Post-natal abortion (infanticide)

NORTHAM: If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

Here’s the backstory and commentary via Rush Limbaugh. But the video of the Governor of Virginia interviewed on radio demonstrates beyond all doubt that this is exactly what he said. The subsequent wish to clarify and explain has arisen only because of the fire this has lit, but not even remotely within the mainstream media.

I have only gone back to this, which is from January 30, because I have met people who have never heard a word of this, and will not believe it could possibly be true. I suspect it would not undermine their support for the left and the Democrats since there are more important principles at stake – don’t ask me what. The only evidence that the left is perfectly aware how barbaric this is comes from the fact that this kind of information is already hard to find on the net. If the Governor of Virginia is mentioned at all, it is only because when he was 25 years old in the 1980s he appeared in a photo either in blackface or wearing a KKK bedsheet when he had just graduated from med school, since which time he has been a paediatrician.

As for the health of the baby, this was also discussed at the link:

A tweet here from an MD and MBA, Omar Hamada . “I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt. I’m a Board-Certified OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies. There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third-trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes,” all kinds of conditions that might require delivery, but, “Abortion, no.”

The “consent” of two doctors is the kind of formality that is all pretence. How a baby can get to full term and only then at the ninth month discover some deformity is so improbable that it is just said to confuse the debate. At least till now, and possibly for a bit into the future, that there is something radically wrong with the child remains the cover story for murdering babies.

And if you are looking for another take on this same thing: Modern philosophy, untethered from morality, is just nihilism in fancy dress. There you find:

The reality is that, without a moral construct, philosophy is simply a way to intellectualize whatever outcomes one prefers. That’s why Peter Singer, an endowed philosophy chair at Princeton University, can argue that parents should have a 30 days period after their baby is born to decide whether or not to kill the baby, a position even more extreme than that espoused by the average abortion-obsessed Leftist….

When I raised Singer as an example of the selfish, morality-free nihilism that passes for modern philosophy, the other people involved in the conversation were quite sure that I was making things up in order to justify my arcane, impractical conservative views. Then, when I offered to send them links proving Singer’s viewpoints, they hastily declined that offer. They did not want to know.

The reality is they do not want to know. They think being on the left, and being able to self-identify as socialists or some such thing, makes them nice people. In actual fact, it turns them into monsters, but self-satisfied monsters.

WE DON’T EVEN KNOW THE HALF OF IT: AND HERE IS SOME OF IT.

Planned Parenthood kept aborted babies alive to harvest organs, ex-technician says

Pro-life group releases 7th undercover video

In an undercover video released Wednesday, a former technician for a tissue-harvesting company details how an aborted baby was kept alive so that its heart could be harvested at a California Planned Parenthood facility, raising more legal questions about the group’s practices.

Holly O’Donnell, a former blood and tissue procurement technician for the biotech startup StemExpress, also said she was asked to harvest an intact brain from the late-term, male fetus whose heart was still beating after the abortion.

StemExpress supervisor “gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. And I can’t even describe what that feels like,” said Ms. O’Donnell, who has been featured in earlier videos by the Center for Medical Progress, a pro-life group that previously had released six undercover clips involving Planned Parenthoodpersonnel and practices.

David Daleiden, the video project leader, said the undercover footage and interviews show that fetuses are sometimes delivered “intact and alive” before their organs are harvested.

The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 says that when a child is born alive, including having a beating heart, he or she is a legal person and has a right to lifesaving medical care.

More at the link if you can stand it.

This entry was posted in Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

286 Responses to Post-natal abortion (infanticide)

  1. dover_beach

    He won’t address [ supporting the killing of the child in utero while also supporting the treatment of the child post partum even where both are at the same developmental age] as it would do his head in. So he has shut up. Typical behavior from a “clown and a windbag”.

    All of this has been addressed in my very first post in this thread. LOL.

    Has it been addressed in IamMengele’s first post? Let’s go back and see.

    Nope, none of it was addressed there. As usual, IamMengele begged the question, made false assertions, argued in a circle, and so on. Nothing changes with this fella.

    N. B. To anyone arguing with IamMengele. Don’t open multiple fronts. You need to focus on one point and pin him down there. You either resolve that point or refuse to continue. He maintains these arguments through distraction. You will expose his dishonesty and dissembling by doing so without question.

  2. Iampeter

    Such has been provided three times just today.

    Who made the argument?
    Link the post.

    I’m not interested in any new “arguments” you want to make, since apparently there were so many cogent ones already made.

  3. Kneel

    For those who are interested, and since I can clearly attempt to educate Iampeter, who opines in ignorance on subjects he has no knowledge on, I will continue my medical example.

    You might recall that I had a 99% accurate test, had collected a single random sample from the general population, and the result was positive. The question was: what are the chances this person has this disease?

    Now most people, including most doctors and nurses BTW, will say: “99%”.

    How about I say to you that this disease is of medium prevalence in the community – 1 in every 10,000 has it. Does that change your answer?

    It should, and here’s why.

    If I get a perfect random sample from the population, of 10,000 individuals we can be certain that 9,999 do not have the disease and 1 does (obviously – it is a “perfect” sample).
    If I test all 10,000 and the test matches it’s stated accuracy, then 1% of 10,000 tests will be wrong, and so we will have 99 or 101 positive tests (depending on whether the test fails for the “real” sufferer or someone else). Yet we know – a priori – that only one has it. Therefore, the chances are actually closer to 1% (1/99, or, about 100 times more likely, 1/101) than they are to 99%. And this is as equally true for the single test as it is for the 10,000.

    Now, this is not a trick – nor is it a trick question. Instead, it is a test of your reasoning abilities with respect to uncertainty (about which, most of the population has little knowledge). In truth, a 99% accurate medical test is impossibly accurate in most cases (broken bones and other “mechanical” issues are obvious exceptions), and we settle for several tests of 15-30% accuracy and (hopefully) opposite biases. (which is why you are normally given more than one test – and I have not even considered specificity of the test yet!)

    How is this relevant to a discussion of abortion? Well, certainly “medical grounds” for an abortion is worthy of consideration, even should you – for any reason – oppose it. So getting some idea of how to deal with uncertainty (which is, ipso facto, a required part of medical diagnosis) is vital to make an educated contribution to the conversation. This is, of course, by no means an exhaustive list of what to watch out for, but hopefully is enough to make you think and realise that it is way harder than you first thought.

    You will note that we have not, to this point, considered treatments and outcomes, both of which are subject to similar constraints, both in terms of efficacy and how you process the resulting data.

    You will also note that in the above, there is no consideration of the ethics of providing (or withholding) treatment, which is, if anything, even more fraught with uncertainty and contradictions.

    If, as Iampeter apparently does, you want clean lines and simple rules, then you are out of luck – life is messy, deal with it!

  4. Iampeter

    So, you don’t have even one of those “many cogent arguments” to link to?

    Also, going on random tangents, no one is disputing, is exactly what i said you would do.
    Good to see you’ve played your part, like the predictable, catallaxy, blithering idiot that you are.

    We’re done here.

  5. dover_beach

    Yes, you’ve been trounced IamMengele. Exposed as a peddler of lies and deceits. Dragged over the cobblestones as local street urchins have thrown the town’s waste upon you. Laughed at by all sections of society as a pretentious and absurd intellectual manque. Your name now synonymous with the worship of Moloch.

    You are undone.

  6. Kneel

    “So, you don’t have even one of those “many cogent arguments” to link to?”

    I presented one (as per your request) such argument.
    I wrote it at least three times.
    You chose to ignore it, in all your replies – instead, you chose to do the same as you accuse Steve of, and selectively quoted in a pathetic attempt to make sure no-one “bested” you.
    Likewise, you fail to offer any supporting arguments for your case, except your original contention, which is based on a sub-sample of facts and your own brand of twisted “logic”. When the inconsistencies were exposed by other posters, you dismiss their concerns as “uninformed”, “wrong” etc, a priori – not a “here’s why” in it.

    It matters not to me that you expose your prejudices, biases and limitations to all and sundry, nor do I care that you expose your ignorance, immaturity and lack of intellectual abilities in the same manner, not that your hypocrisy, arrogance and base stupidity is likewise exposed.
    Oh, sorry – I do care. It’s a bloody good laugh watching you attempt to twist and re-twist things so that you “win” – about what I’d expect from a 4 year old, really.
    Your lack of knowledge in the practicalities of politics is almost as stunning as your lack of willingness to learn.

    Like all good leftists, you demand from others what you are incapable of doing yourself, and then have the gall to suggest that others demands mean nothing to you.

  7. Iampeter

    I presented one (as per your request) such argument.
    I wrote it at least three times.

    I didn’t ask you to present an argument, which it wasn’t, it was a random tangent that isn’t in dispute.
    What did you think you were even arguing against with that gibberish?

    What I was asking was, for you to qualify the statement you made in your very first post in this thread, about all the “many cogent arguments” or concede that there are none.

    You’ve not been able to do this, because you’re a dishonest moron, like the others here.

  8. dover_beach

    I see that IamMengele continues to refuse to answer a straightforward and important question. Why does a child at the same developmental stage as another but in utero not enjoy the right to life as the child postpartum?

    The continued failure to address this question is telling.

  9. The BigBlueCat

    These are just word games. No one support murdering children.
    This also has nothing to do with this thread, other than an exercise in evasion on your part.

    Your statement, Iampeter, was:

    No one in the medical profession supports the killing of children.

    Who is playing words games? You are! You manipulated the word “killing” to “murdering” – a classic example of you changing words to suit your argument. I didn’t mention murder .. you did!

    We now see you methods of argumentation .. we find it wanting. Now, answer Kneel’s question.

  10. Iampeter

    Who is playing words games? You are!

    I’m not playing word games, I stand by both the statements. They are LITERALLY true.
    It didn’t even occur to me you would think I meant something different by not including “medical profession.” There’s NO profession, there’s NOBODY who supports murdering children.
    This comes up in abortion discussions because conservatives don’t know anything about politics and have no arguments, so appeal to emotions instead.
    Conservatives shrieking about everyone murdering children, is the equivalent to progressives calling everyone racist.

    We now see you methods of argumentation .. we find it wanting. Now, answer Kneel’s question.

    There will be no discussion with Kneel until he concedes that there were no cogent arguments, he can’t name even one and he has no idea what he is talking about.

    Then the next question will be what he thinks his question has to do with anything in my original post?
    If you both want to concede that Kates was wrong about what is in the video and should retract his post and that abortion should be legal for the reasons I’ve stated, then we could talk about something else.

    But we are not following the typical cat formula, of politically illiterate leftists, derailing threads instead of conceding.

  11. dover_beach

    What a surprise, IamMengele continues his evasions. To repeat, Why does a child at the same developmental stage as another but in utero not enjoy the right to life as the child postpartum?

    The continued failure to address this question is telling.

    As for the latest fact which IamMengele disputes, children who survive a late-term abortion are, as a matter of fact, routinely left to die by the medical profession. In Queensland alone:

    In 2015, 27 babies of five month’s gestation survived [their attempted abortion], only to later die after not receiving life-saving treatment.

    In other words, they are killed by omission. IamMengele will, of course, ignore these facts because they are devastating.

  12. dover_beach

    Scrub the killed by omission. The children are poisoned in utero, delivered alive, and then left to die. The chain of causation begins with a series of acts undertaken with the intent of killing the child. Clearly, the child is murdered.

  13. Iampeter

    Me refusing to allow evasions, is not evasion.

  14. dover_beach

    Another evasion by IamMengele.

  15. Kneel

    “There will be no discussion with Kneel until he concedes that there were no cogent arguments, he can’t name even one and he has no idea what he is talking about.”

    You may now say you have beaten me on the content of one of my individual posts – the one you continue to harp on.

    I concede completely – you win.

    Now we can move on, and you can answer the new argument – this post of yours clearly welcomes new arguments:

    Iampeter
    #2935370, posted on February 16, 2019 at 10:41 am

    No, mate. You said there were “many cogent arguments” as to why abortion violates rights. I’ve asked you for days now to point to just one. Your wall of gibberish does not do so. If you want to start making your own arguments, then you are welcome to do so, but there’s nothing resembling any argument here.”
    —-

    My bold.

    Make your case against the new argument, or admit defeat.
    Or will you move the goal-posts and make more demands?

  16. Kneel

    “Make your case against the new argument, or admit defeat.”

    Oh, by the way, in case you want to say there is no argument, then I will present this instead as the “new” argument.

    I propose to change the granting of rights from the moment of delivery, to the moment of conception. By your logic, should this come about, then at the moment of conception, this new individual has all the rights available to any other, so abortion is clearly a rights violation and cannot be permitted.
    What argument to you have against my proposed change? You seem happy to accept an arbitrary point like delivery, so why not conception instead? I am not changing any rights, just to whom they are granted – surely the prerogative of any government, to define the limits of what constitutes a citizen?
    Your response, if any?

  17. Iampeter

    I propose to change the granting of rights from the moment of delivery, to the moment of conception.

    You can’t change when rights apply, anymore than you can change how arithmetic works.
    You need to understand the concept and apply it correctly.
    Rights arise from the facts of man’s nature. The facts are that man has to think and act in order to live, so if men are going to live among each other, their rights to think and act must be protected. To that end we establish government. “We” meaning those of us who are actually right wing.
    Basically, rights are a freedom of action not outcome.

    So, rights can only start after birth, because that’s the first point you become an individual, using your own senses to integrate the information of the world around you and learning how to think and act, at a rapid pace through to adulthood.

    Trying to “grant rights” prior to birth, means not only are you violating the actual rights of an actual individual, by turning people into unwilling incubators, but you’re also opening Pandora’s box of leftist “rights granting”. You’ve basically confused “needs” with “rights”.

    Can’t afford healthcare? We’ll “grant you rights” to healthcare.
    Can’t afford food, shelter, some other need? We’ll grant you the right to these things too.
    Etc.

  18. Kneel

    “You can’t change when rights apply, anymore than you can change how arithmetic works.
    You need to understand the concept and apply it correctly.”

    Sorry, still confused here.
    Perhaps you would care to advise where I’m going wrong.

    Was my concession inadequate?
    Was my description of your logic wrong?
    Have you changed your mind about allowing new arguments?
    Or some combination of these?

    I would like to enter a dialogue, about which you clearly have your own “rules” – since I want a dialogue, help me and out advise what I should do to engage you.

    Thanks.

  19. Iampeter

    I saw your concession and so answered your question/argument.
    I think it’s funny that at the cat, the only ones actually even interested in trying to discuss anything about politics, are seld confessed autists like Kneel.

    Everyone else is either a raving lunatic, or a retiree-aged, teenage SJW, but more confused. LOL.

  20. stackja

    Liberty Quote
    It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    — Robert Heinlein

    Cult of death.

  21. Kneel

    So, if it was possible to change when rights applied, then you would feel obliged to argue as I suggested?
    Hypothetically, of course, since we know that when rights apply cannot be changed as per your post.
    But hypothetically… I mean, it doesn’t seem to me that there should be any problem with you confirming same – it would surely help me understand how to engage you better; I don’t like what I consider unwarranted abuse either… trying to avoid it, help me out.

  22. dover_beach

    So, rights can only start after birth, because that’s the first point you become an individual, using your own senses to integrate the information of the world around you and learning how to think and act, at a rapid pace through to adulthood.

    You can see why IamMengele consistently refuses to answer the question I raised above: Why does a child at the same developmental stage as another but in utero not enjoy the right to life as the child postpartum? And that is because, by his own criterion, there is nothing different between the child at 36 weeks but in utero and a child at 36 weeks postpartum. They are at the same developmental stage as each other, so they are using their senses, etc. in the same manner to ‘integrate the information of the world around [them] and learning how to think and act, at a rapid pace through to adulthood]. There is simply nothing different about what they are engaged in physically and mentally, and therefore, if the child postpartum is a bearer of rights in virtue of the above, then so, too, is the child in utero. The only difference between the two is not developmental, which is all that matters, but the location in respect of the mother, which is incidental, given his own criterion.

    And in just this manner, IamMengele has exposed the error in his own assertion.

  23. The BigBlueCat

    Everyone else is either a raving lunatic, or a retiree-aged, teenage SJW, but more confused. LOL.

    So again … WHY ARE YOU HERE? Do you actually enjoy not discussing your POV with those you describe above? Or is there some other perverse pleasure you receive? You are hardly raising the standard of debate when you won’t engage with questions other people ask. While you can argue that others are collectivists and leftists (a point you have not proven, but on your own standards should be included as a leftist because at least one of your POV’s align exactly with Marxism).

    Kneel and dover_beach have asked perfectly reasonable questions that you should have no reluctance in answering, be they hypothetical or otherwise. But you are evading the issue so as to avoid exposing your own logical fallacies (a dangerous thing for an Objectivist).

    But let me help you: Why does a child at the same developmental stage as another but in utero not enjoy the right to life as the child postpartum? Your position would be that one is born and the other is not – rights only extend to those that are born. But the alternative rational position would be that the distinction is only location – size and degree of development can be discounted. Therefore, morally the two are the same in terms of their humanity, viability, sensory capabilities, ability to process information, to express feelings, to experience pain and fear, etc. In terms of humanity and personhood, location (ie. in utero versus postpartum) may not make a sufficient case to deny the individual rights. (See how easy that was? Of course, all you had to do was apply your own rationale, but you have steadfastly refused to do so.)

    Kneel’s question is a bit more challenging for you – you are being asked to consider granting rights to the moment of conception, and how that would change your views. A rational person would answer that should rights be recognised at the time of conception, then issues such as abortion on demand would severely be challenged as the right of the unborn challenges the right of the individual to make life-or-death decisions for the unborn. You are being asked to ignore the current situation and explore a hypothetical situation.

    I get it that you cannot conceive of the situation, or think the situation is impossible – that’s not what is being asked. You are being asked to explore a hypothetical situation to engage your capacity to think abstractly. It’s a worthy question, and for the life of me I can’t understand how you would not engage it hypothetically.

  24. Iampeter

    So, if it was possible to change when rights applied, then you would feel obliged to argue as I suggested?
    Hypothetically, of course, since we know that when rights apply cannot be changed as per your post.

    Not sure what you’re asking me to confirm. Rights are what they are and work the way they work, not the way you might want them to work.
    Just like one plus one equals two and not anything else hypothetically.

    So, the question is, do you support rights protecting government?
    If yes, then abortion should be legal.
    If no, then you could argue it should be illegal, because individual rights are, at best, a secondary.
    This puts you on the same side of politics as other leftists, which is the real story with todays conservatives.
    That’s the connection between ideas and their implications for their politics that so many are very desperate to evade at the cat.

  25. Iampeter

    So again … WHY ARE YOU HERE?

    Asked and answered.
    The question is, why are you politically illiterate leftists here?

    You are hardly raising the standard of debate when you won’t engage with questions other people ask.

    Otherway around.
    It’s you and other dummies here, who don’t engage with what’s been said.
    You don’t know how because you don’t know anything about politics.
    Hence the question about why any of you are here.

    While you can argue that others are collectivists and leftists (a point you have not proven

    I have proved it. You have explicitly said the collective comes before the individual and that makes you a collectivist, therefore leftist. Me needing to keep repeating this is another example of YOU refusing to engage with what has been explained.

    Therefore, morally the two are the same in terms of their humanity, viability, sensory capabilities, ability to process information, to express feelings, to experience pain and fear, etc. In terms of humanity and personhood, location (ie. in utero versus postpartum) may not make a sufficient case to deny the individual rights.

    All these points have already been addressed by me. Again, it’s you who has failed to engage, because if you did, you’d need to concede.
    But for the record:
    Legality is determined by rights. Whether abortion is moral or not, is not in dispute and doesn’t affect the legal question.
    Birth is the greatest paradigm shift, the point at which you become an individual for the first time, so is the point you first acquire rights. These are self evident factors that would not be in dispute with any honest person.
    In any case, as has already been explained, the unborn can be a full grown adult or whatever other delusion you want and it changes nothing about the legal question.
    Those of us who are actually “centre-right” don’t think people can be forced to pay for anothers healthcare, what on earth makes you think we’d support forcing people to be incubators?

  26. Iampeter

    I get it that you cannot conceive of the situation, or think the situation is impossible – that’s not what is being asked. You are being asked to explore a hypothetical situation to engage your capacity to think abstractly

    No, its you guys who don’t understand how to think abstractly, which is why you cannot grasp the concept of individual rights.
    You have had the issue thoroughly and repeatedly explained, have no counter arguments because there are no counter arguments, but don’t want to concede.

    So, instead you want to engage in mental masturbation, with nonsense hypotheticals.

    This isn’t an “exercise in abstract thinking” this is evasion.

  27. dover_beach

    Therefore, morally the two are the same in terms of their humanity, viability, sensory capabilities, ability to process information, to express feelings, to experience pain and fear, etc. In terms of humanity and personhood, location (ie. in utero versus postpartum) may not make a sufficient case to deny the individual rights.

    All these points have already been addressed by me. Again, it’s you who has failed to engage, because if you did, you’d need to concede.

    It is plainly obvious that IamMengele has not addressed this at all. He simply has no answer given that his own criterion, whether he accepts this or not, includes the child whether in utero or postpartum as a bearer of rights.

    He is now pathetically reduced to unresponsive walls of text that serve as nothing more than testaments to his windbaggery.

  28. Iampeter

    Lol, except I address them AGAIN in the very post you’re quoting.
    This is why you are ignored dover, you are a true imbecile and no discussion with a raving nutjob like you is possible.

  29. Kneel

    “Not sure what you’re asking me to confirm. Rights are what they are and work the way they work, not the way you might want them to work.”

    Well, you say that rights are what they are and cannot be changed, yet the history of our federation says differently – on federation, women did not have a right to vote, but less than two years later, they did.
    This would seem to indicate that who gets what rights is not fixed. Of course, you may be saying that certain rights are part of human nature and others not, but you didn’t make this distinction, you just said “rights”. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that you didn’t make such a distinction because you didn’t feel it needed to be made – that it was obvious etc.
    But,hey, I’m a bit thick, so if you would be so good as to clarify for me, I’d appreciate it – if, by some odd arrangement, rights were to be assigned at conception, this would change your opinion on the right to an abortion, wouldn’t it?

  30. The BigBlueCat

    I have proved it. You have explicitly said the collective comes before the individual and that makes you a collectivist, therefore leftist. Me needing to keep repeating this is another example of YOU refusing to engage with what has been explained.

    You have proven nothing but that you are more willing than anyone else to collect people into categories and make judgement based on the categories you put them in rather than the categories they self-select. I have not said “in all case” collectives come before individuals – individuals are the basic unit of civilisation, and therefore highly important. I have outlined my centre-right beliefs, which you fully discount because of something I said on one or two particular issues. I should therefore apply your own standards; you believe the same about abortion as Marxists – therefore you are a Marxist. See how that works?

    Whether abortion is moral or not, is not in dispute and doesn’t affect the legal question.

    You have been specifically invited to answer the moral question. You have not answered it. The proposition that we want you to explore is the moral question, because then we can have further discussion about rights and whether the moral principles should inform the formation of rights and the law. It’s a pity you can’t connect the dots …

    Legality is determined by rights. Whether abortion is moral or not, is not in dispute and doesn’t affect the legal question.

    It’s the moral question that you are being asked to consider, but are refusing to. I agree it does not affect the legal question, but morality serves to inform the framing of laws and our concept of rights. That morals and laws are separate (ie. laws don’t necessarily codify our morals) isn’t the issue you have been asked to consider, but it’s your stock answer – abortion is legal. But you won’t connect the dots that exist between morals, rights and laws. That’s ok – others are doing that for you, and it exposes your moral POV.

    Birth is the greatest paradigm shift, the point at which you become an individual for the first time, so is the point you first acquire rights. These are self evident factors that would not be in dispute with any honest person.

    Again, not the question you were invited to answer other than “why birth?” Of course we all understand the legal framework, but we want to know what your moral view is. You haven’t answered the question relating to if there is a moral equivalence between a 28 week unborn fetus and a 28 week born baby given that both are at the same state of development, etc. We can only conclude you believe there is no moral equivalence because “rights”, “legality”, “birth” and “individual”. So can you please answer the moral question?

    Those of us who are actually “centre-right” don’t think people can be forced to pay for anothers healthcare, what on earth makes you think we’d support forcing people to be incubators?

    This has been addressed – no-one wants to force anyone to be incubators – but to consider the moral implications of their actions and make decisions that affirm the life growing within them so it can be nurtured and achieve its full human potential. Saying “forcing people to be incubators” is just sophistry.

    I certainly agree that post-natal abortion as words are oxymoronic, but clearly there are people who advocate for terminating the life of recently-born individuals (who on your view have rights) because of decreased utility value (Peter Singer plus the link I provided you demonstrates this – but you obfusticate just on the words “post-natal abortion” … but you don’t engage on what is actually put forward by these people from a moral perspective. You also don’t consider the act of omitting care for the recently born (even if they suffer from a deformity), which is what the Governor in the video is foreshadowing. Certainly, there are moral and ethical considerations you refuse to discuss because they don’t (in your mind) correlate to “rights” or “legality”.

    BTW you are NOT centre-right – even by your own admission you are right wing. See your posts #2930954, #2931668, #2931720, #2933854, #2934782, #2934783, #2934789, #2934887 where you make the claim that you are right wing, a right winger, and are arguing from a right wing perspective. There is nothing in your claims that state you are centre-right or actually “centre-right” other than in your last post. No-one believes you are “centre-right” – not even you.

  31. dover_beach

    I address them AGAIN in the very post you’re quoting.

    No, you didn’t, IamMengele, that is obvious to any literate person. If you imagine that merely asserting that “Birth is the greatest paradigm shift” with a this ‘self-evident’ when it is, in fact, the matter in dispute, addresses anything then you merely confirm your own cluelessness, which is why your other pseudonym, Iambeggingthequestion, is quite apt.

    To repeat, your own criterion defeats you. Just as the child at 36 weeks postpartum is a bearer of rights for the reason you say, so too is the child at 36 weeks in utero a bearer of rights.

  32. Iampeter

    I have outlined my centre-right beliefs, which you fully discount because of something I said on one or two particular issues.

    As has already bee explained, politics is about individualism vs collectivism.
    Since you’ve explicitly rejected individualism, even rejected capitalism in previous threads, you are a collectivist and therefore a leftist.
    Whatever non-essentials you think make you centre-right, they do not. Only your collectivism matters.

    I should therefore apply your own standards; you believe the same about abortion as Marxists – therefore you are a Marxist. See how that works?

    No, because focussing on non-essentials and misintegrating them is YOUR logic, not mine.

    This has been addressed – no-one wants to force anyone to be incubators

    So you agree abortion should be legal?

    It’s the moral question that you are being asked to consider, but are refusing to.

    If we agree it should be legal, we can talk about the morality of it.

    BTW you are NOT centre-right – even by your own admission you are right wing.

    Centre-right and right wing can be used interchaneably by those of us who know what we are talking about.
    You are again, focussing on the non-essentials.

  33. Kneel

    “These are self evident factors that would not be in dispute with any honest person.”

    Certainly, that birth is a significant event in a persons development would not be disputed by anyone.
    The question, then, is: is this significant event of itself significant enough to be considered as the place where rights are granted? Your only argument in support of this appears to be that at this point, the individual is able to survive independently – and yet a newborn requires constant attention to it’s needs to survive. Attention that it itself cannot provide. They are dependent on a carer. Why then are they given rights? By your own criteria, they are not independent at all, why should they have rights? Why should this individual, who is incapable of tending to themselves, be able to demand I (or anyone else) give it attention? I am not asking for a special exemption, rather the reverse – if I am forced to tend to this individual to uphold their rights, why can I not demand the same in return? That the government support me and tend to my needs, and prevent me from dying due to starvation or thirst? What is the difference?

    ” Rights are what they are and work the way they work,…”
    Well, obviously. Why can’t I change them? Australia gave the vote to women, the US removed the right of a slave-master to own his property, the Magna Carter removed to right of the monarch to rule arbitrarily. These all changed, why can’t I change what the definition of a human is? What makes that special?

  34. mh

    Good work, lads.

    Keep the looney on this thread while we continue to enjoy the rest of the site.

  35. The BigBlueCat

    As has already bee explained, politics is about individualism vs collectivism.
    Since you’ve explicitly rejected individualism, even rejected capitalism in previous threads, you are a collectivist and therefore a leftist.
    Whatever non-essentials you think make you centre-right, they do not. Only your collectivism matters.

    Centre-right seeks to balance the two – that’s why they are called “moderates”. You are arguing from your own (or Ayn rand’s definition) which doesn’t meet the standard of debate (when terms should be agreed). I’ve explained to you my beliefs that justify why I am centre-right – you just disagree and you have no objective reason to disagree. I can live with that – there is no reason for anyone to believe you are right because you alone are controlling the definitions, but only in your own mind. It is abundantly clear that no-one here supports your POV. Your protests and accusations are meaningless.

    No, because focussing on non-essentials and misintegrating them is YOUR logic, not mine.

    See above.

    So you agree abortion should be legal?

    My contention is that the legality of abortion and in consideration of rights ought to also consider the moral grounds. I am not convinced the law in it’s current form does that, and any proposal that extends to the termination of life postpartum is definitely immoral and a breach of human rights; the moral standing should inform the rights principle and therefore the legal standing. Your POV is that the termination of life postpartum is in breach of the individual’s right to life since they have been born, and therefore it should be illegal. On this issue, our outcomes are the same, but how we get there is significant.

    If we agree it should be legal, we can talk about the morality of it.

    There is no need for me to agree on the legality for you to discuss the moral question. Except you won’t, of course, discuss the morality of it because you have avoided that very same question all along, and have relied solely on “legality” and “rights”. I would agree “it is legal” (because that is the law), but I would not concede “it should be legal” for reasons I have already provided. The moral question is important to understand “rights” and therefore “law”, despite that “rights” are an expression of what is morally acceptable and laws that ought to protect rights (despite the fact that laws often contradict rights, or don’t adequately deal with conflicting rights).

    Centre-right and right wing can be used interchaneably by those of us who know what we are talking about.
    You are again, focussing on the non-essentials.

    What do you mean by “those of us”? What “us” are you referring to? There is a clear difference between centre-right and right wing and the terms should not be used interchangeably, and especially when you have taken much time and effort to entrench the view you are right wing and not centre-right. I have no reason to believe whatsoever you are centre-right. It is actually quite essential to understanding why you are here. Just claiming you are “centre-right”, especially after you distinguish that you are right wing and arguing from the right makes the claim you are somehow “centre-right” disingenuous.

  36. The BigBlueCat

    mh
    #2937193, posted on February 18, 2019 at 12:44 pm
    Good work, lads.

    Keep the looney on this thread while we continue to enjoy the rest of the site.

    It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it ….

Comments are closed.