the big lie "the media is liberal"

[swchandler]

mrgybe, always one to fan the flames and create a ugly picture righteously doing God's work. Working on being a preacher at the pew?

[mrgybe]

Let's be absolutely clear then. You are not critical of the actions of the doctor in question? Live births were induced, in all likelihood, on hundreds of occasions. The babies were clearly alive and moving when they were delivered. Many, if not most, were at a stage of development that unquestionably could be sustained, but their lives were terminated by a pair of scissors being rammed into the back of their necks and the spinal cord severed resulting in some "squealing like aliens". And you think that someone who finds that sickening is attempting to "create a ugly picture righteously doing God's work". If you really believe that you are an amoral fool.

[real-human]

[isobars]

[DanWeiss]

Actually, society says a baby begins when a particular group wish to declare a baby exists. Not science.

What science says is that conception is the act of fertilization. At best, one can say that fertilized egg, still not a zygote, still not even divided, is a "potential" person. Yet, even after cell division, it has ZERO chance (or nearly none) of surviving let along developing to term unless it implants successfully on the uterine wall.

That's what science says.

Within that, people mistake emotion for science and, frankly, science for normative conclusion.

The live-birth abortions aside for a moment, I'd hope that people who believe for mostly religious reasons that human life in the normal sense of the word begins at conception understand they cannot employ science to decree a single cell a person. There's no shame in admitting it's a religious belief or perhaps a belief supported by other motivations, but calling it science doesn't make it so.

That's why the so-called personhood laws cause so much uproar. At the risk of being crass, we built our culture of laws around people who breath air. Declaring a zygote to have the same rights as anyone typing a keyboard causes enormous complication with other laws, such as those pertaining to manslaughter, negligence, tax and inheritance just to name a few. That's aside from the obvious constitutional problems.

[swchandler]

Yes mrgybe, let's be absolutely clear about things.

Up front, I haven't read any of the news stories about the case that you're talking about. Yet, I am aware that there is a case in front of the court right now about a late term abortion. Nevertheless, I'm sure that the current one is not really much different than others in the past. The theme here is that interested parties are trying to leverage off this current "newsworthy" opportunity, so the supposed details are presented in the ugliest and most disgusting way to play the event fully for what it's worth. You're no different in your goals. In the classic mrgybe way, you use what you can here in an attempt to make your case. You certainly haven't disappointed us, particularly with the disdain boldly spewed out at me in your last post.

I made my earlier comment about this issue because both you and Bard are so righteous in your indignation when it comes to abortions. My point was that you would have had a big problem with the fact that abortions are performed at all, the current hoopla aside. This isn't the first time that you have gotten up on the soapbox here wanting to limit a woman's right to chose, to include other related topics. That's the truth of the matter, and you know it. Instead, you chose this opportunity to make things even uglier by suggesting that I'm an "amoral fool".

About the case in question, I'm willing to wait for the court's judgment, and I trust that it will determined based on law, the merit of the case against the defendant, and how well it's presented by the prosecution and defence. That's how things are supposed to be done. The case will not be decided based on your righteous antics here. I suggest you save your furvor for your flock.

[mrgybe]

Dan and SWC, We are talking about a living, breathing human being lying helplessly on a blood soaked table and being slaughtered by a "doctor" who has taken an oath to protect human life. Your efforts to rationalize that abhorrent behavior disgusts me.

[MalibuGuru]

[GURGLETROUSERS]

As an atheist, may I point out that I too am appalled that severing the spinal cords of late term babies, which must clearly be alive and capable of feeling, (why else would they need 'killing'?) is permitted to take place.

To rationalise such a thing as 'a womans choice' is morally repugnant, and sick!

[isobars]

One shouldn't have to witness the murder of a live baby outside the womb to realize it's not just heinous, but arguably the most despicable, heinous, subhuman crime one could commit.

Look ... I have no kids. I'm not personally interested in babies, and just don't get many people's fascination and obsession with them. But MURDERING one just because its mother wants it murdered after it is delivered? What act is worse, other than murdering many, as this doctor is accused of? On what planet does this guy, if guilty, deserve anything less than being tortured to death over a period of weeks or months?

And how is a state senator who lobbies for exactly that on his way to the White House ANY better?

I also have no objections to early abortions if not used often by the same woman in lieu of birth control. Sentience is definitely a factor for me even if the fetus reacts to stimuli. So sue me, Thumpers. But killing a live, delivered, viable, child is murder by any definition. Any other opinion is not an "opinion"; it's simply insanity coupled with an extreme God complex.