PDA

View Full Version : Roe V. Wade is Dead



IMPress Polly
02-01-2013, 06:44 AM
40 years ago, the U.S. Supreme ruled in the famous case of Roe V. Wade that no state has the right to outlaw abortion. Well...a U.S. state has now outlawed abortion and is getting away with it. And a second, taking heart from the example of the first, has announced their intention to follow suit. For this reason, I am declaring Roe V. Wade effectively dead. That ruling clearly no longer functions.

How did this happen, you ask? Well the state of Mississippi devised a clever way of trying to get around the Roe V. Wade verdict by banning abortion indirectly. It devised the first of what they call trap laws. Trap laws are laws that deliberately place such onerous regulations on abortion clinics that they cannot stay open. Even without this new law, Mississippi is down to one abortion clinic. This law was clearly and openly calculated by the state's lawmakers to close it down, thus effectively ending legal abortion in the state of Mississippi. We have now reached the point where that law is starting to go into effect. The last abortion clinic in Mississippi has just been notified that the state intends to revoke their license. They're in the process of being shut down right now. Taking heart from this example, the state of North Dakota, which also has but one abortion clinic remaining, has just passed an essentially identical law with the exact same purpose. Apparently you can do this in America now without intervention from the Justice Department. Why even have Roe V. Wade on the books? It's clearly just a formality at this point. American women no longer have the right to terminate a pregnancy.

What this de facto death of Roe V. Wade means is that the question of reproductive rights henceforth falls to the individual states again, wherein their continued existence will depend on the level of popular support that abortion rights have in any given U.S. state (...and upon the ability of Republicans to gerrymander themselves into office where they can't win legitimately). What this means in the practical is that abortion rights have no future in either the U.S. South or the rural parts of the Midwest. Now in case you're wondering about my rights in this connection, I'm not worried. I'm confident that abortion will always be legal here in the Northeast and along the Pacific Coast because such rights are quite popular in said parts of the country. They also seem to enjoy considerable popularity in the more urban, developed parts of the American Midwest. It's our outnumbered sisters in the South and the rural Midwest that I'm seriously concerned about right now. I don't think they're going to continue to have this right (at least in a legal sense).

More on this story can be found at th (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#50660599)is link (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#50660599).

Cigar
02-01-2013, 07:05 AM
Since the beginning of time ... women have had abortions, ... and abortions will always exist.

But if Row V. Wad is overturned, it will only be more dangerous ... dangerous for Women, not Men.

Disclaimer ... I don't like or approve abortions, but I don't like cloudy days either, and I have just as much control over both.

The problem with Republicans and Conservatives is, they what to reserve the right to bitch and complain about Anchor Babies and Welfare Mothers, while pretending to care so much about life. They don't give a flying fuck about life unless it's Voting Republican.

Chris
02-01-2013, 07:26 AM
This is a good sign.

For one, the court didn't simply say "no state has the right to outlaw abortion". That's an erroneous oversimplification.

For another, the court overstepped its constitutional bounds. No where is it empowered to write law.

Finally, where do you come up with reproductive rights? And what about the rights of the unborn?

Cigar
02-01-2013, 07:36 AM
I would love to see Republicans and Conservative backup that Zest and Zeal for "life" when the "life" becomes a real human "child".

You know ... a Child that deserves the right to "life", "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness" ... you know those takers they're always talk about.

Agravan
02-01-2013, 07:39 AM
40 years ago, the U.S. Supreme ruled in the famous case of Roe V. Wade that no state has the right to outlaw abortion. Well...a U.S. state has now outlawed abortion and is getting away with it. And a second, taking heart from the example of the first, has announced their intention to follow suit. For this reason, I am declaring Roe V. Wade effectively dead. That ruling clearly no longer functions.

How did this happen, you ask? Well the state of Mississippi devised a clever way of trying to get around the Roe V. Wade verdict by banning abortion indirectly. It devised the first of what they call trap laws. Trap laws are laws that deliberately place such onerous regulations on abortion clinics that they cannot stay open.


Aren't these kind of like the laws the EPA has placed on the coal industry for the purpose of shutting them down?
You cheer when Dems use this tactic, but you're outraged when we do??

I, for one, am glad they are getting shut down. Women can have all the "reproductive rights" they want, Murder is not one of them. It is the woman's responsibility to prevent a pregnancy, it is not the baby's fault.

Chris
02-01-2013, 07:40 AM
I would love to see Republicans and Conservative backup that Zest and Zeal for "life" when the "life" becomes a real human "child".

You know ... a Child that deserves the right to "life", "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness" ... you know those takers they're always talk about.

I backed it up with a son.

Why all the scare quotes? Are you afraid of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

A taker has the same rights as a maker, takers are free to pursue happiness like anyone else.

Agravan
02-01-2013, 07:44 AM
I would love to see Republicans and Conservative backup that Zest and Zeal for "life" when the "life" becomes a real human "child".

You know ... a Child that deserves the right to "life", "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness" ... you know those takers they're always talk about.

It is not the government's responsibility to raise that child. The onus is on the parents. If they don't want kids, use protection or get fixed.
What do you want? You want government to send out checks to every child born so that the mothers keep cranking out babies in order to get more money? That's what is happening now. That's the welfare mentality fostered by the likes of you and your fellow Democrats. Stop sending out checks and make the parents responsible for the life that they produced.

Disco Stu
02-01-2013, 07:46 AM
This is a good sign.

For one, the court didn't simply say "no state has the right to outlaw abortion". That's an erroneous oversimplification.

For another, the court overstepped its constitutional bounds. No where is it empowered to write law.

Finally, where do you come up with reproductive rights? And what about the rights of the unborn?


Last election nearly 2/3 women voted Democrat after the speech at Republican national convention or fine slips by Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock who BOTH LOST Senate races after abortion comments

When will you clowns ever learn

I hope the Pro-Life goons step it up a notch in 2016

Chris
02-01-2013, 07:50 AM
Last election nearly 2/3 women voted Democrat after the speech at Republican national convention or fine slips by Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock who BOTH LOST Senate races after abortion comments

When will you clowns ever learn

I hope the Pro-Life goons step it up a notch in 2016

Moral truths are not determined by popular vote.

Name calling is unimpressive and fallacious.

What is there to learn?

Disco Stu
02-01-2013, 08:01 AM
Moral truths are not determined by popular vote.

Name calling is unimpressive and fallacious.

What is there to learn?

Well get used to Democrat rule then because a majority of women support the right to choose and the more you clowns keep it up infact we appreciate the help

Cigar
02-01-2013, 08:02 AM
It is not the government's responsibility to raise that child. The onus is on the parents. If they don't want kids, use protection or get fixed.
What do you want? You want government to send out checks to every child born so that the mothers keep cranking out babies in order to get more money? That's what is happening now. That's the welfare mentality fostered by the likes of you and your fellow Democrats. Stop sending out checks and make the parents responsible for the life that they produced.


Hate to break the news to you sport ... but that's commonly called PLANED PARENTHOOD

Cigar
02-01-2013, 08:04 AM
Well get used to Democrat rule then because a majority of women support the right to choose and the more you clowns keep it up infact we appreciate the help

They live in a world of denial ... and it's fine if they like watching from the sidelines.

Chris
02-01-2013, 08:12 AM
Well get used to Democrat rule then because a majority of women support the right to choose and the more you clowns keep it up infact we appreciate the help

We're not a democracy where the mob rules, we're a constitutional republic where individual rights are protected.

Yes, the woman has a moral right to choose but the unborn has a moral right to life. You seem to want to simply sweep this conflict of rights under the rug and then name call to distract from the fact you cannot justify it.

Chris
02-01-2013, 08:13 AM
They live in a world of denial ... and it's fine is they like watching from the sidelines.

Who's denying rights here? I accept a woman's right to choose. Do you accept an unborn's right to life, or do you deny it?

Cigar
02-01-2013, 08:16 AM
We're not a democracy where the mob rules, we're a constitutional republic where individual rights are protected.

Yes, the woman has a moral right to choose but the unborn has a moral right to life. You seem to want to simply sweep this conflict of rights under the rug and then name call to distract from the fact you cannot justify it.

So YES or NO (My John McStupid impersonation) ... do you support PLANED PARENTHOOD ?

Disco Stu
02-01-2013, 08:16 AM
We're not a democracy where the mob rules, we're a constitutional republic where individual rights are protected.

Yes, the woman has a moral right to choose but the unborn has a moral right to life. You seem to want to simply sweep this conflict of rights under the rug and then name call to distract from the fact you cannot justify it.


It's a fetus and until it crawls out of the womb and becomes an infant the constitution is irrelevant

Furthermore the constitution is outdated hence our lawmakers and judicial systems have devised ways of getting around the constitution on

Agravan
02-01-2013, 08:59 AM
Hate to break the news to you sport ... but that's commonly called PLANED PARENTHOOD

No, PLAN(N)ED PARENTHOOD is making the decision beforehand to not have children. Having an abortion after you've done the deed and have conceived is MURDER.

Cigar
02-01-2013, 09:02 AM
No, PLAN(N)ED PARENTHOOD is making the decision beforehand to not have children. Having an abortion after you've done the deed and have conceived is MURDER.


Good ... so you're in favor preventive health care for Women ... and so am I, and I personally don't approve of abortion.

Chris
02-01-2013, 09:09 AM
So YES or NO (My John McStupid impersonation) ... do you support PLANED PARENTHOOD ?

Actually what I said was YES and YES.

Your position is YES or NO .


I'm agnostic re Planned Parenthood. I'm against any government funding of abortion.

Chris
02-01-2013, 09:12 AM
It's a fetus and until it crawls out of the womb and becomes an infant the constitution is irrelevant

Furthermore the constitution is outdated hence our lawmakers and judicial systems have devised ways of getting around the constitution on

It's a fetus that is living and human, a living human fetus.


until it crawls out of the womb and becomes an infant the constitution is irrelevant

OK, justify that opinion as I have justified mine.


Furthermore the constitution is outdated hence our lawmakers and judicial systems have devised ways of getting around the constitution on

Then work to amend it, until you do it is the supreme law of the land.

Agravan
02-01-2013, 09:14 AM
Good ... so you're in favor preventive health care for Women ... and so am I, and I personally don't approve of abortion.

Why would you think I don't favor preventitive health care for women? But that's not what Planned Parenthood is there for. Yeah, they may do 1 or 2 cancer screenings for every million babies they slaughter, but their main business is murdering babies. Their founders stated goal was to eliminate the black race by killing their babies, it seems that you're ok with genocide as long as it's liberal committing it, right?

zelmo1234
02-01-2013, 09:22 AM
Well get used to Democrat rule then because a majority of women support the right to choose and the more you clowns keep it up infact we appreciate the help

With the economy going back into a slide, I don't think Abortion will be a huge driver, but if it is I will take a couple of percentage points to stand up for what is right. 66% of women do not support abortion, you have about a 2 to 5% advantage depending on the area of the country.

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/08/22/do-men-and-women-view-abortion

So dong what is right, is the only choice.

Now I beleive that they will remain legal for rape, incest and life or health of the mother! But then there will be the same amount of abortions in a year that there are in a day now! I can live with that

zelmo1234
02-01-2013, 09:25 AM
So YES or NO (My John McStupid impersonation) ... do you support PLANED PARENTHOOD ?

I think that they have a right to exist but not to be publically funded! There are plenty of rich liberals out that that can fund them if they want to? and they can chage for services.

I do not get subsidised neither should they!

IMPress Polly
02-01-2013, 01:40 PM
You don't have to actually support abortion to be pro-choice. Many prominent people consider themselves both "pro-life" on moral grounds (i.e. opposed to people making that choice) and pro-choice on practical grounds, for all legal purposes (perhaps recognizing that people have a right to disagree). For such people, the abortion question is similar to that of separation of church and state. You can be religious without trying to impose that view on others by force of the state. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is one such person. Ed Schultz is another. I respect that position. What I don't respect is people trying to impose their view on this subject on me.

As for me...well you all know something about my background, I think: I'm an ex-communist. Much of my social and political thinking hence comes from more principled, left wing quarters. That's true on this issue, as well as on many others.

Don't get me wrong people, I concern myself greatly with the value of life in general, including yes of other species. I'm against guns, hunting, war in general, the death penalty, etc. I don't even support spanking children. Much as some would like to cast feminists as horrible, aggressive warrior-monster "bitch" types, I think that you'll find that that's simply not the case. Frankly, most people are more inclined to write me off as a naive hippie-type do-gooding peacenik. (Yes I know that's what most of you think of me.) Being a feminist doesn't make you a heartless monster.

All that said, as far as I'm concerned, abortion and murder are two entirely different things. Now many of you proclaim that abortion amounts to killing children. Well the more principled members of the pro-choice ranks, myself included, disagree because we don't consider embryos or fetuses to be babies. What's the difference, you ask? The difference is that an embryo or a fetus is part of a woman's body, which she has the unconditional right to control and regulate as she sees fit. A woman who is not allowed to controlled her own body is essentially a slave, IMO. It's not a baby until it's born as far as I'm concerned. Only a baby is a baby. That's true in my opinion and it's true according to the U.S. Constitution if we are to recognize the validity of the Roe V. Wade verdict. If you disagree, no one is making you have an abortion. Simply opt not to have one, as many women do. But leave my rights alone because I don't agree with you.

Alif Qadr
02-01-2013, 01:52 PM
Since the beginning of time ... women have had abortions, ... and abortions will always exist.

But if Row V. Wad is overturned, it will only be more dangerous ... dangerous for Women, not Men.

Disclaimer ... I don't like or approve abortions, but I don't like cloudy days either, and I have just as much control over both.

The problem with Republicans and Conservatives is, they what to reserve the right to bitch and complain about Anchor Babies and Welfare Mothers, while pretending to care so much about life. They don't give a flying fuck about life unless it's Voting Republican.

I need proof for both the following statements

Since the beginning of time ... women have had abortions, ... and abortions will always exist.

But if Row V. Wad is overturned, it will only be more dangerous ... dangerous for Women, not Men.

If you are referring to infanticide, that is not abortion and the men would murder the female child because they wanted a male child. As far as I know, abortion is a relatively recent phenomena on the planet but if you can prove otherwise, I am always willing to learn.

roadmaster
02-01-2013, 02:02 PM
You don't have to actually support abortion to be pro-choice Correct when it really comes to a woman's life, incest or rape that should be her decision. It is not for me to judge them but the ones who keep having them as birth control are reckless, and with all the ways to prevent getting pregnant out there very irresponsible and I do believe it's a child at conception. We all have a right to believe what we do, so don't push yours either. No one makes you believe in Biblical beliefs but we have a right to ours like it or not. Don't expect us to see a gay lifestyle as normal or expect us to perform abortions against our beliefs. It goes both ways. Opt out going to a Christian based hospital or school.

Alif Qadr
02-01-2013, 02:07 PM
Mississippi devised a clever way of trying to get around the Roe V. Wade verdict by banning abortion indirectly. It devised the first of what they call trap laws. Trap laws are laws that deliberately place such onerous regulations on abortion clinics that they cannot stay open. Even without this new law, Mississippi is down to one abortion clinic. This law was clearly and openly calculated by the state's lawmakers to close it down, thus effectively ending legal abortion in the state of Mississippi. We have now reached the point where that law is starting to go into effect. The last abortion clinic in Mississippi has just been notified that the state intends to revoke their license. They're in the process of being shut down right now. Taking heart from this example, the state of North Dakota, which also has but one abortion clinic remaining, has just passed an essentially identical law with the exact same purpose. Apparently you can do this in America now without intervention from the Justice Department. Why even have Roe V. Wade on the books? It's clearly just a formality at this point. American women no longer have the right to terminate a pregnancy.
This is good news and a victory for sanity and humanity. As to the Justice Department, they cannot do anything until and unless the laws of both states is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. As long as the laws are sound and do not violate the Constutional rights of anyone, said laws will stand as examples of promoting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion is not liberty nor the pursuit of happiness because it promotes neither in realistic or theoretical terms. Abortion denies such to the fetus designated to be aborted so in and of itself, abortion should be ruled unconstitutional. The developing child, i.e. fetus has committed no crime therefore said fetus/developing child is not worthy of the death penalty.

Chris
02-01-2013, 02:12 PM
You don't have to actually support abortion to be pro-choice. Many prominent people consider themselves both "pro-life" on moral grounds (i.e. opposed to people making that choice) and pro-choice on practical grounds, for all legal purposes (perhaps recognizing that people have a right to disagree). For such people, the abortion question is similar to that of separation of church and state. You can be religious without trying to impose that view on others by force of the state. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is one such person. Ed Schultz is another. I respect that position. What I don't respect is people trying to impose their view on this subject on me.

As for me...well you all know something about my background, I think: I'm an ex-communist. Much of my social and political thinking hence comes from more principled, left wing quarters. That's true on this issue, as well as on many others.

Don't get me wrong people, I concern myself greatly with the value of life in general, including yes of other species. I'm against guns, hunting, war in general, the death penalty, etc. I don't even support spanking children. Much as some would like to cast feminists as horrible, aggressive warrior-monster "bitch" types, I think that you'll find that that's simply not the case. Frankly, most people are more inclined to write me off as a naive hippie-type do-gooding peacenik. (Yes I know that's what most of you think of me.) Being a feminist doesn't make you a heartless monster.

All that said, as far as I'm concerned, abortion and murder are two entirely different things. Now many of you proclaim that abortion amounts to killing children. Well the more principled members of the pro-choice ranks, myself included, disagree because we don't consider embryos or fetuses to be babies. What's the difference, you ask? The difference is that an embryo or a fetus is part of a woman's body, which she has the unconditional right to control and regulate as she sees fit. A woman who is not allowed to controlled her own body is essentially a slave, IMO. It's not a baby until it's born as far as I'm concerned. Only a baby is a baby. That's true in my opinion and it's true according to the U.S. Constitution if we are to recognize the validity of the Roe V. Wade verdict. If you disagree, no one is making you have an abortion. Simply opt not to have one, as many women do. But leave my rights alone because I don't agree with you.


I'm an ex-communist. Much of my social and political thinking hence comes from more principled, left wing quarters.

How is communism/socialism/whatever principled and moral?


It's not a baby until it's born as far as I'm concerned. Only a baby is a baby. That's true in my opinion and it's true according to the U.S. Constitution if we are to recognize the validity of the Roe V. Wade verdict. If you disagree, no one is making you have an abortion. Simply opt not to have one, as many women do.

Can you point out where in the Constitution that's stated? Can you point out where in the Constitution the court is empowered to write laws?


But leave my rights alone because I don't agree with you.

What about the natural moral rights of the unborn who is according to medical science alive and human?

roadmaster
02-01-2013, 02:15 PM
The developing child, i.e. fetus has committed no crime therefore said fetus/developing child is not worthy of the death penalty That I agree but if a child was raped by a mad-man should she have to pay for his sins? I couldn't look at a 12 year old already traumatized and say she had to carry that child.

Agravan
02-01-2013, 02:16 PM
You don't have to actually support abortion to be pro-choice. Many prominent people consider themselves both "pro-life" on moral grounds (i.e. opposed to people making that choice) and pro-choice on practical grounds, for all legal purposes (perhaps recognizing that people have a right to disagree). For such people, the abortion question is similar to that of separation of church and state. You can be religious without trying to impose that view on others by force of the state. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is one such person. Ed Schultz is another. I respect that position. What I don't respect is people trying to impose their view on this subject on me.

As for me...well you all know something about my background, I think: I'm an ex-communist. Much of my social and political thinking hence comes from more principled, left wing quarters. That's true on this issue, as well as on many others.

Don't get me wrong people, I concern myself greatly with the value of life in general, including yes of other species. I'm against guns, hunting, war in general, the death penalty, etc. I don't even support spanking children. Much as some would like to cast feminists as horrible, aggressive warrior-monster "bitch" types, I think that you'll find that that's simply not the case. Frankly, most people are more inclined to write me off as a naive hippie-type do-gooding peacenik. (Yes I know that's what most of you think of me.) Being a feminist doesn't make you a heartless monster.

All that said, as far as I'm concerned, abortion and murder are two entirely different things. Now many of you proclaim that abortion amounts to killing children. Well the more principled members of the pro-choice ranks, myself included, disagree because we don't consider embryos or fetuses to be babies. What's the difference, you ask? The difference is that an embryo or a fetus is part of a woman's body, which she has the unconditional right to control and regulate as she sees fit. A woman who is not allowed to controlled her own body is essentially a slave, IMO. It's not a baby until it's born as far as I'm concerned. Only a baby is a baby. That's true in my opinion and it's true according to the U.S. Constitution if we are to recognize the validity of the Roe V. Wade verdict. If you disagree, no one is making you have an abortion. Simply opt not to have one, as many women
do. But leave my rights alone because I don't agree with you.
Your last three sentences highlight the hypocrisy of the left.
Change the word abortion to guns and tell me if you still agree with those sentences.

Disco Stu
02-02-2013, 07:39 AM
That I agree but if a child was raped by a mad-man should she have to pay for his sins? I couldn't look at a 12 year old already traumatized and say she had to carry that child.

This is exactly why I am Pro-Choice

While personally I disagree with abortion as birth control the Pro-Life movement has an ugly element of misogynistic types who.not only disapprove of abortion in cases of rape but also in health complications

There are elements of Pro-Life who feel a mother should willingly sacrifice her own life for the fetus and consider doing such to be a horrible mother and murder

I simply cannot support those views hence I remain Pro-Choice

Chris
02-02-2013, 08:00 AM
This is exactly why I am Pro-Choice

While personally I disagree with abortion as birth control the Pro-Life movement has an ugly element of misogynistic types who.not only disapprove of abortion in cases of rape but also in health complications

There are elements of Pro-Life who feel a mother should willingly sacrifice her own life for the fetus and consider doing such to be a horrible mother and murder

I simply cannot support those views hence I remain Pro-Choice

I think you're looking at outliers and deciding they represent all who are "pro-life". It's just not the case. Roadmaster just said in cases of child rape, she couldn't imagine holding the child responsible. I would say if the mother's health and life are truly physically threaten, as determined by a doctor, then she shouldn't be held responsible. There are probably more borderline cases we could quibble about forever.

But roadmaster, you, nor I should decide this, nor should some elites in government, who voted in the past one way might reverse themselves tomorrow, it is society that should decide, and I think since we already have a system in place, that should be done by justice system that decides whether to bring charges or not, and a jury of peers to decide.

Peter1469
02-02-2013, 08:02 AM
I see the issue differently. I don't believe that the US Constitution empowers the federal government to get involved in this issue. Therefore, Amendment X, U.S. Constitution provides that the States shall have authority over abortion.

Disco Stu
02-02-2013, 08:11 AM
I think you're looking at outliers and deciding they represent all who are "pro-life". It's just not the case. Roadmaster just said in cases of child rape, she couldn't imagine holding the child responsible. I would say if the mother's health and life are truly physically threaten, as determined by a doctor, then she shouldn't be held responsible. There are probably more borderline cases we could quibble about forever.

But roadmaster, you, nor I should decide this, nor should some elites in government, who voted in the past one way might reverse themselves tomorrow, it is society that should decide, and I think since we already have a system in place, that should be done by justice system that decides whether to bring charges or not, and a jury of peers to decide.

Maybe I am over judge but that element happens to be quite active although the coverage may have more to do with the obscurity it's kind like how the Westwood Baptist church gets attention but doesn't necessarily represent Baptists overall

Nonetheless the Pro-Life movement has an ugly side

Chris
02-02-2013, 08:24 AM
Maybe I am over judge but that element happens to be quite active although the coverage may have more to do with the obscurity it's kind like how the Westwood Baptist church gets attention but doesn't necessarily represent Baptists overall

Nonetheless the Pro-Life movement has an ugly side


As if the pro choice side doesn't have ugly?

Part of the problem is the ugly outliers are more vociferous, and like you say the left-leaning media amplifies that.

Disco Stu
02-02-2013, 12:57 PM
As if the pro choice side doesn't have ugly?

Part of the problem is the ugly outliers are more vociferous, and like you say the left-leaning media amplifies that.

Well both have ugly side I will acknowledge that but principally and ethically I am unable to support .Pro-Life at this time given that element

Dr. Who
02-02-2013, 10:18 PM
We're not a democracy where the mob rules, we're a constitutional republic where individual rights are protected.

Yes, the woman has a moral right to choose but the unborn has a moral right to life. You seem to want to simply sweep this conflict of rights under the rug and then name call to distract from the fact you cannot justify it.
Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage, usually within the first trimester. Not all spontaneous abortions occur because there is anything wrong with the fetus. Did the spontaneously aborted fetus lose it's moral right to life? Has the chemical/hormonal composition of the human body got more right to choose to accept or reject a pregnancy than the conscious mind of that body?

Additionally, a fetus has no legal rights under the constitution. http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2003/05/hlaw1-0305.html

IMPress Polly
02-03-2013, 08:48 AM
Chris wrote:
How is communism/socialism/whatever principled and moral?

Socialist and communists (well...most I guess I should say) have strong moral principles. They're just different ones than you might believe in. The moral system of the political right is built around maximizing personal freedom, while the moral system of the political left is built around increasing social and economic equality, which is seen as key to the collectivization of freedom. The farther to the left you go, the more unequivocally and absolutely people tend to believe in equality as a matter of principle. You can get a good idea of where people's moral fiber lies (whether they lean right or left overall) by what angers them because morality is defined by hatred. What to you isn't just stupid or annoying, but infuriating?

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 09:16 AM
You don't have to actually support abortion to be pro-choice. Many prominent people consider themselves both "pro-life" on moral grounds (i.e. opposed to people making that choice) and pro-choice on practical grounds, for all legal purposes (perhaps recognizing that people have a right to disagree). For such people, the abortion question is similar to that of separation of church and state. You can be religious without trying to impose that view on others by force of the state. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is one such person. Ed Schultz is another. I respect that position. What I don't respect is people trying to impose their view on this subject on me.

As for me...well you all know something about my background, I think: I'm an ex-communist. Much of my social and political thinking hence comes from more principled, left wing quarters. That's true on this issue, as well as on many others.

Don't get me wrong people, I concern myself greatly with the value of life in general, including yes of other species. I'm against guns, hunting, war in general, the death penalty, etc. I don't even support spanking children. Much as some would like to cast feminists as horrible, aggressive warrior-monster "bitch" types, I think that you'll find that that's simply not the case. Frankly, most people are more inclined to write me off as a naive hippie-type do-gooding peacenik. (Yes I know that's what most of you think of me.) Being a feminist doesn't make you a heartless monster.

All that said, as far as I'm concerned, abortion and murder are two entirely different things. Now many of you proclaim that abortion amounts to killing children. Well the more principled members of the pro-choice ranks, myself included, disagree because we don't consider embryos or fetuses to be babies. What's the difference, you ask? The difference is that an embryo or a fetus is part of a woman's body, which she has the unconditional right to control and regulate as she sees fit. A woman who is not allowed to controlled her own body is essentially a slave, IMO. It's not a baby until it's born as far as I'm concerned. Only a baby is a baby. That's true in my opinion and it's true according to the U.S. Constitution if we are to recognize the validity of the Roe V. Wade verdict. If you disagree, no one is making you have an abortion. Simply opt not to have one, as many women do. But leave my rights alone because I don't agree with you.

It's a difficult thing to figure out. Is it a person or part of the woman, as far as rights go? I'm not sure.

My conclusion on this issue is that women must be inferior creatures. That even with all of the education out there, girls still don't know how babies are made, much less how to prevent it from happening.

That, in turn, makes me question whether women should have any rights, in the first place. If you're not smart enough to figure out where babies come from and how to prevent it, how can we trust you with any "choice"?

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 09:22 AM
Essentially, those in the pro-choice camp regard the fetus as property. I'm simply wondering if women themselves shouldn't be considered property, like they used to be?

That would solve the debate...

Chris
02-03-2013, 10:19 AM
Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage, usually within the first trimester. Not all spontaneous abortions occur because there is anything wrong with the fetus. Did the spontaneously aborted fetus lose it's moral right to life? Has the chemical/hormonal composition of the human body got more right to choose to accept or reject a pregnancy than the conscious mind of that body?

Additionally, a fetus has no legal rights under the constitution. http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2003/05/hlaw1-0305.html

Yes, and? The problem isn't nature but man assuming he can design and decide the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.

Chris
02-03-2013, 10:25 AM
Socialist and communists (well...most I guess I should say) have strong moral principles. They're just different ones than you might believe in. The moral system of the political right is built around maximizing personal freedom, while the moral system of the political left is built around increasing social and economic equality, which is seen as key to the collectivization of freedom. The farther to the left you go, the more unequivocally and absolutely people tend to believe in equality as a matter of principle. You can get a good idea of where people's moral fiber lies (whether they lean right or left overall) by what angers them because morality is defined by hatred. What to you isn't just stupid or annoying, but infuriating?


They're just different ones than you might believe in. The moral system of the political right is built around maximizing personal freedom, while the moral system of the political left is built around increasing social and economic equality, which is seen as key to the collectivization of freedom.

Wrong again, polly.

The principles of liberty that many on the right follow is to maximize personal and SOCIAL liberty--individual competition within a social order--and minimize political power.

Socialism is all about central planning, the maximizing of political power by taking liberty from individuals and society.

The difference is that between treating different people equally as opposed to treating people differently to make them equal.

When you learn these things you won't get so angry and hateful, and you'll realize you've never been an ex-communist and are not now a socialist.

Chris
02-03-2013, 10:28 AM
Essentially, those in the pro-choice camp regard the fetus as property. I'm simply wondering if women themselves shouldn't be considered property, like they used to be?

That would solve the debate...

Which is ironic because most pro-choicers, leftists, want to abolish private property for communal property. Ah, the self-contradictions of the left.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 02:34 PM
Yes, and? The problem isn't nature but man assuming he can design and decide the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
Do you quibble with that interference when it involves performing life saving surgery? The law of nature would leave someone with a life threatening condition with no option but to die. Should a mother with six children, be forced to have a seventh, because she has a "randy" husband and her birth control didn't work, particularly when the family can barely provide for the ones they already have? Or doom her to the psychological torment of giving up the baby after it is born, so she can spend the rest of her life wondering what happened to that child? The bond between a mother and her unborn child truly develops once there is more physical evidence of its existence, before that it is more of an abstraction. For the woman looking forward to having a child, there is excitement, mixed with the trepidation of knowing that the pregnancy may spontaneously terminate. Best not to get too attached to the idea until after 3 months. There is a reason why voluntary terminations of pregnancy are conducted in the first trimester. After three months the mother begins to truly bond with that life she is carrying, because she can feel it and see evidence of its existence. The fetus is no longer a simple organism.

Once born, there is a bond between the mother and child, whether she wants it or not. Nature created that bond. So giving up that child can be completely traumatizing to the mother and cause serious psychological injury. That is why so many teens end up keeping their babies, no matter how ill advised it might be in terms of their future or how terrified they may be at the prospect of parenthood.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 02:40 PM
It's a difficult thing to figure out. Is it a person or part of the woman, as far as rights go? I'm not sure.

My conclusion on this issue is that women must be inferior creatures. That even with all of the education out there, girls still don't know how babies are made, much less how to prevent it from happening.

That, in turn, makes me question whether women should have any rights, in the first place. If you're not smart enough to figure out where babies come from and how to prevent it, how can we trust you with any "choice"?
Presumably neither are the fathers of the babies smart enough to know how babies are made and it is usually the male that precipitates the union that produces the child.

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 02:43 PM
Presumably neither are the fathers of the babies smart enough to know how babies are made and it is usually the male that precipitates the union that produces the child.

This has nothing to do with men. We aren't granted any "choice" in the matter.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 02:48 PM
This has nothing to do with men. We aren't granted any "choice" in the matter.
If pregancy has nothing to do with the men, how do the women get pregnant? The man may not have any choice in whether the baby is born, but they do have a choice whether or not to use protection before the fact. Silly little teenagers rarely think about consequences, but then their brains are not fully developed. Adults have a choice to avoid pregnancy and that includes the males.

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 02:52 PM
If pregancy has nothing to do with the men, how do the women get pregnant? The man may not have any choice in whether the baby is born, but they do have a choice whether or not to use protection before the fact. Silly little teenagers rarely think about consequences, but then their brains are not fully developed. Adults have a choice to avoid pregnancy and that includes the males.

And if teenage girls were owned by their fathers, then the choice would be in Daddy's hands, huh?

People say teen sex is impossible to stop. That's ridiculous. Girls were chaperoned for thousands of years.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 02:59 PM
And if teenage girls were owned by their fathers, then the choice would be in Daddy's hands, huh?

People say teen sex is impossible to stop. That's ridiculous. Girls were chaperoned for thousands of years.
Not all girls have daddies in the home anymore. Divorce rate at 50% plus.

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 03:03 PM
We could stop rape completely. Girls wouldn't be allowed to ask for it anymore, because their fathers would choose what clothes they wear.

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 03:04 PM
Not all girls have daddies in the home anymore. Divorce rate at 50% plus.

Well, we need to outlaw that bullshit, too.

Mister D
02-03-2013, 03:08 PM
Not all girls have daddies in the home anymore. Divorce rate at 50% plus.

We need to make a distinction here though. Divorce does necessarily mean the male parent is out of the child's life. This is often not the case. More troubling, IMO, are single mothers never having been married at all.

roadmaster
02-03-2013, 03:15 PM
We need to make a distinction here though. Divorce does necessarily mean the male parent is out of the child's life. This is often not the case. More troubling, IMO, are single mothers never having been married at all.

Or don't know who the dad is while this young man assumes no responsibility and keeps getting women pregnant. If he had to pay child support he would think twice. Can't put all the fault all on him because they too are willing and too many ways to prevent getting pregnant if a women chooses this type of lifestyle. The ones who are really hurt by this is the child.

Mister D
02-03-2013, 03:16 PM
Or don't know who the dad is while this young man assumes no responsibility and keeps getting women pregnant. If he had to pay child support he would think twice. Can't put all the fault all on him because they too are willing and too many ways to prevent getting pregnant if a women chooses this type of lifestyle. The ones who are really hurt by this is the child.

It takes two to tango no doubt.

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 03:17 PM
Why can't women handle freedom?!? Traditionally, women were basically owned by their fathers, until such time that they were handed off in marriage, when they became the property of their husband. A potential suitor had to court the girl, with chaperones around at all times. And teen sex and teen pregnancy were basically unheard of.

But men were exactly the same as they are now.

So, we changed things. We started giving women "rights", and we started letting girls be more free. And what happened? They started getting knocked up, that's what!

So, clearly, men aren't the problem, because we haven't changed. It's these women that can't keep it in their pants, unless they have Nasty Aunt Betty looking over their shoulders...

But, it's always been this way, hasn't it? After all, 'twas Eve that tempted Adam...

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 03:25 PM
We could stop rape completely. Girls wouldn't be allowed to ask for it anymore, because their fathers would choose what clothes they wear.
Rape is considered an act of violence and has more to do with male contempt for females than being unable to control their basic impulses. Honestly, do you really think that males cannot stop themselves? While I do not particularly endorse young women wearing provocative clothing, as it leads to unfortunate assumptions on the part of males, it is not the responsibility of the girls to ensure that they are not attractive to the boys. It is the responsibility of the boys to treat all girls with respect. At one time in society the sight of a female ankle was provocative. Would you prefer the muslim habit of covering women from head to toe, with only their eyes showing, just in case a man might find a women attractive. Where is male responsibility for their own actions in this discussion?

Chris
02-03-2013, 03:36 PM
Do you quibble with that interference when it involves performing life saving surgery? The law of nature would leave someone with a life threatening condition with no option but to die. Should a mother with six children, be forced to have a seventh, because she has a "randy" husband and her birth control didn't work, particularly when the family can barely provide for the ones they already have? Or doom her to the psychological torment of giving up the baby after it is born, so she can spend the rest of her life wondering what happened to that child? The bond between a mother and her unborn child truly develops once there is more physical evidence of its existence, before that it is more of an abstraction. For the woman looking forward to having a child, there is excitement, mixed with the trepidation of knowing that the pregnancy may spontaneously terminate. Best not to get too attached to the idea until after 3 months. There is a reason why voluntary terminations of pregnancy are conducted in the first trimester. After three months the mother begins to truly bond with that life she is carrying, because she can feel it and see evidence of its existence. The fetus is no longer a simple organism.

Once born, there is a bond between the mother and child, whether she wants it or not. Nature created that bond. So giving up that child can be completely traumatizing to the mother and cause serious psychological injury. That is why so many teens end up keeping their babies, no matter how ill advised it might be in terms of their future or how terrified they may be at the prospect of parenthood.

If man follows natural moral law, he'd be fine. Doctor's also have the Hippocratic Oath. Not sure why you think man cannot follow natural moral law, he ought to. Mothers make choices, if raped (forced) there's no choice. I'm confused by your emotional appeal for the mother but none for the unborn. That simple organism is alive and human.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 03:54 PM
If man follows natural moral law, he'd be fine. Doctor's also have the Hippocratic Oath. Not sure why you think man cannot follow natural moral law, he ought to. Mothers make choices, if raped (forced) there's no choice. I'm confused by your emotional appeal for the mother but none for the unborn. That simple organism is alive and human. The simple organism has the essential ingredients to become human, but IMO is not yet human. It lacks any self-awareness. Moreover, its existence is, minimally, subject to the physical ability of the host, the mother, to carry the fetus and not suffer ill effect from the process. The mother on the other hand is completely self-aware and can determine that even if there were no physical ill effect in carrying the child, there may be a psychological or economic effect that could result in a later physical harm to herself.

Chris
02-03-2013, 03:57 PM
The simple organism has the essential ingredients to become human, but IMO is not yet human. It lacks any self-awareness. Moreover, its existence is, minimally, subject to the physical ability of the host, the mother, to carry the fetus and not suffer ill effect from the process. The mother on the other hand is completely self-aware and can determine that even if there were no physical ill effect in carrying the child, there may be a psychological or economic effect that could result in a later physical harm to herself.

Medical science says it's human. I think you're special pleading the essential problem away.

Agravan
02-03-2013, 04:22 PM
Do you quibble with that interference when it involves performing life saving surgery? The law of nature would leave someone with a life threatening condition with no option but to die. Should a mother with six children, be forced to have a seventh, because she has a "randy" husband and her birth control didn't work, particularly when the family can barely provide for the ones they already have? Or doom her to the psychological torment of giving up the baby after it is born, so she can spend the rest of her life wondering what happened to that child? The bond between a mother and her unborn child truly develops once there is more physical evidence of its existence, before that it is more of an abstraction. For the woman looking forward to having a child, there is excitement, mixed with the trepidation of knowing that the pregnancy may spontaneously terminate. Best not to get too attached to the idea until after 3 months. There is a reason why voluntary terminations of pregnancy are conducted in the first trimester. After three months the mother begins to truly bond with that life she is carrying, because she can feel it and see evidence of its existence. The fetus is no longer a simple organism.

Once born, there is a bond between the mother and child, whether she wants it or not. Nature created that bond. So giving up that child can be completely traumatizing to the mother and cause serious psychological injury. That is why so many teens end up keeping their babies, no matter how ill advised it might be in terms of their future or how terrified they may be at the prospect of parenthood.

So, rather than "doom her to the psychological torment of giving up the baby after it is born", it is much better to just slaughter the baby, right? there is no torment over murdering the child, in your opinion? Or is this why the left strives to convince women that it's ok to have an abortion because a fetus is not a child in your opinion?

Agravan
02-03-2013, 04:27 PM
The simple organism has the essential ingredients to become human, but IMO is not yet human. It lacks any self-awareness. Moreover, its existence is, minimally, subject to the physical ability of the host, the mother, to carry the fetus and not suffer ill effect from the process. The mother on the other hand is completely self-aware and can determine that even if there were no physical ill effect in carrying the child, there may be a psychological or economic effect that could result in a later physical harm to herself.

What about the mentally ill people that are not self aware and completely dependent on others to provide sustenance and shelter? Should we just slaughter them also? They meet most of the criteria above, so you should be okay with that.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 04:30 PM
Medical science says it's human. I think you're special pleading the essential problem away.
It is a potential human, only as long as the mother's body permits its existence. I don't see that the environment of the mother's body has more right than the brain to determine whether or not to host a new life. Then again, I am not persuaded that all of the historical theories on natural law or natural moral law, having only males as contributors, necessarily reflect the entire human experience.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 04:33 PM
What about the mentally ill people that are not self aware and completely dependent on others to provide sustenance and shelter? Should we just slaughter them also? They meet most of the criteria above, so you should be okay with that.

The mentally ill are self aware. Whatever mental confusion is taking place, does not mean that they have no awareness of self.

Agravan
02-03-2013, 04:35 PM
The mentally ill are self aware. Whatever mental confusion is taking place, does not mean that they have no awareness of self.

Really? And you know this, how?
What about the ones in persitent vegetative state?
The ones in comas?
How do you know they are self aware, but a baby is not?

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 04:35 PM
So, rather than "doom her to the psychological torment of giving up the baby after it is born", it is much better to just slaughter the baby, right? there is no torment over murdering the child, in your opinion? Or is this why the left strives to convince women that it's ok to have an abortion because a fetus is not a child in your opinion?
As I said previously, if the body can terminate the pregnancy, simply because say the mother is too thin to provide adequate nutrition to both, then how is the fetus thus aborted by the body less important than one aborted voluntarily.

Agravan
02-03-2013, 04:37 PM
As I said previously, if the body can terminate the pregnancy, simply because say the mother is too thin to provide adequate nutrition to both, then how is the fetus thus aborted by the body less important than one aborted voluntarily.
One is natural, the other is not. People die from natural causes all the time, how is that diifferent from a murderer deciding to take their life?

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 04:41 PM
Really? And you know this, how?
What about the ones in persitent vegetative state?
The ones in comas?
How do you know they are self aware, but a baby is not?
Coma is not necessarily vegetative. Coma can imply a state where the body is healing. Brain wave activity is determinative. Vegetative is essentially brain dead. Society exercises the option to withdraw life support in such situations. Perhaps you mean catatonic, but that simply means the patient is not communicating with the outside world, not that they have no sense of self-awareness.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 04:48 PM
One is natural, the other is not. People die from natural causes all the time, how is that diifferent from a murderer deciding to take their life?
You make value judgments relative to the right to live with respect to the fetus within the first trimester, I do not. It is murder only when a person is born. Murder is a legal definition. You are conflating this issue with the law. The law does not define an abortion as murder, because legally a fetus is not a person.

Chris
02-03-2013, 04:56 PM
It is a potential human, only as long as the mother's body permits its existence. I don't see that the environment of the mother's body has more right than the brain to determine whether or not to host a new life. Then again, I am not persuaded that all of the historical theories on natural law or natural moral law, having only males as contributors, necessarily reflect the entire human experience.

It's human not a potential human. You're special pleading.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 05:03 PM
It's human not a potential human. You're special pleading.
I say potential human because its continued existence is contingent on the mother's ability to carry it to term. At any point in the pregnancy it may be aborted if the body determines that it must choose between the fetus and the mother. In the days prior to the availability of abortion, women would deliberately engage in activities which would cause the body to abort, if they did not wish to be pregnant.

Peter1469
02-03-2013, 05:16 PM
To add to the mix: perhaps the question is "when does the soul attach to what our liberal friends call the fetal goo?"

Captain Obvious
02-03-2013, 05:20 PM
To add to the mix: perhaps the question is "when does the soul attach to what our liberal friends call the fetal goo?"

Third trimester, clearly.

Agravan
02-03-2013, 05:23 PM
To add to the mix: perhaps the question is "when does the soul attach to what our liberal friends call the fetal goo?"

Most ethical people would say "at conception". Liberalswill refuse to acknowledge this because to do so would negate their "it's not a person" argument which let's them justify the slaughter of children.
A liberal, or pro choicer, will grasp at the tiniest straws to justify their gruesome desires. A body can abort a child at anytime, and does for natural reason. Aborton by choice of, what would be, a viable child is nothing less than murder regardless of how liberal choose to define life. A definition does not change facts.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 05:26 PM
A good metaphysical question. Given the contingent viability of the fetus, would the soul take up residency in the fetus prior to birth? What is the soul and where does it come from? Are we all simply extensions of a universal soul? If so, perhaps it attaches at the moment of conception, perhaps not.

Chloe
02-03-2013, 05:28 PM
To add to the mix: perhaps the question is "when does the soul attach to what our liberal friends call the fetal goo?"

I don't personally know and I won't pretend to know, but i'm sure God knows. How about we leave it up to him? :wink:

Peter1469
02-03-2013, 05:33 PM
I don't personally know and I won't pretend to know, but i'm sure God knows. How about we leave it up to him? :wink:


That is fine with me. Just adding to the thread.

Chloe
02-03-2013, 05:34 PM
That is fine with me. Just adding to the thread.

Yep I know

Chris
02-03-2013, 05:49 PM
I say potential human because its continued existence is contingent on the mother's ability to carry it to term. At any point in the pregnancy it may be aborted if the body determines that it must choose between the fetus and the mother. In the days prior to the availability of abortion, women would deliberately engage in activities which would cause the body to abort, if they did not wish to be pregnant.

So is a one year old, so are the aging dependent. We all depend on each other.

Potential humans is what sex is.

Chloe
02-03-2013, 05:51 PM
Most ethical people would say "at conception". Liberalswill refuse to acknowledge this because to do so would negate their "it's not a person" argument which let's them justify the slaughter of children.
A liberal, or pro choicer, will grasp at the tiniest straws to justify their gruesome desires. A body can abort a child at anytime, and does for natural reason. Aborton by choice of, what would be, a viable child is nothing less than murder regardless of how liberal choose to define life. A definition does not change facts.

See this is the bad thing about having debates about abortion. How can someone like me even attempt to try and describe or defend my position if before I even start I am considered an unethical person with gruesome desires that chooses to slaughter children. Short of lying and completely accepting your point of view there is no possible way for me to even remotely have my point of view respected or even considered.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 06:08 PM
So is a one year old, so are the aging dependent. We all depend on each other.

Potential humans is what sex is.
Both the one year old and the aging dependent are there by the consent of the caretaker.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 06:15 PM
See this is the bad thing about having debates about abortion. How can someone like me even attempt to try and describe or defend my position if before I even start I am considered an unethical person with gruesome desires that chooses to slaughter children. Short of lying and completely accepting your point of view there is no possible way for me to even remotely have my point of view respected or even considered.
Your ethics cannot be dictated by those of others, no matter how strenuously they attempt to use emotional blackmail to change them. Many try to put a Judeo-Christian slant on the topic. Keep in mind that the concept of abortion was never discussed in the bible. Thus you only have your own moral compass to follow on the subject.

Chris
02-03-2013, 06:25 PM
Both the one year old and the aging dependent are there by the consent of the caretaker.

But by your dependence logic it's morally ok to murder the young and old. That's the problem with special pled definitions.

Chris
02-03-2013, 06:26 PM
Your ethics cannot be dictated by those of others, no matter how strenuously they attempt to use emotional blackmail to change them. Many try to put a Judeo-Christian slant on the topic. Keep in mind that the concept of abortion was never discussed in the bible. Thus you only have your own moral compass to follow on the subject.

Yea and that's called moral relativism.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 06:56 PM
Yea and that's called moral relativism.
Again emotional blackmail. What to you is emotional relativism is a person's right to control their own body to another.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 07:02 PM
But by your dependence logic it's morally ok to murder the young and old. That's the problem with special pled definitions.
Special pleading does not apply in this instance because you do not have empirical evidence on your side. My opinion is simply different than yours. As to your allegation that it is morally ok to murder the young and old, you are now making a straw man argument, because I said no such thing. My so called dependence logic only applies to a woman's body, you are extending it to other definitions.

Chris
02-03-2013, 07:03 PM
Again emotional blackmail. What to you is emotional relativism is a person's right to control their own body to another.

What is emotional blackmail? Nothing emotional about what I'm saying.

What's moral must be true. If each of us has different morals they cancel each other out, contradict each other, and what's true can't be based on that.

What's moral can be rationally justified.

Captain Obvious
02-03-2013, 07:06 PM
What is emotional blackmail? Nothing emotional about what I'm saying.

What's moral must be true. If each of us has different morals they cancel each other out, contradict each other, and what's true can't be based on that.

What's moral can be rationally justified.

Agreed.

And "the end justifies the means" isn't a hand on the moral compass.

Chris
02-03-2013, 07:19 PM
Yep, the means must also be morally justifiable.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 07:22 PM
What is emotional blackmail? Nothing emotional about what I'm saying.

What's moral must be true. If each of us has different morals they cancel each other out, contradict each other, and what's true can't be based on that.

What's moral can be rationally justified.
I don't believe that anti-abortion is rationally justified, nor do many others. You keep bringing it back to morality, but you said yourself, each of us has different morals and what is true cannot be based on that. You then you state that what's moral can be rationally justified. I'm missing the rational justification.

Chris
02-03-2013, 07:59 PM
I don't believe that anti-abortion is rationally justified, nor do many others. You keep bringing it back to morality, but you said yourself, each of us has different morals and what is true cannot be based on that. You then you state that what's moral can be rationally justified. I'm missing the rational justification.

I have justified it, who. The unborn are living human beings according to medical science. Apodictically, all men are created equal before the law with rights to life, liberty and property. Therefore the unborn have equal rights. And I am not here denying woman equal rights, or I couldn't claim equal rights at all. Simple as that, who. It is you and pro-choicers who claim equal right for women but deny rights to the unborn. It is you who fails to rationally justify that. Special pleading and moral relativism don't cut it.


And now that I'm at a computer, I must say your use of "emotional blackmail" is just plain whacky: "Emotional blackmail is a form of psychological manipulation - it is "the use of a system of threats and punishment on a person by someone close to them in an attempt to control their behavior".[1] "Emotional blackmail... typically involves two people who have established a close personal or intimate relationship (mother and daughter, husband and wife, sister and sister, two close friends)."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_blackmail. Where'd you come up with that one?

Chloe
02-03-2013, 08:07 PM
I have justified it, who. The unborn are living human beings according to medical science. Apodictically, all men are created equal before the law with rights to life, liberty and property. Therefore the unborn have equal rights. And I am not here deny the woman equal right, or I could claim equal rights at all. Simple as that, who. It is you and pro-choices who claim equal right for women but deny rights to the unborn. It is you who fails to rationally justify that. Special pleading and moral relativism don't cut it.


And now that I'm at a computer, I must say your use of "emotional blackmail" is just plain whacky: "Emotional blackmail is a form of psychological manipulation - it is "the use of a system of threats and punishment on a person by someone close to them in an attempt to control their behavior".[1] "Emotional blackmail... typically involves two people who have established a close personal or intimate relationship (mother and daughter, husband and wife, sister and sister, two close friends)."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_blackmail. Where'd you come up with that one?

Consider when that sentence was written though Chris. When they were writing that declaration to the king of england do you sincerely think that abortion rights was even remotely on their minds? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is just a general statement for freedom from oppression and all the crap that they were leaving in england, it had nothing to do with modern day views on pro-choice or pro-life politics in my opinion.

A clump of cells after conception is technically "life" as we define it in science since cells are life, an embryo is life because it has living cells, but it's not life as compared to what I am right now. In my opinion when they say life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness they are talking about me having those abilities and not the "life" that is inside of me at the moment of conception. Of course this is just my opinion for whatever that's worth.

Captain Obvious
02-03-2013, 08:09 PM
Consider when that sentence was written though Chris. When they were writing that declaration to the king of england do you sincerely think that abortion rights was even remotely on their minds? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is just a general statement for freedom from oppression and all the crap that they were leaving in england, it had nothing to do with modern day views on pro-choice or pro-life politics in my opinion.

A clump of cells after conception is technically "life" as we define it in science since cells are life, an embryo is life because it has living cells, but it's not life as compared to what I am right now. In my opinion when they say life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness they are talking about me having those abilities and not the "life" that is inside of me at the moment of conception. Of course this is just my opinion for whatever that's worth.

At some point eons in the future, our material existence may be described as "a clump of cells".

Chloe
02-03-2013, 08:10 PM
At some point eons in the future, our material existence may be described as "a clump of cells".

that's true

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 08:21 PM
I have justified it, who. The unborn are living human beings according to medical science. Apodictically, all men are created equal before the law with rights to life, liberty and property. Therefore the unborn have equal rights. And I am not here denying woman equal rights, or I couldn't claim equal rights at all. Simple as that, who. It is you and pro-choicers who claim equal right for women but deny rights to the unborn. It is you who fails to rationally justify that. Special pleading and moral relativism don't cut it.


And now that I'm at a computer, I must say your use of "emotional blackmail" is just plain whacky: "Emotional blackmail is a form of psychological manipulation - it is "the use of a system of threats and punishment on a person by someone close to them in an attempt to control their behavior".[1] "Emotional blackmail... typically involves two people who have established a close personal or intimate relationship (mother and daughter, husband and wife, sister and sister, two close friends)."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_blackmail. Where'd you come up with that one?

Inasmuch as Chloe is young and has posted on this site for some time, she may be averse to harsh criticism from some that she may view as friends. She said as much. You have to admit that she is afforded much more latitude because she is young and is not looking forward to the type of invective response that others receive.

The fact that the human fetus is human is not in question. Whether the human fetus has a natural right to survival is in question. If the world at large agreed with your point of view, a fetus would be a person in the eyes of the law. It is not. You cannot prosecute a woman for lifestyle behavior that can either kill or fundamentally impair a fetus. I have moral issues with this concept, but nevertheless society cannot dictate to a free person what they may or may not do with their own body. That is the most personal right of freedom.

Chris
02-03-2013, 08:22 PM
Consider when that sentence was written though Chris. When they were writing that declaration to the king of england do you sincerely think that abortion rights was even remotely on their minds? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is just a general statement for freedom from oppression and all the crap that they were leaving in england, it had nothing to do with modern day views on pro-choice or pro-life politics in my opinion.

A clump of cells after conception is technically "life" as we define it in science since cells are life, an embryo is life because it has living cells, but it's not life as compared to what I am right now. In my opinion when they say life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness they are talking about me having those abilities and not the "life" that is inside of me at the moment of conception. Of course this is just my opinion for whatever that's worth.

Chloe, those words were an expression of moral principles that are timeless. Jefferson cribbed them from John Locke who drew on Hume and Adam Smith and other Scotsmen and from many natural law theorists before him going back through Roman to Greek times. They still apply today.

Beside, rationally, ff you reject those natural law rights then you undermine your entire argument that women have a right to choose for where does that right come from?

And as you agree, those cells are life. And in terms of all that is significant here those cells are just as much human as you. Not as developed, physically, mentally, emotionally, morally, but just as human.

Your opinion is worth a lot or else I wouldn't be arguing with it.

Captain Obvious
02-03-2013, 08:24 PM
that's true

My point is that we make these "observations" based on the information that we know.

The whole "when does life begin" would IMO not be an issue at all if it weren't for abortion. Considering that theory, it's a weak excuse to justify what is really happening which is the killing of unborn children.

Chris
02-03-2013, 08:30 PM
Inasmuch as Chloe is young and has posted on this site for some time, she may be averse to harsh criticism from some that she may view as friends. She said as much. You have to admit that she is afforded much more latitude because she is young and is not looking forward to the type of invective response that others receive.

The fact that the human fetus is human is not in question. Whether the human fetus has a natural right to survival is in question. If the world at large agreed with your point of view, a fetus would be a person in the eyes of the law. It is not. You cannot prosecute a woman for lifestyle behavior that can either kill or fundamentally impair a fetus. I have moral issues with this concept, but nevertheless society cannot dictate to a free person what they may or may not do with their own body. That is the most personal right of freedom.


Inasmuch as Chloe...

I am not picking on Chloe, she let me have it, if I tried.



The fact that the human fetus is human is not in question.

That is the precise question of import here.

Nor can life be denied.


Whether the human fetus has a natural right to survival is in question.

Nor can equal rights be denied for if you deny this you deny a woman's right to choose.


If the world at large agreed with your point of view, a fetus would be a person in the eyes of the law. It is not.

Argumentum ad populum--truth is not determined by popularity.

This law you speak of, posited law, if good only inasmuch as if comports with natural law.


You cannot prosecute a woman for lifestyle behavior...

Straw man, no one is arguing about lifestyle.


I have moral issues with this concept, but nevertheless society cannot dictate to a free person what they may or may not do with their own body. That is the most personal right of freedom.

Ah, so you do accept rights.

And you accept the unborn are alive, and that they are human. What remains?

What, will you now reject equality before the law? That denies rights, that would allow slavery.


BTW, society does not decide morality. It has no governing body that determines what is and is not moral. Nor, as shown earlier, do individuals.

Chloe
02-03-2013, 08:46 PM
Inasmuch as Chloe is young and has posted on this site for some time, she may be averse to harsh criticism from some that she may view as friends. She said as much. You have to admit that she is afforded much more latitude because she is young and is not looking forward to the type of invective response that others receive.

The fact that the human fetus is human is not in question. Whether the human fetus has a natural right to survival is in question. If the world at large agreed with your point of view, a fetus would be a person in the eyes of the law. It is not. You cannot prosecute a woman for lifestyle behavior that can either kill or fundamentally impair a fetus. I have moral issues with this concept, but nevertheless society cannot dictate to a free person what they may or may not do with their own body. That is the most personal right of freedom.

?

I didn't think Chris was talking to me was he? I just responded to one of his comments towards you.

Also I don't expect people to be nice to me just because i'm young or anything. People have been mean to me on here before.

Chloe
02-03-2013, 08:48 PM
Chloe, those words were an expression of moral principles that are timeless. Jefferson cribbed them from John Locke who drew on Hume and Adam Smith and other Scotsmen and from many natural law theorists before him going back through Roman to Greek times. They still apply today.

Beside, rationally, ff you reject those natural law rights then you undermine your entire argument that women have a right to choose for where does that right come from?

And as you agree, those cells are life. And in terms of all that is significant here those cells are just as much human as you. Not as developed, physically, mentally, emotionally, morally, but just as human.

Your opinion is worth a lot or else I wouldn't be arguing with it.

What do you mean about how it would undermine my argument? The abortion right came from the courts not from jefferson or anybody like that.

Chris
02-03-2013, 08:56 PM
What do you mean about how it would undermine my argument? The abortion right came from the courts not from jefferson or anybody like that.

Rights aren't granted and they're unalienable. The Constitution doesn't grant rights nor does it empower the court to.

Besides if you read the decision and others nowhere are rights granted.

As such there are only natural rights to life, kiberty and property, and these are egual rights. If you deny for one you can't claim for the other. Not rationally.

If all living human beings have rights, then both women and unborn do.

Agravan
02-03-2013, 08:57 PM
See this is the bad thing about having debates about abortion. How can someone like me even attempt to try and describe or defend my position if before I even start I am considered an unethical person with gruesome desires that chooses to slaughter children. Short of lying and completely accepting your point of view there is no possible way for me to even remotely have my point of view respected or even considered.
I should have said, in my opinion. My opinion could be wrong, I'm open to being proven wrong. Please, prove me wrong. But how can someone be "ethical" towards animal, but not care about innocent babies?
Chloe, this is not an attack on you. you seem to be a very nice person an the last thing i want to do is hurt your feelings. Nothing here should be taken personally, it's an open debate on philosophies. there will be harsh things said about both philosophies, by both sides.

Agravan
02-03-2013, 09:04 PM
Your ethics cannot be dictated by those of others, no matter how strenuously they attempt to use emotional blackmail to change them. Many try to put a Judeo-Christian slant on the topic. Keep in mind that the concept of abortion was never discussed in the bible. Thus you only have your own moral compass to follow on the subject.
So if i consider slaughtering and eating Grandma as being ok within my own moral compass, then you would be okay with that?

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 09:04 PM
I am not picking on Chloe, she let me have it, if I tried.



That is the precise question of import here.

Nor can life be denied.



Nor can equal rights be denied for if you deny this you deny a woman's right to choose.



Argumentum ad populum--truth is not determined by popularity.

This law you speak of, posited law, if good only inasmuch as if comports with natural law.



Straw man, no one is arguing about lifestyle.



Ah, so you do accept rights.

And you accept the unborn are alive, and that they are human. What remains?

What, will you now reject equality before the law? That denies rights, that would allow slavery.


BTW, society does not decide morality. It has no governing body that determines what is and is not moral. Nor, as shown earlier, do individuals.

Truth in this discussion is a personal one. As you point out, no one else can determine it for an individual. Whilst you may have a moral dilemma with respect to first trimester termination, I do not. I do not qualify first trimester life as more or less important whether the decision to terminate is made by the human body or by conscious decision. It is after the first trimester that I have significant moral issues with respect to lifestyle choices and their impact on the unborn child. In this respect I have a problem with choosing to have a child and then impairing its future life. I have no problem with the "morning after pill". Some have a problem with preventing pregnancy whatsoever. I also disagree with this notion.

The unborn are alive. So is the mother that is carrying them. The mother is a self-aware being. Irrespective of the situation, the life of the mother takes preeminence over the life of the unborn child. If a doctor, in delivering a child must make a choice in saving one or the other, if the mother can be saved by sacrificing the child, the doctor will save the mother. That has been a constant for generations.

However, I disagree with the notion that society does not decide morality. The entire debate over the existence of abortion clinics is a matter of society deciding morality. The popularity of one view of morality extinguishes the rights of others, with a different view, to the personal freedom of their own body.

Chloe
02-03-2013, 09:07 PM
Truth in this discussion is a personal one. As you point out, no one else can determine it for an individual. Whilst you may have a moral dilemma with respect to first trimester termination, I do not. I do not qualify first trimester life as more or less important whether the decision to terminate is made by the human body or by conscious decision. It is after the first trimester that I have significant moral issues with respect to lifestyle choices and their impact on the unborn child. In this respect I have a problem with choosing to have a child and then impairing its future life. I have no problem with the "morning after pill". Some have a problem with preventing pregnancy whatsoever. I also disagree with this notion.

The unborn are alive. So is the mother that is carrying them. The mother is a self-aware being. Irrespective of the situation, the life of the mother takes preeminence over the life of the unborn child. If a doctor, in delivering a child must make a choice in saving one or the other, if the mother can be saved by sacrificing the child, the doctor will save the mother. That has been a constant for generations.

However, I disagree with the notion that society decides morality. The entire debate over the existence of abortion clinics is a matter of society deciding morality. The popularity of one view of morality extinguishes the rights of others, with a different view, to the personal freedom of their own body.

I agree with pretty much all of that.

Chris
02-03-2013, 09:08 PM
You're seriously misreading what I posted, who. I sad truth is not determined/decided by individual or society. Try again.

Chris
02-03-2013, 09:10 PM
Chloe, justify it rationally.

Chloe
02-03-2013, 09:11 PM
Chloe, justify it rationally.

Sorry, which part?

Agravan
02-03-2013, 09:12 PM
Consider when that sentence was written though Chris. When they were writing that declaration to the king of england do you sincerely think that abortion rights was even remotely on their minds? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is just a general statement for freedom from oppression and all the crap that they were leaving in england, it had nothing to do with modern day views on pro-choice or pro-life politics in my opinion.

A clump of cells after conception is technically "life" as we define it in science since cells are life, an embryo is life because it has living cells, but it's not life as compared to what I am right now. In my opinion when they say life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness they are talking about me having those abilities and not the "life" that is inside of me at the moment of conception. Of course this is just my opinion for whatever that's worth.
Chloe, would a newborn be considered "life" as compared to what you are right now? He can't talk, think, fend for himself as you can. Can he, in your opiniopn, be aborted after the being born? Many of your pro choice friends say that as long as so much as a toe remains in the mother the baby can be slaughtered. D you really want to be associated with those people?

What about you Dr. Who?

Chloe
02-03-2013, 09:16 PM
Chloe, would a newborn be considered "life" as compared to what you are right now? He can't talk, think, fend for himself as you can. Can he, in your opiniopn, be aborted after the being born? Many of your pro choice friends say that as long as so much as a toe remains in the mother the baby can be slaughtered. D you really want to be associated with those people?

What about you Dr. Who?

No he shouldn't be aborted after being born. I've said before that I don't agree with late term abortions, and obviously not if a toe is still inside of her. I don't consider myself associated with those people just because I'm pro-choice, just like I defend the environment but I don't associate myself with groups like ELF.

Chloe
02-03-2013, 09:24 PM
I should have said, in my opinion. My opinion could be wrong, I'm open to being proven wrong. Please, prove me wrong. But how can someone be "ethical" towards animal, but not care about innocent babies?
Chloe, this is not an attack on you. you seem to be a very nice person an the last thing i want to do is hurt your feelings. Nothing here should be taken personally, it's an open debate on philosophies. there will be harsh things said about both philosophies, by both sides.

I do care about innocent babies

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 09:30 PM
Chloe, would a newborn be considered "life" as compared to what you are right now? He can't talk, think, fend for himself as you can. Can he, in your opiniopn, be aborted after the being born? Many of your pro choice friends say that as long as so much as a toe remains in the mother the baby can be slaughtered. D you really want to be associated with those people?

What about you Dr. Who?
Agravan, I thought that I was very clear that abortion is only at all acceptable within the first 3 months of pregancy. The sooner the better in fact. Once three months have elapsed there are few medical practitioners who will perform an abortion unless the life of the mother is at risk, even if the cause of pregancy is rape. I work in the insurance industry. I have had claims related to late term abortions of fully formed children who were born alive with heart breaking catastrophic physical and neurological issues. Believe me, I am no supporter of late term abortion. There is nothing more horrific to me than deliberately causing harm to children before they are even born and dooming them to a life of agony.

Captain Obvious
02-03-2013, 09:31 PM
Agravan, I thought that I was very clear that abortion is only at all acceptable within the first 3 months of pregancy. The sooner the better in fact. Once three months have elapsed there are few medical practitioners who will perform an abortion unless the life of the mother is at risk, even if the cause of pregancy is rape. I work in the insurance industry. I have had claims related to late term abortions of fully formed children who were born alive with heart breaking catastrophic physical and neurological issues. Believe me, I am no supporter of late term abortion. There is nothing more horrific to me than deliberately causing harm to children before they are even born and dooming them to a life of agony.

Life should be the first priority.

Everything else after that is gravy.

zelmo1234
02-03-2013, 09:51 PM
You make value judgments relative to the right to live with respect to the fetus within the first trimester, I do not. It is murder only when a person is born. Murder is a legal definition. You are conflating this issue with the law. The law does not define an abortion as murder, because legally a fetus is not a person.

The law is split if someone kills a women that is pregnant, then it is considered a child and the person is chargedc with 2 counts of murder, but if you kill the unborn child, apparently iti is

Chloe
02-03-2013, 09:53 PM
Life should be the first priority.

Everything else after that is gravy.

I know it sounds selfish but sometimes our regular lives can be just as much of a priority to a lot of people. Adelaide made a point earlier that even the best birth control is not always 100% fool proof, and that abstinence is not always realistic, and so even though a lot of people make it work if they accidentally get pregnant, like your granddaughter, sometimes a new baby could be a very hard hard hit on some families and they just can't do it. Having that option to stop the development of a fetus before it gets to a point of no return can be a life saver for a lot of people too.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 09:53 PM
You're seriously misreading what I posted, who. I sad truth is not determined/decided by individual or society. Try again.

No. I'm simply disagreeing with you. When society and by that I mean government as influenced by constituency, conspires to find a miriad of obstacles to prevent the existence of an abortion clinic, that is a societal imposition of morality.

I also indicated that your definition of natural moral law as posited by a number of ancient male philosophers, is not necessarily mine, as not adequately representing all of humanity.

Captain Obvious
02-03-2013, 09:57 PM
I know it sounds selfish but sometimes our regular lives can be just as much of a priority to a lot of people. Adelaide made a point earlier that even the best birth control is not always 100% fool proof, and that abstinence is not always realistic, and so even though a lot of people make it work if they accidentally get pregnant, like your granddaughter, sometimes a new baby could be a very hard hard hit on some families and they just can't do it. Having that option to stop the development of a fetus before it gets to a point of no return can be a life saver for a lot of people too.

Life... should be the first priority.

First priority.

Everything else is gravy.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 10:08 PM
The law is split if someone kills a women that is pregnant, then it is considered a child and the person is chargedc with 2 counts of murder, but if you kill the unborn child, apparently iti isI
It is certainly possible that an individual state will lay charges that are federally insupportable, but if those charges are pursued to a federal court they will be dismissed.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 10:12 PM
Life... should be the first priority.

First priority.

Everything else is gravy.

As noted on a previous post, I find it curious that the Right is so vociferous in their right to life message and yet when it comes to taking care of those unintended births, they are equally vociferous in their condemnation.

Agravan
02-03-2013, 10:20 PM
As noted on a previous post, I find it curious that the Right is so vociferous in their right to life message and yet when it comes to taking care of those unintended births, they are equally vociferous in their condemnation.

It still remains the responsibilty of those that chose to have sex to conceive a child, to be responsible for it's care and upbringing. Otherwise, the ethical thing to do is give it up for adoption. If people choose not to care for a child,then it is their responsibility to either abstain from sex, or have the procedure to be sterilized. How the hell, is it society's responsibility to take care of your children for you? That is the reason we have such an issue with welfare mothers having baby after baby in order to collect more money from the state. yet, it is not the baby's fault that it was conceived. Whatever happened to the concept of responsibility for one's actions? That you make that tired argument is typical of one that has run out of valid arguments.

Chloe
02-03-2013, 10:41 PM
It still remains the responsibilty of those that chose to have sex to conceive a child, to be responsible for it's care and upbringing. Otherwise, the ethical thing to do is give it up for adoption. If people choose not to care for a child,then it is their responsibility to either abstain from sex, or have the procedure to be sterilized. How the hell, is it society's responsibility to take care of your children for you? That is the reason we have such an issue with welfare mothers having baby after baby in order to collect more money from the state. yet, it is not the baby's fault that it was conceived. Whatever happened to the concept of responsibility for one's actions? That you make that tired argument is typical of one that has run out of valid arguments.

But see to some people the choice that they make for themselves or their family IS the responsible action for them. You may think that the most responsible thing is for a woman to carry a baby for nine months and then have the baby and put it up for adoption, but to someone else the most responsible choice is ending the development process early on before real development so that they don't have to carry it for nine months, they don't have the huge financial hit, and they aren't having to put a baby up for adoption to a family they don't know. I get the personal responsibility part and that if you have sex then you should understand the consequences, but people aren't perfect.

I personally would probably not have an abortion, unless absolutely necessary, even though I would be allowed to and in my opinion it's not murder in that first trimester, but because that is MY choice,I am content with it. I personally don't have sex because I don't want to risk getting pregnant and ruining the life that I am trying to make for myself in school and stuff right now, but again, that's MY choice. I like having the choice, just like I like other people having that same choice.

Dr. Who
02-03-2013, 10:48 PM
It still remains the responsibilty of those that chose to have sex to conceive a child, to be responsible for it's care and upbringing. Otherwise, the ethical thing to do is give it up for adoption. If people choose not to care for a child,then it is their responsibility to either abstain from sex, or have the procedure to be sterilized. How the hell, is it society's responsibility to take care of your children for you? That is the reason we have such an issue with welfare mothers having baby after baby in order to collect more money from the state. yet, it is not the baby's fault that it was conceived. Whatever happened to the concept of responsibility for one's actions? That you make that tired argument is typical of one that has run out of valid arguments.
If those who are becoming pregnant are too young or ignorant to consider whether having sex has obvious consequences and you prevent them from terminating that pregnancy in the first trimester, you are ensuring that for those who do not have parents who can underwrite the caretaking of that child, an additional burden on the state and potentially another child who will fall between the cracks. Giving a child up for adoption is a traumatic thing for a mother. Many cannot do it.

zelmo1234
02-04-2013, 05:10 AM
As noted on a previous post, I find it curious that the Right is so vociferous in their right to life message and yet when it comes to taking care of those unintended births, they are equally vociferous in their condemnation.

Can you explain just how you feel this works?

I know what my beliefs are and what I think that because we have different ideas of how children should be taken care of. Does not mean that we do not care

zelmo1234
02-04-2013, 05:18 AM
If those who are becoming pregnant are too young or ignorant to consider whether having sex has obvious consequences and you prevent them from terminating that pregnancy in the first trimester, you are ensuring that for those who do not have parents who can underwrite the caretaking of that child, an additional burden on the state and potentially another child who will fall between the cracks. Giving a child up for adoption is a traumatic thing for a mother. Many cannot do it.

Abortions are tramatic things on the mother too!

Many suffer serious depression, anger and deep sorrow. After all they have just killed their child.

Chris
02-04-2013, 05:53 AM
Sorry, which part?

Your position here. It seems to rest upon personal preference. As shown above truth cannot be subjective, because then your and my subjective truths in disagreement logically cancel out. Truth, moral truths, can be discovered rationally, if at all. Man, contrary to Who's personal belief, does not design and decide moral truths, he can only discover them. As Thomas Aquinas put it, natural moral law is that much of divine that that man can with right reason discover. See, if you will, Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/one.asp).

Chris
02-04-2013, 05:59 AM
No. I'm simply disagreeing with you. When society and by that I mean government as influenced by constituency, conspires to find a miriad of obstacles to prevent the existence of an abortion clinic, that is a societal imposition of morality.

I also indicated that your definition of natural moral law as posited by a number of ancient male philosophers, is not necessarily mine, as not adequately representing all of humanity.

Who, you put words in my mouth I did not say: You posted: "As you point out, no one else can determine it for an individual." I did not say that. I said, as I paraphrased a second time: "truth is not determined/decided by individual or society."

Your arguments here are littered with logical fallacies like that. The post you responded to ignored half a dozen other fallacies I'd pointed out.

I have not said a word about abortion clinics. I think you're getting confused.

Natural law is not a piece of property to be owned as in your remark "is not necessarily mine". Natural law, as regards humans, is what humans are. Or do you claim supernatural powers?

Chloe
02-04-2013, 10:16 AM
Your position here. It seems to rest upon personal preference. As shown above truth cannot be subjective, because then your and my subjective truths in disagreement logically cancel out. Truth, moral truths, can be discovered rationally, if at all. Man, contrary to Who's personal belief, does not design and decide moral truths, he can only discover them. As Thomas Aquinas put it, natural moral law is that much of divine that that man can with right reason discover. See, if you will, Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/one.asp).

You won't like this, but it's the truth as you see it. I think most abortion arguments stem from religious truths. The cells formed after conception is a development stage of a human life, that's obvious, but the truth is that what someone considers to be true life is relative.

roadmaster
02-04-2013, 10:33 AM
You won't like this, but it's the truth as you see it. I think most abortion arguments stem from religious truths. The cells formed after conception is a development stage of a human life, that's obvious, but the truth is that what someone considers to be true life is relative.
I have often noticed that some not saying you, people who don't consider an abortion killing a child will scream if a dog or cat is killed while it's pregnant. To them these are more alive than a child. While I do love animals I also love children but I don't put an animals life over a child.

Chloe
02-04-2013, 10:59 AM
I have often noticed that some not saying you, people who don't consider an abortion killing a child will scream if a dog or cat is killed while it's pregnant. To them these are more alive than a child. While I do love animals I also love children but I don't put an animals life over a child.

Thats true in some cases sure. At the same time there are people who claim to love life in all stages, claim the moral high ground, but then run over turtles on purpose while on their way to church or something, or they claim to love all life but then kill animals just to mount on their wall. What people see as worthy "life" is definitely a subjective thing.

roadmaster
02-04-2013, 11:30 AM
Thats true in some cases sure. At the same time there are people who claim to love life in all stages, claim the moral high ground, but then run over turtles on purpose while on their way to church or something, or they claim to love all life but then kill animals just to mount on their wall. What people see as worthy "life" is definitely a subjective thing.
I never understood a person that would run over a turtle on purpose and don't hang any animals on my wall. Did I hunt as a kid yes. To be honest I had a soft heart for one of my sisters and she named the chickens, so I would hunt for wild game just to keep her chickens alive. I didn't tell her that until we got much older.:smiley:

Dr. Who
02-04-2013, 05:28 PM
Who, you put words in my mouth I did not say: You posted: "As you point out, no one else can determine it for an individual." I did not say that. I said, as I paraphrased a second time: "truth is not determined/decided by individual or society."

Your arguments here are littered with logical fallacies like that. The post you responded to ignored half a dozen other fallacies I'd pointed out.


I have not said a word about abortion clinics. I think you're getting confused.

Natural law is not a piece of property to be owned as in your remark "is not necessarily mine". Natural law, as regards humans, is what humans are. Or do you claim supernatural powers?
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusperson.shtml

Chris
02-04-2013, 06:41 PM
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusperson.shtml

What is it if not human? A Siamese cat? A segmented worm? A rhododendron?

Peter1469
02-04-2013, 06:56 PM
A virus?

Dr. Who
02-04-2013, 07:08 PM
What is it if not human? A Siamese cat? A segmented worm? A rhododendron?
It is a potential human being, but not one with any guarantee of viability. How many seedlings do not survive to become what their DNA dictates that they should become? Have you ever heard of parasitic twins? For all intents and purposes they too are human life, but they don't have any consciousness, they are simply composed of human DNA. They "live" only because of the viable human that hosts their existence. They are separated from their viable hosts all the time, as they are ultimately detrimental to that host. I am not suggesting that abortion is a solution to birth control, however when a woman makes the decision that her life will be negatively impacted by culturing that zygote into a human being, should she not have the right not to be an incubator? Until a woman is pregnant it is generally unknown what impact carrying a child will have on the health of the mother. It is sometimes life threatening. Is it fair to demand that a woman put her life at risk for a pregancy that she does not want? Is that moral? I posted on another thread, would it be appropriate for a State to pass a law that all citizens of that State over the age of 18, notwithstanding medical issues, be required to donate 2 pints of blood each month? Alternatively, would it be OK for a State to keep a history of all blood types and then demand, under power of law, in situations of blood scarcity, that you donate blood? What are the moral implications of refusal?

Chris
02-04-2013, 07:15 PM
It is a potential human being, but not one with any guarantee of viability. How many seedlings do not survive to become what their DNA dictates that they should become? Have you ever heard of parasitic twins? For all intents and purposes they too are human life, but they don't have any consciousness, they are simply composed of human DNA. They "live" only because of the viable human that hosts their existence. They are separated from their viable hosts all the time, as they are ultimately detrimental to that host. I am not suggesting that abortion is a solution to birth control, however when a woman makes the decision that her life will be negatively impacted by culturing that zygote into a human being, should she not have the right not to be an incubator? Until a woman is pregnant it is generally unknown what impact carrying a child will have on the health of the mother. It is sometimes life threatening. Is it fair to demand that a woman put her life at risk for a pregancy that she does not want? Is that moral? I posted on another thread, would it be appropriate for a State to pass a law that all citizens of that State over the age of 18, notwithstanding medical issues, be required to donate 2 pints of blood each month? Alternatively, would it be OK for a State to keep a history of all blood types and then demand, under power of law, in situations of blood scarcity, that you donate blood? What are the moral implications of refusal?

Hemingway would do away with the superfluous adjective.


Humans (Homo sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only extant species of the genus Homo.[2][3][4] Humans are characterized by having a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making them capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning.

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

A one year old has the potential for "abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning" but just like the unborn cannot. All sorts of injuries and diseases can render a person incapable of those, even remove all potential.

By your logic should they be a burden it would be moral to murder them.

Again, the problem with special pleading like yours, as I pointed out earlier, is it leads to inconsistencies--reductio ad absurdum.

Dr. Who
02-04-2013, 07:34 PM
Hemingway would do away with the superfluous adjective.



@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

A one year old has the potential for "abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning" but just like the unborn cannot. All sorts of injuries and diseases can render a person incapable of those, even remove all potential.

By your logic should they be a burden it would be moral to murder them.

Again, the problem with special pleading like yours, as I pointed out earlier, is it leads to inconsistencies--reductio ad absurdum.
Not special pleading, in fact I believe you are special pleading. If 65% of all fertilized human eggs are discarded by the body as being nonviable and if a further 15 to 25% are discarded later for intrinsic and extrinsic reasons, the survivability of a human embryo is minuscule at best. You are ascribing more right to life to the undifferentiated zygote than to the mother of that zygote, who is a conscious human being and not simply the plans for one.

Chris
02-04-2013, 07:59 PM
Not special pleading, in fact I believe you are special pleading. If 65% of all fertilized human eggs are discarded by the body as being nonviable and if a further 15 to 25% are discarded later for intrinsic and extrinsic reasons, the survivability of a human embryo is minuscule at best. You are ascribing more right to life to the undifferentiated zygote than to the mother of that zygote, who is a conscious human being and not simply the plans for one.

You are special pleading, you're attempting to define away the problem because you cannot come up with a rational justification for taking the human life of the unborn.

If you think I am special pleading them please cite my words where I do, as I have several times done your words.

Percentage statistics is not an argument.



You are ascribing more right to life to the undifferentiated zygote than to the mother of that zygote, who is a conscious human being and not simply the plans for one.

Again you misstate my position, and I'm beginning to think, since this is the third or fourth time you've misrepresented me, you do so deliberately.

I have clearly argued throughout this thread for equal rights unborn and mother. Please desist in twisting my words.

Dr. Who
02-04-2013, 08:03 PM
You are special pleading, you're attempting to define away the problem because you cannot come up with a rational justification for taking the human life of the unborn.

If you think I am special pleading them please cite my words where I do, as I have several times done your words.

Percentage statistics is not an argument.




Again you misstate my position, and I'm beginning to think, since this is the third or fourth time you've misrepresented me, you do so deliberately.

I have clearly argued throughout this thread for equal rights unborn and mother. Please desist in twisting my words.
You cannot have equal rights for the unborn and the mother as without the mother the unborn is forfeit, thus her rights are preeminent.

Mister D
02-04-2013, 08:04 PM
You cannot have equal rights for the unborn and the mother as without the mother the unborn is forfeit, thus her rights are preeminent.

Wouldn't the same have been true of you as a 2 year old?

Chris
02-04-2013, 08:13 PM
You cannot have equal rights for the unborn and the mother as without the mother the unborn is forfeit, thus her rights are preeminent.

That is no rational reason to call for unequal rights. Why not for the same illogical reasoning then accept slavery? Without a master the slave, it was held, is helpless.

Mister D
02-04-2013, 08:15 PM
That is no rational reason to call for unequal rights. Why not for the same illogical reasoning then accept slavery? Without a master the slave, it was held, is helpless.

That appears to still be held in some quarters.

Dr. Who
02-04-2013, 08:16 PM
Wouldn't the same have been true of you as a 2 year old?
A two year old has consciousness. It may be undeveloped, but none the less it exists. It can see and is aware of its environment. This is not a discussion of infanticide or even one of late term abortion, it is specific to first trimester abortion where the zygote is only beginning its development. It is not by any stretch of the imagination complete. It may or may not even grow the necessary organs for survival.

Mister D
02-04-2013, 08:18 PM
A two year old has consciousness. It may be undeveloped, but none the less it exists. It can see and is aware of its environment. This is not a discussion of infanticide or even one of late term abortion, it is specific to first trimester abortion where the zygote is only beginning its development. It is not by any stretch of the imagination complete. It may or may not even grow the necessary organs for survival.

Your argument was based on helplessness and lack of viability. A small child may have all of the organs it will need but the child is still utterly dependent on his or her fellow humans.

Dr. Who
02-04-2013, 08:21 PM
That is no rational reason to call for unequal rights. Why not for the same illogical reasoning then accept slavery? Without a master the slave, it was held, is helpless.
Slavery is an entirely different concept. There you are dealing with conscious beings whom you are forcing into unpaid servitude. The slave was never helpless, only afraid of being killed in pursuit of freedom. No different than with prisoners in a penitentiary.

Chris
02-04-2013, 08:23 PM
Slavery is an entirely different concept. There you are dealing with conscious beings whom you are forcing into unpaid servitude. The slave was never helpless, only afraid of being killed in pursuit of freedom. No different than with prisoners in a penitentiary.

I'm dealing with the same rights.

As defined earlier, being human is having the potential for such things as conscious thought, another of your special pled definitions gone awry.

Chris
02-04-2013, 08:24 PM
Your argument was based on helplessness and lack of viability. A small child may have all of the organs it will need but the child is still utterly dependent on his or her fellow humans.

I'm thinking of coining the term pulling an awryly, in memory of the lately departed expert in this.

Mister D
02-04-2013, 08:27 PM
I'm thinking of coining the term pulling an awryly, in memory of the lately departed expert in this.

Dr. Who argues in good faith and is no Awryly. But I like your idea. :grin:

Dr. Who
02-04-2013, 08:27 PM
Your argument was based on helplessness and lack of viability. A small child may have all of the organs it will need but the child is still utterly dependent on his or her fellow humans.
You conflate external dependency with dependency on the internal organs of the mother to survive. A child not well cared for may be removed from the mother into the care of another to preserve its life. Were medical science able to transfer the embryo successfully to the father, how many men would volunteer to be the host?

Mister D
02-04-2013, 08:28 PM
You conflate external dependency with dependency on the internal organs of the mother to survive. A child not well cared for may be removed from the mother into the care of another to preserve its life. Were medical science able to transfer the embryo successfully to the father, how many men would volunteer to be the host?

Why not? Dependency is dependency. Sadly, there are people dependent on my tax dollars. May I abort them? :grin:

Chris
02-04-2013, 08:34 PM
Dr. Who argues in good faith and is no Awryly. But I like your idea. :grin:

I wonder, when he argues a point and it's countered and then he changes the point that's dancing.

I'm done.

Dr. Who
02-04-2013, 08:34 PM
Why not? Dependency is dependency. Sadly, there are people dependent on my tax dollars. May I abort them? :grin:
Are you not evading the question? Would you volunteer to have the embryo implanted into your own body to preserve its existence, assuming you were the male donor to that conception?

Mister D
02-04-2013, 08:43 PM
Are you not evading the question? Would you volunteer to have the embryo implanted into your own body to preserve its existence, assuming you were the male donor to that conception?

The question was one of viability. Small children are not viable. They are utterly dependent on their fellow human beings.

As for the present question, I'm not a female. Nor am I a paraplegic, a hunchback, or a crackhead. These "put yourself in their shoes" arguments don't fly. A female may choose who she has intercourse with, where, and when. Why is it so beyond the pale for her to accept the responsibility for her actions?

Chloe
02-04-2013, 08:52 PM
The question was one of viability. Small children are not viable. They are utterly dependent on their fellow human beings.

As for the present question, I'm not a female. Nor am I a paraplegic, a hunchback, or a crackhead. These "put yourself in their shoes" arguments don't fly. A female may choose who she has intercourse with, where, and when. Why is it so beyond the pale for her to accept the responsibility for her actions?

Concerning viability and abortion...small children are viable in that they are surviving independently from the mothers body. If a fetus isn't viable it means that they are still 100% relying on the mothers body for development and survival. Once they are viable they could be removed from the mothers body through natural birth or surgery and have all functioning organs and the ability to survive independently. The reason a woman will say its her body and I'm having an abortion in the first trimester for example is because the baby is not independent or viable. It's the mothers body creating and developing it therefore all decisions concerning the growth of the fetus during that time is the mothers in my opinion since its still one functioning body until viability

Chris
02-04-2013, 08:54 PM
Concerning viability and abortion...small children are viable in that they are surviving independently from the mothers body. If a fetus isn't viable it means that they are still 100% relying on the mothers body for development and survival. Once they are viable they could be removed from the mothers body through natural birth or surgery and have all functioning organs and the ability to survive independently. The reason a woman will say its her body and I'm having an abortion in the first trimester for example is because the baby is not independent or viable. It's the mothers body creating and developing it therefore all decisions concerning the growth of the fetus during that time is the mothers in my opinion since its still one functioning body until viability

And as medical science pushes viability further and further back toward conception that will change your argument?

Mister D
02-04-2013, 08:56 PM
Concerning viability and abortion...small children are viable in that they are surviving independently from the mothers body. If a fetus isn't viable it means that they are still 100% relying on the mothers body for development and survival. Once they are viable they could be removed from the mothers body through natural birth or surgery and have all functioning organs and the ability to survive independently. The reason a woman will say its her body and I'm having an abortion in the first trimester for example is because the baby is not independent or viable. It's the mothers body creating and developing it therefore all decisions concerning the growth of the fetus during that time is the mothers in my opinion since its still one functioning body until viability

Small children are dependent on their fellow humans. They will die without their support. That is, they are nonviable. They are not independent. I understand what you're trying to say but what I'm saying is that there isn't any real difference between the two. A 1 year old will die without support as will a fetus.

Dr. Who
02-04-2013, 08:59 PM
The question was one of viability. Small children are not viable. They are utterly dependent on their fellow human beings.

As for the present question, I'm not a female. Nor am I a paraplegic, a hunchback, or a crackhead. These "put yourself in their shoes" arguments don't fly. A female may choose who she has intercourse with, where, and when. Why is it so beyond the pale for her to accept the responsibility for her actions?
Because this discussion has not gone into the psychological realm of why girls or women leave themselves open to this consequence and I don't think that you want to go there. The response would be emotionalism or special pleading. I'm sure you don't want to discuss female lack of self esteem and the lengths males go to to persuade females that they are being unfair if they deny sex to their boyfriend and how abnormal they are if they do. Nor the unfortunate labels women who excite but don't follow through are given, nor how little responsibility males take after the fact.

Chloe
02-04-2013, 09:02 PM
And as medical science pushes viability further and further back toward conception that will change your argument?

I don't know I guess it will depend. Ill always be for choice though regardless since the decision to give birth belongs to the person affected most, which is the mother and/or the couple.

Mister D
02-04-2013, 09:04 PM
Because this discussion has not gone into the psychological realm of why girls or women leave themselves open to this consequence and I don't think that you want to go there. The response would be emotionalism or special pleading. I'm sure you don't want to discuss female lack of self esteem and the lengths males go to to persuade females that they are being unfair if they deny sex to their boyfriend and how abnormal they are if they do. Nor the unfortunate labels women who excite but don't follow through are given, nor how little responsibility males take after the fact.

Ultimately, what's the difference between what you describe and being pressured to rob a bank? Or beat and rob someone? Sell drugs? Take drugs? Put a flower in your cap and call it macaroni?

Chris
02-04-2013, 09:05 PM
I don't know I guess it will depend. Ill always be for choice though regardless since the decision to give birth belongs to the person affected most, which is the mother and/or the couple.

Then that argument re viability is irrelevant.

I understand you're for choice. I respect your belief--almost religious, just don't understand your reasoning.

Chloe
02-04-2013, 09:15 PM
Because this discussion has not gone into the psychological realm of why girls or women leave themselves open to this consequence and I don't think that you want to go there. The response would be emotionalism or special pleading. I'm sure you don't want to discuss female lack of self esteem and the lengths males go to to persuade females that they are being unfair if they deny sex to their boyfriend and how abnormal they are if they do. Nor the unfortunate labels women who excite but don't follow through are given, nor how little responsibility males take after the fact.

So unbelievably true. This is a bit personal but it relates. I was just in a relationship recently that lasted about four months. After about the first month the pressure to have sex was constant, even though he never really said it, it was just the implied feeling you get after each date or time we were hanging out at night. I've never had sex and I wasn't comfortable doing it anytime soon, and I'm still not. The more excuses I made and the more I avoided it the more disinterested and frustrated he became and wouldn't you know it a couple of weeks ago he broke up with me out of nowhere. I'd like to think its not because I wouldn't have sex but it probably is. It sucks, and if I would have had sex with him and god forbid if I would have gotten pregnant I don't really think that I'd would have pictured him as being the father of my future child.

Abortion is personal and probably a very hard decision. It is nobody else's place to tell that pregnant girl what to do with her body and her future baby, it's her choice and her decision. If I had sex and got pregnant by accident then that choice is MINE as to what I want to do next and not the holier than thou dude down the road who wants some say with what happens inside of me.

Chris
02-04-2013, 09:28 PM
Nice emotional argument, still waiting for something rational.

Peter1469
02-04-2013, 09:37 PM
So unbelievably true. This is a bit personal but it relates. I was just in a relationship recently that lasted about four months. After about the first month the pressure to have sex was constant, even though he never really said it, it was just the implied feeling you get after each date or time we were hanging out at night. I've never had sex and I wasn't comfortable doing it anytime soon, and I'm still not. The more excuses I made and the more I avoided it the more disinterested and frustrated he became and wouldn't you know it a couple of weeks ago he broke up with me out of nowhere. I'd like to think its not because I wouldn't have sex but it probably is. It sucks, and if I would have had sex with him and god forbid if I would have gotten pregnant I don't really think that I'd would have pictured him as being the father of my future child.

Abortion is personal and probably a very hard decision. It is nobody else's place to tell that pregnant girl what to do with her body and her future baby, it's her choice and her decision. If I had sex and got pregnant by accident then that choice is MINE as to what I want to do next and not the holier than thou dude down the road who wants some say with what happens inside of me.

Good job Chloe. You are too young to date anyway. I am proud of you.

Peter1469
02-04-2013, 09:38 PM
Nice emotional argument, still waiting for something rational.

If that response is to Chloe's immediate post above... I guess engineer by trade....

Chris
02-04-2013, 09:43 PM
If that response is to Chloe's immediate post above... I guess engineer by trade....

No, not an engineer. Just an appreciation for the rational over the emotional. Emotion is a good motivator, but a poor decider. But I think Chloe can handle it herself well.

Peter1469
02-04-2013, 09:50 PM
No, not an engineer. Just an appreciation for the rational over the emotional. Emotion is a good motivator, but a poor decider. But I think Chloe can handle it herself well.


Give her a break.

Dr. Who
02-04-2013, 09:54 PM
Ultimately, what's the difference between what you describe and being pressured to rob a bank? Or beat and rob someone? Sell drugs? Take drugs? Put a flower in your cap and call it macaroni?
How many people are pressured to commit a crime vs how many females are pressured into sex? One being a crime and the other not being a crime. I'd like to see the statistics. Of course there are some females who are hound dogs, equal to males. Most females are not. Females seek male companionship, assuming they are not gay. Females are far more likely at younger ages to look for a permanent relationship than males. Females in some respects mature sooner than males. They may compromise themselves in order to try to ensure that permanent relationship. In addition there may be confusion, particularly if the female lacks self-esteem. A female without a father who makes her feel valued may look to feel valued by another male. In any case, it is that unequal position in a relationship that can lead to unwanted pregnancy.

On the other hand shows like "16 and Pregnant" add a new dimention to the discussion.

zelmo1234
02-04-2013, 10:24 PM
I don't know I guess it will depend. Ill always be for choice though regardless since the decision to give birth belongs to the person affected most, which is the mother and/or the couple.

No I think it effects the child the most being they are the ones being killed.

zelmo1234
02-04-2013, 11:03 PM
So unbelievably true. This is a bit personal but it relates. I was just in a relationship recently that lasted about four months. After about the first month the pressure to have sex was constant, even though he never really said it, it was just the implied feeling you get after each date or time we were hanging out at night. I've never had sex and I wasn't comfortable doing it anytime soon, and I'm still not. The more excuses I made and the more I avoided it the more disinterested and frustrated he became and wouldn't you know it a couple of weeks ago he broke up with me out of nowhere. I'd like to think its not because I wouldn't have sex but it probably is. It sucks, and if I would have had sex with him and god forbid if I would have gotten pregnant I don't really think that I'd would have pictured him as being the father of my future child.

Abortion is personal and probably a very hard decision. It is nobody else's place to tell that pregnant girl what to do with her body and her future baby, it's her choice and her decision. If I had sex and got pregnant by accident then that choice is MINE as to what I want to do next and not the holier than thou dude down the road who wants some say with what happens inside of me.

First anyone can be the victom of peir pressure, that does not make one not responsible for the consiquences fo ones actions.

Second in your case any guy that says if you love me you would compromise your values. is really saying I don not love you enough as a peson to stay with you I only want you for sex. You are an object not a companion.

Third if you did make that choice you could have made the choice to have safe sex, and could even choose to use more than on method if you were really concerned about becomeing pregnant!

And if you still found yourself to be with child, could give it up for adoption after wonder boy flys the coop.

If you make life a choice and the value of that life bases on the opnion of a person, then which persons opnion is more important. In your case becasue it effected your life you said that the choice was MINE!

using that logic why would it no be my choice to eliminate any opposition that effected my life. it is my opnion that lfe would be easier if I could just use my training to get ride of competition, then my life owuld be better. and in MY opnion that is no different that abortion it might be in the 147th trymester, but why is that life any more important.

This is what happens when the importance of life becomes an opnion.

zelmo1234
02-04-2013, 11:14 PM
How many people are pressured to commit a crime vs how many females are pressured into sex? One being a crime and the other not being a crime. I'd like to see the statistics. Of course there are some females who are hound dogs, equal to males. Most females are not. Females seek male companionship, assuming they are not gay. Females are far more likely at younger ages to look for a permanent relationship than males. Females in some respects mature sooner than males. They may compromise themselves in order to try to ensure that permanent relationship. In addition there may be confusion, particularly if the female lacks self-esteem. A female without a father who makes her feel valued may look to feel valued by another male. In any case, it is that unequal position in a relationship that can lead to unwanted pregnancy.

On the other hand shows like "16 and Pregnant" add a new dimention to the discussion.

I a lot of states 16 and pregnant means that someone broke that law and comitted statatory rape.

But it is still a choice, If we are going to ay that people are not responsible for my actions, and that because of that the taking of a life should be justified, then I am OK with that, as long as it applies to all ages? because in my opnion, that are people that do not deserve to live, because the make my life difficult. What is wrong with me removing them???

We of course because my actions would effect their life it would be totally wrong. but that is what you are advocating.

So lets say that my friends pressure me into drinking or drugs, that percentage would be about the same as women being pressured into sex. And on the way home I hit someone and break both of there legs. this person was going to get a scholarship as a basketball player, and now will not get it. The family sues me to pay for this person collage education. this will prevent me from going to collage myself and will be a burden for me the rest of my life. Why should I not be able to kill all of them because I made a bad choice and do not want to be responsible for my actions.

You see when you put such a low value on life that it becomes the opnion of one person one the value of life, that are lost of events that make others life have no value.

but if of course you value all life, and hold people responsible for their actions, then you don't turn people loose in the streets and let everyone decide for themselves the value of life.

Chris
02-05-2013, 08:10 AM
Give her a break.

So you think she's not capable of holding her own? This is and Other Discussion area for discussion of the topic at hand. Let her defend her position as she chooses.

Chris
02-05-2013, 08:12 AM
No I think it effects the child the most being they are the ones being killed.

But it's not a child. It's alive, yes, and human, yes, but you need to call it something else so you don't have to think about those things.

Rights are responsibilities, not freedom from responsibilities.

Chris
02-05-2013, 08:37 AM
For those who argue it's a woman's personal right to choose to abort and no one or thing (society) has a right to impose their choice on her, what have yo to say about Obamacare Alchemy (http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/04/obamacare-alchemy)?


...On Friday the Department of Health and Human Services announced its new rule mandating coverage of contraception. Responding to the furor that the proposal first raised, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius proclaimed that the draft regulation would guarantee free coverage “while respecting religious concerns.”

...Thus we have policy alchemy. Uncle Sam mandates benefits. Employers do not have to provide coverage for the benefits. Employees do not have to pay for coverage for the benefits. The insurers must provide coverage but cannot charge anyone anything.

Here Obama and government are forcing their choice on the public for nothing is free and the costs will be borne by all taxpayers whether they agree or.

Certainly you don't entertain a double standard on this!

Chloe
02-05-2013, 09:33 AM
No I think it effects the child the most being they are the ones being killed.

But see to a lot of people a clump of cells with no shape, no heart, no brain, no head, no fingers, no features, no organs, and no functioning abilities is not a "child," and so stopping that process early on means that it was stopped before it became what a lot of people view as being a baby in the womb. Whether you believe that or not is a personal choice. You can say that the moment of conception is equal to that of a baby a day away from being born, but not everybody will agree with that which is where choice comes into play in my opinion.

Chloe
02-05-2013, 09:35 AM
First anyone can be the victom of peir pressure, that does not make one not responsible for the consiquences fo ones actions.

Second in your case any guy that says if you love me you would compromise your values. is really saying I don not love you enough as a peson to stay with you I only want you for sex. You are an object not a companion.

Third if you did make that choice you could have made the choice to have safe sex, and could even choose to use more than on method if you were really concerned about becomeing pregnant!

And if you still found yourself to be with child, could give it up for adoption after wonder boy flys the coop.

If you make life a choice and the value of that life bases on the opnion of a person, then which persons opnion is more important. In your case becasue it effected your life you said that the choice was MINE!

using that logic why would it no be my choice to eliminate any opposition that effected my life. it is my opnion that lfe would be easier if I could just use my training to get ride of competition, then my life owuld be better. and in MY opnion that is no different that abortion it might be in the 147th trymester, but why is that life any more important.

This is what happens when the importance of life becomes an opnion.

You are going to extremes too much in my opinion. Having an abortion within say the first week or two of a pregnancy is not the same as killing someone because their opinion isn't as important as mine.

Chloe
02-05-2013, 09:36 AM
So you think she's not capable of holding her own? This is and Other Discussion area for discussion of the topic at hand. Let her defend her position as she chooses.

I don't know why you don't think that i've given rational and/or logical responses. You keep calling it emotional but I've given you rational reasons for a pro-choice stance. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it irrational.

Chris
02-05-2013, 09:53 AM
I don't know why you don't think that i've given rational and/or logical responses. You keep calling it emotional but I've given you rational reasons for a pro-choice stance.

Sorry, but you just have not done so.

Take this a recent response of yours:


You are going to extremes too much in my opinion. Having an abortion within say the first week or two of a pregnancy is not the same as killing someone because their opinion isn't as important as mine.

"because their opinion isn't as important as mine" is simply not a rational, logical reason. All you're saying is abortion is OK because you opine it is. That's akin to a religious belief: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." That's fine, if that's what you believe, I can't argue with beliefs, it is true you have that belief. But that's not rational.

Or


You can say that the moment of conception is equal to that of a baby a day away from being born, but not everybody will agree with that which is where choice comes into play in my opinion.

But it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of scientific fact. How is denying fact in favor of mere opinion rational? It's not.


We can agree to disagree at this point because no one ever wins an argument on the Internet but you're opinion is based on belief, emotion, not reason, not logic.

Dr. Who
02-05-2013, 05:08 PM
I a lot of states 16 and pregnant means that someone broke that law and comitted statatory rape.

But it is still a choice, If we are going to ay that people are not responsible for my actions, and that because of that the taking of a life should be justified, then I am OK with that, as long as it applies to all ages? because in my opnion, that are people that do not deserve to live, because the make my life difficult. What is wrong with me removing them???

We of course because my actions would effect their life it would be totally wrong. but that is what you are advocating.

So lets say that my friends pressure me into drinking or drugs, that percentage would be about the same as women being pressured into sex. And on the way home I hit someone and break both of there legs. this person was going to get a scholarship as a basketball player, and now will not get it. The family sues me to pay for this person collage education. this will prevent me from going to collage myself and will be a burden for me the rest of my life. Why should I not be able to kill all of them because I made a bad choice and do not want to be responsible for my actions.

You see when you put such a low value on life that it becomes the opnion of one person one the value of life, that are lost of events that make others life have no value.

but if of course you value all life, and hold people responsible for their actions, then you don't turn people loose in the streets and let everyone decide for themselves the value of life.
Again you are equating abortion with crime and in particular with homicide. A woman's body can terminate a pregnancy at any point in time, but most frequently in the days and first weeks post conception. Do you know that up to 65% of all conceptions are disposed of by the body without the woman even knowing she was pregnant? By those statistics a woman's body is by your definition a pretty homicidal place. Why is it that the conceptions that people consciously choose to terminate are any more or less valuable than those that the body rejects for any number of reasons that don't include the non-viability of the zygote, including the fact that the mother may be too stressed, or too thin or too physically active to host that pregnancy?

Peter1469
02-05-2013, 05:49 PM
Again you are equating abortion with crime and in particular with homicide. A woman's body can terminate a pregnancy at any point in time, but most frequently in the days and first weeks post conception. Do you know that up to 65% of all conceptions are disposed of by the body without the woman even knowing she was pregnant? By those statistics a woman's body is by your definition a pretty homicidal place. Why is it that the conceptions that people consciously choose to terminate are any more or less valuable than those that the body rejects for any number of reasons that don't include the non-viability of the zygote, including the fact that the mother may be too stressed, or too thin or too physically active to host that pregnancy?

I am not really invested in this topic. But I would not equate an abortion (a conscious choice) with a miscarriage (a natural occurrence).

Dr. Who
02-05-2013, 05:53 PM
I am not really invested in this topic. But I would not equate an abortion (a conscious choice) with a miscarriage (a natural occurrence).
It is not homicide. Whether the body chooses or the brain chooses, the choice should reside with the host, whether or not to commit to 9 months of gestation and any possible consequences therein.

Peter1469
02-05-2013, 06:07 PM
It is not homicide. Whether the body chooses or the brain chooses, the choice should reside with the host, whether or not to commit to 9 months of gestation and any possible consequences therein.

That is for society to determine.

Dr. Who
02-05-2013, 06:34 PM
That is for society to determine.
Here is the alternative to safe legal abortion:
http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

Peter1469
02-05-2013, 06:38 PM
Here is the alternative to safe legal abortion:
http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

Agreed

Chloe
02-05-2013, 08:42 PM
Sorry, but you just have not done so.

Take this a recent response of yours:



"because their opinion isn't as important as mine" is simply not a rational, logical reason. All you're saying is abortion is OK because you opine it is. That's akin to a religious belief: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." That's fine, if that's what you believe, I can't argue with beliefs, it is true you have that belief. But that's not rational.

Or



But it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of scientific fact. How is denying fact in favor of mere opinion rational? It's not.


We can agree to disagree at this point because no one ever wins an argument on the Internet but you're opinion is based on belief, emotion, not reason, not logic.

Yes let's agree to disagree. I'm going to take a break from abortion chat for a while.

Chris
02-05-2013, 08:50 PM
It was a good argument, tho', chloe, while it lasted. :yo2:

Chloe
02-05-2013, 08:53 PM
It was a good argument, tho', chloe, while it lasted. :yo2:

:yap:

I'm just kidding, yes it was, thanks.