It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14102
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby snoqueen » Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:26 pm

How about you answer the question, Snoqueen? Would you approve terminating the life of just-born child who escaped the partial-birth abortionist's grasp?


Yes, it should be their right if that's what the parent(s) choose. It's not up to me or us to approve or disapprove what they do. No law should lay a thumb on the scales either way.

Look at the pictures I linked (some several links deep because they are disturbing) and tell me different. If you can't see why this option is necessary, you're the most cold-hearted person I can imagine. Good grief.

Nobody has to terminate anything -- these conditions are often lethal by definition. It's sad enough without dragging the law into the equation when "conditions incompatible with life" is the diagnosis.

lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3371
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby lukpac » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:00 pm

Dave is back! Yet you stated this:

David Blaska wrote:And now, if Huckleby can unsubscribe, so can I.


I guess you were only saying you *could* unsubscribe, not that you *would*, huh?

David Blaska wrote:
6) Do you agree with the Foron who likened the human fetus to a cancerous growth?


Snowqueen wrote:Actually, he pointed out your description could quite reasonably be construed to describe a tumor. You can go back and amend it if you like.


Wrong. A cancerous tumor does not have its own unique genetic code. Nor is it capable of forming a human being.


No, actually sno had it right. To quote you:

David Blaska wrote:Do you dispute that "It" ... is
a) innocent (as opposed to a convicted murderer, for instance)
b) human (as opposed to opossum)
c) life (at least, until it is aborted -- aka killed.)


Regardless of if tumors have "unique genetic code" or not (tumors have DNA, so I'm not sure what you're speaking of), that was never mentioned by you in the first place. Nor was "capable of forming a human being" - you said "human".

The point of course being that your definition was far to broad to be at all meaningful.

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3927
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby DCB » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:29 pm

David Blaska wrote:
David Blaska wrote:1) Would you legalize partial birth abortion?
2) Two seconds later, when the infant (or "birth product" if that helps) is free of the birth canal, would you approve terminating that life. (You can use the word "murder" if you like.)
3) What is the difference?
4) Should abortion be "safe and rare?"
5) Why rare?
6) Do you agree with the Foron who likened the human fetus to a cancerous growth?

This quiz is open to anyone, even the Jeremies.


There you have it, folks. I ask six direct questions and get no responses. Zero. Nada! None!

I was busy enjoying my weekend (Thanks again, Unions!)

1) Abortion should be free and legal, period.
2) no
3) a fetus is not a person
4) yes
5) Abortion is chosen due to unfortunate circumstances:
rape, incest, inability to care for a child, disease, medical condition of the mother, etc. Reducing any one of those circumstances would be an improvement to the human condition.
6) A fetus is not a tumor. A fetus has the same 'rights' as a tumor.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 23831
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby Henry Vilas » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:43 pm

I'm bumping this, looking for answer. So Peanutbutter, are you pulling a Blaska and refusing to answer the hard questions?
Henry Vilas wrote:
Peanutbutter wrote:Is it murder if a woman who is distraught over being raped kills her 2-year old child via violent shaking?

A simple yes or no will do.

Yes.

Now answer mine. Should aborting a zygote from a rape or from incest result in a homicide charge?

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6095
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby kurt_w » Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:08 am

David Blaska wrote:
David Blaska wrote:Abortion does take a human life.


That is my answer. It may not fit neatly into to your crude little box, but tough t's.

Is abortion "murder?" That is not a word I hear used because it is an inexact term (it's not used anywhere in Wisconsin statute) that conjures up a cold-blooded killing for hate or money. Is the teenage drunk driver a "murderer?" I would not use that term but perhaps the parents of the dead passengers might. The State of Wi calls it "homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle."

I certainly recognize the confused and troubled state of a mother with no guidance or support -- hardly a cold-blooded decision.


OK, so you're still unable to bring yourself to say either "Yes", "No", or "I don't know."

You've rewritten the question ("Abortion does take a human life" -- well, so do accidents and capital punishment and warfare and suicide and self-defense). You've deferred to the technical language of Wisconsin Statutes. You've digressed to talk about completely other topics (drunk driving). You've claimed not to have heard the word "murder" used (which is odd, considering how omnipresent it is within the antiabortion movement - see below).

But you won't say whether you, David Blaska, believe that abortion is murder; nor have you admitted that you can't answer the question (which would itself be an acceptable answer).

I was under the impression you were a Catholic. I was also under the impression that one of the Commandments refers to murder, despite the fact that the Commandments pre-date Wisconsin Statutes.

David Blaska wrote:For people who supposedly value "nuance" you certainly have a tin ear.


Ironically, I directly addressed "nuance" right here. If your thinking about "whether abortion is murder" is too delicately nuanced to permit you to give a concise answer, just say so. Don't keep dodging the question while still claiming to have already answered it!

David Blaska wrote:Now I ask the questions:

1) Would you legalize partial birth abortion?
2) Two seconds later, when the infant (or "birth product" if that helps) is free of the birth canal, would you approve terminating that life. (You can use the word "murder" if you like.)
3) What is the difference?
4) Should abortion be "safe and rare?"
5) Why rare?
6) Do you agree with the Foron who likened the human fetus to a cancerous growth?


    (1) I would support a ban on elective late-term abortions. I would not support a ban on any procedure that is medically necessary.

    (2) No.

    (3) See "medical necessity" under (1).

    (4) Yes. I'd prefer to have abortion safe, legal, widely available, and very rare. Just like open-heart surgery.

    (5) Because no woman that I know of actively wants to have abortions. It's an unpleasant experience that women only choose to go through when the alternative is worse. Just like open-heart surgery.

    (6) The question is unclear. Exactly what am I supposed to be agreeing or not agreeing about?

Now that I've answered five of your six questions, let's return to the topic of why exactly David Blaska has so much difficulty answering one very simple question of mine.

The problem is that, like most of the anti-abortion movement, David Blaska is very, very reluctant to give up the moral high ground of imagining that one's opponents are promoting murder. That's a powerful psychological drug, there. At the same time, Mr Blaska is not crazy, and he knows that he doesn't really consider abortion to be exactly the same as actual murder.

When I asked Mr Blaska earlier in this thread "What do you think is an appropriate punishment for mothers who hire someone to murder their children?" he misinterpreted my question as being about abortion, when I was actually asking about the punishment for killing real, born, non-fetal children. His answer to the question was "I don't know; perhaps only moral dissuasion." I suspect Mr Blaska would agree that only a lunatic would say that about actual murder cases ... which just goes to show that, as I said above, it's pretty clear that Mr Blaska (like almost everyone) does see a vast difference between "abortion" and "actual murder of a child".

But "abortion is murder" rhetoric is very, very deeply ingrained in the anti-abortion movement. It takes only a couple seconds with Google to find things like this on the web-pages of prominent Wisconsin anti-abortion groups:

Pro-Life Wisconsin wrote:to increase awareness of abortion and the reality of how many innocent babies are murdered every day


Wisconsin Right to Life wrote:Various quotes from documents hosted on the WRTL website:

I believe that a woman is very much entitled to make a choice, but not when it is a choice of murder. Murder is defined as the terminating of a human life. In that case, abortion is murder.

What we are really talking about here is murder.

That is how God interprets for us the meaning of the commandment which says, "You shall not murder."


The rhetorical use of the claim "abortion is murder" is pretty widespread in the anti-abortion movement. So it's rather amusing for Mr Blaska to babble about "Is abortion 'murder?' That is not a word I hear used because it is an inexact term ...."

And of course earlier in this thread Mr Blaska directly analogized abortion to the Nazi death camps. Again, Mr Blaska clearly doesn't really believe that abortion is analogous to the Nazi death camps. It's just really, really hard for people who are strongly and ideologically anti-abortion to wean themselves off the extremist rhetoric.

That's why it's so hard for Mr Blaska to answer my question.

David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor
Contact:

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby David Blaska » Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:08 am

kurt_w wrote:But you won't say whether you, David Blaska, believe that abortion is murder; nor have you admitted that you can't answer the question (which would itself be an acceptable answer).


David Blaska wrote:
1) Would you legalize partial birth abortion?
...
6) Do you agree with the Foron who likened the human fetus to a cancerous growth?


    (1) I would support a ban on elective late-term abortions. I would not support a ban on any procedure that is medically necessary.

    (6) The question is unclear. Exactly what am I supposed to be agreeing or not agreeing about?

The rhetorical use of the claim "abortion is murder" is pretty widespread in the anti-abortion movement. So it's rather amusing for Mr Blaska to babble about "Is abortion 'murder?' That is not a word I hear used because it is an inexact term ...."

That's why it's so hard for Mr Blaska to answer my question.


It might help you Kurt to quit looking for the answer you want to hear and to listen to the answer I gave. You asked ME if I apply the term "murder" to abortion. I have been crystal clear that I do not use that term; I even said that my answer might disappoint some in the pro-life movement. I cited the varying degrees of homicide as described in statute to illustrate my point. Sorry for your obtuseness. Nor have I ever alleged that a fetus is a "person" in the sense the Constitution uses it. That, Mr. Kurt, is a red herring.

Now, Kurt, about your ban on late-term elective abortions:
1) how "late term"?
2) What, then, is the difference b/w the day of fetal development on which you would ban elective abortion and the day before?
3) What do you mean by elective? If the abortionist says the abortion is medically needed -- perhaps as a mental health issue (much like those roving doctors willing to sign excuses at the Siege of the Capitol early this year)? Would that suffice?
4) I will help you understand Question #6. In an earlier post, DCB wrote
A fetus has the same 'rights' as a tumor.

Do you agree that removing a fetus and any stage of development is no different from removing a malignant polyp from the large intestine?
5) If you do not agree, what is your reason?

BTW: These questions aren't just for Kurt. The Jeremies can play, too.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 23831
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:23 am

And yet another bump. Answer the damn question Blaska. What are you afraid of?
Henry Vilas wrote:Bump
Henry Vilas wrote:So Mr. B, based on your vague response to my post, does it mean that you would outlaw abortion in cases of rape and incest? A simple yes or no will do.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6095
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby kurt_w » Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:00 am

David Blaska wrote:It might help you Kurt to quit looking for the answer you want to hear and to listen to the answer I gave. You asked ME if I apply the term "murder" to abortion. I have been crystal clear that I do not use that term; I even said that my answer might disappoint some in the pro-life movement. I cited the varying degrees of homicide as described in statute to illustrate my point.


"Crystal clear"? Where? The closest you've come is in this comment, which must be the one you're referring to, because it includes a remark about disappointing people in the anti-abortion movement.

But what you said in that comment is not a yes or no (or "I don't know") answer to the question of whether you believe abortion is murder. You said you don't want to send women who have abortions to jail. That's nice. But it's not what I asked. Which was ... Do you believe that abortion is murder?

Even now, you're forcing me to parse your words. In the paragraph of bluster at the top of your most recent comment, you say "I do not use that term". I'm not asking whether you use the term. People will often avoid using particular terms, for various reasons. I'm asking about your beliefs.

No, I'm not normally this persnickety in ordinary conversation. But you've been bobbing and weaving and dodging and avoiding giving a simple answer.

At this point, I'm perfectly ready to give up. I think I've made my point -- getting you to admit that abortion is not actually murder is like pulling teeth. And I'm not really interested in playing dentist today.

David Blaska wrote:Now, Kurt, about your ban on late-term elective abortions:
1) how "late term"?


I don't think the state should be regulating abortions early in pregnancy (approximately the first trimester), aside from the normal degree of regulation that applies to all medical care.

I don't have a problem with the state regulating (or banning) abortions late in pregnancy (approximately the third trimester, or earlier, even), as long as there's an exception for medically necessary operations.

I don't have a particular date in mind for the transition, because I'm not an expert on prenatal development and don't have particular expertise or opinions on the subject. It's a subject that society has to come to some kind of agreement on.

2) What, then, is the difference b/w the day of fetal development on which you would ban elective abortion and the day before?


See previous. I don't have a particular day in mind. I'm willing to be flexible about the details.

3) What do you mean by elective? If the abortionist says the abortion is medically needed -- perhaps as a mental health issue (much like those roving doctors willing to sign excuses at the Siege of the Capitol early this year)? Would that suffice?


Anything that presents a serious risk to the life and health of the mother is not "elective", obviously. I'm not medically qualified to list, in great detail, exactly what that entails. Doctors and the legislature have to work out a mechanism for enforcement.

Do you agree that removing a fetus and any stage of development is no different from removing a malignant polyp from the large intestine?


No.

5) If you do not agree, what is your reason?


There's pretty clearly no moral issue with removing a malignant polyp. I don't think there is a moral issue with abortion early in pregnancy, but I think that just as the fetus develops, the moral weight of abortion develops over the course of the pregnancy, such that late-term abortions can probably only be justified on the basis of medical necessity. That's my opinion.

Now that we've gone through all that, let's take a moment to compare Blaska's and my questions and answers.

I've been trying (without success) to get Blaska to answer a question about general principles. In contrast, his questions to me are almost all (except for the last one) about details of medical practice.

Bland
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1701
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby Bland » Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:17 am

David Blaska wrote:
2) What, then, is the difference b/w the day of fetal development on which you would ban elective abortion and the day before?

I have zero interest in playing this game, but I am curious about one minor detail. What the heck do you think "b/w" means? Because I've seen you use it before and I think you use it to mean "between" but I've never seen such a usage before. Is that what you mean? Or am I missing something? Because the only things I've ever seen that abbreviation used for are "backed with" (referring to a 45rpm single, e.g. "Paperback Writer" b/w "Rain") or "black and white", neither of which make any sense in this context.

bleurose
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 12:46 pm

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby bleurose » Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:28 am

Just to help Blaska along - yes, indeed, tumors DO have unique genetic codes. That is one of the reasons that they are tumors and not normal cells - they have at least one to several to many mutations which allow them to grow unchecked by normal organism defense mecahnisms. If a tumor had a 'normal' complement of genes, it wouldn't be a tumor - it would be normal cells.

So much for Blaska's scientific knowledge. And yes, someone DID die and make me a pathologist so I know what I'm talking about here.

ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3262
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby ilikebeans » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:09 pm

kurt_w wrote:No, I'm not normally this persnickety in ordinary conversation. But you've been bobbing and weaving and dodging and avoiding giving a simple answer.

This is the message I took home from the voter ID debate. Blaska, being a right-wing propagandist, excels at avoiding questions, redefining the language, moving the goal posts, etc. No way am I going to expend additional effort in this "debate".

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 23831
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:21 pm

I was taking coursework in constitutional law when Roe v. Wade came out. Since that ruling wasn't in our case book, our professor Xeroxed copies of the opinions for his students. The majority opinion broke down gestation into three trimesters. In the first, there were no restrictions on abortion. During the second, restrictions were allowed, but only for the medical well being of the pregnant woman (or girl). Only during the last trimester could consideration for the rights of the fetus be balanced against those of the pregnant female.

Much like what kurt_w said.

David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor
Contact:

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby David Blaska » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:38 pm

kurt_w wrote:At the top of your most recent comment, you say "I do not use that term." I'm not asking whether you use the term. People will often avoid using particular terms, for various reasons. I'm asking about your beliefs.


Here's the odd thing, Kurt W., Blaska says what he means and means what he says. Do you?

What, then, is the difference b/w the day of fetal development on which you would ban elective abortion and the day before?


kurt_w wrote:I don't have a particular day in mind. I'm willing to be flexible about the details.


But that is what we are debating, is it not? When (if ever) is it permissible to take this human life? And whatever permissible day/period/measure of development etc. that your council of wise-thinking experts agree upon, what is the substantial difference between that day and the day before?

Kurt W wrote:I don't have a particular date in mind for the transition, because I'm not an expert on prenatal development and don't have particular expertise or opinions on the subject. It's a subject that society has to come to some kind of agreement on.


Again, an evasion. "It's a subject that society has to come to some kind of agreement on?" I'm not asking "Society." I am asking Kurt W. What do YOU think the date should be.

Kurt W wrote:I don't have a problem with the state regulating (or banning) abortions late in pregnancy (approximately the third trimester, or earlier, even), as long as there's an exception for medically necessary operations.


Again, an evasion. You use the term "medical necessity." Do you mean when the life of the mother is unquestionably at risk and abortion is the only remedy? (An extreme rarity.) Or when some abortionist writes up a stock mental health note?

kurt_w wrote:I don't think there is a moral issue with abortion early in pregnancy, but I think that just as the fetus develops, the moral weight of abortion develops over the course of the pregnancy, such that late-term abortions can probably only be justified on the basis of medical necessity.


" ... as the fetus develops, the moral weight of abortion develops over the course of the pregnancy ..." Exactly, Kurt. Now you appreciate my avoidance of the word "murder."

The question, however, remains unanswered. That question is "When is abortion permissible; when is it not?" It is conclusive that Justice Blackmun himself called his trimester system "arbitrary."

I ask these questions a) precisely to be as persnickety as you have been and b) because they go to the heart of the abortion debate.

If you don't know the answers to these questions -- and, in essence, you admit that you do not, please don't criticize the pro-life stand. Pro-lifers have thought this through and come to the conclusion that life starts at the beginning!

lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3371
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby lukpac » Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:13 pm

David Blaska wrote:If you don't know the answers to these questions -- and, in essence, you admit that you do not, please don't criticize the pro-life stand. Pro-lifers have thought this through and come to the conclusion that life starts at the beginning!


Actually, that basically points out they haven't thought it through. "the beginning"? The beginning of what? If "life is life", then the consequences for taking the morning after pill should be no different than a mother killer her 10 year old child, right?

scratch
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:00 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: It's time to Pass a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Postby scratch » Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:54 pm

David Blaska wrote:Here's the odd thing, Kurt W., Blaska says what he means and means what he says. Do you?


But here's the odd thing for your readers, Dave: you may say what you mean and mean what you say, but you accompany that by saying so much other stuff it's hard to know which parts you really mean and which parts are just gilding the lily-- except for your self-promotional crap, which is easy to discern.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests