Saddleback point: At what point is a life a life?

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

So you are subordinating all of your other issues to the issue of abortion based upon the idea that McCain has a principle on it that you share. You are doing this while freely admitting that he will do nothing to change it. He will take no action to fix this problem.

This is mind boggling to me. There are a million other issues that presidents can and will affect, ones they will actually act upon. You are choosing one that you know they won't and basing your whole decision on it.

I don't see it with respect to any issue. I see it as a prerequisite to my paying attention to you as a serious presidential contender.

For me, it's like saying, "I'm in favor of welfare reform, and paying $1,000,000 annually to Atreus21 because he's super awesome. And by the way, I eat human liver with my coffee every morning." If you don't have a basic set of values, it doesn't matter what your other positions are, because the foundation from which you extrapolate those positions is suspect.

Incidentally, when you refer to all of my other issues, abortion is really my only one. It's the only issue about which I'm certain I'm right. Most other issues, namely capital punishment, I puss out on.

Certainty is a dangerous thing. So let's dovetail this with another point: Are you "certain" or do you merely "strongly believe?" If you maintain you're "certain," is that the same thing as saying it's impossible that you're wrong?

To see where I'm going with this, can you think of examples of people who are/were filled with certainty, but are/were wrong? And if so, what makes your certainty any better - any less subject to being wrong - than anyone else's?

I think I see where you're going. You're implying that certainty implies bigotry. I'd like to clarify that.

G.K. Chesterton nailed it. He said bigotry is not the certainty that we're right, but the inability to imagine that we could possibly be wrong. Until someone provides me with superior information, I'm certain that I'm right.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And that's fine with me. I'd welcome returning it to the states, and letting them legislate it.

So - I guess I am in the same boat as eskimo in trying to understand why such principles matter so much when you realize that the fight is futile?

I guess a better representation of your principles on this issue is that you are against federally sanctioned/protected abortion.


But state sanctioned abortion and abortion laws are OK.

Well, I don't consider the fight futile. The fight against slavery might've seemed futile at one point. So might've women's suffrage. Admittedly, however, the fight may be even more difficult, because the victim is largely intangible, sometimes almost abstract (as in the humanity-at-conception argument).

Scenario: Let's assume I will vote no matter what for either McCain or Obama. McCain I know will not enact any real measure to curb abortions or Roe v. Wade, but I know he disagrees with it in principle. On the other hand, I have Obama, who certainly won't enact a similar measure, and in fact may move in the opposite direction, because he agrees with it in principle.

The choice to me, as a person who believes in principle that abortion is wrong, is clear.

I guess another point of view is this: Right now, I'm looking to get an accurate picture of the principles, not the stated positions, of these two men. My vote reflects on the conclusion I come to. Talk, especially among politicians, is cheap.

I'm going home for the day fellas.

The reason why the fight is futile is even where it is illegal people still do it at the same rate.

civil rights are not an adequate comparison. The choice between treating people as anything other than equal is different than trying to determine and affix human rights to a fetus that we cannot clearly claim is a human being. The issue is further muddled because of the rights of the mother carrying said fetus.

Civil rights and Abortion are two very different things.

As to your scenario...Really the only thing McCain CAN do is appoint SC judges. There is nothing else he can and will do wrt abortion laws and RvW.

And I can agree with the bolded part above. I know Obama votes are 'Pro-choice' votes. But I don't agree that since he isn't voting "Pro-life" that it is assumed that he doesn't share the same principle when it comes to the issue of abortion. As a Christian and a father I tend to think that in principle, he would feel the same as I and disagree IN PRINCIPLE with abortion too..that would be interesting to find out. AFAIK BHO is of the mindset that he is unclear whether life begins at conception...so take that for what you will.

EDIT: oops quoted wrong person

Whether it's an adequate comparison or not, my point is that the futility of a fight doesn't determine the rightness or wrongness of waging it. If your cause is just and right, it doesn't matter whether you win or not. If the enemy is evil, destructive, and abhorrent, you must fight it with no heed of the odds. I'm sure the American revolution seemed futile.

I admit that sounds a bit theatrical, but that's my principle.

McCain can also sign abortion-limiting bills into law, like Bush did. I don't know if Obama has made his position on abortion abundantly clear, but McCain has. If Obama were to impress upon me that he were more against abortion than McCain, then I'd consider voting for him. But he's a democrat, and for the moment I'll maintain the stereotype that democrats tend to be pro-choice.

Maybe that made sense if "all other things were equal" and the only thing separating these candidates was their stance on abortion. But given the clusterfuck of republican policy that has led us these last 8 years, everything is not equal, and the reps need to get the hell out of the white house. More innocent full grown people died in iraq than unborn undeveloped undifferentiated cells were flushed from women's bodies in America.

As has been pointed out time and again, a born person has more rights, and MUST, than an unborn, if only for practical reasons. Otherwise why is there almost universal and unanimous support for a woman's right to chose to abort when her health is threatened by the pregnancy? Clearly when it comes down to the line, 90% of people side with the mother over the fetus. Why? Maybe because they recognize that her rights trump the fetus's? That the life of a grown woman is inherently worth more than the "life" inside her? And if this is recognized when her life is in danger, then it is still the case when her life is not in danger.

More dead people in Iraq? Not exactly. Just in America in 2005 the number of abortions was over a million. In the entire world, the number is around 42 million. Per year.

What practical reason is there for granting any human rights denied to another human? You say there's a consensus that supports such a policy, but consensus doesn't dictate the existence of supposedly inalienable rights. If Americans are as dumb as they seem, I don'tr trust 90% of them to decide who's rights trump others.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I'm pro-choice but I'm not stupid enough to vote based on this issue alone...nor would I if I were pro-life. Our country has far greater concerns right now than abortion.

:thumbsup:

The funniest things about the anti-abortion crowd's devotion to their cause at the exclusion of all other issues are that:
- the Republican party they've depended on for their agenda has done zip-zero-nada about it during the last 8 years they've been power, and
- reversing Roe v. Wade would, at this point, do nothing to stop women from having abortions. The issue would simply revert back to the states, where public opinion support pro-choice in even the reddest of red states. See SD's vote in 2006.

So anyone who thinks that McCain is the 'lesser of 2 evils' based on the abortion issue is sadly misguided. Should he use this angle to become 'emperor of the world,' he will do nothing to forward the agenda, just as Bush has done nothing.

It has little to do with the ability of Republicans to roll back abortion laws. It's about principle.

If someone believes that abortion for convenience is murder, then pro-choice people are supporting murder. If Obama is pro-choice, and hence supports murder, then what difference do the rest of his viewpoints make?

I'm not saying I'm this kind of hardliner. I'm just pointing out that it makes perfect sense, if you believe abortion is murder, to put it above every other lesser issue. It seems to me a logical progression from premise to conclusion. Whether or not it's wisely-made, I'll not opine.

Incidentally, I read your post about a 1st trimester cutoff point, and I'd wholeheartedly support such a standard.

But if, as you say, "It's about principle," how could you support a standard that allows a mother to abort in the first trimester without showing "legitimate cause?" You just said you believe abortion for convenience is murder. How can you support what you believe is murder?

I don't support it ultimately. For the moment, I'm in favor of any measure that serves to curb access to abortions (assuming the mother's life is not at risk). I don't expect all-at-once that abortion be outlawed. Any step in the right direction is a step I support.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't support it ultimately. For the moment, I'm in favor of any measure that serves to curb access to abortions (assuming the mother's life is not at risk). I don't expect all-at-once that abortion be outlawed. Any step in the right direction is a step I support.

How do you feel about the fact that the legality of abortion appears to have little to no effect on the amount of abortions done, with the primary change being the death of more mothers?

 

[db]

Bringing up abortion is a tactic to get people to vote a certain way. A tactic that keeps the corrupt in power, while you are distracted.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks
Maybe that made sense if "all other things were equal" and the only thing separating these candidates was their stance on abortion. But given the clusterfuck of republican policy that has led us these last 8 years, everything is not equal, and the reps need to get the hell out of the white house. More innocent full grown people died in iraq than unborn undeveloped undifferentiated cells were flushed from women's bodies in America.

As has been pointed out time and again, a born person has more rights, and MUST, than an unborn, if only for practical reasons. Otherwise why is there almost universal and unanimous support for a woman's right to chose to abort when her health is threatened by the pregnancy? Clearly when it comes down to the line, 90% of people side with the mother over the fetus. Why? Maybe because they recognize that her rights trump the fetus's? That the life of a grown woman is inherently worth more than the "life" inside her? And if this is recognized when her life is in danger, then it is still the case when her life is not in danger.

More dead people in Iraq? Not exactly. Just in America in 2005 the number of abortions was over a million. In the entire world, the number is around 42 million. Per year.

What practical reason is there for granting any human rights denied to another human? You say there's a consensus that supports such a policy, but consensus doesn't dictate the existence of supposedly inalienable rights. If Americans are as dumb as they seem, I don'tr trust 90% of them to decide who's rights trump others.

If your goal is to ban abortion what do you expect to happen to the pregnant mothers who are in no position to go through a pregnancy? There are many many reasons why a pregnancy would create great hardship on a woman and IMO they should have final say in the decision. Also, you keep saying 'human' and 'murder' when neither are the case.

 

[db]

The supposed moral stand that the vocal anti-abortions take is exposed when you consider the following:

- If they were sincere about stopping unwanted pregnancies, they would support birth control and sex education.
- If they had any real concern for the living they would be at the forefront of adoption programs.

Anti-abortion is a political tactic to get you to take your eyes off the ball and unknowlingly vote for the corrupt elite who are wasting taxpayer money
and paying no taxes.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: ayabe
ANYONE, who votes solely on a candidates abortion stance is a fool of the highest order.

I'm not going to necessarily agree or disagree with that statement, but if Obama came out tomorrow and said that his administration would enact pro-life policies / enact real abortion restricting legislation, he would instantly lose much of his superdelegate support, and Hillary would win the nomination, guaranteed. The fact that single issues wield huge power is an unfortunate result of the gross limitations of a political system dominated by 2 political parties.

What McCain said is noteworthy, but I doubt it will change much in the minds of those conservatives who are singularly suspicious/reluctant of supporting McCain.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks
Maybe that made sense if "all other things were equal" and the only thing separating these candidates was their stance on abortion. But given the clusterfuck of republican policy that has led us these last 8 years, everything is not equal, and the reps need to get the hell out of the white house. More innocent full grown people died in iraq than unborn undeveloped undifferentiated cells were flushed from women's bodies in America.

As has been pointed out time and again, a born person has more rights, and MUST, than an unborn, if only for practical reasons. Otherwise why is there almost universal and unanimous support for a woman's right to chose to abort when her health is threatened by the pregnancy? Clearly when it comes down to the line, 90% of people side with the mother over the fetus. Why? Maybe because they recognize that her rights trump the fetus's? That the life of a grown woman is inherently worth more than the "life" inside her? And if this is recognized when her life is in danger, then it is still the case when her life is not in danger.

More dead people in Iraq? Not exactly. Just in America in 2005 the number of abortions was over a million. In the entire world, the number is around 42 million. Per year.

What practical reason is there for granting any human rights denied to another human? You say there's a consensus that supports such a policy, but consensus doesn't dictate the existence of supposedly inalienable rights. If Americans are as dumb as they seem, I don'tr trust 90% of them to decide who's rights trump others.

My numbers were incorrect, point conceded.

As to the second point, do you believe a woman whose life is in danger should be able to abort her fetus?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks
Maybe that made sense if "all other things were equal" and the only thing separating these candidates was their stance on abortion. But given the clusterfuck of republican policy that has led us these last 8 years, everything is not equal, and the reps need to get the hell out of the white house. More innocent full grown people died in iraq than unborn undeveloped undifferentiated cells were flushed from women's bodies in America.

As has been pointed out time and again, a born person has more rights, and MUST, than an unborn, if only for practical reasons. Otherwise why is there almost universal and unanimous support for a woman's right to chose to abort when her health is threatened by the pregnancy? Clearly when it comes down to the line, 90% of people side with the mother over the fetus. Why? Maybe because they recognize that her rights trump the fetus's? That the life of a grown woman is inherently worth more than the "life" inside her? And if this is recognized when her life is in danger, then it is still the case when her life is not in danger.

More dead people in Iraq? Not exactly. Just in America in 2005 the number of abortions was over a million. In the entire world, the number is around 42 million. Per year.

What practical reason is there for granting any human rights denied to another human? You say there's a consensus that supports such a policy, but consensus doesn't dictate the existence of supposedly inalienable rights. If Americans are as dumb as they seem, I don'tr trust 90% of them to decide who's rights trump others.

My numbers were incorrect, point conceded.

As to the second point, do you believe a woman whose life is in danger should be able to abort her fetus?

Life, not lifestyle, yes.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks
As to the second point, do you believe a woman whose life is in danger should be able to abort her fetus?

Life, not lifestyle, yes.

So when it comes down to it, the mother's life has more worth than the unborn baby and when her life is in danger, the baby must die so that the mother may live?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

What practical reason is there for granting any human rights denied to another human? You say there's a consensus that supports such a policy, but consensus doesn't dictate the existence of supposedly inalienable rights. If Americans are as dumb as they seem, I don'tr trust 90% of them to decide who's rights trump others.

No person has an inalienable right to occupy the body of another person, forcibly extract the entirety of its nourishment from that person's bloodstream, and inject that person with bodily waste and hormores without that person's explicit consent.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

My argument is that I don't support McCain because I honestly think he'll actually do anything about abortion. I support him because he disagrees with the procedure out of principle, which Obama does not.

Effectiveness is secondary to me.

So you are subordinating all of your other issues to the issue of abortion based upon the idea that McCain has a principle on it that you share. You are doing this while freely admitting that he will do nothing to change it. He will take no action to fix this problem.

This is mind boggling to me. There are a million other issues that presidents can and will affect, ones they will actually act upon. You are choosing one that you know they won't and basing your whole decision on it.

I don't see it with respect to any issue. I see it as a prerequisite to my paying attention to you as a serious presidential contender.

For me, it's like saying, "I'm in favor of welfare reform, and paying $1,000,000 annually to Atreus21 because he's super awesome. And by the way, I eat human liver with my coffee every morning." If you don't have a basic set of values, it doesn't matter what your other positions are, because the foundation from which you extrapolate those positions is suspect.

Incidentally, when you refer to all of my other issues, abortion is really my only one. It's the only issue about which I'm certain I'm right. Most other issues, namely capital punishment, I puss out on.

so it doesn't bother you that these "moral issues" are nothing more than fodder for political candidates to get the brainless to vote?

Most people that actually pay attention to politics know that the elected don't give a damn about these issues--especially abortion--and that they are simply hot button issues to draw out the rednecks and illiterates to vote. No pro-life candidate has done a single thing that will overturn Roe V Wade, and fundamentally, it is Un-American to reverse progressive thinking.

This is why even the most patriotic fundamentalist candidates will not overturn a decision that speaks to the heart of the American constitution: freedom of choice. and the infrastructure in place will not allow such a disastrous event to occur.

Bush signed the act banning partial-birth abortions in 2003. That's a pretty good start for me.

Freedom of choice is protected by the constitution. Freedom to choose to murder is not.

Un-American? I thought liberals thought patriotism was a tool of manipulation.

Nationalism is a tool of manipulation; not patriotism. Try not to intentionally mince words.

You also assume that abortion is murder, and it clearly is not.

I find it strange that the majority of laymen will accept the medical definition of life as "presence of brain activity." Perfectly acceptable to many when the decision to pull the plug is made, or when someone is lost in surgery, after an accident, or normal death. Perfectly fine for most.

Real, measurable brain activity does not occur until the end of the THIRD TRIMESTER. This may be shocking to you, but those on your side of consistently spread the same misinformation, and false interpretation of actual research on this subject for years. here's a good link for you.
http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
It should be clear enough, with citations, for the un-medically inclined to read

This type of activity, in development, is the same activity when lost, that is universally accepted as the sign of "death." Now, why can the vast majority of laymen accept one sign of non-life in a previously living person, and interpret the exact same absence (as a fetus) as some sort of sign of life?

Sure, it's easy when one misinterprets medical research and spins it to support unfounded views; but when faced with the actual research, and the accepted medical standard, this argument that the pro-life clinic-bombers use for their "moral" view is completely discredited. It's truly mind boggling that people can make such logical distortions over such a sensitive issue.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: db
The supposed moral stand that the vocal anti-abortions take is exposed when you consider the following:

- If they were sincere about stopping unwanted pregnancies, they would support birth control and sex education.
- If they had any real concern for the living they would be at the forefront of adoption programs.

Anti-abortion is a political tactic to get you to take your eyes off the ball and unknowlingly vote for the corrupt elite who are wasting taxpayer money
and paying no taxes.

exactly. then again, it's not like the conservative pro-lifers to support birth control, responsible sex education (you know, humans always have, and always will have sex-strange, no? why not teach them responsibility?), or responsible welfare administration.

They have always conflicted themselves with these issues, and it has been hilariously hypocritical. Well...it would be hilarious had they not clogged up legitimate government for so long with this BS such that no one can actually get anything meaningful done.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks
As to the second point, do you believe a woman whose life is in danger should be able to abort her fetus?

Life, not lifestyle, yes.

So when it comes down to it, the mother's life has more worth than the unborn baby and when her life is in danger, the baby must die so that the mother may live?

I see it more as a logical deduction, but ultimately yes.

If the mother's life is in danger, someone is going to die. If we must decide who dies, I would agree that the mother's life is paramount.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

What practical reason is there for granting any human rights denied to another human? You say there's a consensus that supports such a policy, but consensus doesn't dictate the existence of supposedly inalienable rights. If Americans are as dumb as they seem, I don'tr trust 90% of them to decide who's rights trump others.

No person has an inalienable right to occupy the body of another person, forcibly extract the entirety of its nourishment from that person's bloodstream, and inject that person with bodily waste and hormores without that person's explicit consent.

Unless they are there by the explict actions of the person whose body they occupy, and by no choice of their own.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

What practical reason is there for granting any human rights denied to another human? You say there's a consensus that supports such a policy, but consensus doesn't dictate the existence of supposedly inalienable rights. If Americans are as dumb as they seem, I don'tr trust 90% of them to decide who's rights trump others.

No person has an inalienable right to occupy the body of another person, forcibly extract the entirety of its nourishment from that person's bloodstream, and inject that person with bodily waste and hormores without that person's explicit consent.

It's funny, the pro-life crowd that horribly misuses Biology to support their cause. If they understood some of the simpler, more common definitions of relationships between organisms, they would realize that Biology classifies a fetus as a parasite.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks
As to the second point, do you believe a woman whose life is in danger should be able to abort her fetus?

Life, not lifestyle, yes.

So when it comes down to it, the mother's life has more worth than the unborn baby and when her life is in danger, the baby must die so that the mother may live?

I see it more as a logical deduction, but ultimately yes.

If the mother's life is in danger, someone is going to die. If we must decide who dies, I would agree that the mother's life is paramount.

Is that not still murder? We don't know that the mother will die after all, it's just a precaution. If the fetus is a full person with all the rights we give to humans, how can you justify killing it just on the possibility that the mother will die?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

My argument is that I don't support McCain because I honestly think he'll actually do anything about abortion. I support him because he disagrees with the procedure out of principle, which Obama does not.

Effectiveness is secondary to me.

So you are subordinating all of your other issues to the issue of abortion based upon the idea that McCain has a principle on it that you share. You are doing this while freely admitting that he will do nothing to change it. He will take no action to fix this problem.

This is mind boggling to me. There are a million other issues that presidents can and will affect, ones they will actually act upon. You are choosing one that you know they won't and basing your whole decision on it.

I don't see it with respect to any issue. I see it as a prerequisite to my paying attention to you as a serious presidential contender.

For me, it's like saying, "I'm in favor of welfare reform, and paying $1,000,000 annually to Atreus21 because he's super awesome. And by the way, I eat human liver with my coffee every morning." If you don't have a basic set of values, it doesn't matter what your other positions are, because the foundation from which you extrapolate those positions is suspect.

Incidentally, when you refer to all of my other issues, abortion is really my only one. It's the only issue about which I'm certain I'm right. Most other issues, namely capital punishment, I puss out on.

so it doesn't bother you that these "moral issues" are nothing more than fodder for political candidates to get the brainless to vote?

Most people that actually pay attention to politics know that the elected don't give a damn about these issues--especially abortion--and that they are simply hot button issues to draw out the rednecks and illiterates to vote. No pro-life candidate has done a single thing that will overturn Roe V Wade, and fundamentally, it is Un-American to reverse progressive thinking.

This is why even the most patriotic fundamentalist candidates will not overturn a decision that speaks to the heart of the American constitution: freedom of choice. and the infrastructure in place will not allow such a disastrous event to occur.

Bush signed the act banning partial-birth abortions in 2003. That's a pretty good start for me.

Freedom of choice is protected by the constitution. Freedom to choose to murder is not.

Un-American? I thought liberals thought patriotism was a tool of manipulation.

Nationalism is a tool of manipulation; not patriotism. Try not to intentionally mince words.

You also assume that abortion is murder, and it clearly is not.

I find it strange that the majority of laymen will accept the medical definition of life as "presence of brain activity." Perfectly acceptable to many when the decision to pull the plug is made, or when someone is lost in surgery, after an accident, or normal death. Perfectly fine for most.

Real, measurable brain activity does not occur until the end of the THIRD TRIMESTER. This may be shocking to you, but those on your side of consistently spread the same misinformation, and false interpretation of actual research on this subject for years. here's a good link for you.
http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
It should be clear enough, with citations, for the un-medically inclined to read

This type of activity, in development, is the same activity when lost, that is universally accepted as the sign of "death." Now, why can the vast majority of laymen accept one sign of non-life in a previously living person, and interpret the exact same absence (as a fetus) as some sort of sign of life?

Sure, it's easy when one misinterprets medical research and spins it to support unfounded views; but when faced with the actual research, and the accepted medical standard, this argument that the pro-life clinic-bombers use for their "moral" view is completely discredited. It's truly mind boggling that people can make such logical distortions over such a sensitive issue.

For the last time, we're not searching for the beginning of life, but the beginning of humanity. Cells are inherently alive, human or not.

If a baby at some point becomes human, then any unnecessary killing of the baby after the point of humanity is murder. Therefore, if humanity begins at conception, any unnecessary abortion is murder.

That's the logical argument. I don't know that I agree if humanity begins at conception or not.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't support it ultimately. For the moment, I'm in favor of any measure that serves to curb access to abortions (assuming the mother's life is not at risk). I don't expect all-at-once that abortion be outlawed. Any step in the right direction is a step I support.

How do you feel about the fact that the legality of abortion appears to have little to no effect on the amount of abortions done, with the primary change being the death of more mothers?

I'd like to see evidence of a million american abortions a year prior to Roe v. Wade.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks
As to the second point, do you believe a woman whose life is in danger should be able to abort her fetus?

Life, not lifestyle, yes.

So when it comes down to it, the mother's life has more worth than the unborn baby and when her life is in danger, the baby must die so that the mother may live?

I see it more as a logical deduction, but ultimately yes.

If the mother's life is in danger, someone is going to die. If we must decide who dies, I would agree that the mother's life is paramount.

Is that not still murder? We don't know that the mother will die after all, it's just a precaution. If the fetus is a full person with all the rights we give to humans, how can you justify killing it just on the possibility that the mother will die?

We also don't know that killing in self-defense saved the life of the defender.

If it's a reasonable expectation that the mother will die upon childbirth, I don't consider it murder to abort the child. Necessary killing isn't murder.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't support it ultimately. For the moment, I'm in favor of any measure that serves to curb access to abortions (assuming the mother's life is not at risk). I don't expect all-at-once that abortion be outlawed. Any step in the right direction is a step I support.

How do you feel about the fact that the legality of abortion appears to have little to no effect on the amount of abortions done, with the primary change being the death of more mothers?

I'd like to see evidence of a million american abortions a year prior to Roe v. Wade.

Don't know about that but here's something:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

Published: October 12, 2007
ROME, Oct. 11 ? A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

My argument is that I don't support McCain because I honestly think he'll actually do anything about abortion. I support him because he disagrees with the procedure out of principle, which Obama does not.

Effectiveness is secondary to me.

So you are subordinating all of your other issues to the issue of abortion based upon the idea that McCain has a principle on it that you share. You are doing this while freely admitting that he will do nothing to change it. He will take no action to fix this problem.

This is mind boggling to me. There are a million other issues that presidents can and will affect, ones they will actually act upon. You are choosing one that you know they won't and basing your whole decision on it.

I don't see it with respect to any issue. I see it as a prerequisite to my paying attention to you as a serious presidential contender.

For me, it's like saying, "I'm in favor of welfare reform, and paying $1,000,000 annually to Atreus21 because he's super awesome. And by the way, I eat human liver with my coffee every morning." If you don't have a basic set of values, it doesn't matter what your other positions are, because the foundation from which you extrapolate those positions is suspect.

Incidentally, when you refer to all of my other issues, abortion is really my only one. It's the only issue about which I'm certain I'm right. Most other issues, namely capital punishment, I puss out on.

so it doesn't bother you that these "moral issues" are nothing more than fodder for political candidates to get the brainless to vote?

Most people that actually pay attention to politics know that the elected don't give a damn about these issues--especially abortion--and that they are simply hot button issues to draw out the rednecks and illiterates to vote. No pro-life candidate has done a single thing that will overturn Roe V Wade, and fundamentally, it is Un-American to reverse progressive thinking.

This is why even the most patriotic fundamentalist candidates will not overturn a decision that speaks to the heart of the American constitution: freedom of choice. and the infrastructure in place will not allow such a disastrous event to occur.

Bush signed the act banning partial-birth abortions in 2003. That's a pretty good start for me.

Freedom of choice is protected by the constitution. Freedom to choose to murder is not.

Un-American? I thought liberals thought patriotism was a tool of manipulation.

Nationalism is a tool of manipulation; not patriotism. Try not to intentionally mince words.

You also assume that abortion is murder, and it clearly is not.

I find it strange that the majority of laymen will accept the medical definition of life as "presence of brain activity." Perfectly acceptable to many when the decision to pull the plug is made, or when someone is lost in surgery, after an accident, or normal death. Perfectly fine for most.

Real, measurable brain activity does not occur until the end of the THIRD TRIMESTER. This may be shocking to you, but those on your side of consistently spread the same misinformation, and false interpretation of actual research on this subject for years. here's a good link for you.
http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
It should be clear enough, with citations, for the un-medically inclined to read

This type of activity, in development, is the same activity when lost, that is universally accepted as the sign of "death." Now, why can the vast majority of laymen accept one sign of non-life in a previously living person, and interpret the exact same absence (as a fetus) as some sort of sign of life?

Sure, it's easy when one misinterprets medical research and spins it to support unfounded views; but when faced with the actual research, and the accepted medical standard, this argument that the pro-life clinic-bombers use for their "moral" view is completely discredited. It's truly mind boggling that people can make such logical distortions over such a sensitive issue.

For the last time, we're not searching for the beginning of life, but the beginning of humanity. Cells are inherently alive, human or not.

If a baby at some point becomes human, then any unnecessary killing of the baby after the point of humanity is murder. Therefore, if humanity begins at conception, any unnecessary abortion is murder.

That's the logical argument. I don't know that I agree if humanity begins at conception or not.

there's the big if. remember that conception doesn't guarantee life. the one major consensus is that humanity indeed does not occur at conception.

I would think you define humanity as a further development from life, which makes sense, no? Not only a rational being, but a rational, fully-mobile individual capable of interacting in our community-driven species. Briefly, here is what Wiki says:

Humanity is the human species, human nature (e.g.compassion, altruism) and the human condition (the totality of experience of existing as a human). It is also the study of one branch of the humanities, academic disciplines which study the human condition using analytic, critical, or speculative methods.

To even engage in rather complex concepts such as compassion or altruism, one needs to be a functioning member of society. I assume that birth would be a pre-requisite for this activity.

I'm reading you last comment as an attempt to define humanity as an all-reaching, pre-life meta-concept. Perhaps this wasn't your intent, but that's how I understood it.

There is no if "humanity occurs before conception," because it clearly does not. So you use that as a basis for logic, then state that your not sure if you believe that that is the case. Fair enough, though I'm not sure why you would choose to go this route?

So, based on a pretty well-established concept of humanity, it seems that your logical argument supporting abortion as murder is now null and void, no?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't support it ultimately. For the moment, I'm in favor of any measure that serves to curb access to abortions (assuming the mother's life is not at risk). I don't expect all-at-once that abortion be outlawed. Any step in the right direction is a step I support.

How do you feel about the fact that the legality of abortion appears to have little to no effect on the amount of abortions done, with the primary change being the death of more mothers?

I'd like to see evidence of a million american abortions a year prior to Roe v. Wade.

Don't know about that but here's something:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

Published: October 12, 2007
ROME, Oct. 11 ? A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely.

I wish they'd show the numbers of the countries they were talking about.

I don't think eskimo or anyone will be able to find any statistics whatsoever about abortions prior to 1973 because I doubt there are any to be found. All I can assume is that laws prohibiting something have *some* effect on the frequency of occurrence. If we legalized murder, I suspect the rate of murders would climb.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't support it ultimately. For the moment, I'm in favor of any measure that serves to curb access to abortions (assuming the mother's life is not at risk). I don't expect all-at-once that abortion be outlawed. Any step in the right direction is a step I support.

How do you feel about the fact that the legality of abortion appears to have little to no effect on the amount of abortions done, with the primary change being the death of more mothers?

I'd like to see evidence of a million american abortions a year prior to Roe v. Wade.

that's kind of like asking evidence for God. There probably weren't millions per year, but there were many. Of course, owing to abortions illegality at the time, there are no records. That's the point of Roe v Wade. Abortion was an underground activity, highly illegal, and desperate women were forced to rely on sub-standard practices. It can be argued that far more were killed pre-Roe v Wade. Of course, one would have to accept that abortion is not murder. I do, because I accept the scientific and medical opinions on life, which clearly suggest that a fetus is not what we commonly consider a living human.

Therefore, far more lives have been saved due to Roe v Wade.