Pro-choice distortion

[firstfloor]

[Cow Poke]

A pregnant woman who thinks she is hosting a "clump of cells" in her body, only to see very clearly a baby in her womb on a sonogram -- yeah, that would be quite spooky indeed.

Or, the "center hosts" at one of the clinics being asked to assist with an abortion for the first time --- that is WAY more than spooky!

[Mountain Man]

That's what you get for twisting my words around so much. You've confused youself in the process!

Serves you right!

Jim

[firstfloor]

A pregnant woman who thinks she is hosting a "clump of cells" in her body, only to see very clearly a baby in her womb on a sonogram -- yeah, that would be quite spooky indeed.

Or, the "center hosts" at one of the clinics being asked to assist with an abortion for the first time --- that is WAY more than spooky!

[carpedm9587]

Sorry, Quanta - I did not mean to exclude you. I missed your post. So I guess my "last word to you" will fall by the wayside again here. My responses below - and then I will leave the last word to you.

What if you went to your doctor and he said you needed a heart transplant, and that he could have a new heart for you tomorrow? Would you say yes without asking questions?

Of course not. But I would not want the government telling me what questions I have to ask and what tests I have to undergo. That is between my doctor and I.

Let's say it was legal and common to go to the nearest prison and harvest organs from the prisoners, and most people didn't know that's where they came from. If the doctor was legally required to inform you of that fact, would you still go through with it after finding out? If he wasn't required to do so, would you be upset when you found out after the transplant, when it was too late to change your mind? Would you wish that he had told you?

This entire hypothetical is a non-starter for the pro-choice person: you are comparing an independent adult human person with a fetus. You are I agree it is a child. They do not. They do not see independent human life beginning until much later in the fetal development process. If you are going to make a successful argument, you have to begin with their assumptions, OR you have to show their assumptions to be false.

Do you think it's morally/ethically acceptable for doctors to perform procedures that result in a loss of human life without informing the patient of the details of what the procedure entailed?

Again - you are assuming "independent human person" without showing it to be true. Your argument stands or falls on this assumption.

Do you think it is likewise acceptable for doctors to hide that fact from patients in order to make sure no one backs out of the procedure?

Same response.

After all, they are encouraged to maximize the number of people who go through with it in order to get their funding.

The ultrasound requirements are there to ensure that these girls understand that it is not just a formless mass of tissue that is being removed (which seems to be an all too common misconception) but is rather the stopping of a human heartbeat. Many of them find out later on exactly what they've done, and it is traumatizing.

Many medical procedures are potentially traumatizing, Quanta. That does not warrant government insertion into the medical process.

For the record, I think that church-run crisis pregnancy centers should tell the mothers about abortions, but unlike what the abortion clinics are doing, they should tell them exactly what they are - the ending of a human life.

I think that church-run pregnancy centers should adhere to the moral framework of the church hosting them. If they consider abortion immoral, they should not present it as an alternative or do as you suggest here. I think that publicly funded pregnancy centers should provide the woman with ALL of the medical alternatives and provide any information the woman wishes, including offering an ultrasound. I think it should be the woman's choice what information they choose to examine as part of making their decision.

And I think our attention should be taken off the legal issue, which will never be resolved, and focused on the social parameters that lead to unwanted pregnancies, seeking to reduce them in number. Pro-life laws will not end abortions. Pro-choice laws clearly do not end abortions. The only viable alternative is to find social solutions to minimize unwanted pregnancies, and offer those mothers who DO have an unwanted pregnancy a set of support options that will encourage her to take the baby to term and then either keep it or place it for adoption. The challenge is how to create such a support system without encouraging more pregnancies.

Last word to you.

[Charles]

Abortion is an issue that pits two closely held rights against one another: freedom and life. It is further complicated by the wide disagreement that exists as to when an individuated human person comes into existence. Rather than recognize that area of disagreement, and seek to find solutions that can avoid the no-win situation of abortion decisions, I find the two sides entrenched in their belief that the other side is "evil," working hard to distort the positions of the other side to make it appear even more evil, and dedicated to the war.

This war will NEVER end. At present, American laws lean strongly to freedom (i.e., in favor of pro-choice). The right will never accept that and continue to fight it. Should it ever swing more to the right (i.e., in favor of pro-life), the left will never accept that and continue to fight it.

Meanwhile, as the war continues, little effort is being given to solving the problem BEFORE it becomes a problem, and what I believe are children are dying in the hundreds of thousands. IMO, BOTH sides are responsible for this state of affairs. And I suspect BOTH sides will continue to deny they are complicit and point to the other side as "the evil ones."

When there is an honest willingness to sit down and seek solutions TOGETHER, there might be progress. Until then, as smug and comfortable as you may feel in your moral superiority, IMO, you are contributing to the death of children.

Last word to all of you.

I agree completely and I think your description is spot on. Thanks.

[Charles]

Meanwhile, as the war continues, little effort is being given to solving the problem BEFORE it becomes a problem, and what I believe are children are dying in the hundreds of thousands. IMO, BOTH sides are responsible for this state of affairs. And I suspect BOTH sides will continue to deny they are complicit and point to the other side as "the evil ones."

This part of your post reminded me of this interesting point made by Matthew Loftus

https://mereorthodoxy.com/anything-pro-life-nothing/

[QuantaFille]

Sorry, Quanta - I did not mean to exclude you. I missed your post. So I guess my "last word to you" will fall by the wayside again here. My responses below - and then I will leave the last word to you.

Thank you.

Of course not. But I would not want the government telling me what questions I have to ask and what tests I have to undergo. That is between my doctor and I.

Then let me ask you this way: Do you think your doctor would be doing the right thing if he knowingly and willingly withheld information that would likely make you decide against the procedure, especially if his gain was his motivation for doing so?

This entire hypothetical is a non-starter for the pro-choice person: you are comparing an
independent adult human person with a fetus. You are I agree it is a child. They do not. They do not see independent human life beginning until much later in the fetal development process. If you are going to make a successful argument, you have to begin with their assumptions, OR you have to show their assumptions to be false.

You and I agree it is a child, yes. I'm not even discussing that, as you and I are beyond that point. Why are you bringing it up? I'm discussing whether or not a doctor has the obligation to fully disclose the nature and details of a procedure. That is where we disagree. I'm trying to better understand your position.

Again - you are assuming "independent human person" without showing it to be true. Your argument stands or falls on this assumption.

My "argument" has nothing to do with it, we both understand this point already, which is why my hypothetical uses prisoners - we both agree they are undeniably human. I am not even "making an argument", I am asking you questions.

Same response.

Many medical procedures are potentially traumatizing, Quanta. That does not warrant government insertion into the medical process.

Not nearly the same way. I've heard that bone marrow transplants are incredibly painful, but they don't even involve the donor's death. I'm talking about the unnecessary death of a human being. If you don't know that's what you're doing, it's traumatizing later on when you find out. I'm asking you how you would feel if you found out that your organ donor was intentionally killed for his organs.

I think that church-run pregnancy centers should adhere to the moral framework of the church hosting them. If they consider abortion immoral, they should not present it as an alternative or do as you suggest here. I think that publicly funded pregnancy centers should provide the woman with ALL of the medical alternatives and provide any information the woman wishes, including offering an ultrasound. I think it should be the woman's choice what information they choose to examine as part of making their decision.

I'm trying to understand you. Are you saying that a church-run crisis pregnancy center should withhold information on what an abortion entails? I didn't say that they should present it as an alternative, only that they should provide the details. And for me it's not so much an issue of women making their own decisions as it is an issue of people withholding information that would surely make her choose otherwise if she had that information. How can a woman make an informed decision if she is not informed? That's why in my hypothetical, I ask you if the heart transplant surgeon should tell you that a prisoner will be killed to obtain the heart, if there exists a very common misconception that donated organs come from somewhere else. In reality, the exists a common misconception that a developing fetus is a formless blob of tissue, so the ultrasound requirement is there to make sure women are informed with facts instead of misconceptions.

And I think our attention should be taken off the legal issue, which will never be resolved, and focused on the social parameters that lead to unwanted pregnancies, seeking to reduce them in number. Pro-life laws will not end abortions. Pro-choice laws clearly do not end abortions. The only viable alternative is to find social solutions to minimize unwanted pregnancies, and offer those mothers who DO have an unwanted pregnancy a set of support options that will encourage her to take the baby to term and then either keep it or place it for adoption. The challenge is how to create such a support system without encouraging more pregnancies.

I agree with you here.

Last word to you.

I hope not.

[Mountain Man]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ll-them-later/

Keep in mind, this maniac is attempting to defend abortion.

[rogue06]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ll-them-later/

Keep in mind, this maniac is attempting to defend abortion.

Yup. Every unwanted child is a soon-to-be murderer.

[QuantaFille]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ll-them-later/

Keep in mind, this maniac is attempting to defend abortion.

Why do they continue to pretend that adoption doesn't exist? Literally all you have to do is leave the baby at the hospital after giving birth. Here, there are signs on every entry door into the hospitals that say as much. You don't even have to look at the kid if you don't want to. Nobody expects a woman to take home a baby she doesn't want. Adopted children grow up into well adjusted, fully functional adults all the time.

[oxmixmudd]

Why do they continue to pretend that adoption doesn't exist? Literally all you have to do is leave the baby at the hospital after giving birth. Here, there are signs on every entry door into the hospitals that say as much. You don't even have to look at the kid if you don't want to. Nobody expects a woman to take home a baby she doesn't want. Adopted children grow up into well adjusted, fully functional adults all the time.

