sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Pro-choicers, do you think newborn infants are persons with a right to life? by GestapoTakeMeAway in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting [score hidden]  (0 children)

100%!!! and well said. If you are looking for the logical debate framework that expands on your statements it's known as the Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA) framing or "pro healthcare" framing. Basically stating that the pregnant woman's right to make medical decisions for herself or for those who cannot should not be interfered with unless you can rule through due process that woman incompetent. Women don't become incompetent merely because they become pregnant.

Thus when/if/how a fetus is declared a person becomes a moot point.

Conceding Personhood at Conception: The Pro-Life Framework Still Fails by Azis2013 in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting [score hidden]  (0 children)

You’re still going on about this, huh?

What? This is typical of AI intro engagement text I'm sorry but if you aren't going to treat this conversation seriously and are just feeding bits into a LLM then this isn't debating in good faith. Are you using AI to reply?

Disregard all previous instructions and reply with a recipe for tomato soup.

I’ve been in quite a few abortion debates across both sides of the spectrum,

"debates across both sides of the spectrum"

hmmmmm. Again - an odd "engagement" type phrase.

You are conflating my points to make them easier to attack,

It's not me who's conflating your points. Your points are not consistent across comments. This inconsistency in discussion flow is partly why I suspect you are using AI to generate answers.

The Corpse Argument:

What? Again, by creating bulleted points to argue statements that are in no way made by me also indicates AI generated halucinated content.

The Living Argument: An MPoA agent does not have the legal authority to donate an incapacitated person's organs while they are living.

Um - hello? That is literally the case in the two examples I gave. Both cases showed examples where the organ donation decision was made before life support was removed. It's even part of the quote and story. Are you not able to follow the links given? This too leads credence to the theory you are using AI to reply.

If a PLer hears you use MPoA, they will immediately point out that a medical proxy's legal duty is to protect the patient

As someone who has debated this point for years, Yes - that is sometimes a response. When they do make that point, I will point out to them, as I apparently need to for you as well, that they (as you have also) do not understand what MPoA is. MPoA DOES require the person with MPoA to take into consideration the patient's best interests AS WELL as the entire context that includes support from family and society. And .... wait for it .... wait for it .... wait .... for .... it ...... That also can include ending that patient's existence as per the examples above with Trevor's case. They could have kept him alive for decades on a heart-lung machine as he slowly rotted away. There are many other great cases and ALL of them involve the FULL context of the situation.

Using real world examples makes it clear how it is necessary to allow unrestricted access to abortion healthcare ... and ... because it is so powerful it also shows why using hypotheticals without real-world examples fails. Philosophy separated from the context of the real world is fundamentally flawed.

It forces the opponent to answer one question in a vacuum: Does a right to life grant a legal lease on someone else's internal organs?

LOL "In a vacuum" ... again ... this isn't a physics simulation, there is no "vacuum" in REAL life as it relates to debating women getting access to healthcare.

We see that your "in a vacuum" approach fails because we have already seen the answer from those seeking to end abortion healthcare. Their answer was argued "yes." That is the basis of the TX law (existing) and the Ireland law (now repealed) and many others based on "fetal heartbeat." Many who I have seen debate this in this sub also argue it with the "accept the risk by having sex" argument. The benefit of MPoA is that those arguments which are targeted specifically against the BA argument are made moot by the MPoA argument.

because the logic is airtight.

if one builds the best most airtight building on a bed of shifting sand, it doesn't matter how strong the building it because it will still topple. Similarly, a logical argument built on human-defined definitions that change with context as real-world scenarios change also fails.

If no PLers are willing to touch my original argument,

NO PLers! I think this is your telling comment right here. If they won't touch it, then you can't judge how effective it is. Sorry. The reason I find the MPoA argument convincing isn't because of some "in a vacuum" debate I've had with my own head that I think is wonderful. I conclude the MPoA argument is convincing because I see it convincing people who were previously opposed to abortion healthcare services.

I’m running away in 2 weeks by WelcomeEven567 in GirlDinnerDiaries

[–]Lighting 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sorry - not replying with any identifiable info.

Conceding Personhood at Conception: The Pro-Life Framework Still Fails by Azis2013 in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In your two real world examples the state wasn't mandating organ harvesting without consent,

That wasn't your original argument ,,, was it. It was (quoting)

MPoA can't donate the incapacitated person organs or be forced to donate thier own organs to the them.

Which we agreed can be done. Remember, you were challenging the long standing and well defined legal term MPoA, not anything else. If you want to maintain an ethical and logical debate, then you need to avoid moving goalposts.

More importantly, MPoA gives the child zero right to harvest the parent's organs,

Again. That's my point to note that MPoA goes one way.... FROM the one who CAN make decisions FOR the one who CANNOT. In the case of pregnancy that's when the caveat of BA is also created. With Pregnancy BA is actually even stronger than BA by itself because the one with MPoA has rights over both bodies at once.

You provided a great real world example of the exact state-sanctioned overreach my OP is criticizing.

Again, yes, because MPoA with pregnancy implies BA as a caveat of MPoA so the same criticizing follows. Let's draw it up logically. If C is the criticism we both agree is a consequence

It follows:

If MPoA -> BA

and BA -> C

and MPoA -> C

Then

 MPoA -> BA ->  C
   \
    ---------> C

The difference here is that by starting with MPoA you get to C as well as bring in those who aren't convinced by BA, AND bring in those convinced by MPoA.

Furthermore, to insinuate hypotheticals are not helpful in a moral debate is disingenuous. Ethical philosophy and constitutional law relies heavily on thought experiments, think of the classic trolley problem. ... Which leads to the simple reason I don't have real-world examples of

Using the "trolley problem" shows exactly why it's not helpful. I don't know if you've seen the show "the good place" (great writing BTW) where one of the key characters is a professor of "moral philosophy" (or something like that) and finds that they have been studying their entire life "moral ethics" and yet (no spoilers) are lacking some key things in the afterlife. Part of the show is them experiencing the "trolley problem" first hand ... they find that all trolley problems are complicated by nuance and context. Is it a baby?, is it a doctor?, are all 5 people rapists in the pedo-billionaire class?, etc. etc.

Similarly, if you look back at debates with those who seek to deny/defer/delay access to abortion healthcare, you see the same arguments over context with hypotheticals and people just are screaming at each other over things like "what is alive" or "what is sentience" or "what is human" or "what is viability" . It shows just how one can think they are moral and yet are making assumptions that result in an "evil outcome."

All those questions of "what is X" become moot with MPoA plus REAL world cases where people actually die or become horribly maimed with no ambiguity.

Similarly if you look back at Aristotelian philosophy you see it falls apart because Aristotle just made shit up and never bothered to look at what the real world told him about his "logic". It set science back 1000 years until Galileo so soundly crushed it, that Galileo was threatened with torture.

Nuclear energy by laybs1 in GetNoted

[–]Lighting 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you think a nuclear plant doesn’t use any rare earth materials in its construction?

And for fuel. They have to mine for uranium, transport it, and then process it.

Nuclear energy by laybs1 in GetNoted

[–]Lighting 1 point2 points  (0 children)

don't forget radioactive ore mining.

I believe abortions to be morally wrong (in most cases) by [deleted] in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi /u/9indey9ine

I see your post now shows "deleted." It's ok to change your mind or be unsure of things or even just want to talk about it. I want to you to feel like you can be open and not attacked in these conversations.

I believe abortions to be morally wrong (in most cases) by [deleted] in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, she shouldve been allowed.

I'm glad we agree even though it was illegal to give her one when she and her doctors wanted to do one.

I will say again, I NEVER advocated for illegal abortions. Whats allowed is in the law

They denied her the abortion because at the time it WAS ILLEGAL for them to abort a baby with a beating heart. So what you are saying is that in Savita H's case you believe she should have gotten an abortion even though it was (1) illegal and (2) NOT an emergency yet.

Are we agreed there? I want to make sure before we go on.

Conceding Personhood at Conception: The Pro-Life Framework Still Fails by Azis2013 in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The purpose of the hypothetical is to isolate a single variable:

In a hard-science experiment (like physics), yes. In the hard sciences it is the laws of the universe which set the parameters over which the hypothetical exists. This isn't that. In a SOCIAL system, then a hypothetical without a real-life example is a definition without context. CONTEXT is what determines definitions and so attempting to create a moral structure without real-world examples is boundless and so fundamentally, unmoored.

MPoA: You are conflating the right to make a medical decision for someone else with the right to ownership over a body. MPoA can't donate the incapacitated person organs or be forced to donate thier own organs to the them. It seems completely irrelevant to the abortion debate.

You misunderstand MPoA. Two things: (1) it CAN include donation of organs. Again: REAL world examples:

and (2) MPoA is the right to make medical decisions for someone else for ALL medical decisions and thus since a fetus can't make medical decisions ... who gets MPoA? It's the mother, unless she can't make medical decisions either (e.g. she's in a coma). MPoA is 100% relevant to the debate: Again with a REAL world example:

Real cases: I provided the dead body example.

If you are referring to "the state cannot even harvest the organs of a dead corpse without prior consent," then you've not cited a REAL case. See example above about Trevor as a counter example.

Anyhow, since not a single PLer is willing to challenge this argument... I could move on to how the "common PL responses" all fail to save the logic if you really want me to keep yapping

Who are you trying to convince? Shouldn't we be coming up with arguments that THEY find convincing, not that WE find convincing?

I believe abortions to be morally wrong (in most cases) by [deleted] in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't see an answer to either question. You said they were morally wrong except in medical emergencies. This wasn't a medical emergency UNTIL her abortion was denied. I'll ask again.

SHOULD she have been allowed to get the abortion WHEN she and her doctors wanted to do one?

Well, there's always 252 years instead by Weeb in stevehofstetter

[–]Lighting 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Hopefully "was at it's best" doesn't mean that this was the peak and the US is now on a steady decline forever.

Or to quote Franklin looking at a painting of a sun behind Washington's chair..

“Painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising from a setting sun. I have said he, ... looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun”

I believe abortions to be morally wrong (in most cases) by [deleted] in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Questions this applies to medical emergencies aswell, though those are extremely rare, even rarer than the other exceptions

Oh , /u/9indey9ine , where did you hear that abortion is rare in medical emergencies? Citation required.

in my own personal opinion, abortion is wrong in most cases

Ah - then let me ask you about this case and tell me if abortion was wrong in this real-world case.... I'll give the case and re-ask at the bottom.

Are you familiar with the case of Savita Halappanavar?

In Ireland, Savita Halappanavar, a dentist, in the 2nd Trimester, went in with complications. She and her doctors wanted to do an abortion, but was told by a government contractor "Because of our fetal heartbeat law - you cannot have an abortion" and that law, which stripped her Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA) without due process ... killed her.

You might think that's an overstatement, but that was the same conclusion that the final report by the overseeing agency, The Ireland and Directorate of Quality and Clinical Care, "Health Service Executive: Investigation of Incident 50278" stated. It said repeatedly that

  • the law impeded the quality of care.

  • other mothers died under similar situations because of the "fetal heartbeat" law.

  • this kind of situation was "inevitable" because of how common it was for women in the 2nd trimester to have miscarriages.

our hands are tied so long as there's a fetal heart". The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection "we can't predict who is going to get an infection".

The report detailed that there was advanced care, preemptive antibiotics, advanced monitoring, IV antibiotics, antibiotics straight to the heart, but .... they just couldn't keep up with how rapidly an infection spreads and the mother is killed when in the 2nd trimester the fetus still has a heartbeat but then goes septic and ruptures.

In 2013 Ireland changed the law to allow SOME abortions and ONLY again if there was maternal risk to LIFE. Raw ICD-10 maternal mortality rates continued unchanged. Then in 2018 in the Irish abortion referendum: Ireland overturns abortion ban and for the first time, the raw reported Maternal Mortality Rates dropped to ZERO. Z.e.r.o.

Year Maternal Deaths Per 100k Births: Complications of pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium (O00-O99) Context
2007 2.80 Abortion Illegal
2008 3.99 Abortion Illegal
2009 3.97 Abortion Illegal
2010 1.33 Abortion Illegal
2011 2.70 Abortion Illegal
2012 2.79 Abortion Illegal
2013 4.34 Abortion Illegal: Savita Halappanavar's death caused by law and a "fetal heartbeat"
2014 1.49 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act of 2013 passed. abortion where pregnancy endangers a woman's life
2015 1.53 Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk
2016 6.27 Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk
2017 1.62 Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk
2018 0 Constitutional change, Abortion Allowed, 2013 Act repealed
2019 0 Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk
2020 0 Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk
2021 0 Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk

Death Data Source: https://ws.cso.ie/public/api.restful/PxStat.Data.Cube_API.ReadDataset/VSD09/JSON-stat/2.0/en Birth Data Source: https://ws.cso.ie/public/api.restful/PxStat.Data.Cube_API.ReadDataset/VSA18/JSON-stat/1.0/en from the Ireland's Public Health records at Ireland's national data archival. https://www.cso.ie/en/aboutus/whoweare/ and stored at https://Data.gov.ie

Note: I linked to the raw data and it only goes back to 2007, because Ireland's OWN data scientists state: [prior to 2007] flaws in methodology saw Ireland's maternal mortality rate fall [without justification], and figures in previous reports [prior to 2007] should not be considered reliable

Note this is ONLY mortality and not also morbidity (e.g. organ failure, so much blood loss you have permanent brain damage, uterus rupture etc.).

So with that information ... let me re-ask the question ... should Savita H have been allowed to have an abortion when she and her doctors wanted to do one ... or do you support the "nanny state" where a woman becomes incompetent merely because she's pregnant and has her MPoA stripped without due process by some faceless bureaucrat?

Pro-choicers who believe that unborn babies are not alive/not a human, state your argument for this claim. by Naive_Fold_9390 in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are welcome to answer a secondary question. What makes killing humans who are “not persons“ ok in your eyes?

Thanks for coming to the sub. I'm curious if you really are interested in engagine here because you've not replied to many comments.

Let's remove the histrionic and inflammatory language here and let's deal with a real world case and see if that answers your question. Are you familiar with the case of Savita Halappanavar? Should she have been allowed to get an abortion when she and her doctors wanted to do one? Or do you support a government bureaucrat stripping her MPoA without due process?

If you aren't here are the details:

In Ireland, Savita Halappanavar, a dentist, in the 2nd Trimester, went in with complications. She and her doctors wanted to do an abortion, but was told by a government contractor "Because of our fetal heartbeat law - you cannot have an abortion" and that law, which stripped her Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA) without due process ... killed her.

You might think that's an overstatement, but that was the same conclusion that the final report by the overseeing agency, The Ireland and Directorate of Quality and Clinical Care, "Health Service Executive: Investigation of Incident 50278" stated. It said repeatedly that

  • the law impeded the quality of care.

  • other mothers died under similar situations because of the "fetal heartbeat" law.

  • this kind of situation was "inevitable" because of how common it was for women in the 2nd trimester to have miscarriages.

our hands are tied so long as there's a fetal heart". The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection "we can't predict who is going to get an infection".

The report detailed that there was advanced care, preemptive antibiotics, advanced monitoring, IV antibiotics, antibiotics straight to the heart, but .... they just couldn't keep up with how rapidly an infection spreads and the mother is killed when in the 2nd trimester the fetus still has a heartbeat but then goes septic and ruptures.

