Abortion

[Mare Tranquillity]

Which "right" is being overridden?

The right of a woman to control her own body and the contents thereof. All your science is correct, but the woman is the one who has to do all the work, take all the risks, shoulder all the responsibilities, and I have to give her right precedence over the right of the other individual, even if I disagree with her decision. It's personal freedom of the most intimate kind and one that you cannot begin to understand.

Men should not have the final say on this issue, I note that it's mostly men arguing for control of women here. I would be far more willing to support your crusade if you were doing something useful to support women so that they didn't feel like they had to resort to abortion. How about laws requiring men to pay child support that are actually enforced? Free medical care provided for all mothers and children, right there we lose most of the people in your camp because it will cost you some money. The whole argument seems hypocritical in that it revolves around forcing women to do what other people think they should do. Ronald Reagan was a perfect example of this attitude, he believed that life began at conception and ended at birth, he worked to gut WIC programs and subsidies for mother's and for child care for working mothers. As long as you are on the pale end of the spectrum and beating on women rather than working on the supporting end of the spectrum I will not agree with you completely.

I sympathize with your position and the emotional cost to you, but attacking women doesn't solve the problem.

 

[GenSeneca]

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.

I don't deal in moral relativism. Its sounds like you and "many other people" do:

Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth.... In moral relativism there are no absolute, concrete rights and wrongs. Rather, intrinsic ethical judgements exist as abstracta, differing for each perception of an ethical outlook.

Moral relativism is marked by a complete rejection of reality.

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?

1. If you think Animal Rights have a bearing on the Individual Rights of Humans, then please explain how they correlate.
2. "Clumps of cells" - This is you continuing to deny the scientific body of evidence that states from the moment of conception, a living, individual human being is created.
3. "Might live" - In the absence of a hostile environment, the individual will live.
4. "Develop into humans" - It is human from the point of conception. If you have scientific evidence that states we "develop" into humans at some point after conception, then provide it.

Yes, your argument has always been completely anthropocentric, but I have yet to hear why that is.

Because it is not, you are simply suffering from "premature assumption":

Anthropocentrism is the belief that humans must be considered at the center of, and above any other aspect of, reality.

Existence exists. Humans are a part of reality, not above or the center of it.

What makes human life sacred and other life profane?

Both sacred and profane are religious terms, once again you are trying to inject religion into the topic.

What's an "individual"?

An individual is what's created at the point of conception.

Is a baby born with no brain an individual?

Post your scientific proof that such an event has ever happened.

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.

The science says that from the moment of conception, a living individual human being is created...

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 will not ignore reality and scientific fact in order to humor your evasion.

I would educate people to show them that there were alternatives to abortion...

What alternatives are there that people are unaware of?

rather than using the "beating-over-the-head" approach of the pale one.

Are the laws that make murder illegal a "beating-over-the-head" approach?

Science will not convince a person in trouble as quickly as showing them another way to deal with the problems they face.

The object of science is not to convince people in trouble but to establish facts that are based in reality.

Moral or amoral, your argument will carry far more weight if it helps people to do something besides resort to abortions.

Any doubt of your moral relativism has been removed.

 

[GenSeneca]

The right of a woman to control her own body and the contents thereof.

From where does she derive this right and by what authority is it recognized?

The rest of your statement was nothing more than emotional appeal and logical fallacies.

 

[palerider]

What ad homenim attacks? LOL.

"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 may be unaware of the fact, but that is an ad hominem attack. It is a suggestion that my intellect is flawed in lieu of an actual argument that proves that my intellect is flawed. Of course, I am not sensitive about such things and therefore am not offended. I understand that when people are unable to rationally defend their positions that the only real options that exist are to act mature and admit it as in the case of genseca and his stance on abortion in cases of rape and incest (the mature thing by the way) or to attack your opponent in a childish fit of emotion. You could only offend me if I held a modicum of respect for you and thus far, you have earned none of that.

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.

To date, you have not proved a difference. When a clash of rights exists between an adult and a newborn infant, the adult's rights must give way to the more fundamental rights of the child. When a clash of rights exists between an adult and a child born with ancephaly, that is a child with no brain who will never have a thought, never have a sensation, or anything that even remotely resembles awareness, the adult's rights must give way to the more fundamental rights of that child.

As to to the use of another's bodily functions which I presume you mean when you appeal to emotion with your "breeding machine" comment, when a clash of rights exists between a pair of conjoined twins, when one is as depdendent upon the other as an unborn is dependent upon its mother, the rights of the one who posesses the vital organ or system must give way to the more fundamental right of the dependent twin unless, of course, the dependent twin represents an imminent threat to the other's life.

