When Does A Human Life Begin? page 6

147 posts

Flag Post
Leafing through it, there seems to already be requirements in place that an abortion facility have a place to receive ambulances, trained personnel, emergency services, a surgical area, blood on standby for transfusions, etc. In other words, it’s unnecessary to require them to be an arbitrary distance from a hospital. They’re already held to standards capable of treating emergencies.

All the ones that deal with the things you listed say they were amended to be effective January of 2014 – meaning that they include the new bill. I can’t see where it differentiates which are part of the ‘09 bill and which are part of the new bill. For all I know, all those regulations you mention are only included because of the new bill (unless I’m missing something?).

Still think it’s unsafe?

How many times do you need me to concede that it’s not dangerous?

I’m just arguing for a safety plan when something goes wrong. You’ve won be over on the 30 mile radius thing being unnecessary, but not on the rest (yet).

Edit:

I’ll get to you tomorrow Ung!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Just to be clear, I don’t see those who have a different opinion than mine as an opponent. It is only when their opinion begins to infringe on the rights w/in my opinion (say for instance, the concept of Gay marriage) that they then become a real opponent. Otherwise, they are merely someone who opts to live THEIR life in a manner different than I want to….and, we are both comfortable w/ that.

See, I think the problem with this is that, while it’s a genuine statement on your part, most everyone feels that they just want freedom, peace, the ability to live their own life etc., while disagreeing on the way the majority is going to do that.

At first, I thought your quote of my post was something you’d gleaned from a fast perusal of the huge volume of text since your last (known?) appearance here. However, when I went looking for something I had said that made my point there a lot clearer, I found this paragraph just below the one above: Of course, the concept of a perfect world where conflict doesn’t exist is utter folly.
But, someone doesn’t automatically become an opponent because of simple “conflict”.
Most of us have inner conflicts…..marriages have conflicts
It is when ppl are willing to rationally discuss the parameters of the discordant issues and come to a resolution/compromise that the concept of unity (as being on the same team) is realized rather than there being that of being an opponent.

Would you consider your husband to be a teammate for an opponent?
Do you ALWAYS agree COMPLETELY?

Perhaps ya wanted only my top paragraph in order to make your point?
That is fine.
However, I’ll expand on the bottom one as a rebuttal to your point.

Yes, of course most everyone feels that they just want freedom, the ability to live THEIR OWN LIFE etc., while disagreeing on the way the majority is going to do that.

However, if one considers living a life to be analogous to playing a game where there are many very diverse players; then, there are going to have to be some damn good rules by which to play….or a lot of arguing and damn little playing is what you will have: anarchy.

There are few (no?) nations of anarchy. Civilized nations have some form of “rule book”. The U.S. has a Constitution. It establishes a huge, encompassing ideology on how all of these many & diverse ppl will manage to co-exist…and, to obtain as much of those quality of life things you mention….even the part about disagreeing on the way the majority is going to do that.

Fortunately, under our Constitution, the “rule book” dictates what all ppl will legally do instead of the majority dictating it. (yeah, I know…a “majority” can change the rule book, with a great deal of difficulty, as it should be). A minority of one can still have a Constitutional Right which must be observed regardless of what a majority believes.

As I pointed out, human nature, in all of its glorious diversity, is going to result in contention, conflict, discord. Laws (rule books) are the method by which these issues are resolved…..hopefully, well BEFORE they reach the punitive stages established in those “rules”. (XX yd. penalty for clipping/face-masking/unsportsmanlike conduct, etc).
.

Only if someone is a hard core libertarian and absolutely minds their own business—and it’s very hard to do, as it seems almost against most human nature—can they lay claim to the mindset of “your do your own thing, I’ll do mine”. I’ll admit, I can’t do it.

NO.
One doesn’t need to be much hard core anything in order to life peacefully within a society…..to have fun playing a game w/ others.
All they need do is be earnestly sincere about agreeing to & playing by a set of rules that are best suited for the game being played.

In the case of a huge society such as that of America, we are fortunate to have our Constitution to keep bigots from playing the “game-0-life” in the manner they want and usually think all others should do likewise….which is to deny Constitutionally legal rights of other ppl in the game.

The mindset of “you do your own thing, I’ll do mine” is entirely possible within these rules.
Sure, only a fool (even well beyond a Libertarian) would believe this to be 100% possible.
Yet, w/ a good set of rules, a society can have a rich diversity and still have as much “each unto his own” as is humanly possible.

It is when bigots fail to understand the rules (or opt to just ignore them & twist them to their own ends) that the system breaks down and we have our current situation. But, interestingly enough….social issues (as opposed to economic ones) are being resolved quite handily. Women got the vote. Racism is being stamped out. Abortion is legal & safe. Gays can come out of the closet. The war on drugs is being shown for the folly it is. Prostitution will come out of the “massage parlors” (wink-wink) before 2030.

There is absolutely nothing “wrong” about diversity.
It is when that diversity is hugely skewed into extremes that cause unresolvable conflicts is where the flames of semi-anarchy are fanned. There is absolutely nothing wrong w/ doing/being different….as long as it falls w/in the parameters of the established rules of the game.

Rules are important.
The game of football was almost outlawed because: 1905 had been a bloody year on the gridiron; the Chicago Tribune reported 18 players had been killed and 159 seriously injured that season.4 There were moves to abolish the game. But President Theodore Roosevelt personally intervened and demanded that the rules of the game be reformed. In a meeting of more than 60 schools in late 1905, the commitment was made to make the game safer. This meeting was the first step toward the establishment of what would become the NCAA and was followed by several sessions to work out “the new rules.”

The same goes for a society, if the current “rules” aren’t working, they need to be AMENDED via the process set out in the Big rulebook. This is what also happened to bring the forward pass into football. Right here in Wichita, an experimental game using the forward pass was played: In a 1905 experimental game, Washburn University and Fairmount College (what would become Wichita State) used the pass before new rules allowing the play were approved in early 1906.2 Credit for the first pass goes to Fairmount’s Bill Davis, who completed a pass to Art Solter.

As games & life evolve, so must the rules by which they are played. New concepts should be experimented with. They also must pass the test of being lawful. A society that is dead set against even trying new concepts (selfish bigotry?) is going to stagnate and fall behind all others in the journey into the future.

Disclaimer: All of the above is presented in hugely generalized format.
LOL

And, speaking of Wichita State….23 & 0 for men’s basketball.
Ranked #4
Go Shocks….Wu…Wu….WuShock

 
Flag Post

After having been away for a long time I can still see the same threads being discussed (whether or not in a slightly different form).

I understand that this topic is supposed to be about abortion, but it only started out with the specific part about human life. In fact, some important distinctions are to be made between human life and human rights. Those who wish for abortion to be illegal are arguing about arbitrary borders and those who wish for it to be legal are unsure which borders to use, and both sides are based around human life and human rights. Human rights certainly should be given to human beings, but when? Not all human rights are applicable or even possible for a fetus inside the mother’s womb, so you are restricting certain rights to the fetus already. The right to life is the source here and if given at conception, certainly abortion is illegal by default, and the opposite. The discussion about abortion, therefore, really should only be about at what point in life human rights should be provided.

Unfortunately, that is arbitrary and setting the line with your mind on abortion should not be the case. I see the need for the right to abortion which is why human rights should not be given at conception.

 
Flag Post
I can’t see where it differentiates which are part of the ‘09 bill and which are part of the new bill.

The only measures the new bill did in regards to safety was require the attending physician have admitting rights to a hospital within 30 miles.

How many times do you need me to concede that it’s not dangerous?

I was under the impression that you thought it was dangerous enough that it warranted heavier measures. In my opinion, a .00001 rate of deaths, most of which probably happened in the earlier years when medical technology wasn’t as good and there wasn’t chemical abortion, means that the current measures in place are quite reasonable.

Tons of people die in car crashes a year. Should we require automakers to spend millions of dollars to create ultrasafe cars that it’s nearly impossible to die in? It’s kind of the same thing here, and it sounds heartless if you think of it that way, but really the question becomes – at what point does the cost exceed the benefit?

The discussion about abortion, therefore, really should only be about at what point in life human rights should be provided.

As I’ve said earlier, I think this is a women’s rights thing, purely. Regardless if everyone wanted to define an embryo at point of conception (extreme view) as being utterly human, I would still support women having the right to remove that from their bodies if they chose to. It is irrelevant, in my mind, what you want to call it. I do not care at what point we consider the embryo/fetus to have rights, as long as there is a reasonable amount of time for a woman to learn she is pregnant, think about whether she wants to keep it or not, and get an abortion for any reason. The immutable fact that a fetus must be inside a woman gives her the right to choose whether she wants it there or not. After that reasonable time period, abortions should only be allowed for serious issues or other exceptions which I’ve mentioned over the course of this thread, up until the point that the fetus is viable outside the womb without extensive medical support.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kasic:

I was under the impression that you thought it was dangerous enough that it warranted heavier measures. In my opinion, a .00001 rate of deaths, most of which probably happened in the earlier years when medical technology wasn’t as good and there wasn’t chemical abortion, means that the current measures in place are quite reasonable.

to us sane people, abortion has a 50% death rate because we consider babies to be human and thus deserving of basic human rights

 
Flag Post
Should we require automakers to spend millions of dollars to create ultrasafe cars that it’s nearly impossible to die in?

We’re actually requiring them to create less-safe cars because omg global warming.

Ung:

When does obstruction become prevention, when does duress become control? What are the motives, the consequences? The idea that so long as an act is technically possible, as relates to our freedoms, it counts, is a spooky one.

There’s no hard and fast rule. Depending on the act, we’re willing to tolerate quite a bit. In order to board a plane, you can make a compelling argument that TSA is bypassing our Fourth Amendment right, yet the fuss regarding it is pretty muted. Now, compared to something like free speech which we, for the most part, value quite highly, we’re not willing to sacrifice nearly as much.

I think as long as a regulation can be shown to have a compelling reason other than simply blocking an act, then it can have merit. While there are doubtless many people who want these regulations in order to limit the number of abortions, there are other compelling reasons as well for these regulations that go beyond simply obstruction.

I think that may be a bit of a dated benchmark. I’m assuming we both agree that the goal for sex education is to, well, educate about sex before sexual activity. I’d suggest mandatory sexual education at roughly the age of sexual maturation. I don’t think we should be withholding vital health information to it’s most relevant parties to pursue a moral agenda based on obfuscation and ignorance of the body.

Fair enough – I was just sort of throwing it out there. If we want to make it 7th grade, fine.

What I had in mind are the stories of kindergarteners being taught sex-ed and the parents are required to opt-out. It’s the extreme example, but I think there should be a gray zone (perhaps 12-14 or so) where schools can either have it or not if they wish. Earlier, they can (but they must require an opt-in) and later (probably should be an opt-out provision).

I don’t care zilch about potential humans personally, I feel as bad about early abortions as I do about antibacterial soap or if a butterfly is going to start a hurricane.

Not universal, no, but the overwhelmingly majority of this country do see some value (otherwise, the number of people who support abortion at any time would be much higher) meaning there’s no real compelling reason to not have that burden.

 
Flag Post
We’re actually requiring them to create less-safe cars because omg global warming.

You must see my point though, because you didn’t say anything else.

While there are doubtless many people who want these regulations in order to limit the number of abortions, there are other compelling reasons as well for these regulations that go beyond simply obstruction.

The idea of them yes. Making it safer for a woman to have an abortion is not wrong. Designing a bill for the sole purpose of closing down as many abortion clinics as possible that are already quite safe with the intent of obstructing a woman’s ability to get an abortion is not the way to go about it. In actuality, it probably isn’t any safer to require a woman have an abortion at a clinic 30 miles away from a hospital, performed by a physician with admitting privileges. The abortion clinics are already equipped to handle emergencies of the kind that might occur from a complication during abortion and already must be performed by certified personnel.

What I had in mind are the stories of kindergarteners being taught sex-ed

As if kindergarteners will understand or remember any of it. The only education a pre-pubescent child needs in that regards is awareness of what child abuse is and how they can protect themselves, how to call for help if in danger, and where to go if they have already experienced abuse.

It’s the extreme example, but I think there should be a gray zone (perhaps 12-14 or so) where schools can either have it or not if they wish.

I disagree. Children going through puberty should be educated about it. There shouldn’t be any mystery or stigma around sexuality and growing up. They should learn about their bodies as they are changing, so they know what to expect and aren’t scared, uncertain, or insecure. This ridiculous puritan notion that it’s wrong to know about sex is quite frankly stupid and irresponsible.

 
Flag Post
You must see my point though, because you didn’t say anything else.

It’s a really invalid reason because we have already required automakers to spend millions of dollars to make safer cars (safety standards, doncha know) and are now doing it with fuel efficiency standards.

This ridiculous puritan notion that it’s wrong to know about sex is quite frankly stupid and irresponsible.

And if parents want to teach their kids about sex at the ripe old age of 7, you know what they can do? They can teach them! Imagine that – allowing the parent to step up to the plate.

Likewise, it’s not a puritan notion – it’s the notion of letting a kid be a kid rather than accelerating them through childhood as quickly as possible.

 
Flag Post

So, since I haven’t the time to read all that I’ve missed (though a scanning perusal reveals SSDD), I want to ask if we are still at: issendorf using all manner of distortion and misdirection to keep from having to step up to the plate and take a swing at the simple hardball of the very obvious fact that all of this smokescreen about abortion clinic regulations & requirements laid on women seeking an abortion is nothing but attempts to do whatever THEY CAN LEGALLY GET AWAY WITH.

At least “legally” until a court strikes it down. But, these crazies are okay w/ that….little wins here & there are still victories in the war.

But, I want to direct you to something very similar—yet exreeeeeeemly sinister by comparison—to what my state is trying to do to Gays. Go to the Gay Marriage thread.

 
Flag Post
It’s a really invalid reason because we have already required automakers to spend millions of dollars to make safer cars (safety standards, doncha know) and are now doing it with fuel efficiency standards.

Yes, we have. And we consider cars safe. Yet people still die from them, far more often than abortions. Getting an abortion is obviously safe when done by a trained professional. Why must 1/3 of abortion clinics close because of a .00001% chance of death?

And if parents want to teach their kids about sex at the ripe old age of 7, you know what they can do? They can teach them! Imagine that – allowing the parent to step up to the plate.

Yeah, it’d be great if parents actually parented. But when you have crap like parents not teaching their kids about science, denying them medicine and going with herbal remedies and prayer, telling them to just not have sex, not having them vaccinated, and all sorts of other things, it’s a problem.

Likewise, it’s not a puritan notion – it’s the notion of letting a kid be a kid rather than accelerating them through childhood as quickly as possible.

Oh please. Kids ALREADY KNOW about sex. They know it exists. They know girls and boys are different. Not teaching them instead of letting them wonder about details and feelings they have and confusing themselves or making mistakes because of it in the name of “innocence” is ridiculously irresponsible and stupid.

 
Flag Post

I agree, banning abortion is a good idea because it will lower crime rates!

The following things will happen:
1. with illegal abortion, medical fraud will go down. fewer doctors = less fraud!
2. all of those unwanted kids will get to grow up in loving homes and become well adjusted members of society

Actually, with doctors no longer murdering babies, they can focus on treating people with actual medical problems!

so banning abortion is a net positive

discuss

 
Flag Post
I agree, banning abortion is a good idea because it will lower crime rates!

Legalizing abortion actually did have a drastic effect on crime rates. When abortion was legalized, crime rates abruptly began to drop 20ish years afterwards. Know why? Women weren’t raising kids they didn’t want to raise, and they were raising them in better situations because they were able to put off having a kid to get into a better life position or more education. There were less children in low income homes, and there were less children in homes without two parents. The mothers were older and more mature when they did decide to have a kid, and the kid was likely planned and wanted.

 
Flag Post
Why must 1/3 of abortion clinics close because of a .00001% chance of death?

1) There are other outcomes other than “Clean Abortion” and “Death.”

2) Not all medical incidents are reported (how many aren’t is, obviously, impossible to say) so your stat is inherently flawed. Someone who’s performing an illegal abortion (likely later in the term when it’s more likely something will go wrong) aren’t going to report said botched abortion to the authorities.

Yeah, it’d be great if parents actually parented. But when you have crap like parents not teaching their kids about science, denying them medicine and going with herbal remedies and prayer, telling them to just not have sex, not having them vaccinated, and all sorts of other things, it’s a problem.

Ah yes, we need the almighty government to come to the rescue. Our proverbial knight in shining armour.

Not teaching them instead of letting them wonder about details and feelings they have and confusing themselves or making mistakes because of it in the name of “innocence” is ridiculously irresponsible and stupid.

No doubt you have a wealth of personal child-rearing experience needed to make that claim (and before you post some study defending your point that all our children will be better off if we teach them about sexual intercourse at the age of 11, I can just as easily produce something that counters it, so let’s not waste each other’s time with that step, shall we).

Legalizing abortion actually did have a drastic effect on crime rates. When abortion was legalized, crime rates abruptly began to drop 20ish years afterwards.

I personally think it had more do with the “Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (since we’ giving credit for laws producing societal change 25 years after the fact).”

 
Flag Post
1) There are other outcomes other than “Clean Abortion” and “Death.”

Which the abortion clinics are able to handle. Regardless of whether an abortion is performed within 30 miles of a hospital or not, they have to be done by a trained professional. It makes no difference procedure wise where it occurs.

Someone who’s performing an illegal abortion (likely later in the term when it’s more likely something will go wrong) aren’t going to report said botched abortion to the authorities.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion on whether these legal abortions need to be closer to a hospital.

Ah yes, we need the almighty government to come to the rescue. Our proverbial knight in shining armour.

Lol no. I’d much rather people weren’t idiots. The government can’t do things as well as individuals can.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kasic:
Likewise, it’s not a puritan notion – it’s the notion of letting a kid be a kid rather than accelerating them through childhood as quickly as possible.

Oh please. Kids ALREADY KNOW about sex. They know it exists. They know girls and boys are different. Not teaching them instead of letting them wonder about details and feelings they have and confusing themselves or making mistakes because of it in the name of “innocence” is ridiculously irresponsible and stupid.

A very good rule of thumb when it comes to telling a kid about the “birds-N-bees”, since not all kids are the “same”, is to be a good parent and ACTUALLY KNOW YOUR KID. By doing that, you will be able to “be there” for them and answer/supply information as they are ready/capable of handling it.

Like much in life, all it really takes is for those ppl who are natural leaders to be proactive.
The will be the ones that are upfront & natural w/ their children.
The “lesser” will “street learn” the better information from these kids.
Those who aren’t able to be in such “friend-circles” (and for other reasons) will suffer the usual ignorance-factor and get knocked up at 15, drop out of school, and be on welfare the rest of her life. Her kid(s) will grow up to be thieves and live in jails most of their lives.

Yeah, screw that sex-ed shit.
It’s stoooopid and against MY religion.
As a parent, it’s my right to keep my kid as ignorant as I want them to be.
It’s the best way to keep them out of trouble.
Right, CROW?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Yeah, screw that sex-ed shit.
It’s stoooopid and against MY religion.
As a parent, it’s my right to keep my kid as ignorant as I want them to be.
It’s the best way to keep them out of trouble.
Right, CROW?

wow karma i didnt know you were like that

your post is so… illuminating…

also you should teach kids about sex when they’re ready because that makes sense

maybe if there were fewer parents like karma, who keep their kids ignorant, hatred wouldnt exist

 
Flag Post

I thought I’d throw something out there.

The rate of death for birth is higher than that for abortion. WAYYYYYY higher.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/why-are-so-many-u-s-women-dying-during-childbirth/article_dd916b4b-38f0-5bae-ba42-ddee636e4cf4.html
http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/more-us-mothers-dying-despite-expensive-care

Which side is really “pro-life?”

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kasic:

I thought I’d throw something out there.

The rate of death for birth is higher than that for abortion. WAYYYYYY higher.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/why-are-so-many-u-s-women-dying-during-childbirth/article_dd916b4b-38f0-5bae-ba42-ddee636e4cf4.html
http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/more-us-mothers-dying-despite-expensive-care

Which side is really “pro-life?”

pro-lifers arent even pro life they are all "OMG PROTECT TEH BABEEZ!!!!" but then they are all "OMG CUT SOCIAL WELFARE SO POOR KIDS WIL STARVE TO DEATH!!!!"
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RollerCROWster:
Originally posted by Kasic:

I thought I’d throw something out there.

The rate of death for birth is higher than that for abortion. WAYYYYYY higher.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/why-are-so-many-u-s-women-dying-during-childbirth/article_dd916b4b-38f0-5bae-ba42-ddee636e4cf4.html
http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/more-us-mothers-dying-despite-expensive-care

Which side is really “pro-life?”

pro-lifers arent even pro life they are all "OMG PROTECT TEH BABEEZ!!!!" but then they are all "OMG CUT SOCIAL WELFARE SO POOR KIDS WIL STARVE TO DEATH!!!!"
Umm, sir? Have you read the article? "Kristin Marlowe, 20, was seven months pregnant and being treated for a placental tear at Springfield Mercy Hospital in Springfield, Mo., when she died of a stroke on Aug. 8. Doctors are unsure what caused the stroke." "The 20th century saw a dramatic decrease in pregnancy-related deaths, largely because of improvements in sterile techniques — reaching the lowest point in 1987 at 7.2 deaths per 100,000 live births. The most recent figures available show the rate hovers around 15 deaths per 100,000 births — placing the U.S. near the bottom among developed nations." That isn't a very big number. What do you say humanity should do, anyway? Not have any births for the risk of harming the potential mother? Sure, that would save the mothers, but that would leave us with a birth rate of 0. Which means goodbye humanity. I'd say the reason for so many deaths is because of horrible foods (Processed, GMO, etc.) and other shit that humanity decided to dump into the world that isn't very good for a biological system to function correctly. Also, Roller, where are you getting this? Where are the pro-life people who want to cut social welfare, again? Last time I checked, the ones who wanted to cut welfare are the elite, because they hate seeing a few of their pennies being given to the people who break their backs for the elite's profits, and by the people (ie, the 'dumb masses') tricked by the elite. The only Pro-Life people who want to cut social welfare are the same people being tricked into doing so. Any elite condemning abortion is most likely (Maybe with some exceptions?) a PR statement, since they don't give two shits about anyone but themselves and their friends.
 
Flag Post

EDIT: Oops, accidental double post. Sorry.

 
Flag Post
Umm, sir? Have you read the article?

Yep. I’m only commenting on the relative rates – the articles I linked are fairly neutral in presentation of facts.

That isn’t a very big number.

And it’s still magnitudes larger than the death rate for abortions, which was my point. It was being argued by Issendorf that abortions are so dangerous that a bill warranting the closure of 1/3 on them in Texas was justified on grounds that it was unsafe for women.

What do you say humanity should do, anyway? Not have any births for the risk of harming the potential mother?

Yeah…I absolutely think that. Everything I’ve said up till now indicates I think all unborn babies should die painful, terrible deaths and that we should die off as a species.

I’d say the reason for so many deaths is because of horrible foods (Processed, GMO, etc.) and other shit that humanity decided to dump into the world that isn’t very good for a biological system to function correctly.

That was my conclusion as well, minus the GMOs (which aren’t inherently bad or good, they’re just altered and it depends what ones we’re talking about) and that it’s because of our lifestyle and lack of general health that there are more pregnancy related deaths.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator