Karen Hughes (former George W. Bush adviser) sums up what's wrong with the GOP

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I've given you an answer. Arguing that only some human beings should be considered persons, is the same argument that supported slavery, eugenics and euthanasia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did give you a real answer. You just don't like the answer given.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My criteria is simple. All human beings should be considered persons. Are you a member of the human species? Are you alive? Then you have the right to life starting from conception.

I've already demonstrated that you are willing to kill people who have what you believe to be insufficient brain function. This is no different than the eugenicists who argued that mongoloids should not be considered fully persons, and the proponents of slavery who argued that black people should not be considered fully persons.

Why is brain function essential to personhood, but pigmentation is not?

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I've given you an answer. Arguing that only some human beings should be considered persons, is the same argument that supported slavery, eugenics and euthanasia.

That's not an answer to the question I asked. You have presented no argument as to why humans should be considered persons in the first place, you have simply asserted it to be true without justifying it and then stated your reasons for not liking my position.

Give an answer to the question I actually asked or you're on ignore again for being a troll.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Their argument is that their non-persons are non-persons for all of their existence. (usually for reasons that are not backed by legitimate data - it's more of a justification for personal prejudice than anything else) My argument is that a human is not a person in all phases of it's development, but any human that does reach a sufficient level of brain development is a person regardless of other features.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm having a hard time thinking that someone who isn't a troll would bother to ask this question considering how obvious the answer is. How about you actually think about it for five minutes and see if you can come up with a reason yourself?

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe abortionists should serve a life sentence for every abortion performed. I believe that the women they perform abortions on should plea bargain to convict every abortionist who performs abortions.

In short, the women who suffer emotional, physical and spiritual damage from abortion should be treated as a victim of quackery and medical malpractice.

BK, that answer is frankly both grossly simplistic and even cowardly. Illegal abortion prosecutions will rarely turn out so neatly like a Law and Order episode as you conceive. Unless one makes the woman statutorially immune from from prosecution for complicity ('aiding and abetting') then women WILL be sent to prison by the thousands nationwide. Incidentally, by doing so there will repeatedly be situations where a staff member who schedules the procedure,  event the parent, sibling, or boyfriend who knowingly drives the woman to and/or from the appointment IS still liable for the life sentence you so ardently advocate.

Don't duck the fundamental issue: if a woman has an abortion, how many years should she--and thus is many cases WILL she--serve in prison, and should it be any different if the pregnancy was induced by rape or incest (or is that a life sentence too)?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Question asked, question answered.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the argument is that all human beings should be considered persons, because of odious ideologies that have denied personhood to certain classes of unwanted human persons. Are you not getting this argument?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You got an answer. Just because you dislike the answer doesn't mean you didn't receive an answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I am arguing that there is no basis to discriminate against people for their current level of brain function being less than most people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So why should we accept your line, over, say, 18 years of age? Full development doesn't occur until then. If you're gaging people on 'full development', than that would exclude all children.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So who decides what qualifies? You? You're willing to draw the line saying, "you should live, and you should die?"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ohoho.

Answer the question Dibble. Why does pigmentation not count as a valid form of discrimination, but we can discriminate against people based on their present brain function?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quackery is quackery. We don't punish the patients for turning to a quack. If a physician were to amputate a healthy limb, do we send the new amputee to jail? No. We send the quack who amputated the limb to jail.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't I just say they should be immune?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense. This is patent fearmongering. Charge the abortionists with lying to their patients, with engaging in practices contrary to sound medicine and murder. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Zero. The quack who performed the abortion should get a life sentence for each abortion performed.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Question asked, question answered.

No you didn't. You're a troll or an idiot, and you're on ignore.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the argument is that all human beings should be considered persons, because of odious ideologies that have denied personhood to certain classes of unwanted human persons. Are you not getting this argument?[/quote]

You can't use problems in the ideologies of others to justify your own position. Suppose those ideologies never existed. If they are your sole justification for thinking this way then your position is not justified because they do not actually provide any argument for your position's validity. I have this same argument with creationists who don't understand this rather basic concept - even if evolution could be disproved completely, creationism would not be a valid alternative until valid evidence for it is presented.

