Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion

[Cow Poke]

OK- so the article misrepresents this statement. The baby is not "already born and separate from the woman." The woman is in labor, about to give birth. These are not the same thing.

You do realize, I'm sure, that when the woman is "dilating", we're only moments from an actual birth, right? This is a FAR CRY from "abortions should be safe, legal and rare" and not beyond the first (or second) trimester, yes?

And when you add the rest of the bill - which clearly states that the baby must be non-viable, or the woman's life must be in jeopardy, and requires consulting physicians to agree that one of these two conditions has been met...well... the article is grossly misleading.

Indeed, all the law appears to do is amend an existing law to add "non-viable fetus" to the list of reasons for the late-term abortion. All of this "hype" is trying to paint a picture where a healthy woman can abort a healthy infant as it emerges from between her legs "just because she wants to." Nothing could be further from the truth.

And I notice that no one has actually answered the question asked: does anyone here think that some 58% of their neighbors and fellow citizens are functioning sociopaths?

Carpe -- this is BEYOND the "slippery slope" --- this is so incredibly draconian that I would never have thought the liberals would have pushed THIS far. The logical question is -- where does this stop?

[Cow Poke]

I've wondered the same thing... the Christians in this forum seem really psychologically disturbed compared to other Christians I've known in my life.....

Well, considering the source...

[Christianbookworm]

Well, considering the source...

It really is too easy to make him think I'm a psychopath.

[Mountain Man]

Seems the video doesn't work, but here's a link to the relevant article:

Is Original Sin Unfair?

[Cow Poke]

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, ....

How bout backing up this idiot statement with at least 3 actual quotes proving you're not a liar. I dare you.

[Starlight]

How bout backing up this idiot statement with at least 3 actual quotes proving you're not a liar. I dare you.

I don't understand what you think requests like this contribute. You and I and others have had dozens of discussions about excessive police violence in the US. We both know perfectly well you and others here have been pretty consistent in defending the police and police methods and I have been pretty consistent for criticizing the police for excessively lethal force.

Are you pretending these discussions didn't happen? Are you just old and senile and don't remember they occurred? Are you just asking stupid questions to try and test whether I can use google successfully to find old posts?

[Cow Poke]

I don't understand what you think requests like this contribute. You and I and others have had dozens of discussions about excessive police violence in the US. We both know perfectly well you and others here have been pretty consistent in defending the police and police methods and I have been pretty consistent for criticizing the police for excessively lethal force.

Are you pretending these discussions didn't happen? Are you just old and senile and don't remember they occurred? Are you just asking stupid questions to try and test whether I can use google successfully to find old posts?

Spare me the diversionary tactics....

I'm simply challenging you to back up your claim with actual quotes, and I'm only asking for THREE of the "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..."

Can't do it?

[Starlight]

Second, in all of the cases cited, the killing was--or at least was supposed to be--against someone who wasn't an innocent. The death penalty is used against criminals, drone strikes are used against threats, and killing in war is killing someone who is actively attempting to kill you. Yes--innocents can get killed in such things, and reasonable precautions should be taken to try to prevent such things from happening. But in none of those cases is the goal to kill an innocent, unlike abortion.

I've been thinking about this statement...

I think you might have been indoctrinated to hold an implicit moral assumption which I don't hold: Namely that it is possible for someone to "deserve death".

The last execution in my country was 25 years before I was born. In my lifetime not a single court has ever, nor could ever, rule that someone "deserved" to die, for any reason, for any possible action. Thus the concept that someone might deserve death because of their actions is alien to me. It is not an idea I have ever been taught to believe.

Consider it's opposite: Nobody would say "I was conceived and born because I deserved to live". Nobody starts living because they "deserved" it, and likewise, IMO it strikes me as equally utterly nonsensical to imagine someone might die because they "deserve" it.

But, I can understand that people who grew up in America, where the death penalty is practiced, whose military does active lethal missions regularly, might be indoctrinated by their society to believe that death could be something that "bad people" "deserve" due to being "guilty" of something. While this makes me view you as having a horrible and immoral society that puts little value on human life, I do understand how this might lead the average person in the US to think that death is something that can be deserved, and that somehow if someone is 'bad' or 'guilty' that this makes it somehow okay to kill them. (If you think that such an idea can be derived from logical premises rather than merely being indoctrinated as a axiom, I would be interested to see your argument.)

So, whereas I see all intelligent life as always and in every case valuable in and of itself, and its death always and in every case as a tragedy, which can never be "deserved" anymore than its life in the first place was "deserved" (i.e. I see that sort of thinking as a category error), you guys by contrast do not see intelligent life as being as valuable as I see it and you think its death can be deserved/warranted if it has done 'bad' things and/or is 'guilty' of the wrong behavior. Another difference I see is that your concern for intelligent life is primarily a concern for human life rather than intelligent life (either because you have religious beliefs that humans are special, or because you are a human and only care for your own species), and so you are concerned for life which is human but not intelligent (e.g. fetuses)... of course I then have to wonder what you would do if we ever encountered a sentient alien species - would you think killing and eating them like an animal would be fine if you decided God hadn't given them souls?

[Starlight]

Spare me the diversionary tactics....

I'm simply challenging you to back up your claim with actual quotes, and I'm only asking for THREE of the "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..."

Can't do it?

Do your own research.

And while you're at it, see if you can find three quotes to prove you aren't senile and haven't just forgotten the dozens of discussions we've had on this topic you're asking me to remind you of.

[Terraceth]

What happened to Original Sin?

Oh, you.

[Cow Poke]

Do your own research.

Ah, a JimL tactic!

And while you're at it, see if you can find three quotes to prove you aren't senile and haven't just forgotten the dozens of discussions we've had on this topic you're asking me to remind you of.

You can't find the quotes because either you're a liar or you're really seriously profoundly ignorant on this topic.

It's not MURDER, you moron, when a police officer justifiably uses deadly force in the apprehension of a criminal. Even then, I'm not "fine" with it --- but I acknowledge it's necessary, though I wish it didn't have to be that way.
And note - you said to CRIMINALS.

And when it's NOT justified, I don't know any of us who think that's "fine".

Now, ball's back in your court -- prove me wrong. And prove you're not either a liar or a blithering idiot.

[Cow Poke]

OK- so the article misrepresents this statement. The baby is not "already born and separate from the woman." The woman is in labor, about to give birth. These are not the same thing.

OK, look at this....

"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. 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 the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion,"

Let's break it down....

"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered.

Even Northam, a pediatrician, for cryin' out loud, is no longer referring to a "fetus", but an "infant". The infant would be delivered - so you have an actual baby there. Let's continue...

The infant would be kept comfortable.

We'd have to assume the baby, at this point, is alive, yes? In order to "be kept comfortable". Then he seems to ....

The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired.

The "kept comfortable" infant... needs to be resuscitated... from what? We're talking about a baby, no longer "my body", but "My body vs the baby's body". The infant is no longer "part of the body" of the woman. And note, Northam refers to her as "the mother" and family.

And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

What would this discussion be about? What's to discuss?

[Cow Poke]

It’s always interesting how the culture of death goes about justifying its pro infanticide policies.

Tassy has some wisdom on that....

I think we can agree that young children and babies fare better with their mothers

That is, of course, assuming their mothers don't hire somebody to kill their children and babies. That wouldn't be very safe for the children.

[Roy]

It’s always interesting how the culture of death goes about justifying its pro infanticide policies.

LPOT's justification for mass infanticide:

You are aware that babies have been used as weapons of war, such as a trigger for a booby trap, right?

[Roy]

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.

Of course none of those are analogous to killing an innocent human life before it has even left the womb (or even minutes after, if some especially evil liberals have their way).

Drone strikes can and do kill pregnant women - and their unborn children with them.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/23/drone-strike-al-qaida-targets-white-house

Earlier this month, a collaborative report from the Open Society Justice Initiative and researchers from the Yemeni nongovernmental organization Mwatana Organization for Human Rights documented nine US air strikes between May 2012 and April 2014 that caused civilian harm.

Based on interviews with victims and their relatives, eyewitnesses, doctors and hospital staff, the report cites a US drone strike that killed 12 people, including a pregnant woman and three children, as well as another incident in which the US struck a house containing 19 people, including women and children.

© Copyright Original Source