Abortion

[palerider]

Not really the same. First off - under the penal code, I've given up my rights when I committed a crime.

Actually, you only give up your rights after you recieve due process of the law. Can you explain why an innocent shouldn't recieve due process, the same as you?

Second - you still can't take my body and force me to submit to medical experiments for example. What is taken is my freedom or my life, not my rights to my body.

Show me in the constitution any "rights" to your body. I can show you a right to live, and a right to due process. But I just can't find anyting in there about rights to your body. Our founding documents do place all rights secondary to the right to live, however.

 

[top gun]

Not even the supreme court had the audacity to pretend to know such a thing!

The truth is ALL human beings undergo the SAME process of development.

NO EXCEPTIONS.

At the point of conception, a distinct human being is formed. And in that distinctness lies the complete nature and potential of a human being.

No one's saying they don't. It's a matter of at what stage in that process is the development too advanced for a woman to choose abortion. You say never... I say as the law currently recognizes.

Look... abortion is not a thing that should be taken lightly but it also isn't something that should be illegal either. Hopefully as birth control methods get more advanced the need for abortions will drop dramatically. That would be my hope.

 

[Coyote]

Actually, you only give up your rights after you recieve due process of the law. Can you explain why an innocent shouldn't recieve due process, the same as you?

I think I already lost that argument. But I will say - the law does not yet recognize a fetus as a person with full legal protections. Until that happens, it's moot.

Show me in the constitution any "rights" to your body. I can show you a right to live, and a right to due process. But I just can't find anyting in there about rights to your body. Our founding documents do place all rights secondary to the right to live, however.

I think the right to Liberty implies a right to my body.

How exactly do you find that they meant all rights are secondary to the right to live? Just because that is the order in which it is said in one sentance of the constitution that implies that it is in that order of importance? Seriously.

 

[palerider]

There is a distinction and a reality that all no-choice advacates need to recognise.

There is a chain, unfortunately you don't recognize it because to do so would tear down any defense of your position.

First... while there's a chain of life that possibly can end up as a born child it also can and does quite frequently end up in miscarriage and even still born births. Pregnancy to term is not a "certain" thing at all in nature.

Miscarriages and even still born births are natural deaths. If we are lucky, we all die of natural deaths rather than at the hands of a hired killer. Life itself is not certain, but being torn limb from limb is.

The second thing is that being the case... you cannot stop abortion. You can make it more dangerous for the woman. You can make it more unfair and dangerous for women of lesser means that can't afford to travel to have an abortion and hence have to take much more risky methods. But you cannot stop abortion... at least not by legislation.

You can not stop murder by making it against the law. You can not stop assault by making it against the law. You can not stop arson by making it against the law. You can not stop theft by making it against the law. Why do you suppose we have any law on the books because we can't stop any behavior by making it against the law. Law isn't really about stopping anything but punishing those who do what society has deemed unacceptable.

Suggesting that a thing be left legal because some will go ahead and do it anyway is one of the weakest of arguments.

Abortions have been around since the dawn of pregnancy.

So have other forms of killing. And your point is?

You know there was a time when some women even killed themselves to avoid having a child.

People have killed themselves to avoid all sorts of things. And your point is?

No reasonable person would want to see these draconian times return again. We are far to advanced for that. It won't be long with new technology until surgical abortion won't even have to exist. A simple medication will be all that is needed.

Killing innocents because they are less than convenient isn't draconian? We have advanced so far that a woman can simply kill a child because it is going to put a crimp in her style? And do you think it matters whether we kill a child by tearing it apart of by poisoning it?

As I've said before Big Brother cannot dictate what a woman does in the scope of an abortion. It's not a matter of the woman owning the fetus... the fetus at that stage is actually a part of her growing toward separation.

Big brother can't dictate to anyone what they can do in the scope of anything if they are determined to do it. The law is to provide punishment for those who go ahead and do it anyway.

The child is never a part of its mother's body. If you are going to use biology in your argument, it would be best if you understood it. If your position is based in part on your faulty understanding of developmental biology, then your position is flawed.

And I would not take any hope on any Supreme Court outlawing choice. No-choice advocates seriously had better watch what they wish for. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that on a straight up and down vote a right for a women to chose would win and could be legislated. Maybe that is what will have to happen to finally put this issue to bed. [/COLOR]

Right. And there was a time when folks confidently claimed that the law would never acknowledge that blacks were human beings with rights the same as anyone else as well. And you know as well as I that abortion on demand would not pass in even the most liberal state.

 

[numinus]

There is a distinction and a reality that all no-choice advacates need to recognise.

First... while there's a chain of life that possibly can end up as a born child it also can and does quite frequently end up in miscarriage and even still born births. Pregnancy to term is not a "certain" thing at all in nature.

Can someone kill you now for the same reason that no one is sure you would be alive tomorrow?

Absurd, isn't it?

[The second thing is that being the case... you cannot stop abortion. You can make it more dangerous for the woman. You can make it more unfair and dangerous for women of lesser means that can't afford to travel to have an abortion and hence have to take much more risky methods. But you cannot stop abortion... at least not by legislation.

But the thing is, no one is arguing against abortion if the mother's life is in danger.

Right to live vs. Right to live.

No other right can supersede anyone's right to live.

[Abortions have been around since the dawn of pregnancy. You know there was a time when some women even killed themselves to avoid having a child. No reasonable person would want to see these draconian times return again. We are far to advanced for that. It won't be long with new technology until surgical abortion won't even have to exist. A simple medication will be all that is needed.

No reasonable person would want to see an individual ARROGATE for himself/herself the ABSOLUTE right over another human being.

Talk about draconian!

[As I've said before Big Brother cannot dictate what a woman does in the scope of an abortion. It's not a matter of the woman owning the fetus... the fetus at that stage is actually a part of her growing toward separation.

When speaking about a HUMAN LIFE, is there any other IMPERATIVE other than 'THOU SHALL NOT KILL'?

[And I would not take any hope on any Supreme Court outlawing choice. No-choice advocates seriously had better watch what they wish for. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that on a straight up and down vote a right for a women to chose would win and could be legislated. Maybe that is what will have to happen to finally put this issue to bed.

Nobody is talking about outlawing choice.

The conclusion is that LIFE is indefeasible by CHOICE. It has always been like this. That is why legislating abortion is UNPRECEDENTED.

 

[palerider]

I think I already lost that argument. But I will say - the law does not yet recognize a fetus as a person with full legal protections. Until that happens, it's moot.

So long as you recognize that an injustice is being carried out.

I think the right to Liberty implies a right to my body.

Did you note that the right to liberty comes AFTER the right to live? It is second because without the right to live, the right to liberty is meaningless. Ask any aborted child. Oh, sorry, you can't ask them because they were denied the very right to live.

How exactly do you find that they meant all rights are secondary to the right to live? Just because that is the order in which it is said in one sentance of the constitution that implies that it is in that order of importance? Seriously.

Very seriously!! The language in which the founding documents was written was, and is, legal in nature. In the law when items are written in a list, the list, by definition, places the things in order of importance. In this case, it is self evident. Of what value would your right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness be if you had no right to live?

 

[top gun]

numinus;17265]

When speaking about a HUMAN LIFE, is there any other IMPERATIVE other than 'THOU SHALL NOT KILL'?

I am soooo glad you brought this up.

The hypocrisy of grab bag religious principle to try and force one groups will over another. I'm sure if you are serious about "religious" principle being part of your argument you steadfastly stand by all scripture in the Bible and not just what's convenient at the time in an attempt to impose "your" personal wants & desires???

I have no problem believing God is like beauty... it's in the eye of the beholder.

However... religion on the other hand is a proven sham, in many cases a self proven sham. As if that were not enough of a problem even after that people pick and choose what to believe out of that compounding to the "sham" factor.

Anyone know of anyone who does any of this on religious grounds...

We would not allow women into a church for 33 days after giving birth to a male child and 66 days after giving birth to a female child. (Leviticus 12:4-5)

We would not eat pork, lobster, shrimp, clams or crab meat. (Leviticus 11:7,12)

We would execute people for having affairs. (Leviticus 20:10)

Add that to the crazy train of the clergy in child sex abuse scandals and even if one could somehow extrapolate out why, that of all things, God would allow this to be perpetrated by his chosen representatives... you still couldn't trust the church because you'd never know if the representative was good or bad!

