If Only They Would Stick to Fiscal Issues

[GIThruster]

It ain't me buddy. It is 3,300 years of Jewish law you have an argument with.

Simon, you need to stop making up bullshit and publishing it as if you had a clue. You don't. Jewish law has been anything but monolithic over the last 3,000 years but if one wants to risk a generalization, it has been opposed to abortion after the 40th day. That is a gross overgeneralization however because the Torah says nothing about it, the Talmud only slightly more and all views of abortion have changed since we moved from an agrarian to an industrial society where children are now viewed as mouths to feed rather than hands to work.

But long story shot, you are full of shit once more, and know nothing of what you speak.

[Skipjack]

It is funny, but the longer I have been on this board, the more I like Msimon and we were butting heads on some issues quite a bit, especially in the beginning.
I am totally in agreement with him on this issue though.
Religious believes should not define politics. They are a personal matter and anyone is free to make their own decisions based on their religious believes. You think that an abortion after a rape is a sin (no matter how early too)? Nobody is foricing you to have an abortion. Live with the offspring of the rape!
But also accept the idea that the rapists (potentially bad and dangerous) genes have been passed on to another generation. Live with that then too!
But these decisions should be everyones PERSONAL decisions and not someones religious believes forced on everyone.
Oh and the "adoption" argument does only deal with part of the issue. It does not factor in 9 months of trouble, hours of labour in pain, loss of income, loss of appeal, loss of beauty, etc for the woman. This is especially the case in a country where women have basically no maternity leave at all.

[GIThruster]

You think that an abortion after a rape is a sin (no matter how early too)?

No. I'm pro-choice. However, I think the points others made above are completely true. Everyone has to choose a point where they treat a human as human. The argument that conception should be the starting point is a very strong, rational argument that does not require any specific religious doctrine or background to embrace. The idea that such a decision should be made only as relates to what is expedient, is atrocious and immoral. The same argument you're making here, based upon the crazy "it's everyone's personal choice" is just the argument used to support pedophilia and aborting children after birth up the the age of 5-6 years old. It's a completely failed argument with so many flaws that they're not worth addressing. I'm honestly shocked you think in such an infantile fashion on this issue.

Personally, I think after the second trimester one is hard pressed to say a fetus is not a person. It has its own blood and heartbeat, brainwaves and consciousness. No one would ever have voted to kill babies in the third trimester so what we have is sociological law generated through the courts instead of a legitimate legal process where we made a law. I'm opposed to the courts making such rulings. But all that aside, I was not arguing against abortion. I was merely noting that once again, Simon is full of shit.

[93143]

It ain't me buddy.

Dammit, I knew you would jump on that, but I was in a hurry and couldn't be bothered to rewrite the sentence.

You were the one who brought it up to try to make a point, and you plainly concur, not only about the judgment but about the underlying value assumptions (some of which may yet be invisible to you, it seems to me).

...

I'm not sure I can do a whole lot more good around here.

The lesson in this thread is that politicians need to be very careful about the sequences of words they let out of their mouths during elections. It's kinda like talking to police officers - it almost doesn't matter what you say; it will be used against you...

[GIThruster]

The lesson in this thread is that politicians need to be very careful about the sequences of words they let out of their mouths during elections. It's kinda like talking to police officers - it almost doesn't matter what you say; it will be used against you...

That's true. That's why pundits always draw the distinction whether a political move is meant to appeal to the base, or the middle. Any proposition intended to mobilize any portion of a political base, left or right, would alienate a moderate. It would alienate various other portions of the same base as well. What a political candidate says while speaking in a church is not what he says on the steps leading into the courthouse. What Reverend Wright preached from the pulpit for 20 years while OBama attended his church would severely offend 99% of the people in this country, but inside a liberal, leftist church that is common and understandable. It's when these specialized statements are taken from their context and given to people they were never intended for, that they sound so absurd.

[MSimon]

It ain't me buddy. It is 3,300 years of Jewish law you have an argument with.

Simon, you need to stop making up bullshit and publishing it as if you had a clue. You don't. Jewish law has been anything but monolithic over the last 3,000 years but if one wants to risk a generalization, it has been opposed to abortion after the 40th day. That is a gross overgeneralization however because the Torah says nothing about it, the Talmud only slightly more and all views of abortion have changed since we moved from an agrarian to an industrial society where children are now viewed as mouths to feed rather than hands to work.

But long story shot, you are full of shit once more, and know nothing of what you speak.

Well the law changes. And it is informed by 3,300 years of history. And abortion after the 40th day is considered morally wrong as you point out. before quickening it is permissible but frowned upon.

But the current view I stated is correct. If in the opinion of competent authorities the mental health of the mother would be seriously compromised by carrying to term the current Orthodox view is that ABORTION IS MANDATORY.

It is you who are blowing smoke.

You might not believe it but I have actually studied the matter. In depth in the last few years.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... rtion.html

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... rtion.html

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... worth.html

Not to mention an Orthodox guy who reads me confirming that in some situations ABORTION IS MANDATORY.

But the punch line still stands:

Every time the Republicans get heavy handed on their view of moral issues they lose elections. You would think they would stop being stupid. Nope. The way to bet is that they will get stupider.

You didn't have to go out of your way to prove my point. But I do thank you.

[GIThruster]

Like I said, Simon is full of shit and does not know what he's talking about.

"In 2001, Jewish ethicist Daniel Eisenberg summarized the typical exceptions permitted by some authorities: "Judaism recognizes psychiatric as well as physical factors in evaluating the potential threat that the fetus poses to the woman. However, the danger posed by the fetus (whether physical or emotional) must be both probable and substantial to justify abortion. The degree of mental illness which must be present to justify termination of a pregnancy is not well established and therefore criteria for permitting abortion in such instances remain controversial."[34]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion

[Skipjack]

argument that conception should be the starting point is a very strong, rational argument that does not require any specific religious doctrine or background to embrace.

I think that we should distinguish between human life and self aware human life. In Austria, abortion is legal for any reason until the end of the 3rd month. In some circumstances longer than that. At that point the fetus is still not that advanced in its development and only a little bigger than a peanut shell.
I have to admit that beyond the 3rd month, I would - personally- have some issues with abortion as well, unless circumstances are severe (rape is one of them, medical reasons like severe defects and danger to the life of the mother another).

[GIThruster]

I would - personally- have some issues with abortion as well, unless circumstances are severe (rape is one of them, medical reasons like severe defects and danger to the life of the mother another).

Well you can see the principle behind the statements that have been quoted out of context. The contention is that abortion is murder, and that the source of the pregnancy does not come to this issue. This is true. If one has to respect life from the moment of conception as fully human and deserving of protection, then the argument for abortion based on rape, incest or any other justification is a justification for murder.

I'm not comfortable with presuming life has to be protected as fully human from conception, so I'm not in the fullest sense pro-life. I do sympathize with the argument however. Whether a person is the product of a rape or not, that person is fully human and deserves protection. The question is really when to begin treating the fetus as a person. Rape is not a reason to treat a person as less a person.

I would say too, the pro-life people have had this right all along. They have been correct to couch the debate in terms of respect for all human life. Pro-choice advocates usually stumble into non-sensical contentions in this regard. The argument about how dependent upon the mother a fetus is at any certain age, thus rendering it merely a "growth" much like a parasite seems to me can be related to children after birth as well. That argument holds no water.

Drawing distinctions based upon brain development and function seems to me a most reasonable one and certainly, by the third trimester, babies have fully functioning brains. "self aware" is another issue that some anthropologists say didn't occur in humanity until several centuries after the development of writing. Best not go there as what qualifies as "self aware" is a tricky subject. It's certainly not a digital subject, either yes/no. There are many degrees of self-awareness.

[seedload]

I dont have much to add except to say that you can be pro choice, be a reoublican, and that does not necessarily make you libertarian contraru to whay skip originally implied

There is room for complicated positions. Personally, i am pro choice, a republican, and i wouldnt call myself libratarian. I also think Roe Wade was a terrible decision because the 14 th ammendment obviously doesnt apply and abortion is therefore avstate issue. Some recent statements by Republican leaders are detestable. Persannay, i do wish my party wasnt so often so extreme on this issue. This should be a Constitutional debate.

Regards.

[Stubby]

Unless any of you have a uterus, you really should shut the hell up.

[GIThruster]

No Stubby. Decisions about what constitutes murder do not belong to the fairer sex alone. That's an inane position.

[Stubby]

Yes GIThruster
If you plan on forcing women to become incubators against their will.

[GIThruster]

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything and as I said, I'm pro-choice. But the fact you are shoveling your childish opinion the way you are while telling others they can't makes you out to be a monumental hypocrite--unless of course you have a uterus. I'd taken "Stubby" as that you have a tiny penis instead.

[Betruger]

childish opinion

you have a tiny penis