Sunday, April 15, 2012
I Can't For the Life of Me
For decades now the pro-life and pro-choice factions have basically been talking past each other. And, yes, folks, it's obviously been the extremes who've been the loudest here. On the far right you have some folks so extreme that they actually consider the morning-after pill synonymous with abortion. And on the far left you have other people so extreme that they think that a woman should be able to abort a fetus LITERALLY 24 hours prior to the due-date. You'd think, wouldn't you, that the saner folks in society could eventually push these people to the side and come up with a far more rational approach? I mean, I know that this has largely become an emotional issue and all but, please, can we plainly just knock it off with all of these battle-lines....at least for a minute or two?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
89 comments:
Both of the groups you describe are completely insane.
So, it isn't totally me? Thank God.
I don't know if you're referring to me or not. I made a comment about abortion recently, but I did not say I approved of abortion 24 hours before birth. For the record, I do not.
.
"... far left you have other people so extreme that they think that a woman should be able to abort a fetus LITERALLY 24 hours prior to the due-date."
Calling BS on this one.
Name one human who says, "that a woman should be able to abort a fetus LITERALLY 24 hours prior to the due-date". The only people who say this gibberish is the opponents of 'freedom and liberty', the RW hate machine. You know, Murdoch Media/Fox Networks.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
"And on the far left you have other people so extreme that they think that a woman should be able to abort a fetus LITERALLY 24 hours prior to the due-date"
The extreme goes beyond that: the view that supports abortion after birth. Senator Feingold once spoke out on the senate floor in favor of this.
And on the other end, the extreme could be "no contraception or birth control at all". And that does exist too.
Ema called out the BS in Will's post and dmarks doubled down! And he includes a horrible lie about one of our greatest (now former) Senators.
Russ Feingold believes, "I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor...".
The Boxer amendment said the prohibition against partial birth abortions doesn't apply when the baby isn't viable.
It sounds to me dmarks is against mercifully euthanizing an nonviable fetus, and instead would prefer it suffer horribly until it died naturally? I don't know how anyone could be that unbelievably cruel. If this really is dmarks' position I find it quite shocking.
WD should be thankful that no one has made a subjective determination that he is "nonviable" and gotten all bloodthirsty and sought his death.
Viability should not be the measure. As brought up in the last (or maybe one before last), Supreme Court battle, that is like saying that our technology decides when a baby is human and thus endowed with the rights of a human. (I don't think humanity should be the measure either, but viability even makes less sense).
And who else but to determine such viability? Death panels. Alive and well in WD's comments. The only thing that is shocking here is WD's zeal to kill babies at this stage.
It sheds a new light on his support of Bill Maher's statements about how handicapped children are not people and are equivalent to dogs due to some vaguely defined lack of ability to advance.
DMarks,
When people make up stories like saying that someone is not a person unless we have the technology to sustain them outside the womb, we cannot come to an agreement on what is right. People have a categorical imperative that says "human life is paramount." They also support aborting human life in some cases, and they use justifications and redefinitions to ease the cognitive dissonance involved in the contradiction.
They are unwilling to consider that perhaps their categorical imperative should not be categorical, or they should reconsider their concept of abortion.
I don't have that silly categorical imperative.
And here, by the way, is Feingold taking the very extreme view of performing "abortions" to kill children* who have alresdy been born. And yes, he does think it is OK for a doctor and mother to act as judge, jury, and executioner on a new born infant. A person under the law (please check your 14th amendment), and an American citizen who under our Constitution holds the rights of due process. Feingold's views are extreme in the worst way.
John: You seem to have a pretty clear way of looking at it. What do you think of including, as Feingold does, already-born infants (legally persons with every Constitutional right) as Feingold does, as people who can be killed at will at a mere whim by two hostile individuals?
DMarks,
I do not think abortions should be permitted beyond 12 weeks, and I am not sure it should not be something more like 8 weeks.
It is a complex topic that I don't have time to fully discuss, but I don't think partial birth abortions should be allowed.
We are killing a human. Therefore, we should look at all victims involved and come up with a reasonable compromise.
I have no problem killing a human zygote. It cannot feel, cannot think, and has none of the attributes we use to define most humans. It does not know about its life, want its life, need its life. It is no different from wearing a condom, which I also have no problem with, really, other than the fact that it reduces the pleasure of sex.
I'm talking about showing mercy to a baby that has no chance of surviving. Mercy and a desire to not prolong suffering is the only thing I have zeal for. Apparently dmarks' zeal is to show no mercy and to prolong suffering as long as possible?
dmarks: WD should be thankful that no one has made a subjective determination that he is "nonviable"...
I'm talking about medically determined non viability, not subjectively determined.
John Myste: Viability should not be the measure. As brought up in the last (or maybe one before last), Supreme Court battle, that is like saying that our technology decides when a baby is human and thus endowed with the rights of a human.
So you're saying nonviable babies don't have the right to not suffer unduly? And who says technology has anything to do with it? Certainly a baby can be nonviable to the point where advances in technology would never be able to save it.
I'm for letting doctors decide. They're qualified while legislators are not.
dmarks: ...killed at will at a mere whim by two hostile individuals?
I'm opposed to killing on a "mere whim". That would be murder. I'm talking about a medical determination of non viability.
Perhaps future technology will enable people to be revived after death? Should everyone therefore have the RIGHT to be cryogenically frozen just in case we ever develop that technology?
I mean, after they put you in the ground and you rot away I doubt any technology will be able to bring you back (cloning perhaps, but that just creates a physical duplicate. The clone would not be you or have your memories).
So why should we allow the fact that the technology does not yet exist (to bring people back) condemn them to a permanent death?
Would that not be saying technology decides when a person isn't human and thus endowed with the rights of a human?
"I'm for letting doctors decide. They're qualified while legislators are not."
Again with your death panels. Actually, legislators actually tend to be more qualified in terms of Constitutional rights and due process. It is shocking in many respects (including to the respect of the law and due process) to advocate doctors killing people willy-nilly without any regards to the rights of persons under the Constitution.
"I'm opposed to killing on a "mere whim". That would be murder. I'm talking about a medical determination of non viability"
Actually, under the Constitution, there is no allowance for doctors to be judge, jury, and executioner.
What you describe very specifically and exactly in fact meets the definition of murder: "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."
And killing legal American citizens as Feingold advocates is indeed "unlawful", as the victims in this are not fetii, and are not covered in the abortion law being discussed. Feingold and those like him took a huge leap when they deigned to stretch abortion law to cover legal American citizens who are not in the womb.
There's not even a gray area of self-defense: a newborn infant is not going to harm the mother. So you can't even hide behind that.
Since you seem to think it does not matter, here is the text of the 14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I can remind you of due process if that is necessary too.
John: In a politically pluralistic situation such as we have in the US, your ideas on this as set forth are reasonable and in my view 'workable'. Problem is there are a lot of extremists/idealogues/purists on both sides who won't give ground in any way.
dmarks: There's not even a gray area of self-defense: a newborn infant is not going to harm the mother. So you can't even hide behind that.
I never brought it up, therefore I never tried to "hide" behind it. I was talking about viability.
dmarks says that if I say we should show mercy and end the suffering of a non viable baby it is the same as if I were to "advocate doctors killing people willy-nilly".
It's pointless to argue with dmarks because he keeps lying. I see this could go on for quite some time, so I'm not going to respond to any more of his ludicrous comments... Except to say that I agree with the Feingold position.
I'm still in favor of limiting when abortions can be done in respect to viable fetuses, however.
"dmarks says that if I say we should show mercy and end the suffering of a non viable baby"
I am not opposed to that as much as I am opposed to the extra-legal and unConstitutional situation of doctors assuming the mantle of judge, jury, and executioner over these legal American citizens.
Take each case to a court of law, where it belongs. ""advocate doctors killing people willy-nilly" is exactly what you have advocated. I have seen no mention from you whatsover of this citizen's rights under the Constitution.
"Except to say that I agree with the Feingold position."
Which is to give doctors the right of judge, jury, and executioner to murder (yes, murder) American citizens willy-nilly. It's a very extreme position. Will's original comment had the extreme on this end as aborting a fetus 24 hours before birth. I guess he had no idea that someone would go out in a limb and even make false accusations to put forth a much more extreme position.
"It's pointless to argue with dmarks because he keeps lying"
Since I have not lied yet here, one can only guess at what you mean. In any case, it is clear to anyone reading this with even an ounce of reading comprehension that you are making a false accusation.
In regards to Will's request "I mean, I know that this has largely become an emotional issue and all but, please, can we plainly just knock it off with all of these battle-lines....at least for a minute or two?"
it is clear that you won't.
Dervish,
SCOTUS Viability discussion: should a fetus have human rights prior to viability outside the womb. Note: inherent in this question is the assumption that once a fetus could be viable outside the womb, it should be endowed with human rights. Also inherent in the question is the assumption that the fetus will become viable outside the womb, if the pregnancy is not terminated. Any question about a pregnancy where it is assumed that the fetus will not become viable outside the womb if the pregnancy is not terminated is a separate discussion, and not the main focus of the abortion debates in the Rehnquist Court, where most of the decisions were made (I know the Roberts Court overturned the idea that the Mother’s health is paramount, but in general I am referring to the Rehnquist Court and America’s legal stance on abortion for the past few decades).
John Myste: Viability should not be the measure. As brought up in the last (or maybe one before last), Supreme Court battle, that is like saying that our technology decides when a baby is human and thus endowed with the rights of a human.
So you're saying nonviable babies don't have the right to not suffer unduly? And who says technology has anything to do with it? Certainly a baby can be nonviable to the point where advances in technology would never be able to save it.
I am not saying that. I am saying the SCOTUS argument of viability is an irrelevant metric. If a child cannot be saved, he should be euthanized, regardless of the SCOTUS viability question. That is NOT what the SCOTUS arguments were about. They were about when the child has rights as an entity, which, many argued, was at the point of viability. That reduces what it means to be human to our technical ability at any given moment.
If a child cannot survive, we should put him down using the most painless method possible.
I'm for letting doctors decide. They're qualified while legislators are not.
Doctors are no more qualified than anyone else of determining when a fetus should be given human rights.
I'm opposed to killing on a "mere whim". That would be murder. I'm talking about a medical determination of non viability.
Let us not mix the argument of whether a child can survive with the liberal SCOTUS position that a fetus that is not viable outside the womb has no human rights.
Perhaps future technology will enable people to be revived after death? Should everyone therefore have the RIGHT to be cryogenically frozen just in case we ever develop that technology?
If you wish to discuss cryogenics sometime, and its ethical impacts, I will be happy to do so, but I will not mix it with other discussions, as that just muddies the waters and leads to additional fallacies, aside from the fallacy of complex question, introduced with the cryogenic discussion in the first place.
DMarks,
There's not even a gray area of self-defense: a newborn infant is not going to harm the mother. So you can't even hide behind that.
Fetuses do huge amounts of harm to the mother, both physically and psychologically. Some of the effects of carrying an unwanted fetus are torture, by the U.S. definition. It causes great pain and leaves lasting psychological or physical scars. To equate this terror with the effect of new born infant is a logical mistake.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Since some people do not think a fetus is a person. Any argument that assumes this as part of its premise is begging the question and irrelevant. The argument about whether a fetus is a person must be settled first.
For more of what WD advocates, please click here.
Medical experts appointing themselves judge, jury, and executioner over American citizens that they have determined to be not worthy of the gift of life. All without any regards to the victim's rights as US citizens under the Constitution. In the name of "mercy", which, in the imagination of WD's medical "experts", completely trumps the victim's Constitutional rights.
It's really sick and bloodthirsty. Will, when you created this item, did you have any idea that someone would come out and use this as an excuse to vent their desire to have doctors slaughter such "undesirables" who ale already born?
John said: "Fetuses do huge amounts of harm to the mother, both physically and psychologically"
I know that well. That was not even at question. I brought it up in the matter of unlawfully killing children who have already been born. For some reason this is actually controversial here. These children are in no position to harm the mother.
John also said: "Since some people do not think a fetus is a person. Any argument that assumes this as part of its premise is begging the question and irrelevant. The argument about whether a fetus is a person must be settled first."
I know, I know. But read up for the previous comments. WD is advocating killing newborns, who are legal persons (born, see the 14th Amendment), and technically not a fetus any more. That's a rather outrageous and extreme position.
John Myste, your last comment seems to contain contradictory statements. Are you for humane euthanization or against it? I support it, including for adults. If an individual has a terminal illness and is predicted to die within a short period of time, they should be allowed to take their own life. Of course a newborn baby does not have the capacity to make such a decision, therefore it should be left to the mother in consultation with her doctor.
I'm ignoring dmarks. I oppose forcing a NON VIABLE baby to suffer unduly. He supports it. Obviously a rational discussion with this type of extremist is impossible. Check out his last two comments in which he jumps to all kinds of illogical conclusions. Here on display is dmarks at his nuttiest.
Ema/wd,, I believe that there are 8-9 states that still have ZERO restrictions on abortion, so technically in those stastes a woman could get an abortion right on up to the due date.
"I'm ignoring dmarks. I oppose forcing a NON VIABLE baby to suffer unduly"
You are also ignoring the Constitution and other law. Which demands that such matters have proper due process.
Rogue killer "doctors" as you advocate... simply not legal.
"Check out his last two comments in which he jumps to all kinds of illogical conclusions"
I have not jumped anywhere. The only leap was Feingold's in which he used a discussion of abortion law to vent his own zeal for killing already-born persons. One you support.
And the only "force" involved is in killing existing American citizens.
looney tunes.
Tell us, WD. You clearly believe that the 14th Amendment should be ignored. Is there any age at which it should kick in, and legally born American citizens get their Constitutional rights of due process?
Is it 1 minute after they were born? 1 hour? 1 day? 3 years? 30? Which is it?
Should the 14th Amendment be changed to reflect this? Or do you think it is OK that anyone can choose to ignore it as they see fit?
The 14th amendment doesn't apply.
The 14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
As with the matter of those who think that the children of illegal aliens are not protected by this Amendment, there is also no exemption for these citizens we are discussing. It clearly does apply to them.
Why are you arguing so forcefully in favor of something that amounts to sadism? Do you get your jollies thinking of the suffering of non viable babies your absolutism would cause?
All I am asking is that citizen's basic 14th Amendment rights be protected, especially if there is an individual who wants to kill this person.
"Do you get your jollies thinking of the suffering of non viable babies your absolutism would cause?"
No more than you get your jollies out of your zeal to kill newborns.
Seriously, these matters should not be taken likely. Nor are doctors supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner. And the existence of the 14th Amendment and due process are inconvenient truths: these protections exist even if we "think" they don't, when it comes to US citizens.
The 14th amendment doesn't apply because nobody is depriving these babies of life if they are already going to die. It's more akin to a parent's right to make medical decisions for their child (and they do have that right).
Also, the "state" isn't doing any depriving. It's the mother in consultation with her doctor that are making the decision.
What if non viability is the ONLY reason the mother decides to have an abortion... she wants the child, but clearly it has no chance of living... so she decides she does not want it to suffer?
Then dmarks steps in and says, "no, your baby MUST suffer". That's how these anti-abortion extremist males* view the situation... the mother has no rights (* they are usually male).
Like I said before dmarks, your view on this is absolutely crazy. I doubt many would agree with it.
Also, I notice another spelling error that dmarks slipped into his comment on purpose, to try to get me to "flame" him on it. But I'm not going to do it. Yet another "fail" for dmarks.
"Then dmarks steps in and says, "no, your baby MUST suffer".
No, I never said that.
And thanks for the spelling flame. You have a real fixation on those.
It's a conspiracy, man... every time I missspell a word it is to get your goat. Otherwise, doncha know, I never make spelling mistakes. Never ever.
And time for another fact check...
WD said: "That's how these anti-abortion extremist males* ...(* they are usually male)."
Checking the polls, about half of men oppose abortion. The same as half of men. So the "usually" is simply and completely untrue.
"The 14th amendment doesn't apply because nobody is depriving these babies of life if they are already going to die."
That's a bizarre view. It makes one wonder if you have your own alternate-reality Constitution there.
One with an asterisk in the 14th Amendment. * = Not applicable of you are going to die.
Well, we all will die eventually. So no 14th Amendment. None at all, WD.
Truth be told, this major modification exists in your own mind alone. In the real America, the 14th Amendment applies to everyone: even those who you so eagerly want to see slaughtered.
And it is so strange you bring up abortion in this part of the discussion. Check the definition of abortion. It does not apply to some mercenary with a medical degree taking a hit on someone who has already been born.
dmarks: [quoting me] "Then dmarks steps in and says, "no, your baby MUST suffer". [to which dmarks replies] No, I never said that.
That is EXACTLY what will happen as a result of how you want to apply the 14th amendment.
dmarks: And thanks for the spelling flame. You have a real fixation on those.
Can't you read? I said I wasn't taking your bait. You're the one with the fixation.
dmarks: Checking the polls, about half of men oppose abortion.
Again dmarks fails to accurately read my words. I said nothing about people who oppose abortion in general. I was referring to extreme extremists like you.
dmarks: That's a bizarre view.
What's bizarre is your zeal to make non viable babies suffer via the application of a Constitutional amendment in a way it was never meant to apply.
dmarks: It does not apply to some mercenary with a medical degree taking a hit on someone who has already been born.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. This must be how mercy and a desire to end suffering (for a baby that has ZERO chance of surviving) is viewed in YOUR alternate reality.
That is EXACTLY what will happen as a result of how you want to apply the 14th amendment.
Correction to the above: dmarks won't be stepping in personally. He wants the government to step in on his behalf to make babies suffer. (a correction I must make knowing dmarks takes people's words 100 literally... although I should probably delete my original comment, because even with this correction there is a good chance dmarks will hit me with an "interpretation flame").
And what BS did I put forth, wd? In states like Washington, Oregon, Maryland, Hawaii, Connecticut, California, and Maine, a woman can literally get an abortion at any time (including WELL into the 3rd trimester) and for any reason. What, pray tell, you've never heard of abortion on demand?
Some other states are more concerned with the right of a kid to carry a firearm
than a woman's right to terminate
a pregnancy ..
WD said "Again dmarks fails to accurately read my words. I said nothing about people who oppose abortion in general. I was referring to extreme extremists like you."
Since you use the word "extremist" in such discussions to describe anyone whose view varies from yours, it's a given that you mean all who oppose abortion. Since I am not an extremist, you are not referring to me in any specific way.
"I have no idea what the hell you're talking about"
You do if you have bothered to read anything. I have referred to these doctors with amazing powers that trump any 14th Amendment rights people have. Now that's an extreme position.
Dervish,
John Myste, your last comment seems to contain contradictory statements. Are you for humane euthanize or against it? I support it, including for adults.
After reviewing said comments, I find no contradiction whatsoever. Please quote the contradiction. I am for the right to euthanasia and I am definitely for the right to abort a terminal fetus. I have made no statement that would suggest otherwise.
I oppose forcing a NON VIABLE baby to suffer unduly. He supports it.
Again, there were two intermingled discussions of viability. I reject the SCOTUS proposal that perhaps the point viability should define personhood. It is logically irrelevant to personhood. As for viability in reference to a terminal fetus, it is obvious that only categorical imperative could suggest that it is always wrong to kill the fetus. I don’t have categorical imperatives.
I also believe that fetuses are humans and that fact should be considered when deciding how to treat them. I do not believe that fetus IS a woman’s body just because he/she lives there.
John said: "I also believe that fetuses are humans and that fact should be considered when deciding how to treat them. I do not believe that fetus IS a woman’s body just because he/she lives there"
Again, WD's position is so extreme that he was advocating killing already-born legal citizens, protected under the 14th Amendment. He has even used a few imaginary and silly reasons to say that the 14th Amendment does not apply (when in fact, all of WD's bloodlust aside, it does).
"Abortion on demand" (as presented by rightwingers) is a myth. I'm guessing Will believes it however, otherwise why bring up all these states with fewer restrictions on abortions? I'd say it's because in these states the legislators have wisely decided to leave the decision up to women and their doctors.
Those who believe in the "abortion on demand" myth think state legislatures are all that stand between murderous doctors and the mothers who want to kill their unborn babies just for kicks.
That's the BS I was referring to. In your original post the way you framed your argument made it appear as if you think both extreme sides have an equally loud voice. I think the "personhood at conception/ contraception illegal" crowd is a lot larger then the "abortion literally 24 hours before delivery" crowd.
Only one of these groups has/had TWO candidates running for the 2012 presidential nomination... Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.
And the first group is a lot more dangerous. This is the crowd from which we get people who assassinate abortion doctors, blow up clinics, and commit other acts of terrorism.
These aren't states with fewer restrictions. These are states with NO restrictions. It isn't a myth at all.
Will: It isn't a myth at all.
I said the myth is that, "state legislatures are all that stand between murderous doctors and the mothers who want to kill their unborn babies just for kicks".
Not a myth? You think murderous doctors and women have to be restrained from killing unborn babies? Really? Wow.
Will: These aren't states with fewer restrictions. These are states with NO restrictions.
SO WHAT?
The legislatures in these states TRUST women and doctors to make these decisions.
You think women in these states have significantly more abortions just because they can?
You haven't presented any evidence that this is the case.
I trust women and their doctors to make the right decision. Clearly Will Hart does not trust women or their doctors. Both Will and dmarks apparently think we need restrictions to keep these psychos' bloodlust in check?
Is that a reality based position or a misogyny based one?
Well at least this thread has been interesting. Albeit void of anything uniquely new or revealing.
So, wd, you DO think that a mother should be able to be abort a fetus 24 hours prior to the due date? You can kill a baby 24 hours prior to birth but it's murder to kill it 24 hours after birth? That's bizarre. And, no, I don't trust everybody.......Yes, if the life of the mother is at stake but if it's something as basic as mild anxiety, you induce the birth and give the baby up for adoption, for Christ.......Noooooo, there's no extremists on the pro-choice side.
Do I trust women/doctors? What kind of a stupid-assed question is that? I don't trust any group collectively. It's like frigging asking me, do you trust human beings? Ah, well, since I lock my doors every frigging day before going to work, the answer to that one would also be NO.............And do you see what happened on this thread, wd. I do a balanced post in which I criticized the extremists on both sides and I only get attacked by the left, that stupid-assed nut Ema throwing Fox News in my face and you accusing me of throwing around BS. What does THAT tell you about the reasonableness of each side?
Will: What does THAT tell you about the reasonableness of each side?
I'd say my views on the subject are very reasonable, while yours' and dmarks' are considerably less reasonable.
Will: So, wd, you DO think that a mother should be able to be abort a fetus 24 hours prior to the due date?
Personally, unless there is a sound medical reason, I say no. But I don't think there should be, nor do we need laws prohibiting it. The reason being I trust women and doctors.
btw, this isn't a blind trust. It's also a trust that women and doctors aren't crazy... or that, if they are crazy, they can be stopped from going through with an abortion for if they are.
The reason I bring up crazy is because I think it would be crazy to carry a fetus for 38 weeks and then abort it. Pregnancy can have some serious health consequences. Why would a woman risk her health for no reason?
That said, I wouldn't oppose any common sense laws (that allowed for medical exceptions) limiting late term abortions (but I wouldn't support them either).
The bottom line though, is that you've utterly failed to make your case. You think we need laws limiting abortions in ALL states and you base it on your distrust of people in general. How about finding out if these laws are actually needed before we rush to pass them?
Hey Will, I believe we have just seen the unreasonable, the bizarre, the frightening, and the crazy all in one place at the same time. They are indeed one in the same person. Or canine.
"That said, I wouldn't oppose any common sense laws (that allowed for medical exceptions) limiting late term abortions". And that's exactly MY position, dodo.............And, yes, I find it VERY EXTREME for certain sates to have ZERO restrictions on 3rd trimester abortions (you conveniently left out the 3rd trimester part in your dullard retort, the implication being that I was in favor of restrictions on abortion in general - a lie!)............And you counseling others on the necessity of not rushing into a law is uproarious - you, who supported that corporate welfare boondoggle, cap and trade piece of shit.
Les, I thought that had done a pretty fair and balanced post here in which I chided the extremists on both sides and, yes, sure enough, out he crawls from underneath his unemployment check and calls me a misogynist. You simply cannot make this crap up.
You did, Will. And not only did WD embrace one of the extreme views (extreme according to strongly pro-choice moderate Will and 'insane' according to strongly-Left John Myste), he extended it to a passionate (and compassionless) support for infancticide and disregard for the inconveneint (for him) protections for citizens under the Constitituon (his ineffective argument? People don't have any rights if they might possibly die. For them there are no civil liberties.) His bringing up of blowing up abortion clinics is hollow and ineffective sloganeering. Not only has it hardly ever happened, it represents an extremist view. No one here in this discussion supports either of the extremes, except for WD.
"Les, I thought that had done a pretty fair and balanced post here..."
You did. Then came along Mr. Anti balance himself. What an incredible surprise that was ya think?
dmarks' is redefining words again to support his lies about what I said. "Non viable" doesn't mean "might possibly die". Also, Russ Feingold never spoke out on the Senate floor in support of abortions that take place after birth. It NEVER happened (except in dmarks' imagination).
Will: And that's exactly MY position, dodo... And, yes, I find it VERY EXTREME for certain sates to have ZERO restrictions on 3rd trimester abortions.
How am I a "dodo"? That was my very first comment. I didn't anticipate any disagreement on this topic. That was until dmarks lied about what Russ Feingold said, and then lied about my agreement with Russ Feingold's common sense position (that we should not let non-viable fetuses suffer for no reason).
He calls mercy bloodlust. How crazy is that... yet no one but me says anything. And also dmarks does not notice that nobody's agreeing with him.
He thinks because no one else takes on his lies they're all in agreement with them (they might be, but I suspect no one mentions' dmarks craziness because they just don't want to agree with anything I've said).
And of course I have to disagree with Will's belief that there are women who are crazy out-of-their minds with desire to kill unborn babies they've carried into the 3rd trimester (and equally crazy murderous doctors).
All I asked was for him to produce some proof of this, and he won't. And, of course, then come the predictable insults. And they usually include information Will has absolutely no way of knowing. But he's convinced it's accurate.
Will: you conveniently left out the 3rd trimester part in your dullard retort, the implication being that I was in favor of restrictions on abortion in general - a lie!
No Will, you're lying. That's the restriction I was talking about. You know that's what you meant. dmarks knows it and Les knows it. Who the hell do you think I was trying to "trick" by "implying" something else (which I wasn't)? The hundreds of other people who read this blog and don't comment? Or maybe it's thousands?
The only reason you call my comment "dullard" is because you know the facts DO NOT EXIST to back up your ridiculous assertion that women would want THIRD TRIMESTER abortions (and doctors would agree to do them) just for kicks.
Will: you, who supported that corporate welfare boondoggle, cap and trade piece of shit.
The stimulus? I had to think about that for awhile to figure out what you were talking about. Yea, I generally support it. Yes, they made some mistakes and I likely would have done things a bit differently. But it did lower unemployment.
As for cap and trade, I support the idea in general, but recall that I did AGREE with your criticisms of the bill. Perhaps I just thought it and didn't write it though. I actually don't recall commenting about cap and trade on this blog at all... so it's a mystery to me how you "know" I supported it.
dmarks LIED, LIED, LIED, LIED and LIED: And not only did WD embrace one of the extreme views (extreme according to strongly pro-choice moderate Will and 'insane' according to strongly-Left John Myste), he extended it to a passionate (and compassionless) support for infancticide and disregard for the inconvenient.
Every SINGLE assertion in is tirade is an out-and-out lie.
I embraced no extreme views. I said I said I did not approve of aborting a fetus literally 24 hours prior to the due-date.
Will did not specifically address the idiotic question you raised... Santorum asking about a "head slipping out" (and the baby being completely outside the womb as a result) while an abortion on a non-viable fetus was taking place. QUOTE me where Will agreed with you on this. You CAN'T do it.
Regarding John Myste's views, I CAN quote you where he disagreed with you.. John Myste wrote: "If a child cannot survive, we should put him down using the most painless method possible". (Is this not PROOF that dmarks lies?)
Also, I NEVER expressed a passionate and compassionless support for infancticide and disregard for the inconvenient. I (of COURSE) oppose infanticide. It's murder. I oppose murder.
These are all lies (or perhaps delusions of dmarks' twisted imagination)... either way everything he wrote is totally false.
WD started out on the wrong foot with something that is simply not true at all.
WD's claim: "Also, Russ Feingold never spoke out on the Senate floor in support of abortions that take place after birth. It NEVER happened (except in dmarks' imagination)."
The truth? It did indeed happen.
From The Political Guide:
"In September of 1996, Senator Feingold spoke with Senator Santorum on the Senate floor about the possibility of an abortion on a child that was accidentally delivered."
He went on to say that he would have no problem with this born baby being killed.
You really need to think these things through sometimes, ya know?
Later on you said "That was until dmarks lied about what Russ Feingold said,"
But we all now know I didn't lie. You have lost any credibility you have had on it. As if you had any left by the time of your 2nd comment in this thread.
"and then lied about my agreement with Russ Feingold's common sense position (that we should not let non-viable fetuses suffer for no reason)."
Actually, what is at controversy is Feingold's support for butchering newborns. We've not even argued about what you are falsely claiming we have.
dmarks, I read that EXACT summary of what happened (the one you linked to... I ALREADY read it). Russ Feingold did not say what you accuse him of. You're lying or imagining it. And we can't "all know" you didn't lie, because you did. You lied. Or imagined it. Who knows. Either way what you claim about Russ Feingold is patently FALSE.
He did say it was fine with him (not his business at ail) if doctors killed newborns.
Come on, man, did you even read it? Santorum asked him a direct question, and Feingold weaseled about it for a while, eventually answering admitting his own personal incompetance and insulting Santorum while a qustion about killing the already-born infants in question ("that the baby was completely delivered ") saying: "I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate."
Also, WD is intentionally deceptive by implying that this conversation is about butchering supposedly "non-viable" American citizens. Feingold was talking about extending abortion to cover the execution of normal newborns, with no distinction made for the non-viable. In his discussion, Feingold favors doctors killing newborns for any reason at all ("That is a question that should be answered by a doctor")
In this, Feingold lied. While his statement about himself being incompetant is answered abundantly in the positive by his answers, the Senator from Pennsylvania and anyone who has read the Constitution knows that killing born babies is illegal.
My claim about Feingold is this resolved as true.
By the way, changing the subject from butchering young American citizens to abortion, Feingold is indeed an extremist on it. Every time it comes up for a vote, he takes the fringe extreme view (fringe/extreme/insane as defined by pro-choice moderate Will, and strongly-Left John, at the start of this conversation.
Will, you defined an extreme point of view at the start. WD actually found one even more extreme. More insane than insane.
dmarks: Come on, man, did you even read it?
Yes, I read it. I also comprehended it... something you aren't guilty of.
dmarks: Santorum asked him a direct question, and Feingold weaseled about it for a while...
There was no weaseling. Santorum asked a BS fantasy situation question (something I doubt has, or will ever occur) and Feingold gave an honest answer. And I agree with his answer.
dmarks LIED: WD is intentionally deceptive by implying that this conversation is about butchering supposedly "non-viable" [fetuses in the process of being aborted].
I am not being "intentionally deceptive". My responses have been completely honest.
dmarks: Feingold was talking about extending abortion to cover the execution of normal newborns, with no distinction made for the non-viable.
He was not. And this is how we know dmarks did not comprehend what he read. Feingold said "under the Boxer amendment". The Boxer amendment said the prohibition against partial birth abortions doesn't apply when the baby isn't viable.
I wrote that in my FIRST response to your nonsensical post where you claimed Russ Feingold wants to kill babies. You never disputed it until now.
In any case, your claims about Russ Feingold are resolved to be unequivocally FALSE. Russ Feingold does NOT favor doctors killing newborns for any reason at all.
Nor do I. I am 150 percent opposed. This should be completely illegal and anyone suspected/accused of it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.
As for the insanity charge, that clearly applies to dmarks. I pointed out that Russ Feingold referenced the Box Amendment at the BEGINNING of this conversation. Perhaps he overlooked it, but I seriously doubt he's going to back down now (after I pointed it out to him again). I predict he's going to keep saying Russ Feingold spoke out in favor of killing newborns.
Even though no rational person could possibly reach that conclusion.
dmarks: Will, you defined an extreme point of view at the start. WD actually found one even more extreme. More insane than insane.
You're the one who brought the Russ Feingold thing into this conversation, thus YOU "found" it.
Although, the truth is that you imagined it, because what you're claiming Russ Feingold said isn't what he actually said.
If anything is "more insane than insane" I would say it's your delusions.
WD: "...response to your nonsensical post where you claimed Russ Feingold wants to kill babies"
Actually, it is nonsensical. You have supported this view of Feingold in the case of babies supposedly deemed to be non-viable.
"Russ Feingold does NOT favor doctors killing newborns for any reason at all."
He thinks it is fine if doctors do kill them. Making special exceptions to strip protection from certain citizens you wish harm to DOES mean you favor such policies.
"I predict he's going to keep saying Russ Feingold spoke out in favor of killing newborns."
It's what Feingold said, after all.
"Nor do I. I am 150 percent opposed."
Wow. That's a big change. It undoes all your previous comments in which you were so strongly in support of Feingold's pro-infanticide stand.
dmarks: It undoes all your previous comments in which you were so strongly in support of Feingold's pro-infanticide stand.
I'm retracting nothing. I stand by everything I said previously. But that's because Feingold has no pro-infanticide stand... except in dmarks' imagination, but that doesn't count.
"But that's because Feingold has no pro-infanticide stand... except in dmarks' imagination..."
Since Feingold's support for infantice (stripping young American citizens of basic rights and offering their lives up to the whims of doctors) is quite clear in the man's statements, the quote from you above is totally fact-free.
Your standing under the bright noon sun and saying "it's night out!" type of stands get tiresome sometime. Perhaps your reading stuff and then saying it says the opposite, or missing entire paragraphs comes from a form of alexia you are afflicted with. Or are you just a malicious "troll" saying silly things just for fun?
here is the actual video. Ignore the first 20 or 40 seconds or so, which are framing from a political pressure group. In between the frames, you will find Feingold's actual words.
Feingold is asked flat out about children who have been born (and are this outside of the situation of abortion, and are now US citizens protected by the 14th amendment).
In his muddled answer (in which he does admit his own incompetance) Feingold comes across as dazed and confused, and as one of the worst type of politician who refuses to answer direct questions,
He actually arguing in favor of killing a newborn who has already been separated from the mother in order to protect the health of the mother.
Feingold is arguing for infanticide, and if you support his arguments here, you are supporting infanticide also.
dmarks: Since Feingold's support for infantice... is quite clear in the man's statements, the quote from you above is totally fact-free.
I pointed out to you the Boxer Amendment condition (meaning he was ONLY talking about non-viable fetuses that were in the process of being aborted)... which you're ignoring to make YOUR fact-free assertion.
dmarks: You're standing under the bright noon sun and saying "it's night out!" type of stands get tiresome sometime.
You're wrong about who is doing this. It isn't me, it's you. But you are correct about it getting tiresome.
dmarks: Or are you just a malicious "troll" saying silly things just for fun?
I've wondered that about YOU. Is dmarks standing under the bright noon sun and saying "it's night out!" just for fun? Honestly, I have actually wondered this. And I must say I haven't ruled it out.
dmarks: Feingold is arguing for infanticide, and if you support his arguments here, you are supporting infanticide also.
Feingold never argued for infanticide. I support what he was really arguing for. I'm STRONGLY (150 percent) opposed to infanticide.
"Feingold never argued for infanticide."
No, of course not. He merely said it was fine for someone else's doctor to kill a newborn. It's 100% different, yeah right.
Sarcasm off
"I support what he was really arguing for."
This bloodthirsty admitted incompetant was arguing for killing newborns. If you really mean the above quote, it means you are too.
"I'm STRONGLY (150 percent) opposed to infanticide."
No, you are not. You just said above that you support Feingold's views, which are pro-infanticide.
You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.
My mind is made up. I support Russ Finegold's position... I'm opposed to infanticide. BTW, thanks for the link to the youtube video. I believe I will write a post about this for my blog.
My mind is also made up concerning another issue. That is, whether or not you're a nut. You're definitely a nut. Feingold's views are NOT pro-infanticide. Only a nut would view his comments as supportive of infanticide. Only a nut would stop an abortion in progress and allow a non-viable fetus to live (for mere minutes probably) because they've been "born" and have "14th amendment protections".
dmarks = fruitcake (in my STRONG opinion).
Strong? Your opinion is kind of weak, since it only rarely intersects facts.
Lets check this out:
"Only a nut would stop an abortion in progress and allow a non-viable fetus to live (for mere minutes probably) because they've been "born" and have "14th amendment protections".
For one, this conversation is not even about abortion. The living child in question is not even inside the womb.
Your referring to a matter of killing a born child as an "abortion" is a prime example of your re-defining words.
From any dictionary:
"The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy."
It's clear that the pregnancy has already been terminated at this point.
Also, there is no need to put quotes around the words born and my mention of the 14th Amendment. They clearly apply here. You have already re-written the 14th Amendment above. Perhaps you are re-writing the word "born".
Thanks for proving Will's point about extremists and John's about insanity. I guess we should be thankful that only one extremist showed up for this. Except for you, sane heads have prevailed.
John Myste did not say my agreement with Russ Feingold was insane. You're lying.
BTW, the extremist who showed up was you.
wd, I agree, %-wise, 3rd trimester abortions are relatively rare. But over time, there have literally been thousands of them. Dr.s Martin Haskell, James McMahon, and George Tiller alone (admittedly) performed thousands. And according to C. Everett Koop, there were 4,000 alone in 1984. Yes, some of these no doubt were medically necessary and I don't have a problem with them. But as it stands now, the health of the mother stipulation is so broad that a doctor so disposed could literally drive a Mack truck through it. And, no, I still can't reconcile the fact that you can abort a baby 2-3 days prior to the due date but you can't kill a newborn. That, to me, is utterly bizarre.
Will: But as it stands now, the health of the mother stipulation is so broad that a doctor so disposed could literally drive a Mack truck through it.
Why would a doctor do that? (and, in asking this question, I mean I don't think a doctor would).
I trust doctors, you trust legislators... which is odd considering your views on "leviathan". And you believe that some women are crazy for killing their unborn babies just for kicks... which I don't buy.
Will: I still can't reconcile the fact that you can abort a baby 2-3 days prior to the due date but you can't kill a newborn. That, to me, is utterly bizarre.
Nobody holds this position except the crazies. And in the 3rd trimester it should be for medical reasons only... but that's just my personal opinion. If there are states that don't want to prohibit it, that's fine with me.
I probably shouldn't get in the middle of this Feingold thing but this is my view. (Providing, of course, that the procedure itself is legal) I would have it such that, if the baby needed extraordinary measures such as a ventilator or a feeding tube to survive, the parents could at that point decide how to proceed. If, however, the baby did not need such extraordinary measures, it then of course needs to be taken care of. You simply can't let a viable human being die out of convenience.
There are unscrupulous doctors, wd.......So, it's OK with you if certain states don't want to outlaw the killing of a baby 2 says prior to birth? I mean, why not just let them kill the baby 2 minutes after birth? I mean, it's essentially the same entity here.
And there are a LOT of crazy-assed mothers, too, wd. I mean, I've worked with young women who've gotten pregnant who I wouldn't even trust watching my cat. Seriously.
Will: ...if the baby needed extraordinary measures...
The baby does NOT need extraordinary measures, because it's non-viable. That means it can't live no matter what is done. NO MATTER WHAT.
Will: If, however, the baby did not need such extraordinary measures, it then of course needs to be taken care of.
Of course. But that isn't what Santorum and Feingold were discussing. They were discussing non-viable fetuses that were in the process of being aborted.
Also, Santorum asked what was basically a BS question, as I doubt what he described has ever happened.
I read the entry on Wikipedia, and it mentions giving the fetus an injection that kills it before the procedure begins... so I don't know how it could ever "accidently" slip out completely and be "born".
In his defense of the indefensibie, WD tore through many barriers of law, common sense, definitions, and compassion.
Among his defenses of his zeal to see young US citizens killed without any regards to their Constitutional rights was this disclaimer which said such killings are OK if it isn't the government doing it:
"Also, the "state" isn't doing any depriving. It's the mother in consultation with her doctor that are making the decision."
There is a large number of public hospitals which are government-funded, and doctors who receive Medicaid payments.
So, then, do you agree, WD, that these government doctors would not be permitted to act as judge. jury, and executioner and snuff out the life of US citizens? That this privilege is only reserved, then, for private individuals?
Talk about beating the dead horse!
You are either pro-life or pro-choice.You either belive life begins at conception or you dont.You either believe a fetus is a living being or you dont.You either believe a woman should be able to have as many abortions as she chooses or you dont.
What ever you believe on the subject is exactly that...your belief....you're not going to change anyone on the subject....give it a fuckin break.
I think that there's room for some nuance, Russ. I mean, to me, an abortion at 3 weeks is a hell of a lot different than an abortion at 8 1/2 months. And the morning-after pill shouldn't be considered an abortion at all, in my opinion.
Like I said Will,its your belief.
You dont believe its life at conception....so killing a fetus at three weeks is O.K..Again its your belief.
I will repeat that I have signed off on the moderate, sane compromise agreed to by Will and John earlier in the comments. Compared to what we have, and always will have in the current climate, I think it is an improvement.
Giving constitutional rights to a fetus in the process of being aborted is neither moderate nor sane. It's effing looney tunes. As is vilifying people who think qualified doctors should be making these decisions.
And the only reason you say you and John Myste are in agreement is because you're ignoring what John Myste actually said. If you acknowledged what he actually said then you couldn't beat up on me as the only one who disagreed with your insane position.
Post a Comment