Planned Parenthood leaked video (1 Viewer)

[[icon]]

The one thing that annoys me about the whole conversation is that those who are the most vocal against abortion are generally those who are also the most against policy that would effectively reduce the number of abortions.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/opinion/frum-abortion-reality/

At some point, if you're actually against abortions happening, don't you need to explore a way to reduce demand for abortions? Prohibition doesn't work, and global statistics bear that fact out. It seems that so many conservatives think that if it's illegal it'll just go away. It won't. It'll go to the back alley where you don't have to see it or hear about it, and more young, poor, vulnerable girls will die.

I think abortion is mostly unconscionable. But making it illegal and not providing financial support for mothers isn't going to do much (if anything) to reduce abortion. Unfortunately, most of the people who also think it's wrong are unwilling to do what it would take to reduce abortions. They'd rather spend the money blowing up Muslims.

Awesome post

And for the record, 80% of what I post on this forum is shtick, usually engineered to get a rise out of various folks.

The coat hanger jokes were in horrible taste, but they were made with intent... Outlawing abortion simply pushes women in need to less safe avenues. Anyone thinking "let's just outlaw it and it will go away" is kidding themselves.

 

[tommyboy]

New and Improved Super Chunky!

 

[SIDA!]

The one thing that annoys me about the whole conversation is that those who are the most vocal against abortion are generally those who are also the most against policy that would effectively reduce the number of abortions.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/opinion/frum-abortion-reality/

At some point, if you're actually against abortions happening, don't you need to explore a way to reduce demand for abortions? Prohibition doesn't work, and global statistics bear that fact out. It seems that so many conservatives think that if it's illegal it'll just go away. It won't. It'll go to the back alley where you don't have to see it or hear about it, and more young, poor, vulnerable girls will die.

I think abortion is mostly unconscionable. But making it illegal and not providing financial support for mothers isn't going to do much (if anything) to reduce abortion. Unfortunately, most of the people who also think it's wrong are unwilling to do what it would take to reduce abortions. They'd rather spend the money blowing up Muslims.

It's pretty common for people to support a certain position but be really ignorant of what the best solutions are. People are likely to support solutions that are simple and make some sense. Sometimes those solutions are wrong. Sometimes they're right.

So, can we enact mandatory birth control/temporary sterilization protocols for any person receiving welfare benefits? I am assuming this would reduce the number of abortions.

 

[(HULK)]

many pro-choice people believe as long as the baby is inside the mother, she can do with it as she wishes, including ending its existence.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of pro-choice people do you think believe that a mother should be able to "do with it as she wishes" so long as the unborn child is inside her womb? ie, taking this to its logical conclusion, an extremely late-term abortion.This is not a gotcha question and I have no idea as to the answer, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "many".

Isn't it illegal for a pregnant woman to get drunk and cause fetal alcohol syndrome? Cause that's doing as she wishes.

I dont think it is illegal.

*Our research identified no Federal statutes or regulations pertaining to a woman's alcohol consumption during pregnancy as a factor in child abuse/child neglect proceedings.

via the Alcohol Policy Information System

Wow, really?

It should be a crime to birth a child with fetal alcohol syndrome. That's f'd up.

 

[Todd Andrews]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

No, the conservative side is for protecting the rights of the unborn babies. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the first damn one.

Wrong. The pro-life position is the same as totalitarian China--the government has the power and authority to invasively control the reproductive decisions of citizens.

You are ant-libertarian.

 

[(HULK)]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

No, the conservative side is for protecting the rights of the unborn babies. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the first damn one.

Wrong. The pro-life position is the same as totalitarian China--the government has the power and authority to invasively control the reproductive decisions of citizens.

You are ant-libertarian.

I think painting with a broad brush isn't smart.

I can only speak for myself, but for me, it is about protecting the rights of the new human life.

 

[pantherclub]

And yet another abortion thread that just goes completely off the rails.

I have absolutely no clue why people lose their #### when talking about abortions.

 

[Todd Andrews]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

No, the conservative side is for protecting the rights of the unborn babies. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the first damn one.

Wrong. The pro-life position is the same as totalitarian China--the government has the power and authority to invasively control the reproductive decisions of citizens.

You are ant-libertarian.

I think painting with a broad brush isn't smart.

I can only speak for myself, but for me, it is about protecting the rights of the new human life.

It isnt a broad brush, though, it is a very very fine, small and specific brush. You either want to give the government the authority to mandate and legislate decisions about reproductive choices or you do not. In America the totalitarian anti-liberty types want to use the government to do that to women, while in China the totalitarian government makes reproductive choices for both men and women.

It is very simple: you either give the government that authority or you do not. And you can personally protect any "new human life" you want and can without giving the government that type of authority. If you are anti-abortion, do not have one. But imposing your views on other citizens through government authority is a tricky thing.

It is fascinating to me that people who claim to be pro-individual liberty want the government making those types of decisions for them. What about when we are overpopulated like China? What about if our elected reps decide certain types of male criminals shouldnt be able to reproduce?

Is the government going to give inheritance rights, wrongful death rights, and all of the myriad other legal rights of citizens in this country to all of those "new human lives" when they are genderless 5 week old fetuses? Because it will have to if you legally recognize its personhood.

 

[Jayrok]

I am pro-life but understand abortion in some cases. And I respect the wishes of the mother as well. I don't know the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human life.

My daughter and her husband are pregnant with my first grandchild and I've had the privilege of seeing video of the baby at 12-14 weeks old during an ultrasound. I can say without doubt that this child, between 3 and 4 months in the womb, is active and very much alive. He stretches his arms, kicks his legs and sucks his thumb. Previous ultrasounds were just pics. When I saw the video, my heart leaped when I saw my grandson moving around.

I can't imagine aborting a baby even in the late first trimester. But doing this and bartering over aborted body parts is just disgusting imo.

 

[(HULK)]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

No, the conservative side is for protecting the rights of the unborn babies. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the first damn one.

Wrong. The pro-life position is the same as totalitarian China--the government has the power and authority to invasively control the reproductive decisions of citizens.

You are ant-libertarian.

I think painting with a broad brush isn't smart.

I can only speak for myself, but for me, it is about protecting the rights of the new human life.

It isnt a broad brush, though, it is a very very fine, small and specific brush. You either want to give the government the authority to mandate and legislate decisions about reproductive choices or you do not. In America the totalitarian anti-liberty types want to use the government to do that to women, while in China the totalitarian government makes reproductive choices for both men and women.

It is very simple: you either give the government that authority or you do not. And you can personally protect any "new human life" you want and can without giving the government that type of authority. If you are anti-abortion, do not have one. But imposing your views on other citizens through government authority is a tricky thing.

It is fascinating to me that people who claim to be pro-individual liberty want the government making those types of decisions for them. What about when we are overpopulated like China? What about if our elected reps decide certain types of male criminals shouldnt be able to reproduce?

Is the government going to give inheritance rights, wrongful death rights, and all of the myriad other legal rights of citizens in this country to all of those "new human lives" when they are genderless 5 week old fetuses? Because it will have to if you legally recognize its personhood.

You're building a straw man there at the end, FYI.

I believe that ideally, the law exists to allow us to maximize our own freedoms without those freedoms infringing upon the rights of others. I believe human life starts at conception, and as such, it has the most basic of inherit freedoms this country is founded upon... the right to life.

This doesn't make me totalitarian at all. This just means that I have a different view of the rights due a fetus than you do. Again, I can't speak for others, but your brush got a bunch of paint on me that doesn't belong there.

 

[Hang 10]

I am pro-life but understand abortion in some cases. And I respect the wishes of the mother as well. I don't know the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human life.

My daughter and her husband are pregnant with my first grandchild and I've had the privilege of seeing video of the baby at 12-14 weeks old during an ultrasound. I can say without doubt that this child, between 3 and 4 months in the womb, is active and very much alive. He stretches his arms, kicks his legs and sucks his thumb. Previous ultrasounds were just pics. When I saw the video, my heart leaped when I saw my grandson moving around.

I can't imagine aborting a baby even in the late first trimester. But doing this and bartering over aborted body parts is just disgusting imo.

Exactly the point I was making yesterday. You have to completely turn a blind eye to modern medicine and science to say that baby in it's first trimester is not a baby. It's crazy.

 

[Todd Andrews]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

No, the conservative side is for protecting the rights of the unborn babies. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the first damn one.

Wrong. The pro-life position is the same as totalitarian China--the government has the power and authority to invasively control the reproductive decisions of citizens.

You are ant-libertarian.

I think painting with a broad brush isn't smart.

I can only speak for myself, but for me, it is about protecting the rights of the new human life.

It isnt a broad brush, though, it is a very very fine, small and specific brush. You either want to give the government the authority to mandate and legislate decisions about reproductive choices or you do not. In America the totalitarian anti-liberty types want to use the government to do that to women, while in China the totalitarian government makes reproductive choices for both men and women.

It is very simple: you either give the government that authority or you do not. And you can personally protect any "new human life" you want and can without giving the government that type of authority. If you are anti-abortion, do not have one. But imposing your views on other citizens through government authority is a tricky thing.

It is fascinating to me that people who claim to be pro-individual liberty want the government making those types of decisions for them. What about when we are overpopulated like China? What about if our elected reps decide certain types of male criminals shouldnt be able to reproduce?

Is the government going to give inheritance rights, wrongful death rights, and all of the myriad other legal rights of citizens in this country to all of those "new human lives" when they are genderless 5 week old fetuses? Because it will have to if you legally recognize its personhood.

You're building a straw man there at the end, FYI.

I believe that ideally, the law exists to allow us to maximize our own freedoms without those freedoms infringing upon the rights of others. I believe human life starts at conception, and as such, it has the most basic of inherit freedoms this country is founded upon... the right to life.

This doesn't make me totalitarian at all. This just means that I have a different view of the rights due a fetus than you do. Again, I can't speak for others, but your brush got a bunch of paint on me that doesn't belong there.

If you believe in using the government to infringe the rights of other citizens, you might be a little totalitarian....just saying.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-abortion. That is perfectly reasonable. The problem has to do with government authority and intrusion. So if you believe in that, maybe a little paint splatter belongs on you.

 

[pantherclub]

I am pro-life but understand abortion in some cases. And I respect the wishes of the mother as well. I don't know the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human life.

My daughter and her husband are pregnant with my first grandchild and I've had the privilege of seeing video of the baby at 12-14 weeks old during an ultrasound. I can say without doubt that this child, between 3 and 4 months in the womb, is active and very much alive. He stretches his arms, kicks his legs and sucks his thumb. Previous ultrasounds were just pics. When I saw the video, my heart leaped when I saw my grandson moving around.

I can't imagine aborting a baby even in the late first trimester. But doing this and bartering over aborted body parts is just disgusting imo.

Exactly the point I was making yesterday. You have to completely turn a blind eye to modern medicine and science to say that baby in it's first trimester is not a baby. It's crazy.

except that same baby couldnt survive outside the womb

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I am pro-life but understand abortion in some cases. And I respect the wishes of the mother as well. I don't know the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human life.

My daughter and her husband are pregnant with my first grandchild and I've had the privilege of seeing video of the baby at 12-14 weeks old during an ultrasound. I can say without doubt that this child, between 3 and 4 months in the womb, is active and very much alive. He stretches his arms, kicks his legs and sucks his thumb. Previous ultrasounds were just pics. When I saw the video, my heart leaped when I saw my grandson moving around.

I can't imagine aborting a baby even in the late first trimester. But doing this and bartering over aborted body parts is just disgusting imo.

Exactly the point I was making yesterday. You have to completely turn a blind eye to modern medicine and science to say that baby in it's first trimester is not a baby. It's crazy.

except that same baby couldnt survive outside the womb

He knows that. They are just emotional about it and want people to adhere to their sensibilities as such.

 

[Hang 10]

I am pro-life but understand abortion in some cases. And I respect the wishes of the mother as well. I don't know the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human life.

My daughter and her husband are pregnant with my first grandchild and I've had the privilege of seeing video of the baby at 12-14 weeks old during an ultrasound. I can say without doubt that this child, between 3 and 4 months in the womb, is active and very much alive. He stretches his arms, kicks his legs and sucks his thumb. Previous ultrasounds were just pics. When I saw the video, my heart leaped when I saw my grandson moving around.

I can't imagine aborting a baby even in the late first trimester. But doing this and bartering over aborted body parts is just disgusting imo.

Exactly the point I was making yesterday. You have to completely turn a blind eye to modern medicine and science to say that baby in it's first trimester is not a baby. It's crazy.

except that same baby couldnt survive outside the womb

No one has said otherwise.

 

[Jayrok]

I am pro-life but understand abortion in some cases. And I respect the wishes of the mother as well. I don't know the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human life.

My daughter and her husband are pregnant with my first grandchild and I've had the privilege of seeing video of the baby at 12-14 weeks old during an ultrasound. I can say without doubt that this child, between 3 and 4 months in the womb, is active and very much alive. He stretches his arms, kicks his legs and sucks his thumb. Previous ultrasounds were just pics. When I saw the video, my heart leaped when I saw my grandson moving around.

I can't imagine aborting a baby even in the late first trimester. But doing this and bartering over aborted body parts is just disgusting imo.

Exactly the point I was making yesterday. You have to completely turn a blind eye to modern medicine and science to say that baby in it's first trimester is not a baby. It's crazy.

except that same baby couldnt survive outside the womb

Are you saying that a life is only a life when it can survive on its own in the world?

 

[pantherclub]

I am pro-life but understand abortion in some cases. And I respect the wishes of the mother as well. I don't know the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human life.

My daughter and her husband are pregnant with my first grandchild and I've had the privilege of seeing video of the baby at 12-14 weeks old during an ultrasound. I can say without doubt that this child, between 3 and 4 months in the womb, is active and very much alive. He stretches his arms, kicks his legs and sucks his thumb. Previous ultrasounds were just pics. When I saw the video, my heart leaped when I saw my grandson moving around.

I can't imagine aborting a baby even in the late first trimester. But doing this and bartering over aborted body parts is just disgusting imo.

Exactly the point I was making yesterday. You have to completely turn a blind eye to modern medicine and science to say that baby in it's first trimester is not a baby. It's crazy.

except that same baby couldnt survive outside the womb

Are you saying that a life is only a life when it can survive on its own in the world?

thats a rather ambiguous question.

 

[(HULK)]

If you believe in using the government to infringe the rights of other citizens, you might be a little totalitarian....just saying.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-abortion. That is perfectly reasonable. The problem has to do with government authority and intrusion. So if you believe in that, maybe a little paint splatter belongs on you.

Do you believe it is okay for someone with Ebola to go to the premier of Star Wars VII? If you think the government should instead quarentine that person, you might be a little totalitarian.

If you support laws against drunk driving, you might be a little totalitarian.

I don't agree with your definition of totalitarianism and I doubt many do.

I was very clear about what I believe. The law exists to prevent the rights of one being from infringing upon another being. Abortion is the rights of the mother infringing upon the rights of the unborn, in my opinion. I understand others feel differently about wether the unborn is due or not due rights. But protecting the rights of one party against the rights of a second party is NOT totalitarianism... it is simply the absence of anarchy.

 

[(HULK)]

I am pro-life but understand abortion in some cases. And I respect the wishes of the mother as well. I don't know the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human life.

My daughter and her husband are pregnant with my first grandchild and I've had the privilege of seeing video of the baby at 12-14 weeks old during an ultrasound. I can say without doubt that this child, between 3 and 4 months in the womb, is active and very much alive. He stretches his arms, kicks his legs and sucks his thumb. Previous ultrasounds were just pics. When I saw the video, my heart leaped when I saw my grandson moving around.

I can't imagine aborting a baby even in the late first trimester. But doing this and bartering over aborted body parts is just disgusting imo.

Exactly the point I was making yesterday. You have to completely turn a blind eye to modern medicine and science to say that baby in it's first trimester is not a baby. It's crazy.

except that same baby couldnt survive outside the womb

Are you saying that a life is only a life when it can survive on its own in the world?

We already hashed this and it got hypothetical and went nowhere.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I guess one thing that bothers me about The BST host/parasite reasoning is that a baby hooked up to an incubator or other machine to survive also does not have the capacity to survive. The mere presence in the womb or outside it seems like a mythical distinction and also raises questions about the standard for why we allow others who require similar support to exist. Is "viability" a humanistic standard or a Malthusian one? BST this a serious philosophical question, do you have any other standard for determining the initial establishment of human rights and dignity aside from viability? If so please list them.

 

[Jayrok]

I am pro-life but understand abortion in some cases. And I respect the wishes of the mother as well. I don't know the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human life.

My daughter and her husband are pregnant with my first grandchild and I've had the privilege of seeing video of the baby at 12-14 weeks old during an ultrasound. I can say without doubt that this child, between 3 and 4 months in the womb, is active and very much alive. He stretches his arms, kicks his legs and sucks his thumb. Previous ultrasounds were just pics. When I saw the video, my heart leaped when I saw my grandson moving around.

I can't imagine aborting a baby even in the late first trimester. But doing this and bartering over aborted body parts is just disgusting imo.

Exactly the point I was making yesterday. You have to completely turn a blind eye to modern medicine and science to say that baby in it's first trimester is not a baby. It's crazy.

except that same baby couldnt survive outside the womb

Are you saying that a life is only a life when it can survive on its own in the world?

thats a rather ambiguous question.

I'm just trying to understand your stance on the subject. Even babies that are outside the womb can't survive without help. Do you have a cutoff that you're comfortable with regarding abortion time limits?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

If you believe in using the government to infringe the rights of other citizens, you might be a little totalitarian....just saying.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-abortion. That is perfectly reasonable. The problem has to do with government authority and intrusion. So if you believe in that, maybe a little paint splatter belongs on you.

Do you believe it is okay for someone with Ebola to go to the premier of Star Wars VII? If you think the government should instead quarentine that person, you might be a little totalitarian.

If you support laws against drunk driving, you might be a little totalitarian.

I don't agree with your definition of totalitarianism and I doubt many do.

I was very clear about what I believe. The law exists to prevent the rights of one being from infringing upon another being. Abortion is the rights of the mother infringing upon the rights of the unborn, in my opinion. I understand others feel differently about wether the unborn is due or not due rights. But protecting the rights of one party against the rights of a second party is NOT totalitarianism... it is simply the absence of anarchy.

Okay so on the flip side, forced abortions,, those wouldnt be totalitarian?

Either way is.

And often times your rights end at the the other persons nose (ebola at the theater, drunk driving) ... where as the fetus is not a person. The mother is, however.

 

[Jayrok]

I am pro-life but understand abortion in some cases. And I respect the wishes of the mother as well. I don't know the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human life.

My daughter and her husband are pregnant with my first grandchild and I've had the privilege of seeing video of the baby at 12-14 weeks old during an ultrasound. I can say without doubt that this child, between 3 and 4 months in the womb, is active and very much alive. He stretches his arms, kicks his legs and sucks his thumb. Previous ultrasounds were just pics. When I saw the video, my heart leaped when I saw my grandson moving around.

I can't imagine aborting a baby even in the late first trimester. But doing this and bartering over aborted body parts is just disgusting imo.

Exactly the point I was making yesterday. You have to completely turn a blind eye to modern medicine and science to say that baby in it's first trimester is not a baby. It's crazy.

except that same baby couldnt survive outside the womb

Are you saying that a life is only a life when it can survive on its own in the world?

We already hashed this and it got hypothetical and went nowhere.

ah.. I haven't read the whole thread. thanks.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I guess one thing that bothers me about The BST host/parasite reasoning is that a baby hooked up to an incubator or other machine to survive also does not have the capacity to survive. The mere presence in the womb or outside it seems like a mythical distinction and also raises questions about the standard for why we allow others who require similar support to exist. Is "viability" a humanistic standard or a Malthusian one? BST this a serious philosophical question, do you have any other standard for determining the initial establishment of human rights and dignity aside from viability? If so please list them.

Its outside? Those are no longer her rights and her body.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I can't imagine aborting a baby even in the late first trimester. But doing this and bartering over aborted body parts is just disgusting imo.

Did you watch the second video? As someone who constantly battles with my own position on abortion, I was expecting to watch it and be horrified and disgusted and call for the woman's firing. But....in my opinion, it was so much more tame than you'd think from the public outcry. She says a number of times that it's purely in the interest of science and with the mother's consent, and that she doesn't have a number in mind because she hasn't negotiated a price, if you will, in such a long time. She did make some terrible cringe-worthy comments (Lamborghini joke, "crunchy" comment) that make her look somewhat callous, but it really comes off to me like a medical professional discussing compensation for transportation of tissue - again, with consent of the mother. I was expecting to see some heartless, cruel woman...and that's not what I saw. Just my two cents.

 

[Jayrok]

If you believe in using the government to infringe the rights of other citizens, you might be a little totalitarian....just saying.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-abortion. That is perfectly reasonable. The problem has to do with government authority and intrusion. So if you believe in that, maybe a little paint splatter belongs on you.

Do you believe it is okay for someone with Ebola to go to the premier of Star Wars VII? If you think the government should instead quarentine that person, you might be a little totalitarian.

If you support laws against drunk driving, you might be a little totalitarian.

I don't agree with your definition of totalitarianism and I doubt many do.

I was very clear about what I believe. The law exists to prevent the rights of one being from infringing upon another being. Abortion is the rights of the mother infringing upon the rights of the unborn, in my opinion. I understand others feel differently about wether the unborn is due or not due rights. But protecting the rights of one party against the rights of a second party is NOT totalitarianism... it is simply the absence of anarchy.

Okay so on the flip side, forced abortions,, those wouldnt be totalitarian?

Either way is.

And often times your rights end at the the other persons nose (ebola at the theater, drunk driving) ... where as the fetus is not a person. The mother is, however.

Are you talking about a fetus or an embryo? What, in your words, defines a person?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I guess one thing that bothers me about The BST host/parasite reasoning is that a baby hooked up to an incubator or other machine to survive also does not have the capacity to survive. The mere presence in the womb or outside it seems like a mythical distinction and also raises questions about the standard for why we allow others who require similar support to exist. Is "viability" a humanistic standard or a Malthusian one? BST this a serious philosophical question, do you have any other standard for determining the initial establishment of human rights and dignity aside from viability? If so please list them.

Its outside? Those are no longer her rights and her body.

And then the child's rights magically begin? You sound like a Catholic Bishop.

I suppose the hospital or facility that owns the machine or incubator to which a sick baby is connected after birth is then the holder of the rights?

And I suppose this extends to the elderly and other sicker persons who are similarly unable to care for themselves are are hooked up to machines for viability, their rights are then transferred to the owner of the machine which ensures their survival?

 

[Hang 10]

BST,

So if the Supreme Court tomorrow decides to grant personhood and all the rights associated with it to unborn babies, how does this change your stance? You seem to be cool with whatever the law decides but doesn't this create a moral dilemma for you?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

If you believe in using the government to infringe the rights of other citizens, you might be a little totalitarian....just saying.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-abortion. That is perfectly reasonable. The problem has to do with government authority and intrusion. So if you believe in that, maybe a little paint splatter belongs on you.

Do you believe it is okay for someone with Ebola to go to the premier of Star Wars VII? If you think the government should instead quarentine that person, you might be a little totalitarian.

If you support laws against drunk driving, you might be a little totalitarian.

I don't agree with your definition of totalitarianism and I doubt many do.

I was very clear about what I believe. The law exists to prevent the rights of one being from infringing upon another being. Abortion is the rights of the mother infringing upon the rights of the unborn, in my opinion. I understand others feel differently about wether the unborn is due or not due rights. But protecting the rights of one party against the rights of a second party is NOT totalitarianism... it is simply the absence of anarchy.

Okay so on the flip side, forced abortions,, those wouldnt be totalitarian?

Either way is.

And often times your rights end at the the other persons nose (ebola at the theater, drunk driving) ... where as the fetus is not a person. The mother is, however.

Are you talking about a fetus or an embryo? What, in your words, defines a person?

The law, obviously. A conclusion by society that it is afforded the rights of all other citizens.

Or if what you are looking for a ... outside of the host and alive. It then gets the full weight of societies protections.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I guess one thing that bothers me about The BST host/parasite reasoning is that a baby hooked up to an incubator or other machine to survive also does not have the capacity to survive. The mere presence in the womb or outside it seems like a mythical distinction and also raises questions about the standard for why we allow others who require similar support to exist. Is "viability" a humanistic standard or a Malthusian one? BST this a serious philosophical question, do you have any other standard for determining the initial establishment of human rights and dignity aside from viability? If so please list them.

Its outside? Those are no longer her rights and her body.

And then the child's rights magically begin? You sound like a Catholic Bishop.

I suppose the hospital or facility that owns the machine or incubator to which a sick baby is connected after birth is then the holder of the rights?

And I suppose this extends to the elderly and other sicker persons who are similarly unable to care for themselves are are hooked up to machines for viability, their rights are then transferred to the owner of the machine which ensures their survival?

Its not magical. Its afforded to him by society as a person. You said human rights.

 

[Jayrok]

I can't imagine aborting a baby even in the late first trimester. But doing this and bartering over aborted body parts is just disgusting imo.

Did you watch the second video? As someone who constantly battles with my own position on abortion, I was expecting to watch it and be horrified and disgusted and call for the woman's firing. But....in my opinion, it was so much more tame than you'd think from the public outcry. She says a number of times that it's purely in the interest of science and with the mother's consent, and that she doesn't have a number in mind because she hasn't negotiated a price, if you will, in such a long time. She did make some terrible cringe-worthy comments (Lamborghini joke, "crunchy" comment) that make her look somewhat callous, but it really comes off to me like a medical professional discussing compensation for transportation of tissue - again, with consent of the mother. I was expecting to see some heartless, cruel woman...and that's not what I saw. Just my two cents.

I don't think the doctor is some monster harvesting for profit. And I do believe she looks at it for its scientific value. If it becomes common for these types of exchanges to occur in abortion clinics, is there a point where it could go too far? I mean, could a market develop for girls/women to just become pregnant so they can let the internal organs develop to a point and then abort so they could sell to the doctors? Could that ever be an accepted mainstream practice? Wouldnt' surprise me if it is already a practice on the black market.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I guess one thing that bothers me about The BST host/parasite reasoning is that a baby hooked up to an incubator or other machine to survive also does not have the capacity to survive. The mere presence in the womb or outside it seems like a mythical distinction and also raises questions about the standard for why we allow others who require similar support to exist. Is "viability" a humanistic standard or a Malthusian one? BST this a serious philosophical question, do you have any other standard for determining the initial establishment of human rights and dignity aside from viability? If so please list them.

Its outside? Those are no longer her rights and her body.

And then the child's rights magically begin? You sound like a Catholic Bishop.

I suppose the hospital or facility that owns the machine or incubator to which a sick baby is connected after birth is then the holder of the rights?

And I suppose this extends to the elderly and other sicker persons who are similarly unable to care for themselves are are hooked up to machines for viability, their rights are then transferred to the owner of the machine which ensures their survival?

Its not magical. Its afforded to him by society as a person. You said human rights.

Society affords rights by vote, as in by the legislature and by referendum. I guess if society decides that fetuses have rights then society can do that. Do you agree?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

BST,

So if the Supreme Court tomorrow decides to grant personhood and all the rights associated with it to unborn babies, how does this change your stance? You seem to be cool with whatever the law decides but doesn't this create a moral dilemma for you?

Ill fight against it. And accept it until its changed.

I wont go nefarious and try to force my sensibilities on others to undermine the laws and ruin families, doctors and clinics (like conservatives do).

Ill flatly move to get that personhood revoked on the basis of the mothers right to her own body and own decisions.

Because now every single miscarriage must be investigated and every single woman will then be guilty of a whole host of crimes (incl murder) an that person is entitled to be treated as such.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Furthermore...

So Life in Prison or possibly Execution.

Thats 43% of American women that would be Executed or put in Prison for Life.

And thats ONLY counting Abortions. Not miscarriages. Maybe up to 65% of all American women.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

No, the conservative side is for protecting the rights of the unborn babies. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the first damn one.

Wrong. The pro-life position is the same as totalitarian China--the government has the power and authority to invasively control the reproductive decisions of citizens.

You are ant-libertarian.

I think painting with a broad brush isn't smart.

I can only speak for myself, but for me, it is about protecting the rights of the new human life.

It isnt a broad brush, though, it is a very very fine, small and specific brush. You either want to give the government the authority to mandate and legislate decisions about reproductive choices or you do not. In America the totalitarian anti-liberty types want to use the government to do that to women, while in China the totalitarian government makes reproductive choices for both men and women.

It is very simple: you either give the government that authority or you do not. And you can personally protect any "new human life" you want and can without giving the government that type of authority. If you are anti-abortion, do not have one. But imposing your views on other citizens through government authority is a tricky thing.

It is fascinating to me that people who claim to be pro-individual liberty want the government making those types of decisions for them. What about when we are overpopulated like China? What about if our elected reps decide certain types of male criminals shouldnt be able to reproduce?

Is the government going to give inheritance rights, wrongful death rights, and all of the myriad other legal rights of citizens in this country to all of those "new human lives" when they are genderless 5 week old fetuses? Because it will have to if you legally recognize its personhood.

You're building a straw man there at the end, FYI.

I believe that ideally, the law exists to allow us to maximize our own freedoms without those freedoms infringing upon the rights of others. I believe human life starts at conception, and as such, it has the most basic of inherit freedoms this country is founded upon... the right to life.

This doesn't make me totalitarian at all. This just means that I have a different view of the rights due a fetus than you do. Again, I can't speak for others, but your brush got a bunch of paint on me that doesn't belong there.

If you believe in using the government to infringe the rights of other citizens, you might be a little totalitarian....just saying.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-abortion. That is perfectly reasonable. The problem has to do with government authority and intrusion. So if you believe in that, maybe a little paint splatter belongs on you.

The right to control one's body - which i agree with - would make more sense if government did not do this in other areas. Under the ACA the government can regulate surgical procedures, tests, costs and affect availability of every surgery or procedure that exists. Under the ACA a person can be compelled via the tax amendment to purchase health insurance. In CA, the psychiatric treatment of gays to change their orientation has been outlawed on the basis that it is immoral. I'm not challenging any of those decisions, but the idea that government has no authority or capacity for intrusion into personal medical decisions has been completely waived.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You're wrong on the percentage, because if the laws were different, 1) women would be more careful in preventing pregnancy, and 2) Women would be less appt to exterminate a life for convenience sake..

Nope. Just like abstinence.ROME, Oct. 11 — A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely.

The results of the study, a collaboration between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group, are being published Friday in the journal Lancet.

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

You would only make it worse.

 

[Todd Andrews]

If you believe in using the government to infringe the rights of other citizens, you might be a little totalitarian....just saying.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-abortion. That is perfectly reasonable. The problem has to do with government authority and intrusion. So if you believe in that, maybe a little paint splatter belongs on you.

Do you believe it is okay for someone with Ebola to go to the premier of Star Wars VII? If you think the government should instead quarentine that person, you might be a little totalitarian.

If you support laws against drunk driving, you might be a little totalitarian.

I don't agree with your definition of totalitarianism and I doubt many do.

I was very clear about what I believe. The law exists to prevent the rights of one being from infringing upon another being. Abortion is the rights of the mother infringing upon the rights of the unborn, in my opinion. I understand others feel differently about wether the unborn is due or not due rights. But protecting the rights of one party against the rights of a second party is NOT totalitarianism... it is simply the absence of anarchy.

