Author Topic: When does life deserve to be protected?  (Read 10563 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #174 on: October 29, 2008, 02:46:19 AM »

In other words, getting an abortion can be a nightmare. 
I have no doubt.  People don't wake up and say "I think I'll have an abortion today! Yay!"

... 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. 
Women's Suffrage, Black Suffrage, Gay Rights, Abortion Rights, Handicapped Rights, and on and on and on...

Rights have to be fought for, sometimes re-fought for, bled for, cried for, begged for.....   That's part of what makes them worth having.

Are you arguing that this case is special, more special than the above cases? or that you are tired of fighting for your rights? or just commenting on the wastefulness of having to fight for each.and.every.right.in.the.experience.of.life?


Now in addition to all of this, you want me to slam a ticking clock in front of them, set completely artificially?
Well, first, the connotation of 'slam a ticking clock' is portraying the situation in a false light.  6+ months to figure out a way to get transportation to the next state over.  Phew, such a difficult task in this day and age.  Not buying it, not by a long shot.

Second, 'set completely artificially' is....wait for it....your opinion.  It is set, in actual fact, upon viability of the fetus.  It is set AT that point because, at that point it can live outside the mother with minimal lifesupport.  That makes it a human being.  That means it has rights, including "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".   And that's a great segway into the next part.....

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. 
Have you?  And it's not a loaded question at all (the humanity question) and it presupposed nothing.  It's a viable fetus.  Therefore it is human and has human rights.  It's quite simple. 

"The question presupposes a whole host of information that is not yet in evidence" sounds like Afadly trying to refute evolution.  You haven't GIVEN the 'presupposed evidence', at least, not any that even remotely justifies removing someone's human rights and terminating their life.  The fact of the matter is that you WANT abortion to be legal in ALL cases, on demand, and your desire for this to be true has clouded your judgement and logic.

IF a fetus is human, then it's rights cannot be abridged for anothers convenience.  IF it isn't human, we can do anything we want.  That should probably be your avenue of attack.  However.....


Simply repeating the question ad nauseum does not constitute an argument either, Cyberia.
.... you don't WANT to address this issue, because you know that the "non-human" argument is quite weak (for a viable fetus) and it is about as appealing as Mein Kampf.  (reference intentional)

So, you just complain that I'm forcing you to make an uncomfortable comparison.  I repeated it 3 times, and bolded/underlined it.  It's the crux of the argument.  It's important.  Rather that address it, you tried to deflect it.  Beat it and you've got your case won.  I suspect you know that, and that's why it was deflected.

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. 
You have presented NO information that trumps the "non-human" argument.  Your apathy for the fetus, does not an argument make.


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. 
/ignore


I don't feel any need to address the matter of abortions while consciously avoiding the other parts of the matter.
At least you admit that you are consciously ignoring the (viable) fetus.  This is why you deflected the above comment.  your answer is "I don't care".  Obviously, we as a nation, should base national public policy on what you care about.  My answer is "I don't care about what you don't care about".

Or we could try to have a reasonable discussion about the merits of the points and a frank exchange of views, even if we don't agree.


If you kill somebody, we understand that there may be conditions that justify killing.  Things like self-defense.  Self-defense IS relevant.
Strawman, and irrelevant.  It's legal to save the mother's life, even in late term, and should be.  If there is some specific case where the hospital refused to perform one, and the mother died, then we would be in agreement that people should be put into prison for it...in which case there is no argument.  Self-defense is indeed relevant but not applicable in most pregnancies.

It may possibly have been an attempt to paint me as some ULTRA-conservative wanting to ban abortion in ALL cases.  If that's the case, it stupid, because I have declared my position from the get-go and it's decidedly not true.  It's like McCain saying "Obama will raise your taxes!" after Obama just said he'd lower them.

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.
Oh really?  There's LOTS of options beyond "Have the abortion" or "Not"?  What?  Abort the left arm only?  The toes and left leg, but not the rest?  The ONLY thing we are debating is weather a late-term viable fetus can be legally or morally aborted.  I'm not trappped in the slightest.  I'm not even penned in.  Not killing a human is usually the lesser of the two evils.  There, I explicitly added 'usually'.  Given that I have stated my support for Roe vs. Wade, I assumed you would not try to interpret things in a hyper-literal manner as Velkyn does. 

I think both of you are confused as to your proper avenue of attack.  You aren't used to debating an atheist who opposes late-term abortion on human-rights grounds.  It confuses you and so your shots go astray.


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.
See?  You are actually trying to use economics to define the value of a human life?  Well, lets see.  If that's the case, then wealthy people actually ARE more valuable than poor people due to the fact that they control more resources.  In which case, your argument addressing the economic difficulty of obtaining abortions fails.  Rich people will get their abortions, poor people won't.  But poor people SHOULDN'T (or at least there is a huge apathy factor) because they aren't as valuable human beings.

Don't use economics to define the value of human life.  The rich always win.  Unless, you ARE rich, in which case you'd be arguing for your own interest.  If that's the case, just say so.

It also makes you look like Stalin.

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.
Sigh.  Roe vs Wade is set.  If you want to change it, present your evidence (of which you presented some).  I asked that you educate me.  I am comfortable with the current situation, excluding some unreasonable restrictions in some states.

The larger issue is that RvW declared viable fetuses to be human, and thus have human rights, including the right to life.  That's the basis of the ban on late-term abortions.  Oh wait, you don't really care.

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. 
Maybe 'ethnic' was the wrong word, but it's functionally equivalent.  Targeting and killing one group of people to satisfy another.  It's not ethnically based, but that doesn't make it ok.  If it's a viable human, you can't kill it, except in self-defense.


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.
Utterly irrelevant.  WTF?  Arguing that the legally responsible parents of a girl should NOT be notified about a serious medical procedure being performed on their daughter because.....the (grand)parents have no legal obligation to the (grand)child???

Are you stoned??

They have to be notified because the procedure is being performed ON THEIR DAUGHTER, for whom they ARE legally responsible.  This is another "We want it to be the case so bad that we cannot present a good argument".  I'll borrow a phrase from you book.  "I don't care"


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?
Because parents are in the best position to guide and counsel her.  To prevent the "I'm too embarrassed to tell mommy and daddy" scenario.  They are going to find out anyway, you might as well tell them and get it over with face to face.  Maybe she doesn't actually want the abortion, but can't imagine how she would support the baby.  It's scarry, and a child doesn't really understand the options available.  That's why minors can't vote, buy a gun, get married, etc...


