Abortion

[Pandora]

Yes, but that's no reason to pick on the Republicans.

That was a great come back Mare, you successfully turned the joke around and did it without personally insulting anyone, yet you got a whole group.

Well done!!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That was a great come back Mare, you successfully turned the joke around and did it without personally insulting anyone, yet you got a whole group.

Well done!!

I hope that people understand that it was done in humor, some of my best friends are Republicans. One of our best subcontractors is a conservative, Mormon, Republican, but he's honest and does good work. Both of my brothers are Republicans and everyone who's read my posts knows how I feel about them.

 

[Pandora]

I hope that people understand that it was done in humor, some of my best friends are Republicans. One of our best subcontractors is a conservative, Mormon, Republican, but he's honest and does good work. Both of my brothers are Republicans and everyone whose read my posts knows how I feel about them.

It was funny, and in good taste

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think that Pale's post #1086 is a watershed statement. He is foursquare for punishment, GenSeca and I are for education--even though we disagree on the finer points of how to accomplish this. Bob bailed because he couldn't stand Pale so we don't know exactly how he'd come down on this subject. Pandora seems to be in Pale's area, but I doubt that she is as vengeant and compassionless as the person who shall not be named.

I'd like to see the problem of abortions solved, but punishment won't work if one is to believe the evidence provided by our legal system. Recidivism is rampant, the jails are full of three-time losers, and the dockets are overloaded to the point that convicts are freed to make space for new intakes. The "more punishments" and "more prisons" approach is obviously not working in light of the fact that the US now has a larger percentage of its population in jail than any other 1st world country--more than almost ANY country.

Maybe it's time to try something else.

 

[Pandora]

I think that Pale's post #1086 is a watershed statement. He is foursquare for punishment, GenSeca and I are for education--even though we disagree on the finer points of how to accomplish this. Bob bailed because he couldn't stand Pale so we don't know exactly how he'd come down on this subject. Pandora seems to be in Pale's area, but I doubt that she is as vengeant and compassionless as the person who shall not be named.

I'd like to see the problem of abortions solved, but punishment won't work if one is to believe the evidence provided by our legal system. Recidivism is rampant, the jails are full of three-time losers, and the dockets are overloaded to the point that convicts are freed to make space for new intakes. The "more punishments" and "more prisons" approach is obviously not working in light of the fact that the US now has a larger percentage of its population in jail than any other 1st world country--more than almost ANY country.

Maybe it's time to try something else.

Hey you nailed me pretty good. I think I probably line up most with PaleRider's thoughts on abortion though I ride the fence on that first two or three months and he does not. I personally consider it wrong and I would like way more education and ways to help girls and women make other choices besides aborton, but I have a hard time saying I would ban early abortion. As for late term though, I am with Pale Rider all the way.



Try something else? What are you thinking?

 

[GenSeneca]

OK Pale, thus far your competition has been less than exemplary in their defense of abortion. Emotional appeals and logical fallacies are easily shot down and the lack of support from a scientific source leave them with little else but their opinion.

While I have no science that I can call upon to support my case, I do have logic, reason and rationality with which I'm going to harness my intellectual firepower and attempt to give you the challenge that they have been unable to provide by arguing for abortion on demand. Capitalism supports abortion as a woman's individual right and its on the basis of individual rights that I will focus my argument in support of abortion.

Since both of us are rational individuals well versed on the use and rules of logic, our exchange should be void of fallacies, emotional appeals, personal attacks and religious references... Won't that be a refreshing change?

Rights: Rights are freedoms of action and are not dependent on the actions of others. I have often referred to rights as actions that you can exercise alone on a deserted island. On a deserted island, I can practice my freedom of speech as it does not require the actions of others to fulfill that right. There can be no "right" to a job or healthcare because such "rights" impose obligations on others and are dependent upon the actions of others to be fulfilled. Such obligations are a violation of the rights of those who are needed for the "right" of another to be fulfilled. While I have a right to life, I do not have a right to live off the efforts or actions of another individual.

An unborn child can have no rights or freedoms whatsoever because it can take no actions, it can only continue to gestate and survive on the sustenance of its host. You cannot grant an unborn child a right to life because such a "right" would impose an obligation on the mother and thereby be a violation of her rights. Abortion itself is an inalienable right because there can be no "right" to live off the life of another individual against that individuals will, any such obligation must be entirely voluntary.

Capitalism recognizes that welfare is a violation of the rights of those forced to support the lives of others through their efforts and abortion is no different from welfare in that regard.

Charity is a voluntary action that can be used to support the lives of others but as the word charity implies, its strictly a volitional action. Any attempt to force someone to be charitable is a violation of their rights and a negation of the volitional nature of charity and as such, when force is applied the action ceases to be charity and instead becomes forced welfare.

Therefore, all pregnancies are strictly voluntary acts, like an act of charity, and such charity can be revoked at any time for any reason. The moment a woman is forced to carry a baby to term, her rights are violated as she is no longer free to act in her own best interests but made to act in the best interests of another individual. Its at that point of force that the volitional nature of charity is replaced with forced welfare.

Do you support forcing one individual to provide the means for another individual to survive or do you think such actions should be voluntary?

Whether or not one individual is inside the others womb should not make a difference in your answer. If it does make a difference to you, then you have are faced with a contradiction and your position will be shown to be inconsistent.

I will leave it there for now and look forward to your response. I do hope its more of a challenge than what the others have offered.

 

[Pandora]

OK Pale, thus far your competition has been less than exemplary in their defense of abortion. Emotional appeals and logical fallacies are easily shot down and the lack of support from a scientific source leave them with little else but their opinion.

While I have no science that I can call upon to support my case, I do have logic, reason and rationality with which I'm going to harness my intellectual firepower and attempt to give you the challenge that they have been unable to provide by arguing for abortion on demand. Capitalism supports abortion as a woman's individual right and its on the basis of individual rights that I will focus my argument in support of abortion.

Since both of us are rational individuals well versed on the use and rules of logic, our exchange should be void of fallacies, emotional appeals, personal attacks and religious references... Won't that be a refreshing change?

Rights: Rights are freedoms of action and are not dependent on the actions of others. I have often referred to rights as actions that you can exercise alone on a deserted island. On a deserted island, I can practice my freedom of speech as it does not require the actions of others to fulfill that right. There can be no "right" to a job or healthcare because such "rights" impose obligations on others and are dependent upon the actions of others to be fulfilled. Such obligations are a violation of the rights of those who are needed for the "right" of another to be fulfilled. While I have a right to life, I do not have a right to live off the efforts or actions of another individual.

An unborn child can have no rights or freedoms whatsoever because it can take no actions, it can only continue to gestate and survive on the sustenance of its host. You cannot grant an unborn child a right to life because such a "right" would impose an obligation on the mother and thereby be a violation of her rights. Abortion itself is an inalienable right because there can be no "right" to live off the life of another individual against that individuals will, any such obligation must be entirely voluntary.

Capitalism recognizes that welfare is a violation of the rights of those forced to support the lives of others through their efforts and abortion is no different from welfare in that regard.

Charity is a voluntary action that can be used to support the lives of others but as the word charity implies, its strictly a volitional action. Any attempt to force someone to be charitable is a violation of their rights and a negation of the volitional nature of charity and as such, when force is applied the action ceases to be charity and instead becomes forced welfare.

Therefore, all pregnancies are strictly voluntary acts, like an act of charity, and such charity can be revoked at any time for any reason. The moment a woman is forced to carry a baby to term, her rights are violated as she is no longer free to act in her own best interests but made to act in the best interests of another individual. Its at that point of force that the volitional nature of charity is replaced with forced welfare.

Do you support forcing one individual to provide the means for another individual to survive or do you think such actions should be voluntary?

Whether or not one individual is inside the others womb should not make a difference in your answer. If it does make a difference to you, then you have are faced with a contradiction and your position will be shown to be inconsistent.

I will leave it there for now and look forward to your response. I do hope its more of a challenge than what the others have offered.

Gen, I loved the way its phrased. To agree with you is to agree with capitalism and agree welfare is socialism and against basic human rights of the one taxed to pay for another.


But I have questions. The burden of carrying a child in your body is smaller than the burden of literally carrying them around, making bottles, changing diapers and rocking a crying baby.

If an unborn child can have no rights or freedoms whatsoever because it can take no action then a new born would seem to have less. At least the pre born child can eat and go to the bathroom without a mothers help, where a new born is fully reliant on the mother for everything from keeping warm to keeping fed, burped and comforted and changed.

Could not a woman who tires of a crying baby use the same argument for an out of the womb baby who is equally as helpless as a baby in the womb?

But I did love the way you wrote that, here you have agreed with the abortionist group and they can not possibly agree with you or they disagree with their core moral values

Bravo!

 

[GenSeneca]

If an unborn child can have no rights or freedoms whatsoever because it can take no action then a new born would seem to have less.

The Capitalist position is that from the moment of birth the child has full rights equal to those of an adult because the child is a physically separate individual. A parent chooses to care for, or give up, their child voluntarily, there is no force used to make them act one way or another.

But I did love the way you wrote that, here you have agreed with the abortionist group and they can not possibly agree with you or they disagree with their core moral values

Bravo!

Yeah but its a double edged sword for people like me who support individual rights but find the act of abortion to be abhorrent.

 

[palerider]

You must be incorrect on the life span, clearly there are some that post here.

It could happen. Most likely here though, the lack of brain activity is due to atrophy, not ancephaly. We see proof every day that if we don't use it, we lose it.

 

[palerider]

[/I]


Hey, here's my 2¢ worth: I'm trying to emulate the great 'cheerleader BIB'...

How about we combine their two particle brains and then maybe they'll have a complete ½ of brain between them...let's see if we take: (BIB + GenSeneca = ½ brain)...but I would be short changing GenSeneca...I believe he just has that trolling cheerleader by default...it's not like he needs nor did he ask for her one liner smack downs...LMAO

Perhaps you should use what little you have left and try and defend your postion on abortion. To date, I have not seen you offer up anything that even approaches a rational argument.

As to GenSeneca and Pandora only having half a brain, I believe you are a victim of mis perception. It isn't that they have half a brain, they are defeating you at every turn with half their brains tied behind thier backs. You have failed miserably to argue against anyone which makes your slurs on others intelligence especially poignant.

Of course if you feel that you have at some point offered up a rational argument in defense of your position, by all means bring it forward for all to view.

 

[palerider]

Ah, but our great new Justice Sonya Sotomayor is just the first. And she explained the standing of Roe so perfectly today. I was very proud. Exactly what I've been saying. Plus the court has no intention of changing anything anyway.

She explained that she would hold to one of the worst and most indefensible decisions the court has ever made as stated even by pro choice legal advocates and you are proud. How telling.

As to her being only the first, you are making some pretty big assumptions that obama gets a second term. The press can only support him for so long and even they are growing weary. Unemployment will be 12 or 13 percent by 2012 and what he is doing to the deficit is criminal. Don't count on him being around for a second term. Hell, I wouldn't count on him having a democrat congress and senate even for the second half of this term. But hey, you dream on and root for the injustice to continue if that is what you are all about. Our system may work slowly, but it does work and in the end, we do set wrongs to right.

 

[palerider]

I think that Pale's post #1086 is a watershed statement. He is foursquare for punishment, GenSeca and I are for education--even though we disagree on the finer points of how to accomplish this. Bob bailed because he couldn't stand Pale so we don't know exactly how he'd come down on this subject. Pandora seems to be in Pale's area, but I doubt that she is as vengeant and compassionless as the person who shall not be named.

Bob bailed because he is a coward. Like or dislike is irrelavent. I certainly don't like you or top gun but because I am perfectly capable of defending my position, there is no need to tuck tail and run and claim that it is over some dislike of anyone personally. There is one reaon people run away and that is because they know they have lost and don't have the maturity required to step up and admit it.

 

[palerider]

Capitalism supports abortion as a woman's individual right and its on the basis of individual rights that I will focus my argument in support of abortion.

I believe that is an assumption on your part as an argument that allows a denial of individual rights on the basis of individual rights seems circular to me, but go on.

Since both of us are rational individuals well versed on the use and rules of logic, our exchange should be void of fallacies, emotional appeals, personal attacks and religious references... Won't that be a refreshing change?

That depends. The more rational a person is, the more subtle thier logical fallacies. But go on.

An unborn child can have no rights or freedoms whatsoever because it can take no actions, it can only continue to gestate and survive on the sustenance of its host.

Living is an action and in fact, the only action required to exercise your most fundamental right; i.e. the right to live.

You cannot grant an unborn child a right to life because such a "right" would impose an obligation on the mother and thereby be a violation of her rights.

Basic human rights are not granted. in this country, they are protected.

Capitalism recognizes that welfare is a violation of the rights of those forced to support the lives of others through their efforts and abortion is no different from welfare in that regard.

I am not going to take each point from here on because they all deal with the same theme. I understand where you are coming from, but that place is the realm of the theoretical and not the actual. I have researched the founders discussions prior to the actual writing of the constitution and have a pretty good handle on their intent.

They expressed a great many and variety of ideas with regard to freedom and responsibility, and the nature of rights themselves. So long as one is operating in the realm of theory, one can take licence with ideas to the degree that anything can be made to mean anything. While I am familiar with that place, I very rarely go there, especially in the arena of debate because it is a place that is much like religion or any of the various fantasy lands fabricated and inhabited by pro choicers where everying is opinon and nothing can be proven. That is a fine place to retreat to if you are unable to defend your position in the world of the real.

Whatever the theoretical, or actual nature of rights may be is really not important, or germain to this debate. When the founders set down their aims into writing, in the form of a binding legal document, the document took the place of their thinking on the nature of rights and freedom. I am sure that the document satisfied none of them entirely and some, or all, had to compromize to a degree.

Once the document became reality however, and was duely accepted by the nation, the time of compromize ended and the days of the law began. Whatever the nature of rights may be or whether they even exist is fodder to muse over but has no bearing on reality. A legal entity known as the United States of America was brought into being and its mission statement was expressed by the Declaration of Independence. A war was fought to make the entity permanant and when the war was finished, a set of bylaws by which the entity known as the United States of America would do buisiness and carry out its stated mission and responsibilities was written. That set of bylaws is known as the Constitution.

When the document was set down, it established a set of rules. The ideas behind the rules remain just that, ideas. The written and accepted rules are the law and it is the law that must be dealt with in the real world. There are legal means by which individual rights can be denied to either an individual, or a whole group or class. The nature of our legal system is such that a right can be denied if law is duely legislated that explicitly enumerates which right is to be denied, from whom it is to be denied, and for what reason it is to be denied.

Take the right to bare arms for example. Minors can not legally purchase firearms because law has been written that explicitly enumerates that the right (to bear arms) is to be denied to minors (who is to be denied) until such time as they reach the age of majority (reason the right is to be denied).

Our duely elected lawmakers could write law that explicitly denied the right to live from unborn human beings until such time as they are viable and in that way attempt to make abortion a valid legal practice. Personally, I doubt that it would fly because of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, but that is the only way I see to rationally make abortion legal within the set of rules that govern and direct the reality of the entity known as the United States of America.

Theoretical thinking on rights, responsibilities, freedom, etc., is all well and good, but it has no real place or application within the realm of the law. Now if one can, via theoretical thinking, make a rational argument in support of the right to abortion on demand that will work within the law, then one has an argument. To date, however, I have not seen one and see no way to make one.

The law is where my argument lives because I can prove it. Science is necesary to prove that unborns are actually human beings, but science has no bearing on the law. The law must operate within the bounds of reality and science is the only authority who can establish, with any crediblity, that unborns are human beings is the reality but that is the only part science plays. The law, the set of rules that were laid down and accepted way back when, and the amendments that have been duely legislated and accepted since lay out and describe the governemnt's responsibilites and one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the government is to assure that no one be denied life, liberty or property without due process. If the governemtn fails in that, it has failed the people it was brought into being to protect.

Your theory is that abortion is an inalienable right because.... To that, I say prove it within the context of a constitution that has a prominent equal protection clause. If you can do that, then not only will you bring me round to the pro choice side of the argument but you will be, forever, a hero of the pro choice movement; movies, book deals, talk shows, commercial endorsements, hell, you'll be biger than rush limbaugh.

I will leave it there for now and look forward to your response. I do hope its more of a challenge than what the others have offered.

As you can see, I simply don't jump in to the realm of theory. To those who might argue that theoretical thinking has a place in this discussion I have one response.

If it were your life on the line in a court of law, would you sit idly by while the prosecution admitted arguments like the ones you presented above into evidence against you or would you insist that if the prosecution couldn't show just cause that your life should be forfiet with just the facts, that they couldn't show just cause why your life should be forfiet?

What say ye?

 

[top gun]

OK Pale, thus far your competition has been less than exemplary in their defense of abortion. Emotional appeals and logical fallacies are easily shot down and the lack of support from a scientific source leave them with little else but their opinion.

While I have no science that I can call upon to support my case, I do have logic, reason and rationality with which I'm going to harness my intellectual firepower and attempt to give you the challenge that they have been unable to provide by arguing for abortion on demand. Capitalism supports abortion as a woman's individual right and its on the basis of individual rights that I will focus my argument in support of abortion.

Since both of us are rational individuals well versed on the use and rules of logic, our exchange should be void of fallacies, emotional appeals, personal attacks and religious references... Won't that be a refreshing change?

Rights: Rights are freedoms of action and are not dependent on the actions of others. I have often referred to rights as actions that you can exercise alone on a deserted island. On a deserted island, I can practice my freedom of speech as it does not require the actions of others to fulfill that right. There can be no "right" to a job or healthcare because such "rights" impose obligations on others and are dependent upon the actions of others to be fulfilled. Such obligations are a violation of the rights of those who are needed for the "right" of another to be fulfilled. While I have a right to life, I do not have a right to live off the efforts or actions of another individual.

An unborn child can have no rights or freedoms whatsoever because it can take no actions, it can only continue to gestate and survive on the sustenance of its host. You cannot grant an unborn child a right to life because such a "right" would impose an obligation on the mother and thereby be a violation of her rights. Abortion itself is an inalienable right because there can be no "right" to live off the life of another individual against that individuals will, any such obligation must be entirely voluntary.

Capitalism recognizes that welfare is a violation of the rights of those forced to support the lives of others through their efforts and abortion is no different from welfare in that regard.

Charity is a voluntary action that can be used to support the lives of others but as the word charity implies, its strictly a volitional action. Any attempt to force someone to be charitable is a violation of their rights and a negation of the volitional nature of charity and as such, when force is applied the action ceases to be charity and instead becomes forced welfare.

Therefore, all pregnancies are strictly voluntary acts, like an act of charity, and such charity can be revoked at any time for any reason. The moment a woman is forced to carry a baby to term, her rights are violated as she is no longer free to act in her own best interests but made to act in the best interests of another individual. Its at that point of force that the volitional nature of charity is replaced with forced welfare.

Do you support forcing one individual to provide the means for another individual to survive or do you think such actions should be voluntary?

Whether or not one individual is inside the others womb should not make a difference in your answer. If it does make a difference to you, then you have are faced with a contradiction and your position will be shown to be inconsistent.

I will leave it there for now and look forward to your response. I do hope its more of a challenge than what the others have offered.

That is actually a well framed argument and actually exactly what I've said and has been part of the Pro-Choice contention (which is your following quote). And nothing IMO would be more egregious than the stripping away of ones control over ones own body or internal bodily functions.

You cannot grant an unborn child a right to life because such a "right" would impose an obligation on the mother and thereby be a violation of her rights. Abortion itself is an inalienable right because there can be no "right" to live off the life of another individual against that individuals will, any such obligation must be entirely voluntary

I tend to disagree that there cannot be interpretation of founding documents overall though. The reason for this is that in real life application there are often "conflicting interests" and one could go to two different places in those documents and find a reason of justification supporting two completely and diametrically opposed interests. And of course there were out & out mistakes or injustices included that were and could be again addressed with Constitutional Amendments.

I'm never extremely comfortable with excessive Constitutional Amendments but I would predict that as time, technology and conditions mandate this may well be done, and done a lot over time to set in stone needed changes. Although I must admit to be honest I'm more in the camp that says there is interpretation that can be gleaned and used in most cases.

But the good thing is even we have found at least a nugget to agree on.

I'm interested though do you not see all of these things as having to be immediately removed completely from the table if a what you're calling a no "forced" welfare policy were to be the standard enforced? All in some part either use taxpayer money.

I'll list a tiny few just to demonstrate the scope of how different our country would be and I think it's reasonable to see the third world type poverty it would bring, the utter chaos, anarchy and much increased war.

Strictly adhered to nothing that receives any taxpayer dollars other than Defense spending (because that is specifically cited) would be allowed to be funded. Because there would always be at least one person that would be opposed to it hence making it a "forced charity".

Zero funding except some voluntary contributions for:

All ADC

All Medicare

All Medicaid

All Social Security

All Food Stamp programs

All of NASA

All Education funding

All government funded MRDD & mental health programs

All Roads, highways & bridge funding

All National Park funding

All Environmental protection funding

All Worker protection funding

All Unemployment compensation

All Tax funded medical research

All Foreign aid of any type

anything & everything except for Defense must be totally voluntarily funded.

So I guess what I'm saying is this. If you were correct and could ever find the backing to wipe away all of the much needed programs & services using the premise that even one person in decent can nullify any program or service (except Defense) that receives tax money then I would run not walk to get in line to vote for an entire new government structure.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Perhaps you should use what little you have left and try and defend your postion on abortion. To date, I have not seen you offer up anything that even approaches a rational argument.

CRS...re-read my posts# 1042, 1048, 1051, once you kept telling me that my POV was irrelevant...you closed the discussion, so don't worry, your still not on the same page as I am about when life begins and you will NEVER EVER BE...so we agree to disagree. I'm PRO-CHOICE and I do not force my POV onto anyone else. The Supreme Court won't be reviewing this issue this year, next year...most likely not for the next 10 years...but this won't change your hyped up attempt to continue to preach your thoughts around the forum. Continue On!!!

As to GenSeneca and Pandora only having half a brain, I believe you are a victim of mis perception. It isn't that they have half a brain, they are defeating you at every turn with half their brains tied behind thier backs. You have failed miserably to argue against anyone which makes your slurs on others intelligence especially poignant.

Poking back at the simplistic belittling that goes on around here is what we do...they poke fun/ridicule and when they get it served right back then it is my fault...NO, I DON'T THINK SO!!! You've just served up another OPINION about me as you have when you keep telling me that I'm IRRELEVENT...so your slurs on my personality and opinion is just as poignant!

Of course if you feel that you have at some point offered up a rational argument in defense of your position, by all means bring it forward for all to view.

Refer to the first paragraph of my response...in case your CRS is operating at high speed today.