easyt65 said:I am sorry to say that I missed the news broadcast on the story, but they said the S.C. took the case and will focus on 1 specific 'angle' in the law/issue, but I do not know what that 1 'specific' 'angle' is, not just the legality of abortion in general. Does anyone know what it is?
Synch said:Isn't this late term abortions(late second and early third trimester)? Even liberals won't argue on this one that the child is human, everything is developed etc.
There are many who forward the idea that "there is no "child" until birth". Holding to that maxim, the fetus is nothing more than a "lump of cells", even at the point immediately before birth.Synch said:Isn't this late term abortions(late second and early third trimester)? Even liberals won't argue on this one that the child is human, everything is developed etc.
How about that instead of Lethal Injection? For Capitol Punishment, I mean.FutureIncoming said:The suggested abortion procedure is to take an optical fiber and an equivalently slinky manipulator, insert them into the uterus through the normal passageway, and seek out the umbilical cord. Send a laser beam through the fiber, and focus it, so that the amniotic sac isn't damaged, but the umblicus get severed/cauterized. I suppose an alternate thing might be to clamp the umbilicus, if the sac has enough stretch to allow it. The entire fetus will now experience a cut-off oxygen supply and will "go to sleep". Exactly like your foot, and not unlike the euphemism used by the SPCA, when they deal with other unwanted animals. After fifteen minutes or so, the dead fetus (the brain is much more sensitive to lack-of-oxygen than muscle tissue) can be removed by any horrible means you care to imagine, and the fetus won't be feeling a thing.
Remove the fetus if it must be removed to save the mother's life, I'll not contest that; but don't kill it first. Let it have a fighting chance in the Intensive Care incubation chamber. It deserves at least that much.Let me stress that my personal position is that late-term abortions should not be necessary, except when it takes that long to discover that the fetus is killing the mother.
A house divided against itself can not stand. Pro life can not support any form of abortion, because abortion will not stop abortion, and abortion is what pro life wishes to stop.Unopposed opportunities for early abortion should prevent all other late-term abortions. So, if the pro-lifers really want to stop partial-birth abortions, they should not interfere in the slightest with women seeking early-term abortions!
I was under the impression that the drug used for Lethal Injection was something that first knocked the condemned out, before death occurs.Jerry said:How about that instead of Lethal Injection? For Capitol Punishment, I mean.
That's a bald claim. Where is the supporting basis for it? I can think of ONE: the mother wanted the baby all along --and for her to have to abort to stay alive is not a nice choice. How do you know something like what you suggest isn't already being done, when possible?Jerry said:Remove the fetus if it must be removed to save the mother's life, I'll not contest that; but don't kill it first. Let it have a fighting chance in the Intensive Care incubation chamber. It deserves at least that much.
FutureIncoming said:So, if the pro-lifers really want to stop partial-birth abortions, they should not interfere in the slightest with women seeking early-term abortions!
Heh, I knew that suggestion wouldn't go over very well. Still there remains the fact that a certain number of partial-birth abortions are ENTIRELY the fault of the pro-life crowd, because of what they do to inhibit early abortions. Perhaps they should be sent the bill for the difference, in the cost of the two procedures. Heh, heh, heh...Jerry said:A house divided against itself can not stand. Pro life can not support any form of abortion, because abortion will not stop abortion, and abortion is what pro life wishes to stop.
FutureIncoming said:Heh, I knew that suggestion wouldn't go over very well. Still there remains the fact that a certain number of partial-birth abortions are ENTIRELY the fault of the pro-life crowd, because of what they do to inhibit early abortions. Perhaps they should be sent the bill for the difference, in the cost of the two procedures. Heh, heh, heh...
Synch said, "Isn't this late term abortions(late second and early third trimester)? Even liberals won't argue on this one that the child is human, everything is developed etc."
Yes, but you wouldn't need a phisition to diprive the condemned of oxygen.FutureIncoming said:I was under the impression that the drug used for Lethal Injection was something that first knocked the condemned out, before death occurs.
A respect for life;That's a bald claim. Where is the supporting basis for it?
I don't. I would like to see that become standard practice. Needles distruction of human life does not advance us.I can think of ONE: the mother wanted the baby all along --and for her to have to abort to stay alive is not a nice choice. How do you know something like what you suggest isn't already being done, when possible?
1. Pro life did not establish a woman's legal ability to abort;Heh, I knew that suggestion wouldn't go over very well. Still there remains the fact that a certain number of partial-birth abortions are ENTIRELY the fault of the pro-life crowd, because of what they do to inhibit early abortions.
True. Well, for almost any human outside the womb, oxygen deprivation isn't quite so simple. Sure, you can compress the carotid and jugular, to stop blood flow to the brain, but this leaves bruises on the body after death; the pinprick of injection isn't so noticeable. A gas chamber might be a better way to do it; you can control the actual amount of oxygen available, just by adding nitrogen (or maybe even carbon monoxide, a "gentle" poison gas). I don't know what they do in ordinary gas-chamber executions; I suppose I should look it up sometime.Jerry said:you wouldn't need a phisition to diprive the condemned of oxygen.
Jerry said:It {the fetus} deserves at least that much.
FutureIncoming said:That's a bald claim. Where is the supporting basis for it?
But morals are often provably stupid. For example, "A respect for life" means that you don't wash your hands after using a toilet, because of respect for life of germs, right? No?? Oh, you mean PREJUDICED respect for only human life --which is indeed stupid, since that merely leads to a Malthusian Catastrophe. See history of Easter Island, for proof. Next example: "the premis that the unborn has the right to life" means that Nature is wrong, every time an earthquake kills thousands? No, it means humans are stupid, in thinking they are so superior that Nature should stop grinding tectonic plates just because their houses were built on a fault line. The "right to life" is a purely political invention, and obviously can be claimed by all who can participate in politics. Which no unborn human can do. Next example: To invoke God is to claim that God exists, AND that God proclaimed something that you are invoking. But how do you plan on convincing the skeptical, who might simply think that humans not only made up the notion of God, but put various words in God's mouth for their own benefit? See Deuteronomy 17:12 for evidence of that last thing. So who is more stupid, the gullible, or those who think everyone else is gullible?Jerry said:That was a moral judgment, not a scientific claim. {based on} A respect for life; Posessing the premis that the unborn has the right to life and that the law is curently in the wrong; God;
I might actually agree with that, because you leave open the possibility that some destruction of human life can be needful. As is allowing abortions as ONE of the ways to stave off a Malthusean Catastrophe.Jerry said:Needles distruction of human life does not advance us.
Jerry then presented some completely irrelevant items, which because they are irrelevant I am not quoting here. Instead I will expand upon what I meant. When pro-lifers picket abortion clinics and act in many ways to inhibit those who might seek an early abortion, including getting laws passed to require "counseling", then they are merely causing that seeker to (a) waste time building up courage, and/OR (b) fret/worry/angst/etc over the long-term consequences until "just can't take being pregnant any more" happens. The result is a late-term abortion. It should be obvious that if the obstacles and delays are removed, then the rate of late-term abortions will go way down. And it is equally obvious that since the pro-lifers are responsible for those obstacles and delays, then making them pay for that could indeed be appropriate!FutureIncoming said:there remains the fact that a certain number of partial-birth abortions are ENTIRELY the fault of the pro-life crowd, because of what they do to inhibit early abortions.
I was thinking of the gas chamber idea, myself. There is some sort of episode in Texas(?) where they couldn't find a licensed phisition to administer the lethal injection. This would not be a problem if Texas used an oxygen depravity chamber......or my personal favorite, the fiering squad.FutureIncoming said:True. Well, for almost any human outside the womb, oxygen deprivation isn't quite so simple. Sure, you can compress the carotid and jugular, to stop blood flow to the brain, but this leaves bruises on the body after death; the pinprick of injection isn't so noticeable. A gas chamber might be a better way to do it; you can control the actual amount of oxygen available, just by adding nitrogen (or maybe even carbon monoxide, a "gentle" poison gas). I don't know what they do in ordinary gas-chamber executions; I suppose I should look it up sometime.
But morals are often provably stupid. For example, "A respect for life" means that you don't wash your hands after using a toilet, because of respect for life of germs, right? No?? Oh, you mean PREJUDICED respect for only human life --which is indeed stupid, since that merely leads to a Malthusian Catastrophe. See history of Easter Island, for proof. Next example: "the premise that the unborn has the right to life" means that Nature is wrong, every time an earthquake kills thousands? No, it means humans are stupid, in thinking they are so superior that Nature should stop grinding tectonic plates just because their houses were built on a fault line. The "right to life" is a purely political invention, and obviously can be claimed by all who can participate in politics. Which no unborn human can do. Next example: To invoke God is to claim that God exists, AND that God proclaimed something that you are invoking. But how do you plan on convincing the skeptical, who might simply think that humans not only made up the notion of God, but put various words in God's mouth for their own benefit? See Deuteronomy 17:12 for evidence of that last thing. So who is more stupid, the gullible, or those who think everyone else is gullible?
I would profer mandatory sterilization, should the situation on this plannet become so dire.I might actually agree with that, because you leave open the possibility that some destruction of human life can be needful. As is allowing abortions as ONE of the ways to stave off a Malthusean Catastrophe.
When you disregard and dismiss counter points, simply to continue on with what you want to say, the conversation is over.Jerry then presented some completely irrelevant items, which because they are irrelevant I am not quoting here. Instead I will expand upon what I meant. When pro-lifers picket abortion clinics and act in many ways to inhibit those who might seek an early abortion, including getting laws passed to require "counseling", then they are merely causing that seeker to (a) waste time building up courage, and/OR (b) fret/worry/angst/etc over the long-term consequences until "just can't take being pregnant any more" happens. The result is a late-term abortion. It should be obvious that if the obstacles and delays are removed, then the rate of late-term abortions will go way down. And it is equally obvious that since the pro-lifers are responsible for those obstacles and delays, then making them pay for that could indeed be appropriate!
But what is the difference between that and "deluded"? Usually, the way to tell is if personal views lead to socially unacceptable personal actions. Well, on what basis does enslaving women, to be hosts to unwanted mindless animals, deserve to be considered socially acceptable?Jerry said:I do not possess an insecurity which drives me to convince others of what founds my views.
We can start with the FACT that God, being declared nonphysical, did not sit down and write the Bible. Humans wrote it, right? Then, logically, all of it consists of claims. Some of those claims are supported by historical data (but then, they also are historical claims, such as the one that the Philistines existed), and some of those claims are not (archeologists have discovered that the Philistines were more artistic than the Israelites). But then, we all know that histories are written by the winners.Jerry said:their simply is no point in hashing it out until our views on divinity sher some common thread.
Do you have a problem with plain literal English? Bacteria count as "life", do they not? Then respecting life means not killing bacteria, right? Then, if you wash your hands after using a toilet, to kill bacteria, your so-called "respect for life" isn't, really. Perhaps you should be more precise in what you are talking about? (And perhaps prejudice will indeed be exhibited!)Jerry said:Your view of "a respect for life" is totally alien to me.
On what grounds can you say, "Just because something exists, it has a right to continue existing?" Well, I admit you probably don't say exactly that thing. You merely and prejudicially substitute the word "something" with "a human", and claim that. Without presenting any rationale for it! Especially when the original statement is not true, for anything else in the known Universe!Jerry said:Your idea of what a right is and how it effects the world doesn't make sense to me.
Heh, good luck in avoiding claims of "planned attritive genocide".Jerry said:I would profer mandatory sterilization, should the situation on this plannet become so dire. {as needed to prevent Malthusean Catastrophe}
On the contrary, I specifically said that your so-called counter points were irrelevant. I did not say why then, because I thought it was obvious, in my additional explanation, but since you seem unable to see the obvious, here: Review your "counter points" and tell me if any of them are related to why a pregnant women decides when to go through with an abortion? None of them do! So, indeed, none of them are relevant to those very things that I was talking about! Q.E.D.Jerry said:you disregard and dismiss counter points, simply to continue on with what you want to say
Does that mean we can arrest you and convict you and sentence you to death, for swatting flies and mosquitoes?Donkey1499 said:Abortion of any kind is murder. It is LIVING TISSUE.
FutureIncoming said:Does that mean we can arrest you and convict you and sentence you to death, for swatting flies and mosquitoes?
Donkey1499 said:Abortion of any kind is murder. It is LIVING TISSUE.
talloulou said:Please don't fight for the validity of this argument. Trust me I'm on your side and this argument/point is dumb and will be torn apart.
Donkey1499 said:I know what I'm doing! I've argued this point before and have gotten the point across. Though few agreed with it, I still left the thread feeling slightly victorious!
FutureIncoming said:I once read about a suggested abortion procedure that should not be painful to even a late-term fetus. Have you ever experienced the thing called "my foot went to sleep"? In certain positions you can cut off the blood (oxygen!) supply to your foot, and it will go numb, after some minutes. You never notice it until after it has happened, and you try to move your foot and it doesn't cooperate very well.
The suggested abortion procedure is to take an optical fiber and an equivalently slinky manipulator, insert them into the uterus through the normal passageway, and seek out the umbilical cord. Send a laser beam through the fiber, and focus it, so that the amniotic sac isn't damaged, but the umblicus get severed/cauterized. I suppose an alternate thing might be to clamp the umbilicus, if the sac has enough stretch to allow it. The entire fetus will now experience a cut-off oxygen supply and will "go to sleep". Exactly like your foot, and not unlike the euphemism used by the SPCA, when they deal with other unwanted animals. After fifteen minutes or so, the dead fetus (the brain is much more sensitive to lack-of-oxygen than muscle tissue) can be removed by any horrible means you care to imagine, and the fetus won't be feeling a thing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?