Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » After-birth abortion (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: After-birth abortion
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You really don't need to be a theist to recognize that different frame of reference creates a different set of intents, Aris. And that Good and Evil ain't about end result.
Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"While many that pretend to be pro-choice yammer on about the right of a woman over her own body, they ultimately don't use that argument to defend abortion rights, but rather use a miserable argument that an unborn fetus isn't a person."

The article argues for the economic rationale for infanticide. You just raised a pernicious straw man that people who argue for women's rights are actually arguing for something else.

"Obama was in favor of leaving a child alone in a dark closet to let him or her die in a case in which there was a botched or unsuccessful abortion and the child was so badly off that he or she would die eventually anyway."

You want to cite this, please?

Posts: 7531 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Here we're basically talking about whether or not infanticide is evil
This question presupposes the existence of evil. A lot of people here don't believe in evil as an ontological value per se, believing instead that such values are posited relative to subjective interests.

When the she-wolf kills the rabbit to feed her pups, it is good for the pups, and bad for the rabbit.

Is it evil?

I would say that whether or not infanticide is evil definitely requires a set of subjective values against which the act can be measured.

And, by the way, there are usually multiple suckers at a poker table...

Posts: 3456 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"While many that pretend to be pro-choice yammer on about the right of a woman over her own body, they ultimately don't use that argument to defend abortion rights, but rather use a miserable argument that an unborn fetus isn't a person."

The article argues for the economic rationale for infanticide. You just raised a pernicious straw man that people who argue for women's rights are actually arguing for something else.

Al, I've made more coherent pro-choice arguments on this forum than you ever will. No, I haven't said that all pro-choicers are fakes. I've simply said that dehumanizing the fetus is not a pro-choice argument, and has focking nothing to do with a woman's sovereignty over her body, any more than your crying and handwaving over my harsh words against the Ayatollas, actually comprises a pro-peace position.

quote:

The article argues for the economic rationale for infanticide.

Is that how you turn what I said into a "straw man"? By acting as if I'd inferred that to the article -- which I didn't even mention? If so, you've made a straw man.

[ March 04, 2012, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and Al, calling my description a "straw man" is extraordinarily ignorant. During the original Supreme Court arguments in the Roe v. Wade, the petitioner's own attorney, when asked by SCOTUS if a woman should have a right to abortion if the fetus was recognized as a person, not only said no, but giggled at the question. Look it up. Roe, and to a greater extent, Casey, are based not on a woman's right over her own body, but rather on dehumanizing the fetus.

[ March 04, 2012, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
[QUOTE]I would say that whether or not infanticide is evil definitely requires a set of subjective values against which the act can be measured.

As far as I know, you're right, other than the word "definitely" which sounds out of place here [Big Grin] . But I think that most of us here share enough subjective values to agree on the goodness or evilness of various actions.
Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How out of place? Isn't "evil" defined in terms of a specific type of value relative to a given (set of) subject(s)?

And I don't think everyone shares an identical value regarding human life. Many people believe that there are valid reasons for choosing to destroy human life...whereas others hold human life as somehow transcendentally sacred, and believe that it is absolutely wrong up destroy it.

[ March 05, 2012, 05:54 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3456 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Is that how you turn what I said into a "straw man"? By acting as if I'd inferred that to the article -- which I didn't even mention?"

You just raised an unrelated issue that you're trying to tie to the topic. You did it by attacking people who believe pro-choice is about women's rights because they are pretending. If you're only talking about people who pretend to be pro-choice, how is that relevant here?

"Al, I've made more coherent pro-choice arguments on this forum than you ever will."

Ad hominem? I'm strongly in support of women's right to choose, because that's their right, but my position is weaker than yours?

"Is that how you turn what I said into a "straw man"? By acting as if I'd inferred that to the article"

Since your comment had nothing to do with the article, I'm not sure why you brought it up if not to start an argument.

Posts: 7531 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Isn't "evil" defined in terms of a specific type of value relative to a given (set of) subject(s)?
Let me use terminology from "Empire Star":

The simplex view: Judging everyone according to your own set of values.

The complex view: Seeing that everyone has their own set of values, and considering the worth of judgment as strictly subjective to the particular set of values it judges by.

The multiplex view: Figuring out how the pattern of different value sets and different judgments interplay with each other, so that the issue of judgment and value-sets can be discussed in the entirety of value-judgment space.

--------------

An example for the interplay of value-sets:
If you value "blue" and I value "tall", those may be different value-sets, but not incompatible ones.
If you value "small" and I value "large", these values are incompatible, but morally equivalent from a neutral point of view.
But if you value "wide" and I choose to value whatever-it-is-you-don't-value, these values are not equivalent, for the latter is chosen by me with the express desire to oppose your own value. That is evil.

Evil is having a negative factor for other people's utility function in your own utility function.
Good is having a positive factor for other people's utility function in your utility function.

Malice, spite, cruelty, sadism: These are evil.
Compassion, love, altruism, generosity: These are good.

In this sense animals too simple to model other minds can't be 'evil'. To be evil one needs to be able to approximate another's utility function in order to deliberately oppose it -- and not just for objective benefit.

Posts: 3083 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292204/obama-s-infanticide-votes-patrick-brennan

"Gingrich’s assertion rests on then–State Senator Obama’s opposition, in 2001, 2002, and 2003, to successive versions of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill that was meant to provide protection for babies born alive after attempted abortions. The bill gave them protection as legal persons and required physicians to provide them with care, rather than allowing doctors to deal with them as they would, literally, with medical waste. In 2008, Obama’s campaign repeatedly claimed that he opposed the bill because it was unnecessary, since Illinois law already provided protection for infants born alive. However, as Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out on NRO at the time, this extended only to babies whom physicians deemed to have “sustainable survivability.” Thus infants who were not expected to survive could be killed or left unattended to die. Obama, Ponnuru wrote, “did not want the gap filled.” (The National Right to Life Committee has a report on Obama, Illinois’s legal loophole, and its horrific consequences here.)"

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html

"The September 2000 committee report of the U.S. House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee on the federal BAIPA (H. Rept. 106-835) summarized some of the testimony that indicated why such legislation (federal and state) was necessary:

Two nurses from the hospital’s delivery ward, Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (who is no longer employed by the hospital), testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution that physicians at Christ Hospital have performed numerous ‘induced labor’ or ‘live-birth’ abortions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce premature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive to die. . . . According to the testimony of Mrs. Stanek and Mrs. Baker . . . physicians at Christ Hospital have used the procedure to abort healthy infants and infants with non-fatal deformities . . . Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with appropriate medical assistance. The nurses also witnessed hospital staff taking many of these live-born babies into a ‘soiled utility room’ where the babies would remain until death. Comfort care, the nurses say, was not provided consistently." (see pages 8-9 of H. Rept. 106-835).

One example given by Mrs. Stanek was that an aborted baby "was left to die on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor." (Id. at 9). Mrs. Baker testified that she "happened to walk into a ‘soiled utility room’ and saw, lying on the metal counter, a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs." (Id. at 10).

In testimony by Stanek before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, on March 27, 2001, she said: "It is not uncommon for a live aborted babies to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital one of these babies once lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. Last year alone, of the 13 babies that I am aware of who were aborted at Christ Hospital, at least four lived between 1-1/2 to 3 hours, two boys and two girls."

Posts: 7438 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama's reasoning was that the bill was written in a way to undermine Roe v. Wade, and that there was already a law that required physicians to treat the newborn if it had a chance of survival. From FactCheck.org:
quote:
What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."
FWIW, the nurse Stanek was called "not credible" by the head of Christ Hospital.

This is one that isn't going to be resolved, but calling Obama in favor of infanticide is a stretch. Many pro-lifers who make that claim believe that life begins at conception, so to them any abortion is infanticide.

Posts: 7531 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"Al, I've made more coherent pro-choice arguments on this forum than you ever will."

Ad hominem? I'm strongly in support of women's right to choose, because that's their right, but my position is weaker than yours?

No, not ad hominem. I was responding to your foolish insinuation that I take a pro-life position.

Your "ad hominem" assessment looks like a straw man, but I suspect that it's just another example of your lazy reading, and your unwillingness to recognize an opponent's actual position.

What I actually said is that I've made a greater number of coherent pro-choice arguments on this forum. I didn't say your *position* is weaker. I said I've made more coherent arguments on this topic on this specific forum. As evidence, I defy you to even show me a pro-choice argument you've made on this forum that clearly outlines your position, rather than just making scary noises about people who disagree with you.

[ March 05, 2012, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
In this sense animals too simple to model other minds can't be 'evil'. To be evil one needs to be able to approximate another's utility function in order to deliberately oppose it -- and not just for objective benefit.

This works for most cases. I think, however, that there are extreme cases in which a refusal to acknowledge that other people have value sets or minds worth modeling can accompany evil (and that sadism is not always necessary). See: clinically attempted genocide.
Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Obama's reasoning was that the bill was written in a way to undermine Roe v. Wade

You claim that was Obama's reasoning. Can you even explain how the specific bill could "undermine Roe v. Wade?" IIRC there are no holdings in Roe v. Wade to say that the state has no interest in protecting prematurely born fetus.

Please offer some coherent explanation to reassure us that what you said isn't based on mindless repetition of what you've been told.

Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
His argument was that the bill would require medical care for a newborn that showed vital signs independent of the mother, which he argued could be used to make any abortion illegal except in the case of the delivery of a lifeless fetus.
Posts: 7531 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can you even explain how the specific bill could "undermine Roe v. Wade?"
From the factcheck link:
quote:
Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session.

From this I gather that a) Obama objected to it because it didn't explicitly state that it could not conflict with Roe v Wade and b) Obama has not historically been consistent on that criteria, or at least it's not the only criteria he considers.
Posts: 3462 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can anyone interpret the above any other way than this: that Obama's claimed position on the bill has less to do with his own "reasoning" or principle, than sucking up to some monied organization? Perhaps, the Big Pharma group that sells the equipment for partial birth abortions?

Or does anyone have a coherent argument as to how the proposed bill could "undermine" the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.

Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, please remember that Illinois already had laws in place which mandated care for any viable fetus. The only reason for the bill was as a back door to limiting abortion rights.
Posts: 2165 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
G2,

You claimed the journal was a "huge platform". I pointed out the circulation was 1,495.

A rational person would conclude it is not in fact a huge platform. What did you do? [Wink]

I went with some reality. Google "Journal of Medical Ethics abortion" and limit the search to just the last week: currently about 23,800 results. So you may think the circulation defines the ultimate limit of its reach but obviously it does not. You don't have one of those 1,495 subscriptions do you? Neither do I. Yet, we both seem to know about it...along with tens. if not hundreds, of thousands of others. [Wink]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... except that no one has identified which provisions of the bill would limit "abortion rights."

Do you think that "Abortion rights" encompasses the right to kill a human being outside the womb?

Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The only reason for the bill was as a back door to limiting abortion rights.

Even if we pretend that the previous bills you mention were satisfactory and efficacious, other reasons strike me. Most likely, they passed the bill to bait the pro-abortion lobby to engage in a fight, to remind voters right before election season that some folks who claim to be pro-choice are actually pro-infanticide. And some people have stupidly fallen into their political trap.
Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, you might want to look at both the law that was already in place and the proposed bill. I am not sure how closely you followed that when it was actually going on. Here in Illinois, it was pretty easy to follow.

Sure. I will grant you that another reason to introduce the bill was purely to stir up the anti-abortion crowd. And you could say that then Sen. Obama "fell into their trap" of he hadn't beaten Alan Keys pretty soundly (70% to 27% if I recall) regardless.

Posts: 2165 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pete, you might want to look at both the law that was already in place and the proposed bill. I am not sure how closely you followed that when it was actually going on. Here in Illinois, it was pretty easy to follow.

Sure. I will grant you that another reason to introduce the bill was purely to stir up the anti-abortion crowd.

You "grant" what I did not say. What I actually said was that one plausible reason for the bill was to bait the pro-abortion crowd into behaving stupidly. Opposing this bill is more likely to undermine Roe v. Wade than any actual legal effect of the bill.
Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Could you identify the parts of the bill that were not redundant when it came to Illinois law?

How exactly do you think that not passing that bill was likely to undermine Roe v. Wade? In the 8-10 years since, it hasn't seemed to do anything but give people who want to paint Pres. Obama (or anyone else who is pro-choice) as King Herod and they do that anyway. In other words, "stir up the anti-abortion crowd", just not very effectively.

[ March 05, 2012, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2165 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama used the phrase "undermine Roe v. Wade" in an interview he gave to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network on Saturday October 16, 2008 immediately after his debate with John McCain at Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum. It strikes me as a poor choice of words, as no Illinois statute really could undermine a Supreme Court decision based on the Constitution. But I would suggest that the details of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, as it was called, were not uppermost in Obama's mind five years later. The bill was written by persons opposed to abortion, and designed to make doctors and hospitals wary of performing abortions for fear of criminal prosecution. That Obama opposed it is consistent with his attitude towards abortion, and certainly matched the desires of most of the people who voted for him, whatever reasons he gave later.
Posts: 4376 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Can anyone interpret the above any other way than this: that Obama's claimed position on the bill has less to do with his own "reasoning" or principle, than sucking up to some monied organization? Perhaps, the Big Pharma group that sells the equipment for partial birth abortions?"

Do you have a shred of support for that contention? That's about as vile as anything Alan Keyes, Rick Santorum or New Gingrich has said about this. I'm really not sure what battle you're fighting here, except that you seem to want to take on everyone, no matter what side of the issue they're on. And you're getting nastier by the post as you do it.

[ March 05, 2012, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 7531 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For reference, here is the text of one of the versions of the Illinois law that he opposed. It's pretty clear that it tries to define the post-natal fetus at any stage of development as being a full person will full legal rights. The wording uses a pretty thin pretext, and could have been used to argue later that the abortion itself was causing harm to the person who was aborted. The mother could then be charged with murder and the doctor with being an accomplice.
quote:
LRB093 10540 MKM 10794 b

1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding
5 Section 1.36 as follows:

6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person",
11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.


Posts: 7531 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
AK:

I don't want to derail a fine infanticide thread with a good/evil spiral, but to respond briefly to your post, I don't think that this:
quote:
But if you value "wide" and I choose to value whatever-it-is-you-don't-value, these values are not equivalent, for the latter is chosen by me with the express desire to oppose your own value. That is evil.
...expresses the valuation precisely in real-world terms.

What is ultimately valued in opposing the values of someone else would generally be an overarching value, and the value of opposition obtains from the way such opposition establishes the end-term value.

Say that it's family movie night, and I have no personal preference between the options everyone is voting on: action movie or comedy. But my brother wants to watch action movie, and I want him not to get what he wants--so I vote for comedy. When reduced to this issue per se, where I don't value either movie except insofar as my choice can be a mode of opposing my brothers choice, this action is pure evil, according to your valuation system.

But examining it in terms of the real-world scenario, it is obvious that something is missing from understanding the moral calculus completely: Why do I want my brother not to get what he wants?

Maybe it's simple jealousy--I think my brother gets what he wants more than others (me) do, and I'm opposing his choice purely so that this time he doesn't get what he wants. But while this may be petty and misguided, recognizing this reason for opposition allows us to frame the valuation more precisely: I value "fairness," and my opposition to my brother's value is committed to establish a state closer to my perception of this ideal that I value.

The ultimate value can become obscure and even unintelligible if we address more complex issues, like the psychological motivations at play in outright sadism, but this doesn't mean that reducing it to a framework as seen on a specific issue is an accurate framing of the values that are ultimately at play behind opposition to what others want.

I really don't think there is any such thing as moral black and white--such an idea is just a heuristic we use to simplify the extremes in the spectrum of grays...

Posts: 3456 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here, for reference, is a link to the IL statute already in place. See especially section 6.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1928&ChapterID=53


quote:
Sec. 6. (1) (a) Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.
(b) The physician shall certify in writing, on a form prescribed by the Department under Section 10 of this Act, the available methods considered and the reasons for choosing the method employed.
(c) Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, there exists a medical emergency; in such a case, the physician shall describe the basis of this judgment on the form prescribed by Section 10 of this Act. Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.
(3) The law of this State shall not be construed to imply that any living individual organism of the species homo sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual under the "Criminal Code of 1961," approved July 28, 1961, as amended.
(4) (a) Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable possibility of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.
(b) The physician shall certify in writing, on a form prescribed by the Department under Section 10 of this Act, the available methods considered and the reasons for choosing the method employed.
(c) Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(4)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(5) Nothing in Section 6 requires a physician to employ a method of abortion which, in the medical judgment of the physician performing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, would increase medical risk to the mother.
(6) When the fetus is viable and when there exists reasonable medical certainty (a) that the particular method of abortion to be employed will cause organic pain to the fetus, and (b) that use of an anesthetic or analgesic would abolish or alleviate organic pain to the fetus caused by the particular method of abortion to be employed, then the physician who is to perform the abortion or his agent or the referring physician or his agent shall inform the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed that such an anesthetic or analgesic is available, if he knows it to be available, for use to abolish or alleviate organic pain caused to the fetus by the particular method of abortion to be employed. Any person who performs an abortion with knowledge that any such reasonable medical certainty exists and that such an anesthetic or analgesic is available, and intentionally fails to so inform the woman or to ascertain that the woman has been so informed commits a Class B misdemeanor. The foregoing requirements of subsection (6) of Section 6 shall not apply (a) when in the medical judgment of the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician based upon the particular facts of the case before him: (i) there exists a medical emergency, or (ii) the administration of such an anesthetic or analgesic would decrease a possibility of sustained survival of the fetus apart from the body of the mother, with or without artificial support, or (b) when the physician who is to perform the abortion administers an anesthetic or an analgesic to the woman or the fetus and he knows there exists reasonable medical certainty that such use will abolish organic pain caused to the fetus during the course of the abortion.
(7) No person shall sell or experiment upon a fetus produced by the fertilization of a human ovum by a human sperm unless such experimentation is therapeutic to the fetus thereby produced. Intentional violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor. Nothing in this subsection (7) is intended to prohibit the performance of in vitro fertilization.
(8) No person shall intentionally perform an abortion with knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely on account of the sex of the fetus. Nothing in Section 6(8) shall be construed to proscribe the performance of an abortion on account of the sex of the fetus because of a genetic disorder linked to that sex. If the application of Section 6(8) to the period of pregnancy prior to viability is held invalid, then such invalidity shall not affect its application to the period of pregnancy subsequent to viability.
(Source: P.A. 84-1001.)


Posts: 2165 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Though you've still not answered my question, Here's your evidence, Al. In brief, what Obama said is inherently impossible, and is simply too stoopid to conceive true.


quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
Obama used the phrase "undermine Roe v. Wade" in an interview he gave to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network on Saturday October 16, 2008 immediately after his debate with John McCain at Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum. It strikes me as a poor choice of words, as no Illinois statute really could undermine a Supreme Court decision based on the Constitution.

Thank you, hobsen.

For reference, Al, here is the Supremacy Clause of the United States of America.

quote:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Since Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the Supreme Court has relied on the Supremacy Clause to strike down state statutes. I am unaware of any state statute that has ever repealed or modified the effect of a Supreme Court ruling on a fundamental constitutional right.

[ March 05, 2012, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hobson, federal law doesn't generally regulate abortion; state law does. As AW pointed out, giving the fetus full human rights and protections could have opened up doctors and patients to all sorts of liability at the state level whether that survived at the federal level or not.

And again. If not to limit the rights of women to abortion, what was the point of the bills? Except as a cynical political ploy as Pete suggested.

Posts: 2165 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kate, given the fact that no women's rights whatsoever are at stake, why do you suppose it "cynical" to send your political enemies a perfumed invitation to jump and down and scream like an infanticidal maniac, right before election time? Looks like perfectly good and moral strategy to me.
Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought of a terrible joke that probably only KidA, and possibly Donald, has the background to laugh at.

"The right to abortion was secured through the 14th and 9th Amendment, and grounded in the established traditional woman's right to change her mind ... thus securing the unrestricted right to abortions of fetuses up to the age of 30 years after childbirth."

[ March 06, 2012, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If a baby successfully survives an abortion, could the biological father take custody and get 18 years of child support from the biological mother?
Posts: 7438 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't see what's the big deal. As I recall, the Bible clearly provides parents the right to post-natal abortion with the OK of the courts.

Santorum should be all for this. [Smile]

Posts: 8169 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you know of any actual situation where that has been an issue? There have been approximately 54 million abortions in the US since 1973, so you should be able to find one. 88-92% of abortions take place in the first trimester. Do you think those babies would qualify?
Posts: 7531 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, what's the precise number of babies that have to die before you'd concede that the law is allowed to step in to prevent more deaths?
Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/giannajessen.asp

"My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.

Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion", a result of a job not well done.

There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment. Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and had me transferred to a hospital.

I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much hope for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller than I was have survived.

A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my life. I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care. I was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion.

My foster mother was told that it was doubtful that I would ever crawl or walk. I could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication of my foster mother, and later many other people, I eventually learned to sit up, crawl, then stand. I walked with leg braces and a walker shortly before I turned age four. I was legally adopted by my foster mother's daughter, Diana De Paul, a few months after I began to walk. The Department of Social Services would not release me any earlier for adoption."

I'm not sure what you wanted an example of here, but here's an example of a girl who survived an abortion.

I don't know of any cases where the biological father tried to assert his rights. That part was just a hypothetical question. It would be curious to see though. A mom puts a child up for adoption without the biological father's knowledge or consent. He finds out, and then asserts his rights, and she is on the hook for 18 years of child support. Sorry but the idea just amused me, particularly if it had come about because of the child surviving an abortion. Maybe I'm just a bad person. Don't judge me.

Posts: 7438 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

The point you made is that people published in a huge platform to get attention. That is wrong, and you know it. The platform is tiny. The amplifier of the internet is huge, and can amplify a circulation of 1. Had the authors of this article sent a private email, circulation 1, that was intercepted, they would have thousands of google hits for the letter, even though their intent was to be private. Your rebuttal is moot.

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kate, can't you see this is Pickett's charge? Pointless. The only way you can win this battle is by refusing to fight it.
Posts: 41986 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1