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

[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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

Thank you for clarifying, but let me ask this: what about the situation when there's no absolute certainty the pregnancy would kill a mother, but there is still a significant risk that it might happen? Is playing the game of chance with her life acceptable?

My issue with many people talking about rights of the "unborn life" is that I can't shake off the impression they display rather little concern toward the other person involved, that is the one being pregnant, as if she were little more than a "baby sack" (sorry, I can't find more stubble comparison), which to me seems a very bad case of objectification, especially if we are talking about a victim of horrifying crime. I'm not directing this at your personally, just a general observation.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Terrible.

[7,052,770]

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

[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.

[7,052,770]

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. 

....

....

Change it back to pro-infanticide for all I care. I literally just said I'm not offended your childish namecalling because I don't think your side is capable of any better when the subject of abortion comes up.

You obviously disagree with me on a lot, but you know with absolute certainly that I'm not "intellectually dishonest." If you'd read or even skimmed my post, you'd know that's what I cared about, not the label that I explicitly said I didn't care about.

[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.

[DrScholl]

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.

It doesn't bother me. I'm just stating the obvious. The Republican establishment doesn't really want abortion banned because it would eliminate a turnout booster for hardcore conservatives. It's all a game that really isn't even about abortion, but political power.

[7,052,770]

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.

Not over the the top. You regularly discuss your personal experience with abortion here, and "what to do with women who have an abortion if it is illegalized" is a legitimate question.

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.

Not remotely over the top. All 3 of those examples are well-documented.

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.

Maybe a little over-the-top, but it's a sarcastic comment in response to you.

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. 

Not over the top. It's always very important to consider negative secondary consequences of all positions we hold.

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.

I have literally never EVER attacked your character. Your terrible political positions and bizarro interpretation of Christianity, sure. The fact that you portray your denomination's beliefs as the "default" Christian beliefs and your insinuation even other Christians who don't share your denomination's beliefs will burn in Hell, sure. But I've always kept it civil and above the belt. You haven't, you regularly don't, and admittedly, I don't get it nearly as bad from you as a lot of people here.

Your delusion and arrogance is astounding.

[Santander]

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.

[Dr. Arch]

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.

[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.

[Dr. Arch]

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.

[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. 

[Santander]

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.

[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.

[Crumpets]

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. 

Views on abortion are almost inherently philosophical, rather than scientific, and the way we use words like "living," "pain," "feeling," and "human being," really varies from person-to-person in a way that is not easily matched to strict scientific definitions.

So, I would like to give you some advice if your view is that "it is not okay to kill someone in a way that made you feel physical pain" and that, if one feels pain, they are "worthy of life":

- You cannot support the death penalty in any context using any method
- You cannot support physician-assisted suicide
- Never swat a mosquito
- Never eat meat
- Never have your pets euthanized, no matter how much they are suffering. After all, that pain shows that they are worthy of life, even however brief.
- Never go hunting

If you do not abide by these rules, I can only assume you choose abortion as the one issue to apply your "ability to feel pain=life worth defending" rule to because it's a way for you to control women en masse and feel less insecure about women taking a role equal to men in society.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

Okay, fair is fair (although I'd argue plenty of pro-choice folks aren't necessarily "pro-abortion," there is actually some room for ambiguity depending on the point when you think life begins).  Here are my thoughts on the examples you posted:

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.

In fairness to you, this was definitely a below the belt shot on Badger's part and he definitely could've made that same point without dragging your family into it.  So...yeah, I get why you were pissed about this one, honestly.  

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.

This one wasn't over the top at all imo and I'd even say it was a perfectly legitimate point just like it was when you brought up the way many liberal Catholic politicians have flip-flopped on this issue.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  

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.

In my opinion, this one is the worst of the lot.  This one wasn't below the belt, it was really just a horrible thing to say.  Honestly, I'd compare it to calling pro-choice folks pro-infanticide and I'd have criticized it if I had seen it (for my sanity's sake, I've only been skimming this thread ).  While I don't know the poster well enough to say if he knows better, that first line was definitely OTT.  Pro-lifers don't want to kill pregnant women anymore than pro-choicers want to kill a bunch of babies.  I realize the tendency is to demonize the other side and tensions are running high in this thread, but common sense people

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.  

I don't think I'd say over the top.  It's certainly a fair question [aside from the "nutcase" bit], but it's a fair question being asked in a way that feels more like an effort to pick a fight than have a real debate.  So maybe not, OTT, but arguably fighting words.

*snip*

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.

I don't know what your history is with Harry, maybe he's right and maybe you are.  All I know is two posters I respect are giving conflicting accounts.  The solution would appear to be for him to post examples from when he says he stood up to you.  As for Badger, yeah he can be a bit aggressive, but [like you] I consider him a friend and give both of you a bit more of a pass on these things than I might with most folks.  With the others, I hold you to a higher standard because I know you're better than that.  

[Dr. Arch]

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. 

I was not "me," then. It was just a cluster of cells with no unifying system and no sentience.

Your observation reflects a clear misunderstanding of the developmental process.

[GoTfan]

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'.

[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?

[Joe Republic]

This thread is an abortion, and Fuzzy Bear is now administering the procedure.

... The procedure is still ongoing, but FB has now discarded the rusty coat hanger and is reaching for the vacuum cleaner.

[GoTfan]

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. 

It only confirms that you're just pro-birth. You're not 'pro-life'. If you were, you wouldn't be forcing an 11 year old girl to give birth to her rapist's baby.