Welcome Back, Culture War

To you. -- That's what's wrong with so-called pro-lifers, they feel that they have the only opinion that counts. I don't see you marching against the death penalty. And I see you people breaking a whole lot of other tenets of your so called religion. You are all hypocrites, but have a right to be hypocrites. Just don't tell me that I'm immoral or stupid because I don't believe the same thing that you do!

Have always wondered why the inability to spell and being anti-choice are so highly correlated.

Feh
.
So are you out there advocating broader availability of contraceptives? Condoms in high school medical offices? Clear accurate sex eduction for young people? Does your church, if you have one, provide support for contraceptive services for parishioner?
.
IOW, is it really abortion that bothers you? Or is it something else?

What happens when an abortion is not elective? As in the case of an ectopic pregnancy? Or what if the fetus is found to have severe abnormalities and the woman's doctor informs her that even though she will survive the birth, the child will not and that doctor councils her to consider an abortion as an option. What does the Stupak amendment say about these cases?

jay, cheap shot at best.

You mistake me for someone on the right. Yes I am for broader use of contraceptives, education, and no I do not belong to a church. I have no problem with prevention it only makes sense.

Wasn't aware that any any pregnancy, such ectopic pregnancy, that threatens the mother's life was classified as elective.

My apologies.
.
What makes it "morally wrong"?
.
The position is certainly not politically stupid. if it were abortion would be illegal, and not widely supported, as it is.
.

Oh my Dee, do you even know who I am to say what I march for or against. I oppose the death Penalty. What so called Religion are we talking about and what other tenets are we talking about that I am breaking?

Hypocrites? For believing unnecessary abortions are wrong?

LOL.
.
And you are appointing yourself as the "unnecessary" arbiter? I much prefer a woman and her doctor making that determination. Not you, or the government.

Strupid is as strupid does.

First let me say that I don't care if you are on the right or left, if you want to push your views on me I reject you. And since most of this stems from religious beliefs, because outside of the christian indoctrinated, I find very few people so sure of their righteousness that they presume to know what's best, what's moral or what's stupid. Now as to breaking tenets of your faith -- I believe that judging someone else morality qualifies as a judgement and I believe you have a tenet that says something about that: "judge not lest you be judged. It also says "thee who is without sin cast the first stone" I think calling it politically stupid also qualifies as a judgement. -- or are you saying that you are without sin. No, then perhaps you STFU. Why I have no problem with you feeling the way you do. I am personally opposed to abortion and personally I wouldn't have one -- but that doesn't mean I think anyone should have the right to make that decision for me, nor do I want to make that decision for someone else. And frankly, religious belief is a really bad reason to insinuate your self in this debate because your religion like every one elses is a leap of faith with no concrete proof that it is anymore valid than the sacred spaghetti monster. Moreover, if you're christian, your religion specifically states that you should mind your business because you are not qualified to make these kinds of judgements.

Oh wow De that is quit a mouthful there, who is making all those moral judgments now?

A woman's right to choose doesn't trump my right to voice my opinion and to change political opinions, or to support one view over another.

“A woman's right to choose doesn't trump my right to voice my opinion and to change political opinions, or to support one view over another.”
.
To some degree, yes it does. The Supreme Court has established that as law. Your opinions and ours are protected by the First Amendment, BUT the #1a. specifically and ONLY protects us from government intrusion - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech", etc. YOU on your own don't have the power to change the law (and skip the "but I vote" mantra; we all do).

Did I say something confusing allthings? I didn't make any moral judgements, I simply answered your question why I thought you were a hypocrite. Now if you are saying your positioning doesn't stem from religious belief then I am wrong: Otherwise my Position is the following:
.
"I have no problem with you feeling the way you do. I am personally opposed to abortion and personally I wouldn't have one -- but that doesn't mean I think anyone should have the right to make that decision for me, nor do I want to make that decision for someone else."
.
Clearly that doesn't sound like I'm moralizing now does it. You can believe what ever you want, and you can try to persuade people to your point of view -- but your rights end where mine begins and you don't have a right to call me immoral or stupid because I don't share your opinions.

Cut the crap Dee this is what you said.

"Moreover, if you're christian, your religion specifically states that you should mind your business because you are not qualified to make these kinds of judgements."

That seems judgemental too me.

Look Dee I vote Democratic, I support the Health Care Bill, I also support the admendment I hope it stays and I'll voice support of it.

"And since most of this stems from religious beliefs, because outside of the christian indoctrinated, I find very few people so sure of their righteousness that they presume to know what's best, what's moral or what's stupid."

.
I guess the abortion thing still hasn't weened out all the "stupid" people in the world. Some births do end up with STUPID people.
.
The genetic selection of the Nazi's didn't work out either for them, they no longer exist just like the fetus that is sucked out of the womb by a vac probe.
.
Ain't that right Dee?
.
Just one question Dee. Did your mother ever think about aborting you? It truly is a shame she didn't.

decon,

Why that is quit a view that you have there while the Supreme Court may have ruled it it's favor, another Supreme court may rule it out of favor. It is only Supreme while it it is in power or another court allows it to be.

The law can be changed and the meaning of the law can be changed and yes the Constitution can be changed, read all the admendments.

Why do you vote, if not to change law and policy?

...politicaly strupid...
.
ouch.

Well I believe the bible is the one that "says judge not lest thee be judged and thee who is without sin cast the first stone." not me. Now granted my secular interpretation is a little pointed, but if these tenets are basically saying that human beings are not qualified to judge their fellow human beings then hows is my reminding you that your religions says you ought to stay out of these things, how ever curt my words might be, add up to me making a judgement? According to the bible, Jesus said not to judge others I'm just repeating the man. And I would say that whether you are a Democrat or Republican. My objection isn't that you are personally opposed to abortion, my objection is that you justify your beliefs by casating aspersions on mine. You are the one who said elective abortion is immoral and politically stupid so why are you so surprised that someone pushes back? So you are the one that should cut the crap!

…allthings, you're right. The law does change; the Constitution is NOT the Ten Commandments (as much as some RW's would wish, but I digress). But after all the rants here, legalized abortion still remains that way, our opinions aside.

Dee,

yes I said elective abortion is not moral. I haven't condemed anyone here, I haven't called out women who have had abortion, I haven't macrhed on abortion clinics, it is a personal belief. That is a policy statement. I have in no way judged anyone here. You quote Jesus, are you telling me Jesus never said if this or that was moral? Surely you jest. Who cast the stone? Even Jesus said "go and sin no more"

decon

true

Dee-
Individuals not judging others for their actions is not synonymous with society condoning any and all behavior. Certainly, one can be against particular conduct and support government regulation without casting judgment on those individuals who disagree. You say that opposing abortion and supporting its statutory prohibition is an an instance of judging, or 'casting stones.' Yet, you oppose murder and support its statutory prohibition. By your own rationale, are you not judging?
~
Your reflexive response will no doubt be to attempt to distinguish the two by suggesting that there is a difference when judging conduct that harms others. Naturally, murders are going to be judged by individuals because murders' actions directly harm others. We're not talking about judging a pothead here. However, before you utter this argument, be sure to ponder the life that is terminated by abortion.

As for the death penalty/abortion equation, this really is a tired, intellectually infantile argument. Anti-abortionists oppose abortions on the grounds that a life is coldly snuffed out, but not just any life, an innocent, defenseless, and voiceless life. It's the epitome of speaking out on behalf of the disenfranchised.
.
Supporting capital punishment, on the other hand, is not some perverse encouragement of killing innocent individuals in contradiction to one's views relating to abortion. Death penalty advocates are not campaigning for the execution of innocent individuals. The concept is based on executing guilty persons. A vital distinction from abortion.
.
Now, certainly a practical and logical argument can be made against capital punishment in that mistakes can be made and innocent lives can be taken. The system is prone to human error in discerning guilt. And I personally do not support capital punishment as I find retributive punishment to be an illegitimate defense of murder, regardless of guilt.
~~
The real hypocrisy, however, is those who support abortion, yet oppose capital punishment. Here is the real contradiction. In the one case, you support the right of individuals to kill the purely innocent. On the other hand, you reject a system that authorizes executing the guilty. Now there is a contradition. One can be anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment. One can be anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. However, it's an exercise in duplicitous hypocrisy to be both anti-capital punishment and pro-abortion.

" .. it's an exercise in duplicitous hypocrisy to be both anti-capital punishment and pro-abortion. .."

Agreed.

However, hypocrisy is our companion even when we mean well.

Once a society institutionalizes THAT "duplicitous hypocrisy" as 'the way things are done', then it is thereby sanitized and ceases to carry with it the stigma or negative connotation inherent in the phrase. And our moralists - the preachers, rabbis, scholars - cease to be acutely preoccupied with it.

For example:
We can hold cave-dwellers in Afghanistan in stark terror as they listen for the sound of planes. missiles and drones that rain gratuitous death on their loved ones (pro-terrorism?). When the other side, say the Soviets, do the same thing on the same people, we condemned it (anti-terrorism?).

We train our fighting men to kill (pro-death) yet we are singularly upset when they are killed (anti-death).

" .. ceases to carry with it the stigma .."
It is said that when Tony Blair was swamped with questions regarding his eagerness to launch the invasion of Iraq (and the subsequent crimes against humanity), he sought refuge in the saying that if something is accepted on earth then it is also accepted in heaven.
[And if it is accepted in heaven, then who are you to say otherwise?]

[Indeed the invasion of Iraq by the world's imperial powers had the support of a majority of (western)earthlings partly on the strength of Blair's "incontrovertible evidence" ruse. And Blair, Bush and the westerners would consider the word and whims of the imperial west to be the law on earth..]

You mean Pro-choice Democrat.

I wasn't aware that pro-conscience Democrats were engaged in a perpetual campaign to incrementally outlaw abortion access by what ever means available.

Oh all things this Stupak amendment is definitely not about pro-life Democrats, this is all about the C-street, brotherhood -- clearly a right wing organization that demands that the needs of the brotherhood come before anything else including your constituents, the law, your family so I guess that would make party pretty far down on the list. So Stupak has to follow the needs of his right wing brothers more than his party. But I think this thing is being blown up more than it needs to by a media that hypes the drama every chance it gets. This think is not going to derail health care and nobody but Stupak has to demand that it does. Most of the pro-life Democrats will settle for making sure that the federal money will not be used for abortion and they will strengthen the language and separation, but they are not going to prohibit private money and policies that are not subsidized from having coverage. That would be a government take over of health care. As long as the money follows the same standards as like say Catholic charities and Catholic hospitals that receive federal money but have to make sure that federal money is never used for their religious activities we should be just fine.

I think you miss the point. Support for the Democratic Party is support for Elective abortion. Support for Health Care thus becomes support for Elective abortion. It is not a simple matter of not having one, it is a matter of what your vote does, what your taxes do, what your government does, what your Representative does, what your Senator does, what your vision for America is

So in other words allthings you're a purist. Either you support everything someone stands for all you reject them in their entirety. Well by your definition if you're an American you should either be in jail for not paying taxes or deported for no longer being a citizen. Because there is no way that you agree with everything our government does. I know my government went to war in Iraq that I opposed, but I'm not about to disown my country because I disagree with it.

Good grief Dee,

where did you get that idea? Look people make decisions based on many different things, they support one thing or the other, what becomes most important to one individual will make or break that individuals support for an overall policy.

That is the abortion issue becomes paramount in many minds. Although they may support most of what the Democratic Party stands for, abortion gets in the way of support for the Party and such things as health care etc.

While they can see the need for Health Care for themselves, adults do give up what the want for the sake of others such as the unborn. Hey it is what a society does.

How about if they choose to abandon supporting a program with their money for whatever reason as it is their choice and not an IRS or tax matter. No religion of any denomination is required to provide any such service as a quid quo pro for tax exempt status.

But more importantly, what is difficult for liberals to understand is a person or organization acting on their beliefs and principles. For liberals every principle is relative and a slippery slope.

"do what feels good" - yeah, abortions feel super, just like a massage.

"the public will attend to the consequences" - who is this public that you deal with that has to deal with consequences? If there is an unwanted birth and the family doesn't take care of the kid, THEN the public has to deal with the consequences and pay for raising the kid. If the woman gets the abortion, how does the public have to deal with the consequences? By feeling really really bad because God is angry at us and will cause a giant flood? Seriously, grow up.

Pro-conscience means believing that the law of the land --which protects women from the government getting between them and their doctors-- is good enough as it is.
.
Pro-conscience means that ordinary people can be trusted to exercise their consciences in making the hard decisions that are sometimes necessary in life.
.
Pro-conscience means that when a terrible deformity is detected during pregnancy, the person most affected by that terrible circumstance must use their conscience along with doctors' advice to do the right thing, instead of the government forcing her to carry that pregnancy to tragic term.
.
Pro-conscience means that our consciences --not Bart Stupak's or some faceless government bureaucrat's-- are important when it comes to the most personal, intimate medical situations in our lives.
.
Pro-conscience means saying enough is enough to people like Bart Stupak who will use any excuse to try to take away our right to use our God-given consciences for ourselves.

Ah yes, The unwanted kid that the public needs to take care of. So it is not the woman's right that we are talking about here, but public responsibility.

So you are worried that the public would have to have asocial conscience and care for more people. I thought that was the purpose of Health Care, education, Social services of all kinds that democrats propose and I mostly support was the aim.

Guess I was wrong.

SZ;

...believing in the law of the land. That is an interesting concept if there was any consistency. Let's follow abortion in cases where pregnancy was not crime related. It was pitched (and it was) as a women's right to choose. A woman did make a choice; actually several. She choose to have sex, she choose to have her partner be unprotected and she choose to be unprotected. Let's leave that aside.

The woman chooses to have the baby or an abortion. The man has no say in this pro-conscience legal system. If the woman chooses to have the baby (again no male input) he will be required to pay for support of that child without any choice on his part. In a pro-conscience legal system that may make sense.

Conversely, if the woman aborts the baby and essentially kills the man's offspring why in a pro-conscience legal system can't he charge her with the murder of his child?

" ... if the woman aborts .. why .. can't he charge her with the murder of his child?"

There are arguments that may render such an issue moot:
When is it a child or a (viable) life?

I could tell from the first four letters of his last name.

...do you mean Lovely Amy?

Argh. I hate it when I do that. Yes, I did mean our lovely Amy.

If a women dies because she chose to have a back-alley abortion, I would contend that is her own fault. Just as a junky dies when he buys a batch from an unknown street dealer that is laced. And, yes, naturally only old-white guys oppose abortions. That's rather racist. Are you suggesting that only the white race has a conscience? Surely, not all the other ethnic groups, and certainly not all women, are immoral pro-abortionists, are they?

"If a women dies because she chose to have a back-alley abortion, I would contend that is her own fault"
.
Please share more of your Catholic based charity.

The majority of Americans now believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are wrong. Can my tax dollars stop funding those too please!

My tax dollars are going to public schools but I don't have any kids that go to public schools. Heck, let's all redirect our tax dollars to something we all support: refunds!

Rust, is it constitutional for rich women to have abortions?

Ah here we go with the 'not with my tax dollars' anthem. We can blow the crap out of innocent people (including babies and children) all over world with 'our tax dollars' but if a woman needs an abortion it's time to stand on principles. I don't have strong feelings about abortion either way but the tax argument holds about as much water a sieve.

I am also sick of paying for dozens of cable channels that I NEVER watch. I propose that when it comes to government programs and cable t.v. we pay only for what we use or support. Let's start a movement!

I'm not too happy with the wars either,queenie, but if given a choice as to where my tax dollars would be spent, I believe i would choose to support our troops, not abortion. To me it's a no brainer.

I'm just saying you should really re-look at what you are fighting for.
.
You fought hard and won the ability of a woman to choose, in this specific instance to choose to have an abortion or not.
.
Now you also want it all funded by Government tax dollars?
.
Let's say that Conservatives wanted to have Government tax dollars to fund oh, I don't know, more bullets and ammunition to go out and shoot and kill deer. I have a right to go hunt and kill deer, right? As long as I buy a license from the PA Game Commission, I can go kill deer during hunting season.
.
Now I want YOU to pay for my bullets to kill said deer. Are you in agreement to pay for my bullets?

Of course it's a no brainer for you 2/3. I assume you are a man who will never get the news that you have an ectopic or possibly a molar pregnancy. Don't know what those are? Look them up.

Rustydog:
.
Huge majorities of Americans are against health care reform that means the government comes between patient and doctor, in which the state decides in advance what treatments are available to ordinary people.
.
That's the main problem with "the government taking over health care", right?
.
If a married woman undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer gets pregnant by mistake, and doesn't have the money for extra insurance, I truly believe that a big majority of Americans would not be in favor of the government telling her "Tough luck, but you'll just have to deal with it, since pills that would end that pregnancy aren't covered," if it were put to them that way.
.
In all honesty, I think that the majority of Americans just don't want to subsidize late-term, surgical abortion used as some kind of birth control for what they think of as "irresponsible" behavior, that's it. The reason that this is the first thing that many of us think of when we think of "tax-payer funded abortion" is that the anti-abortion lobby has been more effective at messaging than the cocktail-party jackasses at NARAL.
.
A long time ago, the idiots and incompetents in the pro-choice lobby apparently started avoiding the opportunity to speak with people who weren't completely of the same mind (and social class, perhaps?) as themselves, and so effectively ceded the debate and the ability to set its terms in ways normal folks can understand.
.
I could be wrong, though. Maybe if you put that situation involving the cancer-stricken woman to ordinary Americans, they would say "F her. She should have thought of the consequences of her actions more carefully. I know she could just take a pill she can't afford if Bart Stupak would let her insurance cover it, but why should I help pay for that in addition to her chemo? No sympathy here...," but I doubt it.
.
I'd like to know, though, wouldn't you, Rustydog?

I would say that if you have objections to your tax dollars going to support this or that war effort, then yes by all means use your influence to change the policy. That is what it means being Democratic, You knoiw givernment of the People, for the People, by the People.

What is wrong with that? It is your right.

stuart:
.
In my mind it is as simple as this. If your wife decides to have an abortion, then she is fully able to do so as her choice.
.
Where I do however draw the line is on how it is paid for. If she chooses to have an abortion or even to purchase birth control pills, then she should do so with her own money and funds.
.
There are many man Amernicans who pay taxes. They also pay that money into the Government at expense of other things in their lives. We do have the right to say "no" to expenditures, and if enough people say no, then it is upon our elected officials to also say no with their votes.
.
We all make choices in life, especially when it comes down to spending money. We also make choices to either have sex or not to have sex which we know going into it, having sex, that a baby could be the result.
.
There are countless charitable programs for women to go to if they do not have the funds of their own to pay for an abortion. Doesn't planned parenthood get funding from private donations? Allow that money to be used. But, not tax dollars. Not when as I have said the vast majority of people are against funding of abortions with tax dollars.
.
My choice is to not fund abortions. I also believe by not funding it, more women who do use it as a means of birth control think twice before speading their legs for every Tom, Dick or Harry to have at it.
.
Spend the money on education. Once someone is educated, then I firmly believe the responsibility lies with the individual and/or their partner, not the tax payer.

Thanks for your honesty, Rustydog.
.
There are some pretty sleazy folks in the anti-abortion lobby who aren't as forthcoming about their reasoning as you are.
.
Thanks for having this real discussion.

So what you're saying queenie, is that the majority of these unwanted pregnancies are ectopic and molar pregnacies. I find it hard to believe that any woman with this condition would be read the death penalty by anyone in this country, conservative or not. You're grasping at straws.

As far as you're asinine statement about conservatives adopting, (generally male, what a hoot) conservatives are far more likely to adopt than liberals. (more common knowledge) The late Jerry Falwell(despised by the left) made it known that he would adopt any unwanted child, and not only raise them, but supply them with a college education. He's dead and gone but the policy is still in place at Liberty College, of which he is the founder.

2/3: I am not saying all abortions (or even the majority) are because of ectopic or molar pregnancies. I am merely asking people to remember that a certain percentage of pregnancies are terminated due to medical conditions. It's not always because "some slut couldn't keep her legs open" as Rusty seems to think.
I did not mention adoption in any of my posts.

my mistake queenie. My adoption response was directed towards ivy.

Give him enough campaign money - and all will be possible.
Start a PAC of "Vaccines and Blood Transfusions Objectors"

Jeff's book on this topic is really quite good, if paranoia inducing.
.
Did you come to his Virtually Speaking appearance, Ivy?

Link failed http://www.jeffsharlet.com/

Was out that night. Will look for the audio. Last week I stupidly mixed up the time and came up at 10:00 instead of 9:00 -- must have been the Swamp clock that put me off.

...so we're still on Newfoundland Standard Time?

Jeff Sharlet podcast at Virtually Speaking.
.
BTR has apparently eaten last week's show with Eric Boehlert of Media Matters. Tonight we have evolutionary scientist Dorion Sagan.

(Attempting M0der@tion Purgatory Bypass)
.
Somebody please primary this evil $umb!t¢h. Surely there's a UPer with both a sense of responsibility and the good sense to take advantage of an opportunity. I have money starting to burn a hole in my pocket.

Surely there's a UPer with both a sense of responsibility and the good sense to take advantage of an opportunity.
.
Having lived there for a bit (and with family there currently)...it's pronounced Yooper, not UPer...
.
...And if Stupak gets Liebermanned in the primary, a Republican will get his seat.

"It's moronic and hypocritical (and the moralizing about the "murder" of a zygote is down right hysterical coming from the perpetual war party)"

What is hysterical is the left who hold themselves out as looking out for the poor and defenseless. Being kinder and gentler than those mean people on the right. Against all wars no matter what folks may do. Protest death penalties against cop killers, serial killers and the like.

They will defend those who have reneged on their membership in the human race but have no qualms about vacuuming out the innards of the most defenseless of the defenseless- the unborn.

That is Moronic and morally bankrupt.

That is what child support laws are designed to do. And as anyone who works in their local child support department will probably tell you, good luck collecting payments!

Well the woman can still get an abortion, she would just have to pay for it. That's the other side of the choice equation. It's called personal responsibility. Abortions, liberals keep saying are to be necessary and rare but yet support it as a means of birth control.

Yes that is what child support laws are supposed to do. Mandate a male by a women's choice. Only a liberal can support the imbalance in that statement.

…free, what should happen when a woman is pregnant from a rape? If she's not allow to abort, then an obvious choice would be to let someone else adopt the baby. But who pays for the prenatal care? Her? Why must she pay for HC resulting from an event that was NOT her choice?

"Abortions, liberals keep saying are to be necessary and rare but yet support it as a means of birth control."
.
My god, which came first, the bottomless stupidity or the debilitating mental illness? No matter, I suppose.
.
Liberals support abortion rights because WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO BARE CHILDREN. Not state government, not the federal government and certainly not brainwashed, authoritarian-following @ssholes like you.

I here many saying that the woman should take immediate responsibility for their immoral actions, so freeinpa why shouldn't the male responsible for the pregnancy also be immediately responsible for his immoral actions, or are you saying that it is solely the woman's responsibilty

deconstruc:

I have purposely excluded instances of pregnancy from rape in my discussions. I was aiming my comments at what I would call recreational abortions.

The male should take responsibility. Unfortunately and the point made previously was the left has shaped the argument over the years as a "woman's choice".

The only time the male is held responsible is when the woman "chooses" to have the baby. The male is the, sometimes through legal force required to support the child, to which I would fully agree. However, as I inqured of SZ why when the woman aborts without the males' consent, he cannot have her charged with murdering his child?

The inconsistency of the choice argument by the left is baffling.

"Recreational abortions"?

Maybe you need to read this twice to understand that this guy is truly insane.

Dee-
I'm glad to see you followed my point so well.
If life is sacred, then life is sacred and we ought not kill and I don't like the state killing in my name and I have a right to feel that way...As long as we know that we are not capable of perfect justice then we ought not kill people because that's an error that can't even be corrected.
~~
Wasn't that my entire point, that we cannot take a life? Hence my opposition to abortion and capital punishment. Hence my position that the government cannot, in good conscience, allow the execution of the purely innocent vis-a-vis abortion. And, capital punishment, as retributive 'justice,' is unjustifiable. The only instance whereby I support the death penalty is in a case of imminent threat to society. Even in this case, though, it would be an extremely difficult position to defend that maximum security prison would not eliminate the threat, thus rendering capital punishment the only means of protecting society. So, basically, I'm against capital punishment in nearly all cases, and, against abortions, other than in cases whereby it is an essential procedure for the life of the mother. You cannot force a woman to not take the measures necessary for survival, she has a right to self-preservation, but she does not have a right to exterminate another life purely for elective purposes.

Stuart~
I am not a rabid extremist. I understand that the textbook refutation of the anti-abortion stance is to posit on the most extreme and unlikely scenarios to thereby undermine any and all opposition to abortion. I won't take the bait. As I have said, I personally oppose "purely elective" abortions, which constitute the majority of abortions. Not ready for parenthood? Not good enough. Not financially stable enough to raise a child? Not good enough. Not in love with your partner? Not good enough. Etc, etc.
~~
I have always stressed, however, the importance of allowing a woman to take the measures to ensure her own physical well-being. When a medically verifiable threat to the mother is posed by a pregnancy, I can understand the decision to abort an early-term pregnancy. I have also consistently supported the free dissemination of contraceptives and access to education to greatly limit the number of unwanted pregnancies.
~~
Your query is in the blurred area, in that it pertains to the health of the child. Essentially, is an abortion acceptable when the medical consensus is the infant may be deformed, or even facing imminent death? I really don't know, Stuart. That's a moral dilemma that have not reached a personal conclusion on as of yet.

"That's a moral dilemma that have not reached a personal conclusion on as of yet."
.
Whatever, just so long as you keep it "personal" so women don't have to bare children against their wills just to satisfy your (and other men's) "moral dilemma[s]".

neorationalist86:

I am not a rabid extremist.

I didn't make any accusations, I hope that you did not understand that to be my intention.

the textbook refutation of the anti-abortion stance is to posit on the most extreme and unlikely scenarios to thereby undermine any and all opposition to abortion

No, it's not a rhetorical trick, it's a matter of taking into account what the real-life ramifications are of your position. That such complexity might undermine your determined opposition to rights invested in individuals at the expense of the state's interest in fetal life testifies to your need to temper ideology, not to anyone else's need to stop considering the real world. I think that's the rational way of deliberating moral issues, don't you?

I won't take the bait.

I think you know me well enough through this forum to know that I'm discussing in good faith, neo. I'm disappointed that you would imagine that this is some kind of trickery. If you're forced to reconsider your premises in light of reasonable questions asked in good faith, it would imply that you refer to Socrates, not Satan.

That's a moral dilemma that have not reached a personal conclusion on as of yet.

Thanks for your honesty. These are hard questions to which we may come to different answers.

I have also consistently supported the free dissemination of contraceptives and access to education to greatly limit the number of unwanted pregnancies.

On that we can vigorously agree, neorationalist86.

Stuart~
I wasn't under the impression that you were painting me as anything in particular. But, as this is a public forum, as opposed to a private conversation, my response to your question is open to scrutiny.
~
That such complexity might undermine your determined opposition to rights invested in individuals at the expense of the state's interest in fetal life testifies to your need to temper ideology, not to anyone else's need to stop considering the real world.
Which are we considering, the real world or rights? You digress from my apparent opposition to 'rights' suddenly to the real world as if the two are one and the same. The term 'right' is intangible and irrelevant in this context given the lack of constitutional support for such premise. You deem it a right invested in individuals to choose to exterminate a life via abortion; I deem it a duty of government to prevent such, as it would any other homicide. This vast divide in our perspectives is a complete non-starter, there's no middle ground to be won. Our definitions are too distinct, Stuart. What is life? From where do rights originate? That our answers would be so very different is a testament to how futile this discussion is, although I appreciate the effort, as always.

Shep~
Perhaps you should step outside, if only for a moment, from your progressive/feminist/secularist/humanist bubble. You'd realize that more opposition to abortion stems from females than males, as most males find it a non-issue to them unless they have been personally affected. Your most vehement opponents of abortion are, more often than not, women. I know you'd be unaware of this 'phenomenon' amid the seclusion of your ever-shrinking faction of relativist despots. However, I know of very few women who openly embrace the notion of a right to abortion, even the more progressive, secularists that I know, a thriving breed on my campus.

Yes, well, there were blacks who were “vehement opponents” of abolition, women who were “vehement opponents” of suffrage and there are still working class people who vote Republican. So what? Stupid choices by some don't undo the rights of others.
You might understand some of these elemental concepts if you were any older than my mustache and could step outside, just for a moment, your christian/cult/brainwashing.

See my take on this under #1.26

Which is a mere fraction of the "lives" (i.e., fertilized eggs) which abort themselves naturally, at God's hand, you might say. Oh, the inhumanity.

" .. "lives" (i.e., fertilized eggs) .. at God's hand .. "

Then maybe as far as the god chap (with the hand) is concerned, it is immaterial whether you are terminated a few moments after fertilization or 100 years later ...