Video: Indiana GOP Candidates Would Force Raped Women to Carry Fetuses to Term

Wingnuts • Views: 6,188

At a public forum in Indianapolis last week, candidates for Indiana’s General Assembly were asked a series of yes/no questions by the moderator, Dr. Judy Failer, professor of Political Science and American Studies at Indiana University.

How can you tell which speakers are Republicans?

They’re the ones who deny evolution and global warming, and say they would require a woman who was raped to carry the fetus to term.

Michael Wallack has more details at his blog: When Politicians Are Forced to Answer Yes/No Questions.

Youtube Video

Jump to bottom

757 comments
1 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:00:25pm

I'm a big fan of politicians being forced to answer yes/no questions. Really cuts through the positioning bullshit.

2 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:02:05pm

Hmmm.... Ignorant, smug, arrogant, self righteous, anti-science, anti-woman, generally without compassion or an understanding of shades of grey in moral question....

Must be GOP...

Our corporate driven Taliban.

3 iossarian  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:02:47pm

That balance fairy is having to flap her wings awfully hard right now.

4 avanti  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:03:15pm

Better to have asked "If your loved one was raped", not some hypothetical.

5 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:03:25pm

re: #3 iossarian

That balance fairy is having to flap her wings awfully hard right now.

Did you see my thermo post BTW?

6 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:03:37pm

Did they remove their KKK uniforms to be their tablecloths? I thought I saw a white pointed hat there somewhere.

7 researchok  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:04:03pm

re: #2 LudwigVanQuixote

Hmmm... Ignorant, smug, arrogant, self righteous, anti-science, anti-woman, generally without compassion or an understanding of shades of grey in moral question...

Must be GOP...

Our corporate driven Taliban.

A bit harsh, but more than a grain of truth.

8 iossarian  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:04:59pm

re: #5 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm not seeing it - can you link it for me?

9 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:05:39pm

re: #4 avanti

Better to have asked "If your loved one was raped", not some hypothetical.

Well that would be totally different. The GOP has a long standing tradition of applying its morals to other people only when it comes to things like adultery.

But more specifically, medical doctors who perform abortions will tell you that there are always some number of patients who come in for an abortion who go right back out to the protest lines.

Their unwanted pregnancy was somehow different than all the theirs. Their motives were pure as opposed to every other woman they call names.

10 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:05:57pm

re: #8 iossarian

I'm not seeing it - can you link it for me?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

11 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:06:17pm

re: #9 LudwigVanQuixote

The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

12 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:06:54pm

re: #11 Obdicut

The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

Great link!

13 pharmmajor  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:08:05pm

I'm still pissed that these assemblies don't invite independents or third party candidates to participate, you know, to provide some honest answers and competence instead of the bullshit that's regularly spewed.

14 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:08:58pm

re: #9 LudwigVanQuixote

Let me clarify that a bit...

Well that would be totally different. The GOP has a long standing tradition of applying its morals to other people only, and not themselves, when it comes to things like adultery.

But more specifically, medical doctors who perform abortions will tell you that there are always some number of patients who come in for an abortion who go right back out to the protest lines.

Their unwanted pregnancy was somehow different than all the theirs. Their motives were pure as opposed to every other woman they call names.

15 darthstar  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:09:49pm

The next question should have been, "Would you require a woman YOU raped to carry the fetus to term?"

16 researchok  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:11:08pm

re: #15 darthstar

The next question should have been, "Would you require a woman YOU raped to carry the fetus to term?"

Slightly modified: "Would you require a woman YOUR SON raped to carry the fetus to term?"

17 iossarian  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:12:25pm

re: #10 LudwigVanQuixote

Thanks - reading it now.

In the meantime:

Youtube Video

That's entropy, man. (Not sure what's up with the Star Wars imagery though.)

18 lawhawk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:13:02pm

It's a witch hunt, I tell ya...

Youtube Video

The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will.
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill.

They say there are strangers who threaten us,
are immigrants and infidels.
They say there is strangeness too dangerous
In our theaters and bookstore shelves.
Those who know what's best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves.

Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand...

Yeah, this could apply to the Charles' posts upstream too about GOPers like Paladino et al.

19 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:13:35pm

re: #13 pharmmajor

I'm still pissed that these assemblies don't invite independents or third party candidates to participate, you know, to provide some honest answers and competence instead of the bullshit that's regularly spewed.

I don't know where you're at, but the majority of the third party candidates in my state (CA) are downright loco. Bug. Fucking. Nuts.

I'll have no problem crossing party lines and voting for Dem candidates when and where I think it's the right thing to do, but there isn't a single third party candidate in my state that will get my vote.

20 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:15:16pm

re: #13 pharmmajor

Like who, for example?

Why do you think being a third-party member automatically makes people more honest and competent?

I've been looking at all the libertarian candidates I can find for the Indiana General Assembly, and all of them are anti-science global warming deniers.

So is that the sort of 'honest' 'competent' opinion you want to hear more of in this forum?

21 HappyWarrior  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:19:19pm

Limited government huh. Seriously, there is something real inhumane about telling a woman she must carry the fetus of the man that raped her.

22 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:19:55pm

re: #3 iossarian

That balance fairy is having to flap her wings awfully hard right now.

This is really a great point. The entire way the GOP and the wingnut punditry works, is that they never present a balanced view, but rely on the media to posit a false balance and hence legitimize all the crazy things the wingnuts say, by acting as if there were some merit to them.

You see this over an over in the GOP "science" debates. There really aren't two sides any more than there are two equal sides to whether or not two and two sum to four.

But most people can sum two and two. They can't or won't work out things like science, so "scientific" claims from the GOP that are just as absurd as saying two and two sum to seventeen, are presented as a equally valid view. This is coupled with some angry conspiracy theory and resentment of the idea that others might know more to spice it up.

It ends up being a heady mix of weak willed psychology and desire to boost ratings by generating false controversy.

It has ceased to amaze me how this happens. I would never argue with a room full of surgeons on how to crack a chest safely. The simple reason why is that I never went to medical school, let alone studied surgery.

I would not pick a fight with an Israeli commando, or Special Forces martial arts instructor. Imagining that my martial arts prowess is equal to someone who is in constant training, larger than me, and has already faced real combat, is a very bad career move.

I would never imagine that I could out swim an Olympic swimmer.

Yet hope springs eternal when it comes to science. Some barnyard "genius" political hack, or Fox viewer somehow knows more science than a professional scientist, who is not only vastly smarter, but has actually spent years studying and working in a certain scientific field.

23 SpaceJesus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:22:26pm

re: #2 LudwigVanQuixote

Hmmm... Ignorant, smug, arrogant, self righteous, anti-science, anti-woman, generally without compassion or an understanding of shades of grey in moral question...

Must be GOP...

Our corporate driven Taliban.


you can hypocritical to that list too

24 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:22:51pm

They're showing footage from inside the Chilean mine now. They just loaded another miner and sent him up.

25 lawhawk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:23:07pm

re: #20 Obdicut

The candidates for governor in NY consists of the following:
Carl P. Paladino, GOP, CON, TXP
Andrew M. Cuomo, DEM, IND, WFP
Howie Hawkins - Green
Jimmy McMillan - Rent is 2 Damn High
Warren Redlich - Libertarian
Kristin M. Davis - Anti Prohibition
Charles Barron - Freedom.

Those are your choices and based on prior votes, probably close to 95-99% of the vote will go to the Dem or GOP candidate (and probably 99% total goes to those two named candidates when combining their votes from all lines where they appear on the ballot). If Redlich gets more than 15,000 votes statewide, I'll eat my hat. Barron is a hatemonger from NYC and I doubt he'll get 10,000. Davis is a madam whose prostitutes took down Spitzer. Never heard of Hawkins or McMillan, and their vote tallies will reflect a similar lack of exposure to voters.

26 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:23:34pm

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term which a result of rape is wrong.
A woman who thinks there isn't a price to pay for aborting her fetus for any damned reason is wrong.
What goes around comes around.

That's my opinion.

27 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:23:55pm

re: #24 wrenchwench

They're showing footage from inside the Chilean mine now. They just loaded another miner and sent him up.

Yes, and it's THAT miner. I have to go shopping soon, which is killing me, because I really want to see who will be waiting for him.

(Actually, I'm pretty sure the gov't won't let the self-proclaimed mistress anywhere near the site.)

28 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:24:20pm

re: #21 HappyWarrior

Limited government huh. Seriously, there is something real inhumane about telling a woman she must carry the fetus of the man that raped her.

Well, women aren't competent to make such meaty choices. The government has to decide for them...

(Obviously, I don't think that, but the GOP clearly does)

The amount of sick irony here from these defenders of liberty has never ceased to amaze.

These same people who go on and on about the sanctity of life are often the first people to be all over expanding capital punishment with a gleam or vengeful glee in their eyes.

How Christ like!

29 iossarian  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:24:28pm

re: #10 LudwigVanQuixote

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Read it - great writing.

Got to go now!

30 HappyWarrior  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:24:58pm

re: #24 wrenchwench

They're showing footage from inside the Chilean mine now. They just loaded another miner and sent him up.

Awesome. This is such an amazing story. I hope it makes people appreciate the hard work and sacrifices miners make. My mom's grandfathers were both coal miners. Hard working guys.

31 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:25:17pm

re: #25 lawhawk

I think the two-party system is a large reason for a lot of the problems in politics in this country. I favor Condorcet voting or some sort of instant-runoff voting.

However, that I think that doesn't mean that I think any third-party person is inherently better in any way, as pharmmajor was implying.

32 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:26:17pm

re: #29 iossarian

Read it - great writing.

Got to go now!

Thanks!

33 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:28:04pm

re: #26 Capitalist Tool

Thank God the law disagrees.

34 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:28:34pm

An even better question:

"Would you require your wife/daughter/sister who was raped to carry the fetus to term?"

35 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:29:06pm

re: #26 Capitalist Tool

What would "any damn reason" be?

36 SpaceJesus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:29:07pm

re: #26 Capitalist Tool


hahaha, is this some kind of joke

37 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:29:31pm

re: #26 Capitalist Tool

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term which a result of rape is wrong.
A woman who thinks there isn't a price to pay for aborting her fetus for any damned reason is wrong.
What goes around comes around.

That's my opinion.

Your opinion is fucked up.

38 garhighway  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:30:18pm

re: #26 Capitalist Tool


A woman who thinks there isn't a price to pay for aborting her fetus for any damned reason is wrong.

I missed the part where anyone here was asserting that position.

39 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:30:36pm

re: #10 LudwigVanQuixote

Reading it now as well. Between listening to sports talk radio, watching the Chilean mine rescue and waiting to hear if a rx is ready, it might take a bit longer than I would want LOL, but it will get read.

40 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:30:55pm

re: #33 McSpiff

Thank God the law disagrees.

not sure I understand what you are saying...
The law allows women to abort for any reason.

What does the law disagree with?

41 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:30:56pm

You know, I kina disagree with phrasing these questions in terms of rape... I mean no one would ask "should victims of muggings be allowed to concealed carry?". I find the idea of putting rights in terms of crime just odd.

42 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:31:18pm

re: #38 garhighway

I missed the part where anyone here was asserting that position.

didn't say they did... was stating my opinion

43 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:32:00pm

re: #37 eclectic infidel

Your opinion is fucked up.

So... you don't think there is a price to be paid for our actions?

44 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:32:22pm

re: #40 Capitalist Tool

Right, allows abortion for any reason... without your creepy threats. Thats why I like the law, and find you creepy. "What goes around comes around" has gotten clinics bombed.

45 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:32:36pm

Johnny Barrios is out. 12 remain.

46 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:32:47pm

re: #43 Capitalist Tool

So... you don't think there is a price to be paid for our actions?

Sure, abortions are a couple hundred bucks around here.

47 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:33:02pm

re: #41 McSpiff

There are lots of ways rights are put in terms of crime. Self-defense, for example; you're allowed the right to exercise force in self-defense in reaction to a crime against yourself (or, in some places, against your property).

48 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:33:16pm

re: #39 commadore183

Reading it now as well. Between listening to sports talk radio, watching the Chilean mine rescue and waiting to hear if a rx is ready, it might take a bit longer than I would want LOL, but it will get read.

Thank you so much.

49 SpaceJesus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:33:41pm

re: #23 SpaceJesus


i can also add the word "add" to that sentence i just made, hoho

50 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:34:00pm

re: #47 Obdicut

There are lots of ways rights are put in terms of crime. Self-defense, for example; you're allowed the right to exercise force in self-defense in reaction to a crime against yourself (or, in some places, against your property).

Hadn't thought of self-defense (pretty obvious oversight too). I concede the point.

51 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:34:12pm

re: #43 Capitalist Tool

So... you don't think there is a price to be paid for our actions?

Do you have a "price" in mind? One you would propose should be paid?

52 researchok  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:34:26pm

This latest rescued miner looks likes he wants to go back down.

Mistress there, wife nowhere to be seen.

Helluva day.

53 SpaceJesus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:34:26pm

re: #43 Capitalist Tool


i can't fucking down ding this enough

54 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:34:28pm

re: #44 McSpiff

Right, allows abortion for any reason... without your creepy threats. Thats why I like the law, and find you creepy. "What goes around comes around" has gotten clinics bombed.

i didn't make any threats, creepy or otherwise.
I was talking about the concept of karma.

Freedom doesn't mean that we are free to do anything we want.. freedom means we are free to live up to the consequences of our own thought and action.

55 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:35:35pm

re: #54 Capitalist Tool

Well, don't get an abortion and you have nothing to worry about right?

56 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:36:22pm

re: #54 Capitalist Tool


I was talking about the concept of karma.

And if the person getting the abortion isn't Hindu or Buddhist?

57 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:36:33pm

re: #47 Obdicut

There are lots of ways rights are put in terms of crime. Self-defense, for example; you're allowed the right to exercise force in self-defense in reaction to a crime against yourself (or, in some places, against your property).

That is actually the ultimate Talmudic justification for it.

There is a verse that states that if you see someone being pursued with the intent to cause harm to the one fleeing, you have a duty to stop the pursuer. This extends even to the point of killing the pursuer if necessary.

In certain abortion cases - and a raped girl facing the trauma of carrying the rapist's baby to term if she does not want to fits the bill - the fetus is seen as pursuing the mother to cause harm.

58 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:36:56pm

re: #47 Obdicut

Or even defense of another person, as in stopping a rape, or stopping a felony.

59 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:36:56pm

re: #54 Capitalist Tool

Karma is supposed to apply in the next life, after you die and are reincarnated.

So no, you're not talking about karma.

60 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:37:03pm

re: #43 Capitalist Tool

So... you don't think there is a price to be paid for our actions?

Your post implied some sort of punishment for having an abortion. I don't know if you've actually known women who have had abortions, but I've known three in my life. All three women were distraught but moved forward because it was the best choice at that point in time. Actions have consequences, yes, but to imply that a woman needs to experience some sort of exacting price strikes me as a fucked up attitude to have. Unless you've had to make the choice yourself, go the extra mile and try not to judge.

61 Sionainn  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:38:15pm

re: #26 Capitalist Tool


A woman who thinks there isn't a price to pay for aborting her fetus for any damned reason is wrong.

What would that "price" be?

62 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:38:17pm

re: #60 eclectic infidel

Favorited. I might be stealing this in the future, I can't get through a post like that without obscenities.

63 brownbagj  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:38:18pm

Telling someone when it is "right" or "ok" to make decisions about their own body is anti-freedom. Period.

Now, I do know some people who have had abortions. All have had to overcome depression regarding it.

Abortion is not an easy decision to make and it is not an easy decision to deal with. There are repercussions (at least that I have seen). Maybe this is what CT means. I don't know. I can hope.

None of this is an excuse to tell women what to do with their bodies.

64 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:40:13pm

re: #62 McSpiff

Favorited. I might be stealing this in the future, I can't get through a post like that without obscenities.

Thanks. There was a time when I would have gone off on a post like that.

Taking a few deep breaths, clearing the mind (or trying to anyway), and writing out a draft or two in your mind's eye before replying helps, yes, but it takes practice.

65 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:41:09pm

So according to okcupid's stats, gay people aren't any more promiscuous than straight people

Sorry AFA, sorry Focus on the Family, sorry Tony Perkins, and sorry to the rest of you rube-baiting dope merchants, gonna have to find another work to distract the dumb

66 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:41:24pm

re: #64 eclectic infidel

Thanks. There was a time when I would have gone off on a post like that.

Taking a few deep breaths, clearing the mind (or trying to anyway), and writing out a draft or two in your mind's eye before replying helps, yes, but it takes practice.

When you know and love someone who's gone through the depression, etc... the idea that some external force needs to punish her...bah, blood boiling.

67 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:41:47pm

re: #64 eclectic infidel

Thanks. There was a time when I would have gone off on a post like that.

Taking a few deep breaths, clearing the mind (or trying to anyway), and writing out a draft or two in your mind's eye before replying helps, yes, but it takes practice.

But that is good advice, thank you.

68 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:41:51pm

re: #59 Obdicut

Karma is supposed to apply in the next life, after you die and are reincarnated.

So no, you're not talking about karma.

that's just your incomplete understanding of karma...
all the major religions talk about karma- Jesus talked it just about more than anything else... as you sow, so shall you reap, etc..

For those busting my chops about 'making threats' etc, you are wrong about what I am saying

69 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:41:56pm

re: #26 Capitalist Tool

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term which a result of rape is wrong.
A woman who thinks there isn't a price to pay for aborting her fetus for any damned reason is wrong.
What goes around comes around.

That's my opinion.

What woman thinks they're not paying a price?

Got any of those women for me?

70 jaunte  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:42:34pm

A party that wants to control the bodies of others is going to pay the long-term price of impotence.

71 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:44:31pm

re: #68 Capitalist Tool

that's just your incomplete understanding of karma...
all the major religions talk about karma- Jesus talked it just about more than anything else... as you sow, so shall you reap, etc..

For those busting my chops about 'making threats' etc, you are wrong about what I am saying

What's your definition of "paying a price," CT? Forget the karma part, there's no reality attached to that concept anyway. What do you really mean? What sort of price do you think a woman should have to "pay" for having an abortion? Come on, don't hide behind the idea of karma, explain what you mean.

72 Interesting Times  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:44:32pm

re: #63 brownbagj

Now, I do know some people who have had abortions. All have had to overcome depression regarding it.

But also consider this:

However, there are women, perhaps just as many or more, who have much different feelings–feelings of relief, of conviction that they made the right decision, yes, maybe even of joy. They have no regrets or remorse. They don’t get bummed out on the anniversary of the procedure; they don’t look longingly at a kid playing and think that their fetus would be that old by now. They recovered from the procedure easily and got on with their lives.

73 HappyWarrior  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:44:33pm

re: #65 WindUpBird

So according to okcupid's stats, gay people aren't any more promiscuous than straight people

Sorry AFA, sorry Focus on the Family, sorry Tony Perkins, and sorry to the rest of you rube-baiting dope merchants, gonna have to find another work to distract the dumb

Yep but you know these guys they'll find some other insidious lie about gays. I am sure we'll hear next about homosexuality's relation to Al Queda. On a sidenote, found out that a distant cousin of mine married his partner in DC last week. Happy for them both. Good people all around.

74 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:45:00pm

re: #54 Capitalist Tool


Freedom doesn't mean that we are free to do anything we want.. freedom means we are free to live up to the consequences of our own thought and action.

Wow this is like totally deep, I mean, nobody's ever said this before, it's just really something to think about

Why is this argument only comes up when it comes to abortion? That's always where I hear this line. Why does this never come up when it comes to oh...banks lending money to someone to buy a house? Why does this never come up with one is found to be investing in unethical corporations?

Oh that's right, PEOPLE have to live up to the consequences of their actions. GROUPS of people (i.e. corporations) eh, go forth, screw as many people as you want who cares drive through

75 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:45:01pm

re: #59 Obdicut

I'm not Hindu, Buddhist, etc., so I do not believe in karma. Based on my beliefs, what price should I pay for getting an abortion*? A six pack? Twelve pack? A case of beer and a Tri-Tip? Confusing.

*a physical impossibility, as I have guy parts

76 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:45:25pm

re: #65 WindUpBird

That's really nifty data. I think the most important part to get out there is that the gay members just didn't search for straight guys, at all. Gay men are simply not interested in straight guys. A very few, weird, creepy gay guys are; the overwhelming vast 99% majority are interested, shockingly, in gay guys.

77 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:45:39pm

re: #65 WindUpBird

So according to okcupid's stats, gay people aren't any more promiscuous than straight people

Sorry AFA, sorry Focus on the Family, sorry Tony Perkins, and sorry to the rest of you rube-baiting dope merchants, gonna have to find another work to distract the dumb

If only things like data mattered to these people.

78 Amory Blaine  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:46:42pm

What if the rapist murdered her family in front of her?

79 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:46:48pm

re: #73 HappyWarrior

Yep but you know these guys they'll find some other insidious lie about gays. I am sure we'll hear next about homosexuality's relation to Al Queda. On a sidenote, found out that a distant cousin of mine married his partner in DC last week. Happy for them both. Good people all around.

Oh I know! They're sheetwearers! There's nothing but lies coming from those people. But it gives you some space to make fun of them. It's just ammo against rubes.

Congratulations to your cousin ^_^

80 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:46:49pm

re: #68 Capitalist Tool

that's just your incomplete understanding of karma...
all the major religions talk about karma- Jesus talked it just about more than anything else... as you sow, so shall you reap, etc..

For those busting my chops about 'making threats' etc, you are wrong about what I am saying

Well, a woman making a sane and responsible decision to have an abortion-- you think she'll 'reap' something good from that, then?

81 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:47:02pm

re: #77 LudwigVanQuixote

Data is the notebook of the Devil.

82 brownbagj  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:47:11pm

And when someone says we need to make abortion rare, here is how I would do it.

1. Give women the full authority to make their own damn decisions
2. Take the stigma out of sex - it should be an open and honest discussion for our young people
3. Make sex education more realistic including how to use birth control and make it truly accessible
4. Provide a safer society for young women - including better laws for rape, removing statute of limitations regarding rape, prosecuting molesters or incest predators
5. Provide a true and long-term path for child-care for those who are financially unable to care for their baby if they decide to have it

83 jaunte  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:47:18pm

re: #77 LudwigVanQuixote

Coincidentally, just tweeted by Rachel Maddow
[Link: www.washingtonmonthly.com...]

84 Sionainn  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:47:29pm

re: #81 McSpiff

Data is the notebook of the Devil.

I like that!

85 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:47:30pm

re: #81 McSpiff

Data is the notebook of the Devil.

It is where all the details actually live.

86 SpaceJesus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:47:50pm

re: #65 WindUpBird


I made a little blog post about this the other day, funny stuff. Especially the map of the US (with regards to the south).

87 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:48:09pm

re: #71 eclectic infidel

i have no idea what price they might pay... such things aren't up to me.

as brownbagj pointed out, there is a price often paid right up front in tears and remorse.
Even the woman responsible for the original supreme court decision later expressed her regret.

88 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:48:43pm

re: #78 Amory Blaine

What if the rapist murdered her family in front of her?

Whoa. That's heavy, but a good question.

89 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:48:56pm

re: #76 Obdicut

That's really nifty data. I think the most important part to get out there is that the gay members just didn't search for straight guys, at all. Gay men are simply not interested in straight guys. A very few, weird, creepy gay guys are; the overwhelming vast 99% majority are interested, shockingly, in gay guys.

YES exactly

But it sure sounds scary to uneducated people that THE GAYS are coming for them!

Don't worry, fat conservative guy in Kansas with an American flag t-shirt who drives an aging Lincoln Town Car, we don't want you, go back to your wife

90 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:49:04pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote

It is where all the details actually live.

Nice give and go ;-)

91 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:49:18pm

re: #83 jaunte

Coincidentally, just tweeted by Rachel Maddow
[Link: www.washingtonmonthly.com...]

Excellent post! Of course, the GOP would have you believe that they spend less than the Dems also... That is something that the past 60 years puts a clear lie to, but who's counting...

92 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:49:24pm

re: #74 WindUpBird

Wow this is like totally deep, I mean, nobody's ever said this before, it's just really something to think about

Why is this argument only comes up when it comes to abortion? That's always where I hear this line. Why does this never come up when it comes to oh...banks lending money to someone to buy a house? Why does this never come up with one is found to be investing in unethical corporations?

Oh that's right, PEOPLE have to live up to the consequences of their actions. GROUPS of people (i.e. corporations) eh, go forth, screw as many people as you want who cares drive through

group karma?
beats me... it ultimately comes down to an individual, as far as AI know.

93 pharmmajor  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:49:25pm

re: #31 Obdicut

I think the two-party system is a large reason for a lot of the problems in politics in this country. I favor Condorcet voting or some sort of instant-runoff voting.

However, that I think that doesn't mean that I think any third-party person is inherently better in any way, as pharmmajor was implying.

Okay, I admit that I was generalizing. Yes, there are some third party candidates who are complete nutters (like the guy running for Senate in Nevada who wants to expose the "international Jewish conspiracy".) But I still think that many of them have ideas that people might find more rational than what the Dems and the GOP have to offer.

94 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:49:26pm

re: #87 Capitalist Tool

i have no idea what price they might pay... such things aren't up to me.

as brownbagj pointed out, there is a price often paid right up front in tears and remorse.
Even the woman responsible for the original supreme court decision later expressed her regret.

Ha. So you make the comment, hide behind karma, and duck out.

95 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:49:48pm

re: #93 pharmmajor


Can you name one, please?

96 Sionainn  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:49:55pm

re: #87 Capitalist Tool

i have no idea what price they might pay... such things aren't up to me.

as brownbagj pointed out, there is a price often paid right up front in tears and remorse.
Even the woman responsible for the original supreme court decision later expressed her regret.

Ugh.

97 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:50:20pm

re: #86 SpaceJesus

I made a little blog post about this the other day, funny stuff. Especially the map of the US (with regards to the south).

Oregon is GAAAAAAY

Also I like the tiny little bright red dot for Austin, hahaha

98 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:50:34pm

re: #94 eclectic infidel

WTF are you talking about? WTF? I told you what i meant ande explained what I said.

FUCK OFF

99 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:50:51pm

re: #92 Capitalist Tool

Here's a tip, if you have no actual comment to make behind some vauge, spiteful notion of Karma, maybe you should keep it to yourself. Saying "oh they'll get theres, don't worry" just makes you look hateful.

100 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:51:07pm

re: #98 Capitalist Tool

WTF are you talking about? WTF? I told you what i meant ande explained what I said.

FUCK OFF

You really haven't explained anything. Have a nice day.

101 pharmmajor  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:51:16pm

re: #63 brownbagj

Telling someone when it is "right" or "ok" to make decisions about their own body is anti-freedom. Period.

Now, I do know some people who have had abortions. All have had to overcome depression regarding it.

Abortion is not an easy decision to make and it is not an easy decision to deal with. There are repercussions (at least that I have seen). Maybe this is what CT means. I don't know. I can hope.

None of this is an excuse to tell women what to do with their bodies.

Bravo.

102 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:51:25pm

My #2 seems to have pissed off someone going by TNChuckster... I wonder if that is a troll!

Do come out and play!

103 brownbagj  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:51:51pm

re: #65 WindUpBird

So according to okcupid's stats, gay people aren't any more promiscuous than straight people

Sorry AFA, sorry Focus on the Family, sorry Tony Perkins, and sorry to the rest of you rube-baiting dope merchants, gonna have to find another work to distract the dumb

But everyone knows that gay encounters are much more adventurous than hetero encounters, so each gay encounter should count for 4 hetero.

//

104 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:52:37pm

*Is laughing out loud, literally.*

Thanks CT, that's a good one. My first chuckle of the day.

105 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:53:02pm

re: #103 brownbagj

But everyone knows that gay encounters are much more adventurous than hetero encounters, so each gay encounter should count for 4 hetero.

//

ahahaha they can be more adventurous, there is a distinct chance you will end up wearing glitter

106 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:53:20pm

re: #102 LudwigVanQuixote

My #2 seems to have pissed off someone going by TNChuckster... I wonder if that is a troll!

Do come out and play!

That one has been on an anti-AGW dinging spree all afternoon.

107 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:53:37pm

re: #23 SpaceJesus

you can hypocritical to that list too

I can add a lot of things to a list about the idiocy, cruelty, callousness, stupidity, neo-fascism, racism and sheer brazen evil of the GOP.

However, it would take a rather long time....

108 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:53:40pm

re: #102 LudwigVanQuixote

My #2 seems to have pissed off someone going by TNChuckster... I wonder if that is a troll!

Do come out and play!

I just cancelled him out, lol

109 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:53:49pm

re: #102 LudwigVanQuixote

My #2 seems to have pissed off someone going by TNChuckster... I wonder if that is a troll!

Do come out and play!

TN = Tennessee?

110 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:54:06pm

re: #106 wrenchwench

That one has been on an anti-AGW dinging spree all afternoon.

Ohhh how interesting!

I do hope it says hello.

111 HappyWarrior  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:54:14pm

re: #79 WindUpBird

Oh I know! They're sheetwearers! There's nothing but lies coming from those people. But it gives you some space to make fun of them. It's just ammo against rubes.

Congratulations to your cousin ^_^

Seriously, I long for the day where AFA, FOTF are seen as fringe bigot groups for how they treat gays and other minorities. What angers me most is they do it in the name of "family". Like gay people don't have families. Thanks by the way. Happy for them both and this is something I know he's worked hard for since he's active in gay and lesbian rights activism.

112 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:54:31pm

re: #99 McSpiff

Here's a tip, if you have no actual comment to make behind some vauge, spiteful notion of Karma, maybe you should keep it to yourself. Saying "oh they'll get theres, don't worry" just makes you look hateful.

that isn't what I said- those are your words.

113 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:54:58pm

re: #4 avanti

Better to have asked "If your loved one was raped", not some hypothetical.

That's pretty obnoxious, though, although it does drive some points home. Although, Dan Quayle once answered one of those honestly--and got kicked in the ass for it.

114 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:55:04pm

Heading out. Later all!

115 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:55:15pm

re: #109 McSpiff

TN = Tennessee?

Most likely. Honestly the reference makes for about a 95% chance of the troll being from the village of the banned.

116 pharmmajor  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:55:22pm

re: #95 Obdicut

Can you name one, please?

Marakay Rogers, the Libertarian candidate (write in only thanks to the dirty tricks of the state Democratic and Republican parties) for governor of PA. She's for same-sex marriage with the same rights offered to straight couples, legalizing marijuana, protecting 2nd amendment rights, and upholding the rights of local governments when it comes to issues like building casinos and mining/drilling for oil.

117 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:55:25pm

re: #112 Capitalist Tool

that isn't what I said- those are your words.

Sorry, "What goes around comes around". Big. Fucking. Difference.

118 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:55:54pm

re: #115 LudwigVanQuixote

Most likely. Honestly the reference makes for about a 95% chance of the troll being from the village of the banned.

Heh hopefully another proud defender!

119 Amory Blaine  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:56:15pm

re: #86 SpaceJesus

I made a little blog post about this the other day, funny stuff. Especially the map of the US (with regards to the south).

Could you please link it?

120 Interesting Times  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:56:16pm

re: #102 LudwigVanQuixote

My #2 seems to have pissed off someone going by TNChuckster... I wonder if that is a troll!

Looks like it (speaking of the karma we CAN clearly define ;) )

He also seems to like the idea of getting rid of birthright citizenship as per the 14th amendment.

121 APox  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:56:20pm

re: #61 Sionainn

What would that "price" be?

100 lashes!
/////

122 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:57:08pm

re: #26 Capitalist Tool

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term which a result of rape is wrong.
A woman who thinks there isn't a price to pay for aborting her fetus for any damned reason is wrong.
What goes around comes around.

That's my opinion.

In other words, ignoring the baited language about 'any damned reason;, you believe this matter should be left to the pregnant individual? My opinion as well.

Not because I think women always make good choices about their bodies. Just because having anyone else make the decision is worse.

123 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:57:16pm

i'm having a hard time keeping up with this conversation- my attention is split while trying to work (i'm at work)... i'm going to bow out for now, but will be back after 4

later

124 Sionainn  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:57:45pm

re: #121 APox

100 lashes!
///

Thanks for answering my question since Capitalist Tool couldn't be bothered. :-)

125 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:58:20pm

re: #46 McSpiff

Sure, abortions are a couple hundred bucks around here.

Thank God Bart Stupak made sure Obama wouldn't pay for them.

//

126 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:59:42pm

re: #116 pharmmajor

Congrats, you found one. In researching the Libertarian Party-- prompted by your constant references to it, that'd make the first out of about twenty or so candidates who wasn't an anti-science nut. Do you think that's a good ratio for the Libertarian party?

Though this bit, of course:

upholding the rights of local governments when it comes to issues like building casinos and mining/drilling for oil.

Is still massively problematic.


Instead of acting as though the Libertarian Party is a better choice than the Democrats in the current moment, why not go and work on making the Libertarian Party a better choice, by beating back the huge strain of anti-science, states rights bullshit it's infested with?

Oh, right, I forgot-- you're a tenther, who tried to argue that civil rights should have been pursued at the state and local level and not through the Civil Rights Amendment.

127 brownbagj  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 12:59:44pm

re: #121 APox

100 lashes!
///

Are those hetero or gay lashes? Number crunching here...

///

128 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:00:37pm

re: #120 publicityStunted

Looks like it (speaking of the karma we CAN clearly define ;) )

He also seems to like the idea of getting rid of birthright citizenship as per the 14th amendment.

He doesn't seem to want to play... Well, wingnuts and fascists, like all ignorant bullies with an inferiority complex always were utter cowards.

129 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:01:42pm

The archaic party of the Dark Ages has spoken once again.

130 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:02:46pm

re: #126 Obdicut

Congrats, you found one. In researching the Libertarian Party-- prompted by your constant references to it, that'd make the first out of about twenty or so candidates who wasn't an anti-science nut. Do you think that's a good ratio for the Libertarian party?

Though this bit, of course:

Is still massively problematic.

Instead of acting as though the Libertarian Party is a better choice than the Democrats in the current moment, why not go and work on making the Libertarian Party a better choice, by beating back the huge strain of anti-science, states rights bullshit it's infested with?

Oh, right, I forgot-- you're a tenther, who tried to argue that civil rights should have been pursued at the state and local level and not through the Civil Rights Amendment.

I have a friend who tried to argue that giving gay Americans the legal right to marry was violating her choice to reject homosexuality, and that local ballot measures should be held as sacrosanct.

My response, "well, G., glad Brown vs. Board of Education wasn't decided at the local level. She dropped the discussion and never brought it up with me again. I don't think I convinced her of anything, but I'm certain she didn't have a reasonable response to that.

131 Sionainn  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:05:39pm

re: #129 Gus 802

The archaic party of the Dark Ages has spoken once again.

Speaking of that...Angle and Reid are debating tonight at 6:00 PST. I'm hoping Charles can livestream it. We can pop some popcorn and wait for Sharron to make some more crazy comments and backpedal on her previous ones.

132 HappyWarrior  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:06:30pm

re: #130 eclectic infidel

I have a friend who tried to argue that giving gay Americans the legal right to marry was violating her choice to reject homosexuality, and that local ballot measures should be held as sacrosanct.

My response, "well, G., glad Brown vs. Board of Education wasn't decided at the local level. She dropped the discussion and never brought it up with me again. I don't think I convinced her of anything, but I'm certain she didn't have a reasonable response to that.

They do tend to drop it when stuff like that gets brought up. I had a nice conversation about gay rights with a human rights campaign volunteer today on campus.

133 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:06:55pm

To the GOP Indiana candidates.

If a female soldiers is raped while being held prisoner (or hostate) by Al-Qaeda would your require that female soldier to carry that fetus to term?

Somehow I doubt they would say yes. However, it's hard to tell these days.

134 JRCMYP  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:07:13pm

Every baby wanted. Every mother willing.

135 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:07:38pm

re: #129 Gus 802

The archaic party of the Dark Ages has spoken once again.

I have the firm belief that if they could only get laid a little more and not feel so guilty about it, they would be less bitter and cling to their guns and judgmental, ignorant, self-righteious and backwards religious views less.

136 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:08:05pm

re: #128 LudwigVanQuixote

He doesn't seem to want to play... Well, wingnuts and fascists, like all ignorant bullies with an inferiority complex always were utter cowards.

He's logged into the thread, he knows how to type....

Dinging is much easier.

137 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:09:06pm

re: #133 Gus 802

To the GOP Indiana candidates.

If a female soldiers is raped while being held prisoner (or hostate) by Al-Qaeda would your require that female soldier to carry that fetus to term?

Somehow I doubt they would say yes. However, it's hard to tell these days.

Hard to say. That would after all be a brown baby from a non Christian father...

I think they would find some cog dissonance there.

138 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:10:50pm

re: #128 LudwigVanQuixote

He is has one of those little down dingers.
A proud Enzyte customer.

139 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:13:52pm

re: #5 LudwigVanQuixote

Did you see my thermo post BTW?

I did.
Excellent.
:)

140 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:14:05pm

re: #137 LudwigVanQuixote

Hard to say. That would after all be a brown baby from a non Christian father...

I think they would find some cog dissonance there.

I would like to see one of these fakers tell there daughter, with a straight face, whom after being raped that he thinks she should carry her fetus to term. Then I would like to see these same fakers deal with the psychological trauma they would reap on their daughters.

141 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:15:25pm

re: #139 Varek Raith

I did.
Excellent.
:)

Thank you... It will take some time for part two, since it is going to have to cover a lot more ground. I might have to break that into two parts.

142 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:15:57pm

re: #140 Gus 802

I would like to see one of these fakers tell there daughter, with a straight face, whom after being raped that he thinks she should carry her fetus to term. Then I would like to see these same fakers deal with the psychological trauma they would reap on their daughters.

And what a great way to break down the family unit too - what kind of trust and love could a daughter have with a parent who would condemn her for wanting to abort after being horribly violated in that way?

143 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:17:05pm

re: #140 Gus 802

I would like to see one of these fakers tell there daughter, with a straight face, whom after being raped that he thinks she should carry her fetus to term. Then I would like to see these same fakers deal with the psychological trauma they would reap on their daughters.

This was addressed above. II commented that it is always someone else's abortion that is wrong or immoral.

Obdi, came up with this great link:

[Link: mypage.direct.ca...]

144 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:20:32pm

re: #127 brownbagj

Are those hetero or gay lashes? Number crunching here...

///

I wonder which are harder... Answer, if a woman is holding the lash it doesn't matter her orientation, its harder...

Ohhh did I say that?

Is it not ok to say that if I'm not pure like the GOP?

145 mikefromArlington  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:20:52pm

The religious right is making gains.

146 Decatur Deb  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:21:45pm

re: #133 Gus 802

To the GOP Indiana candidates.

If a female soldiers is raped while being held prisoner (or hostate) by Al-Qaeda would your require that female soldier to carry that fetus to term?

Somehow I doubt they would say yes. However, it's hard to tell these days.

This is not theoretical. A missionary nun was raped by a US backed death squad in Guatemala. After the liaison got her out, she underwent an abortion. Her congressional testimony to this is on-line, but somone else can link to it.

147 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:23:43pm

Carlos Bugeño, going up.

Looks like they're pulling people out of a can.

148 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:24:53pm

re: #147 wrenchwench

Carlos Bugeño, going up.

Looks like they're pulling people out of a can.

My shoulders would barely fit through that hole...
:/

149 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:26:17pm

re: #146 Decatur Deb

This is not theoretical. A missionary nun was raped by a US backed death squad in Guatemala. After the liaison got her out, she underwent an abortion. Her congressional testimony to this is on-line, but somone else can link to it.

Just read a few articles, briefly about this. Disgusting, especially how the U.S. Govt initially reacted.

150 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:26:20pm

re: #146 Decatur Deb

This is not theoretical. A missionary nun was raped by a US backed death squad in Guatemala. After the liaison got her out, she underwent an abortion. Her congressional testimony to this is on-line, but somone else can link to it.

Ursuline Sr. Dianna Ortiz

151 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:26:54pm

re: #143 LudwigVanQuixote

This was addressed above. II commented that it is always someone else's abortion that is wrong or immoral.

Obdi, came up with this great link:

[Link: mypage.direct.ca...]

Dear god I'm only halfway through, somebody please tell me that there are at least some people who realize what flaming hypocrites they're being!

152 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:27:11pm

re: #148 Varek Raith

My shoulders would barely fit through that hole...
:/

They'd roll you up nice and tight, and stuff you in there. It would work if you knew your mamacita was waiting for you, as Carlos's is.

153 Interesting Times  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:30:45pm

re: #150 Gus 802

Ursuline Sr. Dianna Ortiz

Make sure you keep that handy for all those people who pray at the altar of St. Reagan.

154 APox  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:33:35pm

But this is what I don't understand... Why is their response at all shocking? If you have the view that a fetus is really a human life, and saving that life should supersede the rights of the mother, then why is this train of thought unreasonable?

Of course if you're pro choice as I am and don't view a fetus as a person then of course this is offensive. But how can you be at all pro life (and subsequently hold the ideal that the fetus is a person) and be against 'rape babies' seems to clash with pro life values.

155 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:34:02pm

re: #153 publicityStunted

Make sure you keep that handy for all those people who pray at the altar of St. Reagan.

War on Democracy - An individuals experiance in Guatemala

Youtube Video
156 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:34:12pm

Hmmmm

157 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:35:11pm

re: #141 LudwigVanQuixote

Looking forward to part 2. Heh, I wish we could collaborate for some demonstration video. Very thermal, (from gunpowder to just about all the fuel gases) and (given my shop) very dynamic. Exothermic as an understatement. :-)

158 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:35:52pm

re: #153 publicityStunted

Make sure you keep that handy for all those people who pray at the altar of St. Reagan.

Yeah. Pro-life. It's basically pro-life for me but not for thee. And it was much more than rape. She was gang raped and tortured.

159 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:36:35pm

re: #154 APox

But this is what I don't understand... Why is their response at all shocking? If you have the view that a fetus is really a human life, and saving that life should supersede the rights of the mother, then why is this train of thought unreasonable?

Of course if you're pro choice as I am and don't view a fetus as a person then of course this is offensive. But how can you be at all pro life (and subsequently hold the ideal that the fetus is a person) and be against 'rape babies' seems to clash with pro life values.

Because they want to appear pro fetus without seeming anti-women to the voters.

Of course some of them actually are "anti-women" and every so often the mask slips... like when Sarah Palin decided other women should have to pay for their rape kits...

160 Sionainn  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:36:59pm

re: #154 APox

But this is what I don't understand... Why is their response at all shocking? If you have the view that a fetus is really a human life, and saving that life should supersede the rights of the mother, then why is this train of thought unreasonable?

Of course if you're pro choice as I am and don't view a fetus as a person then of course this is offensive. But how can you be at all pro life (and subsequently hold the ideal that the fetus is a person) and be against 'rape babies' seems to clash with pro life values.

You have a point. My problem with their view is that they don't just hold that view, they want to make the rest of us live by their view.

161 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:38:53pm

re: #160 Sionainn

You have a point. My problem with their view is that they don't just hold that view, they want to make the rest of us live by their view.

Pro life yet Pro death penalty.

162 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:40:39pm

re: #161 Varek Raith

Pro life yet Pro death penalty.

Meh that's an easy one to reconcile, people are born with a right to life but can forfeit that right by committing certain acts.

I don't even see it as hypocrytical and I'm a catnip smoking liberal.

163 Big Steve  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:41:41pm

I am a strong supporter of abortion rights but I have never understood the argument of "the government does not have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body." Yet the government does this all the time. The government determines what pills I can or cannot put in my body, the government determines what ingredients manufactureres can include in food I put in my body, the government determines that I cannot walk my body around naked, the government even determines where my kids can or cannot plant my body once it dies. Whether it should or shouldn't prevent abortion....the argument that the government doesn't have the right to determine what we do to our bodies is specious and wrong.

164 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:43:00pm

re: #162 jamesfirecat

Meh that's an easy one to reconcile, people are born with a right to life but can forfeit that right by committing certain acts.

I don't even see it as hypocrytical and I'm a catnip smoking liberal.

Way to ruin my awesomeness.
/
:)

165 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:43:20pm

re: #153 publicityStunted

Make sure you keep that handy for all those people who pray at the altar of St. Reagan.

One of the presidents:

José Efraín Ríos Montt (born June 16, 1926) is a former de facto President of Guatemala, dictator, army general, and former president of Congress. In the 2003 presidential elections, he unsuccessfully ran as the candidate of the ruling Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG).

[...]

Ríos Montt denounced a "massive electoral fraud", blaming Catholic priests who had questioned the mistreatment of the Catholic Mayans, and claimed that the priests were leftist agents. It is alleged that he was given a payoff of several hundred thousand dollars along with the post of military attaché in the embassy in Madrid, Spain, where he stayed until 1977.

In 1978, he left the Roman Catholic Church and became a minister in the California-based evangelical/pentecostal Church of the Word; since then Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have been personal friends. Ríos Montt's brother Mario is a Catholic bishop, and in 1998 succeeded the assassinated Bishop Juan Gerardi as head of the human rights commission uncovering the truth of the disappearances associated with the military and his brother.

[...]

Given Ríos Montt's staunch anticommunism and ties to the United States, the Reagan administration continued to support the general and his regime, paying a visit to Guatemala City in December 1982. During a meeting with Ríos Montt on December 4, Reagan declared: "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."

[...]

In 1999, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Rigoberta Menchú presented charges for torture, genocide, illegal detention and state-sponsored terrorism against Ríos Montt and four other retired Guatemalan generals, two of them ex-presidents. Three other civilians that were high government official between 1978 and 1982 were also indicted. The Center for Justice and Accountability and Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de España are co-counsel in the trial. In September 2005 Spain's Constitutional Court ruled that Spanish courts can try those accused of crimes against humanity even if the victims were not of Spanish origin. In June 2006, Spanish judge Santiago Pedraz traveled to Guatemala to interrogate Ríos Montt and the others named in the case. However, at least 15 appeals filed by the defense attorneys of the indicted prevented Pedraz from carrying out the inquiries.

166 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:43:23pm

re: #154 APox

But this is what I don't understand... Why is their response at all shocking? If you have the view that a fetus is really a human life, and saving that life should supersede the rights of the mother, then why is this train of thought unreasonable?

Of course if you're pro choice as I am and don't view a fetus as a person then of course this is offensive. But how can you be at all pro life (and subsequently hold the ideal that the fetus is a person) and be against 'rape babies' seems to clash with pro life values.

I'll put it this way. While my opinion is apparently not common-I do regard the fetus as a person, and I'm pro choice for the pregnant woman. To me the fetus is undeniably a human being and she has the right to end the pregnancy.

It's far from the only place where we allow one human life or death decisions on another human now is it? I feel no need to deny the DNA and human origin of the fetus to strengthen her rights. Just not necessary.

167 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:44:14pm

re: #163 Big Steve

I am a strong supporter of abortion rights but I have never understood the argument of "the government does not have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body." Yet the government does this all the time. The government determines what pills I can or cannot put in my body, the government determines what ingredients manufactureres can include in food I put in my body, the government determines that I cannot walk my body around naked, the government even determines where my kids can or cannot plant my body once it dies. Whether it should or shouldn't prevent abortion...the argument that the government doesn't have the right to determine what we do to our bodies is specious and wrong.

Walking around naked is a infringing on other's rights to not be disturbed by your appearance.

As would it be messing with other people's rights to life liberty and happiness if your kids decided to bury you right next to the town water supply.

As for what you can and can't eat... I've got nothing.

168 acacia  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:45:18pm

re: #2 LudwigVanQuixote

"Ignorant, smug, arrogant, self righteous" applies to almost ALL politicians. As for no "understanding of shades of grey" that seems a bit unfair when the person is asked "yes or no" and is denied the opportunity to talk about the "shades of grey." The abortion issue is neither pro nor anti woman no matter what side you are on. As for evolution though, I simply do not understand how people can deny that.

169 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:45:28pm

re: #166 Rightwingconspirator

I'll put it this way. While my opinion is apparently not common-I do regard the fetus as a person, and I'm pro choice for the pregnant woman. To me the fetus is undeniably a human being and she has the right to end the pregnancy.

It's far from the only place where we allow one human life or death decisions on another human now is it? I feel no need to deny the DNA and human origin of the fetus to strengthen her rights. Just not necessary.

I'm with you on that one.

People's organs need to be sacrosanct or else there really is no private property in the world that can't be taken from us if another needs it to save their life....

170 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:46:09pm

re: #168 acacia

"Ignorant, smug, arrogant, self righteous" applies to almost ALL politicians. As for no "understanding of shades of grey" that seems a bit unfair when the person is asked "yes or no" and is denied the opportunity to talk about the "shades of grey." The abortion issue is neither pro nor anti woman no matter what side you are on. As for evolution though, I simply do not understand how people can deny that.

Believe me when I say, there are people who are anti-abortion because they're anti-women.

You don't have to be.

But to deny that groups exists is silly.

171 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:46:47pm

re: #169 jamesfirecat

People's organs need to be sacrosanct or else there really is no private property in the world that can't be taken from us if another needs it to save their life...


What a great point!

172 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:47:05pm

re: #116 pharmmajor

Marakay Rogers, the Libertarian candidate (write in only thanks to the dirty tricks of the state Democratic and Republican parties) for governor of PA. She's for same-sex marriage with the same rights offered to straight couples, legalizing marijuana, protecting 2nd amendment rights, and upholding the rights of local governments when it comes to issues like building casinos and mining/drilling for oil.

Can you show me where the state Democrats had anything to do with Marakay being stricken from the ballot? Every single news report I can find about this lists only Republicans and a GOP lawsuit in opposition, with no mention of Democrats at all. I think your default position is to always blame both major parties equally for everything you don't like, regardless of actual fact or reason.

173 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:47:17pm

re: #165 Gus 802

One of the presidents:

His successor:

Óscar Humberto Mejía Victores

Óscar Humberto Mejía Victores (born 1930) was President of Guatemala from 8 August 1983 to 14 January 1986. A member of the Military, he was President of Guatemala during a time of increased repression and death squad activity. During the time he was a minister of defense he rallied a coup against José Efraín Ríos Montt, the former president of Guatemala, which he justified by declaring that the government was being abused by religious fanatics. He allowed a return to democracy, with elections for a constituent assembly in 1984 followed by general elections in 1985.

Along with former Presidents José Efraín Ríos Montt and Fernando Romeo Lucas García (deceased), President Mejía has been charged with murder, kidnapping, and genocide in the Spanish court system.

174 darthstar  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:48:35pm

Virginia Foxx floats into rhetorical iceberg on Noah's Ark...

[Link: www.wxii12.com...]

Good stuff.

Another jewel from the debate:

Youtube Video
175 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:49:20pm

re: #171 Rightwingconspirator

What a great point!

There are days I wonder how many people who are "pro-life" every bothered to consider the Violinist Argument..... because precious few of them seem to have in my opinion...

176 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:49:45pm

re: #163 Big Steve

The government determines what pills I can or cannot put in my body

That's control of the pills.

the government determines what ingredients manufactureres can include in food I put in my body

That's control of the food.

the government determines that I cannot walk my body around naked

OK, there's one.

the government even determines where my kids can or cannot plant my body once it dies

That's your corpse. There's no "you" there, the corpse is not your possession.

You can't walk around naked in public, nor can you force someone else to do so. The control being exercised over a pregnant woman's body if abortion is illegal is denial of a medical procedure. I can't twist that into an analogy. I think your attempt at a point failed.

177 Big Steve  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:50:56pm

re: #167 jamesfirecat

Walking around naked is a infringing on other's rights to not be disturbed by your appearance.

As would it be messing with other people's rights to life liberty and happiness if your kids decided to bury you right next to the town water supply.

As for what you can and can't eat... I've got nothing.

What you illustrate are the reasons the government regulates my body in those instances (all good reasons by the way) but nonetheless the government has the right to make those regulations. As to they have the right to deny me smoking dope. I am just saving that the "government doesn't have the right to regulate a woman's body" is fallacious, wrong, and people need to knock saying that. Argue abortion off of other premises but not this one.

179 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:52:02pm

re: #168 acacia

The abortion issue is neither pro nor anti woman no matter what side you are on.

Granting rights to a blastosphere that are "equal" to the rights of an adult woman is being "anti-woman" in my opinion.

180 Big Steve  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:53:37pm

re: #176 wrenchwench

That's control of the pills.


That's control of the food.


OK, there's one.


That's your corpse. There's no "you" there, the corpse is not your possession.

You can't walk around naked in public, nor can you force someone else to do so. The control being exercised over a pregnant woman's body if abortion is illegal is denial of a medical procedure. I can't twist that into an analogy. I think your attempt at a point failed.

The government controls every other medical procedure why not this one. What makes it so special. In Russia it is legal to have a goat scrotum sown onto you to improve your sex life. Thankfully the US Government does not permit people to do that to their bodies here.

181 allegro  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:53:43pm

re: #176 wrenchwench

The control being exercised over a pregnant woman's body if abortion is illegal is denial of a medical procedure. I can't twist that into an analogy. I think your attempt at a point failed.

The best analogy I know of is to compare forcing a woman to give birth to forcing a person to give blood or bone marrow to save someone's life. Those are much safer procedures than carrying a pregnancy to term but would never, ever be considered as they would be violations of a person's right to bodily autonomy.

182 APox  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:54:14pm

re: #163 Big Steve

I'd have to disagree. Everything you cited has a basis on maintaining order / the health of the populace / respecting others around you. Banning abortions would hurt the potential of countless people and is based in religious opinion. Comparing apples to oranges.

I'm posting on an iPhone and there's a 10 second lag between hitting a key and it registering in the post...... Very painful :(

183 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:56:30pm

re: #180 Big Steve

The government controls every other medical procedure why not this one. What makes it so special. In Russia it is legal to have a goat scrotum sown onto you to improve your sex life. Thankfully the US Government does not permit people to do that to their bodies here.

Government regulation is NOT the same thing as government prohibition. What if only women were allowed to undergo heart surgery because it was prohibited to men? That would be more analogous. That men don't get pregnant is part of the political problem women have.

184 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:57:27pm

Guatemalan Civil War

The Guatemalan Civil War ran from 1960 to 1996.

The thirty-six-year civil war began as a grassroots, popular response to the rightist and military usurpation of civil government (State and public institutions), and the dictatorship's disrespect for the human and civil rights of the majority population. In 1944, the "October Revolutionaries" assumed government and instituted liberal economic reform benefiting and politically strengthening the civil and labor rights of the urban working class and the peasants. Elsewhere, a group of leftist students, professionals, and liberal-democratic government coalitions were led by Juan José Arévalo and Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.

In consequence, the U.S. Government, ordered the CIA to launch Operation PBSUCCESS (1953–54) and halt Guatemala's “drift to the Left”, as perceived by the corporate fruit companies and the U.S. State Department. The CIA chose right-wing army Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas to lead an "insurrection" in the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. Upon deposing the Árbenz Guzmán Government, Col. Castillo Armas began dismantling a decade of socio-economic reform and legislative progress, and banned labor unions and Left-wing political parties, disenfranchisement that radicalized left-wing Guatemalans.

A series of military coups d’état followed, featuring fraudulent elections offering only military officers as candidates to civil government office. Aggravating the general poverty and political repression motivating the civil war, was the socio-economic discrimination and racism practiced against the Guatemala's indigenous peoples, such as the Maya; many later fought the civil war. Although the dark-skinned native Guatemalans constitute more than half of the national populace, they are landless, whilst the land-lord upper classes of the oligarchy, white-skinned descendants of European immigrants to Guatemala, controlled most of the land.[2]

40,000 to 50,000 disappeared during the war and approximately 200,000 were killed. Felipe Cusanero became the first person to be sentenced for this in 2009 when he received a 150-year jail term, 25 years for each of his six missing victims. This was hailed a landmark prison sentence in Guatemala.

185 acacia  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:57:31pm

re: #176 wrenchwench

I think his point is well taken. While I don't think classifying something as a "procedure" is valid distinction, there are many "procedures" that are prohibitted; e.g. experimental procedures, lobotomies, suicide, etc.

186 APox  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:57:33pm

re: #180 Big Steve

The government controls every other medical procedure why not this one. What makes it so special. In Russia it is legal to have a goat scrotum sown onto you to improve your sex life. Thankfully the US Government does not permit people to do that to their bodies here.

Crap I gave you a downrank while trying to quote :p

Tell me more of this half man/goat surgery! Lol

187 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 1:59:33pm

re: #180 Big Steve

The government controls every other medical procedure why not this one. What makes it so special. In Russia it is legal to have a goat scrotum sown onto you to improve your sex life. Thankfully the US Government does not permit people to do that to their bodies here.

Que?

188 Big Steve  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:00:22pm

re: #183 wrenchwench

That was my exact point. Sewing a goat scrotum to one's own scrotum is a procedure that only affects men and is prohibited. It is a case of the government prohibiting a medical procedure that only men would want. And please understand I could give several excellent arguments FOR legal abortions but arguing that the government doesn't have the right is not one of them.

189 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:00:23pm

The GOP's Disastrous Ideas

Why Brazil, India, and China will be thrilled if Republicans win the midterms.
190 Big Steve  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:02:38pm

re: #186 APox

Crap I gave you a downrank while trying to quote :p

Tell me more of this half man/goat surgery! Lol

Oh it was some outdated theory that since male goats are known for their horniness taking on some of their parts would help. Sort of a surgery version of Viagra. And I may be wrong it might be Mongolia that allows not Russia it but there is a country that does. And by the way, fatalities from this are very high due to rejection and infection and of course it doesn't work for the intended purpose.

191 Sionainn  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:02:47pm

re: #180 Big Steve

The government controls every other medical procedure why not this one.

Like what?

192 Charles Johnson  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:04:35pm

Just finished a piece for the Guardian's 'Comment Is Free' blog on Pamela Geller.

193 acacia  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:05:20pm

re: #179 wrenchwench

Your point of distinction is the nature of the "blastosphere." While a conclusion may or may not logically follow from how you come down on whether the fetus is a "blastosphere" or a human being, the fact is that this is where the point of disagreement is. In other words, if the starting point is "anti-woman" it does not logically follow that the ending point is anti abortion. For example (admittedly an extreme one but the extreme ones illustrate the point better) a person who is "anti woman" may be all for abortion if the fetus is female.

194 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:05:36pm

re: #65 WindUpBird

So according to okcupid's stats, gay people aren't any more promiscuous than straight people

Sorry AFA, sorry Focus on the Family, sorry Tony Perkins, and sorry to the rest of you rube-baiting dope merchants, gonna have to find another work to distract the dumb

Ah, but you forget the promiscuity *caused* by gays, sir. So many brave defenders of family values have been so demoralised by the depravity of gays that they've been forced into cheating on their spouses. Sometimes many times over and with many partners. Some have even, by an extension of the Stockholm Syndrome, been converted to gayness themselves. So, you see, gays *are* a threat to monogamy and the sanctity of marriage. Not because of what they do, but because of their effect on married, morally erect (and sometimes immorally erect) Christian Americans.

195 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:05:57pm

re: #189 Killgore Trout

I'll try to get through but since the author seeks to blame Reagan for the recession, the partisan attitude strains his credibility.

196 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:06:02pm

re: #188 Big Steve

please spare me any 'valid' reasoning to sew on a goat scrotum...
the whole concept cracks me up

197 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:06:31pm

re: #188 Big Steve

That was my exact point. Sewing a goat scrotum to one's own scrotum is a procedure that only affects men and is prohibited. It is a case of the government prohibiting a medical procedure that only men would want. And please understand I could give several excellent arguments FOR legal abortions but arguing that the government doesn't have the right is not one of them.

Again, you have made such a terrible analogy it has no meaning, in my opinion. If a man cannot have his goat scrotum, nothing further happens to him 9 months down the road. (That I know of.)

Yes, the government regulates many, if not all, medical procedures. No, it does not have the right to deny one of those to any woman who wants it.

198 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:07:36pm

re: #192 Charles

Wot'd ye tell 'em? Is it published yet?

199 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:07:50pm

re: #70 jaunte

A party that wants to control the bodies of others is going to pay the long-term price of impotence.

Actually, Viagra is already covered by health insurance. It's abortions that aren't.

(I'm sorry. I just couldn't let that pun go past.)

200 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:08:14pm

re: #195 Rightwingconspirator

I'll try to get through but since the author seeks to blame Reagan for the recession, the partisan attitude strains his credibility.

Not the recession but deficit spending.

201 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:09:48pm

re: #76 Obdicut

That's really nifty data. I think the most important part to get out there is that the gay members just didn't search for straight guys, at all. Gay men are simply not interested in straight guys. A very few, weird, creepy gay guys are; the overwhelming vast 99% majority are interested, shockingly, in gay guys.

Are those few gays guys anything like the straight guys who fantasise about lesbians? Talk about setting yourself up for failure.

202 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:10:00pm

re: #180 Big Steve

The government controls every other medical procedure why not this one. What makes it so special. In Russia it is legal to have a goat scrotum sown onto you to improve your sex life. Thankfully the US Government does not permit people to do that to their bodies here.

How? Please inform the Supreme Court because the main point of the Roe v. Wade decision was the constitutional right to privacy. The government cannot control everything.

203 darthstar  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:10:37pm

Speaking of debates (who's speaking of debates? Oh yeah, that'd be me...), did anyone watch the Whitman-Brown debate last night? The pucker that took over her face when Brown said, "I would have at least gotten my employee a lawyer after nine years of service" was priceless...she actually scowled at him...though the media focused on how upset he got when she jabbed at him at another point in the debate...but the scowl, it was priceless.

204 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:11:19pm

re: #193 acacia

Your point of distinction is the nature of the "blastosphere." While a conclusion may or may not logically follow from how you come down on whether the fetus is a "blastosphere" or a human being, the fact is that this is where the point of disagreement is. In other words, if the starting point is "anti-woman" it does not logically follow that the ending point is anti abortion. For example (admittedly an extreme one but the extreme ones illustrate the point better) a person who is "anti woman" may be all for abortion if the fetus is female.

A blastosphere precedes the fetus. The distinction is between "person" or "not a person", not whether it is "human". Person is a legal definition.

Anti-legal abortion is anti-woman. My opinion. Anti-woman can take other forms too, of course.

205 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:11:53pm

re: #200 Killgore Trout

Not the recession but deficit spending.

deficit spending is only allowed when it's republicans, the finger-waggling of the fiscal conservative, that's something that only works on democrats

THE VERY SERIOUS REPUBLICAN MEN SAID SO

YOU HAVE TO KEEP THE LIE ALIVE

206 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:12:31pm

re: #204 wrenchwench

A blastosphere precedes the fetus. The distinction is between "person" or "not a person", not whether it is "human". Person is a legal definition.

Anti-legal abortion is anti-woman. My opinion. Anti-woman can take other forms too, of course.

My new band is called Blastosphere

I figure it'd sound like Meshuggah meets Merzbow

207 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:13:01pm

Back now. Looks like they are starting to bring up Renan Avalos, the 25th miner to be rescued.

208 freetoken  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:13:19pm

re: #205 WindUpBird

You might enjoy this DeLong entry today on the stupidity of the Tea Partiers:

Somehow I Am Now Wishing I Had Read More Nietszche When I Was Younger...

209 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:13:46pm

re: #180 Big Steve

The government controls every other medical procedure why not this one. What makes it so special. In Russia it is legal to have a goat scrotum sown onto you to improve your sex life. Thankfully the US Government does not permit people to do that to their bodies here.

So now abortions are being compared to this?

What the fuck dude

210 acacia  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:14:01pm

re: #202 Gus 802

If you go solely by Roe v. Wade then you have to acknowledge that the government CAN prohibit abortion under certain conditions - e.g. in the third trimester. I think that supports Big Steve's point that the government HAS the right to control procedures. The million dollar question of course is at what point does that end.

211 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:14:23pm

re: #82 brownbagj


4. Provide a safer society for young women - including better laws for rape, removing statute of limitations regarding rape, prosecuting molesters or incest predators

A statute of limitations for rape is nonsensical in the age of DNA fingerprinting. You shouldn't be able to get away with it simply because you were able to evade capture for X amount of time. Some clever DAs have beaten the statute by using to a DNA profile to indict the attacker as a "John Doe".

212 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:15:24pm

re: #208 freetoken

You might enjoy this DeLong entry today on the stupidity of the Tea Partiers:

Somehow I Am Now Wishing I Had Read More Nietszche When I Was Younger...

Those people are just so amazingly stupid :D

213 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:15:34pm

re: #204 wrenchwench

A blastosphere precedes the fetus. The distinction is between "person" or "not a person", not whether it is "human". Person is a legal definition.

Anti-legal abortion is anti-woman. My opinion. Anti-woman can take other forms too, of course.


At first, the fetus is just a mass of cells- where all the confusion comes in is when the fetus actually becomes a person. If we knew that, the laws would likely be written differently, but we don't know, so do the best we can, leaning to the side of personal freedom for women.

214 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:16:32pm

re: #210 acacia

If you go solely by Roe v. Wade then you have to acknowledge that the government CAN prohibit abortion under certain conditions - e.g. in the third trimester. I think that supports Big Steve's point that the government HAS the right to control procedures. The million dollar question of course is at what point does that end.

Uh, the government always controls procedures

There's this thing called certification, we don't just let any welder with a hacksaw to amputate limbs or do a nose job

The shit you gotta pass just to be a NURSE, is incredible

215 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:17:05pm

re: #210 acacia

If you go solely by Roe v. Wade then you have to acknowledge that the government CAN prohibit abortion under certain conditions - e.g. in the third trimester. I think that supports Big Steve's point that the government HAS the right to control procedures. The million dollar question of course is at what point does that end.

Well, there is no million dollar question. Roe v. Wade has been decided and there has been limitations placed. It is the law of the land.

As far as the government being allowed to force raped women to be forced to carry those fetuses to term the only argument that can be made would be that it would have to first dismantle Roe v. Wade. The only limitation it could place would be an extension of late term abortions.

216 acacia  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:17:42pm

re: #204 wrenchwench

Although my terms were not precise, I agree that it is whether "it" is a person or not. Classifying it as a "legal" issue doesn't help one way or the other because the voters make the laws.

I have a question though....are women who are against abortion "anti women"?

217 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:20:01pm

rape victim: You know, I was raped and I'd like to get rid of the baby, thanks, I actually don't want to raise a rape baby


dude on the internet: "Did you know that in Outer Yazbakistan, you can have bull testicles installed in place of your own testicles? The government should prevent that too!"


rape victim: o_o

218 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:21:21pm

re: #217 WindUpBird

I thought that took place in Inner Yurtyaksitan

219 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:21:22pm

re: #216 acacia

Although my terms were not precise, I agree that it is whether "it" is a person or not. Classifying it as a "legal" issue doesn't help one way or the other because the voters make the laws.

I have a question though...are women who are against abortion "anti women"?

No... they are conservative christians...

220 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:22:21pm

re: #216 acacia

Although my terms were not precise, I agree that it is whether "it" is a person or not. Classifying it as a "legal" issue doesn't help one way or the other because the voters make the laws.

I have a question though...are women who are against abortion "anti women"?

If they support legislation making it illegal, or worse, murder?

Then they're anti-women's rights, that's for sure

Are you anti-gay if you support gay people having fewer rights? You tell me :)

I'd love to see what would happen if every miscarriage were investigated as a potential homicide

because isn't that the line? It's murder, right? Well, shit let's see what happens

what could possibly go wrong

221 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:22:37pm

sheesh
been fat fingering keys all day

222 acacia  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:24:53pm

re: #215 Gus 802

Plessy v. Ferguson was the "law of the land" too at one point. Deciding where one right ends and another begins is ALWAYS the million dollar question. If there were no such questions, we'd all be one big happy family singing kum bay yah together with no need for trial courts, Supreme Court decisions or any other dispute resolution procedure.

223 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:25:18pm

re: #216 acacia

Although my terms were not precise, I agree that it is whether "it" is a person or not. Classifying it as a "legal" issue doesn't help one way or the other because the voters make the laws.

I have a question though...are women who are against abortion "anti women"?

I didn't classify it as a legal issue. We are talking about laws, so it is a legal issue.

Yes, an anti-legal abortion woman is anti-woman. IMO.

224 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:25:45pm

re: #222 acacia

Plessy v. Ferguson was the "law of the land" too at one point. Deciding where one right ends and another begins is ALWAYS the million dollar question. If there were no such questions, we'd all be one big happy family singing kum bay yah together with no need for trial courts, Supreme Court decisions or any other dispute resolution procedure.

We are happy with Roe v. Wade.

225 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:25:47pm

re: #122 SanFranciscoZionist

In other words, ignoring the baited language about 'any damned reason;, you believe this matter should be left to the pregnant individual? My opinion as well.

Not because I think women always make good choices about their bodies. Just because having anyone else make the decision is worse.

Well said. I'm at the "woman's choice, for any reason that makes sense to her, and no-else's damned business" end of the spectrum. It's something that I've sometimes had trouble reconciling with other views I have, such as my repugnance at the sex-selective abortions carried out in India and China. These are often not at the mother's choice, as a society that devalues female lives will also deny female autonomy and vice versa. Where it is the woman's choice though, I'd still support it. To paraphrase, I disagree absolutely with your reason for having this abortion, but I'll defend to the death your right to have it.

226 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:28:05pm

#122 Z and #225K
that's pretty much it in a nutshell

227 freetoken  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:28:19pm

Who needs that nasty socialist Obama-care when you've already got free healthcare?:

[Link: landing.newsinc.com...]

228 acacia  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:28:33pm

re: #224 Gus 802

Lots of people were happy with Plessy too. I'm not saying Plessy was "right" or Roe was "wrong" but simply that these issues are always open to challenge.

229 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:29:42pm

re: #11 Obdicut

The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

Fascinating. Thanks for that, Ludwig.

230 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:29:44pm

re: #228 acacia

which is why codified absolutes are almost always wrong

231 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:30:59pm

re: #228 acacia

Lots of people were happy with Plessy too. I'm not saying Plessy was "right" or Roe was "wrong" but simply that these issues are always open to challenge.

Typically the challenges come in response to efforts to curb Roe v. Wade by states. Roe v. Wade isn't challenged in the courts.

232 acacia  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:33:38pm

re: #231 Gus 802

Roe is constantly challenged in the courts - often in connection with the state action which you refer to (which Roe was about as well) - and has been severely eroded over time to the point where several Supreme Court decisions have hinted that when the time is right Roe will be reexamined and possibly abandoned.

233 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:34:28pm

re: #232 acacia

Roe is constantly challenged in the courts - often in connection with the state action which you refer to (which Roe was about as well) - and has been severely eroded over time to the point where several Supreme Court decisions have hinted that when the time is right Roe will be reexamined and possibly abandoned.

Do you support Roe v. Wade?

234 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:34:49pm

re: #200 Killgore Trout

Okay, I must say he makes great points on today's GOP. Truly.
But much of the rest is on a foundation of Dem partisan sand.

Judging by this paragraph, some facts are best oversimplified to buttress his point-

"Sometimes simple facts are worth repeating: During the Clinton years, marginal tax rates were raised to restore fiscal sanity, leading to federal budget surpluses, and 23 million jobs were created. During the George W. Bush presidency, marginal rates were cut, the budget was left with a severe structural deficit, only about 1 million jobs were created, and we descended into an economic cataclysm."

Umm about that dot com boom and the revenues generated by that boom? How quickly he forgot. 90's Job creation? Same genesis. Not Bill Clinton. And balanced spending does not create jobs. It prevents plenty of ills of course.

235 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:35:02pm

re: #132 HappyWarrior

They do tend to drop it when stuff like that gets brought up. I had a nice conversation about gay rights with a human rights campaign volunteer today on campus.

Some try to carry on a bit with the "That's different. Being gay is a choice, being Black isn't." line of argument. I tend to come back with the "Yeah, it's not their fault they're Black, is it?"* retort. That usually ends it.

*That's what the spurious argument about it being okay to discriminate on "mutable characteristics" like sexual orientation and religion, but not on "immutable" ones like race or sex comes down to. They still loathe Blacks and women, but they're willing to grit their teeth and condescend because the poor creatures can't help being that way.

236 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:35:21pm

re: #26 Capitalist Tool

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term which a result of rape is wrong.
A woman who thinks there isn't a price to pay for aborting her fetus for any damned reason is wrong.
What goes around comes around.

