Rick's Sunday School in burning Kiev

[Stuart Galbraith]

... to which you get far more common alternatives, like teenagers having backstreet abortions or non viable pregnancies carried to term, despite medical concerns of the mother. We have seen this, time and again, not just in America when they didnt allow abortions, but all across Europe when you have a full ban.

As far as the problem you all cite, in Northern Ireland they found a solution that appears workable as long ago as 1967. So lets stop pretending its just a binary choice between no abortion and murdering babies hours from birth, because clearly that is absurd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_Act_1967

'The Act does not extend to Northern Ireland, where abortion was illegal unless the doctor acted "only to save the life of the mother", or if continuing the pregnancy would have resulted in the pregnant woman becoming a "physical or mental wreck". The situation was the same as it was in England before the introduction of the Abortion Act 1967. '

That covers rape, it covers incest, it covers women with non viable pregnancies. But some of your states wont even allow that exemption. Yes, it appears they are actually less reasonable than the good people of Northern Ireland. Lets stop and think about that for a moment.

 

 

 

[rmgill]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

... to which you get far more common alternatives, like teenagers having backstreet abortions or non viable pregnancies carried to term, despite medical concerns of the mother. We have seen this, time and again, not just in America when they didnt allow abortions, but all across Europe when you have a full ban.

Yes the Kermit Gosnells of the world will exist. The thing is, they exist even with a profligate and permissive abortion environment. 

Stuart, this should be required reading for you. 
https://murderpedia.org/male.G/images/gosnell-kermit/gosnell-report-grand-jury.pdf
 

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As far as the problem you all cite, in Northern Ireland they found a solution that appears workable as long ago as 1967. So lets stop pretending its just a binary choice between no abortion and murdering babies hours from birth, because clearly that is absurd.

Yes. LETS. PLEASE. 

When does it manifest as a life? That's all I'm trying to get the lefty science types to say. 

 

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

That covers rape, it covers incest, it covers women with non viable pregnancies. But some of your states wont even allow that exemption. Yes, it appears they are actually less reasonable than the good people of Northern Ireland. Lets stop and think about that for a moment.

Small problem here. Persons that are products of rape and incest. Are they not people? Can they be murdered later in life? 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ok, so lets unpack that. Lets say you are conceived via incest. That probably means you have lots of congenital illnesses to look forward too. Possibly even insanity. And then you end up a burden on the state, because you will like as not be dumped in an orphanage because your mother doesnt want anything to do with you. Personally Id rather be aborted than put up with all that heavy shit, but hey, thats just me.

Here, right back at you. Lets say you are a woman, you are raped. Do you enjoy the thought of carrying to term a child of a person who attacked you, do you enjoy the thought that watching them grow up, you are going to be looking into the face of the man who attacked you? For the rest of your life?

Its all very cut and dried in your world Ryan. I dont insist anyone has an abortion. I just insist they have the right if they want to. You are the ones being all authoritarian taking away rights people had telling its good for them. Thats something we Socialists are supposed to be the ones doing, no?

Do I think it very sad that there are abortions? Yes. But I think it far sadder to be a child that isnt wanted, loved or appreciated, is dumped in an orphanage where they can be the victims of paedophiles and fucked up for the rest of their lives, possibly screwing up others along the way.

But again, im sure you all thought of that....

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[R011]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ok, so lets unpack that. Lets say you are conceived via incest. That probably means you have lots of congenital illnesses to look forward too. Possibly even insanity. And then you end up a burden on the state, because you will like as not be dumped in an orphanage because your mother doesnt want anything to do with you. Personally Id rather be aborted than put up with all that heavy shit, but hey, thats just me.

 

 

You have a choice.  The unborn child doesn't.  And while children of incest have higher rates of congenital issues, that far from universally true.  And what about kids not products of incest who have disabilities?  Do we do them the dubious favour of euthanizing them?  Should saving money for the NHS be the guiding principle of who lives and dies?

And capital punishment for an innocent child for crimes committed by the father?  A bit disproportionate and unjust isn't it?

Edited March 23, 2023 by R011

[Sardaukar]

55 minutes ago, R011 said:

You have a choice.  The unborn child doesn't.  And while children of incest have higher rates of congenital issues, that far from universally true.  And what about kids not products of incest who have disabilities?  Do we do them the dubious favour of euthanizing them?  Should saving money for the NHS be the guiding principle of who lives and dies?

