PDA

View Full Version : Why it a crime to kill a fetus ... deleted



Sam F
06-05-2012, 08:27 AM
Fabulous! The original thread was deleted and I find that hilarious - which is quite a feat given the topic!

Therein we found proborts embracing failure after failure.
Failure to object to the selective killing of girl - known as gendercide.
Failure to understand that inconsistent laws are disastrous to the public's respect for the law.
Success in insisting that such inconsistency (i.e. killing babies deliberately is not the same as killing babies deliberately) thereby proving the howling irrationality at the heart of the proabort ideology... sorry that's a fail too. ;)
And let's not forget the utter failure of the troll in utterly misunderstanding the basic facts of genetics and embryology (and, last time I checked, the failure of better educated proaborts to correct him/her/reptile).

All in all a miserable performance.
I don't blame brad for deleting the entire deplorable spectacle - though, darn it, it was great fun! :D

pefjr
06-05-2012, 09:22 AM
I don't blame brad for deleting the entire deplorable spectacle - though, darn it, it was great fun! :DSo... it was not poofed?

Peerie Maa
06-05-2012, 09:31 AM
Al though my software does not show deleted threads some (many) of you can see the difference.
Any one know what provoked it's being pulled?

Chris Coose
06-05-2012, 09:37 AM
A classic Catholic orgasm.

TomF
06-05-2012, 09:39 AM
...I don't blame brad for deleting the entire deplorable spectacle - though, darn it, it was great fun! :DI must say, I didn't even open the thread in question ... so I can only imagine how deplorable a spectacle it was.

Say, can this be a thread about deplorable spectacles? That would be "great fun!"
http://www.highsnobiety.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/linda-farrow-bernhard-wilhelm-ss09-sunglasses-front.jpg

Arizona Bay
06-05-2012, 09:41 AM
I'm not sure.... but the sense I get is that the ONLY reason for this thread, and this post, is to clearly demonstrate your utter contempt for those with opinions other than your own.

You did a good job of it.... although it's not as if we didn't already KNOW that.

It seems that in some religious cults, contempt for differing opinions is considered a virtue.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oLqzv_EEk-Y/ToOe_PfmIhI/AAAAAAAAAKA/zbW8AQORBNg/s320/beyonce_sunglasses000x0400x446.jpg
OMFG :p

pefjr
06-05-2012, 09:42 AM
I'm not sure.... but the sense I get is that the ONLY reason for this thread, and this post, is to clearly demonstrate your utter contempt for those with opinions other than your own.

No,... not really, that is what you are guilty of with your barrage of political threads. This issue has some importance attached to it, and it reaches down into the heart.

Ian McColgin
06-05-2012, 09:54 AM
pefjr, you need to see distinctions. Norm's many C&P's are perhaps provocative and informative. They are not at all like the set of self-congratulatory ad hominem falsehoods of this thread's OP.

If Brad was indeed a troll for the Pro Life side, as SamF could imply with his indefinate reference, he may well have closed the thread because SamF's remarks were embarrassing.

We won't know the reason for the closing unless Brad tells us, but there were a number of posts that, unlike SamF's all-purpose denigration of anything remotely "pro-life" and his concomitant refusal to address the overt question of Brad's OP, actually summarized the history of various feticide laws in the US.

pefjr
06-05-2012, 10:37 AM
If Brad was indeed a troll for the Pro Life side, as SamF could imply with his indefinate reference, he may well have closed the thread because SamF's remarks were embarrassing.

We won't know the reason for the closing unless Brad tells us, but there were a number of posts that, unlike SamF's all-purpose denigration of anything remotely "pro-life" and his concomitant refusal to address the overt question of Brad's OP, actually summarized the history of various feticide laws in the US.

If Brad closed his thread, that is his privilege to do so. I am curious though, and as yet we don't know the answer to whether it was poofed or deleted. I do see some important issues and would like to see the question(sex selected abortion) Sam has asked , discussed, orderly of course.

BrianW
06-05-2012, 10:43 AM
Ah, but the original, original thread still exists....

Y Bar Ranch
06-05-2012, 10:51 AM
Al though my software does not show deleted threads some (many) of you can see the difference.
Any one know what provoked it's being pulled?

Who is Al?

Ian McColgin
06-05-2012, 11:18 AM
On my computer the thread shows as removed by Brad.

Peerie Maa
06-05-2012, 11:24 AM
Who is Al?
Are you channeling Donn again, time for the bell book and candle methinks.

pefjr
06-05-2012, 11:42 AM
On my computer the thread shows as removed by Brad.thanks

Horace
06-05-2012, 01:01 PM
Al though my software does not show deleted threads some (many) of you can see the difference.
Any one know what provoked it's being pulled?


Who is Al?


Are you channeling Donn again, time for the bell book and candle methinks.
Actually, Nick, my reaction, as well, to that first sentence was "Who the heck is Al?," followed quickly by the realization that is was an uncharacteristic (for you) typo.

But it illustrates, in a very small way, why lack of attention to spelling, grammar, and punctuation can be so frustrating when one tries, in good faith, to decipher the offerings of many posters to this forum. (The exception, of course, is bobbys--may he never change!)

And as for excommunication by bell, book, and candle? Gollocks. ;)

2MeterTroll
06-05-2012, 01:07 PM
I do love a happy ending! poor sam you just cant get it through your head you are wrong.

Tom Montgomery
06-05-2012, 01:21 PM
Fabulous! The original thread was deleted and I find that hilarious....

I never opened the original thread and so have no idea why Brad decided to delete it.

You find the deletion to be hilarious. I find your sense of hilarity to often be strange.

I suspect Brad was not nearly as amused.

Y Bar Ranch
06-05-2012, 01:21 PM
Are you channeling Donn again, time for the bell book and candle methinks.
What is a bell book?




|:)

Tom Montgomery
06-05-2012, 01:46 PM
The phrase "bell, book, and candle" refers to a method of excommunication for one who had committed a particularly grievous sin

Apparently introduced around the late 9th century, the practice was once used by the Catholic Church; in modern times, a simple pronouncement is made.

This ceremony involved a bishop, with 12 priests, reciting an oath on the altar: "We separate him, together with his accomplices and abettors, from the precious body and blood of the Lord and from the society of all Christians; we exclude him from our Holy Mother, the Church in Heaven, and on earth; we declare him excommunicate and anathema; we judge him damned, with the Devil and his angels and all the reprobate, to eternal fire until he shall recover himself from the toils of the devil and return to amendment and to penitence."

After reciting this the priests would respond "So be it!" The bishop would ring a bell to evoke a death toll, close a holy book to symbolize the ex-communicant's separation from the church, and snuff out a candle or candles, knocking them to the floor to represent the target's soul being extinguished and removed from the light of God.

pefjr
06-05-2012, 01:53 PM
Getting back to the question in my mind that Sam brought up. Is sex selection termination a moral issue for all mankind to consider? An issue that women will let us men have a say in, or is it as Skipper and Meli say, "it's my body to do with as I please, no matter the reason? Has society made a mistake by giving the female sex the power to control the sex of our future children? What about the doctor performing the act, is he/she free from responsibility or guilt? Row, row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.

Tom Montgomery
06-05-2012, 02:00 PM
Is abortion being used for "sex selection" in the USA? Yes? Any evidence?

Y Bar Ranch
06-05-2012, 02:01 PM
Is sex selection termination a moral issue for all mankind to consider?
Completely apart from the morality, sex selection is skewing the ratios of boys and girls in those societies that prefer boys to girls, resulting in millions of young men with no prospects for marriage due to simple numbers. Not A Good Thing.

Tom Montgomery
06-05-2012, 02:08 PM
Completely apart from the morality, sex selection is skewing the ratios of boys and girls in those societies that prefer boys to girls, resulting in millions of young men with no prospects for marriage due to simple numbers. Not A Good Thing.

What societies? U.S. society?

No, not in U.S. society? Then what do you propose we do to stop this happening in other societies? Do you prefer a formal congressional declaration of war or a simple presidential use of our military to pre-emptively invade the offending societies?

Ian McColgin
06-05-2012, 02:12 PM
You are right that SamF brought up sex selection, an issue totally unrelated to the recent use of new feticide laws as a back-door approach to re-illegalizing abortion.

But in itself, abortion for sex selection can be an issue. In India and China sex selection abortion is a serious issue. In the USA, because we have a culturally diverse population, it could be - accurate non-anecdotal evidence is hard to obtain - a growing problem. There is almost no evidence of mainstream American culture of its increasingly intertwined european, hispanic or black strands having a non-individual bias regarding the sex of a child or any proclivity to use abortion in that choise. (Certainly not in the ways those who can afford it might use diagnostic testing to decide on terminating pregnancies that are genetically or otherwise damaged.) So, for pro-life folk, since abortion for sex selection is offensive to the US majority, it makes a handy driver for all anti-abortion rhetoric.

Should there ever be a serious non-troll thread on that issue it will be interesting to see if any of us who are not pro-life can think of a practical way to prevent abortions that, like abortions for sex preference, offend our basic values of women's rights.

pefjr
06-05-2012, 02:17 PM
Is abortion being used for "sex selection" in the USA? Yes? Any evidence?https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS384US384&q=sex+selection+abortion+in+the+US&oq=sex+selection+abortion+in+the+US&aq=f&aqi=g1g-q1&aql=&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i22.14266.17156.0.19124.9.9.0.0.0. 0.145.866.6j3.9.0...0.0.-ffvQSFZ6bQ

pefjr
06-05-2012, 02:27 PM
Should there ever be a serious non-troll thread on that issue it will be interesting to see if any of us who are not pro-life can think of a practical way to prevent abortions that, like abortions for sex preference, offend our basic values of women's rights.My point. Do you find yourself in a predicament? You are defending women's rights by ignoring or denying that sex selection is occurring both in the US and in many other parts of the world, excluding China( we know about China's reasoning). There are no laws in place to prevent sex selection abortions. So, are you in favor of leaving it status quo or .....???

Tom Montgomery
06-05-2012, 02:30 PM
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS384US384&q=sex+selection+abortion+in+the+US&oq=sex+selection+abortion+in+the+US&aq=f&aqi=g1g-q1&aql=&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i22.14266.17156.0.19124.9.9.0.0.0. 0.145.866.6j3.9.0...0.0.-ffvQSFZ6bQ

Bullocks.

The referenced Washington Post opinion piece cites no evidence that sex-selection-abortion is an issue in the USA.

The fear the Washington Post opinion piece is propagating is that sex-selection-abortion COULD happen in the USA given the fact that first trimester abortion is legal in the USA under ANY circumstance. And that Planned Patenthood supports current U.S. law.

No evidence. Just speculation.

Ian McColgin
06-05-2012, 02:50 PM
Obviously, pefjr, in writing "ignoring or denying that sex selection is occurring" [#27] you did not read my thread with any interest except to score pro life debating points. The federal bill attempting to outlaw abortion for the purpose of sex selection was defeated for a combination of reasons including some doubt as to the scope of the "problem" and the utterly non-serious nature of the proposed ways to judge the "legitimacy" of a woman's choice.

This is not a debate where the pro-life advocates have any role except an attempt to mobilize the sentiments of majority Americans against the cultural biases of certain minorities as a wedge issue promoting illegalizing all abortions.

For pro-choice folk, the issue is indeed problematic. Cultural respect is fine, but we do stand for certain freedoms and notions of equality that are a bit offensive to some cultures. We're against honor killing, cliterectomies and such. Anyone who has worked on abortion access has had to confront the reality that while for most women it's a painful and honest decision, there are folk who chose an abortion for "bad" reasons ranging from convenience to family pressure to cultural biases. The debate in the pro-choice world is what or even whether there's anything to do about that.

pefjr
06-05-2012, 03:03 PM
Obviously, pefjr, in writing "ignoring or denying that sex selection is occurring" [#27] you did not read my thread with any interest except to score pro life debating points. The federal bill attempting to outlaw abortion for the purpose of sex selection was defeated for a combination of reasons including some doubt as to the scope of the "problem" and the utterly non-serious nature of the proposed ways to judge the "legitimacy" of a woman's choice.

This is not a debate where the pro-life advocates have any role except an attempt to mobilize the sentiments of majority Americans against the cultural biases of certain minorities as a wedge issue promoting illegalizing all abortions.

For pro-choice folk, the issue is indeed problematic. Cultural respect is fine, but we do stand for certain freedoms and notions of equality that are a bit offensive to some cultures. We're against honor killing, cliterectomies and such. Anyone who has worked on abortion access has had to confront the reality that while for most women it's a painful and honest decision, there are folk who chose an abortion for "bad" reasons ranging from convenience to family pressure to cultural biases. The debate in the pro-choice world is what or even whether there's anything to do about that.Wrong, I am not shooting any pro life basketball with you. The question is a simple one. The answer is not.

Tom Montgomery
06-05-2012, 03:08 PM
For pro-choice folk, the issue is indeed problematic. Cultural respect is fine, but we do stand for certain freedoms and notions of equality that are a bit offensive to some cultures. We're against honor killing, cliterectomies and such. Anyone who has worked on abortion access has had to confront the reality that while for most women it's a painful and honest decision, there are folk who chose an abortion for "bad" reasons ranging from convenience to family pressure to cultural biases. The debate in the pro-choice world is what or even whether there's anything to do about that.

In the pro-choice "community" the REASON for choosing an early term abortion may amount to a sin but should not be illegal.

The anti-abortion "community" believes abortion should ALWAYS be both illegal and considered a sin.

I suppose if we wanted to weed out those choosing early-term abortion for "bad" reasons the law would ideally allow the interrogation of women prior to an early-term abortion. We then MIGHT be able to determine the woman's motivation. Should water-boarding be considered a legal part of such interrogation?

David W Pratt
06-05-2012, 03:08 PM
Actually, I would be interested to hear from pro-choice people who hav wrestled with this issue, any of them around?

2MeterTroll
06-05-2012, 03:14 PM
pretty good spin there Pef nothing like asking a question and getting an answer to show how planned parent hood is "pushing abortion based on sex" the girl actually had to keep working it to get questions answered.




https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS384US384&q=sex+selection+abortion+in+the+US&oq=sex+selection+abortion+in+the+US&aq=f&aqi=g1g-q1&aql=&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i22.14266.17156.0.19124.9.9.0.0.0. 0.145.866.6j3.9.0...0.0.-ffvQSFZ6bQ

pefjr
06-05-2012, 03:36 PM
pretty good spin there Pef nothing like asking a question and getting an answer to show how planned parent hood is "pushing abortion based on sex" the girl actually had to keep working it to get questions answered.I don't know which google you are referring to, that was a general inquiry to show Tom it exist. If you and Tom want to deny it , that is your huckleberry.


Should water-boarding be considered a legal part of such interrogation? Tom MontyThat is not a hard question with the libs. If Obama OK's it, then they are a loyal flock.

2MeterTroll
06-05-2012, 03:43 PM
I don't know which google you are referring to, that was a general inquiry to show Tom it exist. If you and Tom want to deny it , that is your huckleberry.

That is not a hard question with the libs. If Obama OK's it, then they are a loyal flock.


uh no its torture, so is beating a guy to a pulp, hitting them if the throat with a clipboard, and about 50 other types of torture used in this country by law enforcement every day.

TomF
06-05-2012, 03:52 PM
Actually, I would be interested to hear from pro-choice people who hav wrestled with this issue, any of them around?Extended family members have, yeah. They, and I, are pro-choice.

Some have chosen one option, some another. None have felt "good" about any of the options, and all have expressed regrets about their various choices. And all have expressed regrets with themselves, for taking sex as lightly as they did.

Thing is, our culture treats sex primarily as recreation. And it is incredibly fun, and great recreation. But sex is also a watershed for any relationship - even if there's no pregnancy, you can never really "go back." And unless one partner's sterile, heterosexual sex always includes some possibility of pregnancy - and should be approached recognizing that you're not just playing with bodily fluids, but with lives.

Earlier centuries, people were better aware of that part. Reading Adam Bede is rather instructive - the issue in that book wasn't so much whether sex outside marriage is sinful or not, as the impact of thoughtless selfishness ... expressed in sex. It led to a death, and three lives changed entirely, and irrevocably.

I'm all for sex - no prude, nor an inexperienced guy. But family and friends and I all tremble now at the risks we took once with other people's lives. Being every bit as selfish as the characters in Adam Bede, though protected from at least some of the consequences they suffered.

Y Bar Ranch
06-05-2012, 03:55 PM
What societies? U.S. society?
Whatever society. Just pointing out an unintended consequence that everyone can agree is a negative.

Tom Montgomery
06-05-2012, 04:05 PM
Whatever society. Just pointing out an unintended consequence that everyone can agree is a negative.
May I suggest that western-christian "morality", and "negative consequences," may not be either constraints or constants across all the societies of the world?

You use the word "everyone" very loosely.

Bob Cleek
06-05-2012, 04:13 PM
Extended family members have, yeah. They, and I, are pro-choice.

Some have chosen one option, some another. None have felt "good" about any of the options, and all have expressed regrets about their various choices. And all have expressed regrets with themselves, for taking sex as lightly as they did.

Thing is, our culture treats sex primarily as recreation. And it is incredibly fun, and great recreation. But sex is also a watershed for any relationship - even if there's no pregnancy, you can never really "go back." And unless one partner's sterile, heterosexual sex always includes some possibility of pregnancy - and should be approached recognizing that you're not just playing with bodily fluids, but with lives.

Earlier centuries, people were better aware of that part. Reading Adam Bede is rather instructive - the issue in that book wasn't so much whether sex outside marriage is sinful or not, as the impact of thoughtless selfishness ... expressed in sex. It led to a death, and three lives changed entirely, and irrevocably.

I'm all for sex - no prude, nor an inexperienced guy. But family and friends and I all tremble now at the risks we took once with other people's lives. Being every bit as selfish as the characters in Adam Bede, though protected from at least some of the consequences they suffered.

Well said. Sex outside of a committed relationship is, at best, just using another's body for your own gratification. If that be a "sin," certainly it is one of selfishness and a disregard for another's feelings and personhood. Abortion, then, would appear to compound the wrong that occasions it. As for "feeling bad" about it, Jiminy Cricket was right, "Always let your conscience be your guide."

Tom Montgomery
06-05-2012, 04:22 PM
Jiminy Cricket was right, "Always let your conscience be your guide."
If you are a Roman Catholic priest or nun that sort of counsel to the laity will get you into deep trouble.

Y Bar Ranch
06-05-2012, 04:23 PM
May I suggest that western-christian "morality", and "negative consequences," may not be either constraints or constants across all the societies of the world?

You use the word "everyone" very loosely.
I purposely separated western-christian "morality" morality from the consequences I mentioned. Not every culture believes in christianity. Being able to partner up in some manner is universal.

Ian already cited China's and India's concerns over the issue, and they're the ones experiencing it the most.

If you can show me a significant group of people who thinks tens of millions of young men with no prospect whatsoever for finding a marriage partner is a positive, then I'll back off of my claim.

Tom Montgomery
06-05-2012, 04:27 PM
Well... Have we abandoned the question of morality and embraced the question of social practicality?

God help you.

Y Bar Ranch
06-05-2012, 04:30 PM
Well... Have we abandoned the question of morality and embraced the question of social practicality?
No. Just pointing out something that even godless heathens can agree with the religious folks on.

Tom Montgomery
06-05-2012, 05:17 PM
No. Just pointing out something that even godless heathens can agree with the religious folks on.
But evidently the "godless heathens" in societies like India and China do not agree, do they? Otherwise there would be no "problem" by western "religious" standards.

Y Bar Ranch
06-05-2012, 05:42 PM
But evidently the "godless heathens" in societies like India and China do not agree, do they?
They do in fact agree that the skewing in the ratio of boys to girls resulting from abortions is a problem, completely apart from whether or not they are moral.

And I don't consider them godless heathens. Do you?

brad9798
06-05-2012, 06:22 PM
It was not "poofed."

It was me messing with it and accidentally deleting it ... yea, I know ... it asks if you are sure ... and MEANT to hit cancel ... but obviously I did not. :o

I was amazed at the great, thoughtful comments (on both sides) ... and disturbed by the idiotic, cold hearted comments on both sides ...

There are truly some cold, mean people on this forum! :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-05-2012, 07:24 PM
Abortion is available to all without cost in Canada.

Thank you.

brad9798
06-05-2012, 07:58 PM
Just like in the US, Peter ...

Tell me this, brother: IF someone in Canada kills a pregnant woman, is that person charged with TWO murders? Just wondering if Canadian law is as STUPID and inconsistent as US law!!! :)

botebum
06-05-2012, 08:03 PM
It was not "poofed."

It was me messing with it and accidentally deleting it ... yea, I know ... it asks if you are sure ... and MEANT to hit cancel ... but obviously I did not. :o

I was amazed at the great, thoughtful comments (on both sides) ... and disturbed by the idiotic, cold hearted comments on both sides ...

There are truly some cold, mean people on this forum! :DSO YOU HAD AN ACCIDENTAL ABORTION OF THE THREAD?

Doug

brad9798
06-05-2012, 11:00 PM
Why are you yelling, silly man????

skuthorp
06-06-2012, 04:20 AM
Why are you yelling, silly man????
:d:d
Sic him Brad.

botebum
06-06-2012, 06:01 AM
Glad to see that you deleted your initial comment brad.
You have to be careful with that posting under the influence stuff (PUI).
DAMHIKT

Doug

Sam F
06-06-2012, 07:47 AM
It was not "poofed."

That was obvious.


It was me messing with it and accidentally deleting it ... yea, I know ... it asks if you are sure ... and MEANT to hit cancel ... but obviously I did not. :o

That was not obvious.
Thanks for the clarification!


I was amazed at the great, thoughtful comments (on both sides) ... and disturbed by the idiotic, cold hearted comments on both sides ...

There are truly some cold, mean people on this forum!

Interesting - but rather subjective, eh?

Sam F
06-06-2012, 07:49 AM
I'm not sure.... but the sense I get is that the ONLY reason for this thread, and this post, is to clearly demonstrate your utter contempt for those with opinions other than your own.

Sorry Norman, but that's another fail.


You did a good job of it.... although it's not as if we didn't already KNOW that.

And you didn't do a good job.
Next time try addressing the points brought up instead of immediately engaging in fallacy.
Let's not make it like that old saying:
If at first you don't succeed, fail, fail, and fail again. :D

Ian McColgin
06-06-2012, 08:09 AM
Ah, poor SamF thinks his OP had points. Let’s try a thought experiment and address them as if they had meaning.

“Therein we found proborts embracing failure after failure.
Failure to object to the selective killing of girl - known as gendercide.”
- FALSE. The outlawing feticide has nothing necessary to do with “gendercide.”

“Failure to understand that inconsistent laws are disastrous to the public's respect for the law.”
- FALSE. The whole point of controversy is how bad the inconsistency is. Pro life and pro choice folk disagree on what to do about that, but agree the inconsistency is bad.

“Success in insisting that such inconsistency (i.e. killing babies deliberately is not the same as killing babies deliberately) thereby proving the howling irrationality at the heart of the proabort ideology... sorry that's a fail too. ”
- FALSE. This is a more virulent repeat of point two anyway.

“And let's not forget the utter failure of the troll in utterly misunderstanding the basic facts of genetics and embryology (and, last time I checked, the failure of better educated proaborts to correct him/her/reptile).”
- WHO KNOWS? SamF does not bother to tell us what troll.

Sam F
06-06-2012, 09:19 AM
Ah, poor SamF thinks his OP had points. Let’s try a thought experiment and address them as if they had meaning.

“Therein we found proborts embracing failure after failure.
Failure to object to the selective killing of girl - known as gendercide.”
- FALSE. The outlawing feticide has nothing necessary to do with “gendercide.”

Poor Ian. Let's try a thought experiment: Outlaw feticide (i.e. "Feticide (or foeticide) is an act that causes the death of a fetus.") and you've outlawed gendercide. But the fact is that only certain sorts of feticide are illegal - deliberately killing a fetus is perfectly legal provided a "medical professional" or Big Pharma gets paid to do it. DIY feticide is naughtly.
That irrational state of affairs is hardly my problem - indeed it was the whole topic in the original deleted thread.


“Failure to understand that inconsistent laws are disastrous to the public's respect for the law.”
- FALSE. The whole point of controversy is how bad the inconsistency is. Pro life and pro choice folk disagree on what to do about that, but agree the inconsistency is bad.

Nonsense. Keith claimed (without evidence) that the inconsistency in law was deliberate. Again, not my problem. In addition you've missed your opportunity to declare that while it is OK to kill pre-born babies (for profit of course) for any reason and at anytime gendercide is wrong. To do that you must have a rational reason why gendercide is to be prohibited. No such thing was provided. Fact is that lefties did not vote to ban gendercide, so you're left out in the cold by your (and the lawmaker's) own logic


“Success in insisting that such inconsistency (i.e. killing babies deliberately is not the same as killing babies deliberately) thereby proving the howling irrationality at the heart of the proabort ideology... sorry that's a fail too. ”
- FALSE. This is a more virulent repeat of point two anyway.

Not an argument Ian. Address how killing babies deliberately is not the same as killing babies deliberately and you'll have something.
Good luck with that.


“And let's not forget the utter failure of the troll in utterly misunderstanding the basic facts of genetics and embryology (and, last time I checked, the failure of better educated proaborts to correct him/her/reptile).”
- WHO KNOWS? SamF does not bother to tell us what troll.

Oh dear - your ignorance of the context is not my problem. But I'll help you out - In a thread on abortion, our 2orsomethingmetertroll (hey it's his/her/alligator's chosen name) insisted that I was ignorant and that my views were Bible based & most amusingly, that sex was determined by temperature.
Really? I asked for some documentation - it will never ever be provided.
The troll also failed to explain how mere quantity in the mass of an organism was in some way determinative of the significance of DNA and the legal rights attached thereto. No evidence, no numbers (other than made up ones), no reasoning about these supposed DNA-attached legal rights, NO NOTHING.

Sorry Ian, but other than adding another spectacular FAIL to the list, I'm afraid you've accomplished nothing.

pefjr
06-06-2012, 09:20 AM
Abortion is available to all without cost in Canada.

Thank you.Thank you? without cost? Another non thinking spout by PMJ. First of all, it may be a service available to Canadians, but not without cost. The cost, other than dollars, is immeasurable. Did you read TomF's post? He is talking from personal experience, and you are talking from your ...uh ... u no. Who pays the ultimate cost? What do they pay with? The only thing they had, a life. The only thing any of us really have. I would say that is pretty costly, and that doesn't even consider the mental picture of the survivors, that Tom touches on. So go back and do your obligation of some sincere thought on this issue, and get back to us. Are you capable?

Ian McColgin
06-06-2012, 09:30 AM
Just as I can't take resonsibility for SamF's persistant effort to turn the topic from the inconsistency of laws allowing abortion and laws outlawing feticide and towards the very goal of the feticide laws - the reoutlawing of abortion. By the same token, there is no connection between this issue (again, Why outlaw feticide and legalize abortion?) and the varioius good and bad arguments advance by pro life and pro choice partisans.

The original thread raised the question of why the inconsistency. That question was answered by examining the history of feticide laws. The debate of whether the political effort to outlaw abortion is a good thing is its own topic, already exhaustivly discussed here, there and everywhere.

George Jung
06-06-2012, 05:35 PM
:p Always good for another rousing round....

Thanks for the dance!

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Thank you? without cost? Another non thinking spout by PMJ. First of all, it may be a service available to Canadians, but not without cost. The cost, other than dollars, is immeasurable. Did you read TomF's post? He is talking from personal experience, and you are talking from your ...uh ... u no. Who pays the ultimate cost? What do they pay with? The only thing they had, a life. The only thing any of us really have. I would say that is pretty costly, and that doesn't even consider the mental picture of the survivors, that Tom touches on. So go back and do your obligation of some sincere thought on this issue, and get back to us. Are you capable?

I'm really sorry you couldn't figure out what I said. If a women wants an abortion in Canada, she does not have to pay for it. It is covered by our socialized healthcare system, which everybody has the ability to use for any medical condition or situation.

Thank you again :D, and rant on.

Sam F
06-07-2012, 09:57 AM
Just as I can't take resonsibility for SamF's persistant effort to turn the topic from the inconsistency of laws allowing abortion and laws outlawing feticide and towards the very goal of the feticide laws - the reoutlawing of abortion.

No Ian, I have nothing to do with the laws' inconsistency on feticide and that practice's inextricable link with abortion.
Those of us in the reality-based community simply recognize that the link is there. Others pretend that they are separate things - hence the absurdity of one person rotting in prison for DIY abortion while another, who does the exact same thing (i.e. feticide), is hailed as a courageous hero by proaborts.
Sorry - that's not my problem.



The original thread raised the question of why the inconsistency.
Yes

That question was answered by examining the history of feticide laws.

The history of absurdity is still absurd. That question ("good" feticide vs. bad feticide) was never answered because it can't be.

2MeterTroll
06-07-2012, 11:45 AM
well Ian it was this troll and Sammy like usual remapped the version of Winning. so he is now crowing that he vanquished the troll. course Brad deleted the post so no one can check. so sammy has his fake day. It dont bother me its just another example of the dumbing down of america by religious fanatics.

Horace
06-07-2012, 12:30 PM
Post #57 (Sam F): "Oh dear - your ignorance of the context is not my problem. But I'll help you out - In a thread on abortion, our 2orsomethingmetertroll (hey it's his/her/alligator's chosen name) insisted that I was ignorant and that my views were Bible based & most amusingly, that sex was determined by temperature.
Really? I asked for some documentation - it will never ever be provided.
The troll also failed to explain how mere quantity in the mass of an organism was in some way determinative of the significance of DNA and the legal rights attached thereto. No evidence, no numbers (other than made up ones), no reasoning about these supposed DNA-attached legal rights, NO NOTHING."


well Ian it was this troll and Sammy like usual remapped the version of Winning. so he is now crowing that he vanquished the troll. course Brad deleted the post so no one can check. so sammy has his fake day. It dont bother me its just another example of the dumbing down of america by religious fanatics.Ernie, are you disputing the accuracy of Sam's recall of your comments, or his opinion regarding their significance? Would you object to restating your points re DNA and temperature selection, as you remember them, and clarifying their relevancy to Sam's arguments?

Other than a general impression of disapproval of Sam F and "religious fanatics," I can't decipher much more from your rather cryptic post, as quoted above.

2MeterTroll
06-07-2012, 01:52 PM
As i put in the post the heat thing was a chinese study that you could sway sex determination via temperature at specific stages of development. this is the reference Sorry i am not at home and dont have the paper on our laptop. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519303000146 here is another http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CG0QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bioone.org%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.2 108%2Fzsj.13.1&ei=0vDQT5yWMcHi2QWD65XBDA&usg=AFQjCNFUPabbRbYeN8YLPeORYClEpv8rDA&sig2=Vv0EZ7MiogDBYlyGO-YGKQ .

the other is the giving of genetics to the zygote. Sam seems to think the only things that count are the genes that determine what you are I maintain that the mother gives more genetic material than the father because the mother is the one contributing mitochondrial DNA. since the Mitochondria is the engine for cell function and it is exclusive to the egg this would mean that in fact the woman lends the greater part of the genetics.

there are also several other things coming out in genetics around the donation of genes as well as expressions. I jus a dum ol sailor.

George Jung
06-07-2012, 09:09 PM
I'm familiar with the medical literature - haven't seen a thing about any reputable studies suggesting gender can be reliably influenced via a heating pad. AFA your argument on 'relative DNA contribution' - it's still a non sequitar. Nuclear genotype selects phenotype; mitochondrial DNA affects cellular function. So.... still a no-go on a tenuous argument.
AFA SamF's argument - it's legitimate; there's certainly a disconnect. And.... abortion is still legal.

Ian McColgin
06-08-2012, 12:09 PM
SamF's essential pretense is to ignore the simple timeline fact. In the US there were NO laws against feticide until well after Roe v Wade when the pro life lobbey found outlawing feticide an interesting strategy in the campaign to outlaw abortion.

Sam F
06-08-2012, 01:54 PM
well Ian it was this troll

Great screen name BTW.


and Sammy like usual remapped the version of Winning.

Oh yeah! That's what I did all right.


so he is now crowing that he vanquished the troll. course Brad deleted the post so no one can check. so sammy has his fake day. It dont bother me its just another example of the dumbing down of america by religious fanatics.

Yeah, I'm dumb. So you're going to show me how I "remapped the version of Winning" and to that end, I'm still waiting for you to illustrate how ignorant I am of human genetics by explaining how sex is selected via temperature. Don't blame me - you insisted on it.
Come on! Show me how ignorant I am. :D

Sam F
06-08-2012, 02:15 PM
SamF's essential pretense is to ignore the simple timeline fact. In the US there were NO laws against feticide until well after Roe v Wade when the pro life lobbey found outlawing feticide an interesting strategy in the campaign to outlaw abortion.

Poor Ian, his essential pretense ignores the simple timeline of fact:


The Born Alive Rule
...The common law born alive rule originated in England, based
on the medical knowledge of the sixteenth century. 2 [just a wee bit prior to Roe vs Wade]
Under this rule, live birth, regardless of the actual gestational age, was the
point at which life could be observed clinically."3 In cases of fetal
death, it was difficult to distinguish between death from natural
causes, or injuries inflicted in utero.'4 Determining if "material
acts" caused the death required the fetus to be born alive. 5 Sir
Edward Coke reflected the seventeenth-century common law
view that the homicide of an unborn fetus was not murder, but
some lesser crime, 16 which Sir William Blackstone reiterated in
the eighteenth century.17 The rule "is recognized to be an evidentiary
principle that was required by the state of medical science
of the day." 8 Jurisdictions in the United States adopted the born
alive rule, and several states maintain the rule either through
express statutes or court interpretation. 9

16.
If a woman be quick with childe, and by a Potion or otherwise killeth in her
wombe; or if a man beat her, whereby the childe dieth in her body, and she
is delivered of a dead childe, this is a great misprison, and no murder; but if
the childe be born alive; and dieth of the Potion, battery, or other cause, this
is murder for in law it is accounted a reasonable creature, in rerum natura,
when it is born alive.
Id. at 583 n.92 (quoting Sm EDWARD COKE, THE TmID PART OF THE INSTITUTES OF THE
LAWS OF ENGLAND 50 (photo. reprint 1986) (1797)).
17.
[I]af woman is quick with child, and by a potion or otherwise, killeth it in
her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and
she is delivered of a dead child; this though not murder, was by the ancient
law homicide or manslaughter. But the modern law doth not look upon this
offence in quite so atrocious a light but merely as a heinous misdemeanor.

William & Mary Law Review pg. 1847
Volume 41 Issue 5

So Ian, how do you get off referring to previous times' ignorance of embryology and fetal development as an excuse for past legal practice, which even then viewed killing the unborn as a crime - just not formal murder - when today you know better?

Sam F
06-08-2012, 02:26 PM
As i put in the post the heat thing was a chinese study that you could sway sex determination via temperature at specific stages of development. this is the reference Sorry i am not at home and dont have the paper on our laptop. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519303000146

"some evidence" as your source says is hardly determinative and most certainly not a strong enough basis for your assertion. Try again.


here is another http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CG0QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bioone.org%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.2 108%2Fzsj.13.1&ei=0vDQT5yWMcHi2QWD65XBDA&usg=AFQjCNFUPabbRbYeN8YLPeORYClEpv8rDA&sig2=Vv0EZ7MiogDBYlyGO-YGKQ .


Sex determination in many animals [no one doubts that] has an environmental component, particularly through temperature. In this article, it is argued that some evidence may by seen for this in humans, [OK so explain how that matters in normal populations] and it is proposed that the influence of temperature on sex determination may be a reason for the placing of testicles outside the body cavity in most male mammals.

OK. So your article (apparently the same one twice BTW) states that a malfunctioning reproductive system may produce skewed results.
WOW! What an insight! But if only humans hadn't evolved external testicles... so it's coulda should woulda and not a bit relevant.
What is relevant is how human reproduction works normally not abnormally.


...the other is the giving of genetics to the zygote. Sam seems to think the only things that count are the genes that determine what you are I maintain that the mother gives more genetic material than the father because the mother is the one contributing mitochondrial DNA. since the Mitochondria is the engine for cell function and it is exclusive to the egg this would mean that in fact the woman lends the greater part of the genetics.

I'm still waiting for your explanation of the importance of quantity over quality. Mere quantity is determinative of legal rights, eh?
Hint: I wouldn't go there if I were you. ;)


there are also several other things coming out in genetics around the donation of genes as well as expressions...

Stick with the quicksand you already have. Don't make matters worse for yourself.
Answers please.

Tom Montgomery
06-08-2012, 02:38 PM
How does one determine a woman's choice of abortion is "gendercide" short of a pre-operative polygraph test or water boarding?

Ian McColgin
06-08-2012, 04:39 PM
I know about English common law and some other legal traditions going back a few thousand years. Perhaps that's why in discussing the more recent spate of laws against feticide here in the US my sentence, which SamF quoted but from the rest of his remarks appears not to have understood, I specified: "In the US there were NO laws against feticide . . . " Then again, perhaps I essayed towards that precision only to trip SamF up.

Seriously, I first wrote without specifying US and then, while letting my spell-checker do its thing, recalled English common law and some bits of Roman civil law and figured that if SamF were to read and comment he'd lift it away from the patently obvious US context. So I made it explicit. But to no avail. Pity.

Sam F
06-08-2012, 05:41 PM
"In the US there were NO laws against feticide . . . " Then again, perhaps I essayed towards that precision only to trip SamF up.


Precision dear Ian, is not your failing of choice.
I merely point out a failure of "simple timeline fact". The advance medical knowledge "based
on the medical knowledge of the sixteenth century" is today totally inadequate. You can't demand that anyone know what they did not in fact know and have made laws accordingly.
Today we (and you) know better. But any appeal to today's knowledge inevitably falls on deaf ears and thus the irrationally of today's laws (and your position) is an inevitable result.
Fact is that y'all insist on having your cake and eating it.
Sorry. Not gonna happen.

wardd
06-08-2012, 06:10 PM
sometimes sam can make ignorance sound so inteligent

wardd
06-08-2012, 06:12 PM
sam if you don't believe in abortion then don't have one, but leave everybody else alone

funny how sam isn't this ardent about Innocent people on death row

2MeterTroll
06-08-2012, 06:23 PM
Sam I gave the links to the papers they support my argument and like usual you just decide the subject is something else. I really dont care if you dont like abortion. until you can **** a kid you dont have a place in the argument. your imaginary morals and biblical laws are a bust. forcing your POV on woman is at best ignorant and at worst insulting.

you supposed victory is as hollow as your religion. I will not debate any of this any more simply because like the ladies had figured there is no point arguing with folks that cant and wont listen.

Sam F
06-08-2012, 07:51 PM
Sam I gave the links to the papers they support my argument

They (two abstracts in one actually) certainly do not support your argument.


and like usual you just decide the subject is something else.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions. Let's revisit that shall we?
- How is it that you know that a certain percent of genetic inheritance = a legal right?
- How is it that quantity of material is of greater significance than the DNA that determines what one is?
- How is it that the common mitochondrial DNA inheritance that we all share make any difference at all?
- And of course how is it that temperature is relevant to human embryos' sex? 'Cause it might make a difference in organisms with abnormal testicles?
Really troll? That's the best you can do?



I really dont care if you dont like abortion. until you can **** a kid you dont have a place in the argument. your imaginary morals and biblical laws are a bust. forcing your POV on woman is at best ignorant and at worst insulting.

Still waiting troll...
Say! Let's ad another question:
How is it that "until you can **** a kid you dont have a place in the argument" has any bearing on anything?
Presumably you "can't **** a kid" and it didn't keep you from chiming in.
Or is it that you're just more equal than I am?

And then there's gendercide:


http://youtu.be/6Fz2KLSxDzc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fz2KLSxDzc

Too bad it's done in America and done by Planned Parenthood without so much as a raised eyebrow. But nobody who knows the first thing about that organization is ever surprised that their hopeless level of corruption.


you supposed victory is as hollow as your religion.

Son, until you manage to answer something, you have nothing. You don't even have a decent snit.


I will not debate any of this any more...

"Any more"? Son you haven't even started. Let's see some answers first.

wardd
06-08-2012, 07:56 PM
sam, the law is a social construct, get used to it

if the law says abortion is legal then it's legal, your personal morality has nothing to do with it and frankly i find your personal morality offensive

Sam F
06-08-2012, 08:05 PM
sam, the law is a social construct, get used to it

These laws are incoherent. Nobody is going to get used to it.


if the law says abortion is legal then it's legal,

Right. So is gendercide.
Like that development? No?
But didn't you say "the law is a social construct, get used to it".
Well then, get used to supporting gendercide.


your personal morality has nothing to do with it and frankly i find your personal morality offensive

Hey, you support gendercide of girls.
Since when do you get to sit on your high horse?

Keith Wilson
06-08-2012, 08:07 PM
Hey, you support gendercide of girls. The ratio of male to female births in the US has not changed at all since abortion became legal. AFAIK, nobody posting here is Chinese.

wardd
06-08-2012, 08:12 PM
The ratio of male to female births in the US has not changed at all since abortion became legal. AFAIK, nobody posting here is Chinese.

gee and here he went to the trouble to make an assumption he could live with

Sam F
06-08-2012, 09:16 PM
The ratio of male to female births in the US has not changed at all since abortion became legal. AFAIK, nobody posting here is Chinese.

It would take many thousands of such crimes to show up in any statistics.
And yet that would still be many thousands.
And since when is China or India unique? - are they not human? Do you honestly think it can't happen here?

wardd
06-08-2012, 09:18 PM
It would take many thousands of such crimes to show up in any statistics.
And yet that would still be many thousands.
And since when is China or India unique? - are they not human? Do you honestly think it can't happen here?

what crimes?

George Jung
06-08-2012, 11:20 PM
I guess that makes it okay, then...

as long as it 'all comes out in the wash'. Do you imagine it will?

Peerie Maa
06-09-2012, 04:08 AM
These laws are incoherent. Nobody is going to get used to it.


So deal with the real problem. Stop appointing lawyers on the basis of their politics. Insist that lawyers are apolitical when sitting. Then you may get laws interpreted on a basis of logic and legal precedent, not in accordance with the wishes of their political patrons. Then you may get coherent laws applied with justice as the objective.

Ian McColgin
06-09-2012, 05:49 AM
Legal abortion and illegal feticide is an incoherent contradiction. That's the idea. That's why the pro life lot have been pushing them.

People who are pro choice need to understand that the pro life folk cannot step back in the ways they have in, say Canada. The Chuck Colson alliance of right wing billionaires, anti-liberty eschatologists, reactionary Roman Catholic powers, and the murderous wing of the anti-abortion movement keep the pot too stirred for that. Among living pro life folk in the US, there can be no giving in, no end except making abortion illegal again.

In the moves of freedom and justice in the world, no cause is ever lost forever. But no freedom is ever won forever.

George Jung
06-09-2012, 08:46 AM
Ah, a variation on 'the price is.... eternal vigilance'.... nicely played. And you make some excellent points - the most interesting, to me, is the why - why is it impossible for the 'step back', as you call it, in this country vs what Canada has done? You're implying a great divide. On what basis?