Is Abortion Murder?

[Bells]

By pro life reckoning, over a million human lives are taken annually, and your response is to counsel the offenders to stop the slaughter. If instead of a million fetuses, it were a million new born babies, would your actions still be limited to nonviolent intervention?

The guy already views abortion as 'murdering babies'. He has said he wants to go and protest in front of a clinic. Do you really think ramping up this kind of rhetoric is wise, when taken with your whole "location" stance you keep arguing? And especially in light of the fact that such rhetoric is what often leads to and encourages violence against the clinics and the staff and patients who attend or work there..

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

That isn't true. You are simply assuming such people arguing from such evidence exist. They don't.

Ryggson. phys.org. he claims all DEM's are pushing for socialist gov't... in fact, he actually is arguing that DEM's are trying to institute Communist gov't because he doesn't comprehend the difference between socialism and communism. feel free to follow him for a while if you don't believe me.

subjectivity.
fanaticism

The closest you get are people recognizing but denying the evidence I use, occasionally - mostly, the people who try to argue from evidence that all politics is equally degraded and the Dems are as screwed up as the Reps and so forth simply invent what they need or treat hypotheticals as facts in order to do that.

and the people like Rygg say the exact same thing about people like you.

Again...
subjectivity.
fanaticism

That's Republican Party propaganda.

call it what you want: it is my personal opinion. i am not getting it from some rhetoric or party line, nor propaganda. i am basing my opinion on my personal experiences in my life with what i've seen in the US and around the world.

this problem is also not specific to the US, either, as my experiences are from around the world. nor is it specific to DEM/REPUB... it is politics. politics is crap. PERIOD.

You specifically mentioned abortion as an issue illustrating Democratic Party fanaticism - so where is it?

show me, by quoting me and linking the post, where i specifically said abortion is an illustration of DEM party fanaticism!

your fanaticism (specific to you) is making you bait and troll post with your particular "interpretations" of what i am saying, including your post

how you have slipped from claiming to understand and perceive that "both sides" are not equivalently or equally degraded (above), to implying that seeing Dem and Rep fanaticism equally means they are equally fanatical.

this is your personal assumption of what i wrote. i thought it was pretty clear, but i am not going to flood the thread with BS arguments with a subjective political fanatic who is going to assume, because i don't like politics and i think all parties are crap, that i am a republican spouting party line BS, or that i am simply following REPUB propaganda because i hate politics.

you are nothing more than a repeat "PO site ryggson" trying to argue the opposite perspective of ryggy and baiting, IMHO

so... lets trim down the response and start with this:
produce my specific comment where i "...specifically mentioned abortion as an issue illustrating Democratic Party fanaticism"

because IMHO - when you make a quote like this:

Well, you're wrong about that. The Democratic Party, as an institution, exhibits no fanaticism.

but then you turn around and state

the people who try to argue from evidence that all politics is equally degraded and the Dems are as screwed up as the Reps and so forth simply invent what they need or treat hypotheticals as facts in order to do that

Well, you are handing me the marketing slogans and talking points and propaganda canards of the media strategists backing the current Republican Party political efforts.

That's Republican Party propaganda.

Well, you're wrong about that. The Democratic Party, as an institution, exhibits no fanaticism.

They don't. Except possibly regarding guns - which I have named as a unique issue four times now - they sell only rightwing corporate propaganda, much of it Republican Party in origin, none of it Dem.

I state flatly that there is no integrity in the modern Republican Party, and that the Democratic Party still has some as a normal political Party . It's not an implication, it's an explicit observation plainly made.

you are demonstrating not only DEM rhetoric and personal allegiance, but also the fanaticism i pointed out earlier!

and like i said, you can find fanaticism in all parties, just like your above fanaticism of Pro DEM arguments shows your allegiance despite your claims.

you will see the same argument and rhetoric from Ryggy, BTW... all used to demonstrate the DEM's are pro-communism/socialism.
does it make it true? no (subjectivity)
does your belief in what you posted above make it true? no (subjectivity)
the subject is politics, and should be relegated to a political argument thread, where you can go at it all day long with those who like posting about political BS...

you say i am not giving any evidence... but you also say

I have no cause here, no particular fondness for the Democratic Party, no allegiance to its positions on things

whereas, looking at the posts you've posted to me about DEM's, REPUB's etc, you clearly support DEM politics and feel that REPUB party is without integrity. when you state

I state flatly that there is no integrity in the modern Republican Party, and that the Democratic Party still has some as a normal political Party . It's not an implication, it's an explicit observation plainly made

but you must then follow with

And notice that this is not fanaticism - I have no cause here

that means you must specify and single out your fanatical POV, but then somehow justify it or qualify it as non-fanatical????

you stated to me, about my posts (which were personal anecdote)

You keep posting stuff like this as if it meant something. Having disagreements or conflicting views does not make people equally whacko. Once again: there is reality involved

i don't ever state disagreement makes people "whacko"... i said my personal experience where people use the same evidence is proof of subjectivity in politics.

it does mean something when a person has (again, personally) experienced that , no matter where you turn, there will be someone making the argument pro- or con- using the same evidence to support the argument from either side of DEM or REPUB party lines...
this means, per my own experiences [as noted already, mind you] and what i've seen in my life, i can personally conclude that politics are subjective and, like philosophy, you can take the same evidence and argue that it applies to either side as pro- arguments, etc


I will say it again,

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

feel free to continue promoting the DEM's as some sterling example of political integrity.
that is your prerogative.

I will believe it when i see a pig fly under it's own power without mechanical or other assistance.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

iceaura
one last point: your posts are swinging well towards conspiracy ideation, IMHO.

 

[Tiassa]

Anarchy in Crisis: Duck, duck, duck, duck, duck, duck, duck-dodge!​

And especially in light of the fact that such rhetoric is what often leads to and encourages violence against the clinics and the staff and patients who attend or work there.

Read in its context, it would appear our neighbor has just declared his sympathies with terrorism. More sympathetically, if we recall notions like turduckens and real estate, we simply come back to a point where I turn to Beer w/Straw in order to mumble something about redefinition of words and the implications thereof.

Striking to me, though, is that if we roll back to #491↑, there is a running conversation over the last twenty-four hours, involving several members, and especially in light of the discussion I had with Beer w/Straw, as well as your posts―even Bowser knows the score on this point about rhetoric and action; see #527↑―it just seems a bit too (ahem!) "perfect" that our neighbor Capracus would pop off with, at best, such snug-fitting insensitivity↑ toward the discussion as to make my point about redefinition↑, and somehow end up exactly lending his voice in support of terrorism. One stone, how many birds? It's like turducken pinball.

And the whole thing, as Capracus demonstrates, hinges on redefining words.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

One stone, how many birds? It's like turducken pinball.

a little OT... but.... i just gotta... the imagery is too much to pass up!
this would make a great game!

 

[Tiassa]

​

a little OT... but.... i just gotta... the imagery is too much to pass up!
this would make a great game!

Bonus multipliers for Shotgun Wedding (2x), Thanksgiving Dinner (3x), and Triplets (9x). And get Stephanie Rogers (a.k.a., "Bride of Pinbot"↱) to say, "Come again?"

 

[iceaura]

Ryggson. phys.org. he claims all DEM's are pushing for socialist gov't... in fact, he actually is arguing that DEM's are trying to institute Communist gov't because he doesn't comprehend the difference between socialism and communism.

So he's not "arguing" from "the same evidence". Like I said - they can't.

And he and his views have representation in the Republican Party and in major US media; nobody who mirrors his rhetoric and crazy on the "other side" of major issues has official power or standing in the Democratic Party, or a job expounding them on major news outlets.

i don't ever state disagreement makes people "whacko" -

You have stated that you perceive equivalence, equality, in the degradation and "fanaticism" (your term, I preferred others not as narrowed) of the two Parties. Whacko is my term for this feature of Republican positions on three or four dozen matters, and you claim to see Dem equality in this.

Nobody said disagreement itself makes people whacko. You said the existence of disagreement itself is evidence people are equally fanatical - that is one of your repeated claims.

it does mean something when a person has (again, personally) experienced that , no matter where you turn, there will be someone making the argument pro- or con- using the same evidence to support the argument from either side of DEM or REPUB party lines.

Without providing a single example of such an "argument" from such demonstrated sameness in "evidence".

Without even recognizing the key matter at issue: the supposed consistent presence of this situation in the many, many conflicts in which the Republicans are generally and officially and obviously whacko. (Including abortion, right here and thread relevant).

The meaning there, in other words, is that the identity of your perception of your experiences with Republican campaign rhetoric and media propaganda efforts is not a coincidence, and not derived from the real world.

that means you must specify and single out your fanatical POV, but then somehow justify it or qualify it as non-fanatical????
- - -
feel free to continue promoting the DEM's as some sterling example of political integrity.

See, this kind of goofy is where I am getting the obvious observation of the nature of your position here:
-> I have never, not even close, promoted the Dems as sterling examples of integrity and virtue. If you read my posts above you will find nothing of the kind in any of them. I have always referred to the Dems as - at best - a normal political Party. I have never described normal political Parties as sterling examples of integrity. I have repeatedly referred to the Dems as also having been degraded to a degree, especially by these efforts I complain about by the faction I deplore.

So, and this is central: There is nothing in reality to support your very silly and insulting assertion there, and it is of a piece with your claims of Dem fanaticism etc: you simply assume the presence of things not visible, not present, because they are necessary for your claims that both Parties, both sides, everybody, the public, the government, and so forth, is to blame for this degradation of politics and corruption of Parties and consequent apathy, fanaticism, etc.

It's not true. The degradation and corruption of the Republican Party, the degraded and cooperating major media, their delusions and slander and behavior and authoritarian rightwing agenda, are not mirrored by the Democratic Party or any media of equivalent presence or influence. There is a reality involved. You're looking at a resurgence of fascism in American politics, and it's not everybody's fault.

And so we see that the positions on abortion here are fanatical on "one side" only - the side with full representation in the Republican Party. Nobody here is talking about picketing their local fundie church with signs saying "Murderers", for example. If a group of people with a position on abortion is picketing a building, screaming and spitting and waving horrible pictures photoshopped for effect and dishonestly described, they are probably not in front of an "Evangelical" church and voting Democratic. We all know this, right?

 

[billvon]

Presumably he is advocating that abortion should be illegal. At the point where it is made illegal, somebody is imposing their beliefs on women.

Agreed. But he has as much right to argue for that as I have to (for example) argue that we should be switching to renewable energy more quickly than we are currently doing. At the point where a renewable energy mandate is enacted (as it has been in several states) then _I_ am forcing my beliefs on people. I think the tradeoffs (more expensive but cleaner energy) is worth it. Others may disagree and that's fine too.

I think women should have the ultimate say over what happens within their bodies - but I will defend other people's right to say that they think I am wrong.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Read in its context, it would appear our neighbor has just declared his sympathies with terrorism. More sympathetically, if we recall notions like turduckens and real estate, we simply come back to a point where I turn to Beer w/Straw in order to mumble something about redefinition of words and the implications thereof.

The Criminal Code of Canada

Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[4] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."

Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group.

Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

It is a cloudy issue. Are doctors, more specifically abortion doctors, considered an identifiable group? I'm not a lawyer but I'd say KKK rallies are illegal (in Canada) but anti-abortion rallies are not.

Rallies that incite violence are illegal, however. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html

 

[Tiassa]

Targets

It is a cloudy issue. Are doctors, more specifically abortion doctors, considered an identifiable group? I'm not a lawyer but I'd say KKK rallies are illegal (in Canada) but anti-abortion rallies are not.

They're not protected like ethnicity or religion. Indeed, our history suggests something of the opposite.

In the Gay Fray, sometimes I mention ideas like book banning and the heavy metal (music) wars. It seems like a strange comparison, but it's the same device when it comes to the objection to gay rights; indeed, my own entry to this debate started with a book banning. But like an identifying Christian mother explained when protesting a Robert McCammon novel in a school libary over the presence of the word "demon", her First Amendment right to free religion is inherently violated by his First Amendmnet right to free speech.

It's not quite the same in the American abortion debate, but there is a common aspect.

The reason the music and literature protests found success under this logic was essentially a valence of background or ambient supremacism.

Consider the Gay Fray, though; where there is a Christian assertion of free religion against marriage equality, why is any assertion of free religion for gay marriage so automatically suspect? On those grounds alone, this should have been over in 2003 after Lawrence v. Texas, except a free religion and expression argument for gay marriage was never accepted.

This is because it runs against the presupposition.

"Christian" has essentially functioned as the presupposition. The Old Testament features an episode in which God punishes a man for not raping his late brother's widow properly, i.e., as God instructed him to; God's most famous repentence is regret that a genocide was not properly completed; there is a bit about genital mutilation followed by mass murder, at God's instruction. Comparatively, we might say the protests against sex and violence in literature never really were about sex and violence itself, but, rather, sex and violence that offended Christian mores. And that always was the argument, that in offending Christian decency one offended all decency. The obscenity standard includes a notion of whether a work can be said to have socially redeeming artistic value, and that value was effectively measured according to Christian mores, often ad hoc.

This presumption is illustrated in the twenty-first century, indeed, in 2015, by a bizarre episode out of the Idaho legislature. This is the presupposition of "equality": The Idaho legislature regularly opens its business day with a Christian prayer; when one day it hapened that the invocation was delivbered by a Hindu guest chaplain, three state senators boycotted. The general sentiment arising in the resulting controversy was essentially that in order to be equal, the Hindu chaplain should have been chaperoned by a Christian who would then offer a Christian prayer. Or, as state Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll (R-08)↱ in particular explained: "I would've been fine if we had also had a Christian prayer."

And this is the way it has always been; "Christian" has been the political, legislative, and juristic baselines for normalcy. Those days are ending, but the human rights of women will likely be the last holdout; history shows that women's rights in the United Statse are largely doled out by Christian males, and in the context that women are expected to justify themselves and their human rights to ad hoc Christian presuppositions against, we should also note that women being so educated and uppity as to merely assert their human rights is also a circumstance that offends these poseur Christianities. And, yet, it goes on, and on, and on.

By the time we get to the Summer of Mercy, the year Roe v. Wade would have been old enough to vote, the doctors really didn't have much of a chance. The right to intimidate was inherent in the asserted Christian right to free speech; the courts didn't start intervening until activists went beyond mere obstruction and were well into the range of actual assaults against clinic patients and staff. And this was still controversial because the courts, as the argument went, were unjustly persecuting Christian free speech.

It is worth reiterating that Dr. Tiller's clinic was ground zero for the so-called Summer of Mercy. Twenty years later, Operation Rescue claimed credit for a terrorist victory against reproductive health practice, and specifically the doctor who would replace George Tiller. In that cycle I would propose you can calculate to a reasonable degree the manner in which doctors are considered an identifiable group.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

You said the existence of disagreement itself is evidence people are equally fanatical - that is one of your repeated claims.

then quote it
while you are at it... quote me in your other claim (as i requested above) too

Without even recognizing the key matter at issue: the supposed consistent presence of this situation in the many, many conflicts in which the Republicans are generally and officially and obviously whacko. (Including abortion, right here and thread relevant).

The meaning there, in other words, is that the identity of your perception of your experiences with Republican campaign rhetoric and media propaganda efforts is not a coincidence, and not derived from the real world.

again: spoken like a true fanatic

I have never, not even close, promoted the Dems as sterling examples of integrity and virtue

no, you don't specifically state that... but your arguments, and the quotes i posted, intimate this is your position, despite your specific quote i also listed

There is nothing in reality to support your very silly and insulting assertion there, and it is of a piece with your claims of Dem fanaticism etc:

actually, i think that my post and your own quotes actually do support my claims, as i noted above, quoted above, and explained above
which is why i posted it (above)

are you going to continue this? because it is becoming tiresome to continue arguing this over and over with your own quotes supporting my claims

the basic gist: politics is subjective to the individual
you can't see the evidence because that would violate your own world view (this can be tied to conspiracy ideation... i can link some of those studies, but i doubt you will get the point regarding your "political" ideation you are posting above,... for obvious reasons)

i can tell that regardless of what i post, you will simply pull a "realitycheck/undefined" and run in circles promoting your perspective on the subject... you don't want to see any POV other than your own in this specific topic, and i don't feel like wasting more time...

So, before i will answer again:
show me my requested quotes (from this and the last post) and make your point

if not... i will not continue to reply to you, as it is nothing but feeding you and your religious like fanatical belief system... and that is not a "silly and insulting assertion", because i feel, given my posts above and quotes of your own words, that i have justified that particular point, and very well, i might add.
Thanks

 

[Tiassa]

​

the basic gist: politics is subjective to the individual

Might I interject long enough to pose a counterpoint question?

What about history?​

That is to say, a certain amount of how we perceive and comprehend history is certainly subjective to the individual, such as whether a vote against an omnibus was a vote against a specific component of the legislation, but there is also the historical record.

Indeed, the omnibus question presents an example. Do you remember Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) crossing party lines in 2004 to speak at the Republican National Convention in support of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? Whether Sen. Kerry voted against the F-15 Eagle, the AH-64 Apache, and so on, was a question derived from a series of procedural votes over a defense omnibus package tailored to the wishes and desires of the Poppy Bush administration; military leaders loathed the budget. But do you remember that list? Because it is subjective to the individual whether John Kerry voted against the procedure or package to the one, or the component―F-15 Eagle, AH-64 Apache, and so on. That is the political subjectivity, even if it must pretend or actually operate within such ignorance of the Beltway and its processes and rituals.

However, what is historical fact insofar as it is the objective reality of the historical record, is that as Defense Secretary under Poppy Bush, Dick Cheney went before the House Armed Services Committee in 1989 and recommended the termination of the F-15 Eagle, AH-64 Apache, and other programs, such that if you compare Cheney's and Miller's lists, it is obvious the Georgia Democrat was giving the Vice President specific cover.

Okay, so two more cents. I remember learning at a young age that all politicians lie. And what it seems people meant at the time, for this is how it was described and explained and lamented, was grandiose campaign promises broken―you can't believe a word they say come election time, that sort of thing. And it seemed wise enough. But the whole time I've been politically aware, that standard has been stretching, and sequentially speaking it is pushed by Republicans.

And it is a prisoner's dilemma, for everyone involved. Who will break first? Because I can complain about Republican escalation, and I can complain about Democratic stooping, but the marketplace demands; this sleazy politicking wins elections, and is a fundamental device in a slow, steady, rightward drift of our effective political center that saw 2007 Congressional Democrats to the right of 1970s Republicans on the question of domestic espionage. Holding the line for Roe v. Wade is now seen as wildly liberal instead of liberally centrist. We're revisiting birth control. It's been happening my whole political life.

And the thing is, the whole time it seems history itself has been irrelevant to that particular aspect of the subjectivity of politics. There are people I know who once upon a time would have been horrified, even insulted by the prognostication that someday Republican presidential candidates would be celebrating an evangelical Christian who asserted that equality included the right of Christians to decide who gets civil rights. Give them a Kim Davis, or even a bakery in Oregon or Indiana, and quite suddenly public square discrimination is supposed to be a reasonable, mainstream assertion. Admittedly, though, gay rights seems to be the place where society is trying to put its foot down.

Not so for women's rights, I might add. We'll see how bad the current cycle gets, but it's already achieved disaster status.

Does it matter that the historical record showing Larry Thurlow of "Swiftboat" infamy was lying came to public light before the election? It didn't seem to matter to the scandal. Does it matter that a journalistic titan such as Jim Lehrer argued that it's not his job to report whether what he's being told is true or false, even when he knows it's false? It would seem to.

The politics might be subjective, but the historical record is what it is. And even accounting for persuasive argument in general, sales in particular, and American politics specifically beyond that, it is also true that our policy discourse is dominated by two sides and one of them flat out makes shit up.

I mention this because it's kind of the reason some people prick up their ears when they hear something that sounds like effective equivocation.

The politics are subjective, but there is an historical record. And we can argue about its meaning, significance, and even reliability, but in that general dichotomy tearing at our society, one of those subjective politics demonstrates a frequent and potent tendency to simply make it all up as they go. And this, too, I believe is important.

 

[iceaura]

"Without even recognizing the key matter at issue: the supposed consistent presence of this situation in the many, many conflicts in which the Republicans are generally and officially and obviously whacko. (Including abortion, right here and thread relevant).

The meaning there, in other words, is that the identity of your perception of your experiences with Republican campaign rhetoric and media propaganda efforts is not a coincidence, and not derived from the real world."
again: spoken like a true fanatic

No, that's not how fanatics speak. Reread. Notice that you cannot tell what cause I am supposed to be fanatically devoted to.

I'm pointing out that you have presented no basis for any of your claims, and are failing to deal with a key assumption of your claims which also happens to be a matter at hand. I specified the assumption involved - "the supposed consistent presence of this situation in the many, many conflicts in which the Republicans are generally and officially and obviously whacko". This is the language of casual but careful discussion. It - the complete sentence - is also an accurate observation.

the basic gist: politics is subjective to the individual

That doesn't bail you out when you say things that are false.

no, you don't specifically state that... but your arguments, and the quotes i posted, intimate this is your position,

My arguments and quotes specifically and explicitly contradict any such "intimation". I explicitly state that I see the Democratic Party as partly degraded, and a normal political Party, and so forth. I use that exact language, repeatedly, throughout this thread. I make no argument based on any claim of unusual virtue and integrity in the Democratic Party. I do make claims specifically dependent on visible deficits of virtue and integrity in the Democratic Party. You have absolutely no basis in reality for claiming my position is that the Democratic Party is a sterling example of virtue and integrity.

Yet you make that claim.

What you are doing throughout, in your dismissal of all politics and all Parties equivalently as "crap, period", is perhaps best illustrated by your taking my disparagements of the Republican Party for signs of fanatical allegiance to the Democratic Party. That is invalid logic, an error of fact, without basis in evidence, and exactly aligned with Republican propaganda efforts to frame all political conflicts in the US as involving two sides, two Parties, two factions, equivalently irrational and extreme. That's a major line they are currently pushing, in a blatant attempt to spread as widely as possible the blame for the consequences of their actions and their agenda and their political behaviors since Nixon. You appear to have bought it hook, line, and sinker.

And you can see others making similar claims, similarly based, relevant to this thread specifically. It's standard, in the abortion debate, to attempt to frame the current political efforts to have the State forbid or punish voluntary abortion as one side of a disagreement involving two sides equivalently reasonable, equivalently rational, equivalently populated with extremists and fanatics but not characterized by them. That delusion favors the fanatic, the violent, the irrational, the self-deluded misogynist or male supremecist, by handing them a draw in the arena of reason in which they would otherwise fail, thereby handing tie-breaking advantage to their violence etc.

Handing falsehood, slander, misrepresentation, bad faith, and propaganda, a presumptive draw in the arena of reason, is capitulation to their purveyors. All they want is a draw.

It's a corollary of the observation "all that is necessary is that good men do nothing".

 

[Capracus]

The guy already views abortion as 'murdering babies'. He has said he wants to go and protest in front of a clinic. Do you really think ramping up this kind of rhetoric is wise, when taken with your whole "location" stance you keep arguing? And especially in light of the fact that such rhetoric is what often leads to and encourages violence against the clinics and the staff and patients who attend or work there..

Let Bowser answer for himself, seeing how it’s his interpretation of the issue that in question, not yours. As for ramping up the hostility of the pro-life crowd, what about the thousands of viable late term fetuses that your Dry Foot Policy sanctions for potential extermination?

 

[Daecon]

thousands of viable late term fetuses that your Dry Foot Policy sanctions for potential extermination

Do you have a citation for that?

 

[Bells]

Let Bowser answer for himself, seeing how it’s his interpretation of the issue that in question, not yours. As for ramping up the hostility of the pro-life crowd, what about the thousands of viable late term fetuses that your Dry Foot Policy sanctions for potential extermination?

Yes Capracus. I "urge" women who are pregnant to get abortions..

Oh wait.. No.. That's you.

You still have issues with grasping reality, don't you?

The way you word your argument is disingenuous. Because you seem to believe that women are waiting until 35 weeks to abort. Is that what you believe? Do you think these abortions are held off until the point of viability for fun? It costs thousands of dollars to have one later on in the pregnancy. It isn't a lifestyle choice. More often than not, it is because of foetal abnormality or the mother's health.

Let's go back to 27 weeks.. Women often do not find out about certain foetal abnormalities until well after the 24 week mark. My friend found out at just over 30 week gestation. You also ignore the fact that women often cannot afford or be able to obtain an abortion in the first trimester, due to laws and the costs of obtaining one earlier. Do you think these women should be forced to continue with the pregnancy? Yes or no? Do you think the State should have the right to remove a woman's rights and choice over her own body because she is pregnant and the foetus might be viable? Would you be willing for the State to remove your rights over your testicles because of its life producing possibilities? How about if they controlled what you could or could not do, such as take medication or any decisions the integrity of your reproductive rights?

Do you think that a woman's body should be controlled by the State? At what point should the State step in and impose its laws on her uterus? 24 weeks? Okay. So the foetus is viable at 24 weeks. Let's just go with that. What if the woman falls ill and cannot survive giving birth or cannot continue with the pregnancy and the foetus is not "viable" yet, past the 24 weeks in that its lungs have not developed enough to ensure its safe survival? Should the State impose its law on her uterus and force her to continue with the pregnancy until the foetus is viable and risk her life? Or should she be allowed to exercise her rights over her body and health? After all, if the only thing you are so hung up on is the viability of the foetus, it stands to reason that her rights are completely removed and her rights to her life are completely removed. Since, you know, competing interests and what not. If you want a prime example of what happens when the viability of the foetus becomes paramount:

Years ago, a Washington, D.C., hospital got a court order to perform a c-section on Angela Carder, who was gravely ill with cancer. Since the mom was in such poor health, the hospital's doctors believed that delivering the 26-week fetus immediately would give it a better chance of survival than waiting for a natural delivery. The result? Carder and her baby both died soon after the operation. Later, in a landmark 1990 ruling, an appeals court overturned the order, finding that Carder had a right to make medical decisions for herself and her unborn child. Her family also received an undisclosed financial settlement from the hospital.
​

All in the name of foetal viability and foetal rights over the rights of the mother. She did not consent to the surgery. It was forced on her. She lived just enough for them to tell her the baby had died, and then she died very soon after.

Are you aware that foetal viability is now often used to force women to have c-sections without their consent? Some hospitals even seeking court orders to remove the woman's rights over her own body and forcing invasive and dangerous surgeries which can and will impact on her reproductive health and choices?

Do you understand the fact that by giving the 'viable' foetus equal rights, you are automatically denying the woman her rights? Yes? No? Well clearly you are, because you are still carrying on with this ridiculous argument and now appearing to incite others to consider the possibilities that 'they are exterminating babies' after he said he plans to protest at abortion clinics.. with the full knowledge that such protests often incite acts of violence and even terrorism and murder. So why, pray tell, would you actually go out of your way to incite him further based on your fallacious and disingenuous argument? Why do that?

For all of your bleating about 'viable' foetus, what about the absolute extermination of the rights of the woman over her own body? You know, since you are bringing such language to the table, what about the extermination of the woman's rights and autonomy? She ceases to exist? What? You're going to strap her to a bed or jail her and force her to give birth against her will?

In late 1998, two prisoners seeking abortions made headlines. In Cleveland, Ohio, Judge Patricia Cleary sentenced a pregnant woman to jail specifically to prevent her from obtaining an abortion. The judge gave Yuriko Kawaguchi six months for credit card forgery, instead of the probation typical for that offense. What is more surprising is that Judge Cleary didn’t try to cover up what she was doing; rather, she declared in court: “I’m saying she [Kawaguchi] is not having a second-term abortion.” 7​

Perhaps even cut it out of her without consent because foetal rights over-ride a woman's personhood?

The National Advocates for Pregnant Women compiled a report of 413 cases between 1973 and 2005 in which pregnant women – strictly because they were pregnant – had their physical liberty infringed upon (including 30 incidents of forced C-sections or other medical interventions).

When Laura Pemberton refused a C-section in Florida in 1996, for example, she was taken into custody by a sheriff and state's attorney who showed up at her house. Her legs were strapped and she was forced to go to the hospital for surgery. Tellingly, she was given no representation but a lawyer was appointed to her fetus. When Pemberton later sued for civil rights violations, the US district court in Florida ruled against her, saying that her rights were outweighed by the state's interest "in preserving the life of the unborn child".​

You know, in the name of viability and the like..

But that's right. She doesn't count, does she?

 

[Capracus]

Do you have a citation for that?

In 2011, 1.06 million abortions were performed, down 13% from 1.21 million in 2008. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred.

Of those 1.06 million, 1.4% were done after 21 weeks which translates to about 15,000 abortions. The number done after 24 weeks may be under 1000.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#Incidence

 

[Kittamaru]

so... if we would manage to eliminate abortion... what would /should be done to ensure these new children are supported, taught, cared for, and groomed to be productive members of society, rather than being forced to live in poverty...?

 

[Daecon]

So not really "thousands of viable late term fetuses" then.

 

[Bowser]

so... if we would manage to eliminate abortion... what would /should be done to ensure these new children are supported, taught, cared for, and groomed to be productive members of society, rather than being forced to live in poverty...?

Ideally we would give them every opportunity available. I'm willing to sacrifice half the military budget, but I don't know that throwing money at the problem is a solution.