Against it. But that's because, in general, I am philosophically opposed to trying to control things. It betrays a lack of understanding of cause and effect.
Sad, but necessary. I'd rather support a single mother than see an abortion- and in fact, in the past 12 years, 95% of my pro-life activity has been in support of single mothers.
I also think we need to do more about going out to bring deadbeat dads into the fold. Living wage jobs for 10 year olds would be a start. Parenting classes for fathers right along with prenatal classes for mothers. Housing support for young families. Younger consent-to-be-married ages. Active divorce prevention therapy. That sort of thing. There are other ways to reduce the number of single mothers.
All doctors who perform abortions are quacks by my standards.
And the pro-lifers are the ones trying to regulate the abortion industry, like in Texas, where they tried to get abortion clinics to at least allow inspections and require the doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals. Result was 23 abortion clinics put out of business because the cost was too high.
Abortion is an industry run by quacks, for quacks, preying on women who should have other options (such as the fathers stepping up and taking responsibility for having sex).
Words stopped having meaning in the 1950s. It does not matter where you draw the line- birth, viability, Jews. Any way you cut it it's still irrationally separating people into THOSE WE ALLOW TO LIVE and THOSE WE FORCEFULLY KILL.
Rebuttal, denial, comes out the same. Your reasons for separating human beings out at birth don't matter any more than the reasons a Nazi gave for putting Jews in internment camps matter.
"That's a nice sounding platitude, but it's impractical in reality. Conflict of interest exists. Rights can and do conflict with each other, and something/someone's gotta give."
They don't if you guarantee EVERYBODY the right to life and property. Just stop at the property border..
"On the abortion debate, it's the rights of the unborn vs the rights of the mother, and this isn't a false dilemma."
Yes it is. There is a clearly delineated border between the unborn and the mother, the placenta. The mother has no right to determine what goes on inside it. The unborn's property rights are inside the placenta.
See, clear borders create clear morality. Murky borders create a lack of liberty.
"In an earlier reply, I already pointed out that abortion is not genocide"
Which is just a denial that the genocide is going on. And thus covered by Ron Wyden's original statement that genocide deniers should not be allowed free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
A toilet you WANT to be in, is counterproductive.
And didn't the Japanese solve the natural light problem over 25 years ago with the Sunflower Fiber Optic system?
Also known as reality.
Against it. But that's because, in general, I am philosophically opposed to trying to control things. It betrays a lack of understanding of cause and effect.
We're not all hosed. We just need to adapt instead of try to change the situation.
One great way to adapt is to switch to drought tolerant foods.
Sad, but necessary. I'd rather support a single mother than see an abortion- and in fact, in the past 12 years, 95% of my pro-life activity has been in support of single mothers.
I also think we need to do more about going out to bring deadbeat dads into the fold. Living wage jobs for 10 year olds would be a start. Parenting classes for fathers right along with prenatal classes for mothers. Housing support for young families. Younger consent-to-be-married ages. Active divorce prevention therapy. That sort of thing. There are other ways to reduce the number of single mothers.
Yep, to the modernist, genocide means nothing, because modernists *are genocidal maniacs*.
All I've done is come back to where I started: You support genocide by denying that abortion is genocide.
Roe V. Wade specifically says that personhood can be defined by Congress.
All doctors who perform abortions are quacks by my standards.
And the pro-lifers are the ones trying to regulate the abortion industry, like in Texas, where they tried to get abortion clinics to at least allow inspections and require the doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals. Result was 23 abortion clinics put out of business because the cost was too high.
Abortion is an industry run by quacks, for quacks, preying on women who should have other options (such as the fathers stepping up and taking responsibility for having sex).
"I'll repeat my question since you seem to have a hard time reading: how would this definition stop abortion?"
Read Roe V. Wade. Abortion will stop when the personhood of the fetus is defined.
Words stopped having meaning in the 1950s. It does not matter where you draw the line- birth, viability, Jews. Any way you cut it it's still irrationally separating people into THOSE WE ALLOW TO LIVE and THOSE WE FORCEFULLY KILL.
I not only believe it, but doctors have been prosecuted for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell
In addition to that, the videos that have come out show that it's actually a quite common practice to just discard children that come out alive.
Reality gave the nice clean design of the placenta. Everything in it is the baby's DNA, everything outside of it is the Mother's DNA.
You are just refusing to respect the property rights of the unborn.
Rebuttal, denial, comes out the same. Your reasons for separating human beings out at birth don't matter any more than the reasons a Nazi gave for putting Jews in internment camps matter.
That's the thing- when they come out alive, they're instantly in danger of being murdered most of the time.
"That's a nice sounding platitude, but it's impractical in reality. Conflict of interest exists. Rights can and do conflict with each other, and something/someone's gotta give."
They don't if you guarantee EVERYBODY the right to life and property. Just stop at the property border..
"On the abortion debate, it's the rights of the unborn vs the rights of the mother, and this isn't a false dilemma."
Yes it is. There is a clearly delineated border between the unborn and the mother, the placenta. The mother has no right to determine what goes on inside it. The unborn's property rights are inside the placenta.
See, clear borders create clear morality. Murky borders create a lack of liberty.
"In an earlier reply, I already pointed out that abortion is not genocide"
Which is just a denial that the genocide is going on. And thus covered by Ron Wyden's original statement that genocide deniers should not be allowed free speech.
And since we know that children CAN survive a botched abortion, we know that they are autonomous.
Yes, go back to start of conversation. It's a false dilemma all the way down. It is set up to be a false dilemma.
Ron Wyden said that people who support genocide, don't get to have free speech on the internet.
I'm just pointing out that Ron Wyden, and his party, support genocide.
Get the picture yet?
I am for absolute rights to life and property.
Without them, liberty means nothing.
I'm talking about supporting your "liberty" by the deliberate extermination of 60 million people.
"My point is we (societies in general) have no problem justifying killing, or genocide"
Implies that you're for it.
So you're pro-genocide and proud of it.
Atheism is 20% of the population.
And given the results of what liberty has wrought, I'm not interested in liberty.
The placenta makes it a clearly defined different body.