Abortion - My own thoughts - such as they are

[tzor]

Public Labor Unions exist for a variety of reasons. That's not the debate.

My only point is that they wouldn't exist if mrsdwk's arguments made sense.

Under the system of mrsdwk's, the government itself becomes the labor union. The party leaders are the ones "representing" the workers, looking out for their best interests, and taking their money. Instead of a two person dance it is a one person disco; "Staying Alive."

[mrswdk]

Public Labor Unions exist for a variety of reasons. That's not the debate.

My only point is that they wouldn't exist if mrsdwk's arguments made sense.

Under the system of mrsdwk's, the government itself becomes the labor union. The party leaders are the ones "representing" the workers, looking out for their best interests, and taking their money. Instead of a two person dance it is a one person disco; "Staying Alive."

You don't agree with what I'm saying, therefore I'm just peddling some sort of CCP party line.

You need a new angle

[mrswdk]

Dear mrswdk,

You again twist my words, and continue to modify yours on the fly.

I never suggested that Gov't would or should let people die as soon as they get sick.

You projected that position on to me. Or at least said that I would rather let people become sick and infirm and try to replace them with someone else than treat them.

I said that, based on the world view you are espousing, the Gov't would do a cost-benefit analysis of the Healthcare System and Healthcare costs... and that they would not spend the kind of money they are on advanced healthcare... elder care, search and rescue, expensive/risky surgeries, etc. They would quickly determine that these were not cost-effective investments on their "human assets". Just like they do when deciding to remodel or build a new school.

I don't see any reason why the ways human capital is dealt with should not be subject to a cost-benefit analysis.

That said, you are assuming all sorts of treatments would be found to be ineffective by said cost-benefit analysis. Who says they would be? I didn't.

[tzor]

Why it’s Impossible to Soften Language against Killing Unborn Babies

Joel McDurmon of American Vision writes:

“If the murdering, hacking, and selling were not occurring, there would be no exposé, there would be no ‘Planned Parenthood videos’ in the first place. But there are. The violence is real, it is widespread, and it is now public.

“Let’s be clear: there is no ‘hateful rhetoric.’ There are no ‘smear campaigns.’ There are documented facts. The facts show that the most widespread systematic violence in this nation occurs at the hands of abortionists and their clients. Child murder is [an] unbelievable routine in this country. Parents sacrifice their children in bloody rituals on the altar of convenience, sometimes even hoping to assuage their own guilt. Abortionists provide the altar, and they sell the human meat in the market afterward.”

[/]

Why it’s Impossible to Soften Language against Killing Unborn Babies

Joel McDurmon of American Vision writes:

“If the murdering, hacking, and selling were not occurring, there would be no exposé, there would be no ‘Planned Parenthood videos’ in the first place. But there are. The violence is real, it is widespread, and it is now public.

“Let’s be clear: there is no ‘hateful rhetoric.’ There are no ‘smear campaigns.’ There are documented facts. The facts show that the most widespread systematic violence in this nation occurs at the hands of abortionists and their clients. Child murder is [an] unbelievable routine in this country. Parents sacrifice their children in bloody rituals on the altar of convenience, sometimes even hoping to assuage their own guilt. Abortionists provide the altar, and they sell the human meat in the market afterward.”

American Vision | a Biblical Worldview Ministry

The American Vision – Culture Through the Lens of Scripture

American Vision is a United States nonprofit organization founded in 1978 by Steve Schiffman. It operates as a Christian ministry, and calls for "equipping and empowering Christians to restore America’s biblical foundation." The organization promotes Christian Reconstructionism and Postmillennialism, and opposes dispensationalism.

Forgive me if I question how factually unbiased an end-timer nonprofit advocating a Mosaic Theocracy is as a source.

Once again I ask you to address these key points.
- Logically speaking, why should humans have a right to life?
- Why is every potential human fundamentally more valuable than an animal?
- How can you justify your stance that abortion hurts anyone before the fetus develops a functioning brain?

[tzor]

Forgive me if I question how factually unbiased an end-timer nonprofit advocating a Mosaic Theocracy is as a source.

Oh probably about as accurate as an organization spun off of another organization originally dedicated to the eugenic elimination of the Negro race.

The Guttmacher Institute ... was founded in 1968 as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semi-autonomous division of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Why not attack the message and not the messenger. If you disagree with the message, say so.

[PLAYER57832]

Why would it be acceptable for a mother to choose to terminate at 4 months but not at 8.5 months?

And then, why would it be acceptable to terminate at 8.5 months of pregnancy, but not 10 seconds after birth?

I would say that non of these is particularly acceptable, though it may be the better of some terrible choices.

As the child gets older, the reasons must be more and more severe. That said, it does not seem as if you are interested in a real discussion, rather are just trying to anger people, so I am not going to get into this more with you.

[Bernie Sanders]

Outlaw abortions?



Guess we go back to the old ways then, heh?

[/]

Forgive me if I question how factually unbiased an end-timer nonprofit advocating a Mosaic Theocracy is as a source.

Oh probably about as accurate as an organization spun off of another organization originally dedicated to the eugenic elimination of the Negro race.

The Guttmacher Institute ... was founded in 1968 as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semi-autonomous division of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Why not attack the message and not the messenger. If you disagree with the message, say so.

I have never even so much as said "planned parenthood" once on this site.

And I have said I disagree with the message and why, in the half of my post you just cut out to make it seem like I'm trolling.

The opinion piece hinges of abortion being murder, I say it is not. Murder is a law invented for tangible social constructs, to facilitate the cooperation and existence of participating bodies within the society. It is a rational selfish compromise designed to protect oneself and one's own property. If you disagree, provide a rational reason why we would want to extend it without personal benefit or consequence. Particularly given the fact that "body parts harvested and sold at market" as the site so biased puts it, refers to practice that actually can potentially cure diseases and permanently improve the quality of life of participants for ages to come.

[mrswdk]

Why would it be acceptable for a mother to choose to terminate at 4 months but not at 8.5 months?

And then, why would it be acceptable to terminate at 8.5 months of pregnancy, but not 10 seconds after birth?

I would say that non of these is particularly acceptable, though it may be the better of some terrible choices.

As the child gets older, the reasons must be more and more severe. That said, it does not seem as if you are interested in a real discussion, rather are just trying to anger people, so I am not going to get into this more with you.

Literally no one has actually given any substantive reason why it would never be okay to terminate late or post-birth. Just ranted and raved. I don't think I'm the one avoiding a serious discussion here.

If you have a reason why termination at 4 or 8.5 months is unacceptable, for example, then feel free to share it.

[PLAYER57832]

Gossnell was an insane lunatic. PERIOD. His "motivation" was insanity.

Gosnell was not an "insane lunatic." He was a soulless, sloppy, and not very good doctor. He was protected by mindless minions who try to keep any proper spotlight on the "industry" because they fear that it would be shut down. (Generally oblivious to the fact that the people who promote the fears that people want to shut everything down probably are the ones who should be shut down!)

Not even close.

Provide evidence of the groups that have protected him, knowing how he acted and you might possibly have a leg to stand upon.

Right now, you are just reciting what you have heard. When you START with the position that anyone agreeing abortion should be legal, then its perhaps easy to believe that they are all basically monsters. The problem? You are talking about me and MANY like myself.

You claimed earlier that you have found me generally reasonable in the past (even when you did not agree). I have found you the same, but this is definitely not an example of reasonable thinking.. not by any stretch.

Provide evidence or cease making such outlandish accusations.

You keep citing this "for profit" motive, but seem to have utterly missed the fact that fetal tissue cannot be sold. There is no profit motive. There is an issue created by abortion foes who apparently think its OK to slander if its for a good cause. Sorry that you fell for it.

First of all, I tend to have a non corporate view of profit. I work, for example, for an income. That's my profit. According to the non biased source Tech Insider ... "Planned Parenthood is allowed to sell fetal tissue to researchers for use in scientific studies that could eventually benefit women, and abortion clinics are allowed to receive compensation for the time it takes to collect the tissue, transport it, and store it." Ignoring the question of "corporate profits" (and yes I also blow my top when a non profit charity organization has a CEO that earns a six figure salary or when funds to a "charity" mostly goes to the phone banks that solicit for the charity. The "sale" of the tissue is used to pay workers at the facility, "compensation for the time it takes to collect the tissue."

I see, so in your mind the fact that the group is allowed to recoup some of the costs involved in collecting this tissue is no different from corporate profits?

Per the six figure salary bit... if you want a house in most of CA or New York, you tend to need a 6 figure income. In fact, its pretty hard (not impossible, but difficult) for a family of 4 to support itself on $50,000, even here in rural PA. (and before you start.. my family lives on less than that) Trying to claim that a CEO in charge of a huge organization, working long hours is supposed to live on poverty wages is plain silly. The Abortion doctor who was shot had a house in Buffalo, NY -- pretty close to the zoo. It is a nice neighborhood, but he was also a skilled doctor. You may not like what he did, but he worked very hard for what he earned and could have made a lot more had he chosen another area of medicine.

At any rate, your claim was that there were these huge profits out there waiting for greedy abortion providers. The above does not even come close to proving that.. not at all.

First and foremost, I haven't really addressed early term abortion.

Strange, because that IS what legal abortion debate is mostly about, though yes, the pictures tend to show full term healthy infants.

Well you know when you assume.

No, but a nice, and I have to say sadly typical when it comes to this topic, attempt to twist things around. See, if you want to talk about abortions after three months, then you need to specify "later term abortions" Else, you ARE, by default talking primarily about first trimester operations because that is when the overwhelming majority of abortions happen.

See, that is part of what I mean by dishonesty in the debate (not you specifically, I put that down to misunderstanding). While the overwhelming majority of abortions and virtually all "at will" abortions (after the first trimester a woman must show cause), are during the first trimester, the arguments often center on later term abortions. These issues are not at all the same.

I would like to see as many first trimester abortions reduced as much as possible. But I prefer rational arguments for such things. It's the second and third trimester abortions that I have the most objections to and I simply will not take the assurances of the "industry" who have a major dog in the fight to tell me that they are pure as the new fallen snow.

Well, that "industry" that you keep claiming exists only in the margins, is under constant attack, is NOT this huge for profit industry.. .AND the reasons for those abortions have little to do with early, voluntary abortions.

In fact, the restrictions on having later term abortions are so severe, its hard to see how you can even begin to claim they are out there forcing/encouraging women to have them. Beyond that, most are so overrun with women actively seeking them out that they have absolutely no need to encourage more. Most of these doctors are turning women away or delaying their procedures, no matter the cause or reason.

Try again...

Later term abortions, those after the first trimester, must have a reason. I still do think they need to be legal. Should there be more restrictions? On that, I am not sure. I feel that is mostly a medical issue and should be. That is, when a later term abortion should be allowed is up to the individual doctor and family.

A reason, or an excuse. Once again we return to Gosnell. These women weren't directed to a proper hospital environment by a concerned OB/GYN. These were people in their late stages of pregnancy who for various reasons never bothered to get their abortions sooner. Yes, Gosnell is an extreme case but there is no evidence to indicate that the "right to abortion" would cause proper doctors to refuse patients simply because their term is late. They get paid to do a service and if no one wants the service it's hard to get paid.

Oh please!

An insane doctor who, per the record, was convicted of 3 abortions is NOT representative. You need to do REAL research, not just pick out the hype. This is the type of "evidence" I expect from others, not you.

And.. if you actually looked into it, its not that women "cannot be bothered" to get an abortion earlier.. it is EXTREMELY difficult in m any areas to get an abortion.. sometimes at all, but once past the first trimester, almost always difficult.

[PLAYER57832]

Why would it be acceptable for a mother to choose to terminate at 4 months but not at 8.5 months?

And then, why would it be acceptable to terminate at 8.5 months of pregnancy, but not 10 seconds after birth?

I would say that non of these is particularly acceptable, though it may be the better of some terrible choices.

As the child gets older, the reasons must be more and more severe. That said, it does not seem as if you are interested in a real discussion, rather are just trying to anger people, so I am not going to get into this more with you.

Literally no one has actually given any substantive reason why it would never be okay to terminate late or post-birth. Just ranted and raved. I don't think I'm the one avoiding a serious discussion here.

Begin with definitions. After birth, its not called "abortion", its called "murder". You can dislike that, but it is the definition.

In later stages of pregnancy, the law is murky, and with good reason. A near term child can hear, feel and think pretty much like a born child.

If you have a reason why termination at 4 or 8.5 months is unacceptable, for example, then feel free to share it.

No, not taking the bait.
but stop repeating the same idea that you have been repeatedly told is repugnant. That's not debate, its badgering.

[PLAYER57832]

Why it’s Impossible to Soften Language against Killing Unborn Babies

Joel McDurmon of American Vision writes:

“If the murdering, hacking, and selling were not occurring, there would be no exposé, there would be no ‘Planned Parenthood videos’ in the first place. But there are. The violence is real, it is widespread, and it is now public

Except, the part you missed in that...

The Planned Parenthood "Epose" was actually just a big fat lie. I have mentioned repeatedly that the FULL, unedited video does not show what you think, but you have not even bothered to investigate.. you just keep repeating the lie.

[/]

Why would it be acceptable for a mother to choose to terminate at 4 months but not at 8.5 months?

And then, why would it be acceptable to terminate at 8.5 months of pregnancy, but not 10 seconds after birth?

I would say that non of these is particularly acceptable, though it may be the better of some terrible choices.

As the child gets older, the reasons must be more and more severe. That said, it does not seem as if you are interested in a real discussion, rather are just trying to anger people, so I am not going to get into this more with you.

Literally no one has actually given any substantive reason why it would never be okay to terminate late or post-birth. Just ranted and raved. I don't think I'm the one avoiding a serious discussion here.

If you have a reason why termination at 4 or 8.5 months is unacceptable, for example, then feel free to share it.

Random reason, not a great reason, but a random one it should always be illegal to kill a newborn; most countries have national citizen registries of some sort. Babies are tied to government identities such as names, social security numbers, subsidies, welfare, etc. Identity theft of the deceased is already a significant threat to the economy and national security. If we did not give the harshest punishments to any individual depraved enough to kill for any citizen for their place in society and their identity regardless of age, it could destabilize society at large.

If you think there is no one psychopathic enough to operate on such a level, look up Amelia Dyer.

[mrswdk]

If you have a reason why termination at 4 or 8.5 months is unacceptable, for example, then feel free to share it.

No, not taking the bait.
but stop repeating the same idea that you have been repeatedly told is repugnant. That's not debate, its badgering.

You're right, it's not debate when I state my position and everyone shouts me down and tells me I'm disgusting, but consistently refuses to provide any real reason for refuting my ideas. That is, as you say, badgering.

MagnusGreeol:



jimboston:



PLAYER57832:

[Metsfanmax]

Just for the record, I don't live in China and I do think that post-birth infanticide can be morally justified in at least some cases.

[mrswdk]

Just for the record, I don't live in China and I do think that post-birth infanticide can be morally justified in at least some cases.

Well waddya know, I guess this thread isn't a USG vs CCP thread after all. Hurray!

[mrswdk]

Literally no one has actually given any substantive reason why it would never be okay to terminate late or post-birth. Just ranted and raved. I don't think I'm the one avoiding a serious discussion here.

If you have a reason why termination at 4 or 8.5 months is unacceptable, for example, then feel free to share it.

Random reason, not a great reason, but a random one it should always be illegal to kill a newborn; most countries have national citizen registries of some sort. Babies are tied to government identities such as names, social security numbers, subsidies, welfare, etc. Identity theft of the deceased is already a significant threat to the economy and national security. If we did not give the harshest punishments to any individual depraved enough to kill for any citizen for their place in society and their identity regardless of age, it could destabilize society at large.

If you think there is no one psychopathic enough to operate on such a level, look up Amelia Dyer.

Could this not be solved by just monitoring deaths more effectively? I mean, this sounds like something that could apply to killing an old person or a loner just as much as it could apply to killing an infant.

[/]

If you have a reason why termination at 4 or 8.5 months is unacceptable, for example, then feel free to share it.

No, not taking the bait.
but stop repeating the same idea that you have been repeatedly told is repugnant. That's not debate, its badgering.

You're right, it's not debate when I state my position and everyone shouts me down and tells me I'm disgusting, but consistently refuses to provide any real reason for refuting my ideas. That is, as you say, badgering.

MagnusGreeol:



jimboston:



PLAYER57832:

Mushroom!

Mushroom!

[Bernie Sanders]

If you have a reason why termination at 4 or 8.5 months is unacceptable, for example, then feel free to share it.

No, not taking the bait.
but stop repeating the same idea that you have been repeatedly told is repugnant. That's not debate, its badgering.

You're right, it's not debate when I state my position and everyone shouts me down and tells me I'm disgusting, but consistently refuses to provide any real reason for refuting my ideas. That is, as you say, badgering.

MagnusGreeol:



jimboston:



PLAYER57832:

Mushroom!

Mushroom!

Mmmmm, mushrooms! Some of you need to consume these magic mushrooms and expand your mind.

[mrswdk]

If you have a reason why termination at 4 or 8.5 months is unacceptable, for example, then feel free to share it.

No, not taking the bait.
but stop repeating the same idea that you have been repeatedly told is repugnant. That's not debate, its badgering.

You're right, it's not debate when I state my position and everyone shouts me down and tells me I'm disgusting, but consistently refuses to provide any real reason for refuting my ideas. That is, as you say, badgering.

MagnusGreeol:



jimboston:



PLAYER57832:

Mushroom!

Mushroom!

[PLAYER57832]

If you have a reason why termination at 4 or 8.5 months is unacceptable, for example, then feel free to share it.

No, not taking the bait.
but stop repeating the same idea that you have been repeatedly told is repugnant. That's not debate, its badgering.

You're right, it's not debate when I state my position and everyone shouts me down and tells me I'm disgusting, but consistently refuses to provide any real reason for refuting my ideas. That is, as you say, badgering.

I did... its called murder. Whether you like it or not, we draw the line at birth, sometimes just prior. If you wish to do that, then go ahead, but not in a thread about abortion.

Now please desist.

[/]

Literally no one has actually given any substantive reason why it would never be okay to terminate late or post-birth. Just ranted and raved. I don't think I'm the one avoiding a serious discussion here.

If you have a reason why termination at 4 or 8.5 months is unacceptable, for example, then feel free to share it.

Random reason, not a great reason, but a random one it should always be illegal to kill a newborn; most countries have national citizen registries of some sort. Babies are tied to government identities such as names, social security numbers, subsidies, welfare, etc. Identity theft of the deceased is already a significant threat to the economy and national security. If we did not give the harshest punishments to any individual depraved enough to kill for any citizen for their place in society and their identity regardless of age, it could destabilize society at large.

If you think there is no one psychopathic enough to operate on such a level, look up Amelia Dyer.

Could this not be solved by just monitoring deaths more effectively? I mean, this sounds like something that could apply to killing an old person or a loner just as much as it could apply to killing an infant.

It could, but why should it? That's way more expense for way less benefit.
The current way is "Oh, you killed your baby? Death/life in prison!" The alternative is "We have reason to believe you killed some babies, which while not illegal seems to indicate you might be involved in some identity crimes that we need to investigate..."
One requires a low level, easy to monitor reason per household; if we know you have a baby, you had better have that baby.
The other requires that plus an in depth investigation of known contacts, financial dealing, and so on and so on.
You make it sound easy to effectively monitor deaths, but it is not.

Besides, loners don't congregate anywhere, and old people don't get any younger, so good luck hatching a terrorist plot when your ID says you're 94. On the other hand babies do get older, allowing for an accumulation of viable identities over the decades for any unsolved cases.

Anyways, I don't think this is on topic.

[tzor]

Literally no one has actually given any substantive reason why it would never be okay to terminate late or post-birth. Just ranted and raved. I don't think I'm the one avoiding a serious discussion here.

Literally no one has actually given any substantive reason why it would never be okay to terminate YOU (or anyone else for that matter).