Amazon has whacked our affiliate account. Hosting Donations/Commitments $2063 of $1920 (Sept 13/18). In Hand $1466 (Lump sum payments minus paypal graft). Paypal Donation Link Here

Abortion news and discussion

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 17743
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Grifman » Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:43 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Come up with a public policy justification that doesn't breach the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the first amendment, and perhaps we can have a political discussion about it.
If the unborn child is a human being, a person, then the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses are irrelevant.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 9407
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Paingod » Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:45 pm

Grifman wrote:He was talking about the unborn child fetus as "growth of cells dependent upon it's mother", then pivoted to say but after birth it can survive without it's mother with care.
FTFY - There's a difference between a fetus and a child.

Isn't that the entire crux of the conversation? IE: The pivotal point at which you stop having a dependent cellular growth and potentially have a tiny human? Of course my response pivots when the biology pivots. There's a gray area there, and I'm fine with erroring on the side of caution and going with 20-22 weeks. If the courts and lawyers can't settle that for you, I don't think I'll be able to address it any better.
Google wrote:The third difference between an embryo or fetus and a newborn baby is their place of residence. Embryos and fetuses live inside the womb, and newborn babies live outside the womb.
Last edited by Paingod on Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
More than ever, now is the time to stand by the causes you believe in; donate and support to keep America great.
Reproductive Rights, Environmental Defense, Civil Liberties, LGBTQ Awareness, Immigration Rights
Currently playing: XCOM 2, Rimworld

User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 25181
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana
Contact:
Blackhawk’s avatar
Offline

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Blackhawk » Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:52 pm

That's always been the argument, and why the argument never gets anywhere.

At one point there is a splorch of goo. At a point nine months later, there is a human being. There is a fundamental disagreement on when the goo becomes a human. From the anti-abortion perspective, it is nearly immediate, and ending the pregnancy is killing that human. For the other side it is somewhat later, leaving a window when you're cleaning up goo, not killing a being.

As long as people continue to argue all around the fringe of the real issue (usually by bringing in useless loaded terms like 'murder' when the other side clearly doesn't see it as such), the argument will go on without any progress.
[This space left intentionally blank.]

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 56833
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:21 pm

Grifman wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Come up with a public policy justification that doesn't breach the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the first amendment, and perhaps we can have a political discussion about it.
If the unborn child is a human being, a person, then the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses are irrelevant.
Luckily, the semantics of the term 'human being' have been legally defined in the US.
1 U.S. Code § 8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Silver - 3k

People who are wrong often get mad at people who are right. (I have surprisingly never been shot.) (h/t Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar)

User avatar
Combustible Lemur
Posts: 3571
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Combustible Lemur » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:54 pm

Grifman wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:You misread his statement.
Grifman wrote:Babies are tiny humans that can survive with care without mothers
The participation of the mother in the care is not required.
Why is who cares for it relevant? He was actually pivoting there in his example. He was talking about the unborn child as "growth of cells dependent upon it's mother", then pivoted to say but after birth it can survive without it's mother with care.

I'm not sure how that's even relevant as to whether abortion is ok or not. Either way the child is not self sufficient. Maybe Paingod can explain further?
I think it's relevant, but I also think people should be able to legally end their own lives. It should be okay to let go. With as willing and sometimes exuberant as we are as a culture to end some people's lives it's always struck me as odd we don't let people make that decision in their own intimate moments.
Is Scott home? thump thump thump Crash ......No.

User avatar
gbasden
Posts: 5474
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by gbasden » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:36 am

Moliere wrote: Yeah, I don't understand why there is a group of people that might get emotional over the killing of unborn babies. Weirdos. After all, the Supreme Court said it was ok, so there is that to justify it.
Yeah, I don't understand why there is a group of people that might get emotional over the killing of innocent lives. Weirdos. Afterall, the Supreme Court said it was ok, so there is that to justify it.

User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 9407
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Paingod » Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:25 am

Combustible Lemur wrote:I also think people should be able to legally end their own lives. It should be okay to let go.
I know this isn't the thread for it, but I wanted to support this statement. It has bothered me for decades that we force people to go on living when their only prognosis is a slow, painful, and/or degrading death. If I knew all I had to look forward to was 3 more weeks of excruciating agony and then dying as a withered husk, I'd want to be able to push a button and slip off into a peaceful oblivion on my own terms - and I support that for anyone else who wants to.
More than ever, now is the time to stand by the causes you believe in; donate and support to keep America great.
Reproductive Rights, Environmental Defense, Civil Liberties, LGBTQ Awareness, Immigration Rights
Currently playing: XCOM 2, Rimworld

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 56833
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:45 pm

Texas
A federal judge on Thursday blocked until at least next month hotly debated Texas rules mandating burial or cremation of fetal remains that were set to go into effect within days.
...
The Center for Reproductive Rights and other national advocacy groups sued to prevent Texas from requiring hospitals and clinics to bury or cremate fetal remains from abortions or miscarriages rather than disposing of them in a sanitary landfill, as they often currently do with such remains and other biological medical waste. The rules had been set to take effect Monday.
...
Sparks granted a temporary restraining order blocking the rules, then scheduled two days of testimony for early next month. He expects to rule by Jan. 6 on whether they will be allowed to stand going forward.
Silver - 3k

People who are wrong often get mad at people who are right. (I have surprisingly never been shot.) (h/t Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar)

User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 13275
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by pr0ner » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:15 am

Lena Dunham, you win the weekly award for being terrible.
While hosting Women of the Hour, the Girls creator recalled a visit to a Texas Planned Parenthood years ago, during which a girl asked her to share her experience with abortion.

“I sort of jumped. ‘I haven’t had an abortion,’ I told her. I wanted to make it really clear to her that, as much as I was going out and fighting for other women’s options, I myself had never had an abortion,”recalled Dunham, 30.

“And I realized then that even I was carrying within myself stigma around this issue. Even I, the woman who cares as much as anybody about a woman’s right to choose, felt that it was important that people know that I was unblemished in this department.”

She commended her loved ones, who have had to have abortions, for their “bravery” and “self-knowledge,” adding that she has realized her need to put her own stigma surrounding the issue “in the garbage.”

She concluded, “Now I can say that I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had.”
Hodor.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 56833
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:17 am

Someone give her a Purple Heart.
Silver - 3k

People who are wrong often get mad at people who are right. (I have surprisingly never been shot.) (h/t Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar)

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26864
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Online

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Rip » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:32 am

I wish her mother had.

User avatar
Moliere
Posts: 11722
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
Location: Walking through a desert land

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Moliere » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:48 am

If it's just a clump of cells and not a person why does her comment matter? It seems to upset people because they know maybe it's not a clump of cells?
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 31018
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by El Guapo » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:55 am

eh. I mean, she's trying to say that she was putting a stigma on having an abortion, when she is strongly pro-choice, and now she's trying to not do that anymore (and to empathize more with women who have had abortions). She said it in a stupid way, to be sure...but who really cares.

User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 9407
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Paingod » Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:07 am

Moliere wrote:It seems to upset people because they know maybe it's not a clump of cells?
Nope. It upsets people because it's a significant turning point in your life - a clearly defined crossroads between spending your life as a parent or living life for yourself. You find yourself thinking a lot of "What If" thoughts, not "Oh geeze, I killed someone"

It's very similar to a miscarriage in that way. Each one my wife had was a pretty strong "What If" milestone. The loss there isn't that of losing a loved one or person, it's the loss of a potential different future you wanted. Abortion works much the same way, only you're on the path you've chosen and the "What If" thoughts are working the other way. It fades quickly, but pops up from time to time in memory, like every big life decision does.

Having been down both pathways, that's my experience at least.
More than ever, now is the time to stand by the causes you believe in; donate and support to keep America great.
Reproductive Rights, Environmental Defense, Civil Liberties, LGBTQ Awareness, Immigration Rights
Currently playing: XCOM 2, Rimworld

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 56833
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:45 am

Texas
In 2015, Texas governor Greg Abbott pledged to remove Planned Parenthood's $3.1 million in Medicaid funding, piggybacking off public outrage following the release of controversial, heavily edited videos allegedly showing Planned Parenthood officials illegally trafficking fetal tissue.

One year later, Abbott has made good on that promise, the Texas Tribune reported. Planned Parenthood now has 30 days to take action or be removed from Texas' Medicaid program, which serves the poor and disabled.
...
In November 2015, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against Texas officials to protect itself from that final notice, but the lawsuit was put on hold because Texas officials never moved forward with the termination. The Texas Tribune noted that final notices in similar cases have typically arrived after four to six weeks, but the final notice to Planned Parenthood took more than a year, with no known explanation for the delay.

The removal of Planned Parenthood from Medicaid threatens to leave thousands of low-income women without access to routine healthcare checkups, cancer screenings, birth control and various other forms of preventive care. Shortly after the state's initial notice of intent in 2015, a study conducted by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project found at least 100,000 and as many as 240,000 women in Texas had attempted to self-induce abortions. HB2, a 2013 Texas House Bill that gained widespread criticism and was famously filibustered by Wendy Davis, has helped dramatically cut the number of abortion clinics in Texas, despite being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court earlier this year.
Silver - 3k

People who are wrong often get mad at people who are right. (I have surprisingly never been shot.) (h/t Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar)

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 17743
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Grifman » Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:57 am

Isgrimnur wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Come up with a public policy justification that doesn't breach the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the first amendment, and perhaps we can have a political discussion about it.
If the unborn child is a human being, a person, then the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses are irrelevant.
Luckily, the semantics of the term 'human being' have been legally defined in the US.
1 U.S. Code § 8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Yeah, the law is always morally right:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Quoting the law is irrelevant. If that was all there was too it, you'd only need to cite Roe vs. Wade to me, and not even bother with the above definition.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 56833
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:04 pm

Grifman wrote:Yeah, the law is always morally right:
Not a point I stated or am arguing. They are two completely different, and short of homogeneous theocracy, you're never going to see a society where everyone has morals that match up with the law.

I like that I live in a society where the law is supposed to be the least restrictive means of accomplishing the government's goals, and I oppose every effort of your or any religion to impose moral standards of one group on everyone else.

Your and every church can define life as starting whenever you want. That doesn't mean that the rest of society has to give it a whit of consideration.
Silver - 3k

People who are wrong often get mad at people who are right. (I have surprisingly never been shot.) (h/t Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar)

User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 13275
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by pr0ner » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:11 pm

Moliere wrote:If it's just a clump of cells and not a person why does her comment matter? It seems to upset people because they know maybe it's not a clump of cells?
Her comment matters because she has a celebrity platform and she shouldn't say stupid shit? She has no children; to say she wishes she had one is awful on every level.
Hodor.

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 17743
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Grifman » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:40 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Grifman wrote:Yeah, the law is always morally right:
Not a point I stated or am arguing. They are two completely different, and short of homogeneous theocracy, you're never going to see a society where everyone has morals that match up with the law.

I like that I live in a society where the law is supposed to be the least restrictive means of accomplishing the government's goals, and I oppose every effort of your or any religion to impose moral standards of one group on everyone else.

Your and every church can define life as starting whenever you want. That doesn't mean that the rest of society has to give it a whit of consideration.
First off, abortion isn't strictly a religious issue. For example, Nat Hentoff, a liberal atheist is against abortion:

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/r ... sible.html

Secondly, defining or arguning when a human life begins can be argued without even referring to religion.

Thirdly, your argument about opposition to "imposing moral standards" is incoherent. By definition, "moral standards" that become law are imposed on those that don't agree. Example - what if I am rich and don't want to pay taxes to provide any support to the poor. Yet, in our current society, we believe that the poor just shouldn't starve and die of disease, and that some sort of govt support is necessary. So we impose taxes on everyone (and a lot of the wealthy) in order to do this. Is this wrong since you are imposing a certain sense of morality on others? If not, then why not?

Or what about slavery in the US and Great Britain? Many of those opposed to slavery and for abolition were opposed to it for religious reasons (and many supporting slavery appealed to religion also I will note). Should they have had the right to impose their moral view on slaveholders because it was driven by their religion?

The fact is that religious and non-religious people are both members of society and both have the right to influence laws in our society. One is not privileged over the other. Religious people have a right to argue for their vision of morality as long as it is not exclusively grounded in religious terms.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 17743
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Grifman » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:45 pm

gbasden wrote:
Moliere wrote: Yeah, I don't understand why there is a group of people that might get emotional over the killing of unborn babies. Weirdos. After all, the Supreme Court said it was ok, so there is that to justify it.
Yeah, I don't understand why there is a group of people that might get emotional over the killing of innocent lives. Weirdos. Afterall, the Supreme Court said it was ok, so there is that to justify it.
That's a pretty strained analogy if even that. Weak sauce. The SC decision you cite says nothing about killing anyone/anything.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 56833
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:59 pm

Abortion isn't strictly a religious issue. Defining and arguing when life begins can absolutely be argued without referring to religion.

But most of the arguments in the center ring of this issue are religious in nature. And the actions of those trying to restrict it are usually religious in nature.

Public policy is where my focus is. We as a society decide what should be legislated. And there will always be people that disagree. Each city/state/country decides what taxes should be levied to support what goals that they decide. And the citizens are free to agitate to change those, or depart for a more ideologically-comfortable setting.

Slavery wasn't overthrown because the religious opponents outweighed the religious supporters.
Grifman wrote:Religious people have a right to argue for their vision of morality as long as it is not exclusively grounded in religious terms.
No disagreement here. No one opposes social support organizations based on their teachings. But when their vision of morality is attempting to remove the rights of others, it's going to be held to a higher level of scrutiny.
Silver - 3k

People who are wrong often get mad at people who are right. (I have surprisingly never been shot.) (h/t Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar)

User avatar
gbasden
Posts: 5474
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by gbasden » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:15 pm

Grifman wrote:
gbasden wrote:
Moliere wrote: Yeah, I don't understand why there is a group of people that might get emotional over the killing of unborn babies. Weirdos. After all, the Supreme Court said it was ok, so there is that to justify it.
Yeah, I don't understand why there is a group of people that might get emotional over the killing of innocent lives. Weirdos. Afterall, the Supreme Court said it was ok, so there is that to justify it.
That's a pretty strained analogy if even that. Weak sauce. The SC decision you cite says nothing about killing anyone/anything.
Um, neither did the Dred Scott case which Moliere linked to. The concept as I understood it is that Supreme Court decisions aren't always right, which I totally agree with. I think there are definitely parallels between people who believe that abortion is wrong because it kills a human being no matter what the stage of development, and people who believe that the unfettered proliferation of guns leads to the death of innocent people in shooting rampages. If you don't, that's fine, but I think you missed the analogy.

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 17743
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Grifman » Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:20 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:No disagreement here. No one opposes social support organizations based on their teachings. But when their vision of morality is attempting to remove the rights of others, it's going to be held to a higher level of scrutiny.
See, you are arguing that from an unproven assumption. Where do mothers get the right to kill their fetus/unborn child? Does such a right even exist? I could just as well argue that the fetus/unborn child has a right to life and attempting to remove their rights should be held to, as you put it, "a higher level of scrutiny" :)
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 17743
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Grifman » Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:21 pm

gbasden wrote:If you don't, that's fine, but I think you missed the analogy.
I did, sorry :)
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 17743
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Grifman » Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:24 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Abortion isn't strictly a religious issue. Defining and arguing when life begins can absolutely be argued without referring to religion.
Uhm, when life begins is pretty much settled scientifically. It begins when the egg and sperm unite, as the result is a living entity :) I think you mean "personhood", don't you?
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 56833
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:37 pm

The onus of justification lies on those attempting to restrict a thing. A right only needs codification and defense when someone tries to remove an ability. You want to restrict actions, you need to justify it. Freedom to do as one chooses is the default state.

Gametes are living cells when they are created by the gonads. Their merging does not change their state of livingness any more than a virus invading a cell changes living states. But sure, personhood for semantics. You meant what I knew.
Silver - 3k

People who are wrong often get mad at people who are right. (I have surprisingly never been shot.) (h/t Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar)

User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 16197
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Unagi » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:12 pm

Grifman wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Abortion isn't strictly a religious issue. Defining and arguing when life begins can absolutely be argued without referring to religion.
Uhm, when life begins is pretty much settled scientifically. It begins when the egg and sperm unite, as the result is a living entity :) I think you mean "personhood", don't you?
When does god put a soul in it? One soul per life, right? When does god put the 1 soul in that egg-sperm unite thing.

Do twins share a soul?

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13199
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Zarathud » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:25 pm

Those passing abortion restrictions are not shy about their goal to overturn Roe v Wade or their religious grounds for doing so. There is no attempt at public policy nuance. Only the most overt intrusion literally into the bodies of its female citizens.

If you have to make this decision, restrictive laws only make a terrible situation worse.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 17743
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Grifman » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:46 am

Zarathud wrote:Those passing abortion restrictions are not shy about their goal to overturn Roe v Wade or their religious grounds for doing so.
Of course they are not shy, no less that pro-choice advocates are shy about retaining RvW. No surprise there, nor should there be.
There is no attempt at public policy nuance.
And what "nuance" should there be? I don't exactly see any nuance from the pro-choice side. They are the liberal version of the NRA - even the most modest restrictions get them up in arms. (Note, I'm not saying that all restrictions we've seen proposed are "modest", but that even those that are get them crying just like the NRA does with modest gun restrictions).
Only the most overt intrusion literally into the bodies of its female citizens. If you have to make this decision, restrictive laws only make a terrible situation worse.
Well, that's a matter of perspective, isn't it? If the fetus is a living human, you can't get much terrible situation than being blotted out of existence, pulled apart in your mother's womb, can you?
Last edited by Grifman on Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 17743
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Grifman » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:50 am

Isgrimnur wrote:The onus of justification lies on those attempting to restrict a thing.
Great. Justify restricting the life of the unborn child by killing him/her. The onus is on you.
A right only needs codification and defense when someone tries to remove an ability. You want to restrict actions, you need to justify it. Freedom to do as one chooses is the default state.
The most fundamental right is the right to life. Justify taking that life.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
gbasden
Posts: 5474
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by gbasden » Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:09 am

Grifman wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:The onus of justification lies on those attempting to restrict a thing.
Great. Justify restricting the life of the unborn child by killing him/her. The onus is on you.
A right only needs codification and defense when someone tries to remove an ability. You want to restrict actions, you need to justify it. Freedom to do as one chooses is the default state.
The most fundamental right is the right to life. Justify taking that life.
It's not always that black and white. My wife and I had an abortion. She was four months pregnant with twins when the amniotic sac ruptured for one of them. We wanted those children badly after trying to conceive for over 6 years, but her doctor told her that the one child would surely die and his body decomposing would poison the other. It would also endanger her ability to try to have future children and could possibly risk her life. We chose to abort the pregnancy because it was in the best interests of everybody involved. Thankfully, we live in California where we can make that decision with our doctor. We didn't have to watch an ultrasound and have the pain magnified by hearing a state sanctioned speech about how awful we were - it was a private decision between our doctor and us. Thankfully, we were no longer with the Catholic hospital group that had made previous miscarriages less than pleasant.

Abortion is a horrible choice to have to make, but sometimes it is the best of horrible options. Rolling back Roe can cause irredeemable harm to innocent women. Thanks to a wonderful staff of doctors and the wonders of modern medicine I've got an amazing 13 year old boy that I probably wouldn't have if we hadn't been allowed to make that decision. It's really easy to say that it's always morally wrong until you are put in the position of having to decide.

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13199
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Zarathud » Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:24 am

Please get off your high horse. We allow death all the time in legislative rule-making. Cars are potentially dangerous but the benefits outweigh the risks, never mind that the GOP is about to REDUCE access to health insurance (and reduce life).

See Roe v Wade for a more nuanced balancing of rights with respect to abortion. Access to abortion is under siege nationwide, with no secrets or nuance. NRA countenances zero restrictions and radicalizes around even perceived threats.

But aside from that, until you have to make the decision you really have no idea how difficult the situation. That's the point Lena Dunham was trying (poorly) to make. She hasn't been there but she's trying to empathize with people, not some hypothetical concept of life.

The best part about Roe v Wade is that in most cases female citizens would get to decide for themselves these religious, moral, ethical, personal and parental questions. No one is forced to have an abortion in the US. Only one side forces its will and ethical constructs on the other.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 17743
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Grifman » Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:09 am

gbasden wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:The onus of justification lies on those attempting to restrict a thing.
Great. Justify restricting the life of the unborn child by killing him/her. The onus is on you.
A right only needs codification and defense when someone tries to remove an ability. You want to restrict actions, you need to justify it. Freedom to do as one chooses is the default state.
The most fundamental right is the right to life. Justify taking that life.
It's not always that black and white. My wife and I had an abortion. She was four months pregnant with twins when the amniotic sac ruptured for one of them. We wanted those children badly after trying to conceive for over 6 years, but her doctor told her that the one child would surely die and his body decomposing would poison the other. It would also endanger her ability to try to have future children and could possibly risk her life. We chose to abort the pregnancy because it was in the best interests of everybody involved. Thankfully, we live in California where we can make that decision with our doctor. We didn't have to watch an ultrasound and have the pain magnified by hearing a state sanctioned speech about how awful we were - it was a private decision between our doctor and us. Thankfully, we were no longer with the Catholic hospital group that had made previous miscarriages less than pleasant.

Abortion is a horrible choice to have to make, but sometimes it is the best of horrible options. Rolling back Roe can cause irredeemable harm to innocent women. Thanks to a wonderful staff of doctors and the wonders of modern medicine I've got an amazing 13 year old boy that I probably wouldn't have if we hadn't been allowed to make that decision. It's really easy to say that it's always morally wrong until you are put in the position of having to decide.
First off, I am sorry for what you and your wife and to go through and decide to do. And I have no objection to an abortion in those circumstances. You put words in my mouth when you say that I contend it's always morally wrong. Yes, sometimes it truly could be the best of a set of horrible options. But your true life example is not what drives most abortions.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13199
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Abortion news and discussion

Post by Zarathud » Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:32 am

So what do you think does drive most abortions?

My wife was pregnant with a child confirmed to have trisomy 13 by genetic testing. Maximum life expectancy of 4 days even with extreme medical intervention assuming no complications during pregnancy. Carrying a dead baby to term would have been a real possibility, with massive risks. We chose to have an abortion so we could have kids later (two), preserve my wife's health and sanity and also spare the fetus massive suffering. It was not an easy decision and we are both strongly pro-choice.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 31018
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by El Guapo » Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:35 am

Also once you get into "abortion is sometimes the moral choice" you've gone a long way towards the pro-choice position, because having the government sort out which abortions are the morally justifiable ones (and setting up a system where doctors will feel comfortable performing said moral abortions without fearing possibly criminal liability at a later date) gets messy fast.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 56833
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:45 pm

Grifman wrote:Great. Justify restricting the life of the unborn child by killing him/her. The onus is on you.
The rights of an actual person outweigh those of a potential person.
Grifman wrote:The most fundamental right is the right to life. Justify taking that life.
Did you mean personhood? Because without personhood, there is no difference between aborting a fetus and removing a gall bladder. Both end the life of those cells.

And I and my government do not agree on your assertion that the right to life extends to a fetus. A government is run for the (supposed) benefit of its citizens. As that requires you to actually be a citizen, that requires birth.
Silver - 3k

People who are wrong often get mad at people who are right. (I have surprisingly never been shot.) (h/t Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar)

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 38137
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Smoove_B » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:22 pm

Syrian child -a refugee of war? Meh, let them figure it out - elsewhere. Unborn fetus? Must be kept alive at all costs.

The older I get, the more I notice that there's a significant group of people that will champion the rights of the fetus and then simultaneously support every measure that reduces aid, assistance or indirect support once they're born.

Jeff V
Posts: 30396
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Jeff V » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:25 pm

Smoove_B wrote:Syrian child -a refugee of war? Meh, let them figure it out - elsewhere. Unborn fetus? Must be kept alive at all costs.

The older I get, the more I notice that there's a significant group of people that will champion the rights of the fetus and then simultaneously support every measure that reduces aid, assistance or indirect support once they're born.
Ah, but they support building more prisons to incarcerate them when they get older.

User avatar
gilraen
Posts: 2395
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:45 pm
Location: Broomfield, CO

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by gilraen » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:31 pm

Smoove_B wrote: The older I get, the more I notice that there's a significant group of people that will champion the rights of the fetus and then simultaneously support every measure that reduces aid, assistance or indirect support once they're born.
I think you just described the entire GOP agenda for the last 30 years.

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 17743
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Grifman » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:49 am

Zarathud wrote:So what do you think does drive most abortions?
Birth control, not problematic pregnancies.
My wife was pregnant with a child confirmed to have trisomy 13 by genetic testing. Maximum life expectancy of 4 days even with extreme medical intervention assuming no complications during pregnancy. Carrying a dead baby to term would have been a real possibility, with massive risks. We chose to have an abortion so we could have kids later (two), preserve my wife's health and sanity and also spare the fetus massive suffering. It was not an easy decision and we are both strongly pro-choice.
And I have no problem with your choice.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

Post Reply