Is Abortion Murder?

[iceaura]

we will have to agree to disagree then... the way i see it: all politics has degraded period
you might see some justification or nobility in one party, wing, side or belief, but i don't. i see it all as crap
IMHO- it is all self-serving and in need of restructuring or fixing

It's not a matter of finding nobility in some wing or Party, it's a matter of avoiding false equivalence in different levels of degradation, and remembering who to blame.

All politics has not degraded to the same degree, and the degradation of none of it is equally everyone's fault. This is not actually a matter of reasonable conflict in opinion - there is an objective reality involved, in which (for example) the W&Cheney administration was very much worse in this matter than the Obama/Biden administration has been.

Another example: Paul Wellstone and Al Franken - like them or lump them - were and are nowhere near as self-serving, nowhere near the source of degradation and crap, that Norm Coleman was in that office or in the elections involved - or in the years after, as he lobbied for scum and peddled swill for money in the dens of K Street iniquity that Reagan's administration - and no other nearly as significantly - dug into the bedrock of Hill influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Coleman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone

And this issue - abortion - does seem to be useful for separating the sheep from the goats, as they say. The basic lack of awareness, self and other, involved in hardline anti-abortion politics seems to be linked to the famous and general irony-deafness of the corrupt and self-serving in Washington.

 

[Bowser]

In truth, however, the real reason I wouldn't try to outlaw conservative political speech is because I respect human rights, including the right to free speech and assembly. You know, kind of like letting the KKK march down Main Street.

Very commendable.

 

[billvon]

Can we make someone do what we want. I mean, an alcoholic is going to drink whether we approve or not, right? Regardless of his choice, I still think it's wrong.

That's fine. And I think abortion is wrong as well. However, I don't think it's my right to determine what everyone else does with their bodies.

To use your example, alcoholism is a damaging disease, and we would surely improve some lives by eliminating it. That does not give me the right to go into a restaurant and tell everyone to stop drinking because they might be alcoholics.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

In truth, however, the real reason I wouldn't try to outlaw conservative political speech is because I respect human rights, including the right to free speech and assembly. You know, kind of like letting the KKK march down Main Street.

Tiassa
I was taught a very harsh lesson on this once: i was opposed to the BS of the KKK, but my former Asst. Chief made a great point to me. He asked me [paraphrased] "why did you become a soldier then? You gave an oath to protect and defend the constitution... not selectively support the rights you want or the things you believe in. If you won't allow their free speech, then you are not protecting the rights as guaranteed in the Constitution"
i learned my lesson about rights. Thank you Asst. Chief Palm

i do not agree with their hate, or the BS, but i will defend their right to free speech...

Ice (& others interested)
the rest might seem OT, but it is actually relevant to the issue, IMHO, so i will continue this with Ice.

All politics has not degraded to the same degree

i never claimed they all degraded to the same degree... i claimed they're all degraded.
this is most visible in federal or national politics. to me, it is not about...

it's a matter of avoiding false equivalence in different levels of degradation, and remembering who to blame

... the blame is clear. the blame goes to the public and the apathetic.

all politics, and especially party politics, has degraded past the point of usefulness in a lot of ways (not claiming all ways, just that in many ways, it is corrupt). So long as there is a person voted into office who's job is to represent the people/state, but fails because of party line or party politics... then said person is a direct cause of the problem. This was a serious sore point in CO recently, and i hoped it would catch on with other states ...

And this issue - abortion - does seem to be useful for separating the sheep from the goats, as they say.

maybe that is true, but i also feel that it is the failure of our gov't. it also demonstrates the problems in our gov't. with refusing to allow more diversity and holding to an almost fanatical two-party system that is out of date. there is a LOT of middle ground that is not covered or doesn't receive the attention that should be given it because it is not contentious enough for the two main parties... and lets not even talk about the problems that parties have WRT scientific evidence and the refusal to accept it.

every party takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Congress also has the direct responsibility of representing the will of the people (House) and the State (Senate). This means, by being voted into office, the people should, technically, have representation in the gov't.

however, if you look at the electoral college, there is no federal law the requires the electoral college to vote the will of the people/state. they are not bound to represent the people in one of the most important parts of their job (as some people consider it, anyway)...

it is also apparent (and visible) that they're not required to actually consider the people at all in their duties.(See your own SEN/REP voting history and compare it with the voters & opinions) This was evident in the whole Colorado blowup... and the people took particular offense and removed some from office.

the apathy of most people will not let them get involved.

is it possible to remove one from office? yes (CO) but how often does it happen when malfeasance is not well known? (like felonious acts done while in office, but ignored) how often does Congress police itself? Heck, even when it is well know, it doesn't mean it will be dealt with in any way... you can see that in recent history.

If you commit a felony you get punished and will likely serve jail/prison time (depending), but that is not necessarily applied equally to Congress or the President.

the point there is that the system is broken and needs to be fixed... we can't always appeal to factual or scientific evidence because there seems to be a general apathy about the subject
or you can call it acceptance that politicians will be two faced and lie. ... when did it become a requirement though?

(for example) the W&Cheney administration was very much worse in this matter than the Obama/Biden administration has been.

personal perception and subjective - not all people agree, so i will not get into that here

but it does, in some ways, highlight the problem i pointed out above. perhaps it is time to create a third or fourth party to broaden the scope and represent the interest of the people?
I don't know of any good solutions. I can't say i know of anyone with a fix that will work.

i can't give good advice on this, nor will i ever be able to, likely, because i really hate politics.

 

[iceaura]

i never claimed they all degraded to the same degree... i claimed they're all degraded.

You stated it as an equivalence, which conceals the actual problem we face with the degradation of the Republican Party and - of key significance - the political media.

The Democratic Party is still functioning, by fits and starts in between media assaults, as a normal political Party. The Republican Party has been collapsed at the foundation and set on fire, is a wreck incapable of supporting functional government.

it's a matter of avoiding false equivalence in different levels of degradation, and remembering who to blame
... the blame is clear. the blame goes to the public and the apathetic.

No, it doesn't. There is a reality involved here. It's not a theoretical matter - there is history and event, fact and circumstance. The apathy of the public has been engineered, planned and exacerbated, by identifiable people doing things we have record of. So has the racial bigotry of the public, the ignorance of the public, and the confusion of the public. The active agents of this engineering are to blame for what they have been doing, not their victims.

it also demonstrates the problems in our gov't. with refusing to allow more diversity and holding to an almost fanatical two-party system that is out of date

There is nothing "fanatical" about the Democratic Party. Fanaticism is not a "both sides" problem. And it's not "the government" that is culling diversity from itself.

there is a LOT of middle ground that is not covered or doesn't receive the attention that should be given it because it is not contentious enough for the two main parties... and lets not even talk about the problems that parties have WRT scientific evidence and the refusal to accept it.

That's a major problem only with the Republican Party. The Dems do have middle ground coverage (although very little leftwing representation), and have few if any conflicts with scientific evidence in their programs etc.

it is also apparent (and visible) that they're not required to actually consider the people at all in their duties.(See your own SEN/REP voting history and compare it with the voters & opinions)

The Dem ones in my area compare quite well, with a couple of glitches. The Rep ones have been trouble pretty much continually.

The fact that many Sen/Reps - especially Republican ones - act and vote against their constituents's best interests without being turned out of office is of course a matter of journalism and communication - the cooption of US political media by a few wealthy men has proved effective in protecting them, these days by selling the rubes on the notion that "both sides" are to blame and all this bad stuff that keeps happening is everybody's fault.

however, if you look at the electoral college, there is no federal law the requires the electoral college to vote the will of the people/state

The electoral college has almost nothing to do with Congress or daily governance of the US. It votes on one matter only, once every four years, and so far has never defied the "will of the people".

(for example) the W&Cheney administration was very much worse in this matter than the Obama/Biden administration has been.
personal perception and subjective

No, it's not. These things are matters of fact. They are on record.

not all people agree, - -

So?

perhaps it is time to create a third or fourth party to broaden the scope and represent the interest of the people?

They already exist. Elect from among the politicians who represent the citizen's interests, recognize that as things stand no Republican politician above the county level can do that.

With the abortion issue as exhibit A.

 

[Tiassa]

With the abortion issue as exhibit A.

Here's a fun one: Given that this political dispute now includes asserting against a woman's right to undertake measures to avoid unwanted pregnancy, such as oral, intrauterine, and emergency contraception, and the right of doctors to deem whether or not a woman who has been forced to engage in sexual intercourse has been "honestly" or "legitimately" subjected to the "rape thing", is it really fair to call this the "abortion issue"?

