PDA

View Full Version : Phank on "truly terrible political policy"



Cow Poke
01-27-2014, 04:54 PM
Rather than derail the Wendy Davis thread, I would like to know why Phank believes that Texas Senate Bill 5 is "truly terrible political policy".


As far as I can tell, Davis became newsworthy for mounting a well-covered effort to filibuster away a truly terrible political policy. But perhaps most people here simply cannot grasp any difference between hating the policy, and hating the person promoting it.



My sincere apologies to Whag --- MY error!

rogue06
01-27-2014, 04:56 PM
As your quote shows that was phank who said it and not whag :bonk:

Cow Poke
01-27-2014, 04:57 PM
As your quote shows that was phank who said it and not whag :bonk:

I am TERRIBLY sorry -- my fault... do you have mod powers to fix it?

rogue06
01-27-2014, 05:02 PM
Nope. Still seriously pondering if I even want to become a mod again.

phank
01-27-2014, 06:15 PM
Rather than derail the Wendy Davis thread, I would like to know why Phank believes that Texas Senate Bill 5 is "truly terrible political policy".

Well, see, I'm a firm believer in individual rights and liberties. Freedom. Stuff like that. So if I see what I regard as individual rights being whittled away, I consider that bad policy.

I see this happening in two places: abortion and gun ownership. Since both have been declared individual rights, and since there are strong lobbies against these rights, we see what I regard as disturbing trends toward ideological limitations. What kind of "liberty" is it, if you are free to buy a gun, except you just can't carry it or have it when you need it? What good is the right to an abortion if nobody can legally provide one? If we do not fight to protect our rights against those who would take them away from us because they don't think our rights are good for us, we will lose them. And that's what Texas was trying to do (and I guess they succeeded).

And as I read it, the goal of such infringements isn't to improve society incrementally, but rather to eliminate our rights altogether. The incremental approach is bad policy because it pretends to be an upgrade, a modest improvement, but that's not what it is at all. The gun-grabbers want to eliminate ALL guns and make ownership illegal and do door-to-door confiscation. The anti-abortion fanatics want to eliminate ALL abortions. So the pious claim that "we're only trying to make things safer" is a crock. They're trying to strip our rights away, one step at a time.

Cow Poke
01-27-2014, 06:25 PM
Well, see, I'm a firm believer in individual rights and liberties. Freedom. Stuff like that. So if I see what I regard as individual rights being whittled away, I consider that bad policy.

I see this happening in two places: abortion and gun ownership. Since both have been declared individual rights, and since there are strong lobbies against these rights, we see what I regard as disturbing trends toward ideological limitations. What kind of "liberty" is it, if you are free to buy a gun, except you just can't carry it or have it when you need it? What good is the right to an abortion if nobody can legally provide one? If we do not fight to protect our rights against those who would take them away from us because they don't think our rights are good for us, we will lose them. And that's what Texas was trying to do (and I guess they succeeded).

And as I read it, the goal of such infringements isn't to improve society incrementally, but rather to eliminate our rights altogether. The incremental approach is bad policy because it pretends to be an upgrade, a modest improvement, but that's not what it is at all. The gun-grabbers want to eliminate ALL guns and make ownership illegal and do door-to-door confiscation. The anti-abortion fanatics want to eliminate ALL abortions. So the pious claim that "we're only trying to make things safer" is a crock. They're trying to strip our rights away, one step at a time.

OK, thanks.

Now, how do you reconcile (if you do) the fact that ONE of those "rights" (abortion) necessarily ends in the death of a human being, and the other does not.

And I might add that the "abortion rights" group is fighting just as hard to make all abortions LEGAL as the "right to life" groups are to make them illegal. :shrug: There are, of course, some more moderate positions on both sides. Some right to life folks who do not contest abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger, or perhaps where rape or incest occurred, and some abortion rights people who don't try to push for late term abortions.

phank
01-27-2014, 07:50 PM
OK, thanks.

Now, how do you reconcile (if you do) the fact that ONE of those "rights" (abortion) necessarily ends in the death of a human being, and the other does not.I don't recognize a fetus as a person. I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices.


And I might add that the "abortion rights" group is fighting just as hard to make all abortions LEGAL as the "right to life" groups are to make them illegal. :shrug: There are, of course, some more moderate positions on both sides. Some right to life folks who do not contest abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger, or perhaps where rape or incest occurred, and some abortion rights people who don't try to push for late term abortions.Yes, I know. The freedom to make choices necessarily means the freedom to make STUPID choices. So long as you don't interpret legal abortions to mean mandatory abortions (or legal gun ownership to mean mandatory gun ownership), we're fine.

(Though I'd be very nervous if my neighbor were able to go out and buy himself a canister of poison gas. He has a way of drinking too much from time to time...)

Darth Executor
01-27-2014, 07:58 PM
I don't recognize phank as a person. I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices.

Cow Poke
01-27-2014, 08:07 PM
I don't recognize a fetus as a person.

Understood. So we're on opposite ends of the spectrum, and I doubt very seriously that either of us will budge. :smile: That doesn't mean I see you as an enemy, though.


I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices.

Yes, and I believe that the "fetus" is a human being who ALSO should be FREE to make CHOICES. To grow up, choose a favorite color, flavor of ice cream, favorite sport or dance, etc.....


Yes, I know. The freedom to make choices necessarily means the freedom to make STUPID choices.

So, yeah, the child should be allowed to grow up to be a democrat! :lol:


So long as you don't interpret legal abortions to mean mandatory abortions (or legal gun ownership to mean mandatory gun ownership), we're fine.

Yeah, neither of us is arguing anything like that.


(Though I'd be very nervous if my neighbor were able to go out and buy himself a canister of poison gas. He has a way of drinking too much from time to time...)

So, as a fellow gun rights advocate, would you argue for an individual's right to own a howitzer? :smile:

CMD
01-27-2014, 08:41 PM
"So Bubba-Jo Johnson Jr. the Fifth, you're saying that it should be legal to kill black people?"

"Well, I don't recognize black people as 'persons.' I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices."

phank
01-27-2014, 08:50 PM
So, as a fellow gun rights advocate, would you argue for an individual's right to own a howitzer? :smile:Yes, I would. Mind you, other than as an addition to a collection, I don't know what he'd DO with a howitzer. The way I see it, there are four things people do with guns and other weapons: collect them, hunt with them, compete with them (or just plink), and use them for self-defense. I don't see a howitzer fitting into anything here but collecting, but he should be able to collect military weapons if he wishes. Some of them (like the poison gas, or live nukes, or such) strike me as requiring very careful handling, and I might like to see some sort of qualification to collect those. How about you?

phank
01-27-2014, 09:02 PM
"So Bubba-Jo Johnson Jr. the Fifth, you're saying that it should be legal to kill black people?"

"Well, I don't recognize black people as 'persons.' I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices."

Why try to distort the point I made? Do you think it's an effective rebuttal of one point, to mock some different point? We as a society decide what constitutes a legal person. If we decide a corporation qualifies, then a corporation is a legal person. If we decide a fetus doesn't qualify, then a fetus is not a legal person. These aren't entirely arbitrary distinctions, they are often made because alternatives have serious practical disadvantages. As many have pointed out, outlawing guns certainly doesn't make guns go away, it only makes LEGAL guns go away. The side-effects of anti-abortion laws are twofold - loss of individual liberty, and a boost for organized crime. It's just like outlawing drugs - we simply shift the distribution channels into unsafe places we can't control.

In any case, when I spoke of sincere differences of opinion, I clearly was not referring to idiots. Cow Poke is not an idiot, and doesn't pretend to be one on the internet.

Paprika
01-27-2014, 10:28 PM
We as a society decide what constitutes a legal person.
Actually, your society does. Inconsistently, admittedly, but it does all the same.


(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
...
[exception for abortion]
...
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.


The side-effects of anti-abortion laws are twofold - loss of individual liberty, and a boost for organized crime. It's just like outlawing drugs - we simply shift the distribution channels into unsafe places we can't control.
Just about all laws reduce liberty so that first objection doesn't really do anything. IMO, a boost for organised crime may be more than outbalanced due to the net drop in abortion.

Another example: "The side-effects of anti-child-pornography laws are twofold - loss of individual liberty, and a boost for organized crime. It's just like outlawing drugs - we simply shift the distribution channels into unsafe places we can't control."

Cow Poke
01-28-2014, 05:31 AM
Yes, I would. Mind you, other than as an addition to a collection, I don't know what he'd DO with a howitzer. The way I see it, there are four things people do with guns and other weapons: collect them, hunt with them, compete with them (or just plink), and use them for self-defense. I don't see a howitzer fitting into anything here but collecting, but he should be able to collect military weapons if he wishes. Some of them (like the poison gas, or live nukes, or such) strike me as requiring very careful handling, and I might like to see some sort of qualification to collect those. How about you?

OK, bad example... (on my part) a little too extreme... but I'm guessing you'd say the same thing about RPGs? With an ample supply of Gs?

Second question... In your world, at what point does a fetus become a human?

Sparko
01-28-2014, 05:39 AM
I don't recognize phank as a person. I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices.

I am with you on that one, bro. Phank is obviously a bot. We should send drones over to his location to um, shut him down.

(also, CP, notice how Phank changed "human being" to "person" in his reply? "person" can be a legal definition and can be bestowed on non-human beings. A corporation is a "person" under the law, for instance. But a "human being" is a scientific designation. Phank can't deny that a fetus is a human being.)

Cow Poke
01-28-2014, 05:44 AM
(also, CP, notice how Phank changed "human being" to "person" in his reply? "person" can be a legal definition and can be bestowed on non-human beings. A corporation is a "person" under the law, for instance. But a "human being" is a scientific designation. Phank can't deny that a fetus is a human being.)

Yeah, noticed that, which is why I asked the question I asked in post 14. :smug:

Sparko
01-28-2014, 05:51 AM
The problem with "person" being a legal definition is that it can be legally taken away from anyone. Hitler took it away from jews. They were no longer persons, so it was legal to gas them and torture them.

Instead of embracing such an ephemeral definition of a "person", Phank should be in fear of it. His own "personhood" is valid only at the whim of the political system he lives under.

Cow Poke
01-28-2014, 06:01 AM
The problem with "person" being a legal definition is that it can be legally taken away from anyone. Hitler took it away from jews. They were no longer persons, so it was legal to gas them and torture them.

Instead of embracing such an ephemeral definition of a "person", Phank should be in fear of it. His own "personhood" is valid only at the whim of the political system he lives under.

Well, yeah, if, in the general course of nature, a fetus who does not die (or is not killed) at SOME POINT becomes a human being. That's beyond dispute.

So, the problem for Phank, and those like him, is AT WHAT POINT does this happen? (and, is there any point at which a fetus is 3/5ths person?)

Sparko
01-28-2014, 06:33 AM
Well, yeah, if, in the general course of nature, a fetus who does not die (or is not killed) at SOME POINT becomes a human being.

They are always a human being. It is at what point does the law consider them a person? This is what Phank is using to confuse the issue.

Paprika
01-28-2014, 07:09 AM
They are always a human being. It is at what point does the law consider them a person? This is what Phank is using to confuse the issue.
American law considers them a person at all times unless when the mother or someone she authorises is trying to kill them.

phank
01-28-2014, 01:02 PM
I am with you on that one, bro. Phank is obviously a bot. We should send drones over to his location to um, shut him down.

(also, CP, notice how Phank changed "human being" to "person" in his reply? "person" can be a legal definition and can be bestowed on non-human beings. A corporation is a "person" under the law, for instance. But a "human being" is a scientific designation. Phank can't deny that a fetus is a human being.)

This is correct. "Person" is a legal category, while "human being" is a biological category. A fetus is fully human. I hope this is not at issue here...

phank
01-28-2014, 01:03 PM
The problem with "person" being a legal definition is that it can be legally taken away from anyone. Hitler took it away from jews. They were no longer persons, so it was legal to gas them and torture them.

Instead of embracing such an ephemeral definition of a "person", Phank should be in fear of it. His own "personhood" is valid only at the whim of the political system he lives under.This is entirely true. Whether or not this qualifies as entirely evil is another question.

Sparko
01-28-2014, 01:07 PM
This is correct. "Person" is a legal category, while "human being" is a biological category. A fetus is fully human. I hope this is not at issue here...


so you are OK with killing a human being who has done nothing to threaten you?

phank
01-28-2014, 01:11 PM
American law considers them a person at all times unless when the mother or someone she authorises is trying to kill them.No, under American law one becomes a person at birth. Now, whether it's acceptable to kill human beings is not nearly so clear. We can easily name several situations where one is not only permitted, but indeed even required, to kill other humans. We recognize such situations as battlefield activity, self-defense, capital punishment, abortion, etc. as allowable circumstances. And of course there are pacifists, willing victims, people (and whole states) who oppose capital punishment, and maybe half who oppose abortion according to polls (though that half is far from equally distributed.)

So the question we're dealing with here isn't WHETHER it's OK to kill humans, because clearly it is depending on circumstances. The question is, under what circumstances should we consider it allowable, how should those circumstances be defined and identified, and what are the consequences of NOT allowing it.

In the case of battlefields, the consequences are, you lose the battles. In the case of abortion, the consequences are a high death rate from back-alley abortions and a boost to organized crime (we have been there and done that). In the case of self-defense, you die. Are these consequences sufficient to permit killing? People disagree. Should we permit disagreement? Good question. We can look at nations where disagreement is not permitted. Do we like the results?

phank
01-28-2014, 01:15 PM
so you are OK with killing a human being who has done nothing to threaten you?No, I'm not OK with that. I don't think I said I was. But I'm even LESS OK with trying to force my opinions down the throats of others. Most women who have abortions, do so because a child represents a threat to them personally. And since it's their life, their body, their business and not mine, my position is that Big Brother should keep out of it. I will make nobody else's personal decision for them.

Sparko
01-28-2014, 01:20 PM
No, under American law one becomes a person at birth. Now, whether it's acceptable to kill human beings is not nearly so clear. We can easily name several situations where one is not only permitted, but indeed even required, to kill other humans. We recognize such situations as battlefield activity, self-defense, capital punishment, abortion, etc. as allowable circumstances. And of course there are pacifists, willing victims, people (and whole states) who oppose capital punishment, and maybe half who oppose abortion according to polls (though that half is far from equally distributed.)

So the question we're dealing with here isn't WHETHER it's OK to kill humans, because clearly it is depending on circumstances. The question is, under what circumstances should we consider it allowable, how should those circumstances be defined and identified, and what are the consequences of NOT allowing it.

In the case of battlefields, the consequences are, you lose the battles. In the case of abortion, the consequences are a high death rate from back-alley abortions and a boost to organized crime (we have been there and done that). In the case of self-defense, you die. Are these consequences sufficient to permit killing? People disagree. Should we permit disagreement? Good question. We can look at nations where disagreement is not permitted. Do we like the results?

Yeah because them evil fetuses are in there killing their mothers like the chest-poppers in Alien, right? So the mom has to defend herself from them by killing them. :duh:

An unborn child has done nothing to anyone. It is not a monster, it is not a parasite, it is not a criminal, it is not an enemy combatant. It has done nothing to deserve death.

Yet you think it is OK to allow abortion to "prevent back alley abortions"???? really? To prevent mothers from harming themselves while killing their own unborn child, you think it is OK to make it legal to just kill the unborn child. The whole "back alley coat hanger abortion" thing is a myth to begin with. A lot more mothers and children die from legal abortions than ever did doing illegal ones.

That's completely stupid.

Zymologist
01-28-2014, 01:21 PM
It's disturbing to me that abortion has been redefined as an act of self-defense.

Cow Poke
01-28-2014, 01:22 PM
Which is why it's silly to call Texas Senate Bill 5 "truly terrible political policy".

Sparko
01-28-2014, 01:23 PM
No, I'm not OK with that. I don't think I said I was. But I'm even LESS OK with trying to force my opinions down the throats of others. Most women who have abortions, do so because a child represents a threat to them personally. And since it's their life, their body, their business and not mine, my position is that Big Brother should keep out of it. I will make nobody else's personal decision for them.

do you have a problem with locking up burglars, or murderers, or drunk drivers? I assume not, so you really don't have a problem with forcing your opinions down the throats of others.

A fetus is a human being. It is not part of the mother's body. It is not a tumor or growth that she can decide to have removed. It is a HUMAN BEING.

Cow Poke
01-28-2014, 01:29 PM
The heart of the legislation that Wendy Davis opposed dealt with restricting abortion after 20 weeks. Even foreign countries who we deem "liberal" ban abortions BEFORE 20 weeks. Belgium and France ban abortions after TWELVE weeks.

I'd still like to know what's "truly terrible" about a ban on late term abortions.

Christianbookworm
01-28-2014, 01:54 PM
<sarcasm>Maybe she didn't know she was pregnant or changed her mind or found something wrong!</sarcasm> Not that those are good reasons, I don't beleive in any possible reason for killing the baby period(life of mother excepted), especially when we can take care of the kid outside of the womb. Hint, terminating the pregnancy in the third trimester should not require killing the baby, everyone's mother's pregnancies were terminated by birth(read that somewhere). If the mother's life is in danger after 24 weeks, an emergency c-section can be preformed.

Cow Poke
01-28-2014, 01:59 PM
Another provision Davis opposes is that abortion clinics "meet the same standards as outpatient surgical centers." Since abortion is, in fact, an "outpatient surgical procedure", as opposed to a "back alley coat hanger event", why should they NOT meet the same standards?

What's odd is that liberals want to license and regulate every OTHER aspect of life, INCLUDING hospitals. But, strangely, they OPPOSE standards for abortion clinics.

Christianbookworm
01-28-2014, 02:02 PM
WHY!!!! You think you wouldn't want more people/humans to die from botched abortions!

rogue06
01-28-2014, 02:04 PM
Another provision Davis opposes is that abortion clinics "meet the same standards as outpatient surgical centers." Since abortion is, in fact, an "outpatient surgical procedure", as opposed to a "back alley coat hanger event", why should they NOT meet the same standards?

What's odd is that liberals want to license and regulate every OTHER aspect of life, INCLUDING hospitals. But, strangely, they OPPOSE standards for abortion clinics.
As Kermit Gosnell demonstrated abortion clinics don't need to "meet the same standards as outpatient surgical centers" since they do such an excellent job at running their operations.

Christianbookworm
01-28-2014, 02:06 PM
As Kermit Gosnell demonstrated abortion clinics don't need to "meet the same standards as outpatient surgical centers" since they do such an excellent job at running their operations.

At what? Killing babies?

Jedidiah
01-28-2014, 02:06 PM
No, I'm not OK with that. I don't think I said I was. But I'm even LESS OK with trying to force my opinions down the throats of others. Most women who have abortions, do so because a child represents a threat to them personally. And since it's their life, their body, their business and not mine, my position is that Big Brother should keep out of it. I will make nobody else's personal decision for them.

The trouble with this position is that society already has stepped in to outlaw murder. It is only a legal gimmick that absolves abortionists from the crime of murder. The whole personal decision argument is fatally flawed. Plus the only "reason" for the majority of abortions is inconvenience.

Jedidiah
01-28-2014, 02:09 PM
Another provision Davis opposes is that abortion clinics "meet the same standards as outpatient surgical centers." Since abortion is, in fact, an "outpatient surgical procedure", as opposed to a "back alley coat hanger event", why should they NOT meet the same standards?

What's odd is that liberals want to license and regulate every OTHER aspect of life, INCLUDING hospitals. But, strangely, they OPPOSE standards for abortion clinics.
With this in mind what is the difference between an abortion mill and a back alley abortionist? There really is none if we oppose standards.

Cow Poke
01-28-2014, 02:14 PM
As Kermit Gosnell demonstrated abortion clinics don't need to "meet the same standards as outpatient surgical centers" since they do such an excellent job at running their operations.

And that's EGGZACKY what spurred some of this new legislation! :thumb:

rogue06
01-28-2014, 02:30 PM
At what? Killing babies?
And at least one of their mothers.

Paprika
01-28-2014, 08:22 PM
No, under American law one becomes a person at birth.
False. See the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. A father can be and has been charged with murder of his unborn child, ergo the child was a person.

Paprika
01-28-2014, 08:26 PM
No, I'm not OK with that. I don't think I said I was. But I'm even LESS OK with trying to force my opinions down the throats of others. Most women who have abortions, do so because a child represents a threat to them personally. And since it's their life, their body, their business and not mine, my position is that Big Brother should keep out of it. I will make nobody else's personal decision for them.
So it's okay for the mother to force down death to their children? If anything, mothers who choose to abort are a threat to their children.

Christianbookworm
01-28-2014, 08:28 PM
I've heard of stories where women were pressured into having abortions by their boyfriends/family. What about that?

Jedidiah
01-28-2014, 09:41 PM
I've heard of stories where women were pressured into having abortions by their boyfriends/family. What about that?

So much to be said about that. First - what a !#@$%&^* for a boyfriend. If there had been a morally sound relationship . . .
What about someone who is "pressured into killing some other adult?"

Christianbookworm
01-28-2014, 09:52 PM
Yeah! If some one says for you to do something wrong or they will break up with you, they are not worth it! Right? And how would someone be pressured into killing someone else exactly? By threat of death/ostracism? Just that the "pro-choice" people don't seem to have a way of preventing dsome one being forced to have an abortion against her will. And as far as the argument that pregnancy comes with negative social factors or something, I'd say that means the problem lies with society and not the baby. Make it so women can't be discriminated against for being pregnant(meaning of course situations that aren't harmful to her and the baby). And paid maternity leave?

RumTumTugger
01-29-2014, 10:22 AM
I don't recognize phank as a person. I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices.

where is the amen feature when you want it

RumTumTugger
01-29-2014, 10:24 AM
"So Bubba-Jo Johnson Jr. the Fifth, you're saying that it should be legal to kill black people?"

"Well, I don't recognize black people as 'persons.' I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices."

drat another one I want to Amen but can't

RumTumTugger
01-29-2014, 10:28 AM
The problem with "person" being a legal definition is that it can be legally taken away from anyone. Hitler took it away from jews. They were no longer persons, so it was legal to gas them and torture them.

Instead of embracing such an ephemeral definition of a "person", Phank should be in fear of it. His own "personhood" is valid only at the whim of the political system he lives under.

good grief Chrs please give us an amen button

RumTumTugger
01-29-2014, 10:36 AM
so you are OK with killing a human being who has done nothing to threaten you?

another post I want to amen

RumTumTugger
01-29-2014, 10:37 AM
Yeah because them evil fetuses are in there killing their mothers like the chest-poppers in Alien, right? So the mom has to defend herself from them by killing them. :duh:

An unborn child has done nothing to anyone. It is not a monster, it is not a parasite, it is not a criminal, it is not an enemy combatant. It has done nothing to deserve death.

Yet you think it is OK to allow abortion to "prevent back alley abortions"???? really? To prevent mothers from harming themselves while killing their own unborn child, you think it is OK to make it legal to just kill the unborn child. The whole "back alley coat hanger abortion" thing is a myth to begin with. A lot more mothers and children die from legal abortions than ever did doing illegal ones.

That's completely stupid.
more posts that need the amen feature to use

RumTumTugger
01-29-2014, 10:39 AM
do you have a problem with locking up burglars, or murderers, or drunk drivers? I assume not, so you really don't have a problem with forcing your opinions down the throats of others.

A fetus is a human being. It is not part of the mother's body. It is not a tumor or growth that she can decide to have removed. It is a HUMAN BEING.

another amen needed.

RumTumTugger
01-29-2014, 10:43 AM
The trouble with this position is that society already has stepped in to outlaw murder. It is only a legal gimmick that absolves abortionists from the crime of murder. The whole personal decision argument is fatally flawed. Plus the only "reason" for the majority of abortions is inconvenience.
I want' the amen button

Christianbookworm
01-29-2014, 10:59 AM
What's really crazy is that people can go to prison for causing fetal death in certain situations. So, apparently it's only okay to murder a fetus/embryo/unborn baby if the mother has allowed you to, and it's a doctor. And the kid's heart stops beating before the head exits the birth canal(unless it's a state where partial birth abortions are illegal). Why would that ever be need! C-section! If the baby is already dead(miscarriage/stillborn ), don't care how you get the body out though.

phank
01-29-2014, 02:52 PM
I want' the amen button
If you look carefully, you will see that there is an anti-abortion forum, specifically reserved for those who oppose abortion and off limits for anyone who disagrees. I was politely informed that pro-choice people belong in this forum instead. Now, that's fine. What's especially fine, in my opinion, is to discover that there is no "pro-choice opinions only, no disagreement allowed" forum here, but rather that healthy exchanges of opinion are not walled off from disagreement. In practice, sad to say, I notice that there is no real debate or discussion in this forum either. Instead, legitimate choice is mislabeled "murder" and all that follows is mere piling on.

Studies have shown that aggressive and properly managed programs of free birth control have the effect of virtually eliminating unwanted pregnancies among those who accept and use the free birth control. And that those who reject it do so NOT because they wish to become pregnant, but because the pro-pregnancy forces can be intimidating. To me, it makes sense to minimize the incidence of abortion by minimizing the incidence of unwanted pregnancy - NOT by looking the other way while girls are driven to back-alley butchers by pious laws. But in all the mindless language-abuse I see here, not any mention of preventing unwanted pregnancy.

I guess the people, the circumstances, the opportunities, the pressures, etc. are simply not on the anti-abortion fanatics' radar. These holier-than-anyone-else folks apparently don't care about how or why someone might become pregnant, or what can be done to prevent it. Nor do they seem to care about children born to girls utterly unable to support or raise them, totally unqualified. So long as the child is born, their crusade has "won" and the girl can go away and suffer quietly, please. Who cares about the ounce of prevention when you have the bludgeon of "cure"?

Zymologist
01-29-2014, 02:56 PM
I guess the people, the circumstances, the opportunities, the pressures, etc. are simply not on the anti-abortion fanatics' radar. These holier-than-anyone-else folks apparently don't care about how or why someone might become pregnant, or what can be done to prevent it. Nor do they seem to care about children born to girls utterly unable to support or raise them, totally unqualified. So long as the child is born, their crusade has "won" and the girl can go away and suffer quietly, please. Who cares about the ounce of prevention when you have the bludgeon of "cure"?

Given how often I have seen this type of vitriolic rhetoric coming from the pro-abortion crowd, it would very much appear to be them who want to shut down discussion on the issue.

Sparko
01-29-2014, 02:58 PM
You are right Phank, there is no "pro-choice" forum. This is a Christian owned website and we are not going to allow a forum area to support murdering unborn children here. Tough cookies for you.

Cow Poke
01-29-2014, 03:01 PM
Instead, legitimate choice is mislabeled "murder" and all that follows is mere piling on.

This is what disappoints me about your posting, Phank. "Legitimate" to WHOM? If we believe (as MANY Americans do) that a fetus is a HUMAN LIFE, and somebody purposely ENDS that life, how is that NOT murder?

You simply decide that a fetus is NOT a human being, therefore YOU mislabel it as "a legitimate choice" to murder it. See how that works?

Cerebrum123
01-29-2014, 03:07 PM
This is what disappoints me about your posting, Phank. "Legitimate" to WHOM? If we believe (as MANY Americans do) that a fetus is a HUMAN LIFE, and somebody purposely ENDS that life, how is that NOT murder?

You simply decide that a fetus is NOT a human being, therefore YOU mislabel it as "a legitimate choice" to murder it. See how that works?

He'll just say not a "person" instead of not a "human being". It's easier to define the unborn baby into a group that's okay to kill for convenience that way.

Christianbookworm
01-29-2014, 03:22 PM
Poor phank, he doesn't have any friends! :tongue: Where's the prochoice people who were on Facebook? Seems he's the only one here!

Christianbookworm
01-29-2014, 03:30 PM
There is a part of the forum for nonthiests. Don't know how much overlap with prochoice it might have.

phank
01-29-2014, 04:10 PM
There is a part of the forum for nonthiests. Don't know how much overlap with prochoice it might have.

Might be worth a look, but I'm hoping for a discussion. I notice when I tried to raise the issue of birth control, and preventing unwanted pregnancies, I got responses like this instead:

You are right Phank, there is no "pro-choice" forum. This is a Christian owned website and we are not going to allow a forum area to support murdering unborn children here. Tough cookies for you.And there we are. Who CARES about unwanted pregnancy, we want to discuss "murdering unborn children", and seeking a sensible policy is labeled "vitriolic rhetoric".

Meanwhile, Gallup produces some interesting breakdowns:


Americans' preferences for the "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" terms vary greatly by political party and ideology, but also by demographic characteristics. Americans with no religious affiliation and self-described liberals are the most likely to call themselves "pro-choice," with roughly eight in 10 choosing this label. Postgraduates and high-income earners are nearly as oriented to the pro-choice position as are Democrats, followed by Easterners, suburbanites, and young adults.

On the other end of the spectrum, Protestants, low-income Americans, adults with no college education, and Southerners join Republicans and conservatives as the least "pro-choice."

So it would seem that postgraduates and high income earners are the most "pro-murder", while low-income people without college educations are the most "anti-murder". No wonder informed and educated discussion is nowhere to be found. Why think when you can use slogans?

phank
01-29-2014, 04:14 PM
Poor phank, he doesn't have any friends! :tongue: Where's the prochoice people who were on Facebook? Seems he's the only one here!It does make you wonder why it's necessary to have a "no disagreement permitted" forum, when nobody disagrees anyway. If I wanted to be stroked, I'm sure I could find a "discussion" forum where only people who agree with me are permitted to contribute or participate. Kinda sad that everyone else here is seeking protection from the majority out there in the cold cruel world, all thankful that if they can outlaw or drive off disagreement, they need never think at all, and can recite memorized slogans to the carefully-self-selected cheering crowd.

Christianbookworm
01-29-2014, 04:14 PM
Don't know of many with an objection to contraceptives. Besides Catholics. We'd prefer abstinence, but if you have to, use a condom and pills.

lilpixieofterror
01-29-2014, 04:31 PM
If you look carefully, you will see that there is an anti-abortion forum, specifically reserved for those who oppose abortion and off limits for anyone who disagrees. I was politely informed that pro-choice people belong in this forum instead. Now, that's fine. What's especially fine, in my opinion, is to discover that there is no "pro-choice opinions only, no disagreement allowed" forum here, but rather that healthy exchanges of opinion are not walled off from disagreement. In practice, sad to say, I notice that there is no real debate or discussion in this forum either. Instead, legitimate choice is mislabeled "murder" and all that follows is mere piling on.

I thought we already had Civics, Apologetics, and Natural Science for people to air almost any kind of disagreement in the world they have, including ones on abortion. So you're saying that we can't have forums that fit the vision that the owners of this forum have?


Studies have shown that aggressive and properly managed programs of free birth control have the effect of virtually eliminating unwanted pregnancies among those who accept and use the free birth control. And that those who reject it do so NOT because they wish to become pregnant, but because the pro-pregnancy forces can be intimidating. To me, it makes sense to minimize the incidence of abortion by minimizing the incidence of unwanted pregnancy - NOT by looking the other way while girls are driven to back-alley butchers by pious laws. But in all the mindless language-abuse I see here, not any mention of preventing unwanted pregnancy.

And yet, we in the military have had this free access for years and yet... why do many end up getting pregnant despite this free access? Perhaps the real problem is you can lead a horse to water, but only they can take a drink? In any case, how does abortion and birth control equal the same thing? Why can't one support access to birth control while not holding to a position of anti abortion? Of course, issues of cheapening the idea of sex is another discussion all together, but the two are not related. Perhaps you can explain why you got to prop up all these strawmen to debate against instead of the actual issue? The ending of a life that is not ours to end to start with?


I guess the people, the circumstances, the opportunities, the pressures, etc. are simply not on the anti-abortion fanatics' radar. These holier-than-anyone-else folks apparently don't care about how or why someone might become pregnant, or what can be done to prevent it. Nor do they seem to care about children born to girls utterly unable to support or raise them, totally unqualified. So long as the child is born, their crusade has "won" and the girl can go away and suffer quietly, please. Who cares about the ounce of prevention when you have the bludgeon of "cure"?

A giant pile of burning straw. Nice. Funny how my parents seemed to be able to 'figure it out' without somebody holding their hand and your logic would have said that I should have been killed for not being able to be 'raised properly'. What a heart warming and loving idea you have here phank. Hey, look at that, I can produce an emotionally based argument myself. Well, that wasn't hard. Funny how my mother managed to go to school and become a dental assistant, despite having three kids. Perhaps because my father was actually a father to his children and my mother was actually a mother to hers as well is how they managed to get though? Imagine that, parents being parents. Who would of thought?

lilpixieofterror
01-29-2014, 04:32 PM
You are right Phank, there is no "pro-choice" forum. This is a Christian owned website and we are not going to allow a forum area to support murdering unborn children here. Tough cookies for you.

I guess Civics, Apologetics, and Natural Science isn't enough places for him to air his disagreements with whatever he wants. It appears he wants yet more forums to air his disagreements with any idea he doesn't agree with on.

lilpixieofterror
01-29-2014, 04:34 PM
It does make you wonder why it's necessary to have a "no disagreement permitted" forum, when nobody disagrees anyway. If I wanted to be stroked, I'm sure I could find a "discussion" forum where only people who agree with me are permitted to contribute or participate. Kinda sad that everyone else here is seeking protection from the majority out there in the cold cruel world, all thankful that if they can outlaw or drive off disagreement, they need never think at all, and can recite memorized slogans to the carefully-self-selected cheering crowd.

And yet, here you are, allowed to air any disagreement you want and showing that your entire argument is false. How funny, how many more forums do you want to air you disagreements on phank? There is already at least three that you could air disagreements with abortion on (4, for Christian members of this web site). Is 1 forum where you can't really bugging you that much?

phank
01-29-2014, 04:39 PM
Don't know of many with an objection to contraceptives. Besides Catholics. We'd prefer abstinence, but if you have to, use a condom and pills.But this somehow fails to explain the deplorable number of unwanted pregnancies. There seems to be a qualitative difference between "no objection" to contraceptives, and actually using them. Abortion would hardly be an issue at all, if they were as rare as they COULD be with an aggressive birth control policy.

So we might consider raising such questions as, WHY would someone who can't tolerate a pregnancy, risk one anyway? If they think it can't happen to them, or if they don't know what works, that's what sex education is supposed to be for. There's a scene in the movie "The Lords of Flatbush" where the girl tells her boyfriend "the rubber band didn't work." This can be avoided with education.

There's also the issue of cost, and procurement. Condoms aren't all that expensive, but purchasing them is an announcement that you're sexually active -- and your partner isn't usually going to be much of a mystery. Certainly for a high school girl (looking at the preponderance of abortions here), it's going to be hard to keep a visit to the gynecologist a secret from her parents. And paying the cost is probably beyond most teenagers anyway. And unfortunately, one of the major reasons for unwanted pregnancies is because parental reactions to sex tend to be something kids really want to avoid if they possibly can. Parents in general do not say "If you're thinking of doing sex, let's get you to the doctor and onto the pill." They're more likely to say "if I catch you at sex, you will suffer badly" - or make that clear in other ways.

I read of a study that attempted to circumvent some of these issues. They started with a large sample of at-risk girls (inner city minority poor teenage girls) and made it clear that they were providing birth control (and funding the doctor visits if necessary) for free to everyone whether they needed it or not. The point was that simply having the pills or condoms or diaphragms delivered was simply part of the study, and did NOT constitute any implied sexual activity. And note here, it was important for this to be delivered. Having the girls go get it themselves doesn't work, because those who don't use it don't go get it, which immediately identifies who is sexually active.

This study continued for about three years (and new girls entered the study during that period). Turns out that maybe a quarter of the girls simply refused to participate at all. The control population (an equal number of girls not part of the study) had unwanted pregnancies and abortions at the rate seen elsewhere. The study population girls reduced their abortion rate to nearly zero - EXCEPT those girls who refused to participate. Their abortion rate was as high as the control group. And primarily these girls rejected participation for fear of parental retribution. That fear was sufficient to avoid birth control and use prayer instead, but not enough to avoid sex. Sex is hard to avoid - especially in a culture that absolutely demands it of the boys, who otherwise face social rejection.

Anyway, bottom line, the large majority of abortions happened at taxpayer expense, an expense FAR exceeding the cost of the birth control, even hand-delivered. And this means abortions CAN be reduced to nearly zero, at a net savings to taxpayers, with a properly managed program and a good dose of sex education. Educating the parents would also be a big help.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean only being pro-abortion. For me, it mostly means providing meaningful and affordable contraceptive choices to all who need them. When a pregnancy is cause for terror rather than celebration, we as a nation and a culture are doing something wrong. And something that can be fixed. Screaming that the victims of our inaction are murderers is about the worst possible way to address a real problem.

phank
01-29-2014, 04:43 PM
And yet, here you are, allowed to air any disagreement you want and showing that your entire argument is false. How funny, how many more forums do you want to air you disagreements on phank? There is already at least three that you could air disagreements with abortion on (4, for Christian members of this web site). Is 1 forum where you can't really bugging you that much?Not really. I should have realized that forum was only for those agreeing with a given policy. But you notice I DID ask if disagreement was permitted, and was informed that it was not. I think that's sad, but I'm not trying to contest it. The owners of this place make the rules, and I try to follow them.

I wonder at the comfort you obviously feel surrounded by a bunch of people saying "you're right, me too."

lilpixieofterror
01-29-2014, 04:48 PM
Not really. I should have realized that forum was only for those agreeing with a given policy.

Really? So may I ask why you are allowed to post here if that is the case? Civics, Natural Science, Apologetics, and Philosophy are all places where an abortion debate could take place and nobody would try to change it up. There is plenty of places where an abortion debate could take place. There is also plenty of points that do remain unanswered. Plenty of groups, throughout history, decreed that entire groups of people were unworthy of being 'human' and thus were permitted to be killed and whipped out. I personally find that the government could make such a decree to be a rather scary proposition if you really think about it.


But you notice I DID ask if disagreement was permitted, and was informed that it was not. I think that's sad, but I'm not trying to contest it. The owners of this place make the rules, and I try to follow them.

Disagreement exist on more levels then just one.


I wonder at the comfort you obviously feel surrounded by a bunch of people saying "you're right, me too."

If that was the case, you would find that the Christianity forums around here would be full of that, but they clearly are not. There's more ways to disagree with somebody then just one way. Even pro-choicers (or whatever you want to call them) can disagree with one another on several levels too.

Christianbookworm
01-29-2014, 04:48 PM
Some one already mentioned that you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink. Unsafe sex is a bad idea beyond unwanted pregnancy. Getting STIs sure would not be fun at all. And even more embarrassing than buying a pack of condoms that could be for someone else, though I wouldn't know since I don't have to buy them.

phank
01-29-2014, 05:00 PM
Some one already mentioned that you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink. Unsafe sex is a bad idea beyond unwanted pregnancy. Getting STIs sure would not be fun at all. And even more embarrassing than buying a pack of condoms that could be for someone else, though I wouldn't know since I don't have to buy them.

The participants in the study were horses that DID drink, given a guilt-free opportunity to do so. Even those girls knew that unsafe sex was a bad idea. So why did they do it anyway? Seems to me that if we can figure out the answer to that question, we can accomplish something that will make everyone happy. But we have to try.

Christianbookworm
01-29-2014, 05:07 PM
More education? Teaching boys not to pressure for sex(maybe stereotypical)?

phank
01-29-2014, 05:09 PM
More education? Teaching boys not to pressure for sex(maybe stereotypical)?I doubt that would work very well, for several reasons. But by observation, sexually active girls are both able and willing to avoid pregnancy, given a guilt-free opportunity.

Christianbookworm
01-29-2014, 05:11 PM
Doesn't it take two to tango?

phank
01-29-2014, 06:05 PM
Doesn't it take two to tango?Only if BOTH of them face an equal probability of an unwanted pregnancy. But, you might understand, there is this very important asymmetry between the sexes.

And I'll admit there is an equal asymmetry in our policies. I think (I'm not a doctor) that men can have easily reversible vasectomies, and that these represent less of a health risk (and less of a chance of missing a day) than the Pill. And to me, that means the burden of avoiding pregnancy seems to fall too heavily on the female. But there's no avoiding the danger being more immediate for the girl - the boy can lie about the vasectomy, but the girl can't pretend away an unwanted pregnancy.

And lest we forget the underlying point here - abortion is the absolute worst form of birth control. No abortion is really wanted, it's just that a child (not to mention pregnancy and childbirth) is less wanted. So I'm arguing that our proper goal here isn't to make abortions cheap and easy, but to make unwanted pregnancy cheap and easy to avoid. Nobody aborts a pregnancy that never happens.

Rational Gaze
01-29-2014, 06:20 PM
Well, see, I'm a firm believer in individual rights and liberties. Freedom. Stuff like that.
And yet, you inexplicably support a party platform dedicated to the erosion of individual rights and liberties.


I don't recognize a fetus as a person.
It doesn't matter if a foetus is a person or not. If it's human, it has the same human rights as every other human. Shifting the topic to personhood is simply a red herring.

phank
01-29-2014, 07:41 PM
And yet, you inexplicably support a party platform dedicated to the erosion of individual rights and liberties.No, sorry, I'm not a Republican. More seriously, I do not support ANY attempt to nibble away at our individual rights, regardless of which party is trying to do that. But it's not the Democrats trying to outlaw the right of abortion, or trying to outlaw the right to marriage.



It doesn't matter if a foetus is a person or not. If it's human, it has the same human rights as every other human. Shifting the topic to personhood is simply a red herring.On the contrary, it lies at the heart of the controversy. After all, to the best of my knowledge there is no dispute about the developmental biology here. The dispute is over whether we as a society are better off, and if so how, if abortions are done safely by professionals or unsafely by unqualified butchers. And my approach in this dispute is to try to identify the causes of unwanted pregnancy, and suggest ways that these causes can be minimized. The anti-abortion crowd doesn't ever seem to grasp the idea that an unwanted pregnancy, forced to term for ideological reasons, becomes an unwanted child. And unwanted children are a problem in many ways, EVEN IF the anti-abortion folks are indifferent to such problems.

Abortion is one way to nip the unwanted children problem in the bud, but it's far from the best way. The best way is to nip unwanted pregnancy in the bud. If you have some useful suggestions for doing so, that would be a big help. Chanting slogans unfortunately improves nothing.

Christianbookworm
01-29-2014, 08:02 PM
So, if parents want to safely dispose of their unwanted toddlers...

Raphael
01-29-2014, 08:07 PM
You repeatedly seem to be ignoring the right of the innocent human child to not be murdered.

As Gianna Jessen (born during a saline abortion) says: you talk of womens rights, who was standing up for her rights?

Paprika
01-29-2014, 08:36 PM
The dispute is over whether we as a society are better off, and if so how, if abortions are done safely by professionals or unsafely by unqualified butchers.
This statement smuggles in the assumption that the number of abortions would be the same if it was prohibited. It would decrease, and we would have less murdered babies. How does it not make the society - which also consists of said babies - better off?

phank
01-29-2014, 08:45 PM
So, if parents want to safely dispose of their unwanted toddlers...What they do, in practice, is become absentee parents. The children often grow up ignored, malnourished, and uneducated. As soon as possible, many of them join street gangs where they can have the semblance of a family. I'm sure you're aware of this. So what we need to do, I think, is focus on the entire issue from pre-sexual activity all the way to being an adult who was an unwanted child. And we have to look at this entire unfortunate history, and ask where it could best have been avoided. What do you think?

phank
01-29-2014, 08:48 PM
You repeatedly seem to be ignoring the right of the innocent human child to not be murdered.That's because I think the whole point is to find a way to avoid the issue altogether. But it seems you are ONLY interested in depriving women of their options. You don't care about contraception, you don't care about unwanted children, you don't seem to care about anything involved except your narrow issue.

But once again, before birth there is no child. And murder is a legal category. I listed several instances where taking a life is not only permitted but required. I see you ignore these. Yet none of them are murder either. So you are making a category error. I understand that you are wedded to this error, and there's nothing anyone can say to change that.

phank
01-29-2014, 08:56 PM
This statement smuggles in the assumption that the number of abortions would be the same if it was prohibited. It would decrease, and we would have less murdered babies.

We don't know it would decrease, but we do know that records wouldn't be kept because abortion would be illegal. And of course this is not murder by definition, and of course before birth there are no babies. But hey, truth is irrelevant to the fanatic.


How does it not make the society - which also consists of said babies - better off?A fetus is not part of a society. The appropriate question is, is society better off with or without unwanted children raised in ignorant poverty? Ideally, every child should be a wanted child. How can we achieve that? How can we even come closer to that?

And I suggest that talk about "murdering babies" completely misses the important point. It's nothing but an ideological slogan. The point is to have all children be wanted, to have all pregnancies to be cause for celebration and not terror. But again, I despair of making that point. One poster after another after another after another completely ignores contraception and starts bellowing about murdering babies.

Q: Will free birth control reduce unwanted pregnancies?
A: You're murdering babies!
Q: How can the number of unwanted pregnancies be reduced?
A: You're murdering babies!
Q: Would it help to identify at-risk populations and try to understand the risks?
A: You're murdering babies!

Do any of you people have anything useful to contribute?

Paprika
01-29-2014, 08:57 PM
But once again, before birth there is no child. And murder is a legal category. I listed several instances where taking a life is not only permitted but required. I see you ignore these. Yet none of them are murder either. So you are making a category error. I understand that you are wedded to this error, and there's nothing anyone can say to change that.
Some acts are malum in se, such as murder.

Paprika
01-29-2014, 09:00 PM
I notice you ignore the point I brought up that people can be and have been (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/man-pleads-guilty-to-killing-his-unborn-child-after-tricking-his-girlfriend-into-taking-abortion-pill-8806853.html) charged with murdering fetuses.

phank
01-29-2014, 09:03 PM
Some acts are malum in se, such as murder.

So if you kill an enemy soldier in battle, that's murder? If a policement kills someone in the line of duty, that's murder? If you kill someone in self-defense, that's murder?

I agree that murder is evil. But taking lives is not automatically murder. Murder is a legal condition. When you start applying this word indiscriminately, without regard to the legal conditions to which it applies, your position becomes incoherent.

Abortion is not murder. Period. Calling it murder doesn't make it so, but it does make you look pretty brainless. Unable to grasp even simple principles.

Paprika
01-29-2014, 09:03 PM
I misspoke by using "babies" earlier rather than "feti".



A fetus is not part of a society. The appropriate question is, is society better off with or without unwanted children raised in ignorant poverty?
What is your point? If society is "better off" (according to whatever standards you propose) without some people, we kill them?

Paprika
01-29-2014, 09:05 PM
I agree that murder is evil. But taking lives is not automatically murder. Murder is a legal condition. When you start applying this word indiscriminately, without regard to the legal conditions to which it applies, your position becomes incoherent.

Abortion is not murder. Period. Calling it murder doesn't make it so, but it does make you look pretty brainless. Unable to grasp even simple principles.

Silly one. Killing a fetus can be and has been considered murder in recent American law. Neither did I claim that taking life is automatically murder.

phank
01-29-2014, 09:18 PM
I notice you ignore the point I brought up that people can be and have been (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/man-pleads-guilty-to-killing-his-unborn-child-after-tricking-his-girlfriend-into-taking-abortion-pill-8806853.html) charged with murdering fetuses.

Of course, we discover here that
the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf"

What we're seeing here is a bitter battle over control of the language. The anti-liberty forces have been stretching the meaning of such terms as "person" and "child" and "murder" beyond all rational sense, because (typical of religious thinking), they understand that SAYING something is so, makes it so.

So these laws, at least so far, all hinge on the consent of the pregnant woman (or person authorized to act on her behalf). To some degree, I actually agree with these laws -- if the woman wishes to bear a child, it should certainly be unlawful to kill the fetus. I would support severe punishment for fetal homicide in any case where the pregnant woman wanted a child.

I see a parallel with purchasing vs. stealing. If the person is willing to sell something (or even offer it as a gift), the purchaser or person receiving the gift has done nothing wrong. But if the person gets the item by stealing it, EVEN IF it was to be given away free, then that's a crime. I'm not aware of anyone being charged with fetal homicide in any case where the woman is trying to abort the fetus anyway.

phank
01-29-2014, 09:20 PM
I misspoke by using "babies" earlier rather than "feti".


What is your point? If society is "better off" (according to whatever standards you propose) without some people, we kill them?

Yes, we do. We maintain a large standing army to do exactly that. And police forces, and death rows. Of course we do.

phank
01-29-2014, 09:21 PM
Silly one. Killing a fetus can be and has been considered murder in recent American law. Neither did I claim that taking life is automatically murder.Killing a fetus the pregnant woman wishes to keep alive should certainly be a crime. After all, it's HER decision and should be nobody else's.

Paprika
01-29-2014, 09:21 PM
Of course, we discover here that

What we're seeing here is a bitter battle over control of the language. The anti-liberty forces have been stretching the meaning of such terms as "person" and "child" and "murder" beyond all rational sense, because (typical of religious thinking), they understand that SAYING something is so, makes it so.

So these laws, at least so far, all hinge on the consent of the pregnant woman (or person authorized to act on her behalf). To some degree, I actually agree with these laws -- if the woman wishes to bear a child, it should certainly be unlawful to kill the fetus. I would support severe punishment for fetal homicide in any case where the pregnant woman wanted a child.

But if the fetus can be murdered, it is a human person under the law. QED.

(Except when the mother wants to kill it, then it magically isn't a person anymore).

Paprika
01-29-2014, 09:22 PM
Killing a fetus the pregnant woman wishes to keep alive should certainly be a crime. After all, it's HER decision and should be nobody else's.
Yes, yes, a crime, but why murder?

phank
01-29-2014, 09:26 PM
But if the fetus can be murdered, it is a human person under the law. QED.Except the law doesn't go that far. The law makes it illegal to kill a fetus against the wishes of the woman carrying it.


(Except when the mother wants to kill it, then it magically isn't a person anymore).No, that's not how it reads. Most legal scholars, even those who strongly support Roe, agree that these laws are consistent with Roe. These laws do NOT declare the fetus to be a person under the meaning of the 14th amendment. Many people fear (or rejoice!) that such laws are a step on the road to declaring legal personhood for the fetus, but that point has not yet been reached.

phank
01-29-2014, 09:30 PM
Yes, yes, a crime, but why murder?Generally it's referred to as feticide or fetal homicide. The penalties are quite different from legal murder.

Meanwhile, we have this wonderful thoughtful discussion about minimizing the incidence of unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Do you care about that at all? There are times (like now) when I think people like you don't even want to think about eliminating unwanted pregnancies, because you don't have any plan B to go rave against.

Paprika
01-29-2014, 09:30 PM
Except the law doesn't go that far. The law makes it illegal to kill a fetus against the wishes of the woman carrying it.

No, that's not how it reads. Most legal scholars, even those who strongly support Roe, agree that these laws are consistent with Roe. These laws do NOT declare the fetus to be a person under the meaning of the 14th amendment. Many people fear (or rejoice!) that such laws are a step on the road to declaring legal personhood for the fetus, but that point has not yet been reached.
Oh, I'll grant you that the UVVA and Roe v. Wade don't contradict in wording, but they do in principle. But the fact that feti can be 'murdered' implies that they are human persons.

phank
01-29-2014, 09:32 PM
Oh, I'll grant you that the UVVA and Roe v. Wade don't contradict in wording, but they do in principle. But the fact that feti can be 'murdered' implies that they are human persons.Even though the law explicitly says they are not. Maybe that change won't be long in coming, I don't know.

But tell me, if unwanted pregnancies were eliminated, what would you substitute to vent your ideology on?

Raphael
01-29-2014, 09:32 PM
That's because I think the whole point is to find a way to avoid the issue altogether. But it seems you are ONLY interested in depriving women of their options. Killing the completely innocent party in the whole matter should never be an option.

You don't care about contraception, you don't care about unwanted children, you don't seem to care about anything involved except your narrow issue.Complete and utter twaddle. I have not voiced any of my opinions on contraception (although I think shoving a fist full of condoms at kids and saying have at it is generally a bad idea.)
For the record once my wife and I had decided that 4 kids was the right amount I had a little operation to ensure that we won't be having more (which is a particularly good form of contraception), so I am not adverse to using contraception.


But once again, before birth there is no child.You gotta be kidding me. You cannot be that dense. An unborn child is still a child. Heck an archaic way of saying someone was pregnant was to say they were with child.

And murder is a legal category. I listed several instances where taking a life is not only permitted but required. I see you ignore these. Yet none of them are murder either. So you are making a category error. I understand that you are wedded to this error, and there's nothing anyone can say to change that.The problem is you've reduced the term "murder" to being whatever a particular country's legal definition of it may be. This is wrong especially as so many times in the past the people have been murdered en masse and their deaths have been considered legal by their government of the time.

Murder is the wrongful taking of a human life. When we alter it to be the wrongful taking of a "legally defined persons" life we open the door to all sorts of dark places (again as evidenced repeatedly by history)

Paprika
01-29-2014, 09:36 PM
Even though the law explicitly says they are not. Maybe that change won't be long in coming, I don't know.
May that reversion be done quickly.


But tell me, if unwanted pregnancies were eliminated, what would you substitute to vent your ideology on?

Is this the best ad hominem you can come up with? Disappointing.

Paprika
01-29-2014, 09:46 PM
Generally it's referred to as feticide or fetal homicide. The penalties are quite different from legal murder.
.
This doesn't hold because Welden was initially charged with first-degree murder.

phank
01-29-2014, 09:50 PM
Killing the completely innocent party in the whole matter should never be an option.But it is, and the large majority of Americans think it should be under some or all conditions.


Complete and utter twaddle. I have not voiced any of my opinions on contraception (although I think shoving a fist full of condoms at kids and saying have at it is generally a bad idea.)What would you suggest instead? I agree, that won't work. But I don't see you seeking out something that WOULD work. You seem to feel that dismissing a bad idea as bad is all you need in order to dismiss the entire subject.


For the record once my wife and I had decided that 4 kids was the right amount I had a little operation to ensure that we won't be having more (which is a particularly good form of contraception), so I am not adverse to using contraception. And in your circumstances, that was a good decision. But for teenage girls, permanent sterilization is way too harsh. It's not that they never want children, it's that they don't want children right now. Is there any way society can help them out?


You gotta be kidding me. You cannot be that dense. An unborn child is still a child. Heck an archaic way of saying someone was pregnant was to say they were with child.Again, it's the semantic battle. A fetus isn't a child. It is a potential child, to be sure.


The problem is you've reduced the term "murder" to being whatever a particular country's legal definition of it may be. This is wrong especially as so many times in the past the people have been murdered en masse and their deaths have been considered legal by their government of the time.Yes, I know. Murder, considered generally, is the improper taking of a person's life. But what does "improper" really mean? As we've already covered, there are multiple circumstances where it's not improper at all.


Murder is the wrongful taking of a human life. When we alter it to be the wrongful taking of a "legally defined persons" life we open the door to all sorts of dark places (again as evidenced repeatedly by history)But this only begs the question. To me, abortion is reprehensible but not "wrongful" in the sense you're using it. The large majority of Americans do NOT wish to see Roe overturned. And that means if their access to abortion is taken away, they WILL find other avenues. And THEN we'd see what "wrongful" really means. Outlawing abortion is much like outlawing drugs - the use doesn't go down at all, but the side effects are orders of magnitude more damaging to society than the drugs themselves could possibly be.

So the intelligent approach isn't to outlaw abortion or drugs. The sensible approach is to regulate them. I've already suggested programs to get contraceptives into the hands of those who might need them in ways that doesn't paint scarlet As on their foreheads. And I think most Americans would be perfectly happy with regulations like no abortions after 24 weeks except for medical necessity - PROVIDED that abortion before 24 weeks is readily accessible and affordable. Wide free distribution of effective morning-after pills might be another approach.

I think there are multiple workable intelligent approaches to the underlying problem of unwanted pregnancy. And of course there are also stupid approaches, which have been tried in the past. A return to the days of stupid would be unfortunate, when so many smart approaches are available.

phank
01-29-2014, 09:51 PM
May that reversion be done quickly.


Is this the best ad hominem you can come up with? Disappointing.It's a sensible question, since I can't get you to address regulation, birth control, or any workable approach. And surely you can look up what things were like before Roe. Do you seriously wish to return to those days?

Paprika
01-29-2014, 10:15 PM
Do you seriously wish to return to those days?
The days when killing of innocent children was not legalised? What do you think?


since I can't get you to address regulation, birth control, or any workable approach.
Oh, my opinion on regulation should be obvious. I don't believe in "okay, you can kill some of the children, but not all". For other approaches, can I suggest self-control?

Paprika
01-29-2014, 10:17 PM
WWhat good is the right to an abortion if nobody can legally provide one?
If you don't mind, I'd like to jump back a bit of time in the discussion to discuss the "right to abort". Let's lay aside the utter arbitrariness of it all, and note that abortion is not allowed at all points of the fetus' development, so it is not an absolute right even as it stands. Something else - possibly another right - supersedes it.

Christianbookworm
01-29-2014, 10:30 PM
In regards to the fetus can't live outside of the mother argument. If you had a fictional species that could survive unassisted in outer space(don't ask how, read too much sci fi/fantasy), would that make their lives more valuable then ours? Just because they're stronger and tougher?

Paprika
01-29-2014, 10:35 PM
In regards to the fetus can't live outside of the mother argument. If you had a fictional species that could survive unassisted in outer space(don't ask how, read too much sci fi/fantasy), would that make their lives more valuable then ours? Just because they're stronger and tougher?
Not sure about that. Are they sentient? Are they imago Dei?

The viability argument is very weak because it depends on the state of technology available. This leads to absurdities: for example, whether a fetus is a human person would depend if say the hospital has access to electricity.

Christianbookworm
01-29-2014, 10:37 PM
Not sure about that. Are they sentient? Are they imago Dei?

The viability argument is very weak because it depends on the state of technology available. This leads to absurdities: for example, whether a fetus is a human person would depend if say the hospital has access to electricity.

Oh, they're exactly like humans, just SUPER! Get it?

Christianbookworm
01-29-2014, 10:38 PM
Though fictional characters by definition don't count as being made in the image of God. They're our images! Figure author=God as far as their story is concerned. And, yes, the viablilty argument is stupid. Ok, no space aliens, angels, fairies or other beings in fiction more powerful than us. How about, is the person that beat you at arm wrestiling more of a person?

Raphael
01-30-2014, 12:44 AM
But it is, and the large majority of Americans think it should be under some or all conditions.That doesn't make it right. At one time the majority of Americans supported slavery. That didn't make it right. At one time the majority of Germany thought it was okay to exterminate the Jews. That didn't make it right. At one time the majority of Japanese though that okay that they could conduct experiments on POWs. That didn't make it right.
Oh and according to this thread started by Rogue, the majority of you Americans are moving towards being Pro-Life (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?208-Public-opinion)


What would you suggest instead? I agree, that won't work. We agree on something.

But I don't see you seeking out something that WOULD work. You seem to feel that dismissing a bad idea as bad is all you need in order to dismiss the entire subject.Are you mistaking me for someone else? I haven't dismissed the entire subject. I haven't even broached the topic. All I said was that I hadn't voiced an opinion on it, but did disagree with one cavalier attitude I encountered from some folk when growing up.

It is a vastly complex subject. I grew up in South Africa where with the prevalence of HIV/AIDS it's a lot bigger an issue than just pregnancy. (I remember some years ago it hitting the News in SA that the township of Bruntville, next to Mooi River, was sitting at saturation point, their term, of HIV/AIDS. That means that just about everyone living there had HIV/AIDS. The ABC (Abstain, Be faithful, Condomise) campaign is being used now as it was extremely successful in Uganda bringing down the HIV/AIDS levels.

With regards to the Pill there are a number of questions around some of them being abortificants. Not to mention some of the health concerns around some like yasmin/yaz (http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/marie-claire/features/world/article/-/16839237/yasmin-pill-side-effects-the-dangers-of-yaz/), or oral contraceptives increasing the risks of breast and cervical cancers (and yes to be fair decreasing risk of ovarian, womb and bowel cancers) (http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/the-contraceptive-pill-and-cancer-risk). These are topics of discussions that can take many many pages of discussion. Having recently lost my sister-in-law to breast cancer (brother's wife) and my mother-in-law in remission from breast cancer that portion of the topic is particularly touchy.


And in your circumstances, that was a good decision. But for teenage girls, permanent sterilization is way too harsh. It's not that they never want children, it's that they don't want children right now. Is there any way society can help them out?There is this wonderful option called adoption. There is also the other option of abstinence (called having self control). Alternatively there is of course the option of condoms and other barrier contraceptives and yes, some forms of the pill. This needs to be coupled with proper education and frankly shouldn't be targeting kids too young as they make way too many bad decisions


Again, it's the semantic battle. A fetus isn't a child. It is a potential child, to be sure.You're the one playing semantics. The term child has applied equally to unborn children and born children for way longer than the term fetus has been around. It is still a human being and it is still a child.


Yes, I know. Murder, considered generally, is the improper taking of a person's life. But what does "improper" really mean? As we've already covered, there are multiple circumstances where it's not improper at all.For a start I would say that killing a child merely because it is unwanted / inconvenient would be a start of what is definitely a wrongful killing of a human.


But this only begs the question. To me, abortion is reprehensible but not "wrongful" in the sense you're using it.So if I only kill Gingers cause they have no souls it's reprehensible but not wrongful so I can still do it? (note: some of my good friends are read heads, and the reference to them having no souls is a jest)

The large majority of Americans do NOT wish to see Roe overturned.Again that doesn't make it right and as Rogue has shown that opinion is changing.

And that means if their access to abortion is taken away, they WILL find other avenues. And THEN we'd see what "wrongful" really means. Outlawing abortion is much like outlawing drugs - the use doesn't go down at all, but the side effects are orders of magnitude more damaging to society than the drugs themselves could possibly be. You do know those supposed stats of how people sought backstreet abortions pre Roe were highly exaggerated (Dr. Bernard Nathanson former head of NARAL has admitted to making the figures up).

What's more in South Africa there is abortion on demand provided for free at State Hospitals and Clinics and yet still there are a large number who resort to paying back alley doctors to perform the procedures in shocking conditions in Johannesburg.


So the intelligent approach isn't to outlaw abortion or drugs. The sensible approach is to regulate them. I disagree with you on both topics.

I've already suggested programs to get contraceptives into the hands of those who might need them in ways that doesn't paint scarlet As on their foreheads. I'm pretty sure that's been the case for many a year. It is in South Africa and it is in New Zealand.
Ok so occasionally the condoms handed out in South Africa have a information brochure stapled to them, or hand out ones that are defective. (http://mg.co.za/article/2007-11-05-what-state-did-is-disgusting) but there is no stigma to them.

And I think most Americans would be perfectly happy with regulations like no abortions after 24 weeks except for medical necessity After 24 weeks a c-section could be performed and actually give the child a chance of surviving.

- PROVIDED that abortion before 24 weeks is readily accessible and affordable. Wide free distribution of effective morning-after pills might be another approach.Both of those still involve killing the child. Which again should never be an option.


I think there are multiple workable intelligent approaches to the underlying problem of unwanted pregnancy. And of course there are also stupid approaches, which have been tried in the past. A return to the days of stupid would be unfortunate, when so many smart approaches are available.
We already have the folk at Planned Parenthood, and Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva promoting the idea of "post-birth abortion". return to the days of stupid indeed.
It is extremely stupid to think we should be able to kill a child simply because we don't want them right now.

Paprika
01-30-2014, 01:09 AM
But it is, and the large majority of Americans think it should be under some or all conditions.
Morality by majority. How could this possibly go wrong?



And in your circumstances, that was a good decision. But for teenage girls, permanent sterilization is way too harsh. It's not that they never want children, it's that they don't want children right now. Is there any way society can help them out?
They don't need help except sex education. Just about all people have self-control, otherwise there are barrier contraceptives.



Again, it's the semantic battle. A fetus isn't a child. It is a potential child, to be sure.
Yes, you pro-abortionists are pretty good at playing the word games with 'person', 'child', 'right', and so on.



Yes, I know. Murder, considered generally, is the improper taking of a person's life. But what does "improper" really mean? As we've already covered, there are multiple circumstances where it's not improper at all.
And this doesn't refute anything, since there are obviously cases where killing is improper.


Outlawing abortion is much like outlawing drugs - the use doesn't go down at all, but the side effects are orders of magnitude more damaging to society than the drugs themselves could possibly be.
Asserted, but not shown. Rather, if abortion is banned, it would become more expensive and less convenient to get one done, which is very likely to reduce the number of abortions.

Sparko
01-30-2014, 05:37 AM
phank, you realize "homocide" means to kill a human being right? So if it is called "fetal homocide" according to you, it is the killing of a human being. :duh:

Zymologist
01-30-2014, 07:18 AM
seeking a sensible policy is labeled "vitriolic rhetoric".


You didn't seem to read my comment very carefully. But that's ok, because I can play this game, too: so seeking to defend the lives of innocent babies is, as you put it, fanatical, "holier-than-anyone-else", and uncaring?

I never thought defending an infant's right to life (what an extreme concept!) would be so thoroughly condemned as stupid, self-righteous, and uncaring.

Zymologist
01-30-2014, 07:22 AM
That's because I think the whole point is to find a way to avoid the issue altogether. But it seems you are ONLY interested in depriving women of their options. You don't care about contraception, you don't care about unwanted children, you don't seem to care about anything involved except your narrow issue.

But once again, before birth there is no child. And murder is a legal category. I listed several instances where taking a life is not only permitted but required. I see you ignore these. Yet none of them are murder either. So you are making a category error. I understand that you are wedded to this error, and there's nothing anyone can say to change that.

I think this is one of the most self-evidently ridiculous things I've ever heard. And we're making a category error?

Cow Poke
01-30-2014, 07:23 AM
I never thought defending an infant's right to life (what an extreme concept!) would be so thoroughly condemned as stupid, self-righteous, and uncaring.

The extreme hypocrisy of the "let's kill babies but save baby seals" crowd is astounding. Kill a baby Eagle, and go to JAIL... kill a baby HUMAN and we admire your courage! :doh:

phank
01-30-2014, 08:14 PM
Sigh. The point I was trying to make was that a policy intended to make abortion difficult is not as good as a policy intended to make abortion unnecessary. Wanted pregnancies are not aborted. How can we make them wanted? But no, the law is intended to punish those who could have been helped. Clearly, it's useless to try to make this point here.

Paprika
01-30-2014, 08:38 PM
Sigh. The point I was trying to make was that a policy intended to make abortion difficult is not as good as a policy intended to make abortion unnecessary. Wanted pregnancies are not aborted.
Were you really? Then why did you begin by proclaiming and defending the 'right' to abortion?


How can we make them wanted? But no, the law is intended to punish those who could have been helped. Clearly, it's useless to try to make this point here.
And new law do you propose? Subsidising and mass-distributing contraception?

Zymologist
01-31-2014, 07:48 AM
Sigh. The point I was trying to make was that a policy intended to make abortion difficult is not as good as a policy intended to make abortion unnecessary. Wanted pregnancies are not aborted. How can we make them wanted? But no, the law is intended to punish those who could have been helped. Clearly, it's useless to try to make this point here.

The law is also intended to protect those who can't protect themselves. It really bothers me that this is so controversial.

Sparko
01-31-2014, 08:06 AM
Maybe if they don't want to get pregnant they shouldn't have sex. Kinda like if you don't want to go to jail for stealing, you don't go around stealing things.

Cow Poke
01-31-2014, 08:08 AM
Maybe if they don't want to get pregnant they shouldn't have sex. Kinda like if you don't want to go to jail for stealing, you don't go around stealing things.

As the new Police Chaplain, I had a GRAND TOUR of the inner workings of our County Jail last night. I'm even LESS inclined to want to end up there than before. :egad:

lilpixieofterror
01-31-2014, 06:27 PM
Sigh. The point I was trying to make was that a policy intended to make abortion difficult is not as good as a policy intended to make abortion unnecessary. Wanted pregnancies are not aborted. How can we make them wanted? But no, the law is intended to punish those who could have been helped. Clearly, it's useless to try to make this point here.

So it is only alright to kill unwanted children. Nice, so I guess I should be rather lucky that I happened to have a mother and father that didn't want to throw me away like some piece of trash, eh?

Christy
02-25-2014, 02:59 PM
I've heard of stories where women were pressured into having abortions by their boyfriends/family. What about that? The only time I knew of a girl getting an abortion, her mom made her. She didn't want her to give birth to the baby, and have to give it up for adoption because she didn't want to get attached to it.

seasanctuary
02-25-2014, 03:40 PM
It does make you wonder why it's necessary to have a "no disagreement permitted" forum, when nobody disagrees anyway. If I wanted to be stroked, I'm sure I could find a "discussion" forum where only people who agree with me are permitted to contribute or participate. Kinda sad that everyone else here is seeking protection from the majority out there in the cold cruel world, all thankful that if they can outlaw or drive off disagreement, they need never think at all, and can recite memorized slogans to the carefully-self-selected cheering crowd.

As you may have noticed, when people sharply disagree, discussions don't often advance beyond the major points of disagreement. Or they devolve back to that. Having a forum with restrictions does nothing to prevent discussions in other forums without those restrictions. You can even make threads in an unrestricted forum about a thread in a restricted forum.

OingoBoingo
02-26-2014, 11:59 AM
Might be worth a look, but I'm hoping for a discussion. I notice when I tried to raise the issue of birth control, and preventing unwanted pregnancies, I got responses like this instead:
And there we are. Who CARES about unwanted pregnancy, we want to discuss "murdering unborn children", and seeking a sensible policy is labeled "vitriolic rhetoric".

Meanwhile, Gallup produces some interesting breakdowns:


Americans' preferences for the "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" terms vary greatly by political party and ideology, but also by demographic characteristics. Americans with no religious affiliation and self-described liberals are the most likely to call themselves "pro-choice," with roughly eight in 10 choosing this label. Postgraduates and high-income earners are nearly as oriented to the pro-choice position as are Democrats, followed by Easterners, suburbanites, and young adults.

On the other end of the spectrum, Protestants, low-income Americans, adults with no college education, and Southerners join Republicans and conservatives as the least "pro-choice."

So it would seem that postgraduates and high income earners are the most "pro-murder", while low-income people without college educations are the most "anti-murder". No wonder informed and educated discussion is nowhere to be found. Why think when you can use slogans?

I don't know if anyone's caught this yet, but assuming this citation is accurate (and polls and stats can be made to say anything), isn't it odd to anyone else that the wealthy and intellectual elite are more pro-abortion than those that (according to Phank) abortion is really aimed at "helping"? This reads like wealthy, liberal, intellectuals with no religious affiliation have no problem seeing the numbers of the poor and disadvantaged thinned by way of abortion. Is this the image you want people to have Phank? If not, I don't think relying on surveys that say "well educated, rich people are for abortion" is the way to go.