Planned Parenthood videos

[CrimsonWeltall]

I just think it's a big milestone that differentiates a bag of developing cells from an independent life that is developing. Yes it's all on a gradual scale, but that's a pretty big moment.

 

The bag of cells is an independent life that is developing as well.

 

Why is the heartbeat a moral milestone? If at week X, the heart is developing, but not yet beating, but at week X+1, it starts beating, why is that such an important change that you'd go from being supportive of abortion to opposing it?

 

We're arguing degrees here. My point was that it's still not some conscious ability to experience things. It's all sensory development that is building towards something bigger later. Unborn babies "see," feel, hear, touch too. The degree to which they can retain that information and process it is obviously getting bigger and better as they grow older. But it's still building blocks of experiences.

What's the dividing line for you? If they don't have any significant experiences until birth, why have any cut off on abortions?

 

I stated my dividing line was at 18-20 weeks when capabilities for experience/consciousness/sentience are in place. I would also support abortion after that point for medical reasons.

[Jenksismyhero]

The bag of cells is an independent life that is developing as well.

 

Why is the heartbeat a moral milestone? If at week X, the heart is developing, but not yet beating, but at week X+1, it starts beating, why is that such an important change that you'd go from being supportive of abortion to opposing it?

 

Not until there's that hearbeat, IMO. Once the heart beats on its own, that to me is the point of no return. You've got a functional, working cardiovascular system. I acknowledge it's a bit arbitrary, but to me that differentiates an embryo/pre-human from some other internal growth.

 

I stated my dividing line was at 18-20 weeks when capabilities for experience/consciousness/sentience are in place. I would also support abortion after that point for medical reasons.

 

I dunno that at 18-20 weeks a fetus has consciousness or sentience. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/...iousness-arise/ They don't develop the appropriate brain system until 24-26 weeks for that. And we know that babies have been born premature as early as 21-22 weeks.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Not until there's that hearbeat, IMO.

 

Scientifically, it is.

 

I dunno that at 18-20 weeks a fetus has consciousness or sentience. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/...iousness-arise/ They don't develop the appropriate brain system until 24-26 weeks for that. And we know that babies have been born premature as early as 21-22 weeks.

 

I place the cutoff slightly early to be conservative.

[Jake]

I think allowing for exceptions shows that the person allowing for them sees that this issue lies on a moral spectrum. As I understand it, Jenks thinks there's enough morally wrong with abortion that doing so for "selfish" reasons (my term) like simply not wanting to have a baby at this time in one's life is not justifiable. But in the cases of those exceptions, there's enough harm to the mother that forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term is potentially a larger moral problem than proactively getting an abortion early on in the process.

 

I explain it this way because it allows us to see each other as reasoning in somewhat the same way. The other way to think of it is in the "always wrong" vs. "always okay" binary, which is that one side sees it as 100% the worst moral act there is and the other sees it as basically free of any moral baggage. But I think that people who are pro-choice also feel that there is a morally problematic aspect to abortions; that is, getting an abortion is morally "worse" than, say, using a condom to avoid getting pregnant even if such a person believes that neither is a very serious moral violation. The living cells that die in an abortion are certainly more human than, for instance, those a woman passes during her menstrual cycle. You can admit that is true without believing that the newly-conceived cells are totally the moral equivalent of a newborn child.

 

I think most though not all pro-choice people would see something morally wrong with a hypothetical woman who constantly gets pregnant and then has abortions (I kind of doubt such a thing happens or is medically likely to work) even if they would oppose restricting a person's right to do that.

 

So at least the way I think about the potential contradiction people see in the "no abortions except..." position is that those who take that position understand that abortion is on a spectrum of morally problematic acts. They differ from me because they would place abortion on that spectrum near the most important moral problems. Still, because there is a range of moral issues, those people understand that there can be a justification for the procedure, just that the justification has to be substantial to overcome how serious it is ethically.

 

This is actually why sometimes I am scared by the binary thinking. "Once [something], it's a human baby and I am against aborting it" is a reasonable position that I think everyone is forced to take. The thing that I dislike is when it becomes "before [something], an abortion is okay, but after [something], it's cold-blooded murder." If you think that way, then any legal outcome other than one that matches yours is either total overkill (too zealous of a ban) or is permissive of cold-blooded murder (too loose of a ban). If I think that you shouldn't perform abortions after 20 weeks, I have to understand that there is probably no significant difference between 20 weeks and 20 weeks plus 1 day. It's a little bit worse, enough that by 22 weeks it's quite a bit worse. But it's not magically the same thing as strangling a healthy newborn to death, so I understand that I can advocate against this 22 week procedure without losing my mind over the fact that it is legal. For the record, the timeframes used are just examples, not necessarily my opinion.

 

Since we've brought up the death penalty, it can be a useful foil. I'm against the death penalty, but I'm also living in a society that uses it. I don't think it's necessarily murder, but I do think it's wrong. I want to help my society stop doing it because I think it's wrong. But I understand that I am morally more comfortable with someone like the Aurora theater shooter being deliberately killed than I am some person who didn't murder people. So I can say that murderers deserve severe punishments for their wrongs, but that I don't believe any wrong justifies execution. Still, I am willing to concede that executions are far more justified for murderers than they are for petty thieves or randomly chosen people.

 

While the abortion argument is definitely not directly comparable, in terms of moral quandaries most of us can also say that killing a baby is definitely worse than killing a fetus which is worse than killing a zygote, etc.

[StrangeSox]

Florida was one of several states that launched an investigation of PP as a result of these videos. They found no evidence of wrongdoing, but Gov. Rick Scott had the language scrubbed in the release that cleared PP.

 

The House Judiciary Committee has also scheduled hearings on the matter. The title they've given shows how objective and meaningful these will be: Planned Parenthood Exposed: Examining the Horrific Abortion Practices at the Nation's Largest Abortion Provider

[StrangeSox]

There was a domestic terrorist attack on a planned parenthood clinic in Colorado over the weekend.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/28/us/colorado-...thood-shooting/

Edited November 29, 2015 by StrangeSox

[DrunkBomber]

Jeez between this and BLM weve had a lot of domestic terror incidents lately.

[Cknolls]

There was a worlkplace violence at a planned parenthood clinic in Colorado over the weekend.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/28/us/colorado-...thood-shooting/

 

 

 

 

Fixed that as per Narcissus' definition.

[Brian]

Terrorism is defined as violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political claims.

 

It's not far fetched to call this terrorism among other things.

[pettie4sox]

Terrorism is defined as violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political claims.

 

It's not far fetched to call this terrorism among other things.

 

It's terrorism. The act in itself is going to make people at PP clinics scared if they already weren't.

 

I hope they beef up security to stop nutters like this in the future.

[StrangeSox]

The Senate voted to defund Planned Parenthood.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Charges related to the videos were filed today.

 

Against two of the people responsible for making the videos.

[Brian]

Don't tell Carly.

[EvilMonkey]

Charges related to the videos were filed today.

 

Against two of the people responsible for making the videos.

By a DA who serves on the board of the PP that was in the video. No conflict of interest there.

[StrangeSox]

By a DA who serves on the board of the PP that was in the video. No conflict of interest there.

Actually, no!

 

They were charged by a grand jury convened by a Republican DA at the request of a Republican governor.

 

So, so far, every single planned parenthood affiliate that has been investigated has been cleared of any wrongdoing, and the only people found to have committed criminal acts were the people that put the videos together.

[StrangeSox]

Fifteen felony charges for the two who made these videos.

 

https://twitter.com/AP/status/846903043043962886