Ban abortions?

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers *
**Anyway, some of my earlier questions (like how a ban is going to be enforced; how to distinguish women who can get abortions because they were raped from women who want abortions and claim they were raped, etc.) remain unanswered. **

I’ve already answered re: the practicality of a ban as best I can. I will reiterate that I find it interesting that it’s so difficult to envision how a ban might work when abortion bans were in place in the last 30 years or so. How will it work? Roughly as they did prior to Roe v. Wade, but with all the benefits of more modern crime prevention techniques. Why do you act as if this is some remote fiction?

Regarding the “rape exception,” you’ll have to ask someone else. I don’t believe rape justifies abortion. The child is no less a human being.

Now, do you think you can answer my question, within the context it was asked?

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Blalron *
**I drafted a lengthy reply to this but unfortunately the hamsters decided to eat it.

Yes, I can hold it as a distinction.

Previously Established Identity Of Personhood will be abbreviated as PEIOP from here on.

An irreversibly brain dead patient has no PEIOP that could possibly be preserved, keeping him on life support would further no purpose other than keeping a hollow shell of a body alive.

A comotose patient this is not brain dead still has a PEIOP that can be preserved. **

But this isn’t consistent with your prior allowance that viable fetuses (who presumably lack PEIOP) deserve protection. How do you reconcile that?

And if PEIOP is not compelling for a brain-dead patient, but IS for a comatose patient, doesn’t that essentially admit that what is critical is the future sentience (that does not currently exist), not PEIOP. Why is PEIOP an important distinction, other than the fact that without considering it, you can’t permit abortions? It doesn’t even protect brain-dead people. Seems to me your rules find PEIOP important only to the extent that it permits abortion, and for no other reason. Can you clarify?

[Blalron]

But this isn’t consistent with your prior allowance that viable fetuses (who presumably lack PEIOP) deserve protection. How do you reconcile that?

There are three important factors in consideration of currently non sentient humans. They act along side each other. No single factor all by itself is sufficient.

(1) PEIOP.

All by itself? Not sufficient. Brain dead patient is an example.

(2) Future Sentience.

Scrape off a skin cell. With the possibility of human cloning it could become a future sentient being. Does the skin cell deserve protection? No.

(3) Ability to survive without draining the bodily resources of another human against their will.

Brain dead patient can do this, but it doesn’t advance factors 1 or 2. All by itself, not enough for protection.

And if PEIOP is not compelling for a brain-dead patient, but IS for a comatose patient

I’m sensing some deliberate obtuseness here.

It’s not compelling for the brain dead patient because THE PATIENT CAN’T WAKE UP. No PEIOP is being protected. Neither is any future sentience being protected.

The interest of the PEIOP with the comotose patient, however, can be furthered by keeping him alive.

[Bryan_Ekers]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
I’ve already answered re: the practicality of a ban as best I can. I will reiterate that I find it interesting that it’s so difficult to envision how a ban might work when abortion bans were in place in the last 30 years or so. How will it work? Roughly as they did prior to Roe v. Wade, but with all the benefits of more modern crime prevention techniques. Why do you act as if this is some remote fiction?

That’s a little akin to saying that since the country ran reasonably well before the 19th Amendment, women don’t really need the vote. Using law enforcement to shut down abortion clinics and possibly stage “sting” operations to catch doctors peforming the D&C in their offices will be perceived as a major intrusion. Thirty years ago, pre Roe v. Wade, the option for a safe easy abortion was unavailable to many American women. I don’t see how taking that choice away after it has become commonplace isn’t going to provoke major problems.

Now, do you think you can answer my question, within the context it was asked?

Which question was that, again? I lost track.

[Yeticus_Rex]

*Originally posted by candida *
**Yeticus Rex

Thank you for one of the best replies I’ve come across in an abortion thread, truly hilarious!

Not only do you provide a Jewess with a link to some silly Christian preaching but you also went on to link to one of those amusing “pro-choice bite the heads off kittens” places.!**

Glad to make you crack a smile…it’s always needed every now and then.

More than just Christian religions view abortion as murder…

Even the Jewish faith has declared their position somewhere in the middle. A moderate view… ;j

Call me silly or a religion(s) silly, but just ask a kid how he/she would feel if their mom decided one day not to have that brother or sister come into the world. Indoctrination aside, I bet they would become upset. My 15 year old (at the time he was 4 years old) was just as upset when my wife had the tubal pregnancy and we had to abort to save her life. But what the hell, why don’t you call my kid silly too, as well as other innocent minded children.

Now it’s your turn in providing the comedy…“pro-choice bite the heads off kittens” places…Cite? I need a good laugh…

The point, Yeticus, is that I would hope that my children will make their decisions based on the same kind of ethical principles and with the same kind of familial support that I have enjoyed without the context of state-enforced Christian sentimentalism.

“Ethical principles”, Christian in nature or not, is foreign to you…hope is all you really have left.

I have never chosen to have an abortion, Yeticus, but I’m damned sure that that choice is entirely mine and not something that I’m going to have imposed on me by Catholics (of all people) and the reactionary Christian Right. If I found myself in some extraordinary situation where I did make that choice, nothing that you say, or do, would ever prevent me from doing what I chose to do.

And may you never be faced with that choice for it is more daunting than you’ll ever know.

**Sooooo … I’m sorry but, when you decide to link to “glibcatholics.net” or "whatafriendwehaveinjesus.com, please forget it, it’ll won’t work/impress me - believe me, I’m a Phil grad, I know these things, goes with the territory. **

Thanks for another chuckle…Yeah, right. Phil made you the omnicient person that you are, and you have become immune to all obstacles and hardships that’ll come your way. Prepare to be humiliated on a regular basis when you live the rest of your life…

Catholic bashing…how sweet!:rolleyes:

[Yeticus_Rex]

*Originally posted by jsgoddess *
**What could possibly be called a “minefield” about the scenarios I presented. None of these women’s lives are in danger. None of the women were raped. If those are the only possible exceptions, then you should have no problem.

What you would have a problem with is pointing out how all of these women are “irresponsible.” And since you’ve said that that is your beef, I hoped you would explain how it applied to these hypothetical women.

Julie **

I have only pointed out that 2 women, 2-21 men, and 21 abortions is “irresponsible”. Other than that, I have talked about “responsibility”. Stop putting words in my mouth and coming up with men conspiring against women scenarios. I was talking about men and women both being responsible, not women (by themselves) being irresponsible.

[IEatFood]

believe me, I’m a Phil grad, I know these things, goes with the territory.

Lord, I hope that’s not short for Philosophy. As in the major you get when you can’t pass enough Lit for an English major? Or don’t feel like reading the entire bible, torah, koran, etc…?

If that is the case, well, I won’t pass judgement on you, as I don’t know you. Let’s just say that my impression of philosophy students & practical real world intelligence is that they are mutually exclusive (I’d be saying this even if you had a Pro-life stance, don’t worry.)
Maybe you’re the exception, but I hope you are not citing that major as a badge of knowledge here (I’ll be the very first to admit that us CJ majors aren’t exactly brain surgeons ourselves for the most part, but by and large we are more practically intelligent & otherwise useful than Philo majors, as are can openers and squeegees.)

Just to be fair in my condescension…

Yeticus…

“Ethical principles”, Christian in nature or not, is foreign to you…hope is all you really have left.

You mean “Ethical Pricipals,” Christian in nature or not, are foriegn to you…hope is all you really have left.

I’d tend to agree by the way,

[candida]

Yeticus

Could it be that you’re so naïve that you think we all are too? That we exist in a world where this subject is completely new and that we are completely unaware of the arguments? That we’re so unaware of the world that your “Random Link Generator” only needs slight tuning to bring us to enlightenment?

I think the evidence for that hypothesis is certainly building up.

As to the ‘biting the heads off kittens’, I was referring, of course, to the ‘linking abortion to pedophiles’ tactic. I haven’t seen a ‘kitten’ allegation so far but there’s certainly plenty of opportunity around. Meanwhile, to continue the entertainment, perhaps you’ll come up with links to “have an abortion at 16 and your left ear will fall off at 60” type argument. I’ve not seen you post that kind so far but they’re out there and your ‘Random Link Generator’ will turn one up, just let it run for a few minutes before posting this time.

[candida]

I seem to remember, foodeater, that you’re a lawyer wannabee?

Enough said, I think.

[Bryan_Ekers]

*Originally posted by IEatFood! *
You mean “Ethical Pricipals,”

I think he really meant “Ethical Principals”.

Don’t worry. Even grown-ups like me make mistakes like that. You’ll learn.

[sub]I just didn’t want the condescension to be in one direction.[/sub]

[IEatFood]

Bryan, yes indeed I meant Principals. I can’t spell worth a damn, but bad grammar is visable from about eighteen miles away, in the dark, in the fog, when I am half blindfolded for some reason, go fig…

I seem to remember, foodeater, that you’re a lawyer wannabee?

Nope. If I wanted to be a wannabee anything, I would have been a Philo major.
I investigate Sexual & Vice crime for a living. If I wanted to be an attorney, I probably could, but I do not feel like putting in the hours they do (If there is a group in the legal community that puts in more than ours & homocide, it’s the MD DA’s office.) At first I wanted an ADA chair, but, they don’t get a car that you can break the law with, nor can they arresst people on the spot. I don’t know, maybe it’s just more fun at the thin end of the wedge.

Sorry if that’s boring, but has your philo major gotten you again? The conviction that being right-handed makes you smarter or something? Perhaps you got lucky and can teach with it?

By the way, I don’t know what a Candida is, but foodeater is not my name. There is an explanation for the tag in the IMHO room under the thread “What’s Your Username Mean?” I’m sorry, but it doesn’t look very intelligent when someone can’t even get the name right, Candodi.

Seriously though, if that is your major, you might want to make use of it as clearly, you live in the World of the Shadows (You’d better know what that is!), and not the one we do.

[candida]

Well, foodeater, I had originally meant the ‘Phil grad’ as a joke, like “let me through, I’m a Police Podiatrist” but I’m glad that I seem to be annoying you.

What does being a Phil grad bring you? Well an assumption from the start that you’re not going to be a philosopher when you grow up, that’s for a start - leave that to message board poseurs. Actually, after being a 'stay at home mom/post-grad student for a few years", I’ve not found any problems in finding gainful employment.

What else does it bring you? Oh, I think that it helps make the presumptiousness, pomposity and absurd self-importance of people who are sure of what the answer is - and that they know it - funnier.

[Blalron]

Call me silly or a religion(s) silly, but just ask a kid how he/she would feel if their mom decided one day not to have that brother or sister come into the world. Indoctrination aside, I bet they would become upset.

A couple years ago, my father foolishly got into a relationship with an irresponsible cocaine addict. One thing led to another and she got pregnant, and she got an abortion. Call me callous or cold hearted, but I am glad that I did not have a brother or sister that came from that woman.

[Yeticus_Rex]

*Originally posted by candida *
**What else does it bring you? Oh, I think that it helps make the presumptiousness, pomposity and absurd self-importance of people who are sure of what the answer is - and that they know it - funnier. **

Hence, the circular reference…

principle - noun : 1. A basic truth, law, or assumption. 2. A rule or standard, esp. good behavior. 3. Moral or ethical standards or judgments. 4. A fixed or predetermined policy. 5. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes. 6. A basic source.

We had it right the first time…

[Yeticus_Rex]

*Originally posted by Blalron *
**A couple years ago, my father foolishly got into a relationship with an irresponsible cocaine addict. One thing led to another and she got pregnant, and she got an abortion. Call me callous or cold hearted, but I am glad that I did not have a brother or sister that came from that woman. **

You missed a couple of references here…My son was four years old at the time of the abortion, and was expressing himself as an innocent 4 year old child, not as an adult with an established set of indoctrinated beliefs based on environment, social status, and religious (or non-religious) beliefs, like yourself. The second reference, “if your mother decided to abort your brother/sister”, and not “a cocaine addict getting an abortion” was the issue (unless you were describing your mother as the cocaine addict, which I don’t think you were doing), then I believe you would be talking about your reaction to the abortion much differently when you were the child…

[catsix]

So were you totally honest with the four year old and tell him that his mother would die if a lump of cells the size of a kidney bean wasn’t removed from her body or did you twist the truth to play on the emotions of a naive child and phrase it as ‘brother or sister’ to get him to think of a child his size who could run and play and be a companion to him?

[Yeticus_Rex]

*Originally posted by catsix *
**So were you totally honest with the four year old and tell him that his mother would die if a lump of cells the size of a kidney bean wasn’t removed from her body or did you twist the truth to play on the emotions of a naive child and phrase it as ‘brother or sister’ to get him to think of a child his size who could run and play and be a companion to him? **

Yes, we were totally honest. When we first found out that my wife was pregnant, we told our son that he may have a brother or sister by next summer and he was excited, because he saw that the neighbor kids all had a brother(s) or sister(s) and he felt some sort of inclusion in the neighborhood when this baby will be born. He knew that the baby was growing inside of mom (he looked at books that showed the size of the baby inside of the womb, plus he had two aunts that bore children during that year, so he saw what the process was), but as the weeks wore on, my wife was in greater and greater pain. After the doctor visit, I explained the problem to my son and what had to happen for mom to live. Like I said, he took it just as hard as we did, saying that he didn’t want the baby to die, he wanted the baby be born so he can play with him/her. He was also upset when mom miscarried the other pregnancies until our second was born 8 1/2 years later, due to an unintended pregnancy. Quite a gap, for a family trying to have more children. Also, our youngest child is 1 1/2 years old today, the middle is 6 1/2, and my oldest is now 15. Obviously, they play together at times, but it is a far cry from what my brother and I used to do together when we were kids (14 months apart).

[catsix]

Telling a kid that an ectopic embryo is a ‘baby’ and then saying that ‘baby’ has to die or his mother will is not ‘totally honest’.

[IEatFood]

Cat, that’s circular. That assertion depends soley upon the erroneous belief that an unborn baby is not a life. I don’t see how that will prove anything other than that you believe a fetus is not a life.

Candida, thanks for the belly laugh there. So let’s get this straight…

Person A: XYZ is true because I wasted n number of years studying ABC

Person B: Not neccessarily true. ABC is mostly useless where XYZ are concerned. You can tell because the enitre world, except for maybe you, already knows this.

A: Is not! You don’t know anything, um, because, um, I don’t agree, so there!

B: Whatever. That sounds like something a dolt would say. Since I investigate dolts for a living, I think I know a thing or two about that.

A: Um, er, duh! It was only a joke, that’s right, I mean, sheesh, man, only an idiot would take me seriously. Well, I guess everyone else thought I was serious, but you were supposed to think I was joking, um, cause it’s easier than admiting I didn’t impress you. In fact, what happened???
Seriously though, for a minute, what planet did the following happen on?

Actually, after being a 'stay at home mom/post-grad student for a few years", I’ve not found any problems in finding gainful employment.

'Cause it don’t work that way on Earth. Unless Tesco or McDonalds are considered gainful…

And no for the record, you don’t annoy me. I just think it’s funny that you want us to think you are smart or something, whilst being unable to accurately discern my username.

PS. Are you like this in real life?

Cheers!

[candida]

Foodeater

I must say that I gain the impression that you really do need to get over yourself more than somewhat and certainly get over the impression that, just because you’ve convinced yourself to take yourself seriously, that anybody else has to engage in your particular delusion.

Anyway, just to be nice before Pesach, I’ll indulge you.

The Phil grad comment, Foodeater, came up not in the context of “I’m right, I’m a Phil grad” but in the context of a comment about the nature of Yeticus’ links since he’d based an argument on two links, one linking to a site I’d referred to as “pro-choice bite heads off kittens” and the other to some silly bit of Christian preaching. Sooo, I said words to the effect of “No more, Yeticus, no more silly links . . . " ( . . . note my precise words I’m sorry but, when you decide to link to “glibcatholics.net” or "whatafriendwehaveinjesus.com, please forget it, it won’t work/impress me - believe me, I’m a Phil grad”)

So, I’m afraid that your silly trip down ‘Logical Fallacy Lane", Foodeater, while it gave you, en passant, an opportunity to tell us, yet again, what an important man/intellectual/expert you are because of your nebulous relationship with something vaguely legal, is actually irrelevant (which may surprise you but, having watched throughout this thread, seems par for the course to me).