Support NeoGAF

[SquiddyCracker]

Abortion up until birth.

However if the fetus is viable it shouldn't be killed after being removed from the mother, that would be dumb.

Hm, now I got a question:

If it was possible to take out a fetus at the age of, let's under the legal abortion limit today, you're thinking that the mother should still not be allowed to kill the fetus?

Because there is an economic incentive to destroy a fetus before it develops to a point where it will be considered a person, and your reasoning might make a woman financially responsible for an fetus taken out of her and preserved when it could have just been destroyed.

 

[Brian Griffin]

Hm, now I got a question:

If it was possible to take out a fetus at the age of, let's under the legal abortion limit today, you're thinking that the mother should still not be allowed to kill the fetus?

Because there is an economic incentive to destroy a fetus before it develops to a point where it will be considered a person, and your reasoning might make a woman financially responsible for an fetus taken out of her and preserved when it could have just be destroyed.

If it can survive outside its mother on its own then you can't kill it. You have to assign personhood at some point and I feel basic survivability is a good point to draw this line. If the mother doesn't want it then it could be adopted out. If no one wanted it then I guess the foster care system would take it.

The economic and logistical impacts of this is a whole other topic that I haven't given much thought on, but it's been posted a few times that the very small number of abortions happen in the later stages of pregnancy so there wouldn't be huge lines around the corner of women wanting to abort their 2nd and 3rd trimester fetuses.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

If it can survive outside its mother on its own then you can't kill it. You have to assign personhood at some point and I feel basic survivability is a good point to draw this line. If the mother doesn't want it then it could be adopted out. If no one wanted it then I guess the foster care system would take it.

The economic and logistical impacts of this is a whole other topic that I haven't given much thought on, but it's been posted a few times that the very small number of abortions happen in the later stages of pregnancy so there wouldn't be huge lines around the corner of women wanting to abort their 2nd and 3rd trimester fetuses.

I kinda meant, if we had the technology to take care of a fetus that would today simply die outside of the mother's internal "apparatus".

That sort of position kinda poses a problem precisely due to the potential economic and logistical impacts of turning every abortion into an actually resultant child.
Because unlike an abortion ban, this wouldn't actually remove unwanted potentials from society, and have an even worse effect on society than a ban as women can get rid of the potential child whereas society is still burdened by it.

This isn't even a dilemma that's far in the future, as we as a society have the means to implanting embryos in a surrogate mother (hired by the state if we assign person hood to when it can survive).

 

[Brian Griffin]

I kinda meant, if we had the technology to take care of a fetus that would today simply die outside of the mother's internal "apparatus".

That sort of position kinda poses a problem precisely due to the potential economic and logistical impacts of turning every abortion into an actually resultant child.
Because unlike an abortion ban, this wouldn't actually remove unwanted potentials from society, and have an even worse effect on society than a ban as women can get rid of the potential child whereas society is still burdened by it.

This isn't even a dilemma that's far in the future, as we as a society have the means to implanting embryos in a surrogate mother (hired by the state if we assign person hood to when it can survive).

Oh ok. If we have artificial wombs then hell yeah the baby can finish cooking. I see what you mean about potential economic impacts though and it may be necessary to kill some to control the population. But that's for future people to figure out. Hopefully, pro-life organizations of the future will actually care about life and put all of their funding into caring for these unwanted children instead of lobbying against roe v wade and picketing abortion clinics.

 

[MisterAnderson]

So I've admittedly been a little bit in the dark in the grand scale of how the election should be turning out.

Serious question though... after reading about recent developments with the recent "legit rape" talk and now this abortion thing... does Romney have any chance at all??

 

[Kazerei]

However if the fetus is viable it shouldn't be killed after being removed from the mother, that would be dumb.

Err, with late-term abortions, it's not like the fetus is delivered via c-section and then killed. Besides, a fetus at 24+ weeks might be viable, but the earlier the birth, the higher the risk of complications. I don't think it does any good to deliver a bunch of underdeveloped babies. Edit: So yeah, I agree with you guys about the economic impact.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Oh ok. If we have artificial wombs then hell yeah the baby can finish cooking. I see what you mean about potential economic impacts though and it may be necessary to kill some to control the population. But that's for future people to figure out. Hopefully, pro-life organizations of the future will actually care about life and put all of their funding into caring for these unwanted children instead of lobbying against roe v wade and picketing abortion clinics.

It kinda is topical today though, as an embryo produced as a byproduct of IVF would be viable using this logic.
It can be implanted in a surrogate mother, which means it can survive, which means it would be illegal to destroy them.

Do you think that it would be society's responsibility to ensure that all these embryos are implanted in surrogates so that they will survive?
If the answer is no, why would your answer change just because the embryo is now a 20-week fetus?

They are both viable (in some ways, an embryo is today easier to grow than a removed 20-week fetus).

That's why I don't think the viability argument is very good.

 

[Brian Griffin]

So I've admittedly been a little bit in the dark in the grand scale of how the election should be turning out.

Serious question though... after reading about recent developments with the recent "legit rape" talk and now this abortion thing... does Romney have any chance at all??

Scarily, yes, I think he still has a chance. I hope I'm wrong though.

Err, with late-term abortions, it's not like the fetus is delivered via c-section and then killed. Besides, a fetus at 24+ weeks might be viable, but the earlier the birth, the higher the risk of complications. I don't think it does any good to deliver a bunch of underdeveloped babies. Edit: So yeah, I agree with you guys about the economic impact.

Eh, good point.

It kinda is topical today though, as an embryo produced as a byproduct of IVF would be viable using this logic.
It can be implanted in a surrogate mother, which means it can survive, which means it would be illegal to destroy them.

Do you think that it would be society's responsibility to ensure that all these embryos are implanted in surrogates so that they will survive?
If the answer is no, why would your answer change just because the embryo is now a 20-week fetus?

They are both viable (in some ways, an embryo is today easier to grow than a removed 20-week fetus).

That's why I don't think the viability argument is very good.

I was thinking of survivability as in it doesn't need the help of another person besides feeding it. It doesn't need to be attached to another person's body. Embryos can't survive and grow this way. I realize I used "viable" in a previous post and I was actually meaning survivability.

 

[Timedog]

So if I have a child, I "caused" their eye color? Their hair color? Their voice tone? Their need for glasses? Their sexual orientation? Their love for Chinese food?

You can't CAUSE something that you have no control over. To cause suggest control, right? If I had a child and they had no hereditary disease, did I cause them NOT to have it? Exactly.

You don't understand causal relationships.

You can exact control over it by not having sex. Again, this is the exact logic used by those promoting abstinence for people who do not want to have a child. The old "if you can't deal with the consequences of sex, don't have sex" line.

Also, cherry picking one thing in a list of many and attacking that one thing, even if you defeated me on that one thing (and you haven't here), is not defeating my entire argument.

Why? The mother of a fetus can make no such exception for herself. She has to sustain the fetus (or fetuses) so long as they are in her body. SHE doesn't limit the use of her body.

Okay, then don't have that clause??? You're making absolutely no sense with whatever argument you're trying to make here. Please be more clear.

So I guess this donor can only give away nutrients, rest, comfort, chemical energy, etc.....in a scenario that would help sustain the life of another person. And remember: all of the tangible things that her body "gives away," she replenishes herself because she's "working/eating/living for two....or however you care to phrase it.

Care to venture a plausible scenario in which this would happen? I'll gladly agree that a person must be committed to doing that.

You didn't even read my entire response before you replied. Please read my ENTIRE response before replying, and note that I listed temporary AND PERMANENT changes to the female body from pregnancy.

 

[Oblivion]

The results weren't close -- 88% believe abortion should be legal when a woman's life is endangered,

Who the fuck are the other 12%? Seriously, I can understand understand most of the objections to abortion, including rape and incest, but how in God's name do you rationalize something like this? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[MIMIC]

So you have asserted. I demand that you support this assertion.

Well it's my opinion that human life is the most precious life there is, and does not deserve to be taken away by anyone. If you don't value human life then fine....it's my view that it IS valuable.

Because I have not been given sufficient reason to agree that such a duty exists.

Do you think that such a reason could exist? Or do you simply think that the woman's decision overrides any potential reason?

It's not flesh that belongs to a person.

And what is a person?

You can exact control over it by not having sex. Again, this is the exact logic used by those promoting abstinence for people who do not want to have a child. The old "if you can't deal with the consequences of sex, don't have sex" line.

So how would I control it in order to have a kid WITHOUT passing along a hereditary disease? Other parents do it. What's the secret?

Hint: it's not within their control

Also, cherry picking one thing in a list of many and attacking that one thing, even if you defeated me on that one thing (and you haven't here), is not defeating my entire argument.

Your argument was for parents supporting their offspring and people supporting those they have endangered (and subsequently). It's only one of two things to attack.

Okay, then don't have that clause??? You're making absolutely no sense with whatever argument you're trying to make here. Please be more clear.

It's just one example of how your analogy wouldn't apply to multiple people. It's not a necessary example, but something to think about if you were to try and apply this to the real world.

You didn't even read my entire response before you replied. Please read my ENTIRE response before replying, and note that I listed temporary AND PERMANENT changes to the female body from pregnancy.

What do those PERMANENT CHANGES (in caps so you know that I read it) have to do with keeping another human being alive? Stretch marks? OK....so you give the donor stretch marks and that keeps the person alive? Huh?

How are stretch marks, scarring, etc. supposed to be relevant in this argument? How EXACTLY does that fit into your argument of sustaining another life?

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Human lives are valuable. Early stages of pregnancy aren't as valuable as the mother's rights to make choices (be it to deliver or abort), in many people's opinions.

MIMIC has his opinions, for example, his post in the Chick-Fil-A thread.

Some opinions are not as valuable as others.

 

[pigeon]

Well it's my opinion that human life is the most precious life there is, and does not deserve to be taken away by anyone. If you don't value human life then fine....it's my view that it IS valuable.



Do you think that such a reason could exist? Or do you simply think that the woman's decision overrides any potential reason?

You keep saying this, in blatant defiance of the multitude of situations in which people are killed through direct or indirect action with the tacit approval of the state. Is consistency just too challenging for you?

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Serious question though... after reading about recent developments with the recent "legit rape" talk and now this abortion thing... does Romney have any chance at all??

No. But you should still out and vote.

 

[commedieu]

Well it's my opinion that human life is the most precious life there is, and does not deserve to be taken away by anyone. If you don't value human life then fine....it's my view that it IS valuable.

How do you feel about Military spending, which results in more dead civilians, including children, pregnant women, and men. However, age and type doesn't matter. As Life is precious...

Why is it ok for your taxes to pay for the mass murder of people, but not 1 group, of women citizens?

Your stance is a power-trip over women in this country. No offense, but I know your answer already. As you haven't left the country due to your feelings over war, it wasn't that important..

Look away from one thing, focus on another. Instead of accepting it as a fact of life, and a fact of others that do not share your opinion. You do have the ability to respect others opinions when it comes to blowing up a city block of civilians with a UAV. But you can't let a woman decide for herself, what is best for her life.

You see this is a problem, right? Being morally ok with one...

 

[MIMIC]

You keep saying this, in blatant defiance of the multitude of situations in which people are killed through direct or indirect action with the tacit approval of the state. Is consistency just too challenging for you?

Ummm...what are you talking about? Could you be a little more specific?

How do you feel about Military spending, which results in more dead civilians, including children, pregnant women, and men. However, age and type doesn't matter. As Life is precious...

Why is it ok for your taxes to pay for the mass murder of people, but not 1 group, of women citizens?

Your stance is a power-trip over women in this country. No offense, but I know your answer already. As you haven't left the country due to your feelings over war, it wasn't that important..

Wait....what?

 

[Christine]

Well it's my opinion that human life is the most precious life there is, and does not deserve to be taken away by anyone. If you don't value human life then fine....it's my view that it IS valuable.

Okay, so long as I have your admission that you have not presented me with a reason that I should value it as you do.

Do you think that such a reason could exist? Or do you simply think that the woman's decision overrides any potential reason?

Possibly, although you have yet to mount a constructive normative argument in support of such a reason. At least one of any strength, at least; A woman's considered decision between two medical outcomes overrides any moral obligations possibly created by her recent sexual habits by a decisively compelling margin.

And what is a person?

An exhaustive definition is beyond the scope of this conversation, but most persons are entities created by the combination of individual experience and social interaction with other persons.

Each person is a unique and irreplaceable treasure. Human life is a largely fungible commodity, and one that's easy to produce more of, at that.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

I don't want to leap into the personal discussion in this thread. It's obvious a lot of people here are young men, and I don't know how valuable it is to pick apart the politics of young men on ANY issue. On abortion, though - totally pointless. These comments are about Republican politicians:

Obviously Republicans have been having these horrendous opinions for years but are totally unaccustomed to any sort of media spotlight being shone on the question. Simple statements about 'life at conception' are usually enough. Not any more though. The way this is playing out now is that pro-life Republicans are being forced into equally repulsive and abhorrent positions.

1. If you seriously think abortion is murder, the answer is obvious. It isn't OK to murder someone because they were the product of rape or incest. You're probably crazy, but at least you're consistent. This position says we should have 30,000 more babies a year from rapes, causing massive harm to mothers, families, children, the state. That we should cause untold damage to existing family structures and put 30,000 children whose parents don't want them into the world. That's the BEST case scenario, the shining ideal promoted by this position. Of course, abortion being illegal does what it always does, just cause 80% of those seeking abortion to do so illegally, and then forcing 10% to actually go through with it. So the reasonable outcome of the banning of abortion in cases of rape is 27,000 dangerous, illegal backyard abortions that risk everybody involved AND 3,000 children that cause massive damage to existing family structures, families, the children themselves, the state, etc.

2. If you think abortion is OK in the case of rape or incest, you don't think abortion is murder, or even close to being murder, and you just want women to be punished for having sex by banning abortions in all other cases. You are also probably crazy, and will demonstrate it by not being able to make a clear distinction between having consensual sex outside of marriage and being raped by your uncle without assigning degrees of blame or fault to the woman. You fall back on this position because there is literally nowhere else to go; you've established you think the life is sacred-to-a-point and so the dirtiness of the woman is the only moral recourse you've left yourself open to.

3. Or, in some cases in both categories, being so crazy that you have to struggle with making distinctions at all. You can see Tom Smith's wheels turning: "well, in both cases the woman is dirty and has shamed the family, but I can't say that, um..." He clearly hasn't thought about it, because he sees babies out of wedlock as a genuine tragedy and hasn't got the exposure to rape to understand how it has the potential to undo people.

 

[MIMIC]

Okay, so long as I have your admission that you have not presented me with a reason that I should value it as you do.

Possibly, although you have yet to mount a constructive normative argument in support of such a reason. At least one of any strength, at least; A woman's considered decision between two medical outcomes overrides any moral obligations possibly created by her recent sexual habits by a decisively compelling margin.

I gave you a reason. You just don't hold that reason as high as I do...which is fine.

An exhaustive definition is beyond the scope of this conversation, but most persons are entities created by the combination of individual experience and social interaction with other persons.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight....

What are your thoughts on the liberties of women?
*wall of text*

What is a person?
Oh, well, that's too much work

How disingenuous of you. YOU brought the term "person" into this argument. If you can't properly define what it is, then you can neither attribute nor deny that feature to something.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

^

I thought Christine answered the question of "What is a person?" quite well.

An exhaustive definition is beyond the scope of this conversation, but most persons are entities created by the combination of individual experience and social interaction with other persons.

Maybe rage over women's rights clouding vision / reading comprehension level?

 

[Christine]

I gave you a reason. You just don't hold that reason as hgh as I do...which is fine.

Your reason is that I should hold the value simply because you do. That's specious.

How disingenuous of you. YOU brought the term "person" into this argument. If you can't properly define what it is, then you can neither attribute nor deny that feature to something.

I gave an exemplar definition that you chose to ignore in favor of having this small tantrum. I can't very well explain something to someone who's not interested in engaging my explanation.

 

[Freezie KO]

Serious question though... after reading about recent developments with the recent "legit rape" talk and now this abortion thing... does Romney have any chance at all??

Absolutely. GAF is an echo chamber. It's not a poll. Vote for Obama if you can.

 

[MIMIC]

Your reason is that I should hold the value simply because you do. That's specious.

And you don't. Fine. But I'm sure on some level you do value human life....unless, of course, I'm completely wrong.

I gave an exemplar definition that you chose to ignore in favor of having this small tantrum. I can't very well explain something to someone who's not interested in engaging my explanation.

I chose to ignore it because it was a POOR definition...and is basically wrong. Your definition doesn't even include newborns, simply because they lack "experience" and "social interaction".

 

[Duffyside]

So you're against adoption?

You stop a human from developing. At the embryonic stage humans aren't physiologically much different from other animals at that stage.

No, against abandonment. It was very clear. The people giving up the child aren't the ones adopting them. They're doing the opposite.

You "stop a human from developing" if you kill a one year-old, too...

I forgot to mention that even if modern medicine has made pregnancy safer, it doesn't come for free. Hopefully the mother has medical coverage.

...another thing conservatives aren't keen on ensuring.

Who says the father shouldn't pay? And the lack of social programs, no matter how just and wonderful you think they are, is not a reason to kill people. It's the same reason you guys aren't in favor of getting rid of the unwanted children outside the womb, (hopefully) no matter what crazy research is presented to you which states the supposed societal benefits. What, if the GOP blocks another school lunch program, we better put these unwanted, unloved children out of their misery?

Human lives are valuable. Early stages of pregnancy aren't as valuable as the mother's rights to make choices (be it to deliver or abort), in many people's opinions.

MIMIC has his opinions, for example, his post in the Chick-Fil-A thread.

Some opinions are not as valuable as others.

I'm positive I've chosen to not respond to you, but you've demonstrated a case where I sort of have to. It's of no concern of mine if people I don't respect misstate what I say or have done; hopefully they're doing me a favor by weeding out the dopey people who just happily believe anything they see because they don't like me, and all I'll be left with are the people worth conversing with.

But, you're accusing MIMIC of something I did, and I can't let that slide. I was the one who posted in the Chick-Fil-A thread. From what I can tell, MIMIC never did.

Edit:

Human life is a largely fungible commodity

Pretty sure I'll never say anything in my life, no matter how angry or dumb I can get, that would ever embarrass me like the things that have been said by the pro-choice side in this thread. "It's like the mold in the shower." "It's a human, but that doesn't mean anything." "Human life is a commodity."

Is the reason more people who are pro-choice don't pipe-in at moments like these with "whoawhoaWHOA!" because this is the Devolution of our political discourse, where it is more akin to cheering for your favorite sports team, who can do no wrong?

 

[MIMIC]

Human lives are valuable. Early stages of pregnancy aren't as valuable as the mother's rights to make choices (be it to deliver or abort), in many people's opinions.

MIMIC has his opinions, for example, his post in the Chick-Fil-A thread.

Some opinions are not as valuable as others.

Um, what are you talking about?

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Absolutely. GAF is an echo chamber. It's not a poll. Vote for Obama if you can.

Romney has no chance in hell. Yes, vote and vote your conscience, but not out of some misplaced fear that Romney actually has a shot. Obama has 300 EC votes wrapped up and will probably walk away with over 330 EC votes when all is said and done.

 

[Duffyside]

Um, what are you talking about?

He was confusing you with me, as others have confused me with you. Don't worry about it.

 

[Freezie KO]

Romney has no chance in hell. Yes, vote and vote your conscience, but not out of some misplaced fear that Romney actually has a shot. Obama has 300 EC votes wrapped up and will probably walk away with over 330 EC votes when all is said and done.

A lot can happen in two and a half months. Certainly enough to swing a few states and bring the Electoral College into play.

 

[PhoenixDark]

No. But you should still out and vote.

You used to work on republican campaigns right? Do you honestly believe Romney is finished?

 

[CLEEK]

If the argument comes down to what date abortions should be legal, my view is any time while the foetus is pre-term, but only under medical reasons when in the third trimester. Which is pretty much the common view, medically and legally, in many countries.

Medical reasons include, but are not limited to, risk to the mother or the foetus testing positive for genetic or birth defects. Some genetic screens can only be done from the 2nd trimester.

The point the a foetus is deemed a 'person' and has legal rights is the moment of birth, natural or otherwise.

Legally, it is important to have clear understanding of dates and the point of legal person-hood. It is inevitable that in the future, medical science will have progressed to the point where a child can develop entirely in vitro. From conception to entire fetal development in a synthetic environment. The legal and moral framework that exists for biological reproduction would need to apply to laboratory reproduction too.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

You used to work on republican campaigns right? Do you honestly believe Romney is finished?

Yes and yes.

A lot can happen in two and a half months. Certainly enough to swing a few states and bring the Electoral College into play.

Romney would have to have such a perfect storm of EC results that it would be like walking the tightrope in that storm. I mean, seriously, he can't even lose NE1 (which he will.)

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yes and yes.

I'd love to get your detailed opinion lol if you don't mind. Just interested

 

[Jintor]

Pretty sure I'll never say anything in my life, no matter how angry or dumb I can get, that would ever embarrass me like the things that have been said by the pro-choice side in this thread. "It's like the mold in the shower." "It's a human, but that doesn't mean anything." "Human life is a commodity."

Is the reason more people who are pro-choice don't pipe-in at moments like these with "whoawhoaWHOA!" because this is the Devolution of our political discourse, where it is more akin to cheering for your favorite sports team, who can do no wrong?

Well, largely, it's because I haven't yet made up my mind yet at what point a fetus's life overtakes in importance that of its mother's and her right to choose. You may believe otherwise based on gut instinct and righteous indignation, but, as in most things, matters are complex.

As others have mentioned, the party that advocates that a baby should always be carried fully to term is the same party that doesn't appear to give a shit about a baby when they're actually alive but, say, in a disadvantaged position in society. So reconciling these positions is also taking up a fair bit of runtime.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Pretty sure I'll never say anything in my life, no matter how angry or dumb I can get, that would ever embarrass me like the things that have been said by the pro-choice side in this thread. "It's like the mold in the shower." "It's a human, but that doesn't mean anything." "Human life is a commodity."

Is the reason more people who are pro-choice don't pipe-in at moments like these with "whoawhoaWHOA!" because this is the Devolution of our political discourse, where it is more akin to cheering for your favorite sports team, who can do no wrong?

Now now. Try to stay a wee bit classy. I more substantive response to their points would have helped.

As to MIMIC's posts about valuing human life, I value it, but in the context of other things I also place value on. This is not an all or nothing proposition. I value a woman's right over her body and the impact on both her and society as a whole if she does not more than I value the life of developing in utero child, of various stages.

 

[Duffyside]

Now now. Try to stay a wee bit classy. I more substantive response to their points would have helped.

As to MIMIC's posts about valuing human life, I value it, but in the context of other things I also place value on. This is not an all or nothing proposition. I value a woman's right over her body and the impact on both her and society as a whole if she does not more than I value the life of developing in utero child, of various stages.

What is your objection to the bolded? Maybe I didn't make it clear that I'm not saying "all pro-choice believe this"? Sorry if that's the case. I was just saying that SOME people on that side have said those exact things and yeah, I would never forgive myself for saying something of that sort.

 

[pigeon]

Ummm...what are you talking about? Could you be a little more specific?

Yeah, I could. In fact, I have multiple times in this thread. Here are just two:

Society says that it is appropriate to kill people if we are at war with them; it's not ideal to kill them if they are, say, unarmed civilians, but it's not generally going to get you tried for murder. This is true even if the justification for the war is tenuous, imperialistic, or turns out in retrospect to be a lie. What justifies sparing our soldiers from punishment given the precious nature of human life? Should we not try and imprison them?

It is also widely accepted in the United States that, if a patient has formally expressed a desire not to be resuscitated, their physicians will abide by this and allow them to die. It should be clear that allowing somebody to die when you have the power to prevent it is not meaningfully distinct in any moral sense from causing somebody to die; how, then, can we justify allowing this? Should we not forcefully resuscitate such patients against their wishes in order to preserve human life to the extent that we can do so? What about a minor? The rights and desires of minors are executed by their guardians; should they present such a filing, what is the appropriate response?

 

[Christine]

And you don't. Fine. But I'm sure on some level you do value human life....unless, of course, I'm completely wrong.

Should I take this as your admission that you have not presented me with a reason that I should hold the same value that you do?

I chose to ignore it because it was a POOR definition...and is basically wrong. Your definition doesn't even include newborns, simply because they lack "experience" and "social interaction".

That definition most definitely does include newborns.

Birth is the transition that creates jus soli. social interaction

Birth is when we certify jus sanguinis. social interaction

Birth is often when a name is finalized and recorded. social interaction

Birth is when gender is determined if not already known. At this time, gender will usually be announced whether or not it was known in utero. social interaction

Birth is the first time a person will hold you in their arms. experience

Birth is the first intrusion of air into the lungs, entry into the ocean of atmosphere that we all share, a literally spiritual boundary, the first crest of a rhythmic process that will continue until we exit life through the opposite threshold. experience

Birth is the light of the world in our eyes. experience

The umbilical cord could not possibly be a better opportunity for symbolic ritual. experience social interaction

Pretty sure I'll never say anything in my life, no matter how angry or dumb I can get, that would ever embarrass me like the things that have been said by the pro-choice side in this thread. "It's like the mold in the shower." "It's a human, but that doesn't mean anything." "Human life is a commodity."

I'm proud to say that I've destroyed nearly 30 pounds of human life in the last two months and I hope to destroy another 30 by the end of the year.

 

[GhaleonEB]

What is your objection to the bolded? Maybe I didn't make it clear that I'm not saying "all pro-choice believe this"? Sorry if that's the case. I was just saying that SOME people on that side have said those exact things and yeah, I would never forgive myself for saying something of that sort.

Because you stopped sharing and arguing views for a moment to call a number of people dumb, in a ridiculously condescending way, for their views (and you did cut a wide swath with the comment). I get that this is a touchy subject but I've been impressed at how little name calling is going on. No need to start.

 

[Duffyside]

I'm proud to say that I've destroyed nearly 30 pounds of human life in the last two months and I hope to destroy another 30 by the end of the year.

It's a good thing that human life belonged to you, as evidenced by the DNA that is yours. Otherwise you'd have to get pigeon as your lawyer.

Because you stopped sharing and arguing views for a moment to call a number of people dumb, in a ridiculously condescending way, for their views (and you did cut a wide swath with the comment). I get that this is a touchy subject but I've been impressed at how little name calling is going on. No need to start.

Ah, no no no, I was calling myself dumb. I was saying that I can get angry and dumb, not that the people I was paraphrasing were angry and dumb. I was implying that those quotes were awful, though.

 

[CLEEK]

Pretty sure I'll never say anything in my life, no matter how angry or dumb I can get, that would ever embarrass me like the things that have been said by the pro-choice side in this thread.

Ha! Are you sure about that? In a thread filled with polemic views and hyperbole, the one comment that stood out for its amazing idiocy was one of yours. And it wasn't even directly about the topic on hand.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41354918&postcount=1249

Second of all, not believing in government provided social programs does not equal "not caring about people."

Of course a political view that opposes social programs is a stance that doesn't care about other people. US conservatism is all about the self. I've got mine, fuck everyone else. Which is a politic view I don't share, but when people are open with this view, I don't begrudge them. It's when they try to disguise their politics of selfishness with fallacies and warped logic.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

I'd love to get your detailed opinion lol if you don't mind. Just interested

It's 1am, I gotta get to bed, but here's the nutshell. Obama starts off with a minimum 222 EC votes, Romney 190. Every swing state is at least leaning Obama in 538's analysis except for NC. If that break holds, Romney has to find over 60 EC votes - not even FL, MI, and OH steal enough EC votes from Obama. Add to that, Romney's doing worse in the IEM* than McCain at this point, and it's pretty clear this campaign is all so much sound and fury.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to mention that with Obama's incumbency, I think the undecideds and independents will break for Obama, solidifying his position where he leads and threatening Romney where he doesn't.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Ah, no no no, I was calling myself dumb. I was saying that I can get angry and dumb, not that the people I was paraphrasing were angry and dumb. I was implying that those quotes were awful, though.

I still can't get that from the wording, but I appreciate the clarification. Fair enough.

 

[MIMIC]

Yeah, I could. In fact, I have multiple times in this thread. Here are just two:

Society says that it is appropriate to kill people if we are at war with them; it's not ideal to kill them if they are, say, unarmed civilians, but it's not generally going to get you tried for murder. This is true even if the justification for the war is tenuous, imperialistic, or turns out in retrospect to be a lie. What justifies sparing our soldiers from punishment given the precious nature of human life? Should we not try and imprison them?

Murder? No. Manslaughter (or something similar)? Maybe.

It is also widely accepted in the United States that, if a patient has formally expressed a desire not to be resuscitated, their physicians will abide by this and allow them to die. It should be clear that allowing somebody to die when you have the power to prevent it is not meaningfully distinct in any moral sense from causing somebody to die; how, then, can we justify allowing this? Should we not forcefully resuscitate such patients against their wishes in order to preserve human life to the extent that we can do so? What about a minor? The rights and desires of minors are executed by their guardians; should they present such a filing, what is the appropriate response?

You mean allowing someone to be put out of his or her misery? I have no issues with that. The key issue is that they were explicit in their wishes.

If you're trying to tie this into the abortion issue, I've already said time and time again that it's about preserving the life of those who can't speak for themselves because to rob someone of human life otherwise is to commit the worst of tragedies.

Should I take this as your admission that you have not presented me with a reason that I should hold the same value that you do?

I'm trying to find that out, but it's a little hard when you won't answer my question.

That definition most definitely does include newborns.

Your definition is considerably narrow and self-serving when the actual definition of a person goes well beyond that. I'd appreciate an actual definition that works in the real world and is all-inclusive. Or I can offer you one and you can see why yours doesn't fit.

EDIT: And your attempts to justify those events as "social interactions" is very weak at best.

 

[C4Lukins]

So any proof of this yet? I mean as a standard GOP stance? I am putting myself out there with three days of Republican rhetoric soon to come which I believe will not make a point out of this issue.

It is a lame duck argument, and this crazy far right party that some of you think exists, is going to prove you wrong. They may bring it up, but they are not going to run on it.

The left seems to be running their campaign, on the idea that the Republicans will stress Pro-Life, Anti-Gay legislation, and xenophobia.

We will know in three days and I think you are all wrong. They are going to run on defense, deficits, the economy, and broken promises by the Obama administration. It will not be racial, it will not be homophobic, I bet the abortion debate will only be brought up in passing, and there will not be a single mention by Romney at least when it comes down to homosexuality.

That is not to say these guys are the best people to lead our country. But they are not the fascists many of you love to imagine them to be. We will know in three days.

 

[Veezy]

So any proof of this yet? I mean as a standard GOP stance? I am putting myself out there with three days of Republican rhetoric soon to come which I believe will not make a point out of this issue.

It is a lame duck argument, and this crazy far right party that some of you think exists, is going to prove you wrong. They may bring it up, but they are not going to run on it.

The left seems to be running their campaign, on the idea that the Republicans will stress Pro-Life, Anti-Gay legislation, and xenophobia.

We will know in three days and I think you are all wrong. They are going to run on defense, deficits, the economy, and broken promises by the Obama administration. It will not be racial, it will not be homophobic, I bet the abortion debate will only be brought up in passing, and there will not be a single mention by Romney at least when it comes down to homosexuality.

That is not to say these guys are the best people to lead our country. But they are not the fascists many of you love to imagine them to be. We will know in three days.

Have you not been paying attention to the multiple members of the GOP who have came out in support of not allowing abortion, even in rape, recently? As in the past two weeks? Are you denying that this, along with gay marriage, will continue to be part of the republican platform?

Come on, just because party doesn't make multiple speeches on something does not mean it is not a part of their party's platform. Hell Oklahoma tried to have a life at conception bill passed. Sure it's one state, but it's still reflective of an overall goal based upon their members' public opinions.

But sit there and keep thinking that the GOP today is the exact same group as with the bushs or with regan.

 

[C4Lukins]

Have you not been paying attention to the multiple members of the GOP who have came out in support of not allowing abortion, even in rape, recently? As in the past two weeks? Are you denying that this, along with gay marriage, will continue to be part of the republican platform?

Come on, just because party doesn't make multiple speeches on something does not mean it is not a part of their party's platform. Hell Oklahoma tried to have a life at conception bill passed. Sure it's one state, but it's still reflective of an overall goal based upon their members' public opinions.

But sit there and keep thinking that the GOP today is the exact same group as with the bushs or with regan.

Multiple members of the GOP? One idiot said something really stupid, and another idiot said something almost as stupid, and the rest of the party has completely abandoned the two of them. Romney insisted that Akin, the guy who said the really stupid thing, drop out, and he has stated that he in no way agrees with him. Even people like Limbaugh and Coulter want this idiot out.

And you are right, pro-life is a part of their platform. But not these ridiculous rape claims, and not to the extreme that leftist attack dogs would claim. When you see Republicans actually trying to push pro-life bills, it is more along the lines of judicial or parental consent for minors, and no abortions past 5 months of pregnancy. It is nothing close to the extreme label that is placed on them.

But sadly yes, they do cater to certain dumb demographics just as the democrats do. There is a percentage of the population that votes on single issues that the rest of us could give a damn about, and each party has chopped those people up into blocks and throws them a verbal bone. At the end of the day, they still do nothing about it. If Romney wins, he is not going to try and create an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage or abortion. On the other side, Obama is not going to make an amendment legalizing drugs or granting asylum to every single illegal immigrant that enters the country. It is bull shit posturing from both sides.

 

[mavs]

So any proof of this yet? I mean as a standard GOP stance? I am putting myself out there with three days of Republican rhetoric soon to come which I believe will not make a point out of this issue.

It is a lame duck argument, and this crazy far right party that some of you think exists, is going to prove you wrong. They may bring it up, but they are not going to run on it.

The left seems to be running their campaign, on the idea that the Republicans will stress Pro-Life, Anti-Gay legislation, and xenophobia.

We will know in three days and I think you are all wrong. They are going to run on defense, deficits, the economy, and broken promises by the Obama administration. It will not be racial, it will not be homophobic, I bet the abortion debate will only be brought up in passing, and there will not be a single mention by Romney at least when it comes down to homosexuality.

That is not to say these guys are the best people to lead our country. But they are not the fascists many of you love to imagine them to be. We will know in three days.

I don't understand the question? The draft committee ratified the call to amend the Constitution and the platform will be presented to the GOP convention today or tomorrow (where it will pass without issue.)

I don't know what world you've been living in for the past week but Republicans have been stressing exactly what you said they would not. They will move away from those issues but the damage is done, and seeing as nobody even brought it up until they did it seems they are going to have some trouble staying away from the culture war even if they know it will cost them the election.

 

[Hitokage]

When you see Republicans actually trying to push pro-life bills, it is more along the lines of judicial or parental consent for minors, and no abortions past 5 months of pregnancy. It is nothing close to the extreme label that is placed on them.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212

Sponsor:
Rep. Paul Broun Jr. [R-GA10]

[...]

Cosponsors:
Aderholt, Robert [R-AL4]
Akin, Todd [R-MO2]
Alexander, Rodney [R-LA5]
Bachus, Spencer [R-AL6]
Bartlett, Roscoe [R-MD6]
Bishop, Rob [R-UT1]
Black, Diane [R-TN6]
Burton, Dan [R-IN5]
Carter, John [R-TX31]
Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT3]
Cole, Tom [R-OK4]
Conaway, Michael [R-TX11]
Crawford, Rick [R-AR1]
Fleming, John [R-LA4]
Forbes, Randy [R-VA4]
Foxx, Virginia [R-NC5]
Franks, Trent [R-AZ2]
Garrett, Scott [R-NJ5]
Gibbs, Bob [R-OH18]
Gingrey, John “Phil” [R-GA11]
Gohmert, Louis [R-TX1]
Herger, Walter “Wally” [R-CA2]
Huelskamp, Tim [R-KS1]
Johnson, Samuel “Sam” [R-TX3]
Jones, Walter [R-NC3]
King, Steve [R-IA5]
Kingston, Jack [R-GA1]
Kline, John [R-MN2]
Lamborn, Doug [R-CO5]
Latta, Robert [R-OH5]
Long, Billy [R-MO7]
Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R-MO9]
Manzullo, Donald [R-IL16]
Marchant, Kenny [R-TX24]
McHenry, Patrick [R-NC10]
McKinley, David [R-WV1]
Miller, Gary [R-CA42]
Miller, Jeff [R-FL1]
Myrick, Sue [R-NC9]
Neugebauer, Randy [R-TX19]
Olson, Pete [R-TX22]
Pearce, Steven “Steve” [R-NM2]
Roe, Phil [R-TN1]
Rogers, Harold “Hal” [R-KY5]
Rogers, Michael “Mike” [R-AL3]
Rokita, Todd [R-IN4]
Rooney, Thomas [R-FL16]
Ryan, Paul [R-WI1]
Scalise, Steve [R-LA1]
Schock, Aaron [R-IL18]
Terry, Lee [R-NE2]
Thompson, Glenn [R-PA5]
Westmoreland, Lynn [R-GA3]
Wittman, Rob [R-VA1]
Ellmers, Renee [R-NC2]
(joined Jan 12, 2011)
Lankford, James [R-OK5]
(joined Jan 12, 2011)
Ross, Dennis [R-FL12]
(joined Jan 12, 2011)
Duncan, Jeff [R-SC3]
(joined Jan 20, 2011)
Farenthold, Blake [R-TX27]
(joined Jan 20, 2011)
McCotter, Thaddeus “Thad” [R-MI11]
(joined Jan 20, 2011)
Stutzman, Marlin [R-IN3]
(joined Jan 20, 2011)
Pompeo, Mike [R-KS4]
(joined Jan 25, 2011)
Roby, Martha [R-AL2]
(joined Nov 02, 2011)
Canseco, Francisco “Quico” [R-TX23]
(joined Mar 28, 2012)

A BILL

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Sanctity of Human Life Act’.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION.

In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:

(1) FERTILIZATION- The term ‘fertilization’ means the process of a human spermatozoan penetrating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to create a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, which is a new unique human being.

(2) CLONING- The term ‘cloning’ means the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make a human embryo.

(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms ‘human’ and ‘human being’ include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

Hmm, what was I saying earlier...

The argument that it should be considered a human being if it is alive and has human DNA also ends up being problematic when considering parasitic twins, fetus in fetu, taratomas, and, to a lesser extent, tumors.

Yeah...

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Yeah, pro-life has started to mean pro-life with no exceptions.
Vote a republican in, and you might very well be responsible for the banning of abortions.

If I was a republican that abhorred the non-social policies of Obama, I don't think I could in good conscience vote in the republicans.

 

[Hitokage]

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/paul-ryan-cosponsored-all-most-extreme-anti-abortion-bills