Dems Need to Accept Moderates on Abortion= capture the House

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Mosier

At what point does a fetus go from being a mindless piece of tissue to a person? All the rolleyes in the world wont stop me from insisting that you answer the question, since YOU decided to frame the discussion in those terms.

You are just trying to play "gotcha" with an irrelevancy; no doubt to justify a call for sadistic and repressive laws against the imaginary hordes of women having 8 month abortions.

That said; probably some time after birth. And since you will no doubt try to insinuate that I'm advocating infanticide, after birth the infant is no long dependent on the mother and there's no birth trauma to be stopped, so killing the infant isn't the same as abortion.

[The Man With The Golden Gun]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

When is the abortion issue just going to go away, already?!

Never.

[Chronos]

Whack-a-Mole, is hydrocephaly a threat to the mother?

[LavenderBlue]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Republican and anti abortion aren't necessarily the same.

I support all of the things you listed, I have made large donations of time and money to Obama's campaigns, and I haven't voted for a Republican in over a decade, but I can still see an argument for treating a fetus as a person. It's not an issue I care enough about to change my voting habits, but it makes me very uncomfortable to see people like you and Der Trihs demonize that position as if it necessarily indicates some kind of sadistic evil oppressive streak in the person who holds it. That kind of dismissive argument style doesn't help. Calling reasonable people evil just pushes them away.

And it makes me very uncomfortable to have my very personal reproductive decisions decided for in the name of someone else's religion or morality. There's nothing particularly reasonable about the pro-life movement in America. It is largely about demonizing the often difficult choices woman make and very little else. It is certainly not about providing the resources to actually help women birth and care for babies and children.

As a woman who went through two very difficult pregnancies and had to face some other extremely difficult reproductive choices, I am sick and fucking tired of having to care what the heck someone else who is not me thinks about my uterus.

If that offends you or turns you off well it greatly offends me that the Reps are unable to tell the difference between me and a fertilized egg. You are welcome to have your beliefs. You are most certainly not welcome to tell me or my daughters that we must abide by them. If you continue to believe you have that right you will be treated as someone I deservedly view as a direct threat to the well being of my family.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

When is the abortion issue just going to go away, already?!

When the U.S. surrenders to the logical governance of Canada.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by LavenderBlue

And it makes me very uncomfortable to have my very personal reproductive decisions decided for in the name of someone else's religion or morality. There's nothing particularly reasonable about the pro-life movement in America. It is largely about demonizing the often difficult choices woman make and very little else. It is certainly not about providing the resources to actually help women birth and care for babies and children.

As a woman who went through two very difficult pregnancies and had to face some other extremely difficult reproductive choices, I am sick and fucking tired of having to care what the heck someone else who is not me thinks about my uterus.

If that offends you or turns you off well it greatly offends me that the Reps are unable to tell the difference between me and a fertilized egg. You are welcome to have your beliefs. You are most certainly not welcome to tell me or my daughters that we must abide by them. If you continue to believe you have that right you will be treated as someone I deservedly view as a direct threat to the well being of my family.

From your lips to God's ear!

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

You are just trying to play "gotcha" with an irrelevancy; no doubt to justify a call for sadistic and repressive laws against the imaginary hordes of women having 8 month abortions.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to convince you that the issue is more complicated and nuanced than "evil people want to hurt women any way they can!"

That said; probably some time after birth. And since you will no doubt try to insinuate that I'm advocating infanticide, after birth the infant is no long dependent on the mother and there's no birth trauma to be stopped, so killing the infant isn't the same as abortion.

That's a fair assessment. In either case, I'm sure we both agree that at the very least, newborns are entitled to legal protection from optional procedures that would end their healthy life. Now, is it such a stretch for you to imagine that some people would be motivated by something other than pure sadism to extend that same protection to a healthy fetus?

In my opinion, a viable, healthy fetus probably shouldn't be aborted. Until the point of viability, I philosophically believe that the fetus is more a part of the mother's body than an individual unto itself, and the mother shouldn't be prevented from electing to have an abortion. Again, it's not an issue I care enough about to change my voting habits. What's annoying to me is that you consistently argue that there's absolutely nothing reasonable about my opinion, and that I'm an evil person for having it. People who disagree with you ARE NOT NECESSARILY EVIL.

[PBear42]

Originally Posted by Oldeb

Der Trihs is particularly heated on the issue, but it's hard to look at the Invasive Ultrasound bills introduced in Virginia, Pennsylvania, or Alabama as anything but supporting his view. Vaginal ultrasounds remain completely unnecessary procedures for anyone considering an abortion. It's difficult to not come to the conclusion that the intent is simply to inflict an embarrassing and pointless procedure on those seeking abortions.

Oh, I agree with the latter point, but Der Trihs's main thesis doesn't follow from that. The purpose of such efforts, no doubt, is to burden and discourage abortions. But it doesn't follow that the purpose of burdening and discouraging abortions is to oppress women. Rather, the obvious purpose is to protect fetuses. And, if we look at the anti-abortion (pro-life) sites, that's what we see. A quick Google search turns up, for example, the National Right To Life Committee. the Pro-Life Action League and ProLife.com; see also Wikipedia. An honest debate sticks to the topic. Villifying the anti-abortion camp (now apparently a majority in the U.S., btw) is simply a way of trying to win the debate on the cheap.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

When the U.S. surrenders to the logical governance of Canada.

I surrender! Taxes to Ottawa! Feds in red! Maple syrup on everything! Bring it on! (My town already has a kickass hockey team anyway!)

[BrainGlutton]

And God Save the Loon!

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by PBear42

Oh, I agree with the latter point, but Der Trihs's main thesis doesn't follow from that. The purpose of such efforts, no doubt, is to burden and discourage abortions. But it doesn't follow that the purpose of burdening and discouraging abortions is to oppress women. Rather, the obvious purpose is to protect fetuses.

Except for the fact that they show a complete disdain for the welfare of the fetus and for the baby they force to be born. And they don't care if the fetus is dead; they still want to force the woman to give birth to it. And again, they work to harm women in general, not just by opposing abortion.

Originally Posted by Mosier

In either case, I'm sure we both agree that at the very least, newborns are entitled to legal protection from optional procedures that would end their healthy life. Now, is it such a stretch for you to imagine that some people would be motivated by something other than pure sadism to extend that same protection to a healthy fetus?

Yes, because it doesn't fit the facts. You are in the position of someone trying to argue that the Ku Klux Klan means well.

Originally Posted by Mosier

In my opinion, a viable, healthy fetus probably shouldn't be aborted. Until the point of viability, I philosophically believe that the fetus is more a part of the mother's body than an individual unto itself, and the mother shouldn't be prevented from electing to have an abortion. Again, it's not an issue I care enough about to change my voting habits. What's annoying to me is that you consistently argue that there's absolutely nothing reasonable about my opinion, and that I'm an evil person for having it.

In which case, you are not part of the "pro-life" movement in the first place because you are not trying to coerce and terrorize women. If you think that women should be allowed to choose, then by definition you are part of the pro-choice side.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Der Trihs, what qualities make a late-term fetus a "mindless piece of tissue" which don't also apply to a newborn?

I'm not answering for Der, but...

IIRC, Carl Sagan observed that fetuses only acquire brain waves during the 3rd trimester. That seems like a reasonable dividing line to me. It's not clear that brain waves imply thought. But it's unlikely that thought occurs without brain waves. So there's a safety margin.

Now for myself, my take is that human babies are born prematurely anyway, to the extent that most mammals are way more competent a week after they are born than human babies are. So using brain waves is adding a safety margin to a safety margin. And first trimester abortions are morally irrelevant. That said, my opinion is in the minority: most Americans accept a degree of moral complexity with regards to first trimester abortions. I don't, except with regards to the feelings of the mother. For that reason, I used contraception rigorously and without exception when I dated.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

I'm not answering for Der, but...

IIRC, Carl Sagan observed that fetuses only acquire brain waves during the 3rd trimester. That seems like a reasonable dividing line to me. It's not clear that brain waves imply thought. But it's unlikely that thought occurs without brain waves. So there's a safety margin.

Now for myself, my take is that human babies are born prematurely anyway, to the extent that most mammals are way more competent a week after they are born than human babies are. So using brain waves is adding a safety margin to a safety margin. And first trimester abortions are morally irrelevant. That said, my opinion is in the minority: most Americans accept a degree of moral complexity with regards to first trimester abortions. I don't, except with regards to the feelings of the mother. For that reason, I used contraception rigorously and without exception when I dated.

I don't disagree with any of that.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

And they don't care if the fetus is dead; they still want to force the woman to give birth to it.

Cite?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Cite?

More wanting cites that the sky is blue, huh? Well, a quick google got me an article mentioning it.

State Rep. Terry England was speaking in favor of HB 954, which makes it illegal to obtain an abortion after 20 weeks even if the woman is known to be carrying a stillborn fetus or the baby is otherwise not expected to live to term.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Maple syrup on everything!

I don't expect any American will notice, since they already put high-fructose corn syrup on everything.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

More wanting cites that the sky is blue, huh? Well, a quick google got me an article mentioning it.

Your cite has been found wanting. HB 954 was amended by Georgia Republicans to allow exceptions, such as when delivering poses a health risk to the mother, or the baby is not likely to live.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I don't expect any American will notice, since they already put high-fructose corn syrup on everything.

We have a lot more cornfields than we have maple . . . groves? Forests?

[florez]

I was under the impression that Anti choice was riding along with the religious right, and that they got behind Republicans for the most part. RCC and the fetus worshipping dogma they spew can never be moderate, so why should a party aligned with reproductive choice give up on the war, when the battles are still ongoing?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Your cite has been found wanting. HB 954 was amended by Georgia Republicans to allow exceptions, such as when delivering poses a health risk to the mother, or the baby is not likely to live.

Irrelevant; you asked if they wanted to force women to birth dead babies, and they proposed a bill that would have done so. Changing it later doesn't make the original version have never existed.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Irrelevant; you asked if they wanted to force women to birth dead babies, and they proposed a bill that would have done so. Changing it later doesn't make the original version have never existed.

Or the more reasonable version; abortion opponents made a bill with some stupid oversights, and later fixed it.

[monavis]

Originally Posted by independentDemocrat

It is time for the Democratic Party to adopt moderate candidates on abortion back into the Party. I have seen many sincere Democrats get thrown out of the Party through financial woes or primary challengers specifically, over this issue. It is time to bring the Catholic vote back to its Kennedy roots. Its time to bring all Latino and especially, Mexican voters back into the Party. And its time to pass an actual health care bill that assists the poor since, many moderates abandoned the issue over abortion... causing everyone in the nation to lose comprehensive care and thus, life. Also, abortion does not even fit into the historical narrative of the Democratic Party. The Party that has always championed the rights of minorities and the poor needs to also, champion the rights of the unborn. Without the Democrats there would be no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a minimum wage, child labor laws, or a living wage. In fact, abortion was approved by Republican Nixon & upheld by Ford & Reagan... Please look into Nixon's reasons for why he supported abortion (on his secret White House tapes) & you will learn the gruesome truth of the matter. A matter that the Democrats must turn from and continue to seek to help the poor through education, a decent wage, and economic rights... as most abortions occur for economic reasons...
Even President Jimmy Carter came out recently and said that the issue was hurting the Party in the South specifically...

The best way to stop Abortions and still let a Woman choose, is to provide a good effective Birth Control, and let the husband and wife decide when( or if) they want children, Also vote on other issues, the extremists are trying to push their beliefs on others. not taking into consideration that children who are not wanted suffer. If the parents can not care for physically, mentally,financially should be able to decide what the size of their family should be. We do have separation of Church and State and Abortion is a religious issue.One need just look to Haiti and see what happens when there are more mouths to feed than a parent can handle.

Responsible parenthood should be taught to all who are old enough to procreate.Abstinence alone doesn't work for many, and if they are immature, they need to know what happens to a child they must be responsible for.

If parents are over burdend it doesn't make for a good marriage either.

[monavis]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

In reality, though, the radical "pro-abortion" Extreme 1 end of your spectrum hardly even exists. Is there any significant political pressure anywhere in this country for completely unregulated discretionary abortion right up until the moment of birth? I don't know of any individual or group that supports that position.

However, there is considerable real-life political pressure for the radical "anti-abortion" Extreme 2 position and positions very close to it, so ISTM that your definition of "moderate", in the sense of a middle ground between two extremes, is way skewed.

The "pro-abortion" side of the spectrum pretty much stops at the "moderate" position you've outlined, AFAICT.

I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. They are prolife of all the already born, not just unborn. I believe once the child can be known as a child, seen as a child then it is protected by the law. If proper birth control is available, then there would be far less need for an abortion and a lot less poverty and child abuse.

The term Pro-Life as used is not a correct term. It should be pro- birth, once the child is born there is little care about it. The so called Pro-Lifers don't want there to be taxes to raise the child to adult hood, or give child care to the one's the mother can't support, educate,feed, clothe or love.It is easy to sit back and complain or march against the woman, but thinking a few diapers or a little baby food can help one's consience just isn't enough. There are 18 years the person needs help. The money spent on advertising,marching and picketing places could be used to help the already born,then perhaps they are really Pro-Life!

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Or the more reasonable version; abortion opponents made a bill with some stupid oversights, and later fixed it.

In other words as I expected there was no point in responding to your request for a cite, since you are going to interpret anything and everything as the anti-choicers being "well meaning and misunderstood".

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by PBear42

Oh, I agree with the latter point, but Der Trihs's main thesis doesn't follow from that. The purpose of such efforts, no doubt, is to burden and discourage abortions. But it doesn't follow that the purpose of burdening and discouraging abortions is to oppress women. Rather, the obvious purpose is to protect fetuses. And, if we look at the anti-abortion (pro-life) sites, that's what we see. A quick Google search turns up, for example, the National Right To Life Committee. the Pro-Life Action League and ProLife.com; see also Wikipedia. An honest debate sticks to the topic. Villifying the anti-abortion camp (now apparently a majority in the U.S., btw) is simply a way of trying to win the debate on the cheap.

Yes, but it's kind of AMAZING the way discouraging abortion keeps involving burdening and oppressing women. Maybe it is not vilification. Maybe it is simple observation. You know: walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Or the more reasonable version; abortion opponents made a bill with some stupid oversights, and later fixed it.

And yet strangely they don't learn from these examples so we can expect more bills with stupid oversights in future.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Whack-a-Mole, is hydrocephaly a threat to the mother?

IANADoctor. My understanding is that the condition can be anywhere from treatable with a good prognosis to profound brain damage to the fetus and a danger to the mother.

Hopefully a doctor can give better detail.

I think more interesting is a fetus with Anencephaly (no brain). The baby may be born alive (many are stillborn) but rarely live more than a day or two and are never conscious (they have no higher functioning brain).

Near as I can tell bringing such a baby to term is not a particular danger to the mother but making her carry it to term seems cruel in the extreme.

Should a mother be allowed to terminate late term (her choice) in such a case?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by LavenderBlue

And it makes me very uncomfortable to have my very personal reproductive decisions decided for in the name of someone else's religion or morality. There's nothing particularly reasonable about the pro-life movement in America. It is largely about demonizing the often difficult choices woman make and very little else. It is certainly not about providing the resources to actually help women birth and care for babies and children.

As a woman who went through two very difficult pregnancies and had to face some other extremely difficult reproductive choices, I am sick and fucking tired of having to care what the heck someone else who is not me thinks about my uterus.

If that offends you or turns you off well it greatly offends me that the Reps are unable to tell the difference between me and a fertilized egg. You are welcome to have your beliefs. You are most certainly not welcome to tell me or my daughters that we must abide by them. If you continue to believe you have that right you will be treated as someone I deservedly view as a direct threat to the well being of my family.

Are you under the impression that morality is not legislated, or that it shouldn't be? I wonder if you can consistently maintain that position?

Just shouting "its my body, I'll do whatever the fuck I want" is a good way to get people to dismiss you just as easily as you might dismiss someone that just keeps yelling "murderer!" outside of abortion clinics.

[Marley23]

Beyond the prominent pro-life Democrats that have been mentioned in this thread, it's been 15 years since the Clintons started saying abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." If that's not a moderate position, I don't know what is. It has nothing to do with how they will fare in the House elections and it goes without saying that they held the House from 2006-10 (and they'd controlled it for long stretches before that) without moving further to the right on this issue.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

In other words as I expected there was no point in responding to your request for a cite, since you are going to interpret anything and everything as the anti-choicers being "well meaning and misunderstood".

Why did you put well meaning and misunderstood in quotation marks, when I never said any such thing?

[The Man With The Golden Gun]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

And yet strangely they don't learn from these examples so we can expect more bills with stupid oversights in future.

Well, politicians these days aren't exactly known for their intelligence or foresight....

[Evil Captor]

yeah, this is the second instance of a self-proclaimed Democrat saying that if the Democrats were just to adopt the Republican legislative agenda, they win the elections in 2012. Problems there are:

1) You drop support for abortion and contraceptives, you lose a LOT of female voters.
2) Even if you ARE elected, what difference does it make? You are in all practical respects a Republican.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Or the more reasonable version; abortion opponents made a bill with some stupid oversights, and later fixed it.

You may have noticed that there was a lot of that going around in the several hundred anti-choice laws proposed in the last year. There was so much stupid I was expecting 1 or 2 of the laws to prohibit being female.

So why so much apologetics for this nonsense?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Why did you put well meaning and misunderstood in quotation marks, when I never said any such thing?

Because, as I'm sure you know, it's a common way of expressing claims that the writer considers false.

'The so-called "patriots"....'

'The self proclaimed "moderates"...'

'The "persecuted, oppressed Christians"...'

Or:

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

2) Even if you ARE elected, what difference does it make? You are in all practical respects a Republican.

This. There's no point in "defeating" the enemy by becoming the enemy.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Beyond the prominent pro-life Democrats that have been mentioned in this thread, it's been 15 years since the Clintons started saying abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." If that's not a moderate position, I don't know what is. It has nothing to do with how they will fare in the House elections and it goes without saying that they held the House from 2006-10 (and they'd controlled it for long stretches before that) without moving further to the right on this issue.

They also didn't take the opportunity to jerk violently towards teh left on this issue either and yet the right is scared witless taht this is what they would do the ionstant they have the ability to do so.

It reminds me of how the NRA thinks that Obama will take our guns the instant he wins reelection because the first term was just a rope a dope to lull us into a sense of security so that he could take our guns in the second term.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

This. There's no point in "defeating" the enemy by becoming the enemy.

Remind me again of the difference?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

They also didn't take the opportunity to jerk violently towards teh left on this issue either and yet the right is scared witless taht this is what they would do the ionstant they have the ability to do so.

I've never seen any evidence that conservatives are scared the Democrats are going to move to the left on abortion (similar to their concerns on gun control). What's happening is that conservatives have made a mission of demonizing Planned Parenthood as an abortion mill and are doing what they can to eliminate it and reduce abortions that way. It's not a response to what they think the Democrats will do. It's just how they're trying to advance their agenda.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Remind me again of the difference?

Um, in one case your ideals win; the the other the enemy's ideals win.

[LavenderBlue]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Are you under the impression that morality is not legislated, or that it shouldn't be? I wonder if you can consistently maintain that position?

Just shouting "its my body, I'll do whatever the fuck I want" is a good way to get people to dismiss you just as easily as you might dismiss someone that just keeps yelling "murderer!" outside of abortion clinics.

The problem with your proposed legislation is that it is my body. If you're going to demand the right to make laws around it you'd better have a better rationale than your Christianity or your personal morals. Which is fundamentally the difference between those of us who are pro-choice and those people who call themselves pro-life. I'm not telling you what to do. If you don't want an abortion then don't have one. You, OTOH, are proposing to overrule my personal morals and religion.

I dismiss pro-lifers because they deserve to be dismissed. Their argument amounts to nothing more than their desire to impose their religion on other people's body parts.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by LavenderBlue

Their argument amounts to nothing more than their desire to impose their religion on other people's body parts.

1. I support the legal right for women to have readily available, safe, inexpensive abortions.
2. Your argument is some of the worst, most wilfully ignorant pablum that gets passed around on the Dope. No, the pro-life argument boils down to people's desire to stop what they see as the deliberate killing of babies. It is not at all hard to envision why someone who thinks that a fetus is a human being would object to it being killed. The idea that they just want to "impose their religion" o,n your uterus, rather than opposing what they think is the killing of babies requires willful ignorance of truly titanic levels.

Cut it out.

[Bryan Ekers]

Heck, I get that they feel all morally in the right about not kiling babies and stuff, it's the stubborn refusal to recognize the specific circumstances that gets me shaking my head - morality deliberately divorced from reason.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

More wanting cites that the sky is blue, huh? Well, a quick google got me an article mentioning it.

Originally Posted by Mosier

Your cite has been found wanting. HB 954 was amended by Georgia Republicans to allow exceptions, such as when delivering poses a health risk to the mother, or the baby is not likely to live.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Irrelevant; you asked if they wanted to force women to birth dead babies, and they proposed a bill that would have done so. Changing it later doesn't make the original version have never existed.

Originally Posted by Mosier

Or the more reasonable version; abortion opponents made a bill with some stupid oversights, and later fixed it.

Well that would be more reasonable, but it's not consistent with the text of the article:

Although the House -- including McKillip and House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge -- initially balked, they agreed Thursday to move forward with a compromise. It was to include a definition in the bill describing what "medically futile" means: Profound and "irremediable" anomalies that would be "incompatible with sustaining life after birth."

Other small tweaks to the bill's language were made. And McKillip agreed to keep another Senate change that would protect doctors from civil suits brought as a result of the legislation.

In essence the loophole remained in the bill but was tightened -- women seeking abortions after 20 weeks can still get them under certain circumstances. But McKillip and the bill's supporters still declared victory. "We agreed with that to make sure we have an enforceable statute," McKillip said.

Emphasis added. It seems that the changes were only made with reluctance.

Now that's the only article I've read on the subject. But so far the evidence seems to point towards the apocalyptic hypothesis that all anti-aborts without exception are History's Greatest Monsters (next to militarists and non-atheists of course).

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

No, the pro-life argument boils down to people's desire to stop what they see as the deliberate killing of babies. It is not at all hard to envision why someone who thinks that a fetus is a human being would object to it being killed. The idea that they just want to "impose their religion" on your uterus, rather than opposing what they think is the killing of babies requires willful ignorance of truly titanic levels.

Emphasis dropped. Der's argument completely falls apart in the face of a state like Ireland, which outlaws abortion but also has a fairly robust safety net and historically a generous welfare state, unaffordably so at times. It's also compromised by the large pro-Choice block of US voters who want abortion to be "Safe and rare".

But FinnAgain: I have difficulty getting my head around those who declare a fetus that is months away from acquiring brain waves to be a full human being: it seems to me to be an appendage of the mother. I furthermore have difficulty with the miniscule shares of the US population that both want to ban abortion and favor robust pre-natal care. It's not that the 2 logically follow from one another necessarily, but that the overwhelming majority of self-styled pro-Lifers are uninterested in human health after birth suggests a punitive temperament at work.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

2. Your argument is some of the worst, most wilfully ignorant pablum that gets passed around on the Dope. No, the pro-life argument boils down to people's desire to stop what they see as the deliberate killing of babies. It is not at all hard to envision why someone who thinks that a fetus is a human being would object to it being killed. The idea that they just want to "impose their religion" o,n your uterus, rather than opposing what they think is the killing of babies requires willful ignorance of truly titanic levels.

This does not really stand up to scrutiny.

Yes, they believe a baby is being killed. But how committed are they to that notion?

Obviously the woman having an abortion does not see it as murder.

Do they think those who have abortions are callous murderers? Killing helpless little babies no less. A more despicable being is hard to imagine. Offing a store clerk or someone who bugs them would be peanuts. Maybe they go to playgrounds to stab little kids for fun.

Obviously that is hyperbole but that is where the notion that abortion = murder must take you.

Imagine a clinic where mothers brought their toddlers to have their kid killed. People outside would not be carrying signs...they'd be full on tackling people. The outrage and horror of it would be off the charts.

The vast majority of pro-lifers come nowhere close to that.

They know the women seeking abortions are not stone cold killers. So heartless that murdering babies is a casual matter to them.

Further, neither science nor the law has established the fetus as equivalent to a fully formed human in the first few months of pregnancy.

So, someone who feels it is wrong IS imposing their beliefs upon another. Beliefs which have no support in fact.

If someone wants to impose their beliefs on you such that they restrict your rights over your own body they need more than their religion or feelings.

And you are not paying attention if you do not see religion being invoked regularly among pro-lifers.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

But FinnAgain: I have difficulty getting my head around those who declare a fetus that is months away from acquiring brain waves to be a full human being: it seems to me to be an appendage of the mother. I furthermore have difficulty with the miniscule shares of the US population that both want to ban abortion and favor robust pre-natal care. It's not that the 2 logically follow from one another necessarily, but that the overwhelming majority of self-styled pro-Lifers are uninterested in human health after birth suggests a punitive temperament at work.

1) I don't agree with the logic of non-brainwave-fetus = human either. But then again, I don't have to. They do, and their actions flow from that premise.
2) I don't believe it suggests punitive measures, at all. It suggests that they believe that murder is wrong, but that there's no (or little to no) obligation to provide a safety net for other people. There's no contradiction, for instance, if someone says it should be illegal to set the homeless on fire but that we also shouldn't be funding homeless shelters and we should let them fend for themselves. It may be a position you find shitty, but it is not necessarily a logically inconsistent position.

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

This does not really stand up to scrutiny.

Sure it does. Of course, if you assume that they hold your axioms it no longer makes sense. But, they don't. They hold their axioms. And no, the idea that other people are willful murders is not a necessary consequence of their axioms, it is a necessary consequence of your caricature of them. They can, and do, quite clearly believe that some (or many, or all) women are uninformed, unthinking, unwitting, etc...

Further, the claim that anti-abortion activists are imposing their beliefs on others is true... in as much as every single law is belief imposed upon society at large. And the claim that 'science' has or hasn't confirmed where humanity starts is an absurdity. Science deals in facts, data, not aesthetic interpretations. Is a blastula a living entity? Undoubtedly, and science can tell us the specifics down to the microgram. Is a fetus a human? Science must stand mute as there is no humanometer. Metrics like brainwaves and viability are well and good, but the importance we attach to them is our interpretation, and not "science". We would do well to remember that.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Sure it does. Of course, if you assume that they hold your axioms it no longer makes sense. But, they don't. They hold their axioms. And no, the idea that other people are willful murders is not a necessary consequence of their axioms, it is a necessary consequence of your caricature of them. They can, and do, quite clearly believe that some (or many, or all) women are uninformed, unthinking, unwitting, etc...

People can hold all sorts of stupid, unfounded crap in their head.

Your take on it is the same take that conservatives use when claiming Obama is a Kenyan Manchurian candidate. To suggest that their axioms are as valid as mine are so much bullshit. "Hey, you think he was born in America, I don't, so we are even" does not work. Not in any rational sense anyway.

They are not basing their axioms on any kind of reason whatsoever.

No humanmometer? We can work with that:

There is a continuum from fertilized egg to baby popping out of the mother yes?

Baby popping out of mom = human (pretty sure we can all agree on that).

1 second before it pops out? Still human, nothing much is different.

On the flip side fertilized egg = human? Nope (I know some will say yes but give them a microscope and a fertilized egg and let them point out the similarities between you and the egg...won't get far).

1 second after fertilization? Still an egg.

So we work along the line. Granted science can not define a single spot where we say a line has been crossed. We do not need to though. We can err on the side of caution and say, clearly, up through the first trimester = not human in a meaningful sense.

Further, the claim that anti-abortion activists are imposing their beliefs on others is true... in as much as every single law is belief imposed upon society at large

While true this is a dodge.

Yes, society imposes laws. That does not mean the laws are rational or make sense merely because the society proclaimed it to be.

The Salem Witch Trials were presumably done in accordance with their laws at the time. Does that mean, since they were "legal" because society said so, it made their beliefs that they were getting witches tenable?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

To suggest that their axioms are as valid as mine are so much bullshit.

Wrong, and your comparison is disingenuous. Whether Obama was or was not born in America is a factual matter. Whether a fetus is or is not human is a matter of interpretation. Otherwise find me a humanometer and we can settle the debate. Barring that, drop the bombast. You're also not served by declaring that your opposition is " not basing their axioms on any kind of reason whatsoever."
Unless, of course, your goal is an inchoate shouting match. In which case, game on, I guess.

On the flipside, your definition of human is obviously post hoc and self-serving, arrived at via fiat. Someone who has decided that a fertilized egg counts as a human has just as much support as your 'Nuhn uhnnn!' You can, as mentioned above, shout at each other about it, I suppose. How many rounds of "Is too!" "Is not!" "Woman-oppresser!" "Baby-killer!" would you care to engage in?
There is no scientific definition of what constitutes humanity. There cannot be, as humanity is not an objective metric measurable like joules or grams.

Nor is the fact that all laws are the imposition of belief a 'dodge'. It means that pointing out that a law is an imposition of belief is a non-started, a rabbit trail, semantic noise with the value of the null set. If the folks you're preaching to aren't in your choir, all you've actually said is 'Stop trying to impose your view that murder is wrong, I can murder babies if I wanna!' Not, perhaps, the most effective tactic unless we're dedicated to the "Is too!" "Is not!" school of, ahem, discussion.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Der's argument completely falls apart in the face of a state like Ireland, which outlaws abortion but also has a fairly robust safety net and historically a generous welfare state, unaffordably so at times.

Ireland's historical mistreatment of women is well known.

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

No, the pro-life argument boils down to people's desire to stop what they see as the deliberate killing of babies. It is not at all hard to envision why someone who thinks that a fetus is a human being would object to it being killed. The idea that they just want to "impose their religion" o,n your uterus, rather than opposing what they think is the killing of babies requires willful ignorance of truly titanic levels.

Nonsense. First, those "babies" are only "human beings" according to their religious* and self-justifying** definitions of the term; no better than them saying "they are people because we say they are people". And second, as has already been said they simply don't act like they believe it. And third, they've never shown much concern over actual death and killing; when their ideals and policies kill people, they either ignore it, don't care or outright gloat over it.

* Claiming they have souls; a religious concept.

** Using definitions of "person" that are created for and used almost exclusively for trying to ban abortions.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Wrong, and your comparison is disingenuous. Whether Obama was or was not born in America is a factual matter. Whether a fetus is or is not human is a matter of interpretation. Otherwise find me a humanometer and we can settle the debate. Barring that, drop the bombast. You're also not served by declaring that your opposition is " not basing their axioms on any kind of reason whatsoever."

It is not disingenuous. It is the same thing.

It is someone presenting facts and the other side refusing to heed those facts all the while claiming that their version is every bit as valid an argument as someone else's version.

Define a what a human is.

Now stand someone next to a microscope with a fertilized egg and have them point out the similarities between a human and that egg.

All I can think of is the both have human DNA. But then so does a blood cell or skin cell and we do not cry murder when we lose one of those.

On the flipside, your definition of human is obviously post hoc and self-serving, arrived at via fiat. Someone who has decided that a fertilized egg counts as a human has just as much support as your 'Nuhn uhnnn!' You can, as mentioned above, shout at each other about it, I suppose. How many rounds of "Is too!" "Is not!" "Woman-oppresser!" "Baby-killer!" would you care to engage in?
There is no scientific definition of what constitutes humanity. There cannot be, as humanity is not an objective metric measurable like joules or grams.

If you have a blueprint for a house and trees nearby (for materials) and some basic tools do you have a house? Of course not. There is a potential for a house but it is not a house. So too with a fertilized egg.

People can rant all they want that really you have a house. Does not make it so. You are a long way from a house.

When in the construction of the house can you say it is a house? I don't know but it is not just when you have the blueprint and it is not when you nail the first two boards together. Somewhere, even before it is fully completed, I think you could say it is a house but you need to be pretty far along in its construction.

Nor is the fact that all laws are the imposition of belief a 'dodge'. It means that pointing out that a law is an imposition of belief is a non-started, a rabbit trail, semantic noise with the value of the null set. If the folks you're preaching to aren't in your choir, all you've actually said is 'Stop trying to impose your view that murder is wrong, I can murder babies if I wanna!' Not, perhaps, the most effective tactic unless we're dedicated to the "Is too!" "Is not!" school of, ahem, discussion.

What?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Define a what a human is.

Yes... and some define "human" as "anything from a fertilized egg to a 105 year old man about to drop dead of systemic organ failure." Your claim that people are ignoring facts is either disingenuous or, if you insist that it's not, myopic; either you are casting the debate in artificially restrictive terms or you are unable to conceive of the discussion from another point of view.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Yes... and some define "human" as "anything from a fertilized egg to a 105 year old man about to drop dead of systemic organ failure." Your claim that people are ignoring facts is either disingenuous or, if you insist that it's not, myopic; either you are casting the debate in artificially restrictive terms or you are unable to conceive of the discussion from another point of view.

On what basis do some people define a fertilized egg as a human?

You are accepting anyone's opinion as valid. If they define a fertilized egg as human than you suggest that is as valid as someone who doesn't.

Would you consider it valid if they defined a loaf of bread as human? If not why not?

If they need no rationale beyond their belief then all viewpoints are as valid as any other.

If that is the case then they can still fuck off because they have no right to impose their beliefs on my equally valid opposite belief.