Hell Meet Handbasket [Archive]

Lemur

02-07-2009, 19:56

Who the hell gets an abortion when they're almost six months into it? And what kind of doctor consents?

Meanwhile, in keeping with the theme of the OP, the guy who directed Sen. John McCain's campaign in southern Colorado has another hobby: molesting underage boys (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11637020).

Under investigation is Jeffrey Claude Bartleson, 52, who was arrested Jan. 29 and then re-arrested Wednesday after a campaign worker in the McCain office told police she believed Bartleson molested one of her sons. [...]

According to the woman, she and a co-worker were planning in October to attend a Sarah Palin rally in Colorado Springs but wanted to travel to the Springs the night before.

She told police that she mentioned the planned trip to Bartleson. He offered to keep her 5-year-old son overnight in Pueblo and then drive up to Colorado Springs the next day and meet them there.

She accepted Bartleson's offer.

The woman said that her son told her that while at Bartleson's home, Bartleson insisted on giving him a bath, during which he was sexually molested. Later, said the child, Bartleson forced him into Bartleson's bed, where he once again was molested.

In interviews this week with investigators, the child said that when he tried to get away from Bartleson, he kept pulling him back into the bed. He was finally able to leave when Bartleson fell asleep.

The child described Bartleson as "a bad man," according to the police affidavit. Asked why, the child responded, "because he does things to kids."

The Black Ship

02-07-2009, 20:14

Lemur how does your story relate to this thread?:dizzy2: Spirit of OP?

Second, she didn't even have an abortion! The baby was born...then deliberately murdered.:help:

Don Corleone

02-07-2009, 20:25

Right, and in keeping with the spirit of post #2.... Mary Jo Kopechne.... still dead:skull: , a victim of negligent homicide by the senior senator of Massachussets, Ted Kennedy.

What has that got to do with an abortion doctor having surviving fetuses thrown in the trash to die of exposure, or a woman having a 23rd week elective abortion? Ask poster #2.

Rhyfelwyr

02-07-2009, 20:29

Well never mind my religious viewpoint that's murder in anyone's book I would think. How could someone just bin a baby? :sick:

Lemur's reply was, em, unexpected. ~:confused:

Seamus Fermanagh

02-07-2009, 21:11

I believe Lemur was trying to provide an additional example of someone who should be "beaten with something heavy and blunt." Otherwise, it would make no sense.

Don Corleone

02-07-2009, 21:13

On the matter of the story, according to the coroner's report, the cause of death was technically the baby's premature state at delivery, not being sealed in a plastic bag. :dizzy2:

Reading that story made my head hurt, and honestly, my sense of logic is more offended than my sense of morality (though that too).

Which of the following statements seems the most difficult to swallow?

-That a lawsuit brought by a woman seeking an abortion over the actual death of the baby she was seeking to abort has nothing to do with money?

-That the woman didn't know that she was 23 weeks pregnant until she suffered a fall and the pregancy was determined during the course of medical treatment given for the fall.

-That the doctor knowingly and willingly advised his clinic staff to feed the patient a prescribed drug that he believed would cause her to spontaneously abort, even though there were no certified medical staff licensed to administer such a cocktail.

-That he then took over an hour to arrive (after the brouhaha of tossing the baby into a biohazard bag), and then administered a sedative and sent her on her way...

-As mentioned above, that the coroner's office found that the cause of death was not being placed in a sealed plastic bag (yeah, cause that would never hurt a newborn, it had to be the prematurity at birth).

-That the police had to search the office 3 times to find the decomposing corpse in a closet.

It's a trick question... all are absolutely unbelievable.

seireikhaan

02-07-2009, 21:16

What a mind-boggling story. Makes not an ounce of sense to me in any way.

Lemur

02-07-2009, 21:36

Lemur how does your story relate to this thread?:dizzy2: Spirit of OP?
Well, it was either post it in here or re-open the Toe-Tapping Republicans (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=92980) thread. I thought the rightwing Orgahs would appreciate it if I didn't resurrect that epic work ...

And yes, I meant that this is an example of another person who should meet with blunt force trauma sometime soon.

Carry on.

InsaneApache

02-07-2009, 21:36

BigTex

02-07-2009, 22:02

I read this earlier today and although I side with the pro-choice agenda I found this both shocking and disturbing. There are several miles between aborting a foetus and murdering a viable baby. I'm sure that the anti-abortion lobby will have a field day over this. However at the end of the day a baby died.

At the end of the day the baby was going to die either way. I think the importance is in how the baby died. Instead of a much more humane, yes I loathe to use that in reference to a baby, method the doctor cuased the woman to give birth to the child and then they suffocated it to death in a ziploc. Kitten's are killed in animal pounds in much kinder ways then this. Partial birth abortion should truly be banned, if you can't make your mind up by 6 months then give the child away for adoption, don't kill it.

As for the case, it's bundlef*****, right from the start.

InsaneApache

02-07-2009, 22:12

At the end of the day the baby was going to die either way.

Not if the clinic didn't have the equivalent of Dr. Mengele on it's staff. No. :no:

Sigurd

02-07-2009, 22:26

You guys over the pond should get a real abortion law.
It's time to lay down the battleaxe on both sides of the pro-anti fence and compromise.

23 weeks? I am glad this guy got sued and lost his licence. :no:

Crazed Rabbit

02-07-2009, 22:50

This, of course, is much too restrictive for Obama's tastes, which is why he wants to pass the 'Freedom of Choice Act' that, IIRC, removes almost all laws against abortion.

CR

Lemur

02-07-2009, 23:03

Quote right, Crazed Rabbit. Why, I hear that Obama plans to kill fetuses personally in the White House just to prove his point.

Have a gander at Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/choice.asp), and see if it matches what you heard on talk radio. So far as I've heard, the only action our current Prez has taken was to reverse some Bush restrictions on funding groups that dare to provide information about abortion (as well as groups that actually provide abortions, a more understandable ban).

It would be so much easier to reach a compromise on this issue if the extremists on both sides would just calm down a little. Yes, Roe needs to be overturned. But we need to have an alternative structure ready before that's going to be palatable to a majority of Americans.

Anwyay.

Crazed Rabbit

02-07-2009, 23:41

The text. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01964:@@@D&summ2=m&)

Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

Barack Himself; (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8)

"The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

Oh, he was a co-sponser too. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN01173:@@@P)

So, the current situation on abortion in this country is viewed as being too restrictive by Obama, who wants to pass a law granting more legal protections to abortion.

CR

Lemur

02-07-2009, 23:44

Friend, you didn't originally say "more legal protections to abortion." You said "removes almost all laws against abortion," which I think you will agree is debatable.

Answer me this: Given political reality in this country, how would you approach minimizing abortion? Would anything short of a total ban appease you?

Crazed Rabbit

02-08-2009, 00:09

Friend, you didn't originally say "more legal protections to abortion." You said "removes almost all laws against abortion," which I think you will agree is debatable.
Not really;

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Answer me this: Given political reality in this country, how would you approach minimizing abortion? Would anything short of a total ban appease you?

Spread the word about the possibility of adoption, outlaw abortion after 4 months (or so), except when the life (NOT health) of a woman is directly in danger.

CR

Don Corleone

02-08-2009, 00:22

F.O.C.A. will require all hosptials, public and private, to perform abortions. It will also include abortion under medicaid. It will end all 3rd trimester elective restrictions, it will end pre-procedural counseling and it will end any parental notification laws. You can't have a baby aspirin at age 17 without your parents' signature, but you can get a 3rd trimester abortion at age 11? Does that seem reasonable to you?

I am hardly the poster child of the pro-Life movement. I do not believe that outlawing abortion is the best way to end the practice, and I would prefer to seek alternate methods to end the practice, those which address the demand side of the equation (a demand which continues to grow, year after year despite promises it would ebb).

But this piece of legislation is an abomination. It will serve to increase the divisiveness on the issue, and while it may temporarily strengthen the abortionists position, it will infuse new blood and energy into a whole new generation of a pro-life movement, its ranks swelled by people who ask themselves why it had to come to this and there could be no compromise.

Don Corleone

02-08-2009, 00:58

I just posted a pretty strong stance without links to back it up. So, let's see what that right-wing think tank, Slate.com (http://www.slate.com/id/2205326/) has to say. And here, Senator Boxer, one of the Senatorial Sponsors, boasts on her website (http://boxer.senate.gov/news/releases/record.cfm?id=217321) the very list of woes I list in my previous post.

You know, trusting my own faculties, I've always sort of waffled on this issue, abortion on demand. I've had something of a nuanced position, that allows it as an elective procedure, somewhere around viability. Seemed reasonable to me....

But on the one side, my Catholic faith tells me that I'm wrong in this position, that life in fact begins at conception (for the record, it is 'life' that is the fundamental qualifier for me, I see no reason for rape/incest provisions, once 'life' has begun).

On the other side, advocates declare me to be anti-choice. They say the fact that I don't support a woman's so-called right to choose in the 37th week as proof of my misogyny and dedication to a patriarchal system (not necessarily in the Backroom, but it happens).

So, I'm left with a choice, and my choice of in-between is clearly a false one. There is no middle ground on this issue. It will always be an all or none affair. Either you're pro-life, or you have to oppose parental notification laws, you oppose partial-birth-abortion bans, you must seek to end 'conscience clauses' and basically go all the way with the rabid pro-choice side.

Given the choice of one extreme or the other, in light of the strong urging of my church, I'm going to have to mold my position and go all the way pro-life. It is consistent with my opposition to the death penalty, it is consistent with my belief in the Just War theory, and most of all, it is, I believe, consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. I have tried to convince myself that i could justify a partial pro-choice position to Jesus on the basis of my efforts to end abortion have been more practically, less legally focused. I don't know that that would fly.

I do know that when I've chosen hubris, and declared I know more than the summa theologica of the Catholic Church in the past, I have regretted it. I therefore now completely submit myself to the teachings of the church and adopt their position as stated: only when the life or extreme physical health of the mother is in jeoprady. I am, from this moment forward, completely pro-life in my position, as articulated by the American Council of Bishops.

Lemur

02-08-2009, 02:30

There is no middle ground on this issue.
Europe seems to have found a more tenable place than we have.

Crazed Rabbit

02-08-2009, 02:38

Yes, but Europe doesn't have a bunch of people (and a President) who believe that our very lax abortion laws are way too restrictive and need immediate loosening.

CR

Lemur

02-08-2009, 02:49

Europe lacks the general fury and red-faced anger that we have on both sides of the abortion divide.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-08-2009, 03:26

Europe seems to have found a more tenable place than we have.

From Wiki:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png

rasoforos

02-08-2009, 09:10

According to the suit, Williams, then 18, discovered while being treated for a fall that she was 23 weeks pregnant.

Sex ed people...so we dont have to end up with such incidents.

Lemur

02-08-2009, 15:04

Interesting thoughts (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/09/00020/) about the pro-life movement:

In addition to these internal contradictions and turf battles, pro-lifers are stymied by a complicated, perhaps abusive, relationship with Republicans. The putatively pro-life party hasn’t delivered the goods. Shaun Kenney, the executive director of American Life League, complains, “We had a Republican White House and Republican Congress and the government is still funding Planned Parenthood? After Bush picked Harriet Miers, his popularity never got above 40 percent because he promised pro-life judges.” He insists that pro-lifers are committed to only one goal: “The sole issue is this: we want abortion ended. That’s it. All other issues boil down to practical insignificance.” [...]

At 36 years old, the pro-life movement is still energetic and indignant—and trapped. Every year of Republican rule has increased the suspicion that pro-lifers are the GOP’s useful idiots. Planned Parenthood still received federal dollars, and Congress never stripped courts of their ability to overturn parental notification and conscience laws. A human life amendment was ditched for Social Security reform. And just one year of unified Democratic rule in the federal government may undo a generation of small victories for the movement’s incrementalists at all levels.

Don Corleone

02-08-2009, 17:24

So, I guess your point Lemur is that the pro-Life side shouldn't necessarily adhere to the Republican party?

True enough. This may surprise you, due to the hostility they receive in their respective caucuses and the gags they suffer as the price of admitance, but the Democratic party has a fairly large pro-life minority:

Democrats for Life (http://www.democratsforlife.org/)

In fact, I would argue that when you remove Continuity for Life issues (euthanasia, abortion) and defense of traditional marriage, the Roman Catholic church, especially in America, is actually rather progressive on social and economic issues, as evidenced during the immigration debates in 2005 & 2006. In fact, one of the most ardent opponents of capital punishment, in the United States and around the world, has been the Roman Catholic Church.

But that's a lot like saying other than the engine and the transmission, an automobile could be classified as a high-performance model. The issue of abortion and the defense especially supercedes all other contemporary social justice issues for the Church. The right to life is paramount, then you address the right to dignity and quality of life.

In order for Democrats to make a solid appeal to anybody of a pro-life bend, or even more moderate pro-choice folks for that matter, they have to do more than pay lip service to making abortion less common, and they absolutely must drop their more vitriolic demands, such as elective abortions allowable until the 39th week, as with FOCA.

But I see them going the other way on this issue. Following the cue of the Republicans in 2000, the party is being dominated by its extremes. One of the problems with big political wins is that they breed arrogance, and a belief that mandates exist for the most extreme platform positions. In other words, the moderates get shafted and migrate to the minority party, who are only too happy to promise that "this time it will be different, and once they get back into power, they'll follow a broad platform of inclusion". Later, rinse, and repeat every eight to twelve years.

Don Corleone

02-08-2009, 17:25

According to the suit, Williams, then 18, discovered while being treated for a fall that she was 23 weeks pregnant.

Sex ed people...so we dont have to end up with such incidents.

You don't really believe she didn't know, do you? I've got a Nigerian friend who needs help transferring some of his family's wealth out of the country...can you give him a ring?

InsaneApache

02-08-2009, 19:46

The problem with making it illegal, as in all prohibition, is that you can't make laws that do no take into account human nature. All that will happen is that the women will be forced to go to some seedy backstreet abortionist and expose herself to infection or even death.

This is one of, if not the main reason that it was legalised in the UK back in 1967.

I can't for the life of me understand the mindset that thinks that just making things illegal will make it go away. It's an imperfect world we live in and always was.

Don Corleone

02-08-2009, 19:54

If all you do is make it illegal, IA, you're absolutely correct. I think Prohibition showed us once and for all just how well that works. You have to address both sides of the equation, the demand side and supply side. In other words, setting aside the legality for a second, wouldn't eliminating the need for abortions unless they actually are physically necessary, be a good thing in and of itself? Is society somehow better served by elective abortion in ways that no alternative can adequately address?

That's why I say that anybody who is truly pro-Life cannot have been opposed to The Pregnant Woman Support Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnant_Women_Support_Act)

Crazed Rabbit

02-08-2009, 19:57

Who the hell gets an abortion when they're almost six months into it? And what kind of doctor consents?

I was thinking more of this question, and I realized the answer; an abortion 'doctor'.

Its not meant to be a trite answer. What kind of person, who went to medical school and learned how to make people well, would agree to do this, and then do it so recklessly?

Does this action, unfathomable to us, not provide an insight into the mind of an abortion provider?

I can't for the life of me understand the mindset that thinks that just making things illegal will make it go away. It's an imperfect world we live in and always was.

Noone wanting to ban abortion is under the delusion that it will simply go away even if it was banned. But it is an evil action, scornful of God's gift of life. Like murder, it is important that we fight against it, even if we never remove it completely.

CR

Papewaio

02-09-2009, 02:21

I don't think this is the equivalent of an early term abortion (particularly of an unhealthy fetus).

This is more like the cases of Dr's that injure patients or cut off healthy limbs when the patient wants to be an amputee.

Making a grab-bag of cases misses the nuances and does not advance the argument. Nor does citing God give any leeway in law in a secular society over those who do not practice that code. I don't think a Trekker has the right to decide what I do any more then any other code of practice. At the same time if they want to believe in something that is their choice.

So until we make religion a mandatory choice (and not of your choosing which one is imposed on us), I won't be making abortion a mandatory thing for or against. Personal choice is where it is in a secular society. What I disagree with is not taking responsibility for ones choices and living with them. Unless the woman can prove she was not of sound mind and that the 'Dr' was taking advantage of that, then the woman should not be able to sue first

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-09-2009, 02:26

Papewaio, that stance ignores the secular pro-life group. By identifying all pro-lifers with a religious standpoint, you are ignoring the portion of pro-lifers that either have a religion and do not base their pro-life views upon it, or have no religion.

Papewaio

02-09-2009, 03:50

"I don't think a Trekker has the right to decide what I do any more then any other code of practice. "

Religion, Cult, Paganist Scientology, Science Fiction Fanboy... whatever you choose to believe in does not mean that others should have to follow that belief nor should you be stopped from being allowed to believe in it. I just don't think one persons thought system should be used to make decisions for another person, particularly for highly personal choices.

But there is a lot of common ground and we shouldn't just say we have a laissez-faire belief system. For one I think all should 'suck it up' when it is their actions that cause the consequences. Nor do I agree with late term abortions.

ICantSpellDawg

02-09-2009, 04:22

FOCA will not pass the House or the Senate. In fact, Obama most likely dreads the idea that it could. I'm sure that he claims support inthe right circles but secretly works to undermine the bill being brought to the table.

There is absolutely no consensus for it and it would absolutely undermine his stature in the eyes of the pro-lifers who crossed the aisle to get him elected. Like it or not, but pro-lifers who feigned ignorance were the tipping block. Like it or not, a large part of his pro-Obama constituency if pro-life - in marked contrast to many other Democratic politicians and his previous government positions.

Sigurd

02-09-2009, 10:09

The US should make a compromise ASAP. Continuing this anti-pro abortion spectacle will only result in the continuance of late term abortions. Make the compromise first and then continue the debate second.

Here is an example of a compromise that could be implemented:

Self determined abortion for women older than 16 (under age need parental consent) inside the first 12 pregnancy weeks.
After 12 weeks the decision is left with a committee, if one of the following criterias is met:

Danger to the woman's physical or psychological health.
The woman is in a difficult life situation
Great risk of the child having a serious illness (eugenic indication).
The pregnancy is the result of rape or incest
The mother having a serious physical or psychological illness.

After 18 weeks abortion is illegal unless aggravating weighty reasons dictates otherwise.
If the fetus is considered capable of living, no consent can be given (normally from 23 weeks).

However, if it can be determined that the mother will die as a result of the pregnancy, a termination can be performed at any stage during the pregnancy. Read: if the fetus is considered capable of living, the hospitals should do everything in their power to help the child survive.

Also ... abortion clinics should not be allowed to perform pregnancy terminations on mothers after 12 pregnancy weeks. Only hospitals should perform such terminations.

Fisherking

02-09-2009, 12:34

Banquo's Ghost

02-09-2009, 13:01

Not a bad plan!

But you must know that neither side is listening...:skull:

I think one needs to understand that at least from the pro-life side, it is very hard for them to "listen" to compromise.

If one's stance is based on the principle that life begins at conception, then there cannot be compromise on which semester may be allowable. Abortion is murder, by definition, for them. To compromise on this would be to betray the very heart of their position. As EMFM notes, this does not have to arise from a religious position.

To ask for compromise is to have them accept "fewer" murders. This is, quite rightly, extremely difficult and challenges what informs an ethical belief.

I think of it as a parallel to my own view of torture, for example. It would be akin to asking me to accept that waterboarding is legal in order to reduce the use of strappado. This would be anathema to me as all torture is repugnant to my ethical beliefs. Would I be prepared to accept this compromise as a stepping stone? Or would I believe that to do so would institutionalise torture as a principle and be left merely arguing degree?

Of course, it's not an exact parallel since the essence of the abortion debate is the precedence of rights for two individuals - and when one of those becomes an individual with rights.

The abortion debate is a challenging one and one needs to understand from where one's opponents are deriving their position. Compromise sounds good, until one comes up against ethics.

LittleGrizzly

02-09-2009, 13:15

I think that is part of the problem for pro-choicers in america, because a large part of the people on the pro-life side of the debate can't really compromise because of thier ethics. It means that a lot of pro-choicers get a 'draw a line in the sand' mentality, they worry about a slippery slope making abortion completely illegal unless they keep it as a right under roe vs wade, if they start to legislate on the matter they fear it will become more and more strict until even health concerns or a rape wouldn't allow them an abortion...

Its probably the Democrats that need to make this happen, if the republicans were to try to do something on the matter a lot of pro-choicers would be very worried about the situation, wereas the majority of pro-choicers would be more trusting of democrat legislation on the matter...

Lemur

02-09-2009, 14:17

I think of it as a parallel to my own view of torture, for example. It would be akin to asking me to accept that waterboarding is legal in order to reduce the use of strappado.
A useful comparison. If tens of thousands of people were being waterboarded each year, and the Supreme Court had ruled that torture us a protected right that cannot be abridged by State or Federal law, how would you feel? Wouldn't a good-faith offer to lower the number of torture sessions performed each year be appealing, at least worthy of consideration?

Or would you turn up your nose and spurn the people who made such an offer?

Speaking of which, I remain unconvinced (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/04/barack-obama-pro-life-president/) that President Obama is an embryo-hating death lover who watches videos of botched abortions as he falls to sleep.

Obama hinted at this in the statement that accompanied his order rescinding the Mexico City policy: "It is time we end the politicization of this issue. In the coming weeks, my Administration will initiative a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world." At the time, I heard a lot of scoffing from conservatives who read this as just talk. It seems, however, that the president is ready to move ahead on this issue more quickly than most people on either side expected.

Sigurd

02-09-2009, 14:20

I don't know If I was clear enough.
Make the compromise now and get the law in place.
Then, when this is done, resume the debate. Win the war by conquering ground piece by piece.

The way it is now both camps think they can win the war with one battle.
It is a stalemate and babies capable of living are allowed to die and will continue to die.
Sorry, but I can't see the logic being entrenched here.

Don Corleone

02-09-2009, 14:30

A useful comparison. If tens of thousands of people were being waterboarded each year, and the Supreme Court had ruled that torture us a protected right that cannot be abridged by State or Federal law, how would you feel? Wouldn't a good-faith offer to lower the number of torture sessions performed each year be appealing, at least worthy of consideration?

Or would you turn up your nose and spurn the people who made such an offer?

Speaking of which, I remain unconvinced (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/04/barack-obama-pro-life-president/) that President Obama is an embryo-hating death lover who watches videos of botched abortions as he falls to sleep.

Obama hinted at this in the statement that accompanied his order rescinding the Mexico City policy: "It is time we end the politicization of this issue. In the coming weeks, my Administration will initiative a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world." At the time, I heard a lot of scoffing from conservatives who read this as just talk. It seems, however, that the president is ready to move ahead on this issue more quickly than most people on either side expected.

Isn't that political speak for "I won, you lost, now shut up and quit bringing it up"?

Lemur

02-09-2009, 14:31

It can mean that, if you want it to.

-edit-

P.S.: Why do you quote four paragraphs when you intend to ignore everything but once sentence? Teacher's gonna give you demerits for untidiness.

InsaneApache

02-09-2009, 14:48

You yanks need a David Steel.

Don Corleone

02-09-2009, 14:59

It can mean that, if you want it to.

-edit-

P.S.: Why do you quote four paragraphs when you intend to ignore everything but once sentence? Teacher's gonna give you demerits for untidiness.

I was going to post more, but had to drop it, I need to get to work. I was going to say "safe, legal and rare" has been a Democratic mantra for some time. And yet, I've never heard of subsidizing an activity to make it rare.

Lemur

02-09-2009, 15:12

So if I were to inform you that abortions are now being performed at the lowest rate since 1976 (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/17/number_of_abortions_lowest_in_decades/), that would be completely uninteresting to you?

"It could be more women using contraception and not having as many unintended pregnancies. It could be more restrictions on abortions, making it more difficult for women to obtain abortion services. It could be a combination of these and other dynamics," said Rachel Jones of the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research organization publishing the report in the March issue of the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health.

Whatever the reasons, the trend was welcomed by both antiabortion and abortion rights advocates.

"This study shows that prevention works, and that's what we provide in our health centers every day," said Cecile Richard of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "At the end of the day, Americans of all stripes believe that we need to do more to prevent unintended pregnancy and make healthcare affordable and accessible."

"It's still a massive number, but it's moving in the right direction," said Randall O'Bannon of the National Right to Life Committee. He said that at least some of the drop may reflect changing attitudes.

"Even look at Hollywood," said O'Bannon, citing the hit movie, "Juno," about a pregnant teenager who decides against abortion. "More and more people are starting to reconsider their positions."

But if I had nothing to go on your rhetoric, good Don, I would believe the opposite. After all, a subsidized activity will grow no matter what, correct? By which logic, not only should abortions be more popular than ever, but people should be actively seeking to be infected with HIV, since there are so many subsidized treatments.

Honestly. When young people are getting frisky, it's hard enough to get them to think about pregnancy, much less about whether or not a potential abortion would be subsidized. Just getting them to either (a) avoid vaginal intercourse and/or (b) wear a freakin' condom is difficult enough.

rasoforos

02-10-2009, 10:43

You don't really believe she didn't know, do you? I've got a Nigerian friend who needs help transferring some of his family's wealth out of the country...can you give him a ring?

And I have a lot of religiously conservative 'friends' who have answered 'god sends them' when their children asked about 'how kids are made'...

...search the net and you will be surprised.

This is a hilarious example -->

...http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120309,00.html...

You do not have to be sarcastic to your answers. I do not know whether she knew or not, she probably did. I just know there are a lot of religious teenagers whose idea of procreation is angel Gabriel giving you a lily flower and I bet good money they would have no idea why their period stopped.

Andres

02-10-2009, 14:11

I think one needs to understand that at least from the pro-life side, it is very hard for them to "listen" to compromise.

If one's stance is based on the principle that life begins at conception, then there cannot be compromise on which semester may be allowable. Abortion is murder, by definition, for them. To compromise on this would be to betray the very heart of their position. As EMFM notes, this does not have to arise from a religious position.

Thanks for the informative post Banquo :bow:

It made me wonder what the "pro-life stance" on euthanasia and death penalty is. Does being "pro-life" also mean that you're against those two as well, no matter what situation you're in? How about waging war? Surely, the "pro-life" movement is against any form of waging war? Or having a gun and using it on somebody who is tresspassing on your property?

Or is this movement only "pro-life" when it comes to abortion?

In short: how consequent is this so-called "pro-life" movement?

Life is life and taking a life, is taking a life. If you're against abortion because you deem life sacred, then you should be against all forms of deliberately taking a life, including waging war and death penalty.

Or am I missing something?

As for my own position on abortion : Sigurd's compromise sums up my stance on the matter pretty well, with the nuance that I sincerely hope that my wife and me would never come into a position where we would have to consider abortion an option (great risk of the child having a terrible condition, danger for the life of the mother, rape).

Don Corleone

02-10-2009, 14:37

Thanks for the informative post Banquo :bow:

It made me wonder what the "pro-life stance" on euthanasia and death penalty is. Does being "pro-life" also mean that you're against those two as well, no matter what situation you're in? How about waging war? Surely, the "pro-life" movement is against any form of waging war? Or having a gun and using it on somebody who is tresspassing on your property?

Or is this movement only "pro-life" when it comes to abortion?

In short: how consequent is this so-called "pro-life" movement?

Life is life and taking a life, is taking a life. If you're against abortion because you deem life sacred, then you should be against all forms of deliberately taking a life, including waging war and death penalty.

Or am I missing something?

As for my own position on abortion : Sigurd's compromise sums up my stance on the matter pretty well, with the nuance that I sincerely hope that my wife and me would never come into a position where we would have to consider abortion an option (great risk of the child having a terrible condition, danger for the life of the mother, rape).

You're talking about what's known as a Consistent Ethic of Life, Andres. And many people do in fact ascribe to it. But in your description of it, you're painting with a really broad brush.

A Consistent Life Ethic does not necessarily require a complete and utter disavowal of all forms of violence, and it does not require that you value the lives of others more than your own.

It states that the violence itself cannot be the end, and that any ills incurred in the act of violence (a dead rapist/muderer laying at the foot of your stairs) must be outweighed by the the good achieved (4 innocent people calling the police to report the death of the home-invader). Similarly, the goal of WWII was not to kill Nazis and Imperial Japanese. It was to resist their tyranny and barbaric acts.

Whether things like the Just War Theory allow for things such as pre-emptive strikes, such as the invasion of Iraq, is debateable, but I would say no, it does not.

It's hard to say in a stiuation like what's brewing in Iran. One day, I estimate about 3 years from now, the Iranians are going to share the results of a nuclear test, proving that they indeed have the capability to detonate a nuclear device. At which time, they will tell the Israelis they have 6 months to go the USA, Europe, South America... anyplace outside the Islamic world, and if they do not comply, they will launch.

Now, in that circumstance... It's difficult to say what a moral course of action. On the one hand, Iran could be bluffing. In all likelihood, they probably will be. They probably have no intentions of launching a first strike against Israel. The trouble is, by the time you know they're not, it will be too late.

Andres

02-10-2009, 14:49

So, being pro-life does leave room for exceptions/compromise when generally speaking about life being sacred?

But not when it comes to abortion? And euthanasia?

English assassin

02-10-2009, 14:58

If one's stance is based on the principle that life begins at conception,

I've never really understood this.

Clearly, in a sense, a fertilised egg is alive. So is any other cell in your body. Neither a zygote nor any other cell in your body is able to survive without the very specific context of being surrounded by the rest of a human body.

Obviously its the potential that the zygote could grow into a human (excuse me, a fully developed human) that catches the eye, but, again, I can't really see why that demands that particular cell be given special protection. Unless you believe in souls, (which I don't) but even then, I am not sure where we get the idea that a soul must be associated with each and every zygote. Do the ones that fail to implant also have souls? Are we going to meet a lot of people in heaven who we have never seen before because they ..., no, OK, that rhetorical question was about to cross the bounds of decency.

Couldn't a soul be, I don't know, like language or intelligence or anything else that develops? In other words, also merely potential?

It's hard to say in a stiuation like what's brewing in Iran. One day, I estimate about 3 years from now, the Iranians are going to share the results of a nuclear test, proving that they indeed have the capability to detonate a nuclear device. At which time, they will tell the Israelis they have 6 months to go the USA, Europe, South America... anyplace outside the Islamic world, and if they do not comply, they will launch.

OT but I'd give the Iranian government 48 hours before their own people hang them from lamposts if they try that. Iranians are just normal people with bad government. We've had practice empathising with other nations which have recently had that predicament....... :beam:

Now, how about gun control? :clown:

Seamus Fermanagh

02-10-2009, 15:44

So, being pro-life does leave room for exceptions/compromise when generally speaking about life being sacred?

But not when it comes to abortion? And euthanasia?

The Catholic Church takes a consistently pro-life stance. This derives from the belief that life is a sacred gift that begins at the moment of conception This includes opposition to abortion, opposition to euthanasia, and opposition to the death penalty. The Church deplores violence, but does not condemn its use in the defense of self, family or the innocent, even if that use of violence results in death. The Church takes a strictly defensive interpretation of such violence -- as in direct defense, no vengeance or pre-emption.

I suspect that, even for the unchurched, that position (aside from life starting at conception) is fairly representative of many of those who post here.

Warfare, and what constitutes the proper limits of "defense," do muddy the waters a bit.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-10-2009, 19:38

So, being pro-life does leave room for exceptions/compromise when generally speaking about life being sacred?

Andres, I could apply the same logic to the pro-choice side. If pro-choice activists are often on the left, then I could say that pro-choice logic is flawed because they oppose, for example, the right to choose whether to own firearms. In truth, both names have contradictions when applied to other issues. There are, of course, those with consistent ethics on both, as pointed out above.

There are also arguments for a pro-lifer being able to support the death penalty, but I shall leave that to someone else.

Don Corleone

02-10-2009, 19:42

So, being pro-life does leave room for exceptions/compromise when generally speaking about life being sacred?

But not when it comes to abortion? And euthanasia?

You're speaking about a broad spectrum of opinion as though it were homogenous. Neither the American Pro-Life nor the Pro-Choice side is homogeneous, so it's difficult for me to answer your question in a yes-no fashion.

First of all, you're using one word 'abortion' to describe several different phenomenon. Do you mean elective/selective abortion or a procedure meant to secure the health/life of the mother that happens to result in the termination of the pregnancy. They're not the same thing.

I cannot speak to the pro-life position as a whole, because it's a wide swath of positions. But I can say that even the Catholic church recongnizes the need for some procedures that terminate pregnancies in order to secure the health of the mother, as the termination of the pregnancy is a consequence, not a goal, of the procedure.

I can't speak with certainty to the willingness of NOW or NARAL of the Democratic National Party platform committee, i.e. the pro-choice side to compromise, but I believe they view the right to abortion at any time, under any circumstances, as unsasailable, and therefore are not open to compromise.

I assumed when you used the term compromise you meant both sides, right? :wink:

Andres

02-10-2009, 21:32

You're speaking about a broad spectrum of opinion as though it were homogenous. Neither the American Pro-Life nor the Pro-Choice side is homogeneous, so it's difficult for me to answer your question in a yes-no fashion.

First of all, you're using one word 'abortion' to describe several different phenomenon. Do you mean elective/selective abortion or a procedure meant to secure the health/life of the mother that happens to result in the termination of the pregnancy. They're not the same thing.

I cannot speak to the pro-life position as a whole, because it's a wide swath of positions. But I can say that even the Catholic church recongnizes the need for some procedures that terminate pregnancies in order to secure the health of the mother, as the termination of the pregnancy is a consequence, not a goal, of the procedure.

I can't speak with certainty to the willingness of NOW or NARAL of the Democratic National Party platform committee, i.e. the pro-choice side to compromise, but I believe they view the right to abortion at any time, under any circumstances, as unsasailable, and therefore are not open to compromise.

I assumed when you used the term compromise you meant both sides, right? :wink:

Hey, I'm Belgian, our only absolute is to always find a compromise ~;)

I'm as opposed to complete freedom of choice as in "be allowed to have an abortion in the 37th week, because, eh, hm, well, just because!" as I am to a "no against abortion, no matter what the circumstances"-stance.

Would the pro-life people be able to accept the compromise as proposed by Sigurd?

Don Corleone

02-10-2009, 21:49

Hey, I'm Belgian, our only absolute is to always find a compromise ~;)

I'm as opposed to complete freedom of choice as in "be allowed to have an abortion in the 37th week, because, eh, hm, well, just because!" as I am to a "no against abortion, no matter what the circumstances"-stance.

Would the pro-life people be able to accept the compromise as proposed by Sigurd?

I don't think so. I think most people that call themselves 'pro-life' would have to remove the elctivity/selectivty of it. I think there is a large disparity between those who say no under any circumstances and those who say no unless the health/life of the mother is at stake, but I have no idea what the relative numbers are.

As Banquo stated above, it really stems from when life begins. Conception, viablity, birth... basically nobody advocates murder. It's all a matter of when people believe that a life begins, and therefore, should be afforded protection. The folks on the pro-life side believe that moment is conception. People on the pro-choice side (here in America) believe it's birth. Most Europeans seem to believe it follows on closely with viability, as per Sigurd's proposed compromise.

Lemur

02-10-2009, 23:34

It's worth noting that the only method of birth control condoned by the Catholic Church (the rhythm method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm_Method)) is believed to work due to spontaneous miscarriage. In other words, an egg may very well be fertilized, but because of the timing it won't be likely to take hold inside the female.

So even the "life begins at conception" side of the fence engages in a bit of a fudge. (And by its own reckoning, allows some babies to be killed.)

I suppose Banquo boiled it down to its essence: When do you believe life begins? (Which leads to all sorts of interesting questions, such as "What does it mean to be alive?")