Jump to content

Pro-choice quandary

Recommended Posts

So my answer is that I would not pick the 'point' at which the mass of cells is worthy of state protection. The state should butt out.


Yah, so the parents who wanted a child but discovered that it's a lot of work, it throws up on the carpet and just eats and poops.... it's OK for them to destroy that mass of cells? All of us are just a mass of cells, eh? Old folks on medicare are drainin' the national treasury; old folks on pension are bankruptin' our auto companies. Time to discard those masses of cells? The state should butt out. Let those young union guys take care of it.


As to the notion of the state protectin' when the people want it to, all of the several states had almost universally determined that abortion should be illegal. It was only seven old guys in funny black costume robes who chose to ignore the people and dictate their own judgment.


I reckon that yeh can't find any rational, testable way of determinin' when any human should be defended. Which means your thinkin' is about as valuable as claimin' the world is run by magic gremlins. Might be true, but it's not useful.




Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In reference to a child who threw up, "it's OK for them to destroy that mass of cells?"

Beavah, I don't think that is OK. However, I think it does happen, too frequently. Mothers on their own children, fathers on their families, and then there are the regular old murders. The state doesn't prevent it. The state can only punish and punishment evidently doesn't prevent it.

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling even those states that had bans in place had abortions taking place. They were just killing some of the women as well. The states that allowed abortions were doing a good cross-border business. Like it or not, those women were making a choice, no matter the risks. And coercion by you, the church, or the state could not prevent it.


"I reckon that yeh can't find any rational, testable way of determinin' when any human should be defended."

As long as the woman is in custody of that embryo, she is the ultimate source of defence for it. That is the unavoidable reality. My approach is to allow her to take that responsibility. If you think that isn't rational then please articulate what you think the rational approach IS.

You provide a defensible time at which the state takes over.

You provide a defensible set of standards for the state to follow as it provides the protection.

You provide a defensible way to enforce it.

And then you provide a defensible punishment for those women who defy the state.


The best minds in the pro-life movement had six years in control of every branch of the government. They really blew it. All they needed to do was to log into Scouter.com and ask for Beavah.

So where were you? Your movement was floundering. Why didn't you step up with your solutions? Why not? Your movement failed. Where were you when they needed you? Think of what you could have prevented...and didn't.


OGE had a reasonable approach. It still allows choice but minimizes the frequency of the choice. Promoting governmental intrusion is little more than an admission that pro-life arguments are too weak to be convincing. A better option for those who support the pro-life policies would be to construct a more effective argument. And then convince people to make the best choice. Good luck.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Link to post
Share on other sites

All that sounds nice and fancy. But for those of us who believe in life, it comes down to a few simple facts.


Abortion is murder. Murder should be illegal. Those who murder should be punished.


All your crossing state borders, inability to stop the murder, etc arguments do not mean anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the assumption that "legal" abortion equals "safe" abortion. Women die from abortions today. They also have permanent infertility issues from them. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is safe!

If you use the third trimester as the measure of when life begins, two of my children were born before that point. I have had FOUR premature babies (one at a time I might add ...no multiples). These children were completely formed and are normal human beings. Each child's dna is unique at conception, they are individual human beings. What other measure is needed. They are either humans or they are not.


Why are we as a nation outraged at Casey Anthony for allegedly killing her daughter when she could have legally done it three years earlier with no recriminations.


So many of the pro-life DO support crisis clinics, hot lines, adoption agencies, health clinics, and everything else. It is a specious argument to claim that pro-lifers do nothing but protest at Planned Parenthood and block access. We do support so many of these charities. We just don't expect media coverage every time we do something.


There are many comparisons between the abortion debate and the fight for abolition. Slaves were also considered to be less than human. I just pray we don't have to pay a similar price to resolve this divide in our nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, packsaddle, I don't reckon that's da sterling example of rationality in argumentation to which yeh claim to aspire, eh? :p I reckon you've been spendin' too much time teachin' sophomores.


I do agree with yeh, though. As long as a woman is in custody of any defenseless child, born or unborn, she has the ability to abuse or kill it, eh? We can never prevent it entirely. Free will is a God-given gift no human governance can steal. But it's a logical fallacy to claim that it follows we should decriminalize infanticide or abandonment.


Abuse of women happens too, eh? Some societies condone it. Others tolerate it. Some criminalize it or make it socially taboo. None can prevent it completely, but I don't reckon that means that we have to condone it. Instead we use all our tools, includin' law, to reduce it.


Da question is what do we want to teach? How do we want to respond? What choices do we want to celebrate, and which ones do we want to sanction as a people?


Personally, as I've said before, I don't think political lobbyin' is da right tactic for those of us who care about life. This is mostly a ground war. We win it with love and compassion and justice individual by individual. It's not only the law that keeps people from doin' murder, eh? It's social taboo and personal ethics. Folks think that government drives society. Bah, humbug. Government reflects society.


As for da rest, you and I both agree that there were hardly any "best minds" at all in da administration of the last 8 years, pro-life or otherwise. ;)




Link to post
Share on other sites


An answer to your last question, probably Tom Edison. He was a closet psychopath, and the first to jump at the chance to throw the switch on Old Sparky. But because he wired it with DC not AC, he couldn't kill the guy, no matter how many times he throw the switch. True story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah, those are some things I do agree with - particularly, taken together, your final statements, "Folks think that government drives society. Bah, humbug. Government reflects society.

As for da rest, you and I both agree that there were hardly any "best minds" at all in da administration of the last 8 years, pro-life or otherwise."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what a D&C is, a dilitation and curretage of the uterus walls, a partial bith abortion involves having roughly half the babies head outside the mothers body before the head is crushed. I don't see it as the same thing. The CPT book lists 9 methods of abortion

Link to post
Share on other sites

ASM915 wrote: "Dan & OGE, The term your looking for is D&C."


Actually, no. A D&C is the term for the procedure done in early terminations. Terminations done after the 5th month (what the anti-choicers are calling partial-birth) are actually "extractions" (hence the X in D&X), not curettage.


OGE, here's the thing about the D&X termination. You will be hard pressed to find someone, even the most vehement pro-choicer, who doesn't also think it is wrong, except in cases to protect the mother's health. But from the way the anti-choice folks talk, you'd think that the majority of terminations were done that way. It's a total straw man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...