Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 456 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 175 of 232

Thread: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,657

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    OK, maybe it's 50 years out, not ten or 20. Never said it was easy; the point is the same.
    And raises a whole can of worms for the Ethics panels. Akin to the debates about cloning humans or designer babies.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,057

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    'Viable outside mom' depends on the level of technology. It's not that far from where we are now, to being able to grow a fertilized egg into a baby in a completely artificial environment. Even without that, viable with or without an incubator? With or without extra oxygen? (But not too much, the baby'll go blind.) With or without a reasonably sterile environment?

    The decisions about when to try to save a very premature baby are damnably difficult. My wife doesn't handle the newborn ICU anymore, but boy, does she have some stories.

    Again, I'd propose higher brain function as the dividing line between 'human being' and 'not yet a human being'. We already do something similar at the end of life with brain-dead people.

    __________________________________________________ __________________________

    And I think Tom gets it right about the motivation and thinking of those who oppose abortion. The main point is not to control women, nor to enforce a particular kind of society. They're OK with some of that as a byproduct, and might even think it's desirable, but the main point really is to protect the fetus, which they think of as sort of a very small baby. There's a reason anti-abortion billboards always show a very cute 4-month old, not a 10-week embryo.

    In general, I agree with the “brain function” standard. But…but. The issue I see coming from that is that at the beginning of life, brain function is developing. And will move to a higher level, if allowed to, or aided in if required. Whereas at end of life, whether from age, severe accident, or disease, the function will inevitably decline. So emotion towards the former could be seeing it as a wasted opportunity for life, and for the latter as easing the inevitable end. Same emotion, empathy, with different results on what is desired for intervention. I can see, as you posit, that the day will come when the first split cell in a Petri dish will arguably be “viable” with the tech available.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,057

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    And raises a whole can of worms for the Ethics panels. Akin to the debates about cloning humans or designer babies.
    Yes.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,657

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    In general, I agree with the “brain function” standard. But…but. The issue I see coming from that is that at the beginning of life, brain function is developing. And will move to a higher level, if allowed to, or aided in if required. Whereas at end of life, whether from age, severe accident, or disease, the function will inevitably decline. So emotion towards the former could be seeing it as a wasted opportunity for life, and for the latter as easing the inevitable end. Same emotion, empathy, with different results on what is desired for intervention. I can see, as you posit, that the day will come when the first split cell in a Petri dish will arguably be “viable” with the tech available.
    It would seem that true brain function can be detected at about 24 weeks, before then zilch. It does not stop developing until the skull sutures fuse, at about 18 for women and 20-22 for males.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    25,478

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Corvida View Post
    The entire 'is it a person' debate is complete BS. It's a distraction from taking away a woman's right to defend their own body. Because the entire point is to control women. It has jack all to do with protecting the unborn.
    Yes, the argument is beside the point, but it does have to do with protecting the unborn, in which society has an interest, as was held in Roe v. Wade. That interest conflicts with the interest of the mother. Dividing lines must be established. No matter where they are drawn, there will be an argument, likely to be at least partially valid, that the lines are arbitrary. The point is that there no is line that will not be partially arbitrary. So draw the lines already.
    I'm not leaving.

    -- Mike Pence

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,057

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    It would seem that true brain function can be detected at about 24 weeks, before then zilch. It does not stop developing until the skull sutures fuse, at about 18 for women and 20-22 for males.
    Correct that it’s effectively zilch, but it will develop all things being equal. End of life it will decline, all things being equal. I can see some seeing it as a wasted “potential human”. Personally, I’d be fine with 24 or perhaps 22 or 20 weeks, but I can see that being an issue for some.


    But I certainly see brain function as the best chance of reducing most arguments.

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,657

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    Yes, the argument is beside the point, but it does have to do with protecting the unborn, in which society has an interest, as was held in Roe v. Wade. That interest conflicts with the interest of the mother. Dividing lines must be established. No matter where they are drawn, there will be an argument, likely to be at least partially valid, that the lines are arbitrary. The point is that there no is line that will not be partially arbitrary. So draw the lines already.
    As you say, we have to look after the interests of the mother as well as of the potential child. The 10 yo rape victim will have probably died with her fetus if forced to go full term. The Irish health service killed a woman suffering a miscarriage by withholding treatment because they though that there was a fetal heart beat, which triggered a referendum that changed the Irish constitution to allow abortion up to 24 weeks.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pompano Beach, FLorida
    Posts
    1,240

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    Yes, the argument is beside the point, but it does have to do with protecting the unborn, in which society has an interest, as was held in Roe v. Wade. That interest conflicts with the interest of the mother. Dividing lines must be established. No matter where they are drawn, there will be an argument, likely to be at least partially valid, that the lines are arbitrary. The point is that there no is line that will not be partially arbitrary. So draw the lines already.
    Again, it has nothing to do with protecting the unborn. If it did the same people would be speaking up about child care or health, and they don't. Nothing but crickets. Because the only reason they push this entire debate is to drag stupid people to the polls. The entire debate was created as part of the moral majority garbage that brought us Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. Which is why they keep riding the same horse today.

    And by far most women that become pregnant have chosen to do so.
    They chose to have a healthy baby, not a rotting, malformed, or misplaced fetus that will kill or maim them. All of which happen on a very common basis. The vast majority of fertilized human eggs never go to term, due to entirely natural causes. Humans are very bad at reproducing, and we've made it worse by polluting our environment.

    I didn’t say it wasn’t risky. I said the language was ridiculous.
    We've legally banned, fined, or jailed people for knowingly putting the public at the same risk as any pregnancy. We've intentionally banned the sale, or forced donation, of organs that are safer to donate than giving birth, even when the donor is dead.

    So you're saying the legal bar for a woman to defend herself, is higher than that required for anyone else, in any other situation?

    Because again, this question has jack all to do with it being a fetus. If you intentionally put another person in the same mortal danger as a pregnancy, they are legally entitled to use whatever force necessary to protect their own life from you. No one is questioning that you're a person. It's immaterial to the person defending themselves. If they're forced to shoot you in the head to protect their own life, even if you're just trying to survive yourself with no intentional malice, then the law will protect their actions as self defense. It's only when there's a made up public interest in a clump of cells that might possibly, maybe if the weather is just right, turn into a person, that there's any debate at all.

    It's the very definition of a made up wedge issue, to drive voters against their own interests.

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    16,401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Yep, I can see the logic in that. Here's a thought experiment for all the old white dude champions of the abortion-rights movement.

    What would be the reaction if some people were demanding the right to kill someone they do not believe is a human being, but you do believe their target is a human being?
    For example, using the "higher brain function" idea, people with severe dementia would arguably no longer qualify as human. Should people who believe that be allowed to kill them?

    Or, suppose a racist believes that non-white people are not fully human. Should they be allowed to kill these "non-humans"?

    Should the rest of society, who does believe these people are human, stand by and let those who don't believe they are human kill them with impunity?

    It's a thorny moral issue for many people--not nearly as simple as some on this thread want to make it seem.

    Tom

    That's rather Begging the Question, because that "thought game" requires acceptant that the question under discussion, "Is a foetus a human being?", is true.

    Further, it elevates the foetus, entirely dependent on its mother, as the equivalent of an independent, adult human being.
    You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound. — P.G. Wodehouse (Carry On, Jeeves)

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    25,478

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Corvida, I'm agreeing with you that the argument "when does life begin?", as made by the right, is dishonest. I'm disagreeing that "it" has nothing to do with protecting the unborn, "it" being the issue of when should abortion be legal, and when it should be illegal. At some point in the development of a life, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting it. Again, as was stated in Roe v. Wade.
    I'm not leaving.

    -- Mike Pence

  11. #151
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,890

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    . . . that "thought game" requires acceptant that the question under discussion, "Is a foetus a human being?", is true.
    Which is precisely Tom's point; those who oppose abortion are convinced that the fetus is a human being worthy of legal protection.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  12. #152
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,081

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Corvida View Post
    If you intentionally put another person in the same mortal danger as a pregnancy, they are legally entitled to use whatever force necessary to protect their own life from you. No one is questioning that you're a person. It's immaterial to the person defending themselves. If they're forced to shoot you in the head to protect their own life, even if you're just trying to survive yourself with no intentional malice, then the law will protect their actions as self defense. It's only when there's a made up public interest in a clump of cells that might possibly, maybe if the weather is just right, turn into a person, that there's any debate at all.
    The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. (17.4/100,000 pregnancies) is not that much greater than the death rate from driving (15.3/100,000 vehicles).

    By your logic, anyone else driving a vehicle is an imminent threat to my safety, and I should be allowed to kill them with impunity, in "self defense."

    Ludicrous...

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  13. #153
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,081

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Carey View Post
    That's rather Begging the Question, because that "thought game" requires acceptant that the question under discussion, "Is a foetus a human being?", is true.

    Further, it elevates the foetus, entirely dependent on its mother, as the equivalent of an independent, adult human being.
    You miss the point. People who oppose abortion rights on moral grounds accept it as true that a fetus is a human being, just as (I assume) you and I assume that a Black person is a human being. They didn't beg the question--they answered it, in the way that makes sense to them.

    Remember, the point of my posts here is not to argue that anti-abortion beliefs are correct--just to understand where they're coming from, and what they lead to for those who accept those beliefs. It's a thorny moral issue for many people.

    Edit to add: I see (too late) that Keith beat me to it. He gets it.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  14. #154
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pompano Beach, FLorida
    Posts
    1,240

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    At some point in the development of a life, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting it. Again, as was stated in Roe v. Wade.
    At what point in life does a person lose the right to defend themselves? Does the state just decide that women are too old to be defended when they reach puberty?

    The state has already stated it's interest in that everyone is entitled to defend themselves. The fetus is an invading organism, and unconsented violation of a persons body, and your argument is that the woman must risk her life for this invasion of her person at great risk of bodily harm.

    By your logic, anyone else driving a vehicle is an imminent threat to my safety,
    If that person was forced into a vehicle against their will, that's known as kidnapping and car jacking. And yes, people have killed to defend themselves against it.

    The difference is consent. No different than trespassing, home invasion, burglary, robbery, or kidnapping. All of which are not crimes when the person or owner consents.

    As fundamental as consent is to our legal system, you'd think they'd teach people what it means, and it's extreme importance.

  15. #155
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,057

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    You seem to be under the illusion that most abortions are because of medical necessity ratter than by choice. Here is the breakdown according to one org that tracks these things:

    Percentage Reason
    <0.5% Victim of rape
    3% Fetal health problems
    4% Physical health problems
    4% Would interfere with education or career
    7% Not mature enough to raise a child
    8% Don't want to be a single mother
    19% Done having children
    23% Can't afford a baby
    25% Not ready for a child
    6% Other


    And again “the fetus is an invading organism”?!?
    Wtf are you on?

    Are you truly pro choice rather than an anti playing a character? Because I’m starting to wonder. Or you just don’t like kids much.
    Last edited by Decourcy; 08-07-2022 at 09:26 PM.

  16. #156
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    82,472

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    You seem to be under the illusion that most abortions are because of medical necessity ratter than by choice. Here is the breakdown according to one org that tracks these things:

    Percentage Reason
    <0.5% Victim of rape
    3% Fetal health problems
    4% Physical health problems
    4% Would interfere with education or career
    7% Not mature enough to raise a child
    8% Don't want to be a single mother
    19% Done having children
    23% Can't afford a baby
    25% Not ready for a child
    6% Other


    And again “the fetus is an invading organism”?!?
    Wtf are you on?

    Are you truly pro choice rather than an anti playing a character? Because I’m starting to wonder. Or you just don’t like kids much.
    Dodgy. No 'victim of incest'? Source?
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    https://www.facebook.com/HarborWoodworks/

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  17. #157
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,057

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    Dodgy. No 'victim of incest'? Source?
    I would imagine that “victim” and “incest” would put them in column one


    That chart from guttmacher institute

    Not so much a rww org


    They surveyed women leaving clinics

  18. #158
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    82,472

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    I would imagine that “victim” and “incest” would put them in column one
    I assume you mean 'line one'?

    Source??
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    https://www.facebook.com/HarborWoodworks/

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  19. #159
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,057

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    I assume you mean 'line one'?

    Source??
    Yes, and look up just a titch.

  20. #160
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    82,472

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Thanks for adding that - but a link to the organization, and their large website, isn't awfully helpful. Do you have a link to the chart you provided?
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    https://www.facebook.com/HarborWoodworks/

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  21. #161
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,057

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    Thanks for adding that - but a link to the organization, and their large website, isn't awfully helpful. Do you have a link to the chart you provided?
    Ill try to find it, but I was cruising through a lot of info from a lot of sites. But the chart is literally just that. They aren’t analyzing it, just presenting the data.

  22. #162
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,057

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/def...es/3711005.pdf

    This is not the paper I read, but has much the same info.

  23. #163
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,057

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    And to reiterate my own position, I am 100% in favour of the right of a woman to have an abortion in the first week for any reason, 100% against it in the last week unless medically necessary, with the crossover happening somewhere in the middle.

  24. #164
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    82,472

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    And to reiterate my own position, I am 100% in favour of the right of a woman to have an abortion in the first week for any reason, 100% against it in the last week unless medically necessary, with the crossover happening somewhere in the middle.
    I can see why some women say men should not make policy on this topic.

    There are likely no abortions performed in the 'first week'. That's because at that time a woman is likely several weeks away from her first inkling that the may be pregnant.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    https://www.facebook.com/HarborWoodworks/

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  25. #165
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,057

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    I can see why some women say men should not make policy on this topic.

    There are likely no abortions performed in the 'first week'. That's because at that time a woman is likely several weeks away from her first inkling that the may be pregnant.
    And where is your line?

    Because you have one, just like me. Or any other rational person of either gender.

  26. #166
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,081

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    By your logic, anyone else driving a vehicle is an imminent threat to my safety
    Quote Originally Posted by Corvida View Post
    If that person was forced into a vehicle against their will, that's known as kidnapping and car jacking. And yes, people have killed to defend themselves against it.

    The difference is consent. No different than trespassing, home invasion, burglary, robbery, or kidnapping. All of which are not crimes when the person or owner consents.

    As fundamental as consent is to our legal system, you'd think they'd teach people what it means, and it's extreme importance.
    Well, this is a touchy and very emotional topic, but I'll try to address your argument and hope people understand I'm not trying to defend the indefensible here:

    You miss the point. Other people driving cars puts a woman at nearly the same risk as a pregnancy does. You are arguing that a pregnant woman is entitled to kill the "human being" (as anti-abortion people see it) that is threatening her safety.

    You say the difference between pregnancy and driving is consent--but a large majority of pregnancies result from consensual sex--there are roughly 6.3 million pregnancies per year in the U.S., vs. about 31,000 rapes (which is far too many). Only about 0.5% of all pregnancies are the result of rape, as far as we can tell.

    So, your claim that "the difference is consent" doesn't apply to the 99.5% of pregnant women who are pregnant because of consensual sex. (Yes, some women use birth control that fails, which can be seen as an absence of consent: that is about 30% of all pregnancies). So, the final number is, 69.5% of all pregnancies (a sizeable majority) might fairly be regarded as consensual.

    By your logic, therefore, anything that threatens pregnant women's lives (the 69.5% that result from consensual sex) as seriously as pregnancy does (death rate 17.4/100,000), gives them the right to kill in "self-defense" to protect themselves. Since another driver threatens her safety at a similar level--a driver who is using the same highway as the pregnant woman, without her consent--that other driver is fair game.

    And since other drivers threaten everyone, and not just pregnant women, your argument leads us to this conclusion:

    Anyone driving on a street, road, or highway who sees another person driving ought to be allowed to kill that other driver with impunity, in "self-defense," unless they have given their explicit consent to letting that other driver use the same road.

    As I said before: ludicrous.

    There are good, thoughtful arguments to be made in support of universal abortion rights. Yours is not one of them.

    Tom
    Last edited by WI-Tom; 08-08-2022 at 03:13 AM.
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  27. #167
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,890

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Decourcy's not being silly, he's just defining two ends of a continuum. While some folks might think that a fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a child and deserves the same legal protection, I don't think you'll find anyone here who believes that. And I also don't think you'll find anyone who would object to some legal restrictions on abortion at very late stages, although exceptions are essential - for valid medical reasons, non-viability, severe defects, take your pick. The Roe v Wade compromise was pretty good, really, similar to what many other countries do.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  28. #168
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,657

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    I can see why some women say men should not make policy on this topic.

    There are likely no abortions performed in the 'first week'. That's because at that time a woman is likely several weeks away from her first inkling that the may be pregnant.
    To be pedantic, there is the Morning After Pill. Contraception or abortion?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  29. #169
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,890

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    To be pedantic, there is the Morning After Pill. Contraception or abortion?
    The real hard-core anti-abortion folks consider it abortion, and want to ban it. Really. One step away from 'every sperm is sacred'.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  30. #170
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,081

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    The real hard-core anti-abortion folks consider it abortion, and want to ban it. Really. One step away from 'every sperm is sacred'.
    Nah, they're not even a step away--they are there. Remember Onan?

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  31. #171
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,890

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Nah, they're not even a step away--they are there. Remember Onan?
    Fortunately, they haven't tried to enact that one into law.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  32. #172
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    82,472

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    To be pedantic, there is the Morning After Pill. Contraception or abortion?
    Yes, that's a wrinkle. Certainly arguable.


    To answer an earlier question of where I'd draw the line... I wouldn't draw the line. I'm not qualified, nor have I studied the issue sufficiently to offer policy prescriptions (something I share with most of the people speaking out on the topic these days). If I somehow HAD to decide - I'd start with the Torah as my guide, then leave the details and individual cases to consultation between the doctors and families.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    https://www.facebook.com/HarborWoodworks/

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  33. #173
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    n.c. tn
    Posts
    9,987

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Originally Posted by Decourcy
    You seem to be under the illusion that most abortions are because of medical necessity ratter than by choice.
    Not at all. He seems to be under the awareness that a woman should have that CHOICE, and it's no one elses business if or why.

    And I concur.

    Now, were society to make things easy for women (babies, etc), there might be less 'demand' for terminating a pregnancy.. but helping people (aid freely given with no strings) is so non-xtian (ntm, so un-capitalist).

    Also, while low information voters may have been convinced by the PTB that this is about the sanctity of life, we have the words of a legislator who drafted a law that is false.. it is entirely about controlling women.


    Quote Originally Posted by moi View Post
    When all is said and done, here's what a conservative legislator who drafted a restrictive law had to say..

    www.vanityfair.com/style/2019/05/alabamas-abortion-bill-is-immoral-inhumane-and-wildly-inconsistent

    ...don’t worry, said Alabama State Senator Clyde Chambliss: “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”

    to clarify.. it's not about the fertilized egg/zygot/gamet/embryo/fetus etc, it's about controlling women.

    I can't say how I feel about that here.. the forum is also controlled in favor of irrational (ah, but I repeat myself) xtian beliefs - in this case, 'bad words' and all.

  34. #174
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,057

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Durnik View Post
    Not at all. He seems to be under the awareness that a woman should have that CHOICE, and it's no one elses business if or why.

    And I concur.

    Now, were society to make things easy for women (babies, etc), there might be less 'demand' for terminating a pregnancy.. but helping people (aid freely given with no strings) is so non-xtian (ntm, so un-capitalist).

    Also, while low information voters may have been convinced by the PTB that this is about the sanctity of life, we have the words of a legislator who drafted a law that is false.. it is entirely about controlling women.

    Ok, then I ask you the same question I asked David G (who sidestepped it). Where is your line? Are you ok with a non necessary abortion in the last week of a term? If no, how far back is that line of “human rights”? If yes, then I’m afraid we have no common ground. You are a part of society, and have an input with your voting choices, whether you want to or not.

  35. #175
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,057

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Also, I assume you are a believer in unrestrained and unregulated self defence of any person, such as through castle law? Because if not you demonstrate a double standard.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •