Is Abortion Murder?

[Bells]

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.

So, you don't think they should abort, but you don't think or see how 'throwing money' for the care of those children is a solution.

Why not just make you all pay more in taxes to care for "the babies"? I mean it's what? Just over $240,000 on average per child, from birth to 18 years of age? That is for healthy children of course. Once the child has a medical condition, requires medical care, that will go up.

You're fine with paying more taxes for "those babies"?

 

[Capracus]

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

A fetus can be viable as early as 21weeks. Qualitative sentience is the gray area yet to be conclusively established, and is generally considered to be anywhere from 24-28 weeks, but could be earlier or later. So depending on where it’s ultimately established would settle the question of whether it’s hundreds, thousands, or none at all if you’re Peter Singer.

In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[20]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide

 

[Bells]

Oh for God's sake..

Foetal viability depends on a range of factors. Foetal health, for one. It's weight. It's development. Whether its lungs are capable and able to breath after birth and if not, how much steroids they can pump into it while in utero. The mother's health. The health of her placenta.

Can it draw breath? Okay. But what then?

Most obstetrician-gynecologists understand fetal viability as occurring near 24 weeks gestation utilizing LMP dating. Submitted testimony by supporters of HR 3803 presents misleading evidence about fetal viability, especially in using post-fertilization age, instead of LMP dating, falsely implying high survival rates among neonates that are overwhelmingly pre-viable. While quoting survival of live-born infants in a June 2009 JAMA study, the testifier does not mention that the vast majority of infants born prior to 24 completed weeks (LMP) died prior to or during birth. In this study, 93% of infants at 22 weeks died, 66% at 23 weeks, and 40% at 24 weeks2 . 91% of those that lived were admitted to the NICU.

Also not mentioned by the testifier is the fact that survival alone is not the only endpoint for neonatologists. Intact survival is. In this same study, 98% of infants born at 22 weeks (LMP) and 91% born at 23 weeks (LMP) had at least one major medical problem, such as hemorrhaging brain or bowel2 . The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn states that “the incidence of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability in surviving children assessed at the age of 18 to 30 months is high (approximately 30 to 50%)3 ” and remains at that high level until 25 weeks (LMP). Babies delivered at these gestational ages often suffer hemorrhaging bowel, blindness, deafness, and stroke, as a result of their premature delivery​

There is viability, and then there is a quality of life issue.

Most born before 24 weeks die. Most born at 24 weeks or shortly after suffer from severe medical issues even with extreme medical intervention if they manage to survive.

In parts of Australia, for example, they recommend no life sustaining measures prior to 24-25 weeks for a premature birth. Usually at around 24 weeks, depending on the baby's medical state, it is up to the parents, but not recommended. After 25 weeks, they will provide it if they see it as being viable and if there is a chance to not result in a baby with severe abnormalities that would result in a diminished quality of life for it.

Saying a foetus is viable at 21 weeks is disingenuous because it is not "viable". It is based on a case by case basis. Some are born at 26 weeks and die because they were not viable. There are so many variables that can and do occur and it should never be a blanket statement.

And frankly, your argument is offensive to the countless of parents who elect no extraordinary measures for their premature babies born before 24 weeks. Because by your reasoning, those parents and the doctors and nurses and the medical system that does not provide or recommend such measures are tantamount to murderers.

 

[Capracus]

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

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

I urge women to do lots of things that I feel would be appropriate for their particular needs.

Like:

Who to vote for.

To seek medical attention when seriously sick or injured.

To talk to a competent attorney regarding legal issues.

And yes, to get an abortion if they don’t want to remain pregnant.

How you people got this bug up your asses over the usage of "urge" is beyond me. It’s just so fucking ridiculous.

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.

Are you saying that because the majority of women who abort late term do it for valid medical reasons, there should be no restrictions in place for those who don’t?

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?

If the state is going to criminalize late term abortions, then it’s up to women to make sure that they remain aware of their maternal status, and the state should facilitate this goal by offering no cost pregnancy screening.

I would have no problem with the state requiring reversible sterilization for all individuals reaching a state of fertility. Those who wished to exercise the privilege of parenthood could be trained, certified and allowed to do so, just like any other social activity that has significant health and safety implications. Why require certification to operate a car or a plane, but not to conceive and raise a child?

In case you haven’t noticed, there are these things called drug laws that restrict what kind of substances you can legally ingest.

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?

All rights have their associated responsibilities. Do you think that women should have a responsibility to be aware of their state of maternity? Should they take the possibility of becoming pregnant more seriously and exercise the necessary precautions to maintain control of it? If women don’t want to expose themselves to the dangers pregnancy, they need to get out of it early, or avoid it altogether.

You think the pro-life crowd appreciates that I condone 99% of the slaughter they abhor? Remember, I’m the guy you expect to drag his daughter kicking and screaming into the clinic through their protest line.

The reality though is that the vast majority of pro-lifers are nonviolent in their opposition, including those willing to physically engage in protests. I would say that the labor and social justice movements are inherently more violent than pro-life, yet I doubt that you would deny them right to protest under the same rationale.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Um... Did you just say something to the affect that woman should require certification to conceive?

 

[James R]

Capracus:

Um.. did you just say something to the effect that women should be told by you who to vote for?

 

[Kristoffer]

That's the way I read it, too.

 

[Bells]

I urge women to do lots of things that I feel would be appropriate for their particular needs.

Like:

Who to vote for.

To seek medical attention when seriously sick or injured.

To talk to a competent attorney regarding legal issues.

And yes, to get an abortion if they don’t want to remain pregnant.

How you people got this bug up your asses over the usage of "urge" is beyond me. It’s just so fucking ridiculous.

Christ.. Who to vote for as well?.. You're the real 'cook me some eggs, bitch' kind of guy, aren't you?

Do you understand that as her father, you are in a position of power over her and that she may feel compelled to do something she does not want to do to please you? Do you think this is acceptable, especially when it pertains to her rights over her own body and her choices?

Are you saying that because the majority of women who abort late term do it for valid medical reasons, there should be no restrictions in place for those who don’t?

I am saying that you should perhaps pull your head out of your anus and apply reality to "late term abortion". I know, you have this vision that women are deciding to abort mid delivery or simply decide on a whim over a latte at 35 weeks.

I mean, you are now declaring that 21 weeks is the point of viability, when you know full well it is not.

Do you think women elect to abort later on in their pregnancy for fun? Convenience? They simply changed their minds? Do you think women are in labour and decide to abort? What doctor do you know of or think would do something like that?

There are restrictions in place, and that decision is between the woman and her doctor. It is no concern of yours or mine. Or did that part escape you? Do you think you have a right to decide what happens up a woman's woo hoo once she is pregnant? Keep your offensive opinions to yourself and stop trying to impose them on the reproductive systems of women.

If the state is going to criminalize late term abortions, then it’s up to women to make sure that they remain aware of their maternal status, and the state should facilitate this goal by offering no cost pregnancy screening.

Criminalise it now?

Well, I suppose it's too bad for the women who do not find out they are pregnant well past 20 weeks, or find out they are dying, are sick or their foetus is deformed or has some appalling issue that would make its life unbearable if it makes it. Eh Capracus?

I would have no problem with the state requiring reversible sterilization for all individuals reaching a state of fertility.

Nazi Germany called. They want their ideology back.

And who are you again that anyone should care what you have no problem with?

I'm sure you think that because you tell the women in your life what you think they should do with their reproductive organs and when, and who to vote for, that you are somehow important... You are not.

What you have no problem with means diddly squat. It's none of your business what a woman decides to do with her body, her reproductive choices and what she decides matters to her. That is between her and her treating physician.

Those who wished to exercise the privilege of parenthood could be trained, certified and allowed to do so, just like any other social activity that has significant health and safety implications. Why require certification to operate a car or a plane, but not to conceive and raise a child?

Wow...

Certified?

Jesus Christ, dude. I mean, I was being sarcastic about the whole thing and you are actually into this sort of control over the bodies of women thing..

In case you haven’t noticed, there are these things called drug laws that restrict what kind of substances you can legally ingest.

So why are pregnant women being jailed for murdering their foetus for ingesting legal substances?

All rights have their associated responsibilities. Do you think that women should have a responsibility to be aware of their state of maternity? Should they take the possibility of becoming pregnant more seriously and exercise the necessary precautions to maintain control of it? If women don’t want to expose themselves to the dangers pregnancy, they need to get out of it early, or avoid it altogether.

Or she can decide for herself and do what is right for her and exercise her rights over her body.

You are aware that women are not chattels anymore, right? Yes? That they are human beings with their autonomy and that they have rights to make such decisions as they see fit, yes?

You think the pro-life crowd appreciates that I condone 99% of the slaughter they abhor? Remember, I’m the guy you expect to drag his daughter kicking and screaming into the clinic through their protest line.

Well, that story gets grander with every telling.

You commented on your daughter needing birth control. I suggested that Planned Parenthood were good because they give advice and offer a wide rage and are good to talk to about such things.

You have turned it into a melodrama whereby you are now apparently running the gamut of angry protesters dragging your daughter kicking and screaming into a clinic..

What's next in the installment of 'blowing things out of proportion'? Are you going to now come out and say I suggested you stuffed a ball in her mouth so that she cannot scream as you "drag" her "kicking and screaming into the clinic through their protest line"?

The reality though is that the vast majority of pro-lifers are nonviolent in their opposition, including those willing to physically engage in protests.

Considering that so many pro-life groups condone and encourage violence and terrorist acts and murder through their protests and campaigns, and that many are considered hate groups or terrorist threat and have committed or encouraged terrorist acts, I would say that history proves you wrong. Many times over.

I would say that the labor and social justice movements are inherently more violent than pro-life, yet I doubt that you would deny them right to protest under the same rationale.

If you consider the KKK or other far rights groups to be "social justice movements" you might have a point.

However..

Contrary to what you believe and actually do in inciting and encouraging someone to respond with violence when you openly incited Bowser to violence for his pro-life beliefs, I would never ever encourage anyone to protest in the same manner as pro-lifer's protest and do what they do. I do not happen to support acts of violence, murder, intimidation, harassment, abuse, terrorist acts, threatening behaviour, etc.

But I really like the way you avoided the issue and the reality of your stance. Tell us, Capracus, do you consider parents who sign a do not resuscitate and/or refuse extraordinary measures for their premature babies murderers? I'm surprised you aren't camped outside NICU wards calling people murderers and the staff there exterminators or accuse them of engaging in "extermination" of "babies". Actually, I am thankful. Because you are clearly a dangerous individual. Because when someone openly declares that they would even tell women who to vote for, well.. says a lot about you.

 

[Dr_Toad]

I wish you could make your point as sensible to my son as you make sense to me and other rational folks. Well done.

 

[Bells]

I wish you could make your point as sensible to my son as you make sense to me and other rational folks. Well done.

There is an absolutely brilliant article in Salon on the abortion debate and the pro-life stance and what should be happening if people do want to be an end to abortion. It does not focus on infringing on the rights of the woman or her body. Instead it focuses on education, health care and access to contraception and also how society and communities and families view sex, sexuality, reproduction and how this is communicated to the children and teenagers in our families and communities. It is brilliant.

And frankly, the pro-life quarter clearly have a lot to learn.

Speaking of pro-life...

Capracus

Hey look! Peaceful pro-life in action!

In the pre-dawn hours of September 4, one or more arsonists fire-bombed the Planned Parenthood facility in Pullman, Washington, gutting the building and leaving patients in the area with few healthcare options until Planned Parenthood can establish a new operating site.

Last month, the Pullman facility was the site of an anti-choice rally. More than 500 people affiliated with an Idaho-based anti-choice group known as the Selkirk Pro-Life Alliance turned out for the day-long event. While there’s no evidential connection between the August 22 rally and the fire, an investigatory task force including agents from Homeland Security and the FBI, as well as Pullman fire officials, ruled that the fire was deliberately set. It’s not a stretch to conclude that anti-choice zealotry was behind the attack.

What’s also perfectly clear is that a series of horrendously edited videos accusing Planned Parenthood of ghoulish criminal activity has effectively amplified the anti-choice outrage machine, which has to include the well-known terrorist fringe of the movement. As with the connection between the protest and the attack, there’s no way to know at this point whether the terrorist or terrorists responsible were specifically incited by the videos, but it’s reasonable to conclude that the videos, while being fraudulently produced, have touched off a new chapter of unmitigated sanctimony and bug-eyed fury over Planned Parenthood and other clinics that offer reproductive services for women.

[...]

Earlier this year, a Rhode Island man named Dan Bidondi, a self-described “journalist” for Alex Jones’ conspiracy theory radio show, posted a YouTube video in which he encouraged his viewers to load cement trucks with C-4 explosives and drive the vehicles into abortion clinics. To be fair, Bidondi made sure to say that the attacks should only occur at night to avoid casualties, as if that makes it all okay. As of this writing, the Bidondi video is still on YouTube.

As we observed with Dan Bidondi and others, there’s a mindset among the most nefarious participants in the anti-choice cabal: Do whatever is necessary to save the fetuses, no matter what. Of course, after the fetuses are birthed, they’re on their own — especially if they end up as one of 2.5 million homeless children. Lousy takers.

Since the release of the CMP videos, death threats against abortion providers have jumped, including threats against Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the physician who was targeted by the first CMP video back in July.

According to The Huffington Post, one threat involved a cash reward for Dr. Nucatola’s assassination:

“I’ll pay ten large to whomever kills Dr. Deborah Nucatola,” the person wrote, referring to the senior director of Planned Parenthood who was filmed in the video. “Anyone. Go for it.”​

Vicki Saporta, of the National Abortion Federation, told Huff Post’s Laura Bassett:

“In my 20 years at NAF, I have never seen such a volume, intensity and escalation of hate speech, threats and criminal activity, and we would like to prevent a serious violent act from occurring,” she told The Huffington Post in an interview. “We have enlisted law enforcement’s help.”​

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Might I interject long enough to pose a counterpoint question?
What about history?

Tiassa
AH, now that is an entirely different argument, and thank you for making this point! (I'm gonna piggyback on this)

you can't argue that "A" voted for, say, heavily armed stealth tater-tots, if the historical record does not validate the argument, right?
that is something entirely different, and it can't be subjective (as in, it is a simple matter of factual information that can be validated that "A" did or didn't vote for heavily armed stealth tater-tots)

However, the interpretations of why "A" voted/didn't vote for heavily armed stealth tater-tots is subjective, unless there is a written record or statement from "A" defining the reasons for his choices re: heavily armed stealth tater-tots
(and the reasoning may well be conveyed, but that will only be "A's" personal subjective argument... right?)

So, where there is a record that can validate a specific point (that is not subjective) re: politics, then there is "historical fact insofar as it is the objective reality of the historical record" (great quote from your post, BTW)

... but interpreting the motivations or reasons where there are no facts is simply subjective conjecture. this means interpreting the vote as well:
that means that you can state the argument that the "vote" was specifically for or against, but anything else is purely subjective. even a sound bite may be misleading unless you have the entire context (and that doesn't mean you interpret it correctly, either) ... something like this is most obvious in the anti-AGW movement, where they cherry-pick data out of context, or in the arguments of creationists like JV Kohl.

so, it boils down succinctly to your wonderful quote

The politics might be subjective, but the historical record is what it is

[my emphasis added] this i agree with absolutely!
I thought that was perfectly clear in my arguments... but i guess i was wrong.
THANKS for that!

No, that's not how fanatics speak. Reread. Notice that you cannot tell what cause I am supposed to be fanatically devoted to.
....
That doesn't bail you out when you say things that are false

iceaura
1- you didn't give the quotes, so now you are trolling and baiting.
2- you perhaps may not tell because of the singular quote, but combined with your historical posts re: politics & DEM's - it is painfully obvious and fanatical, IMHO
3- See Is Abortion Murder?

 

[Capracus]

Um... Did you just say something to the affect that woman should require certification to conceive?

Yes, that men and women should be certified to ensure that they possess the means and technical skill to adequately raise a child before being allowed to conceive.

Capracus:

Um.. did you just say something to the effect that women should be told by you who to vote for?

Ever display a bumper sticker with the name of a candidate or cause? Ever discuss politics with a woman? Are we still pretending that urging is some evil form of advocacy?

Christ.. Who to vote for as well?.. You're the real 'cook me some eggs, bitch' kind of guy, aren't you?

Advocacy, what a novel concept.

Do you understand that as her father, you are in a position of power over her and that she may feel compelled to do something she does not want to do to please you? Do you think this is acceptable, especially when it pertains to her rights over her own body and her choices?

You do understand she is an adult woman capable and expected to make her one choices. Her ultimate choices are going be dependent on a variety of elements, which would include considering the expectations of her peers, and to deny this is simply idiocy on your part.

I am saying that you should perhaps pull your head out of your anus and apply reality to "late term abortion". I know, you have this vision that women are deciding to abort mid delivery or simply decide on a whim over a latte at 35 weeks.

No, I realize that people for a variety of reasons navigate in to circumstances that they are desperate to escape, and some are willing to resort to extreme measures to extricate themselves.

I mean, you are now declaring that 21 weeks is the point of viability, when you know full well it is not.

Take the blinders off and read it again.

A fetus can be viable as early as 21weeks. Qualitative sentience is the gray area yet to be conclusively established, and is generally considered to be anywhere from 24-28 weeks, but could be earlier or later.

That some fetuses are viable at 21 weeks is a fact. That I suggested it be a definite threshold for sentience is not.

There are restrictions in place, and that decision is between the woman and her doctor. It is no concern of yours or mine. Or did that part escape you? Do you think you have a right to decide what happens up a woman's woo hoo once she is pregnant? Keep your offensive opinions to yourself and stop trying to impose them on the reproductive systems of women.

And who was it who put these restrictions in place? Not the doctor, or the women, but the state that assumes a responsibility to offer measures of protection to a qualified fetus.

Criminalise it now?

Well, I suppose it's too bad for the women who do not find out they are pregnant well past 20 weeks, or find out they are dying, are sick or their foetus is deformed or has some appalling issue that would make its life unbearable if it makes it. Eh Capracus?

You do understand the meaning of the word crime? As in violation of a laws enacted by our representatives in government.

How is it a woman can brush her teeth every day, but can't be bothered to pee on a stick once a week?

I'm not advocating, or urging that women or fetuses endure undue hardship in pregnancy.

Nazi Germany called. They want their ideology back.

And who are you again that anyone should care what you have no problem with?

I simply answered the question you posed to me.

I'm sure you think that because you tell the women in your life what you think they should do with their reproductive organs and when, and who to vote for, that you are somehow important... You are not.

I don't know about your family and friends, but the people in my circle don't shy away from these kinds of discussions, all sides give and take equally.

What you have no problem with means diddly squat. It's none of your business what a woman decides to do with her body, her reproductive choices and what she decides matters to her. That is between her and her treating physician.

You're wrong, the courts and the states have made it my business.

Wow...

Certified?

Jesus Christ, dude. I mean, I was being sarcastic about the whole thing and you are actually into this sort of control over the bodies of women thing..

No, it's born of a desire for population control. Any policy that can reasonably mitigate population growth is fine by me.

So why are pregnant women being jailed for murdering their foetus for ingesting legal substances?

You asked if I should be denied the right to medicate myself. Your question, my answer.

You are aware that women are not chattels anymore, right? Yes? That they are human beings with their autonomy and that they have rights to make such decisions as they see fit, yes?

And along with those rights they have responsibilities.

You have turned it into a melodrama whereby you are now apparently running the gamut of angry protesters dragging your daughter kicking and screaming into a clinic..

Again, off with the blinders.

Remember, I’m the guy you expect to drag his daughter kicking and screaming into the clinic through their protest line.

I said it would be your expectation of me to act in such a fashion, seeing how I like to put guns to women's heads and force them to comply with my wishes.

Considering that so many pro-life groups condone and encourage violence and terrorist acts and murder through their protests and campaigns, and that many are considered hate groups or terrorist threat and have committed or encouraged terrorist acts, I would say that history proves you wrong. Many times over.

Considering that social justice actions often involve significant portions a city population, which include inherently violent subgroups, I'd say your way off the mark. And the history of the labor movement in this country has been marked by actual warfare, and a long association with organized crime elements.

Contrary to what you believe and actually do in inciting and encouraging someone to respond with violence when you openly incited Bowser to violence for his pro-life beliefs, I would never ever encourage anyone to protest in the same manner as pro-lifer's protest and do what they do. I do not happen to support acts of violence, murder, intimidation, harassment, abuse, terrorist acts, threatening behaviour, etc.

Incite Bowser to violence? Are you nuts? Holding a sign expressing his views is violence? By that standard I should've been arrested for holding my Bush Is A War Criminal sign at a protest years ago.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Yes, that men and women should be certified to ensure that they possess the means and technical skill to adequately raise a child before being allowed to conceive.

Are you trolling, or do you live in some country who's name I can't pronounce?

