Quote :

"A woman's desire not to be inconvenienced has no weight over the unborn's right to existence, whereas the mother's life bears more weight."

Yes it does.

A non-sentient mass of cells has no right to anything.

Life goes on.

7/11/2013 12:49:09 AM

Quote :

"In cases of rape, I hold my nose and say yes"

disgusting.

7/11/2013 12:50:47 AM

You gain sentience once you pass through the birth canal?

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

7/11/2013 12:53:24 AM

^i'm a little unclear on what point you're making, your question mark is confusing me.

that philosopher sort of simultaneously refutes and supports my claim

[Edited on July 11, 2013 at 1:04 AM. Reason : .]

7/11/2013 1:03:58 AM

A women walks into an abortion clinic. "I was raped, I want an abortion." Goes one of two ways.

"Good enough for me, here's your abortion", or

"Prove it by filling out this form and submitting yourself for interrogation by our resident 'rape bureaucrat' who will decide if you in fact have been raped."

Impossible to implement. So either you are OK with abortion or against it across the board. No cop-outs on the rape exception.

7/11/2013 7:57:51 AM

Quote :

"When are times that it's OK? Life of the mother, sure."

What about a 25% chance that the mother will die? 10%? This is a terrible choice that real people are confronted with. What if testing reveals a major disability that the baby will have for the rest of its life? I believe that screening for Down Syndrome is the most common subject of this discussion, but there are others.

The retort that most abortions are elective is completely correct. A fair account is that most abortions are done early term, and at of the discretion of the mother. Their reasons are several, but most have the same bottom line that they don't want to raise it and don't want to give birth.

Pro-life views often lead to practice of laws that even pro-life people wouldn't agree with. Ireland passed laws that were clearly intended to outlaw abortions of convenience and allow it if the mother's life is at risk. Problem is, the way they wrote it, doctors were almost uniformly at lower liability if they didn't do the abortion. Their situation was a particular clusterfuck.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/savita-halappanavar-death-irish-woman-denied-abortion-dies_n_2128696.html

I see the argument that "life begins at conception", because some type of life does begin at conception. Life is all around us on Earth. Some life is meant to die, like skin cells or sperm cells. Some existence, like fetus, is intended to go onto another form of living. I anticipate a "3rd life" will be added to the existence of humans soon. A life where we remove our brains from our bodies, and directly connect our sensory system to computers. It's inevitable that more people will try at the 1st life than make it to the 2nd life, and likewise fewer who enter the 2nd life than the 3rd life. Ultimately our existence here should be to serve a higher purpose. If I can accomplish more, and be better connected to my fellow human by putting my brain in a jar, then it seems right.

7/11/2013 8:34:17 AM

I like how republicans want all embryos to be born, even if the parents don't want them, but they hate social programs like food stamps to feed kids, and early childhood education to make sure they are ready for school.

They just care about the fetus'es welfare until its born, then if they don't make it, tough shit, blame the parents for irresponsibly having sex.

7/11/2013 11:47:13 AM

^

i saw something once that was along the lines of, conservatives want to protect the unborn's right, right up until it's born gay. similar line of thinking.

7/11/2013 12:09:04 PM

http://damarisafari.kinja.com/11-year-old-girl-forced-to-carry-pregnancy-from-rape-732109495

7/11/2013 12:37:44 PM

I'm interested in what people consider to be "terminal genetic illnesses." For the record, there are many genetic disorders that are not terminal but absolutely horrible and might cause extreme mental retardation or numerous birth defects yet they don't necessarily have a shortened lifespan. You can't even lump all Down syndrome pregnancies together as some are very mild and others resemble the likes of trisomy 18 and will most likely die once they're born.

I also want to point out that in many cases the different clinics consider the fetuses with multiple anomalies or a known condition to be elective abortions. I always wondered how much it would throw the numbers off if they really broke it down and reported how many affected pregnancies were terminated versus how many were really just elective for whatever reason. For example, one of our recent cases was trisomy 13 (rare, usually lethal) and that woman was put into the elective category. So was our patient whose baby had no lower jaw (google agnathia-otocephaly if you're brave) - their case clearly wasn't going to end well, yet still considered elective.

And just in case people don't think it's real, we have a case from this week where that lady will absolutely die if she continues her pregnancy. I've also seen them perform one in a Catholic hospital ASAP because it would've 100% killed mom. Happens more often than you realize, that's for sure.

Anyway, I'm done rambling now

7/11/2013 7:33:42 PM

I consider terminal genetic illnesses genetic illnesses that are terminal

7/11/2013 7:38:44 PM

come on man, discourse. a lot of valid points were made.

7/11/2013 7:51:18 PM

But I said that in a list of examples, what I said doesn't really mean anything more than listing various things to see if aaronburro was an absolutist. None of that post matters to the point of my question.

7/11/2013 8:01:59 PM

Well you sure didn't list any examples and I think people often use that term without knowing what it even means. There are only a small amount of true, terminal genetic disorders. (And by the way, hardly anyone in the genetics community uses the phrasing "genetic illness.")

I wasn't even going against your point, I was just trying to spark discussion so there's really no need to be a dick.

But now that I think about it, I would like to know why you used that phrasing. I mainly ask because for the single gene disorders that are terminal oftentimes there is a family history and people will then test their current pregnancy after having a previous child affected or possibly a relative. Some of the disorders are terminal very early in life and others maybe not so much. A good example is Hurler syndrome versus Cystic Fibrosis. A kid with Hurler syndrome will die usually within the first decade of life because of all the mucopolysaccharides building up in their body but someone with CF could live into their 30s or 40s with treatment. Yet you could put it into the "terminal illness" category because unless an accident happens, the complications from CF will kill that individual.* So, where do you draw the line? Are you only going to allow people to terminate pregnancies with crazy chromosomal disorders? What about the people who are terminating because they know the genetic disorder really sucks and will eventually kill someone, but possibly not until they're an adult?

Maybe I am rambling and all over the place but I wish people would not lump genetic disorders into one nice little package when they have no idea what they're talking about.

[Edited on July 11, 2013 at 8:24 PM. Reason : * in cases of classic CF, not the unusual ones like a male with only CAVD]

7/11/2013 8:22:47 PM

you can strike that phrase entirely from my post and it doesn't change anything

7/11/2013 9:23:59 PM

Quote :

"A women walks into an abortion clinic. "I was raped, I want an abortion." Goes one of two ways. "Good enough for me, here's your abortion", or "Prove it by filling out this form and submitting yourself for interrogation by our resident 'rape bureaucrat' who will decide if you in fact have been raped." Impossible to implement. So either you are OK with abortion or against it across the board. No cop-outs on the rape exception."

Damn, that is a really good point...can't believe it's never occurred to me before. It's yet another reason why outlawing abortion but having special clauses is just a blatantly terrible policy.

7/11/2013 10:04:32 PM

Quote :

"A women walks into an abortion clinic. "I was raped, I want an abortion." Goes one of two ways."

Or, "where's the police report"? or do you just not want rapists actually facing trial?

Quote :

"What about a 25% chance that the mother will die? 10%? This is a terrible choice that real people are confronted with. What if testing reveals a major disability that the baby will have for the rest of its life? I believe that screening for Down Syndrome is the most common subject of this discussion, but there are others."

I'm ok with a general "health of the mother" exception, with a physician signing off on the necessity. At that point, it really is a medical decision. But I'm only ok with it if it's actually a concern of the mother's health, and not some of the bullshit that has been attempted before where any discomfort whatsoever, no matter how slight, is considered valid.

Quote :

"I like how republicans want all embryos to be born, even if the parents don't want them, but they hate social programs like food stamps to feed kids, and early childhood education to make sure they are ready for school. "

I like how you think that is even relevant. It's a beautiful all or nothing argument, but we know that's fallacious, so move along.

Quote :

"[quote]In cases of rape, I hold my nose and say yes"

disgusting.[/quote]
Why?

7/12/2013 9:16:04 PM

Quote :

"Or, "where's the police report"? or do you just not want rapists actually facing trial?"

"Hello officer. I was raped and have no idea who did it."

7/12/2013 9:22:59 PM

If only there were ways to discern how likely it is that someone had been raped... Hmmm.....

7/12/2013 10:16:53 PM

Lol. Yeah bud. If only those ways were 100% foolproof. And now you want to put rape victims through examinations by a rape bureaucrat which is exactly what I said.

What if a woman actually got raped but the government flunkie you are installing came back with "nope". Will she be granted due process of law? Allowed access to a lawyer? Can she appeal? How long will that take? We all know how efficient government and the courts are. If she loses, are you now forcing the rape victim to carry her rape baby to full term?

Also what about statutory rape? Incest? Date rape via rufies? None of that leaves a convenient physical scar you can point to.

[Edited on July 13, 2013 at 8:37 AM. Reason : .]

7/13/2013 8:23:20 AM

Quote :

"If only there were ways to discern how likely it is that someone had been raped... Hmmm....."

i guess that might work if it was a law to not have sex, and any sex was rape

7/13/2013 10:29:23 AM

Quote :

"Or, "where's the police report"? or do you just not want rapists actually facing trial?"

Aside from the fact that women do not always report rape for all kinds of reasons (see also, the crazy number of sexual assaults that happen in our very own military...)

Quote :

"Damn, that is a really good point...can't believe it's never occurred to me before. It's yet another reason why outlawing abortion but having special clauses is just a blatantly terrible policy."

I'm sure all sorts of things about the process of getting an abortion have never occurred to men, yet those of your gender are usually (although there are now some crazy Republican ladies who seem to think that a "rape kit" is the same as an abortion, so who knows) responsible for legislation against abortion

7/13/2013 9:21:58 PM

go to a pro-life protest, there are lots of women. there are women cosponsoring this legislation.

7/13/2013 9:28:13 PM

Let's shake this topic up!



To pro-life people,

- Would it be wrong to abort a fetus which is a Chimpanzee-human hybrid?
- Would killing any human hybrid species be murder?
- What about neanderthals?
- Is killing a modern Chimpanzee murder?

I know there's going to be the common "murder is killing your own species". But the word 'species' is a concept of human invention, and frankly, nature doesn't give a crap about what words you use to describe things.

7/14/2013 3:52:47 PM

Quote :

"go to a pro-life protest, there are lots of women. there are women cosponsoring this legislation."

religious women who seem to think that every woman should obey the tenets of their religion

[Edited on July 14, 2013 at 5:21 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2013 5:20:28 PM

[Edited on July 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM. Reason : meh]

7/14/2013 6:27:18 PM

Quote :

"religious women who seem to think that every woman should obey the tenets of their religion"

What tenets? This isn't necessarily directed at you, but I am seriously interested in the Christian Scriptural tenet for being anti-abortion or believing that life begins at conception.

Quote :

"19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse; 20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband-- 21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell; 22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.' 23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter."

Please tell me why Christians think it is "Christian" to be anti-abortion. Your fucking holy book has an abortion potion recipe in it.

Also, anyone who has a "rape or incest" exception is completely morally repugnant. Clearly your morality isn't about the value of the unborn life but only for punishing a woman for her and a man's (who doesn't suffer anywhere near as much) mistake. It's slut shaming and that's all. Fuck you.

7/14/2013 7:01:56 PM

7/14/2013 7:06:05 PM

Quote :

"What tenets? This isn't necessarily directed at you, but I am seriously interested in the Christian Scriptural tenet for being anti-abortion or believing that life begins at conception."

I don't know that they have to come specifically from the Bible itself: Catholics have been anti-contraceptive and anti-abortion for a very long time, but I'm not sure if that stems merely from Papal opinion or historical context.

7/14/2013 9:19:01 PM

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/07/fetal_pain_is_a_lie_how_phony_science_took_over_the_abortion_debate/

8/7/2013 5:15:30 PM

I wish that reality was useful response to the irrational fucks that dominate our country's discourse.

8/7/2013 6:25:28 PM

I can't understand how a group of people can flat out deny sound science or irrefutable evidence...which is weird to me, because I'm generally a very empathetic person. But, it is beyond me to comprehend how a person can see undeniable evidence to support something and just say, "Nope, that's wrong...I know better."

It's like the Congressional Budget Office performing their in-depth analysis of the ACA and concluding that it will save hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years...and John Boehner has the nerve to respond that "CBO is entitled to their opinion..."

8/7/2013 10:42:08 PM

Quote :

"It's like the Congressional Budget Office performing their in-depth analysis of the ACA and concluding that it will save hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years...and John Boehner has the nerve to respond that "CBO is entitled to their opinion...""

You do realize their numbers have been revised numerous times, govt cost has increased, and CBO analysis has been disputed by independent economists, right?

Not trying to get off topic, but just had to point that out.

[Edited on August 8, 2013 at 3:37 PM. Reason : .]

8/8/2013 3:36:47 PM

Quote :

"I can't understand how a group of people can flat out deny sound science or irrefutable evidence...which is weird to me, because I'm generally a very empathetic person. But, it is beyond me to comprehend how a person can see undeniable evidence to support something and just say, "Nope, that's wrong...I know better." "

They might acknowledge it personally, but then deny in public to further their overall cause.

8/8/2013 4:45:19 PM

Maybe the "group of people" he's referring to are the idiots the lying politicians pander to. Otherwise known as a majority of Americans.

8/8/2013 4:51:08 PM

Either one. People ignore evidence if it's detrimental to their belief system. Or they "rationalize" their way around it. Most people are incapable of thinking in shades of gray.

8/8/2013 5:43:06 PM

Quote :

"It's like the Congressional Budget Office performing their in-depth analysis of the ACA and concluding that it will save hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years...and John Boehner has the nerve to respond that "CBO is entitled to their opinion...""

You might want to pick a better example to support your case than that of one that involved blatantly doctored numbers. Just sayin

8/8/2013 5:52:07 PM

care to cite your source?

[Edited on August 8, 2013 at 11:13 PM. Reason : autocorrect fail]

8/8/2013 11:12:24 PM

The common sense from seeing that they used 10 years of income to barely pay for 6 years of expenses, and then had the balls to claim it would lower the deficit, AFTER they included non-medical related incomes, such as the college loan takeover.

It's basically an accepted fact at this point that the CBO numbers on the ACA are complete bullshit. IIRC, their original estimate said it was going to lose a good deal of money, so Obama, Reid, and Pelosi told them to do it again.

8/8/2013 11:31:09 PM

exactly

8/8/2013 11:42:57 PM

But guys, its basically an accepted fact!

BASICALLY

an ACCEPTED

FACT

8/9/2013 6:57:31 AM

good point. thanks for adding to the discussion with your trolling.

8/9/2013 9:13:31 PM

I don't want to respond because it'll derail the thread further, but since the CBO isn't good enough for you, how about the GAO's analysis?

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/285009-gao-health-law-will-increase-deficit-if-cost-cutting-measures-stop

Quote :

"Assuming the law [Affordable Care Act] is enforced as-is, the U.S. deficit will decline 1.5 percent as a share of the economy over the next 75 years, according to the GAO. Auditors attributed 1.2 percent of this improvement to the Affordable Care Act. "

Obviously it'll come down to political will and I don't think that really surprises anyone...

BUT ANYWAY, my point was that I can't comprehend how a logical person could just thumb their nose at an expert or group of experts, especially when that person doesn't have anywhere near the level of credentials...

8/9/2013 11:40:29 PM

I can work with that. Just don't think that ACA is a good example to trot out, given how highly politicized that issue is to begin with.

8/9/2013 11:53:55 PM

Quote :

"good point. thanks for adding to the discussion with your trolling."

Sarcasm isn't always trolling. His point was that you were making assertions without evidence and claiming that they were common knowledge, which they aren't.

Anyway, back to tearing down false equivalences regarding "a human" and "a fetus."

8/10/2013 9:00:42 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/28/fed-judge-texas-abortion-limits-unconstitutional/

10/28/2013 5:14:45 PM

damned liberal activist judges in Texas

10/29/2013 7:55:56 PM

What are you talking about? The story is about judges in Texas trying to appeal a ruling about their conservative bullshit being unconstitutional.

10/30/2013 12:36:37 PM

http://www.wral.com/court-to-hear-nc-choose-life-license-plate-case/13053162/

10/30/2013 1:00:18 PM

Quote :

"A non-sentient mass of cells has no right to anything."

If you debase your mind enough into dehumanizing any set of humans (Tutsis, Jews, babies) it's a lot easier to suppress your conscience when you condone the murder of innocents. Now we have an entire culture that embraces infanticide, tells us we're the same as animals, and then screams about human rights. Contradict much?

10/31/2013 12:32:53 AM