Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gallup's Mirror on November 19, 2012 at 2:50pm

"@GM - We are trying to solve the problem of "fetal consciousness"? "

Fetal consciousness is a legitimate science-based ethical reason to regulate abortion. We don't know when fetal consciousness begins except that it occurs sometime after 24 weeks.

"And it's important to have some moronic government bureaucrat involved in the decision making process?"

Of course it is, Keith. Moronic government bureaucrats (and Democrats too) are involved in every legal issue, from jaywalking to homicide. That goes whether abortion is completely unrestricted or banned outright.

I'd say based on those first two comments that you're resisting, and it's because you dislike that I raised the point, not because the point is incorrect or unclear.

"As you point out, 1.3% of abortions were performed after 21 weeks.  You just simply can't tell me that in all but a handful of cases, these weren't completely justified by the people whose lives were impacted by this."

Yes. I can't tell you how many of the 8028 abortions performed after 21 weeks in 2008 were justifiable. That's because I haven't seen any statistics on that. (I'm inclined to think it was a small percentage.) Likewise, until you check the statistics yourself, you can't tell me it was "all but a handful" either.

"My point is, there IS no "problem" that needs to be addressed by legislation"

Of course there is. It's just a much smaller problem than deaths due to things like motor vehicle crashes or prescription drugs. That doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist at all.

"And the more legislation there is, regardless of how "well intended" it is, and ESPECIALLY legislation that servers no constructive purpose for society is BAD legislation."

Forty-one US states already prohibit abortion after a certain point in pregnancy. This usually is set at 24 weeks or "viability", which serves the science-backed "constructive purpose" explained in my previous post.

Seven states ban abortion completely after 20 weeks: an arbitrary limit that Nebraska yanked out of its backside, which inspired six other states to do the same. I'd call that "bad" legislation, as I would any legislation that ignores reality, science, and reason.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on November 19, 2012 at 3:13pm

Fetal consciousness is a legitimate science-based ethical reason to regulate abortion. We don't know when fetal consciousness begins except that it occurs sometime after 24 weeks.

Actually. it isn't clear why this is a relevant factor. Consciousness, in and of itself, is a poor threshold to use. Livestock is conscious (perhaps more significantly so than foetuses) and we slaughter it wholesale. Consciousness alone doesn't equate to personhood, and it is the rights of persons with which we are primarily concerned.

Recently, a Member of Parliament here tried for a motion petitioning for a scientific inquiry into the matter. His end goal was to reevaluate, and potentially redefine the definition of personhood in our murder statutes. (The exact terms in the Criminal code are 'human being' and 'homicide'.)

This presents more problems than it solves, even if we accepted that late term abortions should be avoided (which I do not). A doctor would now be committing homicide in performing a late term abortion. Medical necessity? Is there such a thing as medically necessary homicide?

We aren't protecting anything with such laws.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Pinster on November 19, 2012 at 5:01pm

Well, it's so sad to talk to someone who has such little regard for women, who things that they are, as a rule, just to pathetically stupid to manage their own bodies and who also seems to have even less concern about the children that are forced to grow up with such harpies. 

I, on the other hand, give them the befit of the doubt, assuming that these women actually struggled with their decision and don't feel it necessary to reduce half our country to slavery.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  Personally, I err on the side of freedom and liberty rather than subjugation and slavery.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gallup's Mirror on November 19, 2012 at 5:32pm

In other words: your position is too weak to withstand an intellectually honest debate, or address the actual substance of my comments. So you go all shrill and

Permalink Reply by Keith Pinster on November 19, 2012 at 10:17pm

@Gallup's Mirror - "In other words: your position is too weak to withstand an intellectually honest debate"

Actually, no.  It was just clear to me that you are closed minded and are one of those people that jump to conclusions and use arbitrary lines in the sand to take a stance to justify what you want to be true.  You admit that you have no idea when consciousness develops ("We don't know when fetal consciousness begins"), don't know anything about the circumstances around these very few abortions ("I can't tell you how many of the 8028 abortions performed after 21 weeks in 2008 were justifiable"), and believe in over-bearing, over-reaching government ("government bureaucrats (and Democrats too) are involved in every legal issue, from jaywalking to homicide. That goes whether abortion is completely unrestricted or banned outright.").  

You also seem to produce contradictory statements (e.g. that last statement: "government bureaucrats ... are involved in every legal issue, ... [even when] ... completely unrestricted".  How would bureaucrats be involved in something that is completely unrestricted?).

My stance is pretty straight forward:

* To me, the OBVIOUS line in the stand is birth.  No one at all can ague that a person becomes their own after that point. 

* Second, as I said, I prefer to err on the side of freedom and liberty rather than slavery.  Forcing a woman to carry a baby to the point of death for both her and the baby, to me is one of the very definitions of evil.

* You are correct in that I don't have any empirical evidence to suggest that most of the women having late-term abortions are doing so based on heath reasons.  However, LOGIC is definitely on my side here. Like I said, I just don't believe that a woman would carry a baby into her third trimester (let alone her second trimester), only to abort it for no better reason than on a whim.  As I said, to think that they would for no valid reason is basically saying that you think that women are too pathetically stupid to make their own decisions. It is saying that women can never be trusted to make their own decisions, relegating them to slavery of their own bodies and the men that make their decisions for them.

My concession is simply the recognition that you and I have what appears to be contradictory political philosophies and I don't see a way for us to come to a consensus. My posts always include the concept of freedom and allowing adults to make their own decisions whereas your posts never address liberty, but rather seem to support fascist governmental control over people's lives based on your personal moral path and ignoring every else's that contradict it.  We seem to have such diametrically opposed viewpoints on how people should be treated, that I don't really see how a conversation between us could be constructive.

Permalink Reply by Keith Pinster on November 19, 2012 at 5:07pm

Also, I do hope that your wife/sister/daughter or whoever is close to you doesn't have complications one day and end up dying in a hospital bed because some self-righteous bureaucratic prick has decided that her life isn't worth squat.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Pinster on November 19, 2012 at 9:24pm

http://www.upworthy.com/dear-america-this-is-what-happens-when-you-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gallup's Mirror on November 19, 2012 at 10:03pm

Me: Medical science shows fetal consciousness begins sometime after 24 weeks.
Crackpot: That's slavery!!! You're enslaving women!!!
Me: We really should roll back these arbitrary state limitations on abortions.
Crackpot: A self-righteous prick will kill your family!!!
Me: It would be better to base abortion-related legislation on reality, science, and reason.
Crackpot: See what happens when you ban all abortions!!!

Priceless, Keith. Absolutely priceless. Have a great night. ;)

Permalink Reply by Keith Pinster on November 19, 2012 at 11:12pm

@G - ya, so you accuse me of running away from an "honest debate" while puking insults like "So you go all shrill..." and resort to name calling, and you call ME the irrational one?  You can't even associate  quotes properly.  Too funny.  Xian trolls like you are so amusing. LOL 

Permalink Reply by James Cox on November 19, 2012 at 1:43am

Sadly, in my experience, it does not seem a common occurance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RobertPiano on November 18, 2012 at 10:17pm

if someone is not following the teachings of their religious, well I guess they are not very religious (the word religious implies observance as in "i work-out religiously). I agree these people are sometimes merely liberal enablers of the true people of faith and as such they may respect atheists. For the faithful bible is still the bible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on November 18, 2012 at 11:00pm

RE: "For the faithful bible is still the bible." - Personally, I would rephrase that Robert.

I would say that for the faithful, who prefer not to investigate the Bible, and learn about all of the biblical scholars who have evidence that Moses did not write any of the books labeled, "According To Moses," who chose not to learn about all of the other forgeries, pseudepigraphical writings, and insertions by anonymous authors into authentic texts, not to mention the first Council of Nicaea, in which it was arbitrarily decided which books would be included in the New Testament, and which would not (of which, many of the latter were destroyed), then, yes, the Bible is still the Bible.

And an ostrich is still an ostrich --

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page