Say Anything Blog

Pro-abortion ghouls love to talk about how abortion has majority support in this country...The abortion issue was never really exposed to the democratic process…

I would have to agree. The majority of Americans will never be pro-abortion.  I doubt that even the majority of Democrats or Liberals are pro-abortion. 

In fact I argue very few people are actually pro-abortion.  I will argue however that the majority of American believe that abortions should be legal and accessible.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

I heard Senator Boxer has gone into consultation with Michael Jackson and Barney Frank to sponsor the “No Child’s Behind Left Alone” Act.

I will argue however that the majority of American believe that abortions should be legal and accessible.

And I will argue that you have no idea what you’re talking about, like usual.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I read one of your articles in the Beacon. It’s sad to say someone could come on our reservation for 15 hours and make such rude and slandering comments about people he dosen’t even know. Their is more to our reservation that what you reported. I know that you have exaggerated the facts that you apparently found on the reservation. Dripping nicotine on the walls. Come on, it’s now enough we have to deal with racism but to have a complete stranger write about our Town and where we live is just plain rude and thoughtless. We are people and we deserve the same respect as any race does. You obviously didn’t knock on the right doors, or you would of found that some people are actually working class citizens. I for one am a single mother of two young children, and have a full-time job as a Teachers Aide at our local school. So not everybody is living in poverty, or unlivable conditions. I live in the housing on my reservation and have a very lovely home. Maybe you should of stuck around long enough to knock on some doors where people actually are getting home from work. To think my children have to live with this negativity is just devastating to me.

Easy, Rob, I think that you have forgotten that abortion has been sold under the labels ‘womens rights’ and ‘pro-choice’.  I have talked to many women who would not get an abortion under any circumstance but still defend a womens alleged right to make the choice.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Proudtobenative, the original article I wrote is here.

I didn’t exaggerate anything I observed on the reservation.  All of it is true.  I’d agree with you that not everybody on the reservation lives that way, but for you to ignore those who do is appalling.

You are clearly from the reservation, so you can’t be a stranger to the abhorrent conditions which exist there.  Don’t enable those conditions by getting defensive when people point them out.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

When Ceaucescu banned abortion in Romania, it arguably led to tons of homeless and dead children due to the increased popularity among Romanians of child abandonment. In addition, more women were killed or permanently injured as a result of back alley abortions, a severe AIDS epidemic occurred, unemployment sky-rocketed, overpopulated and underfunded orphanages, and lots and lots more crime. Granted the guy was a crappy leader and all, but some of this was clearly a result of the ban.
We brush off civilian death in other countries, in conflicts and wars, in the name of safety and preserverance. The amount of abortions that occur in the US is probably staggering. I suspect that it is much more prevalent than most would assume. A very private thing, it is not often bragged about. To a certain degree, an abortion ban would either cause a significant spike in social spending, increased crime, or both. I think that abortion should remain legal because, simply, one more choice someone can make for themself is just that. Bad or good, we should hold on to those.

I’ve never been on that particular reservation but I’ve been saddened by the conditions in the ones I have visited.

I think people deserve better but the “help” that the government has given has caused even more problems.

While I’m not a big government spender if there was a program that actually would give the tribes the tools to lift themselves up I’d be in favor of it. 

On the other hand what we’ve done (thrown a LOT of money at the problems) hasn’t helped a bit.

So what do you think should be done Proud?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I will argue however that the majority of American believe that abortions should be legal and accessible.

That’s why you don’t want it left up to the political process, because it’s so darned popular.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

That’s why you don’t want it left up to the political process, because it’s so darned popular.

I am in favor of the politcal process.  I look at what South Dakota did as an example. 

And I will argue that you have no idea what you’re talking about, like usual.

There is a difference between “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Abortion”.  I am not “Pro-Abortion”.  I believe very few people are pro-abortion as I stated above.  But the majority of Americans believe that there should be access and availability to them.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Troy: That’s the same kind of BS that says “we support the troops, but we don’t support the war”.  Just nonsense.  Intellectually dishonest nonsense.  If you stop denying what abortion really is: killing of human fetuses for birth control purposes, you are either for it or against it.  There is no middle ground where the death of defenseless humans is concerned.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Just nonsense.  Intellectually dishonest nonsense.

It isn’t.  I don’t want abortions to occur.  I definately don’t want to see them rise in popularity or in numbers.  I would like to see a decline or even 0 abortions.  I am Anti-abortion in that respect.  Alot of people (most) “on my side of the aisle” have a similiar view.  No one is Pro-abortion.  Who wants that?

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Troy: One question: How can you support those that do want to kill human fetuses as a method of birth control, then.  If you saw someone trying to kill a defenseless human, wouldn’t you try to stop them?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

How can you support those that do want to kill human fetuses as a method of birth control, then.

I am not sure if you mean doctors or women here but I will discuss an example that I know of.  I worked with a young lady in a bar who lived a rather messy lifestyle for lack of a better term that I can think of.  During the time I worked with her she had 4 abortions (over 3 years); so she was using abortions as a means of birth control.  It’s terrible and horrific and I don’t support her or her actions.  She is abusing and has abused this right (I use this very lightly, because I couldn’t think of another word).  The clinic that she went to banned her for life; they told her they would never see her again.

Like with right people are going to abuse it.  It’s sickening; but what is the alternative? To ban it? I know it’s different; But we have free speech that is so precious and such a freedom that so many others do not have and I/we see people everyday abuse that right. But are we going to take it away because of the abusers? No

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Troy: In the first place, Free Speech is a real right, guaranteed specifically in the Bill of Rights, unlike abortion, which is a politically-driven made-up “right”, so don’t even try to compare them in any way.  Killing human fetuses for birth control purposes(over 95% of all abortions are for this purpose) is abuse in and of itself, while free speech isn’t abuse at all.  The First Amendment was made specifically to protect uncomfortable speech, since no one complains about pleasant speech.  Calling flag-burning(for demonstration purposes) “speech” is an abuse of the definition of speech, IMO.
You see, you focus on the woman, and I focus on the child; that’s the difference.  Inconvenience is no excuse for the death penalty.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

In the first place, Free Speech is a real right, guaranteed specifically in the Bill of Rights, unlike abortion, which is a politically-driven made-up “right”

I agree. Thats why I used the italics/bold.  Abortion isn’t a right, and it’s not a really a privelige either. It is.  And it is warranted, even though it is abused.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Troy, again you’re playing with semantics.  I mean associating abortion with womens rights implies innocously that the decision is a womens perogative.  Now call abortion what it really is, the take of a human life.  No one has the right to do that not even a women so really the question of a womens right to choose is invalid.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Calling flag-burning(for demonstration purposes) “speech” is an abuse of the definition of speech, IMO.

Who cares about flag burning? Flags aren’t supposed to be thrown away. They are supposed to be burned. Duh.

Flags aren’t supposed to be thrown away. They are supposed to be burned. Duh.

Spark: Re-read the comment complete with parenthetical.
Duh, indeed!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof
So you’re saying I can’t wear a peace shirt while i dispose of my flag in the street?

So you’re saying I can’t wear a peace shirt while i dispose of my flag in the street?

No, I’m just saying you’re so full of shit, your eyes are brown! (Duh!)

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Regarding Sparkie’s comments about abortion, unemployment, and crime, it’s worth noting that crime and unemployment both increased here after Roe v. Wade prohibited state abortion bans.  “Kill a baby, save a job, empty the jails” doesn’t work in practice.  Using the example of a communist nutjob like Ceaucescu is putting an apple into the orange crate, Sparkie.

And the original topic?  Well, I dare suggest that a law preventing states from passing laws would run right into the teeth of the 10th Amendment, and hopefully our Supreme Court (sane by a 5-4 margin evidently) would realize that this isn’t a valid application of the Commerce Clause.

Robert Perry
No one in the Fed gives a crap about the 10th and neither do Christian elitists who want to tell others how to run their lives (in re: abortions).
Like I pointed out, there are other variables but some of those maladies can definately be related to the abortioin ban. I stand by this:

To a certain degree, an abortion ban would either cause a significant spike in social spending, increased crime, or both. I think that abortion should remain legal because, simply, one more choice someone can make for themself is just that. Bad or good, we should hold on to those.

There is no doubt it will cost more $$$ in social money. Abandoned glue huffers steal.

one would think the dems would be all for the ban considering how many leeches it would breed in short order.

Abandoned glue huffers steal.

Death by dismemberment for potential thieves.  Perfect example of your deranged thinking, Sparkie!

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Well, you’ll have to agree to disagree with the evidence, then--sadly as usual.  The ugly fact of the matter is that many nations with high abortion rates--Russia, China, etc..--also suffer from increasing crime rates, child abandonment, and so on.  In fact, two of the biggest sources for foreign adoptions are--surprise--Russia and China.  In the United States, it is precisely the areas with the highest abortion rates that also struggle with high crime, child abandonment, and unemployment.

In other words, the correct hypothesis is not “every child a wanted child” with abortion, but rather “abortion claims that children (and families) are disposable.”

And yes, I’m 100% aware that few in Washington like the 10th Amendment.  However, I’m also 100% aware that we seem to have, for really the first time in decades, a majority of the Supreme Court with intact sanity.  I have hope that they’ll act on that and start striking down some liberal laws.

No one in the Fed gives a crap about the 10th and neither do Christian elitists who want to tell others how to run their lives

Yet another unwarranted blast at Christians.  What gives with your hatred toward them?  Now if you were describing muslims you might be right.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

dd
what i said about the christian elitists is true - they dont care about th 10th. if you aren’t one don’t take offense. simple as that.

What gives with your hatred toward them?

Sparkie just likes to start arguments by saying inflammatory things.  He doesn’t really believe in anything.  He just spews for effect.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

what i said about the christian elitists is true -

I have been a Christian all my life and I have no idea what you are saying.  Just what and who is a christian elitist?  Please back up your assertions with facts or drop them altogether.  They do not become you and distract from the relevant topics.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

In addition, more women were killed or permanently injured as a result of back alley abortions, a severe AIDS epidemic occurred, unemployment sky-rocketed, overpopulated and underfunded orphanages, and lots and lots more crime. Granted the guy was a crappy leader and all, but some of this was clearly a result of the ban.

So abortions are no longer allowed as birth control.  OK, I will take that on its face as true.  What is the consequence?  Sparkie claims a “rising rate of HIV”.  How the hell does that make sense?

Sparkie, you are being dishonest in using Planned Parenthood propganda to make a point here.  You want to demonstrate A Caused B, but there is no way that you can show causation of AIDS rates rising because of an abortion ban.  AIDS rates rose because AIDS did not exist in 1966 when Romania banned abortion.  I guess AIDS rates rising from zero in 1966 is caused by an abortion ban, not by AIDS itself.  Romania had a shitload of problems that you want to ascribe to abortion.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ro.html

BTW, the CIA Factbook estimates that Romania has 6500 people living with HIV.  98.4% of the Romanians are literate.  And unemployment is at 6.2%.

If the abortion ban was the cause of the previous problems, that explains the mysterious improvement of all of these statistics over the last 18 years, admittedly.  I happen to think that abolishing Communism, joining the EU and Nato, and restructuring the economy might have helped, but if you want to spout of Planned Parenthood’s bullshit propoganda, feel free.  The folks at Planned Parenthood would probably argue that Communism failed because they banned abortion and that if we simply made the US a commie country, but kept abortion free and legal, we could achieve Utopia.

Come on dude.  Don’t make causality out of something that is clearly not.

Justin
I don’t give a hoot. I am pro-choice. I am pro-condoms too and pro-Plab b. If someone gets an early amniocentesis and find out they’re about to birth a retarded, deformed demonbaby, they should be free to ax it. Everyone gets their own opinion. Abortion is very psychological and has a serious affect on those who have it done. People just don’t do it lightly as suggested. I think its an option that should be available. Read Henry Miller’s account of living in an illegal abortion house in the 1930’s in the book ‘Sexus’. It’ll make you pro legal abortion too - illegal abortions are disgusting. They are often performed by people who aren’t professionals with inappropriate and unclean instruments. Hence HIV. No one can ‘convert’ me on this issue as such.

dd

Just what and who is a christian elitist?

a christian who thinks they are better than everyone else, that their morals are superior, that others should live according to their ideals, and so forth. a christian chauvinist. these people often support religious laws issueing from the ‘center’. see dobson.

also, for the record, i don’t hate christians - i just think their cognitive skills and intellection are severely limited. that’s because they believe in silly stuff. sorry, i’m just being honest.

a christian who thinks they are better than everyone else, that their morals are superior, that others should live according to their ideals, and so forth

Boy, you are one disturbed puppy if you believe that if one is faithful to their religion that they are an elitist.  Hey, we follow Jesus Christ who said that he was ‘the light, the way and the truth’ and promised salvation after death.  If we think that we have something special why should be lower ourselves to your secular level for which there is no future except more excesses?

The muslims think they have the answer too which makes them elitists by your definition and I don’t see you bashing them.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

dd
believe whatever you want. believe in the giant spagetti monster for all i care. i’m not gong to make you live by my standards. i ask for reciprosity on that one.

i just think their cognitive skills and intellection are severely limited

That’s a stupid statement and a lie.  I was a very successful engineer and manager for over 40 years before I retired.  I know many other Christians in almost every walk of life that have been equally successful. 

Of course, not every Christian has good cognitive skills.  My guess is that when you made your statement you were thinking of Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Sparkie,

Rob arrives at the conclusion that abortion is an evil abhorrent practice and he is an athiest.

This argument is not about Christian ethics.  It happens that Christians (especially devout ones) believe abortion is wrong.  But when we come back to the fundamental issue, this debate is about the beginning of human life.  When does it begin.

The abortion debate is centered around the real defintion of human life.  What it is to be human.  And therefore, if an embryo or fetus is indeed human, the taking of the life of another human, less it be in self defense or justified by our legal system, constitutes murder.

You are taking a position that because of the societal effects of not having abortion, we should allow this practice.  Perhaps you also take the position that a fetus is not human or should be allowed to be killed in the womb for the benefit of the mother or society without taking into account the bioethical questions involved.  And then you characterize those that don’t agree as having limited cognitive skills and intellect.

Fact, embryos and fetuses are the basic building blocks and precursors to human life.  Fact, abortion kills these things.  Fact, second term abortions and even some late first term abortions are destroying an embryo that has a heart beat and extensive nervous system activity.  Fact, this debate has never been handled in the legislative branch, but exclusively through the courts because our elected officials are cowards and don’t want to engage in a divisive debate on the issue.  Fact, the 10th Amendment prohibits the Feds from their power grabbing techniques and Roe ignored the 10th Amendment.

Now, we can engage in a debate of any of these issues, of the societal consequences of abortion bans or non-bans, of womens health, of public opinion, of medical ethics and so on in a manner that is intellectually honest, but it seems that you are not interested in that debate.  But you state:

No one can ‘convert’ me on this issue as such.

My friend, when you state that someone’s “cognitive skills and intellection are severely limited”, the definition of that in my mind is someone that is unwilling to change their opinion in the face of facts that refute it.  You refuse to even consider relevant facts in formulating your opinion, yet expect us to review your “facts” and keep an open mind.  Have a look at the new 4D ultrasound images of first trimester fetuses and then watch an abortion proceedure in 4D.  Look at the consequences to the mother’s mental health and then consider that you have never seen an abortion, nor had one and until you do, I would expect that you would keep an open mind that it may be more barbaric than you claim.  You stand on your high horse and claim to know the need for abortion and are unwilling to bend on it, yet you want to ignore any facts that might influence your decision.

dd

If we think that we have something special why should be lower ourselves to your secular level for which there is no future except more excesses?

Sounds like you’ve been reading some Qutb. What excesses, pray tell, do you accuse me of? Too much money? Pride? Sex? What the eff are you talking about?

There is a delightful irony in that Sparkie, who so vehemently accuses others of being an elitist, is setting himself up as THE arbiter of truth in all of these areas.  If you don’t get it, Sparkie, I dare suggest you’d do well to stop accusing others of being slow on the uptake.

As for me, I’ll stick with the precepts which have been a basis for civilization for a few millenia.  If that makes me an “elitist,” so be it.  I’d much rather have iced tea at Dr. Dobson’s townhome than mint juleps at Sparkie’s imaginary castle in the sky.

Oh, and those “safe, legal, abortions”?  I guess Sparkie hasn’t looked in the news to learn about a few each year who lose their medical licenses, are convicted of crimes, and have their practices closed because they failed to adhere to basic sanitary practices.  Here’s a place to get started learning, Sparkie.  http://www.lifenews.com

i’m not gong to make you live by my standards. i ask for reciprosity on that one.

I have no knowledge of your ‘standards’ so I can’t comment on them.  I do believe that it’s none of my business just like it’s none of yours how a Christian leads his life.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Justin
You distort the issue. Murder is not the taking of human life. Murder is killing a person. If I cut off my finger, it is alive and its human. I can put it in a food processor and grind it to a pulp, thereby ruining human life, without doing anything illegal or unethical.
Anyway, I don’t care if some atheists are against it. Frankly, I don’t understand Rob’s position. He believes that a few cells with no brain or even the begining of a neural tube is a person. How can you argue with someone that believes that? They simply fundamentally lack scientific understanding on the issue. A few cells is not a person.

You are taking a position that because of the societal effects of not having abortion, we should allow this practice.

That’s not true. I cited them as reasons to uphold it as many here are against increased social spending.

My friend, when you state that someone’s “cognitive skills and intellection are severely limited”, the definition of that in my mind is someone that is unwilling to change their opinion in the face of facts that refute it.

Get off your high horse. Facts about what? This is a matter of opinion. God is not a fact. What are you even getting at? Type something worthy of a reasoned responce.

without taking into account the bioethical questions involved

fact of the matter is ‘personhood’ is difficult to define. i do not ignore any bioethical considerations. i merely have different opinions. its not worth discussing anything with you guys if you treat your OPINIONS as FACT. That, simply, is ELITISM in a nutshell. Give me a break.
Also Justin, I have hashed all this out in the past, to an absurd degree. To see the thread look here. For me dissing on god and a huge thread that resulted, see here.

Sparkie, who so vehemently accuses others of being an elitist, is setting himself up as THE arbiter of truth in all of these areas

I am not. That’s people who confuse opinion with fact. Also, shitty doctors don’t bear on the issue. You know that. Thanks for the link anywho.

also
i have said that what other people do with their fetuses is not my business. how is that elitist?

God is not a fact. What are you even getting at?

Did I even mention God?  Do I ever?  Is that how I roll?

This is not about God.  He didn’t cause 9-11 because of abortion, planned parenthood, gay marriage, etc.  Robertson and Falwell are douches for saying he did.

This is about a debate over the beginning of human life.

He believes that a few cells with no brain or even the begining of a neural tube is a person. How can you argue with someone that believes that? They simply fundamentally lack scientific understanding on the issue. A few cells is not a person.

OK, so at what point is abortion ok?  When the child is crowning at full term?  Let’s define your point where abortion should be banned.  First trimester?  Second trimester?  Not at all?

Let’s refocus this.  We have several options:

1.  Abortion should never be banned.  Ever.  Partial Birth is OK.  Anything goes.
2.  Abortion should be legal in Trimesters 1 and 2.
3.  Trimester 1 only.
4.  Morning pill OK, no abortion.
5.  No abortion, no morning after pill.
6.  No abortion, morning after pill, except in cases of health, incest, and rape.
7.  Never ever to any of it.
8.  Never ever to any of it and no contraceptives should be used (Catholic Church position).

I fall somewhere in the 3-4 range, but even after the first couple weeks, it is no longer a clump of cells, but has nervous system functioning and extensive functioning at that.  I don’t think God need enter into this debate and my opinion is not based on God or the Bible.  My morality does not rely on Christianity to determine what I view as right and wrong.  The Bible does not answer this question, unless you subscribe to the theory that the Bible is the only answer for anything, which I happen to think is about as big of a crock of shit as you do.  If the Bible said “Thou shalt not abort a fetus except in the first trimester” that would be one thing, but it doesn’t.  All it offers is a few nuggets about being knitted in the womb, but that is a far cry from a definitive answer.

Medical ethics are tricky.  30 years ago, most churches were against invitro.  But the debate belongs in Congress, or better yet, in the State Legislatures where the people have a voice.  And that is where it was originally until Roe.  Roe took away the voice of the people to decide as did Casey.  Ironic, but now the Dems want to have the debate in the Congress when they have a majority, but they never have wanted it there before.  The last time it was there, Partial Birth abortion was banned and that was recently upheld by the SCOTUS. 

So where does the debate belong or do you even care?  Are you simply pragmatic that no matter how we arrive at a situation where abortion is legal, then the end justifies the means?  I believe this issue belongs to the states because of the 10th Amendment and that Roe errored on that count.  This is a debate about whether a medical practice should be allowed or regulated within individual states.  This is not an INTERSTATE issue, but rather one that occurs solely within the jurisdiction of the individual states and therefore should be governed by the laws of the states.

And if my state puts it to a vote, and it passes or fails, so be it.  Why all the sudden is Congress allowed to legalize abortion, but not make it illegal?  How does that work anyway?

Well, Sparkie, I guess you shouldn’t be calling other people “stupid,” now, should you?  The simple fact of the matter is that you have been making numerous claims of fact, while deriding others who disagree with you.  By your own definition, you are an elitist in that regard.  The irony was delightful, and thank you.

Slow down for a minute and think, friend.  People have presented some very firm evidence that “safe and legal” abortion is not much safer than the back alley variety--the actual number of abortion-linked deaths in 1972, for example, was less than 25.  People have also presented evidence that the idea that abortion makes the world better is exactly wrong.

It’s also a fact that Bernard Nathanson, who authored many of the arguments used to get Roe v. Wade handed down and state abortion laws liberalized prior to that, has admitted that much of what he and others claimed was flat out false.  So has Norma Covey, or “Roe” of Roe V. Wade.

In other words, PP and NARAL propaganda look pretty persuasive until the data come in.  Listen to the data and learn.

It’s also a fact that Bernard Nathanson, who authored many of the arguments used to get Roe v. Wade handed down and state abortion laws liberalized prior to that, has admitted that much of what he and others claimed was flat out false.

What a surprise!!  How often do liberals use falsehoods to advance their agenda.  ALL THE TIME!!!

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

People have also presented evidence that the idea that abortion makes the world better is exactly wrong.

Irregardless. Even if it makes the world worse, I am a #1/#2 on Justin’s scale.

So what kind of evidence would it take to get you to move to say a 3-4?  You have stated:

He believes that a few cells with no brain or even the begining of a neural tube is a person. How can you argue with someone that believes that? They simply fundamentally lack scientific understanding on the issue. A few cells is not a person.

When does a fetus rise from being a few cells with no brain or the beginning of a neural tube into an actual human?  Have you viewed 4D Ultrasound images of babies in the womb?  National Geographic has some amazing stuff that shows that a first trimester and especially second trimester fetus is far more than that.

How many kids do you have by the way?  Ever felt a baby respond to your voice or touch at 4-5 months?  I mean, are you willing to view actual ultrasound images in 4D as well as view an abortion proceedure?  Are you static about your view on abortion being legal but willing to be persuaded to move from the 1-2 range into the 3 range?

Roe only allowed for first term abortions BTW.  Nothing later is covered by the “right to privacy” in Roe.  So if we go back to Roe, the point is that 3 was the most that Roe allowed.  Why not go back to the original Roe ruling?  Have you read Roe?

Everyone gets their own opinion.

Except for those who disagree with you, right, Sparkie?  They get slimed by your foul mouth.  BTW, opinions don’t kill human fetuses, abortionists do.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Irregardless. Even if it makes the world worse, I am a #1/#2 on Justin’s scale.

Ah, maybe that explains your rabid dislike for Christians.  Seems that there are a few that sit on the supreme court and since real Christians oppose abortions, reversal of Roe v Wade is a possiblity.  Gee, tha would make you responsible for the babies you help to create and you wouldn’t like that, would you?

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

I fail to see any circumstances under which a woman should be “free to choose” to abort a fetus after the first trimester.  It seems that in choosing not to abort during the first trimester, her “choice” was already made.  Call it buyer’s remorse, but you don’t have unlimited time to decide to abort and there are far more compelling medical and ethical issues as the pregnancy goes on.  Every day, the tipping point of the ethical ramifications of aborting a fetus increases towards the “it is viable” “it has feeling” or “it is more than a clump of cells”.

But really, others will argue that the moment that she engaged in sexual intercourse, the decision was made.  I am not quite that harsh, but short of the morning after pill, I can’t say that these folks don’t make a damned good point.  Why separate the consequences of sexual behavior from the behavior that caused them?  The choice was made when the individual ignored warnings and the opportunity to A. be abstinent, B. use a condom, C. use birth control pills, C. have a vasectomy or tubes tied, D. use a morning after pill. 

Now, final note--I support abortion in cases of rape, incest, birth defect, or health of the mother.  But health is not “mental health” or financial health or convenience health.  I do not support abortion in cases of convenience of the mother or as an alternative form of post conception birth control.  If we consider how barbaric the proceedure is and we agree that in some cases there are valid bioethical reasons for an abortion, is it fair to say that convenience is far different from rape, incest, birth defect, etc?  It is important as a free society of educated individuals to distinguish the circumstances of abortion, just as we do accidental homicide from first degree murder, manslaughter, self defense, etc.

Wow, that was an A, a B, two C’s and a D.  Sounds like my brother’s college transcripts.

Why separate the consequences of sexual behavior from the behavior that caused them?

Why indeed?  After all, we have a great example of the results of separating behavior from consequences in the healthcare field; why would we think it would be beneficial in the creation of human life?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Justin: In many ways we agree about abortion, from a secular state point of view, I can even agree that a direct threat to the physical life of the mother may be considered to be just cause for an abortion. I disagree about first trimester abortions, but you already recognized that reasonable people may disagree on that point. However, with rape and incest exceptions, please tell me what that innocent fetus did to deserve death because of the rape or act of incest? I do understand why bringing that child to birth seems so objectionable and why the birth mother may not choose to keep and raise the child, because of the constant reminder of what happened to her. But, I fail to see why that fetus deserves the death penalty because of the act of an evil man, and I cannot see why in the right environment such children cannot become happy and productive human beings.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman: You have hit upon the crux of the abortion debate, IMO.  The pro-abortion side takes the view of a generalized “woman"(usually not even a “mother") and asserts “a woman’s right to choose”, as if all women are faced with this dilemma on a daily basis, when it is only those women who have sex without intending to get pregnant that are included in this “right”.  It is a special interest group, in my view.
If you take the view of the baby(or human fetus, if you will), then the debate is quite different.  Why death by dismemberment(the most common abortion procedure)?  Is it really OK to assign this penalty for being the unintentional consequence of irresponsible action by a man and a woman?  Even in the case of rape and incest, the penalty is assessed on the innocent party, and that can’t be right, especially when that penalty is death.
All the pro-choicers can do when presented with this argument is to try to dehumanize the being who is being killed, which is a weak argument, especially when we know about DNA.  A unique human DNA sequence is formed at the moment of conception, and it doesn’t change until the death of that human being.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I have no anger towards women having obtained an abortion, they were sold a bill of false goods by the Left that they were only terminating a mass of tissue, not unlike a tumor. We are all weak and selfish and so many women will opt for abortion if it is cheap, easily available and comes with no social stigma attached.

What I condemn is a society that grants their imprimatur to the cold-blooded murder of an innocent human being for any cause. What must we judge about a society that not only permits, but facilitates the mass slaughter of the weakest among us, innocent human beings in the womb, unable to defend their own lives. If we can call such an act lawful and beneficial to society, what atrocity will we next approve in the name of society? How about social engineering, by euthanizing autistic children or those with Downs Syndrome, they are after all a drain on society and they keep their caretakers from other more productive work. How about mental defectives, the retarded, evangelical Christians? What state sponsored murders will we next call good! Once any society can engage in a small evil in the name of the state, the next small step is easier, the next easier still and suddenly we discover that gnat by gnat, we have swallowed a very large camel sized of evil and call it good.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Good point, Neiman!  What’s next, retroactive abortion for those who aren’t having a good life?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

It’s also a fact that Bernard Nathanson, who authored many of the arguments used to get Roe v. Wade handed down and state abortion laws liberalized prior to that, has admitted that much of what he and others claimed was flat out false.

Nathanson was a co-founder of NARAL.

In Aborting America (1979) Nathanson writes: “In NARAL we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always ‘5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.’ I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?” (Emphasis is his.)

The Straight Dope

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

If we can call such an act lawful and beneficial to society, what atrocity will we next approve in the name of society? How about social engineering, by euthanizing autistic children or those with Downs Syndrome, they are after all a drain on society and they keep their caretakers from other more productive work. How about mental defectives, the retarded, evangelical Christians?

Yes to all (except the last part) because they already do in Europe.  It is especially problematic when the government pays for the healthcare of the disabled and mentally ill via socialized medicine.  In those cases one can argue that society as a whole benefits from the murder of the weak, ill, or disabled.

My argument in rape and incest cases is that the mother is a victim first.  In Muslim societies, they would make her either find four witnesses or they would stone her to death.  Men are not faced with the consequences of rape and incest--at least men are not faced with carrying a child, then raising it, and every day having the very image of that child as a reminded of a brutal attack that they already suffer the emotional scars from.  As someone that has close friends and family members that have been the victims of rape and incest (and a friend that carried a full term child and is raising her father’s child), this is a life sentence for the victim of the crime.  Every single time I think about what it must be like to relive the attack…

Now, we can surely disagree on rape, incest, mother’s health, etc.  We can even disagree on first trimester abortions.  And the fact is that 80%+ of Americans are in OUR CATEGORY.  Not in Planned Parenthood or even Sparkie’s category of if it ain’t born, jab a fork in it.  These views are based on our appeals to logic and morality.  This is not “Christian” morality, but human morality.  This is a grey area bounded by the black of PP and Partial Birth Abortion and the white of the Catholic Church’s no condoms doctrine.  We almost all live in the grey areas in between.  What is important is to let our elected officials at the local, state, and Federal levels pass legislation to define the grey, but instead, we allow 9 people to speak for all of us.  These 9 pulled out some trump card and decided that this was a power reserved to them.  That is the problem with tyranny.  Tyrants never avoid exerting their power.  And these 9 have taken away the rights of the people to even engage in this debate.  Casey said that Congress passing a law banning partial birth would not stand, only to force Congress to pass almost the same law and wait for a new court to be seated.  As if the SCOTUS has a special “VETO” over abortion.

I think that it was six judges that spoke, not nine.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

A point taken.  It only actually takes 5, not the full 9.  5 people have veto power over EVERY THING and there is no supermajority override in the Congress.  Only Super majority plus 3/4 of the states.  That is a hell of a burden.  Especially when they can make decisions like Dred Scott or Roe.

Right, I think it was R108 who long ago pointed out that a five person majority can change the constitution.

That’s something that takes a huge effort for the rest of us to do.

Clearly the founders meant for the constitution to be difficult to change.  The problem is that somehow the Supreme Court was allowed to pervert it to steal power away from the people.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

It only actually takes 5, not the full 9.

Which means if the court is split 50/50, then the balance of power resides in just one individual.

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Well, things have to be fairly well perverted for the Supreme Court to have been hearing them in the first palce. It’s not like the court can decide to force an issue that hasn’t already arisen.

So what kind of evidence would it take to get you to move to say a 3-4?

1.  Abortion should never be banned.  Ever.  Partial Birth is OK.  Anything goes.
2.  Abortion should be legal in Trimesters 1 and 2and 3 in cases of health, incest, and rape.
3.  Trimester 1 only.
4.  Morning pill OK, no abortion.
5.  No abortion, no morning after pill.
6.  No abortion, morning after pill, except in cases of health, incest, and rape.
7.  Never ever to any of it.
8.  Never ever to any of it and no contraceptives should be used (Catholic Church position).

I fixed #2. You’ll never get me to #3 because amniocentesis results sometimes are not reliable until the beginning of the 2nd trimester (I believe). I believe in condom use and I believe in the morning after pill. People who are using a condom responsibly and it breaks or something happens to it should not be condemned to then just have a kid.
In all actuality though, I don’t really view it as an ethical problem in the slightest. I don’t know, the intuition that’s its murder just doesn’t work on me. Perhaps in the 3rd trimester, but the mother’s health and wellbeing should be primary to that of the fetus, if she wishes it to be.
The catholics just gave up on ‘limbo’ for unbaptized people the other day. Who knows how they will ‘repackage’ themselves in the coming years to appeal to different demographics. Look for adjustments to the dogma. Maybe racing stripes or a new logo.