The Hidden History of Guns and the 2nd Amendment Book Tour Is Coming...

Thursday, June 6: NEW YORK, NY 7:30pm

Location: The Strand (2nd floor), 828 Broadway, NYC

Monday, June 10: WASHINGTON, DC 6:30pm

Location: Busboys and Poets, 450 K St NW, Washington, DC

Wednesday, June 12: PORTLAND, OR 7:30pm

Location: Powell’s, 1005 W Burnside St., Portland

Sunday, June 23: SEATTLE, WA 7:30pm

Location: Town Hall, 1119 8th Ave, Seattle (West Entrance) w/Elliott Bay Book Company

Tuesday, June 25: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 7:00pm

Location: First Church, 2345 Channing Way, Berkeley w/The Booksmith

Friday, June 28: CHICAGO, IL 7:00pm

Location: Frugal Muse, 7511 Lemont Rd. #146 (Chestnut Court Shopping Center), Darien

Saturday, June 29: MINNEAPOLIS, MN 7:00pm

Location: Common Good Books, 38 S. Snelling Ave, St. Paul

Become a Thom Supporter- Click the Patreon button

Sane conversation about abortion

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

1159 posts / 0 new

Comments

Well, it's been lovely, Kerry, but I have to scream now.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

In a similar vein, Zenzoe, let me update you on my little case with the self-mutilater (threatening a 'malpractice lawsuit' if 'my work' wasn't to 'his satisfaction') that severely cut himself in order to get prescription drugs to sell on the black market to buy more of the drugs that this self-mutilater uses (mainly heroin and cocaine). It appears that this person recently suffered an 'acute coronary syndrome' (a young person's equivalent to a 'heart attack'--usually brought on by such stimulant drugs like cocaine). It appears that in the liberal's netherworld of today where they, for something they call 'community interests', proclaim 'government-secured rights without individual and personal responsibilities', some caught up in that mind-trap can claim the 'control by the victim'--and, as such, may use the 'abuse excuse' right up to the point of self-destruction. Those of today's (usually) 'liberal' trends don't seem to realize just exactly what they are up against when they propose for any reason (especially 'community interest') any thing like 'rights without responsibilities' (for its adult members).....there is no such thing in a truly functioning democracy.....even one based on 'securing and guaranteeing rights' (human individual rights, that is)....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Well, it's been lovely, Kerry, but I have to scream now.

Well, is that what you will be doing as D_NATURED 'crushes the fetal skull and sucks out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'? Or, will you be proud of that mother's 'right to choose' for any reason?

I'm not against 'choice'--I am against that 'choice' not recognizing its responsibility--in pregnancy and life....and that does mean OWNING every choice you make--and every choice you allow....it is really the only responsible social commitment to make in a democracy based on 'securing and guaranteeing individual rights'.....

Neither DRC nor Ulysses could explain how a 'community interested in individuality' differed from one who 'grants individual rights to others as much as acquires them for oneself'--nor how a 'community interested in individuality' were to maintain any integrity to that 'cause' if 'community interests' could be implemented against such 'rights'--and 'who' would be responsible for that? Nor 'who' or 'what' gets the power to implement such 'interests' without that priority.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Okay, I'm done screaming now. (Looks like throwing a tantrum works on Kerry—at last, shorter paragraphs!)

Quote DRC:

While I am all for positive nurture and love, the problem I have with the causative argument is that it is not universal or manageable. There are survivors of abuse and neglect/oppression, and their are failures coming from "the best homes."

My impression, having observed children over the years, is that each has his or her own unique makeup and temperament, which manifests right out of the gate (so to speak); that is, one child in a family may inherit a calm, sensitive temperament from, say, the father, while another child in the same family may inherit the mother's (or uncles, etc.) stubborn, indomitable nature. Also, birth order plays a role. This means that no child's experience within any particular family will be the same, nor will their reactions to the same parental behavior be the same. Not to mention that no parent I've ever seen will treat each child the same. As I've said before, some children are weeds and respond to abuse as a challenge to grow; other children are orchids and require tender, nurturing care to survive successfully. Thus, it's really unfair to say, because abuse didn't bother one child (though, a proper look at their "success" in life might prove interesting.), abuse wasn't the cause of his sibling's "failure."

Quote Kerry:

Well, is that what you will be doing as D_NATURED 'crushes the fetal skull and sucks out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'? Or, will you be proud of that mother's 'right to choose' for any reason?

Please document one real case, as in the above example—one case, (1) WHERE CRUSHING AND SUCKING WAS DONE, AND (2) THAT WAS NOT A THERAPEUTIC ABORTION (a medical crisis and necessity); that is, show me one case that was an "elective abortion" at the last minute, where she was just "choosing" an abortion for the heck of it.

Kerry, you're okay with abortion before 20 weeks. That's where you draw the line. Right? Yes, or No answer, please. After that...what? An abortion cannot take place for any reason whatsoever? Just how absolute are you on this issue? (Please, keep it brief, okay?)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

A case where crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains occured, Zenzoe? Not in the state of Texas--remember, since the Roe vs. Wade decision, elective abortions were only allowed to 20 weeks gestation. I have heard (hearsay, I know) from some medical personel that have worked in places like New York (where abortion all the way to term was legal up until the more recent federal regulation against all 'partial birth abortions') that things like what D_NATURED described did, indeed, occur--and it did more to upset those medical personel witnessing that process (even 'female nurses'--they were the ones reporting this to me) than it did of anyone 'taking pride in the mother's right to choose' at that point. Did it happen 'often'? I have no idea. It was legal to abort all the way to term in California and New York up until the federal regulation made 'partial birth abortions' illegal all across the nation (in effect, giving the fetus the 'right to life' before birth--all across the nation).

I have told you about my conversation with a lawyer from California on a board like this many years ago who stated that, at the time, California allowed the mother to abort all the way to term but, then, turned around and charged anyone else (in such a thing as carwrecks, assaults, etc.) 'manslaughter' or 'murder' if they caused the death of the fetus--even if the mother did OK--thus, my comment about how Californians must 'smoke too much dope' if they think that legal position is 'rational'.......

Let me try to be as perfectly clear as I can on this issue, Zenzoe. In the state of Texas, and after 20 weeks gestation, and after 30 years of practice for me, I have never seen (nor heard of) an incident where an abortion occured late in the pregnancy even for the 'life of the mother' without, first, trying to deliver the child. Nothing was done to try to 'end the child's life' before the delivery--which is done in ELECTIVE ABORTIONS that late a stage in pregnancy--with, of course, the whole problem being that, if that is not done, as some 20 week gestations have proven, that 'aborted child' may be born alive. Then what, Zenzoe? Please quit this form of 'reasoning' on ELECTIVE ABORTIONS--it's bullshit--and it plays into the self-righteous illusions that this isn't pitting the mother's right to choose against an offspring that can acquire a right to life at some point in this process. The only purpose for an ELECTIVE ABORTION is to abide by the mother's wishes TO ABORT THE CHILD BY CHOICE--and the only purpose to go against that choice is if that offspring has gained the right to life before she takes that choice. For political purposes, you--and all your cohorts--need to determine for yourself when you think that 'line should be drawn'--if you don't, as you 'condition all rights', someone else is going to 'define that condition' (and it may be at conception if you don't watch it) for you. And, actually, even though I have always been for the 'rights to abort' and have even explained that through every culture in the world's methods of handling miscarriages (and, as Roe vs. Wade noted, American law throughout history handling 'self-abortions' as being no crime) as indicating that no fetus has ever had the 'right to life' from conception anywhere, maybe it would serve you mealy-mouthed 'condition all rights' advocates right to define it for you--I really think that is what your self-righteous posturing deserves--and you really don't know what it takes for me to say that because I am really fed up with the bullshit way you condescenders like to handle this very serious problem of 'rights' and 'responsibility' when it comes to unwanted pregnancies and the life of the offspring....

OWN UP to it, Zenzoe. Are you for what D_NATURED has proposed--'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if that is what the mother wants'. At one point before the federal law intervened with a ban against 'partial birth abortions' all across the nation, that was possible, Is that the extent to where you want the CHOICE OF THE MOTHER to determine her pregnancy? If not, where would YOU stop the CHOICE OF THE MOTHER from acting on the outcome of her pregnancy FOR ANY REASON--or, even, as far as you are concerned, NO REASON AT ALL. That would be the absolute extent of what CHOICE means in this issue--or have you got that 'conditioned' in some way no matter what gestation the pregnancy is (again, as far as 'unalienable rights' go, Roe vs. Wade only allowed that choice to be without any state 'conditions' against it up to 12 weeks--then each state could decide any conditions after that because, like many other issues, Roe vs. Wade didn't see the 'choice of the mother' as an unalienable right after 12 weeks--therefore, from a political perspective, 'community interests' could intervene--and they could be just as varied as 'dog's rights' depending upon the 'community' involved--family companion vs. the next meal). Are you understanding any of what I have said, yet? Or, is anyone 'limiting the choice of the mother' at any point in her pregnancy (besides you, of course) a 'misogynist' (according to you, of course)?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

In a similar vein, Zenzoe, let me update you on my little case with the self-mutilater (threatening a 'malpractice lawsuit' if 'my work' wasn't to 'his satisfaction') that severely cut himself in order to get prescription drugs to sell on the black market to buy more of the drugs that this self-mutilater uses (mainly heroin and cocaine). It appears that this person recently suffered an 'acute coronary syndrome' (a young person's equivalent to a 'heart attack'--usually brought on by such stimulant drugs like cocaine). It appears that in the liberal's netherworld of today...they... can claim the 'control by the victim'--and, as such, may use the 'abuse excuse' right up to the point of self-destruction.

I think you are terrified of being sued, and I do not doubt doctors face crap beyond belief.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Kerry, I don't see where you answered my question about whether you think THERAPEUTIC ABORTION (a medical crisis and necessity) after 20 weeks should be legal or not legal. Show me.

I also don't see a documented case in your rant of an elective abortion in the 9th month of pregnancy. I'm not interested in anecdotal legends, where nobody knows the reason for the abortion and just assumes it was elective.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Kerry, I don't see where you answered my question about whether you think THERAPEUTIC ABORTION (a medical crisis and necessity) after 20 weeks should be legal or not legal.

Sorry about editing my comments out from under you, Zenzoe, but I've been discussing this issue on boards just like this for almost 15 years now and I have never been approached in the manner that you and the rest of your condescending crowd posture.

What part of the answer did you want, Zenzoe? To my knowledge, no 'therapeutic abortion' in late stage pregnancies has occured in the state of Texas without first trying to deliver--and save--the child. Got that, yet? So, no. If there is an indication to do a therapeutic abortion in the late stages of pregnancy, there is an indication to induce a delivery--that is the legal thing to do in the state of Texas and I agree with it.

Now, do you agree with D_NATURED that a fetal skull should be crushed and the brains sucked out right before birth if the mother wants it for any, or no, reason at all?

How are ELECTIVE ABORTIONS documented, Zenzoe? Since there is no 'right to life' involved, they don't need death certificates, do they? And, whether you think it's all 'anecdotal' or not--it was legal in the states of California and New York up until the federal law prevented 'partial birth abortions' to abort all the way to term, Zenzoe. Why would there need to be a ban against 'partial birth abortions' if some states didn't allow it? I would agree that this 'federal regulation' shouldn't make a claim against Roe vs. Wade like I have heard many (otherwise, 'state's rights' adherents) claim (because Roe vs. Wade did NOT 'legalize' elective abortions all the way to term across the nation as if an 'unalienable right to choose for the woman throughout her pregnancy'--across the nation, it 'legalized' it up to 12 weeks and, then, left it up to the states to decide any other 'conditions'--some allowed it all the way to term).

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

I think you are terrified of being sued, and I do not doubt doctors face crap beyond belief.

That's been changed quite a bit in the state of Texas, also--just in time for the 'corporatization of medical practice' to take over....Texas, once one of the states with the most malpractice lawsuits, is now one of the states with the least amount of malpractice lawsuits--so much so that lawyers don't even advertise for them any more (but, most patients don't realize that, yet--I just didn't want to hear this self-mutilater's demands and whining over issues that the self-mutilater should be more responsible for)....I have explained how that change happened just by changing the definitions of two issues--what constitutes 'medical neglect' and what constitutes an 'expert witness' in malpractice cases....but, I won't bore you with the specifics--you can 'look those up' for yourself.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I've answered your questions, Zenzoe. Now, are you going to answer mine:

OWN UP to it, Zenzoe. Are you for what D_NATURED has proposed--'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if that is what the mother wants'. At one point before the federal law intervened with a ban against 'partial birth abortions' all across the nation, that was possible, Is that the extent to where you want the CHOICE OF THE MOTHER to determine her pregnancy? If not, where would YOU stop the CHOICE OF THE MOTHER from acting on the outcome of her pregnancy FOR ANY REASON--or, even, as far as you are concerned, NO REASON AT ALL. That would be the absolute extent of what CHOICE means in this issue--or have you got that 'conditioned' in some way no matter what gestation the pregnancy is (again, as far as 'unalienable rights' go, Roe vs. Wade only allowed that choice to be without any state 'conditions' against it up to 12 weeks--then each state could decide any conditions after that because, like many other issues, Roe vs. Wade didn't see the 'choice of the mother' as an unalienable right after 12 weeks--therefore, from a political perspective, 'community interests' could intervene--and they could be just as varied as 'dog's rights' depending upon the 'community' involved--family companion vs. the next meal). Are you understanding any of what I have said, yet? Or, is anyone 'limiting the choice of the mother' at any point in her pregnancy (besides you, of course) a 'misogynist' (according to you, of course)?

Oh, and addres this question also, Zenzoe:

Nothing was done to try to 'end the child's life' before the delivery--which is done in ELECTIVE ABORTIONS that late a stage in pregnancy--with, of course, the whole problem being that, if that is not done, as some 20 week gestations have proven, that 'aborted child' may be born alive. Then what, Zenzoe?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe seems to want to ignore those elements of our conversation that do not conveniently fit into Zenzoe's own predetermined ideas of how 'conditioning of all rights' fits into this issue of ELECTIVE ABORTIONS--and all her enablers here don't seem to want to comment, either. But, as a reminder, I'll repost that part of our conversation on page 3 of this thread that, to date, neither Zenzoe nor any of those that claim to 'agree with Zenzoe' have made any comment about:

Zenzoe (post #121):

As of now, I'd like to know where we differ on the basics.

1) At what point in a pregnancy do you believe, in your personal perspective (morally, ethically), abortion should be unrestricted? At what point in a pregnancy should restrictions apply? (Please be very brief. I'm not interested in a long bit about what is law now, in how many states, or the history of it, etc. I'm only after your own feeling on it.) (and sorry if I don't know this already—it got lost in the course of the discussion.)

Kerry (post #130):

You mean I get a personal opinion here? How 'selfish'!....8^)......

I've stated it. I feel comfortable with the Texas law cutting the right to elective abortions off at 20 weeks as being the earliest any gestation has survived outside of the womb--sounds reasonable and rational to me with respect to any potential of a 'right to life' for the fetus as well as recognizing the 'right to abort' of the mother since it is generally understood in our society and culture that 'life' starts at birth ('we' don't celebrate 'conception days'--'we' celebrate 'birthdays').

Zenzoe (post #132):

Oh. my. god. We agree. And we agree to "generally understood," and we agree to a balancing of rights. Why are we arguing?

Kerry (post #133):

Perhaps it's not what we agree to--it's how each of us gets to that conclusion that appears to be so 'judged'. I know that is why Ulysses has a problem with me because I'm a libertarian--and many here don't believe it's possible to be 'leftist' in that approach....

But, they all do seem to like to place me in some position as the pariah here--without one qualification on their part in explaining our 'disagreements'--other than to try to confuse this issue with 'conditioning all rights' and, then, explain them away with rhetoric of 'therapeutic abortions' instead of 'elective abortions', 'crushing fetal heads and sucking out their brains right before birth' as if that is the same as 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus', and, of course, if that doesn't work, just explain away the distinctions by downcasting me--a favorite condescension of the all-mighty 'Ulysses'--checked only spuriously by the 'great theologian', DRC. And, then, D_NATURED---who started this conversation with that very 'crush the fetal skull and suck out its brains right before birth' comment now appearing to try to backtrack with a Zenzoe-like argument over 'the life and health of the mother'. This has been some of the most disingenuous discussion that I have ever had about elective abortions--and that's with people that, in less condescending terminology, I would have agreements with. That's why I have concluded with the point that, since they are all as mealy-mouthed as they are about 'rights' and 'responsibilities' (especially considering a mother with an unwanted pregnancy and any right to life her offspring could gain), they deserve to have this issue 'decided for them'--and against every point that they make.

What will happen in the next vote to 'establish life at conception' if there's is the argument against it? Some have even claimed here how 'the left' appears to lack the convictions that 'the right' can take advantage of--I think this conversation indicates why.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Ulysses:

[quote=Zenzoe]But, Ulysses, what do we have to do to discourage the Uncle Joes of this world from arising to power in the first place?

Regrettably, that's currently impossible, because to accomplish it, you'd have to eliminate many of the archetypally negative aspects of basic human nature......Yes. You would remove the pathology from all but those who are born evil (and some simply are, though not the majority).
You see, that's where we differ: I don't believe in a "basic human nature," an archetype that predetermines any particular characteristic.
O.K. Your call. My call. We'll simply have to disagree. Let me be clear that I'm not imputing any kind of religious drivel to my viewpoint, no Hollywoodian Damien: The Omen crap. The Human Genome Project is completed. Now geneticists are decoding and matching exactly which genes determine which parts of human makeup. Don't know whether I'll live to see it, or whether I'll want to, but soon they'll be able to tell exactly which genes produce exactly which psychological traits, just as they can tell exactly which genes produce exactly which physical traits. Once they achieve that, they'll begin identifying predictable interactions between those particular psychological genes and then they can pretty much predict how any individual will react to any stimulus. True, unknown factors can always erupt, but, in general, they're on the road to full predictability. I've never been high on Skinner and the behaviorists, and once the geneticists are finished, Skinner and the behaviorists will be fully discredited. The Matrix isn't all that empirically farfetched. My opinion, but not dismissed as nonsense by many other learned people. Just depends whether you're a behaviorist or a geneticist.
My understanding is that human beings may possess certain genetic characteristics, genes for this or that, but whether or not any particular gene is "expressed" depends on a complex interaction between many different genes AND the environment (and other factors) of the individual person. That is, for example, a person may have a genetic capacity for violence, but whether the genes responsible for such violent behavior actually do activate depends on what happens to the individual in her environment—how she is raised, whether she is abused, etc. This is nearly word for word what Richard Dawkins has to say here on the subject (starting @ 4:20 min. into the interview): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HYr53gJiNI —just so that I don't appear to be plagiarizing anybody.
Classic Nature vs. Nurture theory and conjecture. I favor Nature as more strongly determinant. I've seen too many cases of well-raised, well-cared for kids grow up to be monsters and psychopaths to believe otherwise. Somebody recently wrote a book (can't remember the title), documenting how about one in every 15 or so people either has sociopathic traits or is a full-blown psychopath. I think that's genetic, despite all the behavioral arguments.
Simply put, I don't believe in the "evil seed." Call me naive, but I think all babies are born innocent and good, and, given love, respect, caring guidance and nurturance, will develop into healthy, non-violent individuals. Abuse, corporeal punishment, neglect, grinding poverty, humiliation—those are the things that create bad people.
Per above.
But, yes, they're here. Now. The question becomes, what do we do with them when the revolution begins? (I'm joking. Partly.) Stalin, and other socialist "reformers," conducted murderous purges. The French Revolution—purges, "off with their heads."
So, do you posit that it is truly possible to expect that the Tsars and the French monarchy and aristocracy would've gone away peacefully, without trying to neutralize change leading to social justice? Was it possible to leave them alive, hoping that they'd just "see the light" and refrain from counter-revolution? I submit that thinking so is what could truly be called "naive."
I sometimes say out loud, when a particularly heinous conservative appears on TV, "Off with his head!" That's how violent my imagination can be, you see. But, how does the non-violent transition to a just, peaceful society begin, when the spirit of authoritarianism is so relentlessly, intelligently successful? And, is it true, as The Girl With the Dragon Tatoo pointed out, that they only understand one thing... (I'm in the middle of the trilogy/books)
The only way that the "spirit of authoritarianism" can be peacefully overcome is if EVERYBODY discards it. It's the same as Christianity that way -- it only works if everybody does it. If it doesn't happen like that, those who practice it become sheep for the wolves who don't, and a few of them go into the history books as martyrs. It's also relevant to point out that Frederick Douglass correctly stated that power never concedes anything without a demand.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote Zenzoe:

Kerry, I don't see where you answered my question about whether you think THERAPEUTIC ABORTION (a medical crisis and necessity) after 20 weeks should be legal or not legal.

What part of the answer did you want, Zenzoe? To my knowledge, no 'therapeutic abortion' in late stage pregnancies has occured in the state of Texas without first trying to deliver--and save--the child. Got that, yet? So, no. If there is an indication to do a therapeutic abortion in the late stages of pregnancy, there is an indication to induce a delivery--that is the legal thing to do in the state of Texas and I agree with it.

I didn't ask you what Texas allows, Kerry. I asked you if you agree —in theory— women should be legally able to have therapeutic abortions, post viability, if it is medically indicated.

You say you agree with how Texas handles the situation. How about the following:

We perform the intracardiac injection of medication into the fetal heart in our private facility in the Washington, D.C. area. Once the fetal heart beat has stopped, the patient can elect to return back to her private physician to complete the induction of labor with delivery of the fetus, or they may elect to go to another facility to have the termination process completed....LateTermAbortion.net performs intracardiac injections to stop the fetal heart beat on late second and third trimester therapeutic termination of pregnancy procedures when fetal anomalies and/or genetic defects are found or to protect the health of the woman.

But that would not be within the realm of the medically permissible, in the Late Term Abortion Book of Kerry, right? —because the fetus dies, that is, no attempt is made to save the fetus? Is that your position?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote "Kerry":I have told you about my conversation with a lawyer from California on a board like this many years ago who stated that, at the time, California allowed the mother to abort all the way to term but, then, turned around and charged anyone else (in such a thing as carwrecks, assaults, etc.) 'manslaughter' or 'murder' if they caused the death of the fetus--even if the mother did OK--thus, my comment about how Californians must 'smoke too much dope' if they think that legal position is 'rational'......

Did you even try thinking about it, Kerry?

The reason for allowing an abortion up to term is for the reasons I've already stated over and over. The reason to charge someone with killing the tad pole is because the law is recognizing a lost potential...for the mother. A loss of property, if you will. It was a part of her body that she was intentionally growing, for the purpose of procreation, that was lost due to the negligence of the defendant. How in the hell can you not wrap your mind around that concept, that the fetus is the woman, not a being unto itself.

You asked in a previous stupor, why I call the fetus a "tad pole" even after term. You're right. That would be premature to compare the fetal human to the frog's offspring. The better equivalent would be whatever the name is for the frog, while it's in the frog egg. The fetus would become a tad pole at birth. And, like its froggy namesake, the newly-born human tad pole has a crap load of growing and metamorphosing to do before it is a functioning unit, able to offer anything other than warm, fuzzy, protective feelings to people.

Because I recognize the potential of human tad poles, I say we give them human rights, including life, at birth. Yes, so many of the tad poles grow up to be Dick Cheneys and John Gaceys but I'm willing to risk it. Fundamental to their opportunity to be the next Dick Cheney, though, is some female deciding to create them or deciding not to abort them, should their appearance in the womb be accidental. But the love of fetuses-potential Dick Cheneys-cannot exceed our societal love of their magical, female hosts. They are, after all, one and the same.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

I am not the kind of woman who minds it when a man holds the door for me. I am not the kind of feminist who thinks polite or even protective behavior by men toward women is a ploy to keep us in line. Thus, I appreciate D_NATURED'S attitude/position on this subject; as tough as it may seem, I think its strength arises from that beautiful, protective instinct, and I wouldn't want to argue with it. There are times when women need an unwavering advocate, one unwilling to allow anyone or anything to undermine ourselves, our personhood.

No honest woman who needs an abortion past viability, however, can, in her heart of hearts, be so tough-minded. Before viability, yes—it can be an easy decision, an easy, happy decision. But, to come to a point, where you realize your wanted pregnancy cannot be brought to term, well, that moment has got to be filled with mixed emotions, most of them sorrowful. We women tend to imagine a baby in there, after all; and our socialization also tends to advocate for self-sacrifice. The decision to terminate, even if it's based on sound medical advice, requires all the strength a woman can muster. But noise from the "right-to-life" factions about "murder" and "baby-killing" do nothing but damage a woman's ability to make a choice in her own best interest, which is her right.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

I am not the kind of woman who minds it when a man holds the door for me. I am not the kind of feminist who thinks polite or even protective behavior by men toward women is a ploy to keep us in line. Thus, I appreciate D_NATURED'S attitude/position on this subject; as tough as it may seem, I think its strength arises from that beautiful, protective instinct, and I wouldn't want to argue with it. There are times when women need an unwavering advocate, one unwilling to allow anyone or anything to undermine ourselves, our personhood.

With all due respect, Zenzoe, my arguments do not stem from some throw-back protective instinct toward women. It is self-preservation, as much as that. The rights I defend are not only that of women. When I defend your right to your body I do the same for myself, even though pregnancy is impossible for me. This is not about tad poles, ultimately, this is about my ownership of my body and your ownership of yours. If that is not our most basic right as humans, if Kerry gets his way, then how do we call any of them rights? Actually, though, I don't see this really as a "slippery slope" type argument. Women are actually-at this minute- having their right to their own body judicially dissected by ass hats who don't see that arbitrary principles of freedom are not freedom at all. This is an immediate threat and not a fear of the future thing.

No honest woman who needs an abortion past viability, however, can, in her heart of hearts, be so tough-minded. Before viability, yes—it can be an easy decision, an easy, happy decision. But, to come to a point, where you realize your wanted pregnancy cannot be brought to term, well, that moment has got to be filled with mixed emotions, most of them sorrowful.

That may or may not be true-it probably is. The individual interpretations of the morality or necessity of abortion, however, I will leave to whomever chooses it or not for themselves. I can no more agree to give up my right to my own body or deny you yours because of the mixed emotions of most women as I can agree to give them up for Kerry's reasons. As I've argued to Kerry, viability does not mean it is a life yet any more than the ref in a football game can throw his arms in the air while the runner is still on the one yard line, even if the player has started dancing. If we don't draw a line- in my opinion, at birth-then we have no standard of liberty that is not hypocritical. If a woman wants to assign an arbitrary value to the fetus within her, I cannot argue with that value because it is only hers to assess, not society's. What any court would offer in compensation for a fetus lost is not something I care to weigh in on. It would be a valid law suit, however, for a woman whose fetus was killed negligently.

We women tend to imagine a baby in there, after all; and our socialization also tends to advocate for self-sacrifice. The decision to terminate, even if it's based on sound medical advice, requires all the strength a woman can muster. But noise from the "right-to-life" factions about "murder" and "baby-killing" do nothing but damage a woman's ability to make a choice in her own best interest, which is her right.

I agree that it is her right. I cannot allow myself to get too involved in the emotional state of women who get abortions, though. That is speculative, to me, and is irrelevant from one pregnancy to the next. The only pregnancy a woman's emotional state should dictate the future of is her own. As hard as the decision must be, it is only hers to make. Rights and responsibility go hand in hand, despite Kerry's drivel. You can't have one without the other. I would celebrate the right, even when it means the tad pole dies, because that means the woman didn't. Women taking responsibility for their own reproduction and their very life? Wow, what a concept!

Maybe what makes it so hard on a woman is that there is a societal expectation that she be thrilled about her baby bump, even as the worldwide collection of billions of baby bumps threatens humanity itself. If she finds herself feeling nothing motherly toward that tad pole she could begin thinking it is because there is something wrong or missing from her, as if she owes something to a "being" that could kill her at any minute. In those cases, where doubt exists, I say let's get rid of the fetus now-yes, the sooner the better. Better that than for the woman to realize after she has reproduced that she has made a grave error for her own life or that of her family.

I don't think women are universally impulsive or impractical. The idea that pro-lifers forward that women who want abortions are getting off without taking responsibility for their actions is laughable. They, who take charge of their reproduction, ARE the ones who take responsibility. The irresponsible ones are the ones who let their mixed emotions fool them into thinking the fetus deserves something, that it is innocent, and then give birth to a baby they have no ability or desire to properly care for. Those tad poles grow up-too often- thinking they'd rather have been aborted.

I would not be upset if no abortions took place. Even when that right is not used, it must exist, though. All humans, women included, deserve that most basic right to their own body.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
Quote Zenzoe:

I am not the kind of woman who minds it when a man holds the door for me. I am not the kind of feminist who thinks polite or even protective behavior by men toward women is a ploy to keep us in line. Thus, I appreciate D_NATURED'S attitude/position on this subject; as tough as it may seem, I think its strength arises from that beautiful, protective instinct, and I wouldn't want to argue with it. There are times when women need an unwavering advocate, one unwilling to allow anyone or anything to undermine ourselves, our personhood.

With all due respect, Zenzoe, my arguments do not stem from some throw-back protective instinct toward women. It is self-preservation, as much as that. The rights I defend are not only that of women. When I defend your right to your body I do the same for myself, even though pregnancy is impossible for me.

I had a feeling my comment might rub you the wrong way. At least you didn't accuse me of sexism! ;-) But I stand corrected and understand your position better now, even though I don't see the protective instinct of good men as a "throw-back" at all. I think it's just there.

As for the rest of your comments at #417 (!), well said. I always enjoy reading your stuff.

More later...probably...time for my first breakfast of the new year...

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote D_NATURED:
Quote Zenzoe:

I am not the kind of woman who minds it when a man holds the door for me. I am not the kind of feminist who thinks polite or even protective behavior by men toward women is a ploy to keep us in line. Thus, I appreciate D_NATURED'S attitude/position on this subject; as tough as it may seem, I think its strength arises from that beautiful, protective instinct, and I wouldn't want to argue with it. There are times when women need an unwavering advocate, one unwilling to allow anyone or anything to undermine ourselves, our personhood.

With all due respect, Zenzoe, my arguments do not stem from some throw-back protective instinct toward women. It is self-preservation, as much as that. The rights I defend are not only that of women. When I defend your right to your body I do the same for myself, even though pregnancy is impossible for me.

I had a feeling my comment might rub you the wrong way. At least you didn't accuse me of sexism! ;-) But I stand corrected and understand your position better now, even though I don't see the protective instinct of good men as a "throw-back" at all. I think it's just there.

I agree. Not every human motivation is understood by humans. Some of it is instinctive and that, by itself, does not make something bad or wrong. Obviously, men being protective of women has not been bad for our species. Seven billion is a pretty "successful" number.

You didn't rub me the wrong way. I just didn't want what I felt were logical arguments being diminished as merely an instinctive, masculine protective behavior. I'm sure I have those instincts intact-and have come to the defense of women on many occasions- but for the purpose of debating Kerry, I prefer not to leave him any room for douche-baggery.

As for the rest of your comments at #417 (!), well said. I always enjoy reading your stuff.

More later...probably...time for my first breakfast of the new year...

Thanks for the kind words. I worry when I disagree with you that I am attacking an ally. That is not my intention. I know you and I are not on opposite sides of this one (Kerry, take note). Bon apatite.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

I didn't ask you what Texas allows, Kerry. I asked you if you agree —in theory— women should be legally able to have therapeutic abortions, post viability, if it is medically indicated.

Once again, Zenzoe, when you are talking about 'therapeutic abortions', you are not in the same line of thought as I would see 'elective abortions'--and you are distracting from this in a rather disingenuous manner when you do so. But, I'll respond once again to your statement with how the process of late stage abortions actually work because it is very pertinent to my position--but you do seem to want to ignore this point.

Let me reiterate it, again. When a mother's life is in jeopardy, the fetus's life is in jeopardy. However, when it comes to late stage pregnancies, if, for some reason, it is necessary to end the pregnancy to 'save the life of the mother', it is NOT NECESSARY TO END THE LIFE OF THE FETUS. The fetus could be delivered alive--and try to save it's life. The ONLY DISTINCTION to be made between this and ABORTING THE FETUS in LATE STAGE PREGNANCIES is whether you want TO KILL THE FETUS BEFORE TRYING TO DELIVER IT. Got that, Zenzoe? There is NOTHING that is going to make any difference to the outcome of the 'mother's life and health' with respect to how you decide to handle the fetus IN LATE STAGE PREGNANCIES because, as I've said, the dirty little secret to this whole issue is that the manner of extracting the fetus out as an abortion and the manner of getting the child out in a preterm delivery IS EXACTLY THE SAME except in the abortion's case, the fetus IS KILLED BEFORE EXTRACTING IT. If you don't do that, then, the fetus may be born alive. THEN WHAT, ZENZOE?

If there is an indication to do a late term abortion, there is an indentication to try a preterm delivery--neither is going to affect the outcome of the mother's 'life and well-being' any differently. The only difference is whether you want to kill the fetus before the delivery--or try to save the fetus after delivery. Passed 20 weeks, I would be more for trying to save the fetus because I do give the fetus the 'right to life' at that point--and some fetuses can be saved. If you want to kill the fetus before trying to deliver it, you are doing so not for some bullshit about the mother's 'life and well-being', you are doing it because you give the mother the right to choose to do so and give the fetus no right to life in that respect. Fine--if that is what you are doing. But, please, once again, quit trying to 'condition' this as if this is an 'either-or' perspective--when it comes to the life of the mother and the life of the fetus in late stage pregnancies, it can be a 'both/and' rational situation (got that, DRC--'both/and' instead of 'either/or'?)--and trying to save the fetus after delivery is no more 'dangerous' that killing the fetus before delivery. Got that, Zenzoe? Quit playing this bullshit game about 'the life and health of the mother' in late term pregnancies--it has NOTHING to do with the reality of late stage preterm deliveries in modern medicine--unless, of course, you are all for 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'.....are you? If not, at what point in the fetal development would YOU prevent the mother from choosing to end this pregnancy for any--or no--reason at all as the absolute perspective of 'choice'?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

We perform the intracardiac injection of medication into the fetal heart in our private facility in the Washington, D.C. area. Once the fetal heart beat has stopped, the patient can elect to return back to her private physician to complete the induction of labor with delivery of the fetus (my added emphasis), or they may elect to go to another facility to have the termination process completed....LateTermAbortion.net performs intracardiac injections to stop the fetal heart beat on late second and third trimester therapeutic termination of pregnancy procedures when fetal anomalies and/or genetic defects are found or to protect the health of the woman.

Bullshit, Zenzoe. I went to that site and I noticed that this 'board certified Ob/Gyn physician' didn't list one 'fetal anomaly or genetic defect found to endanger the health of the mother'. Not one. Plus, look what this site does say, Zenzoe--to complete the induction of labor with delivery of the fetus. Got that--INDUCTION OF THE LABOR. Just like any induction of labor--however, this time, KILLING THE FETUS BEFORE INDUCTION. So, whether the fetus is killed before the induction or delivered with the attempts to save its life MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE 'LIFE AND HEALTH OF THE MOTHER' BECAUSE IT'S STILL AN INDUCTION--no different than any late stage preterm induction except THE FETUS IS KILLED BEFOREHAND INSTEAD OF TRYING TO BE SAVED AFTERWARDS. Again, as DRC should appreciate, this is NOT an 'either/or' situaiton when it comes to late stage pregnancy complications that can end the pregnancy, it's a 'both/and' (the life of the mother AND the life of the fetus--unless, at this stage, you still give the fetus no 'rights to life' as you give the mother all the 'right to choice').

To follow through on my continued point in this issue of it being the mother's 'right to choose' up against the fetus's 'right to life', even if there is an 'anomaly or genetic defect in the fetus' (which makes no difference in the mother's 'life or well-being' whether killed beforehand or delivered alive and tried to save), at what point, if any, are you not going to give the mother the choice to end it--what if the mother doesn't want the child with this 'anomaly or genetic defect' at birth (by the way, there is an anomaly that will die even after birth--anencephaly--but I have NEVER seen a physician try to 'kill the fetus and delivery it that way' even with that anomaly in late stage pregnancies--in fact, there is MORE RISK TO THE MOTHER to try to do so without it just NATURALLY occuring despite its horrendous anomaly--and fatal--endpoint).

So, this whole point is still the 'right to choose' for the mother up against any 'right to life' for the fetus--that is what elective abortions are all about. Zenzoe at one point stated something about the 'care and concern over the viability of the fetus' as a 'condition against the mother's right to choose'--but, then, claimed something to do with 'the life and health of the mother' as a 'condition against the fetus's right to life'--without, in either case, saying who gets to determine that--especially that 'care and concern over the viability of the fetus' if it is against the mother's 'right to choose'--and when is such a 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' to hold precedence over that choice--and how is that any different from a fetus gaining the 'right to life' IN ELECTIVE ABORTIONS.

And, as I've said, with the way that such 'conditioning of rights' is condoned by the condescenders, I think it would serve them right to have those 'conditions' defined for them as the 'fetal right to life at conception'--because I see 'conditioning of rights' as a rather mealy-mouthed way to approach the rights that are really involved in elective abortions.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

The reason for allowing an abortion up to term is for the reasons I've already stated over and over. The reason to charge someone with killing the tad pole is because the law is recognizing a lost potential...for the mother.

Well, usually the charge of 'murder' or 'manslaughter' is saved for those who actually have a 'right to life' to take in the exchange. To have it 'conditioned' in accordance with 'the mother' doesn't appear to make it a 'right to life'. In fact, that is my point. The mother has the 'right to choose' up until the fetus gains the 'right to life'--and which point the mother (and whatever support she has) has the obligation to see to the wellbeing of that life as one with rights. To allow the mother to kill the fetus at will--but charge another with murder if the fetus dies in a carwreck or assault and the mother does fine--is just an irrational way to impose the prospect of a life--as if 'nothing' in one perspective and having 'all the rights of life of any human' in another. To associate this with Zenzoe's 'animal rights' analogy, until that fetus gains the 'right to life', I would treat what life that fetus does have no differently than a dog's. If a carwreck killed a dog, would the one who caused it be charged with anything? Do any dogkillers get charged with 'murder'? If this fetus doesn't have the 'right to life', why does their death warrant 'murder' charges on anyone? I see its irrationality--especially from anything of substance in rights to the fetus, otherwise.

Quote D_NATURED:

How in the hell can you not wrap your mind around that concept, that the fetus is the woman, not a being unto itself.

In the examples offered by that California lawyer, the woman is still alive and well--it's her fetus that was killed. You are going to allow the woman to do that with no ramifications to her acts but, even if it were done unintentionally by another (as in a carwreck), you are going to charge them with 'manslaughter'? Come on, D_NATURED. That's bullshit. If this fetus is really 'just a parasite', then, the woman should be glad 'the parasite' is gone.....you gave her the right to 'crush its skull and suck out its brains if the mother wants to right before birth'--you keep calling the fetus a 'tadpole' and describe it in ways that, in no way, represents the human status--and, now, you are really going to charge someone who accidentally harms the fetus with manslaughter?

I think that you need to think through this a little more--or are you from California that 'sees no problem' with those two ways of approaching the issue of 'the fetus'--describing as a 'tadpole' in one case, charging another with 'murder' or 'manslaughter' with its demise prior to birth in another? And, you think that that is a rational position to hold? Oh, that's right, the 'new community' doesn't have to 'think rationally' (especially when it comes to the absoluteness of rights as the basis for that rationale 'in community'), right?

Quote Zenzoe:

Thus, I appreciate D_NATURED'S attitude/position on this subject; as tough as it may seem, I think its strength arises from that beautiful, protective instinct, and I wouldn't want to argue with it.

So, Zenzoe, explain how you square your 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' up against D_NATURED's 'crush the fetal skull and suck its brains out right before birth if the mother wants it'. Is that just to be ignored when it comes to making decisions on each pregnancy? Or, what do you really mean when you offer 'care and concern for the fetal viability' up against 'crushing its skull and sucking its brains out before birth if the mother wants it'? Are you and D_NATURED really 'saying the same thing'? Or, is it necessary to be rational in this approach since you want to 'condition all rights' (rather irrationally I may say)? Does 'chivalry' direct you to ignore your 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' up against D_NATURED's 'crush the fetal skull in and suck out its brains if the mother wants it'? How is this really to be decided when such an incongruous comparison is 'said to agree'? And, then, when you say something like this:

Zenzoe (post #121):

As of now, I'd like to know where we differ on the basics.

1) At what point in a pregnancy do you believe, in your personal perspective (morally, ethically), abortion should be unrestricted? At what point in a pregnancy should restrictions apply? (Please be very brief. I'm not interested in a long bit about what is law now, in how many states, or the history of it, etc. I'm only after your own feeling on it.) (and sorry if I don't know this already—it got lost in the course of the discussion.)

Kerry (post #130):

You mean I get a personal opinion here? How 'selfish'!....8^)......

I've stated it. I feel comfortable with the Texas law cutting the right to elective abortions off at 20 weeks as being the earliest any gestation has survived outside of the womb--sounds reasonable and rational to me with respect to any potential of a 'right to life' for the fetus as well as recognizing the 'right to abort' of the mother since it is generally understood in our society and culture that 'life' starts at birth ('we' don't celebrate 'conception days'--'we' celebrate 'birthdays').

Zenzoe (post #132):

Oh. my. god. We agree. And we agree to "generally understood," and we agree to a balancing of rights. Why are we arguing?

Kerry (post #133):

Perhaps it's not what we agree to--it's how each of us gets to that conclusion that appears to be so 'judged'. I know that is why Ulysses has a problem with me because I'm a libertarian--and many here don't believe it's possible to be 'leftist' in that approach....

Are you trying to slur my 'manliness' (up against D_NATURED's 'macho' stand) in 'agreeing with you' in point--but not in explanation? Or, what it is that we are 'agreeing to' here, Zenzoe?

Quote Zenzoe:

No honest woman who needs an abortion past viability, however, can, in her heart of hearts, be so tough-minded.

So, what do you need there, Zenzoe? D_NATURED to come in a 'take control' and say 'let's crush the fetal skull and suck out its brains right before birth', baby, you know you want it'....8^)....or, maybe an 'expert Ob/Gyn who specializes in late term pregnancies' to tell you 'it's really for your health and well-being to kill the fetus before deliverying it this late in your pregnancy'--'we will just inject its heart and cause it to die before you still have to be induced to deliver it--all for your health and wellbeing, of course, just so you won't have to make a hard choice for yourself after carrying this baby so long, anyway...it's so much more humane to kill the fetus in this way...trust me....or listen to D_NATURED's description and realize how 'gentle this killing' really is'....as you still have to go through labor to have it...just kill it first LIKE YOU WANT TO....or, are do you have some 'care and concern over the viability of the fetus'? Is this really YOUR CHOICE you are needing the 'chivalrous' to 'frame it for you' as KILLING THE FETUS BEFORE BIRTH in THAT CHOICE?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

If that is not our most basic right as humans, if Kerry gets his way, then how do we call any of them rights?

'If Kerry gets his way'. Have you ignored the very point that it is 'I' who is talking about the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS here, D_NATURED? Has that just escaped recognition on your part here? Read over this thread, D_NATURED. Everyone else--including Zenzoe--is for 'conditioning rights'--and it's RIGHTS--and their ABSOLUTENESS--that prevents intervention against them for any other 'condition'.

Quote D_NATURED:

Women are actually-at this minute- having their right to their own body judicially dissected by ass hats who don't see that arbitrary principles of freedom are not freedom at all.

But, then, I am also the one that realizes that, for a just society based on 'the preeminence of absolute rights' to even exist, such 'rights' also have to carry 'obligations of personal responsibility'. 'Freedom' can last no other way. If you are taking Zenzoe's PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY away from this choice by 'conditioning' it only in terms of 'therapeutic abortions' (instead of 'elective abortions')--then, you are giving that RESPONSIBILITY to those who claim a 'therapeutic cause' to it--NOT the person who is pregnant. If Zenzoe is requiring you to describe it in terms of 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'--but, Zenzoe is claiming something called 'care and concern for fetal viability', you are 'conditioning' personal responsibility away from the person. That's why I think that this has to be couched in the terms of 'rights'--and their absoluteness in the context of when they are used. And, to keep PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY INTACT, I do understand that, when it comes to ELECTIVE ABORTIONS, the woman has the absolute 'right to choose' until her offspring gains the 'right to life'--I think that 'right to life' can be at the earlist stage that any fetus has survived outside the womb because THAT CONSIDERATION WILL COME UP EVERY TIME A LATE STAGE PREGNANCY HAS ANY COMPLICATIONS and, once again, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KILLING THE FETUS BEFORE INDUCTION OF LABOR AND TRYING TO SAVE THE FETUS AFTER THE INDUCTION OF LABOR WHEN IT COMES TO THE HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF THE MOTHER IN LATE STAGE PREGNANCIES. The mother's 'right to choose' will eventually be met with her offspring's 'right to life' for this to maintain any PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in the decisions made BY THE MOTHER about this pregnancy.

Quote D_NATURED:

As I've argued to Kerry, viability does not mean it is a life yet any more than the ref in a football game can throw his arms in the air while the runner is still on the one yard line, even if the player has started dancing. If we don't draw a line- in my opinion, at birth-then we have no standard of liberty that is not hypocritical.

Well, then, I'll ask you what I asked Zenzoe: What happens if the child intended to be aborted is born alive, D_NATURED? What happens then? Any induction past 20 weeks that isn't 'effectively killed' before the induction could be born alive--then what? If the mother wants it, kill it then? At some point that offspriing is going to gain the 'right to life'--at that point, the mother's 'right to choose' against it in a just society (absolute as it was before that) is no longer justly valid. Otherwise, the mother's 'right to choose' is the hypocrisy when 'life' has been determined to exist--and the mother needs to know this very well in order to make the right choice....'conditioning this', in any way, is the hypocrisy--and what is at risk is too important to 'condition'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Well, then, I'll ask you what I asked Zenzoe: What happens if the child intended to be aborted is born alive, D_NATURED? What happens then? Any induction past 20 weeks that isn't 'effectively killed' before the induction could be born alive--then what? If the mother wants it, kill it then?

Are you telling me there is no way to perform an abortion that guarantees the fetus will be destroyed? If that is the case, it is because of our own biases that lead us to being overly gentile with the fetus during the process. The only being whose comfort should be considered is the female who is hosting the unwanted fetus. If that means inventing a food processor like device that can puree and remove the fetus with no pain or risk to the woman, then so be it.

At some point that offspriing is going to gain the 'right to life'--at that point, the mother's 'right to choose' against it in a just society (absolute as it was before that) is no longer justly valid. Otherwise, the mother's 'right to choose' is the hypocrisy when 'life' has been determined to exist--and the mother needs to know this very well in order to make the right choice....'conditioning this', in any way, is the hypocrisy--and what is at risk is too important to 'condition'.....

Uhhh...I already said that line is birth, Kerry. What could be more absolute or just than that?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Are you telling me there is no way to perform an abortion that guarantees the fetus will be destroyed?

Despite what anyone may try to tell you (or try to convince you, otherwise), D_NATURED, nothing is completely foolproof in medicine.

Quote D_NATURED:

. If that means inventing a food processor like device that can puree and remove the fetus with no pain or risk to the woman, then so be it.

Well, you're right, the only method close to 'foolproof' would be to 'crush the fetal skull in and suck out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'--however, it is possible that the fetus comes out too quickly before 'the procedure' can be completed--then what, D_NATURED?

Of course, you are dancing around a concept here, D_NATURED--one you seem to promote in some cases, and, then, like Zenzoe's 'therapeutic abortion' premise, back off to the 'health and wellbeing of the mother' excuse for late term pregnancies. Are you just trying to be chivalrous for Zenzoe's sake and save Zenzoe from the cruel, hard, facts of late term abortions? And, if you are, how are you making this THE MOTHER'S CHOICE? Let that mother know that it is "crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains', and, then, let it be HER CHOICE. Zenzoe doesn't seem to want to go quite that far--relying on the 'expert instructions' of an 'Ob/Gyn physician' that claims to 'gently kill the fetus' BEFORE INDUCING LABOR, ANYWAY for something that 'expert' says 'is for the health and wellbeing of the mother'.

So, despite our disagreements on when to apply the fetal 'right to life', let us agree that the 'health and wellbeing of the mother' IS NOT A CHOICE IN ELECTIVE ABORTIONS. A CHOICE IN ELECTIVE ABORTIONS IS WHATEVER THE MOTHER WANTS up until that offspring gains the right to life--and, then, IT'S THE MOTHER"S RESPONSIBILITY (and whatever support she can gather--but, that consideration is even the mother's responsibility). Mealy-mouthing this point by 'conditioning rights' is just a way to undermine what is at stake here--and what is at stake here and what is at stake with 'individual rights' in general--ie. once is has been determined to be an unalienable right, no intervention against it for any 'condition' is appropriate (unless, once again, it is in support of another's rights).

Quote D_NATURED:

Uhhh...I already said that line is birth, Kerry. What could be more absolute or just than that?

So, what happens if a fetus that the mother wanted to abort gets born alive, D_NATURED? And, don't fail to realize this point, when it comes to late stage pregnancies, it makes absolutely no difference to the 'health and life of the mother' to kill the fetus before delivery--or allow the fetus to be born and try to save its life. If there has been a decision to therapeutically end this pregnancy in its late stages, killing the fetus before the induction does nothing to 'reduce the risks' of this pregnancy. Once again, if killing the fetus before induction is to be done, it is to be solely on what the mother wants in states that allow it. However, there are those of us in medicine who, otherwise, agree with allowing the mother the choice of aborting her pregnancy in the early stages (for any reason--therapeutic or not) that have a problem with justifying that procedure in late stages because of the history that fetuses as young as 20 weeks gestation have survived to a normal life outside of the womb.

And, D_NATURED, I don't care how macho you think that you are in this 'support' you claim for women's rights, but, when it actually comes to 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth', many of us who would allow a woman to end that pregnancy early on would have a hard time rectifying that process against the point that that fetus could be born alive moments later. And, my question to both you and Zenzoe on what would you do if the process didn't do as planned and the fetus was born alive, anyway, is to indicate that point--plus, it is also to see just how far that you and Zenzoe are going to go with 'the mother's choice' in this 'contention of rights'. A 'choice' that I even see as absolute in the context in which it can be used--when the fetus has not gained a 'right to life'. So, the only clear distinction to make in this issue is when does a human life with rights begin....and when is it appropriate to allow the woman the absolute right to choose against it, otherwise. You say it is at birth--and have a very vivid description to indicate your belief--but, like Zenzoe, when pressed, you've tried to pull this 'therapeutic abortion excuse' crap on me--but, make no mistake about it, if there is an indication to end the pregnancy before natural labor in its late stages, killing the fetus beforehand or allowing it to be delivered alive will make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE TO THE HEALTH AND LIFE OF THE MOTHER. If you do want it to stay as the 'absolute right of the mother right before birth', then, by all means, do so AS THE MOTHER'S CHOICE--and you visualize that 'crushing of the fetal skull and sucking its brains out right before birth if the mother wants it'--some of us who, otherwise, would allow the absolute choice of the mother earlier in the pregnancy would have a hard time with that.

But, if you do so, don't try to pull this bullshit that it is appropriate to allow the mother to kill that fetus right before birth--but, then, charge someone else with murder or manslaughter if they do so (even accidentally). If you are against the fetal 'right to life' before birth, then you are against it in any circumstance. I am not saying that any assault on the pregnant woman that ends with a miscarriage (especially if that was part of the intent of the assault) should go unpunished--but, its 'punishment' should be more in line with kiling a dog that has no absolute 'right to life'---not a human. After all, you did say that it was a parasite and a tadpole before birth--why change your mind now, D_NATURED? Oh, that's right, as your 'chivalrous support for the woman's choice', right?

I think that both you and Zenzoe need to probe a little more thoroughly into just what you are posturing with here--starting with how, in any way, your 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' can 'agree' with Zenzoe's 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus'......but, you do keep saying that 'you agree with Zenzoe' (and 'Zenzoe agrees with you'), don't you?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Kerry, I do believe a reality check is in order here. But first, Let’s see if I understand your position: You begin with “right to life” as the supreme right, with all other rights stemming from that supreme right and being subordinate to it, including any right of choice, or right of privacy, or property, or right of self-determination, and so forth. Therefore, while you agree that a woman has a right to terminate the life of a pre-viable fetus, once her fetus reaches the stage of viability, and the termination of her pregnancy must take place, no reason or situation exists which should prevent a live birth of the fetus, so that the life of the fetus can be, possibly, saved. Is that it? Have I “got it?”

So, I am to understand that you would insist a fetus be delivered live, where the pregnant girl was 10-years old, didn’t learn she was pregnant until it was “too late,” who was raped by her father, whose family was poor and uneducated, whose own mother couldn’t find an abortion clinic in their area; whose fetus turned out to have Downs Syndrome.... and, also, you think such situations don’t exist? (an amalgam of within-the-realm-of-possibility cases, based on real-life situations that I know of.)

But they do. That’s the reality.

Whether we define abortions as elective or therapeutic makes no difference, Kerry. Whether you want to see as many live babies born as possible is irrelevant as well. You do not know the lives of these women, their situations, whether they’ve been beaten by their husbands or boy friends, whether they have the wherewithal to care for a baby or to endure a choice to condemn a child to a life of misery, or life-long heartache and struggle—you simply do not know enough to CHOOSE for these whole persons yourself, these women who must be, if we are to have a free society, the ones to make those decision themselves, in partnership with their families and doctors.

I am surprised to read the following statement by you, since you are supposedly a doctor: If there is an indication to do a late term abortion, there is an indentication to try a preterm delivery--neither is going to affect the outcome of the mother's 'life and well-being' any differently.” According information which is perfectly easy to find, the method of “delivery,” whether live birth induction or dilation and evacuation, can make a difference to the safety of the mother—each may pose risks to the mother, and it is up to the physicians, with permission from the mother, to decide which poses the least risk. One thing is sure: It is not up to Kerry to decide!

With all due respect, Kerry, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that all rights are subordinate to the “right to life.” Such a belief disables your ability to look at the realities of the lives of women and girls. It renders you immune to compassion for women and their lives. Life means more than a state of being alive; it requires, to be life worth living, autonomous choice, freedom from oppression, health and opportunity, among other complex things.

In the best of all possible worlds, children would never be raped by fathers or uncles or their mother’s boyfriends; children would learn about contraception in school; girls and boys would be taught to respect each other. If I had it my way, Planned Parenthood clinics would be in every community and abortion services easily available; more funding would go to social services, adoption and foster-care services, education, jobs creation, than goes to funding wars right now.

But we do not have the best of all possible worlds. Little girls get raped; kids know next to nothing about sexuality and birth control. And where’s the respect for Others being taught in school—bullying abounds. Abortion clinics get bombed; abortion doctors murdered. War takes funding away from the building of a just society. And so, sometimes a girl or woman ends up in the hospital and has to make a sorrowful decision to end the life of her fetus—no doubt she weeps, and perhaps others weep with her. The only one who doesn’t weep is the fetus.

The fallacy of making viability the decision point for abortion rights becomes clear, if you consider that soon science will make it possible to raise a two-minute embryo to term in a lab somewhere. As soon as that happens, Kerry and his friends will come out against abortion altogether, and then look where we'll be.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

According information which is perfectly easy to find, the method of “delivery,” whether live birth induction or dilation and evacuation, can make a difference to the safety of the mother—each may pose risks to the mother, and it is up to the physicians, with permission from the mother, to decide which poses the least risk. One thing is sure: It is not up to Kerry to decide!

Then, it's up to who to decide, Zenzoe? If it is the physician, how is that 'the mother's choice' in ELECTIVE ABORTIONS. And, don't forget, when it comes to late stage pregnancies, there is NO DIFFERENCE to the LIFE AND HEALTH OF THE MOTHER whether that fetus is killed before the induction--or allowed to be induced alive and try to save its life.

This posturing of Zenzoe reminds me of a joke that one of my mentors said. If you like to drink a lot but don't want your physician to call you an alcoholic, then all you need to do is find a physician that drinks more than you. Since that physician will guage your behavior on his or her behavior, you have a pretty good chance of that doctor saying 'Oh, no, you aren't an alcoholic'....8^).....Zenzoe's excuse that 'it's up the physician to decide whether this is a therapeutic abortion or not' (even though it really does not change the risks of this late term pregnancy whether to try to deliver this fetus dead or alive) reminds me of that joke.....

Quote Zenzoe:

So, I am to understand that you would insist a fetus be delivered live, where the pregnant girl was 10-years old, didn’t learn she was pregnant until it was “too late,” who was raped by her father, whose family was poor and uneducated, whose own mother couldn’t find an abortion clinic in their area; whose fetus turned out to have Downs Syndrome....

All your excuses could be dealt with before the fetus reaches viability--even in Texas. If you want to have all these fetuses have 'their skulls crushed and brains sucked out before birth'--or even if your 'expert gently kills with an injection into the fetal heart before induction has to be made'--don't do it for the excuse that this has ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE HEALTH AND LIFE OF THE MOTHER. Not ONE of your examples has anything to do with that--and not one of your examples would 'reduce the late stage pregnancy risks' whether you kill the fetus before the delivery or allow the fetus to be born alive and try to save it. NOT ONE, ZENZOE. Your excuse of the 'life and wellbeing of the mother' as being the reason for 'late stage abortions' is a red herring, a sham, a misrepresentation of what is really happening and what is really at stake. If you want to allow the mother to abort all the way to term, fine--but, then, how you claim to have 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus', otherwise, I have no earthly idea. Your posturing in trying to 'condition all rights' is undermining the personal responsibility to either MAKE THE CHOICE OR BE AMENABLE TO THE CHILD'S WELLBEING--and I see wrong to do so...'rights' really do carry the 'obligation of personal responsibility'--and 'conditioning that' does nothing but undermine those 'rights'...which, truly, should be up to the will of the person who is to enact them in a way that confirms the responsibility of their act--and quit trying to 'rely on experts' (or is it 'the chivalrous'?) TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO IF ELECTIVE ABORTION IS TO BE THE CHOICE YOU SAY YOU WANT IT TO BE....

Quote Zenzoe:

Whether we define abortions as elective or therapeutic makes no difference, Kerry.

I flatly disagree. It makes a whole lot of difference when it comes to the recognition of what it means to have 'rights' and the 'obligations of personal responsibility' to go with such rights--and those who try to 'condition this away' from that recognition, even as they claim something about this representing 'community interest', are the ones that are undermining the very integrity of personhood that a real 'community' is founded on--and what they are offering in its place for whatever excuse they wish to offer will do NOTHING to endorse 'just communities'--or 'the right and responsibility of personhood' it is to be based on. They can say it does, but if they aren't taking a personal stake in what they say, it's the same distorted reasoning that many here use to claim 'community interest' in any way that undermines 'personhood rights'. So, if you are all for 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it', by God, get in there and visualize not only that being done BUT YOU DOING IT. And, if you're OK with that 'representing the moral and ethical integrity of personhood rights', then you and I have a different idea and FEELING on what that means. Are you going to allow the mother to have that choice if it doesn't work out right--and the fetus is born alive?

Quote Zenzoe:

With all due respect, Kerry, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that all rights are subordinate to the “right to life.”

So, does that mean that you are willing to have a fetus that 'got out before being killed' but was meant to be aborted KILLED ANYWAY, ZENZOE? You have yet to recognize the point of (and the communal and personal responsibility to) 'the right to life' ONCE THAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO EXIST. I know how you really want to 'condition all human rights' just like dogs--but, there is a valid point to such rights being absolute in the context in which they can be used--and a valid point to the issue that, once it has been determined to exist, the 'right to life' preempts all other rights absolutely because, without it, you have no rights. Are you saying that there is something missing in that description considering the rights of abortions that I am missing here, Zenzoe? I know how you don't like the 'contention of rights' this issue actually does have because you are all about 'care and concern'--but, the only thing that can effectively exert that 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' is, at some point in the process, grant that offspriing the 'right to life'--and, then, live up to it. Otherwise, leave the CHOICE up to the mother--and quit trying to 'condition' that with some mealy-mouthed bullshit about 'therapeutic abortions'.

Quote Zenzoe:

It renders you immune to compassion for women and their lives.

You say that like you have more compassion 'for all women and their lives' than I do--how do you show that 'compassion', Zenzoe? By 'conditioning their rights'? I give them the right to make that decision--but, I also give them the responsibility to make that decision. 'Adjusting that' by what you like to posture with as 'compassionate conditioning' will do NOTHING to have them face up to the responsibiliy that they will have if they feel that 'something other than them' is to 'make the choice for them'--no impersonal 'compassion for conditioning all rights' (especially the 'right to life') is going to change that point (those in that position need to squarely address what they are up against--not have someone impersonally 'condition it for them'--whether that be 'an expert'--or any self-righteous posturing on the 'conditioning of rights', otherwise)......

Quote Zenzoe:

Life means more than a state of being alive; it requires, to be life worth living, autonomous choice, freedom from oppression, health and opportunity, among other complex things.

And, how does 'conditioning any right' maintain all those options you propose, Zenzoe? Making it the decision of anyone else--making it the responsibility of anyone else--doesn't address how anything less than making the rights considered absolute (including the 'right to choose' up until the 'right to life' preempts the choice to end that life) makes this a 'life worth living, autonomous choice, freedom from oppression, etc., etc.'.

Quote Zenzoe:

The fallacy of making viability the decision point for abortion rights becomes clear, if you consider that soon science will make it possible to raise a two-minute embryo to term in a lab somewhere.

Well, when we get to that, we can face that point--but, 'medical science' is no where near making the 'viabiliy of the fetus outside of the womb' any sooner than 20 weeks--there are just too many things involved in how the uterus maintains a pregnancy that 'science' has no way of mimicking in any near future. So, while that pregnancy is dependent upon that uterus for survival, by all means, let the woman who owns that uterus decide. However, it is a decision that woman is required to make--and, once that offspring has gained the 'right to life', that woman now has the only responsible decision to be for the wellbeing of that child--and, if that is in abusive circumstances (who said I was against addresses the abuser's responsibility in this?) and the mother realizes her inabiliy to responsibly care for the child, then, adoption is always an option--not death. Some seem to say that such a 'right to life' for the fetus only is to occur at birth--I say that it occurs when the fetus has gained the capacity to live outside of the uterus--and that has been documented for decades (and isn't going to change anytime in the near future) at 20 weeks at the earliest (and there are significant risks to the fetus even to 28 weeks--and the problems of premature deliveries aren't substantially removed until 32 weeks)--but, that doesn't prevent some of us from agreeing that the fetal 'right to life' should begin at the earliest stage a fetus has lived--then, in any prematurely delivered case (for any reason), try to save the fetus's life--it may not work but, as the 'right to llfe' requires, it should be attempted. We can quibble over when that offspring is to gain the 'right to life'--but I really don't think that we can really quibble over the 'right to life's' influence against any 'right to choose' against it. Not really--despite how hard Zenzoe tries to ignore its preeminence in the hierarchy of 'rights'.....and their ABSOLUTE expression in the contexts in which they can exist.....even against anyone else's (rather impersonal) 'compassionate conditioning against them', otherwise....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote Zenzoe:

So, I am to understand that you would insist a fetus be delivered live, where the pregnant girl was 10-years old, didn’t learn she was pregnant until it was “too late,” who was raped by her father, whose family was poor and uneducated, whose own mother couldn’t find an abortion clinic in their area; whose fetus turned out to have Downs Syndrome....

All your excuses could be dealt with before the fetus reaches viability--even in Texas.

Wrong again. Why don't you read some of the cases —real life situations— and stop blinding yourself to reality.

That's all I need to read to know the rest of your comment is not worth my time.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Why don't you read all my points, Zenzoe? And, why don't you address any of my questions--starting with the one that if a fetus that is to be aborted gets out alive, anyway--are you going to allow it to be killed at that point? Your 'compassion' is quite underwhelming, Zenzoe--since you have not addressed how you are to have 'care and concern for the viabiliy of the fetus' really be enacted without granting that fetus a 'right to life'--or is that to be 'adjusted' depending upon whether the uterus the fetus was in that late a stage of pregnancy has resulted in an abusive situation or not? Even if so, that has NOTHING to do with the 'life and wellbeing of the mother' in any physical sense as your suggestion on 'therapeutic abortions' implies. Certainly no more whether that fetus is killed before delivery or allowed to be born alive and try to save it. And, once again, how does your 'conditioning away the choice of the mother' DIRECTLY FOR THE MOTHER have to do with THE CHOICES IN ELECTIVE ABORTIONS....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And, I glanced over your sources, Zenzoe--and, once again, I didn't see ONE CASE that indicated that a 'late term abortion' was any safer than its preterm induction counterpart TO THE LIFE AND WELLBEING OF THE MOTHER as a real physical, and medical, risk. NOT ONE. As I've said, the excuse used here for 'therapeutic abortions' as if the life and wellbeing of the mother is what is at risk is a disingenuous argument--even Zenzoe's connection show that, in late stage pregnancies, 'therapeutic abortions' have the same risks as deliveries because the induction in the abortion is the same as induction in pregnancy--the only difference being killing the fetus beforehand before the induction.

But, such an act has nothing to do with the 'life and wellbeing of the mother' as if it held some 'medical priority'--the risks of preterm delivery and late stage abortions are exactly the same. Even Zenzoe's connections pointed out that early stage abortions are safer than deliveries--and that has been wellknown in the medical field for years. But, this constant barrage of excuses as if the mother's 'life and wellbeing were at risk' is just the posturing offered by those who want to confuse the point of elective abortions in general away from the personally responsible act that, in a just community, it is--and that point is the mother's choice in the situation up against the responsibility this takes if the mother doesn't decide to end this pregnancy. If that mother hasn't taken that choice early enough in the pregnancy to act on it without a 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus', then, if that mother has carried that pregnancy that far, there are many of us that would say that having that child born alive and put out for adoption is the only truly responsible, and just communal, choice--despite what excuses of abuse are offered to 'adjust choice away from the one responsible to make it'....is that 'choice' to be adjusted even if the fetus is born alive? Again, my point. No 'conditioning away rights' warrants such a 'condition' and this freedom really be conducive to a just society......this late in pregnancy, it is NOT either the mother's life or the fetus's life, it is BOTH the mother's life and the fetus's life.....THAT is the reality as far as any 'life and wellbeing of the mother' is concerned--and its excuse should not be used to adjust, or condition, it, otherwise....it's not a real argument from a medical perspective--even as some may argue try to 'condition it' as such--that 'condition' has no validity when it comes to the medical risks of late term abortions vs. deliveries. NONE WHATSOEVER. Even Zenzoe's connections point that out......So, if you want it to be A CHOICE, then, let it be A CHOICE--if you want to claim that CHOICE is because of any risks to the mother of the pregnancy in that late a stage, that is a fallacy as both a CHOICE and any option to 'improve the risks to the mother' because that really DOES NOT EXIST.....it's a sham, a misrepresentation of the facts, a disingenuous argument FOR ELECTIVE ABORTIONS--and the real responsibility this CHOICE entails....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Of course, Kerry, if one makes it out alive, its tenacity should be rewarded. Once you used the word "born", you knew where I stand?

But what about sucking brains. Why is it that with all of our technology, we haven't invented a better way of aborting a fetus than to deliver it? It's not a priority, most likely, because we have an innate revulsion at the idea of abortion to go with our innate cultural misogyny.Open heart surgery is more repulsive than an abortion but you don't get heart disease from sinful sex. It's not the graphic imagery that's important, though, it's the purpose of the procedure that matters. I don't know why you can't see that they both save lives?

Oh my god, little babies are being MURDERED!, the hypocrites cry, because they know everyone loves babies. What about the lives of the women? Nobody cries, Oh God women are being controlled by the state!, though or , Oh God, women are being controlled by the churches!, whenever an abortion is denied. These same people aren't demanding that our foreign policy be to not kill any babies or that references to baby murder be stricken from their holy text. In essence, these "pro lifers" want some babies killed, just not their own little god's lambs.

So, who do you stand with? Do you make pregnancy a criminal act when it is unintentional? That's what your allies want, Kerry, and where your arbitrary life line will lead. Or, do you give women the absolute right to their body and work to find the safest solutions for unwanted pregnancy?

Dismiss me as the "macho" to Zenzoe's feminine but like the two genders, Zenzoe and I are much more similar than you might think. She cares for the fetus, as a rule, but cares more for women's rights. Fine, I do too. As I've stated, I would stay out of it and encourage every other non related medical professional to do the same. If a parasitic larval human takes residence in an unsuspecting uterus, I would give the woman the same authorization of the use of deadly force that I would for you, Kerry, if a band of gypsies camped out, uninvited, in your lower colon.

Here's an example of the only exception:

If a pregnant woman-or Kerry- dies, I would encourage the fetus, or band of gypsies -if viable-to be delivered, to have a chance at life on the outside. I would give preference to their lives when they are the only living beings left within the physical space of the previously deceased. When its mother or Kerry loses their right to choose, through death, the fetus or band of merry gypsies are no longer parasitic and gain-by default-the right to life.

I can haaaaaardly wait for the response...

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Kerry:

Why don't you read all my points, Zenzoe? And, why don't you address any of my questions--starting with the one that if a fetus that is to be aborted gets out alive, anyway--are you going to allow it to be killed at that point? Your 'compassion' is quite underwhelming,

When will you acknowledge that every sperm is alive, and under optimal conditions will develop into a person. Why do you allow for the murder of 200,000,000 with every ejaculation!?

The reason is, that places the responsibility on men (and likely you) and absolves women of the responsibility for being held hostage by the phallacracy. You want to get taken seriously, then you must acknowledge the bible and the Holy Father, Pope Pious' Vatican II, and realize that every sperm can develop into a full formed human. In fact, they are the only natural thing in this entire universe that can.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:
Quote Kerry:

Why don't you read all my points, Zenzoe? And, why don't you address any of my questions--starting with the one that if a fetus that is to be aborted gets out alive, anyway--are you going to allow it to be killed at that point? Your 'compassion' is quite underwhelming,

When will you acknowledge that every sperm is alive, and under optimal conditions will develop into a person. Why do you allow for the murder of 200,000,000 with every ejaculation!?

The reason is, that places the responsibility on men (and likely you) and absolves women of the responsibility for being held hostage by the phallacracy. You want to get taken seriously, then you must acknowledge the bible and the Holy Father, Pope Pious' Vatican II, and realize that every sperm can develop into a full formed human. In fact, they are the only natural thing in this entire universe that can.

Naturally, yes. God is powerful enough, however, that he could turn anything into a fully formed human...a rib... some clay...whatever. The sperm is the easiest thing to turn into a human, though, because it already has a big floppy head and enjoys swimming.

I totally agree, though, with your premise. We must start protecting these little sperm people from being slaughtered by the million in crimes of animal lust! We can just take Kerry's arbitrary life line and nudge it-legally- to the left, to prior to penetration. In fact, we can leave women out of this debate all together. I know the fellas would love that. But, the ladies didn't really get a say in the first place. Who are we kidding?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Kerry can't get his head around the reality that sometimes pre-viability abortions don't happen like we all wish they would, for very understandable reasons. But it happens, not because pregnant girls and women would prefer to wait until there's a viable fetus in their bellies they can murder at will, but for so many reasons it's probably impossible to count the ways.

I suspect that because, for example, Kerry has never been a 10-year-old girl living in a dysfunctional family, never been raped by a step-father, never known what it is like to be a child too terrified of her step-father to tell her mother what happened...I suspect that Kerry is just too lacking in empathy to imagine what that would be like and why many months would pass before anybody would notice the child was pregnant. I suppose he also can't imagine what forcing such a child to take her pregnancy to term, or forcing her to give birth to a premature baby, one she and her family are wholly unequipped to care for, would do to a 10 or 11 year-old's psyche, to say nothing of the physical ordeal. Oh, but such suffering doesn't count—that's what she gets for allowing herself to get pregnant then not going for an abortion right away.

Empathy, Kerry. Empathy for women and girls. Why is it that D_NATURED's empathy is intact, but yours isn't?

What is the matter with you?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

i have two simple rules which may or may not have been mentioned here already.

1. human life begins at conception.

2. human rights begins at birth.

there. all problems and ambiguities solved.

tomas.savage's picture
tomas.savage
Joined:
Dec. 27, 2011 10:29 am
Quote tomas.savage:

i have two simple rules which may or may not have been mentioned here already.

1. human life begins at conception.

2. human rights begins at birth.

there. all problems and ambiguities solved.

I would go for that. Seems pretty simple.

For Kerry, though, you can't say that life begins without it being "a" life, deserving of rights. That is going to be the sticking point.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Of course, Kerry, if one makes it out alive, its tenacity should be rewarded. Once you used the word "born", you knew where I stand?

But what about sucking brains. Why is it that with all of our technology, we haven't invented a better way of aborting a fetus than to deliver it? It's not a priority, most likely, because we have an innate revulsion at the idea of abortion to go with our innate cultural misogyny....

So, is it 'misogynist' if the fetus that the mother wanted to kill before birth ends up being born, anyway--and allowed to live even against that mother's previous 'choice'? You see, unlike what tomas savage's post implies (and, I'm not sure how it's a 'human life' without 'human rights to life'--or is tomas savage also for charging anyone else but the mother that ends that life in utero with 'manslaughter' or 'murder'?), I am not removing the mother's complete and absolute right to choose at some points in her pregnancy. I am endorsing it. But, despite Zenzoe's attack on the issue of 'the right to life' trying to 'condition' it for sensational exceptions, I am saying that the mother's 'right to choose' will be met eventually by her offspring's 'right to life'--in which case, when that happens, the 'right to life' supercedes any person's 'right to choose' against it. At this point, I would wish that you would put aside our differences with respect to when such a 'right to life' is to be established and realize that such a 'right to life' will remove that mother's (or anyone's) 'right to choose' against it when it has been determined to exist. If you don't get that point clearly in your head and, instead, try to opt for something that Zenzoe likes to call the 'proper' conditioning of all rights, then don't be surprised when that 'condition' is defined as 'life beginning at conception' for you--including the 'right to life'...and, frankly, due to the way many of you like to mealy-mouth your way around 'rights' and 'human life', maybe you deserve that end...

I see the point is not to try to undermine the 'right to life' as much as it is to try to accept that as the very defining line in which to determine when a mother's otherwise absolute 'right to choose' is, now, absolutely removed--doing that is the only way to have this expressed as the personal choice and personal obligation that this issue really is--and no 'condition' should be allowed to undermine that point when it comes to the issue of the absoluteness of rights and their political expression. The only distinction to make now is when does a human life with rights begin. I've never accepted the premise that that is to be 'at conception'--and I do think that all of human history up until today's proponents of 'life begins at conception' supports my point. Never in the history of human civilization have all miscarriages been named, treated as dead persons, or have their premature deaths 'investigated' with respect to foul play. It happens too often in nature for that to ever be a practical solution to this issue in society--and to even try to distinguish out those 'miscarriages' that are of purely 'natural causes' and those that may have had some 'manmade intervention'--especially in early gestations--will be practically impossible. I say let that issue be between 'that person and God'. However, just like the deliberations of Roe vs. Wade pointed out, as the fetus gets older, as the fetus obtains more of a possibility of existing outside of the uterus, the more that fetus does gain that ability, the more that fetus gains a 'right to life'. For many of us that deal with pregnancy issues, that should be determined before birth in considering the gestational age of when any fetus has survived outside of the uterus--and if that fetus has gained that right at that time, then all fetuses should gain such a right past that stage--and, as Roe vs. Wade did allow (since it did not determine the unalienable right to life for that offspring until birth even as it allowed each state to intervene on its behalf after 12 weeks gestation), even if 'we' are to contend against when such a 'right to life' is to be established for that offspring, we cannot really contend that such a 'right to life' will supercede any 'right to choose' against it--even as the 'right to choose' was absolute before that....

Quote D_NATURED:

I don't know why you can't see that they both save lives?

Whose life are you talking about? And, don't forget this point, when it comes to late stage abortions vs. preterm deliveries, the ONLY distinction made with any reference to anything that could be claimed for 'the life and health of the mother' is that the abortive procedure will try to kill the fetus before inducing labor and the preterm delivery will try to save the fetus after the induction is done. In other words, with respect to the real medical risks involved in this procedure, there is absolutely NO difference between late term abortions and preterm deliveries EXCEPT TO THE LIFE OF THE FETUS. Now, you may still argue that this mother should have THE CHOICE--and, as Zenzoe tries to do, you may be able to come up with some sensational examples of 'abuse' to promote such CHOICE, but, please, quit trying to have this be passed off as if 'the life and health of the mother' were involved in such CHOICE because that is JUST NOT SO. The ONLY distinction involved in a late stage abortion vs. a preterm delivery (for whatever reason) is THE LIFE AND HEALTH OF THE FETUS--the risks ARE THE SAME to the mother.....and I truly do NOT see that as 'misogynist' to have a 'care and concern for fetal viability' as a fetal 'right to life' at that time despite any attempts to categorize that perspective, otherwise (even by those like Zenzoe who 'condition the mother's right' as if a 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' were involved--with Zenzoe not once explaining who gets the capacity to assert such a 'condition'--and why if that is not to endorse another's right).

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Oh my god, little babies are being MURDERED!, the hypocrites cry, because they know everyone loves babies. What about the lives of the women?

You know, I think it is somewhat hypocritical that you offer 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' and, now, you, just like Zenzoe, are trying to somehow claim this 'condiition' has something to really do with 'the lives of the women'. Are you as willing to kill a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer that had something to really do 'with the lives of children'? Or, is it only fetuses just about to be born that you want to kill? Don't try to claim the 'hypocrisy' issue on this. When the 'right to life' has been properly removed by due process (as in a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer's case), or when the 'right to life' has been properly determined not to exist (as in early pregnancies), I am all for the killing. Especially in really considering such responsibilities to the lives of others. Are you? Don't complain of the specks in others eyes if you can't see the planck in your own....

And, then, Phaedrus76 comes in and restates the same bullshit remarks that have nothing to do with this issue--nor my statements....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Kerry can't get his head around the reality that sometimes pre-viability abortions don't happen like we all wish they would, for very understandable reasons. But it happens, not because pregnant girls and women would prefer to wait until there's a viable fetus in their bellies they can murder at will, but for so many reasons it's probably impossible to count the ways.

Well, one reason would be to accept that you are pregnant and, then, if you don't want the child, then, do something about it when that offspring has no 'right to life'. Is there really a problem with that, Zenzoe? When that offspring has the 'right to life' then be responsible for its wellbeing even if that means giving it up for adoption. Is there really a problem with that, Zenzoe? Or, unlike what D_NATURED et.al. are willing to address, is 'conditioning all rights' really what you want to support as if there are 'no problems with that'?

'Rights of personhood' really do carry the 'obligation of personal responsibility'--trying to 'condition that out of existence' does nothing for that person--or the freedom to act as that person. But, make no mistake about it, such 'freedom' does carry 'obligations of personal responsibility' for it to be maintained as 'freedom' in a just society. I have a problem with anything that tries to 'condition that' out of existence....

Quote Zenzoe:

I suspect that because, for example, Kerry has never been a 10-year-old girl living in a dysfunctional family, never been raped by a step-father, never known what it is like to be a child too terrified of her step-father to tell her mother what happened...

And, how are you rectifying that, Zenzoe? By not addressing it and, then, right before birth, have the fetus killed before being induced into labor? How does that correct all the other abuses you claim 'ending the fetus's life' at that point does in 'the life of the mother', Zenzoe? How? Do you really in your heart of hearts think that a 10-year old girl that was raped will have a better outcome with her own life this late into her pregnancy if the choice is to 'kill the fetus right before birth'--or 'allow it to be born and, then, adopt it out'? Really, Zenzoe? Or, is this just your own sensational way of not having to address this issue as 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth IF THE MOTHER WANTS IT'? And, you really think that a raped 10 year old girl is going to feel better about herself if, this late into her pregnancy, she'll 'want the fetus to be killed'? How does 'killing the fetus' at this point 'solve the abuse', Zenzoe? Why don't you allow the child to be born--and then go after the abusers? Why, if they have DNA-proven evidence of such abuse ending in a child's death, I don't have a problem in this world OF KILLING THEM. Do you? And, no way would be 'too cruel and unusual', either--cut their dick off, cram into their mouth, stick a hot rod up their ass, and let them slowly bleed to death before God and country. How about you? Or, is 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out it brains right before birth if the mother wants it' the only appropriate 'death' (without any consideration to a 'right to life' in that respect) all that you and your cohorts 'approve of'? In, of course, for you, the most 'mature, sophisticated, and intellectualizing' way that you can 'condition it'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You just don't get it, Kerry. You fail to comprehend how shit happens in people's lives, how a woman might not have the wherewithal to get an abortion in time. You fail to consider the mid-term termination of pregnancy, so that you can rail against the extreme, end-term situation, which is infinitely rare and only done in very rare cases of extreme medical necessity, not "elective" choice.

It must be nice to be so well-off that you don't feel the suffering of others in dire situations. You can afford to ignore them —living, whole persons— in favor of a sentimental, kitschy attachment to the "unborn." How satisfying it must be to advocate for the abstract "rights" of the non-living, as if you are a hero to vulnerable beings, even while you deny the real-world troubles, woe and misery, of more vulnerable living beings, to say nothing of your ignoring of the stupidity of adding more and more of the unwanted to an already over-populated planet.

You insist on assuming the pro-choice position would always deny the possibility of delivering a fetus live. In this blindness of yours, you fail to comprehend the word, "choice." It never occurs to you that we would never force a woman to terminate her pregnancy by "killing" her fetus; you forget the word is CHOICE—we advocate for choices: a woman chooses, in consultation with her doctor, what will be in her best interest, what works best for her, her fetus, and her situation, including her psyche. In fact, it is the Texas law that forces a choice, that chooses for the people involved. Now that's a fascist law, if there ever was one.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
Quote tomas.savage:

i have two simple rules which may or may not have been mentioned here already.

1. human life begins at conception.

2. human rights begins at birth.

there. all problems and ambiguities solved.

I would go for that. Seems pretty simple.

For Kerry, though, you can't say that life begins without it being "a" life, deserving of rights. That is going to be the sticking point.

On a similar note:

1. The case to be made for safe and legal abortion relative to a woman's rights is fairly straightforward argument.

2. The case to be made against safe and legal abortion relative to a fetus' rights is anything but straightforward. Especially when you also take into account item #1 (a women's rights).

Please note that I am no fan of abortion, but I cannot justify denying a woman the right to safe and legal abortion.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Oh, Zenzoe, with respect to unwanted pregnancies, I bet that I see more of those dire consequences than you do. In one of our hospitals today, a 16 year old delivered her baby at home--dead. The 16 year old, herself, had bled out enough to require transfusions. And, despite what you self-righteously claim, it wasn't because Texas doesn't have a generous government-supported program when it comes to pregnant women--and it wasn't because this patient didn't have the opportunities to chose to take care of herself during this pregnancy--I truly believe that it was directly related to this culture (near the Texas-Mexican border, mostly Hispanic--and Catholic) and its approach to the sexual act and pregnancy in general. The girl felt herself as an outcast--I am sure by her family and most of her friends. She had no support from the father of her child--probably the same age that she was and without any way to support this child (but, you can set up whatever 'abusive' situation you want, my point will be the same). And, more to my point, she deflnitely didn't have the wherewithall to take charge of her situation and decide what was best in her pregnancy at the time she could have decided it--until it was too late.

And, your claims on how 'restricted' I am with this issue of rights comes no where near understanding my point on this. This isn't going to be answered by government throwing more money at it. This isn't even going to be answered by 'allowing' this mother to abort right before she was to have the child--I am almost certain she would have never gone for that. This is only going to be answered by finally addressing this situation as I see it really is--there is going to have to be either a responsibility to end this pregnancy--or a recognition that you are going to have to be responsible for the child's wellbeing as the one who is pregnant. All the 'conditioning' and 'do-gooding' that you can conjure up in this discussion isn't going to 'answer this' for the pregnant woman. And, while I am sorry that this decision falls mainly on the mother, I am not sorry that this mother now has to face that decision--with or without whatever support that mother senses she has. The ONLY way to responsibly address the issue of unwanted pregnancies in this society is to BOTH (there it is again, DRC, BOTH) allow in every respect that 'rights' can offer for this mother to decide whether she wants this pregnancy or not AND have that mother realize it is her responsibility to act on it--this mealy-mouthed way of catering to the 'abuse excuse' that you offer, Zenzoe, is just another distraction from this very serious prospect and its very serious consequences if left 'to ride' without squarely facing it--BOTH at the time the choice can be offered--and respected--AND at the time that, without that choice, the responsibilities have to be squarely and completely understood by the one most affected by its consequences--the pregnant mother. NOTHING about the 'abuse excuse' (or its 'conditions') is going to manage this prospect as effectively as that--NOTHING.

And, those like you who love to gloat on how 'concerned' you are in this but offer only 'conditioning that choice' are making this issue worse--not better. While you self-righteously assume that your 'conditioning' somehow buffers the harshness of, and consequences for, this choice, I see your self-righteous posturing as part of the problem--not part of the solution....it is YOU who is ignorant of this situation and the consequences it has for society as a whole. True rights carry real obligations of personal responsibility--claiming they don't for whatever sensational purpose you posture with does nothing for those rights or the consequences that they have in a just society.

Texas law doesn't 'force' a 'choice' any more than this 16 year old not taking the choice--and, then, not knowing how to deal with the consequences. Up to the point of the child dying in the prospect--and, as every state would do, now that 16 year old has to face the investigation into this result to make sure that she didn't do something to cause this death at a time when the child should have lived--and would have lived had she made the right choices--or been done away with if that was her choice. It's 'conditioning' this prospect so much that no one actually takes the choice that is the real tragedy in this--albeit that this 16 year old didn't have loved ones to see how that should have been made--but, then, in this culture, those 'choices' aren't to be made. That's the real tragedy--and how you who loves to 'condition the rights' this really involves now can ignore how you have helped create a society with all these unwanted children that this 'conditioning away the choice AND its responsibilities' just adds insult to this very real, and personal, injury....under the guise of how much your blathering 'conditionally cares' without, at any point in this process, YOU having any personal stake in it.....and your 'conditioning of rights' blurs the very point of what it takes to address this very personal stake.....

You pass D_NATURED's description of 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' as, somehow, being 'in agreement' with your otherwise self-righteous 'conditioning of rights' posturing--as if that description matches your 'conditioning concerns'--especially if your concerns are in any way directed towards 'the viability of the fetus'. But, at least D_NATURED's description matches the severity of this situation. There are just those of us who don't see that as being pertinent or appropriate for anything that you can claim is for the 'life and health of the mother' in late pregnancies as you continue in your self-righteous posturing on how 'concerned' you are with the 'abuse excuse'--without once addressing in any way how YOU would handle the abuser without having the death of the fetus, somehow, 'answer it' as your 'condition'. Bullshit.

It's that very point of not making those who are in it, who have done it, responsible for the consequences of it that has severely strained the effectiveness of a just society based on the rights of those for their own action--as well as the responsibility to such actions. And NOTHING says that more than unwanted pregnancies--and child rapist-murderers. You seem to conclude that, in both cases, 'death of the children involved' have no real consequences to contend with--there are all these 'conditions' to 'condition away their responsibility'. Well, when the pregnant woman makes the right choice at the right time, I agree. When the pregnant woman doesn't, I disagree. And, you don't seem to have anything to say about what you would do with a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer--hell, maybe the child that was raped and murdered was 'unwanted' anyway. Maybe you want to self-righteously 'rehabilitate' the child rapist and murderer instead of make them personally responsible for their acts--that is how the 'conditioners of all rights' seem to want to address 'all actions'. But, I don't in any way think that any of your so-called 'conditioning answers' will be as effective as you promote. They will lead to more children having children because they don't understand where they fit in with this 'conditioning of rights'--hell, it's not 'their rights', anymore, anyway, it's whoever has the power to 'condition the rights away' that get to decide this.....and more child rapist-murderers killing and raping again because they see no need 'to be responsible for their acts', either--they probably were 'abused' themselves (and, of course, the 'abuse excuse' conditions all personal responsibility away in your self-righteous mind, doesn't it, Zenzoe?)....But, who is really now going to be 'responsible' in such cases--not the 'conditioners'--Oh no, they are just satisfied with their self-righteous posturing. But, then, 'someone' is going to have to be 'responsible' somewhere--and, whether that is a drunk that wants to leave the hospital and gets run over and killed or a drunk that is forced to stay against his will, it's always 'someone else's responsibility but theirs'...that is, only if, as you, you can figure out how to self-righteously 'condition all responsibility away' (to anything else than that person--and, of course, yourself--the self-righteous 'conditioner of all rights')--and, in doing so, 'condition all rights away'......for what, the 'conditioner' never explains....maybe it's something about 'feeling good' and 'not having to take crucial responsibilities' in anything in your life--or your choices....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

It never occurs to you that we would never force a woman to terminate her pregnancy by "killing" her fetus; you forget the word is CHOICE

OK, Zenzoe, walk me through how you, or any of your so-called 'experts', are going to get a 10 year pregnant girl TO MAKE THAT CHOICE? Especially late in her pregnancy--even if raped--and do it in a way that 'conditions the harshness of the situation and the choice' away....and, always remember, in late stage pregnancies, the only manner in which it is differentiated from its preterm induction counterpart is BY KILLING THE FETUS BEFORE THE INDUCTION TO DELIVER. Have you got that in your 'conditioning all rights away' head yet, Zenzoe?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Sorry to condescend, but that rant, Kerry, at comment #441, while too long and convoluted at certain points, advocated your position more coherently than any rant you've posted on this subject yet. I appreciate that very much.

Of course! Women should take responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy as early as possible! Given a perfectly just, equitable and enlightened society, and given God's assurance there will be no, unforeseen medically disastrous outcomes during any pregnancy, the number of women who obtain abortions before viability could be at 100% —rather than the 91.5% who do so before 21 weeks in the U.S. now.

However, why you assume that late term abortions occur solely because of the irresponsibility of the woman strains understanding. And this is the crux of your wrongheadedness— your blame-the-victim mentality. Even as a doctor, you cannot imagine women as anything but fully in control of their bodies, their situations, their pregnancies, and fate.

It's the strict-father mentality in action, folks. See Dick run. See Jane fall down. See Dick pick up a stick and beat the hell out of her for her mistake.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Let me ask you something again outright, Zenzoe: How does killing the fetus in a late stage abortion affectively address any abuse involved in the circumstances of the pregnancy? Why are you not directly addressing the issue of abuse directly to the abusers?

And, don't forget this point, either: The ONLY difference between a late term abortion and a preterm delivery is KILLING THE FETUS BEFORE THE INDUCTION. No 'conditioning' bullshit about 'the life and health of the mother' has anything to do with that point--nor the risks involved in either the delivery of that fetus or its abortion in late stage pregnancies. When you and your cohorts want to take a condescending view on what this all entails, I don't want any of you to overlook that point. This involves hard realities no matter how you slice it--and, again, how does killing the fetus before inducing the delivery address any of the abuse of the situations in the pregnancy in any way? Only in your condescending dreams does this do so as you smugly and condescendingly try to 'condition all rights' away from any responsible decisions--and responsible actions--as the 'rights of choice' in this issue really have....and should always contain.....

And when it comes to abusive situations in our society and holding those who actually perform the acts to their responsibilities, why haven't you addressed my 'cutting off the dick, cramming it in their mouth, sticking a hot rod up their ass, and having them slowly bleed to death' as an appropriate response to any DNA-proven child rapist-murderer? Even compare it to D_NATURED's 'crush the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if that is what the mother wants'. Rights always carry personal responsibilities. The woman who is raped has had some of her rights violated--but killing the fetus right before birth doesn't address that, either....the responsibility falls on those who have taken that action--not the results as if that 'answers the abuse'.....especially in late term pregnancies when many of us would just as soon see the fetus extracted out alive rather than killed to 'answer it'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Well, you're right, the only method close to 'foolproof' would be to 'crush the fetal skull in and suck out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it
Non-participants and students of rhetoric should note that since D_NATURED used the above remark once, the alleged doctor has cited it in almost every post he's made since D's initial usage. The alleged doctor's overuse of it is a textbook example of what is politically called "waving the bloody shirt" to instill a sense of outrage in the populace and galvanize public opinion against some other entity, usually, but not always, for the purpose of going to war. The alleged doctor relies heavily upon it because his logic, rhetoric, and arguments are not good enough to prevail without such techniques.
Of course, you are dancing around a concept here, D_NATURED
First, it's relevant to note that whenever somebody uses "of course," it may be used to commit the logical/rhetorical fallacy called begging the question. Accordingly, whenever one encounters it, it's best to see if what it's connected to is truly of course that way. The above statement also tells us that the alleged doctor implicitly believes that he, himself, does not dance around any concepts, and that he is not doing that very thing by accusing D-NATURED of it, rather than addressing the points D_NATURED makes in his discourse. This may also be purposive; the alleged doctor may be using the hackneyed rhetorical technique of attacking when it's not possible to mount a genuine defense.
Are you just trying to be chivalrous for Zenzoe's sake and save Zenzoe from the cruel, hard, facts of late term abortions?
Projection. And, imputation of facts not in evidence via a rhetorical question.
Zenzoe doesn't seem to want to go quite that far--relying on the 'expert instructions' of an 'Ob/Gyn physician' that claims to 'gently kill the fetus' BEFORE INDUCING LABOR, ANYWAY for something that 'expert' says 'is for the health and wellbeing of the mother'.
In this construct, the alleged doctor falls back on indirect argumentum ad hominem. He can't argue with the authority inherent in Zenzoe's quoted opinion from a true expert, so he implicitly impugns that expert's credentials by placing the word "expert" in quotation marks in his response. Quotation marks, when used in such a way, are meant to mean that their holder is somehow ersatz. The alleged doctor is on record as being an emergency room doctor, yet he chooses to impugn the expert opinion of a doctor who specializes in OB-GYN, which makes that doctor more of an expert on abortion than himself, since he is not an OB-GYN specialist. Go figure.
So, what happens if a fetus that the mother wanted to abort gets born alive, D_NATURED?
Boy, I'll bet millions of those happen every day. We don't even have to be doctors to know that it was true in Alien, Aliens, and Alien III, right?
And, D_NATURED, I don't care how macho you think that you are in this 'support' you claim for women's rights
Projection and imputation again.
If you are against the fetal 'right to life' before birth, then you are against it in any circumstance.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Oh, that's right, as your 'chivalrous support for the woman's choice', right?
Yeah, D-NATURED, when did you stop beating your wife?
I think that both you and Zenzoe need to probe a little more thoroughly into just what you are posturing with here--
"Posturing with" or "posturing about?" Hmmm. That troublesome demon of inappropriate word choice once again rears its ugly head, detracting from the clear understanding of all except Mrs. Malaprop.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
So, I am to understand that you would insist a fetus be delivered live, where the pregnant girl was 10-years old, didn’t learn she was pregnant until it was “too late,” who was raped by her father, whose family was poor and uneducated, whose own mother couldn’t find an abortion clinic in their area; whose fetus turned out to have Downs Syndrome.... and, also, you think such situations don’t exist? (an amalgam of within-the-realm-of-possibility cases, based on real-life situations that I know of.)

But they do. That’s the reality.

Most sane people know that those situations exist; denial is psychologically pathological. Ignoring the point you make is typical of the "God Squad," "Right-to-Life" freaks. They're the same ones who want to force all such pregnancies to be carried to term while simultaneously voting for Congressional monsters who will deny even a penny's worth of funding to care for those born into such tragedy. That's why many of us believe that they have earned and well deserve the sobriquet, "Love the Fetus, Hate the Child." They want to force them into life, but don't want to care for them once they're here. Many Libertarians are that way; almost all Cons and Republicans are too. Just another reason I despise them.

I am surprised to read the following statement by you, since you are supposedly a doctor: If there is an indication to do a late term abortion, there is an indentication to try a preterm delivery--neither is going to affect the outcome of the mother's 'life and well-being' any differently.” According information which is perfectly easy to find, the method of “delivery,” whether live birth induction or dilation and evacuation, can make a difference to the safety of the mother—each may pose risks to the mother, and it is up to the physicians, with permission from the mother, to decide which poses the least risk. One thing is sure: It is not up to Kerry to decide!

But they do think they have the right to decide. Many of them are messianic to the point of hallucination and a great number of them think they're "God's instruments," and that He has already decided. As they see it, they're "just carrying out God's will." Nothing's more dangerous than fanatics.

With all due respect, Kerry, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that all rights are subordinate to the “right to life.”

I fear that the amount of unrewarded effort you'll spend making this argument will exceed that spent on the 12 Labors of Hercules.

Such a belief disables your ability to look at the realities of the lives of women and girls. It renders you immune to compassion for women and their lives. Life means more than a state of being alive; it requires, to be life worth living, autonomous choice, freedom from oppression, health and opportunity, among other complex things.

True and factual, but probably ineffective on those who have immunized themselves to truth and fact.

In the best of all possible worlds, children would never be raped by fathers or uncles or their mother’s boyfriends; children would learn about contraception in school; girls and boys would be taught to respect each other. If I had it my way, Planned Parenthood clinics would be in every community and abortion services easily available; more funding would go to social services, adoption and foster-care services, education, jobs creation, than goes to funding wars right now.

Bravo! More reasons why we can't let the GOP get full control of Congress and the White House at the same time, notwithstanding the pronounced faults of Barack Obama. Under the GOP's aegis, even more Fundy freaks will come out of the woodwork to militate against sex education in schools, based on their harebrained argument that sex education encourages promiscuity -- as if omission of sex education stabilizes the problems inherent in its absence.

The fallacy of making viability the decision point for abortion rights becomes clear, if you consider that soon science will make it possible to raise a two-minute embryo to term in a lab somewhere. As soon as that happens, Kerry and his friends will come out against abortion altogether, and then look where we'll be.

Oh, be quiet! Put on your burkha, walk two steps behind the Kerrys of the world, and remain barefoot and pregnant. Hell, you'll get three hots and a cot for your trouble. What more could a girl want?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Despite the fabrications set up among the condescenders that 'explain' my position on abortion as if I don't want rights, they once again gloss over the very point that I am making in addressing this as an issue on rights--those rights take responsible action to work out. Placing this in the pretense that late stage abortions have anything to do with 'the life and health of the mother' is misrepresenting this issue. Assuming that 'gently killing the fetus right before birth' makes any difference to the seriousness of this issue misrepresents my position. Assuming that killing the fetus resolves any abusers that may be involved misrepresents my position. Claiming that this has something to do with 'holding as if precious life every sperm that comes out' misrepresents my position. And, certainly, assuming that I give the pregnant woman no ABSOLUTE RIGHT to choose in the context of when that CHOICE does not negate the fetus's right to life misrepresents my position. As I have been saying all along, those who claim to know my position--and then proceed to misrepresent it--are disingenuous and seem to love to discuss this issue in a manner that doesn't address what I am saying--in a rather condescending and haphazard manner. So much so that I have come to the point that it would, indeed, serve you right to have all your 'conditioning' smack you right in the face--as the 'right to life' gets determined at conception right out from under you....your perspective of what the issue of rights and abortion really have to deal with are so far off the mark, you don't even know what you do in undermining this very basic issue on the human condition--and human society--and rights....especially the right to choose up against the right to life....your posturing has no cause--and your politics will suffer because of it--despite how 'mature, sophitiscated, and intellectualizing' you think that you are on this issue--you really have no idea.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:
So, I am to understand that you would insist a fetus be delivered live, where the pregnant girl was 10-years old, didn’t learn she was pregnant until it was “too late,” who was raped by her father, whose family was poor and uneducated, whose own mother couldn’t find an abortion clinic in their area; whose fetus turned out to have Downs Syndrome.... and, also, you think such situations don’t exist? (an amalgam of within-the-realm-of-possibility cases, based on real-life situations that I know of.)

But they do. That’s the reality.

Most sane people know that those situations exist; denial is psychologically pathological. Ignoring the point you make is typical of the "God Squad," "Right-to-Life" freaks. They're the same ones who want to force all such pregnancies to be carried to term while simultaneously voting for Congressional monsters who will deny even a penny's worth of funding to care for those born into such tragedy. That's why many of us believe that they have earned and well deserve the sobriquet, "Love the Fetus, Hate the Child." They want to force them into life, but don't want to care for them once they're here. Many Libertarians are that way; almost all Cons and Republicans are too. Just another reason I despise them.

I am surprised to read the following statement by you, since you are supposedly a doctor: If there is an indication to do a late term abortion, there is an indentication to try a preterm delivery--neither is going to affect the outcome of the mother's 'life and well-being' any differently.” According information which is perfectly easy to find, the method of “delivery,” whether live birth induction or dilation and evacuation, can make a difference to the safety of the mother—each may pose risks to the mother, and it is up to the physicians, with permission from the mother, to decide which poses the least risk. One thing is sure: It is not up to Kerry to decide!

But they do think they have the right to decide. Many of them are messianic to the point of hallucination and a great number of them think they're "God's instruments," and that He has already decided. As they see it, they're "just carrying out God's will." Nothing's more dangerous than fanatics.

With all due respect, Kerry, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that all rights are subordinate to the “right to life.”

I fear that the amount of unrewarded effort you'll spend making this argument will exceed that spent on the 12 Labors of Hercules.

Such a belief disables your ability to look at the realities of the lives of women and girls. It renders you immune to compassion for women and their lives. Life means more than a state of being alive; it requires, to be life worth living, autonomous choice, freedom from oppression, health and opportunity, among other complex things.

True and factual, but probably ineffective on those who have immunized themselves to truth and fact.

In the best of all possible worlds, children would never be raped by fathers or uncles or their mother’s boyfriends; children would learn about contraception in school; girls and boys would be taught to respect each other. If I had it my way, Planned Parenthood clinics would be in every community and abortion services easily available; more funding would go to social services, adoption and foster-care services, education, jobs creation, than goes to funding wars right now.

Bravo! More reasons why we can't let the GOP get full control of Congress and the White House at the same time, notwithstanding the pronounced faults of Barack Obama. Under the GOP's aegis, even more Fundy freaks will come out of the woodwork to militate against sex education in schools, based on their harebrained argument that sex education encourages promiscuity -- as if omission of sex education stabilizes the problems inherent in its absence.

The fallacy of making viability the decision point for abortion rights becomes clear, if you consider that soon science will make it possible to raise a two-minute embryo to term in a lab somewhere. As soon as that happens, Kerry and his friends will come out against abortion altogether, and then look where we'll be.

Oh, be quiet! Put on your burkha, walk two steps behind the Kerrys of the world, and remain barefoot and pregnant. Hell, you'll get three hots and a cot for your trouble. What more could a girl want?

I've been mad at you in the past, Ulysses, but today I love you to pieces.

Okay, it terrifies me to think of what life in the U.S. will be like, once the Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorums of the world take over. So much for sex for sex sake; and if a young, college girl (pre-med) finds herself pregnant, after engaging in the egregious sin of fornication for fun sake (with condoms too!), good luck with that. She can just pretend for a month or two she likes the idea of being pregnant, but then after awhile the reality sets in: her life is over—she gets depressed, misses finals, gets expelled from college. She can then rouse herself and visit her doctor, who will tell her abortion isn't legal, and even if it were, he's "pro-life;" after that, maybe she and her boyfriend can drive around, trying to find a doctor brave enough to rescue her, to no avail. Perhaps they could fly to Mexico; they think maybe it's legal there. But no. By that time, she's really getting desperate —it's going on four months now— and she can't tell her parents; her father will beat her and throw her out of the house; and, anyway, they couldn't afford to pay for an illegal abortion, or for airfare to a country where it's legal, even if they cared. So one night she takes a coat hanger and perforates something, ends up in the emergency room. There a doctor named Kerry takes a look and says, "How could you do that to your baby?"

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote "Kerry":I am not removing the mother's complete and absolute right to choose at some points in her pregnancy

Dinga Ding ding Ding ding Ding ding ding...

Kerry, you and George W. Bush should get together some time and see who can eat the most foot.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Kerry:

[quote=Zenzoe]

According information which is perfectly easy to find, the method of “delivery,” whether live birth induction or dilation and evacuation, can make a difference to the safety of the mother—each may pose risks to the mother, and it is up to the physicians, with permission from the mother, to decide which poses the least risk. One thing is sure: It is not up to Kerry to decide!

Then, it's up to who to decide, Zenzoe? If it is the physician, how is that 'the mother's choice' in ELECTIVE ABORTIONS. And, don't forget, when it comes to late stage pregnancies, there is NO DIFFERENCE to the LIFE AND HEALTH OF THE MOTHER whether that fetus is killed before the induction--or allowed to be induced alive and try to save its life.

The alleged doctor is playing a semantical game here. He knows that within the context of the discussion wherein Zenzoe made her remark, her meaning was not the same as that he imputes here by rhetorical question. She meant, of course, that after conferring with the woman, the physican would decide on the best course of action/treatment, based on that conferral. The alleged doctor is trying to make it seem as though Zenzoe never meant that conferral should take place before the doctor decides anything; he's trying to make it sound as though she put the decision entirely in the doctor's hands. Thus, he's not addressing what she truly said, and, as usual, is wasting readers' time with unnecessary indirection of the discourse.

Quote Zenzoe:

Whether we define abortions as elective or therapeutic makes no difference, Kerry.

I flatly disagree.

And the alleged doctor is philosophically tenacious in that disagreement, so discussing anything with him is a waste of time.

Quote Zenzoe:

Life means more than a state of being alive; it requires, to be life worth living, autonomous choice, freedom from oppression, health and opportunity, among other complex things.

And, how does 'conditioning any right' maintain all those options you propose, Zenzoe? Making it the decision of anyone else--making it the responsibility of anyone else--doesn't address how anything less than making the rights considered absolute (including the 'right to choose' up until the 'right to life' preempts the choice to end that life) makes this a 'life worth living, autonomous choice, freedom from oppression, etc., etc.'.

The alleged doctor exhibits here his long-term inability to put remarks of others into meaningful context.

Quote Zenzoe:

The fallacy of making viability the decision point for abortion rights becomes clear, if you consider that soon science will make it possible to raise a two-minute embryo to term in a lab somewhere.

Well, when we get to that, we can face that point--but, 'medical science' is no where

Real doctors know how to correctly spell "nowhere."

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Should Mega Tornado Cities and Homeowners Send Their Bills to the Fossil Fuel Industry?

Thom plus logo Climate change is making the weather more severe. From arctic cyclone bombs bringing freezing damage to the country, to severe thunderstorms destroying homes and communities, this is all being made worse by climate change.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system