Can either side give up something so that an intelligent discussion can take place?

[EMNofSeattle]

And let the child rape victim die??? I can't...I just can't..

You don’t let anyone die.

Sometimes people do, but that’s not the desired effect.

And let’s be real here, no real child rape victim dying is actually occurring because this scenario is fictional.

Any time you have the “perfect case” to justify evil it’s usually false or exaggerated.

 

[bomberfox]

Is it possible for pro-choice, and anti-abortion people to make compromises that might make possible an intelligent and realistic discussion with the possibility of creating workable laws about women's reproductive role? If so, what beliefs could each side give up?

The compromise was kinda already made before i was even born.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Advocating that a 14 year old rape victim be forced to carry a baby to viability so it can be delivered by c-section is disgustingly barbaric.

Viability is as little as 20 weeks.

Abortion is disgustingly barbaric, whatever fake scenario was made the justify it not withstanding.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Not all human life is to be valued. For example, those convicted of certain crimes who are sentenced to death. Or those who are trying to kill or seriously harm another - killing them in self defense is allowed. Abortion is a form of self defense since every pregnancy will, at the very least, cause the woman great pain (childbirth) and discomfort (latter stages) and could cause a myriad of other issues, including, but not limited to, her death.

The state has prerogative over the life of its subjects with a view to promote public order. Your decision as an individual to commit a grave evil is not the same in kind as the government’s right and duty to promote just society.

Killing someone, even in self defense, can be a grave evil if your intent was to cause their death.

There is a moral principle called double effect, while it is never licit to commit evil to achieve a good end, if the intent was not to commit a grave evil but one occured as an unwanted consequence then it is justifiable. If someone is attacking you with deadly force and you use deadly force in response and your intent is merely to cease the attack then you’ve committed no evil, if you use force with the intent to kill that other person, even in self defense, that is an act of grave evil.

 

[Lursa]

Whatever helps you justify the unfettered slaughter of unborn children...

There's that bumper sticker again!

Hoorah!

 

[Lursa]

:roll:

EML (emotionally manipulative language) has no place in the debate.

Exactly and he doesnt put forth any articulated legal or moral arguments...just emotional "yur bad cuz...little babies!"

 

[Lursa]

Viability is as little as 20 weeks.
.

Nope, never. so far.

If so, post the case. It would be historic so there would be a record of it.

The Lord has said that all sins are the same in His eyes.

So your lies, over and over, make you no better than any woman you feel has sinned having an abortion.

 

[Lursa]

:lamo

FFS

I specifically point out how much you people DONT give a **** about any of this and how if you actually cared you could dedicate the resources you spend on the politics of abortion to actually providing real choice...and you assume government.

Because you dont give a **** about choice...or babies...or women.

As for government social spending...I'm more socially liberal than most 'liberals'. It just needs to be effective.

I already wrote out how the Democrats support the reproductive facilities, the subsidized care and birth control, the fixing of socio-economic challenges, and sex ed. So why are you lying?

And we dont need more unwanted, unplanned kids...the data is clear that those born into socio-economically challenged homes are at higher risk for negative outcomes in society.

Sorry, I believe in quality of life, not quantity. It's a joke that you want to hand out money to women to HAVE kids when conservatives complain all the time that that is exactly what current welfare does now.

 

[Lursa]

Far too expansive to rewrite in a discussion that isnt going to get past pro and anti abortion...but think complete community restructuring.

That's BS. Just a cop out...so far all you have is a bumper sticker and a plan to pay women to have their babies :doh Such expenditure is not in society's best interests, as I just wrote in a previous post.

 

[Lursa]

"I have given my solution numerous times. There has to be a MASSIVE change in mindset starting with the whole left/right rep/dem, black white bull****. 1st and foremost...regardless of the reasons/excuses, people need to commit to the message that nothing justifies the violence. Throw out the excuses. If you commit violent crimes your ass should go to prison for a looooong long time. Need more prison space? Build more prisons. The fact is that while people make excuses and create a revolving door justice system the victims are predominantly minority. Stop favoring the violent thug over the victims. Then commit to real investment in those communities. Government...private sector...challenge celebrities to put their money where their mouth is. If I was doing it I would pick the communities hardest hit and start with a community center. Renovate an existing facility or build a new one, but build a center for health care (yep...free), childcare (free to those working, going to school, or seeking work) and employ caregivers from the community (with intense oversight). Drug treatment centers to help people break free of the drug addictions. Training centers to teach people skills and basic education skills. Start hiring crew to demolish condemned buildings...clear them out. Completely clear the communities of the garbage and the graffiti. Better community policing. Identify housing that can be renovated and salvaged and hire local community members to work on the crews. Give them home ownership incentives along with a paycheck. No gentrification...build pride from within. Entice private sector business to build in those communities. Hell...how many sports stars in Chicago commission jerseys and shoes made in sweatshops in Asia? Why not open a Starter plant and hire people locally. Then focus on the schools. Kick the ****heads out that are disrupting the education experiences for others. Focus on education. Restart trade programs. Those are just starters.

Expensive as ****...I know. Worth the investment. If we are going to go in debt anyway I would rather see the debt go to bringing about positive long term sustainable changes."

The intent is to change a culture. That thread was about gun control but it all is part of the same problem. Of course you incorporate family planning, birth control, etc into this. The reality is that there are fewer unplanned pregnancies and abortions in more affluent communities. The goal is to create communities that are affluent and self sustaining.

Sooooo...create socio-economic change so fewer women need to have abortions. Yeah, I write that all the time, have done so at least twice in this thread.

Thank you for writing it out (no sarcasm) but that's nothing new. It's the Liberal platform even further than I like it, as a very fiscally conservative Dem. It is something that will take a great deal of time because realistically you wont get that $$.

OTOH, it is already happening now, because most women choose to have their babies and the abortion rate goes down every year.

 

[Lursa]

I think we compromised when abortions in the first trimester, 3 months of pregnancy, were allowed.

Now they want to abort babies in the last trimester, 6 to 9 months of pregnancy. An infant can live outside the womb at this stage. Will it cry once it's delivered? Will doctors kill it?

I'm not a fan of lat stage abortions.

Few if any elective abortions take place that late, they are all medically necessary. If they go so late as 6 months otherwise, it's because a large state has only 1 facility for the procedure, it costs alot of $$, they have to travel hrs to get there, they must wait 3 days, then either pay to stay over or travel again to have the procedure. Missed time from work, travel, hotels, the procedure, $$$$$. And these are mostly women in lower income brackets. Some states intentionally make it difficult and then wonder why a woman has to wait so long to have the procedure. Not only that, the later term it is, the fewer facilities can do the procedure. If you dont want later term abortions (late 2nd term, early 3rd)...dont make it hard for women to have them early.

And no one is a fan of any abortions :roll:

 

[Lursa]

Deliver the baby by c-section and provide medical support, if s/he dies then s/he dies.

However you cannot use abstract risk of death as justification for an intentional death, such a thing is immoral.

You also cannot create justification by “stacking” circumstances. You are trying to emotionally manipulate people, your case study is 13, and raped, and severely injured, and can’t survive, and the baby can’t survive. You know full well that’s not the normal profile of people who seek abortions.

Absolutely horrific. You are not remotely any kind of Christian that I can imagine.

The Lord's Message is one of compassion, peace, forgiveness, and brotherly love. You rarely if ever show any of those things.

 

[Scrabaholic]

You don’t let anyone die.

Sometimes people do, but that’s not the desired effect.

And let’s be real here, no real child rape victim dying is actually occurring because this scenario is fictional.

Any time you have the “perfect case” to justify evil it’s usually false or exaggerated.

Jaeger19 said the child will die if she gestates. S/he is an MD (maybe an ob/gyn, I can't remember) and that it is a real case. S/he would know better than you.

 

[Scrabaholic]

The state has prerogative over the life of its subjects with a view to promote public order. Your decision as an individual to commit a grave evil is not the same in kind as the government’s right and duty to promote just society.

Killing someone, even in self defense, can be a grave evil if your intent was to cause their death.

There is a moral principle called double effect, while it is never licit to commit evil to achieve a good end, if the intent was not to commit a grave evil but one occured as an unwanted consequence then it is justifiable. If someone is attacking you with deadly force and you use deadly force in response and your intent is merely to cease the attack then you’ve committed no evil, if you use force with the intent to kill that other person, even in self defense, that is an act of grave evil.

Abortion is merely ending the pregnancy so that the attack (of pregnancy on the woman's body) can be stopped.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Nope, never. so far.

If so, post the case. It would be historic so there would be a record of it.

The Lord has said that all sins are the same in His eyes.

So your lies, over and over, make you no better than any woman you feel has sinned having an abortion.

No, the lord has never said that. You are factually incorrect.

But consider your argument, if you’re calling me a liar and saying my sin is equal to a woman who has had an abortion you’ve just argued abortion is evil. Because lying is evil. So congradulations

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Abortion is merely ending the pregnancy so that the attack (of pregnancy on the woman's body) can be stopped.

Pregnancy is not an attack.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Jaeger19 said the child will die if she gestates. S/he is an MD (maybe an ob/gyn, I can't remember) and that it is a real case. S/he would know better than you.

Yeah whatever.

Fine, we can outlaw 99.99999% of abortion and compromise on the nonexistent 13 year old rape victims with a 100% certainty of death then. There’s our compromise

There are non-abortive options. Early delivery is one, removal of the uterus is another, etc.

However first principle is always, you may never commit an intrinsically evil act to achieve a good end.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I already wrote out how the Democrats support the reproductive facilities, the subsidized care and birth control, the fixing of socio-economic challenges, and sex ed. So why are you lying?

And we dont need more unwanted, unplanned kids...the data is clear that those born into socio-economically challenged homes are at higher risk for negative outcomes in society.

Sorry, I believe in quality of life, not quantity. It's a joke that you want to hand out money to women to HAVE kids when conservatives complain all the time that that is exactly what current welfare does now.

So you believe in the act of genocide as being morally justifiable for the greater good of society and das volk.

Gee I wonder who has historically espoused this idea?

And what’s to stop someone from taking your philosophy and saying “well babies born out of wedlock are future criminals let’s just take them and euthanize them?”

 

[Lursa]

So you believe in the act of genocide as being morally justifiable for the greater good of society and das volk.

Gee I wonder who has historically espoused this idea?

And what’s to stop someone from taking your philosophy and saying “well babies born out of wedlock are future criminals let’s just take them and euthanize them?”

Your imagined 'genocide' is not reality, so I'm not worried about it, no. There is no demographic or group that is targeted, no one insisting on killing anyone.

YOu are the one that seems to consider babies born out of wedlock lesser, not me.

 

[Lursa]

No, the lord has never said that. You are factually incorrect.

But consider your argument, if you’re calling me a liar and saying my sin is equal to a woman who has had an abortion you’ve just argued abortion is evil. Because lying is evil. So congradulations

It's in scripture somewhere, I'll have to find it.

And no, read better. I specifically worded my response to NOT imply abortion is evil. Your mind is so rigidly closed to any new information that you cannot even read clearly. That's why I wrote 'you feel', speaking to your personal opinion.

Good lord I am 10 steps ahead of you on all of this.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Your imagined 'genocide' is not reality, so I'm not worried about it, no. There is no demographic or group that is targeted, no one insisting on killing anyone.

YOu are the one that seems to consider babies born out of wedlock lesser, not me.

Yes it is, 60 million and climbing. The only reason you don’t consider your position genocidal is because of an arbitrary distinction you choose purely to satisfy your political ideology.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It's in scripture somewhere, I'll have to find it.

And no, read better. I specifically worded my response to NOT imply abortion is evil. Your mind is so rigidly closed to any new information that you cannot even read clearly. That's why I wrote 'you feel', speaking to your personal opinion.

Good lord I am 10 steps ahead of you on all of this.

10 steps ahead and you don’t even know your source for the premise of your argument?

LOL

 

[Irredentist]

Yeah whatever.

Fine, we can outlaw 99.99999% of abortion and compromise on the nonexistent 13 year old rape victims with a 100% certainty of death then. There’s our compromise

There are non-abortive options. Early delivery is one, removal of the uterus is another, etc.

However first principle is always, you may never commit an intrinsically evil act to achieve a good end.

What is intrinsically evil about abortion? Historically, infanticide was very commonly practiced by families during bad years when they were unable to feed everyone. When it comes down to it, many mothers would rather kill their own children than watch them starve. Is that evil of them? I don't think so. It's horrible, but desperation sometimes causes people to do horrible things. Don't call them evil until you've walked a mile in their shoes.

 

[weaver2]

There is little, if any, possibility for rational discussions with anti-abortion people, at least the ones that want to ban abortion for other people. No problem if they don't want to have an abortion.

But those that want to ban abortion don't have logical and factual arguments. Their so called "arguments" are often lies, emotional, and semantics, and they often don't have valid reasons other than they think its murder, to want to ban abortion. They are not realistic. They also don't do much to address the root cause of abortions, or do much to help those who have no home that they want born so much, and they don't think of the ramifications of banning abortion, and the horrible health consequences of banning abortion.

What are pro choice people supposed to give up? For compromise, I would be OK with setting a limit on when abortions could electively be chosen, like ok fro first 2 trimesters, unless for medical reasons.

Pro choice people aren't forcing anti abortion people to have abortions. anti abortion people are trying to ban people who may want or need an abortion from getting it. So not sure what pro choice people need to give up

I agree. Rational discussion is almost impossible with the anti-abortion movement. But, from their past and latest legislative efforts they have the ability to pass and enforce laws that drastically restrict women's access to abortion, services, contraceptives and information. They can do this because items on their agenda look like or actually are real problems within the legal abortion issue. And those problems give the anti-abortion movement legitimacy. The only way to counter their power to destroy legal abortion is to take away the legitimacy that gives them power.

There are three issues that give the anti-abortion movement the power to look legitimate: the late cut-off date for elective abortion in many states; laws written so badly they can be mis-interpreted to look like they promote irresponsible abortions and the aggressive focus on women rights to the exclusion of the cost to society, the health of the family and the fairness to the potential child."My body, my choice" is vastly important but it is not the only important reason for legal abortion.

Those issues could be changed without detracting or harming the pro-choice movement and used in an exchange for concessions from the anti-abortion movement. This might actually change the minds of some anti-abortion women and it would certainly take the last vestiges of common sense legitimacy away from the anti-abortion movement.

In every hot, divisive issue there are things on both sides that could stand some serious redefining. In retrospect I wish I had not used the words "give up". Exchange would have been a better word.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

What is intrinsically evil about abortion?

it kills people

Historically, infanticide was very commonly practiced by families during bad years when they were unable to feed everyone. When it comes down to it, many mothers would rather kill their own children than watch them starve.

if we look at “historical” practices then Rape, child marriage, human sacrifice, and cannibalism should be acceptable today.

Is that evil of them?

yes

I don't think so.

you are wrong

It's horrible, but desperation sometimes causes people to do horrible things.

desperation is not justification

Don't call them evil until you've walked a mile in their shoes.

one of the stupidest arguments on the planet