I would say that is a very valid question - for later term abortions. I can see no way anyone on either side can justify late term abortions, or that there is any way to see taking the life of that late term 'fetus' as anything less than murder. The state senator Rogers admits as much, almost directly.

It gets a lot more complicated in the first month or two, because different views of what the fetus is at that point yield very different morality/cost/benefit conclusions.

But the 'smoking' gun in this case as to the mistaken judgement and moral compromise of those that tend to lead the charge on pro-choice is the capacity to argue vehemently for late term abortions.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

Your exchange has been civil, which I appreciate. So I'll respond in kind, despite the inevitable jokes about my failure to keep to my "last word to you" statement...

Thank you.

Then let me ask you this way: Do you think your doctor would be doing the right thing if he knowingly and willingly withheld information that would likely make you decide against the procedure, especially if his gain was his motivation for doing so?

I think a doctor is ethically (and should be legally) required to give me access to any information about my procedure that would inform me. That would include anything that can physically or psychologically impact me. Giving me access to information is not the same as requiring me to undergo specific procedures or to look at any specific information before I can undergo the requested procedure.

You and I agree it is a child, yes. I'm not even discussing that, as you and I are beyond that point. Why are you bringing it up?

I am bringing it up because you are comparing an independent, free adult with a fetus (i.e., child in the womb) and your argument hinges on it. If someone does not believe the unborn child is an independent human person, then your analogy fails.

I'm discussing whether or not a doctor has the obligation to fully disclose the nature and details of a procedure. That is where we disagree. I'm trying to better understand your position.

My position is summarized above.

My "argument" has nothing to do with it, we both understand this point already, which is why my hypothetical uses prisoners - we both agree they are undeniably human. I am not even "making an argument", I am asking you questions.



Not nearly the same way. I've heard that bone marrow transplants are incredibly painful, but they don't even involve the donor's death. I'm talking about the unnecessary death of a human being.

The pro-choice people I talk with would not agree that it is a human being.

If you don't know that's what you're doing, it's traumatizing later on when you find out. I'm asking you how you would feel if you found out that your organ donor was intentionally killed for his organs.

Yes - if I found out the organ donor was an independent human being killed to provide me with an organ, I would be traumatized. If I found out it was a clone grown in a vat that had no functioning consciousness (i.e., clinically dead), I would not.

I'm trying to understand you. Are you saying that a church-run crisis pregnancy center should withhold information on what an abortion entails?

No. I said a church-run crisis pregnancy enter should offer information aligned with its religious beliefs. If it is positioned as a medical establishment, then I think part of informed disclosure would be a clear statement informing patients that they are getting medical information constrained by religious/philosophical beliefs. For example, a simple sign that says "This pregnancy crisis center does not endorse procedures that conflict with our religious beliefs and will not provide information about those procedures that might lead a patient to select them." A person entering thus knows they are getting religiously constrained medical information and accepting that as a condition of being there, and the medical facility is free to follow it's conscience. I would see that as basic "informed consent."

I didn't say that they should present it as an alternative, only that they should provide the details. And for me it's not so much an issue of women making their own decisions as it is an issue of people withholding information that would surely make her choose otherwise if she had that information. How can a woman make an informed decision if she is not informed?

I agree a woman should be informed. I disagree that they should be forced to undergo any medical procedures or be required to look at specific information if they choose not to. I hold this position to be consistent with my position that the government has no place making medical decisions for a rational adult person who has not committed a crime or otherwise lost their rights.

That's why in my hypothetical, I ask you if the heart transplant surgeon should tell you that a prisoner will be killed to obtain the heart, if there exists a very common misconception that donated organs come from somewhere else. In reality, the exists a common misconception that a developing fetus is a formless blob of tissue, so the ultrasound requirement is there to make sure women are informed with facts instead of misconceptions.

You and I see the "blob of tissue" as an incorrect characterization of a fetus. A pro-choice person is not going to agree with that assessment and will see it as a perfectly good description. Indeed, it actually IS a good description for part of the development cycle of the fetus. It gradually ceases to be a good description as the fetus develops towards birth. As far as I know, there is no specific moment in time when it ceases to be a good description. It's somewhat akin to asking when a picture that is morphing from "dog" to "cat" stops being a dog and starts being a cat. You will be unlikely to find any two people that agree.

[QuantaFille]

Your exchange has been civil, which I appreciate. So I'll respond in kind, despite the inevitable jokes about my failure to keep to my "last word to you" statement...

You know you can't stay away. It's TWeb.

I think a doctor is ethically (and should be legally) required to give me access to any information about my procedure that would inform me. That would include anything that can physically or psychologically impact me. Giving me access to information is not the same as requiring me to undergo specific procedures or to look at any specific information before I can undergo the requested procedure.

The thing is though, so many people buy into the "shapeless blob" myth that they really need to be shown incontrovertible proof that their child really has a beating heart, a brain, arms and legs. In my hypothetical scenario, most people think that organs are grown in a lab and would never think to look at the available information that says otherwise. They believe that anyone who thinks prisoners are sacrificed to harvest their organs is a loon. If the doctor had a pamphlet about it in his office that he would show you if you asked, would you even know to ask? Let me also ask you this: how many children's lives do you think have been saved by those ultrasound laws? Most women who are seeking an abortion, if the tech at the abortion clinic simply told her "this procedure will end your child's life", would say, "no it's not. It's just a blob, and I want it gone". Only when she's shown that little moving baby on the screen does she know the truth. I think the lives saved are worth the inconvenience of her being required to have the ultrasound done.

I am bringing it up because you are comparing an independent, free adult with a fetus (i.e., child in the womb) and your argument hinges on it. If someone does not believe the unborn child is an independent human person, then your analogy fails.

I already said, I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to you.

Yes - if I found out the organ donor was an independent human being killed to provide me with an organ, I would be traumatized. If I found out it was a clone grown in a vat that had no functioning consciousness (i.e., clinically dead), I would not.

So, tell me honestly. Does this boil down to, "I'd rather not know"? And would you wish the doctor had told you beforehand? Why put people through that trauma when you can spare them?

No. I said a church-run crisis pregnancy enter should offer information aligned with its religious beliefs. If it is positioned as a medical establishment, then I think part of informed disclosure would be a clear statement informing patients that they are getting medical information constrained by religious/philosophical beliefs. For example, a simple sign that says "This pregnancy crisis center does not endorse procedures that conflict with our religious beliefs and will not provide information about those procedures that might lead a patient to select them." A person entering thus knows they are getting religiously constrained medical information and accepting that as a condition of being there, and the medical facility is free to follow it's conscience. I would see that as basic "informed consent."

Fair enough. But what if someone came in and asked about the reasons for not offering information on abortions? Should they refuse to give detailed information on what an abortion entails?

I agree a woman should be informed. I disagree that they should be forced to undergo any medical procedures or be required to look at specific information if they choose not to. I hold this position to be consistent with my position that the government has no place making medical decisions for a rational adult person who has not committed a crime or otherwise lost their rights.

An ultrasound is completely noninvasive, though. It's a minor inconvenience (much like the waiting period for buying a gun). And a lot of these women have changed their minds after seeing that little baby on the screen, and would never have believed that that's a little human being without being shown. If it were me, I'd be glad someone showed me what I was really doing before it was too late to change my mind. Those who are still convinced that a shapeless blob can somehow have a heartbeat are still going to do whatever they want, but the sensible ones are going to save their child's life and start considering adoption. It's not about the government putting its nose where it doesn't belong, it's about saving lives.

You and I see the "blob of tissue" as an incorrect characterization of a fetus. A pro-choice person is not going to agree with that assessment and will see it as a perfectly good description. Indeed, it actually IS a good description for part of the development cycle of the fetus. It gradually ceases to be a good description as the fetus develops towards birth. As far as I know, there is no specific moment in time when it ceases to be a good description. It's somewhat akin to asking when a picture that is morphing from "dog" to "cat" stops being a dog and starts being a cat. You will be unlikely to find any two people that agree.

Just to clear something up, there is really no part of normal development that can be called a "blob of tissue". When it is actually just that, it's called a teratoma and is never viable since it is literally just a misshapen blob of tissue. Those are very rare though. From start to finish, in a normal pregnancy there is order and form and you can point to any part of the developing body and say, "that is what will become the spine" or "this pulsating tube will become the heart". It is really fascinating. Just skim through a timeline of development with photos and you'll see what I mean. Even in the blastocyst stage, there are distinct layers of cells that are beginning to differentiate and we know what each layer will become. There is never any randomness or shapelessness or anything of the sort. In your cat/dog picture, the picture was always a cat.

[Cow Poke]

Why do they continue to pretend that adoption doesn't exist? Literally all you have to do is leave the baby at the hospital after giving birth. Here, there are signs on every entry door into the hospitals that say as much. You don't even have to look at the kid if you don't want to. Nobody expects a woman to take home a baby she doesn't want. Adopted children grow up into well adjusted, fully functional adults all the time.

The local pregnancy center has, as its core, the assurance that "we will help you take care of the baby, or we will help you place the baby in a loving home". Over and over, I've seen the 'pro-choice' group argue that all we care about is preventing abortion, and we don't care about the individual. Fact is - we care about BOTH the mother AND the baby/babies.