In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 11 2016 21:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 11 2016 20:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Clinton admits in private emails that Saudi Arabia and Qatar governments help fund ISIL. Why does your foundation keep accepting their money then Hill?
While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence >> assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and >> other radical Sunni groups in the region.
Hi,
Do you know that Trump has not put a penny in his foundation since 2009 and that his foundation has spent millions of dollars given by oeople who thought they were doing charitable stuff in justice fee for trials of his that had nothing to do with said foundation?
I would like to know what you think about it.
Unrelated. We're talking about Clinton herself stating Saudi and Qatar are funding ISIL yet the US continue to send weapons to Saudi, continue to count Saudi as an ally and Clinton allows Saudi to donate to her charity.
Anyway wikileaks just released another 1,100 emails a few minutes ago. This is turning into a real nightmare for Clinton.
Only if they actually contain damning information for once. The fact that the e-mails so far have been tame/ non-informational is really hurting the argument that the deletion of these e-mails was to hide something scandalous.
On October 11 2016 21:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 11 2016 20:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Clinton admits in private emails that Saudi Arabia and Qatar governments help fund ISIL. Why does your foundation keep accepting their money then Hill?
While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence >> assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and >> other radical Sunni groups in the region.
Hi,
Do you know that Trump has not put a penny in his foundation since 2009 and that his foundation has spent millions of dollars given by oeople who thought they were doing charitable stuff in justice fee for trials of his that had nothing to do with said foundation?
I would like to know what you think about it.
Unrelated. We're talking about Clinton herself stating Saudi and Qatar are funding ISIL yet the US continue to send weapons to Saudi, continue to count Saudi as an ally and Clinton allows Saudi to donate to her charity.
Anyway wikileaks just released another 1,100 emails a few minutes ago. This is turning into a real nightmare for Clinton.
There's nothing majorly incriminating in the e-mails and only you and your ilk seem to really care so no, it's not a real nightmare for anyone.
On October 11 2016 21:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 11 2016 20:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Clinton admits in private emails that Saudi Arabia and Qatar governments help fund ISIL. Why does your foundation keep accepting their money then Hill?
While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence >> assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and >> other radical Sunni groups in the region.
Hi,
Do you know that Trump has not put a penny in his foundation since 2009 and that his foundation has spent millions of dollars given by oeople who thought they were doing charitable stuff in justice fee for trials of his that had nothing to do with said foundation?
I would like to know what you think about it.
Unrelated. We're talking about Clinton herself stating Saudi and Qatar are funding ISIL yet the US continue to send weapons to Saudi, continue to count Saudi as an ally and Clinton allows Saudi to donate to her charity.
Anyway wikileaks just released another 1,100 emails a few minutes ago. This is turning into a real nightmare for Clinton.
Yes, surely the XXXth time they release Clinton documents they will actually contain something incriminating.
On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote: If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option?
This is not a good argument
There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones.
Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp.
Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps:
1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood"
Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject.
For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person.
That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway.
Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year?
Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something.
For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby".
You cant say you are anti abortion like he did with the "human -> control fate etc etc... "+ Show Spoiler +
also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression
and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big "nothing" in terms of solidifying his position. Even if there was a conclusion..
I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it.
Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic.
Theres plenty of unnecessary things said all the time, if this is the first one that caught your eye ...well I guess I apologize if anyone was offended. + Show Spoiler +
(is what I would say if I was Trumpian..).
Seriously though, it wasn't necessary, my bad.
Edit:
Also the position isnt particularly novel, not sure where the novelty is. To me it seems rather incoherent and contradictory based on the reasoning. It doesn't have to be, but in this case it is.
Summed up as
Abortion - bad Why? - Humans destiny not controlled by said human What is human ? - dono
Wait.. what ? So why do we have problem with abortion again ? What you are talking about is murder.
