Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2014, 04:46:59 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: True Federalist, Former Moderate, Badger)
| | |-+  The GOP War on Women - The Megathread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: The GOP War on Women - The Megathread  (Read 6133 times)
Purch
Full Member
***
Posts: 196


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2012, 10:21:38 am »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2012, 10:25:31 am by Purch »Logged

Those gravestones don't say democrat or republican those gravestones say American.
Lt. Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4390
United States


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2012, 10:35:22 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10234
Russian Federation


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2012, 11:32:35 am »
Ignore

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.

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)?

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

  

" But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson WV SBE v Barnette
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18784
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 18, 2012, 08:15:17 pm »
Ignore

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.

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?

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
Right now it can't be outlawed anyway because the Supreme Court has ruled that way.

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

Quote
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.

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
« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 06:33:06 am by IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble »Logged

Lt. Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4390
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2012, 09:22:28 am »
Ignore

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.

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?

That's not what I said.

Quote
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.

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.

Oh yes, blowing up abortion clinics is a great way to convince people to outlaw abortion Roll Eyes

Quote
Right now it can't be outlawed anyway because the Supreme Court has ruled that way.

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

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.

Quote
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.

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

That's not what I said. Roll Eyes

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]
Logged
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18784
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2012, 10:02:59 am »
Ignore

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.

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?

That's not what I said.

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?

Quote
Oh yes, blowing up abortion clinics is a great way to convince people to outlaw abortion Roll Eyes

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.

Quote
Quote
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.

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

That's not what I said. Roll Eyes

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

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

Lt. Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4390
United States


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2012, 11:34:10 am »
Ignore

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.

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?

That's not what I said.

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?

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.

Quote
Oh yes, blowing up abortion clinics is a great way to convince people to outlaw abortion Roll Eyes

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.

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!

Quote
Quote
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.

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

That's not what I said. Roll Eyes

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

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

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.
Logged
Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29571
United States


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 19, 2012, 12:50:27 pm »
Ignore

I support making women see ultrasounds to try and guilt them out of having abortions. [...]  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.

[...]

As abortion is increasingly forced under the radar and into back alleys, begin upping the sentences and charging the women and doctors with murder.

You're certainly posting in the appropriate thread, I must say.
Logged
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18784
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 19, 2012, 02:58:59 pm »
Ignore

I support making women see ultrasounds to try and guilt them out of having abortions.

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?

Quote
I support parental notification/consent laws.

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?

Quote
I support laws requiring a "waiting period"

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

Quote
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.

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?

Quote
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!

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?

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.

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.
Logged

Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 19, 2012, 07:48:47 pm »
Ignore

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

Free Bradley Manning
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 19, 2012, 07:58:09 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Free Bradley Manning
Lt. Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4390
United States


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 19, 2012, 08:51:51 pm »
Ignore

I support making women see ultrasounds to try and guilt them out of having abortions.

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?

Quote
I support parental notification/consent laws.

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?

Quote
I support laws requiring a "waiting period"

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

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?! Isnít it completely obvious that murder outweighs any of these complaints by such a ridiculous margin that itís 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.

Quote
Quote
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.

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?

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.

Quote
Quote
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!

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



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

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 motherís bodyó 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 itís 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 doesnít make as much sense since the zygote is still around before then). If you try to trace a personís 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 itís a person, you canít prove anyone is a person. I canít prove you are a person and you canít prove I am.

Quote
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?

I do not believe aborted babies go to hell. But taking the position that itís okay to kill anyone who would go to heaven isnít 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?

Quote
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.

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.

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:
Quote
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?
Would requiring parental consent stop girls from having an abortion or not? You canít 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.
Logged
Fmr. President & Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12535
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 19, 2012, 09:13:52 pm »
Ignore

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


Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11253


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 19, 2012, 09:17:14 pm »
Ignore

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.


^^^^^

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?
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Lt. Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4390
United States


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: March 19, 2012, 09:42:07 pm »
Ignore


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.
Logged
Nagas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1542
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -6.61

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: March 19, 2012, 10:40:02 pm »
Ignore

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

Yep.
Logged

asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11253


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: March 19, 2012, 10:42:45 pm »
Ignore


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.

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

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

View Profile
« Reply #42 on: March 20, 2012, 12:36:40 am »
Ignore

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.


^^^^^

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).

Wow, someone agrees with me.  :D
Logged

Free Bradley Manning
Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29571
United States


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: March 20, 2012, 02:23:27 am »
Ignore

Now, the New Hampshire House has passed a bill that, along with mandating a 24-hour waiting period, requires doctors to give women ďinformational materialsĒ before an abortion that arenít even accurate, including that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. Hereís the text of the bill:

Quote
It is scientifically undisputed that full-term pregnancy reduces a womanís lifetime risk of breast cancer. It is also undisputed that the earlier a woman has a first full-term pregnancy, the lower her risk of breast cancer becomes, because following a full-term pregnancy the breast tissue exposed to estrogen through the menstrual cycle is more mature and cancer resistant.

In fact, for each year that a womanís first full-term pregnancy is delayed, her risk of breast cancer rises 3.5 percent. The theory that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer builds upon this undisputed foundation.

The problem is that a direct link between abortion and breast cancer is not only disputed, it has also been rejected by multiple health organizations. The National Institutes of Health, American Cancer Society, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are a few of the groups who say no such link has been scientifically proven. Even the Susan G. Komen Foundation denies there is a link.
Logged
Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29571
United States


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: March 20, 2012, 02:28:11 am »
Ignore

A new bill moving through the Tennessee House of Representatives would require the state to publish the names of each doctor who performs an abortion and detailed statistics about the woman having the procedure, which opponents worry will spur anti-abortion violence in the state.

The Life Defense Act of 2012, sponsored by state Rep. Matthew Hill (R-Jonesboro), mandates that the Tennessee Department of Health make detailed demographic information about every woman who has an abortion available to the public, including her age, race, county, marital status, education level, number of children, the location of the procedure and how many times she has been pregnant. Each report would also have to include the name of the doctor who performed the procedure.

Several health organizations, including the Tennessee Medical Association and Planned Parenthood, are concerned that the bill will make doctors and women vulnerable to attacks, especially considering the murder of Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas abortion provider, by an anti-abortion activist in 2009.
Logged
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18784
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: March 20, 2012, 02:59:32 pm »
Ignore

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.

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)

Quote
A human embryo is alive and contains the full capability of progressing into a full grown adult.

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

Quote
The embryo is not a part of the motherís bodyó they have different DNA than the mother.

Having unique DNA does not make something a person.

Quote
The only coherent definition of when life begins that can be found is at fertilization because all others are arbitrary.

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.

Quote
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 itís structure before and after that point are essentially identical.

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.

Quote
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 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.

Quote
As far as truly proving itís a person, you canít prove anyone is a person. I canít prove you are a person and you canít prove I am.

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?


Quote
Quote
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?

I do not believe aborted babies go to hell. But taking the position that itís okay to kill anyone who would go to heaven isnít 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?

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?
Logged

ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15237
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: March 20, 2012, 03:26:22 pm »
Ignore

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 motherís bodyó 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 itís 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 doesnít make as much sense since the zygote is still around before then). If you try to trace a personís 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 itís a person, you canít prove anyone is a person. I canít prove you are a person and you canít prove I am.

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.
Logged

Chief Judicial Officer of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
Son of Will
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: March 20, 2012, 04:53:43 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Lt. Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4390
United States


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: March 20, 2012, 06:32:49 pm »
Ignore

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.

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)

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

Quote
Quote
A human embryo is alive and contains the full capability of progressing into a full grown adult.

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

Quote
The embryo is not a part of the motherís bodyó they have different DNA than the mother.

Having unique DNA does not make something a person.

Quote
The only coherent definition of when life begins that can be found is at fertilization because all others are arbitrary.

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.

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

Quote
Quote
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 itís structure before and after that point are essentially identical.

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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
Quote
Quote
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?

I do not believe aborted babies go to hell. But taking the position that itís okay to kill anyone who would go to heaven isnít 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?

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?

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.
Logged
Lt. Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4390
United States


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: March 20, 2012, 07:23:55 pm »
Ignore

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 motherís bodyó 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 itís 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 doesnít make as much sense since the zygote is still around before then). If you try to trace a personís 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 itís a person, you canít prove anyone is a person. I canít prove you are a person and you canít prove I am.

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.)

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).

Quote
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.

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).
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines