Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

True, perspective. How about "We hold the single right that we recognise for the unborn above all of the rights recognised for the born."

It's a perspective... not one I think you'll find many people claim to hold, but no doubt there might be one or two out there.

The Randy Riverbeast

There probably is. Some of the other views those african and middle eastern countries in red hold are still popular among some of the population.

Absolam

In fairness, it's not a perspective I'd say many people in those african and middle eastern countries in red would claim to hold either. Though no doubt there'll be one or two there, like everywhere else.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

It's a perspective... not one I think you'll find many people claim to hold, but no doubt there might be one or two out there.

Of course the best way to settle this is have a referendum on the issue and leave the voting population decide.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

It's a perspective... not one I think you'll find many people claim to hold, but no doubt there might be one or two out there.

Well those people would probably use softer language, sort of like how people like to say "I believe in the Lord resurrected" rather than "I believe in zombies".

So you think there might be one or two out there? People or percent? According to a Red C poll from June last year 7% of the Irish population believes it (although with sampling error it could be between 4-10% but lets stick with the 7% for simplicity).

7% would be over 320,000 people who believe that a woman's life should not be saved if doing so would result in an abortion. I believe that is holding the unborn's right to life above any of the mother's rights.

Cabaal

robdonn wrote: »

7% would be over 320,000 people who believe that a woman's life should not be saved if doing so would result in an abortion. I believe that is holding the unborn's right to life above any of the mother's rights.

Seriously worrying when you put it like that eh?

That 320k people would rather allow a women to die and a fetus to continue, the women could for all these people know be a single mother with other kids who will now be left without a mother.

Funny thing is though, there's been cases of catholic hospitals debating in court that a fetus is not equal to a baby. It seems they are happy to claim this when it suits them.

robdonn

Cabaal wrote: »

That 320k people would rather allow a women to die and a fetus to continue ...

It's worse than that, there was no proviso attached to the question that would state that the foetus would live in the end, it encapsulates situations where both mother and foetus would die.

I obviously don't believe that these people actually would want both to die, but I struggle to understand how they can justify their position. Maybe they believe that the pregnancy will somehow be miraculously saved? I'd also like to know if ending an ectopic pregnancy counts as an abortion in their minds.

Shrap

robdonn wrote: »

It's worse than that, there was no proviso attached to the question that would state that the foetus would live in the end, it encapsulates situations where both mother and foetus would die.

Well this is the age old problem with giving someone a question that they can answer in an idealistic way. In the case where there's no proviso either way, presumably people imagined that the best case scenario was the one they were answering (although, to me it beggars belief that anyone's best case scenario involves the mother dying instead of the foetus).

Rather than ask about some notional woman, the question needs to be asked about a woman they know. "If your girlfriend/sister/mother was in this situation, who would you save" - That would bring about a very different statistic, I suspect. I do believe most humane people would answer with saving their close relative/friend, but I also believe that when it comes to voting, pro-life people are in fact only voting on a notional ideal of life and not about a real life possibility, involving the very real death of an adult rather than a foetus.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Of course the best way to settle this is have a referendum on the issue and leave the voting population decide.

That would settle what perspective people have? I have to say I'm dubious.....

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Well those people would probably use softer language, sort of like how people like to say "I believe in the Lord resurrected" rather than "I believe in zombies".

Though I suspect you'd probably find that those who do say "I believe in the Lord resurrected" would actually say "I don't believe in zombies". I know... it makes some people feel sort of smugly superior to reframe an opponent's position as something they know the opponent would actually disagree with because it's 'kind of true if you disregard everything except what suits', but I can't really see that pretending someone is saying something you know they're not actually saying adds anything (other than the above mentioned misplaced senses of smug superiority) to a discussion.

robdonn wrote: »

So you think there might be one or two out there? People or percent? According to a Red C poll from June last year 7% of the Irish population believes it (although with sampling error it could be between 4-10% but lets stick with the 7% for simplicity).
7% would be over 320,000 people who believe that a woman's life should not be saved if doing so would result in an abortion. I believe that is holding the unborn's right to life above any of the mother's rights.

See... that's kind of what I'm talking about. Nothing in the article says 7% of the population said they hold the single right that we recognise for the unborn above all of the rights recognised for the born. It's just not there.

You think that when 7% of the population say they are are opposed to abortion in all circumstances, it can be taken to mean something else to suit you, but what you believe it can be taken to mean, and what the people polled said are different things. So, I think I'll wait for the Red C poll that actually asks "Do you hold the single right that we recognise for the unborn above all of the rights recognised for the born?" before I agree on the number who do hold that position.

Overheal

Planned Parenthood has filed its lawsuit against the CMP videos

http://www.mediaite.com/online/planned-parenthood-files-suit-against-center-for-medical-progress-over-videos/

After multiple internal investigations — in Missouri, Massachusetts, Indiana, and Georgia, among others — cleared Planned Parenthood of the wrongdoing they were accused of in so-called “sting” videos released by anti-abortion activist David Daleiden and his Center for Medical Progress this summer, the women’s health center has filed a racketeering suit.

The path to this lawsuit has been long and convoluted. Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina cited the videos in a Republican debate last year, but multiple outlets have reported that the scene to which she referred simply does not exist. Further, analyses have found that the videos were highly edited. Politicians on both sides of the aisle spoke out about the videos, which purport to show high-level officials discussing the illegal harvest and sale of fetal tissue and have led to multiple votes regarding the possible defunding of the organization.

Early reports alleged that Daleiden’s group used illegal means to obtain the footage that they went on to edit and release. The lawsuit says, “The express aim of the enterprise— which stretched over years and involved fake companies, fake identifications, and large-scale illegal taping was a to demonize Planned Parenthood.”

BREAKING: Planned Parenthood & our CA affiliates today filed a lawsuit against the people behind widely discredited video smear campaign.

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) January 14, 2016

The lawsuit comes a little too late, as Planned Parenthood announced that going forward, they would waive the reimbursement for fetal tissue transport they are entitled to under law, which was what the officials in the video were discussing. Also, when a 57-year-old man barricaded himself in a Colorado Planned Parenthood and killed three people last November, he quoted the video and those who spread it, saying, “No more baby parts.”

This is a developing story and updates are forthcoming.

[ UPDATE 4:56 p.m.] Another state has just released the results of an internal investigation and is pursuing “no further action” against Planned Parenthood. Kansas’s medical board’s decision was released following the announcement of the lawsuit.

h/t Buzzfeed News

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Though I suspect you'd probably find that those who do say "I believe in the Lord resurrected" would actually say "I don't believe in zombies". I know... it makes some people feel sort of smugly superior to reframe an opponent's position as something they know the opponent would actually disagree with because it's 'kind of true if you disregard everything except what suits', but I can't really see that pretending someone is saying something you know they're not actually saying adds anything (other than the above mentioned misplaced senses of smug superiority) to a discussion.

I'm finding it harder and harder to casually pass a joke into a debate with you, you take everything far too seriously.

Personally I am not a zombie-Jesus proponent, I prefer the Rufus (the 13th Apostle) from Dogma's clarification of the difference between the dead and the undead.

Absolam wrote: »

See... that's kind of what I'm talking about. Nothing in the article says 7% of the population said they hold the single right that we recognise for the unborn above all of the rights recognised for the born. It's just not there.

You think that when 7% of the population say they are are opposed to abortion in all circumstances, it can be taken to mean something else to suit you, but what you believe it can be taken to mean, and what the people polled said are different things. So, I think I'll wait for the Red C poll that actually asks "Do you hold the single right that we recognise for the unborn above all of the rights recognised for the born?" before I agree on the number who do hold that position.

OK, don't agree then.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

I'm finding it harder and harder to casually pass a joke into a debate with you, you take everything far too seriously. Personally I am not a zombie-Jesus proponent, I prefer the Rufus (the 13th Apostle) from Dogma's clarification of the difference between the dead and the undead.

Hmm... I take your point, it's a poor joke and a poorer foundation for an argument. I'll agree Kevin Smith made a better fist of it.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm... I take your point, it's a poor joke and a poorer foundation for an argument. I'll agree Kevin Smith made a better fist of it.

robdonn

Originally posted in A&A

Delirium wrote: »

Seems those involved in the video-campaign against Planned Parenthood have been indicted on criminal charges.

A Harris County grand jury probe into Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast ended Monday with the indictments of two anti-abortion activists.


David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were both indicted for tampering with a governmental record. An additional indictment for prohibition of the purchase and sale of human organs was issued for Daleiden, according to a release from the Harris County District Attorneys Office.



"We were called upon to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast," said Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson. "As I stated at the outset of this investigation, we must go where the evidence leads us. All the evidence uncovered in the course of this investigation was presented to the grand jury. I respect their decision on this difficult case."

Source

MrPudding

robdonn wrote: »

Originally posted in A&A

That is delightfully funny. Also, is anyone else surprised at just how tasty irony is?

MrP

lazygal

MrPudding wrote: »

That is delightfully funny. Also, is anyone else surprised at just how tasty irony is?

MrP

As tasty as the champagne will taste the day we repeal the eighth.

ABC101

lazygal wrote: »

As tasty as the champagne will taste the day we repeal the eighth.

Not so for the future generations of baby humans who will never get to taste champagne due to having been aborted.

Delirium

equally true for condoms. Do we ban those too?

Kiwi in IE

ABC101 wrote: »

Not so for the future generations of baby humans who will never get to taste champagne due to having been aborted.

Nor for the ones God will abort via miscarriage and stillbirth.

Kiwi in IE

Actually, I imagine that if God is omnipotent and omniscient he could put an end to abortion by only allowing pregnancies to occur where they are wanted/parents able, preventing fatal foetal abnormalities/threat to woman's health/life, and stopping sexual assault. Wonder why he doesn't? Mysterious ways?

lazygal

ABC101 wrote: »

Not so for the future generations of baby humans who will never get to taste champagne due to having been aborted.

Babies should not drink champagne.

eviltwin

Nor for the ones who won't be born because mammy has a headache or daddy came too soon.

But maybe the future children of those women who avail of abortion will, those kids who wouldn't be here only for their mother's being able to access abortion at an earlier time in their lives.

Absolam

Not to worry; global warming will probably put paid to champagne production and no one will be drinking it anyway.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Actually, I imagine that if God is omnipotent and omniscient he could put an end to abortion by only allowing pregnancies to occur where they are wanted/parents able, preventing fatal foetal abnormalities/threat to woman's health/life, and stopping sexual assault. Wonder why he doesn't? Mysterious ways?

Ineffability.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Ineffability.

A handy one! Applicable to starving children, natural disasters and children born to countries/families where the religion is wrong too I suppose? Phew, I'm glad you cleared that up, I was starting to think he's not very good at his job.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

A handy one! Applicable to starving children, natural disasters and children born to countries/families where the religion is wrong too I suppose? Phew, I'm glad you cleared that up, I was starting to think he's not very good at his job.

Works for everything as far as I can tell, it's a philosophical catch-all. You may think he's not very good at his job, but really you're just not able to comprehend it. Sux to be human... though obviously we don't comprehend why.

Overheal

Absolam wrote: »

Ineffability.

Incredulity

Absolam

Overheal wrote: »

Incredulity

I'm not sure that works quite the same way... but they both start with 'in' and and with 'lity' so maybe there's something there

frag420

Absolam wrote: »

Ineffability.

So is this defence only afforded to God? Can say a Isis use it as they are against those that do not follow their belief system? Could say Iddy Amin or Robert Mugabe use this defence when they do not step in to stop their own country folk being slaughtered, letting them starve, killing them for believing in something different?

Why should God get a her very own get out of jail free card or as it should be known, the fingers in my ears and if I cant hear you then it didn't happen defence?

As for it sux to be human? Not really, I love being human. I get to have sex, lots of it (outside of any kind of meaningful relations too:eek:), I get to have holidays, eat good food, drink beer, have a great job, live in a great city etc etc etc

However I would say it sux to believe that you made by someone who does not really give a damn about you once he is finished making you............which is kinda similar to how the church views fetus & children. We will protect you as a fetus but once you grasp your first breath of air you are on your own even if born into poverty, born with half a head, no limbs etc!!