Abortion

[palerider]

..thank you for that totally unnecessary soapbox moment.

You suggested that minds can not be changed. I merely pointed out that ONCE AGAIN, you are wrong.

 

[Popeye]

Of course minds can be changed. The minds of thinking people anyway. Ask coyote if minds can be changed. Check his position on the early debates on abortion and ask him is position now. He hasn't gotten over the rape issue yet, but give him time, he is a thinker and eventually will come to realize that it is just wrong to punish a child for the crimes of its father.

Give me a break, "minds can be changed", but only "thinking people."

By your definition, you're not much of a thinker, because you're about as stuck in your ways as they come.

There are thinking people on both sides of the abortion debate.

Pro choice=Free choice

 

[palerider]

Give me a break, "minds can be changed", but only "thinking people."

By your definition, you're not much of a thinker, because you're about as stuck in your ways as they come.

I did change my mind. There was a time when I didn't care one way or anotehr if women killed their children. I encountered someone who had a more powerful argument than mine so I started researching. The more I learned, the more ovbious it became that I was wrong. Being a thinking person, I had two options. I could hold on to my position even though I knew it was wrong, or I could adapt my position to reflect reality.

That is what thinking people do. Since you have been losing every point on this debate to me since you started it way back when, and you still hold to a losing position, it is clear that you are not a thinker, but one who is holding a position based on faith.

There are thinking people on both sides of the abortion debate.

Of course there are. You just aren't one of them. Coyote is one as his position has been swayed by a perponderance of the facts. He is not simply holding on to his faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Anyone who is swayed by fact is a thinker. Anyone who is not, is simply one of the faithful.

 

[Popeye]

I did change my mind. There was a time when I didn't care one way or anotehr if women killed their children.

you mean aborted a fetus?

]That is what thinking people do. Since you have been losing every point on this debate to me since you started it way back when, and you still hold to a losing position, it is clear that you are not a thinker, but one who is holding a position based on faith.

I didn't start this thread, I believe you did. As for holding a position "based on faith", that's more your area of expertise, as you hold the traditional religious view, no matter how much so called science you throw out to murky the waters.

Look, women have a right to decide what to do with their bodies. The Supreme Court agrees, citing the right to privacy. A woman is more than just a container for a fetus. Though you would wonder listening to pro lifers, such as yourself, as it's readily apparent the woman is considered secondary.

Then there's the theory that legal abortion reduces crime. Proponents of the theory generally argue that unwanted children are more likely to become criminals and that an inverse correlation is observed between the availability of abortion and subsequent crime. The numbers back this theory up, and it certainly makes sense.

Leaving everything else alone, were abortion to be made illegal, abortions wouldn't stop, they'd just wouldn't be as safe.

A couple of questions, what about in the cases where a woman is raped, or her life is in danger?

What about embryonic stem cell lines, you still putting cells in a petri dish above the lives of living breathing human beings?

 

[Coyote]

Of course minds can be changed. The minds of thinking people anyway. Ask coyote if minds can be changed. Check his position on the early debates on abortion and ask him is position now. He hasn't gotten over the rape issue yet, but give him time, he is a thinker and eventually will come to realize that it is just wrong to punish a child for the crimes of its father.

Yes, minds can be changed and yes my views have shifted considerably. That is the purpose of debate: to examine your own positions in light of others and they are either strengthened through the crucible or transformed.

However, I am of the XX gender - not a Y in my chromosomes. You might be thinking of Segep, who is Coyote on another board.

I do not think I will shift on the rape issue - I have been thinking hard on that one. While I personally - would not choose abortion in that case, I have no right to force that choice on anyone else.

 

[Coyote]

Call it absolute if you like, but the fact that the woman retains the right to defend her life if it is threatened is testament to the fact that the child does not have absolute rights over her. Emotional lament doesn't equal factual argument.

I am not talking about emotional lament...I'm not sure what you are getting at there...

Is your condition the result of my actions? Or perhaps, is there a third party who is responsible for your condition but for some reason or other you have decided that I should be punished?

Is a rape victim pregnant as the result of her actions?

 

[top gun]

It's like a perfect circle. No one can change anyone else's mind. So why do we try?

The wonderful thing about this is one side see things as they are.

The loosing side not being able to come to grips with the reality of the situation see things only as they might WISH it to be.

It's a self induced form of delusion.

I drive by planned Planned Parenthood Clinics everyday. System seems to be up and running just fine.

They must not go on political blogs for their legal instructions >>>>>>>

 

[Coyote]

No more of a nightmare than acknowledging anyone else's right to live.



Women have been charged and convicted for taking deliberate actions that threatened the life or health of their unborn child. It is no different than taking deliberate action that threatens the life or health of a child that has already been born. Reckless endangerment is reckless endangerment and a legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of those who are too weak to defend themselves.

Oh, by the way. Suggesting that mom becomes nothing more than maternal housing is no more, and no less than emotional handwringing.

Not really - because in this situation alone, a human being loses control of decisions regarding her body completely to another human being or group of human beings. I can't think of any other situation save for the situation of the fetus who appears to have rights to her body whether she wills it or not. I will bring up the issue of rape again because in that case - she is nothing more then a maternal housing if she did not voluntarily want to carry the pregnancy.

 

[top gun]

Celebrating Choice!

This month marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, and the 20th anniversary of R. v. Morgentaler, the Canadian Supreme Court decision that decriminalized abortion by striking down Canada's abortion law.

These court rulings made it possible for women to obtain safe, legal abortion care. Before abortions were legal in the U.S. and Canada, thousands of women jeopardized their health or died by seeking back-alley or self-induced abortions.

> Learn More About Abortion Rights in the U.S.
> Learn More About Abortion Rights in Canada


Abortion Facts

One in three American women will have an abortion by age 45. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures provided in the United States and Canada today.

> Get these and other facts about abortion.

MUST SEE THIS... CLICK ON... TURN UP THE SPEAKERS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWeXOjsv58c

 

[Coyote]

Celebrating Choice!
One in three American women will have an abortion by age 45.

I find the above statistic to be very very disturbing and nothing to celebrate.

Abortion should be rare. Not the equivelent of removing a hangnail.

 

[top gun]

I find the above statistic to be very very disturbing and nothing to celebrate.

Abortion should be rare. Not the equivelent of removing a hangnail.

The point that's being made is there is a lot more support for choice than the regular person just thinking about it can even imagine. Pro-Choice is a huge advocate for improving birth control and advancements with revolutionary new methods... like the male birth control pill.

The Celebration is about no longer being forced to the coat hanger. The truth is ending choice doesn't end abortion. It only means a few less abortions and a lot more dead and seriously infected women.

It's not a perfect world. I wish it were. Someday soon both a safe home abortion medication and a perfect birth control pill will be widely available.

Until then we have to deal with the reality we have now. The Supreme Court has done that.

 

[palerider]

you mean aborted a fetus?

No, I mean kill her children. One of the things I learned is that a child and a fetus are one in the same only at different levels of maturity. A close check of my constitution and the founding documents of the country revealed that this country is founded on the idea that we come into being with certain rights and that we are born with certain rights, and that we mature into certain other rights. The right to live, is one of those that we come into being with.

I didn't start this thread, I believe you did. As for holding a position "based on faith", that's more your area of expertise, as you hold the traditional religious view, no matter how much so called science you throw out to murky the waters.

That is what you would think isn't it. But close examination reveals that the position of faith belongs to you and the pro choice crowd. Faith is a belief in something that isn't founded on proof. I can and have provided ample credible science to prove that an unborn is a human being. I have proved that in the eyes of the law, human being and person are interchangable words, and I have proved that legal precedent exists, and is steadily growing that has established the personhood of the unborn, and I have proved that the justices who decided Roe v Wade acknowledged that should it ever become clear that unborns are indeed human beings, that roe will fall sinice all human beings are entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment.

My postion is based on proof. Yours is not. You have seen the proof and yet, you hold on to a belief that isn't founded on proof. Your position is one of faith. Crazy huh? You and the red faced bible thumper have more in common than you would have ever thought.

Look, women have a right to decide what to do with their bodies. The Supreme Court agrees, citing the right to privacy. A woman is more than just a container for a fetus. Though you would wonder listening to pro lifers, such as yourself, as it's readily apparent the woman is considered secondary.

To a point, of course they do. But then, there is a whole body of law that tells both men, and women what they can and can not do with their bodies so the argument that women have the absolute right to decide what to do with their bodies is, once again, a matter of faith, since in reality, they don't.

Also, the debate isn't about what women are doing to their own bodies. It is about what they are doing to another human being's body. The child's body does not belong to the woman, so what she is doing to the child's body isn't a thing that she is doing to her own body. The fact is that the child's body isn't the woman's body. Once again, your position is based not on proof, but on faith.

And when it comes to the right to live, all rights are secondary. Every right that I have is secondary to your right to live. I may not act in any manner that is convenient to me if it is going to kill you. No matter how badly I want a thing, or don't want a thing, it is secondary to your right to live. Again, your position is one of faith, and not based in fact.

Then there's the theory that legal abortion reduces crime. Proponents of the theory generally argue that unwanted children are more likely to become criminals and that an inverse correlation is observed between the availability of abortion and subsequent crime. The numbers back this theory up, and it certainly makes sense.

Killing shoplifters would be a more sure way of reducing crime. We know already that shoplifters are criminals. Do you favor killing shoplifters and every single person convicted of any crime? Of course you don't, but you favor killing someone who might grow up to commit a crime. Explain that logic further if you don't mind. Of course you can't, because such a line of thought isn't based in logic, it is faith based. You have some sort of faith that all children who aren't wanted grow up to be criminals.
Leaving everything else alone, were abortion to be made illegal, abortions wouldn't stop, they'd just wouldn't be as safe.

What about embryonic stem cell lines, you still putting cells in a petri dish above the lives of living breathing human beings?

No, you aren't just putting cells in a petri dish. You are fertilizing an egg and creating a living human being with the express intention of killing that human being for the purpose of medical research. Once again, your faith tells you that we are just talking about cells while science tells us that we are talking about a living human being who is just not as mature as you.

 

[palerider]

I am not talking about emotional lament...I'm not sure what you are getting at there...

Emotional hand wringing. Calling a thing absolute for emotional effect, when in fact, it is not absolute. Absolute control implies control that is free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way. Such is not the case since the child's right to live is only valid if it isn't directly threatening the life of its mother. Therefore suggesting that the child has anything more than limited, temporary control over its mother is nothing more than emotional hand wringing?

Is a rape victim pregnant as the result of her actions?

Does the child, that has one, and only one chance at life, exist as a result of its actions? There is a guilty party here who will, in all likelyhood not recieve a death penalty even if he is caught, charged, tried, and convicted and yet, you root for the death of the one individual in this triangle who is completely innocent and had nothing to do at all with the crime that was comitted.

 

[palerider]

Not really - because in this situation alone, a human being loses control of decisions regarding her body completely to another human being or group of human beings. /quote]

Again, mom doesn't lose complete control and suggesting that she does is intellecutally dishonest. She still has the right to defend her life, she can still do pretty much every thing she did before she got pregnant, she is not imprisoned, and she doesn't have a keeper who denies her the freedom to make her normal daily decisions.

If you doubt this, hell, ask your mom if she became a prisoner to you during the time she carried you? At best, you were a mild to moderate inconvenience, but she did not forfiet control over her life to you.

I can't think of any other situation save for the situation of the fetus who appears to have rights to her body whether she wills it or not. I will bring up the issue of rape again because in that case - she is nothing more then a maternal housing if she did not voluntarily want to carry the pregnancy.

So you believe that during the time of her pregnancy, she is unable to continue living her life and becomes an inanimate object sitting on a foundation, able to do nothing but gestate a child. Your suggestion that she becomes "NOTHING" more than a housing unit paints that picture for me, and the picture is a dishonest one.

An honest assesment of the situation is that she will be mildly to moderately incovenienced for less than a year so that an innocent human being will not have to wrongly forfiet his or her one, and only one life. Try and paint any other picture and you are doing nothing but making a dishonest appeal to emotion.

By the way, good to talk to you again.

 

[palerider]

I drive by planned Planned Parenthood Clinics everyday. System seems to be up and running just fine.

They must not go on political blogs for their legal instructions >>>>>>> [/B][/COLOR]

There was a time when you could drive by the fields and see the slaves laboring endlessly and say to yourself that the system seems to be up and running just fine. There was a time when you could go to vote and not see any women in line and say to yourself that the system seems to be up and ruinning just fine.

Of course, when one human being could claim ownership over another human being and do with that human being anything that they wanted whether it be working them to death in the fields, or beating them to death to serve as an example to the others, the system WASN'T up and running fine. The system was terribly broken. The same is true when you might have been telling yourself that all was fine when no women were allowed to vote. The system wasn't fine, the system was broken and people were being denied their rights.

Your faith tells you that the system is fine right now, but human beings are being denied their most basic rights. A system that allows that is not running finend anyone who takes pleasure in a system that is so terribly broken isn't "up and running fine" either.