Zguy28 Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 Another video released today. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/30/call-it-research-not-business-planned-parenthood-doc-says-in-latest-sting-video/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Ok, so now we are talking candidates? That's not what I took from your first post. I don't disagree about those guys, but to set the record straight, for Joe conservative, the issue isn't with reproductive rights, its for the right to live for the unborn baby. Isn't that why some places give a double murder charge for murdering a pregnant woman? Yes I was talking candidates and lawmakers. However, I'm fine with the average Joe conservative being for the government intervention into a woman's reproductive choices as long as they don't pretend to be for "limited government", because at that point they're just being hypocrites and liars because all they mean when they say "I'm for limited government" is "I'm for limited government as long as its something that doesn't conflict with my ideology. When it conflicts with my ideology then I am a big government guy". I'm also fine with them being against it as long as they're not against programs that either directly in indirectly help living children, mostly the poor. I won't hold my breath for either of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 So a 22-year-old dip**** tells me yesterday at work that PP is evil, chick wants a Lamborghini, etc. I challenged him to dig just half as deep as I LIVE, and tell me the same thing. Gave him links & whatnot. He went straight to Google. Not where I sent him. Then I hear, "I can't find that link." What part of "see this" or "go here & read this" is not understood? Last week we had an argument about what temp water is best for industrial sanitizer. (answer: cold, as it tends to negate bacteria, which grows in heat.) Dude googled, didn't follow any links, then argued with me, and the other 2 people in the building who are ServSafe Certified. Because he was taught differently at some other norealfood restaurant. If you won't/don't find your own info, STFU when people twice your age are telling you something. Btw, I'm almost 10 years older than his mom, so this actually didn't surprise me as much as piss me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 If you won't/don't find your own info, STFU when people twice your age are telling you something. Btw, I'm almost 10 years older than his mom, so this actually didn't surprise me as much as piss me off. " I feel pretty, oh so pretty, so pretty and witty and bright"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 I notice you picked an anti-abortion web site, to cite for your statistics. But I went to the more neutral site which they got their stats from. And, while I'm not seeing the exact stat I'm looking for, it does look like the stats I'm seeing sure make me think I'm remembering wrong. I was under the impression that something like 90% of abortions were of the form of "take this pill and go home. And come back in two weeks for a follow up." We weren't afforded the "morning after" pill until recent years. My guess is that you were either joking or are seriously lacking knowledge on this subject. Either way, jeez. Another reason why dudes should just stay out of this topic...unless they or their moms want to take care of a baby, which is how I've seen it usually goes. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 So this seems to be the pro-life argument: 1. Killing an innocent human being is wrong. 2. Abortion involves killing an innocent human being. 3. Therefore abortion is wrong. The argument certainly looks sound, and I have to admit I find it compelling, but I suspect a lot hinges on the use of the term "human being" here, you might say it is an equivocation. ____________________________ On the flip side, there is an interesting thought experiment by a pro-choice philosopher that we might consider: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Abortion.htm "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, 'Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.' Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. 'Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.' I imagine you would regard this as outrageous." I have to say this has some intuitive force, as it gets at the idea that the person asked to make the sacrifice has a right to her own body, but I suspect it might be a false analogy. Anyway have at it if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.'...until we plug him into our Military System, but even then, most of his care will depend on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 On the flip side, I read an interesting thought experiment by a pro-choice philosopher that we might consider: It's a classic analogy. My ethics class spent a week looking at it, and at several of the arguments from other philosophers, that referenced it. There's lots of classic ways to try to dismiss it, too. The classic is to argue that the pregnant mother-to-be consented to becoming pregnant, when she had sex. Although the piece you're referencing actually anticipated that argument, by positing that well, maybe you have bought a ticket to one of the violinist's concerts. Which then allows us to delve into "well, buying a concert ticket does not constitute consent to becoming a life support system". And "well, neither does having sex, in a lot of cases." Me, I pointed out a flaw in the analogy that I thought actually tilts things in the other direction. The violinist is absolutely, unarguably, a person. Whereas the fertilized egg, it's at least arguable. (Despite the efforts by one side of the argument to claim otherwise.) And, I recognize, that "flaw" is actually a part of the author's argument: He's arguing that even if you assert that the fetus absolutely, positively, is a person, that still doesn't create an obligation on your part to donate your body to serve as it's life support system. I confess, I've forgotten the other pieces I read, that referenced this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Me, I pointed out a flaw in the analogy that I thought actually tilts things in the other direction. The violinist is absolutely, unarguably, a person. Whereas the fertilized egg, it's at least arguable. (Despite the efforts by one side of the argument to claim otherwise.) And, I recognize, that "flaw" is actually a part of the author's argument: He's arguing that even if you assert that the fetus absolutely, positively, is a person, that still doesn't create an obligation on your part to donate your body to serve as it's life support system. The abortion debate usually comes down to whether or not a fetus is a person. The pro-choice side tends to define "person" too loosely, and the pro-life side tends to define "person" too strictly. You might say a person must be rational, but then you exclude infants and people with mental disabilities. You might say a person is anything genetically human, but then you include cancer cells. Anyway that ground gets muddy. The nice thing about the violinist example is it avoids that ground entirely (as you note), instead focusing on a person's right to her own body, which I think is the strength of the pro-choice position. The trouble with it is (again, as you note) that it doesn't involve the element of personal responsibility that pregnancy (usually) does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-cut-planned-parenthoods-funds-increase-them/2015/07/31/fe66aad8-379e-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html Defunding Planned Parenthood would actually increase abortions If you are among those who view abortion tantamount to murder, I respect your belief. But consider: Defunding Planned Parenthood would inevitably result in more unplanned pregnancies and therefore more abortions, not fewer. In fact, if you really want to reduce the number of abortions, you should be lobbying to increase funding for Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide birth control. An important reminder: The federal money that goes to the organization cannot be used to underwrite its abortion services except in some rare exceptions. Sure, money is fungible but this funding comes with strict rules about commingling federal dollars with money and facilities used to perform abortions. Rather, defunding Planned Parenthood would mean taking away money that it receives from the federal government for contraception and other essential services. Among low-income women who receive publicly supported contraceptive care at clinics, more than one-third use Planned Parenthood clinics, according to the Guttmacher Institute. It is no answer to breezily suggest that women obtain birth control elsewhere. The capacity to serve this population does not exist and won’t magically spring up overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Something from the pro-life side that I like: http://www.hnp.org/publications/hnpfocus/BConsistentEthic1983.pdf The central idea in the letter is the sacredness of human life and the responsibility we have, personally and socially, to protect and preserve the sanctity of life. Precisely because life is sacred, the taking of even one human life is a momentous event. . . . Attitude is the place to root an ethic of life, but ultimately ethics is about principles to guide the actions of individuals and institutions. It is therefore necessary to illustrate, at least by way of example, my proposition that an inner relationship does exist among several issues not only at the level of general attitude but at the more specific level of moral principles. Two examples will serve to indicate the point. The first is contained in The Challenge of Peace in the connection drawn between Catholic teaching on war and Catholic teaching on abortion. Both, of course, must be seen in light of an attitude of respect for life. The more explicit connection is based on the principle which prohibits the directly intended taking of innocent human life. The principle is at the heart of Catholic teaching on abortion; it is because the fetus is judged to be both human and not an aggressor that Catholic teaching concludes that direct attack on fetal life is always wrong. This is also why we insist that legal protection be given to the unborn. The same principle yields the most stringent, binding and radical conclusion of the pastoral letter: that directly intended attacks on civilian centers are always wrong. The bishops seek to highlight the power of this conclusion by specifying its implications in two ways: first, such attacks would be wrong even if our cities had been hit first; second, anyone asked to execute such attacks should refuse orders. These two extensions of the principle cut directly into the policy debate on nuclear strategy and the personal decisions of citizens. James Reston referred to them as “an astonishing challenge to the power of the state.” The use of this principle exemplifies the meaning of a consistent ethic of life. The principle which structures both cases, war and abortion, needs to be upheld in both places. It cannot be successfully sustained on one count and simultaneously eroded in a similar situation. When one carries this principle into the public debate today, however, one meets significant opposition from very different places on the political and ideological spectrum. Some see clearly the application of the principle to abortion but contend the bishops overstepped their bounds when they applied it to choices about national security. Others understand the power of the principle in the strategic debate, but find its application on abortion a violation of the realm of private choice. I contend the viability of the principle depends upon the consistency of its application. The issue of consistency is tested in a different way when we examine the relationship between the “right to life” and “quality of life” issues. I must confess that I think the relationship of these categories is inadequately understood in the Catholic community itself. My point is that the Catholic position on abortion demands of us and of society that we seek to influence an heroic social ethic. If one contends, as we do, that the right of every fetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus, then our moral, political and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. Such a quality of life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care. Consistency means we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility. Right to life and quality of life complement each other in domestic social policy. They are also complementary in foreign policy. . . . I have a great deal of respect for this view. Life is sacred, and our ethics should protect it "from womb to tomb." Although I'll note this doesn't seem to be the view of much of the pro-life camp, the universal application of the pro-life principle is praiseworthy, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Hard to support PP giving out birth control when you also believe that birth control should be illegal because it interferes with gods plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Something from the pro-life side that I like: http://www.hnp.org/publications/hnpfocus/BConsistentEthic1983.pdf I have a great deal of respect for this view. Life is sacred, and our ethics should protect it from "womb to tomb." Although I'll note this doesn't seem to be the view of much of the pro-life camp, the universal application of the pro-life principle is praiseworthy, in my opinion. I'd have a lot more respect for the pro-life position if it was from womb to tomb. I very well might choose that side myself. However, it is not. Mostly, it's from womb to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. The pro life side often is antagonistic towards the ACA, welfare, the foster system, school lunches, public school, and practically any support anyone tries to provide for a child or infant. Life doesn't end at birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 I'd have a lot more respect for the pro-life position if it was from womb to tomb. I very well might choose that side myself. However, it is not. Mostly, it's from womb to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. The pro life side often is antagonistic towards the ACA, welfare, the foster system, school lunches, public school, and practically any support anyone tries to provide for a child or infant. Life doesn't end at birth. Neither political party in this country is womb to tomb - which is pretty sad. We have the resources to make life livable for everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 But Zguy, you (and many of shared views) hypocritically support baby and child murder---and do so much more "directly" as I am referring to human beings who are out of the womb and living and with zero debate as to their status. (Going forth, whatever pronouns I use in my comments are are not addressing Zguy specifically, and are being applied to all whom the shoe may fit in terms of their views.) You do this any time there's been a major US military action where non-combatants are killed by our armed forces---and here I focus on babies and children given the topic---and you've supported said action, however reluctantly and painfully re: the loss of life--just as is the case with many who support or have had an abortion in their family. This is one reason (just one) why "pro-life" is really one of the more character-indicting terms one group ever used to describe its position while simultaneously besmirching (the "anti-life") supporters of current abortion laws. The selectivity (and accompanying deep hypocrisy) with which moral standards are applied by so many conservative Christians on various topics is staggering, as is often pointed out in matters of human sexuality, too. All the rationalizations we give as a culture to accept the reality of "collateral damage" essentially emerge from the same back and forth social dynamics as those involving accepting/rejecting abortion, other than there still is a great debate as to whether that fetus is "truly/fully a human life" and at what stage. Not so popular now (change for convenience, indeed), but "spilling your seed on the ground" was often taught as offensive to god as actual abortion is now---once, the only 'ok" reason to have sex "in god's eyes" was to procreate. But that's just other examples of how willy-nilly these morality plays are conducted. Back to this: Collateral damage is something we KNOW will happen much of the time. We "painfully and reluctantly go ahead" anyway. That's premeditated, and those kids are not threatening our lives---it's not self defense. Nor do we have any debate as to their post-womb ambulatory functional status. What follows in arguments against collateral damage being framed as "murdering babies and kids" is rationalization, and stretched far moreso than in abortion. Beyond the fact that we're supporting the premeditated killing of many innocent babies and children (and often have) one could add we don't care as much (aren't remotely as concerned, rarely discuss it) because we've crafted an "excusing" narrative we buy. It ain't our kids anyway and the people we bomb have it coming, we didn't start it, and we do everything we can to avoid it, and it's tragic but we have no real choice...blah blah blah. I don't picture the Jesus from the Bible saying "yeah, that makes sense--ya gotta do what ya gotta do, and it ain't your fault--those people 'started it' and forced your hand." And when you get right down to the real ugly part (arguably), many of we citizens accept this murdering of fully formed humans mainly because politicians we don't trust anyway TELL US we "need to do this for national security." Keep in mind, I accept all this myself, as I do abortion. I also think restraints and controls we put on these sort of things are an important part of the matter, while hoping it's also all part of what we work on to change for the better as we (hopefully) evolve. But until you're truly preaching and living "not taking another life" and "turn the other cheek", quit the sanctimonious posturing with the "sanctity of babies" (btw, are adolescent or adult lives less important to Jesus, "innocence" aside?) in such selective manner. And next time you talk about "murdering babies", go look in the mirror. You've likely supported it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Just posting a counter-argument that I'm sure will follow, though: The collateral damage that occurs in a war, while we know it's going to happen, is a random, unintended consequence of the act. Whereas the death in an abortion is it's intended consequence, and a particular life is it's target. Our society does, for example, distinguish between people who get shot accidentally, and intentionally. ---------- Now, me? I support abortion rights. Because I think that society is better off if prospective parents have a kind of "cooling off period", in which to contemplate the severity of the obligation they're about to assume. Because I think society is better off, if children are brought into the world by people who wanted to have them. So, I guess you could at least make the analogy to my position, that I'm thinking of the fetus as collateral damage. I don't think it's an exact analogy. But there's parts of it that fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 I stated everything needed afaic in my post. Your (larry) distinctions (and many others) are already addressed if you want to re-read carefully. E.G. "Collateral damage" is not "accidental" (or "random" or "unintentional") even in general, and is/was known to be inevitable in many specific cases. Those are word games. I'd go with "necessary evil" as a more honest and valid "word game" option, if still quite challengeable. Again, re-read the post. So I won't likely be replying to more of the same as that was intended to be pretty much a one and done post where the length is me covering everything I know people are going to say ahead of time (as also indicated in the post) and the "rebuttals" are "built" right into the original post. Just to give that last comment more context--while it is "my creation", of course it's not a line of thought just pulled out of my ass and thrown together for this thread in the ES tailgate and seeing the light of day for the first time. Nor is "my own head" the sole determinant of its worth as a line of thought--reinforcement for that has occurred in many meaningful venues and circumstances. How anyone reacts to it is absolutely fine with me (really). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 sounds more like survival of the fittest , probably better off w/o some reproducing.....or living. fun balancing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 well, "fittest" is a whole 'nother bag of worms within a barrel of worm bags inside a warehouse of such barrels, and it's hard to find a really comprehensive metaphor for even a general human perception of life...but working off "fun balancing", i could take "skipping blindfolded on a greased balance beam laid across a canyon" and probably roll with it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 ya'll can have the pro-life /pro-choice monikers I'll stick to the do they need killing camp. do we set bag limits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted August 3, 2015 Author Share Posted August 3, 2015 I'd have a lot more respect for the pro-life position if it was from womb to tomb. I very well might choose that side myself. However, it is not. Mostly, it's from womb to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. The pro life side often is antagonistic towards the ACA, welfare, the foster system, school lunches, public school, and practically any support anyone tries to provide for a child or infant. Life doesn't end at birth. Burgold, besides gov't programs, what do you contribute to fostering, adoption, hunger care, widow care, or orphan care? Do you visit the sick and elderly in hospitals? Do you visit and talk with inmates in the local detention center? I've done all of it and still do. In fact, every church I know has some or all of these programs or supports them in some way. Do you? I don't say that in an attempt shame or guilt you, but to challenge you. You frame the conversation to your advantage. So of course you only see what you want to see. Gbear is the only person I know on this board who fosters children (I'm sure there are others, but I only know of him). Do you foster a child? There are tons of them available. Gov't programs don't provide homes, people like Gbear do. Gov't can subsidize it, but they can't replace the individual human heart and compassion. There are way more compassionate conservatives than you allow, and just because they may not agree with your particular method, doesn't mean they are not compassionate and caring. Now, I know there are some cold hearted conservatives out there too, trust me, in the church too. Shame on them. They'll get their due in God's good time. But for the rest of us pro-lifer folk, we could certainly do more, always can, but honestly. I don't think you have any idea what we do for widows and the fatherless and the least of these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Zguy- Good post. I do think you get Bernardin's call to Christians that life is sacred "from womb to tomb." But I'm wondering what you think of his claim that "such a quality of life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 Zguy- Good post. I do think you get Bernardin's call to Christians that life is sacred "from womb to tomb." But I'm wondering what you think of his claim that "such a quality of life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care." I agree with the statement as an ideal. Unfortunately we do not live in a vacuum or utopian society and instead have to deal with an inefficient bureaucracy and moral dilemmas ala this thread topic. I think if you filter out the most vocal 20% of conservatives, you would find that most of the rest are not opposed to some form of welfare (you know the church basically started the welfare idea right?), reasonable but higher taxes, and health care programs. But again, I think we know how efficient the gov't is. What kills me about Planned Parenthood, is those who rail against big business from the Left, are hypocritical. PP claims to be non-profit, but like I said earlier, cap non-profit salaries to <$100,000 and see how many really care about the services they provide and how many care just about the $$. Its all a big business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 FWIW, Burgold has been a huge help to my wife and I as we raise our children. All three of my kids know and love him. There have been times when he has been our best/most consistant supporter (more so even than our biological family). He has also worked to raise the public knowledge of foster care and adoption on his radio shows in the past too. On the abortion side, I think there is far too little support for kids born into poverty, whether it is economic poverity or poverty of needed social supports. As I read through Jumbo's "collateral damage" posts, I am reminded how often I think abortion is the collateral damage of our society's failures to provide the needed supports. Until the supports are in place to care for the children and mothers, I will always respect a woman's right to do as she feels she must. Right now, we fail on so many of the supports, from demonizing the women for getting pregnant to the cost (in $, time, and dreams) of giving birth and raising a kid. I was having the abortion discussion with a lady at my son's jiu jitsu, and I think I surprised her and a few of the other parents there when I said I felt worse about the abotrion most people think are "ok." I mean the third trimester abortions are the ones with which I am usually ok, and this stunned them. I then asked why they thought women have abortions in the third trimester? All of the women there were mothers, so when I asked "Would you choose to go through morning sickness, weight gain etc. if you didn't have to do so? Most of the third term abortions are because of health reasons, and some times the baby is already dead. Everyone I know who had one hated losing their kid whom they had already named, planned for, etc. I would never hold their toes to the fire over that aweful time in their life. No, I am more saddened/embarassed for our society by the woman who has 100 first term abortions. We failed her by not giving her the education and access to means to prevent pregnancy whether the means be physical and/or moral." Two of the parents left saying I had given them a perspective they hadn't thought about, but they just didn't think they could ever bring themselves to condone abortions, especially third trimester ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Something from the pro-life side that I like: http://www.hnp.org/publications/hnpfocus/BConsistentEthic1983.pdf I have a great deal of respect for this view. Life is sacred, and our ethics should protect it "from womb to tomb." Although I'll note this doesn't seem to be the view of much of the pro-life camp, the universal application of the pro-life principle is praiseworthy, in my opinion. what i like best about this view is that it promotes a view of pro-life and self identifies an appropriate action towards implementing that looks something like: we believe every life is wonderful, and to demonstrate it we will commit (now, when you are contemplating an abortion) to provide the love and support to parents and children (later, when you will need it, after the child is born ) that will best allow people to make this decision that we think is so important and joyous. it is a much more compelling argument than shouting and cursing at people when they are already traumatized... to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.