Just an interesting side note: I learned this while doing research for a history class. The Catholic Church used to believe that an unborn child was not "alive" until the quickening-when God instilled the soul. Traditionally, it was believed that this occured 40 days after conception for boys and 60 for a girl (how they knew the sex by then is beyond me). Until that point, abortion was fine. But it's just kind of interesting to see how views on abortion have changed. And along with Goverat, I think the extremes on both sides freak out at any suggestion that could even remotely go against them. Perhaps the best solution is to sterilize people until they can prove they're capable of having and raising kids.
But again, the pro-choice movement is so full of zealots even EDUCATION is seen as threatening.
Man I wish I could put you on my ignore list.
You keep on going on about those horrible zealots and reactionary imbeciles on the pro-choice side. Pro-lifers have freaking MURDERED DOCTORS. There have been about 50 attempts on the life of physicians, and at least 5 I know of have been successful. They have web pages with lists of physicians who perform abortions and their spouses and children and home addresses, with their names greyed out if they have been wounded and striked through if they have been killed. Then they have websites that call their murderers "American Heros."
They have bombed or set fire to or otherwise vandalized hundreds of clinics. They have, continually for decades, sent threatening mail and phone calls and death threats to physicians. They have sent dozens of anthrax threats to physicians and clinics. Virtually their entire local strategy is threat and intimidation of physicians and women at clinics. Women just trying to go to their freaking gyn appointments get screamed at, have animal blood and organs thrown on them, and get shown gruesome pictures of dead babies.
Want me to go on? I could provide plenty of links to pro-life extremists' web sites.
To even suggest there is a comparison between the two extremes is absurd.
You keep on going on about those horrible zealots and reactionary imbeciles on the pro-choice side. Pro-lifers have freaking MURDERED DOCTORS.
Ok...
Is there any particular reason you bring pro-life crazies up? Did I say there weren't?
Did you miss my oft-repeated pro-choice stance?
I don't know why my pointing out the zealotry and blindness in much of the pro-choice movement precludes zealotry and blindness in the pro-life movement.
I also think eating babies is wrong, just in case you got the idea that by being pro-choice I advocated baby-eating.
And we shouldn't nuke Norway, just in case you were concerned I was advocating that as well.
And pouring oil straight onto the ground is wrong.
So is beating old men up with sacks full of oranges.
Just in case you thought I was advocating those things.
Quote:
To even suggest there is a comparison between the two extremes is absurd.
You're right, it's a good thing I didn't say a damned word about them.
Just an interesting side note: I learned this while doing research for a history class. The Catholic Church used to believe that an unborn child was not "alive" until the quickening-when God instilled the soul. Traditionally, it was believed that this occured 40 days after conception for boys and 60 for a girl (how they knew the sex by then is beyond me). Until that point, abortion was fine. But it's just kind of interesting to see how views on abortion have changed. And along with Goverat, I think the extremes on both sides freak out at any suggestion that could even remotely go against them. Perhaps the best solution is to sterilize people until they can prove they're capable of having and raising kids.
The reason the Catholic church reversed it's position on abortion and the view that sex is only for procreation was that in the Middle Ages the birth rates were so low and various sicknesses (bubonic and pulmonary plague) were decimating the general population. The average life expectancy was about 29 years! Kings needed men for their armies but they were dying at an alarming rate so they went to the church to help them out. They made laws about abortion but that alone didn't help so they made the church put the fear of god into the people. It became docrtine until today. I don't have any online reference at the moment but if you want to pick up a book at the library called World History by Hugh Thomas, there is a short explanation in chapter 16. I skimmed it over just now and paraphrased it with out going into much detail.
Is there any particular reason you bring pro-life crazies up? Did I say there weren't?
Did you miss my oft-repeated pro-choice stance?
I don't know why my pointing out the zealotry and blindness in much of the pro-choice movement precludes zealotry and blindness in the pro-life movement.
Then why did you claim to be pro-choice, but, with no context, say that you were "ashamed of sharing a view on abortion with a group so full of reactionary imbeciles?" Why would you make that statement out of the blue unless you felt the pro-choice side had more reactionary imbecilic zealots than the other side? I'd understand if there was some specific instance you were presenting in which the pro-choice side did something deserving of that label. But that wasn't the case here.
And it's pathetic that a mod regularly makes the most substance-less and obnoxious posts in most of the threads here.
Then why did you claim to be pro-choice, but, with no context, say that you were "ashamed of sharing a view on abortion with a group so full of reactionary imbeciles?"
Because it's the truth.
Are you suggesting that people with certain viewpoints should turn a blind eye to the problems with those who agree with them?
- I am for legalization of marijuana but a lot of people pushing that idea are just stoners looking for an excuse to stay high.
- I am against "under God" being in the PoA but I have great respect for people of faith, unlike most of the people I've talked to who share that political view.
Quote:
Why would you make that statement out of the blue unless you felt the pro-choice side had more reactionary imbecilic zealots than the other side?
It wasn't out of the blue. I think this case of pro-choicers saying this wasn't double murder even though Laci was 8.5 months along when murdered simply because she didn't shoot the kid out of her vagina are putting their political bitches before common sense and their basic humanity.
I can believe in something without being a sheep, I'm sorry if that offends you.
And most importantly, to think that my criticism of the pro-choice movement is an endorsement of the pro-life movement is an indictment of YOUR atrophied thought process, not mine.
Then why did you claim to be pro-choice, but, with no context, say that you were "ashamed of sharing a view on abortion with a group so full of reactionary imbeciles?" Why would you make that statement out of the blue unless you felt the pro-choice side had more reactionary imbecilic zealots than the other side? I'd understand if there was some specific instance you were presenting in which the pro-choice side did something deserving of that label. But that wasn't the case here.
And it's pathetic that a mod regularly makes the most substance-less and obnoxious posts in most of the threads here.
Because many people like yourself consider that to be the educated, enlighted position. However it has been frozen and refuses to consider any new science or other information by which to further refine its own view.
When you look at pro-life people and think of them as ignorant and backwater, you had been insure your own view does not fall prey to the same attributes. Pro-choice views have refused to consider how scientific advances have taught us more and more about late term pregnancies and not only the viability of the child outside the womb, but about their cognative state and development relative to a new born child with full rights.
People bring up late term abortions and science, pro-choice is bringing up shooting doctors. It is dust, a straw man.
If I were trying to convince you about first term abortions by calling upon only religion and no science, you would likely think my view unconvincing even if you happend to agree with it. When you call upon only the rights of the woman and can never acknowlege the development of the child it is an extreme view.
As for the views of the extreme pro-life folks, it is simply a matter of belief. They believe these folks are killing children. It is a profound disagreement as to whether they are children or not, but the actions related to the killing of children are not. We must all be pretty extreme because I can think of quite a large number of people on this board that might take action themselves if they lived in communities where a person was killing hundreds of thousands of "children" and the government did nothing.
So while I don't condone it, I can certainly understand it. You don't call the abortion a death of an innocent child. They do and if there were a place where we all agreed that they were a) children and b) killed for no reason while the government did nothing, I wonder what percentage here would take or at least speak for action.
If a killer murdered say 500 children at an elementary school and then fled across the border to Mexico where they wouldn't extradite him, I wonder how many here wouldn't favor just stepping across the border ourselves for a little justice. The view might be a lot less extreme than you imagine.
Scott Peterson should charged with double murder. The child was clearly wanted and anticipated. It was very late term and could have survived on his own.
Would you have us believe that if someone beat a woman so hard on her due date that the baby died that it is simply assault and she only suffered as if her own body was wounded?
And most importantly, to think that my criticism of the pro-choice movement is an endorsement of the pro-life movement is an indictment of YOUR atrophied thought process, not mine.
It must be difficult to see from your high horse sometimes, but no one has made a claim that you're endorsing anything. You can try and twist the language and blame it on BRussel, but I don't think many people here are going to believe you.
It must be difficult to see from your high horse sometimes, but no one has made a claim that you're endorsing anything. You can try and twist the language and blame it on BRussel, but I don't think many people here are going to believe you.
Brussel is trying to play both sides. He parrots the language of the extreme view on pro-choice. He nuances it a bit though so he doesn't appear "extreme" even though he is parroting that view.
Groverat thinks, as probably many others do that it is an extreme view to only use the rights of the woman to determine everything regarding law and various acts that could occur during pregnancy (abortion, murder, etc.)
BRussel takes the view that only the woman determines what is right. He isn't malicious while explaining that view but it is a non-thinking/blind view, much as the extreme view of some pro-lifers will cause them to follow through with shooting and harassing someone with the justification that it is a means to an end.
BRussel makes it clear that while he supports this being called a double murder, he wouldn't lose any sleep if it weren't called that. It is more just being political than taking a firm position. His stated beliefs would dictate that there was nothing there to kill and since the mother is dead it doesn't really matter what her intent for the child was because it has no rights, except for what she cares to give it. Since she isn't here to give it any, then nothing can be done on behalf of it. (How convenient)
However the unwillingness of the extreme pro-choice movement to consider nothing beyond what the mother wants is just grounded in politics over ignorance. Science has moved us beyond that understanding. It has moved us to the point to where some determinations must be made on behalf of the fetus in the womb. It does need to begin to have rights. Even Roe v. Wade acknowleged this but again if you are more extreme then that decision, then only what the woman wants is considered.
Staking out an extreme view, empathizing with the other side and being indifferent to the outcome does show good people skills, but it is still an extreme view. If it were applied in other areas you would the first to call someone on it.
If I had the view that slavery should be legal, empathized with the abolishionist a bit about the plight of the blacks and were indifferent about the outcome of their treatment, you would still say that was an extremely racist view.
If I held the view that women shouldn't have the right to vote, empathized with suffarage groups a bit and then was indifferent to their outomce, you would still say I was extremely sexist.
This is a human rights issue and eventually something besides the mother must be considered in late term.
So if BRussel states that under no terms are the rights of the unborn child EVER to be considered, even while acknowleging that it is human, but that the mother's rights are the only one to be considered, it is an extreme view.
Some BRussel comments that I culled his understanding of this from...
Quote:
I agree with most of those laws, as long as the intent was to kill the unborn child - I don't think there should be liability if the offender didn't know the woman was pregnant. That kind of strict liability was a feature of the UVVA in Congress a few years ago, but (I don't think) is a feature of the California law.
But I don't think that will or should lead to less abortion rights. Even if an unborn child is a legal person, that doesn't mean, IMO, that the government can force someone else to give birth to that person. I'm a legal person, and yet the government can't force you to give blood to me so that I will survive, for example.
But I think this is different. If you murder a woman, you should only be guilty of double murder if you specifically intended to murder the baby too, and for that to be the case, you must know that the woman was pregnant. I think that's the case with this Laci Peterson case because that's what CA law says (AFAIK). But according to this UVVA, you could be guilty of the murder of the baby even if the woman herself didn't know she was pregnant.
But I do think the law is needed to deal with situations where the criminal intent was to interfere with a pregnancy. Say a husband and wife get in a fight because she's pregnant and wants the baby but he doesn't want it. He beats her on the stomach to try to kill the baby. If the baby dies, he should be guilty of more than just assault of the woman.
On the other hand, I don't have really strong feelings about it. Make it strict liability. You could argue that the assault or murder of a woman should always be a worse crime because of the possibility that the woman is pregnant. But that's not real consistent with your other thread going right now.
So do you see an ethical inconsistency between the legality of obtaining a nose job and the illegality of punching someone in the nose outside of a plastic surgeon's office?
Adults have the right to life, but do you have the right to force someone else to give you a kidney transplant so that you will live? That's analogous to making abortion illegal, IMO. You're forcing someone to go through childbirth.
I agree that it's a flaw in the pro-choice side if they say "it's not a human life" or it has no status at all.
But IMO the flaw in the pro-lifer's argument is that they don't see that being pro-life by definition means that they want to infringe on the rights of the mom. And I think we can all agree that childbirth and pregnancy are pretty fundamental rights
Nonsense. I've never met a pro-choice person who doesn't understand the importance of pre-natal development. Saying "it's a human life" is a straw man argument of the pro-life side - of course pro-choice people know it's a human life. They just don't believe that's determinative when you're also dealing with fundamental rights of the mom. I have the right to life, but I can't force you, another adult, to give me that life.
Pro-choice views have refused to consider how scientific advances have taught us more and more about late term pregnancies and not only the viability of the child outside the womb, but about their cognative state and development relative to a new born child with full rights.
We've long known and understood the importance of pre-natal development. I'm a nature over nurture person, and in my view those first 9 months are THE most important 9 months in your life. There are many studies from long before Roe v. Wade on the importance of pre-natal development. I'm sure there's been plenty of research since then, too, but not that would radically change our views - we already knew about its importance.
The problem is the view, expressed by alcimedes, that pregnancy and childbirth are simply "inconveniences" rather than fundamental human rights. That view is right in line with the Chinese gov't who believes that mothers have no pregnancy and childbirth rights - that the gov't can make those fundamental family decisions for them.
I and every pro-choice person I know acknowledge the importance of pre-natal development and that the rights of unborn babies must be balanced against the right of pregnancy and childbirth. Do pro-lifers acknowledge that there is a conflict of rights here? I'd love to hear it. Maybe you can be the first.
Quote:
As for the views of the extreme pro-life folks, it is simply a matter of belief. They believe these folks are killing children. It is a profound disagreement as to whether they are children or not, but the actions related to the killing of children are not. We must all be pretty extreme because I can think of quite a large number of people on this board that might take action themselves if they lived in communities where a person was killing hundreds of thousands of "children" and the government did nothing.
So while I don't condone it, I can certainly understand it.
It's disgusting for you to "understand" the terrorism of the pro-lifers as "simply a matter of belief." Lots of people believe their political agendas are important. I suppose you could justify the terrorism on 9/11 in the same way. And now you and others in this thread have done exactly that. Blech. The genuine pro-life people here, perhaps zaphod, would never make an argument such as you have just made.
Quote:
Would you have us believe that if someone beat a woman so hard on her due date that the baby died that it is simply assault and she only suffered as if her own body was wounded?
No. I presented my views on that in my first few posts in this thread. They're a little more involved than the slogan-based political views of the likes of groverat, so I won't post them again, but they're there if you wish to see. (In fact, I'm the one who presented exactly this scenario, and argued that it shouldn't simply be assault...)
I'm flattered by the in-depth discussion of my views. I think we've all shown our true colors here, and let's just say I'm satisfied leaving the contrast between your views and mine for others to judge.
The problem is the view, expressed by alcimedes, that pregnancy and childbirth are simply "inconveniences" rather than fundamental human rights. That view is right in line with the Chinese gov't who believes that mothers have no pregnancy and childbirth rights - that the gov't can make those fundamental family decisions for them
as i said, you can replace the word "inconvienience" with any word of your choice, it still won't change my argument. just a poor choice of words on my part then.
i think you misunderstand the concept of fundamental though. to live would be fundamental. everything after that is less important. (although would still have value)
any thoughts on my posts earlier? i didn't feel like stepping on a landmine with the last 10 exchanges or so.
We've long known and understood the importance of pre-natal development. I'm a nature over nurture person, and in my view those first 9 months are THE most important 9 months in your life. There are many studies from long before Roe v. Wade on the importance of pre-natal development.
The problem is the view, expressed by alcimedes, that pregnancy and childbirth are simply "inconveniences" rather than fundamental human rights. That view is right in line with the Chinese gov't who believes that mothers have no pregnancy and childbirth rights - that the gov't can make those fundamental family decisions for them.
I and every pro-choice person I know acknowledge the importance of pre-natal development and that the rights of unborn babies must be balanced against the right of pregnancy and childbirth. Do pro-lifers acknowledge that there is a conflict of rights here? I'd love to hear it. Maybe you can be the first.
It's disgusting for you to "understand" the terrorism of the pro-lifers as "simply a matter of belief." Lots of people believe their political agendas are important. I suppose you could justify the terrorism on 9/11 in the same way. And now you and others in this thread have done exactly that. Blech. The genuine pro-life people here, perhaps zaphod, would never make an argument such as you have just made.
No. I presented my views on that in my first few posts in this thread. They're a little more involved than the slogan-based political views of the likes of groverat, so I won't post them again, but they're there if you wish to see. (In fact, I'm the one who presented exactly this scenario, and argued that it shouldn't simply be assault...)
I see you "acknowledge" the development, and then sweep it away because while you say it must be balanced, you have not give a single "balanced" instance where the fetus happens to have some rights.
So I guess I should have "acknowledged" the extreme pro-lifers instead of "understanding them. Boy the hypocracy is thick here.
I specifically said that I did not condone it. I just said while some make it out to be a political issue, others make it out to be a human rights issue. To say I understand the difference between human rights and how much should be spent on public transportation, social security, education, etc. is not attempting to justify terrorism. To say I seek to justify terrorism is just a cheap shot you're trying to take, since you obviously cannot work out the contradiction of your own statements. You lay it on thick about how how the unborn are human, are going to through the most profoundly important part of there development, oh and by the way all this means nothing.
You play it both ways because you say it should be more than assault, but you declare your own indifference as to what it should be. You are content to point fingers while "acknowledging" everyone. Gee the child is soo important... the mother is sooo important.... everyone is soo... important...oh but late term murder of this child could be murder, or not, I don't really care.
So far you have equated anyone who doesn't agree with you with terrorists, communist china, and murderers just for the record.
As for pregnancy being an "inconvenience" or not. This thread specifically asked if a wanted unborn child was killed along with it's mother is it a double murder. Your answer...maybe.
Yeah, that isn't extreme.
As for the inconvenience, pregnancy is a reaction, not an action. It took something to get to that point. The man gets no say and can even be ordered to jail for child support. That isn't in China btw, that is here in the U.S. Do you "acknowledge" that the man should be able to give up his paternal rights just like a mother can give up her maternal rights. A mother can do so even after child birth by giving the child up for adoption. It is awfully "inconvenient" to have to support the child for 18 years too. He can be ordered to do so with his body or have his body thrown in jail as well. Are you going to be consistant about this or just show your own true colors about how this is about no other human and no one elses rights than the mother.
The fact that you can't even be clear on something as easily defined as this Laci Peterson murder, shows your own views. NOW and their agenda above all else. Above father's rights, above a wanted child's rights, and above even the majority view of most women regarding their rights. It is an extreme position and pointing to communists/terrorists, and being picky about word selection doesn't change that fact.
It sickens most to think that a political agenda would be advanced this way, because it isn't about Laci's rights, since she would want to insure this guy was tried and convicted for the murder of her pre-born son. It isn't about the unborn child's rights since he has none. So who is left? The murderous husband? You would rather he suffer less to advance a political cause? Are we cuddling killers now to get what we want?
And you wonder why people are sickened by this view and NOW for advocating it.
I see you "acknowledge" the development, and then sweep it away because while you say it must be balanced, you have not give a single "balanced" instance where the fetus happens to have some rights.
...
And you wonder why people are sickened by this view and NOW for advocating it.
Nick
Yeah, what he said!
Actually, BRussell, put a human face on what Peterson did. Take your new daughter (right?) into your arms and think: If someone had killed your wife just before she gave birth, who would you have lost? Just your wife OR her and that precious, helpless beautiful little person in your arms?
It's all personal because we are talking about people.
Actually, BRussell, put a human face on what Peterson did. Take your new daughter (right?) into your arms and think: If someone had killed your wife just before she gave birth, who would you have lost? Just your wife OR her and that precious, helpless beautiful little person in your arms?
It's all personal because we are talking about people.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
But again, the pro-choice movement is so full of zealots even EDUCATION is seen as threatening.
Man I wish I could put you on my ignore list.
You keep on going on about those horrible zealots and reactionary imbeciles on the pro-choice side. Pro-lifers have freaking MURDERED DOCTORS. There have been about 50 attempts on the life of physicians, and at least 5 I know of have been successful. They have web pages with lists of physicians who perform abortions and their spouses and children and home addresses, with their names greyed out if they have been wounded and striked through if they have been killed. Then they have websites that call their murderers "American Heros."
They have bombed or set fire to or otherwise vandalized hundreds of clinics. They have, continually for decades, sent threatening mail and phone calls and death threats to physicians. They have sent dozens of anthrax threats to physicians and clinics. Virtually their entire local strategy is threat and intimidation of physicians and women at clinics. Women just trying to go to their freaking gyn appointments get screamed at, have animal blood and organs thrown on them, and get shown gruesome pictures of dead babies.
Want me to go on? I could provide plenty of links to pro-life extremists' web sites.
To even suggest there is a comparison between the two extremes is absurd.
Originally posted by BRussell
You keep on going on about those horrible zealots and reactionary imbeciles on the pro-choice side. Pro-lifers have freaking MURDERED DOCTORS.
Ok...
Is there any particular reason you bring pro-life crazies up? Did I say there weren't?
Did you miss my oft-repeated pro-choice stance?
I don't know why my pointing out the zealotry and blindness in much of the pro-choice movement precludes zealotry and blindness in the pro-life movement.
I also think eating babies is wrong, just in case you got the idea that by being pro-choice I advocated baby-eating.
And we shouldn't nuke Norway, just in case you were concerned I was advocating that as well.
And pouring oil straight onto the ground is wrong.
So is beating old men up with sacks full of oranges.
Just in case you thought I was advocating those things.
To even suggest there is a comparison between the two extremes is absurd.
You're right, it's a good thing I didn't say a damned word about them.
Originally posted by groverat
Is there any particular reason you bring pro-life crazies up? Did I say there weren't?
You can play dumb (or perhaps it's serious) but he clearly states:
"To even suggest there is a comparison between the two extremes is absurd."
Deal with it.
Perspective was needed. "Zealot" doesn't necessarily carry the same connotations when "compared" to right wing pro-life extremists.
BRussell, bunge, and I think you were being disingenuous and a bit too indiscriminate with your choice of words.
Originally posted by Naderfan
Just an interesting side note: I learned this while doing research for a history class. The Catholic Church used to believe that an unborn child was not "alive" until the quickening-when God instilled the soul. Traditionally, it was believed that this occured 40 days after conception for boys and 60 for a girl (how they knew the sex by then is beyond me). Until that point, abortion was fine. But it's just kind of interesting to see how views on abortion have changed. And along with Goverat, I think the extremes on both sides freak out at any suggestion that could even remotely go against them. Perhaps the best solution is to sterilize people until they can prove they're capable of having and raising kids.
The reason the Catholic church reversed it's position on abortion and the view that sex is only for procreation was that in the Middle Ages the birth rates were so low and various sicknesses (bubonic and pulmonary plague) were decimating the general population. The average life expectancy was about 29 years! Kings needed men for their armies but they were dying at an alarming rate so they went to the church to help them out. They made laws about abortion but that alone didn't help so they made the church put the fear of god into the people. It became docrtine until today. I don't have any online reference at the moment but if you want to pick up a book at the library called World History by Hugh Thomas, there is a short explanation in chapter 16. I skimmed it over just now and paraphrased it with out going into much detail.
Originally posted by groverat
BRussell:
Ok...
Is there any particular reason you bring pro-life crazies up? Did I say there weren't?
Did you miss my oft-repeated pro-choice stance?
I don't know why my pointing out the zealotry and blindness in much of the pro-choice movement precludes zealotry and blindness in the pro-life movement.
Then why did you claim to be pro-choice, but, with no context, say that you were "ashamed of sharing a view on abortion with a group so full of reactionary imbeciles?" Why would you make that statement out of the blue unless you felt the pro-choice side had more reactionary imbecilic zealots than the other side? I'd understand if there was some specific instance you were presenting in which the pro-choice side did something deserving of that label. But that wasn't the case here.
And it's pathetic that a mod regularly makes the most substance-less and obnoxious posts in most of the threads here.
Then why did you claim to be pro-choice, but, with no context, say that you were "ashamed of sharing a view on abortion with a group so full of reactionary imbeciles?"
Because it's the truth.
Are you suggesting that people with certain viewpoints should turn a blind eye to the problems with those who agree with them?
- I am for legalization of marijuana but a lot of people pushing that idea are just stoners looking for an excuse to stay high.
- I am against "under God" being in the PoA but I have great respect for people of faith, unlike most of the people I've talked to who share that political view.
Why would you make that statement out of the blue unless you felt the pro-choice side had more reactionary imbecilic zealots than the other side?
It wasn't out of the blue. I think this case of pro-choicers saying this wasn't double murder even though Laci was 8.5 months along when murdered simply because she didn't shoot the kid out of her vagina are putting their political bitches before common sense and their basic humanity.
I can believe in something without being a sheep, I'm sorry if that offends you.
And most importantly, to think that my criticism of the pro-choice movement is an endorsement of the pro-life movement is an indictment of YOUR atrophied thought process, not mine.
Originally posted by BRussell
Man I wish I could put you on my ignore list.
Pro-lifers have freaking MURDERED DOCTORS.
It's not murder----it's a retroactive abortion.
Originally posted by BRussell
Then why did you claim to be pro-choice, but, with no context, say that you were "ashamed of sharing a view on abortion with a group so full of reactionary imbeciles?" Why would you make that statement out of the blue unless you felt the pro-choice side had more reactionary imbecilic zealots than the other side? I'd understand if there was some specific instance you were presenting in which the pro-choice side did something deserving of that label. But that wasn't the case here.
And it's pathetic that a mod regularly makes the most substance-less and obnoxious posts in most of the threads here.
Because many people like yourself consider that to be the educated, enlighted position. However it has been frozen and refuses to consider any new science or other information by which to further refine its own view.
When you look at pro-life people and think of them as ignorant and backwater, you had been insure your own view does not fall prey to the same attributes. Pro-choice views have refused to consider how scientific advances have taught us more and more about late term pregnancies and not only the viability of the child outside the womb, but about their cognative state and development relative to a new born child with full rights.
People bring up late term abortions and science, pro-choice is bringing up shooting doctors. It is dust, a straw man.
If I were trying to convince you about first term abortions by calling upon only religion and no science, you would likely think my view unconvincing even if you happend to agree with it. When you call upon only the rights of the woman and can never acknowlege the development of the child it is an extreme view.
As for the views of the extreme pro-life folks, it is simply a matter of belief. They believe these folks are killing children. It is a profound disagreement as to whether they are children or not, but the actions related to the killing of children are not. We must all be pretty extreme because I can think of quite a large number of people on this board that might take action themselves if they lived in communities where a person was killing hundreds of thousands of "children" and the government did nothing.
So while I don't condone it, I can certainly understand it. You don't call the abortion a death of an innocent child. They do and if there were a place where we all agreed that they were a) children and b) killed for no reason while the government did nothing, I wonder what percentage here would take or at least speak for action.
If a killer murdered say 500 children at an elementary school and then fled across the border to Mexico where they wouldn't extradite him, I wonder how many here wouldn't favor just stepping across the border ourselves for a little justice. The view might be a lot less extreme than you imagine.
Scott Peterson should charged with double murder. The child was clearly wanted and anticipated. It was very late term and could have survived on his own.
Would you have us believe that if someone beat a woman so hard on her due date that the baby died that it is simply assault and she only suffered as if her own body was wounded?
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
And most importantly, to think that my criticism of the pro-choice movement is an endorsement of the pro-life movement is an indictment of YOUR atrophied thought process, not mine.
It must be difficult to see from your high horse sometimes, but no one has made a claim that you're endorsing anything. You can try and twist the language and blame it on BRussel, but I don't think many people here are going to believe you.
Originally posted by BRussell
Pro-lifers have freaking MURDERED DOCTORS.
Actually, they were merely aborted in the 52nd trimester
It's all relative, really.
Originally posted by bunge
It must be difficult to see from your high horse sometimes, but no one has made a claim that you're endorsing anything. You can try and twist the language and blame it on BRussel, but I don't think many people here are going to believe you.
Brussel is trying to play both sides. He parrots the language of the extreme view on pro-choice. He nuances it a bit though so he doesn't appear "extreme" even though he is parroting that view.
Groverat thinks, as probably many others do that it is an extreme view to only use the rights of the woman to determine everything regarding law and various acts that could occur during pregnancy (abortion, murder, etc.)
BRussel takes the view that only the woman determines what is right. He isn't malicious while explaining that view but it is a non-thinking/blind view, much as the extreme view of some pro-lifers will cause them to follow through with shooting and harassing someone with the justification that it is a means to an end.
BRussel makes it clear that while he supports this being called a double murder, he wouldn't lose any sleep if it weren't called that. It is more just being political than taking a firm position. His stated beliefs would dictate that there was nothing there to kill and since the mother is dead it doesn't really matter what her intent for the child was because it has no rights, except for what she cares to give it. Since she isn't here to give it any, then nothing can be done on behalf of it. (How convenient)
However the unwillingness of the extreme pro-choice movement to consider nothing beyond what the mother wants is just grounded in politics over ignorance. Science has moved us beyond that understanding. It has moved us to the point to where some determinations must be made on behalf of the fetus in the womb. It does need to begin to have rights. Even Roe v. Wade acknowleged this but again if you are more extreme then that decision, then only what the woman wants is considered.
Staking out an extreme view, empathizing with the other side and being indifferent to the outcome does show good people skills, but it is still an extreme view. If it were applied in other areas you would the first to call someone on it.
If I had the view that slavery should be legal, empathized with the abolishionist a bit about the plight of the blacks and were indifferent about the outcome of their treatment, you would still say that was an extremely racist view.
If I held the view that women shouldn't have the right to vote, empathized with suffarage groups a bit and then was indifferent to their outomce, you would still say I was extremely sexist.
This is a human rights issue and eventually something besides the mother must be considered in late term.
So if BRussel states that under no terms are the rights of the unborn child EVER to be considered, even while acknowleging that it is human, but that the mother's rights are the only one to be considered, it is an extreme view.
Some BRussel comments that I culled his understanding of this from...
I agree with most of those laws, as long as the intent was to kill the unborn child - I don't think there should be liability if the offender didn't know the woman was pregnant. That kind of strict liability was a feature of the UVVA in Congress a few years ago, but (I don't think) is a feature of the California law.
But I don't think that will or should lead to less abortion rights. Even if an unborn child is a legal person, that doesn't mean, IMO, that the government can force someone else to give birth to that person. I'm a legal person, and yet the government can't force you to give blood to me so that I will survive, for example.
But I think this is different. If you murder a woman, you should only be guilty of double murder if you specifically intended to murder the baby too, and for that to be the case, you must know that the woman was pregnant. I think that's the case with this Laci Peterson case because that's what CA law says (AFAIK). But according to this UVVA, you could be guilty of the murder of the baby even if the woman herself didn't know she was pregnant.
But I do think the law is needed to deal with situations where the criminal intent was to interfere with a pregnancy. Say a husband and wife get in a fight because she's pregnant and wants the baby but he doesn't want it. He beats her on the stomach to try to kill the baby. If the baby dies, he should be guilty of more than just assault of the woman.
On the other hand, I don't have really strong feelings about it. Make it strict liability. You could argue that the assault or murder of a woman should always be a worse crime because of the possibility that the woman is pregnant. But that's not real consistent with your other thread going right now.
So do you see an ethical inconsistency between the legality of obtaining a nose job and the illegality of punching someone in the nose outside of a plastic surgeon's office?
Adults have the right to life, but do you have the right to force someone else to give you a kidney transplant so that you will live? That's analogous to making abortion illegal, IMO. You're forcing someone to go through childbirth.
I agree that it's a flaw in the pro-choice side if they say "it's not a human life" or it has no status at all.
But IMO the flaw in the pro-lifer's argument is that they don't see that being pro-life by definition means that they want to infringe on the rights of the mom. And I think we can all agree that childbirth and pregnancy are pretty fundamental rights
Nonsense. I've never met a pro-choice person who doesn't understand the importance of pre-natal development. Saying "it's a human life" is a straw man argument of the pro-life side - of course pro-choice people know it's a human life. They just don't believe that's determinative when you're also dealing with fundamental rights of the mom. I have the right to life, but I can't force you, another adult, to give me that life.
Originally posted by trumptman
Pro-choice views have refused to consider how scientific advances have taught us more and more about late term pregnancies and not only the viability of the child outside the womb, but about their cognative state and development relative to a new born child with full rights.
We've long known and understood the importance of pre-natal development. I'm a nature over nurture person, and in my view those first 9 months are THE most important 9 months in your life. There are many studies from long before Roe v. Wade on the importance of pre-natal development. I'm sure there's been plenty of research since then, too, but not that would radically change our views - we already knew about its importance.
The problem is the view, expressed by alcimedes, that pregnancy and childbirth are simply "inconveniences" rather than fundamental human rights. That view is right in line with the Chinese gov't who believes that mothers have no pregnancy and childbirth rights - that the gov't can make those fundamental family decisions for them.
I and every pro-choice person I know acknowledge the importance of pre-natal development and that the rights of unborn babies must be balanced against the right of pregnancy and childbirth. Do pro-lifers acknowledge that there is a conflict of rights here? I'd love to hear it. Maybe you can be the first.
As for the views of the extreme pro-life folks, it is simply a matter of belief. They believe these folks are killing children. It is a profound disagreement as to whether they are children or not, but the actions related to the killing of children are not. We must all be pretty extreme because I can think of quite a large number of people on this board that might take action themselves if they lived in communities where a person was killing hundreds of thousands of "children" and the government did nothing.
So while I don't condone it, I can certainly understand it.
It's disgusting for you to "understand" the terrorism of the pro-lifers as "simply a matter of belief." Lots of people believe their political agendas are important. I suppose you could justify the terrorism on 9/11 in the same way. And now you and others in this thread have done exactly that. Blech. The genuine pro-life people here, perhaps zaphod, would never make an argument such as you have just made.
Would you have us believe that if someone beat a woman so hard on her due date that the baby died that it is simply assault and she only suffered as if her own body was wounded?
No. I presented my views on that in my first few posts in this thread. They're a little more involved than the slogan-based political views of the likes of groverat, so I won't post them again, but they're there if you wish to see. (In fact, I'm the one who presented exactly this scenario, and argued that it shouldn't simply be assault...)
Originally posted by trumptman
Brussel is trying to play both sides.
I'm flattered by the in-depth discussion of my views. I think we've all shown our true colors here, and let's just say I'm satisfied leaving the contrast between your views and mine for others to judge.
The problem is the view, expressed by alcimedes, that pregnancy and childbirth are simply "inconveniences" rather than fundamental human rights. That view is right in line with the Chinese gov't who believes that mothers have no pregnancy and childbirth rights - that the gov't can make those fundamental family decisions for them
as i said, you can replace the word "inconvienience" with any word of your choice, it still won't change my argument. just a poor choice of words on my part then.
i think you misunderstand the concept of fundamental though. to live would be fundamental. everything after that is less important. (although would still have value)
any thoughts on my posts earlier? i didn't feel like stepping on a landmine with the last 10 exchanges or so.
Originally posted by BRussell
We've long known and understood the importance of pre-natal development. I'm a nature over nurture person, and in my view those first 9 months are THE most important 9 months in your life. There are many studies from long before Roe v. Wade on the importance of pre-natal development.
The problem is the view, expressed by alcimedes, that pregnancy and childbirth are simply "inconveniences" rather than fundamental human rights. That view is right in line with the Chinese gov't who believes that mothers have no pregnancy and childbirth rights - that the gov't can make those fundamental family decisions for them.
I and every pro-choice person I know acknowledge the importance of pre-natal development and that the rights of unborn babies must be balanced against the right of pregnancy and childbirth. Do pro-lifers acknowledge that there is a conflict of rights here? I'd love to hear it. Maybe you can be the first.
It's disgusting for you to "understand" the terrorism of the pro-lifers as "simply a matter of belief." Lots of people believe their political agendas are important. I suppose you could justify the terrorism on 9/11 in the same way. And now you and others in this thread have done exactly that. Blech. The genuine pro-life people here, perhaps zaphod, would never make an argument such as you have just made.
No. I presented my views on that in my first few posts in this thread. They're a little more involved than the slogan-based political views of the likes of groverat, so I won't post them again, but they're there if you wish to see. (In fact, I'm the one who presented exactly this scenario, and argued that it shouldn't simply be assault...)
I see you "acknowledge" the development, and then sweep it away because while you say it must be balanced, you have not give a single "balanced" instance where the fetus happens to have some rights.
So I guess I should have "acknowledged" the extreme pro-lifers instead of "understanding them. Boy the hypocracy is thick here.
I specifically said that I did not condone it. I just said while some make it out to be a political issue, others make it out to be a human rights issue. To say I understand the difference between human rights and how much should be spent on public transportation, social security, education, etc. is not attempting to justify terrorism. To say I seek to justify terrorism is just a cheap shot you're trying to take, since you obviously cannot work out the contradiction of your own statements. You lay it on thick about how how the unborn are human, are going to through the most profoundly important part of there development, oh and by the way all this means nothing.
You play it both ways because you say it should be more than assault, but you declare your own indifference as to what it should be. You are content to point fingers while "acknowledging" everyone. Gee the child is soo important... the mother is sooo important.... everyone is soo... important...oh but late term murder of this child could be murder, or not, I don't really care.
So far you have equated anyone who doesn't agree with you with terrorists, communist china, and murderers just for the record.
As for pregnancy being an "inconvenience" or not. This thread specifically asked if a wanted unborn child was killed along with it's mother is it a double murder. Your answer...maybe.
Yeah, that isn't extreme.
As for the inconvenience, pregnancy is a reaction, not an action. It took something to get to that point. The man gets no say and can even be ordered to jail for child support. That isn't in China btw, that is here in the U.S. Do you "acknowledge" that the man should be able to give up his paternal rights just like a mother can give up her maternal rights. A mother can do so even after child birth by giving the child up for adoption. It is awfully "inconvenient" to have to support the child for 18 years too. He can be ordered to do so with his body or have his body thrown in jail as well. Are you going to be consistant about this or just show your own true colors about how this is about no other human and no one elses rights than the mother.
The fact that you can't even be clear on something as easily defined as this Laci Peterson murder, shows your own views. NOW and their agenda above all else. Above father's rights, above a wanted child's rights, and above even the majority view of most women regarding their rights. It is an extreme position and pointing to communists/terrorists, and being picky about word selection doesn't change that fact.
It sickens most to think that a political agenda would be advanced this way, because it isn't about Laci's rights, since she would want to insure this guy was tried and convicted for the murder of her pre-born son. It isn't about the unborn child's rights since he has none. So who is left? The murderous husband? You would rather he suffer less to advance a political cause? Are we cuddling killers now to get what we want?
And you wonder why people are sickened by this view and NOW for advocating it.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I see you "acknowledge" the development, and then sweep it away because while you say it must be balanced, you have not give a single "balanced" instance where the fetus happens to have some rights.
...
And you wonder why people are sickened by this view and NOW for advocating it.
Nick
Yeah, what he said!
Actually, BRussell, put a human face on what Peterson did. Take your new daughter (right?) into your arms and think: If someone had killed your wife just before she gave birth, who would you have lost? Just your wife OR her and that precious, helpless beautiful little person in your arms?
It's all personal because we are talking about people.
Originally posted by Fangorn
Yeah, what he said!
Actually, BRussell, put a human face on what Peterson did. Take your new daughter (right?) into your arms and think: If someone had killed your wife just before she gave birth, who would you have lost? Just your wife OR her and that precious, helpless beautiful little person in your arms?
It's all personal because we are talking about people.
Strawman
Thank you.
Originally posted by BRussell
... zaphod (or whatever the hell his name is)
Just think of me as an international man of mystery. 8)