Quote :

"^ I really don't think you get how many terminations occur due to medical reasons. I wish people would stop acting like it's some rare thing, because it isn't. People just don't like to talk about that stuff. "

I understand this point. I hope that they always keep the option open to terminate due to medical reason because it can have potential dangerous consequences for the family.

10/20/2011 10:32:49 AM

Quote :

"So even if you're not pro-life, there's a lot of ground to reconcile and room for discussion."

I don't even know whether I should claim to be pro-life or pro-abortion. Strictly speaking, I'm the latter, and thats kinda how i self-identify,but under circumstances so limited that I'm arguably closer to the former (in terms of personal opinion). As far as what to legislate, I accept, like you say, a range of ground concerning where to draw the human being line.

As far as other considerations having any imPortance, I see much less room for reconciliation.

10/20/2011 1:51:32 PM

Quote :

"I wish people would stop acting like it's some rare thing, because it isn't."

actually it is. something like 5%, and even that's being generous, given how easily something can be labeled a "medical threat".

Quote :

"A serial killer for instance, is definitely a person, but do they have the same right to exist (or right to freedom, if you're against killing serial killers) as every other person?"

forgive me if I refused to compare an unborn child with a serial killer. but, really, how DARE that unborn child have the nerve to be conceived. what the fuck was he thinking? fuck him all to hell!

Quote :

"The fetus does not yet have independent rights for that reason"

Translation: this life is an inconvenience. fuck it. now, just hope that disco_stu never labels YOU an inconvenience.

Quote :

"I see no reason to force women to go through a particular medical procedure if alternatives are available and they so choose."

because having a mole removed and murdering the unborn are completely and totally the same thing. forgive me if I don't see it that way.

Quote :

"Because you cannot reasonably say "this is another fully functional human with all the rights we would afford to anyone" because those rights are contingent on infringing the medical rights of another human being: the mother. The fetus does not yet have independent rights for that reason. Not all "persons" have equal rights."

and this is a great argument for health of the mother situation or rape. it's a TERRIBLE argument for the mother being inconvenienced. The mother's right not to be inconvenienced ends when she has sex, just as it does for the father.

[Edited on October 24, 2011 at 10:48 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2011 10:27:52 PM

Still arbitrarily calling abortion murder and drawing conclusions from that. Prove that it's murder and we'll talk.

10/25/2011 9:05:59 AM

Quote :

"and this is a great argument for health of the mother situation or rape. it's a TERRIBLE argument for the mother being inconvenienced. The mother's right not to be inconvenienced ends when she has sex, just as it does for the father. "

Further, explain to me why it's not murder when the mother is raped? What does the nature of the insemination matter to the personhood of the embryo/fetus? Or is this just a tacit admission that the personhood of the embryo/fetus doesn't really matter?

Or is it still murder, but it's ok?

10/26/2011 8:44:31 AM

I haven't read through all of this. Are those who are against abortion against abortion of fetuses detected to have Downs/aaronburro Syndrome or any other abnormalities?

10/26/2011 8:55:15 AM

Well most people's positions are more nuanced than "100% against all abortions".

10/26/2011 9:26:58 AM

From WRAL:

Quote :

"Ultrasound viewing part of NC abortion law blocked GREENSBORO, N.C. — A federal judge blocked part of North Carolina's new abortion law Tuesday, ruling providers do not have to place an ultrasound image next to a pregnant woman so she can view it, nor do they have to describe its features and offer her the chance to listen to the heartbeat. The law was set to take effect Wednesday, but U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles' decision puts a key section of it on hold until she can hear more arguments. North Carolina legislators and officials have argued that by offering the image to a woman seeking an abortion and other information they would promote childbirth and protect patients from emotional distress associated with the procedure and possible coercion. The judge said she received no evidence supporting those arguments. North Carolina officials "have not articulated how the speech-and-display requirements address the stated concern in reducing compelled abortions, and none is immediately apparent," the judge wrote in a preliminary injunction. Eagles said other sections of the law, including a 24-hour waiting period, can be enforced. Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups filed suit last month over the law, claiming that it infringed on the rights of both women and physicians. “We are extremely pleased that the court has blocked this clear attack on the fundamental rights of health care providers providing abortions in North Carolina,” Bebe Anderson, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, another plaintiff in the suit, said in a statement. “The part of the law that the court blocked not only forces doctors to go against their medical judgment to deliver an ideological message to their patients, but also forces women to lie down and just take it," Anderson said. "It’s hard to imagine a more extreme example of government intrusion into the private matters of individual citizens.” Katy Parker, legal director for the ACLU, said the law was too vague about whether women could avert their eyes or refuse to hear and did not provide exceptions for victims of rape and incest. "(The law) would have required the doctor to put the ultrasound in the woman's face and give information well beyond informed consent, regardless of whether the patient wanted to hear the information," Parker said. "The doctor had to keep talking even if it was clear that it was causing serious psychological consequences to the patient." House Majority Leader Paul Stam, one of the leading proponents of the abortion restrictions, called Eagles' ruling a partial victory since the judge allowed most of the law to proceed. "It is unfortunate that the abortion industry, embodied by the plaintiffs in this case, is so opposed to a woman meeting her child before deciding to terminate her pregnancy,” Stam, R-Wake, said in a statement. Jackie Bonk, director of the Catholic Diocese's pro-life office, said that many women who get abortions have to deal with feelings of regret and remorse following the decision. "The ultrasound does provide scientific information and it provides more information to know about the life that is within her," she said. "My concern is for the woman – going through the decision and having information." She said women who have abortions often feel like they have no other choice and that they shouldn't be judged or condemned, but should be prepared for the decision they're making. "So many times we've heard, 'I didn't know. I thought it was cells. I didn't know how developed it was.' No one wants to have an abortion. No woman ever does. It's a difficult situation to be in. It's a crisis," Bonk said. "Women deserve information to make an informed decision." Noelle Talley, a spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office, said late Tuesday its attorneys were reviewing the ruling. State medical rules already required abortion providers to perform ultrasounds before an abortion to determine the gestational age of the fetus. The abortion bill became law in July when the Legislature overturned a veto by Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue, who said the bill was extreme and encroached upon the doctor-patient relationship. The judge planned another hearing in December."

I respect the fact that people have different opinions on this issue, and I'm going to patently disagree with some things people say. However, statements like, "No one wants to have an abortion. No woman ever does," make the speaker seem so out of touch with reality, it influences the value of their opinion on the matter as a whole.

10/26/2011 1:43:02 PM

David Frum has been nailing it this past week. I find it funny how Herman Cain got called out by Perry of all people over his recent pro-choice statements.

Quote :

"Over the previous week, Herman Cain had alarmed anti-abortion voters with a series of verbal miscues, indicating both that abortion must be stopped but also that the decision should be left to the individual woman, with no role for government."

After Perry

Quote :

"At the Faith and Freedom forum, Cain over-corrected for his week of stumbles: "No abortions. No exceptions." That new position goes far beyond the usual pro-life policy, which allows exceptions for rape, child abuse, and to save the life of the mother."

What if abortion became a non-issue?
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/24/opinion/frum-abortion-issue/?hpt=us_mid

10/26/2011 1:59:31 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/personhood-amendments-would-ban-nearly-all-abortions.html

Quote :

"A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder. With this far-reaching anti-abortion strategy, the proponents of what they call personhood amendments hope to reshape the national debate. “I view it as transformative,” said Brad Prewitt, a lawyer and executive director of the Yes on 26 campaign, which is named for the Mississippi proposition. “Personhood is bigger than just shutting abortion clinics; it’s an opportunity for people to say that we’re made in the image of God.” Many doctors and women’s health advocates say the proposals would cause a dangerous intrusion of criminal law into medical care, jeopardizing women’s rights and even their lives. The amendment in Mississippi would ban virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. It would bar some birth control methods, including IUDs and “morning-after pills” that prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. It would also outlaw the destruction of embryos created in laboratories. [...] The drive for personhood amendments has split the anti-abortion forces nationally. Some groups call it an inspired moral leap, while traditional leaders of the fight, including National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic bishops, have refused to promote it, charging that the tactic is reckless and could backfire, leading to a Supreme Court defeat that would undermine progress in carving away at Roe v. Wade. The approach, granting legal rights to embryos, is fundamentally different from the abortion restrictions that have been adopted in dozens of states. These try to narrow or hamper access to abortions by, for example, sharply restricting the procedures at as early as 20 weeks, requiring women to view ultrasounds of the fetus, curbing insurance coverage and imposing expensive regulations on clinics. The Mississippi amendment aims to sidestep existing legal battles, simply stating that “the term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”"

10/26/2011 3:10:47 PM

Quote :

"Still arbitrarily calling abortion murder and drawing conclusions from that. Prove that it's murder and we'll talk."

tell ya what. replace the word "murder" with "inhumane and immoral slaughter". it doesn't change a damned thing as to the meaning of the sentence, but maybe it will get your panties out of a wad.

Quote :

"Further, explain to me why it's not murder when the mother is raped?"

explain to me why it's not murder when you shoot a man who is trying to kill you. right, because the situations are a bit different, even though the outcome is the same. but, congratulations on taking words meant for the common and normal case and then trying to say they apply to all cases.

10/26/2011 7:08:01 PM

i think there could be an argument against abortion even in the case of rape, but that isn't it.

10/26/2011 7:13:53 PM

guys against abortion just hate to admit that their sperm is shitty and no one wants it fertilizing an egg.

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 7:17 PM. Reason : ...]

10/26/2011 7:17:14 PM

^^ inorite? I'm ok w/ abortion in the case of rape, but only because my opposition to the general case stems from the idea that a couple (in my mind) accepts the possibility, and thus responsibility, of having a child at the moment they have sex. Their "choice", if you will, about having a child is made when they willingly have sex. Rape clearly doesn't fall into that spectrum, as both people didn't agree to the sex, thus one can't really say that the woman (assuming her to be the victim) "chose" to accept the possibility of a child.

10/26/2011 7:23:55 PM

Quote :

"guys against abortion just hate to admit that their sperm is shitty and no one wants it fertilizing an egg."

hahahahaha. perfect. this 100%

10/26/2011 8:04:33 PM

I like Herman Cain's argument.

Let's get government out of this!

10/26/2011 8:05:53 PM

Quote :

"^^ inorite? I'm ok w/ abortion in the case of rape, but only because my opposition to the general case stems from the idea that a couple (in my mind) accepts the possibility, and thus responsibility, of having a child at the moment they have sex. Their "choice", if you will, about having a child is made when they willingly have sex. Rape clearly doesn't fall into that spectrum, as both people didn't agree to the sex, thus one can't really say that the woman (assuming her to be the victim) "chose" to accept the possibility of a child."

So is it cool if a rape victim decides to abort the day before her due date? I'm just trying to figure out what you use as a metric to determine whether an action is right or wrong? Is it just the willingness of the people to copulate?

10/27/2011 4:25:08 PM

so is it cool if you continue to pose absurd questions and ignore what I'm actually saying?

As to your absurd question, I'd say no. You've now gone beyond the point of rationality. How bout you? It's rape, shouldn't she be able to abort whenever the fuck she wants, since it's her body?

10/27/2011 7:53:30 PM

http://tinyurl.com/449j54z

Two abortion clinic employees plead guilty to murder - REUTERS

Quote :

"Story contains graphic descriptions in paragraphs five through eight. By Dave Warner (Reuters) - Two employees of a Philadelphia abortion clinic where live, viable babies were allegedly killed and a patient died after being given on overdose of painkillers pleaded guilty on Thursday to murder. Guilty pleas to third-degree murder were entered by Adrienne Moton, 34, and Sherry West, 52, who both worked for Dr. Kermit Gosnell at what prosecutors have described as a decrepit and unsanitary clinic known as Women's Medical Society in West Philadelphia. Due to a court-issued gag order, attorneys declined to comment on reports that no plea agreement was reached in the case. Sentencing was set for December 2 by Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner. The maximum penalty for third-degree murder is 40 years in prison. Seven more defendants face charges in the case, including Gosnell, who a grand jury in January said, "killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy -- and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors." The grand jury said that a clinic co-worker of Moton's testified that a woman gave birth to a large baby at the clinic, delivering the child into a toilet. The jurors identified the newborn as "Baby D." The jurors said the co-worker told them that the baby was moving and looked like it was swimming. "Moton reached into the toilet, got the baby out and cut its neck," the grand jury said in its report. West was accused of murder in the death of a 41-year-old patient, Karnamaya Mongar. "The evidence presented to the grand jury established that Karnamaya Mongar died of cardiac arrest because she was overdosed with Demerol," the grand jurors said. The grand jury said West and another employee administered the drug at Gosnell's direction and that Mongar died as a result of "wanton reckless conduct.""

