NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the Radical Christian Agenda has failed when trying to eliminate abortion through direct legislation and through legal challenges in the courts they've resorted to other underhanded tactics. Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers or TRAP laws.

Who says that republicans are against government regulations?

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137833575863

Those people really do scare me. I'm just glad that the Atlantic separates them from me.

Those people really do scare me. I'm just glad that the Atlantic separates them from me.
Considering the fact that we've got the biggest and best Navy and Air Force, you shouldn't get too comfortable.

I don't think that the Republicans who are trying to get this done are really conservative in the true sense of the word, but that's just me... I'm sure there are plenty who think that the government isn't supposed to be the morals police...

Considering the fact that we've got the biggest and best Navy and Air Force, you shouldn't get too comfortable.

Thankfully the US airforce isn't controlled by lunatics and fanatics (except for the president and he doesn't know where England is). Anyway, we've got no oil.

Incidently, I reckon ship for ship the Royal Navy is probably at least as good, if not better, than the American navy although I admit that you have a large numerical advantage.

I don't think that the Republicans who are trying to get this done are really conservative in the true sense of the word, but that's just me... I'm sure there are plenty who think that the government isn't supposed to be the morals police...
*raises hand*

I'm a Republican who believes that the government needs to get out of the business of policing "morals".

Abortion is a medical procedure for women. It's their body and their medical procedure, and until men can have babies, I'm not going to tell anyone they should or should not have an abortion.

Thankfully the US airforce isn't controlled by lunatics and fanatics (except for the president and he doesn't know where England is). <snipped>.
O RLY?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062200598.html

Since the Radical Christian Agenda has failed when trying to eliminate abortion through direct legislation and through legal challenges in the courts they've resorted to other underhanded tactics. Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers or TRAP laws.

Who says that republicans are against government regulations?

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137833575863

Personally I am a conservative and a free market capitalist that believes that if leftists wish to kill their young more power to them. Are you sure they are not just making conditions more receptive to a larger volume business, in a much cleaner and professional setting? Some of the current clinics really are filthy backroom operations that bear no resemblence to a medical facility.

*raises hand*

I'm a Republican who believes that the government needs to get out of the business of policing "morals".

Abortion is a medical procedure for women. It's their body and their medical procedure, and until men can have babies, I'm not going to tell anyone they should or should not have an abortion.

And there we go - one more reason why sweeping generalizations don't work. I'm clearly not a Republican, but I agree with you entirely that it should be up to women. Of course, many women are against abortion in any situation, and to them, I say: Don't get one then.

Personally I am a conservative and a free market capitalist that believes that if leftists wish to kill their young more power to them. Are you sure they are not just making conditions more receptive to a larger volume business, in a much cleaner and professional setting? Some of the current clinics really are filthy backroom operations that bear no resemblence to a medical facility.
Please provide some information to support the part of your post I highlited in bold.

And no, they're not making conditions better. This is a strategy to make abortions impossible since they can't make them illegal.

Oh, and nobody's killing their young. It's not a baby in the early stages of pregnancy.

The whole is it a baby yet debate is half the problem with the abortion conflict. Some people really believe that a clump of stemcells with no nerves, organs or anything else is a baby.

The Abortion arguement, though previously labeled as "LIFE vs. CHOICE", it does, in fact, fall under the "Right to Life" category, regardless of what side you are on.

In the Declaration of Independence, the three basic categories of God-given rights are "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" (property being subbed by Pursuit)

The Constitution of the United States was created to protect those basic rights, further detailed in the Bill of Rights.

If the Constitution was made to protect the right to Life, then abortion cannot be legal or valid if we truly are to hold to the Constitution. Another example is in the Preamble "and to secure the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity." The baby, infant, fetus, whatever you will call it, is our posterity. Hence, their right to life, they being unable to forfeight that right, must be protected, and any other interperetation is in violation thereof.

Be it just a clump of cells, a developed fetus, or partially born baby, it is protected by the Constitution (in truth) and therefore, abortion cannot not be justly legal.

Abortion is wrong no matter when life starts. And I wish more anti-abortion people would realize that instead of falling in the trap of the "WHEN DOES LIFE START" nonsense.

The whole is it a baby yet debate is half the problem with the abortion conflict. Some people really believe that a clump of stemcells with no nerves, organs or anything else is a baby.

Stem cells are a different arguement.


DoI isn't legal

I don't think that the Republicans who are trying to get this done are really conservative in the true sense of the word

what sense is that?

The whole is it a baby yet debate is half the problem with the abortion conflict. Some people really believe that a clump of stemcells with no nerves, organs or anything else is a baby.
I guess in the case of these people the Stem cells that were supposed to be the brain became a bible instead.

To me, until it can think, it isn't a Baby.

:) I've been waiting for an opportunity to make this case...

The Abortion arguement, though previously labeled as "LIFE vs. CHOICE", it does, in fact, fall under the "Right to Life" category, regardless of what side you are on.

In the Declaration of Independence, the three basic categories of God-given rights are "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" (property being subbed by Pursuit)

The Constitution of the United States was created to protect those basic rights, further detailed in the Bill of Rights.

If the Constitution was made to protect the right to Life, then abortion cannot be legal or valid if we truly are to hold to the Constitution. Another example is in the Preamble "and to secure the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity." The baby, infant, fetus, whatever you will call it, is our posterity. Hence, their right to life, being unable to forfeight that right, must be protected, and any other interperetation is in violation thereof.
Ok, here's where you're wrong.
1) Our government is based on the constitution, not the declaration of independence.

2) The constitution was not made to protect life. War and capital punishment are constitutional. The constitution was meant to protect liberty and to establish our system of government.

3) Whether a fetus counts as a human life is debatable, but since in early term abortions the fetus has no brain, or less brain than a rat, it's not much of a human in my estimation. Kinda like Terri Schiavo. What's the difference between a her and a tumor? Both are human tissue, neither can think. Same goes for an early term fetus.

Indeed... If it has no Brain, it isn't a baby.

what sense is that?

That the government should mind its own damn business. At least, that seems to be the argument for why we shouldn't pay taxes or have business regulated. How is this any different?

:) I've been waiting for an opportunity to make this case...

The Abortion arguement, though previously labeled as "LIFE vs. CHOICE", it does, in fact, fall under the "Right to Life" category, regardless of what side you are on.

In the Declaration of Independence, the three basic categories of God-given rights are "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" (property being subbed by Pursuit)

The Constitution of the United States was created to protect those basic rights, further detailed in the Bill of Rights.

If the Constitution was made to protect the right to Life, then abortion cannot be legal or valid if we truly are to hold to the Constitution. Another example is in the Preamble "and to secure the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity." The baby, infant, fetus, whatever you will call it, is our posterity. Hence, their right to life, they being unable to forfeight that right, must be protected, and any other interperetation is in violation thereof.

Be it just a clump of cells, a developed fetus, or partially born baby, it is protected by the Constitution (in truth) and therefore, abortion cannot not be justly legal.

Abortion is wrong no matter when life starts. And I wish more anti-abortion people would realize that instead of falling in the trap of the "WHEN DOES LIFE START" nonsense.
Even if that were true, abortion is a case of
Right to life Vs right to liberty & right to pursuit of happiness.

I'm sorry, but two rights are more important than one. ;)

Ok, here's where you're wrong.
1) Our government is based on the constitution, not the declaration of independence.

2) The constitution was not made to protect life. War and capital punishment are constitutional. The constitution was meant to protect liberty and to establish our system of government.

3) Whether a fetus counts as a human life is debatable, but since in early term abortions the fetus has no brain, or less brain than a rat, it's not much of a human in my estimation. Kinda like Terri Schiavo. What's the difference between a her and a tumor? Both are human tissue, neither can think. Same goes for an early term fetus.



[SIZE="3"]Point Taken. I've been confronted with that before.

No, our government was not based the Declaration. But there still lies the issue of "To secure the blessings of Liberty to us and our posterity Our posterity is inclusive of the unborn, that is how our posterity gets here.

The right to life is implied in the Constitution, not expressly.

In answer to the above frame, the concept of "Your rights end when it begins to infringe on the right of others" is fitting.

And the right of liberty is not taken away. It was utilized in the committing of an unsanctioned sexual act. But one cannot choose the consequences of one's actions.
Birth and Pregnancy are consequences, for good or bad.

What abortionists want is for personal responsibility to disappear. They want choice without consequence; and abortion is one way they try to do that. And it's not a good idea to continue to pursue such.[/FONT]

Since the Radical Christian Agenda has failed when trying to eliminate abortion through direct legislation

not failed, can't becuase of the supreme court ruling - most states have laws against abortion they just can't apply

they've resorted to other underhanded tactics. Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers or TRAP laws.

good call, I'd better bring that up in my state

Point Taken. I've been confronted with that before.

No, our government was not based the Declaration. But there still lies the issue of "To secure the blessings of Liberty to us and our posterity Our posterity is inclusive of the unborn, that is how our posterity gets here.

The right to life is implied in the Constitution, not expressly.
You've been corrected. Just walk away.

The majority of opposition to abortion isn't because people feel that it's not Constitutional, but that it's morally wrong.

:) I've been waiting for an opportunity to make this case...

The Abortion arguement, though previously labeled as "LIFE vs. CHOICE", it does, in fact, fall under the "Right to Life" category, regardless of what side you are on.

In the Declaration of Independence, the three basic categories of God-given rights are "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" (property being subbed by Pursuit)

The Constitution of the United States was created to protect those basic rights, further detailed in the Bill of Rights.

If the Constitution was made to protect the right to Life, then abortion cannot be legal or valid if we truly are to hold to the Constitution. Another example is in the Preamble "and to secure the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity." The baby, infant, fetus, whatever you will call it, is our posterity. Hence, their right to life, they being unable to forfeight that right, must be protected, and any other interperetation is in violation thereof.

Be it just a clump of cells, a developed fetus, or partially born baby, it is protected by the Constitution (in truth) and therefore, abortion cannot not be justly legal.

Abortion is wrong no matter when life starts. And I wish more anti-abortion people would realize that instead of falling in the trap of the "WHEN DOES LIFE START" nonsense.


Yes, we're all impressed by your tagging skills. Now please, just use the regular text, this isn't the diary of a 14 year old girl.

Anyway. Imagine I climb into your house (via a window) one day. You didn't invite me, you don't know me, and there is a small chance I will kill you for no reason. I refuse to leave. The longer I am there the higher the chance I will kill you. Each day I eat off of your plate, I take a crap in your toilet, and just for fun I kick your bladder occasionally. Do you have the right to physically evict me? I'd say yes.

Now, imagine that I am naked, you live in rural Minnesota, and it is February. Clearly, evicting me means my death. Do you still have the right to evict me? I'd say yes.

Now, just for kicks, lets take this one step further. Imagine that I didn't climb into your window but up your ass. Starting to get the picture?

sillyness

you chose to climb through that window - the child has no choice in the matter

:) I've been waiting...

Ah crap. Big, blue, funny-looking text.

Your point MUST be best. you win.

My attitude towards abortion has always been the same...

Every woman Has The Right To Liquify Her Unborn Child

The majority of people who want to make abortion illegal belong to religious groups, not legal ones. They object to it for religious reasons. One can personally object to abortion but making it illegal because some individuals believe that it is wrong is in and of itself illegal:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Imagine I climb into your house (via a window) one day. You didn't invite me, you don't know me, and there is a small chance I will kill you for no reason. I refuse to leave. The longer I am there the higher the chance I will kill you. Each day I eat off of your plate, I take a crap in your toilet, and just for fun I kick your bladder occasionally. Do you have the right to physically evict me? I'd say yes.

Now, imagine that I am naked, you live in rural Minnesota, and it is February. Clearly, evicting me means my death. Do you still have the right to evict me? I'd say yes.

Now, just for kicks, lets take this one step further. Imagine that I didn't climb into your window but up your ass. Starting to get the picture?


Yes. I see. But your forgetting. When you had sex, you made your decision that you would have sex. Pregnancy and birth are consequences of sex. People are not free to choose the consequences of their actions, it is an unchanging fact.

Again, what abortion is, is sex with out the consequences of it. It is wrong.


And to the above, not every anti-abortion person is a Bible-Bashing lunatic.

My attitude towards abortion has always been the same...

Every woman Has The Right To Liquify Her Unborn Child

but not every man?

The majority of people who want to make abortion illegal belong to religious groups, not legal ones. They object to it for religious reasons. One can personally object to abortion but making it illegal because some individuals believe that it is wrong is in and of itself illegal:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

no, just no. many people happen to belong to religous groups but that in an of itself does not make them pro-life. I'm pro-life and Catholic but not pro-life because of my Catholicism

and if you're going to play at this game where did the vast majority of the support for the end of slavery come from? Christian groups - should the govenrment have backed off that one?

When you had sex, you made your decision that you would have sex. Pregnancy and birth are consequences of sex.

I'm calling bullshit.

Every time you get in a car, are you consenting to dying in horrible wreck, your body mangled under the wheels of a transfer truck?

Every time you eat lobster bisque, are you consenting to dying in a freak strangulation/suffocation incident as you slowly choke to death?

Or - is there actually a difference between consenting to an action, and consenting to SOME of the POSSIBLE repurcussions OF that action?

Birth and Pregnancy are consequences, for good or bad.Potential consequences. The risk can be minimised, and if you choose abortion, the risk of birth can be eliminated.

What abortionists want is for personal responsibility to disappear. They want choice without consequence; and abortion is one way they try to do that. And it's not a good idea to continue to pursue such.Of course pro-choice/pro-abortion people (not abortionists; they are medical professionals) want personal responsibility. That is why they opt for people to make the most responsible decision should an unwanted pregnancy occur. For people like myself who abhor children, abortion is one possible responsible decision. Shouldn't be having sex? Too bad. Sex is good, children aren't.

There are much more rational, scientific arguments for abortion, but they've been done so many times on this forum that I now elect to bring my irrational side to this debate.

]In answer to the above frame, the concept of "Your rights end when it begins to infringe on the right of others" is fitting.

And the right of liberty is not taken away. It was utilized in the committing of an unsanctioned sexual act. But one cannot choose the consequences of one's actions.
Birth and Pregnancy are consequences, for good or bad.

What abortionists want is for personal responsibility to disappear. They want choice without consequence; and abortion is one way they try to do that. And it's not a good idea to continue to pursue such.
The right to libertie does implies to right to freely choose how you deal with the consequences, you know. So if an egg is fertilized, it is up to the woman to determine how she will deal with it.

One way is to bear the child. One other is to seek an abortion. The right to liberty does extend to how to deal with what is happening to your body.

What abortionist want is for personal responsibilities to be personal and not subject to the morals of another group. They want choice and you better do a lot more research if you think that abortion is without consequences.

No, our government was not based the Declaration. But there still lies the issue of "To secure the blessings of Liberty to us and our posterity Our posterity is inclusive of the unborn, that is how our posterity gets here.

In that case, our posterity also includes our sperm and eggs. We should make it illegal to menstruate or to masturbate.

And the right of liberty is not taken away. It was utilized in the committing of an unsanctioned sexual act. But one cannot choose the consequences of one's actions.

Unsanctioned? Are you suggesting that the government should sanction or ban sex?

Birth and Pregnancy are consequences, for good or bad.

As is an abortion, for good or bad. It is still a consequence, and still a method of taking responsibility for one's actions - it simply isn't one you like.

Every time you get in a car, are you consenting to dying in horrible wreck, your body mangled under the wheels of a transfer truck?

yep

you expect others to take precautions to avoid this but at the same time must accept that it could happen

Different Christian groups also used the Bible to justify slavery. They claimed that black people were the descendants of Ham, and thus enslaving them was fine.

Whether or not abortion should be permitted is ultimately a moral choice. Obviously it's hard to say whether you would still be pro-life if you weren't Catholic, but people do tend to draw their morals from religious teachings. I take the First Commandment seriously, which is why I'm personally opposed to both the death penalty and abortion - but I won't force a complete stranger to adhere to my moral code.

Different Christian groups also used the Bible to justify slavery. They claimed that black people were the descendants of Ham, and thus enslaving them was fine.

and the rest of us laughed at them

Schrandtopia']but not every man?

Are we assuming that this man is pregnant? :p

Schrandtopia']yep

you expect others to take precautions to avoid this but at the same time must accept that it could happen
And if I choose to drive anyway, fasten my seatbelt and obey the traffic laws, I hope to avoid negative consequences.
With sex, I'll use birth control and if I get pregnant I should be able to get a safe legal abortion. The same as if I was in the aforementioned accident, I would expect what I consider appropriate medical care. My choice.

Are we assuming that this man is pregnant? :p

I have to pay child support for that shit

Schrandtopia']you chose to climb through that window - the child has no choice in the matter

I don't really see how that is relevant. Suppose there was a lion outside chasing me and your home is the only safe place? The problem with abortion is that it involves one individual's body being used without consent as a resource for another who might not even be an individual. Sure, the baby might have a right to life, but it most certainly does not have a right to my body. That is the core of the argument, that is the point that pro-lifers miss.

Would you like another example? Lets say that your liver fails. You need a transplant or you will die. This is complicated by the fact that you are of a rare tissue type and the only donor who can be found is John. John has a wife, kids, a job, he has responsibilities. Further, John just doesn't like the idea of abdominal surgery. It doesn't appeal to him. It is an inconvenience, it will be uncomfortable, it will cost him money and, though it is illegal, there is a good chance John's job will fire him if he misses work because of surgery. Should John be required to go under the knife and give you the use of one of his organs? Lets say John is Kathy and what you need is a uterus, further, the law doesn't even consider you a human being. Your argument just becomes weaker.

Now, I know what you're going to say, John isn't your parent. Thats really a moot point in our legal system. Parents have the right to sever parental rights whenever they choose. You can put a baby up for adoption and be free of any legal obligations regarding that child. Most states have safe haven laws that allow mothers to ditch their babies at hospitals,police stations, or fire departments withing a certain amount of time and just be rid of the child. It might not be moral, but it is consistant with our legal structure.

Schrandtopia']and the rest of us laughed at them

You're welcome to ignore my point. And I am a Christian, though you seem content to ignore that part of my post.

And if I choose to drive anyway, fasten my seatbelt and obey the traffic laws, I hope to avoid negative consequences.
With sex, I'll use birth control and if I get pregnant I should be able to get a safe legal abortion. The same as if I was in the aforementioned accident, I would expect what I consider appropriate medical care. My choice.

and if you hit a deer? or what if the car accident is all you fault (which the kid most likely is as well)

I personally do not believe in abortion,I have had 4 children,3 are living,my 9 y/o daughter died of A.L.L. (cancer).I can not imagine making the choice to end the life of what I consider a child.But I also dont believe I have the right to chose for other people,even tho I may disagree with thier choices.

Until a man has the right to stop an abortion,or choose not to pay child support,because the women decided not to have an abortion,I think that both parents should be givin the right to decide.How that can happen I have no idea...but you can hope.

And oddly enough ,my husband,thinks that is should be completely up to the woman.
I must say we have some interesting debates.
Jenn

please pardon the typos,am off to day and no children in the house,been doing a wee bit o the drinkin'
Salute'

Suppose there was a lion outside chasing me and your home is the only safe place?

then I have no right to kick you out - if you're going to be a total dick I have the right to smack you around a bit but not to send you to your death

That is the core of the argument, that is the point that pro-lifers miss.

we never missed that

Lets say that your liver fails. You need a transplant or you will die. This is complicated by the fact that you are of a rare tissue type and the only donor who can be found is John. John has a wife, kids, a job, he has responsibilities. Further, John just doesn't like the idea of abdominal surgery. It doesn't appeal to him. It is an inconvenience, it will be uncomfortable, it will cost him money and, though it is illegal, there is a good chance John's job will fire him if he misses work because of surgery. Should John be required to go under the knife and give you the use of one of his organs?

no, I don't - but it is I who would make that choice, when does the child get to choose?

Schrandtopia']yep

you expect others to take precautions to avoid this but at the same time must accept that it could happen

Accepting that there is a RISK is not equal to consenting to the results OF that risk.

Example... it is possible that someone might break into your house and steal your stuff. You know this.

I doubt you'd resign yourself to 'c'est la vie', if it were to occur... am I right?

I personally do not believe in abortion,I have had 4 children,3 are living,my 9 y/o daughter died of A.L.L. (cancer).I can not imagine making the choice to end the life of what I consider a child.But I also dont believe I have the right to chose for other people,even tho I may disagree with thier choices.

Until a man has the right to stop an abortion,or choose not to pay child support,because the women decided not to have an abortion,I think that both parents should be givin the right to decide.How that can happen I have no idea...but you can hope.

And oddly enough ,my husband,thinks that is should be completely up to the woman.
I must say we have some interesting debates.
Jenn

please pardon the typos,am off to day and no children in the house,been doing a wee bit o the drinkin'
Salute'

Interesting point you make. But what happens in the case of rape, or when the father runs off? If the man doesn't know he's produced a child, or the woman doesn't know who the father is (or can't reach him), what happens then?

Schrandtopia']and if you hit a deer? or what if the car accident is all you fault (which the kid most likely is as well)
I'm still entitled to medical care. And that's why we carry insurance. Because we all have little accidents. If I'm taking reasonable precautions, the law doesn't expect me to do time, whether it be 9 months or 18 years.

Yes. I see. But your forgetting. When you had sex, you made your decision that you would have sex. Pregnancy and birth are consequences of sex. People are not free to choose the consequences of their actions, it is an unchanging fact.

Again, what abortion is, is sex with out the consequences of it. It is wrong.


And to the above, not every anti-abortion person is a Bible-Bashing lunatic.

Ahh, the old stand by "well those sluts should have thought about that before they hitched up their skirts!" Without addressing the inherant ignorance and misogyny in that statement, I'll just go for the legal response. Would you agree that abortion is ok in the case of rape or incest? If the answer is yes then you're looking at abortion on demand because you would have to prove that the sexual encounter which resulted in the pregnancy was not concentual. That is an impossable task, and one which would violate quite a laundry list of constitutional rights (and not just those of the woman seeking an abortion).

Oh, and as for your last quote. Yes, yes they are. I have yet to hear a straight faced argument against abortion that doesn't come from a purely religious stance. Even the extreme pacifists who protest abortion are generally christians who put unusual value in human life. Take away the religious aspect of the pro-life movement and you're left with a handful of hippies.

Schrandtopia']I have to pay child support for that shit
Well, then I would think you would support abortion rights.

Schrandtopia']no, just no. many people happen to belong to religous groups but that in an of itself does not make them pro-life. I'm pro-life and Catholic but not pro-life because of my Catholicism

and if you're going to play at this game where did the vast majority of the support for the end of slavery come from? Christian groups - should the govenrment have backed off that one?


You'll note that in that case congress did not make a law, they directly amended the constitution. Even then, they did so only after a civil war.

I'm still entitled to medical care. And that's why we carry insurance. Because we all have little accidents. If I'm taking reasonable precautions, the law doesn't expect me to do time, whether it be 9 months or 18 years.

you're entitled to medical care becuase you have insurence not beucase risk is unacceptable

You'll note that in that case congress did not make a law, they directly amended the constitution. Even then, they did so only after a civil war.

I'm a tad confused - where are you going with that?

Schrandtopia']yep

you expect others to take precautions to avoid this but at the same time must accept that it could happen

And, one would assume from your line of thinking, release them from any civil liability that might result from an accident?

Schrandtopia']but it is I who would make that choice, when does the child get to choose?At the point at which the majority of abortions take place, the so-called child does not have the cognitive functions to choose anything.

Well, then I would think you would support abortion rights.

but should I be able to make the "choice" as well?

At the point at which the majority of abortions take place, the so-called child does not have the cognitive functions to choose anything.

so?

Schrandtopia']you're entitled to medical care becuase you have insurence not beucase risk is unacceptableNo necessity for insurance here in the UK as we have the NHS. Yet the same principles still apply; anyone injured or ill, regardless of blame, is entitled to medical care.

Schrandtopia']you're entitled to medical care becuase you have insurence not beucase risk is unacceptable

Incorrect. A person who has been in an accident is entitled to medical care, period. There is no requirement for insurance. Hospitals are legally required to take them and treat them, insurance or no insurance.

Oh, and as for your last quote. Yes, yes they are. I have yet to hear a straight faced argument against abortion that doesn't come from a purely religious stance. Even the extreme pacifists who protest abortion are generally christians who put unusual value in human life. Take away the religious aspect of the pro-life movement and you're left with a handful of hippies.

(a) Not all anti-abortion persons associate with the "pro-life" political movement. I am both anti-abortion and pro-choice. I do not think abortion is often the "right" choice, but I think it should be a legal choice all the same.

(b) Most arguments against abortion are religious, as is mine, but it doesn't make me a "Bible-bashing lunatic."

(c) I don't think placing a value on human life, or even on potential human life, is all that unusual. There are certainly those who place less (or more) value on both than I do, but the "usual", as far as I have seen, is to value human life and to place a lesser, although still fairly high, value on potential human life as well.

Schrandtopia']then I have no right to kick you out - if you're going to be a total dick I have the right to smack you around a bit but not to send you to your death



we never missed that



no, I don't - but it is I who would make that choice, when does the child get to choose?
When he starts paying off his own college loans.

There are no children concerned in abortion. A fetus is not a child. It is not an idependent life at all. It is nothing but a parasite or, less pejoratively, a bud growing off the woman's body. It is part of the woman's body. It has no interests that are different or separate from the woman's. Its presence affects nobody but her and nobody has any direct effect on it except her.

Abortion is about women's rights. Not children's rights because they are not involved, and not men's rights because they don't carry the burden or risk of pregnancy. Fetuses are not persons, legally, so they have neither rights nor interests to protect.

Schrandtopia']so?
So what's lump of meat that can't think? I don't believe that it should qualify as a human and get the rights and protections of the law. If so, then you would have to consider the life of your appendix if you get appendicitis.

Or will you make the "it has a soul" argument?

Schrandtopia']then I have no right to kick you out - if you're going to be a total dick I have the right to smack you around a bit but not to send you to your death

Thats not really the way the law feels. Tresspassing is tresspassing. Tresspassing that causes danger to the owner is a justification for homicide in most jurisdictions.

Schrandtopia']no, I don't - but it is I who would make that choice, when does the child get to choose?

No, you wouldn't make that choice. Only John has the right to decide who can or cannot use his liver, EVEN IF YOUR LIFE HANGS IN THE BALANCE! The child, like you, doesn't get to choose. Only John, cause its his damn liver. Were you to try to take it without John's consent, every single state in the union would condone John killing you outright.

A fetus is not a child.

what is a person on a ventelator? they're not indepenent

Schrandtopia']but should I be able to make the "choice" as well?

No.

You do not have rights over the body of any woman (unless you are, yourself, a woman) and thus cannot make any medical choice for her unless she has explicitly designated you as someone who can do so and she is incapacitated. Thus, you can make neither the decision to have an abortion nor the decision to carry to term. You also cannot decide whether or not a woman will have a C-section or normal childbirth, what type of pill she is on, what antibiotics she gets when she gets sick, or how often she goes in for a pap smear.

I don't think of a fetus/embryo/zygote/whatever as a human being, but it has the potential to become one. Much like most small children.

Schrandtopia']I'm a tad confused - where are you going with that?

I'm saying that when Christians wanted to end slavery, they didn't pass a law, they amended the constitution. Even then, they only did so after war. That is the difference between passing a law banning abortion and ending slavery in this country.

Thats not really the way the law feels. Tresspassing is tresspassing. Tresspassing that causes danger to the owner is a justification for homicide in most jurisdictions.

if there is a lion outside the door and I knowingly shove you out the door becuase you're being annoying I will be serving jail time

No, you wouldn't make that choice. Only John has the right to decide who can or cannot use his liver, EVEN IF YOUR LIFE HANGS IN THE BALANCE! The child, like you, doesn't get to choose. Only John, cause its his damn liver. Were you to try to take it without John's consent, every single state in the union would condone John killing you outright.

in our scenario john would die, you'd just miss work for a month

(a) Not all anti-abortion persons associate with the "pro-life" political movement. I am both anti-abortion and pro-choice. I do not think abortion is often the "right" choice, but I think it should be a legal choice all the same.

(b) Most arguments against abortion are religious, as is mine, but it doesn't make me a "Bible-bashing lunatic."

(c) I don't think placing a value on human life, or even on potential human life, is all that unusual. There are certainly those who place less (or more) value on both than I do, but the "usual", as far as I have seen, is to value human life and to place a lesser, although still fairly high, value on potential human life as well.

Excuse me, I was refering to those who would wish to impose their opinions on the rest of society through law. I should have been more clear.

Schrandtopia']so?You asked about the "child's" right to choose to do something (or words to that effect). It doesn't have that ability, never mind that right. Therefore, it is at best little more than a lump of non-sentient cells.

I'm saying that when Christians wanted to end slavery, they didn't pass a law, they amended the constitution.

I'm more than willing to presue the same course

Schrandtopia']and the rest of us laughed at them
And now you're being laughed at -- or, to be less sarcastic, you're being disagreed with.

If you're going to claim that a certain group's religious views should rule everyone, you can't just blithely dismiss the serious errors that same group has made in the past.

You asked about the "child's" right to choose to do something. Therefore, it is at best little more than a lump of non-sentient cells.

more than a couple elderly people possess the same ability - have they no rights?

And now you're being laughed at -- or, to be less sarcastic, you're being disagreed with.

If you're going to claim that a certain group's religious views should rule everyone, you can't just blithely dismiss the serious errors that same group has made in the past.

I never claimed that

ever

or evan came close to claiming that

*raises hand*

I'm a Republican who believes that the government needs to get out of the business of policing "morals".

Abortion is a medical procedure for women. It's their body and their medical procedure, and until men can have babies, I'm not going to tell anyone they should or should not have an abortion.
Will you start writing up pamphlets for your buddies to read? Please?

Schrandtopia']more than a couple elderly people possess the same ability - have they no rights?If they are brain-dead, it may be in their best interests to end their lives, a decision usually taken by relatives and medics and not the elderly person since by that point they have no ability to make it. If they are not brain dead, then they remain sentient, and even if they can't verbally articulate themselves, they still have means of communication. Zygotes, foetuses and embryos do not.

Schrandtopia']if there is a lion outside the door and I knowingly shove you out the door becuase you're being annoying I will be serving jail time



in our scenario john would die, you'd just miss work for a month

1) Not if I am tresspassing and threatening to cause you harm.

2) ...Ok...you're confused. John has the liver, you need it. You don't get to make John give you a part of his liver (there ARE liver liver transplants and the donor does not die). It is his and he gets to decide who uses it. Period.

Schrandtopia']I never claimed that

ever

or evan came close to claiming that

I have to say he's right here: he bitched at me for posting the First Amendment as support for keeping abortion legal.

Schrandtopia']if there is a lion outside the door and I knowingly shove you out the door becuase you're being annoying I will be serving jail time

Not if that person was trespassing on your property to begin with.

in our scenario john would die, you'd just miss work for a month

Why would John die? He's the guy who refuses to donate part of his liver, that is all.

Are you suggesting that we should make live organ donation (and, then, I would assume post-mortem organ donation as well) mandatory. That you could go to jail for not giving someone your kidney, or a portion of your liver?

Schrandtopia]
more than a couple elderly people possess the same ability - have they no rights?

You know non-sentient elderly people who don't even have a neural net to speak of? Where are they hiding these people!?!?!? The biological study would be so very interesting!

Schrandtopia']I'm more than willing to presue the same course

You've tried and failed. You've lost. This post is about pro-life failures trying to find a backdoor. It is underhanded and decietful. It is dishonest. It is unchristian. Then again, so was the Spanish Inquisition.

Schrandtopia']what is a person on a ventelator? they're not indepenent
They are also not inside my body. Their continued existence is not dependent on me and poses no risk to me. My rights are not being sacrificed so they may benefit at my expense.

Oh, and by the way, another individual cannot be forced to pay to maintain that ventilator. If I were your next of kin and (heaven forbid) you were to end up on a ventilator, and I could not or would not pay for it, your plug would eventually be pulled, my friend. Work that into your scheme of things.

Schrandtopia']in our scenario john would die, you'd just miss work for a month
Umm, what? That sure isn't what it looked like the scenario said:
Lets say that your liver fails. You need a transplant or you will die. This is complicated by the fact that you are of a rare tissue type and the only donor who can be found is John.<snip>

Schrandtopia']more than a couple elderly people possess the same ability - have they no rights?
If they're brain-dead, then I see no reason to treat them as people.

1) Not if I am tresspassing and threatening to cause you harm.

what level of harm - if I throw you to the lions excesive force comes into play like a bitch

2) ...Ok...you're confused. John has the liver, you need it. You don't get to make John give you a part of his liver (there ARE liver liver transplants and the donor does not die). It is his and he gets to decide who uses it. Period.

I can't force john to give me the liver but if john knows all this and still doesn't give me the liver he can do without he is murderer

The Abortion arguement, though previously labeled as "LIFE vs. CHOICE", it does, in fact, fall under the "Right to Life" category, regardless of what side you are on.

In the Declaration of Independence, the three basic categories of God-given rights are "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" (property being subbed by Pursuit)

The Constitution of the United States was created to protect those basic rights, further detailed in the Bill of Rights.

If the Constitution was made to protect the right to Life, then abortion cannot be legal or valid if we truly are to hold to the Constitution. Another example is in the Preamble "and to secure the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity." The baby, infant, fetus, whatever you will call it, is our posterity. Hence, their right to life, they being unable to forfeight that right, must be protected, and any other interperetation is in violation thereof.

Be it just a clump of cells, a developed fetus, or partially born baby, it is protected by the Constitution (in truth) and therefore, abortion cannot not be justly legal.

Abortion is wrong no matter when life starts. And I wish more anti-abortion people would realize that instead of falling in the trap of the "WHEN DOES LIFE START" nonsense. god your full of it

I'd rather be completely dead than just brain-dead.

You've tried and failed. You've lost. This post is about pro-life failures trying to find a backdoor. It is underhanded and decietful. It is dishonest.

so was smuggling slaves on the underground railroad - gonna berate me for that?

It is unchristian.

not at all

I'd rather be completely dead than just brain-dead.
Same thing really. Brain dead is dead. It's just that your heart and lungs are still sort-of working. You're basically a lump of human meat on a respirator.

Schrandtopia']but should I be able to make the "choice" as well?
No, because there are serious risks to carrying a pregnancy to term that do not and cannot affect a man. Also, to the extent the progress of a pregnancy can be controlled, the only person who can exercise such control is the woman. Her responsibility for it is absolute. The man's is only conditional and is very slight -- for instance, he can drink liquor like there's no tomorrow and it will have no affect on anyone's pregnancy. It would be hoped that a couple would make the decision to terminate a pregnancy together, but because of the risks involved and the degree of responsiblity involved, the ultimate decision belongs to the woman alone.

Schrandtopia']what level of harm - if I throw you to the lions excesive force comes into play like a bitch

You aren't, "throwing him to the lions," you are throwing him out of your house. The lions just happen to be there. Looks like he should've found somewhere to be other than in your house.

I can't force john to give me the liver but if john knows all this and still doesn't give me the liver he can do without he is murderer

You can believe that. I wouldn't say that John is a murderer, but you can think of it that way. The question is, would you support laws that would force John to do it? Would you support laws that would force live (and post-mortem) organ donation against the wishes, and even possibly the religious beliefs, of the person involved?

Same thing really. Brain dead is dead. It's just that your heart and lungs are still sort-of working. You're basically a lump of human meat on a respirator.

It's worse, because if your body's still alive you're a drain on your family and the healthcare system.

You aren't, "throwing him to the lions," you are throwing him out of your house. The lions just happen to be there. Looks like he should've found somewhere to be other than in your house.

bullshit

if that works than "I just pulled the triggen on the gun, its not my fault he was infront of it" would pass in court

Everything has the right to life that is already living. What is the difference between a chicken and a fetus. The chicken actually serves a purpose.

Personally I have 0 sympathy for an unborn fetus. Someone always argued "What if your parents aborted J00!" Actually my parents had seriously considered aborting me since I was very unexpected (Born on the pill HA!). However, since neither of them were really going anywhere with their lives there was no point in not having me. Besides if they had aborted me I wouldn't care because I couldn't care.

Everything has the right to life that is already living. What is the difference between a chicken and a fetus. The chicken actually serves a purpose.

Personally I have 0 sympathy for an unborn fetus. Someone always argued "What if your parents aborted J00!" Actually my parents had seriously considered aborting me since I was very unexpected (Born on the pill HA!). However, since neither of them were really going anywhere with their lives there was no point in not having me. Besides if they had aborted me I wouldn't care because I couldn't care.

I love it when people throw that argument at me because I was a planned pregnancy. But congratulations for not having a stick up your ass.

Schrandtopia']I can't force john to give me the liver but if john knows all this and still doesn't give me the liver he can do without he is murderer

Morally, sure, but legally? Are you REALLY sure you want to go down that road? Are you positive that you want all of your tissue to be available upon the demand of any reasonable request? Are you willing to live in a society when anyone can force you to undergo surgery, regardless of your feelings or personal safety, at any time?

Schrandtopia']so was smuggling slaves on the underground railroad - gonna berate me for that?

Again, a nuance you miss. Smuggling slaves was illegal activity, an act of civil disobediance. It was not an attempt to make a mockery of the law, it was a diliberate discision to break the law. Once is heroic, the other is cowardly. I'll let you sort out which was which.

Schrandtopia']I never claimed that

ever

or evan came close to claiming that
Yes, you did. You pointed out that may abolitionists were Christians, which is true. However, you brought it up in the context of your anti-choice argument, as if it gave support to your argument. You seemed to imply that being Christian puts you on the right side of the issue because Christians make right choices by following their religion.

It was pointed out to you that there were many Christians who used that same religion to argue in favor of slavery and against abolition. The point then was that being Christian is not a guaranty that you are right.

The fact is that you are arguing in favor of rewriting US law or the US Constitution to match your religious views. As a non-Christian, I do not trust a religion that can be used to argue both sides of such serious issues like that. I reject it as a guide for how I should behave. You can't ignore this problem and expect to persuade people like me to accept your view.

Schrandtopia']bullshit

if that works than "I just pulled the triggen on the gun, its not my fault he was infront of it" would pass in court

No, it wouldn't. You would have to explain why you were pointing a gun in the first place, much less firing it. Of course, if you were at a shooting range, and someone jumped in front of your gun just as you fired, there would be no question of it being murder - it isn't. You had no intention of harming anyone and you were doing something perfectlly legal. That person just happened to jump in front of you.

The purpose of an abortion is not to kill anything. It is to end a pregnancy - a medical condition. If there were little mini-incubators that we could put the aborted tissue into and get a baby out at the end, I'm sure someone would pay for it and it would be done, so long as whatever procedure was used didn't cause any more risk to the pregnant woman.

Schrandtopia']bullshit

if that works than "I just pulled the triggen on the gun, its not my fault he was infront of it" would pass in court

You really have trouble with causality, don't you. You're in my house, I throw you out is not the same as aiming a gun and pulling the trigger. It is not my responsibility to protect you, it is my responsibility not to kill you without cause.

Morally, sure, but legally? Are you REALLY sure you want to go down that road? Are you positive that you want all of your tissue to be available upon the demand of any reasonable request? Are you willing to live in a society when anyone can force you to undergo surgery, regardless of your feelings or personal safety, at any time?

The day when our bodies are no longer our property will be a dark day.

Yes, you did. You pointed out that may abolitionists were Christians, which is true. However, you brought it up in the context of your anti-choice argument, as if it gave support to your argument. You seemed to imply that being Christian puts you on the right side of the issue because Christians make right choices by following their religion.

It was pointed out to you that there were many Christians who used that same religion to argue in favor of slavery and against abolition. The point then was that being Christian is not a guaranty that you are right.

The fact is that you are arguing in favor of rewriting US law or the US Constitution to match your religious views. As a non-Christian, I do not trust a religion that can be used to argue both sides of such serious issues like that. I reject it as a guide for how I should behave. You can't ignore this problem and expect to persuade people like me to accept your view.

I'd say that anyone who can't argue without being a complete asshole is unlikely to convince anyone regardless of their reasoning, religious or not. I'm only a partial asshole, which is why every now and then someone listens to me.

unsanctioned sexual act.

He he he. the suggestion that there is such a thing as a sanctioned sexual act is funny

The day when our bodies are no longer our property will be a dark day.
Well, it will happen to the women first, if anti-choicers get their way, so if you're a man, that would be the time to run.

more "do-gooder" baloney, i say. people who have no lives and who thrive on sticking their noses where they don't belong. *ech*

Well, it will happen to the women first, if anti-choicers get their way, so if you're a man, that would be the time to run.

No, that would be the time to grab your gun, rally the locals, arm the women, and start killing your way to a revolution. One of the unfortunate and unaviodable costs of freedom is that every once in awhile you need to murder those who would take it from you.

Thats kind of the bottom of the pro-choice/pro-life argument. Some of us believe that freedom is more valuable than potential life.

In the Declaration of Independence, the three basic categories of God-given rights are "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" (property being subbed by Pursuit)

The Constitution of the United States was created to protect those basic rights, further detailed in the Bill of Rights.

If the Constitution was made to protect the right to Life, then abortion cannot be legal or valid if we truly are to hold to the Constitution. Another example is in the Preamble "and to secure the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity." The baby, infant, fetus, whatever you will call it, is our posterity. Hence, their right to life, they being unable to forfeight that right, must be protected, and any other interperetation is in violation thereof.

Be it just a clump of cells, a developed fetus, or partially born baby, it is protected by the Constitution (in truth) and therefore, abortion cannot not be justly legal.


Actually, you're wrong. The preamble doesn't count as part of the Constitution. If you were to cite the preamble in any legal debate, the judge would just laugh at you. It is merely an intro to the actual piece of work...it could have said "Hibbidy hibbidy hey, hear what we gotta say" and done the same exact thing. It wouldn't have ensured you the right to have what you say heard.

Mmm, how I love my AP Government class.

I'm not going to get into the actual pro choice v pro life debate because it's not worth the time and effort on this board to debate personal preference, but glaring factual errors upset me.

I'd say that anyone who can't argue without being a complete asshole is unlikely to convince anyone regardless of their reasoning, religious or not. I'm only a partial asshole, which is why every now and then someone listens to me.
I think people sometimes get so caught up in their argument/rhetoric/talking points/etc. that they don't even see what they're typing or hear what they're saying any more.

I don't think that the Republicans who are trying to get this done are really conservative in the true sense of the word,...

So how does that make them any different from any other Republican? It makes them different from most Democrats who are conservative, but not liberal, in the true sense of either word.

On a base related note, here's an article I found interesting:


http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05061702.html (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05061702.html)

It seems women are affected by religiously-driven anti-abortion sentiments after all, whether or not the need for abortion is medically necessary.

All of you pro-lifers had better be vegetarians; otherwise I call shenanigans. There is no argument that can possibly justify killing a fully grown animal but not an undeveloped potential for life....OK, I tell a lie. Correction: There is no legitimate argument...

Incidentally, I am vegetarian, pro-life (albeit only philosophically, since being homosexual rather removes me from the argument), and pro-choice. I also happen to think that it is immoral for anyone to force their religious beliefs or morals (other than are protected constitutionally, such as "murder is wrong") - or any legislation that is a result of those beliefs or morals - on anyone else.

The United States of America is not possessed of a homogeneous set of values. Deal with it. If it's what you believe, raise your children not to believe in abortions, or not to have premarital sex, but don't try to prevent others from doing so. Mind your own business.

No, that would be the time to grab your gun, rally the locals, arm the women, and start killing your way to a revolution. One of the unfortunate and unaviodable costs of freedom is that every once in awhile you need to murder those who would take it from you.

Thats kind of the bottom of the pro-choice/pro-life argument. Some of us believe that freedom is more valuable than potential life.
I like you. You sound angry. I like angry people. They're my peeps. And I like guys who are willing to give me weapons. Most people who know me are extremely grateful that I don't own a gun.

A life that is not free is not worth being born into.

Since the Radical Christian Agenda has failed when trying to eliminate abortion through direct legislation and through legal challenges in the courts they've resorted to other underhanded tactics. Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers or TRAP laws.

Who says that republicans are against government regulations?

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137833575863

http://www.fivedigits.net/pix/phun/itsatrap.jpg

Seriously, what kind of underhanded approach is a "TRAP" law? A bad one, that's what.

No, because there are serious risks to carrying a pregnancy to term that do not and cannot affect a man. Also, to the extent the progress of a pregnancy can be controlled, the only person who can exercise such control is the woman. Her responsibility for it is absolute. The man's is only conditional and is very slight -- for instance, he can drink liquor like there's no tomorrow and it will have no affect on anyone's pregnancy. It would be hoped that a couple would make the decision to terminate a pregnancy together, but because of the risks involved and the degree of responsiblity involved, the ultimate decision belongs to the woman alone.

I also couldn't help but notice that no one says anything about when a woman is forced to get an abortion. The Pro-choice people want to protect women whose parents/boyfriends/husbands are trying to force them to get an abortion. The Right to Choose is just that; the right to choose. The choices are: abortion, give up, and keep. So many Pro-Life (but not all) people see Pro-choice in a light that they see abortion as the only option.
This is a Woman's Rights issue; if women loose the right to decide what is best for thier bodies concerning pregency what other rights will be taken away soon after. Let's not forget that birthcontrol was illegal in the not to distant past. Will the right to use birthcontrol also be taken away. Some will laugh, but it's a real possiblity. Divorce used to be a male only choice. Will the right for women to divorce an abusive husband be taken away too. Taking away one right from women opens so many doors. I know a lot of people won't take this seriously, but these are things that can happen once on right is taken away.
Plus, just because abortion is made illegal doesn't mean they won't happen. Like in the past, the rich will just go to countries where it is leagal and the poor will have to resort to coathanger and bobbypins. I think women have the right to a safe, medical abortion if that is something they choose to have done.
Just FYI I am anti-abortion. I think it's wrong, ending a life that hasn't had a chance to even begin. I also think forcing my beleifs onto someone esle is just as wrong. I may not agree with what a person does, I don't have to like them after they've done it, but I shouldn't be allowed to force my decission on them either. That's just my 2 cents. Sorry for spelling errors, but I never said I could spell.

I also couldn't help but notice that no one says anything about when a woman is forced to get an abortion. The Pro-choice people want to protect women whose parents/boyfriends/husbands are trying to force them to get an abortion. The Right to Choose is just that; the right to choose. The choices are: abortion, give up, and keep. So many Pro-Life (but not all) people see Pro-choice in a light that they see abortion as the only option.
This is a Woman's Rights issue; if women loose the right to decide what is best for thier bodies concerning pregency what other rights will be taken away soon after. Let's not forget that birthcontrol was illegal in the not to distant past. Will the right to use birthcontrol also be taken away. Some will laugh, but it's a real possiblity. Divorce used to be a male only choice. Will the right for women to divorce an abusive husband be taken away too. Taking away one right from women opens so many doors. I know a lot of people won't take this seriously, but these are things that can happen once on right is taken away.
Plus, just because abortion is made illegal doesn't mean they won't happen. Like in the past, the rich will just go to countries where it is leagal and the poor will have to resort to coathanger and bobbypins. I think women have the right to a safe, medical abortion if that is something they choose to have done.
Just FYI I am anti-abortion. I think it's wrong, ending a life that hasn't had a chance to even begin. I also think forcing my beleifs onto someone esle is just as wrong. I may not agree with what a person does, I don't have to like them after they've done it, but I shouldn't be allowed to force my decission on them either. That's just my 2 cents. Sorry for spelling errors, but I never said I could spell.
Bad spelling did not in any way detract from your well-reasoned statement. :)

You outline what I think is an entirely plausible worst case scenario. I know many reactionaries who would actually like to strip women of their rights, and every single one of them wants abortion outlawed. Interestingly, they also oppose affirmative action/equal opportunity, poverty relief, and workers' rights. Hmm. Coincidence?

I know many reactionaries who would actually like to strip women of their rights, and every single one of them wants abortion outlawed. Interestingly, they also oppose affirmative action/equal opportunity, poverty relief, and workers' rights. Hmm. Coincidence?

And I'll bet that not a single one of them is female, a member of a minority, poor, or a worker.

Which kind of sums up lot of our society's problems.

Bad spelling did not in any way detract from your well-reasoned statement. :)

You outline what I think is an entirely plausible worst case scenario. I know many reactionaries who would actually like to strip women of their rights, and every single one of them wants abortion outlawed. Interestingly, they also oppose affirmative action/equal opportunity, poverty relief, and workers' rights. Hmm. Coincidence?

Affirmative action and equal opportunity aren't the same thing, but I'm splitting hairs. :D I agree with you about Caramin's post, which was very good. Sometimes people forget that being pro-choice supports choice.

The United States of America is not possessed of a homogeneous set of values. Deal with it. If it's what you believe, raise your children not to believe in abortions, or not to have premarital sex, but don't try to prevent others from doing so. Mind your own business.

We legislate to stop murder, theft etc. Any legislation may upset some people and please others. But the fact that a piece of legislation does not please everyone is not a reason to not enforce it.

Affirmative action and equal opportunity aren't the same thing, but I'm splitting hairs. :D I agree with you about Murvayets' post, which was very good. Sometimes people forget that being pro-choice supports choice.
I only connected them because they're both about social equality. BTW, I'm Muravyets. :)

I just realized what I'd typed, which goes to show how much I'm paying attention. :D

And I'll bet that not a single one of them is female, a member of a minority, poor, or a worker.

Which kind of sums up lot of our society's problems.
You'd be surprised, unfortunately. There are a lot of self-hating, deluded people out there.

We legislate to stop murder, theft etc. Any legislation may upset some people and please others. But the fact that a piece of legislation does not please everyone is not a reason to not enforce it.
Which side of this argument are you on? Not clear from your post.

... the fact that a piece of legislation does not please everyone is not a reason to not enforce it.

I agree. I believe completely in the emforcement of such laws as do exist (while at the same time believing in the mutable nature of the law and every citizen's DUTY to fight against a law they consider to be unjust). I DO NOT believe in the creation of unneccesary laws, or the unneccesary interference of the government in the lives of its citizens, for the sake of ending controversy. The governments job should not be to morally police its citizens, but (as far as internal affairs are concerned) to prevent them from infringing on the liberties and rights of others.

On another topic...
It is a parents responsibility to decide what is best for her (or his) child until such a time as that child is old enough to make an informed decision for itself - in this country, that time legally comes at the age of 18. To some extent, this means that a fetus doesn't need to be able to make its own choice about life. It is extreme, but it is within an expectant mothers rights and responsibilities to decide the fate of her conception. This causes the debate, of course, to degenerate into a discussion of the definition of infanticide, which is why the government tends to remove that particular right of the mother after the first trimester, when the fetus is identifyably a humanesque organism.

P.S. Thank goodness this thread is more intelligent and civil than the last abortion debate thread I was in...Thank you all for not being morons.

It's hard to say if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I know it's probably hard to tell where I fall on the religion spectrum when I don't say it outright.

Please provide some information to support the part of your post I highlited in bold.

And no, they're not making conditions better. This is a strategy to make abortions impossible since they can't make them illegal.

Oh, and nobody's killing their young. It's not a baby in the early stages of pregnancy.

What I will do is give you the name of the last best example, Krishna Rajanna, a doctor who has been under investigation, charged, fined and scolded since around 2000. I will not give you specific links to articles about him because many contain links to some or all of the photos taken as evidence and I would without a doubt be accused of linking to bad pictures. (Besides, I have no desire to change anyone's mind)

Pro Abortion I am, but that old chestnut that nobody is killing their young is simply a bald faced lie, to hide the reality of what the hell they are really doing. To say that it is not a baby they are killing is totally lame unless you subscribe to human reproduction as being akin to metamorphoses. Also, since you attempt to qualify your position by noting that in the earliest stages it is not a baby, when and what do you consider it, when you kill it at a later stage? Is your position such that if it's big toe is still not clear of the birth canal it's ok to crush it's little, viable, skull while celebrating your constitutional right to do so? Sounds more fanatical than any of the religious cults I have heard of in a long time if you ask me.

Anyway, as I said, I couldn't possibly care less, as I see it as beneficial to our country if such people choose not to reproduce, and it gives me the right to say, remember this when you decide you want to take my right to smoke a fucking cigarette.

I like you. You sound angry. I like angry people. They're my peeps. And I like guys who are willing to give me weapons. Most people who know me are extremely grateful that I don't own a gun.

A life that is not free is not worth being born into.

Hey, sometimes you have to be angry, armed, and willing to fight for what you believe in. Freedom isn't something that is given to you. Things that are given to you are called privilages. Freedoms are things that are taken. In our country they are things which are bought and paid for through the slaughter of those who would deny you your rights. It isn't a very nice system, but its the one we have and its the one every society eventually embraces, given a long enough period of observation.

Oh, btw, if you're in the states, save money and buy yourself a gun. I promise, you'll be more secure at home, you'll be ready to shoot Jerry Falwell should the time come, and you'll have a really nifty/relaxing hobby. If you don;t live in the states, well, I'm not going to suggest you do anything illegal but....:cool:

What I will do is give you the name of the last best example, Krishna Rajanna, a doctor who has been under investigation, charged, fined and scolded since around 2000. I will not give you specific links to articles about him because many contain links to some or all of the photos taken as evidence and I would without a doubt be accused of linking to bad pictures. (Besides, I have no desire to change anyone's mind)


There will always be sleazy abortionists, just as there will always be crooked weight pill docs, pain killer docs, and every other kind of doctor. Some people are just out there to make a buck. However, if abortion is illegal, nearly all of the abortion doctors will be sleazy, crooked, and unsafe.

We legislate to stop murder, theft etc. Any legislation may upset some people and please others. But the fact that a piece of legislation does not please everyone is not a reason to not enforce it.

Indeed, but those things can be objectively shown to harm another human person. We do not legislate to stop blasphemy, homosexual sex (not constitutionally, anyways), or working on the Sabbath.

There will always be sleazy abortionists, just as there will always be crooked weight pill docs, pain killer docs, and every other kind of doctor. Some people are just out there to make a buck. However, if abortion is illegal, nearly all of the abortion doctors will be sleazy, crooked, and unsafe.

I don't advocate making abortion illegal. I am for it, but what he was asking me for was supporting documentation to justify the improvement in standards at abortion clinics. Under most current laws the clinical standards are so low as to be classified and regulated in the same manner as a doctors office instead of a qualified, and properly equiped medical facility. I was simply providing him the documentation he requested, and pointing out the flaws in the accepted propaganda supporting his position. The way I see it, for or against, there needs to be clean facilities capable of handling any event, and closing down boiler room operations is a good thing.

You've tried and failed. You've lost. This post is about pro-life failures trying to find a backdoor. It is underhanded and decietful. It is dishonest. It is unchristian. Then again, so was the Spanish Inquisition.

Of course it'd be underhanded and deceitful. After all, NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Their main weapons are fear and surprise...

To me, until it can think, it isn't a Baby.

Some people never really learn to think. Does that mean we can use that excuse to kill an 8 year old? A 20 year old?

Science can't prove exactly when life starts yet. Isn't it better to error on the side of caution?

Personally, a much better solution to this whole problem would be to make birth control (the pill, condoms, whatever) available to everyone who wants it. I know this isn't the right-wing response, but I'd rather people be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to kill an innocent human being who can't defend him/herself. We know people are going to have sex, very few people have enough self control to wait til marriage, and biologically sex is ment to make babies. Yet abortion IS murder. We need a middle ground.

I know I'll get slack from both sides for this position.

clip

Excellent post.

Here's something moderately relevant, sarcastic and slightly amusing:

In Jewish tradition, the fetus is not considered a viable human being until graduation from medical school.

If anyone can let me know who originally said that, it would be appreciated.

I don't advocate making abortion illegal. I am for it, but what he was asking me for was supporting documentation to justify the improvement in standards at abortion clinics. Under most current laws the clinical standards are so low as to be classified and regulated in the same manner as a doctors office instead of a qualified, and properly equiped medical facility. I was simply providing him the documentation he requested, and pointing out the flaws in the accepted propaganda supporting his position. The way I see it, for or against, there needs to be clean facilities capable of handling any event, and closing down boiler room operations is a good thing.

Meh.

No, you named one allegedly "bad" abortionist and tried to use that as a justification for TRAP legislation.

You have conveniently totally ignored the point of the main post that such regulations are misused to deny abortion availability. Most of the TRAP regulations are not aimed at any particular safety or cleanliness concern. Instead, they are deliberately aimed at getting rid of abotion clinics.

(BTW, a vast number of medical procedures may be performed in doctor's offices. There is a vast difference between a hospital standard and the boiler room.)

Some people never really learn to think. Does that mean we can use that excuse to kill an 8 year old? A 20 year old?

I don't think the poster was talking about critical thinking - simply a general cognitive awareness.

Science can't prove exactly when life starts yet. Isn't it better to error on the side of caution?

Science can't "prove exactly when life starts," period, especially since the definition of life that science would use must come from science itself, and isn't perfect. But, when it comes right down to it, we do err on the side of caution. Most places put heavy restrictions on abortion well before there is any evidence that pain can be felt. Most allow completely elective abortions only in the 1st trimester. It isn't like places are allowing abortions up until birth.

Personally, a much better solution to this whole problem would be to make birth control (the pill, condoms, whatever) available to everyone who wants it.

I agree with this. Of course, 60% of women who have abortions are using some form of birth control when they get pregnant....

Yet abortion IS murder.

I thought you said that science doesn't know when life begins. And you do? I'm confused here.

(BTW, a vast number of medical procedures may be performed in doctor's offices. There is a vast difference between a hospital standard and the boiler room.)

Indeed. And some states (my own included) allow abortions in women's health clinics (I'm not aware of any "abortion clinics", just women's health/reproductive health clinics that offer abortion as one possible procedure) only up until the end of the 1st trimester. After that, a woman seeking an abortion must do so at a hospital. Could it possibly be that the procedures used are different, and less likely to have complications at early time points?

Meanwhile, it might be interesting to point out that women can give birth in a doctor's office (although a hospital is generally preferred) or even at home with a midwife - no doctor even present.

I don't think that one can be against both birth control and abortion anymore than one can be againist both premarital sex and masturbation. If people were educated on birth control and it were made available to anyone, the rate of unplanned pregnancies would drop dramatically. If we could decrease the rate of unplanned pregnancies, then abortion would become much less of an issue because it would be much less common.

Some people never really learn to think. Does that mean we can use that excuse to kill an 8 year old? A 20 year old?.

Don't be deliberately dense. If a 20 year old truly has no capacity for thought, then he/she is brain dead already.

Science can't prove exactly when life starts yet. Isn't it better to error on the side of caution?.

Science can prove when the signs of personhood first appear.

We already error on the side of caution in protecting post-viability fetuses.

Personally, a much better solution to this whole problem would be to make birth control (the pill, condoms, whatever) available to everyone who wants it. I know this isn't the right-wing response, but I'd rather people be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to kill an innocent human being who can't defend him/herself.

Although I agree that birth control should be more freely available (and we should invest in improving its quality), this is no panacea. 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.

We know people are going to have sex, very few people have enough self control to wait til marriage, and biologically sex is ment to make babies. Yet abortion IS murder. We need a middle ground.

I know I'll get slack from both sides for this position.

Biologically sex has many purposes beyond procreation. You are repeating myths.

And, of course, abortion isn't murder. It isn't the killing of person and it isn't illegal.

I don't think that one can be against both birth control and abortion anymore than one can be againist both premarital sex and masturbation. If people were educated on birth control and it were made available to anyone, the rate of unplanned pregnancies would drop dramatically. If we could decrease the rate of unplanned pregnancies, then abortion would become much less of an issue because it would be much less common.

Agreed.

Education on use of contraceptives is particularly important, as the majority of women that get abortions were using contraceptives. Most of them were using the incorrectly, however.

The Abortion arguement, though previously labeled as "LIFE vs. CHOICE", it does, in fact, fall under the "Right to Life" category, regardless of what side you are on.

In the Declaration of Independence, the three basic categories of God-given rights are "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" (property being subbed by Pursuit)

The Constitution of the United States was created to protect those basic rights, further detailed in the Bill of Rights.

If the Constitution was made to protect the right to Life, then abortion cannot be legal or valid if we truly are to hold to the Constitution. Another example is in the Preamble "and to secure the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity." The baby, infant, fetus, whatever you will call it, is our posterity. Hence, their right to life, they being unable to forfeight that right, must be protected, and any other interperetation is in violation thereof.

Be it just a clump of cells, a developed fetus, or partially born baby, it is protected by the Constitution (in truth) and therefore, abortion cannot not be justly legal.

Abortion is wrong no matter when life starts. And I wish more anti-abortion people would realize that instead of falling in the trap of the "WHEN DOES LIFE START" nonsense.

do me a big favor and be a loyer. ill cheer for u

Abortion is wrong no matter when life starts. And I wish more anti-abortion people would realize that instead of falling in the trap of the "WHEN DOES LIFE START" nonsense.

Too true. Has anyone noticed that when a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer argue this issue, one is always arguing about when life starts (& who decides) and the other is arguing about personal freedom? They usually don't realize that they are aguing 2 different issues, and they almost never actually hear what the other is saying.

Just sayin'

do me a big favor and be a loyer. ill cheer for u

Ha.

Such idiotic drivel may sound good, but it is asinine.

I'd love to see The Niaman point to the Constitutional provision that outlaws abortions.

As SCOTUS has recognized for about 32 years, the Constitution does the opposite.

Too true. Has anyone noticed that when a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer argue this issue, one is always arguing about when life starts (& who decides) and the other is arguing about personal freedom? They usually don't realize that they are aguing 2 different issues, and they almost never actually hear what the other is saying.

Just sayin'

They are three seperate issues -- both of which support the pro-choice position.

1. When does a zygote, embryo, or fetus become a person? Not until at least the third trimester. (Note: the issue isn't when life begins, but when personhood begins. Pigs have more characteristics of personhood than fetuses.)

2. Who should decide? The woman should.

3. Personal freedom -- one has a right to control over one's own body, even if that would endanger the life of another.

Abortion is wrong no matter when life starts. And I wish more anti-abortion people would realize that instead of falling in the trap of the "WHEN DOES LIFE START" nonsense.
I agree, but for those of you who need something to be conscious for it to have rights, hear this:
I admit that the baby in the womb is nowhere near being conscious, and that it can't think, but the important thing is that it has the POTENTIAL to think.
If you let the baby develop, It will become a fully-fledged human being, capable of making its own decisions and governing itself. Who are we to deny it that? What a baby is at or before birth doesn't matter, it's what it later becomes that's important.
It matters not that the child wouldn't even feel its death. It matters that it will never get to feel its life.

Mothers should have the option to kill their children until their children are one year of age, if they decide they have made a mistake in wanting a child and thinking they could take care of it appropriately.

it has the POTENTIAL to think

So does a sperm cell, which can be potentially coupled with an unfertilized egg, which could potentially produce a viable baby. Each time you masturbate, you should be held accountable for millions of murders.

So does a sperm cell, which can be potentially coupled with an unfertilized egg, which could potentially produce a viable baby. Each time you masturbate, you should be held accountable for millions of murders.
Um, no. If left undisturbed (except for basic care) sperm would not develop into a thinking being. I draw the line at fertilization.AND
Mothers should have the option to kill their children until their children are one year of age, if they decide they have made a mistake in wanting a child and thinking they could take care of it appropriately.

OH MY GOD! No matter where you stand on this debate, you have to see this as utter barbarism! Supportive of abortion or not, after birth, pretty much all of us agree that it's too late to change your mind about having a child!
Wow, just... WOW.

utter barbarism!

I see people infringing on a mother's right to choose what to do with her embryo "utter barbarism." Honest difference of opinion, then. I believe this is an equally extremist view as banning abortion in certain cases.

Honest difference of opinion, then.
Yes, opinion is one of the rights i hold most dear.
Also, I didn't accurately define my position on this subject. I do not believe that the mother has any actual obligation to take care of the baby (herself) after the birth, only to grant it existence in the first place. I also believe that if the birth would actually be dangerous to the child or the mother, or if the woman didn't actually have any choice in the matter in the first place, abortion should DEFINETLY be allowed. But yes, outside of this, i do believe that people should not have abortions at all. Please note that I wouldn't necessarily want to outlaw abortion, I just hope that pregnant women will recognize the future rights of their children, and begin to recognize some of them now.

I didn't accurately define my position on this subject.

Well, I wasn't referring to you in particular (or at all -- you're moderate in your viewpoint). I put two seperate things in one post -- my fault. I don't honestly believe that mothers should be able to kill their children like that, but I feel such extremist views are necessary to counterbalance equally extremist view on how abortion should be allowed in absolutely no cases, and the whole debate on when life starts. :)

They are three seperate issues -- both of which support the pro-choice position.

1. When does a zygote, embryo, or fetus become a person? Not until at least the third trimester. (Note: the issue isn't when life begins, but when personhood begins. Pigs have more characteristics of personhood than fetuses.)

2. Who should decide? The woman should.

3. Personal freedom -- one has a right to control over one's own body, even if that would endanger the life of another.

As enlightening as it is to hear what your "answers" are, there are still only 2 main issues here: 1)"When life begins" & 2)"Personal freedom" (Who decides is only a side issue of when life begins)

Teh reality is...

If human life begins at conception, then the right of the baby to life trumps the right of the host ("mom") to personal freedom

If the fetus is not a human, then the right to personal freedom trumps any rights a "non-human" fetus may have

To argue this intelligently, both sides must agree that life is sacred, and that human rights trump non-human rights. Even then the argument has to begin with when life begins, as that is the predicate of either conclusion. If both sides don't agree that life is sacred, and human life moreso than non-human life, then it is really pointless to even have the discussion, as there would be nothing wrong with "snuffing it" even if it is shown to be a human at conception.

Like I was sayin'... "They usually don't realize that they are aguing 2 different issues, and they almost never actually hear what the other is saying."

Just sayin'

P.S. don't take this personally, everyone gets it wrong: the word is separate, not seperate

Sure, the baby might have a right to life, but it most certainly does not have a right to my body.
As soon as you can keep that baby alive and allow it to develop outside your body, I will consider doing that a responsible course of action.
Also, that baby didn't climb in through the "window" nor was it chased by a lion. Youput it there.

As enlightening as it is to hear what your "answers" are, there are still only 2 main issues here: 1)"When life begins" & 2)"Personal freedom" (Who decides is only a side issue of when life begins)

Teh reality is...

If human life begins at conception, then the right of the baby to life trumps the right of the host ("mom") to personal freedom

If the fetus is not a human, then the right to personal freedom trumps any rights a "non-human" fetus may have

To argue this intelligently, both sides must agree that life is sacred, and that human rights trump non-human rights. Even then the argument has to begin with when life begins, as that is the predicate of either conclusion. If both sides don't agree that life is sacred, and human life moreso than non-human life, then it is really pointless to even have the discussion, as there would be nothing wrong with "snuffing it" even if it is shown to be a human at conception.

Like I was sayin'... "They usually don't realize that they are aguing 2 different issues, and they almost never actually hear what the other is saying."

Just sayin'

P.S. don't take this personally, everyone gets it wrong: the word is separate, not seperate
And what happened to the rights of future humans? Just because they aren't yet, who says the baby won't be conscious eventually?
I don't believe that it's right to trample future citizens' rights.

And what happened to the rights of future humans?
What rights, exactly, would those be?
Just because they aren't yet, who says the baby won't be conscious eventually?
Umm, why exactly should I care whether they could eventually be conscious? I don't see how that gives me a reason to treat something differently.

And what happened to the rights of future humans? Just because they aren't yet, who says the baby won't be conscious eventually?
I don't believe that it's right to trample future citizens' rights.

Huh? What are you argueing against? Are you saying that anything that might potentially become human should have the same rights as a human? That's ridiculous. The atoms in wheat, or an apple, or water could potentially become a vital part of a human. With cloning, fingernail clippings are potential human life. Are we to protect their "rights" too? I think we have to discuss realities, not potentials.

I didn't defend one side or the other, I only outlined what the debate is actually about. (I happen to agree with you, but that is beside the point)

Huh? What are you argueing against? I didn't defend one side or the other, I only outlined what the debate is actually about. (I happen to agree with you, but that is beside the point)
Um, oops. I think I quoted the wrong post. Please let me try to find out what I meant...

I agree, but for those of you who need something to be conscious for it to have rights, hear this:
I admit that the baby in the womb is nowhere near being conscious, and that it can't think, but the important thing is that it has the POTENTIAL to think.
I don't think this argument is logical, because this is the only place I've ever seen it applied. Your argument is that a fetus has the same rights as a person because it will eventually be one, correct?
If I were to apply it to something else, say, acorns, the argument wouldn't make much sense. Acorns will eventually become oak trees. But do I have a reason to treat them as oak trees? No, I treat them as an object with the potential to become oak trees, which is a totally separate concept implying totally different actions towards it.

Can you come up with an example of any other case in which potential is treated similarly to actually being?

Um, oops. I think I quoted the wrong post. Please let me try to find out what I meant...
ok, I got it. I was referring to "that human rights trump non-human rights"
and I thought you were saying the embryo was non-human. Obviously, I failed to correctly interpret your post. Sorry.

And what happened to the rights of future humans? Just because they aren't yet, who says the baby won't be conscious eventually?
I don't believe that it's right to trample future citizens' rights.
Does this mean that I get to claim my hypothetical children as dependants when I file taxes?

I mean, they don't exist yet. And they won't until I get married and settle down into a job and everything... I don't plan on getting married for at least another 5 years or so... I mean, they're future humans, I am going to reproduce eventually, so why not count them as already being humans now?

Does this mean that I get to claim my hypothetical children as dependants when I file taxes?...

Hmmm... Now I may have to rethink this whole issue! :D

Does this mean that I get to claim my hypothetical children as dependants when I file taxes?

I mean, they don't exist yet. And they won't until I get married and settle down into a job and everything... I don't plan on getting married for at least another 5 years or so... I mean, they're future humans, I am going to reproduce eventually, so why not count them as already being humans now?
That post is going to haunt me, isn't it? What I meant by "future citizen" (and I admit, i should have chosen a mush better term) was something that is not, but would eventually become, a citizen. I did NOT mean it to describe all those who will eventually be citizens, currently existant or not.

As soon as you can keep that baby alive and allow it to develop outside your body, I will consider doing that a responsible course of action.
Also, that baby didn't climb in through the "window" nor was it chased by a lion. Youput it there.

Not necessarily. I could have been raped. That possability breaks the entire concept of abortion restrictions. If you are going to accept an exception in the case of rape or incest, you have to take the woman's word for it. If you won't make that exception, then I have no real interest in talking to you because we are at points so distant from one another that we will never find any middle ground.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter. I've had this argument too many times. I've looked at the evidence, I've looked at the different ways in which my personal, philosophic, political, and legal views influence my opinion, and I have come to a conclusion. I am way past the decision making phase and I haven't really heard anything new in the discussion in years. By now, I'm at the militant if-you-stand-between-me-and-my-freedom-or-life-I-will-orphan-your-children-and-widow-your-wife phase.

disclaimer: No, that wasn't a death threat, I'm just strident and I take my rights seriously. Physically threatening others on the internet is like looking for love on the internet. Even if you got off you still masturbated with a 35 year old man who lives with his mother.

I don't think this argument is logical, because this is the only place I've ever seen it applied. Your argument is that a fetus has the same rights as a person because it will eventually be one, correct?

No, this isn't correct. Sometimes I find it hard to put my thoughts into words and mess up doing it. A fetus is a thing. It is in no way independant from its host, the mother. That thing is granted no rights at all (i believe.)
I'm talking about what that fetus will become. That person eventually will be independant, and by destroying the beginnings of that person, we destroy the person themself. That person deserves rights. It just so happens that in my view, those rights would protect the fetus as well. At first glance, this arguement seems the same, but when you apply it, the rights of the person only protect its embryo back until it first begins to be able to produce a child. i.e. Those rights would not protect sperm or eggs, before fertilization.

Who says that republicans are against government regulations?
I sure don't.

Peh. The Socialist Left and the Theocratic Right - two sides of the same plug nickel.

Not necessarily. I could have been raped. That possability breaks the entire concept of abortion restrictions. If you are going to accept an exception in the case of rape or incest, you have to take the woman's word for it. If you won't make that exception, then I have no real interest in talking to you because we are at points so distant from one another that we will never find any middle ground.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter. I've had this argument too many times. I've looked at the evidence, I've looked at the different ways in which my personal, philosophic, political, and legal views influence my opinion, and I have come to a conclusion. I am way past the decision making phase and I haven't really heard anything new in the discussion in years. By now, I'm at the militant if-you-stand-between-me-and-my-freedom-or-life-I-will-orphan-your-children-and-widow-your-wife phase.

disclaimer: No, that wasn't a death threat, I'm just strident and I take my rights seriously. Physically threatening others on the internet is like looking for love on the internet. Even if you got off you still masturbated with a 35 year old man who lives with his mother.
Post #147 of this thread goes like so:
"Yes, opinion is one of the rights i hold most dear.
Also, I didn't accurately define my position on this subject. I do not believe that the mother has any actual obligation to take care of the baby (herself) after the birth, only to grant it existence in the first place. I also believe that if the birth would actually be dangerous to the child or the mother, or if the woman didn't actually have any choice in the matter in the first place, abortion should DEFINETLY be allowed. But yes, outside of this, i do believe that people should not have abortions at all. Please note that I wouldn't necessarily want to outlaw abortion, I just hope that pregnant women will recognize the future rights of their children, and begin to recognize some of them now."

No, this isn't correct. Sometimes I find it hard to put my thoughts into words and mess up doing it. A fetus is a thing. It is in no way independant from its host, the mother. That thing is granted no rights at all (i believe.)
I'm talking about what that fetus will become. That person eventually will be independant, and by destroying the beginnings of that person, we destroy the person themself. That person deserves rights. It just so happens that in my view, those rights would protect the fetus as well. At first glance, this arguement seems the same, but when you apply it, the rights of the person only protect its embryo back until it first begins to be able to produce a child. i.e. Those rights would not protect sperm or eggs, before fertilization.


Again, what something will be does not determine what it is We haven't destroyed something if it didn't exist in the first place. I'm 14, but I will become someone who is over 18 and registered, if you don't allow me to vote, you stifle the rights of that person I will become.

Post #147 of this thread goes like so:
"Yes, opinion is one of the rights i hold most dear.
Also, I didn't accurately define my position on this subject. I do not believe that the mother has any actual obligation to take care of the baby (herself) after the birth, only to grant it existence in the first place. I also believe that if the birth would actually be dangerous to the child or the mother, or if the woman didn't actually have any choice in the matter in the first place, abortion should DEFINETLY be allowed. But yes, outside of this, i do believe that people should not have abortions at all. Please note that I wouldn't necessarily want to outlaw abortion, I just hope that pregnant women will recognize the future rights of their children, and begin to recognize some of them now."


I'm gonna go right ahead and declare Whittier-- on you. ;)

Again, what something will be does not determine what it is We haven't destroyed something if it didn't exist in the first place. I'm 14, but I will become someone who is over 18 and registered, if you don't allow me to vote, you stifle the rights of that person I will become.
are you really 14?

are you really 14?

Yes. Now why can't I vote?

Yes. Now why can't I vote?
First off, under my point of view, it would be wrong to deny you the right to vote when you become 18. Wrong to deny the rights of the person you will become, not the person you are now (except when it interferes with the rights of that 18-year-old you that we all have to assume will exist in 2010.)
And second off, IM 14 TOO! NOT EVEN JOKING!:D

First off, under my point of view, it would be wrong to deny you the right to vote when you become 18. Wrong to deny the rights of the person you will become, not the person you are now (except when it interferes with the rights of that 18-year-old you that we all have to assume will exist in 2010.)
And second off, IM 14 TOO! NOT EVEN JOKING!:D

So much explained in so little text...

So much explained in so little text...
Age is no indication of intelligence Stuttered Psyche, experience determines that.

First off, under my point of view, it would be wrong to deny you the right to vote when you become 18. Wrong to deny the rights of the person you will become, not the person you are now (except when it interferes with the rights of that 18-year-old you that we all have to assume will exist in 2010.)
And second off, IM 14 TOO! NOT EVEN JOKING!:D

So....Wait.....It's wrong when it stifles right I don't have yet, but am presumably going to gain.

Okay, now that I understand the point...

Age is no indication of intelligence Stuttered Psyche, experience determines that.

Umm....I don't think that was the point to the point, I'd have likely been referenced as well.


(unless of course 'e only thinks 14-year-olds against abortion are stupid....although I'd wonder what you know of arguing from potential...)

Age is no indication of intelligence Stuttered Psyche, experience determines that.

Repeat that statement like a Zen Koan until you get the joke...

Umm....I don't think that was the point to the point, I'd have likely been referenced as well.


(unless of course 'e only thinks 14-year-olds against abortion are stupid....although I'd wonder what you know of arguing from potential...)
Maybe not, I don't know. It's really late here and I can't concentrate anymore. Maybe I'll go to bed.

Not necessarily. I could have been raped. That possability breaks the entire concept of abortion restrictions...

Not really. Obviously rape and incest are exceptions: If you had no say in the formation of the fetus, then you are not responsible. However, if you chose to put yourself at risk of becoming pregnant (always a possibility, even with the best birth control) then you aught to act responsibly with regard to the future wellbeing of that fetus.

Whether government has any role in all of this is another question altogether, but it is absurd to argue that since I might have been raped, then it is always ok for me to have an abortion. It just doesn't follow.

Yes. Now why can't I vote?

Same reason I can't collect Social Security! Isn't it past your bedtime? :p

Repeat that statement like a Zen Koan until you get the joke...
I know, I believe you were referring to my lack of knowledge on the subject, but I thought you were reffering to my lack of knowledge all together. I'd edit it but too many have replied... I did laugh when I got it, though. (about ten seconds after I read it over again)

Same reason I can't collect Social Security! Isn't it past your bedtime? :p
Uh, just 'cause im on the east coast doesn't mean Dinaverg does.

Same reason I can't collect Social Security! Isn't it past your bedtime? :p

NEVER!


No...wait.....It is. Weird.

Repeat that statement like a Zen Koan until you get the joke...
Who's Zen Koan?

Who's Zen Koan?

Consider he said "like a" I'm guessing it's not a person but more of a statment, maybe the word "Zen" infers it's more of a mantra



(I love reading comprehension ^_^)

NEVER!


No...wait.....It is. Weird.

Some sort of psychic connection obviously... Now I need to take out my teeth, put on my depends, and shuffle off to bed (assuming I can remember where I left it)...

'night all:)

lol- Im brushing my teeth right now:)

Not really. Obviously rape and incest are exceptions: If you had no say in the formation of the fetus, then you are not responsible. However, if you chose to put yourself at risk of becoming pregnant (always a possibility, even with the best birth control) then you aught to act responsibly with regard to the future wellbeing of that fetus.

Whether government has any role in all of this is another question altogether, but it is absurd to argue that since I might have been raped, then it is always ok for me to have an abortion. It just doesn't follow.

Only if you choose to think about things morally. I don't. Im a pragmatist, and I understand that my moral system is not one for everyone. The thought process of a woman considering abortion is not really something I can accurately understand. That leaves me with the law.

Legally, a prohibition against abortion except in the case of rape or incest is unenforceable. Any woman could lie and say she had been raped and there would be no way for the government to prove otherwise. Asking the women to provide proof would be a pretty serious infringement upon their rights and it would seriously limit the number of women with legitimate claims of rape who could apply (legallt proving rape is a very difficult thing). That leaves you with three choices: complete prohibition on all abortions (already ruled unconstitutional), abortion on demand (the current state), or a token law which is unenforceable (which virtually guarantees that the law won;t even make it to SCOTUS).

Beyond that, there are more serious issues at hand. Abortion rights are not simply about the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. The issue of abortion has serious implications for personal and medical sovereignty rights, as well as issue of personal ownership and the limitations of government power. Even if you feel that abortion is wrong, giving the government the authority to investigate medical procedures, stop ones it disapproves of, violate privacy rights, and tell you what you can do with your body is a bad idea. The implications go to the core of liberty in the western world and the nature of that liberty. If one cannot be secure in one's own body then all of our other rights come into question.

This is the real world, not Sunday school. Every action has consequences and most of those consequences cannot even be imagined at the time that the action is being considered. There are leaders in every country, charismatic people who gain the respect and admiration of the people, who seek to establish tyranny and violate the rights of the people. Every inch you give, every new power you grant, every right you compromise gives the forces of tyranny and totalitarianism one more weapon in their arsenal. Even good leaders do stupid things that violate the rights of the citizen occasionally. Somewhere a line must be drawn.

Who's Zen Koan?
He's a surfer that lives in Iowa.

No, that would be the time to grab your gun, rally the locals, arm the women, and start killing your way to a revolution. One of the unfortunate and unaviodable costs of freedom is that every once in awhile you need to murder those who would take it from you.

Thats kind of the bottom of the pro-choice/pro-life argument. Some of us believe that freedom is more valuable than potential life.

As infrequently as it has happened in the past, I side again, with Sutured Psyche.

Once they start taking away sovereignty over your own body... and they WILL start with the female, because they HAVE started with the female... that is the time to fight back, not to run.

Personally, (although I suspect it's true for many here), one of the reasons I am VOCALLY Pro-Choice, is to fire warning shots across the bows of those who would and will, take away our ownership of our own selves.

They are three seperate issues -- both of which support the pro-choice position.

1. When does a zygote, embryo, or fetus become a person? Not until at least the third trimester. (Note: the issue isn't when life begins, but when personhood begins. Pigs have more characteristics of personhood than fetuses.)

2. Who should decide? The woman should.

3. Personal freedom -- one has a right to control over one's own body, even if that would endanger the life of another.

CAt-Tribe rocks. :)

Schrandtopia']I can't force john to give me the liver but if john knows all this and still doesn't give me the liver he can do without he is murderer

Wrong. Murder is unlawful killing. John has done nothing unlawful, and has not killed you.

Try again.

The day when our bodies are no longer our property will be a dark day.

And yet that is PRECISELY what anti-choice people want to do to women.

And yet that is PRECISELY what anti-choice people want to do to women.

Yea its scary whenever I hear another student say that they think our bodies are the governments property. Whatever happend to good old classical liberalism?

Yea its scary whenever I hear another student say that they think our bodies are the governments property. Whatever happend to good old classical liberalism?


They stopped reproducing in the numbers required to maintain their percentage place in the population? They are still there, but there is less of them.

1973 – 1985 (religion isn’t reported by default in newer studies anymore, but the non-religious are plainly over-represented, as shown here)
1st figure: percentage of abortions by religion; 2nd figure: percentage of all women by religion. Protestant - 40.0%/57.9% Catholic - 31.5%/32.1% Jewish - 1.4%/2.5% Other 2.9%/2.0% No religion - 22.2%/5.5%

Abortion Statistics - U.S.· Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. In 2001, 1.31 million abortions took place.
· 88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
· 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
· 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions. (meaning, nearly half of all women who get an abortion get more than one)
· 43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old (this statistic includes miscarriages in the term "abortion, ‘ thus half of which would be called miscarriages in other surveys, making this a misused statistic in the debate).

Abortion Popularity - Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
· According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
· According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.

Thus, in the end, the 'pro-choice' hard core liberal feminist you speak of, has not reproduced the children necessary to replace them thirty and forty years after the fact.

One thing that I've noticed anytime there is an abortion debate, is the preborns rights vs the mothers rights. While I will always beleive that abortion is wrong (I'm an aethist, so no religous bend here); by making abortion illegal the governmennt and supporters of such a law would be saying that the preborns rights supercede the mothers. In other words killing the mother would be LESS wrong than killing the preborn. Maybe I'm not seeing it correctly, I'm human therefore falible (hence why I can't spell). Also, those who are against it for religous reasons, isn't up to your god (who/whatever that may be) to judge them when they stand before him/her/it? I've only ever read the bible (an interesting book filled with rape, incest, god gambling and saying it's ok to rape as long as you marry the person). It clearly states that after death you stand before god, you have to explain yourself, and it either let's you into heaven or damns you to hell.
I say let them sin and have your god sort them out.

(now for all those with a sense of humor, watch the flaming begin)

Back to the OP for a sec, what's most sneaky and underhanded about TRAP laws is that they seem like they are just ensuring that, normal, common-sense rules are being put into place. What they actually are doing is creating a regulatory nightmare that abortion providers will not be able to keep up with.

Consider this:
Say your parents make a few rules about living in their house: brush your teeth twice a day, take a shower in the morning, and take the dog for a walk when you get home from school on the weekdays. Sounds reasonable enough, right? Now say, a month later, your parents demand to see your documentation that proves that you have been doing all of these things consistently. What time did you brush your teeth 2 weeks ago? For how long? What steps did you take to ensure that your teeth were clean? What distances did you walk the dog for the past month and did the distance walked provide adequate exercise and opportunity for relief for the dog?

Would you still be living at home the next day?

I'm gonna do what I do on every single abortion thread we have here on NS. And, that is quote George Carlin.

"Have you ever noticed that most people who are against abortion are people you would never want to fuck in the first place?"...

Back to the OP for a sec, what's most sneaky and underhanded about TRAP laws is that they seem like they are just ensuring that, normal, common-sense rules are being put into place. What they actually are doing is creating a regulatory nightmare that abortion providers will not be able to keep up with.

Consider this:
Say your parents make a few rules about living in their house: brush your teeth twice a day, take a shower in the morning, and take the dog for a walk when you get home from school on the weekdays. Sounds reasonable enough, right? Now say, a month later, your parents demand to see your documentation that proves that you have been doing all of these things consistently. What time did you brush your teeth 2 weeks ago? For how long? What steps did you take to ensure that your teeth were clean? What distances did you walk the dog for the past month and did the distance walked provide adequate exercise and opportunity for relief for the dog?

Would you still be living at home the next day?

Exactically. Good illustration.

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, would like to see that number drop to zero. Marshall, a self-described devout Catholic who at times is tearfully passionate about the rights of the unborn, has again this year filed a bill that would subject abortion providers to more regulation. House Bill 189 is similar to legislation he co-sponsored last year.

A House subcommittee considered the bill briefly last week. Most of the meeting was taken up with Marshall's legislation to prohibit single women from using in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination and other assisted reproductive technologies to get pregnant. That bill was defeated. So was another bill that would require doctors who do abortions in the state to live in the state, a requirement placed on no other type of physician to be licensed here.

"Can't we at least say abortionists must have hospital-admitting privileges in Virginia?" asked Marshall, trying unsuccessfully to save the bill.

Does this assclown spend spend every waking moment thinking of ways to fuck with people?!? Jesus, wouldn't it be something if he like, actually represented the people of his district in something other than their reproductive lives?!?

A valiant try, but you have stepped wrong.

To argue this intelligently, both sides must agree that life is sacred, and that human rights trump non-human rights. Even then the argument has to begin with when life begins, as that is the predicate of either conclusion. If both sides don't agree that life is sacred, and human life moreso than non-human life, then it is really pointless to even have the discussion, as there would be nothing wrong with "snuffing it" even if it is shown to be a human at conception.]

To argu this intelligently you must be able to give me a moral justification for saying that an embryo is sacred but pigs may be eaten for pleasure.

We do not merely assume that life is sacred and human rights trump non-human rights.

Instead, a logical question is the one I posed of personhood. A person has rights. A person need not be a human. But a person has certain characteristics which make it deserving of rights.

You are quirte right that it does you no good to prove a fertilized egg is "human" at conception. Rights do not turn merely on when life begins and what species to which you belong.

Pigs, dolphins, chimpanezes, and other entities have more characteristics of personhood -- and therefore a better case for a right to life -- than zygotes, embryos, and early term fetuses.


As enlightening as it is to hear what your "answers" are, there are still only 2 main issues here: 1)"When life begins" & 2)"Personal freedom" (Who decides is only a side issue of when life begins)

It is convenient for you to elimintate the "who decides" question because it mitigates uniformly against you.


Teh reality is...

If human life begins at conception, then the right of the baby to life trumps the right of the host ("mom") to personal freedom]

No. Even if personhood begins at conception, we then have two entities seeking to use the woman's body. The mother's right to control her own body trumps the squatter's rights of the "baby."

If the fetus is not a human, then the right to personal freedom trumps any rights a "non-human" fetus may have]

A person need not be human. But you are correct that, if a fetus is not person, then the woman's right to personal freedom trumps any rights of the fetus. What you don't get is the women's right to control her own body trumps the fetus's rights regardless.

Your simplistic model simply doesn't work.

And what happened to the rights of future humans? Just because they aren't yet, who says the baby won't be conscious eventually?
I don't believe that it's right to trample future citizens' rights.


There are no "rights of future humans."

'Nuff said.

Age is no indication of intelligence Stuttered Psyche, experience determines that.Repeat that statement like a Zen Koan until you get the joke...

:D

Does this assclown spend spend every waking moment thinking of ways to fuck with people?!? Jesus, wouldn't it be something if he like, actually represented the people of his district in something other than their reproductive lives?!?

Maybe the constituents should hold him down and perform a vasectomy without anesthesia, and while they're cutting, tell him that it's in the interest of the public good.

Give him a circumcision (even if he's already had one), free of charge.

Just a little off the top.

See how he likes having someone mess with his reproductive freedom.

Since the Radical Christian Agenda has failed when trying to eliminate abortion through direct legislation and through legal challenges in the courts they've resorted to other underhanded tactics. Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers or TRAP laws.

Who says that republicans are against government regulations?

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137833575863
Here's what I find the most revealing:

The countries in this world that have the lowest abortion rates are the countries with very liberal abortion laws. Conversely, the highest rates of abortion are typically seen in places where abortion (along with all other forms of reproductive health care) is strictly regulated or completely illegal.

Now, if the "culture of life" were really about reducing the number of abortions, then they would support the systems that actually prevent abortions from occuring. If they were actually interested in protecting life, then they would be prepared to do whatever it takes to protect that life, even if it meant giving up an opportunity to punish some sluts for fornication.

But, of course, they don't do that.

They put their personal "morality" above life with every policy they support. They pursue the policies that let them punish women who dare to have sex (or who dare to get themselves raped), even when those policies INCREASE the number of abortions that will occur. They block contraceptive options that would reduce the demand for abortion. They block educational policies that have been conclusively proven to reduce teen pregnancy and teen abortions. They encourage systems that will ensure that women die along with their fetuses due to inadequate medical care. They do everything they can to maintain a situation where the wealthy and powerful may choose, while the poor and powerless are compelled to breed at the whim of their betters.

The "culture of life" is nothing more or less than a cult of selfish ghouls. I'm endlessly disappointed by the number of people who have bought into their lies.

There are no "rights of future humans."

'Nuff said.
And it's a good thing, too, at least from the "pro-life" standpoint, because if future humans had rights then pregnancy would have to be both illegal and compulsory.

Allow me to illustrate:

Say I get pregnant today. If I am pregnant today, then I cannot get pregnant tomorrow. The future human who I COULD have conceived tomorrow is therefore being denied life. That future human had the right to life, goddammit, and by getting pregnant I have stolen her/his life. I have murdered her/him.

But then, if I don't get pregnant today then THIS fetus cannot grow into a person, and it will have been murdered. Hmm.

The only solution is that we need more dimensions, so that all possible humans can be born. The new "pro-life" agenda needs to revolve around getting Stephen Hawking to go to work on this problem.

Thankfully the US airforce isn't controlled by lunatics and fanatics (except for the president and he doesn't know where England is). Anyway, we've got no oil.

Yeah, keep telling the Americans that. They might not do their homework and realise that the UK is actually the world's 15th biggest oil producer at about 2.4 million barrels a day.

Hey, sometimes you have to be angry, armed, and willing to fight for what you believe in. Freedom isn't something that is given to you. Things that are given to you are called privilages. Freedoms are things that are taken. In our country they are things which are bought and paid for through the slaughter of those who would deny you your rights. It isn't a very nice system, but its the one we have and its the one every society eventually embraces, given a long enough period of observation.

Oh, btw, if you're in the states, save money and buy yourself a gun. I promise, you'll be more secure at home, you'll be ready to shoot Jerry Falwell should the time come, and you'll have a really nifty/relaxing hobby. If you don;t live in the states, well, I'm not going to suggest you do anything illegal but....:cool:
I actually prefer the pen to the sword (I don't know where my friends and family get these ideas about me...;) ). I am in the States, and the way things are going, I fully expect to be somewhere else by 2009, living the expatriot life, writing for newspapers and attacking the enemies of all I hold dear from a nice safe distance. This is because I'm more interested in winning the war than being heroic. If it ever came down to it that storm troopers were pounding at my door, wherever I might be, I would be more likely to take a bullet than to shoot one. I wouldn't even necessarily mean to take the bullet -- I just have a big, loud mouth. (In high school, I was voted mostly likely to be shot to death by border guards. Seriously, I was.) :D

Maybe the constituents should hold him down and perform a vasectomy without anesthesia, and while they're cutting, tell him that it's in the interest of the public good.

Give him a circumcision (even if he's already had one), free of charge.

Just a little off the top.

See how he likes having someone mess with his reproductive freedom.

We can do the operations with a flamethrower. :)

Maybe the constituents should hold him down and perform a vasectomy without anesthesia, and while they're cutting, tell him that it's in the interest of the public good.

Give him a circumcision (even if he's already had one), free of charge.

Just a little off the top.

See how he likes having someone mess with his reproductive freedom.

I think a better illustration was if we rammed a fertilized ostrich egg up his ass and told him to wait until it hatched. Then again, I'm a dick.

I actually prefer the pen to the sword (I don't know where my friends and family get these ideas about me...;) ).

The pen is a fine holdout weapon, too. All stabby. Especially fountain pens, you can put anything in that ink chamber, you know. ;)

I think a better illustration was if we rammed a fertilized ostrich egg up his ass and told him to wait until it hatched. Then again, I'm a dick.

I can't stop laughing!

LOL!

I think a better illustration was if we rammed a fertilized ostrich egg up his ass and told him to wait until it hatched. Then again, I'm a dick.

You win this thread.

The pen is a fine holdout weapon, too. All stabby. Especially fountain pens, you can put anything in that ink chamber, you know. ;)
Image of my desk: elegant holder full of fountain pens next to 3 different, unlabeled bottles of dark liquid, cup full of very sharp pencils, and an ostrich egg on a stand, just for show. :)

You win this thread.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week!

Seriously though, I've got some Astroglide and an Egg, anyone down for a road trip?

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week!

Seriously though, I've got some Astroglide and an Egg,

:eek:

There are some things that you shouldn't tell total strangers.

:eek:

:eek:

There are some things that you shouldn't tell total strangers.

:eek:


TMI?

*raises hand*

I'm a Republican who believes that the government needs to get out of the business of policing "morals".

Abortion is a medical procedure for women. It's their body and their medical procedure, and until men can have babies, I'm not going to tell anyone they should or should not have an abortion.

ok, I cant say i hate all republicans anymore.... just all but one:p

I don't think that one can be against both birth control and abortion anymore than one can be againist both premarital sex and masturbation. If people were educated on birth control and it were made available to anyone, the rate of unplanned pregnancies would drop dramatically. If we could decrease the rate of unplanned pregnancies, then abortion would become much less of an issue because it would be much less common.
Once again, reasonable people would be surprised and dismayed.

Yes, there are many, many people who oppose abortion and are very active in promoting contraception. Such people are honest when they say they don't want to harm women. I think they are wrong (because I believe banning abortion would hurt women), but I can't knock their sincerity.

However, there are also many, many people who vehemently oppose both abortion and birth control. These are usually the people who argue potentiality, consequences of sex, rights of fetuses over rights of women, etc. They also oppose exceptions for rape, incest, and to protect the health and life of a woman, saying that fetuses are "innocent lives" and implying that pregnant women are guilty of something (not being virgins, I guess). I have even heard some of them go so far as to advocate criminal investigations against women who miscarry, to make sure it wasn't an abortion in disguise.

Those who argue against both abortion and birth control are, in essence, trying to force women to become pregnant. I also notice that this group enjoys talking about how fulfilling motherhood is and how it's a gift from god and a high calling. And they often inveigh against women having jobs as a social evil. In other words, manufacturing babies is the sole legitimate purpose for a woman's life, in their view. Interestingly, they show little concern for the actual lives of all those babies they were so eager to see get born.

Let's not kid ourselves -- the abortion debate is a civil rights debate centering on women, and that's it. Fetuses are not persons and they have no life of their own, so no laws can touch them. Only women are affected by abortion laws. Those who wish to end abortion without harming women's rights have many ways to reduce the demand for abortions without resorting to legislation. Those who push for anti-abortion legislation are seeking to strip rights away from women.

There are no "rights of future humans."

'Nuff said.
You didn't read my other few posts, I have already explained what I meant by "future humans"

I have even heard some of them go so far as to advocate criminal investigations against women who miscarry, to make sure it wasn't an abortion in disguise.

I often point out to people that this would be a result of declaring personhood at fertilization or conception. Every miscarriage would have to be investigated, to ensure that the woman did not commit manslaughter (or murder, if intentional) by engaging in activities that might have caused her miscarriage. After all, we investigate any citizen's death to see what happened to them. They usually reply that such actions would be silly (duh), thereby declaring a very clear difference in how they treat the born and unborn.

Yeah, keep telling the Americans that. They might not do their homework and realise that the UK is actually the world's 15th biggest oil producer at about 2.4 million barrels a day.

Shhh.... :eek:

You didn't read my other few posts, I have already explained what I meant by "future humans"
And please read all of our other posts -- "future humans" do not exist. The law is not concerned with things that do not exist.

I often point out to people that this would be a result of declaring personhood at fertilization or conception. Every miscarriage would have to be investigated, to ensure that the woman did not commit manslaughter (or murder, if intentional) by engaging in activities that might have caused her miscarriage. After all, we investigate any citizen's death to see what happened to them. They usually reply that such actions would be silly (duh), thereby declaring a very clear difference in how they treat the born and unborn.
Do you remember that insane thread we all got sucked into a while ago with (I'm almost afraid to say the name) Avalon II? That was the very stance he was arguing. I'm sure a lot of people just thought of him as a lone nut (or a wildly successful troll), but I know that he was proclaiming an extremist view that is out there in supposedly civilized countries.

And please read all of our other posts -- "future humans" do not exist. The law is not concerned with things that do not exist.
I was not referring to humans that will exist, but to objects that will become human, and are already there. I know that non-existant things have no rights.
And I have been reading all the posts in this thread.

I was not referring to humans that will exist, but to objects that will become human, but are already there. I know that non-existant things have no rights.
And I have been reading all the posts in this thread.
"Objects" that will do or become something in the future -- maybe -- if they're lucky -- but are not doing/being it now. Not humans, not persons, not subject to law, not endowed with rights, not equal to actual humans existing now, who are subject to law and are endowed with rights.

I'm sorry, but life on earth is a first-come, first-served proposition. The people who are here now have a prior and greater claim to the benefits of being here than those who are not here now.

EDIT: I do get that you're drawing a distinction between the possibility of getting pregnant and the actuality of being pregnant, but I'm saying it's a distinction without a difference. A fetus -- particularly in the early term -- is not a person. It does not matter if it has the potential to become one. It is not one now. Therefore, it cannot be endowed with the rights of a person.

Approached from another angle -- although the fetus is alive, I say it is not a separate entity as long as it is not viable, meaning that it cannot survive outside the body of the woman. Until that time, the fetus is an extension of the woman's body, a part of her body, therefore her property with which she may do as she likes. It makes no more sense to give it rights separate from her than it would to give such rights to her foot. The woman's foot is as alive as she is. If she dies, it dies. If it is cut off her body, she would probably live, but the foot would die. Each of its cells might contain the potential to become a separate person, but it will not achieve that potential -- ever -- without her. Therefore, it is not separate from her. Same with a fetus.

OK BIG TOPICK, I HAVE TO SAY ITS A TOUGH DISISION, WE KILL MICE THAT ARE JUST BORN BY FEEDING THEM TO SNAKES AND OTHER ANIMALS KEPT AS PETS SO WHY NOT KILL SOMTHING THAT DOSENT GET THE CHANCE TO EVEN BREATH, SOMTIMES PEOPLE USE DEFECTUVE CONDAMENTS AND IT HAPPENS BY MISTAKE, AND OTHER TIMES PEOPLE GET LAYD OFF AND LOOS JOBS NOT BEING ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THE CHILDE, IM NOT SAYING ITS RIGHT BUT IM ALSO NOT SAYING ITS WRONG, THE WORLD SHOUDENT BE BLACK AND WHITE, THERE SHOULD BE GRAY IN THERE AS WELL.

:sniper: AWSOME:sniper:

LOL...What, you mean that mustard and relish isn't an effective form of birth control?

LOL...What, you mean that mustard and relish isn't an effective form of birth control?Well, perhaps mustard is...If you got it all over your private parts, your first priority would probably be to get it off and stop the burning, rather than sex :D

"Objects" that will do or become something in the future -- maybe -- if they're lucky -- but are not doing/being it now. Not humans, not persons, not subject to law, not endowed with rights, not equal to actual humans existing now, who are subject to law and are endowed with rights.

I'm sorry, but life on earth is a first-come, first-served proposition. The people who are here now have a prior and greater claim to the benefits of being here than those who are not here now.

EDIT: I do get that you're drawing a distinction between the possibility of getting pregnant and the actuality of being pregnant, but I'm saying it's a distinction without a difference. A fetus -- particularly in the early term -- is not a person. It does not matter if it has the potential to become one. It is not one now. Therefore, it cannot be endowed with the rights of a person.

Approached from another angle -- although the fetus is alive, I say it is not a separate entity as long as it is not viable, meaning that it cannot survive outside the body of the woman. Until that time, the fetus is an extension of the woman's body, a part of her body, therefore her property with which she may do as she likes. It makes no more sense to give it rights separate from her than it would to give such rights to her foot. The woman's foot is as alive as she is. If she dies, it dies. If it is cut off her body, she would probably live, but the foot would die. Each of its cells might contain the potential to become a separate person, but it will not achieve that potential -- ever -- without her. Therefore, it is not separate from her. Same with a fetus.
I do not believe the fetus has rights. I believe the person it will become ( what's all this about "-- maybe -- if they're lucky -- "?) has rights. If there was more than a slight probability that it would not survive birth, i would not have to assume that it will eventually become conscious. Take for example something I read earlier in here. I am 14. I cannot vote. In 4 years, I will almost definetly be able to vote. (barring car accidents, severe food poisoning, etc. *knock on wood*)But right now, I cannot vote. If you apply my point of view to this, you do not get a situation in which the 14-year-old me can vote, but where the 14-year-old is allowed to exist until he is able to.
Anyway, this is my opinion. That,way up there,^ is yours. It is almost impossible for us to really convince each other online, verbal communication is necessary for that. All I want to do is tell people why I think what I do and learn why they think their own way.

I do not believe the fetus has rights. I believe the person it will become ( what's all this about "-- maybe -- if they're lucky -- "?) has rights. If there was more than a slight probability that it would not survive birth, i would not have to assume that it will eventually become conscious. Take for example something I read earlier in here. I am 14. I cannot vote. In 4 years, I will almost definetly be able to vote. (barring car accidents, severe food poisoning, etc. *knock on wood*)But right now, I cannot vote. If you apply my point of view to this, you do not get a situation in which the 14-year-old me can vote, but where the 14-year-old is allowed to exist until he is able to.
Anyway, this is my opinion. That,way up there,^ is yours. It is almost impossible for us to really convince each other online, verbal communication is necessary for that. All I want to do is tell people why I think what I do and learn why they think their own way.

The person it will become doesn't exist yet, so it doesn't have rights yet.

I do not believe the fetus has rights. I believe the person it will become ( what's all this about "-- maybe -- if they're lucky -- "?) has rights.

A non-existent entity cannot have rights. You could say, "The person it will become, if it becomes a person, will have rights," but saying, "The person that might result already has rights," doesn't make any more sense than a musician asking a record company to pay them for the hits they might make.

Edit: Meanwhile, if the fetus itself has no rights, then the woman can have it removed from her body. Period.

If there was more than a slight probability that it would not survive birth, i would not have to assume that it will eventually become conscious.

There is a huge possibility that it will never even make it to birth. 50% of known pregnancies that are not aborted end in miscarriage. Considering that many fertilized eggs never implant and that pregnancies often end before they are known, that leads to estimates that up to 80% of all fertilized eggs may never make it to birth - naturally.

Anyway, this is my opinion. That,way up there,^ is yours. It is almost impossible for us to really convince each other online, verbal communication is necessary for that. All I want to do is tell people why I think what I do and learn why they think their own way.

You are trying to escape your own argument, which is essentially an argument from potential. The problem is that we don't give rights to anything until it exists. The person a fertilized egg might possibly become in 9 months has no rights, because said person does not exist. Only a person in existence has rights.

Approached from another angle -- although the fetus is alive, I say it is not a separate entity as long as it is not viable, meaning that it cannot survive outside the body of the woman. Until that time, the fetus is an extension of the woman's body, a part of her body, therefore her property with which she may do as she likes. It makes no more sense to give it rights separate from her than it would to give such rights to her foot. The woman's foot is as alive as she is. If she dies, it dies. If it is cut off her body, she would probably live, but the foot would die. Each of its cells might contain the potential to become a separate person, but it will not achieve that potential -- ever -- without her. Therefore, it is not separate from her. Same with a fetus.
Also, the foot cannot be applied to this.
Take my foot. If i left it to develop, it would not eventually start pondering what it's purpose on this earth is. If it did, I wouuld most definetly let it go on its way. I do not have the ability to deny it independance. If I could prevent it from beginning to develop in the first place, I would, but now that it is onn the road to individuality, i must let it develop. I would get around on crutches, whatever the cost of allowing it to exist. And the fact that the foot is dependant on me just enforces my responsibility to care for it.

The whole Constitutional "right to life liberty and happiness" argument is complete BS. Here is my logic:

To be considered a citizen of the United States, you must be BORN on American soil. If you are not born yet, you have no rights.

A non-existent entity cannot have rights. You could say, "The person it will become, if it becomes a person, will have rights," but saying, "The person that might result already has rights," doesn't make any more sense than a musician asking a record company to pay them for the hits they might make.



There is a huge possibility that it will never even make it to birth. 50% of known pregnancies that are not aborted end in miscarriage. Considering that many fertilized eggs never implant and that pregnancies often end before they are known, that leads to estimates that up to 80% of all fertilized eggs may never make it to birth - naturally.



You are trying to escape your own argument, which is essentially an argument from potential. The problem is that we don't give rights to anything until it exists. The person a fertilized egg might possibly become in 9 months has no rights, because said person does not exist. Only a person in existence has rights.
As I have said bbefore THE FETUS DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS. the person it will become has rights which i believe apply to it.I believe that since it is impossible to tell which pregnancies will actually end in birth, we must assume that all of them will. the rights i would give person that one of those pregnancies is bound to result in would force us to give the benefit of the doubt to all of them.
And im not trying to escape my own arguement, I'm just trying to calm your arguements down a bit.

The whole Constitutional "right to life liberty and happiness" argument is complete BS. Here is my logic:

To be considered a citizen of the United States, you must be BORN on American soil. If you are not born yet, you have no rights.

Or if both your parents are American and you're born on foriegn soil, or unless you're the child of some kind of foriegn official, and you're born here, you aren't an American. Just saying.....that's how it works isn't it?

Are there any other pro-lifers out there? or at least any undecideds? I could use some backup.

As I have said bbefore THE FETUS DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS. the person it will become has rights which i believe apply to it.I believe that since it is impossible to tell which pregnancies will actually end in birth, we must assume that all of them will. the rights i would give person that one of those pregnancies is bound to result in would force us to give the benefit of the doubt to all of them.
And im not trying to escape my own arguement, I'm just trying to calm your arguements down a bit.

We don't pull rights from the future, the person's rights begin to apply when the person begins to exist.

As I have said bbefore THE FETUS DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS.

Then it can be removed from the woman's womb at any time. It has no rights, and can thus be disposed of like anything else with no rights.

the person it will become has rights which i believe apply to it.

What part of "non-existant entities do not have rights," did you miss?

And im not trying to escape my own arguement, I'm just trying to calm your arguements down a bit.

No, you are trying to escape your own argument. Your argument is, "The fetus has rights because the person it will eventually be will eventually have rights. Oh, but the fetus has no rights."

Are there any other pro-lifers out there? or at least any undecideds? I could use some backup.

You wouldn't get backup on that arguement, they'd likely argue that the fetus IS a person, as oppose to argueing it's potential to become a person and should get those rights.

Are there any other pro-lifers out there? or at least any undecideds? I could use some backup.

If by "pro-life" you mean "opposed to abortion", you've got one right here.

If you mean, "wishes to force moral views on others through legislation," then nope.

Then it can be removed from the woman's womb at any time. It has no rights, and can thus be disposed of like anything else with no rights.

What part of "non-existant entities do not have rights," did you miss?
What part of "I BELIEVE" did you miss? I said I wanted to know why you think what you do, not what you think. I'm pretty clear on that one.

Well, perhaps mustard is...If you got it all over your private parts, your first priority would probably be to get it off and stop the burning, rather than sex :D

I don't see the two as contradictory, to be honest...

I mean mustard is yummy, so - getting the mustard off could be sex, no?

What part of "I BELIEVE" did you miss? I said I wanted to know why you think what you do, not what you think. I'm pretty clear on that one.

So, do you think that your "belief" should be law? If not....okay then, whatever. If so, then we have a problem...

What part of "I BELIEVE" did you miss? I said I wanted to know why you think what you do, not what you think. I'm pretty clear on that one.

I'm not telling you what I think. I'm telling you what is fact. You haven't asked what I think. All I am doing is pointing out the logical problems in your argument.

If the fetus has no rights, then, by logical extension, it can be removed from the womb at any time. What it might become has nothing to do with it. It is only if a fetus does have rights that you cannot remove it.

So which is it, does a fetus have rights, or can the woman do anything she wants with it? The two are mutually exclusive.

If by "pro-life" you mean "opposed to abortion", you've got one right here.

If you mean, "wishes to force moral views on others through legislation," then nope.
if you also oppose abortion, no matter what the reason, then why are wee arguing? I don't want to outlaw abortion, I already said that somewhere a few pages back. I guess I didn't make it clear enough, it was kind of obscure.

I'm not telling you what I think. I'm telling you what is fact. You haven't asked what I think. All I am doing is pointing out the logical problems in your argument.

If the fetus has no rights, then, by logical extension, it can be removed from the womb at any time.What it might become has nothing to do with it. It is only if a fetus does have rights that you cannot remove it.
Well, let me try to patch some of them up.
i believe that the fetus is the property of the person it will become, and since we cannot be sure it will become a person, we must assume that it will.

if you also oppose abortion, no matter what the reason, then why are wee arguing? I don't want to outlaw abortion, I already said that somewhere a few pages back. I guess I didn't make it clear enough, it was kind of obscure.

I'm pointing out that your argument is illogical. I do the same thing in "Is there a God," threads when theists make illogical or insupportable arguments.

if you also oppose abortion, no matter what the reason, then why are wee arguing? I don't want to outlaw abortion, I already said that somewhere a few pages back. I guess I didn't make it clear enough, it was kind of obscure.

Not to mention that you kept stating what you believe, even after it's problems have been pointed out. If you want to keep believing it, fine, whatever, we don't paticularly care any more.

I do not believe the fetus has rights. I believe the person it will become ( what's all this about "-- maybe -- if they're lucky -- "?) has rights.

Dempublicents is something of the expert here, so get your figures from her... but fairly casual research shows that at least a third of all fertilised ova 'drop straight through' without implanting...

i believe that the fetus is the property of the person it will become, and since we cannot be sure it will become a person, we must assume that it will.

A potential person cannot own property. Again, this is an illogical position.

Unless, of course, my grandchildren (I don't even have children yet, btw) can also own property.

Well, let me try to patch some of them up.
i believe that the fetus is the property of the person it will become, and since we cannot be sure it will become a person, we must assume that it will.

Well, it will become the child of the mother, and I don't think any of my property has rights, especially not ones that keep it from my mom.

And that has nothing to do with the problem.

Fetus isn't a person, doesn't have rights.
Person doesn't exist yet, also doesn't have rights.
Nowhere does the fetus get rights to make use of.

Not to mention that you kept stating what you believe, even after it's problems have been pointed out. If you want to keep believing it, fine, whatever, we don't paticularly care any more.
Six posts up. Read it.
BTW-none of us cacn be right or wrong, except to those who think similarly, so I just wanted to make clear I wasn't trying to really say Ii was right, just to make you guys see my point.

Six posts up. Read it.
BTW-none of us cacn be right or wrong, except to those who think similarly, so I just wanted to make clear I wasn't trying to really say Ii was right, just to make you guys see my point.

Wait, so if I said, "The Earth is flat," you would say, "None of us can be right or wrong, so I guess you're just as right as I am when I say it is round."

If I were to say, "2+5=9, therefore nine is a good number," would you accept that as a proper argument?