[Waragainstsleep]

I'm surprised there isn't a thread about her already. I guess the abortion debate has been done over and over here and isn't worth a rerun, but I have to hand it to Senator Davis for her sheer effort. Its nice to see such devotion to public service.

[ghporter]

I have a ton of respect for her. Unfortunately, our revered governor has called another special session JUST to push this piece of crap bill through. I'm still trying to figure out how he and the rest of the "we don't think women should make decisions for themselves" group in the Texas Lege actually figure they'll benefit from all of this heavy handedness.

[Waragainstsleep]

Yeah, your governor seems to be a real piece of work. On the bright side, at least he didn't get elected president.

[andi*pandi]

I can't believe they tried to fake the time stamp and bypass the legislative process.

[subego]

I'm not so surprised they tried that. I'm surprised they felt they could get away with it when the entire frigging country is watching.

Makes you wonder what happens when people aren't paying attention.

[Chongo]

Perhaps Ms Davis can answer the question Nancy Pelosi won't

John McCormack of the Weekly Standard asked Pelosi

So the question I have for you is what is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?

[subego]

It's a bit of a nonsensical question.

Can you expand on the point which is trying to be made?

[subego]

Okay. I Googled the quote to see what he was getting at.

Assuming we're talking about a state where it would be legal, an abortion moments before birth falls into one of two categories.

The first is when you have both immense danger to the mother and a very low chance of viability for the child.

The second is everything else.

The first is moral, the second is murder.

There is no difference in morality between Dr. Gosnell and the second. There is significant difference in morality between Dr. Gosnell and the first.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Okay. I Googled the quote to see what he was getting at.

Assuming we're talking about a state where it would be legal, an abortion moments before birth falls into one of two categories.

The first is when you have both immense danger to the mother and a very low chance of viability for the child.

The second is everything else.

The first is moral, the second is murder.

There is no difference in morality between Dr. Gosnell and the second. There is significant difference in morality between Dr. Gosnell and the first.

Agreed, and well said.

[lpkmckenna]

Wendy Davis is now my hero. It's been a long time since I've seen that kind of character and determination from a politician.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Okay. I Googled the quote to see what he was getting at.

Assuming we're talking about a state where it would be legal, an abortion moments before birth falls into one of two categories.

The first is when you have both immense danger to the mother and a very low chance of viability for the child.

The second is everything else.

The first is moral, the second is murder.

There is no difference in morality between Dr. Gosnell and the second. There is significant difference in morality between Dr. Gosnell and the first.

Gosnell had stopped performimg "abortions" He was inducing labor then killing the baby. The women's health was not at risk from the pregnancy and rarely if ever is.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The women's health was not at risk from the pregnancy and rarely if ever is.

If ever?

You just lost all credibility on this subject.

[Chongo]

In Gosnell's case, yes. The only risk to those women's health was Gosnell.
One loses credibility on the the subject beliving killing children en utero is moral, especially when they are viable and capable of feeling pain.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not so surprised they tried that. I'm surprised they felt they could get away with it when the entire frigging country is watching.

Makes you wonder what happens when people aren't paying attention.

I guess they assumed what usually works in Texas.....

[subego]

Nm.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

In Gosnell's case, yes. The only risk to those women's health was Gosnell.
One loses credibility on the the subject beliving killing children en utero is moral, especially when they are viable and capable of feeling pain.

You do realize Gosnell is being charged with murder, right?

Do you think Pelosi, et. al. are against that or something?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

You do realize Gosnell is being charged with murder, right?

Do you think Pelosi, et. al. are against that or something?

Gosnell was convicted and sentenced to life.
Pelosi refused to answer the question.

[subego]

I'm asking your opinion.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm asking your opinion.

Pelosi's silence, and the others who remained silent during the Gosnell trial, says she supports what he did
"On demand and without apology up to the moment of labor" correct?

[subego]

Pelosi wasn't silent about the Gosnell case. In fact, she said this in direct response to McCormack's question:

"You're taking the extreme case. You're taking the extreme case. And what I'm saying to you is what happened in Philadelphia was reprehensible."

When she can answer that directly, and what comes through is her "silence", perhaps you may understand her unwillingness to dance with McCormack. What's the point?

That said, I will fully grant you the on demand, without apology slogan is really dumb, and poorly communicates the point it's trying to make. I was going to try and explain it, but let them clean up their own mess.

[Chongo]

Pelosi said that after Gonell was convicted. I don't recall her making a statement of any kind during the trial.

Here's the thing, both the Texas bill and the one Pelosi was asked about ban late term (>20 weeks) abortion, only. As I understand it, even that would satisfy Roe. Ms Davis filibustered for the right to kill a baby up to the moment labor naturally begins.


I hear Perry is going to call a special session just to deal with this bill.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Pelosi said that after Gonell was convicted. I don't recall her making a statement of any kind during the trial.

That's just not true, Chongo. I can provide you dated quotes if you want.

Now, I think you're trying to support what you believe to be true, and I'm honestly not interested in slamming you for being mistaken.

I would however, like to discuss what you believe. I'm not trying to ambush you, or change your opinion, I only want to understand what that opinion is.

What do you think (in rough form) the legal confines of abortion should be? It's fine with me if those are vastly different from what we have now.

[Chongo]

"Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare"
Pres. Bill Clinton, 1996
It may be legal, but it sure isn't safe or rare.

What do you think (in rough form) the legal confines of abortion should be? It's fine with me if those are vastly different from what we have now.

The current bill is a good start.

This what the Catechism teaches, this would be ideal.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 5



Lets us the Guttmacher Institute numbers as to why abortion are performed. By their own study. 87% to 99.5% are done for reasons other that the "hard cases"
From Wikipedia
A 2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute reported that women listed the following amongst their reasons for choosing to have an abortion:
74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73% Cannot afford a baby now
48% Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38% Have completed my childbearing
32% Not ready for a(nother) child
25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22% Do not feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12% Concerns about my health
6% Parents want me to have an abortion
1% Was a victim of rape
less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest

So we keep The hard cases legal. With over 1 million performed a year, over 990,000 less abortions would be performed. Then again, at $500 to $1500 an abortion that's a lot of money to be made. (Gosnell was pulling down ≈$15k a night and upwards of $4,000,000 a year.)

[subego]

Thank you for the answer.

Unless I read it wrong, the catechism seems to indicate abortion is never moral. If I may ask a clarifying question, do you believe abortion can be moral in some of the situations you bolded above?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant

It would be interesting to know what fraction of these were motivated by religious beliefs or rules about sex.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This what the Catechism teaches, this would be ideal.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 5

That would be fantastic, if every one believed that way. The problem is, not every one does. This brings about the current debacle, where some want to impose their beliefs on others, because they are so certain of their moral superiority. There's a simple solution; if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. IOW, clean up your own house, and stop worrying about the state of other's houses.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Thank you for the answer.

Unless I read it wrong, the catechism seems to indicate abortion is never moral. If I may ask a clarifying question, do you believe abortion can be moral in some of the situations you bolded above?

Yes, direct abortion is never moral. I highlighted those responses of the GI survey (excluding heath) to illustrate that 99% are done for reasons other than the "hard cases" (AKA post conception "birth control")

In health cases, the principle of double effect comes into play.

In the other two hard cases, thanks to the FDA making "Plan B' available over the counter without a prescription to persons of any age, the perpetrators of those heinous crimes can force their victims to take "Plan B". This will make covering up incest cases a lot more easy.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That would be fantastic, if every one believed that way. The problem is, not every one does. This brings about the current debacle, where some want to impose their beliefs on others, because they are so certain of their moral superiority. There's a simple solution; if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. IOW, clean up your own house, and stop worrying about the state of other's houses.

Like these respondents?

14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion

There are the parents who pressure their daughters into having an abortion as well.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That would be fantastic, if every one believed that way. The problem is, not every one does. This brings about the current debacle, where some want to impose their beliefs on others, because they are so certain of their moral superiority. There's a simple solution; if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. IOW, clean up your own house, and stop worrying about the state of other's houses.

The irony being I just asked Chongo for his opinion, and your response is to immediately start worrying about his house.

[subego]

I apologize Chongo. I thought it would be possible for you to express an altogether not uncommon opinion without people being compelled to jump your shit.

I was wrong. I'll PM next time.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That would be fantastic, if every one believed that way. The problem is, not every one does. This brings about the current debacle, where some want to impose their beliefs on others, because they are so certain of their moral superiority. There's a simple solution; if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. IOW, clean up your own house, and stop worrying about the state of other's houses.

For that matter, one could say, "If you don't like murder, don't murder anyone." You can replace murder with rape, theft, or anything else, really. All social ethical standards are predicated upon where we decide to draw lines. Ideally, "utopia" wouldn't have laws at all, and "the law" would only exist as a device for good-faith arbitration. Since folks, in general, are largely unable to place the needs and desires of others on par with their own, we can't do that. Specifically talking about abortion, we're dealing with a living thing, a human, that can't speak for itself. When is it a human, where do we draw that line?

- Up until the end of normal gestation? Sure, but by then it's alive, for all intents and purposes, and can live outside the womb.
- When it's determined that the fetus can likely live on its own, without assistance (or with assistance)? 24 or 25 weeks?
- When it's determined the fetus is "conscious"; there's synaptic activity, it can feel pain, or can react to stimuli? Where are the scientifically determined thresholds, do we even have a general consensus on when that starts? 14 or 15 weeks?
- At the threshold between embryo and fetus, when life transitions from "potential" into "inevitable"? 12 weeks?

Of course, we run into the argument, "It isn't their body, what gives anyone the right to decide except the mother?" (See previous comment about people "being unable to place the needs and desires of others on par with their own".) So we have the situation where someone needs to take up advocacy for the unborn at some stage, since they have no voice, or do we determine that we should be able to snuff out anything that anyone finds particularly burdensome, provided it's dependent upon someone for its wellbeing and unable to properly represent itself? I'm not trying to be absurd there, I'm just looking at it all from an entirely dispassionate perspective, beyond contemporary social mores.

My view:

First trimester abortions are entirely legal, no restrictions. Second trimester abortions are legal if the life, or long term health, of the mother is at risk, or it is determined that there's a very high likelihood a child would be born with severe defects, ie. Anencephaly or Down Syndrome (sticky subject, but that's where I am). Third trimester abortions only allowed if the mother's life is in danger and the baby can't be removed intact without causing further significant risk to the woman (as determined by the attending physician). The threshold of the 14th week is plenty of time for a person to decide if they want to continue their pregnancy, beyond that they need a good reason to terminate.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

I apologize Chongo. I thought it would be possible for you to express an altogether not uncommon opinion without people being compelled to jump your shit.

I was wrong. I'll PM next time.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize this wasn't a public forum.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

The irony being I just asked Chongo for his opinion, and your response is to immediately start worrying about his house.

I'm not worried about his house. I'm simply pointing out hypocrisy.

[Chongo]

Ms Davis better get her Sucrets ready, Perry has called for a second special session.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry calls 2nd special session to pass abortion bill - CBS News

[subego]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'm not worried about his house. I'm simply pointing out hypocrisy.

Where is this hypocrisy you speak of. It you point it out I will apologize.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'm sorry. I didn't realize this wasn't a public forum.

I wasn't talking to you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'm not worried about his house. I'm simply pointing out hypocrisy.

That's right, how dare he inject his morals on those like you imposing your morals. Yours are of course acceptable because they're superior I'm sure.

That's hypocrisy.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That would be fantastic, if every one believed that way. The problem is, not every one does. This brings about the current debacle, where some want to impose their beliefs on others, because they are so certain of their moral superiority. There's a simple solution; if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. IOW, clean up your own house, and stop worrying about the state of other's houses.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

For that matter, one could say, "If you don't like murder, don't murder anyone." You can replace murder with rape, theft, or anything else, really. All social ethical standards are predicated upon where we decide to draw lines. Ideally, "utopia" wouldn't have laws at all, and "the law" would only exist as a device for good-faith arbitration. Since folks, in general, are largely unable to place the needs and desires of others on par with their own, we can't do that. Specifically talking about abortion, we're dealing with a living thing, a human, that can't speak for itself. When is it a human, where do we draw that line?

The SCOTUS made another decision in which it decided that a group of people were not citizens/humans. Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott lost based on, get this, that he was not a citizen, and therefore hand no standing (sound familiar?) to sue for his freedom.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

That said, I will fully grant you the on demand, without apology slogan is really dumb, and poorly communicates the point it's trying to make.

You can add chanting "Hail Satan" as well.

Watch Abortion Supporters Chant "Hail Satan" While Pro Life Activists Sing "Amazing Grace" Outside- YouTube

[subego]

Whether that's dumb depends on how you feel about trolling.

My style of troll would be to hold up a sign which said either "I'm anti-life" or "pro-death and proud".

[subego]

To clarify a bit, I actually think both the "on demand" and the "hail, Satan" slogans are trolling, but the "on demand" one is intentionally mean-spirited while the Satan one is more accidentally mean-spirited.

"Hail, Satan" is poorly thought out by people who probably aren't really in a good position to give it a think in the first place. "On demand" is completely thought out, and belies something of a warped thought process when it comes to communicating one's position. It's very form over function, and the form is a slap to the face to the opposition.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Whether that's dumb depends on how you feel about trolling.

My style of troll would be to hold up a sign which said either "I'm anti-life" or "pro-death and proud".

Frankly, I've learned to filter those types out as attention whores and go about my business, you can't have productive interaction with someone spouting that type of thing.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Frankly, I've learned to filter those types out as attention whores and go about my business, you can't have productive interaction with someone spouting that type of thing.

As clearly demonstrated by my inability to have productive interaction.

I wouldn't call those particularly more attention whore than anything else one does at a protest. They're pretty attention whore to begin with. Just as I'm ticked off by the "on demand" slogan, I'm ticked at the "pro-life" moniker. It implies a nasty opinion of the people not in your group, and I think the absurdity of a sign like "anti-life" is an appropriate way to address the implication in a protest context.

OTOH, I'd say certain people on the "anti-life" side, try and dance around the fact an abortion is killing. I'm not going to do that. If I'm going to take a "pro-death" position (which I do), I'm not going to pretend it's something else.

[Chongo]

Just to put a little perspective on this, here is an email I received for my company's CEO

[subego]

Link is broken.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Specifically talking about abortion, we're dealing with a living thing, a human, that can't speak for itself. When is it a human, where do we draw that line?

Well, first, you have to remember that quite a few proponents of broad abortion rights tend to believe that an unborn baby is not "a living thing". The presence of heart, lungs, and various body elements that one would constitute as "human" (e.g. the physical features of homo sapiens) do not deter such proponents from insisting that "fetus" != "human".

That is probably the number one reason why hard-left pro-abortion types piss me off.

- Up until the end of normal gestation? Sure, but by then it's alive, for all intents and purposes, and can live outside the womb.
- When it's determined that the fetus can likely live on its own, without assistance (or with assistance)? 24 or 25 weeks?
- When it's determined the fetus is "conscious"; there's synaptic activity, it can feel pain, or can react to stimuli? Where are the scientifically determined thresholds, do we even have a general consensus on when that starts? 14 or 15 weeks?
- At the threshold between embryo and fetus, when life transitions from "potential" into "inevitable"? 12 weeks?

Viability is different for every unborn baby - that's apparent just from looking at the ages of babies who do or don't survive premature birth. It makes it difficult to create a hard-and-fast objective "line" for when abortion is or isn't morally acceptable.

Of course, we run into the argument, "It isn't their body, what gives anyone the right to decide except the mother?" (See previous comment about people "being unable to place the needs and desires of others on par with their own".) So we have the situation where someone needs to take up advocacy for the unborn at some stage, since they have no voice, or do we determine that we should be able to snuff out anything that anyone finds particularly burdensome, provided it's dependent upon someone for its wellbeing and unable to properly represent itself? I'm not trying to be absurd there, I'm just looking at it all from an entirely dispassionate perspective, beyond contemporary social mores.

There's also the fact that the father has zero say in the matter. It's not a particularly easy situation, of course. As a woman I have zero interest in getting preggers and carrying a baby to term. Frankly, the ideas of both pregnancy and childbirth gross me out hardcore. That said, if my partner and I ended up with an "oops baby", I think it'd be pretty selfish of me to ignore what he wants, since the thing is half his DNA.

My view:

First trimester abortions are entirely legal, no restrictions.

I used to be vehemently against all abortion, period, end, but very early abortions don't do a whole lot with regards to causing pain to the unborn baby, etc. It really just interrupts what amounts to a clump of cells with no real form. Not quite the same as a D&E or D&C, which forces cervical dilation (similar to what happens naturally when the woman goes into labor) and literally rips the baby's body apart to remove it from the uterus.

Second trimester abortions are legal if the life, or long term health, of the mother is at risk, ...

I can generally get behind this. If this is the cause for the abortion, it's likely the child is wanted, but its birth would end up leaving it in a tragically single-parent environment. Then again, I don't think there should be a hard-and-fast rule about it, per se.

...or it is determined that there's a very high likelihood a child would be born with severe defects, ie. Anencephaly or Down Syndrome (sticky subject, but that's where I am).

This is the part that is sort of bothersome. If abortion is the termination of what is viewed as both "alive" and "human", terminating that life because it's not the one you were expecting (e.g. some kind of chromosomal abnormality) can be pretty selfish - especially if we're talking about a relatively mild-to-moderate mental defect or, even worse, a physiological defect that doesn't affect the mind. A person with a severe physical disability who is still fully mentally competent can live a perfectly fine, fulfilling life.

If you're wanting to terminate the pregnancy because you simply don't want the hassle of raising a special-needs child, that's pretty damn selfish. It's also easy for me to pass that judgement since I've never been in that situation, so...

Originally Posted by subego 

As clearly demonstrated by my inability to have productive interaction.

I wouldn't call those particularly more attention whore than anything else one does at a protest. They're pretty attention whore to begin with. Just as I'm ticked off by the "on demand" slogan, I'm ticked at the "pro-life" moniker. It implies a nasty opinion of the people not in your group, and I think the absurdity of a sign like "anti-life" is an appropriate way to address the implication in a protest context.

OTOH, I'd say certain people on the "anti-life" side, try and dance around the fact an abortion is killing. I'm not going to do that. If I'm going to take a "pro-death" position (which I do), I'm not going to pretend it's something else.

I have far more respect for you than friends of mine who are pro-abortion and staunchly insist that an unborn baby is neither alive nor human (e.g. "it's a fetus, not a baby!").

That said, i take up issue with both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" labels, because the opposing side of both is neither kind nor accurate. Being anti-abortion doesn't mean I'm anti-choice, and being pro-choice doesn't make one anti-life. In fact, personal liberties are extremely important to me. It's just that the unborn baby isn't me, it's someone else, and there's the distinction.

Similarly, one who is pro-abortion is not "anti-life" - there are quite a few abortion rights activities who are also quite opposed to the death penalty and/or war. It's less aggressive and more objective to speak in terms of pro- or anti-abortion IMO.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

This is the part that is sort of bothersome. If abortion is the termination of what is viewed as both "alive" and "human", terminating that life because it's not the one you were expecting (e.g. some kind of chromosomal abnormality) can be pretty selfish - especially if we're talking about a relatively mild-to-moderate mental defect or, even worse, a physiological defect that doesn't affect the mind. A person with a severe physical disability who is still fully mentally competent can live a perfectly fine, fulfilling life.

If you're wanting to terminate the pregnancy because you simply don't want the hassle of raising a special-needs child, that's pretty damn selfish. It's also easy for me to pass that judgement since I've never been in that situation, so...

I find it bothersome too, that's partly why I'd want to leave it in, it leans towards the mother's right to choose and places me a bit out of my comfort zone. Erring on the side of individual choice, as it were, is IMO the right place to be. I'm not talking about raising a special needs child, but thinking about the quality of life of such an infant. If it's a situation where that child is unlikely to live anything close to a normal life, I do believe that it's the parents' choice, since they will live with the burden of seeing the baby suffer and possibly die soon after birth. I'm an advocate for very early genetic testing to determine severe defects, and if my daughter had been diagnosed with Down's her mother and I had decided we wanted to continue the pregnancy, but if it were something more severe (such as Anencephaly) we probably wouldn't have. I feel blessed every day that we didn't have to make that decision.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Just to put a little perspective on this, here is an email I received for my company's CEO

Thanks for fixing the link.

Didn't you used to work in corrections, or am I misremembering?

[Waragainstsleep]

Its easy to declare that terminating a child with mental deficiencies is selfish but people have a tendency to do it without really realising what they are in for.

It depends on the severity of the abnormality, but anything that means the child will never be capable of living life alone as an adult is an undertaking few people can really comprehend until they have to do it, by which point its too late when you find out you aren't up to it.

Its a wide ranging scale, but if the child stops progressing at a mental of age of say 8 or 10, by adulthood its going to have sufficient awareness to notice the differences between itself and "normal" people. To describe these differences as depressing is an understatement.
If mental age tops out closer to 5 or less, you essentially have signed up to spend the entire rest of your life looking after a baby or toddler. Not only that, but a toddler that will eventually be able to physically overpower you and then all being well, will one day have to outlive you in the care of someone else who either didn't sign up for it by choice but out of duty or guilt, or is paid and probably won't care half as much as you did.
In even colder, harsher terms you have created an individual with questionable quality of life who will be an enormous financial burden on you or someone else or the state, or all of the above. At the very least.

Personally I think the best guide to these kinds of decisions is to look to the natural world. I am aware that our intelligence and compassion is what elevates us above the animals, but an individual that is never going to be able to survive independently or ever raise young of its own never lasts very long in any other species.
You can start the inevitable Nazi comparisons if you like, but when these defects are genetic, there is also a perfectly good argument for working towards removing them from the gene pool. That is literally what is supposed to happen if we didn't insist on interfering.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I feel blessed every day that we didn't have to make that decision.

That's the kicker.

I think it's nigh impossible for anyone to know for sure what they'd do if faced with such a massive, weighty decision. I can say right now that if I get preggers by accident, I won't consider abortion because of my views, but if actually looking such a situation dead in the eye, my perspective might shift a bit.