Last Abortion Clinic in South Dakota Closes

[Invictus ChiKen]

Yeah, except you can't explain why without refering to your irrelevant belief system. That's why you always, always lose these debates.

I do concede that for a lot of this to make sense you'd have to believe in a soul.

[Invictus ChiKen]

It is really interesting to look at this website for the National Right To Life Committee:

http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/

Look at that list. See how they are even trying to get health coverage for the unborn child, yet no where on the list do they show the Democrat for Life Bill which is called The Pregnant Women Support Act. You can read about this act here: link .

I am not saying I support the legislation, but it is telling that the main Republican coalition against choice fails to even list this legislation, which aims to lower abortion by empowering pregnant women and doing things like guaranteeing them insurance.

Thank you for the links Cairber.

[Stark]

Yes I am all for more education and less poverty. An I'm not to happy about the Holy Mother Church's teachings on birth control and I'm not to crazy about Priestly Celibacy in the Latin Rite... Not sure why people don't just switch to the Eastern if they want to be married Priests so bad.

For those that don't know the Holy Roman Catholic Church has 20 rites and 19 of them allow married men to be Priests.

But if you want a list of my issues with the Church Stark feel free to PM me.

An yes I realize I am must appear to be a really odd person you should see the reactions I get from fellow Catholics.

No you just look like a fucking idiot. You have strong attitudes about abortion, disagree with all the catholic policy that CREATES this need, and yet you're still a catholic. That's fucking retarded, even worse if you have a laundry-list of other complaints.

Your attitudes start from the conclusion (ie, how do I prove abortion is wrong) instead of following logic from a question or premise (ie, how do we determine what is the best response in a situation). That's why they're broken and you can't explain them - you HAVE no explanation.

[CaptainZoidberg]

I'd personally like to see an abortion debate in coliseum. The fetus is 12 weeks old, the mother is healthy, not raped, and will give birth if she chooses not to have an abortion. That way, we won't be distracted over the issue of whether we're discussing a fertilized egg or an unborn baby. I would love to take either side on that colliseum match, but I understand that there might be people more prepared then I to discuss the issue.

On my debate with Nitram and Patrick I must concede. Nitram originally talked about the Pro-Life "movement", and they are right that the leadership of the movement does have ulterior motives. Their exception for rape was particularly distressing, as it implies that they care more about the mother's sexual actions then the fetal right to life. I hope that one day these people will have the rug pullen from under their feet and exposed as frauds, and a true Pro-Life movement that respects the rights of women will emerge. But I'm not optimistic.

@Nitram, Sorry I didn't post a direct reply to your message, but I think you were right that I misrepresented you and I apologize for it.

@InvictusChicken,

Finding a neutral person will be impossible. Everyone ends up hearing about abortion from their parents, class mates, friends, or people in their community. Everyone has thought about abortion - it's a national issue. What we need to do is find an intelligent, thoughtful judge who does not have a personal, emotional attachment to the issue.

[General Zod]

I'd personally like to see an abortion debate in coliseum. The fetus is 12 weeks old, the mother is healthy, not raped, and will give birth if she chooses not to have an abortion. That way, we won't be distracted over the issue of whether we're discussing a fertilized egg or an unborn baby. I would love to take either side on that colliseum match, but I understand that there might be people more prepared then I to discuss the issue.

It doesn't matter how many weeks a fetus is along, until there's higher brain activity in the fetus it's arguably not a person, period. A sizable majority of pro-choice people will agree that this should be a cutoff point unless medical complications threaten the mother's life or other extreme circumstances.

[Stark]

I think he says 12 weeks because that's the common three-month point - it's already in the second trimester and is thus much more contravesial than a first trimester abortion.

[SirNitram]

I honestly doubt there'd be many who'd argue that, on the onset of CNS activity, to terminate an otherwise no-problems-beyond-the-norm pregnancy. But that is probably the point of shaping and wording it that way.

[CaptainZoidberg]

It doesn't matter how many weeks a fetus is along, until there's higher brain activity in the fetus it's arguably not a person, period. A sizable majority of pro-choice people will agree that this should be a cutoff point unless medical complications threaten the mother's life or other extreme circumstances.

The fetus has a brain at that point, and a cerebral cortex. Although I admit that I lack the training in neuroscience to know if that constitutes higher brain activity.

I personally would like to base the legality of abortion off of the fetus having self awareness, i.e., comprehension of the fact that it exists. Although I'm not sure if a baby, let alone a young child, really is aware of anything

[CaptainZoidberg]

I honestly doubt there'd be many who'd argue that, on the onset of CNS activity, to terminate an otherwise no-problems-beyond-the-norm pregnancy. But that is probably the point of shaping and wording it that way.

Hence an interesting debate. And yes I do remember that Alyrium argued precisely that position.

[SirNitram]

I honestly doubt there'd be many who'd argue that, on the onset of CNS activity, to terminate an otherwise no-problems-beyond-the-norm pregnancy. But that is probably the point of shaping and wording it that way.

Hence an interesting debate. And yes I do remember that Alyrium argued precisely that position.

When a debate has only one outcome due to both moral and objective input, there is no debate. It is certainly not interesting.

[CaptainZoidberg]

When a debate has only one outcome due to both moral and objective input, there is no debate. It is certainly not interesting.

Nah, there's a good pro case. I once argued post-CNS activity abortion with my friend. The two prongs to his pro constructive were:

1. Two identical twins are considered different people, even though they have the same DNA. Therefore person hood comes from both DNA and experience with the outside world. Even a third trimester fetus, the moment before it leaves the womb, is not a person because it's development is entirely determined by its DNA.

2. Even if the fetus were a person, it would still be in the nation's best interest to allow the mother to terminate pregnancy because women who get abortions tend to have below average IQs. Over time the median IQ in the nation would increase if they aborted more of their children. (I personally find this argument to be disgusting).

[General Zod]

Nah, there's a good pro case. I once argued post-CNS activity abortion with my friend. The two prongs to his pro constructive were:

1. Two identical twins are considered different people, even though they have the same DNA. Therefore person hood comes from both DNA and experience with the outside world. Even a third trimester fetus, the moment before it leaves the womb, is not a person because it's development is entirely determined by its DNA.

Infant brains are incapable of properly remembering their experiences in the outside world for their first year or two. Given your criteria, I'm not really sure how this is a good pro-argument.

2. Even if the fetus were a person, it would still be in the nation's best interest to allow the mother to terminate pregnancy because women who get abortions tend to have below average IQs. Over time the median IQ in the nation would increase if they aborted more of their children. (I personally find this argument to be disgusting).

You're describing eugenics. Very few people would consider eugenics morally acceptable, and I'd question the validity of your IQ claim. Either way making your "point" useless.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I honestly doubt there'd be many who'd argue that, on the onset of CNS activity, to terminate an otherwise no-problems-beyond-the-norm pregnancy. But that is probably the point of shaping and wording it that way.

Hence an interesting debate. And yes I do remember that Alyrium argued precisely that position.

Why yes. Yes I have. Thew wonderful thing is that the fetus is usually viable outside the womb when that occurs. So instead of a partial birth abortion, you can just have a full-birth abortion where parental rights are terminated and the fetus is born and put in an incubator, awaiting adoption (hopefully) of course that depends on the ability to adopt out the now 17 week old external fetus.

If you cant... see following argument.

Kill the thing.

Utilitarian argument: The (now external?) fetus, even though it does have higher brain function lacks the experiential framework necessary to have preferences, so its worth in preference utilitarianism is right out. In Hedonstic utilitarianism, the pain and suffering it faces will be less than the pain and suffering of the mother that is forced to keep it against her will. This will negatively impact everyone around her. The only counter-balance there is to this is the non-specific angst felt by pro-lifers, which probably does not really add up to the suffering of one real person.

Rights based arguments: Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is morally equivalent to slavery. Period (there are a series of analogies and other arguments I can use to support this, but I am lazy)

The adoption issue actually brings up a very important issue that I dont think was brought up by you or Nitram earlier.

If these individuals actually gave a shit about fetuses, they would be adopting them left and right. But they dont. They would support expansion of day care programs, so women could have the babies and stay in school, or keep working. But they dont. They actively fight these programs, along with sex education,and increased maternity leave.

The rank and file might not hold these views because they dont sit and think about the logical outcomes of their positions. They are guilty of apathy to the fetus once it is born or becomes external. The big shots, the ones that sit in board rooms, have no such excuse. They call the shots, thus it is fair to say that the movement they direct as an entity does not care about the actual babies produced. Rather, they simply seek to control women and women's sexuality.


As for the proposed debate in the Coliseum I am happy to accept.

1. Two identical twins are considered different people, even though they have the same DNA. Therefore person hood comes from both DNA and experience with the outside world. Even a third trimester fetus, the moment before it leaves the womb, is not a person because it's development is entirely determined by its DNA.

Personhood actually has nothing to do with DNA beyond the fact that the entity in question is genetically or the species homo sapiens. There is nothing metaphysically special about humans that warrants us special consideration on account of the series of adanine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine that makes up our double helix. Personhood is completely and totally the providence of the mind which while it is not metaphysically special does for the basis of our values. In theory at least, something does not even have to be living to be a person.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Infant brains are incapable of properly remembering their experiences in the outside world for their first year or two. Given your criteria, I'm not really sure how this is a good pro-argument.

Do you know how a neural network works? Even if the kid isn't remembering anything, their neural network is still being shaped and programmed. Case in point, is there any food that you absolutely hate? You might not have any memory of the experience that made you hate it, but your brain is still shaped and programmed so that it associates the food with a negative experience.

You're describing eugenics. Very few people would consider eugenics morally acceptable, and I'd question the validity of your IQ claim. Either way making your "point" useless.

I think a case could be made that because IQ has a .77 correlation to the human development index, there may be a net decrease in suffering. Of course, I don't think it should be done because there is a HUGE potential for abuse, and the development of an implicit caste system in our society, but a case could be made for it.

Also the validity of the IQ claim is nigh indisputable. There are lots of studies showing that IQ has a correlation with income which are confirmed by standardized test scores that correlate to IQ (it's not 1.0, but it is significant), and a financial inability to raise the child is the primary reason for abortion.

[General Zod]

Do you know how a neural network works? Even if the kid isn't remembering anything, their neural network is still being shaped and programmed. Case in point, is there any food that you absolutely hate? You might not have any memory of the experience that made you hate it, but your brain is still shaped and programmed so that it associates the food with a negative experience.

So what? If personhood doesn't happen until unique personality quirks begin forming, your argument is very very shaky at best.

I think a case could be made that because IQ has a .77 correlation to the human development index, there may be a net decrease in suffering. Of course, I don't think it should be done because there is a HUGE potential for abuse, and the development of an implicit caste system in our society, but a case could be made for it.

Also the validity of the IQ claim is nigh indisputable. There are lots of studies showing that IQ has a correlation with income which are confirmed by standardized test scores that correlate to IQ (it's not 1.0, but it is significant), and a financial inability to raise the child is the primary reason for abortion.

Since IQ is not determined by genetics, and a poor indication of reasoning ability anyway, your entire argument falls apart even if the point was mere utilitarianism as opposed to ethics.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Why yes. Yes I have. Thew wonderful thing is that the fetus is usually viable outside the womb when that occurs. So instead of a partial birth abortion, you can just have a full-birth abortion where parental rights are terminated and the fetus is born and put in an incubator, awaiting adoption (hopefully) of course that depends on the ability to adopt out the now 17 week old external fetus.

So what exactly is your position?

Kill the thing.

"The Thing", what a lovely way to refer to a baby that can't be put up for adoption. Or are you referring to non-viable fetuses?

Utilitarian argument: The (now external?) fetus, even though it does have higher brain function lacks the experiential framework necessary to have preferences, so its worth in preference utilitarianism is right out.

The existence of preferences is obviously irrelevant. An ant prefers life over death (its behavior errs in that direction), but it has no rights because it cannot feel nor think, and has no potential mind.

In Hedonstic utilitarianism, the pain and suffering it faces will be less than the pain and suffering of the mother that is forced to keep it against her will. This will negatively impact everyone around her. The only counter-balance there is to this is the non-specific angst felt by pro-lifers, which probably does not really add up to the suffering of one real person.

Bullshit. By that argument I should be able to kill you because you will feel a trivial amount of suffering (or none if I killed you properly), but I'd be happier because I wouldn't have to live with you against my will.

Rights based arguments: Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is morally equivalent to slavery. Period (there are a series of analogies and other arguments I can use to support this, but I am lazy)

So is forcing her to care for a baby "slavery", or is child support slavery? (And don't use the BS "body" argument. If I make you pay child support, I am controlling your body by saying that you must use it to provide nourishment for your child).

The adoption issue actually brings up a very important issue that I dont think was brought up by you or Nitram earlier.

If these individuals actually gave a shit about fetuses, they would be adopting them left and right. But they dont. They would support expansion of day care programs, so women could have the babies and stay in school, or keep working. But they dont. They actively fight these programs, along with sex education,and increased maternity leave.

That argument makes no sense. They can support the fetal right to life without supporting socialism. In their minds the fetus will be better off with less socialism because it will be more independent and free thinking.

Although I have already agreed with SirNitram that the leadership of the Pro-Life movement are more concenred about sexual freedom then fetal rights.

The rank and file might not hold these views because they dont sit and think about the logical outcomes of their positions. They are guilty of apathy to the fetus once it is born or becomes external. The big shots, the ones that sit in board rooms, have no such excuse. They call the shots, thus it is fair to say that the movement they direct as an entity does not care about the actual babies produced. Rather, they simply seek to control women and women's sexuality.

They are economic minimalist's. In their minds less economic intervention will provide the fetus's the best future. To an extent they are right. I can care for someone's well being without arguing for a 1984-style nanny-state. (Note that I support a mixed command/market economy)

As for the proposed debate in the Coliseum I am happy to accept.

Delightful. But I'm going back to school on the 22nd of August so I will have some time constraints (you're going to U. Texas for grad school, no?)

Personhood actually has nothing to do with DNA beyond the fact that the entity in question is genetically or the species homo sapiens. There is nothing metaphysically special about humans that warrants us special consideration on account of the series of adanine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine that makes up our double helix. Personhood is completely and totally the providence of the mind which while it is not metaphysically special does for the basis of our values. In theory at least, something does not even have to be living to be a person.

Exactly my point.

[CaptainZoidberg]

So what? If personhood doesn't happen until unique personality quirks begin forming, your argument is very very shaky at best.

You start to develop a unique personality the moment you begin to have experiences and stimuli.

Since IQ is not determined by genetics, and a poor indication of reasoning ability anyway, your entire argument falls apart even if the point was mere utilitarianism as opposed to ethics.

Right, and the fact that 7 out of the 12 best mathematicians in the USA (IMO team) are of Asian descent even when Asians only make up a small slice of the population is just a coincidence, right? It wouldn't have anything to do with the difference in mean IQ...

And there's lots of evidence that IQ is inherited, beyond it being completely obvious:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t0844nw244473143/

[General Zod]

Right, and the fact that 7 out of the 12 best mathematicians in the USA (IMO team) are of Asian descent even when Asians only make up a small slice of the population is just a coincidence, right? It wouldn't have anything to do with the difference in mean IQ...

And there's lots of evidence that IQ is inherited, beyond it being completely obvious:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t0844nw244473143/

Even if that is the case, IQ is still a poor measurement of reasoning ability. Just look at the sheer amount of religious scientists. There's absolutely no reason to assume suffering would decrease as a result when you have to cause needless suffering to achieve it in the first place.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Even if that is the case, IQ is still a poor measurement of reasoning ability. Just look at the sheer amount of religious scientists.

g (which is part of what IQ tests measure) correlates to SATs, college GPA, income, standard of living, not going to prison, and other life outcomes which are generally considered to be positive.

The casual relationship between g and these indicators can be shown by the consistency of g across a person's life. If income or GPA caused g, then we'd find that g would go up or down dramatically based on one's educational outcomes.

This does not occur.

There's absolutely no reason to assume suffering would decrease as a result when you have to cause needless suffering to achieve it in the first place.

Other than, you know, the .77 correlation between IQ and the human development index. And given that nations which have always had higher IQ (like China) are now gaining on the HDI, we can only conclude that IQ causes HDI, and not the other way around. Also studies done on twins show that HDI only has a limited impact on g.

[General Zod]

g (which is part of what IQ tests measure) correlates to SATs, college GPA, income, standard of living, not going to prison, and other life outcomes which are generally considered to be positive.

The casual relationship between g and these indicators can be shown by the consistency of g across a person's life. If income or GPA caused g, then we'd find that g would go up or down dramatically based on one's educational outcomes.

This does not occur.

Which has dick all to do with my point that even people with high IQs are still inclined to believe in bullshit like homeopathy, reincarnation and life after death. IQ != reasoning skills.

Other than, you know, the .77 correlation between IQ and the human development index. And given that nations which have always had higher IQ (like China) are now gaining on the HDI, we can only conclude that IQ causes HDI, and not the other way around. Also studies done on twins show that HDI only has a limited impact on g.

That's not my point you illiterate twat. How do you plan on decreasing suffering when in order to reach this point you have to cause massive amounts of suffering in the first place?

[CaptainZoidberg]

Which has dick all to do with my point that even people with high IQs are still inclined to believe in bullshit like homeopathy, reincarnation and life after death. IQ != reasoning skills.

Do you have any proof for that? There's probably still a large correlation between IQ and having a scientific world view, although an intelligent person could still be heavily conditioned to believe something irrational (if you raised a kid and hit them everytime you said atheist, they'd probably grow up to fear atheists, even if they have the reasoning skills to understand atheism).

That's not my point you illiterate twat. How do you plan on decreasing suffering when in order to reach this point you have to cause massive amounts of suffering in the first place?

Suffering would decrease because IQ would go up and HDI with it.

And I already said that I oppose the action because it would cause suffering in the first place. Clearly we are in agreement.

[General Zod]

Do you have any proof for that? There's probably still a large correlation between IQ and having a scientific world view, although an intelligent person could still be heavily conditioned to believe something irrational (if you raised a kid and hit them everytime you said atheist, they'd probably grow up to fear atheists, even if they have the reasoning skills to understand atheism).

Proof of what? That the vast majority of scientists are still religious to some degree? Atheism is still a minority, remember.

Suffering would decrease because IQ would go up and HDI with it.

I find this difficult if not impossible to swallow simply due to the sheer amount of abortions you would have to cause.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Proof of what? That the vast majority of scientists are still religious to some degree? Atheism is still a minority, remember.

Show evidence that IQ has an inverse correlation with holding rational beliefs. Or better yet, show that there exists a heritable factor that correlates better to holding rational beliefs.

And how do we know atheists are such a minority? Let's not forget that Michael Wong is still on many church's membership lists, even though he's about as atheist as one can get.

As has been said many times on this board, let's determine how many atheists there are by the frequency of church going. A person who goes more than once a week is highly religious, a person who goes once a week is solidly religious, and so on...

And let's not forgot that atheists still can go to church. I am either atheist or Deist (I like Jesus, but I don't believe that he is the biological son of God). But I still go to church every so often because my family and some of my old friends are religious and I like to spend time with them.

I find this difficult if not impossible to swallow simply due to the sheer amount of abortions you would have to cause.

As do I

[Alyrium Denryle]

"The Thing", what a lovely way to refer to a baby that can't be put up for adoption. Or are you referring to non-viable fetuses?

At that point, you cannot call it a baby. It is an external fetus kept alive by very extensive life support systems in a neonatal intensive care unit. It is properly called a thing. Having some sort of higher brain function is the bare minimum at which the fetus has any moral worth at all. It can feel pain and thus counts in a utilitarian calculus. That still does not make it necessarily a person, which requires a personality and experience (even if primitive, partially formed memories of those experiences)

In other words, it has the moral worth of say, an individual lizard or salamander rather than having less, which means if we can reasonably save it, we should. If we cant, *dusts off the hands* it is unfortunate, but such is nature

The existence of preferences is obviously irrelevant. An ant prefers life over death (its behavior errs in that direction), but it has no rights because it cannot feel nor think, and has no potential mind.

First off, rights dont exist in a utilitarian ethical system.

Second, if mentioning how an ethical system looks at something, what the system is based upon really is relevant. Preference Utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism in which it is not pleasure or pain that are exchanged and weighed, but preferences. Preferences are measured on a sliding scale based upon the intensity of the preference, and the degree to which the entity in question consciously holds them.

And ant has no real brain, it does not hold a preference so much as act like an individual neuron in a group-brain. You can say that a colony has preferences in a way though, at least in the sense that its preference to live is intensely held (while an individual ant will throw its life away with wild abandon to defend said colony) but not consciously held.

A lizards living preference is higher because it is more intelligent, etc.

Now you can get into complex interactions (such as the effects of the death of an ant colony on the entire system and the references held within...) but that overcomplicates matters.

Bullshit. By that argument I should be able to kill you because you will feel a trivial amount of suffering (or none if I killed you properly), but I'd be happier because I wouldn't have to live with you against my will.

No jerkoff. For one, it is not a 2 party things. There are third parties. Like my family and friends, and coworkers, that would suffer as a result of my death. And as opposed to pro-lifers, their angst is very specific, their opposition to my death is not an abstract thing. It is very personal, and it outweighs any pleasure you can gain from my demise.

Aborting a fetus with the mental functioning of a lizard is a bit different.

So is forcing her to care for a baby "slavery", or is child support slavery? (And don't use the BS "body" argument. If I make you pay child support, I am controlling your body by saying that you must use it to provide nourishment for your child).

There are ways to get out of it. Like signing your parental rights over to a third party, hell, you can drop the kid off at a firestation, or police precinct, and they will take it, no questions asked. Once the kid is born, and starts having actual thoughts (and under rights based ethics, rights) you start having the corollary to rights, which is responsibility.

Bear in mind, I am not a rights theorist. I am a consequentialist (a non-specific utilitarian) I just like using that argument to makes rights theorists squirm.

That argument makes no sense. They can support the fetal right to life without supporting socialism. In their minds the fetus will be better off with less socialism because it will be more independent and free thinking.

No. You really cant. The end result of the reduced social programs these trogolodytes advocate is less stability, more poverty, higher crime. The kid will have bigger chance of dying due to violence or disease than be free-thinking or independent. THose things only come when people have the tools and opportunity needed to take advantage of their minds and become independent, and you dont get that without early childhood education, necessary food assistance, and child care for working/schooling mothers

The rank and file can get away with not knowing this, but not the leadership. And it is the leadership that calls the shots, and they have no excuses. Their position is at odds with the empirical data.

They are economic minimalist's. In their minds less economic intervention will provide the fetus's the best future. To an extent they are right. I can care for someone's well being without arguing for a 1984-style nanny-state. (Note that I support a mixed command/market economy)

And again, your average protester can get away with not knowing the results of their actions. But it is the job of policy makers and those at the top of grassroots networks to know what it is they are advocating. In this case, they are deliberately eschewing reality for ideology.

[General Zod]

Show evidence that IQ has an inverse correlation with holding rational beliefs. Or better yet, show that there exists a heritable factor that correlates better to holding rational beliefs.

And how do we know atheists are such a minority? Let's not forget that Michael Wong is still on many church's membership lists, even though he's about as atheist as one can get.

You're an idiot if you think atheists are anything but a minority. Religions ranked by size.

And let's not forgot that atheists still can go to church. I am either atheist or Deist (I like Jesus, but I don't believe that he is the biological son of God). But I still go to church every so often because my family and some of my old friends are religious and I like to spend time with them.

So what? Church-going frequency has nothing to do with whether or not someone is an atheist, which is my whole fucking point. But feel free to keep making up strawmen.