If they are concerned about women's rights and the target of the abortion is female, what about the rights of THAT woman?
Hmm?
Hmm?
You know the pro-death crowd can only justify their argument by telling you the victim isn't human. It's just a "clump of cells," even at 7 months.
Edit: I should clarify. I only consider the "pro-death" crowd as a subset of pro-choice. These are people who completely ignore the viability of a child in their arguments for abortion, where "pro-choice" folks might simply support first trimester abortions.
I read through a lot, but not all, of this thread. I'm amazed that people are argueing over this.
C'mon guys.... we're talking about an eight month old who in most cases could live on its own outside of the womb once it had a chance! We're not talking about a blob of cells, we're talking about a completely developed baby (ok.. the lungs probably could use another couple weeks.. but otherwise developed). If the mother's life were actually at risk if the baby is delivered, then how is it less risky to dialte her for a couple of days, probe around up in her with forceps and then deliver the baby anyway? IT'S STILL BEING DELIVERED... ONLY DEAD!
And if it is retarded... are you guys saying that retarded people have no right to live? Again, we aren't talking about someone that isn't viable outside the womb in most of these cases, we're talking about someone that could live if given the chance. You guys are putting the value of a retarded person as being equal with that of a cyst or a tumor. Do you REALLY believe that?
Joe
C'mon guys.... we're talking about an eight month old who in most cases could live on its own outside of the womb once it had a chance! We're not talking about a blob of cells, we're talking about a completely developed baby (ok.. the lungs probably could use another couple weeks.. but otherwise developed). If the mother's life were actually at risk if the baby is delivered, then how is it less risky to dialte her for a couple of days, probe around up in her with forceps and then deliver the baby anyway? IT'S STILL BEING DELIVERED... ONLY DEAD!
And if it is retarded... are you guys saying that retarded people have no right to live? Again, we aren't talking about someone that isn't viable outside the womb in most of these cases, we're talking about someone that could live if given the chance. You guys are putting the value of a retarded person as being equal with that of a cyst or a tumor. Do you REALLY believe that?
Joe
"Abortion is advocated only by persons who themselves have been born."
--Ronald Reagan
You should be happy that no one decided whether or not you should be born based on some purported condition. When you get down to it, every person has some genetic flaws that may or may not lead to whatever malady. It was Hitler's goal to weed out genetic maladies using eugenic practices. Margaret Sanger said he had the right idea, but that he should have started with the unborn rather than adults. Now, her company (Planned Parenthood) is the single largest provider of abortions worldwide.
In other words, you have a choice to say that you would rather be dead than retarded. If you were born retarded, I guarantee you would not think so. What you're suggesting is eugenics.
"Abortion is advocated only by persons who themselves have been born."
--Ronald Reagan
"Criminalizing abortion is advocated only by people weren't aborted."
--Moonbeam
Why is life sacred? What is wrong with killing an unwanted fetus? We don't have any control over whether we conceive so why enslave yourself to that? Abortion is just late term contraception for persons whose religion is utility. What gives one religion the right to impose its views on another? Show me the proof that life has any meaning. Pro life is a text based religion that favors the child before the mother. Pro abortion is a secular religion of utility that favors the mother above the child. You practice your religion and let them practice theirs. They are not telling you that you must abort. Pro life is a mental illness based on irrational emotional feeling. Nobody is going to attempt to cure you, but please don't make it law.
--Ronald Reagan
"Criminalizing abortion is advocated only by people weren't aborted."
--Moonbeam
Why is life sacred? What is wrong with killing an unwanted fetus? We don't have any control over whether we conceive so why enslave yourself to that? Abortion is just late term contraception for persons whose religion is utility. What gives one religion the right to impose its views on another? Show me the proof that life has any meaning. Pro life is a text based religion that favors the child before the mother. Pro abortion is a secular religion of utility that favors the mother above the child. You practice your religion and let them practice theirs. They are not telling you that you must abort. Pro life is a mental illness based on irrational emotional feeling. Nobody is going to attempt to cure you, but please don't make it law.
