http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/mitt-romney-stericycle-controversy_n_1642468.html

Check it out people... here is the cute picture to go with it...



Now... i'm not sure who i am voting for yet.... but i have to say... if this is true... then i can't believe people think he is anti abortion...

Was hoping we might make it through 9/11, even the campaigns are laying low today.

The sad thing is this shouldn't even be an issue. If the liars and idiots in the religious right would just magically disappear, abortion would be completely uncontroversial. Romney's ties to this company would be of no more interest than his (hypothetical) ties to the company that picks up your garbage every week. But, on the bright side, the only people who care about this are extremist conservatives, so it's a pure loss for Romney.


As for Romney being anti-abortion, don't forget the two components of the republican party: the religious right, and the rich. It's an alliance of convenience, and neither group really cares about the other group's agenda (though obviously there's some overlap for individual people). Romney is a member of the second group, obviously. I'm sure he cares on some level what his imaginary friend tells him to do, but in the end making money is what's most important. He'll pretend to care about abortion long enough to get votes from the religious right, but once he's in office (dog help us in if that happens) he'll be too busy giving himself tax cuts to bother with a bunch of anti-capitalist zealots.

Picture of Romney laughing is classic. Sums up the road to his candidacy. "I'm the best you got b****es"

At any rate, doesn't matter that Romney banned assault weapons in Mass-Uh-Choo-Sits, created something similar/identical to "ObamaCare", Governed the state who's job creation was at the bottom and made millions on abortions (true or not).

Election is really not about Romney's past political leanings and decisions, after all he can be molded into anything the Republican base wants, already has started.

2012 Election for the GOP base is that Romney is not Obama.

That picutre of Romney laughing is political gold for liberal on-line activists. I'm surprised I haven't seen it more, to be honest.


The abortion thing is a big whatever. I mean, we already know Romney is all over the place on the issue. You go on youtube and watch Teddy Kennedy ads from their 1994 senatorial contest where Kennedy attacks Romney on flip flopping on the issue. From 1994. Teddy Kennedy. Seriously, Romney is all over the shop on this issue, and we've known that for the better part of two decades.

To a large extent this isn't even a slight on Romney. The issue is one he probably doesn't care much about, but one he had to take a stand on, and got caught between appealing to the sensibilities of his relatively moderate state, and appealing to more hardline voters in the national elections. Hence his final switch in the early 2000s to an anti-abortion, anti-Roe v Wade position when he became a national candidate.

I think he should have just come out in the 90s and said 'I don't give two gaks about abortion. I care about business and economics. I will do exactly as much as any politician does on this issue - sweet feth all. So vote for me, or don't vote for me, but don't do it either way because of abortion. That's just a wedge issue with no relevance to the policies that really matter. Also Teddy Kennedy is a drunk and he killed a woman.'

 sebster wrote:

I think he should have just come out in the 90s and said 'I don't give two gaks about abortion. I care about business and economics. I will do exactly as much as any politician does on this issue - sweet feth all. So vote for me, or don't vote for me, but don't do it either way because of abortion. That's just a wedge issue with no relevance to the policies that really matter. Also Teddy Kennedy is a drunk and he killed a woman.'

If a real libertarian party existed, that would be a damn good platform.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
But, on the bright side, the only people who care about this are extremist conservatives, so it's a pure loss for Romney.

Unfortunately extremists of all stripes really like to vote.

 dogma wrote:
If a real libertarian party existed, that would be a damn good platform.

Except for the part where abortion is not "just a wedge issue", it's a very important issue for a lot of people, with more impact on their lives than any tax policy issue*. And it's not an issue that we can afford to ignore, since religious fanatics are constantly working to make abortion illegal and only active opposition to their efforts can prevent them from doing even more damage. A party platform that says "I don't care about this" effectively means "I support the right for religious extremists to impose their religion on everyone else".


*Compare the cost of raising a child from 0-18 with the difference in taxes between liberal and conservative plans for the average person.

Unfortunately extremists of all stripes really like to vote.

They might vote, but left-wing extremists have no serious representation at the national level. Right-wing extremists (of both the religious and economic type), on the other hand, have a major voice at every level of US politics, giving most voters a choice between a center-right party and a raving lunatic right party.

 Peregrine wrote:
Except for the part where abortion is not "just a wedge issue", it's a very important issue for a lot of people, with more impact on their lives than any tax policy issue*. And it's not an issue that we can afford to ignore, since religious fanatics are constantly working to make abortion illegal and only active opposition to their efforts can prevent them from doing even more damage. A party platform that says "I don't care about this" effectively means "I support the right for religious extremists to impose their religion on everyone else".

It is just a wedge issue, with all kinds of furious noise made, and lots of people propelled into the voting booths on this issue. And yet, since Roe v Wade there's been what, two or three pieces of minor reform on the issue? There's the thing where no Planned Parenthood funding can go to abortion, the thing banning partial birth abortion, and the thing about parental permission. That's it... in nearly 40 years.

At the same time tax policy has been reformed in 1981, 1986, 1993, and 2001, with another change likely soon. And they weren't trivial changes. The top marginal tax rate in that time has been cut from 70%, to 50%, to 38.5%, back up to 39.6%, then down again to 35%. So the richest people will now be paying basically half the tax they once did. And that's just income tax rates. Once you add in capital gains and the deductions available it becomes obvious that's a real battleground.

 sebster wrote:
It is just a wedge issue, with all kinds of furious noise made, and lots of people propelled into the voting booths on this issue. And yet, since Roe v Wade there's been what, two or three pieces of minor reform on the issue? There's the thing where no Planned Parenthood funding can go to abortion, the thing banning partial birth abortion, and the thing about parental permission. That's it... in nearly 40 years.

Err, no. Try looking at the state level, where the past few years have seen a huge number of laws restricting abortion. Laws to require the woman to view an image of the "baby" before getting an abortion, laws to require the doctor to inform them of "risks" (which are nothing more than lies invented by the religious right), laws restricting funding created specifically to drive anyone who offers abortions out of business, laws to add mandatory waiting periods (great for denying abortions to poor people who can't afford to take a second day off work), laws to add an earlier cutoff point for when you can get an abortion (based on religious lies, not science), etc. This is hardly "minor reform", and in many cases is getting dangerously close to becoming a ban in all but name, with various conservative politicians openly admitting that their goal is to impose so many limits that Roe v Wade becomes irrelevant.

Granted, this is at the state level, but the reason it's allowed to happen is the pathetic lack of resistance from the federal government (which could easily put an end to it), and the republican platform is that we need more limits on abortion. Even if they're too busy passing tax cuts for themselves to pass any new anti-abortion laws, they certainly aren't going to do anything to stop those rights from being removed at the state level.

At the same time tax policy has been reformed in 1981, 1986, 1993, and 2001, with another change likely soon. And they weren't trivial changes. The top marginal tax rate in that time has been cut from 70%, to 50%, to 38.5%, back up to 39.6%, then down again to 35%. So the richest people will now be paying basically half the tax they once did. And that's just income tax rates. Once you add in capital gains and the deductions available it becomes obvious that's a real battleground.

Great. Now how exactly how many people pay the top marginal rate? My point wasn't that tax reform is needed (it is, and starting with ending the Bush tax cuts), it's that for many people abortion is a MUCH larger issue. Raising a child from birth to 18 costs them FAR more than the difference their taxes between various sets of tax laws, especially when the current debate is framed in terms of the rich vs. the middle class, ignoring anyone making less than middle-class-level money. And of course that financial impact is in addition to all the other consequences of being forced to have a child that you don't want.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except for the part where abortion is not "just a wedge issue", it's a very important issue for a lot of people, with more impact on their lives than any tax policy issue.

Individually, sure, but not collectively; which is why it is a wedge issue.

Note that I say this as someone who has funded abortions for spawn that weren't mine.

 Peregrine wrote:

They might vote, but left-wing extremists have no serious representation at the national level. Right-wing extremists (of both the religious and economic type), on the other hand, have a major voice at every level of US politics, giving most voters a choice between a center-right party and a raving lunatic right party.

They really don't. You don't see many real far-right American politicians. Though, hyperbole being an American thing, the belief is common.

 dogma wrote:
Individually, sure, but not collectively; which is why it is a wedge issue.

Then, by that standard, what isn't a wedge issue? Short of the most urgent national security issues, what exactly is there that does apply to everyone collectively? Even your example of tax reform would be a wedge issue, since individually each person has their own best interest at stake.

Now, if you instead consider the connotation of "wedge issue" to be a minor one that is primarily used to split the opposition, then no, abortion doesn't qualify as a wedge issue. It's a very serious issue with direct personal impact for many people, and the reasons pro-choice people have for making it a priority have nothing to do with a pragmatic strategy to split the opposition. It's entirely a question of self-defense, not winning elections.

They really don't. You don't see many real far-right American politicians. Though, hyperbole being an American thing, the belief is common.

Only because the entire US political scale is skewed to the right. The absolute most extreme right-wing (the ones who build bunkers and/or murder abortion doctors) might not have much power, but consider things on the scale of "first world" nations. By that standard the republicans are a far-right party with extreme right elements, while the democrats are a center to moderate-right party. There simply isn't a true left-wing party in the US, at most US liberals/progressives have to settle for voting in democrats and hoping for policies that would be considered uncontroversial common sense in other countries.

 dogma wrote:

 sebster wrote:

I think he should have just come out in the 90s and said 'I don't give two gaks about abortion. I care about business and economics. I will do exactly as much as any politician does on this issue - sweet feth all. So vote for me, or don't vote for me, but don't do it either way because of abortion. That's just a wedge issue with no relevance to the policies that really matter. Also Teddy Kennedy is a drunk and he killed a woman.'

If a real libertarian party existed, that would be a damn good platform.

Quit stealing the Frazzled 2012 Wiener Dog Party platform!

 dogma wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
They might vote, but left-wing extremists have no serious representation at the national level. Right-wing extremists (of both the religious and economic type), on the other hand, have a major voice at every level of US politics, giving most voters a choice between a center-right party and a raving lunatic right party.

They really don't. You don't see many real far-right American politicians. Though, hyperbole being an American thing, the belief is common.

There is some truth to it. Contemporary American standards would label the mainstream right in Europe (CDU in Germany, UMP in France, even the Tories in the UK prior to 1980) as "extreme" socialists for standing on platforms of mixed public-private ownership, Keynesian economics and (if generally incremental and sometimes grudging) acceptance of social liberalisation. I can't imagine what the average Fox viewer would think of the actually left-wing (i.e. social democratic or even democratic socialist) governments of Norway and Sweden, much less that both nations enjoy standards of living and per capita GDP vastly in excess of the US (or indeed the UK). (Not that said Fox viewers would likely be able to place either one on a map, I realise.)

 Peregrine wrote:

Then, by that standard, what isn't a wedge issue? Short of the most urgent national security issues, what exactly is there that does apply to everyone collectively? Even your example of tax reform would be a wedge issue, since individually each person has their own best interest at stake.

Very true. You've learned one of the fundamental truths of my industry. "Issues" are things like "the economy", "defense", or "Medicare". "Wedge Issues" are things designed to bisect those issues: "Obamacare funds birth control!" is a great example.

 Peregrine wrote:

Only because the entire US political scale is skewed to the right. The absolute most extreme right-wing (the ones who build bunkers and/or murder abortion doctors) might not have much power, but consider things on the scale of "first world" nations. By that standard the republicans are a far-right party with extreme right elements, while the democrats are a center to moderate-right party. There simply isn't a true left-wing party in the US, at most US liberals/progressives have to settle for voting in democrats and hoping for policies that would be considered uncontroversial common sense in other countries.

I've often spoken of how bad the linear political spectrum is, but alright:

Which Republican endorses the murder of abortion clinic workers?

 Peregrine wrote:
Err, no. Try looking at the state level, where the past few years have seen a huge number of laws restricting abortion. Laws to require the woman to view an image of the "baby" before getting an abortion, laws to require the doctor to inform them of "risks" (which are nothing more than lies invented by the religious right), laws restricting funding created specifically to drive anyone who offers abortions out of business, laws to add mandatory waiting periods (great for denying abortions to poor people who can't afford to take a second day off work), laws to add an earlier cutoff point for when you can get an abortion (based on religious lies, not science), etc. This is hardly "minor reform", and in many cases is getting dangerously close to becoming a ban in all but name, with various conservative politicians openly admitting that their goal is to impose so many limits that Roe v Wade becomes irrelevant.

Granted, this is at the state level, but the reason it's allowed to happen is the pathetic lack of resistance from the federal government (which could easily put an end to it), and the republican platform is that we need more limits on abortion. Even if they're too busy passing tax cuts for themselves to pass any new anti-abortion laws, they certainly aren't going to do anything to stop those rights from being removed at the state level.

Are you honest to God claiming that the reason states have passed laws restricting abortion is due to a lack of resistance from the federal government, or more specifically (given we're talking about Romney) from the president himself? Seriously?

Politics just doesn't work that way.

Great. Now how exactly how many people pay the top marginal rate? My point wasn't that tax reform is needed (it is, and starting with ending the Bush tax cuts), it's that for many people abortion is a MUCH larger issue. Raising a child from birth to 18 costs them FAR more than the difference their taxes between various sets of tax laws, especially when the current debate is framed in terms of the rich vs. the middle class, ignoring anyone making less than middle-class-level money. And of course that financial impact is in addition to all the other consequences of being forced to have a child that you don't want.

Then pick another tax level, and go do your own research, learn how much it's changed (or in many cases for lower middle class people - hasn't changed). At which point you start to see how the tax burden has shifted away from the wealthy, and either to the middle or onto the deficit.

And then think about how many people get suckered into the election booth to vote out Roe v Wade, and end up with nothing on that issue, but further tax reforms that directly shift wealth away from them and towards the top end of town.

 dogma wrote:
I've often spoken of how bad the linear political spectrum is, but alright:

Which Republican endorses the murder of abortion clinic workers?

Presidential candidate Wiley Drake*.

Blam! Did not see that coming, right?

*possibly more lunatic then republican, but still, pretty close right?

 dogma wrote:
Very true. You've learned one of the fundamental truths of my industry. "Issues" are things like "the economy", "defense", or "Medicare". "Wedge Issues" are things designed to bisect those issues: "Obamacare funds birth control!" is a great example.

Except "the economy" isn't an issue, it's a collection of a lot of related issues. And each of those related issues has their own separate perspectives, individual relevance, favored solutions, etc, and a voter might prefer different candidates on some of them. It's absolutely absurd to group all of them together and call it an "issue", while not doing the same for abortion. For example, we might say that "freedom" is the issue, since abortion is a subset of the larger category of freedom vs. theocracy.

And even by your definition abortion isn't a wedge issue. It isn't designed to bisect some larger issue, it's an issue that is argued over on its own merits completely apart from some kind of political strategy.

I've often spoken of how bad the linear political spectrum is, but alright:

Which Republican endorses the murder of abortion clinic workers?

Read again, I said they don't have power.

 sebster wrote:
Are you honest to God claiming that the reason states have passed laws restricting abortion is due to a lack of resistance from the federal government, or more specifically (given we're talking about Romney) from the president himself? Seriously?

Remember that part where federal overrules state and local? The federal government could easily pass a law prohibiting restrictions on abortion before X weeks, go around state funding and allow federal money to be used for abortion, etc. It wouldn't change the existence of idiot religious conservatives, but it could certainly prevent them from doing any more than whine and cry about "baby killers".

And no, the president doesn't personally do all of this (except in their choice of what laws to sign or veto), but that hasn't stopped anyone from talking about "Obama's handling of the economy" or whatever.

Then pick another tax level, and go do your own research, learn how much it's changed (or in many cases for lower middle class people - hasn't changed). At which point you start to see how the tax burden has shifted away from the wealthy, and either to the middle or onto the deficit.

And again you miss the point entirely. Tax laws are relevant, but have you ever looked at the cost of raising a child? Unless you're already rich enough that the tax debate is irrelevant you're going to pay a lot more if you have to raise an unwanted child than if the wrong party gets to write the tax laws.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except "the economy" isn't an issue, it's a collection of a lot of related issues. And each of those related issues has their own separate perspectives, individual relevance, favored solutions, etc, and a voter might prefer different candidates on some of them. It's absolutely absurd to group all of them together and call it an "issue", while not doing the same for abortion. For example, we might say that "freedom" is the issue, since abortion is a subset of the larger category of freedom vs. theocracy.

We might, but we don't. Political issues are defined by those who believe they're important, not technicality.

And don't try to juxtapose freedom and theocracy, that's just lazy.

 Peregrine wrote:

Read again, I said they don't have power.

You did, but you also you also misrepresented the rest of the 1st world right wing.

 Peregrine wrote:
The sad thing is this shouldn't even be an issue. If the liars and idiots in the religious right would just magically disappear, abortion would be completely uncontroversial.

Well, that's not strictly true.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

A solid majority of the country considers itself pro-life, and only favors allowing abortion in certain circumstances.

 Seaward wrote:
Well, that's not strictly true.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

A solid majority of the country considers itself pro-life, and only favors allowing abortion in certain circumstances.

Yes, now look at WHY they are pro-life. You'll find that the answer is religion. Even the pro-lifers who aren't religious nutcases are influenced by propaganda from religious extremists. If you take away that propaganda and deal with the facts of the situation, abortion would be no more controversial than squishing a cockroach.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Well, that's not strictly true.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

A solid majority of the country considers itself pro-life, and only favors allowing abortion in certain circumstances.

Yes, now look at WHY they are pro-life. You'll find that the answer is religion. Even the pro-lifers who aren't religious nutcases are influenced by propaganda from religious extremists. If you take away that propaganda and deal with the facts of the situation, abortion would be no more controversial than squishing a cockroach.

I think that's a bit broad. I'm a solid atheist, and even I'm firmly against late-term abortion.

 dogma wrote:
We might, but we don't. Political issues are defined by those who believe they're important, not technicality.

Err, what exactly do you mean by this? It makes no sense given that people believe abortion is important just like they believe a lot of other issues, which can be grouped together for summary purposes under "the economy", are important.

And don't try to juxtapose freedom and theocracy, that's just lazy.

Why not? That's a pretty accurate description of the opposing sides here.

The religious right wants to use the power of the state to impose their religious beliefs on people who are not part of their religion. For example, making laws restricting abortion based on a religious belief that "life" begins at conception, and then forcing everyone to follow those laws.

On the other side, we have people who want freedom, with laws limited to those based on secular facts and each person free to choose which (if any) religious rules to follow. For example, removing restrictions on abortion before a set point (defined by scientific knowledge of human development) and leaving each individual free to choose whether or not they wish to impose additional restrictions on themselves (and only themselves).

You did, but you also you also misrepresented the rest of the 1st world right wing.

How exactly did I misrepresent them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
I think that's a bit broad. I'm a solid atheist, and even I'm firmly against late-term abortion.

Except late-term abortion is a non-issue. If we ignore abortion done for medical reasons (for example, a baby that will be born with severe problems and die painfully as soon as it is born, possibly killing the mother in the process), late-term abortion is a tiny percentage of the total. And it makes sense, if you don't want a child why would you go through a long period of pregnancy before ending it? Unless there is some outside factor (an abusive husband, for example) preventing access to abortion you'd want to get it over with as soon as possible, and that means the majority of abortions are going to happen long before there's any ethical problem.

And you'll note that the poll in question (or the discussion here) was not about late-term abortion.

So... you do not value human life whatsoever? I'm not likely to remain to debate this, but i cannot fathom your position.

 Luco wrote:
So... you do not value human life whatsoever? I'm not likely to remain to debate this, but i cannot fathom your position.

I value human life, where "human" means more than what DNA you have. Our humanity is defined by our brains, our consciousness, whatever you want to call it. And guess what: a blob of cells doesn't have this. In fact, the blob of cells has less consciousness or capacity to feel pain than a cockroach. We don't feel bad about squishing cockroaches, so why should we feel bad about abortion?

You're talking about the blastocyst, and the conceptus prior to the beginning of electrical activity in the brain, right?

cockroaches do not have the capability towards sentience the 'blob of cells' will become a human being, likely fully functioning at that.

They may. Remember that (in the first trimester, especially) the human body naturally aborts a lot of them all on its own.

 Mannahnin wrote:
You're talking about the blastocyst, and the conceptus prior to the beginning of electrical activity in the brain, right?

Prior to beginning of meaningful electrical activity in the brain, which doesn't occur until well after the blastocyst stage. It's questionable whether a fetus has consciousness/capacity to feel and understand suffering/etc until even later, but it's absolutely certain that there's no meaningful "person" before at least 20ish weeks.

 Luco wrote:
cockroaches do not have the capability towards sentience the 'blob of cells' will become a human being, likely fully functioning at that.

Sorry, but the whole potential argument is a terrible one. By that standard every single egg cell (we'll ignore the male side, since every man is guilty of murdering billions if we don't) has the potential to become a human being, likely fully functioning at that. Therefore every month that a woman doesn't get pregnant she is guilty of murder. Now, unless you want to throw every woman in the world in prison for murder, I suggest you reconsider your argument.

Except that the egg by itself is incapable of producing a human being, as is a sperm cell. Only once they are together is there potential. a miscarriage is different from willingly ending a life.

 Peregrine wrote:
Remember that part where federal overrules state and local? The federal government could easily pass a law prohibiting restrictions on abortion before X weeks, go around state funding and allow federal money to be used for abortion, etc. It wouldn't change the existence of idiot religious conservatives, but it could certainly prevent them from doing any more than whine and cry about "baby killers".

No they couldn't. No matter how intensely you cast your vote, that will never end up being on the Federal agenda. The issue is absolutely stalemated at the Federal level.

And no, the president doesn't personally do all of this (except in their choice of what laws to sign or veto), but that hasn't stopped anyone from talking about "Obama's handling of the economy" or whatever.

Oh absolutely. That is another classic example of people making lots of noise about a thing that won't change regardless of who wins the presidency.

And again you miss the point entirely. Tax laws are relevant, but have you ever looked at the cost of raising a child? Unless you're already rich enough that the tax debate is irrelevant you're going to pay a lot more if you have to raise an unwanted child than if the wrong party gets to write the tax laws.

No, please just read what I'm saying. Yes, for an individual who might have got an abortion, but is instead raising a child it's a bigger deal than tax reform. But abortion doesn't change based on who wins the presidency, but income tax schemes do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Well, that's not strictly true.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

A solid majority of the country considers itself pro-life, and only favors allowing abortion in certain circumstances.

Except that the issue has largely been one side, almost entirely religiously motivated, very intensely putting forward their claims ever since Roe v Wade, while the other side has dropped away almost entirely. Which makes sense, not many people continue to fight as intensely after they, you know, won.

Where this to become a real, up for grabs issue again, with outright abortion actually threatened, you'd see the pro-choice lobby kick up into full swing, and a lot of the nonsense and way out of context arguments put forwards by the pro-abortion lobby would be exposed.

A classic example is your claim of late term abortion. The pro-life crowd makes a lot of noise about this issue, but the simple facts on the ground are that most every state in the US bans late term abortion, except in cases of the mother's health. Even before these laws were in place, less than 2% of all abortions were late term. It is almost entirely a non-issue, but the pro-life crowd makes a huge noise about because they can score support generally by raising it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
They may. Remember that (in the first trimester, especially) the human body naturally aborts a lot of them all on its own.

And yet you don't see the pro-life crowd throwing money at that issue, seeing what science can do to prevent every one of those miscarriages. Which makes it clear that the motivations for the pro-life crowd are not really just about protecting unborn life, doesn't it?

 Luco wrote:
Except that the egg by itself is incapable of producing a human being, as is a sperm cell. Only once they are together is there potential.

And a fetus is incapable of producing a human being without a mother. Only once they are together is there potential. Again, the potential argument fails utterly: if the fetus is a "person" despite lacking the potential to become a full human being on its own, so is the egg, and every woman goes to prison for murder. Or do you ironically favor the death penalty?

a miscarriage is different from willingly ending a life.

You're right. A miscarriage usually just ends a blob of cells that isn't a person. Willingly ending a life usually kills a person.

However, fortunately for us, abortion is much more like a miscarriage or squishing a cockroach than willingly ending a life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
No they couldn't. No matter how intensely you cast your vote, that will never end up being on the Federal agenda. The issue is absolutely stalemated at the Federal level.

I didn't say it was likely, I said it was possible.

And yes, it's stalemated, but only because the elements of the republican part that want to end the stalemate are kept out of power. It's unfortunate that stalemate is the best we can do, but that doesn't make it any less of an issue.

No, please just read what I'm saying. Yes, for an individual who might have got an abortion, but is instead raising a child it's a bigger deal than tax reform. But abortion doesn't change based on who wins the presidency, but income tax schemes do.

And you're wrong about that. Abortion CAN change based on who wins the presidency (at least as much as any issue can change based on who wins the presidency), and there's a major push from the religious right to do exactly that.

If there is no sperm its irrelevant whether its with the mother or not. I'm not talking about when the cells are without the ability to grow, i'm talking about when all the conditions are met and the fetus will become a baby.

There is no choice with a miscarriage, there is a choice with an abortion.

 Peregrine wrote:

Err, what exactly do you mean by this?

I mean that issues are defined by people. The economy is an issue precisely because people believe that it is an issue.

 Peregrine wrote:

Why not? That's a pretty accurate description of the opposing sides here.

Because it isn't accurate at all. While there are theocrats in the US there aren't many of them.

Advocating something due to a religious belief does not make a person a theocrat.

 Peregrine wrote:

How exactly did I misrepresent them?

You claimed that the US is skewed to the right relative to the rest of the West, but it really isn't.

Didn't we just have an abortion thread recently?

 Jihadin wrote:
Didn't we just have an abortion thread recently?

Yeah... that Atkin dude...

He's now leading McCaskill...

*shakes head muttering craziness*

 Luco wrote:

There is no choice with a miscarriage, there is a choice with an abortion.

Ever seen a ~100 lb girl take 37 shots because she knew she was pregnant?

 Luco wrote:
If there is no sperm its irrelevant whether its with the mother or not. I'm not talking about when the cells are without the ability to grow, i'm talking about when all the conditions are met and the fetus will become a baby.

And one of the conditions is "the mother doesn't get an abortion or suffer a miscarriage". Just like one of the conditions for an egg to reach its full potential is "must have a man provide the other half of its DNA". If you're going to consider an entity a "person" because it has the potential to become one if certain conditions are met, then you need to apply the same reasoning to ALL entities with the potential to become a "person" if certain conditions are met.

Of course we all know the real reason for the inconsistency is that the "potential" argument is just a excuse to avoid admitting that it's really about the fact that your imaginary friend told you that the fetus has a "soul".

There is no choice with a miscarriage, there is a choice with an abortion.

So? There's a choice with squishing a cockroach. If you think that abortion is wrong, then you'd better not choose to kill any bugs in your house.


And, like sebster said, I don't really see the pro-life crowd insisting that we spend everything we can on trying to prevent miscarriages. After all, even if it's not a choice, it still ends a "life", so wouldn't you want to raise taxes, cancel all other medical research, and try to do something about the staggering number of "deaths" from miscarriages? Oh wait, you don't, because on some level you don't actually believe your own propaganda.

 dogma wrote:

 Luco wrote:

There is no choice with a miscarriage, there is a choice with an abortion.

Ever seen a ~100 lb girl take 37 shots because she knew she was pregnant?

Forcing oneself to miscarriage brings it into the same view as abortion.

 Luco wrote:

Forcing oneself to miscarriage brings it into the same view as abortion.

It does?

Here I was thinking it was much more dangerous.

 dogma wrote:
Because it isn't accurate at all. While there are theocrats in the US there aren't many of them.

Advocating something due to a religious belief does not make a person a theocrat.

It does when you move into using the power of the state to enforce your religion on other people. If religious conservatives want to put up a sign saying "abortion is murder", they have a right to do so. If they want to decline to get an abortion themselves, they have a right to do so. However, they do NOT have the right to ban abortion for people who don't share their belief in a soul or whatever, in complete opposition to secular knowledge and ethics.

It's the same thing over and over again: abortion, gay marriage, obscenity laws, etc, one case after another of attempting to use the power of the state to make everyone follow a specific religious doctrine. In other words, the textbook definition of a theocracy.

 Peregrine wrote:
You claimed that the US is skewed to the right relative to the rest of the West, but it really isn't.

Sure it is. Our mainstream is to the right of most "western" countries, and we don't really have a significant left-wing party like other countries do. I can't even count the number of times I've seen people living elsewhere laugh at our idea of "liberal", and our conservative party far too often sounds like the raving lunatic party (with no real power) in other countries.

Luco wrote:Forcing oneself to miscarriage brings it into the same view as abortion.

..and since people always have, and always will, tried/try to terminate pregnancies, it's for the best that they have access to safe, professional abortion care when it becomes necessary. Rather than doing things like ingesting alcohol-poisoning levels of spirits. Or, you know, getting back-alley procedures using things like coat hangers.

Of course, the best way to avoid abortions is for women to have free and easy access to birth control medication.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Luco wrote:Forcing oneself to miscarriage brings it into the same view as abortion.

..and since people always have, and always will, tried/try to terminate pregnancies, it's for the best that they have access to safe, professional abortion care when it becomes necessary. Rather than doing things like ingesting alcohol-poisoning levels of spirits. Or, you know, getting back-alley procedures using things like coat hangers.

Of course, the best way to avoid abortions is for women to have free and easy access to birth control medication.

My core beliefs demand that I forgive them for such an act, but in my weakness I cannot find any amount of sympathy for a being that goes out of its way to murder its own child. If they want to off themselves in the process, fine by me.

 Luco wrote:
My core beliefs demand that I forgive them for such an act, but in my weakness I cannot find any amount of sympathy for a being that goes out of its way to murder its own child. If they want to off themselves in the process, fine by me.

Do you also lack sympathy for the person who tries to squish a cockroach, slips and breaks their neck? After all, the cockroach had a lot more capacity to feel pain than the "child", so surely trying to kill it makes a person deserve death much more than getting an abortion.

Also, I'm glad you're finally able to openly admit your lack of empathy for other people. I guess once they're born their suffering doesn't matter?

 Peregrine wrote:

It does when you move into using the power of the state to enforce your religion on other people.

I don't many people in the US calling for the state to enforce Christianity on other people.

 Peregrine wrote:
...in complete opposition to secular knowledge and ethics.

20 bucks says I can justify any argument made by a religious conservative in secular terms.

 Peregrine wrote:

I can't even count the number of times I've seen people living elsewhere laugh at our idea of "liberal", and our conservative party far too often sounds like the raving lunatic party (with no real power) in other countries.

I'll bet most of them also don't know the platform of any political party in their nations of origin.

cockroaches are not people.

I'm open to suffering, but suffering does not excuse actions. Whining and saying 'poor me, poor me' does not excuse criminal behavior. What about a rapist? What if they have mommy or daddy issues? what if they were bullied? Does that make rape an ok action because they had childhood problems? I'm sympathetic up to the point they commit a grievous act.

What about seriel killers? Hell, what about Hitler who was beaten into a coma by his father? Did that make the attempted genocide of the Jews an ok course of action? (I know, I know, that law thingy about Hitler, don't care)

 dogma wrote:
I don't many people in the US calling for the state to enforce Christianity on other people.

They might not (yet) want to enforce church attendance, but they certainly want to force other people to follow the commands of their god. They aren't (yet) trying to create a theocracy as bad as the theocracies elsewhere in the world, but they still want a theocracy.

 Peregrine wrote:
...in complete opposition to secular knowledge and ethics.

20 bucks says I can justify any argument made by a religious conservative in secular terms.

Sure, you can pretend to justify it, but those justifications are rarely more than a weak attempt to disguise the religious intent. And they're almost inevitably poor justifications (if not outright lies) that fail miserably under the slightest analysis.

And of course whether or not you can come up with a secular argument (regardless of how good it is), the people advocating those positions aren't doing it for secular reasons. Playing devil's advocate won't change the fact that they wish to use the power of the state to enforce their religious doctrine on other people.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'll bet most of them also don't know the platform of any political party in their nations of origin.

Given that I can't bring them all here to discuss it, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

Luco wrote:cockroaches are not people.

I'm open to suffering, but suffering does not excuse actions. Whining and saying 'poor me, poor me' does not excuse criminal behavior.

A) Abortion is legal.

B) A blastocyst is not a person. It could potentially one day become one, if conditions are right, but it has no thoughts or feelings.

C) If you believe the life of a blastocyst is vitally important to preserve, then it logically follows that you personally support medical research to prevent naturally occuring spontaneous abortions. As they happen a lot more often than artificial ones. Do you, in fact support such research? Do you donate to it, and/or lobby your representatives to enact legislation to provide funding for such research?

D) If the answer to that last question is no, then it seems indicative that preserving life is not actually your primary motivation.

 Luco wrote:
cockroaches are not people.

Neither is a fetus. It has no capacity to feel pain, it has no sense of self, it has no intelligence, it has no memories. In short, it has none of the things that define you as a person and not just a dead lump of flesh with human DNA.

I'm open to suffering, but suffering does not excuse actions. Whining and saying 'poor me, poor me' does not excuse criminal behavior. What about a rapist? What if they have mommy or daddy issues? what if they were bullied? Does that make rape an ok action because they had childhood problems? I'm sympathetic up to the point they commit a grievous act.

What about seriel killers? Hell, what about Hitler who was beaten into a coma by his father? Did that make the attempted genocide of the Jews an ok course of action? (I know, I know, that law thingy about Hitler, don't care)

All of those people committed harm against other people. Getting an abortion does not cause harm to other people.

 Peregrine wrote:

They might not (yet) want to enforce church attendance, but they certainly want to force other people to follow the commands of their god. They aren't (yet) trying to create a theocracy as bad as the theocracies elsewhere in the world, but they still want a theocracy.

Of course they do, the moral commands of a God are no different from any other set of moral commands. The vast majority if the American religious right isn't trying to force you to be Christian, they're just acting politically in a way that is consistent with their own morality.

That doesn't mean their choices are correct, but it does mean that they aren't trying to erect a theocracy.

Some of them make statements which certainly sound as if they are. I'm personally acutely aware that my not being Christian is a functional barrier to any elected office beyond maybe the local level.

 Luco wrote:

I'm open to suffering, but suffering does not excuse actions.

What excuse does the fetus have for imposing upon its mother?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Some of them make statements which certainly sound as if they are. I'm personally acutely aware that my not being Christian is a functional barrier to any elected office beyond maybe the local level.

That's certainly true, but in my experience American religious conservatives tend to be like GeneralGrog. I don't agree with them on much of anything, but they're not going to do much to me beyond elbow me in the side and say "Yeah, you atheist bastard."

Regardless, when you go out and create the appropriate conditions for a child to be born and then willingly terminate it you've committed a wrong. Its the principle of not murdering others, whatever stage they happen to be in. I have difficulty in seeing the deliberate harming of another human as an ok course of action, with the exception of defense. I also have difficulty in seeing such a course of action going without consequences.

 dogma wrote:
Of course they do, the moral commands of a God are no different from any other set of moral commands. The vast majority if the American religious right isn't trying to force you to be Christian, they're just acting politically in a way that is consistent with their own morality.

Moral commands from god are different, because they're not open to debate. If we have a debate on secular ethics we can do research, consider alternatives, etc. On the other hand, if we're dealing with moral commands from god it's just a question of what god said. No matter how much it conflicts with the facts (such as evolution, abortion, etc), the word of god is absolute and not open to negotiation.

And whether or not it's consistent with their morality, it's restricting my freedom.

 Luco wrote:
I have difficulty in seeing the deliberate harming of another human as an ok course of action, with the exception of defense.

The mother, and maybe the father, are defending themselves against that malicious bastard gestating in the mother's womb.

 dogma wrote:
That's certainly true, but in my experience American religious conservatives tend to be like GeneralGrog. I don't agree with them on much of anything, but they're not going to do much to me beyond elbow me in the side and say "Yeah, you atheist bastard."

Then you are incredibly fortunate. For many people, the experience is much worse.

 dogma wrote:

 Luco wrote:
I have difficulty in seeing the deliberate harming of another human as an ok course of action, with the exception of defense.

The mother, and maybe the father, are defending themselves against that malicious bastard gestating in the mother's womb.

The one that they created?

 Peregrine wrote:

Moral commands from god are different, because they're not open to debate.

I'll make sure to tell all of my friends that study theology about that.

 Peregrine wrote:

And whether or not it's consistent with their morality, it's restricting my freedom.

Of course it is, that's what happens when you live in a world with other people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luco wrote:

The one that they created?

Unintentionally. They just had sex, the kid popped up because he was feeling frisky.

The one that they created?

Is this where dogma equates the fetus to Osama Bin Laden, and the parents to the US in the 1980s?

If they're planning to terminate, the parents most likely didn't mean to create this new life/potential human who is now in a position to wreck or at least derail their lives.

 Luco wrote:
Regardless, when you go out and create the appropriate conditions for a child to be born and then willingly terminate it you've committed a wrong.

The conditions for a child to be born include "the mother does not want to get an abortion", therefore no wrong is committed.

Also, you have yet to explain WHY it is a wrong. Is it also a wrong if I create the conditions for a cockroach to be born (by keeping a messy house) and then kill it?

Its the principle of not murdering others, whatever stage they happen to be in.

Murder is the act of killing a person. Abortion does not kill a person any more than squishing a cockroach kills a person, or shedding dead skin cells kills a person, or having a little private time with a porn movie kills a few billion people.

Also, you have yet to address the argument that a fetus (before at least 20-25 weeks) is not a person. Simply calling it a person over and over again is just dodging the question.

I have difficulty in seeing the deliberate harming of another human as an ok course of action, with the exception of defense. I also have difficulty in seeing such a course of action going without consequences

Fortunately abortion does not harm another human, so I guess we don't have to worry about consequences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
I'll make sure to tell all of my friends that study theology about that.

Whether or not theology students agree, religious conservatives have an unfortunate habit of treating commands from their god and/or church (as they see it) as absolute law.

 Peregrine wrote:

And whether or not it's consistent with their morality, it's restricting my freedom.

Of course it is, that's what happens when you live in a world with other people.

Yes, but one of those nice rules for how to live with other people is that you don't restrict the freedom of others unnecessarily. Religious conservatives want to restrict freedom even when the actions of other people have no impact on them. This is entirely different from things like restricting the freedom of murderers to kill anyone they want.

I don't really know how to respond to the equating of your own child to that of a terrorist.

i could of sworn that the potential results of screwing and ways to avoid the results were reviewed in middle school and again in high school

Peregrine: One condition for life is that someone doesn't want to kill you? Really?


Time to rehash some things.
Some time alone with porn cannot kill people because the sperm cells are not capable of making life on their own.

Dead skin cells do not and cannot become people.

It ends the life of the beginnings of another person.

 Luco wrote:
I don't really know how to respond to the equating of your own child to that of a terrorist.

Fetus =/= child.

And the way to respond is to address my argument that a fetus does not have any of the characteristics which define who you are as a "person" instead of just a lump of meat.

i could of sworn that the potential results of screwing and ways to avoid the results were reviewed in middle school and again in high school

Sorry, people like you removed that from school and replaced it with the delusional idea that if we don't tell teenagers about sex they won't do it.

Are you willing to put your money where your outrage is and support all these children financially with increased taxes and welfare programs?

 Luco wrote:
Peregrine: One condition for life is that someone doesn't want to kill you? Really?

One of the conditions for a fetus becoming a person is that the mother doesn't want to prevent it from doing so. Otherwise it will never progress beyond the stage of being a non-person lump of meat, followed by being a non-person piece of medical waste. Therefore, by your argument, abortion is not a problem because the fetus is not yet in a state where all of the conditions for eventually becoming a person have been met.

Also, no, you can't just change from "person" to "life" like that. The fetus is alive, just like a plant is alive. However, we were talking about a higher standard than merely being alive.

If its alive it is a young version of its parents making it a young human. It doesn't matter what stage of life the being is in, whether it be in the mothers womb or a centenarian.

@d-usa I'm completely for using my tax money so that they can all grow up to be responsible and productive working adults, yes. I'm even more for a strong education system that encourages responsible behavior.

 sebster wrote:
Except that the issue has largely been one side, almost entirely religiously motivated, very intensely putting forward their claims ever since Roe v Wade, while the other side has dropped away almost entirely. Which makes sense, not many people continue to fight as intensely after they, you know, won.

Always good to have a foreigner tell me what's really up with American politics, but no, I assure you, the other side has not dropped away from the debate. One need only look at the convention to note that the Democrats actually keep it front and center.

None of which changes the fact that the majority of the country considers itself pro-life rather than pro-choice, and that the balance has been tipping in pro-life's favor for quite a while.

 Luco wrote:
Some time alone with porn cannot kill people because the sperm cells are not capable of making life on their own.

And a fetus is not capable of making "life" on its own, it requires the active participation of the mother to reach a point where it becomes a person. Left on its own the fetus will never become anything more than a dead lump of meat.

Also, a sperm cell does not need to be capable of making life because it IS alive, just like every other cell in your body. Murderer.

It ends the life of the beginnings of another person.

Potential to become another person =/= is another person.

Also, haven't I disproved your "potential" argument enough? Can't we move on to the part where you try to explain how the fetus is a person already, reveal your hilarious ignorance of the process of human development, and disappear in shame? Because I like that part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luco wrote:
@d-usa I'm completely for using my tax money so that they can all grow up to be responsible and productive working adults, yes. I'm even more for a strong education system that encourages responsible behavior.

So by "encourages responsible behavior" you mean that you're strongly opposed to abstinence-only sex education programs and laws that restrict easy access to (affordable) birth control? If you are, congratulations, you're slightly less of a hypocrite than most pro-lifers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luco wrote:
If its alive it is a young version of its parents making it a young human. It doesn't matter what stage of life the being is in, whether it be in the mothers womb or a centenarian.

And an egg cell is a young version of the mother by that standard, therefore any woman who doesn't get pregnant at every possible opportunity instead of allowing that cell to leave their body and die is guilty of murder. Have fun building new prisons for ~50% of humanity.

None of which changes the fact that the majority of the country considers itself pro-life rather than pro-choice, and that the balance has been tipping in pro-life's favor for quite a while.

Most abortion rights supporters wish it was never necessary, and just consider it better than not having it as an option.

How anyone can consider themselves pro-life while opposing birth control meds I'll never understand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, back on the original topic, does anyone see the story getting any traction? Any evangelicals passing it around?

A newborn can't live on its own, some mentally slowed people cannot live on their own, are they not a person?

A single cell that will remain a single cell is not a person. Specifically an egg and a sperm together is the creation of a person and beginning of that person's life. Willingly ending a person's life, regardless as to whether they have yet to reach outside of the mother's womb, are in the prime of their life, or old enough to be retired is irrelevant because it is the ending of a life.

You haven't disproved me at all, though I am starting to get bored of answering roughly the same point, though.

EDIT: Can't say I've seen anything on the story outside of here tbh.

 Peregrine wrote:
I didn't say it was likely, I said it was possible.

It isn't. It might be a real issue in the near future, but it isn't right now.

The stalemate is not so much that numbers are even, because they're not. It's everything to do with the way the political blocs line up.

And you're wrong about that. Abortion CAN change based on who wins the presidency (at least as much as any issue can change based on who wins the presidency), and there's a major push from the religious right to do exactly that.

And how well are they doing in that push exactly? Any chance they'll get Roe v Wade overturned?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luco wrote:
There is no choice with a miscarriage, there is a choice with an abortion.

There's a choice to dedicate medical funding to stop the vast numbers of unborn dying in miscarriages. And yet no-one argues for that choice to be made. Why is that?

Intentional comes off as a priority compared to unintentional, I suppose anyway.

 Luco wrote:
EDIT: Can't say I've seen anything on the story outside of here tbh.

Yeah, one would think it might come up as something obviously inconsistent with his current statements:

Mittler wrote:“Well, I don't actually make the decision the Supreme Court makes and so they'll have to make their own decision…. I hope to appoint justices for the Supreme Court that will follow the law and the constitution. And it would be my preference that they reverse Roe v. Wade and therefore they return to the people and their elected representatives the decisions with regards to this important issue.”

He was definitely on board with Bain when they invested in Stericycle, though, according to the SEC filings was "the sole dispositive shareholder", and did make quite a pile of money on it. This was several years before anti-abortion groups started targeting the company, though.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luco wrote:
Intentional comes off as a priority compared to unintentional, I suppose anyway.

But in terms of protecting life, spontaneous natural abortions happen a lot more often.

 Luco wrote:
A newborn can't live on its own, some mentally slowed people cannot live on their own, are they not a person?

That's not at all the same and you know it. A newborn can't live without being provided with food, just like an adult can't live without food. A fetus, on the other hand, will die without a mother to host it. Absolutely, 100%, before a certain point there is nothing you can do to save it. No amount of giving it the basic essentials of life that everything needs will help, it's a dead lump of meat that will never develop into a full person.

A single cell that will remain a single cell is not a person.

It will only remain a single cell if it doesn't get a sperm cell and eventually progress to being a person. Just like a fetus will remain a blob of meat unless it is provided with various things required for it to eventually become a person.

Specifically an egg and a sperm together is the creation of a person and beginning of that person's life. Willingly ending a person's life, regardless as to whether they have yet to reach outside of the mother's womb, are in the prime of their life, or old enough to be retired is irrelevant because it is the ending of a life.

And yet you continue to fail to provide any justification at drawing the line at conception instead of earlier. Your choice is completely arbitrary. It isn't based on biological facts about when "personhood" develops, and it isn't based on a consistent application of the "potential" argument.

You haven't disproved me at all, though I am starting to get bored of answering roughly the same point, though.

You haven't answered it, you've just repeated yourself over and over again.

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh wait, you don't, because on some level you don't actually believe your own propaganda.

Absolutely. It's fascinating to read the history of the abortion debate. To read articles from ministers and priests in the 1970s debating whether the soul is formed at conception or not. And to see how much of the pro-life debate at that time was tied to anti-contraception debate, and how much the underlying argument (or in some cases straight up argument) was tied to the idea that if there was no consequence for sex women would just slut around.

Now, the argument has evolved massively since then, and much of that straight up misogyny has thankfully disappeared. But those arguments have been refined, and many parts have come to be seen as absolute parts of the faith, thanks in large part to Roe v Wade essentially winning the argument for abortion in the US, meaning the pro-choice argument lost most of its energy, and left the pro-life camp to refine and further their claims largely unchallenged.

What this has left us with is a pro-life argument that's a very, very strange beast. It's become this thing born out of misogyny, but with all that misogyny subsequently stripped away, and left as this absolute, 100% conviction that conception is the absolute, 100% point of life, no questions asked. It's central point of the faith that's more modern than the Happy Meal. And it's entirely unquestioned - most pro-life people have simply never heard of a suggestion that if every fertilised egg is, as they believe, a human with a soul, then maybe something should be done about all those miscarriages.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Luco wrote:
EDIT: Can't say I've seen anything on the story outside of here tbh.

Yeah, one would think it might come up as something obviously inconsistent with his current statements:

Mittler wrote:“Well, I don't actually make the decision the Supreme Court makes and so they'll have to make their own decision…. I hope to appoint justices for the Supreme Court that will follow the law and the constitution. And it would be my preference that they reverse Roe v. Wade and therefore they return to the people and their elected representatives the decisions with regards to this important issue.”

He was definitely on board with Bain when they invested in Stericycle, though, according to the SEC filings was "the sole dispositive shareholder", and did make quite a pile of money on it. This was several years before anti-abortion groups started targeting the company, though.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luco wrote:
Intentional comes off as a priority compared to unintentional, I suppose anyway.

But in terms of protecting life, spontaneous natural abortions happen a lot more often.

interesting.

You would think, but that wasn't a point I showed up to debate on Hmm... Do you have a source for your statements on the natural being more often? I'm curious to see.

 sebster wrote:
And how well are they doing in that push exactly? Any chance they'll get Roe v Wade overturned?

By imposing additional restrictions on abortion to the point that it becomes impossible for most people to get one. They've openly admitted that's the strategy: pass laws banning abortion after a certain point (earlier than when the brain develops), require waiting periods so you have to take multiple days off work which you might not be able to afford, require the doctor to inform you about "risks" which are outright lies intended to scare women into keeping the child, cut funding to doctors that provide abortions and force them to close, require parental notification so teenagers can be safely locked away at home before they can get an abortion, etc.

End result: Roe v Wade is still there, but it becomes an irrelevant bit of historical trivia. Imagine a hypothetical case of gun ownership where the supreme court rules that you have a right to own a battleship (after all, a 16" naval gun makes a pretty good concealed carry weapon!). However, you still have the tiny little problem that you're never going to be able to obtain one, even if it would be 100% legal for you to own it once you did.

 Peregrine wrote:

 sebster wrote:
And how well are they doing in that push exactly? Any chance they'll get Roe v Wade overturned?

By imposing additional restrictions on abortion to the point that it becomes impossible for most people to get one.

I wonder if they borrowed that strategy from the Left's approach to guns, or if the Left borrowed it from the Right's approach to abortion.

 Luco wrote:
Intentional comes off as a priority compared to unintentional, I suppose anyway.

Priority is just a dodge, because there's no need to prioritise. There is no requirement to choose one over the other, you can spend just as much time lobbying for pro-life positions, and still supporting funding into miscarriage research.

And yet no-one does it. There are no medical charities towards this killer of millions of people, in the same way that we have heart disease and breast cancer charities. It's almost as if people don't really think of that miscarriage as the death of a person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
By imposing additional restrictions on abortion to the point that it becomes impossible for most people to get one. They've openly admitted that's the strategy: pass laws banning abortion after a certain point (earlier than when the brain develops), require waiting periods so you have to take multiple days off work which you might not be able to afford, require the doctor to inform you about "risks" which are outright lies intended to scare women into keeping the child, cut funding to doctors that provide abortions and force them to close, require parental notification so teenagers can be safely locked away at home before they can get an abortion, etc.

At the state level... focus dude.

 Seaward wrote:
I wonder if they borrowed that strategy from the Left's approach to guns, or if the Left borrowed it from the Right's approach to abortion.

(For the record, I oppose the efforts by some of my fellow liberals to do exactly that.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
At the state level... focus dude.

Yes, but the party doing it is the same. Why exactly should anyone believe that the republican part won't try to pass those laws at the national level if/when they gain the ability to do it?

 Luco wrote:
Hmm... Do you have a source for your statements on the natural being more often? I'm curious to see.

Any basic textbook covering pregnancy? This is just a basic fact of biology. Medical estimates are that somewhere between 25%-50% of all pregnancies naturally abort, with the rate increasing a lot with the age of the woman. Are we going to get angry at God, for killing all those babies? Or at women, for increasing the rate by a fraction? Or ban women or men over 25, or 40, from breeding because it substantially increases the percentages of lost pregnancies?

Here's from the wiki page on miscarriage:

wikipedia wrote:Determining the prevalence of spontaneous abortions is difficult. Many happen very early in the pregnancy, before a woman may know she is pregnant. Treatment of women without hospitalization means medical statistics misses many cases.[15] Prospective studies using very sensitive early pregnancy tests have found that 25% of pregnancies abort by the sixth week LMP (since the woman's last menstrual period),[53][54] however, other reports suggest higher rates. One fact sheet from the University of Ottawa states, "The incidence of spontaneous abortion is estimated to be 50% of all pregnancies, based on the assumption that many pregnancies abort spontaneously with no clinical recognition."[55] The NIH reports, "It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15–20%."[56] Clinical abortions (those occurring after the sixth week LMP) occur in 8% of pregnancies.[54]

The risk of aborting decreases sharply after the 10th week LMP, i.e., when the fetal stage begins.[57] The loss rate between 8.5 weeks LMP and birth is about two percent; loss is “virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period."[58]

The prevalence increases considerably with age of the parents. One study found that pregnancies from men younger than 25 years are 40% less likely to end in spontaneous abortion than pregnancies from men 25–29 years. The same study found that pregnancies from men older than 40 years are 60% more likely to end in spontaneous abortion than the 25–29-year age group.[59] Another study found that the increased risk in pregnancies from older men is mainly seen in the first trimester.[60] Yet another study found an increased risk in women, by the age of 45, on the order of 800% (compared to the 20–24 age group in that study), 75% of pregnancies ended in spontaneous abortion.[61]

 Luco wrote:
interesting.

You would think, but that wasn't a point I showed up to debate on Hmm... Do you have a source for your statements on the natural being more often? I'm curious to see.

The numbers of confirmed miscarriages are almost equal to the number of abortions. There's about a million of each each year.

But then there's an unknown number of miscarriages where the woman didn't know she was pregnant. Some estimates say that possibly a quarter of all pregnancies are miscarried in the few weeks, before the woman has any signal she would be pregnant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes, but the party doing it is the same. Why exactly should anyone believe that the republican part won't try to pass those laws at the national level if/when they gain the ability to do it?

None, but my point is that they cannot in short or medium term gain the ability to do so. So instead you fight battles over issues that are actually being fought.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Luco wrote:
A newborn can't live on its own, some mentally slowed people cannot live on their own, are they not a person?

That's not at all the same and you know it. A newborn can't live without being provided with food, just like an adult can't live without food. A fetus, on the other hand, will die without a mother to host it. Absolutely, 100%, before a certain point there is nothing you can do to save it. No amount of giving it the basic essentials of life that everything needs will help, it's a dead lump of meat that will never develop into a full person.

A single cell that will remain a single cell is not a person.

It will only remain a single cell if it doesn't get a sperm cell and eventually progress to being a person. Just like a fetus will remain a blob of meat unless it is provided with various things required for it to eventually become a person.

Specifically an egg and a sperm together is the creation of a person and beginning of that person's life. Willingly ending a person's life, regardless as to whether they have yet to reach outside of the mother's womb, are in the prime of their life, or old enough to be retired is irrelevant because it is the ending of a life.

And yet you continue to fail to provide any justification at drawing the line at conception instead of earlier. Your choice is completely arbitrary. It isn't based on biological facts about when "personhood" develops, and it isn't based on a consistent application of the "potential" argument.

You haven't disproved me at all, though I am starting to get bored of answering roughly the same point, though.

You haven't answered it, you've just repeated yourself over and over again.

Its the same within the parameters of 'cannot live on its own.' A newborn will die without a mother to host them. A severely slowed person will not survive without someone to take care of them.

The 'blob of meat' as you call it, has the capability to become a person within the support structure yes. An egg will not make life solely within the support structure but needs outside influence.

Ok. When does one become a person? When does one become a biological being? When the egg and the sperm get together to create you.You start growing from this moment forward. You cannot exist as a sperm and an egg separately so obviously you are not forming at that point. After the egg and sperm get together you start to be created. Therefor you start at that point. I see no distinction between a 'non human, human' and a human regardless as to the stage of life. I can't see why you are willing to terminate a life just because its in its early stages.

If you want a different answer ask for one, ask for explanation, don't ask roughly the same question over and over again. I've explained everything insofar as you've asked. Also, you haven't really put up any new information, I've given you an answer. Best I figure at this point, you just don't like the answer I've given.

 Luco wrote:
Its the same within the parameters of 'cannot live on its own.' A newborn will die without a mother to host them. A severely slowed person will not survive without someone to take care of them.

And a healthy adult human will die if you lock them in a sealed room with no food. Therefore we conclude one of two things:

1) No human or fetus or egg is capable of living on its own, therefore none of them have potential and we can kill any of them.

or

2) The "potential" argument is incoherent .

Finally, your comment about the newborn is especially stupid because a newborn is already a person. We don't need to talk about its potential to become a person, it already has the capacity to feel pain, a sense of self, etc.

The 'blob of meat' as you call it, has the capability to become a person within the support structure yes. An egg will not make life solely within the support structure but needs outside influence.

Only because of your narrow and arbitrary definition of the "support structure".

Ok. When does one become a person?

When one develops a sense of self, high-level brain functions, capacity to feel and experience, memories, etc. Current consensus is that these things appear somewhere between 20-25 weeks after conception to shortly after birth.

When does one become a biological being?

Who cares. "Biological being" is a broad category that includes everything from an adult human to a single-celled bacteria. It's absolutely meaningless for determining whether an entity deserves a right to life.

When the egg and the sperm get together to create you.You start growing from this moment forward. You cannot exist as a sperm and an egg separately so obviously you are not forming at that point. After the egg and sperm get together you start to be created. Therefor you start at that point. I see no distinction between a 'non human, human' and a human regardless as to the stage of life.

That's YOUR arbitrary choice of origin point. It has no support from an argument for "potential" (since the egg and sperm each have potential before that point), and it has no argument from our knowledge of brain development (since that doesn't happen until much later). The only support for your "argument" is that your imaginary friend told you it works that way.

I can't see why you are willing to terminate a life just because its in its early stages.

For the same reason that I'm willing to squish a cockroach: it's alive, but it isn't a person.

If you want a different answer ask for one, ask for explanation, don't ask roughly the same question over and over again. I've explained everything insofar as you've asked. Also, you haven't really put up any new information, I've given you an answer. Best I figure at this point, you just don't like the answer I've given.

You haven't explained anything, you've just said some variant of "because I said so" and ignored everything I've said about brain complexity, capacity to feel pain, etc. How about providing some evidence that the moment of conception actually changes the cells in some meaningful way?

A healthy adult human is perfectly capable of hunting or foraging while the fetus, newborn, and slow cannot.

You're point is as arbitrary as mine, if not more so for being a point in time that you've determined well after much of the person has developed, instead of the actual beginning of formation of a being.

Again, cockroaches are not human and therefor cannot become people. Why do innocent humans not deserve to live?

Imaginary friend? Classy.


On Topic: No idea about the bias but
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/309400/obama-attack-coming-down-road-stericycle

Bain negotiated the Stericyle investment deal in November 1999, nine months after Romney said he left.

 Luco wrote:
A healthy adult human is perfectly capable of hunting or foraging while the fetus, newborn, and slow cannot.

I said locked in a sealed room with no food. Even an adult human is dependent on outside entities for survival, whether those entities are a parent, a fruit tree, whatever. Left on its own, a healthy adult human will die. Therefore the adult human has no "potential" by your standard.

Plus, as I said, a healthy adult human (or newborn) is already a person. We don't need to resort to arguing about its potential when we can simply look at the things that actually define "personhood".

You're point is as arbitrary as mine, if not more so for being a point in time that you've determined well after much of the person has developed, instead of the actual beginning of formation of a being.

No, my point is based on facts related to the development of the human brain. We know with absolute certainty that a fetus does not develop a brain until at least 20-25 weeks, so that is the earliest possible point where it could have a sense of self, higher brain functions, or any of the other things that make you "you" and not just a blob of meat.

Your point is arbitrary because the only change in the cells at conception is that now they have full DNA instead of just half. They haven't gained or lost any "potential", they haven't gained or lost any brain function, and they certainly haven't developed beyond the level of a cockroach. The only significance that moment has is that you've arbitrarily picked it.

Again, cockroaches are not human and therefor cannot become people.

Neither is a fetus. See previously mentioned facts that it does not have self awareness, capacity to feel, memories, etc. In terms of what it currently has (since we've already established that the "potential" argument is inconsistent nonsense) it is actually significantly behind the mental development of a cockroach.

Why do innocent humans not deserve to live?

Innocent humans deserve to live.

Blobs of meat that are not yet human in any meaningful sense have no rights, and can be discarded at will.

Imaginary friend? Classy.

Sorry, the idea of god is just too absurd to take seriously. Perhaps you should outgrow your imaginary friend if you don't want me to laugh at it?

an adult doesn't need to be taken care of and can fend for itself in a natural world. Locking someone in a room to make them the same is absurd.

the developement of the human brain isn't necessary for life, unless you're admitting that someone with severe retardation or suffered brain damage in the womb, but is out of it, isn't a person.

You can't live with half the dna, you don't exist yet if you don't have both sets because those are the building blocks.

-sigh-

It is apparent to me that given you have gained nothing from this conversation, are being somewhat hostile and making absurd statements, causing the conversation to go in a circle and mocking something you haven't even attempted to understand that this is entirely pointless.

 Luco wrote:
an adult doesn't need to be taken care of and can fend for itself in a natural world. Locking someone in a room to make them the same is absurd.

You said potential without any outside assistance. If you want to apply that consistently, if you exclude the egg getting its matching sperm you also have to exclude the adult having edible plants or animals nearby. Or you can grant the adult its ability to forage, in which case we also have to grant the egg cell its ability to obtain matching sperm.

Or we could admit that the whole "potential" argument is stupid and use a definition that actually captures what it means to be a person. But I guess that's not an option, since your imaginary friend said that any definition which doesn't prove that life begins at conception must be wrong.

the developement of the human brain isn't necessary for life, unless you're admitting that someone with severe retardation or suffered brain damage in the womb, but is out of it, isn't a person.

Sigh.

LIFE =/= PERSON.

Why is this so complicated? An entity can be alive but not a person. That's why if you cut yourself we give you a bandage, we don't send you to prison for murdering all of those blood cells.

And a person with brain damage is still a person. They have reduced mental function, but it's still there. A fetus that doesn't have brain cells yet does not.

You can't live with half the dna, you don't exist yet if you don't have both sets because those are the building blocks.

And "you" can't live without all those brain functions either. There might be something with your DNA, but it's a lifeless blob of meat. Therefore the standard of having a complete set of DNA is inadequate for defining personhood.

It is apparent to me that given you have gained nothing from this conversation, are being somewhat hostile and making absurd statements, causing the conversation to go in a circle and mocking something you haven't even attempted to understand that this is entirely pointless.

You're right, it does go in circles, because you keep posting some variant of "because I said so", continuing to use the same argument after I've demonstrated multiple times how it's laughably inconsistent, and substituting "life", "person", "human", etc whenever you feel like it. You have the ability to stop the circle at any time, just:

1) Drop the argument from "potential", since you can't seem to apply it in any remotely consistent way.

2) Address my argument that "you" are defined by high-level brain functions, not DNA, not "potential".

3) Without resorting to the disproved "potential" argument, explain exactly who abortion harms on a level that deserves punishment (IOW, above the level of harm I cause a cockroach by squishing it).

4) Stop switching terms and using "life" to mean "person", since "life" is an incredibly broad category that covers many entities which we do not want to grant rights (like bacteria or blood cells).

And yes, I've tried to understand god. In fact, that's the problem, since the more I learn about it the more hilarious it is that people actually believe that nonsense.

 Luco wrote:

the developement of the human brain isn't necessary for life, unless you're admitting that someone with severe retardation or suffered brain damage in the womb, but is out of it, isn't a person.

You do realise that you DO need a brain to be able to be alive right? That just besides thinking, the brain also controls all the involuntary actions that your body performs that allows you to live? Like breathing, digesting food, etc...

You also realise that a foetus before 25 weeks doesn't have a functioning brain whatsoever and therefore can't be considered a person by any definition?

You also realise that a person with a mental retardation or that has suffered brain damage still HAS a functioning brain and is therefore still able to perform all the actions that define a normal person (albeit in a different way)?

You know what we call a person that has suffered brain damage to such an extent that it can't live without outside help (like life-supporting machines)? Brain dead. Do you know what we do to people that are declared brain dead? We shut down the life supporting machines and allow the body to die because it doesn't have a brain to keep it alive. Are you saying that we should lock up all those doctors and nurses because they are committing murder?

Finally, it has been shown to you that by all accounts, natural miscarriages happen at least at the same rate as abortions (pro-tip: they don't, they have a much higher occurrence rate than abortions), why aren't you rallying against all these murders? Where is your outrage at a cold and unfeeling "god" that murders all these "persons"?

I had a reply, but I realized I'm throwing pearls before swine.

You answer your own point and you need me to spell it out for you, really?

 Luco wrote:
I had a reply, but I realized I'm throwing pearls before swine.

You answer your own point and you need me to spell it out for you, really?

Really, please do, because you haven't answered anything yet, other than evading the points you are presented with while repeating your own unfounded personal opinion over and over and over and over...

 sebster wrote:
And yet you don't see the pro-life crowd throwing money at that issue, seeing what science can do to prevent every one of those miscarriages. Which makes it clear that the motivations for the pro-life crowd are not really just about protecting unborn life, doesn't it?

Yes, I'm quite convinced that the "Pro-Life" crowd doesn't actually give a damn about the "unborn children" they're ranting about.

 Melissia wrote:

 sebster wrote:
And yet you don't see the pro-life crowd throwing money at that issue, seeing what science can do to prevent every one of those miscarriages. Which makes it clear that the motivations for the pro-life crowd are not really just about protecting unborn life, doesn't it?

Yes, I'm quite convinced that the "Pro-Life" crowd doesn't actually give a damn about the "unborn children" they're ranting about.

A lot of the ones that do quit caring about them once they become "born children".

Well as we all know, they stop becoming children once they leave the vagina.

 Melissia wrote:
Well as we all know, they stop becoming children once they leave the vagina.

That must be why I'm so childlike.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Well as we all know, they stop becoming children once they leave the vagina.

That must be why I'm so childlike.

YOU SIR, WIN THE INTERNET!

 Luco wrote:
On Topic: No idea about the bias but
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/309400/obama-attack-coming-down-road-stericycle

Bain negotiated the Stericyle investment deal in November 1999, nine months after Romney said he left.

This was already addressed in the articles linked and in my previous posts. Bain and Romney have been claiming recently thatn Romney left Bain in February of 1999, before the Stericycle deal and before some of their other shadier-looking deals, linked to looting and shutting down companies.

But their own public statements at the time, and their legal filings with the SEC, completely contradict that date. Back in 1999 Bain announced that Romney was going part time, but was still part of management and would have a large amount of input on running the company. The legal documents they filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission still listed him as the CEO and the majority or whole stockholder. The documents for the Stericycle deal, in particular, listed him as the sole dispositive shareholder.

So either Romney was in charge for a couple of years after Bain and Romney are now claiming, or they filed false documents with the SEC for a couple of years after he left. The latter act is a crime, BTW. One way they're dishonest. The other, they're lawbreakers and dishonest. I tend to think that they didn't actually break the law and file false documents with the SEC; but rather, Romney was in fact in charge of the company for a couple of years longer than they're claiming now, and they're lying about it so as to try to disassociate him from those deals. It seems more plausible to me than them being criminals.

Mother Jones wrote:But the document Romney signed related to the Stericycle deal did identify him as a participant in that particular deal and the person in charge of several Bain entities. (Did Bain and Romney file a document with the SEC that was not accurate?) Moreover, in 1999, Bain and Romney both described his departure from Bain not as a resignation and far from absolute. On February 12, 1999, the Boston Herald reported, "Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions." And a Bain press release issued on July 19, 1999, noted that Romney was "currently on a part-time leave of absence"—and quoted Romney speaking for Bain Capital. In 2001 and 2002, Romney filed Massachusetts state disclosure forms noting he was the 100 percent owner of Bain Capital NY, Inc.—a Bain outfit that was incorporated in Delaware on April 13, 1999—two months after Romney's supposed retirement from the firm. A May 2001 filing with the SEC identified Romney as "a member of the Management Committee" of two Bain entities. And in 2007, the Washington Post reported that R. Bradford Malt, a Bain lawyer, said Romney took a "leave of absence" when he assumed the Olympics post and retained sole ownership of the firm for two more years.

Ah, didn't see it, sorry.

 Luco wrote:
So... you do not value human life whatsoever? I'm not likely to remain to debate this, but i cannot fathom your position.

Having been the unwanted child... given the choice I'd have picked nonexistance over the steaming pile of that was my 'childhood.' It has also left me emotionally scarred and bitter, and only nominally functional in society.

And yet this is what pro-lifers would have of me? To live a scarred and shattered life, secure in the knowledge that even my parents did not love me and that I 'ruined their lives?'

Screw that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Of course they do, the moral commands of a God are no different from any other set of moral commands. The vast majority if the American religious right isn't trying to force you to be Christian, they're just acting politically in a way that is consistent with their own morality.

Moral commands from god are different, because they're not open to debate. If we have a debate on secular ethics we can do research, consider alternatives, etc. On the other hand, if we're dealing with moral commands from god it's just a question of what god said. No matter how much it conflicts with the facts (such as evolution, abortion, etc), the word of god is absolute and not open to negotiation.

And whether or not it's consistent with their morality, it's restricting my freedom.

Your God commanded that I suffer 18 years of hell on earth. I will have no dealings with your God.

Moral commands from a god are eminently questionable to me, but then again, I don't believe in the idea of perfection as anything other than a goal to strive for.

I think you mean "eminently".

We all failed the "Ten Commandments" so why bother

Yeah, I think I do mean that.

 Jihadin wrote:
We all failed the "Ten Commandments" so why bother

Hey, I thought you were switching over to Zeus.

You could also come over to Druidism with me. Repeat after me:

"I bind unto myself today the strong name of the Dagda
By invocation of the same, the three in one, the one in three..."

Druidism eh....since I've read the Iron Druid seris....keep talking to me oh possible grand master Druid. Do we get to mingle with the Wiccans to? Lot of the females in that sect are *ise**al...........

 Vulcan wrote:

 Luco wrote:
So... you do not value human life whatsoever? I'm not likely to remain to debate this, but i cannot fathom your position.

Having been the unwanted child... given the choice I'd have picked nonexistance over the steaming pile of that was my 'childhood.' It has also left me emotionally scarred and bitter, and only nominally functional in society.

And yet this is what pro-lifers would have of me? To live a scarred and shattered life, secure in the knowledge that even my parents did not love me and that I 'ruined their lives?'

Screw that.

All I heard was you trying to throw a pity party for yourself.

I've tried to end my own life on several occasions for various reasons. Know what I did? I stopped thinking 'poor me, poor me', took responsibility for my current situation and generally grew up. Need help? Vent to a friend, vent with writing or art, go see a psych, take charge of it, take meds, do whatever therapy you need to do to get through it and heal.Find a mate that does love you. Don't rest on your laurels and throw pity parties for yourself or you will have a miserable rest of your life too. Everyone goes through gak, some not as bad as what you went through, some have gone through worse. What you do now is what's important. Letting your life be controlled by what was and not taking charge of what is, is the difference between a boy and a man. If you're too weak to do it, get stronger. Crying has its time and place, but if you do nothing else you will never improve. I learned this through a lot of crying, hating my life, and slicing the hell out of my arms, trying to starve myself or beat myself to death. Nothing ever got better when I did it, I felt worse as i was bruised and hungry. Get over the lip, seek help, and get better instead of dwelling on the past.

I won't claim to understand you, but I know the feeling of being worthless. if I manage to overcome it, so can you.

We went from abortion to who is the biggest badass?

This thread is done...

Biggest badass? dang I took it from abortion to opting out of life. There's nothing in the world worth opting oneself out. Its a freaking challenge that one needs to "man up" and gt a new perspective like Luco said

 Jihadin wrote:
Druidism eh....since I've read the Iron Druid seris....keep talking to me oh possible grand master Druid. Do we get to mingle with the Wiccans to? Lot of the females in that sect are *ise**al...........

No master here. Yes, we tend to hang out with Wiccans pretty often. I haven't read those books, though I'd guess they're probably a bit more adventurous than real life.

They're freaking halirous Manny. Look them up on Amazon. It would be literally "us" as we go through life as a druid that survive up to now from Roman time....did I mention there's vampires and werewolves? Elementals....Norse God....Thor haters...even Jesus was in the book dealing with a extreme grp of rabbi terrorist while in a bar having beer with Atticus...mention Atticus totaly nails out Hel? (female God of the Underworld)

Did you read Gaiman's American Gods? Or any of the Sandman comics?

You mention those before Manny. I'm on amazon now and was going to copy paste a excerpt of the Druid. Since you gave me those two books let me look it up

edit
Both ordered. Wife approved with a quickness. She read those

Nice. My recommendation for Druidic badassery is Bernard Cornwell's take on the Arthurian mythos, starting with The Winter King. His version of Merlin is amazing.

Added on my wish list for a future order. Like the reviews

 Seaward wrote:

None of which changes the fact that the majority of the country considers itself pro-life rather than pro-choice, and that the balance has been tipping in pro-life's favor for quite a while.

But the vast majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal under certain circumstances.

Pro-choice and pro-life relate not only to the question of abortion's legality, but to its moral acceptability. In essence, people often identify as pro-life or pro-choice because of their convictions regarding personal behavior, rather than what the law should allow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luco wrote:
an adult doesn't need to be taken care of and can fend for itself in a natural world.

The autistic "kid" (he was in his early 30's) that lived down the street from me growing up disagrees.

 Luco wrote:

the developement of the human brain isn't necessary for life, unless you're admitting that someone with severe retardation or suffered brain damage in the womb, but is out of it, isn't a person.

Its not an awful argument, personhood relates to personality. If you can't form a personality, then you aren't a person.

Have to admit. He made a good investment.

 Luco wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Luco wrote:
So... you do not value human life whatsoever? I'm not likely to remain to debate this, but i cannot fathom your position.

Having been the unwanted child... given the choice I'd have picked nonexistance over the steaming pile of that was my 'childhood.' It has also left me emotionally scarred and bitter, and only nominally functional in society.

And yet this is what pro-lifers would have of me? To live a scarred and shattered life, secure in the knowledge that even my parents did not love me and that I 'ruined their lives?'

Screw that.

All I heard was you trying to throw a pity party for yourself.

I've tried to end my own life on several occasions for various reasons. Know what I did? I stopped thinking 'poor me, poor me', took responsibility for my current situation and generally grew up. Need help? Vent to a friend, vent with writing or art, go see a psych, take charge of it, take meds, do whatever therapy you need to do to get through it and heal.Find a mate that does love you. Don't rest on your laurels and throw pity parties for yourself or you will have a miserable rest of your life too. Everyone goes through gak, some not as bad as what you went through, some have gone through worse. What you do now is what's important. Letting your life be controlled by what was and not taking charge of what is, is the difference between a boy and a man. If you're too weak to do it, get stronger. Crying has its time and place, but if you do nothing else you will never improve. I learned this through a lot of crying, hating my life, and slicing the hell out of my arms, trying to starve myself or beat myself to death. Nothing ever got better when I did it, I felt worse as i was bruised and hungry. Get over the lip, seek help, and get better instead of dwelling on the past.

I won't claim to understand you, but I know the feeling of being worthless. if I manage to overcome it, so can you.

Thank you for your advice. Unfortunately I did all that decades ago and so I don't need your armchair psychiatry anymore.

That doesn't mean I'd wish to go through it again, nor does it mean I'd wish it on ANY other person. Much less some other child totally incapable of understanding why their parents hate them so.