[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE WOMAN'S BODY. IT'S ABOUT THE PART THAT ISN'T HER.

You can put it in all caps, but it doesn't change the point that in order to do what you wish, you have to control her body. You have to get the full weight of the government behind you in forcing pregnant women, against their will, to give birth. If you don't think that's about the woman's body, then you don't understand what it means to be pregnant.

Doesn't matter, you claim since it can't live without her...

1 year olds can't either.

One-year-olds can't live without their mother? Is this what happens when someone gets backed into a corner while holding an absurd position? Of course one-year-olds can live without their mother. I was adopted and had no contact with my biological mother just days after my birth. Some one-year-olds have no mother and are raised by their fathers. You're just being... well, wrong.

"Forced birth laws"

That is just nutty. No, just anti-abortion laws.

Try to sugar-coat it into something nicer-sounding, but you want forced-birth laws. Even if a woman doesn't want to give birth, you want to use the power of the government to force her to give birth.

Well you are wrong.

I didn't know that. I'm upset about it

They are called Catholics.

I don't think any are against sex ed so much as how it is presented.

Again, Catholics.

Doesn't matter if you buy it or not.

First, Catholics are a large part of the pro-life bloc, so saying "they're Catholic" doesn't somehow mean they're irrelevant, second, most Catholics are pro-choice, and third, it's not just Catholics who want to limit access to birth control.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FireWire

Come on. Quit it please. You're the one that's talking in circles.

No, that is a baseless accusation. I have stood by my ORIGINAL statement since I posted it.

You conveniently decide that you just want to address ONE argument and ignore the rest.

Again, bolding words doesn't make your argument more valid. I addressed the part of your rant that was RELEVANT to what I said.

How many times do I have to repeat that?

That's great!

Why should I discuss something that has nothing to do with what I said? You shouldn't be getting upset.

You accuse me of being unprepared.

Where?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

You can put it in all caps, and it doesn't change the point that in order to do what you wish, you have to control her body.

Again, we don't want anything to do with HER body. What part of that do you not understand? You see it differently. I see it another way.

So what you are doing is projecting what you believing onto me therefore giving me wants and desires that simply do not exist.

And that is why it's dishonest.

You don't seem to get that part.

One-year-olds can't live without their mother? Is this what happens when someone gets backed into a corner while holding an absurd position? Of course one-year-olds can live without their mother. I was adopted and had no contact with my biological mother just days after my birth. Some one-year-olds have no mother and are raised by their fathers. You're just being... well, wrong.

Oh please, that was a horrible attack of my point. You know well what I mean because I said it in the post before. They cannot survive on their own. In that case, a fertilized egg can be put into a woman that isn't a mother as well.

First, Catholics are a large part of the pro-life bloc, so saying "they're Catholic" doesn't somehow mean they're irrelevant,

Lumping pro-lifers together as if they believe this as a whole is dishonest. The only ones that believe this is catholics. This is a Catholic thing. Not a pro-life thing. If you want to rant about Catholicism be my guest.

second, most Catholics are pro-choice,

I'd love to see proof of this.

and third, it's not just Catholics who want to limit access to birth control.

You didn't say limit access, you said against. Stop changing your argument mid-stream.

And those people that you just referred to only want to limit access as in promoting sex at a young age.

If your rant was so just, you wouldn't have to take such a approach.

[hyteckit]

Fetuses in babies!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/..._fetus_in_baby

Do you save 1 baby or 2 fetuses? Hmm...

[Kevin]

Babies Having Babies!

Literally!

[dcmacdaddy]

BRussell IS correct. If your intention is to stop abortions from happening then by doing so the government will be indirectly forcing pregnancy on women who do not want to be pregnant.

Outlawing abortions means just that, they will be outlawed. Meaning women who want to end their pregnancy will not be able to do so. Meaning the government will have put in place a law that indirectly requires women to carry their pregnancy to full term.

This is not some semantic argument. Outlawing abortions is not going to put an end to ill-conceived and un-wanted children. People who are irreponsible sexually are not going to suddenly become so simply because the laws have changed. While some will change, most won't. Every child born after abortions are outlawed is not going to be a wanted child. There will still be plenty of women who get pregnant and for whatever reason decide they don't want to have the child. But now, abortion will not be an option and they will be required by law, or more accurately by the lack of a law granting them rights to an abortion, to carry their pregnancy to full term.

