory and call others crazy when no one reaches them.

Honestly, legitimately, what we want is equal rights, as in "all men are created equal." Natural rights present from the very beginning of every human's life. The promise of the Declaration of Independence actualized.

All we insist mothers to do is to refrain from killing another human being... you know, the offspring they created through deliberate action, the young human they should be nurturing and protecting.

It is not an offspring until it has sprung off and out of her body. You cannot recognize a right to life for the ZEF without recognizing also a right for it to be inside her, eat her food, suck the oxygen out of her, disable her immune system and leave her open to viruses and infections, and break parts of her body. That is more rights than the right to life. Those would have to be rights to liberty that no one else has. You are completely crazy.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

So we are back to the ZEF and away from the man in which YOU made the topic. You appear to want to act like you never said that the man was at fault when you clearly did. That is fine.

When did I ever say the man was the threat to rights in the case of unwanted pregnancy?

The man is certainly a threat to rights if he wishes to ban abortion, however. So, too, is a woman who wants the same. The gender of the person wanting to ban abortion doesn't matter.

What I said is that men can't have an intimate understanding of the way women feel about reproduction and sexuality. I also gave examples of things that I, as a woman, can't intimately understand about the way men feel about reproduction and sexuality. At no point did I even insinuate that it is only men who have this impediment. We all do. And it behooves us to acknowledge it.

Wouldn't that still make the man responsible as his sperm put the ZEF into existence? If he never did that it could never start chemical reactions of the WOMAN and the ZEF. Does this mean the woman just violated her own rights because her OWN chemical reaction is what started it? Are you starting to see the problem of calling nature a violation of your rights?

No. Because, again, you're assuming cause matters. It doesn't. There is no threat until a ZEF exists. Everything before is irrelevant, unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or deception.

True, but the law in which you think is the origin of your rights says it doesn't much matter if he is killed.

What do you mean? Do you mean under my logic she shouldn't be punished in the penile system? If so, then you are correct, but that doesn't mean his death wouldn't matter. He would also have been a victim of schizophrenia. It just means she is not a wicked person who deserves punishment. She deserves treatment, and to be made as stable as she can be. If she cannot be stabilized, then she should remain in a high-security psychiatric unit. But not because she deserves to be punished. Rather, because other people don't deserve to be punished.

We don't consider it a right. What country do you live in? I thought you were a US citizen? Is that not correct?

Yes. If I go to the ER with no insurance, I will be treated even if I can't pay. That means it's a right I have.

Money comes from somewhere that takes effort to earn. If medical care was a right you would be violating the consent rule by needing the money of others. You would also call for actions that DO take the work of someone else, and not simply those actions that don't. In fact, this entire topic in order for it be done usually someone else does it.

It really doesn't matter how the sickness manifests itself as we are talking about the CARE, not the sickness.

All rights are based on majority social consensus, and thus majority consent to supply the necessary materials for that right. We as a society have agreed upon that. You can feel personally that it isn't a right, but society disagrees, and rights are human constructs.

You can say the same thing about police, courts, etc, who are instruments we all pay for whose goal is to maintain your personal rights and punish or quarantine those who would violate them.

So you are violating other people rights by making medical care a right. Thanks for admitting it.

Nope. We as a society have agreed to supply it.

So you mandated that people have to be treated and therefore violated rights of other individuals? How exactly does that make it a right? That is the opposite of rights.

Again, it is not a violation if the consensus is that we ought to supply it. All rights require some amount of supply by society, in some way.

The UN is mister irrelevant in the room. They also consider Internet a right, but is there any proof the US considers it one? Is there any prove that all the members of the UN consider it one? Nope. What they say about rights is irrelevant.

No it isn't. Rights are human constructs. There are no rights in nature.

This idea of degrees is inconstant nonsense. Do you agree?

No. Because rights are human constructs, humans will feel differently about them. It would be nonsense if rights existed as an objective reality, but they don't. Since they don't, inconsistency is to be expected. However, most humans do agree on the fundamentals and the principals behind most rights. We disagree, largely, in degrees and specifics.

The objective basis of rights is not in the rights themselves, but in the reason we believe in them. We believe in them because we are social mammals and it benefits all of us to protect our members, and also to empower them to live fulfilling lives. We are programmed to do that. But how we think we ought to go about it may differ.

You consent rules obviously means nothing to you or you don't really understand it all that well as you throw it around all to easily. You do realize there is two parties involved? If someone wants treatment is a desire, nothing more. If someone gives them treatment is the actual debate and where your consent rule fails to be upheld.

Consent is a desire and nothing more. Again, rights are not an objective concept. Treating them as such is silly.

 

[choiceone]

Not really, as I said barring rape there is always a choice exercised.

So you support a law allowing pregnant rape victims to get abortions, yes?

 

[Henrin]

Yes, let me accommodate you. A woman discovers she cannot eat without vomiting and keeps fainting. She goes to the doctor. The doctor says, "You're pregnant. If you go on being pregnant, you will give birth to a child, but that entails continuing to vomit and faint and may make it harder for you to breathe. You may need to quit your job unless your boss is accommodating." She says, "I don't want to continue vomiting and fainting. I don't want to have trouble breathing. I can't afford to quit my job but my boss has a fit if we take a lot of sick days. If I get unpregnant, will I be well again?" If you have the right to take care of your health and livelihood, buster, she has the right to take care of hers.

As long as she will live I don't see how it trumps anything. I don't really do this feelings or hardship over life thing, sorry. I know you think I don't care about the feelings, but I assure I do. Its just that when looking at it, I can't bring myself to trump life because of feelings or hardship. It just isn't as important, sorry.

And I never said I had the right to get treatment simply because I said I would go to the doctor.

I see from your answer on the pregnant rape victim that her being suicidal is not sufficient for you as dictator to allow her to have an abortion, but you're gracious enough to let her have one if her pregnancy becomes life-threatening. Since you're not gracious enough to let her have one to avoid being permanently paralyzed from the neck down or becoming permanently blind or psychotic, I think she had better just commit suicide if you become the dictator.

If I became dictator chances are I wouldn't pass abortion laws. You don't really understand where I'm coming from is all. I can allow something and simply not agree with it which is pretty much a large part of my platform. Why would I do that? Because either your laws are bull**** and/or horribly ineffective and/or your violate the privacy of people. None of which I find worth the effort, but I still I find it a violation of rights and if I could manage to come up with something that actually was effective and didn't call for the violation of privacy, I would. The chances of that though are about zero. If I became dictator you would really have nothing to worry about here. Furthermore, I would have many other things to do and this would probably never come up as its WAY down the list..

 

[Ikari]

So you support a law allowing pregnant rape victims to get abortions, yes?

I ain't here really pushing law. SCOTUS had it's say and that's that.

 

[choiceone]

Male v. female debates of who's more empathetic and understanding of the other's topically related challenges can really come to no good end.

It's a bit like conducting a "who's the oldest here" contest, with the prize of the most wise coming complete with attendant isolation.

Winning can sometimes be less than it's cracked up to be.

That is crazy. You know, in Western medicine and Chinese medicine, doctors ask the patient about their subjective symptoms because without them, their own observations are incomplete. Ethnologists have to consult ethnographers, who actually ask people what they think, if they want to do higher-level cultural comparison. If one pays no attention to what women are saying about their view of potential or actual pregnancy, you are certainly treating them as equal with mindless, brainless zygotes, but not with yourselves.

 

[Ontologuy]

No, it isn't. Fetal viability in the field of medicine means expressly the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb if born. Putting it in a fake womb does not mean it's viable. You have simply changed the life support system.

In Roe v. Wade -- Roe v. Wade Text -- the SCOTUS references viability as

... "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.

From the law's perspective, there's no differentiation about how the prenatal became postnatal ("born", C-Sec, other) or by what means it continues to live outside the womb, meaning outside the OEM's womb. This is one of Roe's strengths, its ability to let the medical community freely develop new relevant technology in the field without having to revisit the courtroom.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services established that viability as the point where Roe's legitimate state interest in protecting prenatal life takes over.

Viability, as presented by Roe, is key.

Thus if transferring a prenatal to an artificial or host womb becomes medically feasible and reasonably sucessfully performed, then the age of the prenatals for which that transfer is being performed will establish the new viability age, and medical references will appropriately adjust their descriptions of viability.

 

[Ikari]

That is crazy. You know, in Western medicine and Chinese medicine, doctors ask the patient about their subjective symptoms because without them, their own observations are incomplete. Ethnologists have to consult ethnographers, who actually ask people what they think, if they want to do higher-level cultural comparison. If one pays no attention to what women are saying about their view of potential or actual pregnancy, you are certainly treating them as equal with mindless, brainless zygotes, but not with yourselves.

And there are also folk who are too far in the mix to give honest and representative analysis, yes? Not saying that's all women; but perchance some are so overcome with their personal plight that they cannot see past it, yes?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

In Roe v. Wade -- Roe v. Wade Text -- the SCOTUS references viability as

From the law's perspective, there's no differentiation about how the prenatal became postnatal ("born", C-Sec, other) or by what means it continues to live outside the womb, meaning outside the OEM's womb. This is one of Roe's strengths, its ability to let the medical community freely develop new relevant technology in the field without having to revisit the courtroom.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services established that viability as the point where Roe's legitimate state interest in protecting prenatal life takes over.

Viability, as presented by Roe, is key.

Thus if transferring a prenatal to an artificial or host womb becomes medically feasible and reasonably sucessfully performed, then the age of the prenatals for which that transfer is being performed will establish the new viability age, and medical references will appropriately adjust their descriptions of viability.

An OEM is a womb. Just a fake one. It still cannot live outside it. It is not viable. Holy crap.

You are looking for loopholes based upon the present reality that workable artificial wombs do not exist. If/when they do, a fetus that cannot survive outside it is still not viable. Not by any medical definition. And not by Roe, unless you are consciously trying to read it that way.

 

[choiceone]

I was speaking of empathy generally.

Of course I agree that a man cannot empathise regarding pregnancy, to the same extent as can a pregnant woman. That's a given.

As to women who have never experienced it however, I have to wonder.

I've never experienced it, yet strangely I do empathize, whether they want the pregnancy or do not want it. I do understand what they are talking about when they relate it to their humanity, their sense of self, etc. I wonder how it is that I can do that.

 

[Ikari]

Of course I agree that a man cannot empathise regarding pregnancy, to the same extent as can a pregnant woman. That's a given.

I think that is selling the Human race short.

 

[choiceone]

So then, we need to toss out Roe v. Wade, since it was written by all men.

We also need to bar men from being OBGYNs, and of course no man should ever be allowed to perform abortion.

I guess you would agree that no civilian should ever vote on matters of war, no poor person voting on taxes which apply to financial investing, and only those who carry a firearm should have any say on gun control (I actually like that idea).

This is silly. SmokeAndMirrors was not talking about all men - pro-choice men have no difficulty in empathizing and to some extent understanding. I suspect that the appropriate comparison for the military is to say that 100% pacifists who do not believe there should be any weapons at all should not be president of a nation or dictator on the issue of guns.

 

[Ikari]

I've never experienced it, yet strangely I do empathize, whether they want the pregnancy or do not want it. I do understand what they are talking about when they relate it to their humanity, their sense of self, etc. I wonder how it is that I can do that.

Humans are remarkable creatures with unprecedented intelligence and empathy.

 

[Ikari]

This is silly. SmokeAndMirrors was not talking about all men - pro-choice men have no difficulty in empathizing and to some extent understanding. I suspect that the appropriate comparison for the military is to say that 100% pacifists who do not believe there should be any weapons at all should not be president of a nation or dictator on the issue of guns.

I think it is a BS claim based on bias and prejudice which says a Pro-Life man is incapable of proper empathy.

 

[Henrin]

When did I ever say the man was the threat to rights in the case of unwanted pregnancy?

When you said a few pages back that the man getting her pregnant on accident is a violation of her rights. Should I quote it?

The man is certainly a threat to rights if he wishes to ban abortion, however. So, too, is a woman who wants the same. The gender of the person wanting to ban abortion doesn't matter.

Ah..that is a side topic to what we are talking here.

What I said is that men can't have an intimate understanding of the way women feel about reproduction and sexuality. I also gave examples of things that I, as a woman, can't intimately understand about the way men feel about reproduction and sexuality. At no point did I even insinuate that it is only men who have this impediment. We all do. And it behooves us to acknowledge it.

I wasn't talking about your blown off genitals posts.

No. Because, again, you're assuming cause matters. It doesn't. There is no threat until a ZEF exists. Everything before is irrelevant, unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or deception.

And you said the cause of the harm is from the ZEF. Is that saying that cause doesn't matter? I don't think so. Care to be honest?

What do you mean? Do you mean under my logic she shouldn't be punished in the penile system? If so, then you are correct, but that doesn't mean his death wouldn't matter. He would also have been a victim of schizophrenia. It just means she is not a wicked person who deserves punishment. She deserves treatment, and to be made as stable as she can be. If she cannot be stabilized, then she should remain in a high-security psychiatric unit. But not because she deserves to be punished. Rather, because other people don't deserve to be punished.

I basically mean what you just said. Who came up with that and how is it constant with what you said earlier? Do you realize its not?

Yes. If I go to the ER with no insurance, I will be treated even if I can't pay. That means it's a right I have.

No, it means its a guarantee to services from others. Rights are not guarantees and they can not be in the form of other peoples service. Mandating a services does not make the violation of rights that is present disappear. Even by your own admission this would hold true. You do realize you just fell into my little trap right? Its obvious what is really going on, you want something, and the consent rule is just a tool you think you can use to get it. You don't obviously believe in it or you would show more consistently in using it. Thanks for falling into that trap. A bit of an easy target though.

All rights are based on majority social consensus, and thus majority consent to supply the necessary materials for that right.

You really don't understand what you have been saying this entire time do you? Everything you said eluted to the origin of rights NOT being society, but you keep trying to connect it to the government, as if that makes much sense when you look at what you arguments actually mean. Do you understand you were asking for consistently at the start and now you are asking for a subjective state of rights where you can just pick and choose what is and isn't a right? Do you understand that in this case the only thing that is important is what the majority can push on you? Do you understand that makes you entire abortion argument here invalid? Like usual with "government created rights" people you don't.

We as a society have agreed upon that. You can feel personally that it isn't a right, but society disagrees, and rights are human constructs.

No we haven't. Do you actually think the a majority can make work a right? Is that really constant with what you said earlier? Its not...

You can say the same thing about police, courts, etc, who are instruments we all pay for whose goal is to maintain your personal rights and punish or quarantine those who would violate them.

Police, courts, etc are not rights but things we use to uphold justice.

Nope. We as a society have agreed to supply it.

So all the people that supply it agreed? Really? Or do you think that you want for care actually makes that care happen or do you think that 51% actually equals 100%? Just wondering. Oh right, you can violate the consent rule because its all of sudden subjective when it clearly wasn't five minutes ago.

Again, it is not a violation if the consensus is that we ought to supply it. All rights require some amount of supply by society, in some way.

Nope. Rights don't call for work.

No it isn't. Rights are human constructs. There are no rights in nature.

Nope. You have admitted that is crap over and over again. Going back to it after you argument conflicts with it does not help you.

No. Because rights are human constructs, humans will feel differently about them. It would be nonsense if rights existed as an objective reality, but they don't. Since they don't, inconsistency is to be expected. However, most humans do agree on the fundamentals and the principals behind most rights. We disagree, largely, in degrees and specifics.

Right are objective. I have went over why. Should I quote it?

Consent is a desire and nothing more. Again, rights are not an objective concept. Treating them as such is silly.

You said consent was what rights are based on then acted like consistently was important. Funny how its not now.

So the idea that destruction is harmful and should be avoided at all costs which you have connected to nature itself, which is nonsense but you were and are unaware of why, is not what you were saying? Interesting.. You really should catch on why your argument is just a match of mine besides the nature can violate your rights argument at some point, right? I'll wait..

 

[Ontologuy]

An OEM is a womb. Just a fake one. It still cannot live outside it. It is not viable. Holy crap.

You are looking for loopholes based upon the present reality that workable artificial wombs do not exist. If/when they do, a fetus that cannot survive outside it is still not viable. Not by any medical definition. And not by Roe, unless you are consciously trying to read it that way.

SmokeAndMirrors, when I created the "OEM" acronym a few posts back I did so humorously, never expecting it to be seriously referenced.

But then Minie616 used it .. then I just thought, okay it's communicating, and I just used it back .. and then she did again .. and then I did again ...

I was orginally lost for a quick reference of the woman who is the biological mother of the fetus being transferred about.

Then I was suddenly stuck by "OEM" used in commerce as Original/Other Equipment Manufacturer.

Originally Equipped Mom just kind of rolled off the tip of my mind, and rather than spend a ton of time pefecting a new idiom, I just chuckled and let it go. As a writer, I'm sure you understand.

"OEM" means the woman who first carried the ZEF in her womb, the biological mother, as opposed to the wombs, real or artificial, of subsequent transfers.