Holy crap!
-
Send not to ask for whom the bell tolls and all that, but I find myself curiously unmoved by the death of a creep who made his living inducing labor and then crushing the skulls of living babies as they were delivered.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Yeah, of all the murders that occured today, this one concerns me the least.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
CDC Abortion Statistics[^] I'm not looking for an argument, but I can explain why it's legal. The lion's share of abortions are early, and the lion's share of late term abortions are for fetal deformities that usually aren't able to be identified until later in the pregnancy (16-18wks) and would result in either a fetus that won't survive until term (and aborting is lower risk to the mother than having the fetus die late in utero) or would die very shortly after birth. There are, as always, exceptions, and it's certainly debatable whether or not he was overly permissive in what he considered an indication for a late-term abortion should be, but IMO he was providing an important women's health service and didn't bloody well deserve to get shot for it by some ignorant prick.
- F
-
CDC Abortion Statistics[^] I'm not looking for an argument, but I can explain why it's legal. The lion's share of abortions are early, and the lion's share of late term abortions are for fetal deformities that usually aren't able to be identified until later in the pregnancy (16-18wks) and would result in either a fetus that won't survive until term (and aborting is lower risk to the mother than having the fetus die late in utero) or would die very shortly after birth. There are, as always, exceptions, and it's certainly debatable whether or not he was overly permissive in what he considered an indication for a late-term abortion should be, but IMO he was providing an important women's health service and didn't bloody well deserve to get shot for it by some ignorant prick.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
There are, as always, exceptions,
Well, heck whats an extra dead baby or two, eh? Its all for the greater good of free sex and all, and other sacred enlightenment principles...
Fisticuffs wrote:
what he considered an indication for a late-term abortion should be
Apparently, is was whether or not there was any profit in it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
There are, as always, exceptions,
Well, heck whats an extra dead baby or two, eh? Its all for the greater good of free sex and all, and other sacred enlightenment principles...
Fisticuffs wrote:
what he considered an indication for a late-term abortion should be
Apparently, is was whether or not there was any profit in it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
CDC Abortion Statistics[^] I'm not looking for an argument, but I can explain why it's legal. The lion's share of abortions are early, and the lion's share of late term abortions are for fetal deformities that usually aren't able to be identified until later in the pregnancy (16-18wks) and would result in either a fetus that won't survive until term (and aborting is lower risk to the mother than having the fetus die late in utero) or would die very shortly after birth. There are, as always, exceptions, and it's certainly debatable whether or not he was overly permissive in what he considered an indication for a late-term abortion should be, but IMO he was providing an important women's health service and didn't bloody well deserve to get shot for it by some ignorant prick.
- F
My wife and I have spoken about this. Early on, we both felt that we'd have any child, regardless of issues it had. Through working with families where one child is autistic especially ( that is, autism is what she sees most at her work ), she thinks she'd abort now, because of the affect it has on the other kids and the family as a whole. We also know people who have intellectually disabled children, and it's a tough thing, looking after a child all your life and knowing there's no-one for them when you die. So, it's not entirely clear cut, I agree.
Fisticuffs wrote:
and it's certainly debatable whether or not he was overly permissive in what he considered an indication for a late-term abortion should b
The trouble in the US is that it seems to me that people ( or at least, the people who make themselves visible on this and other issues ) are so polarised that you'd almost expect either a 'no abortion' or a 'do whatever you want, it's your body' approach from anyone involved. Common sense does not seem to enter the discussion.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
-
Oh, sorry, was that divisive? I'm so very, very sorry... :rolleyes:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
My wife and I have spoken about this. Early on, we both felt that we'd have any child, regardless of issues it had. Through working with families where one child is autistic especially ( that is, autism is what she sees most at her work ), she thinks she'd abort now, because of the affect it has on the other kids and the family as a whole. We also know people who have intellectually disabled children, and it's a tough thing, looking after a child all your life and knowing there's no-one for them when you die. So, it's not entirely clear cut, I agree.
Fisticuffs wrote:
and it's certainly debatable whether or not he was overly permissive in what he considered an indication for a late-term abortion should b
The trouble in the US is that it seems to me that people ( or at least, the people who make themselves visible on this and other issues ) are so polarised that you'd almost expect either a 'no abortion' or a 'do whatever you want, it's your body' approach from anyone involved. Common sense does not seem to enter the discussion.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
Christian Graus wrote:
The trouble in the US is that it seems to me that people ( or at least, the people who make themselves visible on this and other issues ) are so polarised that you'd almost expect either a 'no abortion' or a 'do whatever you want, it's your body' approach from anyone involved. Common sense does not seem to enter the discussion.
And that is entirely the fault of the left which went out of their way to create a polarizing issue out of it. There will obviously always be deeply held religious fundamentalist aversion to abortion in any way. But what explains the equal fanaticism of the left on this topic? Why the hell are they so adament that there can be no restrictions of any kind on abortion? It is important to them precisely because it allows them to associate any opposition to their broader agenda with some kind of religioius extremism. It automagically means anyone who promotes any kind of a conservative belief is allied with 'right wing christian zealots'...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm sorry he's dead, but I agree with Oakman. How can late term abortion be legal ?
It's legal because the logic of legalizing abortion-on-demand requires it.
Christian Graus wrote:
I thought that only went on in China.
That's because you *insist* upon being ignorant about certain key issues.
-
That's terrible. But on a lighter note: Police said a manhunt was under way for the shooter, who fled in a car registered to a Kansas City suburb nearly 200 miles away. How do you register a car to a suburb?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen." Me blog, You read
-
My wife and I have spoken about this. Early on, we both felt that we'd have any child, regardless of issues it had. Through working with families where one child is autistic especially ( that is, autism is what she sees most at her work ), she thinks she'd abort now, because of the affect it has on the other kids and the family as a whole. We also know people who have intellectually disabled children, and it's a tough thing, looking after a child all your life and knowing there's no-one for them when you die. So, it's not entirely clear cut, I agree.
Fisticuffs wrote:
and it's certainly debatable whether or not he was overly permissive in what he considered an indication for a late-term abortion should b
The trouble in the US is that it seems to me that people ( or at least, the people who make themselves visible on this and other issues ) are so polarised that you'd almost expect either a 'no abortion' or a 'do whatever you want, it's your body' approach from anyone involved. Common sense does not seem to enter the discussion.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
Christian Graus wrote:
The trouble in the US is that it seems to me that people ( or at least, the people who make themselves visible on this and other issues ) are so polarised that you'd almost expect either a 'no abortion' or a 'do whatever you want, it's your body' approach from anyone involved.
So true. And that's usually what you get, because the silent majority understands that it's a complex ethical issue that doesn't lend itself particularly well to all-or-nothing approaches. Dumb loud people are the ones that get the airtime :^) .
Christian Graus wrote:
Through working with families where one child is autistic especially ( that is, autism is what she sees most at her work ),
OT, but as she's someone who works quite a bit with autistic children, I'd be interested to know what your wife thinks about the antics of Jenny McCarthy and her anti-vaccine crusade.
- F
-
Oh, sorry, was that divisive? I'm so very, very sorry... :rolleyes:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Send not to ask for whom the bell tolls and all that, but I find myself curiously unmoved by the death of a creep who made his living inducing labor and then crushing the skulls of living babies as they were delivered.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Send not to ask for whom the bell tolls and all that, but I find myself curiously unmoved by the death of a creep who made his living inducing labor and then crushing the skulls of living babies as they were delivered.
Amusingly enough -- and as we *all* realize -- had I said the same thing prior, you'd have said the opposite and you'd have tried to claim that I am immoral in my attitude. edit: So, apparently, we're both 'pro-choice' about the killing of abortionists. You know, in the "While I, personally, wouldn't kill an abortionist, I support others' right to do so" way. Or, maybe it's the "While I am personally opposed to the termination of abortionists, I simply cannot impose my personal morality upon those who make the difficult personal decision to terminate an abortionist." way. :laugh: But, surely, all persons of good-will can come together on common ground to work toward making the termination of abortionists "safe, legal, and rare." :laugh:
modified on Sunday, May 31, 2009 5:51 PM
-
CDC Abortion Statistics[^] I'm not looking for an argument, but I can explain why it's legal. The lion's share of abortions are early, and the lion's share of late term abortions are for fetal deformities that usually aren't able to be identified until later in the pregnancy (16-18wks) and would result in either a fetus that won't survive until term (and aborting is lower risk to the mother than having the fetus die late in utero) or would die very shortly after birth. There are, as always, exceptions, and it's certainly debatable whether or not he was overly permissive in what he considered an indication for a late-term abortion should be, but IMO he was providing an important women's health service and didn't bloody well deserve to get shot for it by some ignorant prick.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
lion's share of late term abortions are for fetal deformities that usually aren't able to be identified until later in the pregnancy (16-18wks) and would result in either a fetus that won't survive until term (and aborting is lower risk to the mother than having the fetus die late in utero) or would die very shortly after birth.
Gosh how times have changed. In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Four fraking hundred and 80 of them (20 frackin' percent) were at least 16 weeks pregnant. 71% of them didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation 48% of them found it hard to make arrangements for abortion 33% of them were afraid to tell her partner or parents 24% of them took time to decide to have an abortion 8% of them waited for her relationship to change Obviously there were multiple answers but it would appear that considerably better than 2 out of 3 women were there to use abortion as post facto birth control. Oh yeah: 2% of them had a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy Of course the study begs the question: "when is it a late term abortion? The answer is no-one seems to have figured that out. Some medical authorities and legal authorities define anything after the 12th week as "late." Many more define 16 or 20 weeks as late and a few will claim 24 weeks as the cut off point. Good thing that you are here to tell us that since 1987, there have been so many fewer abortions and even fewer late term abortions. (That has to be the case to support your -er- claims. But it is confusing to consider that there are a number of clinics around the country specializing in this almost non-existent procedure (less than 2% come because the kid isn't developing right, remember?) Don't you find that confusing? Do you think that the number of malformed fetuses has shot up, just in time to keep these butchers in business? Google even has ads for them.[^]
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
lion's share of late term abortions are for fetal deformities that usually aren't able to be identified until later in the pregnancy (16-18wks) and would result in either a fetus that won't survive until term (and aborting is lower risk to the mother than having the fetus die late in utero) or would die very shortly after birth.
Gosh how times have changed. In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Four fraking hundred and 80 of them (20 frackin' percent) were at least 16 weeks pregnant. 71% of them didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation 48% of them found it hard to make arrangements for abortion 33% of them were afraid to tell her partner or parents 24% of them took time to decide to have an abortion 8% of them waited for her relationship to change Obviously there were multiple answers but it would appear that considerably better than 2 out of 3 women were there to use abortion as post facto birth control. Oh yeah: 2% of them had a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy Of course the study begs the question: "when is it a late term abortion? The answer is no-one seems to have figured that out. Some medical authorities and legal authorities define anything after the 12th week as "late." Many more define 16 or 20 weeks as late and a few will claim 24 weeks as the cut off point. Good thing that you are here to tell us that since 1987, there have been so many fewer abortions and even fewer late term abortions. (That has to be the case to support your -er- claims. But it is confusing to consider that there are a number of clinics around the country specializing in this almost non-existent procedure (less than 2% come because the kid isn't developing right, remember?) Don't you find that confusing? Do you think that the number of malformed fetuses has shot up, just in time to keep these butchers in business? Google even has ads for them.[^]
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Hey, whatever you like. But it sure is nice that you cite statistics from 1987 when it's 22 years later (and I thought the CDC data from 2004 was pushing it), that's a real nice touch.
Oakman wrote:
Do you think that the number of malformed fetuses has shot up, just in time to keep these butchers in business?
No, of course not - diagnostic procedures, understanding of genetics, none of that has improved at all. To diagnose trisomy 18, gynecologists measure the four humours (especially phlegm) as standard of care these days.
- F
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The trouble in the US is that it seems to me that people ( or at least, the people who make themselves visible on this and other issues ) are so polarised that you'd almost expect either a 'no abortion' or a 'do whatever you want, it's your body' approach from anyone involved. Common sense does not seem to enter the discussion.
And that is entirely the fault of the left which went out of their way to create a polarizing issue out of it. There will obviously always be deeply held religious fundamentalist aversion to abortion in any way. But what explains the equal fanaticism of the left on this topic? Why the hell are they so adament that there can be no restrictions of any kind on abortion? It is important to them precisely because it allows them to associate any opposition to their broader agenda with some kind of religioius extremism. It automagically means anyone who promotes any kind of a conservative belief is allied with 'right wing christian zealots'...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The trouble in the US is that it seems to me that people ( or at least, the people who make themselves visible on this and other issues ) are so polarised that you'd almost expect either a 'no abortion' or a 'do whatever you want, it's your body' approach from anyone involved.
So true. And that's usually what you get, because the silent majority understands that it's a complex ethical issue that doesn't lend itself particularly well to all-or-nothing approaches. Dumb loud people are the ones that get the airtime :^) .
Christian Graus wrote:
Through working with families where one child is autistic especially ( that is, autism is what she sees most at her work ),
OT, but as she's someone who works quite a bit with autistic children, I'd be interested to know what your wife thinks about the antics of Jenny McCarthy and her anti-vaccine crusade.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
OT, but as she's someone who works quite a bit with autistic children, I'd be interested to know what your wife thinks about the antics of Jenny McCarthy and her anti-vaccine crusade.
I don't know who that is, but we have US friends who are not getting their kids vaccinated to avoid autism. I believe that if what he said is correct, then the number of vaccinations kids get in the US is probably insane, and bad for us as a species. My kids got what is the full round of vaccinations in Australia, and anyone who doesn't do that, is insane IMO. I also think a lot of people have no idea what autism/aspergers are. They are not diseases, they are states of brain function. It's also not all or nothing, it's a spectrum. I suspect that like ADHD, most kids diagnosed with autism probably have nothing major wrong with them, except perhaps being part of a species that evolved to function in a highly physical environment, and instead spend their lives watching DVDs and playing Nintendo.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm sorry he's dead, but I agree with Oakman. How can late term abortion be legal ?
It's legal because the logic of legalizing abortion-on-demand requires it.
Christian Graus wrote:
I thought that only went on in China.
That's because you *insist* upon being ignorant about certain key issues.
Ilíon wrote:
It's legal because the logic of legalizing abortion-on-demand requires it.
Well, that may well be true.
Ilíon wrote:
That's because you *insist* upon being ignorant about certain key issues.
Abortion in the US is not really a key issue for me. More of a sideshow, really.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
That's terrible.
No it isn't. It's justice ... that is, certainly it's terrible (for pure justice is a terrible thing), but it's not terrible in the wimpy, passive, hand-wringing Churchianity way that you mean the word.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, the right had extreme views first, but it's the fault of the left ?
Define 'the right'...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, the right had extreme views first, but it's the fault of the left ?
Define 'the right'...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
One would assume it's whoever does not qualify as 'the left' when you say it. Unless there's a centre, but I assume it's the antithesis of the left that is implied by defining the right as the opposite of what you define as 'the left.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.