Abortion

[heyjude]

The pro-lifers know they will never stop abortions. They just want women who have them to die.

 

[palerider]

Seriously you guys need to take that dog and pony show somewhere else because there is no doubt at all that wire coat hangers as well as many other household items were used to create abortions when abortion was illegal.

No doubt? When the guy who made up the lie admits that he made it up because he needed a damned scary image to plant in people's minds, it really is time to drop it.

The coathanger is a myth. The man who made up the myth admits that it was a lie. You keep repeating the lie even though the man who made up the lie has admitted the lie, ergo, you are a liar. No amount of shuck and jive is going to make the truth out of a lie.

 

[palerider]

An era of tragedy for women
When abortion was illegal
October 21, 2005 | Pages 6 and 7

This is nothing more than further evidence that the pro choice side is willing to tell any lie in order to keep abortion illegal.

THE PEOPLE WHO MADE UP THE LIES THAT ARE ONCE AGAIN REPEATED IN THIS STORY HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEY ARE LIES AND ARE NOT BASED ON ANYTHING THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. THEY ADMIT THAT THEY MADE UP THE "BACK ALLEY BUTCHER" AND THEY MADE UP THE "COATHANGER"

The fact that people like you still repeat the lies as if they are true is a testament to the marketing genius of the people who fabricated the stories in the first place.

I don't care if you post 1000 news articles that say the same thing in different words, the fact remains that the people who made up the story in the first place have admitted that it was a lie. Any number of repeats, no matter how many, or who by is still the repeat of that original lie. Provide some credible stats for the stories and you have something. The people who fabricated the original lie finally admitted that they were lying because they were called to the table to substantiate their claims and they knew that they couldn't do it. You can't do it either. You can only provide endless repeats of the original lie which is still a lie.

 

[palerider]

The pro-lifers know they will never stop abortions. They just want women who have them to die.

Care to substantiate that idiotic bit of tripe? If this is the best you can do, then it is clear that you are nothing more than a handwringer appealing to emotion because you aren't able to form any sort of coherent argument, or defense of your positon.

 

[numinus]

It's just so very sad the hate that is shown against women by yourself and palerider. I actually feel a little sorry for you both.


Seriously you guys need to take that dog and pony show somewhere else because there is no doubt at all that wire coat hangers as well as many other household items were used to create abortions when abortion was illegal.

And you are just wrong about the Service issue as well. Many fled to Canada to save their own lives. There are large numbers of young men that even went to the extreme of trying to invoke conscientious objector status here in the United States that were FORCED to go to war and be killed against their will. I know... I grew up through the Vietnam era. I had a cousin that did all that, went to court the whole deal, and was still forced in.

If the government feels so strongly that they can take lives of full grown young men against their will. Certainly a woman can have control of her own internal bodily functions containing 2 microscopic cells forward until it has developed to where it could survive outside the womb.

You can't just pick and choose for a convenient argument... Oh, over here to help my arguement I'll say No Killing not even 2 microscopic cells... but wait... over here I'll say forcing an Innocent person to be killed in the draft is perfectly OK??????? It's not a perfect world my friend.

Banning Partial Birth abortion was just a clarification on the interpretation of viability. By the time it's "Partial Birth" it's very late on in development. I do not disagree with the interpretation. The life of the mother is still protected.

I'll follow up with a history... too many words for one posting. But I can post this here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4SaD-fEwJs

No sorrier than I feel for you and your nonsense.

You are arguing for the state to bestow permission to a woman TO KILL HER OFFSPRING, and leave her conscience burdened by such a heinious deed - and you accuse me of hate??? Your argument is BEYOND HATE. It is cold, desensitized, dehumanized and systematic GENOCIDE - a culture of DEATH OF UNPRECEDENTED MAGNITUDE AND SCOPE.

And for what - a faulty understanding of freedom or civil liberty? Your freedom NEVER meant to be a blanket authority to do as you wish. It is always limited by reason, by the common good, and most of all, by the RIGHTS OF OTHERS, which everyone possesses in EQUAL measure.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Coming in as an outsider to this discussion (I really don't care about the abortion -- I believe it should be left up to the state) I just have to say that the pro-choicers are getting their ass kicked in this debate.

Coyote made a few good points but other than that, palerider and numinus are going to town on the pro-choicers.

 

[Coyote]

I absolutely can not give on the issue of forced pregnancy via rape...

 

[numinus]

I absolutely can not give on the issue of forced pregnancy via rape...

This is an appeal to emotion. This goes against what LOGICALLY follows from the personhood of the fetus. The law shouldn't be entertaining appeals to emotion - only facts and logic.

 

[top gun]

The pro-lifers know they will never stop abortions. They just want women who have them to die.

You are of course correct. I don't know if you read the An era of tragedy for women I posted. It's a fair and balanced accounting not written by either side of the arguement... Not NARAL (Pro-Choice group)... Not the Religious Right.

You can see how they were very willing to interpret the numbers from varying perspectives to be as fair as possible. And you can also see documented that there was a group trying to smoke and mirrors the truth by denying the event even ever happened.

Isn't it eerie how similar the Far Right in their attempt to discredit this event in time is to the Nazis and Arabs denying there was ever even a Holocaust.

An era of tragedy for women
When abortion was illegal
October 21, 2005 | Pages 6 and 7

ABORTION WAS criminalized throughout the U.S. between the late 1800s and 1973. But during that time, millions of women sought and obtained abortions anyway.
Of these, tens upon tens of thousands died from illegal abortions or complications arising from them. One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year.

Some of these deaths were the result of the abortions themselves, but many more were from infection and hemorrhaging afterward. Because of the fear of being punished and socially ostracized, many women--and their doctors--kept their real condition a secret.

The right wing has gone on an organized campaign to discredit such statistics, going as far to claim that deaths from illegal abortion were “just” a few dozen a year--and that the anecdotes of items such as coat hangers being inserted into women’s bodies to cause an abortion are false. In reality, coat hangers were just one horror among many during the years of illegal abortion.

 

[top gun]

No sorrier than I feel for you and your nonsense.

You are arguing for the state to bestow permission to a woman TO KILL HER OFFSPRING, and leave her conscience burdened by such a heinious deed - and you accuse me of hate??? Your argument is BEYOND HATE. It is cold, desensitized, dehumanized and systematic GENOCIDE - a culture of DEATH OF UNPRECEDENTED MAGNITUDE AND SCOPE.

And for what - a faulty understanding of freedom or civil liberty? Your freedom NEVER meant to be a blanket authority to do as you wish. It is always limited by reason, by the common good, and most of all, by the RIGHTS OF OTHERS, which everyone possesses in EQUAL measure.

EVERYBODY should click on this. It sums up the two sides of this debate wonderfully!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU

 

[palerider]

I absolutely can not give on the issue of forced pregnancy via rape...

So don't give up on it just yet. The fact that you have changed your mind on 999 out of 1,000 cases speaks volumes.

 

[palerider]

Coming in as an outsider to this discussion (I really don't care about the abortion -- I believe it should be left up to the state) I just have to say that the pro-choicers are getting their ass kicked in this debate.

Isn't that the way it always is? After all, the pro choice position is based on faith. Faith in the belief that unborns aren't human beings with rights the same as every other human being. Faith in the belief that one human being should be allowed to kill another human being without legal consequence to relieve them of any responsibility for thier behavior. In some cases, faith in a lie made up decades ago about women using coat hangers to abort their children themselves, and faith that the depravity of legally killing inocents will remain legal forever.

The pro life position is based in corroborated, substantiated fact. The facts of developmental biology, the facts of the law, and the fact that an ever growing body of precedent has legally established the personhood of the unborn are exactly why roe will eventually be struck down. Our legal system may not be the fastest in the world, but it does work and the facts will not be denied.

Coyote made a few good points but other than that, palerider and numinus are going to town on the pro-choicers.

Coyote's position is not entirely faith based. He has been swayed by a perponderance of the facts.

 

[palerider]

EVERYBODY should click on this. It sums up the two sides of this debate wonderfully!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU

Once again, you prove that your position isn't based in fact, but on hand wringing emotionalism and faith. Anti woman. How stupid must one be to believe such tripe. Half of the unborns that are killed are female. One who is anti woman might allow the killing of unborn females but deny the woman any freedom in killing males.

But since I took the time to listen to your crap, I may as well take a few more minutes (as that is all it takes) to tear it down. George suggests that those who are anti abortion only care about the children before they are born. A great deal of research puts the lie to this little statement. For starters, conservatives give far more money to charity than liberals, and conservatives, particularly conservative christians adopt far more children than do liberals. Also, conservatives work within communities at a far greater rate than liberals.

Then he suggests that conservatives think a woman's primary function is to be a brood mare for the state. Tell me, what does the state do with all the children who are not killed before they are born? To the best of my knowledge, you were not killed before you were born so what did the state do with you once your brood mare mother delivered you? The statement is an appeal to emotion. Handwringing slogans pure and simple but not based in any sort of truth at all.

Then he goes on to suggest that conservatives don't adopt black kids or crack babies. The fact is that most who are adopted are adopted by conservatives.

Then he gets into the usual biological misinformation. "How come with us it's an abortion but with a chicken it's an omlet. If he were speaking from a position of fact, he would note that the eggs we buy from a grocery store come from a place where there aren't any roosters and what you are buying is nothing more than an egg easily identifed by DNA as belonging to the hen. If he gets his eggs from under a chicken that lives around roosters, his omlet is, in reality, a chicken that is genetically different from its mother.

Then he asks if a fetus is a human being. If he had even the smallest grasp of developmental biolgy, he would know that science states explictly and unequivocally that unborns are human beings. And he want's to know why they aren't counted in the census. Well, for starters, they aren't citizens and the census is for counting American citizens.

Then he asks if an unborn is a human being, then why isn't there a funeral when a mom miscarries. Often, there is a funeral, but the question suggests that a funeral is a requirememt for being a human being as if we don't really become human beings until we die and if we get a funeral, then yep, we were a human being.

Then there is the misconception that a woman isn't pregnant for 6 or 7 days after fertilization is complete and the unborn implants into the uterus. Such ignorance was acceptable when roe was decided and in fact, that lack of scientific knowledge was the basis upon which roe was decided. Today, we know that within minutes after fertilization, the unborn is in chemical communication with its mother and her body knows it is pregnant.

Later he suggests that most pregnancies fail as if that constituted any sort of argument. 100% of us die. The fact that they die is irrelavent to the abortion discussion as there is a distinct difference between dying a natural death and being deliberately killed. By this point in his routine, it is clear, however, that his audience is composed mostly of people like you who are holding a faith based position and don't have a clue as to whether he is telling them the truth or not.

Then the argument that unsused sperm constitute killing human beings. You have made that idiotic argument yourself. The fact is that sperm by itself is of no more consequence than fingernail clippings.


So for once top gun, you are right. George's little routine does sum up the debate quite nicely. One side, your side, makes argument after argument after argument that is nothing more than BS for a stand up commedian's routine. It isn't based in truth, it isn't based in any sort of scientific fact, or legal precedent. It is based entirely in emotion.

One side point. You suggested in another thread, that because of other statements that a man had made, on other topics, his credibility was highly questionable and as such, you refused to even consider information that came from the man. Never mind that you weren't able to form a coherent rebuttal, you simply refused to consider his words because of other statements he made on other topics.

Consider that right next to this idiotic bit of tripe by George are links to George also making the case that rape CAN be funny, and that natural disasters are funny, and the humor associated with being obese, and how funny alcololism is. Tell me, do you agree with these other routines and by that fact, consider him credible on abortion, or are you a hypocrite who doesn't think that rape is funny, or natural disasters, or obesity, or alcoholism but accept his views on rape in spite of the fact that he holds other positions that you don't agree with.

Face it top gun, you have brought a knife to an intellectual gunfight. You don't belong here because you were outclassed from the beginning. Misunderstood biology, flawed legal knowledge, and repeating admitted lies is all you have and as such, you don't have anything.

 

[Coyote]

This is an appeal to emotion. This goes against what LOGICALLY follows from the personhood of the fetus. The law shouldn't be entertaining appeals to emotion - only facts and logic.

No, it's not just emotion. It stems from what I view as inalienable rights - and quite possibly, my perspective is colored by the fact that I am a female and the consequences of this would affect me much more immediately then either you or Palerider. I admit to that and I admit that logic alone may not overcome my feelings here - but cold logic isn't always everything.

If two people engage in sex - no matter what the protections - they take a risk, however small, of getting pregnant. That means they are consenting to a possible pregnancy. That calls into question the right of either one then, to terminate it unless the mother's life or health are endangered. I can agree with that though I'm not sure I'd agree with a Federal ban on it, I'd rather see it be decided by individual states.

But if a person is raped there is no consent, implied or otherwise to pregnancy. Not only is she - an innocent person punished by the crime itself, but she is punished further by the physical, emotional, financial consequences of pregnancy and childbirth - something concerning her body. She alone assumes the risks associated with pregnancy, and she alone pays the price of an unwanted pregnancy. No one has the right to force that on her unwilling. I see it as little more then slavery for nine months or longer if there are health consequences. No one can force you to give up a kidney to save a dying person (even though you would live perfectly fine with one kidney) - yet you can force a pregnant woman to keep her pregnancy to avoid killing the fetus?

 

[numinus]

No, it's not just emotion. It stems from what I view as inalienable rights - and quite possibly, my perspective is colored by the fact that I am a female and the consequences of this would affect me much more immediately then either you or Palerider. I admit to that and I admit that logic alone may not overcome my feelings here - but cold logic isn't always everything.

Correct.

The humanity of law resides in its MAGNANIMITY. Only AFTER demonstratiing cold facts and logic can the law exercise compassion.

If two people engage in sex - no matter what the protections - they take a risk, however small, of getting pregnant. That means they are consenting to a possible pregnancy. That calls into question the right of either one then, to terminate it unless the mother's life or health are endangered. I can agree with that though I'm not sure I'd agree with a Federal ban on it, I'd rather see it be decided by individual states.

I do not see any reason for individual states to have fundamentally disparate standards for murder.

But if a person is raped there is no consent, implied or otherwise to pregnancy. Not only is she - an innocent person punished by the crime itself, but she is punished further by the physical, emotional, financial consequences of pregnancy and childbirth - something concerning her body. She alone assumes the risks associated with pregnancy, and she alone pays the price of an unwanted pregnancy. No one has the right to force that on her unwilling. I see it as little more then slavery for nine months or longer if there are health consequences. No one can force you to give up a kidney to save a dying person (even though you would live perfectly fine with one kidney) - yet you can force a pregnant woman to keep her pregnancy to avoid killing the fetus?

I'm sorry but, to my mind, the only valid reason for taking another person's life is self defense. And even then, it is valid ONLY when it complies with the principle of non-culpable self defense - meaning, that one need apply ONLY the necessary force to DETER one's aggressor, and IF POSSIBLE, SAVE THE AGGRESSOR'S LIFE.

The circumstances for which an abortion becomes a valid legal option is a very small window, indeed. And this window has nothing to do with rape. You have the entire criminal law and tort law to address the various aspects of rape. Abortion is simply not an answer to it.