The Prophet 22
He broke the law in order to change the law to feed his massive ego and pocket book. And I stand by the Hitler comparison. You can call my views stone age all you want. That is suppose to hurt me in some way? Or think you are smarter than me? Fine, I admit I not the brightest guy in the room or on this board. But to say society is better off because of the millions of abortions performed because of his stand and to call him a Hero ... is simply beyond anything I can comprehend, then again this is just the extension of Darwinism at its best.
DrTyore
All of that fits..
Recently, the legalization of abortions has been credited with, at least in part, a decline in anti-social / illegal trends / criminogenic behaviour. Follow that with the fact that Darwinism is stymied by our culture of "helping those who need it" (which, FWIW, is kinda my bread and butter), it does make sense that one could say society is in fact better off.
I'm not trying to hurt anyone, I'm just trying to put a spotlight on the irrefutable fact that he has improved the quality of life in Canada.
Mark
Milo
Well . . . except for the human beings he killed. Their lives were ended. and before you offer the usual counter arguments, remember that science would disagree with you on one crucial point. Those fetuses were individual human beings, with separate DNA all of their own. And do not spout off about viability, because a new-born infant is not "viable" either without a parent to provide for them.
Again, not calling for a return to the bad old days, but considering how vehement some folks hereabouts get about the regulation of firearms, I am somewhat puzzled by the attitude that says "hands off" when it comes to killing a human being. But that is just me.
Milo
kwsteve;353645 wroteWell, the first eugenics policies were first implemented in early 20th century America. They were only adopted later by the Nazis so to compare Morgentaler to Nazis on that basis is still being disingenuous. Don't forget that it was only in 1972 that Alberta stopped practicing forced sterilization.
Secondly, blaming Morgentaler for choices other people make is absurd. He personally had nothing to do with the choices some people have made, other than giving them the ability to make a choice. And he shouldn't be condemned for that.
This is another case of the hypocrisy of the right. They will defend the gun manufacturers and say that they have no responsibility for the choices that some people make using their "tools." Yet, Morgentaler gets vilified for providing the "tool" for women to exercise freedom of choice over their own bodies. In both cases there is the death of a human life. In both cases, a supposedly responsible adult makes a choice. So, why do the right wing continue to defend guns and not abortion?
I do not blame Morgentaler for our current lack of abortion law, just like I do not blame gun manufacturers for our gun laws. In both instances I am consistent in blaming our politicians. Please try again.
The only thing I have said, by way of "blaming" Morgentaler is that his crusade has pushed our society to this position . . . the only developed nation with no laws surrounding the termination of human life in the womb. I do not think that is an unreasonable link to make.
DrTyore
It's a trap
Fetuses are called fetuses because frankly we don't consider them humans until they're squeezed out a vagina or c-sectioned into our world. I get the argument you're trying to make Milo, but I've often said next time a politician says "It's a person", I'll say "Sure, then start paying baby bonus at the second of conception".
Y'all say Mogentaler was about cash? Nobody's paying a dime until that kid wails out it's first audible cry.
Mark
compuease
DrTyore;353657 wroteI'll say "Sure, then start paying baby bonus at the second of conception".
They still pay that?
DrTyore;353657 wrote
Y'all say Mogentaler was about cash? Nobody's paying a dime until that kid wails out it's first audible cry.
Mark
So not true..... You need some experiences..
FTR, I am pro choice although not strongly... I do believe in limits however..
Where those limits should be is where the dispute should occur...
trigs
i'm obviously pro choice. i can't fathom why anyone isn't pro choice. i'd never consider taking the rights away from someone else over what they can do with their own bodies simply due to my dogmatic beliefs. if you want to fight for unborn fetuses, all the power to you. it is a worthy fight imho. however, to fight that women shouldn't even have the right to choose is just crazy.
that being said, if i ever knocked someone up (god let's hope not), i'm definitely arguing to keep the baby. i don't want a baby. i may resent having one at some point. however, i accept the consequences of my actions, and fucking sometimes results in babies. you don't want one, don't fuck. easy game. however, that's my choice. i don't have the right to tell others what they can or can't do with their own bodies. it's not my choice, and sorry, it's not any flying spaghetti monter's choice either.
EDIT: and seriously, i really would like to hear the defense of the comparison to hitler. honestly i would. i love hearing the details in debatable arguments especially for the side that i disagree with. i'm a student of human nature and i love to hear why people think the way they do.
trigs
i should also go on record to say that the traditional family unit is completely pointless nowadays and in fact i don't think that people should even have the right to have their own children anymore. yeah, i'm kind of extreme when it comes to this stuff lol.
EDIT: see Plato's Republic (minus all the crap about art only having to be for the nation or for god).
Milo
I am not saying that abortion should be banned . . . far from it. I just find it interesting that some of the people who so vehemently oppose the Death Penalty (as I do) also vehemently oppose putting ANY limits on the killing of a fetus. Both "victims" (for want of a better term) are human beings. As compuease said, the discussion should be over "what" reasonable limits are acceptable. That is all I am saying . . . after all, in this day and age, what excuse is there for the average woman in this country to get pregnant as a result of "oops"? Personally, I resent paying for somebody elses "oops". Personal responsibility has to come into this somewhere along the way, too, does it not?
Milo
trigs;353673 wrotei'm obviously pro choice. i can't fathom why anyone isn't pro choice. i'd never consider taking the rights away from someone else
Yet that is exactly what unfettered abortion does to the unborn. As stated, they may not be born, but science has shown that they are distinct human beings with their own DNA. What about their Rights?
trigs
Milo;353682 wroteYet that is exactly what unfettered abortion does to the unborn. As stated, they may not be born, but science has shown that they are distinct human beings with their own DNA. What about their Rights?
they don't have rights. the woman's rights trump. if you disagree, take the test tube baby route (as i think everyone should).
Shtebs
Milo;353682 wroteYet that is exactly what unfettered abortion does to the unborn. As stated, they may not be born, but science has shown that they are distinct human beings with their own DNA. What about their Rights?
I respect that you are approaching this from a rational angle. My "stone age" comment was referring to 90% of the pro-life movement's sole argument being based on Christian doctrine. That is simply confounding and infuriating.
That being said, DNA is not indicative of a unique and sentient life. Tumors have DNA, cysts have DNA, hair contains DNA. If it is organic and was created by your body, it has your DNA. 60% of all embryos do not become babies. Women's bodies reject more than half of them. Many of them do so before they are even aware that they were pregnant. It's not a tragedy then and it's not a tragedy when someone opts for it of their own volition. After all, they only perform abortions on first trimester cases or when it will endanger the life of the mother.
Milo
The DNA argument refers to the individuality of the fetus, and that said DNA is "matches" the type found amongst those of us who were actually born. Probably not stating the case very well, but I think you get the gist.
Will not speak to embryos that do not "take", or are spontaneously rejected. Agree with you that those are not tragedies (although, having gone through a miscarriage, they are not fun), but I maintain that the taking of a human life IS a tragedy. As I said, how is it that the Death Penalty is "wrong", but killing the unborn is not?
Abortions can and do occur in this country at any point in the pregnancy. there are guidelines that hospitals use, but there are no laws that govern the process.
Milo
trigs;353688 wrotethey don't have rights. the woman's rights trump. if you disagree, take the test tube baby route (as i think everyone should).
Human beings have Rights. I maintain that the fetus is a Human Being, ergo, that they do have Rights. I am not saying that those Rights have to "trump" the Mother's, but I do think they should have some protection.
compuease
Ok not being a woman and not really being in touch with this issue, need to clear something up, isn't it only after 9 weeks that "it" is considered a fetus?
So I would think that a fetus does have rights but does not trump the mothers..
The questions come to me as:
1/ Is it open season on any pregnancy prior to that time or should there still be limits?
2/ At what point does the "rights" of the fetus come into play and how do we judge between fetus rights and mothers rights..? Does the sperm donator have any rights in any decision? Do you think you can be pro choice with limits? If so what are they?
Trigs, do you advocate open season? ie a potential mother can terminate at any point for any reason? If not open season what do you propose as a basis for limits. Can you be pro choice with limits. Just trying to understand.
Milo
compuease;353693 wroteOk not being a woman and not really being in touch with this issue, need to clear something up, isn't it only after 9 weeks that "it" is considered a fetus?
So I would think that a fetus does have rights but does not trump the mothers..
The questions come to me as:
1/ Is it open season on any pregnancy prior to that time or should there still be limits?
I would be in accord with no restriction for the first 2 months. This would account for the majority of "oops" pregnancies, not to mention covering anything like sexual assault. I would also agree with coverage under government health care during this time.
2/ At what point does the "rights" of the fetus come into play and how do we judge between fetus rights and mothers rights..? Does the sperm donator have any rights in any decision? Do you think you can be pro choice with limits? If so what are they?
I would say that when the fetus is considered "viable" outside the Mother's womb (90% at 3 months or something like that), then I think the Fetus's Rights need to be considered. Exactly how, I have no idea, but it bears discussion. Sorry, but the donor can have an vote when he starts carrying said Fetus. For me, this would be the point after which, if termination is the decision, then the woman can pay for it. Sorry, actions have consequences, and society should not have to pay for all of them.
Trigs, do you advocate open season? ie a potential mother can terminate at any point for any reason? If not open season what do you propose as a basis for limits. Can you be pro choice with limits. Just trying to understand.
Not a woman either, but those are my thoughts on a reasonable compromise. As has been stated elsewhere, there is no reason (under normal circumstances) these days for someone to get pregnant unless they want to.
**edit** I do not think that a woman should be told the gender of the Fetus until the viability threshold I mentioned above. Genetic Markers are a different story.
compuease
Milo;353700 wrote(90% at 3 months or something like that).
Umm, I think 90% survivability is at 6 months... 3 months or 13 weeks is zero...
Great discussion though, would love others to chime in with reasonable ideas not dogma...
SuitedPair
Milo;353643 wrote but tell me again how this man is some sort of hero . . .
Women were being grievously harmed or killed in back room/alley abortions overseen by doctors...nay predators... less qualified to 'practice' medicine than I am to play poker. This guy was one of the few to see the injustice here and not kowtow to the masses blinded by belief in a little man in the sky that has a history of being one of the most brutal killers in false history. but that's another topic for another day and I only mention it to give context. He stood up for woman's rights to control themselves and help steer this society away from the misogynistic backwards cesspool that many parts of the world are now or are becoming. He risked his life where most of us would have bowed to pressure.
do I idolize him? no. do I support using abortion as a method of birth control in my life? no. Do I support a woman who has been raped not allowing a lifelong reminder of the violence to be born, absolutely. Where the mother's life is in danger (
hello Ireland), Yup. The problem with trying to define exactly where it is ethical and where it is not is next to impossible. Outlawing it is far far more unjust than allowing it.
SuitedPair
Milo;353700 wroteNot a woman either, but those are my thoughts on a reasonable compromise. As has been stated elsewhere, there is no reason (under normal circumstances) these days for someone to get pregnant unless they want to.
**edit** I do not think that a woman should be told the gender of the Fetus until the viability threshold I mentioned above. Genetic Markers are a different story.
Agree here. while I do support abortion I have reservations about the use of it for genetic or gender selection purposes. Again though, we get into the grey areas in the middle of the spectrum between total outlaw and no guidelines at all.
(at this point I will say that the 22 weeks that is normally the guideline is about the point where the fetus starts to feel pain and suffering. from here I only support abortion where the mother's life is in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated as by this point, you should have figured it out and made the choice in other circumstances.)
The idea that the sex of the child should be withheld until viability is interesting but how would that be policed without some rather committed undercover work......
Milo
compuease;353703 wroteUmm, I think 90% survivability is at 6 months... 3 months or 13 weeks is zero...
Great discussion though, would love others to chime in with reasonable ideas not dogma...
24 weeks - 40%
25 weeks - 70%
26 weeks - 90%
Thank you Dr. google