SCOTUS May Consider Down Syndrome Abortion Ban in What Would Be a Pivotal Case for Disability Rights

[Roustabout]

I didn't run from your argument, I just checked out since neither of us is going to change our mind and the points have been discussed/beaten to death so I chose to move on. We had a thoughtful discussion but not much more to say since for you life begins when sperm meets egg and for others life begins sometime after. Without agreement on that basic premise, nothing else really needs to be discussed.

Just answer the questions.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Did you fail to read the thread title? How about you go to kiddie table and let the adults talk. You’re advocating population control. I say we start with you.

Bort the downies, too, should the host not want it. damn, son. You cry at sunsets as well?

*calls me a child*

*proceeds to say I should die*

 

[Vol_Doc]

I understand, but here’s the problem. Instead of dealing with the content of the argument you impugn it on its length and source. That is fallacious. And a cop out.

This country (which you think should easily recognize a valid argument) fought and killed each other over slavery. We’d all agree it’s pretty simple to understand that one human ought not to put another in bondage. Yet, tens of thousands died and the country was torn apart. Why? One side did not see blacks as humans, and therefore lacked value. Was the fight worth it? I say yes, but then I see blacks as equally valuable humans.

Forgive me for not having the confidence in humanity to “get it.” One side doesn’t see the unborn as human, and like slavery proponents, will live in wanton ignorance to avoid the heinous truth of their position. See DFs last post if you need any proof.

I did deal with your argument. And I explained why a philosophical position can exist to the contrary. You may not agree, but that doesn't invalidate my argument any more than mine invalidated yours. That's why I'm saying it's a philosophical impasse. Now, could a conservative majority push through criminalization of abortion with a conservative SCOTUS? Possibly, though I doubt it.

As for DF, he's clearly trolling you.

Oh, and was the Civil War really about slavery? I think you'd find a lot of folks on here who don't agree. But, I digress.

 

[Roustabout]

Bort the downies, too, should the host not want it. damn, son. You cry at sunsets as well?

*calls me a child*

*proceeds to say I should die*

Why don’t you eat a bowl of ***. Go away. I could give two ***** what some twisted *** like you thinks. You’re on this thread by choice. I suggest you leave in the same way. There’s got to be some degenerate discussion you can find.

 

[Roustabout]

I did deal with your argument. And I explained why a philosophical position can exist to the contrary. You may not agree, but that doesn't invalidate my argument any more than mine invalidated yours. That's why I'm saying it's a philosophical impasse. Now, could a conservative majority push through criminalization of abortion with a conservative SCOTUS? Possibly, though I doubt it.

As for DF, he's clearly trolling you.

Oh, and was the Civil War really about slavery? I think you'd find a lot of folks on here who don't agree. But, I digress.

Dealing with the argument isn’t moving the goalposts. It’s addressing the argument on its on merits. You simply attempted to move the discussion to a different arena and then claimed an empasse. I laid mine out succinctly, so you can quote it and show where it fails.

I’ve dealt with DF a long time on this forum. I’m aware.

 

[Vol_Doc]

Dealing with the argument isn’t moving the goalposts. It’s addressing the argument on its on merits. You simply attempted to move the discussion to a different arena and then claimed an empasse. I laid mine out succinctly, so you can quote it and show where it fails.

I’ve dealt with DF a long time on this forum. I’m aware.

If you're on different fields, you use different goal posts. I understand you're passionate about this, and I genuinely respect that. The pro-choice and pro-life folks aren't even in the same ballpark, despite playing the same game. Sorry, if I'm taking the goalpost analogy too far there. Dealing with human life is clearly not a game. Just trying to explain the impasse.

 

[tumscalcium]

Did you fail to read the thread title? How about you go to kiddie table and let the adults talk. You’re advocating population control. I say we start with you.

Meh, he’s still mad that his mother didn’t abort.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Why don’t you eat a bowl of ***. Go away. I could give two ***** what some twisted *** like you thinks. You’re on this thread by choice. I suggest you leave in the same way. There’s got to be some degenerate discussion you can find.

Are bowls of **** gluten free?

Sorry if I struck a nerve. I didn't realize I was dealing with skin as thin as papyrus. I'll take that into consideration next time I'm debating with an emotionally histrionic ingrate.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Meh, he’s still mad that his mother didn’t abort.

Your dad tell you that he wishes yours did?

 

[Roustabout]

If you're on different fields, you use different goal posts. I understand you're passionate about this, and I genuinely respect that. The pro-choice and pro-life folks aren't even in the same ballpark, despite playing the same game. Sorry, if I'm taking the goalpost analogy too far there. Dealing with human life is clearly not a game. Just trying to explain the impasse.

Doc,
I’ve looked at every counter argument from personhood, bodily autonomy, etc.
And while I appreciate your feedback, these counter positions are not a refutation. If I need to go into more detail as to why the body autonomy fails I’d be happy to, although I do think I’ve shown how it fails.
What I’ve learned while shaping this argument is that the vast majority cannot articulate why they are pro life or pro choice.

My argument is a pragmatic, non-emotional case built on a handful of facts. While this won’t change the collective mind of the pro abortion side, I do think it has the ability to change individual minds. In fact, I’m just as interested in changing the minds of prolifers to move away from the emotionally charged religious rhetoric. My argument can be adopted by atheists and the areligious.

 

[Roustabout]

You are looking at it obliquely. her right stops at the next human life. that's how we look at the rest of life, why do you look at it differently for a baby? pregnancy is a unique situation, you literally can't separate baby from the mom without killing. trying to make it body control issue ignores what exactly is going on in the body. and is why people continue to have to use other words to cover up what they are talking about.

While this is true, we need to better communicate the flaws in that position.
To claim this bodily autonomy is to say that humans have rights. But it doesn’t provide a source or defense of those rights. And to claim rights, by default is to admit that human life has value. This is already dealt with in one of my premises.

We could deeper and demand a source of these rights. Personally, I reject the notion of human rights. Where are they? Are the floating in the ether? At best they are arbitrary and can be given or taken away by tyrants or the majority.

Abortion is actually a violation of bodily autonomy, just like suicide or drug abuse. Just because it’s voluntary doesn’t make it right. Again, This is not an issue of rights, but value. If a person is attempting to harm themselves through suicide or drugs we don’t shrug our shoulders and say, “it’s your right.” We certainly don’t advocate that the state endorse it and fund it. We further don’t demonize suicide prevention and drug treatment centers as groups trying to suppress body autonomy. And, we would never give a medical license to promote suicide or drug abuse.

Pregnancy is a function of the female body. It is not a disease or disability, yet it is approached as one. That is a deception under the guise of a lab coat.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

So Indiana is trying to reverse human evolution by compelling dilution of the gene pool?

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Facebook Finally Censors Baby Photos
Pro-life ads featuring photos of ultrasounds and newborns deemed 'graphic content'

Facebook removed two ads telling the stories of babies who survived premature births.

Susan B. Anthony List posted two ads to Facebook telling the stories of two babies, Charlotte Ryun and Micah Pickering, who survived premature births. The videos featured testimony from the babies' parents, as well as ultrasound footage and other baby pictures provided by the families. One 30-second spot featured Iowa native Danielle Pickering discussing the birth of her son, Micah, at 22 weeks gestation.

"We didn't know if he could survive," Pickering says as a photo of Micah in the NICU flashes across the screen. "Micah today is a wonderful little boy."

Facebook is one of the largest depositories of ultrasounds and newborn photos in the world. Nevertheless it removed the ads without explanation, according to SBA List. When pressed on the reason for the deletions, the social media giant told the group the videos ran afoul of its prohibition on video that shows "medical procedures or conditions."

"We don't allow ads that depict medical procedures or conditions," the company said in an Oct. 13 email. "We don't allow ads that feature sensational or graphic content (even if it's for an artistic or education reason) because of their highly sensitive nature."

It initially denied the request to reinstate both ads, though on further appeal it lifted the ban on the spot featuring Charlotte. Facebook has yet to reinstate Micah's ad. The deletion of the SBA List ad comes just months after Facebook banned international pro-life ads from running in Ireland during the successful referendum to overturn the country's ban on abortion
.
SBA List spokesman Mallory Quigley said there was nothing offensive or sensational about the stories depicted in the videos. The testimony was meant to draw attention to the fact that current U.S. law allows doctors to abort babies of similar gestational age.

Facebook Censors Baby Photos From Pro-Life Organization

 

[TearsofOrange]

Tim Tebow’s Mom at March For Life: I was told to abort, but we ‘chose to trust God’

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 22, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Former NFL star quarterback Tim Tebow was almost aborted, and would have been had his mom followed the doctor’s advice.

Tim’s mom Pam Tebow related during a speech at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Friday how 31 years ago her doctor told her that if she did not abort her baby, she would likely die.

“The best doctor in town did some tests. She determined that Timmy was a ‘mass of fetal tissue – a tumor,’ and I needed to abort immediately or I would die,” she related.

Tim Tebow’s mom at March for Life: I was told to abort, but we ‘chose to trust God’

Honest question here. Can Mueller subpoena a sitting president? Why can’t Trump just ignore a subpoena like folks ignore congressional subpoenas?

Tim Tebow was born in Manila, city in the Phillipines.

Abortion is completely and totally illegal in the Phillipines for any reason (Rape, incest and threat to mother's life).

So why would doctors in the Phillipines recommend an abortion, if they legally could not execute the procedure? Seems like a strange circumstance.

 

[Roustabout]

Tim Tebow was born in Manila, city in the Phillipines.

Abortion is completely and totally illegal in the Phillipines for any reason (Rape, incest and threat to mother's life).

So why would doctors in the Phillipines recommend an abortion, if they legally could not execute the procedure? Seems like a strange circumstance.

You’d have to dig deeper. Their current abortion law went into affect the same year Tebow was born (1987). So, I don’t know what the law was when she was consulted.