Page 1 of 36 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 355

Thread: Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion

  1. #1
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    48,849
    Amen (Given)
    10475
    Amen (Received)
    23096

    Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion

    Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion



    Democrats will protect American children from the evils of trans fats and gay conversion therapy, but not from doctors who will kill them through negligent homicide in the first few hours of their lives. This is the ugly reality of the contemporary abortion debate. It’s why most advocates will do about anything to avoid describing the unpleasant realities and consequences of their increasingly radical position.

    On Tuesday, Senate Democrats blocked Republican Ben Sasse’s effort for unanimous consent on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. It must be stressed that this bill wasn’t technically about abortion, but about protecting babies who survived the procedure. It seems the already risible argument of “my body, my choice” has morphed into “not my body anymore, still my choice.”

    Sasse’s bill, which exempted mothers from prosecution, would have required “any health care practitioner present” to help ensure “that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital” and to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

    Now, it would have been one thing if Sen. Patty Murray objected on grounds of states’ rights or the broad nature of the bill, but she did not. “We have laws against infanticide in this country,” she claimed. “This is a gross misinterpretation of the actual language of the bill that is being asked to be considered and therefore, I object.”

    She is wrong. There are laws that allow for infanticide. We have one of those laws in New York. The failed Virginia bill that precipitated this debate would also have allowed the killing of unborn babies until birth for virtually any reason—and, if those babies happen to survive an attempt on their lives, after birth, as well.

    When asked if her bill would allow abortions for woman dilating in the “40th week,” Virginia Del. Kathy Tran said, “My bill would allow that, yes.” Her mistake was being honest. When Gov. Ralph Northam tried to make Tran’s infanticide bill sound humane, explaining that the “infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother,” his mistake was also honesty.

    Northam, as his defenders pointed out, was merely talking about euthanasia—although they would never call it by its appropriate name—as if terminating the lives of infants with fetal abnormalities like Down syndrome for the convenience of the parents is more morally palatable. The Virginia bill, however, also allowed for the abortion, or post-birth termination, of viable, once-healthy infants for nearly any reason.

    The reality of the bill hasn’t stopped people from continuing to act as if every abortion is a life or death decision for the mother. This, it seems, is rarely the case. The pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute found that both medical literature and late-term abortion providers show the majority of late-term procedures are not performed for “maternal health complications or lethal fetal anomalies discovered late in pregnancy.” The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute also found that a majority of women who seek these abortions “do not do so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment,” either.

    In any event, every bill limiting post-20 week abortions makes exceptions for the life of the mother. Sasse’s bill does not stop parents and doctors from making tough decision about critically ill infants. This is a myth.

    When late-term abortion defenders are honest, as feminist writer Jessica Valenti was recently, they sound like old-school eugenicists. Reacting to National Review writer Alexandra DeSanctis’s excellent article in The Atlantic, Valenti first tries to distract from the law itself by complaining that “the author writes about ‘third trimester abortions’ while linking to research about abortion post-20 weeks (which is about when you get an ultrasound for fetal abnormalities.)”

    Yes, it’s true that most 20-week bans are opposed by Democrats because the abortions in question are used to weed out imperfect children. But the reason it’s easy to conflate the two is that viability keeps expanding and going well beyond the third trimester. Let’s start using the phrase “viable babies,” then.

    One of those kids, Lyla Stensrud, was born after 21 weeks and four days, weighing just 14.4 ounces. It is almost certain that technology will advance to a place where there will be many more children like Lyla. Does anyone really argue that a single week makes that fetus a mere clump of cells? According to the Guttmacher Institute, around 15,000 Lylas are aborted every year.

    Valenti, though, goes on to tweet, “the GOP is bankrupting parents with kids in the NICU – stays that cost literally millions of dollars.” Not only can you abort a completely healthy baby for reasons of emotional stress, but you can also choose not to care for viable infants because it puts unfair fiscal pressure on parents and hospitals. Do you know how much an autistic child costs? Why not them, as well?

    If this is really an argument for post-birth termination, can someone explain the moral distinction between going to a NICU unit and injecting poison into a premature baby that is either causing the mother emotional fiscal stress or injecting poison into another baby–same exact age, same exact reasons–that’s in the womb? If you’re honest, like Valenti, there is none.

    Most people circumvent the reality of late-term abortion (and post-abortion killings) for convenience by claiming it never happens. This is a highly dubious contention. But if it’s true, why pass state laws protecting doctors who might engage in the practice? Seems like a good way to incentivize it. And if there is no market for infanticide, why do people like Kermit Gosnell exist? What is the difference between what Gosnell did and what they want to legalize—other than cleaner facilities?

