What will it take to change attitudes towards abortion?

Archive From The 'Tank
Locked
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25372
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

SoulBiter wrote:Wow
It is deeply regrettable, and utterly counter-productive, that the U.S. bishops have allowed themselves to become an arm of the Republican Party.
To the writer of that article, "Partisan much"?
RR the article is arguing for the right to life .. and seem to be wanting Democrat Catholics to raise their voices against abortion. You are both pro life so would think you would embrace the sentiments? I guess they feel that Republican Catholics need to raise their voices more loudly against abortion.

Cail, which particular party are the Whores you speak of? At least regarding the Catholic Churches position on abortion, you and they are allies, no?
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Cail
Lord
Posts: 38981
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:36 am
Location: Hell of the Upside Down Sinners

Post by Cail »

I was referring to the catholic church, who will cozy up to anyone who will support their bizarre position of the moment. My beliefs regarding the killing of babies has nothing to do with any church's position, and I don't consider them an ally. They're technically right, but the reasoning they use to get to that position is wrong.

More to the point, why do you care? As many people have asked you in the past few days, this has nothing to do with you yet you seem to feel the need to interject yourself into it. You're not deeply catholic, nor are you pro-life, yet here you are putting yourself into this discussion. Why?

You think it's okay to kill babies. I don't. You're the one with the indefensible position.

Watch the video and then tell me that what you saw wasn't a human baby.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25372
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

Well I suspect this is an abortion of a foetus .. and ..

On your continuing issue with my interjections .. what can I say? I follow many threads in the Tank and wondered why you both would have a go at this particular article Wos posted.

Simply because Wos posted it?

Im neither Catholic and nor what you would describe pro life ... that is true.

But I respect this particular poster .. and it would seem his politics are for the most part conservative yet he has a sense of social justice for the most part I admire. And he has posted an article that supports pro lifers.

I believe in giving credit where credit is due. You dont see that as a ball in your and RRs corner .. I did.

I figure there is something that unites you as you are all on a similar page.

But I really dont need to explain myself to you Cail. Youre not my boss. I do what I want. And sometimes I like to point out simple shit like that.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6135
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Inter-Thread Trackback: #1


Bishop says N.Y. abortion bill is 'Death Star' that must not become law [In-Depth]
Image
In this 2015 file photo, Bishop Edward B. Scharfenberger of Albany, N.Y., is seen at the Crypt Church of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington. (Credit: Bob Roller/CNS)


ALBANY, New York -- Albany's Catholic bishop has called on New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to stop the "Death Star" as he called a bill in the state Legislature to expand current state law on abortion that has the full backing of Cuomo, a Catholic.

"Although in your recent State of the State address you cited your Catholic faith and said we should 'stand with Pope Francis,' your advocacy of extreme abortion legislation is completely contrary to the teachings of our pope and our church," said Bishop Edward B. Scharfenberger.

"Once truth is separated from fiction and people come to realize the impact of the bill, they will be shocked to their core," he said in an open letter to Cuomo published Jan. 19 on the website of The Evangelist, Albany's diocesan newspaper. "By that time, however, it may be too late to save the countless lives that will be lost or spare countless women lifelong regret."

Introduced in the Legislature the week of Jan. 7, the Reproductive Health Act, or RHA, is known as S. 240 in the state Senate and A. 21 in the state Assembly. Cuomo has promised it will pass both houses within the first 30 days of the legislative session.

"The so-called Reproductive Health Act (RHA) will expand abortion under the pretenses of choice and progress, which, in fact, it will do little to enhance," Scharfenberger said. "At the same time, this legislation threatens to rupture the communion between the Catholic faith and those who support the RHA even while professing to follow the church, something that troubles me greatly as a pastor."

[...]

In his letter in The Evangelist, Scharfenberger wrote that despite what supporters claim, the Reproductive Health Act "goes far beyond Roe v. Wade in its aggressive extremism."

He outlined several of its provisions:
  • "Granting nondoctors permission to perform abortions does nothing to advance the security and health of women."
  • "Condoning coerced or involuntary abortions by repealing criminal sanctions even in cases where a perpetrator seeks to make his partner 'un-pregnant' through an act of physical violence does not represent any kind of progress in the choice, safety or health of women."
  • "Removing protection for an infant accidentally born alive during an abortion is abject cruelty, something most people of conscience would deem inhumane for even a dog or cat."
  • "Finally, allowing late-term abortions is nothing less than a license to kill a pre-born child at will."
The bishop told Cuomo: "It is very difficult to understand how you can align yourself with Pope Francis and so vehemently advocate such profoundly destructive legislation."

Scharfenberger also expressed the concern being voiced by pro-life leaders in the state, that "if abortion is deemed a fundamental right in New York state," the consequences for the pro-life movement could be dire.

"Will being pro-life one day be a hate crime in the state of New York?" he asked.

[...]

"Giving up on life is no excuse for us as a responsible and compassionate people," Scharfenberger said. "In so doing, we evade the challenge of accompanying women and the families they are trying to nurture on the long journey. They deserve our courageous and ongoing support in creating conditions under which they will be free to bear and provide for their children."

Society can and must do better, he said, adding that Pope Francis always reminds all people of faith that their mission is "to support the lives of all, especially the voiceless, the most vulnerable and marginalized." He said today's leaders must not "bequeath to our children a culture of death, but together build a more humane society for the lives of all of our fellow citizens."

"Mr. Cuomo, do not build this Death Star," Scharfenberger concluded.


Image
User avatar
Cail
Lord
Posts: 38981
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:36 am
Location: Hell of the Upside Down Sinners

Post by Cail »

Va. Republicans share video of lawmaker backing late-term abortions, Democrats call it an 'orchestrated attack'
A video clip of a first-term Virginia lawmaker saying she would allow abortions up until the moment of birth went viral in conservative media circles Tuesday night, with Republicans saying it amounted to "barbaric infanticide" and Democrats accusing Republicans of an election-year stunt.

The clip shared on social media by the House of Delegates GOP caucus Twitter account shows Del. Kathy Tran, D-Fairfax, presenting a bill on Monday that would have lifted a variety of state-level abortion restrictions.

Video

Tran's legislation would have loosened rules on the legality of third-term abortion, which is currently only allowed if three doctors conclude a woman's life or health is at a severe risk. Tran's bill would have significantly lowered those standards, allowing third-trimester abortion on the advice of one doctor who could allow an abortion by certifying a pregnancy would "impair the mental or physical health of the woman."

With a camera close by, House Majority Leader Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, the subcommittee chairman, questioned Tran about that provision, asking the Democrat if her legislation would let a woman ask for a late-term abortion for mental health reasons.

"Where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth ... she has physical signs that she is about to give birth would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified? If she's dilating?," Gilbert asked.

Tran responded: "Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman would make at that point."

"I understand that," Gilbert said. "I'm asking if your bill allows that."

Tran said: "My bill would allow that, yes."

n a pivotal election year with control of the House at stake, Republicans set to work spreading the video, characterizing it as a ghoulish display of the types of abortion policies that could become law in Virginia without GOP majorities to block them.

"@VAHouseDems proposed legislation to provide abortions up to just seconds before that precious child takes their first breath. Watch for yourself," read the post from the House Republicans' Twitter account Tuesday afternoon.

As of Wednesday morning, the video had been viewed 1.59 million times and had been shared by numerous conservative media outlets and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, who said the video "literally makes me sick to my stomach."

Tran took down her own Twitter account after the criticism began, and other Democratic lawmakers whose names are attached to the bill have been caught up in the backlash.

In a statement released Wednesday morning, Tran said lawmakers should "trust women to make their own healthcare decisions."

"These decisions are personal and private, and they are made in consultation with doctors who are using their best medical judgement," Tran said. "I regret that these partisan games have taken the focus away from where it should be: on the Virginian women who have asked for this bill to get politicians out of their private medical decisions."

The Republican Party of Virginia called on other Democrats to "take a stand against barbaric infanticide in Virginia."

Though the comments from an inexperienced lawmaker could reappear later this year as Republicans try to hold their slight majority, Tran is not the first, nor the only Democratic lawmaker to advocate for looser rules on late-term abortions.

"It was an orchestrated attack," said Kathryn Gilley, a spokeswoman for the House Democratic Caucus. By posting video of the exchane, Gilley said Republican leaders had invited a "firestorm of attacks" against Tran over "something she was not advocating for."

State Sen. Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond, who has served in the General Assembly since 2006, carried a similar bill this year.

When she presented her bill in a Senate committee earlier this month, McClellan argued that it's misguided to believe that women would seek late-term abortions for frivolous reasons.

"You don't get to the third trimester and seek an abortion lightly. You don't get to the third trimester and wake up and say: 'I've changed my mind,' " McClellan said. "You seek an abortion because something has gone horribly wrong."

The Senate committee voted McClellan's bill down without extensive questioning.

And as if that wasn't enough, the governor of the Commonwealth decided to double down...

Virginia Governor Defends Letting Infants Die
This morning on WTOP's "Ask The Governor," Virginia governor Ralph Northam defended the new abortion bill introduced by state Democrats this month, the Repeal Act, which would legalize abortion up to the point of birth.

The interviewer brought up Monday's committee hearing, during which Democratic delegate Kathy Tran, the chief sponsor of the bill, stated that her legislation would allow a woman to receive an abortion even while she was going into labor. The host then asked Northam whether he supports the bill and asked him to explain Tran's comment.

"This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved," Northam said. "When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physician - more than one physician, by the way - and it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's non-viable."

Northam is either unaware of the specifics of the bill, or he's lying about them. Tran's legislation explicitly removes the current requirement that three physicians agree that a woman is in need of a late-term abortion. The new bill would require only the consent of the mother and of the physician performing the abortion. But he went on to say something even more heinous.

"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," he continued. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

He added that he thinks the furor over the bill and Tran's comments "was really blown out of proportion."

Video

Update: Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) released a statement this afternoon in response to Northam's comments. Sasse is the author of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would impose penalties on physicians that refuse medical care to infants born alive in botched abortion procedures. "This is morally repugnant," Sasse said of Northam's comments. "In just a few years pro-abortion zealots went from 'safe, legal, and rare' to 'keep the newborns comfortable while the doctor debates infanticide.' I don't care what party you're from - if you can't say that it's wrong to leave babies to die after birth, get the hell out of public office."

Spokespersons for Virginia senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, both Democrats, have not yet responded to National Review's request for comment on the bill.
So we can now dispense of any pretense that pro choice is not pro abortion. Life of the mother argument? Gone! You want eugenics? I give you the Democrat party.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7383
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

I'm assuming these states are pushing these abortion rights through before RBG retires and is replaced out of fear that Roe Vs Wade will be overturned by a conservative Supreme Court?
Will the individual State abortion laws stay in place if that happens?
I think so.

I still have to laugh that the Catholic Church is still trying to hold some kind of moral high ground about anything.

These new State laws sound extreme but are they really new/different?
I always thought that so long as the baby is still attached via the umbilical cord legally anything could be done. If the mother killed it by smothering the baby for example no charges could be brought against her.
A murderer that kills a pregnant mother can't be charged with murdering the unborn child.
Isn't it really just legally defining it better?

I'm still pro-choice though.
I don't want anyone telling my wife, daughter, sister....what they can or can't do with their bodies.
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Cail
Lord
Posts: 38981
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:36 am
Location: Hell of the Upside Down Sinners

Post by Cail »

No. People who have killed pregnant women have been charged with two counts of murder (Scott Peterson for example), and this law would legalize what Kermit Gosnell was prosecuted for.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
User avatar
Orlion
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Getting there...
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Orlion »

So the law is the absolute, undeniable source of true definitions, got it.
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
User avatar
Cail
Lord
Posts: 38981
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:36 am
Location: Hell of the Upside Down Sinners

Post by Cail »

Orlion wrote:So the law is the absolute, undeniable source of true definitions, got it.
Not sure why you'd think that, nor what the context of this statement is. Care to elaborate?

The law is the absolute, undeniable source of legal definitions, so there's that. That means that - based on the clear words the author of this bill and the governor used - that a woman can decide to abort her child during childbirth. The governor literally stated that the child would be set on a table while the mother and the doctor conversed. There's zero ambiguity that a third trimester baby is viable. So at this point, the mother's health isn't in danger. This is straight-up infanticide by any definition.

And about that birthing-table discussion...The bill doesn't specify "doctor", which means that this conversation could be a midwife, doula, nurse....anyone.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
User avatar
Rawedge Rim
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5248
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Rawedge Rim »

High Lord Tolkien wrote:I'm assuming these states are pushing these abortion rights through before RBG retires and is replaced out of fear that Roe Vs Wade will be overturned by a conservative Supreme Court?
Will the individual State abortion laws stay in place if that happens?
I think so.

I still have to laugh that the Catholic Church is still trying to hold some kind of moral high ground about anything.

These new State laws sound extreme but are they really new/different?
I always thought that so long as the baby is still attached via the umbilical cord legally anything could be done. If the mother killed it by smothering the baby for example no charges could be brought against her.
A murderer that kills a pregnant mother can't be charged with murdering the unborn child.
Isn't it really just legally defining it better?

I'm still pro-choice though.
I don't want anyone telling my wife, daughter, sister....what they can or can't do with their bodies.
1. Don't know why the Church should be trying for moral high ground? Really?

2. No one can tll your wife, daughter, sister, aunt, etc. what to do with thier bodies. OTOH you don't make killing another person okay either. And frankly in this so called modern age there is absolutely no reason for someone to become pregnant against thier wishes, as birth control is fairly inexpensive (about $30 american) a month. Condoms are even cheaper.
“One accurate measurement is worth a
thousand expert opinions.”
- Adm. Grace Hopper

"Whenever you dream, you're holding the key, it opens the the door to let you be free" ..RJD
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

If the viable fetus is coming down the birth canal and then the mother and doctor decide to abort then that is no longer an abortion but pure, unadulterated murder.

The Democratic Party is now definitely the Party Who Kills Children.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25372
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

Rawedge Rim wrote:
High Lord Tolkien wrote:I'm assuming these states are pushing these abortion rights through before RBG retires and is replaced out of fear that Roe Vs Wade will be overturned by a conservative Supreme Court?
Will the individual State abortion laws stay in place if that happens?
I think so.

I still have to laugh that the Catholic Church is still trying to hold some kind of moral high ground about anything.

These new State laws sound extreme but are they really new/different?
I always thought that so long as the baby is still attached via the umbilical cord legally anything could be done. If the mother killed it by smothering the baby for example no charges could be brought against her.
A murderer that kills a pregnant mother can't be charged with murdering the unborn child.
Isn't it really just legally defining it better?

I'm still pro-choice though.
I don't want anyone telling my wife, daughter, sister....what they can or can't do with their bodies.
1. Don't know why the Church should be trying for moral high ground? Really?

2. No one can tll your wife, daughter, sister, aunt, etc. what to do with thier bodies. OTOH you don't make killing another person okay either. And frankly in this so called modern age there is absolutely no reason for someone to become pregnant against thier wishes, as birth control is fairly inexpensive (about $30 american) a month. Condoms are even cheaper.
1. RR prolly given the established systemic child abuse reports

2. Agree. Birth control is one of the reasons abortion rates have declined.

And where an abortion is necessary .. and there are circumstances where the health and wellbeing of a pregnant woman IS at risk .. you wouldnt want a law preventing an abortion under those circumstances would you?
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9280
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Post by SoulBiter »

There were already laws on the books that cover the situation Sky.

What is on the books is legalizing the murder of an infant.

I'm reminded of these lyrics.
United States of America
Looks like another silent night
As we're sung to sleep by philosophies
That save the trees and kill the children
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25372
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

😔
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
sgt.null
Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
Posts: 47250
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Brazoria, Texas
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by sgt.null »

Recognizing that life is more important than convienence.
Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23645
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Rawedge Rim wrote:1. Don't know why the Church should be trying for moral high ground? Really?
I took what he said to mean he doesn't know why the Church thinks it has the moral high ground.
SoulBiter wrote:There were already laws on the books that cover the situation Sky.

What is on the books is legalizing the murder of an infant.

I'm reminded of these lyrics.
United States of America
Looks like another silent night
As we're sung to sleep by philosophies
That save the trees and kill the children
I find it ironic that we can't do this or that because of some frog that lives there. How a frog has higher standing in our legal system than a human fetus is beyond me.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
TheFallen
Master of Innominate Surquedry
Posts: 3155
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:16 pm
Location: Guildford, UK
Has thanked: 1 time

Post by TheFallen »

High Lord Tolkien wrote:I still have to laugh that the Catholic Church is still trying to hold some kind of moral high ground about anything.
No shit, Sherlock.
High Lord Tolkien wrote:These new State laws sound extreme but are they really new/different?
I always thought that so long as the baby is still attached via the umbilical cord legally anything could be done. If the mother killed it by smothering the baby for example no charges could be brought against her.
A murderer that kills a pregnant mother can't be charged with murdering the unborn child.
Isn't it really just legally defining it better?
Please someone tell me that HLT's assumptions are just plain wrong here. These new State laws surely *must* be different?

Mind you, having read about the quite literally jaw-dropping views of Delegate Kathy Tran and Governor Ralph Northam, perhaps my incredulity is misplaced? What the actual fuck is the matter with these people? How the actual fuck do they get elected to any sort of public office?
High Lord Tolkien wrote:I'm still pro-choice though.
I don't want anyone telling my wife, daughter, sister....what they can or can't do with their bodies.
I am likewise still pro-choice - not for religious grounds, nor in fact for any reason that can clearly be logically delineated or rationally ring-fenced. I won't get into that shades of grey discussion again right now.

HOWEVER I'm first trimester ONLY pro-choice. I have massive issues with second trimester abortions. But THIRD TRIMESTER??? To support abortion during that is being blatantly pro-murder, not pro-choice against any even infinitesimally faint rational standard...

I remain utterly gobsmacked.
Newsflash: the word "irony" doesn't mean "a bit like iron" :roll:

Shockingly, some people have claimed that I'm egocentric... but hey, enough about them

"If you strike me down, I shall become far stronger than you can possibly imagine."
_______________________________________________
I occasionally post things here because I am invariably correct on all matters, a thing which is educational for others less fortunate.
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7383
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

Skyweir wrote: 1. RR prolly given the established systemic child abuse reports
This.
The Catholic church is so horrific in this regard I'm not joking that I think they're against abortion because it lowers the numbers of children that priests get to rape and abuse.
Skyweir wrote:And where an abortion is necessary .. and there are circumstances where the health and wellbeing of a pregnant woman IS at risk .. you wouldnt want a law preventing an abortion under those circumstances would you?
No.
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Orlion
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Getting there...
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Orlion »

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
The Democratic Party is now definitely the Party Who Kills Children.
At long last, the Republicans and Democrats are joined together under the banner of murdering children! ;)

Sure, the methods to accomplish this must noble of causes are often and passionately disputed, but the ends! The glorious ends!

And to add something of minor substance, I will eventually share why I'm pro choice and why the question of personhood does not matter in its legality or morality. In fact, the question of personhood is a huge red herring so long as current social norms on medical procedures are widely adhered to.

This would also render such ridiculous arguments as "the rights of the father" even more pointless and point out that pro-life argumentation, in the current moral environment, is just a case of special pleading that is rarely held to in other aspects of life and is not in legal matters.

But that's a long post into the Void, so advance thanks to Z for probably being the only one to read and engage with that particular future post! :P
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7383
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

Just tossing this out there...
Following the path of the NY law, why isn't there (or is there?) a law that allows the mother to give the baby up at that point rather than abort?
No legal responsibility and child comes under the care or a ward of the State?
Would that satisfy everyone?

Seems like a win win. Why is that not an option?
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
Locked

Return to “Coercri”