Author Topic: Pervert versus Baby killer  (Read 7624 times)

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #50 on: December 06, 2017, 07:13:37 AM »
Just to recap on Roy Moore:

-alleged child molester
-fairly-widely known "creep" (at best) / pedo in his hometown according to dozens of people who went on the record
-believes gay people should be locked up simply for being gay
-believes Muslims should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. Congress
-honors the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, even as a public servant (twice removed from Supreme Court of Alabama for refusal to follow the law)
-Co-authored a course as recently as 2011 contending that women should not be allowed to run for public office

What a highlight reel.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #51 on: December 06, 2017, 07:15:01 AM »
You forgot:
- Fully endorsed by the President of the United States

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #52 on: December 06, 2017, 07:29:08 AM »
You forgot:
- Fully endorsed by the President of the United States

And the RNC, now.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #53 on: December 06, 2017, 08:15:14 AM »
Yep.  It took the GOP all of 20 days to flip from denouncing him, threatening expulsion if he were to win election to supporting him despite no facts changing - only more women coming forward with stories, signed yearbooks, etc.

If anyone still fell for the lie of "family values" party, they can't hide behind it now.

The two options are:

1) We don't believe the women or
2) We do and we don't care.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #54 on: December 06, 2017, 08:32:05 AM »
A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

So it is non-human?

What about a fetus makes it ok to kill(refraining from 'murder' to keep things more academic less moral) but not a baby? Passing thorough the birth canal; exposure to fresh air (for the c-section babies)? Enlighten me?

There is no ignorance; it is the cornerstone of the argument.

I didn't argue at all that a fetus isn't human.  I argued that it isn't a baby.

A baby is a very young child, newly or recently born.  A fetus is an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

When you call someone who supports abortion a 'baby killer' you are lying - either through ignorance (as I assumed) or as a conscious attempt to manipulate the reaction of others by using the wrong term.  (You're also lying because someone who supports abortion doesn't necessarily kill fetuses . . . that's typically left to medical professionals, but we can just chalk that up to yet another false equivalence.)

As to your unrelated deflection question . . . my personal inclination would be to classify a fetus as somewhere between human and non-human.  At the earliest stages, a fetus is little more than a collection of cells starting to arrange themselves - no organs, nervous system, effectively no brain.  Typically people aren't as emotional about abortion at this stage (even less so before sperm meets egg - aborting via contraception-WHAT, so female periods, and teenage boys...those count in your mind???).  At the latest stages a fetus is nearly identical to a baby with everything in place and ready to function, and typically even the most hard core pro-choice folks don't want to allow abortions at this point.  There's also a lot of grey area in between (usually where the argument is) because there's no clear flip of a switch where we can go 'That's a human' or 'That's not'.

second bold; Guilt by association. "I support the holocaust, but I don't work at the camp." "I support the genocide, but I don't carry a machete." No, we all bear responsibility for the actions of those we support.

last bold; what is it about viability makes someone have value? Preemies, disabled people; I think they have value.

first bold; So you are ok killing some people?

I get it, it is a tough decision. A woman has to temporarily give up some liberties in order to bring a child through labor. Is that worth killing another person over?

Lots of emotion, I probably should think of some less emotional example, just trying to make the point. To me it boils down to the above argument. What makes a person? To be honest, you are correct we do not know. Considering we are talking about potential death of another human being let us go with safest possibility. The loss of a life out weighs the loss of some of another's temporary liberty.
Women DIE because of pregnancy.  In fact, the more restrictions on a woman's autonomy, the higher rate of maternal death.  Second, in NO other case am I or any other person required to give up ANY autonomy to keep someone alive, not blood, marrow, or organ.  And trust me, from giving birth twice, none of those are less physically traumatizing than pregnancy and birth, and my first pregnancy was an easy one.
Just to be clear I am not saying anyone should have to give up their life for another. That is self defense 101.

Saying a miracle will happen or whatever is a personal decision and has no place in politics.
If you vote for anti-choice people/laws yes you are.  Because the fact are that anti-choice laws increase maternal death.  The facts are that women die in pregnancy.  The facts are pregnancy is often harmful to a woman's body, and yes that harm can be long term.  So who are you to decide how much harm a woman should endure before she has the choice of an abortion, or hell even choice during her delivery?  Because guess what, anti-choice laws also restrict women's rights/autonomy during birth. 
And while we are on the topic of someone losing temporarily their liberty, again, why are not all people required to give blood/marrow, I'll be flexible on the organ thing?  Giving blood/marrow is a lot less of a loss and it saves lives. 

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #55 on: December 06, 2017, 09:37:39 AM »
If no sort of abortion is allowed, even when the fetus is unable to survive outside the womb (http://www.wnd.com/2004/09/26682/), where is the limit for the law? In El Salvador, several hundred women have been jailed because of miscarriages: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/el-salvador-miscarriage-abortion-strictest-laws-in-world-sonia-t-bora-a7584671.html

And if that is going too far; how much can a pregnant woman endanger the fetus (drugs, alcohol, dangerous activities) before it is ok to force her to stop? Beacuse that is where we are heading if medical abortions are prohibited. Desperate women don't stop having abortions, they just use more dangerous alternatives. If we want to reduce the number of abortions, high quality sex ed and free contraception, are the way to go. It has been proven over and over again, and it is both cheap and efficient: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reducing-abortion-rates-policy_us_589b8ea5e4b09bd304bfd920
Travelling to 71° Northern Latitude in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/

iowajes

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5308
  • Location: United States
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #56 on: December 06, 2017, 10:58:16 AM »
Women have been jailed in the United States for miscarriage.
See Purvi Patel.

Rimu05

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 153
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #57 on: December 06, 2017, 11:27:46 AM »
I legitimately don't even argue my pro-choice stance. If someone doesn't want a baby, they should by all means be able to terminate the fetus and I don't care if someone calls me a supporter of "child murderers."

Like this is non-negotiable for me. I don't even argue based on extreme circumstances.


Perhaps this is just my stance that comes from growing up in poverty but there were enough homeless children on the street growing up. Yet abortion is illegal in my country... You know how many abortions happen still, 310,000 a year. You know how they happen, illegally. People just instead don't have abortions in hospitals and seek out unsafe means. 21,000 of these women will end up back in hospital due to the complications from an unsafe abortion.

I think if anyone cared about children they would be pro choice and also definitely pro sex education.

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #58 on: December 06, 2017, 04:37:01 PM »
-honors the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, even as a public servant (twice removed from Supreme Court of Alabama for refusal to follow the law)

That one line at least is something I can get behind.  If you don't take your religion over all other law, you don't have religion at all.  You just hang out at a club on certain days and hold strong opinions...

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #59 on: December 06, 2017, 05:03:07 PM »
-honors the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, even as a public servant (twice removed from Supreme Court of Alabama for refusal to follow the law)

That one line at least is something I can get behind.  If you don't take your religion over all other law, you don't have religion at all.  You just hang out at a club on certain days and hold strong opinions...

In that case, one should not be running for public office.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #60 on: December 06, 2017, 05:13:42 PM »
-honors the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, even as a public servant (twice removed from Supreme Court of Alabama for refusal to follow the law)

That one line at least is something I can get behind.  If you don't take your religion over all other law, you don't have religion at all.  You just hang out at a club on certain days and hold strong opinions...

Theocracy, here we come!

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #61 on: December 06, 2017, 05:21:10 PM »
-honors the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, even as a public servant (twice removed from Supreme Court of Alabama for refusal to follow the law)

That one line at least is something I can get behind.  If you don't take your religion over all other law, you don't have religion at all.  You just hang out at a club on certain days and hold strong opinions...

In that case, one should not be running for public office.

Indeed. If one cannot uphold the law when it conflicts with one’s religion, one ought to admit it and leave our republic alone.

This is one small thing I have to respect the Jehovah’s Witnesses for — staying out of politics.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

neverrun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #62 on: December 06, 2017, 05:24:05 PM »
-honors the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, even as a public servant (twice removed from Supreme Court of Alabama for refusal to follow the law)

That one line at least is something I can get behind.  If you don't take your religion over all other law, you don't have religion at all.  You just hang out at a club on certain days and hold strong opinions...

So Roy Moore should not hold office for the same reason he states that a Muslim shouldn't hold office.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #63 on: December 06, 2017, 05:41:43 PM »
-honors the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, even as a public servant (twice removed from Supreme Court of Alabama for refusal to follow the law)

That one line at least is something I can get behind.  If you don't take your religion over all other law, you don't have religion at all.  You just hang out at a club on certain days and hold strong opinions...

You may want to read the SCOTUS ruling on Everson v. Board of Education. Sorry, but you're just flat wrong here.

Also, isn't Moore doing just that? Showing up to a club and holding opinions most Americans don't agree with? Like...you pick out the one point about him bringing his religion into public office but ignore the other despicable views he has? He certainly doesn't seem to be living the life of a good Christian.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

MayDay

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3373
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #64 on: December 06, 2017, 07:52:28 PM »
IowaJes, I am really sorry.  I hate how conservative Iowa has turned.  I grew up there (MN now) and all my family is there, and theya re all really disgusted.  My mum is a nurse and used to frequently refer people to IC for abortions as it was the only option in the state for alter abortions.  But that was 10 years ago and I know things have gotten worse since then.

Just to reiterate AGAIN:

1.  The number of people having abortions past ~16 weeks is tiny.  TINY.
2.  The VAST VAST majority are doing it at that stage because something REALLY BAD was found at the 20 week scan. 
3.  The VAST VAST majority are wanted babies and the women are devastated to lose their child.

Anyone who advocated against later abortions either 1) knows that, and are just assholes, or 2) doesn't know that, in which case they are uneducated and should shut their fucking mouths. 

And SORRY NOT SORRY, but I just don't think a 12 week fetus is a baby or a person.  I'd abort if I got pregnant at this point.  I don't want more kids and I just don't think it is a baby.  And I have no guilt about that.  But I definitely wouldn't broadcast it either. 
Journal:  http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/mayday's-journal/350/  featuring children, chickens (new!) and other ch words.

Apple_Tango

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #65 on: December 06, 2017, 08:27:04 PM »
Women DIE because of pregnancy.  In fact, the more restrictions on a woman's autonomy, the higher rate of maternal death.  Second, in NO other case am I or any other person required to give up ANY autonomy to keep someone alive, not blood, marrow, or organ.  And trust me, from giving birth twice, none of those are less physically traumatizing than pregnancy and birth, and my first pregnancy was an easy one.

Exactly.  How appalled would you be if the government mandated that you donate an organ to save someone else's life?
I don't see how these are equivalent. Nor can I begin to build a logical paradigm to show how they are not.
You are saying a woman should have her body used to keep another alive, against her will, yet in no other circumstances is a person forced to have their body used to keep another alive even though things like blood donation, bone marrow and portion of organs do keep people alive.  All without killing or permanently damaging, much, the donor.  The damage to my body would be less to donate any of the above then either of my pregnancies/birth, with the exception of the organ and even that is debatable.  And again, one of my pregnancies was very easy.  So, they are not equivalent, pregnancy is worse but they both are about autonomy.

I almost hate to comment on this thread...but this point I think is very important. If someone dies in a car accident, and has totally healthy lungs, a heart, eyes, kidneys, etc but they didn't check the organ donor box on their drivers license, their organs CANNOT be used to save someone who needs them for a transplant. You literally can't take organs from a dead body in order to save a life. The organs will literally rot in the ground, but they can't be used to save a life. So to use RetireBy35's words, you can't "temporarily take some liberties" from a dead body. Why the hell should the government have any ability to "temporarily take some liberties" from a living woman's body? A dead person has more autonomy than a woman does over their body in the United States.

I already know you will say "But it's not just the woman's choice! She's killing a baby!" Well using that logic, a person who doesn't donate organs is doing the exact same thing but instead of killing a collection of cells (this is debatable but I'm being crass on purpose), they are killing a fully grown human who already has an established life. Which is worse? I think neither is worse, and neither is immoral. Both are sad, but you know what? Life isn't fair and it's not all sunshine and rainbows.

Please don't misunderstand me here. I don't think the organs should be taken from anyone who doesn't want them taken. Pro-choice and body autonomy all the way for me. Women are NOT baby making machines anymore, people. get over it. If all abortions are outlawed, they will still happen but it will be unsafe and illegal. Back to the days of punching ourselves in the stomachs and throwing ourselves down the stairs. Goodie.

And I sincerely hope that anyone who is in the pro-life camp is fully 100% supportive of all social welfare programs like foster systems, SNAP, and comprehensive sex education in schools, as well as affordable and accessible birth control and funding public schools so kids of all incomes and backgrounds can have good education. Otherwise you're just dumping unwanted children into a system with less and less safety nets, social supports, etc to help them. In fact....I hope everybody in america is in agreement on the need for these programs!
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 08:42:39 PM by Apple_Tango »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #66 on: December 06, 2017, 08:35:49 PM »
Women DIE because of pregnancy.  In fact, the more restrictions on a woman's autonomy, the higher rate of maternal death.  Second, in NO other case am I or any other person required to give up ANY autonomy to keep someone alive, not blood, marrow, or organ.  And trust me, from giving birth twice, none of those are less physically traumatizing than pregnancy and birth, and my first pregnancy was an easy one.

Exactly.  How appalled would you be if the government mandated that you donate an organ to save someone else's life?
I don't see how these are equivalent. Nor can I begin to build a logical paradigm to show how they are not.
You are saying a woman should have her body used to keep another alive, against her will, yet in no other circumstances is a person forced to have their body used to keep another alive even though things like blood donation, bone marrow and portion of organs do keep people alive.  All without killing or permanently damaging, much, the donor.  The damage to my body would be less to donate any of the above then either of my pregnancies/birth, with the exception of the organ and even that is debatable.  And again, one of my pregnancies was very easy.  So, they are not equivalent, pregnancy is worse but they both are about autonomy.

I almost hate to comment on this thread...but this point I think is very important. If someone dies in a car accident, and has totally healthy lungs, a heart, eyes, kidneys, etc but they didn't check the organ donor box on their drivers license, their organs CANNOT be used to save someone who needs them for a transplant. You literally can't take organs from a dead body in order to save a life. The organs will literally rot in the ground, but they can't be used to save a life. So to use RetireBy35's words, you can't "temporarily take some liberties" from a dead body. Why the hell should the government have in any ability to "temporarily take some liberties" from a living woman's body? A dead body has more autonomy than a woman does over their body in the United States.

I already know you will say "But it's not just the woman's choice! She's killing a baby!" Well using that logic, a person who doesn't donate organs is doing the exact same thing but instead of killing a collection of cells (this is debatable but I'm being crass on purpose), they are killing a fully grown human who already has an established life. Which is worse? I think neither is worse, and neither is immoral. Both are sad, but you know what? Life isn't fair and it's not all sunshine and rainbows.

Please don't misunderstand me here. I don't think the organs should be taken from anyone who doesn't want them taken. Pro-choice and body autonomy all the way for me. Women are NOT baby making machines anymore, people. get over it. If all abortions are outlawed, they will still happen but it will be unsafe and illegal. Back to the days of punching ourselves in the stomachs and throwing ourselves down the stairs. Goodie.

And I sincerely hope that anyone who is in the pro-life camp is fully 100% supportive of all social welfare programs like foster systems, SNAP, and comprehensive sex education in schools, as well as affordable and accessible birth control and funding public schools so kids of all incomes and backgrounds can have good education. Otherwise you're just dumping unwanted children into a system with less and less safety nets, social supports, etc to help them. In fact....I hope everybody in america is in agreement on the need for these programs!

Chiming in here to erase any doubt that these programs work: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/news/teenbirthrate

If people truly want to lower abortion rates, we need health care, education, and contraception.  Unfortunately, there is an established pattern of people who oppose abortion also opposing these things.

Apple_Tango

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #67 on: December 06, 2017, 09:03:04 PM »
-honors the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, even as a public servant (twice removed from Supreme Court of Alabama for refusal to follow the law)

That one line at least is something I can get behind.  If you don't take your religion over all other law, you don't have religion at all.  You just hang out at a club on certain days and hold strong opinions...

I agree with that for a private citizen, but I disagree when it comes to a senator, president, judge, etc. As a US citizen, I really really really value the separation of church and state. I think it's weird that Presidents have to be sworn in on a bible. I'm glad that I'm not told what religion to practice (I will leave you guessing on which one it is). I'm glad that the constitution  isn't based on the majority religion in the country. I'm glad that we are not a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. I'm glad we're all of the above, and at the same time, none of the above. Anyone who bases laws of a country on the word of a God should get out of the public space. After all...what if I'm a judge who believes in Anubis, Zeus, and Xenu?? would you want me making decisions based on those Gods' teachings? Or would you want me to make a decision based on the Constitution and our laws?

And if your gut reaction is to think "well of course that's crazy, those Gods aren't real"...I have to tell you that no matter what God or religious texts you or I read and believe in, at least half of the world thinks it's crazy on any given day. The largest world religion is Christianity, but they've only got about 1/3 of the population. Hardly a consensus!
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 11:17:43 PM by Apple_Tango »

grandep

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #68 on: December 06, 2017, 10:35:47 PM »
I'm jumping into this conversation reluctantly, knowing full well how much of a powder keg this topic can be. But I do have some thoughts on this subject and I think the best way to develop thoughts is to air them out and kick 'em around a bit.

Just to get this out of the way, let me first say that I do not agree with anything the author of the OP's article said. Roy Moore is a gross person and his defense by Republicans is damning and pathetic.

I consider myself a fairly progressive person. I am from Texas. Many, many of my friends and family are conservative. Some (a lot) of them are the obnoxious Fox News-Breitbart kind of conservative, but others are thoughtful, intelligent, and reasonable. I also come from a religious (Christian) background, though I certainly don't identify as an "evangelical", socially or theologically.

I do consider myself to be "pro life" in the philosophical sense that human life is one of the only things that has true, inherent value. To borrow Christian terminology, humans are "made in the image of God". Because of this, I am opposed to the death penalty, to torture, to most forms of violence, and to anything that degrades or otherwise dishonors a person's dignity and integrity. Further, I do support welfare and anti-poverty programs, sex education, birth control, gun control regulation, foreign aid and philanthropy, environmentalism and efforts to curb global warming, etc. All of these things are, I believe, consistent with a true pro-life ethic.

I find that progressives are in many ways pro-life as well. In their support for and opposition of many of the things I listed above, for example. However, on the topic of abortion progressives veer away from a pro-life stance and into a pro-liberty stance, which I find interesting (conservatives do the opposite, departing from their typical pro-liberty stance into a pro-regulation one).

To someone who has a strong pro-life ethic as I've described above, abortion is viewed as a violation of another person's inherent dignity and worth (here I am talking only about "elective" abortions, not ones that are deemed necessary for medical reasons as other users in this thread have discussed). You may argue that we don't know whether or not a fetus is a person ("scientifically or legally", as if those were the only two qualifications that bear any weight in the evaluation of a person's worth) and that it is therefore a decision that must be free to made to each individual person according to his or her conscience.

However, we know for certain that a dog, for example, is not a person, and yet we certainly do not allow people to treat a dog in accordance with his or her conscience. I often see more concern given for the welfare of animals and the protection of animal life from progressives than I do for human life. So the personhood of a fetus doesn't really seem to be the factor here. If someone killed a puppy because they decided that raising a dog would sacrifice too much of their own personal autonomy or liberty, we would not praise them as a champion of liberal values but rather (rightly) condemn them for cruelty.

If you object that a puppy is different than a fetus because a fetus is not "viable" outside of the womb, then imagine instead that a puppy comes to you severely malnourished and injured to the point of being near death, so that it is not "viable" without your immediate care. You could let him convalesce in your home by feeding him a few scraps from your dinner table, or you could throw him out the back door. The moral choice here is obvious: why has it become so murky when we begin to consider a human life instead?

I am aware that my facile analogy is flawed, but let me pose two questions: If you believe that abortion is not termination of a human life on the grounds that a fetus is not a human life, have you perhaps considered that our society has worked really hard to make itself believe that so that we are able to sleep at night with the decisions we make to preserve our sacred values of individualism and personal autonomy, even if they come at the cost of human life?

And can you understand why for someone who does believe that a fetus is a human life (which is not so far-fetched) abortion is considered such a morally offensive act?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #69 on: December 06, 2017, 10:51:31 PM »
I'm jumping into this conversation reluctantly, knowing full well how much of a powder keg this topic can be. But I do have some thoughts on this subject and I think the best way to develop thoughts is to air them out and kick 'em around a bit.

Just to get this out of the way, let me first say that I do not agree with anything the author of the OP's article said. Roy Moore is a gross person and his defense by Republicans is damning and pathetic.

I consider myself a fairly progressive person. I am from Texas. Many, many of my friends and family are conservative. Some (a lot) of them are the obnoxious Fox News-Breitbart kind of conservative, but others are thoughtful, intelligent, and reasonable. I also come from a religious (Christian) background, though I certainly don't identify as an "evangelical", socially or theologically.

I do consider myself to be "pro life" in the philosophical sense that human life is one of the only things that has true, inherent value. To borrow Christian terminology, humans are "made in the image of God". Because of this, I am opposed to the death penalty, to torture, to most forms of violence, and to anything that degrades or otherwise dishonors a person's dignity and integrity. Further, I do support welfare and anti-poverty programs, sex education, birth control, gun control regulation, foreign aid and philanthropy, environmentalism and efforts to curb global warming, etc. All of these things are, I believe, consistent with a true pro-life ethic.

I find that progressives are in many ways pro-life as well. In their support for and opposition of many of the things I listed above, for example. However, on the topic of abortion progressives veer away from a pro-life stance and into a pro-liberty stance, which I find interesting (conservatives do the opposite, departing from their typical pro-liberty stance into a pro-regulation one).

To someone who has a strong pro-life ethic as I've described above, abortion is viewed as a violation of another person's inherent dignity and worth (here I am talking only about "elective" abortions, not ones that are deemed necessary for medical reasons as other users in this thread have discussed). You may argue that we don't know whether or not a fetus is a person ("scientifically or legally", as if those were the only two qualifications that bear any weight in the evaluation of a person's worth) and that it is therefore a decision that must be free to made to each individual person according to his or her conscience.

However, we know for certain that a dog, for example, is not a person, and yet we certainly do not allow people to treat a dog in accordance with his or her conscience. I often see more concern given for the welfare of animals and the protection of animal life from progressives than I do for human life. So the personhood of a fetus doesn't really seem to be the factor here. If someone killed a puppy because they decided that raising a dog would sacrifice too much of their own personal autonomy or liberty, we would not praise them as a champion of liberal values but rather (rightly) condemn them for cruelty.

If you object that a puppy is different than a fetus because a fetus is not "viable" outside of the womb, then imagine instead that a puppy comes to you severely malnourished and injured to the point of being near death, so that it is not "viable" without your immediate care. You could let him convalesce in your home by feeding him a few scraps from your dinner table, or you could throw him out the back door. The moral choice here is obvious: why has it become so murky when we begin to consider a human life instead?

I am aware that my facile analogy is flawed, but let me pose two questions: If you believe that abortion is not termination of a human life on the grounds that a fetus is not a human life, have you perhaps considered that our society has worked really hard to make itself believe that so that we are able to sleep at night with the decisions we make to preserve our sacred values of individualism and personal autonomy, even if they come at the cost of human life?

And can you understand why for someone who does believe that a fetus is a human life (which is not so far-fetched) abortion is considered such a morally offensive act?

No.

ixtap

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 772
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #70 on: December 06, 2017, 10:53:33 PM »
Have you considered that a woman is a human life, above and beyond a uterus?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #71 on: December 07, 2017, 06:15:46 AM »
Unless you are talking about a puppy fetus, your analogy doesn’t even begin to work for me. Sorry.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #72 on: December 07, 2017, 07:21:00 AM »
However, we know for certain that a dog, for example, is not a person, and yet we certainly do not allow people to treat a dog in accordance with his or her conscience. I often see more concern given for the welfare of animals and the protection of animal life from progressives than I do for human life. So the personhood of a fetus doesn't really seem to be the factor here. If someone killed a puppy because they decided that raising a dog would sacrifice too much of their own personal autonomy or liberty, we would not praise them as a champion of liberal values but rather (rightly) condemn them for cruelty.

If you object that a puppy is different than a fetus because a fetus is not "viable" outside of the womb, then imagine instead that a puppy comes to you severely malnourished and injured to the point of being near death, so that it is not "viable" without your immediate care. You could let him convalesce in your home by feeding him a few scraps from your dinner table, or you could throw him out the back door. The moral choice here is obvious: why has it become so murky when we begin to consider a human life instead?

I am aware that my facile analogy is flawed, but let me pose two questions: If you believe that abortion is not termination of a human life on the grounds that a fetus is not a human life, have you perhaps considered that our society has worked really hard to make itself believe that so that we are able to sleep at night with the decisions we make to preserve our sacred values of individualism and personal autonomy, even if they come at the cost of human life?

And can you understand why for someone who does believe that a fetus is a human life (which is not so far-fetched) abortion is considered such a morally offensive act?

You're legally allowed to euthanize a dog that you own at any time, for any reason - provided you do it humanely.  Routine procedure in many animal shelters is to euthanize dogs and puppies that are severely malnourished and injured to the point of being near death because there are so many dogs in need that the money to save the one is better spent improving the lives of dozens.  Your argument kinda falls apart at that point.  Given that the nervous system of a fetus isn't developed enough to feel pain until the third trimester (26 weeks), the vast majority of abortions are actually incapable of being inhumane.

There has not been a single argument in this thread praising anyone for being a 'champion of liberal values' for getting an abortion.  You know why?  Because having an abortion isn't 'championing liberal values'.  It's a terrible choice that a woman sometimes has to make due to her circumstances.

I believe that abortion can reasonably be viewed as termination of a human life (although there's certainly room for doubt on this matter).  I am still pro-choice.  It's not a morally easy decision to make - that's why you don't hear anyone advocating for abortions over contraceptives.  Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils though.  The prospective mother needs to balance her health, the health of the child, and potential future life of the child against the termination of a human life.  This is going to be decided on a case by case basis.  I strongly believe that the one best suited to make this decision is the mother.  She is (after all) the person who will be legally responsible for the next 20 years of the life of the child.

Our society does not work really hard to believe that abortion is no big deal.  Why do you think that women are afraid to talk about their experiences?  Even in places where it's totally legal, this is still a very socially stigmatized issue.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #73 on: December 07, 2017, 07:28:28 AM »
And can you understand why for someone who does believe that a fetus is a human life (which is not so far-fetched) abortion is considered such a morally offensive act?
First, I agree the dog analogy is not a good one. If a starving baby were found I would not be ok with putting it down because that is entirely different than an elective abortion. When we say the fetus couldn't survive out of the womb we don't mean it couldn't take care of itself and find food if it was thrown out on the street, we mean it could not survive no matter how modern medicine intervenes.

Second, I would fully respect the decision to put down a malnourished stray dog. I don't like it, it makes me sad to think about, but if no one wants to care for an animal I don't think resources should be used to bring it back to health while healthy dogs are put down everyday for lack of people adopting.

I came to my conclusion that I supported the right to abortion at a young age and that decision was at odds with the opinion of the majority of people I grew up around. I do not think society has convinced me that abortion is acceptable. I respect your reasoning and absolutely I can understand why abortion would be morally offensive if a fetus were a human life, But my opinion is that a human life is made up of experiences, memories and emotions, not their potential to have these things.

Dee18

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1308
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #74 on: December 07, 2017, 07:49:02 AM »
Even if one believes abortion is a morally offensive act and one believes sexual acts on a minor are morally offensive, keep in mind only Roy Moore has committed one of those acts. His actions were also illegal. 

 

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #75 on: December 07, 2017, 07:49:34 AM »
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/938599893496684544

Quote
What Roy Moore's spox couldn't answer on @ac360
- whether Moore thinks Obama was born in US
- whether he thinks Muslims should be in Congress
- whether Moore thinks homosexuality should be outlawed
- whether 9/11 happened bc US distanced itself from God
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #76 on: December 07, 2017, 08:13:20 AM »
And I sincerely hope that anyone who is in the pro-life camp is fully 100% supportive of all social welfare programs like foster systems, SNAP, and comprehensive sex education in schools, as well as affordable and accessible birth control and funding public schools so kids of all incomes and backgrounds can have good education. Otherwise you're just dumping unwanted children into a system with less and less safety nets, social supports, etc to help them. In fact....I hope everybody in america is in agreement on the need for these programs!

This statement is so important.

Carrie

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #77 on: December 07, 2017, 08:18:30 AM »
As long as you have and endorse rapists and abusers,  such as DJT and RM, you absolutely cannot infringe on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

Of course, there are all the other reasons too, like it's none of your business, autonomy (and it's fucking legal, so there's that), etc, but what I brought up is a huge disconnect with conservatives. YOU CANNOT PROTECT RAPISTS and then act like abortion is a big deal.

I'm so done with these assholes.

grandep

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #78 on: December 07, 2017, 08:40:49 AM »
Have you considered that a woman is a human life, above and beyond a uterus?

Of course, and in no way do I neglect that fact. The statement that one must choose to honor the life of the mother OR the life of the unborn child is a false dichotomy, I think.

There has not been a single argument in this thread praising anyone for being a 'champion of liberal values' for getting an abortion.  You know why?  Because having an abortion isn't 'championing liberal values'.  It's a terrible choice that a woman sometimes has to make due to her circumstances.

Totally agree, and my intention is not and is never to try and shame someone who has had to go through such an experience. I would meet someone in that circumstance with nothing but compassion and grace.

I am not equating getting an abortion with liberal values, but it certainly has become a liberal value to defend a person's right to do so (see the Mayoral election in Omaha earlier this year where a pro-life Democrat was strong-armed into changing his views by the DNC). I don't generally disagree with this position either: I do not advocate legally removing a woman's right to get an abortion if she chooses. I am in the camp of people who supports the legal ability for a person to make their own decision in this matter, but personally feels opposed to it.

In my view, the best path forward is to retain legal access (especially in light of data from other countries that shows a negative correlation between access to abortion and abortion rates and maternal death rates) but work to reduce the necessity/demand of abortions. This is why I am a big advocate of easy access to birth control, good sex education, and cheaper and easier paths for adoption. It is endlessly frustrating to me that many of the frothing-at-the-mouth pro-lifers (such as Roy Moore and the fool who wrote the opening article) are often opposed to these things.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #79 on: December 07, 2017, 08:51:56 AM »
Purvi Patel threw her baby in the dumpster.

The attitude of "it is going to die anyway so why not take care now" makes no sense. Why do people thing that is acceptable? I can guess. I get it though if you are in that situation. Pregnant, you have told everyone about it, baby showers are planned, but you know the child won't be alive for long. It would be agonizing knowing they will die soon, or just not outlive you, the parent. That doesn't mean they should die immediately! I pray all the time that doesnt' happen to us; I would probably loose my mind. I had a nephew die of sids and my ex BIL, I think because of it, became an alcoholic.

I was actually thinking of the dog analogy before reading gpanders post. Seriously how disgusting are people that they just throw a baby/fetus into the biowaste disposal to go to the landfill. How about the pro-life people each adopt a child and help with job training to people below the poverty line and the pro-choice buy burial plots for the aborted.


Myself and I am sure most pro life are for anything that reduces "baby killing".  That probably amounts to getting as many teenagers out of poverty; not nearly as many wealthy suburbanite teenagers getting pregnant. When the time comes we will adopt, most likely multiples. Retiring by 35 was just a goal I came up with and was a decent username, without a huge unexpected windfall it won't happen. When I am FI, Ill quit my low paying job but won't quit working. Probably make sure those closest to me are secure in their homes and start a couple of business just for the sake of employing others with a decent and fulfilling environment. If I was a selfish jerk, I would just hunt and fish all day long and take trips; I am not perfect, by a long stretch so I am sure Ill do that some.

wenchsenior, and all- Yes, as I said in the beginning, abortion is completely different than any other political issue and really and other situation in life. It cannot compare to blood donation or homicide. There is no clear victim/perpetrator as there are in other situations.  A woman in a doctors office is only thinking of her situation at that moment(as in herself, the baby*, father, siblings everything that will happen surround the situation NOT how many other babies this happens to; see next sentence). But the fact is when we have 800k-1mil of these per year just in the US, it is genocide.

edits bolded-*you know what I mean
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 10:40:38 AM by hoping2retire35 »

PoutineLover

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #80 on: December 07, 2017, 08:57:49 AM »
As a woman, it is my firm belief that everyone has the right to make choices about their own bodies, and nobody has the right to make choices about other people's bodies. I am opposed to a man, who never has to go through a pregnancy, dictating what I do with my own body. Especially because pregnancy is no cake walk, and involves significant risks and changes to a woman's body. Nobody goes around having abortions just for fun. There is always a reason, and that reason is not subject to discussion by anyone other than the person getting the abortion and their doctor. The life of a fully formed, autonomous, free willed human being will always trump that potential human being. Men already have the right to choose whether they want to support the baby or not, but they don't get to choose what happens in my uterus.
Given the choice between a pedophile and a supporter of a woman's right to choose, I don't even understand why anyone is conflicted. The choice should be obvious. It's a testament to the republicans fucked up morals that this is even under discussion.

Carrie

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #81 on: December 07, 2017, 08:59:51 AM »
As a woman, it is my firm belief that everyone has the right to make choices about their own bodies, and nobody has the right to make choices about other people's bodies. I am opposed to a man, who never has to go through a pregnancy, dictating what I do with my own body. Especially because pregnancy is no cake walk, and involves significant risks and changes to a woman's body. Nobody goes around having abortions just for fun. There is always a reason, and that reason is not subject to discussion by anyone other than the person getting the abortion and their doctor. The life of a fully formed, autonomous, free willed human being will always trump that potential human being. Men already have the right to choose whether they want to support the baby or not, but they don't get to choose what happens in my uterus.
Given the choice between a pedophile and a supporter of a woman's right to choose, I don't even understand why anyone is conflicted. The choice should be obvious. It's a testament to the republicans fucked up morals that this is even under discussion.

Yes. All this.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #82 on: December 07, 2017, 09:09:55 AM »
it is genocide.

The Supreme Court determined otherwise.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #83 on: December 07, 2017, 09:16:04 AM »
it is genocide.

The Supreme Court determined otherwise.

Well, they determined that it isn't murder. It doesn't even make sense to call it genocide.

gen·o·cide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

It would be a large number but they are not of a particular group. I suspect some people like to throw words like genocide around to give their opinions more emotion.

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #84 on: December 07, 2017, 09:25:50 AM »
Have you considered that a woman is a human life, above and beyond a uterus?

Of course, and in no way do I neglect that fact. The statement that one must choose to honor the life of the mother OR the life of the unborn child is a false dichotomy, I think.

There has not been a single argument in this thread praising anyone for being a 'champion of liberal values' for getting an abortion.  You know why?  Because having an abortion isn't 'championing liberal values'.  It's a terrible choice that a woman sometimes has to make due to her circumstances.

Totally agree, and my intention is not and is never to try and shame someone who has had to go through such an experience. I would meet someone in that circumstance with nothing but compassion and grace.

I am not equating getting an abortion with liberal values, but it certainly has become a liberal value to defend a person's right to do so (see the Mayoral election in Omaha earlier this year where a pro-life Democrat was strong-armed into changing his views by the DNC). I don't generally disagree with this position either: I do not advocate legally removing a woman's right to get an abortion if she chooses. I am in the camp of people who supports the legal ability for a person to make their own decision in this matter, but personally feels opposed to it.

In my view, the best path forward is to retain legal access (especially in light of data from other countries that shows a negative correlation between access to abortion and abortion rates and maternal death rates) but work to reduce the necessity/demand of abortions. This is why I am a big advocate of easy access to birth control, good sex education, and cheaper and easier paths for adoption. It is endlessly frustrating to me that many of the frothing-at-the-mouth pro-lifers (such as Roy Moore and the fool who wrote the opening article) are often opposed to these things.

For the bolded part: there is a sliding scale. On one end are abortions where the women make a choice for personal reasons, on the other end of the scale you do have abortions for genuine medical reasons to prevent the mother from dying; severe infections, pre-eclampsia, organ failure, etc. But in between these extremes are the women who will be disabled for life, women who have to choose between important medication and keeping the fetus healthy, and women who will kill themselves if they are forced to carry the child any longer. Many of these women have other children at home, who will suffer if the mother is disabled or dead. In those cases, you are choosing between the life of the woman and the fetus.

For the last paragraph: Very few people are pro abortions. I think you describe what most "pro choice" people are feeling. But due to heated arguments and ice fronts, it is unfortunately very difficult to discuss this in a civil manner.

@hoping2retire35: It is very clear that you haven't been pregnant. I hope I'm misunderstanding what you are writing. But in case you really think it is right to force women to carry unviable fetuses to term:
The last trimester hurts, and it permanently alters (and in many cases damages) your body. I was on disability most of the second and third trimester with both kids, and those were normal pregnancies. I still can't walk stairs without pain, and my youngest is 9. Giving birth hurts. There is no way I would have subjected myself to all that for a fetus that was, for instance, senseless because it was missing most of it's brain, and would die the second you cut the cord. Removing that fetus at 20 weeks would make both the physical and mental process much easier.
SIDS is completely different.
Travelling to 71° Northern Latitude in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/

iowajes

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5308
  • Location: United States
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #85 on: December 07, 2017, 09:45:13 AM »
Purvi Patel threw her baby in the dumpster.

The attitude of "it is going to die anyway so why not take care now" makes no sense. Why do people thing that is acceptable? I can guess. I get it though if you are in that situation. Pregnant, you have told everyone about it, baby showers are planned, but you know the child won't be alive for long. It would be agonizing knowing they will die soon, or just not outlive you, the parent. That doesn't mean they should die immediately! I pray all the time that doesnt' happen to us; I would probably loose my mind. I had a nephew die of sids and my ex BIL, I think because of it, became an alcoholic.

She threw an already dead fetus into a dumpster. It was never a baby- she miscarried. It was not alive.  It was a poor choice, but in times of trauma people do not often make great choices.


I am so glad that you have never had to be in the situation of planning the baby you are carrying's funeral.  My 20 week ultrasound was normal except small growth. My 24 week ultrasound showed small growth and a cleft lip. My 25 week ultrasound showed 12 abnormalities, most of which are not survivable on their own, much less combined.  I went to 8 different specialists seeking information. The state considered my baby "viable" because he was already past 24 weeks. Not a single doctor did. Let me tell you this- non-viable babies often don't die the way we want them to. They don't always pass peacefully. When every medical professional you consult describes horrible painful death waiting your baby (because they have SEEN it), giving your baby who has never yet known pain in life a peaceful death in the womb is often what women feel is the best choice. Why should some politician feel that it is better to torture my baby with a few hours or days of life until they finally die?  How the hell is that pro-life?

This is without even considering that pregnancy and labor can be a life threatening condition, and you never know when it will turn that way. Every minute of carrying a child is a potential danger to a woman. Even if all is well, it is permanently altering to the woman. And while termination is not an easy choice, and women who terminate for medical reasons will likely need counseling (but so will women whose babies die for any other reason!), being forced to carry a child, who you are praying every day will die that day instead of making it to birth is psychological torture.

Your lack of empathy for the parents of this child, and for the quality of life of this child where your only purpose seems to be delivery is cruel.

Quote
A woman in a doctors office is only thinking of her situation at that moment.

Bullshit. You have no idea what you are talking about.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 10:05:18 AM by iowajes »

iowajes

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5308
  • Location: United States
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #86 on: December 07, 2017, 09:49:02 AM »
Sorry- not to flounce, but I really can't handle this anymore.

I am going to do my best to not return to this thread. 

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #87 on: December 07, 2017, 09:51:26 AM »
Sorry- not to flounce, but I really can't handle this anymore.

I am going to do my best to not return to this thread.

Thank you for your input, I've learned something from it.

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #88 on: December 07, 2017, 09:55:06 AM »
Sorry- not to flounce, but I really can't handle this anymore.

I am going to do my best to not return to this thread.
I'm so sorry you had to go through that. Your politicians sound downright cruel.
Travelling to 71° Northern Latitude in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #89 on: December 07, 2017, 10:01:46 AM »
The attitude of "it is going to die anyway so why not take care now" makes no sense. Why do people thing that is acceptable? I can guess. I get it though if you are in that situation. Pregnant, you have told everyone about it, baby showers are planned, but you know the child won't be alive for long. It would be agonizing knowing they will die soon, or just not outlive you, the parent. That doesn't mean they should die immediately! I pray all the time that doesnt' happen to us; I would probably loose my mind. I had a nephew die of sids and my ex BIL, I think because of it, became an alcoholic.

Right.  Bringing a baby into the world who will live for only a short period of time . . . That's a choice that you're willing to make based on your beliefs, situation, and experiences.

Now imagine that the law of the land says in those cases you have no choice . . . you have to abort.  It's immoral to bring a life into the world that will immediately die.  Feels pretty crappy, doesn't it?  Someone is deciding something very personal for you, without knowing anything about your situation, your beliefs, or your experiences.  Then they're telling you that everything you know and believe is wrong because of their view of morality.

That's exactly what you're trying to do when you take away a woman's choice to have an abortion.


wenchsenior, and all- Yes, as I said in the beginning, abortion is completely different than any other political issue and really and other situation in life. It cannot compare to blood donation or homicide. There is no clear victim/perpetrator as there are in other situations.

Who is the victim/perpetrator with blood donation?  Or organ donation after death?  There are many situations where even just a minor inconvenience on the part of one person would save lives.  People are allowed to choose what to do in these situations.  You've said repeatedly that abortion is different than all these situations but have yet to provide a reason why.


A woman in a doctors office is only thinking of her situation at that moment.

What exactly is giving you certainty that you know the thoughts of every woman who has ever had an abortion?  Isn't it reasonable to assume that a woman who knows her child will have a short life of agony is thinking of her child's situation, not her own desire to have a baby?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 10:03:19 AM by GuitarStv »

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #90 on: December 07, 2017, 10:37:32 AM »
Have you considered that a woman is a human life, above and beyond a uterus?

Of course, and in no way do I neglect that fact. The statement that one must choose to honor the life of the mother OR the life of the unborn child is a false dichotomy, I think.

There has not been a single argument in this thread praising anyone for being a 'champion of liberal values' for getting an abortion.  You know why?  Because having an abortion isn't 'championing liberal values'.  It's a terrible choice that a woman sometimes has to make due to her circumstances.

Totally agree, and my intention is not and is never to try and shame someone who has had to go through such an experience. I would meet someone in that circumstance with nothing but compassion and grace.

I am not equating getting an abortion with liberal values, but it certainly has become a liberal value to defend a person's right to do so (see the Mayoral election in Omaha earlier this year where a pro-life Democrat was strong-armed into changing his views by the DNC). I don't generally disagree with this position either: I do not advocate legally removing a woman's right to get an abortion if she chooses. I am in the camp of people who supports the legal ability for a person to make their own decision in this matter, but personally feels opposed to it.

In my view, the best path forward is to retain legal access (especially in light of data from other countries that shows a negative correlation between access to abortion and abortion rates and maternal death rates) but work to reduce the necessity/demand of abortions. This is why I am a big advocate of easy access to birth control, good sex education, and cheaper and easier paths for adoption. It is endlessly frustrating to me that many of the frothing-at-the-mouth pro-lifers (such as Roy Moore and the fool who wrote the opening article) are often opposed to these things.

For the bolded part: there is a sliding scale. On one end are abortions where the women make a choice for personal reasons, on the other end of the scale you do have abortions for genuine medical reasons to prevent the mother from dying; severe infections, pre-eclampsia, organ failure, etc. But in between these extremes are the women who will be disabled for life, women who have to choose between important medication and keeping the fetus healthy, and women who will kill themselves if they are forced to carry the child any longer. Many of these women have other children at home, who will suffer if the mother is disabled or dead. In those cases, you are choosing between the life of the woman and the fetus.

For the last paragraph: Very few people are pro abortions. I think you describe what most "pro choice" people are feeling. But due to heated arguments and ice fronts, it is unfortunately very difficult to discuss this in a civil manner.

@hoping2retire35: It is very clear that you haven't been pregnant. I hope I'm misunderstanding what you are writing. But in case you really think it is right to force women to carry unviable fetuses to term:
The last trimester hurts, and it permanently alters (and in many cases damages) your body. I was on disability most of the second and third trimester with both kids, and those were normal pregnancies. I still can't walk stairs without pain, and my youngest is 9. Giving birth hurts. There is no way I would have subjected myself to all that for a fetus that was, for instance, senseless because it was missing most of it's brain, and would die the second you cut the cord. Removing that fetus at 20 weeks would make both the physical and mental process much easier.
SIDS is completely different.

simply put, I am for not killing anyone that is not in some way necessary. Do no harm. If that can be achieved without 'forcing' a woman to carry a child I'll be 100% for it.

I still cannot understand (barring this discussion taking another tangential turn into completely different philosophy) why someone is ok with a late(r) term abortion. If there is a serious problem post ~ 24 weeks why not just induce the child and put them in the NICU. If they live, great!, if not so be it. No one would actually be causing harm and still giving the child as good or nearly as good of a chance of living.

iowajes

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5308
  • Location: United States
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #91 on: December 07, 2017, 10:48:02 AM »

simply put, I am for not killing anyone that is not in some way necessary. Do no harm. If that can be achieved without 'forcing' a woman to carry a child I'll be 100% for it.

I still cannot understand (barring this discussion taking another tangential turn into completely different philosophy) why someone is ok with a late(r) term abortion. If there is a serious problem post ~ 24 weeks why not just induce the child and put them in the NICU. If they live, great!, if not so be it. No one would actually be causing harm and still giving the child as good or nearly as good of a chance of living.

Oh dear god, I just cannot resist.

This IS what is done when there is a serious issue with the health of the mother. The child is delivered, if they can be.  Late pregnancies are not terminated carelessly.  Most "health of the mother" issues are well before 24 weeks.

When the issue is with the health of the child- harm IS caused by just delivering them.  First off- you can't just deliver a non-viable baby early, it isn't an option. There is no mechanism in place to say "I don't want to be pregnant anymore, let's deliver the baby and see how they do.

But let's say the woman goes through to 40 weeks, or goes into labor earlier, or her doctors agree to induce at 38, knowing she is waiting for her baby to die, praying it happens before the baby is born so s/he doesn't experience pain. Many of these non-viable children who are delivered to wait for them to die CAN feel pain. They feel tremendous pain. They suffocate or choke to death. They experience hundreds of seizures.  How is this not harm?  Stopping their heart in the womb prevents this suffering.  Oh- and the woman does still have to go through the pain of labor if it is in the third trimester.  Because once the baby reaches a certain size, a D&C isn't safe. The only way for the baby to get out is to induce labor.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 10:49:46 AM by iowajes »

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 678
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #92 on: December 07, 2017, 10:53:07 AM »
The issue of abortion rights is central to the inherent schizophrenia of the GOP.  Without the abortion issue, the GOP would be a far more coherent and capable force for restricting the power and size of government.  Unfortunately for small government conservatives, without a massive sprawling government interfering in every aspect of work and health, it would be impossible to enforce an abortion ban.  The inherent failure to compromise, especially by those who misconstrue their demands on this single issue for religious devotion, is an ongoing crippling force within the GOP.  One rational path forward is for the GOP to acknowledge that the nature of limited government means that some morally wrong actions cannot be regulated by government without unacceptable infringements on the liberty of its people.  Until such a reckoning occurs, GOP claims to be small government are inherently hypocritical.  You cannot be pro-life without also being pro-big government authoritarian.

As morally reprehensible as I find the idea of abortions for birth control, while I am free to terminate a relationship with any woman who aborts my child, I shouldn't have the right to force her to take it to term either.

I can believe it to be wrong while at the same time also believe that making abortions illegal is also wrong.  The Supreme Court was profoundly, thoroughly, right in the decisions here.

What is striking to me is that given the number of abortions and the demographics of those having abortions, and what effect those demographics have on outcomes, pro-choice advocates essentially fight to have fewer future members of their cause, while pro-life advocates fight to have more future opponents.

In any case, as difficult as the conversation is, there is some solace for Democrats in knowing that this issue is crippling for the GOP.  It is their greatest weakness, and the source of all significant Democratic victories since Roe v. Wade.  In a similar way to how the libertarian party would completely dissolve upon federal legalization of marijuwanna, the GOP would cease to exist as we know it if the abortion discussion ended either way, but I suppose so would the Democratic party, as one huge threat of having a massive, sprawling, powerful government that can give you all kinds of shit is that it can also take shit away and oppress you.

But that's none of my business...equal rights doesn't include giving men a voice in reproductive issues.
Notice is turned in! 35 days until FIRE!  I am excited and at the same time terrified!
Don't burn your bridges folks. 4 days prior to the date lost my home and rental property to Hurricane Harvey.  Still workin' Never quittin'

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #93 on: December 07, 2017, 11:11:55 AM »
@TheOldestYoungMan wrong. This is where this conversation just is becoming a bunch of noise and we are getting away from the central question.

What is governments basic domestic duty? Enforce justice; determine whether a situation was a homicide, manslaughter, or just an accident.  So abortions, barring something along the lines of 'self defense/avoiding a collision (ie. saving the life of the mother) someone is being killed who is not harming anyone, potentially, other than themselves.  So does our government do prosecute this when able? Do we ignore all murders? There is no clear cut victim/perp 'she strangled him'. This is not simply a matter of someone deciding about the health of their body but the universality of someone dying at the hands of another. It is the most basic reason we have laws and not anarchy.



Iowajes-I am trying to be objective about this; but it would still be unnecessary to kill someone due to their suffering. Seems others share your opinion in these matters, and I would hope that does not bridge to other situations if for no other reason than my own possible skin at some point!

iowajes

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5308
  • Location: United States
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #94 on: December 07, 2017, 11:21:16 AM »
Quote
Iowajes-I am trying to be objective about this; but it would still be unnecessary to kill someone due to their suffering. Seems others share your opinion in these matters, and I would hope that does not bridge to other situations if for no other reason than my own possible skin at some point!

Do you think it should be illegal to remove a child from life support after it becomes clear they will never be able to recover?
Do you think it should be illegal to allow someone to choose for their child to no longer be treated for a terminal illness and enter hospice instead?

When you are in care of a fetus, who is not yet alive, this is a very similar decision. Women make the choice to prevent the pain and suffering that will come.  Just like removing life support or entering hospice prevents dragging out an inevitable outcome. Because the child is suffering in the meantime. Except with a fetus, the suffering has not yet begun.

Now imagine (and this was not my situation as I was passed the legal limit) you have less than a day or even less than an hour  to make this decision because your state has put an arbitrary limit at 24- or 20- weeks and you just found out at your ultrasound.  I know many women who were in that position. You don't have time to get second opinions. You don't have time to collect all the data.

I have met many many women who have chosen to terminate or chosen to carry terminal babies.  Both have heartbreaking outcomes.  I suspect you know no one in either group based on your responses here.


I post not to change your mind. But maybe someone else's.  Late term termination is almost never about "they had enough time to make up their mind". These terminations are extraordinarily rare- but are nearly always wanted and loved babies.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #95 on: December 07, 2017, 11:29:21 AM »
Without the abortion issue, the GOP would be a far more coherent and capable force for restricting the power and size of government.

They haven't done this in their entire existence.  Not sure why the "abortion issue" is the one thing holding them up.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #96 on: December 07, 2017, 11:40:54 AM »
So abortions, barring something along the lines of 'self defense/avoiding a collision (ie. saving the life of the mother) someone is being killed who is not harming anyone, potentially, other than themselves.

This claim has been refuted several times in this thread.  Having a child can often be quite physically damaging to the mother - even if she survives.  Having a child who is going to live in agony and then immediately die can be very psychologically damaging to the mother.  I don't believe that the immaculate, painless delivery you seem to be envisioning is something that happens for most women.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1522
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #97 on: December 07, 2017, 11:57:15 AM »
Yes re: people can euthanize a healthy pet if they want to. They own the pet. Whether that is right or not, is another question. There was a recent story of a woman who brought her pet to be euthanized because it had serious, but not life terminating health condition. the vetenarian got in trouble because she told the owner she had put the dog down, but allowed one her her assistants to adopt it. The woman found out 6 months later, got the dog back from the person who was caring for it, and had it euthanized.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #98 on: December 07, 2017, 12:15:02 PM »
So abortions, barring something along the lines of 'self defense/avoiding a collision (ie. saving the life of the mother) someone is being killed who is not harming anyone, potentially, other than themselves.

This claim has been refuted several times in this thread.  Having a child can often be quite physically damaging to the mother - even if she survives.  Having a child who is going to live in agony and then immediately die can be very psychologically damaging to the mother.  I don't believe that the immaculate, painless delivery you seem to be envisioning is something that happens for most women.

Every claim made by h2r35 has been refuted at this point. He has ignored most of the information, both statistics and anecdotal situations that have been presented. He will not be changing his mind on this, not today at least.

If someone is in favor of forcing a women to carry a fetus to term with a) no chance of the baby's survival b) some chance of injury to the mother and c) some chance of pain and suffering for both mother and child, I'm not sure there's anything left to be said.

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
Re: Pervert versus Baby killer
« Reply #99 on: December 07, 2017, 12:19:45 PM »
@TheOldestYoungMan
I am trying to be objective about this; but it would still be unnecessary to kill someone due to their suffering. Seems others share your opinion in these matters, and I would hope that does not bridge to other situations if for no other reason than my own possible skin at some point!

I truely hope that if I ended up in a coma; deaf, blind, with most of my brain missing, and no way to ever survive without life support systems, that my loved ones will pull the plug as soon as possible, rather than dragging out the suffering.

What is happening with most late abortions requests, is that the regulations are forcing the women to act as life support systems for several months, for a fetus that never will be able to develop into a viable baby. As soon as the birth is induced, it will die. If you induce the birth at 20-36 weeks it is called an abortion, if you induce it at 36-42 weeks it is called a dead baby. Maybe it will live long enough to suffer for a few days, but often it will die during the birth or as soon as you cut the cord. Why do you argue for dragging out the process, when it only brings more pain to all involved?

It is even possible to delay births. That way you can keep these unviable fetuses on "natural" life support until they are 42, 43, maybe 44 weeks along. How long is long enough?
Travelling to 71° Northern Latitude in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/