Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
I certainly wouldn't want to destroy the first amendment... but what about in places that do not have it, and already restrict speech in so many ways? It seems that if one is going to conceded to give that power to the state, it should be used for the good. We should never concede that power to the state... but in all but one country, and even in that one to a large degree, we have allowed it... free speech has only ever existed for a blink of the eye in a tiny place on the Earth. I treasure it... but Europe seems to treasure it less... and they have some rather serious social problems that need solving.

I am also sceptical about a top-down method, I believe Calinthalus mentioned. But again... I see problems that were created in a top-down manner, and no grass-roots alternative. The seal of free speech is already broken... what is lost by secularizing, or at least restricting the extreme stuff?

(perhaps I'm just playing devil's advocate. I feel such despair that free speech is not upheld throughout the West...)

That it might be legally defensible to enact such a law would not make me in favor of doing it.  My support of this right is not there simply because it's the legal practice in my country, it's there because I feel it's the best way for a government to act that I'm aware of.  At best, I might support a restrictive law on speech if it'd serve to level the playing field instead of unbalancing it towards or against a group.
2
The idea that pro choice people want unlimited abortion options up to the day before the due date is misleading anyway.
If thats not what you believe and just think the limit should be set at a date informed by scientific consensus then congratulations, you agree with pretty much every reasonable pro choicer.

If the limits that someone would want to impose have more to do with a womans justification for her choices, then they are just trying to find reasonable language to impose their morals on others.
But when speaking in vague terms its very easy to dismiss people who would disagree with you as ideologues.

If people are giving their votes to 'pro-lifers' because they think there is some nuance lacking in the pro-choice proposals and somehow think the pro-choice politicians will help to work that out then they are being duped and doing harm.

I got to page 5 and saw Harry's post above and was like "Cool! I hope he's right because I thought a lot more pro-choice people are pro-choice even the hour before the baby would be born".

Then by page 8 I see more than one person seems to take the position that women really should be able to abort no matter how far along in the pregnancy.

Do we believe that women waiting until 38 weeks and deciding "nah" on a whim is an issue?

Less than 1.3% of abortions performed are done so more than 21 weeks from the last known menstruation. Of those 12,000+ performed during the second and third trimester, how many do we suspect were performed when the life of the child or mother was not at risk? It's not like it's just as safe or less safe the further along you get, and the doctors performing such a procedure aren't tenting fingers and gleefully giggling at the idea of ripping out a baby. We have medical ethics boards to contend with.

So I repeat the question: What problem exists that will be solved by making abortion after XYZ week illegal?

I don't know how many would decide to abort 37 or 38 weeks or if any would at all. I think that if someone did decide to do it then because they changed their mind it wouldn't be the same and wouldn't be right. So I guess it would prevent those very rare cases if they did happen. Its possible it wouldn't ever occur although I'm sure it would eventually with so many people. I think some of it is also not being comfortable that it COULD happen legally even if it's not happening. Given that we think it's almost a non issue, it means very few if any women would have to be turned down if they changed their mind as well.

I bring up the most extreme case (right before birth) to see if we all at least agree with that, and it seems we don't. I'm curious what percentage of pro choice people are for the right to abort up to the very end. I'm especially interested in the percentage of pro choice women.
3
Podcasts / Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Last post by Eternally Learning on Today at 05:28:54 AM »
(click to show/hide)
4
Podcasts / Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Last post by Eternally Learning on Today at 05:17:17 AM »
Sorry, didn't realize that it'd gone up a day early.

Quote from: New TTTBE Question
A landowner executed an instrument in the proper form of a deed purporting to convey his land to a friend.  The landowner handed the instrument to the friend saying, "This is yours but please do not record it until after I'm dead, otherwise it will cause me no end of trouble with my relatives."  2 days later, the landowner asked the friend to return the deed to him because he'd decided he should devise the land to the friend by will, rather than by deed.  The friend said that he would destroy the deed and so a day or so later, falsely told the landowner that the deed had been destroyed.  6 months ago, the landowner who'd never executed a will, died intestate, survived by a daughter as his sole heir.  The day after the landowner's death, the friend recorded the deed from him.  As soon as the daughter discovered this recording and the friend's claim to the land, she brought an appropriate action against the friend to quiet title to the land.  For whom should the court hold?

A.  The daughter.  Because the death of the landowner deprived the subsequent recording of any effect.

B.  The daughter.  Because the friend was dishonest in claiming he'd destroyed the deed.

C.  The friend.  Because the deed was delivered to him.

D.  The friend.  Because the deed was recorded by him.

5
Some creationists also have credentials too. . .Doesn't stop them from dishonesty either.
I tend to believe you are arguing about a problem that does not really exist.
6
I certainly wouldn't want to destroy the first amendment... but what about in places that do not have it, and already restrict speech in so many ways? It seems that if one is going to conceded to give that power to the state, it should be used for the good. We should never concede that power to the state... but in all but one country, and even in that one to a large degree, we have allowed it... free speech has only ever existed for a blink of the eye in a tiny place on the Earth. I treasure it... but Europe seems to treasure it less... and they have some rather serious social problems that need solving.

I am also sceptical about a top-down method, I believe Calinthalus mentioned. But again... I see problems that were created in a top-down manner, and no grass-roots alternative. The seal of free speech is already broken... what is lost by secularizing, or at least restricting the extreme stuff?

(perhaps I'm just playing devil's advocate. I feel such despair that free speech is not upheld throughout the West...)
7
It isn't at all easy to find sources that appear unbiased... although some have medical credentials... I would argue that left leaning research scientists would not want to look into such an issue... but in any case, a few more articles in favor...

https://www.liveaction.org/news/1200-too-many-a-look-at-born-alive-abortion-statistics/
https://aclj.org/planned-parenthood/362-infants-born-alive-result-botched-abortions-died-decade
https://www.heartbeatservices.org/pdf/Post-Abortion_Survivor_Syndrome.pdf

And here an article claiming it to be a myth...

https://rewire.news/article/2013/08/22/disproven-the-myth-of-infants-born-alive-after-abortions/

I will have to spend some more time reading... I can't spare the time just now. But I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong about this particular horrorshow.

The question is then, in late-term abortions, what is done to stop the life function of a baby that would otherwise survive delivery? Does anybody happen to know? I feel that that is perhaps where the line should be drawn. One should not have to actively snuff a life, rather than simply removing it before it can survive with care.
8
I’m sorry. I’d intended to include these links when I posted it.

https://theabortionsurvivors.com
http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/abortionsurvivors.cfm

This looks very much like a pro life sites and they are known to be dishonest.
Can you find anything in the actual medical literature?
9
Nope.  I disagree wholeheartedly.  I do not want the government to decide what's acceptable speech beyond certain extreme examples that I do not think the majority of religious belief falls under.  The constraints on public displays should not specifically target groups of any kind, only actions.
10
I’m sorry. I’d intended to include these links when I posted it.

https://theabortionsurvivors.com
http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/abortionsurvivors.cfm
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
personate-rain
personate-rain