[Spliffdaddy]

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican, signed the law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation, about two weeks ago. The measure bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of incest and rape, and says that if a woman's life is in jeopardy, doctors must try to save the life of the fetus as well as the woman.

Pro-abortion lobbyists in South Dakota have until June 19th to collect enough signatures to force a referendum in the November 7th elections.


In my estimation, even if enough signatures are collected to force a vote on the legislation in November - the voting public will support the new law. When that happens, many other states will adopt similar legislation that restricts abortion.

It makes me feel good about Americans.

[olePigeon]

The measure bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of incest and rape...

I hope they get the signatures they need.

[James L]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican, signed the law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation, about two weeks ago. The measure bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of incest and rape, and says that if a woman's life is in jeopardy, doctors must try to save the life of the fetus as well as the woman.

Pro-abortion lobbyists in South Dakota have until June 19th to collect enough signatures to force a referendum in the November 7th elections.


In my estimation, even if enough signatures are collected to force a vote on the legislation in November - the voting public will support the new law. When that happens, many other states will adopt similar legislation that restricts abortion.

It makes me feel good about Americans.

It is nice to see that they are wrapping this up so they can move on to other progressive changes, like maybe the return of slavery, or the removal of a woman's right to vote.

[OldManMac]

I always find it amusing when people think they can turn back the clock.

[Spliffdaddy]

Prepare to be amused.

[OldManMac]

Don't worry; you keep me amused quite well. Change is an inevitable part of life; some people just don't know how to handle it.

[Busemann]

Since South Dakota obviusly value human life ever so greatly, do you think they allow for capital punishment?

The answer will knock your socks off.

[OldManMac]

I still have my socks on, as it is quite easy for some to justify murder under their own "special circumstances."

[BRussell]

Who wants to bet me that this will never go into effect?

This law is so very clearly unconstitutional that I have to wonder, at what point does passing a law like this simply become defiance of the law? If there was some ambiguity, of course legislators have to be able to test the limits of court decisions: Minor consent, late abortions, etc. But this is so unambiguously unconstitutional that it just becomes nuisance legislation, wasting everyone's time. If they want to change things, they have to pass a federal constitutional amendment.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Don't worry; you keep me amused quite well. Change is an inevitable part of life; some people just don't know how to handle it.

Ah the irony.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Who wants to bet me that this will never go into effect?

This law is so very clearly unconstitutional that I have to wonder, at what point does passing a law like this simply become defiance of the law? If there was some ambiguity, of course legislators have to be able to test the limits of court decisions: Minor consent, late abortions, etc. But this is so unambiguously unconstitutional that it just becomes nuisance legislation, wasting everyone's time. If they want to change things, they have to pass a federal constitutional amendment.

ding ding ding

we have a winner.

The sole purpose of the legislation is to force the Supreme Court into overturning Roe v. Wade. Now that the anti-abortion justices are in the majority.

Even the most optimistic pro-abortionists admit that the Supreme Court will likely overturn the previous ruling - and allow abortion to be regulated on a state-by-state basis.

This is merely correcting a 'wrong'.

The federal government has no right to dictate the legality of abortion.

[Chuckit]

Any more of your old threads you'd like to duplicate?

[Spliffdaddy]

That thread veered way off topic. This is merely an updated version of events.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The federal government has no right to dictate the legality of abortion.

While I dis-agree with you on whether or not abortion should be allowed we have always agrred on this issue: The Supreme Court over-stepped its bound when setting out its decision in Roe v. Wade. This issue should be decided at the state level (where I will fight, in my state, to keep it legal).

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The sole purpose of the legislation is to force the Supreme Court into overturning Roe v. Wade. Now that the anti-abortion justices are in the majority.

Even the most optimistic pro-abortionists admit that the Supreme Court will likely overturn the previous ruling - and allow abortion to be regulated on a state-by-state basis.

Maybe this will happen. Maybe not. Those new "conservative" judges aren't very conservative.

But even if R v W is overturned, that won't make it a state issue forever. A constitutional amendment could still be written. Maybe it would pass. Maybe not.

But two things are certain:
1) opposition to legal abortion is very soft.
2) opposition to anti-abortion laws is very well organized and very tenacious.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

While I dis-agree with you on whether or not abortion should be allowed we have always agrred on this issue: The Supreme Court over-stepped its bound when setting out its decision in Roe v. Wade. This issue should be decided at the state level (where I will fight, in my state, to keep it legal).

I really don't understand the difference between the Federal Government enacting legalised abortion or State government.

[Chuckit]

For one, the federal government should avoid making laws except where necessary. Technically, Congress doesn't even have the right to make laws except in certain circumstances. The Constitution makes it pretty clear that the states are meant to be the primary legislative bodies.

Secondly, the Supreme Court should not be making laws at all.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

While I dis-agree with you on whether or not abortion should be allowed we have always agrred on this issue: The Supreme Court over-stepped its bound when setting out its decision in Roe v. Wade. This issue should be decided at the state level (where I will fight, in my state, to keep it legal).

regardless of your views for abortion, I will give you that. You understand how states rights should work.

RvW will more than likely be over-turned. Each state should have it's say.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

For one, the federal government should avoid making laws except where necessary. Technically, Congress doesn't even have the right to make laws except in certain circumstances. The Constitution makes it pretty clear that the states are meant to be the primary legislative bodies.

Secondly, the Supreme Court should not be making laws at all.

Actually, most laws are in fact made by the courts (not just the Supreme Court). It's the English system of common law, where "precedent" and "case law" are extremely relevant in any court proceeding. Stating that the Supreme Court "should not make law" is to deny everything that the common system is about.

While the concept of "the Supreme Court should not make laws" seems attractive, it is rooted in a misunderstanding of what the SC actually does. It is the protector of the integrity of the Constitution. It alone is sanctioned to interpret the text. When it interprets, it must write down that interpretation. That written interpretation is law. It always has been, long before R v W ever happened.

The Supreme Court did not "invent" the right to abortion out of whole cloth. It is implied in the Constitution itself.

----

The 9th amendment of the US Constitution states that many "unenumerated rights" are implied in the Bill of Rights. This concept is not some "liberal hippie crap" from the 60s. It has been part of the US Constitution for over 200 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_A...s_Constitution

Also, the 14th ammendment of the US Constitution says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Do laws against abortion "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" ?? I think it clearly does. The right to abortion is an unenumerated right implied in the text of the 14th. (Though I doubt any pro-lifer would agree.)

----

In R v W, the 4th amendment was considered the most relevent. There is an enormous amount of "court created" case law concerning the 4th amendment. Many deal with the issue of the "right to privacy." Those words aren't explicitly found in the Bill of Rights, but the US Supreme Court have been protecting them regardless, because it is another "unenumerated right."

Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

Ask yourself: do you think you have a right to use contraceptives? Or do you think that state governments are constitutionally entitled to ban them?

The logical result of the "court-created" right to "marital privacy" was the right of legal abortion.

---

Historically, the Supreme Court made interpretations that were unacceptable to the other branches of gov't. The only remedies are to either wait for the Court to reverse itself, or more directly amend the constitution itself, forcing the Court to recognize the relevent issue.

The best example of this occurence was the issue of slavery. The constitution, as written, did not appear to entitle Blacks to liberty and equality. The Court upheld legal slavery several times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

The Court's interpretation could not be challenged without an amendment. So that's what happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirtee...s_Constitution

----

Congress wrote the Constitution. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. If Congress doesn't like the interpretation, they are free to amend the Constitution to limit the interpretation.

That's how slavery was settled. That's how abortion must be settled. Discussion about "state's rights" or "courts making laws" is just ignorance about how the common law system works.

Abortion is about individual rights, not state's rights.

----

Go ahead and bash me as a Canadian. But the fact is, we have a similar legal system, and we went thru the exact same process on the issue of abortion. However, our courts based abortion rights on our equivalent of the 14th amendment ("life, liberty, and the security of person"), not the 9th amendment equivalent.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Actually, most laws are in fact made by the courts (not just the Supreme Court). It's the English system of common law, where "precedent" and "case law" are extremely relevant in any court proceeding. Stating that the Supreme Court "should not make law" is to deny everything that the common system is about.

While the concept of "the Supreme Court should not make laws" seems attractive, it is rooted in a misunderstanding of what the SC actually does. It is the protector of the integrity of the Constitution. It alone is sanctioned to interpret the text. When it interprets, it must write down that interpretation. That written interpretation is law. It always has been, long before R v W ever happened.

Nonsense. That written interpretation is meant to reflect the law, not be a law unto itself. Otherwise the law is meaningless. We cannot infer a right to abortions any more than we can infer a nationalized healthcare system — it's not in there.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Stating that the Supreme Court "should not make law" is to deny everything that the common system is about.

Your conception of American jurisprudence is decidedly defective.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Your conception of American jurisprudence is decidedly defective.

He's Canadian, give him some slack.

Or not.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Any more of your old threads you'd like to duplicate?

Well, some biased people have an agenda to promote

Seriously, why refer to "Pro-abortion" people? Like they insist every pregnant women should get aborted. I don't consider myself a "pro-abortion" and definitively not a "pro-life": I am pro-choice (but not in the political way*). And not just in this particular case, but in most aspects of life. It's not my body, it's hers! I have no say on what she is doing to it. Period. If she choses to keep her child, I will support her. If she choses to get an abortion, I will support her. I have no right to prevent her from making her own decision.

People don't get that it's not a black-or-white situation: there is actually a third option: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! Saying that someone is pro-abortion, while the term is technically correct, implies that this person will promote abortion no matter what, while the pro-life will inevitably favor human life over quality of life for the same human being. Pro-choice is a more acceptable point of view in my opinion, because it doesn't favor any position in particular and doesn't restrict any decision a person could make. Otherwise, you're actually lobbying for one cause, which is not correct, in my humble opinion.

Respect other people's opinion, don't impose your own! Is that hard to understand?

* to make things clear, when I'm talking about "pro-choice", I'm not refering to the Pro-Choice group, but merely to its true meaning: "In favor of open options".

[Kevin]

Pssst, no one is arguing what she does with HER body. It's the growing, living human she is killing that is question.

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

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Pssst, no one is arguing what she does with HER body. It's the growing, living human she is killing that is question.

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

I knew this argument was going to be used. And I didn't want to step into this, because the definition of what is a "human" differs for everyone, and it's hard to argue about this, as everybody is entitled to his opinion. I will state my position on this, but I don't dismiss yours. For me, the fetus is not a "human" while it's still an "organ" in the body of its mother. It's not "independant". It doesn't have a conscience, a mind of his own. It doesn't even know it's living and is not aware of its existance. The mother dies, it dies. Cut the cord before it's born, it dies. It's a different story when the baby is born, when he becomes an independand form of life, then it's murder. But for now, it's just a mass of cells inside her mother. A kind of cancer, if you will. Heck, it even needs a placenta to protect it, otherwise the mother's own immune system would destroy it.

I don't get why humans consider themselves "superior" and "different" from other animals/mammals. 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 (some even eat their own newborn!). Now that's extreme and we don't do it, but why fight that much over a thing that happens all around the world in other species. Just because we're intelligent enough to make "rules" doens't give us the right to change nature's way.

[Kevin]

Firewire, I was speaking about the logical fallacy that pro-life people want to control a woman's body arguement. It's irrelevent that you don't believe it is such. Pro-Lifers do. So saying that they want to say on what a woman does with her body is dishonest.

[FireWire]

What is irrelevant is what you (we) are thinking. You can think what you want, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. What is not correct, however, is to try to convince others that YOUR point of view is better/the only one.

I don't understand why so many people get away with this, as being a closed-minded person (with dictatorial tendencies) is supposed to get "bashed" by its peers.

Secondly, what is dishonest, is choosing a name which makes other feel bad for being "against". As if people not in your group are automatically "anti-life". As a matter of fact, if you are opposed to free-choice, or pro-choice, you are anti-choice, which is negative, in my book. Again, "my way or no way" ?

There is nothing wrong with having a particular opinion on a given subject, as long as you keep it for yourself. For the same reason, you can hate people of race in your living room, but you cannot go out and say "I decided that YOU are bad", pointing at a black person.

Please, try to understand the text as a whole, instead of pinpointing something "discutable" and dismissing the rest of the arguments. And before anybody asks "why is YOUR opinion worthwhile then?" I will state that I have no "opinion" on this matters, beside that we should respect the mother's opinion, without trying to make her feel bad for it.

[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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FireWire

What is irrelevant is what you (we) are thinking.

No, the point I made was relevant. The reply you made to it was not.

You can think what you want, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. What is not correct, however, is to try to convince others that YOUR point of view is better/the only one.

I don't think I did that. I feel it's the correct one however.

Secondly, what is dishonest, is choosing a name which makes other feel bad for being "against". As if people not in your group are automatically "anti-life". As a matter of fact, if you are opposed to free-choice, or pro-choice, you are anti-choice, which is negative, in my book. Again, "my way or no way" ?

Actually "pro-life" is what we are. We are PRO life. We are FOR life. We are FOR protecting it.

Many PRO-choicers claim they aren't FOR abortion, and too think it's wrong. But thinks it should be allowed to happen.

There is nothing wrong with having a particular opinion on a given subject, as long as you keep it for yourself.

Oh please, you need to follow your own advice buddy

For the same reason, you can hate people of race in your living room, but you cannot go out and say "I decided that YOU are bad", pointing at a black person.

What an odd comparison. Not even close.

Please, try to understand the text as a whole, instead of pinpointing something "discutable" and dismissing the rest of the arguments. And before anybody asks "why is YOUR opinion worthwhile then?" I will state that I have no "opinion" on this matters, beside that we should respect the mother's opinion, without trying to make her feel bad for it.

I am not trying to make ANYONE feel bad. If you feel bad, there is probably a reason for it.

I have NO POWER to MAKE people feel bad.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Oh please, you need to follow your own advice buddy

I guess you skipped the "And before anybody asks "why is YOUR opinion worthwhile then?" I will state that I have no "opinion" on this matters, beside that we should respect the mother's opinion, without trying to make her feel bad for it." part? I'm not saying MY opinion is better, because I have no opinion, it doesn't concern any of us. I'm not pressuring pregnant girls to get aborted. But you are advocating that a girl should keep her child against her will, no matter what. You try to interfere with her opinion, you impose your point of view. I know it's hard to put that in perspective, but encouraging people to keep their options open is not an opinion per se. It is saying "Don't listen to others, girl, do what YOU want. Get information, but in the end, it's YOUR decision"

Originally Posted by Kevin

What an odd comparison. Not even close.

Well I don't think so! You can be against abortion, but you have no right to state loud and clear that it is bad, because in YOUR opinion, it is bad. I could give a very long list of similar examples. YOU CANNOT IMPOSE YOUR OPINION to unwilling others. You can prefer vanilla ice cream over strawberry, but you cannot force your friend to adopt your preference, or opinion. "NOOO I can't let you eat that cone, in my opinion it's not good!!"

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am not trying to make ANYONE feel bad. If you feel bad, there is probably a reason for it.
I have NO POWER to MAKE people feel bad.

Okay, the term "feel bad" was not the best. What I'm trying to say is that to each his opinion, and other should not try to convince them that their opinion is "wrong". If you love life so much, why don't you let the life goes on as it has been doing since I don't know how many millions years?

I'm done with this, this is going nowhere... Read my entire text please, especially the mammals comparaison, instead of coming back over some words that could have been expressed better.

[Edit] Here's a little example of the situation, for the visuals:

Pro-life : black
Pro-choice : black or white, you choose
Pro-life : NO!! black!! white is wrong!

Notice, nobody is saying white, that's what I'm refering to when I say pro-choice have no "opinion". They're not waiting with the vaccuum ready beside the pregnancy test aisle in the drugstores... or chanting "kill it, kill it!" in the parking lot..

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by FireWire

What I'm trying to say is that to each his opinion, and other should not try to convince them that their opinion is "wrong".

I disagree.

[Spliffdaddy]

I've changed my opinion several times based on what I've read in this forum. When somebody makes a good point - and shares their opinion on the matter - it's only natural to re-think or abandon your original opinion.

A person cannot force their opinion on another person. All you can do is express your opinion and provide some sort of logical reasoning as to how you arrived at that opinion. After all, your opinions should formed by logical reasoning.

I come here for the same reason everybody else does - to have my opinion challenged. There's nothing that I like more than to lose the battle of opinions. It honestly gets me off when I discover that I was wrong. Sounds strange, but I'm sure we all feel the same way. If we were always right, then there would be no point in participating in these debates.

So change my mind. Show me where I'm wrong. I live for that.

But don't get yer panties in a wad if you can't convey your opinion in a manner that changes my mind.

Just return - better prepared.

[FireWire]

Haha that's funny. As I read your last reply, you make it sound as if I "lost"... I have nothing to win, nothing to lose, I am neutral. I think my black and white or vanilla vs strawberry examples illustrate my point pretty well. I don't care what people choose, I just want them to be free to decide by themselves.

I admit I worded some sentences poorly. It's okay to try to convince other that your point is good. After all, that's the point of a discussion. However, don't insist until the end of time. I didn't see many arguments against abortion here, beside that it's "murder". You could start by replying to a few part of my previous posts...

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by FireWire

Haha that's funny. As I read your last reply, you make it sound as if I "lost"... I have nothing to win, nothing to lose, I am neutral. I think my black and white or vanilla vs strawberry examples illustrate my point pretty well. I don't care what people choose, I just want them to be free to decide by themselves.

I decided that abortion is a form of murder. Thanks for allowing me the freedom to hold that opinion.

Originally Posted by FireWire

I admit I worded some sentences poorly. It's okay to try to convince other that your point is good. After all, that's the point of a discussion. However, don't insist until the end of time. I didn't see many arguments against abortion here, beside that it's "murder". You could start by replying to a few part of my previous posts...

You admit that you participated in the battle of opinions while unprepared. So just come better prepared next time.

I don't see any compelling arguments in favor of abortion. They look more like excuses for murder.

I'll try to reply to your previous posts unless they include redundant questions that I've addressed earlier.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I decided that abortion is a form of murder. Thanks for allowing me the freedom to hold that opinion.

Oh sorry, that changes everything! Not!

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

You admit that you participated in the battle of opinions while unprepared. So just come better prepared next time.

Hum excuse me, can you quote me on that? Where did I say I was unprepared? I admitted I may have worded some sentences wrong, because my native language is French and my point may sometimes needs a little more explanation or refinement as a result of this.

Anyway this whole thing is moot. I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong. You have every rights to be against abortion. What I'm saying is LEAVE THE WOMEN ALONE. If you get my black or white example right, you'll understand that the more you argue about this, the more you prove to the world that you are a closed-minded person, who is trying to dictate other what they should do.

[stevesnj]

Though I think the practice is disgusting late term, I believe this being made illegal is a bad decision. I guess these pregenant teens and women have to take matters into their own hands

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by FireWire

Anyway this whole thing is moot. I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong. You have every rights to be against abortion. What I'm saying is LEAVE THE WOMEN ALONE. If you get my black or white example right, you'll understand that the more you argue about this, the more you prove to the world that you are a closed-minded person, who is trying to dictate other what they should do.

FireWire, if you had been involved in enough of these discussions--there have been countless abortion "debates" in this forum--you would know that Spliffdaddy and others like him care more about the (potential) life growing inside the woman then the woman herself. While myself and many others who are Pro-Choice/Abortion/Murder/Fetucide (Take your pick.) care more about the woman than the (potential) life growing inside the woman. It is a different set of priorities, that is all. It's not to say Spliffdaddy and his ilk don't care about women or that those of us in the Pro-Whatever camp don't care about fetuses, we just have different priorities.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I disagree.

I don't even know what he is ranting about now. I don't think he does either. I just wanted to point out the fallacy of saying pro-lifers want to control a woman's body.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

I guess these pregenant teens and women have to take matters into their own hands

Poor choice of words.

And DC, I think if the woman's life is in danger SHE should have a choice. Because THEN it IS about HER body.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

FireWire, if you had been involved in enough of these discussions--there have been countless abortion "debates" in this forum--you would know that Spliffdaddy and others like him care more about the (potential) life growing inside the woman then the woman herself.

Normally I stay far away from these political discussions, and now I know damn well why Some people just never want to open up to other's point of view.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't even know what he is ranting about now. I don't think he does either. I just wanted to point out the fallacy of saying pro-lifers want to control a woman's body.

Well, just read what I wrote if you don't know. If you need me to reformulate a sentence, say it so. As for the "it's her body" argument, if you don't agree with it, be it. Each person has its own conception of what is a "human". However, that's only a small part of the whole debate. Don't close your eyes at the first thing you disagree with!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't even know what he is ranting about now. I don't think he does either. I just wanted to point out the fallacy of saying pro-lifers want to control a woman's body.

I don't see how you can say it's a fallacy. It's in her body and it needs (before viability) her body to live. And if we followed the anti-abortion position, the state would control a pregnant woman's body by requiring her to carry and give birth. I don't know how much more control of a person's body the government could have. This is not about some embryo in a test tube somewhere. It is attached to and entirely within a woman's body.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FireWire

However, that's only a small part of the whole debate. Don't close your eyes at the first thing you disagree with!

I'm not, and frankly I dont need you projecting ideals onto me that don't exist either

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't see how you can say it's a fallacy.

I just explained it. It's not HER body that we are trying to protect.

It's in her body and it needs (before viability) her body to live.

No, it's the baby's body. And guess what, a 1 year old can't live on it's own either. That doesn't mean that 1 year old is his mother's body.
[quote]
And if we followed the anti-abortion position, the state would control a pregnant woman's body by requiring her to carry and give birth.[/qute]
No, the state would be protecting the rights of an human, just like it does in most every other case.

I don't know how much more control of a person's body the government could have.

Well we have to wear seatbelts, we aren't allowed to take some drugs or commite suidice..

This is not about some embryo in a test tube somewhere. It is attached to and entirely within a woman's body.

If two siamese twins were attached, would you say it was ok for one to kill off the other? Or do they both deserve to live a life?

Again, this isn't about the mother's body, its about the UNBORN BABY.

When it comes to HER body, or HER living, you'll find most pro-lifers saying it's up to her to decide

Because then she isn't deciding just to kill another life, but to save hers.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I just explained it. It's not HER body that we are trying to protect.

Perhaps you're trying to protect the baby (though I have sincere doubts about the pro-life motivation), but in order to fulfill this goal, you have to control the woman's body, you have to treat it as an incubator. And you have to do so even if you fail to acknowledge that fact, and claim that it's a fallacy or that it's already been addressed.

No, it's the baby's body. And guess what, a 1 year old can't live on it's own either. That doesn't mean that 1 year old is his mother's body.

I'm no obstetrician, but as far as I know, one-year-olds are not inside of a woman's body.

No, the state would be protecting the rights of an human, just like it does in most every other case.

No? The state wouldn't require pregnant women to give birth? So how do you accomplish this supposed goal of yours to protect babies, unless you have forced-birth laws? Are you just going to ask nicely?

Well we have to wear seatbelts, we aren't allowed to take some drugs or commite suidice..

Only a "pro-lifer" would think so little of pregnancy and childbirth to equate it with these examples.

If two siamese twins were attached, would you say it was ok for one to kill off the other? Or do they both deserve to live a life?

Again, this isn't about the mother's body, its about the UNBORN BABY.

When it comes to HER body, or HER living, you'll find most pro-lifers saying it's up to her to decide

Because then she isn't deciding just to kill another life, but to save hers.

Again, I don't believe that for a second. I think it's about sex.

Why aren't pro-lifers railing at the fact that fertility clinics regularly destroy fertilized egg "babies"? Is it because they weren't produced through sex? Why is that so many pro-lifers are against birth control? That doesn't protect a baby's life. Why is it that so many pro-lifers are against sex ed? That doesn't protect a baby's life. Why is it that so many pro-lifers are against the morning-after pill? That doesn't "kill babies," it prevents eggs from being fertilized.

No, I don't buy for a second that it's about protecting unborn babies. It just doesn't add up. The only thing that does add up is that it's all about sex.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm not, and frankly I dont need you projecting ideals onto me that don't exist either

Hum, what the hell is that supposed to mean? I just pointed out that you didn't address most of my points, and only concentrated on the one you could argue (her body, his body). I'm not projecting anything on you.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'm no obstetrician, but as far as I know, one-year-olds are not inside of a woman's body.

I LOL'd.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Perhaps you're trying to protect the baby (though I have sincere doubts about the pro-life motivation), but in order to fulfill this goal, you have to control the woman's body, you have to treat it as an incubator. And you have to do so even if you fail to acknowledge that fact, and claim that it's a fallacy or that it's already been addressed.

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

I'm no obstetrician, but as far as I know, one-year-olds are not inside of a woman's body.

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

1 year olds can't either.

No? The state wouldn't require pregnant women to give birth? So how do you accomplish this supposed goal of yours to protect babies, unless you have forced-birth laws? Are you just going to ask nicely?

"Forced birth laws"

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

Again, I don't believe that for a second. I think it's about sex.

Well you are wrong.

Why aren't pro-lifers railing at the fact that fertility clinics regularly destroy fertilized egg "babies"?

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

Why is that so many pro-lifers are against birth control?

They are called Catholics.

Why is it that so many pro-lifers are against sex ed?

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

Why is it that so many pro-lifers are against the morning-after pill? That doesn't "kill babies," it prevents eggs from being fertilized.

Again, Catholics.

No, I don't buy for a second that it's about protecting unborn babies. It just doesn't add up. The only thing that does add up is that it's all about sex.

Doesn't matter if you buy it or not.

Originally Posted by FireWire

Hum, what the hell is that supposed to mean? I just pointed out that you didn't address most of my points,

You projected a motivation that simply didn't belong to me. And as I explained to you before, most of your points are irrelevant to what I said.

and only concentrated on the one you could argue (her body, his body).

Not one I could argue, one that was relevant.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You projected a motivation that simply didn't belong to me. And as I explained to you before, most of your points are irrelevant to what I said.

Not one I could argue, one that was relevant.

Could you be more specific please? Who decides which arguments are relevant? It looks to me you're the one that's not prepared...

[Kevin]

FireWire, go back and re-read my first reply to you. I think I know when what you replied to is relevant to what I said.

Dig?

You are talking in circles.

Bolding words doesn't change that.

[FireWire]

Come on. Quit it please. You're the one that's talking in circles. You conveniently decide that you just want to address ONE argument and ignore the rest. That's great! You accuse me of being unprepared. I'm still waiting after the evidences... meanwhile, you (bold or not) talk like someone that's not prepared...

[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.

Personally, I don't expect my feeling about abortion to change. Mostly since I keep hearing the same tired arguments over and over. None of them have convinced me that abortion isn't the ending of a life. 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. Yet almost nobody is sorry they had a child.

I love people. That's my motivation. My stance on abortion is rooted in the fact that I love children and I love women. I want them to be alive and happy. Even if they vote for Democrats.