• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Point-by-point disscusion

thatguymd

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
368
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am new and wanted to get some opposing viewpoints on this topic. I myself am prolife. I haven't had too much of a chance to try to see how another side might address this issue because in person debates appear to get heated very quickly and everyone talks past each other. I am hoping maybe a message board gives people more of a chance to think and calmly respond (don't feel put on the spot right away). Hopefully, we can give each other something to consider and think on and respond a few days later.

Anyway, here is my prolife argument:

I start with the baseline assumption that everyone agrees that infantcide is wrong. From here I am mostly curious where the line is drawn for those that are pro-choice. When you work backwards, is it okay right after the child is born? While in the birth canal? While the mom is in labor? Right before labor starts? etc, etc.

Once the line is drawn, why is it drawn in that place? What is different right after that line is crossed? Also, keep in mind that however you answer will be compared to killing regular people (i.e. if you determine that you can't kill the baby once it can feel pain, it will be pointed out that anyone can be killed in a manner so that they won't feel pain).

Most arguments I hear against prolife are the extreme cases. Such as what about rape cases and when the mother's life is in danger?

In the case of rape, I think that it abortion should still not be an option (I would still want to live if I was the product of my mother being raped) and that adoption should be the option given. Also, any court cases involving rape would include awarding the mother to be all the costs of carrying the child.

In the case of the mother's life being in danger, this is the only time when abortion is an option. You are weighing one life against another and you don't have any choice. If I only had time to rescue one of two people from a burning building it doesn't mean I advocate people dieing in burning buildings.

So that's my complete argument for now. At least until I'm given something else to consider.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
thatguymd said:
I am hoping maybe a message board gives people more of a chance to think and calmly respond
:rofl [sorry...] you'll see that's not exactly so....but anyway...no one's standing there looking at you like your crazy and there's no fear of someone socking you in the chops....(although--that fear may make a few consider their words more carefully;) so maybe that isn't a benefit!) )

I start with the baseline assumption that everyone agrees that infantcide is wrong.
That's not necessarily so...Technochratic Utilitarian subscribes to the views of Peter Sanger who believes you should have two months after birth to kill your baby.

From here I am mostly curious where the line is drawn for those that are pro-choice. When you work backwards, is it okay right after the child is born? While in the birth canal? While the mom is in labor? Right before labor starts? etc, etc.
You'll find all different views. Personally, I think the line is drawn at conception.

Once the line is drawn, why is it drawn in that place? What is different right after that line is crossed? Also, keep in mind that however you answer will be compared to killing regular people (i.e. if you determine that you can't kill the baby once it can feel pain, it will be pointed out that anyone can be killed in a manner so that they won't feel pain).
I have the same questions, but it's hard to get a clear answer because there is disagreement from the various points of view. That proves to me it's an arbitrary, subjective functionality that determines the pro-choice POV.

Most arguments I hear against prolife are the extreme cases. Such as what about rape cases and when the mother's life is in danger?

In the case of rape, I think that it abortion should still not be an option (I would still want to live if I was the product of my mother being raped) and that adoption should be the option given. Also, any court cases involving rape would include awarding the mother to be all the costs of carrying the child.
Most often they argue "liberty" of the woman to control her own body---the "thing" in the womb (they say) has no sentience thus the mother's decision outweighs the "potential" of the life in the womb (that is--for those who consider the "thing" life...)

In the case of the mother's life being in danger, this is the only time when abortion is an option. You are weighing one life against another and you don't have any choice. If I only had time to rescue one of two people from a burning building it doesn't mean I advocate people dieing in burning buildings.
Sounds like you and I are on the same page.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
thatguymd said:
I am new and wanted to get some opposing viewpoints on this topic. I myself am prolife. I haven't had too much of a chance to try to see how another side might address this issue because in person debates appear to get heated very quickly and everyone talks past each other. I am hoping maybe a message board gives people more of a chance to think and calmly respond (don't feel put on the spot right away). Hopefully, we can give each other something to consider and think on and respond a few days later.
Welcome. Lets have a look.

First of all, here is the prochoice position. It is the woman's body that we are asking to give 9 months of bodily resources. She is the one who has the right to decide what happens to her own body, including whether or not she will be giving off her bodily resources to non-sensate, non-sentient tissue.
Anyway, here is my prolife argument:

I start with the baseline assumption that everyone agrees that infantcide is wrong.
be careful with that. Infants are not embryos or fetuses. To many prolifers seek to be dishonest bout the distinction.
From here I am mostly curious where the line is drawn for those that are pro-choice.
For some of us at whether or not the woman is providing off her bodily resources or not. For others. it is sentience, brain function or whatnot.
When you work backwards, is it okay right after the child is born?
After birth, abortion is not physically possible. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
While in the birth canal? While the mom is in labor? Right before labor starts? etc, etc.
At the time of birth, induction of labor or normal labor is the only way to do it anyway. It merely results in a lie birth. Don't forget that the vast majority of all abortions happens in 1st trimester
Once the line is drawn, why is it drawn in that place? What is different right after that line is crossed?
A person's subjective view as well as varions legal, medical and physiological differences.
Also, keep in mind that however you answer will be compared to killing regular people (i.e. if you determine that you can't kill the baby once it can feel pain, it will be pointed out that anyone can be killed in a manner so that they won't feel pain).
Note that "baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth.

As for the pain issue, as YOU put it, you are completely ignoring the sentience issue. other than that, this is actually an interesting point. I don't recall a lot of prolifers bringing up the issue in that particular way. You make us think. Thanks.
Most arguments I hear against prolife are the extreme cases. Such as what about rape cases and when the mother's life is in danger?
And also most prolife arguments are about the extremes, just like your example about an abortion right at birth. :2wave:
In the case of rape, I think that it abortion should still not be an option (I would still want to live if I was the product of my mother being raped)
until you have sentience, you are not in a position to 'want" anything. If the mebryo or fetus is aborted before then, it is none the wiser, not knowing that it even existed.
and that adoption should be the option given.
Adoption is a parenting decision, not a pregnancy decision.
Also, any court cases involving rape would include awarding the mother to be all the costs of carrying the child.
Irrelevant. That argument is not about money, but rather about about continuing an ongoing emotional and physical rape for 9 months.
In the case of the mother's life being in danger, this is the only time when abortion is an option. You are weighing one life against another and you don't have any choice. If I only had time to rescue one of two people from a burning building it doesn't mean I advocate people dieing in burning buildings.
So we agree that for medical reasons, there should be no question or restriction, leaving this medical decision to the physician?
So that's my complete argument for now. At least until I'm given something else to consider.
Thank you. It was interesting to hear some new viewpoints.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
See?....:rofl


BTW...be very leery of steen's genteel presentation here. A quick view of his posts will reveal what he's really like;)
 

thatguymd

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
368
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let me see if I have the major points of your argument straight (I'm sure you'll let me know if I miss any).

- It's the women's decision because she must donate her bodily resources.
- You appear to draw the line at sentience because the fetus will be none the wiser.

As for the first point, the resources are donated of the women's own accord with the exception of rape. Once that decision is made you should have to live with the consequences. A new life now has to be factored in. Should people be allowed to get out of their consequences if getting out of it would terminate a life?

So that leads to the real point of contention - that you don't believe that it is a life unless it has sentience. At what point in life is this acheived? Do we really have sentience after we are born? I don't know anyone with two month old memories. If you believe it starts elsewhere let me know but I didn't get a clear understand as to where else you drew the line. Maybe we just need to be more clear on when you think life begins.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
thatguymd said:
Let me see if I have the major points of your argument straight (I'm sure you'll let me know if I miss any).

- It's the women's decision because she must donate her bodily resources.
Correct.
- You appear to draw the line at sentience because the fetus will be none the wiser.
Actually, i don't draw the line anywhere. I see it as a decision between a woman and her physician, not anybody else.
As for the first point, the resources are donated of the women's own accord with the exception of rape.
Nope. Sex is not consent to pregnancy. The resources are donated on her own accord if she so wants. Otherwise, they are not.
Once that decision is made you should have to live with the consequences.
And one consequence is that if you have an unwanted pregnancy, you might have to undergo an abortion if you don't want to remain pregnant. The "consequences" argument is an old one. It would also require people who smoked to not get treatment for their lung cancer or people who drove and was in an accident to not get treatment for their injuries. "Consequences" is a bogus argument; it doesn't stand up to logic.
A new life now has to be factored in.
Non-sentient, non-sensate tissue "life". No different in that respect than the lung tumor in the smoker.
Should people be allowed to get out of their consequences if getting out of it would terminate a life?
Well, the life of the tumor certainly is extinguished under treatment for lung cancer. Should that be prohibited?
So that leads to the real point of contention - that you don't believe that it is a life unless it has sentience.
Nope. It is life. Any cell is life. the sperm is life. The egg is life. The zygote, embryo, fetus and senior citizen are all life. The hair cell at the end of my hair that I pulled out in frustration is life. So is the cow and the tomato in your burger. "life" is a lot of things. Life is very vague.
At what point in life is this acheived?
Life began a bit less than 4 bill years ago.
Do we really have sentience after we are born? I don't know anyone with two month old memories.
Sentience is not the same as memory. Sentience is the capacity for the brain's cortex to be able to evaluate stimulus.
If you believe it starts elsewhere let me know but I didn't get a clear understand as to where else you drew the line. Maybe we just need to be more clear on when you think life begins.
I find "life" to be an irrelevant point, as all cells are 'life."
 

thatguymd

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
368
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So, you don't draw the line anywhere? My whole point was to differeniate why it is okay to kill up to the very end of pregnancy (if left up to a woman and her physician) and not okay once it is born. Does this mean your only basis is whether it is a burden to the mother?

Even after the child is born it is still a burden - perhaps more of one. So why can't the mother kill after it is born? You may say she can more readily get rid of the child without terminatation but this may not be a swift enough process if not set up during the pregnancy. Moreover, you are only moving the burden to someone else not getting rid of it and with overpopulation coming into question for some people it could still be considered a burden to all. Not to mention anyone that has been murdered by someone with a motive was a burden to someone else.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
thatguymd said:
So, you don't draw the line anywhere?
It is not mine or your line to draw. It is a medical decision. It no more is your business than it is whether your neighbor is on blood pressure medication or not.

My whole point was to differeniate why it is okay to kill up to the very end of pregnancy (if left up to a woman and her physician) and not okay once it is born.
AH, you have slipped back into hyperbole. Abortion is the termination of pregnancy. IF there is an abortion at term, it is by induction. If the fetus is viable, then the result generally is a live birth. Please don't fall back on prolife hyperbole based on outright false claims. beware of where you get your info. Many prolife sites are outright lying about a whole bunch of things.

Does this mean your only basis is whether it is a burden to the mother?
No, whether it is a burden on the woman's body that she can not avoid. F.ex. after birth, she can set the neonate up for abortion, and thus her body is no longer forced to be involved.

Even after the child is born it is still a burden - perhaps more of one.
But at that time, she has chosen to take on the duties of meeting this person's needs by not setting up the baby for adoption. She has a CHOICE!!!

So why can't the mother kill after it is born?
Because at that time she is no longer forced to give of her bodily resources.

You may say she can more readily get rid of the child without terminatation but this may not be a swift enough process if not set up during the pregnancy.
What utter nonsense is this?

Moreover, you are only moving the burden to someone else not getting rid of it
AH, but we are left with the CHOICE of caring, not the duty or unavoidable ability. Do you GET at all that Pro-choice is about CHOICE?

and with overpopulation coming into question for some people it could still be considered a burden to all.
Sure, when you want to wander into metaphysical sophistry, we can have that discussion. It has no relevance whatsoever on the individual.

Not to mention anyone that has been murdered by someone with a motive was a burden to someone else.
Utterly irrelevant. We are talking about whether somebody can be forced to give of their bodily resources against their will. You are wandering into bad analogies here, nothing else.

 

thatguymd

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
368
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I realize that abortion cannot take place once a child is born. The problem I am presenting is this: why is it not okay to kill a child after it is born but okay to abort a pregnancy that for all anyone knows is just before the woman goes into labor? The only difference in the child between those two points is location.

Then your answer appears simply be that the former has no forced burden whereas the latter does. This means that it is then okay to end a human life as long as it was putting a burden on another person against their will. Since you mentioned having sex doesn't count as consent and it is still forced upon them - it just has to be a complusively made desicion (no real choice in the matter) that forces the burden.

Also, please point out the error in my analogies instead of simply dismissing them. If they are wrong then they are wrong for a reason.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
thatguymd said:
I realize that abortion cannot take place once a child is born.
Good. That puts you ahead of quite a few prolifers.

The problem I am presenting is this: why is it not okay to kill a child after it is born but okay to abort a pregnancy that for all anyone knows is just before the woman goes into labor? The only difference in the child between those two points is location.
"just before" labor, there is no killing of a child (other than that it isn't a "child" until it is born); rather, there would be early labor induction and a live birth. So it frankly is emotional hyperbole. I have NEVER actually heard of an abortion at 37-38 weeks, f.ex., and certainly not that any such abortions resulted in death or dismemberment of the fetus. The oldest I have ever personally knowledge off was at 27 weeks, because the woman was dying.


It is NOT a matter just of "location." It is a matter of viability and the woman having to give off her bodily resources. You will find prochoice rather divided about abortions after viability, but also know that they are not "Oh, while I get my manicure, I should pop in and get an abortion" scenarios, regardless of what prolife tries to misrepresent.
Then your answer appears simply be that the former has no forced burden whereas the latter does.
Kind off. There is no unavoidable burden on bodily resources, there is no voluntary act.

This means that it is then okay to end a human life as long as it was putting a burden on another person against their will.
No, it doesn't mean that. For one, it is not just "burden," and secondly, the fetus certainly is NOT a person regardless.


If you insist that a person can put a burden on another person's bodily resources against their will for survival, why don't I have the right to take a pint of your blood against your will if I am dying? OR the right to take your extra kidney against your will if I am dying from kidney failure? That is because there is a right to privacy, a right to not be forced to give your bodily resources against your will.
Since you mentioned having sex doesn't count as consent and it is still forced upon them - it just has to be a complusively made desicion (no real choice in the matter) that forces the burden.
It is not a matter of "decision" any more than a lung tumor "decides" to develop in a smoker's lung.

Also, please point out the error in my analogies instead of simply dismissing them. If they are wrong then they are wrong for a reason.
You are talking about persons, you are talking about stuff not involving bodily resources under forced use.
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
thatguymd said:
I realize that abortion cannot take place once a child is born. The problem I am presenting is this: why is it not okay to kill a child after it is born but okay to abort a pregnancy that for all anyone knows is just before the woman goes into labor? The only difference in the child between those two points is location.

It is not OK...according to the Law to Kill a child "Just before a woman goes into labor". This is not an abortion. I dont think anyone here has said otherwise....other than yourself.

Then your answer appears simply be that the former has no forced burden whereas the latter does. This means that it is then okay to end a human life as long as it was putting a burden on another person against their will.

Your intention in this debate is obvious, and I suppose we might as well head it off now:

You have decided to use the common technique of extrapolation (putting words into the mouths of others), by taking statements and adding to them through your own imagination. This is the reason others might fight back....as I am sure you know full well. We have all seen this often from both sides of this debate.
It is not OK to end a human life due to some percieved burden placed upon another, as you attempt to insinuate was claimed. The use of adult humans in place of developing fetus is also quite common in these threads.....Might I suggest you read through a few dozen to get a taste of what can be expected.



Since you mentioned having sex doesn't count as consent and it is still forced upon them - it just has to be a complusively made desicion (no real choice in the matter) that forces the burden.

This....I assume you refer to rape...would be a thread unto itself...oh, wait....seems to me there are a few of those already.

Also, please point out the error in my analogies instead of simply dismissing them. If they are wrong then they are wrong for a reason.
There is no "Error" in your analogy....as there can be no error in an analogy, it is a tale. As for the reasoning, that may very well be another story.

"So, you don't draw the line anywhere? My whole point was to differeniate why it is okay to kill up to the very end of pregnancy (if left up to a woman and her physician) and not okay once it is born. Does this mean your only basis is whether it is a burden to the mother?

Even after the child is born it is still a burden - perhaps more of one. So why can't the mother kill after it is born? You may say she can more readily get rid of the child without terminatation but this may not be a swift enough process if not set up during the pregnancy. Moreover, you are only moving the burden to someone else not getting rid of it and with overpopulation coming into question for some people it could still be considered a burden to all. Not to mention anyone that has been murdered by someone with a motive was a burden to someone else."


This anolgy is a splendid example....it is a test of theory, as all are. A child may indeed be a burden after it comes into this world....but the parameters of control have changed dramatically. Inside the womb the child is completely dependent on the mother for its very existance. Once freed of this dependency, it has become an independant human , and thus afforded certain rights by society. Had the child been terminated before this point society would still see a crime, but not murder as defined by law. If by chance....the mother had decided on abortion before the time frames set by said society....there would be no crime whatsoever......we call it freedom of choice. She is free to chose her own path....some carry consequences, enforced by the society she lives in...others do not.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So why do they inject pottassium in to live fetuses that could be viable to KILL the fetus prior to the induction? THAT is what induction ABORTION is--it's not inducing labor early--the fetus is killed prior to delivery PURPOSFULLY. Even if the fetus would have little chance of survival--to actively do something to kill the fetus is what makes the procedure an abortion.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tecoyah said:
Quote:
It is not OK...according to the Law to Kill a child "Just before a woman goes into labor". This is not an abortion. I dont think anyone here has said otherwise....other than yourself.
Yes it is--as long as you have two doctors that will sign off on it.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/alerts/03-10-97.html

3rd Trimester Abortions Generally. As we have stated in a previous NOW Issues Report, a 3rd trimester abortion is not a procedure undertaken lightly. Most involve wanted pregnancies that go tragically wrong when the woman's life or health is endangered or the fetus develops abnormalities incompatible with life. Mr. Fitzsimmons previously estimated 450 abortions were performed in the 3rd trimester; he now estimates more like 500 to 750, including all methods. An estimated 600 abortions a year are performed after 26 weeks, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
When Women Have Abortions (in weeks)
From the Alan Guttmacher Institute:
Eighty-eight percent of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, 2001.




Some very pertinent facts from that site that have been batted around these forums:
54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use
8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or poorly educated

SAFETY OF ABORTION
The risk of abortion complications is minimal; less than 1% of all abortion patients experience a major complication.[23]

There is no evidence of childbearing problems among women who have had a vacuum aspiration abortion, the most common procedure, within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.[24]

The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from 1 death for every one million abortions at 8 or fewer weeks to 1 per 29,000 at 16-20 weeks and 1 per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks.[25]

The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as that associated with abortion.[26]

Almost half of the women having abortions beyond 15 weeks of gestation say they were delayed because of problems in affording, finding or getting to abortion services.[27]

Teens are more likely than older women to delay having an abortion until after 15 weeks of pregnancy, when medical risks associated with abortion increase significantly.[28]


It just seems logical to me that in order to debate a subject, the debators would actually try to look up what they want to say and do so without resorting to sites that only echo their own sentiments. I have no idea if this site is pro-choice or anti-choice and it doesn't preach either way. Our individual views have been voiced ad nauseum, some of which others don't care to know about or prefer to attack as if they were quoted facts. As crude as Steen is(he does need some debating skills honed), most if not all of his numbers are not readily disputable. Tecoyah and I have clearly stated our pro-choice stance, as has Stace, and get knocked around for being 'hypocritical'. Some anti-choice comments are from way out in left field-probably because there are no real non-emotional key factors that figure into their arguments. Fine. Just, read, people....don't have to change your mind, just try to learn something instead of twisting phrases, spouting biblical quotations and calling silly names....sheesh
/me steps off soapbox and hands it to the next person....
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ngdawg said:
http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/alerts/03-10-97.html
Alan Guttmacher Institute.....

....It just seems logical to me that in order to debate a subject, the debators would actually try to look up what they want to say and do so without resorting to sites that only echo their own sentiments. ....

I have no idea if this site is pro-choice or anti-choice and it doesn't preach either way.
Alan Guttmacher was the president of Planned Parenthood in the 1970s.
The Guttmacher institute is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood.


I won't even bother with the National Organization of Women and their INCREDIBLE bias that echoes pro-choice sentiments
 
Last edited:

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Felicity said:
So why do they inject pottassium in to live fetuses that could be viable to KILL the fetus prior to the induction? THAT is what induction ABORTION is--it's not inducing labor early--the fetus is killed prior to delivery PURPOSFULLY. Even if the fetus would have little chance of survival--to actively do something to kill the fetus is what makes the procedure an abortion.
I would imagine the potasium is used to kill the life inside the womb before removal of the tissue. If I used the term Abortion incorrectly....my mistake. This really does not affect my statement. The use of extremes in this debate takes away from the underlying discussion in my opinion. Much as I could use them against the arguments you may put forward....but have tried to avoid doing so. Just as I will happily admit my opposition to late term abortion, I can also understand its use for a woman kept in a closet by a Rapist husband until the seventh month of gestation.....what does this have to do with the actual debate. Unless we wish to discuss the ins and outs of Juditial actions over the last ten years....both scenarios are counter productive to a useful debate.
Personally, I would prefer we attempt to stick with the "Point-by-point discussion" of the use of abortion in our society....rather than individual cases, or the actions that take place on the fringes. Much as I wouldnt want to use O.J Simpson as a case in a murder discussion.....or M. Jackson for pedophilia.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tecoyah said:
I would imagine the potasium is used to kill the life inside the womb before removal of the tissue. If I used the term Abortion incorrectly....my mistake.
Actually--I was responding to steen's post--I should have quoted it...:3oops:


This really does not affect my statement. The use of extremes in this debate takes away from the underlying discussion in my opinion. Much as I could use them against the arguments you may put forward....but have tried to avoid doing so. Just as I will happily admit my opposition to late term abortion, I can also understand its use for a woman kept in a closet by a Rapist husband until the seventh month of gestation.....what does this have to do with the actual debate.
Well--because I was responding to steen--it has to do with his sly characterization that late term abortion is actually an induction and not really an abortion. No--he doesn't actually say that, but the clarification is suspiciously missing. I feel obligated to make it clear in the interest of an honest debate.;)
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Felicity said:
Actually--I was responding to steen's post--I should have quoted it...:3oops:


Well--because I was responding to steen--it has to do with his sly characterization that late term abortion is actually an induction and not really an abortion. No--he doesn't actually say that, but the clarification is suspiciously missing. I feel obligated to make it clear in the interest of an honest debate.;)

Works for me....heh

tec kisses Fel on the cheek to make up
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tecoyah said:
Works for me....heh

tec kisses Fel on the cheek to make up

:3oops: ...[Felicty giggles coyly]


;) BTW--I wasn't mad...why does everyone think I'm mad??? I may be "mad" like a hatter--but I'm not "angry!" Dammit----I SAID I'M NOT ANGRY! What--are you trying to insinuate that I have emotional "issues???" Well...WHATEVER!


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:mrgreen:
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Felicity said:
:3oops: ...[Felicty giggles coyly]


;) BTW--I wasn't mad...why does everyone think I'm mad??? I may be "mad" like a hatter--but I'm not "angry!" Dammit----I SAID I'M NOT ANGRY! What--are you trying to insinuate that I have emotional "issues???" Well...WHATEVER!


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:mrgreen:

....uh....yeah.....about that kiss.....heh
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tec said:
....uh....yeah.....about that kiss.....heh
:rofl I just love to keep 'em off balance!

Don't worry....I'm no stalker!
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well to quote:
Whatever :roll:
The sites also make mention of one of their own LYING about procedures,something (dare I say it), anti-choice sites never admit to.
Whether prochoice or antichoice, the point is, statistics are what they are and in this instance, make late-term abortions a big rarity and outline the conditions under which one might have to be done, but lately, they've been akin to arguing against amputation as the only cure for cancer.
Your June Cleaver outlook on life is well-established, and whether intentional or not, has insulted simply in its denial of today's realities. Don't suppose you got a new apron and a string of pearls for Christmas, eh?;)
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ngdawg said:
Well to quote:
Whatever :roll:
The sites also make mention of one of their own LYING about procedures,something (dare I say it), anti-choice sites never admit to.
Whether prochoice or antichoice, the point is, statistics are what they are and in this instance, make late-term abortions a big rarity and outline the conditions under which one might have to be done, but lately, they've been akin to arguing against amputation as the only cure for cancer.
Your June Cleaver outlook on life is well-established, and whether intentional or not, has insulted simply in its denial of today's realities. Don't suppose you got a new apron and a string of pearls for Christmas, eh?;)
You sound jealous!:lol:
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
tecoyah said:
Works for me....heh

tec kisses Fel on the cheek to make up
Well, I have felicity on "ignore" for the peace of the forum, but once in awhile her post is mirrored in responders like the case here. And there obviously have been no change in felicity's outright willful lies. An induction as we have talked about here IS an abortion, and felicity's craptrap lying doesn't seem to have changed one bit.

For felicity, the biggest scumbag liar here to talk about honest debate is the height of hypocricy.
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have found it important to understand we all speak in opinion.....every single one of us. One persons fact is another persons lie.....and to take it as anything other than opinion is to blind ourselves to information. It may very well turn out to be disproven, but that does not mean it need be ignored at the onset. I may not agree with Felicity on this issue....in fact I find the stance she holds rather opposed to my own reality....but that does not mean I have to ignore her....or you steen....even though much of our opinions on this are like.

Debate requires a difference of opinion....otherwise it is conversation.
 
Top Bottom