Crime and welfare were serious public policy issues that could be, and were, debated from empirical premises. Abortion and gay marriage are moral, largely religious issues, and are less amenable to public policy debate. They are, for reasons that are entirely understandable, governed more by emotion than by empirical data.Let's acknowledge that crime and welfare were also coded racial issues and people reacted emotionally to them. But, okay, there was empirical data to inject into the argument, and abortion and gay marriage are more philosophical.
Hinderaker says the GOP must "recalibrate" how it handles the social issues and offers some suggestions.
Myself, I disagree with the GOP on these present-day social issues, but I don't like the Democrats either. I'm keeping my distance, which is, currently, alienated from both parties. I have little hope the either party will appeal to me in the near future, so I think I will calmly observe and comment on their struggles. I've avoided the routine election post-mortem articles, which are mostly banal and full of bogus hindsight clarity. But, going forward, I plan to cherry-pick and link to some things like Hinderaker's that strike me as going beyond the usual dull fare.
Posts
489 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 489 of 489Oh, you didn't get an answer "soon" enough. I'll respond with tactics befitting your own.
Some kind of fixation with women's bodies?
Ritmo again:
Although question marks typically follow questions, it doesn't surprise me that someone as dictatorial as yourself would confuse a question with a declaration.
It is the declarant who determines the nature of the sentence, moron.
And again: And that is because liberals understand something that conservatives don't: The concept of sentience - A hallmark of morality, who should display it, and to which creatures it should be displayed.
What secular liberals don't understand is that their concept of morality in this, as in all instances, has no metaphysical anchor and is therefore subjective. Toe-may-toe, Toe-mah-toe.
Given that, you shouldn't be troubled by a determination by constitutional consensus that a fetus has rights. Oh, I forgot, you libs only believe in choice when it goes your way. After all, despite the fact that your morality is purely subjective, your way is the way.
And again: ...feel free to talk about the supposedly self-evident superiority of an ideology that was too unconscious, unthinking, imperceptive to figure out why seven Republican rape philosophers were drubbed at the polls last week.
Not that I defend the seven - that isn't what this discussion is about - I'm clear that morality is not determined at the polls. That is a particularly callow viewpoint reserved for immature moral relativists such as yourself (provided things go well at the polls, eh? ).
And again:
And you remain... a dumbass that has ambitious pretensions for thoughtfulness ....
Even without the elipses, this is an odd sentence and an odd sentiment coming from someone whose only accomplishment apparent from his/her profile is "dancing with [your]self." No one who posts here will be surprised by your choice of partners, only that you have a choice.
Mr. Fox,
Sorry for the late reply.
Nate Hentoff is pro-life. Please name the religious belief that motivates his pro-life stance?
As far as I can tell, Nate Hentoff, from an essay I read due to your note on him, is opposed to the trivialization of life, and sees a danger there. He never gives any reason other than "Slippery Slope" in his arguments. That's a problem with not having a definition of "Human". It's the same kind of argument that says "No death penalty, because the person might be innocent." Sorry, I'm not swayed by the argument.
To your original point, because you have identified one, or even a hundred or a thousand atheists who have concerns about abortion, does not change anything. The easiest argument is that "Where does life begin." Well, what about one second earlier? Etc. You chose to identify that as when the sperm hits the egg. A single cell. I do not. I find that ridiculous. That's my reaction to it, it's not meant to be offensive, it's the way I find it.
One can even precede that, and I think the Catholic church has done that in the past. Any effort to stop reproduction is thwarting God's will, except abstinence. Why abstinence vs. condoms ought to be called out is beyond me. Why the latest "sperm hits the egg" is also beyond me.
All of these apply to inductive reasoning. But they fail the common sense test. Should people take extraordinary measures to save hopelessly deformed fetuses because it is God's will? From what I understand of your perspective, I suspect the answer is "Yes."
Ah, hombre declares sentience to be subjective absent a metaphysical anchor and thus fails to consider why anyone should take his stabs at conscious thought seriously.
Subjectively, I determine him to be a thoughtless idiot - as we all can. Subjectively, it's possible for anyone to reach that conclusion, as it has no metaphysical "anchor".
But it's good to know that objectively, the same conclusion is just as obvious.
Another evasion.
I didn't "bring up" abortion--it was already the topic. See the headline at the top of the thread, it includes the word "abortion." I didn't drag it in. I was on topic.
But you brought up "molestation," having nothing to do with the topic. And the best answer you can give for doing so, is, I quote, "I dunno."
See, I know why: why you brought it up, and why you are dancing around the question.
You brought up "molestation" because I'm a Catholic priest. You refer to my "institutional shortcomings."
But then you mention the countless lives ruined. Indeed. Awful.
But not so awful, for you, that you aren't ready to trade on their suffering, if you can score a cheap ad hominem against a priest, rather than simply engage the subject at hand.
I'm not sure that those people, who did indeed suffer from the crimes of some priests, would take any pleasure in your turning their suffering into cheap rhetoric.
That's why you're vile.
And your willingness to trade on human suffering, you yourself claim to care about, shows how fake your compassion is.
Ritmo and Sullivan sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G-(A)
@Inga: My appended "A" was gratuitous.
Ritmo to Fr. Fox: Invading someone's person is never something to be "unshrill" about, Dear. Haven't you learned a thing from your less upstanding colleagues in that regard?
You really are a cheesy piece of shit, Ritmo.
Oh, so because you assume that I haven't been molested by a priest, then I am TRADING on someone else's suffering? That's rich.
IN that case, your lack of a uterus means that I can assume you're TRADING off of the situation of pregnant women.
I assume your status (or so it appears) as an adult male rather than an embryo, sentient or not, means that you are TRADING off of that entity's situation.
Vile. Disgusting. Repulsive. Just the way you would call things.
Stop being a hypocrite. If empiric, personal experience is all that matters here then may I kindly suggest that you stop intruding, yes, INTRUDING (a concept that - in case you missed it - takes on many forms, Dear Sir) on other people's recognized rights to their person.
Hombre:
Ritmo claims to care deeply about those who suffered molestation at the hands of Catholic priests. It is indeed terrible.
But not so terrible for him that he will resist using their suffering to score a cheap ad hominem, utterly unrelated to the topic.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Some kind of fixation with women's bodies?
You mean like the one your hero, Andrew Sullivan, had (still has?) on Sarah Palin?
Ritmo:
You brought up "molestation," not I.
It wasn't part of the topic--not even close.
Asked four times at least, the best reason you can give is, I quote, "I dunno."
You did it to score a cheap ad hominem.
Chicken: YOu might want to keep away from a big people discussion.
In any event, it's not only rape victims (a nearly insinuated of this latest election, as well). I also care about the way institutions would abuse their claim to authority. Do you?
You used the real suffering of people you went out of your way to say you cared about to score a cheap rhetorical point.
I was talking about abortion because, well, that's part of the topic of the thread.
And you engage in a cheap argumentum ad verecundiam, especially repulsive given the way that VERECUNDIAM has been abused over other people's bodies.
Is it your assumption that pro-lifers owe their votes to the GOP?
I have deep philosophical disagreements with the liberal philosophy of forcing compassion on people, even the compassion of the unborn, because the current values are so perfect that they extend even beyond the grave of those implementing them. I find in it a kind of evil.
That having been said, we all live in this world. So no, I do not think your vote is owed to Republicans. I have significant disagreements with Republicans myself. At present, I view them as the lesser of two evils.
While your views are self-consistent, they are abhorrent to me. They take a group belief position, and apply them to everyone. I see some, but not much, difference between that and leftists pushing their dogma. The difference is that you are at least self consistent.
Vile Ritmo:
Are you claiming you were molested?
It's a yes or no question.
I was talking about abortion because, well, that's part of the topic of the thread.
Well, I brought up the abuse of people's bodies because that's what it is to tell someone what they can or cannot do with it.
I claim that your need to control women's bodies is very intrusive. Draw your own conclusion.
Ritmo:
So, now you're telling me why you brought up "molestation"?
After five times I asked you, this is why?
I think you're lying. I don't say it lightly.
If that was your reason, you'd have said it right away.
But first you evaded, then you said, I quote, "I dunno." Now you've managed to think up a reason that might seem halfway plausible. Took you all of a half hour or so.
Of course, if you didn't mean to allude, slyly, to the scandal of priests who molested, why then did you even refer to that scandal at all?
You're not even a very skillful liar.
And I asked another question: are you in fact claiming you were molested? You brought it up. Which is it, yes or no?
Ritmo wrote: Oh, so because you assume that I haven't been molested by a priest, then I am TRADING on someone else's suffering? That's rich.
Don't think, even for a moment, that this sleazy prick wouldn't claim to be a victim if he thought it would further his argument. He is a troll without scruples.
The correct answer is "none of your business", which is apparently a concept that you do not understand.
Ritmo:
Another evasion.
I wouldn't have asked--I never asked--until you brought it up.
Why bring it up?
Vile.
Hombre:
I am forced to agree with you about Ritmo's character, at least as evidenced by actions here. But I prefer to deal with facts in evidence, which he himself provided.
Luckily, I have better judgments to abide by than your own.
So put away your argumentum ad verecundiam. It's useless. But it's nice to know that you believe you have a word with a certain kind of power.
Now try embracing the power of an idea: Minding your own business.
Ritmo:
I'm genuinely sorry for the abuse you may have experienced. But that doesn't justify your dragging that awful business into a discussion where it's utterly unrelated--simply for the purpose of an ad hominem because, quote, I "annoyed" you.
Ritmo:
Feel free to cite a single statement here where I appealed to authority.
Father Fox, he's saying that the Church lost its authority to tell anyone what they can do with their own bodies, because they harboured pedophiles for so many years.
He can correct me if I'm wrong. Now stop demanding personal information from him, I hope that's not how you treat potentially abused adult males.
You're correct that were the GOP to tell pro-lifers to take a hike, that indeed would take down the conservative movement.
This is your assertion. Your claim.
Let us try a thought experiment. I acknowledge to you that you believe abortion is murder.
I do not. I think a single cell is simply that, and of no more consequence than any other cell. Somewhere, somehow, the organism takes on real human characteristics. When that is, I do not know. Nor do I think anyone knows.
So at present, we have a definition from the supreme court when life begins. I'm not certain if this will surprise you or not, but I do not agree with Roe V. Wade. In my view, from the constitution, these issues should be left to the states.
Ritmo:
When you make arguments in a comment thread on a blog, they become part of the conversation, and responding to them is not intruding into private business.
If you want things private, then maybe don't trot them out on the Internet for everyone to read?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Chicken: YOu might want to keep away from a big people discussion.
LOL. You have swollen gonad syndrome.
because they harboured pedophiles for so many years.
Some people are such bitches.
I think we ought to shut down the schools. Oh wait, they are a secular institution, so pedophilia there is OK.
Inga:
Ritmo can make his own arguments. He's a big boy.
If people lie and engage in low behavior, they don't get a pass because they suffered a terrible crime.
And I would say further that if this is a subject Ritmo can't engage in without keeping his cool, it's up to him to stay away from it, or at least to own up to his lack of self-control.
Dante, are the schools telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies?
Ritmo wrote: In any event, it's not only rape victims ... I also care about the way institutions would abuse their claim to authority. Do you?
We remember the way you weighed in on Fast and Furious - your gov't providing murder weapons to drug cartels. And you have been a standup guy about the "collateral damage" caused by the Prez's drones, etc., etc. Not!
