patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,259,490 comments by 15,036 users - Ceffer, Patrick, stereotomy online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 131 - 150 of 150 Search these comments
But I don't find it ethically or medically convincing at all that we need to allow abortion on demand (as we have now in most States) because we have a statistically small number of medical cases that might require an abortion for health reasons.
The majority of the 55 million human beings our country has terminated since 1973 were out of convenience and not medically necessary.
There is a certain irony in that (at least as far as I can tell), it is not "medically necessary" to abort a being with anencephaly. Specifically, there is no real harm to the mother in that the anencephalagic being will either be born alive or stillborn as part of the natural course of pregnancy.
As such, given that health is not an issue, it sounds very much like this is an abortion of convenience. Yet again if you look at those things with anencephaly (and btw the images on wikipedia are mild compared to some of them), I have a hard time requiring anyone to carry a being like that to term.
And frankly, as much as I dont like to appeal to emotion, this is a textbook case of why it is useful. The brightline rule "no abortions of convenience" sounds good on paper, but what then of cases of anencephaly or other similar horrific diseases? I mean seriously, if you look at those things and read about them, there is, sadly, a very gray area between what constitutes "a child" and what constitutes "a tumor"... a living breathing tumor...
Anyway, I bring this up not to unnecessarily provoke, but to challenge. Based on your writings you seem like an intelligent guy. Yet, (and I really dont mean to put words in your mouth), but my suspicion is you would in fact outlaw "all abortions of convenience", largely because of concerns of the sanctity of life.
Yet, when viewed with facts like these, can you really say that the "right" or the "ethical" or the "moral" thing to do, is to require people to bring these beings to term?
The American South and Midwest have been people, not entirely but overwhelmingly, with despicable, racist, and downright evil people since before the country was founded. They have established a culture of racism and bigotry and have been on the bigoted side of every civil rights issue in this nation's history. They are still fighting the Civil War which is why they love to wave, not the Confederate Flag, but the flag of the Confederate Navy which was made into a symbol by the KKK to show they were still fighting for slavery.
NEWS: Black Pastors Group Organizes Against YOUR PRESIDENT
We did not fight for civil rights so two men or two women would get married.
I think Bill Clinton was right when he said abortion should be "safe, legal, and RARE".
it was Hilary who said that.. not Billy Bob.. actually Hilary took more of a Conservative approach.. making it REALLY REALLY RARE! and reduces the total number of abortions.
Dan8267
2013 Feb 22, 11:16am
NEWS: Black Pastors Group Organizes Against YOUR PRESIDENT
We did not fight for civil rights so two men or two women would get married.
1. Obama is the president of the United States, not the president of me. As far as I'm concerned, he's my employee just the same as any other president.
2. The anti-gay bigotry of some African-Americans does not mitigate the sheer vileness of the American South and Midwest, vileness that I'm more than willing to illustrate with ample photographs of the atrocities committed over the past 200 years by those assholes.
3. The 14th Amendment guarantees marriage equality as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Loving v. Virginia. I've shown this on other threads. Go back and read them.
4. Your pettiness aside, there is no legal justification for gays to have any less than equal legal standing in the eye of the law.
4. Your pettiness aside, there is no legal justification for gays to have any less than equal legal standing in the eye of the law.
Legal standings in what ? Insurance and Retirement claims of "surviving spouse".. there are not Govt issues, but issues as they related to various industry policies and practices.
To think you are going after the religious institution of marriage all to get Insurance claim rights is laughable...
Dan8267
2013 Feb 22, 3:26pm
religious institution of marriage
Laws are about the secular institution of marriage, not the religious institution, dummy.
And frankly, as much as I dont like to appeal to emotion, this is a textbook case of why it is useful. The brightline rule "no abortions of convenience" sounds good on paper, but what then of cases of anencephaly or other similar horrific diseases? I mean seriously, if you look at those things and read about them, there is, sadly, a very gray area between what constitutes "a child" and what constitutes "a tumor"... a living breathing tumor...
Anyway, I bring this up not to unnecessarily provoke, but to challenge.
Fair enough, but appealing to emotion and the grisly images of anencephaly is the same thing that those who picket abortion clinics with big pictures of aborted fetuses are doing. There are any number of tragic ailements that can inflict the human species. But these types of medically tragic conceptions along with conception due to rape/incest are still a relatively small percentage of the total - thank God.
Yet these extreme cases are always used by abortion advocates as the reason for essentially UNLIMTED ABORTION all the way into the 3rd trimester in many States.
You are right there are plenty of gray areas on this issue. How is a baby who is in the womb at 8 months really different than a baby already already born and a week old? Both life forms will need massive human assistance in terms of feeding and caring or they wouldn't survive a few days.
A 2 year old's brain is not as developed as an 19 year old brain, is the toddler less human and have less worth than the 19 year old?
I think the gray areas scientifically, philosophically and ethically are in favor of the new life. Yet, we stiill have pretty much unlimited abortion in the US. And the pro-abortion crowd go nuts when some States (through their democratic legislatures) try to impose some moderate restrictions on this practice.
The whole abortion issue has successfully been reduced to a the harmless sounding euphamism of "choice" and "women's rights". It's all about evil White Republicans trying to police lady parts and makes no mention of the independent life who's existence is at stake. I don't think America has really had a legitimate (and scientific) debate on this issue since Roe was passed. We know a hell of alot more today than we did 40 years ago about human and fetal biology.
I know full well that we can't (and shouldn't) ban all abortions over night. It should be done at the State level. There will still be tragic cases where the practice is the lesser of two evils. But just like the moral stain of slavery, I think we will see individual States continue to make incremental restrictions on abortion and hope that future generations will be more educated and have better options than to continue this primitive caveman practice of destroying our future.
Vicente
2013 Feb 26, 2:57pm
But just like the moral stain of slavery
Because clearly slavery in the US was ended by states rights advocates, and not by unilateral Federal action.
That states rights garbage don't wash, and it's historically proven to be a crap solution to just about anything. Oh yeah except for those who think Balkanization is great and want to split up the USA so Jesusland can do it's own thing.
zzyzzx
2019 Feb 6, 2:09pm
Media Bias: While journalists are getting pink slips across the country, the Washington Post decided to dump a boatload of cash for a Super Bowl image ad that tried to portray the news media as national heroes. Here's a better, and much cheaper, idea to restore the industry's shattered reputation: Be less blatantly partisan.
« First « Previous Comments 131 - 150 of 150 Search these comments
It seems to me like both sides and by that I mean both sides that are far from center like to act victimized by the "media." Conservatives like to complain of "liberal media" bias. Liberals have been known to complain of slanted coverage by "corporate media" on the other hand. It seems to me like both groups are missing the point. Conservatives don't understand the common decency decorum and manners. Many media companies (with the exception of fox news) don't like to alienate and hence lose large demographics of viewers. At the same time these media companies are not likely to rock the status quo too much and alienate the advertisers who obviously rely on capitalist system to stay in business. The end result is obvious. The far right will have to stick with their talk shows on the radio and take whatever advertiser support they can get while the liberals will have to rely on listener sponsored support if they really want to present the far left point of view (such as KPFA 94.1 here in bay area). However for either side to cry "bias" is the height of arrogance and common sense and refusal to see forest for the trees.
#politics