I never thought I would say this, but we need more liberals on this forum. I have an idea how to attract them.

[Ropey]

Sorry, I forgot to answer your hypothetical. It was bolded so I will, although my answer should be self-evident. The doctor should follow the law. Meaning specifically, abort, unless the state imposes a restriction that is more than the viability standard put down in Roe v Wade.

What I wish that the woman would do. Is not abort at this late stage. Both are different. ( I also find the reason for wanting the abortion silly and callous in the extreme)

I know that they are rampant. But most often in more thoughtful media outlets such as NPR. Here is what NPR said, that is exactly what I intended to convey:

"What it speaks to is the fact that the debate is dominated by the extreme positions on both sides," said Barbara Carvalho, director of the Marist Poll, which conducted the survey. "People do see the issue as very complicated, very complex. Their positions don't fall along one side or the other. ... The debate is about the extremes, and that's not where the public is."

Poll: Majority Want To Keep Abortion Legal, But They Also Want Restrictions

An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey found that three-quarters of Americans want the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade. But there is also complexity — and contradiction — in respondents' views.

www.npr.org

But if you have examples of CNN, the Licensed networks, or MSNBC talking about that, I would like to see those articles. I don't watch them much anymore. Just once in a while, I tune in to see how long it takes for them to show themselves to be political hacks. It's usually one to five minutes, depending on whether there was a commercial break in progress when I turned to them.

Well, you got me there. I was wrong to say that self-defense is "absolute," since nothing is absolute, including that nothing is absolute.

If we are going to say that a .000088. probability of dying justifies killing a human, then we will be justifying killing humans in many, many situations that previously it would not be allowed. In Texas, we have a right to kill someone in self-defense if we believe that it is reasonably necessary. So, if a person is in our home, doing violence, even just the violence of breaking in, in the first place, we can defend ourselves. But that .000088 probability standard you propose would seem to justify shooting to kill a porch pirate on the grounds that he might kick in the door and kill us.


So, you would not feel the need to let them know that you would have preferred that they had been killed in the womb, since that was the express wish of their birthing person? Maybe out of politeness, you would not bring it up, but if they asked you, would you be frank with them? If so, how would you put it?

"I have to be honest. If I had my way, and could turn back time, I would make sure that your birthing person was able to abort you."

If that is what you would say, I have one word of advice:

View attachment 644169


For example, if an unborn human would be able to survive outside the womb with no medical intervention, you would agree that he or she was viable, I take it. What if a human was developed enough that if you induced labor, it could survive, but only with out of the ordinary medical interventions, such as emergency oxygen, incubation, would that meet your definition of "viability?"

Well, no. You are forgetting (as many do) Doe v. Bolton (1973):

Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179 (1973) Roe v. Wade was modified by another case decided the same day: Doe v. Bolton. In Doe v. Bolton the Court ruled that a woman's right to an abortion could not be limited by the state if abortion was sought for reasons of maternal health. The Court defined health as "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." This health exception expanded the right to abortion for any reason through all three trimesters of pregnancy.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/upload/Summary-of-Roe-v-Wade-and-Other-Key-Abortion-Cases.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]​

The same 7–2 majority that struck down a Texas abortion law in Roe v. Wade invalidated most of the remaining restrictions of the Georgia abortion law, including the medical approval and residency requirements. The Court reiterated the protected "right to privacy," which applied to matters involving marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.[3] Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for the Court, in which he explained "the sensitive and emotional nature" of the issue and "the deep and seemingly absolute convictions" on both sides.[4] Justice Blackmun went on to conclude that as a constitutional matter, the right to privacy was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[3][4]

Together, Doe and Roe declared abortion as a constitutional right and overturned most laws against abortion in other U.S. states. Roe legalized abortion nationwide for approximately the first six months of pregnancy until the point of fetal viability.[3]

Definition of health[edit]​

The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:

Doe v. Bolton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

If any doctor can provide an abortion by claiming that the abortion is necessary for the emotional or psychological health of the woman, then abortion is effectively unlimited. Which is why so many restrictions by states have been struck down.

It's a good time to say that most doctors have no interest in performing abortions. For those that do, the procedures are often the bulk of their practice. There is no requirement that a doctor with no financial interest be the one to decide whether the abortion is "necessary," so of course a professional abortion provider will rarely, if ever, turn down a woman's request for abortion.


I will try to be the same. Please feel free to "have me going," and then say you were pulling my leg. I won't be a snit about it.

 

[forkup]

I know that they are rampant. But most often in more thoughtful media outlets such as NPR. Here is what NPR said, that is exactly what I intended to convey:

"What it speaks to is the fact that the debate is dominated by the extreme positions on both sides," said Barbara Carvalho, director of the Marist Poll, which conducted the survey. "People do see the issue as very complicated, very complex. Their positions don't fall along one side or the other. ... The debate is about the extremes, and that's not where the public is."

Poll: Majority Want To Keep Abortion Legal, But They Also Want Restrictions

An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey found that three-quarters of Americans want the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade. But there is also complexity — and contradiction — in respondents' views.

www.npr.org

But if you have examples of CNN, the Licensed networks, or MSNBC talking about that, I would like to see those articles. I don't watch them much anymore. Just once in a while, I tune in to see how long it takes for them to show themselves to be political hacks. It's usually one to five minutes, depending on whether there was a commercial break in progress when I turned to them.

Well, you got me there. I was wrong to say that self-defense is "absolute," since nothing is absolute, including that nothing is absolute.

If we are going to say that a .000088. probability of dying justifies killing a human, then we will be justifying killing humans in many, many situations that previously it would not be allowed. In Texas, we have a right to kill someone in self-defense if we believe that it is reasonably necessary. So, if a person is in our home, doing violence, even just the violence of breaking in, in the first place, we can defend ourselves. But that .000088 probability standard you propose would seem to justify shooting to kill a porch pirate on the grounds that he might kick in the door and kill us.


So, you would not feel the need to let them know that you would have preferred that they had been killed in the womb, since that was the express wish of their birthing person? Maybe out of politeness, you would not bring it up, but if they asked you, would you be frank with them? If so, how would you put it?

"I have to be honest. If I had my way, and could turn back time, I would make sure that your birthing person was able to abort you."

If that is what you would say, I have one word of advice:

View attachment 644169


For example, if an unborn human would be able to survive outside the womb with no medical intervention, you would agree that he or she was viable, I take it. What if a human was developed enough that if you induced labor, it could survive, but only with out of the ordinary medical interventions, such as emergency oxygen, incubation, would that meet your definition of "viability?"

Well, no. You are forgetting (as many do) Doe v. Bolton (1973):

Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179 (1973) Roe v. Wade was modified by another case decided the same day: Doe v. Bolton. In Doe v. Bolton the Court ruled that a woman's right to an abortion could not be limited by the state if abortion was sought for reasons of maternal health. The Court defined health as "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." This health exception expanded the right to abortion for any reason through all three trimesters of pregnancy.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/upload/Summary-of-Roe-v-Wade-and-Other-Key-Abortion-Cases.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]​

The same 7–2 majority that struck down a Texas abortion law in Roe v. Wade invalidated most of the remaining restrictions of the Georgia abortion law, including the medical approval and residency requirements. The Court reiterated the protected "right to privacy," which applied to matters involving marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.[3] Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for the Court, in which he explained "the sensitive and emotional nature" of the issue and "the deep and seemingly absolute convictions" on both sides.[4] Justice Blackmun went on to conclude that as a constitutional matter, the right to privacy was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[3][4]

Together, Doe and Roe declared abortion as a constitutional right and overturned most laws against abortion in other U.S. states. Roe legalized abortion nationwide for approximately the first six months of pregnancy until the point of fetal viability.[3]

Definition of health[edit]​

The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:

Doe v. Bolton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

If any doctor can provide an abortion by claiming that the abortion is necessary for the emotional or psychological health of the woman, then abortion is effectively unlimited. Which is why so many restrictions by states have been struck down.

It's a good time to say that most doctors have no interest in performing abortions. For those that do, the procedures are often the bulk of their practice. There is no requirement that a doctor with no financial interest be the one to decide whether the abortion is "necessary," so of course a professional abortion provider will rarely, if ever, turn down a woman's request for abortion.


I will try to be the same. Please feel free to "have me going," and then say you were pulling my leg. I won't be a snit about it.

But if you have examples of CNN, the Licensed networks, or MSNBC talking about that, I would like to see those articles.

While Americans have long supported limiting access to abortion after the first trimester of pregnancy, the poll suggests Americans widely oppose recent efforts in conservative-leaning states to enforce more severe restrictions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/16/post-abc-poll-abortion-supreme-court/

Though polling around the issue clearly indicates that Americans do not want to see Roe overturned, it also suggests that voters favor restrictions on elective abortions beyond the first trimester.

Opinion | Dems get their wish to make midterms about the GOP

Can Democrats capitalize on a midterm election advantage they so fervently hoped for?

www.msnbc.com

Most Americans say, 56% to 44%, that they think it would be a good thing to reduce the number of abortions performed in the US. CNN Poll: As Supreme Court ruling on Roe looms, most Americans oppose overturning it

First, polls consistently show that public opinion supports some level of abortion access, especially early in pregnancy, and opposes criminalizing doctors or women. Those numbers have been quite stable There’s No Knowing What Will Happen When Roe Falls

Every single one of the news outlets I googled by using the search term "Roe v Wade polls" showed them acknowledging that the majority favors at least some restrictions on abortion.

But that .000088 probability standard you propose would seem to justify shooting to kill a porch pirate on the grounds that he might kick in the door and kill us.

Believing to be in danger is enough to claim self-defense according to the laws in some states.

if they asked you, would you be frank with them? If so, how would you put it?

Yes, I would be frank. I am not ashamed of the position. As to how I would put it.

I'm the oldest in a family of four siblings and the son of 2 people that had no business being parents. When my parents told me they were expecting my 13-year self that they were expecting the fourth I didn't speak to them for a month.

I knew that the primary care for that sister would come as it did for my 2 brothers to me. It took from me, my youth, years of my education I had to catch up on, and gave me a suicide attempt and years of therapy trying to get me to actually disentangle myself from the habit of looking after others to my own detriment.

I love my brothers and sisters, and I'm proud to say that I raised some wonderful people, but all of us agree that my parents shouldn't have had children, and abortion would have been the best choice for all of us. Not that I'm sad to be alive, nor am I looking for sympathy but the question to me isn't academic.

I'm giving you this personal anecdote to show there are real people behind this debate and that compelling women to carry children to term doesn't just affect the women.

For example, if an unborn human would be able to survive outside the womb with no medical intervention, you would agree that he or she was viable, I take it.

No, I believe that viable means being able to be kept alive with medical intervention.

If any doctor can provide an abortion by claiming that the abortion is necessary for the emotional or psychological health of the woman, then abortion is effectively unlimited.

And yet there are plenty of states that have successfully imposed limits on abortion.

 

[Seymour Flops]

While Americans have long supported limiting access to abortion after the first trimester of pregnancy, the poll suggests Americans widely oppose recent efforts in conservative-leaning states to enforce more severe restrictions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/16/post-abc-poll-abortion-supreme-court/

Though polling around the issue clearly indicates that Americans do not want to see Roe overturned, it also suggests that voters favor restrictions on elective abortions beyond the first trimester.

Opinion | Dems get their wish to make midterms about the GOP

Can Democrats capitalize on a midterm election advantage they so fervently hoped for?

www.msnbc.com

Most Americans say, 56% to 44%, that they think it would be a good thing to reduce the number of abortions performed in the US. CNN Poll: As Supreme Court ruling on Roe looms, most Americans oppose overturning it

First, polls consistently show that public opinion supports some level of abortion access, especially early in pregnancy, and opposes criminalizing doctors or women. Those numbers have been quite stable There’s No Knowing What Will Happen When Roe Falls

Every single one of the news outlets I googled by using the search term "Roe v Wade polls" showed them acknowledging that the majority favors at least some restrictions on abortion.

Believing to be in danger is enough to claim self-defense according to the laws in some states.

Yes, I would be frank. I am not ashamed of the position. As to how I would put it.

I'm the oldest in a family of four siblings and the son of 2 people that had no business being parents. When my parents told me they were expecting my 13-year self that they were expecting the fourth I didn't speak to them for a month.

I knew that the primary care for that sister would come as it did for my 2 brothers to me. It took from me, my youth, years of my education I had to catch up on, and gave me a suicide attempt and years of therapy trying to get me to actually disentangle myself from the habit of looking after others to my own detriment.

I love my brothers and sisters, and I'm proud to say that I raised some wonderful people, but all of us agree that my parents shouldn't have had children, and abortion would have been the best choice for all of us. Not that I'm sad to be alive, nor am I looking for sympathy but the question to me isn't academic.

I'm giving you this personal anecdote to show there are real people behind this debate and that compelling women to carry children to term doesn't just affect the women.

No, I believe that viable means being able to be kept alive with medical intervention.

And yet there are plenty of states that have successfully imposed limits on abortion.

Compeer, your personal anecdote puts me in a delimma.

There's a lot to unpack in it, but I may give more offence in the unpacking than I would want. Kind of like the dissecting a frog analogy.

On the other hand you are using your personal story to show me something on the premise that I am ignorant due to having no misfortune in my own life from which to learn the lessons you learned from yours.

I'm not above using the old "I have personal experience" in a debate, so I do not fault you for that. I only fear that the counter I would give to that particular personal anecdote may be felt by you as a low blow.

Let me consider a bit.

 

[forkup]

Compeer, your personal anecdote puts me in a delimma.

There's a lot to unpack in it, but I may give more offence in the unpacking than I would want. Kind of like the dissecting a frog analogy.

On the other hand you are using your personal story to show me something on the premise that I am ignorant due to having no misfortune in my own life from which to learn the lessons you learned from yours.

I'm not above using the old "I have personal experience" in a debate, so I do not fault you for that. I only fear that the counter I would give to that particular personal anecdote may be felt by you as a low blow.

Let me consider a bit.

Do not worry about it. As I said this is not me asking for sympathy, and I'm well aware that a personal anecdote like this puts you in the position to have to consider my feelings in your response. I'm not ashamed about anything, nor am I emotional about it. Therapy has helped me to make my peace with it. As long as you are respectful of the experience (I'm sharing it with you because I'm sure you are capable of doing that, or I wouldn't even consider sharing), I invite you to respond as you would to someone who doesn't speak from personal experience.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Do not worry about it. As I said this is not me asking for sympathy, and I'm well aware that a personal anecdote like this puts you in the position to have to consider my feelings in your response. I'm not ashamed about anything, nor am I emotional about it. Therapy has helped me to make my peace with it. As long as you are respectful of the experience (I'm sharing it with you because I'm sure you are capable of doing that, or I wouldn't even consider sharing), I invite you to respond as you would to someone who doesn't speak from personal experience.

You may not feel that my answer is sufficiently respectful of the experience. So, I'll skip the unpacking and just say that I am skeptical of it. But I will answer as if I am one hundred percent convinced.

While Americans have long supported limiting access to abortion after the first trimester of pregnancy, the poll suggests Americans widely oppose recent efforts in conservative-leaning states to enforce more severe restrictions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/16/post-abc-poll-abortion-supreme-court/

Though polling around the issue clearly indicates that Americans do not want to see Roe overturned, it also suggests that voters favor restrictions on elective abortions beyond the first trimester.

Opinion | Dems get their wish to make midterms about the GOP

Can Democrats capitalize on a midterm election advantage they so fervently hoped for?

www.msnbc.com

Most Americans say, 56% to 44%, that they think it would be a good thing to reduce the number of abortions performed in the US. CNN Poll: As Supreme Court ruling on Roe looms, most Americans oppose overturning it

First, polls consistently show that public opinion supports some level of abortion access, especially early in pregnancy, and opposes criminalizing doctors or women. Those numbers have been quite stable There’s No Knowing What Will Happen When Roe Falls

Every single one of the news outlets I googled by using the search term "Roe v Wade polls" showed them acknowledging that the majority favors at least some restrictions on abortion.

Good. Then anyone who acts as if some small minority is imposing its will, is wrong.

Believing to be in danger is enough to claim self-defense according to the laws in some states.

I believe most state laws would use some form of "immediate," in describing the danger. That's not the same as making a cold decision to support the killing of 100,000 humans to prevent a .00088 probability of one human dying.

Yes, I would be frank. I am not ashamed of the position. As to how I would put it.

You would say all of the below to Shelley Lynn Thornton, the woman who was not aborted in the Roe v. Wade case?

Here is an interesting article about Jane Roe and Shelley Thornton:

The Roe Baby

Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, never had the abortion she was seeking. She gave her baby girl up for adoption, and now that baby is an adult. After decades of keeping her identity a secret, Jane Roe’s child has chosen to talk about her life.

www.theatlantic.com

In short, you would say to her, "my life has been tough, so it would have been better if you had been aborted?" Really? I would have thought you would say, "It is nice that you survived - for you. But your mother should have been allowed to exercise her right to bodily autonomy." Or something like that.

Here's an interesting part of Shelly's life with her adoptive family (to me):

Ruth loved being a mother—playing the tooth fairy, outfitting Shelley in dresses, putting her hair into pigtails. Billy, now a maintenance man for the apartment complex where the family lived in the city of Mesquite, Texas, was present for Shelley in a way he hadn’t been for his other children. When tenants in the complex moved out, he took her with him to rummage through whatever they had left behind—“dolls and books and things like that,” Shelley recalled. When Shelley was 7, Billy found work as a mechanic in Houston. The family moved, and then moved again and again.

Change "mechanic" to "bookkeeper," and that's my story. In Houston, apartment complexes often offer a month free rent to new tenants. We literally moved about once every six months in order to only pay rent five months out of six. I knew how to load a Ryder. Shelley, the fetus that was not aborted by Jane Roe, seems very much like a real person to me.

I'm the oldest in a family of four siblings and the son of 2 people that had no business being parents. When my parents told me they were expecting my 13-year self that they were expecting the fourth I didn't speak to them for a month.

I knew that the primary care for that sister would come as it did for my 2 brothers to me. It took from me, my youth, years of my education I had to catch up on, and gave me a suicide attempt and years of therapy trying to get me to actually disentangle myself from the habit of looking after others to my own detriment.

I'll risk offense by asking this question that you need not answer: do you believe that your suicide attempt stemmed from mental illness?

I love my brothers and sisters, and I'm proud to say that I raised some wonderful people, but all of us agree that my parents shouldn't have had children, and abortion would have been the best choice for all of us. Not that I'm sad to be alive, nor am I looking for sympathy but the question to me isn't academic.

If you are wonderful people, and not sad to be alive, and you are learning how to avoid inappropriate self-sacrifice, then I would argue that clearly, it is a net benefit to you, your siblings and the world that you were not aborted.

I'm giving you this personal anecdote to show there are real people behind this debate and that compelling women to carry children to term doesn't just affect the women.

People, are they? I thought we had agreed on "humans?" I also prefer people, persons, children, babies, etc. Even in the original constitution, when the framers callously decided to enshrine the "right" to import slaves, they called the slaves "persons."

I did not need that anecdote to realize that there are people involved in abortions. People who are deciding on whether to abort are making a tough choice. It is tougher still on the people being aborted.

Abortion is never a choice for the person being aborted, and it certainly is not the best choice for them. Unless, in an extremely rare example of a child who is medically destined to live a short and painful life outside of the womb. Having had a tough childhood, including having to contribute more than most teenagers to the care of younger siblings, doesn't mean that your birth was a net loss to you.

People are able to strive to improve their lives and the lives of others, up until the moment of death. When that moment comes before or at the moment of birth, it is a tragedy in all but a tiny, miniscule fraction of cases.

No, I believe that viable means being able to be kept alive with medical intervention.

Quick anecdote, then: When my first son was born, it was in a foreign country with government provided healthcare. He was born by c-section, and the doctor used general anesthetic instead of an epidural as was the standard in the United States. He came out vivid blue and not breathing. He was not viable, but was revived by medical intervention. because of the setup of the doctor's office, I saw everything. It did not occur to me to say, "he's not viable, so we change our mind. Let him go."

He was - and is - a real person.

And yet there are plenty of states that have successfully imposed limits on abortion.

Now, there will be more. Laboratories of democracy.

 

[fncceo]

...we need more liberals on this forum. I have an idea how to attract them.​

 

[forkup]

You may not feel that my answer is sufficiently respectful of the experience. So, I'll skip the unpacking and just say that I am skeptical of it. But I will answer as if I am one hundred percent convinced.


Good. Then anyone who acts as if some small minority is imposing its will, is wrong.

I believe most state laws would use some form of "immediate," in describing the danger. That's not the same as making a cold decision to support the killing of 100,000 humans to prevent a .00088 probability of one human dying.

You would say all of the below to Shelley Lynn Thornton, the woman who was not aborted in the Roe v. Wade case?

Here is an interesting article about Jane Roe and Shelley Thornton:

The Roe Baby

Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, never had the abortion she was seeking. She gave her baby girl up for adoption, and now that baby is an adult. After decades of keeping her identity a secret, Jane Roe’s child has chosen to talk about her life.

www.theatlantic.com

In short, you would say to her, "my life has been tough, so it would have been better if you had been aborted?" Really? I would have thought you would say, "It is nice that you survived - for you. But your mother should have been allowed to exercise her right to bodily autonomy." Or something like that.

Here's an interesting part of Shelly's life with her adoptive family (to me):

Ruth loved being a mother—playing the tooth fairy, outfitting Shelley in dresses, putting her hair into pigtails. Billy, now a maintenance man for the apartment complex where the family lived in the city of Mesquite, Texas, was present for Shelley in a way he hadn’t been for his other children. When tenants in the complex moved out, he took her with him to rummage through whatever they had left behind—“dolls and books and things like that,” Shelley recalled. When Shelley was 7, Billy found work as a mechanic in Houston. The family moved, and then moved again and again.

Change "mechanic" to "bookkeeper," and that's my story. In Houston, apartment complexes often offer a month free rent to new tenants. We literally moved about once every six months in order to only pay rent five months out of six. I knew how to load a Ryder. Shelley, the fetus that was not aborted by Jane Roe, seems very much like a real person to me.

I'll risk offense by asking this question that you need not answer: do you believe that your suicide attempt stemmed from mental illness?

If you are wonderful people, and not sad to be alive, and you are learning how to avoid inappropriate self-sacrifice, then I would argue that clearly, it is a net benefit to you, your siblings and the world that you were not aborted.

People, are they? I thought we had agreed on "humans?" I also prefer people, persons, children, babies, etc. Even in the original constitution, when the framers callously decided to enshrine the "right" to import slaves, they called the slaves "persons."

I did not need that anecdote to realize that there are people involved in abortions. People who are deciding on whether to abort are making a tough choice. It is tougher still on the people being aborted.

Abortion is never a choice for the person being aborted, and it certainly is not the best choice for them. Unless, in an extremely rare example of a child who is medically destined to live a short and painful life outside of the womb. Having had a tough childhood, including having to contribute more than most teenagers to the care of younger siblings, doesn't mean that your birth was a net loss to you.

People are able to strive to improve their lives and the lives of others, up until the moment of death. When that moment comes before or at the moment of birth, it is a tragedy in all but a tiny, miniscule fraction of cases.



Quick anecdote, then: When my first son was born, it was in a foreign country with government provided healthcare. He was born by c-section, and the doctor used general anesthetic instead of an epidural as was the standard in the United States. He came out vivid blue and not breathing. He was not viable, but was revived by medical intervention. because of the setup of the doctor's office, I saw everything. It did not occur to me to say, "he's not viable, so we change our mind. Let him go."

He was - and is - a real person.

Now, there will be more. Laboratories of democracy.

So, I'll skip the unpacking and just say that I am skeptical of it.

If you are suggesting I'm lying, I assure you I'm not. I don't think I've given you any reason to doubt my word, have I have been candid and non-evasive this entire time and proven everything I claimed so far. I will of course not show evidence of this because it is personal information but I am perfectly truthful.

Good. Then anyone who acts as if some small minority is imposing its will, is wrong.

You kind of changed your argument here didn't you. Your premise was that the media is only presenting this as an "allow abortion or not" argument, not presenting the fact that certain restrictions on abortion were already the majority view. I showed that to be utterly untrue by presenting exactly the information you requested. Presenting the argument now as this means that your position is not a minority view is dishonest. Your position for near TOTAL banning of abortion is most definitely a minority view. Just like the view that abortion should be allowed right up until birth. Roe v Wade, the viewpoint I represent is the majority.

I believe most state laws would use some form of "immediate," in describing the danger

Your point being?

you would say to her, "my life has been tough, so it would have been better if you had been aborted?"

That's like saying that you're basically saying that you don't care that I almost killed myself because you won't allow a pregnant woman to end a pregnancy (not that my mom wanted to abort, I'm talking as a general concept) because they can't take proper care of a child. Both are strawmen. Neither you nor I can be held personally responsible for the consequences of our position. Only in a larger societal sense. The only thing that can be said about us is that we both support positions that accept certain adverse consequences.

The way I see it, the argument comes down to this. Who is more important? The human in the womb or the woman and family that the human is born too.

Your position as I can make it out, and feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting it is. " Since there is no difference between a human in the womb and a human outside of it, society is justified to force a woman to carry a human to term, since her life is only in danger in rare cases and the human life in the womb will be terminated every time?"

My position is that bringing a human into this world has far-reaching consequences for both the woman and the child and potentially the rest of the family it is born into. Consequences that last a lifetime and can be very tragic. So the only sensible thing to do is to let people decide for themselves if they want to accept those consequences. I rather sacrifice the human in the womb for the benefit of those that are born and already have a social impact than sacrifice those that are already born for the benefit of a human that has had no such impact yet.

This leads me to the question. Do you feel society has the responsibility to care for that human once it is born until such time as it is capable of taking care of itself, or is your position that once you forced the woman to bring that human into the world the responsibility for it is on the mother?

do you believe that your suicide attempt stemmed from mental illness?

Depression is a mental illness so yes. Luckily one you can be cured of. The depression was caused by the fact that after my mother died the situation I was in graduated from simply emotionally abusive to physically abusive. It broke me.

If you are wonderful people, and not sad to be alive, and you are learning how to avoid inappropriate self-sacrifice, then I would argue that clearly, it is a net benefit to you, your siblings and the world that you were not aborted.

I distinctly said I wasn't sad to be alive if you can recall? I'm actually a very upbeat person. As for being a net benefit. A lot of people would have come out of the experience most definitely not as a benefit to the world and society.

People, are they? I thought we had agreed on "humans?"

Don't start up the discussion again, please.

Abortion is never a choice for the person being aborted, and it certainly is not the best choice for them.

I don't recall me having a choice either, and you are advocating for taking the choice away right? So again you are saying the human in the womb is MORE important than the person outside of it.

Now, there will be more. Laboratories of democracy.

Changing the argument again here. First, you argue that one can interpret Doe v Bolton as meaning that abortion has no limits and when I point out this is demonstrably not the case you change the argument.


Leading me to another question. We have been talking for a while now, and I've seen you time and time again make claims that you profess as the reason for believing something that I can demonstrate to be wrong. You refuse to acknowledge it when this happens which I understand and don't begrudge you. It is a hard thing to do. But have those instances in any way shifted what you believe in any way?


I want to reiterate that none of what you wrote upset me in any way. So feel free to comment as you please.

 

[konradv]

I'm a former member of several heavily liberal-dominated sites.

Former because the liberals were typical in that they could not stand to have their absurdities pointed out to them with any humor whatsoever. They constantly whined about it. So, the "moderators," or the Liberal Klux Klan, as I call them, would subject me to a high-tech lynching in the form of repeated warnings for no violations, followed by a banning. That's why liberals were willing to keep posting on such sites even though they consistently lost all arguments. The bad people who bested them were sure to be sent packing by the LKK.

My idea is not for moderators to start banning non-libs who best libs in debates. Far from it. But . . . we could get delete this thread and then start several threads where we complain that the mods are all libs, they banned a perfectly decent non-lib, etc. Libs who visit for the first time no doubt look for such complaints to see if they will be happy on a forum.

As long as nobody spilled the beans, libs would keep coming. Imagine their tears when their real complaints to moderators for once do not result in banning.

LOL!!! Your average con on the board will complain there are too many libs already, despite all indications that we’re outnumbered at least 3-1. If there are whiners, it’s the cons, because they don’t win as many arguments as you allege.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If you are suggesting I'm lying, I assure you I'm not. I don't think I've given you any reason to doubt my word, have I have been candid and non-evasive this entire time and proven everything I claimed so far. I will of course not show evidence of this because it is personal information but I am perfectly truthful.

Sure, sure. I don't expect you to provide any personal information on an anonymous site.

I want to reiterate that none of what you wrote upset me in any way. So feel free to comment as you please.

Well . . . Ok. I do believe that you will be offended, so after I wrote a couple of paragraphs, I decided not to post them. Luckily, I saved them in case you insisted. It may be a tough read for you, I believe.

With that caveat you are free to read further or simply click away from this post.

Since your premise was to show me something that lack of experience prevents me from having seen myself, let me tell you a bit about my background. I am a middle school teacher, so I have lots of experience with early teen kids. I have a Masters in special education which is not especially relevant here and also a Master's in psychology which is. I started out as a special education teacher, teaching math to elementary kids, but being a male, I was always assigned the kids with behavior issues, especially those with mental illness. I sort of threw in the towel, volunteered to be a campus behavior specialists and started studying psychology.

Prior to being a teacher I served in the Army for several years, saw the world, worked at United Parcel Service, and worked at two News television stations as an enginer. You might say that I am a career changer. But I think I'll stay with teaching until they will me out.

I have had Misfortune and tragedy in my life, as have nearly all of us. I can honestly say that I have had less misery than most, and more blessings than most, hoping that word isn't loaded for you. My experiences don't make me more qualified than you to speak about the issues of the day. My point is that I have no lack of experience that disqualifies me, which is the misperception that you labor under when you try to enlighten me with your experiences.

And I do have credentials to speak of the behavior of thirteen year olds with mental illlness.

If there is one thing that young teenagers are good at it is exaggerating their own martyrdom. I doubt there has ever been a 13 year-old, particularly a 13 year old boy (I don't know your gender), who was happy at the news of an impending new sibling. I would wonder if your parents would agree that you became the chief caretaker of that new sibling and were already the chief caretaker of your other siblings. My guess is they might roll their eyes and give me an indulgent smile.

I work with many kids with depression and other mental disorders. One thing about them is that they have no qualms about telling other than the truth if they think that will the truth will work against them. They also often react when called on not being truthful with angry denials. Sometimes it seems that they have convinced themselves of the untruth - no matter how outlandish - and are now sincerely angry that an adult does not believe them.

That's an easy way to (usually) tell a kid on the autism spectrum from a kid with depression, BTW. Autistic kids rarely lie, because they don't have the social skills to recognize when the truth will not be in their favor. Whereas for a student with depression every day is April 1st. You can tell a kid with depression - but you can't tell him much! *rimshot*

The School Psychologists that I work with are very reluctant to even discuss the possibility of Munchhausen Syndrome in a student with mental illness. Understandable, because if you label a kid with Munchhausen, you risk ignoring real warning signs. But, it has become clear to me that Munchhausen is a spectrum, also. A person with mental illness often exaggerates the effects of that mental illness, but the exaggeration is itself part of the mental illness.

I hear the same complaints over and over from kids with depression: My mom's a slut, my mom doesn't take care of my little brother so I have to, my dad is a much better parent, but my mom lies to keep me away from him, or him away from me. I have to protect my little brother from my stepbrother.

Far from being angry at any insulting of their parents, depressed kids wrap their lives around complaining about parents. Then it becomes, "everyone in this school hates me," and "I get in trouble in Ms. Jones because she picks on me," and "I didn't sell my medications to my friend, he must have stolen it from the counter," and "I only got in trouble because of that cop."

I am skeptical of the idea of a "suicide attempt." If a person made a serious effort to end their own life, it would be almost impossible to fail at it without some serious injury. In other words, it's hard to believe that someone tried to kill themselves and didn't even hurt themselves. If I see a person in a wheelchair and they say, "I jumped from the roof, but it didn't kill me, I'm a paraplegic," that seems pretty believable. Stories of taking pills that put them to sleep, but don't kill them, gunshots that miss from obviously pretty close range, and cuts of the wrists deep enough to leave permanent scars as proof of the attempt, but not the extra millimeter needed to actually cut an artery.

Obviously those actions indicate a serious mental illness; well people don't do them. But, not necessarily an authentic attempt to end one's life.

You kind of changed your argument here didn't you. Your premise was that the media is only presenting this as an "allow abortion or not" argument, not presenting the fact that certain restrictions on abortion were already the majority view. I showed that to be utterly untrue by presenting exactly the information you requested.

I said I would look at it, and you showed it, so kudos. But those articles you found via google don't change the fact that when I turn on CNN and MSNBC, I see the most extreme views represented, and as front page on their websites. Here is a screen shot from CNN, just a few seconds ago as I type this:

And of course, MSNBC isn't even trying to appear unbiased (a few seconds ago):

Your point being?

That self-defense is immediate, in the moment, not a planned action. Your claim of abortion as self-defense sounds a lot like the burning bed argument.

The way I see it, the argument comes down to this. Who is more important? The human in the womb or the woman and family that the human is born too.

More like which is more egregious: Having to carry a baby to full term, or having to be killed in the womb, often in incredibly painful ways with no anesthetic allowed.

There is also a question of agency, here. The baby in the womb is not responsible for being there. The baby is almost always there due to the irresponsibility of the adults who placed him or her there. To kill him or her is the ultimate injustice.

Don't start up the discussion again, please.

I won't, I'll just use the terms that I feel are appropriate. You agreed to the less loaded term (according to you) "human" and then you started calling the ones involved, including yourself, and your siblings that you say should have been aborted, "people." If you can call the individuals central to the abortion debate "people" when they survive a would-be or should-be abortion, I can call them people before the abortion.

. . . .

There is much more to your post, but real life calls. More later . . .

 

[forkup]

Sure, sure. I don't expect you to provide any personal information on an anonymous site.

Well . . . Ok. I do believe that you will be offended, so after I wrote a couple of paragraphs, I decided not to post them. Luckily, I saved them in case you insisted. It may be a tough read for you, I believe.

With that caveat you are free to read further or simply click away from this post.

Since your premise was to show me something that lack of experience prevents me from having seen myself, let me tell you a bit about my background. I am a middle school teacher, so I have lots of experience with early teen kids. I have a Masters in special education which is not especially relevant here and also a Master's in psychology which is. I started out as a special education teacher, teaching math to elementary kids, but being a male, I was always assigned the kids with behavior issues, especially those with mental illness. I sort of threw in the towel, volunteered to be a campus behavior specialists and started studying psychology.

Prior to being a teacher I served in the Army for several years, saw the world, worked at United Parcel Service, and worked at two News television stations as an enginer. You might say that I am a career changer. But I think I'll stay with teaching until they will me out.

I have had Misfortune and tragedy in my life, as have nearly all of us. I can honestly say that I have had less misery than most, and more blessings than most, hoping that word isn't loaded for you. My experiences don't make me more qualified than you to speak about the issues of the day. My point is that I have no lack of experience that disqualifies me, which is the misperception that you labor under when you try to enlighten me with your experiences.

And I do have credentials to speak of the behavior of thirteen year olds with mental illlness.

If there is one thing that young teenagers are good at it is exaggerating their own martyrdom. I doubt there has ever been a 13 year-old, particularly a 13 year old boy (I don't know your gender), who was happy at the news of an impending new sibling. I would wonder if your parents would agree that you became the chief caretaker of that new sibling and were already the chief caretaker of your other siblings. My guess is they might roll their eyes and give me an indulgent smile.

I work with many kids with depression and other mental disorders. One thing about them is that they have no qualms about telling other than the truth if they think that will the truth will work against them. They also often react when called on not being truthful with angry denials. Sometimes it seems that they have convinced themselves of the untruth - no matter how outlandish - and are now sincerely angry that an adult does not believe them.

That's an easy way to (usually) tell a kid on the autism spectrum from a kid with depression, BTW. Autistic kids rarely lie, because they don't have the social skills to recognize when the truth will not be in their favor. Whereas for a student with depression every day is April 1st. You can tell a kid with depression - but you can't tell him much! *rimshot*

The School Psychologists that I work with are very reluctant to even discuss the possibility of Munchhausen Syndrome in a student with mental illness. Understandable, because if you label a kid with Munchhausen, you risk ignoring real warning signs. But, it has become clear to me that Munchhausen is a spectrum, also. A person with mental illness often exaggerates the effects of that mental illness, but the exaggeration is itself part of the mental illness.

I hear the same complaints over and over from kids with depression: My mom's a slut, my mom doesn't take care of my little brother so I have to, my dad is a much better parent, but my mom lies to keep me away from him, or him away from me. I have to protect my little brother from my stepbrother.

Far from being angry at any insulting of their parents, depressed kids wrap their lives around complaining about parents. Then it becomes, "everyone in this school hates me," and "I get in trouble in Ms. Jones because she picks on me," and "I didn't sell my medications to my friend, he must have stolen it from the counter," and "I only got in trouble because of that cop."

I am skeptical of the idea of a "suicide attempt." If a person made a serious effort to end their own life, it would be almost impossible to fail at it without some serious injury. In other words, it's hard to believe that someone tried to kill themselves and didn't even hurt themselves. If I see a person in a wheelchair and they say, "I jumped from the roof, but it didn't kill me, I'm a paraplegic," that seems pretty believable. Stories of taking pills that put them to sleep, but don't kill them, gunshots that miss from obviously pretty close range, and cuts of the wrists deep enough to leave permanent scars as proof of the attempt, but not the extra millimeter needed to actually cut an artery.

Obviously those actions indicate a serious mental illness; well people don't do them. But, not necessarily an authentic attempt to end one's life.


I said I would look at it, and you showed it, so kudos. But those articles you found via google don't change the fact that when I turn on CNN and MSNBC, I see the most extreme views represented, and as front page on their websites. Here is a screen shot from CNN, just a few seconds ago as I type this:

View attachment 645019
And of course, MSNBC isn't even trying to appear unbiased (a few seconds ago):

View attachment 645021



That self-defense is immediate, in the moment, not a planned action. Your claim of abortion as self-defense sounds a lot like the burning bed argument.

More like which is more egregious: Having to carry a baby to full term, or having to be killed in the womb, often in incredibly painful ways with no anesthetic allowed.

There is also a question of agency, here. The baby in the womb is not responsible for being there. The baby is almost always there due to the irresponsibility of the adults who placed him or her there. To kill him or her is the ultimate injustice.

I won't, I'll just use the terms that I feel are appropriate. You agreed to the less loaded term (according to you) "human" and then you started calling the ones involved, including yourself, and your siblings that you say should have been aborted, "people." If you can call the individuals central to the abortion debate "people" when they survive a would-be or should-be abortion, I can call them people before the abortion.

There is much more to your post, but real life calls. More later . . .

If there is one thing that young teenagers are good at it is exaggerating their own martyrdom.

I am reluctant to do this. Not because I'm ashamed or upset, but because I fear 1 of 2 things.
Either you will believe I'm doing it as a cry for sympathy, which it isn't. Or you will believe I'm concocting a story to try to win the argument by making an over-the-top emotional appeal. But since I don't mind talking about it and it is relevant to the issue, and you are questioning my integrity, again I understand and am not upset, I will describe how my life was around that time and you can decide for yourself if I'm exaggerating my martyrdom.

My mother was clinically depressed and had a substance abuse problem, she spend most of her time on the couch or in bed. My father was a functioning alcoholic who you could find in a local bar if he wasn't working.

My duties included mundane things like doing the wash and most of the time doing the cooking, cleaning up, dishes, etc. Less mundane things, like breaking down pallets that were our source of heat because we couldn't afford to pay the price of the fuel oil that our central heating used. So my father broke open an old hearth and asked the company situated next to us to dump used pallets in our back yard, which we (but mostly me) broke down with an ax.
Serious things like dealing with bill collectors who routinely came to our house.
Downright disturbing things like that time my mother came crying to me because our father had said in the local bar that those who wanted could go and fuck her. After which I went into the backyard and found one of the boards of those pallets that I talked about that had a nail in it and vowed to protect her... I was 12 at the time.

When my sister was born I was allowed to miss a lot of school, I hated school because I was a pimply, ill-adjusted, introverted smelly kid (living in a house that has walls covered in fungus will do that.) And middle schoolers as you undoubtedly know don't really react all too kindly to that kid and I was bullied mercilessly. So I could during the day. Burp, feed, change my sister.

I am skeptical of the idea of a "suicide attempt."

Well taking all the pills in the house and waking up in a hospital qualifies in my opinion. That happened when I was 17 and right after my mother died. My dad had a new girlfriend in 2 months and decided that she was more important than doing things like paying rent or buying food for his 4 children. He didn't like me and my brothers pointing that out and it started coming to blows on regular occasions. I didn't mind so much for myself, I was 17 and powerfully built and could defend myself but he was also hitting my 11 and 14-year-old brothers. So I broke, and eventually asked for help and got my 2 brothers out. My sister, I had to leave behind.

I see the most extreme views represented

If you are arguing that the media has biases you won't get an argument from me. What you claimed is that they didn't report something that they did.

Your claim of abortion as self-defense

I don't really claim abortion is self-defense, I was reacting to your claim that self-defense is absolute, in wich case abortion would be considered self-defense. I'm claiming that pregnancy carries within itself an inherent risk that you are forbidding people to have any control over. In essence, imbuing the human in the womb with a right that no other human has. Force somebody to risk their lives for them.

and your siblings that you say should have been aborted, "people."

Since we are born we are people. My problem with the terms had always been that I distinguish legally and philosophically between a fetus and a person or a baby and when talking about abortion it is in my view necessary to make that distinction. Otherwise, it leads to the confusion we see here.

I do believe that you will be offended

I'm not. As I said I accept people questioning me if they feel I'm lying. I do the same when I feel it's warranted.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm not. As I said I accept people questioning me if they feel I'm lying. I do the same when I feel it's warranted.

I'm glad to hear it.

Your story, combined with your claim of being clinically depressed, doesn't hold water. The kind of initiative, selflessness, and leadership that you display in your story is the opposite of the behavior of a person with depression. People with depression show long periods of inaction and inappropriate levels of sadness, in reaction to ordinary situations. You describe action, maturity, and appropriate actions, in extraordinary situations.

Taking "all the pills in the house," doesn't sound like a serious attempt as bringing about one's own death, but it does sound like a great way for a teenager to draw dad's attention away from a new stepmom. In the house of horrors that you describe, it would seem that the struggle would be to not accidentally be hurt or killed, not figuring out an effective way to die deliberately.

One key trait of people with depression and other mental disorders is that they are entirely inward facing. When they talk to others, it is with a goal of getting them caught up in the "me," "me," me," drama. Even in this talk about abortion, you seem to want to always get the conversation back on track, meaning back to being about you. People with mental illness have an experience unique to them: long conversations about themselves with people who get paid to listen with empathy. That is nice for them, especially when it is on someone else's dime. But it often convinces them that the world owes them a sympathetic ear.

They develop unrealistic expectations that all the adults in their lives will take that same sympathetic approach, no matter how the mentally disordered person treats the adult. I often ask such as student, "what do you think that Ms. Smith's goal was in that class period?" Either the student doesn't know, or they say something like, "to get me in trouble." When I tell them that Ms. Smith's goal was to teach the students how to divide fractions with unlike denominators, they look at me as if I'm the crazy one.

Anyway, all this "you" talks gets far away from a debate about abortion. It comes down to whether you accept an unborn child as a person. The evidence that an unborn child is a person seems so obvious that I feel silly mentioning it, but I will. An unborn child has unique DNA as do nearly all other people. The unborn child has a functioning human heart, brain, lungs, arms legs, eyes, ears, nose, and even fingerprints. Yes, they are also unique, even in twins.

So, what is your evidence that they are not people?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberalism
Political philosophy

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law. Wikipedia If this is the type of Liberal you had in mind I agree we need more like them.

I bet you know that that is a corruption of the fact: those would be classical liberals, called conservatives today.

The term 'Liberal' today is actually a disguise for Bolsheviks and Wehrmacht.

 

[Ropey]

I bet you know that that is a corruption of the fact: those would be classical liberals, called conservatives today.

The term 'Liberal' today is actually a disguise for Bolsheviks and Wehrmacht.

While the correct term for these guys is 'carpetbaggers' and 'scallywags'.

 

[forkup]

I'm glad to hear it.

Your story, combined with your claim of being clinically depressed, doesn't hold water. The kind of initiative, selflessness, and leadership that you display in your story is the opposite of the behavior of a person with depression. People with depression show long periods of inaction and inappropriate levels of sadness, in reaction to ordinary situations. You describe action, maturity, and appropriate actions, in extraordinary situations.

Taking "all the pills in the house," doesn't sound like a serious attempt as bringing about one's own death, but it does sound like a great way for a teenager to draw dad's attention away from a new stepmom. In the house of horrors that you describe, it would seem that the struggle would be to not accidentally be hurt or killed, not figuring out an effective way to die deliberately.

One key trait of people with depression and other mental disorders is that they are entirely inward facing. When they talk to others, it is with a goal of getting them caught up in the "me," "me," me," drama. Even in this talk about abortion, you seem to want to always get the conversation back on track, meaning back to being about you. People with mental illness have an experience unique to them: long conversations about themselves with people who get paid to listen with empathy. That is nice for them, especially when it is on someone else's dime. But it often convinces them that the world owes them a sympathetic ear.

They develop unrealistic expectations that all the adults in their lives will take that same sympathetic approach, no matter how the mentally disordered person treats the adult. I often ask such as student, "what do you think that Ms. Smith's goal was in that class period?" Either the student doesn't know, or they say something like, "to get me in trouble." When I tell them that Ms. Smith's goal was to teach the students how to divide fractions with unlike denominators, they look at me as if I'm the crazy one.

Anyway, all this "you" talks gets far away from a debate about abortion. It comes down to whether you accept an unborn child as a person. The evidence that an unborn child is a person seems so obvious that I feel silly mentioning it, but I will. An unborn child has unique DNA as do nearly all other people. The unborn child has a functioning human heart, brain, lungs, arms legs, eyes, ears, nose, and even fingerprints. Yes, they are also unique, even in twins.

So, what is your evidence that they are not people?

Anyway, all this "you" talks gets far away from a debate about abortion.

This "me" talk is about the consequences of forcing more people who are wholly unsuited to the job of a parent to have children regardless of their wishes. The fact that you find it besides the point is you simply trying to dictate the terms in the debate in your favor and yours alone.

It comes down to whether you accept an unborn child as a person.

It comes down to a whole lot more than that question.

So, what is your evidence that they are not people?

The Solicitor General offers a different explanation of the basis for the quickening rule, namely, that before quickening the common law did not regard a fetus “as having a ‘separate and independent existence.’”

This is in Altiot's ruling.

get the conversation back on track, meaning back to being about you.

Really? I've treated the whole tread premise concerning my personal experience as I treated everything else. I replied to what you replied. Post 130 for instance had 6 different thread premises only 2 were about me. Your reply was only about what I said about myself.

The only thing I will say is that making the point of using myself, as an illustration, is not a good idea you were right about that. It distracts from the point. So I'll post my premise taking myself out of it.

If you concede that aborting is reasonable if the human in the womb will face unbearable pain. And you further concede that mental anguish can be unbearable. It follows that a woman who isn't willing to bear a child should have the right to decide. Considering that it often results in mental anguish for both the child and the surrounding family.




I won't lie, I'm irritated by your last post. I'm not irritated because you think I'm a liar. It's a bit hurtful to me since I believe I've given you absolutely no cause, but everybody is entitled to their opinion, right or wrong. I'm not irritated by the contempt you seemingly have for me.

it does sound like a great way for a teenager to draw dad's attention away from a new stepmom

Which is personally insulting. Or the contempt you seemingly have for those struggling with mental illness.

long conversations about themselves with people who get paid to listen with empathy. That is nice for them, especially when it is on someone else's dime.

Wich seems considering your job professionally problematic. But I get that a job can make you jaded and in the adversarial setting of a debate sometimes people say stuff they shouldn't. And after all, as you rightfully pointed out the moment I inserted personal stuff in the debate I took the risk of being insulted so it would be hypocritical to hold it against you.

No, what irritates me is that in your eagerness to assert that I'm lying you didn't make the slightest effort to read my post with any care. If you had, you would have read that the only person clinically depressed during the time of my description of my living situation was my mom.

My mother was clinically depressed

That my depression was when I was 17 not when

I was 12 at the time.

I've enjoyed talking to you, I really have, and you've misrepresented me before. I get that happens sometimes when reading someone who might not make his point perfectly clear. This is not that though. This is you refusing to give me so much as the courtesy of even reading what I write with the slightest care, so you can justify an opinion that you hold. If you truly believe I'm what you call a compeer then you would grant me at least the respect to read what I say and not simply hold yourself to a preconceived notion. If you are unable or unwilling to do that please tell me now, so I can act as I act to all the other people on this board who are only interested in the sound of their own voices. Meaning answer if they say something especially stupid and forget they exist 2 seconds after.

 

[Seymour Flops]

This "me" talk is about the consequences of forcing more people who are wholly unsuited to the job of a parent to have children regardless of their wishes. The fact that you find it besides the point is you simply trying to dictate the terms in the debate in your favor and yours alone.

It comes down to a whole lot more than that question.

Keep in mind what I said about agency. In the overwhelming majority of cases, no one forced the parents to get pregnant in the first place.

There is a concept in law called “duty of care.” If you were to drive out of the Target parking lot and suddenly hear a cry from a baby that someone abandoned by placing in your backseat, you would be held responsible if you reached back and threw the baby out of the window. You would be required to go through the inconvenience of pulling over, making sure the baby is safe, and contacting the authorities, because that is what a reasonable person would do.

Your duty of care is even greater when you voluntarily take custody of a child, even as a favor, such as babysitting in an emergency. Also if you accidentally found yourself with a child in your custody, such as grabbing the wrong shopping cart and somehow making it all the way to your car without realizing that there is a kid there. You can’t just dump the kid, because you didn’t want him or her, in the first place. You have to help him or her get to its mother.

If you deliberately take actions that place an unwanted baby in your body, you don’t have the ethical right to simply have it killed, when you could carry it to safety and turn it over to that authorities, who will have no trouble finding a willing mother for it.

The Solicitor General offers a different explanation of the basis for the quickening rule, namely, that before quickening the common law did not regard a fetus “as having a ‘separate and independent existence.’”

This is in Altiot's ruling.

Fine, but I’m not talking about the legalistic arguments. I’m talking about the morality/ethics of killing a person while they are still in the womb and whether that should be allowed.

Really? I've treated the whole tread premise concerning my personal experience as I treated everything else. I replied to what you replied. Post 130 for instance had 6 different thread premises only 2 were about me. Your reply was only about what I said about myself.

The only thing I will say is that making the point of using myself, as an illustration, is not a good idea you were right about that. It distracts from the point. So I'll post my premise taking myself out of it.

If you concede that aborting is reasonable if the human in the womb will face unbearable pain. And you further concede that mental anguish can be unbearable. It follows that a woman who isn't willing to bear a child should have the right to decide. Considering that it often results in mental anguish for both the child and the surrounding family.

I don’t remember conceding that mental anguish can be unbearable. I spoke of a hypothetical in which a child was doomed to a brief and pain-filled life.

I won't lie, I'm irritated by your last post. I'm not irritated because you think I'm a liar. It's a bit hurtful to me since I believe I've given you absolutely no cause, but everybody is entitled to their opinion, right or wrong. I'm not irritated by the contempt you seemingly have for me.
Which is personally insulting. Or the contempt you seemingly have for those struggling with mental illness.

In fact, your statement that you suffer from the mental disorder of depression is, in my experience, a reason to question your statements. At best it would make you an unreliable narrator.

Wich seems considering your job professionally problematic. But I get that a job can make you jaded and in the adversarial setting of a debate sometimes people say stuff they shouldn't.

I hold neither you, nor my students, in contempt. I wish you the best, and I not only wish the best for my students, I work very hard to help them make their lives the best.

One way I do that is what you might call “tough love.” Many of them have learned the language of psychologizing and expect the adults in authority to all be like the counselors and school psychologists who taught them that.

I am in between, helping the student understand that their social studies teacher does not have the time to listen to personal tales of woah, as do those professionals, and even myself as a behavior specialist. It is imperative that these students with mental disorders grow a thicker skin before they move to the badlands of High School, in which no one will have time for their emotional outbursts.

At work, and I hope all of them will find productive jobs, that kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth won’t be accepted for a moment. The sooner they understand that, the better their lives will be.

And after all, as you rightfully pointed out the moment I inserted personal stuff in the debate I took the risk of being insulted so it would be hypocritical to hold it against you.

No, what irritates me is that in your eagerness to assert that I'm lying you didn't make the slightest effort to read my post with any care. If you had, you would have read that the only person clinically depressed during the time of my description of my living situation was my mom.

That my depression was when I was 17 not when

I won’t go cut and paste it, but I am certain that I asked you whether your suicide attempt stemmed from mental illness and you said, “yes, since/because depression is a mental illness.” You never told me what times of your life you suffered from depression, nor even that you a have been cured.

I've enjoyed talking to you, I really have, and you've misrepresented me before. I get that happens sometimes when reading someone who might not make his point perfectly clear. This is not that though. This is you refusing to give me so much as the courtesy of even reading what I write with the slightest care, so you can justify an opinion that you hold. If you truly believe I'm what you call a compeer then you would grant me at least the respect to read what I say and not simply hold yourself to a preconceived notion. If you are unable or unwilling to do that please tell me now, so I can act as I act to all the other people on this board who are only interested in the sound of their own voices. Meaning answer if they say something especially stupid and forget they exist 2 seconds after.

I actually encourage you to stop reading my posts if they cause you upset.

If you want to talk about the abortion issue, without making it personal, even better.

Not meaning anyone in particular, but life is worth living, even when it is filled with anguish, even if it is more than one’s fair share of anguish. The undeniable truth that people often have abusive parents, bad childhoods, and mental disorders, no more justifies killing a person in the womb than it would justify killing a person outside the womb.

 

[forkup]

Keep in mind what I said about agency. In the overwhelming majority of cases, no one forced the parents to get pregnant in the first place.

There is a concept in law called “duty of care.” If you were to drive out of the Target parking lot and suddenly hear a cry from a baby that someone abandoned by placing in your backseat, you would be held responsible if you reached back and threw the baby out of the window. You would be required to go through the inconvenience of pulling over, making sure the baby is safe, and contacting the authorities, because that is what a reasonable person would do.

Your duty of care is even greater when you voluntarily take custody of a child, even as a favor, such as babysitting in an emergency. Also if you accidentally found yourself with a child in your custody, such as grabbing the wrong shopping cart and somehow making it all the way to your car without realizing that there is a kid there. You can’t just dump the kid, because you didn’t want him or her, in the first place. You have to help him or her get to its mother.

If you deliberately take actions that place an unwanted baby in your body, you don’t have the ethical right to simply have it killed, when you could carry it to safety and turn it over to that authorities, who will have no trouble finding a willing mother for it.


Fine, but I’m not talking about the legalistic arguments. I’m talking about the morality/ethics of killing a person while they are still in the womb and whether that should be allowed.

I don’t remember conceding that mental anguish can be unbearable. I spoke of a hypothetical in which a child was doomed to a brief and pain-filled life.

In fact, your statement that you suffer from the mental disorder of depression is, in my experience, a reason to question your statements. At best it would make you an unreliable narrator.

I hold neither you, nor my students, in contempt. I wish you the best, and I not only wish the best for my students, I work very hard to help them make their lives the best.

One way I do that is what you might call “tough love.” Many of them have learned the language of psychologizing and expect the adults in authority to all be like the counselors and school psychologists who taught them that.

I am in between, helping the student understand that their social studies teacher does not have the time to listen to personal tales of woah, as do those professionals, and even myself as a behavior specialist. It is imperative that these students with mental disorders grow a thicker skin before they move to the badlands of High School, in which no one will have time for their emotional outbursts.

At work, and I hope all of them will find productive jobs, that kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth won’t be accepted for a moment. The sooner they understand that, the better their lives will be.

I won’t go cut and paste it, but I am certain that I asked you whether your suicide attempt stemmed from mental illness and you said, “yes, since/because depression is a mental illness.” You never told me what times of your life you suffered from depression, nor even that you a have been cured.

I actually encourage you to stop reading my posts if they cause you upset.

If you want to talk about the abortion issue, without making it personal, even better.

Not meaning anyone in particular, but life is worth living, even when it is filled with anguish, even if it is more than one’s fair share of anguish. The undeniable truth that people often have abusive parents, bad childhoods, and mental disorders, no more justifies killing a person in the womb than it would justify killing a person outside the womb.

no one forced the parents to get pregnant in the first place.

What do you suggest? No sex because it risks pregnancy if you're unlucky? This is not an ideal world, people get pregnant either by luck, carelessness, or other reasons. You are suggesting that "duty of care" as you call it extends to nearly all of them regardless of circumstance.

Your duty of care is even greater when you voluntarily take custody of a child

An unwanted child by definition is one you didn't volunteer for.

If you deliberately take actions that place an unwanted baby in your body, you don’t have the ethical right to simply have it killed, when you could carry it to safety and turn it over to that authorities, who will have no trouble finding a willing mother for it.

Again, meaning sex. I deliberately had sex on a number of occasions. Only in one specific time of my life, I did do so with the DELIBERATE intention of conceiving a child. All the other times I did so because it was fun.

Everybody makes daily decisions that might carry unintended consequences. I can't imagine any that wouldn't allow me to rectify an unintended consequence if it's possible to do so. As to adoption. An ivory tower cop-out. The whole "Oh, they can just give the child out for adoption" argument falls flat at first contact with the real world, because of the social and psychological cost of giving a child out for adoption. It's nothing more than pro-life people trying to justify taking away the choice of a woman of whether or not to have a child, by saying that the act doesn't need to have permanent adverse effects on their lives.
" I only took away control of your body temporarily, and it doesn't have to affect your entire life so it's ok right?"

I’m talking about the morality/ethics of killing a person while they are still in the womb and whether that should be allowed.

You were asking for evidence. I gave you the only evidence I can give when you ask me to disprove a claim you made. Which by right is something you should do. (I'm not here to disprove a claim you make, you are under obligation to prove yours.) Especially with a philosophical question as to what makes someone a person. Namely how the law looks at it. To that end, I gave you the ruling of a person who is on your side.

I don’t remember conceding that mental anguish can be unbearable

No, you didn't. I figured that it's a sufficiently uncontested claim to be posted as an axiom. If I was wrong I apologize for presuming and I invite you to contest it.

I hold neither you, nor my students, in contempt. I wish you the best, and I not only wish the best for my students, I work very hard to help them make their lives the best.

It is perfectly possible to hold someone in contempt and wish them all the best.

You never told me what times of your life you suffered from depression, nor even that you a have been cured.

Do you think?

Depression is a mental illness so yes. Luckily one you can be cured of.

You can't understand the implied meaning here? And if you say this

I am skeptical of the idea of a "suicide attempt."

And I answer this.

That happened when I was 17 and right after my mother died.

I haven't told you I was 17? The truth of the matter is that you don't really know what I did or didn't say. This is because you a) weren't reading with any care. b) you don't have reading comprehension skills. (Something that will be interesting in the case of someone who claims to hold 2 master's degrees.) Which one is it?

Not meaning anyone in particular, but life is worth living, even when it is filled with anguish, even if it is more than one’s fair share of anguish.

I don't think you have any idea how presumptuous that sounds?

Are you comfortable saying this to the guy who has Lou Gherig's disease and can not do so much as blink anymore while being totally conscious? Or the addict that just failed in staying clean for the 5th time and knows his choice is another torturous stint in rehab or death in some ally? Or the homeless person whose' life consists of being cold and miserable or drunk. Or a myriad of other scenarios that I can easily concoct. The whole idea that life is worth living regardless of its quality can only be stated by someone who hasn't experienced actual hardship no matter his profession. It's interesting you acknowledge that a life that's brief and painful probably should be ended but apparently have no problem with a life that's long and painful.

It's like a male gynecologist telling a mother he knows what she's feeling when delivering. It's simply not a good idea to do so for the reason that stating that you know the pain without a frame of reference is folly. And that frame isn't provided by seeing a woman deliver but by experiencing it.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Have flacaltenn , Dont Taz Me Bro , & Meister , dressed in drag at the front entrance singing.....

*****CHUCKLE*****





?????

For some reason I just don't see that happening.

 

[Meister]

View attachment 645938

Have flacaltenn , Dont Taz Me Bro , & Meister , dressed in drag at the front entrance singing.....

*****CHUCKLE*****





?????

I would be breaking up a lot of marriages if I did that.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

There's another saying, "It doesn't matter how good you are, you are always an arsehole in someone's story".

That describes me today at work.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What do you suggest? No sex because it risks pregnancy if you're unlucky? This is not an ideal world, people get pregnant either by luck, carelessness, or other reasons.

Come on, man!

There's a difference between a careful defensive driver who has a one in a million unlucky tree falling in front of his vehicle and ends up in a ditch, and a person who takes a couple of drinks after work before driving home with no seat belt, and does that so often that it would be one in a million if they did not have a car wreck.

Either way, if either driver somehow (hypothetically) had the choice of dealing with the consequences of the car wreck and killing a baby in the womb, there would only be one moral choice, and it would be deal with the car wreck as best as they can.

You are suggesting that "duty of care" as you call it extends to nearly all of them regardless of circumstance.

An unwanted child by definition is one you didn't volunteer for.

Yes, did you understand my analogy of the person who finds an abandoned baby in his back seat as he driving out of a parking lot? That is an unwanted child also, correct? Can the person just say, "I didn't volunteer for that!" and throw it out the window? Legally or morally?

No.

Morally it would be infanticide and legally, it would be at best voluntary manslaughter. Whatever the prosecutor charges, I don't see a jury in the country accepting his "I didn't volunteer" argument.

Again, meaning sex. I deliberately had sex on a number of occasions. Only in one specific time of my life, I did do so with the DELIBERATE intention of conceiving a child. All the other times I did so because it was fun.

I'm a bit shocked that you deliberately conceived a child, and more than a little skeptical that you wanted to conceive a child and only had sex once in the attempt.

You wanted to bring a child into this world of misery? Aren't you afraid it will suffer during the coming end times caused by global warming?

Everybody makes daily decisions that might carry unintended consequences. I can't imagine any that wouldn't allow me to rectify an unintended consequence if it's possible to do so. As to adoption. An ivory tower cop-out. The whole "Oh, they can just give the child out for adoption" argument falls flat at first contact with the real world,

Adoption is an absolutely viable alternative. To say, "I don't want a child to live, if it has to go to another family," is very much like the abusive husband who would rather kill his wife than imagine her with another man.

I know plenty of folks who have or are waiting years to adopt, and all of them are pro-life that I know of, with that position being anything but theoretical to them.

because of the social and psychological cost of giving a child out for adoption. It's nothing more than pro-life people trying to justify taking away the choice of a woman of whether or not to have a child, by saying that the act doesn't need to have permanent adverse effects on their lives.

For that argument to be valid, you would have to believe that there are no social and psychological costs of having an abortion. I will give you credit for being too smart to believe that. (If I'm wrong about that, see my footnote)

" I only took away control of your body temporarily, and it doesn't have to affect your entire life so it's ok right?"

That is the only valid argument for legalized abortions. All other arguments fall into two categories:

1) abortion isn't really killing a human

and

2) hey, there are worse things that happen to people, worse than being killed in the womb.

I accept neither.

The bodily autonomy argument from a pure libertarian perspective, that you make above, is the one that I find logical, even when I disagree. In fact, I have even agreed with it for periods of time. I have advocated on libertarian sites that libertarians drop the idea of banning abortion and focus on helping women (and men) make better choices, both before and after conception.

But, I also have to consider who is making that argument. Are they really so pro-freedom that they support choice even if it means the death of one hundred thousand unborn humans? Are they those kind of libertarian purists?

So a few questions you may claim are off-topic, but which go directly to your claim of bodily autonomy absolutism:

How do you feel about mandatory vaccination?

Actually, I may not need more, once you give an honest answer to that one.

You were asking for evidence. I gave you the only evidence I can give when you ask me to disprove a claim you made. Which by right is something you should do. (I'm not here to disprove a claim you make, you are under obligation to prove yours.) Especially with a philosophical question as to what makes someone a person. Namely how the law looks at it. To that end, I gave you the ruling of a person who is on your side.

Right, well I said that I wasn't interested in the legalistic argument, that applies even of a person who is on my side.

No, you didn't. I figured that it's [that mental anguish can be unbearable] a sufficiently uncontested claim to be posted as an axiom. If I was wrong I apologize for presuming and I invite you to contest it.

It depends on what you mean by "unbearable." If you mean the literal meaning, that a person cannot bear the mental anguish to the point that they will do anything to end it, even kill themselves or harm others, then yes. That kind of mental anguish would be unbearable. It would most often come from guilt, as when a person realizes they they have caused the death of a child through negligence or selfishness, or if a person felt themselves to be a burden on others, and a combination of guilt and shame would compel a non-mentally ill person to suicide. See the same footnote about that.

But I suspect you mean "unbearable" in the more colloquial, dramatic sense, of "really unpleasant," as in, "The summers in Houston are unbearable!" In that case, when you say "mental anguish is unbearable," it does not justify killing a human of any age, or any birth status.

It is perfectly possible to hold someone in contempt and wish them all the best.

I suppose. I rarely hold someone in contempt, and if I do, I wish nothing but that they change the trait that makes them contemptable, or be as far away from my life and the lives of my loved ones (including my mentally ill students) as possible.

But, I am sincere when I say that I wish the best for you, and that I do not hold you in contempt. I disagree with you about a political issue, which need not lead to personal animosity. I question whether you are a completely reliable narrator due to your mental illness. Nothing against you as a person.

I have a student with multiple mobility disorders who is unreliable to be trusted with the burden of a lunch tray. So, I carry it for him and wish him the best. I do something similar for students with depression who are unreliable to be trusted with the burden of truthfulness. I don't hate them for their illness, I have dedicated almost two decades of my life to helping them.

I took a screen shot of the next part of your post:

No, I did not keep careful track of the timeline of your life, as you reported it in multiple posts. Maybe you feel that "any care" would require me to do so.

I did not take from saying that depression is an illness but "Luckily one you can be cured of," to mean that you yourself have been cured. And I don't think the age you were and the event that preceded it explains why a "suicide attempt" would be unsuccessful.

For what it's worth, in pursuing those degrees, I read a lot of psychology literature, and I don't remember any "cure for depression" being discussed except in sentences like "there is no cure for depression." I have to wonder if you mean "depression" in the colloquial and dramatic sense of "I was so depressed that _______ happened!"

The above exchange was exemplary of my experiences with people with mental illness. They make assumptions in their own minds about the meanings of things and then attack those who don't read their minds to know what assumptions they are making. Not as in faking anger or using insults to win an argument, but genuine frustration at someone not "knowing" something they see as an obvious truth.

I don't think you have any idea how presumptuous that [that life is worth living, even when filled with anguish] sounds?

Are you comfortable saying this to the guy who has Lou Gherig's disease and can not do so much as blink anymore while being totally conscious?

That particular case would be irrelevant, wouldn't it? Since such an unfortunate person would have no means to communicate that he wishes to die? Or do you now advocate something you have not mentioned before?

Or the addict that just failed in staying clean for the 5th time and knows his choice is another torturous stint in rehab or death in some ally? Or the homeless person whose' life consists of being cold and miserable or drunk. Or a myriad of other scenarios that I can easily concoct.

Yes, and in all of them, taking advice from a competent professional and working to improve one's life would be preferable to death.

The whole idea that life is worth living regardless of its quality can only be stated by someone who hasn't experienced actual hardship no matter his profession. It's interesting you acknowledge that a life that's brief and painful probably should be ended but apparently have no problem with a life that's long and painful.

The brief painful life I hypothetically described, could not be improved (in my hypothetical). In all of the case you mentioned there is definitely opportunity for improvement. So long as the life is not ended. If there were a person who sustained some injury that doomed him to pain and nothing else for a long life after that, I would have no problem with him or her making a rational choice to end end his or her life, thus shortening the pain. That is far, far away from killing a baby in the womb on the basis that "It's better to kill it than to have it and beat it up," which is nothing you said, but the exact words I heard from a girl in college who brought up abortion on our first date.

It's like a male gynecologist telling a mother he knows what she's feeling when delivering. It's simply not a good idea to do so for the reason that stating that you know the pain without a frame of reference is folly. And that frame isn't provided by seeing a woman deliver but by experiencing it.

You haven't expressed your gender, and you don't have to. But when you describe yourself as large and powerfully built, I assume that you are male. If you are male and you believe that males are not allowed to debate the abortion issue, they you should abandon this thread.

If I'm wrong and you are not male and you believe that males are not allowed to debate the abortion issue, then I give you yet another caveat: I am male and I intend to defend the most helpless of children. Defending the defenseless was a responsibility placed on men in every single culture that ever existed, except totalitarian cultures and whatever culture the left is trying to bring about in the present day.

*There are many studies which show increased risk of suicide following abortion. In fact significantly higher deaths from several behavior related causes. Abortion is not the safe and harmless procedure you want it to be.

Abstract​

Background: A national study in Finland showed significantly higher death rates associated with abortion than with childbirth. Our objective was to examine this association using an American population over a longer period.
Methods: California Medicaid records for 173,279 women who had an induced abortion or a delivery in 1989 were linked to death certificates for 1989 to 1997.
Results: Compared with women who delivered, those who aborted had a significantly higher age-adjusted risk of death from all causes (1.62), from suicide (2.54), and from accidents (1.82), as well as a higher relative risk of death from natural causes (1.44), including the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (2.18), circulatory diseases (2.87), and cerebrovascular disease (5.46). Results are stratified by age and time.
Conclusions: Higher death rates associated with abortion persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries. This may be explained by self-destructive tendencies, depression, and other unhealthy behavior aggravated by the abortion experience.

Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women - PubMed

Higher death rates associated with abortion persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries. This may be explained by self-destructive tendencies, depression, and other unhealthy behavior aggravated by the abortion experience.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov