PDA

View Full Version : Legal Been a while since we had a good abortion fight.


Direckshun
05-31-2012, 11:02 AM
Republicans in the House are voting on a bill today (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/229945-house-plans-vote-on-bill-to-ban-sex-selective-abortion) that would ban sex-selective abortions by fining or imprisoning doctors who perform them:

House plans vote on bill to ban sex-selective abortion
By Elise Viebeck
05/29/12 08:30 PM ET

The House is set to vote Thursday on a controversial bill that aims to ban sex-selective abortions by fining or imprisoning doctors who perform them.

The GOP leadership will bring the bill to the floor under suspension of House rules, which means two-thirds of the chamber will have to express support for it to pass. This is unlikely, because it would require 50 Democrats to vote in favor.

On Tuesday, a leading abortion-rights group attacked the measure from Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) as a “divisive” and “unworkable” approach to the problem of sex-selective abortion.

“The Franks bill exploits the very real problems of sex discrimination and gender inequity while failing to offer any genuine solutions,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

The bill, known as the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA), would impose criminal penalties on doctors who provide abortions known to be motivated by gender discrimination, as well as on people who coerce women into having abortions for that reason.

It would also bar federal funding for organizations that do not comply, and require medical professionals to report when they suspect any part of the rule has been violated.

Sex-selective abortion is an “increasing cause of concern” in some south, east and central Asian countries, where sons are seen as more valuable than daughters, according to the World Health Organization.

Ahead of Thursday’s vote, abortion-rights opponents cited studies alleging that the practice is on the rise in North America.

“It is to be hoped that even many members who deem themselves ‘pro-choice’ will recoil at the notion that ‘freedom of choice’ must include even the choice to abort a little unborn girl, merely because she is a girl,” the National Right to Life Committee wrote in a letter to lawmakers urging votes in favor of PRENDA.

Despite the fact that it's not really clear (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/congress-debates-ban-on-sex-selective-abortions-as-researchers-explore-how-often-they-happen/2012/05/30/gJQAwhpN2U_blog.html) this is a prevalent problem:

Congress debates ban on sex-selective abortions as researchers explore how often they happen
Posted by Sarah Kliff
04:05 PM ET, 05/30/2012

Are sex-selective abortions actually happening in the United States? If so, to what extent? While researchers haven’t found evidence of these types of abortion being widespread, some have located instances of cultural forces pushing some women to end pregnancies because of the gender of their fetus.

The introduction of ultrasound and amniocentesis technology in the 1970s made it possible to determine the gender of a fetus as early as the 14th week of pregnancy. In some Asian countries, where a higher value is placed on having a son, researchers have found that sex-selective terminations of female fetuses became “common” as early as the mid-1990s. In China, 117 boys are born for every 100 girls, according to 2011 statistics.

The United States, by contrast, has a more balanced gender ratio for its births. Right now, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls, a ratio that the Center for Disease Control says has remained “remarkably stable” since the 1940s. It’s also worth noting that 91.5 percent of abortions are performed prior to 13 weeks of pregnancy, before gender can be determined.

Some studies have looked specifically at immigrant communities, from countries where sex-selective abortion does seem to be prevalent, to see whether similar abortions happen in the United States.

Jason Abrevaya, an economist at the University of Texas, studied census data of birth rates for Asian Americans. He did find, in a 2008 paper, some indications of a preference for sons: Asian immigrant families that had two daughters were more likely to become pregnant with a third child, compared to those that already had a son. But what Abrevaya didn’t see was any skewed gender ratios among the births of third children; the birth ratios between girls and boys were the same as for prior births. That indicated that it was unlikely that sex-selective abortion was occurring.

“The empirical results do not provide much evidence of unusual boy-birth percentages that would suggest that gender selection is being used to achieve a gender mix,” he concluded.

This does not mean such abortions do not occur: A smaller study from the University of California-Irvine focused specifically on 65 Indian American women who said they did have a sex-selective abortion. Many of those women identified pressure from both female in-laws and husbands to have male children, underlied by cultural gender inequalities.

“My first child is a girl,” one woman told the researchers. “My mother-in-law said that is okay, she said at least it is good that I can have babies. But when my second child was also a girl, she did not want to hold her after the birth. She yelled at me that I should have had this test to know if I had a boy or girl.”

The lead researcher, Sunita Puri, argues in a separate piece on her study that ultrasounds and doctors aren’t necessarily to blame for sex-selective abortion. “Technology or physicians alone are not at the root of the problem,” she writes. “The use of technology and marketing of sex selection exist because of the preference for a male child.”

While her research has often been invoked by supporters of the Franks bill, Puri herself has never endorsed a policy like the one Congress is debating (I reached out to her for an interview on the subject, but she was unavailable as of deadline). In writing, though, she has advocated for making cultural changes that elevate the position of women, such as “congratulating couples equally when sons and daughters are born” or “more days to celebrate women’s many accomplishments.” To combat sex-selective abortions, Puri contends, “We can remind our daughters every day that they are equal to their brothers in every way.”

Direckshun
05-31-2012, 11:07 AM
Kind of interesting the GOP decided to suspend House rules on this.

If they upheld House rules they could go with a simple majority, and probably pass it. Suspending the rules requires a 2/3 vote, making it very unlikely to pass.

fan4ever
05-31-2012, 11:10 AM
Kind of interesting the GOP decided to suspend House rules on this.

If they upheld House rules they could go with a simple majority, and probably pass it. Suspending the rules requires a 2/3 vote, making it very unlikely to pass.

You need a hobby. :p

Donger
05-31-2012, 11:11 AM
I suggest that DC be renamed "Direckshun Forum." Jesus, you're like a hyper-kinetic hummingbird recently.

Are you feeling alright?

Saul Good
05-31-2012, 11:13 AM
As long as we're going to shove scissors into babies' skulls and vacuum out their brains, we might as well get designer kids out of the deal.

HonestChieffan
05-31-2012, 11:16 AM
Good money in baby killin

Direckshun
05-31-2012, 11:46 AM
I suggest that DC be renamed "Direckshun Forum." Jesus, you're like a hyper-kinetic hummingbird recently.

Are you feeling alright?

Just been reading a ton recently. I share the most interesting stuff.

Unless you think the phenomenon of sex-selective abortion, the dynamics of the coal industry, for-profit college ripoffs, Obamacare implications, the debt ceiling, election financing, the insolvency of disability, etc etc aren't interesting subjects.

I think they're fascinating. It's not like I'm stuffing the forum with fluff. Just posting a lot of interesting stuff that would otherwise not be mentioned or replaced by crappier topics.

mikey23545
05-31-2012, 12:05 PM
Just been reading a ton recently. I share the most interesting stuff.

Unless you think the phenomenon of sex-selective abortion, the dynamics of the coal industry, for-profit college ripoffs, Obamacare implications, the debt ceiling, election financing, the insolvency of disability, etc etc aren't interesting subjects.

I think they're fascinating. It's not like I'm stuffing the forum with fluff. Just posting a lot of interesting stuff that would otherwise not be mentioned or replaced by crappier topics.

You're teetering right on the edge, aren't you, Ereckshun?

La literatura
05-31-2012, 01:40 PM
I suggest that DC be renamed "Direckshun Forum." Jesus, you're like a hyper-kinetic hummingbird recently.

Are you feeling alright?

In the last month, Direckshun has started 23 threads.

HonestChiefFan, in the same time, has started 34.

Donger
05-31-2012, 01:47 PM
In the last month, Direckshun has started 23 threads.

HonestChiefFan, in the same time, has started 34.

How about the count over the last week?

HonestChieffan
05-31-2012, 01:49 PM
In the last month, Direckshun has started 23 threads.

HonestChiefFan, in the same time, has started 34.


Was it a race? I bet we can together beat that number all to hell if we wanted , cared, or counted. Keep up the good work there scooter.

mikey23545
05-31-2012, 02:05 PM
Aborting a baby because of its gender is something we used to feel revolted by when we heard of the Red Chinese (communists) doing it...Now our precious liberals (communists) are fighting for the right to do it.

King_Chief_Fan
05-31-2012, 02:10 PM
I am anti-abortion...

HonestChieffan
05-31-2012, 02:11 PM
Aborting a baby because of its gender is something we used to feel revolted by when we heard of the Red Chinese (communists) doing it...Now our precious liberals (communists) are fighting for the right to do it.


Its ok with the boss....

TAPPER: The House is, I think, this afternoon preparing to take up a bill that would ban gender selection as a factor in abortions in this country. And I was wondering — I haven’t a statement of administration policy; I was wondering if the White House had a position on that?

CARNEY: I will have to take that as well. Been focused on other things, but I will get back to you.

Note: The White House got back to me this evening to say the president opposes the bill.

White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith says in a statement: “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision. The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 02:16 PM
Did someone say abortion fight?!

http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/5/e003752573bd4120b351610cc2339b07/l.jpg

Direckshun
05-31-2012, 02:31 PM
Did someone say abortion fight?!

http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/5/e003752573bd4120b351610cc2339b07/l.jpg

uhhh

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 02:40 PM
uhhh

Just read through the thread, you must have meant the other kind. My bad.

Aries Walker
05-31-2012, 02:58 PM
I think sex-selective abortions are reprehensible, but I question how feasible it could be to investigate whether an abortion was sex-selective or not, without turning it into a witch hunt.

bandwagonjumper
05-31-2012, 03:05 PM
We have a pretty liberal abortion law in the UK but I think its illegal to perform abortion because of the sex of the fetus. There was quite big outcry a few weeks ago.

Direckshun
05-31-2012, 03:14 PM
The vote, predictably, failed.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/230283-house-rejects-bill-penalizing-doctors-for-sex-selection-abortions

246-168. If the GOP hadn't done this on the suspended rules calendar, it would have passed.

Really, really odd.

Bewbies
05-31-2012, 04:29 PM
If you are pro-choice and don't support this you are a pussy. Celebrate this freedom, rejoice in the news that >50% of viable pregnancies in NYC are aborted. This is proof your hard work is paying off!!

Celebrate this shit you sick bastards.

Detoxing
05-31-2012, 05:24 PM
Not sure what impact this would've had, if any at all.

Brock
05-31-2012, 05:27 PM
Abortion for whatever reason is okay with me.

vailpass
05-31-2012, 05:40 PM
Abortion for whatever reason is okay with me.

That is such a cool thing to say. I love how you are open to anything and refuse to let the mores of the past restrict your life.

Brock
05-31-2012, 05:42 PM
That is such a cool thing to say. I love how you are open to anything and refuse to let the mores of the past restrict your life.

disinterested shrug.

vailpass
05-31-2012, 05:43 PM
disinterested shrug.

casual ball scratch

Thig Lyfe
05-31-2012, 05:48 PM
ABORTION FIIIIIGHT!

*throws dead fetus across room, hits principal in face*

OH SHIT EVERYBODY RUN!!!!

AustinChief
05-31-2012, 05:53 PM
The vote, predictably, failed.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/230283-house-rejects-bill-penalizing-doctors-for-sex-selection-abortions

246-168. If the GOP hadn't done this on the suspended rules calendar, it would have passed.

Really, really odd.

HUH? why is this odd? Did you honestly think they did this to get the law passed? This was simply a way to get 168 people on the record against the law thereby giving those up for re-election a difficult issue to deal with in November. Now the republicans can point at those 168 congressmen and say "you want to talk about a war on women! these guys are PRO female genocide!"

I doubt it will have a HUGE effect, but in a cost-benefit analysis, it's not a bad move.

AustinChief
05-31-2012, 06:02 PM
btw.. I have serious problems with gender selection abortions BUT I don't think it should be against the law. Killing female babies (anything after the first trimester) should be against the law. Period. But in the case of a first trimester abortion, you run into some strange ethical issues when you start to limit an individual's choice. For example, is it ok for a person using in vitro fertilization to separate out the x or y sperm cells and select gender at that point?

Where do we draw the line on what characteristics a parent can or can't decide upon? We are approaching a time in history where we will need to determine these rules in a way that covers all such scenarios. A law specific to gender would just be a cludgy stopgap at best.

La literatura
05-31-2012, 06:07 PM
btw.. I have serious problems with gender selection abortions BUT I don't think it should be against the law. Killing female babies (anything after the first trimester) should be against the law. Period. But in the case of a first trimester abortion, you run into some strange ethical issues when you start to limit an individual's choice. For example, is it ok for a person using in vitro fertilization to separate out the x or y sperm cells and select gender at that point?

Where do we draw the line on what characteristics a parent can or can't decide upon? We are approaching a time in history where we will need to determine these rules in a way that covers all such scenarios. A law specific to gender would just be a cludgy stopgap at best.

The law no longer uses a Roe v. Wade trimester formula.

AustinChief
05-31-2012, 06:19 PM
The law no longer uses a Roe v. Wade trimester formula.

What law are you referring to? And I use the trimester example because it's the easiest for people to relate to. My belief on what should be legal has always revolved around the beginning of upper brain activity which also happens to coincide with the end of the 1st trimester. (the law needs to be based on # of weeks and in the future with better technology, we could theoretically base it on actual brain activity measurements)

There are two legitimate arguments for when life begins. #1 is conception (I don't agree but I can see the point) and #2 upper brain activity (most logical and scientific sense) Any other argument based on "viability" or some other nonsense... is just that... nonsense. At that point you may as well just make it ok to kill them until they are 10 years old, or any other arbitrary number.

BUT I'm getting way off topic. As I pointed out, this law was a political ploy and probably a moderately effective one.

listopencil
05-31-2012, 06:24 PM
But can we still harvest their souls?

La literatura
05-31-2012, 06:55 PM
What law are you referring to? And I use the trimester example because it's the easiest for people to relate to. My belief on what should be legal has always revolved around the beginning of upper brain activity which also happens to coincide with the end of the 1st trimester. (the law needs to be based on # of weeks and in the future with better technology, we could theoretically base it on actual brain activity measurements)

There are two legitimate arguments for when life begins. #1 is conception (I don't agree but I can see the point) and #2 upper brain activity (most logical and scientific sense) Any other argument based on "viability" or some other nonsense... is just that... nonsense. At that point you may as well just make it ok to kill them until they are 10 years old, or any other arbitrary number.

Well, it is that viability "nonsense" which is the foundational law on abortion regulation stemming from Casey v. Planned Parenthood. The reason for the change was the Court thought that increasing technological advances made a trimester breakdown pretty much nonsensical.

HonestChieffan
05-31-2012, 07:15 PM
So are we killing the boys or the girls? What is the right way to go?

WilliamTheIrish
05-31-2012, 08:02 PM
Abortion for whatever reason is okay with me.

Yep. Same here.

I've seen too many infants that are simply waiting to be fitted for an orange jumpsuit because they had shitty parents.

Direckshun
05-31-2012, 08:03 PM
HUH? why is this odd? Did you honestly think they did this to get the law passed? This was simply a way to get 168 people on the record against the law thereby giving those up for re-election a difficult issue to deal with in November. Now the republicans can point at those 168 congressmen and say "you want to talk about a war on women! these guys are PRO female genocide!"

I doubt it will have a HUGE effect, but in a cost-benefit analysis, it's not a bad move.

Ahhh.... clever.

Nicely done.

healthpellets
05-31-2012, 08:20 PM
is there a difference between aborting due to sex and aborting due to Down's or other defects?

HonestChieffan
05-31-2012, 08:29 PM
is there a difference between aborting due to sex and aborting due to Down's or other defects?

Its not PC to say abort. Please use "terminating a pregnancy". Abort makes people aware its a baby being killed.

healthpellets
05-31-2012, 08:31 PM
Its not PC to say abort. Please use "terminating a pregnancy". Abort makes people aware its a baby being killed.

sorry. i appreciate truth in advertising.

AustinChief
05-31-2012, 08:31 PM
Well, it is that viability "nonsense" which is the foundational law on abortion regulation stemming from Casey v. Planned Parenthood. The reason for the change was the Court thought that increasing technological advances made a trimester breakdown pretty much nonsensical.

Trimester breakdown by itself is nonsensical. As I said, it just happens to coincide with the one thing that isn't. Viability is just plain stupid. Technology keeps sliding the bar on that closer and closer to conception. What do we do then? We WILL be able to take newly conceived cells and grow them to maturity outside the natural womb of a mother someday. How will a law based on something as stupid and shortsighted as "viability" work at that point?

It's bad law based on lack of foresight and has no basis in something REAL... you know.. like SCIENCE.

WilliamTheIrish
05-31-2012, 08:43 PM
Its not PC to say abort. Please use "terminating a pregnancy". Abort makes people aware its a baby being killed.

You're such an emotional chic.

AustinChief
05-31-2012, 08:48 PM
Ahhh.... clever.

Nicely done.

yup. I don't see it playing out in a major way on the national level... but it could help swing some local elections. It certainly doesn't hurt the repubs and it comes at no true cost... with the added bonus of not having to examine the law in too much detail to figure out how exactly it would ever realistically work, since it was never going to pass.

La literatura
05-31-2012, 09:46 PM
Trimester breakdown by itself is nonsensical. As I said, it just happens to coincide with the one thing that isn't. Viability is just plain stupid. Technology keeps sliding the bar on that closer and closer to conception. What do we do then? We WILL be able to take newly conceived cells and grow them to maturity outside the natural womb of a mother someday. How will a law based on something as stupid and shortsighted as "viability" work at that point?

It's bad law based on lack of foresight and has no basis in something REAL... you know.. like SCIENCE.

Viability isn't "just plain stupid." It's pretty reasonable. Your point about how technology keeps sliding the bar closer to conception is exactly why the Court determined viability was a better standard than a trimester formula.

Laws can change to fit the time. If your hypothetical can't work with a viability based law, the law can change if it needs to. Just because we're going to have hover-boards in the future doesn't mean that rebuilding a road today is stupid.

Chiefshrink
05-31-2012, 09:53 PM
Aborting a baby because of its gender is something we used to feel revolted by when we heard of the Red Chinese (communists) doing it...Now our precious liberals (communists) are fighting for the right to do it.

Finally ! We now know who is at war with women ! Literally !:shake:

Chiefshrink
05-31-2012, 09:57 PM
In the last month, Direckshun has started 23 threads.

Mis-directed is an undiagnosed "manic-depressive" and he is in his manic state right now. He'll crash pretty soon here. And he will definitely crash on election day in Nov. Count on it !!!:thumb:

He still doesn't have any confidence that Obama will win otherwise he would make his consequence for losing to stay out of "draft planet" his real passion.;)

Chiefshrink
05-31-2012, 10:00 PM
Abortion for whatever reason is okay with me.

How many have you funded?

La literatura
05-31-2012, 10:01 PM
Mis-directed is an undiagnosed "manic-depressive"

Since you're an esteemed psychologist, why don't you just diagnose him?

Brock
05-31-2012, 10:04 PM
How many have you funded?

How many did your mama have after the massive disappointment that is you?

Chiefshrink
05-31-2012, 10:12 PM
btw.. I have serious problems with gender selection abortions BUT I don't think it should be against the law. Killing female babies (anything after the first trimester) should be against the law. Period. But in the case of a first trimester abortion, you run into some strange ethical issues when you start to limit an individual's choice. For example, is it ok for a person using in vitro fertilization to separate out the x or y sperm cells and select gender at that point?

Where do we draw the line on what characteristics a parent can or can't decide upon? We are approaching a time in history where we will need to determine these rules in a way that covers all such scenarios. A law specific to gender would just be a cludgy stopgap at best.

Interesting when this topic comes up, you always jump right in and you appear to wrestle with so many aspects of it and you are all over the place at times. Not trying to be critical or pick a fight,it's just what I see.

Chiefshrink
05-31-2012, 10:13 PM
Since you're an esteemed psychologist, why don't you just diagnose him?

I just did. He is Bi-polar:p

Chiefshrink
05-31-2012, 10:18 PM
How many did your mama have after the massive disappointment that is you?

Answer my question:shrug:

Chiefshrink
05-31-2012, 10:21 PM
Yep. Same here.

I've seen too many infants that are simply waiting to be fitted for an orange jumpsuit because they had shitty parents.

I've also seen far more loving functional people than those in orange jumpsuits who had shitty parents as well.

Weak:rolleyes:

Brock
05-31-2012, 10:25 PM
Answer my question:shrug:

It's none of your business.

Chiefshrink
05-31-2012, 10:27 PM
It's none of your business.

Thank you. Nuff said.:shrug:

Brock
05-31-2012, 10:28 PM
Thank you. Nuff said.:shrug:

That's nice. :shrug:

AustinChief
05-31-2012, 10:43 PM
Interesting when this topic comes up, you always jump right in and you appear to wrestle with so many aspects of it and you are all over the place at times. Not trying to be critical or pick a fight,it's just what I see.

I think I've been pretty consistent. I RESPECT the view that life begins at conception, I just don't agree with it. It's FAR more valid then the current standards but not as valid as using the definition we use to define DEATH. A person DIES when their upper brain ceases... that should be the definition for beginning life. Simple.

Chiefshrink
05-31-2012, 11:36 PM
I think I've been pretty consistent. I RESPECT the view that life begins at conception, I just don't agree with it. It's FAR more valid then the current standards but not as valid as using the definition we use to define DEATH. A person DIES when their upper brain ceases... that should be the definition for beginning life. Simple.

Do you have kids?

fan4ever
05-31-2012, 11:43 PM
Yep. Same here.

I've seen too many infants that are simply waiting to be fitted for an orange jumpsuit because they had shitty parents.

Jumping the gun a bit? Infants? And if they end up in prison they'd had been better off dead? Or we'd been better off if they didn't exist? Not sure what your point is...if there is one.

AustinChief
05-31-2012, 11:49 PM
Do you have kids?

No, but that would not inform my decision in the least. As much as I may play the emotional side of an argument at times.. I am a creature of logic and that will always be paramount for me. (it's why I have so much trouble understanding far left liberals :D)

That's why the loosey goosey non-logic employed by people who say its primarily an issue about a woman's choice is rejected thoroughly by me. The issue is simple. What is a human life. Period. The idea that it's ok to kill a life for convenience is abhorrent. So no, I'm not ok with exception for rape or incest or the like. The only exception I am ok with is when a mother's life is in dire jeopardy.

Where you and I differ is in the simple point of when that life begins. Both the conception and the brain arguments have merit. I just think that my argument has MORE merit. The other arguments are a load of crap, regardless of Jenson's insistence.

Chiefshrink
05-31-2012, 11:56 PM
No, but that would not inform my decision in the least. As much as I may play the emotional side of an argument at times.. I am a creature of logic and that will always be paramount for me. (it's why I have so much trouble understanding far left liberals :D)

That's why the loosey goosey non-logic employed by people who say its primarily an issue about a woman's choice is rejected thoroughly by me. The issue is simple. What is a human life. Period. The idea that it's ok to kill a life for convenience is abhorrent. So no, I'm not ok with exception for rape or incest or the like. The only exception I am ok with is when a mother's life is in dire jeopardy.

Where you and I differ is in the simple point of when that life begins. Both the conception and the brain arguments have merit. I just think that my argument has MORE merit. The other arguments are a load of crap, regardless of Jenson's insistence.

Got it:thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-01-2012, 12:21 AM
Where you and I differ is in the simple point of when that life begins. Both the conception and the brain arguments have merit. I just think that my argument has MORE merit.

That is why I asked if you have kids. I understand that logic must always be followed in your worldview and it seems you want your emotions to be more a part of it, but your analytical side gets in the way and logic and emotions cannot mix IF they cannot be logically explained together or if ever?

Hence, why the miracle of life in the womb and how it forms over time and then the eventual birth of that human being cannot be emotional for you at this point because you have never experienced it FOR YOURSELF first hand as your own. Your thinking would definitely change on this IF you experienced this first hand. You would realize that life actually is started as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg. LIFE IS AT THAT POINT regardless if the upper brain is not developed. That IS LOGICAL;)

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 12:25 AM
That is why I asked if you have kids. I understand that logic must always be followed in your worldview and it seems you want your emotions to be more a part of it, but your analytical side gets in the way and logic and emotions cannot mix IF they cannot be logically explained together or if ever?

Hence, why the miracle of life in the womb and how it forms over time and then the eventual birth of that human being cannot be emotional for you at this point because you have never experienced it FOR YOURSELF first hand as your own. Your thinking would definitely change on this IF you experienced this first hand. You would realize that life actually is started as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg. LIFE IS AT THAT POINT regardless if the upper brain is not developed. That IS LOGICAL;)

Possible. I don't think so, but as you pointed out... I don't have first hand knowledge to enable me to make an educated judgment on your premise.

Surprisingly, I have no problem admitting that I am ignorant of a great many things! (ok maybe not a great many... but a few at least. :D)

Iz Zat Chew
06-01-2012, 12:26 AM
Republicans in the House are voting on a bill today (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/229945-house-plans-vote-on-bill-to-ban-sex-selective-abortion) that would ban sex-selective abortions by fining or imprisoning doctors who perform them:





Despite the fact that it's not really clear (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/congress-debates-ban-on-sex-selective-abortions-as-researchers-explore-how-often-they-happen/2012/05/30/gJQAwhpN2U_blog.html) this is a prevalent problem:

A short search shows this is just another rehash of an old arugment. It is very apparent there are two distinct directions that are always argued. Why continue to bring old stuff back to the top when you are sure there will never be a solution to the vast differences here and also you will never impact the situation as it exists.

What is gained with what you are doing?

healthpellets
06-01-2012, 07:22 AM
Hence, why the miracle of life in the womb and how it forms over time and then the eventual birth of that human being cannot be emotional for you at this point because you have never experienced it FOR YOURSELF first hand as your own. Your thinking would definitely change on this IF you experienced this first hand. You would realize that life actually is started as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg. LIFE IS AT THAT POINT regardless if the upper brain is not developed. That IS LOGICAL;)

You seem reasonably intelligent, so i'm not sure why you're confused on the status of conception. It's not a miracle. It's a biological process that's taken place repeatedly over millions of years. There's nothing miraculous about it. It's a required, necessary function of the perpetuation of the species.

I have my first child on the way. It would have been miraculous had my wife and i never had sex, she was a certifiable virgin, and two years in to wedded bliss a child popped out. Now that would be a miracle.

Our child resulted from a very specific set of actions that we undertook to create this child.

Only recently did our child become viable outside the womb. So now we have another life in our hands.

Iz Zat Chew
06-01-2012, 07:55 AM
You seem reasonably intelligent, so i'm not sure why you're confused on the status of conception. It's not a miracle. It's a biological process that's taken place repeatedly over millions of years. There's nothing miraculous about it. It's a required, necessary function of the perpetuation of the species.

I have my first child on the way. It would have been miraculous had my wife and i never had sex, she was a certifiable virgin, and two years in to wedded bliss a child popped out. Now that would be a miracle.

Our child resulted from a very specific set of actions that we undertook to create this child.

Only recently did our child become viable outside the womb. So now we have another life in our hands.

And so continues the creation vs biology argument.
What are you going to gain with your argument. You obviously think differently as others and your position is what you have come to feel is the only position. Life is a miracle or life just happens.

healthpellets
06-01-2012, 08:04 AM
And so continues the creation vs biology argument.
What are you going to gain with your argument. You obviously think differently as others and your position is what you have come to feel is the only position. Life is a miracle or life just happens.

you're right. some positions are based in fact, and some aren't. creation v. biology is a false distinction.

biology is fact whether you choose to believe it or not. just like all science is fact even if you don't accept it.

Radar Chief
06-01-2012, 08:26 AM
Abortion for whatever reason is okay with me.

Interesting. Last time I commented on the abortion issue I posted the opinion that abortion legality is an issue for women to figure out and that men should stay out of it. You replied saying that you had an equally frivolous attitude when you were younger. What changed?

durtyrute
06-01-2012, 08:31 AM
The woman should be able to do whatever she wants. It's her baby, not the governments.

Stay out of my cereal!!!

Brock
06-01-2012, 10:12 AM
Interesting. Last time I commented on the abortion issue I posted the opinion that abortion legality is an issue for women to figure out and that men should stay out of it. You replied saying that you had an equally frivolous attitude when you were younger. What changed?

You are mistaken.

Iz Zat Chew
06-01-2012, 01:04 PM
you're right. some positions are based in fact, and some aren't. creation v. biology is a false distinction.

biology is fact whether you choose to believe it or not. just like all science is fact even if you don't accept it.
Biology is fact but you have no substantial proof that intelligent design can be disproved. Your disbelief in.a supreme being taints your objectivity.

healthpellets
06-01-2012, 06:53 PM
Biology is fact but you have no substantial proof that intelligent design can be disproved. Your disbelief in.a supreme being taints your objectivity.

why did you bring up intelligent design? and stop...call it creationism. it is what it is.

but why bring creation (in the religious sense) up at all?

the existence or non-existence of any god or goddess has no bearing whatsoever on my assertion that scientific facts are still scientific facts whether or not you believe them to be true.

RedNeckRaider
06-01-2012, 07:37 PM
why did you bring up intelligent design? and stop...call it creationism. it is what it is.

but why bring creation (in the religious sense) up at all?

the existence or non-existence of any god or goddess has no bearing whatsoever on my assertion that scientific facts are still scientific facts whether or not you believe them to be true.

Rep for calling it by its proper name~

Iz Zat Chew
06-01-2012, 10:49 PM
why did you bring up intelligent design? and stop...call it creationism. it is what it is.

but why bring creation (in the religious sense) up at all?

the existence or non-existence of any god or goddess has no bearing whatsoever on my assertion that scientific facts are still scientific facts whether or not you believe them to be true.

The OP wanted an abortion fight. One of the sides of the fight has to do with the intent of the intelligent creator. You surely read the portion of my post that did not deny your biological comment. You are still blinded by the lack of religious belief as well as the probability that God also created the biologic formation of the earth and it's inhabitants. Your assertion is your belief, neither fact nor fiction to base your assertion on, only the fact that biology exists. Was the biological event that you claim created by the big bang?

I see no reason to argue the point further as you have shown no capability of reasoning in the possibility of intelligent design.

Iz Zat Chew
06-01-2012, 10:49 PM
Rep for calling it by its proper name~

It really doesn't matter what you call it, he doesn't believe it exists.

J Diddy
06-02-2012, 04:42 AM
Biology is fact but you have no substantial proof that intelligent design can be disproved. Your disbelief in.a supreme being taints your objectivity.

Let me preface this by saying I do believe in God. However, a disbelief in a supreme being does not taint objectivity. Quite the contrary, everything that happens can be explained and proven scientifically, whereas everything religious must be explained or proven with faith. The more objective of the two is the former and the more subjective, the latter.

I don't see how being more subjective hurts ones objectivity.

J Diddy
06-02-2012, 04:44 AM
The OP wanted an abortion fight. One of the sides of the fight has to do with the intent of the intelligent creator. You surely read the portion of my post that did not deny your biological comment. You are still blinded by the lack of religious belief as well as the probability that God also created the biologic formation of the earth and it's inhabitants. Your assertion is your belief, neither fact nor fiction to base your assertion on, only the fact that biology exists. Was the biological event that you claim created by the big bang?

I see no reason to argue the point further as you have shown no capability of reasoning in the possibility of intelligent design.

By this, do you mean he doesn't accept your theory as truth so you're taking your ball and going home?

tiptap
06-02-2012, 07:10 AM
Biology is fact but you have no substantial proof that intelligent design can be disproved. Your disbelief in.a supreme being taints your objectivity.

But there is overwhelming evidence that intelligent design is not needed for understanding the overwhelming number of structures in living systems. And to be of value scientifically, not religiously, intelligent design has to provide direction for human understanding and therefore a direction in pursuit of continued investigation of physical processes. Intelligent design says it is perfected and there is nothing else to be said. It is the ultimate "gap" theory.

tiptap
06-02-2012, 07:14 AM
Evolution states that the most recent developments in a species appear latest in the maturation of the embryo and adolescent. Brain development is one of the most unique qualities of man and it is perfected, higher brain function, takes place in the last trimester. There are numerous studies showing a distinct foreshortening of ganglia connections in premature infants. This is a big part of the investigation of morbidity in Neonatal research presently.

tiptap
06-02-2012, 07:29 AM
That is why I asked if you have kids. I understand that logic must always be followed in your worldview and it seems you want your emotions to be more a part of it, but your analytical side gets in the way and logic and emotions cannot mix IF they cannot be logically explained together or if ever?

Hence, why the miracle of life in the womb and how it forms over time and then the eventual birth of that human being cannot be emotional for you at this point because you have never experienced it FOR YOURSELF first hand as your own. Your thinking would definitely change on this IF you experienced this first hand. You would realize that life actually is started as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg. LIFE IS AT THAT POINT regardless if the upper brain is not developed. That IS LOGICAL;)

I have kids. My wife and I considered aborting my second child, of three, because of health risks to my wife. (At any time during a pregnancy the health risk to women is higher than in having an abortion and terminating the pregnancy.) I have talked to my second child about this decision. And I do love my second child.

But life didn't begin with the conception. Both the sperm and the egg were alive. There was a particularly rare combination of genetic material. And that provides a blueprint and time table for producing a baby. There is a construction and destruction process used that produces structure by both multiplying certain cells and killing off certain cells to form structures. Death is a intimate part of formulating a species at both developmental and evolutionary levels. Death is not the opposite of life. It is part of sustaining life.

Mile High Mania
06-02-2012, 07:49 AM
I have kids. My wife and I considered aborting my second child, of three, because of health risks to my wife. (At any time during a pregnancy the health risk to women is higher than in having an abortion and terminating the pregnancy.) I have talked to my second child about this decision. And I do love my second child.

But life didn't begin with the conception. Both the sperm and the egg were alive. There was a particularly rare combination of genetic material. And that provides a blueprint and time table for producing a baby. There is a construction and destruction process used that produces structure by both multiplying certain cells and killing off certain cells to form structures. Death is a intimate part of formulating a species at both developmental and evolutionary levels. Death is not the opposite of life. It is part of sustaining life.

So at what point did ejaculate #2 reach the point where you said 'ok, it is human now'?

J Diddy
06-02-2012, 09:11 AM
So at what point did ejaculate #2 reach the point where you said 'ok, it is human now'?

Probably when it said, "I'm a Chiefs fan."

healthpellets
06-02-2012, 09:46 AM
So at what point did ejaculate #2 reach the point where you said 'ok, it is human now'?

is that what this is all about? you need a fine line of demarcation to which you can point and say "ah ha! life!". and since science hasn't reached that point yet, you simply fall back on your god of the gaps theory and say "since there is no demarcation later on, we will call if life from the get go!"

Brilliant!

It appears time to pose this question again: If 20% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage, does that make god the world's most prolific abortionist?

tiptap
06-02-2012, 10:19 AM
So at what point did ejaculate #2 reach the point where you said 'ok, it is human now'?

It is a process. Legally it is quite open. But the health risk to the women is always higher than having an abortion anytime along the pregnancy. As such this is the concern that the women must weigh in going forward with pregnancy. It should be an informed one and a medical one. Not a governmental one.

Mind you I am for all women to have access to contraceptives. And that education be provided early and often in this area. This is to greatly reduce the unwanted pregnancies. Hormonal Contraception, The Pill, has the additional effect of assuring no zygotes are formed at all. The Pill forestalls eggs being released so no egg, no zygote for those who are religiously opposed to abortions.

If society were collectively to assure that all pregnant women had good prenatal care, that the child once born was well cared for and educated and that contraception was widely and easily available then if ALL three were so, I can entertain greatly curtailing abortions (health related only) on the biological basis that support of diversity in genetic representation is overall good for a species.

Iz Zat Chew
06-02-2012, 10:35 AM
But there is overwhelming evidence that intelligent design is not needed for understanding the overwhelming number of structures in living systems. And to be of value scientifically, not religiously, intelligent design has to provide direction for human understanding and therefore a direction in pursuit of continued investigation of physical processes. Intelligent design says it is perfected and there is nothing else to be said. It is the ultimate "gap" theory.

There is no gap unless you are a hardliner when it comes to a religious pov. Most religious groups claim the earth is 6000 years old. If They would only read the bible the words say God is, was, and will be. In my words, God is not bound by time. With my theory there is no beginning nor ending in God .

go bowe
06-02-2012, 10:56 AM
is that what this is all about? you need a fine line of demarcation to which you can point and say "ah ha! life!". and since science hasn't reached that point yet, you simply fall back on your god of the gaps theory and say "since there is no demarcation later on, we will call if life from the get go!"

Brilliant!

It appears time to pose this question again: If 20% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage, does that make god the world's most prolific abortionist?

hmmmm... never thought of it that way...

god as abortionist...

keep your head down as there will be some incoming fire about this... :huh:

Iz Zat Chew
06-02-2012, 11:19 AM
hmmmm... never thought of it that way...

god as abortionist...

keep your head down as there will be some incoming fire about this... :huh:

So you are killing by proxy when you jack off?

tiptap
06-02-2012, 11:23 AM
There is no gap unless you are a hardliner when it comes to a religious pov. Most religious groups claim the earth is 6000 years old. If They would only read the bible the words say God is, was, and will be. In my words, God is not bound by time. With my theory there is no beginning nor ending in God .

Well good and so why do you think Genesis creation story is literal? Why isn't evolution the process that Yahweh brought forth diversity? I know you are not Catholic but this is the church's doctrine. It isn't quite there for me because they include some god intervention as far as Man is concerned and his "soul."

go bowe
06-02-2012, 11:26 AM
So you are killing by proxy when you jack off?

i don't jack off, i have a loving wife...

besides, my weewee is so small i can't even find the damn thing...

tiptap
06-02-2012, 11:27 AM
So you are killing by proxy when you jack off?

This supposes that there is a little person in the sperm (males being dominant in Yahwah's world) that is deposited in the egg to grow. Not really the biological case.

Iz Zat Chew
06-02-2012, 11:53 AM
Well good and so why do you think Genesis creation story is literal? Why isn't evolution the process that Yahweh brought forth diversity? I know you are not Catholic but this is the church's doctrine. It isn't quite there for me because they include some god intervention as far as Man is concerned and his "soul."

We are all free to believe as.we see things. I Just don't, and won't subscribe to your limited definition.

Iz Zat Chew
06-02-2012, 11:55 AM
i don't jack off, i have a loving wife...

besides, my weewee is so small i can't even find the damn thing...

Sounds like a personal problem ........ For your wife! ;)