    For many years, Democrats have been allowed to get away without any serious questions regarding their opposition to post-20-week abortion restrictions. Despite interference from fact checkers and other Democratic Party surrogates, for example, their 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton supported, from conception to crowning, not a single restriction on the procedure. This fact becomes obvious in the rare times they’re honest about what abortion means.
    --- this space intentionally left blank ---

  2. Amen RumTumTugger, oxmixmudd amen'd this post.
  3. #2
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    47,220
    Amen (Given)
    1010
    Amen (Received)
    17276
    Look no further than the unhinged response from Monica Klein, the founding partner of Seneca Strategies, when Tucker Carlson asked her "I wonder what you think about what Dr. Northam, the governor of Virginia, said. The infant is born. There’s a point where the mother and the physician can decide whether to kill the infant or not."

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  4. Amen RumTumTugger, oxmixmudd amen'd this post.
  5. #3
    tWebber Christianbookworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    9,103
    Amen (Given)
    5342
    Amen (Received)
    1701
    When does murder stop being okay? Why is murder wrong if we are merely apes. We don't toss chimps in prison for killing their fellow chimps. Though, that may be because they have the intellect of a small child...
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

  6. #4
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,730
    Amen (Given)
    2715
    Amen (Received)
    1650
    Personally I was wondering yesterday why conservatives on this forum are never honest about abortion.

  7. #5
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    47,220
    Amen (Given)
    1010
    Amen (Received)
    17276
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    Personally I was wondering yesterday why conservatives on this forum are never honest about abortion.
    I'll grant you this, at least you are very forthwith about your support of slaughtering newborns and infants.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  8. #6
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,730
    Amen (Given)
    2715
    Amen (Received)
    1650
    Quote Originally Posted by Christianbookworm View Post
    When does murder stop being okay?
    Well a lot of conservatives on this forum who get so hung up about abortion seem to be fine with murder when its done by police to criminals, the State in the death-penalty, individuals with guns in Stand-Your-Ground laws, soldiers in wars, or by drone strikes. All of which I am against in general. So maybe ask yourself and fellow conservatives your question first: Why you all are so okay with murder under many circumstances but get very upset about it when it comes to abortion?

    We don't toss chimps in prison for killing their fellow chimps. Though, that may be because they have the intellect of a small child...
    In my view, which is a very common view among secular people, though not shared by everyone: What matters is the mental abilities of the victim.

    A rock has no mind at all, so cutting up rocks isn't a moral issue at all. A plant has virtually zero mind so cutting them up is pretty much not a problem. Small insects just work on a few neurons guiding them to move around so squashing them isn't really an issue. But with the higher mammals they start to have quite sophisticated mental abilities: Consciousness, basic language, ability to mourn, good memories, complex social behaviors and interactions, can learn to use tools to solve basic problems, can recognize themselves in a mirror, etc. So the killing of higher-cognition animals for food is a very morally problematic practice. As such I want to see society protect all higher-cognition animals and move away from using them as a food source for humans.

    With regard to human development, any given human starts out as a single fertilized cell which obviously at that stage of development has zero brain and zero mental abilities. As the fetus develops it begins to develop a brain, creates some basic mental connections etc. Humans are actually a quite unusually late-developing species when it comes to mental development. e.g. a baby horse is born with the ability to walk within an hour or two of birth etc while a baby human takes about a year to learn to walk. The reason for this is because humans stand upright the hips of human mothers are narrow compared to other species and hence human babies heads get squashed as they go through the birth canal. A result of this squashing is that the human infants brain would receive massive brain damage if it had been significantly developed pre-birth, so instead human infants have evolved to have absolutely minimal pre-birth brain development and to begin brain development post-birth. Whereas species like horses can have their offspring born with a fairly fully developed brain that knows how to walk etc. Post-birth human babies then being to rapidly develop their brains, surpassing apes in intelligence / mental capabilities at about 2 years of age.

    So looked at on the scale of mental abilities, a pre-birth human fetus has a level of mental development lower than that of a cow or a sheep, animals which our society currently regularly slaughters for food (which I think is morally wrong and shouldn't be done - see above). In that context, a choice to abort a fetus is less morally wrong than the choice to kill an animal for food, because the mental development of the fetus is lower than that of the animal being killed.
    Last edited by Starlight; 02-05-2019 at 02:45 PM.

  9. #7
    What's that? lilpixieofterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    8,596
    Amen (Given)
    1475
    Amen (Received)
    2901
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    Well a lot of conservatives on this forum who get so hung up about abortion seem to be fine with murder when its done by police to criminals, the State in the death-penalty, soldiers in wars, or by drone strikes. All of which I am against in general. So maybe ask yourself and fellow conservatives your question first: Why you all are so okay with murder under many circumstances but get very upset about it when it comes to abortion?

    In my view, which is a very common view among secular people, though not shared by everyone: What matters is the mental abilities of the victim.

    A rock has no mind at all, so cutting up rocks isn't a moral issue at all. A plant has virtually zero mind so cutting them up is pretty much not a problem. Small insects just work on a few neurons guiding them to move around so squashing them isn't really an issue. But with the higher mammals they start to have quite sophisticated mental abilities: Consciousness, basic language, ability to mourn, good memories, complex social behaviors and interactions, can learn to use tools to solve basic problems, can recognize themselves in a mirror, etc. So the killing of higher-cognition animals for food is a very morally problematic practice. As such I want to see society protect all higher-cognition animals and move away from using them as a food source for humans.

    With regard to human development, any given human starts out as a single fertilized cell which obviously at that stage of development has zero brain and zero mental abilities. As the fetus develops it begins to develop a brain, creates some basic mental connections etc. Humans are actually a quite unusually late-developing species when it comes to mental development. e.g. a baby horse is born with the ability to walk within an hour or two of birth etc while a baby human takes about a year to learn to walk. The reason for this is because humans stand upright the hips of human mothers are narrow compared to other species and hence human babies heads get squashed as they go through the birth canal. A result of this squashing is that the human infants brain would receive massive brain damage if it had been significantly developed pre-birth, so instead human infants have evolved to have absolutely minimal pre-birth brain development and to begin brain development post-birth. Whereas species like horses can have their offspring born with a fairly fully developed brain that knows how to walk etc. Post-birth human babies then being to rapidly develop their brains, surpassing apes in intelligence / mental capabilities at about 2 years of age.

    So looked at on the scale of mental abilities, a pre-birth human fetus has a level of mental development lower than that of a cow or a sheep, animals which our society currently regularly slaughters for food (which I think is morally wrong and shouldn't be done - see above). In that context, a choice to abort a fetus is less morally wrong than the choice to kill an animal for food, because the mental development of the fetus is lower than that of the animal being killed.
    It’s always interesting how the culture of death goes about justifying its pro infanticide policies.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

  10. Amen RumTumTugger, Bill the Cat amen'd this post.
  11. #8
    tWebber Christianbookworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    9,103
    Amen (Given)
    5342
    Amen (Received)
    1701
    So, when do you want some fetus burgers, star?
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

  12. #9
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,836
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1012
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion



    Democrats will protect American children from the evils of trans fats and gay conversion therapy, but not from doctors who will kill them through negligent homicide in the first few hours of their lives. This is the ugly reality of the contemporary abortion debate. It’s why most advocates will do about anything to avoid describing the unpleasant realities and consequences of their increasingly radical position.

    On Tuesday, Senate Democrats blocked Republican Ben Sasse’s effort for unanimous consent on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. It must be stressed that this bill wasn’t technically about abortion, but about protecting babies who survived the procedure. It seems the already risible argument of “my body, my choice” has morphed into “not my body anymore, still my choice.”

    Sasse’s bill, which exempted mothers from prosecution, would have required “any health care practitioner present” to help ensure “that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital” and to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

    Now, it would have been one thing if Sen. Patty Murray objected on grounds of states’ rights or the broad nature of the bill, but she did not. “We have laws against infanticide in this country,” she claimed. “This is a gross misinterpretation of the actual language of the bill that is being asked to be considered and therefore, I object.”

    She is wrong. There are laws that allow for infanticide. We have one of those laws in New York. The failed Virginia bill that precipitated this debate would also have allowed the killing of unborn babies until birth for virtually any reason—and, if those babies happen to survive an attempt on their lives, after birth, as well.

    When asked if her bill would allow abortions for woman dilating in the “40th week,” Virginia Del. Kathy Tran said, “My bill would allow that, yes.” Her mistake was being honest. When Gov. Ralph Northam tried to make Tran’s infanticide bill sound humane, explaining that the “infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother,” his mistake was also honesty.

    Northam, as his defenders pointed out, was merely talking about euthanasia—although they would never call it by its appropriate name—as if terminating the lives of infants with fetal abnormalities like Down syndrome for the convenience of the parents is more morally palatable. The Virginia bill, however, also allowed for the abortion, or post-birth termination, of viable, once-healthy infants for nearly any reason.

    The reality of the bill hasn’t stopped people from continuing to act as if every abortion is a life or death decision for the mother. This, it seems, is rarely the case. The pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute found that both medical literature and late-term abortion providers show the majority of late-term procedures are not performed for “maternal health complications or lethal fetal anomalies discovered late in pregnancy.” The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute also found that a majority of women who seek these abortions “do not do so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment,” either.

    In any event, every bill limiting post-20 week abortions makes exceptions for the life of the mother. Sasse’s bill does not stop parents and doctors from making tough decision about critically ill infants. This is a myth.

    When late-term abortion defenders are honest, as feminist writer Jessica Valenti was recently, they sound like old-school eugenicists. Reacting to National Review writer Alexandra DeSanctis’s excellent article in The Atlantic, Valenti first tries to distract from the law itself by complaining that “the author writes about ‘third trimester abortions’ while linking to research about abortion post-20 weeks (which is about when you get an ultrasound for fetal abnormalities.)”

    Yes, it’s true that most 20-week bans are opposed by Democrats because the abortions in question are used to weed out imperfect children. But the reason it’s easy to conflate the two is that viability keeps expanding and going well beyond the third trimester. Let’s start using the phrase “viable babies,” then.

    One of those kids, Lyla Stensrud, was born after 21 weeks and four days, weighing just 14.4 ounces. It is almost certain that technology will advance to a place where there will be many more children like Lyla. Does anyone really argue that a single week makes that fetus a mere clump of cells? According to the Guttmacher Institute, around 15,000 Lylas are aborted every year.

    Valenti, though, goes on to tweet, “the GOP is bankrupting parents with kids in the NICU – stays that cost literally millions of dollars.” Not only can you abort a completely healthy baby for reasons of emotional stress, but you can also choose not to care for viable infants because it puts unfair fiscal pressure on parents and hospitals. Do you know how much an autistic child costs? Why not them, as well?

    If this is really an argument for post-birth termination, can someone explain the moral distinction between going to a NICU unit and injecting poison into a premature baby that is either causing the mother emotional fiscal stress or injecting poison into another baby–same exact age, same exact reasons–that’s in the womb? If you’re honest, like Valenti, there is none.

    Most people circumvent the reality of late-term abortion (and post-abortion killings) for convenience by claiming it never happens. This is a highly dubious contention. But if it’s true, why pass state laws protecting doctors who might engage in the practice? Seems like a good way to incentivize it. And if there is no market for infanticide, why do people like Kermit Gosnell exist? What is the difference between what Gosnell did and what they want to legalize—other than cleaner facilities?

    For many years, Democrats have been allowed to get away without any serious questions regarding their opposition to post-20-week abortion restrictions. Despite interference from fact checkers and other Democratic Party surrogates, for example, their 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton supported, from conception to crowning, not a single restriction on the procedure. This fact becomes obvious in the rare times they’re honest about what abortion means.
    I cannot say that I have vetted this entire article, but the bolded/underlined part of it jumped out at me. It seems patently absurd that any state would pass a law permitting the killing of a viable infant after it is separate from the woman's body. As I suspected, the statement is false. It is yet another effort to fear-monger this already emotionally laden subject.

    Note that I am not taking a position on, or defending, late-term abortions. I find abortions abhorrent. But there is no need to mislead in order to take a position.

    And I will ask a question I asked CP in another venue: do any of you honestly believe that some 58% (sorry, CP, I think I used 65% as the number in my question to you. I had my stats crossed) of the people around you are functioning sociopaths? I'd be very interested in knowing what the answer to this question is. To help:

    Sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-05-2019 at 02:48 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  13. #10
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,730
    Amen (Given)
    2715
    Amen (Received)
    1650
    Quote Originally Posted by Christianbookworm View Post
    So, when do you want some fetus burgers, star?
    Apart from the yuck factor, any species eating its own species is a really bad idea medically because parasites and viruses etc get directly transferred. If you look up prion disease, it's really really nasty stuff.

    I would, however, like to try artificially grown meat burgers that grow the meat in a lab without killing any animals...

    Burgers made from artificial meat could be in restaurants by 2021

    A Dutch company that presented the world’s first lab-grown beefburger five years ago has said it has received funding to pursue its plans to make and sell artificially grown meat to restaurants from 2021.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •