Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Secular Arguments for Life [Y-not]
Earlier this week there was quite a lot of back and forth on Twitter and elsewhere about abortion, including some challenges to the pro-life position based on secular arguments. The thesis appeared to be that there was no way to argue against abortion without invoking The Almighty.
This post is not about abortion per se. Rather, I wanted to point out that it is certainly possible (and I might argue more powerful) to make the case for life on purely secular grounds. There are two major issues at play. The first is establishing whether or not the living being (there is no argument that embryos and fetuses are living beings; that's simple biology) in utero is a "person." And the second is whether or not a mother (or mother and father) have unique rights to end that life based solely on where that living being resides. Thoughtful secular humanists have tackled these questions. A few examples are provided below:Kristine Kruszelnicki in A Secular Case Against Abortion:
The question of personhood leaves the realm of science for that of philosophy and moral ethics. Science defines what the preborn is, it cannot define our obligations toward her. After all, the preborn is a very different human entity than those we see around us. Should a smaller, less developed, differently located and dependent being be entitled to rights of personhood and life? Perhaps the more significant question is: are these differences morally relevant? If the factor is irrelevant to other humans' personhood, neither should it have bearing on that of the preborn. Are small people less important than bigger or taller people? Is a teenager who can reproduce more worthy of life than a toddler who can't even walk yet? Again, if these factors are not relevant in granting or increasing personhood for anyone past the goal post of birth, neither should they matter where the preborn human is concerned. One might fairly argue that we do grant increasing rights with skill and age. However, the right to live and to not be killed is unlike the social permissions granted on the basis of acquired skills and maturity, such as the right to drive or the right to vote. We are denied the right to drive prior to turning 16; we are not killed and prevented from ever gaining that level of maturity.
Nat Hentoff describes his journey to the pro-life position in
The Indivisible Fight for Life:
But then I started hearing about "late abortion." The simple "fact" that the infant had been born, proponents suggest, should not get in the way of mercifully saving him or her from a life hardly worth living. At the same time, the parents are saved from the financial and emotional burden of caring for an imperfect child. And then I heard the head of the Reproductive Freedom Rights unit of the ACLU saying - this was at the same time as the Baby Jane Doe story was developing on Long Island - at a forum, "I don't know what all this fuss is about. Dealing with these handicapped infants is really an extension of women's reproductive freedom rights, women's right to control their own bodies." That stopped me. It seemed to me we were not talking about Roe v. Wade. These infants were born. And having been born, as persons under the Constitution, they were entitled to at least the same rights as people on death row - due process, equal protection of the law. So for the first time, I began to pay attention to the "slippery slope" warnings of pro-lifers I read about or had seen on television. Because abortion had become legal and easily available, that argument ran - as you well know - infanticide would eventually become openly permissible, to be followed by euthanasia for infirm, expensive senior citizens. And then in the New York Review of Books , I saw the respected, though not by me, Australian bio-ethicist Peter Singer boldly assert that the slope was not slippery at all, but rather a logical throughway once you got on to it. This is what he said - and I've heard this in variant forms from many, many people who consider themselves compassionate, concerned with the pow erless and all that. Singer: "The pro-life groups were right about one thing, the location of the baby inside or outside the womb cannot make much of a moral differ ence. We cannot coherently hold it is alright to kill a fetus a week before birth, but as soon as the baby is born everything must be done to keep it alive. The solution, however," said Singer, "is not to accept the pro-life view that the fetus is a human being with the same moral status as yours or mine. The solution is the very opposite, to abandon the idea that all human life is of equal worth." Which, of course, the majority of the Court had already done in Roe v. Wade.Read the whole thing.
Finally, Christopher Hitchens speaking in January 2008:
"I've had a lot of quarrels with some of my fellow materialists and secularists on this point, [but] I think that if the concept 'child' means anything, the concept 'unborn child' can be said to mean something. All the discoveries of embryology [and viability] - which have been very considerable in the last generation or so - appear to confirm that opinion, which I think should be innate in everybody. It's innate in the Hippocratic Oath, it's instinct in anyone who's ever watched a sonogram. So 'yes' is my answer to that."
Abortion is a very difficult subject about which to argue constructively and effectively. Those of us with strong positions about it, pro and con, can easily throw up our hands, demonize our opponents, and assume we will never come to an understanding. There are certainly times when I simply block out those arguing for "abortion rights" out of sheer exasperation. And, to be honest, I sometimes block out the arguments being made against abortion, especially when they are based on emotionalism and vitriol, despite the fact that I am sympathetic to those making the arguments. But these words always bring me back around to continuing the struggle:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.I do not want to subject myself to a government that is not committed to securing the right to life for its most vulnerable residents. Do you?
Open thread.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
Good thoughts.
My coming around to being decidedly NON-pro-choice also led to my being against the death penalty.
Either all life is sacred, or it is not.
My coming around to being decidedly NON-pro-choice also led to my being against the death penalty.
Either all life is sacred, or it is not.
Posted by: MarkY at January 25, 2015 11:01 AM (p37xx)
2
Let's be clear, the church isn't against abortion simply because God says so (though he does). The church (and Christians) are against abortion because they are against murder, which isn't just Gods law, but is natural law, common law, moral law and most other right persons thinking law. The unborn are a unique seperate life beginning with conception. This isn't about a soul or otherwise. It is a seperate life as dictated by science.
Posted by: SH at January 25, 2015 11:05 AM (Ehjtd)
3
Corgis have been summoned.
Posted by: PabloD at January 25, 2015 11:05 AM (roESk)
4
My coming around to being decidedly NON-pro-choice also led to my being against the death penalty.
---
I am also against the death penalty, but for a little different reason perhaps. I simply believe it is dangerous to give the government the right to kill its citizens. And I think it's nigh on impossible to implement the death penalty as an effective public policy. Either the appeals go on forever, making the whole thing useless as a deterrent, or they wind up executing the wrong person.
Ironically, it's my religious beliefs that keep me from being a very strong opponent to the death penalty. Seems as though there are plenty of examples of The Almighty using it or of Him appearing to sanction its use by His people, so I stick with "bad public policy" as my reason for opposing it.
Abortion, OTOH, is something I see as wrong on every level.
---
I am also against the death penalty, but for a little different reason perhaps. I simply believe it is dangerous to give the government the right to kill its citizens. And I think it's nigh on impossible to implement the death penalty as an effective public policy. Either the appeals go on forever, making the whole thing useless as a deterrent, or they wind up executing the wrong person.
Ironically, it's my religious beliefs that keep me from being a very strong opponent to the death penalty. Seems as though there are plenty of examples of The Almighty using it or of Him appearing to sanction its use by His people, so I stick with "bad public policy" as my reason for opposing it.
Abortion, OTOH, is something I see as wrong on every level.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:08 AM (9BRsg)
5
They kill them in the womb because it's the only legal way they can do it.
Once born, too late, you're stuck with an enormous responsibility.
Once born, too late, you're stuck with an enormous responsibility.
Posted by: eman at January 25, 2015 11:09 AM (MQEz6)
6
BTW, if this topic gets too heavy or whatever, feel free to go O/T. I just wanted to give the non-book folks a fresh thread.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:11 AM (9BRsg)
7
I submit the following: http://t.co/ssL6RBfDtx
And ask for prayers for the dear child, her parents, and for the doctors and nurses who are doing all they can for her.
And ask for prayers for the dear child, her parents, and for the doctors and nurses who are doing all they can for her.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 25, 2015 11:12 AM (DmNpO)
8
MarkY - I have no problem seperating abortion from the death penalty. Killing is not murder. I am anti death penalty, but not an absolutist on it. And I do not lose much sleep over it. But in general, I think entrusting the state with the power to kill is something that should be reserved as much as pissible. We conservatives distrust the state in almost many matters yet we seem to give it pass with respect to the administration of the death penalty. It's not a constitutional issue, as I think the death penalty is fully constitutional, and that the court has placed to much limitation on it. Regardless, I see no reason to conflate the abortion debate with any debate on the death penalty. The two are completely seperate, and the left invokes it simply as subterfuge.
Posted by: SH at January 25, 2015 11:12 AM (Ehjtd)
9
5 They kill them in the womb because it's the only legal way they can do it.
Once born, too late, you're stuck with an enormous responsibility.
Posted by: eman at January 25, 2015 11:09 AM (MQEz6)
And responsibility is an oppressive construct of the cisnormative patriarchy.
Once born, too late, you're stuck with an enormous responsibility.
Posted by: eman at January 25, 2015 11:09 AM (MQEz6)
And responsibility is an oppressive construct of the cisnormative patriarchy.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 25, 2015 11:13 AM (mx5oN)
10
fene of the major arguments is that how we value our own lives is based on how we value others'
If we, as individuals, have no consideration for the lives, honor, freedom or property of others, we have no basis to claim such for ourselves.
The only way to assert natural rights to ourselves, as individuals, is to defend them in others; defend them for everyone.
This is a fairly bald argument, and I am sure any logic chopper could tie me in knots.
If we, as individuals, have no consideration for the lives, honor, freedom or property of others, we have no basis to claim such for ourselves.
The only way to assert natural rights to ourselves, as individuals, is to defend them in others; defend them for everyone.
This is a fairly bald argument, and I am sure any logic chopper could tie me in knots.
Posted by: Kindltot at January 25, 2015 11:14 AM (t//F+)
11
"I think entrusting the state with the power to kill is something that should be reserved as much as pissible"
BEST. AUTOCORRECT/TYPO. EVAH!
BEST. AUTOCORRECT/TYPO. EVAH!
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:14 AM (9BRsg)
12
Abortion is a tool for getting and maintaining political power.
Those that can't take responisibility for their actions will try anything to escspe it, including killing. They need that killing to be legal though. That's where politicians come in.
Construct the cycle of power.
Votes, actions, votes, actions.
You want my vote, do what I want.
You want what I can do, give me your vote.
Those that can't take responisibility for their actions will try anything to escspe it, including killing. They need that killing to be legal though. That's where politicians come in.
Construct the cycle of power.
Votes, actions, votes, actions.
You want my vote, do what I want.
You want what I can do, give me your vote.
Posted by: eman at January 25, 2015 11:14 AM (MQEz6)
13
The solution is the very opposite, to abandon the idea that all human life is of equal worth.
That's it, in giant neon letters screaming "YOOHOO!"
And it does seem that in the last 5 years or so the mask is being shed, and people like Obamacare consultants Ezekiel Emanuel and Johnathan Gruber are comfortable saying just this: "Hey, now that we're all paying for granny, what say we tell her she's had a good run, but she's just not contributing as much as she's taking, so take the morphine and we'll hold the food and water, m'kay?"
That's it, in giant neon letters screaming "YOOHOO!"
And it does seem that in the last 5 years or so the mask is being shed, and people like Obamacare consultants Ezekiel Emanuel and Johnathan Gruber are comfortable saying just this: "Hey, now that we're all paying for granny, what say we tell her she's had a good run, but she's just not contributing as much as she's taking, so take the morphine and we'll hold the food and water, m'kay?"
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 11:15 AM (ABcz/)
14
Prayers up, NDH.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:15 AM (9BRsg)
15
"6 BTW, if this topic gets too heavy or whatever, feel free to go O/T."
OK, I just watched the police shooting video from the sidebar. Man, I wouldn't want a cop's job.
OK, I just watched the police shooting video from the sidebar. Man, I wouldn't want a cop's job.
Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at January 25, 2015 11:16 AM (lG2E3)
16
Deep thought, Y-not. I definitely think it's possible to make a secular
argument against abortion. Actually, my pro-life arguments barely use
religion at all, since my opinion is that an unborn child is alive, even
if it can't exist on it's own yet. Therefore, it is entitled to the
protection of the law. There are many people in this world who can't
exist without exterior assistance (wheelchair, oxygen tank, etc), does
that mean they are not equal under the law?
argument against abortion. Actually, my pro-life arguments barely use
religion at all, since my opinion is that an unborn child is alive, even
if it can't exist on it's own yet. Therefore, it is entitled to the
protection of the law. There are many people in this world who can't
exist without exterior assistance (wheelchair, oxygen tank, etc), does
that mean they are not equal under the law?
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 11:16 AM (ThxKk)
17
Another nonreligious view could be that of no to abortion because of national population concerns. Following the demographic transition theory, societies well along the scale have an issue with maintaining birthrates that will sustain them. The impact of lowbirthrate is hard:see Japan and Europe, labor issues, cultural issues, and their attendant 2nd and 3rd order effects. I guess this might be in category of national security?
Posted by: fastfreefall at January 25, 2015 11:16 AM (pqOzY)
18
Ynot - good follow up comment. My sentiments exactly. Let me add one more. I do not believe all life is sacred. An enemy combatant, a terrorist, a murderer, a rapist, their lives are not the same as an innocent child (born or unborn), an innocent bystander, an indescriminate victim, etc.
Posted by: SH at January 25, 2015 11:16 AM (Ehjtd)
19
protection of the law. There are many people in this world who can't
exist without exterior assistance (wheelchair, oxygen tank, etc), does
that mean they are not equal under the law?
Well, it depends on what you mean by "equal."
exist without exterior assistance (wheelchair, oxygen tank, etc), does
that mean they are not equal under the law?
Well, it depends on what you mean by "equal."
Posted by: Zeke Emmanuel at January 25, 2015 11:17 AM (mx5oN)
20
To me the issue is quite simple.
Yes, humanity confers personhood. It is the only qualification not subject to whim. Is the pre-born child a human being? Yes, without question. Thus, they are persons. Any other measure relies on some subjective qualification of functionhod test that serve only to create a class of non-person humans for the purpose of killing them.
As for if that person has the right to use his mother's body during gestation, we need look no further than conjoined twins. If there are twins that are unequally conjoined (that is, there is a stronger twin and a weaker twin) they are not separated unless not doing so would kill both twins.
There's a really great twin case that makes that point very explicitly and is nearly an exact analogy to pregnancy.
There were two girls who were born conjoined. I believe that they had 3 kidneys between them, but were using one of the twin's kidneys almost exclusively. Aside from that, they could be separated, but the twin with only one kidney would not survive separation at that stage because her kidney was not functioning and she was too young for a transplant.
So, they waited a year. Then the mother of the twins became a living donor transplant for the weaker girl, and they separated the twins. Both lived,
The point is that the weaker twin used the stronger's body until such a time when she could survive on her own. Just like pregnancy.
Yes, humanity confers personhood. It is the only qualification not subject to whim. Is the pre-born child a human being? Yes, without question. Thus, they are persons. Any other measure relies on some subjective qualification of functionhod test that serve only to create a class of non-person humans for the purpose of killing them.
As for if that person has the right to use his mother's body during gestation, we need look no further than conjoined twins. If there are twins that are unequally conjoined (that is, there is a stronger twin and a weaker twin) they are not separated unless not doing so would kill both twins.
There's a really great twin case that makes that point very explicitly and is nearly an exact analogy to pregnancy.
There were two girls who were born conjoined. I believe that they had 3 kidneys between them, but were using one of the twin's kidneys almost exclusively. Aside from that, they could be separated, but the twin with only one kidney would not survive separation at that stage because her kidney was not functioning and she was too young for a transplant.
So, they waited a year. Then the mother of the twins became a living donor transplant for the weaker girl, and they separated the twins. Both lived,
The point is that the weaker twin used the stronger's body until such a time when she could survive on her own. Just like pregnancy.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 11:17 AM (MYCIw)
21
Darn autocorrect. But funny. Maybe iphone know that state equals piss.
Posted by: SH at January 25, 2015 11:19 AM (Ehjtd)
22
I do not want to subject myself to a government that is not committed to
securing the right to life for its most vulnerable residents.
No, but that argument begs the question, "who is a resident"? If I choose to define an in utero fetus as not a resident, the problem disappears. There are plenty of people who accept that definitional boundary. I'm not one of them, but the difficulty in agreeing to a common definition is what makes this issue so contentious.
securing the right to life for its most vulnerable residents.
No, but that argument begs the question, "who is a resident"? If I choose to define an in utero fetus as not a resident, the problem disappears. There are plenty of people who accept that definitional boundary. I'm not one of them, but the difficulty in agreeing to a common definition is what makes this issue so contentious.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:19 AM (4nR9/)
23
Here's what I find disturbing, that a ghoulish incentive has been intentionally rigged:
*Obamacare is designed so that others feel the burden of your choices, your health issues
*HHS and/or the IPAB will be making policies on what treatments are available an to whom (and I have no doubt this will continue to be expanded)
*Oh yeah, the federal government has a monetary incentive to off you based on how much money they are contributing to your existence (Medicare, SS) as well as a desire to get their hands on their piece of your estate, or wanting to stimulate the economy by having your property sold, etc.
*Obamacare is designed so that others feel the burden of your choices, your health issues
*HHS and/or the IPAB will be making policies on what treatments are available an to whom (and I have no doubt this will continue to be expanded)
*Oh yeah, the federal government has a monetary incentive to off you based on how much money they are contributing to your existence (Medicare, SS) as well as a desire to get their hands on their piece of your estate, or wanting to stimulate the economy by having your property sold, etc.
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 11:19 AM (ABcz/)
24
"And I think it's nigh on impossible to implement the death penalty as an
effective public policy. Either the appeals go on forever, making the
whole thing useless as a deterrent, or they wind up executing the wrong
person."
That sounds like an Obama-esque false choice fallacy. Plenty of deserving people are executed. A pair of men raped some little girls in the northeast a few years back, repeatedly, for hours. Then doused them in gasoline and burned them alive. They were caught and were obviously guilty. Do you seriously assert that they shouldn't face execution because of time constraints?
Justice matters. If expedience is the guiding virtue of policy and law, then abortion-on-demand is the way to go.
As for equivalence of abortion and execution, that concept is so stupid and obviously facile I can't believe it's seriously held. Unborn child = innocent (and helpless). Serial killer =/= innocent. It's the same distinction between imprisoning a thief and imprisoning a random person guilty of no crime, which is blindingly obvious to everyone.
Justice. Matters.
effective public policy. Either the appeals go on forever, making the
whole thing useless as a deterrent, or they wind up executing the wrong
person."
That sounds like an Obama-esque false choice fallacy. Plenty of deserving people are executed. A pair of men raped some little girls in the northeast a few years back, repeatedly, for hours. Then doused them in gasoline and burned them alive. They were caught and were obviously guilty. Do you seriously assert that they shouldn't face execution because of time constraints?
Justice matters. If expedience is the guiding virtue of policy and law, then abortion-on-demand is the way to go.
As for equivalence of abortion and execution, that concept is so stupid and obviously facile I can't believe it's seriously held. Unborn child = innocent (and helpless). Serial killer =/= innocent. It's the same distinction between imprisoning a thief and imprisoning a random person guilty of no crime, which is blindingly obvious to everyone.
Justice. Matters.
Posted by: Df82 at January 25, 2015 11:20 AM (QqNO+)
25
No, but that argument begs the question, "who is a resident"? If I choose to define an in utero fetus as not a resident, the problem disappears. There are plenty of people who accept that definitional boundary. I'm not one of them, but the difficulty in agreeing to a common definition is what makes this issue so contentious.
--
Yes, it's the personhood issue.
To me, that's simple biology.
--
Yes, it's the personhood issue.
To me, that's simple biology.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:20 AM (9BRsg)
26
"Abortion is a tool for getting and maintaining political power"
This is very true. Guilt plays a large part. With 50 million + abortions in America since Roe, you have a lot of women who will hold on tight to the party line that "abortion is ok" to avoid ever having to face the reality of what they have done.
This is very true. Guilt plays a large part. With 50 million + abortions in America since Roe, you have a lot of women who will hold on tight to the party line that "abortion is ok" to avoid ever having to face the reality of what they have done.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 11:20 AM (MYCIw)
27
Abortion isn't going anywhere, not while our current system exists. You might as well debate the ethics of gravity.
There are a significant percentage of women in this country whose first, last and only Issue is their ability to vacu-suck the contents of their uteri, and a significant percentage of men who are right there with them because they either can't or won't pay for it, don't want their lifestyle cramped or simply can't be bothered to take responsibility for sticking one in there.
Modern western left-liberal governments are build on two pillars: The granting of 'rights' at No Cost To You and buying people's loyalty by offering easy escapes from responsibility for their actions. Borrow too much? Bankrupt, wipe it out, start over. Preganant? Sort that out. No job, brains, or work ethic? Here's a check.
Plus, imagine you ran our modern social welfare system. Imagine what your balance sheet would look like if those abortions weren't happening. You'd be so far upside down your feet would be numb. Why would they want to change that?
There are a significant percentage of women in this country whose first, last and only Issue is their ability to vacu-suck the contents of their uteri, and a significant percentage of men who are right there with them because they either can't or won't pay for it, don't want their lifestyle cramped or simply can't be bothered to take responsibility for sticking one in there.
Modern western left-liberal governments are build on two pillars: The granting of 'rights' at No Cost To You and buying people's loyalty by offering easy escapes from responsibility for their actions. Borrow too much? Bankrupt, wipe it out, start over. Preganant? Sort that out. No job, brains, or work ethic? Here's a check.
Plus, imagine you ran our modern social welfare system. Imagine what your balance sheet would look like if those abortions weren't happening. You'd be so far upside down your feet would be numb. Why would they want to change that?
Posted by: Secundus at January 25, 2015 11:21 AM (COeS5)
Posted by: Rorschach at January 25, 2015 11:21 AM (mx5oN)
29
Another nonreligious view could be that of no to abortion because of national population concerns.
So, you favor a state that can force people to have children in the interests of the greater society?
Are you a Nazi?
(This is the slur you will hear immediately from the pro-abortion side)
So, you favor a state that can force people to have children in the interests of the greater society?
Are you a Nazi?
(This is the slur you will hear immediately from the pro-abortion side)
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:21 AM (4nR9/)
30
You surrender control of your body when you have sex.
This the biological truth and abortion is the political tool used to avoid that truth.
People can not accept the idea they made their choice when they unsipped their pants or opened their legs.
This the biological truth and abortion is the political tool used to avoid that truth.
People can not accept the idea they made their choice when they unsipped their pants or opened their legs.
Posted by: eman at January 25, 2015 11:21 AM (MQEz6)
31
1 Good thoughts.
My coming around to being decidedly NON-pro-choice also led to my being against the death penalty.
Either all life is sacred, or it is not.
Posted by: MarkY at January 25, 2015 11:01 AM (p37xx)
---------------------
So, holding to your strict adherence to your philosophy, we should never go to war, even to defend your freedom to voice your opinion on this subject.
My coming around to being decidedly NON-pro-choice also led to my being against the death penalty.
Either all life is sacred, or it is not.
Posted by: MarkY at January 25, 2015 11:01 AM (p37xx)
---------------------
So, holding to your strict adherence to your philosophy, we should never go to war, even to defend your freedom to voice your opinion on this subject.
Posted by: Soona at January 25, 2015 11:22 AM (j0WXm)
32
I think it is dangerous to conflate the death penalty with abortion.
The death penalty is used after an exhaustive (and often flawed) legal and political process in which the jury has complete control over the initial decision.
Abortion is at the whim of one person.
The death penalty is used after an exhaustive (and often flawed) legal and political process in which the jury has complete control over the initial decision.
Abortion is at the whim of one person.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 11:22 AM (Zu3d9)
33
De-lurking to say how much I enjoy Y-not's posts. Sometimes thought-provoking and sometimes just fun. Loved the one asking which toys you loved as a child. A simple question that produced a funny, nostalgic comment thread. As for the discussion of abortion, I'm definitely pro-life. Arguing that abortion is wrong because the bible tells us so, is not the way to win hearts and minds. Not everyone believes in G-d, so it's like telling people 'because I said so'. Much better to win them over with logic and I say that as a practicing Christian.
Posted by: flmomof4 at January 25, 2015 11:23 AM (nSjrf)
34
Are you a Nazi?
(This is the slur you will hear immediately from the pro-abortion side)
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:21
==========
Good point.
(This is the slur you will hear immediately from the pro-abortion side)
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:21
==========
Good point.
Posted by: fastfreefall at January 25, 2015 11:23 AM (pqOzY)
35
FWIW, my position on the death penalty is that I do not trust our government with the power to decide who lives and dies.
I can accept it, but it makes me rather uneasy.
However, I'm strangely fine with vigilante justice ala that Texas dad who killed his daughter's rapist.
I can accept it, but it makes me rather uneasy.
However, I'm strangely fine with vigilante justice ala that Texas dad who killed his daughter's rapist.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 11:24 AM (MYCIw)
36
Are you a Nazi?
(This is the slur you will hear immediately from the pro-abortion side)
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:21 AM (4nR9/)
Didn't they ban abortion for certain groups?
(This is the slur you will hear immediately from the pro-abortion side)
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:21 AM (4nR9/)
Didn't they ban abortion for certain groups?
Posted by: Secundus at January 25, 2015 11:24 AM (COeS5)
37
"As for equivalence of abortion and execution, that concept is so stupid and obviously facile I can't believe it's seriously held."
Is there any way you can make your point without resorting to insults?
In any event, I was not equating the two.
However, I'd argue that on some level there is a similarity because in both cases the government is sanctioning and regulating ending a person's life.
In the case of abortion, the question is whether or not the fetus ever had the right to life.
In the case of executions, the question is whether or not the convicted person has lost that right.
Is there any way you can make your point without resorting to insults?
In any event, I was not equating the two.
However, I'd argue that on some level there is a similarity because in both cases the government is sanctioning and regulating ending a person's life.
In the case of abortion, the question is whether or not the fetus ever had the right to life.
In the case of executions, the question is whether or not the convicted person has lost that right.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:24 AM (9BRsg)
38
So, you favor a state that can force people to have children in the interests of the greater society?
Are you a Nazi?
(This is the slur you will hear immediately from the pro-abortion side)
Lebensborn!
Are you a Nazi?
(This is the slur you will hear immediately from the pro-abortion side)
Lebensborn!
Posted by: Rorschach at January 25, 2015 11:24 AM (mx5oN)
39
Sock off
Posted by: Insomniac at January 25, 2015 11:24 AM (mx5oN)
40
>>People can not accept the idea they made their choice when they unsipped their pants or opened their legs.
Exactly! I so hate the "Choice!" mantra because it's like boarding a train and then demanding a choice after it's left the station. Not ready to travel, honey? Then why are you here?
Exactly! I so hate the "Choice!" mantra because it's like boarding a train and then demanding a choice after it's left the station. Not ready to travel, honey? Then why are you here?
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 11:25 AM (ABcz/)
41
I'm agnostic and not entirely anti-abortion, but I do recognize that life starts at conception. The pro-choice crowd's claim that it's just a clump of cells leaves me feeling that they're almost as stupid as they are ghoulish.
Posted by: mugiwara at January 25, 2015 11:25 AM (06U11)
42
Why do you think pro-abortionists want to ban protestors from showing pictures of fetuses? After 5 months, ahem 20 weeks, that ain't no clump of cells, that's a baby. That's why the repubs rolling on the late term ban in congress was so discouraging. A majority of Americans think support the ban.. It is already the law in Europe. Even with that, the republican party preemptively cave in. Lame.
Posted by: Shtetl G at January 25, 2015 11:27 AM (lqobq)
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:27 AM (9BRsg)
44
Didn't they ban abortion for certain groups?
Posted by: Secundus
I believe they did, because they wanted more young Aryans to populate the east and for cannon fodder.
The point here is that I certainly don't want a state that's strong enough to force me to have children simply because it thinks it best for the health of the state.
That's a very different proposition than the citizenry agreeing that abortion is murder.
Posted by: Secundus
I believe they did, because they wanted more young Aryans to populate the east and for cannon fodder.
The point here is that I certainly don't want a state that's strong enough to force me to have children simply because it thinks it best for the health of the state.
That's a very different proposition than the citizenry agreeing that abortion is murder.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:27 AM (4nR9/)
45
Mugiwara,
If it makes you feel better? That was all contrived. Dr. Nathanson was one of the original founders of NARAL who later became pro-life. He went into explicit detail about how they came up with the terms "pro-choice" and described the children as "clumps of cells" although they all knew that to be a lie since they were performing the abortions. They also tied it to religion by attacking the Catholic Church early on and my favorite...
They manufactured polls showing support for legalized abortion when the opposite was true.
You know how I always say all polls are push polls? Yeah, that's why.
If it makes you feel better? That was all contrived. Dr. Nathanson was one of the original founders of NARAL who later became pro-life. He went into explicit detail about how they came up with the terms "pro-choice" and described the children as "clumps of cells" although they all knew that to be a lie since they were performing the abortions. They also tied it to religion by attacking the Catholic Church early on and my favorite...
They manufactured polls showing support for legalized abortion when the opposite was true.
You know how I always say all polls are push polls? Yeah, that's why.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 11:28 AM (MYCIw)
46
The point here is that I certainly don't want a state that's strong enough to force me to have children simply because it thinks it best for the health of the state.
That's a very different proposition than the citizenry agreeing that abortion is murder.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:27 AM (4nR9/)
Does "Ban Abortion" == "Forced to have children"?
The point here is that I certainly don't want a state that's strong enough to force me to have children simply because it thinks it best for the health of the state.
That's a very different proposition than the citizenry agreeing that abortion is murder.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:27 AM (4nR9/)
Does "Ban Abortion" == "Forced to have children"?
Posted by: Secundus at January 25, 2015 11:29 AM (COeS5)
47
There's a paradox in all pro-abortion arguments: they're all dependent on the answers to metaphysical questions. The pro-abortion side might say "keep your rosaries off my ovaries," but they marshal at least as many - and usually more - unscientific philosophical arguments than the pro-life side.
For those who oppose abortion, there's a simple inquiry:
"Is this a homo sapiens?" If the answer to that is "yes," the discussion ends. All homo sapiens get the same presumption of a right to not be deliberately killed. And that's a very easy question.
It's the metaphysicists on the pro-abortion side who begin stroking their beards and furrowing their brows and saying things like "surely this is a homo sapiens, but is it a *person*? What does it mean to be a *person*? What are the essential qualities of *personhood* that separate some homo sapiens from others?"
So it's the pro-abortion side that's engaging in metaphysics. Pro-lifers are only concerned with science.
Now, for a fun little exit question: Over the centuries, how many people who have sought to draw distinctions between which homo sapiens were persons and which were nonpersons have been judged kindly by history?
For those who oppose abortion, there's a simple inquiry:
"Is this a homo sapiens?" If the answer to that is "yes," the discussion ends. All homo sapiens get the same presumption of a right to not be deliberately killed. And that's a very easy question.
It's the metaphysicists on the pro-abortion side who begin stroking their beards and furrowing their brows and saying things like "surely this is a homo sapiens, but is it a *person*? What does it mean to be a *person*? What are the essential qualities of *personhood* that separate some homo sapiens from others?"
So it's the pro-abortion side that's engaging in metaphysics. Pro-lifers are only concerned with science.
Now, for a fun little exit question: Over the centuries, how many people who have sought to draw distinctions between which homo sapiens were persons and which were nonpersons have been judged kindly by history?
Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 25, 2015 11:30 AM (TQeIP)
48
Two movies that make an excellent pro-life case without religion are "Gattaca" and "The Island." Yeah, Micheal Bay got a little deep with the latter, in case you look below the fast cars and hot babe.
As for Gattaca, there have been designer baby stories in the news lately, and even sex-selective abortion is becoming a common thing in places like the UK. So far, feminists still support it, which is...interesting to say the least.
As for Gattaca, there have been designer baby stories in the news lately, and even sex-selective abortion is becoming a common thing in places like the UK. So far, feminists still support it, which is...interesting to say the least.
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 11:31 AM (ABcz/)
49
Leftists are morally bankrupt and make me sick. One of their most basic, fall-back arguments is that we already have enough crime/poor people and the last thing we need are more "unwanted" children. Then, leftists twist it to basically imply that we are doing these unborn children a favor by killing them.
Leftists always believe they know what's best for you, up to and including ending your life.
Meanwhile, I patiently await the day they overstep just a little too far.
Leftists always believe they know what's best for you, up to and including ending your life.
Meanwhile, I patiently await the day they overstep just a little too far.
Posted by: ElKomandante at January 25, 2015 11:31 AM (APQ2q)
50
I'd argue that on some level there is a similarity because in both
cases the government is sanctioning and regulating ending a person's
life.
In the case of executions, the question is whether or not the convicted person has lost that right.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:24 AM (9BRsg)
I tend to think of the death penalty as a last resort, for people that can not or will not be healed of their evil ways. I rationalize it by thinking of dogs that are put down because they can't be trained not to attack people, no matter how hard the owner tries. It's not a perfect moral equivalent, just an analogy.
Basically, the person who makes that call is ending one life in order to save many others.
cases the government is sanctioning and regulating ending a person's
life.
In the case of executions, the question is whether or not the convicted person has lost that right.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:24 AM (9BRsg)
I tend to think of the death penalty as a last resort, for people that can not or will not be healed of their evil ways. I rationalize it by thinking of dogs that are put down because they can't be trained not to attack people, no matter how hard the owner tries. It's not a perfect moral equivalent, just an analogy.
Basically, the person who makes that call is ending one life in order to save many others.
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 11:32 AM (ThxKk)
51
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 11:25 AM (ABcz/)
Excellent simile.
And it's a great example of why abortion is such a contentious topic. It immediately expands into questions about pretty much everything.
Excellent simile.
And it's a great example of why abortion is such a contentious topic. It immediately expands into questions about pretty much everything.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 11:32 AM (Zu3d9)
52
30
You surrender control of your body when you have sex.
Argument by assertion. The Constitution doesn't abrogate your rights upon having sex. I assume your argument is that when you fertilize an egg, you've created another life, and that life now has rights as well. But this brings us back to the definitional problem again. If one doesn't assume a fertilized egg is a life, then your argument is DOA.
This is not to mention the whole condundrum of whose life takes precedence in the case when the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother?
One thing I've concluded about this issue is that anyone who tells you there are simple answers to it needs to keep thinking.
You surrender control of your body when you have sex.
Argument by assertion. The Constitution doesn't abrogate your rights upon having sex. I assume your argument is that when you fertilize an egg, you've created another life, and that life now has rights as well. But this brings us back to the definitional problem again. If one doesn't assume a fertilized egg is a life, then your argument is DOA.
This is not to mention the whole condundrum of whose life takes precedence in the case when the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother?
One thing I've concluded about this issue is that anyone who tells you there are simple answers to it needs to keep thinking.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:33 AM (4nR9/)
53
I tend to think of the death penalty as a last resort, for people that can not or will not be healed of their evil ways.
---
Yeah. I see it as a way to protect society more than as a punishment.
I would prefer we not have it for the reasons stated above, but I am not sure it's "wrong" (as in immoral). Just not the best public policy.
---
Yeah. I see it as a way to protect society more than as a punishment.
I would prefer we not have it for the reasons stated above, but I am not sure it's "wrong" (as in immoral). Just not the best public policy.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:34 AM (9BRsg)
54
"Now, for a fun little exit question: Over the centuries, how many people who have sought to draw distinctions between which homo sapiens were persons and which were nonpersons have been judged kindly by history? "
Yes, they don't tend to like it when you point out the only time anyone ever tries to define a human as a non-person is when they want to kill/ enslave said human.
Yes, they don't tend to like it when you point out the only time anyone ever tries to define a human as a non-person is when they want to kill/ enslave said human.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 11:34 AM (MYCIw)
55
If you're going to drag Nazzis into the discussion, then you really must include mention of Hitler's T4 Program. Killing defective people because their lives had less value. How far apart are Dr. Singer or Dr. Emanuel from that line of thinking?
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 11:34 AM (ABcz/)
56
Putting aside semantics of "human life" , If the absolute position is taken that full human life with full legal protection begins at the moment of conception, must we not then make absolutely no exceptions in cases of rape (the easy question)? But also, must we now be responsible for doing all we possibly can to save the 20% or so of human life that nature spontaneously expels from the womb?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:35 AM (8CYQ6)
57
the person who makes that call is ending one life in order to save many others.
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 11:32 AM (ThxKk)
I disagree.
The death penalty has a revenge component, no matter how much we deny it.
Most crimes that are eligible for the death penalty have as an option a life sentence without parole. So no lives are being saved by using it.
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 11:32 AM (ThxKk)
I disagree.
The death penalty has a revenge component, no matter how much we deny it.
Most crimes that are eligible for the death penalty have as an option a life sentence without parole. So no lives are being saved by using it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 11:35 AM (Zu3d9)
58
"If one doesn't assume a fertilized egg is a life, then your argument is DOA. "
Yes, but that is rejecting basic 9th grade biology.
Yes, but that is rejecting basic 9th grade biology.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 11:35 AM (MYCIw)
59
Local rag has an article about 13 yo Shubham Banerjee in CA who has started a company with his invention of a braille printer from a lego robotics kit. Pretty cool.
On abortion, I agree it was a push poll. I remember how upset mom was when Roe v Wade passed the SC. I was little at the time and had no idea what it all meant.
On abortion, I agree it was a push poll. I remember how upset mom was when Roe v Wade passed the SC. I was little at the time and had no idea what it all meant.
Posted by: Infidel at January 25, 2015 11:35 AM (7GLRQ)
60
Does "Ban Abortion" == "Forced to have children"?
For those who don't accept that a fetus, or at least an embryo, is a person, I believe it does.
For those who don't accept that a fetus, or at least an embryo, is a person, I believe it does.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:36 AM (4nR9/)
61
We're living the horror of "1984" and "Brave New World". And, yes, I meant to write 'horror'.
Posted by: Soona at January 25, 2015 11:36 AM (j0WXm)
62
This is not to mention the whole condundrum of whose life takes precedence in the case when the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother?
---
I don't know of any group, religious or otherwise, who denies a woman's right to save her own life.
Individuals may make the choice to try to carry their child to term, but certainly pro-life religions like the Catholic Church do not deny a woman the right to save her own life
The difference is that if I have to have an operation to save my life that requires removal of the fetus, I am morally obligated to try to save that child's life, not just toss it in the garbage.
---
I don't know of any group, religious or otherwise, who denies a woman's right to save her own life.
Individuals may make the choice to try to carry their child to term, but certainly pro-life religions like the Catholic Church do not deny a woman the right to save her own life
The difference is that if I have to have an operation to save my life that requires removal of the fetus, I am morally obligated to try to save that child's life, not just toss it in the garbage.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:37 AM (9BRsg)
63
How many abortions are actually rape babies and "health of the mother" concerns?
Posted by: Secundus at January 25, 2015 11:37 AM (COeS5)
64
"But also, must we now be responsible for doing all we possibly can to save the 20% or so of human life that nature spontaneously expels "
As much as we try to save born humans. And this already occurs. While many miscarriages are the result of genetic mutations that are simply incompatible with life, a good number are due to hormonal imbalances/ uterine or cervical issues that can be corrected. Doctors try very hard to save these babies. I have to take weekly progesterone injections when pregnant, for example, because I am otherwise prone to preterm labor.
Interventions to prevent miscarriage are already a standard part of prenatal care. Obviously they aren't 100% successful, but then no treatment is.
As much as we try to save born humans. And this already occurs. While many miscarriages are the result of genetic mutations that are simply incompatible with life, a good number are due to hormonal imbalances/ uterine or cervical issues that can be corrected. Doctors try very hard to save these babies. I have to take weekly progesterone injections when pregnant, for example, because I am otherwise prone to preterm labor.
Interventions to prevent miscarriage are already a standard part of prenatal care. Obviously they aren't 100% successful, but then no treatment is.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 11:38 AM (MYCIw)
65
@63. In an absolute sense, what difference does it make?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:38 AM (8CYQ6)
66
Most crimes that are eligible for the death penalty have as an option a life sentence without parole. So no lives are being saved by using it.
---
Well, "lifers" in prison tend to commit crimes in prison, like murder. Or escape. Or get pardoned.
But you're right, there's a strong Old Testament component to the death penalty.
---
Well, "lifers" in prison tend to commit crimes in prison, like murder. Or escape. Or get pardoned.
But you're right, there's a strong Old Testament component to the death penalty.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:39 AM (9BRsg)
67
I tend to think of the death penalty as a last resort, for people that can not or will not be healed of their evil ways.
---
Yeah. I see it as a way to protect society more than as a punishment.
***
There are other ways to protect society from evil-doers but the left won't have those either: Permanent incarceration, isolation, castration, etc....
---
Yeah. I see it as a way to protect society more than as a punishment.
***
There are other ways to protect society from evil-doers but the left won't have those either: Permanent incarceration, isolation, castration, etc....
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 25, 2015 11:40 AM (DmNpO)
68
@64, but those are options you take. We do not go to such expense and effort for every such circumstance. Should we?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:40 AM (8CYQ6)
69
@47
"Now, for a fun little exit question: Over the
centuries, how many people who have sought to draw distinctions between
which homo sapiens were persons and which were nonpersons have been
judged kindly by history?
Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete"
Pete-very well put.
An even bigger question looms, though. I believe it won't be long before the Chinese (at a minimum, but likely others as well, including us) will use genetic testing to select which of their babies are worthy of carrying to term. There is , of course, already some of this for the purposes of terminating Down's and other genetic abnormalities. It won't be long, though before we fertilize eggs and then select for IQ or height or musical ability, or whatever.
"Now, for a fun little exit question: Over the
centuries, how many people who have sought to draw distinctions between
which homo sapiens were persons and which were nonpersons have been
judged kindly by history?
Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete"
Pete-very well put.
An even bigger question looms, though. I believe it won't be long before the Chinese (at a minimum, but likely others as well, including us) will use genetic testing to select which of their babies are worthy of carrying to term. There is , of course, already some of this for the purposes of terminating Down's and other genetic abnormalities. It won't be long, though before we fertilize eggs and then select for IQ or height or musical ability, or whatever.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:41 AM (4nR9/)
70
57 the person who makes that call is ending one life in order to save many others.
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 11:32 AM (ThxKk)
I disagree.
The death penalty has a revenge component, no matter how much we deny it.
Most crimes that are eligible for the death penalty have as an option a life sentence without parole. So no lives are being saved by using it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 11:35 AM (Zu3d9)
---------------------
Do NOT get mixed up with the terms 'revenge' and 'justice'. When applied correctly, they're opposite each other.
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 11:32 AM (ThxKk)
I disagree.
The death penalty has a revenge component, no matter how much we deny it.
Most crimes that are eligible for the death penalty have as an option a life sentence without parole. So no lives are being saved by using it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 11:35 AM (Zu3d9)
---------------------
Do NOT get mixed up with the terms 'revenge' and 'justice'. When applied correctly, they're opposite each other.
Posted by: Soona at January 25, 2015 11:41 AM (j0WXm)
71
Putting aside semantics of "human life" , If the absolute position is taken that full human life with full legal protection begins at the moment of conception, must we not then make absolutely no exceptions in cases of rape (the easy question)? But also, must we now be responsible for doing all we possibly can to save the 20% or so of human life that nature spontaneously expels from the womb?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:35 AM (8CYQ6)
Ahhh, I knew this clown would show up.
I engaged him on an abortion thread a few months back.
This guy/gal/? is so pro-abortion, that he/she/it couldn't admit the simple scientific fact that a fetus is a human life.
Kept claiming he/she/it didn't know what is was.
Hilarious.
Ladies, when you've been pregnant, how many of you were worried that you were going to give birth to an octopus instead of a human child?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:35 AM (8CYQ6)
Ahhh, I knew this clown would show up.
I engaged him on an abortion thread a few months back.
This guy/gal/? is so pro-abortion, that he/she/it couldn't admit the simple scientific fact that a fetus is a human life.
Kept claiming he/she/it didn't know what is was.
Hilarious.
Ladies, when you've been pregnant, how many of you were worried that you were going to give birth to an octopus instead of a human child?
Posted by: naturalfake at January 25, 2015 11:41 AM (KBvAm)
72
How many abortions are actually rape babies and "health of the mother" concerns?
---
Very few. I'd even be willing to meet abortionists in the middle and give them their damned rape abortions if it actually resulted in a working compromise.
It wouldn't though. Abortionists only truly care about rape victims so far as th
---
Very few. I'd even be willing to meet abortionists in the middle and give them their damned rape abortions if it actually resulted in a working compromise.
It wouldn't though. Abortionists only truly care about rape victims so far as th
Posted by: ElKomandante at January 25, 2015 11:41 AM (APQ2q)
73
Well, "lifers" in prison tend to commit crimes in prison, like murder. Or escape. Or get pardoned.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:39 AM (9BRsg
I was trying to find a non-facetious way to say this. Thank you for saving me.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:39 AM (9BRsg
I was trying to find a non-facetious way to say this. Thank you for saving me.
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 11:42 AM (ThxKk)
74
I've been pondering this for a while. For the sake of argument, let's presume the pro-choice position as the sound one.
When a woman gets pregnant, she either wants the baby ("him" or "her" but always "the baby") or she want to abort the fetus ("it"). Either way, the mother gets to decide whether that clump of cells in her belly is a human life or not. She owns those cells, and she gets to decide whether it's a person because she owns it. It's hers to decide what to do with, right?
Now, should this woman decide that these cells are a human life, this decision derives from her ownership of them. In short, if she starts calling it a person, then she owns a human life. No one who is pro-choice would ever dispute this. The rub is the 13th amendment which says that no person can own another person.
Constitutionally speaking, the whole pro-choice argument is illegal.
When a woman gets pregnant, she either wants the baby ("him" or "her" but always "the baby") or she want to abort the fetus ("it"). Either way, the mother gets to decide whether that clump of cells in her belly is a human life or not. She owns those cells, and she gets to decide whether it's a person because she owns it. It's hers to decide what to do with, right?
Now, should this woman decide that these cells are a human life, this decision derives from her ownership of them. In short, if she starts calling it a person, then she owns a human life. No one who is pro-choice would ever dispute this. The rub is the 13th amendment which says that no person can own another person.
Constitutionally speaking, the whole pro-choice argument is illegal.
Posted by: FireHorse at January 25, 2015 11:42 AM (8LT/S)
75
Huh. So Pete Singer posts here as jwest.
Posted by: buzzion at January 25, 2015 11:42 AM (zt+N6)
76
I think it is dangerous to conflate the death penalty with abortion.
The death penalty is used after an exhaustive (and often flawed) legal and political process in which the jury has complete control over the initial decision.
The death penalty (bolding mine) is handed down to a criminal who has done something especially terrible, like murder or showing ankle.
Abortion is done to someone who has never done wrong in their very short life.
The death penalty is used after an exhaustive (and often flawed) legal and political process in which the jury has complete control over the initial decision.
The death penalty (bolding mine) is handed down to a criminal who has done something especially terrible, like murder or showing ankle.
Abortion is done to someone who has never done wrong in their very short life.
Posted by: fluffy at January 25, 2015 11:43 AM (Ua6T/)
77
Interesting....But, if there is no value placed on the child/embryo/etc. in the womb, then, even after that child is born, when exactly is value placed on them? Are they of no value prior? If they are of no value prior, then what is the value after birth? Who sets that standard and are they all different? Do you love a child prior to its birth or once you hold it in your arms love it even more? Does that only start after it's born? Again, I have to wonder, if there is no value placed on the unborn, then why place value on them after they are born?
Posted by: Sua Sponte at January 25, 2015 11:43 AM (onAhE)
78
@37: There was no insult. At least, none intended. That equivalence is so stupid and obviously facile I can't believe it can be seriously held. Sort of like the belief that expanded polar ice caps is evidence of global warming. Apparently, you agree; which was clear from your original comment re: God's own executions of judgment.
Or maybe you meant because I said "Obama-esque." That is kind of an insult...
Re: 'ever had the right v. lost the right.' Indeed. In the latter case, there is evidence. There are courts, judges, guiding laws, and arguments to reasonable people. A final judgment is justification for terminating the right to life. In the former case there is... nothing. The decision to terminate the fetus is essentially arbitrary. Some people think that's ok.
Not that anyone has asked, but my personal take is that first term abortion should be legal. It will never be extinguished as a practice, and better to tolerate it in clinics than give free rein to the Kermit Gosnels of the world. There is also a reasonable 'convenience' argument; otherwise responsible people using birth control properly will sometimes get pregnant in a circumstance that will seriously disrupt lives. Consider where a family is dependent on mom's income and she can't work for weeks or months, or family finances will be legitimately ruined by another child. The collapse of the nuclear family over the last few generations means that young couples do not have the same familiar safety networks that there used to be. Grandma isn't always there to help.
I'm theoretically persuadable on second-term, but say no. Third term is right out, and I think people who argue otherwise are inhuman.
Or maybe you meant because I said "Obama-esque." That is kind of an insult...
Re: 'ever had the right v. lost the right.' Indeed. In the latter case, there is evidence. There are courts, judges, guiding laws, and arguments to reasonable people. A final judgment is justification for terminating the right to life. In the former case there is... nothing. The decision to terminate the fetus is essentially arbitrary. Some people think that's ok.
Not that anyone has asked, but my personal take is that first term abortion should be legal. It will never be extinguished as a practice, and better to tolerate it in clinics than give free rein to the Kermit Gosnels of the world. There is also a reasonable 'convenience' argument; otherwise responsible people using birth control properly will sometimes get pregnant in a circumstance that will seriously disrupt lives. Consider where a family is dependent on mom's income and she can't work for weeks or months, or family finances will be legitimately ruined by another child. The collapse of the nuclear family over the last few generations means that young couples do not have the same familiar safety networks that there used to be. Grandma isn't always there to help.
I'm theoretically persuadable on second-term, but say no. Third term is right out, and I think people who argue otherwise are inhuman.
Posted by: Df82 at January 25, 2015 11:43 AM (QqNO+)
79
Whoops.
Meant to say abortionists only truly care about rape victims so far as their usefulness in making arguments.
Meant to say abortionists only truly care about rape victims so far as their usefulness in making arguments.
Posted by: ElKomandante at January 25, 2015 11:43 AM (APQ2q)
80
58
"If one doesn't assume a fertilized egg is a life, then your argument is DOA. "
Yes, but that is rejecting basic 9th grade biology.
It really isn't. If you define life as consciousness, or self-awareness, or some other difficult-to-pin-down concept, then a fertilized ovum may be alive, but not a life, at least in the sense of a human being.
"If one doesn't assume a fertilized egg is a life, then your argument is DOA. "
Yes, but that is rejecting basic 9th grade biology.
It really isn't. If you define life as consciousness, or self-awareness, or some other difficult-to-pin-down concept, then a fertilized ovum may be alive, but not a life, at least in the sense of a human being.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:44 AM (4nR9/)
81
@63. In an absolute sense, what difference does it make?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:38 AM (8CYQ6)
If you want absolutes regarding human behavior, I'm afraid you've come to the wrong universe.
My question is this: Is the health of the mother/ rape baby thing a major component here, or is it a moral backstop employed by people who simply Can't Be Bothered?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:38 AM (8CYQ6)
If you want absolutes regarding human behavior, I'm afraid you've come to the wrong universe.
My question is this: Is the health of the mother/ rape baby thing a major component here, or is it a moral backstop employed by people who simply Can't Be Bothered?
Posted by: Secundus at January 25, 2015 11:45 AM (COeS5)
82
I presented a serious question. I think it rational and believe others, such as Ace who holds certain pro-choice views as well, would think so to. Name calling me a "clown" right off the bat does not further rational discussion and in many ways, undermines your ability to present your point to other rational thinkers. Hence the name "natural fake"?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:45 AM (8CYQ6)
83
>>It won't be long, though before we fertilize eggs and then select for IQ or height or musical ability, or whatever.
Yep, "Gattaca."
There's the fertility trick of making a baby from 3 parents, and just this week there was an article about "designer babies" being available soon in the Daily Mail:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/lj7zb7j
Yep, "Gattaca."
There's the fertility trick of making a baby from 3 parents, and just this week there was an article about "designer babies" being available soon in the Daily Mail:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/lj7zb7j
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 11:45 AM (ABcz/)
84
Reproduction is an act that requires you sacrifice full control of your body.
It's true for cats, dogs, people, etc.
Sex is the act that can lead to pregnancy.
If you have sex, you risk pregnancy.
It's as straightforward as that.
It's true for cats, dogs, people, etc.
Sex is the act that can lead to pregnancy.
If you have sex, you risk pregnancy.
It's as straightforward as that.
Posted by: eman at January 25, 2015 11:46 AM (MQEz6)
85
I was thinking a few days ago that I'd like to watch Gattaca again.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 25, 2015 11:47 AM (DmNpO)
86
" This is not to mention the whole condundrum of whose life takes precedence in the case when the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother?
--- "
The official stance of my pro-life doctor is that he has two patients and he will do everything possible to save them both, but if a situation occurs in which the only way to save the mother is to remove the child, he will do that.
Really we're talking about two situations. Ectopic pregnancy and conditions like severe pre-eclampsia.
In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the tube is typically removed if caught before rupture. Some doctors will prescribe methotrexate instead, but that really just depends on how conservative (medically) of a doctor you have. Some want to just get in and take care of the situation immediately to prevent even the chance of rupture. Anyway, regardless of treatment, the point is that a pro-life doctor will treat an ectopic pregnancy.
As for pre-eclampsia or other diseases that could be life threatening, the standard treatment is to try to get the woman to viability if possible so that the child can be cared for in the NICU. Sometimes this isn't possible if the case is just too severe, and at that point they will deliver the baby and offer comfort care. This is completely tragic, but as you can see, is something that happens in a hospital with your OB team working tirelessly to save both, even if unsuccessful.
What is NOT EVER EVER EVER medically necessary is a woman going to a late term abortion clinic, having sea weed inserted into her cervix, being sent to a hotel room across town overnight ,and then coming back to have her baby torn apart limb by limb. However this is what happens during late term abortions in this country.
It's horrific.
--- "
The official stance of my pro-life doctor is that he has two patients and he will do everything possible to save them both, but if a situation occurs in which the only way to save the mother is to remove the child, he will do that.
Really we're talking about two situations. Ectopic pregnancy and conditions like severe pre-eclampsia.
In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the tube is typically removed if caught before rupture. Some doctors will prescribe methotrexate instead, but that really just depends on how conservative (medically) of a doctor you have. Some want to just get in and take care of the situation immediately to prevent even the chance of rupture. Anyway, regardless of treatment, the point is that a pro-life doctor will treat an ectopic pregnancy.
As for pre-eclampsia or other diseases that could be life threatening, the standard treatment is to try to get the woman to viability if possible so that the child can be cared for in the NICU. Sometimes this isn't possible if the case is just too severe, and at that point they will deliver the baby and offer comfort care. This is completely tragic, but as you can see, is something that happens in a hospital with your OB team working tirelessly to save both, even if unsuccessful.
What is NOT EVER EVER EVER medically necessary is a woman going to a late term abortion clinic, having sea weed inserted into her cervix, being sent to a hotel room across town overnight ,and then coming back to have her baby torn apart limb by limb. However this is what happens during late term abortions in this country.
It's horrific.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 11:47 AM (MYCIw)
87
@81. I'm not looking for absolutes, I'm considering the consequences of possibly outlawing all abortion.
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:49 AM (8CYQ6)
88
"It really isn't. If you define life as consciousness, or self-awareness, or some other difficult-to-pin-down concept, then a fertilized ovum may be alive, but not a life, at least in the sense of a human being."
That's not the definition of life. Life has a very explicit definition and at amphimixis a new, unique human life is formed. This isn't a metaphysical question.
That's not the definition of life. Life has a very explicit definition and at amphimixis a new, unique human life is formed. This isn't a metaphysical question.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 11:49 AM (MYCIw)
89
The pro-death faction desires the state (given their desire for universal health care) take the role of God or at the minimum Spartan youth appraiser....
And anyone who thinks they will stop at judging babies unworthy is a fool.
And anyone who thinks they will stop at judging babies unworthy is a fool.
Posted by: Sven10077 at January 25, 2015 11:49 AM (Fzqfj)
90
I presented a serious question. I think it rational and believe others, such as Ace who holds certain pro-choice views as well, would think so to. Name calling me a "clown" right off the bat does not further rational discussion and in many ways, undermines your ability to present your point to other rational thinkers. Hence the name "natural fake"?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:45 AM (8CYQ6)
Yeah, yeah.
So, answer the question:
Is a fetus human life?
Science says it is. No if ands or buts.
Or shall we talk about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:45 AM (8CYQ6)
Yeah, yeah.
So, answer the question:
Is a fetus human life?
Science says it is. No if ands or buts.
Or shall we talk about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Posted by: naturalfake at January 25, 2015 11:50 AM (KBvAm)
91
Posted by: Soona at January 25, 2015 11:41 AM (j0WXm)
I chose the word "revenge," carefully.
Justice has a suggestion that the predefined penalty is blind to emotional pressure. But just look at those on death row....their crimes were often objectively no worse than others, but because of society's disgust with certain methods of murder or sympathy for the victims, they landed on death row.
I chose the word "revenge," carefully.
Justice has a suggestion that the predefined penalty is blind to emotional pressure. But just look at those on death row....their crimes were often objectively no worse than others, but because of society's disgust with certain methods of murder or sympathy for the victims, they landed on death row.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 11:50 AM (Zu3d9)
92
" This is not to mention the whole condundrum of whose life takes precedence in the case when the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother?
--- "
****
This is a circumstance, where one must choose one life or another, where I will not impose my will. Hell, I'm not even sure what my will IS in such a circumstance.
I don't know if one can possibly be faced with a more personal decision than that.
--- "
****
This is a circumstance, where one must choose one life or another, where I will not impose my will. Hell, I'm not even sure what my will IS in such a circumstance.
I don't know if one can possibly be faced with a more personal decision than that.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 25, 2015 11:50 AM (DmNpO)
93
Remember that guys Scott Peterson, from about a decade ago? Killed and dumped his pregnant wife, arrested, tried convicted of how many counts of homicide? I'm pretty sure it wasn't "1".
If you hit an expectant mother with your car, and she lives, but the kid doesn't, you're going down. But how can you charge someone with 'homocide', if the thing that died isn't human?
If you hit an expectant mother with your car, and she lives, but the kid doesn't, you're going down. But how can you charge someone with 'homocide', if the thing that died isn't human?
Posted by: Secundus at January 25, 2015 11:50 AM (COeS5)
94
68 @64, but those are options you take. We do not go to such expense and effort for every such circumstance. Should we?
---
I think that doctors are obligated, ethically if not legally, to try to save preemies.
---
I think that doctors are obligated, ethically if not legally, to try to save preemies.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 11:52 AM (9BRsg)
95
If you define life as consciousness, or
self-awareness, or some other difficult-to-pin-down concept, then a
fertilized ovum may be alive, but not a life, at least in the sense of a
human being.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:44 AM (4nR9/)
My dog is alive, even if she has no soul. And I know she's not capable of understanding abstract concepts or recognizing herself in the mirror, so I don't think the definition of life is predicated on those ideas.Just my opinion, and worth exactly how much you paid for it.
self-awareness, or some other difficult-to-pin-down concept, then a
fertilized ovum may be alive, but not a life, at least in the sense of a
human being.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:44 AM (4nR9/)
My dog is alive, even if she has no soul. And I know she's not capable of understanding abstract concepts or recognizing herself in the mirror, so I don't think the definition of life is predicated on those ideas.Just my opinion, and worth exactly how much you paid for it.
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 11:52 AM (ThxKk)
96
This slippery slope is the plot of The Giver. Babies that are difficult, colicky, don't sleep well are "Released"
Posted by: joe dagostino at January 25, 2015 11:52 AM (5vRRq)
97
84
Reproduction is an act that requires you sacrifice full control of your body.
It's true for cats, dogs, people, etc.
Sex is the act that can lead to pregnancy.
If you have sex, you risk pregnancy.
It's as straightforward as that.
Posted by: eman
No, I get your argument. What I'm saying is that you assert that you surrender control of your body because you have now to consider another potential life. But if you are someone who doesn't consider the fertilized egg another life, then your point is moot, not to mention unsupported by law.
What is NOT EVER EVER EVER medically necessary is a woman going to a
late term abortion clinic, having sea weed inserted into her cervix,
being sent to a hotel room across town overnight ,and then coming back
to have her baby torn apart limb by limb. However this is what happens
during late term abortions in this country.
I think that's the part that a majority of people can agree on, and had SCOTUS respected the will of the people, instead of acting like dictators, we might by now have reached an uneasy consensus on this issue.
Reproduction is an act that requires you sacrifice full control of your body.
It's true for cats, dogs, people, etc.
Sex is the act that can lead to pregnancy.
If you have sex, you risk pregnancy.
It's as straightforward as that.
Posted by: eman
No, I get your argument. What I'm saying is that you assert that you surrender control of your body because you have now to consider another potential life. But if you are someone who doesn't consider the fertilized egg another life, then your point is moot, not to mention unsupported by law.
What is NOT EVER EVER EVER medically necessary is a woman going to a
late term abortion clinic, having sea weed inserted into her cervix,
being sent to a hotel room across town overnight ,and then coming back
to have her baby torn apart limb by limb. However this is what happens
during late term abortions in this country.
I think that's the part that a majority of people can agree on, and had SCOTUS respected the will of the people, instead of acting like dictators, we might by now have reached an uneasy consensus on this issue.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:53 AM (4nR9/)
98
And in five years we will be having this discussion about obamacare and the death panels.
Posted by: Infidel at January 25, 2015 11:53 AM (7GLRQ)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 11:54 AM (Dj0WE)
100
OK, so the abortion argument at its logical conclusion is no exceptions for rape, but we look the other way at the large amount of early human mortality, a disproportionate amount of which is male.
Everyone good with that?
Everyone good with that?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:54 AM (8CYQ6)
101
89 The pro-death faction desires the state (given their desire for universal health care) take the role of God or at the minimum Spartan youth appraiser....
And anyone who thinks they will stop at judging babies unworthy is a fool.
Posted by: Sven10077 at January 25, 2015 11:49 AM (Fzqfj)
--------------------
Very much, THIS. Unfortunately, this death-to-the-seemingly-worthless-life philosophy is taking firm root in this nation.
And anyone who thinks they will stop at judging babies unworthy is a fool.
Posted by: Sven10077 at January 25, 2015 11:49 AM (Fzqfj)
--------------------
Very much, THIS. Unfortunately, this death-to-the-seemingly-worthless-life philosophy is taking firm root in this nation.
Posted by: Soona at January 25, 2015 11:55 AM (j0WXm)
102
Justice has a suggestion that the predefined penalty
is blind to emotional pressure. But just look at those on death
row....their crimes were often objectively no worse than others, but
because of society's disgust with certain methods of murder or sympathy
for the victims, they landed on death row.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 11:50 AM (Zu3d9)
On a certain level, you're right: dead is dead. But that's were the 'aversion' argument comes in. The idea that people will see someone else getting punished for a crime and, maybe, they will decide not to commit that crime. (Obviously, it doesn't work very well on crazies, but on sane people, yes.)
is blind to emotional pressure. But just look at those on death
row....their crimes were often objectively no worse than others, but
because of society's disgust with certain methods of murder or sympathy
for the victims, they landed on death row.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 11:50 AM (Zu3d9)
On a certain level, you're right: dead is dead. But that's were the 'aversion' argument comes in. The idea that people will see someone else getting punished for a crime and, maybe, they will decide not to commit that crime. (Obviously, it doesn't work very well on crazies, but on sane people, yes.)
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 11:55 AM (ThxKk)
103
Up thread I posted a link to an article about a local family who gave birth to a little girl at 6 months. She weighs just 1.6 pounds and they do expect her to survive.
Take a look at that photo then imagine what would be done to her in a late-term abortion.
It's barbaric.
Take a look at that photo then imagine what would be done to her in a late-term abortion.
It's barbaric.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 25, 2015 11:56 AM (DmNpO)
104
Another thought - more philosophical, less practical, but anyway ...
A long time ago, I came across a science-fiction short story in which women didn't carry fetuses; technology took care of incubation. What if?
I mean, if this were possible, even theoretically, then wouldn't the entire argument in favor of abortion rest on expedience, convenience, and the limitations of our present-day technology?
A long time ago, I came across a science-fiction short story in which women didn't carry fetuses; technology took care of incubation. What if?
I mean, if this were possible, even theoretically, then wouldn't the entire argument in favor of abortion rest on expedience, convenience, and the limitations of our present-day technology?
Posted by: FireHorse at January 25, 2015 11:56 AM (8LT/S)
105
Does "Ban Abortion" == "Forced to have children"?
For those who don't accept that a fetus, or at least an embryo, is a person, I believe it does.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:36
========
We circle back then to limiting abortion as a policy issue for population increase purposes. If the argument is made at a city, state, or natio al level, and enough voters agree, then vote for it, it was a non religious push. Just like taxes, we comply until the next opportunity to vote. Or no?
For those who don't accept that a fetus, or at least an embryo, is a person, I believe it does.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:36
========
We circle back then to limiting abortion as a policy issue for population increase purposes. If the argument is made at a city, state, or natio al level, and enough voters agree, then vote for it, it was a non religious push. Just like taxes, we comply until the next opportunity to vote. Or no?
Posted by: fastfreefall at January 25, 2015 11:56 AM (pqOzY)
106
99, brilliant.
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:56 AM (8CYQ6)
107
*where
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 11:56 AM (ThxKk)
108
That's not the definition of life. Life has a very explicit definition
and at amphimixis a new, unique human life is formed. This isn't a
metaphysical question.
What you describe is biological life. That is not the same thing as the value we place on human life, which for many people derives from consciousness, awareness, a soul, or whatever their belief system is. My skin cells are alive, and now have the potential to be turned into pluripotent cells, but I don't commit murder when I get a tattoo.
and at amphimixis a new, unique human life is formed. This isn't a
metaphysical question.
What you describe is biological life. That is not the same thing as the value we place on human life, which for many people derives from consciousness, awareness, a soul, or whatever their belief system is. My skin cells are alive, and now have the potential to be turned into pluripotent cells, but I don't commit murder when I get a tattoo.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:56 AM (4nR9/)
109
", but those are options you take. We do not go to such expense and effort for every such circumstance. Should we?
--- "
Yes. In most cases of early pregnancy loss due to hormones, we're talking about a bit of progesterone cream being the difference between life and death. Not a big burden.
". But if you are someone who doesn't consider the fertilized egg another life, then your point is moot, not to mention unsupported by law. "
You keep making this claim but it is utterly ridiculous. It's like saying "well if you're someone who doesn't consider gravity to be a force that exists on Earth, then your point is moot."
...Ok. Well, yes if we're arguing with someone who rejects the basic laws of nature, then yes, it is hard to come to a consensus. We must start with a basic factual premise, and that shouldn't be hard to accomplish since we have understood how human reproduction works for quite some time.
--- "
Yes. In most cases of early pregnancy loss due to hormones, we're talking about a bit of progesterone cream being the difference between life and death. Not a big burden.
". But if you are someone who doesn't consider the fertilized egg another life, then your point is moot, not to mention unsupported by law. "
You keep making this claim but it is utterly ridiculous. It's like saying "well if you're someone who doesn't consider gravity to be a force that exists on Earth, then your point is moot."
...Ok. Well, yes if we're arguing with someone who rejects the basic laws of nature, then yes, it is hard to come to a consensus. We must start with a basic factual premise, and that shouldn't be hard to accomplish since we have understood how human reproduction works for quite some time.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 11:56 AM (MYCIw)
110
One other issue of the "Choice" claim that has always annoyed me is the idea, the arrogance that one has a choice on something so important - another's life.
Did you get to choose your parents? Did you choose which genes of each parent are dominant (tall, short, pretty, straight teeth, etc.)? Do you get to choose whether or not you'll get a diseases you may get, such as MS or cancer?
At least you chose to have sex, and with whom. But why should you be able to choose to chuck the baby after the fact?
Did you get to choose your parents? Did you choose which genes of each parent are dominant (tall, short, pretty, straight teeth, etc.)? Do you get to choose whether or not you'll get a diseases you may get, such as MS or cancer?
At least you chose to have sex, and with whom. But why should you be able to choose to chuck the baby after the fact?
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 11:56 AM (ABcz/)
Posted by: pep's dog at January 25, 2015 11:57 AM (4nR9/)
112
Remember that guys Scott Peterson, from about a decade ago? Killed and dumped his pregnant wife, arrested, tried convicted of how many counts of homicide? I'm pretty sure it wasn't "1".
***
Rob Lowe played him in the Lifetime movie. I had no idea Lowe could be so creepy.
***
Rob Lowe played him in the Lifetime movie. I had no idea Lowe could be so creepy.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 25, 2015 11:57 AM (DmNpO)
113
I've always had a lot of respect for Nat Hentoff. He's an old-school liberal; that is, he's a patriot who takes the Constitution seriously. He has always been a champion for the First Amendment, even defending speech he finds offensive. No SJW he.
Posted by: rickl at January 25, 2015 11:58 AM (sdi6R)
114
Everyone good with that?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:54 AM (8CYQ6)
And I was just about to come to the defense of one of your points!
"Clown" it is!
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:54 AM (8CYQ6)
And I was just about to come to the defense of one of your points!
"Clown" it is!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 11:58 AM (Zu3d9)
115
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:54 AM (8CYQ6)
Still waiting for your answer, Wtp.
See? This is why you're a clown, you're unable to argue in good faith.
Still waiting for your answer, Wtp.
See? This is why you're a clown, you're unable to argue in good faith.
Posted by: naturalfake at January 25, 2015 11:59 AM (KBvAm)
116
CDB, please don't cop out. Which point was that?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:59 AM (8CYQ6)
117
101 Soona,
It's why I firmly believe we are no longer worthy of His divine providence and are facing the writing on the eall.
It's why I firmly believe we are no longer worthy of His divine providence and are facing the writing on the eall.
Posted by: Sven10077 at January 25, 2015 12:00 PM (/4AZU)
118
>>I've always had a lot of respect for Nat Hentoff.
Me, too. I really should make a point of reading more of his stuff.
Fun fact: my mom had the chance to have some serious conversations with him waaaay back when while she was trying to get parental input on curriculum. So I guess that also colors my (favorable) view of him.
Me, too. I really should make a point of reading more of his stuff.
Fun fact: my mom had the chance to have some serious conversations with him waaaay back when while she was trying to get parental input on curriculum. So I guess that also colors my (favorable) view of him.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 12:00 PM (9BRsg)
119
". My skin cells are alive, and now have the potential to be turned into pluripotent cells, but I don't commit murder when I get a tattoo."
Your skin cells are not a human organism. We aren't just talking about cells being alive, obviously both the sperm and egg are alive prior to conception. We are talking about the created human organism that exists only from the union of human gametes.
So again, to be more explicit. A new, unique human organism is formed at amphimixis. A living human being. Period. The end.
Your skin cells are not a human organism. We aren't just talking about cells being alive, obviously both the sperm and egg are alive prior to conception. We are talking about the created human organism that exists only from the union of human gametes.
So again, to be more explicit. A new, unique human organism is formed at amphimixis. A living human being. Period. The end.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 12:01 PM (MYCIw)
120
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 11:55 AM (ThxKk)
I think that the deterrence argument for the death penalty is a joke.
The number of hard-core criminals who are capable of capital crimes and who hesitate before committing those crimes because of the possibility of being put to death in the far future can be counted on the horns on my head!
[Wait.....that's not what I meant....shit...]
I think that the deterrence argument for the death penalty is a joke.
The number of hard-core criminals who are capable of capital crimes and who hesitate before committing those crimes because of the possibility of being put to death in the far future can be counted on the horns on my head!
[Wait.....that's not what I meant....shit...]
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 12:01 PM (Zu3d9)
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 12:01 PM (MYCIw)
122
We circle back then to limiting abortion as a policy issue for
population increase purposes. If the argument is made at a city, state,
or natio al level, and enough voters agree, then vote for it, it was a
non religious push. Just like taxes, we comply until the next
opportunity to vote. Or no?
I don't think so. Here, we're back to the question of the sovereignty of the individual. Just as the Bill of Rights prohibits a tyranny of the majority (or at least tries to), the will of the majority, as enforced by the state, shouldn't be relevant, except as it comes back to the question of whether or not a fertilized egg is a person.
population increase purposes. If the argument is made at a city, state,
or natio al level, and enough voters agree, then vote for it, it was a
non religious push. Just like taxes, we comply until the next
opportunity to vote. Or no?
I don't think so. Here, we're back to the question of the sovereignty of the individual. Just as the Bill of Rights prohibits a tyranny of the majority (or at least tries to), the will of the majority, as enforced by the state, shouldn't be relevant, except as it comes back to the question of whether or not a fertilized egg is a person.
Posted by: pep's dog at January 25, 2015 12:02 PM (4nR9/)
123
@81. I'm not looking for absolutes, I'm considering the consequences of possibly outlawing all abortion.
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:49 AM (8CYQ6)
Scroll up and look at my first post. Abortion in this country isn't going anywhere until we go Full Sharia and in Imams need another way to keep teh wimminz in their place. You're asking for moral reasoning on a hypothetical.
And yes, of course, the circumstances under which a given act takes place are important, and why absolutes just make idiocy of the issue.
Killing another person is generally illegal and frowned upon socially. Butchering your neighbor will probably get you dropped off of a lot of Christmas card lists. But there are limited circumstances under which it's okay. Saying "We'll ban all abortion and now all rape victims who get pregnant will be forced to carry to term and mothers will be forced to die on the table Because Pro Life And Shit" is a ridiculous position to take, because 95% of the human population that isn't brainwashed and crazy is capable of noticing the difference between a rape victim and Mackenzie Smith-Perkins who needs to get into Yale.
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:49 AM (8CYQ6)
Scroll up and look at my first post. Abortion in this country isn't going anywhere until we go Full Sharia and in Imams need another way to keep teh wimminz in their place. You're asking for moral reasoning on a hypothetical.
And yes, of course, the circumstances under which a given act takes place are important, and why absolutes just make idiocy of the issue.
Killing another person is generally illegal and frowned upon socially. Butchering your neighbor will probably get you dropped off of a lot of Christmas card lists. But there are limited circumstances under which it's okay. Saying "We'll ban all abortion and now all rape victims who get pregnant will be forced to carry to term and mothers will be forced to die on the table Because Pro Life And Shit" is a ridiculous position to take, because 95% of the human population that isn't brainwashed and crazy is capable of noticing the difference between a rape victim and Mackenzie Smith-Perkins who needs to get into Yale.
Posted by: Secundus at January 25, 2015 12:03 PM (COeS5)
124
The interesting thing here is that the pro-life side tends to have overwhelmingly strong scientific arguments and the pro-abortion side is all philosophy and religion.
To be clear, for example, there is no way someone in good faith can argue from a scientific perspective that a late term abortion is any different then killing a newborn. None.
To allow for something like late term abortion one has to create a metaphysical argument that you aren't a person if you are dependent on someone else...which again medically is bullshit, or that you "magically" become a person after the process of birth.
In general though all pro-abortion beliefs ultimately come down to one of two arguments.
1) Being pregnant and having a child will make my life very hard, and because of that I have the right to act to keep that from happening.
2) That there are two many human weeds being born, and as a society we should make sure these lesser people stop breeding to produce better children. To quote Ruth Bader Ginsburg;
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.
To be clear, for example, there is no way someone in good faith can argue from a scientific perspective that a late term abortion is any different then killing a newborn. None.
To allow for something like late term abortion one has to create a metaphysical argument that you aren't a person if you are dependent on someone else...which again medically is bullshit, or that you "magically" become a person after the process of birth.
In general though all pro-abortion beliefs ultimately come down to one of two arguments.
1) Being pregnant and having a child will make my life very hard, and because of that I have the right to act to keep that from happening.
2) That there are two many human weeds being born, and as a society we should make sure these lesser people stop breeding to produce better children. To quote Ruth Bader Ginsburg;
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 25, 2015 12:04 PM (5DM9u)
125
I think that the deterrence argument for the death penalty is a joke.
The
number of hard-core criminals who are capable of capital crimes and who
hesitate before committing those crimes because of the possibility of
being put to death in the far future can be counted on the horns on my
head!
[Wait.....that's not what I meant....shit...]
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 12:01 PM (Zu3d9)
Eh, agree to disagree. I cite that film 'The Purge' as evidence. People committing crimes just because they could get away with it for one night. Of course it's fiction, but must have struck a chord with some people.
The
number of hard-core criminals who are capable of capital crimes and who
hesitate before committing those crimes because of the possibility of
being put to death in the far future can be counted on the horns on my
head!
[Wait.....that's not what I meant....shit...]
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 12:01 PM (Zu3d9)
Eh, agree to disagree. I cite that film 'The Purge' as evidence. People committing crimes just because they could get away with it for one night. Of course it's fiction, but must have struck a chord with some people.
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 12:04 PM (ThxKk)
126
It's why I firmly believe we are no longer worthy of His divine providence and are facing the writing on the eall.
Posted by: Sven10077 at January 25, 2015 12:00 PM (/4AZU)
--------------------------
Damn! The 'writing on the wall' is bad, but the writing on the eall? We're fucked.
Posted by: Sven10077 at January 25, 2015 12:00 PM (/4AZU)
--------------------------
Damn! The 'writing on the wall' is bad, but the writing on the eall? We're fucked.
Posted by: Soona at January 25, 2015 12:04 PM (j0WXm)
127
My skin cells are alive, and now have the potential to be turned into pluripotent cells, but I don't commit murder when I get a tattoo.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:56 AM (4nR9/)
If your skin cells are left to their own devices while in your body are they going to result in a fully formed human. I find this sort of argument so ridiculous. I have one question for you. What is the species of a Monarch Butterfly Caterpilla?.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:56 AM (4nR9/)
If your skin cells are left to their own devices while in your body are they going to result in a fully formed human. I find this sort of argument so ridiculous. I have one question for you. What is the species of a Monarch Butterfly Caterpilla?.
Posted by: buzzion at January 25, 2015 12:05 PM (zt+N6)
128
I've always thought Ayn Rand and Objectivists in general got this issue wrong. Rand herself seemed to buy into the idea that pregnancy was somehow a surrender of autonomy so grievous that it made even thinking about abortion restrictions verboten. I've never come across her discussing the child's right to life - she usually ended her analysis conveniently at viability without looking into questions like why we don't kill off adults who are no longer "autonomous and independently viable" for instance. It's one point where I think Whittaker Chambers view of her had some truth to it. For a woman who held human life and achievement as literally sacred, she was too willing to buy into excuses for infanticide that smacked of statism and social utility. Why not advocate for adoption rather than abortion? Why not give a child a chance at life, no matter how many strikes they might have against them socioeconomically or otherwise? Isn't that a more rational response that preserves the value of both lives in question rather than sacrificing a life for what's too often a matter of expedience rather than a truly first-order priority for the mother?
If human life is truly a sacred thing, and I think it is, the unborn need to have a higher priority than a lot of libertarian-leaning thinkers seem to give them. If secularism holds nothing as sacred, it degenerates into the morally vacuous, purposeless materialism that Chambers warned of at the end of the Objectivist road. I've always disagreed with him on that for the most part, but this is one issue on which I think he had a point.
If human life is truly a sacred thing, and I think it is, the unborn need to have a higher priority than a lot of libertarian-leaning thinkers seem to give them. If secularism holds nothing as sacred, it degenerates into the morally vacuous, purposeless materialism that Chambers warned of at the end of the Objectivist road. I've always disagreed with him on that for the most part, but this is one issue on which I think he had a point.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at January 25, 2015 12:05 PM (QKIQb)
129
I want to remind everyone is participates in the Brattleboro Global Warming awareness charter to turn down their thermostat this week to conserve energy and protect the environment. We thank you for your support in fighting this terrible man-make disaster in protecting the earth and the animals. Our recommendation is to turn down your thermostat to 55 degrees and walk in stead of driving for the next week. All our savings and proceeds from Brattleboro will be sent to Michelle Obama to help feed starving children in Central America.
Posted by: Mary Clogginstien at January 25, 2015 12:06 PM (D5iCY)
130
120 -
I am as ambivalent as possible on the death penalty, which is to say, it's not really possible.
I would argue then, if we're going to accept that an imposition of death on someone CAN be just, it better be really really effective.
Which it's not, obviously. In fact, the only real value I can see to it is for resolution and closure for society (especially of course, those closest to the victims). And if we're going to delay these things for decades sometimes, I fail to see how that is working either.
I am as ambivalent as possible on the death penalty, which is to say, it's not really possible.
I would argue then, if we're going to accept that an imposition of death on someone CAN be just, it better be really really effective.
Which it's not, obviously. In fact, the only real value I can see to it is for resolution and closure for society (especially of course, those closest to the victims). And if we're going to delay these things for decades sometimes, I fail to see how that is working either.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:06 PM (Dj0WE)
131
NFL, you are not arguing my points in good faith, however back to yours, "science" says no such thing anymore than it does with AGW or any other appeal to presumed authority. But let's just say, for sake of argument it does. Then there are no exceptions as I stated in my other roundly mocked comment. Such is all well and good. But you're in a very small minority that believes so. Not that such matters in right and wrong, but does matter if you want to have your view make any impact. For that you will need to convince many, many more people who are far less willing to consider your view than I am. With this line of attack, I seriously doubt your efforts will show any fruit. Who is the clown?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 12:06 PM (8CYQ6)
132
I cite that film 'The Purge' as evidence. People committing crimes just because they could get away with it for one night. Of course it's fiction, but must have struck a chord with some people.
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 12:04 PM (ThxKk)
Yeah, they're in Ferguson.
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 12:04 PM (ThxKk)
Yeah, they're in Ferguson.
Posted by: buzzion at January 25, 2015 12:08 PM (zt+N6)
133
All right, y'all, I need to stop interneting for a few hours. I've been here almost all morning, so I'm off to shovel snow and get some fresh air.
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 12:08 PM (ThxKk)
134
126 Soona,
My Note 3 is a rather pessimistic Theologian...
I may try to have it mate with a Chromebook.
My Note 3 is a rather pessimistic Theologian...
I may try to have it mate with a Chromebook.
Posted by: Sven10077 at January 25, 2015 12:08 PM (/4AZU)
135
"So again, to be more explicit. A new, unique human organism is formed at amphimixis. A living human being. Period. The end."
Amphimixis does not create a viable human being. If you think so, try taking it out of the mother. A fertilized egg does not think, nor is it self-aware. It could plausibly be argued that this is a potential human. Just as a skin cell that can be made pluripotent is a potential human.
In any case, is viability really the metric now? No, I think you believe it to be endowed with a divine spark. That's hard to argue as a matter of law unless you do what you're doing, and define a fertilized egg as a human.
Amphimixis does not create a viable human being. If you think so, try taking it out of the mother. A fertilized egg does not think, nor is it self-aware. It could plausibly be argued that this is a potential human. Just as a skin cell that can be made pluripotent is a potential human.
In any case, is viability really the metric now? No, I think you believe it to be endowed with a divine spark. That's hard to argue as a matter of law unless you do what you're doing, and define a fertilized egg as a human.
Posted by: pep's dog at January 25, 2015 12:09 PM (4nR9/)
136
There are a large number of people in this country who had an abortion or counseled a daughter, sister or friend to have one and most of them do feel the need to defend its legality and morality rather than cope with the pain of deciding it was wrong.
I think the GOPe backsliding to limit government dollars for the procedure but no we can't say that at 20 weeks its becomes not OK is horrible. Feeds the dems 'GOP war on poor people' meme. And the whole "we can't have reporting requirements for the rape exception is utter BS"
Tell me a woman who gets pregnant as a result of rape is going to wait 20 weeks to abort regardless of choosing to engage or skip the justice system -- you might as well be trying to sell me oceanfront property in Arizona. Besides which the health of the mother exception did not say only physical health so almost anyone could claim they'd have a nervous breakdown if denied an abortion. What the law would have done is say "we have decided as a country that after 20 weeks it is wrong to treat that unborn fetus as just a clump of cells so you can only abort if another factor outweighs this"
And because of a fear of 'anti women' attack ads (which are losing their punch as evidenced by Gardner getting elected in purple CO ) or at least because of this excuse--I personally think the GOP is annoyed to have lost their cushy minority status ; they pulled the decent bill.
I think the GOPe backsliding to limit government dollars for the procedure but no we can't say that at 20 weeks its becomes not OK is horrible. Feeds the dems 'GOP war on poor people' meme. And the whole "we can't have reporting requirements for the rape exception is utter BS"
Tell me a woman who gets pregnant as a result of rape is going to wait 20 weeks to abort regardless of choosing to engage or skip the justice system -- you might as well be trying to sell me oceanfront property in Arizona. Besides which the health of the mother exception did not say only physical health so almost anyone could claim they'd have a nervous breakdown if denied an abortion. What the law would have done is say "we have decided as a country that after 20 weeks it is wrong to treat that unborn fetus as just a clump of cells so you can only abort if another factor outweighs this"
And because of a fear of 'anti women' attack ads (which are losing their punch as evidenced by Gardner getting elected in purple CO ) or at least because of this excuse--I personally think the GOP is annoyed to have lost their cushy minority status ; they pulled the decent bill.
Posted by: PaleRider at January 25, 2015 12:09 PM (7w/kf)
137
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 12:04 PM (ThxKk)
Exactly my point.
Those who are morally capable of considering the penalties are almost always those who would not commit the crimes in the first place.
[And I am insulted that you didn't even notice my joke]
Exactly my point.
Those who are morally capable of considering the penalties are almost always those who would not commit the crimes in the first place.
[And I am insulted that you didn't even notice my joke]
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 12:09 PM (Zu3d9)
138
@123 Secundus, agree.. Why don't you and naturalfake work this part out.
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 12:10 PM (8CYQ6)
139
Who is the clown?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 12:06 PM (8CYQ6)
You are, clown.
Go away, and clown no more.
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 12:06 PM (8CYQ6)
You are, clown.
Go away, and clown no more.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:10 PM (Dj0WE)
140
I would argue then, if we're going to accept that an imposition of death on someone CAN be just, it better be really really effective.
Which it's not, obviously. In fact, the only real value I can see to it is for resolution and closure for society (especially of course, those closest to the victims). And if we're going to delay these things for decades sometimes, I fail to see how that is working either.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:06 PM (Dj0WE)
I would argue then, if we're going to accept that an imposition of death on someone CAN be just, it better be really really effective.
Which it's not, obviously. In fact, the only real value I can see to it is for resolution and closure for society (especially of course, those closest to the victims). And if we're going to delay these things for decades sometimes, I fail to see how that is working either.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:06 PM (Dj0WE)
Posted by: Soona at January 25, 2015 12:12 PM (j0WXm)
141
I've got nothing else to add here, other than Lauren probably said it best the other day.
Just a fly-by post.
Busy day today.
Just a fly-by post.
Busy day today.
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 25, 2015 12:12 PM (IXrOn)
142
That's hard to argue as a matter of law unless you do what you're doing, and define a fertilized egg as a human.
Which, to be clear, is a perfectly valid position, but not one shared by everyone.
Which, to be clear, is a perfectly valid position, but not one shared by everyone.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 12:12 PM (4nR9/)
143
Thank you for a breath of rationality, Buzzion re: the "skin cells" argument. If we're going to base these kinds of moral questions on bleeding edge theoretical science (ala "my skin cellls can be turned into babies in a lab") it seems you're left with no arguments to limit abortion at all. Viability's off the table - the baby's cells could be people too, just send them to the same lab as your toenails. What are you left with? Some form of "social utility" or just abortion at pure sufferance of someone's willingness to carry you to term.
This kind of "deep thinking" is actually using a magical view of science and/or an adolescent superficiality to relieve you of thinking about a tough question. It's something I see the Reason Magazine crowd indulging in quite often - reaching for the easy hip and smart response and congratulating themselves on what should be regarded as a moral "blank-out."
This kind of "deep thinking" is actually using a magical view of science and/or an adolescent superficiality to relieve you of thinking about a tough question. It's something I see the Reason Magazine crowd indulging in quite often - reaching for the easy hip and smart response and congratulating themselves on what should be regarded as a moral "blank-out."
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at January 25, 2015 12:14 PM (QKIQb)
144
132 -
Yeah, headline in the latest from my local rag: "After Ferguson, police consider 'tactical retreat' instead of force in certain circumstances."
Yay, retreat!
Yeah, headline in the latest from my local rag: "After Ferguson, police consider 'tactical retreat' instead of force in certain circumstances."
Yay, retreat!
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:14 PM (Dj0WE)
145
[And I am insulted that you didn't even notice my joke]
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 12:09 PM (Zu3d9)
I noticed, just didn't comment. *hands CBD a pitchfork to complete the ensemble*Okay, now I'm really leaving!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 12:09 PM (Zu3d9)
I noticed, just didn't comment. *hands CBD a pitchfork to complete the ensemble*Okay, now I'm really leaving!
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 12:15 PM (ThxKk)
146
I would argue then, if we're going to accept that an imposition of death on someone CAN be just, it better be really really effective.
Which it's not, obviously. In fact, the only real value I can see to it is for resolution and closure for society (especially of course, those closest to the victims). And if we're going to delay these things for decades sometimes, I fail to see how that is working either.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:06 PM (Dj0WE)
-----------------
Let me try this again.
Why does it HAVE to be just AND effective? Why can't it be only just?
Which it's not, obviously. In fact, the only real value I can see to it is for resolution and closure for society (especially of course, those closest to the victims). And if we're going to delay these things for decades sometimes, I fail to see how that is working either.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:06 PM (Dj0WE)
-----------------
Let me try this again.
Why does it HAVE to be just AND effective? Why can't it be only just?
Posted by: Soona at January 25, 2015 12:15 PM (j0WXm)
147
OK, BurtTC. Wiill do as you ask. I leave you to argue with Secondus, re:
123 @81. I'm not looking for absolutes, I'm considering the consequences of possibly outlawing all abortion.
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:49 AM (8CYQ6)
Scroll up and look at my first post. Abortion in this country isn't going anywhere until we go Full Sharia and in Imams need another way to keep teh wimminz in their place. You're asking for moral reasoning on a hypothetical.
And yes, of course, the circumstances under which a given act takes place are important, and why absolutes just make idiocy of the issue.
Killing another person is generally illegal and frowned upon socially. Butchering your neighbor will probably get you dropped off of a lot of Christmas card lists. But there are limited circumstances under which it's okay. Saying "We'll ban all abortion and now all rape victims who get pregnant will be forced to carry to term and mothers will be forced to die on the table Because Pro Life And Shit" is a ridiculous position to take, because 95% of the human population that isn't brainwashed and crazy is capable of noticing the difference between a rape victim and Mackenzie Smith-Perkins who needs to get into Yale.
123 @81. I'm not looking for absolutes, I'm considering the consequences of possibly outlawing all abortion.
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 11:49 AM (8CYQ6)
Scroll up and look at my first post. Abortion in this country isn't going anywhere until we go Full Sharia and in Imams need another way to keep teh wimminz in their place. You're asking for moral reasoning on a hypothetical.
And yes, of course, the circumstances under which a given act takes place are important, and why absolutes just make idiocy of the issue.
Killing another person is generally illegal and frowned upon socially. Butchering your neighbor will probably get you dropped off of a lot of Christmas card lists. But there are limited circumstances under which it's okay. Saying "We'll ban all abortion and now all rape victims who get pregnant will be forced to carry to term and mothers will be forced to die on the table Because Pro Life And Shit" is a ridiculous position to take, because 95% of the human population that isn't brainwashed and crazy is capable of noticing the difference between a rape victim and Mackenzie Smith-Perkins who needs to get into Yale.
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 12:16 PM (8CYQ6)
148
Ask someone if they would support a Constitutional Amendment that banned Abortion AND the Death Penalty. You gotta have both or neither.
Posted by: Jean at January 25, 2015 12:18 PM (TETYm)
149
Have we kicked out any trolls yet?
Posted by: katya the designated driver at January 25, 2015 12:18 PM (o4G8O)
Posted by: buzzion at January 25, 2015 12:19 PM (zt+N6)
151
I've never voted based on abortion, and never much cared about it. Cynically, I think if we're going to allow it, at least it's mainly liberals who are using it to have fewer babies.
However, LATE abortion for elective reasons is barbarous. Oddly, I base that on my experience raising birds. Break open an egg with a developed embryo and watch it struggle and gasp as it dies. Break open a newly laid egg, and the embryo is a red dot. My fellow bird keepers and I had an unwritten rule that we wouldn't destroy an egg (for population control) that was far along, because we didn't want to be cruel. We would candle the eggs to stage them, and any that were far along we would put in the incubator and raise.
So late abortion in my thing, and I think abortion should be illegal after 12 weeks, unless for medical reasons. I'd almost rather we make very early abortion very easy to get, and abortion after a few weeks very difficult to get.
So late abortion is my
However, LATE abortion for elective reasons is barbarous. Oddly, I base that on my experience raising birds. Break open an egg with a developed embryo and watch it struggle and gasp as it dies. Break open a newly laid egg, and the embryo is a red dot. My fellow bird keepers and I had an unwritten rule that we wouldn't destroy an egg (for population control) that was far along, because we didn't want to be cruel. We would candle the eggs to stage them, and any that were far along we would put in the incubator and raise.
So late abortion in my thing, and I think abortion should be illegal after 12 weeks, unless for medical reasons. I'd almost rather we make very early abortion very easy to get, and abortion after a few weeks very difficult to get.
So late abortion is my
Posted by: stace at January 25, 2015 12:19 PM (FO7Ul)
152
146 -
I guess it doesn't, but on the other side of the ledger there are all the arguments regarding how it is NOT just, such as false convictions, disparate number of poor minorities being subject to it, questions regarding the mental capacity of many of those convicted of capital crimes, etc.
Or simply put, as it was so well-stated above: I don't trust the state to get most everything else right, what would make me think they're not also screwing up capital crime sentencing?
I guess it doesn't, but on the other side of the ledger there are all the arguments regarding how it is NOT just, such as false convictions, disparate number of poor minorities being subject to it, questions regarding the mental capacity of many of those convicted of capital crimes, etc.
Or simply put, as it was so well-stated above: I don't trust the state to get most everything else right, what would make me think they're not also screwing up capital crime sentencing?
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:19 PM (Dj0WE)
153
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 12:15 PM (ThxKk)
Clearly you have no inner anti-Semite to channel.
Horns....Jews.....
Get off my lawn.
Clearly you have no inner anti-Semite to channel.
Horns....Jews.....
Get off my lawn.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 12:20 PM (Zu3d9)
154
"Amphimixis does not create a viable human being. If you think so, try taking it out of the mother. A fertilized egg does not think, nor is it self-aware. It could plausibly be argued that this is a potential human. Just as a skin cell that can be made pluripotent is a potential human. "
The ability to think has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a zygote is a human organism. It is not a "potential human" it is a human being. Do you want me to pull up a bunch of random quote pulls from scientific journals, because you know I can do that, but I think we can all agree that it is a waste of time.
As for other types of cells, somatic cells used for cloning can be developed into organisms, but only by inserting it's material into the ovum, and creating...an embryo, in which case we are right back where we started with embryo being fully capable of human development and thus deserving of protection, which undermines rather than strengthens your claims.
Without that key aspect, you've just got a pile of cells which, though alive, are incapable of of becoming a human organism and thus have the moral equivalency of a sperm that's never found it's match. Tattoo away.
The ability to think has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a zygote is a human organism. It is not a "potential human" it is a human being. Do you want me to pull up a bunch of random quote pulls from scientific journals, because you know I can do that, but I think we can all agree that it is a waste of time.
As for other types of cells, somatic cells used for cloning can be developed into organisms, but only by inserting it's material into the ovum, and creating...an embryo, in which case we are right back where we started with embryo being fully capable of human development and thus deserving of protection, which undermines rather than strengthens your claims.
Without that key aspect, you've just got a pile of cells which, though alive, are incapable of of becoming a human organism and thus have the moral equivalency of a sperm that's never found it's match. Tattoo away.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 12:20 PM (MYCIw)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:21 PM (Dj0WE)
156
I put a funny link in the sidebar (about the IRS) in case you guys want some fresh fodder.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 12:22 PM (9BRsg)
157
@123 Secundus, agree.. Why don't you and naturalfake work this part out.
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 12:10 PM (8CYQ6)
Huh?
Naturalfake thinks an embryo is a human life, which has nothing to do with what anything I said. Once again for the cheap seats, I'm saying:
The "What happens to rape victims" argument against banning abortion isn't credible because A) most rational humans are capable of seeing the distinction between a rape victim and someone who simply doesn't want to be bothered with a kid, and B) a 100% abortion ban under our present societal system is about as likely as our being invaded by spacemen from Pluto, one of the reasons for which is "A".
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 12:10 PM (8CYQ6)
Huh?
Naturalfake thinks an embryo is a human life, which has nothing to do with what anything I said. Once again for the cheap seats, I'm saying:
The "What happens to rape victims" argument against banning abortion isn't credible because A) most rational humans are capable of seeing the distinction between a rape victim and someone who simply doesn't want to be bothered with a kid, and B) a 100% abortion ban under our present societal system is about as likely as our being invaded by spacemen from Pluto, one of the reasons for which is "A".
Posted by: Secundus at January 25, 2015 12:22 PM (COeS5)
158
The SCOTUS enabled abortion pre-viability.
that being the case,states should be able to regulate late abortions.
that being the case,states should be able to regulate late abortions.
Posted by: avi at January 25, 2015 12:24 PM (viqX2)
159
You can't just go around killing people because they're inconvenient.
You can't just go around killing people because they're inconvenient.
Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at January 25, 2015 12:25 PM (dFi94)
160
Or simply put, as it was so well-stated above: I don't trust the state to get most everything else right, what would make me think they're not also screwing up capital crime sentencing?
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:19 PM (Dj0WE)
-----------------------
Using your argument, the same could be said about life without parole. We, as a society, have to have some faith in our system, or else we get anarchy.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:19 PM (Dj0WE)
-----------------------
Using your argument, the same could be said about life without parole. We, as a society, have to have some faith in our system, or else we get anarchy.
Posted by: Soona at January 25, 2015 12:26 PM (j0WXm)
161
Secundus,
Here's the issue. There is no logical way to support abortion in the cases of rape, but not other cases. There just isn't. Either abortion kills a human being, or it doesn't. If it does, the circumstance of that child's conception are completely inconsequential to the child's right to not be killed.
Politically we can argue that we must embrace an illogical conclusion for some greater purpose, but from a purely ethical stand point, there is no way to make a rape exception work.
Feel free to try, but I've never seen it done.
Here's the issue. There is no logical way to support abortion in the cases of rape, but not other cases. There just isn't. Either abortion kills a human being, or it doesn't. If it does, the circumstance of that child's conception are completely inconsequential to the child's right to not be killed.
Politically we can argue that we must embrace an illogical conclusion for some greater purpose, but from a purely ethical stand point, there is no way to make a rape exception work.
Feel free to try, but I've never seen it done.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 12:27 PM (MYCIw)
162
in which case we are right back where we started with embryo being
fully capable of human development and thus deserving of protection,
which undermines rather than strengthens your claims
In fact, it makes my point. An embryo, by your definition {fully capable of human development}, is a potential human being. If it is already a human being, no development is required.
fully capable of human development and thus deserving of protection,
which undermines rather than strengthens your claims
In fact, it makes my point. An embryo, by your definition {fully capable of human development}, is a potential human being. If it is already a human being, no development is required.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 12:27 PM (4nR9/)
163
In fact, it makes my point. An embryo, by your definition {fully capable of human development}, is a potential human being. If it is already a human being, no development is required.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 12:27 PM (4nR9/)
What species is a Monarch Butterfly Caterpillar?
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 12:27 PM (4nR9/)
What species is a Monarch Butterfly Caterpillar?
Posted by: buzzion at January 25, 2015 12:30 PM (zt+N6)
164
100% of all scientists (and non-scientists) believe life can not begin without conception, but not all 100% of them believe life begins at conception. That's always been puzzling to me.
I'm pro-life and I chose to marry a woman who shares that view. We're happy with the idea if someone chooses to take the life of an unborn child, it isn't my or her decision to make; let their conscience be their guide.
Even with that libertarian viewpoint, I can't help but hope those who choose to do so are wracked with guilt and feel remorse for what they have done. Is that wrong?
I'm pro-life and I chose to marry a woman who shares that view. We're happy with the idea if someone chooses to take the life of an unborn child, it isn't my or her decision to make; let their conscience be their guide.
Even with that libertarian viewpoint, I can't help but hope those who choose to do so are wracked with guilt and feel remorse for what they have done. Is that wrong?
Posted by: Hank at January 25, 2015 12:30 PM (EU/xj)
165
" If it is already a human being, no development is required."
You're joking, right? Development occurs throughout the human life span. An infant is not even self aware (and there are some that argue that this level of development is not sufficient for personhood to be granted to them) can not move, can not even smile except as a response to gas, and most importantly, can not survive without being constantly cared for by an adult.
A zygote is a stage in human development, just as infant, child, and teenager are stages in human development. None is more or less human than the others, although I would say the teenager may be a strong contender in the "less" category.
You're joking, right? Development occurs throughout the human life span. An infant is not even self aware (and there are some that argue that this level of development is not sufficient for personhood to be granted to them) can not move, can not even smile except as a response to gas, and most importantly, can not survive without being constantly cared for by an adult.
A zygote is a stage in human development, just as infant, child, and teenager are stages in human development. None is more or less human than the others, although I would say the teenager may be a strong contender in the "less" category.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 12:31 PM (MYCIw)
166
Los Angeles:
Over the last two years, street encampments have jumped their historic boundaries in downtown Los Angeles, lining freeways and filling underpasses from Echo Park to South Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, a city-county agency, received 767 calls about street encampments in 2014, up 60% from the 479 in 2013.
Some residents believe the city is exporting its downtown homeless problem to their neighborhoods. But social service agencies and volunteers say it isn't that simple. They say that although downtown development and skid row cleanups are squeezing out some homeless people, many camps are filled with locals.
Seattle:
"We know that there are good and effective programs that have helped and housed many people. Yet we have not matched capacity with the need," said Alison Eisinger, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness.
In all, volunteers found 3,772 people.
The majority -- 2,813 -- was found in Seattle where the number of people without shelter rose by more than 500 over last year. The number more than doubled in Kent, to 135, and climbed in Auburn, to 132.
DENVER
Chris Easterling was sick of relying on drug dealers in Minneapolis when he needed marijuana to help ease the pain of multiple sclerosis. They were flaky, often leaving the homeless man without the drug when he needed relief the most.
So he moved to Denver, where legal pot dispensaries are plentiful and accessible.
Easterling is among a growing number of homeless people who have recently come to Colorado seeking its legal marijuana and who now remain in the state and occupy beds in shelters, service providers say.
Over the last two years, street encampments have jumped their historic boundaries in downtown Los Angeles, lining freeways and filling underpasses from Echo Park to South Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, a city-county agency, received 767 calls about street encampments in 2014, up 60% from the 479 in 2013.
Some residents believe the city is exporting its downtown homeless problem to their neighborhoods. But social service agencies and volunteers say it isn't that simple. They say that although downtown development and skid row cleanups are squeezing out some homeless people, many camps are filled with locals.
Seattle:
"We know that there are good and effective programs that have helped and housed many people. Yet we have not matched capacity with the need," said Alison Eisinger, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness.
In all, volunteers found 3,772 people.
The majority -- 2,813 -- was found in Seattle where the number of people without shelter rose by more than 500 over last year. The number more than doubled in Kent, to 135, and climbed in Auburn, to 132.
DENVER
Chris Easterling was sick of relying on drug dealers in Minneapolis when he needed marijuana to help ease the pain of multiple sclerosis. They were flaky, often leaving the homeless man without the drug when he needed relief the most.
So he moved to Denver, where legal pot dispensaries are plentiful and accessible.
Easterling is among a growing number of homeless people who have recently come to Colorado seeking its legal marijuana and who now remain in the state and occupy beds in shelters, service providers say.
Posted by: John C. Maxwell at January 25, 2015 12:31 PM (e8kgV)
167
None is more or less human than the others, although I would say the teenager may be a strong contender in the "less" category.
At last, a point of agreement.
At last, a point of agreement.
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 12:32 PM (4nR9/)
168
161 Secundus,
Here's the issue. There is no logical way to support abortion in the cases of rape, but not other cases. There just isn't. Either abortion kills a human being, or it doesn't. If it does, the circumstance of that child's conception are completely inconsequential to the child's right to not be killed.
Politically we can argue that we must embrace an illogical conclusion for some greater purpose, but from a purely ethical stand point, there is no way to make a rape exception work.
Feel free to try, but I've never seen it done.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 12:27 PM (MYCIw)
very correct from an ethical point
. although i have heard the argument that it punishes the woman twice made, but that doesn't mitigate whether or not a fetus is a human .
Here's the issue. There is no logical way to support abortion in the cases of rape, but not other cases. There just isn't. Either abortion kills a human being, or it doesn't. If it does, the circumstance of that child's conception are completely inconsequential to the child's right to not be killed.
Politically we can argue that we must embrace an illogical conclusion for some greater purpose, but from a purely ethical stand point, there is no way to make a rape exception work.
Feel free to try, but I've never seen it done.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 12:27 PM (MYCIw)
very correct from an ethical point
. although i have heard the argument that it punishes the woman twice made, but that doesn't mitigate whether or not a fetus is a human .
Posted by: avi at January 25, 2015 12:32 PM (viqX2)
169
None is more or less human than the others, although I would say the teenager may be a strong contender in the "less" category.
------------------
Having gone through it 4 times, you may have a point.
------------------
Having gone through it 4 times, you may have a point.
Posted by: flmomof4 at January 25, 2015 12:33 PM (nSjrf)
170
17 >> The impact of lowbirthrate is hard:see Japan and Europe, labor issues,
cultural issues, and their attendant 2nd and 3rd order effects. I guess
this might be in category of national security?
Japan has very strict laws regarding, and limiting, abortion. So does Europe to a lesser extent. Both are more restrictive than the US; both have lower birth rates.
46 >> Does "Ban Abortion" == "Forced to have children"?
Yes. And not only that, but the mother can (and has and will for the foreseeable future) be charged with injury to a child by drinking too much or using drugs during pregnancy or other behavior non-conducive to good fetus development.
Personally, I feel that the 20 week threshold that Congress attempted and failed to put forth is the best compromise available for both sides. Anything stricter will never pass, not even the Supreme Court will go for it.
cultural issues, and their attendant 2nd and 3rd order effects. I guess
this might be in category of national security?
Japan has very strict laws regarding, and limiting, abortion. So does Europe to a lesser extent. Both are more restrictive than the US; both have lower birth rates.
46 >> Does "Ban Abortion" == "Forced to have children"?
Yes. And not only that, but the mother can (and has and will for the foreseeable future) be charged with injury to a child by drinking too much or using drugs during pregnancy or other behavior non-conducive to good fetus development.
Personally, I feel that the 20 week threshold that Congress attempted and failed to put forth is the best compromise available for both sides. Anything stricter will never pass, not even the Supreme Court will go for it.
Posted by: GnuBreed at January 25, 2015 12:35 PM (KGInK)
171
Even with that libertarian viewpoint, I can't help but hope those who choose to do so are wracked with guilt and feel remorse for what they have done. Is that wrong?
I don't think you have to hope for that to occur. I think in the majority of cases it DOES occur.
I also think that many people who argue vehemently for abortion are those who have gone thru it themselves and are desperately seeking to justify their actions.
I don't think you have to hope for that to occur. I think in the majority of cases it DOES occur.
I also think that many people who argue vehemently for abortion are those who have gone thru it themselves and are desperately seeking to justify their actions.
Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at January 25, 2015 12:35 PM (dFi94)
172
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 12:27 PM (MYCIw)
God damn it, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying the argument of extremes-- the "all or nothing"-- isn't within the realm of possibility and is, therefore, a dishonest waste of time. Short of an oppressive regime that's deeply invested in population growth, an across the board abortion ban simply isn't going to happen. Thus, the "What about the rape victims" argument becomes an irrelevant appeal to emotion.
Which brings me to your post: Logically, you're right. I agree with you. There is no detectable difference between an embryo conceived through love and one conceived through force. HOWEVER, people don't think logically, and don't act logically, and sure as shit don't make laws logically, especially about things like *that*.
God damn it, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying the argument of extremes-- the "all or nothing"-- isn't within the realm of possibility and is, therefore, a dishonest waste of time. Short of an oppressive regime that's deeply invested in population growth, an across the board abortion ban simply isn't going to happen. Thus, the "What about the rape victims" argument becomes an irrelevant appeal to emotion.
Which brings me to your post: Logically, you're right. I agree with you. There is no detectable difference between an embryo conceived through love and one conceived through force. HOWEVER, people don't think logically, and don't act logically, and sure as shit don't make laws logically, especially about things like *that*.
Posted by: Secundus at January 25, 2015 12:35 PM (COeS5)
173
"HOWEVER, people don't think logically, and don't act logically, and sure as shit don't make laws logically, especially about things like *that*. "
That I can't argue with. 52%ers unite and take over *sob sob sob*
And you're right, politically we won't do a damn thing beyond the same pecking at the edges that we've done for the past 42 years.
That I can't argue with. 52%ers unite and take over *sob sob sob*
And you're right, politically we won't do a damn thing beyond the same pecking at the edges that we've done for the past 42 years.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 12:38 PM (MYCIw)
174
(CNN) F-16 fighter jets escorted two passenger planes into Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport on Saturday after a bomb threat made on Twitter was deemed credible, according to military officials.
Southwest Airlines Flight 2492 and Delta Flight 1156 landed safely at the airport and were searched by bomb disposal units, according to airline officials. Nothing out of the ordinary was found, officials said.
One runway was closed temporarily, causing delays for other flights as passengers on the two flights were questioned and their luggage was searched by bomb-sniffing dogs, officials said.
Southwest Airlines Flight 2492 and Delta Flight 1156 landed safely at the airport and were searched by bomb disposal units, according to airline officials. Nothing out of the ordinary was found, officials said.
One runway was closed temporarily, causing delays for other flights as passengers on the two flights were questioned and their luggage was searched by bomb-sniffing dogs, officials said.
Posted by: John C. Maxwell at January 25, 2015 12:38 PM (e8kgV)
175
My view on the death penalty and abortion is simple:
Some people just need killing. Babies are never part of that group.
Some people just need killing. Babies are never part of that group.
Posted by: votermom at January 25, 2015 12:38 PM (HiSDK)
176
Take for example, the People's Republic of China.
For many years, the one child policy has been in effect. The consequence has been that people have selected for male children, and a lot of girl babies have ended up in orphanages.
I am not able to psychoanalyze 1.5 billion Chinese, but I do note that there is a rapidly growing underground Church in China, that is not approved of by the Central Government.
Even in China, there is an underground revulsion to what is going on as "public policy".
For many years, the one child policy has been in effect. The consequence has been that people have selected for male children, and a lot of girl babies have ended up in orphanages.
I am not able to psychoanalyze 1.5 billion Chinese, but I do note that there is a rapidly growing underground Church in China, that is not approved of by the Central Government.
Even in China, there is an underground revulsion to what is going on as "public policy".
Posted by: Bossy Conservative....in the bleak midwinter at January 25, 2015 12:38 PM (+1T7c)
177
People are not property. You simply can't dispose of them as you wish. We fought a war that settled this particular question.
Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at January 25, 2015 12:38 PM (dFi94)
178
The new reality opening before us is that the almighty State will have the power of life or death over all of us. The ACA will weigh the value of all of our lives and either apply or withhold treatment accordingly. The decision will be made by total strangers living thousands of miles away, unless you live near DC.
Posted by: navybrat at January 25, 2015 12:39 PM (JgC5a)
179
160 -
Of course "life without parole" CAN be reversed if necessary. Whereas death, cannot.
I agree, we do have to draw the line somewhere, and really, this is where my ambivalence kicks in. If we draw it where you want, I'm not going to argue too loudly.
Of course "life without parole" CAN be reversed if necessary. Whereas death, cannot.
I agree, we do have to draw the line somewhere, and really, this is where my ambivalence kicks in. If we draw it where you want, I'm not going to argue too loudly.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:40 PM (Dj0WE)
180
For many years, the one child policy has been in effect. The consequence has been that people have selected for male children, and a lot of girl babies have ended up in orphanages
The lucky ones end up in orphanages.
The lucky ones end up in orphanages.
Posted by: buzzion at January 25, 2015 12:41 PM (zt+N6)
181
"I also think that many people who argue vehemently for abortion are those who have gone thru it themselves and are desperately seeking to justify their actions."
Oh, definitely. At the abortion site that where I was a mod I'd say at least 70% of our pro-abortion commenters were post-abortive.
Then there was ZoMG. He was a commenter who was actually quite logical and reasonable. He talked about things other than abortion like opera and writing. He was sort of a more logical Mr. Moo Moo.
Then he was arrested for plotting to kill several prominent pro-lifers in retribution for Tiller's death. Last I heard he was just released.
I stepped down after that.
Oh, definitely. At the abortion site that where I was a mod I'd say at least 70% of our pro-abortion commenters were post-abortive.
Then there was ZoMG. He was a commenter who was actually quite logical and reasonable. He talked about things other than abortion like opera and writing. He was sort of a more logical Mr. Moo Moo.
Then he was arrested for plotting to kill several prominent pro-lifers in retribution for Tiller's death. Last I heard he was just released.
I stepped down after that.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 12:41 PM (MYCIw)
182
NFL, you are not arguing my points in good faith, however back to yours, "science" says no such thing anymore than it does with AGW or any other appeal to presumed authority. But let's just say, for sake of argument it does. Then there are no exceptions as I stated in my other roundly mocked comment. Such is all well and good. But you're in a very small minority that believes so. Not that such matters in right and wrong, but does matter if you want to have your view make any impact. For that you will need to convince many, many more people who are far less willing to consider your view than I am. With this line of attack, I seriously doubt your efforts will show any fruit. Who is the clown?
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 12:06 PM (8CYQ6)
Well, one, thanks for promoting me to sports league status.
Two, you're still squirming around.
Let's have basic definitions or your points are literally based on nothing.
You can't simply wave away the most salient point which is, in your case and all abortion cases,-
what is the fetus if not human life?
And I don't know what kind of 'science' you're reading but biology, zoology, cytology, oncology, just about any "-ology" you care to name supports that a fetus is a human being.
Maybe the "-ology" you've been reading is Scientology, but I seriously doubt they even hold your "I don't know what it is" view.
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 12:06 PM (8CYQ6)
Well, one, thanks for promoting me to sports league status.
Two, you're still squirming around.
Let's have basic definitions or your points are literally based on nothing.
You can't simply wave away the most salient point which is, in your case and all abortion cases,-
what is the fetus if not human life?
And I don't know what kind of 'science' you're reading but biology, zoology, cytology, oncology, just about any "-ology" you care to name supports that a fetus is a human being.
Maybe the "-ology" you've been reading is Scientology, but I seriously doubt they even hold your "I don't know what it is" view.
Posted by: naturalfake at January 25, 2015 12:41 PM (KBvAm)
Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at January 25, 2015 12:43 PM (dFi94)
184
Thanks for this thread, Y-Not.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 25, 2015 12:44 PM (mB6ez)
185
>>For many years, the one child policy has been in effect. The
consequence has been that people have selected for male children, and a
lot of girl babies have ended up in orphanages.
Or aborted.
Sex-selective abortion is happening all over the world. Saw an article about how common it has become in the UK a few months ago. That will be an issue when populations get too unbalanced (and who know where that line is?).
But just as Lauren's pro-life well-stated case is an absolute, so too is the right to abortion. If you believe it's OK to abort a baby with Downs, than it's OK to abort one because it's a girl, or it's one multiple too many, or you've just gotten into an excellent PhD program and can't spare the time.
consequence has been that people have selected for male children, and a
lot of girl babies have ended up in orphanages.
Or aborted.
Sex-selective abortion is happening all over the world. Saw an article about how common it has become in the UK a few months ago. That will be an issue when populations get too unbalanced (and who know where that line is?).
But just as Lauren's pro-life well-stated case is an absolute, so too is the right to abortion. If you believe it's OK to abort a baby with Downs, than it's OK to abort one because it's a girl, or it's one multiple too many, or you've just gotten into an excellent PhD program and can't spare the time.
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 12:45 PM (ABcz/)
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 12:46 PM (9BRsg)
187
If you have a rape exception for abortion with abortion otherwise illegal, I guarantee you will see a statistical jump by several orders of magnitude in the numbers of "rapes" that occur. Not that they actually happened of course, but the box will be checked just to circumvent the law.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 25, 2015 12:46 PM (mx5oN)
188
If you believe it's OK to abort a baby with Downs, than it's OK to abort one because it's a girl, or it's one multiple too many, or you've just gotten into an excellent PhD program and can't spare the time.
Like I say. You can't just go around killing people because they're inconvenient.
Like I say. You can't just go around killing people because they're inconvenient.
Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at January 25, 2015 12:47 PM (dFi94)
189
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."
Posted by: HugoStiglitz at January 25, 2015 12:47 PM (Moh0M)
190
173 -
I happen to know there are pro-abortion types who get blue in the face when they talk about "lack of access" to abortions in large chunks of the country.
Progress can, and has been made at the edges. It's worth not giving up on trying to battle it there.
Because, and this is something about which I think we can all agree: Abortions in this country WILL NOT be outlawed completely unless and until the day arrives when they have no practical benefit to those who want them. We aren't going to suddenly make all those women into murderers. We just aren't.
I happen to know there are pro-abortion types who get blue in the face when they talk about "lack of access" to abortions in large chunks of the country.
Progress can, and has been made at the edges. It's worth not giving up on trying to battle it there.
Because, and this is something about which I think we can all agree: Abortions in this country WILL NOT be outlawed completely unless and until the day arrives when they have no practical benefit to those who want them. We aren't going to suddenly make all those women into murderers. We just aren't.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:47 PM (Dj0WE)
191
183
what is the fetus if not human life?
Maybe it's just, say, three-fifths of person.
Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at January 25, 2015 12:43 PM (dFi94)
Then you can kill it two-fifths of the way.
what is the fetus if not human life?
Maybe it's just, say, three-fifths of person.
Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at January 25, 2015 12:43 PM (dFi94)
Then you can kill it two-fifths of the way.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 25, 2015 12:47 PM (mx5oN)
192
Like I say. You can't just go around killing people because they're inconvenient.
The IPAB and I disagree.
The IPAB and I disagree.
Posted by: Zeke Emmanuel at January 25, 2015 12:48 PM (mx5oN)
193
As a society we place great importance on the taking of life. When the state takes a life by capital punishment, we (collectively, as citizens) make the utmost effort to determine the person's guilt, allow appeals, and do our best to make the process humane. And we reserve execution for only the most dreadful crimes -- especially, of course, the crime of murder itself.
Yet the "pro-choice" side demands that sixteen-year-old girls (who can't drive, buy liquor, or enter into contracts) be given the right to unilaterally condemn their unborn children to death for the crime of POTENTIALLY BEING INCONVENIENT.
Yet the "pro-choice" side demands that sixteen-year-old girls (who can't drive, buy liquor, or enter into contracts) be given the right to unilaterally condemn their unborn children to death for the crime of POTENTIALLY BEING INCONVENIENT.
Posted by: Trimegistus at January 25, 2015 12:49 PM (/eOcU)
194
Yet the "pro-choice" side demands that sixteen-year-old girls (who can't drive, buy liquor, or enter into contracts) be given the right to unilaterally condemn their unborn children to death for the crime of POTENTIALLY BEING INCONVENIENT.
I will not be denied.
I will not be denied.
Posted by: Moloch at January 25, 2015 12:50 PM (mx5oN)
195
The high holy one said to stop breeding like rabbits. Central planners have faith in their beliefs, abortion will help save us from the human condition. The alternative is wars and the like. We can afford to loose a few million each day and save the mother ship. Wink, wink.
Public Policy embraces all, enriches a few, and has no soul.
Public Policy embraces all, enriches a few, and has no soul.
Posted by: Not the moma at January 25, 2015 12:51 PM (U1xQZ)
196
Singer and all others arguing for abortion need to read and to think about "Horton Hears a Who," by Dr. Seuss.
What are unborn children but Whos?
What are unborn children but Whos?
Posted by: Supreme Being at January 25, 2015 12:53 PM (SJ184)
197
>>Like I say. You can't just go around killing people because they're inconvenient.
Yep. And while pro-life people are constantly asked to justify not allowing an abortion to a rape victim, pro-choice people rarely have to justify late-term abortion, sex-selective abortion, or forced abortion by the state in China.
Feminists especially need to justify the latter two. I know there are crazies like Amanda Marcotte who can and do, but I think a lot of people who are pro-choice by default (i.e. haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it, but don't like the idea of a gov't telling a woman what to do) will rightly be creeped out by those who are on board for killing any time, under any conditions because "Choice!"
Yep. And while pro-life people are constantly asked to justify not allowing an abortion to a rape victim, pro-choice people rarely have to justify late-term abortion, sex-selective abortion, or forced abortion by the state in China.
Feminists especially need to justify the latter two. I know there are crazies like Amanda Marcotte who can and do, but I think a lot of people who are pro-choice by default (i.e. haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it, but don't like the idea of a gov't telling a woman what to do) will rightly be creeped out by those who are on board for killing any time, under any conditions because "Choice!"
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 12:53 PM (ABcz/)
198
I used to hear the pro-abortion slogan "Every child a wanted child". Among other things, they said, this would cut down on child abuse and neglect, and strengthen families.
How's that workin out for ya?
How's that workin out for ya?
Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at January 25, 2015 12:53 PM (dFi94)
199
I probably have nothing useful to add to this thread. Let me just say that in my line of work I have seen oh too many dead babies. I have put a catheter into the heart of an 800 gram premature baby in order to save his life, knowing that if I made a wrong move I would be the active agent of his death.
I am so tired of the off-handed way the death cult of abortion treats these most innocent of us. They are oh so worried about the psychologic trauma of a woman who was raped having to undergo childbirth that they can sweep away with the wave of a hand the life-and-death trauma experienced by a 27 week late term aborted fetus. I can't wrap my mind around that false equivalence.
No more dead babies, please. I am just so tired...
I am so tired of the off-handed way the death cult of abortion treats these most innocent of us. They are oh so worried about the psychologic trauma of a woman who was raped having to undergo childbirth that they can sweep away with the wave of a hand the life-and-death trauma experienced by a 27 week late term aborted fetus. I can't wrap my mind around that false equivalence.
No more dead babies, please. I am just so tired...
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at January 25, 2015 12:54 PM (NeFrd)
Posted by: hepcat at January 25, 2015 12:54 PM (IeR2g)
201
So ... looks like the Communists are taking complete control of Greece.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at January 25, 2015 12:55 PM (ZPrif)
202
The lucky ones end up in orphanages.
Posted by: buzzion
The number for forced abortions and voluntary abortions must be astounding. I do not think that the Chinese are soulless monsters (well, at least most of them). I think that many know there is something deeply sick at the root of their society, and they hunger for something more.
People invent all sorts of elaborate rationalizations to get through every day.
Posted by: buzzion
The number for forced abortions and voluntary abortions must be astounding. I do not think that the Chinese are soulless monsters (well, at least most of them). I think that many know there is something deeply sick at the root of their society, and they hunger for something more.
People invent all sorts of elaborate rationalizations to get through every day.
Posted by: Bossy Conservative....in the bleak midwinter at January 25, 2015 12:56 PM (+1T7c)
203
>>I used to hear the pro-abortion slogan "Every child a wanted child".
Among other things, they said, this would cut down on child abuse and
neglect, and strengthen families.
Yeah, wanted by whom? My husband was "unwanted" by his birth parents, yet very much wanted by his adopted family. Oh, and there are many more of us who definitely want him in our lives, too!
Among other things, they said, this would cut down on child abuse and
neglect, and strengthen families.
Yeah, wanted by whom? My husband was "unwanted" by his birth parents, yet very much wanted by his adopted family. Oh, and there are many more of us who definitely want him in our lives, too!
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 12:56 PM (ABcz/)
204
Of course a fetus is alive, for crying out loud. It's consuming nutrients, expelling waste, responding to stimuli.
I've never needed any theological basis to oppose abortion. I would think opposition would be the default position of any thinking, moral human being. Of course social, political, cultural influences might shift someone off that point, but nobody who I'd consider a normal person can think that destroying a person before they are born isn't catastrophic, the ultimate failure of life, and in our society, a subsidized and heartily encouraged failure. They might find what they consider a counterbalance to that initial horror, like "Laws off my body!", but that doesn't reduce the reality of the horror they're advocating.
I've never needed any theological basis to oppose abortion. I would think opposition would be the default position of any thinking, moral human being. Of course social, political, cultural influences might shift someone off that point, but nobody who I'd consider a normal person can think that destroying a person before they are born isn't catastrophic, the ultimate failure of life, and in our society, a subsidized and heartily encouraged failure. They might find what they consider a counterbalance to that initial horror, like "Laws off my body!", but that doesn't reduce the reality of the horror they're advocating.
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 25, 2015 12:57 PM (2cS/G)
205
No more dead babies, please. I am just so tired...
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at January 25, 2015 12:54 PM (NeFrd)
God bless and encourage you, Muldoon.
No more dead babies, please. I am just so tired...
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at January 25, 2015 12:54 PM (NeFrd)
God bless and encourage you, Muldoon.
Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at January 25, 2015 12:57 PM (dFi94)
206
196 -
I never read the book, and I believe there was a more recent animated movie, but the original cartoon appears to be more about being anti-anti-communist.
Without knowing for sure, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the writers/producers of that cartoon were somewhere mixed up with the Hollywood black list business, either directly or on the periphery.
I never read the book, and I believe there was a more recent animated movie, but the original cartoon appears to be more about being anti-anti-communist.
Without knowing for sure, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the writers/producers of that cartoon were somewhere mixed up with the Hollywood black list business, either directly or on the periphery.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 12:59 PM (Dj0WE)
207
God bless you, Muldoon.
My oldest was saved thanks to a wonderful doctor like you who dedicated his life to trying to save the tiniest of babies. Thank you for what you do. I promise that the parents of your patients never, ever forget you.
My oldest was saved thanks to a wonderful doctor like you who dedicated his life to trying to save the tiniest of babies. Thank you for what you do. I promise that the parents of your patients never, ever forget you.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 01:01 PM (MYCIw)
208
Bless you, Muldoon. My son had heart surgery shortly after he was born and it's just a miracle what people like you can do!
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 01:02 PM (ABcz/)
209
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 12:53 PM (ABcz/)
That's easy. Radical agendas like that are antagonistic in nature-- by which I mean they exist not for any productive purpose, but simply in order to be in opposition to their perceived enemy. The Chinese aborting girls is a producing asset for those who make rent off Smash the Oppressors. Since events in Africa and the Middle East have proven pretty conclusively that radical feminists don't give a wet fart about actual oppressed women, I think this makes sense.
The Chinese are statists. Talk as they might, the Amanda Marcottes of the world don't actually have the ability to enforce their will without state power-- their efforts to End the Patriarchy are dependent on men with guns. Statists gonna state.
That's easy. Radical agendas like that are antagonistic in nature-- by which I mean they exist not for any productive purpose, but simply in order to be in opposition to their perceived enemy. The Chinese aborting girls is a producing asset for those who make rent off Smash the Oppressors. Since events in Africa and the Middle East have proven pretty conclusively that radical feminists don't give a wet fart about actual oppressed women, I think this makes sense.
The Chinese are statists. Talk as they might, the Amanda Marcottes of the world don't actually have the ability to enforce their will without state power-- their efforts to End the Patriarchy are dependent on men with guns. Statists gonna state.
Posted by: Secundus at January 25, 2015 01:02 PM (COeS5)
210
"I am so tired of the off-handed way the death cult of abortion treats these most innocent of us."
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at January 25, 2015 12:54 PM (NeFrd)
Yes. Exactly.
Thank you.
Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at January 25, 2015 12:54 PM (NeFrd)
Yes. Exactly.
Thank you.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 25, 2015 01:02 PM (Zu3d9)
211
"People invent all sorts of elaborate rationalizations to get through every day."
Over the past few years there have been some absolutely heartbreaking stories coming out of China of mothers being forced to abort at 8 or 9 months pregnant. Literally ripped from their homes, and tied to a bed. And yet...crickets.
Over the past few years there have been some absolutely heartbreaking stories coming out of China of mothers being forced to abort at 8 or 9 months pregnant. Literally ripped from their homes, and tied to a bed. And yet...crickets.
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 01:03 PM (MYCIw)
212
203 -
The truly sad, tragic, horrible arithmetic here is that the eugenics got exactly what they wanted. Fewer undesirables having babies (the number of pregnancies ending in abortion hover around 25-30%, and among black women, well over 50%), leading to lower crime rates, less poverty, etc...
Except it hasn't. Yes, there are fewer violent crimes in large cities, which is attributable to lots of things, but look at what is happening in these communities. The atrocities are nearly endless.
Self-inflicted or not, black America is certainly not better off because these women are aborting more of their babies. Hitler and Stalin rot in hell, but they sit in awe of what Margaret Sanger and her ilk have wrought, as she sits at the right hand of Satan.
The truly sad, tragic, horrible arithmetic here is that the eugenics got exactly what they wanted. Fewer undesirables having babies (the number of pregnancies ending in abortion hover around 25-30%, and among black women, well over 50%), leading to lower crime rates, less poverty, etc...
Except it hasn't. Yes, there are fewer violent crimes in large cities, which is attributable to lots of things, but look at what is happening in these communities. The atrocities are nearly endless.
Self-inflicted or not, black America is certainly not better off because these women are aborting more of their babies. Hitler and Stalin rot in hell, but they sit in awe of what Margaret Sanger and her ilk have wrought, as she sits at the right hand of Satan.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 01:05 PM (Dj0WE)
213
I feel certain that this comment will have many contributors to Ace of Spades angry with me. I think there is too much sentimentality and moralism around this whole issue. I am a psychoanalyst; I work with infants and parents; I head an infant, child and adolescent psychoanalytic training program; I treat adults, too. Once an embryo is conceived it is on the way to personhood, through stages of fetus and neonate. Period. It has "feelings" that are appropriate to every stage of life. Any abortion is an abortion of life that one has had a part in creating. Period. Abortion is not pretty. But women/couples may choose to abort the embryo/fetus.
If this new person is to be well cared for, someone has to do it and that/those person(s) should want to, and must want to if that person is to have a chance at a decent life. The period of care lasts for at least 20 years (maybe one can shorten it to 16 - ha!) and it is expensive of time, money, emotional effort and can be productive of an abundance of joy. No one can really be forced to do this, not really.
Forget legal arguments, forget religious arguments, forget liberal/marxist arguments. We simply should agree on a time after which a fetus cannot be aborted. I vote for 3 months, 4 at the outset, unless there are unforeseen circumstances -- rape, congenital malformations that would make life a misery or impossible, etc. After 3-4 months, adoption. Period.
Put limitations on Roe V Wade, but leave it as the law of the land. A woman "owns" her own body, with certain limitations; couples can confer on reasonableness of the procedure given their ability to commit to the new person, a process I support.
If this new person is to be well cared for, someone has to do it and that/those person(s) should want to, and must want to if that person is to have a chance at a decent life. The period of care lasts for at least 20 years (maybe one can shorten it to 16 - ha!) and it is expensive of time, money, emotional effort and can be productive of an abundance of joy. No one can really be forced to do this, not really.
Forget legal arguments, forget religious arguments, forget liberal/marxist arguments. We simply should agree on a time after which a fetus cannot be aborted. I vote for 3 months, 4 at the outset, unless there are unforeseen circumstances -- rape, congenital malformations that would make life a misery or impossible, etc. After 3-4 months, adoption. Period.
Put limitations on Roe V Wade, but leave it as the law of the land. A woman "owns" her own body, with certain limitations; couples can confer on reasonableness of the procedure given their ability to commit to the new person, a process I support.
Posted by: pyromancer76 at January 25, 2015 01:06 PM (zvcr8)
214
Europe is being swept by a wave of popular disenchantment and revolt against mainstream political parties and the European Union.
In 2007, a majority of Europeans - 52 per cent - trusted the EU. That level of trust has now fallen to a third.
Once, Britain's Euroscepticism was the exception, and was seen as the biggest threat to the future of the EU.
Now, other countries pose a far bigger danger thanks to the political discontents unleashed by the euro,
In 2007, a majority of Europeans - 52 per cent - trusted the EU. That level of trust has now fallen to a third.
Once, Britain's Euroscepticism was the exception, and was seen as the biggest threat to the future of the EU.
Now, other countries pose a far bigger danger thanks to the political discontents unleashed by the euro,
Posted by: Dame Vaako at January 25, 2015 01:08 PM (e8kgV)
215
The secular view is the return of the former pagan view of life. That view held that in addition to owning your own life, you owned the lives of anyone whose support you provided, though Storge love tempered that power as one might imagine.
This was replaced with the Christian view that once you enter into a relationship with Christ, (and most everyone professed to do so) you don't even own your own life, much less someone else's.
Though I would be the Pater Familias under the pagan system, I like the Christian arrangement better.
This was replaced with the Christian view that once you enter into a relationship with Christ, (and most everyone professed to do so) you don't even own your own life, much less someone else's.
Though I would be the Pater Familias under the pagan system, I like the Christian arrangement better.
Posted by: toby928(C) at January 25, 2015 01:09 PM (rwI+c)
216
I used to hear the pro-abortion slogan "Every child a wanted child".
Wow, there's the slippery slope for all to see. "Kill whatever you don't want."
Wow, there's the slippery slope for all to see. "Kill whatever you don't want."
Posted by: t-bird at January 25, 2015 01:09 PM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Lauren at January 25, 2015 01:10 PM (MYCIw)
218
A woman "owns" her own body,
Does she or can she own the body of another? Can one person be owned by another person? Can the "owner" dispose of the body of the "owned"? In other words, are people property?
A woman "owns" her own body,
Does she or can she own the body of another? Can one person be owned by another person? Can the "owner" dispose of the body of the "owned"? In other words, are people property?
Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at January 25, 2015 01:11 PM (dFi94)
219
5 They kill them in the womb because it's the only legal way they can do it.
Once born, too late, you're stuck with an enormous responsibility.
Posted by: eman
Or give them up for adoption which is best for all involved.
Once born, too late, you're stuck with an enormous responsibility.
Posted by: eman
Or give them up for adoption which is best for all involved.
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at January 25, 2015 01:12 PM (TIgJq)
220
My pro-life stance is pretty much selfish. The person who has no qualms about destroying a fetus or, even more horrifying, condones partial-birth abortion could end up making decisions about me in my rapidly approaching old age. Not a cheerful thought.
It doesn't take a religious point of view to be in awe of life. Maybe just an appreciation of the world around us.
It doesn't take a religious point of view to be in awe of life. Maybe just an appreciation of the world around us.
Posted by: JTB at January 25, 2015 01:12 PM (FvdPb)
221
Put limitations on Roe V Wade, but leave it as the law of the land.
Your limitations are completely arbitrary and political, pretty much where we are today.
Your limitations are completely arbitrary and political, pretty much where we are today.
Posted by: toby928(C) at January 25, 2015 01:12 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at January 25, 2015 01:14 PM (dFi94)
223
213 -
I'm not entirely sure I get where you were going with your point regarding the commitment required to care for a child, but it seems to me the logical conclusion of it has more to do with how and when society intervenes in situations where bio parent(s) are failing as parents.
Seems to me there is a ton of room there for debate, regarding the costs/benefits, both financial and in several others ways otherwise.
I'm not entirely sure I get where you were going with your point regarding the commitment required to care for a child, but it seems to me the logical conclusion of it has more to do with how and when society intervenes in situations where bio parent(s) are failing as parents.
Seems to me there is a ton of room there for debate, regarding the costs/benefits, both financial and in several others ways otherwise.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 25, 2015 01:15 PM (Dj0WE)
224
Planned parenthood and any other pro-abortion initiatives could be fought legally on grounds of disparate impact. I don't have the figures at hand but the percent of black fetus' aborted is grossly out of proportion to the numbers for all other races, and may even be higher in total numbers than white people. In planned parenthood's case it can be established form the writing's of Margaret Sanger its founder that this was the intent of the organization. Lets see the democrats argue that.
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at January 25, 2015 01:17 PM (TIgJq)
Posted by: Sven10077 at January 25, 2015 01:19 PM (9ZHXx)
226
The point of delaying and rationing stuff like is that the govt is hoping if they can delay things long enough, the patient will just die.
HotAir.com @hotairblog
Anger as hearing aids are rationed by the NHS http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=318415
HotAir.com @hotairblog
Anger as hearing aids are rationed by the NHS http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=318415
Posted by: Costanza Defense at January 25, 2015 01:19 PM (ZPrif)
227
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
"Keep your laws off my body!"
I think that here, we are at the end of the road, where law is bent to meet whim and solely political favor, and not about it being a matter of justice, protection or retribution for wrongdoers.
Cut down any law that does not meet with the hedonistic demands of "the people", or whatever they have been told to be about.
A Brave New World of pleasure and non-consequences. At times, we have all wittingly or unwittingly played a part in this happening.
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
"Keep your laws off my body!"
I think that here, we are at the end of the road, where law is bent to meet whim and solely political favor, and not about it being a matter of justice, protection or retribution for wrongdoers.
Cut down any law that does not meet with the hedonistic demands of "the people", or whatever they have been told to be about.
A Brave New World of pleasure and non-consequences. At times, we have all wittingly or unwittingly played a part in this happening.
Posted by: Bossy Conservative....in the bleak midwinter at January 25, 2015 01:20 PM (+1T7c)
228
OT- For you veterans, here's a guy that will probably make you remember someone you've served with at one point or another, or at least heard stories about. Either way, I hope the poor fellow doesn't get assigned to Armor. Going Airborne might be a bit easier for him, since he can just step off the ramp onto the ground.
http://tinyurl.com/psegt7f
http://tinyurl.com/psegt7f
Posted by: Country Singer at January 25, 2015 01:21 PM (nL0sw)
229
>>The point of delaying and rationing stuff like is that the govt is
hoping if they can delay things long enough, the patient will just die.
My senior parents are particularly disturbed at the expansion and hard-selling of Palliative Care as if it was some sort of wellness program. It's not about getting well at all.
hoping if they can delay things long enough, the patient will just die.
My senior parents are particularly disturbed at the expansion and hard-selling of Palliative Care as if it was some sort of wellness program. It's not about getting well at all.
Posted by: Lizzy at January 25, 2015 01:22 PM (ABcz/)
230
In the case of executions, the question is whether or not the convicted person has lost that right.
The word Right gets used too much and Duty too little.
A States Duty of Justice requires Execution as the ultimate sanction. Nothing else stops some criminals. Nothing less is worth the burden of a State.
The word Right gets used too much and Duty too little.
A States Duty of Justice requires Execution as the ultimate sanction. Nothing else stops some criminals. Nothing less is worth the burden of a State.
Posted by: DaveA at January 25, 2015 01:22 PM (DL2i+)
231
I take Stace's view that early abortion should be solely the mothers moral choice but society should ban abortion after viability or at the very least at the 20 week point on the basis of 'can feel pain' although I did not arrive at it via raising birds. For me its a moral hazard argument.
If a women is raped, or a couple notices the condom broke and they don't want a child yet and she takes the 'day after pill' she is pretty unlikely to feel soul crushing guilt later, since she probably wasn't even pregnant.
If a women misses a period and takes the RU-486 pill she can tell herself she might not have been pregnant and if she was xx% of pregnancies miscarry in the first weeks anyway.
Even if she goes to 11 weeks and has a surgical abortion she has that miscarriage rationalization as a balm.
But if someone waits until after 20 weeks but then aborts and then years later see someone else's 20 week hi-res sonogram on social media that has to be pretty devastating.
If a women is raped, or a couple notices the condom broke and they don't want a child yet and she takes the 'day after pill' she is pretty unlikely to feel soul crushing guilt later, since she probably wasn't even pregnant.
If a women misses a period and takes the RU-486 pill she can tell herself she might not have been pregnant and if she was xx% of pregnancies miscarry in the first weeks anyway.
Even if she goes to 11 weeks and has a surgical abortion she has that miscarriage rationalization as a balm.
But if someone waits until after 20 weeks but then aborts and then years later see someone else's 20 week hi-res sonogram on social media that has to be pretty devastating.
Posted by: PaleRider at January 25, 2015 01:24 PM (7w/kf)
232
187 If you have a rape exception for abortion with abortion otherwise illegal, I guarantee you will see a statistical jump by several orders of magnitude in the numbers of "rapes" that occur. Not that they actually happened of course, but the box will be checked just to circumvent the law.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 25, 2015 12:46 PM (mx5oN)
Likely true, but if the overall number of abortions declined would it be worth it?
Posted by: Insomniac at January 25, 2015 12:46 PM (mx5oN)
Likely true, but if the overall number of abortions declined would it be worth it?
Posted by: Avi at January 25, 2015 01:25 PM (Vxe+6)
233
187 If you have a rape exception for abortion with abortion otherwise
illegal, I guarantee you will see a statistical jump by several orders
of magnitude in the numbers of "rapes" that occur. Not that they
actually happened of course, but the box will be checked just to
circumvent the law.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 25, 2015 12:46 PM (mx5oN)
Likely true, but if the overall number of abortions declined would it be worth it?
Posted by: Avi at January 25, 2015 01:25 PM (Vxe+6)
Where were you during the UVa scandal? More false rape claims are the last thing we need, since logically there's a rape suspect to go with each of those claims.
187 If you have a rape exception for abortion with abortion otherwise
illegal, I guarantee you will see a statistical jump by several orders
of magnitude in the numbers of "rapes" that occur. Not that they
actually happened of course, but the box will be checked just to
circumvent the law.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 25, 2015 12:46 PM (mx5oN)
Likely true, but if the overall number of abortions declined would it be worth it?
Posted by: Avi at January 25, 2015 01:25 PM (Vxe+6)
Where were you during the UVa scandal? More false rape claims are the last thing we need, since logically there's a rape suspect to go with each of those claims.
Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 25, 2015 01:28 PM (ThxKk)
234
54,000,000 babies have been aborted in the US since Roe v Wade. That is like killing everyone in Canada and almost everyone in Australia.
13,000,000 black babies have been aborted in the US since Roe v Wade. There were only 11,000,000 slaves imported in the the US, total.
The numbers after a while are mind-boggling.
13,000,000 black babies have been aborted in the US since Roe v Wade. There were only 11,000,000 slaves imported in the the US, total.
The numbers after a while are mind-boggling.
Posted by: MathMom at January 25, 2015 01:31 PM (5h3rv)
235
Greece just voted the communists into power.
Their one platform: to reneg on the promises the nation previously made to receive a massive bailout from the rest of Europe.
The new commie leader claim he will "renegotiate" the nation's debt, i.e. try to cajole with the EU to just give Greece a few hundred billion Euros, which nothing gotten in return. He will not succeed.
The position the communists are taking is so weak, essentially boasting that the nation is "too big to fail" and thus the EU will HAVE to bail them out, lest risking the Euro collapsing entirely. It's a asshole philosophy: Declare yourself to be such a huge problem that others must fix you. Meanwhile, he plans to dole out even more money to the nation;s tax cheat, welfare-scammers, and government employee do-nothings.
"Socialism works until yo run out of other people's money." Greece already ran out of their own money a long time ago, and now they've run out of other people's money too. In response, they voted for more socialism.
For the sake of history, to bury the fantasy of socialism forever, the EU needs to just tell Greece, "Fine, you're on your own, then." Kick them out of the Eurozone, and let the nation's economy collapse under its own socialist weight.
By propping them up once more, the EU would not only reward those who snub them, but would mask the disastrous outcome that socialism brings.
Their one platform: to reneg on the promises the nation previously made to receive a massive bailout from the rest of Europe.
The new commie leader claim he will "renegotiate" the nation's debt, i.e. try to cajole with the EU to just give Greece a few hundred billion Euros, which nothing gotten in return. He will not succeed.
The position the communists are taking is so weak, essentially boasting that the nation is "too big to fail" and thus the EU will HAVE to bail them out, lest risking the Euro collapsing entirely. It's a asshole philosophy: Declare yourself to be such a huge problem that others must fix you. Meanwhile, he plans to dole out even more money to the nation;s tax cheat, welfare-scammers, and government employee do-nothings.
"Socialism works until yo run out of other people's money." Greece already ran out of their own money a long time ago, and now they've run out of other people's money too. In response, they voted for more socialism.
For the sake of history, to bury the fantasy of socialism forever, the EU needs to just tell Greece, "Fine, you're on your own, then." Kick them out of the Eurozone, and let the nation's economy collapse under its own socialist weight.
By propping them up once more, the EU would not only reward those who snub them, but would mask the disastrous outcome that socialism brings.
Posted by: zombie at January 25, 2015 01:35 PM (K4YiS)
236
re: 235:
Ooops, wrong thread! Reposting on the new thread, where it was intended. Conversation there.
Ooops, wrong thread! Reposting on the new thread, where it was intended. Conversation there.
Posted by: zombie at January 25, 2015 01:36 PM (K4YiS)
Posted by: General Motors Corporation at January 25, 2015 01:37 PM (Zu3d9)
238
Abortion, for me, is morally equivalent to cannibalism. Yes, in exigent circumstances (your plane crashed in the Andes or your snowed-in while emigrating to California) cannibalism may be justified and excused, but in general, cannibalism fills us with moral repugnance. So too should abortion.
Posted by: biancaneve at January 25, 2015 01:42 PM (6Turu)
239
Give both sides their stated goals.
People that are pro-choice - skip to piece 2 first and come back to piece 1.
Piece 1: A new life begins at conception. This new life deserves its -own- doctor for anything like removing it from the mother. Deliberately killing this life is murder. This ends at a point of a total prohibition on "abortion". But there's nothing "wrong" with a Cesarean, or anything else to separate the two so long as both of the doctors are looking out for their specific patient. Note also that the 'prolife crowd' is going to have to help with adoptions.
Piece 2: Grant total legal, medical, physical, societal separations at any point. The new life will no longer be a piece of the mother's life. The one distinction is that the mother doesn't have the right to -kill- the new life, merely to -disavow- it. (Now back to piece 1 if you skipped it)
1) Yes, there are periods of a regular pregnancy currently where a premature child will be unlikely to survive. The doctors for that time period will get a lot of firsthand neo-neonatal care experience and develop -something-. I like Lois McMaster Bujold's 'uterine replicator' myself. Or the mother, who is no longer going to be mentally burdened with as much drama or trauma might be willing to wait a month.
2) Yes, there will be lots of babies for adoption. It's my understanding that this isn't actually a problem (babies are imported for adoption in large numbers). But if it is - tough.
3) This marginalizes the eugenicists. Who -are- the key movers and shakers in this war.
4) This entire argument is -coherent- and -consistent-. It will indubitably have entirely new problems. And I'd fully expect "accidents" and various malfeasance. That's still a step forward from wholesale -intentional- deaths. But it pushes science and medicine forward by really changing exactly one thing: The baby/fetus deserves its own darn doctor.
People that are pro-choice - skip to piece 2 first and come back to piece 1.
Piece 1: A new life begins at conception. This new life deserves its -own- doctor for anything like removing it from the mother. Deliberately killing this life is murder. This ends at a point of a total prohibition on "abortion". But there's nothing "wrong" with a Cesarean, or anything else to separate the two so long as both of the doctors are looking out for their specific patient. Note also that the 'prolife crowd' is going to have to help with adoptions.
Piece 2: Grant total legal, medical, physical, societal separations at any point. The new life will no longer be a piece of the mother's life. The one distinction is that the mother doesn't have the right to -kill- the new life, merely to -disavow- it. (Now back to piece 1 if you skipped it)
1) Yes, there are periods of a regular pregnancy currently where a premature child will be unlikely to survive. The doctors for that time period will get a lot of firsthand neo-neonatal care experience and develop -something-. I like Lois McMaster Bujold's 'uterine replicator' myself. Or the mother, who is no longer going to be mentally burdened with as much drama or trauma might be willing to wait a month.
2) Yes, there will be lots of babies for adoption. It's my understanding that this isn't actually a problem (babies are imported for adoption in large numbers). But if it is - tough.
3) This marginalizes the eugenicists. Who -are- the key movers and shakers in this war.
4) This entire argument is -coherent- and -consistent-. It will indubitably have entirely new problems. And I'd fully expect "accidents" and various malfeasance. That's still a step forward from wholesale -intentional- deaths. But it pushes science and medicine forward by really changing exactly one thing: The baby/fetus deserves its own darn doctor.
Posted by: Alan at January 25, 2015 01:44 PM (uq4RW)
240
The basic moral obligation is to treat others as you would want to be treated. The basic human right is the right to life.
If there is no 'secular' argument to support those points, it only confirms the suspicion that religion is needed to butress moral suasion.
But in fact there ARE simple humanistic arguments to defend the right to life. The arguments the religious right uses are only convincing to the extent they
And yet, at least some secularists 'get it'. Abortion is NOT about religion or even morality. It's about whether you grant any rights to preborn human beings.
A primitive barbaric society might give no rights to some humans, enslave some, kill others that are 'not useful'. Abortion and support for killing the unborn is a barbaric relic of such thinking.
If one person can 'own' another to the point of killing them simply because of a dependency, then it justifies child abuse, slavery, and any number of evils. But no comparison is needed - killing an innocent human being is an evil in and of itself and we all know it.
Abortion is justified ONLY BY DENYING THE HUMANITY OF THE UNBORN. That humanity is now well-established biological knowledge- the unborn human being develops its organs, limbs, bones, brain and whole bodily function, to the point of feeling pain, having REM sleep, etc. Sonograms now make it clear to any father or mother that sees it that they have 'a child' in the womb.
Which is why the pro-abortion, er 'pro-choice' side engages in argument-by-euphemism. you dont end a life, you 'terminate a pregnancy'. Not a living human being but 'a clump of cells' (NB, we are ALL a 'clump of cells' if you want to reduce us to that). And its always yammering about 'choice', never admitting which choice they are talking about.
prochoice itself is a lie. always turn this around on the 'prochoice' hyopcrites - prochoice on guns? nope. prochoice on free market economics? nope. pro-healthcare choice and opposing obamacare? nope. prochoice on legalizing drugs, gambling, prostitution, smoking in planes, etc.? whoa, nelly. With abortion, the unborn child who gets killed NEVER GETS A CHOICE.
'Prochoice' is a lie and abortion kills a human being.
If there is no 'secular' argument to support those points, it only confirms the suspicion that religion is needed to butress moral suasion.
But in fact there ARE simple humanistic arguments to defend the right to life. The arguments the religious right uses are only convincing to the extent they
And yet, at least some secularists 'get it'. Abortion is NOT about religion or even morality. It's about whether you grant any rights to preborn human beings.
A primitive barbaric society might give no rights to some humans, enslave some, kill others that are 'not useful'. Abortion and support for killing the unborn is a barbaric relic of such thinking.
If one person can 'own' another to the point of killing them simply because of a dependency, then it justifies child abuse, slavery, and any number of evils. But no comparison is needed - killing an innocent human being is an evil in and of itself and we all know it.
Abortion is justified ONLY BY DENYING THE HUMANITY OF THE UNBORN. That humanity is now well-established biological knowledge- the unborn human being develops its organs, limbs, bones, brain and whole bodily function, to the point of feeling pain, having REM sleep, etc. Sonograms now make it clear to any father or mother that sees it that they have 'a child' in the womb.
Which is why the pro-abortion, er 'pro-choice' side engages in argument-by-euphemism. you dont end a life, you 'terminate a pregnancy'. Not a living human being but 'a clump of cells' (NB, we are ALL a 'clump of cells' if you want to reduce us to that). And its always yammering about 'choice', never admitting which choice they are talking about.
prochoice itself is a lie. always turn this around on the 'prochoice' hyopcrites - prochoice on guns? nope. prochoice on free market economics? nope. pro-healthcare choice and opposing obamacare? nope. prochoice on legalizing drugs, gambling, prostitution, smoking in planes, etc.? whoa, nelly. With abortion, the unborn child who gets killed NEVER GETS A CHOICE.
'Prochoice' is a lie and abortion kills a human being.
Posted by: Keep Calm Cruz On at January 25, 2015 01:48 PM (wT9UL)
241
So, you favor a state that can force people to have children in the interests of the greater society?
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:21 AM (4nR9/)
Well...
Posted by: pep at January 25, 2015 11:21 AM (4nR9/)
Well...
Posted by: Nicolae Ceaușescu at January 25, 2015 01:57 PM (0Ew3K)
242
Reality has passed the anti-abortion movement by. The reality of Plan B and other morning after medications means the genie is out of the bottle.
Sure you can hold your absolutist theology that says that the two cells sperm and egg united in a zygote are identical to a living breathing human. You can also argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
But out in the real world, women will be taking a pill after unprotected sex, their period will be un-measurably heavier than normal, the zygote is flushed and pregnancy is ended. 30% of natural pregnancies end this way anyway, and nobody holds a funeral for a zygote, nobody even knows that zygote existed.
Surgical abortion in the later months of pregnancy will continue to be political football forever.
But absolutist prohibitions on all abortion are history, all over the world. Their is no Nanny State Big Government big enough to stop women from getting their hands on a tiny Plan B pill. A government war against chemical abortion methods is doomed to the same failure as War On Drugs, no matter how much money and public liberty is wasted in the effort.
So by all means keep arguing your theology, but out in the real world the anti-abortion movement has been utterly defeated by technology.
Sure you can hold your absolutist theology that says that the two cells sperm and egg united in a zygote are identical to a living breathing human. You can also argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
But out in the real world, women will be taking a pill after unprotected sex, their period will be un-measurably heavier than normal, the zygote is flushed and pregnancy is ended. 30% of natural pregnancies end this way anyway, and nobody holds a funeral for a zygote, nobody even knows that zygote existed.
Surgical abortion in the later months of pregnancy will continue to be political football forever.
But absolutist prohibitions on all abortion are history, all over the world. Their is no Nanny State Big Government big enough to stop women from getting their hands on a tiny Plan B pill. A government war against chemical abortion methods is doomed to the same failure as War On Drugs, no matter how much money and public liberty is wasted in the effort.
So by all means keep arguing your theology, but out in the real world the anti-abortion movement has been utterly defeated by technology.
Posted by: TommyVee at January 25, 2015 02:23 PM (6whaI)
Posted by: Sven10077 at January 25, 2015 02:40 PM (/4AZU)
244
I agree that 3D printing will make legal prohibitions of many kinds more difficult. There is no 3D printer currently available that will create an explosive to propel a projectile, so you can 3D print your gun but not your cartridge. Eventually 3D printers may be more like programmable chemical synthesizers (given required feedstocks) which will open up whole new cans of worms, printing guns and bullets will probably be a minor issue in that context.
Printing out drones with chemical biological warfare capabilities scares me a lot more than a few libertarian geeks printing out some low quality plastic pistols.
Printing out drones with chemical biological warfare capabilities scares me a lot more than a few libertarian geeks printing out some low quality plastic pistols.
Posted by: TommyVee at January 25, 2015 02:47 PM (6whaI)
245
So by all means keep arguing your theology, but out in the real world the anti-abortion movement has been utterly defeated by technology.
---
Congratulations. You completely missed the point of this post and, apparently, dismiss the arguments made by smarter atheists than yourself without being bothered to read them.
Have a cookie.
---
Congratulations. You completely missed the point of this post and, apparently, dismiss the arguments made by smarter atheists than yourself without being bothered to read them.
Have a cookie.
Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 03:09 PM (9BRsg)
246
Here's the most powerful secular argument against infanticide in a nutshell: if the most innocent among us can be eliminated because we are inconvenient to society, then the rest, less innocent, of us are even more expendable, and it is merely a matter of time until we discover the circumstances under which we, too, may be eliminated at the will of the state, for equally utilitarian causes.
Irrespective of religious belief, it is in everyone's best interests to hold life sacred.
Irrespective of religious belief, it is in everyone's best interests to hold life sacred.
Posted by: ahem at January 25, 2015 03:13 PM (lKGzI)
247
245 Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2015 03:09 PM (9BRsg)
Timmy has a canned speech he breaks out.
I can't be bothered to replow that field, it's a lot like the "I are not clown!" guy above.
My biggest issue with the pro-death left is the internal schizoid nature of their legal mind....
The "adulthood begins at 26" unless of course you need a late term abortion that is a genuine medical procedure on par with surgery....then 12 is an adult.
I am so tired of dealing with the cognitive and moral differences I am either gonna be a hermit, an ex-pat or a happy citizen in a new American nation as soon as possible.
Timmy has a canned speech he breaks out.
I can't be bothered to replow that field, it's a lot like the "I are not clown!" guy above.
My biggest issue with the pro-death left is the internal schizoid nature of their legal mind....
The "adulthood begins at 26" unless of course you need a late term abortion that is a genuine medical procedure on par with surgery....then 12 is an adult.
I am so tired of dealing with the cognitive and moral differences I am either gonna be a hermit, an ex-pat or a happy citizen in a new American nation as soon as possible.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at January 25, 2015 03:20 PM (/4AZU)
248
246 Posted by: ahem at January 25, 2015 03:13 PM (lKGzI)
You are of course correct, the societal default *should* be "life is sacred."
It's part of the American identity I love.
We're past such "infantile nonsense" as Zeke Emmanuel would say...
The state wants the power to kill those it finds unworthy of life, and the left finds anyone that disagrees with them a burden on society.
Sweet dreams.
You are of course correct, the societal default *should* be "life is sacred."
It's part of the American identity I love.
We're past such "infantile nonsense" as Zeke Emmanuel would say...
The state wants the power to kill those it finds unworthy of life, and the left finds anyone that disagrees with them a burden on society.
Sweet dreams.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at January 25, 2015 03:22 PM (/4AZU)
249
I agree that no theological argument is necessary. It doesn't enter in to my being pro-life at all.
To me, all life is sacred.
And life begins at conception.
When they can figure out a way to make a baby without conception, come talk to me, but until then, no conception, no life. So that is when life begins.
I can certainly see arguments about whether the life of a 6 week old embryo is as "valid" as a ten year old child ( it certainly is to me) but it is impossible to argue that it is not a life.
Like Y-not, I am against the death penalty, and for me the argument is the same.... all life is sacred.
If I were Gov of a state with the death penalty, I'd have no problems fulfilling my part in the process, but it is still taking a life. But I do not waste my time worrying about the likes of Ted Bundy being put to death by any means.
I am haunted by abortions, though. It absolutely horrifies me that anyone could possibly think they aren't killing their baby. I just don't get it.
To me, all life is sacred.
And life begins at conception.
When they can figure out a way to make a baby without conception, come talk to me, but until then, no conception, no life. So that is when life begins.
I can certainly see arguments about whether the life of a 6 week old embryo is as "valid" as a ten year old child ( it certainly is to me) but it is impossible to argue that it is not a life.
Like Y-not, I am against the death penalty, and for me the argument is the same.... all life is sacred.
If I were Gov of a state with the death penalty, I'd have no problems fulfilling my part in the process, but it is still taking a life. But I do not waste my time worrying about the likes of Ted Bundy being put to death by any means.
I am haunted by abortions, though. It absolutely horrifies me that anyone could possibly think they aren't killing their baby. I just don't get it.
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at January 25, 2015 03:25 PM (Pauop)
250
Sperm meets egg and reactions commence as reagents have mixed. Thus begins the process of another new human life. Stopping it by deliberate human action after this step is murder. If stopped by biological action it is a tragic miscarriage. Stopping it before this step via contraception is a nonissue as reagents have not mixed.
There is a scientific basis for when human life begins. The Pro-Choice crowd has stayed away from that end as that is where they loose. The pro-Life crowd understands this basic scientific fact and logically extends the sacredness of life to the unborn child as it is a human life.
As for the death penalty. This is applied to convicted murders after their due process has been exhausted. Their punishment for ending at least one human life is forfeiture of theirs. Life is sacred and thus murderers should be given the highest punishment for violating its sacredness. Comparing the two is an apples and oranges exercise; no unborn child has ever committed murder. Though it would be great if an unborn child would blow away an abortionist in the process of trying to abort the child: the ultimate self defense case!
There is a scientific basis for when human life begins. The Pro-Choice crowd has stayed away from that end as that is where they loose. The pro-Life crowd understands this basic scientific fact and logically extends the sacredness of life to the unborn child as it is a human life.
As for the death penalty. This is applied to convicted murders after their due process has been exhausted. Their punishment for ending at least one human life is forfeiture of theirs. Life is sacred and thus murderers should be given the highest punishment for violating its sacredness. Comparing the two is an apples and oranges exercise; no unborn child has ever committed murder. Though it would be great if an unborn child would blow away an abortionist in the process of trying to abort the child: the ultimate self defense case!
Posted by: The Man from Athens at January 25, 2015 03:40 PM (O3k74)
251
Parents get the joy of making a child.
They also get the responsibility of raising it.
They then get the joy of raising it.
Pro-Choice folks never mention this.
The first choice: to spread'em is thus the most important.
They also get the responsibility of raising it.
They then get the joy of raising it.
Pro-Choice folks never mention this.
The first choice: to spread'em is thus the most important.
Posted by: The Man from Athens at January 25, 2015 03:46 PM (O3k74)
252
The Bible is not secular, but much of the logic is well thought through.
There are indeed old testament accounts about the loss of a fetus. At least one place says if a man causes a woman to lose her "fetus/child", he pays a fine, but if the pregnant woman is harmed it is an eye for an eye, or life for life. The development is also described in the Bible as the person being formed in the belly ... a process.
SCOTUS seemed to give the interpretation that when any thought or pain is possible, that formation has reached the person stage, they said at about 23 weeks. It certainly seems logical to say that before there is brain or spinal cord, that there is "life" being formed. Much more than a separate sperm and egg life ( those are killed routinely), or a sperm and egg joined life (zygote), but still not a person till there is more than a cluster of living cells.
Yes, the joining makes a 46 chromosome cell and "the beginning" of a new individual, but not a new individual till millions more cells begin their new lives, all to be formed in the belly, over a process of time. If that zygote does not attach before leaving the womb, the woman was never really pregnant, but do absolutists consider that a death? Hobby Lobby people considered it wrong to take a pill preventing the implantation of the "life/zygote", but other Christians consider that extreme. But that zygote is indeed "the beginning" of the new 46 chromosome life, from two 23 chromosome "lives". If "the life" is in the blood, then that is a significant point, though just one cell.
I'd prefer 12-20 weeks to 23, still giving a pregnant "pro-choice" woman a lot of time to decide. But to call a half inch cluster of cells (or even a single cell zygote) a citizen entitled to full rights seems pretty crazy, except from the religious view.
And to campaign on changing laws to make any abortion murder, (rather than campaigning on restraining late term abortion, like some of Gosnell's) seems like political suicide that will result in damage to ALL our liberties.
There are indeed old testament accounts about the loss of a fetus. At least one place says if a man causes a woman to lose her "fetus/child", he pays a fine, but if the pregnant woman is harmed it is an eye for an eye, or life for life. The development is also described in the Bible as the person being formed in the belly ... a process.
SCOTUS seemed to give the interpretation that when any thought or pain is possible, that formation has reached the person stage, they said at about 23 weeks. It certainly seems logical to say that before there is brain or spinal cord, that there is "life" being formed. Much more than a separate sperm and egg life ( those are killed routinely), or a sperm and egg joined life (zygote), but still not a person till there is more than a cluster of living cells.
Yes, the joining makes a 46 chromosome cell and "the beginning" of a new individual, but not a new individual till millions more cells begin their new lives, all to be formed in the belly, over a process of time. If that zygote does not attach before leaving the womb, the woman was never really pregnant, but do absolutists consider that a death? Hobby Lobby people considered it wrong to take a pill preventing the implantation of the "life/zygote", but other Christians consider that extreme. But that zygote is indeed "the beginning" of the new 46 chromosome life, from two 23 chromosome "lives". If "the life" is in the blood, then that is a significant point, though just one cell.
I'd prefer 12-20 weeks to 23, still giving a pregnant "pro-choice" woman a lot of time to decide. But to call a half inch cluster of cells (or even a single cell zygote) a citizen entitled to full rights seems pretty crazy, except from the religious view.
And to campaign on changing laws to make any abortion murder, (rather than campaigning on restraining late term abortion, like some of Gosnell's) seems like political suicide that will result in damage to ALL our liberties.
Posted by: Illiniwek at January 25, 2015 03:58 PM (JWHJX)
253
One of the best secular arguments I heard against abortion is the case of the baby in a box. A man was driving a car and saw a box in the middle of the road. He thought about just driving over it and continuing on his way but at the last second, he thought he saw movement, a tiny hand sticking out of the box. He stopped, horrified, and inside, as it turns out, was a baby.
Why did he stop? Because when he saw the movement, he thought, "I've got to swerve, just in case there's a baby in there." When it comes to abortion, shouldn't we all swerve, just in case there's a baby in there?
One of the best secular arguments I heard against abortion is the case of the baby in a box. A man was driving a car and saw a box in the middle of the road. He thought about just driving over it and continuing on his way but at the last second, he thought he saw movement, a tiny hand sticking out of the box. He stopped, horrified, and inside, as it turns out, was a baby.
Why did he stop? Because when he saw the movement, he thought, "I've got to swerve, just in case there's a baby in there." When it comes to abortion, shouldn't we all swerve, just in case there's a baby in there?
Posted by: Average Jen at January 25, 2015 04:15 PM (fEITV)
254
And one of the most compelling religious reasons against abortion is God's view on child sacrifice: he detests it. "They sacrifice their children to the fire." And what is abortion but modern-day child sacrifice? Right down to the incineration of the remains.
Posted by: Average Jen at January 25, 2015 04:19 PM (fEITV)
255
... and really, if the zygote is sanctified life, then any than don't catch every fertilized egg that fails to implant, are guilty of negligent homicide.
And if you weren't checking for unattached zygotes/humans, and you just got lucky that your zygote/human grabbed on, aren't you still guilty of reckless endangerment?
There really has to be some common sense, doesn't there? The "abortion is murder" chants seem to only serve to drive away votes. I think a more effective political point is to consider the 20 week development, and compare it to the little puppies that so many "pro-choice" people are adamant about saving. That might win some to the 20 week position, rather than lose many to the absolutist position that the abortion pill (or 6th week abortion) is murder.
And if you weren't checking for unattached zygotes/humans, and you just got lucky that your zygote/human grabbed on, aren't you still guilty of reckless endangerment?
There really has to be some common sense, doesn't there? The "abortion is murder" chants seem to only serve to drive away votes. I think a more effective political point is to consider the 20 week development, and compare it to the little puppies that so many "pro-choice" people are adamant about saving. That might win some to the 20 week position, rather than lose many to the absolutist position that the abortion pill (or 6th week abortion) is murder.
Posted by: Illiniwek at January 25, 2015 04:51 PM (JWHJX)
256
I'm surprised we don't use a coroner's clear definition of death (i.e., relative brain activity) to also define life. It may or may not satisfy the religious argument altogether, but when we face our maker we can at least argue consistency.
And Heaven knows we have the science and accountability in this land to take this approach.
And Heaven knows we have the science and accountability in this land to take this approach.
Posted by: Flying Dutch at January 25, 2015 05:17 PM (X8ui3)
257
Illiniwek, that's approximately the sort of point I was trying to make above before getting buried in an avalanche of name calling and irrational emoting. I'm quite open to a pro-life argument, but when you start asking question such as "how do you expect a life-at-conception, no exceptions argument is going to play out?" It's all name calling and you hate babies, adda-adda-adda. Given Ace's oft stated concern about civility and his vaguely referenced pro-choice position, I really think there either should be a moratorium on this issue or some very well defined ground rules. That is if we wish to discuss it. Otherwise lassie le bonne temps roulette, suppose.
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 05:37 PM (8CYQ6)
258
257 Wtp,
If the "non-child" has a better than 50% chance of recovery w/care outside the womb it's a child.
If the "non-child" has a better than 50% chance of recovery w/care outside the womb it's a child.
Posted by: Sven10077 at January 25, 2015 05:42 PM (/4AZU)
259
In the sphere of politics, I'll always take half a loaf. But I never forget that I'm only getting half.
If you must compromise to get some restrictions on what are the most permissive abortion laws in the western world, accept the reality, but never forget that you are still allowing millions of innocents to be sacrificed. Put the 20 week line in your pocket and redouble your efforts to change the hearts of society.
If you must compromise to get some restrictions on what are the most permissive abortion laws in the western world, accept the reality, but never forget that you are still allowing millions of innocents to be sacrificed. Put the 20 week line in your pocket and redouble your efforts to change the hearts of society.
Posted by: toby928(C) at January 25, 2015 05:48 PM (rwI+c)
260
To love your country, it should be lovely. Our current unrestricted abortion scheme is ugly and stains the country.
Posted by: toby928(C) at January 25, 2015 05:49 PM (rwI+c)
261
The first nation to legalize abortion was Lenin's USSR. That, in itself, should give everyone a bit of food for thought. While in the coils of revolution, civil war and the destruction of all Russia's past, Lenin felt it important to ensure that unborn children should be killed. Right around the same time his then-right hand man, Trotsky, was urging that we had to get rid of this Quaker-Papistical nonsense about the sanctity of human life and start re-working human beings on a scientific basis. Lenin and Trotsky were inhuman monsters in their actions...but as regards "choice", they could be members in good standing of NARAL. As for me, I'm rather pleased the neither of them, if suddenly transported to 2015, could be members in good standing of the Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus or any other association I might conceivably have a mind to join now or in the future.
Aside from being associated with inhuman barbarity, is there anything in a purely secular sense wrong with abortion? In some sense, yes, in the most real sense, no.
We can hold these truths self-evident, but only if we assert there is a standard of conduct above us and to which we must adhere, especially when we don't want to. Without a super-natural morality, there is no solid argument to make against anything happening. Either God says it's wrong, or nothing is actually wrong - everything is contingent upon such factors as power and expediency.
Now, to be sure, a complete atheist can decide to oppose abortion on the theory that by protecting the most helpless of lives, he is better ensuring that no one will look at him and decide that his life is forfeit for reasons of profit or, even, mere convenience. But you still haven't built a wall against either death - because whether or not the atheist and his unborn child will remain alive is still dependent not upon irrevocable standards of right and wrong, but upon the transient will of those in power.
I doubt the existence of such thing as a rational atheist. Rational agnostic - gotcha. But a rational atheist seems a bit strange because if someone is really asserting as absolute that there is no God, then that appears to me an assumption of impossible knowledge - knowledge which cannot be achieved by any test an atheist would accept as definitive. For goodness sakes, even the most devout saints have their doubts about God...someone telling me he has no doubts about the non-existence of God is leg pulling, if you ask me. Agnosticism makes more sense, if one cannot accept a personal God who chooses. But even if you're agnostic, your safety ultimately rests upon acting as if there is a God - everyone needs that absolute standard in order to defend themselves. And once there, it is easy to see that the absolute standard must cover all human beings from first to last moment of their lives...and as our first moment is always going to be as a newly fertilized egg in a womb, we have to protect that life, even if the mother would prefer it not be there.
Aside from being associated with inhuman barbarity, is there anything in a purely secular sense wrong with abortion? In some sense, yes, in the most real sense, no.
We can hold these truths self-evident, but only if we assert there is a standard of conduct above us and to which we must adhere, especially when we don't want to. Without a super-natural morality, there is no solid argument to make against anything happening. Either God says it's wrong, or nothing is actually wrong - everything is contingent upon such factors as power and expediency.
Now, to be sure, a complete atheist can decide to oppose abortion on the theory that by protecting the most helpless of lives, he is better ensuring that no one will look at him and decide that his life is forfeit for reasons of profit or, even, mere convenience. But you still haven't built a wall against either death - because whether or not the atheist and his unborn child will remain alive is still dependent not upon irrevocable standards of right and wrong, but upon the transient will of those in power.
I doubt the existence of such thing as a rational atheist. Rational agnostic - gotcha. But a rational atheist seems a bit strange because if someone is really asserting as absolute that there is no God, then that appears to me an assumption of impossible knowledge - knowledge which cannot be achieved by any test an atheist would accept as definitive. For goodness sakes, even the most devout saints have their doubts about God...someone telling me he has no doubts about the non-existence of God is leg pulling, if you ask me. Agnosticism makes more sense, if one cannot accept a personal God who chooses. But even if you're agnostic, your safety ultimately rests upon acting as if there is a God - everyone needs that absolute standard in order to defend themselves. And once there, it is easy to see that the absolute standard must cover all human beings from first to last moment of their lives...and as our first moment is always going to be as a newly fertilized egg in a womb, we have to protect that life, even if the mother would prefer it not be there.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at January 25, 2015 06:50 PM (tKzEw)
262
I had two twin pregnancies and miscarried one of the twins, twice. This means I had a lot of ultrasounds, early in the pregnancies.
The first one looked like a popcorn shrimp when it fell out, the second one was earlier, round and about the size of a garbanzo bean.
The doctors in each case wanted to check to make sure I had miscarried, and in each case they found one still ticking, that looked on ultrasound exactly like the ones that had appeared in the toilet.
The second one, which was just a small round form on the ultrasound, was flickering. I asked the technician what the flickering was, and she said it was the heart beating.
4 pixels. 4 chambers of the heart, pumping, when no one would have guessed that might be a human in there.
The first one looked like a popcorn shrimp when it fell out, the second one was earlier, round and about the size of a garbanzo bean.
The doctors in each case wanted to check to make sure I had miscarried, and in each case they found one still ticking, that looked on ultrasound exactly like the ones that had appeared in the toilet.
The second one, which was just a small round form on the ultrasound, was flickering. I asked the technician what the flickering was, and she said it was the heart beating.
4 pixels. 4 chambers of the heart, pumping, when no one would have guessed that might be a human in there.
Posted by: MathMom at January 25, 2015 07:17 PM (5h3rv)
263
261 The first nation to legalize abortion was Lenin's USSR.
Not true. Abortion before "quickening" as it was called, was legal in many countries long before anyone ever heard of Lenin or the USSR.
Not true. Abortion before "quickening" as it was called, was legal in many countries long before anyone ever heard of Lenin or the USSR.
Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 07:22 PM (8CYQ6)
264
EVERY Election that Zygote's become an issue, most of the women who vote, vote for any Democrat.
I respect your morals, but this entire "Pro-Life" principal has LOST every election, that we have lost, PERIOD. I love kiddies too, but, you care more for 1 childs life, than for our nation to be free from Democrats, and cant freaking zip your mouths long enough to elect someone from OUR TEAM!!!???
Before you attack me, I'm calling you out: All Pro-Life candidates are pandoring symcophants that truly work more effectively to elect Democrat Presidents, Congress, Senators, than they save babies lives. You pro-lifers have blood on your election spoiling hands dammit. Go ahead: speak your mind -> There is an army of MSM reporters that will get YOU ON TV 2 SPEAK YOUR MIND baby justice warrior (...and loose/poison another election, AGAIN).
I respect your morals, but this entire "Pro-Life" principal has LOST every election, that we have lost, PERIOD. I love kiddies too, but, you care more for 1 childs life, than for our nation to be free from Democrats, and cant freaking zip your mouths long enough to elect someone from OUR TEAM!!!???
Before you attack me, I'm calling you out: All Pro-Life candidates are pandoring symcophants that truly work more effectively to elect Democrat Presidents, Congress, Senators, than they save babies lives. You pro-lifers have blood on your election spoiling hands dammit. Go ahead: speak your mind -> There is an army of MSM reporters that will get YOU ON TV 2 SPEAK YOUR MIND baby justice warrior (...and loose/poison another election, AGAIN).
Posted by: MoJoTee at January 25, 2015 07:42 PM (aR8Ih)
265
Vocal Pro-Life'rs act as a False Flag, and they don't even know it. (Thanks for all of the losses)
Posted by: MoJoTee at January 25, 2015 07:43 PM (aR8Ih)
266
263 Posted by: Wtp at January 25, 2015 07:22 PM (8CYQ6)
The USSR was the first nation in EUrope to legalize abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia
The Soviet Union was the first country to legalize abortion, in 1920,
but dictator Josef Stalin outlawed it in 1936, seeking to boost births,
and it was illegal until 1955, two years after his death in 1953 .
http://tinyurl.com/ns6ju8k
Russia is a sterling example of the fruits of the cult of Moloch....
by 2050 it's population will drop 20% down to 116 million.
It never ceases to amaze me that the "more intelligent, genius, liberal" "thinkers" cannot wrap their heads around the fact that to have a chance at maintaining a culture you have to have people to live in that culture.
The USSR was the first nation in EUrope to legalize abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia
The Soviet Union was the first country to legalize abortion, in 1920,
but dictator Josef Stalin outlawed it in 1936, seeking to boost births,
and it was illegal until 1955, two years after his death in 1953 .
http://tinyurl.com/ns6ju8k
Russia is a sterling example of the fruits of the cult of Moloch....
by 2050 it's population will drop 20% down to 116 million.
It never ceases to amaze me that the "more intelligent, genius, liberal" "thinkers" cannot wrap their heads around the fact that to have a chance at maintaining a culture you have to have people to live in that culture.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at January 25, 2015 07:45 PM (/4AZU)
267
this entire "Pro-Life" principal has LOST every election, that we have lost, PERIOD.
What explains the elections we didn't lose?
What explains the elections we didn't lose?
Posted by: toby928(C) at January 25, 2015 07:59 PM (rwI+c)
268
267 Posted by: toby928(C) at January 25, 2015 07:59 PM (rwI+c)
The staunch genuine fiscal conservatism that has us at 18.5 trillion debt and climbing....
The staunch genuine fiscal conservatism that has us at 18.5 trillion debt and climbing....
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at January 25, 2015 08:01 PM (/4AZU)
269
Frankly though Toby I am to the point I will cede the battlefield to the "Fi-Cons"(of which I am certain you know I consider myself one given the DOOM! threads)
A nation that greases its axle with dead viable babies is not a nation worth saving.
A nation that greases its axle with dead viable babies is not a nation worth saving.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at January 25, 2015 08:12 PM (/4AZU)
270
Ace, I know that you need to prioritize your time. Having said that, do you take the time to follow these life-issue threads, or do you just go on to something else when you see the subject that is being discussed?
I ask this because I know that you are pro-choice but an otherwise intelligent conservative?
I ask this because I know that you are pro-choice but an otherwise intelligent conservative?
Posted by: begerbilder at January 25, 2015 11:53 PM (8MjqI)
271
Get the authentic shirt commonly costly you more, nevertheless this genuine shirt it is collectables , and year after year your soccer
jersey collection would be worthwhile savings for your
kid or son who is potentially will adopt you who
love in soccer game series. Getting them at a reasonable price is what the real challenge is.
s club helps to get the ball higher into the air and increase its speed.
jersey collection would be worthwhile savings for your
kid or son who is potentially will adopt you who
love in soccer game series. Getting them at a reasonable price is what the real challenge is.
s club helps to get the ball higher into the air and increase its speed.
Posted by: distributor jersey grade ori at January 26, 2015 05:17 AM (nyRZm)
272
Escort girls http://REGMODELS.RU
Posted by: Tina at January 26, 2015 07:15 PM (95udX)
273
"but, but, but, what about the Constitution?" wail the anti-life folks?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
our Posterity. It's right there folks. The invocation of neither emanations nor penumbras is necessary to establish a Constitutional basis for pro-life government. Nor is an Amendment necessary
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
our Posterity. It's right there folks. The invocation of neither emanations nor penumbras is necessary to establish a Constitutional basis for pro-life government. Nor is an Amendment necessary
Posted by: BikerDad at January 27, 2015 01:49 PM (tj7mE)
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0396 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0147 seconds, 282 records returned.
Page size 215 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat