Fundraising for 2019/2020: 12 Month renewal is up Oct 21/2019. $1337.51 USD of roughly $1700 USD (CDN conversion) as of Sept 1/2019. Paypal Donation Link Here

Abortion news and discussion

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 39842
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Smoove_B » Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:43 pm

My rage is palpable:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell boasted at a prominent anti-abortion gala that he had helped confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh despite Democratic and outside opposition, a move he viewed as one of many victories he secured for advocates who had gathered.

"We were voting more than one man's career," McConnell, R-Ky., said Monday evening. "We were voting on basic American principles of fairness and justice. Does the presumption of innocence still apply in America? Yes."

..

McConnell received accolades at the event not only for helping to confirm Kavanaugh but also for refusing to hold a vote on Merrick Garland. Former President Barack Obama nominated Garland in 2016 to fill the slot vacated by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, but McConnell declined to hold a vote on the nomination until after the 2016 election. President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the slot, and he was confirmed in 2017.

"I took a lot of heat for it and it paid off," McConnell said.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 61565
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Snooze

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:51 pm

WaPo
The Trump administration on Wednesday canceled a multimillion-dollar contract with a California research lab that uses fetal tissue to test new HIV treatments in a significant tightening of federal support for biomedical science that relies on material collected from elective abortions.

In disclosing the decision Wednesday, officials also announced discontinuation of funding of all research inside the National Institutes of Health that uses fetal tissue.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 61565
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Snooze

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:49 pm

Texas
The state of Texas has poured hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars into Everett’s clinic, which opened in a strip mall in Round Rock last spring, and millions through her anti-abortion organization, the Heidi Group. Everett’s group was tapped as a test case in the effort to defund Planned Parenthood and lift up faith-based, anti-abortion clinics in state and national family planning programs. It didn’t go well. In September, the state announced it would end Everett’s funding, two weeks after the Observer reported that the group had served just 5 percent of the patients promised in its first year.

Now, internal documents, communications and financial statements obtained by the Observer, along with state records and interviews with half a dozen former Heidi Group employees and with Everett, paint a picture of mismanagement, contract violations, lack of oversight and misuse of taxpayer funds — problems that state officials knew about even as they continued to extend the Heidi Group’s contract for more than two years.

After her abortion at 28, Everett — who has called Jesus Christ “the ultimate unplanned pregnancy” — ran Dallas-area abortion clinics for about six years until she “came to Christ” in the ’80s. In 1995 she founded the Heidi Group, a nonprofit that supports religious crisis pregnancy centers, which counsel patients against having abortions. “If we bring [a woman with an unwanted pregnancy] to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, we’re saving two lives,” she said in a 2009 interview.

State lawmakers have funnelled millions into the kind of clinics that Everett has championed. The budget for Texas’ Alternatives to Abortion program, which funds faith-based pregnancy centers, has grown 16-fold since its inception in 2006, following this legislative session, with a total investment of about $170 million through 2021. In 2011, Republican lawmakers slashed the state’s family planning budget by two-thirds, shuttering 82 clinics. Two years later, they kicked Planned Parenthood and other abortion provider affiliates out of the state’s low-income women’s health program, forgoing millions in federal dollars to begin a state-funded program instead. At the time, less than a quarter of the estimated 1.8 million poor Texas women in need of publicly funded contraceptive services were getting them. The cuts resulted in tens of thousands more women losing access to reproductive health services like gynecological exams, birth control, cancer screenings and STD testing.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:24 pm

Why would jesus and/or god allow such a thing to happen? Is this another Job thing?

Maybe they just didn't have a big enough budget?

User avatar
Combustible Lemur
Posts: 3717
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Combustible Lemur » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:46 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Why would jesus and/or god allow such a thing to happen? Is this another Job thing?

Maybe they just didn't have a big enough budget?
Heh, God has aborted more babies than modern medicine could even dream of. He's the ultimate pro-abortion poster child. It wasn't until the 19th century that he stopped aborting the majority of living children Younger than five.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Is Scott home? thump thump thump Crash ......No.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 61565
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Snooze

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:15 am

Alabama
The University of Alabama board of trustees voted Friday to give back a $26.5 million donation to a top donor who recently called on students to boycott the school over the state's new abortion ban.

