The guy who is concerned about government intervention with an ultrasound....is the same guy arguing for social engineering? I don't want life reduced to the whims of when someone else wants it around or not. Your "policy" extends abortion past the first trimester....and you could arguably extend it past birth. Honestly, I think that's grotesque. Remember when you said you were disappointed in my feelings about this issue earlier?
And I never said "keep social costs down". If we are talking about a chain of causality there are any number of events that could've happened along that chain to alter what we consider to be the present. For instance a few years ago I almost got hit by a car on that spun out and jumped the median in front of me. Just before I left the house I had to shovel my walk. There was some ice on the walk that was kind of tough and I had spend some time scraping it off. Now if the ice had been less tough and I got done shoveling a few seconds earlier everything else being the same I get blindsided by that car. The problem though is thinking about that sort of possibility can drive you crazy because we can't fully predict the chain of causality. You argument is dependent on that chain of causality which is why I am pointing out that the flaw in that since we don't know how those actions might fully affect us. The reason why I am harping on this is that one, I am a science fiction nerd, and two, that this is a flawed argument. I think if you are arguing that fetus is a human and that humans have a right to life, good or bad, that is one that is one thing but the argument that if a fetus were or not born would lead to you or me being here or not being here is a different argument. I could say that about anything in the history of my ancestors. If my grandma didn't flee fast enough from the Japanese in WWII I wouldn't be here. If my dad didn't join the debate team in college and meet my mom I wouldn't be here and so on. We can't base policy on those sort of what ifs.
Missed this earlier... I've spoken to people who have been in abortion clinics where they were rushed through the procedure. Where they were given as little information as possible. Because it's like a turnstile. The more procedures per day...the more dollars. When the woman walks out the door, there goes one more paying customer. Given the sensitivity of this issue...and the very final nature of an abortion...I don't think it's asking too much to give the patient as much information as possible...and to force the doctor to slow his roll a bit. Holy crap, we put more checks on a car salesman than we do on this transaction.
Government intervention =/= Personal decision Sounds like you are trying to make the argument that a non-existing law that allows for personal liberty of choice is "social engineering that equates to government intervention". That does not compute. What is "life" to you is not "life" to someone else in this case. You have to live with their decision/determination of what life is (and how they choose to handle it), because there is no hard and fast definition. Sorry, but that's how this works. You can't impose your definition of what is life and what is ok to do just as much as they can't abort your baby for you. It's the deal we've made. This fact is well known and this argument is so tired I can't believe I even have to bring it up. Nope. And nope.
we base policy on preservation of life. of liberties extended to living human beings. there is disagreement as to when the magic moment is...and we've hashed that out over and over again. again, you're taking my argument entirely out of context...ultimately I'm countering someone who is arguing for more abortions to weed out more unwanted pregnancies. i used my father as an example...as an antecdote. you're spending more time on it than i did, frankly.
I have seen video and even then if you don't know what it is its not much distinguishable from looking at any throbbing piece of tissue. Anyway as I have said before the heartbeat has an emotional significance but I think it is a very poor determinant of life especially human life. You could remove most of someone's brain and still have the heart beating but I wouldn't consider that being alive.
I don't believe Roe v. Wade is based on your concept of "well, we need to weed out more unwanted babies." Frankly, Roe v. Wade is hella more restrictive of abortion than what you're proposing. This is where these discussions always seem to go....the "advocates" of Roe v. Wade end up extending it far beyond what the Court ever said....what the law really is. I get that people disagree...I said that a few times. My point is, we're playing loose and fast with what MAY be life. When we do that other places, the government steps in and says, "no."
ummm..again...it's in the CONTEXT of the discussion we're having here. and Major is right...i didn't bother responding to most of your post because i found it nonresponsive to what I was saying.
That is fine except that you are positing a what if scenario to make your point. True I am spending more time than needed but as I stated I am a sci-fi nerd and these "what if scenarios" are fodder for sci-fi. As I stated before though I don't think we can base policy on what if scenarios of this nature. I understand you were putting that down as an anecdote. I countered it with a what if scenario of my own.
With all due respect then perhaps you shouldn't have put that in your response to me if it was meant for someone else.
i'm not interested in a sci-fi discussion, frankly. you could re-up in the Tron: Legacy thread, but you probably won't like my opinon about that, either.
Of course it isn't. That's a silly suggestion. I'm speaking from a practical/pragmatic standpoint, not a legal standpoint (we all know the legal reasons). Surely you knew that. In my opinion, reasonable abortion laws (coupled with advanced sexual education!) make society better. LOL. "Fast and loose". Eh, not so much. This has been one of the most scrutinized social issues in history. Got any examples (that aren't oranges to apples, if possible) of this government intervention?
But you joined the discussion. Poster #1: Abortions get rid of unwanted babies - good for society. MaxMax: Social engineering is bad. Various anecdotes about good people born. You: But then you have to look at all the bad people that might be born You jumped into a discussion about social engineering and argued the "for" side of it, whether intentionally or not. MadMax is arguing the "against" side of it, so your point that bad people would be born along with good people doesn't matter to him. He's not making an argument based on whether good or bad people would be born.
I think that is a good point and not having any direct experience with going through an abortion I can't really say how much of a problem this is. In terms of improving the delivery of overall medical care I might agree to this but this policy doesn't sound like it is being proposed to improve medical care.
Policy dictates our laws. You were arguing a policy position...policy is translated to us through laws. Want to enact a policy of encouraging people to drive less? Pass or modify laws to tax the hell out of gasoline...that's how you meet your policy goals. My point was only that if that's your intended policy...if that's what you're advocating...you can't possibly separate that from the law, ultimately. You will argue for laws that foster your policy concerns. Surely you knew that. which one? the current restrictions on abortion? or this one about ultrasounds?