Some fictitious world, and or, ideology?

:EDIT:

Are you adequate? If so, tell me why you are, please.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Capracus, what the hell is wrong with you?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Oh, and BTW, men don't conceive.

(I can't believe I'm posting about this.)

 

[Capracus]

Capracus, what the hell is wrong with you?

Could you be more specific? Should I turn my head and cough?

Oh, and BTW, men don't conceive.

(I can't believe I'm posting about this.)

I can’t believe you did either.

I know this may shatter your plans for maternity, but unless you’re a fish or reptile, you will need a sperm donation from a male of a genetically compatible species.

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

 

[Bells]

Yes, that men and women should be certified to ensure that they possess the means and technical skill to adequately raise a child before being allowed to conceive.

Being allowed to conceive?

Wow..

Ever display a bumper sticker with the name of a candidate or cause? Ever discuss politics with a woman? Are we still pretending that urging is some evil form of advocacy?

But that isn't what you said. Nor is advocacy how you came across or even said:

I urge women to do lots of things that I feel would be appropriate for their particular needs.

Like:

Who to vote for.

You don't think women can make that decision for themselves that you would "urge" them who to vote for for what you believe is better for them?

Advocacy, what a novel concept.

But that isn't what you are saying.

You are carrying on as if women are too stupid to know what is good for them, from their reproductive choices, to who to vote for.

You do understand she is an adult woman capable and expected to make her one choices.

Yes I do. Do you understand this, however?

It seems not, because you then follow that with this:

Her ultimate choices are going be dependent on a variety of elements, which would include considering the expectations of her peers, and to deny this is simply idiocy on your part.

I'm sorry, but do you believe that her choice to have a child needs to include or consider your opinion?

I can only speak for myself, but when I found myself pregnant, whether my parents would be happy or not did not even enter the equation when I was deciding what to do. Nor did their expectations enter the fray. At all.

I find it astounding that you believe that choices that will affect her life forever, that if she wants to have a child, should somehow be dependent on your expectations. Is she expected to ask your permission?

As you said, she is an adult woman. Her decision and her choices should be dependent on what she wants. Not on what you expect or want. Especially when it comes to her reproductive choices.

No, I realize that people for a variety of reasons navigate in to circumstances that they are desperate to escape, and some are willing to resort to extreme measures to extricate themselves.

You believe that women leave it to the last minute, at birth even, to make such a decision?

This is sheer lunacy.

Women are capable of making decisions that will affect their lives and to suggest or infer that they are waiting up until such points to abort for reasons of their wanting to "extricate themselves" is ridiculous and not supported by any fact. You are projecting your own biased views and opinions.

That some fetuses are viable at 21 weeks is a fact. That I suggested it be a definite threshold for sentience is not.

Some?

It's been what? One that survived at 21 weeks and 6 days? Well, they believe that is what it was, since it is quite possible because of its higher birth weight, a few weeks older.

By referring back to saying that some have been viable at 21 days, is to infer that this should somehow be a cutoff point. This is while ignoring the fact that hospitals will usually not press for extraordinary measures for a baby born that premature, because they are not viable.

And who was it who put these restrictions in place? Not the doctor, or the women, but the state that assumes a responsibility to offer measures of protection to a qualified fetus.

Which is wrong. Because you then have women having to pay thousands of dollars for a late term abortion for a foetus that has been found to have severe abnormalities well past the 24 week mark or when their health becomes compromised, because these women are not able to access adequate healthcare close to their homes and instead have to travel out of State to the very few clinics who will perform them (under threats of murder, terrorist attacks, intimidation and abuse). Is this acceptable for you?

And what is a qualified foetus? Do you mean a viable foetus? Since I am pretty certain that it is a foetus and needs no qualification to determine it is a foetus.

You do understand the meaning of the word crime? As in violation of a laws enacted by our representatives in government.

How is it a woman can brush her teeth every day, but can't be bothered to pee on a stick once a week?

I'm not advocating, or urging that women or fetuses endure undue hardship in pregnancy.

You expect women to pee on sticks every week? Why should she? The sticks are expensive, for one, are not always accurate, will not always show until later on and sometimes will not show at all if her hormone levels in her urine is low.

Your arguments in this thread is advocating and urging women to endure hardship in pregnancy and in their daily lives. From advocating for reversible sterilisation from when they reach the state of fertility, which would entail this being done from when they are teenagers, some from when they are children since there are 9 year old girls who are falling pregnant after being raped, to trying to control when women can conceive by advocating for the imposition of certification that would then allow them to conceive. Do you think it is acceptable to endanger a person's ability to conceive by forcing or imposing sterilisation on a still developing body and reproductive organs? And you don't think this is advocating or urging hardship on people in pregnancy or otherwise?

 

[Bells]

I simply answered the question you posed to me.

To which I replied.

And frankly, you are getting worse. Or more to the point, your ideology is presenting itself in a way that you may not wish to be portrayed.

I don't know about your family and friends, but the people in my circle don't shy away from these kinds of discussions, all sides give and take equally.

My family and friends are not domineering or control freaks. Discussions is one thing. Urging abortion and demanding a say in the reproductive choices of others is another thing altogether.

You're wrong, the courts and the states have made it my business.

How so?

Why do you feel you should have a say in what women do with their bodies?

You are like those religious conservatives who feel it is their business to comment on what two consenting adults do in their bedroom.

No, it's born of a desire for population control. Any policy that can reasonably mitigate population growth is fine by me.

You wish to control women's rights and their bodies. You aren't advocating population control here. You are advocating for state sanctioned sterilisation programs and you are pushing for the absolute control of women's reproductive rights. That is dangerous ideology.

You asked if I should be denied the right to medicate myself. Your question, my answer.

Which drew another question.

Why didn't you answer it?

And along with those rights they have responsibilities.

When it comes to their bodies, as they see fit.

I said it would be your expectation of me to act in such a fashion, seeing how I like to put guns to women's heads and force them to comply with my wishes.

That isn't what I said though. You took a comment and blew it all out of proportion.

I don't think it's a matter of you putting guns to women's heads and forcing them to comply with your wishes (at least I can only hope that is not what you are doing), I think it is a matter that you are a control freak and expect to have a say in everything, even things that do not affect you or concern you.

Considering that social justice actions often involve significant portions a city population, which include inherently violent subgroups, I'd say your way off the mark. And the history of the labor movement in this country has been marked by actual warfare, and a long association with organized crime elements.

Aside from 8 murders, there have been:

According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded,[15] 100 butyric acid attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats,[16] and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[17] Between 1997 and 1990 77 death threats were made with 250 made between 1991 to 1999 .[15]Attempted murders in the U.S. included:[9][18][19] IN 1985 45% of clinics reported bomb threats, decreasing to 15% in 2000. One fifth of clinics in 2000 experienced some form of extreme activity.

[...]

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents ofvandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[17] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[23] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.​

And this is leaving out the wanted dead posters for doctors who perform abortions.

You were saying?

Or are you trying to re-write history again?

Incite Bowser to violence? Are you nuts? Holding a sign expressing his views is violence? By that standard I should've been arrested for holding my Bush Is A War Criminal sign at a protest years ago.

You decided to inflate the issue by asking him about his desire to protest non-violently by asking him if he would react the same way a million babies were being slaughtered in the same numbers and this is after saying that the only difference is actually location.

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.

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?

Those two combined (along with several other statements that have and do raise eyebrows), have the messy and horrid image of incitement. Because you are asking him if it was a million babies who were being 'slaughtered', would he still take a non-violent approach of protest, after commenting that the only difference between it being a foetus and a newborn is a matter of location.. I am not the only person who has seen that as being incitement. What you are pushing in this thread is dangerous and crazy ideology that does lead to acts of violence.

If that is not how you meant it, then I would suggest you retract and word it more carefully.

 

[Bowser]

I think this train of thought does open a question or two. If we considered the Jewish Holocaust for instance, would it have been appropriate to interfere in the deaths of 4 to 5 million people? I mean, would any of us have had a problem if, say, somebody killed those directly involved in the extermination of thousands of Jews? Now, considering that we have been killing the innocent since 1973--up to and above 50 million--how are we any better than the Nazis? We have memorials for those killed during the Nazi regime, yet all that we have as testament to our own atrocities are more clinics of death.

 

[billvon]

Now, considering that we have been killing the innocent since 1973--up to and above 50 million--how are we any better than the Nazis?

If you see no difference between yourself and a Nazi, then I don't know what I can tell you. Believe that if you like.