I didn't say I had no position. I said it was much more open to discussion (with regards to swaying my thoughts). Look above for clarification
I'm a bit confused how you can say that "the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible," but then come down unequivocally in the anti-abortion camp. The principal you stated should also apply to pregnant women wanting to "control their own fate," and allow them to decide what to do with a pregnancy.
Pregnancy causes permanent changes to a person's body, and giving birth has a not-insignificant mortality rate. I don't understand why you don't have qualms about forcing someone to go through that against their wishes.
Would you also force a person go through a medical procedure, say a kidney donation (also potentially life threatening, also causes permanent changes to a person's body) to save a child after it is born? If not, how is that different from forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?
All that being said, I think a reasonable ending point is to allow abortion up until the point a fetus is viable outside of the womb, subject to reasonable exceptions.
Also for some context, here is the account of a woman who decided to get a late term abortion after it turned out that her fetus had a disorder which would cause it die soon after being born. The whole process seems like an unjust nightmare:
What happened at 31 weeks?
We went back to get a growth scan, and we saw the growth had fallen off a cliff. And this was the first time that we had been presented with this idea that there was something deeply wrong with the baby that had nothing to do with me. Until that point, all the really bad news had been with me, and my weird body. He had been thriving despite the environment.
But on this scan, he’d gone from the 37th percentile to the 8th. And he wasn’t swallowing.
...
That’s when he realized that from a medical standpoint, the situation was bad, and terminal. He didn’t realize initially what that meant in terms of our options—that the laws in New York meant we couldn’t do anything in the state... This baby was unviable, basically. That’s what they say. They say that the baby is “incompatible with life.”
...
To be clear, if the doctors thought there was any way he might make it, I would have taken that chance. I truly would have put myself through anything. What I came to accept was the fact that I would never get to be this little guy’s mother—that if we came to term, he would likely live a very short time until he choked and died, if he even made it that far. This was a no-go for me. I couldn’t put him through that suffering when we had the option to minimize his pain as much as possible.
...
There are a few doctors in the country—four of them, you interviewed one of them—who will do this. But my doctor had previously referred patients to Dr. Hern, who’s in Boulder. He’s this 78-year-old man who’s been doing this for decades, who developed a lot of the abortion procedures that we know to be the most safe. He’s had 37,000 patients and he’s never lost anyone. And he’s a zealot, but he has to be. There are websites dedicated to offering money to kill him; his practice has four layers of bulletproof glass. They’ve been shot at. He was there during the Roe v. Wade decision. He’s been through it all. And the only other peer he had at his level was Dr. Tiller, who was killed in 2009.
...
I have really good insurance right now, so I do have the hope they’ll reimburse for something. Because here’s one thing you should know. If you get the entire procedure done at the clinic at this late date, it’s $25,000. Cash... So between the insurance and the good staff salaries, the money’s gone. $25,000 sounds like a lot for a procedure, but these procedures are rare; it’s not like he’s doing a lot of these. They are not profiting. Right now, they’re in desperate need of a new roof. That’s the kind of situation Dr. Hern is working with.
On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote: If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option?
This is not a good argument
There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones.
Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp.
Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps:
1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood"
Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject.
For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person.
That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway.
Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year?
Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something.
For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby".
You cant say you are anti abortion like he did with the "human -> control fate etc etc... "+ Show Spoiler +
also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression
and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big "nothing" in terms of solidifying his position. Even if there was a conclusion..
I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it.
Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic.
Theres plenty of unnecessary things said all the time, if this is the first one that caught your eye ...well I guess I apologize if anyone was offended. + Show Spoiler +
(is what I would say if I was Trumpian..).
Seriously though, it wasn't necessary, my bad.
Edit:
Also the position isnt particularly novel, not sure where the novelty is. To me it seems rather incoherent and contradictory based on the reasoning. It doesn't have to be, but in this case it is.
Summed up as
Abortion - bad Why? - Humans destiny not controlled by said human What is human ? - dono
Wait.. what ? So why do we have problem with abortion again ? What you are talking about is murder.
I didn't say I had no position. I said it was much more open to discussion (with regards to swaying my thoughts). Look above for clarification
I'm a bit confused how you can say that "the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible," but then come down unequivocally in the anti-abortion camp. The principal you stated should also apply to pregnant women wanting to "control their own fate," and allow them to decide what to do with a pregnancy.
Pregnancy causes permanent changes to a person's body, and giving birth has a not-insignificant mortality rate. I don't understand why you don't have qualms about forcing someone to go through that against their wishes.
Would you also force a person go through a medical procedure, say a kidney donation (also potentially life threatening, also causes permanent changes to a person's body) to save a child after it is born? If not, how is that different from forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?
All that being said, I think a reasonable ending point is to allow abortion up until the point a fetus is viable outside of the womb, subject to reasonable exceptions.
Also for some context, here is the account of a woman who decided to get a late term abortion after it turned out that her fetus had a disorder which would cause it die soon after being born. The whole process seems like an unjust nightmare:
We went back to get a growth scan, and we saw the growth had fallen off a cliff. And this was the first time that we had been presented with this idea that there was something deeply wrong with the baby that had nothing to do with me. Until that point, all the really bad news had been with me, and my weird body. He had been thriving despite the environment.
But on this scan, he’d gone from the 37th percentile to the 8th. And he wasn’t swallowing.
...
That’s when he realized that from a medical standpoint, the situation was bad, and terminal. He didn’t realize initially what that meant in terms of our options—that the laws in New York meant we couldn’t do anything in the state... This baby was unviable, basically. That’s what they say. They say that the baby is “incompatible with life.”
...
To be clear, if the doctors thought there was any way he might make it, I would have taken that chance. I truly would have put myself through anything. What I came to accept was the fact that I would never get to be this little guy’s mother—that if we came to term, he would likely live a very short time until he choked and died, if he even made it that far. This was a no-go for me. I couldn’t put him through that suffering when we had the option to minimize his pain as much as possible.
...
There are a few doctors in the country—four of them, you interviewed one of them—who will do this. But my doctor had previously referred patients to Dr. Hern, who’s in Boulder. He’s this 78-year-old man who’s been doing this for decades, who developed a lot of the abortion procedures that we know to be the most safe. He’s had 37,000 patients and he’s never lost anyone. And he’s a zealot, but he has to be. There are websites dedicated to offering money to kill him; his practice has four layers of bulletproof glass. They’ve been shot at. He was there during the Roe v. Wade decision. He’s been through it all. And the only other peer he had at his level was Dr. Tiller, who was killed in 2009.
...
I have really good insurance right now, so I do have the hope they’ll reimburse for something. Because here’s one thing you should know. If you get the entire procedure done at the clinic at this late date, it’s $25,000. Cash... So between the insurance and the good staff salaries, the money’s gone. $25,000 sounds like a lot for a procedure, but these procedures are rare; it’s not like he’s doing a lot of these. They are not profiting. Right now, they’re in desperate need of a new roof. That’s the kind of situation Dr. Hern is working with. + Show Spoiler +
The next Nettles post is going to be about how Hillary hates "everyday Americans", as in a leaked email.
(The actual context of the quote is Hillary hating it as a phrase, not as in the noun.)
How do I know this? I looked at the front page of /r/The_Donald, which is where Nettles has been getting his posts for the last page and a half (at least).
Yeah, it sounds reasonable for a person to say that they are against late term abortions, but it's important to consider the ramifications that position has when it is applied to real people. Anyway, that interview made me feel awful for hours after I read it for the first time.
On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote: If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option?
This is not a good argument
There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones.
Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp.
Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps:
1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood"
Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject.
For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person.
That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway.
Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year?
Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something.
For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby".
You cant say you are anti abortion like he did with the "human -> control fate etc etc... "+ Show Spoiler +
also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression
and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big "nothing" in terms of solidifying his position. Even if there was a conclusion..
I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it.
Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic.
Theres plenty of unnecessary things said all the time, if this is the first one that caught your eye ...well I guess I apologize if anyone was offended. + Show Spoiler +
(is what I would say if I was Trumpian..).
Seriously though, it wasn't necessary, my bad.
Edit:
Also the position isnt particularly novel, not sure where the novelty is. To me it seems rather incoherent and contradictory based on the reasoning. It doesn't have to be, but in this case it is.
Summed up as
Abortion - bad Why? - Humans destiny not controlled by said human What is human ? - dono
Wait.. what ? So why do we have problem with abortion again ? What you are talking about is murder.
I didn't say I had no position. I said it was much more open to discussion (with regards to swaying my thoughts). Look above for clarification
I didnt say you said you had no position. I said your position is a "nothing" position because it doesnt make any sense..
On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote: If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option?
This is not a good argument
There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones.
Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp.
Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps:
1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood"
Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject.
For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person.
That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway.
Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year?
Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something.
For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby".
You cant say you are anti abortion like he did with the "human -> control fate etc etc... "+ Show Spoiler +
also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression
and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big "nothing" in terms of solidifying his position. Even if there was a conclusion..
I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it.
Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic.
Theres plenty of unnecessary things said all the time, if this is the first one that caught your eye ...well I guess I apologize if anyone was offended. + Show Spoiler +
(is what I would say if I was Trumpian..).
Seriously though, it wasn't necessary, my bad.
Edit:
Also the position isnt particularly novel, not sure where the novelty is. To me it seems rather incoherent and contradictory based on the reasoning. It doesn't have to be, but in this case it is.
Summed up as
Abortion - bad Why? - Humans destiny not controlled by said human What is human ? - dono
Wait.. what ? So why do we have problem with abortion again ? What you are talking about is murder.
I didn't say I had no position. I said it was much more open to discussion (with regards to swaying my thoughts). Look above for clarification
I'm a bit confused how you can say that "the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible," but then come down unequivocally in the anti-abortion camp. The principal you stated should also apply to pregnant women wanting to "control their own fate," and allow them to decide what to do with a pregnancy.
Pregnancy causes permanent changes to a person's body, and giving birth has a not-insignificant mortality rate. I don't understand why you don't have qualms about forcing someone to go through that against their wishes.
Would you also force a person go through a medical procedure, say a kidney donation (also potentially life threatening, also causes permanent changes to a person's body) to save a child after it is born? If not, how is that different from forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?
All that being said, I think a reasonable ending point is to allow abortion up until the point a fetus is viable outside of the womb, subject to reasonable exceptions.
Also for some context, here is the account of a woman who decided to get a late term abortion after it turned out that her fetus had a disorder which would cause it die soon after being born. The whole process seems like an unjust nightmare:
We went back to get a growth scan, and we saw the growth had fallen off a cliff. And this was the first time that we had been presented with this idea that there was something deeply wrong with the baby that had nothing to do with me. Until that point, all the really bad news had been with me, and my weird body. He had been thriving despite the environment.
But on this scan, he’d gone from the 37th percentile to the 8th. And he wasn’t swallowing.
...
That’s when he realized that from a medical standpoint, the situation was bad, and terminal. He didn’t realize initially what that meant in terms of our options—that the laws in New York meant we couldn’t do anything in the state... This baby was unviable, basically. That’s what they say. They say that the baby is “incompatible with life.”
...
To be clear, if the doctors thought there was any way he might make it, I would have taken that chance. I truly would have put myself through anything. What I came to accept was the fact that I would never get to be this little guy’s mother—that if we came to term, he would likely live a very short time until he choked and died, if he even made it that far. This was a no-go for me. I couldn’t put him through that suffering when we had the option to minimize his pain as much as possible.
...
There are a few doctors in the country—four of them, you interviewed one of them—who will do this. But my doctor had previously referred patients to Dr. Hern, who’s in Boulder. He’s this 78-year-old man who’s been doing this for decades, who developed a lot of the abortion procedures that we know to be the most safe. He’s had 37,000 patients and he’s never lost anyone. And he’s a zealot, but he has to be. There are websites dedicated to offering money to kill him; his practice has four layers of bulletproof glass. They’ve been shot at. He was there during the Roe v. Wade decision. He’s been through it all. And the only other peer he had at his level was Dr. Tiller, who was killed in 2009.
...
I have really good insurance right now, so I do have the hope they’ll reimburse for something. Because here’s one thing you should know. If you get the entire procedure done at the clinic at this late date, it’s $25,000. Cash... So between the insurance and the good staff salaries, the money’s gone. $25,000 sounds like a lot for a procedure, but these procedures are rare; it’s not like he’s doing a lot of these. They are not profiting. Right now, they’re in desperate need of a new roof. That’s the kind of situation Dr. Hern is working with.
Thats why I said he had a nothing position. Because everyone will agree on the idea that you have the right to control your own destiny (which for a newborn is a debatable thing anyway. He never clarified on when he believes something is human but still anti abortion.
On October 11 2016 14:38 Falling wrote:
Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic.
I didnt say you got there yet.. hence the use of the word attempt. Admittedly I was just basing this of potential and history.
Seems a lot of people have taken this mentality of late and it quite frankly sucks. It sucks because it blocks your ears from hearing any exception to a perceived rule and even if someone were to change their tune on a particular topic, it'll likely be missed because of 'history'.
While I would be inclined to agree with you, its observable enough at this point to be scientific fact at this point. You know observable phenomenon, hypothesis testing all that good stuff. + Show Spoiler +
question how genuine the curiosity was because the position itself makes no sense and Danglars is not stupid.
As I have repeatedly said already, its ok that your not sure, or if even if you believe abortion is wrong period outside of any religious reasoning. Thats your prerogative. But you cant say to a thinking person that "I am against Y because of reason X but then go on to say "not sure if X applies though" so lets talk about that. But I am still against Y.
Admitting that you don’t know enough to have an informed opinion is completely valid, IMO. I don’t think anyone is putting him down, but there is a tone of derision in the phrase “nothing opinion”. Asking for more information is good.
That being said, it also isn’t an excuse to claim air of superiority through neutrality on the issue, which I have seen happen in a lot of internet discussions. I am not sure which the poster is doing.
On October 11 2016 22:55 Plansix wrote: Admitting that you don’t know enough to have an informed opinion is completely valid, IMO. I don’t think anyone is putting him down, but there is a tone of derision in the phrase “nothing opinion”. Asking for more information is good.
That being said, it also isn’t an excuse to claim air of superiority through neutrality on the issue, which I have seen happen in a lot of internet discussions. I am not sure which the poster is doing.
Yeah I suppose there is, but Im to lazy to temper the articulation.
On October 11 2016 22:55 Plansix wrote: Admitting that you don’t know enough to have an informed opinion is completely valid, IMO. I don’t think anyone is putting him down, but there is a tone of derision in the phrase “nothing opinion”. Asking for more information is good.
That being said, it also isn’t an excuse to claim air of superiority through neutrality on the issue, which I have seen happen in a lot of internet discussions. I am not sure which the poster is doing.
Yeah I suppose there is, but Im to lazy to temper the articulation.
I feel your frustration, especially with the current nature of this thread. But every once and a while there is a person out there who is just looking to be better informed.
On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote: If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option?
This is not a good argument
It is. It's a self selecting group. It's like those idiots who go "isn't it remarkable that of all the planets life could have evolved on we evolved on one that could support life".
Nobody is ever angry that they have been aborted so why should anyone ever be thankful that they were not. No potential child has more value than any other, a choice to have any single one is a rejection of a billion other possibilities. It's simply the nature of the thing. The born have won the lottery.
What about children whose parents hesitated to abort and then didn't?
I'd probably not enjoy healthy relations with my parents if they had hesitated to abort me.
It wasn't you personally, it was potential you. You didn't exist at that time. Imagine a woman does IVF and she has a dozen healthy embryos that can be implanted. She doesn't want to give birth to 12 kids simultaneously so she picks one at random and has that one implanted. In doing so she has denied 11 potential kids life and granted one potential kid life. But none of them exist yet, she's not making an active choice for one or against one, it's all potential. It's no worse than how every time Scarlett Johansson doesn't have sex with me some of the potential children that could have existed get removed from the possible outcomes.
It gets particularly interesting in cases with genetic diseases like muscular dystrophy which can now be selectively aborted. I knew a kid with it (dead now) and it absolutely ruined his mother's life. Her husband bailed, lifting him in and out of bed/his chair destroyed her back, she had to quit work, it was awful. Obviously she loved her son and would never for a moment have wanted him to have not been born. But before he was born she would have loved whichever kid came out, had she aborted him and tried again until she got one without muscular dystrophy her life would have been infinitely better. Once an outcome happens we apply selection bias and say that outcome has value because it has happened and all outcomes that happen have value. But that doesn't mean we can apply that value back to the moment of choice and declare that one specific choice, the one that happened to be the one that happened, always had the value, even then. If we can do that then I don't know how Scarlett Johansson can live with preventing the fruit of our beautiful union from existing by not answering my calls.
On October 11 2016 22:04 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyway wikileaks just released another 1,100 emails a few minutes ago. This is turning into a real nightmare for Clinton.
Or, alternatively, Florida is pretty much in the bag and Ohio, Nevada and North Carolina look locked down too. When she does that weird grin in the debate, that's her thinking "it's really happening, I'm actually going to be President, holy shit". She's on top of the world and shit just keeps coming up Clinton.
Wikileaks releasing THE NEXT BIGGEST THING and having it turn out to be pretty regular work emails also makes me feel like Clinton has Assange paid off or something, lol
Did anyone see this? (sorry, can't check if it was posted before) Trump associate Alex Jones thinks that Clinton and Obama are literally demons from hell. Reminds me of when polls would show republicans somehow believed Obama was the antichrist.
ALEX JONES (HOST): I'm never a lesser of two evils person, but with Hillary, there's not even the same universe. She is an abject, psychopathic, demon from Hell that as soon as she gets into power is going to try to destroy the planet. I'm sure of that, and people around her say she's so dark now, and so evil, and so possessed that they are having nightmares, they're freaking out. Folks let me just tell you something, and if media wants to go with this, that's fine. There are dozens of videos and photos of Obama having flies land on him, indoors, at all times of year, and he'll be next to a hundred people and no one has flies on them. Hillary, reportedly, I mean, I was told by people around her that they think she's demon-possessed, okay? I'm just going to go ahead and say it, okay?
They said that they're scared. That's why when I see her when kids are by her, I actually get scared myself, with a child -- with that big rubber face and that -- I mean this woman is dangerous, ladies and gentleman. I'm telling you, she is a demon. This is Biblical. She's going to launch a nuclear war. The Russians are scared of her.
[...]
Imagine how bad she smells, man? I'm told her and Obama, just stink, stink, stink, stink. You can't wash that evil off, man. Told there's a rotten smell around Hillary. I'm not kidding, people say, they say -- folks, I've been told this by high up folks. They say listen, Obama and Hillary both smell like sulfur. I never said this because the media will go crazy with it, but I've talked to people that are in protective details, they're scared of her. And they say listen, she's a frickin' demon and she stinks and so does Obama. I go, like what? Sulfur. They smell like Hell.
On October 11 2016 23:31 ticklishmusic wrote: Wikileaks releasing THE NEXT BIGGEST THING and having it turn out to be pretty regular work emails also makes me feel like Clinton has Assange paid off or something, lol
I really hope 20 years from now we learn that the Clinton foundation had been planning this overthrowing of the GOP for 10+ years and that Donald/Assange were crucial players. All the murders were real, everything was real. An amazing, incredible conspiracy.
EPT
