Talk Elections

Post any news snippets here.

http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-right-not-to-know (http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-right-not-to-know)

None of this is by any means 'the extreme' wing of the party anymore.

Aren't any of you with a brain and a heart ashamed?!?

The single motherhood bill is pretty stupid and they probably shouldn't be holding the domestic violence bill hostage but otherwise I'm fine with this.

Abortion is murder (which many of you disagree with but nevertheless consider the consequences of that statement for a moment). That means somewhat extraordinary means can be used to stop it from occurring. Planned Parenthood murders 1.5% of its patients, so I have absolutely no problem with making is more difficult for them to get money.

At least Republicans support universal healthcare to assist families they want to force to have sick and crippled children. Oh, wait...

At least Republicans support gay marriage so loving gay parents could take on some of those extra babies. Oh, wait...

Republicans don't fool me for one second. They are the anti-family party.

"Obama's War on Medicaid Recipients" would be more accurate (not that that's saying much . . .)

And should women who don't want to abort but need to do so for medical reasons be forced to go through extra hoops to make the experience even more traumatic? Because that's what is happening.


Planned Parenthood receive exactly 0 dollars from the government to fund abortions. What's being taken away from are programs that allow women to not get pregnant in the first place so they wouldn't have to consider an abortion and to ensure that babies they want are born healthy. In other words you'll still have the abortions, but you're taking away things that might actually prevent abortions - how exactly is that a good thing?

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/6KUPje/www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/09/georgia-lawmaker-compares-women-to-cows-and-pigs/

Terry England, Georgia Republican Lawmaker, Compares Women To Farm Animals


Video in the link. My state government is a sick joke.

Just so we're clear: You're advocating the punishment for murder--15 to life in Ohio-for any woman that knowingly terminates her pregnancy? I likewise presume that you support mandatory bindover to the adult court system for any juvenile teenage girl who commits Murder (again, as is the law in Ohio)?

The last time I checked, a cluster of undifferentiated stem cells did not constitute a person. Let's take those out of the womb and watch them survive.

The Democrats pushing this "War on Women" issue is tiresome. Everyone knows Republicans have issues with women, why do they have to talk about it all the time? They remind me a great deal of the man who was angered at a dog barking at him and beat the dog to death. After the dog was dead the man continued to beat the corpse of the dead dog. "Hey, why are you hitting that dog?" a neighbor asked, "It is already dead!" "I know," the man responded, "But I believe in punishment after death."   

Because if they don't the Republicans will get away with it, duh. You don't just ignore an issue like this if you want it to go away.

QFT.

Never used that term before, but this post deserved it.

Yes, but is there not the slightest chance that the wagging of this issue may be easily spun by Republicans as one brought up ONLY to distract from the economy thus minimizing the rights of women to a mere campaign side-show? Is that really in the best interest of the community?

I don't think there's any good way the Republicans can spin people pointing out the problems with their women's rights issues in a way that favors them. They are losing women voters over this.

As far as the economy I don't believe it's been forgotten, nor ever will be. It is always a central issue in any major race, regardless of the other issues de jour. The issue still comes up. I also don't believe the Republicans really have the answers the our economic woes.

Also, ignoring women's rights issues is definitely not in the best interests of the community. Especially the female part.

I'm glad we have a single thread for all this stuff, since there's no sign of the GOP slowing its recent streak of bizarre mysoginistic initiatives, so we can probably expect much, much more of this kind of thing.


YOU MEAN TO TELL ME GEORGE WASHINGTON NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL PILLS?!



()

Yes, that would be the eventual goal. I understand many people find such an idea to be too much and would therefore support any intermediate steps to move in that direction.

In other words, you consider abortion murder but it's apparently not such a big deal that you insist it be treated like actual murder. You are fine with compromising on murder. How moral of you...

There's more than one account of morality, obviously.  The sort of all-or-nothing deontology you are assuming is only one account.  If someone believes an act is horrible, then it's not necessarily immoral for them to approve of the nearest thing that will stop it just because it's not prosecuting it to the fullest.  Indeed, there's a sense in which refusing to act to stop murder due to concerns of legal consistency is itself a compromise with murder.
I'll go further than TJ here.  If there's any other way to stop abortion, I'd rather women not be sentenced a murderer's sentence for it. They're told that what they are doing isn't killing, they are pressured into it, etc. (I know this point has gotten me called condescending in the past, but whatever . . .)  The fundamental value here is not prosecuting murder, it is protection of innocent life. Having a juvenile justice system doesn't mean a murder isn't as awful just because there's a different legal response.  I imagine you think Truth and Reconciliation Commission was immoral because it wasn't the full Nuremburg treatment, but many people who had to live with real world consequences believe that for peace and healing it was the right thing to do.

I don't think you get what I'm actually saying - I'm saying that if he thinks it's ok to just dawdle and compromise over what he views as mass murder, then I don't think he actually views it as murder. IMO, his actions and attitude do not carry the same weight as someone who is dealing with mass murder within his own country.

Also, the TRC vs Nuremburg thing isn't an apt comparison to this issue - those were dealing with atrocities after they occurred. We're talking about something that is still occurring and will continue to occur.

I never include Abortion as part of the " War on women", because I personally believe protecting women's sexual freedom ( Contraceptives, birth control) is a completely different issue than fighting against the killing of babies.  Contraceptives represent basic rights that should be protected for women, whiles I feel abortion overrides the rights of a Child to life. When you impede on someone Else's rights I feel it's morally wrong especially when it comes to whether or not they're allowed to live (Which is the same reason I'm against the death penalty).  

Dude, we're not just talking about abortions for convenience - these people are trying to restrict abortions in cases of medical necessity. In the process they are also defunding organizations that help with contraceptives and healthy birthing, which is not going to decrease the number of abortions since none of that funding goes to abortions. Women are the ones who are affected most by this. Read the posted articles.

O my bad when I came into this section I was under the impression that it was just a general discussion where you stated your views. I wasn't aware that there was an actual article this was in response to so I apologize.

What should I do then Dibble? Should I oppose laws restricting abortion in strange ways just because they don't prosecute the women with murder? Heck, should I even oppose attempts to outlaw it if they wouldn't charge the women with murder for the sake of moral consistency?

None of that would accomplish a thing toward stopping abortion. Unless you are suggesting the use of force in an uprising (which would also fail btw), I don't see what better way of stopping abortion there is available than trying to pass laws like these to make abortion more difficult to get. Right now it can't be outlawed anyway because the Supreme Court has ruled that way.

The other point that is somewhat lost in this thread is that the amount of time spent in prison is probably not the most important factor in stopping women from having an abortion. The sentence would need to be substantial, yes, but if you suddenly decided to change the laws such that women who had an abortion would be charged with murder starting tomorrow, you would end up with an unmangeable flow of women into the justice system and no way of dealing with that. As a result that would never happen. Too many women who've killed their children but still could live socially productive lives would be forced behind bars, making it all so prohbively expensive and unpopular the public would outcry against such a measure in enough force that it would not last.

It would be wonderful if people could all be stopped from killing each other today but that's not the way the world works. Trying to bring about an immediate end to abortion is like asking for immediate world peace. Attempting to implement both is vapid nonesense. Solving problems of this magnitude requires a long term plan.

Oh right, for a second there I forgot this was the new strawman thread. Carry on, then.

Supporting the strange laws isn't stopping it either. As I pointed out it just puts the women who actually have a medical need for the procedure through extra pain and defunds programs that might actually prevent abortions. I mean seriously, do you honestly think that forcing women to give birth to stillborn babies is going to help your cause?


You wouldn't have to go so far as overthrowing the government. You'll find that terrorism is unfortunately rather effective - why do you think there are people who bomb clinics and kill abortion providers? Those people are really committed to the idea and are willing to defend the innocent. Or hell, if you aren't willing to go that far you could be one of those folks who protest outside of clinics. Do you at least do that much, because if you don't the murder must not be that big of a deal to you.


There's this thing called a "constitutional amendment" that you might look into.


If you admit your position is stupid, then why advocate it in the first place?


EDIT - sorry if I was a bit of a dick here, was in a rather bad mood yesterday

That's not what I said.


Oh yes, blowing up abortion clinics is a great way to convince people to outlaw abortion ::)


We both know that 38 states are not going to ratify it. We're much closer to the Supreme Court reversing its ruling that that happening.


That's not what I said. ::)

I said it's currently impractical so we need to take intermediate steps to get there. Those are two entirely different things.


EDIT - sorry if I was a bit of a dick here, was in a rather bad mood yesterday
[/quote]

Earlier you did say you want Planned Parenthood to not get money, (again, even though none of those funds are used for abortion) and the bolded section indicates that you think you should support laws that restrict abortion in strange ways. If that's not your position, then what do you support?


Didn't say it was. I said terrorism is unfortunately effective. You don't have to get people to outlaw it, you just have to get the providers to stop doing it. I'm not saying you should either. Frankly I think you shouldn't try to legislate your religious morality (and yes, I'm thinking your position is based on your religious beliefs) on others.


And your intermediate steps are...? I mean seriously, your argument above kind of makes it such that no such steps would be feasible either.

I support making women see ultrasounds to try and guilt them out of having abortions. I support parental notification/consent laws. I support anything that makes abortion illegal after a certain point. I support laws requiring a "waiting period" or a doctor "explaining all other options" since they increase the chance a woman will make the opposite decision. And yes, I would support defunding Planned Parenthood from other services as well because they are our nation's largest abortion provider and anything that hurts them is likely to make abortions more difficult to obtain.


Yes, you caught me! I'm trying to legislate my religious morality! Murder is against my religious beliefs and yet, I still think it should be illegal!


1. I would suggest states should put the maximum possible restrictions they are legally able to do now.
2. We should attempt to get "strict constructionist" aka pro-life judges on the Supreme Court by voting for presidents who agree to appoint them.
3. Return the issue to the states and begin outlawing abortion by the state. It is less important to charge the women and providers with murder as it is to make it generally illegal such that an abortion is much more difficult to get.
4. As abortion is increasingly forced under the radar and into back alleys, begin upping the sentences and charging the women and doctors with murder.

That is, in my opionion, the most likely route to achieving the minimum number of abortions. I am not saying it's likely, just that it's a more likely route than anything else. If you have any actual suggestions rather than snarky insults I would be glad to hear them.

You're certainly posting in the appropriate thread, I must say.

So you support cases like the one I posted where a woman who had to have an abortion or give birth to a child who would require constant expensive medical care and have a miserable life? And are you willing to have the state pay for this constant medical care since you're forcing the issue?


So you support treating teenage girls as the property of their parents, and forcing those girls to give birth and likely have to drop out of high school?


So you support making a fetus even more developed before it gets terminated?


So you support destroying programs that actually prevent abortions and allow low-income women to have healthy children, even though none of the funding you are taking away actually goes to abortions?


I was speaking of the fact that you think this...

()

...is somehow a person, even though there's no evidence for that.

And honestly, if you think about it what's the problem? Your religion has heaven, right? If a fetus is killed it won't have sinned, so won't it go straight to heaven? There won't be any risk of it being raised by sinful parents who would have an abortion, so the soul's chances are much better this way. Or do you believe your deity is so monstrous that he condemns the unborn to hell?


So exactly how are these steps going to change the problems you mentioned earlier with incarcerating women en masse? Abortions are going to still happen in large numbers, just as it always has.

Yeah, no, a fetus is not a person.  Nice try though.

And, as a radical feminist, I dislike the implication that the Republicans are the only ill facing American women, and that feminism can just scurry away back to the kitchen once abortion and contraception and other such things are secured.

All of these are pretty obvious positions resulting from a fetus being a human life since they increase the chances the woman will not have an abortion. First you attack me for not really believing that abortion is murder and now you are asking about whether or not I support these things?! Isn’t it completely obvious that murder outweighs any of these complaints by such a ridiculous margin that it’s pointless to even ask them?

And yes (since this is the only one worth addressing) I would support having the state pay for healthcare for severely disabled people if their parents cannot afford it.


Planned Parenthood is not the only healthcare provider in existence. Less money for them means more money for other health clinics. If there were some remote local area where Planned Parenthood was the only local provider of other care then I would be fine granting them an exemption. But in most places the opposite is true, for example, there are five clinics in my hometown that offer mammograms but zero abortion clinics.


A human embryo is alive and contains the full capability of progressing into a full grown adult. The embryo is not a part of the mother’s body— they have different DNA than the mother. The only coherent definition of when life begins that can be found is at fertilization because all others are arbitrary. If you say that life begins at birth, then the fetus just about to be born is not a person until it comes out, even though it’s structure before and after that point are essentially identical. The same can be said of any other arbitrary point along fetal development, such as viability or when a heart rate is detected, etc. The only logical place to assign the beginning of a life to is to fertilization (or perhaps implantation but that doesn’t make as much sense since the zygote is still around before then). If you try to trace a person’s existence backward, the place where the existence begins is at fertilization. Before then, the individual person is an egg and a sperm, clearly neither component is a person (and only has half the DNA). As far as truly proving it’s a person, you can’t prove anyone is a person. I can’t prove you are a person and you can’t prove I am.


I do not believe aborted babies go to hell. But taking the position that it’s okay to kill anyone who would go to heaven isn’t acceptable. Murder is not okay, regardless of whether or not the person who is killed is in a better place. That person has the right to go through life. This applies to persons in society at large beyond abortion. If we take this as a purely religious argument then the soul of the baby is not the only one we should be concerned about. What about the mother?


These steps would make abortion much harder to get, therefore drastically reducing the number that occur. You have admitted yourself that some girls would be forced not to have abortions here:
Would requiring parental consent stop girls from having an abortion or not? You can’t have it both ways.

If you make abortions illegal, fewer doctors will perform them, if nothing else because they must be done in secret (and of course some people will not perform them out of fear of breaking the law), it would reduce the supply of abortions and make them more difficult to get.

This entire thread wants to make me run very hard head first against a brick wall...

^^^^^

Could not have said this better, though I'm not 100% positive my specific subset of feminism's desired solutions are entirely the same as Morgan's (in terms of public policy they're probably similar on contraception and might well be quite similar or quite different on abortion).

TJ, would or would not wanting or seeking an abortion, but being legally estopped from going through with it, itself constitute mortal sin?

You are correct (at least for seeking, wanting depends on the situation). However, the gravity of the sin, while still mortal, would be reduced.

Yep.

Where exactly lies the rub in distinguishing in gravity between mortal sins? Is it just a question of the amount of penance required?

Wow, someone agrees with me.  :D

1. The GOP doesn't care whether or not there are other clinics in a local area. The defunding is universal, regardless of whether a particular clinic even provides abortions. (HINT, not all of them do)
2. Among those five clinics, how many are non-profit? I'm betting most if not all of them are businesses, so that doesn't exactly help those who have low income. Even if you were to fund them for that purpose, they likely would still charge more so the money would not be used effectively)


Potential to become a person does not make it a person.


Having unique DNA does not make something a person.


What are you talking about? It's completely arbitrary to give personhood to a zygote. It's a clump of cells with no brain - it can't think, it can't feel, etc. It has none of the qualifications we use to define "person". You might as well give personhood to an earthworm since it at least has a functioning brain.


Which almost nobody does. This is why even most pro-choice advocates are fine with third-trimester abortions being illegal, and why the are illegal.


The heart is irrelevant to personhood as it is simply a pump for blood. On the other hand the brain does matter as that is what holds our memories, senses, feelings, intellectual capacity, etc., therefore it is perfectly logical to look at the state of brain development if you're going to make a determination.


If you really think this is a valid argument what business do you have telling others what they can and can't do based on things you can't prove?



What about the mother? Presuming you're a Christian, then either she's saved or damned, right? If she's a good Christian who makes an honest mistake ("Thou shalt not abort" isn't explicitly stated in the Bible like certain other commands) or becomes one later then won't Jesus forgive her? And if she's not isn't she hellbound anyways? But let's suppose she is someone who does profess to be a Christian and does believe that God forbids abortion - if the only thing keeping her from having an abortion is man's law and not God's law, do you think that when her time comes that she'll really be among the chosen?

You need to read up on reproductive physiology.  For one, it is absolutely untrue that all zygotes contain "the full capability of progressing into a full grown adult".  All zygotes with trisomies other than Trisomy-21 have a 0% chance of progressing into a full grown adult.  Zygotes with Tay Sachs have a 0% chance of progressing into a full grown adult.  Zygotes with  any number of inherent diseases have a 0% chance of progressing into a full grown adult.  In fact, many, many disorders mean it isn't even possible for a zygote to develop into a fetus, let alone a full grown adult, and many proto-humans with what we would consider perfectly well-formed genomes are spontaneously aborted all the time; though we wouldn't know it otherwise, they apparently had a 0% chance of progressing into a full grown adult. (Note that this isn't a particularly good justification for abortion in those cases, either, as we'd then have to be okay with infanticide in, say, cases of Tay-Sachs.  I'm just saying that your first definition needs revision.)

Second, and much more importantly, you're absolutely wrong that "the only logical place to assign the beginning of a life to is fertilization", because there is no moment wherein suddenly "fertilization" happens.  It's a process, and it takes place over time.  First the sperm has to encounter the egg, then it has to merge with the egg, then the DNA of the sperm and the egg have to meet up and combine together, then that DNA needs to be replicated before it reaches the usual human contingent of 46 chromosomes (or, not-46 chromosomes, as the case may be), then it needs to replicate again to start dividing.  My recollection is that this process takes about 48 hours, total; after the zygote zooms down the Fallopian tube, it still needs to implant in the uterus.  At what point does "fertilization" occur?  I don't see any good dividing line here; perhaps you'd propose the 46-chromosome point (as you say, there's something special about DNA combining together), but, even then, it is every bit a part of a continuum as, say, birth is.

And, of course, you have to consider what happens next.  Let's say the cell is merrily dividing, and suddenly a division happens a bit too divisively and... voila!  Identical twins.  At what point did each twin's life begin?  Did they both start at conception and happened to share a body?  (If so, should we charge fertility specialists who destroy embryos before they divide very much with just one murder, or should we charge them with more just in case?)  Did the life of one start at conception and the other start when they split apart?  Did they both start when the split apart?  (If either of the latter two, why is fertilization so important, then, if there's a bifurcated system in which twins start later than singletons?)

Look, I don't mean to belittle your beliefs; I think "when life begins" is a problem that cannot be answered scientifically.  You can define it however you think is appropriate.  But I just want to make sure you know that, just as there's no scientific case for life to begin at birth, there's also none for life to begin at conception/fertilization/implantation or whatever you want to call it when the sperm meets the egg and does something-or-other.  There's nothing more "natural" or "abrupt" or "logical" about "fertilization" as a thing than there is about "birth" as a thing.

Hi all.
I've been lurking here for months, but after seeing some of the responses in this thread, I just had to respond.

TJ, I have a happy, healthy 4 year old son. If I was to murder him because I could no longer take care of him (or didn't want to, for some reason), you would (rightly) label me a complete monster who needs to be (at the very least) imprisoned for the rest of my life.

 Yet when a woman who cannot take care of her unborn child (or again, doesn't want to) seeks an abortion (which you SAY you believe is murder), you say that punishing her isn't the important thing.

Your position that abortion is murder is completely undermined by your treating them as two separate actions.

As another piece of evidence, in the years George W. Bush was in office, there were over 6.7 million abortions in the United States. During Clinton's term,  there were over 8.8 million abortions. In Reagan's term, there were almost 9.3 million abortions. In each of those cases, those numbers are higher than the number of murders committed in the Holocaust! Yet, you don't claim that any of those Presidents are worse than Hitler, or that the United States needs to be invaded in a massive world war to stop the wholescale slaughter of millions of innocent people.

TJ, in other posts you've made, I've seen you to be a person of upstanding moral  character, and while I may not always agree with everything you've said or every position you take, I've usually been able to respect your opinions. In this case, however, I wholeheartedly disagree with the opinions you've expressed here, and quite frankly, find your statements to be self-delusional.

I try to be open-minded, and if you believe I am being unfair, please tell me so with reasons why. I just find it hard to believe that you truly believe everything you've said here.

One is for profit and the other four belong to the same not-for-profit network.


An earthworm is not human. An embyro is. That's not a minor difference.


Which is even more arbitrary than calling birth the start of personhood because the cut-off between the second and third trimesters is when the Supreme Court arbitrarily decided to make it.


Intellectual capacity is what we should base our determinations on? Does this mean it's much less serious to kill and adult than an infant? They have a greater intellectual capacity.


I suppose this goes along with Nathan's point that seeking an abortion, even if prevented from having one, would constitute a mortal sin still so the point about saving the woman directly is moot. However, by changing the legal standards, you would effect what acts people seek to commit or give reasonable consideration of committing and almost certainly affect some women's intentions in that way.

More importantly, there is an intrinsic value in preventing a horrible act from being committed such as the intentional slaughter of an innocent child.

Okay, that's a great semantic point but it doesn't really change anything. There are plenty of infants and children with diseases that will also never reach maturity. You are correct the definition I gave needs some revision. I should have put the full genetic ensamble (which you could again split hairs and suggest that genetic disorders resulting from extra or missing chromosomes but then again those embryos would still have the entire set they mature with if they somehow do reach adulthood; the only possible argument there to differentiate them would be that they aren't human).


Science cannot answer questions of personhood because of the concept of a "person" is not a scientific concept. But we still have people and still afford a certain level of protection to people than we do other forms of life, so the question must be answered regardless. I contend that the best definition of a "person" available is a singular instance of human life. The question of "when life begins" is really a question of "what is a life". Life is defined scientifically in such a way that it is not a very useful question to ask is something is alive. Sperm cells are alive; egg cells are alive; you can cut a piece of tissue from the inside of my cheek and it would be alive. But what is a life? The singularity is the difference and it doesn't make sense to say that the singularity comes into existence at any other time than when its first cell comes into existence. As far as in what point during fertilization this occurs, I would contend the most logical answer is when the nuclei of the sperm cell and egg cell fuse. From that point onward the developing zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is a singular instance of human life (unless it splits into identical twins as you point out and in that case the singular instance becomes two singular instances, not too terribly different from how many organisms have asexual reproduction).

First of all, welcome to the forum :)


I would label you a person who murdered your child; the term "monster" is your word. In general, I do not view the criminal justice system as a means of using punishment under the premise that by such punishment we can achieve justice. The point of having a criminal justice system is to protect others from having crimes committed against them by 1)locking up those who have committed crimes previously, and 2) creating a deterent. To use the system as a means of simply inflicting punishment is no longer justice but revenge. For this reason I oppose using the death penalty as a criminal sentence. In an ideal world (aside from the part about you killing your child because that obviously would not happen at all in an ideal world) you would be sentenced until you are no longer dangerous and can once more be a productive member of society or at least some number of years long enough such that others would not do the same simply because there are no consequences.

I believe the exact same when it comes to abortion.


I am aware of the magnitude of the situation.

Comparisons to Hitler and to the Holocaust are rarely a good idea to make even if they are true. The primary reason why I would never make such a comparison is that these types of comparisons are purely rhetorically anyways (What actual difference does it make who's worse?) and they tend to offend more people than they convince. There are much more effective ways at conveying the magnitude of the problem than comparing it to the Holocaust.

In general, I make some degree of effort not to compare the moral worth of any two people. I can't claim to know what God will say to me when I die and go before him, but I'm pretty sure he won't say "well TJ, you deserve to burn in hell for all eternity but you were at least better than that Son of Will guy, so I'm going to let you off". This does not mean I should not question the morality of any act, lack of action, etc., but I do think these sorts of comparisions between people are not particularly meaningful.

FWIW, I do think that the US Presidents you mention are somewhat different than Hitler becuase the abortions that took place while they ran the country were not specifically ordered by their governments. Theirs is a sin of failing to stop someone else from doing something bad rather than actually orchestrating it. That is a very important moral difference.


Thank you.


What part in particular do you find delusional? The underlying point that life begins at fertilization or something else that follows? I can see how people might disagree with that point, but where does that become delusional? Or is it something else?

No, birth is more arbitrary because it takes no other additional things, such as brain development, into account. Being arbitrary is about taking things on whim and preference rather than on fact an reason. The more things you take facts and information into account, the less arbitrary it is.


Intellectual capacity is certainly one of the factors. (notice those others I listed) We treat other lifeforms differently based on these same things. For instance most modern nations outlaw animal abuse, even though we're willing to kill some animals for food. Yet we don't afford plants that protection, even though they are also alive. Why do you think that is?

And no, of course it isn't less serious. The idea is that once a being reaches a certain level it becomes wrong to kill it. If there were a sapient race with just half of the brain power of humans, any civilized person in this day and age would say it would be wrong to kill them.


What constitutes a mortal sin depends on your particular brand of Christianity. For instance one of the requirements in the Roman Catholic version is that you have to have full knowledge and understanding that what you are doing is a sin - I don't think most women who get abortions feel this way.


I agree, but you've demonstrated no facts that show that a fetus in all stages of development is a person.



What science can do is give us information which we can use to assess whether something is a person or not based on what our concept of a person is. We can look at the traits of things we consider to be persons, narrow down those traits to the ones we consider essential, and then make the comparisons against the subject we want to determine the personhood status of.

Thanks!


I apologize for putting my words in your mouth,and I generally agree with your thoughts on the justice system. However, my original point (which I didn't get across as clearly as I would have liked) remains. My point is that if you say abortion is equal to murder, then the consequences for both actions have to be the same. That is the whole basis of our justice system, that the same crimes have the same sentence.


I agree that invoking Godwin's Law rarely produces meaningful conversation, but I thought that in this specific case (talking about vast numbers of murders), it was a valid comparison. What else might you compare it to? I'm not trying to talk about who's worse, because you're right that it doesn't really matter anyway. I'm just trying to illustrate the magnitude of the crimes you claim are being committed in this country, and since you seem to understand, I see no further need to bring up that man or his crimes again in this conversation.


I would hope God WOULD make some distinction between crimes. Perhaps, though, that is another conversation at another date.

I'm not sure I see the moral difference. Choosing not to stop a murder when you are safely capable of doing so leaves you just as responsible for the death as the guy who pulled the trigger.



You're welcome!



I doubt that we'll ever be able to determine where life begins in a way that satisfies all people.

Perhaps delusional was a bad term, but the point I'm trying to make is this. You claim that abortion is murder and that you understand that the number of such murders would be on a nearly unprecdented scale in human history. However, I believe that your actions show you think otherwise. You do not wish abortion to be punished like murder (at least in the near-term), and you show no wish to stop it other than to provide more and more restrictions on it, until anybody would be to embarrased to get one.

I believe you argued earlier in the thread that holding an armed insurrection against the government would be futile, and it may be. But if you truly believed that your government was sanctioning the murder of MILLIONS of innocent people, wouldn't that be almost necessary, morally speaking, to start one anyway? Murder is one of the ultimate crimes in this world, and in the next. Something like that would need to be stopped now, by any means available, rather than at some indeterminate point in future.

The Republican party just has this bizzare rapist mindset that just gets worse by the year. Its like that Yale battle song to them. "No means Yes and Yes means F()uck". Am I right?

Fox News has detected at least a dozen liberal Wars on Culture, but a conservative War on Women?  *pfft*

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-16-2012/the-battle-for-the-war-on-women

Women don't play a large role in the Fox News Culture unless they are pretty.

What? That was some douches' drunken chant, not the goddam fight song.

When they commission a memorial for the cause on the Mall in 40 years, what will it look like?

By your logic, we should just let cancer progress to it's natural outcome - death of the host.

I guess that statement was a little too vague. Obviously cancer is not a separate person since it comes from a mutation rather than reproduction.

Uh, have you seen some of these anchors...?

Don't get caught up in the rhetoric ;) , or we might have some candidates for submission to The Atlas Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts thread.

I have a bit of bad habit of returning whatever style and tone the other person has when arguing. There wasn't a whole lot of subtlety from anyone in this thread right from the start.

Interestingly, there's a gay faction in the GOP Army.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mitt-romney-aide-history-snarky-comments-women-politics-zaps-hundreds-tweets-online-profile-article-1.1065790

After attacking Sandra Fluke as a slut, it was inevitable that the next slur would be that she's a lesbian.

https://twitter.com/#!/MonicaCrowley/status/195558620920954880

lol Kansas

lol Kansas
lol Sam Brownback
lol

We should just define sperm cells as children and get it over with.  :P

It amazes me that in many states, Republicans are openly endorsing the notion of allowing doctors to lie to their female patients about medical information. That one little tidbit of the bill is almost more repulsive than anything else about this bill.

What kind of political party legislates in favor of allowing (and in some cases, just plain forcing) Doctors to lie and withhold medical information? Why is that not completely outrageous to every person ever?

How far Republicans have been willing to take anti-abortion measures in the states has really exposed what sick levels they're willing to drop to as long as it might, theoretically, prevent an abortion. Dildo rape, borderline-brainwashing, guilting, and just outright lying. The ends justify the means. It would be lol-worthy were it not so terrifying and under-reported.

You mean that Republicans not only lie themselves but allow others to lie too? Amazing.

Obviously on some level it's not surprising, but it's one of those things that I wish people would just stop and seriously think about for a moment. It's so completely crazy that not stopping everything and having a serious discussion about that specific part of these bills feels like it's being overlooked.

Moreover though, it just feels like a teaching moment in how Republicans do policy. In Indiana, a Democratic senator proposed an amendment (http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2011/03/ind_law_the_bil.html) to the bill that required doctors to read a ridiculous script to women seeking an abortion, an amendment that would require all information in the script to be "medically and scientifically accurate." The amendment was rejected.

I wish people would stop and consider things like that. A political party in this country will reject amendments to their ideological goals that require such pesky things as medical and scientific accuracy. It is one thing to accuse the other side of being wrong, of trying to lie, of being dishonest about their goals and methods to those goals. That's always existed and is to be expected. It's a very different thing for that to be an open admission from the accused.

No doubt it is a sad state of affairs that our politics have stooped to such lows, dragged here by the dogmatic extremist conservatives and enabled by the spineless opposition party that is too scared to call out lies and distortions in fear of being seen as bold or partisan when they are attacked by the everything is legitimate, false-equivalency espousing fact-checkers who are further enabled by a huge chunk of the electorate that sees no problems with these changes.

If anybody asked me several years ago if we'd be here, I would have said no easily. It's been a surreal experience that has only gotten crazier since 2009 hasn't it? If you take out the obvious human suffering and opportunity cost of wasting our time on this petty garbage, it'd be funnier. I'm waiting with baited breath for the coming implosion.

In short: YEEHAW, AMERICA F**K YEAH!

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/6t29

*facepalm*

But remember, the only thing Republicans care about is jobs, jobs, jobs.

The problem is that I was not consulted first actually.

This is what makes me mad about the Republicans nowadays. They want to take abortion rights back to the 1970's. You know that time is over and done with. I vote Republican mostly yeah but this stuff makes me mad. Thats why I am not registered as a republican. To bad the libertarian party wasn't a big party I would join them instead. I am voting for Gary Johnson instead of Obama or Romney though. At least with the libertarian party they want economic freedom and believe in in freedom on social issues although I am moderate on gay marriage(I favor civil unions) and immigration.

So abortion is infanticide? Therefore, according to them, anyone who has an abortion or uses the morning-after poll should get Life in prison or the death penalty, right?

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/14/499961/as-punishment-for-opposing-anti-abortion-bill-male-michigan-house-leader-bans-two-female-reps-from-speaking/

I love it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SghMijpkrbs)

A Republican state legislator from New Hampshire (where about .1% of the state serves in the legislature) is making news with his views.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/17/17795530-another-setback-for-the-gops-outreach-to-women?lite

That's what this thread needs. Children and vaginas.

A finding from the Iowa Supreme Court, which you'll recall, had three members booted out by a Republican effort after they ruled in favor of marriage equality.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/iowas-all-male-supreme-court-firing-of-woman-for-being-too-attractive-was-legal.php

It's an all-male panel, like that panel that testified to Congress a few years ago about why women shouldn't have contraception included with their employer health coverage.

The war on women is a talking point of the left.

That's actually a common phrase in Nova Scotia meaning "mind your own business" or "you don't know crap about this topic". I've used to refer to both men and women.

Woman sees her salary reduced by $20k from that of her male predecessor.

Problem:  Woman is Washington state GOP chairwoman.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/22/washington-state-gop-chair-claims-war-on-women-responsible-for-pay-reduction/

Rush Limbaugh makes a lighthearted comparison of filibuster reform to rape.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/rush-limbaugh-filibuster-rape-analogy-100269.html

Do you remember when Republicans tried to criticize him for his misogynistic comments, and then had to apologize publicly within two days?

The chairman of the Montgomery County PA Republican Committee has been arrested.  He allegedly offered a ride to an employee at his law firm after a work party, offered her alcohol secretly laced with Ambien, and then raped her twice.

http://limerick.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/exgop-chairman-charged-with-rape-drug-possession-limerick

Michigan's legislature must consider a citizen petition requiring Michigan women to take out "rape insurance."

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/12/04/3018691/michigan-lawmakers-rape-insurance-abortion/

Republican Staffers And Candidates Are Taking Classes To Learn How Not To Offend Women

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/12/05/3024231/gop-classes-women/

All the links to thinkprogress make me want to visit this whacky site.  Is it worth it?  I love War on threads.

Don't feel bad, Torie, I doubt any irrelevant nobodies were consulted.

ME GOP Candidate: The fact that I've been jailed for beating my wife multiple times, and haven't admitted to it, proves how much guts and integrity I have (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/erick-bennett-susan-collins_n_4538769.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037)

This is like saying Fred Phelps is a Democrat...it's true on the surface, but it doesn't represent the party whatsoever.

...Which is not what I was suggesting.

What else is suggested by posting a link like that in the thread entitled 'The GOP War on Women'? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I legitimately can't tell.

The guy is a batterer.  He beats his wife.  He's running as a Republican and trying to play the unapologetic for being a piece of sh**t card.

It's another example of self described Republicans treating women badly... and there is a lot of recent, valid precedent in that category.

Quit defending wife beaters, Vosem.  And get rid of these people in your party.  We don't want Fred Phelps in our party.  And the way we prove he's not really a Democrat is by treating LGBTs with respect and dignity and equity.

Spousal battery is a crime. We don't need criminals as leaders. 

Phelps did something similar in Kansas Democratic primaries in the 1990s -- it didn't work then and it won't work now. Besides, I'm quite confident that he isn't about to get much support from other Republicans:



Can't think of anyone who comes even close to this guy -- in fact the only person I can think of who 'treated women badly' is desJarlais (though you're welcome to correct me if there're more examples, I suppose). Certainly some Republicans have voiced some pretty horrible views (Akin comes to mind as a particularly egregious, prominent example), but I don't think many have actually assaulted women like this guy.


How is comparing someone to Fred Phelps defense? I'm defending the Maine GOP, but surely you can tell it would be gross lying to call the Maine GOP 'wife-beaters'.


If someone told me how, I'd go do it right now.


We don't want Erick Bennett in our party either. Have you read the article?


The thing is, in the US, self-identification is what determines what party you're in. If Phelps says he's a Democrat, he is. But, you're right in the broader sense that he is far out of step with the remainder of the party and has no chance of being nominated or elected to anything, ever. This guy is the same way (except less notorious).

Ken Buck: Yes, I am pro-life. While I understand a woman wants to be in control of her body — it’s certainly the feeling that I had when I was a cancer patient, I wanted to be in control of the decisions that were made concerning my body — there is another fundamental issue at stake. And that’s the life of the unborn child. (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/15/3168071/republican-senate-candidate-cancer-pregnancy/)

The title of that article is a false assumption. Just because someone says that two situations are similar, that does not mean that they are saying that all aspects of those situations are similar.

Okay, hopefully this is the last time I have to explain this.  News article titles are meant to exaggerate and stretch the truth.  That's how it grabs readers' attention.  This only becomes a problem if readers just look at the title of the story and read no further, because that's just being lazy.  Can we please stop distracting from the main point with these petty nitpicks?

Virginia State Sen. Steve Martin (R) continues the outreach:

So where's the fire?  Or is it sufficient now to think that a human life begins at conception to be waging war on women? (I don't agree with that viewpoint, but I can't see where holding it makes one a warrior against women either.)  If he'd made the revised post originally, I suspect the same people who are lambasting him for using the word "host" would be lambasting him for using the phrase "bearer of the child" since in their view, what is inside the mother isn't a child until it is born.  So O great sage, I ask you, how can one phrase what Martin is trying to say so as to avoid causing offense to those who are pro-abortion?

Maybe not describing women as inanimate human factories?  Oh but "some refer to them as mothers" so I guess it was ok.

I agree with Martin that his use of the word "host" was intended as sarcasm of the pro-abortion position that the product can be pulled from the assembly area for disposal at any time before final delivery.  Since that hits a bit too close to the mark, no wonder it is getting a backlash who favor allowing abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

But back to my question O great sage.  It was "How can one phrase what Martin is trying to say so as to avoid causing offense to those who are pro-abortion?" and not "Why do you think how Martin phrased what he said caused offense to those who are pro-abortion?"

"O great sage".  "Pro-abortion".

3/10

You're too kind.

Only 3 out of 10 on the outrage meter?  I was aiming for a 5 or 6.  Enough to stir some indignation without veering into complete trollery.  After all, I'm not really in either the anti-choice or the pro-abortion camps, but like most Americans, in between the two poles of this issue.

You're an R-TX.  It would take too long to explain.  I'd have to start with 'Women Also Being Human 101', and I just don't have time to go over it.

Isn't explaining what this whole thread is for?

Republican opposition to safe and legal abortions, ease of access to contraception, etc.

So any woman who feels that the Republicans don't represent women's interests is just "brainwashed" ?   Wow...

Do the attacks and boycotts against Condoleeza Rice count as part of the liberals war on women?

Bolded two specifications that make this entire line of argument not only wrong but completely meaningless, except maybe as a criticism of 'the world's great philosophical traditions' and 'the estimation of historians of philosophy'--or, of course, as in this case, an exercise in misogyny.

How dare that misogynist talk about my Ayn in some terms! :P

She's a war criminal, so no.

And Hillary is not somehow?

I can subjectively but full-throatedly state for the umpteenth time that Ayn Rand was not a significant original thinker in any of the world's great philosophical traditions. Julian of Norwich, Tadano Makuzu, and G.E.M. Anscombe are the first three women who pop into my head when that concept does.

The William 'Lord Haw-Haw' Joyce of this war chimes in...

Who is that Syphyllis Schafly?
She sounds very jealous of not being a man.

Alright, how have the EVUL LIBRULS brainwashed women into voting for the Democrats?


They seemed to not like Rod Blagojevich all that much, also Spitzer and Weiner weren't let off scot free either.

The Republican Party didn't condemn Romney, Bush, Palin or McCain for Flip Flopping too, what's the deal?

No, no, not sexist or degrading at all.

I find it quite ironic (but not surprising) that Republicans are whining about Democrats "exploiting" this War on Women, especially since they exploit everything from guns and gays to Christmas. Both sides "exploit" — it's called politics.

And then here's the reality:

()

That chart is based on number of services provided, not on how much money Planned Parenthood makes from them.  Even assuming the profit margin is equal on all services, because an abortion costs considerably more than most of those other services, abortion has to be providing more than 3% of revenues.

While that doesn't change the fact that Mr. Patrick is engaging in hyperbole by claiming that abortion was the sole revenue source for Planned Parenthood, that doesn't change the validity of his question: "Why are they closing clinics if they’re making money on providing women’s health?"

Without commenting on the underlying issue, arguably abortions have considerably more expenses incurred to perform, and thus it's an assumption that the rate of profit isn't considerably different compared to their other services?

They also are more expensive, and potentially could have a higher rate of return.  In the absence of any data that I have on the costs and thus of the rate of return, I limited myself to commenting on gross revenues rather than net profit.  Still, it would seem that that providing abortion services was a net money maker (before accounting for any additional facilities expenses incurred so as to be able to perform abortions there) for Planned Parenthood as otherwise it would make economic sense to remain open and provide those services that they could in that location.  The only reason to close if an inability to perform abortions did not impact their bottom line adversely would be if Planned Parenthood is willing to provide other services only if they can also provide abortions.

Why do you keep talking as if Planned Parenthood makes a profit?  You do know what kind of organization it is, right?

If you think non-profit organizations never consider the bottom line, then you truly are naive.  While they don't distribute profits as shareholder dividends, they do use them to expand operations and staff salaries.  Being non-profit does not make an organization immune to market forces, it only affects what they do if they are successful.

The complete closing of Planned Parenthood centers in the wake of additional restrictions on abortion makes economic sense only if they needed the profits from providing abortion to fund the operation of the other services they provided at those locations.  Now, it may be they are trying to make some sort of political statement by closing those locations, but if they think they can shame the Texas GOP into reversing its position on abortion by doing so, then they are sadly and profoundly mistaken.

Limbaugh: Hillary's 'Only And Greatest Achievement' Is 'Being Female'

"You boil it down here and the only and greatest achievement Hillary Clinton has is her gender — being female," he said, noting that the liberals focused on gender and race are "primarily young people."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/limbaugh-hillary-greatest-achievement-gender

Keep an eye out for how officeholders squirm when they're asked their opinion of Rush's comment...

Why would any competent journalist waste the time of their audience asking Republicans about this particular bit of inanity?

Because of Limbaugh's influence among the base, and because politicians who criticized him often had to apologize publicly within a day or two.

So? I still don't see the point unless you think the job of journalists is to manufacture controversy.  Granted, many journalists seem to think so, and in some cases they'd be right, but not this one.  Other than the hyperbole about gender being her only qualification, I can't really say that he's obviously wrong here as El Rushbo often is.  Her record as an office holder is such that if she weren't a woman, I can't honestly see where she would be the all but anointed Democratic nominee right now.  She'd still likely be among those we'd be speculating as possible nominees, but not the nominee in all but formalities that she is now.  Her record as Senator and Secretary of State while solid was hardly spectacular.

This attempt by the CO-GOP to introduce women voters to their all-male line-up of gubernatorial candidates was... well, let's just say there's still a lot of work to do. (http://youtu.be/5C-BxmwiDik)

:'(

She isn't, when Democrats wage war, it's for humanitarian reasons.

cc: lol fox news megathread

Some idiot on Fox called her fat....who cares, is this middle school?

Didn't realize people still watched that channel anyways.

You don't see them calling men fat. The double standard is a microaggression against women.

In todays society, women are much more likely to be targeted for their weight than men. If you want to attack the double standard blame those in the media and Hollywood for creating the culture we have.

Furthermore, we all know what the deal with Fox is, it really should not surprise anyone, similar to left wing media outlets attacking Christie over the same issue.


Always fun when our national media delves into issues that should be relegated to the kardashians.

This is an unexpectedly accurate and legitimate response, well done :P

My friend (tea partier, if you're wondering affiliation) met Keith Ablow at the doctor's office. He's apparently as much of a douchebag in real life as he is on Fox.

I'll take the backhanded arrogance in stride....

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/steve-vaillancourt-ann-kuster-ugly-as-sin

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/florida-republican-clinton-down-like-lewinsky

It's either that, Clinton News Network, Bloomberg Business Elites, or MSNC. I don't blame Joe for watching the only major news network.

Just when I was proud of three Republicans in my state for rejecting the anti-gay religious freedom bill, this happens. It seems this doofus slept through the Missouri Senate race in 2012. Paging Todd Akin.

Didn't Sharron Angle make some sort of similar comment about this using the turning lemons into lemonade proverbial phrase?

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/missouri-republican-on-fetus-personhood-measure-pregnancies-are-silver-lining-of-rape/

http://www.dayswithoutagoprapemention.com/

This kind of stuff used to offend me and outrage me.

Now it doesn't because I am so used to it. The GOP says this crap so much that it really isn't news worthy anymore.

I think if a woman is pregnant by rape and wants to give birth to the child, more power to her. Forcing the mother to do so, is just morally abhorrent. I think it's victim punishing and I can't imagine the trauma of being raped with carrying the fetus as a reminder.

What ticks me off even more is rapist fathers have visitation rights. That right there should be illegal in all 50 states.

Never thought of that. Seems like common sense to me.  If you are convicted of rape, no visit rights for you.   But still best left to states rather than national legislation.

     I wonder if that is actually intentional or rather due to an oversight in the law that does not remove visitation rights from rapists.

When are these people going to recognize that rape is, above all else, a horrible and inexcusable crime? To be sure there have been women who have been raped, had a child, and bonded with the child. But that is rare.

Far more often the child becomes a scapegoat for the rape and for perhaps the mother's debased life. Such a child often develops a chip on his or her shoulder and becomes a monster.

...Real men hate rape. They see rape as a threat to their wives, girlfriends, sisters, daughters, granddaughters, and grandmothers. As I would not be raped or allow others to rape my loved ones, I would not rape.

Silver lining? They have the wrong metal. Maybe "arsenic lining" better fits. 

The real question, liberals, is whether we need to background check the guns these fetuses will be able to purchase if granted the same Constitutional rights as American citizens.

     It's why expanding legal rights to fetuses (or nonhuman primates, for that matter) is silly. It implies many rights and responsibilities that the organism in question cannot enjoy.

Children = arsenic.  Wow.

You must have a low opinion of women to think they aren't capable of loving a child they give birth to because of what someone else has done to them.