And thank you for leading me to that question; it's occurred to me in some form, before, obviously, given the way I subsume this irrational opposition to contraception and abortion under the general label of misogyny, and while "health care" or "women's health" might seem too broad, the idea that this is "the abortion issue" strikes me as too narrow; for some reason yours was the line that highlighted the vector. In the end, this is a "forced pregnancy" issue, which is most certainly subsumed under human rights issues.

Which is also a perfect time to (ahem!) remember the Texas bill currently seeking a way forward, HB 3684, which would protect the (snort!) religious freedom of state agents who exercise their (cough!) conscience to withhold reproductive health care from sexually abused minor females↱.

(sigh)

To the one, yeah, the "abortion issue" is how it's known. To the other, well ... right. I mean, there will be times when it's focused on abortion, but this is a straight human rights struggle; I'm not certain what to call it for the sake of specificity, but, yeah, the "abortion issue" seems a little too narrow, given the "anti-abortion" movement's ambitions.

 

[Bowser]

That's fine. And I think abortion is wrong as well. However, I don't think it's my right to determine what everyone else does with their bodies.

And in most circumstances I would agree with you, but abortion involves more than just the woman's body. In a culture where second hand smoke is nearly a crime, I find it ironic that we have no regard for the life of the unborn.

 

[billvon]

And in most circumstances I would agree with you, but abortion involves more than just the woman's body. In a culture where second hand smoke is nearly a crime, I find it ironic that we have no regard for the life of the unborn.

?? We do. You can go to jail for killing a fetus during the commission of a crime. We just think that the woman's right to decide what to do with her body trumps the rights of the fetus.

 

[Bowser]

We just think that the woman's right to decide what to do with her body trumps the rights of the fetus.

I don't agree with that position, no more than I think it's okay to abandon your child outside the womb.

 

[billvon]

I don't agree with that position, no more than I think it's okay to abandon your child outside the womb.

I don't think that's OK either. I just don't think it's my place to make that decision.

 

[Bowser]

I don't think that's OK either. I just don't think it's my place to make that decision.

I suppose that I would question the importance of any other life, and whether I would be justified stepping in to save it. I understand your position, and the arguments for choice are not lost on me, yet I still feel that life is too valuable to be tossed in the disposal. Regardless, it's my opinion that abortion is too entrenched within our culture to just simply go away. What's it been, 50 years? Anyway, some day I might actually go to a clinic and make a statement on the matter.

 

[Bells]

I suppose that I would question the importance of any other life, and whether I would be justified stepping in to save it. I understand your position, and the arguments for choice are not lost on me, yet I still feel that life is too valuable to be tossed in the disposal. Regardless, it's my opinion that abortion is too entrenched within our culture to just simply go away. What's it been, 50 years?

Abortions have been happening for hundreds of years, if not more. Legal and safe abortions, where women are not risking life and limb to exercise their rights over their bodies have been around for around 50 or so years in the US.

The alternative is going to back to denying women their rights and say over their own bodies and risking more women dying. Is this acceptable for you?

Anyway, some day I might actually go to a clinic and make a statement on the matter.

Why?

Why do you feel the need to impose your beliefs and opinions on other people? Why do you feel the need to upset women who are facing such decisions by going in there and making your statement?

Do you want to reduce the number of abortions?

Encourage and support the clinics and organisations like Planned Parenthood who also run education programs on things like contraception, to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies to begin with. Support and call for, no, demand education programs in schools, which educate on all ranges of contraception available and encourage and support programs that allow young teenagers and young women and men to have easy and free access to contraception.

 

[Bowser]

Abortions have been happening for hundreds of years, if not more. Legal and safe abortions, where women are not risking life and limb to exercise their rights over their bodies have been around for around 50 or so years in the US.

The alternative is going to back to denying women their rights and say over their own bodies and risking more women dying. Is this acceptable for you?

Bells, rest assured, abortion is here to stay. Though we don't want to harm women, we also recognize the life within, and its importance, too. I would rather see money go towards prenatal care.

Why do you feel the need to impose your beliefs and opinions on other people? Why do you feel the need to upset women who are facing such decisions by going in there and making your statement?

Because in doing so I just might save a life. If I can convince someone to hold on to the life they carry, I've stopped an unnecessary death.

Do you want to reduce the number of abortions?

Of course I do. As for birth control and education, yes, it's already in our schools. I know how prevalent it is in our schools because I'm a parent.

 

[Daecon]

And what of the women who just don't want children?

 

[James R]

Bowser:

Though we don't want to harm women, we also recognize the life within, and its importance, too

You don't seem to appreciate that there is a conflict of interests at work. On the one hand, the foetus has an interest in continuing its life. On the other hand, the mother has an interest in having her health, her autonomy and her right to choose whether to have a child.

Why do you automatically privilege the rights of the foetus over the rights of the mother?

And, more importantly, why do you think you have a right to impose your decision as to what should be done on the mother?

Perhaps you can tell me how a pregnant woman's choice affects you. If you have no actual interest in the matter, why are you trying to dictate?

 

[Tiassa]

​

Abortions have been happening for hundreds of years, if not more.

Thousands, as I understand it.

Gustav Davidson includes, in A Dictionary of Angels:

Kasdaye (Kesdeya, Kasdeja)―a fallen angel who teaches "a variety of demonic practices, including abortion." Kasdaye is one of the 7 angels reported to have led the apostate angels, according to The Book of Enoch (Enoch 1), p. 69.​

And surely enough↗:

And the fifth was named Kasdeja: this is he who showed the children of men all the wicked smitings of spirits and demons, and the smitings of the embryo in the womb, that it may pass away, and [the smitings of the soul] the bites of the serpent, and the smitings which befall through the noontide heat, the son of the serpent named Taba'et.​

Enoch I was compiled over time, but the Book of the Watchers, from which this portion comes, is estimated to around 300 BCE. The oral history pedigree seems uncertain, though we can reasonably expect some aspect of Kasdeja existed in the oral tradition for some time before.

I have affection for the Kasdeja trivia; there is personal mythological symbolism about one of his co-conspirators.

Beyond that, it is generally asserted that the earliest known historical record of abortion is found in Hammurabi's Code, dated to the eighteenth century BCE.

The Book of Numbers also contains a passage in which a jealous husband can seek to inflict an abortion on his wife; the general date for Numbers is mid- to late-fifteenth century BCE.

And, you know, if Irenaeus of Lyon―he of the marvelous explanation for why there is only four Gospels―was the second-century (CE) intellectual equivalent of a televangelist, Tertullian was the third's version of a conservative radio host. And even Tertullian could argue for the life of the mother.

Not that Irenaeus is important to this particular story; I just like mocking him. And, yeah, Tertullian was no better, but could figure it out better than, say, some modern American conservatives.

There's actually a really bizarre historical juxtaposition in there. Galen had lived and died by Tertullian's time, and I mention him because he was one of the famous "hysteria" physicians whose work would see later centuries build sexual torture devices for women whose uteruses were (ahem!) "wandering" ... or, you know, who were just too much of a bitch. And one of Tertullian's standards for the life of the mother? Improper positioning of the fetus was part of the outlook, and why the hell not? I mean, surviving breech in third-century north Africa? But, hey, did you know they pretty much had D&C back then? Well, rudimentary. Proto. Probably quite brutal. Still, how can I not pause to wonder about the damage at stake if Tertullian is throwing in with women?

This seems ... significant. Welcome to the twenty-first century.
____________________

Notes:

Davidson, Gustav. A Dictionary of Angels, Including the Fallen Angels. New York: Free Press, 1967.

The Book of Enoch. Trans. R. H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. CCEL.org. 10 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1JW8H2V

 

[Bells]

Bells, rest assured, abortion is here to stay. Though we don't want to harm women, we also recognize the life within, and its importance, too. I would rather see money go towards prenatal care.

Instead of towards preventing pregnancies and providing women with better health care and support?

Why do you give more priority towards the possibility of a person instead of to the actual person carrying it?

Because in doing so I just might save a life.

No. You would not.

For all you know, the women or woman you apparently think you have the right to accost with your view may be there because her health is endangered, or the foetus is dying or dead or will not survive to term, hence why she is aborting it.

I have seen people like you pulling these stunts. On a friend of mine who had to endure an abortion because of a severe foetal abnormality that would have seen it die before birth. The distress she suffered from people like you abusing her, calling her names, 'trying to save a life' in the lectures and being berated walking into that clinic still haunts her and her husband to this day.

You aren't there to save a life. You are there to push your agenda on other people.

And frankly, seeing how you have been behaving of late on this site, what with your hateful comments and offensive images you have posted, you are not exactly a person I would trust to be in such a clinic. Which is why they have security guards posted in such clinics to protect women from people like you.

If I can convince someone to hold on to the life they carry, I've stopped an unnecessary death.

Why do you feel that you have the right to do something like that?

It isn't your place. It isn't your decision. Why do you believe that your opinions should trump the rights a woman has over her own body?

Of course I do. As for birth control and education, yes, it's already in our schools. I know how prevalent it is in our schools because I'm a parent.

I don't see what your being a parent has to do with it.

The reality of sex education:

• In 2006–2008, most teens aged 15–19 had received formal instruction about STIs (93%), HIV (89%) or abstinence (84%). However, about one-third of teens had not received any formal instruction about contraception; fewer males received this instruction than females (62% vs. 70%).[11]

• Many sexually experienced teens (46% of males and 33% of females) do not receive formal instruction about contraception before they first have sex.[12]

• About one in four adolescents aged 15-19 (23% of females and 28% of males) received abstinence education without receiving any instruction about birth control in 2006–2008[12], compared with 8–9% in 1995.[13]

• Among teens aged 18–19, 41% report that they know little or nothing about condoms and 75% say they know little or nothing about the contraceptive pill.[14]​

You were saying?

41% of teens between 18 and 19 years of age know little or nothing about condoms and 75% say they know little or nothing about the contraceptive pill. That is a frightening figure.

One third of teens have not received any formal instruction about contraception. That is another frightening figure.

What is clearly prevalent is a lack of education about birth control. Not the other way around as you seem to believe. In fact, what is taught to teenagers is often wrong.

Greater education about contraception is directly correlated to a decrease in risky sexual behavior among young adults, according to a new study.

But when researchers for the Guttmacher Institute surveyed 1,800 males and females aged 18-29, they found that more than half of young men and a quarter of young women proved to show little knowledge of contraceptive services. Six in 10 underestimated the effectiveness of oral contraceptives like birth control pills.

The more young people knew about contraception, the less likely they were to have unprotected sex: for every correct response on the survey, females' chances of expecting to have unprotected sex in the next three months decreased by 9 percent and the likelihood that she is using a hormonal or long-acting method of birth control increased by 17 percent.

Almost half of men and 69 percent of women surveyed said they were "committed to avoiding pregnancy," but for a significant number of them, that commitment doesn't come with precautionary measures, as 40 percent said birth control doesn't matter: "when it is your time to get pregnant, it will happen."

"Programs to increase young adults' knowledge about contraceptive methods and use are urgently needed," the study concludes. "Given the demonstrated link between method knowledge and contraceptive behaviors, such programs may be useful in addressing risky behavior in this population."

Abstinence-only sex education programs are often criticized for failing to prevent unintended pregnancies, resulting from misinformation or simply lack of information regarding contraceptives. The curriculum has also been found to teach that condoms have a 30 percent rate of failure, birth control pills can cause cancer and pregnancy could result from touching another's genitals.​

 

[Capracus]

We just think that the woman's right to decide what to do with her body trumps the rights of the fetus.

Yes, we, as in most state governments and the people they represent have put limits on what a woman can do with her body regarding the disposition of her fetus.

I don't agree with that position, no more than I think it's okay to abandon your child outside the womb.

The longer a pregnancy goes, the more valid your position becomes. The only thing that separates a late term fetus and a preterm child outside the womb is its location.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Bowser, do you think the time a sperm enters an egg, God has just made a new soul, or something?

 

[iceaura]

I understand your position, and the arguments for choice are not lost on me, yet I still feel that life is too valuable to be tossed in the disposal.

No, you don't.

You are not being honest with yourself. You place no more value on the life of a human embryo or early fetus than anyone else does, and are perfectly happy to see it tossed into the garbage or flushed down the toilet alive in almost every circumstance where that is routine.

The only circumstance in which you object to tossing that life in the disposal is if a woman wants to abort her pregnancy. It's the will of the woman, not the life of the embryo, that motivates your objections.

The longer a pregnancy goes, the more valid your position becomes. The only thing that separates a late term fetus and a preterm child outside the womb is its location.

Which is of course exactly the Court decision in Roe vs Wade.