Sponsored Links

[ZeeSaga]

This topic will attempt to designate a time that one would legally be allowed to abort a fetus/child based on scientific events and not calendar time or religious theories. I saw an article which I can no longer find that said that abortion should be legal up until the brain is mostly developed in the average child. He proposed that that made sense because then the child would have a consciousness and therefore be human making an abortion essentially murder. First I thought that didn't make sense since not too many people claim to remember anything from before their birth but then again not many people remember much before 2-3 years of age and aborting a 2 year old is obviously out of the question. He gave the rough time of brain development at 6 weeks.
I thought that had made the most sense I have heard ever on the subject but thought I should bring it up for debate to hear other views. I can not think of any other significant events in birth besides conception and actually birth. Conception seems reasonable if scientists can not agree on an age that would define being human because it's always better safe then sorry. Birth seems way too late with the evidence showing premature births are viable. There has to be an event that changes a "fetus" to a "human", so what is it?

When do you think a child/fetus should be protected by law?

Is this really a woman's issue or a science issue or perhaps even a philosophical issue?

What group of people can be trusted to come up with this answer, scientists or politicians?

[vsrenard]

I believe aborting a fetus with a beating heart is murder and I could really care less about what you think about it based on definitions. Like someone said - I know it's porn when I see it - there doesn't need to be explicit language identifying it.

While I agree there are definitely laws I don't agree with (and thus think are wrong), the term 'murder' has a legal denotation that can't be ignored. It's well enough for you to say you 'believe' it's murder, but that doesn't make it so, unless or until the law is changed. it would be like saying I 'believe' god is the ultimate arbiter of punishment, so your (non specific) verdict on my guilt means nothing. Fine for your belief system, but not legally relevant.

[Vermillion]

I don't know if I want to jump in the middle of all this self-righteous indignation, but I would say the law is not always correct.

For example, most people think water boarding is torture. But according to the previous AG and measured by the lack of action from the current administration, water boarding is legal. I'm sure there are other examples, but that was the first one that jumped out at me. But I would make the same argument all day that water boarding is torture regardless of any definitions you come up with.

The point you are making then has nothing to do with 'right', you are saying the law is not always sufficiently specific. In the case you mentioned, it not clear at all at the moment if waterboarding is torture or not. It was clearly considered torture prior to Bush Jr., but now the decinition is hazy. In that you are quite correct. Laws frequently suffer from a lack of specificity, in particular when facing new or changing situations.

However, that is not the case with murder. It is a legal term, and seeing as abortion is NOT against the law, it is NOT murder.

I believe aborting a fetus with a beating heart is murder.

No you dont.

Do you think abortion is currently illegal in the United States? Yes or No?

If yes, then you are delusional, but we both know thats not the case.

If no, then you do NOT believe abortion is murder. You may think it should be considered murder, but that is wishful thinking, not reality. I do not accept your contentipon above that you are not aware enough to know the current legal status of abortion.

[Julian]

I believe aborting a fetus with a beating heart is murder and I could really care less about what you think about it based on definitions. Like someone said - I know it's porn when I see it - there doesn't need to be explicit language identifying it.

Fair comment, but if you believe abortion is wrong, and you believe the law that allows it is therefore wrong, you have to get the law changed, right? And to do that, you have to make an argument, which requires a lot more than you saying "I believe..."

If your argument is itself going to stay within the law, then arguing by saying "I believe..." isn't going to get you very far. It's just one person's opinion, and your opinion that abortion is wrong can be held in no higher esteem by the process of law making that someone else's opinion that abortion isn't wrong. (As I indicated in my last post, there are plenty of occasions where it's RIGHT.)

And it's a bit of a tangent, I know, but I always find it a little bit frustrating when, on an internet discussion board, people start grumbling about arguments that are "based on definitions" or "just semantics". On , all we've got is the written word. Apart from "mere words", "semantics" or arguments "based on definitions", what are we supposed to use to make a case? Sign language? Emoticons? What?

entspeak

Kevmo wasn't arguing against abortion where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, I know, but I did also mention that one of the reasons a responsible and stable couple that have been responsibly been using contraception might have for seeking an abortion, apart from a life-threatening situation, might be that they simply do not want (more) children. They were using contraception, after all, and it's not their fault that no contraceptive method, including sterilisation of the man or the woman, is 100% reliable. I took your point at the time, though if your quote:

I've already responded to your proposal... I've even defended your argument from a strawman with regard to your proposal, so an accusation that, somehow, I've bypassed it is ludicrous.

is in reference to my post, I have to say I take exception to it. If you think my post was a straw man, you didn't read it properly.

[entspeak]

I believe aborting a fetus with a beating heart is murder and I could really care less about what you think about it based on definitions. Like someone said - I know it's porn when I see it - there doesn't need to be explicit language identifying it.

Then the problem lies in you. In some states, aborting a fetus with a beating heart in violation of the laws regulating abortion - an elective abortion after viability, say - is considered murder. This is the way it is in California, for example. So, you may call it murder if you like, but unless it is unlawful, it isn't.

