Abortionists Are Such Wonderfu People

[TDPerk]

"If abortion is murder how come I see aprox. zero calls for the death penalty for the person soliciting it? "

There's that bad reading comprehension again. I just explicitly called for it in the case of a woman seeking a third trimester abortion of convenience, or more completely whatever penalty is called for by the jurisdiction holding the trial.

[MSimon]

"If abortion is murder how come I see aprox. zero calls for the death penalty for the person soliciting it? "

There's that bad reading comprehension again. I just explicitly called for it in the case of a woman seeking a third trimester abortion of convenience, or more completely whatever penalty is called for by the jurisdiction holding the trial.

Note: aprox. zero. I think that includes you. I'm going to get some training in reading asap. Let me know when you have finished your course.

[Diogenes]

D,

If you are really serious about ending abortion I have a sure fire way:

Proclaim loudly that you favor abortion because it is killing off the next generation of leftists. But of course it would be immoral to say that.


"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Napoleon

I have said that that is the only good thing about abortion. It is self defeating. If the tendency to abortion were genetic, I would say that killing off the "evil" component of humanity would eventually result in a long term good. However, since I regard the acceptance of abortion as doctrinaire, it cannot be eradicated by removing it's non-existent genetic components.

Abortion is a meme. Repudiate the meme, and the act itself will go. That is why it is so important that the official arbiter of morality (Laws) must reflect the morality that is in the best interest of society and humanity. That human life should not be extinguished for trivial reasons.

[Diogenes]

Yes, and killing half the people would yield their property to the other half. When the benefits of doing something gruesome are worth the loss of decency, then civilization will not last much longer.

Humanity has actually been down this road many times before.

I differentiate between voluntary and involuntary - i.e. pillage.

The Japanese don't seem to want to reproduce. The Chinese don't allow reproduction.

And if some segments of America are not interested in reproducing? I'm all for them not reproducing.

The Chinese understood the essence of it: you save some one's life you are responsible for them. For good or ill I only want to be responsible for my own children and national defense. With a small nod to a very minimal safety net. Hungry people cause revolutions or worse. Bad for business.

Short sighted perspective you've got there. Here we go with another of my analogies.

In old times, each village would have to defend itself from marauders and what not. Eventually many communities grew into city-states, and it was considered to be the duty of everyone to defend the common community when it was necessary.

At that time in history it was considered people's DUTY to have children so as to bolster the defensive/offensive capabilities of the community.

Actually, it has ALWAYS been that way in human history, even today. It is axiomatic that the people who bring the most numbers usually win, and democracy is even an example of this principle without the bloodshed.

[Diogenes]

"Which is at variance with what I said how?"

Should I presume meeting the Orthodox standard of "severe harm to the mental health of the mother" is so trivially easy it is tantamount to endorsing abortion on demand?

The point I was going to make, you made more briefly than I could have.

[MSimon]

D,

If you are really serious about ending abortion I have a sure fire way:

Proclaim loudly that you favor abortion because it is killing off the next generation of leftists. But of course it would be immoral to say that.


"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Napoleon

I have said that that is the only good thing about abortion. It is self defeating. If the tendency to abortion were genetic, I would say that killing off the "evil" component of humanity would eventually result in a long term good. However, since I regard the acceptance of abortion as doctrinaire, it cannot be eradicated by removing it's non-existent genetic components.

Abortion is a meme. Repudiate the meme, and the act itself will go. That is why it is so important that the official arbiter of morality (Laws) must reflect the morality that is in the best interest of society and humanity. That human life should not be extinguished for trivial reasons.

I agree. But first you have to solve a more fundamental problem:

A thermodynamic explanation of politics

Once you get the thermodynamics right everything else falls into place.

Good luck with that.

BTW I note you are doctrinaire. To me that translates to: "tenuous connection to reality". i.e. Galileo vs the Church. A classic case of doctrine vs reality.

My contention is that if we face reality we can figure out what can be done at what cost.

I also note that you imagine your programs run by good people. But suppose criminals and crooks get in charge. (Holdren seems like the perfect guy for the job.)

[Diogenes]

In any case I do not want the government inspecting my mate's or my daughter's plumbing for infractions. And I want that so much that I'm willing to tolerate quite a lot of unfortunate behavior.

It's statements like this that absolutely destroy your credibility.

You ASSERT "Vagina Police" whereas prior to Roe V Wade, (Norma McCorvey vs. Wade County Texas.) there were no "Vagina Police."
The "Vagina Police" is a hobgoblin devised by propagandists solely for the purpose of derailing the discussion of an idea which they do not like.

Prosecuting murders of convenience.

Because I saw how the "we will do anything we can to to stop the flow of drugs" worked out. Because of my shy bladder (since age two - ask my mother) problem I can't get a regular job. So I'm part of the invisible collateral damage of the drug war. Why would I wish to inflict more of that on anyone?

So let me ask you again. Are you smart enough to devise a solution that doesn't require government guns?

Private guns? I think that would be a worse solution. Government is the sole legitimate authority for enforcing laws against murder.

[Diogenes]

If abortion is murder how come I see aprox. zero calls for the death penalty for the person soliciting it?

You missed the part where I explained this. Analogy time.


During the Roman Empire, a master could lawful kill his slave for any reason he saw fit. The laws of that time ignored the slaves "personhood" in this regard. It would be wrong to prosecute and punish one of these "masters" for killing his slave if the laws of the time said it was acceptable.

That is exactly the situation we have now. We tolerate an immoral atrocity because the laws says we must. The law says we must based on the imperial decree of a bunch of non elected liberals who lied about what the law really said.

The consensus among conservatives: misdemeanor manslaughter for the doctor and the woman goes free.

I disagree completely. Many conservatives call for the death penalty for abortionists. Had I been on the jury for Scott Roeder, I would have voted for acquittal, and I dare say a lot of other people would have as well. I personally think most of these abortionists should be put to death, and their money confiscated. That's what would have happened prior Roe v Wade, and that is what should be happening now.

Under what theory of murder is the person who solicits the crime not guilty? And misdemeanor manslaughter type penalties for premeditated murder? Really?

Simple. If they are told by the legal authorities that killing another person is not a crime, then they should face no penalty. (See Slavery e.g. Also see Indian wars. )

I'd say that was pretty good proof that even most conservatives (despite the trash talk) do not consider abortion murder. Even the few that would provide for the death penalty for the mother say it is politically infeasible at this time.

You have a low threshold of proof for things you want to believe. I will say upfront, If abortion were regarded as murder by the legal system, (as it used to be) then I would support putting women on trial and punishing them up to and including the death penalty. Once it is made known that this conduct will not be tolerated, then they will have no excuse and no sympathy for engaging in it.

Some times I think Conservatives spend a lot of time lying to themselves in order to maintain the utopia in their heads. Kind of like Liberals.

And Libertarians.

If we can get doctors totally under government control I think it may be possible to prevent abortions. Which is why I favor ObamaCare. Don't you? It is a good step towards single payer. Only with total government control do we have any chance of stamping out this vile practice.

Are you with me?

No, we can do it with the same amount of Government control as we exercised back in the 1890s when the abolitionist movement successfully eradicated legalized abortion in every state in the Union at that time. Sure, people did it anyways, but in very small numbers, not like the 50 million abortions we've had since 1973.

Crime will always be present. All we can do is reduce the numbers to as low as is reasonable.

[Diogenes]

"If abortion is murder how come I see aprox. zero calls for the death penalty for the person soliciting it? "

There's that bad reading comprehension again. I just explicitly called for it in the case of a woman seeking a third trimester abortion of convenience, or more completely whatever penalty is called for by the jurisdiction holding the trial.

Even THIS I could go for. The notion that states have the authority to establish their own laws is basic federalism. New York can have it's abortions if a Majority want them, while the rest of us can abjure the tolerance of this depravity.

[Diogenes]

D,

If you are really serious about ending abortion I have a sure fire way:

Proclaim loudly that you favor abortion because it is killing off the next generation of leftists. But of course it would be immoral to say that.


"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Napoleon

I have said that that is the only good thing about abortion. It is self defeating. If the tendency to abortion were genetic, I would say that killing off the "evil" component of humanity would eventually result in a long term good. However, since I regard the acceptance of abortion as doctrinaire, it cannot be eradicated by removing it's non-existent genetic components.

Abortion is a meme. Repudiate the meme, and the act itself will go. That is why it is so important that the official arbiter of morality (Laws) must reflect the morality that is in the best interest of society and humanity. That human life should not be extinguished for trivial reasons.

I agree. But first you have to solve a more fundamental problem:

A thermodynamic explanation of politics

Once you get the thermodynamics right everything else falls into place.

Good luck with that.

BTW I note you are doctrinaire. To me that translates to: "tenuous connection to reality". i.e. Galileo vs the Church. A classic case of doctrine vs reality.

I am not doctrinaire. Neither are most others. We have all simply arrived at the same consensus, and the reason for that is it is the consensus supported by history and reality. No society can prosper when it permits the killing of it's own children.

[
My contention is that if we face reality we can figure out what can be done at what cost.

I also note that you imagine your programs run by good people. But suppose criminals and crooks get in charge. (Holdren seems like the perfect guy for the job.)

First, they aren't "programs"implemented by "good people." It would instead be the same law enforcement which has been performed for this nation's entire existence, performed by the same people who have always performed it. (Most people regard law enforcement personal as relatively upstanding and decent. )

That being said, the only thing being suggested is that the fraudulent decision by the Dictatorial Liberal court of 1973 (a product of Roosevelt/Truman mostly.) be seen for what it really is. A pack of lies with no legitimate basis in law or the consent of the governed.

Putting things back the way they were before they were tampered with is not a "program."

[TDPerk]

"Note: aprox. zero. I think that includes you."

You'll have to let it slide that I don't count myself as zero or approximately such.

[TDPerk]

"It's statements like this that absolutely destroy your credibility.

You ASSERT "Vagina Police" whereas prior to Roe V Wade, (Norma McCorvey vs. Wade County Texas.) there were no "Vagina Police." "

MSimon rejects reality when convenient, substitutes his own, and redefines terms as required to support his arguments when they are weak compared to his vehemence.

[TDPerk]

But Diogenes.

It seems I can give up on MSimon substantively answering any questions, how about you?

I'm fine with there being 100 million abortions in a year, as long as every one of them takes place in the first trimester--since nothing which has yet been a distinct human person has been killed.

I'm guessing you are not.

[Diogenes]

But Diogenes.

It seems I can give up on MSimon substantively answering any questions, how about you?

I'm fine with there being 100 million abortions in a year, as long as every one of them takes place in the first trimester--since nothing which has yet been a distinct human person has been killed.

I'm guessing you are not.

I am fine with people choosing not to become pregnant. As many others have pointed out, there are a dozen ways to prevent conception. There is no longer any legitimate excuse for creating a human life that is not wanted.

The boundaries are clear. No unique human life <> Unique human life.

That is the line defined by nature, science, and reality. Any other delineation (such as first trimester) is simply made up through subjective rationalization.

As I pointed out in another thread, millions of years ago, all higher level organisms laid eggs. Mammals evolved FROM creatures which laid eggs, TO creatures which carried the eggs within them. During the time when the egg existed independently, no one could deny that it was a unique and independent life. It still is, but people want to pretend it isn't because that illusion is convenient for them.


People should not be so cavalier about creating a human life. Especially when it is so easy to prevent.

[Diogenes]

Might as well throw this into the stew.


'93 per cent of all abortions occur for 'social reasons'.



As reported by the Alan GuttMacher Institute. A Prominent Pro-Abortion group.




I am a fan of Fred Saberhagen's "Beserker" series of novels. In this series, Human beings are pitted against a vast armada of War weapon killing robots who have been tasked with killing all forms of life. Humans represent the forces of life, and Unliving machines represent the forces of death.

Occasionally, the machines will acquire human traitors to assist them in their mission of eradicating human life. The machine's refer to these people as "Good Life", and the machines grant them the benefit of being "Killed last."





I have always noted that in German the word "Gut" means "good", and the word "Mach" means "to make", so the two together sort of result in "Good Maker." or someone who makes something bad into something "good". Well what does the Alan Guttmacher institute make? Death. (They are an adjunct of "Planned Parenthood.)

This is why it reminds me of the Beserkers usage of the term "Good Life." as those helping the machines to kill humans, and "Bad Life" are those humans opposing the machines in their killing.

From the perspective of the forces of Death, making something "good" means making it dead.