Abortion absolutism

[YankeeFan]

Lately, I've noticed more and more of the pro-life crowd doesn't want to allow exceptions for rape.

You then have to ask, "What happens when your daughter gets tossed in a dark, back alley at 3 AM?", and wait for the hemming and hawing.

Just like Sarah Palin, who admitted she thought of having an abortion when she found out her fetus had Down's Syndrome.

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/04/21/sarah-palin-admits-she-considered-abortion/

The fact that she actually considered it shows that she is another hypocrite who even said she wouldn't allow her daughter to have one even if she was raped. Under her party's platform, she wouldn't have even been allowed to consider the option. But yet, for a brief time, she considered the option. Hemming and hawing indeed.

That's absurd.

Everyone has times when they question their own core beliefs.

Mother Teresa & Pope John Paul II both questioned their own faith.

It's how you answer it. In Palin's case, she reaffirmed her own belief.

 

[TigerVols]

The worst thing that's happened to the pro-choice movement in decades is the advent of MyBaby4D stores popping up in malls all over America.

http://mybaby4d.com/

I know young women who hold parties at these places -- and once all their young friends see the baby in the womb, it's just human instinct for many of them to become instantly anti-abortion. And yes, I know the pictures are of fetuses long past abortion stage, but still.

 

[heyabbott]

And that's why I'm pro-choice. I'd have a hard time telling a rape victim she had to carry the baby to term.

You don't have to, that's why there is FoxNews, Catholicism and the Republican Party. And all 3 will ignore the child once it's born.

 

[dooley_womack1]

The clergy will not ignore the male child.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Lately, I've noticed more and more of the pro-life crowd doesn't want to allow exceptions for rape.

You then have to ask, "What happens when your daughter gets tossed in a dark, back alley at 3 AM?", and wait for the hemming and hawing.

Just like Sarah Palin, who admitted she thought of having an abortion when she found out her fetus had Down's Syndrome.

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/04/21/sarah-palin-admits-she-considered-abortion/

The fact that she actually considered it shows that she is another hypocrite who even said she wouldn't allow her daughter to have one even if she was raped. Under her party's platform, she wouldn't have even been allowed to consider the option. But yet, for a brief time, she considered the option. Hemming and hawing indeed.

That's absurd.

Everyone has times when they question their own core beliefs.

Mother Teresa & Pope John Paul II both questioned their own faith.

It's how you answer it. In Palin's case, she reaffirmed her own belief.

If Palin's party had their way, she wouldn't have even been able to question her own faith. It would have been answered for her by the law, rather than she having the opportunity to reaffirm her own belief.

 

[franklin lincoln]

Lately, I've noticed more and more of the pro-life crowd doesn't want to allow exceptions for rape.

You then have to ask, "What happens when your daughter gets tossed in a dark, back alley at 3 AM?", and wait for the hemming and hawing.

Just like Sarah Palin, who admitted she thought of having an abortion when she found out her fetus had Down's Syndrome.

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/04/21/sarah-palin-admits-she-considered-abortion/

The fact that she actually considered it shows that she is another hypocrite who even said she wouldn't allow her daughter to have one even if she was raped. Under her party's platform, she wouldn't have even been allowed to consider the option. But yet, for a brief time, she considered the option. Hemming and hawing indeed.

This is poor logic on two levels.

First, by your logic on what constitutes a hypocrite, a man who, for a very brief time, considered murdering the person who assaulted his wife would be a hypocrite for believing that the law should outlaw such retaliation. That is simply not what a hypocrite is, nor something we should condemn otherwise. David Brooks and Gail Collins had a wonderful conversation about this a few years ago, where Brooks encouraged us to see an important function of law as a limitation on man's inability to reason correctly in times of duress. The law serves as a counter-weight in order to prevent our excesses at these times. Those who recognize this are very comfortable with promoting laws that they would be hard-pressed to follow in the heat of the moment because their reasoning at those times is flawed. These people know as the law becomes more ingrained in the culture, it will help to shape the immediate reaction of future generations when faced with a stressful situation.

