11 year old rape victim forced to carry to term thanks to Ohio law.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can we please ban anybody who actually believes the Government should force a child to have a child because she was raped by a pedophile. How is this even a credible opinion to hold in the year 2019?

It's a credible opinion because the circumstances of a woman's pregnancy does not affect the humanity of the unborn child.  That unborn child who is the product of this twisted rape is no less human than you or I were at that point in human development.

This 11 year old child either knows that reality right now, or will figure it out as she grows older.  It will hit her one day, and the effect it will have on her on that day is dependent, at least in part, on the decisions she makes regarding life and death for that unborn child.

If people are honest, they can't argue with what I just said. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can we please ban anybody who actually believes the Government should force a child to have a child because she was raped by a pedophile. How is this even a credible opinion to hold in the year 2019?

It's a credible opinion because the circumstances of a woman's pregnancy does not affect the humanity of the unborn child.  That unborn child who is the product of this twisted rape is no less human than you or I were at that point in human development.

This 11 year old child either knows that reality right now, or will figure it out as she grows older.  It will hit her one day, and the effect it will have on her on that day is dependent, at least in part, on the decisions she makes regarding life and death for that unborn child.

If people are honest, they can't argue with what I just said. 

That may not be necessary, having died during childbirth.

That would be highly unlikely today in America.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can we please ban anybody who actually believes the Government should force a child to have a child because she was raped by a pedophile. How is this even a credible opinion to hold in the year 2019?

It's a credible opinion because the circumstances of a woman's pregnancy does not affect the humanity of the unborn child.  That unborn child who is the product of this twisted rape is no less human than you or I were at that point in human development.

This 11 year old child either knows that reality right now, or will figure it out as she grows older.  It will hit her one day, and the effect it will have on her on that day is dependent, at least in part, on the decisions she makes regarding life and death for that unborn child.

If people are honest, they can't argue with what I just said. 

It's not a legal person. I was not a legal person when I was a fetus in my mother's uterus. You were not a legal person when you were a fetus in my mother's uterus.

Fetuses are not legal persons  Fetuses do not have rights.

Slaves were not legal persons.  Slaves did not have rights.  And, as an added bonus to their slavemasters, slaves were counted in the census as 3/5th of a person.

Your statement is a legal fact, but not a moral fact in the eyes of God.  I'll ride with that all day long.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can we please ban anybody who actually believes the Government should force a child to have a child because she was raped by a pedophile. How is this even a credible opinion to hold in the year 2019?

It's a credible opinion because the circumstances of a woman's pregnancy does not affect the humanity of the unborn child.  That unborn child who is the product of this twisted rape is no less human than you or I were at that point in human development.

This 11 year old child either knows that reality right now, or will figure it out as she grows older.  It will hit her one day, and the effect it will have on her on that day is dependent, at least in part, on the decisions she makes regarding life and death for that unborn child.

If people are honest, they can't argue with what I just said. 

That may not be necessary, having died during childbirth.

That would be highly unlikely today in America.

If you're an 11-years old the risk is significant, whether it's in America or some sub-Saharan poverty-ridden backwater, maybe to a diffrent degree but still. And if she were to survive, the risk of permanent disability that would in many cases essentially mean a delayed death sentence is probably even higher. Even if the chances were 50-50 or much less, it's still mind-blowingly cruel to subject the girl to that.

It's interesting some people seems to subscribe to the notion of the life beginning at conception and ending at birth, because this is essentially what the whole matter boils down to, whether they realize this or, more likely, just don't want to leave their comfy bubble of dogma. Maybe you guys should sit down and try to see the actual human factor here, not just some abstract ideological stuff.

You could at least cite former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) as the formulator of the highlighted phrase, lol.

I've been face to face with the "human factor", and I'm not alone.  In my personal life, I have had at least one grandchild aborted (that I know of).  My son and his girlfriend had always known that my wife and I would do whatever was needed for grandchildren, even if that involved raising the child ourselves, at our own expense.  No questions asked.  As both he and his girlfriend were rather dysfunctional at that time, we made it clear that we would not be dogging them for money; our only concern would be that we would have, through adoption or permanent guardianship, total authority in raising the child.  I was not going to willingly raise a child at the direction of people who were out to lunch.  (I was prepared to compromise as much as necessary for a child's sake, however.)

I know many Christians who are of the same mind, not just in advocacy, but in fact.  The not wanting to adopt or be bothered with children once they're born is, quite frankly, more typical of the pro-choice crowd, many of whom pontificate as to the needs of children, but find them a pain in the rear end when they have to deal with them.  They're the kind of secular grandparents who like visits from grandkids, but rejoice that they "go home".  Now I get that, but the idea that pro-life folks don't put their money and resources where their mouths are is just ridiculous.

What Christians DO view as important is encouraging childbirth within the context of marriage and family.  This is disrespected and blown off by many here, but it is a concept that is indispensable to the stability of a modern society.  Christians are right to question a welfare system that, however unintentionally, encourages out-of-wedlock births and discourages marriage for economic reasons.  Christians also contribute to the funding of any number of crisis pregnancy centers that provide all sorts of assistance for persons beset with untimely pregnancies.

Of course, the Barney Frank Throwaway Line is mostly horse manure.  How many people here would be OK in turning America into a pro-life Sweden; a Social Democracy where abortion is not legal, but there are the sort of cradle-to-grave benefits for folks that the Swedes have?  I'm for it; how about you?  Would you be OK with a Pro-Life Social Democratic America, where children are "taken care of"?  Where "life doesn't end at birth"?  If abolition of the Death Penalty was thrown in, would you be all in with Fuzzy Bear's Pro-Life Welfare State?  I'll even throw in the elimination of right-to-work laws; who's with me?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Since we are now playing with far-fetched comparisons, certain side of this argument reminds me of a mentality exhibited by many in the Holy Inquisition. For them torturing and killing scores of people was actually the ultimate act of Christian love, because they were saving their "immortal souls" for eternity.

Now their mental successors want to put an 11-year old rape victim at serious risk of death or permanent disability (with a good chance the baby wouldn't live either I might add) just so their fanatical conception of "life sanctity" remains intact. Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty.

And even if we assume that there was no risk of death or disability in delivering, treating a literal child as nothing more than a breeding cattle tells a lot about their psyche.

But, of course, the Inquisition was the act of an apostate Church, acting against Scripture, for which there was a Reformation to bring Christianity back to the Gospel.  You know this as well.  

Chrsitians view children as a life created by God, with an immortal soul all its own.  This is a bottom line.  You say that "Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty".  An interesting choice of language.

https://youtu.be/QUr0jCbcPNc

Is this not the worst cruelty?  I believe that the unborn child that feels pain would think so.  It is cruelty we would prohibit being done to an animal.  That we have this is the result of the Inflexible Purity of the Feminist Left and their political allies, who have viewed abortion as their "power" issue.  So, please, if we're going to use that concept, my example is far more current than something that happened in Medieval Europe.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Since we are now playing with far-fetched comparisons, certain side of this argument reminds me of a mentality exhibited by many in the Holy Inquisition. For them torturing and killing scores of people was actually the ultimate act of Christian love, because they were saving their "immortal souls" for eternity.

Now their mental successors want to put an 11-year old rape victim at serious risk of death or permanent disability (with a good chance the baby wouldn't live either I might add) just so their fanatical conception of "life sanctity" remains intact. Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty.

And even if we assume that there was no risk of death or disability in delivering, treating a literal child as nothing more than a breeding cattle tells a lot about their psyche.

But, of course, the Inquisition was the act of an apostate Church, acting against Scripture, for which there was a Reformation to bring Christianity back to the Gospel.  You know this as well.  

Chrsitians view children as a life created by God, with an immortal soul all its own.  This is a bottom line.  You say that "Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty".  An interesting choice of language.

https://youtu.be/QUr0jCbcPNc

Is this not the worst cruelty?  I believe that the unborn child that feels pain would think so.  It is cruelty we would prohibit being done to an animal.  That we have this is the result of the Inflexible Purity of the Feminist Left and their political allies, who have viewed abortion as their "power" issue.  So, please, if we're going to use that concept, my example is far more current than something that happened in Medieval Europe.

So now we're talking about later-term and partial-birth abortions too? Of course it's a valid topic to discuss, but still a deflection from what this thread is about.

I would contend that bringing up the Inquisition is a far greater deflection.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Since we are now playing with far-fetched comparisons, certain side of this argument reminds me of a mentality exhibited by many in the Holy Inquisition. For them torturing and killing scores of people was actually the ultimate act of Christian love, because they were saving their "immortal souls" for eternity.

Now their mental successors want to put an 11-year old rape victim at serious risk of death or permanent disability (with a good chance the baby wouldn't live either I might add) just so their fanatical conception of "life sanctity" remains intact. Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty.

And even if we assume that there was no risk of death or disability in delivering, treating a literal child as nothing more than a breeding cattle tells a lot about their psyche.

But, of course, the Inquisition was the act of an apostate Church, acting against Scripture, for which there was a Reformation to bring Christianity back to the Gospel.  You know this as well.  

Chrsitians view children as a life created by God, with an immortal soul all its own.  This is a bottom line.  You say that "Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty".  An interesting choice of language.

https://youtu.be/QUr0jCbcPNc

Is this not the worst cruelty?  I believe that the unborn child that feels pain would think so.  It is cruelty we would prohibit being done to an animal.  That we have this is the result of the Inflexible Purity of the Feminist Left and their political allies, who have viewed abortion as their "power" issue.  So, please, if we're going to use that concept, my example is far more current than something that happened in Medieval Europe.

So now we're talking about later-term and partial-birth abortions too? Of course it's a valid topic to discuss, but still a deflection from what this thread is about.

I would contend that bringing up the Inquisition is a far greater deflection.

So was bringing up the slavery.

It's Whataboutism at it's finest, and I do not apologize for it.

People complain about 'Whataboutism" because they don't like it when their own logic is properly used to buttress an opposite point of view.  I'm fine with that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Since we are now playing with far-fetched comparisons, certain side of this argument reminds me of a mentality exhibited by many in the Holy Inquisition. For them torturing and killing scores of people was actually the ultimate act of Christian love, because they were saving their "immortal souls" for eternity.

Now their mental successors want to put an 11-year old rape victim at serious risk of death or permanent disability (with a good chance the baby wouldn't live either I might add) just so their fanatical conception of "life sanctity" remains intact. Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty.

And even if we assume that there was no risk of death or disability in delivering, treating a literal child as nothing more than a breeding cattle tells a lot about their psyche.

But, of course, the Inquisition was the act of an apostate Church, acting against Scripture, for which there was a Reformation to bring Christianity back to the Gospel.  You know this as well.  

Chrsitians view children as a life created by God, with an immortal soul all its own.  This is a bottom line.  You say that "Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty".  An interesting choice of language.

https://youtu.be/QUr0jCbcPNc

Is this not the worst cruelty?  I believe that the unborn child that feels pain would think so.  It is cruelty we would prohibit being done to an animal.  That we have this is the result of the Inflexible Purity of the Feminist Left and their political allies, who have viewed abortion as their "power" issue.  So, please, if we're going to use that concept, my example is far more current than something that happened in Medieval Europe.

So now we're talking about later-term and partial-birth abortions too? Of course it's a valid topic to discuss, but still a deflection from what this thread is about.

I would contend that bringing up the Inquisition is a far greater deflection.

So was bringing up the slavery.

It's Whataboutism at it's finest, and I do not apologize for it.

People complain about 'Whataboutism" because they don't like it when their own logic is properly used to buttress an opposite point of view.  I'm fine with that.

LOL

You are the Atlas King of whataboutism.

If I win BIG at the lottery, I will find and hire a retired high school debate class teacher to create an account here for the sole purpose of political neutrality and callimg out bad / invalid / dishonest arguments.

That would be great if everyone were held to debating rules.  I'm married to a former college debater who has worked as a Debate Coach.  (Neither my wife nor myself recognize the Presidential Candidate head-to-head spectacles every 4 years as real debates, btw.)

"Whataboutism" is the stuff of politics.  Lots of people make arguments on principle not fully realizing that their principles can be applied in many ways, including ways that chip away at their argument.  Crying "Whataboutism" around here is, by and large, people being upset because they have to actually consider that their own arguments can lead in multiple directions.

I don't think I've ever cried "Whataboutism", except maybe in a moment of extreme sarcasm.  I'm well aware that principles can be used in equally valid ways to support both sides of the same argument.  Real Life involves frequently balancing competing principles, determining which principle trumps another principle in a situation where principles are at odds with each other, while adhering to some basic principles that are bedrock.  This results in "Whataboutism".  There's really nothing wrong with this; it keeps people honest and (hopefully) more introspective.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The issue of where human life begins won't go away. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Enough. This thread is just reinforced to me that old Atlas conservatives, with only a handful of exceptions, are by and large among the most brainless and heartless individuals even the internet can produce. Just pathetic.

Get a red avatar at the least if you think that us asking for a child not to be murdered is heartless.

People like Badger, who think themselves to be "good people" (and he probably is at an Earthly level) have blinders to the Eternal aspects of situations such as these.  Such a situation makes no sense; a loving God allowing an event such as this to happen.  They are not capable of imagining a plan for both of these lives where each could be blessed beyond human comprehension.

I would not wish such a plight for any of my granddaughters, and I would be taking many thoughts captive if such a thing happened.  But I don't believe that any life is a mistake, and I believe that the Ways of God are, indeed, far above our own ways.  This sounds awful to some, but the alternative here is what others are suggesting, which is "Kill the innocent unborn human and let everyone else forget about it."  That's not more realistic than what I speak of, but I don't expect most people to see this through their Spiritual Blinders (and, yes, many here are blinded to Spiritual realities).  That may sound snotty and condescending, but it is the only way to explain the chasm here.  The carnal cannot see through Spiritual eyes given them by the Holy Spirit.  This is reality also; as real as the sky being blue on a sunny day.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Enough. This thread is just reinforced to me that old Atlas conservatives, with only a handful of exceptions, are by and large among the most brainless and heartless individuals even the internet can produce. Just pathetic.

Get a red avatar at the least if you think that us asking for a child not to be murdered is heartless.

People like Badger, who think themselves to be "good people" (and he probably is at an Earthly level) have blinders to the Eternal aspects of situations such as these.  Such a situation makes no sense; a loving God allowing an event such as this to happen.  They are not capable of imagining a plan for both of these lives where each could be blessed beyond human comprehension.

I would not wish such a plight for any of my granddaughters, and I would be taking many thoughts captive if such a thing happened.  But I don't believe that any life is a mistake, and I believe that the Ways of God are, indeed, far above our own ways.  This sounds awful to some, but the alternative here is what others are suggesting, which is "Kill the innocent unborn human and let everyone else forget about it."  That's not more realistic than what I speak of, but I don't expect most people to see this through their Spiritual Blinders (and, yes, many here are blinded to Spiritual realities).  That may sound snotty and condescending, but it is the only way to explain the chasm here.  The carnal cannot see through Spiritual eyes given them by the Holy Spirit.  This is reality also; as real as the sky being blue on a sunny day.

It just dawned on me. Fuzzy, you were saying you are happily ready and willing for your daughter to do prison time for having an abortion? Because let's remember dear little Defenders of human life, but that is exactly what these laws entail.

It was my son's girlfriend that had the abortion.  I don't have daughters.  I have seven (7) granddaughters, three (3) of whom are adults and two (2) of whom are mothers.

The issue of criminal penalties for having an abortion is a separate conversation.  I will say that my grandchild was aborted solely because abortion was "safe and legal"; the mother of that child would not have had an abortion had it been illegal.  Those are the circumstances surrounding this, and while I'll never know for sure how the matter played out, I'm reasonably certain that there would have been no "back alley butcher job" or something like that.  Making abortion illegal prevents abortions, and anyone who says otherwise is urinating on my leg while trying to convince me that it's raining.

The criminal laws governing abortion can be examined and changed.  The primary issue here is that an unborn child is a human life, and a life deserving of protection, as much as an unhatched sea turtle deserves protection.  The other part can be hashed out, but let's end the legal practice of abortion first.  I will say this:  I prefer abortion being made illegal with Draconian penalties to the idea that abortion should be legalized lest somebody's daughter go to jail for a "poor choice".  You do know, Badger, that it doesn't have to be that way, but you'll false-frame the issue as if this has to be.  Anything for the narrative, I suppose.  I suppose you wish to manipulate me into some sort of Sophie's Choice.  I'm capable of doing the hard thing when it's right, and if such a law is what legislatures come up with to end legal abortion, I'm fine with it, as opposed to what we have now. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can we please ban anybody who actually believes the Government should force a child to have a child because she was raped by a pedophile. How is this even a credible opinion to hold in the year 2019?

It's a credible opinion because the circumstances of a woman's pregnancy does not affect the humanity of the unborn child.  That unborn child who is the product of this twisted rape is no less human than you or I were at that point in human development.

This 11 year old child either knows that reality right now, or will figure it out as she grows older.  It will hit her one day, and the effect it will have on her on that day is dependent, at least in part, on the decisions she makes regarding life and death for that unborn child.

If people are honest, they can't argue with what I just said.  

That may not be necessary, having died during childbirth.

That would be highly unlikely today in America.

How ignorant are you?

You also might want to look at this:

U.S. Has The Worst Rate Of Maternal Deaths In The Developed World

None of this justifies the killing of an unborn life.  

The only POSSIBLE exception I would make on the abortion question is if continuing the pregnancy would, truly, kill the mother, and that the abortion was an act of immediate self-defense.  I define this extremely narrowly; such an act would have to truly be something that would prevent a mother from dying in the next half-hour or something like this.  Even here, I am reluctant to give an inch, as the pro-abortion faction will then take a mile.  

As far as ignorance goes, your credentials along those lines are presented every time you log on and post.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can we please ban anybody who actually believes the Government should force a child to have a child because she was raped by a pedophile. How is this even a credible opinion to hold in the year 2019?

It's a credible opinion because the circumstances of a woman's pregnancy does not affect the humanity of the unborn child.  That unborn child who is the product of this twisted rape is no less human than you or I were at that point in human development.

This 11 year old child either knows that reality right now, or will figure it out as she grows older.  It will hit her one day, and the effect it will have on her on that day is dependent, at least in part, on the decisions she makes regarding life and death for that unborn child.

If people are honest, they can't argue with what I just said.  

That may not be necessary, having died during childbirth.

That would be highly unlikely today in America.

How ignorant are you?

You also might want to look at this:

U.S. Has The Worst Rate Of Maternal Deaths In The Developed World

None of this justifies the killing of an unborn life.

The only POSSIBLE exception I would make on the abortion question is if continuing the pregnancy would, truly, kill the mother, and that the abortion was an act of immediate self-defense.  I define this extremely narrowly; such an act would have to truly be something that would prevent a mother from dying in the next half-hour or something like this.  Even here, I am reluctant to give an inch, as the pro-infanticide faction will then take a mile.

That is for the mother and her doctor to decide, not you.  They would know better than you.  

Mind your own goddamn business, old man.  
 

As far as ignorance goes, your credentials along those lines are presented every time you log on and post.

You really need to stop projecting.  You already had to back down just now when I presented you with evidence contrary to your statement that mothers-to-be in the United States don't have to worry about dying in child-birth.

And in response to yet another one of your idiotic statements, this time that banning abortions would prevent abortions:

The Bad Old Days: Abortion in America Before Roe v. Wade

I didn't read those stats about maternal mortality.  Of course, dying in childbirth can happen, but that doesn't change the issue one bit for me.

I notice, however, that your goal is to get me to "back down".  

And I love when people tell me how this issue is between a woman and her doctor.  They know best, and that's none of my business.  The slave-owner said the same thing to the abolitionist.  The Jim Crow Southern White Man said this to Freedom Riders.  "This is between us, and it's none of your business." said these people to those who would upset the status quo.

The reality is that slavery and Jim Crow segregation stopped when other people made it their business.  Apartheid stopped when other people made it their business.  Oppressive Voter ID Laws are being challenged because people outside the states that pass these laws are making it their business.  Child abuse and neglect are actively intervened on because people outside the immediate relationship made the issue their business.  The treatment of the mentally retarded at Willowbrook was exposed and reformed because Geraldo Rivera (yes, THAT Geraldo Rivera, the guy who's something of a joke today) made their plight his business.

So I'm advocating for the unborn in that very spirit.  I'm making it my business for unborn human beings whose lives depend on others making their lives their business. And I do believe abortion to be infanticide.  There is no reason for me to advocate as I do if I did not believe that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

For an old man, I thought you would know about all this first-hand.    

Don't be surprised. Older members of the Religious Right have no choice to but to delete all memories about abortion from before the 1980s, lest they remember that their denominations explicitly supported Roe v. Wade when it came out, that Ronald Reagan is responsible for elective abortion being legalized in California (and remember, it was illegal because it wasn't considered safe, not because "life begins at fertilization), or that the biggest proponent of abortion rights in Congress back then was a Catholic priest.

But, of course, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, the entire Massachusetts Congressional delegation (and, indeed, most every single Catholic Democratic liberal) was pro-life in the 1970s.  Did they delete memories?

You will have to cite specifics as to which denominations changed positions on abortions.  I do remember when Nelson Rockefeller signed NY's liberal abortion law (oddly enough, during a phase of his career where he was shifting rightward).  

I grew up in a rather mainline denomination, and I will tell you that most people didn't think one way or another on abortion.  I became pro-life, oddly enough, during my days as a Democratic activist when one of my closest friends in the party convinced me of the pro-life position, and I viewed it as logical.  

I will suggest, however, that it is proper to change one's position on an issue when they become convinced that their position has been wrong, and/or when new information is presented that changes this issue.  If denominations came to a spiritual understanding that abortion, an issue they gave little thought to before the late 1960s, was wrong, and changed their stance accordingly, that is how it should be.

[Fuzzy Bear]

For an old man, I thought you would know about all this first-hand.    

Don't be surprised. Older members of the Religious Right have no choice to but to delete all memories about abortion from before the 1980s, lest they remember that their denominations explicitly supported Roe v. Wade when it came out, that Ronald Reagan is responsible for elective abortion being legalized in California (and remember, it was illegal because it wasn't considered safe, not because "life begins at fertilization), or that the biggest proponent of abortion rights in Congress back then was a Catholic priest.

For Fuzzy, it is all about controlling women and what they do with their bodies.  If presented with facts that contradict his ill-conceived notions, he will ignore them.  And accuse you of being ignorant and politically-driven in the process.  

He is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest poster I have ever come across.  It is a shame he is so articulate and intelligent.  

The reality is that slavery and Jim Crow segregation stopped when other people made it their business.  Apartheid stopped when other people made it their business.  Oppressive Voter ID Laws are being challenged because people outside the states that pass these laws are making it their business.  Child abuse and neglect are actively intervened on because people outside the immediate relationship made the issue their business.  The treatment of the mentally retarded at Willowbrook was exposed and reformed because Geraldo Rivera (yes, THAT Geraldo Rivera, the guy who's something of a joke today) made their plight his business.

Thank you for bravely fighting for an 11-year-old girl's right to die on a hospital bed. You are a modern Lincoln, with the eloquence to boot.

High praise, indeed, from such giants of Atlas!  Here, Here!

[Fuzzy Bear]

None of this justifies the killing of an unborn life. 

The only POSSIBLE exception I would make on the abortion question is if continuing the pregnancy would, truly, kill the mother, and that the abortion was an act of immediate self-defense.  I define this extremely narrowly; such an act would have to truly be something that would prevent a mother from dying in the next half-hour or something like this.  Even here, I am reluctant to give an inch, as the pro-infanticide faction will then take a mile. 

As far as ignorance goes, your credentials along those lines are presented every time you log on and post.

That's pretty awful.  You don't even know if the fetus would survive, but don't save the mother!

The folks I am debating here are a combination of intellectually dishonest and unreasonable.

You seem to be a bit better than the Frodos and Harrys of this thread.  I can imagine speaking to you and at least have an understanding of where each of us is coming from.  What I'm advocating is that abortion MIGHT be permissible if there were some medical condition where the fetus was actually killing the mother in the here and now.  What I'm NOT advocating is prescribing an abortion due to the mother's mental health issue, potential for postpartum depression, etc.  Those scenarios are advanced by some in the "life of the mother" argument.  I don't agree with that thinking.

[Fuzzy Bear]

For an old man, I thought you would know about all this first-hand.    

Don't be surprised. Older members of the Religious Right have no choice to but to delete all memories about abortion from before the 1980s, lest they remember that their denominations explicitly supported Roe v. Wade when it came out, that Ronald Reagan is responsible for elective abortion being legalized in California (and remember, it was illegal because it wasn't considered safe, not because "life begins at fertilization), or that the biggest proponent of abortion rights in Congress back then was a Catholic priest.

For Fuzzy, it is all about controlling women and what they do with their bodies.  If presented with facts that contradict his ill-conceived notions, he will ignore them.  And accuse you of being ignorant and politically-driven in the process.  

He is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest poster I have ever come across.  It is a shame he is so articulate and intelligent.  

The reality is that slavery and Jim Crow segregation stopped when other people made it their business.  Apartheid stopped when other people made it their business.  Oppressive Voter ID Laws are being challenged because people outside the states that pass these laws are making it their business.  Child abuse and neglect are actively intervened on because people outside the immediate relationship made the issue their business.  The treatment of the mentally retarded at Willowbrook was exposed and reformed because Geraldo Rivera (yes, THAT Geraldo Rivera, the guy who's something of a joke today) made their plight his business.

Thank you for bravely fighting for an 11-year-old girl's right to die on a hospital bed. You are a modern Lincoln, with the eloquence to boot.

High praise, indeed, from such giants of Atlas!  Here, Here!

What a disgusting ad hominem attack. Welcome to my ignore list.

This is rich, is it not?  I mean how reasonable is it to trash me with sarcasm and expect me to say "Thank you, sir!  May I have another?".

[Fuzzy Bear]

None of this justifies the killing of an unborn life. 

The only POSSIBLE exception I would make on the abortion question is if continuing the pregnancy would, truly, kill the mother, and that the abortion was an act of immediate self-defense.  I define this extremely narrowly; such an act would have to truly be something that would prevent a mother from dying in the next half-hour or something like this.  Even here, I am reluctant to give an inch, as the pro-infanticide faction will then take a mile. 

As far as ignorance goes, your credentials along those lines are presented every time you log on and post.

That's pretty awful.  You don't even know if the fetus would survive, but don't save the mother!

The folks I am debating here are a combination of intellectually dishonest and unreasonable.

You seem to be a bit better than the Frodos and Harrys of this thread.  I can imagine speaking to you and at least have an understanding of where each of us is coming from.  What I'm advocating is that abortion MIGHT be permissible if there were some medical condition where the fetus was actually killing the mother in the here and now.  What I'm NOT advocating is prescribing an abortion due to the mother's mental health issue, potential for postpartum depression, etc.  Those scenarios are advanced by some in the "life of the mother" argument.  I don't agree with that thinking.

Yeah, I'm going to need a retraction and sincere public apology for that. You know that I have always stuck up for you and insisted that your viewpoints (warped and illogical as I believe they are) be portrayed accurately and fairly. You repay me with venom and cheap shots that aren't even true.

I'll retract the pro-infanticide comment.  While I believe abortion is infanticide, I believe that most folks (yourself included) are sincerely deceived as to what abortion actually is.  That, I will do.

That's all I'll retract.

[Fuzzy Bear]

None of this justifies the killing of an unborn life. 

The only POSSIBLE exception I would make on the abortion question is if continuing the pregnancy would, truly, kill the mother, and that the abortion was an act of immediate self-defense.  I define this extremely narrowly; such an act would have to truly be something that would prevent a mother from dying in the next half-hour or something like this.  Even here, I am reluctant to give an inch, as the pro-infanticide faction will then take a mile. 

As far as ignorance goes, your credentials along those lines are presented every time you log on and post.

That's pretty awful.  You don't even know if the fetus would survive, but don't save the mother!

The folks I am debating here are a combination of intellectually dishonest and unreasonable.

You seem to be a bit better than the Frodos and Harrys of this thread.  I can imagine speaking to you and at least have an understanding of where each of us is coming from.  What I'm advocating is that abortion MIGHT be permissible if there were some medical condition where the fetus was actually killing the mother in the here and now.  What I'm NOT advocating is prescribing an abortion due to the mother's mental health issue, potential for postpartum depression, etc.  Those scenarios are advanced by some in the "life of the mother" argument.  I don't agree with that thinking.

Yeah, I'm going to need a retraction and sincere public apology for that. You know that I have always stuck up for you and insisted that your viewpoints (warped and illogical as I believe they are) be portrayed accurately and fairly. You repay me with venom and cheap shots that aren't even true.

I'll retract the pro-infanticide comment.  While I believe abortion is infanticide, I believe that most folks (yourself included) are sincerely deceived as to what abortion actually is.  That, I will do.

That's all I'll retract.

I didn't even know you had called me "pro-infanticide," and I don't particularly care. Namecalling is all I expect from people on your side when discussing abortion.

It's the "intellectual dishonesty" attack, which you are 100% certain is false and made anyway, that warrants the sincere apology.

I've edited my "pro-infanticide" to "pro-abortion".  You claim to be a Christian, so I'll be charitable and say that you are honestly deceived on the issue, and "know not what you do" on the subject.

That's all you get.  Your characterization of your interaction with me over time is generous to yourself, but doesn't reflect the record.  Truthfully, I'm not all that sure that even this retraction is correct; doing it the other way seemed to affect some consciences.  

[Fuzzy Bear]

None of this justifies the killing of an unborn life. 

The only POSSIBLE exception I would make on the abortion question is if continuing the pregnancy would, truly, kill the mother, and that the abortion was an act of immediate self-defense.  I define this extremely narrowly; such an act would have to truly be something that would prevent a mother from dying in the next half-hour or something like this.  Even here, I am reluctant to give an inch, as the pro-infanticide faction will then take a mile. 

As far as ignorance goes, your credentials along those lines are presented every time you log on and post.

That's pretty awful.  You don't even know if the fetus would survive, but don't save the mother!

The folks I am debating here are a combination of intellectually dishonest and unreasonable.

You seem to be a bit better than the Frodos and Harrys of this thread.  I can imagine speaking to you and at least have an understanding of where each of us is coming from.  What I'm advocating is that abortion MIGHT be permissible if there were some medical condition where the fetus was actually killing the mother in the here and now.  What I'm NOT advocating is prescribing an abortion due to the mother's mental health issue, potential for postpartum depression, etc.  Those scenarios are advanced by some in the "life of the mother" argument.  I don't agree with that thinking.

Yeah, I'm going to need a retraction and sincere public apology for that. You know that I have always stuck up for you and insisted that your viewpoints (warped and illogical as I believe they are) be portrayed accurately and fairly. You repay me with venom and cheap shots that aren't even true.

I'll retract the pro-infanticide comment.  While I believe abortion is infanticide, I believe that most folks (yourself included) are sincerely deceived as to what abortion actually is.  That, I will do.

That's all I'll retract.

Abortion will never be banned. Get over it.

Get over the fact that I won't give up on this life and death issue.

I hope every post I make on this subject causes you the sort of discomfort that moves a conscience.

[Fuzzy Bear]

All due respect, but you might wanna reread the Ten Commandments.  I'm pretty sure there's something in them about not bearing false witness against your neighbor.  I know how passionately you feel about this, but the quoted post is completely over the top and I'm pretty sure you know better than to accuse folks you disagree with of wanting to murder a bunch of babies to impress an internet clique.  I mean, seriously, what even is that?

I have changed "pro-infanticide" to pro-abortion in previous threads.  I certainly believe abortion to be infanticide, but I do understand that some people, however incomprehensible to me that may be, do not.  

As to over the top, how over the top was this:

It just dawned on me. Fuzzy, you were saying you are happily ready and willing for your daughter to do prison time for having an abortion? Because let's remember dear little Defenders of human life, but that is exactly what these laws entail.

Or this; was this over the top?

For an old man, I thought you would know about all this first-hand.    

Don't be surprised. Older members of the Religious Right have no choice to but to delete all memories about abortion from before the 1980s, lest they remember that their denominations explicitly supported Roe v. Wade when it came out, that Ronald Reagan is responsible for elective abortion being legalized in California (and remember, it was illegal because it wasn't considered safe, not because "life begins at fertilization), or that the biggest proponent of abortion rights in Congress back then was a Catholic priest.

Or this one; was this over the top?

Thank you for bravely fighting for an 11-year-old girl's right to die on a hospital bed. You are a modern Lincoln, with the eloquence to boot.

Here's some love and kindness from Frodo; was this over the top?

Is that what you would tell the grieving mother of this girl if (and when) she dies in childbirth, along with her unborn child?  And all because nut cases like you refuse to include an exception for rape and incest?  

That's cold comfort, indeed.  

Where's their rebuke?  Where's their suggestion that their responses to me just might be "over the top" and ad hominem attacks on my character.  Where's the suggestion that Badger tried to do me like the 1988 GOP did Michael Dukakis?

Frodo and Harry have no valid complaint with me.  They have been trashing me forever.  Harry's a bit more subtle, but Frodo's flat out over the top and ad hominem attack-fueled.  Or have all their attacks on me, in this thread and others, been fine and in bounds?  Badger is Badger, but he's a veritable Lee Atwater on this thread, is he not?  Because he's sure doing me like Dukakis.

Just don't call me for holding or illegal use of hands when five others from the opposite team can initiate helmet-to-helmet contact and chop blocks designed to cripple knees.  If people want to referee, that's fine as well, but let's call out the players on the other team when it's warranted.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes that an 11-year-old rape victim should not have the unquestioned right to an abortion either gets off on cruelty or has a completely misguided sense of morality. In other words, you are a bad person. Reflect on yourself, and what morality even means. Morals aren't rules or laws - if only they were so simple.

And what if the unborn child actually IS a human being?

Morals aren't rules or laws; this is true.  But innocent human life ought to be inviolate.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes that an 11-year-old rape victim should not have the unquestioned right to an abortion either gets off on cruelty or has a completely misguided sense of morality. In other words, you are a bad person. Reflect on yourself, and what morality even means. Morals aren't rules or laws - if only they were so simple.

And what if the unborn child actually IS a human being?

Morals aren't rules or laws; this is true.  But innocent human life ought to be inviolate.

Until the fetus has developed a discernible central nervous system (around the end of the first trimester), the organism is nothing more than a bunch of essentially unconnected cells in development and without sentience.

This is why a first trimester limit with exceptions is the most common sense position.

You were in that position once.  Why were you not worthy to live at that point?  Would it have been OK for someone to kill you at that point in human development in a way that made you feel physical pain?

That's what abortion is.  We've sanitized it a lot, but that's what it is. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes that an 11-year-old rape victim should not have the unquestioned right to an abortion either gets off on cruelty or has a completely misguided sense of morality. In other words, you are a bad person. Reflect on yourself, and what morality even means. Morals aren't rules or laws - if only they were so simple.

And what if the unborn child actually IS a human being?

Morals aren't rules or laws; this is true.  But innocent human life ought to be inviolate.

The 11-year-old is also an innocent human life, one which has already been violated by an unspeakably sick crime. The state forcing her to carry the resulting pregnancy to term would be an equally sick violation. I don't see how someone could contend with a straight face that forcing an 11-year-old to give birth to her rapist's child is not ending her life in any but the most literal sense. This is life of the mother.

I'm extremely conscious of the fact that, yes, the child is an innocent life, below the age of responsibility (age 12) Biblically.  This is a much different situation than a 25 year old adult wanting an abortion on demand just 'cause.   

And I have thought of how I would feel if this were MY daughter. 

I do not know what I would do.  I do believe that this unborn child is as much a human being as my 11 year old daughter is (if I were the father in this situation).  I do know from the experience of others who have been victims that having an abortion does not reduce the trauma of the rape, and does (in at least some cases) add the additional guilt-related trauma of the abortion. 

That's all I can say about this, except to say that if I was this girl's father, I wouldn't be posting on Atlas.

[Fuzzy Bear]

All this only confrims what I have known all along: The US right loves to call themselves 'pro-life', but they're not. Once you're born, you're on your own. No school lunch, no daycare, no government pre-K, no head start, etc. Sink or swim from the moment you're born.

That's not 'pro-life'. That's pro-birth. Do anything for the unborn, but when they're born, they can't be bothered providing the infant with anything to succeed in life.

Forcing an 11 year old girl to carry her rapist's baby to term is only moral for someone who has an extremely warped sense of morality or none at all. Knowing this girl may die and forcing her to carry to term anyway is not 'pro-life'.

The highlighted talking point is really not related to the abortion issue.  It's a separate conversation.

I've long made it plain that I am in favor of necessary funding for the needs of children, and especially someone in this situation.  People know this.  So where's the correction of the record here?