All you have done is argue against the positions of others, you have not provided one iota of argument to show that your position is valid on its own.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quackery is quackery. We don't punish the patients for turning to a quack. If a physician were to amputate a healthy limb, do we send the new amputee to jail? No. We send the quack who amputated the limb to jail.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't I just say they should be immune?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense. This is patent fearmongering. Charge the abortionists with lying to their patients, with engaging in practices contrary to sound medicine and murder. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Zero. The quack who performed the abortion should get a life sentence for each abortion performed.

My entire response was based on your confusing assertion the woman would simply 'plea bargain' to convict the doctor, indicating the woman herself would/should be charged with a crime as well.

Even if one assumes the mother would be statutorily immune for prosecution for aiding and abetting, there still remain two major questions.

First off, there was no 'fearmongering' whatsoever in the examples I gave where, even if the patient themselves may be unprosecuted as an aider or abetor, the friend who referred her to the abortionist and the sister who drove her to/from the appointment would still be subject to the life sentence you advocate. I hate to be sucha 'realitymonger', but prosecution of such individuals would be the ruule, not the exception, even among personally pro-choice prosecutors who would see it as their duty to enforce the laws. So, do you extend immunity for complicity to essentially everyone other than essentially the person holding the suction tube, or do you let the people in the common scenarios I describe go to prison for life while thewoman who had the abortion herself remains uncharged?

Secondly, do you still grant legal immunity to the woman who has the abortion when she id the one who induces the abortion on herself (coathanger abortions were a reality after all, not just a political symbol)? Which of course begs the related question whether that mandatory life sentence you discuss is still required when the. Pregnancy is cause by rape or incest?

Presumably, whatever states laws apply for binding over a juvenile for trial and sentencing as an adult for 1st degree murder would apply as well, including for the teenage girl who self-aborts, right Ben?

These are NOT by any means 'trivial details to be worked out later' or 'minor isses of interpretation of interpretation to be sorted out by the courts'. Rather, this goes to the absolute heart of the abortion debate and MUST be addressed to begin with.
[/realitymongering]

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now that I've clarified, we can rubbish your fearmongering and move on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I find it curious that you've offered exactly zero commentary on the charge of a life sentence for the abortionist. I presume, given your silence, that you support this policy?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you cut off your own arm - you are committed, not charged.

What percentage of abortions are self-induced?

As for the rest, I've already given the argument, that cut the head off and the rest dies. Unless your side deliberately passes the bill permitting non physicians to perform abortions - then you will be safe. If you do successfully pass bills opening them up to non-physicians, then yes, it will be open season on you too.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure I can. If someone's faulty bridge design collapses, and my superior bridge design does not under similar loads, that's an empirical argument to abandon the previous bridge design and to use the new bridge design.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My argument is that this ideology does exist (easily shown), and has always existed in recordable human society (less easily shown, but provable).

Now that this hypothetical has been disproved we can move on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Empiricism simple requires that a position be a superior explanation of presently available information, not 100 percent true.

This is true of evolution as well. Evolution is not 100 percent true. It cannot be, because there are things that we, at present, do not know. Does it explain some things? Yes, it does. Is it perfect? Far from it. Is the argument that evolution has serious issues and problems as a scientific theory contrary to empiricism? Far from it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You yourself have rejected other positions as false. I have successfully shown that your position willingly strips other people of personhood for lacking brain function, whereas mine does not. Ergo - under similar stresses, my position permits one to reject these other ideologies, while your position gives them legitimacy.
 

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you cut off your own arm - you are committed, not charged.

What percentage of abortions are self-induced?

As for the rest, I've already given the argument, that cut the head off and the rest dies. Unless your side deliberately passes the bill permitting non physicians to perform abortions - then you will be safe. If you do successfully pass bills opening them up to non-physicians, then yes, it will be open season on you too.

IF I understand you correctly, a woman who performs a sel-induced abortion would not becriminally liable.

Not rtying to be obstinate, but I remain confused over your position regarding 3rd party (I.e. other than the abortionist or pregnant woman) criminal liability for aiding and abetting (e.g. the pregnant woman's friend who knowingly drives her to/from the abortion appointment). Are you saying that would depend on whether the 3rd party is some sort of llicensed healthcare provider (MD, LPN, etc) who uses their medical training in furtherance of the abortion procedure?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not at all.

Now, answer the questions. How many abortions each year are self-induced? What percentage of the total?

Do you agree with a life sentence for each abortion performed by an abortionist?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's really simple. In the facility - whom are the ones licensed to perform abortions? They are the ones who will be charged, and for each abortion that they have performed.

[MrMittens]

Woh this argument is sh*t complex. But basically, as far as I'm concerned, you can't outlaw abortion entirely. Its too difficult. Better to simply restrict it to cases of maternal health and rape or incest. However for any other reason, then the child should come first. Compromise reached.

[opebo]

However for any other reason, then the child should come first.

So, you have to ask yourself, who is your interest group?

[MrMittens]

However for any other reason, then the child should come first.

So, you have to ask yourself, who is your interest group?

Sorry Opebo, wit just goes over my head. What do you mean?

[Wisconsin+17]

That is the best Mittens impression I have ever seen.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why are people wasting time with Ben Kenobi??

[Brittain33]

Why are people wasting time with Ben Kenobi??

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why are people wasting time with Ben Kenobi??

Maybe they need something to do until they get their Twinkies back.

[opebo]

However for any other reason, then the child should come first.

So, you have to ask yourself, who is your interest group?

Sorry Opebo, wit just goes over my head. What do you mean?

I mean - you must have a real interest group who benefits from the policy, not just a hypothetical future one.  Who benefits from this policy of outlawing abortion?

If you can answer that question you can get to a better understanding of what's really being talked about here. (this is a version of the 'follow the money' argument')

[MrMittens]

However for any other reason, then the child should come first.

So, you have to ask yourself, who is your interest group?

Sorry Opebo, wit just goes over my head. What do you mean?

I mean - you must have a real interest group who benefits from the policy, not just a hypothetical future one.  Who benefits from this policy of outlawing abortion?

If you can answer that question you can get to a better understanding of what's really being talked about here. (this is a version of the 'follow the money' argument')

I don't support entirely outlawing abortion, but of course no present interest group benefits from not seeing the abortion (aside from maybe family members who would be happy to see a child), but this hypothetical interest group (the baby) still needs to be thought of.

[opebo]

However for any other reason, then the child should come first.

So, you have to ask yourself, who is your interest group?

Sorry Opebo, wit just goes over my head. What do you mean?

I mean - you must have a real interest group who benefits from the policy, not just a hypothetical future one.  Who benefits from this policy of outlawing abortion?

If you can answer that question you can get to a better understanding of what's really being talked about here. (this is a version of the 'follow the money' argument')

I don't support entirely outlawing abortion, but of course no present interest group benefits from not seeing the abortion (aside from maybe family members who would be happy to see a child), but this hypothetical interest group (the baby) still needs to be thought of.

But wouldn't you agree that in some way Capital (or possibly 'patriarchy' - some would say another side of the same coin or a mask or veil of same) must benefit from the policy?  Otherwise why would it be publicly advocated?

On the other hand, the fact that it isn't the law of the land does suggest that Capital doesn't want it - what 'they' want must always be the absolute law.  So we're left with the argument that the mere controversy is what they want.

By the way, I just watched Cider House Rules again last night!

[MrMittens]

However for any other reason, then the child should come first.

So, you have to ask yourself, who is your interest group?

Sorry Opebo, wit just goes over my head. What do you mean?

I mean - you must have a real interest group who benefits from the policy, not just a hypothetical future one.  Who benefits from this policy of outlawing abortion?

If you can answer that question you can get to a better understanding of what's really being talked about here. (this is a version of the 'follow the money' argument')

I don't support entirely outlawing abortion, but of course no present interest group benefits from not seeing the abortion (aside from maybe family members who would be happy to see a child), but this hypothetical interest group (the baby) still needs to be thought of.

But wouldn't you agree that in some way Capital (or possibly 'patriarchy' - some would say another side of the same coin or a mask or veil of same) must benefit from the policy?  Otherwise why would it be publicly advocated?

On the other hand, the fact that it isn't the law of the land does suggest that Capital doesn't want it - what 'they' want must always be the absolute law.  So we're left with the argument that the mere controversy is what they want.

By the way, I just watched Cider House Rules again last night!

I've seen the film, slightly creepy in my opinion.