Second, by definition, a hypocrite has to be right one way or the other: Either in their words or their actions. (If this is not the case, the person is not a hypocrite, as there is a way to distinguish between the two positions.) Many of the greatest teachers in human history often told those around hypocrites to follow the words of the hypocrites, not the actions. Simply proving that someone's actions don't match their words doesn't prove that their words are wrong. There will be times when the words are right, and there will be times when the actions are right. Simply establishing someone as a hypocrite doesn't answer the most meaningful question: Which position is correct?

 

[dooley_womack1]

Boy, I'm so glad the body politic cares about the economy and foreign policy a lot more than it cares about abortion.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Lately, I've noticed more and more of the pro-life crowd doesn't want to allow exceptions for rape.

You then have to ask, "What happens when your daughter gets tossed in a dark, back alley at 3 AM?", and wait for the hemming and hawing.

Just like Sarah Palin, who admitted she thought of having an abortion when she found out her fetus had Down's Syndrome.

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/04/21/sarah-palin-admits-she-considered-abortion/

The fact that she actually considered it shows that she is another hypocrite who even said she wouldn't allow her daughter to have one even if she was raped. Under her party's platform, she wouldn't have even been allowed to consider the option. But yet, for a brief time, she considered the option. Hemming and hawing indeed.

This is poor logic on two levels.

First, by your logic on what constitutes a hypocrite, a man who, for a very brief time, considered murdering the person who assaulted his wife would be a hypocrite for believing that the law should outlaw such retaliation. That is simply not what a hypocrite is, nor something we should condemn otherwise. David Brooks and Gail Collins had a wonderful conversation about this a few years ago, where Brooks encouraged us to see an important function of law as a limitation on man's inability to reason correctly in times of duress. The law serves as a counter-weight in order to prevent our excesses at these times. Those who recognize this are very comfortable with promoting laws that they would be hard-pressed to follow in the heat of the moment because their reasoning at those times is flawed. These people know as the law becomes more ingrained in the culture, it will help to shape the immediate reaction of future generations when faced with a stressful situation.

Second, by definition, a hypocrite has to be right one way or the other: Either in their words or their actions. (If this is not the case, the person is not a hypocrite, as there is a way to distinguish between the two positions.) Many of the greatest teachers in human history often told those around hypocrites to follow the words of the hypocrites, not the actions. Simply proving that someone's actions don't match their words doesn't prove that their words are wrong. There will be times when the words are right, and there will be times when the actions are right. Simply establishing someone as a hypocrite doesn't answer the most meaningful question: Which position is correct?

1. It wouldn't be hypocritical for the man to kill the guy assaulting his wife. The man knows what the law is, and is considering breaking the law anyways and, from your post, I'm assuming he accepts the consequences of the law-breaking. It would be hypocritical if he considered murdering the guy, and claiming the assault of the wife means that he should be immune from prosecution.

2. Hypocrisy is when you don't back up your words with actions, and vice versa. An abortion should not have even crossed Palin's mind, much less be considered as an option, if the same party that Palin supports had its way. The fact is, Palin did something that she would willingly deny others the right to do. That makes her a hypocrite.

 

[franklin lincoln]

Lately, I've noticed more and more of the pro-life crowd doesn't want to allow exceptions for rape.

You then have to ask, "What happens when your daughter gets tossed in a dark, back alley at 3 AM?", and wait for the hemming and hawing.

Just like Sarah Palin, who admitted she thought of having an abortion when she found out her fetus had Down's Syndrome.

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/04/21/sarah-palin-admits-she-considered-abortion/

The fact that she actually considered it shows that she is another hypocrite who even said she wouldn't allow her daughter to have one even if she was raped. Under her party's platform, she wouldn't have even been allowed to consider the option. But yet, for a brief time, she considered the option. Hemming and hawing indeed.

This is poor logic on two levels.

First, by your logic on what constitutes a hypocrite, a man who, for a very brief time, considered murdering the person who assaulted his wife would be a hypocrite for believing that the law should outlaw such retaliation. That is simply not what a hypocrite is, nor something we should condemn otherwise. David Brooks and Gail Collins had a wonderful conversation about this a few years ago, where Brooks encouraged us to see an important function of law as a limitation on man's inability to reason correctly in times of duress. The law serves as a counter-weight in order to prevent our excesses at these times. Those who recognize this are very comfortable with promoting laws that they would be hard-pressed to follow in the heat of the moment because their reasoning at those times is flawed. These people know as the law becomes more ingrained in the culture, it will help to shape the immediate reaction of future generations when faced with a stressful situation.

Second, by definition, a hypocrite has to be right one way or the other: Either in their words or their actions. (If this is not the case, the person is not a hypocrite, as there is a way to distinguish between the two positions.) Many of the greatest teachers in human history often told those around hypocrites to follow the words of the hypocrites, not the actions. Simply proving that someone's actions don't match their words doesn't prove that their words are wrong. There will be times when the words are right, and there will be times when the actions are right. Simply establishing someone as a hypocrite doesn't answer the most meaningful question: Which position is correct?

1. It wouldn't be hypocritical for the man to kill the guy assaulting his wife. The man knows what the law is, and is considering breaking the law anyways and, from your post, I'm assuming he accepts the consequences of the law-breaking. It would be hypocritical if he considered murdering the guy, and claiming the assault of the wife means that he should be immune from prosecution.

2. Hypocrisy is when you don't back up your words with actions, and vice versa. An abortion should not have even crossed Palin's mind, much less be considered as an option, if the same party that Palin supports had its way. The fact is, Palin did something that she would willingly deny others the right to do. That makes her a hypocrite.

Neither of your arguments is sound, exactly for the reasons explained in my post.

1. Would it be hypocritical for a man who thought about doing something then say it should be against the law? You didn't answer that question, which is the analogy to Palin, who thought about an abortion, saying it should be against the law.

2. The policy supported by the anti-abortion individuals is (1) the law should forbid abortions and (2) women should not *have* abortions. That's different from thinking about what you might do or what you wish you could do.

Finally, I'll just note that showing that Palin is a hypocrite doesn't answer the substantive question of what the law should be.

/shakes head after defending Sarah Palin

*The word "hypocrite" gets thrown around a lot, and many times improperly. Referring to pro-lifers who vote Democratic as "hypocrites," for example, is another incorrect ad hominem attack.

 

[JC]

Lately, I've noticed more and more of the pro-life crowd doesn't want to allow exceptions for rape.

You then have to ask, "What happens when your daughter gets tossed in a dark, back alley at 3 AM?", and wait for the hemming and hawing.

Just like Sarah Palin, who admitted she thought of having an abortion when she found out her fetus had Down's Syndrome.

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/04/21/sarah-palin-admits-she-considered-abortion/

The fact that she actually considered it shows that she is another hypocrite who even said she wouldn't allow her daughter to have one even if she was raped. Under her party's platform, she wouldn't have even been allowed to consider the option. But yet, for a brief time, she considered the option. Hemming and hawing indeed.

Christ are you ever stretching on this one.

So if a man or women thinks about cheating, but don't follow through they are hypocrites because of their thoughts?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Lately, I've noticed more and more of the pro-life crowd doesn't want to allow exceptions for rape.

You then have to ask, "What happens when your daughter gets tossed in a dark, back alley at 3 AM?", and wait for the hemming and hawing.

Just like Sarah Palin, who admitted she thought of having an abortion when she found out her fetus had Down's Syndrome.

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/04/21/sarah-palin-admits-she-considered-abortion/

The fact that she actually considered it shows that she is another hypocrite who even said she wouldn't allow her daughter to have one even if she was raped. Under her party's platform, she wouldn't have even been allowed to consider the option. But yet, for a brief time, she considered the option. Hemming and hawing indeed.

Christ are you ever stretching on this one.

So if a man or women thinks about cheating, but don't follow through they are hypocrites because of their thoughts?

If they're telling other people that they are bad people for cheating, then yeah, they are.

It's one thing to think of something, and then do the opposite. That's called changing one's mind. It's another thing to be telling others that they should not be allowed to think of an option, and encourage laws to prevent others from considering that option, then turn around and consider that option for yourself. That's hypocrisy.

Simple enough for ya?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Lately, I've noticed more and more of the pro-life crowd doesn't want to allow exceptions for rape.

You then have to ask, "What happens when your daughter gets tossed in a dark, back alley at 3 AM?", and wait for the hemming and hawing.

Just like Sarah Palin, who admitted she thought of having an abortion when she found out her fetus had Down's Syndrome.

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/04/21/sarah-palin-admits-she-considered-abortion/

The fact that she actually considered it shows that she is another hypocrite who even said she wouldn't allow her daughter to have one even if she was raped. Under her party's platform, she wouldn't have even been allowed to consider the option. But yet, for a brief time, she considered the option. Hemming and hawing indeed.

This is poor logic on two levels.

First, by your logic on what constitutes a hypocrite, a man who, for a very brief time, considered murdering the person who assaulted his wife would be a hypocrite for believing that the law should outlaw such retaliation. That is simply not what a hypocrite is, nor something we should condemn otherwise. David Brooks and Gail Collins had a wonderful conversation about this a few years ago, where Brooks encouraged us to see an important function of law as a limitation on man's inability to reason correctly in times of duress. The law serves as a counter-weight in order to prevent our excesses at these times. Those who recognize this are very comfortable with promoting laws that they would be hard-pressed to follow in the heat of the moment because their reasoning at those times is flawed. These people know as the law becomes more ingrained in the culture, it will help to shape the immediate reaction of future generations when faced with a stressful situation.

Second, by definition, a hypocrite has to be right one way or the other: Either in their words or their actions. (If this is not the case, the person is not a hypocrite, as there is a way to distinguish between the two positions.) Many of the greatest teachers in human history often told those around hypocrites to follow the words of the hypocrites, not the actions. Simply proving that someone's actions don't match their words doesn't prove that their words are wrong. There will be times when the words are right, and there will be times when the actions are right. Simply establishing someone as a hypocrite doesn't answer the most meaningful question: Which position is correct?

1. It wouldn't be hypocritical for the man to kill the guy assaulting his wife. The man knows what the law is, and is considering breaking the law anyways and, from your post, I'm assuming he accepts the consequences of the law-breaking. It would be hypocritical if he considered murdering the guy, and claiming the assault of the wife means that he should be immune from prosecution.

2. Hypocrisy is when you don't back up your words with actions, and vice versa. An abortion should not have even crossed Palin's mind, much less be considered as an option, if the same party that Palin supports had its way. The fact is, Palin did something that she would willingly deny others the right to do. That makes her a hypocrite.

Neither of your arguments is sound, exactly for the reasons explained in my post.

1. Would it be hypocritical for a man who thought about doing something then say it should be against the law? You didn't answer that question, which is the analogy to Palin, who thought about an abortion, saying it should be against the law.

2. The policy supported by the anti-abortion individuals is (1) the law should forbid abortions and (2) women should not *have* abortions. That's different from thinking about what you might do or what you wish you could do.

Finally, I'll just note that showing that Palin is a hypocrite doesn't answer the substantive question of what the law should be.

/shakes head after defending Sarah Palin

*The word "hypocrite" gets thrown around a lot, and many times improperly. Referring to pro-lifers who vote Democratic as "hypocrites," for example, is another incorrect ad hominem attack.

1. The way you put it here, yes, it would be hypocritical of the man.

2. You are using an argument about the abortion act itself. What I'm pointing out here is the choice aspect of it. I consider what Palin did to be a pro-choice position, even though she's anti-abortion. What pregnant women do is make a choice. Palin made a choice too. She chose to have the baby.

As far as what the law should be, while it varies by state, I think it should be legal. In the original study posted on here, there was something about how there were 6 women who died from abortion complications in, if I remember correctly, one year. Make abortion illegal, and you might be having 6 women dying from illegal abortions each day, which would make up about 1.5 percent of the daily amount of abortions (which I think, is around 4,000 or so). Do pro-lifers really want to be reading on the news about 6 women per day dying from illegal abortions?

 

[YankeeFan]

If Palin's party had their way, she wouldn't have even been able to question her own faith. It would have been answered for her by the law, rather than she having the opportunity to reaffirm her own belief.

I have no idea how this supports your contention she is a hypocrite.

Is an atheist who ponders the existence of God a hypocrite? Is a vegetarian who is tempted by the smell of bacon a hypocrite.

Christ was famously tempted. He questioned his mission. That's because he was both man and divine. I'm not sure we should hold Palin to a higher standard.

And, besides, while there are some calls for a Constitutional Amendment to protect life, the most realistic change would be the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. This would leave it up to the states. A woman of Palin's means, would need only to fly to California or Washington state to have an abortion if she sought one.

Even if it was outlawed throughout the land, she could travel to Europe.

(And if there's an argument for keeping abortion legal, this is a pretty good one.)

It gets very frustrating to argue with you. You make emotional arguments. You ascribe evil intentions to the people you disagree with -- basically anyone who is a Republican, or a Capitalist. And you have such anger about there policies.

And, you really get worked up about hypocrites.

So, ponder me this: what do you call someone who rails against CEOs and the way they treat their employees, and then professes to be a fan of Vince McMahon -- who treats his employees like **** -- simply because he's a fan of the product?

 

[YankeeFan]

Do pro-lifers really want to be reading on the news about 6 women per day dying from illegal abortions?

If we lowered the speed limit, it would save lives.

If we made alcohol illegal, it would save lives.

Do you really want to drive 55 MPH and faster so bad as to cause people to die?

Is your beer after work so important to you that your willing to let people die in exchange for it?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

If Palin's party had their way, she wouldn't have even been able to question her own faith. It would have been answered for her by the law, rather than she having the opportunity to reaffirm her own belief.

I have no idea how this supports your contention she is a hypocrite.

Is an atheist who ponders the existence of God a hypocrite? Is a vegetarian who is tempted by the smell of bacon a hypocrite.

Christ was famously tempted. He questioned his mission. That's because he was both man and divine. I'm not sure we should hold Palin to a higher standard.

And, besides, while there are some calls for a Constitutional Amendment to protect life, the most realistic change would be the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. This would leave it up to the states. A woman of Palin's means, would need only to fly to California or Washington state to have an abortion if she sought one.

Even if it was outlawed throughout the land, she could travel to Europe.

(And if there's an argument for keeping abortion legal, this is a pretty good one.)

It gets very frustrating to argue with you. You make emotional arguments. You ascribe evil intentions to the people you disagree with -- basically anyone who is a Republican, or a Capitalist. And you have such anger about there policies.

And, you really get worked up about hypocrites.

So, ponder me this: what do you call someone who rails against CEOs and the way they treat their employees, and then professes to be a fan of Vince McMahon -- who treats his employees like **** -- simply because he's a fan of the product?

Is the atheist trying to pass laws banning people from praying? Is the vegetarian trying to pass laws banning people from eating bacon?

Nope. People are free to pray to whomever they want, and to eat bacon whenever they want. They just can't tell others that they must pray alongside with them and force them to eat bacon.

And oh yeah, if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, Palin could shop around. Poor women cannot. So now, you have abortion for rich women only. That's really fair. And if you don't think that the pro-life states would ban women from traveling to pro-choice states to have an abortion, then you're just as naive as I'm often accused of being.

And I have anger towards Republican policies because they attempt to pass laws that tell others how they should live their private lives, laws that make the air that I breathe and the water I drink worse, complain about their taxes being too high even though it's been proven that they wouldn't create jobs if the taxes were lowered, and oh yeah, sent out troops into a war to die and be maimed so the president could recreate V-E Day and fly on a fighter jet.

As far as Vince McMahon goes, I've also criticized him for how he treats his employees (firing wrestlers even though they have contracts), and I've criticized his product multiple times. Thing is, I'm just one person. I suppose I could go to one of his matches, run to the ring, and set myself on fire in protest. Somehow, I'd doubt that would be too smart.

If anything, his wrestlers should unionize, and McMahon wouldn't treat them like **** then. But he's basically the only player in the game right now (TNA is not very strong), and his wrestlers are scared that if they stick their necks out, they'll be chopped off. And the top stars are actually treated very well, so they don't have any incentive to help the guys lower than them.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Do pro-lifers really want to be reading on the news about 6 women per day dying from illegal abortions?

If we lowered the speed limit, it would save lives.

If we made alcohol illegal, it would save lives.

Do you really want to drive 55 MPH and faster so bad as to cause people to die?

Is your beer after work so important to you that your willing to let people die in exchange for it?

Difference again, is about choice.

I can choose to drive slower than 65. I can choose to drink, or not to drink. I willingly choose to take the risks associated with driving faster or drinking.

If pro-lifers had their way, women would either choose to have an abortion in a dirty back alley, or give birth. Why should they be forced into just those two choices when there are other, more safer for them alternatives, to choose from.

 

[YankeeFan]

Is the atheist trying to pass laws banning people from praying? Is the vegetarian trying to pass laws banning people from eating bacon?

Nope. People are free to pray to whomever they want, and to eat bacon whenever they want. They just can't tell others that they must pray alongside with them and force them to eat bacon.

And oh yeah, if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, Palin could shop around. Poor women cannot. So now, you have abortion for rich women only. That's really fair. And if you don't think that the pro-life states would ban women from traveling to pro-choice states to have an abortion, then you're just as naive as I'm often accused of being.

And I have anger towards Republican policies because they attempt to pass laws that tell others how they should live their private lives, laws that make the air that I breathe and the water I drink worse, complain about their taxes being too high even though it's been proven that they wouldn't create jobs if the taxes were lowered, and oh yeah, sent out troops into a war to die and be maimed so the president could recreate V-E Day and fly on a fighter jet.

As far as Vince McMahon goes, I've also criticized him for how he treats his employees (firing wrestlers even though they have contracts), and I've criticized his product multiple times. Thing is, I'm just one person. I suppose I could go to one of his matches, run to the ring, and set myself on fire in protest. Somehow, I'd doubt that would be too smart.

If anything, his wrestlers should unionize, and McMahon wouldn't treat them like **** then. But he's basically the only player in the game right now (TNA is not very strong), and his wrestlers are scared that if they stick their necks out, they'll be chopped off. And the top stars are actually treated very well, so they don't have any incentive to help the guys lower than them.

Thank you for proving each of my points.

 

[Dick Whitman]

And I have anger towards Republican policies because they attempt to pass laws that tell others how they should live their private lives.

It just doesn't seem fair to put abortion into this category. They believe that the unborn fetus is alive (as do I). Therefore, abortion is the same as banning infanticide, which none of us have a problem with, even though that's also telling people how to live their private lives.

It's the old saw: My right to swing my first ends at someone else's nose.

 

[JC]

Lately, I've noticed more and more of the pro-life crowd doesn't want to allow exceptions for rape.

You then have to ask, "What happens when your daughter gets tossed in a dark, back alley at 3 AM?", and wait for the hemming and hawing.

Just like Sarah Palin, who admitted she thought of having an abortion when she found out her fetus had Down's Syndrome.

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/04/21/sarah-palin-admits-she-considered-abortion/

The fact that she actually considered it shows that she is another hypocrite who even said she wouldn't allow her daughter to have one even if she was raped. Under her party's platform, she wouldn't have even been allowed to consider the option. But yet, for a brief time, she considered the option. Hemming and hawing indeed.

Christ are you ever stretching on this one.

So if a man or women thinks about cheating, but don't follow through they are hypocrites because of their thoughts?

If they're telling other people that they are bad people for cheating, then yeah, they are.

It's one thing to think of something, and then do the opposite. That's called changing one's mind. It's another thing to be telling others that they should not be allowed to think of an option, and encourage laws to prevent others from considering that option, then turn around and consider that option for yourself. That's hypocrisy.

Simple enough for ya?

You're just ****ing stunned Baron.

 

[printdust]

The vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester, with a smaller percentage in the second, and very few in the third.

I didn't see anything in the story or the study (which I'll admit, I scanned through because it's so long) about the reasons for third-trimester abortions, but I'm assuming most of them were done because either the life or health or both of the mother was at risk.

Partial birth abortion is definitely third-term.