Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Of course, the opposition to that, especially at the age it needs to start being taught (early teens), in the states is so vocal and numerous than it's basically not going to happen for at least another couple generations. S'just too many people that won't budge on the issue for much improvement to be made until they're dead.

[Reelya]

It still doesn't lead up to 27 weeks... But I am just glad partial birth abortions are still illegal.

You totally bought the propaganda then. Those are a necessary medical procedure. All late-term abortions are gruesome medical procedures that take days and are medieval in nature. They are not something mothers decide to have on a whim, they are almost universally emergency medical procedures or done to remove a dead/dying baby that threatens the mother's life.

The new version was banned, the old version is still legal, and it's like something out of medieval torture. The new version was designed to be a lot more humane. And then some fuckers banned the new version but left the old version intact. The old one involves sticking cutting implements up into the mother and carving the living baby into small pieces to be extracted one by one. The "partial birth abortion" (NOT the medical term) involves a way that was previously impossible to extract the dead/dying baby in one piece.

"partial birth abortions" are formally known as "Intact dilation and extraction". This method was developed to be a more humane version of "Dilation and evacuation" (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation), which is the fore-mentioned freakish medieval torture for mother and fetus that Bush is subjecting more women to because of the "intact dilation and extraction" ban.

RationalWiki on the debate:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

It should also be noted that other procedures are no less gory, and "inhumane" in this abstract, fear mongering sense. Dilation and Extraction (notice well the missing 'intact') is essentially the same procedure.

Medical uses

This procedure was the preferred medical choice when the infant's head was abnormally large, generally due to a terminal birth defect called "hydroencephalitis". A second condition where this procedure is preferred is a state where the woman for whatever reason, has a risk of internal bleeding or clotting issues. Because the fetus is removed intact, there are no small bones that could tear or perforate the uterus. These are medical conditions, and a woman who is facing such situations should be legally allowed to use whatever procedure her doctor feels is right for her particular case.

[Phmcw]

 

   You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. ... To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

The following though experiment is designed by Ms Thomson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Jarvis_Thomson to justify late term abortion. However, I feel that you cannot, in fact, unplug the violonist without being guilty of murder. Of course, the peoples that made the procedure would be guilty of kidnapping and other crimes (grivous bodily harm? reckless endangerment?). What do you think?

[Neonivek]

It is just the old "unwanted pregnancies are rape" thinking anyway.

[Gentlefish]

It is just the old "unwanted pregnancies are rape" thinking anyway.

Uuuuhhh... Elaborate?

[Reelya]

It's probably on this list somewhere:

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

A man is a rape-supporter if…   He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion.

She literally got me with item one! I have slept with women who were drunk or high, *I* was also drunk or high, but that's just "rape apologetics" so I feel bad bringing that point up. Also, I have slept with a girl who was "underage" if you count 17 as underage. Note, that the relative age of the man is not relevant: 17 year old guy sleeps with 17 year old girl: he's a rape supporter. What exactly counts as emotional coercion btw? Is begging and getting pity sex rape.

[Neonivek]

By the by Reelya... Were you also raped by those women by the exact same logic?

It is just the old "unwanted pregnancies are rape" thinking anyway.

Uuuuhhh... Elaborate?

Ok I admit it is VERY scummy for me to say this... but I don't want to.

I don't want to plunge the topic into a darker cesspit then it already is.

[Phmcw]

Let's just say that the tough experiment the protagonist a victim of violence and coercion which is not usually the case in unwanted pregnancies.

[GavJ]

Physical restraint is dumb to put on that list without additional comment for obvious reasons. Nothing wrong with consensual bondage.

Coercion also is wrong without qualifications. Sex can ethically and legally be used as a bargaining chip, as long as it's for minor things that you could easily say no to without harm, etc. For example, many people feel slightly coerced by having been taken out on luxurious expensive dates to have sex. Healthy? Loving? No. Illegal or rape? No.

Whereas if you mean coercion like losing your job or a baseball bat then yes.


You can also give consent prior to intoxication as long as boundaries are clear. I and a partner have decided together to get fairly smashed and have sex before. Don't see anything wrong with that. A regularly sexual relationship is also reasonable to continue when drunk under common sense circumstances and not introducing snything new or undiscussed while drunk, IMO. Although in this case you should still have talked about that being okay in general earlier in the relationship.

Underage is not unethical or illegal if you are also underage, and typically within 3 years of age legally.

[Phmcw]

Removed because of the potential for flame.

[BFEL]

I personally see abortions as murder. And I wholeheartedly approve of murder! YAY MURDER!

As for this sudden discussion on underage sex that sounds like a derail waiting to happen. Go make a thread and take the discussion there.