Abortion

[ASPCA4EVER]

What you "believe" is a matter of faith and irrelavent. What you can prove is all that matters and I dare say that you can't even begin to prove that unborns, at any stage of development are something other than living human beings. Keep your faith personal, where it belongs, and don't attempt to deny an entire class of human beings their most basic human rights with it.

I dont have any idea what you are trying to say here. Killing another human being isn't a medical procedure. Killing another human being with intent is murder.

How many people do you suppose have been "forced" to murder? Your point is irrelavent. How many people do you suppose were "forced" to own slaves. Do you think that because people voluntarily deny the most basic human rights to another human being that it somehow makes it OK?

How about you provide a single credible source that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is at any time ever anything other than a human being. I have certainly spent plenty of time in the research and have yet to find anyone who suggests that metamorphosis is part of our developmental cycle. We don't start off life as one thing and then "turn into" human beings. The roe court didn't address the issue at all. They simply assumed that unborns were something other than human beings. Further, the majority decision clearly states that should their assumption ever be proven wrong, that roe must be struck down as unconstitutional. Lets see some actual credible evidence that supports their assumption.

The difference is that you are expressing an opinion. An uncorroborated, unsubstantiated opinion while you have never even heard what my opinion is. I am arguing nothing that I can't prove and provide an overwhelming body of evidence to support. My opinion is as meaningless and irrelavent as your own and that is why I don't express it as part of the argument. I deal in facts. Can you provide any hard, credible facts to support your opinion. To date, I have not seen them.

And anyone can claim logical fallacy. Feel free to describe which logical fallacy you believe I have engaged in and by all means, explain it in detail. I believe you will find upon close examination, that I do not engage in logical fallacy at all. Unlike you and yours, I don't make my arguments up as I go. Each and every part of my argument has been carefully researched. I don't make claims that I can't support.

The roe court said that a woman has the right to terminate a potential human being. Can you provide any credible evidence that suggests that an unborn is a potential human being? I can easily provide a large body of credible material that states explicitly that unborns are human beings from the time that they are concieved. In addition, I can point to a rather large body of legal precedent that establishes that unborns are not only human beings, but are, in fact, persons.

And here is where the rubber meets the road: you can't discuss the difference in opinions...due to your repetitive assumptions that you, and you alone {sans the cheerleader that applauds your every breath} have the knowledge and the factual documentation to prove that I'm wrong and you are justified in telling me that I am Irrelevant.

Please do as your 'cheerleader' suggests and take your spiel on the road and provide the supreme court the opportunity to be over whelmed with your vehement points of factual information...and then change the law as you deem fit. You will only succeed in providing some back street butcher the new job description and you have taken my freedom of choice away from me.

Thank You for protecting my rights as a woman...you do it so well

Belief: 1. a person's religion, religious conviction 2. a firm opinion an acceptance (of a thing, fact, statement, etc.,)

 

[samsara15]

How exactly do you equate protecting human rights with socialism?

You would take women's right's to their own bodies away for the unborn; how does that differ from taking income or property away for the 'common good'? Think a little bit, Pale, instead of merely repeating your verbatim arguments over and over again.

You're supposed to have a brain in that head of yours, somewhere. Use it, let logic drive your emotions, instead of vice versa.

 

[palerider]

And here is where the rubber meets the road: you can't discuss the difference in opinions...due to your repetitive assumptions that you, and you alone {sans the cheerleader that applauds your every breath} have the knowledge and the factual documentation to prove that I'm wrong and you are justified in telling me that I am Irrelevant.

Opinions are entirely irrelavent when facts exist. Further, it is not an assumption that I can prove you wrong, that is a fact as well. Perhaps it would be an assumption on my part to believe that facts may have some effect on your belief, but I don't make that assumption either.

Please do as your 'cheerleader' suggests and take your spiel on the road and provide the supreme court the opportunity to be over whelmed with your vehement points of factual information...and then change the law as you deem fit. You will only succeed in providing some back street butcher the new job description and you have taken my freedom of choice away from me.

I love self righteous ad hominem attacks. You couldn't prove that you have completly lost this discussion any better had you sent me a private message declaring your defeat.

Belief: 1. a person's religion, religious conviction 2. a firm opinion an acceptance (of a thing, fact, statement, etc.,)

Perhaps I should have said faith instead of belief as it describes your position much more accurately.

faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

 

[palerider]

You would take women's right's to their own bodies away for the unborn; how does that differ from taking income or property away for the 'common good'? Think a little bit, Pale, instead of merely repeating your verbatim arguments over and over again.

First, neither you, nor any one of us "owns" our bodies and if you need specific legal reasons why you would not want ownership of your body I will be happy to provide it.

A clash of rights exists between women and thier unborn children. Whenever a clash of rights exists between individuals, the rights of one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other. That hardly describes socialism in any way as that involves the individual giving up all rights to the state.

You're supposed to have a brain in that head of yours, somewhere. Use it, let logic drive your emotions, instead of vice versa.

You seem to be unable to differentiate between logic and emotion. My postion is based entirely in fact and what can be proven while your position is a knee jerk emotional reaction to an issue. You can't prove any part of your argument in defense of your position so you turn to impotent ad hominem attacks on me.

 

[Pandora]

You would take women's right's to their own bodies away for the unborn; how does that differ from taking income or property away for the 'common good'? Think a little bit, Pale, instead of merely repeating your verbatim arguments over and over again.

You're supposed to have a brain in that head of yours, somewhere. Use it, let logic drive your emotions, instead of vice versa.

A persons right to swing their fist ends at another persons face

You can blow your own car up but you can not do it in my garage

Taking another persons life is not a right that can be taken away because it was never a right in the first place.

The law makes exceptions in today’s society when it comes to killing our kids as long as its in a pregnancy, much like the law made exceptions for slavery and denying women and blacks the right to vote. The law has been wrong in the past as it is on this issue.

Some people during slavery knew it was wrong but they were the exception not the rule, same with not letting women or blacks vote. Its taken years for people to realize those things were wrong, there are some who still think slavery was ok or not letting women and blacks vote was right, There will always be small minded people like that, thankfully few of them...

In 100 years there will still be some, I think a small number who still think killing your child is a choice and a right too. But society in general will look back to this generation and gasp in disgust like our generation does when looking back at slavery or denying people the right to vote.

 

[palerider]

In 100 years there will still be some, I think a small number who still think killing your child is a choice and a right too. But society in general will look back to this generation and gasp in disgust like our generation does when looking back at slavery or denying people the right to vote.

In 100 years, pro choicers will be as reviled as slavers are today. Perhaps more as abortion is a far more henious crime against humanity than slavery could ever be.

 

[Pandora]

In 100 years, pro choicers will be as reviled as slavers are today. Perhaps more as abortion is a far more henious crime against humanity than slavery could ever be.

Agreed

but even in 100 years there will be a small group who think the "right" to have an abortion is good, just like today there are a small number of people who think the "right" to own slaves was good or denying women the right to vote was good.

 

[samsara15]

First, neither you, nor any one of us "owns" our bodies and if you need specific legal reasons why you would not want ownership of your body I will be happy to provide it.

A clash of rights exists between women and thier unborn children. Whenever a clash of rights exists between individuals, the rights of one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other. That hardly describes socialism in any way as that involves the individual giving up all rights to the state.



You seem to be unable to differentiate between logic and emotion. My postion is based entirely in fact and what can be proven while your position is a knee jerk emotional reaction to an issue. You can't prove any part of your argument in defense of your position so you turn to impotent ad hominem attacks on me.

What ad homenim attacks? LOL.


When a clash of rights exist, the adult human being's rights over-rides those of the yet to be born human being. Otherwise, a woman body is just a breeding machine.

Socialsm is socialism, what is for the common good over-riding the right of the individual, and taking a woman's body away from her is the ultimate socialism.

The Muslims, BTW, claim that God owns our bodies. Would you go that far?

 

[samsara15]

In 100 years, pro choicers will be as reviled as slavers are today. Perhaps more as abortion is a far more henious crime against humanity than slavery could ever be.

In 100 years, the results of over-population will have made those who supported uncontrolled breeding the most heinous of criminals, and they will be laying low to avoid the revenge of those who have suffered from mass starvation. The Chinese birth control efforts will be viewed as having been far ahead of their times.

 

[samsara15]

First, neither you, nor any one of us "owns" our bodies and if you need specific legal reasons why you would not want ownership of your body I will be happy to provide it.

A clash of rights exists between women and thier unborn children. Whenever a clash of rights exists between individuals, the rights of one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other. That hardly describes socialism in any way as that involves the individual giving up all rights to the state.



You seem to be unable to differentiate between logic and emotion. My postion is based entirely in fact and what can be proven while your position is a knee jerk emotional reaction to an issue. You can't prove any part of your argument in defense of your position so you turn to impotent ad hominem attacks on me.

If we don't own our bodies, who does? What do we own, if not our bodies? How socialistic can you get?

 

[GenSeneca]

Socialsm is socialism, what is for the common good over-riding the right of the individual, and taking a woman's body away from her is the ultimate socialism.

Which "right" is being overridden?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

In 100 years, pro choicers will be as reviled as slavers are today. Perhaps more as abortion is a far more henious crime against humanity than slavery could ever be.

First you tell me that I'm 'irrelevant' and then you proceed to state that my beliefs need to be kept personal and do not belong in this discussion and then you continue and decry about ad hominem attacks and yet, YET, here you are spewing about the next 100 years as though you have had the divine anointed vision for the future...ARE YOU SERIOUS???

You just stepped off into the 'Twilight Zone' and you want to be taken seriously...oh, ya, right.

Now I completely understand...you've landed here from the 'Twilight Zone' and as our future nemesis your crusade is to lead us to the enlightenment. ROTFLAMO...please do as your 'cheering squad' asked you too...PLEASE take this dog & pony show on the road and find the masses that are awaiting your every baited breath!!!

 

[samsara15]

Which "right" is being overridden?

You don't think people have a right to control their own bodies? General, I always thought you might be a closet statist, and so you are.

 

[GenSeneca]

You don't think people have a right to control their own bodies? General, I always thought you might be a closet statist, and so you are.

You think that a woman has a right to kill her unborn child?

On what grounds do you claim that her individual rights are the only rights to be considered and that neither the unborn child nor the father have rights, despite both of them also being individual, living human beings?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Is that a personal attack? I kill thousands of animals? Your emotions are getting the best of you again. My argument has never been about protections for anything that is "Alive", only individual humans. Any attempt to shift the discussion to rights for plants or animals is a red herring.

I think this is the only thing in your post worth responding to at this time. You say it's a strawman if one discusses the relative value of all kinds of life, I disagree just as many other people do. If you eat flesh then you are responsible for the deaths of thousands of animals in your lifetime--why are these lives of less value than clumps of cells that might live to develop into humans? Yes, your argument has always been completely anthropocentric, but I have yet to hear why that is. What makes human life sacred and other life profane?

What's an "individual"? Is a baby born with no brain an individual? It isn't that I disagree with the science presented as much as it is that I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions derived from that science. But somehow you seem unwilling or unable to discuss this. It may seem like a strawman to you, though it is not to me.

I would educate people to show them that there were alternatives to abortion rather than using the "beating-over-the-head" approach of the pale one. Science will not convince a person in trouble as quickly as showing them another way to deal with the problems they face. Moral or amoral, your argument will carry far more weight if it helps people to do something besides resort to abortions.