Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Abortion: Is it time?

Abortion: Is it time? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
It's because freedom is complicated. And depending on your opinion (there are no facts involved here) the mother's rights might not be the only rights you are concerned with. If it is someone's opinion that even a small cluster of undifferentiated cells that might—some time in the next 9 months—become a human baby is deserving of the same right to live as all other human beings then it is completely understandable and reasonable to argue that abortion should be illegal. Obviously not everyone (including myself) agrees, but this is not an unreasonable position to hold just because many of us don't agree with it.

I don't think it is at all unreasonable, I just think it is inconsistent if you are one of those people that believe strongly that the government should not be making these sorts of personal (where "personal" is defined as "stuff that does not impact others") decisions for us.

If somebody felt as morally righteous against sodomy as they do abortion, would there be a huge difference in making sodomy illegal? I get it that there is no life involved with sodomy, but *if* your moral beliefs were as fervent for whatever reason/rationale it wouldn't be too dissimilar. At the end of the day the pro-lifers are asking the government to outlaw morals as they see them - morals that are personal to them and do not impact the lives of others.

I know you're playing devil's advocate so I don't mean to direct this at you, but at any conservative pro lifer types.

I can understand conservative economics a little better, but social conservatism is mostly in the batshit crazy category to me.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 06:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
F**k that. Three months is enough time for anyone.

So, you want the government to be outlawing morality on matters that do not impact you?
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 06:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So, you want the government to be outlawing morality on matters that do not impact you?
I assume that you don't have a problem with laws against exploitation of children, theft, assault and murder. Those are all based on the moral code moral people live by.

I'm not a child, I have not been assaulted or murdered but I expect there to be certain laws in place to prevent chaos and the rule of war lords.
--
Aristotle
15" rMBP 2.7 Ghz ,16GB, 768GB SSD, 64GB iPhone 5 S⃣ 128GB iPad Air LTE
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Just throwing these out there:

I think pro-choice people (and especially politicians) who don't also advocate decriminalizing drugs and prostitution are sanctimonious asshats. Either you reject gov't control over people's bodies or you don't.

I also think paternity laws should be phased out. Paternity suits are already very rare and only appeal to gold-diggers. Women should have the free choice to be parents, and so should men.
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Agreed. However, I'm iffy about decriminalizing certain kinds of drugs (namely addictive hallucinogens) if there is evidence that certain kinds can infringe upon me. Pot and any other drugs that don't have a history of making people do crazy things should be decriminalized, and I'm even fine with people taking whatever drugs they want in their private areas so long as they don't get in a car and go out and find me.
That the schizophrenic nature of the law. A woman can be convicted of child abuse for taking drugs or abusing alcohol during her pregnancy. The same woman can have an abortion up to the moment she starts labor. There are people in prison for killing a pregnant woman and were charged with two murders. Scott Peterson comes to mind. Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So, you want the government to be outlawing morality on matters that do not impact you?
When it comes to saving a human life? Sure, why not? We have lots of those laws already. By that time it isn't just a bundle of cells, it should have rights. If some female can't make up her mind in the first trimester she should have to live with the inconvenience of carrying a baby to term and then putting it up for adoption. If she doesn't like it, that's too bad.

So, you're also against requiring health insurance, all drug laws, prostitution laws, and any law as it relates to what a person does with their own body. At least you're consistent, right?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 06:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
That the schizophrenic nature of the law. A woman can be convicted of child abuse for taking drugs or abusing alcohol during her pregnancy. The same woman can have an abortion up to the moment she starts labor. There are people in prison for killing a pregnant woman and were charged with two murders. Scott Peterson comes to mind. Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When is something alive? Well, I guess it's up to the woman. In some cases it's alive, in others it isn't... That's just screwed up all to hell, ain't it?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 06:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If somebody felt as morally righteous against sodomy as they do abortion, would there be a huge difference in making sodomy illegal?
AFAIK, humping someone's ass doesn't kill anyone, but taking a vacuum hose to a living human being with it's own thoughts and purging it into a trash can definitely is.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 06:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
When is something alive? Well, I guess it's up to the woman. In some cases it's alive, in others it isn't... That's just screwed up all to hell, ain't it?
Some one asked the same thing before Look up Pete Singer. He's one of those who believe that newborns aren't people because they are not self aware.
( Last edited by Chongo; May 25, 2011 at 06:54 PM. )
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Washington DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 06:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
AFAIK, humping someone's ass doesn't kill anyone, but taking a vacuum hose to a living human being with it's own thoughts and purging it into a trash can definitely is.
The mental capacity of even a newborn is extremely limited. Probably equivalent to a relatively stupid dog (poodle?). Justifying an anti-abortion stance by claiming that a late-term fetus has it's own thoughts is probably just plain wrong.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 06:53 PM
 
Well, you know, an infant requires the active support of others to be "alive", so why would killing them be any more of an affront than having a late-term abortion? I guess it's because they're cute and we can see them breathing and sucking their thumbs.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Washington DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 06:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Well, you know, an infant requires the active support of others to be "alive", so why would killing them be any more of an affront than having a late-term abortion? I guess it's because they're cute and we can see them breathing and sucking their thumbs.
I suspect that's exactly right.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
The mental capacity of even a newborn is extremely limited. Probably equivalent to a relatively stupid dog(poodle?). Justifying an anti-abortion stance by claiming that a late-term fetus has it's own thoughts is probably just plain wrong.
So is a 3 y/o.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Washington DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
So is a 3 y/o.
I've never met a dog as smart as my 3 year old niece, but my point was that intelligence isn't the issue here.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Some one asked the same thing before Look up Pete Singer. He's one of those who believe that newborns aren't people because they are not self aware.
You're arguing an extreme viewpoint. Singer's admittedly a brilliant intellectual and/or academic but his utilitarian views are widely acknowledged to be rather extreme, to put it mildly. His are not the views of 99.9% of people in the grand scheme of things, and they're not the views of 99.9% of people who will ever legislate on this issue in the forseeable future.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:10 PM
 
I think his position is extreme as well, but he's not the only one.
YouTube -Smother disabled babies: UK columnist Virginia Ironside
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by hayesk View Post
You should make that into a poster and then ask if you can put it up in a rape victim counselling center.

Seriously, do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

If you don't want to have a car accident, then don't drive or travel in cars.
If you don't want your house to burn down, don't cook in it or light a candle.
If you don't want to catch a cold, don't go near people.
Not going quite far enough.

If you don't want to have a car accident, then don't drive or travel in cars or live in a place which has cars ors roads.
If you don't want your house to burn down, live in a cave or some other flame retardant structure.
If you don't want to catch cold, live in a hermetically sealed bubble. You can put this bubble in your cave on your car-free island if you wish. Make sure your cave is sturdy enough to survive a car falling on it from a plane or a tornado. Just in case.

Banning abortion is another one of those laws seeking to restrict the freedoms of others for reasons that are mostly rooted in religion.
If a state full of pro-lifers bans abortion under all circumstances, its effectively saying that someone with different religious views (or no religious views) is a second class citizen because of the views they hold. If you are against abortion, you are free to not have one under pro-choice legislation, the reverse is not true. Restriction of one groups freedoms (especially on essentially religious grounds) doesn't sound very constitutional to me. If not in terms of its language then in terms of its spirit. Though admittedly I'm no expert, not being american.

Its very easy for men to talk about adoption like its a simple thing for a woman to give up her child. I suspect the vast majority of women become attached to their kids long before they are born whether they planned them, wanted them, could afford them or were generally equipped to deal with them or not at the time of conception. I have known women who love their children dearly and wouldn't swap them for the world etc etc but they know as well as anyone else they meet does that they effectively ruined their own lives the second they decided to keep those children. That attachment is very much a part of carrying a child to term so a woman forced to do so against her wishes may very well end up being unable to give the child up for adoption.

A lot is also being made in this thread of the lack of rights held by the father regarding abortion. While I suspect this is in no small part a matter of practicality (its not like you can stop a woman having an abortion if she really wants one whether its done safely in a clinic, dangerously in a back alley or suicidally by drinking bleach or some such foolishness), the point about preventing pregnancy in the first place is much closer to 100% possible for men.
If you don't want to pay child support for 18 years, then be careful where you put your genitals. I would be interested to know if there has ever been a case where a woman managed to impregnate herself against the will of the father (by force or by deception) and whether he would be liable for child support under such circumstances. I would contend those are the only circumstances where he should not.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by aristotles View Post
I assume that you don't have a problem with laws against exploitation of children, theft, assault and murder. Those are all based on the moral code moral people live by.

I'm not a child, I have not been assaulted or murdered but I expect there to be certain laws in place to prevent chaos and the rule of war lords.
That's why I have been very careful to include the caveat of morals that do not "affect you or others". The crimes you listed above affect others.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
When it comes to saving a human life? Sure, why not? We have lots of those laws already. By that time it isn't just a bundle of cells, it should have rights. If some female can't make up her mind in the first trimester she should have to live with the inconvenience of carrying a baby to term and then putting it up for adoption. If she doesn't like it, that's too bad.
So, if you're all about saving human life at all costs, are you for criminalizing potentially harmful drugs, regulating fast food, requiring all sorts of safety laws, etc.? Whatever has a demonstrable ability to save human life?

So, you're also against requiring health insurance, all drug laws, prostitution laws, and any law as it relates to what a person does with their own body. At least you're consistent, right?
Yup, are you? I'm not sure the requiring health insurance belongs in this category though.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
AFAIK, humping someone's ass doesn't kill anyone, but taking a vacuum hose to a living human being with it's own thoughts and purging it into a trash can definitely is.
That's why I said "if", as in a hypothetical if. I'm not equating the two. There are always people that believe all sorts of things though, if you believe the government should be in the business of making personal moral decisions for us, should sodomy be illegal if the majority of people find it immoral enough for a law to be passed?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Well, you know, an infant requires the active support of others to be "alive", so why would killing them be any more of an affront than having a late-term abortion? I guess it's because they're cute and we can see them breathing and sucking their thumbs.

A houseplant requires the active support of others to keep it alive too.

Life is biologically cheap, we should not favor it unconditionally just because of our emotional feelings towards it. There are times when death is appropriate. I'm absolutely for assisted suicide and the death penalty for similar reasons.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
That's why I have been very careful to include the caveat of morals that do not "affect you or others". The crimes you listed above affect others.
That why I asked where a pro abortion advocate would draw the line. 20 to 24 weeks is where viability outside the womb is possible. There are clinics that will perform abortions after 24 weeks.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
That why I asked where a pro abortion advocate would draw the line. 20 to 24 weeks is where viability outside the womb is possible. There are clinics that will perform abortions after 24 weeks.

I would draw the line at birth, when the ambiguity as to whether this thing is a "person" or not is clearly gone. Up to that point, it's a personal matter that the government (any government) has no business in being involved with.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Well, you know, an infant requires the active support of others to be "alive", so why would killing them be any more of an affront than having a late-term abortion? I guess it's because they're cute and we can see them breathing and sucking their thumbs.
The viability standard staked out by the Supreme Court includes newborns who require active life support (respirators, etc.) in its definition of "viable."

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I would draw the line at birth, when the ambiguity as to whether this thing is a "person" or not is clearly gone. Up to that point, it's a personal matter that the government (any government) has no business in being involved with.
Then you would not add a second murder charge when a pregnant woman is killed?
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I would draw the line at birth, when the ambiguity as to whether this thing is a "person" or not is clearly gone. Up to that point, it's a personal matter that the government (any government) has no business in being involved with.
Then we have nothing to ever talk about with each other again, as I find you completely repulsive and beneath contempt. Back you go on the list with Hyteckit.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:37 PM
 
I'd put it at somewhere less than the point at where out-of-womb viability is possible - i.e. less than 20 weeks, going by your numbers.

For ease, I'll settle on 4 months. Late enough for everyone but the true outliers and/or/i.e. truly stupid to know that they're pregnant and make a rational decision. Early enough that I'm comfortable saying that said baby is still not developed enough to be a "human being".

Everyone happy? Good.

[/thread]
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Then you would not add a second murder charge when a pregnant woman is killed?

No, I wouldn't, although I wouldn't mind a stiffer sentence.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Then we have nothing to ever talk about with each other again, as I find you completely repulsive and beneath contempt. Back you go on the list with Hyteckit.
And I thought that Big Mac was the biggest ideologue here.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I'd put it at somewhere less than the point at where out-of-womb viability is possible - i.e. less than 20 weeks, going by your numbers.

For ease, I'll settle on 4 months. Late enough for everyone but the true outliers and/or/i.e. truly stupid to know that they're pregnant and make a rational decision. Early enough that I'm comfortable saying that said baby is still not developed enough to be a "human being".

Everyone happy? Good.

[/thread]


At this point you can probably go about this in a totally different direction too: the safety of the medical procedure at this point, and the rights of doctors to cover their asses. I would imagine that after a certain point the complexity of performing these abortions becomes a factor. If so, we can have this conversation through this lens without getting into the whole governent sovereignty over bodies thing.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I'd put it at somewhere less than the point at where out-of-womb viability is possible - i.e. less than 20 weeks, going by your numbers.

For ease, I'll settle on 4 months. Late enough for everyone but the true outliers and/or/i.e. truly stupid to know that they're pregnant and make a rational decision. Early enough that I'm comfortable saying that said baby is still not developed enough to be a "human being".

Everyone happy? Good.

[/thread]
TLC has a series dedicated to these women.
I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant: Labor All Alone : Video : TLC
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
At this point you can probably go about this in a totally different direction too: the safety of the medical procedure at this point, and the rights of doctors to cover their asses. I would imagine that after a certain point the complexity of performing these abortions becomes a factor. If so, we can have this conversation through this lens without getting into the whole governent sovereignty over bodies thing.
Like this guy? Let's hope he's the only one running a "safe, clean clinic"
Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Accused of Killing Babies With Scissors, Dr. Kermit Gosnell Charged With 8 Murders - ABC News
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 08:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
And I thought that Big Mac was the biggest ideologue here.
Man. It took you that long to figure out.

I had him nailed years ago.

Shaddim thinks too highly of himself. He probably thinks he's the most open and fair minded person on the planet.

Actually to him, it's more like infinite planets.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 08:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Make all abortions illegal and you'll see a LOT more of this.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 08:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
This is a regulatory issue, no? As mentioned, you'll have this situation no matter if abortion is legal or not - and if it's not, history has been quite clear in showing us that this will happen.

A strong regulatory system would presumably be the best defence against this problem, no?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Make all abortions illegal and you'll see a LOT more of this.
Bernard Nathanson, NARAL founder, admitted the number of deaths from illegal abortions was greatly inflated in Roe V Wade.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I would draw the line at birth, when the ambiguity as to whether this thing is a "person" or not is clearly gone. Up to that point, it's a personal matter that the government (any government) has no business in being involved with.
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Then we have nothing to ever talk about with each other again, as I find you completely repulsive and beneath contempt. Back you go on the list with Hyteckit.
I guess you should add the entire nation of Canada to your ban list, since that is the law here, and every political party in Canada is fine with this.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Bernard Nathanson, NARAL founder, admitted the number of deaths from illegal abortions was greatly inflated in Roe V Wade.

That making it illegal and therefore unregulated would make it less safe is pretty brain dead obvious, stop throwing up smokescreens.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
F**k that. Three months is enough time for anyone.
Not all birth defects are detectable within that time frame, making your standard undesirable by anyone with common sense.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 09:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Bernard Nathanson, NARAL founder, admitted the number of deaths from illegal abortions was greatly inflated in Roe V Wade.
Since Bernard Nathanson isn't a statistician, and didn't testify at RvW, his opinion is irrelevant. Pretty much everything he's ever said since switching sides has been completely irrelevant, his ultrasound "evidence" especially.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 10:08 PM
 
If it were up to me abortion would be legal for any reason up to 4 months. After that, it should be legal only in the case of severe deformity or a serious threat to the health or life of the mother.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I guess you should add the entire nation of Canada to your ban list, since that is the law here, and every political party in Canada is fine with this.
Come on now. I would go so far as to say, with complete ignorance of the actual figures, that the majority of Canadians wouldn't agree with full-term abortion. And I would also say - with similar ignorance - that every political party in Canada is not fine with this, but that it's such a hot political topic that "ignore it and it'll either go away or the SCC will make a ruling and save us" is the de facto approach.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 10:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
In many cases, that's the ONLY responsibility a mother will allow the man to be burdened with even if he would like to share more. He has no real choices in this matter and therefore is being treated to unequal protection.
Q.E.D.

Unequal responsibility means unequal protection.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
The mental capacity of even a newborn is extremely limited. Probably equivalent to a relatively stupid dog (poodle?). Justifying an anti-abortion stance by claiming that a late-term fetus has it's own thoughts is probably just plain wrong.
Standard poodles are among the smartest breeds. AFAIK, they only get beat out by border collies (i.e. Lassie).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
If it were up to me abortion would be legal for any reason up to 4 months. After that, it should be legal only in the case of severe deformity or a serious threat to the health or life of the mother.

OAW

I agree in principle, but who makes this call after 4 months?
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Then we have nothing to ever talk about with each other again, as I find you completely repulsive and beneath contempt. Back you go on the list with Hyteckit.
I consider you one of the more intelligent persons here, but I am flummoxed that it has taken you this long to come to this conclusion. He's the reason I only drop by once every week or so, just to see if he's left and the place has a chance to return back to a tolerable site once again. I am getting pretty discouraged and can only keep that hope for so long though.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 11:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I guess you should add the entire nation of Canada to your ban list, since that is the law here, and every political party in Canada is fine with this.
You favor partial-birth abortion up until hours before birth?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Washington DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Standard poodles are among the smartest breeds. AFAIK, they only get beat out by border collies (i.e. Lassie).
My experience is only with sub-standard poodles which seem to have been bred for their stupidity.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
I consider you one of the more intelligent persons here, but I am flummoxed that it has taken you this long to come to this conclusion. He's the reason I only drop by once every week or so, just to see if he's left and the place has a chance to return back to a tolerable site once again. I am getting pretty discouraged and can only keep that hope for so long though.
I didn't know his position on this type of murder. I suppose I thought that those types of barbaric procedures were almost completely phased out, and the attitudes that allowed for them in the first place, as they're now illegal in most states.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 11:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Not all birth defects are detectable within that time frame, making your standard undesirable by anyone with common sense.
Oh, I have a great deal of common sense, just not from your twisted point of view.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
I consider you one of the more intelligent persons here, but I am flummoxed that it has taken you this long to come to this conclusion. He's the reason I only drop by once every week or so, just to see if he's left and the place has a chance to return back to a tolerable site once again. I am getting pretty discouraged and can only keep that hope for so long though.
Really, it was his stance on abortion for you?

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:00 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2