Abortion

[palerider]

It is clear that izz is quite unable to defend his position in any rational way, so he has turned from discussion to insult.

 

[top gun]

IZZ your position is valid.

We can go down the path of "it's a growing human being" and that only leads us to even the birth control pill has to be illegal because it won't allow the egg after fertilization to implant in the womb.

The viability argument is much more rational and the long time opinion not just of you but also of The Supreme Court of the United States of America.

There is no law forcing a woman to be a baby incubator for the government and there shouldn't be.

It's unreasonable to say a woman cannot have a safe medical procedure and must use riskier and much more dangerous methods. A women has a right to privacy in here personal decisions about something going on inside her own body.

It's an imperfect world and abortion should be a last resort but that doesn't mean you just turn woman into slaves if they get pregnant.

A) Parents of Siamese Twins are often in the situation where one child will likely die so the other has a better chance at a more normal life after separation.

B) In cases like the well known Terri Schiavo case she was not able to live without outside life support (which is not nearly as intrusive as life support by carrying a fetus) the next of kin was allowed to make the judgment to end LIFE SUPPORT. In both cases their was no VIABILITY without life support.

C) And of course there is always the situation when there is a military draft in effect and the government is forcing some full grown adults into dieing against their very own spoken adult will.

D) And of course you have the death penalty. Many innocent people have been put to death by the death penalty and really guilt or innocence isn't even the main question. It's the killing.

And I could go on with many other real world examples...

Imperfect world. Real life personal situation. The allowance absolutely has to be given to the woman involved in this scenario.

 

[palerider]

IZZ your position is valid.

The position is not valid. It is based on a line of thought that suggests that it is OK to kill a human being who has not reached a certain level of development because that human being has not reached a certain level of development. The reasoning is circular and terribly flawed.

 

[Coyote]

Most of us here...except for Numinus...have decided that it is ok to kill a human being at some point or another, excluding self defense. We just have different criteria to justify it.

 

[Izz]

It is clear that izz is quite unable to defend his position in any rational way, so he has turned from discussion to insult.

*raises hand* apparently you missed the 'when you have to act as a house' memo. Dude....*looks down* last time I checked, I was from Venus. If that has any bearing on your idea of my 'insults' at all. Since, you know, I'm the one here who can bear a kid. Which gives a whole new meaning to this entire thing. I can take a gander at what your gender is, and thanks, for, you know, trying to make a choice about a biological process you are incapable of carrying out.

As for a valid arguement...when is this conversation ever valid? Each degree of change comes with each woman who makes the choice to have, or not have, a child. There is no one acceptable situation that you can stick in a nice, neat little filing cabinet. That's not how the world works. I'm sorry I'm not giving you surveys to battle, or information to debunk. It's an opinion, and as flawed as it might be, it's mine. Most unluckily for you, I can state it however I please.

 

[numinus]

Yes. She very well could have. But she didn't. At least, I don't think she did, since nineteen years later I'm still here. I could ask her, if you'd like me to. If you're asking me if I'd mind if my mother had an abortion, then your answer is no. Sorry.

I'm not asking you if you mind. I am demonstrating that a human being isn't a virus - hence shouldn't be treated as such.

As for suicide bombers- sure. Why not. They make the choice to detonate themselves. Is it a smart thing to do? No. Is is a pleasant thing to do? Certainly not. But you can't deny someone the right to kill themselves. Even if it's for a stupid reason.

Apparently, you failed to see the analogy.

Everyone else is OBLIGED to stop the suicide bomber since the act would kill OTHERS.

Same with abortion.

Clear?

As for limbo...it's not limbo, it's a very small college. Which is going to open up a slew of all sorts of terrible nonesense, I'm sure.

Might as well be limbo, judging from your reasoning. And you actually pay to get this sort of education?

Isn't a personal conclusion the same thing as an opinion? oO

Duh?

When your conclusions follow pre-determined logic, is it still an opinion?

E=mc^2 isn't einstein's opinion, is it?

 

[numinus]

No matter how "valid" and "accepted" your principles are, the conclusions you draw from them are still opinions. They may be fact-based opinions, but they're still opinions.

Sigh

When a conclusion LOGICALLY adheres to a valid and accepted principle, then such a conclusion is ALWAYS TRUE, hence isn't an opinion.

 

[palerider]

*raises hand* apparently you missed the 'when you have to act as a house' memo. Dude....*looks down* last time I checked, I was from Venus. If that has any bearing on your idea of my 'insults' at all. Since, you know, I'm the one here who can bear a kid. Which gives a whole new meaning to this entire thing. I can take a gander at what your gender is, and thanks, for, you know, trying to make a choice about a biological process you are incapable of carrying out.

Actually, being female doesn't give you any more authority on the subject than any man has. We are talking about killing human beings without legal consequence. Can you justify the practice or not? Being female does not give you a superior insight into whether or not it is ok to kill another human being for reasons that rarely amount to anything more than convenience.

As for a valid arguement...when is this conversation ever valid? Each degree of change comes with each woman who makes the choice to have, or not have, a child. There is no one acceptable situation that you can stick in a nice, neat little filing cabinet. That's not how the world works. I'm sorry I'm not giving you surveys to battle, or information to debunk. It's an opinion, and as flawed as it might be, it's mine. Most unluckily for you, I can state it however I please.

You make a choice whether to have, or not to have a child before you drop your panties. Since no means of birth control, at present, is 100% effective, each and every time you let down your drawers, you are taking a very real risk of getting pregnant.

And of course it is a very flawed opinion. That is why I spoke to it. An opinion that you can't defend intellectually is useless.

 

[numinus]

IZZ your position is valid.

We can go down the path of "it's a growing human being" and that only leads us to even the birth control pill has to be illegal because it won't allow the egg after fertilization to implant in the womb.

Human existence from CONCEPTION to death. What part of conception do you not understand, hmmm?

The viability argument is much more rational and the long time opinion not just of you but also of The Supreme Court of the United States of America.

That isn't the sc opinion in roe v wade.

Viability defines the point when THE STATE'S INTERVENTION BECOMES NECESSARY.

Just because (in the sc's view), legal intervention isn't possible DOES NOT invalidate the ETHICAL aspect of it.

There is no law forcing a woman to be a baby incubator for the government and there shouldn't be.

When a woman CONSENTS to have sex, the possibility of pregnancy - however small - exists.

Isn't that the cornerstone of the operation of free will - that the consequences of one's own actions should not harm others?

It's unreasonable to say a woman cannot have a safe medical procedure and must use riskier and much more dangerous methods. A women has a right to privacy in here personal decisions about something going on inside her own body.

An individual's right to privacy was never meant to deny others the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIVE. When your privacy threatens the life of another, a defenseless human being at that, then life certainly defeats privacy - ALWAYS.

It's an imperfect world and abortion should be a last resort but that doesn't mean you just turn woman into slaves if they get pregnant.

Correct. It becomes an option ONLY when the life of the mother is threatened to a certain degree of medical certainty.

A) Parents of Siamese Twins are often in the situation where one child will likely die so the other has a better chance at a more normal life after separation.

Bingo.

Life for life. Human life can never be made contingent on the CONVENIENCE of others.

B) In cases like the well known Terri Schiavo case she was not able to live without outside life support (which is not nearly as intrusive as life support by carrying a fetus) the next of kin was allowed to make the judgment to end LIFE SUPPORT. In both cases their was no VIABILITY without life support.

I find your opinions in this subject quite odious, to say the least.

The 'viability' of new born infants is just as indeterminate without the help of other human beings. Same can be said about a lot of infirm people.

The only thing similar in the cas of terri schiavo and unborn children is that their existence were subverted in the name of other people's CONVENIENCE.

C) And of course there is always the situation when there is a military draft in effect and the government is forcing some full grown adults into dieing against their very own spoken adult will.

What nonsense.

They are being called to DEFEND their own country through COMMON FORCE. That is EVERYONE'S obligation as members of the political association.

D) And of course you have the death penalty. Many innocent people have been put to death by the death penalty and really guilt or innocence isn't even the main question. It's the killing.

That's precisely why the death penalty is a contradiction.

And I could go on with many other real world examples...

And I could go on refuting your absurd reasoning.

Imperfect world. Real life personal situation. The allowance absolutely has to be given to the woman involved in this scenario.

I agree. A woman should be given whatever allowance and support by society to uphold her right to MOTHERHOOD.

One can no longer talk of human life as a 'choice' since the choice was made 9 months prior.

 

[Coyote]

One can no longer talk of human life as a 'choice' since the choice was made 9 months prior.

Sometimes it's not a "choice".

 

[numinus]

Sometimes it's not a "choice".

Let us be frank and admit that the large majority of abortion cases do not come from rape of any kind. Otherwise, the us would be seen as a nation of perverts.

And for the cases wherein rape is involved, the requirements of justice is to punish the perp, NOT to give an individual an absolute right over another human being.

It is that simple.

 

[Izz]

, NOT to give an individual an absolute right over another human being.

It is that simple.

Shouldn't the arguement here, then, be what constitutes a human being, not whether abortion is right or wrong? Or is there another thread for that equally pointless arguement?

As for an "opinion that cannot be supported intellectually is useless"...I hate to have to tell you that any opinion is valid. A belief is just as strong as a fact. Or, you know, we would have gotten rid of churches as soon as Science became a widely accepted thing.

As for "paying for this kind of education"...did I say I was a political science major? That's a friend of mine. I pay for an education that is, quite frankly, none of your business. And the education I am receiving currently has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter.

 

[numinus]

Shouldn't the arguement here, then, be what constitutes a human being, not whether abortion is right or wrong? Or is there another thread for that equally pointless arguement?

Correct. It boils down to a question of human existence.

The answer is inescapable - HUMAN EXISTENCE STARTS FROM CONCEPTION AND ENDS IN DEATH.

As for an "opinion that cannot be supported intellectually is useless"...I hate to have to tell you that any opinion is valid. A belief is just as strong as a fact. Or, you know, we would have gotten rid of churches as soon as Science became a widely accepted thing.

An opinion that is not based on facts nor logic is a FALLACY - hence INVALID.

As for "paying for this kind of education"...did I say I was a political science major? That's a friend of mine. I pay for an education that is, quite frankly, none of your business. And the education I am receiving currently has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter.

I have no intentions of prying exactly what you are studying, except to say that any education leading to a college degree involves a rudimentary training in logic.

 

[Coyote]

Let us be frank and admit that the large majority of abortion cases do not come from rape of any kind. Otherwise, the us would be seen as a nation of perverts.

That is why I said "sometimes".

And for the cases wherein rape is involved, the requirements of justice is to punish the perp, NOT to give an individual an absolute right over another human being.

Except - you ARE giving another person absolute right over another - no matter how you look at it. I can see in all other cases where by consenting to sex you are consenting to the risk of pregnancy (both he and she) and it's consequences and responsibilities.

But there is no consent in rape - only consequences. And those consequences can include loss of life, livelyhood, health. For both. And they are both innocent.

It is that simple.

Yes

 

[top gun]

numinus;28795]Human existence from CONCEPTION to death. What part of conception do you not understand, hmmm?

I don't believe anyone said it wasn't "life". The question is can one human being be mandated by the government to incubate another against her will. The United States Supreme Court... and I... say no they can't. The woman has control up and until viability. As it should be.

That isn't the sc opinion in roe v wade.

Viability defines the point when THE STATE'S INTERVENTION BECOMES NECESSARY.

Just because (in the sc's view), legal intervention isn't possible DOES NOT invalidate the ETHICAL aspect of it.

The necessity of the time the government can step in is the legal issue and the finding is what it is. Abortion is legal and the last time I checked that is the court of last resort..

When a woman CONSENTS to have sex, the possibility of pregnancy - however small - exists.

Isn't that the cornerstone of the operation of free will - that the consequences of one's own actions should not harm others?

A) It's not always consentual... and you and I can't ever prove that it ever is unless we are present.

B) Free will cuts both ways. You have the right to both privacy and your own body and anything therein. In the case of pregnancy that would be up to viability. And that makes perfect sense. You can't force someone to carry and deliver a child against their will. It never has worked. It never will work. You just want to punish the woman's health and safety because you don't agree with her own individual personal decision.

An individual's right to privacy was never meant to deny others the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIVE. When your privacy threatens the life of another, a defenseless human being at that, then life certainly defeats privacy - ALWAYS.

Correct. It becomes an option ONLY when the life of the mother is threatened to a certain degree of medical certainty.

I'm sorry but that's just not the case. If it were abortion would be illegal.

Life for life. Human life can never be made contingent on the CONVENIENCE of others.

It is with Siamese Twins when the choice is separation with a high likelihood one will die but the other will have a better life. Happens all the time. Parents are able to make that decision... not you, not me, not the government.

The only thing similar in the cas of terri schiavo and unborn children is that their existence were subverted in the name of other people's CONVENIENCE.

I'll take that to mean you understand they are the same, the result was the same, and you recognize that the next of kin had the legal standing.

What nonsense.

They are being called to DEFEND their own country through COMMON FORCE. That is EVERYONE'S obligation as members of the political association.

No my friend... that points out how inconsistent the anti-choice point of view is. You say it should absolutely be illegal for a woman to have an abortion or take the birth control pill for that matter because it kills off 2 living cells. But it's just hunky dory to force full grown adults that don't want to kill... to kill or be killed against their will. Come on... what kind of happy horse **** is that, seriously? Think about it.

This is obviously a "Physician heal thyself" moment...

That's precisely why the death penalty is a contradiction.

See there's hope. The very last line and we are in agreement!