Abortion Stopped In Utah

[jgbkab]

Pro-abortion web sites don't report on this stuff. It's inconvenient.

Do you deny the "comfort rooms" exist?

No, I don't. I don't deny that UFOs exist either. But I'm sure that you can find a mainstream unbiased source instead of a "political" Web site with a biased slant.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Mainstream and unbiased? You mean if MSNBC doesn't report they exist, that's good enough for you?

 

[KittenKoder]

Mainstream and unbiased? You mean if MSNBC doesn't report they exist, that's good enough for you?

Media networks, all media cares about is sensationalism. I ask the sources when I really want to know, in this case I talked to biologists though only because we were bored at the time and I had just finished work on a network there. As I said, learn about the stages of development before you try more, because the angle you are taking has already been shot down and shown to not be the true issue.

 

[jgbkab]

See, you're assuming that I'm liberal and therefore only watch MSNBC. If you are strong in your beliefs then say so. No one is going to argue with your beliefs. When you try to pass off your beliefs as facts is when you're gonna run into arguments. The source was biased. All I asked for was an unbiased source. I'll look for one and then post if I find one.

I could not find one.

 

[Agnapostate]

Abortion is legal in Utah. What options did she not have?

Aside from the aforementioned restrictions in Utah, I believe they require notification of both parents for a minor's abortion.

Listen up liberals: Killing innocents is murder.

And dogs, pigs, and chickens are all as "innocent" as a human fetus in that they lack any capability to understand the concept of moral wrongness. The only apparent distinction between them is that dogs, pigs, and chickens have a greater awareness of their existence and surroundings and a greater capacity to suffer than a human fetus does.

Now that is some seriously dilluted reasoning; given that economics does not come into play in the principles of either issue...

A blatantly fallacious assertion, but typical of your characteristic disdain for empirical evidence. Regardless, consultation of said empirical literature will quickly reveal your inaccuracy. For instance, Ananat et al.'s Abortion and Selection is a study worthy of utilization in this discussion. Consider the abstract:

Abortion legalization in the early 1970s led to dramatic changes in fertility. Some research has suggested that it altered cohort outcomes, but this literature has been limited and controversial. In this paper, we provide a framework for understanding selection mechanisms and use that framework to both address inconsistent past methodological approaches and provide evidence on the long-run impact on cohort characteristics. Our results indicate that lower-cost abortion brought about by legalization altered young adult outcomes through selection. In particular, it increased likelihood of college graduation, lower rates of welfare use, and lower odds of being a single parent.

Then again, Pubicus, you've long illustrated the nature of your dismissal of empirical evidence in favor of preconceived ideological dogma.

You mean that nation under God?

Murder has no theocratic basis? Rape? Incest? Theft? Perjury?

You could certainly claim that several of those have a "theocratic" basis in that they were allegedly ordered by the respective gods of various religions, but there is certainly a secular rationale for their prohibition in that a society that permitted free murder, assault, and aggression against other citizens would presumably not sustain itself for very long.

They all tie back to faith based morality. The founding fathers were religious men and understood inalienable rights came not from a secular government, but a creator.

Interesting. Another fallacy of distribution from you tonight, this time a fallacy of composition. Ascribing religious elements to the basis of our current society on the grounds that the majority of its founders practiced some kind of personal religion that they envisioned limited applications for is a bit of a "stretch," don't you think?

No, it's history. Even the early liberals were, for the most part, spiritual. The civil rights movement owes its ascendance to churches.

Another fallacy of composition. The civil rights movement was indeed characterized by religious participants, but their religion was not a necessary component of their social and political activism any more than the religious nature of their opponents was. For that matter, their opponents probably had a greater theological basis for their beliefs than the civil rights activists did, given the endorsements of slavery and perceived endorsements of racial subjugation provided in the Bible.

Martin Luther King was a man of God, and he was not an advocate of mosexuality, as most black men of God are not.

Martin Luther King derived his beliefs about nonviolent protest from the followers of Gandhi, a Hindu. Does this make him beholden to Hinduism?

It has arms and legs and eyes and a brain and a nose and kicks and screams.

And sometimes, it survives a botched abortion, a situation the POTUS believes should be remedied by allowing it to die.

How can something that is not a human die?

The debate about whether a fetus is "human" is as purposeless as the debate about whether waterboarding is "torture." Both clearly are. However, a petitio principii fallacy is committed in that the premises that it is morally wrong to kill a human and that it is morally wrong to torture people are accepted without challenge. As to the former, why is it a greater moral wrong to kill a human fetus than to kill a nonhuman animal with a similar or greater awareness of its existence and surroundings and a greater capacity to suffer?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

That fallacy is all yours. You are the one who is equating abortion to waterboarding. The perceived inconsistencies of one moral aren't gratuitously transferrable to another.

 

[Agnapostate]

That fallacy is all yours. You are the one who is equating abortion to waterboarding. The perceived inconsistencies of one moral aren't gratuitously transferrable to another.

There's been no "equation" of abortion to waterboarding in the manner that you disingenuously infer. The "equation" is relevant inasmuch as discourse on both is characterized by the committal of a petitio principii fallacies in regards to critical premises, the premise that killing a human is morally wrong, and the premise that torture is morally wrong. I've merely challenged your premise that killing a human is morally wrong; do you lack a reply?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

You tied abortion to waterboarding, not me.

The crime of killing innocent babies speaks for itself.

Belch your italicized latin pseudo-intellectual words you just learned today over and over again in somebody else's direction.

 

[Agnapostate]

You tied abortion to waterboarding, not me.

I "tied" the two inasmuch as the same logical fallacy was committed during typical discourse about both, and for no other purpose.

The crime of killing innocent babies speaks for itself.

Begging the question again, I see. Again, why is the killing of a human fetus a greater moral wrong than the killing of a nonhuman animal with a greater level of awareness and greater capacity to feel pain?

Belch your italicized latin pseudo-intellectual words you just learned today over and over again in somebody else's direction.

Dear, if you can't handle the mean man on the Interweb, I suggest you get the fuck off this wicked series of tubes.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

I reject the premise of your question. The killing of innocent babies doesn't depend on the absolutism or relativism of any other thing we can debate is right or wrong.

Quick, go google some more latin.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

And you've already formed perceptions based on my screen name alone which are not accurate. How can this be the basis of your being right or wrong about anything else?

 

[Tank]

A fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb, period,

So then, lets keep it in the womb, period.

 

[KittenKoder]

A fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb, period,

So then, lets keep it in the womb, period.

Aah, but if the woman dies because of it, then it will die as well regardless.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

A fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb, period,

So then, lets keep it in the womb, period.

Aah, but if the woman dies because of it, then it will die as well regardless.

That again? Are you trying to sell that? If you can show me where more women die from perfectly viable fetuses than botched abortions, I'll go away.

 

[KittenKoder]

So then, lets keep it in the womb, period.

Aah, but if the woman dies because of it, then it will die as well regardless.

That again? Are you trying to sell that? If you can show me where more women die from perfectly viable fetuses than botched abortions, I'll go away.

See how you try to limit it, abortion isn't about "perfectly viable fetuses" in many instances, many required abortions are because the fetus isn't viable, but you have to ignore those to make a dishonest point. That's where you fail again, epically this time. The question still stands, and you have not answered it, what is your answer?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

My answer is the notion that abortion should be legal because women die from being pregnant is bullshit.

That was your qualification, not mine.

 

[Tank]

Aah, but if the woman dies because of it, then it will die as well regardless.

Not regardless, many a baby has lived as the mom dies.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Can we make Tank a mod too, in the interest of fairness?

 

[KittenKoder]

Aah, but if the woman dies because of it, then it will die as well regardless.

Not regardless, many a baby has lived as the mom dies.

Not if it's a fetus.

 

[KittenKoder]

Can we make Tank a mod too, in the interest of fairness?

Sorry, this is not a Democracy, Gunny picks who is moderator not you.