Yep and a retalitory strike done against the pro-life crowd as well for a few weeks afterward one of their main spokesmen died as well. hmmm interesting so much for the morale high ground arguement.
Last time I checked Dr. Tiller was doing those.
yes and was constantly under state investigation on ethics charges as well. kanas has laws that prevent late term abortions unless two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. on top of that a 2nd doctor is required but that doctor has to be independant. I find it very difficult to believe so many women had issues with their pregnancy that would cause substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily functions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I still don't understand why pro-life people are not demanding funding for the greatest health crisis facing humanity. That is, of course, the fact that 30-odd percent of people die within the first twelve weeks of their life. Assuming, you know, you take the slightly odd position that life as a human begins at conception.
I still don't understand why pro-life people are not demanding funding for the greatest health crisis facing humanity. That is, of course, the fact that 30-odd percent of people die within the first twelve weeks of their life. Assuming, you know, you take the slightly odd position that life as a human begins at conception.
To look at the voting block I'd say evangelists are the "smaller government" side of the equation, where as Catholics generally side with Democrats on social justice issues.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I still don't understand why pro-life people are not demanding funding for the greatest health crisis facing humanity. That is, of course, the fact that 30-odd percent of people die within the first twelve weeks of their life. Assuming, you know, you take the slightly odd position that life as a human begins at conception.
Could you elaborate? I don't really understand what it is you are asking here.
yes and was constantly under state investigation on ethics charges as well.
And every time he got out without any charges sticking. Funny that.
Considering the amount of undue harassment he was under by the authorities, and no actual ethics problems being found related to his practice, I would say I'm much more confident in his ethics than those of most other medical practionners in the USA.
kanas has laws that prevent late term abortions unless two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. on top of that a 2nd doctor is required but that doctor has to be independant. I find it very difficult to believe so many women had issues with their pregnancy that would cause substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily functions.
It's not that hard to believe when you figure that Tiller was one of only two doctors doing that procedure in the entire United States, meaning you're not talking about this many cases in Kansas. You're talking about this many cases in the USA as a whole. Well, half of those, anyhow.
Attacking Dr. Tiller was the lowest of the low, even for the right-wing domestic terrorist crowd. His patients were all women and couples who were eagerly *expecting* a child, and had to forget about that because of health issues. He had a staff trained for the exact special type of grief management needed for this sort of cases. And instead of being considered a hero as was his due for doing a dirty job nobody elses wanted to do (like a fireman, or, you know, a doctor), actual mainstream so-called journalists like O'Reilly were inciting murderers to go after him. Well good job BillO, you got what you wanted. Somebody shot him.
That and Tiller was doing late term abortions for fetal corpses that died of natural causes. The kind of abortions he did are the only ethical kind next to those of rape. Tiller died a hero.
The ones I object to are the horny teenagers that do it as a matter of convenience. This is why the adoption system should be reworked to not cost someone 30k to adopt a child. That 30k based on lawyer fees and frivolous expenditures such as IQ tests could be better served to fund a child's college education.
This might apply only at the point of conception. most women don't find out they are pregnant until several weeks after this has occured. by then yes there are organs and a circulatory system and parts of the nervous system in place.
I wonder what sort of window for decision-making we're talking about here. If the woman is any sort of conscientious and caring person, she is likely to struggle with the decision she has to make. A few weeks is actually much less time than I imagine it takes many women to finally decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term.
wrong seeing how i think at the 4 month ultra sound i saw my son playing with his foot. nope no sentience there at all.
Well, I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but I don't think what you saw proves what you think it proves. My cat plays with his feet all the time and no one thinks he's sentient.
No one is controlling women. no one technically forces a person to get pregnant. rape is probably the only uncontrolled circumstance.
Well, your statement is true now that Roe is law of the land... before that, society (which being male-dominated, meant: men) controlled women by dictating that they could not end pregnancies. As for other uncontrolled circumstances, there are also accidents. Broken condoms, for instance, do occur, usually when they are misused or stored for too long, but even when used correctly there is a small risk factor for pregnancy. Should those women, who clearly did NOT want to become pregnant, be punished for an accident by going through a pregnancy and birth they did not want?
In theory, again, your argument is sound: a consenting adult accepts the risk of pregnancy when they accept the joy of sex. BUT, there is often a gap between theory and practise, and nature has a way of finding a way.
with today's modern medicine there is no excuse for someone to get pregnant.
OK, I'm very confused by this. Isn't the modern right wing preaching "abstinence only" education? What "medicine" would be involved with someone NOT becoming pregnant? The only "medicine" I can think of would be the pill (which is not 100% effective), or the morning-after pill, which many abortion opponents falsely describe as an abortifacient.
sorry but an infant isn't a parasitical growth that is pretty much a medical fact. you sensationalism is quite boring actually.
Also, a fetus is not an infant. I'm sick of people dodging the truth on both sides of this issue. Pro-life, pro-choice, I'm sick of the euphemisms too. Most conscientious right-wingers aren't "anti-choice", they just think some choices are immoral and they prioritize some things differently. Similarly, most conscientious left-wingers aren't "anti-life" (who makes up this dialogue, Darkseid??), they just prioritize the freedom and autonomy of adult women over the concern for potential lives.
Yep and a retalitory strike done against the pro-life crowd as well for a few weeks afterward one of their main spokesmen died as well. hmmm interesting so much for the morale high ground arguement.
Wanna provide a link of some kind to corroborate this? I never heard of this claim.
yes and was constantly under state investigation on ethics charges as well.
I heard the investigations of Tiller were a witch hunt, though I don't know from personal knowledge. What I do know is that investigatory AND medical ethics can get squeezed out when issues become politicized.
kanas has laws that prevent late term abortions unless two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. on top of that a 2nd doctor is required but that doctor has to be independant. I find it very difficult to believe so many women had issues with their pregnancy that would cause substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily functions.
I suppose it's possible women from elsewhere were traveling to Tiller to get a procedure they couldn't get done where they lived. In this sense, he may have been helping people to evade the law. Was this a crime deservant of being killed by a vigilante?
I wonder what sort of window for decision-making we're talking about here. If the woman is any sort of conscientious and caring person, she is likely to struggle with the decision she has to make. A few weeks is actually much less time than I imagine it takes many women to finally decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term.
Well, I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but I don't think what you saw proves what you think it proves. My cat plays with his feet all the time and no one thinks he's sentient.
Well, your statement is true now that Roe is law of the land... before that, society (which being male-dominated, meant: men) controlled women by dictating that they could not end pregnancies. As for other uncontrolled circumstances, there are also accidents. Broken condoms, for instance, do occur, usually when they are misused or stored for too long, but even when used correctly there is a small risk factor for pregnancy. Should those women, who clearly did NOT want to become pregnant, be punished for an accident by going through a pregnancy and birth they did not want?
In theory, again, your argument is sound: a consenting adult accepts the risk of pregnancy when they accept the joy of sex. BUT, there is often a gap between theory and practise, and nature has a way of finding a way.
OK, I'm very confused by this. Isn't the modern right wing preaching "abstinence only" education? What "medicine" would be involved with someone NOT becoming pregnant? The only "medicine" I can think of would be the pill (which is not 100% effective), or the morning-after pill, which many abortion opponents falsely describe as an abortifacient.
Abstinence is a real pain in the ass, but it is the most efficient system we have to avoid pregnancy. However, I'd add more towards the caveat that society is making "children be children" longer coupled student loans. An 18 year old during WWII could have a family, an 18 year old today would be a laughing stock and called a child them self outright.
It just wasn't "the war" that made these people into "The Greatest Generation," it's because society had the means and ability to make it easier to become an adult faster. I've known enough WWII people to know that even when they were young with families to know they were immature as people are today even after being a veteran.
Although, they are of a different spending climate and a different economic era. Coupled with the sharp recession after WWII didn't make this stuff easy either.
I wonder what sort of window for decision-making we're talking about here. If the woman is any sort of conscientious and caring person, she is likely to struggle with the decision she has to make. A few weeks is actually much less time than I imagine it takes many women to finally decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term.
Not really what i was refering to. Someone said there were not any organ, nervous system etc.
this might be true at conception however most women won't find out they are pregentant till at least a month or more by then those system are either in place or being developed.
Well, I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but I don't think what you saw proves what you think it proves. My cat plays with his feet all the time and no one thinks he's sentient.
So your cat has 0 awarness of what it is doing? a little far fetched don't you think?
How does it not? it isn't involentary as he let it go and then grabed it again then let it go. played with his other hand a bit.
he seemed pretty aware to me.
Should those women, who clearly did NOT want to become pregnant, be punished for an accident by going through a pregnancy and birth they did not want?
Then they should have taken better steps and or not fooled around to begin with. For every action there is a consquence. if you are not willing to accept the consquences then you probably shouldn't follow through with the action.
plus there are other ways besides abortion.
OK, I'm very confused by this. Isn't the modern right wing preaching "abstinence only" education? What "medicine" would be involved with someone NOT becoming pregnant? The only "medicine" I can think of would be the pill (which is not 100% effective), or the morning-after pill, which many abortion opponents falsely describe as an abortifacient.
I get so sick of hearing this arguement. Only morons preach abstinence only. for it truely is the ultimate in birth control. you don't have sex you can't get pregnant.
I am speaking more for adults in this area than teens. There are several treatments out there.
There is the pill which isn't 100% but close when used with other things.
there is a UID which is pretty much 100% and good for about 10 years and covered by insurance as well.
there are other methods out there so that yea no one should get pregnant.
Also, a fetus is not an infant.
i have ultrasounds that prove that wrong.
Wanna provide a link of some kind to corroborate this? I never heard of this claim.
I heard the investigations of Tiller were a witch hunt, though I don't know from personal knowledge. What I do know is that investigatory AND medical ethics can get squeezed out when issues become politicized.
he was being investigated because of the number of late term abortions being done. most of the reasons he gave were depression which is very much treatable and some women do suffer from it. it really does push the limits on kanas law. It also takes an independant doctor to confirm this as well. something must have happened because the charges didn't stick. I would say poor prosecution or poor jury selection.
I suppose it's possible women from elsewhere were traveling to Tiller to get a procedure they couldn't get done where they lived. In this sense, he may have been helping people to evade the law. Was this a crime deservant of being killed by a vigilante?
Please show me where i said it did. I do not condone the actions that were done. It is up to the court system in this country to convict him.
An 18 year old during WWII could have a family, an 18 year old today would be a laughing stock and called a child outright.
an 18 year old then grew up and was raised different than today as well.
an 18 year old then would say "yes sir, no sir", "yes ma'am, no ma'am" today they just as soon shoot you (no this isn't all teens before someone brings up that stupid arguement). teens today do not have the respect nor the work ethic as they did back then. as most 18 year olds then had to work and had been working.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I'm afraid I don't. All I can do is suggest that you see if your browser has some kind of zoom function (ctrl + mouse scrollwheel or something). Sorry.
The picture is a list of if a position is consistent with the belief that abortion is exactly the same as child murder or if it is consistent with wanting women who have sex to suffer consequences. Partially banning the procedure(s), making exceptions in cases of rape or incest and opposing comprehensive sex education are examples of the latter. I posted it because, well, it is frankly pretty handy.
Mystery45 just straight up admits that he thinks that women who have sex should suffer consequences, though, so...
I see your point on the one hand, but on the other hand the way I view it is If abortion: The women suffers no consequences for her action, the new human suffers consequences for the action. If no abortion: The women suffers the consequences of her action, the new human suffers no consequences.
I fully recognize that my opinion is predicated on the concept that a fetus is a human being deserving every bit of protection that any other human being receives, I also recognize that yours is not. Unfortunately I think both sides will always be at an impasse unless that particular point is solved. Which is also why the whole arguing about controlling women, "forcing" them to have children etc. is a pointless argument to have because it won't resolve anything.
If there were conclusive evidence that a fetus is not a being deserving of protection until X stage in the pregnancy then I would have no problem with abortion prior to X. I believe it becomes deserving of that protection on fertilization, and theres really no way to scientifically determine (as of now) when it "earns" that protection.
Mystery45 just straight up admits that he thinks that women who have sex should suffer consequences, though, so...
as usuall twisting and lies doesn't make it so.
actions have consquences. for me abortion should only be used in case of major health risks and or possible death of the mother. it should not be used as a contraceptive which some women do.
since they are not responsible enough to keep from getting pregnant.
yes your choices have consquences. yes you have to live with those consquences. most women after having an abortion regret it. It is called personal responsibility for your actions.
you can twist it however you want to doesn't mean you are right.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
many types of pill have abortificient properties. Some, failing to prevent ovulation, prevent the cells from attatching to the uterine lining and thus abort the preganacy early on.
We already had this argument earlier in the thread, with the side you are arguing (and myself as well) acknowledging that the definition of when the pregnancy starts is currently debated and as such the term "abortaficient" could apply or could not depending on which definition used. The definition you and I are using is the "conception is the start of pregnancy", the definition the opposing side is using is the "implantation" is the start of pregnancy.
This was, ever so eloquently, countered with ravings about how we were lieing and want to control women.
The kind of abortions he did are the only ethical kind next to those of rape. Tiller died a hero.
This is exactly why I am in favor of legal abortions. The question we have is whether or not a fetus is considered a person. If this is the case, then you do not have a right to kill it, and the inconvenience of the woman is of no consequence. If it is not a person, then you are destroying the rights of a woman to have control over her own body. How the child is conceived has no bearing on whether it is a person or not, however, forcing a woman who is pregnant from the result of rape to keep her child is clearly unethical. Therefore, since the biological factors which determine "humanity" are the same and it is morally acceptable to kill the organism based on the circumstances surrounding it, DNA cannot be the deciding factor on personhood.
If you believe that abortion is murder, and that it is acceptable for a woman who was raped to have an abortion, then you believe it is acceptable to murder someone because of the actions of another.
forcing a woman who is pregnant from the result of rape to keep her child is clearly unethical. Therefore, since the biological factors which determine "humanity" are the
Why? Accept -purely for the sake of argument- that an unborn is an human being deserving of all rights that another person. Why would preventing the women from intentionally killing it be clearly unethical? Obviously if you don't accept the hypothetical it would be unethical, but then if you don't accept the hypothetical it would be unethical to force a 25 year old who just wanted to run around and have unprotected sex nonstop to carry the baby to term also.
If you believe that abortion is murder, and that it is acceptable for a woman who was raped to have an abortion, then you believe it is acceptable to murder someone because of the actions of another.
Correct. Which is why the "rape exception" is incompatible with any argument predicated on the rights of the unborn. I'm pretty sure most rational people would agree with that.
most organizations and people arguing on the basis of the rights of the unborn aren't willing to accept a "rape exception" except possibly as a step on the way to the ultimate end goal of no exception.
Edit: correction, I shouldn't say most, since I haven't done the research into most of them. But I know at least several.
Please, don't make up definitions for words, a fetus can never be an infant, as they are concurrent stages of human growth and can not occur at the same time and have a clearly defined boundary (birth).
Quote from Cambridge dictionary »
Foetusnoun (US also Fetus)
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to develop.
Infant noun
a baby or a very young child.
Also for completeness
Quote from Cambridge dictionary »
Embryo noun an animal that is developing either in its mother's womb or in an egg, or a plant that is developing in a seed.
This was, ever so eloquently, countered with ravings about how we were lieing and want to control women.
I've already posted the handbook. I've already countered the lie about the pill being abortificent.
Tuss' table eloquantly completes the argument.
There's not a whole lot of polite ways to tell people they're liars. Sorry if I was 'raving'. You already lied on this very thread (about your support of contraception, about the morning after pill being *always* an abortificent), so it's not like I don't have just cause.
I've already posted the handbook. I've already countered the lie about the pill being abortificent.
Hey look at that. I've already explained why its not a lie. I don't need to explain again. You never addressed my explanations the first time, instead you decided to keep insisting its a lie over and over again.
kind of. I can't actually read the table (as I pointed out earlier), but from what I can make out of it, its not actually presenting any evidence, so much as pro-choice talking points.
There's not a whole lot of polite ways to tell people they're liars. Sorry if I was 'raving'. You already lied on this very thread (about your support of contraception, about the morning after pill being *always* an abortificent), so it's not like I don't have just cause.
Lets just say that after this post, I'm not responding to you (personally) any more in this thread. You have accused me of lying repeatedly, I explained my position, rather than showing where it was wrong (its not) you just keep accusing me of lying.
I do take it as a personal insult that you consider my statements regarding my beliefs on contraceptives (which have been 100% consistent, and 100% true) to be lies.
Its poor debate tactics, poor manners, and a major character flaw.
I'll still be participating in this debate with others who want to have an actual debate on the issues, rather than repeatedly flaming me.
Please, don't make up definitions for words, a fetus can never be an infant, as they are concurrent stages of human growth and can not occur at the same time and have a clearly defined boundary (birth).
definitions or not i have ultrasounds that show a living being inside my wife regardless of what you want to call it. it is pretty clear that it is alive.
I've already posted the handbook.
correction you posted a handbook by one organization which is pretty extreme. that is only a hand book to those that follow it. since not everyone follows that hand book you cannot make this claim.
Tuss' table eloquantly completes the argument.
tuss's chart (no link by the way) more than likely comes from some pro-abortion site that again only those people follow and that is their opinion not a fact. so no it doens't complete the arguement.
There's not a whole lot of polite ways to tell people they're liars. Sorry if I was 'raving'. You already lied on this very thread (about your support of contraception, about the morning after pill being *always* an abortificent), so it's not like I don't have just cause.
No he didn't lie. some people view those types of contraceptives as abortifcent. which in some ways the morning after pill is as the process of conception is complete. the morning after pills stop it from attaching to the uterus if i remember correctly.
technically it could be considered an abortion by some.
the liars by the way are people that fool themselves into thinking that a baby inside a mother is not alive. those people are lieing to themselves. it beats telling themselves that they are killing a live baby. i guess it is intended to make the guilt be easier.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
No he didn't lie. some people view those types of contraceptives as abortifcent. which in some ways the morning after pill is as the process of conception is complete. the morning after pills stop it from attaching to the uterus if i remember correctly.
technically it could be considered an abortion by some.
Don't bother. I already explained that entirely to him in the very beginning of the thread. apparently I'm a "liar" when I say I support non-abbortificient birth control such as barrier methods, and then explain that I follow the definition of pregnancy starting conception rather than implantation.
The picture is a list of if a position is consistent with the belief that abortion is exactly the same as child murder or if it is consistent with wanting women who have sex to suffer consequences. Partially banning the procedure(s), making exceptions in cases of rape or incest and opposing comprehensive sex education are examples of the latter. I posted it because, well, it is frankly pretty handy.
Be careful; "consistency" can be a be weaselly concept. For instance, your support for legal abortion is consistent with the belief that a woman's right to control her body overrides any claim the fetus may have to it. But it's also consistent with the belief that all abortions are human sacrifices to Dread Tlaloc, May He Drown the Unfaithful in their Own Tears.
So I suppose the necessary question is: are you actually a crazed cultist of the Aztec sea god feigning a socially palatable justification for your true beliefs? Because that, essentially, is what you and DarkAngel are accusing anti-abortioners of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I do take it as a personal insult that you consider my statements regarding my beliefs on contraceptives (which have been 100% consistent, and 100% true) to be lies.
You said you weren't against contraception, that that was a Catholic position, then backpedaled and added a caveat. In my worlds, that's a lie by omission. The strategy as outlined in the handbook is to not come out immediatly as anti-contraception but to ease into it, because the general public is not sympathetic to that position. From my vantage point, you just seem like a militant following the script as given in these training manuals. Occam's Razor.
Be careful; "consistency" can be a be weaselly concept. For instance, your support for legal abortion is consistent with the belief that a woman's right to control her body overrides any claim the fetus may have to it. But it's also consistent with the belief that all abortions are human sacrifices to Dread Tlaloc, May He Drown the Unfaithful in their Own Tears.
But that's why you look at external signifiers too. For instance we also oppose China's forced abortion policies. That is consistent with a pro-choice position, not with a human sacrifice position. Whereas pro-lifers also support death penalty and explicitly attack organisations that provide prenatal support to poor women. That is not consistent with 'life is so precious'.
for people's reference, my verbatim words regarding my stance on contraceptives:
"A select subset of the conservative movement is against contraception on religious grounds. I am all for contraception, as long as it doesn't act as an abortificient, and I'm pro-life. You are conflating Catholic views with the views of the entire conservative movement."
Thankfully we do not make quite as fanciful an assertion as that, though. We also have not gone so far as to wish for mandatory abortion or anything of the like which would be evidence for that there was something strange with our beliefs.
The concept of gender roles and a family hierarchy headed by a man, however, is alive and well in our society. Aztec cults aren't.
EDIT: urgh, quit posting before I manage to finish typing, people!! This makes me upset IRL and I cry big wobbly tears over it and misuse punctuation ,
I think the point was not that you are Tlalc worshippers, but that you're posts are assuming that merely because its consistent with what you are accusing us of, it therefore must be true that we think what you are accusing us of, when in fact it could be consistent with several things simultaneously. Consistency isn't proof.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yep and a retalitory strike done against the pro-life crowd as well for a few weeks afterward one of their main spokesmen died as well. hmmm interesting so much for the morale high ground arguement.
yes and was constantly under state investigation on ethics charges as well. kanas has laws that prevent late term abortions unless two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. on top of that a 2nd doctor is required but that doctor has to be independant. I find it very difficult to believe so many women had issues with their pregnancy that would cause substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily functions.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To look at the voting block I'd say evangelists are the "smaller government" side of the equation, where as Catholics generally side with Democrats on social justice issues.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Could you elaborate? I don't really understand what it is you are asking here.
Cite plz.
And every time he got out without any charges sticking. Funny that.
Considering the amount of undue harassment he was under by the authorities, and no actual ethics problems being found related to his practice, I would say I'm much more confident in his ethics than those of most other medical practionners in the USA.
It's not that hard to believe when you figure that Tiller was one of only two doctors doing that procedure in the entire United States, meaning you're not talking about this many cases in Kansas. You're talking about this many cases in the USA as a whole. Well, half of those, anyhow.
Attacking Dr. Tiller was the lowest of the low, even for the right-wing domestic terrorist crowd. His patients were all women and couples who were eagerly *expecting* a child, and had to forget about that because of health issues. He had a staff trained for the exact special type of grief management needed for this sort of cases. And instead of being considered a hero as was his due for doing a dirty job nobody elses wanted to do (like a fireman, or, you know, a doctor), actual mainstream so-called journalists like O'Reilly were inciting murderers to go after him. Well good job BillO, you got what you wanted. Somebody shot him.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
The ones I object to are the horny teenagers that do it as a matter of convenience. This is why the adoption system should be reworked to not cost someone 30k to adopt a child. That 30k based on lawyer fees and frivolous expenditures such as IQ tests could be better served to fund a child's college education.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I wonder what sort of window for decision-making we're talking about here. If the woman is any sort of conscientious and caring person, she is likely to struggle with the decision she has to make. A few weeks is actually much less time than I imagine it takes many women to finally decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term.
Well, I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but I don't think what you saw proves what you think it proves. My cat plays with his feet all the time and no one thinks he's sentient.
Well, your statement is true now that Roe is law of the land... before that, society (which being male-dominated, meant: men) controlled women by dictating that they could not end pregnancies. As for other uncontrolled circumstances, there are also accidents. Broken condoms, for instance, do occur, usually when they are misused or stored for too long, but even when used correctly there is a small risk factor for pregnancy. Should those women, who clearly did NOT want to become pregnant, be punished for an accident by going through a pregnancy and birth they did not want?
In theory, again, your argument is sound: a consenting adult accepts the risk of pregnancy when they accept the joy of sex. BUT, there is often a gap between theory and practise, and nature has a way of finding a way.
OK, I'm very confused by this. Isn't the modern right wing preaching "abstinence only" education? What "medicine" would be involved with someone NOT becoming pregnant? The only "medicine" I can think of would be the pill (which is not 100% effective), or the morning-after pill, which many abortion opponents falsely describe as an abortifacient.
Also, a fetus is not an infant. I'm sick of people dodging the truth on both sides of this issue. Pro-life, pro-choice, I'm sick of the euphemisms too. Most conscientious right-wingers aren't "anti-choice", they just think some choices are immoral and they prioritize some things differently. Similarly, most conscientious left-wingers aren't "anti-life" (who makes up this dialogue, Darkseid??), they just prioritize the freedom and autonomy of adult women over the concern for potential lives.
Wanna provide a link of some kind to corroborate this? I never heard of this claim.
I heard the investigations of Tiller were a witch hunt, though I don't know from personal knowledge. What I do know is that investigatory AND medical ethics can get squeezed out when issues become politicized.
I suppose it's possible women from elsewhere were traveling to Tiller to get a procedure they couldn't get done where they lived. In this sense, he may have been helping people to evade the law. Was this a crime deservant of being killed by a vigilante?
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
Abstinence is a real pain in the ass, but it is the most efficient system we have to avoid pregnancy. However, I'd add more towards the caveat that society is making "children be children" longer coupled student loans. An 18 year old during WWII could have a family, an 18 year old today would be a laughing stock and called a child them self outright.
It just wasn't "the war" that made these people into "The Greatest Generation," it's because society had the means and ability to make it easier to become an adult faster. I've known enough WWII people to know that even when they were young with families to know they were immature as people are today even after being a veteran.
Although, they are of a different spending climate and a different economic era. Coupled with the sharp recession after WWII didn't make this stuff easy either.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Not really what i was refering to. Someone said there were not any organ, nervous system etc.
this might be true at conception however most women won't find out they are pregentant till at least a month or more by then those system are either in place or being developed.
So your cat has 0 awarness of what it is doing? a little far fetched don't you think?
How does it not? it isn't involentary as he let it go and then grabed it again then let it go. played with his other hand a bit.
he seemed pretty aware to me.
Then they should have taken better steps and or not fooled around to begin with. For every action there is a consquence. if you are not willing to accept the consquences then you probably shouldn't follow through with the action.
plus there are other ways besides abortion.
I get so sick of hearing this arguement. Only morons preach abstinence only. for it truely is the ultimate in birth control. you don't have sex you can't get pregnant.
I am speaking more for adults in this area than teens. There are several treatments out there.
There is the pill which isn't 100% but close when used with other things.
there is a UID which is pretty much 100% and good for about 10 years and covered by insurance as well.
there are other methods out there so that yea no one should get pregnant.
i have ultrasounds that prove that wrong.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09091101.html
it was in the news.
he was being investigated because of the number of late term abortions being done. most of the reasons he gave were depression which is very much treatable and some women do suffer from it. it really does push the limits on kanas law. It also takes an independant doctor to confirm this as well. something must have happened because the charges didn't stick. I would say poor prosecution or poor jury selection.
Please show me where i said it did. I do not condone the actions that were done. It is up to the court system in this country to convict him.
an 18 year old then grew up and was raised different than today as well.
an 18 year old then would say "yes sir, no sir", "yes ma'am, no ma'am" today they just as soon shoot you (no this isn't all teens before someone brings up that stupid arguement). teens today do not have the respect nor the work ethic as they did back then. as most 18 year olds then had to work and had been working.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I see your point on the one hand, but on the other hand the way I view it is If abortion: The women suffers no consequences for her action, the new human suffers consequences for the action. If no abortion: The women suffers the consequences of her action, the new human suffers no consequences.
I fully recognize that my opinion is predicated on the concept that a fetus is a human being deserving every bit of protection that any other human being receives, I also recognize that yours is not. Unfortunately I think both sides will always be at an impasse unless that particular point is solved. Which is also why the whole arguing about controlling women, "forcing" them to have children etc. is a pointless argument to have because it won't resolve anything.
If there were conclusive evidence that a fetus is not a being deserving of protection until X stage in the pregnancy then I would have no problem with abortion prior to X. I believe it becomes deserving of that protection on fertilization, and theres really no way to scientifically determine (as of now) when it "earns" that protection.
as usuall twisting and lies doesn't make it so.
actions have consquences. for me abortion should only be used in case of major health risks and or possible death of the mother. it should not be used as a contraceptive which some women do.
since they are not responsible enough to keep from getting pregnant.
yes your choices have consquences. yes you have to live with those consquences. most women after having an abortion regret it. It is called personal responsibility for your actions.
you can twist it however you want to doesn't mean you are right.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
We already had this argument earlier in the thread, with the side you are arguing (and myself as well) acknowledging that the definition of when the pregnancy starts is currently debated and as such the term "abortaficient" could apply or could not depending on which definition used. The definition you and I are using is the "conception is the start of pregnancy", the definition the opposing side is using is the "implantation" is the start of pregnancy.
This was, ever so eloquently, countered with ravings about how we were lieing and want to control women.
If you believe that abortion is murder, and that it is acceptable for a woman who was raped to have an abortion, then you believe it is acceptable to murder someone because of the actions of another.
Why? Accept -purely for the sake of argument- that an unborn is an human being deserving of all rights that another person. Why would preventing the women from intentionally killing it be clearly unethical? Obviously if you don't accept the hypothetical it would be unethical, but then if you don't accept the hypothetical it would be unethical to force a 25 year old who just wanted to run around and have unprotected sex nonstop to carry the baby to term also.
Correct. Which is why the "rape exception" is incompatible with any argument predicated on the rights of the unborn. I'm pretty sure most rational people would agree with that.
most organizations and people arguing on the basis of the rights of the unborn aren't willing to accept a "rape exception" except possibly as a step on the way to the ultimate end goal of no exception.
Edit: correction, I shouldn't say most, since I haven't done the research into most of them. But I know at least several.
Please, don't make up definitions for words, a fetus can never be an infant, as they are concurrent stages of human growth and can not occur at the same time and have a clearly defined boundary (birth).
Also for completeness
I've already posted the handbook. I've already countered the lie about the pill being abortificent.
Tuss' table eloquantly completes the argument.
There's not a whole lot of polite ways to tell people they're liars. Sorry if I was 'raving'. You already lied on this very thread (about your support of contraception, about the morning after pill being *always* an abortificent), so it's not like I don't have just cause.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Hey look at that. I've already explained why its not a lie. I don't need to explain again. You never addressed my explanations the first time, instead you decided to keep insisting its a lie over and over again.
kind of. I can't actually read the table (as I pointed out earlier), but from what I can make out of it, its not actually presenting any evidence, so much as pro-choice talking points.
Lets just say that after this post, I'm not responding to you (personally) any more in this thread. You have accused me of lying repeatedly, I explained my position, rather than showing where it was wrong (its not) you just keep accusing me of lying.
I do take it as a personal insult that you consider my statements regarding my beliefs on contraceptives (which have been 100% consistent, and 100% true) to be lies.
Its poor debate tactics, poor manners, and a major character flaw.
I'll still be participating in this debate with others who want to have an actual debate on the issues, rather than repeatedly flaming me.
definitions or not i have ultrasounds that show a living being inside my wife regardless of what you want to call it. it is pretty clear that it is alive.
correction you posted a handbook by one organization which is pretty extreme. that is only a hand book to those that follow it. since not everyone follows that hand book you cannot make this claim.
tuss's chart (no link by the way) more than likely comes from some pro-abortion site that again only those people follow and that is their opinion not a fact. so no it doens't complete the arguement.
No he didn't lie. some people view those types of contraceptives as abortifcent. which in some ways the morning after pill is as the process of conception is complete. the morning after pills stop it from attaching to the uterus if i remember correctly.
technically it could be considered an abortion by some.
the liars by the way are people that fool themselves into thinking that a baby inside a mother is not alive. those people are lieing to themselves. it beats telling themselves that they are killing a live baby. i guess it is intended to make the guilt be easier.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Don't bother. I already explained that entirely to him in the very beginning of the thread. apparently I'm a "liar" when I say I support non-abbortificient birth control such as barrier methods, and then explain that I follow the definition of pregnancy starting conception rather than implantation.
Be careful; "consistency" can be a be weaselly concept. For instance, your support for legal abortion is consistent with the belief that a woman's right to control her body overrides any claim the fetus may have to it. But it's also consistent with the belief that all abortions are human sacrifices to Dread Tlaloc, May He Drown the Unfaithful in their Own Tears.
So I suppose the necessary question is: are you actually a crazed cultist of the Aztec sea god feigning a socially palatable justification for your true beliefs? Because that, essentially, is what you and DarkAngel are accusing anti-abortioners of.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You said you weren't against contraception, that that was a Catholic position, then backpedaled and added a caveat. In my worlds, that's a lie by omission. The strategy as outlined in the handbook is to not come out immediatly as anti-contraception but to ease into it, because the general public is not sympathetic to that position. From my vantage point, you just seem like a militant following the script as given in these training manuals. Occam's Razor.
But that's why you look at external signifiers too. For instance we also oppose China's forced abortion policies. That is consistent with a pro-choice position, not with a human sacrifice position. Whereas pro-lifers also support death penalty and explicitly attack organisations that provide prenatal support to poor women. That is not consistent with 'life is so precious'.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
"A select subset of the conservative movement is against contraception on religious grounds. I am all for contraception, as long as it doesn't act as an abortificient, and I'm pro-life. You are conflating Catholic views with the views of the entire conservative movement."
And a link showing that I never edited or changed it: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4494942&postcount=43
We are all predisposed to see ourselves in others. But Ockham's Razor generally dictates that we assume people are telling the truth.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think the point was not that you are Tlalc worshippers, but that you're posts are assuming that merely because its consistent with what you are accusing us of, it therefore must be true that we think what you are accusing us of, when in fact it could be consistent with several things simultaneously. Consistency isn't proof.