[krankklown]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Baby is the wrong word to use. Baby implies a fully developed fetus. In reality what is being destroyed are merely zygotes and primitive embryos

From MW:

zygote: the developing individual produced from such a cell...

Know what makes a zygote individual from all other cells in the mother's body? No other cells have the same exact DNA. All her skin cells are similar. Blood cells? Millions of the same cells. Bone? Same. Stomach? Same. Brain? Same. Heart, lungs, kidneys? All similar cells working together. But the zygote is completely different. An individual, quoting MW.

[krankklown]

Originally posted by SVass:
Those who oppose abortion support the death penalty.

Because murderers don't deserve a second chance. I believe if our society tolerates the ending of an unborn life then we should just go ahead and execute the convicted minutes after sentence is handed down. At least the accused has a chance to defend himself through legal process. If you believe abortion is OK you must therefore think it's OK to execute murderers, doncha think?

Those who oppose abortion oppose hiring lawyers for the accused.Those who oppose abortion oppose allowing defendants from having witnesses for their defense. (Why can't Moussaoui question a man whose testimony is quoted in his indictment?-The sixth amendment gives him this ABSOLUTE right!)

And this has to do with abortion.......exactly how?

[krankklown]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Umm, impugning the intelligence of Supreme Court justices is NOT the right way to make your point.

The justices who permitted abortion with the decision in Roe v. Wade are no more nor no less intelligent than those who would preside over a decision outlawing abortion. You need to divorce your emotions from your logic if you want to be taken seriously.

9 bumbling fools on a bench don't have the right to dictate their misguided will to the people.

The legislature is the proper venue for this.

The sooner we abolish the Supremes the better off we'll be.

[krankklown]

Originally posted by Athens:
What people decide to do to there families is there problem.

Therefore, if my neighbor is about to murder one of their own then I should just turn a blind eye and not care a bit?

Won't affect me one iota if the man or woman next door turns up dead in their bathtub now, will it?

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
deej5871: I wasn't talking about the unlikely risk of death (note I said "non-lethal attack" in my analogy), rather about the 100% risk of extended pain, discomfort, hormonal disruption, nausea, weight gain and whatever else comes with pregnancy, not to mention actually raising children. But since you've brought those statistics, they seem to indicate that child-birth is 3400% more dangerous (regarding risk of death) than abortion in the 1st trimester, which account for some 90% of abortions in the US from what I've read. Is that what you were trying to point out?

Grandmother threatening you with a knife...yet non-lethal? What's she do, cut off your fingers? I think it'd be better to say grandma is threatening you with paper cuts. They can be rather unpleasant but, as you said, are not life-threatening. As for having to raise the child, there is always adoption. You don't want it you can give it away. And please please please don't try the "well the mother gets attached to it after it's born" because this is the same mother that was going to kill it before birth (in the situation that abortion is illegal and she had to birth the baby).

And anyway, if you're arguing that women shouldn't have to go through these problems, what do you say to (and I know this is not really a good comparison) men that get drafted and have to go to war? They are likely to endure some pain, just as an expectant mother. The difference is the mother did something (have sex) to get in her situation and all the draftee did was turn 18.

All things considered abortion is considered a "very safe procedure", so it's not surprising that giving birth is more dangerous (I only brought it up because of how they were related). I think a more interesting comparison would be something like car accident deaths to birth deaths. Maybe a "likelihood of getting killed in a car accident on your way to the abortion center" type thing (I know, you could make the same comparison with going to the hospital to give birth, but that's not my main point). I'm betting that any woman getting an abortion rides in a car regularly.

So, back to my point from the end of my previous post, if you risk your life greatly doing one thing (riding in a car), why not another (giving birth)?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by deej5871:
Grandmother threatening you with a knife...yet non-lethal?

Yes. My google-fu is not strong, but a first pass gives statistics between 1 in 50 and 1 in 1000 for knife attack fatality rates. Someone please do better; but I'm pretty confident you can have a good chance of surviving a knife attack, especially from your grandmother. That certainly doesn't mean you'll come out uninjured if you don't defend yourself.

As for having to raise the child...

That's why I said "NOT to mention." Ok, that was a low blow. Forget I mentioned raising the child; it's not relevant.

what do you say to (and I know this is not really a good comparison) men that get drafted and have to go to war?

Not the best comparison, but interesting nonetheless. What's the deal on conscientious objector-hood? How common is it, and how hard is it to declare? Also I thought you could get out of the draft lots of ways, like being enrolled in higher education, running your own business, being an only child, etc. How many of those are true? PS. I am deeply opposed to the draft, not that that matters.

(I only brought it up because of how they were related).

I think you've gotten side-tracked. No one is encouraging women to have abortions instead of being pregnant. They're merely objecting to the state preventing women from choosing. Whatever similarity you find between the two options emphasizes the injustice of not allowing each woman faced with the options to make her own decision.

if you risk your life greatly doing one thing (riding in a car), why not another (giving birth)?

Pro-Choice. You have the choice to ride in a car. Don't get distracted by kilbey's "misleadingly vivid language" No one is pro-abortion, and we're not discussing anyone encouraging abortions.

[krankklown]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:


Pro-Choice.

What is being chosen? To have or not to have? Why can't that choice be made prior to getting laid?

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
Yes. My google-fu is not strong, but a first pass gives statistics between 1 in 50 and 1 in 1000 for knife attack fatality rates. Someone please do better; but I'm pretty confident you can have a good chance of surviving a knife attack, especially from your grandmother. That certainly doesn't mean you'll come out uninjured if you don't defend yourself.

That's kinda why I switched the comparison to paper cuts. The likelihood of dying from grandmothers with knives is much higher than maternal death rates. I realize that making a stink over your comparison is kind of dumb, but I think comparing being pregnant with being threatened with a knife is not the way to go.

Not the best comparison, but interesting nonetheless. What's the deal on conscientious objector-hood? How common is it, and how hard is it to declare? Also I thought you could get out of the draft lots of ways, like being enrolled in higher education, running your own business, being an only child, etc. How many of those are true? PS. I am deeply opposed to the draft, not that that matters.

Ooh...um...Will an "I don't know" suffice for this? I'm of a more recent generation.

I think you've gotten side-tracked. No one is encouraging women to have abortions instead of being pregnant. They're merely objecting to the state preventing women from choosing. Whatever similarity you find between the two options emphasizes the injustice of not allowing each woman faced with the options to make her own decision.

Yeah, this is kind of useless offshoot of any real argument. What you're saying here just brings me back to "some people think it's life, and some think it isn't". That's basically all any abortion argument dwindles down to in the end.

Just one quick personal thing to add to this: I think that anyone who thought that Terri Schiavo should have been kept alive to "err on the side of life" should not be allowed to get an abortion. That would just be the epitome of hypocrisy (I realize that most people that wanted Schiave to live were pro-lifers to begin with, but I'm sure someone out there is like this).

Pro-Choice. You have the choice to ride in a car. Don't get distracted by kilbey's "misleadingly vivid language" No one is pro-abortion, and we're not discussing anyone encouraging abortions.

Actually I haven't read much of Kilbey's posts . But anyway, if you aren't pro-life then you're pro-abortion. Saying pro-choice is much different than pro-abortion is just semantics. Sure, it's true they are pro-choice simply because they don't want to force people to have abortions (while lifers want to force births), however any pro-choice person wants abortion to stay legalized; therefore they are pro-abortion.

PS: "Google-fu"

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
And those of us who are pro-choice argue that the personal choice of the mother trumps any rights ....

...of ANYONE.

The right of "personal choice" of a woman to abandon responsibility for her actions is something that always infringes on the rights of others...the unborn, the sperm donor, etc.

I'll buy the "choice" argument when women are actually forced to be responsible for their personal choices. As it stands, if a women personally choses to have sex, have her eggs fertilized, and chooses to see the development of her offspring though birth, the sperm donor is required to have equal responsibilty for her choices.

How you can you argue for total freedom of choice for women, then force men to have to be responsible for those choices and THAT be somehow constitutional? It's mind boggingly irrational, unfair and totally ignores the rights of men to personal choice. There simply is not a logical argument why women should have "choice" but a man not have choice to abdicate responsiblity. But of course...this has never been about what is right or fair, but rather what will pull laws and instutions further to the far left by the courts, when it isn't supported by the majority of Americans.

With rights, comes responsibility. If women REALLY had to accept laws which where logical and respected ALL human's right to choose, I doubt we'd have as many claim to be "pro choice". As it stands, the laws are neither logical, or based on anything constitutional that wasn't simply made up of whole cloth.

ps. As for the question regarding implanation as an alternative, I think that's a great idea. I can't figure out anyone whose rights would be violated in such a situation. If a woman chooses not to allow her offspring to develop, then the sperm donor should be able to have "dibs" on it for implantation or other use for the future (if science advancement permits).

[krankklown]

I think that anyone who thought that Terri Schiavo should have been kept alive to "err on the side of life" should not be allowed to get an abortion. That would just be the epitome of hypocrisy (I realize that most people that wanted Schiave to live were pro-lifers to begin with, but I'm sure someone out there is like this

I believe the emphasis isn't on whether or not to have kept Terri alive but to have made sure that her wishes were not to be kept alive in such a situation. The issue wasn't to keep Terri alive indefinately but to insure that her wishes were known and legally taken into account.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by deej5871:
That's kinda why I switched the comparison to paper cuts. The likelihood of dying from grandmothers with knives is much higher than maternal death rates. I realize that making a stink over your comparison is kind of dumb, but I think comparing being pregnant with being threatened with a knife is not the way to go.

But no one ever dies from a paper cut; you showed yourself that a significant number die from childbirth. How about scalding with boiling water or pepper spray and a taser?

Yeah, this is kind of useless offshoot of any real argument. What you're saying here just brings me back to "some people think it's life, and some think it isn't".

Yeah. Well, since this will soon be a post about language anyway...it's already been pointed out in this thread that this language is misleading. Everyone knows it's "life," what they disagree on is whether it's "a person." Every cell in your body, or any animal's or plant's body, including sperm and eggs, is alive. So I guess you might even say "pro-life" is a mis-nomer, since the group has no specific philosophy towards non-human life. "Pro-Fetus" might be more accurate.

anyone who thought that Terri Schiavo should have been kept alive to "err on the side of life" should not be allowed to get an abortion.

That doesn't exactly follow. To "err on the side of life" implies that there might be a circumstance under which she should be allowed to die, and they thought that just hadn't been proven to be it. In the particular case of Schiavo, it was proven legally and medically that there was no "err" beyond a reasonable doubt, a fact which is becoming clearer and clearer in the events since her (body organs') death, and the people who fought against it were simply willfully ignorant of the facts. They weren't actually being hypocrites.

if you aren't pro-life then you're pro-abortion. Saying pro-choice is much different than pro-abortion is just semantics. Sure, it's true they are pro-choice simply because they don't want to force people to have abortions (while lifers want to force births), however any pro-choice person wants abortion to stay legalized; therefore they are pro-abortion.