To date, you have failed to prove any difference at all between an adult, and an unborn at any stage at all beyond the level of maturity and you have just as profoundly failed to prove that your basic human rights are dependent upon your level of maturity. In fact, you have proven no part of your argument and as such, it remains no more than an unsupported, uncorroborated opinion which you are pitting against an argument that rests entirely in fact and makes no claims that have not been substantiated with credible evidence.

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.

Socialism is socialism? Can you say circular thinking? You are just full of fallacious thinking aren't you?

The protection of the individual right is in no way concerned with the "common" good. Your insistence that others be allowed to do as they wish without regard to the individuals that they kill in the process certainly demonstrates communal thinking but not the wish to protect the individual right above the common good. Perhaps you should take a moment or a decade and actually learn what socialism is and is not, before you fallaciously attempt to inject it into a discussion about abortion.

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

I don't make religious arguments as they are pointless and are no more substantial or provable than your own. The law views us as no more than caretakers and that view suits me fine.

 

[palerider]

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.

More logical fallacy. You assume overpopulation when in fact, the earth is mostly unoccupied by human beings. Your unsupported appeal to emotion coupled with begging a very large number of questions and making quite a few assumptions and a red herring to boot does not represent rational thought, or argument in any way. It does, however, provide a fairly good example of one who is casting about and picking up random piles of BS to hurl against the wall in hopes of finding something that sticks.

 

[palerider]

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

No one owns our bodies and in the long run, you should be damned glad of that fact. If you could claim actual ownership of your body, then your body could properly be viewed as property as anything that may be owned, is, in fact of law, property.

Lets pretend we live in a place where you, in fact, own your body and you cause me great bodily or financial harm. I take you to court and win a law suit against you. Your debt to me is larger than the amount of capital you own or are likely to ever make. In a place where people own their bodies and as such thier bodies are property, you could find your very self forfiet to me in payment of debt.

In another example, if bodies were property, it would theoretically be possible to kill an individual and pay his loved ones a monetary amount equal to his bodily worth and earning potential and walk away from your action not with a charge of murder, but of destruction of property.

If bodies were property, a quick and razor sharp legal mind would quickly learn to turn that fact to advantage and no numbert of dull witted bureaucrats and politicians would ever be able to keep ahead of the game.

I suggest that you take some time to actually learn what socialism is. Clearly, you don't have the slightest idea. Socialism is an economic system, not a line of thought. You might start your research beginning with the means of production as that is at the heart of socialism. Simply knowing how to spell a word is no promise of being able to use it properly in conversation. Your arguments of socilism do not move your argument forward and serve to expose your actual lack of knowledge on the subject of socialism to those who read your words.

 

[palerider]

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???

If we know the past, we can see the future. There was a time when slavery was acceptable and many people owned them. It was learned that those who owned them and supported the institution had in fact perpetrated crimes against humanity and in turn were and are reviled by future generations.

Just prior to WWII, eugenics was the big thing promoted and embraced by the "enlightened". Hitler showed the logical outcome of eugenics and as a result, it was learned that eugenics was in fact, a crime against humanity and suddenly, no one ever supported eugenics. Anyone who dared admit supporting it would be reviled by their peers and future generations and those who are known to have supported it now are indeed reviled.

As to your logical fallacies, I will gladly point them out to you and describe and explain which fallacy you engaged in and why the thinking was fallacious.

Beliefs? Of what value is a belief, when fact contradicts it?

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!!!

Why would I take my "show" on the road? No need. I enjoy completely dismantling arguments like yours right here. No traveling, no living out of suitcases and all the satisfaction. I mean, here you are, in public, your arguments completly given up attacking me personally as if it means anything at all. All the spectators see is that you have abandoned any pretense of actually defending your position since it was indefensible in the first place. I have achieved my goal and you are discredited.

 

[palerider]

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?

If the argument were about some sacred value of life, then you might have a point. That isn't what the argument is about. The argument is about the law and how it is being used to deny an entire class of human beings their most fundamental human rights.

If you want to discuss animal rights, then start a thread and we may or may not join it but it is, in fact, an entirely different subject as the law, at this point doesn't recognize any fundamental rights inherent to animals.

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.

Since you mention it, yes, a child born with no brain is an individual. They are by science and by law recognized as human beings and persons even though they are not conscious, or sentient. They will never have a thought, a feeling, or anything that even remotely resembles self awareness and will at best only live a matter of days and yet, they are accorded the full protection of the law.

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.

How about we strike down the laws on murder, arson, assault, kidnapping, etc., etc., etc., depend on education to keep order in the streets. How well do you suppose that will work out?

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.

The fact is that the majority of people obey the law. If abortion on demand comes to an end, most people will simply not consider abortion as an option.

 

[palerider]

The right of a woman to control her own body and the contents thereof.

The rights of one individual end where the rights of another begin. One human being does not have the right to kill another for reasons other than self defense.

All your science is correct, but the woman is the one who has to do all the work, take all the risks, shoulder all the responsibilities, and I have to give her right precedence over the right of the other individual, even if I disagree with her decision. It's personal freedom of the most intimate kind and one that you cannot begin to understand.

That is nothing more and nothing less than the responsibility for one's actions. Your argument isn't about women's rights because with rights come responsibility. Your argument is about avoiding responsibility. You see it as unfair that a man might sleep around and perhaps avoid his responsibility and you hate it so badly that you are willing to deny antoher human being her very right to live in an attempt to level the playing field. The whole "choice" issue isn't about choice, it is about avoiding responsibility. It is a knee jerk emotional reaction to a situation you view as unfair.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Palerider said:
Why would I take my "show" on the road? No need. I enjoy completely dismantling arguments like yours right here. No traveling, no living out of suitcases and all the satisfaction. I mean, here you are, in public, your arguments completly given up attacking me personally as if it means anything at all. All the spectators see is that you have abandoned any pretense of actually defending your position since it was indefensible in the first place. I have achieved my goal and you are discredited.

LMAO...you dwell extremely well in that 'ZONE' and you are quite incorrect about the 'attacking you personally'...you Oh, demented one started the ad hominem attacks and now here you are pointing the finger at 'US'...WOW, delusional too.

You ability to only hear that continual ROAR of your of own voice is amusing!!! GOOD LUCK with your diatribe...seems as though you've impressed some hypothetical thinkers around here...but then they never have an original thought they just 'cling' to someone else's!!! LMAO

YOU LAID THIS EGG>
If we know the past, we can see the future.

Always leave them laughing...now that is a good technique to use when blowing the B.S. out into the arena...it is always going to 'HOOK' some lessor thinking human to your tail!!!

 

[palerider]

Post your scientific proof that such an event has ever happened.

Ancephaly. Children born with no brain or only the most primitive part of the brain that keeps organs functioning. No higher thought process, awareness, sensation, hearing, sight, etc are possible. It happens and when it does, the child will, at best, live for a matter of days. Those children are, however, fully recognized by science and the law as both human beings and persons and their rights are fully protected. They may be denied life support and allowed to die as is the case with any patient who is so sick or injured that no reasonable hope for recovery exists, but they may not be simply put down as if they were animals. They recieve birth certificates, death certificates, and as they are born here, are considered citizens.

One more pro choice argument falls by the wayside. Wonder how long before you see the exact same argument again?

 

[palerider]

LMAO...you dwell extremely well in that 'ZONE' and you are quite incorrect about the 'attacking you personally'...you Oh, demented one started the ad hominem attacks and now here you are pointing the finger at 'US'...WOW, delusional too.

You clearly are unable to recognize the practice of goading an opponent as part of a coherent argument and forgoing all argument in favor of simply attacking your opponent.

That was a pretty good example. I point out that you are unable to recognize a pretty simple thing thus calling your intellectual wattage into question while at the same time effectively rebutting your statement. It is correctly termed goading, but does not constitute an attack as it is part of a coherent rebuttal.

You ability to only hear that continual ROAR of your of own voice is amusing!!! GOOD LUCK with your diatribe...seems as though you've impressed some hypothetical thinkers around here...but then they never have an original thought they just 'cling' to someone else's!!! LMAO
Always leave them laughing...now that is a good technique to use when blowing the B.S. out into the arena...it is always going to 'HOOK' some lessor thinking human to your tail!!!

More of the same. No pretense at all of defending your postion on abortion. Simply attacks on me because you eroneously feel that you may make some headway by attacking me personally where you are stopped cold every time that you try to defend your position. You have no fact with which to defend your position on abortion and feel that you need no fact if all you are going to do is attack me personally. Of course, you can substantiate none of the attacks you have made on me any more than you can substantiate your arguments in defense of your postion. You have lost utterly. How does it feel?

Of course the possibility of proving me wrong still exists. You may realize that possibility by dropping your personal attacks and resuming an effective defense of your position on abortion beginning with providing some credible proof that unborns at any stage of development are something other than human beings.

 

[top gun]

As to the court knowing, of course they knew but denying that unborns were human beings was the only way they could see thier pre existing agenda through. Adherence to the constitution had nothing to do with the roe decision.

There was no pre-existing agenda they simply made the correct decision. And furthermore the have been multiple changes on the high court and multiple long runs of Conservative administration over 40 years. There was no change because there is no need for change.

Simply put... you lost.

Semantics on their part, not mine. Slavery was allowed based on the same sort of semantics. The court said that blacks were not human beings and as such, had no claim to any constitutional protections. Clearly the court was wrong then and they were wrong when they decided roe based on an assumption. Roe gave women the right to terminate a potential human life, it said nothing at all about any right to kill another human being.

As to the lack of many things at that stage of development, the court never addressed it because all human beings are persons without regard to what they have or have not developed. They were forced to assume that they were not human beings at all, otherwise they could never have decided roe as they did. There is a reason that roe is known by legal minds on both sides of the issue as the poorest decision the court has ever made.

The slavery argument is a Red Herring. It's apples to oranges logic of the most ridiculous sort. Slaves were fully developed living and breathing on their own outside of anyone else's body and life support. Anyone can simply look at a slave and look at a fetus and tell they are not the same thing and should have different standing under the law.

And I always get a chuckle when you mention the fact that slavery was stopped. Slavery was the ORIGINAL injustice and it was eventually overturned. With A woman's right to choose the ban on abortion was the original injustice and it was legally stopped. What you're not going to do is have slavery... then abolishing it... and then bring it back.

Women rightly won this one and they will never allow themselves be forced back to unsafe non-sterile medical services again. That's simply a reality you at sometime must come to grips with... or just keep peeing I the wind because you've nothing better to do. Makes no difference to me.


Protect women & doctors... arrest a clinic creeper under the FACE ACT!

 

[Pandora]

There was no pre-existing agenda they simply made the correct decision. And furthermore the have been multiple changes on the high court and multiple long runs of Conservative administration over 40 years. There was no change because there is no need for change.

Simply put... you lost.



The slavery argument is a Red Herring. It's apples to oranges logic of the most ridiculous sort. Slaves were fully developed living and breathing on their own outside of anyone else's body and life support. Anyone can simply look at a slave and look at a fetus and tell they are not the same thing and should have different standing under the law.

And I always get a chuckle when you mention the fact that slavery was stopped. Slavery was the ORIGINAL injustice and it was eventually overturned. With A woman's right to choose the ban on abortion was the original injustice and it was legally stopped. What you're not going to do is have slavery... then abolishing it... and then bring it back.

Women rightly won this one and they will never allow themselves be forced back to unsafe non-sterile medical services again. That's simply a reality you at sometime must come to grips with... or just keep peeing I the wind because you've nothing better to do. Makes no difference to me.


Protect women & doctors... arrest a clinic creeper under the FACE ACT!

Slaves were considered non persons then eventually less of a person, women less of a person

its apples and apples

it’s a human being defined as less of a person than another human being, having less rights and less value as another.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The rights of one individual end where the rights of another begin. One human being does not have the right to kill another for reasons other than self defense. That is nothing more and nothing less than the responsibility for one's actions. Your argument isn't about women's rights because with rights come responsibility. Your argument is about avoiding responsibility. You see it as unfair that a man might sleep around and perhaps avoid his responsibility and you hate it so badly that you are willing to deny antoher human being her very right to live in an attempt to level the playing field. The whole "choice" issue isn't about choice, it is about avoiding responsibility. It is a knee jerk emotional reaction to a situation you view as unfair.

You missed that one, thanks anyway. If all men paid child support and took their role of father seriously I would still have to grant women the right to decide about ending their pregnancy.

I know you think the whole issue is one of avoiding responsibility, I disagree with you, this is not an issue of science, it's one of personal freedom AND responsibility. If a woman decides that ending a pregnancy is the responsible thing to do, then she should have the right to do it. When it is YOU bearing the child, then you too should have that right as well.

I just have a sneaky suspicion that you and I are not going to agree on this issue any time soon. Forcing women to follow YOUR version of "right action" while they live in a culture that neither values the babies lives nor demands care for the babies by the father or the culture at large is (in my opinion) hypocritical and you are the worst one for this that I have ever had the misfortune to discuss with in my life. I suspect a deep level of misogyny somewhere in your soul as well as some kind of perhaps unnamed fear that drives you.

If you were truly compassionate and concerned about the welfare of babies you'd realize that babies and their mothers are a single unit, you can't pit one against the other without in some way damaging or destroying both. At least Genseca understands that education is a valuable tool for reducing the number of abortions--why don't you? You're a one-trick pony, and all you can do is repeat your mantra of woman-bashing. You ain't convincing me with your scathing, vitriolic, self-righteous pomposity.