Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

Compared to some here, I'm amateur hour when it comes to goalpost moving.

Child killing either inside or outside of the womb is equally horrific in my view.

Inconvenient pregnancies are unfortunate, but intentionally killing the baby is never, I say never, justified.

And there we have it, the crux of this entire fiasco of a conversation. You have a personal view and everyone who doesn't agree is an infanticidle monster.

Oh, and a pregnancy that is a direct threat to the life of the mother is pretty inconvenient....

The Randy Riverbeast

robdonn wrote: »

And there we have it, the crux of this entire fiasco of a conversation. You have a personal view and everyone who doesn't agree is an infanticidle monster.

Oh, and a pregnancy that is a direct threat to the life of the mother is pretty inconvenient....

Please dont cause the intent thing to come up again. To summarise: if its ok to him then you dont intend to kill anything, otherwise you intend to kill.

Black Menorca

Overheal wrote: »

So why bother dragging up infanticide if for you death of either kind is one in the same? Just to enflame an argument for your own amusement?

I infer from your evasion of the question at the end of my post that you have no experience in this subject personally, which affirms why you have such a black and white bias.

Because I'm interested in the philosophical gymnastics abortion apologists engage in to try and justify one form of killing, and not the other.

Black Menorca

robdonn wrote: »

And there we have it, the crux of this entire fiasco of a conversation. You have a personal view and everyone who doesn't agree is an infanticidle monster.

Oh, and a pregnancy that is a direct threat to the life of the mother is pretty inconvenient....

We all bring our views and prejudices to this, yes, even you.

Its part of the human condition.

Instead of knocking it, embrace it.

We're different. We disagree.

Why so negative on a fundamental and positive human trait we all display?

robdonn

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Please dont cause the intent thing to come up again. To summarise: if its ok to him then you dont intend to kill anything, otherwise you intend to kill.

Ah yes, the old "I didn't kill anyone, I was just shooting that wall behind all those people. Not my fault they were in the way!" defence...

Two Sheds

Black Menorca wrote: »

Because I'm interested in the philosophical gymnastics abortion apologists engage in to try and justify one form of killing, and not the other.

It's amazing how the pro-choice conscience almost always tends to match the prevalent legal situation in whatever jurisdiction is under discussion.

It must be tiring having one's morality decided by the law du jour.

Overheal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Because I'm interested in the philosophical gymnastics abortion apologists engage in to try and justify one form of killing, and not the other.

Gymnastics? You must mean the parkour you're doing all over a rationed argument to make a bunch of flips and wall kicks to make your position seem more cool or something.

EoghanIRL

Black Menorca wrote: »

We all bring our views and prejudices to this, yes, even you.

Its part of the human condition.

Instead of knocking it, embrace it.

We're different. We disagree.

Why so negative on a fundamental and positive human trait we all display?

It's ok for everyone to have their own views and opinions but when they affect other people in a negative way then they seem more like ignorance than anything else.

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

We all bring our views and prejudices to this, yes, even you.

Its part of the human condition.

Instead of knocking it, embrace it.

We're different. We disagree.

Why so negative on a fundamental and positive human trait we all display?

Oh, how enlightened of you! :P

Did I say anything about your views being inherently bad? The problem is that a discussion requires more than just soap boxing your views and twisting the views of others. It requires supporting facts, questions, both asking and (pay close attention to this bit) answering them.

I have seen some fairly good pro-life arguments over the years, but all I've seen in this thread is the "Lalalalala can't hear you baby killer!" argument.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

It's amazing how the pro-choice conscience almost always tends to match the prevalent legal situation in whatever jurisdiction is under discussion.

It must be tiring having one's morality decided by the law du jour.

That's The Entire Concept of Democracy...!

!

!

Peregrinus

Overheal wrote: »

That's The Entire Concept of Democracy...!

!

!

:eek::eek::eek:

No, it isn't.

If it were, wouldn't you be bound in conscience to support Ireland's current abortion laws?

Timberrrrrrrr

Peregrinus wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:

No, it isn't.

If it were, wouldn't you be bound in conscience to support Ireland's current abortion laws?

You don't have to support a law you don't like, you just have to obey it. I don't support the speed limits on some roads but it's the law so I don't speed on those roads.

lazybones32

robdonn wrote: »

So you either provide a reputable, unbiased source or we simply do not accept your claim..

Would you be so kind as to provide a list of what you consider to be reputable and unbiased sources?

In this thread, people on the pro-abortion stance have often derided the sources provided by the pro-life opinion but remain silent when false information is peddled and fashion/celebrity websites are passed off as reliable sources for medical news. Does your adherence to the scientific method only apply when arguments contrary to your opinion need to be verified, or is it a case of you won't accept something as true unless a more reputable person/organisation say it is so?

I look forward to your answers.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

Would you be so kind as to provide a list of what you consider to be reputable and unbiased sources?

In this thread, people on the pro-abortion stance have often derided the sources provided by the pro-life opinion but remain silent when false information is peddled and fashion/celebrity websites are passed off as reliable sources for medical news. Does your adherence to the scientific method only apply when arguments contrary to your opinion need to be verified, or is it a case of you won't accept something as true unless a more reputable person/organisation say it is so?

I look forward to your answers.

where'd this happen?

robdonn

lazybones32 wrote: »

Would you be so kind as to provide a list of what you consider to be reputable and unbiased sources?

In this thread, people on the pro-abortion stance have often derided the sources provided by the pro-life opinion but remain silent when false information is peddled and fashion/celebrity websites are passed off as reliable sources for medical news. Does your adherence to the scientific method only apply when arguments contrary to your opinion need to be verified, or is it a case of you won't accept something as true unless a more reputable person/organisation say it is so?

I look forward to your answers.

Sources are important and they do not need to be from scientific journals or the like necessarily. One of the most important factors, for me personally, is bias. As has been discussed here, everyone has a level of bias in one direction or the other, but it is the level of bias that we can judge a source.

Take for example the website lifenews.com, which has been referenced several times in this thread by the pro-life side. From their About Us page:

LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community. With a team of experienced journalists and bloggers, LifeNews.com reaches more than 750,000 pro-life advocates each week via our web site, email news reports, social networking outreach and weekday radio program.

LifeNews.com also acts as a service provider to furnish news content to media that share the pro-life perspective. The topics covered by LifeNews.com include abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia, bioethics issues such as human cloning and stem cell research, campaigns and elections, and cultural legal and legislative issues as they affect the pro-life community.

Formerly the Pro-Life Infonet, LifeNews.com has been harnessing the power of the Internet since 1992 to bring pro-life news to the pro-life community. We’ve developed a reputation for fairness, accuracy and timeliness in our two decades of service. We are not affiliated with any organization, religious group, political party or church denomination.

This is a source that has zero middle ground, they are firmly on one side of the issue and their reporting reflects that. For example, in their most recent article about the 6th video released they say:

The district attorney in Houston Texas is also investigating after the Houston-based Planned Parenthood abortion facility was caught selling aborted babies.

Nobody has been caught selling aborted babies, this is simply the continued misrepresentation of the common and legal practise of receiving compensation for costs of the handling and transport of legal donations. They don't even throw in an "alleged" to try cover their biased reporting.

robdonn

Wow, Donald Trump is defending Planned Parenthood. As the article says:

... even a stopped watch is right twice a day;

Delirium

robdonn wrote: »

Wow, Donald Trump is defending Planned Parenthood. As the article says:

also in the article:

the fact remains that most of its mission is to provide life-saving medical services like cancer screenings, HIV tests and contraception services — which, by the way, help to prevent abortions by as many 350,000 every year, along with preventing around a million unplanned pregnancies per year, according to the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute.

Overheal

He might just be apologizing for Trump vs. Meagan Kelley. Google that I'm on my cell

frag420

Black Menorca wrote: »

Says the person who has no seeming discomfort with PP facilitating the killing 300K+ babies in the womb in 2014.

Go figure.

As I’ve already noted at Salon, 97 percent of what Planned Parenthood does has nothing to do with abortions. Realistically, even if it was as low as 75 or 60 percent, the fact remains that most of its mission is to provide life-saving medical services like cancer screenings, HIV tests and contraception services — which, by the way, help to prevent abortions by as many 350,000 every year, along with preventing around a million unplanned pregnancies per year, according to the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute.

So since 2014 PP have in fact saved 100,000 babies net!!

Surely that's something you should be supporting? The saving of lives?

Or would that not give you the <snip> satisfaction you get from vilifying women and dictating how they should manage their bodies?

Delirium

MOD NOTE

@frag: Please be mindful of the language you use.

From the charter:

Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. The goal of this forum is to be a place where ideas relating to Christianity are expounded, debated and challenged. While discussion is encouraged, each member is expected to remain within the boundaries of taste and decency. If you disagree with a opinion expressed, please do so in a well mannered fashion.

Thanks for your attention.

krankykitty

Black Menorca wrote: »

Because I'm interested in the philosophical gymnastics abortion apologists engage in to try and justify one form of killing, and not the other.

If i'm not mistaken, you're the one engaging in gymnastics with your "intent" schtick

frag420

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

@frag: Please be mindful of the language you use.

From the charter:


Thanks for your attention.

Apologies!!

Overheal

Well, how about some updates from around the world!

The US Federal Government, via the agencies for Medicare and Medicaid, have warned states like Louisiana and Alabama that are attempting to defund Planned Parenthood in those states that they may be violating federal law. Under the law, the states may not be able to restrict medicare/Medicaid access to those services (referring to the services covered, which is not abortions, but everything else they do).

Federal law requires state Medicaid programs to cover family-planning services and supplies for anyone of child-bearing age. Ending the agreements with Planned Parenthood would limit beneficiaries' access to care and services from qualified providers of their choice, according to HHS.

Medicaid is a U.S. government healthcare program for the poor; Medicare is for the aged and disabled.

Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens said in a statement on Wednesday that moves to eliminate its funding were "political grandstanding."

"It's good to hear that HHS has clarified what we already know: blocking women’s access to care at Planned Parenthood is against the law," she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-warns-states-against-defunding-planned-parenthood-223907535--business.html

Despite these hurdles, it hasn't stopped presidential contenders from taking to the podiums to make big fat promises that only one of them will have the privilege of breaking. Scott Walker and Jeb Bush claimed in debate that they already defunded PP years ago in their states. But that depends on your definition of the word.

That's largely because of a requirement in the Medicaid program, from which Planned Parenthood gets most of its government funding. Medicaid funding is shared between the federal government and the states, although the federal government pays 90 percent of the cost of family planning services.

"There's a requirement in the [Medicaid] statute for free choice of providers," said Cindy Mann, who recently stepped down as head of the federal Medicaid program and is now with the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. "The only way you can limit the provider is to establish that they're not, in fact, qualified as a Medicaid provider."

Federal courts have agreed. In 2011, when Planned Parenthood was also in the headlines, Indiana passed a law barring Medicaid funding to any entity that also performed abortions, even if those abortions were performed with nonpublic funds. A federal appeals court ultimately blocked that part of the law because it interfered with the Medicaid law's "freedom of choice" requirements.

"Although Indiana has broad authority to exclude unqualified providers from its Medicaid program, the state does not have plenary authority to exclude a class of providers for any reason — more particularly for a reason unrelated to provider qualifications," wrote Appeals Court Judge Diane Sykes in the majority opinion. Sykes was appointed by President George W. Bush.

So the odds of any of these defunding measures sticking? Slim. It would take an act of congress to revise Medicaid law. Which would require Medicaid Reform, and as we all know the GOP doesn't want to revise Medicaid they want to kill it - basically, Medicaid is one of those things that will be filibustered to death and nothing will ever change about it, given the state of government. Also, I stringently doubt Republicans will back a measure that Democrats can wave in the air as them "taking away a patient's choices" in medicare providers, as the choice of doctors issue is one of the big talking points they swing around when trying to repeal Obamacare. It would be awfully hypocritical and maybe even for some of the congressmen/senators, political suicide. Though not all hope is lost for the Menorcas in our life:

One way GOP governors have managed to cut Planned Parenthood funding is by dropping out of an optional Medicaid program that provides federal funding to pay for family planning services for women who don't otherwise qualify for Medicaid but who still have low incomes (usually under twice the federal poverty level, or about $23,500).

That's how Texas partly defunded Planned Parenthood in 2011. When Medicaid officials said the state's new law barring funding of organizations that also do abortions violated the federal free-choice-of-provider requirement, Texas was actually expelled from the expanded family planning program — and lost its federal funding. The state instead created its own program with (substantially less) state-only money. Planned Parenthood had been providing just under half of the services for the entire program, so excluding the organization meant women in Texas had trouble getting family planning services.

According to the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, which is studying the impact of the changes, by 2013 the reductions caused 82 clinics (not all of them run by Planned Parenthood) to close or stop providing family planning services. Plus, the cuts prompted other clinics to limit the types of services they provide, and forced women seeking care to pay a bigger share of the cost.

..but that kind of hope comes at a price, and doesn't really accomplish everything you want. I doubt you will see many if any states follow Texas, as a matter of economics. Texas is one of those states that is an 'upper' in the Union, so a lot of time it can do what it damn well pleases. Still haven't seceded yet though, they've been whining about doing so on and off since the Alamo. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/08/12/431388131/-defunding-planned-parenthood-is-easier-promised-than-done

Congress already failed to vote on any measure related to recent events; the Senate also failed to pass a measure that would have diverted federal funding from PP to other family planning facilities that don't perform abortions:

The problem is that there are far too few such clinics to meet the need. Moreover, the effort misunderstands how Planned Parenthood receives $528 million annually: mostly through Medicaid reimbursements and competitive Title X family planning grants.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-the-phony-unprincipled-war-on-planned-parenthood-20150812-story.html

But don't worry: that doesn't stop the GOP from trying to do things again and again. Remember that EU referendum where (was it Ireland? What other country?) that they were asked to vote twice on it because they didn't vote the right way? Yeah: there have been at least 54 failed votes to repeal Obamacare, and there were 8 federal investigations into the Benghazi embassy incident, with each investigation failing to turn up the dirt that the republicans wanted to see, so obviously their investigation method was flawed or missed something, so just launch another investigation. Then another. Did I mention we only got 1 commissioned report about 9/11?

Two Sheds

frag420 wrote: »

As I’ve already noted at Salon, 97 percent of what Planned Parenthood does has nothing to do with abortions. Realistically, even if it was as low as 75 or 60 percent, the fact remains that most of its mission is to provide life-saving medical services like cancer screenings, HIV tests and contraception services — which, by the way, help to prevent abortions by as many 350,000 every year, along with preventing around a million unplanned pregnancies per year, according to the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute.

So since 2014 PP have in fact saved 100,000 babies net!!

Surely that's something you should be supporting? The saving of lives?

Or would that not give you the <snip> satisfaction you get from vilifying women and dictating how they should manage their bodies?

That's the kind of logic that is worthy of .. well... Planned Parenthood -

a very ‘sick’ new ad campaign by Planned Parenthood that flies in the face of logic

Black Menorca

Two Sheds wrote: »

It's amazing how the pro-choice conscience almost always tends to match the prevalent legal situation in whatever jurisdiction is under discussion.

It must be tiring having one's morality decided by the law du jour.

Poor mites.

Black Menorca

EoghanIRL wrote: »

It's ok for everyone to have their own views and opinions but when they affect other people in a negative way then they seem more like ignorance than anything else.

Well there's none more harmful than a view that justifies taking innocent, human life.

Not something I engage in.

Black Menorca

robdonn wrote: »

Oh, how enlightened of you! :P

Did I say anything about your views being inherently bad? The problem is that a discussion requires more than just soap boxing your views and twisting the views of others. It requires supporting facts, questions, both asking and (pay close attention to this bit) answering them.

I have seen some fairly good pro-life arguments over the years, but all I've seen in this thread is the "Lalalalala can't hear you baby killer!" argument.

It must be such a chore engaging with intellectual neanderthals like myself.

Black Menorca

Delirium wrote: »

also in the article:

the fact remains that most of its mission is to provide life-saving medical services like cancer screenings, HIV tests and contraception services — which, by the way, help to prevent abortions by as many 350,000 every year, along with preventing around a million unplanned pregnancies per year, according to the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute.

[/B]

Huh???

Black Menorca

krankykitty wrote: »

If i'm not mistaken, you're the one engaging in gymnastics with your "intent" schtick

Not at all.

Two Sheds

the Obama administration has awarded a contract worth more than $1 million directly to Planned Parenthood of Northern New England — in direct circumvention of the wishes of the executive council of the state of New Hampshire.

Obama Sneaks Behind State Lawmakers With Secret Funding Of Planned Parenthood