Abortion opponents are really fanatics.

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061129/ap_on_go_co/republicans_abortion

Republicans want vote on abortion bill

While they still can, House Republicans are looking at scheduling a vote next week on a fetal pain abortion bill in a parting shot at incoming majority Democrats and a last bid for loyalty from the GOP's base of social conservatives.

The measure is tentatively on House GOP leaders' list of bills to be considered in a lame-duck session before Democrats assume control of Congress. It has no chance of passing the Senate during the waning days of Republican control. But, with Democrats ascending to agenda-setting roles, passage isn't the point, said one conservative leader.

"Next year, the leadership of the House will be hardcore pro-abortion loyalists," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "They will block votes on even modest pro-life measures like this one."

The bill, by Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., defines a 20-week-old fetus as a "pain-capable unborn child" ? a highly controversial threshold among scientists. It also directs the Health and Human Service Department to develop a brochure stating "that there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain
Abortion providers would be required to inform the mothers that evidence exists that the procedure would cause pain to the child and offer the mothers anesthesia for the baby. The mothers would accept or reject the anesthesia by signing a form.


Now I have no problem with people who are opposed to aborton on religious or moral grounds.
But to legislate that at 20 months old a fetus feels pain and this phrase directs the Health and Human Service Department to develop a brochure stating that there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain"

So to abortion opponents a "modest" measure includes telling a woman she is killing her child.
Every year that goes by increases the number of people who are pro abortion rights and against a ban on abortion. I think "modest" proposals like this may actually consign the Republican party to a minority for many years.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Quite frankly, the bill itself is ridiculous. If you woke up tomorrow and someone had attached themselves to your body on a life support mechanism, you'd have a right to unplug yourself from that person, regardless of whether or not he or she would feel pain.

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: Garth
Quite frankly, the bill itself is ridiculous. If you woke up tomorrow and someone had attached themselves to your body on a life support mechanism, you'd have a right to unplug yourself from that person, regardless of whether or not he or she would feel pain.

But if you took steps to cause that person to be attached to you in the morning then that's a different story.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there should be an abortion ban. I just think that common argument is bonk.

 

[Genx87]

Is there evidence it does cause pain? I dont honestly know but if there is, does that change your opinion? And does it make them fanatical because they dont want an unborn human to feel pain?

 

[Aisengard]

It makes them fanatical because there is no scientific evidence to support the fact, yet they call it 'moderate' to put their unsubstantiated BS on brochures stating it as scientific fact.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: child of wonder

Originally posted by: Garth
Quite frankly, the bill itself is ridiculous. If you woke up tomorrow and someone had attached themselves to your body on a life support mechanism, you'd have a right to unplug yourself from that person, regardless of whether or not he or she would feel pain.

But if you took steps to cause that person to be attached to you in the morning then that's a different story.

But then you're not describing something analogous to pregnancy.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there should be an abortion ban. I just think that common argument is bonk.

You haven't thought it all the way through, then.

 

[Genx87]

But then you're not describing something analogous to pregnancy.

Eh? Lots of immaculate conceptions going on in the "real" world?

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: Garth
But then you're not describing something analogous to pregnancy.

Yes, I am. What you're describing is an individual (A) attaching itself to another individual (B) for nourishment without individual B's permission. Therefore, since individual A has infringed on individual B's rights, individual A can be removed even though it would cause them pain/death.

However, in the case of pregnancy through consensual sex, the woman who becomes pregnant has taken steps that she knows could end in a person "attaching" themselves to her for nourishment. Through her acts she finds herself with a person growing inside her. That changes the issue entirely.

Originally posted by: Garth
You haven't thought it all the way through, then.

Trust me, I've thought it through.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Genx87

But then you're not describing something analogous to pregnancy.

Eh? Lots of immaculate conceptions going on in the "real" world?

Sex does not cause pregnancy. Implantation of the zygote on the uterine wall does, and that event is not something that a woman can "cause," either. Rather, it's up to the zygote. It succeeds sometimes, and sometimes it does not. Last I checked, it fails much more frequently than it succeeds.

The point is that any consent to the violations to bodily integrity like those that result from pregnancy must be explicit. Without explicit consent, a person has the right stop the violation with whatever force is necessary, regardless of whether or not it causes pain to the violator.

 

[imported_Infidel]

To be clear, this has no chance of passing. This sham is just a feeding frenzy for the crazy base, with the "do-nothing" GOP majority doing what it does best ... wasting time and taxpayer money on pandering to the religious nuts, whom they assume ? rightly or wrongly ? can?t tell the difference between a failed bill and new law of the land.

From KOS

Regardless of the content of the bill, there's a bigger message here.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: child of wonder

Originally posted by: Garth
But then you're not describing something analogous to pregnancy.

Yes, I am. What you're describing is an individual (A) attaching itself to another individual (B) for nourishment without individual B's permission. Therefore, since individual A has infringed on individual B's rights, individual A can be removed even though it would cause them pain/death.

However, in the case of pregnancy through consensual sex, the woman who becomes pregnant has taken steps that she knows could end in a person "attaching" themselves to her for nourishment. Through her acts she finds herself with a person growing inside her. That changes the issue entirely.

Nonsense. Inviting a person into your home does not forfeit all recourse when that person starts stealing your things or attacking your person, yet that precisely is what you're suggesting.

You might as well argue that victims of traffic accidents have forfeited their rights once they have "taken steps that they know could end in a car wreck" when they get behind the wheel.

Originally posted by: Garth
You haven't thought it all the way through, then.

Trust me, I've thought it through.

Nothing you've said would indicate it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Genx87

But then you're not describing something analogous to pregnancy.

Eh? Lots of immaculate conceptions going on in the "real" world?

Sex does not cause pregnancy. Implantation of the zygote on the uterine wall does, and that event is not something that a woman can "cause," either. Rather, it's up to the zygote. It succeeds sometimes, and sometimes it does not. Last I checked, it fails much more frequently than it succeeds.

The point is that any consent to the violations to bodily integrity like those that result from pregnancy must be explicit. Without explicit consent, a person has the right stop the violation with whatever force is necessary, regardless of whether or not it causes pain to the violator.

Well you sure know how to play the semantics game. I guess lots of sperm floating around in the air causing women to have zygotes attach to their uterine wall. I think there should be a study on this and laws passed to protect these poor women.

I think it is safe to say the majority of pregnancies regardless of semantics start and end with a sexual act, most of them consensual.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: techs
So to abortion opponents a "modest" measure includes telling a woman she is killing her child.

Which is exactly what she's doing. What is so terrible about that? Don't want the truth to slip out, or are you arguing that it's not alive?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Genx87

But then you're not describing something analogous to pregnancy.

Eh? Lots of immaculate conceptions going on in the "real" world?

Sex does not cause pregnancy. Implantation of the zygote on the uterine wall does, and that event is not something that a woman can "cause," either. Rather, it's up to the zygote. It succeeds sometimes, and sometimes it does not. Last I checked, it fails much more frequently than it succeeds.

The point is that any consent to the violations to bodily integrity like those that result from pregnancy must be explicit. Without explicit consent, a person has the right stop the violation with whatever force is necessary, regardless of whether or not it causes pain to the violator.

You're insane.

Artificial insemination aside, how do you get pregnant without having sex?

And as to your second bolded comment... wow... just, wow... Pregnancy is a non-consentual violation to the mother's body? The baby is a "violator"? That has to be one of the coldest, most calloused views of human life I have ever heard.

There are certainly nuts and fanatics on the pro-life side but you sir are a perfect example of an irrational fanatic on the other side of the issue. Reading your description of pregnancy, one gets the image of a demon spawn clawing its way into the womb specifically to sap the life force from the mother. Like it's some kind of parasite or something... You need to rethink your position a bit.

 

[Todd33]

Many people don't care if a death row inmate feels pain during the death, why do we care is a fetus does? The end result is death, not much pain in that. Strange.

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: Garth

Nonsense. Inviting a person into your home does not forfeit all recourse when that person starts stealing your things or attacking your person, yet that precisely is what you're suggesting.

You might as well argue that victims of traffic accidents have forfeited their rights once they have "taken steps that they know could end in a car wreck" when they get behind the wheel.

Your reading comprehension needs a little work.

Originally posted by: Child of Wonder
However, in the case of pregnancy through consensual sex, the woman who becomes pregnant has taken steps that she knows could end in a person "attaching" themselves to her for nourishment. Through her acts she finds herself with a person growing inside her. That changes the issue entirely.

As I said, if the woman knowingly engages in activity that would cause pregnancy, it is no longer analogous to your "life support" example nor does simply inviting someone into one's home only to have them steal compare to it. The woman is undergoing voluntary actions that will cause her own body to produce a pregnancy.

There are lots of refutations of Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" that you're referring to with your original post. Read up on them if you haven't already.

http://www.l4l.org/library/thomviol.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#Criticism
http://home.earthlink.net/~bkwormtoo/id35.html
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689

Originally posted by: Garth
Nothing you've said would indicate it.

Well sparky, you just go on saying that if you wish. Repetition doesn't make it so.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Many people don't care if a death row inmate feels pain during the death, why do we care is a fetus does? The end result is death, not much pain in that. Strange.

This is the dumbest attempted parallel of the entire abortion debate. One is innocent and powerless... one is not. One is defended vigorously defended by lawyers... one is not even capable of retaining a lawyer. One has done nothing wrong and the other was convicted in a court of law. One is in his circumstance for reasons that are 100% out of his control... the other is there becasue of a deliberate action he caused.

Please explain how an unborn baby is even REMOTELY similar to a convicted, death row inmate.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Genx87

But then you're not describing something analogous to pregnancy.

Eh? Lots of immaculate conceptions going on in the "real" world?

Sex does not cause pregnancy. Implantation of the zygote on the uterine wall does, and that event is not something that a woman can "cause," either. Rather, it's up to the zygote. It succeeds sometimes, and sometimes it does not. Last I checked, it fails much more frequently than it succeeds.

The point is that any consent to the violations to bodily integrity like those that result from pregnancy must be explicit. Without explicit consent, a person has the right stop the violation with whatever force is necessary, regardless of whether or not it causes pain to the violator.

You're insane.

And to think, the sub-title on the forum heading says in big letters that personal flames will not be tolerated.

Artificial insemination aside, how do you get pregnant without having sex?

That isn't the question. A person cannot get hit by a bus if he never leaves his home, but it would be ridiculous to say that it was leaving his house that caused such an unfortunate victim to be struck.

And as to your second bolded comment... wow... just, wow... Pregnancy is a non-consentual violation to the mother's body?

Sometimes. It depends on the will of the woman.

The baby is a "violator"? That has to be one of the coldest, most calloused views of human life I have ever heard.

You don't have to like the facts, but that doesn't stop them from being the facts.

{snip}

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Genx87

But then you're not describing something analogous to pregnancy.

Eh? Lots of immaculate conceptions going on in the "real" world?

Sex does not cause pregnancy. Implantation of the zygote on the uterine wall does, and that event is not something that a woman can "cause," either. Rather, it's up to the zygote. It succeeds sometimes, and sometimes it does not. Last I checked, it fails much more frequently than it succeeds.

The point is that any consent to the violations to bodily integrity like those that result from pregnancy must be explicit. Without explicit consent, a person has the right stop the violation with whatever force is necessary, regardless of whether or not it causes pain to the violator.

You're insane.

And to think, the sub-title on the forum heading says in big letters that personal flames will not be tolerated.

Artificial insemination aside, how do you get pregnant without having sex?

That isn't the question. A person cannot get hit by a bus if he never leaves his home, but it would be ridiculous to say that it was leaving his house that caused such an unfortunate victim to be struck.

And as to your second bolded comment... wow... just, wow... Pregnancy is a non-consentual violation to the mother's body?

Sometimes. It depends on the will of the woman.

The baby is a "violator"? That has to be one of the coldest, most calloused views of human life I have ever heard.

You don't have to like the facts, but that doesn't stop them from being the facts.

{snip}

I noticed you left this out of your cherry picking:

There are certainly nuts and fanatics on the pro-life side but you sir are a perfect example of an irrational fanatic on the other side of the issue.

I suppose you feel that your views are the mainstream... :laugh:

 

[JD50]

I find it funny that this topic is talking about pro life fanatics, but the thread has brought out all the loonies on the other side of the aisle. Garth you have major issues.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: child of wonder

As I said, if the woman knowingly engages in activity that would cause pregnancy, it is no longer analogous to your "life support" example nor does simply inviting someone into one's home only to have them steal compare to it.

Well sparky, you just go on saying that if you wish. Repetition doesn't make it so.

The fact is that my analogy illustrates the crux of the issue: the parasitic relationship between the fetus and the mother is a violation of the mother's rights when she does not consent to it. Any waiver of those rights must be explicit. All of your hooting and hollering about prior conditions is nothing more than a smoke screen obscuring the real issue. Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to pregnancy.

The woman is undergoing voluntary actions that will cause her own body to produce a pregnancy.

Please see my refutation of this nonsense elsewhere in the thread.

There are lots of refutations of Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" that you're referring to with your original post. Read up on them if you haven't already.

http://www.l4l.org/library/thomviol.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#Criticism
http://home.earthlink.net/~bkwormtoo/id35.html
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689

I'm not arguing with links, I'm arguing with you. If you think there are convincing rebuttals to the arguments I've posted, then bring them here yourself.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: JD50
I find it funny that this topic is talking about pro life fanatics, but the thread has brought out all the loonies on the other side of the aisle. Garth you have major issues.

If you feel that something I have posted is false, you are invited to demonstrate such.

Lacking that, you have nothing more than knee-jerk emotionalism and ad hominem.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: JD50
I find it funny that this topic is talking about pro life fanatics, but the thread has brought out all the loonies on the other side of the aisle. Garth you have major issues.

If you feel that something I have posted is false, you are invited to demonstrate such.

Lacking that, you have nothing more than knee-jerk emotionalism and ad hominem.

"Sex does not cause pregnancy"

Yea, thats false.

I'll use your logic here for a minute, and I use the word logic loosely here.

If I stab someone one hundred times in the chest and they die, I should be innocent because I did not murder them nor did I cause them to die. The heart stopped working and thats why they died.

Sounds a little wacky doesn't it?

I'll stand by what I said, you need help. Thats not attacking you by the way, thats just giving some advice.

 

[Genx87]

Any waiver of those rights must be explicit.

Those rights are waived when she engages in a sexual act.
Anybody seriously trying to argue that is in left field.

Under your theory there is no right to child support. Just because the man had consenual sex doesnt mean he consented to the zygote implanting itself within the womens uterine. Think about your argument and try to apply it in the real world. You may realize how insane it sounds. If you tried to apply this in a court of law, I have a feeling you would be laughed so fast out of court it would make your head spin.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: JD50
I find it funny that this topic is talking about pro life fanatics, but the thread has brought out all the loonies on the other side of the aisle. Garth you have major issues.

If you feel that something I have posted is false, you are invited to demonstrate such.

Lacking that, you have nothing more than knee-jerk emotionalism and ad hominem.

Saying that sex doesn't cause pregnancy... Equating a baby to a parasite... Calling a baby a non-consentual violation of the mother... That pretty much makes you every bit as looney as the radical pro-lifers out there.