Liberals Trying to Repeal All Abortion Restrictions

| | Comments (71) | TrackBacks (0)

The Demonrats in the House and Senate have proposed a bill (S.1173/H.R.1964) that will repeal the partial-birth abortion ban, specifically mentioned in Sec. 2(9), and override every State and local law restricting a woman's right to kill her child before it is born:

"Sec. 4(b)(1)(B) A government may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability;"

"Sec. 4(b)(1)(C) A government may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman;"

Of course, viability is defined by "the best medical judgment of the attending physician" (an abortionist, naturally), as is the health of the mother, which in the liberal mentality includes her "emotional health," and probably her economic health as well.

Strangely, the bill does not define "woman," so it may be taken to include minors as well. After all, if she can get pregnant, she must be a woman, right?

Well, facts have nothing to do with their arguments, as usual. In their "findings," Sec 2.(5) says, "Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions." The truth is that, "by 1972, the year before the Roe v. Wade decision, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died from illegal or self-induced abortions." They also "found" that "an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions." Bollocks. According to the CDC, there were 586,800 abortions in 1972 ("The American Almanac -- Statistical Abstract of the United States" 113th edition).

Further straining the bounds of reason, Sec. 2(15)(B)and(C) say, "Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients."

Congress was given the power to "regulate commerce... among the several States." It does indeed require having a mental disorder to interpret that to mean that Congress has power over everything that may even remotely involve any interstate transaction.

But of course, the liberals in Congress do not care about the U.S. Constitution. The bill itself tries to violate the Constitution. Sec. 6 says, "This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act." So, according to this bill, should it become law, a later Congress cannot override it? That's not constitutional. But when did that ever stop them?

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Liberals Trying to Repeal All Abortion Restrictions.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1131

71 Comments

stay puft said:

first of all, in the phrase, "restricting a woman's right to kill her child before it is born" why do you use the pronoun "it?"

now here again you are picking and choosing which numbers to use (the ones that best suit your needs, of course!) and elevating their status to "The Facts" and then suggesting that anyone who might take other figures into account are just crazy liberals who are ignoring The Facts as usual.

it's hard to believe that someone as obsessed with a rigid, air-tight, absolute reality as you can fail to see the underlying subjectivity in your arguments.

one more thing; surely there is a precedent for what is or is not classified as "interstate commerce?" Do you have any such information?

your "mental disorder" schtick is getting old, Jack. You're a funny guy, but you really could use some new material.

Jack said:

I chose "it" for convenience only, to denote one of unknown sex. Properly, I should have said "he," because in proper English, the masculine forms include the feminine. I stand corrected.

Do you have a better source than the CDC? If so, please provide it.

The issue is not with what is or is not "interstate commerce," but with what it means to regulate it.

The mental disorder of liberalism is making this a sick coutry indeed, and the sickness is getting old quickly.

stay puft said:

it doesn't look like accurate numbers exist. I looked form CDC and found these estimates:

1940 1,679
1950 316
1960 289
1966 120 First State Legalized in 1967
1970 128
1972 39 Supreme Court Decision in 1973
1977 21
1981 8

your article quotes someone as saying, "some 30 years ago [i.e., around 1940], it was judged that such deaths might number 5,000 to 10,000 per year."

there's no doubt that the actual number is higher due to underreporting. But there's no way to know how much higher. The statement, "Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions" is true. All we have to go on is an estimation.

the article you linked goes on to say, "If we guess that this figure represents roughly a quarter of actual mortality..." so the claims it makes are also based on guess work.

Jack said:

You didn't read very carefully, puffalump. That 5,000 to 10,000 number was based on the official number of 2700 in 1930, then multiplied by a fudge factor.

"All we have to go on is an estimation." So you take the most biased estimation possible, which used a multiplication factor that had no basis in research?

Would you like to estimate the mortality rate of the innocent lives ended by abortions?

stay puft said:

also, by now I've learned not to take you seriously, but it's difficult to discuss stuff with you when you keep saying that my take is only the result of a mental disorder. Will you stop?

Jack said:

Will you seek help for your mental disorder?

:-)

stay puft said:

no can do, the shrinks are all liberals

Jack said:

I was noticing that. That's why they removed homosexuality and pedophilia (which they put back in under duress) from the list of mental disorders in the DSM.

Robin said:

When Jack can't come up with valid facts or logical arguments he resorts to calling everyone mental.

So Jack, how many of these children do you plan to adopt when their parents give them up?
Do you plan to pay the extra taxes it will take to support the extra care these children will cost? Do you plan to help the single mothers that will result?
Do you plan to support any sex education or birth control other than abstinence.

Do you have any plans for the future of these children? Or do you just want them born and forget about them?

Jack said:

First, Robin, my wife and I have considered adoption, although we have children of our own already. However, the costs are prohibitive and the red-tape rediculous. In fact, we know TWO families that adopted twins from Russia, because it was easier and cheaper than adopting American babies. The Catholic Charities of Massachusetts has gotten out of the abortion business because state law requires them to allow homosexual couple to adopt. Even so, there are many families wanting to adopt.

Second, if the 30 million aborted babies since Roe were alive, we would not need so many illegal immigrants to do the work. Since liberals claim that the illegals are a boon to our economy, why would the native-born not be? Why do you think all these aborted children would have been worthless?

stay puft said:

HA! the catholics have their priorities straight don't they? kids are better off unadopted than raised by gay parents!

Kevin said:

"(which they put back in under duress) from the list of mental disorders in the DSM." Tell me the bit of history to this claim, it's one I haven't learned yet. . .

"Second, if the 30 million aborted babies since Roe were alive, we would not need so many illegal immigrants to do the work." Hahahahaha! I'm waiting for your magical mathematical equation on this one, buddy.

Jack said:

Kevin:

Sorry, I meant to put in the link and forgot. Thanks for the catch.
http://www.narth.com/docs/debatecontinues.html

What math? One million plus per year aborted since 1972 is more than the 20 million illegal immigrants. Everyone says we need those workers. If we had not aborted those children, we'd have them as workers.

Kevin said:

"What math? One million plus per year. . ." ROFL!, as the kids say these days.

One thing you cannot argue is that the APA is nearly a priesthood with psychology as today's religion.

Also, I think they got a dose of their own medicine: "caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning."

That clause, in and of itself, is very helpful in an over-medicated, overly anxious, over-therapized society; maybe not so helpful with sociopaths (who are now called anti-social) unless functioning is defined impaired by incarceration, which affects socialization and occupation. . .

stay puft said:

"81 Words"

The story of how the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness.

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1188

enjoy!

Kevin said:

Jack, if you can corroborate the account about the APA and the pedophilia diagnosis from a source uninterested in persuasion I'd be a little more willing to believe it. I find it interesting that you, someone who argues that homosexuality is not a choice, would link to an activist organization that argues that it is, and that individuals who make that "choice" need curing, for your "facts". Maybe you'll quote Jerry Falwell, David Duke, and Anton LaVey for your next enthralling argument!

Jack said:

Kevin -- almost all sources are interested in persuasion. So what? Still, there are many sources. This one simply gives the text of the originia DSM-IV, and a link to the Text Revision that followed:

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophilia.htm

Quite simply, the Text Revision was required to put the act of having sex with a pre-pubescent child back into the definition.

I do not recall arguing that homosexuality is a not choice. In any event, I linked to a site that gave a good account of the story. I had not even heard of NARTH before. In any event, one cannot dismiss facts just because he does not like the source.

Robin said:

Jack, first of all, there are plenty of people to work these jobs (i.e. teenagers) but most of them do not want to work these jobs. They feel that McDonald's is below them.

If all those embryos had come to term we would still have the drain of resources that illegal immigration is causing. You fail to realize that most unplanned pregnancies happen among single women with no support systems.
With adoption, I can tell you that if you wanted to adopt here you could. There are plenty of older children n to adopt. The problem is that older children aren't adopted.
What Kinds of Adoptions Disrupt (aren't adopted)?

* 10% to 12% of adoptions of children aged three and older disrupt. (Barth and Berry, 1990)
* Of children placed for adoption at ages 6 to 12, the disruption rate is 9.7%. (Barth, 1988)
* Of children placed for adoption at ages 12 to 18, the disruption rate is 13.5%. (Barth, 1988)
* Of children of any age with special needs placed for adoption, the disruption rate is 14.3%. (Groze, 1986)
* Placements of older children and children with histories of previous placements and longer stays in the foster care system are more likely to disrupt (Stolley, 1993)
* The disruption rate increases as the age of the child at the time of adoption increases. (Boyne et al., 1984; Barth and Berry, 1988)
* The overall decrease in disruption percentages in 1988 from 1984 can be traced to the introduction of post-adoption services, an important factor in containing the number of adoption disruptions. (Barth and Berry, 1988)

Number of U.S. Domestic Adoptions

1,400,000 (1.4-million or 87% of all adoptions) were domestic adoptions in 2000.

200,000 (or 13% of all adoptions) were of foreign-born children

1,600,000 - Total Number of Adoptions in the U.S. in 2000

-U.S. Census, 2000

So, unless you catch an adoption in the first few months you risk that child being in foster care their whole life. If you really want a child you would be willing to go through the red tape to have one (even if older).

Also, if you have never given up a child to adoption, you couldn't possibly know the agony and pain it causes to both parties

Jack said:

You're right, Robin. They're so much better dead.

If a woman can save herself some mental anguish by killing her child, rather than putting him up for adoption, then killing him is the way to go.

spmm said:

...and Jack lapses into rhetorical hyperbole

Jack said:

And puffalump follows right after.

"Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

spmm said:

I'm just doing the play-by-play...

Han shakes his head, muttering to himself. Chewbacca agrees.

INTERIOR: DEATH STAR -- MAIN FORWARD BAY.

The crewmen carry a heavy box on board the ship, past the two stormtroopers guarding either side of the ramp...

Kevin said:

"I do not recall arguing that homosexuality is a not choice."

You're right, I forgot. You argued that it was not a lifestyle but rather how God made SOME.

Funny that while I was madly (no pun intended) typing this morning you were commenting on what I was typing you.

More later, I'm off to play some tennis and NOT smoke.

Jack said:

I am sorry for the confusion, Kevin. I understand now how you got confused. If you will notice, that post (title and all) was a quote from a commenter, Mark, who said, "It's Not a Lifestyle...it's how God made some."

The point of the link was to show how inane his assertion was.

Jack said:

Puffalump -- the commentators are out of the game. You know, has beens or never weres. ;-)

Kevin said:

Oh, really? You can see how I might be confused when you write:

"God's intention was for us to be heterosexual. I did not choose that, nor did I say that all homosexuals choose homosexuality."

Not all homosexuals choose homosexuality? For some it's just the way God made them?

Jack said:

Kevin -- I am arguing neither that they homosexuals choose their sexuality, nor that God made them that way.

IF they do not choose their sexuality, then I contend that God did not make them that way, but that their sexuality is a corruption of God's design.

However, the origin of their sexuality is entirely irelevant. The Bible tells us that homosexual acts are sins. Some homosexuals CHOOSE to engage in such acts, others choose not to. Similarly, some heterosexuals choose to engage in extramarital sex, others choose not to.

zimzo said:

So then why aren't you comparing people who have sex before marriage to homicidal maniacs? Why aren't you working for a constitutional amendment to prevent non-virgins from marrying?

Jack said:

"So then why aren't you comparing people who have sex before marriage to homicidal maniacs?"

One battle at a time, zimzo.

"Why aren't you working for a constitutional amendment to prevent non-virgins from marrying?"

Because in marriage heterosexuals are correcting the error of their ways. In legalizing homosexual marriage, we would be validating the error of their ways.

Robin said:

Jack, until you, and all those like you, adopt every single adoption ready child in foster care then you have no right to comment on a woman's right to choose. It's not your right to force women to have children. Also, until you or those like you, support all access to birth control, and responsible sex education then stop trying to control women and their reproductive rights.

Jack said:

What a joke you are talking about "responsible" anything. Your response to getting pregnant is "kill it!"

I'm not forcing any woman to have a child, because I am not forcing any woman to have sex. Any woman who willingly has sex has a responsibility to any child resulting from that sex. If she is so irresponsible that she cannot deal with the natural consequenses of having sex, then how is she responsible enough to decide whether to kill another human being or to put him up for adoption?

You liberals think you're SOOOO compassionate, but you would rather a child be killed by his own mother than to put him in foster care.

You make me sick.

spmm said:

Nicely put Robin.

Jack,

you keep using these phrases, "kill a child" "kill another human being" as if you aren't making any assumptions, and that there can be no other valid interpretation than your own.

you have a serious mental block, don't you? no one is saying they'd rather kill a child. Show me one instance of someone arguing for the right to kill children. Like I said, it's pure hyperbole.

you're endless drivel about liberals killing children is sounding more and more like static. It's to the point where you have to say things like, "you make me sick" just to get anyone's attention.

I guess the only way you'd ever change your mind about abortion is if your daughter got knocked up by an undocumented immigrant.

"If she is so irresponsible that she cannot deal with the natural consequenses of having sex," than she doesn't need to be having a kid.

Jack said:

It is difficult to take seriously someone who can master neither the "Shift" key (making you, naturally, "shiftless"), nor proper spelling.

Still, if abortion does not kill a human being, what does it kill?

To answer your question, LIBERALS are arguing for the right to kill children. However, to win that argument, they first have to dehumanize the child by calling it a "fetus" or an "embryo." Well, is the fetus a cow fetus, or a dog fetus? No, the fetus is a HUMAN fetus, with a unique genetic make-up that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Furthermore, it is NOT murder for a woman to kill her baby in the U.K. if she claims "post-partum depression": http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/28/postpartum.defense/

"I guess the only way you'd ever change your mind about abortion is if your daughter got knocked up by an undocumented immigrant."

You're disgusting. The only way I'd change my mind on abortion is if it kept you from procreating.

Anonymous said:

your mother should have believed in abortion

Jack, how do you spell "consequenses" ?

spmm said:

your mother should have believed in abortion

Jack, how do you spell "consequenses" ?

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
Your argument regarding Jack referring to the unborn as children is ludicrous. I recall a long conversation we had and you were not at all convincing w.r.t showing the unborn are not human.

Jack is calling unborn children what they are. Since they are children and they are then dismembered by a doctor on the alter of Choice they are then killed by the abortion which is held up as a 'right' by liberals.

Since they are killed at the rate of 5000/day and those who defend the legality of this practise are liberals, it is not 'static' to point out that the defense of the legality of this practise enables the killing to continue.

Jack said:

I believe that is the British spelling. How do you spell "then"?

spmm said:

well it's about time sancho panza showed up. I've never said that a human fetus isn't human, jacob. that doesn't mean it's A Human Being. sure, it's got potential, but the odds are against it. Like I said, I remember discussing this before; I remember you and Jack having a hard time comprehending that there could be more than one legitimate interpretation of what's going on

Jack, do you want to have a heated discussion about abortion or a goddamn spelling bee?

Robin said:

Thank you spmm.
I agree that women should be responsible, that's why we should have access to birth control and proper sex education. Men need to be responsible too either with birth control or with contributing to child care.
Have you seen children in foster care? Have you heard the stories of children growing up without a permanent family? I suggest you hear them before you decide that's such a great thing to do to them. There are plenty out there, Jack. Since you want to decide they be born when are you going to adopt?

Jack said:

"it's got potential, but the odds are against it."

Really? Not in the United States, even with their mothers killing them by the hundred of thousands every year: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/99facts/21_56t04.pdf

Only in the mothers' age range of 15-17 were there more deaths than births, and abortion was responsible for two-out-of-three of those deaths.

These are old data, 1995, but it was the latest I could find on the CDC website. Planned Parenthood has more recent information. "Among teenage pregnancies in 2000, 56 percent resulted in birth, 28 percent in abortion, and 15 percent in miscarriage (Ventura et al., 2004)." ( http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/teen-pregnancy-6239.htm ) Their data show that, even for the teenage mothers, the children have the odds in their favor. If the mothers weren't killing their own children, the odds would be very good indeed.

One last point -- did no one ever tell you to use the possessive case before a gerund?

Jack said:

"I agree that women should be responsible, that's why we should have access to birth control and proper sex education."

Here's some sex education for you -- birth control fails. So when it fails, is your "response" (hence the word "responsible") to kill the child?

"Men need to be responsible too either with birth control or with contributing to child care."

No argument there.

"Have you seen children in foster care? Have you heard the stories of children growing up without a permanent family? I suggest you hear them before you decide that's such a great thing to do to them."

I have indeed. Have you listened to the millions of children who have been aborted? No, they were silenced. At least those in foster care have stories to tell. In fact, they can choose for themselves whether to live or die. Aborted children do not have that choice. I thought you were pro-choice.

"Since you want to decide they be born when are you going to adopt?"

I'll make you a deal, Robin -- you pay for the adoption fees, and if the mother comes back and claims the child, you pay my legal fees (I want the money in escrow until the child is 18, then you can have it back, or you can pay for legal insurance until then), and I'll adopt a child.

It is amusing that you are so quick to have the children killed, but not to take them as wards of the state, especially when the liberal/socialist ideal is to have everyone be a ward of the state from "cradle to grave." Instead, you just put the grave (or the trash can) before the cradle, and eliminate the problem: life.

spmm said:

alright, it doesn't really change anything does it? the bottom line is there is potential, not a person.

I'd ask, "in your mind, how IS a fertilized egg the same as a person?" but I already know the answer, because we've already had this discussion, it's "unique dna + potential" right?

how is that a person? Is that how you define "human being"?


Jack said:

How is he NOT a person? If he is not a person, what is he? Is he a dog or a cow? No. He is a human being -- dependent on another, but no less human. Is Stephen Hawking not a human being because he is dependent on others?

At ten weeks gestation (still first trimester) a child's heart is fully formed and beating, baby teeth are forming, and at twelve weeks the baby can feel pain and cry. http://www.ukiahpcc.org/fetal1.html

This is why some aborted children have bitten through their tongues, having endured the agony of dismemberment before they died. ( http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30586 )

You, too, have unique DNA and potential. Are you now all that you will ever be? I pray that you are not.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
A yes, I am on my horse looking for windmills. Which is still less delusional than your statement stating that the odds are against a Human Fetus becoming something other than a living Human Child.

"I remember you and Jack having a hard time comprehending that there could be more than one legitimate interpretation of what's going on"
I know I cannot possibly comprehend the enormity of your bloated intellect, but, if you would be SO kind. Please explain how does your "the odds are against it." has an alternative legitmate explanation as something other than tripe?

First the knuckle dragger explanation of the process ...
Lets see, conception to fetus to child more than ~85% of the time overall, higher when prenatal care is given. The odds do go down when the Child is dismemberted, er sorry, aborted 'safely'.

And since I lack the sophistication I will leave you to the sophisticated explanation. One in which the Human Fetus couuld die at any moment, even without an abortionist at the ready.

And for the record you have flat out said that a fetus is not human but "a lump of cells." Which is why it is okey dokey that we are killing them. If they are human, then you ARE condoning the killing (not murder per se) of humans.

Jack said:

"If they are human, then you ARE condoning the killing (not murder per se) of humans."

That's why they have to be dehumanized first, just like the Jews, the Blacks, the Catholics, the Gypsies, those with birth defects, etc. Dehumanize first, then kill.

stay puft said:

"just like the jews," that's insane, or, "tripe" if you will (that's COW, mind you)

you were on a roll with the CDC links, now all of a sudden you're resorting to worldnetdaily? seriously.

(what does worldnetdaily have to say about an entire generation of Iraqi children that suffered the agony of sanctions? "oh well, screw them, they've already been born," I imagine)

Sancho, I retracted the "odds are" part of my statement. don't get too hung up on it (it was more like a flock of sheep than an invading army)

can you see the difference between "human" and "a human?"

it's, my pinky toe is human, it is not a human. You can take a strand of hair and determine if it's human or dog. ...doesn't make the strand a human or a dog, dig? (I know it's an awfully sophisticated line of reasoning that only the elite few may be able to comprehend, take it as a complement that I even bother explaining it...; )

Jack, that goes for your, "is it a cow" question as well.

Jack said:

I'm aware of what tripe is. Campbell's Pepper Pot Soup was one of my favorites. I have not been able to find it for years. Still, if you go to the Vietnamese soup restaurants you can still get BIBLE tripe in your soup!

"you were on a roll with the CDC links, now all of a sudden you're resorting to worldnetdaily? seriously."

In standard liberal fashion, you cannot attack the facts, so you attack the source. As for sanctions, it is the liberals who wanted to continue the sanctions, while the conservatives wanted to take out Hussein.

A child at 12-weeks gestation has a brain, toes, fingers (and may even suck his thumb), heart, lungs, eyes, and even vocal chords. Does your pinkie have those? Does your hair? Will they, if not destroyed, EVER have them? No. They do not even have the "potential."

Furthermore, if you actually read what I wrote, you will see that I used the phrase "a human being," not just "human." So your entire argument is against a point I did not make.

Is that too sophisticated for you to understand? Perhaps you're not as human as I thought.

stay puft said:

you said, "If he is not a person, what is he? Is he a dog or a cow? No. He is a human being"

I said something can be human w/out being a human.

no I didn't read the worldnetdaily article tongues being bitten off.
what's the point? your argument revolves around the idea that at the moment of conception there is a human being. So why are you linking to horror stories about 28th week abortions, which are banned in most states anyway?

you use this imagery of babies bitting their tongues off, but what you're arguing is that the moment an egg is fertilized it becomes a human being.

even at 12 weeks, it's the start of the 2nd trimester, yet the vast majority take place in the 1st trimester.
but even if abortion was only legal during the 1st trimester, you'd still call it "killing a child" wouldn't you?


Jack said:

"I said something can be human w/out being a human."

That does not answer the question.

"no I didn't read the worldnetdaily article tongues being bitten off.
what's the point?"

Knowlegde. But then, liberals generally do ignore truths they dislike.

"So why are you linking to horror stories about 28th week abortions, which are banned in most states anyway?"

Because the bill in question would override those state laws.

"but even if abortion was only legal during the 1st trimester, you'd still call it 'killing a child' wouldn't you?"

Yes, because that IS a child in there, not a "clump of cell."

BTW, I realize you do not believe in the Truth of the Bible, but Exodus 21:22-25 clearly equates an unborn child to an adult: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

spmm said:

"liberals generally do ignore truths they dislike."

I don't think these persistent cheap shots are helpful or necessary. do you?

no, the bill doesn't do that. it says, as you quoted, "Sec. 4(b)(1)(B) A government may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability;"

you make the assumption that viability would only be determined by another abortionist, and then the assumption that that means the fetus would never be determined to be viable.

and the whole issue seems moot anyway, because you're argument is that a human being is created upon fertilization.

Is this correct? Do you believe that a fertilized egg is a human being?

Jack said:

Considering that abortionists have a financial incentive to decide that the child has not reached viability, the child has no advocate, does he?

"Do you believe that a fertilized egg is a human being?"

Yes, I do. You, obviously, do not. But at some point that fetilized egg does become a human being. What is that point?

spmm said:

so then let's put abortion doctors on salary.

I don't think there is "a point" when it becomes a human being. it's a spectrum that goes from not being to being, not a binary thing.

I'd say that it's a case-by-case thing, but it would be out of line to ban abortions in the 1st trimester or allow unfettered access in the 3rd.

Assuming that life begins at the instant of conception, how do you feel about laws to prohibit pregnant women from drinking, or smoking? Do you consider these activities child abuse? We could charge the pregnant women with supplying alcohol to a minor.

Jack said:

"so then let's put abortion doctors on salary."

So you want to pay baby killers?

"I don't think there is 'a point' when it becomes a human being. it's a spectrum that goes from not being to being, not a binary thing."

The first three words of that are all I believe.

Either the fetus is a human being, or it is not.

"I'd say that it's a case-by-case thing..."

So given two "fetuses" at exactly the same stage of development, you would classify one as a child and one not? On what basis?

"...but it would be out of line to ban abortions in the 1st trimester...."

Out of what line? Ireland and Poland have banned such abortions. Such abortions were banned in states before Roe. What line are they out of? The liberal line of dehumanization that you keep trying to feed us? ("It's not human, so it's OK to kill it.")

"Assuming that life begins at the instant of conception, how do you feel about laws to prohibit pregnant women from drinking, or smoking? Do you consider these activities child abuse? We could charge the pregnant women with supplying alcohol to a minor."

Let's deal with one issue at a time, shall we? At this point, we're dealing with keeping the children ALIVE.

spmm said:

salary: take away the economic incentive

case-by-case: if you want to believe that your fertilized egg has feelings, go for it.

line: the balance between the rights of the mother and concern for the developing fetus.

so you're not going to comment on your opinion re: smoking while pregnant laws as long as I'm pro-choice? how convenient?

"the first three words": can we please just have a discussion without your snide comments?

Jack said:

salary: Again the liberal line -- socialized medicine.

case-by-case: So feelings are the criterion?

line: All rights are not equal. One individual's right to happiness is not equivalent to another's right to life.

"so you're not going to comment on your opinion re: smoking while pregnant laws as long as I'm pro-choice? how convenient?"

What is the point? According to you, the baby has no rights at all. Nonetheless, what you suggest is already the law in Wisconsin: http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2005/pregnant-oxycontin-user-jailed.html

"can we please just have a discussion without your snide comments?"

You never let me have ANY fun!

Robin said:

Jack, since you are the one willing to saddle women with children they may not be able to support either financially or emotionally then I suggest you never again complain about crime, welfare or any social services.

Jack said:

Typical BS. I am not saddling any women with children except for my own wife, and that with her consent. I'm not having sex with these women.

This is not a question of "choice." The vast majority made the choice to have sex. They screwed up that choice. Why don't you tell the mothers and fathers of these unwanted children that, if they don't want children, DON'T HAVE SEX!?

You won't, because in the liberal estimation, the right of irresponsible people to have sex without consequences outweighs the right of a child to live.

"I suggest you never again complain about crime, welfare or any social services."

So your solution to these problems is pre-emptive capital punishment.

spmm said:

how is it pre-emptive?

can you imagine any real social benefits to ending abortion? Do you imagine that a ban would result in people having less sex?

now you say, "so the solution is to kill children?"

then I say, "It isn't killing children"

then you say, "typical liberal ignoring the Facts"

than I say, "it's your system of belief, not Facts"

it's part marry-go-round and part patty cake!

but seriously, can you respond to the question of social consequences one way or the other?

Jack said:

"how is it pre-emptive?"

Kill them before they commit crimes or need social services.

"can you imagine any real social benefits to ending abortion?"

Yes.

"Do you imagine that a ban would result in people having less sex?"

I don't know. Were there more teen pregnancies before Roe or after?

You cannot even define either "person" or "child," which is why we are on this "marry-go-round." (May I assume the misspelling was intentional this time?)

spmm said:

interesting. what is your definition of "person?"

if a baby is born without a brain, it may be a human baby, is it a person?

"Person" seems to have to do with consciousness and self-awareness, and ability to reason (and you can spare me the obligatory joke here)

here you ask, "So it's ok to kill someone while they're sleeping, or if they're in a coma?"

I say, these are unique in that the "person" sleeping has achieved "personhood" in the past, and likely will regain the properties of "personhood" in the future. These are temporary interruptions of a person's experience as such.

An embryo is different in that it has never achieved "personhood" As is someone in a persistent vegetative state, who will never again return to a state of "personhood"


here's an except from the aggregate of all human knowledge (wikipedia):

"According to Boethius:

Person is an individual substance of rational nature. As individual it is material, since matter supplies the principle of individuation. The soul is not person, only the composite is. Man alone is among the material beings person, he alone having a rational nature. He is the highest of the material beings, endowed with particular dignity and rights.

John Locke emphasized the idea of a living being that is conscious of itself as persisting over time (and hence able to have conscious preferences about its own future).

In recent years a kind of consensus among secular scholars has emerged, which might be referred to as "personhood Theory".[citation needed] This is strongly influenced by Locke's approach. The criteria a person must have in being a person are one or more of the following:

1. Consciousness,
2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity."

spmm said:

also, "...before they commit crimes or need social services"
are you saying that there's no need to have social services for pregnant woman?

Jack said:

First, could you, perhaps, clear up criterion number four? It seems that a fetus would pass that test. Since "one or more" of the criteria are met, is not the fetus a person?

Second, I know a family with a severely retarded boy. He never smiled, laughed, cried, or even moved on his own. He never showed the slightest recognition of his parents, nor anyone else.

He fails all four of the criteria, with the possible exception of number four. You then have no problem with the parents' killing the boy or, as with someone in a "persistent vegetative state," allowing him to die of dehydration?

Now, according to my previous link, the brain is "fully formed" at 12 weeks' gestation. The child can suck his thumb and cry. Is the fetus a person at that point?

Third, someone with severe Alzheimer's Disease would fail these four tests. Is he no longer a person?

Jack said:

"are you saying that there's no need to have social services for pregnant woman?"

No, I'm saying that Robin's answer is to kill the baby BEFORE prenatal care is required.

Robin said:

"No, I'm saying that Robin's answer is to kill the baby BEFORE prenatal care is required."
No, Robin's answer is to not force women to be baby makers without their consent.

Jack will never think about the social consequences because he refuses to do so. For him it ends at conception. What happens after is "no never mind" to him.

SO, when are you adopting those foster kids?


spmm said:

I'm not an expert on brain development, but doesn't the brain continue to develop beyond childbirth? That is, what do you mean by "fully developed?"

but that wasn't really the point you were making. Is it a person? I don't know, but the the fact that something like 75% of abortions take place in the 1st trimester may be an indicator of how society feels about that question.

Advanced Alzheimer's: That's a good question. What do you think?

I don't believe that dehydration is appropriate, or necessary.

Jack said:

"No, Robin's answer is to not force women to be baby makers without their consent."

They consented to the sex, Robin. Since pregnancy is the natural consequense of sex, consent to sex is implies consent to getting pregnant.

"Jack will never think about the social consequences because he refuses to do so."

That's a beautiful non-sequitur.

"For him it ends at conception. What happens after is 'no never mind' to him."

Not true, but even if it were, at least I would be caring about the children nine months longer than you do.

"SO, when are you adopting those foster kids?"

Just as soon as your cashier's check is in my account.


Jack said:

"I'm not an expert on brain development, but doesn't the brain continue to develop beyond childbirth? That is, what do you mean by 'fully developed?'"

It's in the article. I assume that the "parts" are there, even if all the connections are not. (Such connections form throughout one's life.)

You provided the definition of a person, but you STILL cannot provide an answer. Perhaps the reason so many abortions are done it the first trimester is simply that people make up their minds early. They were having casual sex without fear of the consequences, so when those consequences become a reality, "kill it."

No morals, no remorse.

Alzheimer's: I asked you first.

Dehydration: So Terri Schiavo should have been given a lethal injection?

spmm said:

"Alzheimer's: I asked you first." I don't know. It's an interesting mirror image of pregnancy, alzheimer's. If pregnancy is a phasing in, alzheimer's is a phasing out. In what sense would the example you're imaging be a person?

"So Terri Schiavo should have been given a lethal injection?"

You mean the body of Terri Schiavo? Yes, if only out of respect for her and her family. Not that it matters to Terri Schiavo.

stay Puft said:

...anyway, I'm off to see The Wizard. I'll be back in a while. So you have time to sleep on it, as it were.

Take it away, Robin!

Robin said:

No, Jack's illogic gives me adjida. I'm going to put ice on my sore knee.
Jack, I'll have all the pregnant girls out there bill you since you want the responsibilty of birthin' their babies. Better yet, I'll send them right to your door! LOL

Jack said:

I have never heard that icing your knee will help adjida. It must be that liberal logic again.

Why don't you send them to the fathers? Oh, right, liberals don't believe in taking responsibility for ONE'S OWN actions, just for putting the burden of one's mistakes on others.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM