NationStates Jolt Archive

...when they are sensible on foreign policy? If I may quote...

Oh boy...the sickening reality of abortion hitting home again...

Why do they let emotions cloud their judgement on the abortion "issue", while on matters of war they accept that some people who may not deserve it are going to get killed, but they die not in vain but so that something greater can be achieved.

On the other hand, why do liberals get so emotional over war while they think about abortion more rationally? You could easily swap "abortion" with "war" in the above quote and you'd get a standard anti-war liberals' quote.

Why the double standard?

For the record, I support both abortion rights and war in some cases (such as the Iraq war, to be topical).

because to conservatives, partially formed fetuses are more valuable than fully formed humans.

Nice tar brush.

I'm a conservative, and I believe in a woman's right to an abortion on demand.

And I don't get weepy about it, either.

Abortion is not a genuine political issue; meaning, of course, that the individual woman's decision whether to carry a child to term has no impact on the population at large (other than perhaps disagreeing with her decision.)

The question of abortion is being used as a "gateway drug" by BOTH liberal and conserative organizations, folx. If you get a person wriled up enough over a pointless issue like abortion, you can get them to either agree with you or, more importantly, DISAGREE with your opponent (whose view differs from that of your wriled-up constituent) on genuinely important issues. Get the people animated and they will pretty much vote the way you anticipate.

Like on the war in Iraq, for instance (to be topical.) The only reason the conserative agenda holds court today is due to Karl Rove's effective use of gay-marriage to get the "red staters" to the polls.

I don't mean to stray off-topic, however. Conseratives get weepy over abortion quite simply because the party intends them to. This is equally true of the liberal policy makers.

Well pretty much in war your fighting for freedom,existense or to improve your life.(Personal reason's not necessarily what the country is really fighting for, but if you were to ask the average person thats what they would tell you.)

When an abortion is preformed whats it in the name of? Killing the baby? Killing innocence?

Also in America anyways we are gauranteed to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Hapiness, in that order. (In war the people we fight are not American and therefore aren't guaranteed those rights)

Also in America anyways we are gauranteed to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Hapiness, in that order. (In war the people we fight are not American and therefore aren't guaranteed those rights)

WHAT????

...when they are sensible on foreign policy? If I may quote...



Why do they let emotions cloud their judgement on the abortion "issue", while on matters of war they accept that some people who may not deserve it are going to get killed, but they die not in vain but so that something greater can be achieved.

On the other hand, why do liberals get so emotional over war while they think about abortion more rationally? You could easily swap "abortion" with "war" in the above quote and you'd get a standard anti-war liberals' quote.

Why the double standard?

For the record, I support both abortion rights and war in some cases (such as the Iraq war, to be topical).
There isn't a double standard, these are two different issues. One is about the right to life, the other is about women's rights.

I think that me, a libertarian, has ultimately decided that the abortion issue is bullshit. Officially I'm pro-choice, but I don't believe in that "women's right" bullshit and I support it only in like first trimester (I don't count embryos as humans and thus support stem cell research as well), but overall I don't just give a shit.

I too am a conservative and do not come even close to getting weepy over it. As far as I am concerned if liberals want to abort their children more power to them. It sure beats collective farms and starvation.

The reason is that the political right in the U.S. (i.e. the republican party) is heavily influenced by the morality police. Moreso than in any other western nation, the religious right has power.

Well pretty much in war your fighting for freedom,existense or to improve your life.(Personal reason's not necessarily what the country is really fighting for, but if you were to ask the average person thats what they would tell you.)

When an abortion is preformed whats it in the name of? Killing the baby? Killing innocence?
So the motives for abortion are insufficiently grand? Insufficiently collectivist?

I imagine that in most cases of abortion, the woman is taking action to preserve her way of life, to improve her life, etc.

Also, if you subscribe to my way of thinking, abortions keep the number of welfare mothers down to a tolerable level, and also help to keep crime rates down.

As far as I am concerned if liberals want to abort their children more power to them. It sure beats collective farms and starvation.
Pro-choice as I am, this would not happen if abortion became illegal.

Nice tar brush.

I'm a conservative, and I believe in a woman's right to an abortion on demand.

And I don't get weepy about it, either.
From your posts, I can safely tell you that you're not a very conservative guy. You're more of a libertarian, but sensible.

I don't mean to stray off-topic, however. Conseratives get weepy over abortion quite simply because the party intends them to. This is equally true of the liberal policy makers.
The reason is that the political right in the U.S. (i.e. the republican party) is heavily influenced by the morality police. Moreso than in any other western nation, the religious right has power.
The problem with both of your explanations is that the assumption is made that nobody who supports the Iraq war but opposes abortion actually thinks for themselves. I have a little more faith in humanity than that.

Misguided sense of morality.

No she's acting to kill the child. What did the child do wrong? Does she have the right to say that it isn't good enough to live? Does she have the right to say that it might inconvinience her for a few hours (Adoption is an option). And if you argue that you don't want the child to have to live an "awful" life, since when does she have the right to judge the living standard that the child might or might not have? That sounds like Hitlers Nazi Germany, or Stalins Soviet Union.

Abortion on demand bad. Now certain circumstances like lets say the mother knows if she has the child she will die and the child will live, ehh its her call, and if she knows 100% both she and the child will die again her call.

Adoption, is the only choice (Besides those extreme situations I mentioned) that I see is morally exceptable.

calling it Naziesque is just plain stupid. calling it an irrefutable right that should never be questioned is stupid. embryos don't count, fetuses are subjective - so when it boils down, who really gives a shit about abortion? All I care about is stem cell research.

The reason is that the political right in the U.S. (i.e. the republican party) is heavily influenced by the morality police. Moreso than in any other western nation, the religious right has power.

It is true that right and wrong do enter into the sphere of relevance for most conservatives on a greater degree than that of the left, however, the religious influence is greatly exaggerated and much more of a failed attempt on the part of socialist and marxist factions of the democratic party to demonize any individual judgement concerning right and wrong.

I have a theory that pro-lifers are simply people who have never been on a trans-continental flight with a seat next to a crying baby. I could be wrong, but twelve hours of witnessing the horrid spectacle of excessive shitting, eating, and crying that is a newborn baby, is the greatest selling point the pro-choice movement has to offer. Think of having to deal with this phenomenon for years instead of hours, and you have pretty much summed up the life of your typical single mom who should have had the little bastard scrambled and sucked out.

I too am a conservative and do not come even close to getting weepy over it. As far as I am concerned if liberals want to abort their children more power to them. It sure beats collective farms and starvation.
There's a positive benefit to society when liberals abort their young. There are fewer and fewer children brought up in liberal households. This will lead to a more conservative nation. There are already enough people thinking this way for the condition to have a name. Appropriately, it's called the Roe-Effect (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780).

There's a positive benefit to society when liberals abort their young. There are fewer and fewer children brought up in liberal households. This will lead to a more conservative nation. There are already enough people thinking this way for the condition to have a name. Appropriately, it's called the Roe-Effect (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780).
Wow that's actually a pretty convincing argument they have there. Still I question the assumption that most children take after their parents politically. The article also ignores the sizeable group of people who are apolitical.

marxist factions of the democratic party to demonize any individual judgement concerning right and wrong.
I think something came out of my nose when I sniggered there. There is no Marxism in mainstream US politics.

There's a positive benefit to society when liberals abort their young. There are fewer and fewer children brought up in liberal households. This will lead to a more conservative nation. There are already enough people thinking this way for the condition to have a name. Appropriately, it's called the Roe-Effect (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780).

Aww man, now you did it. You let the cat out of the bag. Crap, I thought I was the only one here that subscribed to the WSJ!

It is true that right and wrong do enter into the sphere of relevance for most conservatives on a greater degree than that of the left
I disagree, for leftists make just as many judgements on what is right and wrong as conservatives do. They just don't make a habit of hijacking the word "morality" to suit their own ends. Instead leftists often consciously or subconsciously pass their moral judgements off as being beyond mere subjective morality, which you must admit is quite clever of us. :)

On that note, let me say that the next person who accuses the left of lacking in morals gets a virtual trout-smack in the face. Or a fluffle. Whichever suits my agenda more at the time.

Wow that's actually a pretty convincing argument they have there. Still I question the assumption that most children take after their parents politically. The article also ignores the sizeable group of people who are apolitical.


I think something came out of my nose when I sniggered there. There is no Marxism in mainstream US politics.
You actually need to go to the Guttmacher study to see the correlation. It's kind of a far-fetched, but entertaining idea.

Aww man, now you did it. You let the cat out of the bag. Crap, I thought I was the only one here that subscribed to the WSJ!
I can't start the day without it.

Wow that's actually a pretty convincing argument they have there. Still I question the assumption that most children take after their parents politically. The article also ignores the sizeable group of people who are apolitical.


I think something came out of my nose when I sniggered there. There is no Marxism in mainstream US politics.

What do you call politicians that used to work for CPUSA then? Would Leninist be more accurate for you or are we just in complete denial and admitting nothing?

Also in America anyways we are gauranteed to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Hapiness, in that order. (In war the people we fight are not American and therefore aren't guaranteed those rights)

Eh, Americans die in wars too. You know, suicide bombers tend to take other people down with them, and they have every right to be pissed. We went into Iraq based on false facts (which Bush has admitted to), kidnapped their leader, and are currently occupying their country :headbang:

Anyways, back on topic, if you really think about it, babies are parasites until they are born, plus the world is overpopulated. Babies also have the brain capacity of a small spider until after 12 weeks (the legal limit). Have you ever killed a spider? I have. If you still don't like it, using a condom, using spermicide, or the morning after pill "destroys" a potential life, so you're killing it before it's even born. Also, nagging people who are in lower class families until they join the army and risk their lives for something they don't even believe in isn't necessarily moral. I'm not in any political party, but that's just what I believe in

What do you call politicians that used to work for CPUSA then? Would Leninist be more accurate for you or are we just in complete denial and admitting nothing?

Assuming they worked for the CPUSA because they were aligned ideologically with it, they are Marxist-Leninists or former Marxist-Leninists.

That said, anyone who seriously thinks any mainstream portion of the Democratic Party advocates "socialism" either does not know what socialism is or is not at all familiar with the Democratic Party's political platform.

(In war the people we fight are not American and therefore aren't guaranteed those rights)
oh yeah, stupid sub-human foreigners :rolleyes: why do they want rights

There's a positive benefit to society when liberals abort their young. There are fewer and fewer children brought up in liberal households. This will lead to a more conservative nation. There are already enough people thinking this way for the condition to have a name. Appropriately, it's called the Roe-Effect (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780).

Cute. Of course, it isn't only liberals that get abortions.

One-half of all women in the US will have an abortion during their lifetime.

There's a positive benefit to society when liberals abort their young. There are fewer and fewer children brought up in liberal households. This will lead to a more conservative nation. There are already enough people thinking this way for the condition to have a name. Appropriately, it's called the Roe-Effect (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780).

You sir, are an advert for involuntary suicide.

Also in America anyways we are gauranteed to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Hapiness, in that order. (In war the people we fight are not American and therefore aren't guaranteed those rights)

Ironically, you are paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence. (The Constitution says nothing about a guarantee to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)

The Declaration reads in relevant part (emphasis added):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ...

So, the very document you cite disagrees with your argument.

...when they are sensible on foreign policy? If I may quote...



Why do they let emotions cloud their judgement on the abortion "issue", while on matters of war they accept that some people who may not deserve it are going to get killed, but they die not in vain but so that something greater can be achieved.

On the other hand, why do liberals get so emotional over war while they think about abortion more rationally? You could easily swap "abortion" with "war" in the above quote and you'd get a standard anti-war liberals' quote.

Why the double standard?

For the record, I support both abortion rights and war in some cases (such as the Iraq war, to be topical).

The answer of course is a simple one. In war, we intervine for the purpose of change, to better the lives of others and hopefully ourselves as well. Reguardless of what "agendas" people claim push our furvor into war, the reality is if we acheive the victory we seek (through the sacrifice of our own citizens) lives of millions will be bettered.

On the other hand abortions soul purpose is to end the life of one for the convience of another. 95% of all abortions are abortions of convience (in that they are not performed due to physical risks to the mother). War can easily have a moral justification, weather you seek to defend yourself or a neighbor... while abortion in almost every case (say the physical endangerment of the mother) has no moral justifcation. Seems pretty resonable this is a good cause to become emotional over.

What the liberals argument is however, is much more confounding. For them, the ends justify the means when it comes to abortion.. but no so when it comes to war.

there are many different groups of conservatives, and by lumping all together that is a bit of injustice. Not all conservatives are against abortion and not all conservatives are for war(at least the Iraqi war)

Cute. Of course, it isn't only liberals that get abortions.

One-half of all women in the US will have an abortion during their lifetime.


*snicker*

The half of them that are liberals right?... :p :D



*Doesn't have any stats, but is guessing a disproportionate representation of liberals that do get abortions AND then less total children overall in lifetime live births*

*Doesn't have any stats, but is guessing a disproportionate representation of liberals that do get abortions AND then less total children overall in lifetime live births*
*Suggests that it is of no importance and that you should be glad that you don't have to deal with that sort of decision and can just sit on the sidelines and criticise*

*snicker*

The half of them that are liberals right?... :p :D



*Doesn't have any stats, but is guessing a disproportionate representation of liberals that do get abortions AND then less total children overall in lifetime live births*

About 60% of women that have an abortion already have had a child.

But keep "guessing"

*Suggests that it is of no importance and that you should be glad that you don't have to deal with that sort of decision and can just sit on the sidelines and criticise*

No one has to deal with that sort of decision, ever. They 'choose' to deal with that sort of decision when they consider killing their offspring as an option in the first place. No one forces them to consider it an option.

well I read it more like women living in what is characterized as a liberal state are more likely to have an abortion. although the coorelation coefficent is only .45 something, so it doesn't really say with much certainity.

About 60% of women that have an abortion already have had a child.

But keep "guessing"

So, how many are liberals? That doesn't tell us how many children they have nor how many they will have...

I'm guessing that liberals have more abortions and less lifetime children. Are you guessing otherwise? ;)

No one has to deal with that sort of decision, ever. They 'choose' to deal with that sort of decision when they consider killing their offspring as an option in the first place. No one forces them to consider it an option.
A stack of building materials is not a house, a cluster of cells is not an offspring.

...they accept that some people who may not deserve it are going to get killed, but they die not in vain but so that something greater can be achieved.

but that's exactly it. what "greater" thing can be achieved by slaughtering a fetus?

Elgesh']A stack of building materials is not a house, a cluster of cells is not an offspring.

.....so your not an offspring of something considering that you are also a cluster of cells...

.....so your not an offspring of something considering that you are also a cluster of cells...
I believe I have certain acquired and developed qualities that elevate me over what I was like at a couple months old.

Does she have the right to say that it isn't good enough to live?

Yes, actually, she does. Morally and Legally.

Assuming they worked for the CPUSA because they were aligned ideologically with it, they are Marxist-Leninists or former Marxist-Leninists.

That said, anyone who seriously thinks any mainstream portion of the Democratic Party advocates "socialism" either does not know what socialism is or is not at all familiar with the Democratic Party's political platform.

Actually I was a democrat for 25 years but became disillusioned with the party because it became clear that their platform consisted entirely of gaining control by damaging the country in every way possible. I have a problem with a party that is based entirely on a negative message and I cannot remember a current democrat having a positive thing to say on any subject.

Elgesh']I believe I have certain acquired and developed qualities that elevate me over what I was like at a couple months old.

if a human is only a human based on level of development.. why is a 1 year old more human then a fetus when compared with an adult.. really speaking in mental capacity a 1 year old is closer to the fetus then an adult.. yet we consider the 1 year old more human then the fetus.

And if you speak in terms of genetics.. a fetus is infact a human as it contains all the genetic material needed to develop into one with the DNA structure of a human.

The half of them that are liberals right?... :p :D


Well, yeah ... if we didn't kill them pre-emptively, the conservatives would eat them. Won't somebody please think of the children!

Abort a fetus, starve a Neocon. :D

Yes, actually, she does. Morally and Legally.

see but that's the issue. Right now, leaglity is a moot point. but morality is a lot more questionable

well when did you get these "aquired" and "developed" qualities. All im saying is without the bricks the house isnt a house, so when buying the bricks you are starting a house so essentially it is in theory a house. To just use a metaphor.

morallity is always questionable

if a human is only a human based on level of development.. why is a 1 year old more human then a fetus when compared with an adult.. really speaking in mental capacity a 1 year old is closer to the fetus then an adult.. yet we consider the 1 year old more human then the fetus.

And if you speak in terms of genetics.. a fetus is infact a human as it contains all the genetic material needed to develop into one with the DNA structure of a human.

In terms of mental development a one year old is, cognitively, millions of years of evolutionary development ahead of the fetus in its earlier stages. It's a similar story in somatic development :) The law, morality, and common sense should take this into account.

In terms of genetics, a sperm and egg are _half-human_ - you want funerals for tampons and tissues ? :p Well... they're only _half_ human, I guess... still, you could have the funeral, but not stay for the ham rolls etc.!

Ironically, you are paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence. (The Constitution says nothing about a guarantee to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)

The Declaration reads in relevant part (emphasis added):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ...

So, the very document you cite disagrees with your argument.

And when the astronauts landed on the moon, they claimed it to be "one giant leap for mankind". In your analysis, only men were responsible for this effort, or so claimed the American astronauts.

Honestly, it's crap like this that causes political correctness insanity. I can assure you that Thomas Jefferson did not have the oppression of women in mind when he wrote his document, rather he used a very appropriate and general term for humanity. Arg, I hate PC crap.

Oh, and a Merry Christmas to you. ;)

The Constitution lacks such terms as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" because it is a legal document, not a philosophical declaration of the American ideal as the Declaration was (at least the opening portion). Just think of all the trouble we would be in if keen political minds like Madison had instead framed it in the nature of the Declaration. Sure, it might be lovely language, but it would be unsuitable for government.

Anyways, I agree mostly with the poster's sentiments. A guarantee to life, liberty, and property (from which would result a guarantee to the pursuit of happiness) stands as the foremost ideal of American government, and one that is actually often attacked in this nation, to say nothing of the surrounding world. By forsaking this summary of Lockean philosophy in the actions of our government, we are betraying the very ideals upon which this nation was founded and built. So, my opinions are that abortion should be the moral choice of each woman - not to say that it is right or wrong either way (that moral judgment lies with the people), but that government should not be making that choice.

well you're saying that the egg and sperm are only half human, which I agree with but when they meet are they wholely human are only 2/3 of the way there. You can't really say(at least I can't) that once you are out of the womb or which ever anatomy term to use, that you are suddenly alive when the processes that make you alive were started before and were initiated by the sperm and egg meeting.

well when did you get these "aquired" and "developed" qualities. All im saying is without the bricks the house isnt a house, so when buying the bricks you are starting a house so essentially it is in theory a house. To just use a metaphor.

You could also use the bricks to lob through someone's window and nick their TV :D No, I get what you're saying, but I still disagree with the 'it will be like this in the future, so let's treat it like that now' - doesn't seem to make sense to me...?

But moving away from metaphor, there are developmental milestones which act as proxy variables, indicators of what's going on in the developing embryo. Size, weights, proportions of brain and body, loss of tail etc etc. are some of the more obvious ones in utero, and of course it gets much clearer the older you get (even more so after birth).

You can use these milestones as a guide to what you're dealing with/looking at, from a dispassionate point of view - a human, or a big ball of cells.

I imagine that in most cases of abortion, the woman is taking action to preserve her way of life, to improve her life, etc.



Almost half of the women undergoing an abortion - - 46% - - have already had at least one previous abortion,' a percentage which has tripled since 1974. In 1983, 39% of abortion patients reported having 1, 2, 3, or more abortions; in 1974 the percentage was 15. (Facts in Brief, Alan Guttmacher Institute, September 1995.)

Also, more "people" have died by abortion since it has been legal, then people have died by all the American wars put together. From the viewpoint of someone who see's abortion as murder, that is a far greater issue then losing a couple 1,000 in Iraq (expecially when they support the cause of the war)

And when the astronauts landed on the moon, they claimed it to be "one giant leap for mankind". In your analysis, only men were responsible for this effort, or so claimed the American astronauts.

Honestly, it's crap like this that causes political correctness insanity. I can assure you that Thomas Jefferson did not have the oppression of women in mind when he wrote his document, rather he used a very appropriate and general term for humanity. Arg, I hate PC crap.

Oh, and a Merry Christmas to you. ;)

The Constitution lacks such terms as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" because it is a legal document, not a philosophical declaration of the American ideal as the Declaration was (at least the opening portion). Just think of all the trouble we would be in if keen political minds like Madison had instead framed it in the nature of the Declaration. Sure, it might be lovely language, but it would be unsuitable for government.

Anyways, I agree mostly with the poster's sentiments. A guarantee to life, liberty, and property (from which would result a guarantee to the pursuit of happiness) stands as the foremost ideal of American government, and one that is actually often attacked in this nation, to say nothing of the surrounding world. By forsaking this summary of Lockean philosophy in the actions of our government, we are betraying the very ideals upon which this nation was founded and built. So, my opinions are that abortion should be the moral choice of each woman - not to say that it is right or wrong either way (that moral judgment lies with the people), but that government should not be making that choice.


...And to a point I agree, but where I trip is the gurantee to life. At what point does life begin and does that mean that it is guarenteed? I honestly in all absolutes believe that moral authority orginates not with government but the people in context to nature's God. It's a trippy issue and usually I don't say anything an discusion such as this.

see but that's the issue. Right now, leaglity is a moot point. but morality is a lot more questionable

Incidental. Neither you, nor I, have the right to impose our morals on anyone but our children (until they're adults). Morality is best left in churches and closets.

Oh my, it looks like a nonviolent agreement to disagree...we are centuries ahead of politicans

Oh my, it looks like a nonviolent agreement to disagree...we are centuries ahead of politicans

Oh .... crap .... ummmm ....

*chases Bourgyina with dog doo on a stick*

And when the astronauts landed on the moon, they claimed it to be "one giant leap for mankind". In your analysis, only men were responsible for this effort, or so claimed the American astronauts.

Honestly, it's crap like this that causes political correctness insanity. I can assure you that Thomas Jefferson did not have the oppression of women in mind when he wrote his document, rather he used a very appropriate and general term for humanity. Arg, I hate PC crap.

Oh, and a Merry Christmas to you. ;)

The Constitution lacks such terms as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" because it is a legal document, not a philosophical declaration of the American ideal as the Declaration was (at least the opening portion). Just think of all the trouble we would be in if keen political minds like Madison had instead framed it in the nature of the Declaration. Sure, it might be lovely language, but it would be unsuitable for government.

Anyways, I agree mostly with the poster's sentiments. A guarantee to life, liberty, and property (from which would result a guarantee to the pursuit of happiness) stands as the foremost ideal of American government, and one that is actually often attacked in this nation, to say nothing of the surrounding world. By forsaking this summary of Lockean philosophy in the actions of our government, we are betraying the very ideals upon which this nation was founded and built. So, my opinions are that abortion should be the moral choice of each woman - not to say that it is right or wrong either way (that moral judgment lies with the people), but that government should not be making that choice.

Um. :confused:

You completely misunderstood my point. I was not saying women don't have rights or any of the other things you accuse me of saying.

Just as you say Jefferson intended, I quoted the DofI as a generic reference to all mankind. I was pointing out that everyone --as opposed to just Americans -- has unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And I fully support a woman's moral and legal right to choice.

Sheesh.

yes but also he said that it is a responbility for those with the ability to secure those rights for thoseselves. If you can't stand up for your rights then what good someone else getting them for you.

well you're saying that the egg and sperm are only half human, which I agree with but when they meet are they wholely human are only 2/3 of the way there. You can't really say(at least I can't) that once you are out of the womb or which ever anatomy term to use, that you are suddenly alive when the processes that make you alive were started before and were initiated by the sperm and egg meeting.

Well, I'm not saying that either :)

I'm saying that raw materials need work done on them before they're the finished article, yes? They need to be developed.

Before this development reaches point x, I don't think it's reasonable to claim you're dealing with a human person.

Of course, the question is, where is that point? Harder to answer. Clearly 'at the moment of normal (9-month) birth' isn't right; it's a person before then. The milestones I talked about in an earlier post seem to indicate it's somewhere between the end of the 1st and the end of the 2nd trimester that you can start describing that little ball of cells as a real person :) (That'll vary on lots of factors, of course, but _roughly_ then).

After you look att it like that, it's up to lawmakers in conjunction with medical researchers to come up with a reasonable, realistic and practical cut-off point for the abortion option. The exact nicities of implementation are open to debate and correction, but the principle's sound.

...when they are sensible on foreign policy? If I may quote...



Why do they let emotions cloud their judgement on the abortion "issue", while on matters of war they accept that some people who may not deserve it are going to get killed, but they die not in vain but so that something greater can be achieved.

On the other hand, why do liberals get so emotional over war while they think about abortion more rationally? You could easily swap "abortion" with "war" in the above quote and you'd get a standard anti-war liberals' quote.

Why the double standard?

For the record, I support both abortion rights and war in some cases (such as the Iraq war, to be topical).


You just had to get them started didn't you? There was a nice long pause in the abortion debates and you had to go and ruin it!! I hate having no opinion in the debate of the decade!! :mad:

No she's acting to kill the child. What did the child do wrong? Does she have the right to say that it isn't good enough to live? Does she have the right to say that it might inconvinience her for a few hours (Adoption is an option). And if you argue that you don't want the child to have to live an "awful" life, since when does she have the right to judge the living standard that the child might or might not have? That sounds like Hitlers Nazi Germany, or Stalins Soviet Union.

Abortion on demand bad. Now certain circumstances like lets say the mother knows if she has the child she will die and the child will live, ehh its her call, and if she knows 100% both she and the child will die again her call.

Adoption, is the only choice (Besides those extreme situations I mentioned) that I see is morally exceptable.
And does the government have the right to tell a woman that her body is no longer her own for the next nine months? Did it occure to you that the pregnancy and the birth are what women wish to avoid? And do you realize what kind of psycological and emotional backlash come of giving a child away once a person has gone through pregnancy and birth?

That's what kills me. No one ever takes into account the nine months that a woman spends supporting another organism. What right does the government have to sentence a woman to those conditions when she doesn't want them?

And it's "Acceptable" not "exceptable"

every point of view is argueable you have just as much a point as I do. I dont think there will ever be a really decent attempt to find a middle ground. It is a Pandora's Box, once opened well its chaotic

Also in America anyways we are gauranteed to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Hapiness, in that order. (In war the people we fight are not American and therefore aren't guaranteed those rights)
Ah, that old chestnut.

I've lost family members to disease, accidents, and age. Where is their 'right' to life?

I'm restricted from driving over the speed limit, stealing from my neighbors, and getting on an airplane with a gun. Where's my 'right' to liberty?

I'll never be truly happy until I don't have to pay taxes anymore. Where's my 'right' to happiness? Oh yeah, that's only a 'Persuit'. Well, looks like my government can't cut off my right to pursue it, but they can surely prevent me from reaching it.


As for the rest of your comment about non-Americans, we'll just consider that to be an uninformed and ludicrous response, and move on.

every point of view is argueable you have just as much a point as I do. I dont think there will ever be a really decent attempt to find a middle ground. It is a Pandora's Box, once opened well its chaotic

I think it's been open a while - in evolutionary terms, any species that can regulate its population to fit with available resources is going to have an adaptive advantage.

Right enough though, as long as there are different worldviews among people, there'll be arguments where a 'middle ground' is almost unreachable. Nice talking to you, though! :D Hope to do so again :)

Elgesh']In terms of mental development a one year old is, cognitively, millions of years of evolutionary development ahead of the fetus in its earlier stages. It's a similar story in somatic development :) The law, morality, and common sense should take this into account.

In terms of genetics, a sperm and egg are _half-human_ - you want funerals for tampons and tissues ? :p Well... they're only _half_ human, I guess... still, you could have the funeral, but not stay for the ham rolls etc.!

While milllions of years ahead of a fetus in terms of mental development, its millions more behind the mental development of a fully developed adult.. I suspect even more so then it exceeds that of a fetus. Mental complexity, emotional control, the simple knowledge of ones self existance.

And when speaking in terms of gentics, while its true a sperm and an egg are half humans... they are not infact whole humans are they? My point was to indicate fetus's are genetically speaking in fact humans, and so the argument would stand by terminiating a fetus you may in fact be killing a human if your using genetics to determine what a human is.

Ah, that old chestnut.

I've lost family members to disease, accidents, and age. Where is their 'right' to life?

I'm restricted from driving over the speed limit, stealing from my neighbors, and getting on an airplane with a gun. Where's my 'right' to liberty?

I'll never be truly happy until I don't have to pay taxes anymore. Where's my 'right' to happiness? Oh yeah, that's only a 'Persuit'. Well, looks like my government can't cut off my right to pursue it, but they can surely prevent me from reaching it.


As for the rest of your comment about non-Americans, we'll just consider that to be an uninformed and ludicrous response, and move on.

--Well those ideas have been lost over the years, and the prevailing opinion seems to be not the that government protects those rights, but gives them to you. And a government that can give you those rights can also take them away. Rights are not of the government but of the people, and trust that our government protects them. But taking those ideas you have the rights to pursue your happiness as long as that pursuit doesn't hinder the rights of others, so no you can't steal from your neighbors. Disease accidents and age all matters of life, no government no matter how large and emcompassing can ever prevent those things from happening. Tis the laws of nature and nature's God. And my comment about non Americans holds true of Americans as well. Uniformed you may think it is, but a right is unchangable but can only be held if one is dearly pressed to protect it. We all have lost someone in our lives, and we all have to move on.

Elgesh']A stack of building materials is not a house, a cluster of cells is not an offspring.

Wouldn't the building materials be the sperm and egg? And arnt we all just big clusters of cells at the end of the day?

Wouldn't the building materials be the sperm and egg? And arnt we all just big clusters of cells at the end of the day?

Nope, at the end of the day for the most part we are either dust in the wind, food for fungus or pickled like Lenin! ;)

While milllions of years ahead of a fetus in terms of mental development, its millions more behind the mental development of a fully developed adult.. I suspect even more so then it exceeds that of a fetus. Mental complexity, emotional control, the simple knowledge of ones self existance.

And when speaking in terms of gentics, while its true a sperm and an egg are half humans... they are not infact whole humans are they? My point was to indicate fetus's are genetically speaking in fact humans, and so the argument would stand by terminiating a fetus you may in fact be killing a human if your using genetics to determine what a human is.

I think we're using different definitions of 'fetus' :) I can only assure (re-assure?) you that up to the age of 3-6 months depending on what criteria you're using, the fetus bares no resemblance in sophistication in how it thinks feels and acts compared to an older fetus/neonate :) On the other hand, your one year old has an attachment style, different levels of attachment to different caregivers, personality/temperament, concepts of life/not-life, increasingly sophisticated perception, and the beginnings of a modularised mind.

I'm sorry about the genetics bit, obviously not int place for jokes just yet! I don't solely, strictly rely genetics to determine what a huuman is because I don't think it's very useful in the context of abortion for the reasons I've posted earlier: raw materials are not the finished product, but require development - it's that development that we should be concerned about in determining if that ball of cells is a person.

Although, if you believe humans have souls, _and_ that these souls are present, fully formed (i.e. not requiring development!) at conception, I can see you've got a problem; but that's really a whole 'nother topic, unless you're saying that conservatives are weepy about abortion because they alll follow a religious bent :)

Wouldn't the building materials be the sperm and egg? And arnt we all just big clusters of cells at the end of the day?

I was really speaking all but literally - to start off with, a fetus really _is_ a big ball of cells! Undeveloped and undiffereentiated, no concept of itself or others, of emotion or intellect, language or culture, specialisation or socialisation, altruism or immorality, no stories or questions - all the things philosophers and psychologists have posited that make us human (and many of which have been found [though sometimes through proxy variables, indirect indicators] in forms in neonates, newly born children minutes old).

So no, we aren't all clusters of cells at the end of the day! We're people. And merely possessing the genetic characteristics of person-hood doesn't make you a person.:)

Actually I was a democrat for 25 years but became disillusioned with the party because it became clear that their platform consisted entirely of gaining control by damaging the country in every way possible. I have a problem with a party that is based entirely on a negative message and I cannot remember a current democrat having a positive thing to say on any subject.

I do not care how long you were a Democrat. Nor do I care about your problems concerning their supposed "negative message." I have faith in and respect for neither ruling class party, and while I think your criticisms are vague to the point of absurdity, I really don't care to argue about them.

I made a specific point regarding a specific policy position of the Democratic Party - that the Democratic Party is not by any serious definition socialist. If you wish to contest that then actually contest it.

Well pretty much in war your fighting for freedom,existense or to improve your life.(Personal reason's not necessarily what the country is really fighting for, but if you were to ask the average person thats what they would tell you.)

When an abortion is preformed whats it in the name of? Killing the baby? Killing innocence?

Also in America anyways we are gauranteed to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Hapiness, in that order. (In war the people we fight are not American and therefore aren't guaranteed those rights)

The US is a signature to a number of treatys relating to holding prisoners - if the US wishes to keep their legitimacy as the 'moral high ground holder', may I suggest that the US sticks to the letter in regards to the treatment of those who are under their 'care'.

There's a positive benefit to society when liberals abort their young. There are fewer and fewer children brought up in liberal households. This will lead to a more conservative nation. There are already enough people thinking this way for the condition to have a name. Appropriately, it's called the Roe-Effect (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780).

Its interesting how, as I see it, most of those off bonking themselves silly and getting themselves pregnant are from conservative house holds with parents who think that 'sex is evil, terrible and disgusting' and neither can actually talk about the subject of sex and sexuality without giggling like a school girl.

I've seen these people in action - they talk all about morals and 'I want to tell my child about sex when they're ready' and yet, they never do - so years later, these kids are pumping out more kids and living off the money I give to the tax man.

Want to ban abortion - I can live with that, but in return, I want to see a comprehensive sex education system that teaches EVERYTHING, INCLUDING the use of condoms - make your choice.

Actually I was a democrat for 25 years but became disillusioned with the party because it became clear that their platform consisted entirely of gaining control by damaging the country in every way possible. I have a problem with a party that is based entirely on a negative message and I cannot remember a current democrat having a positive thing to say on any subject.

I hate to tell you this, but the Party Platform is amended by democratic process every 4 years. All you have to do is become a delegate and help effect change within the Party. The Platform is not something Jefferson carved in stone.

I've read through, and was part of helping to shape, the current Party Platform and I see nothing negative about it. Perhaps you'd care to share with us this "negative message"?

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

Go ahead ... we'll wait.

While we wait, we can compare it to the Republican Party Platform:

http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf

You'll notice the GOP's Platform is the one that casts a negative light on the opposition. So, gee ... who's really the negative nellies?

Well pretty much in war your fighting for freedom,existense or to improve your life.(Personal reason's not necessarily what the country is really fighting for, but if you were to ask the average person thats what they would tell you.)

When an abortion is preformed whats it in the name of? Killing the baby? Killing innocence?

Also in America anyways we are gauranteed to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Hapiness, in that order. (In war the people we fight are not American and therefore aren't guaranteed those rights)

I was going to make a really sarcastic comment like: "Fetuses are American, Arabs don't count." but not only have you beaten me to it but you seem to mean it.

I wish I could say more but I don't think I could do so without losing control and being banned for flaming.

1. As a living product of the adoption system, I thank God every day that my biological mother didn't abort me. However, I was one of the lucky few who was given a pair of adoptive parents even before I was born. Most children who are put up for adoption wind up in foster care until they are at least 12 years old. This puts them at high risk to fall into juvenile delinquency, especially drug use, gang membership, or violent crime. I would not want to wish such an existance upon anyone. Even if adoption is the option that appears to be the least immoral during pregnancy, I tell you that the life your child leads after bing put into the adoption program is most probably a love-less life with very little quasi-parental guidance, and that your child is now condemned, in all probability, to a life of poverty, and crime.

I also contend that the people most likely to get abortions are poor people, those addicted to drugs or other controlled substances, and those who have been raped. Statistics forwarded by the economist Steven D. Levitt, recently named the best American economist under 40 years of age bear me out on this. Banning abortion entirely places tremendous strain on an already tenuous poor community by bringing more children into being that the community simply cannot support, nurture, care for, and mold into productive adults. Crime statistics prove my point for me. After the Supreme Ct. decision of Roe V. Wade (Jan 22, 1973), which I am sure you all are aware of, crime nation wide began a slow decline which reached its peak during the years that the children who went unborn because of Roe V. Wade would have reached their criminal maturity. Decades of study have shown that not all children are born equal. Not even CLOSE to equal. Those same decades of study have shown that children born into poverty are much more likely than wealthy children to become criminals. By allowing mothers to make a choice about their pregnancies, you allow poor communities to make a concerted effort to direct their meager resources to stemming crime and successfully raising the children that are born.

I find it slightly hypocritical that we, by and large moderately affluent white Americans feel qualified to make judgements on the choices of others. To be sure, 2nd trimester, 3rd trimester, and of course, partial birth abortions are morally reprehensible. However, I see nothing wrong with allowing a mother to make a decision regarding an embryo within her, a decision roughly analogous to the decision to take a "morning-after" contraception pill. Of course, abortions in a case of incest, sexual assault, or rape would be subject to special exemptions.

As an addendum I would like to pose a question to all those who oppose abortion on religious grounds. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why would he send a child into a mother's womb if he knew it would be aborted? And supposing He did make a mistake, and sent a soul into an embryo that was aborted during the first trimester. Or second or third for that matter. As God is omnipotent and omniscient, what is to prevent Him from simply finding another mother and another set of circumstances that fit his plans for the soul? If he wants a soul incarnated on Earth that badly, what should be the problem? He IS the Almighty, right?

As such, I personally support abortion (though the fact that I am a centrist with libertarian leanings may cloud my judgement a bit). I know that others are free to hold any opinions they will, and also are free to attempt to sway others to their point of view. I have merely attempted to point out some logical arguments that uphold my viewpoints and show logical fallacies in opposing arguments, with no disrespect intended to anyone. Thank You.

Ok, here's my contribution to the abortion debate:

To the anti-abortionists:

1. Should abortion be legal in the case of rape? If no go to 2, if yes go to 3.

2. This position is backward and barbaric, lowering women to the level of incubators. It also means that women have no 'right' to remain childless as she can be forced to have a child if a man decides to rape her. It would mean a vastly increased rate of suicide for rape victims as they would be forced to live with a constant reminder of the event.

3. This position is completely impractical. Will you give abortions to every woman who claims to have been raped? If you would then a lot of police time will be wasted looking for non-existant rapists.
If you wouldn't then how would you work it? The only system I can think of would be to only offer abortions to women when the rapist is caught and convicted but this has two main drawbacks:
-Some women would be willing to accuse men that they had had consensual sex with of rape so they could get abortions.
-Genuine rapists would be less likely to be convicted as they could claim "It was consensual, she's only calling it rape to get an abortion." Many rape cases are already 'he said. she said' situations and this would only exacerbate the situation.

Any responses?

I'm conservative and I dont get "weepy" over abortion. I'm mostly pro choice.
I am against partial birth abortions.

Why do conservatives get weepy over abortion?

Easy, if they allowed it, their line would grow thin :D

"Oh no, my baby will later become a conservative! I'll better have an abortion right now!" :D

What do you call politicians that used to work for CPUSA then? Would Leninist be more accurate for you or are we just in complete denial and admitting nothing?
I have no obligation to defend the Democrats. I just point out how hilarious I find it when the US hysterical Right shouts "communism" when pointing at the Democrats, when they would probably kill themselves if they got a glimpse of what the Irish Left wing is like.

Actually I was a democrat for 25 years but became disillusioned with the party because it became clear that their platform consisted entirely of gaining control by damaging the country in every way possible. I have a problem with a party that is based entirely on a negative message and I cannot remember a current democrat having a positive thing to say on any subject.
Drop it. Socialism isn't about spreading gloom (though what's wrong with telling it like it is?) nor is it about damaging countries.

The answer of course is a simple one. In war, we intervine for the purpose of change, to better the lives of others and hopefully ourselves as well.
As it should be.

On the other hand abortions sole purpose is to end the life of one for the convience of another.
Just like war. Some guy gets killed so that other people can live a better life. I don't see the great difference.

but that's exactly it. what "greater" thing can be achieved by slaughtering a fetus?
1. Enables the mother to lead a more successful life.

2. Keeps the tide of welfare mothers to a more tolerable level. (see point #1)

3. Prevents the birth of a person who is likely to become a criminal.

Honestly, it's crap like this that causes political correctness insanity. I can assure you that Thomas Jefferson did not have the oppression of women in mind when he wrote his document, rather he used a very appropriate and general term for humanity.
Cat-Tribe was not referring to the oppression of women. He was referring to the fact that Jefferson said that all men (i.e. all humans in the world) possess these natural rights.

Which, back on topic, may be a good justification for America to enforce these principles globally.

Almost half of the women undergoing an abortion - - 46% - - have already had at least one previous abortion,' a percentage which has tripled since 1974. In 1983, 39% of abortion patients reported having 1, 2, 3, or more abortions; in 1974 the percentage was 15. (Facts in
Brief, Alan Guttmacher Institute, September 1995.)

Also, more "people" have died by abortion since it has been legal, then people have died by all the American wars put together. From the viewpoint of someone who see's abortion as murder, that is a far greater issue then losing a couple 1,000 in Iraq (expecially when they support the cause of the war)
What difference does any of this information make? I don't consider abortion to be murder, nor do I consider the war in Iraq to be unjust.

You just had to get them started didn't you? There was a nice long pause in the abortion debates and you had to go and ruin it!! I hate having no opinion in the debate of the decade!! :mad:
I didn't want an "Abortion: To Be or not To Be Legal?" thread.

Elgesh']Right enough though, as long as there are different worldviews among people, there'll be arguments where a 'middle ground' is almost unreachable.
Disagreement over abortion hardly constitutes "different worldviews".

Disagreement over abortion hardly constitutes "different worldviews".

Sure it does :) I don't consider abortion per se to be a bad thing because I don't have the overt religious objection that a christian fellow (the guy I addressed, politely and reciprically~conciliatory) might - that betokens a different worldview, one in which there's a soul bound to the fetus at conception and god's will must be followed, and one without god.

ergo, different worldviews!

Elgesh']Sure it does :) I don't consider abortion per se to be a bad thing because I don't have the overt religious objection that a christian fellow (the guy I addressed, politely and reciprically~conciliatory) might - that betokens a different worldview, one in which there's a soul bound to the fetus at conception and god's will must be followed, and one without god.

ergo, different worldviews!
That did not occur to me.

That did not occur to me.
we live and learn, hey? :)

And when speaking in terms of gentics, while its true a sperm and an egg are half humans... they are not infact whole humans are they? My point was to indicate fetus's are genetically speaking in fact humans, and so the argument would stand by terminiating a fetus you may in fact be killing a human if your using genetics to determine what a human is.

By this logic, genetically speaking, every cell in my body other than my eggs are "whole humans" as every single individual cell has all of the genetic information necessary to form an entire human being.

I'm conservative and I dont get "weepy" over abortion. I'm mostly pro choice.
I am against partial birth abortions.

You mean dilation and extraction - one of the few safe forms of abortion to be used in the event that a medical problem is found in the late 2nd or early 3rd trimester?

Sounds like someone hasn't looked into the issue, and just bought into the propoganda. Dilation and extraction is not an elective procedure.

*snicker*

The half of them that are liberals right?... :p :D



*Doesn't have any stats, but is guessing a disproportionate representation of liberals that do get abortions AND then less total children overall in lifetime live births*If politics and religion really dictated whether women use birth control or have abortions, the Catholics would have taken over North America already.

But they haven't.

Just because your religion or political party advocate for or against birth control or abortion doesn't mean that will affect the decision a woman makes regarding preventing or terminating a pregnancy.

There are many, many Catholic women who choose to use birth control. There are Christian women - and Republican women - who choose to have abortions, sometimes even multiple abortions.

And there are many pro-choice women who have chosen not to have abortions.

The key is choice.

By allowing mothers to make a choice about their pregnancies, you allow poor communities to make a concerted effort to direct their meager resources to stemming crime and successfully raising the children that are born.

That's true, but I think the better way to achieve that would be to encourage contraception. To deal with population problems in Calcutta would you prescribe killing off some of the population? My point is whatever benefits come from abortion are meaningless if you believe abortion is the killing of a human being.
I find it slightly hypocritical that we, by and large moderately affluent white Americans feel qualified to make judgements on the choices of others.

The key is choice.
This is why I don't like the term "pro choice".It's a way of washing your hands of the matter,evading responsibility and not realy caring about the rights and wrongs of it - you arn't for abortion,but you'll let people do what they like and let them deal with the consequences.Abortion will happen because of the "pro-choice" way of thinking,so a better term is pro-abortion.
To be sure, 2nd trimester, 3rd trimester, and of course, partial birth abortions are morally reprehensible. However, I see nothing wrong with allowing a mother to make a decision regarding an embryo within her.
"A partial birth is of course morally reprehensible".But to kill an embryo is ok?Why? Because it isn't shaped like a human and is hidden away where you can't see it or have to think about it.
Of course, abortions in a case of incest, sexual assault, or rape would be subject to special exemptions.
This shows how by being "pro choice" you can avoid difficult issues - you don't have to tell someone they have to carry a child of incest or rape for example. Incest and rape are terrible crimes, but the fact is the unborn cannot carry the guilt of their father. And abortion will not undo the crime,instead it is a second violation of the woman.
It might not be easy to accept, but the only morally correct decision is to let the child live. The "pro choice" response to this is to ignore this difficult fact and tell people they can do what they like.

On a related point, I often hear the argument that if abortion is outlawed many children will grow up in bad families and lead harsh lives.
It is my firm belief that a difficult life is better than no life at all. Suppose you were to meet a young african boy,and you were told that in his time he would loose his whole family to war and disease and he would one day die of starvation. Knowing this, would you kill him?

As an addendum I would like to pose a question to all those who oppose abortion on religious grounds. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why would he send a child into a mother's womb if he knew it would be aborted?

You might equally ask why would God send people into the world knowing they would kill and rape and do unspeakable things to each other. I don't think God allowing abortion to happen is proof that it's ok by Him.

Elgesh']I was really speaking all but literally - to start off with, a fetus really _is_ a big ball of cells! Undeveloped and undiffereentiated, no concept of itself or others, of emotion or intellect, language or culture, specialisation or socialisation, altruism or immorality, no stories or questions - all the things philosophers and psychologists have posited that make us human (and many of which have been found [though sometimes through proxy variables, indirect indicators] in forms in neonates, newly born children minutes old).

So no, we aren't all clusters of cells at the end of the day! We're people. And merely possessing the genetic characteristics of person-hood doesn't make you a person.:)
I think the whole abortion debate hinges on this question - what do you think defines a human being. It boils down to opinion. And in my opinion, once theres something there, growing and developing, you've got an organism in it's earliest stages."no concept of itself or others, of emotion or intellect, language or culture, specialisation or socialisation, altruism or immorality, no stories or questions" could all describe a severely mentally handicapped person - but does that make them less than human?

I've also heard the argument that if "it" can't survive independantly it can't be classed as a seperate entity, but what about new borns?Toddlers?The elderly?The sick?They all depend on other humans.

I don't think it's possible to draw a line between human and inhuman anywhere other than conception. It is the absolute FIRST moment of any organism's existance.Tiny and hidden away in the womb,it's death is easy to ignore, to overlook. But it is murder nonetheless.

I think the whole abortion debate hinges on this question - what do you think defines a human being. It boils down to opinion. And in my opinion, once theres something there, growing and developing, you've got an organism in it's earliest stages."no concept of itself or others, of emotion or intellect, language or culture, specialisation or socialisation, altruism or immorality, no stories or questions" could all describe a severely mentally handicapped person - but does that make them less than human? ...

Well, I think you're overplaying your hand here. Firstly, the fetus I was describing posseses none of those traits. I don't know of a case where a 'severely mentally handicapped person' possessed none of those traits. (I'm not claiming special powers (!), but I'm a psychology graduate, in my 5th year studying the subject; I'm just saying I'm fairly familiar with the literature/concepts we're talking about).

But secondly, and much more importantly, there's a fundamental, qualitative difference between an undeveloped cell cluster and a whole person, even if one had any number of dreadful impairments! The course of human development isn't equal, and some people, for reasons genetic or environmental (usually both), will not develop 'normally'. But they've developed, they've become people, even if they're not as fortunate as the rest of us - they are not a little collection of barely differentiated cells.


I don't think it's possible to draw a line between human and inhuman anywhere other than conception. It is the absolute FIRST moment of any organism's existance.Tiny and hidden away in the womb,it's death is easy to ignore, to overlook. But it is murder nonetheless.

I disagree fundamentally, for the reasons previously given. I appreciate your strength of feeling, but I really can't see how it's justified intellectually.

Why do they let emotions cloud their judgement on the abortion "issue", while on matters of war they accept that some people who may not deserve it are going to get killed, but they die not in vain but so that something greater can be achieved.

On the other hand, why do liberals get so emotional over war while they think about abortion more rationally? You could easily swap "abortion" with "war" in the above quote and you'd get a standard anti-war liberals' quote.

Why the double standard?

For the record, I support both abortion rights and war in some cases (such as the Iraq war, to be topical).

Conservatives, such as myself, believe firmly that justice is the governing law of the universe. Consequently, we do everything we can do to ensure that justice is met, and never interfered with.
Take, for instance, Iraq. Saddam has the blood of many of his own citizens on his hands; justice demanded his removal from dictorial rule over Iraq. Plus, there was the whole WMDs thing making it look like war in Iraq was to our benefit (don't argue with me over this, I explain my view on that clearly here (http://blacklight-ninja.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-war-was-great.html); if you want to argue, go there and argue in the comments).
Now, let's take a look at abortion. Here you have an unborn person, completely innocent. No crimes, nothing except existing. We do not feel that it is just to destroy that life, especially in situations where both parties willingly gave their consent to engage in intercourse (don't say they can't take care of the baby; that's what adoption's for).
Now, there is debate amongst conservatives concerning rape situations and instances where the mother's life is in danger. I personally haven't taken any stance in those situations (and won't until I'm either in government or forced with the descision myself) as there are too many factors to consider. Chances are more likely that a conservative will see innocence (the baby) more just to preserve than a life already partially lived, however.

If politics and religion really dictated whether women use birth control or have abortions, the Catholics would have taken over North America already.

But they haven't.

Just because your religion or political party advocate for or against birth control or abortion doesn't mean that will affect the decision a woman makes regarding preventing or terminating a pregnancy.

There are many, many Catholic women who choose to use birth control. There are Christian women - and Republican women - who choose to have abortions, sometimes even multiple abortions.

And there are many pro-choice women who have chosen not to have abortions.

The key is choice.

IF what I said is true, then the Hispanic community (having less abortions and raising more children per family then the national average) would be out pacing other minority groups in population percentage growth, over other groups that have more abortions than them etc., such as the African Americans…

Oh wait a minute, they are. And as a matter of fact, they are predominately Catholic now aren’t they?!?! Looks like I'm right afterall.

...when they are sensible on foreign policy? If I may quote...



Why do they let emotions cloud their judgement on the abortion "issue", while on matters of war they accept that some people who may not deserve it are going to get killed, but they die not in vain but so that something greater can be achieved.

On the other hand, why do liberals get so emotional over war while they think about abortion more rationally? You could easily swap "abortion" with "war" in the above quote and you'd get a standard anti-war liberals' quote.

Why the double standard?

For the record, I support both abortion rights and war in some cases (such as the Iraq war, to be topical).

No offence but- (ok take offence if you want) I do agree with your stance on abortion in many cases eg problems related with nature/nuture rather than convenience, however your stance on the Iraq war makes me suspect that you are as thick as two short planks- and therefore a member of the voting majority!(see my other thread for details)

Elgesh']
there's a fundamental, qualitative difference between an undeveloped cell cluster and a whole person, even if one had any number of dreadful impairments!.
I don't think you've justified your argument intellectually either. What is the fundamental,qualitative difference? Yes there are huge physical differences between embryo and child, as there are between child and adult. But noone will argue about a child's humanity. A baby has not yet developed to it's full potential, but will you argue it not yet human?
Elgesh']But they've developed, they've become people, even if they're not as fortunate as the rest of us - they are not a little collection of barely differentiated cells.
It sounds like your defininition of human is adulthood,the point when a person's body can develop no more.(I know that's not what you mean but you havnt said what shows they've "become people" ).A human embryo is adeveloping human, like a baby or a teenager. It is just at an earlier stage of development.
After conception the embryo will continue to develop unless interfered with, just like a baby or a teenager.The only point at which you can say with certainty that "it" is not a human being is when it is yet to be created,before conception.

Elgesh']
I disagree fundamentally, for the reasons previously given. I appreciate your strength of feeling, but I really can't see how it's justified intellectually.
And I appreciate your opinion, but I don't see how you've proved it logically.I don't expect to change your view point either, like I said what defines human realy does boil down to opinion.It's interesting the way two people can look at the same facts and come to opposite conclusions.That's what makes the whole abortion thing so damn complicated.

Well, to put it crudely by analogy, I think you have fundamental qualities that elevate you above, say, a chicken; if I ever have to make a decison about your needs and the needs of the chicken, I'd pick you! In the same way, I think a person - defined as one who has reached certain (in utero) developmental milestones (list of suggested qualities that can be 'measured by proxy' in earlier posts) - has qualities that elevate them over a ball of cells.

Make no mistake, the fact that these milestones are (at the moment) usually reached while we're still in the womb isn't relevent; it's the development they proxy for that's the important part of what-makes-a-peson-a-person. If it comes to it, as in sad, unhappy cases it sometimes does, I'd favour the needs of people over cell clusters. I'm not a fan of abortions, I think they're sad events - because they signify the hurt and pain of the people involved, and the hurting of their hopes and dreams, lost opportunities. I don't feel particularly sorry for the fetus, because there's no one there to feel sorry _for_ - it's not a person.


I don't expect to change your view point either, like I said what defines human realy does boil down to opinion.It's interesting the way two people can look at the same facts and come to opposite conclusions.That's what makes the whole abortion thing so damn complicated.

Wisdom - I've said it earlier, abortion is one of those topics that highlights important differences in worldviews; no wonder folk get flummoxed by it! Pleasure talking - rather than shouting or whining! :D - with you, hope to do it again.

Ok, here's my contribution to the abortion debate:

To the anti-abortionists:

1. Should abortion be legal in the case of rape? If no go to 2, if yes go to 3.

2. This position is backward and barbaric, lowering women to the level of incubators. It also means that women have no 'right' to remain childless as she can be forced to have a child if a man decides to rape her. It would mean a vastly increased rate of suicide for rape victims as they would be forced to live with a constant reminder of the event.

3. This position is completely impractical. Will you give abortions to every woman who claims to have been raped? If you would then a lot of police time will be wasted looking for non-existant rapists.
If you wouldn't then how would you work it? The only system I can think of would be to only offer abortions to women when the rapist is caught and convicted but this has two main drawbacks:
-Some women would be willing to accuse men that they had had consensual sex with of rape so they could get abortions.
-Genuine rapists would be less likely to be convicted as they could claim "It was consensual, she's only calling it rape to get an abortion." Many rape cases are already 'he said. she said' situations and this would only exacerbate the situation.

Any responses?
random random random, you showed your hand in the post. who is going to fall into the trap NOW?

the question to ME is. if you are going to allow abortion in case of rape, are you going to make it be proven? and what is proof?

does she have to show that she was beaten to within an inch of her life? does she have to accuse someone, have it taken to court and have him convicted?? there is no possibility of abortion in that scenario it takes more than 9 months to get a conviction.

what if she claims its "date rape" and he says it was consentual? do we believe her so she can get an abortion or him and force her to bear her rapists child?

all these little hurdles do is make for later abortions. who wants that? i sure dont. if its "on demand" it will contintue to be majority at less than 8 weeks, with the newer pregnancy tests its earlier yet. do we want it to be pushed to 12 weeks just to satisfy the more "moral" people?

Also in America anyways we are gauranteed to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Hapiness, in that order. (In war the people we fight are not American and therefore aren't guaranteed those rights)

right. cause they aren't american.
so fuck 'em.

you disgust me.

Conservatives, such as myself, believe firmly that justice is the governing law of the universe. Consequently, we do everything we can do to ensure that justice is met, and never interfered with.
Take, for instance, Iraq. Saddam has the blood of many of his own citizens on his hands; justice demanded his removal from dictorial rule over Iraq.
Do you really believe this? If you did believe it, you would support both immediate pullout from Iraq after the removal of Hussein. No, like me I imagine you're more pragmatic than that.

I support the war because in the end I believe that life will be better for Iraqis than it was before. This has proven to necessitate thousands of innocent Iraqis dying for it, but the human rights and welfare of millions more of them are the prize.

Now, let's take a look at abortion. Here you have an unborn person, completely innocent. No crimes, nothing except existing. We do not feel that it is just to destroy that life.
Isn't this comparable to the innocent Iraqis who have died? The abortion is just because not just the woman but probably also other people in society will benefit.

No offence but- (ok take offence if you want) I do agree with your stance on abortion in many cases eg problems related with nature/nuture rather than convenience, however your stance on the Iraq war makes me suspect that you are as thick as two short planks- and therefore a member of the voting majority!
How can you say "no offence" and then basically call me an idiot? You haven't even explained why I'm "as thick as two short planks" which does not reflect well on you.

Conservatives, such as myself, believe firmly that justice is the governing law of the universe. Consequently, we do everything we can do to ensure that justice is met, and never interfered with.
Take, for instance, Iraq. Saddam has the blood of many of his own citizens on his hands; justice demanded his removal from dictorial rule over Iraq.


Now, let's take a look at abortion. Here you have an unborn person, completely innocent. No crimes, nothing except existing. We do not feel that it is just to destroy that life, especially in situations where both parties willingly gave their consent to engage in intercourse (don't say they can't take care of the baby; that's what adoption's for).

what if, in our righteous quest to remove a tyrant from power one of our bombs hit a newly pregnant woman and killed her embryo? would that put you into a dilemma?

You mean dilation and extraction - one of the few safe forms of abortion to be used in the event that a medical problem is found in the late 2nd or early 3rd trimester?

Sounds like someone hasn't looked into the issue, and just bought into the propoganda. Dilation and extraction is not an elective procedure.

Whoa-dont suppose what I mean and then get smug with me. I was thinking more as to what goes on in China.
Either way, I've decided not to inflict my opinion on others. I dont like people using abortion as a form of birth control, but let people do what they NEED to do.
I dont need any uppity bullshit.

Whoa-dont suppose what I mean and then get smug with me.

Considering that there is no actual procedure known as "partial birth abortion" and uneducated people and politicians refer to dilation and extraction by that name, one has to suppose what you mean in order to converse with you. The whole term is a BS term made up by the anti-choice crowd. If you meant to use it in a different way than them, you need to be clear about it.

I was thinking more as to what goes on in China.

I wasn't aware that the abortion procedures in China were all that different from here, except that some of the doctors may be less well-trained.

"We're conservatives and the only way we don't like killing things is that way"

American Dad 3:13

Considering that there is no actual procedure known as "partial birth abortion" and uneducated people and politicians refer to dilation and extraction by that name, one has to suppose what you mean in order to converse with you. The whole term is a BS term made up by the anti-choice crowd. If you meant to use it in a different way than them, you need to be clear about it.



I wasn't aware that the abortion procedures in China were all that different from here, except that some of the doctors may be less well-trained.

So- you arent aware that they inject formaldehyde into baby's head at birth to kill them? If they arent fully delivered yet, this is still ok there.

I'll say it again-I'm for choice either way.

Perhaps it is the idea that an unborn child has yet to live and therefore yet to find something worth dying for. You undeniably bring up a good point, however.

...when they are sensible on foreign policy? If I may quote...



Why do they let emotions cloud their judgement on the abortion "issue", while on matters of war they accept that some people who may not deserve it are going to get killed, but they die not in vain but so that something greater can be achieved.

On the other hand, why do liberals get so emotional over war while they think about abortion more rationally? You could easily swap "abortion" with "war" in the above quote and you'd get a standard anti-war liberals' quote.

Why the double standard?

For the record, I support both abortion rights and war in some cases (such as the Iraq war, to be topical).

So- you arent aware that they inject formaldehyde into baby's head at birth to kill them? If they arent fully delivered yet, this is still ok there.

Nope, I'll have to admit I've never heard of that.

Nope, I'll have to admit I've never heard of that.


Well-I have. Its shocking and disgusting. Sometimes done with or without the mother's consent. Thats what hung in my mind.
Here's a little on it, in case you're interested:


http://apdude0.tripod.com/abortionaroundtheworld/id3.html


http://www.yorku.ca/iwai/marian.html

just so you know
a lot of conservatives have spoke up
and said they don't give a sh*t about abortionists
I'm a conservative too, and would like you to know
Neither do I.



Is a magnolia seed, a magnolia?

Elgesh']Pleasure talking - rather than shouting or whining! :D - with you, hope to do it again.

Yea same here, I think if there's an answer to these kinds of questions it'll come through people listening as well as speaking (/shouting) :D

just so you know
a lot of conservatives have spoke up
and said they don't give a sh*t about abortionists
I'm a conservative too, and would like you to know
Neither do I.
Sorry to the minority of conservatives who support abortion rights. I will be more considerate of your feelings in posts that i may or may not make in the future.

...Because Conservatives hanker for the good old days of the Old Testament when women were barefoot and pregnant and knew to keep their mouths shut.

...Because Conservatives hanker for the good old days of the Old Testament when women were barefoot and pregnant and knew to keep their mouths shut.
Typical straw-man garbage of a first post. At least you didn't use any sniper smileys. You've added nothing to the debate.

Typical straw-man garbage of a first post. At least you didn't use any sniper smileys. You've added nothing to the debate.
as opposed to your reply?