Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The ethics of a hypothetical pre-natal screening for Homosexuality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    The question you refer to is irrelevant. You are presenting a hypothetical scenario.
    It is a hypothetical. Thought experiment if you will. The fact that you find hypotheticals irrelevant means it's weird you jumped in one that the title explicitly said was a hypothetical. Trolling perhaps?

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

      Your first point presents unsupported allegations "[s]upporters, who appear to be growing"; and a selected instance, to wit one individual who posts to these boards.
      I didn't want to further derail the thread but since you asked so nicely.

      From Slate (described as a United States-based liberal, English language online current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley)":

      Source: After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide


      ..."after-birth abortion" is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:

      [W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. ... [W]e propose to call this practice 'after-birth abortion', rather than 'infanticide' to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus ... rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.


      Source

      © Copyright Original Source



      It's also a view advanced by other philosophers like Peter Singer, Jeffrey Reiman, Jonathan Glover, and Michael Tooley, and a number of others who take a relatively consequentialist view on ethics meaning that it might be a more common view than you seem to think.



      Ann Furedi, head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), the primary abortion provider in Britain, is on record as saying at the 2012 Fédération Internationale des Associés Professionnels de l'Avortement et de la Contraception (a.k.a., International Federation of Professional Abortion and Contraception Associates or FIAPAC) Congress that, "There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms the fetus into a person" demonstrating her support for this concept.

      This appears to be the opinion of BPAS's American counterpart, Planned Parenthood, when a lobbyist for their Florida affiliates, Alisa LaPolt Snow had the following exchange with Jim Boyd and Jose Oliva -- members of the Florida House of Representatives:

      "It is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I'm almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?"

      "We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow. . . .

      Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you're saying?"

      Again, Snow replied, "That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider."


      You can see the exchange here:




      Melissa Victoria Harris-Perry, who hosts a weekend news and opinion television show on MSNBC and made the news for mocking Mitt Romney and his adopted black grandson (for which she later apologized for), appears to be another advocate of after-birth abortions based upon her comments on her show back on July 21: "When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling -- but not science."

      And keep in mind that, while still a senator in the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama opposed efforts to protect babies who had survived abortion attempts voting against Born Alive acts in Illinois as well as opposing legislation that would define those babies as persons. During debate over one of the Born Alive bills Obama made it clear that he was far more concerned with things like protecting abortion itself and with protecting doctors who just shouldn't be required to preserve the lives of babies who stubbornly refused to die and were born alive as can be seen from his remarks:

      As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child ... however way you want to describe it ... is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead.


      So if the doctor was wrong and the baby certainly was viable in that it actually survived an attempt to kill it, then the doctor shouldn't be "burden[ed]" with trying to keep the baby alive since it had the gall to "not just coming out limp and dead."

      I guess this means that if someone is sick or injured and a doctor assumes that they won't survive but in fact does then that doctor shouldn't be burdened with helping to keep them alive but should be free to refuse all treatment and even food and water so that they will finally die.

      What does it say about our society when it can even entertain such a reprehensible evil practice?


      And in spite of the joke that is Snopes, when it comes to fact checking controversial subjects (especially if politics is involved), proclaiming that after-birth abortions (which is in effect euthanasia) are nothing more than a "manufactured controversy from several years ago" it appears to already be taking place in the Netherlands[1]:

      Source: After-birth abortion already exists in the Netherlands


      "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, was merely an infanticide thought-experiment. The special issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics includes a contribution from a paediatrician who actually has done it. Dr Eduard Verhagen, a paediatrician at University Medical Centre Groningen in the Netherlands, says that, in his experience, infanticide is sometimes preferable to second-trimestre abortion.

      The so-called Groningen Protocol (GP) in the Netherlands allows euthanasia of newborns under strict conditions if there is "hopeless and unbearable suffering" and both parents give "informed consent". Dr Verhagen claims that there were fewer instances of newborn euthanasia after the publication of the GP ... but for reasons not connected with it. With more prenatal screening, more women opted for terminations of pregnancy in difficult cases like spinal bifida. The number of newborn euthanasia cases actually fell from 15 in 2005 to 2 in 2010.

      The GP is, of course, very controversial. In an article in The Lancet in 2008, a paediatric oncologist and bioethicist at the Cleveland Clinic, Erik Kodish, angrily repudiated it. "The very notion that there is an 'accepted medical standard' for infanticide calls for resistance in the form of civil disobedience," he wrote.

      However, in some cases, "after-birth abortion" might be the most sensible treatment, Verhagen believes, as it allows the parents and the doctors to make a more accurate diagnosis and to discuss treatment opinions. "If all stakeholders conclude that the prognosis is very grim, the babies condition is judged as one with sustained and intolerable suffering, and the parents request for euthanasia, why should that not be permissible as an alternative to second trimester termination?"

      In any case, Dr Verhagen points out, the official opinion of the American Academy of Pediatrics is that it is morally permissible to withdraw or withhold hydration and nutrition from newborns in some cases. These include "children in a persistent vegetative state or children with anencephaly". This is a form of euthanasia, but the child lingers for a long time while it starves to death. "If the parents wish to shorten that course, and organise their child's death more in the way they have envisioned it, shouldn't euthanasia be available for them?"



      Source

      © Copyright Original Source




      And then there is this (check from the 5 minute mark):


      indicating that Planned Parenthood in St. Paul, Minnesota will "Break the Baby's Neck" if the abortion process fails and the baby is born alive:

      We don't tell women this [...] but if we was to proceed with the abortion and the baby was to come out still alive and active, most likely we would break the baby's neck


      And finally, here is an insightful piece in National Review written shortly after we had a Governor come out in support of post-birth or after-birth abortion early last year shows that we have reached a point where post-birth abortions is now on the table.

      Source: Safe and Rare' Also Means 'Post-Birth Abortion


      The Democrats' Brutal Honesty and Honest Brutality About Abortion


      When President Bill Clinton said that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" in 1996, he staked out what looked like something of a middle ground on the single most passion-stirring issue in American politics. In the eyes of one group of Americans, Roe v. Wade had finally ensured that no woman would face life with an unwanted pregnancy and child; in the eyes of the other, the American government had legalized the murder of children as long as the child was on one side of the birth canal -- and later, in defenses of partial-birth abortion, as long as some part of the child was still in the birth canal.

      But there was always an uncomfortable contradiction in Clinton's formulation. If abortion was sufficiently morally justified to be safe and legal, why did it have to be rare? And if it was sufficiently morally troubling that it should be rare . . . should it be legal? (Advocates for the unborn would also ask, safe to whom?) Throughout the Clinton presidency, more than a few pro-lifers observed that the administration did plenty to ensure abortion was safe and legal but not so much to make it rare.

      Perhaps that contradiction was always untenable, at least in Democratic circles. This debate was always marked by galling dishonesty. For many years, pro-choice advocates insisted that partial-birth abortion was extremely rare, probably about 500 cases in the entire country per year, and almost always for reasons of medical need.

      Continuing the tradition that the public not be informed about what the laws actually are, Governor Ralph Northam made comments this week that either he doesn't know what's in the bill his party is supporting or he straight-up lied. Discussing a new abortion bill brought up by Democrats in the state legislature that would legalize abortion up until the point of birth, Northam insisted late-term abortions would only occur if there was approval by "more than one physician." That's actually what the proposed legislation aims to change, requiring only one doctor.

      Northam then elaborated on a scenario where the infant would be born alive, and then not resuscitated if the child was not wanted: "If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

      It was reminiscent of Barbara Boxer's spectacularly weird assertion on the Senate floor in 1999 that human life begins not at conception, not at some point during the pregnancy, not at birth, but when the infant leaves the hospital:

      SANTORUM: But I would like to ask you this question -- you agree, once the child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?

      BOXER: I would make this statement, that this Constitution as it currently is -- some want to amend it to say life begins at conception. I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born -- and there is no such thing as partial-birth -- the baby belongs to your family and has the rights.




      A moment later:
      SANTORUM: I ask the senator from California, again, you believe -- you said -- once the baby comes home. -- Obviously, you don't mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree -- completely separated from the mother -- you would agree that baby is entitled to constitutional protection?

      BOXER: I will tell you why I don't want to engage in this. You had the same conversation with a colleague of mine, and I never saw such a twisting of his remarks.


      Clarity helps prevent a "twisting of remarks." Declaring that a child only "has the rights" "when you bring your baby home" is precisely the sort of thing that would lead people to believe that a U.S. Senator believes that human beings aren't guaranteed a constitutional right to life until some period of time after birth. Northam's comments indicate that he finds it morally acceptable to not resuscitate a newborn baby if that death is the outcome that "the family desired." They don't merely want to defend partial-birth abortion; they're willing to defend post-birth abortion.


      If you're pro-life, the comments of Governor Northam can be horrifying and depressing, but also invigorating. Since the mid-1990s, the Democratic party has concluded that procedure worth being "safe and legal" has no reason to be rare.

      It easy to forget that abortion advocates are losing this debate; the abortion rate reached a historic low in 2015, the most recent year for which data is available, and the decline in abortions was seen in women across all age groups. The number of abortion providers continues to decline.

      And even some Democrats are having second thoughts:
      Del. Dawn Adams, D-Richmond, said she "did not exercise due diligence" before co-sponsoring the abortion legislation with Del. Kathy Tran, D-Fairfax. Tran became the focus of a social media firestorm this week after Republicans circulated video of her saying the bill would allow abortions up until the moment of birth if one doctor certified that the mother's physical or mental health was at risk.

      "I made a mistake, and all I know to do is to admit it, tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may," said Adams, a first-term delegate who won a close upset victory in 2017 in her suburban district and could face a competitive re-election campaign this year.





      In testimony, Tran said that the law would permit a woman to have an abortion performed while she was in labor. "This remains a crime and would not be something any sane licensed physician would perform," Adams said. "The code is very specific and clear about what this means and it is different from an abortion, even late term."


      Source

      © Copyright Original Source



      The very fact that a governor feels comfortable about publicly supporting such things is an indication of it growing in popularity in some quarters. And the fact that 41 Democrat Senators successfully filibustered the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (which would have amended the federal criminal code, instituting penalties and jail time for health care practitioners who don't provide certain medical care " [i]n the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive") and prevented it from receiving a final vote is even stronger evidence that after-birth abortion is gaining momentum. The claim that it interfered with a "woman's right to choose" is absurd unless they mean her choice to terminate babies after they've been born






      1. I should note that Starlight (who is the advocate for post-birth abortions that I alluded to -- see HERE as well as HERE for just two examples) -- says this is also the case in Belgium
      Last edited by rogue06; 11-25-2020, 08:43 AM.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        I didn't want to further derail the thread but since you asked so nicely.

        From Slate (described as a United States-based liberal, English language online current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley)":

        Source: After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide


        ..."after-birth abortion" is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:

        [W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. ... [W]e propose to call this practice 'after-birth abortion', rather than 'infanticide' to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus ... rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.


        Source

        © Copyright Original Source



        It's also a view advanced by other philosophers like Peter Singer, Jeffrey Reiman, Jonathan Glover, and Michael Tooley, and a number of others who take a relatively consequentialist view on ethics meaning that it might be a more common view than you seem to think.



        Ann Furedi, head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), the primary abortion provider in Britain, is on record as saying at the 2012 Fédération Internationale des Associés Professionnels de l'Avortement et de la Contraception (a.k.a., International Federation of Professional Abortion and Contraception Associates or FIAPAC) Congress that, "There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms the fetus into a person" demonstrating her support for this concept.

        This appears to be the opinion of BPAS's American counterpart, Planned Parenthood, when a lobbyist for their Florida affiliates, Alisa LaPolt Snow had the following exchange with Jim Boyd and Jose Oliva -- members of the Florida House of Representatives:

        "It is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I'm almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?"

        "We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow. . . .

        Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you're saying?"

        Again, Snow replied, "That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider."


        You can see the exchange here:






        Melissa Victoria Harris-Perry, who hosts a weekend news and opinion television show on MSNBC and made the news for mocking Mitt Romney and his adopted black grandson (for which she later apologized for), appears to be another advocate of after-birth abortions based upon her comments on her show back on July 21: "When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling -- but not science."

        And keep in mind that, while still a senator in the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama opposed efforts to protect babies who had survived abortion attempts voting against Born Alive acts in Illinois as well as opposing legislation that would define those babies as persons. During debate over one of the Born Alive bills Obama made it clear that he was far more concerned with things like protecting abortion itself and with protecting doctors who just shouldn't be required to preserve the lives of babies who stubbornly refused to die and were born alive as can be seen from his remarks:

        As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child ... however way you want to describe it ... is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead.


        So if the doctor was wrong and the baby certainly was viable in that it actually survived an attempt to kill it, then the doctor shouldn't be "burden[ed]" with trying to keep the baby alive since it had the gall to "not just coming out limp and dead."

        I guess this means that if someone is sick or injured and a doctor assumes that they won't survive but in fact does then that doctor shouldn't be burdened with helping to keep them alive but should be free to refuse all treatment and even food and water so that they will finally die.

        What does it say about our society when it can even entertain such a reprehensible evil practice?


        And in spite of the joke that is Snopes, when it comes to fact checking controversial subjects (especially if politics is involved), proclaiming that after-birth abortions (which is in effect euthanasia) are nothing more than a "manufactured controversy from several years ago" it appears to already be taking place in the Netherlands[1]:

        Source: After-birth abortion already exists in the Netherlands


        "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, was merely an infanticide thought-experiment. The special issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics includes a contribution from a paediatrician who actually has done it. Dr Eduard Verhagen, a paediatrician at University Medical Centre Groningen in the Netherlands, says that, in his experience, infanticide is sometimes preferable to second-trimestre abortion.

        The so-called Groningen Protocol (GP) in the Netherlands allows euthanasia of newborns under strict conditions if there is "hopeless and unbearable suffering" and both parents give "informed consent". Dr Verhagen claims that there were fewer instances of newborn euthanasia after the publication of the GP ... but for reasons not connected with it. With more prenatal screening, more women opted for terminations of pregnancy in difficult cases like spinal bifida. The number of newborn euthanasia cases actually fell from 15 in 2005 to 2 in 2010.

        The GP is, of course, very controversial. In an article in The Lancet in 2008, a paediatric oncologist and bioethicist at the Cleveland Clinic, Erik Kodish, angrily repudiated it. "The very notion that there is an 'accepted medical standard' for infanticide calls for resistance in the form of civil disobedience," he wrote.

        However, in some cases, "after-birth abortion" might be the most sensible treatment, Verhagen believes, as it allows the parents and the doctors to make a more accurate diagnosis and to discuss treatment opinions. "If all stakeholders conclude that the prognosis is very grim, the babies condition is judged as one with sustained and intolerable suffering, and the parents request for euthanasia, why should that not be permissible as an alternative to second trimester termination?"

        In any case, Dr Verhagen points out, the official opinion of the American Academy of Pediatrics is that it is morally permissible to withdraw or withhold hydration and nutrition from newborns in some cases. These include "children in a persistent vegetative state or children with anencephaly". This is a form of euthanasia, but the child lingers for a long time while it starves to death. "If the parents wish to shorten that course, and organise their child's death more in the way they have envisioned it, shouldn't euthanasia be available for them?"



        Source

        © Copyright Original Source




        And then there is this (check from the 5 minute mark):




        indicating that Planned Parenthood in St. Paul, Minnesota will "Break the Baby's Neck" if the abortion process fails and the baby is born alive:

        We don't tell women this [...] but if we was to proceed with the abortion and the baby was to come out still alive and active, most likely we would break the baby's neck


        And finally, here is an insightful piece in National Review written shortly after we had a Governor come out in support of post-birth or after-birth abortion early last year shows that we have reached a point where post-birth abortions is now on the table.

        Source: Safe and Rare' Also Means 'Post-Birth Abortion


        The Democrats' Brutal Honesty and Honest Brutality About Abortion


        When President Bill Clinton said that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" in 1996, he staked out what looked like something of a middle ground on the single most passion-stirring issue in American politics. In the eyes of one group of Americans, Roe v. Wade had finally ensured that no woman would face life with an unwanted pregnancy and child; in the eyes of the other, the American government had legalized the murder of children as long as the child was on one side of the birth canal -- and later, in defenses of partial-birth abortion, as long as some part of the child was still in the birth canal.

        But there was always an uncomfortable contradiction in Clinton's formulation. If abortion was sufficiently morally justified to be safe and legal, why did it have to be rare? And if it was sufficiently morally troubling that it should be rare . . . should it be legal? (Advocates for the unborn would also ask, safe to whom?) Throughout the Clinton presidency, more than a few pro-lifers observed that the administration did plenty to ensure abortion was safe and legal but not so much to make it rare.

        Perhaps that contradiction was always untenable, at least in Democratic circles. This debate was always marked by galling dishonesty. For many years, pro-choice advocates insisted that partial-birth abortion was extremely rare, probably about 500 cases in the entire country per year, and almost always for reasons of medical need.

        Continuing the tradition that the public not be informed about what the laws actually are, Governor Ralph Northam made comments this week that either he doesn't know what's in the bill his party is supporting or he straight-up lied. Discussing a new abortion bill brought up by Democrats in the state legislature that would legalize abortion up until the point of birth, Northam insisted late-term abortions would only occur if there was approval by "more than one physician." That's actually what the proposed legislation aims to change, requiring only one doctor.

        Northam then elaborated on a scenario where the infant would be born alive, and then not resuscitated if the child was not wanted: "If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

        It was reminiscent of Barbara Boxer's spectacularly weird assertion on the Senate floor in 1999 that human life begins not at conception, not at some point during the pregnancy, not at birth, but when the infant leaves the hospital:

        SANTORUM: But I would like to ask you this question -- you agree, once the child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?

        BOXER: I would make this statement, that this Constitution as it currently is -- some want to amend it to say life begins at conception. I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born -- and there is no such thing as partial-birth -- the baby belongs to your family and has the rights.






        A moment later:
        SANTORUM: I ask the senator from California, again, you believe -- you said -- once the baby comes home. -- Obviously, you don't mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree -- completely separated from the mother -- you would agree that baby is entitled to constitutional protection?

        BOXER: I will tell you why I don't want to engage in this. You had the same conversation with a colleague of mine, and I never saw such a twisting of his remarks.




        Clarity helps prevent a "twisting of remarks." Declaring that a child only "has the rights" "when you bring your baby home" is precisely the sort of thing that would lead people to believe that a U.S. Senator believes that human beings aren't guaranteed a constitutional right to life until some period of time after birth. Northam's comments indicate that he finds it morally acceptable to not resuscitate a newborn baby if that death is the outcome that "the family desired." They don't merely want to defend partial-birth abortion; they're willing to defend post-birth abortion.


        If you're pro-life, the comments of Governor Northam can be horrifying and depressing, but also invigorating. Since the mid-1990s, the Democratic party has concluded that procedure worth being "safe and legal" has no reason to be rare.

        It easy to forget that abortion advocates are losing this debate; the abortion rate reached a historic low in 2015, the most recent year for which data is available, and the decline in abortions was seen in women across all age groups. The number of abortion providers continues to decline.

        And even some Democrats are having second thoughts:
        Del. Dawn Adams, D-Richmond, said she "did not exercise due diligence" before co-sponsoring the abortion legislation with Del. Kathy Tran, D-Fairfax. Tran became the focus of a social media firestorm this week after Republicans circulated video of her saying the bill would allow abortions up until the moment of birth if one doctor certified that the mother's physical or mental health was at risk.

        "I made a mistake, and all I know to do is to admit it, tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may," said Adams, a first-term delegate who won a close upset victory in 2017 in her suburban district and could face a competitive re-election campaign this year.







        In testimony, Tran said that the law would permit a woman to have an abortion performed while she was in labor. "This remains a crime and would not be something any sane licensed physician would perform," Adams said. "The code is very specific and clear about what this means and it is different from an abortion, even late term."


        Source

        © Copyright Original Source



        The very fact that a governor feels comfortable about publicly supporting such things is an indication of it growing in popularity in some quarters. And the fact that 41 Democrat Senators successfully filibustered the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (which would have amended the federal criminal code, instituting penalties and jail time for health care practitioners who don't provide certain medical care " [i]n the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive") and prevented it from receiving a final vote is even stronger evidence that after-birth abortion is gaining momentum. The claim that it interfered with a "woman's right to choose" is absurd unless they mean her choice to terminate babies after they've been born






        1. I should note that Starlight (who is the advocate for post-birth abortions that I alluded to -- see HERE as well as HERE for just two examples) -- says this is also the case in Belgium
        None of that was included in your initial post, which is the only thing to which I could respond.

        It would have been wise to produce all this in support of your initial comment, not post eventum as it were.
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

          It is a hypothetical. Thought experiment if you will. The fact that you find hypotheticals irrelevant
          Ah I note that once again the sweeping generalisation is being employed.
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

            None of that was included in your initial post, which is the only thing to which I could respond.

            It would have been wise to produce all this in support of your initial comment, not post eventum as it were.
            It took awhile for me to organize and write this up which I really didn't want to do unless challenged.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              Ah I note that once again the sweeping generalisation is being employed.
              The reality is you only complained about the hypothetical being irrelevant after the fact. Otherwise, you saw the title, saw the word hypothetical, read they hypothetical, was challenged, and suddenly decided it was irrelevant after never really adding anything to the discussion (which you admit you didn't even bother to try and do (discuss).

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                The reality is you only complained about the hypothetical being irrelevant after the fact.
                It is irrelevant.

                Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
                Otherwise, you saw the title, saw the word hypothetical, read they hypothetical, was challenged
                I made my position clear in my first post [#4] and elaborated upon that in my second post [#6]

                The issue is cultural and/or religious attitudes as actually occurs with the aborting of female embryos but that is not something you wished to address.
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  It is irrelevant.

                  I made my position clear in my first post [#4] and elaborated upon that in my second post [#6]
                  And yet, you recoil about the implications of your position, and avoid challenges, while complaining that the hypothetical you responded to was irrelevant...

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    It took awhile for me to organize and write this up which I really didn't want to do unless challenged.
                    You would have been better off producing some of it at least as your opening argument rather than making vague and unfounded generalisations.

                    This merely looks as if you have rushed away to do some more net trawling.
                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                      You would have been better off producing some of it at least as your opening argument rather than making vague and unfounded generalisations.

                      This merely looks as if you have rushed away to do some more net trawling.
                      Meh. Nearly all of this I've posted previously here and there (here's an example). I just had to find it all and fix punctuation (a lot of quotation marks and such didn't make it through the transition to v5 and comes out as a square box when you hit edit or quote and copy pasta it.

                      As I said I didn't want to bother doing it as it was a hassle and didn't want to waste my time unless someone expressed an interest.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Meh. Nearly all of this I've posted previously here and there (here's an example). I just had to find it all and fix punctuation (a lot of quotation marks and such didn't make it through the transition to v5 and comes out as a square box when you hit edit or quote and copy pasta it.

                        As I said I didn't want to bother doing it as it was a hassle and didn't want to waste my time unless someone expressed an interest.
                        You are protesting too much.

                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          You are protesting too much.
                          I guess that you mean that I corroborated everything I said previously.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            I guess that you mean that I corroborated everything I said previously.
                            No. I was remarking on your earnest explanations as to why you did not, at least allude to any of that information, in your initial reply.
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                              No. I was remarking on your earnest explanations as to why you did not, at least allude to any of that information, in your initial reply.
                              Ah. If you prefer it can all be boiled down to laziness.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Ah. If you prefer it can all be boiled down to laziness.
                                To provide at least some evidence would have given your initial remark more credibility. Unsupported allegations and selected instances do not impress.
                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                148 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                395 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                365 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X