|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/16/2013 12:51:06 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The funny thing is I haven't mentioned religion once in the conversation. Only Cory, and now yanko, have brought it up. |
You don't have to. The brand spanking new secular cloak is a dead giveaway. |
Be nice now, Richard. On this topic I have been consistent. Go search the other threads on abortion and you'll see I've already laid out a non-religious argument in opposition to abortion. |
Ok let's go with that premise then. It seems a classic case of "Drive faster than me, you're an jerk, drive slower than me you're an idiot." In other words, abortion, no matter how early is infanticide in the womb to you? That seems the general anti-abortion stance. Going the more conservative direction, birth control or the Plan B pill are even earlier infanticide to some, and even more extreme, "seed spilling" as a waste of life.
Now go the other direction, past late-term/partial-birth supporters to what I like to call "bat sh*t crazy land" are people that think infanticide is a necessary option. Yes, for real. I had a friend share an article on such and dead seriously believed this, though she took offense to the term "infanticide". Go figure.
So where does the line go? Anyone, on any point in the line, looks ahead, and looks behind, and thinks everyone else has got it all wrong.
Hence the choice, within reasonable (mostly) agreed upon by law parameters.
The doctor in the OP broke those agreed upon parameters by leaps and bounds.
(ETA Excuse my horrible sentence constructions I'm very tired.)
Message edited by author 2013-05-16 00:52:11. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:01:45 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The funny thing is I haven't mentioned religion once in the conversation. Only Cory, and now yanko, have brought it up. |
You don't have to. The brand spanking new secular cloak is a dead giveaway. |
Be nice now, Richard. On this topic I have been consistent. Go search the other threads on abortion and you'll see I've already laid out a non-religious argument in opposition to abortion.
In a way all that is irrelevant to this thread. I'm not making an argument against abortion (on this thread) nearly as much as I was arguing that the reasons posted here in support of abortion (mainly by Cory) are terrible reasons. Through the whole thread he has skirted around or even directly talked about ideas that are in line with Social Darwinism. Of all the arguments that could be made for abortion, these are among the worst. To say that because a child has unhappiness in her life we are wise enough to judge she is better off not having been born is, to me, quite detestable. That abortion needs to be around because people are going to have unhappy children and we are actually doing the children a favor by snuffing their life early. I pale at the idea. |
Doc, I am with you on this.
Snuffing out life. Big words. Real words. Snuff them because I made a mistake and I do not want the responsibility. Thus they will be unhappy kids and they will suffer and be sad. Shame. I can think about many adults who would qualify for an early snuffing too.
Abortion, just maybe, should then be both the carrier and the life she carries, why not? And then, why stop there, take the seeder in too, stop his breathing too. Then we really get rid of both the cause and the effect. And why stop there, look around you and report the unhappy, the depressed, the angry, the flawed etc etc, report them too. We can clip their spinal cords too.
There is no justification for taking a life, or, on the other side of the argument, to stop taking lives. Why pick on the unprotected innocent? Mom taking a decision to kill, a decision ethical doctors are reluctant to do even in cases with merit like brain damage and cancer. Abortion is murder by a socially accepted name. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:11:06 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The funny thing is I haven't mentioned religion once in the conversation. Only Cory, and now yanko, have brought it up. |
You don't have to. The brand spanking new secular cloak is a dead giveaway. |
Be nice now, Richard. On this topic I have been consistent. Go search the other threads on abortion and you'll see I've already laid out a non-religious argument in opposition to abortion. |
Ok let's go with that premise then. It seems a classic case of "Drive faster than me, you're an jerk, drive slower than me you're an idiot." In other words, abortion, no matter how early is infanticide in the womb to you? That seems the general anti-abortion stance. Going the more conservative direction, birth control or the Plan B pill are even earlier infanticide to some, and even more extreme, "seed spilling" as a waste of life.
Now go the other direction, past late-term/partial-birth supporters to what I like to call "bat sh*t crazy land" are people that think infanticide is a necessary option. Yes, for real. I had a friend share an article on such and dead seriously believed this, though she took offense to the term "infanticide". Go figure.
So where does the line go? Anyone, on any point in the line, looks ahead, and looks behind, and thinks everyone else has got it all wrong.
Hence the choice, within reasonable (mostly) agreed upon by law parameters.
The doctor in the OP broke those agreed upon parameters by leaps and bounds.
(ETA Excuse my horrible sentence constructions I'm very tired.) |
Well there is one position that isn't like that, which doesn't involve killing anything, but it's not so fun so it's not much of an option for most people. Call it extreme but at least it's consistent. How's that for sentence construction?
Message edited by author 2013-05-16 01:14:19. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:13:01 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not making an argument against abortion (on this thread) nearly as much as I was arguing that the reasons posted here in support of abortion are terrible reasons. |
Let me toss one in for consideration.
Contraception is largely seen as a personal issue. Women are free to use birth control pills or other devices that prevent implantation of an ovum. If a person objects to that method they are free to not use it, on whatever grounds they like but are not free to make them illegal for others. It is seen as a private choice left in the hands of individuals.
What Dr. Gosnell did in Philadelphia was clearly murder. Once an infant is born they are their own human being independent of the mother. If they are unwanted, society has developed a system, however flawed, that will take over care for that child should the parents decide they can not or will not. It is as simple as dropping the child at an emergency room or fire station and running away.
Between Plan B and severing a spinal cord lies a nine month period where the fertilized ovum becomes a living breathing human being. Some say that occurs at conception, some say when they are born breathing and kicking. It is not a thing that can be proven, it is a question of belief. So the question becomes, when does the state have the right to override the decision making right of the woman in who's belly that life is growing?
Roe v Wade split the question into neat thirds with increasing rights for the child and decreasing rights for the (would prefer not to be) mother. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court overturned Roe's trimester approach and introduced the concept of viability. Today, approximately 90% of all abortions occur in the first 12 weeks.
Many pro life legislatures are shortening the period that they view as pre-viable so we have States like North Dakota making abortion illegal after 6 weeks. Since most pregnancy tests do not work until a week after they miss, and there is only one clinic that does abortions in the entire state (and they have to fly in doctors from out of state), they have shortened the window for detection, decision, and action to such a short time, then they tuck in a mandatory waiting period. Sure travel across the state, and then just chill out for a day because you clearly haven't thought this through. They may as well just make it illegal.
Well that got long winded. My point, we all know what a live baby looks like, but we do not agree on when that fertilized ovum gains the same rights as the baby. Since to allow an unwanted child to come to term, we must force the mother to carry the child to term, the burden on the state to strip that woman of the right to do as she chooses with her body has to be vastly higher than a spiritual belief that she does not share.
Message edited by author 2013-05-16 01:26:27. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:15:42 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by docpjv:
There is no justification for taking a life |
I assume then you have never eaten meat, not crushed out the life of an insect? |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:28:00 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The funny thing is I haven't mentioned religion once in the conversation. Only Cory, and now yanko, have brought it up. |
You don't have to. The brand spanking new secular cloak is a dead giveaway. |
Be nice now, Richard. On this topic I have been consistent. Go search the other threads on abortion and you'll see I've already laid out a non-religious argument in opposition to abortion.
In a way all that is irrelevant to this thread. I'm not making an argument against abortion (on this thread) nearly as much as I was arguing that the reasons posted here in support of abortion (mainly by Cory) are terrible reasons. Through the whole thread he has skirted around or even directly talked about ideas that are in line with Social Darwinism. Of all the arguments that could be made for abortion, these are among the worst. To say that because a child has unhappiness in her life we are wise enough to judge she is better off not having been born is, to me, quite detestable. That abortion needs to be around because people are going to have unhappy children and we are actually doing the children a favor by snuffing their life early. I pale at the idea. |
Oh, you've missed the bigger picture. There are too damn many people here, anything that prevents more from being born is almost certainly a good thing. All the other arguments are cursory. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:34:32 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
What Dr. Gosnell did in Philadelphia was clearly murder. Once born an infant is born they are their own human being independent of the mother. |
It's a good thing he wasn't a sitting president otherwise he could use the enemy combatant defense...
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Well that got long winded. My point, we all know what a live baby looks like... |
Perhaps if we were marsupials, recognition of that baby would come sooner in the process. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 08:32:42 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by docpjv:
There is no justification for taking a life |
I assume then you have never eaten meat, not crushed out the life of an insect? |
Play nice now, you should have noted by now this is a question of human life. Not even humans, but human life. And then, no, I have never taken a human life. Almost my own in my dark days, but no. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 10:51:42 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
The fact is that it is much safer and healthier for the mother to give birth to the baby instead of having an abortion. |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
First, even in the United States, shocking as this may seem, it is NOT safer and healthier to have a baby. The mortality and complication rate for childbirth is higher, much higher, than for abortion. You can look up these statistics, or I'll look it up and post it later when I have time. |
Safety of Abortion:
Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women. The risk of death associated with abortion is low ΓΆ€” approximately 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions ΓΆ€” and the risk of major complications is less than 1%.
The risk of death when a pregnancy is continued to birth is about 12 times as great as the risk of death associated with induced abortion. (Note: The calculation of mortality associated with childbirth omits deaths related to miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.)
On average, eight women each year die from complications of induced abortion, compared with about 280 who die from complications of pregnancy and childbirth, excluding abortion and ectopic pregnancy.
Abortion is safer the earlier in pregnancy it is performed.
From the Guttmacher Institute
|
|
|
|
05/16/2013 10:59:28 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The funny thing is I haven't mentioned religion once in the conversation. Only Cory, and now yanko, have brought it up. |
You don't have to. The brand spanking new secular cloak is a dead giveaway. |
Be nice now, Richard. On this topic I have been consistent. Go search the other threads on abortion and you'll see I've already laid out a non-religious argument in opposition to abortion.
In a way all that is irrelevant to this thread. I'm not making an argument against abortion (on this thread) nearly as much as I was arguing that the reasons posted here in support of abortion (mainly by Cory) are terrible reasons. Through the whole thread he has skirted around or even directly talked about ideas that are in line with Social Darwinism. Of all the arguments that could be made for abortion, these are among the worst. To say that because a child has unhappiness in her life we are wise enough to judge she is better off not having been born is, to me, quite detestable. That abortion needs to be around because people are going to have unhappy children and we are actually doing the children a favor by snuffing their life early. I pale at the idea. |
Oh, you've missed the bigger picture. There are too damn many people here, anything that prevents more from being born is almost certainly a good thing. All the other arguments are cursory. |
I can't find it now, but several years ago, I came across a "church" that you would have probably really liked, Cory. (They called themselves a church, not me). Their 4 pillars of beliefs were -- suicide, homicide, abortion and euthanization and their overarching belief was that the Earth was overcrowded and as her keeper, this "church's" members were to try to commit as many of these as possible, encourage as many others to do as well, and this ultimately help out by committing suicide.
It was quite possibly a spoof site (and least I hoped it was at the time), but as time has gone on, I've seen more and more people that seem to think like this "church" does. Reminds me of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 11:19:45 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Well there is one position that isn't like that, which doesn't involve killing anything, but it's not so fun so it's not much of an option for most people. Call it extreme but at least it's consistent. How's that for sentence construction? |
That being what? In any case you've missed the point. There is not ONE position. There is no ONE answer. The irony to me is that the people/states most vehemently opposed to abortion are the states suppressing sex education and access to contraception. Irony? We all know how to reduce abortions. I personally, could never have one myself but I can step outside myself enough to know that I am not the same as everyone else.
Another interesting point is this one: Should Abortion have a penalty? A video.
(Some graphic images in passing in the beginning because of the protestor's posters.)
Message edited by author 2013-05-16 11:21:41. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 11:37:22 AM · #87 |
| I'm going to come back when I have a break, but I wanted to take a moment to say that for all the heat of Rant I do enjoy posts that are thought out. I will single out Monica's and Brennan's posts above as excellent. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 12:04:00 PM · #88 |
Well, that was faster than I thought. Anyway...
I think Monica and Brennan bring up a good point that the development of a baby in utero is a gradual process. If we are looking for "bright lines" to exist where we can apply basic human rights we only find two: conception and birth. Neither feels quite right (as both pointed out) so we naturally search for a place between and create an artificial line. This, I think, is important to recognize. The new line is arbitrary. When something is arbitrary it has no intrinsic superiority over another point. So, we must realize that if the state of North Carolina wants to make this point at four or six weeks, it is no less valid than if the state of New York wants to make it 20 or 24 weeks.
This brings us to a crucial point I will disagree with Brennan on. He brings up the rights of the mother as being pertinent to placing this line. I think this is wrong or at least backwards. Not because I don't believe in the right of personal autonomy for all humans (not just women), but because I think it is highly unusual (or even unheard of) to determine the basic human rights of one population (unborn humans in this case) predicated upon the basic human rights of another population (women). It is better, in my opinion, to determine the rights of each separately and THEN adjudicate the rights when they conflict (and it would be clear that they would conflict in this case). I think many abortion rights people are scared of this idea (the "personhood movement" has been called "highly dangerous") because they know down deep that the right to live is likely to hold trump as more fundamental than the right to personal autonomy.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2013 12:32:08 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." |
Really karmat - can you say that you think we are not quickly getting ourselves into serious trouble?
The earth is already insufficient to provide a quality life for many humans, and you seem to be disagreeing that any reasonable measure that reduces the birth rate is a good thing?
So, when do we stop breeding like rabbits? 8 billion? 12 billion? 15 billion? Or do we just wait for the collapse and massive die-offs that are an inevitable result of our current trajectory?
To compare the stating of this fact to mr. Swift's suggestions that we should eat toddlers is just inflammatory and useless.
Message edited by author 2013-05-16 12:33:39. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:14:23 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by docpjv:
Play nice now, you should have noted by now this is a question of human life. Not even humans, but human life. And then, no, I have never taken a human life. Almost my own in my dark days, but no. |
I am in the same boat my friend. So the question becomes when does the shift from potential human life become human life? When does that unique spark of humanity occur? Is it when the zygote splits for the first time? Is that when it has more value than a family pet?
To my logic, that mass of tissue even up to the end of the first trimester where it is the size of an apricot, is the potential for human life. It requires the complex system of the host body, the mother, to become realized.
Here is where Doc's point comes into play. "It is better, in my opinion, to determine the rights of each separately and THEN adjudicate the rights when they conflict" comes into play. We have two sets of competing rights. The unborn child's right to be nurtured and born. The pregnant woman's right to control her own body. If the woman decides she does not want the child growing in her body, there is only one recourse, abortion, or deny that option and force the woman to carry the child to term.
So what the state has to determine is at what point does that mass of potential life have the right to reside in a woman's body over her objections?
We hold no special honors on the 60% of zygotes that fail to attach. Parents of stillborn children up to 20 weeks are allowed to dispose of the body as medical waste, or take them home and put them in the freezer,or bury them in the garden without any paperwork since the legal system does not see them as yet being a person. You can get a Fetal Demise Certificate after 20 weeks, but before 20 weeks there is no legal recognition that anything happened. It is considered a non event. Something almost happened, but nothing did. The law allows the parents to do with the remains what they will, because the law does not see that clump of tissue as a person, but as a potential life that failed to come into the world.
Message edited by author 2013-05-16 13:20:34. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:24:33 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by docpjv:
Play nice now, you should have noted by now this is a question of human life. Not even humans, but human life. And then, no, I have never taken a human life. Almost my own in my dark days, but no. |
I am in the same boat my friend. So the question becomes when does the shift from potential human life become human life? When does that unique spark of humanity occur? Is it when the zygote splits for the first time? Is that when it has more value than a family pet?
To my logic, that mass of tissue even up to the end of the first trimester where it is the size of an apricot, is the potential for human life. It requires the complex system of the host body, the mother, to become realized.
Here is where Doc's point comes into play. "It is better, in my opinion, to determine the rights of each separately and THEN adjudicate the rights when they conflict" comes into play. We have two sets of competing rights. The unborn child's right to be nurtured and born. The pregnant woman's right to control her own body. If the woman decides she does not want the child growing in her body, there is only one recourse, abortion, or deny that option and force the woman to carry the child to term.
So what the state has to determine is at what point does that mass of potential life have the right to reside in a woman's body over her objections?
We hold no special honors on the 60% of zygotes that fail to attach. Parents of stillborn children up to 20 weeks are allowed to dispose of the body as medical waste, or take them home and put them in the freezer,or bury them in the garden without any paperwork since the legal system does not see them as yet being a person. You can get a Fetal Demise Certificate after 20 weeks, but before 20 weeks there is no legal recognition that anything happened. It is considered a non event. Something almost happened, but nothing did. The law allows the parents to do with the remains what they will, because the law does not see that clump of tissue as a person, but as a potential life that failed to come into the world. |
Which is precisely the reason why there is less credibility to the assigning of the bright line at 4-6 weeks. This is a tactic done to usurp a right- to take away the right to choose, not because scientists and thinkers in North Carolina have just as reasonable a view about the bright line. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:35:07 PM · #92 |
Yeah, I was thinking of taking a break from the forums too. I might even last as long as 27 minutes!
|
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:38:29 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Which is precisely the reason why there is less credibility to the assigning of the bright line at 4-6 weeks. This is a tactic done to usurp a right- to take away the right to choose, not because scientists and thinkers in North Carolina have just as reasonable a view about the bright line. |
Given that the youngest surviving premature child ever was born at 21 weeks and five days, it becomes clear that laws that only allow 4-6 weeks before terming the fetus "viable" are intended as a fig leaf to allow and deny abortion in one stroke. They lack the moral courage of their true conviction, so are using bureaucratic maneuvering to force others to follow their belief code. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:45:22 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So what the state has to determine is at what point does that mass of potential life have the right to reside in a woman's body over her objections? |
This is the million dollar question. I'm not sure using existing law is the best way to try to figure this out. Laws change. I'll offer two reasons why I think this point is earlier rather than later (without laying down some specific line).
1) The right of a human to live is more fundamental, more basic, more important than the right to bodily autonomy (which can still be fundamental, basic, and important. But it just isn't quite at the same level.)
2) The fetus is an innocent in the situation. It did not choose or act to be where it is. The mother (and of course the father) made a specific choice that led to the dilemma.
Both of those facts are, I believe, important and both weigh in favor of the unborn baby. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:49:45 PM · #95 |
Let's pretend that science very soon comes up with an artificial womb. Capable of supporting an embryo right through the full 9 months up until 'birth' At the point a woman wants an abortion, the embryo is removed, placed in the artificial womb, and the biological mother plays no further role in its life. (we're assuming here that a woman's motive for an abortion is not to kill the embryo, but to remove it from her body)
In this scenario, and in 50 or so years there's no reason why this can't actually happen, the embryo is autonomous from the moment of conception, it doesn't need the mother's womb to survive.
So we've eliminated the whole 'womans right to decide what happens to her own body' argument. And placed the burden back on society, back to this one simple question; All these 'unwanted' babies are being grown in artificial wombs because as a society we decided it was wrong to terminate them. The pro-lifers have their way; every baby that is conceived gets born. What happens to them?
Every childless couple gets one, but what about the surplus? - Do they become 'wards of the state'? - Do we start treating embryos like a commodity, some kind of moral burden on society?
|
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:55:27 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Both of those facts are, I believe, important and both weigh in favor of the unborn baby. |
Yet you have glossed over the only point in question. When does that human life, vested with rights, come into existence? Can you justify your opinion to such an extent that you are comfortable forcing it on others through a rule of law? |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 01:59:11 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by JH:
Let's pretend that science very soon comes up with an artificial womb. Capable of supporting an embryo right through the full 9 months up until 'birth' At the point a woman wants an abortion, the embryo is removed, placed in the artificial womb, and the biological mother plays no further role in its life. (we're assuming here that a woman's motive for an abortion is not to kill the embryo, but to remove it from her body)
In this scenario, and in 50 or so years there's no reason why this can't actually happen, the embryo is autonomous from the moment of conception, it doesn't need the mother's womb to survive.
So we've eliminated the whole 'womans right to decide what happens to her own body' argument. And placed the burden back on society, back to this one simple question; All these 'unwanted' babies are being grown in artificial wombs because as a society we decided it was wrong to terminate them. The pro-lifers have their way; every baby that is conceived gets born. What happens to them?
Every childless couple gets one, but what about the surplus? - Do they become 'wards of the state'? - Do we start treating embryos like a commodity, some kind of moral burden on society? |
Free labor baby!
It's really is good to see that at least someone understands the long term problems that arise here. Everyone is so caught up dealing with the immediate problem that they're failing to see the brick wall they're heading towards at full speed.
We have a chance, now, right now, to prevent tragedy on a massive scale. We won't of course, but future generations will shake their heads at our ignorance.
Message edited by author 2013-05-16 14:03:10. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 02:04:51 PM · #98 |
Oh, and I forgot my most important point. In the 'artificial womb' scenario, every baby is viable from the moment of conception. Because we will have the medical capability to sustain it outside the womb, any attempt to terminate it at any point after conception constitutes murder.
With the rate of medical advances, to claim an embryo was 'aborted' versus 'murdered' based on it's viability will eventually become null and void. The definition of 'viable' *will* be 'from the moment of conception'. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 02:07:19 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The mother (and of course the father) made a specific choice that led to the dilemma. |
OK -- then how about if the law wants to force a woman to carry the fetus to term, the father be forcibly castrated to ensure that no other woman is subject to the same fate ... oh, and automatic imposition of mandatory child-support payments ...
If that seems too extreme, perhaps universal adoption of Huichol birthing practices would inspire more attention from men in preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Message edited by author 2013-05-16 14:09:21. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 02:08:23 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The mother (and of course the father) made a specific choice that led to the dilemma. |
OK -- then how about if the law wants to force a woman to carry the fetus to term, the father be forcibly castrated to ensure that no other woman is subject to the same fate ... oh, and automatic imposition of mandatory child-support payments ... |
I think that would make abortions rare... ;) |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:36:04 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:36:04 PM EDT.
|