If President Obama would have had his way, they wouldn't have been charged with anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUkbuhXzbvI

(audio from the Illinois State Senate regarding S.B. 1663)

10/27/2011 10:58:18 PM

Quote :

". How bout you? "

His position, though ethically deplorable, is consistent. Don't think I can say the same for yours, which I lack respect for intellectually.

10/28/2011 12:39:55 AM

Quote :

""No one wants to have an abortion. No woman ever does," make the speaker seem so out of touch with reality, it influences the value of their opinion on the matter as a whole. "

What do you mean?

I literally don't know a single person who says "i'll probably just get an abortion one day..."

I don't know any guy who wants to be put in the position of having to pay for an abortion either.

10/28/2011 12:44:09 AM

Quote :

"actually it is. something like 5%, and even that's being generous, given how easily something can be labeled a "medical threat"."

I wasn't saying medical reasons for just the mother, I'm talking about fetal anomalies and conditions as well. So no, it is MUCH more than 5%. 15% of the population is born with a birth defect for Christ's sake... Sometimes it doesn't hurt anything, other times it can hinder quality of life, and even other times it will lead to suffering and death. Stop acting like these things just "never happen," because babies are born with significant defects all the time.




ANYWAY, I am going to a talk tomorrow night from the director of the Boulder Abortion Clinic. It is one of the only places in the country to receive a third trimester abortion. And for the record, he only does it where it is documented there is a fetal anomaly, medical condition that will cause death and/or suffering (in either baby or mother), or a condition that would severely impact their quality of life. I'm pretty excited... it will be very interesting. We have to get wanded down beforehand though, and the security around their booth and the presentation is intense.

10/28/2011 1:20:50 AM

Aaronburro, my favorite thing about talking with you is any time I point out an inconsistency in your claims it's "STRAWMAN STRAWMAN" or "IRRELEVANT IRRELEVANT." You're like a child.

You're welcome to consider my stance ethically deplorable, Duke. I find it ethically deplorable to deny actual people bodily rights on shaky moral grounds. My ethically deplorable stance comes with the added benefit of not bringing unneeded suffering into this world.

[Edited on October 28, 2011 at 8:45 AM. Reason : .]

10/28/2011 8:45:21 AM

Samwise16,

You posting from NSGC ?

10/28/2011 4:25:31 PM

^ Yeah! Were you there?

That talk was really interesting, by the way. I feel for that man. He even made a point to say even he has his limits and if he thinks it isnt something that is necessary and someone is just being irresponsible, he will turn them away. But he has done terminations on 12 year olds before very sad stuff (meaning the molestation). The process was interesting, too... He created a lot of techniques and his ultimate goal is for the patient's safety. I didn't realize how hard it could physically be on the mother to have the termination. The question and answer period got a little heated though, mainly because he started ranting when he mentioned Dr. Tiller..

Regardless of whether or not someone thinks that is right or wrong, it blows my mind how many pro-life people send him death threats. Contradictory like whoa.


Ps, the food was AMAZING.

10/31/2011 12:25:45 AM

Samwise,

No, but my wife was. She was giving a thank you Saturday afternoon and the moderator mentioned NC State.

Check your inbox.

11/2/2011 5:05:16 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html#

Ridiculous one of the commenters makes an excellent point about IUDs...

11/4/2011 11:08:46 PM

^ Don't forget miscarriages and in-vitro fertilization.

11/5/2011 3:13:39 PM

Quote :

"Aaronburro, my favorite thing about talking with you is any time I point out an inconsistency in your claims it's "STRAWMAN STRAWMAN" or "IRRELEVANT IRRELEVANT." You're like a child."

source? exactly. i claim those things because they usually are irrelevant. no need to waste time on diversions.

11/5/2011 6:02:34 PM

^2 oh I know... And I'm wondering how it'll affect women having a D&C for a molar pregnancy

11/5/2011 7:24:14 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/08/mississippi-defeats-life-at-conception-ballot-initiative/

Mississippi's plebiscite has moved that state up in my esteem.

11/9/2011 1:11:18 AM

Wasn't this entire debate settled in 1973?

11/9/2011 1:17:26 AM

1973 was unconstitutional.

11/9/2011 1:27:03 AM

^^For rational people that don't think that scientists are working for the Devil, yes. For others, apparently not.

11/9/2011 8:58:19 AM

Hey Mississippi...

11/9/2011 8:58:32 AM

I'm glad it was defeated, but it is still kind of sad that it was what.. 55 to 45?

11/9/2011 10:58:29 AM

^^yes!

11/9/2011 11:04:51 AM

I would like to preface this post with I have no dog in this fight and do not feel strongly either way. I did hear an interesting statement the other day regarding Christians opposing abortion.

If you are a Christian and you believe that the fetus is a person that is being killed then do you believe that soul goes to heaven or hell? If you believe that it goes to heaven then why would you oppose abortion? While I certainly enjoy living I don't think anything in this life could even come close to comparing to heaven.

Just thought it was an interesting point (sorry if it was brought up before, didn't feel like catching up on the thread ), as I said I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, just thought I would throw some more gas on the fire.

11/15/2011 4:53:04 PM

Fetuses aren't baptized.

11/15/2011 5:19:00 PM

I know many believe all children go to Heaven, but I think this once again goes back to where you draw the line


No offense to anyone, and I myself am a Christian, but I don't put a 20 week old fetus in the same category as a 1 year old infant

11/15/2011 6:36:31 PM

you need to meet some crazy southern baptists

11/15/2011 7:13:57 PM

Quote :

"Fetuses aren't baptized."

So then you believe that God would damn fetus babies to hell?

(Assuming of course that a fetus is indeed a soul)

11/15/2011 8:10:45 PM

Quote :

", but I don't put a 20 week old fetus in the same category as a 1 year old infant"

I don't know, it's getting pretty damned close.

11/15/2011 8:51:32 PM

Quote :

"(Assuming of course that a fetus is indeed a soul)"

LOL Why assume there is a soul in the first place? Then you don't have to rationalize things which you can't even prove anyway.

11/16/2011 9:46:11 AM

Quote :

"So then you believe that God would damn fetus babies to hell?"

No, I do not.

I'm just repeating what I've heard.

11/16/2011 11:52:44 AM

Quote :

"If you are a Christian and you believe that the fetus is a person that is being killed then do you believe that soul goes to heaven or hell? If you believe that it goes to heaven then why would you oppose abortion? While I certainly enjoy living I don't think anything in this life could even come close to comparing to heaven."

This is the reason Catholics invented Purgatory, btw. None of it makes a lick of sense, but it does explain a conflict between doctrine and what people generally feel is right. The same reason you have tons of people who believe in God but not Hell.

11/16/2011 12:29:38 PM

Quote :

"LOL Why assume there is a soul in the first place? Then you don't have to rationalize things which you can't even prove anyway."

Because if you don't believe there is a soul then how could you equate abortion to murder? If no soul is present it kind of takes that argument out of the picture. Assuming you come from a religious background of course since that is the base of what I posed in my first post.

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 1:09 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2011 1:01:33 PM

Quote :

"you need to meet some crazy southern baptists "

LOL, talk about a group of haters. They take the cake in that contest.

11/16/2011 1:47:03 PM

Quote :

"Because if you don't believe there is a soul then how could you equate abortion to murder? If no soul is present it kind of takes that argument out of the picture. Assuming you come from a religious background of course since that is the base of what I posed in my first post."

Because positing a soul only serves to confuse the issue further. None of our laws regarding murder say anything about the victim needing to have had a soul for it to be called murder. Hell, you could murder me without recourse if that were the case.

By adding a soul to the equation, you're adding a variable that wasn't there before. Not only that, but this variable is wholly undetectable. It's pointless, which was my point.

11/16/2011 2:36:57 PM

A woman should have the right to choose and if she chooses to abort, there should be a safe, sanitary place wherein she can have the abortion. The only issue is religious people imposing the will of their imaginary friend onto other people.

Should abortion be encouraged, of course not, but legal or illegal people are going to get them.

If we want to look at killing a fetus as murder, then "god" has some culpability. There are pregnancies terminated via miscarriage both before and after pregnancy is realized. God, then is the most prolific abortionist of all.

^that is a silly argument, I know this, but religion makes any argument silly in that it is based in fantasy instead of reason.

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 3:11 PM. Reason : god]

11/16/2011 3:06:34 PM