NationStates Jolt Archive

The abortion debate is generally viewed as the “The Right to Life” versus the “The Right of a Woman to Control Her Body.” This seems a fair premise for a debate. What strikes me as unusual is that the pro-life lobby seems to surrender the most strategically vital ground at the beginning of the debate. They seem to grant every assumption, every thought of the pro-choice lobby; hopelessly clinging to “The Right to Life” as their only assumption, their only argument, their only defense.

This is a weak position to argue from. I shall know present an argument presented by Judith Thompson “A Defense of Abortion.”

Thompson begins from the assumption that the unborn in fact have a right to life. She uses the following metaphor. Lets say you are kidnapped and plugged into a unconscious violinist, who must be connected to you for NINE months in order for the violinist to live. Do you have a right to disconnect the violinist? What if he had to remain connected to you for nine years? The rest of your life? Ten minutes? Thompson concludes yes, you can unplug him but it would be jolly nice if you left him plugged in. She has just concluded that in this situation the right to choose obviously trumps the right to life (she claims the right to life, is a right not to be deprived without reason). I don’t find her conclusion thoroughly convincing, but let’s run with it.

Thompson does note that the person was kidnapped, and points out this is comparable to rape. She then goes to say that accidents happen, and again the woman had no choice. However, she does place obligation to protect the unborn on a woman who fails to take appropriate precautions, as she made a choice that would have consequences. This leaves the door wide open. Surely the most appropriate protection is abstinence. Any one partaking in sexual activities is running a risk, making a choice. This is the ultimate springboard to say the woman is obliged to see the fetus develop until the mother is no longer needed.

So far, lets say Thompson has justified abortion in the case of rape. The most obvious battlefield however is if there is a situation where the mother’s life is endangered. Thompson claims conservatives argue that leaving the mother to die is indirect killing as opposed to direct killing. Thompson gives the bizarre example that if in your house a baby appeared and started growing and growing, until it threatened to crush you to death, surely you have the “Right to Self Defense”. And hence surely you can ‘defend’ yourself by an abortion. What is unusual about this argument is that the right to self defense can be exercised against those that mean no harm. But let’s say Thompson wins this round.

Thompson, despite accepting a right to life, has given to firm cases for abortion, self defense and rape. However she has left a lot of abortions open to attack. This is why most pro-choice campaigners attack the right to life itself, pro-lifers sole bastion.

Arguments from Singer and Tooley follow the line that fetuses don’t have a right to life. However these are dangerous arguments, relying largely on the fact that fetuses aren’t aware of ‘tomorrow’ and hence have no right to be there; or have no concept of self. However many things, including young children don’t fit under these categories. What about the mentally disabled, druggies or people who have fallen asleep? Perhaps they do have a right to life, perhaps they don’t; I shaln’t debate that here, merely point out that such philosophers do open the flood gates in some respects. One must give credit where it is due however; Singer and Tooley don’t say that a woman bares a right to kill, or has any moral justification for doing so; simply that the fetus (as well as young children) don’t have a right to life. Thus only half an argument for an abortion is provided.

Now I do beckon conservatives, fight against abortion. To much ground has been surrendered to the enemy, allowing Singer, Tooley and Thompson to try and legitimize abortion. Abandon the defense of the right to life and attack the enemies. Hit them where it hurts; the right to choose what a woman does with her body.

I realize this is an extremely emotive topic, and we are speaking about attacking an extremely emotive ‘right’, but it is vital for the pro-choice arguments, especially when the enemy attacks the right to life. Don’t let sentimental ideas of being ‘anti-women’ get in your way.

The right to choose is a very weak argument. Surely if recognize such a right, then we recognize it in its absolute. However:
-Abortion legislation clearly limits a woman’s ‘right’ saying when she and can’t have an abortion and under what conditions
-Much abortion legislation leaves control of a woman’s body to her doctor’s not to herself
-A woman is not allowed to put certain drugs into her body
-A woman is not allowed to present her body in public unclothed
-In much of the world a woman can’t have sex in exchange for money
-There is no UN right to choose
-No coherent argument for a right to choose

Why aren’t pro-lifers hitting the abortion lobby where they are weakest rather than surrendering nearly every point to pro-choice and trying to make a last stand at the right to life, which Thompson turned against us and Tooley discredited? (Note: I am not claiming Thompson or Tooley are completely coherent, just that pro-lifers argue badly).

Also when pro-choices say the following they give empty arguments. These cannot justify a pro-choice position (unless you prove to be a complete hypocrite):
-Pro-lifers are Christian: What’s that got to do with the price of fish?
-Pro-lifers are Republican: A conservative making a conservative argument, AMAZING
-Pro-lifers are white: Actually a greater proportion of blacks are pro-life
-Pro-lifers don’t give to charity: Yes I do
-Pro-lifers are opposed to welfare: I want what’s best for society, but moral
-Pro-lifers are happy to watch the poor starve: No I’m not
-Lots more silly arguments: IGNORED

Where was I, oh yes, CHARGE.

Oh and I should probably try and claim there is a right to life. But I can’t be bothered, and plus it would be ‘defensive’ so I shall just refer to an argument:
Marquis, Donald. 1989. “Why Abortion is Immoral.” The Journal of Philosophy

Marquis claims that the Right to Life (via human potential) is inviolable in the overwhelming majority of cases (cases excluding rape and a risk to the mother; as in Thompson) and debatable in the rest. This means we are in fact debating in the wrong spot. We should be discussing abortion in terms of rape and mother’s life, all other cases being completely unacceptable.

Right to Life people are too defensive. Correct assumption. Though the only problem that many Pro Choice people is that they do not understand, nor play on the same battlefield as Right to Lifers. Those who do, typically, only rely on the rape or life threatening issues. The battlefield I'm talking about is morality and in particular religious morality. Right to Lifers believe their opinion is the moral choice and thus no other argument is needed. Any other argument to these people would be extraneous and interfere with their point. Either way, there will be no victory, regardless which way the courts lean, so I say who cares and let's make a critical thinking course out of it.

We need a quid pro quo: The GOP to be less defensive/zealous about abortion and the DEMs to do the same about gun control.

The problem with that analogy is that it's not your fault that he's connected to you. A better analogy would be if you kidnapped a violinist and connected him to you. In that case, no, you wouldn't have the right to disconnect him because it's your fault he has to be connected. If he dies, you are directly responsible.

We need a quid pro quo: The GOP to be less defensive/zealous about abortion and the DEMs to do the same about gun control.
I am pro-choice and anti-gun control, but I don't see the connection between the two issues.

Farmina: I rarely argue the issue of abortion on a defencive pro-life platform. I will bring other arguments into a descussion and even try to find some common ground with the other side. To put it simply, it doesn't work. Pro-choicers (and pro-lifers as well, though not as much so) don't want to give ANY ground at all. They want it their way 100%, and that's all there is to it. That is why I preaty much gave up on it; no one really wants an objective, rational solution. They want to argue their extremist views until the end of time. They feed off of it.

Actually, my strongest argument (since everyone seems to hate when you use morals) is that the Roe decission is illegal. There is no constitutional basis for the decission.

Honestly, I'd love to see the supreme court outlaw abortion, but even that isn't right. This is a matter for state legislatures. It should be overturned

I am pro-choice and anti-gun control, but I don't see the connection between the two issues.
You're for freedom (of women and their bodies) but against freedom (of people to carry guns).

You're for an institution that kills but you oppose people carrying dangerous guns.

It's all about the irony.

Actually, my strongest argument (since everyone seems to hate when you use morals) is that the Roe decission is illegal. There is no constitutional basis for the decission.

Funny you should say that.... :rolleyes:

B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed. 1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.


Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Ummm...why is the person a violinist?

The problem with that analogy is that it's not your fault that he's connected to you. A better analogy would be if you kidnapped a violinist and connected him to you. In that case, no, you wouldn't have the right to disconnect him because it's your fault he has to be connected. If he dies, you are directly responsible.That depends whether or not you were taking specific measures to ensure that he wouldn't connect to you in the first place. If you were, and they failed, then saying that you were responsible for his death would be a very tenuous argument. You were, after all, protecting yourself from him in the first place.

That depends whether or not you were taking specific measures to ensure that he wouldn't connect to you in the first place. If you were, and they failed, then saying that you were responsible for his death would be a very tenuous argument. You were, after all, protecting yourself from him in the first place.
But that, too, is an issue. Say you knew where the violinist liked to hang out, and, despite the fact that he may end up dependent on you, you go there anyways. You can say you tried to keep it from happening all you want, but you still went there in the first place. Again, the whole point is, you went to him, not the other way around.

Ummm...why is the person a violinist?
Because no one wants to be tied to a percussionist or a trumpet? :)

I'd also love to point out that this argument is one of the most fun I've ever had because of the rediculousness of the argument. I mean, they're all good analogies...it's just...a violinist...and abortion...it's all sort of...odd...

The problem with that analogy is that it's not your fault that he's connected to you. A better analogy would be if you kidnapped a violinist and connected him to you. In that case, no, you wouldn't have the right to disconnect him because it's your fault he has to be connected. If he dies, you are directly responsible.

Did you read the bit where it was stated that, since you were kidnapped, it was analogous to rape? Or do you just think rape is the victim's fault?

personally i don't like abortion, but i believe its nessesary for case like rape and if the mothers life is in danger. While i respect the right for women to choose what they do with thier bodies, with that choice comes responsiblity. one possible flaw with the violinist analogy is that the violinst was already "alive" where the embryo is not.

In short, with choice comes responisblilty. I think more efforts should be put into education of the responsibitily of these sexual choices

Do you have a right to disconnect the violinist? What if he had to remain connected to you for nine years? The rest of your life? Ten minutes? Thompson concludes yes, you can unplug him but it would be jolly nice if you left him plugged in. She has just concluded that in this situation the right to choose obviously trumps the right to life (she claims the right to life, is a right not to be deprived without reason). I don’t find her conclusion thoroughly convincing, but let’s run with it.

what possible reason could you offer to find it even slightly unconvincing? finding it unconvincing in the slightest implies that you find this idea - that people could kidnap you, knock you out, hook you up to some guy, and force you to remain hooked up to him - to be morally reasonable.
What is unusual about this argument is that the right to self defense can be exercised against those that mean no harm.

that isn't unusual in the slightest. the right to self defense does not in any way, shape, or form depend upon the intentions of the thing causing harm. it doesn't even need the thing causing harm to be capable of having intentions.

Thompson, despite accepting a right to life, has given to firm cases for abortion, self defense and rape. However she has left a lot of abortions open to attack.

it's been awhile since i read the entirety of her essay, but i seem to recall it differently. something along the lines of leaving open the possibility that there might be some cases where the right to life would trump the right to choose, but arguing rather nicely that pretty much all of the cases where abortion is practiced are typically morally permissible. otherwise we have to let violinists use our kidneys and we can't ever open windows without sharing in the blame of getting our houses burglarized (even if the windows also have bars on them, no less).

Ummm...why is the person a violinist?

because otherwise the society of music lovers wouldn't have decided to kidnap you to save him.

and because philosophers spend an inordinate amount of time trying to come up with clever examples and analogies.

Ummm...why is the person a violinist?
I didn't get that, either.

You're for freedom (of women and their bodies) but against freedom (of people to carry guns).

You're for an institution that kills but you oppose people carrying dangerous guns.

It's all about the irony.
You fool, did you even read my post? I said that I am pro-choice on abortion and pro-gun freedom.

You're for freedom (of women and their bodies) but against freedom (of people to carry guns).

You're for an institution that kills but you oppose people carrying dangerous guns.

It's all about the irony.
Wait...

Anti-gun control is against letting people have guns? What's next? Pro-choice being against letting people have abortions?

You fool, did you even read my post? I said that I am pro-choice on abortion and pro-gun freedom.
*finds post quite funny*

*finds post quite funny*
laugh now, die later!

But that, too, is an issue. Say you knew where the violinist liked to hang out, and, despite the fact that he may end up dependent on you, you go there anyways. You can say you tried to keep it from happening all you want, but you still went there in the first place. Again, the whole point is, you went to him, not the other way around.True, but the same place he hangs out may be a place in which you like to hang out. Indeed, it's somewhere the vast majority of the adult population go. Why should you not go there knowing that the violinist is present, providing you have taken all reasonable measures to ensure that he cannot access you when you are in the said place? He may be able to get to you if you are especially unlucky, but it is not terribly likely. Similarly, we go out on the streets every day - in many cases, with useful but not foolproof precautionary measures - knowing we could get knifed, raped, held hostage or bombed (nowhere was the latter more true than here!), but we go out anyway in the interests of our personal freedom.

I'd also love to point out that this argument is one of the most fun I've ever had because of the rediculousness of the argument. I mean, they're all good analogies...it's just...a violinist...and abortion...it's all sort of...odd...On this we agree :D

I am pro-choice and anti-gun control, but I don't see the connection between the two issues. :)

The connection is obvious. You are consistent! I know of no anti-abortionists who are in favour of gun control, who are opposed to the death penalty, and who are in favour of the social cost of raising children, i. e. increasing taxes for day care centers, schools, playgrounds, etc.

I notice how many men seem opposed to abortion. The answer is clear to me. Abortion is a medical procedure whose purpose is to get rid of an unwanted tumorous growth that may or may not develop into a healthy child. Make no mistake - a fetus is an alien growth within the body of a woman, a paracite that feeds on the woman making her often very sick (morning sickness), using the calcium of the woman to make its bones, etc. To the men who object to abortion, I would say that they should tell their physician. Under no circumstances should a man be compelled to have an abortion.

Regarding the so-called 'right to life', such a thing does not exist. If it did, there would be no genocide in Rwanda, Dafur, etc. Murder would not be possible. And state sponsored 'executions' would be a thing of the past.

That having been said, my wife and I have two children and love them dearly. But this scenario: a teenage girl deeply in love, 'goes all the way' with her lover, only to discover that he has other options and leaves her to be a single parent, condemned to 'social disgrace' in some countries, poverty and ignorance in some others. For her, a abortion is a hard lesson, but far preferable than a life of drugery with a child she will never be able to provide for.

*snip*You are a person on my wavelength, my friend :)

You're for freedom (of women and their bodies) but against freedom (of people to carry guns).

You're for an institution that kills but you oppose people carrying dangerous guns.

It's all about the irony.

Er... being anti-gun control means he's against people taking away his right to bear arms, just as being pro-choice means he's against people taking away the right for abortions...

:)

The connection is obvious. You are consistent! I know of no anti-abortionists who are in favour of gun control, who are opposed to the death penalty

Two out of three...I am anti-abortion, in favor of gun ownership and against the death pentalty, and guess what... I have friends.

I notice how many men seem opposed to abortion. The answer is clear to me. Abortion is a medical procedure whose purpose is to get rid of an unwanted tumorous growth that may or may not develop into a healthy child. Make no mistake - a fetus is an alien growth within the body of a woman, a paracite that feeds on the woman making her often very sick (morning sickness), using the calcium of the woman to make its bones, etc. To the men who object to abortion, I would say that they should tell their physician. Under no circumstances should a man be compelled to have an abortion.
I hope you're being facetious. That is so unhuman and wrong, that I can't even summon words to describe how appalled I am with it. I hope your children never know that you once considered them a parasite. You should be ashamed.

Regarding the so-called 'right to life', such a thing does not exist. If it did, there would be no genocide in Rwanda, Dafur, etc. Murder would not be possible. And state sponsored 'executions' would be a thing of the past.
Genocides are typcially committed by people who have no reguard for life, and consider it parasitic or expendable. Furthermore, just because these things happen does not mean we should create more death, but rather rectify those above mentioned travesties.

That having been said, my wife and I have two children and love them dearly. But this scenario: a teenage girl deeply in love, 'goes all the way' with her lover, only to discover that he has other options and leaves her to be a single parent, condemned to 'social disgrace' in some countries, poverty and ignorance in some others. For her, a abortion is a hard lesson, but far preferable than a life of drugery with a child she will never be able to provide for.
There are more options. Shouldn't we be teaching our children better habits, not figuring out ways to solved their "problems". And killing a CHILD, I don't care how you may consider it, but to me it is an unborn BABY, does not constitute a problem solved.

SHAME ON YOU.

The way I see the abortion debate, the debate is either, "a woman's right to choose" versus "abortion is murder." The abortion debate will never get resolved the way it's going because the two sides see the issue completely differently.

I've been branded as a liberal more times recently than I can remember, but I wouldn't be troubled if abortion were limited to cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is endangered. I also wouldn't be troubled if so-called late term abortions were outlawed (beginning when doctors determine that a fetus has a better than 50 percent chance of surviving outside the womb). I would rather see adoption considered as an option over abortion.

I recognise that the decision is very painful; it's arguably the most painful decision a woman can make if she's pregnant. But that doesn't mitigate my discomfort with the technique in the slightest.

I hope you're being facetious. That is so unhuman and wrong, that I can't even summon words to describe how appalled I am with it. I hope your children never know that you once considered them a parasite. You should be ashamed.Whether he was being facetious or not, I for one agree with what he said. I am not in the least ashamed. You may consider it a child; I consider it a parasite. You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. Since concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are such subjective issues, neither of us will be able to definitively show the other what the truth of the matter is, so perhaps we should simply accept each other's divergent opinions and not resort to telling each other how we should and shouldn't feel.

Of course, we shouldn't give up debating abortion/gay marriage/Left v Right/whatever altogether - that would be no fun :)

I've been branded as a liberal more times recently than I can remember...Yeah, some people have got it into their heads that I'm a liberal as well because I support the use of abortions. I could only be described as liberal in the classical liberal sense. I support abortion and gay rights, certainly, but on many other things, I am anything but liberal. I believe in corporal and capital punishment, economic freedom etc etc etc - certainly not 'liberal' in today's common useage of the word. I decide on my own views, and political ideologies be damned! :p

Whether he was being facetious or not, I for one agree with what he said. I am not in the least ashamed. You may consider it a child; I consider it a parasite. You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. So concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are such subjective issues, neither of us will be able to definitively show the other what the truth of the matter is, so perhaps we should simply accept each other's divergent opinions and not resort to telling each other how we should and shouldn't feel.

Of course, we shouldn't give up debating abortion/gay marriage/Left v Right/whatever altogether - that would be no fun :)

Right and wrong are not concepts, they are intrinsic. I'm fine with accepting you feel that way, but that will not sway me from being critical of a mentality that I KNOW to be wrong.

Right and wrong are not concepts, they are intrinsic. I'm fine with accepting you feel that way, but that will not sway me from being critical of a mentality that I KNOW to be wrong.And you are quite entitled to be critical of it, but I can argue that I know it NOT to be wrong. However, I would not assume to be so arrogant (not that I am accusing you of such; I would just feel uncomfortable about making such a statement myself, since I as an individual am such an insignificant part of this universe. How do I KNOW anything? How can I objectively PROVE anything? I will cut out the philosophical musings there - they just happen to form the backdrop to all my thinking).

I see where you are coming from about 'right' and 'wrong' being instrinsic, but such a belief does not account for the fact that some cultures consider x to be abhorrent, while others consider it perfectly acceptable, indeed, normal. Both 'sides' honestly believe their position to be the correct one, thus demonstrating that beliefs about what is or isn't right are - or, at the very least, can be - subjective.

Anyway, night night folks. Have fun.

Did you read the bit where it was stated that, since you were kidnapped, it was analogous to rape? Or do you just think rape is the victim's fault?
Yes...that would be...my point. In the original analogy, the woman is the only victim, and the "violinist" is made to be the rapist. Some violinist came and stuck himself to you. However, there are two victims. The violinist is as much a victim as you.

I also chose to point at the larger picture. Rape abortions are only 2% of abortions done in the US, and probably not much higher, if it is higher, in other countries. That means only 2% of these people got kidnapped and tied to a violinist. The rest went and tied their own selfs to him. Stop using rape as an excuse for abortion. I'm all for allowing rape abortions. Personally, I dislike all abortion, but between millions of abortions a year or a few thousand a year, I'm willing to compromise and get it down to the few thousand.

Pro-choice use rape as an excuse to allow the whole deal. Well, she got raped, it's not her fault...Then it goes into, well, the condom broke. Yeah, she shouldn't have been doing it, but at least she tried to stop the pregnancy, right? Then we get into, well, she was too caught up in the moment to worry about condoms, people make mistakes, yeah, it's her fault, but it's not really her fault. Well, she thought she wanted a baby, but she changed her mind, we can let people change their minds, right?

You don't believe the whole slippery slope thing, but that's how it works.
How does one boil a frog?

what possible reason could you offer to find it even slightly unconvincing? finding it unconvincing in the slightest implies that you find this idea - that people could kidnap you, knock you out, hook you up to some guy, and force you to remain hooked up to him - to be morally reasonable.

that isn't unusual in the slightest. the right to self defense does not in any way, shape, or form depend upon the intentions of the thing causing harm. it doesn't even need the thing causing harm to be capable of having intentions.

it's been awhile since i read the entirety of her essay, but i seem to recall it differently. something along the lines of leaving open the possibility that there might be some cases where the right to life would trump the right to choose, but arguing rather nicely that pretty much all of the cases where abortion is practiced are typically morally permissible. otherwise we have to let violinists use our kidneys and we can't ever open windows without sharing in the blame of getting our houses burglarized (even if the windows also have bars on them, no less).

I think you mispresent what I said. I find her conclusion that a person has the absolute right to unplug the violinist unconvincing, not wrong. It has nothing to do with the morality of kidnap or rape.

Again with the self defence arguement, I found it unusual, not wrong. This is perhaps her most powerful arguement.

What I said, was past these two situations, Thompson's arguements are incredibly faulty, because she says that women do bare a responsibility to the right to life when they make the choice to be unsafe (ie not use protection). I argued that the ultimate safety is not to have sex; the only absolute way to prevent pregnancy or disease. Thus her own arguement leaves abortions outside her two strong arguements very open to attack.

You fool, did you even read my post? I said that I am pro-choice on abortion and pro-gun freedom.
Hey, so I read it a bit fast. Give me a break here, not all of us are perfect readers, eh?

Now that just makes you a violent, violent person. ;)
(kidding, of course)

Er... being anti-gun control means he's against people taking away his right to bear arms, just as being pro-choice means he's against people taking away the right for abortions...
OK, I GET IT! I didn't read his post carefully enough! Jeese, do we all have to comment!? :headbang:

Ummm...why is the person a violinist?

Because Thompson was smoking something strong when writing the article.

She uses a lot of very unusual examples.

Whether he was being facetious or not, I for one agree with what he said. I am not in the least ashamed. You may consider it a child; I consider it a parasite. You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. Since concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are such subjective issues, neither of us will be able to definitively show the other what the truth of the matter is, so perhaps we should simply accept each other's divergent opinions and not resort to telling each other how we should and shouldn't feel.
The problem is, you think you're right, he thinks he's right, and the things you think are right are mutually exclusive. You can't both be right. And the nature of society is that one view must submit to the other, or one must leave. Neither group of people is going to leave, so one view must eventually win or we'll be fighting about it for eternity.

It all comes down to when an independent life begins.

Zygotes are themselves living organic entities, so no, life does not begin at conception; life was already present, and there's nothing miraculous at all about the combination process. Furthermore, that fertilized cell is plainly not capable of independent existence; it is nothing more at that stage than potential with a high possibility of failure (most technical miscarriages happen without the mother being even aware of the event, with an egg failing to implant in the uterus or failing to develop).

On the other extreme, independent life is clearly present about nine months out. So somewhere in there, independent life happened. There are several modes of reasonable thought about when this point might be.

Medical: As soon as the fetus is able to be born and survive (with as much medical intervention as humanly possible), it can be considered independently alive; one could argue that a mother could, at this point, declare that she is giving the child up for adoption and demand that it be removed from her body. While some extraordinarily early births can be survived with modern medicine, it is not generally feasible until sometime in the third trimester. At this point, the fetus has developed pretty much all of its physical structure and is fairly widely agreed to be beyond the 'potential' stage. Beyond this point, only threat to the mother makes for a compelling reason for a doctor to recommend or perform an abortion, and even most pro-choice groups willingly concede that by this point the fetus should receive legal protections.

Religious/Ethical: As soon as the fetus has a soul. Since there is no commonly accepted definition of a soul, let alone a commonly accepted point at which it is implanted, nor any viewpoint on the position at all which does not impose religious viewpoints on law, this is moot. However, under the concept that free will and the soul are inextricably linked, I postulate that free will cannot exist until the cerebral cortex has developed to a certain minimum point where neural activity is present - which can be detected as alpha waves. Before this point, there is no free will and therefore no soul. This usually occurs somewhere between weeks 20 and 25 (though disputed claims exist of having detected them earlier, usually debunked in the peer-review process as detecting electrical activity, not an actual neural net). So by this definition, the soul (free will) is present around the end of the second trimester. I can accept this definition from an ethical perspective; something capable of sentient cognition is generally advanced enough for me to accept as an independent human. Something that does not have the capacity for rational thought (insert joke about your least-favorite political party here) is simply not a human - yet.

Legal: Whatever the law says. Obviously a very mushy topic subject to change. Opinions may vary depending on the law in question.

Crappy T-shirts: Life Begins At Fifty! Popular with the graybeard crowd.

Yes...that would be...my point. In the original analogy, the woman is the only victim, and the "violinist" is made to be the rapist. Some violinist came and stuck himself to you. However, there are two victims. The violinist is as much a victim as you.

I also chose to point at the larger picture. Rape abortions are only 2% of abortions done in the US, and probably not much higher, if it is higher, in other countries. That means only 2% of these people got kidnapped and tied to a violinist. The rest went and tied their own selfs to him. Stop using rape as an excuse for abortion. I'm all for allowing rape abortions. Personally, I dislike all abortion, but between millions of abortions a year or a few thousand a year, I'm willing to compromise and get it down to the few thousand.

Pro-choice use rape as an excuse to allow the whole deal. Well, she got raped, it's not her fault...Then it goes into, well, the condom broke. Yeah, she shouldn't have been doing it, but at least she tried to stop the pregnancy, right? Then we get into, well, she was too caught up in the moment to worry about condoms, people make mistakes, yeah, it's her fault, but it's not really her fault. Well, she thought she wanted a baby, but she changed her mind, we can let people change their minds, right?

You don't believe the whole slippery slope thing, but that's how it works.
How does one boil a frog?
And partial birth abortions are NEVER done electively. Almost all of them are medically required. And yet, we see that the government oh so kindly banned them without an exception for medical requirements. Guess they like having dead people...

And partial birth abortions are NEVER done electively. Almost all of them are medically required. And yet, we see that the government oh so kindly banned them without an exception for medical requirements. Guess they like having dead people...
Do you know what they do for partial birth!? They stick a vaccuum in its skull and suck out its brains while it's still alive! What possible medical reason can you have for that!? For goodness sake, induce labor and put the baby in an incubator! After seven months it can survive without the mother, you can still keep the baby alive! What possible reason could you have to kill the baby that late in the pregnancy!? What possible reason could you have to kill the baby that late in the pregnancy after its already been half-way birthed!?

Do you know what they do for partial birth!? They stick a vaccuum in its skull and suck out its brains while it's still alive! What possible medical reason can you have for that!? For goodness sake, induce labor and put the baby in an incubator! After seven months it can survive without the mother, you can still keep the baby alive! What possible reason could you have to kill the baby that late in the pregnancy!? What possible reason could you have to kill the baby that late in the pregnancy after its already been half-way birthed!?
Because the mother would die. Are you really that thick? Doctors don't get some perverse joy from doing that, no more then anyone else. They do it because they have to. It's incredibly dangerous to do anyway, no doctor would do it unless they have too.

Do you know what they do for partial birth!? They stick a vaccuum in its skull and suck out its brains while it's still alive! What possible medical reason can you have for that!? For goodness sake, induce labor and put the baby in an incubator! After seven months it can survive without the mother, you can still keep the baby alive! What possible reason could you have to kill the baby that late in the pregnancy!? What possible reason could you have to kill the baby that late in the pregnancy after its already been half-way birthed!?

Someone already brought up "Pro-choice people are being unfair! They keep talking about rape victims, when only 2% of abortions are for rapes!"
Therefore, I feel quite free to bring this statistic up in return:
Only 0.17% of all abortions are performed using the Dilation & Extraction technique, generally done when no other technique can be safely done for the mother (for example, a hemophiliac who could not safely have the child removed by more normal means). There is no medical procedure called 'partial-birth abortion' except by deliberate spin-artists and ignorant fools. And yet anti-choice advocates always bring up this vanishingly-rare procedure as their bogeyman.

Children should be brought into the world out of love; I see a good upbringing as being something deserved more than a life just because someone told your unprepared mother to have the baby. Realistically, abortions aren't something that destroy society's views on life (OMG THE DEATH CULTURE) and allow slutty women to do whatever they want (although hell, you have no right to tell them how to live anyway...), and they are really hard personal decisions even when they're legal. Our adoption system is overcrowded and underfunded right now anyway, if the pro-lifers wanted to really help society, they'd see to it that more children got good homes, rather than just pushing for more children period. If they want to prevent people from having abortions, they should set up a system that presents alternatives that are good for the child and mother, but they should never take away the option based on their own beliefs.

Pro-lifers present an impractical solution based entirely on their moral values; its still impractical though and is a bad policy decision. Pro-choicers really only exist because they realize pro-lifers are trying to do something that just wouldn't work out too well.

Pro-lifers should stop campaigning against abortions and focus their attention on adoption reform and improving family quality. This might basically make them the same as pro-choicers, but hey, why waste a powerful political influence?

snip

Well put.

The problem is, you think you're right, he thinks he's right, and the things you think are right are mutually exclusive. You can't both be right. And the nature of society is that one view must submit to the other, or one must leave. Neither group of people is going to leave, so one view must eventually win or we'll be fighting about it for eternity.Well, yes, that was kind of the point I was trying to make to him. Although I do think that there's always some people who will fight about it for eternity, but I would like to hope that - rather than either side eventually winning as such - most people would be willing to accept that others have different views on this, and many other, matters. But maybe for once I'm being an idealist.

It all comes down to when an independent life begins.

Does it? I think this a highly debatable claim. Why does it all come down to when independent life begins. Many would suggest that purely having a set combination of DNA combined with potential for full "personhood" would give you an inviolable right to life.

Someone already brought up "Pro-choice people are being unfair! They keep talking about rape victims, when only 2% of abortions are for rapes!"
Therefore, I feel quite free to bring this statistic up in return:
Only 0.17% of all abortions are performed using the Dilation & Extraction technique...

With regard to both statistics; the number of something makes it neither wrong or right. Very few rapes or a very large number of rapes does not change the fact that rape is a horrid thing.

Children should be brought into the world out of love; I see a good upbringing as being something deserved more than a life just because someone told your unprepared mother to have the baby. Realistically, abortions aren't something that destroy society's views on life (OMG THE DEATH CULTURE) and allow slutty women to do whatever they want (although hell, you have no right to tell them how to live anyway...), and they are really hard personal decisions even when they're legal. Our adoption system is overcrowded and underfunded right now anyway, if the pro-lifers wanted to really help society, they'd see to it that more children got good homes, rather than just pushing for more children period. If they want to prevent people from having abortions, they should set up a system that presents alternatives that are good for the child and mother, but they should never take away the option based on their own beliefs.

Pro-lifers present an impractical solution based entirely on their moral values; its still impractical though and is a bad policy decision. Pro-choicers really only exist because they realize pro-lifers are trying to do something that just wouldn't work out too well.

Pro-lifers should stop campaigning against abortions and focus their attention on adoption reform and improving family quality. This might basically make them the same as pro-choicers, but hey, why waste a powerful political influence?

This arguement strikes me as highly flawed. To begin with it entirely skips the moral issues relating to abortion. Not a good start to a convincing arguement. It ends by suggesting that pro-lifers don't push for adoption reform and improving family quality; which I find very insulting.

Since "Pro-lifers present an impractical solution based entirely on their moral values" which this arguement makes no attempt to counter, then abortion must be the practical, but highly immoral solution. There even seems to be some presumption of "Ends justify the means," which leaves the question of where do you draw the line.

But the issue of practicallity is an interesting one. As far as I'm aware there are plenty of people wanting to adopt, who at the moment can't. Adopted children generally have perfectly good lives (if any one wants to point out the generally; note that wanted children also GENERALLY have good lives). A lecturer I know made this quiet clear the other day (although black kids aren't very popular). This may be because I live in a different country, but my understanding is that the adoption techniques of most Western countries are similar.


Later I plan to tear up the worst pro-abortion arguement on this thread. Stay tuned for more conservative arguements.

Someone has already taken to this poor argument for abortion. But I would like to attack it again. Tearing apart weak arguments is always a great pleasure. An art that should be studied, savoured and applied repeatedly.

The connection is obvious. You are consistent! I know of no anti-abortionists who are in favour of gun control, who are opposed to the death penalty, and who are in favour of the social cost of raising children, i. e. increasing taxes for day care centers, schools, playgrounds, etc.
Just some generalisations about pro-lifers; and then failing to make any argument from these generalisations. For example I am pro-life, pro gun control and anti-death penalty. But lets say that someone makes a perfect argument against abortion, despite being pro-death penalty. This DOES NOT imply that their abortion position is wrong, even if it contradicts their position on the death penalty. It could very well be the death penalty position that is wrong.

I notice how many men seem opposed to abortion. The answer is clear to me. Abortion is a medical procedure whose purpose is to get rid of an unwanted tumorous growth that may or may not develop into a healthy child. Make no mistake - a fetus is an alien growth within the body of a woman, a paracite that feeds on the woman making her often very sick (morning sickness), using the calcium of the woman to make its bones, etc. To the men who object to abortion, I would say that they should tell their physician. Under no circumstances should a man be compelled to have an abortion.
The observation that many men are opposed to abortion is neither a valid argument, or of statistical relevance; as pro-life draws from the ranks of men and women nearly equally. However it does add to the punch line of a mildly humorous conclusion. The bulk of the argument in this passage is that the foetus is a foreign object, and a dependent one. No attempt to reject that this “unwanted tumorous growth” has a right to life.

Regarding the so-called 'right to life', such a thing does not exist. If it did, there would be no genocide in Rwanda, Dafur, etc. Murder would not be possible. And state sponsored 'executions' would be a thing of the past.
Finally we’re getting somewhere. However, one reaching an argument of any significance it is highly flawed. The Aldersburg-Niddaigle claims that there is no right to life, on the grounds that right has been violated. This argument seems highly illogical and directly implies, that women don’t have a right not to be raped. Women would strongly object to this. There is no substantiation for the claim that a right that can be violated immorally is in fact not a right. This also rather defeats all “right to choice” arguments. I think a certain lobby is going to be very angry. Surely there is a difference between not having a right and a right being violated; and the Aldersburg-Niddaigle makes no attempt to dismiss this long held difference. Even if there is no right to life; surely it is still wrong to kill, or would the Aldersburg-Niddaigle deny this fact? All in all; a huge gaping hole in the argument.

That having been said, my wife and I have two children and love them dearly. But this scenario: a teenage girl deeply in love, 'goes all the way' with her lover, only to discover that he has other options and leaves her to be a single parent, condemned to 'social disgrace' in some countries, poverty and ignorance in some others. For her, a abortion is a hard lesson, but far preferable than a life of drugery with a child she will never be able to provide for.
This seems like one is saying an unjustified (and perhaps unjustifiable) means, justifies the ends. This especially worrying when you consider that there other alternatives, like adoption. This paragraph also seem to imply single mothers all have horrible lives, and the love of their children, and the child’s existence, is tradable for some fiscal value, which is attached to a superior life. I don’t think any single mother would ever abandon their child no matter how tough the going can get from time to time.

The argument fails to provide a convincing absence of the right to life. It fails to make a convincing right to choose, unless convenience should be a sole source of a right to choose, which again is improperly argued (however, the right to choose is often assumed due the defensive nature of conservative arguments). Upon failing to secure or remove either of these rights, a argument based entirely on highly debatable ends is made; making no attempt to justify the means. In conclusion, huge gaping holes, especially relating to the right to life, strike this argument is as invalid.

EDIT: Also this is a dangerous arguement. It rejects the right to life, indiscriminately. Justifications to kill are fear of social disgrace and poverty. The indiscriminate discussion of the right to life in the arguement, means these arguements can also be used indiscrimately to kill

Lets bring back the violinist, who is now concious. Can we kill him painlessly because he will cause us to be social disgraces or live in poverty (he must be a very bad violinist)? If we can't, then why can we do so for a foetus? The arguement is quite clear; NO PEOPLE have a right to life.

Am I the only one who finds this arguement mildly disturbing?

COLLARY: This is useless as an arguement, but over 1/2 of teenagers who have abortions are pregnant again within the year; generally due to deep seated guilt.

Anti-abortion voters are religious right. They are not necessarily conservative. I'm a REAL conservative. (Original intent, small government, pro-gun and other outlined civil rights, and politicall isolationist etc.)

it is not as complicated as you have made it.
it is a matter of murder. it has just been reworded. And advocated murder *shudders* is just blasphemous

Well, yes, that was kind of the point I was trying to make to him. Although I do think that there's always some people who will fight about it for eternity, but I would like to hope that - rather than either side eventually winning as such - most people would be willing to accept that others have different views on this, and many other, matters. But maybe for once I'm being an idealist.
Hmm...

Would you be content to accept that other people have different views if abortion was outlawed?

I accept that we have different views. I just think my view is better :D .

Which is, of course, what my point was. We all think our ideas are better. So you either have to submit to others and not try to change anything, or try to change stuff and make other people submit to you. That's how society works. What you're proposing is a eutopia where everyone can live however they want without negative consequences.

Anti-abortion voters are religious right. They are not necessarily conservative. I'm a REAL conservative. (Original intent, small government, pro-gun and other outlined civil rights, and politicall isolationist etc.)

I fit all of those qualities and I'm agains the dealth penalty, as well as anti-abortion. Don't write people off as being a different conservative, just we embrace christian values. You'll find me very far to the right, but I will always side with my religious values first, because God comes first, then family, then country.

Hmm...

Would you be content to accept that other people have different views if abortion was outlawed?Simply put, yes. I would be happy for pro-lifers to have pro-life beliefs in any circumstances (the same principle applies to non-abortion topics as well, by the way). Just because I am happy for people to hold differing viewpoints does not mean that I have to be happy with legal realities; they are separate issues in my mind.

We all think our ideas are better. So you either have to submit to others and not try to change anything, or try to change stuff and make other people submit to you. That's how society works. What you're proposing is a eutopia where everyone can live however they want without negative consequences.Granted, although to be fair, I did say I was being idealistic! (Not like me - I am normally a wry, cynical pessimist and proud :D). Are you saying, though that a person is either a leader or a follower, and that there are no in-betweens? I'm not sure I'd hold to that.

To use myself as an example, I'm no leader; I do sod all to change people's beliefs or the norms and values of society (partly, though not entirely, because I don't think I have any right to do so).

On the other hand, though, I am subservient to no one. I decide on my own views and behaviour, and society and its norms be damned. That does not mean I am trying to change it; I'm simply living my life as me; other people can do what they want. I'm not leading, but I'm not following either. Obviously, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd be willing to bet I'm not the only one in this position.

I'd also love to point out that this argument is one of the most fun I've ever had because of the rediculousness of the argument. I mean, they're all good analogies...it's just...a violinist...and abortion...it's all sort of...odd...

I've got to say violinist was a real missed opportunity. The analogy should have been to have a pianist attached. Everybody knows pianists are way funnier than violinists.

To begin with, I'm pro-life & pro-choice, which I suppose means I'm pro-choice with a huge bias toward one choice. Here's why:

If abortion is made illegal, it doesn't go away. Choices will remain, only the scope of those choices will change. Abortion will only be illegal for those who are poor, or otherwise lack resources & mobility.

A wealthy pianist in New York City who becomes pregnant will be able to choose to carry the fetus to term or buy a plane ticket and fly to some country where she can get a safe legal abortion performed by a professional doctor.

An impoverished high school girl who is learning to play the violin in Colorado will be able to choose to carry the fetus to term or seek an abortion from a criminal.

The net result of outlawing abortion will be poor young girls who are emotionally traumatized & very vulnerable seeking services from lowly criminals (analogous to today's drug pushers).

Hey, so I read it a bit fast. Give me a break here, not all of us are perfect readers, eh?

Let me guess. You are American and think that everyone has to be Democrat or Republican. Which means that if I support abortion rights, I must support gun control. :rolleyes:

The problem is, you think you're right, he thinks he's right, and the things you think are right are mutually exclusive. You can't both be right. And the nature of society is that one view must submit to the other, or one must leave.
Actually, the nature of society is compromise.

Actually, the nature of society is compromise.LOL, you summed it up so much better in one sentence than I did in three paragraphs!

Actually, the nature of society is compromise.

I disagree, I believe the nature of soceity is to protect and govern the masses. Compromise is something people within society do to make decisions on how to govern and protect itself.

I disagree, I believe the nature of soceity is to protect and govern the masses. Compromise is something people within society do to make decisions on how to govern and protect itself.In order to protect and govern the masses, governments have to make decisions based on the greater good in the majority of cases, yes - but it's all a balancing act between how best to serve a majority without causing problems for minorities. As such, compromise is very often the best - if not the only - means of resolution, therefore meaning it is a very important factor in the nature of societal interaction.

You guys talk about holes in arguements (nevermind the slippery slope things you do with the 'where to stop' thing) and seem to think we need to operate on some type of universal standard 'law of life' that applies to every problem. Violinists are violinists, murderers on death row are murderers on death row, and a fetus is a fetus. It is quite possible to deal with these problems seperately based on what would be the best practical result to a society without bringing in some high-handed moral code to follow. As it so happens, allowing abortions is apparantly better than illegalizing them as it causes fewer real (as opposed to percieved moral) problems than illegalizing it. Show me some substance behind taking away abortions.

I fit all of those qualities and I'm agains the dealth penalty, as well as anti-abortion. Don't write people off as being a different conservative, just we embrace christian values. You'll find me very far to the right, but I will always side with my religious values first, because God comes first, then family, then country.

Exactly. Your RELIGIOUS right. Real conservatives really don't want government interference with health issues. Such regulations are the relm of the state governments to regulate.

I'm a man who is more concerned with the pathetic way our government deals with orphans, than with some woman who is making decisions who isn't MY woman.

Untill I'm the father, it genuinely isn't my place to have real criticism. For me, I'm a loyal American patriot.

My family comes first and the founding principles of my Constitutional Republic comes first. You can't be that.

Anti-abortion voters are religious right. They are not necessarily conservative. I'm a REAL conservative. (Original intent, small government, pro-gun and other outlined civil rights, and politicall isolationist etc.)
No, actually, that makes you a liberal.

No, actually, that makes you a liberal.

Uh, no. I am talking about original classification of conservative/liberal before the hijack of the Republican party. However, you might also be mistaking what I said for CLASSICAL liberalism.

Conservative = Pro-gun, small or anti-government, partial-isolationist/non-interventionalist (global trade is fine however), less social hand outs, pro-civil rights, state rights protected, low to no taxes, strict Constitutional interpretation or original intent.
a.k.a Conserving Constitutional principles.

Liberal = pro-government, social hand outs, higher taxes, flexible Constitutional interpretation/activism, global interventionalist, gun grabber, ignoring original intent, less state rights/more federal government control over local legislation issues.

Unfortunately, due to the treacherous neo-cons (Carl Rove, Coulter, Limbagh, Delay, and etc) the Republican party AND conservativism has been warped by propaganda. In fact, I have to call myself a paleo-conservative at times to help people realize its the old classification of conservativism that I am.

I do NOT care about the abortion debate. I am a man. I don't have a wife or girlfriend who is expecting, NOR do I care about what some woman does in her first two trimesters. Hell I barely care untill it is actually born. I do not care about gay rights. I see gay rights and abortion as STATE ISSUES. There is nothing about those two that can NOT be solved at local state levels. There is no need to drag the Constitution into it.

Uh, no. I am talking about original classification of conservative/liberal before the hijack of the Republican party. However, you might also be mistaking what I said for CLASSICAL liberalism.

Conservative = Pro-gun, small or anti-government, partial-isolationist/non-interventionalist (global trade is fine however), less social hand outs, pro-civil rights, state rights protected, low to no taxes, strict Constitutional interpretation or original intent.
a.k.a Conserving Constitutional principles.

Liberal = pro-government, social hand outs, higher taxes, flexible Constitutional interpretation/activism, global interventionalist, gun grabber, ignoring original intent, less state rights/more federal government control over local legislation issues.

Unfortunately, due to the treacherous neo-cons (Carl Rove, Coulter, Limbagh, Delay, and etc) the Republican party AND conservativism has been warped by propaganda. In fact, I have to call myself a paleo-conservative at times to help people realize its the old classification of conservativism that I am.

I do NOT care about the abortion debate. I am a man. I don't have a wife or girlfriend who is expecting, NOR do I care about what some woman does in her first two trimesters. Hell I barely care untill it is actually born. I do not care about gay rights. I see gay rights and abortion as STATE ISSUES. There is nothing about those two that can NOT be solved at local state levels. There is no need to drag the Constitution into it.
I'm calling you a classical liberal. Easy.


Classical liberals are pro-rights, anti-government intervetion and pro-free market.

I'm calling you a classical liberal. Easy.


Classical liberals are pro-rights, anti-government intervetion and pro-free market.

Classical liberalism was the belief of the government having a social contract with its citizens. When a government can not provide for its citizens' basic welfare and protection, classical liberalism was the belief that the citizens have a basic right to change or abolish the government and institute a new government.

The belief also prodominately believed men had basic "natural rights" that no government has a legitimate claim to infringe upon.

Edit:

One more thing. Conservativism is the attempt to continue the practices of the republic as it outlined by the Constitution/Founding fathers/federalist papers/etc. While liberals have a less restrictive view of the Constitution.

Hence the names.

Classical liberalism was the belief of the government having a social contract with its citizens. When a government can not provide for its citizens' basic welfare and protection, classical liberalism was the belief that the citizens have a basic right to change or abolish the government and institute a new government.

The belief also prodominately believed men had basic "natural rights" that no government has a legitimate claim to infringe upon.
I believe we stopped arguing over a page ago. Please remember that this board doesn't always consist of people trying to get an advantage over one another in a debate.

I believe we stopped arguing over a page ago. Please remember that this board doesn't always consist of people trying to get an advantage over one another in a debate.

Its not an "advantage". You had your information wrong. A simple "oh" would have sufficed.

Its not an "advantage". You had your information wrong. A simple "oh" would have sufficed.
My information is wrong? I called you a classical liberal. I fail to see how my 'information' was wrong.

My information is wrong? I called you a classical liberal. I fail to see how my 'information' was wrong.

It just wasn't accurate. Classical liberalism was a movement back with John Locke and Voltaire that gained a huge movement with our founding fathers who thought the ideas of government having a social contract with the people and free market was practical.

Once we founded our Constitution and had it guarantee our civil liberties the Classical liberalism movement became every American's way of life. Most American citizens except the few that hate this country and want to leave because they are against our Constitution or form of republic are technically "classical liberals".

What I however am saying that from the political spectrum in our "classical liberal" republic, is that I am a CONSERVATIVE in regards to the Constitutional interpretation.

Understand?

It just wasn't accurate. Classical liberalism was a movement back with John Locke and Voltaire that gained a huge movement with our founding fathers who thought the ideas of government having a social contract with the people and free market was practical.

Once we founded our Constitution and had it garuate our civil liberties the Classical liberalism movement became every American's way of life. Most American citizens except the few that hate this country and want to leave because they are against our Constitution or form of republic are technically "classical liberals".

What I however am saying that from the political spectrum in our "classical liberal" republic, is that I am a CONSERVATIVE in regards to the Constitutional interpretation.

Understand?
I wasn't referring "in regards to constitutional interpretation". I was referring to your political views as a whole. Understand?

The abortian argument is mainly about what the fetus is rather than the woman's right. Pro-choicers argue that it technicly is not a person and not alive. Pro-lifers argue that the fetus is alive and a person. Federal law does not allow killing another person in most cases. The only reasonable reasons are:
self-defence
war-to a certain extent
federal and state executions

Emergency abortians have been legal before Roe v. Wade. All that legal battle did was legalize most, if not all forms of abortian. Before RW(Roe v. Wade), your life had to depend on the abortian in order to get it. After RW, you could be perfectly fine after giving birth and still be able to get an abortian. I am against the RW ruling, except in cases of rape/incest. If the woman knew that she was having unprotected sex and she consented, then only early abortians and the pill for you. Remember, if the woman does not agree to sex, then sex with her is rape, even if she doesn't say no.

I wasn't referring "in regards to constitutional interpretation". I was referring to your political views as a whole. Understand?

Dude, stop arguing. Your not saving face. Just making yourself look like your getting a history lesson from me. Seriously "oh" would have been far more effective.

Dude, stop arguing. Your not saving face. Just making yourself look like your getting a history lesson from me. Seriously "oh" would have been far more effective.
You're the one who has been quibbling over what was a compliment...

You're the one who has been quibbling over what was a compliment...

oy..

MOST AMERICANS ARE CLASSICAL LIBERALS. EVEN THOSE IDIOTS WHO SCREW UP ON JAY LENO'S HISTORY TESTS. CLASSICAL LIBERALISM IS INGRAINED IN OUR REPUBLIC'S GUIDELINES.

bolded for emphisis.

oy..

MOST AMERICANS ARE CLASSICAL LIBERALS. EVEN THOSE IDIOTS WHO SCREW UP ON JAY LENO'S HISTORY TESTS. CLASSICAL LIBERALISM IS INGRAINED IN OUR REPUBLIC'S GUIDELINES.

bolded for emphisis.
Actually, if we're going to be playing like that, the most democrats are not (anti-free trade), as are many of the protectionist republicans, neither are the republicans who support a restriction of the rights in the Constitution, nor are the liberals who support more rights then are granted in the Constitution (or vice versa, because the conservatives are attempting to abridge inalienable rights).


All terms are modern definitions, of course.



Now, however, we are off topic.

Most American citizens except the few that hate this country and want to leave because they are against our Constitution or form of republic are technically "classical liberals".

no they aren't. a good portion of them are theocrats, and another good portion are social democrats. and then you have the straight up fascists...

Yay, off topic! *exits faster than a ninja*

You guys talk about holes in arguements (nevermind the slippery slope things you do with the 'where to stop' thing) and seem to think we need to operate on some type of universal standard 'law of life' that applies to every problem. Violinists are violinists, murderers on death row are murderers on death row, and a fetus is a fetus. It is quite possible to deal with these problems seperately based on what would be the best practical result to a society without bringing in some high-handed moral code to follow. As it so happens, allowing abortions is apparantly better than illegalizing them as it causes fewer real (as opposed to percieved moral) problems than illegalizing it. Show me some substance behind taking away abortions.

Again you just jump over any arguements that abortion could be wrong. Ignoring the fact that killing could be wrong seems like a bad premise for an arguement. Then you go on to take a utilitarian approach of the greatest good for the greatest number; which seems to imply no rights or absolutes other than the greatest good.

Generalisation about number of problems are caused by each alternative is then stuck in to make the link between the greater good and abortion.

I'm afraid your arguement, to use your own terminology, is very slippery. If one thing (abortion) can be used for the greater good, then why can't something extreme be used. (I generally hate slippery slope arguements, but I hate it more when people don't draw a clear line).

Now I suggest there are absolute rights and wrongs. It is the only way to understand society; although I admit there are also blurs. To kill is wrong. To torture for the sake of torture is wrong. To accept utilitarianism is to say there is only one right; that which is right for the greater good. Utilitarian Peter Singer says there is nothing wrong with killing young children, just the same as applies with foetuses. This I can't accept; as we are individuals with rights; but also limits and subject to doing wrong, and being wronged.

Surely if an infant or unborn has a right to life; then it is wrong to kill it. A conservative arguement is to assume the right to life. Making an arguement for the right to life is a boring, drawn out process. I don't have time to make such an arguement at the moment. Perhaps I will post one later, or perhaps someone else will make an arguement for it. My prefered arguement is at the end of my first post.

I've got to say violinist was a real missed opportunity. The analogy should have been to have a pianist attached. Everybody knows pianists are way funnier than violinists.

To begin with, I'm pro-life & pro-choice, which I suppose means I'm pro-choice with a huge bias toward one choice. Here's why:

If abortion is made illegal, it doesn't go away. Choices will remain, only the scope of those choices will change. Abortion will only be illegal for those who are poor, or otherwise lack resources & mobility.

A wealthy pianist in New York City who becomes pregnant will be able to choose to carry the fetus to term or buy a plane ticket and fly to some country where she can get a safe legal abortion performed by a professional doctor.

An impoverished high school girl who is learning to play the violin in Colorado will be able to choose to carry the fetus to term or seek an abortion from a criminal.

The net result of outlawing abortion will be poor young girls who are emotionally traumatized & very vulnerable seeking services from lowly criminals (analogous to today's drug pushers).
Interesting points; but people in these debates rarely call for abortion to to be outlawed; although it is a direct consquence of their arguements.

My interest is in getting conservatives more capable of arguing abortion is wrong; more capable of thinking in a critical, non-religious fashion; and convincing the wider community that abortion is wrong. Social change is more important than legal change.