Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

Women's Rights

Recommended Posts

Shows that we're not that far removed from many social behaviors that seem so distant today. But this photo is from the year I was born. And yet I fear we're slipping backwards to them...

 

Boston Marathon 1967 - Organizers attempt to stop a woman from running the race http://t.co/xy6GNy9wcS


"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican State Rep. Wants To Eliminate Rape Exceptions From Already Extreme Abortion Bills

by Joseph on March 10, 2015

 

Tbe Ohio Republican Party did a decent job of reining in their extreme anti-abortion wing during the last election cycle.  But with the election long over, and the new (Republican-controlled) legislative session fully underway, Ohio’s Republican activist legislators are now back to proudly playing the old “I’m More Extreme Than You Are” game….

 

You want a”fetal pain” bill based on thoroughly debunked “science”?  They have that!

 

How about another version of the unconstitutional Heartbeat Bill?  Sure!  Why not?

 

ut if you are a brand new state representative and you really want to make a name for yourself in Ohio’s extreme right wing circles, then normal extreme isn’t going to cut it.  You need step it up a notch and challenge the “reasonable” anti-abortion crowd to keep up.

 

And that’s exactly what State Rep. Nino Vitale did today when he invited every Ohio legislator to the 11th floor for an “open office event” with Rebecca Kiessling, an anti-abortion activist who travels the country speaking against rape exceptions in abortion legislation.  Kiessling is scheduled to provide house testimony later in the day.

 

MORE:

http://www.plunderbund.com/2015/03/10/republican-state-rep-wants-to-eliminate-rape-exceptions-from-already-extreme-abortion-bills/


"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican State Rep. Wants To Eliminate Rape Exceptions From Already Extreme Abortion Bills

by Joseph on March 10, 2015

 

Tbe Ohio Republican Party did a decent job of reining in their extreme anti-abortion wing during the last election cycle.  But with the election long over, and the new (Republican-controlled) legislative session fully underway, Ohio’s Republican activist legislators are now back to proudly playing the old “I’m More Extreme Than You Are” game….

 

You want a”fetal pain” bill based on thoroughly debunked “science”?  They have that!

 

How about another version of the unconstitutional Heartbeat Bill?  Sure!  Why not?

 

ut if you are a brand new state representative and you really want to make a name for yourself in Ohio’s extreme right wing circles, then normal extreme isn’t going to cut it.  You need step it up a notch and challenge the “reasonable” anti-abortion crowd to keep up.

 

And that’s exactly what State Rep. Nino Vitale did today when he invited every Ohio legislator to the 11th floor for an “open office event” with Rebecca Kiessling, an anti-abortion activist who travels the country speaking against rape exceptions in abortion legislation.  Kiessling is scheduled to provide house testimony later in the day.

 

MORE:

http://www.plunderbund.com/2015/03/10/republican-state-rep-wants-to-eliminate-rape-exceptions-from-already-extreme-abortion-bills/

 

That's just plain crazy, and nothing will come from it.

 

But a lack of viable opposition always emboldens the fringe, on either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh.  Even though I think Planned Parenthood is one of the most unspeakably evil organizations in the US today and the CMP videos are not getting nearly the airtime they deserve in the mainstream media (a number of left-wing sites completely ignored the videos and then immediately broadcast the rather-late PP whitewash proclaiming that the videos were "altered"), they ought to be present for hearings.  Honestly, I'm surprised they weren't ordered to appear, let alone invited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way are they evil? Offering essential services to people who might not have access to them otherwise is evil? Unless you believe that abortions are their only business and not the 3% of their business that they actually make up. Which seems to be on par for people who think we should defund Planned Parenthood.

 

I use Planned Parenthood for regular STD testing. It's cheap, quick, and easily allows for me to stay up to date on my health without having to go through more expensive and time consuming hoops.

 

I know people who used Planned Parenthood to do exactly what the title suggests, plan their parenthood. They informed themselves and made pretty massive life decisions about when to get pregnant and start a family based on the resources there.

 

They provide birth control and pregnancy prevention to people who might not be getting that education elsewhere, thereby reducing the overall number of teen pregnancies and potential abortions.

 

How unspeakably evil of them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you watched the videos?

 

Edit: Also, the 3% number is meaningless.  It counts a $1500 abortion as one "procedure" and a simple urine pregnancy test that would be $10 at the drugstore (and which would be wholly unobjectionable if that were really all that PP did).

 

http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/12/wapo-three-pinocchios-planned-parenthoods-3-percent-abortion-lie/

 

If the 3% number were actually accurate, PP could stop providing abortions with no threat to its viability or mission, or spin those off into a separate entity.  But we know that that isn't the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mean the videos that took a ton of information out of context and claimed they were selling "baby parts" then yeah, I did. And immediately called out that BS and did actual research about what was actually happening and quickly found the real answer which proved those videos were complete garbage and making things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The videos were not garbage, were not making things, up, and accurately depict what actually happens.  You can play the PP PR flack all you want, but the videos were not doctored.  The "unedited" versions might have cut out parts, but they did not change what was there and there is no conceivable conversation or revelation that could have been excised that would have changed the picture of what was actually happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you watched the videos?

 

Edit: Also, the 3% number is meaningless.  It counts a $1500 abortion as one "procedure" and a simple urine pregnancy test that would be $10 at the drugstore (and which would be wholly unobjectionable if that were really all that PP did).

 

http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/12/wapo-three-pinocchios-planned-parenthoods-3-percent-abortion-lie/

 

If the 3% number were actually accurate, PP could stop providing abortions with no threat to its viability or mission, or spin those off into a separate entity.  But we know that that isn't the case.

 

What does an arbitrary dollar amount placed on various services have to do with anything? It makes up 3% of what they do, not of their revenue, which I never claimed. Reading comprehension is an important skill to have.

 

And why SHOULD they stop providing that service? You don't get to decide what another person does with her body. Sorry if that displeases you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following was also one of my friends' experience, reposted from her Facebook wall with permission.  She is a college-educated, lower-income stay-at-home-mom living in West Virginia:

 

Having been inside a Planned Parenthood office once, I will never again return. I went when I suspected I was pregnant with my first child. They offered free pregnancy tests, what better way to be sure. When my husband and I received our positive results, we were happy and excited, until we were escorted back into a counseling room. Not even five minutes passed between knowing we were pregnant and having a stranger ask us if we wanted to set up an appointment to "take care" of things before it progressed too far. Yes, Planned Parenthood may offer many good services for women's health, but this was proof that their main business was to stop new life before the reality of its existence could even sink in for an expectant mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The videos were not garbage, were not making things, up, and accurately depict what actually happens.  You can play the PP PR flack all you want, but the videos were not doctored.  The "unedited" versions might have cut out parts, but they did not change what was there and there is no conceivable conversation or revelation that could have been excised that would have changed the picture of what was actually happening.

 

Except there have literally never been sales of "baby parts." Why is that such a difficult thing to understand? You can dislike abortion all you want, that's fine by me. But claiming they were selling pieces of babies is ridiculous and is absolutely made up BS.

 

^Anecdotes are the best way to prove your argument holds no validity. Her story proves nothing nor is there anyway for you or anyone else to know if the details are true or accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you just object to the details of fetal tissue donation or do you truly think they did something illegal?

 

I believe that they have committed murder, even without defining abortion as murder.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422746/infanticide-video-live-fetus-criminal-investigation-now

 

I believe that they have profited from it.  I believe that they continue to do so, and will do so until someone stops them, not because they are actually raking in massive piles of cash from doing so (I understand that the Lamborghini joke was just crude gallows humor in a macabre business), but because they are simply sociopathic monsters who do it because it is their nature to do it, morally indistinguishable from Adam Lanza or Dylann Roof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. K, no point in furthering my involvement here if you've come to the conclusion that literally thousands of people who are trying to provide health services to people are sociopaths. Peace out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The videos were not garbage, were not making things, up, and accurately depict what actually happens.  You can play the PP PR flack all you want, but the videos were not doctored.  The "unedited" versions might have cut out parts, but they did not change what was there and there is no conceivable conversation or revelation that could have been excised that would have changed the picture of what was actually happening.

 

Except there have literally never been sales of "baby parts." Why is that such a difficult thing to understand? You can dislike abortion all you want, that's fine by me. But claiming they were selling pieces of babies is ridiculous and is absolutely made up BS.

 

^Anecdotes are the best way to prove your argument holds no validity. Her story proves nothing nor is there anyway for you or anyone else to know if the details are true or accurate.

 

The videos are the primary evidence.  The anecdote just reinforces it.  Also, personal experiences are hardly irrelevant even if they can never capture an entire nationwide story.  And I have no idea how you can say that there have been no sales of baby parts with a straight face; you can recharacterize it as "fetal tissue donation," but cash goes one way and baby parts go the other.  And yes, I understand that that is not the dominant revenue stream.  It is still a revenue stream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Us Freedomonianismists have a very simple solution to the abortion debate which will make everyone happy and bridge the divide between the warring factions.  We will reveal it if and when elected to office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Us Freedomonianismists have a very simple solution to the abortion debate which will make everyone happy and bridge the divide between the warring factions. 

 

That's a worthy cause. Good luck with that sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The videos were not garbage, were not making things, up, and accurately depict what actually happens.  You can play the PP PR flack all you want, but the videos were not doctored.  The "unedited" versions might have cut out parts, but they did not change what was there and there is no conceivable conversation or revelation that could have been excised that would have changed the picture of what was actually happening.

 

Except there have literally never been sales of "baby parts." Why is that such a difficult thing to understand? You can dislike abortion all you want, that's fine by me. But claiming they were selling pieces of babies is ridiculous and is absolutely made up BS.

 

^Anecdotes are the best way to prove your argument holds no validity. Her story proves nothing nor is there anyway for you or anyone else to know if the details are true or accurate.

 

The videos are the primary evidence.  The anecdote just reinforces it.  Also, personal experiences are hardly irrelevant even if they can never capture an entire nationwide story.  And I have no idea how you can say that there have been no sales of baby parts with a straight face; you can recharacterize it as "fetal tissue donation," but cash goes one way and baby parts go the other.  And yes, I understand that that is not the dominant revenue stream.  It is still a revenue stream.

 

Revenue is different than profit, though. They are not supposed to profit from selling fetal tissue. They are only supposed to recoup their costs (procedure, storage, transportation, staffing, etc). Selling fetal tissue is not used to promote more abortions or to offset the costs of other procedures like mammograms and STD testing.

 

I would personally be supportive of a stricter abortion timeline IF we provided comprehensive sex education in all schools; free, easily accessible birth control without parental consent (at least for non medicinal birth control like condoms); and dropped the regulations put in place on clinics performing abortions like transfer agreements admitting privileges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm never going to argue with people about morality of abortion because neither side can convince the other. But we should be doing everything we can do reduce the number of abortions sought. The only way to do this is to better educate everyone and provide free access to birth control.

 

Anyone who is against all abortion but refuses to budge on the other two areas is asking for something unrealistic and something that will put more lives in danger. There would be an influx of foster children, dangerous illegal abortions, and further keeping the poor in poverty. We need to do better on the other two areas if we are going to decrease the number of abortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Us Freedomonianismists have a very simple solution to the abortion debate which will make everyone happy and bridge the divide between the warring factions.  We will reveal it if and when elected to office.

 

If a candidate won't reveal their agenda until elected, how do you expect to get elected??

 

nick-digilio-film-club-used-cars-kurt-russell-russo-for-senate-flyer.jpg


"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Us Freedomonianismists have a very simple solution to the abortion debate which will make everyone happy and bridge the divide between the warring factions.  We will reveal it if and when elected to office.

 

If a candidate won't reveal their agenda until elected, how do you expect to get elected??

 

nick-digilio-film-club-used-cars-kurt-russell-russo-for-senate-flyer.jpg

 

Used Cars was an excellent movie BTW,

Look out, Marshall Lucky. It's High Prices.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The videos were not garbage, were not making things, up, and accurately depict what actually happens.  You can play the PP PR flack all you want, but the videos were not doctored.  The "unedited" versions might have cut out parts, but they did not change what was there and there is no conceivable conversation or revelation that could have been excised that would have changed the picture of what was actually happening.

 

Except there have literally never been sales of "baby parts." Why is that such a difficult thing to understand? You can dislike abortion all you want, that's fine by me. But claiming they were selling pieces of babies is ridiculous and is absolutely made up BS.

 

^Anecdotes are the best way to prove your argument holds no validity. Her story proves nothing nor is there anyway for you or anyone else to know if the details are true or accurate.

 

The videos are the primary evidence.  The anecdote just reinforces it.  Also, personal experiences are hardly irrelevant even if they can never capture an entire nationwide story.  And I have no idea how you can say that there have been no sales of baby parts with a straight face; you can recharacterize it as "fetal tissue donation," but cash goes one way and baby parts go the other.  And yes, I understand that that is not the dominant revenue stream.  It is still a revenue stream.

 

Revenue is different than profit, though. They are not supposed to profit from selling fetal tissue. They are only supposed to recoup their costs (procedure, storage, transportation, staffing, etc). Selling fetal tissue is not used to promote more abortions or to offset the costs of other procedures like mammograms and STD testing.

 

I would personally be supportive of a stricter abortion timeline IF we provided comprehensive sex education in all schools; free, easily accessible birth control without parental consent (at least for non medicinal birth control like condoms); and dropped the regulations put in place on clinics performing abortions like transfer agreements.

 

I'm in favor of comprehensive sex ed (or I guess more accurately I should say I'm opposed to abstinence-only education in schools), though obviously some aspects of that particular topic can't exactly be taught in a classroom.  But some can, and I've had some scary encounters with people who get multiple years into puberty and haven't had "the talk" yet, and the biological basics of conception are teachable in a classroom, too.  As for free birth control, that becomes a cost issue rather than a moral one for me, but condoms and generic birth control pills are cheap enough.  I'm one of those who was mentioned in the other thread as a Catholic who's maybe not quite in lockstep with the official catechism (though I will defend it to the last breath against attempts at government interference with it, including indirectly).  On "transfer agreements"--are you referring to the new laws in many states regarding admitting privileges at local hospitals?  If not, what's a transfer agreement and why is it problematic?

 

I'm obviously unapologetically hardline when it comes to abortion itself (and before anyone asks, yes, that includes with respect to any exceptions other than life of the mother), but pre-conception and post-conception are entirely different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I meant. Fixed in my post.

 

Free birth control is much cheaper for taxpayers than providing social services to an unwanted child born into poverty. "Cheap enough" is definitely not cheap enough for those who can barely afford to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still dumbfounded at how many abortions people have.  My wife & I have two kids.  Its not that easy to get pregnant.  With even a tiny amount of planning, pregnancy can easily be avoided

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I meant. Fixed in my post.

 

Free birth control is much cheaper for taxpayers than providing social services to an unwanted child born into poverty. "Cheap enough" is definitely not cheap enough for those who can barely afford to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

 

I guess I don't see the problem with requiring admitting privileges at local hospitals.  That requirement is reasonably new and was a reaction to the Kermit Gosnell revelations, and unlike a lot of knee-jerk crisis responses, this might have done something in some of those cases for the women involved (though, obviously, not for their aborted children).

 

Also, where I said "cheap enough," that was me saying that yes, I think providing those lower-cost birth control measures for free makes a certain amount of economic sense.  I only meant to compare such things to, say, vasectomies, IUDs, etc., which can cost orders of magnitude more.

 

I actually don't see the birth control issue as a women's rights issue.  Birth control is not a woman-only issue, even in couples in which the woman uses the pill and the man does not use a condom, so it's only the woman that is physically doing something to prevent conception.  It's still generally a joint decision, and family planning is a joint endeavor.  It's certainly something that a man has every right to speak about with his girlfriend/wife before they start having sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. Cool.

 

Though if someone doesn't want any (or any more) kids, a vasectomy is actually really cost efficient. There is no chance of pregnancy if the vasectomy is successful and no follow up costs assuming no complications. Planned Parenthood can offer vasectomies for anywhere from $0-$1000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that those are the subsidized prices, though, whereas the generic pill and condoms are cheap even at unsubsidized prices, meaning that getting them to $0 really actually wouldn't be all that much of an outlay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue with pills, condoms, etc is that you have to rely on individuals to keep using them over and over again. If you miss taking a pill by a short amount of time you may wind up pregnant.

 

A vasectomy doesn't require constant attention. So in the end, it may be the cheapest method because there is very little possibility for an error on the individual's side. Without insurance birth control pills are about $50/month. That comes to $600/year. Making birth control pills/condoms free would cost more than additional subsidies to vasectomies over time. We should make all forms of birth control free to anyone who wants them.

 

Basically, taking into account the success rates of different birth controls, the ability for individuals to do everything correctly, and the large cost of unwanted children on poor individuals/families leads to the conclusion that we should offer long-term birth control methods for free to those who desire it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm obviously unapologetically hardline when it comes to abortion itself (and before anyone asks, yes, that includes with respect to any exceptions other than life of the mother), but pre-conception and post-conception are entirely different things.

 

I'm sorry Gramarye, but I don't understand this position.  If you truly believe that abortion is murder than how can you justify any exception at all?  Where's the line?  It seems arbitrary to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm obviously unapologetically hardline when it comes to abortion itself (and before anyone asks, yes, that includes with respect to any exceptions other than life of the mother), but pre-conception and post-conception are entirely different things.

 

I'm sorry Gramarye, but I don't understand this position.  If you truly believe that abortion is murder than how can you justify any exception at all?  Where's the line?  It seems arbitrary to me.

 

What is inconsistent about it?

 

The operating principle is "don't kill people."  If the choice is not between the life of the mother and another person, then any outcome in which both survive is preferable to any outcome in which one or the other is dead.  Yes, any outcome.  This includes ones in which the mother must become strong enough to deal with a child in poverty, a child with Down's Syndrome, or even one conceived by rape (it isn't the child's fault and under no other circumstance does America countenance punishing children for the crimes of their parents ... any intimation in any other circumstance that a child could be sentenced to death for the capital crime of a parent would be immediately tossed out of both the most liberal and the most conservative courts in the country).

 

However, if the choice is one of the rare but real and horrible situations where one or the other has to die, then we ("we" as in the government) have no authority to say that it must be the mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No exception for rape? Wow. There are so many things wrong with that. I know we will never agree, but damn that's harsh.

 

I'm aware.  I think many of the Republicans running for office that hedge their words when confronted with that question are aware of it, too, and there's no way to make a gentle point of it.  But I'm not running for office, and Hootenany is pretty close to right--if you believe that the fertilized egg is a unique human being, then almost no justification for abortion is adequate, as any justification must meet the same criteria we would apply to a human outside the womb, whether a helpless 0-year-old or a helpless 100-year-old, neither one of which we would compulsorily euthanize even though they are utterly dependent on others to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes a fertilized egg different from a sperm though? There has to be a line drawn somewhere. A vast majority of people would argue the line is somewhere between fertilized egg and birth. Where that line is varies form person to person. Most people would not argue a fertilized egg is any more a person than a sperm. Physically it is, but there is more to being a person than having both sets of chromosomes together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No exception for rape? Wow. There are so many things wrong with that. I know we will never agree, but damn that's harsh.

 

I'm aware.  I think many of the Republicans running for office that hedge their words when confronted with that question are aware of it, too, and there's no way to make a gentle point of it.  But I'm not running for office, and Hootenany is pretty close to right--if you believe that the fertilized egg is a unique human being, then almost no justification for abortion is adequate, as any justification must meet the same criteria we would apply to a human outside the womb, whether a helpless 0-year-old or a helpless 100-year-old, neither one of which we would compulsorily euthanize even though they are utterly dependent on others to survive.

 

In my view you back yourself into a corner when you take the position that a fertilized egg is a human being and intentionally ending that life is murder.  If you take that position than you must be willing to prosecute abortionists and the women who have the abortions for murder (assuming your view is made into law).  You must also be willing to prosecute woman who unintentionally end their pregnancy through negligence with negligent homicide.  If you know you're pregnant and you ride a roller coaster and end up having a miscarriage are you subject to arrest in your world?  Or are we making more exceptions?  I say that because I still find your "life of the mother" exception arbitrary.  It seems to me that there are very few cases in which the doctor knows with 100% certainty that carrying through with a pregnancy will kill a mother.  They work on probabilities.  So how sure does the doctor have to be before that abortion is legal in your eyes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most people would not argue a fertilized egg is any more a person than a sperm.  Physically it is, but there is more to being a person than having both sets of chromosomes together.

 

I can't throw that fact away so casually, and neither can most of the principled pro-life conservatives I know.  That fact is of monumental, indeed determinative, significance.  Neither the sperm nor the fertilized egg have the complete DNA of a human independent of either the mother or father.  Zygotes do not divide and multiply in the replication process that we generally define as "life" in the biological sciences.  That process begins with fertilization and ends with death; birth is just one of many developmental stages, but nothing is magical about it.  (Many species of animal, for example, fertilize eggs outside the mother's body.)  You talk about arbitrary lines ... what scientific or philosophical principle would lead one to conclude that a 32-week-old lifeform born prematurely is a human but a clone of the exact same lifeform born on time is still not a human for those last n weeks before birth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm not saying it's an easy decision as to where to draw the line. I do think it's easy to say a fertilized egg shouldn't be protected as a full person with rights of any other person. I'm also not arguing for infanticide. But we have to draw the line somewhere. IDK where that line is though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No exception for rape? Wow. There are so many things wrong with that. I know we will never agree, but damn that's harsh.

 

I'm aware.  I think many of the Republicans running for office that hedge their words when confronted with that question are aware of it, too, and there's no way to make a gentle point of it.  But I'm not running for office, and Hootenany is pretty close to right--if you believe that the fertilized egg is a unique human being, then almost no justification for abortion is adequate, as any justification must meet the same criteria we would apply to a human outside the womb, whether a helpless 0-year-old or a helpless 100-year-old, neither one of which we would compulsorily euthanize even though they are utterly dependent on others to survive.

 

In my view you back yourself into a corner when you take the position that a fertilized egg is a human being and intentionally ending that life is murder.  If you take that position than you must be willing to prosecute abortionists and the women who have the abortions for murder (assuming your view is made into law).  You must also be willing to prosecute woman who unintentionally end their pregnancy through negligence with negligent homicide.  If you know you're pregnant and you ride a roller coaster and end up having a miscarriage are you subject to arrest in your world?  Or are we making more exceptions?  I say that because I still find your "life of the mother" exception arbitrary.  It seems to me that there are very few cases in which the doctor knows with 100% certainty that carrying through with a pregnancy will kill a mother.  They work on probabilities.  So how sure does the doctor have to be before that abortion is legal in your eyes?

 

Only the harshest pro-life activists are willing to prosecute the mothers and the dominant strain of pro-life thought defines the mother as another victim, not as co-conspirator.  But yes, we would be willing to try abortionists for murder if Roe were to be overturned, just as we did before the Supreme Court imposed it on the country.  Indeed, that is partly the point.  As mentioned upthread, we view Gosnell, Planned Parenthood's abortionists, and others who choose to go into that macabre trade as presumptively sociopathic, and did so even before the CMP videos.

 

As for the percentages issue, yes, that does involve a grey area and the law would have difficulty dealing with that.  A 0.1% chance of maternal death might well not justify abortion, but it would be clearly against the spirit of making the preservation of life the highest priority to say that the mother must deal with a 95% chance of death if the child has a 96%+ chance at life.  But a standard can still be articulated clearly even when applying it could get difficult.  And aside from the other extreme, the abortion-on-demand position (and even that is suspect because birth is something of an arbitrary moment as well from the perspective of the developing organism), the grey area there is much smaller than any mixed "not after n weeks" system, because particularly in the Western world, the mother's life is seldom in serious jeopardy.  How can you complain about arbitrariness if you support a 20-week ban, 24-week ban, 26-week/2-trimester ban, etc.?  Not to get too deep into sophistry, but your arbitrariness is a lot more arbitrary than my arbitrariness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...