[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Monique

As conservative men go if you cannot control a woman you would insult her,

1. I wouldn't want to control ANY woman.
2. People are insulting you because YOU are insulting US. Your actions and words are a DIRECT CAUSE of how people respond to you.

then beat her up, then denigrate her, then kill her. And we cannot never never count on a conservative man to do the right thing.

Monique, you mam are an absolute nutball. Start taking responsibilities for your OWN actions and stop blaming them on "the man"

In other words, it's time for you to grow up. To become an adult.

You are still acting like a kid.

[Monique]

See insults then I would be in front of you and hopefully I could be fast enough to avoid your hand.

But, it is in the mentality of conservative men that want to deny women with a safe abortion preferring to see them die of excrutiating death, bleeding to death.

[Y3a]

Your ignorance on what real conservative men are is what makes you look like a fool. You have become a laughing stock. You keep stating fiction, use stereotypes as portrayed on idiot TV programs and movies, and you cling to urban ledgends of what people are like. Pathetic. Someone has brainwashed you. It probably wasn't difficult either.

Monique doesn't THINK she has a problem, and until she does she will continue to blather on and show herself for what she is.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Y3a

TRANSLATION=I don't care that I've killed a human being.

Next time you go to a funeral, are you going to go up to the deceased's family and contemptuously announce, "You're sticking a human being you supposedly love in a box, tossing dirt on top of him and leaving him in the ground forever"? If not, then STFU with this retarded and hateful argument.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Next time you go to a funeral, are you going to go up to the deceased's family and contemptuously announce, "You're sticking a human being you supposedly love in a box, tossing dirt on top of him and leaving him in the ground forever"? If not, then STFU with this retarded and hateful argument.

This HAS NOTHING to do with this thread! DID YOU EVEN READ IT??? It's not even close. At least the person who is now deceased had a CHANCE for life, unlike the many aborted fetus'.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Y3a

This HAS NOTHING to do with this thread! DID YOU EVEN READ IT??? It's not even close. At least the person who is now deceased had a CHANCE for life, unlike the many aborted fetus'.

It's a human being. I thought that was what mattered. Monique is supposed to feel bad because the creature she terminated is a human being, even though she probably doesn't view it as equal to a normal 30-year-old walking around on the street just like you don't view a corpse that way. My point is that while you can accurately frame it as "You killed a human being," it's a fairly sensational way of putting it.

[Spliffdaddy]

I can't think of a more accurate way to describe the situation.

[Chuckit]

And the burial scenario is no less accurate. Would you do that? (Or, I guess more to the point here, would you support somebody doing that?)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Monique

See insults

Monique, when you insult people, and make outlandish biggoted comments, you WILL get insulted back. Don't like it? Stop doing it.

then I would be in front of you and hopefully I could be fast enough to avoid your hand.

I've never hit a woman in my life. I expect a apology for even insinuating I would.

But, it is in the mentality of conservative men that want to deny women with a safe abortion preferring to see them die of excrutiating death, bleeding to death.

More bizzarroo Moniqisms. Maybe it's a good thing you DIDN'T reproduce.

You'd have probably filled the poor kids mind with your own bigoted hatred.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

And the burial scenario is no less accurate. Would you do that? (Or, I guess more to the point here, would you support somebody doing that?)

Doing what, burying someone in a several thousand dollar velvet-lined, padded casket with new suit on, made up, lookin' good? Absolutely. This is generally what we do with the lifeless, but loved body after death.

We generally don't suck the brains from the skull of a perfectly viable, living, breathing human being to collapse its skull at birth and throw it in a dumpster.

I mean, perhaps if we required that the baby be made up, dressed up, head re-shaped, and placed into a several thousand dollar, velvet-lined casket and given a more formal burial we'd realize it's a human being we're killing.

The comparison was as lame as it gets.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Next time you go to a funeral, are you going to go up to the deceased's family and contemptuously announce, "You're sticking a human being you supposedly love in a box, tossing dirt on top of him and leaving him in the ground forever"?

Wow what a horrible, horrible comparison Chuckit.

It's amazing to me what some "pro-choice" people will go to to legitimize or make apologies for killing another living growing human being.

[Chuckit]

What a horrible, horrible critique of my argument, Kevin.

It's amazing to me the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid legitimately establishing why a fetus deserves certain rights. They'll repeat ad nauseum, "It's a human, it's a human." Then you point out that genes do not confer rights, and they just go, "Uh, well, you're wrong anyway."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

More bizzarroo Moniqisms. Maybe it's a good thing you DIDN'T reproduce.

You'd have probably filled the poor kids mind with your own bigoted hatred.

Actually, I thought she did have another child. Knowing that the number of reported child-abuse cases have increased over 40% since Roe V Wade, I'd rather she vent her frustrations out on us here.

[Chuckit]

The number of reported sexual harassment cases increased after the government started cracking down on it…

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The number of reported sexual harassment cases increased after the government started cracking down on it…

That's believable. It made way for some really entertaining and profitible lawsuits against suits in corporations. If I had to guess, it's probably one of the more frivolously abused laws too by the way.

There was no alleged "crackdown" on child abuse in this same sense. Improvements in reporting and an increased sensitivity to signs of abuse have attributed in part to this incline, however there was a 2% increase from 1996 to 1997 alone for example. It is clearly on the rise.

[Y3a]

BTW Chuckit....

I used to work at a funeral home. I did the make-up on dead people for almost a year before I just had to leave that business. I know EXACTLY what death is all about. I respect the dead, and feel sorry for the relatives and friends who have lost a loved one.

It is NOT THE SAME as a 'mother' killing her child and rationalizing it, and even worse, "Feeling good about it" And when I was young and stupid I was also pro-abortion.

I am now strongly for life, and think abortion is a waste of life, and a poor alternative to adoptions. The Adoption process must be improved greatly, but the alternative is death to the innocent.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What a horrible, horrible critique of my argument, Kevin.

Chuckit, it really didn't deserved to be critiqued, Besides I ebuddy did a fine job all by himself of debunking that silliness.

It's amazing to me the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid legitimately establishing why a fetus deserves certain rights. They'll repeat ad nauseum, "It's a human, it's a human." Then you point out that genes do not confer rights, and they just go, "Uh, well, you're wrong anyway."

You are again, wrong in your assessment.
2 for 0

My stance is unless we are 100% sure, we shouldn't be doing it.

I have the same stance on the death penalty.

At least I am consistent.

[lpkmckenna]

Abortion is a moral right. Morally, nothing but the woman's choice in the matter is relevant.

The unborn do not enjoy any of the rights that the born do, just as a child does not enjoy all the rights of an adult. A child gains its rights to vote, drive, drink, and so on on after it has developed. In the same way, the unborn do not gain any of its rights until it is born.

The unborn do not have rights for the same reason an acorn does not have leaves, bark, roots, and other tree-like characteristics. It isn't developed enough to have them.

You say: but it's alive! Many things are alive. Sperm and ova are alive. Worms and cattle are alive. Flowers and hedges are alive. Having life != having rights.

The real issue here IS the right to life - of the mother. She has the right to her own life. That means: to live her life as she wishes it. If she didn't want to be a doctor or a waitress or an astronaut, no one would tell her different. In the same way, if she doesn't wish to become a mother, no one's opinion in the matter is relevent - except hers.

[Kevin]

Wow that was a backward post.

The young also don't get treated as adults. We don't hold them accountable like we do adults.

And yes, the unborn do have rights.

Hurt a lady while she is pregnant , and if she loses the child, so what happens.

Your whole post is off base.

Most of your points have been debunked earlier in this thread as well.

I suggest you read through it.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The young also don't get treated as adults. We don't hold them accountable like we do adults.

This issue has nothing to do with being accountable. It has to do with privacy. A woman's abortion has nothing to do with you.

Originally Posted by Kevin

And yes, the unborn do have rights.

Hurt a lady while she is pregnant , and if she loses the child, so what happens.

Tear off a woman's arm, see what happens. Is that because the arm has rights? ha ha!

Originally Posted by Kevin

Most of your points have been debunked earlier in this thread as well.

I suggest you read through it.

No one has said anything like I've said here.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

This issue has nothing to do with being accountable.

Sure it does. People needs to be responsible for their actions. I am not against all reasons for abortion, but used as birth control is sickening.

It has to do with privacy. A woman's abortion has nothing to do with you.

Well if the women happens to be pregnant with my child then I would say it did.

Tear off a woman's arm, see what happens. Is that because the arm has rights? ha ha!

That's the woman's body. We aren't arguing the rights of the WOMAN's life, but the life that is inside her. That's a different story all together.

No one has said anything like I've said here.

Yes they have. You have obviously not read the thread.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sure it does. People needs to be responsible for their actions. I am not against all reasons for abortion, but used as birth control is sickening.

Sickening or not, it's none of your concern. Many people are sickened by all sorts of behaviour, but that doesn't make everyone else's behaviour your business.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well if the women happens to be pregnant with my child then I would say it did.

You'd still be wrong. She has no obligation to tell you anything anyway. You don't even know if it's really yours.

But your argument here is disingenuous anyways.

You're not just supporting a control over you own wife/gf's pregnancy, but a law over every women's pregnancy. You're arguing to ban all "birth control" abortions, whether the baby is yours or not. So your argument is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Kevin

That's the woman's body. We aren't arguing the rights of the WOMAN's life, but the life that is inside her. That's a different story all together.

If a women is forced to bring a baby to term, she's being treated like a slave. Her body and her life are her concern only. So it is about her right to live her own life.

Arguing about the life of the unborn versus the woman's life is pointless. The woman is a full person with dreams, ambitions, friends and family who love her, and so on. The unborn have none of those things, except for the busy-bodies who care about fetuses. But those same busy-bodies are ready to sacrifice the lifetime goals of the woman out of their own desire to control the lives of others.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes they have. You have obviously not read the thread.

Actually I did read the thread. It consists of an enormous degree of irelevent side-talk, like the healthcare system in the US, comparisons to Iraq, arguments over the validity of statistics, endless dispute over abortion & rape, abortion & adoption, and discussions of Monique's mental health.

In other words, it's mostly "argument by analogy" and "red herrings." So I felt the thread needed a fresh start. The topic is worthwhile, though the thread really hasn't been.

If there are any statements for legal abortion here similar to mine, I'd be glad to see you quote them. But I am the only one stating:

1) the "acorn argument"
2) that abortion is a moral right and a moral act
3) that having life != having rights, and
4) the right of women to choose whether to become mothers ie to control their own destiny.

Your move.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Arguing about the life of the unborn versus the woman's life is pointless. The woman is a full person with dreams, ambitions, friends and family who love her, and so on. The unborn have none of those things, except for the busy-bodies who care about fetuses. But those same busy-bodies are ready to sacrifice the lifetime goals of the woman out of their own desire to control the lives of others.

It takes a lifetime of inaction to gestate a baby? My goodness, this changes everything. Back when I took health class, it was popularly believed that a woman was only pregnant for nine months and even during that time was still capable of performing most tasks.

I think you're possibly being a little hyperbolic.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Sickening or not, it's none of your concern.

You keep repeating that as if it was true. It's not.

Many people are sickened by all sorts of behaviour, but that doesn't make everyone else's behaviour your business.

I think the gov makes it their business when "your business" it taking a life of another. So you are wrong again.

You'd still be wrong. She has no obligation to tell you anything anyway. You don't even know if it's really yours.

What an absurd statement. No wonder they wanted rid of you in the other forum. You base your arguments on silliness "You don't even know if it's really yours"

WTF did that come from?

But your argument here is disingenuous anyways.

You're not just supporting a control over you own wife/gf's pregnancy, but a law over every women's pregnancy. You're arguing to ban all "birth control" abortions, whether the baby is yours or not. So your argument is irrelevant.

No, that isn't what I said. You haven't read the thread like I asked. You are making statements that I simply don't respect. Keep doing it and your mouth will be full of foot.

If a women is forced to bring a baby to term, she's being treated like a slave.

WOW! Next thing you are going to tell me is, the baby is really a tumor! Eating away at her life!

Sounds like someone is being selfish.

Her body and her life are her concern only. So it is about her right to live her own life.

Cept we have laws telling us all the time what we can and cannot do with our bodies. You know it's illegal to commit suicide? OR even try to?

But that is irrelevant. It's not HER body she is murdering. As I said before. As you keep conveniently ignoring.

Arguing about the life of the unborn versus the woman's life is pointless. The woman is a full person with dreams, ambitions, friends and family who love her, and so on. The unborn have none of those things, except for the busy-bodies who care about fetuses.

Wow what a heartless piece of work you are. How do you know what unborn humans have? You don't. Stop being dishonest. For two, The unborn DOES have friends and family who love them. So you are wrong again there. You act as if this isn't a growing living human. Just like you were once.

But those same busy-bodies are ready to sacrifice the lifetime goals of the woman out of their own desire to control the lives of others.

Again more self-cenetered slefishness. The woman made the choice to procreate. If the woman was so concerned with such things, she should get fixed. Murdering her young out of convenience is sickening.

Actually I did read the thread.

Then obviously YOU WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION.

It consists of an enormous degree of irelevent side-talk, like the healthcare system in the US, comparisons to Iraq, arguments over the validity of statistics, endless dispute over abortion & rape, abortion & adoption, and discussions of Monique's mental health.

In other words, it's mostly "argument by analogy" and "red herrings." So I felt the thread needed a fresh start. The topic is worthwhile, though the thread really hasn't been.

Your whole argument is a red herring. You don't see that do you?

If there are any statements for legal abortion here similar to mine, I'd be glad to see you quote them. But I am the only one stating:

1) the "acorn argument"
2) that abortion is a moral right and a moral act
3) that having life != having rights, and
4) the right of women to choose whether to become mothers ie to control their own destiny.

Your move.

Abortion is HARDLY a moral act. That is some bizarro rationalizations there bub. You are going to have a long hard fight to ever get anyone to agree to that.

And I agree, the woman DOES have the right to choose whether to become mothers. That is what getting ones tubes tied, or abstinence comes in.

Getting pregnant doesn't "just happen"

She made the choice when she spread her legs.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I think you're possibly being a little hyperbolic.

Possibly?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wow what a heartless piece of work you are. How do you know what unborn humans have? You don't. Stop being dishonest. For two, The unborn DOES have friends and family who love them. So you are wrong again there. You act as if this isn't a growing living human. Just like you were once.

Are you also advocating veganism with this line of reasoning?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What an absurd statement. No wonder they wanted rid of you in the other forum.

That's called "ad hominem."

And "they" didn't get rid of me, the moderator did. He didn't like the innocent picture of the "fearful scribbling artist." He had nothing against my arguments, and in fact we often saw eye-to-eye on things.

Originally Posted by Kevin

WOW! Next thing you are going to tell me is, the baby is really a tumor! Eating away at her life!

No, I'm not going to say that. Stop trying to read my mind or predict the future, because you have no talent for either.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sounds like someone is being selfish.

It's called "the pursuit of happiness." Last time I checked, that was an important value in the west.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Cept we have laws telling us all the time what we can and cannot do with our bodies. You know it's illegal to commit suicide? OR even try to?

Rubbish. See: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040326.html
"In the U.S. suicide has never been treated as a crime nor punished by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. (Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.)"
Go any more urban legends to use as arguments?

