How about we make abortions as hard to get as guns?

[krispos42]

I was listening to Rhandi Rhodes Tuesday night (missed her Wednesday, 'cuz Air America Minnesota had yet ANOTHER screwed up night!), and she had a list of things that she thought should be law. And I thought "what whould she say if that conservative Brownback guy from Kansas proposed..."

• Waiting periods on abortions, say, 14 days, before you could get one
  
• Making the fact that you had an abortion part of the public record in the local newspaper, like a concealed pistol permit application, before you could get one
  
• You had to prove that you needed one before you could get one
  
• You had to be psychologically screened before you could get one
  
• Your abortion was registered by the state and/or federal government
  
• You could only have one abortion a year
  
• RU486 was banned. You could only have abortions in a clinic that you had to travel to
  
• An entire class of abortions was banned because a vocal minority of people harped about it endlessly and with misleading informatio, despite being performed very rarely, if at all?

Oh, oops. Looks like the Supremes did that last one yesterday...

But regardless... only a tiny fraction of guns kill people, but 100% of all abortions do, right? Right? Right?

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?!?



I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure she would give birth to a cow on-air. I'm also pretty sure that, if asked of Mike Malloy, he would give birth to a whole HERD of cattle.

[rock]

1. Great idea,

then there would be no more abortions than guns :o

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I understand your analogy

but have one minor quibble: abortions don't kill people. They take away cells from a woman's body. Cells that are not viable on their own. Sorry, but I'm tired of the "you're killing a baby when you have an abortion or miscarry!" It's traumatic enough to have this happen without the added bad feeling from this hyperbole.

[jody]

12. "Cells that are not viable on their own"! Are not many/most humans not viable on their own?

When we have a catastrophic failure in our agricultural sector, will that not cause catastrophic loss of life?

If so, then people like "cells from a woman's body . . . are not viable on their own."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. I take it, then,

that you think a fertilized egg is a viable human being, and that a woman has no control or rights over what happens to her body.

[jody]

17. I was just responding to your statement "Cells that are not viable on their own" and observing that

most human beings are not viable on their own either.

Nothing more nor less. :shrug:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. Huh?

???????????????

[jody]

21. What is there about my statement that you don't understand? You were the one who introduced the

topic of cells, an organism, not being viable on its own.

Note that a zygote is an organism and continues to grow through the fetus stage and outside the womb until it dies.

As I understand your assertion, you believe an organism is not alive unless it is viable on its own. If that's true, then as I pointed out many/most humans are not viable on their own.

If that's not what you mean, then I assume you mean that a zygote/fetus is not alive. :shrug:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. No,

I meant a collection of cells that aren't even an embryo aren't capable living outside the womb and that they aren't miniature babies being "murdered" when a woman chooses to have an abortion or when a woman miscarries. But you are apparently saying that human beings aren't viable--aren't capable of living. If Bush has his way with the environment, that will soon be true, but as of right now, human beings can live on their own.

[jody]

24. You and I agree on * and perhaps most things. I'm pro-choice but I know a sperm and egg are alive

and when they unite to produce a zygote, it is also alive.

Life continues as a zygote grows through the fetal stage and after it leaves the womb.

When a zygote or fetus or born-human dies for whatever reason, then life ceases. :shrug:

As to viability on its own, I agree a fetus cannot survive on its own before birth and neither can a baby for several years. As I pointed out, in todays society many/most humans also cannot on their own.

If one wants to discuss souls, then that's another matter because I've never understood how neither an egg nor sperm have any part of a soul but immediately after uniting a soul is created. I guess that falls in the category of miracles.

[Maddy McCall]

28. Do you consider male masturbation murder?

:shrug:

[jody]

29. That's typical reply #92. ROFL. Have a peaceful evening n/t

[Maddy McCall]

30. Dismissive of the questions you can't answer, I see.

[jody]

34. No, dismissive of the questioner! n/t

[Maddy McCall]

37. Only because you refuse to answer the question.

It's no more ridiculous than the argument you gave above.

[uppityperson]

25. What does this sentence mean?

"Note that a zygote is an organism and continues to grow through the fetus stage and outside the womb until it dies. " I can't make sense of it. Thanks.

[jody]

27. It means precisely what I wrote. Please visit the following Wikipedia links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

[uppityperson]

31. And outside the womb until it dies?

"Note that a zygote is an organism and continues to grow through the fetus stage and outside the womb until it dies."

What do you mean by "and outside the womb until it dies"? Serious question, not wanting to jump on your case but trying to make sense of this sentence since it does not make sense. How can a zygote grow throw a fetus stage and outside the womb until it dies? The sentence doesn't make sense.

[jody]

38. I used "outside the womb" in lieu of "after birth". n/t

[uppityperson]

39. An organism grows through zygote, to fetus and after birth until it dies.

Got it, thanks, that makes sense.

[uppityperson]

32. I know the definitions of all those, questioning your sentence, structure, seems to be missing

something. Mis-written or something. Thanks.

And no, I won't argue "life" and "living" since, depending on how the word is defined, one could argue 1 way or the other and not make any headway.

[Maru Kitteh]

41. Please see THIS Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viable

Viable = Capacity for survival

I think we can all agree that an embryo of about 8 weeks (the average gestational age at elective abortion) has no capacity for survival without biological support from it's host. None.

Embryo at 7 weeks:


It's also evident that human beings who survive the birth process, even many of those still premature have the capacity for the most basic acts required of survival such as breathing (assisted or not).

If that 8 week old fetus is viable, I'm the next winner of the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes.

It's just my two cents, but maybe should eat your crow while it's hot. If it is your opinion that women are killing people when they have abortions you need to back it up with something other than this viability/everybody needs somebody "argument".

[jody]

42. I can't believe you think a new born baby can survive on its own.

The complete Wiki cite says:

Viability means in general "capacity for survival" and is more specifically used to mean a capacity for living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions. The word is especially used in the following contexts:

• pregnancy, viability refers to either:
o an early stage pregnancy that has a chance of reaching full-term and a live birth (as opposed to, for example, an ectopic pregnancy); or
o the shortest length of pregnancy after which a child born prematurely has a chance of survival. Generally, this ranges from 20-27 weeks.

• environmental conservation, viability indicates the ability of a conservation target to persist for many generations or over long time periods.

• experimental biology, viability of cells and tissues refers to the extent to which those cells and tissues are living.

• natural selection, the fraction of individuals that survive to a given age.

• economic development, viability indicates the ability of benefits to cover costs in development projects.

Note it says "The word is especially used in the following contexts".

I did not limit my use of the word "viable" to pregnancy but used the conventional dictionary definition "Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn". I pointed out that many/most people outside the womb cannot survive on their own.

Your DU profile says you're from Kearney, NE a town of nearly 30,000. The location in Buffalo County suggests you may be acquainted with rural living and may be able to survive on your own. I don't believe that's possible for people born in cities, particularly large cities, e.g. New York.

My point is simple, A fetus cannot survive on its own, a baby cannot survive on its own, and many/most people cannot survive on their own.

Have a peaceful evening and good bye. :hi:

[Maru Kitteh]

43. I'll grant you points for obstinacy and obfuscation but yes,

a newborn baby can survive on it's own. A viable newborn is by definition capable of respiration (including assisted respiration), conceptus and embryos are not. A viable newborn is by definition capable of gastro-enteric nutritional uptake (including enteral feeding), conceptus and embryos are not.

I did not limit my use of the word "viable" to pregnancy but used the conventional dictionary definition "Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn". I pointed out that many/most people outside the womb cannot survive on their own.

Used of a fetus or newborn".

Your attempt to communicate a point here was so poorly executed I am left with no idea what you meant. I will say as sentence fragments go, this one was exemplary.

I'm honestly trying to understand the dynamics of the part of your post which you use to address my location and surrounding demographics. I think a small part of you believed I would be intimidated and a larger part of you thought I would be shamed. Do you picture those living in small towns to be like the Geico cavemen, living among you but somehow "rugged" and different?

You say that most people cannot survive on their own. You infer that "city folk" are hopelessly ignorant and incapable of being independently alive. Do you think a 42 year old Detroit native and an 8 week old fetus would share the same fate if each were left alone in adjoining room with access to all of the best health care and scientific advancement money can buy?

Any rational person would have to acknowledge that even recently born surviving humans do not require a biological-physical connection to their host to maintain life. The 42 year old Detroit native, my mom, my niece who was born at just under two pounds, and you; all survive and exist as separate individuals.

My point is simple. A fetus cannot survive without a willing female host. No female should be FORCED into naissance de gens (birth for the people). No other person or governing body or group of religious freaks should have control over a womans right to govern HER OWN BODY.

[jody]

44. My point 1, "A fetus or baby cannot survive without a willing female host", and my point 2 is

in todays society many/most humans cannot survive without the support of others.

We've both stated our positions and that's it.

I've enjoyed the exchange.

Good bye. :hi:

[unpossibles]

3. you don't understand the difference?

that's really sad.

[phillysuse]

4. Both PBAbortion and Gun Ownership are to Protect

the life of the individual who is having the PBA or who owns the gun.

We should be standing up against this government which has no right as far as I am concerned to limit an individual's ability to protect their own life in the best way they can - with the safest medical procedure or with ownership of a gun.

And this is the way the entire debate SHOULD have been framed - as a Libertarian debate against interference of big government, Federal or State.

We don't frame the gun ownership debate as a choice to have a gun and then you are prochoice or antichoice. We frame it as an affrront to individual liberty to take away the ability to protect one's life.

We have common cause with the NRA on the abortion bill if we could only see.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. Gun control would put you at less risk, not more.

I agree that the objective of gun legislation should be to protect people's lives; that's why I'd like to see the 2nd ammendment repealed and UK-level gun control introduced to the US, where it would save thousands of lives a year.

[phillysuse]

7. We disagree - I think that

every American probably will need a gun sooner or later against this fascist government.

In addition, the framing you suggest is exactly why the left continues to lose in the heartland up until recently.

Thank God we now have Dems like Jim Webb, Jon Tester and Wesley Clark who have a profound understanding of how ordinary people who own guns in middle America think.
And what they think is that they don't want government interfering in their right to protect themselves.

And as a woman, I don't want the Federal Government interfering in my right to protect myself by the safest medical procedure that can be used to save MY life.

This is sort of like the government telling you that you could only use a musket to protect yourself, not a handgun or a rifle.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Oh, make no mistake, I don't want the Democrats to support gun control.

*I* support it, but I fully agree that it would be political suicide to do so, and that the political capital can better be spent elsewhere.

Incidentally, while there are some non-absurd arguments against gun control - "guns make you safer from crime" is wrong, but not utterly insane - the argument "gun control would make it harder for us to launch an armed revolt against the government" is... words fail me.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Abortions don't kill people.

A foetus is not a person, because it is not self aware.

If you don't understand that, nothing you think or say about abortion will have any value.

Guns *do* kill people; ideally the second ammendment should be repealed and UK-level gun control should be instituted in the US.

Sadly, I do *not* think that the Democrats should support this - there's too much opposition and too little support for gun control; the political capital could be better spent elsewhere, on abortion among other things. Gun control is one issue where they should sell out, even though it would save thousands of lives every year.

It's too soon to start trying to take the asylum back from the lunatics, sadly. But anyone who thinks that owning a gun and having an abortion are comparable is clearly in that category.

[phillysuse]

8. Libertarian, Donald

not lunatic.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. It's a delicate distinction.

Libertarianism is what happens when you start out with a single very basic reasonable-sounding principle, and then elaborate it into an entire political philosophy without ever stopping to check the results against reality.

[endarkenment]

9. I will not be forced to give birth to an AK47. nt.

[Fleshdancer]

13. Best post of the day

:rofl:

[krispos42]

45. Oooch...

<winces>

[jody]

14. UK-level gun control, is that why UK parents are buying their children body armor? n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. WTF?

I would not be surprised if there has been an example of parents here in the UK buying body armour for their children - I've never heard of one, but I assume you have?

It is not something that happens with statistically significant frequency.

Basing an argument of a single example is foolish. The reason gun control would benefit the US is the thousands upon thousands of single (double, triple etc) shootings, not the occasional high-profile tragedy like this one (although sane gun laws would make things like this happen far less often too).

Incidentally, it is an even more pointless thing to do here than it would be in the US, becase children here are at far less risk of being shot.

[jody]

18. See DU thread "UK 'Parents buying body armour for children after teen murders'"

UK “Parents buying body armour for children after teen murders”

:puke: on UK-level gun control

[NaturalHigh]

20. For the second amendment to be repealed...

the states would have to vote to approve the repeal. That's not going to happen. Nobody I know would vote for it.

[SidDithers]

23. How about we make abortions as easy to get as guns...nt

Sid

[uppityperson]

26. I'll vote for that. eom

[ComerPerro]

36. LMAO, no kidding

[AnnInLa]

33. I'd vote for it.....

Sounds like a perfect analogy for many reasons.

[ComerPerro]

35. I've said it before, I will say it again: Gun nuts come up with the worst analogies

[Rage for Order]

40. Or the classic point of....

If you aren't in favor of guns (abortions), don't get (have) one!

[donheld]

46. Brilliant. Guns as rare as abortions that is true Pro-Life philosophy

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce: