• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal pre 18 weeks.

There is no concrete evidence that a fetus feels pain within that time. You cannot prove it because there is insufficient research. I'll save you the time of looking for a source. I studied this in medical school and it's ongoing. Scientific debate continue.

If the scientists don't know, then you can't possibly know for sure, and since you can't know for sure, you have no justification to illegalize abortion.

Period.


You air on the side of death, I on the side of life. You say "dunno, kill it", that to me is barbarism.

It's not wrong to demand empirical evidence to justify our emotional reactions to things we dislike, especially for sweeping changes in law. Women used to be burned for being witches because they had red hair. Red hair was "evidence". Then we wisened up.


Yes and someday we will wise up to the slaughter of the unborn, just as we wised up to slavery.


You can't assume a fetus feels pain, and pain is a strong incentive for restrictions on abortion. Since we don't know what fetal perception is for sure, there is no way I can support removing a woman's right to choose, and I certainly won't support it based on people's emotions.


So its cool if the fetus does not "feel pain".... as if that does not snuff out a life?


This isn't a grammatically correct sentence, so I don't know what it means.


:lol: niether do I... I think I was going for asking the unaborted how they feel at 12 years old or something.....
 
You air on the side of death, I on the side of life. You say "dunno, kill it", that to me is barbarism.

I'm not actually pro-abortion, so I won't entertain your hysteria. I'm defending the right to choose and defending rationality.

Yes and someday we will wise up to the slaughter of the unborn, just as we wised up to slavery.

We already have wisened up... it's practical birth control policy to allow women to terminate pregnancies, the only issue to be decided is up until what point they can do so. All of human history shows elective abortion to be the norm, even from the stance of the Church. It was only made illegal, initially, to challenge the women's suffrage movement.

So its cool if the fetus does not "feel pain".... as if that does not snuff out a life?

Instead of re-typing it... I invite you to read it again...

Orius said:
The question of suffering matters a lot. It's not enough to simply demand the right to life, you must also define why, if it is indeed murder, it is unacceptable to terminate a pregnancy. One such way to measure it is the amount of suffering. Since a one month old fetus cannot even perceive pain since it lacks any form of nervous system, we can say that abortion at that stage is of no consequence to the fetus itself who lacks pertinent awareness of what is happening.

Preserving life for life's sake is not enough to override the rights of a woman.


:lol: niether do I... I think I was going for asking the unaborted how they feel at 12 years old or something.....

Um... okay...
 
I'm not actually pro-abortion, so I won't entertain your hysteria. I'm defending the right to choose and defending rationality.


What if I chose to kill a one month old? You are pro-abortion.



We already have wisened up... it's practical birth control policy to allow women to terminate pregnancies, the only issue to be decided is up until what point they can do so. All of human history shows elective abortion to be the norm, even from the stance of the Church. It was only made illegal, initially, to challenge the women's suffrage movement.


This is pure barbaric savagry. and you are wrong:


I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

NOVA | Doctors' Diaries | The Hippocratic Oath: Classical Version | PBS





Preserving life for life's sake is not enough to override the rights of a woman.

I disagree. a right is not something that inteferes with the right of another, namely the unborn.
 
What if I chose to kill a one month old? You are pro-abortion.

I actually find abortion kind of gross... but I will defend another's right to choose what is best for them.

Label me all you want. You've already proven how overly emotional you are in this debate, so your ad homs don't really matter to me.

This is pure barbaric savagry. and you are wrong:


I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

NOVA | Doctors' Diaries | The Hippocratic Oath: Classical Version | PBS

Read the modern one. That's not in there, because modern nations legalized abortion a long time ago. Also... you assume wrongly that all medical schools still use this form of oath. They don't. Mine didn't.

The classical oath also gave preferential treatment to the children of doctors, giving them almost exclusive access to medical school.

People often cite the hippocratic oath in their protest of capital punishment. It's clearly ethical to the U.S. that doctors be made part of lethal injection procedures, etc.

This is a debate in of itself though, one I actually had in medical school. The old oath was cited and the class was divided into two, debating its various points. It's an interesting discussion.

I disagree. a right is not something that inteferes with the right of another, namely the unborn.

Given that 1/4 of fetuses self-terminate within the first trimester, we should also hold funerals for these "people" who died. Let's collect their goo from the woman's panty liner, and buy a mini-casket for it.

The first trimester is inconsequential in the grand scheme. If you terminate the pregnancy yourself, or it self-terminates, it is a blip in biology.

I'm not in favor of reducing the rights of a woman for a ball of cells the size of a watermelon seed, nonetheless people will continue to irrationally argue that this fish-like thing is a person and deserves the full protection of the law.

My main debate with you here Rev, is not to say you are wrong per se, but to cast reasonable doubt. There are enough counter arguments to all of your points, enough perspectives, to make this matter pro-choice.

The pro-life perspective does not deserve concrete legalization because it is a philosophical perspective and nothing more.
 
:lol: and you accused ME of being over emotional? Please... I'll be back later doc. :lol:
 
My post was not overly emotional... this is just your usual ad hom, bait and evade tactic that you use when someone errodes your thought process with hard logic.

Have fun taking a breather. I know I'm quite formiddable. :)
 
Every example you made is flawed, because believing that a 1 month old embryo is alive, sentient, and should have right is a BELIEF. Every other situation you described relates to people who have already been born.

Yeah and at one time it was BELIEVED that "coloreds" were worth 2/3 of a person and didn't have rights at all. Or more poignantly, it was just a "belief" that "coloreds" had rights while the law stated they didn't.

There is othing flawed about any example I gave, much as you might need there to be, to continue on this failed notion that the fetus, beyond a point in development has every ability to feel pain and be aware of itself and its surroundings even if it may not understand them.

Your dependence on the argument of "born or unborn" is nothing more than a grossly simplistic and barbaric attempt at devaluing the fetus for what it really is based on a matter of positioning on one side of the uterus or the other. I guess all humans are worth something in your book as long as they come from the right side of the tracks. THAT, my friend, is nothing more than a "belief".

So yeah, my point still stands... one group is trying to control another based on a BELIEF that cannot be proven.

You didn't listen to a word I said. Your belief does stand, but it stands on a foundation of shifting sand, much like all emotional and ill conceived contrivances that attempt to devalue human life.

Since we cannot prove it either way, we must let people decide for themselves what the matter means. Pro-choice policy lets people who think it's murder avoid abortion, and those who don't pursue it. It's the most fair.

Yeah, its the most fair to everyone except the human life being murdered before it gets out of the starting gate. And we can prove either way whether there are the components that make up a CNS, granting all the capablities we identify with personhood.

This is my stance also... I wasn't aware that the gov. was going to fund post-18th week funding? It still has to adhere to Roe v. Wade and the limitations on timing.

The 18th week falls within the second trimester. That would be allowable, if I am not mistaken. I find that barbaric and disgusting.

The constitution and rights apply to those already born.

Only because we didn't know any better at the time. So what I am gathering from you is that since the Constitution didn't make concessions for something that was not understood, our modern understanding of development should just be cast aside because the Constitution trumps reason? I'm sorry; I reject that lazy morality.

Since 1/4 of pregnancies self-terminate anyway, giving embryoes the same rights as a born person makes no sense at all.

I would be hard pressed to believe that those self terminations occur 1/4 of the time beyond the point of development where there is an intact CNS.

Are you also proposing that we investigate every miscarriage to make sure the "right to life" wasn't denied by the mother? Please, give me a break.

Give yourself a break. I never suggested such foolishness and your attempt to rhetorically ask me a stupid question shows just how tenuous your grasp on this argument really is.
 
So in other words, we must pay for you to kill your child of inconvience.... I find this unnacceptable. Abortion is legal. I get it, however, expecting me to pay for it is abhorrent.

Oh good, this makes your abortion my personal business forever :2wave:
 
Yeah and at one time it was BELIEVED that "coloreds" were worth 2/3 of a person and didn't have rights at all. Or more poignantly, it was just a "belief" that "coloreds" had rights while the law stated they didn't.

Again, this deals with an autonomous human being. There is no concrete evidence to prove that a 1 month old fetus is developed enough to even be remotely called a person.

I respect that you believe it is, but this belief is not enough to override the rights of others who disagree with you.

There is othing flawed about any example I gave, much as you might need there to be, to continue on this failed notion that the fetus, beyond a point in development has every ability to feel pain and be aware of itself and its surroundings even if it may not understand them.

Then please cite concrete proof which demonstrates pain perception from the point of conception. I would be happy to read it and weigh in on it further. That's the thing about the secular world, you need proof to back up these kinds of statements. So show me some.

Your dependence on the argument of "born or unborn" is nothing more than a grossly simplistic and barbaric attempt at devaluing the fetus for what it really is based on a matter of positioning on one side of the uterus or the other. I guess all humans are worth something in your book as long as they come from the right side of the tracks. THAT, my friend, is nothing more than a "belief".

I'd just like to say, that just because I'm saying it, doesn't mean I believe it to be true on a philosophical or spiritual level. I'm simply stating a current reality... people aren't "persons" in any legal sense until they are born.

As for pain, suffering, and entitlement to be free of cruel and unusual treatment, that is more debatable... but I would not grant this to a pre-second trimester fetus as there is little evidence of the things that constitute personhood, the foremost of which is pain perception and self-awareness.

So please don't assume that I think any fetus, at any stage, could be aborted on the basis that it hasn't been born yet. That's just silly.

You didn't listen to a word I said. Your belief does stand, but it stands on a foundation of shifting sand, much like all emotional and ill conceived contrivances that attempt to devalue human life.

I don't find it devaluing at all for someone to decide what something the size of a watermelon seed means to them. If they don't want to abort it, then they won't; if it's inconsequential to them, then that's their choice.

As for the shifting sand bit... a lot of that shifting sand revolves around empirical evidence, as was partly the basis of Roe v Wade. I do realize though that the right wing will willfully ignore cutting edge research in favor of their own sentimental biases, as is their right.

Yeah, its the most fair to everyone except the human life being murdered before it gets out of the starting gate. And we can prove either way whether there are the components that make up a CNS, granting all the capablities we identify with personhood.

I believe that a first trimester fetus is the groundwork for a human life, but to presume it should have all the entitlements of a born child is a bit of a stretch. If you've ever looked at aborted fetuses at various stages in jars (just FYI, these are usually donated, not usurped), they don't exactly evoke a parental instinct.

The presumption of what it might become is not sufficient to deny rights either. That is essentially making laws for future, hypothetical people who don't exist yet, and I find that preposterous. For all you know, the hypothetical fetus you are fighting to provide more rights for could self-terminate at any point in the pregnancy.

The 18th week falls within the second trimester. That would be allowable, if I am not mistaken. I find that barbaric and disgusting.

In a lot of places, it's even later.

As I said to Rev, our society's regard for life is rather inconsistent. I don't see why a fetus should be forced to be born into a world that it could later hypothetically reject. I say this as a counter to those who say the fetus has no say. Furthermore, I don't find a pea-sized organism in such an early stage of development to be of larger consequence.

Only because we didn't know any better at the time. So what I am gathering from you is that since the Constitution didn't make concessions for something that was not understood, our modern understanding of development should just be cast aside because the Constitution trumps reason? I'm sorry; I reject that lazy morality.

Are you insinuating that abortion didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written?

Wow.

I think it was left out for a reason.

I would be hard pressed to believe that those self terminations occur 1/4 of the time beyond the point of development where there is an intact CNS.

Just to clarify... are you against ALL abortion, or just abortion after the first trimester?

Give yourself a break. I never suggested such foolishness and your attempt to rhetorically ask me a stupid question shows just how tenuous your grasp on this argument really is.

This kind of comment is uncalled for.

I was raising a valid point. If we grant personhood rights to fetuses, then miscarriages could be subject to investigation. How do you police every woman from getting an abortion? There are plenty of natural, undetectable methods to abort a fetus, just like there are medical drugs.

The original reason why abortion was ultimately endorsed in a lot of nations with UHC is because of underground abortions. The pro-life movement continually tries to minimize this, but history does not lie.

People are going to continue getting them. The pro-life movement will not stop them. It's akin to banning cigarettes or alcohol. It flies in the face of human desire to live one's life the way one wants. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to end it. I would rather the clinic be there to help her than her do it at home, 1950's style, and end up dead.
 
Last edited:
It's only bad because you disagree with it.


I never said "bad". I said that it was flawed and it was confessed to be flawed by Justice Blackmun who wrote it. He confesses the flaw within the very opinion you seem to be defending without knowing what it actually says. You are defending what Blackmun himself didn't defend and they were his words.

The UHC argument is just another layer to the abortion debate and it all stems from the same arguments. There is too much chatter, someone had to make a decision that best represents everyone.

Everyone except the fetus.

What the pro-life crowd wants is to deny people the choice, even though there isn't conclusive evidence that the fetus (if you can call it that within the first month) is experiencing unimaginable suffering.

Why do you keep arbitrarily going to this "first month" time frame. Most women don't realize they are even pregnant or know for sure within the "first month". I have zero issues with an abortion in the "first month" to start with. My issue with abortion comes in how it is abused past the point of diminished moral consequence. The point where it tips from being an abortion to being a murder.

Asking the courts or government to preserve the "right to life" and thereby override the rights of the already-sentient, living mother, is a huge deal.

Not really. You and I have our rights curbed all the time and we are sentient. And we have our rights curbed over ideas and not just the fact that there is a life at stake. And I am not sure where you get this idea that there is a "right" to have an abortion. If you can find me such a "right" in the Constitution, being that you hold it to a higher level of respect than modern science and all, please do.

Making a pro-choice ruling is the only way to encompass pluralism.

I don't give a flying rat's ass about this pluralism argument. It means less to me than the dust on my boot.

Until there is some kind of concrete evidence which proves abortion is always, universally, unethical, there should be no reason to deny women this right.

Again, please show me where there is this supposed "right" to have an abortion. In all my civics and history classes, I was never taught about this "right" to have an abortion. You seem to know something I don't so please share it with me.

Now, what the pro-life crowd needs to do is give up their compulsion to try and control the lives of millions of other people.

Funny that. You hold the PL crowd to that standard, but you don't hold the PC crowd to the same standard when they exert the ultimate control in deciding life or death for the fetus. Got hypocrisy?

Although the UHC policy would force them to fund abortion, up until now there has been nothing forcing them to take part in abortions.

No one had to own slaves either. There was nothing forcing anyone to take part in slavery. Except living with the knowledge that your neighbor is owning slaves. :roll:

Sorry, you don't get to make the decision for everyone.

I may not on my own. But my voice thrown in with millions of other voices who feel the same way may very well get to make that decision for everyone And the more prochoicers I interact with, the more inclined I am to believe that the whole argument is nothing more than an emotional, hyper individualist and selfish argument that boils down to "Waaa, you're not the boss of me."

I am more inclined to every day to stop allying myself with that kind of thinking. It taints the soul.
 
To answer the question in your response...I have no issue with an abortion in the first and even partially into the second trimester. When you start getting to the 18 week point, then I am adamantly against it except in the most extreme of circumstances.
 
Oh good, this makes your abortion my personal business forever

:shock:

And there is another reason why it should never be public funded in US
 
To answer the question in your response...I have no issue with an abortion in the first and even partially into the second trimester. When you start getting to the 18 week point, then I am adamantly against it except in the most extreme of circumstances.

18 because of science or viability?

Interesting, its legal until 24 here but almost no one actually have a abortion at such a late stage
 
18 because of science or viability?

Interesting, its legal until 24 here but almost no one actually have a abortion at such a late stage

Makes ya wonder what all the fuss is about.
 
Makes ya wonder what all the fuss is about.

Not a fuss for me.
BMA says there is no case for it to be changed from 24 weeks during the public debate

When BMA says Abortion limit should be lowered because of viability, MPs should respond and lower it otherwise keep it where it is
 
18 because of science or viability?

Interesting, its legal until 24 here but almost no one actually have a abortion at such a late stage

18 because of science. At 18 weeks, the spinal cord is completely attached to the brain through the thalamus and there are all the necessary components for spatial awareness, corporal and mental pain, pleasure, etc. Learning has begun, even if it is in the most rudimentary sense of the word.

Killing the fetus at that point is beyond disturbing.
 
Killing the fetus at that point is beyond disturbing.

Fair enough

I don't really think about Abortion past 18/20 weeks because it just so rarely happens but when you put it in such stark terms, you make it sound ... human like. I can't think of another word to describe it
 
Last edited:
I never said "bad". I said that it was flawed and it was confessed to be flawed by Justice Blackmun who wrote it. He confesses the flaw within the very opinion you seem to be defending without knowing what it actually says. You are defending what Blackmun himself didn't defend and they were his words.

I have never narrowed in specifically on the SCOTUS ruling as a basis for all my arguments. I tend to refer to abortion laws in general.

Why do you keep arbitrarily going to this "first month" time frame. Most women don't realize they are even pregnant or know for sure within the "first month". I have zero issues with an abortion in the "first month" to start with. My issue with abortion comes in how it is abused past the point of diminished moral consequence. The point where it tips from being an abortion to being a murder.

I mention it for those who are against abortion completely, regardless of the stage. But I see you don't fall into that category, so I will refrain in the future.

The tipping point is subjective, even in the 2nd trimester. I am definitely pro-choice when it comes to the first trimester, and am more reluctantly pro-choice up until the point where the fetus could be theoretically supported as a pre-mature birth, but would urge them to only seek an abortion at that time if it's a therapeutic one. Generally, my criterion for restrictions is pain and self-awareness, and since the jury is still out on the stage for that, I tend to accept a wider margin of time frames written into law. That is the doctor talking.

Personally/spiritually, I think the fetus has a soul from day one, and that an abortion is also an agreement between mother and child. In the case of the aborted fetus, it may be the wish of the soul to only experience life up until that point, and not wish to be born. But I of course could never argue this for the creation of laws.

Not really. You and I have our rights curbed all the time and we are sentient. And we have our rights curbed over ideas and not just the fact that there is a life at stake. And I am not sure where you get this idea that there is a "right" to have an abortion. If you can find me such a "right" in the Constitution, being that you hold it to a higher level of respect than modern science and all, please do.

Our ideas are curbed? What does that have to do with the right to life?

You could argue that if the founding fathers considered a fetus to be "life", they would have written it in... but they weren't that nitpicky, probably because abortion in their era wasn't really a big deal.

I never claimed abortion is a right in a Constitutional sense, but just because it isn't mentioned there does not mean it isn't warranted, as is the case with other laws. I find it silly when people, both from the left or right, say, "The Constitution mentions nothing about that," as a reason to grant or restrict freedoms.

The Constitution emphasizes the most important things that a government cannot do. Outside of that, it's anyone's rule.

I don't give a flying rat's ass about this pluralism argument. It means less to me than the dust on my boot.

Of course you don't, which is the whole reason why the pro-life movement will not be sustained, unless further empirical evidence moves us to limit abortion rights.

Again, please show me where there is this supposed "right" to have an abortion. In all my civics and history classes, I was never taught about this "right" to have an abortion. You seem to know something I don't so please share it with me.

The SCOTUS ruling makes it a right, even if it's a controversial one. That fact aside, I mostly mean "right" in the normative sense.


Funny that. You hold the PL crowd to that standard, but you don't hold the PC crowd to the same standard when they exert the ultimate control in deciding life or death for the fetus. Got hypocrisy?

I don't find it hypocritical to let people decide for themselves what it means, as opposed to making one law that controls all of society. I also encourage active, unbiased research into fetal development. As a doctor, I am always reading, and my views change according to peer reviewed findings.

There is nothing remotely concrete, empirically, to suggest when fetal life shows definite signs of sentience and individuality, which would be emotive markers that would move us to change laws.

No one had to own slaves either. There was nothing forcing anyone to take part in slavery. Except living with the knowledge that your neighbor is owning slaves. :roll:

The abolishment of slavery had more to do with industrialization than it did ethics. Machines replaced the workers required for agriculture and factories. The moral incentives were just the icing on the cake.

Apples and oranges.

I may not on my own. But my voice thrown in with millions of other voices who feel the same way may very well get to make that decision for everyone And the more prochoicers I interact with, the more inclined I am to believe that the whole argument is nothing more than an emotional, hyper individualist and selfish argument that boils down to "Waaa, you're not the boss of me."

When pro-lifers can explain to me how they hope to manage the underground abortion establishment in order to mimize the loss of both fetus and mother, then I might be more open to their hysterical ranting about how an 8 celled organism has personhood.

If they are against abortion, then naturally they are in favor of socialized welfare. If abortion is illegal, then taxes should be increased to pay for support services for unprepared mothers.

I am more inclined to every day to stop allying myself with that kind of thinking. It taints the soul.

I think you are too generalizing of what "that kind of thinking" is. I've heard some pretty bad arguments from both sides, some of them in this very thread.

Most pro-lifers automatically assume that pro-choice is the exact dialectical opposite of their views, i.e. pro-choice must be pro-abortion. This is the reason why debates get so heated. Pro-choicers naturally end up defending reasonable doubt which makes them look guilty of being pro-abortion, and things escalate from there.

I am not pro-abortion by very virtue of risk to the mother. There can be complications to the procedure, and women who are sexually active should place better care into contraceptive measures.
 
Last edited:
What's the matter with Hawaii's tax dollars? Are they broken or something? Just so we're on the same page, this question presumes that you hold personal responsibility is some sort of esteem.

You can either deal with the FACT that a fair portion of your tax dollars pay for things that you don't approve of or not. If you refuse to acknowledge this fact, then you're engaging in willful ignorance. If you accept this fact, then your argument about not wanting pay for things of which you don't approve is moot. The choice is between recognizing reality, and the thus, the weakness of that argument, or willful ignorance. I won't presume to make your choice for you. Enjoy.


Why is it "good"? Hawaii may like its new roads but some people in Michigan just got screwed out of their money. Those tax dollars could have been utilized for any number of things directly beneficial to people living in Michigan. Helping others is not a justification for taking people's money, no matter how cruel or crass it may sound. Nobody would tolerate officials from St. Jude's Children's Hospital going around and stealing other people's money under the pretense of helping others, so why is it any different when the government engages in such activity?

Again, we come to the crux of what you find logical based on your ideology versus what i find logical based on my ideology. Certain issues that THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT finds deserving (say the space program) are funded by your tax dollars when you may not approve of those expenditures. If you don't like it, you can leave the country, and try to find a home country that doesn't do this. It doesn't matter to me, other than that it shows the flaw in your reasoning concerning your beef over what your tax dollars are spent on. If abortion is the one issue out of thousands and thousands that you don't want your tax dollars spent on, then fine, say that this is the tipping point for you, personally, but don't act like it's wrong that your tax dollars are spent on things you don't like, but you've not once brought that up in a thread where you're shouting and hollering about THAT EXACT ISSUE. If you don't like the fact that your tax dollars are paying for things you don't like, then i'd have expected you to talk about that at some point in this thread AS you were talking about abortion being ADDED to that list.


What aspect of a civilized society necessitates such a tax policy?

It's not just one aspect, it's a combination. Governments throughout history have recognized the value in taxation and then making decisions about what to do with that money. The most powerful civilizations have been those that taxed their citizens, and it's bleeding obvious that not every citizen always approves of every tax dollar spent. That's the nature of governments that use taxation, as any student of history and current socio-economic engines is aware.


Doing what is unjust never serves the common good. It can only give the appearance of such.

I disagree, and lots of people think that the government has treated them unjustly. If you want to make an argument out of this unproven premise, then you'll have to demonstrate how "doing unjust never serves the common good," and then prove that "abortion funded by taxation is unjust" not just in your opinion, but in reality, in a way that is nearly obvious to anyone. That's a tall order, but i'd like to see your attempt.


Our country's legal and philosophical foundation is steeped in the recognition of negative rights. Forcing other people to pay for things they do not want or need seems to fly in the face of such a concept.

Maybe to you, but intelligent people who are decent students of civic policy understand the necessity and the reality of normal taxation policy. Everybody who pays taxes pays for things that they'd not choose to pay for were they the ones deciding. That's why there's committees and such in congress, and you and me don't vote on 75 different decisions during our lunch break every day.


I'm glad you see my point.

Oh my gosh! You're such a whiny little baby. Good grief.


I would also argue that your position is unconstitutional. I can't find the Constitutional clause which grants the government the explicit authority to pay for medical procedures.

Okay, that's good. Go with that and build a case instead of all your whiny little self-centered arguments about how it pisses you off so bad that you're slamming down your coffee cup between sips. You may have something. My initial response is that the gov't currently uses your tax dollars to pay for all sorts of things and the fact that the constitution doesn't address these expenditures hasn't stopped them. (For example, public schools are paid for with tax dollars, and the gov't doles out the cash, but you have zero say so in the process and it's not a constitutional procedure).


I thought I was already doing that.

You were, but you were acting like your opinion was AUTOMATICALLY more logically sound and obvious. Even when you think it is, you shouldn't act like that. I reminded you what was the proper sort of thing for you to do, and where it's limit was to be found. Just listing a premise, and qualifying it as obvious, does not an argument make. It's sloppy, and beneath you, i hope.


The only thing I require from you is base servility. A simple bow, whilst in my divine presence, will suffice.

As long as you act this way, and as though your opinions are automatically right, you can learn nothing from anyone anywhere. Do you really want to claim that kind of godhood and in that process admit that you have learned all you will ever learn? To be teachable is to know that you do not have all the facts or divine opinions. Forums such as this one are a great place to learn more about life and yourself, but if your opinion of yourself is so high, that you automatically think that you are right, then you are useless to the forum, and the forum is useless to you. No one can ever learn from a person with that ego, and a person with that ego can never learn from anything or anyone. I don't care if you want to behave that way, but it might make a difference to you.


We should also look to the spirit of the law, which is to say we must understand the minds of men who wrote it. Based upon what they have written and said I am disinclined to believe they would support such a thing as you have espoused.

Good. I like it a lot. Now tell me why you think we should
1. Look at the "spirit" of the law.
2. Explain carefully what is meant by the phrase "spirit-of-the-law" (versus the letter of the law-- which i would probably prefer, but i'm not sure).
3. Explain why we must understand the minds of the men who wrote it.
4. Explain what method we can use (falsifiable/verifiable and not just opinion) to determine FOR SURE that we actually "understand the minds of the men who wrote it".
5. Show, with careful reasoning and syllogism how it might be that this policy goes against what they would have supported.

The reason that you've got to take these steps, is because on the face of it, you've just provided a nice little slot of rhetoric, as easily used by either side of the debate. For example, an opponent of yours could use the same sentences, and then you've both got the same rhetoric, but neither of you has any demonstrable evidence to support your claim. Here, i'll show you what i mean:

We should also look to the spirit of the law, which is to say we must understand the minds of men who wrote it. Based upon what they have written and said I am inclined to believe they would support such a thing as abortions paid for with general tax dollars.


Do you see?


I'd prefer to dwell.

Suit yourself. I've forgotten it and hadn't thought about it since, and had to go back and look up what the heck you were talking about. Hell, dwell on it as much as you want. I was just giving you sound advice, but i should have know that you wouldn't take it.
 
Your question presumes that I have some kind of problem with the aforementioned scenario regarding free speech and the exercise thereof. Nothing I have said would indicate such a bias, hence the question is illogical in its presumption.

I worded the question that way because i was quite certain that you DO NOT have a problem with free-speech, because i was advocating that you use your free-speech. It'd be similar to having a conversation with kids, and they say, "I want to play video games today," and you say, "But i wanted to take you to the theme park and ride roller coasters, what's wrong with that?" Obviously, the child realizes that your plan is preferable to theirs, and that there's "nothing wrong with that". It's called a "rhetorical question," which is why i didn't realize that that was the question to which you were referring. I don't think anyone has ever acted before to me as if an obviously rhetorical question was an actual question to be argued over. **giggle**


Why would I deign to answer a question which falsely presumes what I believe? I think free speech is just lovely.

Well, why should i try to explain how a rhetorical question works to somebody with enough brain power to operate a computer? Because i'm willing to help you, and correct you so that you can see what you were to blind to before. You should be appreciative of my efforts and either accommodate me or correct me. I'll do my best to remember not to ask any more rhetorical questions, and if you suspect that i have, you can ask me if it was a serious question or not (or alternatively, you could grab the nearest 4th or 5th grader that happens to wander by). It won't bother me, and i'll learn a little more about your mental processes--which will help me talk to you in a way that you will understand.

The larger point is that you have your free-speech rights to attempt to stop such a law from ever happening. I have my free-speech rights to attempt to get the law passed. As long as you go around acting like your opinion is obvious and right, but you don't detail why, then i'll beat you every time, whether or not i'm obvious and right. The reason? Because i won't act so high and mighty, and i'll carefully explain the logic and reasoning behind my perspective. So while you might have a better argument, if you were to take the time to suss it out, you'll never know and you won't win many converts to your cause because just acting pretentious about it is unattractive and only gets you the followers that already agree with you anyway. The people you'd like on your side are the ones who didn't agree with you to begin with, and for them you're going to have to do better than just thumping your chest and cawing out hoarsely, "ME RITE ON NO TAXAMATION FOR NABORSHON". This is sometimes why there is surprise upsets from the underdog. The underdog can't act like he's automatically right and his position sensible. He has to do the slow, hard, dirty work of convincing those that don't already agree with him. And this process, of explaining carefully and logically, is what i'm looking for from you. I promise you that i'm open and willing to look extremely carefully at what you present--if you'd actually present something--anything at all. If you can actually put feet on your position, and show how it is more sensible than mine, you'll have a convert from the other side instead of a bunch of puppet heads on strings nodding whether you say "Scooby Doo" or whatever it is you say dogmatically and with vigor about "IT'S 'A WRONG, I TELL YOU BRATHAS!!" without any thought or construct. Get you a convert, and that's something of which to be proud, and then that guy is out fighting your battle for you, with logic and reasoning. Talk to mirrors, and all there is is the echo of your own raspy voice.
 
To answer the question in your response...I have no issue with an abortion in the first and even partially into the second trimester. When you start getting to the 18 week point, then I am adamantly against it except in the most extreme of circumstances.




Why in your opinion, and I respect your pro-choice opinion much moreso than most, is it 18 weeks?


Wouldn't 8 weeks, 2 months be plenty of time to figure out your pregnant and get an abortion?

If we are to put a time on it, wouldn't 8 weeks be plenty?


Hell I had 48 hours to plea "not guilty" to a ny ticket...... ;)
 
Why in your opinion, and I respect your pro-choice opinion much moreso than most, is it 18 weeks?


Wouldn't 8 weeks, 2 months be plenty of time to figure out your pregnant and get an abortion?

If we are to put a time on it, wouldn't 8 weeks be plenty?


Hell I had 48 hours to plea "not guilty" to a ny ticket...... ;)


For me it would depend on the wording of the law, and what it allows for and what it doesn't. For example, if we're talking about a health issue for the mother, there should be no limit at all. Right up to delivery. If we're talking about abortion for convenience, i have no issue with the time frame being closer to what you describe. Of course, some women don't know that they're pregnant in the 8 week period, so that's an issue to deal with. I can just imagine some woman devastated that she didn't find out one day earlier that she was pregnant.
 
For me it would depend on the wording of the law, and what it allows for and what it doesn't. For example, if we're talking about a health issue for the mother, there should be no limit at all. Right up to delivery.


100% agree

] If we're talking about abortion for convenience, i have no issue with the time frame being closer to what you describe. Of course, some women don't know that they're pregnant in the 8 week period, so that's an issue to deal with. I can just imagine some woman devastated that she didn't find out one day earlier that she was pregnant.

It will happen, but a campaign like the aids campaign or "Crack is wack" and perhaps while they are teaching how gay sex works in sex ed, they can hammer in that a woman needs to test if she is sexually active... no?
 
It will happen, but a campaign like the aids campaign or "Crack is wack" and perhaps while they are teaching how gay sex works in sex ed, they can hammer in that a woman needs to test if she is sexually active... no?

Well ofc but some women are just irresponsible.
You should know about 10 weeks in, if not. There is something wrong with that person.
 
It will happen, but a campaign like the aids campaign or "Crack is wack" and perhaps while they are teaching how gay sex works in sex ed, they can hammer in that a woman needs to test if she is sexually active... no?

Yeah, but because 8 weeks is just barely past two ovulation cycles, that time frame is more susceptible to mistake. Plenty of girls don't have regular periods and so they could miss the signs of a more mature and regular woman. I'd be tempted to argue for something closer to three cycle periods just so there'd be more time for the more ignorant individuals to become aware. Of course, if the limitations were set where you describe, i'd take issue with any "wait time law" that would violate that time constraint. In other words, i wouldn't favor a 48 hour wait law if the latest a woman could get an abortion was 8 weeks for the simple reason that she might find out she was pregnant only 36 hours before her 8 week time limit, and then she's screwed because based on the two laws working against her, she's caught in a catch-22.
 
Back
Top Bottom