homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Cleft lip and palate a good reason? (Abortion) (Page 11)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  18  19  20 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Cleft lip and palate a good reason? (Abortion)
Padingtun Bear.

Bear of Very Little Brain
# 3935

 - Posted      Profile for Padingtun Bear.   Email Padingtun Bear.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Laura, are you bumping 'cos of the OP?

As far as I know, the police have decided to investigate the original abortion decision, with an eye to whether prosecutions can be brought against parents or doctors involved.

I'll keep an eye out, but there probably won't be any further news till the summer.

According to the BBC story on the TV, Rev. Jepson is still intending to pursue the judicial review case at the same time as the police investigation - not quite sure how that'll work in practice, but we'll see.

--------------------
Shameless publicity for a great new book:
A voice from the fringe

Posts: 961 | From: South Oxfordshire | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The story is found here.

[ 21. April 2004, 19:03: Message edited by: Níghtlamp ]

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp

Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frisbeetarian
Apprentice
# 6808

 - Posted      Profile for Frisbeetarian   Author's homepage   Email Frisbeetarian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Up to 80% of fertilized eggs fail to implant, and are flushed out of a woman's body with her menstrual cycle.
What was God's plan for those "lives?"
Is every woman who's had more than one period a serial killer?

--------------------
Quid pro quo, Clarice.

Posts: 39 | From: On the roof | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
FatMac

Ship's Macintosh
# 2914

 - Posted      Profile for FatMac   Author's homepage   Email FatMac   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
Up to 80% of fertilized eggs fail to implant, and are flushed out of a woman's body with her menstrual cycle.
What was God's plan for those "lives?"
Is every woman who's had more than one period a serial killer?

Frisbeetarian it's nice to see a newbie rooting around in the bowels of Dead Horses. Personally, while I understand the boredom that these topics can cause for those who've heard them again and again, I'm a bit sorry that they don't get more of an airing because the discussion may be new for newer members, and even older members might learn something new in discussion.

As it happens, I agree with you that such naturally aborted fertilised eggs are a powerful (but not unarguable) argument against the idea that fertilisation is some black and white dividing line beyond which a person /soul / life exists.

OTOH, I think your last sentence is attacking rather a straw man. I'm sure that even the most ardent conservative 'pro-lifer' would not claim that a woman was a serial killer because of such events, but rather that the woman would have a wonderful and surprising reunion in heaven with these unknown children. Further, you refer to "every woman who's had more than one period" but of course that is not the case anyway - for there to be a fertilised egg it has to have been a woman who has been successfully sexually active that month.

--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.

Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:

What was God's plan for those "lives?"

I think a 'personhood begins at conception' type could legitimately answer this 'I don't know'. It doesn't strike me as a very powerful argument.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Agree that Frisbeetarian's arguement is unconvincing, since we are not talking about unfertilised egg's but about an actual fetus.

I wish Jepson all the best in this case and hope that she succeeds. I know that I am often seen, at least on the ship, as a kneejerk lefty-Pinko but I am genuinely unable to see much of a case for aborting a fetus cos of a cleft-pallet. I just think it is wrong.

As I have said, that is more than a purely theorectical position for me and so I am afraid that purely theorectical positions are not going to convince me about this case.

I am a utilitarian about abortion, but aborting for a cleft-pallet? Come on!!

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, the foetus was more developed in the case at hand. But it just seems to me that the reasoning

A: There are many lives that end early and apparently pointlessly.
B: It is difficult or impossible to discern a divine purpose for these lives.

therefore,

C: Abortion is permissible.

Doesn't follow, and is a non-starter.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, yes, I agree with that as well.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For US folks: a federal judge has ruled this morning that a ban on "partial-birth abortion" is unconstitutional, as it places an undue burden on a woman's right to choose abortion.
Posts: 24368 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
In the banned procedure — known as intact dilation and extraction to doctors, but called partial-birth abortion by opponents — the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.

...

Abortion proponents, however, argued that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.

I cannot fathom how a person would choose one of these over the other. Both are hideous.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7698 | From: Canada, eh? | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
For US folks: a federal judge has ruled this morning that a ban on "partial-birth abortion" is unconstitutional, as it places an undue burden on a woman's right to choose abortion.

I would like, despite being a Brit, to read the article but I have to register for the Washington Post in order to do so. [Frown]

Ruth - what is meant by a "partial-birth abortion"?

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here is a free report from the Globe & Mail:

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional.

The "procedure" is the first one I quoted above.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7698 | From: Canada, eh? | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Sharkshooter. [Big Grin]

As a general question (not directed at Sharkshooter) why do the defenders of the practice cite the mother's health if the practice is "never medically necesary"?

It seems a resonable inference that the practice is genuinly inhumane and if it is "never necesary" then what's the matter with banning it?

[ 02. June 2004, 12:58: Message edited by: Papio. ]

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Has anyone ever been able to lay hands on the number of such procedures every year. While one would still be a tragedy(*), I should think that from a legislative point of view, the number might be important.

(*)I believe that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. I think that voluntary late-term abortions of viable fetuses are a tragedy - and I suspect so does everyone involved. Sometimes a tragedy is the best available outcome.

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7229 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a lot of debate over how many of these procedures are done, and also a lot of debate over whether or not they're medically necessary. From what I've read, there are better ways to do late-term abortions, but many doctors don't know how or are not equipped to perform the other procedures.
Posts: 24368 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I waited to comment on this until I could verify it. And the press has so suppressed this, it took a while to verify.

But among the outrages of the ruling yesterday striking down the ban on partial birth abortion is the following: the judge wrote that the question of whether a fetus killed by partial birth abortion suffers pain is “irrelevant.”

This parrots what I’ve heard from pro-abortionists before. One pro-abortion leader wrote in 1980 that the question of whether an unborn child is a life was “irrelevant.” (I’d have to dig to refresh my memory who it was. That statement is in the hearing records of the Human Life Bill, in the appendix, I think.) Face it, the core of the pro-abortion crowd doesn’t care whether abortion kills or not. They don’t even care if it tortures. It's not for nothing that I call them babykillers.

As outrageous as this ruling is, I guess it’s what we should expect from U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, a San Francisco judge appointed by Bill Clinton.

On to the Supreme Court – although I have faint hope that a majority of that court will do the right thing.

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.

Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frisbeetarian
Apprentice
# 6808

 - Posted      Profile for Frisbeetarian   Author's homepage   Email Frisbeetarian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Strange that the ones who are vehemently anti-abortion are also just as vehemently opposed to social programs that would render abortion needless.

--------------------
Quid pro quo, Clarice.

Posts: 39 | From: On the roof | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know the stats, but it's safe to say most abortions are elective with little or nothing to do with poverty.

And pro-lifers have created a network of ministries to assist women through difficult pregnancies.

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.

Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You know, I have met a lot of people who support the availability of abortion, who want it to be legal, who believe firmly in a woman's right to choose. I have never met anyone who is "pro-abortion." If you ever expect to have a rational discussion about this, Mark, you really need to re-think your rhetoric.
Posts: 24368 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The pro-choice movement over here gives the impression of being pro-abortion, to me at least.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
Strange that the ones who are vehemently anti-abortion are also just as vehemently opposed to social programs that would render abortion needless.

Abortion is more-or-less the only "political" issue I am conservative on. Still, I think abortion is acceptable for a strong medical reason but not as a form of birth control.

A couple (so I don't get accused of being sexist, at least) who decide on a very late abortion because " baby would not be convieniant at this time" are selfish and immature murderers and so is their doctor. If it really was that impossible to have a kid, you should have taken precautions or got ride of it earlier.

A woman who has an abortion due to a pressing medical concern, on the other hand, is none of those things and nor is her doctor.

I agree that professional abortions are better, for all sorts of reasons, then a back-street butcher. Incidentally, I would say I am anti (needless) abortion before I would call myself pro-life, since many pro-lifers couldn't give a darn about the starving etc.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gotta say, I agree with Papio here.

I call myself pro-choice, but anti-abortion, if that makes any sense to anyone. I believe the option should be there, and legal, but except for pressing medical reasons (including severe problems with the foetus) I'd never advise anybody to have one.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29844 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

 - Posted      Profile for Paige   Email Paige   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mark---until you actually talk to a woman who has had one of these kind of abortions, I suggest you don't know what hell you are talking about.

As the friend of a woman who had one, I can tell you that it was a wrenching experience---and one that was seen as the only way by her doctors, if she had any hope of preserving her ability to carry another child.

She still grieves for that baby, who could not have lived, no matter what. And idiots like you---who talk as if women have these kinds of procedures and then go have their nails done---make it even harder for her.

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Paige, there's little question in my mind that most abortions are indeed wrenching decisions for the women involved. But I think it's also safe to say that most abortions don't involve serious medical issues, such as the one you mention, or extreme poverty or the like.

Ruth, I've watched the pro-abortion crowd for too many years, since 1980. The core of them are indeed pro-abortion.

And if they are so pro-choice, then why would they force taxpayers to pay for abortions? Why do they hate pregnancy support centers that encourage choices other than abortion? For them, "choice" is a rhetorical device to trivialize what abortion is.

There are genuinely pro-choice people who think abortion is usually the wrong choice, and who have the moral clarity to oppose legal partial birth abortion. The Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc etc crowd isn't among them.

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.

Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:
ability to carry another child

Is that all it takes to get medical approval? [Frown]

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7698 | From: Canada, eh? | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
many pro-lifers couldn't give a darn about the starving etc.

And some of Britain's most fervent 'pro-life' MPs are also vocal advocates of the death penalty.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
MarkthePunk wrote: As outrageous as this ruling is, I guess it’s what we should expect from U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, a San Francisco judge appointed by Bill Clinton.

What about the majority opinion in the Ninth Circuit's Pledge of Allegiance case? I guess it's what we should expect from Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Alfred Goodwin, an Oregon Republican appointed by Richard Nixon. And, while we're at it, a combat veteran of WWII and the son of a Baptist minister.

For a smart guy, Mark, you sometimes demonstrate the subtle nuanced analysis of a bludgeon.

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ever heard of RINOs presleyterian? I think Earl Warren and Henry Blackmun :spit: were Republicans, too.

The Ninth Circuit and its Pledge decision are out there in lala land. Even with my low opinion of the Supreme Court, I expect them to overturn that joke.

As I think I mentioned, I'm not so optimistic about the partial birth abortion case.

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.

Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

 - Posted      Profile for Paige   Email Paige   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Paige, there's little question in my mind that most abortions are indeed wrenching decisions for the women involved. But I think it's also safe to say that most abortions don't involve serious medical issues, such as the one you mention, or extreme poverty or the like.

I don't think it's safe to say that at all. I would surmise (based on fairly extensive reading on the subject) that almost every single one of the D & X abortions we are discussing is done for the same reason that my friend's was done---to protect the life and health of the mother. To imply that this particular rarely performed procedure is somehow indicative of what all abortions are like, and to imply (as you and others like you always seem to do) that women are having these procedures merely because they are selfish and can't be bothered with having a baby, is the worst sort of intellectual and rhetorical dishonesty.

You end up compounding the tragedy of these kinds of abortions. You amplify the pain that women like my friend already feel over the loss of wanted children. You intensify the guilt they already feel over having to end wanted pregnancies.

You, of course, are free to work to end these procedures. But I wish you would consider how your words affect those who, through no fault or desire of their own, found themselves in the horrible position of having to choose such a procedure.

My friend's daughter was horribly deformed. She had only a brain stem, but no functional brain. She would never have survived more than a few minutes after birth, even if my friend had chosen to continue the pregnancy. But had my friend done so, her doctors were concerned that the deformities would injure her in such a way that she wouldn't be able to have other children.

I infer from Sharkshooter's response that he does not think even this is a good enough reason.

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
MarkthePunk: Why does it seem that, to your way of thinking, all judges, politicians, and civil servants who disagree with you (and theologians, too, for that matter) are by definition Democratic stooges, RINO Fifth Columnists, malignant libertines, or craven opportunists? Has it ever dawned on you in this debate -- or any other -- that they just may be well-intentioned people with whom you disagree?

I've read the Judge's opinion only cursorily and haven't had the time to review the legislative history, re-read the cases she's cited, and evaluate her use of precedent -- steps that reasonable students of the law deem essential before one shoots one's mouth off about an opinion. Who know, Mark? When I do, I just may agree with you. But until then, I'm not about to attribute despicable motives to an Officer of the Court base solely on the fact that I may disagree with the result she reached.

And by the way:

quote:
I think Earl Warren and Henry Blackmun :spit: were Republicans, too.
His name was Harry Blackmun, not Henry.

How about we make a little deal, Mark? I'll hold my tongue for a moment before pontificating on issues of youth ministry and you do the same before popping off about federal jurisprudence? We both just might learn a little something in the bargain.

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
MarkthePunk: Why does it seem that, to your way of thinking, all judges, politicians, and civil servants who disagree with you (and theologians, too, for that matter) are by definition Democratic stooges, RINO Fifth Columnists, malignant libertines, or craven opportunists? Has it ever dawned on you in this debate -- or any other -- that they just may be well-intentioned people with whom you disagree?

Oh I think judges who impose their views in disregard of the Constitution and the framers' intent are worse than that. If they want to change laws, let them become legislators.

To rule that the Constitution mandates free abortion and the like and strike out the laws of 48 states (Roe v. Wade) is flat out judicial tyranny. To say the Constitution protects partial birth abortion is either intellectually dishonest and dictatorial or is sheer infanticidal madness. Hell, maybe it's both.

As you can tell, judicial tyrants tick me off so much, I hardly have words for it. And no, I won't back off. I pray that one day the president and Congress will FINALLY not back off either and put dictators in black robes in their place. :catches breath:

Oh, and thanks for correcting my brain fart on the first name.

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.

Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
There are genuinely pro-choice people who think abortion is usually the wrong choice

Yo.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29844 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
“Dictators in black robes”? “Judicial tyrants”? Precisely how many federal judges do you know, Mark?

Early in my career I clerked for a federal trial judge and later for federal appellate judges. Since then, I’ve tried cases before more than 100 other federal judges, most of whom came from those bastions of fuzzy liberal thinking, prosecutor's offices and corporate law firms. And even when they ruled against me – and yes, it's happened more than I would have liked – I found every single one of them to be principled people who took their Oath of Office seriously. Some agreed with Mr. Justice Scalia about the correct interpretation of the Constitution. Some agreed with, say, Mr. Justice Stevens. But in my experience, each and every one of them performed a difficult job for 10% of what they’d make in the private sector with faithful adherence to their daunting responsibility.

With regard to this:

quote:
Oh I think judges who impose their views in disregard of the Constitution and the framers' intent are worse than that.
Let’s talk about The All-Hallowed Framers just a bit. I happen to think that they got a lot of stuff right. But let’s not forget that if our only constitutional compass is the Framer’s intent, then I wouldn’t have the right to vote or to own property or to sign a contract or to practice law or to marry freely. As for Black people, well, according to the Framers, they’re not even human.

On this topic and many others, Mark, I'm not surprised that you “won’t back off.” I didn’t expect that you would. So foam at the mouth all you want while I remain confident that even though hysteria may win the battle, reason and civility will win the war.

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, the Framers weren't perfect. But we amended the Constitution to give Blacks equal rights under the law and to extend suffrage. (Granted, it took a long while for the courts and Congress to make equal rights for Blacks a day to day reality.)

Proabortionists have not relied on such democratic processes but have relied almost exclusively on judicial fiat to impose their views.

A lot of times, how something becomes law is more important than whether it becomes law. Sometimes, it's a lot more important.

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.

Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mark, could you please stop using the phrase "pro-abortionists". It is neither accurate nor helpful to the discussion.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29844 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

 - Posted      Profile for Paige   Email Paige   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Mark, could you please stop using the phrase "pro-abortionists". It is neither accurate nor helpful to the discussion.

Thank you, Marvin. When Mark finds me standing out in front of an obstetrician's office trying to convince every pregnant woman I see to have an abortion, THEN he can call me a "pro-abortionist." [Mad]

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:

I infer from Sharkshooter's response that he does not think even this is a good enough reason.

You infer correctly.

To say that abortion is OK for the life of the mother is step one. For the health of the mother is step two. For the convenience of the mother is step three.

When do we stop?

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7698 | From: Canada, eh? | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

 - Posted      Profile for Paige   Email Paige   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
You infer correctly.

Then I thank God you were not in charge when my friend had to make that decision. And I thank God for the healthy baby she was able to deliver a year later.

quote:
To say that abortion is OK for the life of the mother is step one. For the health of the mother is step two. For the convenience of the mother is step three.

When do we stop?

I'm perfectly comfortable with the law as it stands now---without meddling from people who are not doctors and who have not faced, or will never face, this decision.

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:

I infer from Sharkshooter's response that he does not think even this is a good enough reason.

You infer correctly.

To say that abortion is OK for the life of the mother is step one. For the health of the mother is step two. For the convenience of the mother is step three.

When do we stop?

Sharkshooter,

The laws against murder recognize different levels of "killing" for the purposes of assessing where the killer is on a spectrum between cold-blooded sociopath who deserves death to innocent bystander defending himself against a perceived lethal threat. Nobody thinks the two should be treated the same. Are you saying that, assuming that you are correct that abortion is wrong, there can be no degrees when applied to it? That's startlingly rigid thinking from a person of your demonstrable intelligence. If I understand you correctly, you would approve of the stranger killing a stranger in self-defense against a perceived lethal threat, but not allow a woman whose doctor said "abortion or you will die" to do so.

As to the foaming-at-the-mouth MtP, I second the call for a little civility in the debate here. I am a person in favor of limited legal access to abortion. Not a person who is pro-abortion. But hey, at least he isn't calling anyone "pro-death".

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16882 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Sharkshooter,

The laws against murder recognize different levels of "killing" for the purposes of assessing where the killer is on a spectrum between cold-blooded sociopath who deserves death to innocent bystander defending himself against a perceived lethal threat. Nobody thinks the two should be treated the same. Are you saying that, assuming that you are correct that abortion is wrong, there can be no degrees when applied to it? That's startlingly rigid thinking from a person of your demonstrable intelligence. If I understand you correctly, you would approve of the stranger killing a stranger in self-defense against a perceived lethal threat, but not allow a woman whose doctor said "abortion or you will die" to do so.

Laura,

I am sorry for not responding sooner - I have been thinking about how to respond, though. Your question is a difficult one, and although I am not confident I can respond completely yet, I will give it a try. Please forgive me if my answer seems to ramble and/or be unresponsive.

First, let me state that, in my opinion, the taking of another human being's life is a sin, i.e. wrong. I don't really make exceptions for self-defense, self-preservation, the protection of others or any other purpose at this point.

The remedy for sin, which I have stated on different threads for different topics is repentance for which God provides forgiveness.

Now, also in my opinion (I'll just drop that phrase from now on, you know I mean it to be there), there sometimes are mitigating circumstances - for example, if I, in the course of protecting my children from an attacker, killed the attacker, I would consider that a mitigating circumstance. I would still consider that I had sinned, repent and ask for forgiveness.

Under the law of the land, they may find me not guilty, however, I would never refer to myself as not guilty, for indeed I had killed in contravention of my moral and religious beliefs.

So, I believe that all killing of humans are the same - sinful. However, I understand why the legislators and the courts have determined that there are "degrees" (although I dislike that use of the word here). I agree with them that the penalty for killing should be different depending on the mitigating circumstances present.

So, really, I do not approve of killing, even in defense of innocents, but I understand why it may have to be done sometimes. Would I kill to defend myself? I just don't know. For one thing, I am not sure I would know how to. For another I am not sure I physically could carry it out. I have never even punched or kicked another person since I was a young child - so I don't know if I could/would kill.

Would I kill to protect my kids? I might try to. However, I feel the proper action would be to attempt to free them without killing. Indeed, if I did, I would consider that I had sinned by taking a life.

Similarly, with abortion, I would argue that it is always a sin. However, all sin can be forgiven, if repentance is genuine.

You conclude talking about the "abort or die" question. (I see this the same as the "kill or die" question involved in self-defense.) I would argue that the correct response is to leave it in God's hands - if either the child or the mother dies, it is God's decision - I have no right to make life and death decisions. God, the giver of life, is, in my opinion, the only one who should determine when a life should end. (Note that there may seem to be a concern how this stance fits with my position on capital punishment - but that is for another thread.)

Would my answers change if I was a woman? I cannot answer that.

Does that clarify my position?

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7698 | From: Canada, eh? | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Useful analogy Laura

Yes, I'd say there's a difference between abortion for convenience and abortion to save life, and that abortion for convenience is much worse and more culpable morally.

In the same way, I'd say that there's a difference between killing someone in defence of others, killing someone in just defending myself and killing someone because they got in my way.

And yes, I would say that there's a good correspondance between someone having an abortion to save their life and killing (knowing it was killing, e.g. by a shot to the head) to save your own life. In both cases, I think it should probably go to trial and my inclination is to go with sharkshooter here.

But yes, I would also say there is a good correspondance between having an abortion for convenience and killing someone merely because they got in the way of you living a comfortable life. And in both cases I think it is murder.

As for the whole capital punishment thing, that is (or should be) the state killing guilty people for something they have done, knowing that it carried the death penalty. Of course, it doesn't always work that way, and that's a problem for another place.

Abortion is often just killing innocent people for the crime of existing.

Custard

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frisbeetarian
Apprentice
# 6808

 - Posted      Profile for Frisbeetarian   Author's homepage   Email Frisbeetarian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What is existence?

For those who really don't want children but their contraception failed, would you force that child on them as punishment?

--------------------
Quid pro quo, Clarice.

Posts: 39 | From: On the roof | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
For those who really don't want children but their contraception failed, would you force that child on them as punishment?

I don't know anyone who said that. If your "contraception fails" put the child up for adoption. Considering all the options often shows an alternative route.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7698 | From: Canada, eh? | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
What is existence?

For those who really don't want children but their contraception failed, would you force that child on them as punishment?

What kind of parent would honestly describe their child as "punishment" on them?

Presumably the same kind as would happily see that child dead. So I guess the answer to your question is "Yes".

Oh, my analogy above was too weak.

Abortion to save the life of the mother is equivalent to the intentional and premeditated killing of another person to save your own life (e.g. someone who had put out a contract on you).

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
For those who really don't want children but their contraception failed, would you force that child on them as punishment?

Does having to accept the consequences of your actions mean someone is forcing those consequences on you? No. It means someone is telling you to take responsibility for your actions.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7698 | From: Canada, eh? | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frisbeetarian
Apprentice
# 6808

 - Posted      Profile for Frisbeetarian   Author's homepage   Email Frisbeetarian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
For those who really don't want children but their contraception failed, would you force that child on them as punishment?

Does having to accept the consequences of your actions mean someone is forcing those consequences on you? No. It means someone is telling you to take responsibility for your actions.
But the action I gave as an example, the failure of contraception, is not a couple's own actions.

--------------------
Quid pro quo, Clarice.

Posts: 39 | From: On the roof | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
For those who really don't want children but their contraception failed, would you force that child on them as punishment?

Does having to accept the consequences of your actions mean someone is forcing those consequences on you? No. It means someone is telling you to take responsibility for your actions.
But the action I gave as an example, the failure of contraception, is not a couple's own actions.
The "action" is having sex.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7698 | From: Canada, eh? | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frisbeetarian
Apprentice
# 6808

 - Posted      Profile for Frisbeetarian   Author's homepage   Email Frisbeetarian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
For those who really don't want children but their contraception failed, would you force that child on them as punishment?

Does having to accept the consequences of your actions mean someone is forcing those consequences on you? No. It means someone is telling you to take responsibility for your actions.
But the action I gave as an example, the failure of contraception, is not a couple's own actions.
The "action" is having sex.
The action is quite clearly the failure of contraception, which, when used correctly, is the fault of neither couple nor sex act.

--------------------
Quid pro quo, Clarice.

Posts: 39 | From: On the roof | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pregnancy is not a "fault" it is a "result".

Act = sex.

Result = child.

Can you not understand that?

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7698 | From: Canada, eh? | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
sharkshooter:

Frisbeetarian has decided to jump in wayyyyy earlier in the debate and try a different angle.

Frisbee: anyone who has sex, no matter how good the birth control is, is accepting the possibility of pregnancy. It is as much the couple's "fault" that the pregnancy resulted either way. Pregnancy is a natural result, in fact, evolutionarily, it's pretty much the whole point of sexual intercourse. That is Sharkshooter's point. That modern people may make it far less likely to result in pregnancy really doesn't change this.

Your point seems to be that, as people should be able to have sex freely, the choice to use contraception somehow negates the "intent" to get pregnant. Surely this is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is justified morally.

Plus, it is this cavalier attitude (me! me! It's all about me!) that depresses those on your side of the debate and confirms to those on the other side that people in favor of limited legal access to abortion ("PIFLLAA": I'm going to adopt this as an alternative to Mark's "pro-abortion" epithet) have the moral complexity of a grapefruit.

I don't say that abortion should be illegal myself, but if it is murder, it really doesn't matter if carrying a child is an inconvenience. If abortion is really murder, then I'd say the only justification for it is lethal threat to the life of the mother. Then one could legally justify it in the same way that (at least in the United States) a person perceiving (even if they are wrong) imminent threat to life may kill that innocent person and have a self-defense defense. This is true even where the person who appeared to be making a lethal threat really wasn't at all, but appeared to a reasonable person to be posing such a threat.

Sharkshooter: I think your pro-death penalty stance "is" (not "seems to be") at odds with your general stance on all other sorts of killing. [Big Grin]

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16882 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  18  19  20 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools