Video stirs up anti abortion hornets

[epidemic]

Perhaps this might help:  Epidemic, where does one's right to life come from?  And how do we verify its presence, as opposed to its absence?

everyones right to life comes from society.  It is not some magical right bestowed.  it is one of the most uniform of rights around the world.   As humans it seems like the right to life is uniformly accepted as reasonably absolute for people who are already born with the exception of punishment for crimes comitted against others.  With Fetus and babies it gets a little more vague.  Each society has varying rules regarding this.  Our society and most if not all western societies seem to bestow rights beginning in the 24th to 28th week of gestation. 

[Azdgari]

everyones right to life comes from society.  It is not some magical right bestowed.

Agreed.  Also I'm rather surprised you're conceding this, given your position.  It destroys your position.

it is one of the most uniform of rights around the world.   As humans it seems like the right to life is uniformly accepted as reasonably absolute for people who are already born with the exception of punishment for crimes comitted against others.

Broad opinion, yes.

With Fetus and babies it gets a little more vague.  Each society has varying rules regarding this.  Our society and most if not all western societies seem to bestow rights beginning in the 24th to 28th week of gestation.

The question then is "why".  It makes no sense to appeal to bestowing full right-to-life to something based on the argument that "it has a right to life".  That's circular.  So as I said earlier, you have no position that you even understand.

[epidemic]

My position is that if a baby 1 second after birth has a right to life.  An equally well formed baby in utero has the same right to life.  And my position is backed by societies the world over.




to you last statement.  Well it does become vague because the dividing line is a moving target.  Most of you folks take the abitrary vaginal barrier as to when right to life is bestowed.  I and much of the first world take viability to be the arbitrary point.  The only people without an arbitrarty standard are conception right to lifers.

[Azdgari]

My position is that if a baby 1 second after birth has a right to life.  An equally well formed baby in utero has the same right to life.  And my position is backed by societies the world over.

Your agreement with them is backed by the fact that they agree with you?  No other reaoning.  Okay.

to you last statement.  Well it does become vague because the dividing line is a moving target.  Most of you folks take the abitrary vaginal barrier as to when right to life is bestowed.  I and much of the first world take viability to be the arbitrary point.  The only people without an arbitrarty standard are conception right to lifers.

The question then becomes what your motivation is for forcing women to give birth.  You allude earlier to a sense of justice and retribution:

I inconjunction society in most first world nations am demaning personal responsibility and decision making over a multi month period before finally holding someone accountable for their inaction.

And of course, the total-anti-abortion folks already take steps to sabotage early abortion options in places where late abortion is not an option.  Which is the regime your position encourages.  How do you feel about that, assuming you have feelings?

[Jag]

Assuming I understand who you are referring to when you say "conception right to lifers", I would argue that their position is the most arbitrary of all.

Why? Define the exact moment of conception, and then we can discuss it.

[Mrjason]

As humans it seems like the right to life is uniformly accepted as reasonably absolute for people who are already born with the exception of punishment for crimes comitted against others. 

reasonably absolute is an oxymoron, something is either absolute or it is qualified.

[epidemic]

Assuming I understand who you are referring to when you say "conception right to lifers", I would argue that their position is the most arbitrary of all.

Why? Define the exact moment of conception, and then we can discuss it.

Well there we have to disagree, I believe that theirs is the least arbitrary.  The moment of conception a new human DNA sequence is created, uniquely human.  It is simply the least formed state of a human but it is not zebra, gecko, elephant nor plant.  Their belief is that you protect the lifes of humans no matter the stage of development.  as was so aptly stated earlier, a 1 second old baby is not fully developed nor is a 20 year old.  To the purist right to lifer you protect human life no matter the stage.  90 years old and on a respirator in a persistent vegetative state protected, born with out a brain protected, 1 second after conception protected, cerebral palsy protected, retarded with an IQ of 10 protected.  I don't agree with their standard but they believe a unique human begins at conception.  PS as does science.


MrJason,
As for reasonably absolute.  Yes it is not the most accurate use of the word but I believe you understand.  It is the standard for human societies the world over with few exceptions so few as to be statistically insignificant.

[Mrjason]

MrJason,
As for reasonably absolute.  Yes it is not the most accurate use of the word but I believe you understand.  It is the standard for human societies the world over with few exceptions so few as to be statistically insignificant.

No it isn't, especially in the context that you were talking about, i.e. the right to life.
The right to life is a qualified right i.e. it is not absolute, you can be killed in certain circumstances, which you gave an example of.

[LoriPinkAngel]

To the purist right to lifer you protect human life no matter the stage. 

Does this mean you are also against Capitol Punishment?  (Just this question only, let's not extend the thread to discuss.)

[screwtape]

It is the standard for human societies the world over with few exceptions so few as to be statistically insignificant.

there are about a dozen things wrong with your reasoning and this idea.  Let me pick on just a couple.

What exactly is "right to life"?  Does that include a "right to be born" and a "right to someone else's uterus"?  If it includes a "right to be born", where do you draw the line on that and why?  Because I see the logical extension of that idea leading to ova rights and sperm rights. 


I expect an actual argument, with facts, not just a regurgitation of your opinions.  I know, that's asking a lot and I am likely to be disappointed. 

[LoriPinkAngel]

Perhaps these women should volunteer their uteruses and the rest of their lives to protect these precious unborn that supposedly mean so much to them.  Put some skin in the game.

[Jag]

Assuming I understand who you are referring to when you say "conception right to lifers", I would argue that their position is the most arbitrary of all.

Why? Define the exact moment of conception, and then we can discuss it.

Well there we have to disagree, I believe that theirs is the least arbitrary.  The moment of conception a new human DNA sequence is created, uniquely human.  It is simply the least formed state of a human but it is not zebra, gecko, elephant nor plant.  Their belief is that you protect the lifes of humans no matter the stage of development.  as was so aptly stated earlier, a 1 second old baby is not fully developed nor is a 20 year old.  To the purist right to lifer you protect human life no matter the stage.  90 years old and on a respirator in a persistent vegetative state protected, born with out a brain protected, 1 second after conception protected, cerebral palsy protected, retarded with an IQ of 10 protected.  I don't agree with their standard but they believe a unique human begins at conception.  PS as does science.

Yes, I understand where forced birthers draw the line - I've yet to meet a real live purist though.

I think you misunderstood my question. "Define the moment" = when exactly does conception occur? You've presented a philosophical view, but that's not what I asked.

And for the record, feel free to expand n your PS remark - what do you mean "unique human being begins at conception"? As best I can tell, you're saying that every human is unique - I agree but don't see the relevance, nor are you presenting much of anything when you say "as does science", as if "science" is an actual entity with awareness and opinions. People express opinions, fields of study do not.

[screwtape]

Charles Pierce on the recent SCOTUS decision to eliminate the buffer zone in front of clinics

What if the sidewalk counselors decide to open-carry? And, conversely, what if a woman in Florida, attempting to enter a clinic, feels threatened by the spittle-fringed howling of the protesters? Can she Stand Her Ground and just Zimmerman the lot of them with an AR-15? Inquiring minds want to know.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Buffer_Zone_Case

[wright]

^^^Some scary, legitimate points there. Anti-choice protesters aren't the most calm, self-disciplined people around.

[screwtape]

The Rude Pundit had a good post yesterday.  He had a photo of the little church some of the anti-choice people go to.  He suggested they get a dose of their own medicine.  He suggested that church be protested like they do abortion clinics. That the parishioners be video taped, photographed, photos of them with their phone number and home address be posted on telephone poles around the area. That their sidewalk be blocked bodily, and the protesters try to council the parishioners into pro-choice positions or to leave their church.

[LoriPinkAngel]

^^^ That, I would like to see! ^^^

[screwtape]

I’ve argued this for a long time.  Abortion is not a necessary evil.  It’s great.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17216/abortion_isnt_necessary_evil_its_great_pro_choice

I never understood why pro-choice folks conceded the framework to the anti-abortion crowd by talking about abortion in hushed, solemn voices and suggesting they too wanted to make it rare. 

[LoriPinkAngel]

I am in favor of legal, safe and rare but I would also like to see the stigma removed.

[epidemic]

I’ve argued this for a long time.  Abortion is not a necessary evil.  It’s great.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17216/abortion_isnt_necessary_evil_its_great_pro_choice

I never understood why pro-choice folks conceded the framework to the anti-abortion crowd by talking about abortion in hushed, solemn voices and suggesting they too wanted to make it rare.

I don't think it should be hushed because, because that allows so many to feel they are unusual for considering having one. 

[screwtape]

I am in favor of legal, safe and rare

bold mine.  why do you add rare?  It is not that I want them to be frequent.  I have no opinion on the quantity or frequency.  I don't see the point of saying you want them to be rare.  It is like saying you want tonsilectomies to be legal, safe and rare.  I want them to be legal, safe and as frequent as they need to be.

If the anti-abortionists were willing to collaborate on programs like sex education, making birth control more available, aid for young, single mothers, etc, then I could see the sense in adding "rare" to your position.  It would signal a common ground where we could work toward a goal.  But they are not interested in that.  They want the opposite of all that. 

So why do you care if abortions are rare?  It does nothing to make them safe and legal.  It only concedes ground to the shitheels who want to end it.

[LoriPinkAngel]

If the anti-abortionists were willing to collaborate on programs like sex education, making birth control more available, aid for young, single mothers, etc, then I could see the sense in adding "rare" to your position.  It would signal a common ground where we could work toward a goal.  But they are not interested in that.  They want the opposite of all that. 

All of the above.  If they were more efficient, abortion would be a less frequent choice. I wish the common goal were possible.  Unfortunately most anti-choicers are completely unwilling.

[One Above All]

I am in favor of legal, safe and rare

bold mine.  why do you add rare?  It is not that I want them to be frequent.  I have no opinion on the quantity or frequency.  I don't see the point of saying you want them to be rare.  It is like saying you want tonsilectomies to be legal, safe and rare.  I want them to be legal, safe and as frequent as they need to be.

I know I'm not LoriPinkAngel, but I would also add "rare" to my position on abortion. My thoughts are the same as yours - I want abortions to be legal, safe, and as frequent as they want to be. However, I also want that frequency to be as small as possible (rare, if not outright non-existent, but never denied if requested and/or required). This is a conflation of a true pro-life position (someone who wants to preserve life) with a pro-choice position (someone who wants to give people freedom of choice). I don't like the idea of abortion, but I dislike the idea of restricting people's freedoms even more.

[Nam]

They only want freedom of choice for themselves, no one else.

-Nam

[epidemic]

I don't like the idea of abortion, but I dislike the idea of restricting people's freedoms even more.

Why don't you like the idea of abortion?

Personally I love abortion, abortion is a gift to humanity, I just favor restriction on it once certain easily avoided milestones are met. 

[One Above All]

Why don't you like the idea of abortion?

Like I said, it's a conflation of a true pro-life position with a pro-choice position.

[frank callaway]

I am in favor of legal, safe and rare

bold mine.  why do you add rare?  It is not that I want them to be frequent.  I have no opinion on the quantity or frequency.  I don't see the point of saying you want them to be rare.  It is like saying you want tonsilectomies to be legal, safe and rare.  I want them to be legal, safe and as frequent as they need to be.

If the anti-abortionists were willing to collaborate on programs like sex education, making birth control more available, aid for young, single mothers, etc, then I could see the sense in adding "rare" to your position.  It would signal a common ground where we could work toward a goal.  But they are not interested in that.  They want the opposite of all that. 

So why do you care if abortions are rare?  It does nothing to make them safe and legal.  It only concedes ground to the shitheels who want to end it.

do you have an opinion on abortion limits...?  or do you consider third trimester late term abortion as equal to popping the 'plan b' pill...? 

[screwtape]

do you have an opinion on abortion limits...? 

I have several.

I feel that the rights to a uterus should be limited exclusively to the owner of the uterus.  That would be the woman whose uterus it is.  Not her neighbor.  Not her husband.  Not her priest.  Not her state governor.  Not her congressman.  Definitely not Justice Antonin Scalia.  And not a fetus.

As I am sure you would feel you have an absolute right to sovereignty over your own body, so I believe she should have over hers.  So, if there is something in her uterus she wants out, out it should go.  I do not believe she should be limited by ultrasounds or waiting periods.  She should not be limited by having to drive many hours or out of state to have an abortion.  Nor should she have to endure being told lies mandated by religious zealots. 

And let's also be up front about this - third trimester abortions make up an infinitesimal fraction of all abortions and are pretty much exclusively done because the fetus is severely abnormal or because of health issues for the woman.  So I'm not at all panicked about a theoretical horde of women who are 9 months pregnant rushing out for abortions.  Nor do I think that would be a routine affair.  That is an absurd and unrealistic hypothetical concocted by people who fetishize the fetus.

I also feel an important limit would be to limit the harassment of clinic staff and patients by so-called "pro-lifers".  I feel the "pro-lifers" who do that ought to be treated as what they are - domestic terrorists.  I think they should be video taped, followed home, have their names, addresses and work places posted on the internet and have wanted posters with their faces on them platered around their community.  They should mind their own damn business, or be made social parriahs.

[frank callaway]

So I'm not at all panicked about a theoretical horde of women who are 9 months pregnant rushing out for abortions.  Nor do I think that would be a routine affair.  That is an absurd and unrealistic hypothetical concocted by people who fetishize the fetus.

why would you be panicked at all?  after all, whether late term abortions are rare or not doesn't matter.  the point is, until the fetus travels through the birth canal (and some would argue even afterwards) it is not a person, or to be more precise, it does not have the rights of "person-hood".  i get it, it's your body and your choice.  it seems pretty cut and dry to me, and i tend to agree

i do however, question the wisdom in celebrating abortion - and the video in question attempts in a weird way to do just that.  it would be the same if a loved one was injured and permanently brain dead... would you celebrate the decision to pull the plug?  i mean after all, they're not really a "person" anymore... they're just a (rather large) clump of cells with zero brain activity.  yet families agonize over this type of decision because it's a loss.  there's nothing to celebrate at the loss of what once was a loved one... just like there's nothing to celebrate over the loss of potential.  grieve, perhaps... but i see no reason to happy about it.

[screwtape]

why would you be panicked at all?

As I said, I'm not.  But the implication usually being made by people who bring up late-term abortions is that it would become some sort of routine procedure and that is supposed to freak people out.  It is often nothing more than a scare tactic intended to emotionally agitate people.  It is the same with them making much ado about "partial birth abortions".  They do everything they can to conflate a developing fetus with actual babies. 

the point is, until the fetus travels through the birth canal (and some would argue even afterwards) it is not a person, or to be more precise, it does not have the rights of "person-hood".  i get it, it's your body and your choice.  it seems pretty cut and dry to me, and i tend to agree

I'm not even saying that.  I'm saying, I don't care if it is a person, it has no rights to someone else's uterus.  That is the argument I've not heard a credible rebuttal against.  You can go back and forth all day about what makes a person a person.  And I agree, it is a sliding scale with no hard line and grey areas.  Thus, it is difficult and contentious to find a resolution everyone can live with.  Going this route, I might agree to limiting late term abortions to health issues.  But once we look at sovereignty over one's own body, it becomes a lot simpler to me and I find no grey area. 

Imagine if a small man were attached to your liver, and if disconnected he would die.  I am sure some men would agree to let him stay attached and that is fine.  That is their choice.  But would it not be absurd to argue he had right to your liver?  Accepting that argument, you could conclude that the general populace could be drafted into organ donation, against their will.

i do however, question the wisdom in celebrating abortion

Why?  Would you celebrate the polio vaccine?  MRI technology?  Other medical procedures that save lives? 

I get that it might outrage some people.  But those are people who are already against it.  They have no qualms about outraging people with whom they disagree.  Neither do they have qualms about lying, deceiving, offending, harassing, assaulting and in some cases, murdering them.  So I see push back as fair game.

Imagine if some group of religious kooks tried to make blood transfusion illegal, and they started PR campaign making transfusion seem dangerous or immoral.  Would it not be right to push back against that?  Would it be wrong to say transfusion is great?

Abortions save lives and make people's lives better. 

it would be the same if a loved one was injured and permanently brain dead... would you celebrate the decision to pull the plug?

Interesting analogy.  I do not think it is apt, though.  There is a huge emotional difference to me between someone who actually developed and I got to know and love, and someone who did not exist because he or she never developed a personality.  There was never a relationship with the latter. 

However, setting the objection aside, if there were people trying to prevent me from carrying that out - see Terri Schaivo - then yes, I think I would celebrate.  I probably would not pop a bottle of champaign, but I would be grateful for the ability to do it.  I would want my family to be able to terminate my body, if that situation arose, and move on.