As for the laws controlling our bodies, I'm in favour of ending all laws against "victimless crimes."

Originally Posted by Kevin

But that is irrelevant. It's not HER body she is murdering. As I said before. As you keep conveniently ignoring.

There's no murder if there's no person. And the unborn aren't persons in any moral sense.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wow what a heartless piece of work you are. How do you know what unborn humans have? You don't. Stop being dishonest. For two, The unborn DOES have friends and family who love them. So you are wrong again there. You act as if this isn't a growing living human. Just like you were once.

Who are these loving friends and family? Can you love someone you never met?

I am not denying it's alive and growing. I'm stating that that's irrelevent. Having life != having rights. The unborn aren't persons anymore than acorns are trees.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again more self-cenetered slefishness. The woman made the choice to procreate. If the woman was so concerned with such things, she should get fixed. Murdering her young out of convenience is sickening.

She didn't make any choice to procreate. Having sex != procreation.

As for "selfishness," we all have the right to reach our dreams, such as graduating from university, or saving up our earnings to open our own business. The unborn have no stance on which to deny those possibilities.

As for "convenience," have you considered the possibility that a woman may already have many obligations, like other children, or relatives that she cares for, or perhaps has large difficulties in life already, like a serious mood disorder or physical disease?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Your whole argument is a red herring. You don't see that do you?

A "red herring" is a distraction from the real issue. I'm telling it like it is: the unborn have no moral right to disrupt the lives of their mothers, because the unborn have no rights period. The status of the unborn is the whole issue, not a red herring.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Abortion is HARDLY a moral act. That is some bizarro rationalizations there bub. You are going to have a long hard fight to ever get anyone to agree to that.

Why? Killing isn't always immoral. We kill animals for food. We kill enemies in a just war. We kill insects and rodents just because they bother us. We might kill ourselves if faced with painful and fatal illness. There are all sorts of "moral killings."

Killing, in and of itself, is neither moral or immoral. It is the context that determines its ethical nature. Since the unborn 1) have no rights, 2) no personhood and 3) no intellect/emotions/self-awareness, there is no conceivable rational for denying their death.

Far from having "no one who agree to that," it's pretty much the consensus of secular ethical thinkers.

Originally Posted by Kevin

And I agree, the woman DOES have the right to choose whether to become mothers. That is what getting ones tubes tied, or abstinence comes in.

Like I said, having sex != conception.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Getting pregnant doesn't "just happen" She made the choice when she spread her legs.

Yes, those sluts should just give up their future. They should have know better.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It takes a lifetime of inaction to gestate a baby? My goodness, this changes everything. Back when I took health class, it was popularly believed that a woman was only pregnant for nine months and even during that time was still capable of performing most tasks.

I think you're possibly being a little hyperbolic.

Not at all.

Imagine for a moment what you're suggesting. IIRC, there are about 1.5 million abortions a year in the US. Do you see 1.5 million adoptions of those children? Every year?

Most women who have abortions are in their teens and twenties. These people are already having an immense difficulty meeting the financial requirements of their dreams. Post-secondary education is an huge financial commitment, and the large numbers of drop-outs indicate how hard the struggle is. That's before being a mother at the same time.

What are the lives of single mothers like? Do they typically finish their education? No, so they flip burgers. How about their children? Do they go on to have hugely successful educations and carreers? Not if their single mothers can't save money because they flip burgers.

This issue is unequivocal. Denying legal abortion is denying young women their future, and cementing them and their children into poverty.

Do a search on the economic status of single mothers versus married mothers. Those numbers are not "hyperbole." That's an accounting of shattered dreams.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

1) the "acorn argument"
2) that abortion is a moral right and a moral act
3) that having life != having rights, and
4) the right of women to choose whether to become mothers ie to control their own destiny.

Your move.

1) acorn argument; acorns offer sustanance for various wildlife. A nut, or fruit of an oak are consumed for survival. Unless we're eating fetus', I'm not entirely sure why this analogy suffices. If we sought to preserve the sanctity of the oak tree, we'd likely start at the acorn. Still, depending on the acorn, it could take 6-24 months to mature. There is no fundamental agreement on when a fetus is among the weak and under Constitutional protection. Why? Because it is the inception of human life and not an oak tree.

However, to propogate an endangered bird species, the egg would be of utmost importance to us. This egg is the fragile beginning of the species we seek to preserve. Aggressive egg harvesting and incubation outside the hostile environment has all, but saved the California Condor for example. If we were only concerned with the adult bird, and not the inception of its life, our preservation of that bird would likely fail. Likewise, if we were concerned of preserving the oak tree, we'd start by protecting the acorns from hostility and predators. If we do not, we will fail at preserving life.

2) abortion is a moral right and a moral act. I can't say that I've seen the argument that abortion is a moral act. I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean in context. Suffice it to say that abortion is the termination of a pregnancy at various points in term, using various methods, for various reasons. The reasons given for unwanted pregnancies are as follows;

- didn't use contraception = 46.4% of abortions
- contraception failed and/or used improperly = 53.6%

moral;

1) Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
2) Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
3) Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong

Irresponsible;
1) Marked by a lack of responsibility: irresponsible accusations.
2) Lacking a sense of responsibility; unreliable or untrustworthy.

I believe that irresponsibility often leads to immorality. Immorality has several indicators. Abortion is, but the result of irresponsibility rooted in immorality. Why would the immoral behavior stop at irresponsible sex? It doesn't of course. It then continues on to victimize the "weak" among us. ABC link to breast cancer, abortions performed by "doctors" in less than sterile clinics, depression, increase in child abuse (attributed to depression), STDs, AIDS, juvenile crime rate, children born into poverty, and increase in teen births are all attributed to a que sara sara sense of morality that leads to a carte blanche on irresponsibility. We then end up with the absurd argument of; "truth and morality are relative and I want your help in funding and propogating what is generally immoral and irresponsible behavior." It clearly affects us all. By this reasoning, if you saw a woman getting raped outside your home you clearly wouldn't stop him from raping her. Afterall, it's not your body, it's not your choice in the matter, it doesn't affect you. It's really none of your business anyway, afterall as long as it's not your wife right? We simply do not operate as humans with this level of emotional indifference in caring for the feeble and vulnerable among us. I really think you knew that going into the argument.

3) that having life != having rights. In fact, killing a pregnant woman in many states carries a double-homicide or fetal homicide charge in which case we are in fact deeming the infant a being with rights. By the way, the government has already userped it's authority over your body. It has done so by legislating against drug use, seatbelts, and prostitution. I believe these complex social concerns should be addressed at the State level where there is more accountability for representation. There are a great many states that use tax income to help fund abortion. This is a reprehensible abuse of taxation without representation.

4) the right of women to choose whether to become mothers ie to control their own destiny. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the decision in all, but .5% of abortions performed was already made in the bedroom. People need to understand when they place an unhealthy amount of faith in a contraceptive or in methods such as pulling out, that they run the risk of placing their destiny in the hands of nature. Once nature has taken it's course and a life is created, that life should have rights under our Constitution. But then, you've seen all these arguments before. We're going to go 9 more pages in agreeing to disagree. You can say some are trying to userp control over a woman's body, but more women agree that with only a few exceptions, control over her body is necessary to protect life.

Suffice it to say that movements are in play that could make abortion as we know it, a thing of the past regardless of what you think personally. An overwhelming majority have expressed a Pro-Life stance allowing for abortion only in cases of rape, incest, and health of mother which constitute less than 3% of abortions performed.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

You're not just supporting a control over you own wife/gf's pregnancy, but a law over every women's pregnancy. You're arguing to ban all "birth control" abortions, whether the baby is yours or not. So your argument is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, that isn't what I said. You haven't read the thread like I asked. You are making statements that I simply don't respect. Keep doing it and your mouth will be full of foot.

Opp, you are right. You have been saying over and over again that abortion is heartless murder of a living person, but no, you don't want it made illegal.

That makes sense.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Once nature has taken it's course and a life is created, that life should have rights under our Constitution.

This is exactly the claim that I keep asking people to justify and nobody has. Why should this life have rights under the Constitution that so many other lives do not?

[Kevin]

I see ebuddy just smacked your hyperbole down lpkmckenna, I don't need to.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Opp, you are right. You have been saying over and over again that abortion is heartless murder of a living person, but no, you don't want it made illegal.

That makes sense.

I said I don't agree with it, but if they are going to legalize it, at least be honest with what it is. And not decorate it with hyperbole to justify the actions.

I also disagree with a mother killing off it's young out of convenience.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

1) acorn argument; acorns offer sustanance for various wildlife. A nut, or fruit of an oak are consumed for survival. Unless we're eating fetus', I'm not entirely sure why this analogy suffices. If we sought to preserve the sanctity of the oak tree, we'd likely start at the acorn.

Really? So if eco-activists were trying to save a forest from logging, they'd start by protecting acorns?

I'll explain the "acorn agrument" in better detail.

An acorn and the tree it eventually becomes are the same entity. But being the same entity doesn't mean they have the same attributes.

The unborn and the born are also the same entity, but they do not have all the same attributes. From the start, the unborn lack thought, emotion, values, self-awareness, and virtually anything else that makes living meaningful. The only persons who live such a non-existence are brain-dead. The brain-dead don't have a "right to life," do they?

From conception, we gradually develop characteristics of a person. There is no clear cut-off from being a non-person to being a person, just like there is no cut-off between being an acorn and being a tree. Looking for one is denying reality. Reality doesn't provide such clear-cut dividing lines.

The pro-life side seems to think "conception" is that clear-cut dividing line. They want to say the unborn are persons from conception.

But you can't be a person without "thought, emotion, values, self-awareness, and virtually anything else that makes living meaningful."

But, you say, newborn babies also lack "thought, emotion, values, self-awareness, and virtually anything else that makes living meaningful." Should we be allowed to kill them too?

No. Why would we? The other key issue - the woman's control of her own body and her own life - has already been decided at that point.

Society lays down all sorts of "dividing lines" for behaviour. You can drive at 16, you can vote at 18, you can drink at 19 (in most places in Canada). These "dividing lines" are attempts to identify the possibility for responsible behaviour in young people. But truthfully, some children may be mature enough to drive at younger ages, and some will never be mature enough ever. But we need to make these rules to have some semblence of order and safety.

Laying down a dividing line for "personhood" is as useless as trying to lay down a line for "treehood." But suggesting a fetus has a right to life is as rediculous as suggesting it has a right to vote or to drink.

The only clear-cut issue is that women being forced to carry pregnancies to term risk losing much of what their lives have been dedicated to. For instance, a woman giving up her future as a doctor (where she could actually help hundreds of people) so that she doesn't abort a baby with no self-awareness isn't just stupid. It's clearly unethical. It's the sacrifice of the woman and her capacity for goodness to a non-entity.

There is no clear-cut line between conception and personhood. But there is a clear-cut line between a woman controlling her live and having others control it for her.

That's the "acorn argument."

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

This is exactly the claim that I keep asking people to justify and nobody has. Why should this life have rights under the Constitution that so many other lives do not?

Giving the right to life to the unborn = taking the right to liberty from women.

Pro-lifers don't care because they generally don't care much for liberty.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Giving the right to life to the unborn = taking the right to liberty from women.

More hyperbole. The woman has the choice before she has intercourse. She has CONTROL OF HER BODY then. You are advocating lack of self control and or personal responsibility.

Not surprising.

Pro-lifers don't care because they generally don't care much for liberty.

More hyperbole.

Most of your "reasons" are based on personal belief. And not fact.

Don't you see that?

You treating them as fact doesn't change that.

BTW when you have to compare humans with that of the wild to justify your actions, you have already lost before you began.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

1) acorn argument; acorns offer sustanance for various wildlife. A nut, or fruit of an oak are consumed for survival. Unless we're eating fetus', I'm not entirely sure why this analogy suffices. If we sought to preserve the sanctity of the oak tree, we'd likely start at the acorn. Still, depending on the acorn, it could take 6-24 months to mature. There is no fundamental agreement on when a fetus is among the weak and under Constitutional protection. Why? Because it is the inception of human life and not an oak tree.

However, to propogate an endangered bird species, the egg would be of utmost importance to us. This egg is the fragile beginning of the species we seek to preserve. Aggressive egg harvesting and incubation outside the hostile environment has all, but saved the California Condor for example. If we were only concerned with the adult bird, and not the inception of its life, our preservation of that bird would likely fail. Likewise, if we were concerned of preserving the oak tree, we'd start by protecting the acorns from hostility and predators. If we do not, we will fail at preserving life.

But answer this simple yes or no question: Is an acorn a tree? Or this one: Is an egg a bird? Let's just find out if you do in fact recognize that the two different words refer to different physical objects.

Environmental protections have not the slightest bit to do with the rights of those species being protected. They only have to do with humanity's selfish wish to preserve ecological diversity for future exploitation (I'm not using exploitation as a judgement against human nature, simply as a fact). Environmental protection rebuttals are irrelevant to the "acorn argument."

3) that having life != having rights. In fact, killing a pregnant woman in many states carries a double-homicide or fetal homicide charge in which case we are in fact deeming the infant a being with rights. By the way, the government has already userped it's authority over your body. It has done so by legislating against drug use, seatbelts, and prostitution. I believe these complex social concerns should be addressed at the State level where there is more accountability for representation. There are a great many states that use tax income to help fund abortion. This is a reprehensible abuse of taxation without representation.

And killing an adult human in a car crash might only carry a manslaughter charge. And killing an adult human by accident when on the job can carry no charge at all. And killing an adult human bystander when you're in the military can carry a medal of honor. The punishment for a crime does not dictate the legal status of the entity criminalized.

As for taxation without representation, you're off the deep end there, ebuddy. Your representation lets you cast your lot against the funding, not the legality. If you were out-voted in your state, you need to sit down and have a thought about what "taxation without representation" means.

Yeast infections are alive. Does a woman need to get anyone's permission before ending that life? Having life != having rights. lpkmckenna hit the nail on the head.

4) the right of women to choose whether to become mothers ie to control their own destiny. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the decision in all, but .5% of abortions performed was already made in the bedroom. People need to understand when they place an unhealthy amount of faith in a contraceptive or in methods such as pulling out, that they run the risk of placing their destiny in the hands of nature. Once nature has taken it's course and a life is created, that life should have rights under our Constitution. But then, you've seen all these arguments before. We're going to go 9 more pages in agreeing to disagree. You can say some are trying to userp control over a woman's body, but more women agree that with only a few exceptions, control over her body is necessary to protect life.

What's an "unhealthy amount of faith" in contraception?

Suffice it to say that movements are in play that could make abortion as we know it, a thing of the past regardless of what you think personally. An overwhelming majority have expressed a Pro-Life stance allowing for abortion only in cases of rape, incest, and health of mother which constitute less than 3% of abortions performed.

ebuddy, I've seen you bang the "biased polls can be made to show anything" drum easily a dozen times, when the polls don't find what you want them to find. Don't "suffice it to say" with polls. You're better than that.

Also, can someone explain where this grammatical construction came from: "X is all, but Y." Is that correct (the comma there)? It seems so wrong.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I believe that irresponsibility often leads to immorality. Immorality has several indicators. Abortion is, but the result of irresponsibility rooted in immorality. Why would the immoral behavior stop at irresponsible sex? It doesn't of course.

Yes, because abortion doctors and pregnant women go on raping sprees and bank heists all the time.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

ABC link to breast cancer, abortions performed by "doctors" in less than sterile clinics, depression, increase in child abuse (attributed to depression), STDs, AIDS, juvenile crime rate, children born into poverty, and increase in teen births are all attributed to a que sara sara sense of morality that leads to a carte blanche on irresponsibility.

Oh rubbish. Firstly, all those medical assertions have little or no supporting evidence. But that doesn't stop pro-lifers from asserting their "truth" regardless.

Second, crime rates and poverty are far higher among families led by young single mothers than any other group. Read the book Freakonomics. The author clearly demonstrates that the dropping crime rates since the 70's are attributable to legal abortion.

As for depression: there is no link. Depression has a strong physiological basis. Remember, depression is also extremely common among women who've had children. It's called post-partum depression, and it causes problems leading up to infantcide and suicide of new mothers.

Arguing that abortion is bad since it can cause depression is like arguing that giving birth is bad because it can cause depression.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

We then end up with the absurd argument of; "truth and morality are relative and I want your help in funding and propogating what is generally immoral and irresponsible behavior."

I'm not arguing that morality is relative. I'm a moral contextualist, not a moral relativist.

if you think your tax-dollars shouldn't fund abortion, I have no problem with that. We are way overtaxed anyways.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It clearly affects us all. By this reasoning, if you saw a woman getting raped outside your home you clearly wouldn't stop him from raping her. Afterall, it's not your body, it's not your choice in the matter, it doesn't affect you.

This is the stupidest f'n argument I've ever encountered concerning abortion.

The reason I'm opposed to to anti-abortion laws is so women can control their own lives and bodies. You would have to be some kind of f'n idiot not to see that rape is also taking control of a woman's life and body away from her. I am for legal abortion and against rape for the same reason. Grow the hell up.

If a politician or ethical theorist made this argument in public, his career would be over the next day.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

In fact, killing a pregnant woman in many states carries a double-homicide or fetal homicide charge in which case we are in fact deeming the infant a being with rights.

For consistency sake, those laws should be replaced. Causing a miscarriage should be treated the same as causing any other bodily but non-lethal harm.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

By the way, the government has already userped it's authority over your body. It has done so by legislating against drug use, seatbelts, and prostitution.

I've already stated, those laws are inappropriate. No one deserves jail for using drugs or selling sex. The criminal justice system should focus on crimes that have real victims.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The right of women to choose whether to become mothers ie to control their own destiny.[/b] The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the decision in all, but .5% of abortions performed was already made in the bedroom. People need to understand when they place an unhealthy amount of faith in a contraceptive or in methods such as pulling out, that they run the risk of placing their destiny in the hands of nature.

Nothing is "in the hands of nature." Human being control their own destiny, not "nature." That's what medical abortion is all about. By you argument, if I did something stupid like step on a rusty nail, I don't deserve a tetnus shot because my "destiny in the hands of nature."

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Once nature has taken it's course and a life is created, that life should have rights under our Constitution.

If you think life is sacred from conception, don't have one. Feel free to tell people its wrong. That's all fine. But leave each woman to make that decision for themselves.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Suffice it to say that movements are in play that could make abortion as we know it, a thing of the past regardless of what you think personally. An overwhelming majority have expressed a Pro-Life stance allowing for abortion only in cases of rape, incest, and health of mother which constitute less than 3% of abortions performed.

Let me explain to you what a liberal democracy is all about, since you lack the knowledge.

Public matters are decided democratically. Private matters are decided individually.

This is the whole issue. Read that again until you understand it. I'll wait.

.
.
.
.

Ok, I'm assume you understand those words. Now we'll apply them:

Private matters include things like: what you choose to read, what you do in your bedroom, how you spend your own money, what religion you decide to belong to (if any). Abortion is also a private matter. It makes absolutely no difference whether the majority of people believe it is wrong or not.

The west has never advocated a system of "total democracy." Private matters are to be left in the hands of each citizen individually. That includes abortion.

The state may try to make abortion illegal - and claim they have the democratic right to do so - but MORALLY, the government is in the wrong.

In the same way, the state may try censor books, enslave people, torture prisoners - and claim they have the democratic support of citizens to do so - but MORALLY, the government is in the wrong. Right and wrong have nothing to do with what's popular.

Public matters are decided democratically. Private matters are decided individually. That's called "liberal democracy."

[Buckaroo]

I am conservative Republican, yet I am pro choice up until the (I believe approx.) 13th week, after that, then I am against abortion.

I have had friends who believed that abortion should be legal up to the day of delivery. They believed that the mother should be allowed to decide on the day of delivery if they should kill the child or give it breath. I feel this is so wrong, and I'd rather be against abortion then to allow this kind of procedure.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

By this reasoning, if you saw a woman getting raped outside your home you clearly wouldn't stop him from raping her. Afterall, it's not your body, it's not your choice in the matter, it doesn't affect you. It's really none of your business anyway, afterall as long as it's not your wife right? We simply do not operate as humans with this level of emotional indifference in caring for the feeble and vulnerable among us. I really think you knew that going into the argument.

I just wanted to emphasize how blatantly irrational and incredibly asinine this argument is. The fact that "Kevin" considered this a clever rebuttal is disturbing, too.

I'm nauseated that anyone could make this statement.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

And killing an adult human in a car crash might only carry a manslaughter charge. And killing an adult human by accident when on the job can carry no charge at all. And killing an adult human bystander when you're in the military can carry a medal of honor. The punishment for a crime does not dictate the legal status of the entity criminalized.

As for taxation without representation, you're off the deep end there, ebuddy. Your representation lets you cast your lot against the funding, not the legality. If you were out-voted in your state, you need to sit down and have a thought about what "taxation without representation" means.

Yeast infections are alive. Does a woman need to get anyone's permission before ending that life? Having life != having rights. lpkmckenna hit the nail on the head.

Excellent post, Uncle Skeleton.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

More hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Most of your "reasons" are based on personal belief. And not fact. Don't you see that? You treating them as fact doesn't change that.

Do you have some kind of monopoly on "facts?"

You've asserted that killing anything after conception is "murder." Is that "fact" too, or just "belief?"

Going all the way back to Socrates, men have realized there is a difference between "true belief" and "mistaken belief." I believe the earth is round because the evidence says so - that's true belief.

So I have no problem with you claiming my reasons are only "belief." They are. They are "true belief," based on evidence.

Originally Posted by Kevin

BTW when you have to compare humans with that of the wild to justify your actions, you have already lost before you began.

Gee, why would that be?

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Really? So if eco-activists were trying to save a forest from logging, they'd start by protecting acorns?

But those acorns have already fallen from the tree (as in being 'born') and are then free to grow as fate would heve it.

The Acorn argument is stupid because the biology and morality is different between human beings and plants.

Protecting the limbs of the tree that were growing acorns would also make protecting the tree important.

I'm amazed at how far away from the topic and how tedious the rationalizations for abortion have become.

The point is that killing a baby because of someone elses inconvenience if they had to actually care for and raise a child is nothing but selfishness.

I guess when you are young and/or stupid it's important to do grown-up things to prove to your peers that you are no longer young and/or stupid.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by rparke1

hia

rpark if you are going to post this in every thread, I am going to have to ask you to stop using my sig.

And I see lpkmckenna still is posting out his or her opinionated hyperbole passing it off as facts.

You sure showed us!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Y3a

The Acorn argument is stupid because the biology and morality is different between human beings and plants.

It's called an "analogy." I'm sure your favorite dictionary makes a mention of it.

Originally Posted by Y3a

I'm amazed at how far away from the topic and how tedious the rationalizations for abortion have become.

Go back a couple of pages, and then you'll really see how far from the subject this thread can get. I'd say I put this thread back on track.

Originally Posted by Y3a

The point is that killing a baby because of someone elses inconvenience if they had to actually care for and raise a child is nothing but selfishness.

The "convenience" and "selfishness" arguments are amusing, but if you were to go up a few posts you'll see I demolished them already.

Originally Posted by Y3a

I guess when you are young and/or stupid it's important to do grown-up things to prove to your peers that you are no longer young and/or stupid.

Are you saying women have abortions to "prove something to their peers?"

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Opps, you are right. You have been saying over and over again that abortion is heartless murder of a living person, but no, you don't want it made illegal.

That makes sense.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I said I don't agree with it, but if they are going to legalize it, at least be honest with what it is. And not decorate it with hyperbole to justify the actions.

I'm being totally honest about it. I'm saying a woman should have an abortion if it interferes with her plans for her life and future. That's neither decoration nor hyperbole.

Your point of view makes zero sense. I say abortion isn't murder and should stay legal. You say abortion is murder but should stay legal.

I suppose you don't mind the legalized murder of babies so long as you get to wag your finger at the "murderers." How's the view from "the moral high ground?"

By the way:

hyperbole |hīˈpərbəlē| noun - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

If you're going to use that word so much, you should first learn what it means.

[turtle777]

Just wanted to psot here. Nothing else. Too bored to read through all the ramblings...

-t

[Kr0nos]

Sorry, but LOL.

I can't believe people on the right are still using those stupid and played out arguments. The more I think about it, their stance has nothing to do with protecting "innocent" lives, but everything with jealously making sure that people who don't follow their ethos are punished (for their lack of self–censorship).

It's enough to make ya wanna puke.

Oh, and I see the Kevin bot is currently running the .exe file again.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Abortion is a moral right. Morally, nothing but the woman's choice in the matter is relevant.

There you go again acting like your bizarro "moralism" are facts.

Abortion is morally right! :AAHAHAHA

Atleast the pro-choice people in here are willing to admit abortion isn't such a good thing.

Most wont even admit to being "pro abortion"

You'll go far with that silliness.

BTW newbie

hy·per·bo·le P Pronunciation Key (h-pûrb-l)
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Sorry, but LOL.

I can't believe people on the right are still using those stupid and played out arguments. The more I think about it, their stance has nothing to do with protecting "innocent" lives, but everything with jealously making sure that people who don't follow their ethos are punished (for their lack of self–censorship).

It's enough to make ya wanna puke.

Oh, and I see the Kevin bot is currently running the .exe file again.

And I see Kronos still doesn't add anything to the plate but Jr High personal attacks.



Must be frustrating huh Kronos?