Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion

[lilpixieofterror]

"How is being a civillian inherently more worthy of protection than being a soldier? Wars aren't personal disputes between individual soldiers, they are massive disputes between groups of people, some performing different functions but all of them contributing to the war machine."

Pregnant women are included in both "civilian" and "groups of people", therefore not worthy of more protection that soldiers. He's OK with killing civilians, including pregnant women and hence their foetuses.

Do you have the cojones to admit this?
Do you have the cojones to admit that drone strikes are not "combat situations"?

I doubt it.

“My death cult is being exposed, quick let me throw out a distraction to avoid having to deal with what the pro abortion side really wants.”

[Roy]

Note that dishonest Roy leaves out the details of the conversation and simply misrepresents what I actually said to support his buddies and their death cult. Another day, another famous Roy distraction.

Feel free to provide any exonerating details you can find,

[lilpixieofterror]

Feel free to provide any details you like,

Still defending your death cult, eh? It is funny though that you call me a troll while you come into this thread to troll away in a sad attempt to distract from the topic of this thread. Good job showing that liberals can’t talk honestly about their death cult err I mean abortion. Always a pleasure having you around Roy.

[Roy]

Still defending your death cult, eh?

Just highlighting that you haven't provided any of the details you say were left out,

P.S. I'm not a pro-choicer.

[lilpixieofterror]

Just highlighting that you haven't provided any of the details you say were left out,

P.S. I'm not a pro-choicer.

We’ve already been down this road Mr. ‘I’m not a pro-choicer, but I’ll defend them at every turn’ Roy. You threw out the sound bite and we both know you’ve given the link before. Why so scared to now? Remember how you embarrassed yourself last time when you attempted to distract from your death cult that you don’t support, but always defend? Personally, I liked how OBP disagreed with your interpretation and sound bite of my words and you ran away, with your tail tucked between your legs. Unlike you, I don’t have a file where I keep soudbites and links to post to distract others with. Pull out the rest of your file and give the link.

[oxmixmudd]

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?

Because the baby is innocent, and the criminal is not. A person who has murdered another person (and that is one of the few remaining ways a person can legally earn the death penalty in this country) is NOT the same as an innocent baby.

So what you are saying is that you will stand for the rights of those that have murdered to live, or the rights of conquerors to conquer no matter how brutal, but you will not accept the right of an innocent child to live if it is inconvenient to the parents that they exist.

Do you realize that is what you are saying?



Jim

[carpedm9587]

Because the baby is innocent, and the criminal is not. A person who has murdered another person (and that is one of the few remaining ways a person can legally earn the death penalty in this country) is NOT the same as an innocent baby.

So what you are saying is that you will stand for the rights of those that have murdered to live, or the rights of conquerors to conquer no matter how brutal, but you will not accept the right of an innocent child to live if it is inconvenient to the parents that they exist.

Do you realize that is what you are saying?

Jim

I don't think your rebuttal logically follows. I think you may be creating a false dichotomy.

I think what is being said is, "if human life is precious, shouldn't it ALL be precious?" A murderer is a person who, like all people, can change. Yes, they took a life; but does the response to this HAVE to be "take a life back?" There are alternatives, some of which have been shown to be highly successful. And those alternatives are especially important when you consider the incidence rate of false convictions. Capital punishment necessarily involves accepting that some percentage of the people you kill will actually be innocent. It is final: no opportunity for reformation, and no opportunity to reverse any error that may have occurred.

Killing in self-defense is widely seen as moral (and I agree), but is a drone strike to take out a known terrorist justified if we know that we will, in the process, incur "collateral damage?" How much "collateral damage" is too much? And what about the issue of running roughshod over national sovereignty to launch these strikes?

Sometimes it seems that people cling to their ironclad positions, even though they lead to some amazing inconsistencies. Why is "owning a gun" so much more important than "human life?" A gun is a thing. A tool. But despite all of the evidence that shows us that a proliferation of this particular tool leads to an increase in death BY that tool, the tool is so cherished and such a "right" that this amazing level of carnage is justified.

It makes one wonder...

[Cow Poke]

My rationale is simple: the abortion law being discussed acknowledges "person" status of any child that survives the abortion attempt."

Why? What magically happens after the 'assassination attempt' that causes the victim to suddenly become a "person"?

[rogue06]

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.

And yet while still a senator in the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama opposed efforts to protect babies who had survived abortion attempts voting against Born Alive acts in Illinois as well as opposing legislation that would define those babies as persons. During debate over one of the Born Alive bills Obama made it clear that he was far more concerned with things like protecting abortion itself and with protecting doctors who just shouldn’t be required to preserve the lives of babies who stubbornly refused to die and were born alive as can be seen from his remarks:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.

So if the doctor was wrong and the baby certainly was viable in that it actually survived an attempt to kill it, then the doctor shouldn't be "burden[ed]" with trying to keep the baby alive since it had the gall to "not just coming out limp and dead."

I guess this means that if someone is sick or injured and a doctor assumes that they won't survive but in fact does then that doctor shouldn't be burdened with helping to keep them alive but should be free to refuse all treatment and even food and water so that they will finally die.

And is there a need for such a protection?

If you start at about the 5 minute mark you'll find that Planned Parenthood in St. Paul, Minnesota will "Break the Baby’s Neck" if the abortion process fails and the baby is born alive:

We don’t tell women this […] but if we was to proceed with the abortion and the baby was to come out still alive and active, most likely we would break the baby’s neck

[carpedm9587]

Why? What magically happens after the 'assassination attempt' that causes the victim to suddenly become a "person"?

Why? Because that is what the law says in the first two clauses, CP.

And I'll leave the hyperbolic "assassination attempt" to you. Again - it is that kind of language that results in what we have today: two sides that hate each other and see each other as evil. Until you're ready to set that POV aside and actually engage - you will continue to be at war in an endless battle.

I choose not to engage in that battle, except to stand on the sideline and repeatedly point out that the endless war is pointless...it has solved nothing - and it will solve nothing.


(you might want to reread my sig)

[carpedm9587]

And yet while still a senator in the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama opposed efforts to protect babies who had survived abortion attempts voting against Born Alive acts in Illinois as well as opposing legislation that would define those babies as persons. During debate over one of the Born Alive bills Obama made it clear that he was far more concerned with things like protecting abortion itself and with protecting doctors who just shouldn’t be required to preserve the lives of babies who stubbornly refused to die and were born alive as can be seen from his remarks:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.

So if the doctor was wrong and the baby certainly was viable in that it actually survived an attempt to kill it, then the doctor shouldn't be "burden[ed]" with trying to keep the baby alive since it had the gall to "not just coming out limp and dead."

I guess this means that if someone is sick or injured and a doctor assumes that they won't survive but in fact does then that doctor shouldn't be burdened with helping to keep them alive but should be free to refuse all treatment and even food and water so that they will finally die.

I don't defend positions I do not hold. I disagree with Obama on his abortion stance - always have.

And is there a need for such a protection?

If you start at about the 5 minute mark you'll find that Planned Parenthood in St. Paul, Minnesota will "Break the Baby’s Neck" if the abortion process fails and the baby is born alive:

We don’t tell women this […] but if we was to proceed with the abortion and the baby was to come out still alive and active, most likely we would break the baby’s neck

According to the NY law - this is an illegal act and the person should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Pointing out that it happens doesn't mean we need more laws - it means we need to enforce the ones we have.

[rogue06]

I don't defend positions I do not hold. I disagree with Obama on his abortion stance - always have.



According to the NY law - this is an illegal act and the person should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Pointing out that it happens doesn't mean we need more laws - it means we need to enforce the ones we have.

A federal law would be nice in case a liberal state attorney general doesn't want to prosecute.

[Cow Poke]

...Pointing out that it happens doesn't mean we need more laws - it means we need to enforce the ones we have.

Wait -- when did this become a gun control thread?

[carpedm9587]

A federal law would be nice in case a liberal state attorney general doesn't want to prosecute.

We have both federal and state laws protecting people, Rogue. I am still not seeing a need for more ink.

[carpedm9587]

Wait -- when did this become a gun control thread?

I wondered if you'd appreciate that...