If abortions are outlawed, not having the child will no longer be an option. Because there will be no option to not have the child, having the child becomes the mandatory state of being for a pregnant woman.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Hold on now. Don't get all emotional about it.

Present your opinion and some supporting facts - and see if you get your point across.

Changing somebody's opinion is a tedious process - after all, you're asking them to believe something they don't already believe.

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion. I'm just saying that one should not impose its point of view to other. I stated many times that everybody has the right to have his own opinion.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Where?

Oops. Sorry, after all that quoting, I mixed you up with Spliffdaddy for this part. My bad.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

BRussell IS correct. If your intention is to stop abortions from happening then by doing so the government will be indirectly forcing pregnancy on women who do not want to be pregnant.

Outlawing abortions means just that, they will be outlawed. Meaning women who want to end their pregnancy will not be able to do so. Meaning the government will have put in place a law that indirectly requires women to carry their pregnancy to full term.

This is not some semantic argument. Outlawing abortions is not going to put an end to ill-conceived and un-wanted children. People who are irreponsible sexually are not going to suddenly become so simply because the laws have changed. While some will change, most won't. Every child born after abortions are outlawed is not going to be a wanted child. There will still be plenty of women who get pregnant and for whatever reason decide they don't want to have the child. But now, abortion will not be an option and they will be required by law, or more accurately by the lack of a law granting them rights to an abortion, to carry their pregnancy to full term.

If abortions are outlawed, not having the child will no longer be an option. Because there will be no option to not have the child, having the child becomes the mandatory state of being for a pregnant woman.

Don't bring logic into this discussion; you'll scare those who really believe that overturning Roe v. Wade is going to solve all the attendant problems that come with unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children. What's frightening is that some people actually believe you can legislate morality.

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Every child born after abortions are outlawed is not going to be a wanted child.

... and this means exactly what?...
... i take it as implying a "bad thing"...
... but what is already a "bad thing"...
... is that as abortion numbers went up...
... so did abuse and maltreatment numbers...

... not to say that you were implying even greater increases...
... nor to say there is/will be a direct correlation...
... just find it odd as the earliest beginnings of life were devalued...
... so apparently became the contiguous stages...
... sins of the mothers?...

be well

laeth

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by KarlG

What's frightening is that some people actually believe you can legislate morality.

... hmmmmm...
... no more frightening, i suppose...
... than their same thinking that some would legalise vice...

... though i am a bit struck back that some would easily break...
... or seek not to make...
... the ties between morals and laws...

be well

laeth

[BRussell]

isao bered, are you posting in haiku today?

[isao bered]

... scanned through this thread...
... and partially through the other related one...
... while the sole clinic was presented, i saw no mention of this...

no abortion doctors in south dakota

... interesting...
... they've had no resident doctors who regularly perform abortions...
... for the greater portion of a decade...
... so planned parenthood has to fly them in from out of state...
... kind of makes you wonder how much planned parenthood enjoys their monopoly...
... and if they hire a collection agency since the state doesn't pay for them...

be well

laeth

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by BRussell

isao bered, are you posting in haiku today?

oops! no. just *my* normal formatting. i forgot how much some folks around here hate it. i guess i should stop before someone complains.

thanks for the heads up! ;-)

be well.

laeth

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

BRussell IS correct. If your intention is to stop abortions from happening then by doing so the government will be indirectly forcing pregnancy on women who do not want to be pregnant.

Um no, I would say it was the women getting themselves pregnant. No one is FORCING pregnancy on anyone.

And what a ideal, FORCING pregnancy.

And their argument wasn't that, it was having to do with woman's bodies and us wanting to control them. A motivation that simply doesn't exist.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FireWire

Oops. Sorry, after all that quoting, I mixed you up with Spliffdaddy for this part. My bad.

Well you just gained a bit of respect from me by admitting such. Others would try to spin it.

I appreciate it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KarlG

What's frightening is that some people actually believe you can legislate morality.

Pssssssst .. what do you think laws are?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Um no, I would say it was the women getting themselves pregnant. No one is FORCING pregnancy on anyone.

And what a ideal, FORCING pregnancy.

A woman has two choices when it comes to pregnancy.

A woman can choose to not GET pregnant by using birth control before having sex to ensure no conception happens.
OR
A woman can choose to not BE pregnant by having an abortion after conception to remove the fetus from her body.

If abortion is outlawed a woman no longer has the choice to not *be* pregnant. Once she gets pregnant she has to carry it to full term. So, how is this removal of choice anything but forcing a woman to BE pregnant? Certainly it is not forcing her to *get* pregnant but, as she no longer has a choice as to whether or not she wants to be pregnant, it IS forcing her to BE pregnant.

I nwat to ensure that a woman continues to have two choices when it comes to pregnancy. I want to ensure that a woman has a choice whether or not to get pregnant and whether or not to be pregnant.

[Kevin]

The woman made that choice when she had sex DC.

Sex sometimes causes pregnancy. It's a fact of life.

Some like to live in fuzzy world were they are not responsible for their actions. This has been going on so long people think they should have the RIGHT to kill innocents for their selfish desires.

Again, we simply disagree such right should even exist.

I see it as the same as the right to live without being murdered.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's the growing, living human she is killing that is question.

"Human?" Personal opinion treated as fact.

Originally Posted by Kevin

The "It's her body" argument is one based on dishonesty.

No, I honestly believe that a fetus is not a person, legally or morally.

Originally Posted by FireWire

But for now, it's just a mass of cells inside her mother. A kind of cancer, if you will.

Not a helpful argument. A fetus isn't a person, but it isn't a cancer, either.

Originally Posted by FireWire

In many species, the mother will spontaneously abort if they feel the conditions are not right. Many species will also decide to let a "baby" dies if she senses that he has a birth defect or that it will not be viable.

Actually, we let babies die all the time, when we choose not to operate on hopeless cases.

Regardless, humans don't take their cues on ethics from animals. Whether or not animals do something has no bearing on whether humans ought to do it.

Originally Posted by FireWire

Just because we're intelligent enough to make "rules" doens't give us the right to change nature's way.

Sure it does.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Nobody has ever made me feel bad about my opinion. I mean, if I felt bad about my opinion, then I'd rethink my opinion. And I've never asked anybody to respect my opinion. If your opinion is better, then let me hear it - and I'll decide if I agree with it.

Originally Posted by Kevin

If two siamese twins were attached, would you say it was ok for one to kill off the other?

Has anyone ever gone to jail for killing their conjoined twin? I doubt it.

Actually, wo do kill one twin occasionally. Doctors may be forced to sacrifice the life of one twin to save the other.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE WOMAN'S BODY. IT'S ABOUT THE PART THAT ISN'T HER

The part that isn't her isn't anybody else, either. There's no person there. A fetus is essentially mindless. There's no right to life for the "brain-dead," born or unborn.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Heck, the simple fact that everybody agrees that abortion isn't a "good" thing tells me that it's a bad thing. Almost nobody is proud of having an abortion.

"Everybody agrees"? Not quite.

Abortion is morally neutral. I would recommend it to any woman who needs to finish school first, or when it is financially or medically risky, or if she is simply too young to be a mother. If my daughter came home pregnant, I would recommend an abortion.

Originally Posted by Kevin

You see it differently. I see it another way.

But you want your way to be law for everyone.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Don't bring logic into this discussion; you'll scare those who really believe that overturning Roe v. Wade is going to solve all the attendant problems that come with unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children. What's frightening is that some people actually believe you can legislate morality.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Fetuses in babies!! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/..._fetus_in_baby Do you save 1 baby or 2 fetuses? Hmm...

This is more common than you might think. So-called "parasitic twins" are the cause of people born with extra legs and arms. Those limbs are really the limbs of the twin embedded in their own body. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

"Everybody agrees"? Not quite.

Abortion is morally neutral. I would recommend it to any woman who needs to finish school first, or when it is financially or medically risky, or if she is simply too young to be a mother. If my daughter came home pregnant, I would recommend an abortion.


But you want your way to be law for everyone.

Funny... YOU want YOUR WAY to be law for EVERYONE. What a hypocrite.

Also, I think you would find many pro-choice people DO NOT share your view of abortion being "morally neutral." In fact, I'm one of them. I feel abortion should be kept legal to protect people that choose to have an abortion, but I DO view it as killing...

You can spin it any way you want "it's only a lump of cells" "it doesn't have any brain activity" bla bla bla, but the fact is... it is a pre-born human.

In my view, if I crush an sprouting acorn, I've killed something... but I wouldn't say that I've killed an oak tree.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

No, I honestly believe that a fetus is not a person, legally or morally.

Then what is it, a tumor? It's obviously a pre-born human... to say that it is anything else is just FUD. Try calling it what it is.

So if I deliberately over a pregnant woman with my car, I shouldn't get charged with two killings?

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Not a helpful argument. A fetus isn't a person, but it isn't a cancer, either.

In fact, that's not an argument at all. That was merely my point of view, the way I see it. Not the way it is.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Regardless, humans don't take their cues on ethics from animals. Whether or not animals do something has no bearing on whether humans ought to do it.

Sure it does.

That's another debate, but it's with that mentality that we are ruining the world as we are currently doing. Human decided that they should be "king" of the Earth's kingdom. Making our own rules, based on ethics rather than logic. We are only citizen of the world, don't forget that. We should get more clues from how the animals do it, or at least how our ancestors used to do it.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Funny... YOU want YOUR WAY to be law for EVERYONE. What a hypocrite.

Also, I think you would find many pro-choice people DO NOT share your view of abortion being "morally neutral." In fact, I'm one of them. I feel abortion should be kept legal to protect people that choose to have an abortion, but I DO view it as killing...

You can spin it any way you want "it's only a lump of cells" "it doesn't have any brain activity" bla bla bla, but the fact is... it is a pre-born human.

In my view, if I crush an sprouting acorn, I've killed something... but I wouldn't say that I've killed an oak tree.

Gee, isn't that funny? I used the acorn/oak tree analogy several times in the older thread. And it supports my view, not yours. I don't deny abortion kills the fetus, I just deny you've killed a person when doing so.

I also view abortion as killing. The fetus IS alive. But killing, in and of itself, is neither right or wrong. Sometimes killing is ok (in self-defense, in war, in abortion, when facing terminal illness), and sometimes it is murder. The context is more relevant in moral choices.

I have no doubt that many pro-choice people think abortion is wrong. That's fine. I don't demanding universal agreement. I just expect to live according to my own values, not have the values of the intolerant few forced on me.

I don't really understand the mindset of "abortion is murder, but should still be legal" people. If I thought the fetus was actually a person, I would probably be against abortion.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Then what is it, a tumor? It's obviously a pre-born human... to say that it is anything else is just FUD. Try calling it what it is.

So if I deliberately over a pregnant woman with my car, I shouldn't get charged with two killings?

No. Killing the fetus would be closer to ripping out an arm or eye. It would be assault (against the woman, not the fetus), and not murder.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

No. Killing the fetus would be closer to ripping out an arm or eye. It would be assault (against the woman, not the fetus), and not murder.

Ipk, I just read through ALL Your posts in this last page.

You are still treating your opinion as fact.

This post for example.

You aren't disproving anyone's statement by doing so.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Gee, isn't that funny? I used the acorn/oak tree analogy several times in the older thread. And it supports my view, not yours. I don't deny abortion kills the fetus, I just deny you've killed a person when doing so.

A fetus is an unborn human.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I also view abortion as killing. The fetus IS alive. But killing, in and of itself, is neither right or wrong. Sometimes killing is ok (in self-defense, in war, in abortion, when facing terminal illness), and sometimes it is murder. The context is more relevant in moral choices.

A fetus is an unborn human. I'm not talking about war, or self-defense. I'm talking about killing a healthy, unborn child because being pregnant is inconvenient.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I have no doubt that many pro-choice people think abortion is wrong. That's fine. I don't demanding universal agreement. I just expect to live according to my own values, not have the values of the intolerant few forced on me.

Isn't that exactly what YOU are doing. Forcing YOUR values on other people? Many states DO NOT WANT abortion to be legal... because it conflicts with their values.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I don't really understand the mindset of "abortion is murder, but should still be legal" people. If I thought the fetus was actually a person, I would probably be against abortion.

I hate to tell you this, but a fetus is a human. It has a unique DNA.

Question: Is it OK to abort a 8.5 month old fetus?

[Rumor]

Sex after midnight is against the law in many places, yet that doesn't stop people from doing it.

Regardless if it's outlawed or not, it will still be done.

I'm going to advocate not outlawing abortion. The way I see it, if it is going to be done, I would rather see it done safely.

[Kevin]

Those who do it after the fact will be few and far between. Just like before.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I hate to tell you this, but a fetus is a human. It has a unique DNA.

I think he's saying it's genetically a H. sapiens, but it's not yet the same kind of thing that a more fully formed human is.

[Rumor]

If a fetus has the potential to become a human, we should outlaw abortion to allow it the chance.

Since seamen has the potenial to become a human, we should outlaw masterbation since it's a waste of potential human life.

[Rumor]

While we are at it, let's outlaw menstration since, unless the egg is going to be used to create life, it is a waste of potential life.

[Kevin]

Hyperbole. :zzz:

[Rumor]

Yes, but so is a lot of what is being said on this issue.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Isn't that exactly what YOU are doing. Forcing YOUR values on other people? Many states DO NOT WANT abortion to be legal... because it conflicts with their values.

Not regulating other people's behavior cannot be "forcing your values" on them. Only one side of this debate wants to "force values" on other people. Anyone is perfectly free to not have an abortion if they don't want one.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Rumor

If a fetus has the potential to become a human, we should outlaw abortion to allow it the chance.

Since seamen has the potenial to become a human, we should outlaw masterbation since it's a waste of potential human life.

You are trying to trivialize what a fetus is.

The sperm and the egg on their own will note make a child...
A fetus, left alone... will continue growing until birth... and beyond.

By your logic, we should outlaw water... because a fetus can't grow without water

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Rumor

While we are at it, let's outlaw menstration since, unless the egg is going to be used to create life, it is a waste of potential life.

"going to be used to create" vs "is alive"

big difference.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Not regulating other people's behavior cannot be "forcing your values" on them. Only one side of this debate wants to "force values" on other people. Anyone is perfectly free to not have an abortion if they don't want one.

There goes another one, bringing logic into the discussion. Don't you know that's not allowed?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Not regulating other people's behavior cannot be "forcing your values" on them. Only one side of this debate wants to "force values" on other people. Anyone is perfectly free to not have an abortion if they don't want one.

No, both sides are attempting to force values on SOCIETY.

Sorry Karl, there is no logic in that.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, both sides are attempting to force values on SOCIETY.

Umm.. Pro-lifers want to force their values on society, while pro-choicers say it's up to the woman to decide. Pro-life people can perfectly fine live out their believes in a pro-choice society, but pro-choice people can not do that in a pro-life society.

Dig?

[Monique]

For conservative men like spiffdaddy; women are just there to serve them, to think whey they say they should think; not to move when they are on top of them; not to have any rights whatsover; to go to the bathroom when they (conservative men) tell them to go; to eat when they (conservative men) tell them (poor women who like them) to eat; to sleep when they (conservative men) tell them to sleep; to hold their glasses the way they (conservative men) tell them to hold it; to do anything, think anything, talk, move, clothes themselves, take a bath, drink water or not, eat other things than bread, etc.

Of course those men are happy that the abortions in some states are very restrictive; because they hate women with a brain that can take a decision concerning their own lives without them. It just shows that in some states, women are respected and have rights and in other they are not.

[Spliffdaddy]

omg, have you been watching me at home?

no...wait. Kari, is that you? I thought I told you the computer was off-limits. Now get back in the kitchen and start cooking me dinner.

Just wait til I get home...I'm gonna beat that ass.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Umm.. Pro-lifers want to force their values on society, while pro-choicers say it's up to the woman to decide. Pro-life people can perfectly fine live out their believes in a pro-choice society, but pro-choice people can not do that in a pro-life society.

[Monique]

To the quote from Busemann, you are absolutly right.

[Chuckit]

By the same logic, if it were legal to kill black people, you would still be able to live out your beliefs and not kill black people. Would that situation be acceptable?

As I've said, this comes down to the moral value of a fetus. If you believe it has the same moral value as a fully developed human, the "You don't have to get an abortion if you don't want one" argument sounds as absurd as "You don't have to kill black people."

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Umm.. Pro-lifers want to force their values on society, while pro-choicers say it's up to the woman to decide. Pro-life people can perfectly fine live out their believes in a pro-choice society, but pro-choice people can not do that in a pro-life society.

Dig?

Most pro-life people view abortion as a human rights issue...

While a bit extreme... I could argue that "if you don't like abortions, don't get one" sounds very similar to "If you don't like slavery, don't own slaves"

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by BRussel

Not regulating other people's behavior cannot be "forcing your values" on them. Only one side of this debate wants to "force values" on other people. Anyone is perfectly free to not have an abortion if they don't want one.

Originally Posted by Busemann

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Umm.. Pro-lifers want to force their values on society, while pro-choicers say it's up to the woman to decide. Pro-life people can perfectly fine live out their believes in a pro-choice society, but pro-choice people can not do that in a pro-life society.

I still don't get how can anyone not see the point here. If you force a person, by the mean of a gun on the head or legal regulation, to abide by your point of view, YOU ARE IMPOSING THEM YOUR WILL. On the other hand, I fail to see how leaving the person choose the side they want is forcing them to adopt your point of view. "Pro-choicers" are not lobbying to impose abortion for everybody. They are not asking "pro-lifers" to change their opinion. The opposite is simply not true. If there's a law preventing abortion, you're effectively forcing everybody to accept your values, even against their will.

I wish there was a law preventing people that act like this to be involved in any kind of decision: they clearly lack the judgement and common sense needed to participate in such demanding activity. You are simply not fit to live in the society. In a trial, you'd be considered inapt, because you can't differenciate the right from the wrong. I can say it clearly and without shame: if by this point you still don't understand what we're saying, you're simply not intelligent and obviously a retard (and that's polite).

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

You are trying to trivialize what a fetus is.

No, you are trying exaggerate what a fetus is. But no matter what, you'll never be able to deny a fetus is mindless. The mindless cannot have rights.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ipk, I just read through ALL Your posts in this last page. You are still treating your opinion as fact.

The fact that a fetus is mindless is not mere opinion.

Even the ancient Isrealites knew that abortion wasn't murder. If a man caused an abortion, he was expected to pay a fine.

"And if men strive together, and hurt a pregnant woman, so that her fruit [children] come out, and yet no harm follows; the one who hit her shall surely be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall impose upon him; and he shall pay a fine as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." (Bible, Exodus 21:22-23)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Like I said before: "Killing the fetus would be closer to ripping out an arm or eye. It would be assault (against the woman, not the fetus), and not murder."

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I'm talking about killing a healthy, unborn child because being pregnant is inconvenient.

"Convenience" is a trivialization of a woman's goals in life. When a young teenager can't go to college because she has to flip burgers to pay for diapers, it isn't merely convenience she has lost, but her life's dreams. And for what? To save the life of a mindless non-person? How absurd.

----

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Isn't that exactly what YOU are doing. Forcing YOUR values on other people? Many states DO NOT WANT abortion to be legal... because it conflicts with their values.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, both sides are attempting to force values on SOCIETY.

"States" and "Society" don't have values. Only individual people have values.

----

Originally Posted by Kevin

Those who do it after the fact will be few and far between. Just like before.

Few and far between? Nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortions

The rich will always do it, because they always have their own doctors who can be discreet, or they can fly to a place where it is legal. The poor risk greater poverty if they don't, or they risk injury or death if they do.

Originally Posted by BRussell

Not regulating other people's behavior cannot be "forcing your values" on them. Only one side of this debate wants to "force values" on other people. Anyone is perfectly free to not have an abortion if they don't want one.

You're so right. I fear getting a pro-lifer to see it this way is almost hopeless. They are invulnerable to reason and common sense.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by FireWire

I still don't get how can anyone not see the point here. If you force a person, by the mean of a gun on the head or legal regulation, to abide by your point of view, YOU ARE IMPOSING THEM YOUR WILL. On the other hand, I fail to see how leaving the person choose the side they want is forcing them to adopt your point of view. "Pro-choicers" are not lobbying to impose killing black people for everybody. They are not asking "pro-lifers" to change their opinion. The opposite is simply not true. If there's a law preventing killing black people, you're effectively forcing everybody to accept your values, even against their will.

As I said, just replace "abortion" with "killing black people" to see how your argument sounds to the other side. While pro-choicers don't want to impose their will on mothers, they do essentially want to impose it on fetuses.