Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Adding the "potential" dimension raises an additional probelm. 18-year old college freshman away from home for the first time gets herself a little tipsy and ends up carrying the child of some hormone-crazed and quickly vanished frat boy. She doesn't want this or any child, but then you come along and convince her she should keep it. So she drops out of school, takes a service job, has the kid, takes a second job and basically works her fingers to the bone for the next 20 years to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. At the end, she's left a single and exhausted empty-nester at the age of 40. But here's my question. If you hadn't come along, she would have ended that pregnancy and stayed in school. She'd have ended up marrying a handsome soon-to-be securities regulator, and at ages of 24, 26, and 29, given birth to two little boys and a bouncing baby girl. Where are those three children? If not for you, they would have been here today as big as life, as real as you or me, and as cute as a button to boot. But you killed them. All three of them. You traded their three lives away in exchange for one. What do you say to those children? How do you explain it to them?
So you espouse aborting the life of 1 real child in favor 3 imaginary ones?
What if you abort that baby and because of the brutality of what mankind has done to yet another unborn child the inhabitants of the planet Darkon become enrage and declare intergalactic war on the planet earth......... I'm just sayin" what if?"
and this is what i was talking about. in every other arena, a tie goes to the defender. in the case of abortion, tie goes to the antagonist. who is it that decides that the burden of proof goes to those that oppose the act? you are using roe v wade as if it is gospel doctrine (funny, because i seem to remember you being one of those that rolls their eyes at the fundies; though i could be remembering someone else on these forums...).
I can't speak for your recollections, but speaking for myself, I have no issues with fundies until they step (as they too regularly do) outside the box. Religion is an individual matter in this country. No one gets to use the agency of the state to elevate sectarian beliefs, or to coerce those onto people who have not been convinced of them by ordinary means.
Otherwise, the generality is that the burden of proof falls upon the claimant. In a discussion or debate, each side may be expected to advance claims, and in each case, that side bears the burden of proof. In the instant case, it is apparent that a fetus is an example of life that is of human origin. It is apparent as well that human life alone is not sufficient grounds to warrant any special protected status at all. We routinely remove and discard entities that are unequivocally human life, and there is no debate over it. If a claim is to be made that fetuses should be separated from this class, then the reasoning of the claim must be A) stated, and B) proven. As far as at least the recent history of this thread goes, we are still waiting to see a cogent example of Part-A.
Roe v Wade meanwhile is the status quo. It asserts that every woman has a Constitutional right not to be pregnant. The state may not compel a woman to become pregnant, not should she become so against her wishes, may it compel her to remain in that state. Assuming a lack of biological compromise, an average woman might be expected to conceive and potentially bear as many as 20 children over a reproductive lifetime. Perhaps a few more in some cases. Is it the case that women are compelled to that biological potential, or, as the courts have ruled, may they take steps at their individual discretion to limit it? While we're at it, if they may take such steps, are reasons of convenience to be seen as a sufficient and legitimate cause for them? In more particular terms, does a woman retain via the 9th and other Amendments the right to guide her own reproductive history, or does the Constitution establish a power whereunder the state may intervene and make her reproductive decisions for her?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl
what you are literally saying is that since we currently do not know, then we will presume that it is not a being yet. we will presume that it is on par with a rectum, or a hair follicle.
What I am literally saying is what I have actually said: that the standard of human life alone does not in any way distinguish a fetus from various other examples of it that no one at all has had any trouble in coming up with. Those who would wish to enhance the status of a fetus beyond that which it earns by virtue of being human life are invited to follow the prescription above. State the claim, and then prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl
the whole point of this is that there is a large number of people that think roe v wade is criminally negligent and politically based. we question the logic that was used in order to decide that the mother is the one that deserves the benefit of the doubt. to simply continue quoting roe v wade in defense of its own existence is not an argument.
This large number of people may be operating beyond the bounds of reason, but they are well within their rights in characterizing the opinion in Roe and in choosing under any circumstance not to have an abortion. The whole point of this actually is whether, having failed to mount any sufficiently convincing argument for them, these people should then be able to use the the agency of the state to coerce their ideas onto an even larger number of people who do not find such ideas compelling or even appealling. And let's be quite clear here. There is only one side seeking to force its ideas upon the other. The pro-choice side does not seek to interfere with the individual beliefs or actions of anyone. The pro-life side seeks to do both, and in this they venture far beyond their own proper bounds.
as far as the woman having the right to not become pregnant, i agree 100%. but if she decides to take that risk, now affecting another human being, then she has already made that decision. now, the fetus' right to live trumps her own right to decide that she didn't want to be pregnant after all.
Then you actually agree 0%, and you continue to assume a variety of facts that are not at all in evidence. There is no meaning to a right that can be exercised only when it is not needed. You may as well endorse a right of universal suffrage that may be exercised on any day that is not Election Day. Meanwhile, that a fetus is a human being rather than mere human life is the very point that you have so far failed to address, much less establish, and there is no known source for these fetal super-rights that you claim that goes anywhere beyond the claim itself. The concepts of physical integrity and personal domain are long- and well-established traditions in our law. No entity, regardless of its other rights, has a right to compromise those without consent. And make no mistake...taking up residence inside a woman's uterus is very much a compromise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl
the only argument that makes any sense as far as i can see...is to claim that the fetus is not yet a human being, that there is some magic point down the road, either during the pregnancy, or during the actual child birth, that it becomes a human being. that is really the only logical ground that i see pro-choicers as having.
It is actually one among many, and you again do not address it. Instead you complain about the concept of "bright lines" having only just drawn one yourself. Life is a continuum, and birth is a process. Any moment within either will be virtually indistinguishable from those that immediately precede or follow it. Any "bright line" will be arbitrary. You cannot claim the right to be arbitrary while denying it to others. You can however develop independent standards and assess how close to meeting those an entity has become at any given point in time. This is what pro-choicers do. This is what pro-lifers do not do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl
so again, why in the world should the baby be convicted, merely because there is supposedly not enough evidence to corroborate its innocence?
BZZZZT! A fetus is a very long way from being a baby, and innocence doesn't play any part because it can't. Innocence is a quality that lies well beyond fetal capacities. A fetus lacks any mechanism for decision-making or for recognizing right and wrong. Neither innocence nor guilt is within its reach, which is probably a good thing, as we would otherwise have grounds for denouncing it as a greedy and self-serving entity that rapaciously appropriates every available resource and thoughtlessly puts them to its own selfish purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl
when then does it become human? at birth? well, then why are so many of them so vocal about "oh, i don't support late-term abortions. that's just unethical."?
See the above about what pro-choicers do that pro-lifers don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl
i realize that there is more than one brand of pro-choicer out there, and in that respect, i would like the opinions of the various styles that we have here on this forum.
I can only speak for my own brand, but your point causes me to wonder whether you perceive either a greater or a lesser degree of diversity in brands on the pro-life side as on the pro-choice side.
Looks like you've already been educated on this fallacy by others so I won't waste my time.
Your pretty much the only one in this thread thats made personal attacks. With very few exceptions this discussion has been, suprisingly, civil.
You, of all people, are calling someone judgemental. That statement alone is being "judgemental".
Yeah. That pretty much goes without saying.
What question? My solution for fewer abortions is to stop having abortions. Its real simple.
Yeah, amazingly enough, if theres too much of something happening and you do it less then there won't be as much of it happening. Weird huh.
Birth control is available for free to anyone that makes an effort to get it and is readily available in bathroom vending machines. Sex ed IS taught in schools.
Your solution to the problem is to continue on with the same failed methods already in use. Thats genious!
The only reason you repeat yourself is because you have nothing new to say. It sure as heck isn't for our benefit.
Funny how you accuse me of having nothing new to say and yet all your posts have been directed at insulting me. Impressive!
I will not further entertain someone who has no additions to a discussion but would rather pick fights to further their ego. Enjoy feeling good about yourself. I will continue to fight for women to have a choice and your insolence only strengthens my resolve.
First of all...just when I have used 'unborn child' iconography? Oh, I haven't. I have objected to dehumanizing a fetus to the level of a womans genital warts, though. Secondly, if most pregnancies are doomed to failure -- why abort? Wouldn't the womans chances be much greater that nature will take its course, epecially with the drug or alcohol addicted? And as for your story. How utterly ridiculous. First of all, had you read this entire thread you would have known that I do support emergency contraception. You would also know that while I find abortion to be wrong on many levels, I recognize that it is here to stay and as such should be have strict boundaries i.e. 12 weeks or (better still) earlier.
I am not at all concerned with your personal beliefs or how they may operate within your own life. Those are matters for you to contend with and decide. I am concerned to the extent that you seek to force me and others to behave as if your beliefs were our own. To the extent that you and others have presented arguments toward that end, I have responded to them.
Meanwhile, you have still not offered any claim that would elevate a fetus to a level beyond that earned as well by genital warts. That you seem to find genital warts undesirable and unworthy is not surprising. That you view a fetus differently without being able to explain why perhaps is.
Otherwise, 100% is obviously larger than 50%, and by the time that an unwanted pregnancy has reached the point at which a typical abortion is elected, the odds have become somewhat less favorable than 50%. The fact remains that a woman has the right to decide if and when to reproduce. Neither any pro-lifer nor any fetus has the right to make that decsion for her.
As for the story being ridiculous, it is merely your own argument as seen from a slightly different point of view. How often do we hear that abortions are snuffing out innocent potential lives? Well, the champions of compulsory childbirth do exactly the same thing. You command one potential life into existence while slamming the door on others. You simply aren't willing to own up to the fact. You never did say what you would tell those three children, did you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camping!
Abortion rights? Lets just not lose sight of the seriousness and the weight of the decision. A life is ended, a heartbeat has been stopped and brainwaves ended. Treat the decision with the hubris it deserves.
I don't think you meant to use the word hubris, but the irony of it is appreciated anyway. Meanwhile, if there are any pro-choice people who take the matter of an unwanted pregnancy lightly, I certainly have not met any of them. Once one is in that situation, there are no good ways out. Yet one must be chosen. Some simply resign themselves to their fate, declaring that it must be the will of God, and then point to this as an example of having taken Personal Responsibility®. Others actually take personal responsibility and in the context of their own thoughts and beliefs and those of various trusted confidantes and advisors come to the decision that they honestly believe to be best in the long-run. Some of these go this way, and some go that. But none takes the matter lightly.
Otherwise, you may need to scrap this image of a fetus as being a toddler shrunk down to miniature size. In its early stages, the heartbeat you hear is an involuntary tic. No blood is being pumped and no circulatory system to pump it through is yet in place. Early fetal brainwaves are merely electronic noise. Go pull the cable out of the back of your TV and you will have an idea of what those brainwaves signify.
Last edited by saganista; 10-17-2008 at 07:36 AM..
The right to choose is NOT being "pro-abortion"!!! It is having the RIGHT to make your own decision! Many choose NOT to abort! (the best thing would be to choose NOT to get pregnant....but that's another story!!!)
If abortion is made illegal again, women will still have them done (just like they used to), but they will be done in the most horrific manner by unsterilized equip. and women will die in the process.
It would be so much easier to make birth control readily available AND AFFORDABLE to anyone seeking it. PREVENT the pregnancy, and you won't need to end it!
Sensible post, thank you .
You're right about it being about the right to make your own decision....should women have the right TO chose TO HAVE a baby...????
Then they better have the right NOT to......
Think, people!!! Think of the consequences of controlling such a personal decision by the government.
Think it will end there...then think again.
OK, here's the thread killer:
The ONLY way to end abortions is if males are sterilized at birth, every one.....it's the ONLY way.
IF R v.W is overturned , please, anyone, explain how that will stop abortions....
IF R v.W is overturned , please, anyone, explain how that will stop abortions....
We all know it won't stop anything, except poor women who don't have the funds to pay for a back alley abortion. or going to another country for one. And the poor women will then most likely get government assistance in some shape or form.
Rich or middle class women in the past found ways to deal with unwanted pregnancy... and would continue to do so. Does making drugs illegal stop them???? Doesn't look like it. Just makes if more profitable for the drug dealer.
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
I propose you stop lying to yourself about what it means to be human.
An apendix is an apendix. It can never be more or less then what it is. A human fetus will not always be a fetus. In fact, it is in a constant state of flux -- every day brings new change, new developements. That cannot be denied. Unless you are suggesting you are the result of your mothers hemorrhoidectomy and not a vaginal birth? (which would explain a lot, )
So, science has determined that a human fetus will grow into a human -- and while it may be possible to make a silk purse out of a pigs ear, nothing but a human will develope from an embryo, and all humans started out as embryos. Of the human variety, of course. In other words, a human fetus will not turn into a monkey, a door, an eggplant just as no human ever developed from a polyp, cuticle clippings or the ejaculate alone of a human male. Or the human menses -- I've heard that propped up as an (weak) argument as well. Thought I would jump the gun there......
I didn't really need to read the opposing side to know, after this post (complete with idiotic insult) that.......... YOU LOSE!
Please give me your ideas , real ones , on ending abortions....see if you can do it without using the word " if ".
IF R v.W is overturned , please, anyone, explain how that will stop abortions....
We all know it won't stop anything, except poor women who don't have the funds to pay for a back alley abortion. or going to another country for one. And the poor women will then most likely get government assistance in some shape or form.
Rich or middle class women in the past found ways to deal with unwanted pregnancy... and would continue to do so. Does making drugs illegal stop them???? Doesn't look like it. Just makes if more profitable for the drug dealer.
Good and very meaningful point....overturning RvW is an open frontal attack on POOR women...who, when FORCED to have babies they can't afford, will be castigated and ridiculed by the righties for being on Welfare....an ATTACK on women...
Good and very meaningful point....overturning RvW is an open frontal attack on POOR women...who, when FORCED to have babies they can't afford, will be castigated and ridiculed by the righties for being on Welfare....an ATTACK on women...
We can't have it both ways... exactly. Either we give women a choice to control their own fertility, or we reduce them to breeding machines. If we chose the latter, we don't have any right complaining if they need public assistance. Saying they shouldn't have sex is just silly. How many people here only have sex in order to conceive???? Please do let us know if this is you - you are a rare specimen, indeed. Birth control fails sometimes.
And what about the men? What about all the "Fathers" that leave the women to deal with pregnancy alone, or they take off after the child is here???? Plenty of them don't pay child support. Look in the people search forum how many there are looking for their fathers that they never had a relationship with nor have the mothers received any support....
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
