This is the most disturbing procedure I have ever seen! It's point blank murder!

Again, the PBA ban is getting this all out into the light. Yay!

There's a new picture for the face the truth tour signs, huh?

see, now abortion is dangerous...I thought it was very safe?

Nope, now it's getting dangerous and it's all our fault!!!*rolls eyes*

And "a far more dangerous procedure"?

I believe so, although maybe the "far' could be argued. There is more intrustion into the uterus and greater risk of uterine tearing.

Doug

Doug, you don't understand the logistics of PBA.

For PBA, the abortionist has to manually (hand/arm inside uterus) turn the baby to the breech position, a huge intrusion. There is a great risk of hemmorrhage in particular - the placenta prematurely breaking away from the wall of the uterus, or umbilical cord breakage, etc.

Then the abortionist has to insert a scalpel into the baby's neck while that neck is in the the cervix or vagina, another risk.

Then the abortionist has to insert forceps into the cervix/vaginal vault area to collapse the baby's skull, which is also very traumatic to the cervix/vagina.

All I can say to the complaining abortionists is "Keep talking!"

Jill, not to say that there is zero risk with D&X, but intact removal of the fetus means a lot less forceps work in the uterus. You may be right about the risks with having to turn the fetus, deflate the head, etc., but I have never read that D&X is moredangerous than D&E at the stage in gestation where D&X is the preferred procedure.

Doug

Doug, none of this changes the fact that by the time the pregnancy is advanced enough to contemplate a D&X, nobody with an ounce of intellectual or moral honesty can claim that you're not killing a human being. D&X highlights what the abortion agenda is all about -- the marketing of death on an assembly-line basis.

How anybody with even the teensiest shred of human decency can defend it defies all logic.

What can possibly be going on in a mother's life that it's worth killing her child over?

Christina, I agree that "human being" can be said from conception. The physical reality in this argument is really not the issue, though things like fetal pain perception can certainly be argued. Saying "child" or not is a subjective thing, and isn't any meaningful argument here. Call it what you want, call it anything. The debate is about valuation.

"The marketing of death on an assembly-line basis." Oh, the drama. A given woman usually knows what is best for her, and what will make her the happiest in the long run, whichever choice she makes. Most pregnancies in the US are continued willingly, and some are ended by having an abortion.

I think it is more decent to let women keep the freedom they now have in this matter, rather than want their will subverted to yours. There is no "logic" that says we need more pregnancies continued, not when they are unwanted.

What can possibly be going on in a mother's life that it's worth killing her child over?

You value the unborn positively, but not every pregnancy is valued positively by the woman who is actually pregnant. Not enough money, bad relationships, interference with job, school, etc., - the woman is saying that it's not worth it to her to continue the pregnancy at the time.

Doug

The debate is about valuation.

Doug, do you think that when black people were not valued in the US, they actually had less value? Was it wrong to own slaves, when it was popular and acceptable to many?
Was it wrong to kill your slave, since at the time they were not legally persons?

the woman is saying that it's not worth it to her to continue the pregnancy at the time.

And the slave owner killing his a black man said it wasn't worth it to continue letting the Negro to live at the time. But was he right? Or was he wrong?

It was legal. People accepted it. Was it right?
Was it justifiable?

Do people inherently have value, or is it only when others decide that they have value that they are worth being allowed to live?

These people were born, but they were not given rights. They were not considered persons. We know today they are persons. People back then would argue you are silly to say such a thing. They were "niggers", right? Just like an unborn child is a "Zef".

I do not believe that being a person is, or should ever be considered an arbitrary concept. When we start thinking that way, we are, whether consciously or not, allowing others in power to slowly take all of the freedoms that we love and enjoy away from us! What makes you or me protected from the semantics of court rulings which could prove that by virtue of "this" or "that" we are not "persons"? Maybe mentally ill people will one day be considered "non-persons". Maybe people with Alzheimers, or parkinsons, or people who have brown hair, or brown eye. Who knows? Anything is possible...history repeats itself.

I think that the right to life is endowed on us by virtue of just being a human being. We all deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just because of the simple fact that we are human!

When people take our freedoms away from us, that doesn't take away our value...it takes away our priviliges on this earth, but it does not take away the fact that we are worth living! We are worth living, and we are worth fighting for!

Doug, do you think that when black people were not valued in the US, they actually had less value?

In the eyes of those who didn't value them as positively, certainly.

.........

Was it wrong to own slaves, when it was popular and acceptable to many?

Bethany, some thought so and some disagreed, same as now. In the US, it's a vastly lesser percentage who think it's okay now.

..........

Was it wrong to kill your slave, since at the time they were not legally persons?

Most of us think so now, a smaller percentage thought so back then.

Doug

So you do think it is acceptable that they did it, as long as it was acceptable to most others?

Would you be able to watch a black man suffering and hanging from a tree, leaving his wife and child behind to live the slave life, with all those people standing and watching, perfectly accepting of this man dying for absolutely no other reason, than that he was black...would you be able to watch this, without feeling any emotion, simply because it was acceptable to those who knew about it, and because it was legal? Would your heart not churn and would you not feel as if the man had been wronged? Would you not immediately seek to protect this man, to release him from the noose?
Would you not feel the pain of the realization that something very wrong had happened there?
Would you be calmly watching, as you noted that the people around the man were not distressed about it, because they did not consider the man a human being?

Where is your heart?

Doug, here's a question. How do you feel about the person who throws a sack of little kittens into a pond, because they are unwanted. The KEY word here is UNWANTED.

If anyone has a sack of unwanted kittens, give them to me, I love kittens!

@Doug,

I really like debating with you because your reasoning is so precise (not nearly broad enough) but what you argue is clear - as in: "The debate is about valuation.

'The marketing of death on an assembly-line basis.' Oh, the drama. A given woman usually knows what is best for her, and what will make her the happiest in the long run, whichever choice she makes. Most pregnancies in the US are continued willingly, and some are ended by having an abortion.

I think it is more decent to let women keep the freedom they now have in this matter, rather than want their will subverted to yours. There is no "logic" that says we need more pregnancies continued, not when they are unwanted."

Part of the problem here is that the total valuation [wanted-ness or unwanted-ness] is placed on the unborn babe/fetus. And because of grown-up valuation - rights, body autonomy, - a woman's self-evaluation is considered complete and can rightly judge her child's value. So in-a-sense you are saying that a baby's continuing in life is (and should be) contingent on the mother's wishes (which can be flexible). The 'valuation' of the unborn child will be a reflection of her experience of the world. If she ascertains that she would face hostility, then the babe is more likely to be labeled as 'unwanted' [having a baby is not 'cool']. If this is what you think, we are in agreement. However, the modern aspect of indifference = being cool = being macho is likely THE largest factor in determining that her world is hostile - very hostile to the point of indifference - HER choice.
....................

on the philosophical discussion earlier about 'all morality being relative'/(A), I think you misunderstand. The opposite statement would be, 'all morality is not relative.'/(B) The (A) proposition cannot be true because the very statement (A)-itself would be relative. To state (A) more accurately then: 'some morality is relative.' To act like 'all' instead of 'some' is used by many ... only means that many moral decisions are wrong. Simple math says that if 'some' are relative ... the rest is 'true'. Or, is math relative too?

Was also wondering if 'objectivity' = 'subjective indifference'?

Bethany: So you do think it is acceptable that they did it (killing one's slaves), as long as it was acceptable to most others?

Nope, I do not think that.

Doug

How do you feel about the person who throws a sack of little kittens into a pond, because they are unwanted. The KEY word here is UNWANTED.

Heather, that seems sad to me. Unwanted by the one, perhaps, but others can and will take them, willingly. I feel the same for born kids, and hope that they can be placed with loving people if their existing situations aren't good enough. The kittens, and the kids, can suffer.

As far as abortion to a point in gestatation, it's a different deal. No others can take them, and they can't suffer.

Doug

Bethany: Would you be able to watch a black man suffering and hanging from a tree, leaving his wife and child behind to live the slave life, with all those people standing and watching, perfectly accepting of this man dying for absolutely no other reason, than that he was black...would you be able to watch this, without feeling any emotion, simply because it was acceptable to those who knew about it, and because it was legal?

No, I'd feel emotion, and I've never said anything to the contrary.

..........

Would your heart not churn and would you not feel as if the man had been wronged?

Yes and yes.

..........

Would you not immediately seek to protect this man, to release him from the noose? Would you not feel the pain of the realization that something very wrong had happened there? Would you be calmly watching, as you noted that the people around the man were not distressed about it, because they did not consider the man a human being?

Yes, yes, yes, no. I think I feel the same about this as you do.

.........

Where is your heart?

22 inches from the computer screen. I have a tape measure here at my desk and I checked.

Doug

22 inches from the computer screen. I have a tape measure here at my desk and I checked.

LOL

John: I really like debating with you because your reasoning is so precise (not nearly broad enough) but what you argue is clear - as in: "The debate is about valuation.

Thanks, Bro. I understand that you may feel I'm not broad enough with some things. What I focus on is what is true for all of us, not just what some of us hold as unprovable assumptions. If we all agreed about things, there'd be no debate in the first place. It is where our assumptions diverge that the arguing begins. When we state our assuptions and subjective beliefs as if they are external truth, that is where we are false. The whole deal is a little more complicated than the above, but my posts seem to get long already.

..........

The marketing of death on an assembly-line basis.' "Oh, the drama. A given woman usually knows what is best for her, and what will make her the happiest in the long run, whichever choice she makes. Most pregnancies in the US are continued willingly, and some are ended by having an abortion.

I think it is more decent to let women keep the freedom they now have in this matter, rather than want their will subverted to yours. There is no "logic" that says we need more pregnancies continued, not when they are unwanted."

John: Part of the problem here is that the total valuation [wanted-ness or unwanted-ness] is placed on the unborn babe/fetus. And because of grown-up valuation - rights, body autonomy, - a woman's self-evaluation is considered complete and can rightly judge her child's value. So in-a-sense you are saying that a baby's continuing in life is (and should be) contingent on the mother's wishes (which can be flexible). The 'valuation' of the unborn child will be a reflection of her experience of the world. If she ascertains that she would face hostility, then the babe is more likely to be labeled as 'unwanted' [having a baby is not 'cool']. If this is what you think, we are in agreement. However, the modern aspect of indifference = being cool = being macho is likely THE largest factor in determining that her world is hostile - very hostile to the point of indifference - HER choice.

On the unborn in this argument, yes, valuation is placed on them, and the argument is mainly among us "grown-ups." (No smart remarks from the peanut gallery, thank you.)

I don't want anybody else's valuation to take precedence over the valuation of the woman, but I know there is a wide range of opinion on it. I am not saying there is any "should" or "should not" as far as the baby's life continuing or not. I don't see any external, demonstrable need for more people, per se, nor for less people. Thus, I leave it up to the woman.

John, it seems a bad thing to me if the woman feels she will face hostility, or feels the need to be "cool" or "macho" in the eyes of others. That goes well beyond the abortion argument. If the deciding factor in a woman's choice - be it to end a pregnancy or to continue one - is that she fears the reactions of other people, then I think that's a shame. I know it's a factor, sometimes. As far as "indifference," again - I see no need for her to feel any certain way. Whatever her desire is, I don't see anybody else's desire being more important.
....................

on the philosophical discussion earlier about 'all morality being relative'/(A), I think you misunderstand. The opposite statement would be, 'all morality is not relative.'/(B) The (A) proposition cannot be true because the very statement (A)-itself would be relative. To state (A) more accurately then: 'some morality is relative.' To act like 'all' instead of 'some' is used by many ... only means that many moral decisions are wrong. Simple math says that if 'some' are relative ... the rest is 'true'. Or, is math relative too?

All morality is relative. That's because it exists in the eye of the beholder. Because it's only in relation to a sentient mind caring about it, thinking about it, etc. In the moral realm, the good/bad/right/wrong of things only exists because of sentient desire and consideration. Without sentient desire, there is no morality. Saying "all morality is not relative" is false. Why do you say that, "All morality is relative," is itself a relative statement? It's not. It's just noting how morality is.

Saying "some morality is relative" is also false, if the implication is that some is not.

Mathematics is a system of agreed-upon definitions and relationships. If there is a planet with three moons orbiting it, that is true whether or not there is a sentience that is aware of it. Those bodies have external, physical existence. They are not dependent on a mind. Morality is different. Without a sentience with desire and a consideration of that, leading to feelings of right/wrong/good/bad, there will be no such thing. Said another way, morality is caring, and that's a process of sentient minds. If no caring, then no morality.

..........

Was also wondering if 'objectivity' = 'subjective indifference'?

Seems to me that indifference is subjective, anyway, since it involves the desire of the mind. That there is no caring (or that there is) is due to the mind. Objectivity is being concerned with objects external to the mind, rather than with internal desire. Thus, I'd say that objectivity could be "indifference to subjectivity." How about that?

Doug