Author Topic: When does life deserve to be protected?  (Read 11144 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1202
  • Darwins +75/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #116 on: October 23, 2008, 11:17:19 PM »
So, do you also support overturning Brown v. Board of Education?  After all, social structure, or lack thereof, does not have any effect on rights, correct?
What are you talking about?  Brown vs. BoE was about civil rights.
And you're right.  Social structure is secondary to a rights discussion.  It's not relevant.  It comes afterwards.  Once you get the rights in place, you can mold the social structure to fit those rights.

Quote
I have news for you, sir.  Roe v. Wade is now lodged in as Supreme Court precedent.  You are still a ways off from overturning that decision.  Would you care to do something in the meantime, or don't you care about the lives of fetuses that much?
Slavery was written into the US Constitution.

Quote
Actually, of course, these things did occur stepwise.  Now, it appears, you'd like to undo the steps.  Instead of learning from history, and seeing that a) you can accomplish a lot at the same time as you work for a larger victory, b) you could demonstrate that this was actually born from conviction and passion rather than malice and perhaps actually win people over to supporting your now unpopular cause this way, and c) achieving your stated goal without making corresponding social improvements leads to misery for the very group you are allegedly attempting to save, you just push on blindly like a horse being whipped.  In the wake of Emancipation and the end of the Civil War, lynchings rose to an all-time high.  Prohibition of abortions is going to lead to increased suicide among young mothers, deaths from illegal abortions, murders by fathers and husbands.  For someone who claims to be interested in preserving life, you seem remarkably unconcerned about these things.  There will be increases in premature babies and unhealthy babies.  You are also going to see more babies left in dumpsters, at hospitals and churches, malnourished by incompetent or impoverished mothers, and more babies that are victims of abuse.  That these things will happen is beyond doubt.  Yet you don't care at all.  Do you think this might affect someone who is ambivalent to Roe v. Wade and their consideration of possibly supporting your efforts, to see you completely and willfully ignore these things?
Are you arguing that we should've kept slavery instead?  That we'd have been better off enforcing the fugitive slave laws than letting people die over a few measly slaves?

Quote
Of course you won't.  Your policy will lead to misery and you are stating very clearly that you know and do not care.  How in the world could anyone in good conscience decide to take up with such a position?
To run with the slavery analogy, because these are people here we're talking about, not garden hoses.  You're willing to sell out a section of humanity to make social problems go away, and then you're implying that I'm the monster.  While we're at it, let's borrow some baby cooking recipes from Jonathan Swift; they could've solved the poverty problems of his day!

Quote
Furthermore, you would like Roe v. Wade overturned.  You said just that.  That means that you are in favor of rescinding the federally guaranteed fundamental right of a woman to have an abortion.
Correct

Quote
This is where you decide for someone else that your opinion supercedes theirs.
False. I decide that one set of rights supersedes another.

Quote
I asked you how you can justify that position.  You have yet to answer.
In my view, one person is already imposing their will on the will of someone who doesn't have a voice.  She's deciding that the person should die without the consent of that person.  That person has no options, no defenses, no responsibility for the situation, nothing.  I want to impose my will on the actions who in most cases is partially responsible, has options, can seek aid, and has nine months to prepare.  My position doesn't default to having someone die.

Quote
You are not content to hold a personal disgust against abortion.  You want to overturn Roe v. Wade.  That's a whole different ballgame.  It is arrogance and I'd like to see where you can even begin to justify it.
Let's play a game:
Replace "abortion" with any historical injustice.  Replace "Roe v. Wade" with whatever ended it.  Repeat the resulting sentence someone you feel is likely to take the opposing viewpoint.  (Example: Use "slavery" and "13th Amendment" and find a slavery descendant.)

Maybe someone will beat into you that it's not arrogant to take a stance that grants human rights to a group, whether you agree with it or not.

Quote
No, I won't get an answer because you don't have one.
False.  Argument from silence.  You didn't get an answer because you didn't read my post.

Quote
I think you need to answer the question about how your opinion is objectively demonstrable as so exceedingly right that no other personal opinion on the matter can be allowed to hold sway under the law.
Sure, right after you objectively prove to me that Jews are people and not "Juden swine."


Dave, since you completely missed the point of my original post, let me sum it up for you in one sentence:
If a fetus is a human person, then that fetus deserves the rights of a person.  If the Pro-Life camp is right about when life begins, then the Pro-Life argument goes out the window.  It's that simple.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2008, 11:20:58 PM by Mooby »
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline JTW

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1983
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #117 on: October 23, 2008, 11:32:50 PM »
If left to its own devices, a zygote will not develop into a fetus.  What's your point?

Left to its own devices in the womb, it won't develop into a fetus?

Offline JTW

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1983
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #118 on: October 23, 2008, 11:33:27 PM »
Does it have the potential to become a living brain again?

If potentiality confers rights, you should be able to vote on Nov. 4.  After all, you're a potential American citizen.

No I'm not.

Offline Freak

Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #119 on: October 24, 2008, 01:19:04 AM »
Is a sperm not a potential human?
When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised, the Lord doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

Offline Freak

Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #120 on: October 24, 2008, 01:23:16 AM »
If left to its own devices, a zygote will not develop into a fetus.  What's your point?

Left to its own devices in the womb, it won't develop into a fetus?

It's estimated that greater than 50% of all zygotes die.
Anyways, what right does it have to be in someones womb? No one else is allowed in a persons body without their explicit and continuing consent.
When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised, the Lord doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12410
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #121 on: October 24, 2008, 05:55:10 AM »
If left to its own devices, a zygote will not develop into a fetus.  What's your point?
Left to its own devices in the womb, it won't develop into a fetus?

The womb is not one of its own devices.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12410
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #122 on: October 24, 2008, 06:48:31 AM »
JTW, you've really dug a hole for yourself here.  I'll outline why for you:

Case #1 - Future is not set
You have claimed, in post 104, that you could not argue for the rights of the unborn at all under this case.

Case #2 - Future is set
In this case, we do not know whether the zygote is destined to grow, or whether it's not, but whichever case it is, it's 100% destined to happen.  Let's explore both cases, to make sure our bases are covered:

Case #2a - Future is set and that future contains the zygote developing into a baby
Under this case, abortion is impossible.  The future is set, and that future does not entail an abortion.  Pro-lifers can rest easy in this case, because abortion is destined not to happen.

Case #2b - Future is set and that future does not contain the zygote developing into a baby
The zygote had no future at all.  It had no potential.  The future is set, and that future does not contain the possibility of the zygote developing into anything at all.  The potentiality arguments, and any that depend on them, fall flat.

Did I miss any cases, JTW?  I think your arguments are pretty much deflated at this point, unless you want to take issue with your earlier response to Case #1.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2008, 06:57:26 AM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline JTW

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1983
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #123 on: October 24, 2008, 06:59:50 AM »
JTW, you've really dug a hole for yourself here.  I'll outline why for you:

Case #1 - Future is not set
You have claimed, in post 104, that you could not argue for the rights of the unborn at all under this case.

Case #2 - Future is set
In this case, we do not know whether the zygote is destined to grow, or whether it's not, but whichever case it is, it's 100% destined to happen.  Let's explore both cases, to make sure our bases are covered:

Case #2a - Future is set and that future contains the zygote developing into a baby
Under this case, abortion is impossible.  The future is set, and that future does not entail an abortion.  Pro-lifers can rest easy in this case, because abortion is destined not to happen.

Case #2b - Future is set and that future does not contain the zygote developing into a baby
The zygote had no future at all.  It had no potential.  The future is set, and that future does not contain the possibility of the zygote developing into anything at all.  The potentiality arguments, and any that depend on them, fall flat.

Did I miss any cases, JTW?  I think your arguments are pretty much deflated at this point, unless you want to take issue with your earlier response to Case #1.

Ah, I get it. So abortion is like one of those things, like Schrodingers cat - like that Minority Report part where Cruise rolls the pool ball around the table and Colin Ferrell catches it and then Tom asks "why did you do that"

"because it was going to fall"

"but it didn't fall - you caught it"

I get it. Abortion is the no future you're talking about?

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12410
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #124 on: October 24, 2008, 07:03:27 AM »
That's what Case #2 entails.  But, hey, you're the one insisting on Case #2, not me.  I'm more inclined to believe in Case #1, which avoids the reasoning you've mentioned.  But you've also already claimed that you can't justify your position under Case #1.  I just thought I'd point out the alternatives to you.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline IwasWrong

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #125 on: October 24, 2008, 08:28:47 AM »
Quote
A fertilized egg on the sidewalk will just die.

By that logic, a 5 month old baby left on a sidewalk would die.  So can a mother kill it?

For that matter, my best friend who is handicapped, left on the sidewalk, would die.

That argument is not valid.

(not that I am basing an entire argument on just that point)
"And this is one big problem on these forums. Proof is needed for every statement.
My proof is my faith. "  -GodsDisciple

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12410
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #126 on: October 24, 2008, 09:36:33 AM »
Quote
A fertilized egg on the sidewalk will just die.

By that logic, a 5 month old baby left on a sidewalk would die.  So can a mother kill it?

For that matter, my best friend who is handicapped, left on the sidewalk, would die.

That argument is not valid.

(not that I am basing an entire argument on just that point)

The argument is perfectly valid as a counter to Sota's friend's argument of "It's fertilized, that means that eventually, it's going to grow and get bigger."  As a counter to that logic, it's perfectly valid.  As a justification for abortion in general, it fails.  Do you see why that doesn't matter, now, for the context in which I made the argument?

To be clear, IwasWrong:  Take a perfectly valid argument, say, that Christians need to provide evidence their god's existence in order for belief in it to be rational.  Apply that argument in order to convince someone that they should sleep in from work.  It fails, doesn't it?  Do you understand why context matters to an argument's validity?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2008, 10:18:46 AM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #127 on: October 24, 2008, 10:23:01 AM »
It comes afterwards.

Why must it come afterwards?  Where is that written?  How long afterwards?  Where is that written?  You don't have any answers, Mooby.  You are making things up as you go along.  What you are essentially saying is that you'd like to develop a cure for cancer, and therefore, there is no reason for you to give any thought to treatment or prevention.

Slavery was written into the US Constitution.

Your opinion is vastly unpopular, Mooby.  Your intent to write it into law is even more unpopular.  Given these realities, does your care for the lives of fetuses inspire you to take any treatment or preventative actions, or is this purely malicious?

Are you arguing that we should've kept slavery instead?  That we'd have been better off enforcing the fugitive slave laws than letting people die over a few measly slaves?

Do you have even the first idea what the hell you're talking about?  Fugitive slave laws did nothing to ameliorate slavery.  They are in no way comparable to what I am discussing.  Are you unable to answer my questions directly?

To run with the slavery analogy, because these are people here we're talking about, not garden hoses.  You're willing to sell out a section of humanity to make social problems go away, and then you're implying that I'm the monster.

Do you care about the fetuses?  Yes or no?  Because if you do, you'd realize that this isn't a zero-sum game.  You can make gains toward changing public sentiment regarding the rights of fetuses AND make the changes I am suggesting.  The changes I am suggesting would help real people AND fetuses.  What's wrong with that?  Why are you so against the idea?  Your way takes from one and gives to another.  My way gives to both.  Naturally, this tends to make your intent appear to be malice rather than compassion.  Considering that your opinion is outnumbered about 2:1 in this country, one would imagine that you'd leap at the chance to undertake actions that would result in fewer abortions.  Instead, you stubbornly refuse to take anything less than total victory.  Well, then, you can continue to lose and continue to lose into the foreseeable future, and the fetuses you allegedly care so much about will get no relief from anything you do.  Go on, Quixote.  To me, it is quite clear that your position does not stem from concern about the welfare of fetuses, and therefore, I remain utterly unconvinced that joining you would serve any positive purpose whatsoever.  There is more than one way to skin a cat, but for you, it's your way or the highway.  That's neither effective nor moral, in my book.

False. I decide that one set of rights supersedes another.

A set of rights that only exists in your opinion.

In my view, one person is already imposing their will on the will of someone who doesn't have a voice.  She's deciding that the person should die without the consent of that person.  That person has no options, no defenses, no responsibility for the situation, nothing.

I knew this was coming.  Fortunately, there's an easy answer.  I guess you don't know much about the state of the art of gynecology, but rarely is the fetus directly killed by any part of the operation.  The fetus is simply removed from the uterus.  The fetus is free to live or die as best it can from there, same as anyone else.  The abortion has no direct effect on the fetus' rights.  It is not "killing" the fetus, or taking away it's "right" to life.  It is simply removing the fetus from imposing on the rights of the mother, at which point, the parasite generally finds itself unable to sustain life functions on its own.  You know what?  Too fucking bad.  You told me yourself that such considerations are not relevant.  The fetus finds itself alive and with rights but without adequate social support, but that's fine with you and it's fine with me.  So fuck it.  Conversation over.

Dave, since you completely missed the point of my original post, let me sum it up for you in one sentence:
If a fetus is a human person, then that fetus deserves the rights of a person.  If the Pro-Life camp is right about when life begins, then the Pro-Life argument goes out the window.  It's that simple.

I'm trying to figure out what this means.  Do you mean the second "Pro-Life" to actually be "Pro-Choice"?

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #128 on: October 24, 2008, 05:38:15 PM »
This question is to Dave and anyone else in the pro-choice camp (of which I consider myself a part)

What are your viewpoints on late term abortions, where the fetus is indeed viable outside he womb, albeit with medical assistance?
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #129 on: October 24, 2008, 06:21:25 PM »
Define "viable".  Does viable mean that if every resource available to mankind was spent on preserving the life, that we might be able to?  I personally don't find that very relevant.  We could save more lives for less effort in many, many ways.  Furthermore, a lot of late-term abortions could be headed off earlier by easing access to abortions.  There are states in the US that have only one facility that performs abortions.  Many have restrictions designed to obstruct and delay.  Roe v. Wade has been silently undermined by forces primarily aimed at those that are in the weakest position to fight back.  Right now in California, there's a proposition on the ballot that will force underage girls to notify their parents before they undergo an abortion.  Who is standing up for them and their rights?  How many will end up waiting a few months to turn 18 or to obtain a fake ID?  If they aren't in a position to tell their parents, are we to suppose that they are prepared to go on a news program to advocate their own rights?  Hardly.  And so the erosion continues.  No, I do not care about the fetus.  I have said before that I don't really buy into criminalizing infanticide either, so the fact that the fetus or the baby is theoretically capable of surviving with the help of massive external intervention is unconvincing to me.  Until those people that wish to show that degree of concern about the fetus show that same level of concern for the mother, count me out.  The idea of spending a quarter of a million dollars to preserve the life of a fetus, and then refuse to provide even minimal welfare for the mother unless she is magically going to X number of job interviews a week or refuse to raise the minimum wage or refuse to pony up for comprehensive health care, well, that's just far too finely focused for my tastes.  I'd bet that if you gave those mothers half the money you were prepared to spend saving the life of a Week 28 fetus, a lot more of them could see their way clear to carrying the child full-term.  But how many so-called pro-lifers are willing to sign up for that?  Ha.  Haven't seen that on the ballot recently.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #130 on: October 24, 2008, 07:18:02 PM »
I'm talking about 8+ months (maybe 7.5mo), where the fetus needs an incubator and minimal life support.  I don't mean 'apollo-project' type resources.  I understand your point, and mostly I agree, but at the same time I think that if the mother had 7.5 months to abort and didn't and now she wants to...that's just too fucking bad.  She had the chance, now things have progress too far.

Concerning parental notifications...fucking A they have to notify the parent.  The parent is responsible for them and their health, they absolutely deserve to know about that.  You can't argue that abortion/birth are serious enough medically that the woman should retain the right to abort throughout but not serious enough that the parents shouldn't know.  If the parents are abusive, then that's an excellent case for emancipating the minor (which should have been done ANYWAY for an abusive situation) and then she can do what she wants.

You know as well as I do, that teenagers are rather irresponsible.  Eliminating the need for parental notifications for underage girls will turn it into birth control for middle and upper class girls who just are too embarrassed to tell mommy and daddy.  That contradicts your intended goal of reducing the number of abortions in the first place.
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #131 on: October 27, 2008, 10:23:40 AM »
I'm talking about 8+ months (maybe 7.5mo), where the fetus needs an incubator and minimal life support.  I don't mean 'apollo-project' type resources.  I understand your point, and mostly I agree, but at the same time I think that if the mother had 7.5 months to abort and didn't and now she wants to...that's just too fucking bad.  She had the chance, now things have progress too far.

Well, like I said, there has been an unfortunate but very clear trend in many parts of the country to make abortions less accessible to the very women who need them the most.  Again, to reduce this to the one-dimensional issue that revolves entirely around the timing of the procedure is to ignore the humanity of the issue.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but did this forum suddenly turn into the Sean Hannity Program?  I suppose if you insist on a reduction ad absurdum, if that leads you to a satisfying personal opinion, that's your business.  But if the intent or the ultimate result is to inflict your specious opinion of 7.5 months on pregnant women across the country, then I consider that viewpoint unacceptably narrow.  If you are going to ignore the difficulties women face in getting abortions, I don't think you can hold them accountable for timeliness.  Access to the procedure is nigh-on impossible for many women.  If they can manage to get there at "7.5" months, that's fine with me.  Eliminate unnecessary obstacles first, then perhaps I'd be willing to revisit the matter of timeliness.

The parent is responsible for them and their health, they absolutely deserve to know about that.

Obviously not.  Ultimately, the pregnant woman is responsible, not her parents.  If you'd like to obligate the parents, by law, to care for any and all children their children have before the age of 18, then perhaps we can revisit the question.  Until then, though, since the parents have no obligation to the baby, they have no say about it in my book.

You can't argue that abortion/birth are serious enough medically that the woman should retain the right to abort throughout but not serious enough that the parents shouldn't know.

Sure I can.  The medical procedure itself is quite safe.  It's actually quite a bit safer than carrying and birthing the child.  Since clearly the obligation of the parents is to their child, not their grandchild, making the finding of safety a matter of law seems like a reasonable step to me.  Or at least securing the pregnant female's inalienable right to opt for the abortion.  Parental notification serves what purpose, exactly?  What input must the parents be guaranteed by law that is a legitimate interest of the state and cannot be provided by the doctor?

By the way, the facts:
This table reflects deaths caused by abortions, as recorded by the CDC.

Annex 3 of the WHO report on maternal mortality reflects death from childbearing and childbirth.

You can see that the risk from legal abortion in the United States is roughly 1/10th of the risk of pregnancy and childbirth.  If we can decide, as a matter of law, that an individual with a 0.08 BAL is too drunk to drive, then I think we can similarly decide that an underage girl's medical decision to cut risk to her personal health by 90%+ is not something that requires parental notification.

If the parents are abusive, then that's an excellent case for emancipating the minor (which should have been done ANYWAY for an abusive situation) and then she can do what she wants.

Which will take how long?  What if that process means the individual won't be free until after "7.5" months?  Too bad?  I'm sorry, but asking pregnant teens to rush into emanicipation proceedings constitutes exactly the sorts of roadblocks and obstacles I alluded to earlier.  Maybe the girls should go to college, go to medical school, become OB/GYNs and perform their own abortions on themselves?  Having a child is a responsibility they will bear for 18 years.  I thought you were trying to encourage women to abort early.  What will the effect of this opinion be on that?  Which one takes precedent, for you?  Besides, I hope you noted that I didn't even mention parental abuse in my defense of my position on notifying parents.  I don't think Daddy needs to beat the girl or fuck the girl in order to grant them the right to make their own medical decisions, particularly when the direction of that decision is so dramatically inclined toward the safety of the pregnant female.  Frankly, if the girl refused to have an abortion, THAT'S when we should start talking about parental notification.  That's clearly a risky medical decision and a decision that will have real and significant impacts on her life for decades to come.

Eliminating the need for parental notifications for underage girls will turn it into birth control for middle and upper class girls who just are too embarrassed to tell mommy and daddy.  That contradicts your intended goal of reducing the number of abortions in the first place.

So, your solution to that is to eliminate that avenue for birth control entirely?!  C'mon, you're not serious, are you?  Maybe we should stop treating people with broken arms, so they don't start relying on the medical community to fix their problems after the fact.  In front of my goal to reduce the number of abortions is my goal to reduce the number of teen mothers who don't want the children they have.  Is that clear?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #132 on: October 27, 2008, 12:01:57 PM »
Quote
I'm talking about 8+ months (maybe 7.5mo), where the fetus needs an incubator and minimal life support.  I don't mean 'apollo-project' type resources.  I understand your point, and mostly I agree, but at the same time I think that if the mother had 7.5 months to abort and didn't and now she wants to...that's just too f**king bad.  She had the chance, now things have progress too far.
What if she didn't have a "chance"?  What if she lives in some backwater that has no one who could help her?  I grew up in very rural Pennsylvania.  It is more than likely that a mother couldn't get the help she needed in time.
Quote
Concerning parental notifications...f**king A they have to notify the parent.  The parent is responsible for them and their health, they absolutely deserve to know about that.  You can't argue that abortion/birth are serious enough medically that the woman should retain the right to abort throughout but not serious enough that the parents shouldn't know.  If the parents are abusive, then that's an excellent case for emancipating the minor (which should have been done ANYWAY for an abusive situation) and then she can do what she wants..
what about when the parent is responsible for the situation?  A father molesting his daughter, a mother in self-denial so she won't see it.  A mother whoring out her own daughters.  There are situations, as much as you would prefer there not to be. You seem to think that the minor should be made to suffer because of her abusive parents.  Way to go.
Quote
You know as well as I do, that teenagers are rather irresponsible.  Eliminating the need for parental notifications for underage girls will turn it into birth control for middle and upper class girls who just are too embarrassed to tell mommy and daddy.  That contradicts your intended goal of reducing the number of abortions in the first place.
All teenagers aren't irresponsible.  Some have bad situations that they have trouble negotiating themselves out of.  You are presenting a strawman with no evidence.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #133 on: October 27, 2008, 01:43:54 PM »
Something on the order of 25% of all pregnancies in the United States end in a legal, induced abortion.  Solving this problem by criminalizing abortion or putting obstacles up to accessing an abortion is very much a sweep it under the rug solution.  One would have imagined that the lessons from Prohibition and the War on Drugs would have been learned by now.  There are some problems that should be considered crimes.  But criminalization is not the only tool in the tool box.  We HAVE to look at other solutions.  If 25% of pregnancies end in abortions, there is a MAJOR systemic failure occurring in family planning services in the United States.  These women aren't criminals.  They should not be treated as such.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2008, 01:48:17 PM by Davedave »

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #134 on: October 27, 2008, 08:37:08 PM »
Well, like I said, there has been an unfortunate but very clear trend in many parts of the country to make abortions less accessible to the very women who need them the most.

Educate me.  I simply cannot fathom how this can POSSIBLY be true.  It would be akin to 1870s voting laws regarding blacks.  Roe vs. Wade says it's legal, thus it's legal.  If it's a late term abortion, then the law says it's illegal.  Mid-terms are determined by the state.  Since practically EVERY state is within 2 hours of another state, bypassing your state laws on this matter seem trivial.  If according to your state, it's illegal to go out of state and get an abortion, that should obviously be challenged in court.  It will be struck down or dismissed almost summarily in a federal court.


Again, to reduce this to the one-dimensional issue that revolves entirely around the timing of the procedure is to ignore the humanity of the issue. 

What kind of an argument is this?  The "humanity of the issue"?  A late term fetus is human, so the humanity of the issue should fall on the side of protecting those that cannot defend themselves.  I AGREE that it's an awful choice, but blame nature.  The only options are: kill a human, or partially reduce another humans rights for two months.  That's it.  I didn't create the system, but NOT killing a human is the lesser of the two evils.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but did this forum suddenly turn into the Sean Hannity Program? 

Dave, that's a blatant Ad Homenium attack.  Because I advocate protecting those that cannot protect themselves, I'm Sean Hannity.  Maybe you could work Ann Coulter in there too?  Does it simply surprise you than an Atheist values human life? or that an Atheist considers a late-term fetus a human life?


I suppose if you insist on a reduction ad absurdum, if that leads you to a satisfying personal opinion, that's your business.  But if the intent or the ultimate result is to inflict your specious opinion of 7.5 months on pregnant women across the country, then I consider that viewpoint unacceptably narrow. 

We, as a society, "inflict" our opinion that a stranger cannot walk up to you, put a gun to your head and splatter your brains on the wall.  What an unfair society!  We "inflict" laws that say that a drug-addict cannot steal and murder to get money because his body needs more "medicine".  Obviously we are "controlling" his body in an unfair manner.  How dare we!  Obviously those are unacceptably narrow viewpoints as well. 

In this case, women had over half-a-year to get out of the situation legally, without penalty.  This should have been made perfectly clear to them from society, their doctor, from Planned-Parenthood, et al.  If it wasn't, that's awful, but "ignorance of the law" is not a legally defensible argument.


If you are going to ignore the difficulties women face in getting abortions, I don't think you can hold them accountable for timeliness.  Access to the procedure is nigh-on impossible for many women.  If they can manage to get there at "7.5" months, that's fine with me.  Eliminate unnecessary obstacles first, then perhaps I'd be willing to revisit the matter of timeliness.

Again, educate me.  If this is actually true and not some perceptional delusion, then yes, obstacles need to be removed IMMEDIATELY.  If a woman was barred from having an abort when she was legally entitled to one, then yes, wholeheartedly, no argument from me, it needs to be changed, NOW. 

But I suspect you're talking about cases involving women who weren't barred from abortion, but were disadvantaged (educationally, economically, socially, parentally) and that argument doesn't fly at all.  Removing human rights for an entire class of humans so that another class can have a band-aid applied is ridiculous.  You know that.  Yes, abortion, in those cases, is a band-aid, because it doesn't address the real problem AT ALL.  The real problem is getting them out of the disadvantages they are trapped in.  This requires significant social change, and I'm all for that.  That's not lip service, I am ALL FOR changing whatever we need to economically, politically, socially to bring about more equality in our society.  Major change is called for urgently.

No system, ever, anywhere can be "fair" in all situations.  But declaring an entire class of humans to be "non-human" for the convenience of another class is ethnic-cleansing.


Obviously not.  Ultimately, the pregnant woman is responsible, not her parents.  If you'd like to obligate the parents, by law, to care for any and all children their children have before the age of 18, then perhaps we can revisit the question.  Until then, though, since the parents have no obligation to the baby, they have no say about it in my book.

Are you from Mars?  Parents ARE legally responsible for their children until the age of 18.  Period.  Parents are sent to prison for child-abuse, incest and, yes, neglect.  Where are you getting the idea that they have NO legal obligations to their children?  The only possible escape you have here is in the enforcement of these laws, which is a complete travesty, as is DCFS in practically every state.  No argument there, but that needs to be tackled where it's broken.  Call to bear whatever force is necessary, but don't break the rest of the system because another part is grossly malfunctioning.  Fix what's broken.


You can see that the risk from legal abortion in the United States is roughly 1/10th of the risk of pregnancy and childbirth.  If we can decide, as a matter of law, that an individual with a 0.08 BAL is too drunk to drive, then I think we can similarly decide that an underage girl's medical decision to cut risk to her personal health by 90%+ is not something that requires parental notification.

You're right that parents shouldn't be able to override the girls decision, but they should know.  They'll notify parent (or next of kin) if I get in a car wreck, or other trauma.  The only reason NOT to notify is that there is fear of repercussions on the girl.  That is a) grounds for emancipation right there, b) legally actionable in court if it does occur, and c) grounds for non-notification in those cases.


Which will take how long? 

I was an emancipated minor.  It took about an hour.  Counting the paperwork, it took maybe a few days.  Your argument fails.


So, your solution to that is to eliminate that avenue for birth control entirely?!

I'm not advocating parental-override of the girls choice.  I never said that.  Just that parents should be notified, especially if they are legally responsible for the child.  Some D.A. will certainly try parents for neglect if the girl dies in the procedure, I guarantee it.


In front of my goal to reduce the number of abortions is my goal to reduce the number of teen mothers who don't want the children they have.

I agree with that goal, and support it entirely.  Given that there are a zillion-and-one methods of preventative birth-control, including free condoms, free birth-control pills and even legal early-term abortion, I reject the concept of late-term abortion as birth-control.  Education is called for, not the complete declaration of an entire class of humans into "non-humans" to satisfy another class.  That's been tried numerous times, and is common argument against atheism.  Way to play into the trap.

You don't reject infanticide either.  I hope you realize what a slippery-slope you are on.  Next you'll be advocating killing the handicapped, because they place a "burden" on society.  Sure.  That's how we deal with problems, we just kill the people we perceive as problematic.  Blacks?  Jews?  Women?  The uneducated?  The poor?  The religious?


What if she didn't have a "chance"?  What if she lives in some backwater that has no one who could help her?  I grew up in very rural Pennsylvania.  It is more than likely that a mother couldn't get the help she needed in time.

Oh well, by all means, lets just start killing members of society we don't want.  This is 2008, in America!  We don't declare entire classes of humans to be "non-human" and therefore kill-able to satisfy another group.

Pennsylvania?!?!  Give me a break.  She could get in a car and drive to Canada, New York or anywhere where abortion is legal up to the second trimester.  "Telephone", "automobiles", "buses", "planes" (we can fly now, if you haven't heard, for a century)  You are actually arguing that because a women didn't take what amounts to trivial responsibility for her own health that we should permit murder?

If you find a population of people in America that doesn't know about modern technology, and yet still performs abortions, then I'll grant an exception in that case.


what about when the parent is responsible for the situation?  A father molesting his daughter, a mother in self-denial so she won't see it.  A mother whoring out her own daughters.  There are situations, as much as you would prefer there not to be. You seem to think that the minor should be made to suffer because of her abusive parents.  Way to go.

Um, OBVIOUSLY, in that case:

1) The abortion would be granted
2) Notification would NOT be required
3) The parent(s) would go to jail
4) The girl would be emancipated

Please stop the ridiculous arguments.


All teenagers aren't irresponsible.  Some have bad situations that they have trouble negotiating themselves out of.  You are presenting a strawman with no evidence.

As a class, they are irresponsible enough that they do NOT have the right to:

Vote
Buy alcohol
Buy cigarettes
Buy a gun
View a movie with an NC-17 (X) rating
Drive a car (until16)
Get married (until 16)

Argument refuted.

« Last Edit: October 27, 2008, 08:51:25 PM by Cyberia »
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #135 on: October 28, 2008, 10:17:40 AM »
Quote
What if she didn't have a "chance"?  What if she lives in some backwater that has no one who could help her?  I grew up in very rural Pennsylvania.  It is more than likely that a mother couldn't get the help she needed in time.
Quote
Oh well, by all means, lets just start killing members of society we don't want.  This is 2008, in America!  We don't declare entire classes of humans to be "non-human" and therefore kill-able to satisfy another group.
By all means, commence with concocting a straw man argument ::) 
Quote
Pennsylvania?!?!  Give me a break.  She could get in a car and drive to Canada, New York or anywhere where abortion is legal up to the second trimester.  "Telephone", "automobiles", "buses", "planes" (we can fly now, if you haven't heard, for a century)  You are actually arguing that because a women didn't take what amounts to trivial responsibility for her own health that we should permit murder?
A minor can't drive anywhere they want.  You do realize that one has to have documentation to get into Canada, I hope?  I am talking about females of reproducing age.   
Quote
If you find a population of people in America that doesn't know about modern technology, and yet still performs abortions, then I'll grant an exception in that case.
By all means, keep beating on that strawman, cyb. 
Quote
what about when the parent is responsible for the situation?  A father molesting his daughter, a mother in self-denial so she won't see it.  A mother whoring out her own daughters.  There are situations, as much as you would prefer there not to be. You seem to think that the minor should be made to suffer because of her abusive parents.  Way to go.
Quote
Um, OBVIOUSLY, in that case:
1) The abortion would be granted
2) Notification would NOT be required
3) The parent(s) would go to jail
4) The girl would be emancipated
Please stop the ridiculous arguments.

Obviously, it is not the case, per your own words.  You stated that the parents should 'ALWAYS' be told
Quote
Concerning parental notifications...f**king A they have to notify the parent.  The parent is responsible for them and their health, they absolutely deserve to know about that.  You can't argue that abortion/birth are serious enough medically that the woman should retain the right to abort throughout but not serious enough that the parents shouldn't know.  If the parents are abusive, then that's an excellent case for emancipating the minor (which should have been done ANYWAY for an abusive situation) and then she can do what she wants..
.  You now change your mind when presented with something that demonstrated that your view was wrong. 
All teenagers aren't irresponsible.  Some have bad situations that they have trouble negotiating themselves out of.  You are presenting a strawman with no evidence.
Quote
As a class, they are irresponsible enough that they do NOT have the right to:
Vote
Buy alcohol
Buy cigarettes
Buy a gun
View a movie with an NC-17 (X) rating
Drive a car (until16)
Get married (until 16)
Argument refuted.
You wish.  Again, your insistence of "all" is simply wrong.  The law takes a lowest common denomintator approach for expediency.  It does not prove your claim.  I could argue that since teenagers can enlist in the military, they in fact are considered to be able to make decisions.  Again, it does not prove that "all" teenagers are so able.   

You keep presenting claims that insist that "all" of something is a fact when it is not. You present claims with no supporting evidence.  You are tedious and ignorant.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #136 on: October 28, 2008, 11:36:38 AM »
Educate me.  I simply cannot fathom how this can POSSIBLY be true.  It would be akin to 1870s voting laws regarding blacks.  Roe vs. Wade says it's legal, thus it's legal.  If it's a late term abortion, then the law says it's illegal.  Mid-terms are determined by the state.  Since practically EVERY state is within 2 hours of another state, bypassing your state laws on this matter seem trivial.

That's exactly what it is akin to.  There are states with only one clinic that performs abortions.  Many people live hours from the nearest clinic that performs the procedure.  What if you don't have a car?  How are you going to get there?  What if you are working for minimum wage?  How are you going to afford it?  Many states have imposed 72-hour waiting periods.  Why?  So that you have to either come there twice in short order or you have to have four or five days off.  What the hell is a teenager going to do?  What if you aren't old enough to have a driver's license?  There's a million problems.  Did you know that 16 states have never even overturned their abortion prohibitions since Roe v. Wade made them unconstitutional?  Do you intend to make a woman seeking an abortion hire a lawyer and file suit against the state, out of pocket?  As someone who has tried to sue a state agency himself, I can attest to the difficulty in even finding an attorney that is without conflict of interest (i.e. a lawyer that has never done work for the state), not to even talk about competence or affordability or willingness to take a case suing for abortion rights.  Most states make a point of hiring every decent attorney at least once so that they won't ever have to face them in court.  If you think that sounds absurd and paranoid, you're right.  It does sound absurd and paranoid.  Unfortunately, it's also absolutely true.  Parental notification, spousal notification, both obstacles, both completely unnecessary.  Many states severely restrict abortions based on type of procedure and stage of pregnancy.  46 states have laws that allow medical personnel to opt out of performing abortions due to personal beliefs.  Three times, those laws have been found unconstitutional as applied to public facilities, yet the laws remain.  Five states prohibit public employees from offering any referrals to abortion facilities.  Do you know what that means?  Do you understand what a huge impediment that is to even finding a clinic?  Several states have instituted rules about counselling citizens about abortion procedures.  Some states force medical practitioners to read or present materials to the person considering an abortion, materials that are often patently false.  Read that again.  State laws require doctors to tell outright lies to their patients about what an abortion is and what it does and the risks involved.  Many states refuse to allocate any public funding for abortions.  Only 16 states do not restrict their funding thusly.  Five states prohibit insurers from paying for abortions either, unless a special premium is paid.  Pennsylvania requires insurers to provide policy alternatives, excluding abortion.  There are also many states with laws restricting use of chemical abortion techniques and access to emergency contraception.  Some states require proof of sexual assault as necessary evidence for receiving certain services.  As has become somewhat infamous, the woman currently on the Republican ticket for vice-President passed a law in her town requiring women who wanted to demonstrate that they had been victims of sexual assault to pay for their own "rape kits", at a cost of between $500 and $1200 dollars.  At federal minimum wage, $500 is about the post-tax wages for 100 hours of work.  $1200 is about 250 hours.  What do you think the likelihood is that the average woman you see walking home from work at night has savings amounting to between 2 and 6 weeks of full-time work?  How about your average high-schooler?  Or community college student?  Or waitress?

In other words, getting an abortion can be a nightmare.  Roe v. Wade has provided the cover for a lot of people to assume that things were fine.  Things are not fine.  And you don't hear much about it, because abortions are stigmatized, the people are often poor and scared, and they don't want to be on the front page of the newspaper fighting for their rights, nor do they have the resources anyway.  Now in addition to all of this, you want me to slam a ticking clock in front of them, set completely artificially?  No thanks.  Count me out.  I think things need to be made easier, not harder.

What kind of an argument is this?  The "humanity of the issue"?  A late term fetus is human,

It's like me asking you if you have stopped beating your wife yet.  It's a loaded question.  The question presupposes a whole host of information that is not yet in evidence.  Simply repeating the question ad nauseum does not constitute an argument either, Cyberia.  Abortion is an artificially narrow question.  It presupposes a whole lot of other important and relevant information, the kind of information I have presented so far in this thread.  As human beings, we are capable of recognizing invalid questions and when you attempt to narrow this issue down to abortion or no abortions, you are making the question invalid.  I don't feel any need to address the matter of abortions while consciously avoiding the other parts of the matter.

If you kill somebody, we understand that there may be conditions that justify killing.  Things like self-defense.  Self-defense IS relevant.  I can't just repeat over and over again, "Did you kill the person?  Did you kill the person?" to attempt to portray you as a killer or supporter of killing.  We are not robots and the slanted way that someone may choose to frame or ask a question certainly can be taken into account when we consider a response.  The asking of a particular question in a particular way does not obligate anyone to answer in kind.  Similarly, attempts to limit this question to just the matter of abortion fail to consider other relevant information.

The only options are: kill a human, or partially reduce another humans rights for two months.  That's it.  I didn't create the system, but NOT killing a human is the lesser of the two evils.

Not at all.  There are LOTS of other options.  Only because you refuse to acknowledge the reality that abortion does not exist in a vacuum do you find yourself trapped.

Dave, that's a blatant Ad Homenium attack.  Because I advocate protecting those that cannot protect themselves, I'm Sean Hannity.  Maybe you could work Ann Coulter in there too?  Does it simply surprise you than an Atheist values human life? or that an Atheist considers a late-term fetus a human life?

It's not a reference to Sean Hannity's position on abortion.  I frankly don't know his position on abortion.  The reference was to his style of asking questions that excludes important and relevant information.  Of course if you refuse to look outside the most narrow confines possible for examination of a problem, you will only find very limited and poor choices.  I am saying that you don't have to view the issue that narrowly.  That is a choice you make, and for no reason.  There is a world of other options out there.  You are a prisoner here of your own device.

We, as a society, "inflict" our opinion that a stranger cannot walk up to you, put a gun to your head and splatter your brains on the wall.  What an unfair society!  We "inflict" laws that say that a drug-addict cannot steal and murder to get money because his body needs more "medicine".  Obviously we are "controlling" his body in an unfair manner.  How dare we!  Obviously those are unacceptably narrow viewpoints as well. 

Well, let's go the other direction, then, shall we?  Since you have decided to turn this discussion into a contest to see who can make the more extreme and outrageous extension of the others' position, game on.  If I can show you that eating spinach puts carcinogens into breast milk, shall we imprison breast-feeding mothers who eat spinach for attempted manslaughter?  Since it is now the state's business to enact laws that restrict the mother on behalf of the child, why not?  Let's accompany new mothers home from the hospital, then confiscate every knife, every pair of scissors, every letter opener in their house.  Heck, why let mothers raise their children at all?  That's frankly negligent on the part of the state.  We know they'll be unsafe.  Let's establish a system of nationalized child-rearing that we can know will be the safest possible environment for children.  Mothers can have visitation rights twice a month.  Of course, we'll have to frisk and conduct cavity searches on the mothers to make sure they aren't smuggling in some sort of choking hazards.  Maybe we should nix the physical visitation and just have phones set up on opposite sides of panes of bulletproof glass.  Since all of this logically flows from the assertion that it is within the rights of the state to protect children at the expense of the rights of the mother, I'll just go ahead on the idea that all of this accurately reflects your opinions on the matter, as you did with me.

Hey, that was fun.

Again, educate me.  If this is actually true and not some perceptional delusion, then yes, obstacles need to be removed IMMEDIATELY.  If a woman was barred from having an abort when she was legally entitled to one, then yes, wholeheartedly, no argument from me, it needs to be changed, NOW. 

Never barred.  Of course not.  All she has to do is take out full-page newspaper ads announcing her intent to abort her baby, with a picture of her face, plus be prepared to pay $100,000 for the procedure.  That's not "barred".  If she can't manage it, then it's sort of like flying first class on a plane.  

But I suspect you're talking about cases involving women who weren't barred from abortion, but were disadvantaged (educationally, economically, socially, parentally) and that argument doesn't fly at all.

Right.  Just like poll taxes or literacy tests for black voters.  Never barred.  Simply restricted by common sense and equally applied nominal restrictions.  Access to a medical procedure that may radically alter your life for decades to come should be treated like a sushi dinner or flying first class.  If you are in an educational/economical/social/parental situation that allows you to access this luxury, congratulations.  You are living the American dream.  And if not, oh well.  You don't get a nose job and you don't get an abortion.

I also love the appeal to protecting life.  At 6 billion people on the face of the earth, I defy you to present anything other than emotional appeal for why human life should be considered valuable.  Basic economics indicates that as supply goes up, value goes down.  I don't know where you live, but in the US, there have been something like 50,000,000 abortions performed since 1973.  That's 1/6th of the current population of the US.  Whose city needs 1/6th more people?  Yours?  You'd be happy to wake up tomorrow and find that your city and every other city in the US had just experienced a 16% increase in population?  Let's see, the city I'm in can't afford to treat our sewage in accordance with federal law.  I'm sure they'd be thrilled to find out there's 16% more shit coming down the pipes.  16% more air pollution.  16% more development.  16% more water usage.  16% more traffic and wear on the roads and 16% more imported petrofuels.  Classrooms would be 16% more crowded, which I guess would mean that the proposed bond issue on the ballot next week would be 16% larger, since the taxpayers refuse to pay for upkeep on the schools we have now.  Golly gee, I never thought about the wonderful utopia this country would be with 50 million more Americans.  Thanks for opening my eyes.  Surely, every morning I wake up from now on, I'll think to myself, just as I'm sure you do, "Boy, I sure miss having 50 million more people here."  My city could be 16% deeper in the hole, my state could be 16% deeper in the hole, my country could be 16% deeper in the hole.  We could have hit $10 trillion in national debt a five years ago.  Every line I see could be 16% longer.  There'd be 16% more Starbucks coffee shops.  Ratings for Wife Swap would be up 16%.  Considering how excellently we're handling the people we've got, 16% more would just be a blessing, more hands on deck to push the American Win Train even faster down the track.  16% more people for Baby Jesus to love.  My God, it'll be beautiful.

Yes, abortion, in those cases, is a band-aid, because it doesn't address the real problem AT ALL.  The real problem is getting them out of the disadvantages they are trapped in.  This requires significant social change, and I'm all for that.  That's not lip service, I am ALL FOR changing whatever we need to economically, politically, socially to bring about more equality in our society.  Major change is called for urgently.

That is lip service.  You don't care to even look at the larger issues.  You insist that I educate you.  Are you a grownup?  Educate yourself.  Why wait?  Oh, that's right, because you don't really care.  You just told me that it was too bad for the people that couldn't access their elective surgery because of those issues.  You told me you couldn't FATHOM how what I said could possibly be true.

No system, ever, anywhere can be "fair" in all situations.  But declaring an entire class of humans to be "non-human" for the convenience of another class is ethnic-cleansing.

Ethnic?  What the hell are you talking about?  Okay, tell the truth.  Are you getting your arguments from a pamphlet?  Ethnic cleansing?  Good gravy.  I feel like I'm talking to Polly the Parrot.  That's why I said earlier that your view was absurdly one-dimensional.  You can't extricate your arguments from the meaningless buzzwords that other people have whispered into your ear.  

Are you from Mars?  Parents ARE legally responsible for their children until the age of 18.  Period.  Parents are sent to prison for child-abuse, incest and, yes, neglect.  Where are you getting the idea that they have NO legal obligations to their children?  The only possible escape you have here is in the enforcement of these laws, which is a complete travesty, as is DCFS in practically every state.  No argument there, but that needs to be tackled where it's broken.  Call to bear whatever force is necessary, but don't break the rest of the system because another part is grossly malfunctioning.  Fix what's broken.

I was referencing the obligation of the minor's parents to their grandchild.

You're right that parents shouldn't be able to override the girls decision, but they should know.

Why?  Why should they know?  Why do they need to know beforehand?

I agree with that goal, and support it entirely.

No, you don't.  You support it conditionally.  You support it when it doesn't conflict with other goals you support more, goals that often DO conflict with it.

Given that there are a zillion-and-one methods of preventative birth-control, including free condoms, free birth-control pills and even legal early-term abortion, I reject the concept of late-term abortion as birth-control.

This is fantasy and it proves that I was right to consider your previous statement a lie.

You don't reject infanticide either.  I hope you realize what a slippery-slope you are on.  Next you'll be advocating killing the handicapped, because they place a "burden" on society.

It doesn't bother me.  I think there are better things for the justice system to be doing.  I think there are other things more critically in the interest of the state that are not being done.  I think that medical resources could be better spent.  This isn't fantasy baseball, Cyberia.  You cannot simply judge a problem in a vacuum.  It must be compared to other problems, and in light of available resources.  I think criminal prosecution of infanticide scores below the place where I personally would like to see my tax rate, and I think that it falls below what my fellow citizens are willing to pay as their tax rate.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2008, 11:44:22 AM by Davedave »

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #137 on: October 28, 2008, 11:51:40 AM »
You can see how this infantile "Me Wantee" attitude operates in practice here.  I want services and I don't want to pay.  I want you to prosecute infanticide, but don't raise my taxes.  It buries every level of our society under a mountain of debt and practically forces our representatives to lie to us and institutes monumental fiscal insolvency.  You can't get anywhere suggesting tax increases, but watch the angry mob form when you start looking at cutting back on state services.  Because stating that I consider infanticide a less-than-critical state priority is essentially no different than bludgeoning children that come to my door on Halloween.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2008, 11:55:33 AM by Davedave »

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12410
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #138 on: October 28, 2008, 11:54:40 AM »
Regarding the extra-population issue, Davedave, there's another factor to consider for the anti-abortion camp:  Having an unwanted child early can very well mean not having a wanted child later.  Denying abortion can deny the future child the opportunity to live.

I actually have a friend in my hometown who would probably never have lived if his mother had not had an abortion earlier on in her life.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #139 on: October 28, 2008, 11:58:15 AM »
That's an excellent point.

Offline JTW

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1983
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #140 on: October 28, 2008, 05:09:03 PM »
You can see how this infantile "Me Wantee" attitude operates in practice here.  I want services and I don't want to pay.  I want you to prosecute infanticide, but don't raise my taxes.  It buries every level of our society under a mountain of debt and practically forces our representatives to lie to us and institutes monumental fiscal insolvency.  You can't get anywhere suggesting tax increases, but watch the angry mob form when you start looking at cutting back on state services.  Because stating that I consider infanticide a less-than-critical state priority is essentially no different than bludgeoning children that come to my door on Halloween.

I'm actually forced to pay for abortions.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #141 on: October 28, 2008, 05:15:48 PM »
Irrelevant.  The question is how much are you prepared to pay to support these children yourself or is this another unfunded mandate?

Offline JTW

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1983
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #142 on: October 28, 2008, 05:18:28 PM »
Shouldn't the parents fund the child?

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #143 on: October 28, 2008, 05:32:08 PM »
No.  Do you know the difference between sex and a legal contract?  The mother doesn't want it.  If you're the one forcing her to bear and birth the child, then it's only fair that you assume the obligation to take care of it.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12410
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #144 on: October 28, 2008, 05:38:04 PM »
No.  Do you know the difference between sex and a legal contract?  The mother doesn't want it.  If you're the one forcing her to bear and birth the child, then it's only fair that you assume the obligation to take care of it.

I think this is the problem, Dave.  Based on his earlier comments regarding childbirth as a (moral? legal?) responsibility for having engaged in sex, he clearly doesn't know the difference.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.