|
Post by celawson on Jan 30, 2019 17:49:17 GMT -5
Let me clarify what I meant. Yes of course fetal viability is a criterion. But it doesn’t HAVE to be in an individual case. And I do sympathize with the plight of Ms. Christensen. And I can see how abortion law in a pluralistic society could allow for that.
BUT...the “OR” is morally problematic to me because in theory, a healthy fetus could be aborted due to a vague declaration that the mother’s health is at risk - which could be physical or mental health To me, that could encompass any reason at all for a late term abortion even severe stress at the thought of putting a baby up for adoption.
I don’t know if that is a way this will play out, but the wording, to me, doesn’t eliminate that possibility or have any stipulation for how grave the medical situation must be.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 30, 2019 16:16:01 GMT -5
Just fyi, Northram was--I guess he still is--a medical doctor. Neurology, I think. And that--in my view--makes him look worse, as he shouldn't be fumbling around on this sort of stuff (assuming that he eventually "clarifies). Worse, he's a pediatric neurologist.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 30, 2019 15:44:04 GMT -5
There is absolutely nothing morally wrong, either in my opinion or in the Roman Catholic Church's dogma, with your terribly difficult decision about your father. And I'm so sorry you had to go through that. And I would do the same in a similar situation with my parents and have indeed counseled families that it is a valid option in the case of some very severe stroke patients I have seen. And yes, your other explanation for the governor's statement is another kettle of fish, indeed. Maybe he will clarify further.
EDITED TO ADD:
If I had a nickle for every pearl I've been accused of clutching, I wouldn't have to go into work today.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 30, 2019 15:12:41 GMT -5
You keep saying the baby is dead or dying in the womb. That is not a criterion. The life or health of the mother is the criterion. That's a big part of my point. Of COURSE slippery slope is a factor here. And so are the whoops and hollers and wide-as-Joker smiles and clapping and cheering when the New York bill was signed.
Imagine if, instead of the cheering and smiles and pink ties and whoops, Mr. Cuomo had instead appeared serious and somewhat grave and said something like,
"We know there are rare and incredibly painful and tragic circumstances which require a late term abortion, and New York would never want to inflict more pain on a mother going through that. Therefore, I'm signing a bill...."
And folks nodded somberly and looked relieved. Big difference in the message to young women making decisions about unprotected sex, or sex with partners who would not support a pregnancy, or sex at a time in their lives that they could not support raising a child.
The message is important, folks. The message that becomes ingrained in a society that cheers for late term abortions is the message that allows governors of Virginia to talk about infanticide like it's no big deal. It's insidious.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 30, 2019 14:46:56 GMT -5
NT - I used this from the National Abortion Federation - Damn I forgot the link. Will add. 5aa1b2xfmfh2e2mk03kk8rsx-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/women_who_have_abortions.pdfIf half report using it IN THE MONTH prior, but of that half, some forgot to use it on the day they conceived, then that's not half. I admit was getting a little heated yesterday in my posting, and I admit I worded that too strongly and should have cited it or said "about half". Which is still a sad statistic. Cassandra - here's a video of the "celebrating". Very wide smiles throughout the signing, people look utterly joyful, very loud cheers after the signing. I don't know what else you want to call it besides celebrating. I think it should have been a somber and serious occasion. It seemed more like a party. nypost.com/2019/01/22/andrew-cuomo-signs-bill-updating-new-yorks-abortion-law/Also, here's a video clip from the governor of Virginia you all might be interested in: www.nationalreview.com/corner/virginia-governor-defends-letting-infants-die/It's the governor of Virginia defending a bill which would allow abortion even while the mother is in labor, and even for mental health reasons. And he goes even further, if the baby is born alive. Even at that point, the baby would only be resuscitated if the mother wants it resuscitated. We are well into the slippery slope here, folks. That's what happens when fetuses are considered clumps of cells, and people whoop and cheer for late term abortions. I just got 3 new consults. Sorry, but I have to head into the hospital.
EDITED TO ADD: I just saw Robo's post, and I agree with him and had already put that in my post now. If you all, intelligent people every one of you, can't see how this attitude toward unborn life creeps into other aspects of our society - euthanasia and infanticide are only 2 examples, then I really don't know what else to say.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 29, 2019 20:14:40 GMT -5
nighttimer, forgive me I've got a ton of stuff to do today, and I already spent a lot of time on here. Would love to discuss Brokaw more tomorrow. And yeah, most people are very dug in on the abortion issue, I agree. But for younger folks who haven't formed a strong opinion yet on the matter, I hate them seeing the celebration that just occurred in New York. I think it sends a terrible message.
Mark, I just saw you on the video! Hi! I'm sorry you had a tough night. That officer to the left of you was falling asleep while standing up, LOL. At least you kept your eyes open. I agree with a lot of your last post. Unfortunately, there are plenty of vocal people who are pro-abortion. And that celebration we saw in New York illustrates that. But I understand your position.
Cassandra, regarding reality, I think there must be a better way to address society's unwanted pregnancies than a vague "health" disclaimer that allows unrestricted abortion up to birth. (The majority of women who have abortions were not using birth control.) And there CERTAINLY could have been a better way to present this law than cheering and lighting up buildings to celebrate.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 29, 2019 15:27:33 GMT -5
IMO, celebrating this law so blatantly - smiles and cheers and the pink light - is telling girls and women that killing the life growing inside of you until the day before birth is not only legal but a societal GOOD. Both of those things are the opposite of a societal good.
I saw a Tweet yesterday where a woman who had an abortion spoke positively about the law and insisted that her abortion was NORMAL. And yes she wrote “normal” in all caps.um...NO. It’s NOT normal to have an abortion. Morally and statistically it is NOT NORMAL. But celebrations like New york’s Are trying to make it seem normal. I find that to be the very opposite of progress. Even after Roe v Wade, those who oppose abortion could at least think late term abortions remained reprehensible and tragic in most people’s eyes. Looks like you all in New York are out to change that perspective.
(Good grief my phone corrected New York to New Stork. What an awful coincidence. ) I haven’t read your example about tragic circumstances, but I will and I will comment on it.
But this is really a horrendous law, and I don’t think Democrats see how far away from the center they are going.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 29, 2019 14:41:20 GMT -5
Hi, nighttimer! Yes, we could talk about any of those things. I wouldn't mind. And yes, Trump DID get dog-walked by Nancy Pelosi. She's a tough old lady, and she's very shrewd. And I'm disappointed in Trump. However, we shouldn't ignore the fact that Nancy spent more money blocking Trump's wall than he's asking for in the first place. So there's that. I will admit I threw "clown car" in there, because I remember hearing it so much when the GOP had a lot of folks throwing their hats into the ring. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I don't mind talking about any of those things. I did tire of the Covington stuff after we started going in circles, and I spent a lot of time tracking down that video for Cassandra. So I stopped posting for a while. But I will join in any of those you suggested.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 29, 2019 14:31:17 GMT -5
No, Mark. A human exists at conception is absolutely a biological and scientific provable truth. Completely separate from religion or morality. At conception there is the combination of mother's and father's DNA which results in a new unique human individual biologic entity. This grows and develops separately from the mother (dependent on her yes, inside of her yes, an actual part of her body, no) and can only grow into a person, not a duck or a frog or a virus or a finger or an organ of the woman or anything that is not a human being. This is science. That's why Cassandra's accusation at me imposing my religion on her is a fallacy. I don't have to be Roman Catholic to have a moral aversion to killing a human being, at any stage in development. As a matter of fact, it's more morally and logically consistent to be opposed to abortion at all times during gestation than to draw an arbitrary line.
I agree with you on the arbitrary death penalty example you gave. And I do not agree with the death penalty in general. I wish it would be abolished. (for several reasons but that's for another thread)
Personhood (with rights and protections) is a different story. And I understand those arguments about there being an arbitrary time to designate personhood along development. I don't agree with them, but I can more easily understand them. However, some, like viability, don't make logical sense because then personhood depends on the state of technology. Think about that for a second - personhood depends on the state of technology. If technology improves and we can keep younger premature babies alive, then younger fetuses suddenly become persons? (would be sad for fetuses if we abort the person who would someday have developed this new technology)
In a similar vein, the mother wanting the fetus is also an illogical definition of personhood. The mother's state of mind does not change what the fetus is, biologically.
BTW, what happened to all of the reasonable people we've had on this board in the past who agreed that in an ideal world, abortion would not exist? That it should be a last resort in rarer circumstances than it is? That no one celebrates an abortion? Cassandra, you argued with me on that, IIRC I have seen those sentiments on this board by folks other than myself. Are those people now cheering and lighting pink lights for the most unrestricted abortion policy in the country? And calling it societal progress? It's the opposite of societal progress. It's barbarism.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 29, 2019 13:22:52 GMT -5
Thanks for starting a new thread! I spent yesterday unexpectedly with my college daughter before she flew back to Oregon. Only time for the New York abortion law today. Although before you all get on me for defending Tom Brokaw, did I defend him? Or did I just state fact? Was there a social media pile-on or not? How do you know where I will fall on that issue? I guess we need to wait and see. I know the first tactic you usually use when responding to me is to assume I haven't read the information sufficiently or seen pertinent video. (Like last time, when I had actually seen plenty of video, even some that you didn't). In this case, I've read a fair amount - from the bill itself, to commentary from Roman Catholic theologians and from medical doctors. I can judge if what I've read is sufficient to call this an EVIL ABOMINATION. And it is unquestionably an evil abomination. Furthermore, the celebration of it is disgusting and horrifying. Did you not see the other two words that come after " TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE"? Here, I will type them for you so you don't miss them this time -- "OR HEALTH" Let's repeat that, because it's important - "OR HEALTH" And I think we all know how broadly "or health" has been and will be used to obtain abortions - - - physical or emotional or psychological health. That, of course, can encompass ANYTHING. And purposely so. Also, tell me one medical situation where a late term fetus needs to be killed first THEN delivered, rather than simply delivered, to save the life of the mother. You do realize, if the mother's life is at stake, killing the baby first then delivering it would take longer and pose more medical risk to the mother, right? Than simply delivering it immediately? In addition - this bill has removed some very important words from New York's definition of homicide. Here's an excerpt from the bill itself, bolding mine: So how did New York grapple with the complete moral illogic of advancing this bill while allowing homicide charges against "someone who causes the death of an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks"?
But before we answer that, let's look a little more deeply - the prior homicide law calls the fetus in these cases "AN UNBORN CHILD". Which is exactly what it is! Except in the pro-abortionist's twisted logic, "unborn child" is not defined by biology or medicine or science or living proof before our eyes, but rather by if it's wanted by the mother or not. That's right - the definition of "unborn child" is determined by another person's, the mother's, state of mind. If the unborn child is not wanted, they suddenly become non-children, pieces of tissue, a part of the mother's body to be killed and discarded like so much trash. So how did New York grapple with this conundrum? They removed (repealed, amended, whatever it is legislators do) the issue of unborn children from homicide law. Now homicide refers only to "a human being who has been born and is alive". Viable fetus in the womb at 35 weeks? Not a human being. Baby born at 35 weeks 1 sec after birth? Human being. I can't wrap my head around the moral and logical depravity of this malleable definition of human being. Any society that not only puts forth this sort of legislation but celebrates it with cheers and pink lights on a building is sick. And the gall to assume everyone, including those who are consistent morally and scientifically with what a fetus is, would want to celebrate this sickness by seeing pink lights on a skyscraper...it makes me physically ill.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 28, 2019 13:10:28 GMT -5
As a friend of mine just reminded me, this is not a hill worth dying on. Fuck it. I have nothing left to say that I haven't said six times already. Keep your opinion, whatever it may be, and take joy in it. I'd post on one of the topics I think ARE hills worth dying on, but topics like that get no traction anymore. It's only stuff like this that goes on for pages. These are interesting comments, especially considering you've posted more than anyone else on this thread.
Let's talk about other stuff! I'd love to. That's why I stopped here in this thread.
Let's see -- we've got Andrew Cuomo, supposed Roman Catholic, not only promoting evil abortion legislation in New York which allows abortion up to minutes before birth, but frickin lighting up pink lights on tall buildings to celebrate it. Yeah. If that ain't some moral confusion, I don't know what is.
Or...Alexandria Ocasio Cortez' apocalyptic pronouncements on climate change.
Or...how big the clown car is going to be for the Dem's in 2020
Or Trump's cave on the wall negotiations just when Dems were starting to get squirmy.
Or the most recent social media pile-on which involves Tom Brokaw.
or ANYTHING ELSE except this tired story.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 23, 2019 17:38:09 GMT -5
I’d like to note that the kid being yelled at and cursed at by the guy in the red hat also kept his composure pretty well, at least from what I could see and hear. No return of f-bombs, listened pretty politely considering, then gave a fairly reasoned response referencing what he’d learned about early man and migration of peoples.
Could these kids have all made the BEST choices in how to respond to all of these complex interactions? Probably not, given their age and lack of life experience, and the weirdness and nuances and unfamiliarity with what was happening. But a lot of them made pretty good choices, considering, and that’s why I don’t that they, especially Sandmann, should be called jerks or any other derogatory terms, nor as I’ve repeated above, receive the hate they’ve received.
Also, the wall Trump is asking for is not to keep “everyone” out. It’s to keep drugs and human traffickers and criminals and those who want to enter illegally, out. Big difference.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 23, 2019 16:17:55 GMT -5
My experience with YouTube is that the video has to be posted at a particular setting with regard to what sort of video the poster took, otherwise it can be jerky. I've experienced that with my daughter's volleyball recruiting video clips. So no, I do not think it is doctored. Maybe I was wrong in where I thought it was in your video, but I do not think this is doctored, and I do think the drum obscures some periods of Nick Sandmann in your video's angle.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 23, 2019 15:28:40 GMT -5
The key is finding a clip that films from the other side of the two of them. That way the drum doesn't obscure. Where did they all go? I saw a couple yesterday or the day before, but those were on Twitter. Unfortunately, this is the best I can do. And it partially obscures his initial hand gestures. But here it is anyway. Wow, I didn't think it would be that hard to scroll back on Twitter, LOL.
Edited to Add:
Here's a Tweet with a video. It's prob the same one, but it runs at normal speed on my laptop, not all jerky like the YouTube
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 23, 2019 14:56:12 GMT -5
No, I saw it multiple times from two angles. I will try to dig up a link for you.
Edited:
OK I just found one clip but the speed is off and it isn't great quality so I'm still looking. In your video above, he does this at a point when the drum obscures him completely. Give me a minute
|
|