Religion is soooooo obviously a man made response to fear of the unknown that has been perverted so many times over history just to benefit certain power brokers... it's not even arguable.

Let's let the individual women decide and face their own consequences in the "afterlife' because government control mixed with evangelical hypocrisy are a pact that's surly to lead only to hell!

 

[top gun]

palerider;17264]There is a chain, unfortunately you don't recognize it because to do so would tear down any defense of your position.

That's exactly what I did. I said there was a chain. That has no effect on the reality of the situation as it pertains removing a women's control over what's going on in her own body. Your only argument is on religious grounds which I fully addressed my opinions on in my recent reply to numinus. It's just faulty & controlling logic my friend.

Miscarriages and even still born births are natural deaths. If we are lucky, we all die of natural deaths rather than at the hands of a hired killer. Life itself is not certain, but being torn limb from limb is.

Once again only a religious argument desperately trying to connect the differences between unborn bioplast & fetal circumstances and try to extrapolate that out to an individual that's been born. Nature itself creates the very same end reality you are railing against.

You can not stop murder by making it against the law. You can not stop assault by making it against the law. You can not stop arson by making it against the law. You can not stop theft by making it against the law. Why do you suppose we have any law on the books because we can't stop any behavior by making it against the law. Law isn't really about stopping anything but punishing those who do what society has deemed unacceptable.

Again you are mixing oranges and apples (both are fruit... but still different).

Suggesting that a thing be left legal because some will go ahead and do it anyway is one of the weakest of arguments.

Not my suggestion. I was just trying to bring the reality of the situation home.

So have other forms of killing. And your point is?

I can go that way if you want. Then all killing for any reason is to be outlawed. No death penalty. No war involvement under any circumstance. If killing is wrong it's wrong as an absolute. To religiously try and pick and choose what "killing" is acceptable to you and then attempt to dictate to others your will upon them is unfortunate and of course wrong.

People have killed themselves to avoid all sorts of things. And your point is?

Again trying very hard to get you to open your eyes to the reality on the ground. The desparate need for a safe option for millions of women.

And here's another interesting circumstance. Believing what you say in it's entirety you are saying that if a bioplast or fetus were to cause the death of the mother... then that bioplast or fetus is a murderer. I'm willing to bet you'll say the sword doesn't cut both ways.

Killing innocents because they are less than convenient isn't draconian? We have advanced so far that a woman can simply kill a child because it is going to put a crimp in her style? And do you think it matters whether we kill a child by tearing it apart of by poisoning it?

And again we disagree on your symbolic words that attempt to make all things the same. And when you're not busy doing that you tighten your blinders and say abortion is all about "crimping style" and nothing else. There are many reasons... and you're well aware of it. And since we aren't mind readers (at least I'm not) you have to leave the option open.

Big brother can't dictate to anyone what they can do in the scope of anything if they are determined to do it. The law is to provide punishment for those who go ahead and do it anyway.

And in this case they obviously should stay out of it all together as an individual decision not to be infringed on by government.

The child is never a part of its mother's body. If you are going to use biology in your argument, it would be best if you understood it. If your position is based in part on your faulty understanding of developmental biology, then your position is flawed.

Nice try... the bioplast or fetus cannot live outside of the host. If you prefer parasite over "part of" then that would be your choice. I prefer part of.

Right. And there was a time when folks confidently claimed that the law would never acknowledge that blacks were human beings with rights the same as anyone else as well. And you know as well as I that abortion on demand would not pass in even the most liberal state.

And yet again... the oranges to apples defense.

Well no... the fact is the majority of people in the United States do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

MEDIAMATTERS
FOR AMERICAN

A Gallup poll conducted June 24-26 found that nearly two-thirds of respondents want a new Supreme Court justice who would vote to uphold Roe. Gallup asked: "If one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices retired, would you want the new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion -- or vote to uphold it? "Sixty-five percent responded, "Vote to keep it," while 29 percent responded, "Vote to overturn."

 

[palerider]

That's exactly what I did. I said there was a chain. That has no effect on the reality of the situation as it pertains removing a women's control over what's going on in her own body. Your only argument is on religious grounds which I fully addressed my opinions on in my recent reply to numinus. It's just faulty & controlling logic my friend.[/COLOR]

Actually, I never bring religion into this discussion. If I couldn't defeat any argument you can make with logic and the law, I wouldn't bother to enter the discussion.

Once again only a religious argument desperately trying to connect the differences between unborn bioplast & fetal circumstances and try to extrapolate that out to an individual that's been born. Nature itself creates the very same end reality you are railing against.

What are you talking about. Exactly how does pointing out that misscariages are natural deaths equal a religious argument? If a child dies before it is born due to natural causes, then it is no different than if you die before you live out your life expectancy. You must be really desperate if you are trying to make a religious argument out of a human being's natural life span vs a human being's life being cut short deliberately.

Again you are mixing oranges and apples (both are fruit... but still different).

You made the claim that we would not be able to stop abortion by making it illegal. I pointed out that we can't stop anything by making it illegal. Sorry if you don't understand analogy, but the one you are responding to is not a comparison of apples and oranges.

When you realize that your logic is failing, do you always turn to completely irrational arguments in an attempt to confuse the issue?

Not my suggestion. I was just trying to bring the reality of the situation home.

You seemed to be suggesting that there was no point in making abortion illegal because some women would do it anyway? If that was not your point, why did you make the statement? The reality is that nothing can be stopped by making it against the law but we have laws anyway.

I can go that way if you want. Then all killing for any reason is to be outlawed. No death penalty. No war involvement under any circumstance. If killing is wrong it's wrong as an absolute. To religiously try and pick and choose what "killing" is acceptable to you and then attempt to dictate to others your will upon them is unfortunate and of course wrong.

Again, you fail to understand even the basics. Your all or nothing attitude completely ignores the facts. People only get the death penalty after they have exausted their rights within the legal system. They get multiple opportunities to prove thier innocence. In short, they get due process. Unborns do not. By the same token, going to war is the result of the legal process. My argument is not based in religion and any attempt by you to make it into a religious argument is going to fail. My position is based in the law and iron clad logic.

You were doomed to lose this one as soon as you engaged me. It is becoming evident that you have brought a knife to an intellecutal gun fight.

Again trying very hard to get you to open your eyes to the reality on the ground. The desparate need for a safe option for millions of women.

A safe way to kill thier children? Is that what you are suggesting. That everything will be ok if they have a safe way to kill their children. Get a real argument. That is like arguing that all would be well for arsonists if there was just a safe way for them to start fires. This discussion is about stopping the killing, not providing a safe way to do it.

And here's another interesting circumstance. Believing what you say in it's entirety you are saying that if a bioplast or fetus were to cause the death of the mother... then that bioplast or fetus is a murderer. I'm willing to bet you'll say the sword doesn't cut both ways.

I have repeated over and over that if the mother's life or long term health is in danger, she has every right to defend her life by terminating the pregnancy. You have the right to defend your life even if the one who is threatening you is not doing so with any intent. So what was the bet for and where do I pick up my winnings?

And again we disagree on your symbolic words that attempt to make all things the same. And when you're not busy doing that you tighten your blinders and say abortion is all about "crimping style" and nothing else. There are many reasons... and you're well aware of it. And since we aren't mind readers (at least I'm not) you have to leave the option open.

Give me a couple of reasons that don't involve the mother's life or long term health that don't amount to convenience.

And in this case they obviously should stay out of it all together as an individual decision not to be infringed on by government.

Are you arguing that killing another human bieng for whatever reason you chose is just an individual decision and the government should butt out, or only when this particular group decides to kill members of that particular group. If you can't put together an argument that applies equally to all human beings, then you are no different than all the others in history who had what they claimed were valid reasons for killing millions of "them".

Nice try... the bioplast or fetus cannot live outside of the host. If you prefer parasite over "part of" then that would be your choice. I prefer part of.

Unborns are not parasites either. Should I list half a dozen specific biological reasons that they aren't? Words mean what they mean and if you find that you can't form a coherent argument using words properly, then it is your argument that is wanting, not the words. If you are going to use biology to support your argument, then you should take some time to learn the biology.

Unborns are neither part of their mothers nor are they parasites.

And yet again... the oranges to apples defense.

Explain the logic by which you arive at that conclusion.

Well no... the fact is the majority of people in the United States do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

The only way to get those results in a poll now, and since the roe decision is to not offer the option of termination if the mother's life or long term health is in danger. When polls offer the option of terminating a pregnancy if the mother's life or health are in danger, then the numbers vastly favor overturning roe. If you are here, you should be mature enough to realize that poll numbers are worthless because you can get whatever results you want by manipulating the questions.

 

[Coyote]

So long as you recognize that an injustice is being carried out.

I agree that under our current laws allowing virtually unrestricted abortion that yes - a grave injustice is being carried out.

When it comes to a fertalized egg and the Pill...no...

 

[top gun]

palerider;17337]Actually, I never bring religion into this discussion. If I couldn't defeat any argument you can make with logic and the law, I wouldn't bother to enter the discussion.

But that's actually what you're doing in a vialed sort of way. You're bringing in moral values. And if you want to go by the law... abortion has been legal for decades now.

And to address another previous point comparing slavery as a bad legal rendering and comparing that to Roe v. Wade I would submit that the injustice like slavery was the older more primitive law that Roe overturned.

What are you talking about. Exactly how does pointing out that misscariages are natural deaths equal a religious argument? If a child dies before it is born due to natural causes, then it is no different than if you die before you live out your life expectancy. You must be really desperate if you are trying to make a religious argument out of a human being's natural life span vs a human being's life being cut short deliberately.

No... I'm saying death is part of life in nature. The consequence of a miscarriage and and abortion are the same. Some possible opportunity at life has not succeeded. When you put "moral" trappings on how that happens then you are going off into some religious direction.

You made the claim that we would not be able to stop abortion by making it illegal. I pointed out that we can't stop anything by making it illegal. Sorry if you don't understand analogy, but the one you are responding to is not a comparison of apples and oranges.

I understood what you said and in my opinion that's just plain comparing two completely different things. You can allow a woman control over their own body and everything therein and still have laws for crimes committed by an adult. The two are not mutually exclusive.

When you realize that your logic is failing, do you always turn to completely irrational arguments in an attempt to confuse the issue?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You seemed to be suggesting that there was no point in making abortion illegal because some women would do it anyway? If that was not your point, why did you make the statement? The reality is that nothing can be stopped by making it against the law but we have laws anyway.

I don't believe I am limited to a single reason why abortion should remain legal and why I feel it serves the greater good. I think there are many reasons. The inability to ever enforce is of some note I think.

Again, you fail to understand even the basics. Your all or nothing attitude completely ignores the facts. People only get the death penalty after they have exausted their rights within the legal system. They get multiple opportunities to prove thier innocence. In short, they get due process. Unborns do not. By the same token, going to war is the result of the legal process. My argument is not based in religion and any attempt by you to make it into a religious argument is going to fail. My position is based in the law and iron clad logic.

You were doomed to lose this one as soon as you engaged me. It is becoming evident that you have brought a knife to an intellecutal gun fight.

When I was a boy there were some other boys that played a similar "mine is bigger game". But ironically in the showers at gym class it was painfully obvious that their bark was always much greater than their bite. A man needs to know his limitations my friend.

A safe way to kill thier children? Is that what you are suggesting. That everything will be ok if they have a safe way to kill their children. Get a real argument. That is like arguing that all would be well for arsonists if there was just a safe way for them to start fires. This discussion is about stopping the killing, not providing a safe way to do it.

There you go again. If something is going to be done to ones own body (or anything therein) then I would prefer the safest proceedure for the woman involved.

I have repeated over and over that if the mother's life or long term health is in danger, she has every right to defend her life by terminating the pregnancy. You have the right to defend your life even if the one who is threatening you is not doing so with any intent. So what was the bet for and where do I pick up my winnings?

Then your position is hypocritical my friend... because under the law you cannot defend that way. If someone is beating you almost to death but then breaks off the attack you cannot legally kill him for what he did or might resume. At anytime conditions might change for a pregnant woman. So what you'd be saying is... as the lady goes into final cardiac arrest or intense gross hemorrhaging ... then it's OK to do the abortion. (Please don't respond I'm sure you'd have some tricky time line you'd use just for abortion)

As far as the "bet"... The bet was that you would not agree that the bioplast or fetus was a murderer if a women died due to it.

Give me a couple of reasons that don't involve the mother's life or long term health that don't amount to convenience.

Mother is dieing of AIDS.
Mother is alcoholic and incapably of properly maintaining a child.
Mother is a drug addict ...................................................
Mother is a prostitute ....................................................
Mother is homeless.........................................................
Mother is a rape victim...................................................
Mother is a victum of incest.............................................
Mother is a battered woman.............................................
Mother has psychological problems....................................
Fetus is severely handicapped
Fetus is severely retarded
Fetus has a life threatening disease
I could go on forever...

Are you arguing that killing another human bieng for whatever reason you chose is just an individual decision and the government should butt out, or only when this particular group decides to kill members of that particular group. If you can't put together an argument that applies equally to all human beings, then you are no different than all the others in history who had what they claimed were valid reasons for killing millions of "them".

No I'm saying you are trying hard to lump all things into one basket calling it the same thing and saying because you believe it we all must believe it. I don't... most people don't... and neither does the law of the land.

Unborns are not parasites either. Should I list half a dozen specific biological reasons that they aren't? Words mean what they mean and if you find that you can't form a coherent argument using words properly, then it is your argument that is wanting, not the words. If you are going to use biology to support your argument, then you should take some time to learn the biology.

Allow me...

Is a Fetus Part of a Woman's Body?
Yesterday's Best of the Web Today expressed puzzlement about the difference between a "baby" and a "fetus." Andrew Coulson of The Ganteloupe wrote in to offer an answer:

Many supporters of abortion rights consider self-ownership to be the most elementary and inviolable right of all: We are all the owners of our own bodies. The difference between a fetus and an infant is that a fetus is a part of a pregnant woman's body whereas an infant is not. Libertarians do not want the very visible hand of government rooting around in women's uteruses, telling them what they can or can't do with any fetuses that happen to reside there. Any rights of a fetus are secondary because its existence is secondary to (and until late in the pregnancy, entirely dependent on) the woman in whose womb it is located.

par·a·site Pronunciation[par-uh-sahyt]
noun: an organism that lives on or in an organism, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

The only way to get those results in a poll now, and since the roe decision is to not offer the option of termination if the mother's life or long term health is in danger. When polls offer the option of terminating a pregnancy if the mother's life or health are in danger, then the numbers vastly favor overturning roe. If you are here, you should be mature enough to realize that poll numbers are worthless because you can get whatever results you want by manipulating the questions.

I get it... it's the old WOW I sure hate that poll... OK then polls don't mean anything defense. Very good.

 

[palerider]

I agree that under our current laws allowing virtually unrestricted abortion that yes - a grave injustice is being carried out.

When it comes to a fertalized egg and the Pill...no...

There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg". There is an egg which is of no more importance than your toenail clippings or there is a human being which is of exactly the same importance as any of the rest of us.

 

[palerider]

But that's actually what you're doing in a vialed sort of way. You're bringing in moral values. And if you want to go by the law... abortion has been legal for decades now.

No. That is exactly what I am not doing. I know that you would rather argue against religion than icy logic, but if that is the argument you want, you are going to have to find it somewhere else.

Stick to the words I use and what I say. If I mean to say something other than what I write, I will write something different.

And to address another previous point comparing slavery as a bad legal rendering and comparing that to Roe v. Wade I would submit that the injustice like slavery was the older more primitive law that Roe overturned.

Submit all you like, but you will continue to be wrong. Slaves were considered to be less than human beings and therefore not worthy of the protection of the law. Their owners could kill them, or nurture them at thier slightest whim and the law allowed it because it considered them not to be human beings. There isn't a whit of difference between slavery and abortion. The fact that unborns are human beings is undeniable. Any law that allows them to be killed for any or no reason while protecting all other human beings is a miscarriage of the law. Protecting the lives of human beings doesn't make a slave out of anyone. It is the lack of protection that makes one vaulnerable to the whims of others.

No... I'm saying death is part of life in nature. The consequence of a miscarriage and and abortion are the same. Some possible opportunity at life has not succeeded. When you put "moral" trappings on how that happens then you are going off into some religious direction.

Of course they are the same. And the consequence of your dying of old age and dying today because a mugger puts a gun to your temple and pulls the trigger are exactly the same. Do you believe that the law that makes it a crime for the mugger to kill you is religious in nature and therefore not worthy of being on the books?

I understood what you said and in my opinion that's just plain comparing two completely different things. You can allow a woman control over their own body and everything therein and still have laws for crimes committed by an adult. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Human beings are human beings. If you separate a group out and deny them the protection of the law, and allow them to be killed on a whim, you are no different than any other figure in history who had reason to see a particular group persecuted to death.

If it is your opinion that I am comparing two completely different things, the onus falls upon you to demonstrate that you are something different than an unborn is besides older and more mature. Failure to do that renders your argument invalid. Law that protects the lives of some who are innocent of a crime that does not protect the lives of others that are innocent is, by definition, exculusive.

I have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]

Your whole "fruit" argument was flawed.

I don't believe I am limited to a single reason why abortion should remain legal and why I feel it serves the greater good. I think there are many reasons. The inability to ever enforce is of some note I think.

This particular reason, which most pro choicers list is the perfect example of the flawed logic upon which your position is based. If you are going to make an argument that a thing should remain illegal because some will break the law then you are arguing that no law is worth keeping because some will break it. The problem with your arguments is that they only apply to this particular group of human beings and such arguments are not valid. An argument that denies protection from one group is no different than the arguments that denied protection to blacks here, to gypsys in russia, to jews in europe, and any other case in which one group found that they did not have the protection of the law while other groups did. If your arguments don't apply equally to everyone, then they are pointless. There is no difference between an ageist argument and a racist argument.

When I was a boy there were some other boys that played a similar "mine is bigger game". But ironically in the showers at gym class it was painfully obvious that their bark was always much greater than their bite. A man needs to know his limitations my friend.

We aren't in the shower room, we are here and your arguments are failing on every level. Your arguments are ageist in nature and sound exactly like the arguments that racists made when there was talk of giving blacks the protection of the law. If you want to prove that "yours is bigger" here, then you are going to have to come up with an argument that is orders of magnitude better than the tired old debunked crap you are spewing.

There you go again. If something is going to be done to ones own body (or anything therein) then I would prefer the safest proceedure for the woman involved.

The flaw in this argument is that it is not the woman's body that is being torn apart. Your premise is false. You are completely dishonest. You are asking for the safest way possible for the woman to have another's body torn to pieces.

If you want to argue pro choice, why not just be honest. Why not simply state that you favor women being allowed to kill another, completely innocent, human being for any or no reason at all. Is it because the truth is just a bit too distasteful for you?

Then your position is hypocritical my friend... because under the law you cannot defend that way. If someone is beating you almost to death but then breaks off the attack you cannot legally kill him for what he did or might resume. At anytime conditions might change for a pregnant woman. So what you'd be saying is... as the lady goes into final cardiac arrest or intense gross hemorrhaging ... then it's OK to do the abortion. (Please don't respond I'm sure you'd have some tricky time line you'd use just for abortion)

There is nothing hypocritical in my position as it applies equally to every human being. You, on the other hand are a blatant hypocrit as you want to offer the protection of the law to some but not others.

Learn something. We aren't living in the 18th century any more. Medical technology recognizes risky pregnancies long before they seriously threaten the mother. If a pregnany is threatening the mother's life, then the child isn't attacking and then backing off. In fact, the child has no intent at all which renders your argument invalid again. A medical board can identify risk factors and make recomendations long before the woman's life is in danger.

I can tell you before you step off a tall building that it is very dangerous to your health to do so. There is no need for me to wait until you have fallen 35 floors to measure your speed and test the hardness of the sidewalk to tell you that you are going to die and recommend that you shouldn't have jumped.

Your entire position is based on flawed logic, misunderstood biology, and bad analogies. Is this deliberate on your part in which case, learning something might change your position, or is this a series of deliberate deceptions on your part?

As far as the "bet"... The bet was that you would not agree that the bioplast or fetus was a murderer if a women died due to it.

Murder requires intent. Are you saying that an unborn has intent? Either way, you lose. What were we betting?

Mother is dieing of AIDS.
Mother is alcoholic and incapably of properly maintaining a child.
Mother is a drug addict ...................................................
Mother is a prostitute ....................................................
Mother is homeless.........................................................
Mother is a rape victim...................................................
Mother is a victum of incest.............................................
Mother is a battered woman.............................................
Mother has psychological problems....................................
Fetus is severely handicapped
Fetus is severely retarded
Fetus has a life threatening disease
I could go on forever...

Convenience - n. - 1. the quality of being convenient 2. anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc 3. a convenient situation or time 4. advantage or accommodation

You can go on forever but would just be listing reasons that amount to convenience. The reasons you list that aren't conveniences are the result of terribly flawed logic or blatant hypocricy. If mom is the victim of rape or incest, why is the child put to death instead of the rapist? And since you suggest killing children who are retarded or handicapped, do you advocate going around killing all who are retarded or handicapped,or just those who belong to this particular group?

There is one valid reason to kill another human being without the due process of the law and that is if your life or long term health is being threatened. Any other reason amounts to convenience.

I will get to the rest of this later.

 

[Coyote]

There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg". There is an egg which is of no more importance than your toenail clippings or there is a human being which is of exactly the same importance as any of the rest of us.

I would disagree. You showed me old text book quotes (I believe...?) on that, but I disagree.

An egg is an egg.
When a sperm enters it - it is fertilized.
It is then a fertilized egg.

As they say...a rose is a rose by any other name.

I submit, and still do to your logic that it is a human being. No question about that.

But not a person yet. And it is that which makes it have value - more value then a toenail clipping or my dog. And yes, there is no clear line of demarcatin, yet - no definitive answer. But I look at a fertilized egg and see nothing but potential. Is it a unique life form in the making? Yes. What gives it any sort of "right to life"? Our law. But our law does not give it rights over the rights of the person carrying it. Why? Perhaps because it recognizes that not all humans are equal or CAN be equal just as not all life forms are equal or CAN be equal.

A child does not have the same rights as an adult. Rights do come and change with development - that's evident in the law now and through out history.

 

[palerider]

I would disagree. You showed me old text book quotes (I believe...?) on that, but I disagree.

An egg is an egg.
When a sperm enters it - it is fertilized.
It is then a fertilized egg.

When fertilization is complete, the egg no longer exists as an egg.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc (fertilized egg) is not used in this book."
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

But not a person yet. And it is that which makes it have value - more value then a toenail clipping or my dog. And yes, there is no clear line of demarcatin, yet - no definitive answer. But I look at a fertilized egg and see nothing but potential. Is it a unique life form in the making? Yes. What gives it any sort of "right to life"? Our law. But our law does not give it rights over the rights of the person carrying it. Why? Perhaps because it recognizes that not all humans are equal or CAN be equal just as not all life forms are equal or CAN be equal.

Since you can't even define what personhood is adequately to yourself, you are saying that you just hope that we aren't killing actual persons since you have no idea when personhood happens. And clearly, what you see is irrelavent to the reality of what it is. Most folks couldn't tell the difference under a microscope of a living skin cell and a zygote but it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

Once again, you are doing what all of the great monsters of the past have done in stating that all humans aren't equal, or that all are equal but some are more equal than others. A rose by any other name, as you say.

A child does not have the same rights as an adult. Rights do come and change with development - that's evident in the law now and through out history.

Children have the same rights but not the same privledges. The only right a child does not have would be second amendment rights which are clearly enumerated in the law. I don't advocate privledges to the unborn, just basic human rights that apply to all of us human beings EXCEPT them.

Keep trying, you may get something to stick to the wall yet.