Julian,

The opening statement of your post is what makes it a strawman:

Among other things, you appear to be arguing under the assumption that only women who have been sexally irresponsible end up having abortions

Kevmo clearly gave no appearance of arguing under that assumption. You misrepresented his position and then attempted to refute that misrepresentation. The fact that some elements of your post, considered independently, would not be straw man arguments is irrelevant.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Oct 13 2009, 07:25 PM

[DaytonRocker]

Then the problem lies in you. In some states, aborting a fetus with a beating heart in violation of the laws regulating abortion - an elective abortion after viability, say - is considered murder. This is the way it is in California, for example. So, you may call it murder if you like, but unless it is unlawful, it isn't.

I don't dispute the reality of that. But using my example of torture, some methods of enhanced interrogation are torture. But legally, people have been allowed to do that by re-defining what torture means. As it relates to my point, the fetus has been re-defined to not be a life unless I kill it (instead of the mother and doctor).

So, no matter what the letter of the law says about torture, America has tortured people. That is my belief. But, by using your standard (maybe not yours specifically) in the abortion debate, America has never tortured because legally, no laws were broken.

[vsrenard]

So, no matter what the letter of the law says about torture, America has tortured people. That is my belief. But, by using your standard (maybe not yours specifically) in the abortion debate, America has never tortured because legally, no laws were broken.

no, because torture is not a legal definition. Murder is. Abortion definitely involves killing a fetus, which is a non-legal definition.

[entspeak]

Then the problem lies in you. In some states, aborting a fetus with a beating heart in violation of the laws regulating abortion - an elective abortion after viability, say - is considered murder. This is the way it is in California, for example. So, you may call it murder if you like, but unless it is unlawful, it isn't.

I don't dispute the reality of that. But using my example of torture, some methods of enhanced interrogation are torture. But legally, people have been allowed to do that by re-defining what torture means. As it relates to my point, the fetus has been re-defined to not be a life unless I kill it (instead of the mother and doctor).

So, no matter what the letter of the law says about torture, America has tortured people. That is my belief. But, by using your standard (maybe not yours specifically) in the abortion debate, America has never tortured because legally, no laws were broken.

The letter of the law is vague on the point of torture and what constitutes torture - with references that are pretty open to interpretation, but the letter of the law with regard to murder is fairly specific - the unlawful killing of another human being. I don't see how you can compare the two.

As I've stated previously, the abortion issue is a balance between a woman's liberty interests and the State's interest in human life. Because there has been no consensus established with regard to when a fetus is a human being capable of being murdered, the court found it necessary to balance those interests. As far as you killing it (instead of the mother and doctor), the State does not have to contend with a balancing issue, it's interest in human life most definitely outweighs your interest in killing it... you have no liberty interest to weigh against it... so, the State's interest can be considered primary in that case.

no, because torture is not a legal definition. Murder is. Abortion definitely involves killing a fetus, which is a non-legal definition.

I don't quite understand what you mean here. Torture has a legal definition, murder has a legal definition... so... perhaps I'm missing something here?

This post has been edited by entspeak: Oct 14 2009, 02:30 AM

[Julian]

I believe aborting a fetus with a beating heart is murder and I could really care less about what you think about it based on definitions. Like someone said - I know it's porn when I see it - there doesn't need to be explicit language identifying it.

Then the problem lies in you. In some states, aborting a fetus with a beating heart in violation of the laws regulating abortion - an elective abortion after viability, say - is considered murder. This is the way it is in California, for example. So, you may call it murder if you like, but unless it is unlawful, it isn't.

Julian,

The opening statement of your post is what makes it a strawman:

Among other things, you appear to be arguing under the assumption that only women who have been sexally irresponsible end up having abortions

Kevmo clearly gave no appearance of arguing under that assumption. You misrepresented his position and then attempted to refute that misrepresentation. The fact that some elements of your post, considered independently, would not be straw man arguments is irrelevant.

Ok, maybe I didn't phrase it quite right - this has been a really long thread. But, in discussing his definition of "Tier 3" abortions, Kevmo did say (with my emphasis)...

In your artificial edifice you have this wonderful precondition: she claims truthfully. And I think that's a great edifice, because we could then get the truthful response about why she wants to kill this emerging human life form inside of her that arose through her own willing behavior. And 9 times out of 10, the truth would be that she doesn't want to have the baby, doesn't want to put up with it growing to viability, all those hassles associated with allowing this life to live rather than choosing to kill it. So, if we had your wonderful artificial edifice, then we could be in a position to say to this woman who answers truthfully that he has a truthful responsibility to this growing life.

And

Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision. I personally do not believe in Tier3 abortions, but I can understand that there are many who think it is a “right to choose” at this stage. It may be time to consider a program where the woman declares her pregnancy and intent to abort. Our societal function at this point would be to provide a family that is willing to adopt this baby and to put up this woman for 6-8 months in a safe environment so the baby can grow and maybe the woman can learn some life skills. If our society cannot muster the forces necessary to save this baby, the woman has the sickening “right” to abort this pregnancy. Time for us to put up or shut up.

prior to the my posting that you called a strawman. I took these two paragraphs to mean that women seeking "tier 3" abortions are somehow feckless, irresponsible or just ignorant, so I posted to illustrate some situations where simply becoming pregnant was life threatening (not to directly refute kevmo, you understand, but he isn't the only poster here arguing for restrictions on current abortion laws) and other situations where perfectly responsible upstanding and intelligent women might want to have a "tier 3" abortion. I didn't make it clear enough, obviously, or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Kevmo

Thinking about your "Tier 3" proposal some more, your argument on it rests on the construction of an unnamed infrasctructure to place the unwanted babies that would be born (because the mothers seeking Tier 3 abortions would be prevented from doing so, if the infrastructure is there), am I right? And in support of this, you said there is a shortage of potential adoptees.

Except there isn't a shortages of children that are up for adoption, only of babies. There are tens of thousands of kids, from toddlers to teens, that are available for adoption, but which languish in children's homes, or live with foster carers (or worse, on the streets) because too many prospective adoptive parents only want babies. Some of them are so desperate for babies that they'll buy them, even when they aren't actually orphans in the first place, just from grindingly poor families. But they're generally in the minority - most prosective adoptive parents end up taking in older children; I know several myself that took in kids aged between three and six. (Their birth parents really were feckless, if not downright abusive.)

Adoption is a fantastic thing and I take my hat off to all parents that do it; if anything, it's even harder than having your own kids.

But the fact remains that there are still more kids that are available for adoption than there are prospective adoptive parents (or else there wouldn't be any kids still in the system waiting). Your proposal for Tier 3 abortions would swamp and already overburdened system. So what kind of infrastructure would you propose that would magically deal with another few tens of thousands of adoption candidates? The same as now, only bigger? Something completely new?

I must say I'm sceptical that it could work.

[entspeak]

I believe aborting a fetus with a beating heart is murder and I could really care less about what you think about it based on definitions. Like someone said - I know it's porn when I see it - there doesn't need to be explicit language identifying it.

Then the problem lies in you. In some states, aborting a fetus with a beating heart in violation of the laws regulating abortion - an elective abortion after viability, say - is considered murder. This is the way it is in California, for example. So, you may call it murder if you like, but unless it is unlawful, it isn't.

Julian,

The opening statement of your post is what makes it a strawman:

Among other things, you appear to be arguing under the assumption that only women who have been sexally irresponsible end up having abortions

Kevmo clearly gave no appearance of arguing under that assumption. You misrepresented his position and then attempted to refute that misrepresentation. The fact that some elements of your post, considered independently, would not be straw man arguments is irrelevant.

Ok, maybe I didn't phrase it quite right - this has been a really long thread. But, in discussing his definition of "Tier 3" abortions, Kevmo did say (with my emphasis)...

In your artificial edifice you have this wonderful precondition: she claims truthfully. And I think that's a great edifice, because we could then get the truthful response about why she wants to kill this emerging human life form inside of her that arose through her own willing behavior. And 9 times out of 10, the truth would be that she doesn't want to have the baby, doesn't want to put up with it growing to viability, all those hassles associated with allowing this life to live rather than choosing to kill it. So, if we had your wonderful artificial edifice, then we could be in a position to say to this woman who answers truthfully that he has a truthful responsibility to this growing life.

And

Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision. I personally do not believe in Tier3 abortions, but I can understand that there are many who think it is a “right to chooseâ€� at this stage. It may be time to consider a program where the woman declares her pregnancy and intent to abort. Our societal function at this point would be to provide a family that is willing to adopt this baby and to put up this woman for 6-8 months in a safe environment so the baby can grow and maybe the woman can learn some life skills. If our society cannot muster the forces necessary to save this baby, the woman has the sickening “rightââââââ‚
¬Å¡¬Å¡¬� to abort this pregnancy. Time for us to put up or shut up.

prior to the my posting that you called a strawman.

Yes, I recall that he said those things. However, as far as I can gather, 93% of abortions in the United States are done for non-medical reasons... it seems to me his other 1 out of 10 are these abortions might be these roughly 7% that are done for medical reasons... something he doesn't have a problem with. And, the other arguments you used make reference to not wanting a child... which kind of fall into his 9 out of 10 category (though his characterization is extreme and does seem to imply that these 93% are somehow sexually irresponsible). But none of this points to his arguing under the assumption that only women who have been sexually irresponsible end up getting abortions. And you dedicated half of your post to discussing abortions necessary to save the life of the mother in an attempt to refute this false premise.

I took these two paragraphs to mean that women seeking "tier 3" abortions are somehow feckless, irresponsible or just ignorant, so I posted to illustrate some situations where simply becoming pregnant was life threatening (not to directly refute kevmo, you understand, but he isn't the only poster here arguing for restrictions on current abortion laws)

Who in this thread has argued that abortion should be illegal even if the mother's life is threatened? I'll punch them in the nose.

and other situations where perfectly responsible upstanding and intelligent women might want to have a "tier 3" abortion. I didn't make it clear enough, obviously, or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I just never read his proposal as meaning that Tier 3 abortions shouldn't be allowed if the life of the mother was threatened - it makes little sense to think that. I mean, if the later tiers allowed it - and those are when the fetus is more developed, I would think that this earliest tier would certainly allow it.

You take exception to that characterization that your argument is a straw man... okay... noted. I think it was and I've explained why I think it was and the above doesn't really convince me to see it as something else. You made a statement that misrepresented what he was saying and then attempted to refute that misrepresentation as though it was his position - you made no reference to other posters in that argument. At the time I pointed out that kevmo wasn't arguing that, you didn't come on and say that you weren't referring to him, but to other posters.

So... I don't know what else to say. Pistols at dawn, is it?

This post has been edited by entspeak: Oct 14 2009, 01:19 AM

[kevmo]

You've gone way beyond the statements you make in your proposal. The things you are claiming people are nitpicking over are not related to your proposal.

Sure they are, and it's easy to see. All one has to do is print out my original proposal and juxtapose it with the points attempted where I said nitpicking was taking place. A simple search for the word "nitpick" would do nicely. If I have "gone way beyond the statements made" then I've been drawn off course into the weeds. It's an indicator that it's not a dodge when I stop debating at that point.

If you bring these things up, they are fair game. I mean, I've reviewed your proposal... no mention of vultures in there, so why on Earth would I have to refer to your proposal in order to challenge your vulture analogy? What element of your proposal is related to the vulture analogy?

Good enough point, and also a good enough reason for me to put the brakes on, when I've been saying all along that the debate/nitpicking ratio is too low. Basically you're taking me to task for my counter-counter defense when there was no real discussion of my proposal to begin with.

Then only discuss your proposal, is my suggestion.

Sounds good to me.

[entspeak]

Sure they are, and it's easy to see. All one has to do is print out my original proposal and juxtapose it with the points attempted where I said nitpicking was taking place.

Yes, yes, yes... we all know that you feel like any challenge to facts or analogies you've presented is either nitpicking or a strawman... or a nitpicking strawman... or a strawknitting pickman or some other such thing. We get it. It's not true, but you believe it is and you're allowed to have your fantasies, I suppose.

Basically you're taking me to task for my counter-counter defense when there was no real discussion of my proposal to begin with.

Sure, sure, sure... another fantasy. We were just discussing it, as a matter of fact. In fact, Julian brought up some things two posts above this one. And, as has been the case when anyone has really tried to discuss your proposal, you've ignored it. You choose to focus instead on vultures and smallpox (which really have nothing to do with your proposal) and/or how wronged you've been because nobody discusses your proposal. It is to laugh, kevmo... it is to laugh.

So, live the dream, friend... live the dream.

Good enough point, and also a good enough reason for me to put the brakes on.

Well, when you start that thread, let me know. I hope you won't mind if I don't hold my breath or wait by the proverbial phone. Then your proposal can get all the attention it deserves, though, considering how you've ignored most responses that deal with your proposal, I have to wonder how much you'll actually participate in a thread dedicated to it. Or perhaps you'll just discuss smallpox as an endangered species.






This post has been edited by entspeak: Oct 15 2009, 06:40 AM

[Vermillion]

Kevmo, I suppose I should not be surprised by this logical extension of your avoidance tactics: after refusing to engage on debate or answer facts or simple queries, now you just ignore posts in their entirety. I have to say, in terms of dodging and weaving, you are without peer on this board.

Sure they are, and it's easy to see. All one has to do is print out my original proposal and juxtapose it with the points attempted where I said nitpicking was taking place. A simple search for the word "nitpick" would do nicely.

Firstly, the only person on this entire thread who has engaged in constant nitpicking is you. Nobody else. Its an accusation you like to throw out at people as an excuse for not dealing with points you cannot handle, but it is an entirely groundless one, and I suspect you know that. Tell you what, please provide an example of others engaged in 'nit-picking'. Rather than just chuck this accusation off every time you get your logical legs knocked out from under you, try and actually EVIDENCING your claims for one.

In fact we all know that this is the same excuse you have used to ignore critical and central issues of the debate. You use it as a shield to hide you from having to answer direct questions or accept clear inconsistencies in your unevidenced claims. Nobody here nit-piks, or at least, has done so in this thread, but you. You provided ample evidence of this in your last post to me, which was nothing but nit picking, no effort to engage honestly on a SINGLE point of contention. Of course when this was pointed out to you, guess what? You dodged and ignored it. (gasps of surprise)


Secondly please stop trying to dictate to everyone what they can and cannot talk about, especially as regards your ludicrous and long-abandoned'proposal'. YOU are the one who refused to discuss it honestly, and since then, not ONE in any of your last 15 posts have you ever advanced one shred of argumentation or evidence whatsoever about your magical 'proposal'. You are NOT and have NOT been debating your proposal, in fact all this is is just another shield you occasionally pull out to hide behind. When it is pointed out to you how frequently you avoid issues of debate, how frequently you hide from the facts and evidence and refuse to engage in honest debate, you whip out the old chestnut "You do the same because you are not addressing my proposal!'. Its a flagrantly transparent dodge, for an assortment of reasons. It assumes that everyone is tied to your precious proposal when that is not the subject of the thread. It assumes that everyone is forced to make reference in their every post to your precious proposal even though it has not been a subject of debate for over 10 pages in this thread. And worst of all, you pretend the martyr status because nobody is giving fair shrift to your precious proposal. In fact, when you first suggested it, it was debated on and off for PAGES and was utterly torn to shreds.

You know why people STOPPED debating your proposal? Because of your inability to defend it, because of the dishonest avoidance tactics you used every time the illogical underpinnings of it were challenged, because of the way you fled from every section of anyone’s post which pointed out its vast fallacies and impracticability. YOU killed debate on your proposal by using your standard dishonest tactics and refusing to engage. And now, 10 pages later, to whip out this as if it was a magical counter to truthful accusations that you are STILL engaging in these dishonest and deceitful tactics is just insane.

Get over your silly proposal. It was torn to pieces and abandoned over 10 pages ago and even YOU are not arguing it anymore.

Good enough point, and also a good enough reason for me to put the brakes on, when I've been saying all along that the debate/nitpicking ratio is too low. Basically you're taking me to task for my counter-counter defense when there was no real discussion of my proposal to begin with.

Completely false. Shall I go back and give you the post numbers of all the people and posts who dismantled your proposal? Shall I then lay out all the times you were posed concrete questions, presented with evidence of contradictions and logical fallacies, ALL specifically to do with your proposal, and you dodged them and ignored them all? Your proposal was discussed, destroyed and discarded. The person who ended discussion on your proposal is You by refusing to honestly engage or discuss.

That was 12 pages ago. As I said, since then nobody, not even YOU have been discussing your proposal at all. You have still been debating for those 12 pages, or what you believe passes for debating, so using it as a defence against perfectly accurate demonstrations of your constant avoidance tactics is hardly reasonable or realistic.


So, one more time: if you have no intention to debate honestly, then why are you here at all?

This post has been edited by Vermillion: Oct 15 2009, 09:32 AM

[kevmo]

Kevmo

Thinking about your "Tier 3" proposal some more, your argument on it rests on the construction of an unnamed infrastructure to place the unwanted babies that would be born (because the mothers seeking Tier 3 abortions would be prevented from doing so, if the infrastructure is there), am I right? And in support of this, you said there is a shortage of potential adoptees. Except there isn't a shortages of children that are up for adoption, only of babies.

I agree that the proposal rests on an "unnamed infrastructure". That's an interesting point, about there being no shortage of adoptees, just babies. My proposal doesn't link the two, but I suppose if that's how it went down and became law that the two issues were linked, it wouldn't be such a bad thing to kill 2 birds with one stone. Basically, the families who would be willing to adopt a kid would be first in line to adopt a baby -- sorta like an instant family.

Adoption is a fantastic thing and I take my hat off to all parents that do it; if anything, it's even harder than having your own kids.

Same here, I take my hat off to you and others who adopt. I also take of my hat to you as a debater who actually read and commented on my proposal.

Your proposal for Tier 3 abortions would swamp an already overburdened system.

I don't think so. Besides, you already identified that the proposal rests on an "unnamed infrastructure". I wouldn't want it to rely upon the existing infrastructure if it were up to me.

So what kind of infrastructure would you propose that would magically deal with another few tens of thousands of adoption candidates? The same as now, only bigger? Something completely new?

I'd say that in the end it would likely be a mix of the old and something completely new. Faith-based NGOs would be required to step up and if they don't, then the status quo would remain. Remember that it's put-up or shut-up. If the infrastructure isn't in place, the woman retains her right to kill the growing life.

I must say I'm sceptical that it could work.

The way I see it is that if even a few babies are saved, it's worth it. Kind of like the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which seeks to protect babies who survive abortions. There are very few that survive, but I'm glad society cared enough to try to do something about it.

I have to say, in terms of dodging and weaving, you are without peer on this board.

Why, thank you for the compliment and noticing that I'm peerless...
Allow me to return the compliment and say that in terms of nitpicking, you are without peer on this board.

[entspeak]

I also take of my hat to you as a debater who actually read and commented on my proposal.

Wait, wait, wait... you had a proposal?

I'd say that in the end it would likely be a mix of the old and something completely new. Faith-based NGOs would be required to step up and if they don't, then the status quo would remain. Remember that it's put-up or shut-up. If the infrastructure isn't in place, the woman retains her right to kill the growing life.

Required... what, by law to step up? And how would congress go about requiring faith based NGO's to "step up"? What standard would be used to determine if they were, in fact, "stepping up"?

What are the elements of the old that you would mix with the completely new? What would be the completely new?

Do we abandon the viability line in favor of allowing abortion after viability should the agency assisting fail to find an appropriate family? Adoptions tend to take a few months just to get the paperwork and the background checks done... unless you're suggesting these checks be abandoned? What happens if, during the process, the pregnancy becomes a Tier 2 or a Tier 1 pregnancy but the agency fails to find a suitable family for the infant?

This post has been edited by entspeak: Oct 16 2009, 07:02 AM

[Vermillion]

Why, thank you for the compliment and noticing that I'm peerless...
Allow me to return the compliment and say that in terms of nitpicking, you are without peer on this board.

Except of course that this is a flat-out lie: I dont nit pick and never have, and when I challenged you to point out examples of my supposed nit picking you (wait for it) thats right, ignored the question and fled again. You responses for the last three posts have been nothing BUT nit picking as I amply demonstrated (and you, of course, ignored), utterly refusing to aknowledge points or debate on substance whatsoever.

Fine, so now as the ultimate expression of your juvinile and dishonest tactics, you are simply not answering at all. Thats your right of course, and I shall press the issue no more. If you ever feel like debating like an adult, let us all know. We will be here.

[kevmo]

Required... what, by law to step up?

Yes. If they want to save the baby, they have to have all the elements in place -- a place to stay for the mother,

proper medical care paid for, some lifeskills training to be offered, whatever survives the process of definition

once the pro-abortion folks are done clawing away at such a proposal.

And how would congress go about requiring faith based NGO's to "step up"?

I don't envision this coming from congress because it lacks the political will. Such a proposal would catch on in small states that have an active prolife contingent. Perhaps a state like PA, judging from this article:

Woman found dead in car was pregnant; boyfriend charged (first degree murder of "unborn")
Philadelphia Daily News ^ | 10/17/2009 | WILLIAM BENDER & DANA DiFILIPPO

Selene Raynor, a Philadelphia High School for Girls graduate and an aspiring dentist enrolled at West Chester University, didn't care what anybody thought of her. --snip-- Hart has been charged with murdering Raynor, first-degree murder of her unborn child, and related offenses. Police are tracing the origin of the weapon.

Clark said last night that the fatal shooting followed "an argument that was in reference to the pregnancy." He declined to discuss whether Hart was the father.


(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage...nd_charged.html

What standard would be used to determine if they were, in fact, "stepping up"?

It probably doesn't matter much what I think should or would be the standard. Such a standard would be the result of the ebb & flow of negotiations between prolife groups and prochoice groups as the debate carries on. I've noticed that there's usually a natural break point that tends to contribute to such standards. Basically, I think that whatever the standard IS, or would BE, that everything would need to be in place at the time a woman applies for permission to end this emerging life within her. She would be able to look up on the web what kind of programs have already met the standard that's in place (whatever that standard is) and as long as there was one available she would not have permission to kill that emerging life. It's likely that if such a plan were put into place, each individual state would have different programs and a woman who wants to shop for a liberal state that places the standard so high as to be unattainable would be within her rights to do so, for at least a generation.

What are the elements of the old that you would mix with the completely new? What would be the completely new?

The infrastructure and the put-up or shut-up plan as well as the declaration of intent to abort, those are all new. Everything else is old. The plan reverts to the status quo if the NGO's can't put up.

Do we abandon the viability line in favor of allowing abortion after viability should the agency assisting fail to

find an appropriate family?

No. Since I'm advocating that the plan needs to be in place before the woman even declares her intent to abort, finding an appropriate family wouldn't be the limiting reagent in this plan.

Adoptions tend to take a few months just to get the paperwork and the background checks done... unless you're suggesting these checks be abandoned?

No, again, since the plan would need to be in place already. Kinda like getting pre-approved for a mortgage when you're looking to buy a house. All that upfront work needs to be done already in order for the state to weigh in and declare that the fetus's right to live is more compelling than the woman's right to choose.

What happens if, during the process, the pregnancy becomes a Tier 2 or a Tier 1 pregnancy but the agency fails to find a suitable family for the infant?

Then the right to abort reverts back to the woman. As I've been saying all along, it's a put up or shut up plan, not a wait-a-minute-while-we-get-our-act-together plan. I don't think that a woman should have to wait any time at all, no more than a day or 2 -- it's a sign that the NGO's didn't step up.

[entspeak]

Required... what, by law to step up?

Yes. If they want to save the baby, they have to have all the elements in place -- a place to stay for the mother,

proper medical care paid for, some lifeskills training to be offered, whatever survives the process of definition once the pro-abortion folks are done clawing away at such a proposal.

If they want to save the baby... so that's what the law would basically say? If you want to save the baby you must have all the elements in place? And they would dictate this to a non-government entity via legislation... how?

And how would congress go about requiring faith based NGO's to "step up"?

I don't envision this coming from congress because it lacks the political will.

Okay... how would a state congress go about requiring faith based NGO's to "step up."

Such a proposal would catch on in small states that have an active prolife contingent. Perhaps a state like PA, judging from this article:

The article doesn't mention that PA has an active pro-life contingent. It appears that it has a fetal homicide law... which, I'm sure, has an exception for abortion.

What standard would be used to determine if they were, in fact, "stepping up"?

It probably doesn't matter much what I think should or would be the standard.

Isn't it your proposal?

Such a standard would be the result of the ebb & flow of negotiations between prolife groups and prochoice groups as the debate carries on. I've noticed that there's usually a natural break point that tends to contribute to such standards. Basically, I think that whatever the standard IS, or would BE, that everything would need to be in place at the time a woman applies for permission to end this emerging life within her.

Yeah... this apply for permission thing... you're going to have a problem with that. How would you go about mandating that a woman apply for permission? Wouldn't you run into the same Roe v. Wade problem?

No. Since I'm advocating that the plan needs to be in place before the woman even declares her intent to abort, finding an appropriate family wouldn't be the limiting reagent in this plan.

Adoptions tend to take a few months just to get the paperwork and the background checks done... unless you're suggesting these checks be abandoned?

No, again, since the plan would need to be in place already. Kinda like getting pre-approved for a mortgage when you're looking to buy a house.

Don't people do this already?

All that upfront work needs to be done already in order for the state to weigh in and declare that the fetus's right to live is more compelling than the woman's right to choose.

And how would the state declare this? Again... won't you run into the same Roe v. Wade issue? Why does having an adoption system in place change anything with regard to the status quo with regard to when the State's interest becomes compelling?

What happens if, during the process, the pregnancy becomes a Tier 2 or a Tier 1 pregnancy but the agency fails to find a suitable family for the infant?

Then the right to abort reverts back to the woman. As I've been saying all along, it's a put up or shut up plan, not a wait-a-minute-while-we-get-our-act-together plan. I don't think that a woman should have to wait any time at all, no more than a day or 2 -- it's a sign that the NGO's didn't step up.

Ah, so you're going to amend your proposal to include this exception in Tier 1 and 2 pregnancies? Because that exception wasn't in your proposal.

[kevmo]

If they want to save the baby... so that's what the law would basically say?
If you want to save the baby you must have all the elements in place?

No

And they would dictate this to a non-government entity via legislation... how?

"Dictate" -- interesting choice of vocabulary there. I don't see it as a dictation.

Okay... how would a state congress go about requiring faith based NGO's to "step up."

They'd look at the paperwork, make sure it's all in order, inspect the place where the woman would stay, make sure the training is legitimate, check on the source of funds, make sure all the ducks are in a row. Once those ducks are in a row, the state has a legitimate interest and capacity to save that life. If those ducks are not in a row, their interest is still legitimate but the capacity is not there.

Isn't it your proposal?

Yes it is. Have you ever seen a book turn into a screenplay and then a movie? The process itself sometimes renders the original work a far cry from the end result. And yet, if the writer insists on creative control of the process, the deal usually doesn't get made. This situation is likely to be similar -- what I have in mind isn't going to be the end product because I prefer the deal to be made more than have control over the process.

Yeah... this apply for permission thing... you're going to have a problem with that. How would you go about mandating that a woman apply for permission? Wouldn't you run into the same Roe v. Wade problem?

What "same" Roe vs. Wade problem is that?

"Kinda like getting pre-approved for a mortgage when you're looking to buy a house."

Don't people do this already?

They probably do, for adoptions of babies.

And how would the state declare this? Again... won't you run into the same Roe v. Wade issue?

What exactly is this "same" Roe v Wade issue?

Why does having an adoption system in place change anything with regard to the status quo with regard to when the State's interest becomes compelling?

The state's interest is already compelling, but lawmakers do not have the fortitude to engage it. And the moment they do gather the fortitude, they'll be peppered by pro-abortioners who will demand that such things be already in place before a woman signs over her rights to kill that growing life.

Ah, so you're going to amend your proposal to include this exception in Tier 1 and 2 pregnancies? Because that exception wasn't in your proposal.

If amending the proposal is what it takes to get it through, then that's fine with me. But the original proposal does take into consideration that so-called exception by saying all the stuff needs to be in place already. It's a put up or shut up plan. No pregnancy is going to grow into a later stage pregnancy if everything is in place already. And if the process takes too long (let's say, 72 hours as a starting point for negotiations), then the right to kill the life reverts back to the woman. That reversion is already in my proposal. BTW, thanks for addressing my proposal, after all this time.

[entspeak]

Kevmo,

BTW, thanks for addressing my proposal, after all this time.

What a load.

I addressed your proposal here:

Yes, yes, yes... you're proposal in which you claim to understand the private decision, but your Tier 3 "program" does not allow it to be a private decision. You say you don't like Tier 3 abortions, but you understand the right to choose... you just don't think that choice should be a private decision?

I addressed your proposal here:

To whom does she declare her pregnancy and intent to abort?

I addressed your proposal here:

Kevmo

I ask again... in accordance with your proposal, to whom would the woman declare her pregnancy and intent to abort?

I addressed your proposal here:

Tell her doctor? Okay... and he tells who? I mean, how do we get to the adoption part of this? Does the doctor adopt the baby?

Notifying the county or state agency? So... this is sounding a lot less like a private decision, if she has to inform a government agency of her intent to abort.

I addressed your proposal here:

Ah, so your proposal is to "understand" that people feel it is a private decision, then completely ignore that... then... house the woman for 6-8 months, telling her that if they can't find a home for the baby or she can't be "convinced" to care for it herself, she can abort the baby... but... at this point, we'd be dealing with a Tier 1 abortion, which would be illegal to do electively. So... I guess your proposal is really just ban abortion unless the mother's life is at stake (or rape, in the case of a Tier 2). That about right?

This last one you didn't respond to and had basically the same sort of question I asked above about Tier 1 abortions.

This post, here, was also in reference to your proposal which takes the life of the mother into consideration:

In the interest of honest debate... [lord knows why I'm doing this; I know I'm going to regret it later]... In the interest of honest debate, it needs to be pointed out that kevmo has never argued against abortion when the life of the mother is at stake.

I continued to address your proposal here:

I just never read his proposal as meaning that Tier 3 abortions shouldn't be allowed if the life of the mother was threatened - it makes little sense to think that. I mean, if the later tiers allowed it - and those are when the fetus is more developed, I would think that this earliest tier would certainly allow it.

So, your above statement is both ludicrous and completely dishonest, as per usual.

And just so's ya know... the Roe v. Wade issue is the fact that the State can't simply declare that it's interest is compelling during the Tier 3 period. And most of the things you are discussing already exist today... lots of people apply to adopt babies. There are already networks of groups that offer to assist a woman while she's pregnant in order to better facilitate the adoption of the newborn. And your plan, in order to work on a large scale - because of the cost of investing in an infrastructure to do this on a large scale (rooms, beds, food, etc...), is contingent upon getting a woman to declare her intent to abort. Which you can't do without overturning Roe v. Wade (and Casey v. Planned Parenthood). Which you claim isn't happening now because there is no political will to do so. And how do you propose to build this political motivation? By putting this proposal into action, but in order to do so, you first have to overturn Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. But, you can't do that because of a lack of political will, and how do you plan to build this political motivation...

Your proposal chases it's own tail. You can't begin to achieve your goal without first achieving your goal.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Oct 20 2009, 09:57 AM

[kevmo]

What a load.

It looks to me like you saved up a load of garbage just so you could dump it out on the street when someone was walking by, as a practical joke. I admire your patience. But in the end, what does one really accomplish when they do such a thing? They just mess up the pathway for everyone else. Maybe you should take a look at what causes you to be petulant, when someone simply thanks you for reviewing their proposal after so much frustration with others who obviously didn't review it. Maybe you just couldn't keep up the facade any longer and had to release your guile.

But legally, people have been allowed to do that by re-defining what torture means. As it relates to my point, the fetus has been re-defined to not be a life unless I kill it (instead of the mother and doctor).

So, no matter what the letter of the law says about torture, America has tortured people. That is my belief. But, by using your standard (maybe not yours specifically) in the abortion debate, America has never tortured because legally, no laws were broken.

As I've stated previously, the abortion issue is a balance between a woman's liberty interests and the State's interest in human life.

The way I see it, the law is in the process of being defined.

For Immediate Release: Democrat-Led Personhood Amendment Introduced In Michigan Legislature Lansing, MI - October 17, 2009

Michigan has joined with dozens of other States that are seeking affirmation of personhood rights for all humans. Rep. Jim Slezack (Democrat) is the the lead sponsor of the amendment, and is cosponsored by Paul Scott, Tim Moore, Richard LeBlanc, James Bolger, Kevin Green, Rick Jones, Pete Lund, Matt Lori, John Walsh, Kenneth Kurtz, Tom McMillin, Robert Dean, Bob Genetski, Wayne Schmidt, Joe Haveman, Kevin Daley, Marty Knollenberg, Eileen Kowall, Goeff Hansen, Dudley Spade, Joel Sheltrown, and Jeff Mayes. The Michigan Personhood Amendment states:



SEC. 28. (1) EVERY HUMAN PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO LIFE, WHICH IS THE PARAMOUNT AND MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THIS STATE.
(2) WITH RESPECT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL AND INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE, THE WORD "PERSON" APPLIES TO ALL HUMAN BEINGS, IRRESPECTIVE OF AGE, RACE, GENDER, HEALTH, FUNCTION, CONDITION OF DEPENDENCY, INCLUDING PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DEPENDENCY, OR METHOD OF REPRODUCTION, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THEIR BIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING FERTILIZATION.

“It is tremendous that for the first time in Michigan Legislature history, an Amendment has been introduced to protect ALL humans no matter how small, by love and by law,” commented Cal Zastrow, Co-founder of Personhood USA.

....
http://www.personhoodusa.com