The Planned Parenthood video...

[Chizzang]

I don't see how it's misdirection.

If we're discussing the legality of abortion - how is it misdirection to discuss what happens after it is illegal? Or what illegality even means?

IMO it's an attempt to add in another facet on which we can disagree to muddy the waters.

We can't get past the root of the discussion: at what point does the baby have rights. If we can't get past that, why discuss the punishment for the action?

I think defining the parameters of what constitute MURDER
is essential to pointing out the general hypocrisy of the Anti-Abortion crowd
We are a MURDEROUS nation - that hides under a sliding morality



Once we define what IS murder abortion starts to drop pretty fast
in the light of American behavior across the board
So yeah I understand why you want to stay very focused



Cluck and I are pointing out: FIRST DEFINE MURDER

[Skjellyfetti]

IMO it's an attempt to add in another facet on which we can disagree to muddy the waters.

We can't get past the root of the discussion: at what point does the baby have rights. If we can't get past that, why discuss the punishment for the action?

Because, as I've said before - I'm against abortion - especially against elective abortion. But, I also don't agree with charging early term abortions as murder, manslaughter, or any serious felony. A desperate 19 year old girl with no family support and no help from a father shouldn't be charged with murder if she has an abortion within the first 20 weeks.

Yes, it is tragic if she does have one - and, we should do everything we can to prevent this from happening (access to birth control for all, services to help her if she decides to go through with the pregnancy and put the baby up for adoption, etc. ).

But, I think there are plenty of "Pro-choice" people like me who are actually moderate on this issue and I think there is a solution that can be reached. But, the debate on this issue is almost always reduced to the two extremes: "Abortion on demand!' vs. "Abortion is murder!."

And, any hope of rational debate is lost in the process of those two sides arguing.

So, yeah. To get me (and other moderates) on the side of making abortion illegal - the results of making it illegal have to be discussed.

[kalm]

IMO it's an attempt to add in another facet on which we can disagree to muddy the waters.

We can't get past the root of the discussion: at what point does the baby have rights. If we can't get past that, why discuss the punishment for the action?

I think defining the parameters of what constitute MURDER
is essential to pointing out the general hypocrisy of the Anti-Abortion crowd
We are a MURDEROUS nation - that hides under a sliding morality



Once we define what IS murder abortion starts to drop pretty fast
in the light of American behavior across the board
So yeah I understand why you want to stay very focused



Cluck and I are pointing out: FIRST DEFINE MURDER

The violence of the procedure and highlighting that's it's real human tissue that's being "sold" are tough for the choicers to reconcile. It should be straightforward for the lifers to call it all murder.

[89Hen]

IMO it's an attempt to add in another facet on which we can disagree to muddy the waters.

We can't get past the root of the discussion: at what point does the baby have rights. If we can't get past that, why discuss the punishment for the action?

I think defining the parameters of what constitute MURDER
is essential to pointing out the general hypocrisy of the Anti-Abortion crowd
We are a MURDEROUS nation - that hides under a sliding morality



Once we define what IS murder abortion starts to drop pretty fast
in the light of American behavior across the board
So yeah I understand why you want to stay very focused



Cluck and I are pointing out: FIRST DEFINE MURDER

This wouldn't be limited to abotion Cleets. If you're saying we can't define murder because of war, why do we lock up anyone for murder? Surely you're not propsing muderers in jail were convicted under false pretenses are you?

[YoUDeeMan]

No, you weren't providing context. Context to what? The entire rest of your post IS back on topic. The war analogy was smear.

I don't believe it would go beyond conception. Prior to conception, there is no other life in question. Maybe you'd have more leverage if you said outlawing abortion would give rights to babies inside a woman and that could lead to penalties for drinking, smoking, drug use... while pregnant (AFAIK, there are no laws currently in place for child neglect for fetuses). That could be seen as the slippery slope I think you were going for.

I sure was providing context.

You stated that the rights of someone getting killed trump the rights of someone else, in this case, the mother. But, why?

We do not live in a black and white world (well, with obvious exceptions such as JSO and kklean). Decisions are not made in a vacuum. If you are arguing that a baby has more rights than someone else, someone that will be majorly inconvenienced by keeping the baby alive, then you will have to provide a better argument than refining it down to the single issue of someone getting killed having rights over someone being inconvenienced. We humans make decisions every day that involve the killing of others...often for the simple convenience of keeping our standard of living. There is no escaping that, and I am OK with that. Others avoid the obvious and yet wave a flag of morality on certain subjects on which they want to focus. Stating that a fetus has more rights than the mother because the mother is not being killed is not a great argument in the bigger picture, unless you are willing to admit that your lifestyle choices, made for your comfort and advancement, results in the deaths of many innocents. You are not being consistent with how you live and how you make decisions, versus how you are telling others they should make their decisions.

I am not smearing you (or your religion, or anything else...you are actually one of the better thinking people on here), I am just pointing out the obvious.

[89Hen]

shouldn't be charged with murder if she has an abortion within the first 20 weeks.

And, any hope of rational debate is lost in the process of those two sides arguing.

I'll ask instead of inferring, but you seem to be implying that after 20 weeks she should. Is that correct?

BTW, I think we've had pretty good, rational debate on this over the years.

[89Hen]

No, you weren't providing context. Context to what? The entire rest of your post IS back on topic. The war analogy was smear.

I don't believe it would go beyond conception. Prior to conception, there is no other life in question. Maybe you'd have more leverage if you said outlawing abortion would give rights to babies inside a woman and that could lead to penalties for drinking, smoking, drug use... while pregnant (AFAIK, there are no laws currently in place for child neglect for fetuses). That could be seen as the slippery slope I think you were going for.

I sure was providing context.

You stated that the rights of someone getting killed trump the rights of someone else, in this case, the mother. But, why?

We do not live in a black and white world (well, with obvious exceptions such as JSO and kklean). Decisions are not made in a vacuum. If you are arguing that a baby has more rights than someone else, someone that will be majorly inconvenienced by keeping the baby alive, then you will have to provide a better argument than refining it down to the single issue of someone getting killed having rights over someone being inconvenienced. We humans make decisions every day that involve the killing of others...often for the simple convenience of keeping our standard of living. There is no escaping that, and I am OK with that. Others avoid the obvious and yet wave a flag of morality on certain subjects on which they want to focus. Stating that a fetus has more rights than the mother because the mother is not being killed is not a great argument in the bigger picture, unless you are willing to admit that your lifestyle choices, made for your comfort and advancement, results in the deaths of many innocents. You are not being consistent with how you live and how you make decisions, versus how you are telling others they should make their decisions.

I am not smearing you (or your religion, or anything else...you are actually one of the better thinking people on here), I am just pointing out the obvious.

First, please leave religion out of this... I have.

As I mentioned in an above post, I do believe a baby's right to life trumps a mother's right to pursue happiness.

This...

unless you are willing to admit that your lifestyle choices, made for your comfort and advancement, results in the deaths of many innocents. You are not being consistent with how you live and how you make decisions, versus how you are telling others they should make their decisions.

is very weak. Are you really implying that by my living in a country that kills people as an act of war, I have no ground on which to be pro-life??

[YoUDeeMan]

The violence of the procedure and highlighting that's it's real human tissue that's being "sold" are tough for the choicers to reconcile. It should be straightforward for the lifers to call it all murder.

I have no issues with the tissue being sold. Not sure why anyone would. People donate organs all the time, both while alive and after death. Are those doctors growing and killing fetuses intentionally and harvesting organs for the sole reason of profit, or are they trying to use some tissue that would normally be thrown away in order to save someone else's life? To me, the harvesting of the organs is a separate subject.

As far as calling abortions, murder," meh. Same argument for marriage...call it whatever you want. I would not call removing a person from life support murder, but some people would. If a child is born with severe defects, we could, now, and even more so with advances in science, similar to fetuses inside/outside the womb, keep the body alive almost forever. Would removing the baby from life support be murder? If not, why not? Sure it might be an inconvenience to keep the child alive, but the child/fetus has rights. Why not force people to keep their child alive no matter what the defect?

[YoUDeeMan]

First, please leave religion out of this... I have.

As I mentioned in an above post, I do believe a baby's right to life trumps a mother's right to pursue happiness.

This...

unless you are willing to admit that your lifestyle choices, made for your comfort and advancement, results in the deaths of many innocents. You are not being consistent with how you live and how you make decisions, versus how you are telling others they should make their decisions.

is very weak. Are you really implying that by my living in a country that kills people as an act of war, I have no ground on which to be pro-life??

First, I am leaving religion out of this. I mentioned it as something I was not smearing because I didn't know what, "smear" you were referring to...I didn't smear anyone or anything.

Second, you can be pro-life all you want, but you can't be selectively pro-life. It really is an all or nothing stand. If you choose to be pro-life, yet benefit greatly every single day from choosing to live a lifestyle that results in others being murdered on an almost daily basis, then you might want to think about how you are not making decisions that uphold your view that an innocent life is more important than another person's inconvenience.

[Chizzang]

The "selective" Pro-Life crowd is largely actually Pro-Murder everywhere else (except for the fetus)
and that is the hilarious nature of the debate

Sliding scale morality at its absolute apex



Begging us to "stay focused"
And sell us a car but don't look under the hood of this jalopy of an argument

[D1B]

Awesome...I'll let the kids in Afghanistan know that you stand beside them in the fight against Obama's incoming missiles.

I'm no fan of war Cluck, but that's for another discussion. Pro-choice folks always love to try to change the argument. What next, incest?... welfare?... capital punishment?...

No fan of war but votes republican

All for women's rights, except the right to make their own health decisions

Appalled at the staggering number of children raped by his priests and bishops, but steadfastly supports the same people.

Claims to live and admire Jesus, but is a uber capitalist.

Sorry hen, your're completely full of shit.

[YoUDeeMan]

No fan of war but votes republican

This one is almost on dback's scale of reasoning.

Obomba's been a killing machine since he stepped into office. Obomba hides civilian casualties by redefining them as enemy combatants...and the Dems are on board with that.

OK, back to the topic...

[Baldy]

You just can't make that shit up!!!

Professional victims.

When you say: Professional Victims I think - American Christians..?

OK

I'm just waiting for you to explain to me what an "award winning reproductive justice activist" is, and what a Public Abortion Storyteller actually does.

[CID1990]

The "selective" Pro-Life crowd is largely actually Pro-Murder everywhere else (except for the fetus)
and that is the hilarious nature of the debate

Sliding scale morality at its absolute apex



Begging us to "stay focused"
And sell us a car but don't look under the hood of this jalopy of an argument

The difference centers around innocence, clitz. You know that. I dont think the issue is black and white by any means but by calling one side only "selective" you are being intentionally obtuse.

Or are you suggesting that the pro abortion crowd is more consistent, re: abortion is murder vs war is not?

[YoUDeeMan]

Innocence is an interesting term.

We accept innocent people getting killed all of the time as a way of life...it is the price of progress and comfort.

We lament the loss of civilian, er...innocent, casualties, in war as something, "necessary" in our fight against the evil enemy.

In reality, those innocent deaths are only necessary to maintain our standard of living.

Heck, we even blithely change our definition of civilian casualties in order to protect the image of our leader, and to make our war effort more acceptably...humane.

The children killed by our bombs, some in their mother's womb, are just as innocent as an aborted child in the US of A. We rationalize the deaths of the children in Pakistan/Syria/Iraq/Libya/etc. by saying they are not directly targeted....they are an unintended casualty of a much more complicated situation that we call a war.

Yeah, wars in which we, throughout our history, have supported, and continue to support, brutal regimes that kill families and innocent children by the tens of thousands. Oops!

For what?

So that we can live like 'Mericans.

Please save me the garbage about America being on the morally correct side of wars; anyone with half a brain knows that is a complete falsehood. We support brutal regimes, and go to war, and play a huge part in the murder of many innocent people for one thing...resources. That's the bottom line. To support our way of life.

And we know it, deep inside.

And we are willing to justify our actions by saying that the killing of those innocent people is not intentional; those casualties are simply an acceptable, but still tragic, cost of going after those that we conveniently define as the bad guys.

Folks won't give up their cell phones, but they want some chick to give up 9 months of her life so that some innocent person can survive.


You have to be kidding me.

[Chizzang]

The "selective" Pro-Life crowd is largely actually Pro-Murder everywhere else (except for the fetus)
and that is the hilarious nature of the debate

Sliding scale morality at its absolute apex



Begging us to "stay focused"
And sell us a car but don't look under the hood of this jalopy of an argument

The difference centers around innocence, clitz. You know that. I dont think the issue is black and white by any means but by calling one side only "selective" you are being intentionally obtuse.

Or are you suggesting that the pro abortion crowd is more consistent, re: abortion is murder vs war is not?

I'm suggesting that when one is in the business of ultimately deciding for others
one must be open to the entire spectrum of the debate to put things in perspective
The hard line Anti-abortion crowd hates "perspective" and hates the "entire spectrum" of debate

To say: "I'm Anti-Abortion" and not allow anybody to question or demand a spectrum definition is the true obtuse goose you're calling out

I (me personally) am Anti-Abortion
Because I would like to think I'd never have one (plus) I think its nasty business

BUT:

Do I think people like 89Hen and YOU should be deciding if Abortion is legal
Absolutely NO F*CKING WAY IN HELL
for the exact same reasons I don't think Dback should be writing Gun laws

[89Hen]

you can be pro-life all you want, but you can't be selectively pro-life. It really is an all or nothing stand.

The "selective" Pro-Life crowd is largely actually Pro-Murder everywhere else (except for the fetus)
and that is the hilarious nature of the debate

Actually what I find hllarious is that you are BOTH "selective pro-life" as well. Matter of fact, every person who lives in this country is by your standards. Surely you're not saying we shouldn't have any laws on the books concerning murder.

[89Hen]

BUT:

Do I think people like 89Hen and YOU should be deciding if Abortion is legal
Absolutely NO F*CKING WAY IN HELL
for the exact same reasons I don't think Dback should be writing Gun laws

The good news for you is that none of us are deciding. We are all just expressing our opinion.

[YoUDeeMan]

Actually what I find hllarious is that you are BOTH "selective pro-life" as well. Matter of fact, every person who lives in this country is by your standards. Surely you're not saying we shouldn't have any laws on the books concerning murder.

You nailed it...probably without realizing it. My views don't depend on what country I was living in...or my lifestyle.

I am pro-life.

My life.

And my friends...and people who I find interesting.

Laws against general mayhem and murder directly help to protect me. Abortion (or the murder of someone's fetus) has no impact on me. No conflict at all.

I am not pro-life for anyone that I don't know. Frankly, I don't give a rats arse about people I don't know. Truth be told, you don't really care about those people either, otherwise you would not purchase breathable, comfortable golf clothing made in Vietnam, Thailand, China, or any other shit hole where people...innocent children, and work, and die, like slaves.

You don't give a crap that the making of your cell phone/TV, car, oh, name it...costs innocent people their lives. Reality...we live well because other people are exploited. We (our country) have killed hundreds of thousands of people for our economic benefit. And you are OK with that. You are. And that is funny because you claim to care about innocent lives. Yeah, that they live, perhaps...but not how they live, or how we help them die.

I'm perfectly OK with other people dying and suffering to benefit me. In reality, you are OK with it, too.

So it is funny that pro-life people are concerned about the life of a fetus, but no so concerned about how that fetus ends up living...or dying...so long as the pro-life people's lifestyles aren't negatively impacted.

[houndawg]

Innocence is an interesting term.

We accept innocent people getting killed all of the time as a way of life...it is the price of progress and comfort.

We lament the loss of civilian, er...innocent, casualties, in war as something, "necessary" in our fight against the evil enemy.

In reality, those innocent deaths are only necessary to maintain our standard of living.

Heck, we even blithely change our definition of civilian casualties in order to protect the image of our leader, and to make our war effort more acceptably...humane.

The children killed by our bombs, some in their mother's womb, are just as innocent as an aborted child in the US of A. We rationalize the deaths of the children in Pakistan/Syria/Iraq/Libya/etc. by saying they are not directly targeted....they are an unintended casualty of a much more complicated situation that we call a war.

Yeah, wars in which we, throughout our history, have supported, and continue to support, brutal regimes that kill families and innocent children by the tens of thousands. Oops!

For what?

So that we can live like 'Mericans.

Please save me the garbage about America being on the morally correct side of wars; anyone with half a brain knows that is a complete falsehood. We support brutal regimes, and go to war, and play a huge part in the murder of many innocent people for one thing...resources. That's the bottom line. To support our way of life.

And we know it, deep inside.

And we are willing to justify our actions by saying that the killing of those innocent people is not intentional; those casualties are simply an acceptable, but still tragic, cost of going after those that we conveniently define as the bad guys.

Folks won't give up their cell phones, but they want some chick to give up 9 months of her life so that some innocent person can survive.


You have to be kidding me.

Da comrade!

[AZGrizFan]

Liberals: Saving everything except lives...

"Save the forest!"
"Save the trees!"
"Save the whales!"
"Save the baby seals!"
"Save the dolphins!"
"Save the wolves!"
"Save the snail darters!"
"Save the spotted owls!"
"Save the environment!"

"Fetuses? Nah....fuck that. It's a woman's CHOICE!"

[D1B]

Liberals: Saving everything except lives...

"Save the forest!"
"Save the trees!"
"Save the whales!"
"Save the baby seals!"
"Save the dolphins!"
"Save the wolves!"
"Save the snail darters!"
"Save the spotted owls!"
"Save the environment!"

"Fetuses? Nah....fuck that. It's a woman's CHOICE!"

What a dumbfuck.

Hey Z, you should offer checking accounts to fetuses

[AZGrizFan]

Liberals: Saving everything except lives...

"Save the forest!"
"Save the trees!"
"Save the whales!"
"Save the baby seals!"
"Save the dolphins!"
"Save the wolves!"
"Save the snail darters!"
"Save the spotted owls!"
"Save the environment!"

"Fetuses? Nah....fuck that. It's a woman's CHOICE!"

What a dumbfuck.

Hey Z, you should offer checking accounts to fetuses

Go ahead. Defend that stupidity. Whatever shred of credibility you might have had is long since gone anyways.

[D1B]

What a dumbfuck.

Hey Z, you should offer checking accounts to fetuses

Go ahead. Defend that stupidity. Whatever shred of credibility you might have had is long since gone anyways.

Do you even read the shut you post? Seriously, I don't know if you're trollin or just really stupid.

Look up the term "poor analogy" and get back to me, Spencer.

[JoltinJoe]

Just a couple of thoughts.

First, I don't think it really helps the pro-life cause to call abortion "murder." Even when states criminalized abortion, it wasn't treated as a homicide. Murder is an intentional taking of a human life. Given today's cloudy morality, neither the abortion servicer nor the woman having the abortion understand they are taking a human life. Moreover, even the most ardent pro-life activists would have to admit that the act of taking a developed human life is a more serious act than abortion. Still, abortion is a grave act with serious moral consequences. Calling it murder, though, is such charged rhetoric that it can actually prevent people from appreciating just how serious the moral consequences are. If you are trying to help people understand why you believe abortion is wrong, this type of emotionally charged rhetoric is not effective.

Two, there is universal scientific acceptance that a human life is present at conception. This is not something that only the "crazy religious" belief. It is scientific fact. Indeed, as we learn more and more about the human genome, it becomes increasingly clear that the "code" of the human person -- who that life will become -- is completely present at conception. One of the reasons younger people tend to be more pro-life than older Americans is that they are learning things in their high school biology classes that compel a pro-life position. For the pro-life majority, education and science are our allies.

Third, practically speaking, the US Supreme Court is done with abortion as an issue. Having essentially overruled Roe in the early 1990s, the Court now allows states to place restrictions on abortion, so long as the states do not outlaw abortion entirely, or outlaw in cases of the mother's health, or otherwise place an "undue burden" on the woman's access to an abortion. The Court has even recognized that the states have an interest in promoting life and discouraging abortion.

So within that framework, the pro-life movement has a lot of room to work to promote the pro-life message. We will never outlaw abortion entirely, but so long as abortion is limited by law to instances of danger to the woman's health, or in cases of rape (a very tough sub-issue, since women are often so traumatized by a rape that they can go weeks before they tell someone), then I can live with that.

The pendulum has swung on the issue and we continue to win the hearts and minds of the people on this issue. The polls continue to show that Americans increasingly identify themselves as "pro-life." We can also be happy saving one life at a time, by winning the battle of ideas. Planned Parenthood is a bloody monster whose callousness was dramatically revealed in these videos.