Right to Life, Right to Murder

Rithrandil · June 7, 2009

Oxlar said:
Considering my wife is 7 and 1/2 months pregnant right now, I'd say I've got a relevant view on the subject.
I can't imagine any possible way that an abortion at this stage would not equate to murder.

You have a relevant view on what it is like to have a pregnant wife, but you are no more qualified in judging the ethical, moral, and legal principles of abortion than anyone else.

Oxlar said:
C
While you can make a case for extreme examples where the life of the baby would be hardly worth living, but then you might as well call it a mercy killing.

I'm not against mercy killing or euthanasia.

Oxlar said:
C
However, there have been reports that a lot of the late term abortions were done for a wide variety of reasons, some that really stretch the limits of acceptability.

What reports and where from, and what did they say? And they stretch the limits of acceptability for you. States are perfectly able to restrict late term abortions, by the way. Roe gives States the ability to restrict third trimester abortions.

Oxlar said:
C
As far as the legal thing, I thought thats only in a handful of states at this stage. I could be wrong, but thats the impression I had gotten.

What? It's not murder in any state - although in certain states if someone punched a pregnant woman in the stomach and caused a miscarriage it would be considered murder - a stance I never understood since a fetus is not legally a person until after it comes out of the woman

Rithrandil · June 7, 2009

Oxlar said:
Pardon me while I roll my eyes and stand in line with most parents or pregnant women who would disagree with that statement. I also never said it makes me an expert. I said the subject is more relevant to someone like me. Relevant as in meaning I can better relate to the issue because I'm actually going through something where that is a very significant and real subject.

I have a lot of health issues. My wife is in her late 30's. We are at a significantly higher risk for pregnancy problems. We have wrestled with the possible outcome of escalated ratios for genetic problems via testing. Some tests we decided not to get because we felt that it just wouldn't make the difference whether or not we would abort. But we had to deal with the reality of making that decision. Hence, it is more relevant to me than someone like yourself.

Sorry to hear about this.

Oxlar said:
You done yet Andy Rooney?

You know, those are actually very important questions to this topic - especially since you are seeking to remove the choice from other people based on your moral beliefs.

Oxlar said:
There simply is not enough time in one day to research everything I hear or read in this world. Nor do I have the desire to reduce my life down to such a level of boring drivel.

How much do you actually research, though, and what are your sources? You've made (IMHO) some very bizarre and out there claims.

Oxlar said:
I pay attention way more than the average bear. 90% of my country

Homer:Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forty percent of all people know that

Oxlar said:
get their news from sources like John Stewart, Colbert, The Tonight Show, Saturday Night Live, or MSN home page. Which is why America is Failing in every way.

Don't you get your news from Glenn Beck? That freak is destroying America far more than Stewart, Colbert, etc are - why? BECAUSE THEY ADMIT TO BEING COMEDY SHOWS! Glenn Beck gets on stage and starts crying and making these outrageous and idiotic claims, or asks a Muslim Congressmen how "we can be sure" he isn't working with terrorists because he swears his oath on the Koran! I'm sorry, but someone who listens to and likes Glenn Beck has no ground to stand on when talking about how America is "failing". If Glenn Beck had his way we'd all be using Discovery Institute-designed "science" programs in our schools. That guy is little better then a clown.

dteowner · June 7, 2009

I'm not a regular viewer by any stretch, by I enjoy Glenn Beck if Mrs dte happens to be flipping channels at the right time. Unlike the majority of the media, at least Beck readily admits that he's "news entertainment". Try to get a similar admission from Sam Donaldson or Michael Moore. Well, crap, I guess I just lost my prililege to post.

Oxlar · June 7, 2009

Rithrandil said:
You have a relevant view on what it is like to have a pregnant wife, but you are no more qualified in judging the ethical, moral, and legal principles of abortion than anyone else.

I presume your not a father. If your not, there is no point in arguing this point as it is beyond your level of comprehension.

Rithrandil said:
I'm not against mercy killing or euthanasia.

Now thats a slippery slope and highly contested viewpoint. When you begin taking life from someone without their permission and justify it for what ever reason, it opens a whole can of moral delimas.

Rithrandil said:
What reports and where from, and what did they say? And they stretch the limits of acceptability for you. States are perfectly able to restrict late term abortions, by the way. Roe gives States the ability to restrict third trimester abortions.

Thats what I said.

Rithrandil said:
What? It's not murder in any state - although in certain states if someone punched a pregnant woman in the stomach and caused a miscarriage it would be considered murder - a stance I never understood since a fetus is not legally a person until after it comes out of the woman

Technically, no. but I'm sure you would consider gays not being able to be married to be a form of descrimination despite the fact that its not legally descrimination in almost all states.

Rithrandil · June 7, 2009

Oxlar said:
I presume your not a father. If your not, there is no point in arguing this point as it is beyond your level of comprehension.

No, it's not, you're just wrong. Your wife is pregnant. That gives you a good viewpoint on having a pregnant wife and what YOU would do in regards to this issue and other related issues. Does being a father make you more qualified to judge, as I said, the legal, ethical, or moral issues surrounding abortion? No, it does not.

By the way, you're using the exact same argument the pro-choice movement uses in saying "you're not a pregnant woman so you can't tell them what to do!" and arguing the choice should be left up to the woman. It's a stupid argument for their side and it's a stupid argument for yours, as well.

Oxlar said:
Now thats a slippery slope and highly contested viewpoint. When you begin taking life from someone without their permission and justify it for what ever reason, it opens a whole can of moral delimas.

Yet you're in favor of the death penalty, no? That's taking someone's life without their permission. I'm just stating that not all lives are worth living. Take that judgment or leave it, it's only my personal view.

Oxlar said:
Thats what I said.

And I asked for clarification.

Oxlar said:
Technically, no. but I'm sure you would consider gays not being able to be married to be a form of descrimination despite the fact that its not legally descrimination in almost all states.

But your reasoning is wrong. Legally an unborn child is not a person. Homosexuals are legally people. Therefor they are entitled to the exact same rights as other people barring any sort of crime committed or legitimate reason for said rights to be curtailed. No such reason has ever been presented, and thus they are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, including but not limiting to the right to have consensual sex, marriage, and adoption. It's a different issue then the unborn child issue. If you wish for unborn children to be legally persons then I suggest getting a Constitutional Amendment forced through.

Oxlar · June 7, 2009

Rithrandil said:
You know, those are actually very important questions to this topic - especially since you are seeking to remove the choice from other people based on your moral beliefs.

Then you answer them.

FYI - Having a personal opinion about something does not equate to 'seeking to remove the choice from other people'. This seems to be a common misconception for you and PJ.

Rithrandil said:
How much do you actually research, though, and what are your sources? You've made (IMHO) some very bizarre and out there claims.

Bizarre and out there? I thought they were just talking points of the right?

Rithrandil said:
Don't you get your news from Glenn Beck? That freak is destroying America far more than Stewart, Colbert, etc are - why? BECAUSE THEY ADMIT TO BEING COMEDY SHOWS! Glenn Beck gets on stage and starts crying and making these outrageous and idiotic claims, or asks a Muslim Congressmen how "we can be sure" he isn't working with terrorists because he swears his oath on the Koran! I'm sorry, but someone who listens to and likes Glenn Beck has no ground to stand on when talking about how America is "failing". If Glenn Beck had his way we'd all be using Discovery Institute-designed "science" programs in our schools. That guy is little better then a clown.

I think that most people that don't like Glenn don't understand when he is using sarcasm or being facetious. I would much rather get some of my news from someone who scrutinizes whoever is in power at the time, instead of rolling over and being their bitch. He goes after both parties which is something that few commentators do these days as they are usually beholden to one party or the other. I like his common sense and his humor and the fact that he is passionate about his country and the principals upon which it is built. I could care less what you think about him. Your loss.

Squeek · June 7, 2009

Ubereil said:
And for the record, what constitutes late-term in this case?

Like everything else having to do with this issue, there's disagreement over what constitutes "late term." But most people use that term in reference to pregnancies that have reach the 20th week of gestation (I did too).

If you're interested, here is the link to the Kansas government statistics (all of which are "preliminary," a hedge that I view as fairly typical handling of "third rail" subjects).

This issue has grown to become particularly difficult here in the US, but it's naive to suggest it isn't understood all over the world. Many countries banned late-term abortions. According to Wikipedia, Sweden banned (or severly restricted) abortions beyond 18 weeks as recently as 1998.

Can I assume it's legal now? May I ask when the law was changed and if it was considered controversial at the time?

Prime Junta · June 7, 2009

Oxlar said:
FYI - Having a personal opinion about something does not equate to 'seeking to remove the choice from other people'. This seems to be a common misconception for you and PJ.

Can you clear up this misconception for us, then?

Proposition 1: "Women should be able to have late-term abortions under certain (here unspecified) circumstances." Agree/disagree?

Proposition 2: "Late-term abortions are murder." Agree/disagree?

'Cuz I can't see any way that you can agree to both propositions 1 and 2 without also believing:

Proposition 3: "People should be able to commit murder, under certain (here unspecified) circumstances."

From where I'm at, Proposition 3 strikes me as absurd -- internally contradictory -- since the definition of "murder" includes "unlawful taking of another human life." OTOH, if you disagree with Proposition 1, you are, in fact, seeking to remove the choice from other people, and not merely having a personal opinion about it, which contradicts what you just said.

Rithrandil · June 7, 2009

Oxlar said:
Then you answer them.

Sure, no problem.

PJ's questions said:
Have you ever wondered why a woman would seek a late-term abortion?

Have you ever tried to find out?

Why do you think that the law does not equate abortion with murder?

How do you think laws and practices should be changed in the US?

What do you think of PETA's and Earth First's campaigns against fur farmers? In what way are they different from the anti-choice movement's campaign against Dr. Tiller?

1) Yes, I have.
2) I've never had the opportunity to ask a woman who has had a late term abortion. I imagine a good deal of them (since they are banned in most states) are health related or are related to rape/incest.
3) I'd like to see better protection for children who are delivered.
4) I do not like those campaigns and I believe they are equivalent to the campaign against Dr. Tiller.

Your turn!

Oxlar said:
FYI - Having a personal opinion about something does not equate to 'seeking to remove the choice from other people'. This seems to be a common misconception for you and PJ.

So you are pro-choice and believe abortion should remain legal. Got it.

Oxlar said:
Bizarre and out there? I thought they were just talking points of the right?

Yes to both questions, but you really need to remember I am not the same person as PJ and we hold radically different views on many/most issues.

I just don't hold his leftist Marxist views against him and he doesn't hold my fascist totalitarian Ferengi views against me

Oxlar said:
I think that most people that don't like Glenn don't understand when he is using sarcasm or being facetious. I would much rather get some of my news from someone who scrutinizes whoever is in power at the time, instead of rolling over and being their bitch. He goes after both parties which is something that few commentators do these days as they are usually beholden to one party or the other.

No, I don't like him because I disagree with virtually every single thing he says and I view him as a radical xenophobic reactionary with little to no grounding in reality who says a lot of stupid things and does not seem to have a firm grasp on reality or sanity.

Oxlar said:
I like his common sense and his humor and the fact that he is passionate about his country and the principals upon which it is built.

I don't view what he says as common sense unless this is the Sarah Palin common sense that revolves around man riding dinosaurs and the earth being 6000 years old and how we all need to live in the "real America" and bash all those snobby effeminate cheese-eating East and left-coast intellectuals.. I find it humorous but not in the same way you do. I also don't think he understands much about what this country is built upon, either.

Oxlar said:
I could care less what you think about him. Your loss.

I'm more then comfortable with said loss. He's equivalent to Michael Moore and Garofolo. Would you mind taking them off of my hands too, along with O'Reilly, Rush, Hannity, and Ann Coulter?

Oxlar · June 7, 2009

Rithrandil said:
But your reasoning is wrong. Legally an unborn child is not a person. Homosexuals are legally people. Therefor they are entitled to the exact same rights as other people barring any sort of crime committed or legitimate reason for said rights to be curtailed. No such reason has ever been presented, and thus they are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, including but not limiting to the right to have consensual sex, marriage, and adoption. It's a different issue then the unborn child issue. If you wish for unborn children to be legally persons then I suggest getting a Constitutional Amendment forced through.

Your arguing a different point than what I was making. My point was about an unjust law not changing the fact that, for many, it being legal does not absolve the injustice. And lets be clear. I have not taken a stance on abortion in general. The only argument I have made is about 3rd term abortions. And until you have walked a mile in someone's shoes where this is a reality, the personal experience is less relevant when it comes to identifying with that baby as a human being.

Oxlar · June 7, 2009

Rithrandil said:
1) Yes, I have.
2) I've never had the opportunity to ask a woman who has had a late term abortion. I imagine a good deal of them (since they are banned in most states) are health related or are related to rape/incest.
3) I'd like to see better protection for children who are delivered.
4) I do not like those campaigns and I believe they are equivalent to the campaign against Dr. Tiller.

Your turn!

You missed one. Like I said, I'm not interested in playing PJs game.

Rithrandil said:
I don't view what he says as common sense unless this is the Sarah Palin common sense that revolves around man riding dinosaurs and the earth being 6000 years old and how we all need to live in the "real America" and bash all those snobby effeminate cheese-eating East and left-coast intellectuals.. I find it humorous but not in the same way you do. I also don't think he understands much about what this country is built upon, either.

Somehow I get the feeling that you don't really watch him or haven't in a long time.

Rithrandil said:
I'm more then comfortable with said loss. He's equivalent to Michael Moore and Garofolo. Would you mind taking them off of my hands too, along with O'Reilly, Rush, Hannity, and Ann Coulter?

sorry, but your stuck with Moore and Garofolo. Rush and coulter don't make it into my house, so I can't help you there. Sometimes Hannity will show up but only in that 'God I need someone who doesn't have their nose in Obama's Oval Orafice' kind of way. He still is a Republican schill, but its better than listening to someone who gets a thrill up their leg every time the messiah speaks. I'd rather have constant scrutinization than listening to a corrupt corporation with a pollitical economic agenda or those with blind faith.

Rithrandil · June 7, 2009

Oxlar said:
You missed one. Like I said, I'm not interested in playing PJs game.

My mistake, the answer is "because unborn children aren't legally people and there may be a legitimate reason to terminate pregnancies." They were perfectly reasonable questions, though - you just define them as a 'game' for some reason.

The only thing you are interested in is dodging the issue at hand - I like how you didn't respond to PJ's or my assertion that you are pro-choice, by the way - in fact, it was the only part of my previous post that you didn't have a comment on. You should be a politician.

I feel comfortable in assuming that you are pro-choice from now on, by the way. See, you've just proven PJ wrong! That's not a far-right talking point!

Oxlar said:
Somehow I get the feeling that you don't really watch him or haven't in a long time.

And you'd be wrong. I watched him for two months when he moved to Fox because that's all my parents watched when I was home. I also saw his remarks to Keith Ellison. But to turn it around: Somehow I get the feeling you haven't read books by competent knowledgeable people regarding the political foundation of our nation (or the realities of many issues including but not limited to climate change, homosexual rights, abortion rights, religion, etc) or haven't in a long time.

Oxlar said:
sorry, but your stuck with Moore and Garofolo. Rush and coulter don't make it into my house, so I can't help you there. Sometimes Hannity will show up but only in that 'God I need someone who doesn't have their nose in Obama's Oval Orafice' kind of way. He still is a Republican schill, but its better than listening to someone who gets a thrill up their leg every time the messiah speaks. I'd rather have constant scrutinization than listening to a corrupt corporation with a pollitical economic agenda or those with blind faith.

So Glenn Beck is basically your version of Noam Chomsky?

Prime Junta · June 7, 2009

Oxlar said:
Your arguing a different point than what I was making. My point was about an unjust law not changing the fact that, for many, it being legal does not absolve the injustice. And lets be clear. I have not taken a stance on abortion in general. The only argument I have made is about 3rd term abortions. And until you have walked a mile in someone's shoes where this is a reality, the personal experience is less relevant when it comes to identifying with that baby as a human being.

Let me bounce the following scenarios off you, since they're personally relevant to you at this time. (And, just to make it perfectly clear, I hope to God you, nor anyone else, never have to be in a situation like them -- but, unfortunately, some people do.)

(1) You discover only now, 7 1/2 months into the pregnancy, that the fetus is so badly deformed that s/he will not survive childbirth. Should your wife be forced to carry the pregnancy to term, only to have the baby die immediately afterward?

(2) Your wife develops a severe health complication. Your doctor estimates that the odds of her surviving childbirth are 50-50, with the same odds for the baby (meaning, the odds of both surviving are 1:4, the odds of neither surviving are 1:4, and the odds of the mother or the baby surviving are 1:2). Aborting now would almost certainly save her life. Should she be forced to carry the pregnancy to term?

Note: the key word is "forced." In both cases, she would have the option of carrying the pregnancy to term, should she so choose.

(I have previously verified that at least some of the late-term abortions Dr. Tiller carried out were situations like this.)

PS. Unlike Rith, I'm still assuming that you're anti-choice, until you clarify your position and explicitly state that you're pro-choice.

dteowner · June 7, 2009

Prime Junta said:
Proposition 3: "People should be able to commit murder, under certain (here unspecified) circumstances."

From where I'm at, Proposition 3 strikes me as absurd -- internally contradictory -- since the definition of "murder" includes "unlawful taking of another human life."

Ummm, by that logic, WW2 is absurd and you've got a whole buttload of people to prosecute.

Prime Junta · June 7, 2009

Well, WW2 *was* rather absurd, but... what do you mean?

I don't believe that all taking of human life is murder, if that's what you mean. The definition of "murder" includes "unlawful," or "morally untenable" or "unacceptable" if you will. That makes "I believe murder is acceptable in some circumstances" an oxymoron, since murder that is acceptable is, by definition, not murder.

Squeek · June 7, 2009

I think some problems require special insight to appreciate, and some don't. Some even require superior intelligence. But if I had to name the one issue that was easiest for everyone everywhere to appreciate, it would definitely be this one.

That's not to say it isn't a difficult problem, it's just that you really have to work hard to confuse it. But if that were your intent, one sure-fire way to dumb it down would be to insist that there can only ever be two camps for everyone to fit in.

Which camp is yours? Hmmmmmmmm, let me see...aha! Allow me to pigeonhole you! There...now...ball in your court! Go!! Anyone who resists buying into that can always be hit with, "Hey, which side are you on anyway? I don't understand you at all!"

Smart. :roll:

Rithrandil · June 7, 2009

It's why I like to say I'm in the middle of this one. It's a complex issue. I don't generally mind it (although I still wish it didn't happen) before the point of viability. After the point of viability I think you are on extremely shaky ground and at that point society has a legitimate interest in regulating, restricting, or preventing abortions.

Oxlar · June 7, 2009

Prime Junta said:
Let me bounce the following scenarios off you, since they're personally relevant to you at this time. (And, just to make it perfectly clear, I hope to God you, nor anyone else, never have to be in a situation like them -- but, unfortunately, some people do.)

(1) You discover only now, 7 1/2 months into the pregnancy, that the fetus is so badly deformed that s/he will not survive childbirth. Should your wife be forced to carry the pregnancy to term, only to have the baby die immediately afterward?

(2) Your wife develops a severe health complication. Your doctor estimates that the odds of her surviving childbirth are 50-50, with the same odds for the baby (meaning, the odds of both surviving are 1:4, the odds of neither surviving are 1:4, and the odds of the mother or the baby surviving are 1:2). Aborting now would almost certainly save her life. Should she be forced to carry the pregnancy to term?

Note: the key word is "forced." In both cases, she would have the option of carrying the pregnancy to term, should she so choose.

(I have previously verified that at least some of the late-term abortions Dr. Tiller carried out were situations like this.)

PS. Unlike Rith, I'm still assuming that you're anti-choice, until you clarify your position and explicitly state that you're pro-choice.

And I will throw this back at you. Are you telling me that these are the ONLY conditions under which late term abortions were performed?

Prime Junta · June 7, 2009

But that, Rith, places you squarely in the middle of the pro-choice camp. Wanting to completely remove all restrictions on abortion is a fringe position. The anti-choice crowd wants to make abortion always illegal.

FWIW, I believe that abortion should be available without restrictions for the two first trimesters; for the third trimester, it should only be available for medical reasons. I also believe that we should find ways to bring the number of abortions down as far as possible, and I believe the best way to do that is through means other than coercion -- e.g. easily available and cheap or free contraceptives plus sex education good enough that people know where to get them and how to use them. "Safe, legal, and rare" is a pretty good slogan from where I'm at.

It would be great if the number of abortions would end up as zero, but I don't believe that's ever possible; medical complications alone will ensure that.

Oxlar · June 7, 2009

Squeek said:
Like everything else having to do with this issue, there's disagreement over what constitutes "late term." But most people use that term in reference to pregnancies that have reach the 20th week of gestation (I did too).

If you're interested, here is the link to the Kansas government statistics (all of which are "preliminary," a hedge that I view as fairly typical handling of "third rail" subjects).

This issue has grown to become particularly difficult here in the US, but it's naive to suggest it isn't understood all over the world. Many countries banned late-term abortions. According to Wikipedia, Sweden banned (or severly restricted) abortions beyond 18 weeks as recently as 1998.

Can I assume it's legal now? May I ask when the law was changed and if it was considered controversial at the time?

Wow, those stats really have a lot of information. Looking at the numbers can really give one some insight.

Right to Life, Right to Murder

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

Shoegazer

Watchdog

SasqWatch

Watchdog

connoisseur of tidbits

RPGCodex' Little BRO

SasqWatch

Watchdog

Watchdog

SasqWatch

RPGCodex' Little BRO

Shoegazer

RPGCodex' Little BRO

connoisseur of tidbits

SasqWatch

Watchdog

RPGCodex' Little BRO

Watchdog