No, it's not semantics. By that logic you might as well say "against pro-life must mean pro-death. you love death." Pro-abortion would mean you support abortions. I don't want any abortions to be necessary, and I would encourage any individual woman not to get an abortion. Pro-choice means you don't think it's the government's place to step in after that and tell her she doesn't have the right to decide the fate of her own body (especially if that government happens to be composed of men who would never agree to personally accept the fate they are imposing on her).

It's very similar to the gay marriage issue. It's none of the government's business, and it stinks of the christian right trying to impose its bigotted, anti-intellectual, anti-evolution, anti-earth-revolving-around-the-freakin-sun morals on everyone else.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
But no one ever dies from a paper cut; you showed yourself that a significant number die from childbirth. How about scalding with boiling water or pepper spray and a taser?

All I wanted to get across is being threatened with a knife is pretty extreme for this example. You showed yourself that the getting knifed is much more likely to kill you than having a baby.

Yeah. Well, since this will soon be a post about language anyway...it's already been pointed out in this thread that this language is misleading. Everyone knows it's "life," what they disagree on is whether it's "a person." Every cell in your body, or any animal's or plant's body, including sperm and eggs, is alive. So I guess you might even say "pro-life" is a mis-nomer, since the group has no specific philosophy towards non-human life. "Pro-Fetus" might be more accurate.

No, it's not semantics. By that logic you might as well say "against pro-life must mean pro-death. you love death." Pro-abortion would mean you support abortions. I don't want any abortions to be necessary, and I would encourage any individual woman not to get an abortion. Pro-choice means you don't think it's the government's place to step in after that and tell her she doesn't have the right to decide the fate of her own body (especially if that government happens to be composed of men who would never agree to personally accept the fate they are imposing on her).

No, I decree that this is semantics. But really, if one side of an argument is for abortion, and the other is against it, then one side must be pro-abortion. If not, they would both be anti-abortion and they would not be in disagreement. Don't complicate this by adding choice in there, I'm keeping it simple. That's also why I wouldn't include any middle of the road people. I'm talking about people that actually take sides in this. And yes, for all intents and purposes a group that is not pro-life must be pro-death, because in the pro-lifer's eyes, having an abortion is killing a baby and so anyone supporting that abortion is supporting death. That's why this debate gets so heated in many cases. Some pro-lifers really do see the opposite side as murderers.

Anyhow, stupendousman has an interesting angle I think (one that somewhat addresses what you wrote in your last parentheses):

Together we've proven that birth is more unsafe than abortion. So, why can't a man who is half of that baby force her to have an abortion? It's his too. Besides, according to the statistics that would be playing it safe. And even if you think he doesn't deserve being part of the choice, then why are men forced to pay child support if the woman decides to have the baby? Before it was born the man has no say in what happens but afterward he has to pay for it? In any situation involving a child, women hold all the cards, not the evil "man's government".

Last thing: As for erring on the side of life. I just used Schiavo because many people had said there was a chance that she was alive and still a "person" as you say; while others think there is a chance that a fetus is a "person". One needs to be consistent.

[stupendousman]

It's very easy to be consistent and pro-science in determining these things. In fact, consistency is exactly what is needed.

The scientific measure we've used for years to determine if someone was "alive" (therefore, a "person" with rights) was if they had measureable brainwaves and a heartbeat. In fact, you can not "allow" someone to die if they have both unless they are in a permanent vegatative state (not ever capable of communicating with the outside world..not the case in the Schiavo senario or in the case of the unborn).

Of course, consistency and scientific reasoning like that would inconvenience the pro-death crowd, so such logic will most likely go unheeded. The whole debate from the left ion these issues is so hopelessly illogical it hurts my head sometimes.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I say we don't know. So until we do, we shouldn't be doing it.

We don't know what?

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Nick:
Just because something has "potential" means nothing. There is infinite potential for human lives to be created. If your parents didn't have you, that potential would have gone to waste. Does that mean a person was killed? No.

Exactly. Potentiality is not an argument.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by deomacius:
Cold! So cold!


"I want my babyback, babyback, babyback, babyback, babyback ribs."

{Okay, that was in bad taste!}
{{Oooh.... I did it again!!}}

"...a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by deej5871:
All I wanted to get across is being threatened with a knife is pretty extreme for this example. You showed yourself that the getting knifed is much more likely to kill you than having a baby.

Yes, before I tried to find statistics, I guessed that a knife threat from an old woman might be on par with unwanted pregnancy and childbirth with regard to physical danger. This analogy has been amended many times already and I think it's getting closer to being relevant each time. Do you agree? if not, can you think of a better amendment to it? What about the taser and pepper spray, think that's closer?

No, I decree that this is semantics. But really, if one side of an argument is for abortion, and the other is against it, then one side must be pro-abortion.

If one side of a debate is for the Patriot Act and the other is against it, one side must be pro-patriots and the other anti-patriots right? No, wait, one side must be pro-terrorists right?

Can I please just make sure I know what "semantics" means? I thought it meant that we agree on the content but are confused by the language. If I think Pro-Choice is about the government taking control of its citizens' bodies, and you think it's about trying to increase the number of abortions, we don't agree on the content. What's your decree of what "semantics" means?

Don't complicate this by adding choice in there

How about you don't complicate this by adding abortion in there? Does that sound like a stupid thing to say? It is. This issue is about choice. And it's about abortion. You can choose to ignore half of it and suddenly you think you have the answer. Sounds a lot like people who chose to ignore the issue of Schiavo's wishes (and medical findings) and went to war for "why not err on the side of life." When you flat out ignore one side of a discussion, of course it seems like the other side is right.

Together we've proven that birth is more unsafe than abortion. So, why can't a man who is half of that baby force her to have an abortion? It's his too. Besides, according to the statistics that would be playing it safe.

Are you kidding? Why can't a man force his wife not to eat red meat? Or drink alcohol? Or go outside without covering her face and hair? Because we don't live it ****ing Iran, that's why.

why are men forced to pay child support if the woman decides to have the baby?

I don't know. Maybe we should impose a fine on abortions. Would that make it even?

Last thing: As for erring on the side of life. I just used Schiavo because many people had said there was a chance that she was alive and still a "person" as you say; while others think there is a chance that a fetus is a "person". One needs to be consistent.

I'm certainly not saying that "I told you so" is any kind of evidence for right and wrong, but I would like to point out that in the case of Schiavo, the people who said there was a chance turned out to be just plain wrong (or grandstanding in the media with the knowledge that their bluff would never be called). I know people think there is a chance a 6-week fetus is a "person," and I would be interested to hear their technical analysis of how they came to that conclusion, but you have to admit, especially after the Schiavo debacle, that there is a chance that these people are just plain wrong.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
The scientific measure we've used for years to determine if someone was "alive" (therefore, a "person" with rights) was if they had measureable brainwaves and a heartbeat.

Hmm. And before that it was just heartbeat. Things change. Maybe we should change the window of legal abortion (except the exceptions) to be before brainwaves are detectable.

you can not "allow" someone to die if they have both unless they are in a permanent vegatative state (not ever capable of communicating with the outside world..not the case in the Schiavo senario or in the case of the unborn).

Sorry, that was too many double-negatives for me to follow. Could you rephrase please?

the pro-death crowd

Name-calling? That's how you decide issues?

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
Yes, before I tried to find statistics, I guessed that a knife threat from an old woman might be on par with unwanted pregnancy and childbirth with regard to physical danger. This analogy has been amended many times already and I think it's getting closer to being relevant each time. Do you agree? if not, can you think of a better amendment to it? What about the taser and pepper spray, think that's closer?

No, I'm done with that analogy. You wanna keep amending it that's fine but I'm done with it.

If one side of a debate is for the Patriot Act and the other is against it, one side must be pro-patriots and the other anti-patriots right? No, wait, one side must be pro-terrorists right?

You're confused. The patriot act doesn't exactly have much to do with patriots. It's not about pro-patriots or anti-patriots. It's Pro-Patriot Act, or Anti-Patriot Act, and these are the terms it can be reduced down to. And no, you can't bring terrorists into this. Why? Because you brought them in because you said that would be anti-patriot but, again, this isn't about patriots, it's about the Patriot Act. Pro-terrorists is not the opposing side of Pro-Patriot Act.

Can I please just make sure I know what "semantics" means? I thought it meant that we agree on the content but are confused by the language. If I think Pro-Choice is about the government taking control of its citizens' bodies, and you think it's about trying to increase the number of abortions, we don't agree on the content. What's your decree of what "semantics" means?

I don't think it's about increasing abortions at all. However, Pro-Choice people wish abortion to stay legalized, and Pro-Lifers disagree. Therefore, since one side wants abortion, they are the pro-abortion side. The other side doesn't want abortion, they are they anti-abortion side. And we are currently arguing about the terming of the different sides of this debate, so it IS semantics, according to the dictionary.com definition.

How about you don't complicate this by adding abortion in there? Does that sound like a stupid thing to say? It is. This issue is about choice. And it's about abortion. You can choose to ignore half of it and suddenly you think you have the answer. Sounds a lot like people who chose to ignore the issue of Schiavo's wishes (and medical findings) and went to war for "why not err on the side of life." When you flat out ignore one side of a discussion, of course it seems like the other side is right.

I'm saying don't put the choice of whether or not to actually have the abortion in there because that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about one side for legal abortion, the other against it. Sure, someone on the pro-abortion side can choose not to have an abortion, but they still think it should be legal, so they are indeed pro-abortion. Therefore, choice doesn't necessarily factor into an abortion debate.

Are you kidding? Why can't a man force his wife not to eat red meat? Or drink alcohol? Or go outside without covering her face and hair? Because we don't live it ****ing Iran, that's why.

You're way off here. This isn't about forcing someone to do something, it's about part ownership. The man is half the baby, he should have a say in what happens to it. Don't you agree that a man should be a part of parenting his own child?

I don't know. Maybe we should impose a fine on abortions. Would that make it even?

What does a fine on abortions have to do with anything? Explain to me how that has to do with a man being half of a baby. What I was saying is the man gets no say before the birth, and can have to pay for it afterwards. How does a fine on abortions give the man either more say before the birth or take away his responsibility afterward? It does neither.

I'm certainly not saying that "I told you so" is any kind of evidence for right and wrong, but I would like to point out that in the case of Schiavo, the people who said there was a chance turned out to be just plain wrong (or grandstanding in the media with the knowledge that their bluff would never be called). I know people think there is a chance a 6-week fetus is a "person," and I would be interested to hear their technical analysis of how they came to that conclusion, but you have to admit, especially after the Schiavo debacle, that there is a chance that these people are just plain wrong.

Hey, I agree that there was no chance that Schiavo was alive. Fetuses are not in a PVS, it's comparing apples and oranges (which I started, sorry). I'm just talking about the "err on the side of life" philosophy, and I just used a recent example. Now, enough about Schiavo. With that, I ask that you please don't use the word "Schiavo" in your next post (well, you can keep talking about it, but don't expect me to respond).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by deej5871:
No, I'm done with that analogy. You wanna keep amending it that's fine but I'm done with it.

You're entitled to ignore the ethical implications of your side of the debate, but I'm still going to ask. Are you done with that analogy because it makes you question the finality of your black-and-white interpretation of the issue?

The patriot act doesn't exactly have much to do with patriots.

I'm sorry, that was intended to be sarcasm. You had said "if you're against anti-abortion legislation, you must be pro-abortion." This is false, for the same reason that if you're against anti-terrorism legislation, you're not necessarily pro-terrorism.

Here's a hypothetical for illustration: the pro-life side turns out to be right, that abortions (except the exceptions) are sick and wrong. But instead of outlawing them, they put the same funding and legislating into education and counseling, and financial support for abortion seekers to support the option of having the baby. As a result, all abortions are individually decided against. Pro-lifers are happy, because the result would have been the same (abortions stop). Pro-choicers are happy, because women get to make a genuine choice about how their wombs are used, not bullied into anything by the state. If your interpretation of "pro-abortion" were correct, this outcome would have the pro-choice side up in arms. I'm telling you it wouldn't. That's the difference.

Pro-Choice people wish abortion to stay legalized...Therefore, one side wants abortion

I understand the desire to say "pro-choice? I don't understand that. Let's call it pro-abortion so I know what we're talking about." It's just that the latter is not a logical extension of the former. Perhaps I can propose a 3rd alternative that's less confusing (and more awkward to say, which is why it's not actually used). "Anti-Government-Controlling-Our-Bodies?" "Anti-Personally-Intrusive-Laws?" "Anti-Legislating-Reproductive-Policy?"

And we are currently arguing about the terming of the different sides of this debate, so it IS semantics, according to the dictionary.com definition.

While we are indeed arguing about terming of the different sides, it's important to note that as soon as we agree on a term, people (even people here who were involved with that very argument) will suddenly start imposing value systems on the other side based solely on those terms. So it's very important that those terms be accurate. "Pro-abortion" is simply not accurate. Another example: if I were to declare the pro-life side "poopy heads," then turn around and start arguing that we shouldn't consider taking public health policy advice from people with poop literally on their heads, that wouldn't make me right or pro-life people wrong. I hope this extreme example shows you the importance of recognizing that a logical disconnect at the stage of terming the different sides needs to be avoided. Furthermore, the sides are already termed, more accurately than you suggest, and the only reason you would want to re-term them is to try to assign false goals to the opposing side's policy.

Also, your link says nothing about terming of the different sides of the debate.

but they still think it should be legal, so they are indeed pro-abortion.

Again, that is a logical fallacy. See: I am opposed to reality shows. I wish with all my heart that they would all disappear and never come back. Do I think they should be outlawed? No. That would be overstepping the bounds of appropriate government.

it's about part ownership.

I didn't know it was about part ownership. Where has it ever been about part ownership? I thought if it was about ownership at all it would have been about the question of the government's ownership of a woman's womb, to commandeer for childbirth if the state decides it's for the common good (and some people's objection to that situation). But please, if I just missed it, point me to where this debate has been about ownership of the zygote.

What does a fine on abortions have to do with anything?...What I was saying is the man gets no say before the birth, and can have to pay for it afterwards.

I said already: I don't know, and this child-support line of discussion confuses me. I thought you had said it was interesting and unfair that the woman should be able to decide a situation the results of which would force the man to pay child-support. I was trying to imagine a situation where that unfairness was removed. What were you trying to do?

PS: what if child-support was paid by tax-payeres instead of by the father?

Hey, I agree that there was no chance that Schiavo was alive. Fetuses are not in a PVS, it's comparing apples and oranges (which I started, sorry).

I'm with you. Abortion and Schiavo were not the same and I don't think they should be compared. But you did bring it up for a valid reason, and I was addressing that reason. Here's yours, in case our valiant readers have forgotten:

I just used Schiavo because many people had said there was a chance that she was alive and still a "person" as you say; while others think there is a chance that a fetus is a "person". One needs to be consistent.

And I was just saying that in that particular case, those who thought she was a "person" were wrong*, and it happens to help to illustrate my point that it's entirely possible that the people who think 6-week fetuses are "people" are wrong.

*They were going by the word of shock-jocks and bloggers and declining to read the actual findings of medical and judicial experts. I don't oppose there being a pro-life movement. Quite the opposite, debate and re-appraisal of things are always good. But I adamantly oppose situations where people start going on crusades (bombing clinics and threatening the lives of witnesses constitute a crusade) over things when they are not allowing themselves to be informed about the facts. In that respect, the two issues are disturbingly similar, and I think that merits some discussion. I would be loathe to bring it up because of the likelihood of confusing the two, but that ship has sailed and now I would appreciate if the above described issue of emotional vs factual motivations was not ignored.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
Hmm. And before that it was just heartbeat. Things change. Maybe we should change the window of legal abortion (except the exceptions) to be before brainwaves are detectable.

I'd agree with that.

Personally I'm generally for the right to life. But, I'd think that if anything we should have laws based on scientific consistency at the very least. Instead, we have laws created by no less than 12 unelected guys who are put in place in order to thwart the Constitution and legislate from the bench when one side of the political equation can't convince the majority of the nation to allow the things they want. Currently, our abortion laws do not reflect the will of the people (polls have shown that the majority want abortion legal in some situations, but either illegal or very difficult to obtain in others...especially as a conveince and not a true health issue) nor do they reflect the wishes of our founding fathers (otherwise...abortion would have always been legal).

Soo..yes. I'd be very receptive if the laws simply reflected current science, the will of the people, or the wishes of our founding fathers (pick any one). Currently, none truely apply.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
we have laws created by no less than 12 unelected guys who are put in place in order to thwart the Constitution and legislate from the bench

What the heckaroonie does that mean? First of all, I think there are some chicks on the supreme court. Second of all, the court is not there to thwart the constitution, it's there to make sure the legislators and president don't thwart the constitution. Third of all, are you saying the court is opposing the constitution or the will of the people? Because you seem to switch back and forth in this post. Fourth of all, I don't know exactly what the law states on abortion, but whatever it is I can't see how you would interpret Roe v Wade as "legislating from the bench." What law did they invalidate? None. All they did was set a precedent for interpretation of the existing law. If the people really want to change that, they can change the law so it's no longer ambiguous and then the court will have to set a new precedent. The court hasn't done anything against the rules or against the intentions of the separation of powers as originally designed.

(polls have shown...

Polls also showed that Kerry would win. Polls are crap. If you want the law to reflect the will of the people, propose a new law and have a vote. But you can't complain about judges effecting policy decisions when the law is unclear, because that's the whole purpose of the judiciary: to interpret the meaning of existing laws when they are unclear.

Sorry to go off like this; I know we are basically in agreement, that things should be logical and consistent. But you did trot out a tired and inaccurate "talking point," and you can't really get away with that without explaining it in real language.

[stupendousman]

double post

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
What the heckaroonie does that mean? First of all, I think there are some chicks on the supreme court.

...and if neither side is on the majority, it's just a small select group of unelected guys making the rules (just as it was in R V. W).

Second of all, the court is not there to thwart the constitution, it's there to make sure the legislators and president don't thwart the constitution.

That's very naive of you. Just recently, people on the left acknowledged fear of Bush claiming he wanted judges actually ruling based on the consitution, as they were sure that was a code-word for overturning RvW (since RvW is a judicial invention, instead of relying on the intent of our founding fathers). If you believe that there are people in power who have certain political views who do NOT try and get judges who will legislate from the bench, instead of simply ruling on the clear consitutionality of something (and leaving it alone if there is none) then I'm not sure where you've been the past 30 years or so.

Third of all, are you saying the court is opposing the constitution or the will of the people?

Both. They are supporting the extreme political views of those who helped get them on the bench which is neither consitutional or the will of the people.

Fourth of all, I don't know exactly what the law states on abortion, but whatever it is I can't see how you would interpret Roe v Wade as "legislating from the bench."

The Constitution is clear. See article one, section one and the tenth amendment for example. If a right isn't enumerated, it's under the perview of the states. There was no prohibition on laws against abortion at the time of our founders, so it's pretty clear they had no intention on specifically either protecting it or outlawing it. By default, it's the rgith of the states to decide. It's UNconstitutional for the court to decide the way it did in RvW. Now...if all the states decided to allow abortion, that would be a different story. I believe at this time, most states would allow abortions for health issues or in the case of rape or incest.

What law did they invalidate? None.

The violated their constitutional boundaries, as the court often times does, and in doing so invalidated laws outlawing abortion made by the states. But..what can you do when there's very few real checks and balances against the judicial branch that wouldn't result in a true constitutional crisis?

All they did was set a precedent for interpretation of the existing law.

The found something unconsitutional that wasn't even broached by our founding fathers. The FF didn't include lots of specific stuff for a reason....so that the will of the people would rule, and not a black robed mafia. THAT was a check/balance intended to keep the judiciary from legislating. They negated the will of the founders so that THEY could decide an issue that wasn't really in the power to decide. Somehow, they interpretted very specific rights to include something that the founders never chose to include themselves, apparently with the notion that either they didn't know about abortion at the time, or just kind of ....forgot about it. Not likely.

If the people really want to change that, they can change the law so it's no longer ambiguous and then the court will have to set a new precedent. The court hasn't done anything against the rules or against the intentions of the separation of powers as originally designed.

True...but again, we are going to the consitutional "nuclear" options which take a lot of work and effort. You've got to have an OVERWHELMING majority agreeing specifically with you to pull that off, and not just have the founding father's on your side.

Polls also showed that Kerry would win. Polls are crap. If you want the law to reflect the will of the people, propose a new law and have a vote.

....then have the judiciary negate it simply because they don't like it, and can find other judges who don't like it either. Been there...done that. It's exactly what happened in R v W.

But you can't complain about judges effecting policy decisions when the law is unclear, because that's the whole purpose of the judiciary: to interpret the meaning of existing laws when they are unclear.

The parts of the constitution which deal with situations where there is no clear constitutional mandate, are in themselves very clear. Where there is no specific right or protection, the states have the right to decide for themselves. It ain't rocket science.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
You're entitled to ignore the ethical implications of your side of the debate, but I'm still going to ask. Are you done with that analogy because it makes you question the finality of your black-and-white interpretation of the issue?

I'm done with the analogy itself, not the issues surrounding it. It's just I think that one can't be changed to accurately reflect the situation.

I'm sorry, that was intended to be sarcasm. You had said "if you're against anti-abortion legislation, you must be pro-abortion." This is false, for the same reason that if you're against anti-terrorism legislation, you're not necessarily pro-terrorism.

That's where the issue gets complicated. I think that if you are against any and all pieces of anti-terrorism legislation then yes, you are indeed pro-terrorism if only because you refuse to take any steps to prevent it. If, however, you are only against a certain piece of anti-terrorism legislation (e.g. The Patriot Act), then no, you would not necessarily be pro-terrorism.

Here's a hypothetical for illustration: the pro-life side turns out to be right, that abortions (except the exceptions) are sick and wrong. But instead of outlawing them, they put the same funding and legislating into education and counseling, and financial support for abortion seekers to support the option of having the baby. As a result, all abortions are individually decided against. Pro-lifers are happy, because the result would have been the same (abortions stop). Pro-choicers are happy, because women get to make a genuine choice about how their wombs are used, not bullied into anything by the state. If your interpretation of "pro-abortion" were correct, this outcome would have the pro-choice side up in arms. I'm telling you it wouldn't. That's the difference.

I think it's impossible to stop all abortions completely without a law, so then pro-lifers would still be unhappy. Since they consider abortion murder then they would still consider this legal murder and therefore not an okay compromise.

I understand the desire to say "pro-choice? I don't understand that. Let's call it pro-abortion so I know what we're talking about." It's just that the latter is not a logical extension of the former. Perhaps I can propose a 3rd alternative that's less confusing (and more awkward to say, which is why it's not actually used). "Anti-Government-Controlling-Our-Bodies?" "Anti-Personally-Intrusive-Laws?" "Anti-Legislating-Reproductive-Policy?"

I call it pro-abortion because they want abortion to stay legal. I'll call it pro-choice if you want me to but it won't change the fact that they want abortions. And no, don't misinterpret like you did before that I think they want more abortions, or only abortions and no births, or anything crazy like that. Just that they want abortion legal. That's it.

While we are indeed arguing about terming of the different sides, it's important to note that as soon as we agree on a term, people (even people here who were involved with that very argument) will suddenly start imposing value systems on the other side based solely on those terms. So it's very important that those terms be accurate. "Pro-abortion" is simply not accurate. Another example: if I were to declare the pro-life side "poopy heads," then turn around and start arguing that we shouldn't consider taking public health policy advice from people with poop literally on their heads, that wouldn't make me right or pro-life people wrong. I hope this extreme example shows you the importance of recognizing that a logical disconnect at the stage of terming the different sides needs to be avoided. Furthermore, the sides are already termed, more accurately than you suggest, and the only reason you would want to re-term them is to try to assign false goals to the opposing side's policy.

Pro-abortion = wants abortion legalized. How is that a false goal? Do Pro-choicers want abortions illegalized? No? Well then. I'm assigning nothing to that name other than what I just said, and it is a fact. Abortion has to do with the argument while "poop headed-ness" does not. I don't see how your example applies.

Also, your link says nothing about terming of the different sides of the debate.

Terming something has to do with language. Semantics have to do with language (or "linguistics" to take it straight from my link). I don't see why you need to pick everything I say apart...

Again, that is a logical fallacy. See: I am opposed to reality shows. I wish with all my heart that they would all disappear and never come back. Do I think they should be outlawed? No. That would be overstepping the bounds of appropriate government.

And if you thought that the things they did on any reality show illegal (like pro-lifers consider abortion murder)? Wouldn't you want them outlawed then?

I didn't know it was about part ownership. Where has it ever been about part ownership? I thought if it was about ownership at all it would have been about the question of the government's ownership of a woman's womb, to commandeer for childbirth if the state decides it's for the common good (and some people's objection to that situation). But please, if I just missed it, point me to where this debate has been about ownership of the zygote.

This might make sense if all I had said about this was what you quoted. But what I was referring to was the father of a baby's part ownership (for lack of a better term of the parent's rights over their child) over the child. When I said "the man" I was not talking about the colloquial usage for the government. I was talking about the father of the baby. I never said the government owned zygotes, I said the parents did. Do you agree that parents have equal responsibility over their children? Answer me that.

I said already: I don't know, and this child-support line of discussion confuses me. I thought you had said it was interesting and unfair that the woman should be able to decide a situation the results of which would force the man to pay child-support. I was trying to imagine a situation where that unfairness was removed. What were you trying to do?

How does a fine on abortions remove the unfairness? All that does is make it more likely that a woman won't abort, but that doesn't give the man more say in the decision-making, which has been my point all along for this part of the discussion.

PS: what if child-support was paid by tax-payeres instead of by the father?

Hmm. I don't know. I suppose this could be a solution, in that it takes all of the father's legal responsibility over the child away. If you think father's shouldn't have any responsibility over their offspring then sure, that's a great idea.

I'm with you. Abortion and Schiavo were not the same and I don't think they should be compared. But you did bring it up for a valid reason, and I was addressing that reason. Here's yours, in case our valiant readers have forgotten:

And I was just saying that in that particular case, those who thought she was a "person" were wrong*, and it happens to help to illustrate my point that it's entirely possible that the people who think 6-week fetuses are "people" are wrong.

*They were going by the word of shock-jocks and bloggers and declining to read the actual findings of medical and judicial experts. I don't oppose there being a pro-life movement. Quite the opposite, debate and re-appraisal of things are always good. But I adamantly oppose situations where people start going on crusades (bombing clinics and threatening the lives of witnesses constitute a crusade) over things when they are not allowing themselves to be informed about the facts. In that respect, the two issues are disturbingly similar, and I think that merits some discussion. I would be loathe to bring it up because of the likelihood of confusing the two, but that ship has sailed and now I would appreciate if the above described issue of emotional vs factual motivations was not ignored.

You kinda lost me a little bit at the bottom there, but I think that I agree with you on this issue overall.

[stupendousman]

If you think father's shouldn't have any responsibility over their offspring then sure, that's a great idea.

Why should they? Pro-choice is the law of the land. It's time men no longer had to be responsible for the results of what women chose to do with their bodies. In fact, I'd suggest that it's unconsitutional to force men to pay cash for the choices of women whom they have no contractual obligation to.

Let the radical feminists take a bit of THAT!

[budster101]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Why should they? Pro-choice is the law of the land. It's time men no longer had to be responsible for the results of what women chose to do with their bodies. In fact, I'd suggest that it's unconsitutional to force men to pay cash for the choices of women whom they have no contractual obligation to.

Let the radical feminists take a bit of THAT!

Whoa. You-da-man!

-

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by deej5871:
I call it pro-abortion because they want abortion to stay legal. I'll call it pro-choice if you want me to but it won't change the fact that they want abortions. And no, don't misinterpret like you did before that I think they want more abortions, or only abortions and no births, or anything crazy like that. Just that they want abortion legal. That's it.

By that logic, I'm also pro-people-being-rude-to-me, because I believe they should have that right too.

Just because I don't think something should be legislated against doesn't mean I like it or want it to happen, which is what "pro" implies.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by deej5871:
That's where the issue gets complicated. I think that if you are against any and all pieces of anti-terrorism legislation then yes, you are indeed pro-terrorism if only because you refuse to take any steps to prevent it. If, however, you are only against a certain piece of anti-terrorism legislation (e.g. The Patriot Act), then no, you would not necessarily be pro-terrorism.

What if you're against all existing anti-terrorism legislation because it is all targeted at removing freedoms of all citizens, while you would be in favor of anti-terrorism legislation whose goal is to study and understand the causes of terrorism and fight them at their source (such as American imperialistic foreign policy if that were found to be the cause). This would be a closer analogy to my opinion of (proposed) abortion law.

I think it's impossible...

That's why it's called a hypothetical. Based on the hypothesis that it is possible, the resulting situation clearly illustrates the difference between (the meanings of the terms) "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion." Besides, if the pro-life philosophy has a fundamental truth to it, what makes you think it couldn't be revealed to all abortion seekers if given the chance?

...they want abortion to stay legal->they want abortions
...
Pro-abortion = wants abortion legalized. How is that a false goal?
...want abortions illegalized? No.

Your repetition of this inaccuracy has led me to notice another way to explain this to you. Your premise is "they want abortions to be legal." This is true. Your conclusion is that it means "they want abortions." This is not true. The difference (and I don't know why it took this long for me to see it, it's so obvious), is the word "legal." You see? there are two main parts of this sentence. "Abortion." and "Legal." You want to say that the second one is meaningless. It isn't. Please read the reality show analogy again. Just because you're not in favor of something doesn't mean you think the government should be allowed to outlaw it.

I don't see why you need to pick everything I say apart...

You are trying to re-term the debate to remove the issue of women's bodies and what the state is allowed to force on them. I called you on it, and you tried to marginalize my comment by calling it "semantics," which it would be if "abortion" and "legal" meant the same thing, which of course they do not.

Usually when someone links to a dictionary definition, it's to imply that the question asked was so stupid and obvious that it should have been researched and never asked. In fact, I had gone to dictionary.com before posting and I found that it showed no specific definition about what to call two opposing sides of an argument. That's why I wanted to make sure, because if it turned out semantics had another specific meaning relating to debate, our arguing over it being semantics would have been semantics. But in fact, we are in disagreement over what the pro-choice side is saying, not what they call themselves, and that is not "just semantics."

...reality shows should stay legal...

And if you thought that the things they did on any reality show illegal (like pro-lifers consider abortion murder)? Wouldn't you want them outlawed then?

Yes I would, and that's why I said earlier that I approve of there being a pro-life side to promote discussion of the issue. But this comment was to illustrate the way in which the pro-choice argument differs from your understanding of it, and that only involves people who don't consider it murder.

I never said the government owned zygotes, I said the parents did.

Yes, I know what you said. What I said was that what you said came out of nowhere (unless I missed something). To my knowledge, no one advocates abortion based on the parent's ownership of the zygote, just on the mother's (ok, ebuddy, incubator's) right to defend her own body from the ravages of pregnancy and child-birth. I took advantage of your "ownership" language to point out that if you think it's wrong for the "owner" of the zygote to abuse it, it's also wrong for the "owner" of a citizen to abuse it. It's not a strong argument, and I'll retract it if you want.

How does a fine on abortions remove the unfairness?

You're the one who brought money into this with the whole child-support aspect. I don't think it's relevant but I was trying to not simply dismiss it to give it a chance to show its relevance to me.

it takes all of the father's legal responsibility over the child away

There's a strange aspect of punishment or retribution to the pro-life side here. I don't know what to make of it, and I haven't decided if it's valid. There was ebuddy and his fixation on irresponsible harlots deserving what they get, and now there's all this fuss about fathers taking responsibility. Until now I had thought the whole pro-life argument was for the welfare of the potential child, and this part of it doesn't support that at all. Like I said, I don't know what to make of it yet, and maybe you can tell me how it all fits in.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
...not a black robed mafia.

More name calling? It's starting to sound a little like you are a Bush supporter, and you finally got control of the white house, and congress, (by what? like 1-2% of the popular vote?) and now you're mad that what you thought was an unqualified victory doesn't give you free reign to change the whole way the country works.

But here's my real question. How did the separation of powers work for 200 years before this? What's so wrong with it now that hasn't been there since the beginning?

You've got to have an OVERWHELMING majority agreeing

If you don't think you can get a 2/3 majority to agree something is bad, should you really be fighting to outlaw it for everyone? Isn't the whole point of that rule because it will weed out things that are not important or not, uh, accurate enough to deserve to be enacted?

[budster101]

Yes it is.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by deej5871:
And if you thought that the things they did on any reality show illegal (like pro-lifers consider abortion murder)? Wouldn't you want them outlawed then?

PS: I almost forgot why I came in here in the first place...

Deej, Stupendousman, Budster, anyone: If you were offered the chance to prevent an abortion by having the zygote transferred to your body for gestation and birth instead of being terminated, would you take it?

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
What if you're against all existing anti-terrorism legislation because it is all targeted at removing freedoms of all citizens, while you would be in favor of anti-terrorism legislation whose goal is to study and understand the causes of terrorism and fight them at their source (such as American imperialistic foreign policy if that were found to be the cause). This would be a closer analogy to my opinion of (proposed) abortion law.

I think that in the way that relates to terrorism that would not make you pro-terrorist if your opinion were as you said above. However I don't see how that relates to abortion. We know the causes of abortion and their source: sex. As ebuddy has been saying people going out and having sex make babies, and when they realize they don't want it they take the easy way out, and abort, rather than take responsibility for their actions.

That's why it's called a hypothetical. Based on the hypothesis that it is possible, the resulting situation clearly illustrates the difference between (the meanings of the terms) "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion." Besides, if the pro-life philosophy has a fundamental truth to it, what makes you think it couldn't be revealed to all abortion seekers if given the chance?

Well, if in this little hypothetical world no one had abortions that would be great. But where does that get us? Nowhere. It will never happen that every person in the United States will choose giving birth over abortion. Even if the pro-life philosophy is proven correct, why would abortion seekers care? Murders happen all the time illegally, why wouldn't some people do it legally?

Your repetition of this inaccuracy has led me to notice another way to explain this to you. Your premise is "they want abortions to be legal." This is true. Your conclusion is that it means "they want abortions." This is not true. The difference (and I don't know why it took this long for me to see it, it's so obvious), is the word "legal." You see? there are two main parts of this sentence. "Abortion." and "Legal." You want to say that the second one is meaningless. It isn't. Please read the reality show analogy again. Just because you're not in favor of something doesn't mean you think the government should be allowed to outlaw it.

How about I change what I've been going on about "pro-abortion" to "pro-legalized abortion"? Would that make you happy? That's what I've meant all along. You, however, have been reading into it more than I wanted, but I won't blame you for that.

As for your last sentence, obviously there are pro-choice people that hold that viewpoint, but few on the pro-life side think that abortion should still be legal. Why? Because they consider it murder. I doubt anyone that considers it murder still thinks it should be legal.

You are trying to re-term the debate to remove the issue of women's bodies and what the state is allowed to force on them. I called you on it, and you tried to marginalize my comment by calling it "semantics," which it would be if "abortion" and "legal" meant the same thing, which of course they do not.

To go back to ebuddy's argument: force them to what? Take responsibility for their actions? Have a child that they conceived? The state wouldn't be forcing anything that they didn't bring onto themselves. Things would be different if they were forcing women to be surrogate mothers or something like that, but they aren't. They would be mothering their own children.

Usually when someone links to a dictionary definition, it's to imply that the question asked was so stupid and obvious that it should have been researched and never asked. In fact, I had gone to dictionary.com before posting and I found that it showed no specific definition about what to call two opposing sides of an argument. That's why I wanted to make sure, because if it turned out semantics had another specific meaning relating to debate, our arguing over it being semantics would have been semantics. But in fact, we are in disagreement over what the pro-choice side is saying, not what they call themselves, and that is not "just semantics."

And what would you call arguing over the terming of the sides of an argument? It has to do with linguistics, I called it semantics. What's your proposal?

Yes I would, and that's why I said earlier that I approve of there being a pro-life side to promote discussion of the issue. But this comment was to illustrate the way in which the pro-choice argument differs from your understanding of it, and that only involves people who don't consider it murder.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, all I can say is "Duh.." (although I'm having trouble following what you're saying right here). It seems to me that you're saying that pro-choice people don't want abortion illegalized because they don't think it's murder. You also say that if you were on the side that considers it murder (pro-life) then you would want it outlawed. I don't see why you need to tell me what you would think if you were on the opposite side of the debate. Unless I'm missing something, which I'd guess I am since this seems to simple to me. Can you rephrase?

Yes, I know what you said. What I said was that what you said came out of nowhere (unless I missed something). To my knowledge, no one advocates abortion based on the parent's ownership of the zygote, just on the mother's (ok, ebuddy, incubator's) right to defend her own body from the ravages of pregnancy and child-birth. I took advantage of your "ownership" language to point out that if you think it's wrong for the "owner" of the zygote to abuse it, it's also wrong for the "owner" of a citizen to abuse it. It's not a strong argument, and I'll retract it if you want.

My "men need some say" arguments are separate from my other abortion arguments. This is really an off-topic thing that stupendousman made me think of. Abortion has something to do with it because I think a man should have some say in that, but abortion is not the center-point of this argument.

You're the one who brought money into this with the whole child-support aspect. I don't think it's relevant but I was trying to not simply dismiss it to give it a chance to show its relevance to me.

You're right, it isn't really relevant to any abortion debate, but it is to my "men need some say" debate.

There's a strange aspect of punishment or retribution to the pro-life side here. I don't know what to make of it, and I haven't decided if it's valid. There was ebuddy and his fixation on irresponsible harlots deserving what they get, and now there's all this fuss about fathers taking responsibility. Until now I had thought the whole pro-life argument was for the welfare of the potential child, and this part of it doesn't support that at all. Like I said, I don't know what to make of it yet, and maybe you can tell me how it all fits in.

As I said, these are just my opinions and not some new thing from all pro-lifers. This is separate from that.

As for "the whole pro-life argument" being about the welfare of the child: it is. The problem is that pro-lifers have to argue other points as well to reach their ultimate goal (illegalized abortion) because as of now, there is no exact definition of when life begins. Without that, pro-choicers will just ignore this main argument citing that "no one knows when life begins" and that doesn't get us anywhere. If, instead, pro-lifers argue other points as well in order to get abortion legalized, then it has a greater possibility of happening.


P.S. I've been trying to stay away from ebuddy's argument about the woman's responsibility for her actions, but I just couldn't take it anymore. The way you victimize a pregnant woman saying things like "defend her own body from the ravages of pregnancy and child-birth". You act like some helpless woman was trying to live her life and that fetus just somehow magically appeared in the her womb.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
PS: I almost forgot why I came in here in the first place...

Deej, Stupendousman, Budster, anyone: If you were offered the chance to prevent an abortion by having the zygote transferred to your body for gestation and birth instead of being terminated, would you take it?

I would if I fathered the child. But hey, I can be responsible. I guess that's too much to ask for some people.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by deej5871:
I would if I fathered the child. But hey, I can be responsible. I guess that's too much to ask for some people.

Most people are responsible for the things they consider to be their responsibility. Your reply indicates that you would not take responsibility if you hadn't "fathered the child." That raises the question: Why does "fathering a child" make you responsible for its coming to term where you wouldn't be otherwise? If somebody doesn't take that logical step, they won't see any need to be responsible for it.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Most people are responsible for the things they consider to be their responsibility. Your reply indicates that you would not take responsibility if you hadn't "fathered the child." That raises the question: Why does "fathering a child" make you responsible for its coming to term where you wouldn't be otherwise? If somebody doesn't take that logical step, they won't see any need to be responsible for it.

If I hadn't fathered the child it wouldn't exist; that makes it my responsibility...

[Uncle Skeleton]

A 2 part reply, if you can handle it...this part deals with old issues, the next with new ones.

First, it seems our attention spans are too short to accept just one-layer quoting, so here goes nothing. <edit> it seems quotes are limited to 3 layers, so I'll do it in dialog with the final quote (an actual quote) in bold. </edit>

Originally posted by deej5871:
(deej) pro-choice = pro-abortion
(skel) No it doesn't, just like anti-terrorism-law doesn't equal pro-terrorism.
(deej) If you're anti-all-terrorism-law then you are pro-terrorism
(skel) No, because all existing terrorism laws are basically the same and you might be against that but for something of a different vein
(deej) I don't see how that relates to abortion.

It doesn't relate to abortion. It relates to you trying to over-simplify abortion by saying "one side fer it, the other side agin' it," in order to distract people (or yourself) from the fact that in order to be agin' it, someone has to be birthin all them babies, and if they don't want to, it's not necessarily right for everyone else to force them to.

Well, if in this little hypothetical world no one had abortions that would be great. But where does that get us?

It gets us to you understanding that pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion.

How about I change what I've been going on about "pro-abortion" to "pro-legalized abortion"?

How about "anti-outlawing-abortion." "Legalized abortion" implies wanting to change the law to allow more abortions. And how about you change "pro-life" to "anti-abortion?" Or how about we just leave it at "pro-choice" and "pro-life?" What's the point of all this?

And what would you call arguing over the terming of the sides of an argument?

Why did you have to call it anything? What it is, is a misunderstanding by one side of the whole thesis of the other side, resulting in the one side thinking the name of the other side is inaccurate. That's a huge problem. "Semantics" means what you're arguing over is an artifact of translating thoughts into language, and would be an insignificant problem, except to linguists. Basically, you called this exchange "semantics." Why? I would have to assume it's because you thought it was unimportant (please correct me if "semantics" means something is important to settle). I'm just defending my position that it's important, by refuting your claim that it's nothing but semantics. I'm not accusing you of misusing the word.

(skel) hating reality shows doesn't mean they should be banned
(deej) what if they did something on the show you thought should be illegal?
(skel) then yes, but they don't
(deej) Duh..Unless I'm missing something, which I'd guess I am since this seems to simple to me. Can you rephrase?

:sigh:
This is a response to the "anti-abortion-law = pro-abortion" mistake. It is a side track to the "is abortion wrong" issue. Just like your side track with the child-support. If I need to make it clearer: You're proposing a law against abortion. I'm opposing that law, because I think it's not something that should be outlawed, not because it's something I support. The analogy is that if you were proposing a law against reality shows, I would oppose that too, even though I hate reality shows. If you were to then say I was "pro-reality-show" you would clearly be wrong and there would be no confusion. Therefore, I submit that you are wrong to say that "pro-choice" is the same as "pro-abortion." Any questions?

[Uncle Skeleton]

part 2...

I see two problems on the pro-life agenda. One is zygote welfare; the other, punishing women for having sex. First things first

I doubt anyone that considers it murder still thinks it should be legal.

For now I am proceeding on the premise that a zygote is a person, since trying to debate that would basically prevent discussion of anything else.

Now to establish a starting point ... would they (or you) have it legal if the mother's life were at risk otherwise? What if she was at risk not of death, but of being paralyzed from the waist down? What about diabetes? What about sterility? How do you know where to make the line? This was the genesis of the grandmother analogy. If we proceed on the assumption that a zygote has the same rights as an adult party (in this case granny), at what point does the other party's survival out-weigh your right to defend your person, if the two are mutually exclusive?

I think a man should have some say in that

A man should have some say in what? Whether he gets a child or whether his partner should go through pregnancy? Because as you've pointed out, if all he wants is a child he can adopt. I don't think he should have any particular say in whether his partner gets pregnant, unless she asks him to.

there is no exact definition of when life begins.

Well when do you think it begins? I assume you have some opinion. What is it, and where did you get it? I'm curious, I'm not trying to pick a fight.

Another (honest) question: Is the objection to terminating an embryo because of the legal rights it would have as a person (a potentiality argument, it has its whole life ahead of it kind of thing), or because of the pain it would feel (a cruelty argument)?



Now, the punishment problem...

There's a strange aspect of punishment or retribution to the pro-life side here

As I said, these are just my opinions and not some new thing from all pro-lifers. This is separate from that.

Clearly it's not separate from that. For one thing, every part of your last post traced back to it (except for the semantics parts). For the other, if pro-life folk were concerned with saving embryos independent of their goal of preventing sex, they would be pursuing ways to save embryos without having to wait for laws to control abortion seekers. This tells me that (a) there is some part of this goal in the bulk of pro-life advocates, and (b) those in this thread are subscribers because I presented the idea several times and it repelled them (save kilbey. thanks, guy, it's heartening). Now I know I don't have to ask, but please show me where I've erred in this progression. The only way I see out of this is to take on the surrogate model, since it's the only point of agreement between "don't kill zygotes" and "not in my body."

If this holds, it's a chilling proposition. What's next to be outlawed? Oral sex? Gay sex? Masturbation?

Originally posted by deej5871:
people going out and having sex make babies

If someone goes out and loses all their money, they can declare bankruptcy and go on welfare. If someone goes out and crashes their car, they go to the hospital and get stitched up, possibly collecting disability for the rest of their lives. Seems to me the state is in the business of protecting people from the consequences of their recklessness, not enforcing them.

if you were offered the chance to prevent an abortion by having the zygote transferred to your body for gestation and birth instead of being terminated, would you take it?

I would if I fathered the child.

Another nail in the no-sex coffin. At one point (well, many points), you objected to abortion because it was murder. If you could stop a murder by something as trivial as a paper cut, you'd probably do it. Even if the murder was not your fault. But you wouldn't take a hit to stop an abortion? Is that because you don't really think it's the same as murder, or because you're taking a calculated risk in order to maximize punishment of women for having sex?

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
It doesn't relate to abortion. It relates to you trying to over-simplify abortion by saying "one side fer it, the other side agin' it," in order to distract people (or yourself) from the fact that in order to be agin' it, someone has to be birthin all them babies, and if they don't want to, it's not necessarily right for everyone else to force them to.

For the terrorism thing: You have oversimplified the terrorism thing because you said being anti-current-terrorism laws is the same as pro-terrorism (or, you said that I said that). I said that if you are anti-any-terrorism-prevention laws whatsoever only then would I think you were pro-terrorism. Anti-currently-proposed-terrorism-legislation doesn't make you pro-terrorists.

There are 3 possible stances you could have on legal abortion: you are for it, against it, or indifferent. Since pro-choicers are not against it or indifferent, they are for it. That is not an oversimplified view.

Why isn't it right for them to force someone to have a child that they conceived? Find me one person in the world who you think has more responsibility over the unborn child than the parents. If you agree that no one does then it makes perfect sense that the people most responsible for creating that child should be the ones to birth and care for it.

It gets us to you understanding that pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion.

It isn't. It is the same as pro-legalized-abortion.

How about "anti-outlawing-abortion." "Legalized abortion" implies wanting to change the law to allow more abortions. And how about you change "pro-life" to "anti-abortion?" Or how about we just leave it at "pro-choice" and "pro-life?" What's the point of all this?

"Legalized abortion" does not imply wanting to change laws. Notice the past tense. If it were "Legalizing abortion" then it would mean changing something. Also, I see no problem changing pro-life to anti-abortion. They are the same thing. It just sounds better to say you are for something rather than against something.

What's the point? I'm not the one who had a fit about calling it what it is, pro-[legalized-]abortion. Besides, it's not like I'm in charge of the official movement naming committee. What I choose to call it doesn't matter, as long as it gets my point across.

Why did you have to call it anything? What it is, is a misunderstanding by one side of the whole thesis of the other side, resulting in the one side thinking the name of the other side is inaccurate. That's a huge problem. "Semantics" means what you're arguing over is an artifact of translating thoughts into language, and would be an insignificant problem, except to linguists. Basically, you called this exchange "semantics." Why? I would have to assume it's because you thought it was unimportant (please correct me if "semantics" means something is important to settle). I'm just defending my position that it's important, by refuting your claim that it's nothing but semantics. I'm not accusing you of misusing the word.

I know what pro-choicers want, abortion to stay legal so women have choice. Pro-lifers want abortion illegalized to save what they consider lives. It's not a hard concept. I never called either side anything that isn't true about them. Pro-legalized-abortion still defines the first movement just as clearly.

:sigh:
This is a response to the "anti-abortion-law = pro-abortion" mistake. It is a side track to the "is abortion wrong" issue. Just like your side track with the child-support. If I need to make it clearer: You're proposing a law against abortion. I'm opposing that law, because I think it's not something that should be outlawed, not because it's something I support. The analogy is that if you were proposing a law against reality shows, I would oppose that too, even though I hate reality shows. If you were to then say I was "pro-reality-show" you would clearly be wrong and there would be no confusion. Therefore, I submit that you are wrong to say that "pro-choice" is the same as "pro-abortion." Any questions?

No, no, no. I've told you before, you're changing what I say. I didn't say (in context of course, because I think I may have said something similar to this) "anti-abortion-law = pro-abortion" (I think you mean "is the opposing side of" instead of =, because anti abortionists are obviously not pro-abortion), I said that anti-abortion law is the opposing side of pro-legalized-abortion. That is not a false statement. Pro-choice does mean pro-legalized abortions.

I didn't say you supported abortion (again, in context), I said you supported keeping abortion legal. Still true. You obviously don't think it should be outlawed because you don't think it's murder. Duh. If you thought it was murder then you would want it outlawed. That's what this comes down to. I never said anything like "pro-choicers want more abortions" or anything like that, which you keep needing to pin on me.

Onto part II-

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
Now to establish a starting point ... would they (or you) have it legal if the mother's life were at risk otherwise? What if she was at risk not of death, but of being paralyzed from the waist down? What about diabetes? What about sterility? How do you know where to make the line? This was the genesis of the grandmother analogy. If we proceed on the assumption that a zygote has the same rights as an adult party (in this case granny), at what point does the other party's survival out-weigh your right to defend your person, if the two are mutually exclusive?

I think that this could be compared to if someone that is a perfect match to you needs an organ transplant, how obligated are you to give it to them? Let's compare a regular birth to something like a kidney transplant, where both patients live. That's obviously okay. However, what if the person you knew needed a heart transplant? For them to live, you would need to die. Who gets to live then? Obviously the person who isn't the dependent. So, in this type of situation where the mother would have to die for the baby to live, the mother is the one who gets to live. What about diabetes, sterility, etc.? That's not for me to say. What would you do if you would could allow someone to live but you would have to get one of these diseases? Well, it all depends on the person and situation, and that's how I think it would go with unborn children.

A man should have some say in what? Whether he gets a child or whether his partner should go through pregnancy? Because as you've pointed out, if all he wants is a child he can adopt. I don't think he should have any particular say in whether his partner gets pregnant, unless she asks him to.

Yes, I think a man should get a say in whether something he helped create should get to live. What's so complex about that?

I don't see why you seem to think fathers have no relationship with their own offspring and should "just adopt". Fathers can't have feelings? Fathers shouldn't get attached to their own children? Sure, maybe you think men should be manly men and just spread their seed wherever they can and not care about what happens afterward. Well, maybe some men actually want their children, not someone else's.

Well when do you think it begins? I assume you have some opinion. What is it, and where did you get it? I'm curious, I'm not trying to pick a fight.

I honestly don't know. I would like to just call it when brain waves appear and be done with it, but a part of me wants to say it's earlier than that. I haven't really decided yet.

Another (honest) question: Is the objection to terminating an embryo because of the legal rights it would have as a person (a potentiality argument, it has its whole life ahead of it kind of thing), or because of the pain it would feel (a cruelty argument)?

Well I don't really know (I've never thought of it in those terms), but I think it's more of the potentiality argument. Kind of like in the Schiavo case (again, just an example, let's not divulge into it again), she may or may not have felt pain, I don't know. But I do know that she certainly didn't have the potential to ever become a normal person, or even anything resembling a normal person, and that's why I thought she should've been let go.

Now, the punishment problem...

As I said, these are just my opinions and not some new thing from all pro-lifers. This is separate from that.

Clearly it's not separate from that. For one thing, every part of your last post traced back to it (except for the semantics parts). For the other, if pro-life folk were concerned with saving embryos independent of their goal of preventing sex, they would be pursuing ways to save embryos without having to wait for laws to control abortion seekers. This tells me that (a) there is some part of this goal in the bulk of pro-life advocates, and (b) those in this thread are subscribers because I presented the idea several times and it repelled them (save kilbey. thanks, guy, it's heartening). Now I know I don't have to ask, but please show me where I've erred in this progression. The only way I see out of this is to take on the surrogate model, since it's the only point of agreement between "don't kill zygotes" and "not in my body."

My posts led back to that because I was arguing this point and not other general stuff about the abortion debate. Abortion has to do with it because I think a man should have some say in if it happens or not, but it's still separate from arguing whether abortion is right or wrong.

Back to my first comparison (sort of). Let's say that your grandmother (the fetus) needs constant care to stay alive. You (pregnant mother), however, don't want to give it, and would rather let her die (abortion). What you're saying is that I should come and care for your grandmother as if she were my own just to keep her alive (your surrogate parents thing). I don't think that is a good way to do things. You should be caring for your own grandmother and not trying to force the responsibility onto someone else. Plus, if I wanted to make this an even better comparison I would have you somehow causing your grandmother to need constant care (this being the sex that created the situation).

If this holds, it's a chilling proposition. What's next to be outlawed? Oral sex? Gay sex? Masturbation?

How would outlawing abortion ever get to those? Unless you're one of the crazies that think every separate sperm is a potential life, then it wouldn't get to that. That reminds me of people comparing allowing gay marriage to eventually allow marriage to animals and crap like that. Personally, I am against gay marriage, but not because I think it would ever divulge into animal marriage or anything like that. That's just stupid to me.

If someone goes out and loses all their money, they can declare bankruptcy and go on welfare. If someone goes out and crashes their car, they go to the hospital and get stitched up, possibly collecting disability for the rest of their lives. Seems to me the state is in the business of protecting people from the consequences of their recklessness, not enforcing them.

I think both these example are really stretching it. And there are consequences to both these actions. I mean, why don't people declare bankruptcy all the time? The negative effects. Why wouldn't you want to live off disability for the rest of your life? Because you'd be disabled. I think that being disabled for the rest of your life could be compared to the responsibility of caring for a child for the rest of your life. Being disabled is not completely dodging all responsibility, while after having an abortion you would have no later responsibility.

I would if I fathered the child.

Another nail in the no-sex coffin. At one point (well, many points), you objected to abortion because it was murder. If you could stop a murder by something as trivial as a paper cut, you'd probably do it. Even if the murder was not your fault. But you wouldn't take a hit to stop an abortion? Is that because you don't really think it's the same as murder, or because you're taking a calculated risk in order to maximize punishment of women for having sex?

Look above to my grandmother example. Why should I have to deal with others' mistakes? I have my own problems to deal with. Besides, I personally don't regard it as being just as bad as murder (notice that before I always said pro-lifers, not myself), but I'm sure some people do. I'm also sure that at least some people actually would volunteer to take on someone else's burden.

Punishment of women for having sex? Again, what's with the victimizing? Unless it's a rape, women choose to have sex. It's their problem. They should have to deal with it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by deej5871:
There are 3 possible stances you could have on legal abortion: you are for it, against it, or indifferent ... That is not an oversimplified view.

And none of those 3 stances is synonymous with pro-choice. Just like Chuckit's example; whether you are for, against or ambivalent to people being rude to you (or to reality TV shows), you can still be opposed to it(them) being outlawed.

Why isn't it right for them to force someone to have a child that they conceived?

I said "not necessarily," so you could have a chance to present some evidence. But while I'm here, why isn't it right to force someone to carry out an invention they conceived? Or a get-rich-quick sceme? Or an emu-farm?

What's the point? I'm not the one who had a fit about calling it what it is, pro-[legalized-]abortion.

No one threw a fit. Each time you said "pro-abortion," I corrected you and tried to help you understand why that phrase is inaccurate. You kept saying it and I kept correcting you and trying to find another example or analogy when you failed to grasp the previous one.

What I choose to call it doesn't matter, as long as it gets my point across.

If what you choose to call it is a false-hood, it does matter precisely because you are tying to get a point across. The act of calling something what it's not reflects that you don't understand the issue. For example, if I were to argue against pro-life on the basis of me thinking it was "anti-sex" instead, I think you'd agree that most of my objections would be groundless. Agree?

I didn't say "anti-abortion-law = pro-abortion" (I think you mean "is the opposing side of" instead of =, because anti abortionists are obviously not pro-abortion)

Sorry I didn't use parens then. "anti-(abortion-law)=pro-abortion." I figured you could remember what you had said.


You can call it "pro-legal-abortion" if you want, because that is different from "pro-abortion," but I still have to ask, since you still used "pro-abortion" in that post, do you really think they are interchangable? And really, why? What's so offensive about "pro-choice" to you?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by deej5871:
Well, it all depends on the person and situation, and that's how I think it would go with unborn children.

You do? You think a pro-life law would evaluate abortions case by case? I'm not saying it wouldn't, but that was not my understanding, and I can't picture out it would be feasible.

Yes, I think a man should get a say in whether something he helped create should get to live. What's so complex about that?

It's not complex if a man wants a woman to have his baby when she doesn't want to?

I don't see why you seem to think fathers have no relationship with their own offspring and should "just adopt". Fathers can't have feelings? Fathers shouldn't get attached to their own children? Sure, maybe you think men should be manly men and just spread their seed wherever they can and not care about what happens afterward. Well, maybe some men actually want their children, not someone else's.

Where's all this coming from? When a man wants children and tricks a woman into getting pregnant? And besides, no, I don't think fathers can be particularly attached to an unplanned 6-week fetus.

I honestly don't know. I would like to just call it when brain waves appear and be done with it, but a part of me wants to say it's earlier than that. I haven't really decided yet.

You haven't decided yet but you think we should outlaw the whole mess? Why? This is even more interesting than if you were pro-life.

Well I don't really know (I've never thought of it in those terms), but I think it's more of the potentiality argument. Kind of like in the Schiavo case (again, just an example, let's not divulge into it again), she may or may not have felt pain, I don't know. But I do know that she certainly didn't have the potential to ever become a normal person, or even anything resembling a normal person, and that's why I thought she should've been let go.

Ok, in that case, how do you differentiate between a child that doesn't exist because it was aborted and one that doesn't exist because his parents' birth control worked, or because they abstained from sex in the first place?

Back to my first comparison (sort of). Let's say that your grandmother (the fetus) needs constant care to stay alive. You (pregnant mother), however, don't want to give it, and would rather let her die (abortion).

Yeah, that's the way I understood the grandmother analogy at the start; it's not entirely relevant for the reason that there's no her-or-me aspect (the labor of care-giving to the elderly is not similar to that of carrying out a pregnancy). But let's see it (the analogy) out anyway.

What you're saying is that I should come and care for your grandmother as if she were my own just to keep her alive (your surrogate parents thing). I don't think that is a good way to do things. You should be caring for your own grandmother and not trying to force the responsibility onto someone else.

I'm saying, if you want to force me to care for her against my will, why don't you do it yourself (or pay for someone to do it I guess, in a nursing home/fetus-incubation-facility-of-the-future).

Plus, if I wanted to make this an even better comparison I would have you somehow causing your grandmother to need constant care (this being the sex that created the situation).

I haven't bought the at-fault aspect of abortion yet.

How would outlawing abortion ever get to those <outlawing other kinds of sex>?

If the reasoning behind outlawing abortion is that unplanned pregnancy would serve as a deterrent to sex, that would set a precedent for the christian right to attempt to legislate other sexual behavior that is at this point none of the government's business (and rightly so). And I didn't mean anything about gay marriage, just gay sex. It's arbitrary and short-sighted to refuse to institute gay marriage (IMO), but it's absolutely inappropriate to (try to) stop them from having sex just because it displeases you (just try saying "gay sex devalues the whole institution of sex" without laughing). Anyway, if the reasoning behind a proposed abortion law is not based on deterring sex, none of this is applies to this debate.

<examples of government mitigating the consequences of personal recklessness>

I think both these example are really stretching it. And there are consequences to both these actions. I mean, why don't people declare bankruptcy all the time? The negative effects. Why wouldn't you want to live off disability for the rest of your life? Because you'd be disabled.

But the role of government (which is what this debate is proposing to change) is the same in both of these (to mitigate the risk-takers' misfortunes), and contrary to a proposed enforcement of sexual responsibility.

You're suggesting that it's the government's job to make sure people take responsibility for their risky behavior (like having sex without being prepared for pregnancy). I tried to think of examples of that but I could only think of counterexamples. Can you give any other situations where people who have acted riskily and experience misfortune have the technical option to save themselves but the government prevents them from doing so, so that they will be more responsible in the future?

Why should I have to deal with others' mistakes?

You do it all the time when you pay taxes for social welfare programs. With this question (of accepting surrogate-hood) I'm asking two things. (1) If you would force someone else to carry on with something (unplanned pregnancy), why wouldn't you do it yourself, and (2) when the role of government has always been to help people in trouble to get out of it (even when they got themselves into it, like losing all their money or getting injured in a risky activity), why should the role of government now be the opposite, to force people to take responsibility for their risky behavior? It's just a reversal from the historical precedent (unless I'm forgetting something), and I'm asking for a reason why it should reverse itself now (it being the role of government, if this sentence has run on too long)?

I personally don't regard it as being just as bad as murder

Again I'm very intrigued by this suggestion. Do you think abortion should be outlawed? Why or why not?

I'm also sure that at least some people actually would volunteer to take on someone else's burden.

Yes it seems Kilbey might have been one. I'm intrigued by this too, and I think it should be developed technically. It sure would give a new group of people who have a new perspective on this tired old debate.

Punishment of women for having sex? Again, what's with the victimizing?

I'm just proposing that as part of the reasoning in the pro-life platform, from what I've read here, and trying to understand it. If it's not an accurate interpretation, please explain why, and what would be a better representation.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

And none of those 3 stances is synonymous with pro-choice. Just like Chuckit's example; whether you are for, against or ambivalent to people being rude to you (or to reality TV shows), you can still be opposed to it(them) being outlawed.

So..none of those stances could be used to describe a pro-choicer?
Pro-choice does mean pro-legalized-abortion. Sure, pro-choice people may have more specific demands than a person that simply supports an abortion law (and not necessarily the choice part), but they would definitely agree with each other.

I said "not necessarily," so you could have a chance to present some evidence. But while I'm here, why isn't it right to force someone to carry out an invention they conceived? Or a get-rich-quick sceme? Or an emu-farm?

While I don't understand exactly what you mean by "carry out an invention", what I can say is that unless your invention is some really advanced AI, then it is not considered alive. Many consider fetuses alive.

No one threw a fit. Each time you said "pro-abortion," I corrected you and tried to help you understand why that phrase is inaccurate. You kept saying it and I kept correcting you and trying to find another example or analogy when you failed to grasp the previous one.

Whenever I said "pro-abortion" it was basically short for "pro-legalized-abortion". As I have said before, I never implied anything else like "pro-abortionists want more abortions".

If what you choose to call it is a false-hood, it does matter precisely because you are tying to get a point across. The act of calling something what it's not reflects that you don't understand the issue. For example, if I were to argue against pro-life on the basis of me thinking it was "anti-sex" instead, I think you'd agree that most of my objections would be groundless. Agree?

Pro-life people are not "anti-sex", they are "anti-abortion". Pro-choicers are pro-legalized-abortion. Not-so-subtle difference there.

I've told you why I've called it pro-abortion, and I understand perfectly well what both terms mean. I understand perfectly well what a pro-choicer wants, and I understand what a pro-legalized-abortionist would want, and their ultimate goal is the same: keep abortion legal.

You can call it "pro-legal-abortion" if you want, because that is different from "pro-abortion," but I still have to ask, since you still used "pro-abortion" in that post, do you really think they are interchangable? And really, why? What's so offensive about "pro-choice" to you?

I think they are interchangeable in the context that I was using them with the same meaning. I did not imply that pro-abortionists wanted more abortions. Perhaps, technically, pro-abortion would mean that, but it didn't in the context of my posts.

I've said "pro-choicers" many many times in my posts (go look). I have no problem with the term, I've used it. You're the one who doesn't like a term being used.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

You do? You think a pro-life law would evaluate abortions case by case? I'm not saying it wouldn't, but that was not my understanding, and I can't picture out it would be feasible.

Why isn't it feasible? If she were about to give birth, there would most likely be a doctor there, so I'm sure he would evaluate whether or not it's safe for her to give birth. It'd be just like how it is now with unsafe births, I would think, assuming those abortions would still be legal.

It's not complex if a man wants a woman to have his baby when she doesn't want to?

If she didn't want his baby she shouldn't have had sex with him.

Where's all this coming from? When a man wants children and tricks a woman into getting pregnant? And besides, no, I don't think fathers can be particularly attached to an unplanned 6-week fetus.

Again, what's with the victimizing? Some evil man comes and seduces a poor helpless woman and she accidently got pregnant? It doesn't usually happen like that. A woman knows fully well what she is getting into and the possible consequences. Assuming it was consensual sex, there wasn't much "trick"ing involved.

As for fathers getting attached: Maybe some guy gets really psyched about this new kid after hearing about it and decides he wants to keep it. If it were suddenly killed I think he would be rather affected.

You haven't decided yet but you think we should outlaw the whole mess? Why? This is even more interesting than if you were pro-life.

So much for your "innocent" questions that weren't intended to start an argument.

All I can say is that I'm an enigma. But, this isn't about me.

Ok, in that case, how do you differentiate between a child that doesn't exist because it was aborted and one that doesn't exist because his parents' birth control worked, or because they abstained from sex in the first place?

If the birth control worked, or they abstained, the sperm never met the egg. The cells never started multiplying. An abortion has a sperm an an egg that have already begun working towards becoming a child.

I'm saying, if you want to force me to care for her against my will, why don't you do it yourself (or pay for someone to do it I guess, in a nursing home/fetus-incubation-facility-of-the-future).

That's where the problem is with the analogy. You can pay for someone to do it with a grandmother, but there is no such option with the fetus. If you don't want it to die, the mother must be the one who follows through, no one else can do it for her. Then, once the baby is born, similar options like putting the baby up for adoption become available. Since the technology doesn't exist for you to be able to pay for someone to care for your child before it's birth, you should have to do it.

As for the future fetus incubator, I don't see any problems with that. The baby lives, mother doesn't have to care for it, no harm done. But, again, that gets us nowhere as the tech just doesn't exist.
(Why do you keep talking about stuff that doesn't exist? I mean, I suppose I can understand the surrogate thing, because you'll get a better understanding of who your talking to. But what was the point of this one? Who would say they'd rather force the mother to care for it than use tech like that? I only say to "force" the mother to now because the unborn child would die otherwise.)

If the reasoning behind outlawing abortion is that unplanned pregnancy would serve as a deterrent to sex...Anyway, if the reasoning behind a proposed abortion law is not based on deterring sex, none of this is applies to this debate.

It's not about deterring sex, that would just be a highly likely side effect. The object is to stop abortions. To the pro-lifer, there is nothing inherently wrong with sex, it is part of natural life. However, there is something wrong with abortion to them, they consider it killing the fetus. That's why abortion laws are wanted.

But the role of government (which is what this debate is proposing to change) is the same in both of these (to mitigate the risk-takers' misfortunes), and contrary to a proposed enforcement of sexual responsibility.

You're suggesting that it's the government's job to make sure people take responsibility for their risky behavior (like having sex without being prepared for pregnancy). I tried to think of examples of that but I could only think of counterexamples. Can you give any other situations where people who have acted riskily and experience misfortune have the technical option to save themselves but the government prevents them from doing so, so that they will be more responsible in the future?

If I drive drunk, what happens? It's possible nothing unwanted will happen, just like having sex. But, if something does happen, like I kill someone (or get pregnant), then it is my problem. I could go to jail for the rest of my life (someone might consider this the same as having to care for a child). The government does not bail you out, because you made the risky decision in the first place, so you have to pay for it.

You do it all the time when you pay taxes for social welfare programs. With this question (of accepting surrogate-hood) I'm asking two things. (1) If you would force someone else to carry on with something (unplanned pregnancy), why wouldn't you do it yourself, and (2) when the role of government has always been to help people in trouble to get out of it (even when they got themselves into it, like losing all their money or getting injured in a risky activity), why should the role of government now be the opposite, to force people to take responsibility for their risky behavior? It's just a reversal from the historical precedent (unless I'm forgetting something), and I'm asking for a reason why it should reverse itself now (it being the role of government, if this sentence has run on too long)?

1) I'd force them to carry it because it's their kid, not my kid. They made the choice.
2) See above drunk driving example.

Again I'm very intrigued by this suggestion. Do you think abortion should be outlawed? Why or why not?

Again, not about me.

Punishment of women for having sex? Again, what's with the victimizing?

I'm just proposing that as part of the reasoning in the pro-life platform, from what I've read here, and trying to understand it. If it's not an accurate interpretation, please explain why, and what would be a better representation.

It is not a punishment for sex. Pro-lifers simply want the needless death to stop. Less sex, or anything to do with sex, is simply a byproduct of this. It could be considered punishment for sex, but that's not the point of it. So, not necessarily a wrong interpretation, however that isn't the point. That's like saying getting thrown in jail for drunk driving (although not killing someone, like the previous example) is a punishment for drinking. Drinking is fine and dandy (just like sex), however what happens after is what can cause problems.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

part 2...
A man should have some say in what? Whether he gets a child or whether his partner should go through pregnancy? Because as you've pointed out, if all he wants is a child he can adopt. I don't think he should have any particular say in whether his partner gets pregnant, unless she asks him to.

Then you'd agree that it's illogical and most likely an infringement on what should be a man's legal right to chose, to force him to support the choice of a woman for up to 18 years as they normally have to now?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

So..none of those stances could be used to describe a pro-choicer?[/b]

A pro-choicer? yes. All pro-choicers? no. You could easily take 3 different pro-choice advocates and have one that wants there to be fewer (or almost no) abortions, one who doesn't care if there are more or fewer, and a third who wants more (though I've never heard of or met one of these). But they all believe that it's not the government's place to make a law banning all abortions.

it was basically short for "pro-legalized-abortion".

Ok, here's the problem. It is shorter, but it doesn't mean the same thing. If you can stop shortening it, we can stop talking about it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Why isn't it feasible? If she were about to give birth, there would most likely be a doctor there, so I'm sure he would evaluate whether or not it's safe for her to give birth. It'd be just like how it is now with unsafe births, I would think, assuming those abortions would still be legal.

Well for one thing I don't think it's possible to predict complications like sterility etc, especially from an early enough time when you would want to have aborted if that were the decision. Also, do you think a lot of people would agree to pass this divisive issue off to individual doctors? I guess maybe they would, so...food for thought.

If she didn't want his baby she shouldn't have had sex with him.

So now they are "anti-sex?"

Again, what's with the victimizing? Some evil man comes and seduces a poor helpless woman and she accidently got pregnant? It doesn't usually happen like that. A woman knows fully well what she is getting into and the possible consequences. Assuming it was consensual sex, there wasn't much "trick"ing involved.

Whatever, I hadn't thought there were a lot of unexpectedly pregnant couples where the man wanted a child and the woman didn't (outside of tv drama scenarios involving sabotaged birth control). But the point is, I think the pro-choice thing is about pregnancy, not child-rearing. And didn't you scold me last week just for bringing up child-rearing? Anyway, a man's desire for a child doesn't really compare to a woman's desire to not be reduced to an incubator for a parasitic life form for 9 months.

You haven't decided yet but you think we should outlaw the whole mess? Why? This is even more interesting than if you were pro-life.

So much for your "innocent" questions that weren't intended to start an argument.

We're not in an argument (at least not in this quote ). I never imagined you would say something like that and I wanted to hear more about it.

If the birth control worked, or they abstained, the sperm never met the egg. The cells never started multiplying. An abortion has a sperm an an egg that have already begun working towards becoming a child.

Well, ok, but I thought you said for you it was a potentiality issue. What makes this potentiality potent enough to fight for, and not that of a sperm and egg who never met but are still working towards becoming a child? Also, when a fertilized egg fails to implant, why shouldn't we fight for that potentiality to have a chance at life?

edit: ok, I don't think the above will sound like what I wanted to ask, so here's another try. But I will leave the above because I don't believe in deleting (non-redundant) posts after the fact. The way I see it, either one objects to killing the fetus/zygote/blastocyst to protect what it is, or to protect what it might some day become (please correct me if I've missed a third reason). Sounds like you subscribe to both. So for the first, I ask for clarification: is it wrong to kill any collection of cells with human DNA? And for the second, I ask is it wrong to prevent a child from being born? Does that include abstinence and/or birth control?

You can pay for someone to do it with a grandmother, but there is no such option with the fetus.

Ok, but if I refuse to support my grandmother, would I be a murderer when she dies? Will that be the next law? What if she and I are currently in a bitter dispute over abortion when I decide to stop supporting her?

Why do you keep talking about stuff that doesn't exist?

If no one talks about something it will never exist. I'm an optimist. Transplanting a fetus is certainly within the realm of current technology, it just hasn't been developed (yet?). I threw the incubator in there to try to take nursing homes into the analogy, but looking back I guess it wasn't applicable. Forget it.

If I drive drunk, what happens? It's possible nothing unwanted will happen, just like having sex. But, if something does happen, like I kill someone (or get pregnant), then it is my problem. I could go to jail for the rest of my life

That's different because there the government is imposing a punishment, not denying you access to an option that would otherwise save you from the consequences of your risky behavior.

It is not a punishment for sex. Pro-lifers simply want the needless death to stop.

Oh fiddlesticks, back to basics. So is there a third possible rationale for believing abortion evil, besides potentiality or cruelty? Can I limit my consideration of this issue to those two explanations, or am I missing something?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Then you'd agree that it's illogical and most likely an infringement on what should be a man's legal right to chose, to force him to support the choice of a woman for up to 18 years as they normally have to now?

Sorry, but I have no opinion or knowledge about child-support beyond knowing of its existence. So I guess I can't weigh in either way.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Sorry, but I have no opinion or knowledge about child-support beyond knowing of its existence. So I guess I can't weigh in either way.

Okay..I'll fill you in. You don't have to take my word for it though, so we'll just assume this is a hypothetical debate based on the notion that what I'm saying is true:

Currently, if a woman can prove whose semen it was that she chose to take into her body which fertilized the egg she chose to allow to grow to a infant, he must pay a certain percentage of his income to the woman in order to help support the result of her choices. Do you support this denial of choice on the part of the man, or do you believe that only one gender has a constitutional right to such a thing and that one gender should be forced to pay for 18 years for the choices of a woman where they had no choice?

[budster101]

Semen don't impregnate anyone, it's the SPERM that do that...