Victory For Now....

[Socrates]

How many miscarriages occur from either God's active or passive will in the course of a month?  I bet it's a lot more than 125,000.

 

Millions of people, old and young, die from natural causes every year.

 

Therefore, let's legalize murder of all people of any age!

 

Q

E

D

[Socrates]

Sad day for reproductive rights.

This doesn't have a [mod] edited- language...rc [/mod] thing to do with anyone's right to reproduce. People would be free to reproduce (or choose not to reproduce) all they want.

This concerns the killing of children after reproduction has already taken place.


While you're wrong 110% of the time, I still thought hiding your position behind wimpy euphemisms would be beneath you.
Why not just say you support legally killing unborn babies? I support legally killing deer and cows, and have no problem saying so.

Hopefully the Christian Right's more theocratic impulses will wane as the next generation starts to take the reigns of power.

This is a disingenuous bill and will hopefully be struck down by the federal courts. The bill is designed to place completely unnecessary regulations on abortion clinics in the hope that they will become so expensive that most will shut down. Everybody here knows that.

Everybody here who supports this bill is also supporting the lie which is the foundation of this bill. Every supporter here is cheering that now most of Texas' clinics will be closed. This bill isn't about sound health policy but about limiting access to abortions. So, hopefully, since this bill is a farce and a fraud it will get quickly struck down.

If abortion is just another surgical procedure, why's it so special that it should not be subject it to the same level of regulation as other surgical procedures?

Is it unconstitutional if a state won't allow anyone to open up a Bob's Discount Open-Heart Surgery center with minimum health standards?

Limiting access to abortions is sound health policy.

Yep, ain't nothing healthy about killing a baby. Half of all people who come out of an abortion clinic, come out dead. Edited July 10, 2013 by Roamin_Catholic

[Amppax]

Millions of people, old and young, die from natural causes every year.

 

Therefore, let's legalize murder of all people of any age!

 

Q

E

D

 

You're missing his point, although his point is a non sequitur. Or something like that.  

 

File this under "Classic Hassan vs. Socrates" 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2013 by Amppax

[KnightofChrist]

Sad day for reproductive rights. Hopefully the Christian Right's more theocratic impulses will wane as the next generation starts to take the reigns of power.

If your side continues to believe in the mass murder of its young, and those on the side of life continue to procreate and pass on their beliefs to their children at some point the pro-deathers will be out numbered. It's simply a matter of time. Edited July 10, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Stella Matutina]

Socrates nailed it.

[Socrates]

. . .Waugh, waugh . . . They are being imposed, unnecessarily from a (reality based) health policy standpoint because you all want there to be fewer abortions. But, of course, if the courts strike down these farcical laws, you all will whine and cry that the courts are thwarting the legislative process, despite how grotesquely fraudulent that process was here.  

 

Oh, stop the whining and crying already.

[4588686]

This doesn't have a [mod] edited- language...rc [/mod] thing to do with anyone's right to reproduce. People would be free to reproduce (or choose not to reproduce) all they want.

This concerns the killing of children after reproduction has already taken place.

While you're wrong 110% of the time, I still thought hiding your position behind wimpy euphemisms would be beneath you.
Why not just say you support legally killing unborn babies? I support legally killing deer and cows, and have no problem saying so.


If abortion is just another surgical procedure, why's it so special that it should not be subject it to the same level of regulation as other surgical procedures?

Is it unconstitutional if a state won't allow anyone to open up a Bob's Discount Open-Heart Surgery center with minimum health standards?

Yep, ain't nothing healthy about killing a baby. Half of all people who come out of an abortion clinic, come out dead.

 

1-Hm.  '...after reproduction has taken place."  So, in your mind reproduction consists in what, exactly?  I've never known anybody who didn't consider fetal growth and development in the womb to be part of the reproductive process.  

 

2-Because I don't categorically support killing unborn babies.  I think that abortion is too complex a moral decision to be determined by the state.  There are some instances where I would consider the decision to abort a pregnancy immoral.  Or at least so morally gray that I would consider the decision irresponsible.  

 

3-Abortion isn't a surgical procedure.

 

4-No, it wouldn't be unconstitutional.  It also isn't unconstitutional to regulate abortion clinics.  And abortion clinics should be well regulated.  That's the point of making abortion legal.  That doesn't mean that all regulations are constitutional.  If you tell Bob's Discount Open-Heart Surgery Center that they have to sterilize their instruments that is all well and good.  If you create regulations designed to close Bob's Center because Bob is Circasian and you don't like Circasians then you have a legal problem.  

[4588686]

Oh, stop the whining and crying already.

 

 

Oh, I see.  You took my snide remark and claimed that it really applied to me.  That was very clever.  

[4588686]

 I don't spend a lot of time thinking about this, but it seems clear to me that a fetus is a human life, and abortion causes the end of said human life.  I don't need any friend (real or imaginary) to tell me that.  I guess I just don't understand the slogan "reproductive rights." It seems just as disingenuous as this bill (I agree with you on that issue, I wish that pro-lifers didn't feel the need to be dishonest; although I don't think all being dishonest, just being misled by others).   

 

I don't think the label is wrong.  Even if you think abortion is always morally appalling you are talking about the right of a woman to control her body's reproductive process.  I think corporations should be forcibly limited in the amount of carbon pollution they can load onto the planet as a negative externalize.  That's an infringement of their property rights.  Maybe you think that the interests of a fetus to life outweigh those of the woman to retain autonomy of her body, but that doesn't change things really.  You just think she should have a lot fewer reproductive rights.  

[Stella Matutina]

Maybe you think that the interests of a fetus to life outweigh those of the woman to retain autonomy of her body, but that doesn't change things really.  You just think she should have a lot fewer reproductive rights.  

 

After a child is born, is it permissable for a woman to commit infanticide?

 

Why is there a distinction between what she chooses to do to another human that is growing inside of her womb, and one that is outside of it? Either way, she is deciding to kill another human being, who has the same right to life as she does.

 

If you by fewer "reproductive rights" you mean revoking the the right to kill your offspring, then yes, Catholics are opposed to that and always will be. The truth remains the truth always, it does not change in order to make things more convenient for modern man.

[4588686]

After a child is born, is it permissable for a woman to commit infanticide?

 

Why is there a distinction between what she chooses to do to another human that is growing inside of her womb, and one that is outside of it? Either way, she is deciding to kill another human being, who has the same right to life as she does.

 

If you by fewer "reproductive rights" you mean revoking the the right to kill your offspring, then yes, Catholics are opposed to that and always will be. The truth remains the truth always, it does not change in order to make things more convenient for modern man.

 

 

I don't think so.  I think that the potentiality of development into a human being is a real moral value and that once the baby is born the woman loses her standing.  

[Socrates]

1-Hm.  '...after reproduction has taken place."  So, in your mind reproduction consists in what, exactly?  I've never known anybody who didn't consider fetal growth and development in the womb to be part of the reproductive process.

 
Human reproduction consists of the making of a new human being (sexual intercourse resulting in fertilization and conception).  Abortion kills a new human being already existing.  I don't think there's anything magical about the location of the womb that makes killing a baby there acceptable, and a baby in the cradle not.  Deliberately killing an innocent human being is always wrong, end of story. 
 
 

2-Because I don't categorically support killing unborn babies.  I think that abortion is too complex a moral decision to be determined by the state.  There are some instances where I would consider the decision to abort a pregnancy immoral.  Or at least so morally gray that I would consider the decision irresponsible.

Abortion is by definition the killing of an unborn human being.  That's a scientific fact.  You apparently think killing some innocent human beings is acceptable, and that's where the disagreement lies.  That it's wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human being is a pretty straightforward moral principle.  You could use the "too complex a moral decision" line to justify legalizing absolutely anything  - murder, theft, whatever - it's a weak and meaningless cop-out, rather than an argument. 

 

3-Abortion isn't a surgical procedure.

 
Abortion is killing an unborn human being (by surgical or chemical procedures.)  I'm not sure what you think abortion is, or why you think it should have so much less regulation.  Looks like you're avoiding the issue.
 
Currently, burger stands and tattoo parlors are subject to more health and sanitation regulations than abortion clinics.  Dr. Gosnell's filthy little slaughter-house was actually hardly unique.
 
 

4-No, it wouldn't be unconstitutional.  It also isn't unconstitutional to regulate abortion clinics.  And abortion clinics should be well regulated.  That's the point of making abortion legal.  That doesn't mean that all regulations are constitutional.  If you tell Bob's Discount Open-Heart Surgery Center that they have to sterilize their instruments that is all well and good.  If you create regulations designed to close Bob's Center because Bob is Circasian and you don't like Circasians then you have a legal problem.

 
I don't know what a Circasion is (something like a Caucasian?), but as the bill has nothing to do with anyone's race or ethnicity, you've brought up yet another irrelevant non-sequitur.

[Stella Matutina]

But it isn't "potentially" a human being. The child is a child from the moment of conception. It is alive and growing, just like children outside of the womb. Humans, like other animals, require a certain gestation period in order to be viable outside of a womb. The fact that the child is in the process of growing large enough to take its first breaths, does not mean that it isn't alive, or isn't human.

 

This is like saying that your cat is pregnant with "potential" kittens, or that a pig isn't a pig until it is born. Nobody thinks this way about other animals in the natural order, so why are humans perceived as being so crude that they don't actually exist until they are naturally born? Are we lower than pigs?

[Socrates]

I don't think so.  I think that the potentiality of development into a human being is a real moral value and that once the baby is born the woman loses her standing.  

 

So what is the baby before it "develops into a human being"?  Does the baby change species at birth?

 

The idea that a baby magically turns into a completely different creature upon leaving the womb is superstitious and irrational.

[BG45]

You know folks, this discussion reminds me of a friend recently.  She was telling me, per usual, how much she loves her two little girls.  However, she'd had a bit to drink, and told me how happy she was to have kept her second daughter L. instead of getting an abortion.  I just can't wrap my head around the cognitive dissonance of that statement, "I love my daughter, I'm glad I didn't abort her" is a tacit recognition that abortion was taking a human life, but if you ask her, humans aren't human until birth.

 

There have been a few interesting pieces in academic medical journals recently asking what the difference is between a fetus and a newborn.  Hasan's "potential"  comment made me think of them.  One article in particular argues that there is no effective difference, as both are dependent upon the mother, both are incapable of much movement, and both are blank slates when it comes to their potential as a person.  The article goes on to ask, why not allow post-birth abortions?  After all, the authors argue, there's not really a difference; just because you're born doesn't mean you're really human yet, because the mental development isn't there.  A horrifying article IMO.

 

Anyhow, I'm finding the posts in the thread to be really well thought out for the most part, even if some have me thinking about the issue of cognitive dissonance.  However, RC and I have discussed things, and would like to ask [mod]If everyone can remember to be nice as they discuss this issue which is so close to all of our hearts. - BG[/mod]