Obama

[mkat]

i hope Obama (and the press) eventually get around to telling us about his position on topics...instead of just gushing over the fact that he's a black guy.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

we have a different order in our respective bad list.

1) they are all issues in this thread,

In the list of bad things, you have voiced protest for some things (the war in iraq, killing of american soldiers), and support of other things (abortion). why do you choose to support the things you choose to support, and object to the things you object to?

abstinence is a great policy for those who don't want to conceive. but it's natural to have sex. people will have sex. sex doesn't negate the women's right to control their body.

We're talking about rights to the baby's body.

And the "it's natural" thing is just stupid. Naturalness is orthogonal to rightness and wrongness. For instance:
It's more natural for a pregnant woman to have a baby than to kill her own baby. It's definitely more natural to pee on ourselves than to use a specialized room with a porcelin contraption. But we don' t figure "well it happens" and try to make it easier for people to pee on themselves, or make excuses for them to do so. Murder is natural. We don't figure, "well, people are going to do it anyways," and then try to make excuses for people to murder or make it easier for them to do so, or make it easier to avoid the consequences of that action.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

so, is it wrong for a person to want to feel better about doing an act that they already will feel guilty about? Why not just go up to every woman who ever has had an abortion and shove a dead fetus in their face? Why? WHY? because that would be cruel and unusual punishment. Our whole entire life revolves around feeling better about mistakes we have made. How would you feel if someone followed you around all day reminding you constantly about every mistake you have ever made? empathy man, empathy!

Wouldn't it be better to help women beforehand to avoid doing something they would later feel guilty about, or that they might come to view as a mistake? Planned Parenthood objects to informing their clients that they might someday feel guilty for undergoing an abortion, or that they might someday think of it as a mistake.

I don't think they provide a lot of post-abortion counseling, either, to help women deal with the guilt.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the phrase conjures a vision of the actual birth of a child, as if the birth was interrupted by a doctor and the delivered baby was aborted. it was "partially" birthed and then aborted. not accurate at all.

The bolded phrase above is your description of the procedure? And you object to "partial birth abortion"? Your description uses those three words in closer proximity than any other. And that's exactly what's described in the wiki description you posted.

The images that come to your mind are a function of your own interpretation of the words. If your judgement of the morality of the act hinges that much on the words used to name the act, then I suggest you are avoiding the issue, and should think more deeply about the act itself.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

In the list of bad things, you have voiced protest for some things (the war in iraq, killing of american soldiers), and support of other things (abortion). why do you choose to support the things you choose to support, and object to the things you object to?

probably in a similar vein to what you do to decide your positions, basing them on our beliefs.

We're talking about rights to the baby's body.

And the "it's natural" thing is just stupid. Naturalness is orthogonal to rightness and wrongness. For instance:
It's more natural for a pregnant woman to have a baby than to kill her own baby. It's definitely more natural to pee on ourselves than to use a specialized room with a porcelin contraption. But we don' t figure "well it happens" and try to make it easier for people to pee on themselves, or make excuses for them to do so. Murder is natural. We don't figure, "well, people are going to do it anyways," and then try to make excuses for people to murder or make it easier for them to do so, or make it easier to avoid the consequences of that action.

so your position is the state has a greater right to the woman's body than she has?

it's more natural "to pee on ourselves"? wow. that's interesting. I see a lot of animals out there, and odd but I don't see a one of them pee on themselves. not the cats, not the dogs, not the squirrels or the birds. seems that nature doesn't validate your claim that we all have a natural tendency to pee on oneself.

"murder is natural"???

seems that we have a mush different view on what is natural.

btw, it is very natural for some woman to not complete the pregnancy, it unfortunately happens daily to women who want to have a child.

The bolded phrase above is your description of the procedure? And you object to "partial birth abortion"? Your description uses those three words in closer proximity than any other. And that's exactly what's described in the wiki description you posted.

The images that come to your mind are a function of your own interpretation of the words. If your judgement of the morality of the act hinges that much on the words used to name the act, then I suggest you are avoiding the issue, and should think more deeply about the act itself.

other than the fact that the fetus is not "birthed" than I guess "partial birth abortion" is applicable. sheesh...

images are provoked by the definition of the words that produce the image. if the fetus is not birthed than the image is inaccurate. doctors never used the phrase "partial birth" because it isn't a birth. I'm not aware of anyone who is basing their judgement of the procedure on its word definition, and at the same time I hope to use words that are factual and accurate in the discussion. why wouldn't you want to do the same?

I'd suggest to not use an inaccurate word but use one that is accurate.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

probably in a similar vein to what you do to decide your positions, basing them on our beliefs.

Obtuse to the end.

so your position is the state has a greater right to the woman's body than she has?

No, his position is that the baby has a right to live.

Apparently, you think the baby doesn't.

other than the fact that the fetus is not "birthed" than I guess "partial birth abortion" is applicable. sheesh...

Do you have children, Mavdog?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

probably in a similar vein to what you do to decide your positions, basing them on our beliefs.

are you being obtuse on purpose? I'm asking what belief you use to choose among the list.

so your position is the state has a greater right to the woman's body than she has?

?? how in the world did you guess that I said that ?? The baby has more right to his or her own body than does the mom.

seems that we have a mush different view on what is natural.

Yes. To define what is "natural" is mush. To define what is right and wrong according to any definition of "natural" is stupid.

other than the fact that the fetus is not "birthed" than I guess "partial birth abortion" is applicable. sheesh...

I'd suggest to not use an inaccurate word but use one that is accurate.

Was this your description of the action?

it was "partially" birthed and then aborted.

Are you quibilling over "partially birthed abortion" versus "partial birth abortion"??

images are provoked by the definition of the words that produce the image. if the fetus is not birthed than the image is inaccurate.

As I think is clearly evident in this thread, we tend to have different definitions for a lot of words. Furthermore whatever images come to mind in reaction to any given word is a function of all the associations the word might have (which I think is clearly a set belonging only to an individual). Some group of people may or may not have a similar set of associations for a given term.

The term "partial birth abortion" makes sense to most people, regardless of any technical or medically jargonistic definition. Give them the term, and they might describe something like the wiki description you posted. Give them the description, and they'd probably agree that the term applies quite well.

As in kg's example above, when you hear "heart attack" you probably don't picture a heart physically attacking a person. You probably think of some event for which doctors have a different, more technical term. If when you hear the term "heart attack" and you can't avoid picturing a heart physically attacking it's owner, or if the application of the term "heart attack" to that event causes you trouble, or you object to it because the imagery is too strong for your taste, then you've probably got some serious issues with the event that you aren't dealing with.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

are you being obtuse on purpose? I'm asking what belief you use to choose among the list.

what "belief"??? what did I "choose"??? the question is inane, the "list" as you call it was merely pointing out that there are many bad things going on.

?? how in the world did you guess that I said that ?? The baby has more right to his or her own body than does the mom.

until the fetus is out of the woman's body imho the woman has the sole rights to her body and everything it emcompasses.

Was this your description of the action?

no, that was pointing out its inaccuracy.

Are you quibilling over "partially birthed abortion" versus "partial birth abortion"??

I'm pointing out the fetus isn't "birth[ed]". therein lies the inaccuracy.

As I think is clearly evident in this thread, we tend to have different definitions for a lot of words. Furthermore whatever images come to mind in reaction to any given word is a function of all the associations the word might have (which I think is clearly a set belonging only to an individual). Some group of people may or may not have a similar set of associations for a given term.

The term "partial birth abortion" makes sense to most people, regardless of any technical or medically jargonistic definition. Give them the term, and they might describe something like the wiki description you posted. Give them the description, and they'd probably agree that the term applies quite well.

As in kg's example above, when you hear "heart attack" you probably don't picture a heart physically attacking a person. You probably think of some event for which doctors have a different, more technical term. If when you hear the term "heart attack" and you can't avoid picturing a heart physically attacking it's owner, or if the application of the term "heart attack" to that event causes you trouble, or you object to it because the imagery is too strong for your taste, then you've probably got some serious issues with the event that you aren't dealing with.

well then, let's start calling a policeman who kills a suspect as having "murdered" the suspect. After all, it is what they did, right?

and then we'll refer to bush as having "killed" the servicemen who died in iraq. after all, it was by way of his ordering them to duty that they died, right?

yes, words have definite positive and negative reactions.

me, I prefer to use accurate words to describe events. The policeman didn't "murder" the suspect, the policeman was performing their job when the suspect pushed the policeman to act. likewise bush didn't "kill" the serviceman, bush sent the serviceman to do their duty and they met an unfortunate demise.

likewise, the fetus was never "birthed" either partially or completely.

[kg_veteran]

Do you have children, Mavdog?

[Mavdog]

yes kg, I do.

[kg_veteran]

I've known you for a while now, and I thought I remembered that you did.

I can't speak for you; only for myself. My children didn't suddenly become people when they were delivered at the hospital; they were people from the moment they were conceived. At about 8 weeks for each of them, I have heard their heartbeat. With each of them, I have seen their tiny little faces and hands and feet on an ultrasound machine. They weren't "fetuses" -- they were people.

My wife is currently pregnant with our third child. She can already feel the baby moving around inside her, but she doesn't say, "Honey, I feel the fetus moving."

Fetus, while a proper medical term when used by doctors, is a dehumanizing term when it is used in the manner that you use it.

Those are people inside the womb -- people that die when they are aborted. It is horrifying for me to hear you or anyone else discuss the snuffing out of a human being's life as if it were the mother's right.

Nobody has that right.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I've known you for a while now, and I thought I remembered that you did.

I can't speak for you; only for myself. My children didn't suddenly become people when they were delivered at the hospital; they were people from the moment they were conceived. At about 8 weeks for each of them, I have heard their heartbeat. With each of them, I have seen their tiny little faces and hands and feet on an ultrasound machine. They weren't "fetuses" -- they were people.

My wife is currently pregnant with our third child. She can already feel the baby moving around inside her, but she doesn't say, "Honey, I feel the fetus moving."

Fetus, while a proper medical term when used by doctors, is a dehumanizing term when it is used in the manner that you use it.

edit:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kg_veteran again.


<edit>
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kg_veteran again.
Those are people inside the womb -- people that die when they are aborted. It is horrifying for me to hear you or anyone else discuss the snuffing out of a human being's life as if it were the mother's right.

Nobody has that right.

Amen.........

Congrats on #3 KG.


Legalized murder is what abortion is ...... nothing more nor anything less.

Call it control of ones body, call it a "right", call it whatever you have to --- so you can justify and live with the murder of an innocent child. It still has the outcome of authorizing the murder of a helpless child. Period.

[dalmations202]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kg_veteran again.

[Mavdog]

I very much value and love my kids. I could never ask my spouse to terminate a pregnancy.

I wish you and your wife much happiness and good health for the new addition to your family.

We disagree as to when life starts in the womb, and what rights the woman has with her body. you view the woman's rights stop at the uterine wall, I don't.

zygote, fetus, embryo. they are all correct words. sorry if their use is disconcerting to you. from my perspective, a baby's life begins when a baby is born.

for instance, if you believe that the rights of the baby override the rights of a mother, would you be in favor of criminal prosecution of the mother for smoking while pregnant? what about drinking alcohol? should they be held criminally liable if they do acts such as dancing that might cause a problem?

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

from my perspective, a baby's life begins when a baby is born.

First off...those well wishes were nice for kg and his family but this statement above is just horsecrap.

for instance, if you believe that the rights of the baby override the rights of a mother, would you be in favor of criminal prosecution of the mother for smoking while pregnant? what about drinking alcohol? should they be held criminally liable if they do acts such as dancing that might cause a problem?

Damn straight when dealing with smoking, drinking, drugs etc. Obviously you are trying to sensationalize again with dancing but if it can be shown that the mother was negligent....damn straight.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I very much value and love my kids. I could never ask my spouse to terminate a pregnancy.

I figured as much. I just have a hard time believing that you and your wife sat around and talked about the "fetus" inside her.

I wish you and your wife much happiness and good health for the new addition to your family.

Thank you.

We disagree as to when life starts in the womb, and what rights the woman has with her body. you view the woman's rights stop at the uterine wall, I don't.

Let's drop the rhetoric, okay?

I think the woman's right to control over her body should end where her child's right to live begins. That's the basic way we look at all other human rights issues -- I don't see why this would be any different.

zygote, fetus, embryo. they are all correct words. sorry if their use is disconcerting to you. from my perspective, a baby's life begins when a baby is born.

It's disconcerting to me because you use the term to somehow suggest that the child inside the woman isn't a human being worthy of protection.

The reason I asked about your kids is because I have a hard time believing that you think your kids weren't human beings until they were delivered at the hospital.

for instance, if you believe that the rights of the baby override the rights of a mother, would you be in favor of criminal prosecution of the mother for smoking while pregnant? what about drinking alcohol? should they be held criminally liable if they do acts such as dancing that might cause a problem?

Those are pretty broad questions, but interesting ones. I don't think that such laws would ever realistically be passed. In all honesty I'd have to think about where I come down on such a theoretical discussion.

[Pirate]

Mavdog
"I'm pointing out the fetus isn't "birth[ed]"
the fetus was never "birthed" either partially or completely.
until the fetus is out of the woman's body imho the woman has the sole rights to her body and everything it emcompasses."
-----------------


The fetus at some point is more than just "part of her body." It is a human unto itself. And since a birth is no more than the baby coming out of the mother, the fact that all but the head is outside the mother when the baby is killed would certainly qualify as partial birth - heck "all but the head" would be about 85%, wouldnt it?

In a PBA (or whatever your term of choice is) one crucial reason part of it is kept inside the mother is to make it a legal kill by keeping part of the baby in the "legal kill zone" so to speak. You take everything but the head out, and then kill the head before you take it out, to keep it legal. That's just vile.

And it's a monstrous stretch, to say that in what you have done there is no birth and that the fetus is not out of the mother's body.

Trying to excuse what everyone otherwise would recognize as indefensible (infanticide) just for the convenience of politics and vote-gathering. No matter how you slice it, that's just nasty.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

from my perspective, a baby's life begins when a baby is born.

What really gets me is how society's perspective on this issue disintegrated from recognizing the child in the womb as a person to suddenly dismissing it as an extension of the mother. It seems like things would have developed the other way around.

Back in the day, a pregnant woman just looked like she had a watermelon in her belly that all of a sudden spat out a kid. If they assumed life began at birth I could hardly blame them.

Nowadays, science has the ability to show us all the details of a developing fetus, down the heartbeat. How anyone can still honestly believe what's inside isn't a person is just unfathomable to me.

The only way these people try to defend their position is to shield themselves behind fancy medical terms. It has the double effect of making the pro-abortionist appear smarter, and shifting the topic into esoteric terminology, which serves no other purpose than to desensitize. In Mavdog's Wikipedia description, it describes the operation as "removing brain tissue". IT'S STILL THE BRAIN YOU DOLT. The word "tissue" is meaningless medically speaking, but it does have a desensitizing effect.

Fancy words don't change the morality of a particular action, do I really need to explain this? A homicide is just as much of a crime whether I call it "slitting his throat" or "making an incision in the jugular vein, releasing fluid until the body can no longer sustain it's normal body temperature."

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

a baby's life begins when a baby is born.

wow..

To elaborate, one hundred million microsecond before a baby is officially born it is still a fetus and it is perfectly morally right to suck it's brains out.. Hell or pull it's legs off like a fly, since it's so much tissue.

You really need to rethink this one mavie.

[chumdawg]

It's too long a speech to post here in its entirety, but if you want to learn more about Obama vis a vis religion and his views on abortion, and if you want to know why I believe he's the Next Big Thing, read this speech:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/06062...ess/index.html

This cat has extraordinary skill. Extraordinary...

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by dude1394

wow..

To elaborate, one hundred million microsecond before a baby is officially born it is still a fetus and it is perfectly morally right to suck it's brains out.. Hell or pull it's legs off like a fly, since it's so much tissue.

You really need to rethink this one mavie.

I guess mavdog doesn't think that little Samuel, a 21 week old "fetus" in this photo is alive. As Dr. Joseph Bruner worked on the "fetus" in utero for a spina bifida surgery the little one's hand grasped the surgeon's finger.

Not alive my ass. And Obama can suck it like mavdog.

[mcsluggo]

First off, I hate abortion. I started calling my babies "my babies" as soon as I found out my wife was pregnant (six, eight weeks, or whatever). And my first daughter was born at 28 weeks (12 weeks early), as a full baby.

Secondly, I'm REALLY REALLY happy that the anti-abortion contingency is finally spending real energy on POSITIVE agendas, and positive messages. My church parish (catholic) now has a large, well funded, group to help "women/teens in trouble", no questions asked with making it through this ordeal: financially, physically, psychologically, spiritually-- whatever is needed. REAL, non-preachy help. They also help women/teens who HAVE already had abortions "heal". Their posters say nothing about the broader abortion debate, make no accusations, just offer to help as needed. Frankly there is still far to little of this actual compassion, and far too much bitter hate and accusations flying around. If people are really concerned about the babies, they should be making EVERY effort to save the ones on the margins,by focusing HELP to the mothers who could go either way (which is probably a majority, or at least large significant minority, of people who have abortions).

but finally, this sort of cuts to the chase about my stand on making abortion ilegal:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Let's drop the rhetoric, okay?

I think the woman's right to control over her body should end where her child's right to live begins. That's the basic way we look at all other human rights issues -- I don't see why this would be any different.

its not a normal human rights issue. The baby CAN NOT survive without the mother. Period. and the reverse is not true. We should do everything in our power to encourage the mother to "do the right thing", including help AVOIDING getting pregnant in the first place and financial/medical/psychological/logistical help for mothers who are pregnant in inconvenient circumstances. But I don't see how, we can simply dictate that in all circumstaces that you-- pregnant woman-- are on the hook for the next nine months. period.

All you republicans used to be about "encouraging individuals to make choices in their own best interst" rather than the state unilaterally making choices for everyone. Frankly it used to be the most appealing aspect of the right. This case is different, but not completely unique: ENCOURAGE/nudge choices, through pro-active supportive policies. I personally don't see many good endings for scenarios where a woman REALLY wants an abortion, but the state makes it illegal to get one.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

its not a normal human rights issue. The baby CAN NOT survive without the mother. Period. and the reverse is not true. We should do everything in our power to encourage the mother to "do the right thing", including help AVOIDING getting pregnant in the first place and financial/medical/psychological/logistical help for mothers who are pregnant in inconvenient circumstances. But I don't see how, we can simply dictate that in all circumstaces that you-- pregnant woman-- are on the hook for the next nine months. period.

All you republicans used to be about "encouraging individuals to make choices in their own best interst" rather than the state unilaterally making choices for everyone. Frankly it used to be the most appealing aspect of the right. This case is different, but not completely unique: ENCOURAGE/nudge choices, through pro-active supportive policies. I personally don't see many good endings for scenarios where a woman REALLY wants an abortion, but the state makes it illegal to get one.

There are also no good outcomes for a woman who really wants to kill her 2 year old, but is not allowed to by the state.
Are you in favor of allowing any completely dependent person to be killed by the person they depend on?

Furthermore, the topic at hand is late term abortions. According to the descriptions above, only the baby's head is in the mom when it's killed. Despite mavdog's objection to the term "partial birth" the only thing keeping the baby dependent on the mom is the desire to kill the baby in a legal manner

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

its not a normal human rights issue. The baby CAN NOT survive without the mother. Period. and the reverse is not true. We should do everything in our power to encourage the mother to "do the right thing", including help AVOIDING getting pregnant in the first place and financial/medical/psychological/logistical help for mothers who are pregnant in inconvenient circumstances. But I don't see how, we can simply dictate that in all circumstaces that you-- pregnant woman-- are on the hook for the next nine months. period.

If we want to be blunt about it, the baby cannot survive without his/her mother AFTER birth, either. Mom still has to clothe, feed, shelter, and protect her baby in order for the baby to survive. Still, guess what? Mom is on the hook for 18 YEARS, not just nine months.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy your distinction. I think this is clearly a human rights issue.

All you republicans used to be about "encouraging individuals to make choices in their own best interst" rather than the state unilaterally making choices for everyone. Frankly it used to be the most appealing aspect of the right. This case is different, but not completely unique: ENCOURAGE/nudge choices, through pro-active supportive policies. I personally don't see many good endings for scenarios where a woman REALLY wants an abortion, but the state makes it illegal to get one.

Right now, the mom is making a choice for the child, and that choice is whether the child lives or dies. Your objection is you don't want the state to tell the mom she has no choice? I'm sorry, but that's not a valid objection, either.

The state regularly tells people that they don't have the choice to do certain things. For example, you aren't allowed to kill people, steal their money, or drive 75 mph in a 65 mph zone.

We are talking about late-term abortions here, and I don't think there's any question that the right to live should supercede the mother's desire not to be pregnant.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It's too long a speech to post here in its entirety, but if you want to learn more about Obama vis a vis religion and his views on abortion, and if you want to know why I believe he's the Next Big Thing, read this speech:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/06062...ess/index.html

This cat has extraordinary skill. Extraordinary...

I read the whole thing. It was a very well-written speech that does a great job of explaining why progressives don't connect well with evangelical/religious voters.

I particularly liked this excerpt:

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

This is exactly the argument I have made a number of times on this board on issues ranging from abortion to gay marriage. A number of people have suggested that personal morality (particularly that which is based upon religious beliefs) should not form the basis of public policy. As Obama points out, that is a practical absurdity.

I also agreed with this excerpt:

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

If a person doesn't share my faith in God, their values are not going to be based on the same things as mine are. I believe that I have always tried to explain logically and rationally why I take a certain position, and even if you don't agree with my religious views, you can understand logically why I believe what I believe.

Applying that to the issue of abortion, I think that the scientific and objective evidence about when human life begins is pointing more and more towards my view, without any reference whatsoever to my religious beliefs. (See, for example, the picture that Doc posted above.) I talk about my children and how my experience with them has shaped my views, because that is something that all people (who have children) can relate to, not just people who share my religious beliefs.

Make no mistake about it: opposition to partial-birth abortion is the majority view because it is not only supported by religious beliefs, but also by scientific fact.