Im pretty sure supporting laws against drunk driving dont really fall into the same category as those mandating a woman carry a child she does not want to carry through birth.

This article pretty much sums up my views on abortion:

From the beginning, the right of abortion should have been rooted in the liberal rights of the individual and the equality of the right to self-defense. Those who support abortion should advance the principle that abortion is a component of a women's sovereign right of self-defense of her life against unwanted violations of her body, just as every man has the sovereign right to defend his life against aggression from muggers, thieves or politicians, by using whatever amount of coercive force is necessary to repulse the attack on his life or property.

On the other side, the anti-abortion argument centered on a "right to life" is somewhat nebulous. A right to life can only mean a right to exist free from aggressions against oneself, one's life and one's property. But this same "right to life" concept if claimed on behalf of a child in the womb by an outside agency, against the will of the mother, is committing aggression and violating the self-same "right to life" that conservative pro-lifers hail as their reason for intervening.

As Professor Judith Jarvis Thompson wrote more than 30 years ago in A Defense of Abortion, "Having the right to life does not guarantee either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person's body -- even if one needs it for life itself."

 

[BigSteelThrill]

1. So we know the laws making legal/illegal make no difference.

But we will put our women (some 43-65%) into jail or executed for making these decisions or having accidents.
Literally half of our women (and girls?) would disappear off the streets.
And you must investigate every single occurrence.
Because anything less would not be giving personhood rights and protections to these fetus/embryos.

 

[(HULK)]

If you believe in using the government to infringe the rights of other citizens, you might be a little totalitarian....just saying.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-abortion. That is perfectly reasonable. The problem has to do with government authority and intrusion. So if you believe in that, maybe a little paint splatter belongs on you.

Do you believe it is okay for someone with Ebola to go to the premier of Star Wars VII? If you think the government should instead quarentine that person, you might be a little totalitarian.

If you support laws against drunk driving, you might be a little totalitarian.

I don't agree with your definition of totalitarianism and I doubt many do.

I was very clear about what I believe. The law exists to prevent the rights of one being from infringing upon another being. Abortion is the rights of the mother infringing upon the rights of the unborn, in my opinion. I understand others feel differently about wether the unborn is due or not due rights. But protecting the rights of one party against the rights of a second party is NOT totalitarianism... it is simply the absence of anarchy.

Okay so on the flip side, forced abortions,, those wouldnt be totalitarian?

Either way is.

And often times your rights end at the the other persons nose (ebola at the theater, drunk driving) ... where as the fetus is not a person. The mother is, however.

Yes, but in my view, the fetus is a person.

That is the absolute distinction of importance in this discussion.

Calling all pro-lifers totalitarian is not only inaccurate, its off target.

 

[Hang 10]

BST,

So if the Supreme Court tomorrow decides to grant personhood and all the rights associated with it to unborn babies, how does this change your stance? You seem to be cool with whatever the law decides but doesn't this create a moral dilemma for you?

Ill fight against it. And accept it until its changed.

I wont go nefarious and try to force my sensibilities on others to undermine the laws and ruin families, doctors and clinics (like conservatives do).

Ill flatly move to get that personhood revoked on the basis of the mothers right to her own body and own decisions.

Because now every single miscarriage must be investigated and every single woman will then be guilty of a whole host of crimes (incl murder) an that person is entitled to be treated as such.

Yikes, you would fight for the right to kill babies?

 

[Todd Andrews]

The right to control one's body - which i agree with - would make more sense if government did not do this in other areas. Under the ACA the government can regulate surgical procedures, tests, costs and affect availability of every surgery or procedure that exists. Under the ACA a person can be compelled via the tax amendment to purchase health insurance. In CA, the psychiatric treatment of gays to change their orientation has been outlawed on the basis that it is immoral. I'm not challenging any of those decisions, but the idea that government has no authority or capacity for intrusion into personal medical decisions has been completely waived.

So we have have already conceded that the government can force mandatory vasectomies or tube tying to control population growth, and granted it that authority?

I dont think so.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I can't imagine aborting a baby even in the late first trimester. But doing this and bartering over aborted body parts is just disgusting imo.

Did you watch the second video? As someone who constantly battles with my own position on abortion, I was expecting to watch it and be horrified and disgusted and call for the woman's firing. But....in my opinion, it was so much more tame than you'd think from the public outcry. She says a number of times that it's purely in the interest of science and with the mother's consent, and that she doesn't have a number in mind because she hasn't negotiated a price, if you will, in such a long time. She did make some terrible cringe-worthy comments (Lamborghini joke, "crunchy" comment) that make her look somewhat callous, but it really comes off to me like a medical professional discussing compensation for transportation of tissue - again, with consent of the mother. I was expecting to see some heartless, cruel woman...and that's not what I saw. Just my two cents.

I don't think the doctor is some monster harvesting for profit. And I do believe she looks at it for its scientific value. If it becomes common for these types of exchanges to occur in abortion clinics, is there a point where it could go too far? I mean, could a market develop for girls/women to just become pregnant so they can let the internal organs develop to a point and then abort so they could sell to the doctors? Could that ever be an accepted mainstream practice? Wouldnt' surprise me if it is already a practice on the black market.

I suppose that could happen, but I have enough faith in the Planned Parenthood organization to hope that they would not condone any such behavior. I would be stunned and saddened if they were found to engage in the bolded.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The right to control one's body - which i agree with - would make more sense if government did not do this in other areas. Under the ACA the government can regulate surgical procedures, tests, costs and affect availability of every surgery or procedure that exists. Under the ACA a person can be compelled via the tax amendment to purchase health insurance. In CA, the psychiatric treatment of gays to change their orientation has been outlawed on the basis that it is immoral. I'm not challenging any of those decisions, but the idea that government has no authority or capacity for intrusion into personal medical decisions has been completely waived.

So we have have already conceded that the government can force mandatory vasectomies or tube tying to control population growth, and granted it that authority?

I dont think so.

Well, I think under the law if the government decided to tax men who did not have those procedures, yes, it's been determined that would be constitutionally acceptable. Hence the word "mandate."

 

[BigSteelThrill]

BST,

So if the Supreme Court tomorrow decides to grant personhood and all the rights associated with it to unborn babies, how does this change your stance? You seem to be cool with whatever the law decides but doesn't this create a moral dilemma for you?

Ill fight against it. And accept it until its changed.

I wont go nefarious and try to force my sensibilities on others to undermine the laws and ruin families, doctors and clinics (like conservatives do).

Ill flatly move to get that personhood revoked on the basis of the mothers right to her own body and own decisions.

Because now every single miscarriage must be investigated and every single woman will then be guilty of a whole host of crimes (incl murder) an that person is entitled to be treated as such.

Yikes, you would fight for the right to kill babies?

Ill fight for the right of the woman to remain in control of her own body and make her decisions for herself. Including her pregnancy.

If you/somebody tried to usurp my right (as a man) to make my own decisions... I would be willing to kill people over it.

 

[(HULK)]

Do we all agree that abortions are unfortunate and wish they were less common?

Can we at least agree on this?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

BST,

So if the Supreme Court tomorrow decides to grant personhood and all the rights associated with it to unborn babies, how does this change your stance? You seem to be cool with whatever the law decides but doesn't this create a moral dilemma for you?

Ill fight against it. And accept it until its changed.

I wont go nefarious and try to force my sensibilities on others to undermine the laws and ruin families, doctors and clinics (like conservatives do).

Ill flatly move to get that personhood revoked on the basis of the mothers right to her own body and own decisions.

Because now every single miscarriage must be investigated and every single woman will then be guilty of a whole host of crimes (incl murder) an that person is entitled to be treated as such.

Yikes, you would fight for the right to kill babies?

Ill fight for the right of the woman to remain in control of her own body and make her decisions for herself. Including her pregnancy.

If you/somebody tried to usurp my right (as a man) to make my own decisions... I would be willing to kill people over it.

And if your body was hooked up to a machine that fed you and sustained you? Would you hand over the right to make decisions to the person who controlled the machine?

 

[pantherclub]

Do we all agree that abortions are unfortunate and wish they were less common?

Can we at least agree on this?

hell no

 

[BigSteelThrill]

BST,

So if the Supreme Court tomorrow decides to grant personhood and all the rights associated with it to unborn babies, how does this change your stance? You seem to be cool with whatever the law decides but doesn't this create a moral dilemma for you?

Ill fight against it. And accept it until its changed.

I wont go nefarious and try to force my sensibilities on others to undermine the laws and ruin families, doctors and clinics (like conservatives do).

Ill flatly move to get that personhood revoked on the basis of the mothers right to her own body and own decisions.

Because now every single miscarriage must be investigated and every single woman will then be guilty of a whole host of crimes (incl murder) an that person is entitled to be treated as such.

Yikes, you would fight for the right to kill babies?

Ill fight for the right of the woman to remain in control of her own body and make her decisions for herself. Including her pregnancy.

If you/somebody tried to usurp my right (as a man) to make my own decisions... I would be willing to kill people over it.

And if your body was hooked up to a machine that fed you and sustained you? Would you hand over the right to make decisions to the person who controlled the machine?

I dont care, that's not the discussion at hand. Start another thread.

 

[Hang 10]

BST,

So if the Supreme Court tomorrow decides to grant personhood and all the rights associated with it to unborn babies, how does this change your stance? You seem to be cool with whatever the law decides but doesn't this create a moral dilemma for you?

Ill fight against it. And accept it until its changed.

I wont go nefarious and try to force my sensibilities on others to undermine the laws and ruin families, doctors and clinics (like conservatives do).

Ill flatly move to get that personhood revoked on the basis of the mothers right to her own body and own decisions.

Because now every single miscarriage must be investigated and every single woman will then be guilty of a whole host of crimes (incl murder) an that person is entitled to be treated as such.

Yikes, you would fight for the right to kill babies?

Ill fight for the right of the woman to remain in control of her own body and make her decisions for herself. Including her pregnancy.

If you/somebody tried to usurp my right (as a man) to make my own decisions... I would be willing to kill people over it.

Then why did you ever cite the law as some kind of proof of something? You are all over the map here. The only thing I know is that you are depraved a individual that has no problems killing unborn babies, including viable ones. The kinda guy that compares babies in the womb to ear wax. Sad.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

1. So we know the laws making legal/illegal make no difference.
2. But we will put our women (some 43-65%) into jail or executed for making these decisions or having accidents.
3. Literally half of our women (and girls?) would disappear off the streets.
4. And you must investigate every single occurrence.
5. Because anything less would not be giving personhood rights and protections to these fetus/embryos.