Only if a mindless fetus qualifies as a person, and it doesn’t. Or are you going to forbid organ transplants as well ? If a fetus is a person, so is a brain dead body.
Considering abortion murder requires a view of human life that is either contradictory, or one that lowers human life to the value of so much meat. It’s not surprising that “pro-lifers” are so amoral and uncaring.
A medical condition such as…?
Then try a C-section delivery first.
No, feel free.
Yes, indeed. A fetus, who will attain consciousness, is identical to the temporarily flat-lined patient who ultimately regains consciousness. Ain’t life grand?
Gosh! You found us out. Dammit. You are such a…it’s laughable. I’ll just chuckle, in deference to the forum.
Sewage trap vagina.
Cut it out. Logic has no weight in determining the “right to choose.” (JThunder, good to see you.)
Then you are being hypocritical, or irrational. Or are lying, and intend to ban organ transplants later.
No; someone who in temporarily flatlined is there, just shut off. A fetus is the same as someone whose brain is dead. Someone who that even if you had the kind of biotech to fix them, would still be dead; you could create a new brain, but the old one is gone. Just as a fetus lacks a functioning human brain to begin with.
It hardly requires any effort to “find you out”. I simply need to look at places where your side wins, and look at the hellish conditions your beliefs create. And the utter lack of concern for the lives of the children you force into existence, and the malice towards the women you regard not even as animals, but only as wombs.
The “pro-life” movement is one of the most utterly evil in history.
We’re right up there with the Nazis.
Not quite as openly destructive, but even emptier. The Nazis at least valued something, even if it was conquest and power. The anti-abortion movement is pure malice; it hurts many, and helps no one, not even it’s own followers.
And if it achieved the power the Nazis have, I can easily see it rivalling them in sheer nastiness.
Godwin is dead.
Well, you read it wrongly.
All I was saying is that, if the law we are dealing with says that, as long as the baby is inside the mother, we cannot legally prevent her from killing the fetus, then I think “fine, but that’s as far as we should allow this right to go”. Within the confines of this law, we should not allow the baby to be taken out, partially or totally, and killed. That’s the most we can do given the law we have.
Now, if you can work towards changing the law that is another matter.
Godwin is alive and well
He was aborted.
If my goal were to overturn Roe, I’d choose Justices who were from the population demographic most likely to be sympathic to that goal. Sure, many Protestants are opposed as well, but Roman Catholics are ALL opposed to abortion (or at least they’re supposed to be). Protestants are splintered into many different denominations and as a group probably aren’t as reliable as Catholics vis a vis abortion. Of course, being Catholic isn’t strictly neccesary to this end if the nominee is sufficiently ideologically “pure” in some other way (Bork comes to mind).
I’m not sure what your point is. I’ve demonstrated that, contrary to Evil Captor’s thesis, there is not some conspiracy to stack the court with Catholics. There is a (very open) conspiracy to stack the court with originalists (or what Bush likes to call "strict constructionists). And if you wanted to overturn Roe, that would be the thing to do.
“Protestantism” isn’t a particular religion and there are plenty of Protestant denominations that are as anti-abortion as the Catholic Church is. If you call yourself an evangelical Christian, of whatever denomination, I bet it’s more likely that you’re anti-abortion and anti-*Roe *than if you’re Catholic. In fact, there is no significant different between Prostestants in general and Catholics on abortion. From this CBS poll:
Most Catholics seem to be like most Americans-- they think abortion is wrong, but don’t want it to be illegal.
Right. Because you’ve clearly argued beyond dispute that an organ and a fetus are morally equivalent. Try again.
We’ve had exchanges on this point before, and you continue to flail, so we needn’t continue. This is a meaningless distinction, one that recognizes the humanity (or personhood) of the flat-liner while still permitting abortion, an incoherent position. You have long ago established that you believe that a living entity without the current capacity for thought is a mass of tissue, no different than a tumor or an organ, without human rights per se. Um, except when it does have rights. “Shut off.” Right. The lack of brain activity either creates the bright line that excludes persons, the boundary you’re so fond of trotting out, or it doesn’t. It’s your point, not mine. I don’t need the existence of brain activity to recognize another’s rights.
As soon as you acknowledge that someone without brain activity has human rights, you’ve opened the door for discussion of fetus rights. The distinction you draw is not a meaningful one, it’s arbitrary.
Well, how can I argue with such a well-argued position?
Then I stand by my point.
No, and this is just the sort of dance I was talking about: we weren’t talking about the moral implications of the proceedure yet, but rather whether it is indicated medically or not. The question is whether the proceedure is necessary medically. Pro-lifers claim that it isn’t, making it sound like it is simply egregious. But just because it isn’t the only possible option doesn’t mean that it can’t be the medically appropriate one.
And yet we have folks like Friar Ted and many pro-life people running around claiming that we need all sorts of vast new legal powers in order to restrict late-term abortions. Do you agree that this is essentially dishonest, given that states can ALREADY heavily restrict post-viability abortion as long as there are exceptions for health/life of the mother? Note that even if you think those exceptions can be abused, restrictions on that exception can be made more stringent.
I think the person that wrote the first part of your snark needs to be in better communication with the person who wrote the second.
C-sections may be one of the safer surgeries someone can have, but they are still surgeries. Especially if the baby is not going to survive either method regardless (which even you must admit is at least some of the cases this legislation tries to ban), then I hardly see the reason in insisting over a more dangerous and invasive proceedure for removing the fetus than a less invasive and scarring one.
No, because they are separate issues. The first statement asks what types of medical conditions would threaten the mother’s life if she were to deliver the child normally. The second statement addresses the claim that piercing the unborn’s skull is the only suitable means of extracting the unborn. As I said, separate issues.
Nobody denies that. The point is that piercing and deflating the infant’s skull is NOT the only way to extract it. As you yourself said, a C-section delivery is comparably safe, and more importantly, it does not necessitate killing the unborn, much less piercing or crushing its skull.
The point is that it’s the safest way. There is no reason a woman should be denied the safest procedure, period.
And these are not cases where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb anyway. They would still die from a C-section.
Irrelevant. Even if we grant that it’s the safest way, that doesn’t make it morally justified.
Consider a child drowning in a swimming pool. The safest thing for a mother or father to do would be to stay out of water and avoid any personal risk. Such a parent would be derided for his or her action – and rightfully so. No reasonable person would accept the statement, “I decided to minimize my personal risk” as a valid excuse for abandoning the child to death.
Similarly, imagine a father whose son was being beaten to a pulp by a couple of other youngsters. His safest response would be to run away as fast as he possibly could. Such a father would be derided for his cowardice… and rightfully so. Once again, there’s a huge difference between what’s “safest” and what’s right.
Which is? I’m not trying to be snarky, but how does my response reinforce your point?
All pro-lifers, eh? Me included, since you used me as a reference? But my point stands. Alternatives become reasonable by virtue of the net benefit they produce. It is not unreasonable, given a certain set of facts (and I’m no expert) to say a given alternative is not necessary because it creates an egregious harm that could otherwise be avoided by assuming only a minor potential harm.
But even making those restrictions on the exceptions more stringent is now more politically palatable, more seemingly reasonable, by virtue of this decision. The door has been opened further. Challenges to post-viability restrictions have been made that much less likely to be successful. States where late-term restrictions are more lax are now that much more ripe for a political strategy that looks to limit abortion options. That’s my point. That’s what this decision accomplished.