That's my opinion.

You're a guy, aren't you?

237 Charles Johnson  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:36:28pm

I just had a look at the Wikipedia page for LGF and someone has posted that absurd bullshit about the deleted posts, including a completely false claim that I didn't acknowledge changes.

238 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:37:25pm

re: #126 Obdicut

John Monds, Georgia Candidate for Governor on the Libertarian Party. Interesting fella.

Not Many Libertarians can claim to have gotten 33% of the popular vote as a libertarian. :)

239 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:37:30pm

re: #234 Rightwingconspirator

Okay, I must say he makes great points on today's GOP. Truly.
But much of the rest is on a foundation of Dem partisan sand.

Judging by this paragraph, some facts are best oversimplified to buttress his point-

"Sometimes simple facts are worth repeating: During the Clinton years, marginal tax rates were raised to restore fiscal sanity, leading to federal budget surpluses, and 23 million jobs were created. During the George W. Bush presidency, marginal rates were cut, the budget was left with a severe structural deficit, only about 1 million jobs were created, and we descended into an economic cataclysm."

Umm about that dot com boom and the revenues generated by that boom? How quickly he forgot. 90's Job creation? Same genesis. Not Bill Clinton. And balanced spending does not create jobs. It prevents plenty of ills of course.

That's fair criticism. I think he also overstates his case. The Republicans are probably only going to take congress, not the senate. They aren't going to be advancing their own agenda or policies. The best they can do is create gridlock.

240 APox  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:38:03pm

re: #226 Capitalist Tool

#122 Z and #225K
that's pretty much it in a nutshell

You forgot to add that they will all get what's coming to them because of the evil they have perpetrated! Am I right?

241 allegro  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:38:39pm

re: #239 Killgore Trout

The Republicans are probably only going to take congress, not the senate. They aren't going to be advancing their own agenda or policies. The best they can do is create gridlock.

In other words, business as usual?

242 acacia  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:40:14pm

re: #233 Gus 802

Not really because I think the Supreme Court went beyond the Constitution trying to justify its opinion. Frankly I truly don't know whether the fetus is a person or not. As for the "law" and given the uncertainty, I think that it should be a political decision. In other words, the people should decide whether abortion is legal and if so under what circumstances, etc. - just like the people decide whether assisted suicide is legal or not.

243 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:40:27pm

re: #205 WindUpBird

Why are you yelling?

244 Charles Johnson  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:40:54pm

I'm just wondering why I seem to be the only blogger who has no right to delete old posts.

245 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:41:14pm

re: #61 Sionainn

What would that "price" be?

This nation will fall! Fall I tell you!

Dogs and cats will live together! Every one will become gay and Communist!

Satan will win!!!!!eleventy!!!

(Speaking in a rational voice) I imagine it will be something along that line.

246 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:41:29pm

re: #242 acacia

Not really because I think the Supreme Court went beyond the Constitution trying to justify its opinion. Frankly I truly don't know whether the fetus is a person or not. As for the "law" and given the uncertainty, I think that it should be a political decision. In other words, the people should decide whether abortion is legal and if so under what circumstances, etc. - just like the people decide whether assisted suicide is legal or not.


Fail.
Fail.
Fail.
It's a medical decision.
Did I mention, Fail?

247 darthstar  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:41:32pm

re: #244 Charles

I'm just wondering why I seem to be the only blogger who has no right to delete old posts.

Because you're special, that's why.

248 allegro  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:41:35pm

re: #242 acacia

In other words, the people should decide whether abortion is legal and if so under what circumstances, etc. - just like the people decide whether assisted suicide is legal or not.

The people have no fucking right to any woman's womb. That is all.

249 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:43:16pm

re: #181 allegro

The best analogy I know of is to compare forcing a woman to give birth to forcing a person to give blood or bone marrow to save someone's life. Those are much safer procedures than carrying a pregnancy to term but would never, ever be considered as they would be violations of a person's right to bodily autonomy.

Strangely, the idea that carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term is a duty or obligation is often promoted by the "don't tread on me" crowd, who insist that any form of societal obligation (paying taxes for instance) is a form of slavery.

250 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:43:25pm

re: #237 Charles

Their source for that: Tim Blair, a reliable source of information.

/sarc off

251 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:44:33pm

re: #236 Romantic Heretic

I am a man, yes.

I think that if there is a price to be paid for any of our individual actions, we will pay it.

I think forcing women to carry a product of rape to term is wrong. I think if that were codified in law, there would be a societal price to be paid. I do not believe such measures will be taken in this country.

On the other end of the scale, a women who carries a perfectly healthy and fine fetus to near- term and then decides for no other reason than she 'just can't handle it' and aborts, that that act is also wrong.

That's what i believe, that's my opinion. It is not up to me to determine what that woman does with her life, any more than she can determine what I do with mine.

I also believe that said woman would likely have a price to pay for her action, the same as I believe that there is a price to be paid by any individual making a cruel act. What that price might be, I have no idea.

For me, the concept of karma is valid, others obviously disagree.

252 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:44:48pm

re: #242 acacia

Not really because I think the Supreme Court went beyond the Constitution trying to justify its opinion. Frankly I truly don't know whether the fetus is a person or not. As for the "law" and given the uncertainty, I think that it should be a political decision. In other words, the people should decide whether abortion is legal and if so under what circumstances, etc. - just like the people decide whether assisted suicide is legal or not.

The people's decision? Why the heck do you think it was largely founded on right to privacy grounds. They did not go beyond the Constitution to justify Roe v. Wade but in fact adhered to it. It's the other way around. Yet again someone else has things backwards. It is those that want to limit or prohibit abortion that are contrary to the Constitution.

The same is true with assisted suicide. That would be my own personal decision and subject to my own right to privacy. If I decided to end my life, for whatever reason, that is no ones business but my own.

253 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:45:53pm

re: #240 APox

In your attempt to understand what I am trying to say, please do not ascribe words to me.

254 allegro  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:46:39pm

re: #251 Capitalist Tool

On the other end of the scale, a women who carries a perfectly healthy and fine fetus to near- term and then decides for no other reason than she 'just can't handle it' and aborts, that that act is also wrong.

Except of course that this DOES. NOT. HAPPEN.

255 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:47:15pm

re: #254 allegro

and you have proof of this?

256 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:48:10pm

re: #190 Big Steve

Wait, what?

...

John Romulus Brinkley

His burst of publicity—and his stratospheric claims—attracted the attention of the American Medical Association, which sent an agent to the clinic to investigate undercover. The agent found a woman hobbling around Brinkley's clinic who had been given goat ovaries as a cure for a spinal cord tumor. From then on, Brinkley was on the AMA's radar, including catching the eye of the doctor that would eventually be responsible for his downfall, Morris Fishbein, who made his career exposing medical frauds.[6]

At the same time, other doctors were also experimenting with gland transplantation, including Serge Voronoff, who had become known for grafting monkey testicles into human men. In 1920 Voronoff demonstrated his technique before several other doctors at a hospital in Chicago, at which Brinkley showed up uninvited. Though Brinkley was barred at the door, his appearance elevated his profile in the press, which eventually resulted in his own demonstration at a hospital in Chicago. Brinkley transplanted goat testicles into 34 patients, including a judge, an alderman, a society matron and the chancellor of the University of Chicago Law School, all while the press looked on.[6] His public profile grew, and his gland business in Milford continued at a brisk pace.

This was in 1920, and Voronoff, the Russian, was operating in France. I can't find any modern references to the procedure, it certainly is not an officially licensed medical procedure in Russia today and I very much doubt that anybody is actually performing it. I can't find any modern references to it. I don't know where this is coming from.

By 1930, when the Kansas Medical Board held a formal hearing to decide whether Brinkley's medical license should be revoked, Brinkley had signed death certificates for 42 people, many of whom were not sick when they showed up at his clinic. It is unclear how many more of Brinkley's patients may have become ill or later died elsewhere.[15] The medical board revoked his license, stating that Brinkley "has performed an organized charlatanism ... quite beyond the invention of the humble mountebank".[10]

Six months after losing his medical license, the Federal Radio Commission refused to renew his station’s broadcasting license, finding that Brinkley's broadcasts were mostly advertising, which violated international treaties, that he broadcast obscene material, and that his Medical Question Box series was "contrary to the public interest". He sued the commission, but the courts upheld the revocation and the case Brinkley v. FRC became a landmark case in broadcast law.[10][16]

How is this analogous to abortion again? Abortion is medically safer for a woman than carrying a fetus to term and does exactly what it says it will do, while your counter example is nothing but lethal quackery.

257 allegro  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:48:28pm

re: #255 Capitalist Tool

and you have proof of this?

Do your own thinking. Try it. Just once.

258 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:49:57pm

re: #250 commadore183

And apparently Tim Blair's source is this:
wrist action Google cached link

259 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:50:16pm

re: #257 allegro

Do my own thinking?

that isn't an answer, it's a deflection.

260 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:50:52pm

re: #244 Charles

I'm just wondering why I seem to be the only blogger who has no right to delete old posts.

Because Daddy can't throw away old letters you wrote him.

(There is background to this comment, for those who are new to the discussion.)

261 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:51:01pm

re: #251 Capitalist Tool

I am a man, yes.

I think that if there is a price to be paid for any of our individual actions, we will pay it.

I think forcing women to carry a product of rape to term is wrong. I think if that were codified in law, there would be a societal price to be paid. I do not believe such measures will be taken in this country.

On the other end of the scale, a women who carries a perfectly healthy and fine fetus to near- term and then decides for no other reason than she 'just can't handle it' and aborts, that that act is also wrong.

That's what i believe, that's my opinion. It is not up to me to determine what that woman does with her life, any more than she can determine what I do with mine.

I also believe that said woman would likely have a price to pay for her action, the same as I believe that there is a price to be paid by any individual making a cruel act. What that price might be, I have no idea.

For me, the concept of karma is valid, others obviously disagree.

You make it sound so simple. What if this woman in your imaginary and rare scenario was forced by her husband or boyfriend to have this abortion. Did that possibility ever cross your mind? Clearly you are talking about illegal acts anyway since most late term abortions are illegal and are only done under the closest of scrutiny. This of course is frequently contested by the anti-abortion extremists and zealots. Unless of course you are relying on the allegations from the the latter.

262 allegro  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:51:50pm

re: #259 Capitalist Tool

Do my own thinking?

that isn't an answer, it's a deflection.

OK, answer me this. IF a woman wanted to abort a healthy late-term fetus, which does not happen, where would she go to obtain one?

263 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:51:52pm

Still watching the rescues.

This little girl has great timing for her tantrums.

264 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:52:09pm

Claudio Acuna is the 26th miner to be freed. About 7 to go.

265 Taqyia2Me  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:52:38pm

re: #244 Charles

Because the truth matters to you.
(they can't handle the truth)

266 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:52:57pm

re: #262 allegro

OK, answer me this. IF a woman wanted to abort a healthy late-term fetus, which does not happen, where would she go to obtain one?

They'd probably find an imaginary one over at the Army of God website.

267 APox  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:52:58pm

re: #242 acacia

Not really because I think the Supreme Court went beyond the Constitution trying to justify its opinion. Frankly I truly don't know whether the fetus is a person or not. As for the "law" and given the uncertainty, I think that it should be a political decision. In other words, the people should decide whether abortion is legal and if so under what circumstances, etc. - just like the people decide whether assisted suicide is legal or not.

"frankly I don't know how man affects global warming....".

268 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:53:32pm

I'll bet the kid hasn't had enough sleep recently.

269 tradewind  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:54:25pm

One thing's certain: Neither support for or positioning against abortion is going to have much if anything at all to do in terms of deciding the upcoming midterm election, and any candidate who thinks otherwise will quickly be disabused of the notion by November 3rd.

270 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:55:18pm

re: #269 tradewind

One thing's certain: Neither support for or positioning against abortion is going to have much if anything at all to do in terms of deciding the upcoming midterm election, and any candidate who thinks otherwise will quickly be disabused of the notion by November 3rd.

Than why does the GOP persist in doing so?
Hmmm?

271 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:55:59pm

re: #261 Gus 802

You make it sound so simple. What if this woman in your imaginary and rare scenario was forced by her husband or boyfriend to have this abortion. Did that possibility ever cross your mind? Clearly you are talking about illegal acts anyway since most late term abortions are illegal and are only done under the closest of scrutiny. This of course is frequently contested by the anti-abortion extremists and zealots. Unless of course you are relying on the allegations from the the latter.

Surely you got the point... maybe not.
Indeed it was an imaginary scenario, but to say that such things don't happen- well, ok. Hopefully they don't.
The point is, if the woman (or in your scenario, the husband) did something, shall we saw- unrighteous- for lack of a better word, then there would be a price to be paid.
I can't believe otherwise.

272 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:57:07pm

re: #244 Charles

I'm just wondering why I seem to be the only blogger who has no right to delete old posts.

Beacuse you're a tool of Obama's IngSoc, and trying to make the truth disappear down the Memory Hole.

/

Actually, attributing anything from 1984 to the wingnuts is probably giving them too much credit. They think quoting Star Wars ("This is how liberty dies....with thunderous applause") and Watchmen ("The people will finally cry out 'Save us!' and I'll whisper....'No') is the height of wit.

273 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:57:39pm

re: #271 Capitalist Tool

Surely you got the point... maybe not.
Indeed it was an imaginary scenario, but to say that such things don't happen- well, ok. Hopefully they don't.
The point is, if the woman (or in your scenario, the husband) did something, shall we saw- unrighteous- for lack of a better word, then there would be a price to be paid.
I can't believe otherwise.

unrighteous?

By who's standards?
Your God's?
Hmmm

274 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:57:51pm

re: #270 Varek Raith

Than why does the GOP persist in doing so?
Hmmm?

Not exactly the same subject, but...

275 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:58:43pm

re: #259 Capitalist Tool

Do my own thinking?

that isn't an answer, it's a deflection.

How do you prove a negative? You don't. And when you look at late term abortions, how late is late term to you?

There are about 1000 abortions a year in the US that happen in the third Trimester. Are you willing to say that women just randomly decide they're going to abort late in the term just... well because they wanted to?

How many of those thousand are because of gross deformities or life or death situations? Face it, when a woman is 6 months pregnant, she's not going to abort just cause...

What an awful, horrible view you have of women.

276 angel Graham  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:58:45pm

A woman's perspective:
I am a woman who was repeatedly raped by my step father from age 12-17. Had I become pregnant, I would have wanted the option of an abortion if I chose it.

I am Pro-Life for MYSELF, but Pro-Choice for OTHERS. I don't consider that as contradictory as some might. In the case of incest/rape, I don't know what I would have done/will do. I pray I never have to decide.

I am a woman who is at exceptional high risk should I become pregnant. I am on Medicaid due to disability. They will only pay for a hysterectomy if I have cancer. I have had 5 strokes. I have had 5 miscarriages. Carrying a baby full term would most likely kill me. I feel I should have the right to decide if my health supersedes that of " The right to life" for an unborn fetus. I would of course talk to my husband regarding it, to be certain where we stand, but ultimately, the decision would be mine.

I find it interesting that in that video, it was the men who would force a woman to carry the baby to term, and the women would not. Perhaps those men should have to spend one year as a woman, and if they are raped, they would have to carry the baby full term. I have a feeling they would have a new appreciation for why, especially in the case of a woman who was raped; that the decision is not an easy one. When it would be them, would they be so quick to say that the baby must be carried full term? I'm guessing no.

Okay. My version of a rant is over. Carry on.

277 tradewind  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:58:51pm

re: #270 Varek Raith
That's easy: the GOP is not 'using it as an issue '. The Dems want it front and center. They can't run on the economy or jobs.
Republicans have been remarkably quiet re abortion this cycle: it's the Democrats who are casting about for wedge issue-hail -Marys.
Not that I blame 'em.

278 bratwurst  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:59:12pm

re: #168 acacia

The abortion issue is neither pro nor anti woman no matter what side you are on.

I will never be convinced that forcing a woman to bear the child of a rapist is not anti-woman, sorry.

279 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:59:26pm

re: #255 Capitalist Tool

and you have proof of this?

You're asking someone to prove a negative? Seriously?

280 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:59:53pm

re: #271 Capitalist Tool

Surely you got the point... maybe not.
Indeed it was an imaginary scenario, but to say that such things don't happen- well, ok. Hopefully they don't.
The point is, if the woman (or in your scenario, the husband) did something, shall we saw- unrighteous- for lack of a better word, then there would be a price to be paid.
I can't believe otherwise.

If they broke the law then the law would deal with it as the situation permits. There would be no superstitious outcomes from it other than perhaps a psychological response such as guilt and self doubt followed by any other form of psychological response. The only price that ever will be, or ever was payed, is what is in the here and now and it there is no mysticism to life.

281 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:00:00pm

re: #262 allegro

OK, answer me this. IF a woman wanted to abort a healthy late-term fetus, which does not happen, where would she go to obtain one?

I am ignorant of such matters. I don't keep up with what's legal and not on the abortion front- I believed that all attempts to end late term abortions have failed and that such procedures are legal, perhaps I'm wrong.
If true that they are legal, then to me, knowing the world as the place it is, to consider that any late- term abortions are not performed for the wrong reasons would be a bit naive.

282 lostlakehiker  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:00:11pm

re: #26 Capitalist Tool

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term which a result of rape is wrong.
A woman who thinks there isn't a price to pay for aborting her fetus for any damned reason is wrong.
What goes around comes around.

That's my opinion.

Well, yeah, there's a price. She loses the chance to bear and raise her very own baby. That has to hurt. But who makes the call, whether that price is too high, or a bargain? Some legislator? Or the victim/mother?

A lot of women would be unwilling to be used this way, as a brood mare, clamped in a stall and covered by some no-form "stallion". Any man who would die fighting rather than be a slave ought to understand. Some things you just don't take lying down.

283 tradewind  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:01:19pm

re: #279 Kruk
Why not? If Axelrod can do it......///

284 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:01:20pm

re: #273 Varek Raith

unrighteous?

By who's standards?
Your God's?
Hmmm

perhaps... i would define the word righteousness as 'right use' of consciousness

285 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:01:25pm

re: #277 tradewind

That's easy: the GOP is not 'using it as an issue '. The Dems want it front and center. They can't run on the economy or jobs.
Republicans have been remarkably quiet re abortion this cycle: it's the Democrats who are casting about for wedge issue-hail -Marys.
Not that I blame 'em.

Ha! I knew it. Right. It's the "libruls fault" that the GOP is making abortion an issue.

What. A. Load. Of. Crap.

286 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:02:11pm

re: #277 tradewind

That's easy: the GOP is not 'using it as an issue '. The Dems want it front and center. They can't run on the economy or jobs.
Republicans have been remarkably quiet re abortion this cycle: it's the Democrats who are casting about for wedge issue-hail -Marys.
Not that I blame 'em.

The Dems aren't forcing the GOP to answer these questions in such a way.
The GOP is shooting themselves in the feet over this and gay rights.
Spin away!

287 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:02:40pm

re: #282 lostlakehiker

hello hiker- welcome to the discussion- keep reading

288 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:03:17pm

re: #277 tradewind

In the video that is the subject of this blog post, where are the democrats?

289 tradewind  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:03:46pm

re: #285 Gus 802
That is a load of crap....
and it's not what I said.
But you knew that.
The GOP ( speaking for the national party, not individual segments) is not intent on using social issues in this campaign. There's no reason for them to do it, and they know it.
It's The Economy,(and the jobs) Stupid. **
** teh stupid not directed at you, obviously, just an expression.

290 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:04:27pm

re: #276 sadangel

I am Pro-Life for MYSELF, but Pro-Choice for OTHERS.

That is a pro-choice position. Choice means the choice is made by the woman. It is not an indication of which choice is made.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. My sympathies for your experiences.

291 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:04:29pm

re: #116 pharmmajor

Marakay Rogers, the Libertarian candidate (write in only thanks to the dirty tricks of the state Democratic and Republican parties) for governor of PA. She's for same-sex marriage with the same rights offered to straight couples, legalizing marijuana, protecting 2nd amendment rights, and upholding the rights of local governments when it comes to issues like building casinos and mining/drilling for oil.

That makes no sense, dude

Democrats would

BENEFITTTT

from having a libertarian taking votes away from republicans


Come on, this is politics 101, man :D

292 lostlakehiker  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:04:53pm

re: #262 allegro

OK, answer me this. IF a woman wanted to abort a healthy late-term fetus, which does not happen, where would she go to obtain one?

Not so. It does happen. Though the Left goes nuclear when this fact is aired, it remains a fact: quite a few partial birth abortions fall into this category. On paper, of course, none. But reality is another story.

And she would go to most any provider of that procedure. There's always a narrative that can be spun about the emotional health of the mother being at stake. Maybe it's even true. The upshot is that in practice, and for a price, an abortion can be had for any reason or no reason at all at any time right up until and during delivery. Not until the head of the fetus is clear of the birth canal and the fetus is thereby officially promoted to the status of baby does the option to abort expire.

293 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:05:18pm

re: #276 sadangel

294 tradewind  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:05:26pm

re: #288 Slumbering Behemoth
Regardless of the video, I don't see it running nationally with ' The GOP Approves This Message './/
I'm sure Democrats will look for every social wedge issue available on video. They're running out of time.

295 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:05:41pm

re: #293 WindUpBird

You're pro-choice.

That's what pro CHOICE means

296 jaunte  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:05:44pm

re: #288 Slumbering Behemoth

In the video that is the subject of this blog post, where are the democrats?

Wallack lists the participants (R and D) from left to right in his post.

297 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:05:50pm

re: #286 Varek Raith

The Dems aren't forcing the GOP to answer these questions in such a way.
The GOP is shooting themselves in the feet over this and gay rights.
Spin away!

Right to life is the central issue of the GOP. It's the defining issue and found on all state GOP platforms. They entire GOP candidate pool is made up of pro-life candidates. They have prayer meetings. They walk hand in hand with the pro-life Protestant Christian leaders. Values-voters. They rely on the base which is made up entirely of pro-life Christians.

298 angel Graham  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:05:52pm

re: #261 Gus 802

You make it sound so simple. What if this woman in your imaginary and rare scenario was forced by her husband or boyfriend to have this abortion. Did that possibility ever cross your mind? Clearly you are talking about illegal acts anyway since most late term abortions are illegal and are only done under the closest of scrutiny. This of course is frequently contested by the anti-abortion extremists and zealots. Unless of course you are relying on the allegations from the the latter.

This happened to me in 1989. I became pregnant. (before my first stroke) and my then husband insisted, literally that I get an abortion. I called Planned Parenthood and made an appointment to talk with the counselor. The night before the scheduled appointment, I miscarried. I called and canceled. The lady tried to get me to come in anyway, to simply talk about all options. I know now, that she was trying to help me get out of an abusive marriage. *(She had heard my now-ex on the phone and how verbally abusive he was being)

Some people don't believe that you can be forced to have an abortion by a husband/boyfriend/other. It can happen. It does happen.

299 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:07:17pm

re: #251 Capitalist Tool

I am a man, yes.

I think that if there is a price to be paid for any of our individual actions, we will pay it.

I think forcing women to carry a product of rape to term is wrong. I think if that were codified in law, there would be a societal price to be paid. I do not believe such measures will be taken in this country.

On the other end of the scale, a women who carries a perfectly healthy and fine fetus to near- term and then decides for no other reason than she 'just can't handle it' and aborts, that that act is also wrong.

That's what i believe, that's my opinion. It is not up to me to determine what that woman does with her life, any more than she can determine what I do with mine.

I also believe that said woman would likely have a price to pay for her action, the same as I believe that there is a price to be paid by any individual making a cruel act. What that price might be, I have no idea.

For me, the concept of karma is valid, others obviously disagree.

Commenting on the bolded: Oh yeah. That's the most common reason for a woman to have an abortion. Furthermore, she can walk into any clinic or hospital and say, "I have a perfectly healthy baby days from being born. Get rid of it for me."

You know what said clinic or hospital will not do? Give her an abortion. They will get her the psychological help she needs because a woman that wants that has sprung a gasket.

You're welcome to say there will be 'consequences' and, sometimes, there are. They aren't the type you want though; an endless and crushing guilt for that act.

But to want such consequences, as it seems to me you do, shows a remarkable lack of understanding and empathy towards the women that choose abort.

I'm now putting my ignore filter in place. You've nothing interesting, or even nice, to say.

300 tradewind  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:07:22pm

re: #297 Gus 802

Right to life is the central issue of the GOP.

... Not this time around.
Count on it.

301 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:07:28pm

re: #298 sadangel


Some people don't believe that you can be forced to have an abortion by a husband/boyfriend/other. It can happen. It does happen.

Oh, of course it happens! There was an entire radio show giving advice on how to bully women into getting an abortion

302 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:08:39pm

re: #289 tradewind

That is a load of crap...
and it's not what I said.
But you knew that.
The GOP ( speaking for the national party, not individual segments) is not intent on using social issues in this campaign. There's no reason for them to do it, and they know it.
It's The Economy,(and the jobs) Stupid. **
** teh stupid not directed at you, obviously, just an expression.

Not another round of your circular logic. You said:

That's easy: the GOP is not 'using it as an issue '. The Dems want it front and center.

Of course the Dems want if front and center. The GOP makes it their central issue. Without their pro-life stance the GOP would be doomed. You're contradicting your own words. Being against abortion is a major part of the GOP platform.

303 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:08:47pm

re: #296 jaunte

Wallack lists the participants (R and D) from left to right in his post.

I guess the better question would be: Where are the democrats in that video who are pressing the issue of abortion onto the republicans in that video? :)

304 allegro  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:08:50pm

re: #292 lostlakehiker

Not so. It does happen. Though the Left goes nuclear when this fact is aired, it remains a fact: quite a few partial birth abortions fall into this category. On paper, of course, none. But reality is another story.

You say "on paper" none happen. So you seem to have no proof or any substantiation whatsoever to make such a claim. Yet, you make the claim that it is a fact.

I call bullshit.

305 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:09:05pm

re: #276 sadangel

A woman's perspective:
I am a woman who was repeatedly raped by my step father from age 12-17. Had I become pregnant, I would have wanted the option of an abortion if I chose it.

I am Pro-Life for MYSELF, but Pro-Choice for OTHERS. I don't consider that as contradictory as some might. In the case of incest/rape, I don't know what I would have done/will do. I pray I never have to decide.

I am a woman who is at exceptional high risk should I become pregnant. I am on Medicaid due to disability. They will only pay for a hysterectomy if I have cancer. I have had 5 strokes. I have had 5 miscarriages. Carrying a baby full term would most likely kill me. I feel I should have the right to decide if my health supersedes that of " The right to life" for an unborn fetus. I would of course talk to my husband regarding it, to be certain where we stand, but ultimately, the decision would be mine.

I find it interesting that in that video, it was the men who would force a woman to carry the baby to term, and the women would not. Perhaps those men should have to spend one year as a woman, and if they are raped, they would have to carry the baby full term. I have a feeling they would have a new appreciation for why, especially in the case of a woman who was raped; that the decision is not an easy one. When it would be them, would they be so quick to say that the baby must be carried full term? I'm guessing no.

Okay. My version of a rant is over. Carry on.

Love you, angel.

Angel is my wife, folks. And a sweeter, stronger woman I've never met. I'm blessed to have her in my life.

306 tradewind  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:09:46pm

re: #297 Gus 802

They rely on the base which is made up entirely of pro-life Christians.

It's the independents who are leading this GOP wave, sorry.

307 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:10:14pm

re: #306 tradewind

It's the independents who are leading this GOP wave, sorry.

N-O

308 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:11:16pm

re: #300 tradewind

... Not this time around.
Count on it.

it still is, just because they can more easily run on the economy and get swing votes this cycle....

...doesn't mean that their central tether keeping the base in line aren't social issues and tribalist scared-of-the blacks'n'hispanics'n'muslims, as evidenced by the "tea party" which really is little more than a repackaged, glossier version of the religious right with a thin film of pretending to care about deficit spending lol

Just because one is the easier low-hanging fruit doesn't mean the other ceases to be true!

309 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:11:28pm

re: #130 eclectic infidel

I have a friend who tried to argue that giving gay Americans the legal right to marry was violating her choice to reject homosexuality, and that local ballot measures should be held as sacrosanct.

Giving straight people the right to divorce is an affront to my father's deep-held Catholic beliefs about the sanctity of marriage, but no one seems to care about that.

310 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:11:30pm

re: #302 Gus 802

Not another round of your circular logic. You said:

That's easy: the GOP is not 'using it as an issue '. The Dems want it front and center.

Of course the Dems want if front and center. The GOP makes it their central issue. Without their pro-life stance the GOP would be doomed. You're contradicting your own words. Being against abortion is a major part of the GOP platform.

Funny how that works :D

311 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:11:35pm

re: #297 Gus 802

Right to life is the central issue of the GOP. It's the defining issue and found on all state GOP platforms. They entire GOP candidate pool is made up of pro-life candidates. They have prayer meetings. They walk hand in hand with the pro-life Protestant Christian leaders. Values-voters. They rely on the base which is made up entirely of pro-life Christians.


This is one area where I'm not with the GOP platform. Women must have individual choice in this matter, but at what point does their right end and the yet to be born's rights begin?
I do not think that we have the ideal situation with our abortion laws as they are, but that's the way the law is- incomplete, just as our understanding of life and birth and death is incomplete.
Each political party is wrong to insist on their absolutes.

312 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:12:03pm

re: #306 tradewind

It's the independents who are leading this GOP wave, sorry.

Guess what?
I'm an independent.
Methinks your definition of "independent" is farther to the right than it truly is.
;)

313 tradewind  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:12:05pm

re: #302 Gus 802
It's not at all contradictory to assert that this election will have little or nothing to do with abortion rights, and at the same time acknowledge that the GOP is generally pro-life and affirms that in its platform.
Social issues are in the background this time.
Not my idea..... it's the assertion of a lot of independent analysis.
Gotta run.

314 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:12:15pm

NPR: The Tea Party and the Fundamentalist Religious Right
Wingnuts • Sun Oct 3, 2010 at 1:41 pm PDT • Views: 1,784

NPR’s “All Things Considered” has a look at the influence of fundamentalist Christianity on the Tea Party movement: The Tea Party’s Tension: Religion’s Role In Politics.

315 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:12:25pm

re: #305 Romantic Heretic

re: #276 sadangel

Bless you both, great post. Obviously from the heart and mind.

316 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:13:24pm

re: #130 eclectic infidel

I have a friend who tried to argue that giving gay Americans the legal right to marry was violating her choice to reject homosexuality, and that local ballot measures should be held as sacrosanct.


I don't have any friends that believe this o_o

It's literally an alien opinion to me, I literally do not know a single person personally besides maybe a couple of grumpy 60's somethings that work with my father, who believe stuff like this

And they got shouted down by my mother in the office, which apparently was righteous, I wish I would have seen it

317 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:13:29pm

re: #298 sadangel

wouldn't rule out anything when human behavior is concerned

318 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:13:34pm

Still watching. Franklin Lobos is next. He has a very pretty daughter.

319 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:13:43pm

re: #168 acacia

The abortion issue is neither pro nor anti woman no matter what side you are on.

If one's policies reward male rapists with a greater chance of reproductive success, then they are effectively pro male rapist.

Also, if one requires an official assertion of rape before allowing an abortion, then they condone both the inevitable false reporting this policy would generate, and the bullying of actual rape victims who could be deterred by the requirement to speak out before getting help.

320 tradewind  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:13:44pm

re: #312 Varek Raith
I didn't say that every independent was voting for the GOP.
However, the majority of independents who put Obama in office are deserting the democrats this time, if the polls end up being correct.
Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Really out.

321 jaunte  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:13:44pm

re: #307 Gus 802

N-O

Erick, son of Erick, weighs in on motivations:

By faith we believe, we persevere, and we know that there will be a last day and a final judgment. On that day we who persevere win because Christ wins against this world. It is that simple. It is that offensive. It is precisely that which our secular media and political elites do not understand and cannot grasp. That is why they dwell on Franklin Graham and the political impact of his words. These people live for the now.[Link: webcache.googleusercontent.com...]
322 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:13:58pm

re: #300 tradewind

... Not this time around.
Count on it.

A lot of the GOP mailers I've been getting during this cycle reference their candidate's position on of "The Sanctity of LifeTM. I'm pretty sure they're not expressing their opposition to the death penalty.

323 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:14:26pm

re: #292 lostlakehiker

Not so. It does happen. Though the Left goes nuclear when this fact is aired, it remains a fact: quite a few partial birth abortions fall into this category. On paper, of course, none. But reality is another story.

And she would go to most any provider of that procedure. There's always a narrative that can be spun about the emotional health of the mother being at stake. Maybe it's even true. The upshot is that in practice, and for a price, an abortion can be had for any reason or no reason at all at any time right up until and during delivery. Not until the head of the fetus is clear of the birth canal and the fetus is thereby officially promoted to the status of baby does the option to abort expire.

Remember 1000 Abortions a year are 24 weeks or later. Having all abortions boiled down to the ethical or moral reasons for a woman to decide to abort at a late term is unfair and disingenuous. A significant portion of all late term abortions are for Anencephaly. Feel free to go look it up and look at some of the pics if you have the stomach for it. If you want to make women carry a pregnancy through when the fetus has no brain or skull, that's all you.

You can claim your vague statistics all you want, but Anencephaly is at least 5% of all late term abortions, and that doesn't account for other lethal birth defects. and it doesn't account for serious health issues to a mother like preeclampsia or more seriously, eclampsia.

324 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:14:34pm

God gave us free will. Force questions like this miss the point. We must be free to be virtuous or not, it our choice & without that choice we are no better than animals.

325 Sionainn  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:14:47pm

re: #305 Romantic Heretic

Love you, angel.

Angel is my wife, folks. And a sweeter, stronger woman I've never met. I'm blessed to have her in my life.

That's so sweet. Sounds like she's blessed to have you, too.

326 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:15:25pm

re: #324 Ojoe

God gave us free will. Force questions like this miss the point. We must be free to be virtuous or not, it our choice & without that choice we are no better than animals.

And then punishes me for exercising it.
Funny, that.

327 lostlakehiker  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:15:30pm

re: #137 LudwigVanQuixote

Hard to say. That would after all be a brown baby from a non Christian father...

I think they would find some cog dissonance there.

Actually, they'd stand their ground. These people may be all sorts of things, but they do believe what they believe.

A sterner test yet: a woman conceives, and discovers that the baby will have Down syndrome. What will she do? In the case of Sarah Palin, we know the answer. She may be many things, but she knows where she stands on this issue and won't be budged.

I know where I stand too, and I won't be budged either, and we don't agree. But I recognize a steadfast decision when I see it.

328 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:15:38pm

re: #311 Capitalist Tool

This is one area where I'm not with the GOP platform. Women must have individual choice in this matter, but at what point does their right end and the yet to be born's rights begin?
I do not think that we have the ideal situation with our abortion laws as they are, but that's the way the law is- incomplete, just as our understanding of life and birth and death is incomplete.
Each political party is wrong to insist on their absolutes.



Each political party is wrong
Each political party is wrong
Each political party is wrong
Each political party is wrong
Each political party is wrong
Each political party is wrong
Each political party is wrong


Magical balance fairy r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-REMIX

How are democrats "absolute" by simply wanting choice of the procedure to be available?

That's not absolute at all.

329 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:15:44pm

re: #319 goddamnedfrank

If one's policies reward male rapists with a greater chance of reproductive success, then they are effectively pro male rapist.

Also, if one requires an official assertion of rape before allowing an abortion, then they condone both the inevitable false reporting this policy would generate, and the bullying of actual rape victims who could be deterred by the requirement to speak out before getting help.

interesting viewpoint...

330 angel Graham  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:16:21pm

re: #325 Sionainn

That's so sweet. Sounds like she's blessed to have you, too.

I am! Very much so.

*sorry for thread derail*

@Romantic Heretic--
Thank You Sir. I am VERY blessed you are in my life.

331 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:17:15pm

re: #324 Ojoe

God gave us free will. Force questions like this miss the point. We must be free to be virtuous or not, it our choice & without that choice we are no better than animals.

That's pretty much the way it is, or at least should be. We do have laws of protection against predations.

332 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:17:18pm

re: #328 WindUpBird


ideally, read that while listening to this:

Youtube Video

YES

333 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:19:00pm

re: #326 Varek Raith

And then punishes me for exercising it.
Funny, that.

Man gave us free will. I tried to exercise free will once and a cop told me to knock if off.

//

334 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:19:40pm

re: #333 Gus 802

Man gave us free will. I tried to exercise free will once and a cop told me to knock if off.

//

Put you clothes back on!
.
.
.
Oh, wait, you're not SB.
/

335 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:19:44pm

Franklin Lobos is out! 6 more left, then the rescue crew that went down earlier to aid them up!

I have never had more trouble with internet connections than I have with AT&T's DSL! It has cut out three times today for a total of about an hour! Damn, so frustrating!

336 lostlakehiker  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:21:24pm

re: #304 allegro

You say "on paper" none happen. So you seem to have no proof or any substantiation whatsoever to make such a claim. Yet, you make the claim that it is a fact.

I call bullshit.

I don't have to provide 17 links for every fact. You must realize that people lie when they want something the rules go against. I read, from a source that gave details and was convincing, an account of working inside one of these late term abortion provider operations.

337 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:21:27pm

re: #335 commadore183

Franklin Lobos is out! 6 more left, then the rescue crew that went down earlier to aid them up!

I have never had more trouble with internet connections than I have with AT&T's DSL! It has cut out three times today for a total of about an hour! Damn, so frustrating!

Did you see him kick the soccer ball around?

338 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:22:58pm

re: #327 lostlakehiker

Actually, they'd stand their ground. These people may be all sorts of things, but they do believe what they believe.

A sterner test yet: a woman conceives, and discovers that the baby will have Down syndrome. What will she do? In the case of Sarah Palin, we know the answer. She may be many things, but she knows where she stands on this issue and won't be budged.

I know where I stand too, and I won't be budged either, and we don't agree. But I recognize a steadfast decision when I see it.

I think the relevant test in this debate would be: a woman conceives, and discovers that the baby will have Down syndrome. Should she be forced to carry it to term by people who will neither support the child financially or take the task of caring for the child?

Sarah Palin made a choice in accordance with her beliefs, but she and others in the GOP want to deny other women the chance to make that choice for themselves.

339 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:23:06pm

re: #336 lostlakehiker

So link it.

340 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:23:16pm

re: #337 EmmmieG

Nope, was looking at something else at that moment. Glad they're in good spirits, considering how long they've been down there. Must stink like nothing else, that's for sure!

Anyone know what they chant when they bring one up?

341 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:23:18pm

re: #328 WindUpBird


Each political party is wrong
Each political party is wrong
Each political party is wrong
Each political party is wrong
Each political party is wrong
Each political party is wrong
Each political party is wrong


Magical balance fairy r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-REMIX

How are democrats "absolute" by simply wanting choice of the procedure to be available?

That's not absolute at all.


Last time I looked, the Democrats were just as adamant about their viewpoint concerning abortion rights as are the Republicans with theirs.

It's an all or nothing world for both sides and they are both wrong in my view.
The answer, I'm convinced, lies somewhere other than the way it is now.
It's just that we don't know any better.

342 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:23:36pm

Speaking of free will. Here's the difference.

A woman should be allowed under any circumstance to have an abortion after being raped.

A woman should also be allowed to carry that same fetus to term after being raped if she so desires.

Each one is allowed to live their own lives accordingly and through their own fee will which arrived at through human reason and the workings of the cognitive mind.

343 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:23:54pm

re: #340 commadore183

Nope, was looking at something else at that moment. Glad they're in good spirits, considering how long they've been down there. Must stink like nothing else, that's for sure!

Anyone know what they chant when they bring one up?

My first reaction to getting out?
Keep away from me, I NEED A SHOWER!

344 allegro  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:24:11pm

re: #336 lostlakehiker

I don't have to provide 17 links for every fact. You must realize that people lie when they want something the rules go against. I read, from a source that gave details and was convincing, an account of working inside one of these late term abortion provider operations.

Dude, you haven't even provided one link or any shred of credible evidence at all. I suspect I know of that ONE account that you consider so "convincing." It has been debunked as bullshit. What was that about people lying to achieve their own desired ends?

345 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:24:52pm

re: #341 Capitalist Tool

Last time I looked, the Democrats were just as adamant about their viewpoint concerning abortion rights as are the Republicans with theirs.

It's an all or nothing world for both sides and they are both wrong in my view.
The answer, I'm convinced, lies somewhere other than the way it is now.
It's just that we don't know any better.

The answer is in what the woman wants as long as it's with in the law. There is no other answers.

346 Winny Spencer  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:25:33pm

re: #330 sadangel

Going from fanatical pro-lifers and rape to love is no thread derail in my book.

Some music:

Youtube Video
347 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:26:08pm

re: #213 Capitalist Tool

At first, the fetus is just a mass of cells- where all the confusion comes in is when the fetus actually becomes a person. If we knew that, the laws would likely be written differently, but we don't know, so do the best we can, leaning to the side of personal freedom for women.

It's not just personal freedom, in reality if you think things through, being anti-abortion in the long run makes you pro-COMMUNIST if you think things through.

You may believe I am being overly dramatic, but I'm not, want to hear the proof?

348 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:26:13pm

re: #336 lostlakehiker

I don't have to provide 17 links for every fact. You must realize that people lie when they want something the rules go against. I read, from a source that gave details and was convincing, an account of working inside one of these late term abortion provider operations.

People can give very convincing accounts of things that didn't happen. Just ask the 250 odd wrongly convicted men that the Innocence Project has freed.

[Link: www.innocenceproject.org...]

349 allegro  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:26:15pm

re: #341 Capitalist Tool

It's an all or nothing world for both sides and they are both wrong in my view.
The answer, I'm convinced, lies somewhere other than the way it is now.
It's just that we don't know any better.

Well there it is. Women should not have the right to bodily autonomy and full agency according to you.

350 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:27:09pm

re: #345 Walter L. Newton

The answer is in what the woman wants as long as it's with in the law. There is no other answers.

And that's the way it is.

Snowing up there in Evergreen yet, Walter?
We've had the most luxurious Indian summer down here, but it's fixin' to get cold.

351 darthstar  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:27:20pm

PSA for facebook users...watch out for links from your friends that read "Cool Video" and just have a url to a blog. The url redirects to another site, which gives you a popup to download a codec to view the video (hint #1 - if you're able to watch videos, you don't need to download an exe). It's a worm, called Koobface (anagram for facebook)...buddy of mine got hit, and it's a bitch to remove. I almost got hit, but killed my browser when I saw the executable pop up.

Cheers.

352 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:27:59pm

re: #350 Capitalist Tool

And that's the way it is.

And the way you don't want it.

re: #341 Capitalist Tool

Last time I looked, the Democrats were just as adamant about their viewpoint concerning abortion rights as are the Republicans with theirs.

It's an all or nothing world for both sides and they are both wrong in my view.
The answer, I'm convinced, lies somewhere other than the way it is now.
It's just that we don't know any better.

353 lostlakehiker  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:28:06pm

re: #323 bloodstar

Remember 1000 Abortions a year are 24 weeks or later. Having all abortions boiled down to the ethical or moral reasons for a woman to decide to abort at a late term is unfair and disingenuous. A significant portion of all late term abortions are for Anencephaly. Feel free to go look it up and look at some of the pics if you have the stomach for it. If you want to make women carry a pregnancy through when the fetus has no brain or skull, that's all you.

You can claim your vague statistics all you want, but Anencephaly is at least 5% of all late term abortions, and that doesn't account for other lethal birth defects. and it doesn't account for serious health issues to a mother like preeclampsia or more seriously, eclampsia.

All those causes you name are very good reasons for a late term abortion. I do NOT want to make a woman carry to term such a pregnancy. I'm not sure there is ANY situation where I'd want to insist the woman go through with it.

Since the law is settled and my opinion is beside the point, I don't need to puzzle through all the ins and outs of a very fraught and tragic topic to where I know I'm right on this topic.. if such a thing were possible. I doubt it is. However much effort I put into it, I could never be sure.

Moral reasoning is tough going and requires good information, good conscience, due diligence, keen insight, and a strong stomach.


I do think it's kind of a shame, those instances, however many they may be, and it's more than 1 or 2, where the reason boils down to I changed my mind.

354 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:28:57pm

re: #353 lostlakehiker

Please provide the link to your source.
Thanks.

355 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:29:13pm

re: #204 wrenchwench

A blastosphere precedes the fetus. The distinction is between "person" or "not a person", not whether it is "human". Person is a legal definition.

Anti-legal abortion is anti-woman. My opinion. Anti-woman can take other forms too, of course.

Hm.
I do appreciate the way you phrased that.

356 lostlakehiker  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:30:49pm

re: #338 Kruk

I think the relevant test in this debate would be: a woman conceives, and discovers that the baby will have Down syndrome. Should she be forced to carry it to term by people who will neither support the child financially or take the task of caring for the child?

Sarah Palin made a choice in accordance with her beliefs, but she and others in the GOP want to deny other women the chance to make that choice for themselves.

And they are wrong. But they're also playing in a sand lot. No "decision" they may make will take effect in the real world. Roe v Wade is the law.

357 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:30:59pm

Fuck it here it is.

Lets assume we give a fetus all the rights of a human being.

The fetus however can not survive without the aid of the mother's organs.

If we make abortion illegal we say that a person can be forced by law to have to share the use of their organs with someone else if the only other result is death.

THIS IS FUCKING HUGE and I don't think I need to explain why and how it would end up effectively destroying the notion of private property, since the state would have the right to force you to share with others if they wouldn't survive without it.


Yes I am a smug bastard, but lets see you prove me wrong....

358 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:31:24pm

I don't get this.
You can believe whatever you like. It's none of my business.
But!
The minute you try to use the government to force said beliefs onto others?
I get hostile.

359 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:32:03pm

re: #350 Capitalist Tool

And that's the way it is.

Snowing up there in Evergreen yet, Walter?
We've had the most luxurious Indian summer down here, but it's fixin' to get cold.

Up here is COnifer... close... a right next to each other... Evergreen is north of here... on I70... Conifer is south of Evergreen, next big highway over... 285... (the real South Park).

Yes... we had our first measurable snow yesterday morning. I got up, went to the bathroom and looked out and was surprised, about a 1/4 inch of fluffy snow... surprised because it wasn't even forecast... they said rain if anything.

Oct 12th is kind of late in the season for our first snow. But anyway, it's been in the 30's at night, could break into 29 tonight.

I'll know later... I get off at midnight tonight from the store.

Yes... winter is here.

Where is "done here?"

360 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:32:52pm

re: #356 lostlakehiker

And they are wrong. But they're also playing in a sand lot. No "decision" they may make will take effect in the real world. Roe v Wade is the law.

Except that if we elect Republicans President then they can appoint people to the supreme court who will overturn Roe V Wade.

Also when we elect Republicans to state legislature positions they pass laws like the one that says before a woman can get an abortion she has to be vaginally probed, even if she was raped....

///But I guess we can still vote for Republicans for senate or congress without a problem!

361 lostlakehiker  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:34:07pm

re: #348 Kruk

People can give very convincing accounts of things that didn't happen. Just ask the 250 odd wrongly convicted men that the Innocence Project has freed.

[Link: www.innocenceproject.org...]

A misnomer. The innocence project frees men whose convictions were obtained despite a failure to comply with all the rules of evidence.

The law may well require an acquittal, even if the evidence is damning and in no way exonerates the accused. Wrongly convicted men must be released. They ought to be released. But no one should conclude that all, or almost all, of them are in fact innocent.

362 brookly red  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:34:26pm

re: #359 Walter L. Newton

Done here is in DC, no?

363 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:35:20pm

re: #361 lostlakehiker

A misnomer. The innocence project frees men whose convictions were obtained despite a failure to comply with all the rules of evidence.

The law may well require an acquittal, even if the evidence is damning and in no way exonerates the accused. Wrongly convicted men must be released. They ought to be released. But no one should conclude that all, or almost all, of them are in fact innocent.

Doesn't the innocence project work through finding DNA evidence not picking apart the prosecutions motions looking for loopholes?

364 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:35:22pm

re: #362 brookly red

Done here is in DC, no?

I'm from Brooklyn... any way I say it or spell it is correct... ya hear?

365 pharmmajor  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:36:45pm

re: #238 bloodstar

John Monds, Georgia Candidate for Governor on the Libertarian Party. Interesting fella.

Not Many Libertarians can claim to have gotten 33% of the popular vote as a libertarian. :)

Well here's hoping that Monds does that well, or better, in the upcoming gubernatorial race.

366 brookly red  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:36:59pm

re: #364 Walter L. Newton

I'm from Brooklyn... any way I say it or spell it is correct... ya hear?

Its good for one to be in touch wit der roots...

367 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:38:24pm

re: #326 Varek Raith

Parents and teens?
//

368 pharmmajor  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:38:40pm

re: #172 goddamnedfrank

Can you show me where the state Democrats had anything to do with Marakay being stricken from the ballot? Every single news report I can find about this lists only Republicans and a GOP lawsuit in opposition, with no mention of Democrats at all. I think your default position is to always blame both major parties equally for everything you don't like, regardless of actual fact or reason.

From the official PA Libertarian Party press release ([Link: www.lppa.org...]

Republican and Democratic power brokers do not want ballot choice for Pennsylvania voters and challenged the signatures of all third-party and independent state-wide candidates.
369 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:40:59pm

re: #361 lostlakehiker

A misnomer. The innocence project frees men whose convictions were obtained despite a failure to comply with all the rules of evidence.

The law may well require an acquittal, even if the evidence is damning and in no way exonerates the accused. Wrongly convicted men must be released. They ought to be released. But no one should conclude that all, or almost all, of them are in fact innocent.

In the very page I linked to: "Since 1989, more than 250 people in 34 states have been exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing."

That's cases where DNA excluded the people who were in prison for the crime. That's not a "technicality"* by any stretch of the imaginations.

*A nice harmless term for massive State sponsered violations of the 4th and 5th Amendments. What bunch of commies came up with ideas like "due process", "innocent until proven guilty", "beyond a reasonable doubt", etc anyway?

370 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:41:21pm

re: #334 Varek Raith

Put you clothes back on!
.
.
.
Oh, wait, you're not SB.
/

Wow. I always knew I was sexy, but I had no idea that you thought so too.
/

371 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:42:49pm

re: #370 Slumbering Behemoth

Wow. I always knew I was sexy, but I had no idea that you thought so too.
/

Dammit!
Walked into that one.
XD

372 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:44:21pm

re: #366 brookly red

Its good for one to be in touch wit der roots...

I guess I got too nosey... I'm not going to find out where "here" is?

373 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:45:01pm

re: #372 Walter L. Newton

I guess I got too nosey... I'm not going to find out where "here" is?

"Here" is in the imagination of Charles.
/

374 brookly red  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:45:14pm

re: #372 Walter L. Newton

I guess I got too nosey... I'm not going to find out where "here" is?

wherever you go, there you are I guess...

375 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:45:57pm

Richard Villarroel is the 28th miner to be rescued. 5 more left.

376 brookly red  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:46:24pm

re: #373 Varek Raith

"Here" is in the imagination of Charles.
/

no... I am here... the map in the subway told me so!

377 Varek Raith  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:48:06pm

re: #376 brookly red

no... I am here... the map in the subway told me so!

No.
Image: You_Are_Here.jpg

378 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:52:09pm

Well... well... well... work just called... asked me if I could get in early, like now early... shift was 8-midnight... Kroger does not schedule with any wiggle room... and if someone has to call in sick or something... the whole front end of the store falls apart unless they can quickly call someone in...

I want to be back in IT... I was basically my own responsibility, and took care of what I had to do... see ya all later...

379 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:53:50pm

Okay..everybody stand around the hole in Chile and when the last guy comes out we all yell "Norm!"

380 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:55:01pm

re: #180 Big Steve

The government controls every other medical procedure why not this one. What makes it so special. In Russia it is legal to have a goat scrotum sown onto you to improve your sex life. Thankfully the US Government does not permit people to do that to their bodies here.

The US government permits all kinds of irrelevent and stupid and potentially deadly cosmetic surgeries. People are permitted to make the choice to have bags of silicon sewn into them.

This, on the other hand, is important.

The goat scrotum I cannot comment on, but if we ban it, it's probably because it's dangerous as hell.

381 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:55:33pm

re: #379 PT Barnum

Okay..everybody stand around the hole in Chile and when the last guy comes out we all yell "Norm!"

The last guy out will be one of the paramedics sent down yesterday.

382 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:56:04pm

re: #349 allegro

Well there it is. Women should not have the right to bodily autonomy and full agency according to you.

I do not know how you arrived at that conclusion.
I neither said, nor considered any such thing.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said, so here is a clarification:

What I believe is that the fetus becomes a human being at some point before the time which is legally defined now, as the moment of birth.
Before that time of becoming human, the fetus is merely a mass of cells, a vehicle in preparation, or assembly if you will.
I don't think that it matters one whit if that fetus is aborted prior to that time of becoming human.
I believe that there is likely to be a problem if the fetus has reached the point of being a human and is aborted- again, no absolutes, as circumstance is a deck of cards.
I think if society were to know when the time of becoming human were to occur, for each individual, which we obviously don't, then it would by foolish for society to persist in allowing the willful end of that life for no good reason.
We do not know when that time of becoming human occurs.

We do know that it occurs before the time which our laws allow an abortion to be performed, as the laws presently exist.
We know this because viable infants are delivered all the time which have not reached full term.
They are human beings.

Since the law allows this ending of life only under circumstance of risk to mother, it is within the woman's legal right to choose to abort if she wishes, during the time of human viability.
Whether it is ultimately 'right' for the woman to make that choice isn't up to me to decide, or the state, as our laws exist now.

I am convinced that if there is a price to be paid for any thought or act which we, as individuals undertake, then we shall individually pay that price.
Arguments about this or that 'right' will not spare us from the consequences of our own thought and action.
As others have said, this is free will.

All of this is my view and you are free to disagree.

383 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:56:46pm

Jerry Brown.

A real leftist history maker.

384 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:56:50pm

re: #210 acacia

If you go solely by Roe v. Wade then you have to acknowledge that the government CAN prohibit abortion under certain conditions - e.g. in the third trimester. I think that supports Big Steve's point that the government HAS the right to control procedures. The million dollar question of course is at what point does that end.

Roe V. Wade is based on the idea that the government has an increasing interest in the status of the fetus as its development proceeds. I do not think anyone here is disputing that.

385 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:57:04pm

re: #353 lostlakehiker

All those causes you name are very good reasons for a late term abortion. I do NOT want to make a woman carry to term such a pregnancy. I'm not sure there is ANY situation where I'd want to insist the woman go through with it.

Since the law is settled and my opinion is beside the point, I don't need to puzzle through all the ins and outs of a very fraught and tragic topic to where I know I'm right on this topic.. if such a thing were possible. I doubt it is. However much effort I put into it, I could never be sure.

Moral reasoning is tough going and requires good information, good conscience, due diligence, keen insight, and a strong stomach.

I do think it's kind of a shame, those instances, however many they may be, and it's more than 1 or 2, where the reason boils down to I changed my mind.

I suppose for me, If out of the thousand even 100 ended up being "I changed my mind" then that's their choice, and should be something they deal with and come to terms with in their own way. If there were a way to magically get those 100 women to not do it while keeping the options open for the others, that'd be fantastic. But if things are reduced to a binary choice (which it often is for abortion) I'd rather err on the side of ensuring the health and safety of the mother, even if a small percentage of them may be lying about the health or safety.

Finally, It's not settled law. Unfortunately, it's all to easy for abortion to become something that is a moral issue that happens to someone else. and once it becomes viewed through that lens, the crusaders will never give up until they have sent America back 100 years. That's why I'm so vehemently pro-choice because I fear the continuing erosion as the crusaders continue to chip away and work to make sure that coat hangers are the abortion of choice.

(And lest you think I am being dramatic, look how many candidates in the Republican party want to outlaw *all* abortion)

386 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:57:17pm

re: #352 Varek Raith

Do me a favor and quit ascribing thoughts and words to me of which you have no clue.
Do yourself a favor and stop it.

387 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:58:16pm

re: #214 WindUpBird

Uh, the government always controls procedures

There's this thing called certification, we don't just let any welder with a hacksaw to amputate limbs or do a nose job

The shit you gotta pass just to be a NURSE, is incredible

But WUB, that's abominable! How can I live in freedom if I don't have the right to get my leg hacked off by anyone I choose? How can government interfere in the sacred relationship between a woman and her sawbones?

388 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:58:27pm

re: #382 Capitalist Tool

I do not know how you arrived at that conclusion.
I neither said, nor considered any such thing.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said, so here is a clarification:

What I believe is that the fetus becomes a human being at some point before the time which is legally defined now, as the moment of birth.
Before that time of becoming human, the fetus is merely a mass of cells, a vehicle in preparation, or assembly if you will.
I don't think that it matters one whit if that fetus is aborted prior to that time of becoming human.
I believe that there is likely to be a problem if the fetus has reached the point of being a human and is aborted- again, no absolutes, as circumstance is a deck of cards.
I think if society were to know when the time of becoming human were to occur, for each individual, which we obviously don't, then it would by foolish for society to persist in allowing the willful end of that life for no good reason.
We do not know when that time of becoming human occurs.

We do know that it occurs before the time which our laws allow an abortion to be performed, as the laws presently exist.
We know this because viable infants are delivered all the time which have not reached full term.
They are human beings.

Since the law allows this ending of life only under circumstance of risk to mother, it is within the woman's legal right to choose to abort if she wishes, during the time of human viability.
Whether it is ultimately 'right' for the woman to make that choice isn't up to me to decide, or the state, as our laws exist now.

I am convinced that if there is a price to be paid for any thought or act which we, as individuals undertake, then we shall individually pay that price.
Arguments about this or that 'right' will not spare us from the consequences of our own thought and action.
As others have said, this is free will.

All of this is my view and you are free to disagree.

You're wrong.

I already pointed out that even if we consider the Fetus a human being with all the same rights as a fully grown person, to consider abortion murder would in effect destroy the Capitalist system who claim to be so fond of.

Do you know of the Violinist argument?

389 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:58:51pm

re: #359 Walter L. Newton

Oh that's right Walter- Conifer... I knew that.
Pardon my swiss- cheese memory.

390 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:58:53pm

Okay, here's a better question..does an embryo or fetus have a right to be brought to term?

391 brookly red  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:59:21pm

re: #380 SanFranciscoZionist

The US government permits all kinds of irrelevent and stupid and potentially deadly cosmetic surgeries. People are permitted to make the choice to have bags of silicon sewn into them.

This, on the other hand, is important.

The goat scrotum I cannot comment on, but if we ban it, it's probably because it's dangerous as hell.

and besides, the the goats really hate it.

392 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:59:24pm

re: #388 jamesfirecat

You're wrong.

I already pointed out that even if we consider the Fetus a human being with all the same rights as a fully grown person, to consider abortion murder would in effect destroy the Capitalist system who claim to be so fond of.

Do you know of the Violinist argument?

He knows the "babies r good" argument. Haven't heard anything beyond that other than a whole lot of straw.

393 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:59:43pm

re: #216 acacia

Although my terms were not precise, I agree that it is whether "it" is a person or not. Classifying it as a "legal" issue doesn't help one way or the other because the voters make the laws.

I have a question though...are women who are against abortion "anti women"?

Some of them are. Phyllis Schlafly, for example, hates women, it's very evident from everything she says that she simply despises most female people.

394 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:00:23pm

re: #390 PT Barnum

Okay, here's a better question..does an embryo or fetus have a right to be brought to term?

Easy answer.

NO!

To say yes would imply that you have a write to someone else's organs if it would save your life even if they don't want to let you use them.

395 engineer cat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:01:08pm

Anti-choice women often expect special treatment from clinic staff. Some demand an abortion immediately, wanting to skip important preliminaries such as taking a history or waiting for blood test results. Frequently, anti-abortion women will refuse counseling (such women are generally turned away or referred to an outside counselor because counseling at clinics is mandatory). Some women insist on sneaking in the back door and hiding in a room away from other patients. Others refuse to sit in the waiting room with women they call "sluts" and "trash." Or if they do, they get angry when other patients in the waiting room talk or laugh, because it proves to them that women get abortions casually, for "convenience".

ultimately, it's not about the issue. there are so many issues, and we fight so bitterly over all of them

it's about what kind of person you are

396 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:01:28pm

re: #394 jamesfirecat

Easy answer.

NO!

To say yes would imply that you have a write to someone else's organs if it would save your life even if they don't want to let you use them.

And a right to their mental health and income and...

397 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:01:30pm

re: #388 jamesfirecat

You're wrong.

I already pointed out that even if we consider the Fetus a human being with all the same rights as a fully grown person, to consider abortion murder would in effect destroy the Capitalist system who claim to be so fond of.

Do you know of the Violinist argument?

Pardon, but where, exactly did I say that we should consider abortion as murder?

398 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:01:38pm

re: #394 jamesfirecat

Easy answer.

NO!

To say yes would imply that you have a write to someone else's organs if it would save your life even if they don't want to let you use them.

It also would allow a child to sue their parent later for negligence during the pregnancy.

399 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:02:28pm

re: #244 Charles

I'm just wondering why I seem to be the only blogger who has no right to delete old posts.

Charles, consider their situation. They have to work at least ten or twelve hours a day to track down everything you throw out, save it, cherish it, and build little shrines to it. Sort of like the guy who keeps the gum spit out by the girl he likes, or Petrarch with Laura's glove--wait, she took the glove back. Well, you get the idea.

400 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:02:46pm

re: #383 Rightwingconspirator

Jerry Brown.

A real leftist history maker.

That's where Meg Whitman has the advantage. She basically graduated from university and moved into California with her neurosurgeon husband. From there she continued living a rather sheltered life as corporate exec until becoming even more sheltered as the CEO for EBay. Heck, she didn't even vote all of these years.

"/"

401 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:02:53pm

re: #398 PT Barnum

It also would allow a child to sue their parent later for negligence during the pregnancy.

If I've lived a totally shit life, and that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt... can i sue my parents for bringing me into this whole mess?

402 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:03:17pm

By the way, I am convinced that rhubarb pie should be a sacrement.

403 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:03:56pm

re: #392 McSpiff

...and where did I claim to be so fond of this or that system...
I 've never seen the like of people who can't sort their own thoughts from the thoughts of others.
And I'm not just singling you out, McSpiff...

404 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:03:57pm

re: #397 Capitalist Tool

Pardon, but where, exactly did I say that we should consider abortion as murder?

Here

"What I believe is that the fetus becomes a human being at some point before the time which is legally defined now, as the moment of birth.
Before that time of becoming human, the fetus is merely a mass of cells, a vehicle in preparation, or assembly if you will.
I don't think that it matters one whit if that fetus is aborted prior to that time of becoming human.
I believe that there is likely to be a problem if the fetus has reached the point of being a human and is aborted- again, no absolutes, as circumstance is a deck of cards.
I think if society were to know when the time of becoming human were to occur, for each individual, which we obviously don't, then it would by foolish for society to persist in allowing the willful end of that life for no good reason.
We do not know when that time of becoming human occurs."

You claim in effect that abortion after a certain point is some thing if we knew for sure when a fetus was a human that society should avoid having abortions after that point.

Guess what its the ability of us to willfully end the life of others for no good reason by being selfish with our goods and belongings that our current economic system is founded on.

405 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:04:15pm

re: #401 McSpiff

If I've lived a totally shit life, and that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt... can i sue my parents for bringing me into this whole mess?

Good question. I'm thinking if you have an absolute right to be born once conceieved, then what do we do about the 400,000 embryos now in storage?

406 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:04:22pm

re: #259 Capitalist Tool

Do my own thinking?

that isn't an answer, it's a deflection.

Read up on the late Dr. Tiller's patients. The nightmare some of those women went through trying to find SOMEONE, ANYONE who would terminate a late-term pregnancy to save their lives, or spare their child agony in its short life.

Then tell me where a woman who just decides she don't want to be pregnant in month 8 goes.

407 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:04:40pm

re: #398 PT Barnum

It also would allow a child to sue their parent later for negligence during the pregnancy.

You mean for something like fetus hand smoke?

//

408 brookly red  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:04:45pm

re: #401 McSpiff

If I've lived a totally shit life, and that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt... can i sue my parents for bringing me into this whole mess?

well yes but it will be a jury trial...

409 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:04:49pm

re: #402 PT Barnum

yes yes yes indeedee

410 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:05:52pm

re: #406 SanFranciscoZionist

No idea, Z... where does she go?

412 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:06:58pm

re: #281 Capitalist Tool

I am ignorant of such matters. I don't keep up with what's legal and not on the abortion front- I believed that all attempts to end late term abortions have failed and that such procedures are legal, perhaps I'm wrong.
If true that they are legal, then to me, knowing the world as the place it is, to consider that any late- term abortions are not performed for the wrong reasons would be a bit naive.

You really don't know shit about the legality and availability of late-term abortions. Read up before you say anything else about fantasy women throwing away perfectly viable late-term fetuses.

413 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:07:41pm

re: #403 Capitalist Tool

...and where did I claim to be so fond of this or that system...
I 've never seen the like of people who can't sort their own thoughts from the thoughts of others.
And I'm not just singling you out, McSpiff...

I've never seen someone write so much and claim to have said nothing.

think if society were to know when the time of becoming human were to occur, for each individual, which we obviously don't, then it would by foolish for society to persist in allowing the willful end of that life for no good reason.
We do not know when that time of becoming human occurs.

We do know that it occurs before the time which our laws allow an abortion to be performed, as the laws presently exist.
We know this because viable infants are delivered all the time which have not reached full term.
They are human beings.

That, to me, can only be read as a call for restriction on abortion. Why talk about existing laws not matching some sort of 'reality' otherwise? To which I say: Go fuck yourself.

414 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:07:57pm

re: #301 WindUpBird

Oh, of course it happens! There was an entire radio show giving advice on how to bully women into getting an abortion

Ggghhh.

415 Charles Johnson  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:08:20pm

The debate is coming up between Christine O'Donnell and Chris Coons - I'll be posting live video.

416 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:09:49pm

re: #338 Kruk

a choice in accordance with her beliefs, but she and others in the GOP want to deny other women the chance to make that choice for themselves.

She also made a choice in accordance with her means.

417 darthstar  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:10:16pm

Teabagger Miller running away from teabagger label.

Image: robertcampbellemail.jpg

We're not the Tea Party candidate, but we will take your money. If only the teabaggers were intelligent enough to recognize this slap in the face and stop supporting assholes like Miller...

418 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:11:10pm

re: #415 Charles

The debate is coming up between Christine O'Donnell and Chris Coons - I'll be posting live video.

Nice.

419 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:11:29pm

re: #404 jamesfirecat


You claim in effect that abortion after a certain point is some thing if we knew for sure when a fetus was a human that society should avoid having abortions after that point.

Guess what its the ability of us to willfully end the life of others for no good reason by being selfish with our goods and belongings that our current economic system is founded on.


Yes, I did say in effect that it is generally wrong to take another's life for no good reason. Self preservation is a good reason and is one of the strongest urges/needs we have. I still don't see the word murder in there anywhere.

The rest of your argument makes no sense to me.

420 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:11:57pm

re: #418 Killgore Trout

Nice.

"I am not a witch!"

421 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:12:30pm

re: #420 Gus 802

"I am not a witch!"

I'm Spartacus!

422 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:12:45pm

re: #420 Gus 802

Coons better show up with a newt or salamander tie pin.

423 brookly red  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:13:12pm

re: #420 Gus 802

"I am not a witch!"

and that's not your real nose either?

424 engineer cat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:13:30pm

re: #420 Gus 802

"I am not a witch!"

"...i just play one on teevee"

425 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:14:17pm

re: #419 Capitalist Tool

Yes, I did say in effect that it is generally wrong to take another's life for no good reason. Self preservation is a good reason and is one of the strongest urges/needs we have. I still don't see the word murder in there anywhere.

The rest of your argument makes no sense to me.

And who's life might that be?

426 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:14:27pm

Well, went back to watching the Chilean miner rescue El Presidente Gigante Show! He's still there and now his handlers and wife look really cheesy. Then a car alarm went off again seconds after I started listening.

427 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:14:55pm

29 miners out, 4 left. Juan Carlos Aguilar has popped out!

428 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:15:29pm

re: #412 SanFranciscoZionist

You really don't know shit about the legality and availability of late-term abortions. Read up before you say anything else about fantasy women throwing away perfectly viable late-term fetuses.

That's right, I don't keep up with this topic and freely said so.
Are you saying that YOU know all about it?
As to whether any late- term abortions are performed that shouldn't be, legally or otherwise, it would be naive to assume that they aren't.

If you have valid information to the contrary...

I can hold any belief I want... if you think I'm wrong, you can freely say so, but prove me wrong in my beliefs if you want to have real impact.

429 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:15:47pm

Smooooooch!

Glad they picked an angle to give them a little privacy.

430 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:16:18pm

re: #426 Gus 802

Well, went back to watching the Chilean miner rescue El Presidente Gigante Show! He's still there and now his handlers and wife look really cheesy. Then a car alarm went off again seconds after I started listening.

Could be worse, at least there wasn't a "Misión Cumplida!" banner up...

431 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:16:21pm

re: #425 McSpiff

What are you saying in that post?

432 allegro  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:16:25pm

re: #382 Capitalist Tool

re: #349 allegro

Well there it is. Women should not have the right to bodily autonomy and full agency according to you.

Capitalist Tool:

I do not know how you arrived at that conclusion.
I neither said, nor considered any such thing.

Actually you did and quite clearly.

It's an all or nothing world for both sides and they are both wrong in my view.

There is the side that wants to deny the women the right to reproductive choice and the side that doesn't. If you feel that the pro-choice side is wrong then clearly you do not believe that women have the right to full agency to make reproductive choices with the full range of medical services.

433 darthstar  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:16:28pm

Wolf Blitzer is moderating the Coons-O'Donnell debate, so Christine won't be the stupidest person on the stage after all.

434 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:17:34pm

re: #433 darthstar

Wolf Blitzer is moderating the Coons-O'Donnell debate, so Christine won't be the stupidest person on the stage after all.

Talk to the beard please!

/

435 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:17:43pm

re: #390 PT Barnum

Okay, here's a better question..does an embryo or fetus have a right to be brought to term?

Of course. Just below the right of the pregnant mother to decide. So, if a person assaults the woman and harms or kills the fetus, the nascent babies right was violated. Murder perhaps could be charged. In California, if you murder a pregnant woman, it can be two counts of murder as it should be.

On a more humorous note a pregnant woman lost her appeal top use the 2 person only diamond commuter lane on the freeway.

436 engineer cat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:18:29pm

miners popping out as if mother earth is giving birth is a good metaphor for something, i'm sure

437 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:19:29pm

re: #436 engineer dog

miners popping out as if mother earth is giving birth is a good metaphor for something, i'm sure

I would have given a lot for that smooth of a passage.

438 brookly red  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:19:43pm

re: #435 Rightwingconspirator

Of course. Just below the right of the pregnant mother to decide. So, if a person assaults the woman and harms or kills the fetus, the nascent babies right was violated. Murder perhaps could be charged. In California, if you murder a pregnant woman, it can be two counts of murder as it should be.

On a more humorous note a pregnant woman lost her appeal top use the 2 person only diamond commuter lane on the freeway.

/so the schizophrenics suite will probably fail too...

439 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:19:48pm

re: #435 Rightwingconspirator

Of course. Just below the right of the pregnant mother to decide. So, if a person assaults the woman and harms or kills the fetus, the nascent babies right was violated. Murder perhaps could be charged. In California, if you murder a pregnant woman, it can be two counts of murder as it should be.

On a more humorous note a pregnant woman lost her appeal top use the 2 person only diamond commuter lane on the freeway.

That's an extremely dangerous line to walk in my opinion. Should miscarriages be investigated by the police? Could a disgruntled father-to-be sue the doctor? etc

440 Decatur Deb  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:21:13pm

re: #426 Gus 802

The car alarms are likley to be back-up alarms built into most modern earthmovers.

441 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:22:06pm

re: #419 Capitalist Tool

Yes, I did say in effect that it is generally wrong to take another's life for no good reason. Self preservation is a good reason and is one of the strongest urges/needs we have. I still don't see the word murder in there anywhere.

The rest of your argument makes no sense to me.

What part don't you get?

Do you not get how allowing other people to lay claim to our organs if they need them undermines the concept of private property?

Because if unborn fetuses are people, and if its wrong to kill them by denying them temporary access to our organs, and we should do something about it.... then you don't really own your organs do you?

442 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:22:19pm

re: #426 Gus 802

Well, went back to watching the Chilean miner rescue El Presidente Gigante Show! He's still there and now his handlers and wife look really cheesy. Then a car alarm went off again seconds after I started listening.

I have been watching as many as I could, so I can tell you that the "car alarm" is something built in to go off at a certain point in the ascent.

I thought it was some dweeb not taking care of business, too.

443 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:22:31pm

re: #432 allegro

Capitalist Tool:

Actually you did and quite clearly.

There is the side that wants to deny the women the right to reproductive choice and the side that doesn't. If you feel that the pro-choice side is wrong then clearly you do not believe that women have the right to full agency to make reproductive choices with the full range of medical services.


There is the side that wants the right of woman's free agency unimpeded, regardless of situation and much has been said by people with that point of view which bears out that statement.

Just as I consider those wrong who would bar the woman's right under any circumstance, I also believe that those who would allow it under any circumstance are wrong.
You are free to hold a different opinion.

444 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:22:35pm

re: #439 McSpiff

A post assault miscarriage certainly should be investigated! Or I should say add a dimension to the ongoing assault investigation. Malpractice of course is actionable.

445 brookly red  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:23:05pm

re: #440 Decatur Deb

The car alarms are likley to be back-up alarms built into most modern earthmovers.

oh gawd, the other day I heard one kid say to another " yo mammas so fat she beeps when she backs up".

446 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:23:24pm

re: #419 Capitalist Tool

Yes, I did say in effect that it is generally wrong to take another's life for no good reason. Self preservation is a good reason and is one of the strongest urges/needs we have. I still don't see the word murder in there anywhere.

The rest of your argument makes no sense to me.

Also, self preservation need not be the reason.

Do you believe we have a right to kill others by denying them access to our organs out of spite, or not?

447 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:23:29pm

re: #442 EmmmieG

I have been watching as many as I could, so I can tell you that the "car alarm" is something built in to go off at a certain point in the ascent.

I thought it was some dweeb not taking care of business, too.

Ah, OK. I used to live alongside an alleyway. I can't stand the sounds of those car alarms.

448 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:23:55pm

re: #436 engineer dog

miners popping out as if mother earth is giving birth is a good metaphor for something, i'm sure

you are soooo on it

449 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:24:01pm

re: #433 darthstar

Okay I'll bite. What did Wolf do to earn your ire?

450 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:24:52pm

re: #444 Rightwingconspirator

A post assault miscarriage certainly should be investigated! Or I should say add a dimension to the ongoing assault investigation. Malpractice of course is actionable.

Right, I guess I just don't understand the idea of treating a fetus as a person, at all. Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me that you can be charged with murder of a fetus, but abortion is allowed.

I'd be fine with a charge of murder of a pregnant woman or something like that, but not two murder charges.

451 Decatur Deb  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:25:23pm

re: #438 brookly red

/so the schizophrenics suite will probably fail too...

A few months ago we took our daughter, in the last week of a huge pregnancy, to P.F. Chang's.

Maitre d': How many tonight?

Me: Three, maybe four.

452 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:25:25pm

re: #446 jamesfirecat

Also, self preservation need not be the reason.

Do you believe we have a right to kill others by denying them access to our organs out of spite, or not?

What could be right about causing harm to others out of spite in any circumstance?

453 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:25:26pm

re: #410 Capitalist Tool

No idea, Z... where does she go?

Seriously? She goes to the hospital and has the baby.

I'm sure there are women out there who've had a frivolous late-term abortion, somehow, for some reason, because there are a LOT of people in the world, and no matter how weird or ugly, someone's done it. But bringing it up as though it were actually a social problem, as opposed to an occasional freak event, almost impossible to carry out in the US, is just silly.

I repeat. There are less than a handful of doctors in the United States who will perform a late-term abortion EVEN IF THE PATIENT'S LIFE IS IN DANGER. I repeat, read the accounts on the late Dr. Tiller's website. Educate yourself about how hard it is for a woman who is going to DIE in childbirth to get a late-term abortion.

And take account of the late Dr. Tiller's fate, to get an idea of the danger he faced in his work, and that of the late Dr. Bernard Slepian.

Now, do you have any evidence of ONE example of what you casually posited.

454 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:25:43pm

re: #445 brookly red

oh gawd, the other day I heard one kid say to another " yo mammas so fat she beeps when she backs up".

And yo momma is so fat she has to iron her pants in the driveway.

455 engineer cat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:25:55pm

the internets is teh kool - i'm in a hotel room halfway across the world right now

456 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:25:58pm

re: #451 Decatur Deb

A few months ago we took our daughter, in the last week of a huge pregnancy, to P.F. Chang's.

Maitre d': How many tonight?

Me: Three, maybe four.

oh the comics are out tonight

457 brookly red  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:26:16pm

re: #446 jamesfirecat

Also, self preservation need not be the reason.

Do you believe we have a right to kill others by denying them access to our organs out of spite, or not?

hey, it's my right to deny you access to my organ... but I am pretty sure you won't die from a broken heart ;)

458 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:26:31pm

Hmmm, tonight's debate may interfere with my chicken roasting. I may have to opt for the chicken.

459 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:26:45pm

re: #452 Capitalist Tool

What could be right about causing harm to others out of spite in any circumstance?

We're not actively causing them harm.

We're just leaving them to die in a situation where we could in theory save them.

Like Batman at the end of Batman Begins.

Is it legally murder if we ignore someone's plight when we could save them?

460 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:26:49pm

re: #450 McSpiff

I see no problem at all. Did you see my post above?

461 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:26:54pm

re: #451 Decatur Deb

A few months ago we took our daughter, in the last week of a huge pregnancy, to P.F. Chang's.

Maitre d': How many tonight?

Me: Three, maybe four.

Do you have reservations:?

Well we did, but we finally decided to eat here anyway.

462 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:27:01pm

re: #452 Capitalist Tool

What could be right about causing harm to others out of spite in any circumstance?

"I choose to reject reality and replace it with my own."

Can the government force you to donate blood to support one of these babies? A lung? Chunk of your liver? I want your bits to support my kid, hand them over or go to jail.

463 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:27:47pm

re: #460 Rightwingconspirator

I see no problem at all. Did you see my post above?

Yup, I did. I just disagree 100%.

464 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:27:50pm

re: #450 McSpiff

Right, I guess I just don't understand the idea of treating a fetus as a person, at all. Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me that you can be charged with murder of a fetus, but abortion is allowed.

I'd be fine with a charge of murder of a pregnant woman or something like that, but not two murder charges.

If the mother is assaulted and miscarries a wanted fetus, I'm OK with appropriate charges for the death of the fetus. It has to be a crime, or it will be a new form of forced abortion.

465 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:27:53pm

re: #458 Killgore Trout

I would too.

466 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:27:59pm

re: #462 McSpiff

"I choose to reject reality and replace it with my own."

Can the government force you to donate blood to support one of these babies? A lung? Chunk of your liver? I want your bits to support my kid, hand them over or go to jail.

I have no home and there is a blizzard outside, you must let me into your house so I don't freeze to death.

Or else the police will beat your door down with a battering ram to let me in....

467 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:28:12pm

re: #463 McSpiff

Fair 'nuff.

468 allegro  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:28:24pm

re: #443 Capitalist Tool

There is the side that wants the right of woman's free agency unimpeded, regardless of situation and much has been said by people with that point of view which bears out that statement.

Just as I consider those wrong who would bar the woman's right under any circumstance, I also believe that those who would allow it under any circumstance are wrong.
You are free to hold a different opinion.

Strawman. Who here (or anywhere) has said that a woman late in her pregnancy carrying a healthy, viable fetus should be given an abortion? We're claiming that this little fairy tale is exactly that. It doesn't happen and can't happen as has been pointed out to you several times. You have yet to offer a valid argument to make your case.

469 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:28:41pm

Thermo lecture 2 is up.

Basic Thermodynamics 2: The First law, Entropy and the Second Law

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

In this one I debunk two of the most annoying canards of various deniers. One is about how making something hot can make something else cold, and the other is about how no, entropy increasing is exactly what you would expect with evolution and that is exactly what happens.

470 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:29:09pm

re: #441 jamesfirecat

Look, dude, I understand that you have a point to make. I get that.

At your age, I had a lot of points to make, too. I was certain that all unmarried women should have the baby and give it up for adoption.

And then my sister got pregnant. Then I was going to have a nephew that I would never see, and all my philosophy disappeared. It hurt.

Philosophy shreds in the face of real life, real emotions, real people. That's what you're hearing some of on here: people who have really been in tough situations. Tough situations don't resolve nicely and neatly and wrap up in 22 minutes with credits. They go on and linger and leave hurt and rough edges in our lives, scars that leave you crying ten years later in a moment when you suddenly remember.

Ideology is easy when it's all on paper. Why don't you hold on to your ideas until they have had to be applied in a real situation, then get back with us?

I'm not saying this in a hostile manner, and you might think I'm being condescending. I'm not. I'm trying to tell you what you don't know yet.

471 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:29:19pm

re: #464 wrenchwench

If the mother is assaulted and miscarries a wanted fetus, I'm OK with appropriate charges for the death of the fetus. It has to be a crime, or it will be a new form of forced abortion.

Sure, I'd totally support a charge of "death of fetus". Hell, call it forced abortion. I just think taking the life of a person, and the death of a fetus are two very different things, and should be treated differently in the eyes of the law.

472 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:29:46pm

re: #415 Charles

The debate is coming up between Christine O'Donnell and Chris Coons - I'll be posting live video.

Just in time I posted the Thermo lecture you wanted. I am somehow sure that in the science denial portion, of the debate, the second law will come up.

473 brookly red  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:29:58pm

re: #466 jamesfirecat

I have no home and there is a blizzard outside, you must let me into your house so I don't freeze to death.

Or else the police will beat your door down with a battering ram to let me in...

uhh I think dey got heat in the holding cells...

474 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:30:03pm

re: #453 SanFranciscoZionist

Not one example- it was all an exercise in opinion, without any specifics.

I made it clear that the weird and the ugly events as you describe are out there, but isn't sanctioned, per se, with good reason.

Not sure what you're excited about, with what I've said.

475 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:30:18pm

re: #457 brookly red

hey, it's my right to deny you access to my organ... but I am pretty sure you won't die from a broken heart ;)

But how can you mend a broken heart?

476 brookly red  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:30:47pm

re: #475 PT Barnum

But how can you mend a broken heart?

so looking at me like that...

477 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:30:50pm

re: #470 EmmmieG

Look, dude, I understand that you have a point to make. I get that.

At your age, I had a lot of points to make, too. I was certain that all unmarried women should have the baby and give it up for adoption.

And then my sister got pregnant. Then I was going to have a nephew that I would never see, and all my philosophy disappeared. It hurt.

Philosophy shreds in the face of real life, real emotions, real people. That's what you're hearing some of on here: people who have really been in tough situations. Tough situations don't resolve nicely and neatly and wrap up in 22 minutes with credits. They go on and linger and leave hurt and rough edges in our lives, scars that leave you crying ten years later in a moment when you suddenly remember.

Ideology is easy when it's all on paper. Why don't you hold on to your ideas until they have had to be applied in a real situation, then get back with us?

I'm not saying this in a hostile manner, and you might think I'm being condescending. I'm not. I'm trying to tell you what you don't know yet.

Okay then.

But I'm young and I've got an opinion that I feel strongly about so I'll continue to shout it from the rooftops until life disproves me of it.

Do you care to take a shot?

478 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:31:02pm

re: #470 EmmmieG

You might want to be damn careful when you assume your own life experiences trump those of someone else. Its a very dangerous game to play.

479 SpaceJesus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:31:54pm

re: #119 Amory Blaine

sorry, had to do some class stuff

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

480 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:32:28pm

re: #459 jamesfirecat

We're not actively causing them harm.

We're just leaving them to die in a situation where we could in theory save them.

Like Batman at the end of Batman Begins.

Is it legally murder if we ignore someone's plight when we could save them?

It may be at least illegal in some jurisdictions- there are places with Good Samaritan laws, or there was on Seinfeld, anyway.


Some people are opposed to organ transplants as a matter of religious or personal viewpoint.

481 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:32:52pm

re: #478 McSpiff

You might want to be damn careful when you assume your own life experiences trump those of someone else. Its a very dangerous game to play.

He's already stated he's a college student. He's putting out philosophical arguments. I'm trying to point out that philosophical positions often break down when real life comes into play.

482 Decatur Deb  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:32:55pm

re: #464 wrenchwench

If the mother is assaulted and miscarries a wanted fetus, I'm OK with appropriate charges for the death of the fetus. It has to be a crime, or it will be a new form of forced abortion.

We are talking (sometimes interchangeably) about 4 distinct concepts.

Unique organism
Human
Person
Citizen

Our society hasn't reached a consensus on the definitions and rights of those things, and until we do this thread goes on.

483 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:33:35pm

Regarding the mine region. The mayor of Copiapó, Chile, Marcos López, is a socialist. The senator for the region is Isabel Allende another socialist and is also related to Salvador Allende.

Socialismo!

484 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:33:37pm

re: #481 EmmmieG

He's already stated he's a college student. He's putting out philosophical arguments. I'm trying to point out that philosophical positions often break down when real life comes into play.

And my life experiences largely back what he's said. How far down this road you care to go?

485 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:34:11pm

re: #484 McSpiff

And my life experiences largely back what he's said. How far down this road you care to go?

The using-other-people's organs argument?

Are you female?

486 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:34:29pm

re: #470 EmmmieG

Look, dude, I understand that you have a point to make. I get that.

At your age, I had a lot of points to make, too. I was certain that all unmarried women should have the baby and give it up for adoption.

And then my sister got pregnant. Then I was going to have a nephew that I would never see, and all my philosophy disappeared. It hurt.

Philosophy shreds in the face of real life, real emotions, real people. That's what you're hearing some of on here: people who have really been in tough situations. Tough situations don't resolve nicely and neatly and wrap up in 22 minutes with credits. They go on and linger and leave hurt and rough edges in our lives, scars that leave you crying ten years later in a moment when you suddenly remember.

Ideology is easy when it's all on paper. Why don't you hold on to your ideas until they have had to be applied in a real situation, then get back with us?

I'm not saying this in a hostile manner, and you might think I'm being condescending. I'm not. I'm trying to tell you what you don't know yet.

Also to bring this further along.

I get it abortion isn't something that you can just have and walk away from whistling a tune, at least most women can't.

But I fail to see what kind of drastic life experience I could have that would change my current stance.

Not in the "I can't imagine my sister getting pregnant" kind of way, I just can't imagine what might happen that would lead me to think that the government needs to step in and control who can and can't have abortions.

Maybe if my wife got pregnant and had an abortion when I wanted to have a kid... but then I'd just be projecting my own fury onto a vastly more complex situation where personal emotions have no place....

487 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:35:54pm

re: #480 Capitalist Tool

It may be at least illegal in some jurisdictions- there are places with Good Samaritan laws, or there was on Seinfeld, anyway.

Some people are opposed to organ transplants as a matter of religious or personal viewpoint.

How can we have private property if at any time what we own can be taken away from us by the government?

I'm against Good Samaritan laws, I'm against Abortion for the same reason.

Capitalism is founded on the belief that if we so choose, we can walk right on by a man starving to death and do nothing.

To force us to help us by government demand does far more harm than good in the long term.

Capitalism can not exist if we are not free to harm others by our own indifference.

488 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:36:14pm

re: #485 EmmmieG

The using-other-people's organs argument?

Are you female?

Yup.

No, I'm not. Any other questions?

489 prairiefire  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:36:17pm

re: #483 Gus 802

Regarding the mine region. The mayor of Copiapó, Chile, Marcos López, is a socialist. The senator for the region is Isabel Allende another socialist and is also related to Salvador Allende.

Socialismo!

The noted writer? I thought she was living in CA.

490 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:37:08pm

re: #428 Capitalist Tool

That's right, I don't keep up with this topic and freely said so.
Are you saying that YOU know all about it?
As to whether any late- term abortions are performed that shouldn't be, legally or otherwise, it would be naive to assume that they aren't.

If you have valid information to the contrary...

I can hold any belief I want... if you think I'm wrong, you can freely say so, but prove me wrong in my beliefs if you want to have real impact.

You do understand what the problem is with 'proving a negative' right? I've given you solid reasons why I believe the scenario you outline is vanishingly rare if it, indeed, exists at all.

You have provided NO evidence to demonstrate that this is a real issue. OTOH, it's a very common 'concern' raised by people who know that such a scenario is more disturbing to most people than a first-trimester abortion.

491 Gus  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:37:25pm

re: #489 prairiefire

The noted writer? I thought she was living in CA.

No. They're related too but they both have the same first names.

492 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:38:10pm

Raul Bustos is the 30th miner out! 3 more left!

493 Decatur Deb  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:38:15pm

re: #487 jamesfirecat

...snip

Capitalism can not exist if we are not free to harm others by our own indifference.

And Christianity cannot exist if we are. Ergo...

494 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:40:00pm

re: #470 EmmmieG

Well, all legal philosophy disappears if you're the victim or your family is the victim of a violent crime

because philosophy of our legal system dictates everyone gets a fair trial, everyone has the right to an attorney, etc etc

But people, when they're actually victims, don't care about the philosophy, they just want to see the dude dead who raped them, or their kid, or murdered their family member, or whatever, and also the lawyer defending that guy, and it's sorta rational! To want blind revenge on that person and everyone seen as aiding that person. But it's not something you can allow into the legal system.

495 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:41:16pm

re: #470 EmmmieG

Look, dude, I understand that you have a point to make. I get that.

At your age, I had a lot of points to make, too. I was certain that all unmarried women should have the baby and give it up for adoption.

And then my sister got pregnant. Then I was going to have a nephew that I would never see, and all my philosophy disappeared. It hurt.

Philosophy shreds in the face of real life, real emotions, real people. That's what you're hearing some of on here: people who have really been in tough situations. Tough situations don't resolve nicely and neatly and wrap up in 22 minutes with credits. They go on and linger and leave hurt and rough edges in our lives, scars that leave you crying ten years later in a moment when you suddenly remember.

Ideology is easy when it's all on paper. Why don't you hold on to your ideas until they have had to be applied in a real situation, then get back with us?

I'm not saying this in a hostile manner, and you might think I'm being condescending. I'm not. I'm trying to tell you what you don't know yet.

I've not been in the predicament of having one of my women (serial) seek an abortion. I've not personally had to deal with that.

I have known women who have had abortions. and with but one exception, they were all full of regret and were emotionally hurt for life.
I can't know their pain, but can only relate as best I can under my own life circumstance.
Still, the decision was theirs to make. They would mostly do things differently in retrospect, no doubt.

I also knew a woman who, on our first date, told me that if I was looking for a fertile woman (wasn't- just wanted to get- well, you know) that she was the one for me because she had had 10 abortions.
TEN.
I ended the date soon thereafter as diplomatically as I could.

496 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:41:24pm

re: #428 Capitalist Tool

That's right, I don't keep up with this topic and freely said so.
Are you saying that YOU know all about it?
As to whether any late- term abortions are performed that shouldn't be, legally or otherwise, it would be naive to assume that they aren't.

If you have valid information to the contrary...

I can hold any belief I want... if you think I'm wrong, you can freely say so, but prove me wrong in my beliefs if you want to have real impact.

This is anti-abortion religious right talking point territory

I'm not a big fan of talking points :)

497 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:41:53pm

re: #482 Decatur Deb

We are talking (sometimes interchangeably) about 4 distinct concepts.

Unique organism
Human
Person
Citizen

Our society hasn't reached a consensus on the definitions and rights of those things, and until we do this thread goes on.

that's right

498 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:43:00pm

re: #495 Capitalist Tool

I've not been in the predicament of having one of my women (serial) seek an abortion. I've not personally had to deal with that.

I have known women who have had abortions. and with but one exception, they were all full of regret and were emotionally hurt for life.
I can't know their pain, but can only relate as best I can under my own life circumstance.
Still, the decision was theirs to make. They would mostly do things differently in retrospect, no doubt.

I also knew a woman who, on our first date, told me that if I was looking for a fertile woman (wasn't- just wanted to get- well, you know) that she was the one for me because she had had 10 abortions.
TEN.
I ended the date soon thereafter as diplomatically as I could.

So the government needs to step in to keep people from doing things that hurt themselves in the long run?

Well then I'm sure they'll be all over banning abortions just as soon as they out law Tobacco and bring back Prohibition!

499 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:43:47pm
Abortion in Canada is not limited by the law. While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion. Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces.

One of the things I'm most proud of in my country honestly... Its no one's business other than the woman and her doctor. And our system covers that nicely.

500 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:44:17pm

re: #496 WindUpBird

This is anti-abortion religious right talking point territory

I'm not a big fan of talking points :)

You seem to be calling names and ascribing viewpoints...

Either you have some valid point to make, or you don't.
Name calling isn't a valid point.
Get it?

501 Liet_Kynes  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:44:24pm

jamesfirecat

Your scenario looks tricky but actually isn’t. So long as we are discussing a child conceived through consensual sex, there is an implicit verbal contract that is occurring. By the very nature of the act, a woman engaging in consensual sex is agreeing to share the use of her organs with someone else if a child should be conceived. Thus the notion of private property is not destroyed due to the prior consent.

BTW an individual can be convicted of manslaughter for failing or refusing to use their property to save the life of another.

Because the child is dependent upon the mother, if you go through the case citations at [Link: en.wikipedia.org...] that it is already possible to argue via case law that the government can “force” a mother to provide for the health and welfare for her unborn child via her property, for the same reason that the government can "force" a mother to provide for the health and welfare for her born child.

502 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:44:40pm

re: #488 McSpiff

Yup.

No, I'm not. Any other questions?

Then it's just philosophy for you. You're organs aren't at stake.

Mine are. They have been. I've been through all the effects.

This is why my position on abortion has become so much less ideological and more compassionate. I know firsthand the stress that having another human being hooked up to your organs can be.

I think my favorite moment was the screaming panic I felt when I felt a rhythmic tic at about seven months. Something was wrong with my baby! Oh no! What could it be?

Um, hiccups. Another human being had hiccups inside my body. Never thought of that one, did you?

On a less humorous note, I actually carry a very slight remnant of one of the side effects of pregnancy. I don't begrudge it, because the remnant is so minor, but it wasn't minor during the pregnancy.

503 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:45:42pm

re: #495 Capitalist Tool

I
I have known women who have had abortions. and with but one exception, they were all full of regret and were emotionally hurt for life.
I can't know their pain, but can only relate as best I can under my own life circumstance.
Still, the decision was theirs to make. They would mostly do things differently in retrospect, no doubt.

Oh now we're playing dueling anecdotes?

The people I've know wn have had abortions were totally okay with it years later. They were sad in the sense that they wonder what might have been, but they sre as shit aren't scarred for life. They're awesome, creative people, some with families, but they knew they didn't want to carry a kid to term at 19 when they had clinical depression and

oh yeah, did you know some anti-depressant medication interferes with child development? [Link: www.mayoclinic.com...]

So you have to get off it! Not so great for someone with clinical depression...unless you think a suicide risk is someone who really SHOULD BECOME PREGNANT. Bet the religious right boilerplate rhetoric doesn't take that into account.


We now return you to Capitalist Tool's Republican Talking Point Hour.

504 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:45:54pm

re: #502 EmmmieG

Right, because child birth, abortion, miscarriages, etc are just pure philosophy for men. We're done.

505 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:46:08pm

re: #498 jamesfirecat

So the government needs to step in to keep people from doing things that hurt themselves in the long run?

Well then I'm sure they'll be all over banning abortions just as soon as they out law Tobacco and bring back Prohibition!

Oh, do you think the government needs to step in to keep people from hurting themselves?
Is that what you are saying?

Didn't think so... neither do I.

506 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:46:43pm

re: #495 Capitalist Tool

I
I also knew a woman who, on our first date, told me that if I was looking for a fertile woman (wasn't- just wanted to get- well, you know) that she was the one for me because she had had 10 abortions.
TEN.
I ended the date soon thereafter as diplomatically as I could.

I actually don't believe you

I don't believe that woman either, if you're telling the truth and she told you that

If it's the second, you're extremely gullible

507 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:46:49pm

re: #501 Liet_Kynes

jamesfirecat

Your scenario looks tricky but actually isn’t. So long as we are discussing a child conceived through consensual sex, there is an implicit verbal contract that is occurring. By the very nature of the act, a woman engaging in consensual sex is agreeing to share the use of her organs with someone else if a child should be conceived. Thus the notion of private property is not destroyed due to the prior consent.

BTW an individual can be convicted of manslaughter for failing or refusing to use their property to save the life of another.

Because the child is dependent upon the mother, if you go through the case citations at [Link: en.wikipedia.org...] that it is already possible to argue via case law that the government can “force” a mother to provide for the health and welfare for her unborn child via her property, for the same reason that the government can "force" a mother to provide for the health and welfare for her born child.

You're wrong. You are utterly wrong for saying that cosensual sex is the same thing as consenting to carry a child to term.

I mean first of all, how can we have a "contract" with a being that has no mind of its own.

Can you have a contract with your pets?

508 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:47:37pm

re: #501 Liet_Kynes

So long as we are discussing a child conceived through consensual sex, there is an implicit verbal contract that is occurring. By the very nature of the act, a woman engaging in consensual sex is agreeing to share the use of her organs with someone else if a child should be conceived.

Bogus. There are women out there who can conceive, yet never safely carry to term without it being a dire threat to their own life. Shall we deny those women the freedom to have sex?

509 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:47:55pm

re: #502 EmmmieG

Then it's just philosophy for you. You're organs aren't at stake.

Mine are. They have been. I've been through all the effects.

This is why my position on abortion has become so much less ideological and more compassionate. I know firsthand the stress that having another human being hooked up to your organs can be.

I think my favorite moment was the screaming panic I felt when I felt a rhythmic tic at about seven months. Something was wrong with my baby! Oh no! What could it be?

Um, hiccups. Another human being had hiccups inside my body. Never thought of that one, did you?

On a less humorous note, I actually carry a very slight remnant of one of the side effects of pregnancy. I don't begrudge it, because the remnant is so minor, but it wasn't minor during the pregnancy.

Interesting story, but what does it have to do with MY position on abortion?

510 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:48:34pm

re: #503 WindUpBird

again, you are ascribing words and ideologies to me which aren't mine.
Pay attention.

511 allegro  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:48:42pm

re: #501 Liet_Kynes

Your scenario looks tricky but actually isn’t. So long as we are discussing a child conceived through consensual sex, there is an implicit verbal contract that is occurring. By the very nature of the act, a woman engaging in consensual sex is agreeing to share the use of her organs with someone else if a child should be conceived. Thus the notion of private property is not destroyed due to the prior consent.

Here's a scenario from real life:

A woman consents to sex ONLY if the man wears a condom. He takes it off before penetration because he doesn't like wearing a condom. She gets pregnant. She consented to sex. She did NOT consent to unprotected sex. At what point did she agree to share the use of her organs with a pregnancy that she did not consent to?

512 Renaissance_Man  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:48:50pm

re: #323 bloodstar

Remember 1000 Abortions a year are 24 weeks or later. Having all abortions boiled down to the ethical or moral reasons for a woman to decide to abort at a late term is unfair and disingenuous. A significant portion of all late term abortions are for Anencephaly. Feel free to go look it up and look at some of the pics if you have the stomach for it. If you want to make women carry a pregnancy through when the fetus has no brain or skull, that's all you.

You can claim your vague statistics all you want, but Anencephaly is at least 5% of all late term abortions, and that doesn't account for other lethal birth defects. and it doesn't account for serious health issues to a mother like preeclampsia or more seriously, eclampsia.

My understanding is that third trimester terminations of pregnancy for nonviability reasons, such as anencephaly or Potter's syndrome, are not defined as abortions, either medically or legally. Typically they are defined as inductions of a nonviable foetus, which is to say an induced birth and a normal death during birth or immediately after. It is defined so specifically because this is permitted in the states that otherwise forbid third trimester abortion. And issues such as eclampsia are not treated with abortion in the third trimester; by that stage, the foetus is viable, so they are treated with delivery.

513 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:49:18pm

re: #504 McSpiff

Right, because child birth, abortion, miscarriages, etc are just pure philosophy for men. We're done.

No, they aren't. That's what I keep trying to say. Not only does sleek philosophy shatter when it meets real life, it shatters different for every person, because no two situations are the same.

My husband was forced to practice piano at 5:30 for his teenage years. He won't go near a piano and had to work himself up to allowing one in our house for our daughter.

Some friends of ours have their children practice their instruments at 5:30. They are thriving and doing very well.

Different people, different results.

514 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:49:23pm

re: #505 Capitalist Tool

Oh, do you think the government needs to step in to keep people from hurting themselves?
Is that what you are saying?

Didn't think so... neither do I.

did you know that it's actually illegal to commit suicide?

Did you know that it's actually illegal to use someone else's perscription medication?

Did you know that cops actually show up to try and talk down suicide risks? The GOVERNMENT!

So yes. I think the government is right sometimes to step in to keep people from hurting themselves. I think when someone is hurting themselves and is clearly mentally ill and in danger, and their family appeals to the state to have them commtted for evaluation, that that's a GOOD THING.

515 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:50:56pm

re: #501 Liet_Kynes

jamesfirecat

Your scenario looks tricky but actually isn’t. So long as we are discussing a child conceived through consensual sex, there is an implicit verbal contract that is occurring. By the very nature of the act, a woman engaging in consensual sex is agreeing to share the use of her organs with someone else if a child should be conceived. Thus the notion of private property is not destroyed due to the prior consent.

BTW an individual can be convicted of manslaughter for failing or refusing to use their property to save the life of another.

Because the child is dependent upon the mother, if you go through the case citations at [Link: en.wikipedia.org...] that it is already possible to argue via case law that the government can “force” a mother to provide for the health and welfare for her unborn child via her property, for the same reason that the government can "force" a mother to provide for the health and welfare for her born child.

You're one of these creepy punish the mother by making her carry a baby psychos


really, you should just leave now, you're going to be mocked, you're going to be made fun of, you're not going to have an easy time here with views this creepy

516 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:51:16pm

re: #505 Capitalist Tool

Oh, do you think the government needs to step in to keep people from hurting themselves?
Is that what you are saying?

Didn't think so... neither do I.

I was being sarcastic.

I was saying that the government allows other behaviors which are harmful in the long term, why not abortion?

517 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:51:46pm

re: #513 EmmmieG

Some people can live their lives by guiding principles or morals strong enough that they don't shift when faced with adversity or hardship. Others can't. Don't project beyond yourself.

518 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:53:20pm

re: #516 jamesfirecat

I was being sarcastic.

I was saying that the government allows other behaviors which are harmful in the long term, why not abortion?

I don't actually think abortion is harmful to society, I actually think safe access to abortions is incredibly beneifical to society and strengthens society

Banning abortions just means abortions will be forced underground

it's the same stuff that we hear about gun rights, but I guess the argument vanishes when Republicans find their own ox being gored 8-)

(for the record, I'm pro-gun rights and pro-choice, have all the machine guns you want in Oregon, as long as you're not crazy or a felon, I don't care)

519 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:53:33pm

re: #506 WindUpBird

I actually don't believe you

I don't believe that woman either, if you're telling the truth and she told you that

If it's the second, you're extremely gullible

It happened.
I dropped her like a hot rock.
Others in town filled me in later on other unsavory aspects of her life.

As for the rest of your screed I give a shit less what you think or whether you believe me or not.

520 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:54:42pm

re: #517 McSpiff

Some people can live their lives by guiding principles or morals strong enough that they don't shift when faced with adversity or hardship. Others can't. Don't project beyond yourself.

I actually don't think that's true for anyone, enough hardship and adversity and any human being short of a monk or someone who's totally nuts will compromise at least some of their principles

521 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:55:21pm

Ya know, there are some out there who think that when women wear certain kinds of clothing in public, they are entering into an implicit, non-verbal contract to be raped.

Yeah.

522 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:55:38pm

re: #520 WindUpBird

Matter of degree for sure.

523 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:55:50pm

re: #517 McSpiff

Some people can live their lives by guiding principles or morals strong enough that they don't shift when faced with adversity or hardship. Others can't. Don't project beyond yourself.

I wasn't talking about principles or morals. I was talking about philosophy and ideology. These are two very different things.

My philosophy said, "Give the baby to a two-parent family."

My morality said, "it is a good thing to give a child a better chance at life."

I still believe this, but when I actually went through the experiences, I understand the point of view of others better, and I could understand why a family might choose to keep a baby.

It didn't shift my morals. It brought me understanding and compassion.

524 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:56:02pm

re: #519 Capitalist Tool

It happened.
I dropped her like a hot rock.
Others in town filled me in later on other unsavory aspects of her life.

As for the rest of your screed I give a shit less what you think or whether you believe me or not.


uh huh

yeah, still don't believe you, the story's too clean, and your fake proof (everyone in town proved she had ten abortions! They said so!) don't really ring.

smells funny, jack! Not buying it

525 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:56:22pm

re: #516 jamesfirecat

right- i knew what you were on about- i was being sarcastic, too. Of course the Gov't has all manner of laws such as that.
i just that you were making too simple of a point.

526 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:56:37pm

re: #518 WindUpBird

I don't actually think abortion is harmful to society, I actually think safe access to abortions is incredibly beneifical to society and strengthens society

Banning abortions just means abortions will be forced underground

it's the same stuff that we hear about gun rights, but I guess the argument vanishes when Republicans find their own ox being gored 8-)

(for the record, I'm pro-gun rights and pro-choice, have all the machine guns you want in Oregon, as long as you're not crazy or a felon, I don't care)

I was tlaking about harmful to the person not harmful to the society.

Even if we take the tool's argument that those women who get abortions are doing harm to themselves, in the big picture, so what? The government allows people to do other things that only harm themselves in the long term....

527 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:57:01pm

re: #520 WindUpBird

I actually don't think that's true for anyone, enough hardship and adversity and any human being short of a monk or someone who's totally nuts will compromise at least some of their principles

you might be on to something

528 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:57:20pm

re: #524 WindUpBird

Also the fact that the story escalated when the argument got rolling

OH YEAH, AND BY THE WAY THIS LADY HAD TEN ABORTIONS OMG PERFECT ANECDOTE FOR THIS INTERNET ARGUMENT

not buying it

529 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:58:19pm

re: #520 WindUpBird

I actually don't think that's true for anyone, enough hardship and adversity and any human being short of a monk or someone who's totally nuts will compromise at least some of their principles

///But the Bible said no matter what the devil did to him, Job didn't curse god!

530 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:58:38pm

re: #526 jamesfirecat

I was tlaking about harmful to the person not harmful to the society.

Even if we take the tool's argument that those women who get abortions are doing harm to themselves, in the big picture, so what? The government allows people to do other things that only harm themselves in the long term...

right- so what, and that gets to my real point, which really wasn't about abortion, but about the fact that we have a price to pay for our thoughts and actions, legally sanctioned, or not.

531 Liet_Kynes  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:58:42pm

re: #507 jamesfirecat

You're wrong. You are utterly wrong for saying that cosensual sex is the same thing as consenting to carry a child to term.

I mean first of all, how can we have a "contract" with a being that has no mind of its own.

Can you have a contract with your pets?

Consensual sex, is by definition, consenting to carry a child to term. Even if you believe that sex is just about objectifying ones partner for the sake of pleasure, it is not possible to get around the implicit consent due to the nature of sex as that activity which allows for the creation of a new human life.

The implicit contract originates between the man and the woman, and if a child is concieved the child enters into that contract. Both the man and the woman, due to the nature of the act, enter into a contract to provide for the child, according to the ability of each, if a child should be concieved. If a child is concieved, the child then enjoys the obligations of the contract.

There is no violation of "property rights".

Yes you have a contract with your pets to provide for their health and welfare. That is why you can go to jail if you abuse your pets.

532 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:59:32pm

re: #530 Capitalist Tool

right- so what, and that gets to my real point, which really wasn't about abortion, but about the fact that we have a price to pay for our thoughts and actions, legally sanctioned, or not.

Except for the part where you said that if we knew when a fetus becomes a human being then we would be foolish not to stop having abortions after that point....

533 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 4:59:59pm

re: #531 Liet_Kynes

Consensual sex, is by definition, consenting to carry a child to term. Even if you believe that sex is just about objectifying ones partner for the sake of pleasure, it is not possible to get around the implicit consent due to the nature of sex as that activity which allows for the creation of a new human life.

The implicit contract originates between the man and the woman, and if a child is concieved the child enters into that contract. Both the man and the woman, due to the nature of the act, enter into a contract to provide for the child, according to the ability of each, if a child should be concieved. If a child is concieved, the child then enjoys the obligations of the contract.

There is no violation of "property rights".

Yes you have a contract with your pets to provide for their health and welfare. That is why you can go to jail if you abuse your pets.

Why can't two people have cosensual sex just for fun?

534 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:00:07pm

re: #531 Liet_Kynes

Bogus. There are women out there who can conceive, yet never safely carry to term without it being a dire threat to their own life. Shall we deny those women the freedom to have sex?

535 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:00:21pm

re: #531 Liet_Kynes

Consensual sex, is by definition, consenting to carry a child to term.

What dictionary planet are you using?

536 allegro  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:00:24pm

re: #531 Liet_Kynes

The implicit contract originates between the man and the woman, and if a child is concieved the child enters into that contract. Both the man and the woman, due to the nature of the act, enter into a contract to provide for the child, according to the ability of each, if a child should be concieved. If a child is concieved, the child then enjoys the obligations of the contract.

So every time a man has sex he is consenting to 18 years of child support? Yeah, THAT's gonna happen.

537 McSpiff  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:00:36pm

re: #523 EmmmieG

Congratulations?

538 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:01:44pm

re: #533 jamesfirecat

Why can't two people have cosensual sex just for fun?

I don't know, but I'll bet Christine O'Donnell has an answer for that.

539 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:02:16pm

re: #526 jamesfirecat

I was tlaking about harmful to the person not harmful to the society.

Even if we take the tool's argument that those women who get abortions are doing harm to themselves, in the big picture, so what? The government allows people to do other things that only harm themselves in the long term...

eh, a kid who is unprepared to take care of a child and yet attempts to raise a child, is doing harm to herself, the baby, and society as well. So it's hard for me to say that the "scar" of having an abortion is worse than, you know, being a teenager with an unbelievable responsibility to raise a child that they will almost certainly fail at in many ways

When I think of teen moms. I think of people like this: [Link: www.nationalledger.com...]

Uneducated, stupid, abusive people in small towns and rural areas with no access to information or role models, no money, no resources, skeezy asshole guys around, and NOW THEY HAVE KIDS WHEEE


A Nebraska teen mom used tape to stick her baby to a wall and she and her boyfriend posed for photos and took photographs! Prosecutors say the pair thought it joke, but the authorities weren't laughing.

Teen mom Jayla Hamm received 10 days in jail and two years probation for the act as she was seventeen years old at the time.

According to ABC News, the teen mom and her ex-convict boyfriend tortured her toddler son, locking him in a dark closet and duct-taping his tiny body to a wall because they thought it would be funny, prosecutors said.

So... I'm not exactly crying my eyes out over the wretched scars that an abortion inflicts on the soul.

And yeah, totally agree

540 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:03:10pm

re: #531 Liet_Kynes

Consensual sex, is by definition, consenting to carry a child to term. Even if you believe that sex is just about objectifying ones partner for the sake of pleasure, it is not possible to get around the implicit consent due to the nature of sex as that activity which allows for the creation of a new human life.

You are one creepy dude, jack

This is some good Randall Terry rhetoric right yonder

541 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:03:35pm

re: #529 jamesfirecat

///But the Bible said no matter what the devil did to him, Job didn't curse god!

Well, that's where Job and I would differ :D

542 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:04:01pm

re: #533 jamesfirecat

I was looking at the Spy and noticed that you are so fast, you actually dinged up my last post before it appeared. :O

543 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:04:40pm

Pedro Cortez is out. 2 more left, then the medic crews!

544 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:05:53pm

re: #532 jamesfirecat

Except for the part where you said that if we knew when a fetus becomes a human being then we would be foolish not to stop having abortions after that point...


I also mentioned something in there that I think that we as a society have to pay a price for our collective actions.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe one can do any old damn thing and it doesn't matter a bit as long as no one gets caught in the act... that's a real big maybe.

545 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:06:37pm

re: #533 jamesfirecat

Why can't two people have cosensual sex just for fun?

we can't?

546 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:07:04pm

re: #500 Capitalist Tool

You seem to be calling names and ascribing viewpoints...

Either you have some valid point to make, or you don't.
Name calling isn't a valid point.
Get it?

So pointing out that you're mirroring well-worn and clearly specious talking points by the anti-abortion crowd that concoct bizarre hypothetical scenarios is name calling now?


Wow, I was not aware, I'll have to file that one away for future reference

547 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:07:32pm

re: #509 jamesfirecat

Interesting story, but what does it have to do with MY position on abortion?

Here's another story, and maybe you'll get the point this time:

I knew a woman with a Phd in early childhood development. Lovely woman, I just loved her. No kids. She taught at a University, so obviously she knew her subject well.

One day she offered to hold my 3 week old baby so I could do something that needed both hands. About 20 minutes later she brought him back and anxiously informed me he had diarrhea. I looked at her shirt and pants and apologized profusely for the fact he had pooped on her, but informed her that actually, very runny mustard-colored poop was the norm for breast-fed only babies at that age.

She probably knew more about his cognitive development than I did, but there were some things you learn on the job.

Someone recently posted here that knows things about what it is to be a rape victim that I do not know. She knows things we can't grasp by just thinking about it.

548 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:08:18pm

re: #543 commadore183

Pedro Cortez is out. 2 more left, then the medic crews!

It's been hard to even remember that this whole drama has been going on for a long time, but the outcome sure is one of those things that lifts the spirit.

549 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:10:15pm

re: #544 Capitalist Tool

I also mentioned something in there that I think that we as a society have to pay a price for our collective actions.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe one can do any old damn thing and it doesn't matter a bit as long as no one gets caught in the act... that's a real big maybe.

I am at a complete loss when it comes to seeing how that has anything to do with safe, legal abortions. A complete loss.

550 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:10:56pm

re: #545 Capitalist Tool

we can't?

Not according to Liet_Kynes.

I know I'm heart broken over it too Tool, there's nothing I enjoy more than a good hate f***.

551 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:11:37pm

re: #544 Capitalist Tool

I also mentioned something in there that I think that we as a society have to pay a price for our collective actions.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe one can do any old damn thing and it doesn't matter a bit as long as no one gets caught in the act... that's a real big maybe.

If you think allowing abortions make our society decadent and corrupt then I disagree with you.

552 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:12:10pm

re: #544 Capitalist Tool

I also mentioned something in there that I think that we as a society have to pay a price for our collective actions.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe one can do any old damn thing and it doesn't matter a bit as long as no one gets caught in the act... that's a real big maybe.

The part I bolded brings to mind those who think we were hit on 9-11 because we are an immoral country.

Not in a good way, in case you think there is one.

553 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:13:34pm

re: #547 EmmmieG

Here's another story, and maybe you'll get the point this time:

I knew a woman with a Phd in early childhood development. Lovely woman, I just loved her. No kids. She taught at a University, so obviously she knew her subject well.

One day she offered to hold my 3 week old baby so I could do something that needed both hands. About 20 minutes later she brought him back and anxiously informed me he had diarrhea. I looked at her shirt and pants and apologized profusely for the fact he had pooped on her, but informed her that actually, very runny mustard-colored poop was the norm for breast-fed only babies at that age.

She probably knew more about his cognitive development than I did, but there were some things you learn on the job.

Someone recently posted here that knows things about what it is to be a rape victim that I do not know. She knows things we can't grasp by just thinking about it.

All I'm seeing is more proof that people shouldn't have kids until they're extra ready for them meaning that abortion and birth control should be wide spread and cheap beliefs I already hold...

Sorry guess I've got my blinders on tonight....

554 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:19:54pm

re: #553 jamesfirecat

All I'm seeing is more proof that people shouldn't have kids until they're extra ready for them meaning that abortion and birth control should be wide spread and cheap beliefs I already hold...

Sorry guess I've got my blinders on tonight...

What? What part of my story bears on people being ready for kids?

555 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:20:12pm

So, if I go to the Amazon River and jump in, of my own free will, am I making an implicit, non-verbal agreement to allow a Candiru to make use of my urethra until it is finished doing so?
/

556 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:20:39pm

re: #554 EmmmieG

What? What part of my story bears on people being ready for kids?

The fact that a woman who had spent much of her professional career studying children and how they behave was freaked out within minuets of her being handed one over....

557 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:20:56pm

re: #549 Slumbering Behemoth

I am at a complete loss when it comes to seeing how that has anything to do with safe, legal abortions. A complete loss.


Nobody said it had anything to do with safe, legal abortions- the statement did relate to all that had been said before, i.e. I personally believe that there comes a time in the growth of the fetus when that fetus becomes a human being. We as a society do not know when that event takes place, etc.

If we knew, (we don't) then would we as a people be right to continue the practice of abortion beyond that point, for other than the generally acknowledged acceptable reasons?

558 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:21:31pm

re: #555 Slumbering Behemoth

So, if I go to the Amazon River and jump in, of my own free will, am I making an implicit, non-verbal agreement to allow a Candiru to make use of my urethra until it is finished doing so?
/

By definition!

559 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:22:15pm

re: #551 jamesfirecat

If you think allowing abortions make our society decadent and corrupt then I disagree with you.

if i said that, then i would disagree with me, too

560 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:24:39pm

re: #556 jamesfirecat

The fact that a woman who had spent much of her professional career studying children and how they behave was freaked out within minuets of her being handed one over...

She was worried he was sick. She was actually pretty okay with being pooped on, and she had handled him like a pro.

Actually, the first week or so of having a baby, regardless of how ready you thought you were, is pretty freaky. No amount of reading prepares you, no age, no income (well, unless you're paying someone unless to do the actual baby handling).

561 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:24:40pm

re: #531 Liet_Kynes

Consensual sex, is by definition, consenting to carry a child to term.

That's ridiculous, you're ridiculous.

re: #531 Liet_Kynes

The implicit contract originates between the man and the woman, and if a child is concieved the child enters into that contract.

You quite obviously don't know what an enforceable contract is, implicit or otherwise:

Some of the basic elements of a contract include: an offer and an acceptance; "capacity," or being of legal age and sound competence; "mutual assent," or agreement on the terms of a contract; and "consideration," or compensation for goods or services rendered.

No mutual agreement, no payment, no contract.

562 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:25:14pm

re: #557 Capitalist Tool

Nobody said it had anything to do with safe, legal abortions- the statement did relate to all that had been said before, i.e. I personally believe that there comes a time in the growth of the fetus when that fetus becomes a human being. We as a society do not know when that event takes place, etc.

If we knew, (we don't) then would we as a people be right to continue the practice of abortion beyond that point, for other than the generally acknowledged acceptable reasons?

Yes we would, since to do otherwise would to place the life of another above ones right to private property/organs.

Now maybe it would be for the better if we lived in a world where it was illegal to deny someone aid if it would save their life... but if we're going to change our views on unborn fetuses we best do it for fully grown humans as well....

And if we do it for organs we should do it for other forms of property...

563 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:25:28pm

re: #555 Slumbering Behemoth

So, if I go to the Amazon River and jump in, of my own free will, am I making an implicit, non-verbal agreement to allow a Candiru to make use of my urethra until it is finished doing so?
/


Definitely not any Candiru named Candida

564 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:26:08pm

re: #562 jamesfirecat

good points

565 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:27:03pm

re: #557 Capitalist Tool

Nobody said it had anything to do with safe, legal abortions- the statement did relate to all that had been said before, i.e. I personally believe that there comes a time in the growth of the fetus when that fetus becomes a human being. We as a society do not know when that event takes place, etc.

If we knew, (we don't) then would we as a people be right to continue the practice of abortion beyond that point, for other than the generally acknowledged acceptable reasons?

By what right would we as a people claim the authority to say "no"?

566 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:29:33pm

re: #565 Slumbering Behemoth

By what right would we as a people claim the authority to say "no"?

Hmm. Could that same argument be applied to extant laws concerning other issues of individual rights/harm to others?

567 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:31:31pm

re: #544 Capitalist Tool

I also mentioned something in there that I think that we as a society have to pay a price for our collective actions.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe one can do any old damn thing and it doesn't matter a bit as long as no one gets caught in the act... that's a real big maybe.

Quasi mystical meaningless claptrap. Every conceivable action has some consequence, as does every conceivable inaction. You believe that abortion is immoral and need to posit some obscure undefined future price for societies that permit it, because you can't identify what that consequence is in the present.

568 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:32:34pm

re: #566 Capitalist Tool

Hmm. Could that same argument be applied to extant laws concerning other issues of individual rights/harm to others?

I'm afraid I do not get your point.

569 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:42:44pm

re: #567 goddamnedfrank

Quasi mystical meaningless claptrap. Every conceivable action has some consequence, as does every conceivable inaction. You believe that abortion is immoral and need to posit some obscure undefined future price for societies that permit it, because you can't identify what that consequence is in the present.

I don't believe that at all and have said no such thing, at least in your loose general term 'abortion'.
Even if I did think that way, which I don't, what would it be to you?
Are you saying that every action/inaction has a consequence? and then turning around and saying that the concept is meaningless?

570 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:45:32pm

re: #568 Slumbering Behemoth

I'm afraid I do not get your point.

It was your point in a way, by what rights as a society do we say no to anything?

Obviously, we have the right to say no to certain behaviors. We wouldn't have a society, otherwise.

571 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:51:33pm

re: #494 WindUpBird

Well, all legal philosophy disappears if you're the victim or your family is the victim of a violent crime

because philosophy of our legal system dictates everyone gets a fair trial, everyone has the right to an attorney, etc etc

But people, when they're actually victims, don't care about the philosophy, they just want to see the dude dead who raped them, or their kid, or murdered their family member, or whatever, and also the lawyer defending that guy, and it's sorta rational! To want blind revenge on that person and everyone seen as aiding that person. But it's not something you can allow into the legal system.

It's the Ellie Nesler thing. I totally, completely sympathized with her. But you can't just let people do that.

572 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:52:55pm

re: #501 Liet_Kynes

By the very nature of the act, a woman engaging in consensual sex is agreeing to share the use of her organs with someone else if a child should be conceived. Thus the notion of private property is not destroyed due to the prior consent.

I don't accept that point of view. Even slightly.

573 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:56:38pm

re: #528 WindUpBird

Also the fact that the story escalated when the argument got rolling

OH YEAH, AND BY THE WAY THIS LADY HAD TEN ABORTIONS OMG PERFECT ANECDOTE FOR THIS INTERNET ARGUMENT

not buying it

I'm sure, once again, that there are women who've had ten abortions.

The women I know who've had two have been known to beat themselves up for allowing it to happen again.

But it's easier to act as though women act thoughtlessly and with no care or consideration when they decide to abort.

574 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 5:57:44pm

re: #531 Liet_Kynes

Consensual sex, is by definition, consenting to carry a child to term. Even if you believe that sex is just about objectifying ones partner for the sake of pleasure, it is not possible to get around the implicit consent due to the nature of sex as that activity which allows for the creation of a new human life.

Hmmm. I still totally disagree. Now, is a man having sex with a woman consenting to support any child she may conceive through that act until it turns eighteen?

575 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:00:39pm

re: #573 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm sure, once again, that there are women who've had ten abortions.

The women I know who've had two have been known to beat themselves up for allowing it to happen again.

But it's easier to act as though women act thoughtlessly and with no care or consideration when they decide to abort.

It's the rare ones among us, man or woman, who act without care or consideration. We call them sociopaths and psychopaths.
All women I've known who've had abortions, with the one noted exception, had as hard a time with their decisions before the fact as they had later, as far as I could tell by their relating their stories to me.

576 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:01:47pm

re: #539 WindUpBird

eh, a kid who is unprepared to take care of a child and yet attempts to raise a child, is doing harm to herself, the baby, and society as well. So it's hard for me to say that the "scar" of having an abortion is worse than, you know, being a teenager with an unbelievable responsibility to raise a child that they will almost certainly fail at in many ways

When I think of teen moms. I think of people like this: [Link: www.nationalledger.com...]

Uneducated, stupid, abusive people in small towns and rural areas with no access to information or role models, no money, no resources, skeezy asshole guys around, and NOW THEY HAVE KIDS WHEEE

So... I'm not exactly crying my eyes out over the wretched scars that an abortion inflicts on the soul.

And yeah, totally agree

I know a woman who got pregnant in high school. She was taken out of high school and send to a home for pregnant mothers. She gave birth in a drugged haze, and the baby was taken from her. That's what happened when you were a pregnant teen in the 60s.

When her son by a subsequent marriage was a junior in high school (I was his classmate), she had a nervous breakdown brought on by horrible memories and panic attacks over what had happened to her child.

This is one story.

I have to comment, as long as we're going the anecdote route, that I have NEVER known a woman who surrendered a baby for adoption willingly, or who chose to have a abortion of her own free will, to have similar scarring. Sometimes sadness. But not depression that requires hospitalization and drugs.

That was done by people who thought they could make a choice for a woman.

577 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:03:04pm

re: #544 Capitalist Tool

I also mentioned something in there that I think that we as a society have to pay a price for our collective actions.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe one can do any old damn thing and it doesn't matter a bit as long as no one gets caught in the act... that's a real big maybe.

I guess my only answer would be: everyone chooses what they do, and everyone makes their own peace with it, and with whatever else they make peace with.

That's not my business, unless I am close enough to them for them to tell me about it.

578 brownbagj  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:04:25pm

re: #572 SanFranciscoZionist

I think Liet isn't gettin' any and needs some reason to rationalize why he isn't gettin' any.

I bet more than one woman has told him this to get the hell away.

579 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:08:09pm

re: #570 Capitalist Tool

It was your point in a way, by what rights as a society do we say no to anything?

Obviously, we have the right to say no to certain behaviors. We wouldn't have a society, otherwise.

That was so not my point. My point was by what right can we as a society say "no" to abortions preformed "for other than the generally acknowledged acceptable reasons" beyond you're hypothetical line of demarcation.

Your response:


Could that same argument be applied to extant laws concerning other issues of individual rights/harm to others?

And I am afraid that I still do not understand what you were getting at with that question.

580 brownbagj  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:08:56pm

re: #575 Capitalist Tool

CT, have you done any numbers?

How about how many abortions are performed in any given year? Then, out of those, how many were late term abortions? Then what fractions of those were "just because I want to?"

Would you deny the rights of all women to have abortions due to the actions of a very minuscule few?

If so, how about car accidents? Should we deny all people the right to drive simply because a few cannot follow the rules of the road, speed, drive recklessly simply because they want to?

These talking points of mysterious women getting abortions at 8.5 months for the hell of it are never proven. Never.

So saying these things does not take the discussion forward.

581 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:14:07pm

re: #577 SanFranciscoZionist

I guess my only answer would be: everyone chooses what they do, and everyone makes their own peace with it, and with whatever else they make peace with.

That's not my business, unless I am close enough to them for them to tell me about it.

that's pretty much it... we are on our own, more or less
and learn from our mistakes or make them again until we do. I think that's what the whole law of karma is about anyway, to help us learn.

i only knew one woman who had to willingly give up a child for adoption and she hadn't gotten over it some years past the fact. The loss for her might only be slightly greater if the child had died and maybe easier for her to accept. I do not even want to try to imagine such a thing.

582 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:14:57pm

re: #573 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm sure, once again, that there are women who've had ten abortions.

The women I know who've had two have been known to beat themselves up for allowing it to happen again.

But it's easier to act as though women act thoughtlessly and with no care or consideration when they decide to abort.

In the *mumblemumble* years that I have been going to and fro upon this earth, meating as many women as will let me, I have only met one who treated abortion as a method of birth control. Only one.

The others I have met, who have had abortions, have done so due to physical limitations/deformities that prevent them from safely carrying to term, or for other equally difficult reasons. I see no sense in denying these women their sexual freedom simply because some find abortion to be evil.

583 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:21:02pm

re: #578 brownbagj

I think Liet isn't gettin' any and needs some reason to rationalize why he isn't gettin' any.

I bet more than one woman has told him this to get the hell away.

I don't think that's the case. I haven't been "gettin' any" for a while, and I do not subscribe to the same line of thinking.

I believe it has more to do with "If I can not own women the way men have owned them in the past, then these filthy sluts must at least be made to live with their shame".

Perhaps I'm being a bit unfair, but that's how the argument of "implicit, verbal agreement" sounds to me.

584 brownbagj  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:22:57pm

re: #583 Slumbering Behemoth

Yeah. I was just being a sarcastic ass.

585 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:26:54pm

re: #584 brownbagj

Yeah. I was just being a sarcastic ass.

Holy crap. Sarcasm? On the internet? This must certainly be a first, a great milestone in the history of electronic communication. :)

586 brownbagj  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:28:55pm

re: #585 Slumbering Behemoth

I do fancy myself to be a cultural trendsetter.

587 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:30:09pm

re: #580 brownbagj

CT, have you done any numbers?

How about how many abortions are performed in any given year? Then, out of those, how many were late term abortions? Then what fractions of those were "just because I want to?"

Would you deny the rights of all women to have abortions due to the actions of a very minuscule few?

If so,

These talking points of mysterious women getting abortions at 8.5 months for the hell of it are never proven. Never.

So saying these things does not take the discussion forward.


i have no idea about any of those numbers you ask about but am fairly certain you could find answers online... if you were really posing a question, which you weren't.

I generally do not pay attention to the abortion debate.
I have ideas and opinions and have expressed them here and saw what others wrote.

specifics:
1) "Would you deny the rights of all women to have abortions due to the actions of a very minuscule few?"

No. Would you?
Did you see anyone anywhere in these pages make that argument? No?
Then, do you think strawman arguments advance your position?

2)"how about car accidents? Should we deny all people the right to drive simply because a few cannot follow the rules of the road, speed, drive recklessly simply because they want to?"

No, we shouldn't.
Should we abandon all traffic laws simply because some people don't follow the law or are poor drivers?
Doesn't that question more closely mirror the late- term abortion issue than the way you posed it?

By stating your traffic question in those terms, aren't you de facto saying that such abortions do occur, and likened them to reckless drivers in order to make your case?

Are you saying that such abortions do not happen?

588 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:31:31pm

re: #586 brownbagj

Next thing you know, you'll be adding hilariously misspelled captions to pictures of cute animals doing silly things. Hell, I should jump on that before someone beats me to it.

589 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:34:09pm

re: #521 Slumbering Behemoth

Ya know, there are some out there who think that when women wear certain kinds of clothing in public, they are entering into an implicit, non-verbal contract to be raped.

Yeah.

The ever so sophisticated modern form of this is that "Women need to take more responsibility for their own safety." In other words, if a women is drinking, if she's alone with a stranger (most rapes are commited by people known to the victim, but why let facts get in the way?), if she accompanies a man back to his flat/invites him into hers, she's aking for it. It's just one more way of deflecting responsibility away from the rapist and back on the woman.

590 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:37:46pm

re: #563 Capitalist Tool

Definitely not any Candiru named Candida

Even if Candida was candid about being named Candidru?

591 brownbagj  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:38:12pm

re: #587 Capitalist Tool

For someone who pays no attention to the debate, you certainly made assumptions that are unfounded.

Getting late term abortions for the hell of it is not legal. There must be a threat to the life of the mother. You claimed you didn't know this.

You then also put forward the notion that late term abortions have happened on a whim. Yet, for some reason, no one can site any case on paper of this ever happening.

So, by stating such things through all of this, what is your point? If you do agree that women should be free to have abortions, if you agree that late term abortions are rare and if you agree that late term abortions can only be had under extenuating circumstances....why have you put the assumptions above forward?

Again, it strikes me as odd that someone who doesn't pay much attention to the debate makes assumptions, can't back them up and then purports to educate others when they themselves claim to have little knowledge.

I don't know about the rest of the gang, but that type of discussion tactic is frustrating as hell.

I would have much rather you said, " I haven't paid much attention to the abortion debate. I know nothing about the statistics nor about how and when abortions are legal. I just would like to state that women have the right to choice (it "seems" you believe this), even though it must be a difficult decision to end a pregnancy."

Otherwise, it seems you rambled on for the past half day with little or no point.

592 brownbagj  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:39:36pm

re: #588 Slumbering Behemoth

I am beyond that and on to the cutting edge of rotating gifs that show funny things over and over again.

I can almost smell the money coming my way.

593 brownbagj  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:41:25pm

Gotta go folks. Time to read bedtime stories.

Have a great night everyone!

594 Kruk  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:41:55pm

re: #574 SanFranciscoZionist

Hmmm. I still totally disagree. Now, is a man having sex with a woman consenting to support any child she may conceive through that act until it turns eighteen?

For that matter, is he consenting to donate any organs or tissues that child may need if he's the only compatible donor? After all, he knew or should have known that a child gets half its MHC (major histo-compatibility, the sites that control rejection) alleles from each parent. A contract exists, surely.

595 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:44:45pm

re: #563 Capitalist Tool

Definitely not any Candiru named Candida

re: #590 Kruk

Even if Candida was candid about being named Candidru?

Heh. I might make an exception for a Candiru named Candiria, though.

596 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 7:40:51pm

re: #591 brownbagj
I said at the beginning of this, among other things, that I thought it wrong for women to abort after the child has reached viability, near term if you will, when there is no compelling reason to do so.
I also said I thought it wrong to force women to carry to term against their will and that I believe we pay a price for our thoughts and actions.
Those (3) thoughts started the debate.
All else flowed from that.

Without making much more of your false assumptions of my thinking, i do not agree that late term abortions can only be had under extenuating circumstances.
I agree that's the way it is supposed to work, but am not so naive as to assume that it actually works that way.

Perhaps you do not enjoy finding out what other people believe or have to say. I do. I usually unearth some new gem when I explore the minds mines.

This has been anything but rambling and pointless for me, as i see yet again how people react when their own thinking is challenged by confronting an idea which they do not accept. I know i am just the same.

Teaching others? You don't have to agree with anything I believe or say.

Speaking of wondering what was the point, what was your point?

597 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 8:06:56pm

re: #596 Capitalist Tool

What is confusing me about some of your statements here is how you speak of "choice and consequence" regarding this issue, while seeming to be unclear as to what you think the consequence is or should be.

598 Dancing along the light of day  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 8:15:37pm

re: #596 Capitalist Tool

I'm replying to your most recent statement, but truly replying to all of your posts in this thread.

I believe if the person who's body is carrying the potential child, has the right to make the decisions. And, having safe, clean, medically accessible abortions available, is WAY better in the long run than having the only choice be less than safe (I'll be delicate on that one).

599 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 8:20:05pm

re: #597 Slumbering Behemoth

What is confusing me about some of your statements here is how you speak of "choice and consequence" regarding this issue, while seeming to be unclear as to what you think the consequence is or should be.

You are correct.
I have not spoken about what I think consequence should be for any action.
How would I know that?

i did not mean to confuse anyone into thinking that we were talking about some sort of retribution under the laws or action of man.

I think there is a price to be paid by society as well for inaction in the face of obvious wrongs, such as was mentioned by others in the next thread with the 'lifeguard doing nothing' allegory.

600 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 8:39:50pm

re: #598 Floral Giraffe

I'm replying to your most recent statement, but truly replying to all of your posts in this thread.

I believe if the person who's body is carrying the potential child, has the right to make the decisions. And, having safe, clean, medically accessible abortions available, is WAY better in the long run than having the only choice be less than safe (I'll be delicate on that one).

I agree.
The process should be even more open than it is. But, I'm not sure we are ready for it, or capable of anything better. For the most part, we don't have an inkling of a clue about what's really going on.

Really, that's it in a nutshell. We don't have a clue.
Humanity in general knows less than nothing about birth and life and death.
We know a few things of the world, what has been observable through technology, but not much else.
We even have a coterie, a priesthood of sorts, of those who would teach us that there is nothing beyond the chaos and randomness and order of the physical world which can be known.

601 jamesfirecat  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 9:01:23pm

re: #600 Capitalist Tool

I agree.
The process should be even more open than it is. But, I'm not sure we are ready for it, or capable of anything better. For the most part, we don't have an inkling of a clue about what's really going on.

Really, that's it in a nutshell. We don't have a clue.
Humanity in general knows less than nothing about birth and life and death.
We know a few things of the world, what has been observable through technology, but not much else.
We even have a coterie, a priesthood of sorts, of those who would teach us that there is nothing beyond the chaos and randomness and order of the physical world which can be known.

So now you have a problem with Atheists?

602 Liet_Kynes  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 9:03:17pm

Allegro --> 511
In your scenario you are not suggesting that the man rapped the woman. As such, she consented to activity that could bring forth a child, and as such, both she and the man have a responsibility to use their property to provide for the health and welfare for the child if a child should be conceived. In addition, according to Harvard’s Peer Contraceptive Counselors, condoms in a standard environment are 90-95% effective [Link: www.hcs.harvard.edu...] . Thus there is an implicit knowledge between the man and woman that even with using a condom that a child could be conceived. Because of this there still is a consensual implicit contract occurring.

Jamesfirecat --> 533
I never said, nor will argue, that consensual sex is not “for fun”. However you cannot separate the pleasure from the purposes of the act, one of which is allowing for new life. It the equivalent of trying to argue that you should be able to use your eyes for pleasure without seeing objects. You cannot separate the pleasure of using your eyes from seeing the visual world and a mental imprint of the visual world being created in your mind. If you engage in the pleasure of seeing, you allow for the creation of images within your mind. If you engage in the pleasure of sex, you allow for the creation of another person inside of the woman, who you have a responsibility towards.

Allegro --> 536
Yes that is what I am saying. I would go further though saying that the man is committing to a lifelong support for the health and welfare of his child if a child should be conceived. Man is not an animal. He has a moral obligation to love and care for his child as long as that man lives. The failure of some men and of the legal system only speaks to those men and the legal system, not to the reality of the obligations that one has to his offspring.

SanFranciscoZionist -->572- 574
That is fine. I don’t mind disagreement. See my above. I find the attitude that some people have that they are only meant to watch out for the health and welfare of their child until some magical number to be deplorable. Love demands a permanent irrevocable carrying for our offspring and anything less is simply not human. We are all just star stuff, and if this life is all that we have, it is even more contemptible for a man not to offer his child love and health and welfare for as long as that man should live.

603 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 9:19:03pm

re: #602 Liet_Kynes

I've asked you twice, and now will ask a third time. Would you deign to answer my humble question:

There are women out there who can conceive, yet never safely carry to term without it being a dire threat to their own life. Shall we deny those women the freedom to have sex?

604 Liet_Kynes  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 9:46:17pm

re: #603 Slumbering Behemoth

I only saw your question once, sorry for not answering it the first time.

I assume that you agree that an individual who is allergic to wheat should be recommended not eat wheat.

Applying the same principles, the rational answer to your question is that a woman who would have a dire threat to her own life if she should become pregnant should be recommended not to have sex.

Both individuals are free to respectively eat wheat and have sex, though they must face the consequences should things turn dire.

Science is tasked with the duty and responsibility to develop ways for each respective individual to eat wheat without a threat to her life and to conceive without the pregnancy being a threat to her life.

605 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 10:01:29pm

re: #604 Liet_Kynes

I assume that you agree that an individual who is allergic to wheat should be recommended not eat wheat.

Applying the same principles, the rational answer to your question is that a woman who would have a dire threat to her own life if she should become pregnant should be recommended not to have sex.

Both individuals are free to respectively eat wheat and have sex, though they must face the consequences should things turn dire.

Science is tasked with the duty and responsibility to develop ways for each respective individual to eat wheat without a threat to her life and to conceive without the pregnancy being a threat to her life.

Nonsense. This subject goes far beyond the simplistic analogy of food allergies. The kindest thing I can say about your argument here is that it is specious at best.

As I have stated before, there are women out there who are capable of conceiving, yet physically incapable of carrying a pregnancy to term. One example would be a woman who has two uteruses (uteruii?), yet not the extra space in her abdomen to reasonably accommodate both in a viable way that would allow both her and her fetus to survive birth.

So is it your position that those who cannot carry safely to term either not have sex, or suffer the consequences of death if they conceive when doing so?

606 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 10:02:20pm

re: #604 Liet_Kynes

I only saw your question once, sorry for not answering it the first time.

I assume that you agree that an individual who is allergic to wheat should be recommended not eat wheat.

Applying the same principles, the rational answer to your question is that a woman who would have a dire threat to her own life if she should become pregnant should be recommended not to have sex.

Both individuals are free to respectively eat wheat and have sex, though they must face the consequences should things turn dire.

Science is tasked with the duty and responsibility to develop ways for each respective individual to eat wheat without a threat to her life and to conceive without the pregnancy being a threat to her life.

Science provided humanity with contraceptive options so that we might engage in sex with no intention to procreate. However it has not made those contraceptive options totally foolproof. It's not science's job to knit together all the holes in your philosophy. Some women medically can't become pregnant safely, yet they were also born with an innate desire to have sex in an age where science has not caught up to their condition. Blithely answering that those women just should abstain from sex doesn't even approach realism, it's just a paternalistic, judgmental non thought. You're not even trying.

And you still don't know what a contract is.

607 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 10:07:51pm

re: #604 Liet_Kynes

Science is tasked with the duty and responsibility to develop ways for each respective individual to eat wheat without a threat to her life and to conceive without the pregnancy being a threat to her life.

Science provided medical abortion, and made it safer for a woman than carrying any pregnancy to term.

Was that wrong, should science not have done that?

608 Liet_Kynes  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 10:12:58pm

re: #605 Slumbering Behemoth

If something is going to kill you, you really shouldn’t be doing that thing. That is basic common sense.

It doesn’t matter if we are talking about pregnancies, food allergies, or crossing a busy street without looking, it is not a wise thing to do things that have a good chance of killing you, and people should be advised not to do those things because if they do those things they risk getting killed.

609 Liet_Kynes  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 10:29:28pm

re: #605 Slumbering Behemoth

I am sorry but you are not taking the time to compare my argument to the basic definition of a contract. If you did, you would see that it fits.

Contraception is not a scientific solution to being able to conceive without the pregnancy being a threat to a woman’s life. Thus telling a woman that could die if she got pregnant that she should have her partner use a condom is not a true solution as you are doing nothing at all to reduce the dangers of pregnancy. What you are doing is reducing the likelihood of getting pregnant but doing nothing at all to reduce the dangers of pregnancy for her.

You are in fact arguing from a much great philosophical standpoint that I am for you are arguing that having sex should be unrelated to getting pregnant. That is a pure philosophical desire that has no basis in observable data. The observable data is that sex and getting pregnant are intrinsically related. Thus you, not I , are the one who is trying to conform reality to your philosophy.

610 Liet_Kynes  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 10:31:30pm

Oops sorry my 609 should have been at goddamnedfrank --606 not Slumbering Behemoth. Sorry.

611 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 10:32:37pm

re: #608 Liet_Kynes

You use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing at all, really.

If something is going to kill you, you really shouldn’t be doing that thing. That is basic common sense.

I like to shoot my guns, and drive my car as well. By the statistics, including worst case scenarios, I could quite conceivably be killed by doing either. Should I refrain from or be denied the right or freedom to engage in either activities?

This is why your allergy argument fails so horribly. And in a most juvenile and repugnant way.

Point blank. These are "yes or no" questions:

1) Do you think women who can not safely carry to term pregnancies that will result in their deaths should have to do so anyway?

2) Do you think that women who fit in this category should be denied, or deny themselves, the freedom to have sex?

3) Do you think that the option of abortion should be denied to those who seek it under any circumstances?

612 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 10:49:20pm

re: #609 Liet_Kynes

I am sorry but you are not taking the time to compare my argument to the basic definition of a contract.

That's exactly what I did actually, the definition of a valid contract includes explicit mutual assent to the terms and compensation. Lacking either of those two things makes your contract assertion antithetical to reality.

613 Liet_Kynes  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 10:57:58pm

re: #611 Slumbering Behemoth

Look over your argument again.

If, for you, shooting your guns and driving your car carried with it a high risk of getting killed by doing either, then obviously you should refrain from engaging in those activates. Please recall that as individuals age, it becomes increasingly likely that they become a high risk drives and at a certain threshold of risk they are advised by medical professionals not to drive anymore, and at a further threshold of risk their licenses are taken away by the state if they continue to drive. (fyi I am not making a comparison here between abortion and driving a car. I am stating that it is advisable not to do things that have a high probability of killing you, and that doctors and the state have a right to advise you and limit your options of activity.)

1. No. Medical procedures with fall into the category of double effect are allowable. These are not abortions but result in the death of the child.
2. Yes, though deny is too strong of a word. The state should advise them and they should act prudently. Common Sense.
3. Yes. In all cases and medical procedures that by direct intent and action kills the child are not to be allowed.

614 Liet_Kynes  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 11:08:28pm

re: #612 goddamnedfrank

That's exactly what I did actually, the definition of a valid contract includes explicit mutual assent to the terms and compensation. Lacking either of those two things makes your contract assertion antithetical to reality.

Let me help you.

Mutual assent: That should obviously be the the consent to engage in sexual activity. What is being assented to is the sexual exchange.

What is exchanged: You are kidding right that you don't see this? At the bodily level it is the exchange of their physical selves. At a psychological level it is the exchange of affection.

What is result/compensation: The promise of being there in the future for the other. The forging of affective and psychological bonds of attachment. The possibility of a new life and the promise to care for that life.

This is an implicit contract by the very nature of the sexual activity.

615 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 11:14:57pm

re: #613 Liet_Kynes

Again, many words that mean little. But at least you give one statement that boils down your position to it's essence:

re: #611 Slumbering Behemoth

3) Do you think that the option of abortion should be denied to those who seek it under any circumstances?

re: #613 Liet_Kynes

3. Yes. In all cases and medical procedures that by direct intent and action kills the child are not to be allowed.

Not for rape. Not for incest/molestation. Not for the woman nor child who may suffer death otherwise. Not for anyone.

I appreciate your honesty, though it took a long while for you to get there. Still, I can no easily make common cause with your ideology than I can with Sir Francis Galton's. We are done here.

616 Liet_Kynes  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 11:47:03pm

re: #615 Slumbering Behemoth

You misrepresent my position if you think that I do not believe that medical procedures can be done to save the life of one with the death of the other.

An individual either believes that human life has intrinsic value or they do not. If a human life has intrinsic value then one does not have the right to end the life of another who has done nothing to warrant the loss of their lives. If human life has no intrinsic value then due process and everything of the like is meaningless, those that live do so simply at the toleration of those in power.

My standing on the abortion issue is not a religious one, which should be obvious in the way I am arguing. I stand on it because it is the only rational anti-abortion stand. I am Catholic, but I wasn't always. I was also moderately pro-choice at one time. I became pro-life well before I became Catholic. It was the science and anthropology and philosophy that changed my mind -- not scripture, not some preacher.

I appreciate your honesty too. The thing though that we have in common is that we are both not fundamentalists. That at least is something. They also hate my arguments too because intrinsic human rights don't exist in fundamentalism.

And yes going back in time and shooting Stalin in the womb is immoral.

617 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 11:50:55pm

re: #616 Liet_Kynes

haaaay there freakshow, you still here?

618 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 11:55:19pm

re: #616 Liet_Kynes

I wonder how rational you would be in a drought or a famine, if you were starving or your family were starving

I wonder if your positions on "intrinsic value of a human life" would be so clear

I suspect not

maybe you should let the woman carrying the baby in her fucking abdomen decide what to do with it? Maybe it's actually not up to the POLICE what should be done with a fetus, huh?

619 nature boy  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:12:13am

Forcing a raped woman to bear the baby is additional abuse to the trauma she already went through.

There are 2 extremes: (1) reckless condoning of all abortions, and (2) forbidding any abortion under all circumstances.

IMO, the middle path should be taken. Each case is different. For example, when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life, abortion is good.

620 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:15:33am

re: #618 WindUpBird

They would be clear because I know how to act and behave as a man.

People do not have the right to kill other people without warrant. We do not have this right.

We are not barbarians, we are not ancient Romans. The parents do not have the right of life and death over their children. We need to advance beyond that misguided attitude that just because someone is mom or dad that they have a right to choose death for their children.

621 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:16:36am

re: #616 Liet_Kynes

An individual either believes that human life has intrinsic value or they do not.

I no longer have to parse every single word you type here to know that your stance on the "intrinsic value" of a woman's life ceases to exist when she has the 'audacity' to couple with a man.

re: #611 Slumbering Behemoth

3) Do you think that the option of abortion should be denied to those who seek it under any circumstances?

re: #613 Liet_Kynes


3. Yes. In all cases and medical procedures that by direct intent and action kills the child are not to be allowed.

You disgust me.

622 nature boy  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:20:47am

re: #436 engineer dog

miners popping out as if mother earth is giving birth is a good metaphor for something, i'm sure

Then burying the dead is mother earth's cannibalism...?

I like metaphors.

623 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:28:35am

re: #621 Slumbering Behemoth

I must laugh at you because you are jumping at shadows. The intrinsic value of a woman doesn’t cease to exist when she has sex. What has she lost? Nothing. The woman has never had the right to take the life of another who has done nothing to warrant that loss of life. Having sex doesn’t change that. Not having sex doesn’t change that.

624 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:47:53am

re: #619 nature boy

With respect, abortion is not something where there is a middle position. If individuals, by the very nature of them existing, have a fundamental intrinsic right to life and limb, they cannot be deprived of life or limb without warrant.

If we do not have a fundamental right to life and limb, then those in power may end our lives and take our limbs simply by the virtue of them being in power over us. If we do have a fundamental right that protects us, then those in power may not take away our life and limb without warrant, and no law can change that fundamental right.

Again let me make it clear, there are procedures for dire pregnancies which results in the death of one, but not the other, which are not abortions and which fall under the principle of double effect. This are permissible to save the life of one and result in the death of the other.

625 nature boy  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 1:07:41am

re: #624 Liet_Kynes

I'm trying to decipher what you just said. Are you saying abortion should never be allowed? Under any circumstances?

626 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 2:01:17am

re: #625 nature boy

I'm trying to decipher what you just said. Are you saying abortion should never be allowed? Under any circumstances?

Yes. He's a fanatic. The only abortions he's remotely considering are to save the life of the mother. That's all.

He's assuming a zygote is an individual.

627 acacia  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 5:13:46am

re: #252 Gus 802

There is no "right to privacy" section in the Constitution. Although you agree with Roe you have to admit that the decision cobbles sections together (the famous "penumbra" argument) to reach its conclusion.

I'm always amazed that people have distrust about the people deciding these issues. Our country was founded on the idea that government exists only with the consent of the people. It was the "people" that enacted every single word of the Constitution. The "people" have every right to enact an amendment prohibiting abortion or allowing states to prohibit abortion (as well as one recognizing a right to abortion). In my opinion, the people of each state already have those rights now but even if the Supreme Court says they don't, the people always have the right to define rights, responsibilities etc, through the Constitutional amendment process.

628 Interesting Times  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 6:09:32am

re: #624 Liet_Kynes

If we do not have a fundamental right to life and limb, then those in power may end our lives and take our limbs simply by the virtue of them being in power over us.

And if "those in power" can force you to provide use of your body and organs in order to "save" another, they can force you to give up everything else as well, "simply by virtue of them being in power over us."

In other words, let's see you address the argument presented by jamesfirecat here. I bet you can't.

629 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 8:15:34am

re: #626 Obdicut

You are mistaken about my views. Please be careful if you attempt to speak for me.

Fanatics argue that abortionists should be charged with murder and executed, and that they have a right to bomb abortion clinics. I do not argue that.

A zygote is not the mother nor the father. It is something else than the mother or her organs and it cannot be argued that it is her or one of her organs. It has a distinct human genetic signature. It has identity unto itself and independent of other human individuals. Thus it must be an individual. Just because something is small doesn't mean that it is not an individual. An amoeba is a single celled organism. Each amoeba is an individual compared to other amoebas. The zygote is an individual human organism.

Also I don't support abortion. I allow for medical procedures in dire consequences that meet the principle of double effect that may result in the life of one and the death of the other. There is a big difference.

630 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 8:26:46am

re: #627 acacia

With respect, you should recheck your Declaration of Independence. This country was founded on the belief that humans have inalienable rights by virtue of their existence and that these rights cannot be taken away by virtue of those in power or laws that a government should pass.

This country was not founded on the principle that people have the right to enact any law that they feel like. That is precisely the opposite of the founding of our country. We were founded on the principle that people cannot enact any law that they feel like and people have an intrinsic right to overthrow any government that attempts enacts laws that violate their intrinsic rights.

631 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 8:41:08am

re: #628 publicityStunted


In other words, let's see you address the argument presented by jamesfirecat here. I bet you can't.

I have already addressed jamesfirecat's comment. See my #501 and following comments.

632 Interesting Times  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 8:56:52am

re: #631 Liet_Kynes

I have already addressed jamesfirecat's comment. See my #501 and following comments.

I don't accept your bizarro "contract" premise. But even if one did, you would have to at least allow for rape/incest abortions, because the woman did not consent to have sex and get impregnated as a result. You, however, make no exception for this as far as I can see.

633 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 9:03:47am

re: #624 Liet_Kynes

With respect, abortion is not something where there is a middle position. If individuals, by the very nature of them existing, have a fundamental intrinsic right to life and limb, they cannot be deprived of life or limb without warrant.

If we do not have a fundamental right to life and limb, then those in power may end our lives and take our limbs simply by the virtue of them being in power over us. If we do have a fundamental right that protects us, then those in power may not take away our life and limb without warrant, and no law can change that fundamental right.

Again let me make it clear, there are procedures for dire pregnancies which results in the death of one, but not the other, which are not abortions and which fall under the principle of double effect. This are permissible to save the life of one and result in the death of the other.

And the extremist is holding court! This should be fun to witness over the next few days

634 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 9:04:50am

re: #620 Liet_Kynes

They would be clear because I know how to act and behave as a man.


Lol no

635 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 9:29:06am

re: #632 publicityStunted

People do not have the right to take the life and limbs of other people without warrant.

A child in a womb is simply existing and thus cannot do any action that would warrant the mother choosing for her child to loose life or limb.

In the case of rape, where the contract of mutual self giving does not exist, does the child have a right to limb of the mother? Only in so far as the child is dependent upon the mother for health and welfare. IF a man is in your house, and he has done nothing to warrant his removal from your house, you do not have the right to put him outside of your house if putting him outside of your house would directly result in his death.

Legally, as I have cited, there is plenty of case law that show that individuals are duty bound to provide for the health and welfare for those that are dependent upon them.

When there is an unwanted child, it is not an option to kill that child. The solution for an unwanted child is to transfer the child's dependency to another person.

Again you must understand that in no way shape or form do I think that it is ok for people to take the life and limbs of other people without warrant.

That is not an unreasonable position. That is a very basic premise for people who are democrats and their anti-war, anti-poverty, social justice, stances. They are just not consistent in how they apply it.

636 Charles Johnson  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 10:01:35am

Brutal, inhuman, and totally lacking in common empathy.

The anti-choice position.

637 Jack Fate  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 10:01:57am

At what time does a zygote become a "child" or a "person"?

638 shutdown  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 10:03:09am

re: #637 Jack Fate

At what time does a zygote become a "child" or a "person"?

Clearly, Liet_Kynes is still working on that transition.

639 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 10:19:31am

re: #630 Liet_Kynes

The Declaration of Independence isn't the founding document of this country.

The Constitution is.

With the First Amendment.

640 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 10:28:32am

re: #620 Liet_Kynes

They would be clear because I know how to act and behave as a man.

People do not have the right to kill other people without warrant. We do not have this right.

We are not barbarians, we are not ancient Romans. The parents do not have the right of life and death over their children. We need to advance beyond that misguided attitude that just because someone is mom or dad that they have a right to choose death for their children.

Yes we do.

Are you guilty of man slaughter if you refuse to let a homeless man into your dwelling during a blizzard?

641 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 10:30:33am

re: #631 Liet_Kynes

I have already addressed jamesfirecat's comment. See my #501 and following comments.

No you haven't because the violinist argument deconstructs the very point you're trying to make that co-sensual sex since it CAN lead to having kids implies that you MUST be okay with it if kids are a result.

By that logic since going for a walk outside at night CAN get you raped, you MUST be okay with it if it happens, because hey, you know the risks!

642 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 10:32:04am

re: #602 Liet_Kynes

Allegro --> 511
In your scenario you are not suggesting that the man rapped the woman. As such, she consented to activity that could bring forth a child, and as such, both she and the man have a responsibility to use their property to provide for the health and welfare for the child if a child should be conceived. In addition, according to Harvard’s Peer Contraceptive Counselors, condoms in a standard environment are 90-95% effective [Link: www.hcs.harvard.edu...] . Thus there is an implicit knowledge between the man and woman that even with using a condom that a child could be conceived. Because of this there still is a consensual implicit contract occurring.

Jamesfirecat --> 533
I never said, nor will argue, that consensual sex is not “for fun”. However you cannot separate the pleasure from the purposes of the act, one of which is allowing for new life. It the equivalent of trying to argue that you should be able to use your eyes for pleasure without seeing objects. You cannot separate the pleasure of using your eyes from seeing the visual world and a mental imprint of the visual world being created in your mind. If you engage in the pleasure of seeing, you allow for the creation of images within your mind. If you engage in the pleasure of sex, you allow for the creation of another person inside of the woman, who you have a responsibility towards.

Allegro --> 536
Yes that is what I am saying. I would go further though saying that the man is committing to a lifelong support for the health and welfare of his child if a child should be conceived. Man is not an animal. He has a moral obligation to love and care for his child as long as that man lives. The failure of some men and of the legal system only speaks to those men and the legal system, not to the reality of the obligations that one has to his offspring.

SanFranciscoZionist -->572- 574
That is fine. I don’t mind disagreement. See my above. I find the attitude that some people have that they are only meant to watch out for the health and welfare of their child until some magical number to be deplorable. Love demands a permanent irrevocable carrying for our offspring and anything less is simply not human. We are all just star stuff, and if this life is all that we have, it is even more contemptible for a man not to offer his child love and health and welfare for as long as that man should live.

What if I get a vasectomy and wear a condom but neither one works?

Do I still have a duty to the child I took every effort NOT to create?

643 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 10:37:47am

re: #624 Liet_Kynes

With respect, abortion is not something where there is a middle position. If individuals, by the very nature of them existing, have a fundamental intrinsic right to life and limb, they cannot be deprived of life or limb without warrant.

If we do not have a fundamental right to life and limb, then those in power may end our lives and take our limbs simply by the virtue of them being in power over us. If we do have a fundamental right that protects us, then those in power may not take away our life and limb without warrant, and no law can change that fundamental right.

Again let me make it clear, there are procedures for dire pregnancies which results in the death of one, but not the other, which are not abortions and which fall under the principle of double effect. This are permissible to save the life of one and result in the death of the other.

Once again, do we have a right to kill someone by indifference to their suffering and refusing to provide them with what they need to survive?

If you say yes, then well that is exactly what abortion is.

If you say no.... then I'll have more very interesting questions to ask you....

644 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 10:48:54am

re: #614 Liet_Kynes

What is exchanged: You are kidding right that you don't see this? At the bodily level it is the exchange of their physical selves. At a psychological level it is the exchange of affection.

Sorry, in order for a contract to be valid and enforceable the consideration must be real and tangible. People can have sex with no exchange of affection, and affection by itself is an intangible, ephemeral quality that cannot be quantified. True affection is a gift, it cannot be contracted.

What is result/compensation: The promise of being there in the future for the other. The forging of affective and psychological bonds of attachment. The possibility of a new life and the promise to care for that life.

There is no promise absent formal expression. Your desire that such a promise exist does not conjure fantasy into reality.

This is an implicit contract by the very nature of the sexual activity.

There is no such thing as an implicit contract. Valid and enforceable contracts are always explicit in origin.

645 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 10:52:31am

re: #636 Charles

Brutal, inhuman, and totally lacking in common empathy.

The anti-choice position.

Which is the brutal position?

That a parent has the right of life and death over their child.

OR

That a parent does not have the right of life or death over their child.

646 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 10:55:50am

re: #645 Liet_Kynes

What child?

647 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:04:55am

re: #644 goddamnedfrank

Sorry, in order for a contract to be valid and enforceable the consideration must be real and tangible. People can have sex with no exchange of affection, and affection by itself is an intangible, ephemeral quality that cannot be quantified. True affection is a gift, it cannot be contracted.

There is no promise absent formal expression. Your desire that such a promise exist does not conjure fantasy into reality.

There is no such thing as an implicit contract. Valid and enforceable contracts are always explicit in origin.

Or in other words... as the saying goes "A (non)verbal contract is worth about as much as the paper it's printed on...."

648 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:22:03am

re: #647 jamesfirecat

Verbal contracts are enforceable. But they still have to be explicit.

649 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:26:43am

re: #648 Obdicut

Verbal contracts are enforceable. But they still have to be explicit.

Also tend to have to have witnesses beyond those who took part in them....

Of course some people are into that kind of thing.

(Cheap joke)

650 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:32:38am

re: #637 Jack Fate

A zygote doesn't become a individual, it is an individual.

re: #639 Obdicut

Didn't say it was the founding document.

re: #641 jamesfirecat

Please see the case law I cited earlier.

re: #640 jamesfirecat

Your argument misunderstand the nature of sex. One of the direct results of sex is conception of a child. You cannot conceive a child by other means. Having sex and getting pregnant are related events.

Getting raped by walking outside is not a result of walking outside, it is the result of the rapist choosing to rape you. Walking outside and getting rapped are unrelated events.

Your comparison doesn't work because your examples do not correlate in their causes and effects.

re: #642 jamesfirecat

Yes. You did not take every effort not to create that child. You engaged in an activity which as part of its nature, has the result of creating a child.

re: #643 jamesfirecat


Man does not have the right to cause, through action or inaction, the death of an individual without warrant.

re: #644 goddamnedfrank

You cannot have sex without the exchange of persons.

There is your "real and tangible".

Promises do exist absent formal expression. I say I am going to the store. You get in my car. There is an informal promise that I will take you at least as far as I am going and that I will let you out of the car again.

As for "implied contracts" let me cite HATZLACHH SUPPLY CO. v. UNITED STATES, 444 U.S. 460 (1980)
[Link: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...]

You may also enjoy reading the following so you understand how implied contracts are currently enforceable under US Law.
[Link: contracts.uslegal.com...]

651 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:33:47am

re: #646 Obdicut

What child?

The parent's child.

652 Coracle  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:36:08am

re: #651 Liet_Kynes

The parent's child.

You define a fertilized egg as a child. After that fallacious definition all your stances are logically consistent.

653 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:38:24am

re: #651 Liet_Kynes

The parent's child.

Your only argument is begging the question.

654 General Nimrod Bodfish  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:39:33am

You know what all will happen if you ban abortions?

For one, those that have the money will simply go somewhere else to have it done, whether than means leaving the city, state, or country to somewhere else when it's legal, it won't matter.

But the biggest thing that will happen is that women will be maimed or killed, either by doing it themselves, or go to someone that isn't qualified to do such procedures, whether that is some quack in a dark alley or to some place where it is unhygienic, like in a van or someone's basement or on a boat out in international waters.

When it's open and legal, women wanting it are getting those that know what they are doing and can get any medical attention in case something goes wrong during the procedure, as well as it being a clean environment.

Also, there are cases where the fetus has a medical condition that would be fatal to it once its born. In that case, it would be better to end both the mother's (or parents') and the fetus' suffering early than to allow it to suffer as it dies in the mother's (or parents') arms. That would be cruel to me.

Also, there are cases where the health of the mother would be fatally compromised during fetal development and childbirth, such as ectopic pregnancy. In that case, it's either abort the pregnancy to save the mother or allow the mother to suffer as she dies from it, thus losing both mother and fetus.

So, by banning abortions, you are allowing women to suffer or die by either unsafe abortions or allowing medical complications to go unresolved. So, where's this "compassionate conservatism" in this?

655 Interesting Times  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:40:11am

re: #652 Coracle

You define a fertilized egg as a child. After that fallacious definition all your stances are logically consistent.

And sickening absurdities like this get legitimized:

Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage

656 Coracle  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:42:44am

re: #655 publicityStunted

Exactly. It's simplistic, absolutist, utter bullshit top to bottom.

657 brownbagj  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:48:18am

re: #654 commadore183

Yes, but they will die knowing that they completed their "sex contract."
//

Oh. My. God.

658 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:52:56am

re: #653 Obdicut

No I am not. A child is the offspring of the parent. Does the father have a right to kill, without warrant, his child? It doesn't matter if that child is 99 or 5 or just born or still in the womb.

Dickering over what a zygote is, doesn't change the question. If a zygote is not a child the question still remains.

Answer the question: Does a parent have the right to kill their child without warrant?

659 Varek Raith  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:55:51am

re: #658 Liet_Kynes

You are an ignorant, heartless bastard.
Good day.

660 Coracle  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:59:52am

re: #658 Liet_Kynes

Dickering over what a zygote is, doesn't change the question. If a zygote is not a child the question still remains.

Answer the question: Does a parent have the right to kill their child without warrant?

If I were to answer no, then 'dickering over what a zygote is' is of critical importance, isn't it. A zygote is no more a child than any other clump of human cells is.

661 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:00:42pm

re: #650 Liet_Kynes

A zygote doesn't become a individual, it is an individual.

re: #639 Obdicut

Didn't say it was the founding document.

re: #641 jamesfirecat

Please see the case law I cited earlier.

re: #640 jamesfirecat

Your argument misunderstand the nature of sex. One of the direct results of sex is conception of a child. You cannot conceive a child by other means. Having sex and getting pregnant are related events.

Getting raped by walking outside is not a result of walking outside, it is the result of the rapist choosing to rape you. Walking outside and getting rapped are unrelated events.

Your comparison doesn't work because your examples do not correlate in their causes and effects.

re: #642 jamesfirecat

Yes. You did not take every effort not to create that child. You engaged in an activity which as part of its nature, has the result of creating a child.

re: #643 jamesfirecat

Man does not have the right to cause, through action or inaction, the death of an individual without warrant.

re: #644 goddamnedfrank

You cannot have sex without the exchange of persons.

There is your "real and tangible".

Promises do exist absent formal expression. I say I am going to the store. You get in my car. There is an informal promise that I will take you at least as far as I am going and that I will let you out of the car again.

As for "implied contracts" let me cite HATZLACHH SUPPLY CO. v. UNITED STATES, 444 U.S. 460 (1980)
[Link: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...]

You may also enjoy reading the following so you understand how implied contracts are currently enforceable under US Law.
[Link: contracts.uslegal.com...]

Dude you totally can conceive of a child through other means.

Ever hear of artifical insemination?

662 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:02:00pm

re: #650 Liet_Kynes

A zygote doesn't become a individual, it is an individual.

re: #639 Obdicut

Didn't say it was the founding document.

re: #641 jamesfirecat

Please see the case law I cited earlier.

re: #640 jamesfirecat

Your argument misunderstand the nature of sex. One of the direct results of sex is conception of a child. You cannot conceive a child by other means. Having sex and getting pregnant are related events.

Getting raped by walking outside is not a result of walking outside, it is the result of the rapist choosing to rape you. Walking outside and getting rapped are unrelated events.

Your comparison doesn't work because your examples do not correlate in their causes and effects.

re: #642 jamesfirecat

Yes. You did not take every effort not to create that child. You engaged in an activity which as part of its nature, has the result of creating a child.

re: #643 jamesfirecat

Man does not have the right to cause, through action or inaction, the death of an individual without warrant.

re: #644 goddamnedfrank

You cannot have sex without the exchange of persons.

There is your "real and tangible".

Promises do exist absent formal expression. I say I am going to the store. You get in my car. There is an informal promise that I will take you at least as far as I am going and that I will let you out of the car again.

As for "implied contracts" let me cite HATZLACHH SUPPLY CO. v. UNITED STATES, 444 U.S. 460 (1980)
[Link: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...]

You may also enjoy reading the following so you understand how implied contracts are currently enforceable under US Law.
[Link: contracts.uslegal.com...]


Okay lets get down to the meat of the matter then.

"Man does not have the right to cause, through action or inaction, the death of an individual without warrant."

This is the big thing.

So if its freezing and a homeless man comes to your door saying he'll freeze to death unless you let him in, should you be legally obligated to let him in?

663 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:03:22pm

re: #658 Liet_Kynes


Dickering over what a zygote is, doesn't change the question. If a zygote is not a child the question still remains.

Answer the question: Does a parent have the right to kill their child without warrant?

If a zygote is not a child, then that isn't the question, is it?

Your only argument is begging the question. You can't even get beyond that, to the more sophisticated problem James is presenting to you.

664 Jack Fate  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:08:38pm

re: #653 Obdicut

Your only argument is begging the question.

+1 for correct usage of "begging the question".

665 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:08:53pm

re: #654 commadore183

I am not arguing that the solution is to simply by legal decree ban abortions.

The rightness or wrongness of abortions is not depended upon governmental laws, it is dependent upon wheither or not there is intrinsic value to human life.

Abortions, legal or illegal, will continue as long as people think they have a right to take the life and limbs of others without warrent.

You are not reading what I am writing if you think that I am arguing that there are no solutions to ectopic pregnancies and the like.

Abortions are always unsafe because a life is always lost and that person is not coming back.

The compassion is in the refusal to think it is ok for people to take the life and limbs of others without warrent.

666 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:10:51pm

re: #665 Liet_Kynes

I am not arguing that the solution is to simply by legal decree ban abortions.

The rightness or wrongness of abortions is not depended upon governmental laws, it is dependent upon wheither or not there is intrinsic value to human life.

Abortions, legal or illegal, will continue as long as people think they have a right to take the life and limbs of others without warrent.

You are not reading what I am writing if you think that I am arguing that there are no solutions to ectopic pregnancies and the like.

Abortions are always unsafe because a life is always lost and that person is not coming back.

The compassion is in the refusal to think it is ok for people to take the life and limbs of others without warrent.

So you admit that while abortion may be a moral wrong, it's not the governments place to try and make it any kind of legal wrong?

667 Varek Raith  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:12:10pm

re: #666 jamesfirecat

So you admit that while abortion may be a moral wrong, it's not the governments place to try and make it any kind of legal wrong?

He's an anti choice fanatic.
I'm certain he'd use the full force of the Feds to outlaw abortion.

668 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:14:07pm

re: #662 jamesfirecat

Okay lets get down to the meat of the matter then.

"Man does not have the right to cause, through action or inaction, the death of an individual without warrant."

This is the big thing.

So if its freezing and a homeless man comes to your door saying he'll freeze to death unless you let him in, should you be legally obligated to let him in?

Yes lets please stay on the meat of the matter.

Let us make your situation more clear.

So if its freezing and a homeless man comes to your door and he will freeze to death unless you let him in, should you be legally obligated to let him in?

Yes. If your action or inaction results in the loss of life or limb, without warrent, then you may not do that action or inaction.

669 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:14:17pm

re: #667 Varek Raith

He's an anti choice fanatic.
I'm certain he'd use the full force of the Feds to outlaw abortion.

In the anti-choice fanatic's, you are putting words in his mouth after he said "I am not arguing that the solution is to simply by legal decree ban abortions."

If he's willing to agree that as wrong as abortion is morally, the morality of it doesn't effect how legal it should be, I'll be happy.

670 Varek Raith  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:15:33pm

re: #669 jamesfirecat

In the anti-choice fanatic's, you are putting words in his mouth after he said "I am not arguing that the solution is to simply by legal decree ban abortions."

If he's willing to agree that as wrong as abortion is morally, the morality of it doesn't effect how legal it should be, I'll be happy.

I know.
I just don't believe him when he says that.

671 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:15:58pm

re: #668 Liet_Kynes

Yes lets please stay on the meat of the matter.

Let us make your situation more clear.

Yes. If your action or inaction results in the loss of life or limb, without warrent, then you may not do that action or inaction.

So do you think being an organ donor should be mandatory rather than a choice, at least unless one can vouch for religious reasons why they can't be an organ donor?

Since after all those of us who aren't organ donors are selfishly committing actions (or to be exact inactions) we hold onto organs we no longer need after our deaths and cause others to loose life and limb for lack of transplantable organs....

672 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:26:02pm

re: #666 jamesfirecat

So you admit that while abortion may be a moral wrong, it's not the governments place to try and make it any kind of legal wrong?

I deplore legalism. Moral rightness or wrongness is not dependent upon the will of the majority or the will of those in power.

Abortion wont stop because it is illegal. It stops when people stop thinking that they have a right to other peoples lives and limbs, without warrant.

I hope you can understand that while I do not support the will of the majority being what determines laws governing morality, that it is in fact the government's roll to protect the lives and limbs of its citizens from unwarranted loss.

673 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:29:28pm

re: #672 Liet_Kynes

I deplore legalism. Moral rightness or wrongness is not dependent upon the will of the majority or the will of those in power.

Abortion wont stop because it is illegal. It stops when people stop thinking that they have a right to other peoples lives and limbs, without warrant.

I hope you can understand that while I do not support the will of the majority being what determines laws governing morality, that it is in fact the government's roll to protect the lives and limbs of its citizens from unwarranted loss.

You and I most likely have different values of "unwarranted loss" if you ask me.

That said as long as you feel that abortion should be legal and only try to cut off the demand rather than the supply (and only try to curtail by legal means and factual arguments) then I've got no beef with you.

674 Coracle  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:29:42pm

re: #668 Liet_Kynes

If your action or inaction results in the loss of life or limb, without warrent, then you may not do that action or inaction.

Yours is a very dangerous world. We are all breaking your law by not at this very moment traveling to the inner cities to stop gang violence, or getting on the next flight to Sudan oe other conflict zones to mediate peace, or mounting expeditions and donating everything but our own essential survival rations to end world hunger and disease. According to you we have no moral right to _both_ kidneys, or even our own bone marrow, and we are in fact obligated to actively seek to determine we could donate to someone in life-or-death need.

675 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:31:33pm

re: #663 Obdicut

If a zygote is not a child, then that isn't the question, is it?

Your only argument is begging the question. You can't even get beyond that, to the more sophisticated problem James is presenting to you.

Obdicut, the question of when do individuals acquire "being" comes after we answer whether or not an individual has intrinsic rights to life and limb as a result of their existing.

The question of the when of being is only important if an individual has intrinsic rights.

SO again my question please answer it.

676 Coracle  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:32:15pm

re: #672 Liet_Kynes

I deplore legalism. Moral rightness or wrongness is not dependent upon the will of the majority or the will of those in power.

Abortion wont stop because it is illegal. It stops when people stop thinking that they have a right to other peoples lives and limbs, without warrant.

You deplore legalism, but employ it to define a zygote as a person. If a zygote is not a person, your entire argument is a house of cards.

677 Varek Raith  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:36:30pm

re: #675 Liet_Kynes

What about the mother's right to life and limb?

678 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:47:00pm

re: #673 jamesfirecat

You and I most likely have different values of "unwarranted loss" if you ask me.

That said as long as you feel that abortion should be legal and only try to cut off the demand rather than the supply (and only try to curtail by legal means and factual arguments) then I've got no beef with you.

I don't know, we are probably pretty close on our values of "unwarranted loss" it is just really about the extent to which we are going to allow for exceptions and say that in this situation or that situation unwarranted loss is ok.

I think I can assure you that I am interested in only curtailing abortion by legal and factual arguments. Abortion is not a religious issue for me -- there is no need for religious argumentation. It really is a biological issue so the philosophy/morality need not be any deeper than you don't take away individuals lives or limbs without warrant.

Again I don't support moral laws being determined by majority or simply by those in power. A lot of the argumentation in the "lets outlaw it" solution is thus wrongheaded to me.

679 Charles Johnson  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:52:26pm

re: #678 Liet_Kynes

Abortion is not a religious issue for me...

How gullible do you think we are?

680 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:53:15pm

re: #672 Liet_Kynes

I deplore legalism. Moral rightness or wrongness is not dependent upon the will of the majority or the will of those in power.

Abortion wont stop because it is illegal. It stops when people stop thinking that they have a right to other peoples lives and limbs, without warrant.

I hope you can understand that while I do not support the will of the majority being what determines laws governing morality, that it is in fact the government's roll to protect the lives and limbs of its citizens from unwarranted loss.

A being that cannot survive outside the womb is not a person, a being with no organs is not a person

that's the fundamental mistake you're making with your creepy and elusive extremist views about abortion

zygotes are not people. At all. In any way. In any fashion. By any rational definition.

so your life and limb rap doesn't wash

681 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:53:16pm

re: #678 Liet_Kynes

I don't know, we are probably pretty close on our values of "unwarranted loss" it is just really about the extent to which we are going to allow for exceptions and say that in this situation or that situation unwarranted loss is ok.

I think I can assure you that I am interested in only curtailing abortion by legal and factual arguments. Abortion is not a religious issue for me -- there is no need for religious argumentation. It really is a biological issue so the philosophy/morality need not be any deeper than you don't take away individuals lives or limbs without warrant.

Again I don't support moral laws being determined by majority or simply by those in power. A lot of the argumentation in the "lets outlaw it" solution is thus wrongheaded to me.

The problem I have with your definition of "unwarrented loss" is that if we go by it, then it seems to end up destorying the entire system of capitalism. No one would have belongings that could not be taken from them/or they would at least be forced to share with another.

For example, do you have one or two kidneys at the moment?

682 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:54:29pm

re: #676 Coracle

You deplore legalism, but employ it to define a zygote as a person. If a zygote is not a person, your entire argument is a house of cards.

You know what people have?

Organs!


No organs, no person, just a blob of organic stuff with the potential to be a person.

683 wrenchwench  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:55:14pm

re: #678 Liet_Kynes

I think I can assure you that I am interested in only curtailing abortion by legal and factual arguments. Abortion is not a religious issue for me -- there is no need for religious argumentation. It really is a biological issue so the philosophy/morality need not be any deeper than you don't take away individuals lives or limbs without warrant.

If it is only a biological issue, is there a moral difference between a miscarriage and an abortion? If there is, it's not biology, it's morality. You need religion to define the embryo and other stages in development as a person. Without religion, an abortion is one among many losses of pregnancy, many of which are spontaneous.

684 Coracle  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:55:40pm

re: #678 Liet_Kynes

Abortion is not a religious issue for me -- there is no need for religious argumentation. It really is a biological issue so the philosophy/morality need not be any deeper than you don't take away individuals lives or limbs without warrant.

Without religion, and without majority rule, you have a 100% arbitrary moral foundation. There is no morality to nature.

I'm also a moral relativist, but I don't pretend not to be.

685 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 12:57:46pm

Just saw the bit about the declaration of independence

haha ouch! Whoops, guess those guys on the supreme court aren't interpreting the declaration of independece after all

What's your major? "Declaration of Independence Law." Really? must be a quick class

686 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 1:02:31pm

re: #683 wrenchwench

If it is only a biological issue, is there a moral difference between a miscarriage and an abortion? If there is, it's not biology, it's morality. You need religion to define the embryo and other stages in development as a person. Without religion, an abortion is one among many losses of pregnancy, many of which are spontaneous.

Imagine the police presence you would need to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide

Guys like Liet, with their weird unyielding Dominionist robot-like opinions about abortion that seem to exist completely outside of practical daily life, they never actually get to the real facts of a society that has to deal with all the law enforcement questions that that raises, all the completely unsolvable conundrums that pop up when one extrapolates extremist ideas like this into law.

687 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 1:10:21pm

re: #650 Liet_Kynes

You cannot have sex without the exchange of persons.

Physical sexual contact is not an "exchange of persons" by any definition. People are not a commodity, any contract to exchange people constitutes slavery. A person cannot legally contract away their inalienable rights, they cannot exchange their person. Such contracts are inherently invalid even when entered into explicitly and voluntarily. Slave trading is a criminal offense, a person cannot legally enslave themselves, willingly or otherwise.

688 wrenchwench  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 1:12:51pm

re: #686 WindUpBird

Imagine the police presence you would need to investigate every miscarriage period as a potential homicide

Unless they are tracking every woman's menstrual cycle. I hear they do that in China, so it's conceivable, so to speak.

689 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 2:08:24pm

re: #674 Coracle

You are putting words into my mouth. Do not do that please.

Most societies, major philosophies, and world religions are altruistic in nature, meaning that there is a moral demand to give of oneself, in situations where one is warranted and prudentially according to ones means, for the for the sake and welfare of others.

My position, of "do not, through action or inaction, without warrant cause the loss of life and limb of others", is not an abnormal position.

Social justice is a real thing and we do have moral and ethical obligations to our neighbor to protect their lives and limbs, even more so towards our own children. But if you think that means that we don't have rights to our own limbs and lives, then you are mistaken. Just as we are obligated to "do no harm" towards others, others are obligated to "do no harm" towards us.

690 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 2:13:29pm

re: #677 Varek Raith

What about the mother's right to life and limb?

Already addressed. Standard abortions do not do anything with the mother's life or limbs. As such standard abortions are strictly the choice of the mother to damage and destroy, without warrent, the limbs and lives of another person.

691 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 2:22:02pm

re: #679 Charles

I find you to be quite intelligent. That is why I read this site. As such, you should be quite aware that the anti-abortion argument can be made from non-religious and even atheistic grounds.

Believe what you want, but you should take people at their word and call them on it only when they prove by their actions otherwise.

692 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 2:31:01pm

re: #690 Liet_Kynes

Already addressed. Standard abortions do not do anything with the mother's life or limbs. As such standard abortions are strictly the choice of the mother to damage and destroy, without warrent, the limbs and lives of another person.

A human being that is incapable of sentience is not a person, cf. Terri Schiavo. Self awareness and the functioning brain / central nervous system that make it possible are prerequisites for both personhood and any attendant rights.

693 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 2:33:43pm

Polish Woman Dies When Doctors Refuse Treatment, Fearing for Fetal Life

It's easy to worry about the ways in which abortion rights — and women's health more generally — are under attack in the upcoming election. What's easier to overlook are the ways women's health is compromised in countries with seemingly less debate at the intersection of religion, health care, and women's rights.

This makes it particularly distressing to read about Edyta, a Polish woman who died after being refused medical treatment for a colon condition simply because it might have interfered with her pregnancy. In fact, her condition was exacerbated by her pregnancy in the first place, but no matter for her doctors. Still in her first trimester, Edyta was turned away repeatedly by local physicians who never stated their explicit reasons for denying her care — that treating the disease could result in a miscarriage or could force an abortion — and eventually, Edyta died.

Poland is one of several countries (along with Italy, Hungary, and Croatia) in which doctors, not unlike pharmacists in the U.S., can refuse to treat someone on moral grounds. While troubling, it usually does not present a case like Edyta's because the doctor is required to explain the reason for refusing treatment. Then, a woman can be referred to another physician who is willing to risk the pregnancy to save her life. For the most part, this compromise (as if there should be one when a woman's life is at risk) has been working.

694 wrenchwench  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 2:47:38pm

re: #693 Slumbering Behemoth

Polish Woman Dies When Doctors Refuse Treatment, Fearing for Fetal Life

You mean this isn't a theoretical intellectual discussion? There are real-world consequences?

/

695 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:00:41pm

re: #681 jamesfirecat

I don't support pure capitalism. I think it can be quite immoral.

re: #682 WindUpBird

So I guess that a person who doesn't have all their organs is less than a person by your definition.

re: #683 wrenchwench

Your own words undercut your position. A miscarriage is a spontaneous event. An abortion is a deliberate event. That is the difference. And it is a huge biological difference. With a miscarriage, biology causes it, with abortion it is human choice and activity that causes it. Religion is not needed to see that.

re: #684 Coracle

Sure there is morality to nature. But I take it no one has ever taught you those philosophers who argue that.

re: #686 WindUpBird

You are silly. An Ob/Gyn can easily tell if the woman miscarried or if it was an abortion. That doesn't increase any police presence anywhere at all.

I am not a Dominionist because I don't think this nation was founded as a "Christian Nation"^tm. I also believe that the state and church are separate entities.

re: #687 goddamnedfrank

You need a better dictionary then. Plus I was being euphemistic.

I find it very enlightening that on the topic of slavery you are willing to say that there individual's have intrinsic rights to life and limb and that is why people cannot legally enslave themselves. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your position? One one had you say willing slavery is inherently invalid and on the other you say that taking the life of a child without warrant and without the explicit and voluntary choice of the child is valid.

696 wrenchwench  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:04:39pm

re: #695 Liet_Kynes

re: #683 wrenchwench

Your own words undercut your position. A miscarriage is a spontaneous event. An abortion is a deliberate event. That is the difference. And it is a huge biological difference. With a miscarriage, biology causes it, with abortion it is human choice and activity that causes it. Religion is not needed to see that.

Humans are biological beings. Their acts are acts of biological beings. What's not biological about an abortion?

697 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:08:40pm

re: #692 goddamnedfrank

So you are making brain waves and central nervous system criteria for personhood. Currently science is able to viable detect brain waves at 6 weeks from conception. By what you just said, do you give the child personhood at this state?

698 Capitalist Tool  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:15:57pm

re: #693 Slumbering Behemoth

There's a curious line in the article you quoted:

"Poland is one of several countries (along with Italy, Hungary, and Croatia) in which doctors, not unlike pharmacists in the U.S., can refuse to treat someone on moral grounds."

Don't Dr.s in the US have the same right?
I mean, there is a Catholic hospital in my city. It would seem that forcing them to perform abortions would really be against all of their beliefs.

Do you know any more about this?

699 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:17:54pm

re: #695 Liet_Kynes

I don't support pure capitalism. I think it can be quite immoral.

re: #682 WindUpBird

So I guess that a person who doesn't have all their organs is less than a person by your definition.

re: #683 wrenchwench

Your own words undercut your position. A miscarriage is a spontaneous event. An abortion is a deliberate event. That is the difference. And it is a huge biological difference. With a miscarriage, biology causes it, with abortion it is human choice and activity that causes it. Religion is not needed to see that.

re: #684 Coracle

Sure there is morality to nature. But I take it no one has ever taught you those philosophers who argue that.

re: #686 WindUpBird

You are silly. An Ob/Gyn can easily tell if the woman miscarried or if it was an abortion. That doesn't increase any police presence anywhere at all.

I am not a Dominionist because I don't think this nation was founded as a "Christian Nation"^tm. I also believe that the state and church are separate entities.

re: #687 goddamnedfrank

You need a better dictionary then. Plus I was being euphemistic.

I find it very enlightening that on the topic of slavery you are willing to say that there individual's have intrinsic rights to life and limb and that is why people cannot legally enslave themselves. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your position? One one had you say willing slavery is inherently invalid and on the other you say that taking the life of a child without warrant and without the explicit and voluntary choice of the child is valid.

You didn't answer my question, how many kidneys do you have?

700 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:19:06pm

re: #695 Liet_Kynes

One one had you say willing slavery is inherently invalid and on the other you say that taking the life of a child without warrant and without the explicit and voluntary choice of the child is valid.

A fetus lacking a brain is neither a child nor a person according to the criteria that defines personhood, the capacity for sentience. It is incapable of understanding the concept of choice, it lacks the rudimentary ability to even contemplate its own existence. Incorrectly calling a fetus a child doesn't change things, Terri Schiavo was a full grown woman, but was no longer a person under the law due to her total incapacity for self awareness.

701 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:21:01pm

re: #697 Liet_Kynes

So you are making brain waves and central nervous system criteria for personhood. Currently science is able to viable detect brain waves at 6 weeks from conception. By what you just said, do you give the child personhood at this state?

That is the absolute earliest that personhood could possibly attach, yes.

702 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:21:56pm

re: #696 wrenchwench

This is not a theoretical discussion. This is about whether or not people have the right to unwarranted loss of life and limb. If you say no, people will die because someone chose, based on will and power, to kill that person. If you say yes people have a right, people will die because of catch 22 situations. Either position is the death of some and the life of others. Not at all for the faint of heart.

Abortion is not a biological act, because it is not the result of a biological mechanism. It is the result of a philosophical choice to engage the body to preform an outcome. You may be engaging biology to preform the outcome but the choice to engage is not rooted in biology.

703 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:24:07pm

re: #698 Capitalist Tool

No it is not the same right. That is why under Pres. Obama's health care plan, Catholic hospitals will likely have to close. Some already are.

704 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:27:02pm

re: #703 Liet_Kynes

No it is not the same right. That is why under Pres. Obama's health care plan, Catholic hospitals will likely have to close. Some already are.

///Yes because heaven forbid Catholics have to care more about helping people in need than the strict interpretation of their dogma!

705 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:37:50pm

re: #702 Liet_Kynes

Abortion is not a biological act, because it is not the result of a biological mechanism.

Not exactly true, some animals like rabbits and armadillos have the documented ability delay implantation and self abort if necessary. Humans have evolved the same ability through science.

706 wrenchwench  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:40:58pm

re: #702 Liet_Kynes

You may be engaging biology to preform the outcome but the choice to engage is not rooted in biology.

The choice is made in the brain, no? The brain is biological, no?

707 Capitalist Tool  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:42:47pm

re: #705 goddamnedfrank

Not exactly true, some animals like rabbits and armadillos have the documented ability delay implantation and self abort if necessary. Humans have evolved the same ability through science.

You might be on to somehting... we know that other species continue their evolution in real time and that evolution wasn't something that just happened a long time ago.
Spotting evolution within our own species might be a little more difficult.
Perhaps a marker of our progress would be our understanding of previously unknown or misunderstood concepts, through technological or other means.

708 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:43:43pm

re: #698 Capitalist Tool

Do you know any more about this?

Not really, but it's not like Catholic hospitals don't preform abortions. They do, as illustrated by this somewhat recent story that caused some controversy:

Nun Excommunicated After Saving a Mother's Life With Abortion

Sister Margaret McBride was forced to make a decision between her faith and a woman's life last year, when a 27-year-old mother of four rushed into St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix only 11 weeks pregnant.
Nun advises woman to seek abortion for health and church takes action.

"I think [McBride] prayed and prayed and I'm sure that this weighed on her like a ton of bricks. This was not an easy decision for her," says her long-time friend Mary Jo Macdonald.

As a key member of the hospital's ethics board, McBride gathered with doctors in November of 2009 to discuss the young woman's fate.

The mother was suffering from pulmonary hypertension, an illness the doctors believed would likely kill her and, as a result, her unborn child, if she did not abort the pregnancy.

In the end, McBride chose to save the young woman's life by agreeing to authorize an emergency abortion, a decision that has now forced her out of a job and the Catholic Church.

Emphasis mine, to highlight what I find to be a rather disgusting way of looking at this particular issue. Though I do believe the nun did the right thing, really the only thing a person should do, in that situation.

709 wrenchwench  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:43:54pm

re: #698 Capitalist Tool

I mean, there is a Catholic hospital in my city. It would seem that forcing them to perform abortions would really be against all of their beliefs.

I know a woman who had an abortion in a US Catholic hospital. The pregnancy was ectopic, which means it would have killed her. The hospital did not hesitate. I'm glad not all Catholics are as inhuman as the ones who allowed that woman in Poland to die.

710 wrenchwench  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:45:27pm

re: #707 Capitalist Tool

Your understanding of evolution is sorely lacking.

711 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:45:43pm

/not real Christians in 3... 2... 1...

712 Capitalist Tool  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:45:59pm

I didn't know if Catholic hospitals performed abortions, or not.
Thanks, to both for info.

713 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:46:27pm

re: #706 wrenchwench

The choice is made in the brain, no? The brain is biological, no?

Free will is apparently for rabbits, humans should go along to get along.

714 wrenchwench  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:47:28pm

re: #708 Slumbering Behemoth

I was thinking of that case too. Basically, the woman who made the right decision to save the life of another woman was condemned to Hell by people who really believe she will suffer there for all eternity. No wonder the Catholic Church produces so many atheists.

715 Capitalist Tool  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:50:13pm

re: #710 wrenchwench

Ok, I'm curious.
It's obvious from my post that my typing skills are sorely lacking at times, but what point do you disagree with?

By the way, it is true that i don't know much about evolution-

716 wrenchwench  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 3:59:15pm

re: #715 Capitalist Tool

Ok, I'm curious.
It's obvious from my post that my typing skills are sorely lacking at times, but what point do you disagree with?

By the way, it is true that i don't know much about evolution-

Let's take a look:

re: #707 Capitalist Tool

You might be on to somehting... we know that other species continue their evolution in real time and that evolution wasn't something that just happened a long time ago.
Spotting evolution within our own species might be a little more difficult.
Perhaps a marker of our progress would be our understanding of previously unknown or misunderstood concepts, through technological or other means.

We can't "evolve" an understanding of anything. Evolution involves genetics. Only things you inherit are genetic. If your father understands algebra, it doesn't mean you will understand algebra. Knowledge cannot be inherited.

I don't know where you are in your education, but a good biology class is a start to learning about evolution. Find out how reproduction happens (at the cellular level, wise guy), and you learn more about what can be inherited and how it happens. It's really fascinating. I have a brother who is an evolutionary biologist. He gets to crawl around in jungles finding and photographing frogs.

717 Capitalist Tool  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 4:08:49pm

re: #716 wrenchwench

I said a marker of our progress...
Obviously in our earlier stages we didn't have the physical ability to perform in ways we do now (there are probably some useful traits we've lost as well) and we probably didn't have the mental capacity to deal with what we do now, either.

What I suggested is that we are continuing to evolve and that there are things out there which we can now understand, but could not before and that there are things out there of which we are not even aware and do not have the tools to comprehend, but will likely reach someday.

Of course we do not inherit knowledge. We inherent the capacity to gain the knowledge and understand it after we've gotten it.

I think we're a work in progress, don't you?

718 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 4:10:39pm

re: #717 Capitalist Tool

We're not a work at all.

719 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 4:11:39pm

re: #691 Liet_Kynes

I find you to be quite intelligent. That is why I read this site. As such, you should be quite aware that the anti-abortion argument can be made from non-religious and even atheistic grounds.

Believe what you want, but you should take people at their word and call them on it only when they prove by their actions otherwise.

Funny you should mention how much interest you put in reading Charles sight and how you find him quite intelligent, because you know, if you wanted to show your respect, you could let us know how you feel on political issues other than abortion rather than necroing this thread...

720 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 4:12:04pm

re: #697 Liet_Kynes

. Currently science is able to viable detect brain waves at 6 weeks from conception.

That's a lie, by the way. The brain hasn't formed at six weeks. An incredibly rudimentary portion of it has, nothing in the least like what's necessary for sentience.

Try to avoid lying.

721 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 4:13:48pm

re: #718 Obdicut

We're not a work at all.

To say we are suggests that evolution has an end point in mind.

It doesn't.

We're not working our way up the evolutionary ladder until we can shed these pathetic flesh bodies and become beings of pure energy.

We're evolved to deal with our situation as best we can.... and we'll continue to evolve to deal with any other situations we run into as best we can....


For example if we don't do something about AGW before too long we're going to have to rethink the entire lose the ability to separate oxygen from liquids before we leave the womb thing...

722 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 4:14:11pm

re: #678 Liet_Kynes

Oh, you're also lying about abortion not being a religious issue for you.

Weird. I'd have thought you'd be proud of your religious views.

723 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 4:18:32pm

re: #720 Obdicut

Here's what a fetus has at six weeks: A neural tube. The spinal cord and brain haven't even differentiated yet.


[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

724 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 4:22:15pm

re: #720 Obdicut

That's a lie, by the way. The brain hasn't formed at six weeks. An incredibly rudimentary portion of it has, nothing in the least like what's necessary for sentience.

Try to avoid lying.

I thought I'd throw him a bone on that one by acknowledging that this was the theoretical earliest point that personhood could possibly attach. But you're right, sentience does require a (near)fully developed forebrain, evidenced by something more than basic stimulus response. A plant will grow towards light, that doesn't make it self aware.

725 Capitalist Tool  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 4:23:12pm

Charles has conveniently opened a thread about O'Donnell and evolution, etc... see you there.

726 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 4:25:29pm

re: #724 goddamnedfrank

Point being that for me there does come a point where the discussion begins to revolve around comparative rights, but that point isn't really plausibly reached during the first or even second trimester.

727 wrenchwench  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 4:29:02pm

re: #717 Capitalist Tool

I said a marker of our progress...
Obviously in our earlier stages we didn't have the physical ability to perform in ways we do now (there are probably some useful traits we've lost as well) and we probably didn't have the mental capacity to deal with what we do now, either.

What I suggested is that we are continuing to evolve and that there are things out there which we can now understand, but could not before and that there are things out there of which we are not even aware and do not have the tools to comprehend, but will likely reach someday.

Of course we do not inherit knowledge. We inherent the capacity to gain the knowledge and understand it after we've gotten it.

I think we're a work in progress, don't you?

It is possible that evolutionary pressures will make us less smart. Say civilization collapsed and there could be no c-section births, and more babies with smaller heads survived than ones with big heads. There would be reduced brain capacity.

So, we may see progress now, but it is certainly not inevitable.

By the way, if it were not for c-sections, I and my 6 siblings would not be here--Mom would have been killed by my big-headed older brother.

728 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 4:32:23pm

re: #727 wrenchwench

By the way, if it were not for c-sections, I and my 6 siblings would not be here--Mom would have been killed by my big-headed older brother.

Your big headed older brother should sue science for reducing his inheritance.
/

729 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 6:14:31pm

re: #719 jamesfirecat

Thanks but generally I like to read and comment when I see an interesting comment that relates to my field. Though I am here mostly for the learning and occasionally for the comments.

Ill comment on politics when I can and I have done so in the past.

I think though a lot of people on the site wont care to hear what I have to say about politics because it is colored a lot more by my theology than my views on abortion. I was much more Republican before I became Catholic and it is my Catholic faith that shifted my political views away from that. If you are looking closely at my non religious arguments you can see how they would link up with Catholic dogma on social justice.

730 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 6:22:28pm

re: #729 Liet_Kynes

Thanks but generally I like to read and comment when I see an interesting comment that relates to my field. Though I am here mostly for the learning and occasionally for the comments.

Ill comment on politics when I can and I have done so in the past.

I think though a lot of people on the site wont care to hear what I have to say about politics because it is colored a lot more by my theology than my views on abortion. I was much more Republican before I became Catholic and it is my Catholic faith that shifted my political views away from that. If you are looking closely at my non religious arguments you can see how they would link up with Catholic dogma on social justice.

You still haven't answered my question.

How many kidneys do you have at the moment?

731 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 6:53:38pm

re: #720 Obdicut

I am not lying. Perhaps my data is wrong. If it is, I invite you to tell me when the earliest brain waves are detected. Thanks!

Still not lying about my argument against abortion being a non-religious one. You are an athiest, take the time to read the writings of pro-life athiests and agnostics.

732 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 7:18:06pm

re: #726 goddamnedfrank

Point being that for me there does come a point where the discussion begins to revolve around comparative rights...

Do individuals have the right to destroy another individuals life or limbs without warrent?

That is the fundamental question.

If a person says no that right does not exist, then the abortion question that revolves around comparative rights is resolved on the basis of personhood. As soon as one believes that a person is there in the womb, abortion is no longer an option.

If a person says that people have the right to without warrent destroy anothers life and limb, the abortion question that revolves around comparative rights is resolved on the basis of power. It doesn't matter if it is a person inside of her, the mother, being the one in power, has free reign to choose to take life and limb without warrent.

733 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 7:18:26pm

re: #699 jamesfirecat

2

734 jamesfirecat  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 7:24:03pm

re: #733 Liet_Kynes

2

Then by your own morals you are a horrible sinner.

Do you know how many people die waiting for kidney transplants?

You've said that we can not allow other people to die due to our own action/inactions, right?

How come you haven't donated your spare kidney yet?

735 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 9:41:42pm

re: #734 jamesfirecat

Nope. I didn't say that.

I said that it is immoral to, without warrant, cause the loss of life or limb through action or inaction.

The "without warrant" clause prevents us from acting imprudently. I also have a right to my life and limbs. The less you are dependent upon me personally for your health and welfare and the greater the action causes the loss of my life and limb, the greater the warrant that is needed for you to have claim on my life and limb.

736 What, me worry?  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 9:44:31pm

re: #735 Liet_Kynes

Would you agree with abortion if the mother's life is at stake?

737 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 10:13:18pm

re: #736 marjoriemoon

Would you agree with abortion if the mother's life is at stake?

To reiterate when a pregnancy is dire (possibility of death of mother and child are quite high) it is moral to preform those medical procedures that conform to the principles of double effect even when they result in the life of one and the death of the other. Door swings both ways on this though as might does not make right. It is permissible for the mother to choose a procedure that will save her life and possibly result in the death of her child. It is equally permissible for the mother to choose a procedure that will save her child's life but possibly result in the death of herself.

738 What, me worry?  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 10:25:01pm

re: #737 Liet_Kynes

To reiterate when a pregnancy is dire (possibility of death of mother and child are quite high) it is moral to preform those medical procedures that conform to the principles of double effect even when they result in the life of one and the death of the other. Door swings both ways on this though as might does not make right. It is permissible for the mother to choose a procedure that will save her life and possibly result in the death of her child. It is equally permissible for the mother to choose a procedure that will save her child's life but possibly result in the death of herself.

I am not an observant Jew, nor do I agree with everything in this article, but I respect how my religion differentiates between a zygote, a fetus and a person. I hope you read it when you get a chance.

739 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 11:53:23pm

re: #738 marjoriemoon

Thank you kindly. I do appreciate it and the article was quite informative (enjoyed how it used Jewish terms). I really do appreciate the article that you sent.

I love comparative religions so , if I may give some quick thoughts on some Christian views on abortion to make a comparison.

In Early Christianity, the shift between the Jewish position on abortion (the position you have above is largely post Christian Rabbinical sources so is not exactly the same as Rabbinical views contemporary to early Christianity) to the Early Christian absolute prohibition on abortion is quite sudden and there is no transition to the "no abortions period" stand. And this happens right at the time when Christianity and its leadership was mostly comprised of the poor, the lower classes, the uneducated, basically those who have the highest risk pregnancies. And it was a draw too! The earliest catechisms are quite direct and blunt, no abortions.

You shall not use potions. [these are contraceptives / oral abortifiacts] You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

I find the shift in human anthropology to be interesting.

It is true that the Catholic Church has shifted its view on the distinctions between , as you put it, zygote, fetus, and person. But even when zygote was not considered person, abortion was still not allowed (cf. Thomas Aquinas). This all really is pushed forward by advancements in science and philosophy. The current 20th century view on the zygote draws heavily from 20th century philosophy of Personalism. I really find that fascinating.

740 Obdicut  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 2:59:57am

re: #735 Liet_Kynes

The "without warrant" clause prevents us from acting imprudently. I also have a right to my life and limbs.

You just disproved your own arguments on abortion, then.

741 Obdicut  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 3:01:34am

re: #695 Liet_Kynes

You lied again when you said an Ob-Gyn can easily tell if there was an abortion or a miscarriage, in case you're keeping track of how many times you lie. If an abortifacient is used, it cannot be distinguished. If the miscarriage was a traumatic one, it will also resemble an abortion.

The sheer number of lies you tell in any given thread is appalling.

742 jamesfirecat  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 4:21:57am

re: #735 Liet_Kynes

Nope. I didn't say that.

I said that it is immoral to, without warrant, cause the loss of life or limb through action or inaction.

The "without warrant" clause prevents us from acting imprudently. I also have a right to my life and limbs. The less you are dependent upon me personally for your health and welfare and the greater the action causes the loss of my life and limb, the greater the warrant that is needed for you to have claim on my life and limb.

But your spare kidney is neither your life nor your limb.

You don't need it for anything and yet to other people i would make the difference between life and death.

How frequently do you donate blood?

743 jamesfirecat  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 4:33:09am

re: #735 Liet_Kynes

Nope. I didn't say that.

I said that it is immoral to, without warrant, cause the loss of life or limb through action or inaction.

The "without warrant" clause prevents us from acting imprudently. I also have a right to my life and limbs. The less you are dependent upon me personally for your health and welfare and the greater the action causes the loss of my life and limb, the greater the warrant that is needed for you to have claim on my life and limb.

Also by your own argument... so having someone feed off of your organs for 9 months is causing you less loss of life and limb than an abortion?

In that case how would you feel about someone living in with you and the two of you getting connected by some wries to use you as a living dialisis machine?

The process would cause danger to neither your existence or threaten you with personal injury (life and limb) with no loss of life or limb by your own rules, you have no warrant needed for someone else to lay claim to make use of your organs as well for 9 months while their's recover.

744 Coracle  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 8:07:42am

re: #689 Liet_Kynes

You are putting words into my mouth. Do not do that please.

It's hard to avoid when you waffle so much.

You said:

If your action or inaction results in the loss of life or limb, without warrent, then you may not do that action or inaction.

You've repeatedly refused to confirm your obvious belief that a fertilized human egg counts immediately as a full fledged human life with equal rights to 'life and limb' as anyone else. You also fail or refuse to discuss the values behind this 'warrant'. You claim they don't come from religion, or from the force of society, but that's really crap. I've read some of the philosophy that claims morals exist in nature. I think they're crap, too.

What you've really done is created an oppressive perversion of "do not do unto others as you would not have done to you" golden rule.

745 Liet_Kynes  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 9:08:31am

re: #743 jamesfirecat

You are mixing apples and oranges.

The child is wholly dependent upon the mother. Artificial wombs do not exist.

The man who needs dialysis is not dependent upon me. Dialysis machines exist.

If you want a ball park comparable moral dilemma to what you are trying to get at watch this episode of House [Link: www.hulu.com...]

746 Obdicut  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 9:17:07am

re: #745 Liet_Kynes


The child is wholly dependent upon the mother. Artificial wombs do not exist.

The man who needs dialysis is not dependent upon me. Dialysis machines exist.

Again: You're begging the question when you say 'child'. By now, it's obvious to anyone from your many, many lies that you have no intention of arguing honestly, but that central lie is the most telling of all.

The zygote is not wholly dependent on the particular woman it's in, either. It's able to be carried by any woman.

There are millions of zygotes from pregnancy clinics thrown away every day; do you think that every women who is not currently pregnant has an obligation to impregnate herself with one? After all, as you say, there is no such thing as an artificial womb. So shouldn't every woman, ethically, bear as many of these otherwise-destroyed zygotes as she can?

Can you explain why you lied and said that a miscarriage can always be identified separately from an abortion?

747 Liet_Kynes  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 9:28:44am

re: #744 Coracle

You are not reading my postings.

Let me restate what I have written for you.

A zygote is a individual person. As such, that person has intrinsic rights to be protected from loss of life and limb, without warrant.

My values as to this do not come from religion.

A zygote is a person because it is not the mother and not part of an organ of another individual. Just as an acorn is an individual thing, is not a part, and contains the whole of that which it will be through out its existence, a zygote is an individual, not a part, and contains the whole of that it which it will be through out its existence. There is nothing religious at all about that statement.

This position of "do not cause loss of life or limb, through action or in action, without warrant to other individuals" is not a religious position. It is a position grounded in human anthropology and the position that there is an intrinsic value in existing.

To help you see the difference, if one was backing their position from a stand point of religion they could say that abortion is wrong because we are not the author of our creation, God is, and abortion is infringing upon God's sovereignty, and is as such a sin. (the above example is what could be said, not necessarily what I would argue personally).

What I am doing is taking a strong stand against "might makes right". The idea that one has the right to take the life and limb of another without warrant is the basic definition of oppression for me. An individual is not free to do what they want simply because they are in the majority or they are the ones in power.

748 Obdicut  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 9:30:14am

re: #747 Liet_Kynes

A zygote is a person because it is not the mother and not part of an organ of another individual. Just as an acorn is an individual thing, is not a part, and contains the whole of that which it will be through out its existence, a zygote is an individual, not a part, and contains the whole of that it which it will be through out its existence. There is nothing religious at all about that statement.

Yet nobody calls an acorn a tree.

You are really, really good at disproving yourself.

749 jamesfirecat  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 9:37:43am

re: #745 Liet_Kynes

You are mixing apples and oranges.

The child is wholly dependent upon the mother. Artificial wombs do not exist.

The man who needs dialysis is not dependent upon me. Dialysis machines exist.

If you want a ball park comparable moral dilemma to what you are trying to get at watch this episode of House [Link: www.hulu.com...]

He isn't dependent upon you, but he is dependent upon somebody doing something.

Why do you refuse to be one of those people who could help him?

Are you a heavy drinker?

Do you need spare your kidney for something?

750 jamesfirecat  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 9:39:15am

re: #745 Liet_Kynes

You are mixing apples and oranges.

The child is wholly dependent upon the mother. Artificial wombs do not exist.

The man who needs dialysis is not dependent upon me. Dialysis machines exist.

If you want a ball park comparable moral dilemma to what you are trying to get at watch this episode of House [Link: www.hulu.com...]

Oh and once again, you dodge one of my questions.

How frequently do you give blood?

751 jamesfirecat  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 9:44:18am

re: #745 Liet_Kynes

You are mixing apples and oranges.

The child is wholly dependent upon the mother. Artificial wombs do not exist.

The man who needs dialysis is not dependent upon me. Dialysis machines exist.

If you want a ball park comparable moral dilemma to what you are trying to get at watch this episode of House [Link: www.hulu.com...]

Also... so in other words, in your moral system its wrong to let someone die because of our action or inaction, but only if we're on the spot and we're the only one who can do anything.

If other people or other possibly ways of saving them exist, then its fine for us to turn a blind eye to their suffering?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Lovely....

752 Liet_Kynes  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 10:02:19am

re: #746 Obdicut

As you are begging the question when you refere to a zygote as a thing or an it.

The zygote is wholy dependent upon the particular woman that the zygote is in. Yes any woman could theoretically carry that zygote. Which is why (I believe) I said earlier that in a case of an unwanted child (here zygote) one has a responsibility to that zygote until dependancy can be transfered. The zygote is also wholy dependent upon that woman because at that moment the zygote has no other dependancy on another individual, only the potientiallity of having dependancy.

If artificial wombs existed, if it was safe and easy to transplant viably zygotes from the mother to a willing woman, those would be moral options to unwanted pregnancies.

It is an ethical decision to bring to term "snow flake" babies. It cannot be mandated because a dependancy doesn't exist between women and other womens zygotes, unless one takes a very very broad view of social responsibility, which I do not. If artifical wombs existed, then I would argue that it is mandatory to bring such "snow flake" babies to term, because we have a moral imparative to allow for a chance at life instead of choosing death, when the choise of life does not impact another human person in the slightest as death always impacts the person dying negatively.

Existance is morally superior than non-existance.

I did not say that "a miscarriage can always be identified separately from an abortion"

I said "An Ob/Gyn can easily tell if the woman miscarried or if it was an abortion."

I regrete using the term easily as it was a distraction. Where I got it from was friends who are nurses and lectures that I heard. BTW the starting assumption would be that the event was a misscarrage. Unless there is a very clear cut indication other wise, I think that women who say they had misscarrages should be taken at their word and there is no need to be adversarial and to launch some sort of detailed investigation.

753 Obdicut  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 10:15:04am

re: #752 Liet_Kynes

As you are begging the question when you refere to a zygote as a thing or an it.

I haven't referred to a zygote as a thing, liar.

The zygote is wholy dependent upon the particular woman that the zygote is in. Yes any woman could theoretically carry that zygote.

Those two sentences contradict each other.


I regrete using the term easily as it was a distraction. Where I got it from was friends who are nurses and lectures that I heard. BTW the starting assumption would be that the event was a misscarrage. Unless there is a very clear cut indication other wise, I think that women who say they had misscarrages should be taken at their word and there is no need to be adversarial and to launch some sort of detailed investigation.

You regret saying a lie, and now backpedal furiously to pretend you didn't add yet another lie to your many.


Why haven't you answered the question about zygote implantation from the fertility clinics? Given that any woman can carry any of those zygotes, why don't you think they have a moral obligation to go and request that they be implanted with one right away? Those zygotes get destroyed every day at fertility clinics; why isn't it the ethical duty of every woman to carry them to term, given that that is the only way those zygotes will ever become human beings?

754 Liet_Kynes  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 10:25:19am

re: #753 Obdicut

Ill be back later but you are not reading your own writings nor my writings.

You referred to a zygote as a thing or an it several times. When I get back later on I will go through all your messages on this board to pull out all the times that you referred to a zygote as a thing or an it.

I answered your question about zygote implantation. It is paragraphs 2 and 3 of my 752.

I did not say I regretted saying a lie, I said I regretted using the term easy because it is obviously very distracting to you, so distracting that you misread it as ALWAYS which is really a very very different word than EASY.

755 Coracle  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 10:44:28am

re: #747 Liet_Kynes

You are not reading my postings.

Incorrect. I just think they're bullshit.


A zygote is a individual person. As such, that person has intrinsic rights to be protected from loss of life and limb, without warrant.


This is the root of fundamental disagreement. Your definition of person - and your definition of fundamental rights - are the premise of all the rest of the gobbledygook. I disagree on first principles with your definition of person, and intrinsic rights. The rest of everything you say is utterly moot as it is based on this rotten foundation.

My values as to this do not come from religion.

They certainly don't come from nature.


A zygote is a person because it is not the mother and not part of an organ of another individual. Just as an acorn is an individual thing, is not a part, and contains the whole of that which it will be through out its existence, a zygote is an individual, not a part, and contains the whole of that it which it will be through out its existence. There is nothing religious at all about that statement.

There's nothing sensible about this statement either. We have the technology today to take virtually any living cell and turn it into an 'individual'. Every cell we own, separated from our bodies is thus an individual by your definition. It is ludicrous.

This position of "do not cause loss of life or limb, through action or in action, without warrant to other individuals" is not a religious position. It is a position grounded in human anthropology and the position that there is an intrinsic value in existing.

"Human anthropology"? That's meaningless. You might as well just say "tradition". The position that there is intrinsic value in existing does not come from nature. The concept of value is not a natural concept. It is a purely human construct. Rotten foundations built on sand.

756 Obdicut  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 10:46:30am

re: #754 Liet_Kynes

You referred to a zygote as a thing or an it several times.

I used the word 'it', certainly, since it's a non-gendered pronoun.

I answered your question about zygote implantation. It is paragraphs 2 and 3 of my 752.

Not consistently with your own logic. You simply asserted that you don't think that women have a responsibility to zygotes that aren't their own. You provided no argument for this whatsoever. You previously tried to base your argument on a woman not having the right to abort a zygote by first begging the question and claiming the zygote was a person (which you then handily disproved with your acorn/oak analogy; good job!) and stating that if someone has the capacity to save someone but doesn't, that's unethical.

Hell, leave the zygote-implantation alone; don't you think it's the duty of every first-world person to adopt a third-world child, or three, or four, saving them from very likely death and certainly deprivation?


I did not say I regretted saying a lie, I said I regretted using the term easy because it is obviously very distracting to you, so distracting that you misread it as ALWAYS which is really a very very different word than EASY.

I didn't misread it as always. You simply have no clue about the medical truth; in any case where an abortifacient is used, it is not 'easy', to tell, it is nigh-impossible-- because an abortifacient uses the bodies own natural capacity to reject a fetus in order to do so. You simply lied: it is not 'easy' to tell if someone had a miscarriage or an abortion. And basing your lie on the supposed heresy testimony of nurses is fucking shameful.

757 jamesfirecat  Fri, Oct 15, 2010 3:14:30pm

re: #754 Liet_Kynes

Ill be back later but you are not reading your own writings nor my writings.

You referred to a zygote as a thing or an it several times. When I get back later on I will go through all your messages on this board to pull out all the times that you referred to a zygote as a thing or an it.

I answered your question about zygote implantation. It is paragraphs 2 and 3 of my 752.

I did not say I regretted saying a lie, I said I regretted using the term easy because it is obviously very distracting to you, so distracting that you misread it as ALWAYS which is really a very very different word than EASY.

When you do get back please address my issue with how your morality seems to fold up upon itself the moment you add distance between yourself and the suffering of others to the equation.....


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 119 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 280 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1