What you meant to say was you're troubled by abuse of authority unless it's your groupthink guys.
Maybe you ought to rethink your use of "hypocrite" on this site. People here know what you are.
Inga:
Further, my being Catholic, and being part of the Catholic Church, is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Period.
I've been making my arguments without appealing to Catholic teaching; in fact, I've tried rather hard to make my arguments without reference to it. If others ask questions about Catholic teaching, I answer them; but I'm not attempting to give a Catechism lesson here, I'm engaging in a subject without reference to my priesthood or without direct reliance on Catholic teaching.
Now, I suppose I could change my handle, and my picture, and my profile, and conceal my religion and my profession, but I don't know why I should have to do that in order to make slimy ad hominems out of order.
Inga wrote: He can correct me if I'm wrong. Now stop demanding personal information from him, I hope that's not how you treat potentially abused adult males.
Are you such a partisan that you have lost your ability to discern when one of your consorts has gone off topic to make an ad hominem argument and is out of line?
Inga:
Ritmo was perfectly capable of saying, at any point, "oh, I get so worked up I say things I shouldn't, please excuse me." Fine.
But he didn't. So that excuse doesn't wash.
Well, Dante, it's funny you accuse me of being unreasoning, when you're the one opting for insults rather than conversation.
Your view is that life begins at conception, correct? My view is that a single cell is the same as any other cell. Nothing special, no soul, etc.
There is no compromising on these two views, is there? From your perspective, the intentional killing of the single cell, be it with anti-attach compounds in drugs, or through evacuation methods later, is murder. I don't say that meanly, I want to acknowledge the visceral reaction to abortion that true pro-lifers have.
The point is, there is no compromising on that position, is there?
Inga:
The subject of "molestation" and Ritmo's connection to the same would never have been raised, at all, except that he, himself, brought it up.
And when asked, why, several times, he (a) evaded, (b) said "I dunno, and (c) finally claimed--30-plus minutes later--it somehow connected to abortion.
Dante, are the schools telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies?
Yes. Where have you been?
Inga:
Abortion is not merely a woman doing what she wants "with her own body."
There's another body present. That's what gets "aborted."
No other body, there's no abortion.
So, the stated principle of a woman getting to do what she likes "with her own body" is anodyne enough--but inapplicable.
Most people can see the difference between an abortion and having a tooth pulled.
Inga wrote: Dante, are the schools telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies?
Well there's my answer. Partisan hack through and through.
NEA is one of the biggest boosters of abortion and finances pro-abort candidates. You are dreaming if you think they don't promote "reproductive rights" in the classroom. That is, they promote pro-abort religion.
Only two people here are persisting on entirely ad hominem approaches at this point. I'll leave the readers to guess who they are.
The point of how a zygote magically becomes a soul simply by virtue of a DNA event was raised many times. But I guess that wasn't as sexy as how to win elections with approaches that prove to lose, someone's personal history and the related bs. I do hope these people find their spin as entertaining Karl Rove found his. The intrinsic value of each is obviously, quite limited.
Schools are trying to circumvent Roe V Wade, with Personhood Laws? Really? The Church is influencing the right wing of your party to do this very thing. The Church's moral authority has been compromised.
Inga:
Let me try your style of argument in response.
Women commit _____ crimes. (Is there any crime that some women haven't commited?) Therefore women's moral authority is compromised.
There. Now what you say is devalued. Because you're a woman.
Do you really want to defend that sort of argumentation?
We used to have arguments about the right of people to do whatever they wanted with their property--and they didn't want their property given personhood either.
How intrusive!
And, of course, the disreputable tactics of some of those who advocated personhood for property meant their whole cause lacked moral authority.
The United States has engaged in torture, and also in atrocious scientific experiments on human beings, and covered it up.
Therefore the moral authority of all Americans is compromised.
I've been making my arguments without appealing to Catholic teaching; in fact, I've tried rather hard to make my arguments without reference to it
By bringing up a Jewish Atheist Journalist who is Pro-Life?
Or by claiming to speak for all Pro-Life positions?
I suspect many, many would have issues with your view of life.
Hey, you are self consistent, which is more than most can say. You wouldn't be having these discussions except for your beliefs.
And as near as I can tell, you run from the actual points.
The point of how a zygote magically becomes a soul simply by virtue of a DNA event was raised many times.
Totally agree with your point here. However, it leaves the uncomfortable question of "When life begins," does it not?
The best anti-abortion argument I heard was from Robert Bork. He essentially said, you can't know, and since you can't know, you need to roll it back to the beginning.
I can't agree with that, but it's a good argument.
Dante wrote: Your view is that life begins at conception, correct? My view is that a single cell is the same as any other cell....
Back where we started, eh, Dante? Well our opinion is based on the science of human embryology. I don't recall your providing the basis for yours.
You just know, right?
The problem is, if you acknowledge the science, you have to take responsibility for supporting the aborting of a couple of million lives a day. It's easier to just stay in denial, isn't it?
Despite Ritmo's gasbag rhetoric, he is ignoring the science as well.
There is nothing else to say.
You just know, right?
I know millions of cells die in my body every day. I don't mourn them.
I know that women frequently auto-abort, and there are no funerals for these "deaths", many not even known.
I know that man is an animal, and a chimp has more life in it than a zygote, or a blastycist (or however that is spelled).
I know, unlike Mr. Fox, that the vast majority of people would think it is ludicrous to ban the pill. Yet, by his own reasoning, he should be against it due to it's anti-attach properties, and so should you.
I believe that in CA, this issue has possibly changed the course of history, and for the worse.
You throw up "scientific evidence" that talk about the process of human life, but do not define life.
No one can. That goes to Bork's point, which is absurd. You have to ban the pill. You have to force women to have children from rape, and all that means.
To be consistent, you have to imagine there are no instances in which the life of the mother is dependent on abortion, which is clearly wrong, due to diabetes and preeclampsia.
It's all God's will, you see.
Define human life in a meaningful way, and when you have done it in a measurable way, let's talk.
Fuck yourself, hombre. You know nothing of science. You just repeat, like a parrot. Despite acknowledging that inanimate things don't give rise to living things, that living gametes give rise to living zygotes, you still couldn't acknowledge that these are all therefore meaningless points. Sentience is the meaningful point, it's a scientific one, and you're too much of a cowardly fucker to admit any of that.
Make sure to keep losing those elections, asshole.
Define human life in a meaningful way, and when you have done it in a measurable way, let's talk.
He won't. He's been told that sentience is the only meaningful attribute when it comes to "life" that can be agreed upon, and then ignored it.
Even the other conservatives weren't dumb enough to do that.
Perhaps it has something to do with Texas. Like Karl Rove, Hombre:
"thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts."
I think it has to do with acknowledging sentience as a meaningful, the meaningful attribute of human, moral existence. As conservatives, they are anti-reason, anti-thought, and therefore reject utterly the importance, the necessity of sentience in defining life.
It is a metaphor for their own brainlessness.
It is why they require paranoia to survive as a political force. Anyone with any reason will see that there is no reason for all that they tell you to fear, that might doesn't make right, and all the rest.
They believe they should scare people into believing fantastical premises. Their inability to reason requires nothing less.
And they, too, take on the same bullying cowardice they require of everyone else.
You throw up "scientific evidence" that talk about the process of human life, but do not define life.
He actually doesn't even do that. He just provides meaningless quotes, and can't put the salient words within those quotes into a sentence of his own if his life depended on it.
His argument is essentially, "because.... embryology!
He is America and so can you.
Shorter Hombre:
Abortion is wrong because... Embryology!
Because... Metaphysics!
Because... I can cut and past quotes from authority figures! I cannot speak upon what they say, but I know they said things! And metaphysics and embryology EXIST! (Don't ask me how to interpret what they have to say about the topic in question, though).
Brainless.
Obviously none of the fair weather friends posters have volunteered on a campaign it's basically all evangelicals and home schoolers. Libertarians for some reason never show up and never send in their 25 dollars. If any bubble needs popping its the libertarian bubble. Your movement is a way station for unmarried 20 yos. Some get married and move right the others don't and move left. If you are libertarian at 40 you probally have no heart and no brain. You probally do have asbergers though.
Dante wrote: Your view is that life begins at conception, correct? My view is that a single cell is the same as any other cell....
Except that at conception it is no longer a single cell. The DNA of two people has combined to make a totally new unique human being.
Inga said...Patrick! My comment was NOT about his wife. I had NO idea his deceased wife was Asian.
you lie. you knew and you meant it. your comment betrays it. you didn't take it back when you claimed you found out. duly noted what's not out of bounds in regards to you, but I doubt I could bring myself as low as you have. you need to work on your human decency.
Ritmo wrote: He won't. He's been told that sentience is the only meaningful attribute when it comes to "life" that can be agreed upon, and then ignored it.
I've been "told by" ... Ritmo. It is "agreed upon" by ... Ritmo - who is also his own dance partner (see profile).
Sorry if I'm unimpressed by narcissistic self-reference, but the embryologists I've cited all take on the question of the beginning of life.
They agree that it occurs at the moment of fertilization (conception).
Sentience does play well with the eugenics crowd and is a handy tool for defending abortion and euthanasia.
The question "when is life worth protecting?" is different from "when does life begin?" The answer to the former is subjective, to the latter, objective.
For sentient beings of the ilk of Ritmo and Dante, for whom answers to both moral and scientific questions are apparently subjective, the distinction is difficult, if not impossible.
Ritmo wrote (11:12): Ah, hombre declares sentience to be subjective ....
That is, as usual with Ritmo's arguments, a straw man and completely false. My post is at 11:08. I do not address "sentience."
The whole thing is going to have to go under before people really understand.
Fuck yourself, hombre....Despite acknowledging that inanimate things don't give rise to living things, that living gametes give rise to living zygotes, you still couldn't acknowledge that these are all therefore meaningless points. Sentience is the meaningful point, it's a scientific one, and you're too much of a cowardly fucker to admit any of that.
It is important to disengage with Ritmo before midnight when his meds wear off.
PS Excuse me. Did he say "living?"
"Let's acknowledge that crime and welfare were also coded racial issues"
If you can hear the dog whistle, you're the dog.
I do not think of minorities when I hear the word crime or welfare. And it's irrational to think of minorities when you hear those terms. There are enormous numbers of white welfare recipients and criminals.
This is particularly irritating because welfare is one of the most pressing issues. From social security to food stamps, we cannot afford to give people money. Social security is welfare because the country ran a deficit throughout the time taxpayers were paying social security (which is really just used to fund government programs). They did not legitimately produce any savings for their benefits to come out of. The entire enterprise is ripping off the next generation.
It's time to simply call these programs welfare and ensure only those who are truly in need get the welfare, and also: that they are called welfare recipients so those with dignity refuse it.
We need to cut spending drastically, and that need will be even more pronounced in 2012.
But pay me no mind. There is zero chance that such an agenda will ever win favor in our democracy. It probably sounds mean. Reality with these trillion dollar deficits will be meaner.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Shorter Hombre:
Abortion is wrong because... Embryology!
Because... Metaphysics!
Because... I can cut and past quotes from authority figures! I cannot speak upon what they say, but I know they said things! And metaphysics and embryology EXIST! (Don't ask me how to interpret what they have to say about the topic in question, though).
Brainless
You know they're just fuckin' with you, right?
Except that at conception it is no longer a single cell. The DNA of two people has combined to make a totally new unique human being.
The sperm and egg make a cell, called a zygote (I realize this isn't your main point, but we ought to be clear). I have heard that in identical twins there are minor variations in the DNA, but as I understand DNA this is a binary process. While there are many potential combinations of humans, the total number is finite (without continued evolution).
I'm not particularly excited about the unique combination of DNA. If I felt that were important, I would argue that women and men ought to make as many babies as possible, across as many races as possible.
Ritmo:
As conservatives, they are anti-reason, anti-thought
We may agree on this topic, and perhaps a few others. However, that's the end of it.
In my view liberalism is an unreasoning belief system like any other. I appreciate Mr. Fox's comments because he is at least self consistent in his arguments. Far less can be said for the leftist religious movement.
Dante- In the case that a mother's life is in danger (diabetes, preeclampsia, etc.), wouldn't early induction (or other medically approved form of delivery) with the intent to save the baby's life if possible be sufficient? The difference between induction and abortion is that abortion is the intent to get rid of the child. Abortion is not necessary to save the mother's life. Intentions matter.
The point, eloguently made by Kischer in "When does human life begin? The final answer" (previously cited) is:
from the moment when the sperm makes contact with the oocyte, under conditions we have come to understand and describe as normal, all subsequent development to birth of a living newborn is a fait accompli.... Human development is a continuum in which so-called stages overlap and blend one into another. Indeed, all of life is contained within a time continuum. Thus, the beginning of a new life is exacted by the beginning of fertilization, the reproductive event which is the essence of life.
The argument that the fertilized cell is not human because it has not reached a particular stage of development can be extended and used as an argument for infanticide.
Peter Singer argued that a newborn's lack of self-awareness and other traits was a basis for denying them a right to live.
Of interest is that Singer has also referred to the argument that a fetus is not a life is a "fiction" that avoids the real issue. When does the right to life attach?
I'm tired of this, but I'm curious, Dante. If we use fetus, or "quickened" fetus to define human being, would you disagree with that too?
Abortion is not necessary to save the mother's life. Intentions matter.
There is risk of death from pregnancy. Certainly much less than it used to be, but is still .25% in developing countries. Comparatively, the death rate by RU-486 is about 1/500000, or 1000 times less than pregnancy.
Dante- You did not answer the question. Why would induction or other medically approved forms of delivery with intent to save the unborn if possible not be sufficient to save the mother's life? Why does intent to kill the unborn have to be part of the equation? A medically necessary induction at 18 weeks would certainly lead to death of the fetus, but it can be performed without the intention to kill the child. An induction at 25 weeks could be performed to save the mothers life and a best effort to save the premie's life (as happens when early labor occurs and cannot be stopped). Why does intent to kill the child need to be a part of the equation.
I think you are skirting around this because you know that abortion is the intent to kill the child, which some women see as their right at any point in pregnancy (including late term when the child would otherwise be born viable). To these women motherhood is slavery, the child must be killed.
Can't we just at least admit that abortion is not about women's health?
But who am I to question feminist orthodoxy. I am just an anti- science neanderthal racist who opposes abortion so I can have lot's of little white neanderthal racist babies to populate the earth, according to the rational folks on the Melissa whats her name show anyways.
"The social conservatives need to break off from the GOP and form their own rump party. They are fair-weather friends to the larger party, and drive away those voters who might otherwise support a party devoted to smaller and more responsible government."
I hear the Evangelicals were stronger in support of Romney than McCain.
So, dump the reliable voting bloc in favor of people who couldn't be bothered to vote out the SCOAMF?
Want to be important to a political party? Make 'em court you, but don't be too hard or too easy to please.
Libertarians who are rejoicing about the marijuana vote, remember which president has been cracking down on medical marijuana. Do you really think that Democrats favor freedom?
You did not answer the question.
I thought I answered it, in the following way. There are risks of death in pregnancy, and they are real. There are instances where aborting the fetus reduces those risks.
I don't want to get into a protracted, bits and bytes discussion with you about risks of specific disorders vs. risks from aborting the fetus, so I gave you something much bigger to prevent that discussion.
Simply put, a quarter of a percent of women in developing nations die from pregnancy. If instead those women aborted their child with RU-486, their death rate would drop 1000 times.
That's the end of it, as far as I'm concerned, to the argument that abortion can not protect the life of the mother.
There is a risk, RU-486 substantially mitigates the risk, and it's up to the mother to decide whether she wants to endure that risk. That does not mean I buy into late term abortions, or anything like that. At some point, the zygote becomes a human being. Where that point is, I do not know.
Only an irrational person like myself would see motherhood as a blessing, rather than a form of slavery. What rational reason would lead to a women WANTING to reproduce, certainly I must be procreating because I am a racist who hates black people.
Dante- You still did not answer the question. I am supportive of saving the mother's life. Why does intent to kill the unborn need to be part of the equation?
Only an irrational person like myself would see motherhood as a blessing, rather than a form of slavery. What rational reason would lead to a women WANTING to reproduce, certainly I must be procreating because I am a racist who hates black people.
I'm not sure if you are attributing this to me or not. You obviously have strong views on the subject.
I have strong views on personal freedom.
Your assumptions make you feel a fertilized egg is a human being, so I assume you are against the birth control pill. If you do not feel the zygote is a human being, then you are in the same boat as me, which is "When does life begin."
I do not know the answer. No one does.
Dante- You still did not answer the question.
I did. I'll give you another for instance.
The pill apparently reduces death rates even in industrialized nations. If women used the pill instead of becoming pregnant, the .99 * 240 out of 100000 lives would be saved, and additionally more lives would be saved since those taking the pill tend to die less frequently than the general population.
The pill has anti-attach compounds in it. That means it aborts fertilized eggs.
What more do you need?
I do have strong views on this and I also believe strongly in personal freedom. Sadly, I was misled for many years that the "pro-choice" crowd is on the side of personal freedom. I care so strongly about this issue because in the future when I send my children to school, the consensus driven "scientific" community (think John Holdren) will force me to teach their radical viewpoint of abortion to my children. If another women chooses to kill her child, that is her right under the law. You won't see me outside an abortion clinic trying to stop her, but I don't have to give her a pat on the back, believe what she did is ok, and teach that viewpoint to my children.
Dante- Are you okay with me teaching my personal beliefs to my own children, or does your belief in personal freedom stop short of that? If you read John Holdren's book "Ecoscience", you will find out that his belief in personal freedom stops much short of that and so does the Planned Parenthood community. They are not freedom warriors.
Janet Napolitano's belief in personal freedom stops short of that.
Kathleen Sebelius' belief in personal freedom stops short of that.
Cecile Richard's belief in personal freedom stops short of that.
John Holdren's belief in personal freedom stops tyrannically short of that (forced abortions).
All I am seeking is the freedom to parent my own children according to my personal beliefs. That is too much to ask for under the tyranny of the "women's health" machine. Through newspeak and distortion, they represent themselves as David up against Goliath, when in fact it is parents like myself who are up against the tyrannical Goliath who has the strongarm and power to shove whatever they want down my children's throat.
Dante- Are you okay with me teaching my personal beliefs to my own children,
I am. I'm opposed to sex education without parental consent, children being able to get abortions without telling their parents, free condoms, etc.
These are up to the parents. I also believe that when two people get married and have kids, they should stay married and provide for their kids.
@Rustling Leaves: Dante is not a liberal despite his pro-choice meanderings. He does seem reluctant to go beyond the zygote stage in defining his position on abortion despite my invitation at 12:54 for him to declare himself.
Dante is not a liberal despite his pro-choice meanderings.
that's right. I missed your invitation. Ans: I do not know exactly when. Sometime after the brain develops.
Post a Comment