Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   "Abortion at the heart of Ohio Supreme Court case" Well *reads article* abortion is at the heart, once you remove all the "outright lying and slander of someone to make your backwards ideals politically palpable" organs around it   (politico.com) divider line 212
    More: Asinine, Ohio Supreme Court, supreme court ruling, Ohio, Susan B. Anthony List, abortions, Marjorie Dannenfelser, Steve Driehaus, Mike DeWine  
•       •       •

1921 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Apr 2014 at 9:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



212 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-22 08:57:08 AM  
My coat hanger of truth should help with those lying organs!
 
2014-04-22 09:19:36 AM  
hey, assholes: if you have to lie to make your point, maybe your point isn't valid?
 
2014-04-22 09:43:26 AM  
The justices aren't likely to decide whether the law chills free speech-although Susan B. Anthony List and even the Ohio attorney general say that it does. They're instead being asked to decide whether SBA List has standing to challenge the law since the group was never prosecuted under it.

Hey, standing is boring and most people without a law degree don't really debate it so let's dedicate the rest of the article to issues that aren't even before the court and let people get all worked up and frothing at the mouth over something they aren't even going to decide!
 
2014-04-22 09:43:42 AM  
Isn't libel still a crime either way?
 
2014-04-22 09:44:07 AM  
1) It should be illegal to knowingly publish false information about political candidates, or anybody for that matter.
2) Claims of taxpayer funded abortion are arguably not false.  Supreme court determined that the individual mandate was constitutional in part because it should be regarded as a tax.  Funds from that tax go into an insurance pool that funds various healthcare and healthcare-esque expenses, including abortions.  Hence, taxpayer funded abortions.
3) I'm as anti-abortion as they come, but I don't think taxpayers funding them is a problem.  Cutting costs is in the government's best interest, so if some sort of panel determines that aborting a fetus is more cost effective than paying for a lifetime of continuing healthcare, that should be an option the government can make.  If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should--it should be illegal for ordinary citizens as well as the federal government.  Otherwise, it should be legal for everybody.
 
2014-04-22 09:44:42 AM  

Chabash: Isn't libel still a crime either way?


No. Libel is a civil cause of action.
 
2014-04-22 09:49:37 AM  

Nabb1: Chabash: Isn't libel still a crime either way?

No. Libel is a civil cause of action.


Okay, isn't it publishing blatantly false statements still libel?
 
2014-04-22 09:52:41 AM  

Chabash: Nabb1: Chabash: Isn't libel still a crime either way?

No. Libel is a civil cause of action.

Okay, isn't it publishing blatantly false statements still libel?


With public figures you have to show malice. That element is probably satisfied here.
 
2014-04-22 09:53:13 AM  

Chabash: Nabb1: Chabash: Isn't libel still a crime either way?

No. Libel is a civil cause of action.

Okay, isn't it publishing blatantly false statements still libel?


That depends. It depends one who the subject of the allegedly false statements is (i.e. "public figure" versus ordinary person), and in the case of public figures, the plaintiff must show that the person making the claims knew they were false and acted with actual malice. It's almost impossible for a well-known political figure or elected official to make that showing.
 
2014-04-22 10:04:32 AM  

serial_crusher: If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should--it should be illegal for ordinary citizens as well as the federal government. Otherwise, it should be legal for everybody.


Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions.

It kills women who have complications with their pregnancies.
It drives desperate women into back-alley clinics and other awful back-alley solutions, or dangerous attempts to induce miscarriage.
It increases suicide rates among pregnant women who see no way out.
It traps families with children with no quality of life and massive medical bills.
And it doesn't stop rich people from having abortions - they just travel to where it's legal.  It only stops poor people.

The way to reduce the number of abortions as much as possible are universal sex education and easily, cheaply-available contraception.  You and I both I see an abortion rate as low as possible as a good thing, but banning it doesn't significantly decrease the rate of abortion, only sharply increases the risks to pregnant women.  We should focus on preventing unwanted pregnancy and keep abortion legal so that it can be safe when it does happen.
 
2014-04-22 10:07:06 AM  

DemonEater: The way to reduce the number of abortions as much as possible are universal sex education and easily, cheaply-available contraception.


I think abortion is often insidious, unnecessary and barbaric from a moral standpoint, but I respect the law on the issue, and I agree with the above.
 
2014-04-22 10:13:29 AM  

serial_crusher: Claims of taxpayer funded abortion are arguably not false.


You know, except for the part where abortions are explicitly exempted from being paid for with government funds.  Obamacare has not invalidated the Hyde Amendment.

serial_crusher: If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should


Can you provide an intelligent argument for making abortion illegal that isn't based on religious belief?
 
2014-04-22 10:21:33 AM  

serial_crusher: 1) It should be illegal to knowingly publish factually false information about political candidates, or anybody for that matter.


I have no issue with a law saying you can't - in an official 'campaign' ad - bring up a candidate or official's gender-reassignment surgery and longstanding membership with the Loudon County Coven of Cannibal Witches if such things never took place.

Elections have special importance, and muddying those waters with patently false information should be a citable offense (maybe a few weeks/months of jail time for repeat offenders), maybe a loss of standing to run or invalidating an election certificate if the candidate wins (is that legal?).

// of course, I also think campaigns need public financing and/or blind-donation rules (porquenolosdos.jpg)
 
2014-04-22 10:25:13 AM  

serial_crusher: 1) It should be illegal to knowingly publish false information about political candidates, or anybody for that matter.
2) Claims of taxpayer funded abortion are arguably not false.  Supreme court determined that the individual mandate was constitutional in part because it should be regarded as a tax.  Funds from that tax go into an insurance pool that funds various healthcare and healthcare-esque expenses, including abortions.  Hence, taxpayer funded abortions.
3) I'm as anti-abortion as they come, but I don't think taxpayers funding them is a problem.  Cutting costs is in the government's best interest, so if some sort of panel determines that aborting a fetus is more cost effective than paying for a lifetime of continuing healthcare, that should be an option the government can make.  If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should--it should be illegal for ordinary citizens as well as the federal government.  Otherwise, it should be legal for everybody.


How do you feel about taxpayer-funded murder? Because we've got entire industries devoted to that.
 
2014-04-22 10:26:34 AM  
I disagree in this instance with the ACLU. We should be able to restrict outright falsehoods in political speech.
 
2014-04-22 10:27:01 AM  

Flaumig: serial_crusher: If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should

Can you provide an intelligent argument for making abortion illegal that isn't based on religious belief?


Would you accept "they're people, and it's murder" as an intelligent argument that isn't based on religious belief?
If not, I'd like to challenge you to make and intelligent argument for continuing to keep adult-murder illegal; one that isn't based on religious belief.
 
2014-04-22 10:30:47 AM  

DemonEater: serial_crusher: If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should--it should be illegal for ordinary citizens as well as the federal government. Otherwise, it should be legal for everybody.

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions.

It kills women who have complications with their pregnancies.
It drives desperate women into back-alley clinics and other awful back-alley solutions, or dangerous attempts to induce miscarriage.
It increases suicide rates among pregnant women who see no way out.
It traps families with children with no quality of life and massive medical bills.
And it doesn't stop rich people from having abortions - they just travel to where it's legal.  It only stops poor people.

The way to reduce the number of abortions as much as possible are universal sex education and easily, cheaply-available contraception.  You and I both I see an abortion rate as low as possible as a good thing, but banning it doesn't significantly decrease the rate of abortion, only sharply increases the risks to pregnant women.  We should focus on preventing unwanted pregnancy and keep abortion legal so that it can be safe when it does happen.


This would work if the goal of pro-life groups was actually to reduce the number of abortion.
But since their real goal is to punish women for having sex, it's all moot.
 
2014-04-22 10:31:51 AM  

serial_crusher: Would you accept "they're people, and it's murder" as an intelligent argument that isn't based on religious belief?
If not, I'd like to challenge you to make and intelligent argument for continuing to keep adult-murder illegal; one that isn't based on religious belief.


Except that if you have an adult relative who's actually legally a person and they have no recognizably human brain function and need external devices to help them live, you can "pull the plug", as it were, and that's not murder.

Why can you not do the same thing to a developing organism that also has no recognizably human brain function and needs the organs of another human being to survive?
 
2014-04-22 10:36:00 AM  

Nabb1: DemonEater: The way to reduce the number of abortions as much as possible are universal sex education and easily, cheaply-available contraception.

I think abortion is often insidious, unnecessary and barbaric from a moral standpoint, but I respect the law on the issue, and I agree with the above.


I was never comfortable with the moral flexibility required for this argument.  "It's insidious and barbaric, but don't let that stop anybody."  Argument not valid if you're one of the people who rationalizes that fetuses aren't people, but I assume you wouldn't find it any more insidious or barbaric than removing a ruptured appendix if you were one of those.

DemonEater: it doesn't stop rich people from having abortions - they just travel to where it's legal. It only stops poor people.


Rich people travel to have sex with children as well.  We should make it legal here so poor people can get some as well.  It's only fair!
We have laws against child sex tourism that are enforced here, don't we? (I'm not about to start googling for citations on that from the corporate network...)  We could do the same with abortion tourism if it was a problem.
 
2014-04-22 10:36:03 AM  

serial_crusher: Flaumig: serial_crusher: If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should

Can you provide an intelligent argument for making abortion illegal that isn't based on religious belief?

Would you accept "they're people, and it's murder" as an intelligent argument that isn't based on religious belief?
If not, I'd like to challenge you to make and intelligent argument for continuing to keep adult-murder illegal; one that isn't based on religious belief.


I suppose it should also be noted that when the abortion takes place depends on whether it was a person or not. Until they leave the womb, they are not, actually people, but that may be splitting hairs. Let's say you have it done in the first trimester, is that murder since it's anywhere from a group of cells to a multi-group of cells in the shape of a human tadpole?

while I find your argument that it's murder of a human and therefore wrong, to be admirable, I have to wonder if the benefits of bringing this child into a life where they aren't wanted or will be subject to abject poverty and a life that is ill-fitting of being born to such an advanced nation if abortion should be allowed because you're saving the kid, not killing them. A quick, painless death is far more palpable than a long, unwelcome life of misery and suffering.
 
2014-04-22 10:39:23 AM  

Mercutio74: serial_crusher: Would you accept "they're people, and it's murder" as an intelligent argument that isn't based on religious belief?
If not, I'd like to challenge you to make and intelligent argument for continuing to keep adult-murder illegal; one that isn't based on religious belief.

Except that if you have an adult relative who's actually legally a person and they have no recognizably human brain function and need external devices to help them live, you can "pull the plug", as it were, and that's not murder.

Why can you not do the same thing to a developing organism that also has no recognizably human brain function and needs the organs of another human being to survive?


I'd be ok with only allowing to pull the plug with prior informed consent from the patient.  Write a will, people.

Also there's the difference in terms of future probability.  Fetus's brain doesn't do a whole lot right now, but in a few years that will begin to change.  Human vegetable might or might not recover, and that should weigh in on the decision to pull the plug.
 
2014-04-22 10:43:20 AM  
God forbid we have laws that require truth in advertising
 
2014-04-22 10:44:18 AM  

somedude210: while I find your argument that it's murder of a human and therefore wrong, to be admirable, I have to wonder if the benefits of bringing this child into a life where they aren't wanted or will be subject to abject poverty and a life that is ill-fitting of being born to such an advanced nation if abortion should be allowed because you're saving the kid, not killing them. A quick, painless death is far more palpable than a long, unwelcome life of misery and suffering.


Morality trumps practicality in my book.  Otherwise we'd be out euthanizing drug addicts and lazy people.

Sometimes doing the right thing costs more (yes, Republicans, that includes the costs of a working educational system and welfare for needy children; can't just leave kids to fend for themselves once they're born).
 
2014-04-22 10:45:11 AM  

serial_crusher: Also there's the difference in terms of future probability. Fetus's brain doesn't do a whole lot right now, but in a few years that will begin to change. Human vegetable might or might not recover, and that should weigh in on the decision to pull the plug.


It seems like most of the anti-abortion crowd (not you in particular, but the pro-lifers who I often hear) tend to ignore the reason why the woman is having the abortion in the first place. Often times it's because they can't provide for the child in a way that would let them grow and develop into a wonderful human that the parent wants for the child, or they're afraid that the child will have the same biological problems of one or more of the parents. The argument I hear basically boils down to "roll the dice and take the chance! You never know what great things you can get from them!"

Not all life is sacred or precious. Not all babies will get the life they deserve to have. But if you know that you cannot provide for the child the life you want them to have and know you'll never achieve that with them in your life, would it not seem merciful to prevent them from having that kind of life?
 
2014-04-22 10:45:34 AM  

serial_crusher: Flaumig: serial_crusher: If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should

Can you provide an intelligent argument for making abortion illegal that isn't based on religious belief?

Would you accept "they're people, and it's murder" as an intelligent argument that isn't based on religious belief?
If not, I'd like to challenge you to make and intelligent argument for continuing to keep adult-murder illegal; one that isn't based on religious belief.


I do not accept that anything can be considered a person without brain function.  If an adult without brain function is considered dead, a clump of cells without brain function cannot be considered alive in the legal sense.
 
2014-04-22 10:47:25 AM  

serial_crusher: If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should--it should be illegal for ordinary citizens as well as the federal government.


Aside from the absurd stance that abortion should be completely illegal, what does this even mean?
 
2014-04-22 10:47:50 AM  

serial_crusher: Nabb1: DemonEater: The way to reduce the number of abortions as much as possible are universal sex education and easily, cheaply-available contraception.

I think abortion is often insidious, unnecessary and barbaric from a moral standpoint, but I respect the law on the issue, and I agree with the above.

I was never comfortable with the moral flexibility required for this argument. "It's insidious and barbaric, but don't let that stop anybody." Argument not valid if you're one of the people who rationalizes that fetuses aren't people, but I assume you wouldn't find it any more insidious or barbaric than removing a ruptured appendix if you were one of those.


I think this exchange illustrates what a piece of shiat that article is. This case will not decide anything about abortion rights or the law on abortion or even the substance of the political speech restricting law at issue. It's a standing issue. A mundane question of basic federal civil procedure. And yet, here we are - yet again arguing about abortion. I'll give it to POLITICO - they've generated some page clicks from an article that is patently awful.
 
2014-04-22 10:47:50 AM  

serial_crusher: I'd be ok with only allowing to pull the plug with prior informed consent from the patient. Write a will, people.

Also there's the difference in terms of future probability. Fetus's brain doesn't do a whole lot right now, but in a few years that will begin to change. Human vegetable might or might not recover, and that should weigh in on the decision to pull the plug.


I doubt you'll ever convince most teens and 20 year olds to write a will or even create some kind of DNR document.

As for the second point, why not back that up to the gamete level?  That egg/sperm doesn't do a whole lot right now, but in a few years that will begin to change.  There are only two ways to support an abortion ban of a non-brain active, non viable fetus.  The first is if you think something magical happens at fertilization that makes that grouping a cells suddenly a full fledged human being.  The second is if you want to punish women who have become pregnant either accidentally or by sexual assault by forcing them to have the baby and raise the baby until he or she is 18.
 
2014-04-22 10:49:11 AM  

qorkfiend: serial_crusher: If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should--it should be illegal for ordinary citizens as well as the federal government.

Aside from the absurd stance that abortion should be completely illegal, what does this even mean?


The logical extension of it would be that the death penalty shouldn't be legal.
 
2014-04-22 10:49:41 AM  

serial_crusher: Morality trumps practicality in my book. Otherwise we'd be out euthanizing drug addicts and lazy people.


if morality trumped practicality, we'd be waist deep in Syria's civil war right now while fighting off the Russkies in Ukraine.

Morality doesn't trump practicality. You must do the right thing in a situation, but not all situations can be judged by the same metric. Killing is wrong, yes, but you have to look at the whole situation. Aborting the fetus may be the better solution than not aborting it because the life of the mother and life of the child would be worse off without the abortion. Abortion is never an easy subject for women and most will choose to do it because it is often the best solution to the problem, not because they like it/want it.

Morally means nothing when it only makes you feel better and not the person directly affected by it
 
2014-04-22 10:54:50 AM  

serial_crusher: Rich people travel to have sex with children as well. We should make it legal here so poor people can get some as well. It's only fair!
We have laws against child sex tourism that are enforced here, don't we? (I'm not about to start googling for citations on that from the corporate network...) We could do the same with abortion tourism if it was a problem.


Well that's a fantastic idea.  All women must pee on a stick when boarding international flights, and again when they land.  Meh, barely more intrusive than what the TSA currently does, I suppose.
 
2014-04-22 11:00:22 AM  
Abortion at the heart is the only way to kill baby vampires.
 
2014-04-22 11:01:05 AM  

scottydoesntknow: My coat hanger of truth should help with those lying organs!


... dammit, I really wish I could do art, because now I really want to make a Gurren Lagann with coat hangers instead of drills. "WITH THIS COAT HANGER I SHALL ABORT THE HEAVENS!!!"
 
2014-04-22 11:04:10 AM  

Flaumig: serial_crusher: Claims of taxpayer funded abortion are arguably not false.

You know, except for the part where abortions are explicitly exempted from being paid for with government funds.  Obamacare has not invalidated the Hyde Amendment.

serial_crusher: If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should

Can you provide an intelligent argument for making abortion illegal that isn't based on religious belief?


Even the report about this on NPR this morning noted that abortions where the mother's life is in danger are covered.  Now only an idiot would oppose abortions where the mother's life is in danger but there is coverage for abortions under certain circumstances..
 
2014-04-22 11:06:30 AM  

Flaumig: serial_crusher: Claims of taxpayer funded abortion are arguably not false.

You know, except for the part where abortions are explicitly exempted from being paid for with government funds.  Obamacare has not invalidated the Hyde Amendment.

serial_crusher: If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should

Can you provide an intelligent argument for making abortion illegal that isn't based on religious belief?


The concept that a human life begins at conception.

I support the right to choose however I can see how someone might have that opinion.
 
2014-04-22 11:09:35 AM  

pdee: Flaumig: serial_crusher: Claims of taxpayer funded abortion are arguably not false.

You know, except for the part where abortions are explicitly exempted from being paid for with government funds.  Obamacare has not invalidated the Hyde Amendment.

serial_crusher: If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should

Can you provide an intelligent argument for making abortion illegal that isn't based on religious belief?

The concept that a human life begins at conception.

I support the right to choose however I can see how someone might have that opinion.


The concept that human life begins at conception is a religious belief.
 
2014-04-22 11:09:38 AM  

SphericalTime: I disagree in this instance with the ACLU. We should be able to restrict outright falsehoods in political speech.


The ACLU is right.  Giving a government board the power to declare the truth is too dangerous.  Libel laws have a high threshold for a reason.  A very good reason.

This is being used against an antiabortion group today but it could just as well be used against a slogan like 'Bush lied and people died'.
 
2014-04-22 11:10:58 AM  

Nabb1: serial_crusher: Nabb1: DemonEater: The way to reduce the number of abortions as much as possible are universal sex education and easily, cheaply-available contraception.

I think abortion is often insidious, unnecessary and barbaric from a moral standpoint, but I respect the law on the issue, and I agree with the above.

I was never comfortable with the moral flexibility required for this argument. "It's insidious and barbaric, but don't let that stop anybody." Argument not valid if you're one of the people who rationalizes that fetuses aren't people, but I assume you wouldn't find it any more insidious or barbaric than removing a ruptured appendix if you were one of those.

I think this exchange illustrates what a piece of shiat that article is. This case will not decide anything about abortion rights or the law on abortion or even the substance of the political speech restricting law at issue. It's a standing issue. A mundane question of basic federal civil procedure. And yet, here we are - yet again arguing about abortion. I'll give it to POLITICO - they've generated some page clicks from an article that is patently awful.


You're right.  We got crazy sidetracked on this one.  I really want to say it's because there's not much of a debate to be had on the actual issue of truth in political advertising, but apparently it's not that simple....

Here's a part that might be fun to discuss:
The justices aren't likely to decide whether the law chills free speech-although Susan B. Anthony List and even the Ohio attorney general say that it does. They're instead being asked to decide whether SBA List has standing to challenge the law since the group was never prosecuted under it.

I am not a lawyer, so I'm probably missing some nuance here, but it's always bothered me that violating a law was the preferred method to have it changed.  As a law abiding citizen, I prefer to follow ill-advised laws (unless there's some significant moral impact from following them). 
We should make it easier to simply raise a challenge like this without risking consequences.
 
2014-04-22 11:11:03 AM  

serial_crusher: 1) It should be illegal to knowingly publish false information about political candidates, or anybody for that matter.
2) Claims of taxpayer funded abortion are arguably not false.  Supreme court determined that the individual mandate was constitutional in part because it should be regarded as a tax.  Funds from that tax go into an insurance pool that funds various healthcare and healthcare-esque expenses, including abortions.  Hence, taxpayer funded abortions.
3) I'm as anti-abortion as they come, but I don't think taxpayers funding them is a problem.  Cutting costs is in the government's best interest, so if some sort of panel determines that aborting a fetus is more cost effective than paying for a lifetime of continuing healthcare, that should be an option the government can make.  If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should--it should be illegal for ordinary citizens as well as the federal government.  Otherwise, it should be legal for everybody.


I disagree with you, but I commend you on your principled position.
 
2014-04-22 11:11:43 AM  

pdee: The ACLU is right.  Giving a government board the power to declare the truth is too dangerous.


Yup, this, and especially when it comes to political speech.
 
2014-04-22 11:11:45 AM  

pdee: SphericalTime: I disagree in this instance with the ACLU. We should be able to restrict outright falsehoods in political speech.

The ACLU is right.  Giving a government board the power to declare the truth is too dangerous.  Libel laws have a high threshold for a reason.  A very good reason.

This is being used against an antiabortion group today but it could just as well be used against a slogan like 'Bush lied and people died'.


the PAC is a corporation. Corporations have a right to free speech. Therefor the government can't force the Corporation to not lie. Requiring accuracy on nutritional labels is unconstitutional
 
2014-04-22 11:12:17 AM  

serial_crusher: "they're people, and it's murder"


"They aren't, and it isn't."
 
2014-04-22 11:13:01 AM  

pdee: The concept that a human life begins at conception.

I support the right to choose however I can see how someone might have that opinion.


I disagree with that being a secular position.  I can safely say that every single atheist I've ever discussed abortion with strives to find some kind of scientific benchmark where it can be clear that sentient and sapient life has begun to the point of safety.  That is... you're not aborting a human, you're aborting living cells that are human but don't display humanity.

Most tend to focus specific milestones in brain development.  Personally, my preference is continuous, stable recognizable brainwave patterns.
 
2014-04-22 11:15:36 AM  

somedude210: serial_crusher: Morality trumps practicality in my book. Otherwise we'd be out euthanizing drug addicts and lazy people.

if morality trumped practicality, we'd be waist deep in Syria's civil war right now while fighting off the Russkies in Ukraine.

Morality doesn't trump practicality. You must do the right thing in a situation, but not all situations can be judged by the same metric. Killing is wrong, yes, but you have to look at the whole situation. Aborting the fetus may be the better solution than not aborting it because the life of the mother and life of the child would be worse off without the abortion. Abortion is never an easy subject for women and most will choose to do it because it is often the best solution to the problem, not because they like it/want it.

Morally means nothing when it only makes you feel better and not the person directly affected by it


You guys must not have had to argue with pro-life people before.  They counter with adoption.  Babies are in demand and quickly adopted.  Older children not so much.
 
2014-04-22 11:16:35 AM  

Mercutio74: pdee: The concept that a human life begins at conception.

I support the right to choose however I can see how someone might have that opinion.

I disagree with that being a secular position.  I can safely say that every single atheist I've ever discussed abortion with strives to find some kind of scientific benchmark where it can be clear that sentient and sapient life has begun to the point of safety.  That is... you're not aborting a human, you're aborting living cells that are human but don't display humanity.

Most tend to focus specific milestones in brain development.  Personally, my preference is continuous, stable recognizable brainwave patterns.


I favor viability outside the womb, but I seem to be in the minority.
 
2014-04-22 11:18:32 AM  
OK, "life begins at conception" folks, let's take that idea to the next logical conclusion (yes, I know that logic and pro-life are mutually exclusive, but work with me here).  That means that every fertilized egg is the legal equivalent of a human being.  Since fertilized eggs frequently do not implant in the uterine lining and are flushed with the menses (it's estimated that up to 70% of fertilized eggs fail to implant), and we do not have a reliable way to test the menses for the presence of a fertilized egg, all menstruation of sexually active women should be treated like a dead person.  Used tampons and pads, the contents of menstrual cups, and the underwear and pants of those women who had a bit of an "accident" must be handled and disposed of in the same way a human body is.  Further, every sexually active menstruating woman needs to contact the police after every period to inform them of the death of a human.  Man, that's totally going to play havoc with our infant mortality and life expectancy rates.  Can you imagine?  We'd have an infant mortality rate of well over 50% and our average life expectancy would drop to somewhere around 12.

Of course, if all of that seems excessive and absurd, then maybe you do actually understand the difference between a fetus and a human being after all.
 
2014-04-22 11:18:58 AM  

qorkfiend: pdee: Flaumig: serial_crusher: Claims of taxpayer funded abortion are arguably not false.

You know, except for the part where abortions are explicitly exempted from being paid for with government funds.  Obamacare has not invalidated the Hyde Amendment.

serial_crusher: If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should

Can you provide an intelligent argument for making abortion illegal that isn't based on religious belief?

The concept that a human life begins at conception.

I support the right to choose however I can see how someone might have that opinion.

The concept that human life begins at conception is a religious belief.


That response makes no sense what so ever.
 
2014-04-22 11:19:00 AM  

give me doughnuts: I favor viability outside the womb, but I seem to be in the minority.


Yup, you do tend to be.  And I wish that was the basis for debate... not whether some invisible entity breathes magic into a substance when one cell penetrates another cell's wall.
 
2014-04-22 11:19:43 AM  

pdee: That response makes no sense what so ever.


What's makes a fertilized cell intrinsically "a person" then?
 
2014-04-22 11:20:54 AM  

qorkfiend: pdee: Flaumig: serial_crusher: Claims of taxpayer funded abortion are arguably not false.

You know, except for the part where abortions are explicitly exempted from being paid for with government funds.  Obamacare has not invalidated the Hyde Amendment.

serial_crusher: If we're going to make abortion illegal--and we should

Can you provide an intelligent argument for making abortion illegal that isn't based on religious belief?

The concept that a human life begins at conception.

I support the right to choose however I can see how someone might have that opinion.

The concept that human life begins at conception is a religious belief.


Exactly.

We only have had this figured out since Descartes big fark up (OK one of Descartes' big fark ups).

Life can only begin at conception without something that looks like Cartesian dualism. You can't have dualism without God.
 
Displayed 50 of 212 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report