Post by: roo_ster on September 19, 2008, 06:57:00 AM
[Mod note: the content is political and a political ad, but the questions I am interested in pursuing are less political and more commercial/philosophical. Not sure if Politics is the best location, but I'll run with it.]
Here is the ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anieuWFWe8s&eurl=http://bornalivetruth.org/
Upshot:
Gianna Jessen survived a saline abortion after 7.5 months gestation. She is kinda perturbed that BHO voted against requiring doctors to provide medical care to such kiddos and treating them as human persons.
Gianna survived because the doctor her birth-mother's hired to abort her, Edward Allred, was out of the room when she delivered. One of the nurses attended to her and called an ambulance to take her to the hospital. That particular doctor's usual practice in the 10-20% of saline abortions that result in live births was to strangle the child to death.
I wonder if he provided a refund?
I have some questions about this transaction below.
Gianna Jessen's birth cert:
http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2008/09/15/giannabirthcertificate.pdf
Gianna Jessen med info & article
http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2008/09/15/giannasmedicalrecord.pdf
Interview with bornalivetruth.org rep Jill Stanek.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmMzNjc1MjAzYmMxMDQ5ZTExMThhN2Q4NDJmOWEyNWI=
True Lives
An abortion survivor takes on Barack Obama.
An NRO Q&A
Barack Obama, meet your nightmare? On Monday night, BornAliveTruth.org, a new 527 released an ad starring Gianna Jessen, a 31-year-old woman who survived a saline abortion.
Im a survivor, as are many others . . . but if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldnt be here, Jessen says in the ad. Four times, Barack Obama voted to oppose a law to protect babies left to die after a failed abortion. Senator Obama, please support born alive infant protections. Im living proof these babies have a right to live.
The ad is meant to highlight Obamas opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act while he was in the Illinois legislature. An extreme position for which he argued passionately; he argued that a child surviving an abortion should not be protected because that would be akin to saying that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a a child, a nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. Well, exactly.
Jill Stanek is a former nurse at Christ Hospital in Illinois, where this all started. There she witnessed children being left to die after surviving botched abortions. Her testimony was the catalyst for the legislation in the Illinois statehouse. Stanek talked to National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez about the ad and Obama.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: Who is Gianna Jessen and why do you want Americans to hear her story?
Jill Stanek: Gianna Jessen is a 31-year-old saline abortion survivor. Im attaching her unbelievable birth certificate and medical information. Also note on second document her physician is listed as infamous abortionist Edward Allred.
Lopez: Where will your ads be running?
Stanek: The first-phase media buy includes Ohio and New Mexico.
Lopez: Who is paying for your ads?
Stanek: BornAliveTruth.org is a 527 nonprofit political organization. Pro-Life philanthropists, including Ray Ruddy, are financially supporting the effort as well as other pro-life folks.
Lopez: Have you coordinated with the McCain campaign at all?
Stanek: No, absolutely not. We are purely an educational group wanting to educate the public on Barack Obamas opposition as state senator to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
Lopez: Is this just about an election for you? A job at HHS in a McCain-Palin administration perhaps? When was it that you first spoke out the Born Alive Act and Obama?
Stanek: My husband wouldnt be happy if I moved to D.C., because hes sure not going to!
I first spoke out against late-term abortions that sometimes resulted in babies being abortion alive in 1999. In 2001 I testified before an Illinois state senate committee and a no-name state senator named Barack Obama. The focus during the early days was on the abortion procedure itself (induced-labor abortion) previously unknown to the public and Christ Hospitals involvement, where I worked blasphemy to many, including me.
Barack Obamas opposition to Born Alive became a focus during his 2004 U.S. Senate race against Alan Keyes. Ive been writing about his involvement ever since. But four weeks ago his opposition to Born Alive exploded on the national scene when the National Right to Life Committee discovered Obama had actually voted against an identical version of Born Alive in Illinois as passed on the federal level overwhelmingly (98-0 in U.S. Senate; NARAL went neutral). For four years he had been misrepresenting his vote, saying the two bills were not identical and had they been he would have voted for the Illinois version.
In an interview following the Saddleback Forum on August 16, Barack Obama told CBNs David Brody that NRLC and the rest of us were lying. By August 18 his staff had to admit to the New York Sun that NRLC was telling the truth. That false indignation coupled with Obamas above my pay grade statement, got Obama/Born Alive tons of negative PR.
(P.S. Note that Warren asked when does a baby get human rights? Not fetus or embryo. )
Lopez: Why should we believe you about Christ Hospital?
Stanek: I couldnt answer this any better than Doug Johnson (from the National Right to Life Committee) did yesterday on a blog:
More than one nurse collaborated the accounts of how babies born alive during induced-labor abortions were being treated. Two nurses, Jill Stanek and Allison Baker, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary subcommittee at the first hearing on the federal bill. Their testimony was found credible by the Judiciary Committee and is referred to as such in the official committee report, which was issued when the committee approved the bill on a vote of 22-1, transcript here.
The House Judiciary Committee reports on the federal legislation also explained other compelling justifications for clearly establishing the personhood of all live both humans, including those born alive during abortions. The 2001 report is here.
The purpose of the legislation was not to spell out exactly how babies are to be treated in this or that situation, but to make it clear that all live-born humans are to be treated as human persons, and treated the same, regardless of whether they achieved live-born status during the abortion.
There have been many reports over the years, in diverse, locations, of babies being alive during abortions and being treated in ways very different from babies who are spontaneously born prematurely.
Lopez: Why should Barack Obama be held responsible for what you experienced at the hospital? Is it really fair to put Giannas story up against his campaign?
Stanek: Here we have a man who voted four times against Born Alive and was the sole senator to speak on the senate floor two years in a row. He took a leadership role opposing Born Alive. How disturbing is that? Furthermore, he includes a quote on his website by Pam Sutherland, the CEO of Planned Parenthood in Illinois at the time, who bragged Obama approached her to strategize to defeat the Born Alive and PBA bans. He approached her! How disturbing is that?
Lopez: Isnt this all just a rarity? Isnt it ridiculous to make this a presidential-campaign issue?
Stanek: Call Gianna Jessen and tell her that abortion survivors are rare and insignificant. Furthermore, Christ Hospital told the Chicago Sun-Times on March 31, 2001, that 10 to 20 percent of babies aborted by the induced-labor abortion procedure survive for a time. Thats a significant percentage.
Lopez: Is it your position that Barack Obama is pro-infanticide?
Stanek: An audio clip of Obamas 2002 state senate floor speech was recently released. In it he admits babies may be aborted alive but a second physician shouldnt be called to assess and treat abortion survivors because it would be a burden to the mothers original decision. In other words, he thought babies marked for abortion but surviving should be allowed to die. What do you call that?
Lopez: Of Obamas record, what would you like all Americans to know?
Stanek: Barack Obama is to the left of all of his Senate colleagues and even NARAL on the abortion issue, and he misrepresented his vote on Born Alive for four years.
Lopez: Why does this really matter? Will the president really be able to save the lives of future Giannas?
Stanek: As president, Obama could greatly influence this issue. Born Alive needs enforcement measures added. It is just a definitions bill now.
Lopez: What do you make of Sarah Palin?
Stanek: Sarah Palin offers such a contrast to Obama on this issue. She carried her Down Syndrome baby to term despite a medical recommendation otherwise and declared him perfect at birth. Obama heard testimony three years running of at least one baby with Down Syndrome who was set to languish alone in a soiled utility room to die, and that was acceptable to him Culture of Life vs. the Culture of Death in a nutshell.
I guess I wonder were folks stand on such an issue. Not the abortion issue, as that is a given for the question for the question to be posed.
No, the issue of commerce, contracts, and human rights:
Which takes precedence when in the transaction between doctor, first patient, and infant/second patient?
It brings some other questions to mind:
1. Did Dr. Allred breach his contract with the mother to provide a medical service?
2. Was he required, contractually, to kill Gianna if he were present upon her live birth?
3. Does Gianna's location effect her "personhood" or eligibility for human rights?
4. Does Gianna being the subject of a commercial transaction and a contract dilute her claim to person status/human rights?
5. Can the doctor or especially the nurse(s) be sued for some sort of breach of contract?
6. If strangling the born-alive object of an abortion is illegal, ought that provide protection form lawsuits, etc. to the doctor?
I am sure there are some other questions that might be posed, but that is what occurred off the top of my head while looking at the med records & birth cert.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 19, 2008, 08:49:47 AM
I am not pro-life, but I do have issues with late term abortions because of crap like this. As far as some of your questions, human life is not subject to contract terms.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 19, 2008, 08:52:59 AM
Post by: lacoochee on September 19, 2008, 09:31:51 AM
Quote
I am not pro-life, but I do have issues with late term abortions because of crap like this
-- redacted by Lacoochee as being to much, sorry MechAg64.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 19, 2008, 09:33:27 AM
Quote
I am not pro-life, but I do have issues with late term abortions because of crap like this
Seriously? It's okay to kill this child in the womb or partially in the womb but if it lands on steel tray the child gets to live?
That's not what he said and you know it.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 19, 2008, 09:46:56 AM
Post by: roo_ster on September 19, 2008, 09:58:41 AM
Quote
I am not pro-life, but I do have issues with late term abortions because of crap like this
Seriously? It's okay to kill this child in the womb or partially in the womb but if it lands on steel tray the child gets to live? It seems like to me that you should examine your feelings about abortion in general and get off of the fence one way or the other. What these people do is evil or it isn't.
In my opinion, it's murder of the worst kind, the murder of children should not be tolerated in any soceity.
Not the issue at hand, which assumes an abortion or attempted abortion.
I have done the A-debate, know where I stand, and am unapologetic about it*.
My purpose is to examine the intersection of commerce, mutual agreements (contracts), and human rights.
A similar examination would be property rights vs the right of self defense, which has come up in the past. (No, don't jump down that rabbit hole in this thread...start another if you must).
* Pro-life in all instances, would sum it it. Plenty of choices before bumpin' uglies.
Post by: Firethorn on September 19, 2008, 10:13:45 AM
I am not pro-life, but I do have issues with late term abortions because of crap like this. As far as some of your questions, human life is not subject to contract terms.
I agree. From what I've heard, late term abortions are actually pretty rare. And, much like PETA, it's a big target for the pro-life people as you have people like me, who is normally pro-choice, nodding along. Honestly enough, while pro-choice, I'd probably vote to support restricting late term abortions like the 'partial birth' version to health issues - health of the mother and the baby's not going to make it anyways. Otherwise, go ahead and perform a c-section or whatever's appropriate to get the child alive.
Seriously? It's okay to kill this child in the womb or partially in the womb but if it lands on steel tray the child gets to live?
I'm with MicoBalrog on this one, you're taking MechAg94 out of context.
I think that I'm pretty close to Mech's views. Only in the late term does a fetus transform into a baby/child. In this case, we have 'issues' IE generally oppose abortions at this stage because it IS a baby, viable outside the womb.
I've stated my beliefs elsewhere - but generally speaking:
1st trimester: For any reason.
2nd: serious medical issues are found
3rd: life/health of the mother where the baby won't survive anyways due to condition. Should more normally go for live birth.
Where's the 'magical' point? Hard to say.
Quote
* Pro-life in all instances, would sum it it. Plenty of choices before bumpin' uglies.
What about rape? Not exactly the mother's choice in that instance...
Back on the original subject of the Ad - This may hurt McCain as much as it helps him. Remember, there are rabid pro-choice/life types just as there are rabid-pro and anti-gun types. Thus, it becomes a question of whether this ad will motivate the pro-life types to vote for McCain more than it'll motivate the pro-choice types to vote against him.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 19, 2008, 10:24:47 AM
Post by: lacoochee on September 19, 2008, 10:28:46 AM
In so far as how often,
Quote
How often are partial-birth abortions performed?
There are at least 164,000 abortions a year after the first three months of pregnancy, and 13,000 abortions annually after 4 1/2 months, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (New York Times, July 5 and November 6, 1995), which is an arm of Planned Parenthood. These numbers should be regarded as minimums, since they are based on voluntary reporting to the AGI. (The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 1993, over 17,000 abortions were performed at 21 weeks and later-- and the CDC acknowledges that the reports that it receives are incomplete.)
No one really knows how many late abortions are done by the partial-birth procedure. The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy told The New York Times, "The number of procedures that clearly meet the definition of partial birth abortion is very small, probably only 500 to 1,000 a year." (March 28, 1996) Even if such figures were accurate, the legislation would be urgently needed. If a new virus swept through neo-natal units and killed 500 or 1,000 premature babies, it would be a top news story -- not dismissed as too "rare" to be of consequence. For each human being at the pointed end of the scissors, a partial-birth abortion is a 100% proposition.
Moreover, the numbers may be considerably higher-- perhaps thousands per year. Dr. Martin Haskell and the late Dr. James McMahon spent years trying to convince other abortionists of the merits of the procedure -- that was the purpose of Dr. Haskell's 1992 instructional paper (see page 3), which was distributed by the National Abortion Federation, a lobbying group for abortion clinics. For years, Dr. McMahon was director of abortion instruction at the Cedar-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. In addition, he invited other doctors to visit his abortion clinic for a period of days to learn the procedure. Also, The New York Times reported on Nov. 6, 1995:
"Of course I use it, and I've taught it for the last 10 years," said a gynecologist at a New York teaching hospital who spoke on condition of anonymity. "So do doctors in other cities."
It is not known how many other abortionists have adopted the method, but a few have made themselves known. On March 19, 1996, Dr. William Rashbaum of New York City wrote a letter to Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.), stating that he has performed 19,000 late-term "procedures," and that he has performed the procedure that HR 1833 would ban "routinely since 1979. This procedure is only performed in cases of later gestational age."
In 1995, Dr. Martin Haskell filed a lawsuit challenging a state abortion-regulation law. In that proceeding, two other doctors filed affidavits affirming that they perform the same procedure as Dr. Haskell -- and that's just in Ohio.
There are at least 164,000 abortions a year after the first three months of pregnancy, and 13,000 abortions annually after 4 1/2 months, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (New York Times, July 5 and November 6, 1995), which is an arm of Planned Parenthood. These numbers should be regarded as minimums, since they are based on voluntary reporting to the AGI. (The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 1993, over 17,000 abortions were performed at 21 weeks and later-- and the CDC acknowledges that the reports that it receives are incomplete.)
No one really knows how many late abortions are done by the partial-birth procedure. The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy told The New York Times, "The number of procedures that clearly meet the definition of partial birth abortion is very small, probably only 500 to 1,000 a year." (March 28, 1996) Even if such figures were accurate, the legislation would be urgently needed. If a new virus swept through neo-natal units and killed 500 or 1,000 premature babies, it would be a top news story -- not dismissed as too "rare" to be of consequence. For each human being at the pointed end of the scissors, a partial-birth abortion is a 100% proposition.
Moreover, the numbers may be considerably higher-- perhaps thousands per year. Dr. Martin Haskell and the late Dr. James McMahon spent years trying to convince other abortionists of the merits of the procedure -- that was the purpose of Dr. Haskell's 1992 instructional paper (see page 3), which was distributed by the National Abortion Federation, a lobbying group for abortion clinics. For years, Dr. McMahon was director of abortion instruction at the Cedar-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. In addition, he invited other doctors to visit his abortion clinic for a period of days to learn the procedure. Also, The New York Times reported on Nov. 6, 1995:
"Of course I use it, and I've taught it for the last 10 years," said a gynecologist at a New York teaching hospital who spoke on condition of anonymity. "So do doctors in other cities."
It is not known how many other abortionists have adopted the method, but a few have made themselves known. On March 19, 1996, Dr. William Rashbaum of New York City wrote a letter to Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.), stating that he has performed 19,000 late-term "procedures," and that he has performed the procedure that HR 1833 would ban "routinely since 1979. This procedure is only performed in cases of later gestational age."
In 1995, Dr. Martin Haskell filed a lawsuit challenging a state abortion-regulation law. In that proceeding, two other doctors filed affidavits affirming that they perform the same procedure as Dr. Haskell -- and that's just in Ohio.
Post by: Firethorn on September 19, 2008, 10:54:35 AM
how many is the acceptable number of these cases for those of you using the "its rare" school of thought? how many do you strangle before its wrong?
0
The only time I think that a late term abortion is justified is if the child is going to die anyways - there are a number of rare and semi-rare conditions that can cause this. One that I remember is a small defect that leads to the fetus developing without a brain. Lifespan outside the womb, even with full life support, is hours to days.
As for rare, going by the numbers quoted by lacoochee:
13k are performed after 4.5 months(20 weeks), compared to 151k between 3 and 4.5. Only 8% of post first trimester abortions occur after the 4.5 month point.
Doing some research, This site says the CDC found that there were 857k abortions total. That knocks the 4.5 months percentage down to 1.5%. Another source says that CDC numbers are low, quoting 1313k in 2000. Or 1%. CDC says the percent of abortions after 20 weeks is only 1.4%. As I define 'late term' abortion as 'third trimester', or ~28 weeks, it'd be lower yet.
Generally speaking, less than 1% is what I consider 'rare'.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 19, 2008, 11:24:04 AM
Post by: Firethorn on September 19, 2008, 11:30:02 AM
the question was how many is acceptable and how many living babies does a "doctor" get to strangle before its wrong.
Did you read the very first line of my post? 0, zero, zip, zilch, nada, none. ZERO.
It's wrong with #1.
Post by: lacoochee on September 19, 2008, 11:32:58 AM
Post by: richyoung on September 19, 2008, 11:36:18 AM
I guess I wonder were folks stand on such an issue. Not the abortion issue, as that is a given for the question for the question to be posed.
No, the issue of commerce, contracts, and human rights:
Which takes precedence when in the transaction between doctor, first patient, and infant/second patient?
It brings some other questions to mind:
1. Did Dr. Allred breach his contract with the mother to provide a medical service?
No, the issue of commerce, contracts, and human rights:
Which takes precedence when in the transaction between doctor, first patient, and infant/second patient?
It brings some other questions to mind:
1. Did Dr. Allred breach his contract with the mother to provide a medical service?
No. He was contracted to provide a proceedure known as a "saline abortion". He provided that proceedure. Not all surgical proceedures result in good or desired outcomes. One possible outcome of a late-term saline abortion is a live birth. "yOU PAYS YOUR MONEY AND YOU TAKES YOUR CHANCES."
Quote
2. Was he required, contractually, to kill Gianna if he were present upon her live birth?
I'm pretty sure that even if the contract stated so, a contract requiring an illegal act - in this case, premeditated murder - is not enforcable, and is in fact null and void. "Void where prohibited by law" - so to speak.
Quote
3. Does Gianna's location effect her "personhood" or eligibility for human rights?
Obviously, as a matter of realpolitik, it does - otherwise, a new law to protect the live birthed children resulting from saline abortions, or to outlaw partial birth abortion, would be unnecessary, as those would be murder. Please note, this is not MY position, just an observation of "what is".
Quote
4. Does Gianna being the subject of a commercial transaction and a contract dilute her claim to person status/human rights?
...something about endowed by our Creator, inalienable... something, something, something....
Quote
5. Can the doctor or especially the nurse(s) be sued for some sort of breach of contract?
Only if they in fact did NOT perform a saline abortion, but rather some other proceedure, or no proceedure at all.
Quote
6. If strangling the born-alive object of an abortion is illegal, ought that provide protection form lawsuits, etc. to the doctor?
Yes. Can't sue for failure to perform an illegal act.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 19, 2008, 11:38:52 AM
the question was how many is acceptable and how many living babies does a "doctor" get to strangle before its wrong.
Did you read the very first line of my post? 0, zero, zip, zilch, nada, none. ZERO.
It's wrong with #1.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 19, 2008, 11:45:25 AM
Post by: Northwoods on September 19, 2008, 11:53:11 AM
What about rape? Not exactly the mother's choice in that instance...
It's not the child that needs killing. Just sayin'.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 19, 2008, 11:58:47 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2008, 12:57:59 PM
Quote
* Pro-life in all instances, would sum it it. Plenty of choices before bumpin' uglies.
What about rape? Not exactly the mother's choice in that instance...
Obviously not the mother's choice. However, if one takes the position that human life begins at conception, then that life should be protected by law, as with any other child. Carrying the child will doubtless be very agonizing for the mother. But the rapist is to blame, not the (hypothetical) law that protects another innocent party from another monstrous act of cruelty.
Or to put it another way, innocent life must never be taken without extreme mitigating circumstances (self defense, national defense, etc.). As terrible as the experience may be for the pregnant rape victim, her anguish is not a good reason to kill an innocent person. FWIW, I don't think the rapist should be killed, either, though I strongly support the death penalty in other cases such as murder.
Post by: richyoung on September 19, 2008, 01:03:36 PM
Quote
* Pro-life in all instances, would sum it it. Plenty of choices before bumpin' uglies.
What about rape? Not exactly the mother's choice in that instance...
Obviously not the mother's choice. However, if one takes the position that human life begins at conception, then that life should be protected by law, as with any other child. Carrying the child will doubtless be very agonizing for the mother. But the rapist is to blame, not the (hypothetical) law that protects another innocent party from another monstrous act of cruelty.
Or to put it another way, innocent life must never be taken without extreme mitigating circumstances (self defense, national defense, etc.). As terrible as the experience may be for the pregnant rape victim, her anguish is not a good reason to kill an innocent person. FWIW, I don't think the rapist should be killed, either, though I strongly support the death penalty in other cases such as murder.
I must respectfully disagree. Being pregnant can be fatal. Women do die in childbirth, and from other complications of pregnancy. Pregnancy is a known possible result of "certain activities", so if own knowingly and of one's own free will egages in those "certain activities", one invites all the possible consequences. However, is one is unwilling, or legally unable to consent, then forcing that person to go through a possibly fatal and certainly life-altering 9 month ordeal would be a second rape. If you invite someone over for dinner, you can;t just up and shoot them, but if you wake up to find them uninvited in your house, fire away.
Clear as mud?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2008, 01:19:24 PM
This ain't the thirteenth century. Pregnancy is not a death sentence. "Forcing someone" to be pregnant? Again, the rapist did that. Failing to kill an innocent human being is not "forcing" anyone to be pregnant. In fact, killing the innocent human would ordinarily be called murder. Thanks for calling me a rapist, by the way.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 19, 2008, 01:19:31 PM
I didn't mean to take him out of context and in re-reading it was harsher than I intended. I was simply trying to say that if you are at all pro-life then a procedure as described above has to be beyond the pale.
In so far as how often,
"Pro-Life" is a position on abortion, regardless of how you personally define it. There are lots of debates out there, but they don't really get to the point of this article. Killing a baby after it is born and living outside the womb is murder by current legal definitions. I haven't heard of anyone who thinks that killing babies after birth is okay. Apparently a few people like some of these doctors think that is okay though.In so far as how often,
Honestly, I am not pro-choice or pro-life. I hate trying to pigeon hole myself into those positions. I just believe life begins at birth. This article illustrates very well why I am against late term abortions as you end up with doctors walking the line on murder and crossing it. I realize a lot of people don't put that line where I do. No problem. I probably lean more to the Pro-Life side simply because many of the radical pro-choice people don't seem to have a problem with stuff like this.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 19, 2008, 01:21:39 PM
I agree with another comment above. If you decide you don't want a baby that late, adoption is the best option IMO.
Post by: richyoung on September 19, 2008, 01:22:15 PM
This ain't the thirteenth century. Pregnancy is not a death sentence. For some it is - and even if it isn't, for a particular person, it is disfiguring and debilitating for a while.
Post by: richyoung on September 19, 2008, 01:24:28 PM
Quote
That particular doctor's usual practice in the 10-20% of saline abortions that result in live births was to strangle the child to death.
...and THAT is what leads to abortion mill bombings and shootings....
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 19, 2008, 01:26:37 PM
interesting how as far as i know its all men expounding here. we have a lil less at stake
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2008, 01:29:24 PM
See my edited post above.
"Disfiguring and debilitating for a while." Please don't make me go over things I've already covered. Like I said originally, if one recognizes the embryo as a human being, with a right to life, temporary disfigurement and debilitation would not justify killing that human being.
You're better off with the "death sentence" approach, as weak as that is. "For some it is." A slight chance of death is not a death sentence, so your response is a non sequitur.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2008, 01:32:42 PM
Quote
That particular doctor's usual practice in the 10-20% of saline abortions that result in live births was to strangle the child to death.
...and THAT is what leads to abortion mill bombings and shootings....
Why would a few throttlings lead to anti-abortion violence, rather than the tens of millions of innocent children that anti-abortionists believe are being murdered every day?
Post by: richyoung on September 19, 2008, 04:52:53 PM
Rich,
See my edited post above.
"Disfiguring and debilitating for a while." Please don't make me go over things I've already covered. Like I said originally, if one recognizes the embryo as a human being, with a right to life, temporary disfigurement and debilitation would not justify killing that human being.
You're better off with the "death sentence" approach, as weak as that is. "For some it is." A slight chance of death is not a death sentence, so your response is a non sequitur.
See my edited post above.
"Disfiguring and debilitating for a while." Please don't make me go over things I've already covered. Like I said originally, if one recognizes the embryo as a human being, with a right to life, temporary disfigurement and debilitation would not justify killing that human being.
You're better off with the "death sentence" approach, as weak as that is. "For some it is." A slight chance of death is not a death sentence, so your response is a non sequitur.
When one sky-dives, races cars, or has consensual sex, death is a possible consequence and acceptance of that is implicit in choosing to engage in that activity. I cannot, in good conscience, compel someone to run that risk who did not, or legally could not, make that choice of their free will. For example, suppose someone has total kidney failure, and suppose I'm a potential donor - the ONLY potential donor. SHould I be compelled to donate?
Post by: richyoung on September 19, 2008, 04:54:21 PM
Quote
That particular doctor's usual practice in the 10-20% of saline abortions that result in live births was to strangle the child to death.
...and THAT is what leads to abortion mill bombings and shootings....
Why would a few throttlings lead to anti-abortion violence, rather than the tens of millions of innocent children that anti-abortionists believe are being murdered every day?
siphoning out a clump of cells just isn't as inflamatory as throttling a live-born infant...
Post by: Firethorn on September 19, 2008, 06:05:12 PM
Or to put it another way, innocent life must never be taken without extreme mitigating circumstances (self defense, national defense, etc.). As terrible as the experience may be for the pregnant rape victim, her anguish is not a good reason to kill an innocent person. FWIW, I don't think the rapist should be killed, either, though I strongly support the death penalty in other cases such as murder.
Note: I'm pro-choice. That means that the 14 year old victim of rape; with the support of her parents, can make a difficult choice.
How about another angle: The 'morning after' pill.
It works by preventing ovulation or implantation of the blastocyst.
What's your view on that?
Quote
If you decide you don't want a baby that late, adoption is the best option IMO.
Agreed.
Quote
Why would a few throttlings lead to anti-abortion violence, rather than the tens of millions of innocent children that anti-abortionists believe are being murdered every day?
Because quite a few of them are hypocrites. Quite a number of them end up using the services of the very clinic they protested at, or traveling three states when either they or their daughter gets an unwanted pregnancy. I detest hypocrites.
It takes a bit of work to get people up to bombing a place when it takes an expert to tell the difference between the fetus being aborted and that of a chicken.
Finally, the statistics show that abortions peaked around 2000, and have been dropping since. They're also occurring earlier. Probably due to the 'morning after' pill and better detection methods.
Post by: Balog on September 19, 2008, 07:17:48 PM
Rich,
See my edited post above.
"Disfiguring and debilitating for a while." Please don't make me go over things I've already covered. Like I said originally, if one recognizes the embryo as a human being, with a right to life, temporary disfigurement and debilitation would not justify killing that human being.
You're better off with the "death sentence" approach, as weak as that is. "For some it is." A slight chance of death is not a death sentence, so your response is a non sequitur.
See my edited post above.
"Disfiguring and debilitating for a while." Please don't make me go over things I've already covered. Like I said originally, if one recognizes the embryo as a human being, with a right to life, temporary disfigurement and debilitation would not justify killing that human being.
You're better off with the "death sentence" approach, as weak as that is. "For some it is." A slight chance of death is not a death sentence, so your response is a non sequitur.
When one sky-dives, races cars, or has consensual sex, death is a possible consequence and acceptance of that is implicit in choosing to engage in that activity. I cannot, in good conscience, compel someone to run that risk who did not, or legally could not, make that choice of their free will. For example, suppose someone has total kidney failure, and suppose I'm a potential donor - the ONLY potential donor. SHould I be compelled to donate?
Assuming life begins at conception, the baby is an innocent party who you are killing. So yeah, compelling the mother to carry it to term is permissible.
Post by: roo_ster on September 19, 2008, 08:22:59 PM
Thanks for taking a whack at the question(s) in the OP.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2008, 08:46:38 PM
When one sky-dives, races cars, or has consensual sex, death is a possible consequence and acceptance of that is implicit in choosing to engage in that activity. I cannot, in good conscience, compel someone to run that risk who did not, or legally could not, make that choice of their free will.
So you're going to guarantee the death of one innocent human, to avoid the slight risk of death to the other innocent human? Even though, if nature is allowed to take its course, both patients will probably end up in good health? I've already been through this with CAnnoneer, and he's since come around closer to my point of view. You will be assimilated.*
And abortions are not without risk of death, either.
Quote
For example, suppose someone has total kidney failure, and suppose I'm a potential donor - the ONLY potential donor. SHould I be compelled to donate?
Hey, you got your apple on my orange! This false comparison could be aborted in at least a couple of different ways. For one thing, the rape victim has already been compelled. It's not so much a question of compulsion, as a question of when killing is justified. A closer analogy would be the old classic, The Case of the Famous Violinist, in which a person awakens to find themselves in a hospital bed, with another person attached to them with tubes, and dependent on them for kidney function. In this case, the violation has already occurred, and the only item in question is the obligation to continue to nourish another person.
But that old chestnut is very flawed. A pregnant woman is not usually confined to a hospital bed, with tubes sticking out everywhere. And even if the mother was raped; the resulting pregnancy, though unwanted, is still a natural condition, for which the body was designed, not a hospital procedure. And an embryo or fetus is not a sick person. No matter how healthy she is, dependence on her mother's body is her normal and natural state for that nine months. And the kidnapped dialysis provider will not go through the psychological complications that many women feel when they abort their children.
And so on and so forth. The Violinist argument has been around longer than I have, so I'm sure you could find plenty of discussions about it on the web.
*I'm not taking credit for CAnnoneer's "major personal turn." Especially since I don't know whether he still feels that way.
Post by: richyoung on September 19, 2008, 09:15:37 PM
Rich,
See my edited post above.
"Disfiguring and debilitating for a while." Please don't make me go over things I've already covered. Like I said originally, if one recognizes the embryo as a human being, with a right to life, temporary disfigurement and debilitation would not justify killing that human being.
You're better off with the "death sentence" approach, as weak as that is. "For some it is." A slight chance of death is not a death sentence, so your response is a non sequitur.
See my edited post above.
"Disfiguring and debilitating for a while." Please don't make me go over things I've already covered. Like I said originally, if one recognizes the embryo as a human being, with a right to life, temporary disfigurement and debilitation would not justify killing that human being.
You're better off with the "death sentence" approach, as weak as that is. "For some it is." A slight chance of death is not a death sentence, so your response is a non sequitur.
When one sky-dives, races cars, or has consensual sex, death is a possible consequence and acceptance of that is implicit in choosing to engage in that activity. I cannot, in good conscience, compel someone to run that risk who did not, or legally could not, make that choice of their free will. For example, suppose someone has total kidney failure, and suppose I'm a potential donor - the ONLY potential donor. SHould I be compelled to donate?
Assuming life begins at conception, the baby is an innocent party who you are killing. So yeah, compelling the mother to carry it to term is permissible.
Nope. If a crazed siamese twin breaks into my bedroom to do me in, and I shoot him, and as a result both he and his otherwise innocent conjoined twin who was just "along for the ride", so to speak, dies, I'm fine with that. Its called collateral damage.
Post by: richyoung on September 19, 2008, 09:16:02 PM
richyoung:
Thanks for taking a whack at the question(s) in the OP.
Thanks for taking a whack at the question(s) in the OP.
As always, a pleasure...
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2008, 09:51:05 PM
siphoning out a clump of cells just isn't as inflamatory as throttling a live-born infant...
There's some truth to that, but it's not like the stranglings get any more press attention than the more legally preferable methods. And I don't think clinic bombers need a lot of extra encouragement, anyway. But then, I've never met one. I think.
The 'morning after' pill.
It works by preventing ovulation or implantation of the blastocyst.
What's your view on that?
It works by preventing ovulation or implantation of the blastocyst.
What's your view on that?
Given what I've said so far, you should know my answer. To seek to prevent implantation is to attempt to kill an innocent human organism. As far as I can tell, there are no judgment calls in that sentence, just exposition of facts. I hope there will be no need to take my comments personally.
I'm not really in this to convert pro's to anti's, although that would be nifty. I only got into this discussion to point out that, if one takes the position that human life begins at conception and deserves the same protections as other young children, then things like rape just don't factor into the question, and are more emotional appeal than anything else. jfruser's quip about choosing not to have sex, applied to the choice argument for abortion, and it does so very effectively. But it obviously doesn't hold true in all cases. No one said it does.
Quote
Quote
Why would a few throttlings lead to anti-abortion violence, rather than the tens of millions of innocent children that anti-abortionists believe are being murdered every day?
Because quite a few of them are hypocrites. Quite a number of them end up using the services of the very clinic they protested at, or traveling three states when either they or their daughter gets an unwanted pregnancy. I detest hypocrites.
It takes a bit of work to get people up to bombing a place when it takes an expert to tell the difference between the fetus being aborted and that of a chicken.
I don't quite understand why you responded this way. The bit about hypocrisy just doesn't seem related to the question. Do you know of some abortion clinic bombers who've done this? And the chicken thing I don't quite get, either. You're saying that violent anti-abortionists don't know about first and second trimester abortions, or don't care about them?
The point I made was that I don't think anti-abortion terrorists need live-birth abortions to motivate them, when they're also hearing about many more children being murdered by other abortion methods. But like I said, I don't know any, so I could be wrong.
Speaking of hypocrites, they bother me more than you. Because to me, they're also murderers.
Post by: LadySmith on September 19, 2008, 10:59:35 PM
yup
interesting how as far as i know its all men expounding here. we have a lil less at stake
interesting how as far as i know its all men expounding here. we have a lil less at stake
I'm around, but just lurking because you guys tend to get a bit emotional about this subject.
I'm also trying to figure out how Fistful went from scapegoat to rapist.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 20, 2008, 02:05:22 AM
A religious person would argue that God endows you with personhood/ a soul whenever he chooses, and that the presence/absence of a brain is not necessary to have personhood. If you believe that, then of course it's possible to believe even a very early stage embryo is a human being and a baby.
Someone else might argue that the person must have at least a potential ability to think, so a developed brain is necessary. Taken to its extreme, it would imply that not even newborns are fully human - but that's crazy, too.
Post by: Stand_watie on September 20, 2008, 02:08:17 AM
yup
interesting how as far as i know its all men expounding here. we have a lil less at stake
interesting how as far as i know its all men expounding here. we have a lil less at stake
I'm around, but just lurking because you guys tend to get a bit emotional about this subject.
I'm also trying to figure out how Fistful went from scapegoat to rapist.
I was part of a "pro-life" group in college. The rest of the members were all female. Men may talk more about the issue, but both sides of the issue are dominated by women.
Post by: Stand_watie on September 20, 2008, 02:14:34 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 20, 2008, 02:15:53 AM
Off topic, but Microbalrog do you know what time it is here? 6:15 a.m on a saturday. All reasonable Americans are currently in bed sleeping the sleep of the righteous.
Yes, and? This is a forum, not a chat room. I do not expect anybody to respond to my post immediately or something.
Post by: Stand_watie on September 20, 2008, 02:21:25 AM
Off topic, but Microbalrog do you know what time it is here? 6:15 a.m on a saturday. All reasonable Americans are currently in bed sleeping the sleep of the righteous.
Yes, and? This is a forum, not a chat room. I do not expect anybody to respond to my post immediately or something.
Come on man, I was kidding around with you. I was joking about the fact that I was here and posting while all other Americans are asleep. I didn't mean it as a genuine criticism.
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2008, 03:25:14 AM
The same actors, the same arguments, and the same results (i.e., no opinions changed).
Thank you all for keeping it as civil as you have so far.