In case you haven't heard, Alabama has essentially banned abortions. - Page 2 - E46Fanatics E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-15-2019, 03:39 PM   #21
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgsmith View Post
That's not what she meant and I think you know that.
What, exactly, does she mean, then? Is there an argument there or not?
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 03:41 PM   #22
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgsmith View Post
That's not what she meant and I think you know that.
Her arguments are stupid and facebook-ish. The answer is that the SCOTUS already said first trimester and that is precedent. The second answer is that there are too many fcvking people and the last thing we need are more dependents.

You lose this argument on science, win on logistics.
__________________
Whataboutism is a moral necessity, because it disarms the hypocrisy the left wields like a battle axe by illustrating the undeniable truth.
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 03:47 PM   #23
bgsmith
Registered User
 
bgsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hingham, MA
Posts: 1,164
My Ride: No longer an e46
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
What, exactly, does she mean, then? Is there an argument there or not?
Pretty sure she meant that a baby can breath and "live" on its own (yes I know infants can't survive on their own) where as a fetus cannot survive outside the human body.

I don't necessarily agree with her, she just raised some points that applied to the conversation going on in here.

This is one of those topics that will be debated forever, I am curious to see where this whole Alabama thing goes as mentioned earlier this seems like a serious play to get the topic in front of the supreme court again.
__________________
bgsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 03:52 PM   #24
bgsmith
Registered User
 
bgsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hingham, MA
Posts: 1,164
My Ride: No longer an e46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Her arguments are stupid and facebook-ish. The answer is that the SCOTUS already said first trimester and that is precedent. The second answer is that there are too many fcvking people and the last thing we need are more dependents.

You lose this argument on science, win on logistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgsmith View Post
Pretty sure she meant that a baby can breath and "live" on its own (yes I know infants can't survive on their own) where as a fetus cannot survive outside the human body.

I don't necessarily agree with her, she just raised some points that applied to the conversation going on in here.

This is one of those topics that will be debated forever, I am curious to see where this whole Alabama thing goes as mentioned earlier this seems like a serious play to get the topic in front of the supreme court again.
See my responses to Dave, yes the supreme court has ruled on this, wouldn't you agree that this situation in Alabama is the first step in getting this in front of the SCOTUS again?
__________________
bgsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 03:57 PM   #25
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 991
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
I'm not pro life, but the position is certainly not exclusively a religious belief. Of all the pro life people i know only about half are religious folk. To be fair, if you're looking at it scientifically the argument falls to the pro life camp. Pretty sure once the organism has its own unique DNA it's objectively a new life, scientifically.

I'm in the Thanos camp.
No. There is no "scientifically" iron clad definition of "a new life" in the context we're discussing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
A newborn can't survive on its own
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
1) Babies can't sustain their own lives for many years after being born.
2) How do we know the point at which fetuses begin to have conscious thought?
3) Failing to see the difference between pulling the plug on a person in a vegetative state and aborting a fetus just means you don't think very hard.
4) Oh, let's fall back on the "don't inconvenience me therefore barbarian" argument.
Define "sustain".

There's a pretty clear difference between an organism that can ingest, digest, metabolize, and excrete independently as long as food/water are provided, vs an organism that is entirely dependent on the mother's digestive tract and circulatory system to perform those functions.

There's a pretty clear difference between a baby that can respirate on it's own vs a baby that requires it's mother's cardiovascular system to provide/evacuate O2/CO2.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
We will not tolerate intolerance.
----------------------------------------------

Last edited by Xcelratr; 05-15-2019 at 03:58 PM.
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 03:59 PM   #26
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Her arguments sound like something I would hear in a junior-high-school debate assignment. There are plenty of practical reasons to choose (as a society) to make abortion legal and available. But none of those reasons rise to the level of a "right," just like healthcare isn't a "right" in the way some people would like to (re)define it.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 04:01 PM   #27
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
No. There is no "scientifically" iron clad definition of "a new life" in the context we're discussing.






Define "sustain".

There's a pretty clear difference between an organism that can ingest, digest, metabolize, and excrete independently as long as food/water are provided, vs an organism that is entirely dependent on the mother's digestive tract and circulatory system to perform those functions.

There's a pretty clear difference between a baby that can respirate on it's own vs a baby that requires it's mother's cardiovascular system to provide/evacuate O2/CO2.
I agree. But so what? All you're doing is drawing the arbitrary line a little further up the scale.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 04:04 PM   #28
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 991
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
Her arguments sound like something I would hear in a junior-high-school debate assignment. There are plenty of practical reasons to choose (as a society) to make abortion legal and available. But none of those reasons rise to the level of a "right," just like healthcare isn't a "right" in the way some people would like to (re)define it.
IF (note the size) a fetus isn't a human being, then choosing what medical procedures she elects to have performed on her own body is absolutely an individual's right.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
We will not tolerate intolerance.
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 04:09 PM   #29
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
IF (note the size) a fetus isn't a human being, then choosing what medical procedures she elects to have performed on her own body is absolutely an individual's right.
But defining "human being" is going to be arbitrary, by definition, since we didn't get a bright-line rulebook on such things. Trying to ramrod through a universal definition based on litigation/court rulings is a failing strategy (although, admittedly, it's probably the only one that we've got).
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 04:12 PM   #30
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 991
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
That kinda heads back toward my original point. What if we could come to a consensus (I think total agreement is unrealistic) about certain biologic parameters that have to be met in order to anoint a developing organism as a full fledged (har har) human being with all the commensurate legal protections that status confers?

Could we then say the line is less arbitrary than if we just spout party talking points at each other, or stick to our favorite end of the "every sperm is sacred-vs-I brought 'em into this world I can take 'em out" spectrum?
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
We will not tolerate intolerance.
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 04:21 PM   #31
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
That kinda heads back toward my original point. What if we could come to a consensus (I think total agreement is unrealistic) about certain biologic parameters that have to be met in order to anoint a developing organism as a full fledged (har har) human being with all the commensurate legal protections that status confers?
That would be ideal. But I'd have to copy your rhetorical device of making that "if" more like "if."

Quote:
Could we then say the line is less arbitrary than if we just spout party talking points at each other, or stick to our favorite end of the "every sperm is sacred-vs-I brought 'em into this world I can take 'em out" spectrum?
Not really less arbitrary (since it's just based on our subjective assessments being aligned somewhat) but certainly more defensible(?).
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 04:40 PM   #32
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
No. There is no "scientifically" iron clad definition of "a new life" in the context we're discussing.
Sure there is, a new living, growing and developing organism is formed with it's own unique DNA. That's a new life, period.

I'm saying this as someone 100% pro choice and appalled at the idea of abortion being outlawed. I'm not going to be dishonest, though.
__________________
Whataboutism is a moral necessity, because it disarms the hypocrisy the left wields like a battle axe by illustrating the undeniable truth.
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 04:46 PM   #33
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
I really don't see (practically speaking) how the country can realistically prohibit abortions in a way that actually prevents most abortions. The technology is already fully developed, the medications are readily available, and many people strongly believe it should be allowed. I can't help but think this is going to be like Prohibition, Pt. 2.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 04:54 PM   #34
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 991
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Sure there is, a new living, growing and developing organism is formed with it's own unique DNA. That's a new life, period.

I'm saying this as someone 100% pro choice and appalled at the idea of abortion being outlawed. I'm not going to be dishonest, though.
A cancerous tumor is a new, living, growing and developing organism* with it's own unique DNA. That's a new life, period.

Within the context of what we're discussing (meaning the legal status of being an independent human being), there's exactly 0 "scientific" agreement about what constitutes a new life.


* The current definition of organism requires individualism that neither a fetus nor a cancerous tumor exhibit.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
We will not tolerate intolerance.
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 05:00 PM   #35
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 991
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
I really don't see (practically speaking) how the country can realistically prohibit abortions in a way that actually prevents most abortions. The technology is already fully developed, the medications are readily available, and many people strongly believe it should be allowed. I can't help but think this is going to be like Prohibition, Pt. 2.
I wonder who the Congressional abortion doctor will be.

Besides, women have known for years they can have a DIY abortion early on by just gulping down a whole bunch of their birth control pills all at once. No clinic visit needed.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
We will not tolerate intolerance.
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 06:10 PM   #36
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 154
My Ride: 2013 F30 335i
Lots of good faith arguments on both sides. Which is why I laugh when losers resort to impugning motives - anti-abortion means you hate women and/or you want to control women. If that's what you're posting, you really should not have been promoted beyond middle school.
__________________
Quote:
The world began to crumble when feelings started overruling facts.--Ricky Gervais
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 06:15 PM   #37
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 145
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Obviously a Hail Mary pass to the SCOTUS. Will it succeed? I doubt it, especially given the pretty extreme and harsh nature of the AL law. Roberts, for one, seems concerned about established precedent to some degree, so upholding the AL law, effectively overturning RvW might be a bridge too far for him.

There's obviously no singular clear cut dilineation regarding "human life" (insemination, conception, heartbeat, viability, birth).

However, RvW seems to have served well enough for enough people that it's likely the least imperfect compromise we're likely to come to and a significant majority of Americans are OK with it standing.

In a practical sense, as others have noted, the cat's already out of the bag in terms of medicine, abortion drugs are here and readily available.

As a side note, this will only further inflame the already formidable womens' anti-Trump/GOP vote, so this is a bit puzzling to me from a strictly political perspective.

Anyways, we shall see.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 06:19 PM   #38
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
The impression I get from some abortion foes is that they don't really care about politics and that if they can get abortion outlawed then any political backlash is worth it.

I was reading an article today that suggested that the main problem with the new law (as a test case to overturn RvW) is that it doesn't provide exceptions for rape/incest. Like Rhumb suggested above--it's possible that sending too draconian of a law to the USSC could end up blowing it for abortion foes--even today's more conservative court isn't just going to rubber-stamp any ol' anti-abortion law just because.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 06:45 PM   #39
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 145
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
The impression I get from some abortion foes is that they don't really care about politics and that if they can get abortion outlawed then any political backlash is worth it.

I was reading an article today that suggested that the main problem with the new law (as a test case to overturn RvW) is that it doesn't provide exceptions for rape/incest. Like Rhumb suggested above--it's possible that sending too draconian of a law to the USSC could end up blowing it for abortion foes--even today's more conservative court isn't just going to rubber-stamp any ol' anti-abortion law just because.
Agreed, and I think the lack of awareness of the very real potential for political backlash may well end up setting their cause backwards rather than notching it forwards.

A battle lost only tends to entrench a status quo and I think this swing for the bleachers on a topic (repealing RvW, that most are against) will redound badly for their cause.

Last edited by Rhumb; 05-15-2019 at 06:49 PM.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 06:47 PM   #40
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
A cancerous tumor is a new, living, growing and developing organism* with it's own unique DNA. That's a new life, period.

Within the context of what we're discussing (meaning the legal status of being an independent human being), there's exactly 0 "scientific" agreement about what constitutes a new life.


* The current definition of organism requires individualism that neither a fetus nor a cancerous tumor exhibit.
I donít think a tumor has different chromosomes than the host, a fetus does
__________________
Whataboutism is a moral necessity, because it disarms the hypocrisy the left wields like a battle axe by illustrating the undeniable truth.
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
`captions v. XZIBIT` pakman3 General Off-Topic 68 03-16-2009 07:28 PM
In case you haven't heard... Peake Tools are NOT OBDII tools [email protected] General E46 Forum 27 03-09-2009 07:13 PM
Anyone heard of Hollywood Hills in Woodinville punjabigunda881 Pacific Northwest 1 05-31-2008 11:10 AM
case results for my NY state speeding tickets summit425 General Off-Topic 20 04-05-2008 03:09 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) 1999 - VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.