Abortion revisited

[Black Dog]

Quit hyperventilating and rewind back a bit. Can you explain how my history here on this forum has anything to do with the real issue of re-opening the debate?

It's disingenuous to say you want an honest debate when your stated goal is to undermine abortion rights.

[Black Dog]

The link?

Yes, you have to read the link and not just fly off the handle on an unrelated tirade when you see the source.

[waldo]

oh... my! I clearly labeled Planned Parenthood as 'your opponent'. I also chose not to pull out easy cut&paste segments that most clearly would take us down the more technical/'science' path... the path you openly advocate for... yet openly acknowledge you know diddly squat about.

would you like to head down that technical/'science' path? Well... would you?

What's wrong with cut-and-paste? Unless you can't defend it.

obviously... you couldn't be bothered to actually open the link - that provides a claim/fact breakout, clearly countering your referenced film's claims - the 'defence' you speak of is the article itself... countering your referenced film's claims. The onus is on you to now extend upon the Planned Parenthood article - to defend your film's claims against the medically countered facts within the Planned Parenthood article.

Was it Planned Parenthood? Perhaps that's why Harper Government refused to fund it? Wasn't there a story like that in the news? I'm not sure....

you're not sure? You don't know the particulars of the funding controversy of one of your own most significant opponents?

in any case, the Harper Conservative government is funding Planned Parenthood family services, inclusive of sex education and contraception. As in the U.S. case, the Canadian branch of Planned Parenthood funds it's related abortion information/referral/services through non-government funding sources.

[betsy]

Yes, you have to read the link and not just fly off the handle on an unrelated tirade when you see the source.

Are you gonna give it or not? It's your rebuttal at stake...not mine. You stated a claim...I want to read it.

Unless you're hiding something from me.....

[betsy]

obviously... you couldn't be bothered to actually open the link - that provides a claim/fact breakout, clearly countering your referenced film's claims - the 'defence' you speak of is the article itself... countering your referenced film's claims. The onus is on you to now extend upon the Planned Parenthood article - to defend your film's claims against the medically countered facts within the Planned Parenthood article.

you're not sure? You don't know the particulars of the funding controversy of one of your own most significant opponents?

in any case, the Harper Conservative government is funding Planned Parenthood family services, inclusive of sex education and contraception. As in the U.S. case, the Canadian branch of Planned Parenthood funds it's related abortion information/referral/services through non-government funding sources.

I wasn't sure if it was a planned parenthood that was in a funding controversy sometime ago.

Anyway, you gave Planned Parenthood as an answer to the co-founder of abortion who turned pro-life activist. What do you expect Planned Parenthood will say? Agree with Pro-lifers???

However, that co-founder of abortion (Bernard Nathanson)....that's quite something from being co-founder of abortion to jumping ship and becoming not just a supporter of pro-life, but an activist for pro-life!

Edited June 1, 2012 by betsy

[waldo]

Now we descend to adhominem.

there was no adhom... I've shown you a reserved degree of respect - given your responses it most certainly was not deserved.

And I gave you my answer to that. I take it you didn't like it.

you didn't answer the questions - your prerogative... they were quite matter of fact, to the point - not sure why you're afraid to answer them.

[Black Dog]

Are you gonna give it or not? It's your rebuttal at stake...not mine. You stated a claim...I want to read it.

Unless you're hiding something from me.....

Uh, it was in waldo's link on the Silent Scream. You know: the Planned Parenthood document that sent you into such a paroxysm of rage earlier. The one you obviously didn't read.

[waldo]

I wasn't sure if it was a planned parenthood that was in a funding controversy sometime ago.

looks like you missed this part of my reply, hey?

obviously... you couldn't be bothered to actually open the link - that provides a claim/fact breakout, clearly countering your referenced film's claims - the 'defence' you speak of is the article itself... countering your referenced film's claims. The onus is on you to now extend upon the Planned Parenthood article - to defend your film's claims against the medically countered facts within the Planned Parenthood article.

[Black Dog]

Now we descend to adhominem.

I love that this appears on the same page as your attack on Margaret Sanger. I don't think ad hominem means what you think it does.

[betsy]

I love that this appears on the same page as your attack on Margaret Sanger. I don't think ad hominem means what you think it does.

Well, Margaret Sanger gave her views publicly. So they're open for public scrutiny. That her views seemed somehow similar to Hitler's ideology.....well, isn't that a shame. Lessons to be learned from this. Anything you say can come back to haunt you....even long after you're dead.

[guyser]

.....well, isn't that a shame. Lessons to be learned from this. Anything you say can come back to haunt you....

You mean like how you support some form of abortion?

Truism indeed!

[Black Dog]

Well, Margaret Sanger gave her views publicly. So they're open for public scrutiny. That her views seemed somehow similar to Hitler's ideology.....well, isn't that a shame. Lessons to be learned from this. Anything you say can come back to haunt you....even long after you're dead.

If you knew anything about anything, you'd know that Sanger's views on race and eugenics were widespread during her day. Context is important.

But that's all an aside. For someone who professes to just want a debate about the science, it seems odd you'd bring in this totally irrelevant information on P.P.'s founder.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Black Dog

[betsy]

looks like you missed this part of my reply, hey?

Maybe I didn't miss it. Maybe I just didn't find it to be crucial - although it may be part of it too. Maybe it's because like I said, the ultrasound was quite sometime ago. It couldn't be just the science the pro-lifers are wanting to involve in the re-opening of the debate.

Edited June 1, 2012 by betsy

[Black Dog]

Maybe I didn't miss it. Maybe I just didn't find it to be crucial - although it may be part of it too. Maybe it's because like I said, the ultrasound was quite sometime ago. It couldn't be just the science the pro-lifers are wanting to involved in the re-opening of the debate.

Earlier you said:

I don't know what current science will be called upon to help in this matter. But that's the understanding I got from the news clips I've watched about the desire to re-open the debate. They want to involve science.

So they want to have a debate about the science. Except when they don't (like when the science is against them, as in the claim that ultrasound shows the fetus feeling pain etc.)

Other than ending abortion, it's not too clear what you want and why.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Black Dog

[betsy]

If you knew anything about anything, you'd know that Sanger's views on race and eugenics were widespread during her day. Context is important.

1883-1966. I wouldn't be surprised if she was inspired by Hitler. Hitler was quite charismatic. Hitler had supporters in America. I wouldn't know how widespread bigotry was in the US in those days, but no matter how widespread they were does not mean they were right.

If we don't consider bigotry as acceptable right now, why would you think it should've been acceptable then? Even if that kind of mentality was widespread?

Only a relativist can do that shifting with great ease.

So no issue about context there. In fact, it is very much within context - the possiility of influence by Hitler's ideology, or she probably just happened to share the same vision....but still similar to Hitler's given her quotes:

Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:

Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

Jews were de-humanized. Blacks were de-humanized. Human babies are de-humanized. Same pattern. Makes the atrocity easier to accept and support if you believe it's being done to a non-human.

Given the Hitler-like vision of the founder of one of the biggest pro-abortion organization....it is also within context to allude to the killings of these infants as a "holocaust.".

Edited June 1, 2012 by betsy

[Black Dog]

1883-1966. I wouldn't be surprised if she was inspired by Hitler. Hitler was quite charismatic. Hitler had supporters in America.

Oh brother. Do your homework.Hitler didn't invent eugenics or racial theory, nor did he popularize it. It was around long before him.

I wouldn't know how widespread bigotry was in the US in those days, but no matter how widespread they are does not mean they were right. So no issue about context there.

You don't understand what context means either. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

In fact, it is very much within context - the possiility of influence by Hitler's ideology, or she probably just happened to share the same vision....but still similar to Hitler given her quotes:

Again, what's the relevance aside from this being a clumsy attempt to equate pro-choicers with Nazis?

Given the Hitler-like vision of the founder of one of the biggest pro-abortion organization....it is also within context to allude to the killings of these infants as a "holocaust.".

Okay you definitely don't understand what context means.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Black Dog

[waldo]

I wasn't sure if it was a planned parenthood that was in a funding controversy sometime ago.

looks like you missed this part of my reply, hey?

obviously... you couldn't be bothered to actually open the link - that provides a claim/fact breakout, clearly countering your referenced film's claims - the 'defence' you speak of is the article itself... countering your referenced film's claims. The onus is on you to now extend upon the Planned Parenthood article - to defend your film's claims against the medically countered facts within the Planned Parenthood article.

Maybe I didn't miss it. Maybe I just didn't find it to be crucial - although it may be part of it too. Maybe it's because like I said, the ultrasound was quite sometime ago. It couldn't be just the science the pro-lifers are wanting to involve in the re-opening of the debate.

you found it crucial enough to bring it forward, emphasizing science would be a part of the debate you so relish (to be opened). You then had the audacity to challenge whether or not I could defend the provided counter reference to your favoured dated 1985 fact-lacking 'documentary' film... you found it crucial enough to do that, hey?

Unless you can't defend it.

if, as you say, "It couldn't be just the science the pro-lifers are wanting to involve in the re-opening of the debate." What else then? What other than the science might "pro-lifers" presume to use/leverage. You can say it... sure you can - what else then? What else do you have?

[cybercoma]

Why don't you just answer the question? Do you or do you not believe the morning-after pill would be appropriate for a 12-year-old victim of incest? You implied that you did, but I suspect you can feel the fires of hell heating up your eternal soul after you made that comment.

Morning after pill?

What about the 9 year old girl in South America (Brazil, I believe) that was raped by her step father and became pregnant with twins. The Roman Catholic Church excommunicated the mother and doctors for performing an abortion on her, in order to save her life. If she carried the twins to term, chances are all 3 of them would have died. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church felt that murder was more wrong than the step father repeatedly raping a 9 year old girl.

[betsy]

Earlier you said:

So they want to have a debate about the science. Except when they don't (like when the science is against them, as in the claim that ultrasound shows the fetus feeling pain etc.)

Other than ending abortion, it's not too clear what you want and why.

Well I didn't say they don't like the tech of ultrasound. I hope you're not putting words in my mouth.

Like I said, I don't know what science(s) will be called upon to shed some light in a debate. There's more technology now, in areas less publicized I guess.

But for the pro-lifers to throw the gauntlet of wanting a debate - with the help of science - I guess they must know something we don't.

Mind you, the debate is supposed to be to determine when the fetus is deemed a human. They didn't say anything about pain. However, the debate for gestational period for pain is being fought in US courts - the battle for that rages on.

Edited June 1, 2012 by betsy

[Black Dog]

Well I didn't say they don't like the tech of ultrasound. I hope you're not putting words in my mouth.

Like I said, I don't know what science(s) will be called upon to shed some light in a debate. There's more technology now, in areas less publicized I guess.

But for the pro-lifers to throw the gauntlet of wanting a debate - with the help of science - I guess they must know something we don't.

Not sure why you are distancing yourself from the "pro-lifers". Anyway, the whole "Silent Scream" thing is instructive because it shows the lengths the pro-life movement will go to muddy the waters with fake claims disguised as science. There's not much point having a debate based around the science with a group that has an extensive track record of making false claims (such as fetuses feeling pain, or the existence of "post abortion syndrome").

Mind you, the debate is supposed to be to determine when the fetus is deemed a human.

And how do you propose that be determined? Because that's a legal and ethical issue, not a scientific one.

[betsy]

You then had the audacity to challenge whether or not I could defend the provided counter reference to your favoured dated 1985 fact-lacking 'documentary' film... you found it crucial enough to do that, hey?

Read again. There is something else befire I said "unless you can't defend it." Don't take my statement out of context! Here is the exchange why I said what I did.

name='waldo' date='01 June 2012 - 10:18 AM' timestamp='1338567517' post='800358']

oh... my! I clearly labeled Planned Parenthood as 'your opponent'. I also chose not to pull out easy cut&paste segments that most clearly would take us down the more technical/'science' path... the path you openly advocate for... yet openly acknowledge you know diddly squat about.

would you like to head down that technical/'science' path? Well... would you?

What's wrong with cut-and-paste? Unless you can't defend it.

if, as you say, "It couldn't be just the science the pro-lifers are wanting to involve in the re-opening of the debate." What else then? What other than the science might "pro-lifers" presume to use/leverage. You can say it... sure you can - what else then? What else do you have?

That science or tech of ultrasound. Since it's been around for quite a while!

Edited June 1, 2012 by betsy

[guyser]

you didn't answer the questions - your prerogative... they were quite matter of fact, to the point - not sure why you're afraid to answer them.

Any luck waldo (he says rhetorically) ?

[betsy]

Not sure why you are distancing yourself from the "pro-lifers".

I'mnot. But you're implying I have a say or that I can influence the pro-lifers. You're lumping us all together and saying in effect: "Aha! I knew it! You're trying to get your foot in the door and then all of you will want more!"

Anyway, the whole "Silent Scream" thing is instructive because it shows the lengths the pro-life movement will go to muddy the waters with fake claims disguised as science. There's not much point having a debate based around the science with a group that has an extensive track record of making false claims (such as fetuses feeling pain, or the existence of "post abortion syndrome").

Oh let's not get down the road of who makes false, unsubstantiated claims and vulgarizing science!

And how do you propose that be determined? Because that's a legal and ethical issue, not a scientific one.

Scroll back and read.

Edited June 1, 2012 by betsy

[waldo]

Any luck waldo (he says rhetorically)?

I'll answer it anyway... MLW member 'betsy' won't go near them; in particular, I was most interested in an answer to this one:

if you'd indulge, a few questions:

- given your zeal, I expect this subject to be paramount in your political leanings and allegiance, most certainly suggesting you support Harper Conservatives as the only party that might presume to take up your 'cause/open debate' - yes? If yes, why do you view Harper Conservatives, Harper in particular, as being unwilling to 'open (your) debate'?

[betsy]

Fetal Pain.

Excerpt from a long article.

The First Ache

By ANNIE MURPHY PAUL

Published: February 10, 2008

THE QUESTION of fetal pain is not irrelevant when applied to abortion. On April 4, 2004, Sunny Anand took the stand in a courtroom in Lincoln, Neb., to testify as an expert witness in the case of Carhart v. Ashcroft. This was one of three federal trials held to determine the constitutionality of the ban on a procedure called intact dilation and extraction by doctors and partial-birth abortion by anti-abortion groups. Anand was asked whether a fetus would feel pain during such a procedure. If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus, he said. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain.

After listening to Anands testimony and that of doctors opposing the law, Judge Richard G. Kopf declared in his opinion that it was impossible for him to decide whether a fetus suffers pain as humans suffer pain. He ruled the law unconstitutional on other grounds. But the ban was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and Anands statements, which he repeated at the two other trials, helped clear the way for legislation aimed specifically at fetal pain.

The following month, Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, presented to the Senate the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions at 20 weeks or later that their fetuses can feel pain and to offer anesthesia administered directly to the pain-capable unborn child. The bill did not pass, but Brownback continues to introduce it each year. Anands testimony also inspired efforts at the state level.

Over the past two years, similar bills have been introduced in 25 states, and in 5 Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota and Oklahoma they have become law. In addition, state-issued abortion-counseling materials in Alaska, South Dakota and Texas now make mention of fetal pain.

In the push to pass fetal-pain legislation, Anands name has been invoked at every turn; he has become a favorite expert of the anti-abortion movement precisely because of his credentials. This Oxford- and Harvard-trained neonatal pediatrician had some jarring testimony about the subject of fetal pain, announced the Republican congressman Mike Pence to the House of Representatives in 2004, and it is truly made more astonishing when one considers the fact that Dr. Anand is not a stereotypical Bible-thumping pro-lifer.

Anand maintains that doctors performing abortions at 20 weeks or later should take steps to prevent or relieve fetal pain. But it is clear that many of the anti-abortion activists who quote him have something more sweeping in mind: changing perceptions of the fetus. In several states, for example, information about fetal pain is provided to all women seeking abortions, including those whose fetuses are so immature that there is no evidence of the existence of even a stress response. By personifying the fetus, theyre trying to steer the womans decision away from abortion, says Elizabeth Nash, a public-policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-rights group.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Edited June 1, 2012 by betsy