The Left’s outrageous outrage at a proposal to require ultrasounds before abortion
posted at 9:00 pm on February 19, 2012 by Tina Korbe
The Slate piece that prompted this controversy is a few days old, but the conservative backlash to it is just picking up steam. Thursday, Supreme Court reporter Dahlia Lithwick (whose name I’ve always envied!) penned a preposterous attack on a proposed law in Virginia that would require women to have an ultrasound before they would be allowed to have an abortion. Ms. Lithwick is convinced – convinced – that an ultrasound amounts to rape. She writes:
Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced. Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.
Let’s suppose for a second that a transvaginal ultrasound to which women have not consented is rape. Unfortunately for Ms. Lithwick, she’s still flat-out wrong about the law. Why? She vastly overstates the probability that “most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure.” Dana Loesch links to a piece at Red State that sets the record straight:
So does Virginia’s law require some foreign object to be “inserted into the vagina, and then moved around”? The answer is obviously no. The law doesn’t specify what kind of ultrasound must be used, rather it clearly states that the sonogram “shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community.” This, obviously, is going to be a function of whatever device Dr. Mengele has at his disposal in the abortion facility.
Abdominal and transvaginal ultrasounds are both effective at early stages of pregnancy. This fact is acknowledged in this “continuing medical education” module produced by the National Abortion Foundation (tag line: “A Provider’s Guide to Medical Abortion”):
“Transabdominal ultrasound cannot reliably diagnose pregnancies that are < 6 weeks’ gestation. Transvaginal ultrasound, by contrast, can detect pregnancies earlier, at approximately 4 ½ to 5 weeks’ gestation. Prompt diagnosis made possible by TVU can, therefore, result in earlier treatment.”
So, yes, transvaginal is more reliable for detecting pregnancies for a period of about seven days. Please note the Orwellian use of the word “treatment” for “killing of the baby.” How does this require a woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound? Short answer: it doesn’t.
OK, so Lithwick’s wrong about the law. Is she right about what constitutes rape? Would we say that when a women consents to it, an ultrasound is in any way sexual? I’m inclined to agree with Commentary’s Alana Goodman:
Comparing the ultrasound proposal to forcible rape is – to be kind – totally absurd. But [Slate's] not the only outlet engaging in this. Feministe is calling it the “Virginia Rape Law,” and Washington Monthly described it as the “Ritual Humiliation Bill.”
Then there’s Joy Behar, who likened it to Taliban law on “The View”: “It’s like, what are we? What is this, the Taliban now? What are we, in Afghanistan? Where are we exactly in this country?”
The comparisons aren’t just needlessly inflammatory, they also dilute the seriousness of rape.
That last sentence is the linchpin: To equate a medical procedure that carries no real risk of negative consequences — like emotional trauma or STDs — with rape, which does carry such consequences, does an enormous injustice to true rape victims. Incidentally, the Virginia law aims to ensure women have as much information as possible before they decide to undergo another medical procedure that does carry an enormous risk of negative consequences — including emotional trauma.
As Goodman writes, sound reasons to oppose the Virginia law — or, at least, to think seriously about it — certainly exist, but the argument that an ultrasound is somehow rape is just not one of them.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
my emotions dont need recalibrating. you cannot hold and hug an fertilized egg. you dont see it move and breed, you cannot tickle its toes and have your heart melted at the mere sight of it.
I actually find quite deceiving that prolifers call babies to these pregnancy stages. They are purposely exaggerating so that they elicit an distorted emotional response to the killing of this early pregnancy stage beings.
I reason and picture things as they are. to think that killing this is the same as killing a full term baby is silly unless you inject an theological soul to it.
ah! no way! emotions are one of our best barometers for morality. indeed, some of the world worse atrocities were perpetrated by overdiminishing emotions with rationality. think crusades, nazis or polpot.
morals are indeed an combination of emotion, reason and cultural heritage. they are all necessary.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 8:14 AM
Sorry, I have to call you on this. The Nazis, and Polpot were all about emotion and nothing about reason or morality. If you want to get millions of people to buy into your ideas, you have to get them to believe you and you use emotion to get them to ignore what they would ordinarily believe is repugnant. That is exactly how people like Hitler and Polpot are successful.
armygirl on February 20, 2012 at 8:22 AM
armygirl on February 20, 2012 at 8:22 AM
this girl is on fiyah.
ted c on February 20, 2012 at 8:28 AM
But its not about sex policing.
libfreeordie on February 20, 2012 at 8:33 AM
But its not about hating women.
libfreeordie on February 20, 2012 at 8:35 AM
we have to do some ethical calculus of when a life is deserving that 100% protection considering our technology and knowledge. will invitro embryos deserve that 100% protection. after all, they were created, and in the end destroyed, to give 1 life the chance of growing. That life is also dependent of its host that might no desire it and whose gestation comes at no little cost.
what about cloning?
so tricky…
sure, but early stages of life are actually cheap. In average 1 can be created every month(1000′s by technological means). even those created very often are discarded by nature in early term miscarriages.
so, no,I disagree, early pregnancy life, by nature own rules, is actually cheaper than later stage life and thus, more easily discarded.
eh! by the way, catholics thing unbaptized babies that die will not got to heaven, they will stay all eternity in limbo.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 8:35 AM
More proof that the pro-life movement is about policing sex. You all don’t exactly make this difficult.
libfreeordie on February 20, 2012 at 8:36 AM
if you mean that they used negative emotions like hate to subdue positive emotions like forgivness, I agree. you manage that trick using reason. For example, you reason another being has subhuman and appealing to hate, you disconnect soldiers empathy, and voila, you have the genesis of a massacre.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 8:41 AM
But they love to suggest ultrasounds as part of their “genetic counseling”. I had to explain to my Japanese wife what exactly they mean when they say “genetic counseling”.
kuro_shogun on February 20, 2012 at 8:41 AM
Every action humans take is on some level emotional. That’s what emotions do. They motivate action. If we didn’t want to day anything, to whatever limited degree, we would do nothing and die.
It isn’t either/or — it’s both.
There’s nothing inherently “logical” about valuing life or protecting the weak. These are value judgments and come down to emotions.
They may be wonderful things, but they don’t derive from core principles.
Were one to try to excise emotions as much as possible, one would probably see the “practicality” of all manner of things our society considers abhorrent.
You’re just wrong on this, armygirl.
Random on February 20, 2012 at 8:58 AM
*to do anything
Random on February 20, 2012 at 8:58 AM
Becauese sayign that if someone doens’t want to get pregnant that they should reduse their chances by (a) not f***ing everything that moves and (b) be more careful when having sex = policing sex. Gotcha.
Yeah, it’s all about policing sex. That’s why there are all of those bills out there making having sex outside of marriage lega…..what? There aren’t such bills/laws out there? You don’t say.
You know what? I can make assumptions too. How about all those that go on about being “pro-life” as nothing more then being about police sex are actually saying so in order to illeviate guilt that they have becuase they have f*** and s*** every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there.
See hwo that works?
DethMetalCookieMonst on February 20, 2012 at 9:00 AM
What you’re saying is rational, I’m simply reasoning from the precondition that Christianity is true and what that would imply for the spiritual wellbeing of a child in utero.
Random on February 20, 2012 at 9:01 AM
eh, I did not notice that one!
I got news for tom, many atheist I know are geeks with an reduced interest in sex. they probably enjoy more some computer game than sex. sad truth.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 9:06 AM
I noticed. but, according to your rational, the parents also want to save their souls, so, while saving the “baby” soul, they would be damning their own.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 9:09 AM
Abortion cannot survive truth. It cannot survive knowledge. It cannot survive reality. It cannot survive full and free access to information.
We don’t need God or the Church or politicians to end abortion. All we need is that truth. I am convinced that 99.9% of people – especially women – would never have an abortion if they knew exactly what it was.
If they SAW what they were destroying.
That is why the murderers on the Left fear Truth above all else.
It is the one thing they cannot spin and cannot hide from.
Professor Blather on February 20, 2012 at 9:09 AM
Let me honestly say I’m puzzled by what you are talking about. Mimsey questioned me about my denial of “post-abortion syndrome”. I don’t understand the relevance of that to a consistent view of liberty relative to abortion. I’m not even sure what your “consistent view of liberty” is, but I trust it is consistent. I doubt that I would agree with your axis of consistency. Still, even if there were some way you could convince me that abortion is a moral bad, I still wouldn’t think of opposing abortion as pro-liberty. Could you state what your argument is.
thuja on February 20, 2012 at 9:11 AM
No surprise there.
Because, you know, posting it 500 times isn’t enough for some people…
Life is a fundamental liberty. And since I consider an unborn child to be a living human being, abortion denies that child a liberty that should not be denied anyone without due process. And since people forfeit their own lives through their own actions, what action has any unborn child committed to forfeit their life?
NotCoach on February 20, 2012 at 9:21 AM
we can see what is being destroyed:
1 day pregnancy
6 days
4 weeks
7 weeks
there is no need to spin or hide things. you cannot hold, hug, tickle or have your heart melt looking at any of those.
those things are just not babies as we understand them and women will understand as what it is, a possible future baby, but at the moment nothing pretty to stare at.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 9:23 AM
Nicely done…
right2bright on February 20, 2012 at 9:36 AM
You need to get out more:
http://go.cua.edu/galleries/index.cfm/gallery/view/148
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/286969/20120124/march-life-2012-youth-join-massive-anti.htm
ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 9:39 AM
Ok. It is consistent. Obviously, I disagree with the moral status of the fetus. What I see of interest is the comparison of abortion to the death penalty. I support the death penalty as apparently you do. I take it you reject the “seamless garment of life” rhetoric?
thuja on February 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM
libfreeordie,
It is not about policing sex. It is about killing unborn children. Saying that people who have sex should be ready to accept the consequences is not anti-sex.
McDuck on February 20, 2012 at 9:45 AM
they took many of those young from the catholic and christian education institutions. also, I found many religious references in that march.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 9:45 AM
Hmm. What to say here.
First off, those who argue ethics are based on emotions are simply wrong. The ancient Greeks clearly understood that there were three separate bases for any argument, and that these bases were independent. Those bases were logos (reason), pathos (emotion), and ethos (ethics or morals). A single argument can have more than one of these bases contained within it, but to claim that any argument derived from ethos actually derives from pathos is a confusion of facts.
In further support of this, the field of ethics has a much longer history than the field of psychology (those being the fields of study relating to ethos and pathos, respectively). Again, I do not see how someone can argue that ethics spring from emotion.
Now, I would certainly agree that 90% or more of the people living today would not recognize an ethos-driven argument if it bit them on the face, but you cannot therefore generalize from that fact.
People who say that value judgements are simply emotions are wrong, by the above. You cannot reduce a value into an emotion. If you say this, then you are implicitly stating that emotions have value in and of themselves. Even the US legal system does not believe this. For example, you cannot argue ‘justifiable homicide’ if you are angry because someone did something unjust.
Emotion could be the effect of a felt wrong. However, in that case, emotion springs from ethics, and not the reverse. I do agree that emotion can help spur action, but what is the source of the emotion?
Scott H on February 20, 2012 at 9:47 AM
Nice to see y’all got this settled. ; )
Bmore on February 20, 2012 at 9:48 AM
Dr Tesla, Thank you. Enough said on that.
Nathor and many others, you are one sick individual(s).
LIFE!
Pro Life (Anti-Abortion) = LIFE
Pro Choice (Pro-Abortion) = DEATH
Funny they don’t consider themselves Pro Death, oh the horror. It must be great living guilt free, judgement day will tell a different story I’m afraid.
D-fusit on February 20, 2012 at 9:49 AM
I was responding to Nathor who said that Hitler and Polpot were able to perpetrate their atrocities because the suppressed emotion and that emotion was a good gauge of what is moral.
I agree that emotions are exactly what causes us to want to protect life. We can discuss other logical reasons to protect life, but at the core is the emotion of love.
armygirl on February 20, 2012 at 9:53 AM
There are no absolutes when it comes to liberties. A persons right to life does not trump all, especially when that person has taken purposeful action to deny another their life.
The right to life is probably the most fundamental right and the one to be respected above all others. That is why we should take great care in denying or taking that right from others. And if an unborn child is not a criminal making conscious decisions, then that unborn child cannot be reasonably denied life in a sane world. The only exception would be a conflict of liberties in which a mother’s life is truly in danger if she carries a child to term. All other liberties of a mother take a back seat to a child’s right to life since life is the first and strongest right.
NotCoach on February 20, 2012 at 9:54 AM
sorry, I only claimed that our morals or ethics come from a mix of our reason, emotions and cultural inheritance.
our personal morals , meaning our own personal set of rules of what is right or wrong comes takes from all 3 above. by the way, religion is but one of the cultural inheritance components of our personal morals that some might reason to take more seriously.
you are wrong, emotions is a very basic human experience. you fell hate,love, empathy, pride, envy, jealousness. shame.
you dont need ethics to fell empathy for someone that suffers the same way that you once suffered. it a raw emotion. you might after use reason and your cultural inheritance to subdue or enhance that emotion, thus taking the decision of helping or not the other human being.
example, you see a beggar and you pity him. you can:
-reason that you cannot help all beggars and dismiss him
-reason that you did not give for sometime and help him out
-remenber that is your christian duty to help the poor and help him out
-remenber that is your christian duty to help the poor but reason that you cannot help him now.
-you will find the situation of the beggar unberable(strong emotion) and help him out.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM
they took many of those young from the catholic and christian education institutions. also, I found many religious references in that march.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 9:45 AM
Gee, ya’ think? At a pro-life rally? Go figure… The point is that Tesla seems to have a bit of a selection bias working against him, when he indicates that no young people are interested in the issue.
ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 10:11 AM
thuja on February 20, 2012 at 10:15 AM
So if one is cute enough he gets to live?
Akzed on February 20, 2012 at 10:16 AM
can you explain to me how a murderous child killer supporter like myself has children?
no, I dont feel guilty at all. this issue is not as black and white as you put it. a few posts back i made a long list of reasons why abortion rights is ok with me.
there will be no judgment, that is religious fantasies.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 10:18 AM
As a woman who has been raped and just recently received a transvaginal ultrasound, I can tell you the latter in no way resembles the former.
These people are insane.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Death is an essential feature of life. How can one be pro-life without being pro-death?
thuja on February 20, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Perhaps my post will appear later, but I will say it again anyway:
As a woman who has been raped & has recently even undergone this ultrasound procedure, I can attest to the fact that the latter is nothing even close to being like the former.
These people are insane.
If you want a medical procedure like an abortion, I find nothing wrong with requiring another medical procedure before you can partake of the killing of your fetal tissue.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Substitute for death pain, illness, sorrow, or fear for “death” in this ridiculous sentence and you might comprehend what an idiotic statement that is.
Akzed on February 20, 2012 at 10:22 AM
You do know Stalin had a child, don’t you?
So did Mao.
Just sayin’.
For the record tho, IDK if you are a child killer, but you certainly seem to have no problem with it.
In reality, when you stand by & support such things, you are no better than the perpetrators.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 10:23 AM
cuteness its not at stake here. they barely have any resemblance to humans or full term babies. you cannot cuddle it, hold it, or anything you would normally do to a baby. it is what it is, and womens looking at it wont feel that deep motherhood feeling as you might imagine they would.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Abortion is an elective procedure. It is not necessary.
Therefore, if you want to do such a thing, you ought to be counseled as to what it is you are really doing.
There are some extremely stupid people out there who have been convinced this ‘thing’ inside them isn’t really a person at all.
No one is forcing people to get abortions.
If you don’t want to have the ultrasound, then don’t.
Go have the baby.
If you don’t want to have the baby, you shoulda thought about then when you opened your legs.
(please don’t kibbitz on the rare instances of rape).
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Which, I don’t think, is a very good definition of life. It makes you the determiner of someone else’s worthiness to live.
Is an amoeba cuddly? No. Is it alive? Yes.
Akzed on February 20, 2012 at 10:30 AM
There you go again nathor, taking yet another opportunity to prove you’re one of the biggest dolts currently posting on HA. If you’re going to go off on your anti-Catholic rants, at least try and learn what Catholics actually believe in. You might want to take a look at a 2007 Vatican document entitled “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised” wherein the Church moved completely away from the concept of limbo for unbaptized infants. I know it doesn’t fit your anti-Catholic agenda, but it’s the truth.
Trafalgar on February 20, 2012 at 10:30 AM
A man would say something like this.
It is true some people are very detached from humans, AKA little clumps of cells.
Perhaps you were not moved when you might have heard the heartbeat of your child for the very 1st time.
I know I was, & so was my daughter.
Not being able to cuddle something or hold it does not equate into it being ok to go along & then kill it.
It’s easy to rationalize anything.
But that doesn’t make it right.
This has nothing to do with religion.
The eliminating of children in the womb is reducing our genetic diversity.
From a biological standpoint, this is almost suicidal.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM
I move that since the naked mole rat does not elicit maternal feelings that all of them must be killed.
They are hideous & definitely not cuddly.
In fact, fetal humans look somewhat like naked mole rats.
Kill them all.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 10:35 AM
My bad. Cuddliness, not cuteness. You win I guess.
Akzed on February 20, 2012 at 10:36 AM
Nathor, you rationalize these things bcs you want to sleep at night without guilt.
I understand that kind of thing.
When I have held a view that is wrong, I have in the past often tried to rationalize by behavior bcs facing the fact that my position was wrong was uncomfortable.
The fog you live in is addictive and leads to the rationalization of all kinds of other things.
I’m not a social conservative.
I’m simply interested in making unborn human beings a valuable member of our society.
The genes they posses are valuable to our gene pool.
Eliminating the diversity from our gene pool in this manner is a bad thing.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Oh c’mon, Badger! A certain kind of man, but please…
Akzed on February 20, 2012 at 10:38 AM
All of this boils down to a question of personal responsibility. Most conservatives believe that you are individually responsible for your actions. This responsibility does not start when it is convenient or when you feel like it, it starts when you make a decision. So at its core even most libertarian leaning individuals have issue with abortion because it is an abrogation of responsibility. Unless rape was involved or the life of the mother is in jeopardy (and I mean current not hypothetical future jeopardy) abortion is an escape from responsibility.
It really is no wonder that the party/ideology that grew up in the 60s/70s RUNNING from any kind of personal responsibility chooses to support killing “human tissue” and saving cop killers. Its always about the easy way out…glad I was raised better than that.
airmonkey on February 20, 2012 at 10:39 AM
imagine that some Buddhist sect fells that ant are reincarnation of humans and you step on a few. they would be shocked and call you murderor.
while by no way, see early month pregnancies as disposable as ants, I would dismiss those Buddhist accusations nearly as easily as i will dismiss yours
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 10:40 AM
As a man and thus unlikely to ever experience what you have endured (unless I someday end up in a maximum security prison), I really can’t relate and will take your word for it on whether or not this rises to the level of rape. I find the notion ridiculous myself, but it is hard to argue with a woman they should like having a probe shoved up their hoo-hoo. But since a baby killer is going there anyways I see little to no reason to complain, especially since the ultrasound is less invasive then the eventual murder and evacuation of the unborn child.
But none of this matters. Those having a hysterical fit about this law are lying. There is no requirement for a transvaginal procedure in the law. It only calls for an ultrasound. I would assume any type of ultrasound would satisfy the requirements of the law.
It is a calculated campaign of misinformation to try and stop a law that they know will reduce abortion rates. And it is the reduction in abortion rates that upsets them the most, not a woman’s health or rights.
NotCoach on February 20, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Hold on, getting out my Gibberish-English dictionary. Be back with a response when I figure out WTF this even means.
Trafalgar on February 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM
What I want to know, seriously folks, is how did we come to the point that women’s status in this country is measured primarily by women’s access to abortion technology and contraceptives? Man. Talk about a view of women that sees them as essentially mindless (incapable of making responsible choices) reproduction machines. And the worst part is, women’s “leaders” are doing it to women themselves. I honestly don’t get it.
UnrepentantCurmudgeon on February 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM
I am going to restate a question I asked from last night for you. If a person had come up to your pregnant wife and punched her in the stomach causing your unborn fetus to die what would you want that person charged with? Assault since the only living person was your wife, or manslaughter because you love your unborn child?
Not answering is all the answer we all really need, since I fully expect you to ignore this anyway…
airmonkey on February 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM
+100
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Sorry, Nathor. I have had several children and known countless women in the early stages of pregnancy, and they all “knew” before the color changed on the EPT strip that there was life inside. Just as, for example, you would be aware that you had an idea if in fact you were not brain dead.
UnrepentantCurmudgeon on February 20, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Nonsense… its about preventing people from killing their offspring. Murder is wrong… period.
dominigan on February 20, 2012 at 10:48 AM
Actually, no it’s not idiotic. You only have the choice of embracing life as it is, and not some fantasy of life. To say yes to life means accepting that death, pain, illness, sorrow, and fear will be a part of it. In fact, doesn’t the “pro-life” movement use a similar idea in arguing against euthanasia?
At the risk of attracting Pavlovian reactions, I would point out that what I’m saying here has been made most poignantly by Nietzsche. No need to get out any anti-Nietzsche screeds, because his point here could still be valid regardless of what much of the rest of his philosophy has to say. Section 341 from the “The Gay Science”:
thuja on February 20, 2012 at 10:48 AM
if you want to think of those as babies, you are free to, I just cannot.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM
The only people who would not want to relive their lives are those who are ashamed of their choices/actions in that life. Maybe that is why moral relativists like yourself and Nietzsche dont want to live your life over, at some level you realize your decisions are wrong…
airmonkey on February 20, 2012 at 10:53 AM
You’re still rationalizing.
And it still doesn’t address the scientific question I posed: loss of genetic diversity.
As a rancher’s wife/unpaid hand, I see every calf as a precious creature.
I know I cannot save every calf, & some are not meant to be saved.
I do not see them as dollar signs. I see them as precious living things.
I routinely deal with the savageness of life & death, so I am well aware of what fetal tissues represent.
I have seen cows abort calves & it is very sad, but a part of life.
There are some cows that will kick the head in of their calf & kill it.
But these are few.
Most cows that lose their calves will mourn for weeks.
IT is incredibly sad to watch.
Nathor, you are one of nature’s creatures that subscribe to the idea in life that life is not precious unless you feel that it is so.
I have come across cows & horses & dogs & cats that are like this.
Unfeeling & savage. No concern over fetal elements.
But thankfully, the world is not as populated with that such as you.
Fortunately, when the ignorant leave that fog & understand what a voluntary abortion really means, they are appropriately horrified.
Choosing to ignore reality doesn’t make it less real.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM
Nietzsche was a fool. And for someone to quote Hitler’s favorite philosopher while excusing mass murder of people one finds undesirable is, I guess, not so surprising.
Akzed on February 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM
What a shock, Nathor is ignoring my question…knew it…
airmonkey on February 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM
if you want to think of Jews, blacks, slavs, or kulaks as humans, you are free to, I just cannot.
The same spirit guides each statement.
Akzed on February 20, 2012 at 10:57 AM
nathor has a habit of not answering “difficult” questions. I’m still waiting for him to answer me a question from months ago about a certain Republican presidential candidate’s publication of racist and bigoted newsletters. Asked him several times actually…not a peep.
Trafalgar on February 20, 2012 at 10:59 AM
good question, I would say that that I would want that person punished as much as possible. so, manslaughter.
however, the legal status says little about my personal sense of loss. my sense of loss would be probably much smaller if this incident happened very early in pregnancy than if it happened latter in pregnancy.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 11:00 AM
LOL!
I just cannot think of you as a viable human being.
Therefore it must be so.
Really, if you try it, you can rationalize just about anything.
Examples:
I was only giving her what she wanted. She said no, but her eyes said yes.
He’s not really alive bcs he’s in a coma. Pull the plug.
The amnio test says the kid has Down’s. Let’s kill it. (I’ve known of 2 instances where this type of test turned into a perfectly healthy normal baby without Down’s).
Scott Peterson only killed one person. That fetus inside its mother wasn’t cuddly. It was really gross & slimy looking.
Since he’s lost the use of his legs, he really isn’t a controbuting member of society. Really, he costs way more than he’s worth. Retroactive abortion.
Chickens should be able to decide who they love. Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable for a man to f$%^ chickens if he wants to.
My dog & I are in love, therefore there’s no reason we shouldn’t be able to marry.
Sally wants to commit suicide bcs she’s very unhappy. We should let her. After all, it’s her choice.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 11:00 AM
So time is a deciding factor on what you love.
I take it you’ll only love your grandchildren if they get to actually survive outside of the womb.
If not, there is nothing to love.
That heartbeat isn’t anything to love.
Even the promise of a grandchild is nothing to love.
Gotta be viable to love it.
Okay.
Gotcha.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Genocide is so easy to support when it’s done in the womb.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM
Yeah nathor, dogs are cute and cuddly!
Akzed on February 20, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Thank you for answering honestly, I retract my snarky quip about you ignoring my question and offer apologies.
This was the question that made me change from pro choice to pro life. I could not rationalize that somehow my unborn child was a person and someone else had an unborn child that was not a child at the same stage of development…it takes serious mental gymnastics to keep up that dual set of morals.
airmonkey on February 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM
so now you compare me to an animal. interesting…
you made no new argument, just replaced the insult.
moving on.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 11:07 AM
For the record, I loved my little granddaughter when I first heard the news.
I also loved her when I was in the Dr’s office to hear her heartbeat.
I find that I haven’t loved the idea of her, or her, herself, any less.
It is true as I get to know her that my love for her deepens with each day.
This is a child whose father wanted her killed.
It is an illegitimate child whose mother was an idiot, but has worked hard to stay off of welfare (which she has never been on).
It is a child who started out as a clump of uncuddly uncute cells that grew into this awesome little critter whom I love more than my own life.
Who woulda thunk it: a clump of cells that I love.
Only now instead of just a handful of a clump of cells, she is now a clump of trillions of cells.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM
You have no idea what my meta-theory of ethics is, and probably won’t even if tell you. I am a moral pluralist. It’s neither an objective or relative meta-theory of ethics. Nietzsche is arguably a pluralist also. An excellent conservative philsopher John Kekes argues that pluralist ethics are the best basis for Conservativism as a political philosophy.
I have never seen in practice any difference between what gets called moral relativism and moral objectivism. Non-philosophical moral relativist almost always have a simple set of rules for making moral judgments–which seems gosh darn objective to me. Anyway, when either moral relativism or moral objectivism is appealed to in an argument, simple mindedness generally follows. For instance, how you try to negate me as other by labeling me a relativist.
thuja on February 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM
You need to learn more about the law, just as you need to learn more about religion. Under US law (Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841)), it is a crime if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens,at any stage of development who is carried in the womb”. 36 states have similar laws. Why do you suppose that is? Why does the US and the majority of states recognize that life exists at any stage of development?
Trafalgar on February 20, 2012 at 11:10 AM
You are an animal.
So am I.
There is no difference.
We’re clumps of cells.
Actually, in my experience, animals can often act much more human than humans.
Since I live with & love & care for lots of animals on a daily basis, I personally find nothing wrong with being compared to an animal.
However, let’s be truthful here, I am comparing you to a savage animal.
And no, that isn’t a compliment.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 11:10 AM
LEt’s talk about real objective thinking here.
Screw all the moral tenets at issue on this & focus on the real scientific objective at issue: the loss of genetic diversity & species fitness.
Bcs when you eliminate huge numbers of members of your gene pool, you are putting your species’ survival at risk.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 11:13 AM
How easy it was for you to ignore the most important part of my comment and lock in to an incredibly inconsequential “you dont label me I label me” rant. I shall make it shorter for you and therefore easier for you to focus.
Only those who are ASHAMED of their choices in life would consider it torture to relive it.
There, now /rant on for you.
airmonkey on February 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM
what mental gymnastics? remove criminal case from here, it muddles the argument because our need of retribution would take priority to our sense of loss.
if your wife had an wanted baby, and she had a miscarriage, would you feel the same if it happened at 1 week, or 5 months?
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM
That’s only for the clumps of cells that people want.
In the event the fetus is unwanted, then it is perfectly fine to kill it.
In fact, in reality, since childhood is so tenuous, we really ought to legalize the killing of unwanted children.
Bcs they’re just clumps of unwanted cells.
ESPECIALLY the ugly ones.
Nobody wants those.
And don’t forget the disabled & retarded ones.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 11:15 AM
So, in the event a doctor selects a transvaginal ultra sound procedure rather than the less invasive abdominal …. still how is that procedure any more a “rape” than inserting medical tools to dismember the fetus and then inserting a vacuum hose to achieve the abortion?
There are a myriad of reasons not to support this legislation, but this one is absurd.
Ten on February 20, 2012 at 11:16 AM
i got the insult first time. any new argument?
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 11:17 AM
I am racist toward babies?!? is this the argument you trying to make?
silly…
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 11:19 AM
I guessed that some moron would pull out a screed against Nietzsche. It’s why I suggested avoiding a Pavlovian reaction to presence of his name.
A serious conversation on this topic would require inquiry into Nietzsche’s sister role in Hitler’s kind feelings toward Nietzsche. Of course, you have no interest in serious conversation on the subject, and I doubt you have the ability to have a serious conversation.
thuja on February 20, 2012 at 11:20 AM
I was fully invested in my children from the moment I knew they existed. If you were not then that is you, no judgements. But I can not in good conscience have dual morals, one set for me and one for others.
gotta go for a while
TTFN
airmonkey on February 20, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Just when I think I’m finally starting to get you. You go and say something like this. Back to not understanding what you say, I guess.
Bmore on February 20, 2012 at 11:22 AM
I thought you had moved on.
I thought you were comfortable with your current rationalizations.
Altho I did have a new argument above:
But it’s not important for you to weigh in on this.
I don’t want to knock you out of your comfort zone.
If you want to believe there is a difference in being a human based on the numbers of one’s cells, who am I to try & change your mind?
Perspective is a funny thing.
It’ll either harden you or soften you.
It is quite savagely animalistic to consider the future of the human race as expendable.
If you find this insulting, you are clearly the one with issues.
I didn’t call you a stinky poo poo head or say you were dumb.
It is wild & fierce & ferocious to kill the unborn. And since you are fine with this, that is the category in the English language that best defines you.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM
I’ll help you with this one:
Akzed is saying that believing unborn babies being expendable is akin to the idea that other races are less than human & that it is OK to make them expendable.
Glad to help out.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Well all, I am off to help with the discovering of cow fetuses.
Hubby & I are going to go PG some cows.
When hubby feels those fetuses with his hand as it’s inserted in the cow’s a$$, I’ll let him know that those are just clumps of cells & that they don’t really mean anything.
I’ll also tell the nephew not to make any financial plans based on those worthless clumps of cells.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Enjoy, cows are smarter then horses.
Bmore on February 20, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Because the left wants to ensure that women are as uninformed as possible before having an abortion. An informed women is much less likely to go through with an abortion, which hurts the one thing that leftists hold as “holy” – abortion.
Monkeytoe on February 20, 2012 at 11:30 AM
we dont need over complicate this. 1 week miscarriage, little sense of loss, 3 month miscarriage, big sense of loss.
I am a monster by feeling this way?
in parallel:
1 week abortion , little sense of guilt, 3 month abortion, big sense of guilt.
its really that simple for me.
I had this true personal experience, my wife though she was pregnant and we took a test. it shown light blue. some days later, she had period again. we went to the doctor and in the blood test, it shown a residual hCG. the doctor said it was probably a very early miscarriage.
did I cry for the loss of life? did I feel that I had just lost a son? of course not! we just took a dinner and some wine and planned to try again as soon as possible.
latter we had a 3 month miscarriage and I tell you it was harder to deal with, but nothing like the drama that would be to lose any of my living childreen.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 11:32 AM
but early pregnancy babies are not humans of other races. its apples and oranges comparison, and that is why it is silly.
nathor on February 20, 2012 at 11:34 AM
I will agree in a lot of ways, they are.
But from my experience, it usually comes down to the individual & genetics.
The practice of abortion in some places seems to have concentrated the stupid gene in those gene pools.
So perhaps my above argument about genetic diversity & fitness of the species should be modified.
Only let the uneducated & perpetually ignorant kill their babies since this will hopefully lead to increased ousting of those undesirable genetic qualities.
I guess Margaret Sanger had a point in starting Planned Parenthood/Eugenics.
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM
What Progressives should stay up nights thinking about is once they make the test for certain medical procedures and drugs up to the federal government, all it will take is an anti-abortion President to shut it all down. Roe v Wade will mean nothing once the government is already involved in the choice abrogating any claim of privacy.
J_Crater on February 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM
I used to work in ultrasound, I just wanted to say that it was usually called a endo-vaginal (EV) probe (not a transvaginal probe).
Some of the EV probes have virtually no moving parts but some annular probes have an alternating internal probe head that moves back-and-forth creating a bit of vibration. The story always was that there was never a problem getting “models” (i.e. volunteers) for probe testing with these vibrating EV probes.
There was one company (who will remain nameless) who had an EV probe mounted to a chair (referred to in the trade as the ‘comfy chair’). My favorite was that I always wondered if women would be comfortable with an EV probe made by Seimens.
J_Crater on February 20, 2012 at 11:37 AM
You misunderstand Nietzsche. The entire point of his book “The Gay Science” is how to live a happy life. (It’s was written before “gay” meant homosexual.) Nietzsche was talking about a moment of despair. To be human means having moments of despair.
But overall, the reason I didn’t reply to the “most important part” of your comment is because it was a stupid point, and I thought best ignored. The reason I am arguing as I am is because I am saying we should accept the whole of life with its suffering and pain and death. It would make no sense for me or Nietzsche to encourage people to embrace life as it is if we thought life is just torture.
thuja on February 20, 2012 at 11:37 AM
See my next argument.
This will fit nicely with your more naturalistic nature point of view.
Those aborted babies are simply unfit bcs their parents are stupid enough to kill their babies, hence they are doing us all as humans a big favor by eliminating more worthless & stupid future human beings.
Nathor, I really think you’re on to something here.
Bcs as you know, a ‘race’ of human beings in reality is just a gene pool of its own.
And since some gene pools are clearly not as fit as others, we need to encourage this practice.
And since blacks & hispanics are killing their unborn at a much higher rate than other gene pools, it is clearly natural selection that is winning here.
Ergo blacks & hispanics are unfit.
Hey I can really get into this rationalization stuff.
You’ve really opened my eyes Nathor!
Badger40 on February 20, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Women hardly know they’re pregnant at one week.
So you’re taking your girlfriend to the abortionist, you get in a fight, you punch her in the baby and it dies. You’d be charged with murder. Wanting the baby or not would be irrelevant.
Akzed on February 20, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »