[Doofy]

Any one who claims they love and enjoy eating red meat is in denial of the consequences and uses that as a reason not to quit. People don't walk around hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, because they know that is dangerous to one's health, yet people who claim they love eating red meat use that as an excuse to engage in very damaging self-destruction.

Big study links red meat diet to cancer | Society | The Guardian
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...er-causes.html

[ghporter]

It's important to keep in mind that these studies (the ones you linked and others) don't say "ANY red meat consumption causes cancer." They point out that a diet that includes large quantities of red meat can contribute to cancer. Big difference.

On the other hand, smoking (or for that matter, any chronic smoke inhalation) has a high statistical probability of at least contributing to cancer (and not necessarily mouth/throat/lung cancer...).

You make a very good point, but while these two issues are in the same league, they are not themselves the same.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Any one who claims they love and enjoy smoking is in denial of the consequences and uses that as a reason not to quit. People don't walk around hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, because they know that is dangerous to one's health, yet people who claim they love smoking use that as an excuse to engage in very damaging self-destruction.

Nonsense. Not everything that causes pleasure is good for you.

Or are people who eat candy just deluding themselves, too? I’m well aware of the consequences of eating an entire bag of winegums, yet sometimes, I still do it. Not quite as addicted as someone who smokes, of course, but I definitely enjoy it, even though I know how bad it is for me.

I happen to find it extremely difficult to understand how anyone could ever find it enjoyable to suffocate their lungs by breathing in smoke—personally, it makes my throat bunch up and renders me more or less incapable of breathing—but that’s why people are so different. I’m sure there are people out there who do actually go around hitting themselves (though perhaps not in the head) with hammers because they derive pleasure from it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

On the other hand, smoking (or for that matter, any chronic smoke inhalation) has a high statistical probability of at least contributing to cancer (and not necessarily mouth/throat/lung cancer...).

On the flipside, it has a high statistical probability of causing you to become the oldest person in the world.

You don't think that maybe, just maybe, it's other things causing the cancer but fags get the blame for it because they're more easily taxable?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I happen to find it extremely difficult to understand how anyone could ever find it enjoyable to suffocate their lungs by breathing in smoke—personally, it makes my throat bunch up and renders me more or less incapable of breathing—but that’s why people are so different.

Exactly. As the owner of precisely seven t-shirts, I find it difficult to understand how anyone could ever find it enjoyable to stuff their closets full of the things.

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I’m sure there are people out there who do actually go around hitting themselves (though perhaps not in the head) with hammers because they derive pleasure from it.

Yep. Hence certain... ...umm... ...subcultures with a liking for whips and latex.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You don't think that maybe, just maybe, it's other things causing the cancer but fags get the blame for it because they're more easily taxable?

Not in my experience. My mother died from cancer. She smoked for WAY too long. But otherwise she was healthy, active, and ate well. We ate organic way back when it was a hippy-fringe thing, mostly because it tasted better. We made our own bread and yogurt. We ate way more fish than steak (and I hate fish, by the way!). But Mom smoked for decades and wound up dying from some very odd metastases of bowel and reproductive cancers. I can't connect any of her other activities to a high statistical probability of cancer, but I can certainly connect her smoking to it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I can't connect any of her other activities to a high statistical probability of cancer

I can.

Sodium Lauryl Sulphate SLS Sorting the Facts From Fiction.

TESTS ON LAB ANIMALS INDICATE MATERIAL MAY CAUSE MUTAGENIC EFFECTS

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Not in my experience. My mother died from cancer. She smoked for WAY too long. But otherwise she was healthy, active, and ate well. We ate organic way back when it was a hippy-fringe thing, mostly because it tasted better. We made our own bread and yogurt. We ate way more fish than steak (and I hate fish, by the way!). But Mom smoked for decades and wound up dying from some very odd metastases of bowel and reproductive cancers. I can't connect any of her other activities to a high statistical probability of cancer, but I can certainly connect her smoking to it.

My mum was much the same: due to serious allergies of all kinds, she lived extremely healthily, with nearly all store-bought, produced foods being off-limits. She didn’t eat much meat, either. And for Doofy, she was unable to use any kind of shampoo, and only rarely used any soap at all, ’cause her skin broke out in rashes so easily. She also never smoked a cigarette in her life.

She died of cancer at age 32.

Moral: anecdotal evidence is completely useless when it comes to cancer, ’cause it strikes where it wants, when it wants, on whom it wants, indications be damned.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

My mum was much the same: due to serious allergies of all kinds, she lived extremely healthily, with nearly all store-bought, produced foods being off-limits. She didn’t eat much meat, either. And for Doofy, she was unable to use any kind of shampoo, and only rarely used any soap at all, ’cause her skin broke out in rashes so easily. She also never smoked a cigarette in her life.

She died of cancer at age 32.

Moral: anecdotal evidence is completely useless when it comes to cancer, ’cause it strikes where it wants, when it wants, on whom it wants, indications be damned.

Anecdotal evidence may be useless in certain situations, but it is a know fact that cigarettes are much more likely to contribute to or cause certain types of cancer, and that smokers have a vastly higher rate of certain types of cancers than non smokers.

[dedalus]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Moral: anecdotal evidence is completely useless when it comes to cancer, ’cause it strikes where it wants, when it wants, on whom it wants, indications be damned.

QFT

My mum also died from cancer at the age of 32. Always lived healthily, never smoked, didn’t drink, ate lots of veggies and little meat. Her mother had died from cancer in her early fifties. My cousin did from leukæmia when she was eighteen, also used to be a health freak.

My paternal grandparents were lifelong heavy smokers and drinkers. Both lived into their mid-seventies.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Anecdotal evidence may be useless in certain situations, but it is a know fact that cigarettes are much more likely to contribute to or cause certain types of cancer, and that smokers have a vastly higher rate of certain types of cancers than non smokers.

Known from extensive studies, yes. Not from anecdotal evidence.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The government should be happy to rake in the massive taxes. Why? Because it's 1) discouraging to those who are foolish enough to smoke and 2) takes advantage of an addiction. It's rather brilliant. Since many people refuse to stop smoking just as much as people refuse to stop driving a few blocks to work, why shouldn't they tax cigarettes and gas? Tobacco tax has the added benefit of encouraging people to stop for at least financial reasons if they fail to realize health implications.

Next up... a "Sin Tax" on Abortion.

1) Discouraging to those who are foolish enough to have unprotected sex.
2) Takes advantage of a sex-crazed society in need of a way out of an inevitable consequence of unprotected sex.
3) Why shouldn't they tax abortions? An abortion tax has the added benefit of encouraging people to stop for at least financial reasons if they fail to realize the health implications.

The government has decided that alcohol and tobacco usage is "sinful" and in need of a punitive "sin-tax" to ease you into submission, but for whatever reason our tax dollars instead go TO the largest abortion provider in the country. It works out perfectly when you think about it. You get drunk from the alcohol you paid higher taxes for, have sex, and an after-sex cigarette you paid higher taxes for and now you can pay a tax for your abortion. With over a million abortions per year, just think of the incredible tax revenue that could be generated.

[subego]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Tobacco tax has the added benefit of encouraging people to stop for at least financial reasons if they fail to realize health implications.

I don't have a problem with this in theory, but I think the end result is soaking a bunch of poor people.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Next up... a "Sin Tax" on Abortion.

1) Discouraging to those who are foolish enough to have unprotected sex.
2) Takes advantage of a sex-crazed society in need of a way out of an inevitable consequence of unprotected sex.
3) Why shouldn't they tax abortions? An abortion tax has the added benefit of encouraging people to stop for at least financial reasons if they fail to realize the health implications.

The government has decided that alcohol and tobacco usage is "sinful" and in need of a punitive "sin-tax" to ease you into submission, but for whatever reason our tax dollars instead go TO the largest abortion provider in the country. It works out perfectly when you think about it. You get drunk from the alcohol you paid higher taxes for, have sex, and an after-sex cigarette you paid higher taxes for and now you can pay a tax for your abortion. With over a million abortions per year, just think of the incredible tax revenue that could be generated.

I wouldn't, nor do I want to ask you to tone down the sarcasm, but like the last thread, it's getting to where I can't figure out your point.

1) Sin taxes are wrong?
2) Abortion is wrong?
3) Taxes shouldn't go towards abortion?
4) Inconsistency frosts your ass?
5) How dare imitchellg5 bring this up because of one through four?

Don't change what you're doing, just sum-up after.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't have a problem with this in theory, but I think the end result is soaking a bunch of poor people.

How? A smoking tax is completely voluntary.

[subego]

So?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I wouldn't, nor do I want to ask you to tone down the sarcasm, but like the last thread, it's getting to where I can't figure out your point.

1) Sin taxes are wrong?
2) Abortion is wrong?
3) Taxes shouldn't go towards abortion?
4) Inconsistency frosts your ass?
5) How dare imitchellg5 bring this up because of one through four?

Don't change what you're doing, just sum-up after.

It's one of those "abstract" points where you get to interpret it the way you wish.

To sum up: it's using imitchellg5's logic to illustrate #4 primarily, but it's also expressing some curiosity at a seemingly arbitrary standard. In other words, there must be some reason why alcohol and cigarettes are popular tax revenue generators. I can't imagine what this standard would be that it should not also apply to abortion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How? A smoking tax is completely voluntary.

Just as the alcohol tax and my proposed abortion tax.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

there must be some reason why alcohol and cigarettes are popular tax revenue generators.

Because they're not nailed down?

I like the idea of abortion being completely legal as long as the taxpayer ain't funding it and it comes with a sin tax. It'd confuse the left no end...

"You can't expect people to pay for their own abortion and put a tax on them!"
"So how then should we expect people to pay for their own gasoline/fags/beer/burgers/Ferraris or put a tax on that?"

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Just as the alcohol tax and my proposed abortion tax.

Yep. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Because they're not nailed down?

I like the idea of abortion being completely legal as long as the taxpayer ain't funding it and it comes with a sin tax. It'd confuse the left no end...

"You can't expect people to pay for their own abortion and put a tax on them!"
"So how then should we expect people to pay for their own gasoline/fags/beer/burgers/Ferraris or put a tax on that?"

BINGO!

Abortion will stay legal. We're too dug into Roe V Wade and the arguments in support of it such as rape, incest, and health of mother to turn back unfortunately. I've tried running the ideal of illegal repeat abortions up the flag pole around here thinking surely this could weed out an agreeable amount of rape, incest, and health of mother issues, but this did not fly.

A quick perusal of the net shows a wealth of cigarette tax hike advocates and the reasons why they are (in one link) WIN, WIN, WIN citing statistics on how it curbs usage, generates revenue for SCHIP, etc, etc... Again, if a cigarette tax hike is WIN, WIN, WIN- why not an abortion tax?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Yep. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I can't imagine what this standard would be that it should not also apply to abortion.

They want to actively discourage drinking and smoking, but they don't want to discourage abortion. How is that not obvious?

If they don't see abortion as a "sin," the "sin tax" argument falls flat.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

They want to actively discourage drinking and smoking, but they don't want to discourage abortion. How is that not obvious?

If they don't see abortion as a "sin," the "sin tax" argument falls flat.

What's obvious is that it's not about wanting to discourage a behavior. When there's a behavior they'd like to discourage, they make the behavior illegal. For example, they'd like to discourage marijuana and/or cocaine use so... they are illegal. They'd like to discourage speeding in your car so... it's illegal. With taxation it's merely an opportunity to find new ways of generating more of it and with 1.3 million abortions each year, this is a ripe opportunity for generating serious tax revenue.

It just hasn't been proposed yet at the Federal level. What do you think?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What's obvious is that it's not about wanting to discourage a behavior. When there's a behavior they'd like to discourage, they make the behavior illegal. For example, they'd like to discourage marijuana and/or cocaine use so... they are illegal. They'd like to discourage speeding in your car so... it's illegal. With taxation it's merely an opportunity to find new ways of generating more of it and with 1.3 million abortions each year, this is a ripe opportunity for generating serious tax revenue.

It just hasn't been proposed yet at the Federal level. What do you think?

I'm for taxing abortions and making them not cheap and all providing that the mother was not raped or abused or something, and the mother is not living in extreme poverty or other conditions which make it probable that this baby does not see a quality life.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm for taxing abortions and making them not cheap and all providing that the mother was not raped or abused or something, and the mother is not living in extreme poverty or other conditions which make it probable that this baby does not see a quality life.

<Stirring up a huge pot of crap here>You think a completely unwanted baby will see a high quality of life?</stirring>

Taxing something or making it illegal are two possible options for controlling that thing. Tobacco has been taxed for a very long time because it was popular and many people "can't do without it." That makes is a sort of cash cow. Over the last couple of decades taxing has increased to discourage the use of tobacco. It is also illegal in most of the US (not certain this isn't ALL of the US) to sell tobacco to a minor-but that has not apparently really made a difference in teen smoking. It's illegal to use marijuana for recreational purposes, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of people either.

[Rumor]

Doesn't bother me. I chew.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What's obvious is that it's not about wanting to discourage a behavior. When there's a behavior they'd like to discourage, they make the behavior illegal. For example, they'd like to discourage marijuana and/or cocaine use so... they are illegal. They'd like to discourage speeding in your car so... it's illegal. With taxation it's merely an opportunity to find new ways of generating more of it and with 1.3 million abortions each year, this is a ripe opportunity for generating serious tax revenue.

It just hasn't been proposed yet at the Federal level. What do you think?

While no one would deny it encourages the behavior, that's not the point, it's the side effect. This is the same as making condoms readily accessible to teenagers. Just as it can't be denied that will encourage teenagers to have sex, it can't be denied there are enormous potential downsides to any teenage sex which happens without those condoms.

Like a pregnancy that leads to an abortion.

For me, that's easy calculus. Cheap abortions are more complicated, but in my case, it follows roughly the same shape. Regardless of your stance on abortion, there are better and worse reasons to get one, as well as people for whom getting an abortion will provide more benefit to society than others. Being dirt-poor is (in general) one of the better reasons, and for someone having the procedure, is going to place them more towards the benefit to society end of the spectrum.

If abortions are going to be legal, it doesn't really make sense for them to be unavailable to those who have both one of the better reasons, and for whom the procedure will provide the most benefit to society. The encouragement side effect is outweighed by the downside avoided.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

If abortions are going to be legal, it doesn't really make sense for them to be unavailable to those who have both one of the better reasons, and for whom the procedure will provide the most benefit to society. The encouragement side effect is outweighed by the downside avoided.

What are the "avoided downsides"?

• Children born into poverty? No as there has been no appreciable decline in the number of children born into poverty. In fact, there's been a steady increase.
• Wanted children? No as there are no appreciable signs of a decrease in rates of neglect and abuse nor is there anything at all to show that children are more "wanted" today than they were prior to Roe V Wade. In fact, there's been a steady increase in abuse and neglect.
• Woman's choice? Not really. More women than men believe abortion is unethical or morally wrong.
• Rape, incest, and health of mother? The only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that anywhere between 75% and 85% chose against abortion.
• Rape, incest, and health of mother comprise less than half of 1% of abortions.

Considering the "downsides" of abortion including;

• mental depression with a 7-fold greater likelihood of suicide among women who've had an abortion
• unsterile clinic environments
• botched abortions and mutilated reproductive organs
• ABC link to breast cancer

I think the far more compassionate view toward women would be to discourage abortion by any means possible. A heavy tax on the procedure might be just what the doctor ordered and would generate a considerable amount of tax revenue for an otherwise reprehensible behavior, not unlike smoking cigarettes.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

for an otherwise reprehensible behavior, not unlike smoking cigarettes.

There's your disconnect. The "anti-smoking fascists" (simply using the terminology of this thread ) have pretty much won the war in America that smoking is "bad." The same is not true of any "anti-abortion fascists." I'm not taking sides, I'm just saying that if your premise is that abortion is "reprehensible," you'll get a mountain of backlash. But a premise that smoking is "reprehensible" won't, all you'll get is smokers like gradient saying "sure it is, but I like it anyway."

[Chongo]

For the most part, "anti smoking fascists" tend to be the same people that like to tell us they know whats best for because we are to stupid to know better.

As to ebuddy's abortion stats, I just read about this film.
YouTube - Maafa 21 Trailer
Maafa 21 - Black Genocide in 21st Century America

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There's your disconnect. The "anti-smoking fascists" (simply using the terminology of this thread ) have pretty much won the war in America that smoking is "bad." The same is not true of any "anti-abortion fascists." I'm not taking sides, I'm just saying that if your premise is that abortion is "reprehensible," you'll get a mountain of backlash. But a premise that smoking is "reprehensible" won't, all you'll get is smokers like gradient saying "sure it is, but I like it anyway."

I don't think it's my disconnect near as much as a conflict between staunch pro-lifers who want zero abortions and those who find the act unspeakable for themselves, acceptable for others in the cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. You might know that abortion is slightly more complex an issue than smoking cigarettes, but in fact a strong majority of the country believes abortion is morally wrong.

If those who want zero abortions can reconcile their differences with those who want fewer abortions, they'll go a long way toward decreasing the number of abortions overall, but few have sought to bring these two sides together. I think tax proposals and policies around repeat abortions may be popular enough as long as there are those with a strong voice, confident enough to transcend what would otherwise be taboo subject matter.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think it's my disconnect near as much as a conflict between staunch pro-lifers who want zero abortions and those who find the act unspeakable for themselves, acceptable for others in the cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. You might know that abortion is slightly more complex an issue than smoking cigarettes, but in fact a strong majority of the country believes abortion is morally wrong.

If those who want zero abortions can reconcile their differences with those who want fewer abortions, they'll go a long way toward decreasing the number of abortions overall, but few have sought to bring these two sides together. I think tax proposals and policies around repeat abortions may be popular enough as long as there are those with a strong voice, confident enough to transcend what would otherwise be taboo subject matter.

Why is the debate even framed like this? 99 - 100% of people find abortion morally wrong, this is not the crux of the debate. The crux of the debate has more to do with sovereignty over bodies and circumstances where one may wish to exercise this sovereignty without the government getting involved.

I personally find all of the sorts of people who go on and on about how liberty is so important and this and that is an affront to liberty yet simultaneously wanting government to ban abortions to be hypocrites.

I will also add that the biggest reason in my mind why anti-abortionists have so much traction is because they've had success at framing the debate in terms of pro-abortion supporters not being morally against abortion.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If those who want zero abortions can reconcile their differences with those who want fewer abortions, they'll go a long way toward decreasing the number of abortions overall, but few have sought to bring these two sides together.

I don't know that you could possibly bring either of these sides together without one or the other completely giving up what it stands for. Both are quite unmovable in their positions.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What are the "avoided downsides"?

• Children born into poverty? No as there has been no appreciable decline in the number of children born into poverty. In fact, there's been a steady increase.
• Wanted children? No as there are no appreciable signs of a decrease in rates of neglect and abuse nor is there anything at all to show that children are more "wanted" today than they were prior to Roe V Wade. In fact, there's been a steady increase in abuse and neglect.

All you've provided here is correlation, further, you're using that to argue against something which is clearly causal.

If a woman who is really poor has an abortion, that's one less child born into poverty. This isn't a correlation, it's a direct effect of the cause. If a woman has an abortion, that's one less unwanted child. We know the child is unwanted because the mother aborted it. Again, this is a direct effect of the cause.

This doesn't mean your argument is invalid, or that I'm unwilling to hear you out, I'm just going to need more evidence than a simple correlation in the face of a direct causal relationship.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is the debate even framed like this? 99 - 100% of people find abortion morally wrong, this is not the crux of the debate. The crux of the debate has more to do with sovereignty over bodies and circumstances where one may wish to exercise this sovereignty without the government getting involved.

You've only given one-half the debate. Yes, it has to do with exercising the right of sovereignty over your own body, but it includes killing another person and is often destructive to the woman herself. There are many who believe your sovereignty ends at the taking of another life. Do you really have to be an anarchist to believe this? egadz. Talk about framing a debate all bad and stuff.

I personally find all of the sorts of people who go on and on about how liberty is so important and this and that is an affront to liberty yet simultaneously wanting government to ban abortions to be hypocrites.

I guess you'll have to be more specific. Of course liberty is important and the government certainly has an obligation and a role. Is this where you tell me you'd prefer a less intrusive government regarding mandatory health insurance for example, or regulations on corporations?

There are many who simply don't think like you and while it may be inconceivable to besson; a heavy tax on killing babies or to the industry doing the killing might just be as reasonable as a heavy tax on a bottle of beer or costly regulations on the tobacco industry.

I will also add that the biggest reason in my mind why anti-abortionists have so much traction is because they've had success at framing the debate in terms of pro-abortion supporters not being morally against abortion.

The traction in opposition to abortion may have as much to do with technology and the fact that you can better see what it is you've supported killing all this time. IMO of course.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

All you've provided here is correlation, further, you're using that to argue against something which is clearly causal.

I'm merely taking exception to your ideal that these are "avoided downsides" and I'm not sure you can say with certainty that the downsides I mentioned are merely correlative. Take the ABC link to breast cancer for example. It is beyond refutation that the longer a woman waits to have a full-term pregnancy, the greater her risk of breast cancer. 95% of all breast cancers are known to develop in Type 1 and 2 lobules which are not the maturated, cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules that occur by the end of a 40- week pregnancy. Worse, estrogen is a carcinogen that becomes extremely active in pregnant women during pregnancy and by terminating early, they've left themselves with Type 1 and 2 lobules vulnerable to an active carcinogen. If a heavy tax is acceptable on the poor who smoke (deemed a destructive behavior), why is there no heavy tax on the product of irresponsible sex, an equally destructive behavior when STDs and abortions are taken into account? IMO, it's simply the fact that the two sides generally opposed to abortion can't reconcile their differences. With some courageous conversations, this could change.

If a woman who is really poor has an abortion, that's one less child born into poverty.

No, that's one less infant available for adoption. What happens then (almost half of all abortions) is that the irresponsible person returns for another abortion, then has the third child born into poverty.

If a woman has an abortion, that's one less unwanted child. We know the child is unwanted because the mother aborted it. Again, this is a direct effect of the cause.

What is unwanted is the responsibility of a child, the expense of a child, etc... as there have been a great many children that weren't planned or were born into poverty and turned out as loved as any other child. There's nothing "correlative" about post-abortion counseling or the well-documented regret for having an abortion and the subsequent suicidal tendency. At least... no less "causal" than assuming it is the child that is unwanted as opposed to the responsibility.

This doesn't mean your argument is invalid, or that I'm unwilling to hear you out, I'm just going to need more evidence than a simple correlation in the face of a direct causal relationship.

Likewise, I'm going to need more evidence that the "downsides" you mentioned are actually avoided.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is the debate even framed like this? 99 - 100% of people find abortion morally wrong, this is not the crux of the debate. The crux of the debate has more to do with sovereignty over bodies and circumstances where one may wish to exercise this sovereignty without the government getting involved.

Your percentages are pure speculation, as are the reason for the crux of the debate. Many who are for abortion simply believe that a fetus is not a human being until a certain time before delivery.

I personally find all of the sorts of people who go on and on about how liberty is so important and this and that is an affront to liberty yet simultaneously wanting government to ban abortions to be hypocrites.

Again, because they don't believe a fetus is a human until a certain time. No moral ambiguity in their minds whatsoever.

I will also add that the biggest reason in my mind why anti-abortionists have so much traction is because they've had success at framing the debate in terms of pro-abortion supporters not being morally against abortion.

That's probably true, as they consider the fetus a human being at the moment of conception, even though they often know little about science, and they're primarily successful because of their incessant vocalizations at loud levels.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I don't know that you could possibly bring either of these sides together without one or the other completely giving up what it stands for. Both are quite unmovable in their positions.

IMO, this is why abortion is legal. I agree that both appear quite immovable, but I think it takes the right one to bring the message and make these connections. I remember something Clinton said that resonated well with a lot of people; "abortion should be safe and rare". A heavy tax might be just the ticket addressing those who feel strongly that abortion is "safe" while authoring legislation that might make it more "rare".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's probably true, as they consider the fetus a human being at the moment of conception, even though they often know little about science, and they're primarily successful because of their incessant vocalizations at loud levels.

Science has defined when "life" begins? Link please?

[OldManMac]

I didn't mean to imply that science has defined when life begins. What I meant to imply, and I'll stand by, is that many of these people base their beliefs on religion, and care not one whit about actual science, and that if science did define it, they would ignore that in any event.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I remember something Clinton said that resonated well with a lot of people; "abortion should be safe and rare". A heavy tax might be just the ticket addressing those who feel strongly that abortion is "safe" while authoring legislation that might make it more "rare".

That seems quite reasonable. But, I still don't see how those who want zero abortions would ever see this as anything other than trying to make murder more "rare" by taxing it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That seems quite reasonable. But, I still don't see how those who want zero abortions would ever see this as anything other than trying to make murder more "rare" by taxing it.

Good point, but the fact remains that abortions are legal. They may continue to fight for an outright ban while seeking legislation that minimizes the current law's impact. It could take some time, but I'd like to see some bold proposals. It'd take bold politicians though there's no doubt about it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I didn't mean to imply that science has defined when life begins. What I meant to imply, and I'll stand by, is that many of these people base their beliefs on religion, and care not one whit about actual science, and that if science did define it, they would ignore that in any event.

If "actual science" were to define life as beginning at conception there would likewise be a great many to disregard it. What religion are they basing their beliefs on?

[Doofy]

Not that I mind, but why are we talking about abortion in my smoking thread?

[besson3c]

Doofy, every time I see your signature I think of the Keymaster from Ghostbusters:

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It'd take bold politicians though there's no doubt about it.

[JAMIE HYNEMAN] Well, *there's* your problem. [/JAMIE HYNEMAN]

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If "actual science" were to define life as beginning at conception there would likewise be a great many to disregard it. What religion are they basing their beliefs on?

Right...

Personally, I don't believe that life 'begins' at all during the process of creating a human being through sexual reproduction. At what point in that process is there a lack of life? Where is there death against which we can contrast this supposed new life? All that happens, as I see it, is a recombination of information decreasing the general entropy of the universe by creating new information in the form of a new genome. This whole 'life begins' red herring is predicated on the faulty assumption that there is more to life than simple matter; there's not.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Not that I mind, but why are we talking about abortion in my smoking thread?

They’re trying to pollute as many unborn babies with smoke as possible.

We should really be talking about solitary abortions in cars.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Right...

Personally, I don't believe that life 'begins' at all during the process of creating a human being through sexual reproduction. At what point in that process is there a lack of life? Where is there death against which we can contrast this supposed new life? All that happens, as I see it, is a recombination of information decreasing the general entropy of the universe by creating new information in the form of a new genome. This whole 'life begins' red herring is predicated on the faulty assumption that there is more to life than simple matter; there's not.

Have you ever seen pictures of this "simple matter?" I can provide a link if you wish. You may not know when life begins, these photos surely depict one that has ended.