Honestly, you bring up many good ideas, but your whole rhetoric about 'we don't choose to conceive' is complete and utter BS. Over 99.9% of all abortions are due to non-rape conceptions. These women CHOSE to have sex. If they conceived, then it is due to their CHOICE. They had the right to choose and they used it. Why should another human being suffer this decision?
If 'human life has no value' is your real argument, then you must be for legalization of murder, plain and simple. If my opinions are based on such irrationality, why can't you refute the basic principles on which it is founded? Instead, you try to abstract away the problem as a dissembler.
I didn't read this enitire thread, but just wanted to add something. I believe in this thread or another someone stated that John Kerry was against PBAs but voted against the ban because it didn't factor cases when the health of the mother is concerned. Someone (was it you Cyclo?) said that that id never the case. Wrong. What if the woman during pregancy is in some type of car crash, and by other means is in a coma, has internal bleeding from the placenta, or other injuries. Or has an unknown advancedstage cancer or diabetes. There are cases where the procedure could be useful.
If Kerry gets voted into office, he will legalize partial birth abortion, homosexual marriages, and marijuana.
Be afrain.....be very afraid!!!!!! Oh oh oh no no no no no..............
You sir are talking out of your hat.
Voting against a particular bill does not, I repeat, does NOT, neccessarily mean you are entirely against it.
No spin needed. What's needed is full context.
No spin needed. What's needed is full context.
It also account for what? .05% of abortions.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
late term abortion is already illegal. it is just a bs political issue
CW: Honestly, you bring up many good ideas, but your whole rhetoric about 'we don't choose to conceive' is complete and utter BS.
M: Obviously choosing to have sex is not the same as choosing to have a baby. Lots of people want sex but not the burden of child rearing, especially at ill-opportune times for being a decent 2 parent family.
CW: Over 99.9% of all abortions are due to non-rape conceptions. These women CHOSE to have sex. If they conceived, then it is due to their CHOICE. They had the right to choose and they used it.
M: If they conceived and didn't want to it isn't a choice at all. It is an accident of nature that can happen only to half of humanity. Women we don't want having children are also out there out of emotional need allowing themselves to be used by men. I know, that is their fault too. They had the same chances in life to be responsible as you. Right. And obviously if they chose to get pregnant and have a baby they wouldn't be seeking an abortion, now would they. Pregnancy is often an unintended consequence of the desire to have sex. We didn't choose to have that desire and we didn't get to choose our emotional development and personal responsibility. We don't choose even if we are acquainted with the basic facts of life. You place this horrible cross on women because you have a religious belief.
CW: Why should another human being suffer this decision?
M: Here you commit the logical fallacy of assuming your premise is true. You call murder what others see as terminating the development of an unwanted accident. Religious dogma vs utility. And what is wrong with the murder of unconscious life. A zygote and an amoeba are consciously identical. You kill billions of those when you boil your camp wanter. This whole thing is all about emotional feelings.
CW: If 'human life has no value' is your real argument, then you must be for legalization of murder, plain and simple.
M: Yes, but it is already legal. We kill fetuses and we kill certain criminals.
CW: If my opinions are based on such irrationality, why can't you refute the basic principles on which it is founded? Instead, you try to abstract away the problem as a dissembler.
M: Well I have forgotten what they are, I'm sorry to say. Would you be so good as to paste them for me here again in perhaps a succinct fashion describing what I seem to have missed? Sorry but what to you may be a basic principle may not appear that way to me. Not trying to be smart but don't want to have to wade through everything to figure out what exactly you mean. Meanwhile I'll reread your early stuff to see if that's maybe what you mean.
M: Obviously choosing to have sex is not the same as choosing to have a baby. Lots of people want sex but not the burden of child rearing, especially at ill-opportune times for being a decent 2 parent family.
CW: Over 99.9% of all abortions are due to non-rape conceptions. These women CHOSE to have sex. If they conceived, then it is due to their CHOICE. They had the right to choose and they used it.
M: If they conceived and didn't want to it isn't a choice at all. It is an accident of nature that can happen only to half of humanity. Women we don't want having children are also out there out of emotional need allowing themselves to be used by men. I know, that is their fault too. They had the same chances in life to be responsible as you. Right. And obviously if they chose to get pregnant and have a baby they wouldn't be seeking an abortion, now would they. Pregnancy is often an unintended consequence of the desire to have sex. We didn't choose to have that desire and we didn't get to choose our emotional development and personal responsibility. We don't choose even if we are acquainted with the basic facts of life. You place this horrible cross on women because you have a religious belief.
