Operation Rescue (Kansas)

[HeinBallz]

I wasn't planning on taking it there.  But that's where majority of pro-lifers take it.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

[Dugout DickStone]

Nobody should look to the Bible for why abortion should or should not be legal (see Separation of Church and State thread).

I basically agree with this.

Well, the Constitution...

[Stevesie60]

I wasn't planning on taking it there.  But that's where majority of pro-lifers take it.

I think you'd be surprised at the number of pro-lifers that don't reference the Bible when discussing their views. Dlew12 is the ballsiest for posting his views here, despite what KK says, but I highly doubt he's the only one.

[HeinBallz]

God is brought up often though.  If god is brought up, the only way you can defend your argument is to reference the bible.


I would say I really appreciate Dlews input and think it was rational and well thought out - but I don't think his input was controversial. 

[Stevesie60]

God is brought up often though.  If god is brought up, the only way you can defend your argument is to reference the bible.

He/She/It/They shouldn't be brought up in any political argument. 

[HeinBallz]

I agree.  But it is, and you can't debate an issue by ignoring it.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

[michigancat]

yesterday someone thought people could be too old for 311, today someone thinks it takes balls to have a right-leaning stance in the DK Dome. My word.

[Stevesie60]

yesterday someone thought people could be too old for 311, today someone thinks it takes balls to have a right-leaning stance in the DK Dome. My word.

In my short stint on the DK Dome, FSD has been the only one consistently reppin' the right-side. That's not good company.

Also, right-wing social issues are much tougher to stick to here than, well, any political view. Look at the Chick-Fil-A thread for reference. Abortion is a much greyer area than gay marriage, but still.

[HeinBallz]

But he questioned the logic - he did not impose his views.  I took Dlew's post as one that was tolerant of others views.  Just didn't seem controversial to me.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

[PoetWarrior]

Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

This is why we value life on earth.

Psalm 139:13
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb."


We're all really selfish. It's why we feel cheated if someone eats something we were planning to eat. Or why we don't want some people staying with us for extended periods of time. Or why we don't want someone to tell us what we can do with our bodies. Or why having a kid will be painful and inconvenience us. We want to do and believe exactly as we choose. The problem is, we aren't all there is.

[Dugout DickStone]

Bottom line is its legal in all 50 states and this doctor did the right thing.  Psychos at OR need to get off her case.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Bottom line is its legal in all 50 states and this doctor did the right thing.  Psychos at OR need to get off her case.

Yeah. No matter what your stance on this issue is, if a 10 year old wants an abortion, that should be okay. I think it would be commendable if the girl actually wanted to go through with the pregnancy and put the baby up for adoption, but I certainly would not even try to convince her to go that route.

[Trim]

Life begins when a fetus becomes viable.

So how old am I?

[HeinBallz]

Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

This is why we value life on earth.

Psalm 139:13
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb."


We're all really selfish. It's why we feel cheated if someone eats something we were planning to eat. Or why we don't want some people staying with us for extended periods of time. Or why we don't want someone to tell us what we can do with our bodies. Or why having a kid will be painful and inconvenience us. We want to do and believe exactly as we choose. The problem is, we aren't all there is.

Yeah, I could interpret that any way I wanted.  But anyway, I'll ask again.  What's more sad - abortion, or the fact that there are unwanted pregnancies?


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

[kim carnes]

yesterday someone thought people could be too old for 311, today someone thinks it takes balls to have a right-leaning stance in the DK Dome. My word.

In my short stint on the DK Dome, FSD has been the only one consistently reppin' the right-side. That's not good company.

Also, right-wing social issues are much tougher to stick to here than, well, any political view. Look at the Chick-Fil-A thread for reference. Abortion is a much greyer area than gay marriage, but still.

bookcat and ednksu are consistently repping the left, so....

[SkinnyBenny]

Because here's the deal: either it's murder or it's not and I think it's best to err on the side of caution.

I think it's too gray and I think it's too risky and I think if people believe there are murders against human life being sanctioned by the state that it's a worthy cause for which to fight.

"Totally courageous!"

Wait wait wait. Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet.

Which is it, Dlew? On one hand you paint the issue as black and white (first sentence quoted here). Then in the very next sentence, you refer to it as gray. I mean...

Mr. Bread has had by far the most rational response in this thread so far.

Oh, and a person is more than a fetus. Absolutely and in every way. If they were equal, parents would have funerals and grieve at the same level for a miscarriage that they do when their teenager dies in a car wreck. But they don't. Know why? Because a person is more than a fetus.

And yep: if you think you should be allowed to tell a pregnant 10 year-old rape victim that she should be forced to carry her attacker's baby to term, then I hope her rapist gets to you, too, and I hope he is ruthless. eff off with that bullshit.

[ednksu]

yesterday someone thought people could be too old for 311, today someone thinks it takes balls to have a right-leaning stance in the DK Dome. My word.

In my short stint on the DK Dome, FSD has been the only one consistently reppin' the right-side. That's not good company.

Also, right-wing social issues are much tougher to stick to here than, well, any political view. Look at the Chick-Fil-A thread for reference. Abortion is a much greyer area than gay marriage, but still.

bookcat and ednksu are consistently repping the left, so....

wtf are you jocking me for?

As for abortion I like the way dlew framed it from the start.  I'm pro life.  I think its silly to make concrete laws in an ever changing scientific reality where viability is a changing term.  Think of it i this way.  40ish years ago viability is dramatically different than today.  I don't think we should make static laws which make definite bright lines of distinctions when individual situations are so different.  I think abortion should be banned if we are going to have laws on the books to protect life.  I think those laws should begin at conception.  I think we should dramatically overhaul adoption systems, allow gays to adopt, and de-stigmatize adoption so people see it as a great option instead of a last resort. 

[mancattanite]

This has gotten a little ridiculous.

Life isn't always about being right or wrong. Most of the time it's about the way you go about living it.

Much peace and love to all.

[nicname]

Because here's the deal: either it's murder or it's not and I think it's best to err on the side of caution.

I think it's too gray and I think it's too risky and I think if people believe there are murders against human life being sanctioned by the state that it's a worthy cause for which to fight.

"Totally courageous!"

Wait wait wait. Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet.

Which is it, Dlew? On one hand you paint the issue as black and white (first sentence quoted here). Then in the very next sentence, you refer to it as gray. I mean...

Mr. Bread has had by far the most rational response in this thread so far.

Oh, and a person is more than a fetus. Absolutely and in every way. If they were equal, parents would have funerals and grieve at the same level for a miscarriage that they do when their teenager dies in a car wreck. But they don't. Know why? Because a person is more than a fetus.

And yep: if you think you should be allowed to tell a pregnant 10 year-old rape victim that she should be forced to carry her attacker's baby to term, then I hope her rapist gets to you, too, and I hope he is ruthless. eff off with that bullshit.

Those aren't contradictory statements.  He is saying that killing an unborn fetus/ baby is either murder or it isn't.  He is also saying that defining when that fetus/ baby constitutes a human life is "gray," meaning it is too hard to define.  Therefore, it is best to err on the side of caution with regards to when we say a fetus/ baby constitutes a human life because if we don't then there is a good chance that we are sanctioning murder. 

[nicname]

Interesting opinion and no where near fact.

The only real argument to be had is whether or not it is OK to destroy truly innocent human beings. If you believe it is, then we can begin to discuss. This is where pro-choicers should begin.

The problem is, most would say that it isn't...

Not true.  Unless you believe God frequently and without reason kills truly innocent human beings.  Than we may begin a true discussion.

For the record, LSOC, I think you were the first person in this thread to reference the existence of God.  I think that, assuming one believes in the existence of morality and the idea that some things are "right" and others are "wrong," (which plenty of athiests would contend is true) an argument against abortion can be made without ever referencing God.

I can rephrase.  So nature and or simple fate performs abortions?!  Why?

Something dying of natural causes is much different than something dying because a person or persons decided to end its life.

[nicname]

A sincere congratulations to Dlew12 for logically thinking, for himself/herself. He/she is also mostly correct.

The only issue is that there is no need to even consider when something has become something else. The fact is, to destroy something, something must first exist. What exists is a human being. Always will be, always has been. If it was not, no one would care to destroy it. The "clump of cells" is destroyed because 10 years from now, it will be a 9 year-old boy or girl. The clock has already started. It has already distinguished itself as a something.

While that may be true in some cases it is far from the truth in many other cases.

Additionally, in a case like this, doctors should do all all they can to save both the mother and the child. Yes, it stinks that we are in this predicament, but we no longer have a choice (yes, I said that). Everything should be done to protect the health and lives of two unique individuals, as we would in any other case. And after that, there are alternatives (adoption, etc).

I can agree with this.  It is also important to point out that ever-increasing technology is making this continuously more feasible and easier to accomplish.

[felix rex]

Personally, I probably lean with Dlew on the issue. If people laid eggs immediately after conception, would it be OK for an

But politically, I'm more in the camp of "let's solve the problem of uncles raping 10-year olds first". This girl is not laying an egg; she's facing a potentially life-threatening procedure. So erring on the side of caution (which, again, I agree with), it seems like she has a right to life, too.

My problem with the viability argument is that technology can change the parameters of human life, both at the beginning and the end. So maybe a rich man's viable is a poor man's abortion.

Also, I enjoyed watching Dlew's premonition of the "anti-life/anti-choice" tags come to fruition via "your mother should have aborted you" and "I hope you get raped (roughly) by your uncle" (<--I especially enjoyed how the second one implied an alternative of "gentle rape").

[nicname]

Excellent post - I've also been avoiding any serious discussion in this thread, but what the hell - most of you guys hate me here already.  There is such a huge gray area here as all it really comes down to is individual rights.  All humans have the right to live, yet a woman should have the right to not be pregnant, yada yada yada... But there are so many questions. 

Would you consider a situation where the unborn fetus is removed from the mother and put into an incubator of sorts?  If it lives - awesome - if not, sorry pro-lifers, natural causes.

I think transferring the embryo/ fetus/ baby to another "womb" be it mechanical or into another woman would constitute doing right by both the pregnant woman and the

This probably goes into the "it's not life - it's a parasite" argument - which seems pretty harsh, but I don't know where else to go with it. 

There are many differences between a parasite and an human embryo.  They are not the same thing.

[nicname]

A sincere congratulations to Dlew12 for logically thinking, for himself/herself. He/she is also mostly correct.

The only issue is that there is no need to even consider when something has become something else. The fact is, to destroy something, something must first exist. What exists is a human being. Always will be, always has been. If it was not, no one would care to destroy it. The "clump of cells" is destroyed because 10 years from now, it will be a 9 year-old boy or girl. The clock has already started. It has already distinguished itself as a something.

Additionally, in a case like this, doctors should do all all they can to save both the mother and the child. Yes, it stinks that we are in this predicament, but we no longer have a choice (yes, I said that). Everything should be done to protect the health and lives of two unique individuals, as we would in any other case. And after that, there are alternatives (adoption, etc).

In the case of rape, which is where the rubber meets the road on this issue in my eyes, where is the "we" in that scenario?  We're not talking about forcing the rape victim to fill out some paper work or to pee in a cup here; we're talking about 9 months of pregnancy and child birth.  Who are you to have a say in that decision?  She no longer has a choice not because reality so dictates, but because of the say so of someone who has no burden to bear once the decision is made, doesn't have to deal with the accompanying physical/emotional/financial fallout, wasn't raped, etc.?  You get to prance off on your moral high horse after you've told all the silly rape victims of the world not only where their priorities should lie, but where they will lie, never having walked in their shoes. 

It isn't about a moral high horse.  It is about whether or not an embryo constitutes a human life and, thusly, should be afforded the rights that come with life.  Additionally, if both the pregnant woman and the embryo are both afforded human rights do one's supersede the other's. 

Fortunately, we rarely have to ask that question (the second one). 

I just can't wrap my mind around the arrogance of someone who thinks they get the final say over the victim in such cases.  That a belief that we're all unique little snow flakes entitled to life somehow justifies perpetrating what could be a second and more devastating victimization.  The whole human life above all else argument is idealistic to the point of being juvenile. 

It's not actually.  If we are to arbitrarily decide who gets to live and when they die we are treading on a very slippery slope. 

For example, consider a Typhoid Mary hypothetical.  We know a child is a carrier of some super pathogen that will result in the deaths of hundreds of other human beings.  The only way to prevent this mass death is the destruction of the child who would have otherwise continued on living a healthy life.  Do we kill it?  One to save hundreds of lives or thousands or millions?  Surely the right of the many to life outweighs the right of the one?  Do we consign them to death to let one innocent live?  Keep in mind "[w]hat can't be done is discuss with someone who is inconsistent in any way. Their philosophy must continue, consistently, to all ends." 

I'm trying to wrap my head around how this hypothetical relates to abortion outside of a case where the pregnant woman will most assuredly die or have her quality of life drastically worsened by not getting an abortion.  Of course this is all moot if we don't deem an embryo/ fetus/ baby a human life.

To me there exist considerations that trump innocent human life.  The aforementioned are two of them.  What about you big guy?

[nicname]

Playing devils advocate here.

Perfectly valid questions.  I don't claim to be 100% right on the subject.

I'm going to tackle your post, which really has 3 arguments, one at a time.  The first: who should be responsible for the "babies" (your words, not mine)?  Yes, I think society at large should be responsible, if the mothers are unwilling.  I know it's a strain, but I do think there is inherent value to human life.  If these are "people" (an admittedly debatable label) we're dealing with, then I think it's irresponsible to "kill" them, because the alternative would be a financial strain.  We do not kill foster children, we do not kill all prisoners.  My point is, society does care for human life.  We already carry the burden of the poor, and the elderly, and the sick, and those in prison.  Is it not just as reasonable to care for innocent children (assuming, of course, that they are "humans")?

Why is it necessary for government to facilitate this.  If pro-lifers were that passionate - couldn't this be charity driven?  Perhaps adoption rates would go up if the process were easier through less government and people that truly do care about this issue would do more than "vote" and "pay their taxes".

Regarding your Malthusian argument citing population statistics: I understand.  Abortion certainly helps to control growth which has terrific consequences for the rest of us, the most interesting of which, in my opinion, is the sharp decline in the crime rate, as noted in Freakonomics.  But sheesh, it seems even staunch advocates of abortion would shy away from that argument.  It seems awful nihilistic.

What would be more tragic?  If the crime rate reduction were to successfully be linked to abortion - or - the obvious fact that there are so many people out there that want kids while there are so many unwanted kids out there?  Why is adoption such a lengthy and expensive process?

Finally, could I tell the victim of rape they need to have children?  Gosh, I don't know.  It'd be really rough.  I guess I would have to if I really believe in this philosophy, but I'd certainly try to put it a little more delicately than "chin up." 

Further though, I think I may have done a poor job of explaining what I meant.  I don't find the feelings of rape victims irrelevant.  I find them extremely relevant.  My heart goes out to them and I couldn't imagine being in their shoes.  However, I do find their feelings do not constructively contribute to the argument.  Again, my point is, if the "thing" is a "human" we shouldn't kill it, even if the mother has undergone a profound injustice, I think it's wrong to kill an innocent life.

My previous post was a serious question.  If you can respect the rights of an unborn child - why can you not respect the rights of a mother?  Would it be a reasonable solution to transfer the unwanted child/fetus to an incubator or even a surrogate mother to allow the "natural selection of life" determine if the unborn child lives?  If you can accept "God" allowing death through natural disasters, is this scenario that far from that?

I can agree with all of this.