Action vs talk - George Carlin on the anti-abortion movement

[creaker]

Thanks for your perspective.

Apparently there are situations where the needs of one individual can usurp the rights of another.

[LDAHL]

You have no credibility in this simply because you are a man. Period. Just a fact of life. Men, who have no idea what so ever, nor will they ever, in carrying and childbirth, should not be a part of the decision except where their own family is concerned.

Would the same argument apply to sterile women, or is the Y-chromosome the sole disqualifier?

[rosebud]

Debunked...Canard? I'll admit I mis-spoke when I mentioned Senator Obama sponsoring legislation when he actually blocked legislation which would have legally classified abortion survivors as "live birth".

Providing an example to dispute your contention that my question doesn't deal with the "real world" isn't anti Obama. It's simply evidence that it's "real world" enough for our top elected official.

We were not discussing Obama's record or opinions. That was not the point of the thread, but you could not resist slamming him. He is very squeamish on late term abortions and has always said he believes states have the right to restrict them, however he has maintained that those restrictions must have exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother. He has opposed legislation that is so vague that it would effectively define a fetus as a person or could be interpreted as bannning all abortions.

In the balance of rights between a pregnant woman and a non viable fetus I side with women. When folks don' t show any compassion towards babies and kids overall and object to being forced to pay any amount of money to help other people I don' t understand how they can say they are pro life.

[Alan]

We were not discussing Obama's record or opinions. That was not the point of the thread, but you could not resist slamming him. He is very squeamish on late term abortions and has always said he believes states have the right to restrict them, however he has maintained that those restrictions must have exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother. He has opposed legislation that is so vague that it would effectively define a fetus as a person or could be interpreted as bannning all abortions.

That's sort of right. He opposed legislation that would define an abortion survivor as a 'live birth'. I would maintain that any fetus, alive outside the womb, is a baby, deserving of all the constitutional protections that others enjoy. Without that designation, they can legally be left to die without medical care.

Peggy was right several posts back, it's a semantics game. If we don't get the semantics right, it's possible that people will realize that they're sometimes killing babies rather than removing a tumor or other foreign growth. Pointing that out is not a "slam" on Obama, it's pointing out the collective hypocracy of those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

In the balance of rights between a pregnant woman and a non viable fetus I side with women. When folks don' t show any compassion towards babies and kids overall and object to being forced to pay any amount of money to help other people I don' t understand how they can say they are pro life.

Perhaps you define compassion differently than others. If it depends upon governmental intervention it's not really compassion, but rather forced servitude. Conflating the two may make a good argumentum ad hominem, but will not help your understanding.

[JaneV2.0]

Would the same argument apply to sterile women, or is the Y-chromosome the sole disqualifier?

The final decision lies with the woman whose life and womb is on the line, IMO.

[Gregg]

You have no credibility in this simply because you are a man. Period. Just a fact of life. Men, who have no idea what so ever, nor will they ever, in carrying and childbirth, should not be a part of the decision except where their own family is concerned.

Would the same argument apply to sterile women, or is the Y-chromosome the sole disqualifier?

Ya know LDAHL, that is actually a REALLY interesting question. I've always tried to be an active parent/partner and so have assumed my opinion was valid in the discussion, even beyond just my own family. Peggy is right stating that I will never be able to fully comprehend all aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. As colloquial as it now is to say "we" are pregnant, the truth is that only the woman ever will be.

So where is the line beyond which one opinion becomes more valuable than others? With women who are already mothers because they are the only ones who know what it is like if you don't abort? What about the fathers of their children? What about women who have had an abortion, but never given birth to a child? What about women who are fertile, but have not ever conceived? Shouldn't potential conception have ramifications and responsibilities for either sex? If responsibility is to be conferred on both partners shouldn't they both also have a say in the outcome? What about, as LDAHL mentioned, women who are not capable of conception? Is their opinion invalid because they can not experience pregnancy and birth? Where's the line?

[JaneV2.0]

"Perhaps you define compassion differently than others. If it depends upon governmental intervention it's not really compassion, but rather forced servitude. Conflating the two may make a good argumentum ad hominem, but will not help your understanding. " (Alan)

The goal should be little or no governmental oversight over individual women's reproductive choices. Forced servitude would only come into play if one is compelled to carry an unwanted fetus to term. (See The Handmaid's Tale)

[Alan]

"Perhaps you define compassion differently than others. If it depends upon governmental intervention it's not really compassion, but rather forced servitude. Conflating the two may make a good argumentum ad hominem, but will not help your understanding. " (Alan)

The goal should be little or no governmental oversight over individual women's reproductive choices. Forced servitude would only come into play if one is compelled to carry an unwanted fetus to term. (See The Handmaid's Tale)

I mentioned governmental intervention because several of the other posters seem to believe that if I'm not for higher taxes I am lacking in compassion.

I agree that there should be little or no governmental oversight over individual women's reproductive choices, but would add that once those choices result in another life, it too is deserving of consideration.

[rosebud]

That's sort of right. He opposed legislation that would define an abortion survivor as a 'live birth'. I would maintain that any fetus, alive outside the womb, is a baby, deserving of all the constitutional protections that others enjoy. Without that designation, they can legally be left to die without medical care.

Peggy was right several posts back, it's a semantics game. If we don't get the semantics right, it's possible that people will realize that they're sometimes killing babies rather than removing a tumor or other foreign growth. Pointing that out is not a "slam" on Obama, it's pointing out the collective hypocracy of those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.



Perhaps you define compassion differently than others. If it depends upon governmental intervention it's not really compassion, but rather forced servitude. Conflating the two may make a good argumentum ad hominem, but will not help your understanding.

1. Here is a link to a non-partisan objective outline of Obama's record on abortion. Everyone can make up their own minds.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Pro...iews/Abortion/
2. Here is a link to a non profit organization that does research and compiles stats on abortion in real life. To clarify a few points, the vast majority of legal abortions in this country take place in the first 3 months. The vast number of women report feeling relieved more than regretful after having an abortion. The risk of regretting your choice is of course a possibility if you opt for an abortion, and in fact the woman behind Roe v. Wade certainly regretted her role in the case later in her life.
http://www.guttmacher.org/
3. You said: If it depends on governmental intervention it's not really compassion but rather FORCED SERVITUDE. So, let me understand this: when the government uses your tax money to save babies by paying for programs that protect the purity of baby formula or provide pre-natal health care to poor women or pay the salaries of social workers to take abused babies away from unfit parents...that is tantamount to enslaving you. But when the government makes it a crime to obtain an abortion, effectively coercing women into supporting "babies" with their bodies, that is NOT involuntary servitude.

I don't know anything about your personal commitment to helping other people in the form of charitable donations or volunteer work. For all I know you have adopted 60 kids and gave half your paycheck to the nearest home for unwed mothers. But you consistently oppose any government programs that effectively help other people and you are so vehement in your equation of taxes with involuntary servitude that I find it incongruous that you would not be troubled by the prospect of the government forcing women to bear children. That is involuntary servitude to me. You do know that in third world countries surrogate mothers are compensated for serving as incubators and giving birth? So the service of providing a fetus your body to grow iinto a full term baby does have as much monetary value as your work.
That is not an ad hominem attack.

[Alan]

That is not an ad hominem attack.

This is:

When folks don' t show any compassion towards babies and kids overall and object to being forced to pay any amount of money to help other people I don' t understand how they can say they are pro life.