[TampaDeveloper]

There are three logical answers to the question, "Is abortion wrong?" Two of them are faith based and one of them is not faith based.

1) I have some knowledge of the afterlife and abortion is okay; (FAITH BASED)

Example 1: I believe in reincarnation. The soul bound for an aborted baby is just reassigned.
Example 2: I believe there is no god. We're all just a collection of cells, therefore nothing is lost in aborting a baby.

2) I have some knowledge of the afterlife and abortion is wrong (FAITH BASED)

Example 1: I believe Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior. An aborted baby encounters a penalty, as do others involved in violating God's commandment.

3) I have no knowledge of the afterlife, therefore I must treat abortion as an action with an unknown risk with a possible negative affect on another life.

Example 1: "Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." -- Ronald Reagan

Examples of other laws which follow the pattern; Unnecessary action with unnecessary risk infringes upon the rights or possible safety of another life.

1) Driving Under The Influence

Example 1: DUI is a proactive stance based on reasonable probability that action will result in negative consequence to others. 53% of United States population believes that abortion is wrong, therefore there is reasonable probability that abortion will result in negative consequence.

2) Negligent Homicide

Example 1: A failure to acknowledge and consider the possible injury to another individual, who was not aware or was not given the choice NOT to participate.

3) Slavery

Example 1: In the Lincoln/Douglas debates of 1858, Douglas argued that he understood that Lincoln felt slavery was wrong. Douglas argued that it should be Lincolns right to not have slaves if he so chose, but Lincoln's belief should not infringe upon his right to own slaves. Argument was deemed invalid because it failed to consider the rights of the slaves, much the same way as current Pro-Choice arguments fail to consider the rights of the child. The counter argument to this is that we don't provide rights to those that are still a "possibility". This argument is erroneous because DUI is, in fact, enforced under the premise that it has the "possibility" to injure (infringe on the rights) of another individual.

Summary;

1) John Kerry has misinterpreted a key issue and falsely blamed it on faith. I want to know why!

a) Kerry does not understand the logic?
b) Kerry does not care?
c) Kerry has not taken the time to properly consider the issue?
d) Other? Requires full explanation!

2) Existing laws are not consistent with laws pertaining to Abortion. Abortion must be illegal by the patterns we have set forth to govern the actions of our citizens.

3) Risk assessment; Consequence * frequency = Powerful negative consequence (death) * 4000 aborted children per day in the United States. This issue outweighs all other issues when risk is analyzed.

[Landos Mustache]

Ya, vote for Bush to keep bombing things and "The land of the Free" with little freedom.






Oh and keep this crap in the right forum.

[xi_hyperon]

[turtle777]

W R O N G F O R U M

-t

[wulf]

In before MovedToThePoliticalForum.








(And, y'know, that other guy.)

[puppetswhokill]

[Mrjinglesusa]

In this election, the candidates opinion of abortion is the LEAST of our worries.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by TampaDeveloper:
There are three logical answers to the question, "Is abortion wrong?" Two of them are faith based and one of them is not faith based.

Well this thread started out well, didn't it?

To be honest, I'm not really following your post here. But one thing I didn't see mentioned here, that is key to the pro-choice position, is that there are competing rights here. You focus totally on the baby and whether there is an after life or reincarnation or other, uh, interesting arguments. But the pro-choice position is that there should also be a fundamental right for families to be free of government intervention in how many children they have. So you have to balance the right of an unborn child to be born against the right of a family to be free of government intrusion. You may disagree that families should have any reproductive rights, but you have to acknowledge that it's part of the pro-choice argument if you're going to address their arguments as you're doing here.

Honestly, your depiction of the basic arguments concerning abortion rights is just way off the mark. I've never heard anyone argue that "babies are reincarnated so therefore abortions should be legal."