CW: Why should another human being suffer this decision?
M: Here you commit the logical fallacy of assuming your premise is true. You call murder what others see as terminating the development of an unwanted accident. Religious dogma vs utility. And what is wrong with the murder of unconscious life. A zygote and an amoeba are consciously identical. You kill billions of those when you boil your camp wanter. This whole thing is all about emotional feelings.
CW: If 'human life has no value' is your real argument, then you must be for legalization of murder, plain and simple.
M: Yes, but it is already legal. We kill fetuses and we kill certain criminals.
CW: If my opinions are based on such irrationality, why can't you refute the basic principles on which it is founded? Instead, you try to abstract away the problem as a dissembler.
M: Well I have forgotten what they are, I'm sorry to say. Would you be so good as to paste them for me here again in perhaps a succinct fashion describing what I seem to have missed? Sorry but what to you may be a basic principle may not appear that way to me. Not trying to be smart but don't want to have to wade through everything to figure out what exactly you mean. Meanwhile I'll reread your early stuff to see if that's maybe what you mean.
PBA would not be the solution in this case. PBA (or DX or wtf ever you want to call it) requires delivering the baby after a two-day-long procedure. It is not an emergency procedure. It is much less time-consuming and stressful to have a C-section or deliver the baby via induced labor than to perform DX.
Wrong.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
late term abortion is already illegal. it is just a bs political issue
Axes are probably only used in about 0.05% of murders. We should allow axe murders. :roll:
Your entire premise (we want to have a good time via sex, but don't want to accept any personal responsibility for this action) is contrary to the rule of law. I might choose to get liquored up and go drive around. I intended to drive drunk, not to kill anyone, so I shouldn't be prosecuted for killing someone.
Actions have consequences. If you cannot or will not accept the consequences, the law dictates that you do not perform the action. If you perform the action, you accept the consequences.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
PBA would not be the solution in this case. PBA (or DX or wtf ever you want to call it) requires delivering the baby after a two-day-long procedure. It is not an emergency procedure. It is much less time-consuming and stressful to have a C-section or deliver the baby via induced labor than to perform DX.
Wrong.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
late term abortion is already illegal. it is just a bs political issue
Axes are probably only used in about 0.05% of murders. We should allow ax murders. :roll:
Your entire premise (we want to have a good time via sex, but don't want to accept any personal responsibility for this action) is contrary to the rule of law. I might choose to get liquored up and go drive around. I intended to drive drunk, not to kill anyone, so I shouldn't be prosecuted for killing someone.
Actions have consequences. If you cannot or will not accept the consequences, the law dictates that you do not perform the action. If you perform the action, you accept the consequences.
1. I do not spend a lot of time worrying about being ax murdered.
2. What is the legal consequence for killing a fetus. That's right there is none. What is the legal consequences for driving drunk. That's right, there is a legal price. Again your arguments always assume the premise that abortion is murder. It isn't murder as you well know. You have an irrational need to link two things that aren't linked except in your irrational feelings.
I should probably mention that I feel pretty much just like you. But because I am male I will never have a need for abortion. I can tell you though that all things being equal I would probably have enough sense not to get pregnant if I didn't want. But hypothetically, I would not choose to abort because I feel it is wrong for me personally. All life is sacred.
But I don't know that on the basis of a belief or have an argument to prove it as you seem to claim to, so I play devil's advocate to see if you are willing to go where I went, to know that all thoughts are essentially meaningless and that the truth is somewhere else. Also I love you because I see something in you seeking the light.
M: I do not spend a lot of time worrying about being ax murdered.
CW: Does that mean we should allow it? I don't spend any time about myself being aborted, either. I believe that laws aren't made for my protection only, but for the protection of everyone.
M: What is the legal consequence for killing a fetus. That's right there is none. What is the legal consequences for driving drunk. That's right, there is a legal price.
CW: The argument is whether or not there should be a legal punishment for this action, so saying that it's currently legal is totally irrelevant.
M: I should probably mention that I feel pretty much just like you. But because I am male I will never have a need for abortion. I can tell you though that all things being equal I would probably have enough sense not to get pregnant if I didn't want. But hypothetically, I would not choose to abort because I feel it is wrong for me personally. All life is sacred. But I don't know that on the basis of a belief or have an argument to prove it as you seem to claim to, so I play devil's advocate to see if you are willing to go where I went, to know that all thoughts are essentially meaningless and that the truth is somewhere else.
CW: I believe that we, as impartial observers (those who would never be forced to make this terrible decision in either direction), can possibly have more expansive ideas, since we are freed from the physical, mental, and emotional worries regarding the procedure. As such, we can independently discuss the ethics of the situation without having our own rights or bodies threatened in any way. I'm not suggesting that a woman's opinion is any lesser in this regard, only that our own thought are free from the irrationalities that a woman might be prone to in this area.
As far as the truth, none of us knows the truth. This is why I ask us to err on the side of caution. This has long been my position, and after reading several reports from panels of experts who have discussed prenatal rights, they have all arrived at the same conclusion: there may be some difference between a zygote and a full human being, but any distinction made between the two will always be arbitrary. One example that I've used before is available here.
Just a brief excerpt from that brief excerpt:
CW: Does that mean we should allow it? I don't spend any time about myself being aborted, either. I believe that laws aren't made for my protection only, but for the protection of everyone.
M: What is the legal consequence for killing a fetus. That's right there is none. What is the legal consequences for driving drunk. That's right, there is a legal price.
CW: The argument is whether or not there should be a legal punishment for this action, so saying that it's currently legal is totally irrelevant.
M: I should probably mention that I feel pretty much just like you. But because I am male I will never have a need for abortion. I can tell you though that all things being equal I would probably have enough sense not to get pregnant if I didn't want. But hypothetically, I would not choose to abort because I feel it is wrong for me personally. All life is sacred.
But I don't know that on the basis of a belief or have an argument to prove it as you seem to claim to, so I play devil's advocate to see if you are willing to go where I went, to know that all thoughts are essentially meaningless and that the truth is somewhere else. CW: I believe that we, as impartial observers (those who would never be forced to make this terrible decision in either direction), can possibly have more expansive ideas, since we are freed from the physical, mental, and emotional worries regarding the procedure. As such, we can independently discuss the ethics of the situation without having our own rights or bodies threatened in any way. I'm not suggesting that a woman's opinion is any lesser in this regard, only that our own thought are free from the irrationalities that a woman might be prone to in this area.
As far as the truth, none of us knows the truth. This is why I ask us to err on the side of caution. This has long been my position, and after reading several reports from panels of experts who have discussed prenatal rights, they have all arrived at the same conclusion: there may be some difference between a zygote and a full human being, but any distinction made between the two will always be arbitrary. One example that I've used before is available here.
Just a brief excerpt from that brief excerpt:
I freely admit that I, nor apparently anyone, can absolutely ascertain the mental or moral condition of an embryo before 14 days after fertilization (the deadline suggested by this particular committee for use in research). I am merely protesting the fact that some people dismiss the possibility that it is a person. For myself, I can no more condone terminating such a life in this case than I could a person in a coma when it has not yet been determined whether or not this person were in a persistent vegetative state. Until we can be sure of personhood, we should always err on the side of life rather than personal liberty.
M: I do not spend a lot of time worrying about being ax murdered.
CW: Does that mean we should allow it? I don't spend any time about myself being aborted, either. I believe that laws aren't made for my protection only, but for the protection of everyone.
M: But I have told you that you place the cart before the horse and argue your point on the basis that it is already true when, in fact it is your premise and conclusion that are in dispute. Look at "but for the protection of everyone". You say a fetus is a somebody and others say it is not. If it is not your argument is blown.
--------------------------------
M: What is the legal consequence for killing a fetus. That's right there is none. What is the legal consequences for driving drunk. That's right, there is a legal price.
CW: The argument is whether or not there should be a legal punishment for this action, so saying that it's currently legal is totally irrelevant.
M: Again, you argue as if what you want is already true. You compare an illegal act with a legal one and claim my argument is the one that is irrelevant. You can't compare what is illegal with what should be. You have not made the case that what you think should be illegal should be illegal in the eyes of the law. It is legal and that is where we are at. It is not like drunk driving which apparently is of such a definitively should be illegal nature that it actually is. Abortion should NOT be illegal and therefore must NOT carry a penalty like drunk driving. And so thinks the law. Your should feeling is irrational.
-------------------------
M: I should probably mention that I feel pretty much just like you. But because I am male I will never have a need for abortion. I can tell you though that all things being equal I would probably have enough sense not to get pregnant if I didn't want. But hypothetically, I would not choose to abort because I feel it is wrong for me personally. All life is sacred. But I don't know that on the basis of a belief or have an argument to prove it as you seem to claim to, so I play devil's advocate to see if you are willing to go where I went, to know that all thoughts are essentially meaningless and that the truth is somewhere else.
CW: I believe that we, as impartial observers (those who would never be forced to make this terrible decision in either direction), can possibly have more expansive ideas, since we are freed from the physical, mental, and emotional worries regarding the procedure. As such, we can independently discuss the ethics of the situation without having our own rights or bodies threatened in any way. I'm not suggesting that a woman's opinion is any lesser in this regard, only that our own thought are free from the irrationalities that a woman might be prone to in this area.
M: Nonsense in my opinion. The corpus callosum, the neural pathways that allow the two hemispheres to communicate are thicker in women. This should allow them to make much better holistic decisions than men. And I can't imagine an area where men are more riled up. It is men who make all the noise and heat about abortion from where I listen. Your statement sounds incredibly chauvinistic.
CW: As far as the truth, none of us knows the truth.
M: In a room full of blind people who can see recognize who they are.
CW: This is why I ask us to err on the side of caution. This has long been my position, and after reading several reports from panels of experts who have discussed prenatal rights, they have all arrived at the same conclusion: there may be some difference between a zygote and a full human being, but any distinction made between the two will always be arbitrary. One example that I've used before is available here.
M: Yes on the side of caution. Do not bring an unwanted child into the world and f*ck it over. Again you presume that what you call caution is caution. One cannot arrive at truth by a show of hands. What do the experts in China have to say and aren't there a lot more of them? Judgment is purely subjective.
There is no truth and there is no meaning to life. There is no such thing as caution or anything to feel cautious about unless your views on abortion are a matter of faith, which I assured you they clearly are. But not everybody has your faith. If there is anything to be cautious about it's injecting your faith into law. You might not like mine and I might be the majority.
CW: Does that mean we should allow it? I don't spend any time about myself being aborted, either. I believe that laws aren't made for my protection only, but for the protection of everyone.
M: But I have told you that you place the cart before the horse and argue your point on the basis that it is already true when, in fact it is your premise and conclusion that are in dispute. Look at "but for the protection of everyone". You say a fetus is a somebody and others say it is not. If it is not your argument is blown.
--------------------------------
M: What is the legal consequence for killing a fetus. That's right there is none. What is the legal consequences for driving drunk. That's right, there is a legal price.
CW: The argument is whether or not there should be a legal punishment for this action, so saying that it's currently legal is totally irrelevant.
M: Again, you argue as if what you want is already true. You compare an illegal act with a legal one and claim my argument is the one that is irrelevant. You can't compare what is illegal with what should be. You have not made the case that what you think should be illegal should be illegal in the eyes of the law. It is legal and that is where we are at. It is not like drunk driving which apparently is of such a definitively should be illegal nature that it actually is. Abortion should NOT be illegal and therefore must NOT carry a penalty like drunk driving. And so thinks the law. Your should feeling is irrational.
-------------------------
M: I should probably mention that I feel pretty much just like you. But because I am male I will never have a need for abortion. I can tell you though that all things being equal I would probably have enough sense not to get pregnant if I didn't want. But hypothetically, I would not choose to abort because I feel it is wrong for me personally. All life is sacred.
But I don't know that on the basis of a belief or have an argument to prove it as you seem to claim to, so I play devil's advocate to see if you are willing to go where I went, to know that all thoughts are essentially meaningless and that the truth is somewhere else. CW: I believe that we, as impartial observers (those who would never be forced to make this terrible decision in either direction), can possibly have more expansive ideas, since we are freed from the physical, mental, and emotional worries regarding the procedure. As such, we can independently discuss the ethics of the situation without having our own rights or bodies threatened in any way. I'm not suggesting that a woman's opinion is any lesser in this regard, only that our own thought are free from the irrationalities that a woman might be prone to in this area.
M: Nonsense in my opinion. The corpus callosum, the neural pathways that allow the two hemispheres to communicate are thicker in women. This should allow them to make much better holistic decisions than men. And I can't imagine an area where men are more riled up. It is men who make all the noise and heat about abortion from where I listen. Your statement sounds incredibly chauvinistic.
CW: As far as the truth, none of us knows the truth.
M: In a room full of blind people who can see recognize who they are.
CW: This is why I ask us to err on the side of caution. This has long been my position, and after reading several reports from panels of experts who have discussed prenatal rights, they have all arrived at the same conclusion: there may be some difference between a zygote and a full human being, but any distinction made between the two will always be arbitrary. One example that I've used before is available here.
M: Yes on the side of caution. Do not bring an unwanted child into the world and f*ck it over. Again you presume that what you call caution is caution. One cannot arrive at truth by a show of hands. What do the experts in China have to say and aren't there a lot more of them? Judgment is purely subjective.
There is no truth and there is no meaning to life. There is no such thing as caution or anything to feel cautious about unless your views on abortion are a matter of faith, which I assured you they clearly are. But not everybody has your faith. If there is anything to be cautious about it's injecting your faith into law. You might not like mine and I might be the majority.
M: But I have told you that you place the cart before the horse and argue your point on the basis that it is already true when, in fact it is your premise and conclusion that are in dispute. Look at "but for the protection of everyone". You say a fetus is a somebody and others say it is not. If it is not your argument is blown.
CW: Actually, my argument (that we cannot determine whether or not it is a somebody) is unaffected whether or not it is a somebody. Instead, the importance is that we err on the side of caution - that we treat it as if it were somebody, since we cannot determine either way for sure.
--------------------------------
M: Again, you argue as if what you want is already true. You compare an illegal act with a legal one and claim my argument is the one that is irrelevant. You can't compare what is illegal with what should be. You have not made the case that what you think should be illegal should be illegal in the eyes of the law. It is legal and that is where we are at. It is not like drunk driving which apparently is of such a definitively should be illegal nature that it actually is. Abortion should NOT be illegal and therefore must NOT carry a penalty like drunk driving. And so thinks the law. Your should feeling is irrational.
CW: Actually, laws in all 50 states still outlaw abortion. Instead, a court decision changed what is acceptable and what is not. Really, to get down to it further, I need to type up the rest of my 'definition of a person' argument that I had with myself. I'll try to do that tomorrow.
-------------------------
M: Nonsense in my opinion. The corpus callosum, the neural pathways that allow the two hemispheres to communicate are thicker in women. This should allow them to make much better holistic decisions than men. And I can't imagine an area where men are more riled up. It is men who make all the noise and heat about abortion from where I listen. Your statement sounds incredibly chauvinistic.
CW: As I mentioned before, this makes it obvious that you've never been to a rally regarding abortion on either side. Males tend to stay out of it. You can call this position chauvinistic, but I apply it broadly. For example, I lend less credence to someone who wants X for Y simply because they happen to be affected by Y. I lend much more credence to someone who is unaffected by Y but still believes X is the right thing to do. This is because they are not motivated by selfish interests.
--------------------------------------------------
M: Yes on the side of caution. Do not bring an unwanted child into the world and f*ck it over. Again you presume that what you call caution is caution. One cannot arrive at truth by a show of hands. What do the experts in China have to say and aren't there a lot more of them? Judgment is purely subjective.
There is no truth and there is no meaning to life. There is no such thing as caution or anything to feel cautious about unless your views on abortion are a matter of faith, which I assured you they clearly are. But not everybody has your faith. If there is anything to be cautious about it's injecting your faith into law. You might not like mine and I might be the majority.
CW: I presume nothing other than that the right to life must supersede any and all other rights in any civil society. If it presumes to displace the right to life from a human that may or may not be a person, then it presumes to do so if that human IS a person. Since no determination can be made either way, society must accord the most fundamental right to any human.
You presume that any child is unwanted, yet millions are waiting for this 'unwanted child' to adopt it. Parents may have borne unwanted children, yet they are not free to kill them. Why is there a distinction here at the very moment of birth? Moreso, in the case of this type of abortion, the distinction is made after 90% of the birth has already occurred - how can you rationalize this? A mere moment more and the human would be completely outside the mother and could readily be given up for adoption, thus no longer being 'unwanted.'
You presume that there is no truth and no meaning of life. However, if I broadly apply this statement, then there is no basis for the rule of law. If there is no truth, then no action is contrary to that truth, thus all actions must be allowed.
---------------------------
I'll try to get the rest of that stuff typed up for tomorrow. Gotta finish this program up tonight. :x
CW: Actually, my argument (that we cannot determine whether or not it is a somebody) is unaffected whether or not it is a somebody. Instead, the importance is that we err on the side of caution - that we treat it as if it were somebody, since we cannot determine either way for sure.
--------------------------------
M: Again, you argue as if what you want is already true. You compare an illegal act with a legal one and claim my argument is the one that is irrelevant. You can't compare what is illegal with what should be. You have not made the case that what you think should be illegal should be illegal in the eyes of the law. It is legal and that is where we are at. It is not like drunk driving which apparently is of such a definitively should be illegal nature that it actually is. Abortion should NOT be illegal and therefore must NOT carry a penalty like drunk driving. And so thinks the law. Your should feeling is irrational.
CW: Actually, laws in all 50 states still outlaw abortion. Instead, a court decision changed what is acceptable and what is not. Really, to get down to it further, I need to type up the rest of my 'definition of a person' argument that I had with myself. I'll try to do that tomorrow.
-------------------------
M: Nonsense in my opinion. The corpus callosum, the neural pathways that allow the two hemispheres to communicate are thicker in women. This should allow them to make much better holistic decisions than men. And I can't imagine an area where men are more riled up. It is men who make all the noise and heat about abortion from where I listen. Your statement sounds incredibly chauvinistic.
CW: As I mentioned before, this makes it obvious that you've never been to a rally regarding abortion on either side. Males tend to stay out of it. You can call this position chauvinistic, but I apply it broadly. For example, I lend less credence to someone who wants X for Y simply because they happen to be affected by Y. I lend much more credence to someone who is unaffected by Y but still believes X is the right thing to do. This is because they are not motivated by selfish interests.
--------------------------------------------------
M: Yes on the side of caution. Do not bring an unwanted child into the world and f*ck it over. Again you presume that what you call caution is caution. One cannot arrive at truth by a show of hands. What do the experts in China have to say and aren't there a lot more of them? Judgment is purely subjective.
There is no truth and there is no meaning to life. There is no such thing as caution or anything to feel cautious about unless your views on abortion are a matter of faith, which I assured you they clearly are. But not everybody has your faith. If there is anything to be cautious about it's injecting your faith into law. You might not like mine and I might be the majority.
CW: I presume nothing other than that the right to life must supersede any and all other rights in any civil society. If it presumes to displace the right to life from a human that may or may not be a person, then it presumes to do so if that human IS a person. Since no determination can be made either way, society must accord the most fundamental right to any human.
You presume that any child is unwanted, yet millions are waiting for this 'unwanted child' to adopt it. Parents may have borne unwanted children, yet they are not free to kill them. Why is there a distinction here at the very moment of birth? Moreso, in the case of this type of abortion, the distinction is made after 90% of the birth has already occurred - how can you rationalize this? A mere moment more and the human would be completely outside the mother and could readily be given up for adoption, thus no longer being 'unwanted.'
You presume that there is no truth and no meaning of life. However, if I broadly apply this statement, then there is no basis for the rule of law. If there is no truth, then no action is contrary to that truth, thus all actions must be allowed.
---------------------------
I'll try to get the rest of that stuff typed up for tomorrow. Gotta finish this program up tonight. :x
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter