Kavanaugh hearing

[Forty Two]

Wonderful non-answer Coito. I get that there's a 'spectrum,' 'gradient,' or range, of development in play in these considerations, but where do you place the limits, or outer bounds?

It wasn't a non-answer, Siva. You asked where was the certain point. I told you flat out that there is no objective "certain point." It's a pragmatic compromise that sets an acceptable point out of a set of possible points upon which many reasonable minds can differ.

Now you're asking me where do I, personally, place the limits. That is an immensely difficult question which I've wrestled with for decades. I would say about 20 or 21 weeks is about a reasonable compromise, after which abortion would generally need to require some medical necessity, like a significant threat to the mother that exceeds the normal risks of childbearing and childbirth. I would place the determination of that issue in the hands of patients and their doctors, and the doctors would be guided by medical science. Still no mathematical line; however, something like that sounds reasonable.

I actually like Canada's system, which nominally has abortion being "legal" at all stages; however, the medical profession regulates it such that abortions after 21 or 24 weeks are rarely done. As I understand it, the medical profession requires significant medical reason for later term abortions, and there isn't much in the way of healthy late term fetuses in healthy mothers being aborted there. That's my understanding - i'm happy for someone to show me that's not accurate - if women are electively aborting fetuses without medical need after 24 weeks, I'd be surprised.

So, what I'm referring to is sort of a compromise system. I would have elective abortion for any reason or no reason through X weeks - maybe 16, maybe 20, and then after that, I would require a reason born of medical necessity and to have two doctors certify like the UK does.

Something like that - doesn't have to be exactly like that - you just asked me my view of where the certain point was. That's my explaination of it. If you are demanding that I tell you that the point is X weeks, and that before that date it's fine and after that date it has to be not fine, then that's an assertion I'm not making, because I can't tell you what that exact point is, and I don't think it's really likely knowable. That, however, doesn't mean that there ought not be some general balance of interests.

I was not asking for an "objective" point you twat, I was clearly asking you for where this range of development you claimed to abide by exists. Stop trying to reframe the discussion.

Twat? What's up your ass? I carefully answered your question directly. And to say "where is the "certain point" is slightly different than asking "where do you personally place that point." You asked where the certain point is, which implies an objective existence of that point. All I was trying to do is explain that I don't think there is such a point.

What even is "the discussion?" You responded to my post on this topic, so the context of the discussion was my post, not yours.

Anyway, thank you for finally answering the question. I see you base your opinion on the potential for harm to the 'mother' and give no consideration to the right of the fetus to life - which is what I'm really trying to get at. Does that mean nothing to you? Do you subscribe to the 'lump of flesh' conception of conception?

I think 21 weeks is disgustingly late to abort the foetus - at that stage the baby can think and feel.

Finally? You asked me one question - I answered it clearly, and provided explanation. You followed up with one post for clarification, and I answered that clearly, and provided explanation. I have no trouble addressing this issue head on, nor have I been arguing any point with you, or avoiding any question. I don't know your stance on this, so I don't know what point you're making that you think I'm evading. You asked my opinion, and I shared it. Why do you go on the attack with the implications that I'm changing subjects and evading questions. Nobody reading my last two answers could possible consider them evasive.

You are incorrect that I give no consideration to the right of the fetus to life. That's one of the interests which in the view I've expressed is taken into consideration. It is not the only interest, as the mother's interests are involved too. That's why it's a compromise - where there is abortion allowed to point X, and thereafter my suggestion would be to allow it only in the case of medical need.

You talk about changing the discussion? Now you're on to accusations that I don't care about fetuses, and asking if I subscribe to the "lump of flesh" at conception argument?

Rather than get hot under the collar about this -- why not just talk about it?

One - I too think 20 or 21 weeks is late - I think it's very late. However, my theory was a compromise. I would hope that medical professionals would be counseling patients before that, and avoiding unnecessary abortions. I would also be comfortable with 16 weeks - that's almost 4 months. A lot of time to decide.

Two, it is a lump of flesh. I'm a lump of flesh. You're a lump of flesh. We're human lumps of flesh, and sperm is human and the egg is human, and the zygote is human and the blastocyst is human and the embryo is human, etc. I have no illusions that aborting an embryo is aborting a human embryo, and that it has the capacity to likely develop into a healthy human being. I'd prefer there were zero abortions. Having gone through the process a couple of times, and seen the 4D ultrasounds, and the like, I have an emotional reaction to it - I would have a very hard time saying yes to any abortion.

Three, I understand that there is a reality to contend with - a pragmatic, real world issue to resolve, and it's not as simple as "at conception" or "anytime on demand." At least it isn't for me, and you asked me my opinion on the topic. I gave it to you. I did not evade and I did not change the discussion.

[Jason]

Fair enough Coito.

[Forty Two]

A child is not a pet.

Indeed, it isn't, but that's why the figure of speech I used is called an "analogy."

The point was to illustrate another manner in which people make choices that incur upon themselves costs and responsibilities in life, and which the rest of society doesn't have a say in whether the person chooses to incur those costs and responsibilities. When a person makes that choice, then it would seem to me to stand to reason that the primary responsibility to take care of those costs and responsibilities would fall on the person who makes the choice to incur them. That would, it seems to me, include pets, home mortgages, car payments and maintenance, food, clothing, shelter, and.....children.

What do you think?

[Jason]

I don't like reasoning by analogy. It's very easy to shift the goal posts and obfuscate the issue.

[Brian Peacock]

Do atheists believe in evil? If so, how do you define it?

I don't know about believing in evil as an 'it' or a 'thing' - in which case I wouldn't believe in evil - but as a term that represents a general class of human action I have no trouble with 'evil'.

42 said that Kavanaugh had been branded evil incarnate by his objectors, and implied that such a charge was inaccurate and signified a moral failing on behalf of those making such wild charges. When pressed he says that it reasonable to be shocked and to take offence at Sen Booker on Mr Kavanaugh's behalf, because the term "evil" was used when Booker suggested the Senate should primarily consider elevation to the Supreme Court as a moral rather than a political matter. You can read how 42 considers this use of "evil" a vile slight against all right thinking people above, but this question of evil is but a distraction...

... we are only discussing it because 42 has not found a way to square the necessary obligation towards the political impartiality of Supreme Court Justices that the constitution requires and Mr Kavanaugh's documented partisan assaults on Democrats and the alignment of his expressed political views, along with a coordination of his rhetoric, with the GOP.

[Jason]

It seems clear to me, the critical failure here is a lack of a common definition of 'evil.'

What comprises this general class of human action you speak of Brian?

[Cunt]

It seems clear to me, the critical failure here is a lack of a common definition of 'evil.'

What comprises this general class of human action you speak of Brian?

My guess is that his political opponents practice 'evil'.

[Brian Peacock]

It seems clear to me, the critical failure here is a lack of a common definition of 'evil.'

What comprises this general class of human action you speak of Brian?

I'd define it as something like: wilful moral turpitude; deliberately doing bad either regardless of the potentially deleterious/harmful consequences or to bring about such consequences.

By this we might say that 'evil' is the very worst of the bad.

[JimC]

Evil? What? Have you been drinking the kool-aid?

There's nothing evil about preventing the murder of a human being.

Wha...?

At what point do you think the baby needs must be carried to term rEv?

All countries where abortion is legal have limits on when it can be performed, as they should. In most cases, abortion happens well before there is any possibility of cognition. Given that, anti-abortion sentiment is motivated by religion and irrational emotion.

[Cunt]

anti-abortion sentiment is motivated by religion and irrational emotion.

So what you say about them is more accurate than what they say about themselves?

I have heard arguments based on other things, but you would likely just say they were really motivated by something other than what they said.

[Jason]

I think you're making a bit of a leap there by dismissing all people who hold an anti-abortion stance as motivated by a religious belief and/or a irrational emotional response.

There are some good points here: https://www.frc.org/brochure/the-best-p ... -audiences
if you feel like perusing them

[JimC]

anti-abortion sentiment is motivated by religion and irrational emotion.

So what you say about them is more accurate than what they say about themselves?

I have heard arguments based on other things, but you would likely just say they were really motivated by something other than what they said.

They certainly say that their stance is motivated by religion, so that's not me ascribing something false about them. As far as "irrational emotion" goes, it is fairly telling that their posters etc. always have pictures of darling little babies to tug at the heart strings, rather than the reality, which is something like a large tadpole...

[Cunt]

anti-abortion sentiment is motivated by religion and irrational emotion.

So what you say about them is more accurate than what they say about themselves?

I have heard arguments based on other things, but you would likely just say they were really motivated by something other than what they said.

They certainly say that their stance is motivated by religion, so that's not me ascribing something false about them. As far as "irrational emotion" goes, it is fairly telling that their posters etc. always have pictures of darling little babies to tug at the heart strings, rather than the reality, which is something like a large tadpole...

When does the life become 'human' to you? Viability?

To me, it is human life from egg or sperm. Doesn't change my stance.

To some, there is an economic argument about abortion. I don't understand their arguments as well as I might, but to dismiss them as religious would deny me the ability to learn any different.

To others, there is some racism shown in abortion rates in certain impoverished communities. Is that racism concern just them pretending their motive isn't religious?

If so, I can simply dismiss all your arguments as religious, and we get nowhere.

[JimC]

Abortion (under time controls) is legal, and supported by a majority in most western countries. Get over it, or go to some nice Islamic country where it remains illegal...

[Cunt]

Abortion (under time controls) is legal, and supported by a majority in most western countries. Get over it, or go to some nice Islamic country where it remains illegal...

I am in favour of ONE person having the right to decide abortion, and like the Canadian model of health care.

Can you guess which 'ONE person' I think should have the right to decide?

Do you think my choice is based on my religiousity?