I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan but... - Page 2

lookout123 · 02-01-2005, 11:03 AM

garnet, that is the point. I believe that it is murder. the vast majority of america doesn't. so, i'm not on a major campaign to force america to comply with my belief system. america's laws don't have to fall into line with my beliefs. my actions only have to fall into line with america's laws.

as i've said before, the only abortion related argument that really gets to me is the idea of minors being able to have abortions without parental/guardian notification. my attitude is that if a minor can't sign up for extracurricular school activity without parental consent (because they aren't mature enough to make all decisions on their own) then, maybe they shouldn't be able to have a surgical procedure without parental notification.

Undertoad · 02-01-2005, 10:05 AM

All this is just semantics so I would like to get my own semantics in here. This is the terminology I prefer.

People who agree with me: caring, thoughtful and correct

People who disagree with me: heartless evil morons who don't understand the world

wolf · 02-01-2005, 10:26 AM

Sure I can. It's my opinion, and conflicted or not I'm sticking to it.

russotto · 02-01-2005, 10:45 AM

I believe that Louis Pasteur answered the "when life begins" question. Life doesn't begin at conception. Nor does it begin at implantation, nor quickening, nor birth. Life is present the entire time. And, in case there's any question, it's human life the entire time.

Conception is certainly an important milestone. But nature doesn't have a lot of respect for the zygote. A lot of them, I believe a majority, don't even make it to implantation. It's hard for me to work up a lot of moral outrage over a few undifferentiated cells which most likely won't make it anyway. Potential? The potential is there the whole time, even before conception. Following the potential argument leads you to "every sperm is sacred" -- or at least, "every egg is sacred". So with that, I find there simply is no bright line before which it's reasonable to say "abortion's no big deal" and after which "abortion is akin to infanticide". You can pick one as the Roe v. Wade court did, but everything short of a total ban will tick off the so-called "pro-life" side, and anything close to a total ban will tick off the so-called "pro-choice side", so you can't win.

Undertoad · 02-01-2005, 10:53 AM

Right Russ, I've heard that 2/3rds of zygotes spontaneously fail to implant.

Ergo, holding to your rhetorical correctness L123, more babies have been flushed down sewer systems than have ever been born live, and most women are guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

lookout123 · 02-01-2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Right Russ, I've heard that 2/3rds of zygotes spontaneously fail to implant.

Ergo, holding to your rhetorical correctness L123, more babies have been flushed down sewer systems than have ever been born live, and most women are guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

i think that is taking it back to a ridiculous starting point. you are talking about normal biological functions. some implant, some don't. the ones that do, result in a woman peeing on a stick, and either crying with joy, or absolute terror. it is at that point in time, when a woman knows she is pregnant that she now has to make her choice. the abortion debate begins with - a woman is pregnant.

Undertoad · 02-01-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

i think that is taking it back to a ridiculous starting point. you are talking about normal biological functions. some implant, some don't. the ones that do, result in a woman peeing on a stick, and either crying with joy, or absolute terror. it is at that point in time, when a woman knows she is pregnant that she now has to make her choice. the abortion debate begins with - a woman is pregnant.

You established the starting point, I simply noted the ridiculous in it.

IIRC, involuntary manslaughter is when you kill another person through your actions even if you didn't know for certain that it would lead to death. I don't know for sure but I believe there are women who produce eggs but don't have a lifestyle that would encourage implantation. Marathon runners. If everything you've said is the case, you need to bring these women up on charges or explain to me what the conceptual difference is.

richlevy · 02-01-2005, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

i think that is taking it back to a ridiculous starting point. you are talking about normal biological functions. some implant, some don't. the ones that do, result in a woman peeing on a stick, and either crying with joy, or absolute terror. it is at that point in time, when a woman knows she is pregnant that she now has to make her choice. the abortion debate begins with - a woman is pregnant.

No the abortion debate also begins when a woman has been raped and might be pregnant, but can't get the morning after pill because her pharmacist thinks being forced to carry a rapists baby to term is advancing the cause of motherhood.

lookout123 · 02-01-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy

No the abortion debate also begins when a woman has been raped and might be pregnant, but can't get the morning after pill because her pharmacist thinks being forced to carry a rapists baby to term is advancing the cause of motherhood.

cite? the only pharmacist in town? no ER? i believe the standard rape kit has the "morning after" pill.

why should a pharmacist be compelled to provide a service that is immoral, in his view?

rich, we aren't talking about outlawing anything here. certainly not outlawing an abortion to kill a rapists baby so you can put that scenario away.

richlevy · 02-01-2005, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

cite? the only pharmacist in town? no ER? i believe the standard rape kit has the "morning after" pill.

why should a pharmacist be compelled to provide a service that is immoral, in his view?

rich, we aren't talking about outlawing anything here. certainly not outlawing an abortion to kill a rapists baby so you can put that scenario away.

Well, one pharmacist had a different interpretation.

I don't know about it being a standard in a rape kit, since it is not yet an over the counter medication. It might be standard for a doctor to prescribe it, but a pharmacy has to fill the perscription, which was a problem here. Can you imagine having to run around ot fill a perscription like that after a rape? Can you imagine what it would feel like to be turned away by the pharmacist? Maybe she should have told him the circumstances in detail?

I thought we had gotten over this whole tendency to re-traumitize the rape victim thing back in the 80's.

Fortunately, the pharmacy also has the right to fire the pharmacist .

Happy Monkey · 02-01-2005, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

cite? the only pharmacist in town? no ER? i believe the standard rape kit has the "morning after" pill.

Not if Bush has anything to say about it:

Quote:

The Justice Department has issued its first-ever medical guidelines for treating sexual-assault victims — without mention of emergency contraception, the standard precaution against pregnancy after rape. Omission of the so-called morning-after pill has frustrated and angered victims' advocates and medical professionals.

Luckily, he doesn't have complete say:

Quote:

Washington and four other states — California, Illinois, New Mexico and New York — have laws requiring hospitals to provide the contraception, or at least tell victims how to obtain the pills.

Undertoad · 02-01-2005, 12:14 PM

No, I'm trying to bring home the point that you believe that a zygote and a fetus IS a baby. I don't care to change your mind, I'm just exploring it. If a woman knowingly kills her baby, it is murder. THEREFORE, if a woman unknowingly kills her baby, it is involuntary manslaughter. Why don't you agree?

There is an extremely substantial and significant difference between the baby one minute before birth and one minute after. Your willing blindness to this difference is alarming, but again, I'm not trying to change your mind.

smoothmoniker · 02-01-2005, 12:29 PM

To what extent should the courts be a distillation of public opinion on a moral issue, and to what extent should they lead opinion?

Clearly changing the public sentiment on a complex moral issue like abortion is much harder than getting a few judges into place on the right bench; is judicial activism ever a proper use of the court?

Think about the civil rights charge. The courts stood well in front of the public sentiment in many parts of the country, and yet I think most people would argue that it was the right move. The intervention of the courts was a necessary step in order to both safeguard the immediate rights of the minority population, and also to impose a behavioral injunction on the majority population that I think has been very successful in changing a generation's view of race.

I don't know that the crusade against abortion will be as well fought along those lines. I think the explosion of "pro-life" crisis pregnancy centers is a great example of the best possible way approach this problem. Do you believe that abortion is morally wrong, and the worst possible choice for both mother and child? Then give the mother real options! These place provides counseling, prenatal care, in many instances they can provide housing and financial support for mothers who are unable to remain in their present circumstances (kicked out of the house, abusive spouse, etc.); then they help the mother through the adoption process if she chooses not to raise the baby herself.

This is an answer that both reduces the number of abortions (isn't that the real goal?) by giving compassionate support for other real options, and also changes the public sentiment by demonstrating a face to the pro-life movement that isn't waving bloody signs and harassing women walking into clinics already under great duress.

I guess this long rambling post boils down to this - I am staunchly pro-life, but my goal is to lower the number of mothers who choose abortion, and I think changing public sentiment and offering real alternatives is a much more effective way to do that than getting a few judges on the right bench.

-sm

lookout123 · 02-01-2005, 12:33 PM

Quote:

I guess this long rambling post boils down to this - I am staunchly pro-life, but my goal is to lower the number of mothers who choose abortion, and I think changing public sentiment and offering real alternatives is a much more effective way to do that than getting a few judges on the right bench.

ding,ding,ding. once again sm is better than i am at putting thoughts to print in a coherent manner.

Troubleshooter · 02-01-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

This is an answer that both reduces the number of abortions (isn't that the real goal?)

A question that just occured to me, and don't try to assault me for it, is if choice is such an issue then why is reducing the number of abortions of such importance? I'm not leaning either way in this question, but seriously wondering why.

02-01-2005, 11:03 AM	#1
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	garnet, that is the point. I believe that it is murder. the vast majority of america doesn't. so, i'm not on a major campaign to force america to comply with my belief system. america's laws don't have to fall into line with my beliefs. my actions only have to fall into line with america's laws. as i've said before, the only abortion related argument that really gets to me is the idea of minors being able to have abortions without parental/guardian notification. my attitude is that if a minor can't sign up for extracurricular school activity without parental consent (because they aren't mature enough to make all decisions on their own) then, maybe they shouldn't be able to have a surgical procedure without parental notification. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

02-01-2005, 10:26 AM	#3
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	Sure I can. It's my opinion, and conflicted or not I'm sticking to it. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

02-01-2005, 12:29 PM	#13
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	To what extent should the courts be a distillation of public opinion on a moral issue, and to what extent should they lead opinion? Clearly changing the public sentiment on a complex moral issue like abortion is much harder than getting a few judges into place on the right bench; is judicial activism ever a proper use of the court? Think about the civil rights charge. The courts stood well in front of the public sentiment in many parts of the country, and yet I think most people would argue that it was the right move. The intervention of the courts was a necessary step in order to both safeguard the immediate rights of the minority population, and also to impose a behavioral injunction on the majority population that I think has been very successful in changing a generation's view of race. I don't know that the crusade against abortion will be as well fought along those lines. I think the explosion of "pro-life" crisis pregnancy centers is a great example of the best possible way approach this problem. Do you believe that abortion is morally wrong, and the worst possible choice for both mother and child? Then give the mother real options! These place provides counseling, prenatal care, in many instances they can provide housing and financial support for mothers who are unable to remain in their present circumstances (kicked out of the house, abusive spouse, etc.); then they help the mother through the adoption process if she chooses not to raise the baby herself. This is an answer that both reduces the number of abortions (isn't that the real goal?) by giving compassionate support for other real options, and also changes the public sentiment by demonstrating a face to the pro-life movement that isn't waving bloody signs and harassing women walking into clinics already under great duress. I guess this long rambling post boils down to this - I am staunchly pro-life, but my goal is to lower the number of mothers who choose abortion, and I think changing public sentiment and offering real alternatives is a much more effective way to do that than getting a few judges on the right bench. -sm __________________ to live and die in LA

02-01-2005, 10:05 AM	#2
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	All this is just semantics so I would like to get my own semantics in here. This is the terminology I prefer. People who agree with me: caring, thoughtful and correct People who disagree with me: heartless evil morons who don't understand the world

02-01-2005, 10:45 AM	#4
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	I believe that Louis Pasteur answered the "when life begins" question. Life doesn't begin at conception. Nor does it begin at implantation, nor quickening, nor birth. Life is present the entire time. And, in case there's any question, it's human life the entire time. Conception is certainly an important milestone. But nature doesn't have a lot of respect for the zygote. A lot of them, I believe a majority, don't even make it to implantation. It's hard for me to work up a lot of moral outrage over a few undifferentiated cells which most likely won't make it anyway. Potential? The potential is there the whole time, even before conception. Following the potential argument leads you to "every sperm is sacred" -- or at least, "every egg is sacred". So with that, I find there simply is no bright line before which it's reasonable to say "abortion's no big deal" and after which "abortion is akin to infanticide". You can pick one as the Roe v. Wade court did, but everything short of a total ban will tick off the so-called "pro-life" side, and anything close to a total ban will tick off the so-called "pro-choice side", so you can't win.

02-01-2005, 10:53 AM	#5
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Right Russ, I've heard that 2/3rds of zygotes spontaneously fail to implant. Ergo, holding to your rhetorical correctness L123, more babies have been flushed down sewer systems than have ever been born live, and most women are guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

02-01-2005, 12:14 PM	#12
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	No, I'm trying to bring home the point that you believe that a zygote and a fetus IS a baby. I don't care to change your mind, I'm just exploring it. If a woman knowingly kills her baby, it is murder. THEREFORE, if a woman unknowingly kills her baby, it is involuntary manslaughter. Why don't you agree? There is an extremely substantial and significant difference between the baby one minute before birth and one minute after. Your willing blindness to this difference is alarming, but again, I'm not trying to change your mind.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)