Has the right wing view of abortion gone totally loony? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Medmech · #1 05-19-2007, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

You don't have to be far left to have been against that bill. It was prohibiting a particular, and very seldom used medical procedure. The name "partial birth" was tacked onto it to make it sound particularly heinous, but it's no worse than other late-term procedures.

The main reasons to be against that bill were: it contained no exception for the health or even life of the mother; it takes the decision of the particular method out of the hands of the mother and her doctor; it is a very rare procedure, only used when other methods are inappropriate.

That ban will not prevent a single abortion.

15,000 late term abortions a year is seldom? Click on this link if you have the balls.
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&hl=en&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-24%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=partial+birth+abortion

cmac2012 · #2 05-19-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kookookachoo

15,000 late term abortions a year is seldom? Click on this link if you have the balls.
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&hl=en&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-24%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=partial+birth+abortion

It's definitely a nasty business. I heard on NPR that while people say late term is only to be used in cases where the baby would only survive a few painful weeks or months due to massive birth defects, or when the mother's life is in danger, the truth is that it's used more often like every other abortion: a form of birth control.

But in cases where it's discovered that the fetus has its brain on the outside of its skull, etc., late term should still be allowed, IMO.

Kuan · #3 05-19-2007, 06:58 AM

I don't like the way the question is framed. I don't like the idea of permission.

I think it's a matter of integrity and character to try your best no matter what, even if you know your life is in danger. I don't believe in giving up, and I will die trying to save a friend's life if I have to. I don't need anyone's permission.

Medmech · #4 05-19-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [LEFT

kerry[/LEFT]

edwards

;1509944]I was teaching an Ethics class today and a group of conservative students were strongly arguing the following position on abortion:

A woman with a known medical condition which will cause her death if she gets pregnant, is raped and becomes pregnant. It is morally impermissible for her to get an abortion, even if it means she will die, because abortion is always wrong.

Has anyone else heard anyone argue this position on abortion? It seems absurd because of the idea that self-defense would permit abortion in these circumstances even for the most right wing thinkers I have ever come across before today.

Did I just run into a strange anomaly or has there been a much further move to the right on the question of abortion of which I am unaware? What's next, imprison the woman until she gives birth then execute her for having illicit sex?

Doubtful and if you had a group my guess is they were taking a position more for the sake of conversation.

Did you referee the discussion or participate?

kerry · #5 05-19-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kookookachoo

Doubtful and if you had a group my guess is they were taking a position more for the sake of conversation.

Did you referee the discussion or participate?

Definitely not taking the position for the sake of conversation. True Believers.

I was referring a discussion but when that position came up, the class exploded, destroying any possibility of thoughtful interaction. There's a good chance it ruined for good, what was an engaging class up to that point.

ASaltyDog · #6 05-21-2007, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

I was teaching an Ethics class today and a group of conservative students were strongly arguing the following position on abortion:

A woman with\ex?

Say when did you get back? - I thought you were over at Berkeley riding your bike in traffic?

kerry · #7 05-21-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASaltyDog

Say when did you get back? - I thought you were over at Berkeley riding your bike in traffic?

?????

Gurkha · #8 06-03-2007, 11:24 AM

Although I don't condone abortion used as active birth control method specially since there are many safer, less traumatic and easier methods of pregnancy prevention, its still and always remain the right of the woman to bring the child to the world, its better to bring a healthy child to the friendly world rather than bring them to a place where they are felt unwanted. No religious belief, dogma, agenda has any right over this personal decision, neither does any politicians representing them to keep his votebank.

Matt L · #9 06-03-2007, 08:10 PM

I've said before that I think self-awareness is the only metric that matters, both for abortion and euthanasia. Nobody seems to be interested in finding out when this happens. This could even occur after birth, for all I know. Should that be the case, I'd go for viability.

kerry · #10 06-03-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

I've said before that I think self-awareness is the only metric that matters, both for abortion and euthanasia. Nobody seems to be interested in finding out when this happens. This could even occur after birth, for all I know. Should that be the case, I'd go for viability.

The general view is that it usually happens quite a long time after birth. The test is to put a dot on the child's forehead, put it in front of a mirror and see if the kid points at the mirror or her own head. Elphant passed the test quite recently.

Botnst · #11 06-03-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

The general view is that it usually happens quite a long time after birth. The test is to put a dot on the child's forehead, put it in front of a mirror and see if the kid points at the mirror or her own head. Elphant passed the test quite recently.

Must have something to do with reincarnation.

B

suginami · #12 06-03-2007, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

The general view is that it usually happens quite a long time after birth. The test is to put a dot on the child's forehead, put it in front of a mirror and see if the kid points at the mirror or her own head. Elphant passed the test quite recently.

Instead of self-awareness, what about awareness of the external world? Fetuses in the womb have an awareness of things happening outside. After birth, a parent's voice is soothing to babies because they recognize the sound.

kerry · #13 06-04-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suginami

Instead of self-awareness, what about awareness of the external world? Fetuses in the womb have an awareness of things happening outside. After birth, a parent's voice is soothing to babies because they recognize the sound.

I think that's true, if we think of awareness as response to the external world, but I don't think it helps with specifically human rights because lots of other animals have awareness of the external world but we don't grant them the same rights as humans. I do think that self-consciousness is an important reason why we give different rights to humans than to other species but even after birth, self-consciousness is not there, so it's just the awareness of the external world plus the potential for self-consciousness that makes the infant a different object of moral concern than a member of another species.

Botnst · #14 06-04-2007, 09:26 AM

That deaf, dumb and blind kid
Sure plays a mean pinball!

Botnst · #15 06-05-2007, 12:08 PM

^^^^
Nice, Tim!