Hugh F. Culverhouse Jr., a 70-year-old real estate investor and lawyer, has already given $21.5 million to the university after his pledge last September with the rest still to come. But in a news release last week, he urged students to participate in a boycott of the school.

Hours later, Alabama announced it was considering giving back his money, the biggest donation ever made to the university, and is expected to remove his name from the law school that was named in his honor.

While Culverhouse said he has no doubt Alabama is retaliating over his call for a boycott, the university said the dispute has nothing to do with that. Instead, officials say it was in an "ongoing dispute" with Culverhouse over the way his gift was to be handled.

The university said that on May 28 — the day before Culverhouse's boycott call — its chancellor recommended the trustees return the donation. The university said donors "may not dictate University administration" and that Culverhouse had made "numerous demands" regarding the operation of the school.

University administrators and trustees did not respond to requests for comment.

User avatar
UsulofDoom
Posts: 1347
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:55 am

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by UsulofDoom » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:54 pm

Just looking for some opinions.


So let’s say jane is 18. She has a high school degree from an affluent high school. She knows how babies are made.

She has intercourse with John and knows he is not wearing a condom. She knows that she is not on the pill and she has no IUD.

At what point is she , society and the father responsible for her pregnancy.

At what point is it ok for her to abort the pregnancy?

What point is the charge for harming her unborn child not any more than harming her?

What point is john financially responsible even though he wants no legal claim?

Why is John responsible if he has no choice over her decision of abortion?
No one knows the truth, only hypothesis, assumptions, conjectures, speculations, presumptions, guesses and theories.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by GreenGoo » Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:26 pm

UsulofDoom wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:54 pm
Just looking for some opinions.


So let’s say jane is 18. She has a high school degree from an affluent high school. She knows how babies are made.

She has intercourse with John and knows he is not wearing a condom. She knows that she is not on the pill and she has no IUD.

1. At what point is she , society and the father responsible for her pregnancy.

2. At what point is it ok for her to abort the pregnancy?

3. What point is the charge for harming her unborn child not any more than harming her?

4. What point is john financially responsible even though he wants no legal claim?

5. Why is John responsible if he has no choice over her decision of abortion?
1. I don't know what you mean by "society responsible". She is responsible the moment she is impregnated (your scenario is that she consented). The father is responsible for the pregnancy the moment he impregnates here. I mean, obviously.

2. This is a tougher one. Ok for me personally, or ok for society or ok for the law? I personally draw the line where science decides that the baby is viable outside the mother without herculean effort. Science also tells me when it becomes an actual baby as opposed to a zygote or whatever. Before that is not even a question, no matter how baby-like it looks.

3. I don't understand this question.

4. Immediately? What is "legal claim" in this context?

5. He's responsible because we have centuries of men leaving babies all over the place without taking responsibility, and society has decided that that is no longer acceptable. Men can't just spray their seed wherever and leave others with a lifetime of responsibility and financial obligation. This is what (many> most?) animals do. We're not animals. The bible tells us we're better than they are. Men are as responsible for the baby as women are, clearly. By definition. That they can't override a woman's desire to bring the baby to term is the price of being male and not actually bearing the child. The only way to avoid this risk is to refrain from sex. You can take steps to mitigate the risk but barring sterility can never remove it completely. That's biology for you.

More interesting questions in my opinion revolve around failed contraception or deceit regarding the possibility of conception.

User avatar
gbasden
Posts: 5808
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by gbasden » Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:32 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:26 pm


More interesting questions in my opinion revolve around failed contraception or deceit regarding the possibility of conception.
It's certainly more interesting, but it doesn't change the end result. If you decide to have intercourse with someone and they get pregnant, you are equally responsible. End of story.

In a perfect world with health care, if the contraception failed you would have a conversation, realize that neither of you wants a child and decide on an early abortion.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by GreenGoo » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:03 pm

gbasden wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:32 pm
It's certainly more interesting, but it doesn't change the end result. If you decide to have intercourse with someone and they get pregnant, you are equally responsible. End of story.

In a perfect world with health care, if the contraception failed you would have a conversation, realize that neither of you wants a child and decide on an early abortion.
So nothing changes if one of the two intentionally tampers with the contraception?

I mean, that's fine if that's how you think it should work, I'm less convinced. What if the woman becomes pregnant after the act, through any of a number of ways? For example, turkey baster and used condom. What if she just pokes holes in the condom? What if he does? Tough luck, lifetime of responsibility and financial obligation?

I think deceit changes the equation, but if you don't, that's fine.

User avatar
Combustible Lemur
Posts: 3717
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Combustible Lemur » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:10 pm


UsulofDoom wrote:Just looking for some opinions.


So let’s say jane is 18. She has a high school degree from an affluent high school. She knows how babies are made.

She has intercourse with John and knows he is not wearing a condom. She knows that she is not on the pill and she has no IUD.

At what point is she , society and the father responsible for her pregnancy.

At what point is it ok for her to abort the pregnancy?

What point is the charge for harming her unborn child not any more than harming her?

What point is john financially responsible even though he wants no legal claim?

Why is John responsible if he has no choice over her decision of abortion?
1.She's responsible, he should be but can liter ally just walk away, and society is only responsible in so far as states and localities should increase standards of living because of all the benefits.
2. Until its not in her body.
3. It's an irrelevant question once autonomy is respected.
4. He can't over ride autonomy, so I think it's a civil issue after birth.
5. Because if she's responsible, so is he. Both of them have a social duty. For what they created. Regardless of how many personal rights the fetus has they don't override autonomy. But there are two people who each contributed 50% DNA. Felonies can mitigate those responsibilities.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Is Scott home? thump thump thump Crash ......No.

User avatar
Default
Posts: 6023
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Handling bombs.

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Default » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:36 pm

If Jane is 18, she may think she isn't pregnant.
What if Jane is drunk at a party?
What if Jane never had sex education?
There are a world of what-ifs.
"pcp, lsd, thc, tgb...it's all good." ~ Kraken

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by GreenGoo » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:56 pm

Default wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:36 pm
What if Jane is drunk at a party?
What if he is? Does that change the equation? If not, why not?

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19123
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Pyperkub » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:49 am

There is a constitutional right to privacy from the government in any abortion case. These laws aim to kill that.

They focus on the definition of abortion in the decision, but fundamentally this is an attack on that right.

Be very careful, even if you are against abortion, regarding how that right will be impacted

Far better to convince people one by one than to sacrifice that right in the 21st century.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 34256
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Kraken » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:55 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:56 pm
Default wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:36 pm
What if Jane is drunk at a party?
What if he is? Does that change the equation? If not, why not?
Because if Jane is a he, Jane isn't pregnant.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by GreenGoo » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:10 am

Uh...the discussion is who's responsible. John is specifically mentioned in the hypotheticals. The implication of the alcohol question is that it affects (or not) responsibility.

User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 16076
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish
coopasonic’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by coopasonic » Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:43 am

Jane's body, Jane's choice. People do stupid things. There are a couple times I could have been John. I have no idea if she was on birth control. It didn't come up. I'm a fairly intelligent guy that was well aware of contraception and reproduction and STDs and didn't want to be a father... and I did it anyway. I fully support Jane's right to choose what happens with her body and feel that John has responsibility as well, but the choice is Jane's.

I'm not sure that deception changes the discussion, whether it is on Jane's or John's part. Once she is pregnant it is Jane's body. John decided to do the deed. No contraception is 100% effective except abstinence and we all know abstinence is no fun.

As to society's part in this, society should provide useful sex education, access to effective contraception, and access to safe abortions. Financial support for contraception, definitely. Financial support for abortion... probably. If you can't afford the abortion you are probably also going to have a hard time raising a child.

As a guy that's done with reproduction and drunken sexual encounters, my personal investment here is minimal. I support a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
-Coop

User avatar
Default
Posts: 6023
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Handling bombs.

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Default » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:03 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:10 am
Uh...the discussion is who's responsible. John is specifically mentioned in the hypotheticals. The implication of the alcohol question is that it affects (or not) responsibility.
"Jane". Somebody gets her drunk and takes advantage.
See: roofies.
"pcp, lsd, thc, tgb...it's all good." ~ Kraken

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by GreenGoo » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:38 am

Default wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:03 am
GreenGoo wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:10 am
Uh...the discussion is who's responsible. John is specifically mentioned in the hypotheticals. The implication of the alcohol question is that it affects (or not) responsibility.
"Jane". Somebody gets her drunk and takes advantage.
See: roofies.
Jesus Christ. This isn't rocket science. There are 2 people involved in the equation, your question only covers one of them. I asked about the other. If your question was about Jane being raped, you should have said so. Your question was about inebriation, not incapacitation.

Is your question about intoxication or rape? They aren't the same thing.

My relatively mild annoyance is at having to cover this when it should have been clear from the beginning. In fact I half suspected Kraken was trying to be funny, except he's from an older generation and it's just "a given" that women aren't responsible when drunk and that men are. I think that's weird and not biologically supported. 3 drinks and consent is not the same thing as passed out from 7 drinks, yet it has been treated similarly in the past regarding women. There's a reason both men and women are treated equally when it comes to DUI's. Should they be treated equally in default's scenario? If default only meant "what if she's passed out and someone rapes her" then that seems obviously a question about rape, not consent with diminished capacity.

User avatar
Default
Posts: 6023
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Handling bombs.

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Default » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:07 am

The problem with a lot of the anti-abortion chatter is it never takes real life situations into account. In the case of one man I know, every abortion revolves around "she had an abortion because she hated her baby" which is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Life is chockablock full of extenuating circumstances, and none of the 6 or 7 women I know who've had abortions ever said it was because they hated the baby. Generally, the reasons were financial, rejection from the girl's parents or something wrong with the pregnancy. In my experience, the people who are antiabortion in 'Murrica, also refuse to help once the baby is born. They want to dictate the most personal of behavior, but they don't want the responsibility that goes with forcing women to tie their particular line. Not every time is a good time to have a child.
"pcp, lsd, thc, tgb...it's all good." ~ Kraken

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by GreenGoo » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:22 am

Default wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:07 am
The problem with a lot of the anti-abortion chatter is it never takes real life situations into account. In the case of one man I know, every abortion revolves around "she had an abortion because she hated her baby" which is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Life is chockablock full of extenuating circumstances, and none of the 6 or 7 women I know who've had abortions ever said it was because they hated the baby. Generally, the reasons were financial, rejection from the girl's parents or something wrong with the pregnancy. In my experience, the people who are antiabortion in 'Murrica, also refuse to help once the baby is born. They want to dictate the most personal of behavior, but they don't want the responsibility that goes with forcing women to tie their particular line. Not every time is a good time to have a child.
Sure, and Nox will tell you that terminating a pregnancy is the same as killing a person, and at no point is killing a person acceptable, financial responsibilities or not. He seems to have made some concessions and limited the discussion to 3rd trimester only, but it's hard to tell if this is his line in the sand or whether it's a wedge that he will use to discuss earlier trimesters. He may even be playing the devil's advocate in an attempt to present a pro-lifer position to this predominantly (but not solely) pro-choice forum. Whether these are Nox's true feelings or just an argument put forth doesn't change the nature of the debate in any case.

In any case, whatever Nox's position, a LOT of pro-lifers believe that a pregnancy is a person upon fertilization, full stop. At which point it's about killing a person, not aborting a fetus. No amount of arguing is going to convince (many) pro-lifers that aborting a fetus is not the same as killing a person, or that killing a person is ok if that person is a significant financial hardship, so...end of story.

Personally, I find the idea of morally judging a person's reason for their abortion repugnant, so the man you mention is the worst of the lot, assigning a single, specific reason and then judging it harshly, to every and all abortions. Of fucking course that's asinine beyond belief. If a woman wants an abortion because she despises the father or has limited financial resources or her health is at risk or she fucking hates the thing growing inside her, it's all the same to me as far as my supporting her right to abortion. There aren't "acceptable" vs "unacceptable" reasons. There are only reasons. I don't have to like some of them and I don't. I don't like lots of things people do but I sure as hell am not voting based on making those things illegal just because I disapprove of them.

In any case, once you accept that a zygote is a person then it's a logical and invariable conclusion to oppose abortions, since that's killing a person, and killing a person is wrong. If God tells you it's a person, no amount of science is going to convince someone otherwise, so this "debate", such as it is, will never end even if some people on the fence can be pushed over one side or the other. There are people on both sides that will not move no matter what is discussed.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 61565
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Snooze

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:26 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:22 am
I don't like lots of things people do but I sure as hell am not voting based on making those things illegal just because I disapprove of them.
QFT.

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46532
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:21 pm

Times like this with ask pro-lifers I just ask another hypothetical, "Is it OK to shoot someone who is breaking into your truck?"
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 24427
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by stessier » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:27 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:22 am
I don't like lots of things people do but I sure as hell am not voting based on making those things illegal just because I disapprove of them.
Except that is all any law is - something people don't like and want to stop other people from doing.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 61565
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Snooze

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:27 pm

Only if you shout, "Yeehaw!" while doing it.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by GreenGoo » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:35 pm

stessier wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:27 pm
Except that is all any law is - something people don't like and want to stop other people from doing.
Perhaps, but most of those laws are to prevent people from doing things to other people, not to themselves. War on drugs not withstanding of course. How's that working out, btw?

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by GreenGoo » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:39 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:21 pm
Times like this with ask pro-lifers I just ask another hypothetical, "Is it OK to shoot someone who is breaking into your truck?"
Sure. What crime is the fetus committing that requires deadly force to stop?

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 61565
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Snooze

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:44 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:39 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:21 pm
Times like this with ask pro-lifers I just ask another hypothetical, "Is it OK to shoot someone who is breaking into your truck?"
Sure. What crime is the fetus committing that requires deadly force to stop?
Trespassing.

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46532
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:46 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:39 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:21 pm
Times like this with ask pro-lifers I just ask another hypothetical, "Is it OK to shoot someone who is breaking into your truck?"
Sure. What crime is the fetus committing that requires deadly force to stop?
Theft requires use of deadly force? Fine, but if someone is that cavalier with a fully formed life I don't get the ardent defense of someone else's unborn fetus. I mean to the point of forcibly taking away a woman's liberty.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 24427
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by stessier » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:46 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:35 pm
stessier wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:27 pm
Except that is all any law is - something people don't like and want to stop other people from doing.
Perhaps, but most of those laws are to prevent people from doing things to other people, not to themselves.
As you noted, the sides don't agree on it being a self or other people issue. Hence the debate.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by GreenGoo » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:03 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:46 pm
Theft requires use of deadly force? Fine, but if someone is that cavalier with a fully formed life I don't get the ardent defense of someone else's unborn fetus. I mean to the point of forcibly taking away a woman's liberty.
Depends on your view on personal property, I suppose. What options short of deadly force are acceptable? What if those options fail? Are you supposed to simply watch a stranger drive off with your truck because you asked nicely and they said no? If the truck owner engages in physical confrontation and it escalates, the truck owner is now at bodily risk as well as losing their truck.

I understand your point, I even agree with it, mostly, but the counter-argument is not hard to imagine.

We take away peoples' liberties to protect innocent lives all the time.

Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I think these arguments are sincere and clearly logical conclusions once someone decides a fetus is a person.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by GreenGoo » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:04 pm

stessier wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:46 pm
As you noted, the sides don't agree on it being a self or other people issue. Hence the debate.
Ok, but then you've added nothing new to the discussion re: that's all laws are anyway, which I don't think was your intention. It should be clear that I don't subscribe to the "fetus is a person" view, so my statement regarding telling others what to do with laws is consistent. Others have a different starting point, so they arrive at different conclusions regarding making laws.

So...here we are. Again.

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 24427
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by stessier » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:22 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:04 pm
stessier wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:46 pm
As you noted, the sides don't agree on it being a self or other people issue. Hence the debate.
Ok, but then you've added nothing new to the discussion re: that's all laws are anyway, which I don't think was your intention. It should be clear that I don't subscribe to the "fetus is a person" view, so my statement regarding telling others what to do with laws is consistent. Others have a different starting point, so they arrive at different conclusions regarding making laws.

So...here we are. Again.
Your statements did not acknowledge that a different starting point would end up at a different conclusion. It seemed like you were trying to make a logical argument that applied in all cases.

Nothing in this discussion matters until people can agree what the status of the fetus is. And they will never agree on that. So the debate is pretty pointless. One side will have the law on their side and the other side will always decry that law as unjust.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by GreenGoo » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:30 pm

stessier wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:22 pm
Your statements did not acknowledge that a different starting point would end up at a different conclusion. It seemed like you were trying to make a logical argument that applied in all cases.
I'm the one arguing the different starting point, I think I get it.

I think they're wrong. My comments are based on that assumption. I think I've been clear as to what comments are my personal opinion and which are for the counter argument. If they are not, I will endeavor to do better. We're kind of at a shortage of pro-lifers here, and those who are are loath to engage, as admittedly the forum is mostly hostile to their viewpoint, which is why I'm attempting to engage for them.


I get that people think they are saving innocent lives. I disagree. Therefore I view them as enforcing their morals on others through the force of law. I don't like the idea and try to avoid it if possible, irrespective of whether their reasoning is something I support or a reason I don't support. That others feel otherwise doesn't change my view of the entire situation, even when I understand why they feel otherwise.

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 24427
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by stessier » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:40 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:30 pm
I get that people think they are saving innocent lives. I disagree.
And I understand your view point. I haven't seen anything yet that makes this worth debating anymore. The sides will never agree.
Therefore I view them as enforcing their morals on others through the force of law. I don't like the idea and try to avoid it if possible, irrespective of whether their reasoning is something I support or a reason I don't support.
I guess we could discuss this. I would posit that all laws are enforcing morals so it really all comes down to the reasoning.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13781
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Zarathud » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:03 pm

If we allow people to use deadly force to protect their land, why not extend the principle to a woman’s uterus?

With America’s tolerance of huns and violence, it is ridiculous to say a right to life is absolute.
"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
Isgrimnur
Posts: 61565
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Snooze

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:08 pm

Zarathud wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:03 pm
America’s tolerance of huns
#AttilaForPresident

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by GreenGoo » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:12 pm

stessier wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:40 pm
I guess we could discuss this. I would posit that all laws are enforcing morals so it really all comes down to the reasoning.
Most laws are for the protection of life and property. Morals don't enter into it. If people could make laws that only made other peoples' actions illegal but not their own, they would. In fact Kings and despots do it all the time. Apparently this also applies to the presidency, I'm just now learning. Turns out, Nixon was right.
stessier wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:40 pm
The sides will never agree.
Are you reading what I write? I've already made this point. That said, there are a number of people near the middle, and they might be moved in one direction or the other. The debate itself will never be resolved.

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23249
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by noxiousdog » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:48 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:22 am
Sure, and Nox will tell you that terminating a pregnancy is the same as killing a person,
No he will not.
and at no point is killing a person acceptable,
No he will not.
He seems to have made some concessions and limited the discussion to 3rd trimester only, but it's hard to tell if this is his line in the sand or whether it's a wedge that he will use to discuss earlier trimesters.
They are not concessions, and my personal opinion is that healthy pregnancies should be illegal to terminate in the 3rd trimester.
He may even be playing the devil's advocate in an attempt to present a pro-lifer position to this predominantly (but not solely) pro-choice forum.
I'm not playing devil's advocate.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23249
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by noxiousdog » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:48 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:22 am
Sure, and Nox will tell you that terminating a pregnancy is the same as killing a person,
No he will not.
and at no point is killing a person acceptable,
No he will not.
He seems to have made some concessions and limited the discussion to 3rd trimester only, but it's hard to tell if this is his line in the sand or whether it's a wedge that he will use to discuss earlier trimesters.
They are not concessions, and my personal opinion is that healthy pregnancies should be illegal to terminate in the 3rd trimester.
He may even be playing the devil's advocate in an attempt to present a pro-lifer position to this predominantly (but not solely) pro-choice forum.
I'm not playing devil's advocate.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

Post Reply