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.
Shrugs. Ok.  I'm ok with that.  The cornerstone being that you don't kill other human-beings.  So yea, that's fine.

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.
Really?  Those methods DON'T exist in reality?  I was always told they do, I though I've even used some of them.  Thank you for revealing the truth.


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.
Say hi to der Führer.  The position you advocate leads directly to Hitler's policies.  Exterminate the unwanted.  I advocate that all human life has rights and should be protected.  It does cause resource and other problems.  However those problems are dealt with, never break rule #1. 

Soon we will judge angels.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #175 on: October 29, 2008, 02:50:30 AM »

By all means, commence with concocting a straw man argument ::) 

If a late-term fetus is a human, then it has rights.  It's only a strawman if you think it is "non-human"

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

Stop imagining thing.  You SHOW ME where i said the word "ALWAYS" in the following paragraph.  And also read the last sentence.

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. 

You're smoking crack.  It's an utterly unfounded accusation, and my original quote proves it.  I granted the exception from the get-go, and I never said "ALWAYS".  Please, rescind your accusation.


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.

You are imagining words that are not there.  Where is this word "all" in my post?  I dare you to demonstrate a word that isn't there.  Strawman indeed.  Stop "quoting" me with words I never said.
Soon we will judge angels.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12276
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #176 on: October 29, 2008, 06:58:19 AM »
... 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. 
Women's Suffrage, Black Suffrage, Gay Rights, Abortion Rights, Handicapped Rights, and on and on and on...

Rights have to be fought for, sometimes re-fought for, bled for, cried for, begged for.....   That's part of what makes them worth having.

So barriers to rights should remain, because fighting for rights is what makes them worth having.  That's what you're saying.  Wow.  Just wow.  So, what you've just said is that:
1. Those who want abortion to be available should still have to fight hard for it.
2. Those who want women to be able to vote should still have to fight hard for that right (but not men, apparently).
3. Those who want blacks to be able to vote should still have to fight hard for that right (but not whites, apparently).
4. Those who want gays to have equal rights (rather than being classified as mentally ill) should still have to fight hard for any of these rights.
5. Those who are physically disabled should still have to fight hard for any of those rights.

I guess actual social progress, in which moral victories are actually won, is anathema to your worldview.  Should we still have to fight tooth and nail every time we want to enjoy freedom of speech, too?  You think these fights should be ongoing, and thus never won, because "that's part of what makes (the rights) worth having".  Disgusting.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2008, 07:58:33 AM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline IwasWrong

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #177 on: October 29, 2008, 09:44:38 AM »
 :o

Yikes, I leave my topic for a few days and it's so derailed I don't even recognize it anymore.

All of the debate back and forth still comes down to whether or not you think an embryo is equal to a human being or not.

It's that simple.

A women does not have the right to kill her 5 year old child for any reason.  So does an embryo have the exact same rights as a 5 year old human child?  Right now it does not.  If it did, then all those embryos inside those labs are imprisoning human beings against their will.
"And this is one big problem on these forums. Proof is needed for every statement.
My proof is my faith. "  -GodsDisciple

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #178 on: October 29, 2008, 09:46:24 AM »
No, because abortion is legal.

No, JTW.  You have to fund the mandate before it can go into effect.  Pay first.  For starters, the foster care system needs more money, so you certainly aren't going to be allowed to add children to the system until you take better care of the children that are already there.  This is what I mean.  When all it takes is jabber, you're the first in line with the finger extended.  But until I see you out hustling for the foster care system, working to make it easier for parents who have children they can't take care of to put them there, with confidence that they will be properly taken care of and not rented out as sex slaves and the like by the employees, your empty words will remain just that.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #179 on: October 29, 2008, 11:17:07 AM »
Red Herring/Special Pleading.  The argument applies to a huge number of medical procedures.  (cancer treatment, brain surgery, specialty diseases, etc)  It's not grounds for terminating a life, and it never will be.

Did you read my post?  There are state laws that prevent access to treatment SPECIFICALLY FOR ABORTION.  I didn't invent the special pleading, Cyberia.  The pro-lifers did.  Did you read where I pointed out that several states have laws prohibiting people's medical insurance from covering abortions without special payments?  By the way, pregnancy isn't a rare condition.  1 in 4 are currently medically aborted.  If it wasn't for objections external to the nature of the procedure itself, there wouldn't be a clinic in the country that wasn't prepared to do it.  It's a relatively simple procedure that involves the same basic surgical tools as pretty much every other surgery.  Many states refuse to cover it under Medicaid.  So, really, it's not at all like cancer treatment or brain surgery.  Nice try, though.

I suspect for the same reason there is a waiting period for buying a gun.  To attempt to deter emotional reactions from the taking of a life.

Yawn.  Can you point out to me where state legislators became legally capable of overturning Supreme Court decisions, because I'm having trouble finding that.

You know they don't need to, right?  The federal government doesn't overturn laws that are ruled unconstitutional either.  That's how it works.  The law is 'technically' still on the books, but no one will touch it with a ten foot pole.  Functionally, it's not there anymore.

Do you understand that they can still prosecute those laws?  Perhaps they will not be successful, but those laws are still enforceable.  It is furthermore common practice to interpret those laws to be immune to the Supreme Court ruling, by some inane line of reasoning.  It is also common practice to re-write a law in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling and add two commas and a semi-colon and declare the new law not specifically covered by the ruling.  Just because a seemingly similar law has been overturned doesn't mean that state law enforcement can't make arrests under a state law that's still on the books.  Furthermore, those laws can be used to bully and intimidate not only the women seeking the abortions, but also the gynecologists.  Many gynecologists flee to states where they won't have to worry about whether they'll be the next headliner, the next test case, for abortion rights in this country.

Loitering laws are a perfect analogy.  The Supreme Court has routinely shot down loitering laws of a dozen stripes.  Yet almost every major city still actively pursues their own version of loitering laws, because they want to and they know that it will take years for anyone to run it back up to the Appeals Court to overturn the law, and in the meantime, they can still arrest people and charge people.  These laws are written banking on the fact that the types of people they'll generally affect are ones particularly unlikely and unable to fight back effectively and they're right.  States did it with sodomy laws for years as well.  Again, you are demonstrating an incredible naivete when it comes to how laws and the real world intersect.  In your high-school government class, when the Supreme Court says something, it magically and instantly changes lives throughout the land.  In reality, overturning a law doesn't make the impetus for the law disappear, nor does it castrate those that supported the law in the first place.  As we can see by the incredible variety of intrusive laws involving abortions, the same forces that put the anti-abortion laws into effect are quite talented at finding ways to achieve the same end.  Roe v. Wade established very clearly that every woman in America is guaranteed the right to exercise control over her own body and make her own medical decisions.  That was found to be a Constitutional guarantee.  Underhanded moves like carving out special exemptions to Medicaid funding or requiring women that get abortions to wear a Scarlet A are bullshit and nasty.  If you don't like something the Supreme Court has done, you don't take out your anger on pregnant women.  This is the United States.  What the Supreme Court says is the law of the land, even in the Bible Belt.

Red Herring.  Lawsuits seeking to establish abortion right should be, and usually are, brought forth by civil rights lawyers, pro-choice lawyers, feminist lawyers, ACLU, etc.  Organizations that exist for this express purpose, are well funded, and LOVE to bring these cases to light.  Most of the time they bring them as challenges to laws, not necessarily in defense of a client.  However, in cases where they do not have standing to bring these cases without a client, they can usually find one without too much effort.  Typically they represent these clients pro-bono.

You are simply unaware of reality.  This is not even close to true.  I am aware that Rush Limbaugh has a radio program, but you shouldn't understand that to mean that every word he says is true.  Have you ever tried to find a "civil rights" lawyer?  I live in an urban area of well over a million people.  My phone book contains lots of categories of attorneys.  There is no category for "civil rights" attorneys.  Have you ever sought counsel from the ACLU?  Do you actually know anything about that organization or are you just running your mouth?  The ACLU has numerous criteria for selecting their cases, criteria which probably cut out 90-95% of even the cases that are submitted to them.  Do you want to know what I'm talking about, specifically?  I can tell you because I actually know.  The ACLU will not take a case where there are any factual disputes.  Period.  They won't take it.  No matter how much evidence there is that your version of the facts are correct, if the other side disputes ANY fact of the case, the ACLU won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.  But you knew that, didn't you?  Number two, the ACLU won't take a case unless there is an opportunity to set a legal precedent.  They are not interested in cases where the law is settled.  They do not see their role as ensuring that people are adequately protected by past decisions.  They want to set the precedent, then let others take it from there.  But you knew that too, didn't you?  As a corollary of the first two, they also routinely reject cases where the fact set is overly narrow, where an egregious or unusual fact set would limit the legal applicability of any decisions won.  Another corollary is that they rarely, if ever, take cases at the level of the trial court.  If you want to sue somebody or want the ACLU to defend you from a prosecution, you're barking up the wrong tree.  They want you to take the case to trial yourself, lose, THEN call them.  Furthermore, decisions on taking cases are generally made by the local chapters, and generally at the monthly board meeting.  Don't use your one phone call to call the ACLU because you'll probably get a recorded message asking you to leave your mailing address so they can send you their case submittal forms.  Leave a message, wait til the paperwork comes in the mail, fill it out and mail it back, wait until after the monthly board meeting, and then they'll send you the same rejection letter they send most people.  If you have some sort of emergency or time-sensitive case, the ACLU specifically recommends that you NOT seek their help.  But you knew all that, didn't you?

It is absurd and paranoid.  Conflict of Interest means the lawyer is not currently representing the state in another case, not 'has never done work for the state'.

You're wrong.  Ever heard of a "retainer"?

Besides, you've attempted to dodge the question.  Do you have any basis for knowledge on this topic or is this characterization of what I just said a completely blind guess?  If you wish to accuse me of lying, please stop pussy-footing around and do it.

I've never heard someone make the case that there aren't enough lawyers, before.  Congratulation for making me smile.

What you haven't heard could fill a mid-sized galaxy.

In your opinion.  Presented as fact.

I see.  So, you're one of those people that is "ALL FOR changing whatever we need to economically, politically, socially to bring about more equality in our society," but what you mean by that is that you personally support a whole raft of laws of highly dubious utility and malicious intent that have a net effect of placing abortion beyond the reach of millions of women living in the country today.

As Roe vs. Wade says they can do.

Yes, and that is exactly the same justification that was used for poll taxes and literacy laws.  Roe v. Wade also doesn't prevent jurisdictions from requiring women to buy a billboard with their picture underneath a big sign that says "BABY KILLER".  Would you consider that acceptable as well?  Maybe it's just another way to make sure they consider the gravity of taking a life*.

* "Life", in this context, should not be taken to mean an actual legal life as decided by the Supreme Court, but some other definition of life invented by Bob Whatsit and Steve Whonow.

If a doctor doesn't want to perform knee-surgery on me because of personal beliefs, then I DON'T WANT HIM TO. 

Good for you.  Other people DO want him to anyway.  If your doctor tells you he doesn't want to do a particular procedure on you and you decide not to have him do that procedure, great.  But let's assume that you wouldn't like me to make a law that forced you to have a medical procedure that you didn't want done.  Are you capable of similarly minding your own business or do you insist that your personal medical decisions should be made into law for everyone else to follow, under state duress?

By the way, knee-surgery is a great example.  I don't think I've brought up serious medical emergency in terms of abortions here.  Knee-surgery, I think we all can agree, it not very likely to be life-threatening.  Let's say you are walking down the street and are hit by a car, and your knee is blown to pieces.  As you lay bleeding on the gurney, the doctor comes in and says, "Well, I think that the bleeding will clot by itself long before your blood-loss becomes life-threatening.  So, seeing as how this is not a life-threatening emergency, I decide as a matter of personal morality not to perform any medical treatment in this case.  You will likely be crippled for the rest of your adult life as a result of my personal moral decision and I certainly don't dispute that I am trained and capable of competently performing reconstructive surgery to restore to you full use of your knee, but since it's not LIFE-threatening, I choose not to, as per State Code XYZ.  Have a good day."  Fine by you?  Sound like a good law and a reasonable decision?  Still don't want that doctor to perform that procedure on you?

While I think that is awful and should be rescinded, it does refer to public employees.  Not private practice doctors, planned parenthood and other private institutions.  So you are somewhat painting it in a false light.  Still though, it seems stupid, if not a flat out violation of the free-speech rights of the public employees.

They can't REFER you to those organizations.  A sixteen-year-old girl may never have heard of Planned Parenthood.  The police can't tell her about it.  State hospitals can't tell her about it.  They can't tell her about the existence of a private institution where she could have that work done.  They can't even suggest to her that the critical difference she should be looking for is public versus private without breaking the law.

Yep, that's genuinely awful.  Why hasn't it been challenged by the aforementioned organizations?

Because you don't understand the "aforementioned" organizations.  Why are you asking me, since you are the one that decided to lecture me about how these organizations operate just a minute ago?  With all their piles of money and bored lawyers, how did laws like these ever make it out of committee, Cyberia?  Are you ready to admit that you haven't the faintest idea how these organizations actually operate in the real world?  Are you willing to admit the possibility that your understanding of the situation may be flawed and incomplete?  If you, in fact, DON'T know the important and relevant details, why don't you stop and listen or look into it and educate yourself instead of blathering on in total ignorance, knowing that you really are totally ignorant?

States have lots of stupid rules, all over the place.  They also have limited funds.  When we get nationalized health care the situation should improve, if for no other reason, that there will be a single target for civil-rights lawsuits, rather than a patchwork of state rules.  This should improve in the near future.

This is pathetic.  You just told me about the wealth of private legal aid organizations, and now you are arguing the poverty of state governments.

That's bad.  It should be addressed.  Where are the civil-rights organizations?

It is bad.  Based upon the picture you have painted of "civil-rights organizations", I can only assume that they are hanging around in the atrium of their South Dakota headquarters, drinking cocktails and discussing framing designs for their law degrees.

That's bad.  It should be addressed.  Where are the civil-rights organizations?

Well, as I have been led to understand, probably buying jewel-encrusted briefcases with their unused donations.

That's bad.  It should be addressed.  Where are the civil-rights organizations?

Out on the links, I suppose, telling their lawyer jokes to each other.

Well, she can see Russia from her home.....  that's gotta count for something.  She's a retard.  She won't get into office (VP), hopefully.

Doesn't help pregnant women in Wasilia, does it?  Well, have no fear.  I'm sure as soon as the Feminist Lawyers Of Wasilla get back from their yachting trip, they'll sort it all out up there.

As for paying for their own rape kits:  Without nationalized health care, that's how it works.  You pay for EVERYTHING when you go to a hospital, often always excessively marked-up.  Shrug.  Special pleading.  It sucks, but if we're ALL in that boat (unless we have private coverage) which I do NOT, just so you know.  My solution is to cover everything and everyone.

Not true.  Medicaid helps cover many poor people for important medical procedures.  Except in places where a special pleading has been made against abortion.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2008, 01:19:05 PM by Davedave »

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 #180 on: October 29, 2008, 01:33:49 PM »
Cyb, you are having some trouble with basic terms and concepts.  A strawman is a flawed concept that is presented to be easily knocked down and claimed to be a victory for the presenter.  You said
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.
You’ve presented an extreme position, e.g. genocide basically, as equivalent to abortion.  It is not, therefore you are presenting a strawman.

You then claim to not have used the word “always”.  No you didn’t.  However, one does not need to say “always” to mean that.  You have made blanket statements with no exceptions.  When you say that “f**king A they have to notify the parent”, you mean that all parents should be notified, correct?  If you say “absolutely deserve” you mean that all parents deserve to know.  You said made no exceptions about notification when you mentioned “if the parents were abusive”.  Read your own words.  It is not my fault that you may have not written what you intended. 
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..

The same thing occurs in your claim that you did not say “always” in regards to teenagers.  You said this:
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.
Again, you make a blanket statement with no exceptions, indicating a situation where “teenagers”, a group containing “all” teenagers, are claimed as “rather irresponsible”.  You then try to excuse that statement by saying that that the law agrees with you.  I have shown you how it does not. If you did not mean such things, be more careful how you write.  It’s that simple.
"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 Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #181 on: October 29, 2008, 03:51:05 PM »
You’ve presented an extreme position, e.g. genocide basically, as equivalent to abortion.  It is not, therefore you are presenting a strawman.
Well, I'll ask you the same thing I asked Dave.  Why is it not?  Beat the argument, rather than simply stating that your position is factually true.  Anytime someone makes a statement that 'situation X' does not constitute human life, and can therefore be ignored, red flags go up.  It's an inherently dangerous argument.  It leads to places I don't think you or Dave really intend to go.  I don't think you are monsters, don't present me as one for demanding really good evidence that 'situation x' actually is what you're portraying.

It an argument for terminating life, I'm going to hold you to a high standard.  I don't feel bad about it.  I don't feel I should.


You said made no exceptions about notification when you mentioned “if the parents were abusive”.  Read your own words.  It is not my fault that you may have not written what you intended. 
Look, I realize this is the internet and there is an inherent difficulty in expressing oneself.  You asked me to clarify my position, and I did.  I think it's somewhat pedantic, because the exception in my original post including emancipating the girl, which (and here's what I feel you are missing) automatically eliminates the need for parental notification.  You don't NEED to notify the parents of a legal adult.  I didn't elucidate that, because I assumed it went without saying.  I apologize for the confusion however.

You then try to excuse that statement by saying that that the law agrees with you.  I have shown you how it does not.
Your refutation to my statement was this:

Quote from: velkyn
I could argue that since teenagers can enlist in the military, they in fact are considered to be able to make decisions.
This refutes nothing.  They cannot enlist until they are 18, at which time they can vote.  I'm not arguing about 18/19 year olds, even though they are 'teenagers', because at that point they are legally adults.  Did you really not know what I meant? or were you just trying to find something to argue with?


If you did not mean such things, be more careful how you write.  It’s that simple.
Good advice.
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #182 on: October 29, 2008, 04:12:18 PM »
So barriers to rights should remain, because fighting for rights is what makes them worth having.  That's what you're saying.  Wow.  Just wow.  So, what you've just said is that:
1. Those who want abortion to be available should still have to fight hard for it.
2. Those who want women to be able to vote should still have to fight hard for that right (but not men, apparently).
3. Those who want blacks to be able to vote should still have to fight hard for that right (but not whites, apparently).
4. Those who want gays to have equal rights (rather than being classified as mentally ill) should still have to fight hard for any of these rights.
5. Those who are physically disabled should still have to fight hard for any of those rights.

I guess actual social progress, in which moral victories are actually won, is anathema to your worldview.  Should we still have to fight tooth and nail every time we want to enjoy freedom of speech, too?  You think these fights should be ongoing, and thus never won, because "that's part of what makes (the rights) worth having".  Disgusting.

You're living in fantasy-land.  While there has been some social progress in the past 100 years, the fight can never be "won".  You will never, ever find some place where you are automatically granted EVERY right you feel you should possess, without so much as even asking for those rights.  Even asking for a right you do not currently possess constitutes 'fighting' for it.

Ideally, they should NOT have to fight for them.  We do not live in an ideal world, and we never will.  It's akin to trying to count to infinity with the expectation that you will actually reach it as some point.  Wake up.  We don't live in an ideal world, and that means you are going to have to fight for your rights on a daily basis.  The second you stop fighting, your rights start shrinking.  You ONLY have rights at all because those whom hold the 'power' in this world don't feel it's worth the fight.  I suggest you take that to heart and keep continually being a pain in their asses, because when you stop they automatically assert their authority again.

Quote
Should we still have to fight tooth and nail every time we want to enjoy freedom of speech, too?
Should we have to?  Nope.  Do we, as a matter of pragmatic reality? Yep.  That one, in particular, is encroached upon continuously.....and then those encroachments are fought against.  Back and forth, and on and on, forever.

It won't ever end.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" -Thomas Jefferson

He knew this two hundred years ago.  It troubles me that you do not.
Soon we will judge angels.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12276
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #183 on: October 29, 2008, 04:31:22 PM »
Quote
Should we have to?  Nope.

Given the context, your previous post - to which I was replying - answered the above with "yes".  That was what I was responding to.  Does it make more sense now?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #184 on: October 29, 2008, 05:50:54 PM »
I suspect for the same reason there is a waiting period for buying a gun.  To attempt to deter emotional reactions from the taking of a life.

Yawn.  Can you point out to me where state legislators became legally capable of overturning Supreme Court decisions, because I'm having trouble finding that.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here but one could make the exact same case regarding the right to bear arms. 

In the case of abortions, it's the right-wing that is creating artificial barriers to something that has been clearly granted by the supreme court.  They do this because they don't like the decision and are trying to weasel around it, for reasons that they feel are correct and proper.  They feel that they hold the high ground morally.

In the case of guns, it's the left-wing that is creating artificial barriers to something that has been clearly granted by the supreme court.  They do this because they don't like the decision and are trying to weasel around it, for reasons that they feel are correct and proper.  They feel that they hold the high ground morally.

Just an observation.  I am refraining from commenting on my position on the second matter, as it does not pertain to this discussion.  But the tactic is common and widespread.

----------

As for the rest, we could go back and forth endlessly.  I do think you have made several good points, and believe it or not, given me much to think about.  It's an emotional issue and I don't think many people here have to capability to engage in the debate without it turning into a instantaneous flame war.  A lot of good information was exchanged, and although personal shots were fired in our discussion, I don't take personal offense and I don't think that you really do either.  We're big boys.  Water off a ducks back.

Please correct me if I am wrong, without sarcasm, distortion or misrepresentation, your viewpoint is this:

Women should have not only the right, but the unequivocal practice of being able to obtain an abortion, at any point of the pregnancy, upon demand.  All barriers to this goal should actively and fiercely removed where possible (social, economic, parental, etc) and reduced as much as possible otherwise (biological, physical, geographical)

The goal should be to enable abortion for all women, and indeed for many disadvantaged women it should be actively encouraged as a method of reducing the disadvantages they face, and the problems facing modern society.  Real people, living real lives, need to be protected: people with friends, family, jobs, assets to protect, debts to pay, hardships of all types.  A fetus has none of these.  Claiming an idealistic, and naive goal of protecting the unborn, wastes money and other resources that are urgently needed to help people here and now, not some potential hypothetical human with nothing real to lose.


Is that correct?  If it isn't, please correct me/it.  If I have misrepresented it or made a mistake, I sincerely apologize.  I ask, but do not require, that you do the same for my viewpoint, without sarcasm, misrepresentation or distortion.

I'm not going to comment on it further, unless you feel we should continue. I'm comfortable with people holding a different opinion than mine, but I do want to understand it.
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 #185 on: October 29, 2008, 06:08:11 PM »
Are you arguing that this case is special, more special than the above cases? or that you are tired of fighting for your rights? or just commenting on the wastefulness of having to fight for each.and.every.right.in.the.experience.of.life?

I'm saying that Roe v. Wade made people feel like getting an abortion was a Constitutional right.  It made people feel like the matter was settled.  Even without being overturned, the matter is FAR from settled.

Well, first, the connotation of 'slam a ticking clock' is portraying the situation in a false light.  6+ months to figure out a way to get transportation to the next state over.  Phew, such a difficult task in this day and age.  Not buying it, not by a long shot.

The length of time on the ticking clock is immaterial.  The important thing is that it is artificial and arbitrary.  Your 7.5 months is completely arbitrary.  And setting that as the deadline is completely artificial.

It is set, in actual fact, upon viability of the fetus.

No, it's not.  You already said that we shouldn't be talking about Apollo-program type rescue efforts.  Was that not an arbitrary decision on your part?

It is set AT that point because, at that point it can live outside the mother with minimal lifesupport.

Bolded to highlight the arbitrary part.

It's a viable fetus.  Therefore it is human and has human rights.  It's quite simple.

Isolating this single aspect of the question and hammering on it like a woodpecker IS making it a loaded question.  I already gave a perfectly good analogy to asking whether you killed someone while refusing to allow discussion about self-defense.  Self-defense is inherently relevant to the matter of killing another person.  To ask the question and refuse to consider relevant context is simply you inviting me not to answer, so I don't.  If you want an answer, ask a fair question.  I'm not stupid and I'm not a pushover.  Your question is loaded.  This is not merely a question of life and death.  Quality of life is relevant.

"The question presupposes a whole host of information that is not yet in evidence" sounds like Afadly trying to refute evolution.  You haven't GIVEN the 'presupposed evidence', at least, not any that even remotely justifies removing someone's human rights and terminating their life.  The fact of the matter is that you WANT abortion to be legal in ALL cases, on demand, and your desire for this to be true has clouded your judgement and logic.

No, what I want is to not put children into places they are not wanted.  You seemed able to understand that concept when it came to backing off trying to force a doctor to perform a surgery he didn't want to perform.  In fact, you ALL-CAPSed it, to make sure I understood your conviction on the matter.  This is very similar.  If the mother doesn't want the child, I don't want to force her to have it.  I refuse to blinker the conversation here to life vs. death.  Quality of life matters.  It is relevant.  

.... you don't WANT to address this issue, because you know that the "non-human" argument is quite weak (for a viable fetus) and it is about as appealing as Mein Kampf.  (reference intentional)

The decision about granting of rights is a legal one, not a moral one and not a scientific one.  That decision has been made by the Supreme Court.  If I were to become convinced that the people that would like to move that line back were doing so out of concern for the fetus, I might feel more empathy for their position.  However, you absolutely refuse to take any additional account for the well-being of the fetus or of children or for the mother.  It's simply grandstanding.

Furthermore, Azdgari made an excellent point in another thread.  Let's say that having a child now will lead to one less child being made in the future?  Have we really gained anything by salvaging this particular child's life?  When DOES a human being begin?  Why is it any less valid to declare that once an intention to conceive a child has formed, that the right to life begins?  If a woman intends to wait until she is 25 to bear children, but instead is forced to bear one at age 21, then decides not to bear anymore children, haven't you killed the child she would have born when she was 25?  Doesn't that make you a baby-killer as well?

So, you just complain that I'm forcing you to make an uncomfortable comparison.

It's not an uncomfortable comparison.  It's absurdly narrow.  Like I said, self-defense is a relevant matter to any question of one man killing another.  To consider a killing without considering the possibility of a self-defense scenario is to reduce the situation beyond the point of meaninglessness.  Talking about killing while disallowing discussion of self-defense simply robs killing of significance.  This situation is no different.  In a discussion, we attempt to cut away things that are irrelevant so we can get at the crux of the matter.  However, you cannot blindly continue to remove aspects of the question just so the ultimate question reached can be simply stated.

It's like having a chunk of iron.  I can slice off a chunk of iron and still have a chunk of iron.  I can do that many times.  But at some point, I will only have a single atom of iron and it will no longer be possible to either remove a chunk of iron from it or have a chunk of iron remaining.  This is no different.  To reduce this issue below a threshold where discussing quality of life is no longer within the scope is to eliminate the entire question of "humanity" before it even gets off the ground.  Ultimately, you cannot avoid the quality of life issue.  Quality of life is what makes human life worth preserving.


I repeated it 3 times, and bolded/underlined it.  It's the crux of the argument.  It's important.  Rather that address it, you tried to deflect it.  Beat it and you've got your case won.  I suspect you know that, and that's why it was deflected.

Cyberia, you're obviously not grasping this, so let me put it to you differently.  If you truly considered quality of life not relevant to the discussion, then how can you justify not salvaging the life of a bacterial cell?  Outside of quality of life issues, what is the difference between a bacteria and a fertilized human egg?  What's the difference between a chicken and a fetus or a cow and a child?

You have presented NO information that trumps the "non-human" argument.  Your apathy for the fetus, does not an argument make.

So, why should human be the relevant factor?  Your apathy toward E. coli does not an argument make.

What?  Abort the left arm only?  The toes and left leg, but not the rest?  The ONLY thing we are debating is weather a late-term viable fetus can be legally or morally aborted.  I'm not trappped in the slightest.  I'm not even penned in.  Not killing a human is usually the lesser of the two evils.  There, I explicitly added 'usually'.  Given that I have stated my support for Roe vs. Wade, I assumed you would not try to interpret things in a hyper-literal manner as Velkyn does. 

Why humans only?  I defy you to make your argument without reference to quality of life.

I think both of you are confused as to your proper avenue of attack.  You aren't used to debating an atheist who opposes late-term abortion on human-rights grounds.  It confuses you and so your shots go astray.

Hardly.

It also makes you look like Stalin.

I also support the construction of new hospitals.  Do you?  If so, then you, me and Stalin need to get together.

They have to be notified because the procedure is being performed ON THEIR DAUGHTER, for whom they ARE legally responsible.

I'm sorry you are unable to present a decent counterargument, so I'll go ahead and end this little jaunt now.  The decision to have a baby is very dangerous.  It could not be anything other than textbook child endangerment to force a child to carry a pregnancy through to full term.  People are allowed to make dangerous medical decisions on their own behalf, but courts have consistently ruled that parents may NOT endanger their own children because of their personal beliefs.  Since the parents could make no decision OTHER than approval of the abortion without running afoul of child endangerment laws, there is NO pressing need whatsoever to involve them at all.

Shrugs. Ok.  I'm ok with that.  The cornerstone being that you don't kill other human-beings.  So yea, that's fine.

Please, then, stop lying.

Say hi to der Führer.  The position you advocate leads directly to Hitler's policies.  Exterminate the unwanted.  I advocate that all human life has rights and should be protected.  It does cause resource and other problems.  However those problems are dealt with, never break rule #1. 

It's simply a different point on the same scale as you choose to slide down when you ruled out Apollo Project type efforts.  Again, it seems you and me and Hitler make three.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2008, 07:02:32 PM 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 #186 on: October 29, 2008, 06:45:20 PM »
I'm just playing devil's advocate here but one could make the exact same case regarding the right to bear arms. 

I think you're right and I similarly disagree with those efforts.  They are dishonest and underhanded.  The fundamental decision is clear.  People who disagree can either shove it or try to change the decision.  Trying to quietly erode the decision is bullshit.  Many of the deepest flaws in our society can be traced to our lazy attitude regarding fixing problems.  Our democratic systems tend to criminalize, then ignore, rather than seek out better answers.  Speed limits and drug laws are two good examples of this.  Instead of turning vast swaths of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals, we need to get honest and serious about how we intend to approach these issues.  It sows disrespect for the law; normalizes and legitimizes dishonesty, oversimplification, and avoidance as problem-solving techniques; encourages a perverse perspective both of our fellow citizens and of law enforcement; and makes everyone in society ripe for victimization at the hands of essentially out of control "justice" mechanisms.  It's a damned poor show for a bunch of adults of an allegedly intelligent species.

They feel that they hold the high ground morally.

Their ends do not justify their means.  It undercuts the rule of law in this country.

I don't take personal offense and I don't think that you really do either.

No, I'm fine.

Women should have not only the right, but the unequivocal practice of being able to obtain an abortion, at any point of the pregnancy, upon demand.  All barriers to this goal should actively and fiercely removed where possible (social, economic, parental, etc) and reduced as much as possible otherwise (biological, physical, geographical)

No.  That is a means, not a goal.  If our society were able to remove the fetus and give it adequate care, I'd be all for that.  But we can't.  That's not just a scientific can't.  That's a financial can't and an unwillingness can't.  To me, this elevates the matter beyond right and wrong, as right and wrong do not apply to situations of helplessness.  Our society is not capable of taking care of the essentials for a quality human life.  This is independent of our ability or inclination to actually sustain the life.

The goal should be to enable abortion for all women

No again.  The goal should be to find ways to deal with the real and larger problems in a better fashion.  Abortion is a sad statement about the failures of our systems for pre-emption as well as our systems for post-natal social support.  Abortion is not the problem; it is the indicator of the problem.  Trying to directly suppress abortions using the power of the state is simply sweeping the real problems under the rug.  We should be GLAD that we have abortion available as a fallback position, because otherwise, other more severe problems would be far worse.  Criminalizing abortion would be like banning the use of canaries in mines because the canaries die.  For lack of a better system, we should be glad the canary is there, as it heads off far greater disasters.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2008, 06:47:26 PM by Davedave »

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 #187 on: October 31, 2008, 09:47:31 AM »
You’ve presented an extreme position, e.g. genocide basically, as equivalent to abortion.  It is not, therefore you are presenting a strawman.
Well, I'll ask you the same thing I asked Dave.  Why is it not?  Beat the argument, rather than simply stating that your position is factually true.  Anytime someone makes a statement that 'situation X' does not constitute human life, and can therefore be ignored, red flags go up.  It's an inherently dangerous argument.  It leads to places I don't think you or Dave really intend to go.  I don't think you are monsters, don't present me as one for demanding really good evidence that 'situation x' actually is what you're portraying.

It an argument for terminating life, I'm going to hold you to a high standard.  I don't feel bad about it.  I don't feel I should.


You said made no exceptions about notification when you mentioned “if the parents were abusive”.  Read your own words.  It is not my fault that you may have not written what you intended. 
Look, I realize this is the internet and there is an inherent difficulty in expressing oneself.  You asked me to clarify my position, and I did.  I think it's somewhat pedantic, because the exception in my original post including emancipating the girl, which (and here's what I feel you are missing) automatically eliminates the need for parental notification.  You don't NEED to notify the parents of a legal adult.  I didn't elucidate that, because I assumed it went without saying.  I apologize for the confusion however.

You then try to excuse that statement by saying that that the law agrees with you.  I have shown you how it does not.
Your refutation to my statement was this:

Quote from: velkyn
I could argue that since teenagers can enlist in the military, they in fact are considered to be able to make decisions.
This refutes nothing.  They cannot enlist until they are 18, at which time they can vote.  I'm not arguing about 18/19 year olds, even though they are 'teenagers', because at that point they are legally adults.  Did you really not know what I meant? or were you just trying to find something to argue with?


If you did not mean such things, be more careful how you write.  It’s that simple.
Good advice.

Cyb, you are saying teenagers.  What does teh age 18 mean?  It's a teenager.  You have constantly attempted to move the goal posts.  First you claimed teenagers, and now you you say that you didn't mean actual teenagers.  You have created this imaginary subset that now doesn't include some teenagers, that somehow I should have read your mind.  If you are such a bad thinker that you cannot imagine any exceptions to your blanket statments and have to continually alter them, it's your problem, not mine. 
"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 #188 on: October 31, 2008, 06:25:58 PM »
I thought I should bolster my claims about the risk involved with teen pregnancy.  The CDC says that the death rate for teen mothers is 8.6 in 100000 live births.  Now, I am a little concerned about using live births to count dead mothers, but I suppose if the CDC finds that to be the most practical/useful way to do it, that's what we have to look at.  In any case, we're talking about rates of death that are roughly 100 times the acceptable risk levels set by agencies like the FDA, EPA, and OSHA.

Interestingly, I attempted to provide (as an analogy) an acute toxicity dose-response curve for a well-known chemical (like aspirin, Vitamin C, cough syrup, ethanol) and was unable to find one online.  All of the ones I have access to in hard copy are for chemicals that are so unfamiliar to most people as to be useless as context.  So, for anyone hoping for a nice comparison to some more familiar source of child endangerment, too bad.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2008, 06:42:39 PM by Davedave »

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #189 on: October 31, 2008, 08:09:30 PM »
I've been thinking about this debate much in the past days. 

Regarding the Pennsylvania law regarding insurance and also in the case of the waiting-period.  I wasn't particularly in favor of those situations before, but wasn't strongly against them either.  I have now come to realize how deeply abhorrent those are.  Yes, they do indeed erode the rights specified by the supreme court decision, and a clear and firm reversal needs to be done in those (and other) cases.  They actually open a Pandora's Box on far more than the issue at hand, and are extremely dangerous.

I have also come to realize what you meant when you said I was trapped by my line of thinking.  I had been interpreting your comment in a different light and misunderstood it.  It's a situation where compromise isn't possible (beyond that within RvW), if one adheres to a 'right vs wrong' principle.  However, I don't think that automatically invalidates my position.  I believe there are indeed times where a line in the sand needs to be drawn, but it gives me pause and makes me want to try to consider it from other viewpoints.

You may not believe it, but I had considered quality of life before and during my argument.  I had just rejected the argument out-of-hand as even a bad life is better than no life at all.  Additionally, it seems the supreme court agrees with my position in RvW.  I do agree that there are things worse than death, but an not convinced that is the situation here, at least for the majority of the time.  One could make the case as 'what right do you have to make that decision?', but the same could be argued in reverse.  At least, some of them will make it out of the bad situation they are in, whereas, you don't come back from death at all.   I still stand by my argument that we shouldn't invoke a policy of killing members of society we do not value.  You may view that as a strawman, because you understand the scope and details of your principles.  But will the next generation?  It take just one demagogue to pervert that suggestion into a catastrophe.  I feel it is better to keep that door closed on fundamental principle rather than risk generational interpretation of your suggestion.  That does trap oneself, but that may be better than the alternative.

I don't accept that the financial burden imposed on us by my policy is either impossible or even unreasonable.  I justify that by pointing to the amount of money we spend on killing and warfare, which dwarf EVERY other expenditure our government makes.  The amount of money we spend monthly in Iraq would fund a national health care system for a year.   The money is available, it is just not being spent where it is needed most.

I still have mixed feeling on parental notification, but tend to support it.  The supreme court has ruled that children in schools do not have the right to free speech.  Obviously, children do not have a number of other rights that we confer on adults in our society.  Can you point to a case where a parent was tried for child-endangerment for not allowing the child to have an abortion?  Do parental notification laws specifically exempt parents from legal responsibility in these cases?

Regarding the risk of birth for teen pregnancy in your most recent post, of course it isn't a tremendously risky event.  Reproduction is the fundamental mechanism for evolution.  4 billion years of life have fine tuned the procedure.  That's not to say there isn't some risk, nor that modern medicine doesn't improve the situation even more, but nature doesn't activate the reproductive systems of children before they are ready.  Consider that until modern times, children gave birth as soon as they were capable.  That's true in the entire animal kingdom.  I do agree that it puts more stress on their systems that it does for a 22 year old, however.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2008, 08:13:33 PM by Cyberia »
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline bartly

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
  • Darwins +1/-0
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #190 on: November 01, 2008, 08:05:01 AM »
I'm rather new to this whole "Wow, I'm not a Christian anymore" so please don't take my thoughts here as me "militantly arguing my side."
Think of me as in "research mode."

As far as abortion and stem cell research goes: When does life deserve to be protected?

It seems to me that I would not vote to allow a baby to be killed when it is 48 hours old.
 - You probably wouldn't either

But what about 48 hours before that?  What about 12 minutes before that?

Christian, religious or not, right now it seems to me that a fertilized egg is just as human as a 48 hour old baby.

When does life begin?

I dont care what some of these weirdos on this site think, to me, god creates all life. Now, im NOT trying to preach any religon, but life is above petty bigotrys anyhow, so im very, very, very pro life. Now this isnt eugenic nonsense; but i believe in extreme cases children shouldnt be born. When there is cripling illness, terminal brain damage etc, the child should be spared the pain.................But to KILL, an unborn child with even a below average chance of life is to me - PLAIN, COLDBLOODED, MURDER! - and i think it should be illigel

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 #191 on: November 03, 2008, 11:18:51 AM »
I've been thinking about this debate much in the past days. 

Regarding the Pennsylvania law regarding insurance and also in the case of the waiting-period.  I wasn't particularly in favor of those situations before, but wasn't strongly against them either.  I have now come to realize how deeply abhorrent those are.  Yes, they do indeed erode the rights specified by the supreme court decision, and a clear and firm reversal needs to be done in those (and other) cases.  They actually open a Pandora's Box on far more than the issue at hand, and are extremely dangerous.

I have also come to realize what you meant when you said I was trapped by my line of thinking.  I had been interpreting your comment in a different light and misunderstood it.  It's a situation where compromise isn't possible (beyond that within RvW), if one adheres to a 'right vs wrong' principle.  However, I don't think that automatically invalidates my position.  I believe there are indeed times where a line in the sand needs to be drawn, but it gives me pause and makes me want to try to consider it from other viewpoints.

You may not believe it, but I had considered quality of life before and during my argument.  I had just rejected the argument out-of-hand as even a bad life is better than no life at all.  Additionally, it seems the supreme court agrees with my position in RvW.  I do agree that there are things worse than death, but an not convinced that is the situation here, at least for the majority of the time.  One could make the case as 'what right do you have to make that decision?', but the same could be argued in reverse.  At least, some of them will make it out of the bad situation they are in, whereas, you don't come back from death at all.   I still stand by my argument that we shouldn't invoke a policy of killing members of society we do not value.  You may view that as a strawman, because you understand the scope and details of your principles.  But will the next generation?  It take just one demagogue to pervert that suggestion into a catastrophe.  I feel it is better to keep that door closed on fundamental principle rather than risk generational interpretation of your suggestion.  That does trap oneself, but that may be better than the alternative.

I don't accept that the financial burden imposed on us by my policy is either impossible or even unreasonable.  I justify that by pointing to the amount of money we spend on killing and warfare, which dwarf EVERY other expenditure our government makes.  The amount of money we spend monthly in Iraq would fund a national health care system for a year.   The money is available, it is just not being spent where it is needed most.

I still have mixed feeling on parental notification, but tend to support it.  The supreme court has ruled that children in schools do not have the right to free speech.  Obviously, children do not have a number of other rights that we confer on adults in our society.  Can you point to a case where a parent was tried for child-endangerment for not allowing the child to have an abortion?  Do parental notification laws specifically exempt parents from legal responsibility in these cases?

Regarding the risk of birth for teen pregnancy in your most recent post, of course it isn't a tremendously risky event.  Reproduction is the fundamental mechanism for evolution.  4 billion years of life have fine tuned the procedure.  That's not to say there isn't some risk, nor that modern medicine doesn't improve the situation even more, but nature doesn't activate the reproductive systems of children before they are ready.  Consider that until modern times, children gave birth as soon as they were capable.  That's true in the entire animal kingdom.  I do agree that it puts more stress on their systems that it does for a 22 year old, however.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nature doesn't activate the reproductive systesms of children before they are ready".  We have kids going into puberty earlier and earlier.  Are they "ready"?  By whose definition?  I have had cats that have had kittens and being physicaly capable doesn't not mean that they know what to do with the kittens after they are born.  I've had to watch too many critters die because what you say isn't true. 

If you believe in parental notification and that abortions are wrong, what are you willing to do to make sure babies are born as "healthy" as possible?  Camps for women?  Tie them down so they can't do anything that "might" harm the fetus?  Now caffeine is under the microscope as being a thing bad for developing embryos.  No more starbucks for pregnant women? 

"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 IwasWrong

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #192 on: November 05, 2008, 04:22:23 PM »
Well then, back on topic.

The Stem Cell proposition passed.

I look forward to someone finding something useful with this research.
"And this is one big problem on these forums. Proof is needed for every statement.
My proof is my faith. "  -GodsDisciple

Offline urs

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #193 on: November 06, 2008, 01:15:49 AM »
Well then, back on topic.

The Stem Cell proposition passed.

I look forward to someone finding something useful with this research.

I am nearly positive that a lot of enormously useful research will be gleaned from this. Those otherwise trashed fetuses may be responsible for saving lives, with the potential to save thousands or millions. I doubt it will all have been for nothing. People are fighting for it because of all the good it can do, not because they want to kill babies. I think it is safe to say that it is better to use a "potential" life to save many, than to allow the continued suffering of those already alive for the sake of a "potential human", especially if that potential human will be garbage in the morning. Surely, it's not the ideal situation, but I think we're making the absolute best of it.

Offline Red McWilliams

  • Illuminati
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Darwins +1/-0
Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
« Reply #194 on: November 06, 2008, 09:46:21 PM »
I dont care what some of these weirdos on this site think, to me, god creates all life. Now, im NOT trying to preach any religon, but life is above petty bigotrys anyhow, so im very, very, very pro life. Now this isnt eugenic nonsense; but i believe in extreme cases children shouldnt be born. When there is cripling illness, terminal brain damage etc, the child should be spared the pain.................But to KILL, an unborn child with even a below average chance of life is to me - PLAIN, COLDBLOODED, MURDER! - and i think it should be illigel

Yes, yes, we all know what you and you're ilk think about this.  The fascinating part, to me, is that the instant that unborn child becomes a born child, you and your ilk don't give half a shit about it.  At that point, you and your ilk do everything you can to make life as difficult as possible for the mother of that child to have even a below average chance at a decent life.

Until you get every unwanted born child off the streets, out of orphanages and out of foster homes, you don't need to give thought one to the unborn.
Today I step into the shoes of a great man, a man by the name of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.