Maybe you need to have a male ask the question, Mo. He seems to either chastise us females for strong language, patronize us or ignore us. (poor DianaG -she had another shot at life with that kidney).
You fucking misogynist prick. If you honestly dismiss the very real fears and experiences recounted here as women merely worrying about “how they [sic] will look in a bikini”, then I don’t see how you can claim you care very much about women, or your daughter.
You are dismissing women by putting the a POTENTIAL life above that of a very real person. And that scares the shit out of me. Outlawing abortion won’t end it. Tell me-would you then propose all miscarriages should be investigated?
Oh, there’s plently of selfishness here, all right. But I don’t think it’s where you see it. Try looking in the mirror.
So if one fetus absorbs another, it’s murder ? You’re also wrong, of course. Life began many millions of years ago; personhood begins sometime in late pregnancy or early infancy.
I’m a man, and he acts the same way towards me, except he doesn’t try to order me to be celibate.
So, let’s get this absolutely straight. A fertilized ovum is a (singular) life. A fertilized ovum that has divided once is one life. A fertilized ovum that has divided once and had its cells teased apart is two lives.
Does putting these cells back together obliterate the second life? On one hand, the cell that you are calling a person will grow and reproduce into more cells. On the other, none of these cells will be an individual person (barring additional twinning). Do we have two individuals in one body now?
Or mayhaps can we agree that most of the existing laws and definitions suck horrible ass for talking about the unborn, and that slinging simplistic slogans does nothing to help the issue?
That’s true, but he hasn’t slammed you with the insult re bikinis etc. I have no problem considering him an equal opportunity prick.
I only have a moment and will be out for a good portion of the evening. If I can post later, I will, including to you and DianaG directly.
As to this post, I don’t remember a single discrepancy. In fact, we haven’t discussed the central questions, “when does [human] life begin?” and the equivalent, "when does personhood begin?"in any detail at all. Now I will concede you did post that information to that effect that I found less than compelling and infinitely assailable. You may have noticed that this thread is now in excess of 300 posts, and a good deal of them have been posts at me. Shall I respond only to you? Perhaps you think this thread is about you…about you…about you…
It can hardly be said that I am not serious, nor that I am ducking anything. There’s only so much time and I have to use some judgement as to who to post to, and how many resonses I can squeeze in with the time allowed.
Still, those central questions are the ones that interest me, and I will be pleased to discuss them. I am hardly done discussing this topic…
Along those lines…I’ve been reminded that I’m in The Pit as if I’ve wandered into the wrong neighborhood. Just because the rules allow people to act like an idiot doesn’t mean that I’m required to act like one; nor do the rules require that I sit around while people call me names. I know that’s high SDMB sport, and I’m puzzled as to how that fits in the “Fighting Ignorance” motif, but I have enough argravation IRL than to come here and get abused.
So…the next time you (or anyone else) call me “Judgemental prick”, or the like, we won’t be able to play together anymore*. Of course, that’s not to say you shouldn’t—simply that you should decide what is more fun—talking at me (at which point you can call me any name you wish) or whether you wish to talk to me*.
(I’m acutely aware that insisting in decorum, restraint, and good judgement are synonomous with “oppression” and “slavery”, and the notion that I wouldn’t talk to someone who is calling me a “prick” is a form of “punishment.” I’m also aware that the peanut gallery will sing in 3 part harmony that I’m uppity or dainty or whatever. So be it.)
I will look at this post tomorrow, and will reply as I am able. It looks interesting.
On the surface, I’m not sure what credentials (impressive as they may be) Justice Blackmun possesses that make him the final arbiter on the subject.
However, I don’t know how to respond to what is essentially a cut and paste post. I’ve read enough of your posts, I think, that it doesn’t pertain to you, but a common grievance of mine is the prevalence of people who use Wiki and Google to make cases they otherwise couldn’t make on their own. I’ve coined them Google Armchair Geniuses. (you may use the acronym GAG 
)
You may use Mr Blackmun to buttress your argument, not to make your argument. So, if in the meantime you wish to put together some cojent thoughts based on Mr Blackmun’s words, I’ll be all eyes.
Since I haven’t seen them, I’m unable to say for sure E-Sabbath, old boy, whether you are wrong or not.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
I only have a moment and will be out for a good portion of the evening. If I can post later, I will, including to you and DianaG directly.
As to this post, I don’t remember a single discrepancy. In fact, we haven’t discussed the central questions, “when does [human] life begin?” and the equivalent, "when does personhood begin?"in any detail at all. Now I will concede you did post that information to that effect that I found less than compelling and infinitely assailable. You may have noticed that this thread is now in excess of 300 posts, and a good deal of them have been posts at me. Shall I respond only to you? Perhaps you think this thread is about you…about you…about you…[/uote]
No, but I think if you’re going to make assertions, and someone then addresses those assertions in the way you’ve outlined as “acceptable”, it’s rather ridiculous to state you’re open to those opinons or arguments when you completely ignore them. If you do not truly wish your questions to be answered, don’t ask them. As I’m the person who answered your question, and more than one person concurred, then yes. I expect you to answer me. Or be prepared to be accused of using dishonest debating tactics.
Good to know. I eagerly await your response.
No, you’re not required to act in any way you don’t wish to. Along the same lines, I am not required to take your posts seriously if I answer you honestly and you simply ignore credible arguments based on fact. And yes, this is the Pit. If you wish your debate to be without insults, swearing, or derision, I suggest you stick with GD.
IOW, “my way, or I’ll take my football & go home” ? No, no. You don’t get to make the rules. If you want to leave, leave. Don’t threaten, just fucking go. But don’t keep coming back to the thread unless you’re ready to back up your assertions. Because I’m going to keep calling you on them. And yes, I DO think you’re being a sexist, judgemental prick. Oh, well. If the words offend you, desist in telling me how I’m allowed to live my life and calling me a murderer.
Ah, projection. First: Yes. Insisting on decorum and restraint in a forum where we’re allowed to speak in pretty much any manner we see fit is pretty much bullshit. Again; your rules don’t apply here. Get back to me when you’re a mod. Second: No, I don’t think your not talking to me just because I called you a prick is “punishment.” I think it’s a temper tantrum and an avoidance tactic so you don’t have to address the very valid posts I and others made. Now. We can continue to discuss motives, or you can get off your high horse and answer my fucking posts. And DianaG’s. I don’t put up with temper tantrums from my kids; I see no reason why I should tolerate them from some person I’ve never met but nonetheless thinks he has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body.
Because you simply ignore what we say; that makes a discussion of those things impossible. We can rant at you, but a discussion is two way.
It can and we have.
Well, you did it anyway.
Raindog, what credentials does Justice Blackmun have? Why, he was a Justice of the Supreme Court. In 1973. In fact, he happens to have authored Roe V. Wade, the decision that stands as the law of the land.
In order to properly write the decision, he had to use the finest legal minds of the country, his not least among them, he had to consider morality, history, and ethics. He had to consider the traditions of many… and ignore none of them.
Raindog, what I posted was the heart of Roe V. Wade. What I posted was the historical background defending it, justifying it, and analyzing it.
That is what credentials he had. No man, I do not think, could speak for all America on the topic so well, or with so much authority… because his were the words that spoke for America, and decided the matter, in a way that no man has yet upset.
I do not ask if Roe v. Wade is good law. I, personally, agree with Justice O’Connor in that the decision was accurate, but the law justifying it was wrong, and should have been based on something quite different.
What I give you, Raindog, is a refutation of your claim that abortion is a new sin, that it is a result of these horrid times of moral decay, that in the past, when we were more upright, we did no such thing.
I give you the facts of the matter, pro and con, and I tell you, things are more complex than you knew.
That is why it was a cut and paste post. Because it was a matter of information. Have you never read Roe v. Wade before? How can you dislike a law, if you do not know what and why it is?
I’m still waiting for comments to my questions from the raindog (and maybe Updike, but I’m convinced he’s too much of an idiot to engage in a serious discussion).
In summary ('cuz I don’t feel like going back and digging that post up):
-
As a pro-lifer, do you think the government should provide a massive social welfare program that will helps mothers/parents raise their kids in the face of poverty and other obstacles? Because I’m sure the biggest reason why mothers get abortions isn’t because they want to move up the corporate ladder or keep their bikini figures. It’s because they simply can’t afford to raise a child.
-
Do you think the government should intervene when it’s clear a pregnant women isn’t a good host? Alcoholics, drug addicts (or people merely taking certain prescription drugs), disease carriers, and the malnourished will probably not produce healthy children. Many may produce still-born children. Should these women be punished? Should they be forced into some kind of institution for the baby’s sake? Why or why not? Do you see how privacy rights of the individual complicate this issue a WHOLE lot?
I think the pro-life camp could gain a whole lot more support if they as a group were for social programs devoted to helping poor mothers. Right now I hear a ton of rhetoric about “sanctity of life” but with no lipservice given to helping the living live . What’s the point of a baby being born if it can’t eat well and have a strong family to support it? The specialness of life isn’t a baby’s heartbeat or it’s perfectly formed fingers and toes. It’s the ability to live to one’s full potential and do great things. If you’re not willing to ensure every citizen has an oportunity to experience a life worth living, then all that talk about “sanctity of life” is just bullshit IMHO. Sanctity of life means squat if no one cares about you once you’re born. And if you’re against abortion but for a smaller, less intrusive government you’re a big ole hypocrite. Plain and simple.
Answers:
- No.
Which brings up the question, why do you think that the government has the be all and end all responsibilty for such things? Seriously, what gave you that idea? I asked you that before, and didn’t get a response, IIRC. (Like you, I don’t feel like going back and digging up that post).
- No.
That’s silly. I don’t think that sick people should be punished.
Because the government would be helping to create these problems, or at least, contribute to them, by outlawing abortion?
Because forcing the woman to bear a child gives them the responsibility to keep her fed, clothed and housed, for the same reason it’s the government’s responsibility to do the same for prisoners. It took away their ability to fend for themselves, so it’s the government’s reponsibility to solve the problem.
Except by forcing a child on them. Plus, you punish the child as well, by forcing it into an unloving, deprived holsehold ( or onto the streets, for that matter).
I can’t tell if by “her” you mean the woman or the child, but no, the government does not have a responsibility to feed, clothe, or house her.
So, uh, were just supposed to ignore this,
How can you read all of the above, and claim that you did not call names and seek to denigrate?
Pot meet kettle. :eek:
Cool, no need to provide cites for the raindog, no need to let facts enter this argument!
Yes, because you’ve hijacked this thread, the central question (go back and read the OP) was about “a bill that would outlaw most abortions, including in the cases of rape and incest”, not “when does [human] life begin?” or “when does personhood begin?”!
CMC
Oh, PS, judgmental prick! Take your toys, and go play with yourself! :wally
You know I hadn’t read that opinion in many years, although I have read it. What amazes me is that after 300+ posts you would come here and cut and paste it.
Did you think that the millions of people who disagree with Roe v Wade were unaware that is the law of the land?
With all due respect, what is your point? You posted Roe v Wade and expected that to be an End Of Story, ‘raindog, old boy, you’re all wrong’ kind of thing?
And the extent of your thoughts are to extol the virtues of Justice Blackmun? Now I am open to being corrected, but here are my impressions:
1)Justice Blackmun is one of 9 justices, and he wrote the opinion for the majority. Yet you speak exclusively of him, and the opinion, in the singular. He considered the final legal minds, he had to consider the traditions of many, he had to consider the morals, history etc etc. Was Blackmun King back then and I missed it?
Are you a lawyer? If you are not, I have an interest, and a question, in what you wrote. I have never witnessed a US Supreme Court session, although I have a friend who is a lawyer and we sat in on some sessions of the Ohio Supreme Court.
My impression is that a judge, and the Supreme Court in general, decides on the court case as presented to them. It would not be my impression that a judge, after hearing the case presented to him, would then go about the process of—and I’m quoting you----“use the finest legal minds of the country, his not least among them, he had to consider morality, history, and ethics. He had to consider the traditions of many… and ignore none of them.”
If you are an attorney, please say so. If you are not, I would appreciate if someone could scare up Bricker or another attorney who is knowledgeable about SCOTUS protocal:
My questions:
- I assume that a judge might look to legal precedent in reaching a decision, but would it be appropriate for a judge to take seek out legal opinions from people outside the bench?
- Is that common? Is it lawful?
- Other than the case argued to him from the attorneys in court, (and legal precedents I assume) how often would a justice seek to consider morality, history or ethics? (versus what he’s charged to consider, The Law!)
Dude, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. You Googled up Roe v Wade, and offered a proposition/process that I don’t think occurred. (and if it did, I’d like you to google fu it up)
And when I asked you for your cojent thoughts, the extent of them can be summed up, “Blackmun was very smart.” I mean you given me no thoughts of your own, and certainly no substance on the opinion.
I’m left underwhelmed.
So, E-Sabbath says:
which somehow elicits this response from the raindog:
Perhaps he is celebrating International Dadaism Month early.
Wow…I’d forgotten what the central question of the OP was, and I wrote it.
I don’t have an opinion on this subject as it relates to the issue of abortion.
I have a sense that many PC people either can’t, or won’t, grasp any context in which the fetus is a child. If not, these questions might not be asked.
For example would you consider it OK for an impoverished mother of 4 children to suffocate her youngest child or two in order to improve the prospects of the remaining children? If the 2 year old toddler is a child, and if the fetus in her womb is a child, then the act of smothering the toddler and aborting the fetus are qualitatively, morally, intellectually and legally *the same.
*
With all due respect, if the fetus is a child, and has the same rights as any other child, than the fetus’s presence alone guarantees him/her the same rights as his older [born] siblings; and so your question would seem to me to indicate one of 2 things:
1)Either you are unable, or unwilling, to conceive (read:accept) the fetus as a human being.
or…
2) You can conceive the fetus as a human being but believe there may be *some *compelling reasons to end it’s life; to kill it for some greater good. Within the context of this question, you may believe that poverty, or impending poverty, are acceptable reasons for ending a child’s life.
Now, in fairness to full disclosure, some PLers appear to have at least one reason in which it is OK to end a life—to kill for a greater good: trauma. Now I don’t what percentage of PLers make allowances for abortions due to rape or incest, and among that group I don’t know what percentage actually think that’s a good thing, or if they’re playing some lesser-of-two-evils politics thing.
But in the end it would appear that at least some people believe that a) life begins at conception, and b) there may be reasons to end it’s life.
I do not find the poverty, or trauma arguments compelling, but here I have heard many other reasons that are nothing but capricious.
The government does that now, doesn’t it? I mean it’s fairly common to incarcerate a woman to keep her ‘clean’ until the baby is born. If you find that to be ‘punishment’ I’m at a complete loss to see how. It’s also fairly common for a new born child of a drug addict etc to be taken as ‘wards of the state.’
I think the state has a compelling to act as a last resort to protect the most vulnerable in society.