MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Wednesday, July 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 78.0° F  Mostly Cloudy
Collapse Photo Bar

It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby Detritus » Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:25 pm

I think we need a constitutional amendment punishing women who have sex by forcing them to give birth if they get pregnant. I just can't decide if I want to pretend to be compassionate by exempting women who claim they didn't want to have sex, or if I should go with my gut and assume that all women are evil sluts born to drag innocent men into sin.

But, you know, reasonable people can disagree.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2352
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby Madsci » Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:47 am

The estimate that 30% of women will have an abortion quoted earlier kinda shocked me. But then I thought about the estimate that 25% of women will be raped. Are they related?

I believe that abortion should be legal, so it is not murder. I didn't know if I could ever have one myself. Luckily birth control was readily available (and worked) which prevented me from having to ever make the decision to terminate a pregnancy.
Madsci
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:47 pm

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby peripat » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:32 am

Oh crap. Lets just take it to the logical conclusion. Since every sperm and every egg are potentially half of a fetus they must be protected. Spilling seed anywhere other than in a fertile female must be punished. Not attempting to aIlow seed to fertilize eggs during ovulation must be punished. I suppose to completely protect the eggs all women could have their ovaries removed at puberty, the eggs could be fertilized outside of the body and all women could spend their entire lives pregnant but I'm not sure how to control the sperm without locking all men up. An additional plus to this approach is that we'll hit that 8 billion mark really fast.
peripat
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:59 am

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby HamsterArmageddon » Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:27 am

SerenaK608 wrote:We have becoming so coarse as a society toward those who are truly the most defenseless among us.


jjoyce,

Which isthmus tabloid creative writer posted this? It doesn't read like a snoqueen screed or an Emily Mills re-creation. How much does the fake stereotypical conservative forum character gig pay anyway?
HamsterArmageddon
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:33 pm
Location: Madison

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:28 am

Nothing fake about the opening post. There are many who think that way. Check out anti-abortion web sites if you doubt me.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19582
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby David Blaska » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:09 am

snoqueen wrote:
All I want to know is whether David Blaska thinks abortion is murder.


You won't find out. Blaska never gives straight answers to anything. He'll always cut corners and preserve deniability, so he can weasel out of it if someone comes up with a more powerful counter- argument.

...
Probably not. He said he unsubscribed again, right?


Oh, for crying out loud, Snoqueen! I have stated,

David Blaska wrote:at Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:49 pm
Abortion does take a human life.


That is my answer. It may not fit neatly into to your crude little box, but tough t's.

Is abortion "murder?" That is not a word I hear used because it is an inexact term (it's not used anywhere in Wisconsin statute) that conjures up a cold-blooded killing for hate or money. Is the teenage drunk driver a "murderer?" I would not use that term but perhaps the parents of the dead passengers might. The State of Wi calls it "homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle."

I certainly recognize the confused and troubled state of a mother with no guidance or support -- hardly a cold-blooded decision.

For people who supposedly value "nuance" you certainly have a tin ear.

Now I ask the questions:

1) Would you legalize partial birth abortion?
2) Two seconds later, when the infant (or "birth product" if that helps) is free of the birth canal, would you approve terminating that life. (You can use the word "murder" if you like.)
3) What is the difference?
4) Should abortion be "safe and rare?"
5) Why rare?
6) Do you agree with the Foron who likened the human fetus to a cancerous growth?

This quiz is open to anyone, even the Jeremies.
David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:25 am

Bump
Henry Vilas wrote:So Mr. B, based on your vague response to my post, does it mean that you would outlaw abortion in cases of rape and incest? A simple yes or no will do.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19582
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby Peanutbutter » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:47 am

Is it murder if a woman who is distraught over being raped kills her 2-year old child via violent shaking?

A simple yes or no will do.
Peanutbutter
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:54 am

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:59 am

Peanutbutter wrote:Is it murder if a woman who is distraught over being raped kills her 2-year old child via violent shaking?

A simple yes or no will do.

Yes.

Now answer mine. Should aborting a zygote from a rape or from incest result in a homicide charge?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19582
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby jjoyce » Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:41 pm

I think most of us here know that partial birth abortion is not a medical term. It was introduced by the National Right to Life Committee specifically to turn political sentiment against all forms of abortion. If you're opposed to A and A is ethically similar to B, then you must be opposed to B. Now, let's talk a little about C. And what about the morning after pill?

The recent "personhood" discussion is instructive here, because it seeks to define abortion so broadly as to include certain forms of birth control and even the harvesting of stem cells. Many believe this is the ultimate goal of a broad umbrella of groups that fight against reproductive rights.

It's always interesting to note that unplanned pregnancy, particularly among teens, would be less common if access to birth control and sex education were better. The same people pushing personhood legislation are often opposed to sex ed. I don't know Sen. Mary Lazich's view on personhood, but I heard her say that she was sure we'd all like our teens to be doing homework and participating in extra-curricular activities than having sex, continuing to advance the confused idea that sex ed promotes more sex among teens, not more knowledge that allows them to make informed decisions.
jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby David Blaska » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:22 pm

David Blaska wrote:1) Would you legalize partial birth abortion?
2) Two seconds later, when the infant (or "birth product" if that helps) is free of the birth canal, would you approve terminating that life. (You can use the word "murder" if you like.)
3) What is the difference?
4) Should abortion be "safe and rare?"
5) Why rare?
6) Do you agree with the Foron who likened the human fetus to a cancerous growth?

This quiz is open to anyone, even the Jeremies.


There you have it, folks. I ask six direct questions and get no responses. Zero. Nada! None! (Including Jason Joyce's evasive implication that there is no such thing as partial birth abortion because the practitioners choose to call it something more palatable.) (You're not going to want to watch this video.)

How would Snoqueen respond? You won't find out. Snoqueen never gives straight answers to anything. He'll always cut corners and preserve deniability, so he can weasel out of it if someone comes up with a more powerful counter- argument.

I don't know what's so hard about the partial birth question for Snoqueen (or his comrades: including uRRinate, whack whack, rabble and their ilk. Of course, I never expected the Jeremies to take a stand; they never do). But I'll give him some space to say, if he wants to, the whole question doesn't compute for him.

Can we even get to agreement on that much?

Probably not. Snoqueen must have unsubscribed again, right?
David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby bdog » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:44 pm

“If you were an atheist, Birbal," the Emperor challenged his first minister, "what would you say to the true believers of all the great religions of the world?" Birbal was a devout Brahmin from Trivikrampur, but he answered unhesitatingly, "I would say to them that in my opinion they were all atheists as well; I merely believe in one god less than each of them." "How so?" the Emperor asked. "All true believers have good reasons for disbelieving in every god except their own," said Birbal. "And so it is they who, between them, give me all the reasons for believing in none."

-- From "The Shelter of the World”
― Salman Rushdie, The Enchantress of Florence
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby snoqueen » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:56 pm

Nice quote.

Here's more:

1) Would you legalize partial birth abortion?
2) Two seconds later, when the infant (or "birth product" if that helps) is free of the birth canal, would you approve terminating that life. (You can use the word "murder" if you like.)
3) What is the difference?


The whole matter needs to be taken out of the legislative arena.

Check out Trisomy 13, for instance:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002625/

Warning: Pictures are not for the squeamish. One feature of the syndrome is the fetus's eyes develop so close together they can fuse into one, for example. This is not a web page from a partisan organization, it's from the US National Library of Medicine.

A family where a woman is carrying a fetus with trisomy 13 (or one of the other lethal trisomy syndromes) has a tough road ahead. Often these situations are the ones where a late-term abortion is performed, a situation that is always a family crisis. I don't think one-size-fits-all laws help matters at all. So I cannot give a single answer to your question; I'm taking Kurt's suggestion and going with "I'd need to think about it." And what I think is this is none of our business.

4) Should abortion be "safe and rare?"


Abortion should be safe.

5) Why rare?


Yeah, why rare? You said it, I didn't.

It's up to the person with the pregnancy. We could keep track if we wanted and decide at what level it becomes rare, but what does that prove?

Anti-abortion folks are welcome to lobby the public in support of their beliefs, but not to hijack the legal system to uphold their religion. My religion, if I chose one, would say taking care of born children and allowing women to choose whether they will bear children is a higher moral priority than preventing women from deciding not to do so. I can name a number of organized religions that take such a position (try Quakers for one). You get to answer this one: why does your religion trump other people's religions?

6) Do you agree with the Foron who likened the human fetus to a cancerous growth?


Actually, he pointed out your description could quite reasonably be construed to describe a tumor. You can go back and amend it if you like.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11287
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby David Blaska » Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:32 pm

1) Would you legalize partial birth abortion?
2) Two seconds later, when the infant (or "birth product" if that helps) is free of the birth canal, would you approve terminating that life. (You can use the word "murder" if you like.)
3) What is the difference?


snoqueen wrote:The whole matter needs to be taken out of the legislative arena.


How about you answer the question, Snoqueen? Would you approve terminating the life of just-born child who escaped the partial-birth abortionist's grasp?

Snoqueen wrote:Anti-abortion folks are welcome to lobby the public in support of their beliefs, but not to hijack the legal system to uphold their religion. My religion, if I chose one, would say ...


I am asking the questions now. Why are YOU welcome to "hijack the legal system to uphold their religion" but not me? What is the difference, for that matter, b/w being allowed "to lobby the public in support of their beliefs" and "hijacking the legal system to uphold their religion?"

6) Do you agree with the Foron who likened the human fetus to a cancerous growth?


Snowqueen wrote:Actually, he pointed out your description could quite reasonably be construed to describe a tumor. You can go back and amend it if you like.


Wrong. A cancerous tumor does not have its own unique genetic code. Nor is it capable of forming a human being.

I am going to repeat my question, Snoqueen, slightly reworded so you can better understand it:

Is killing a just-delivered human infant murder or is it not? Or are you sticking with your previous answer:

snoqueen wrote:The whole matter needs to be taken out of the legislative arena.
David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby wack wack » Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:50 pm

Blaska, why are you bringing up "partial-birth abortion" when the Constitutional issue regards a fertilized egg before the woman is even pregnant?
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3080
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar