Real simple:

[Spartacus FPV]

This forum certainly does not represent the general public. I have noticed that 75% are pro-choice and 25% are pro-life on here. It is vice versa in the American public. And thank God it is.

What is your point? The general public knows best? :roll:

I'll be sure to consult public opinion when next I need to know what I think.

Abortion is infanticide... Blah blah emotional tripe.

The term infant means child of age between birth and 1 year. The term infanticide does not apply to abortion, however your emotional abuse of the word has been noted.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I'm perfectly comfortable with the traditional definition of person: a living human.

Then you don't know all the traditions, even if some of them, these days, are now considered "superstitions". Ever heard of "angels"? Or "brownies", "leprechauns", and other "little people"? Nonhuman persons, according to tradition, every one of them.

What's your point?

In a minute. First things first.

Humans are persons, regardless of developmental stage.

FALSE. Because the U.S. Constitution requires counting all persons every decade, and none of them, including the first in 1790, only three years after the Constitution was written, ever counted unborn humans. You can be very sure that the Founding Fathers had input into deciding to count only born humans as persons, in the first Census, thus setting the precedent for every Census thereafter. Therefore not only is it a lie to claim that "humans are persons, regardless of developmental stage", it is a lie to claim that it is traditional to consider unborn humans to be persons. We have more than 200 years of tradition of excluding them!

I fail to see how your comments on mythical entities add anything to the debate.

You were the one that mentioned "tradition". I merely wrote that according to tradition, those entities I mentioned were at one time considered to be every bit as real as humans--and persons, too. Which makes a hash of the notion that "person" must equal "human".

THE POINT, therefore, is that "person" must have a more generic definition than what you wrote. It must encompass all sorts of entities, while nevertheless excluding mere animals.

If you want to talk about the personhood of animals or theoretical entities I would love to do that in a different thread, but in this one lets focus on your attempts at dehumanizing babies and the unborn.

Now you are lying outright, since I have never made any attempt whatsoever to dehumanize any human of any developmental stage. I only attempt to distinguish human animals from human persons, and I can do this because the definition of "person" cannot always equal "human".

Now of course I realize that you may now claim that just because "person" may include more types of entities than mere humans, that does not automatically mean that any humans need to be excluded from the definition. I can foresee you trying to claim that any human can fit within a subset of "person". HOWEVER. Such a claim fails to acknowledge that there must be a generic way to distinguish a generic person from a generic animal. All persons of every type will have things in common that no animals of any type can match; otherwise all organisms great and small will end up being classified as persons. It is that generic definition which will exclude unborn and newborn humans.

So you don't know enough to say for sure what a person is.

TRUE. And neither do you, obviously, as indicated above. Possibly, we might each of us be able to say, "I'll know one when I interact with one" -- except that you have already revealed prejudice in this matter. Here, let us now consider some mythical entities right here in this Thread. Try answering "Yes" or "No" to each of the following questions:

1. If Mr. Worf, a nonhuman of the fictional "Star Trek" universe, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
2. If Chewbacca, a nonhuman of the fictional "Star Wars" universe, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
4. If Sarek, Mr. Spock's father, a nonhuman of the fictional "Star Trek" universe existed for real, should he be considered a person?
3. If Number Five, a robot in the fictional "Short Circuit" movie, existed for real, should it be considered a person?
4. If C3PO, a robot in the fictional "Star Wars" universe, existed for real, should it be considered a person?
5. If Draco, a fictional dragon in the movie "DragonHeart", existed for real, should he be considered a person?
6. If the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman, characters in the fictional Land of Oz, existed for real, should they be considered persons?
7. If the Cowardly Lion, a character in the fictional Land of Oz, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
8. Should ORDINARY lions be considered persons?
9. If Mr. Ed, a fictional talking horse in an old TV show, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
10. Should ORDINARY horses be considered persons?
11. If Bugs Bunny and Roger Rabbit, fictional cartoon characters appearing in the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", existed for real, should they be considered persons?
12. Should ORDINARY bunnies and rabbits be considered persons?
13. If Mickey Mouse, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
14. Should an ORDINARY mouse be considered a person?
15. If Porky Pig, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
16. Should ORDINARY pigs be considered persons?
17. If Snoopy the Dog, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
18. Should ORDINARY dogs be considered persons?
19. If Felix the Cat, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
20. Should ORDINARY cats be considered persons?
21. Should persons be distinguished from animals by whether or not they are human?
22. God is described as a purely nonphysical entity, nonhuman therefore, and is believed to exist by many humans. If that is true, should God be considered a person?
23. Should persons be distinguished from animals by the mental capabilities they exhibit?
24. Since it is a scientific fact that ordinary animals like lions, horses, pigs, cats and dogs exhibit more mental capabilities than an unborn human (for much of a pregnancy, even an ordinary mouse has more mental capabilities),
should an unborn human be considered a person?

It is "mental capabilties" that let me, at least, without even being certain of the full list, think I might recognize a person when I interact with one. What criteria would you use, to recognize a generic person?

Yet you blithely sicken us with your ill-reasoned arguments for murdering viable fetuses and infants.

My arguments are quite well-reasoned. As evidence is the fact that all you do is denouce them without pointing out any logical or factual errors in them. Meanwhile, how is your own totally-unfounded-and-thus-lying/prejudiced propaganda not itself sickening?

Maybe you should take a break from all this criticism of other's convictions, and come back when you have something to back it up.

Speak for yourself. As evidenced above.

Your concern for brownies and leprechauns is touching. I find it hypocritical and deplorable however, that you would deny the same concern to a 3-month old infant.

Tsk, tsk, you are still making unwarranted assumptions. I would deny person status to any organism of any type that does not exhibit any of the characterics that distinguish persons from animals. That very likely includes young-enough brownies and leprechauns. So I am not exhibiting any hypocrisy here. Meanwhile, I find it hypocritical and deporable of pro-lifers to fail to put their money where their mouths are. If they so desperately want all viable unborn humans to be born, then why don't they volunteer to pay all the medical costs, plus all the child-rasing costs that follow? We do live in a "You want it? You pay for it!" culture. Which explains why unwanted unborn human animals get aborted. But it doesn't explain why pro-lifers are such hypocrites. Well?

Minds deserve compassion. Empty bodies don't.

An empty body is a dead body.

Obviously we are using different definitions of "empty". I was referring to "mindless" (more specifically, "person-class-mind-less"), not "lifeless".

Fetuses and infants don't fit that definition,

They don't fit your definition; they do fit mine.

so again you show that you're incapable of consistency even within your own ill-defined logical framework.

Your faulty conclusions based on your faulty interpretations are your fault, not mine. Because if you think a moment, instead of blather first, you would realize that the opposite of a "dead body" is a "live body", and a live body does not have to be human. It might be a plague bacillus, for example. When was the last time you thought a plague bacillus deserved compassion, just because it was alive? I knew what I was talking about when I wrote that "minds deserve compassion". What I didn't know was that when I immediately followed that with "empty bodies don't", you would assume that the "empty" I used meant something other than "mindless". So a plague bacillus is an empty/alive body that doesn't deserve compassion. And a mosquito is another. And a human fetus is another.

 

[Noah's Hammer]

No. Actually my point followed the comment about public opinion.

As for your kind remarks on "infanticide"- semantics.

I noticed you didn't comment on the most important part of that post.

 

[OKgrannie]

This forum certainly does not represent the general public. I have noticed that 75% are pro-choice and 25% are pro-life on here. It is vice versa in the American public. And thank God it is.

...
Abortion is in absolute oposition to the values upon which our whole society was built.

Our founding document which justified our revolt and made the case for freedom begins with these sacred words:

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by there Creator with certain inalienable rights among which are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....

Check your facts:
Abortion



The CHOICE of abortion is, indeed, consistent with the values of the founders and society of that time, i.e. individuality and freedom were highly valued. The founders knew abortion was occurring and said nothing specific to halt the practice. BTW, stating that all MEN have an inalienable right to life doesn't relate to a zef.

 

[FutureIncoming]

you are at fault for trying to make two different things equal to each other ("equivocation").

FYI, FI, that is not equivocation--equivocation is when you switch back and forth between two meanings to claim two different things concerning the same point.

The evidence is that your definition is more incorrect than mine.

Equivocation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also known as ambiguity, Equivocation is a logical fallacy. It is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around.
For example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
The above argument commits this fallacy: The word "light" is used in the sense of "having little weight" the first time, but of "bright" the second time. This fallacy becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language.

With regard to "claim two different things concerning the same point", that is not equivocation because it certainly is very possible to claim different things about the same point. For example, since a "fire" is an energy-releasing process that converts various chemical compounds into other chemical compounds, we can say these different things, because both are completely true: "Fire is hot" and "Fire is destructive" (of initial chemical compounds). What we cannot say are opposite things, of course, but we also cannot say that "hot is destructive" because that is not necessarily so, especially since "hot" is relative (an ordinary ice cube is boiling hot compared to liquid nitrogen).

Meanwhile you are correct about the "switch back and forth", and my wording "make two different things equal to each other" could perhaps be improved -- but the Wikipedia example clearly shows that "light" is being used to equate two different things, "not-heavy" and "not-dark". How am I wrong?

I have always contended that "capacity" is actual magnitude of a possibility.

SO? A "possibility" all by itself is an actual magnitude of a possilibilty! Think about it! And so is a "potential", an actual magnitude of a possibility. (If they had zero magnitude automatically associated with them, then neither "possibility" nor "potential" would mean anything worth discussing.)

Why do you need to invoke the word "capacity", therefore? Because you need an excuse to claim that a potential or a possibility is more than what it is? Tough! That would indeed be equivocation!

Now, regarding the definitions you posted from dictionary.com:
The first, "ability to contain" is indeed an actual magnitude.
The fourth has an "or" in it. On the one side of that "or", the word "actual" is of course referring to "actual magnitude" --but on the other side, "potential ability to perform" could be a bit ambiguous. See, the last part of that definition, "He has a capacity for hard work." implies that he is not currently a child who can grow up to have a capacity for hard work; instead he right now has that capacity, but just isn't exhibiting any of it at the moment (that's why they included "actual" in this definition, to cover the case where the hard work is being exhibited). Nevertheless, we both know that "potential" allows for the implication of currently-a-child --where hard work can be against the child-labor laws, heh! Yes, there is room for ambiguity there, if you ignore the implication of the last part of that fourth definition.

SO: It seems to me that that is what you are doing, using an ambiguous form of the definition, in order to say:

It is an ACTUAL ability for a FUTURE possibility.

But now I've pointed out that the word "possibility", all by itself, automatically includes some degree of actual magnitude, else it couldn't be a possilbility worth discussing in the first place (a zero-magnitude possibility is worth discussing???). And you have agreed that a possibility is not something that automatically must become an actuality.

THEREFORE, If an unborn human exhibits zero actual traits of persons, and If it only has potential to exhibit those traits, and If potentials do not automatically have to become fulfilled, Then what is the basis for saying that an unborn human must not be aborted? You don't have one that does not equivocate actual-magnitude-of-person-ness with potential-for-person-ness.

 

[ARealConservative]

I am primarily pro-state rights.

For my state, I would want abortion to be only the option of last resort. Rape or health of mother. I am completely willing to respect the wishes of the other states however and realize it will be easy for someone to cross state lines if a neighboring state has differing viewpoints.

 

[Felicity]

Meanwhile you are correct about the "switch back and forth", and my wording "make two different things equal to each other" could perhaps be improved -- but the Wikipedia example clearly shows that "light" is being used to equate two different things, "not-heavy" and "not-dark". How am I wrong?

Okay...if that's what you "really" meant...you're right. Feel good now?

Why do you need to invoke the word "capacity", therefore? Because you need an excuse to claim that a potential or a possibility is more than what it is? Tough! That would indeed be equivocation!

Because capacity exists now. Your species is one that has that potential among its traits that define "person-ness"--the "potential" refers to a specific individual that can manifest the traits. A species does not have "potential," it has the capacity. That is why "capacity" is the proper word in the context in which I am describing "personhood." It refers to the actual existing possibility in a larger group rather than in the individual of that group. An "INDIVIDUAL" may not demonstrate that "potential" that is inherent in the species--for example, a human being with anencephaly is still a person, though she will NEVER demonstrate the ability for which her species and herself are designated as "person." She is of a species that has among its traits the CAPACITY for reason and free will--so she is a person--although she will NEVER fulfill that capacity of her species.

I am done with this FI--Your repetitive badgering notwithstanding. My definition puts your challenge to bed--did from the beginning months ago and I am sorry that you are not man enough to accept it.

 

[Felicity]

I am primarily pro-state rights.

For my state, I would want abortion to be only the option of last resort. Rape or health of mother. I am completely willing to respect the wishes of the other states however and realize it will be easy for someone to cross state lines if a neighboring state has differing viewpoints.

Roe-v-Wade (or some other court ruling at the federal level) is necessary because no state could make a law that contradicts the 14th amendment.

Why do you include "rape" in your exclusions? I can think of a logical reason, (though I don't really consider it justifiable) but I want to see yours, please.

 

[doughgirl]

Thanks for that great post Noah………..nice to see someone on the side of the unborn child, they are few and far between on this forum.

Lachean said, “What is your point? The general public knows best?

I'll be sure to consult public opinion when next I need to know what I think.”

Heres what the public feels from one polling place. “Support for Abortion in Sharp Decline.”

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1060




“Sociology students at Hamilton College, in conjunction with the Zogby International polling firm, surveyed 1,000 high school seniors by phone and the survey has a 3 percent margin of error. The poll is the seventh in a series of polls over the years of students views on public policy issues.’


Poll Finds High School Seniors Take Pro-Life Position on Abortion


“Washington, DC -- The U.S. abortion rate has fallen to its lowest level in 29 years, a trend triggered by fewer abortion facilities, pro-life state laws and growing use of contraceptives, a new study sponsored by a pro-abortion group has found.”


“Overall, the U.S. abortion rate fell 19.3 percent between 1973 and 2000. One in five pregnancies end in abortion. In 2000, 1.3 million abortions were performed in the United States, down slightly from 1.36 million in 1996. The drop was seen in every state.”


Abortion rates…….why are they going down?

“Part of the reason may be greater access to ultrasound and other technology that helps women see a fetus. "It's changing their ideas. They see this is a baby."


Abortion

"Terms" and what you call the life in the womb really don't matter so it seems. Woman are seeing their BABIES, not their fetuses through ultrasound. No woman who is pregnant considers her unborn a fetus.
No woman half way through her pregnancy all of a sudden says gee my fetus is viable and its a baby now. :rofl

Thework that is being done by pro-life groups is working and they are exposing PP's dirty littel secrets. Woman are learning about fetal development and it is making a difference.

 

[Felicity]

Here, let us now consider some mythical entities right here in this Thread. Try answering "Yes" or "No" to each of the following questions:

1. If Mr. Worf, a nonhuman of the fictional "Star Trek" universe, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
2. If Chewbacca, a nonhuman of the fictional "Star Wars" universe, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
4. If Sarek, Mr. Spock's father, a nonhuman of the fictional "Star Trek" universe existed for real, should he be considered a person?
3. If Number Five, a robot in the fictional "Short Circuit" movie, existed for real, should it be considered a person?
4. If C3PO, a robot in the fictional "Star Wars" universe, existed for real, should it be considered a person?
5. If Draco, a fictional dragon in the movie "DragonHeart", existed for real, should he be considered a person?
6. If the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman, characters in the fictional Land of Oz, existed for real, should they be considered persons?
7. If the Cowardly Lion, a character in the fictional Land of Oz, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
8. Should ORDINARY lions be considered persons?
9. If Mr. Ed, a fictional talking horse in an old TV show, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
10. Should ORDINARY horses be considered persons?
11. If Bugs Bunny and Roger Rabbit, fictional cartoon characters appearing in the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", existed for real, should they be considered persons?
12. Should ORDINARY bunnies and rabbits be considered persons?
13. If Mickey Mouse, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
14. Should an ORDINARY mouse be considered a person?
15. If Porky Pig, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
16. Should ORDINARY pigs be considered persons?
17. If Snoopy the Dog, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
18. Should ORDINARY dogs be considered persons?
19. If Felix the Cat, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
20. Should ORDINARY cats be considered persons?
21. Should persons be distinguished from animals by whether or not they are human?
22. God is described as a purely nonphysical entity, nonhuman therefore, and is believed to exist by many humans. If that is true, should God be considered a person?
23. Should persons be distinguished from animals by the mental capabilities they exhibit?
24. Since it is a scientific fact that ordinary animals like lions, horses, pigs, cats and dogs exhibit more mental capabilities than an unborn human (for much of a pregnancy, even an ordinary mouse has more mental capabilities),
should an unborn human be considered a person?
.

Hey...FI...Are your fingers getting so tired of typing your tripe that you now have to resort to cut and pasting huge sections of old tripe?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/194455-post796.html

 

[jallman]

Hey...FI...Are your fingers getting so tired of typing your tripe that you now have to resort to cut and pasting huge sections of old tripe?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/194455-post796.html

HAHAHAHAHA BWUAHAHAHAHAHA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA :rofl

 

[ARealConservative]

Why do you include "rape" in your exclusions? I can think of a logical reason, (though I don't really consider it justifiable) but I want to see yours, please.

I included rape because a pregnancy that resulted from involuntary actions should be treated differently.

It is based on the importance I place on personal responsibility.

 

[Felicity]

I included rape because a pregnancy that resulted from involuntary actions should be treated differently.

It is based on the importance I place on personal responsibility.

That's pretty much the logic I came to--based on the social contract and one's voluntary acceptance of terms. However, I also believe that there is a hierarchy of human rights, with the right of life being the foremost upon which all other human rights depend. So, I cannot morally rationalize a justification for taking the life of the unborn human, when that unborn human had no personal responsibility for being in the predicament he is. I do understand that this puts the woman in a position to accept a burden she may not desire and had no intention or took any action to bring about, but her position is physically temporary, while the death of the unborn is permanent--even if he'd never know it--I think it falls under our obligations to the larger social contract to protect the MOST at-risk members.

 

[jallman]

I included rape because a pregnancy that resulted from involuntary actions should be treated differently.

It is based on the importance I place on personal responsibility.

I mean this with utmost respect...but what I am seeing then is that your abortion stance isn't so much about the right to life of the fetus as much as it is holding the woman responsible for acting freely. In essence, I read from this that you are more concerned with controlling the woman's bodily sovereignty than you are with saving a baby.

 

[Felicity]

That's spot on, jallman. That is the essence of the problem I see in that exclusion for rape--it's inconsistent with a philosophy of life.

 

[FutureIncoming]

This forum certainly does not represent the general public. I have noticed that 75% are pro-choice and 25% are pro-life on here.

That's probably because most of the pro-lifers here eventually discover they don't have any valid argument that works, so they leave. Meanwhile, I've encountered a pro-life site or two that claims to allow discussion, but they routinely ban pro-choicers who present arguments they cannot answer. Tsk, tsk.

It is vice versa in the American public.

Really? Have you checked for bias in the poll-takers?

And thank God it is.

You are welcome to your opinion. Meanwhile, there are pro-lifer's out there who may be thanking God that abortion is legal.

Abortion is infanticide.

FALSE. As explained by Lachaen in Msg #226

The idea is atrocious if you really think about it.

FALSE. Your opinion is not the opinion of everyone -- and "there is no accounting for taste". Which is not only a cliche`; it's a fact.

Because a woman doesn't want the responsibility she can simply murder a baby because it hasn't been born yet?

You are now making the unwarranted and provably false assumption that she must accept some sort of responsibility for the existence of a pregnancy.

Fact 1: Sex does not cause pregnancy/birth. Evidence: About 1/7 of all couples, even before sterilization became a popular birth-control method, are naturally infertile. Which means for them, no births are occurring no matter how much sex they have. If "Fact 1" was false, there would be zero infertile couples.

Conclusion 1: The choice to have sex does not make the chooser responsible for a pregnancy. Only if Fact 1 was false could this be possible.

Fact 2: Natural Mindless Biology causes pregnancies. Evidence: See any textbook on the reproductive process. There is no Free Will involved, when sperm meets egg, or when zygote starts dividing, or when blastocyst escapes the shell of the ovum, or when the blastocyst implants in a womb, or when the blastocyst starts doing cell-differentiation to become an embryo, or when it later becomes a fetus, or when it manages to become born.

It is Free Will that leads to responsibility, right? Yes, I'm sure you'd like to say that it is Free Will that puts the sperm near the egg in the first place. So read on!

It is when Natural Mindless Biology fails, when the bio-mechanisms don't work normally, that leads to infertility and identical twins and chimeras and hydatiform moles and most miscarriages.

When it is claimed that sex causes births, but this doesn't always happen in fact, then why should the Free Will to have sex be associated with births, even when births do happen to occur??? Indeed, the very existence of the process of "artificial insemination" is proof that births and sex can be completely dissociated from each other!

Conclusion 2: The Free Will to have sex does not mean that Natural Mindless Biology will cause a birth to result -- and the Free Will to include birth control does not mean that Natural Mindless Biology will be stymied, either.

When you use your Free Will to camp near a bog, and a newly-formed mosquito seeks to implant in your arm, to suck your blood, must you let this piece of Natural Mindless Biology have its way? Well, when a woman has sex and a newly-formed blastocyst seeks to implant in her womb, to suck her blood, why must she let this piece of Natural Mindless Biology have its way? Half of all abortions take place because an initial line of defense, birth control, like a mosquito net with holes, failed to stymie Natural Mindless Biology. And so abortion (or mosquito swatting) can be a second line of defense, because it can work every time.

Abortion is legalized murder.

FALSE. "Murder" is defined as the killing of a person. First you have to show that an unborn human is a person, before you reach such a conclusion. And the evidence is against you on that.

A woman hires a hit man (abortion doctor) to stab her child to death before it can protest?

My, what stilted language you use. Are you implying that a Zygote/Blastocyst/Embryo/Fetus (ZBEF) has some sort of "right to succeed" at being born, when Natural Mindless Biology so often declares otherwise? Are you saying that Natural Mindless Biology has precedence over Free Will, so that if the blastocyst must be allowed to implant, so must the mosquito? Or are you simply as irrationally prejudiced as so many other pro-lifers, in claiming that a lacking-a-person-class-mind human's life is somehow more important/special/better/valuable/blahblahblah than a lacking-a-person-class-mind mosquito's life --without providing any supporting evidence for that claim whatsoever?

Abortion is in absolute oposition to the values upon which our whole society was built.

FALSE. Because the Founding Fathers did not grant person status to unborn humans, as evidenced by the 1790 Census.

Our founding document which justified our revolt and made the case for freedom begins with these sacred words:
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal

PROVABLY FALSE. Nice words, but in fact just propaganda. Search for "self-evident" in this message, and read what follows.

and are endowed by there Creator with certain inalienable rights among which are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

More unsupported claims. Not to mention that Nature doesn't care one whit about puny humans claiming that there is such a thing as "right to life". That's why the Titanic sank, and why Vesuvius buried Pompeii, and a quake destroyed San Francisco, and so on. The claim is a lie. Good propaganda, but factually false.

ALSO, OKgrannie pointed out in Msg #229 that if those words from the Declaration are about MEN, then they cannot apply to ZBEFs --a man is a human that has experienced puberty, after all, something no ZBEF ever does while it's a ZBEF.

Regarding the others, well, what about "liberty" from enslavement to Natural Mindless Biology? And since there is no accounting for taste, what about "pursuit of happiness" not including raising children?

Abortion should be a capital crime if it is not necessary to spare the life of another.

FALSE. Pro-life ignorance and stupidity is helping the human race on its way to a Malthusian Catastrophe. This typically leads to the death of 99% of the species (including humans; see history of Easter Island). It is my understanding that if someone acts to kill off 99% of humanity, then that individual is attempting to commit "genocide". So, if anyone should be prosecuted, it should be the pro-lifers, not the women and the abortion doctors helping to save 99% of existing humanity from mass starvation, by preventing unwanted mouths-to-feed.

 

[ARealConservative]

I mean this with utmost respect...but what I am seeing then is that your abortion stance isn't so much about the right to life of the fetus as much as it is holding the woman responsible for acting freely. In essence, I read from this that you are more concerned with controlling the woman's bodily sovereignty than you are with saving a baby.

My primary concern really isn't with the fetus at all. My primary goal is to create a form of government that isn't so divisive.

Moving this decision to the states, and giving citizens the ability to vote with their feet is a means towards that end.

And considering it takes a man and women to get pregnant, I feel I am holding both sexes responsible, but yes the women bears more responsibility simple because of biology.

 

[jallman]

That's spot on, jallman. That is the essence of the problem I see in that exclusion for rape--it's inconsistent with a philosophy of life.

Agreed. Either the zef has a right to life or it doesn't.

 

[OKgrannie]

“Sociology students at Hamilton College, in conjunction with the Zogby International polling firm, surveyed 1,000 high school seniors by phone and the survey has a 3 percent margin of error. The poll is the seventh in a series of polls over the years of students views on public policy issues.’


[/FONT]Poll Finds High School Seniors Take Pro-Life Position on Abortion

High school seniors are prone to changing their minds, especially when circumstances change for THEM.
"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" - When the Anti-Choice Choose

Washington, DC -- The U.S. abortion rate has fallen to its lowest level in 29 years, a trend triggered by fewer abortion facilities, pro-life state laws and growing use of contraceptives, a new study sponsored by a pro-abortion group has found.”[/B]


“Overall, the U.S. abortion rate fell 19.3 percent between 1973 and 2000. One in five pregnancies end in abortion. In 2000, 1.3 million abortions were performed in the United States, down slightly from 1.36 million in 1996. The drop was seen in every state.”


Abortion rates…….why are they going down?

“Part of the reason may be greater access to ultrasound and other technology that helps women see a fetus. "It's changing their ideas. They see this is a baby."

Why are abortion rates going down?....
"a trend triggered by fewer abortion facilities, pro-life state laws and growing use of contraceptives" and in addition, a lessening social stigma against unmarried motherhood.

 

[ARealConservative]

Agreed. Either the zef has a right to life or it doesn't.

So would only the physical health of the mother be the only factor?

Emotional health from carrying the child of your rapist isn't something that is easily dismissed.

 

[jallman]

So would only the physical health of the mother be the only factor?

Emotional health from carrying the child of your rapist isn't something that is easily dismissed.

I am pro-choice so I believe it is her prerogative to either carry the zef or not, as she decides. I am just trying to establish your take on the issue and make sure I understand your reasoning.

And I do agree, I believe emotional health of the mother should be a factor in any choice she makes.

 

[ARealConservative]

I am pro-choice so I believe it is her prerogative to either carry the zef or not, as she decides. I am just trying to establish your take on the issue and make sure I understand your reasoning.

And I do agree, I believe emotional health of the mother should be a factor in any choice she makes.

Well, to be completely honest, if your take is that abortion on demand is a right for a nation of 300 million people and a man has no role in this debate, then I don't have a lot of respect for your position.

 

[jallman]

Well, to be completely honest, if your take is that abortion on demand is a right for a nation of 300 million people and a man has no role in this debate, then I don't have a lot of respect for your position.

I wasn't particularly asking for your respect. I was simply trying to understand the position you volunteered. Meanwhile, you are drawing a lot of unfounded conclusions from the little bit of information I volunteered. Perhaps a more mutual respect would be in order if this conversation is to be productive?

 

[talloulou]

I mean this with utmost respect...but what I am seeing then is that your abortion stance isn't so much about the right to life of the fetus as much as it is holding the woman responsible for acting freely. In essence, I read from this that you are more concerned with controlling the woman's bodily sovereignty than you are with saving a baby.

The problem with "rape" in regards to abortion is that it is often thrown up as one of the horrors women will face if abortion were more regulated. But what about the raped girl blah blah blah you gonna force her to have a baby??blah blah blah.

Given that it is highly unlikely a rape would result in pregnancy and even less likely than that if the woman seeks treatment it seems easier to just give in to that point and agree raped women can have abortions. Despite the fact that it's constantly mentioned rape accounts for such a miniscule percentage of abortions anyway that it doesn't seem worth spending time arguing about.

I'd happily save the lives of many and take the loss of a few rather than save none at all. I've also heard women say, "Well how could you prove rape?" So if abortion were more heavily regulated except in the cases of rape then women could just lie and "claim" to have been raped. I have no doubt that's true and some would. However I honestly believe more women have abortions under the assumption that there is nothing inherently wrong with doing so. If society were to change that mindset and a cultural change occurred that judged abortion as wrong many good women would be too ashamed to lie and falsely claim they were raped.

 

[ARealConservative]

I wasn't particularly asking for your respect. I was simply trying to understand the position you volunteered. Meanwhile, you are drawing a lot of unfounded conclusions from the little bit of information I volunteered. Perhaps a more mutual respect would be in order if this conversation is to be productive?

I didn't draw a single conclusion. I prefaced everything I said with a hypothetical. The If should of been a dead giveaway.