And capital punishment for an innocent child for crimes committed by the father?  A bit disproportionate and unjust isn't it?

A bit disproportionate and unjust is also to inflict lifetime punishment on woman, isn't it?

[sunday]

5 hours ago, R011 said:

(...)
And what about kids not products of incest who have disabilities?  Do we do them the dubious favour of euthanizing them? 
(...)

In Iceland there is almost no people afflicted by Down Syndrome because of abortion. Same is going to happen here in Spain.

Eugenics, anyone?

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/eugenics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

[R011]

6 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

A bit disproportionate and unjust is also to inflict lifetime punishment on woman, isn't it?

The mother's not being punished, she's the victim of a crime.  This isn't made right by executing another inncoent person and isn't nearly as permnent as death - even if she did decide to keep the baby herself.  She doesn't have to.

[rmgill]

6 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

A bit disproportionate and unjust is also to inflict lifetime punishment on woman, isn't it?

Adoption is not as drastic.

Again. If we're going to call it slavery for the woman, lets be sure to be quite honest that we're just practicing early infanticide. 

What about situations where girls are aborted over boys in some cultures. Is that ideal?

[seahawk]

9 hours ago, sunday said:

In Iceland there is almost no people afflicted by Down Syndrome because of abortion. Same is going to happen here in Spain.

Eugenics, anyone?

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/eugenics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

If you think about it, the abortion industry has killed way more people than the Nazis. And they did it in a industrialized fashion and are making money of it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 hours ago, R011 said:

You have a choice.  The unborn child doesn't.  And while children of incest have higher rates of congenital issues, that far from universally true.  And what about kids not products of incest who have disabilities?  Do we do them the dubious favour of euthanizing them?  Should saving money for the NHS be the guiding principle of who lives and dies?

And capital punishment for an innocent child for crimes committed by the father?  A bit disproportionate and unjust isn't it?

Well they dont do they? They are taking away that choice. A raped child could be given as little choice as the foetus she carries. How about worrying about the sentient victim than the non sentient one?

Its not about saving money, its doing right by the potential mother. How about putting them centre stage, then pretending an early stage foetus is her equal, which it isnt.

I really dont get how Americans lag behind the rest of the world in this fairly easy to figure out, basic stuff. You guys banging on forever abour rights, and cannot recognise you are removing rights and denying choice. Thats all its about, nothing else. If somoene was talking about taking away your choice to have guns, you would man the barricades. Its a womans choice being taken away, and its like SFW?

Dont get it. Glad I dont have to.

 

[DB]

On 3/22/2023 at 6:11 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

But once again, its picking up the exception and pretending it's the rule.

The exception you mention is also possible in the UK. You continually speak from a position of wilful ignorance.

[BansheeOne]

Well the whole thread is exemplary on how abortion debate always seems to end up with "twelve-year-old girls raped by their father made to risk their life by carrying the product to term" vs. "babies killed a minute before birth for convenience" rather than the 99.9 percent of cases in between. 😉

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well they dont do they? They are taking away that choice. A raped child could be given as little choice as the foetus she carries. How about worrying about the sentient victim than the non sentient one?

So it's the sentience. When does that start? That's a useful metric. And if someone is argued to not be sentient, they can be killed without recourse or penalty? 

 

 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its not about saving money, its doing right by the potential mother. How about putting them centre stage, then pretending an early stage foetus is her equal, which it isnt.

Abortion as birth control is not doing right by the mother either. 

Did you read that Grand Jury finding about Gosnell? 

[DB]

It's not been long since I posted my position here - which is that people who are content with abortion-as-contraception (most cases, I think we can agree are for this reason), are choosing to mitigate their lack of forethought by ending a life and that by the simple expedient of not having unprotected sex or by taking an effective contraceptive, could have avoided this easily.

My own personal position is purely theoretical, of course, but I favour the argument for first trimester being unconditionally legal and thereafter only physical threat to mother's life and/or medically determined lack of viability of the foetus being allowable. Rape stigma needs to go away to allow for early decision making to occur, and mental anguish can be dealt with by adoption. None of this is far away from what most western European nations consider appropriate, but the UK allows later abortions than many.

I am aware that the above position falls foul of the "every sperm is sacred" position. I am content with that, having found what I consider to be a balanced (and yet still unsatisfactory) position between two awful alternatives.

[sunday]

"Every sperm is sacred" is as historical as "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition".

[Steven P Allen]

Stu, first of all, using back-alley abortions to justify freely available abortion is like using murders to justify making murder legal.  In fact, it's not like like it:  it IS it.

Second:  what the world "gets" is that human life is not worth protecting and that irresponsibility needs to be rewarded.  No, we don't "get" that, at least not all of us.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

You position is stop abortion, save life. You can look to evidence in Europe and your own country, if a woman wants an abortion, she will get one. Even if it means putting her life or future fertility at risk. Clearly then, all this will do is put life at risk, not save it.

Even pious Ireland finally figured out it didn't work. The French, who once had a morals police for such things figured out it didn't work. Even in Italy, its been legal since 1978. But you folks jettison decades of experience across the rest of the world and your own country and pretend it's a problem you can solve, if you just do the one thing everyone else did that epically failed.

Its not what is morally right. Its about what saves lives, and what doesnt, and thats all its about.

 

 

 

 

[seahawk]

Just because it is legal, does not mean it is right.

[R011]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well they dont do they? They are taking away that choice. A raped child could be given as little choice as the foetus she carries. How about worrying about the sentient victim than the non sentient one?

Its not about saving money, its doing right by the potential mother. How about putting them centre stage, then pretending an early stage foetus is her equal, which it isnt.

I really dont get how Americans lag behind the rest of the world in this fairly easy to figure out, basic stuff. You guys banging on forever abour rights, and cannot recognise you are removing rights and denying choice. Thats all its about, nothing else. If somoene was talking about taking away your choice to have guns, you would man the barricades. Its a womans choice being taken away, and its like SFW?

Dont get it. Glad I dont have to.

 

So temporary inconvenience to a currently sentient person is more important than the permanent death of a person who will become sentient or may already be sentient?   What if she decides to wait until after birth to kill her child instead of a week before? 

[R011]

6 hours ago, DB said:

My own personal position is purely theoretical, of course, but I favour the argument for first trimester being unconditionally legal and thereafter only physical threat to mother's life and/or medically determined lack of viability of the foetus being allowable. Rape stigma needs to go away to allow for early decision making to occur, and mental anguish can be dealt with by adoption. None of this is far away from what most western European nations consider appropriate, but the UK allows later abortions than many.

I am aware that the above position falls foul of the "every sperm is sacred" position. I am content with that, having found what I consider to be a balanced (and yet still unsatisfactory) position between two awful alternatives.

This, incidentally, is the same as my position and I suspect most people's.  The position that an unborn child is a human being with the right to life at some point seems to make more sense to me than that it's just some sort of tumor until removed at nine months.  Reasonable people can disagree when that point happens and quite frankly the position that it's human from conception is more logical than the only a growth until birth theory.

[BansheeOne]

Ultimately, at the heart of the issue is an irreconcilable conflict of rights caused by, fundamentally, two lifes occupying the same body. There can be no legal "solution" to this, neither a total ban nor total acceptance of abortion, nor anything in between. The best we can achieve is arbitrary compromise (it's not a person before it's implanted in the uterus/feels pain/can live outside the womb/is born) that pacifies the conflict in society to a sufficient level, and that quite possibly only temporarily before having to rebalance as morals shift. IMO we have to accept that some issues just cannot be resolved - not just so that not everybody can agree, but not resolved at all.

[Sardaukar]

With some people from USA, who are so adamant fighting for their freedoms, I find it ironic that they try to restrict those freedoms from others in same country. Especially when it concerns that person's own body.

The irony. 

To add: That you believe in something doesn't necessarily mean you are right. 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Sardaukar

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

Just because it is legal, does not mean it is right.

Just because something is basically moral in intent, doesn't make it enforceable. Look at prohibition.

Heck, look at the 50 year war on drugs. Making any progress yet?

[R011]

1 hour ago, Sardaukar said:

That you believe in something doesn't necessarily mean you are right. 

For instance, you seem to believe that the unborn child is part of the woman's body and not it's own entity  Many people would say that isn't right.  Indeed, most people would think that becomes wrong at lesat at some point during pregnancy.

[R011]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

You position is stop abortion, save life. You can look to evidence in Europe and your own country, if a woman wants an abortion, she will get one. Even if it means putting her life or future fertility at risk. Clearly then, all this will do is put life at risk, not save it.

I recall well the old days when abortion was neither legal nor socially acceptable and despite the existance of back alley abortionists, nearly all of whom, incidentally, were proper doctors with proper clinics, most women who found themselves pregnant ended up giving birth.