Exactly: snapper's position is the internally coherent one. The Rape Exemption folks are slut-shamers, plain and simple. They don't give two wet farts about the unborn. It's a total culture war thing. If you really cared about the lives of the unborn you would NEVER permit a rape or incest exemption.

A 6 month old child has to rely on a third party but it doesn't need to be that specific of a third party. A 6 month old doesn't need the exact same person that carried it in their woman for 9 months to live to continue on living.

So what? If I'm a nanny and I don't feed a baby, and it dies, you can bet I'm being criminally charged, even though anyone else could have fed him.

The point is that no person is allowed to take direct action to cause the death of another, outside of a strict set of limited circumstances (self-defense, military service, capital punishment).

snapper: I'd always assumed you were anti-death penalty.

Exactly: snapper's position is the internally coherent one. The Rape Exemption folks are slut-shamers, plain and simple. They don't give two wet farts about the unborn. It's a total culture war thing. If you really cared about the lives of the unborn you would NEVER permit a rape or incest exemption.

Well, you might permit the exceptions if it was the only way politically to pass anti-abortion legislation. Better to ban 98% of abortions than none. But you can't believe they are just, and should keep trying to ban them all.

snapper: I'd always assumed you were anti-death penalty.

No. I think it's necessary for some cases. e.g. prisoners serving life that kill guards or other prisoners, gang leaders that keep ordering hits from in jail, treason, etc.

Snapper watches too much Oz!

As someone who just went through some fertility issues, I have a whole new understanding on this issue. To call an embryo a life is lunacy. To place the rights of a fetus or embryo above the freedom of the woman carrying it is a ridiculous, medieval point of view that obviously doesn't see women as human beings of equal value.

Women spontaneously abort all the time. It's incredibly common for a fertilized egg (i.e. an embryo) to fail to implant in the uterus. In most cases the party in question has no idea it even happened. This idea that a fertilized egg is some kind of magic person seed is crazy. The woman has to make that embryo into a person. It's hard work and takes care and attention and energy. And it's her body and it should be her choice whether to do it or not. Rape, incest, or mistake.

Does anyone here really think this would be an issue if men carried fertilized embryos in their abdomens? Please.

Sorry if this is a collection of platitudes, but I see no point in parsing the fundamentals of the issue here. They all amount to conceding the nonsensical claim that an embryo or fetus is entitled to more rights than the woman carrying it.

Exactly: after going through 6 rounds of IVF, either an embryo is not a person or my wife and I are mass murderers. Woo!

I had acupuncture once (worked well, BTW). I had to sign a form stating I was not pregnant, which I thought was funny so I mentioned it. The lady told me that acupuncture performed on a pregnant woman almost always results in miscarriage. I have no idea, and have not looked it up, if that is true. But, if it is, it is either a great threat or a marketing scheme lying in wait of the right man/woman.

My wife and I also have fertility issues. Because of our beliefs, IVF is completely off the table for us.

I don't mean to criticize you guys for doing it, it's hugely tempting, but just want to show you that I do "walk-the-walk" on my beliefs, and they come at a cost.

Edit: Frankly, our fertility problems have made me less sympathetic to arguments for abortion. People are just throwing away what we want so badly to have.

To place the rights of a fetus or embryo above the freedom of the woman carrying it is a ridiculous, medieval point of view that obviously doesn't see women as human beings of equal value.

For purposes of this discussion, we're expected to ignore the fundamental veracity of this statement.

And there is nothing different between Libya and Syria. They're virtually identical places, situations, and geopolitical issues.

I agree 100%.

We stuck our noses in Libya even though it was not in our national interest. As a proximate result of our interference, an African democracy next door has been overthrown.

Meanwhile, over the past year we have refused to provide small arms to opposition forces in Syria, never mind that getting rid of Assad is in our national interest. Meanwhile, the Russians funneled heavy weaponry, including helicopters, to the murderous regime and Iranians sent in military personnel.

I think your sarcasm detector is off... because Syria and Libya are wholly different animals.

It was wholly in our national interests to be involved in Libya. As noted and only a google away, Moamar Gaddafi has been an unending nightmare the entire continent for 40 years. There's a reason the Arab League wanted him gone. There's a reason no nation sided with him. Pick an African conflict and I don't need 6 degrees of separation to get to Gaddafi. The extent to which Libya played any role in international terrorism against the US or Europe directly is tiddlywinks compared Gaddafi's habit of direct and indirect agitation and bloody mischief.

He's been the continental arms supplier for decades. He raises mercenary armies like gardeners raise tomatoes. What's more - he had proven to be a wily SOB, who lacked only the delusional will to stay a single course when it failed (i.e., he pretty much gave up the idea of pure military conquest after he got his ass handed to him during the 'Toyota Wars' of the 80s). He was a relative genius at playing two sides against each other - he played the Bush administration like a fiddle in the mid-aughts... supposedly reborn as the elder statesman, giving up his WMDs, seeing the supposed error his ways... Meanwhile, from Mugabe to Johnson - he continues to support sprouting dictatorships who owe him. Moamar Gaddaffi was 10 times the problem Saddam Hussein ever was - part of that is due to simple geopolitical reality (Hussein-controlled Iraq had a check against him next door in Iran, Gaddafi had no such regional check - and no, Egypt doesn't count because they did absolutely nothing to check him beyond kicking his ass when he attacked them directly).

Bashar Assad is a different animal. For one thing, Assad lacks the megalomaniacal dreams of regional hegemony. Don't forget - he was never supposed to be the one to succeed his father - it was only after his brother Bassel died that he became heir. I'm not saying he was some sort of tragic 'reluctant dictator' - and he certainly grew into the job - but he lacked the lifetime of dictatorial preparation. This makes Syria an inherently different rogue state than Libya.

For another, the topographical and strategic situation is wholly different. Dealing with Libya was a relative peace of cake - you had long, stretching desert roads that are perfect for a superior air force to pound the ever-loving hell out of a column of tanks and vehicles. No such good fortune in Syria, where you'd be trying to surgically strike cities and urban areas.

Finally, unlike Gaddafi and Libya - Syria and Assad do have allies. The Russians aren't quite as close to Syria as either they or we would like to pretend, but it is a consideration. What's more - while Lebanon among others would disagree - Syria and Assad hadn't managed to universally piss of the neighbors in one way or another.

Ultimately, it IS in our national interests to at least be on the side of rebels looking to overthrow a dictatorial regime, if for no other reason than we still do like to pretend that we're this great international beacon of freedom. Sometimes - in the case of Libya or the Balkans in 90s - that can be done with direct military action. Other times, it does mean arming certain parties. Sometimes, it means applying diplomatic pressure.

Libya passed the tests because

1) There was clearly a humanitarian crisis in the making - Benghazi was going to be slaughtered

2) Our military capability, based on the geography and topography, was a perfect match to stop it with minimal risk

3) We had universal support of our allies, universal support from the region, and our nominal 'great power enemies' didn't care enough about Libya to do more than abstain when it came to international opinion.

4) The regime in question was a destabilizing entity that had direct and indirect repercussions for our allies

5) The regime in question was most certainly at a crossroads where it was either going to fall without our help, or, turn the repression volume up to 11 and almost inevitably - fall during a subsequent uprising.

Libya, to me - passes all 5 of those tests. Syria fails at least one and perhaps as many three of them.

I'll be happy when the RNC can start reporting things again.

Way to ruin my timing, zonk.

They all amount to conceding the nonsensical claim that an embryo or fetus is entitled to more rights than the woman carrying it.

Not more rights, equal rights.

Just like a person in a permanent coma, or late stage dementia/alzheimers, has equal rights to you and me. From a societal point of view, it makes far more sense to kill the old and sick (of whom we have too many) than healthy unborn children (i.e. future workers and taxpayers) of whom we have too few.

So what? If I'm a nanny and I don't feed a baby, and it dies, you can bet I'm being criminally charged, even though anyone else could have fed him.

The point is that no person is allowed to take direct action to cause the death of another, outside of a strict set of limited circumstances (self-defense, military service, capital punishment).

I'm not following your "so what" paragraph and how it would apply to dependent lives having to consider the rights of those people they depend on to live.

As for your point it looks to me like you can accept people killing people but where to draw the line differs. Personally, I'm the type of person who isn't going to tell someone else what he or she should or shouldn't do especially when our differences are only over a matter of degrees.

By the way, my wife is finally pregnant. One thing that blew me away were the new lines of baby clothes for IVF babies.

"ICSI Pixie," "Frosty Baby," and on that says "My First Baby Photo" with a picture of a blastocyst on it were all pretty cute.

it makes far more sense to kill the old and sick (of whom we have too many) than healthy unborn children (i.e. future workers and taxpayers) of whom we have too few.

Watch out, Szymborski might pop up months from now to accuse you of actually endorsing this.

Just like a person in a permanent coma, or late stage dementia/alzheimers, has equal rights to you and me. From a societal point of view, it makes far more sense to kill the old and sick (of whom we have too many) than healthy unborn children (i.e. future workers and taxpayers) of whom we have too few.

What happens to a coma patient when the money runs out? I've always wondered that. But coma patients and those people that we believe can no longer make decisions for themselves lose the right to make decisions for themselves. One can "pull the plug" on a coma patient.

You're misunderstanding the pro-life argument.

Government is preventing the mother from harming a 3rd party (the baby) who has it's own rights, independent of the mother.

I understand the argument perfectly -- you're failing to recognize that that 2nd party -- the rape victim, is still a person who is now going to face costs and consequences beyond the original crime due to the theory of protecting that 3rd party.

She's still a person. She still has a life to live.

We lack the technology to magically remove that '3rd party' from the impacted 2nd party. Hence, if you're concerned about the 3rd party - why aren't you concerned about the 2nd party, too? Why should that second party be exempted from protection against consequences while the 3rd party is wholly protected by the state.

I understand the pro-life argument. I'd just have a lot more respect for it if it bothered to express any sort concern for the 2nd party, rather than solely focusing on the theoretical 3rd party.

Then, a 6-month old wouldn't have rights either.

Not the same thing, snapper. A 6-month old can BE alive outside a womb. A 3-month-old fetus cannot.

A 6 month old can also be placed with another parent or caregiver or caregiving agency.

Come up with a magical method to transport that bundle of cells out of the rape victim and into a willing surrogate, a tube, or whatever -- and these become moot...[EDIT: Technically, I guess I would still say "Should the state pay for that procedure and compensate the rape victim - to a lesser extent - for undergoing it"] Until that time, the questions stand:

1) Would he support government provided and wholly funded prenatal and neonatal care for the rape victim whom the state has chosen to force into a 9 month long health condition. I'm not talking coupons, I'm not talking vouchers, I'm not talking forcing her into a position where on top of carrying around a constant reminder of a extremely traumatic experience she also has to deal with a health insurance company that wants to keep costs as low as possible -- I'm talking wholly provided government health care.

2) Would he support direct government subsidies to the raped woman to compensate her for the time that the government has taken ownership and responsibility for her body? Let's say $25k.

3) Would he support rape exemptions to GOP positions on things like FMLA expansion, worker protections for pregnant women, etc so that if the rape victim has a job, she is guaranteed not to lose it, she is guaranteed not to suffer any career atrophy because of the consequences of the rape, etc.

4) Would he support government funded psychological care to help work through the 9 months she's being forced to bring to term a reminder of the traumatic experience.

Zonk has perfectly expressed my position, here.


All the pro-life arguments seem to forget there's a woman involved and that her part of the process is a little more involved than just providing the egg.

Fertilized eggs aren't people. Women of child-bearing age are.

What happens to a coma patient when the money runs out? I've always wondered that. But coma patients and those people that we believe can no longer make decisions for themselves lose the right to make decisions for themselves. One can "pull the plug" on a coma patient.

One can remove artificial life support. One can't smother them with a pillow.

it makes far more sense to kill the old and sick (of whom we have too many) than healthy unborn children (i.e. future workers and taxpayers) of whom we have too few.

Indeed. To clarify, it's not that I want to kill the old and the sick; it's more that I just don't want them to be alive anymore.

By the logic of some of the "pro-choice" people here, anyone should be able to leave a 6-month-old unattended in the mall food court under the "logic" that someone else will be around to take care of it.

I've heard a lot of new mothers and fathers say things like they were pro-choice before they had a baby and after having one they are now pro-life and I always think to myself you're being extremely selfish, then and now. Before you had your child you wanted the right to choose whether you had a child or not and at a time you wanted it. Once you had your child you then want to take that choice away from everyone else. That is being selfish. Worry about your own family and children and let everyone else worry about their own families and children.

One can remove artificial life support. One can't smother them with a pillow.

Exactly. A life that is dependent on others to live can be forced to attempt to live on their own (and allowed to fail) nor are care-givers forced to sacrifice their own pursuit of life and happiness to take care of the dependent life.

So how about if you wish to abort a fetus you simply remove it from the woman and ask it live on its own power?

By the logic of some of the "pro-choice" people here, anyone should be able to leave a 6-month-old unattended in the mall food court under the "logic" that someone else will be around to take care of it.

Yep, you nailed the logic perfectly. Next up a TV spot on Nancy Grace's show.

So how about if you wish to abort a fetus you simply remove it from the woman and ask it live on its own power?

That's still a direct action to kill the baby.

The baby is where it's supposed to be. It's not the baby's fault the parents don't want it.

By the way, my wife is finally pregnant.

Congratulations!

I would like to say I agree with Zonk (4912)
I'd also add that JE's bald assertion that Syria is more important to our national interests than Libya to be off, I can see an argument that they are/were roughly equal- I can see an argument that Libya is more important (for reasons elaborated by others earlier in this thread)

I'd also add that JEs' assertion that we are not aiding Syria's rebels in any way to be likely untrue

I'd also like to add that JEs' refusal to acknowledge some foreign policy differences- such as the fact that Russia and China are bound and determined to obstruct any overt action (via UN or elsewhere) in no small part because of what we (the West) did with their greater acquiescence on Libya

In other words I think JE's "outrage" is feigned, disingenuous and solely out there due to his partisanship.

The baby is where it's supposed to be.

You misspelled fetus.

The pro-life argument (at least the Catholic one that I subscribe to) is based on the 6th Commandment, which is properly rendered "Thou shalt not murder".

That is, of course, not what is commanded -- which is to not kill.

Congratulations!

Likewise, Congrats!

Zonk has perfectly expressed my position, here.


All the pro-life arguments seem to forget there's a woman involved and that her part of the process is a little more involved than just providing the egg.

Fertilized eggs aren't people. Women of child-bearing age are.

Thing is - I'm not even definitively sure where and when life begins... Blame it on my Catholic upbringing, but I certainly accept it within the realm of possibility that life does "begin" at conception. I just tend to think it doesn't, and so my primary concern at that point lies with the 2nd party, about whom there is no argument.

I would be perfectly fine with dumping loads of money into developing a procedure whereby a fertilized egg could be magically and safely teleported out of the 2nd party who does not wish to bring it to term into either someone willing to take it on or even some sort of Matrixian tube. I would wholly accept such a procedure as a replacement for abortion.

In fact, I'll even go a step further and say that I would be willing to have my tax dollars provide universal coverage for such a procedure - and line up with the pro-lifers against the libertarians who would probably insist that churches or whomever fund it rather than the government.

That is, of course, not what is commanded -- which is to not kill.

No, not really. The Hebrew is accurately translated as "Thou shalt not murder", and has always been interpreted that way.

Thanks everyone. I just want to say this baby would not be possible without the state of Massachusetts's mandated coverage for infertility. Come to think of it, I wonder if that was part of Romneycare? If so, thanks Governor!

Okay, I can see that my hypothetical scenario vis-a-vis Ryan and rape victims has left Joe temporarily mute, but what about snapper?

snapper, if you were Paul Ryan, and given your (Ryan's) position that rape is just a "method of conception", what would you say to a female journalist on national TV if she asked you directly (not as Romney's surrogate) to explain to her why she should be forced to bear a rapist's child? Knowing what reaffirming your (Ryan's) past position ("Sorry, lady, but you've got to tough it out") would sound like to someone who'd never heard it directly expressed before, and yet not wanting to play Etch-a-Sketch on one of your fundamental beliefs, how would you address the question?

Again, I'm asking you what Ryan should say, not what you'd say if your position were different than his. I'm trying to elicit the best-sounding statement that a "pure" right-to-lifer might say to a woman who's actually been raped**, not as an abstract policy question. Do you just bite the bullet, damn the consequences, or do you try to fudge it and deal with the inevitable charge of dissembling?

**hopefully hypothetically

That's still a direct action to kill the baby.

The baby is where it's supposed to be. It's not the baby's fault the parents don't want it.

Pulling the plug is a direct action to kill a human being.

The Hebrew is accurately translated as "Thou shalt not murder", and has always been interpreted that way

Unless they are the women and children of Canaan!

Indeed. To clarify, it's not that I want to kill the old and the sick; it's more that I just don't want them to be alive anymore.

be careful if Andy thinks you are serious he's going initiate another death wish...

The baby is where it's supposed to be.

You misspelled fetus.

Do you think this argument has ever persuaded anyone not already pro-choice? Seriously,
It's a baby
It's not a baby it's a fetus
It's a baby
It's not a baby it's a zygote
It's a baby
It's not a baby it's a fertilized egg
It's a baby
Its' not a baby it's just fetal tissue

Arguing that a fetus is not a baby because it is a fetus, is like arguing that a 12 month old is not a baby because it's a toddler

Also insisting that it not be called a baby seems like an attempt to deny its humanity, when is it human?
3 months?
6 months?
7.5 months?
in the birth canal?
when the cord is cut?

just to address a quote from the intro:

"If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

interestingly, as a result of the new voter id law in pennsylvania, and as a consequence of the desire of the people who passed it to keep voters uninformed about it, there could be more than 750,000 (mostly democrat) voters who get turned away from the polls for not having "proper" identification.

in addition, in florida, as a result of the new law restricting voter registration drives, democrat registration in that state has dropped by more than 90% during a 12 month period running up to this election, as compared to the runup to the 2008 election.



also, as it relates to abortion, i'd like to point out (for the 4th time in this thread) that arizona just passed a law stating that life begins 2 weeks before conception. would any pro-lifers care to express support for that point of view?

It's a human the first time it talks back to its mother. Then it's joined the human race.

It's a human the first time it talks back to its mother. Then it's joined the human race.

Ok I smiled at that one.

Edit: Frankly, our fertility problems have made me less sympathetic to arguments for abortion. People are just throwing away what we want so badly to have.

Envy. Sin and all that.

Do you think this argument has ever persuaded anyone not already pro-choice?

We're talking about a medical procedure, so let's use medical terms. Anything else is an attempt to short-circuit rational discussion with an appeal to emotion.

And: I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything on this issue. Milford summed up my position in #4907 pretty nicely.

also, as it relates to abortion, i'd like to point out (for the 4th time in this thread) that arizona just passed a law stating that life begins 2 weeks before conception. would any pro-lifers care to express support for that point of view?

I'm not a "pro-lifer" but Arizona's several weeks late -- life actually begins at quickening wherein the child no longer needs the mother's womb to be and remain alive.

I'm not a "pro-lifer" but Arizona's several weeks late -- life actually begins at quickening.


So you have to cut someone's head off for life to begin?

interestingly, as a result of the new voter id law in pennsylvania, and as a consequence of the desire of the people who passed it to keep voters uninformed about it, there could be more than 750,000 (mostly democrat) voters who get turned away from the polls for not having "proper" identification.

in addition, in florida, as a result of the new law restricting voter registration drives, democrat registration in that state has dropped by more than 90% during a 12 month period running up to the election, as compared to the runup to the 2008 election.

I'm not really worried about PA -- most polling has switched over to an LV model, and Obama continues to maintain a high single digit lead. The GOP has a really crappy Senate candidate running against Casey and the GOP SuperPACs just last week cancelled their ad time reservations for the fall. In effect, following the campaign money is probably as effective as polling in determining whether a state is in play - and I think the GOP is throwing in the towel on PA. I'm not saying it's in the bag - I'm just saying that if it comes back into play, then Obama is probably going to get trounced anyway.

As for Florida - a federal judge just tossed out Florida's silly registration law - whether enough time remains to make up the ground, we'll have to see. I still like Obama's chances in Florida - this isn't an inept campaign operation and they're going to hit Ryan's Medicare plans hard and hit them well. Finally, the GOP also has the anvil named Rick Scott to deal with. I expect Florida is going to be contested right up through November, but I'm comfortable with where it sits at the moment...

So you have to cut someone's head off for life to begin?

Sure, if you assume there can be only one.

I think SBB is confused.

Indeed. To clarify, it's not that I want to kill the old and the sick; it's more that I just don't want them to be alive anymore.


be careful if Andy thinks you are serious he's going initiate another death wish...

I WAS serious. Well mostly. I don't mind old/sick people who pay their own way, but our healthcare "crisis" is overwhelmingly driven by a small percentage of very old, very sick people. Better to spend that money on fixing global warming so we can have some ice floes to strand those folks on.

I also agree with Zonk in 4934, except:

but I certainly accept it within the realm of possibility that life does "begin" at conception. I just tend to think it doesn't, and so my primary concern at that point lies with the 2nd party, about whom there is no argument.

I agree, but I suspect that when I find that the 3rd party's (ie., fetus/baby) right to life trumps the second party's (ie., mother) right to bodily autonomy is earlier than when Zonk does

"Life" and "human life" are different things. An embryo or blastocyst is more like protozoal life.

be careful if Andy thinks you are serious he's going initiate another death wish...

I'm sure he's serious (and now he's confirmed it), but I'd rather just see Joe or snapper respond to the question I posed in # 4937 for about the 3rd or 4th time.

Am I the only one bothered by the term "pro-life"? Snapper may be pro-life, but it simply does not accurately frame his side of the debate. The debate is not about life, but about choice, and if you are opposed to legal abortion, you are simply anti-choice. I really pro-life is a shorthand to describe that particular side of the spectrum, but that doesn't make it any less misleading.

I'm fortunate that I've never been in a position where I've needed to participate in the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy. I'd like to think that if I were in that position, I'd advocate for the continuation of the pregnancy, but there are too many hypotheticals to say that with any certainty. I'd like to think that I'm personally "pro-life". I am certain, however, that I am in favor or giving the parent(s) of the unborn child the right to make that decision for themselves, and in that sense, I'm absolutely "pro-choice". One can be personally pro-life AND pro-choice. Snapper is free to call himself "pro-life", and that's almost certainly an accurate description of his position, but in terms of the abortion debate, if someone advocates for absolute restrictions on abortion, there's no other term to use for that than "anti-choice".

snapper, if you were Paul Ryan, and given your (Ryan's) position that rape is just a "method of conception", what would you say to a female journalist on national TV if she asked you directly (not as Romney's surrogate) to explain to her why she should be forced to bear a rapist's child? Knowing what reaffirming your (Ryan's) past position ("Sorry, lady, but you've got to tough it out") would sound like to someone who'd never heard it directly expressed before, and yet not wanting to play Etch-a-Sketch on one of your fundamental beliefs, how would you address the question?

Again, I'm asking you what Ryan should say, not what you'd say if your position were different than his. I'm trying to elicit the best-sounding statement that a "pure" right-to-lifer might say to a woman who's actually been raped**, not as an abstract policy question. Do you just bite the bullet, damn the consequences, or do you try to fudge it and deal with the inevitable charge of dissembling?


He should say that rape is a tragedy, but the baby is not the criminal, and is completely innocent as to how he was conceived. It is not just to punish an innocent 3rd party for the crimes of the rapist.

Watch out, Szymborski might pop up months from now to accuse you of actually endorsing this.

You too, huh?

Isn't the rapee an innocent party atoo nd how is to just to continually punish them for the crimes of the rapist?

We should force the rapist to get a sex change and implant the fetus into his/her womb.

I WAS serious. Well mostly. I don't mind old/sick people who pay their own way, but our healthcare "crisis" is overwhelmingly driven by a small percentage of very old, very sick people. Better to spend that money on fixing global warming so we can have some ice floes to strand those folks on.

Andrew Sullivan actually did a pretty good series of posts on how doctors die. The gist of it is that they tend to eschew any sort of life saving measures, because they know what's going to happen, and they're prepared for it. But this one captures TGF's position pretty well:

I work in end-of-life care, and I see this phenomenon all the time. I believe doctors eschew aggressive life-prolonging treatment because they've seen and understand the futility and suffering that are part and parcel of it. But I also believe it's because they're not making money off their own treatment.

Am I the only one bothered by the term "pro-life"? Snapper may be pro-life, but it simply does not accurately frame his side of the debate. The debate is not about life, but about choice, and if you are opposed to legal abortion, you are simply anti-choice. I really pro-life is a shorthand to describe that particular side of the spectrum, but that doesn't make it any less misleading.

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are both marketing terms.

If you prefer I'm fine with anti-abortion (procured of course, not spontaneous) and pro-abortion, but I'm guessing the pro-choice side doesn't care for that either.

If you think abortion is murder, then talk of "choice" is pretty ridiculous. Of course I don't want people to have the choice to murder their unborn babies, anymore than I want them to have the choice to murder their 3 year old, or their neighbor.

you are advocating for regulations in order to punish women for having consensual sex.


Total flimflammery. There's a big difference between a woman who engages in sexual intercourse voluntarily, knowing pregnancy can result, and a woman who is raped.

A simple yes would have sufficed.

Well, that's me and approximately 1.2 million other Type I diabetecs who are irresponsible for... being born.

Competing interests here. Should you have been aborted here to save us responsible taxpayers from having to take care of your free-loading ass?

I just want to point out that, by the rules of the game according to liberals, even though Lassus has never taken a dime of public assistance for himself, if he hasn't given, oh, $50,000 a year in taxes he is indeed "free loading" as that term has been defined for us. Because paying for oneself isn't enough. One must pay huge sums of money to others.

I think SBB is confused.

Uh, no. Quickening/viability are terms well-known to all educated commentators on abortion and have self-evident moral weight.

Thanks everyone. I just want to say this baby would not be possible without the state of Massachusetts's mandated coverage for infertility. Come to think of it, I wonder if that was part of Romneycare? If so, thanks Governor!

"Life" and "human life" are different things. An embryo or blastocyst is more like protozoal life.

Sweet! It's great to know that huge amounts of taxpayer money are being spent for something the recipient(s) apparently see as little more than an accessory. And why are people, especially the "fetus isn't a life" crowd, congratulating this guy for his wife being pregnant if he doesn't believe the fetus is a life? If his wife miscarries, or aborts, or is assaulted and loses the fetus, so what? They can just go to the IVF Store and get another one, like replacing a lost or stolen iPhone. No big loss, right?

Do you guys congratulate people for getting a new hearing aid or for getting their teeth cleaned? Those are voluntary "medical procedures," too.

***

Okay, I can see that my hypothetical scenario vis-a-vis Ryan and rape victims has left Joe temporarily mute, but what about snapper?

Andy, you've posted your dream hypothetical about the "gotcha" VP debate question about rape about 10 days in a row. I'm actually in favor of the rape exception, but Paul Ryan is not (or was not). I'm quite sure it's occurred to the Romney/Ryan people that someone might ask about abortion between now and Election Day, and I'm guessing Ryan will give one of the answers people have suggested in this thread.

Isn't the rapee an innocent party atoo nd how is to just to continually punish them for the crimes of the rapist?

No one is taking any action to punish the mother.

If you prefer I'm fine with anti-abortion (procured of course, not spontaneous) and pro-abortion, but I'm guessing the pro-choice side doesn't care for that either.

Well of course the pro-choice side wouldn't, because being in favor of allowing someone to make their own decision and refusing to impose my beliefs on others is not the same thing as agreeing with their choice. It's a complete misrepresentation of the pro-choice position, unless you want to lengthen it to "Pro-abortion option for people to make on their own with no interference from the government", but that's a bit of a mouthful.

Of course I don't want people to have the choice to murder their unborn babies

Then you're anti-choice. Problem solved.

Am I the only one bothered by the term "pro-life"? Snapper may be pro-life, but it simply does not accurately frame his side of the debate. The debate is not about life, but about choice, and if you are opposed to legal abortion, you are simply anti-choice. I really pro-life is a shorthand to describe that particular side of the spectrum, but that doesn't make it any less misleading.

You're right that the terminology is very important, but unfortunately it's a perfect illustration of why there can never be a resolution to this issue. The two sides are talking past one another because they come at from two very, very different points of view. Each sides description is perfectly accurate from their perspective and completely misleading from the other side's perspective.

They are also well-known terms to sci-fi geeks as well.

He should say that rape is a tragedy, but the baby is not the criminal, and is completely innocent as to how he was conceived. It is not just to punish an innocent 3rd party for the crimes of the rapist.

But you're still not doing much to acknowledge -- much less, alleviate, compensate, or otherwise assist -- the impact on the 2nd party. Protecting this 3rd party inevitably means there will be financial implications for the 2nd party. There will be lifestyle implications for the 2nd party. There will be health implications for the 2nd party. Simply saying "What a tragedy" does absolutely nothing to address those implications.

I'm actually a bit surprised the response to the question of free care and commensurate compensation isn't an easy matter to answer directly. If protection of that 3rd party is so paramount, I would think that the costs of that protection would be meaningless.

No one is taking any action to punish the mother.

So creating a law forcing her to do something isn't an action?

If you think abortion is murder

which you do.

so i could ask...would you support the jailing of abortion providers?


it seems like a fairly logical leap. if abortion is murder, the woman is only putting out the hit, it's the doctor who's wielding the hatchet.

No one is taking any action to punish the mother.

Other than forcing her into servitude against her will for roughly nine months (at least), followed by an extremely painful medical procedure.

Also insisting that it not be called a baby seems like an attempt to deny its humanity, when is it human?

It's human from the get-go, but then so is my sperm. It's not a person from the get-go, though. As a human develops, it gradually acquires the rights and responsibilities that go with becoming a person. We have no problem with this concept when it comes to the post-birth period. Bar mitzvah at 13, right to vote at 18, right to drink at 21. Similarly, I don't have a problem with the concept that a fetus has zero rights at conception but considerable rights after birth. Legally, of course, we have to draw boundaries, and those boundaries will be just arbitrary as the age at which someone can be tried as an adult or the age at which one is liable to conscription into the military, but those need to be negotiated as a society not just hand-waved away.

Well of course the pro-choice side wouldn't, because being in favor of allowing someone to make their own decision and refusing to impose my beliefs on others is not the same thing as agreeing with their choice. It's a complete misrepresentation of the pro-choice position, unless you want to lengthen it to "Pro-abortion option for people to make on their own with no interference from the government", but that's a bit of a mouthful.

The government regularly "interferes" with decisions of one person to terminate the life of another, and it's axiomatic that it does. That's probably its most fundamental function -- protecting us from the predations of our fellow humans.

so i could ask...would you support the jailing of abortion providers?

This is the wrong question. Almost every anti-choicer would respond with an emphatic "YES!". The real question is whether they support a sentence of 25 to life for pre-meditated murder for the woman who chooses the procedure? Most anti-choicers have a much tougher time with that one.

Do you guys congratulate people for getting a new hearing aid or for getting their teeth cleaned? Those are voluntary "medical procedures," too.

I strongly recommend no one reply to this. Joe is just trying to rile people up. It's what he does when he realizes that the ongoing argument is lost. He just picks a new fight, usually by means of personal insults, so that the foregoing discussion in which he was roundly out-debated gets lost.

This time, he's gone peculiarly desperately to the personal insult well.

Careful, you don't want to appear to be embarrassing yourself.

I'd like to think that if I were in that position, I'd advocate for the continuation of the pregnancy,

I have, and I did, gently but firmly, but always verbally acknowledging that it wasn't my choice ultimately, and that I'd be supportive whatever happened. As it turned out I'm glad it happened the way it did, not that I've changed my mind about having a kid, but that it was a very risky circumstance with the likelihood of horrible defects very high. (And no, not because of incest or anything, potential smartasses.) Anyway, that's the situation I've lived and known about. There's another that I'm still not sure about, if it happened and if I was the, um, relevant male in the equation. THAT one bothers me.

I joke about moonbats enjoying recreational abortions and sprinkling the stem cells in Salt Lake City's water supply just to get a rise out of wingnuts, especially Marie Jon'. And I'd do that again, because tastelessness is fun and funny. But the real thing is a weighty, sucky thing.

it seems like a fairly logical leap. if abortion is murder, the woman is only putting out the hit, it's the doctor who's wielding the hatchet.

I wouldn't have a bit of qualm jailing a doctor who induces birth and kills the child when the child's halfway out of the womb.

The government regularly "interferes" with decisions of one person to terminate the life of another, and it's axiomatic that it does. That's probably its most fundamental function -- protecting us from the predations of our fellow humans.

And when the statutes are changed such that unborn fetuses are deemed "fellow humans", then this will be relevant. Until that time (heck, even deep red states have problems getting personhood bills passed), it's not.

The real question is whether they support a sentence of 25 to life for pre-meditated murder for the woman who chooses the procedure?

Or even the death penalty.

No one is taking any action to punish the mother.

Other than forcing her into servitude against her will for roughly nine months (at least), followed by an extremely painful medical procedure.

Let's neuter the language and just "implications" rather than punishment.

...and the question still remains unanswered. A tragedy has been acknowledged to have occurred. In a world where abortion is illegal, the fallout of that tragedy carries lifestyle, health, and financial implications for the victim of the rape.

What reasonable argument is there to be had that those costs and implications should not be borne by the society that has determined that our theoretical 3rd party lays primary claim to the body of the 2nd party?

Other than forcing her into servitude against her will for roughly nine months (at least), followed by an extremely painful medical procedure.

That was all caused by the rapist.

I'm pro-choice but I don't think I would ever suggest an abortion to whomever is carrying my child. There has only been one close call in my life and it wasn't really a close. She simply miscounted her cycle but when she told me, after she was done freaking out for a half a day, that she thought she was pregnant I was very excited. If it had turned out that she was actually pregnant I know with almost 100% certainty that she would have had an abortion. I wouldn't have been happy about it and I don't know what it would have done to the relationship but I wouldn't have stopped her.

But you're still not doing much to acknowledge -- much less, alleviate, compensate, or otherwise assist -- the impact on the 2nd party. Protecting this 3rd party inevitably means there will be financial implications for the 2nd party. There will be lifestyle implications for the 2nd party. There will be health implications for the 2nd party. Simply saying "What a tragedy" does absolutely nothing to address those implications.

How is this any different than any other liberal ideal? The more I pay in taxes, the lower my lifestyle. The more people have access to doctors under Obamacare, the less I'll have quick access myself. And so on and so forth.

It's funny watching liberals suddenly argue as if they're hardcore libertarians.

***

I strongly recommend no one reply to this. Joe is just trying to rile people up. It's what he does when he realizes that the ongoing argument is lost. He just picks a new fight, usually by means of personal insults, so that the foregoing discussion in which he was roundly out-debated gets lost.

LOL. Get over yourself. This is about the 20th time you've pulled this "wise sage" routine. If your fellow lefties need you to tell them what to respond to and what not to respond to, they're not very bright.

This time, he's gone peculiarly desperately to the personal insult well.

Where was the "personal insult" in #4964? You're making things up.

I strongly recommend no one reply to this.

I'll respond only to point out that neither of those things are actually medical procedures.

That was all caused by the rapist.

I don't really understand this line of reasoning.

So if a cop happens to come across a man raping a woman he should just let him finish up first before arresting him?

4985. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4222295)
It's funny watching liberals suddenly argue as if they're hardcore libertarians.

DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!

Okay, I can see that my hypothetical scenario vis-a-vis Ryan and rape victims has left Joe temporarily mute, but what about snapper?

What is so difficult about this question? If you're Ryan, you say "I do not believe there should be an exception to abortion for rape, because that would still be killing an innocent life. My runningmate feels differently, however (*), and so the ticket will support a rape exception. And please don't get all hysterical here about my position, or try to distract from the issue, or try to dishonestly pretend that I don't think rape is horrific. Yes, of course rape is a horrific circumstance for a woman. And abortion is a horrific circumstance for an unborn child. And the issue here - please try to keep your eye on the ball - is abortion, not rape. The crime of rape does not justify the sin of abortion, so I don't know why you would pretend that the former would negate the principle that abortion is a sin. My stance is completely consistent: aborting an innocent baby is a sin, regardless of how the baby got there. Do you understand now? Are we clear? Are we -- cue Jack Nicholson -- CLEAR."

Done and done, gotcha question asked and answered.

(*) I assume from Andy's comments re Ryan saying something about "the ticket" that Romney would support a rape exception. I have no idea because I don't follow this horse race stuff or polls or gotcha questions or anything else; I start paying attention during the debates.

Sweet! It's great to know that huge amounts of taxpayer money are being spent for something the recipient(s) apparently see as little more than an accessory. And why are people, especially the "fetus isn't a life" crowd, congratulating this guy for his wife being pregnant if he doesn't believe the fetus is a life? If his wife miscarries, or aborts, or is assaulted and loses the fetus, so what? They can just go to the IVF Store and get another one, like replacing a lost or stolen iPhone. No big loss, right?

Jesus, it's not a difficult concept. Potential human life is not human life. When our viable embryos failed to implant or arrested in the lab, we didn't have freaking funerals for them. But then, you've shown yourself time and again to be completely incapable of rational discussion.

Also, the second part of this comment is so asinine, I don't even know where to begin.

That was all caused by the rapist.

I'm with McCoy. I don't understand where you're going with this. Is the argument that rape is an act that can last anywhere from 30 seconds to nine months, and that forced pregnancy and child birth is simply a continuation of the initial violation? That's pretty ###### up.

And when the statutes are changed such that unborn fetuses are deemed "fellow humans", then this will be relevant. Until that time (heck, even deep red states have problems getting personhood bills passed), it's not.

Sure they have, though typically not before the third trimester. Congress banned partial-birth abortion, the barbarity supported by many "pro-choice" extremists, including many on these boards.

As between the two extreme positions -- partial birth abortion permitted, and abortions of pregnancies caused by rape not permitted, the former is more extreme. The correct answer, of course, is no abortions after viability, abortions allowed before viability. The circumstances leading to the pregnancy don't bear a whit on the rights, privileges, and immunities of the child and there's no serious argument that they do.

But you're still not doing much to acknowledge -- much less, alleviate, compensate, or otherwise assist -- the impact on the 2nd party. Protecting this 3rd party inevitably means there will be financial implications for the 2nd party. There will be lifestyle implications for the 2nd party. There will be health implications for the 2nd party. Simply saying "What a tragedy" does absolutely nothing to address those implications.


How is this any different than any other liberal ideal? The more I pay in taxes, the lower my lifestyle. The more people have access to doctors under Obamacare, the less I'll have quick access myself. And so on and so forth.

What a tragedy.

That do the trick? All better now?

What reasonable argument is there to be had that those costs and implications should not be borne by the society that has determined that our theoretical 3rd party lays primary claim to the body of the 2nd party?


I have no problem with society providing free medical care to all pregnant rape victims. In practice, this is currently readily available through pro-Life charities.

I just want to clarify that, even with coverage, we had a $2,4000 out of pocket maximum that we met several years in a row, which doesn't even account for the costs of medication which, even with coverage, go into the thousands. We were lucky that instead of costing $15,000 a pop, it cost us about $3500 a pop. It's still incredibly expensive and difficult. My wife had had have several injections a day for 10-12 days every cycle, plus progesterone shots for another two weeks after transfer. This was for each cycle. On the last day of injections of the cycle that finally worked, my wife finally broke down in tears when the agony of the follistim needle jabbing her in the stomach for the hundredth or so time finally made her crack.

But you're barely worth my time.

What is so difficult about this question? If you're Ryan, you say "I do not believe there should be an exception to abortion for rape, because that would still be killing an innocent life. My runningmate feels differently, however (*), and so the ticket will support a rape exception. And please don't get all hysterical here about my position, or try to distract from the issue, or try to dishonestly pretend that I don't think rape is horrific. Yes, of course rape is a horrific circumstance for a woman. And abortion is a horrific circumstance for an unborn child. And the issue here - please try to keep your eye on the ball - is abortion, not rape. The crime of rape does not justify the sin of abortion, so I don't know why you would pretend that the former would negate the principle that abortion is a sin. My stance is completely consistent: aborting an innocent baby is a sin, regardless of how the baby got there. Do you understand now? Are we clear? Are we -- cue Jack Nicholson -- CLEAR."

Done and done, gotcha question asked and answered.

You know, I'd actually vote for a guy who had the guts to say that. Of course the chances of him ( or any politician running for national office) being even 10% as forthright as that are slim to none.

The correct answer, of course, is no abortions after viability, abortions allowed before viability.

With a life-of-the-mother exception, right? This isn't my position, but so long as there's an exception in place so you don't force the woman to take a massive risk with her own life, it's a reasonable one.

With a life-of-the-mother exception, right?

Of course. Like all humans, the mother has a fundamental right of self-defense.

I strongly recommend no one reply to this. Joe is just trying to rile people up. It's what he does when he realizes that the ongoing argument is lost. He just picks a new fight, usually by means of personal insults, so that the foregoing discussion in which he was roundly out-debated gets lost.

I'm going to defend Joe here, if a fertilized egg/zygote is not a human life and if abortion is just another medical procedure...

Look I'm not a Akin/Ryan absolutist
I'm a line drawer, and I'm more than happy to draw that line well past conception (and I think society should both fund and encourage contraception), but I find an awful lot of the pro choice rhetoric and arguments to be dehumanizing, insisting that X is not worthy of life, or less worthy of life than Y, irrespective of anything X ever did, is something I find discomfiting on many levels.

And yes, in case you wonder about my consistency, I find GF's opinions on the value of the lives of some of the sick and or elder poor to be even more contemptible

I have no problem with society providing free medical care to all pregnant rape victims.

Why do you keep ignoring the non-financial aspects? I mean, I can guess, but I want to see you write it.