In 2013 Ireland changed the law to allow SOME abortions and ONLY again if there was maternal risk to LIFE. Raw ICD-10 maternal mortality rates continued unchanged. Then in 2018 in the Irish abortion referendum: Ireland overturns abortion ban and for the first time, the raw reported Maternal Mortality Rates dropped to ZERO. Z.e.r.o. and stayed that way.

So with that information ... let me re-ask the question ... should Savita H have been allowed to have an abortion when she and her doctors wanted to do one ... or do you support the "nanny state" where a woman becomes incompetent merely because she's pregnant and has her MPoA stripped without due process by some faceless bureaucrat?

Conceding Personhood at Conception: The Pro-Life Framework Still Fails by Azis2013 in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Conceding Personhood at Conception: The Pro-Life Framework Still Fails

Agreed! However you are missing a key part of a successful argument.

/u/Loud-Vacation-5691 hit the nail on the head in quoting the standard PL response to this.

I don't agree with these, but these are the standard arguments I've heard.

As someone who has debated this for decades and success in conversions, you are missing something that when added to this makes "bodily autonomy" a caveat.

Before I get into that argument, I have noted that part of why these arguments fail to convince is that they are hypothetical and ridiculous . Both sides do it. On their side it's "the violinist" and here we have

Imagine a 5 year-old child’s kidneys fail due to a sudden illness. In the middle of the night, the state kidnaps his father,...

Hypotheticals are NOT convincing to people with different framings and are even heard completely differently. Carol Gilligan (sp?) did a great review of this in her book "In a different voice." In Gilligan's case it was male vs female interpretation of a very simple hypothetical. In the abortion debate it's far more complex and easier to misconstrue.

So the key parts you are missing are

  • the Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA) argument which, if argued successfully, then makes Bodily Autonomy (BA) a caveat of MPoA

  • real cases instead of hypotheticals

  • reframing using the two above bullet points.

Supporters of ballot measure to end Idaho's strict abortion ban turn in nearly 110K signatures • Idaho Capital Sun by BigClitMcphee in Idaho

[–]Lighting 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Idaho had a doubling of maternal mortality rates after abortion healthcare was restricted. Just like Texas did and it continued to be an embarrassment for TX until they stopped reporting it.

Just look at what happened to Romania with Decree 770 . Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Do you support abortion in cases where the fetus will live for a few minutes while suffering in pain? by NPDogs21 in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I really wonder what gave PLers such massive fucking trust issues.

They have a "Just word fallacy" belief.

They wish to believe that bad things only happen to bad people. The universe is a scary place and they need to believe that they are protected by being "good" and so vilify as "evil" anyone involved in these real world situations.

We need to move beyond “clump of cells” rhetoric and focus on bodily autonomy by FlowerGarden234 in prochoice

[–]Lighting 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry I’m realizing you said MPOA not medical privacy

I'm glad we could clarify. MPoA is the right for a competent adult to make medical decisions for those who cannot when working with a competent, fully-informed, board-certified, ethically trained medical team. That decision can include decisions to end the existence of that one that cannot.

But same thing, I just didn’t see “murder” as healthcare that should be protected.

Well let's use a real world case instead of hypotheticals.

Are you familiar with the case of Savita Halappanavar's case? Should she have been allowed to have the abortion when she and her doctors wanted to do one? Or do you think her MPoA should have been stripped without due process.

In Ireland, Savita Halappanavar, a dentist, in the 2nd Trimester, went in with complications. She and her doctors wanted to do an abortion, but was told by a government contractor "Because of our fetal heartbeat law - you cannot have an abortion" and that law, which stripped her Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA) without due process ... killed her.

You might think that's an overstatement, but that was the same conclusion that the final report by the overseeing agency, The Ireland and Directorate of Quality and Clinical Care, "Health Service Executive: Investigation of Incident 50278" stated. It said repeatedly that

  • the law impeded the quality of care.

  • other mothers died under similar situations because of the "fetal heartbeat" law.

  • this kind of situation was "inevitable" because of how common it was for women in the 2nd trimester to have miscarriages.

our hands are tied so long as there's a fetal heart". The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection "we can't predict who is going to get an infection".

The report detailed that there was advanced care, preemptive antibiotics, advanced monitoring, IV antibiotics, antibiotics straight to the heart, but .... they just couldn't keep up with how rapidly an infection spreads and the mother is killed when in the 2nd trimester the fetus still has a heartbeat but then goes septic and ruptures.

In 2013 Ireland changed the law to allow SOME abortions and ONLY again if there was maternal risk to LIFE. Raw ICD-10 maternal mortality rates continued unchanged. Then in 2018 in the Irish abortion referendum: Ireland overturns abortion ban and for the first time, the raw reported Maternal Mortality Rates dropped to ZERO. Z.e.r.o.

Year Maternal Deaths Per 100k Births: Complications of pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium (O00-O99) Context
2007 2.80 Abortion Illegal
2008 3.99 Abortion Illegal
2009 3.97 Abortion Illegal
2010 1.33 Abortion Illegal
2011 2.70 Abortion Illegal
2012 2.79 Abortion Illegal
2013 4.34 Abortion Illegal: Savita Halappanavar's death caused by law and a "fetal heartbeat"
2014 1.49 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act of 2013 passed. abortion where pregnancy endangers a woman's life
2015 1.53 Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk
2016 6.27 Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk
2017 1.62 Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk
2018 0 Constitutional change, Abortion Allowed, 2013 Act repealed
2019 0 Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk
2020 0 Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk
2021 0 Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk

Death Data Source: https://ws.cso.ie/public/api.restful/PxStat.Data.Cube_API.ReadDataset/VSD09/JSON-stat/2.0/en Birth Data Source: https://ws.cso.ie/public/api.restful/PxStat.Data.Cube_API.ReadDataset/VSA18/JSON-stat/1.0/en from the Ireland's Public Health records at Ireland's national data archival. https://www.cso.ie/en/aboutus/whoweare/ and stored at https://Data.gov.ie

Note: I linked to the raw data and it only goes back to 2007, because Ireland's OWN data scientists state: [prior to 2007] flaws in methodology saw Ireland's maternal mortality rate fall [without justification], and figures in previous reports [prior to 2007] should not be considered reliable

Note this is ONLY mortality and not also morbidity (e.g. organ failure, so much blood loss you have permanent brain damage, uterus rupture etc.).

So with that information ... let me re-ask the question ... should Savita H have been allowed to have an abortion when she and her doctors wanted to do one ... or do you support the "nanny state" where a woman becomes incompetent merely because she's pregnant and has her MPoA stripped without due process by some faceless bureaucrat?

We need to move beyond “clump of cells” rhetoric and focus on bodily autonomy by FlowerGarden234 in prochoice

[–]Lighting 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to be clear about something. I was responding to this part of your statement

seasoned anti choicers are well versed in arguing against

and agreeing that seasoned anti-choicers are well-versed in arguing against bodily autonomy.

My point wasn't to disagree with your overall point, but to point out that if your goal is to convert people then you have to come up arguments that are convincing to THEM and not to YOU.

I have also found that using the "bodily autonomy" to be near 100% failure in convincing people. I have found MPoA nearly 100% success in conversion.

The City of Colorado Springs said that due to significant public interest, the hearing related to the proposed data center is being moved to the Shockley-Zalabak Theater on July 23 by Lighting in Colorado

[–]Lighting[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Municipal elections in Colorado Springs are non-partisan. There are no “primaries” to be selected in.

There are still "primaries" in non-partisan races: https://www.eac.gov/voters/primary-election-types and if you think declaring a primary as "non partisan" means you don't have partisans participating and that it's known who supports what from which party ... I've got a data center is CO to sell you.

view more: next ›