Abortion [Archive] - Page 2 - House of Politics

Coyote

07-07-2007, 06:40 AM

That goes exactly both ways coyote. You concede that an unborn is a human being and freely admit that you can't put your finger on the whole "personhood" argument decicevely enough to argue life and death to your own satisfaction, much less someone elses. This being the case, who has primary rights over the unborn's body? Since it is a human being, it's right to live is equal to it's mother's right to live and the only thing that can tip the ballance is if it represents a "GENUINE" threat to its mother's life or long term health and a 12 in 100,000 chance does not represent a real and present threat in any court of law. Human rights are human rights. The very term implies that they apply to all human beings and if any group is excluded, then a terrible violation is being carried out.

I can not get around two major things:

That the unborn is human being and when do it's rights supercede mine and that it is a human being. But when (to me) is it a person? How can I conceive of a cluster of undifferentiated cells to be a person in the same rights as say a 6 month old fetus...or a baby born...a child...and adult? The latter all have functioning nervous systems, a brain, an environmental awareness, the ability to feel and maybe appreciate loss of life. We've gone over this - but logic alone fails to solve the dilemma for me because logic alone can't answer my questions.

Rights to my body. I can not express how fundamental that is to me and how frightening the possibility that another human being can take control of my body and make decisions about it - a human that has no awareness or care about who I am, how I live or whether I live - and I don't mean the unborn child here. It is a human who is remote and distant and who washes his or her hands of me once the decision is made. It is the humans marching in the pro-life rallies, blocking my access to an abortion clinic (should that be my choice), legislating for the right for someone else to control my body. No other category of human being can - potentially - have the rights to their own body legally stripped away without having committed a crime.

So what is the answer? For me - I know what I would answer, in regards to my life and body - but do I have the right to make that the answer for everyone else?

palerider

07-07-2007, 07:49 AM

That the unborn is human being and when do it's rights supercede mine and that it is a human being. But when (to me) is it a person? How can I conceive of a cluster of undifferentiated cells to be a person in the same rights as say a 6 month old fetus...or a baby born...a child...and adult? The latter all have functioning nervous systems, a brain, an environmental awareness, the ability to feel and maybe appreciate loss of life. We've gone over this - but logic alone fails to solve the dilemma for me because logic alone can't answer my questions.

You can't get around it because you are looking at it exactly backwards. It is a given that anyone's right to live supercedes any right you have except your own right to live so the question isn't it's rigts superceding yours, but your right to "whatever" superceding its very right to live.

All of the systems, awareness, feelings, etc., are only aspects of maturity. You apparently have no trouble viewing an infant as a human being with rights even though it is at least 25 years away from being a fully mature human being while it is only 9 months away from being as immature as a human being can possibly be. The inability to "see" comes from within you and is not the fault of the child.

Rights to my body. I can not express how fundamental that is to me and how frightening the possibility that another human being can take control of my body and make decisions about it - a human that has no awareness or care about who I am, how I live or whether I live - and I don't mean the unborn child here. It is a human who is remote and distant and who washes his or her hands of me once the decision is made. It is the humans marching in the pro-life rallies, blocking my access to an abortion clinic (should that be my choice), legislating for the right for someone else to control my body. No other category of human being can - potentially - have the rights to their own body legally stripped away without having committed a crime.

Does your right to your body include killing another human being that is dependent upon you for its very life as a result of your actions? This does account for about 99+ % of all abortions.

So what is the answer? For me - I know what I would answer, in regards to my life and body - but do I have the right to make that the answer for everyone else?

We either respect the right to live or we don't. We have seen over and over that if one group can be singled out and dehumanized, then another group can be as well and the more we do it, the less value we place on the lives of those who have not yet been singled out.

Mare Tranquillity

07-07-2007, 08:11 AM

So if it is a man vs woman issue, why is the child the one who ends up dead? This is a woman vs child issue and any attempt to spin it in another way is simply dishonest.Most killers don't do it casually and most pay a high emotional price for their crimes unless they are sociopaths. Does that mean that we shoud not punish them for the fact that they have killed? Does the fact that they suffer make it OK to kill?
You clearly are angry at men who neglect their responsibilities so why is it that you transfer your rage to the child? Is it that you feel powerless against men and believe that someone must be punished and if it cant' be the man, then you are willing to see the child sacrificed? Maybe especially if it is a male child?

While calling me a liar repeatedly and pontifcating on your honesty, you have refused to have a coversation with me by ignoring valid questions and taking things I said out of context in order to twist them to suit your own purposes (a case in point is accusing me of wishing to torture the families of suspects). I don't really disagree with you all that much on the issue of abortion, but as a woman who knows many women, I can see that the problem is not the black and white issue that you demand it to be. You have continually said that if one is honest then all issues are black and white, but that ignores all of the messy details which you don't want to look at. I don't blame you for not wanting to look closely at the messy details--it's a mess! But the mess is systemic and you want to blame the whole thing on women when in fact men are a much larger cause of the problem.

I think you are being hypocritical and disengenuous, your reductionist thinking on this subject is stereotypical Christian misogyny despite your protestations to the contrary. You've brought nothing to the conversation but vitriol, you've not made a single recommendation that didn't stigmatize, blame, and denigrate women. Couple that misogyny with your seeming violent hatred for Islam and your eagerness to allow torture makes you appear to me to be a very disturbed person in deep conflict with himself over issues of violence, sadism, sexism, and religion. I don't think I will respond to you attacks anymore, you are too one-sided and advocate simple-minded remedies that ignore the complex nature of reality. You appear compassionless except for babies--not actually an uncommon response for a man who is deeply afraid, and very angry in response to that fear.

Mare Tranquillity

07-07-2007, 08:17 AM

Is dependence a valid reason to kill?
If you believe that abortion is murder, and murder is, by definition, one human being killing another human being, how is it that you compare a living human being to a cancer? As I pointed out quite a while back mare, your philosophy is very conflicted and it comes out in your arguments. You aren't being honest with yourself so it is impossible for you to argue your position rationally. Read back through your posts mare, the only true thing in them is that you are very angry with men and you can't bring yourself to simply make that statement as it would then be clear that you are willing to sacrifice children to your anger at us.

This is a good example of what I spoke about in my previous post. Your anger makes you dim, you can't see past the rage and fear. You demand that others MUST be one-dimensional creatures with the agenda that YOU ascribe to them. Your anger doesn't let you think or listen or learn. It's sad, I don't think you have a very pleasant life and that makes me feel sorry for you. But since I can't help you, I'll leave you be.

Mare Tranquillity

07-07-2007, 08:19 AM

What's annoying about you PaleRider is that I find myself respecting - though disagreeing - with your opinion.

I don't suppose you could find it in yourself to somehow throw in some gratuituous statement about how a woman should hold an asprin between her legs just to fullfil the stereotype?
I love your humor, Coyote, but I think it's wasted on Pale.

Coyote

07-07-2007, 09:22 AM

Does your right to your body include killing another human being that is dependent upon you for its very life as a result of your actions? This does account for about 99+ % of all abortions.

I don't know.

We have two fundamentally opposed rights here:

the right to determine what happens to your own body
the right to life

We have two unique categories of human beings - unlike any other (you really can not make a valid comparison to the dehumanizing of black people for example, because their situation is and was fundamentally different).

You have one group of human beings who are totally helpless and utterly dependent on a "host" body to develop to the point where they can survive outside that person's body and in the process that group takes virtual biological control of that body's resources.

You have another group of human beings who can find themselves in the position - willing or unwilling - of having to provide that host body to another human being. No matter how well a pregnancy goes it takes a toll phsyically, and mentally - childbirth is never an "inconvenience". In addition, biology puts this group of human beings into the default position of having to take responsibility for all aspects of the pregnancy and subsequent birth whether they want it or not.

Two fundamentally opposing sets of rights. I am not sure that I agree that the "right to life" trumps all.

Right now, the law does not recognize the unborn child's rights as greater than, or even equal to the mother's. Of course that could change. If it did - then by doing so it would be setting a precedent that the right to life over-ruled all other rights. If that is so - then what would you say about the following situation?

A person was dying of end stage kidney failure. You have two healthy kidneys and are a perfect match, and can afford to give one. If you don't, the person will die. Should you be forced to do this?

Coyote

07-07-2007, 09:28 AM

I love your humor, Coyote, but I think it's wasted on Pale.

:D Thanks...I can't help it. I always clown around. Pale is actually kind of surprising - ya never know;)

palerider

07-07-2007, 01:27 PM

While calling me a liar repeatedly and pontifcating on your honesty, you have refused to have a coversation with me by ignoring valid questions and taking things I said out of context in order to twist them to suit your own purposes (a case in point is accusing me of wishing to torture the families of suspects).

Caring for children after they are born has nothing to do with killing them before they are born unless you are suggesting that everyone who is unhappy, or hungry, or unloved should be killed along with all of these unborns who "MIGHT" grow up unhappy.

I don't really disagree with you all that much on the issue of abortion, but as a woman who knows many women, I can see that the problem is not the black and white issue that you demand it to be.

You attempt to color the issue because you can't face the truth. Women are killing their children by the millions for reasons that amount to no more than convenience and you support them in it because you are angry at men.

You have continually said that if one is honest then all issues are black and white, but that ignores all of the messy details which you don't want to look at. I don't blame you for not wanting to look closely at the messy details--it's a mess! But the mess is systemic and you want to blame the whole thing on women when in fact men are a much larger cause of the problem.

Are you saying that the "mess" is a valid reason to kill innocent children?

I think you are being hypocritical and disengenuous, your reductionist thinking on this subject is stereotypical Christian misogyny despite your protestations to the contrary. You've brought nothing to the conversation but vitriol, you've not made a single recommendation that didn't stigmatize, blame, and denigrate women. Couple that misogyny with your seeming violent hatred for Islam and your eagerness to allow torture makes you appear to me to be a very disturbed person in deep conflict with himself over issues of violence, sadism, sexism, and religion. I don't think I will respond to you attacks anymore, you are too one-sided and advocate simple-minded remedies that ignore the complex nature of reality. You appear compassionless except for babies--not actually an uncommon response for a man who is deeply afraid, and very angry in response to that fear.

Again with the personal attacks on me. This is your pattern mare. When you are unable to effectively argue my points, you resort to personal attacks on me as if that constitutes an actual argument.

I don't believe that I have attacked you mare. If I have, please bring forward the post. Look above for a fine example of your attacks against me, but in review, I don't find anything that could be construed as an attack against you. Have you lied again mare?

palerider

07-07-2007, 01:32 PM

This is a good example of what I spoke about in my previous post. Your anger makes you dim, you can't see past the rage and fear.

What rage and fear mare. You claim that the woman has the right to kill the child because it depends upon her for its very life. I asked if you are suggesting that dependence is a valid reason to kill. Either you can answer the question or you can't. It is clear that the answer that you must give in order to be consistent makes you uncomfortable so instead of answering, you rail against me and attack me personally again.

You demand that others MUST be one-dimensional creatures with the agenda that YOU ascribe to them. Your anger doesn't let you think or listen or learn. It's sad, I don't think you have a very pleasant life and that makes me feel sorry for you. But since I can't help you, I'll leave you be.

I have had a very pleasant life, full of friends, fun, philosophy, and reverence, but very little anger, frustration, or anything else that might be construed as negative. I am honest mare. My life, like my philosophy is straight forward and unconflicted.

Maybe I will ask again. Do you believe that dependence upon another is a valid reason to kill? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Mare Tranquillity

07-07-2007, 03:13 PM

What rage and fear mare. You claim that the woman has the right to kill the child because it depends upon her for its very life. I asked if you are suggesting that dependence is a valid reason to kill. Either you can answer the question or you can't. It is clear that the answer that you must give in order to be consistent makes you uncomfortable so instead of answering, you rail against me and attack me personally again.
I have had a very pleasant life, full of friends, fun, philosophy, and reverence, but very little anger, frustration, or anything else that might be construed as negative. I am honest mare. My life, like my philosophy is straight forward and unconflicted.
Maybe I will ask again. Do you believe that dependence upon another is a valid reason to kill? A simple yes or no will suffice.

While calling me a liar repeatedly and pontifcating on your honesty, you have refused to have a coversation with me by ignoring valid questions and taking things I said out of context in order to twist them to suit your own purposes (a case in point is accusing me of wishing to torture the families of suspects). I don't really disagree with you all that much on the issue of abortion, but as a woman who knows many women, I can see that the problem is not the black and white issue that you demand it to be. You have continually said that if one is honest then all issues are black and white, but that ignores all of the messy details which you don't want to look at. I don't blame you for not wanting to look closely at the messy details--it's a mess! But the mess is systemic and you want to blame the whole thing on women when in fact men are a much larger cause of the problem.

I think you are being hypocritical and disengenuous, your reductionist thinking on this subject is stereotypical Christian misogyny despite your protestations to the contrary. You've brought nothing to the conversation but vitriol, you've not made a single recommendation that didn't stigmatize, blame, and denigrate women. Couple that misogyny with your seeming violent hatred for Islam and your eagerness to allow torture makes you appear to me to be a very disturbed person in deep conflict with himself over issues of violence, sadism, sexism, and religion. I don't think I will respond to you attacks anymore, you are too one-sided and advocate simple-minded remedies that ignore the complex nature of reality. You appear compassionless except for babies--not actually an uncommon response for a man who is deeply afraid, and very angry in response to that fear.

palerider

07-07-2007, 03:17 PM

I don't know.

We have two fundamentally opposed rights here:

the right to determine what happens to your own body
the right to life

First, all rights are secondary to the right to live. Second, after a careful examination of the constitution, I find no right to determine what happens to your body. I do find numerous laws that tell you what you may and may not do with your body, but no right to determine what happens to it. Suicide is illegal, consuming certain substances is illegal, selling it is illegal in most places, selling irreplaceable parts of it is illlegal. Exactly where do you find this "right" to determine what happens to your body? Is it a fabricated right like the "right" to kill a child that is less than convenient?

We have two unique categories of human beings - unlike any other (you really can not make a valid comparison to the dehumanizing of black people for example, because their situation is and was fundamentally different).

All groups of human beings that have been dehumanized for the purpose of having all their human rights taken away have been fundamentally different from the rest of "us". Otherwise it wouldn't have been possible to dehumanize them.

You have one group of human beings who are totally helpless and utterly dependent on a "host" body to develop to the point where they can survive outside that person's body and in the process that group takes virtual biological control of that body's resources.

You have another group of human beings who can find themselves in the position - willing or unwilling - of having to provide that host body to another human being. No matter how well a pregnancy goes it takes a toll phsyically, and mentally - childbirth is never an "inconvenience". In addition, biology puts this group of human beings into the default position of having to take responsibility for all aspects of the pregnancy and subsequent birth whether they want it or not.

First, the child does not take virtual biological control of the mother's body's resources. If you must mischaracterize biology, don't use it as part of your argument.

Second. All other rights are secondary to the right to live.

Right now, the law does not recognize the unborn child's rights as greater than, or even equal to the mother's. Of course that could change. If it did - then by doing so it would be setting a precedent that the right to life over-ruled all other rights. If that is so - then what would you say about the following situation?

"Right now" we are in the midst of one of the greatest human rights violations in human history. 40 million and counting in this country alone. In the past 40 years the total is about 1,840,000,000. Almost 2 billion coyote. More than socialism, communism, fascism, WWI, WWII, Viet Nam, Korea and Iraq combined. How do you answer a number like that?

A person was dying of end stage kidney failure. You have two healthy kidneys and are a perfect match, and can afford to give one. If you don't, the person will die. Should you be forced to do this?

Which organ does an unborn require that the mother forfiet in order for it to live? Like it or not, mom's body is engineered to support the child. She has entire systems of her body dedicated exclusively to supporting the child. Since my body is not engineered to donate organs, and once my kidney is removed, it is lost to me forever rather than 9 months, your analogy fails.

palerider

07-07-2007, 03:27 PM

While calling me a liar repeatedly and pontifcating on your honesty, you have refused to have a coversation with me by ignoring valid questions and taking things I said out of context in order to twist them to suit your own purposes (a case in point is accusing me of wishing to torture the families of suspects).

When you are caught in a lie mare, pointing out that you have lied is not an attack. You have been caught in several lies during the course of this discussion.

Your argument that killing innocents is OK (even though you consider it to be murder) because men don't accept their responsibilities is not a valid point. The argument is a fallacy. You are suggesting that two wrongs make a right. Failing to accept responsibility is a bad thing. Killing a child because a man failed to take responsibility is monstrous.

I don't really disagree with you all that much on the issue of abortion,

And yet, you spend a great deal of time attacking me personally over my position on the issue.

I think you are being hypocritical and disengenuous,

Bring forward an example.

your reductionist thinking on this subject is stereotypical Christian misogyny

Bring forward an example.

You've brought nothing to the conversation but vitriol,

Bring forward an example.

you've not made a single recommendation that didn't stigmatize, blame, and denigrate women.

Bring forward an example.

Couple that misogyny with your seeming violent hatred for Islam and your eagerness to allow torture makes you appear to me to be a very disturbed person in deep conflict with himself over issues of violence, sadism, sexism, and religion.

I am not sure what this has to do with anything but feel free to bring forward an example of my "violent hatred" for islam, or my "eagerness" to allow torture.

The fact is mare, you aren't going to be able to bring forward any examples from my posts that match the descriptions you have given because once again, you have fabricated. You are lying mare. You are unable to argue my points, so you make up lies in an effort to deflect the discussion away from your inability to argue the points.

Coyote

07-07-2007, 04:34 PM

First, all rights are secondary to the right to live. Second, after a careful examination of the constitution, I find no right to determine what happens to your body. I do find numerous laws that tell you what you may and may not do with your body, but no right to determine what happens to it. Suicide is illegal, consuming certain substances is illegal, selling it is illegal in most places, selling irreplaceable parts of it is illlegal. Exactly where do you find this "right" to determine what happens to your body? Is it a fabricated right like the "right" to kill a child that is less than convenient?

No where in the constitution does it grant any one the right to another person's body. Can you make me donate an organ against my will? No - not even when I'm dead. My body is my sovereign property - it is me. Can someone else have rights to me? Against my will? Where does it say that?

All groups of human beings that have been dehumanized for the purpose of having all their human rights taken away have been fundamentally different from the rest of "us". Otherwise it wouldn't have been possible to dehumanize them.

No group of humans use each other in the same way that these two do - there is nothing remotely comparable - certainly not color of skin.

First, the child does not take virtual biological control of the mother's body's resources. If you must mischaracterize biology, don't use it as part of your argument.

Didn't you say close to the same thing when arguing that the fetus was an individual life form seperate from the mother - i e it begins chemical communication, it control's the mother's systems? Isn't that the same thing?

Which organ does an unborn require that the mother forfiet in order for it to live? Like it or not, mom's body is engineered to support the child. She has entire systems of her body dedicated exclusively to supporting the child. Since my body is not engineered to donate organs, and once my kidney is removed, it is lost to me forever rather than 9 months, your analogy fails.

That is skirting the question. If the right to live supercedes all others then by refusing to donate you are sentancing someone to death. People can live perfectly fine with one kidney. It's not just 9 months that are lost - you have the possibility for long term health issues and the remote possibility of mortality. I knew someone who had a pregnancy that was going on long fine - when she delivered, she suffered a stroke which killed her.

palerider

07-07-2007, 04:57 PM

No where in the constitution does it grant any one the right to another person's body. Can you make me donate an organ against my will? No - not even when I'm dead. My body is my sovereign property - it is me. Can someone else have rights to me? Against my will? Where does it say that?

Carrying a child is a biological function coyote. Expecting law to regulate biological functions is rediculous. I can't make you donate an organ against your will and by the same token, I can't make, or even imagine law that regulates the natural operation of your body's systems.

No group of humans use each other in the same way that these two do - there is nothing remotely comparable - certainly not color of skin.

They were all different. How else could they be dehumanized. No unborn is doing anything that you didn't do already and yet, you would condemn them to death now that your right to live is protected.

Didn't you say close to the same thing when arguing that the fetus was an individual life form seperate from the mother - i e it begins chemical communication, it control's the mother's systems? Isn't that the same thing?

No. I said that the unborn is in chemical communication with its mother letting her know that she is pregnant. Once her body knows that it is pregnant, her own systems go to work doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

That is skirting the question. If the right to live supercedes all others then by refusing to donate you are sentancing someone to death. People can live perfectly fine with one kidney. It's not just 9 months that are lost - you have the possibility for long term health issues and the remote possibility of mortality. I knew someone who had a pregnancy that was going on long fine - when she delivered, she suffered a stroke which killed her.

My body was designed with two kidneys. And it is not possible that I would be the only one in the world who could donate a kidney. And people who experience kidney failure can live on dialysis for a very long time although it is inconvenient. No one else can nurture the child and it has no option. Either it has the human right to live or it doesn't.

I know that you want to come up with a valid reason to kill unborns, but can you really argue that dependence is a valid reason to kill? And if it is, can you apply it to all humans or must you single out a particular group of humans?

You didn't answer to the fact that nearly two billion have been killed coyote. What do you say to that?

Mare Tranquillity

07-11-2007, 06:26 PM

When you are caught in a lie mare, pointing out that you have lied is not an attack. You have been caught in several lies during the course of this discussion.
You said that you didn't call me a liar. Hmmm. I think what's happening is that when you can't figure out what I'm saying you assume I must be lying or somesuch. Good technique.

Your argument that killing innocents is OK (even though you consider it to be murder) because men don't accept their responsibilities is not a valid point. The argument is a fallacy. You are suggesting that two wrongs make a right. Failing to accept responsibility is a bad thing. Killing a child because a man failed to take responsibility is monstrous.
This last paragraph here is an example of why I won't continue to talk to you. What I said very clearly is that women are often put in an intolerable situation by men and we are always the ones who have to clean up after you. Even in cases of rape, you still maintain that women have no rights--in essence we are breeding machines who must perform for whichever man manages to impregnate us. You will never stop abortions by attacking women, the dictator of Romania tried and he killed a lot us and in so doing ended up with whole buildings full of unwanted children dying for lack of care, I think killing a child with neglect is worse that killing a fetus. We are not dealing with "two wrongs making a right" we are dealing with the lesser of two evils. You have not suggested any way to deal with 1,000,000 unwanted babies in this country every year EXCEPT YOU WANT TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO GET AN ABORTION. That begs the question you don't want to address: who will care for all those babies, we know it won't be you because you have already said that you have NOT adopted any unwanted babies, so it's easy to see how deep your compassion for their suffering goes.

I would like to see the killing stopped, but it won't be done by blaming women and passing laws to force them to clean up after men. You have more credibility discussing torture, at least it's something you can do or perhaps have done. Dealing with being raped and forced to carry an unwanted child is something for which you are not able to speak with authority.

palerider

07-12-2007, 02:47 AM

We are not dealing with "two wrongs making a right" we are dealing with the lesser of two evils.

Punishing a rapist to the extent that the law allows is more evil than killing a child who has comitted no crime so it is better to kill the child?

You have not suggested any way to deal with 1,000,000 unwanted babies in this country every year EXCEPT YOU WANT TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO GET AN ABORTION. That begs the question you don't want to address: who will care for all those babies, we know it won't be you because you have already said that you have NOT adopted any unwanted babies, so it's easy to see how deep your compassion for their suffering goes.

Your point would be valid mare, IF, you were also suggesting that we go about killing those who we know for a fact are unwanted and unloved and are a burden on our resources. You aren't suggesting killing everyone who is unwanted and unloved and is a burden on the rest of us but just a particular sub group of those who are unloved, unwanted and a burden. That renders your argument invalid. If you can't make an argument that applies equally to all human beings, you are just like all of the other historical figures who seperated one group out from the rest to dehumanize and kill as they wished.

I would like to see the killing stopped, but it won't be done by blaming women and passing laws to force them to clean up after men. You have more credibility discussing torture, at least it's something you can do or perhaps have done. Dealing with being raped and forced to carry an unwanted child is something for which you are not able to speak with authority.

How else do you stop a thing besides making it against the law mare? That is one of the most irrational statements you have made so far. Do you believe we would have less killing if we erased the murder laws off the books? And suggesting that I can not speak to a thing unless I have done it is patently rediculous. If that is true, by what authority do you speak on torture?

USMC the Almighty

07-12-2007, 07:58 AM

You said that you didn't call me a liar. Hmmm. I think what's happening is that when you can't figure out what I'm saying you assume I must be lying or somesuch. Good technique.

If he called you a liar, then just bring it forward. End this little side argument right now.

This last paragraph here is an example of why I won't continue to talk to you. What I said very clearly is that women are often put in an intolerable situation by men and we are always the ones who have to clean up after you. Even in cases of rape, you still maintain that women have no rights--in essence we are breeding machines who must perform for whichever man manages to impregnate us. You will never stop abortions by attacking women, the dictator of Romania tried and he killed a lot us and in so doing ended up with whole buildings full of unwanted children dying for lack of care, I think killing a child with neglect is worse that killing a fetus. We are not dealing with "two wrongs making a right" we are dealing with the lesser of two evils. You have not suggested any way to deal with 1,000,000 unwanted babies in this country every year EXCEPT YOU WANT TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO GET AN ABORTION. That begs the question you don't want to address: who will care for all those babies, we know it won't be you because you have already said that you have NOT adopted any unwanted babies, so it's easy to see how deep your compassion for their suffering goes.

This argument really never made much sense to me. Some of the most important Americans in history have overcome poor childhoods to rise to greatness. In essence you're saying "the child might not have an ideal childhood, so let's just kill him instead."

I would like to see the killing stopped, but it won't be done by blaming women and passing laws to force them to clean up after men. You have more credibility discussing torture, at least it's something you can do or perhaps have done. Dealing with being raped and forced to carry an unwanted child is something for which you are not able to speak with authority.

Issues don't have genders.

Coyote

07-12-2007, 10:02 AM

Issues don't have genders.

When issues involve genders then yes,they do.

palerider

07-12-2007, 11:24 AM

When issues involve genders then yes,they do.

Half of those who are killed are male.

The fact that the killers are women isn't germain to those being killed any more than it would matter to you whether you were killed by a man or a woman.

You still haven't answered the fact that since 1972, the total number killed is approaching 2 billion. TWO BILLION!!

Coyote

07-12-2007, 12:20 PM

Half of those who are killed are male.

The fact that the killers are women isn't germain to those being killed any more than it would matter to you whether you were killed by a man or a woman.

On the other hand it is ownership and control of a woman's body - her most intimit self - that is at issue as well. In no other situation does another human or group of humans attempt to control a person's body against her will.

You still haven't answered the fact that since 1972, the total number killed is approaching 2 billion. TWO BILLION!!

I can not answer it because I am caught in a fundamental dilemna plain and simple - between two opposing issues. I am unwilling to relinquish control of my body to any other person - any - against my will. If that is so - how could I ask someone else to do the same via the law?

palerider

07-12-2007, 12:39 PM

On the other hand it is ownership and control of a woman's body - her most intimit self - that is at issue as well. In no other situation does another human or group of humans attempt to control a person's body against her will.

We are neither own our bodies nor are we immune to law that tells us what we may or may not do with our bodies. And again, your reason is just one of the many that have been put forward in history that makes "that" group different and OK to kill. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

I can not answer it because I am caught in a fundamental dilemna plain and simple - between two opposing issues. I am unwilling to relinquish control of my body to any other person - any - against my will. If that is so - how could I ask someone else to do the same via the law?

Your dilemma is a false one. Law already imposes on your "control" of your body so arguing that you are unwilling to relinquish control is pointless. Since it is clear that law already exists that places controls over what you can and can't do with your body, and you are not complaining about those laws, your argument is that you won't relinquish control to "this group" and would rather kill them than have it so. While you wrestle with your false dilemma, the number grows ever closer to 2 billion. Two billion coyote. Each and every one was a human being that only had one opportunity to live the life that we all get to live for better or worse.

Coyote

07-12-2007, 01:08 PM

We are neither own our bodies nor are we immune to law that tells us what we may or may not do with our bodies. And again, your reason is just one of the many that have been put forward in history that makes "that" group different and OK to kill. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

But you are likewise singling out one group of humans and making a special case of them by applying laws on them that do not apply to any other group. In fact - is that not "dehumanizing" them to the status of broodmares?

Your dilemma is a false one. Law already imposes on your "control" of your body so arguing that you are unwilling to relinquish control is pointless. Since it is clear that law already exists that places controls over what you can and can't do with your body, and you are not complaining about those laws, your argument is that you won't relinquish control to "this group" and would rather kill them than have it so. While you wrestle with your false dilemma, the number grows ever closer to 2 billion. Two billion coyote. Each and every one was a human being that only had one opportunity to live the life that we all get to live for better or worse.

No it isn't false at all. I can not acquiesce to any law that forces control of my own body from me. I see it as little different from slavery. Laws exist which may place limits on what I can do with my body - but those laws apply equally to all human beings. You are making an exception of one group of human beings and subjecting them to a law that applies to no other. You are forcing one group of human beings to relinquish control of their bodies and life - their very selves - to other humans. No other group of humans is forced to do this.

Pidgey

07-12-2007, 01:21 PM

Mare Tranquillity

07-12-2007, 10:03 PM

If he called you a liar, then just bring it forward. End this little side argument right now.

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
"You are lying mare. You are unable to argue my points, so you make up lies in an effort to deflect the discussion away from your inability to argue the points." Quote from post #267 by Pale Rider on the abortion thread. Thus I refute his repeated statement that he has not called me a liar.

This argument really never made much sense to me. Some of the most important Americans in history have overcome poor childhoods to rise to greatness. In essence you're saying "the child might not have an ideal childhood, so let's just kill him instead."
Issues don't have genders.
Rider's number was, I think, 4,000,000 aborted babies in the last several years. What I asked is who will care for them. Already babies are being dumped into garbage cans and dumpsters. My position is that you cannot force unwilling parents to care for unwanted babies--as the Romanian dictator demonstrated so clearly--and that aborting unwanted babies is better than what happens to many unwanted babies at the hands of angry parents.

I realize that you side with Rider on this, fine, have a beer and revel in your agreement, but you cannot end abortions by continuing to beat up on women. The abortion issue will have to be addressed on the other end by preventing pregnancy and simply blaming women and taking away their rights won't help. I sorry that neither one of you can figure that out, but that's the beauty of reincarnation, you'll get to find out first hand. Enjoy!

palerider

07-13-2007, 04:19 AM

But you are likewise singling out one group of humans and making a special case of them by applying laws on them that do not apply to any other group. In fact - is that not "dehumanizing" them to the status of broodmares?

I am not singling out anyone biology did. Law that protects the lives of innocent children is not law applied on or against women anymore than laws that protect the lives of obnoxious neighbors is law applied on or against me. (I have one). And spare me the emotional "broodmare" appeal. You are better than that. Broodmares are property. They are held in place while they are impregnated (for profit) by another horse, owned by their owner or another owner or by artificial insemination (for profit). Is that really how you see women?

No it isn't false at all. I can not acquiesce to any law that forces control of my own body from me.

Of course it is. And you already do. That is exactly why your dilemma is a false one.

I see it as little different from slavery. Laws exist which may place limits on what I can do with my body - but those laws apply equally to all human beings. You are making an exception of one group of human beings and subjecting them to a law that applies to no other. You are forcing one group of human beings to relinquish control of their bodies and life - their very selves - to other humans. No other group of humans is forced to do this.

No other group is able to do this Coyote. Law that regulates and enforces paternity on men singles out men. It isn't that the law is angry or vengeful towards men, but when women get pregnant, some how, some way, a man was involved and the law has the power to force him to do the right thing or punish him if he won't. By definition, paternity law must target men. There is a body of law that effects only men or women not because it is targetinig a particular group but because by definition it can not apply to the other.

palerider

07-13-2007, 04:25 AM

Impasse. Try, just for the fun of it, to hammer out the principles of a law that would satisfy both sides, that all would agree on--one that would prevent the need for an abortion to begin with. Think of it as a license to mate and contract for same, complete with punishments for failure to comply. Start with something basic that doesn't address some poor girl getting raped by her Troglodyte brother. You can add that later when the ceasefire has been declared.

We already have it. It is contained in the decond clause of the first section of the 14th amendment.

"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. "

If a woman can show just cause why the child she is carrying should forfiet its life, then terminate the pregnancy. The only just cause I can think of is that her life or long term health is in iminent danger. Perhaps there are other valid reasons but aside from life and long term health, everything else I can come up with amounts to no more than convenience.

palerider

07-13-2007, 04:32 AM

I realize that you side with Rider on this, fine, have a beer and revel in your agreement, but you cannot end abortions by continuing to beat up on women.

You can't end murder by making murder illegal. You can't end arson by making arson illegal. You can't end robbery by making robbery illegal. You can't end assault by making assault illegal. YOU CAN'T END ANYTHING BY MAKING IT ILLEGAL BUT WE DON'T STRIKE THE LAWS FROM THE BOOKS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE DO A THING IN SPITE OF THE LAW.

Consider this mare. Paternity laws are aimed at men. We have laws that can make men responsible for thier children and can punish them if they don't accept that responsibility. Clearly the law has not ended male irresponsibility. Do you believe that we should strike the paternity laws from the books because they don't make all men responsible for their children? Clearly the laws can't make all of us responsible so what is the use of keepiing them on the books?

Pidgey

07-13-2007, 04:46 AM

palerider

07-13-2007, 04:57 AM

Get Draconian. Require all males to register their DNA so that the father can be easily found for any unclaimed baby that pops up. If that father is a bachelor, then force them to live together until the baby's grown up and out of the house. If the father's already got a family, he loses his procreative equipment. Marriage is final until the children are out of the house.

Enforcing laws as they already exist is draconian? If you father a child, you have a responsibility for that child. I wouldn't mind at all seing the law lower the boom on men who father children and try to remain unaccountable. Some years ago, there was enough doubt with regard to who fathered a child that there was some wiggle room. Not so today.

I can't say that I favor registering DNA. That assumes guilt before any "crime" is comitted.

Pidgey

07-13-2007, 05:16 AM

I can't say that I favor registering DNA. That assumes guilt before any "crime" is comitted.Think of it as a deterrent to make the consequences so unthinkable that a guy'll either keep it in his pants or his hand. Even alcohol abuse might drop like a rock.

Let's let the feminine persuasion weigh in.

palerider

07-13-2007, 05:25 AM

Think of it as a deterrent to make the consequences so unthinkable that a guy'll either keep it in his pants or his hand. Even alcohol abuse might drop like a rock.

Let's let the feminine persuasion weigh in.

Nah. There is simply too much potential for abuse of that DNA information outside of the paternity issue.

Pidgey

07-13-2007, 05:27 AM

Now, now, now... patience! Give 'em a little bit of time to chew on it, see what they come up with. Gotta' get a consensus before moving on to that aspect.

palerider

07-13-2007, 05:35 AM

Now, now, now... patience! Give 'em a little bit of time to chew on it, see what they come up with. Gotta' get a consensus before moving on to that aspect.

Exactly why consensus can't be trusted.

numinus

07-13-2007, 08:14 AM

I cannot see how any person can CHOOSE without first being ALIVE.

So, there is no RIGHT TO CHOOSE without a RIGHT TO LIVE that PRECEDES it.

The only way choice can supersed life is when the life in question is not human life - which is exactly what pro-choice advocates have been reduced to arguing.

But such a claim is so COUNTER-INTUITIVE, it stretches the incredulity of common sense.

The offspring of two human beings, from conception up to death, can NEVER BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A HUMAN BEING.

Coyote

07-13-2007, 08:38 AM

palerider

07-13-2007, 08:40 AM

And no one but me has any right to claim my body against my will.

All rights are secondary to the right to live.

top gun

07-13-2007, 12:47 PM

We already have it. It is contained in the decond clause of the first section of the 14th amendment.

"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. "

If a woman can show just cause why the child she is carrying should forfiet its life, then terminate the pregnancy. The only just cause I can think of is that her life or long term health is in iminent danger. Perhaps there are other valid reasons but aside from life and long term health, everything else I can come up with amounts to no more than convenience.

It's not a child until it's born. It's a mass of cells... then it's a fetus. It could someday become a child... but while still in the other phases and unable to live on its own... not a child.

Hence the woman has the control over her own body and anything contained therein. Not me... not you... not the government. BIG GOVERNMENT... BIG REGULATION... BIG BROTHER... STEP BACK!

palerider

07-14-2007, 03:34 AM

It's not a child until it's born. It's a mass of cells... then it's a fetus. It could someday become a child... but while still in the other phases and unable to live on its own... not a child.

Blastocyst, teenager, embryo, toddler, fetus, adult, child, old geezer. All are just words we use to describe a human being at various stages of his or her life. None represent a different type of creature but simply denote an age or a range of years.

You did not come from a fetus, you were a fetus, you did not come from a blastocyst, you were a blastocyst. You didn't, and haven't "become" anything that you werern't before, you have simply grown older and as a result have been called different words that represented your age.

[QUOTE=top gun;17160]Hence the woman has the control over her own body and anything contained therein. Not me... not you... not the government. BIG GOVERNMENT... BIG REGULATION... BIG BROTHER... STEP BACK!

Are you arguing that the woman owns her child and can therefore do with it as she wishes?

numinus

07-14-2007, 09:07 AM

And no one but me has any right to claim my body against my will.

It is done all the time. Haven't you heard of the penal system?

Coyote

07-14-2007, 09:11 AM

It is done all the time. Haven't you heard of the penal system?

Not really the same. First off - under the penal code, I've given up my rights when I committed a crime.

Second - you still can't take my body and force me to submit to medical experiments for example. What is taken is my freedom or my life, not my rights to my body.

numinus

07-14-2007, 09:20 AM

It's not a child until it's born. It's a mass of cells... then it's a fetus. It could someday become a child... but while still in the other phases and unable to live on its own... not a child.

Hence the woman has the control over her own body and anything contained therein. Not me... not you... not the government. BIG GOVERNMENT... BIG REGULATION... BIG BROTHER... STEP BACK!

Not even the supreme court had the audacity to pretend to know such a thing!

The truth is ALL human beings undergo the SAME process of development.

NO EXCEPTIONS.

At the point of conception, a distinct human being is formed. And in that distinctness lies the complete nature and potential of a human being.

numinus

07-14-2007, 09:24 AM

Not really the same. First off - under the penal code, I've given up my rights when I committed a crime.

And isn't killing another human being for no reason other than convenience a crime?

Second - you still can't take my body and force me to submit to medical experiments for example. What is taken is my freedom or my life, not my rights to my body.

And can one take your life and your freedom without necessarily taking the rights to your own body?

Coyote

07-14-2007, 09:38 AM

And isn't killing another human being for no reason other than convenience a crime?

According to the law as it now stands - a fetus is not a person.

I also still maintain - the choice of having or not having a child is never a convenience.

And can one take your life and your freedom without necessarily taking the rights to your own body?

Yes. As I said - they can not conduct experiments on your body. In terms of taking your life...they still can not do it by horrific means.

top gun

07-14-2007, 09:46 AM

[QUOTE=top gun;17160] It's not a child until it's born. It's a mass of cells... then it's a fetus. It could someday become a child... but while still in the other phases and unable to live on its own... not a child.

Blastocyst, teenager, embryo, toddler, fetus, adult, child, old geezer. All are just words we use to describe a human being at various stages of his or her life. None represent a different type of creature but simply denote an age or a range of years.

You did not come from a fetus, you were a fetus, you did not come from a blastocyst, you were a blastocyst. You didn't, and haven't "become" anything that you werern't before, you have simply grown older and as a result have been called different words that represented your age.

Are you arguing that the woman owns her child and can therefore do with it as she wishes?

There is a distinction and a reality that all no-choice advacates need to recognise.

First... while there's a chain of life that possibly can end up as a born child it also can and does quite frequently end up in miscarriage and even still born births. Pregnancy to term is not a "certain" thing at all in nature.

The second thing is that being the case... you cannot stop abortion. You can make it more dangerous for the woman. You can make it more unfair and dangerous for women of lesser means that can't afford to travel to have an abortion and hence have to take much more risky methods. But you cannot stop abortion... at least not by legislation.

Abortions have been around since the dawn of pregnancy. You know there was a time when some women even killed themselves to avoid having a child. No reasonable person would want to see these draconian times return again. We are far to advanced for that. It won't be long with new technology until surgical abortion won't even have to exist. A simple medication will be all that is needed.

As I've said before Big Brother cannot dictate what a woman does in the scope of an abortion. It's not a matter of the woman owning the fetus... the fetus at that stage is actually a part of her growing toward separation.

And I would not take any hope on any Supreme Court outlawing choice. No-choice advocates seriously had better watch what they wish for. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that on a straight up and down vote a right for a women to chose would win and could be legislated. Maybe that is what will have to happen to finally put this issue to bed.

numinus

07-14-2007, 09:50 AM

According to the law as it now stands - a fetus is not a person.

There is no such law.

What the sc said is that it cannot make a determination of personhood. It only defines 'viability', the point at which the state has compelling interests in the pregnancy.

I also still maintain - the choice of having or not having a child is never a convenience.

That choice was made when one engaged in sex.

Yes. As I said - they can not conduct experiments on your body. In terms of taking your life...they still can not do it by horrific means.

Exactly.

And if even the state has no right to take your life without any compelling reason, what gives you the right to do the same to another human being?

palerider

07-14-2007, 09:56 AM

Not really the same. First off - under the penal code, I've given up my rights when I committed a crime.

Actually, you only give up your rights after you recieve due process of the law. Can you explain why an innocent shouldn't recieve due process, the same as you?

Second - you still can't take my body and force me to submit to medical experiments for example. What is taken is my freedom or my life, not my rights to my body.

Show me in the constitution any "rights" to your body. I can show you a right to live, and a right to due process. But I just can't find anyting in there about rights to your body. Our founding documents do place all rights secondary to the right to live, however.

top gun

07-14-2007, 10:00 AM

Not even the supreme court had the audacity to pretend to know such a thing!

The truth is ALL human beings undergo the SAME process of development.

NO EXCEPTIONS.

At the point of conception, a distinct human being is formed. And in that distinctness lies the complete nature and potential of a human being.

No one's saying they don't. It's a matter of at what stage in that process is the development too advanced for a woman to choose abortion. You say never... I say as the law currently recognizes.

Look... abortion is not a thing that should be taken lightly but it also isn't something that should be illegal either. Hopefully as birth control methods get more advanced the need for abortions will drop dramatically. That would be my hope.

Coyote

07-14-2007, 10:01 AM

Actually, you only give up your rights after you recieve due process of the law. Can you explain why an innocent shouldn't recieve due process, the same as you?

I think I already lost that argument. But I will say - the law does not yet recognize a fetus as a person with full legal protections. Until that happens, it's moot.

Show me in the constitution any "rights" to your body. I can show you a right to live, and a right to due process. But I just can't find anyting in there about rights to your body. Our founding documents do place all rights secondary to the right to live, however.

I think the right to Liberty implies a right to my body.

How exactly do you find that they meant all rights are secondary to the right to live? Just because that is the order in which it is said in one sentance of the constitution that implies that it is in that order of importance? Seriously.

palerider

07-14-2007, 10:13 AM

There is a distinction and a reality that all no-choice advacates need to recognise.

There is a chain, unfortunately you don't recognize it because to do so would tear down any defense of your position.

First... while there's a chain of life that possibly can end up as a born child it also can and does quite frequently end up in miscarriage and even still born births. Pregnancy to term is not a "certain" thing at all in nature.

Miscarriages and even still born births are natural deaths. If we are lucky, we all die of natural deaths rather than at the hands of a hired killer. Life itself is not certain, but being torn limb from limb is.

The second thing is that being the case... you cannot stop abortion. You can make it more dangerous for the woman. You can make it more unfair and dangerous for women of lesser means that can't afford to travel to have an abortion and hence have to take much more risky methods. But you cannot stop abortion... at least not by legislation.

You can not stop murder by making it against the law. You can not stop assault by making it against the law. You can not stop arson by making it against the law. You can not stop theft by making it against the law. Why do you suppose we have any law on the books because we can't stop any behavior by making it against the law. Law isn't really about stopping anything but punishing those who do what society has deemed unacceptable.

Suggesting that a thing be left legal because some will go ahead and do it anyway is one of the weakest of arguments.

Abortions have been around since the dawn of pregnancy.

So have other forms of killing. And your point is?

You know there was a time when some women even killed themselves to avoid having a child.

People have killed themselves to avoid all sorts of things. And your point is?

No reasonable person would want to see these draconian times return again. We are far to advanced for that. It won't be long with new technology until surgical abortion won't even have to exist. A simple medication will be all that is needed.

Killing innocents because they are less than convenient isn't draconian? We have advanced so far that a woman can simply kill a child because it is going to put a crimp in her style? And do you think it matters whether we kill a child by tearing it apart of by poisoning it?

As I've said before Big Brother cannot dictate what a woman does in the scope of an abortion. It's not a matter of the woman owning the fetus... the fetus at that stage is actually a part of her growing toward separation.

Big brother can't dictate to anyone what they can do in the scope of anything if they are determined to do it. The law is to provide punishment for those who go ahead and do it anyway.

The child is never a part of its mother's body. If you are going to use biology in your argument, it would be best if you understood it. If your position is based in part on your faulty understanding of developmental biology, then your position is flawed.

And I would not take any hope on any Supreme Court outlawing choice. No-choice advocates seriously had better watch what they wish for. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that on a straight up and down vote a right for a women to chose would win and could be legislated. Maybe that is what will have to happen to finally put this issue to bed. [/COLOR]

Right. And there was a time when folks confidently claimed that the law would never acknowledge that blacks were human beings with rights the same as anyone else as well. And you know as well as I that abortion on demand would not pass in even the most liberal state.

numinus

07-14-2007, 10:13 AM

There is a distinction and a reality that all no-choice advacates need to recognise.

First... while there's a chain of life that possibly can end up as a born child it also can and does quite frequently end up in miscarriage and even still born births. Pregnancy to term is not a "certain" thing at all in nature.

Can someone kill you now for the same reason that no one is sure you would be alive tomorrow?

Absurd, isn't it?

[The second thing is that being the case... you cannot stop abortion. You can make it more dangerous for the woman. You can make it more unfair and dangerous for women of lesser means that can't afford to travel to have an abortion and hence have to take much more risky methods. But you cannot stop abortion... at least not by legislation.

But the thing is, no one is arguing against abortion if the mother's life is in danger.

Right to live vs. Right to live.

No other right can supersede anyone's right to live.

[Abortions have been around since the dawn of pregnancy. You know there was a time when some women even killed themselves to avoid having a child. No reasonable person would want to see these draconian times return again. We are far to advanced for that. It won't be long with new technology until surgical abortion won't even have to exist. A simple medication will be all that is needed.

No reasonable person would want to see an individual ARROGATE for himself/herself the ABSOLUTE right over another human being.

Talk about draconian!

[As I've said before Big Brother cannot dictate what a woman does in the scope of an abortion. It's not a matter of the woman owning the fetus... the fetus at that stage is actually a part of her growing toward separation.

When speaking about a HUMAN LIFE, is there any other IMPERATIVE other than 'THOU SHALL NOT KILL'?

[And I would not take any hope on any Supreme Court outlawing choice. No-choice advocates seriously had better watch what they wish for. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that on a straight up and down vote a right for a women to chose would win and could be legislated. Maybe that is what will have to happen to finally put this issue to bed.

Nobody is talking about outlawing choice.

The conclusion is that LIFE is indefeasible by CHOICE. It has always been like this. That is why legislating abortion is UNPRECEDENTED.

palerider

07-14-2007, 10:20 AM

I think I already lost that argument. But I will say - the law does not yet recognize a fetus as a person with full legal protections. Until that happens, it's moot.

So long as you recognize that an injustice is being carried out.

I think the right to Liberty implies a right to my body.

Did you note that the right to liberty comes AFTER the right to live? It is second because without the right to live, the right to liberty is meaningless. Ask any aborted child. Oh, sorry, you can't ask them because they were denied the very right to live.

How exactly do you find that they meant all rights are secondary to the right to live? Just because that is the order in which it is said in one sentance of the constitution that implies that it is in that order of importance? Seriously.

Very seriously!! The language in which the founding documents was written was, and is, legal in nature. In the law when items are written in a list, the list, by definition, places the things in order of importance. In this case, it is self evident. Of what value would your right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness be if you had no right to live?

top gun

07-15-2007, 06:13 AM

numinus;17265]

When speaking about a HUMAN LIFE, is there any other IMPERATIVE other than 'THOU SHALL NOT KILL'?

I am soooo glad you brought this up. :)

The hypocrisy of grab bag religious principle to try and force one groups will over another. I'm sure if you are serious about "religious" principle being part of your argument you steadfastly stand by all scripture in the Bible and not just what's convenient at the time in an attempt to impose "your" personal wants & desires???

I have no problem believing God is like beauty... it's in the eye of the beholder.

However... religion on the other hand is a proven sham, in many cases a self proven sham. As if that were not enough of a problem even after that people pick and choose what to believe out of that compounding to the "sham" factor.

Anyone know of anyone who does any of this on religious grounds...

We would not allow women into a church for 33 days after giving birth to a male child and 66 days after giving birth to a female child. (Leviticus 12:4-5)

We would not eat pork, lobster, shrimp, clams or crab meat. (Leviticus 11:7,12)

We would execute people for having affairs. (Leviticus 20:10)

Add that to the crazy train of the clergy in child sex abuse scandals and even if one could somehow extrapolate out why, that of all things, God would allow this to be perpetrated by his chosen representatives... you still couldn't trust the church because you'd never know if the representative was good or bad!

Religion is soooooo obviously a man made response to fear of the unknown that has been perverted so many times over history just to benefit certain power brokers... it's not even arguable.

Let's let the individual women decide and face their own consequences in the "afterlife' because government control mixed with evangelical hypocrisy are a pact that's surly to lead only to hell!

top gun

07-15-2007, 07:03 AM

palerider;17264]There is a chain, unfortunately you don't recognize it because to do so would tear down any defense of your position.

That's exactly what I did. I said there was a chain. That has no effect on the reality of the situation as it pertains removing a women's control over what's going on in her own body. Your only argument is on religious grounds which I fully addressed my opinions on in my recent reply to numinus. It's just faulty & controlling logic my friend.

Miscarriages and even still born births are natural deaths. If we are lucky, we all die of natural deaths rather than at the hands of a hired killer. Life itself is not certain, but being torn limb from limb is.

Once again only a religious argument desperately trying to connect the differences between unborn bioplast & fetal circumstances and try to extrapolate that out to an individual that's been born. Nature itself creates the very same end reality you are railing against.

You can not stop murder by making it against the law. You can not stop assault by making it against the law. You can not stop arson by making it against the law. You can not stop theft by making it against the law. Why do you suppose we have any law on the books because we can't stop any behavior by making it against the law. Law isn't really about stopping anything but punishing those who do what society has deemed unacceptable.

Again you are mixing oranges and apples (both are fruit... but still different).

Suggesting that a thing be left legal because some will go ahead and do it anyway is one of the weakest of arguments.

Not my suggestion. I was just trying to bring the reality of the situation home.

So have other forms of killing. And your point is?

I can go that way if you want. Then all killing for any reason is to be outlawed. No death penalty. No war involvement under any circumstance. If killing is wrong it's wrong as an absolute. To religiously try and pick and choose what "killing" is acceptable to you and then attempt to dictate to others your will upon them is unfortunate and of course wrong.

People have killed themselves to avoid all sorts of things. And your point is?

Again trying very hard to get you to open your eyes to the reality on the ground. The desparate need for a safe option for millions of women.

And here's another interesting circumstance. Believing what you say in it's entirety you are saying that if a bioplast or fetus were to cause the death of the mother... then that bioplast or fetus is a murderer. I'm willing to bet you'll say the sword doesn't cut both ways.

Killing innocents because they are less than convenient isn't draconian? We have advanced so far that a woman can simply kill a child because it is going to put a crimp in her style? And do you think it matters whether we kill a child by tearing it apart of by poisoning it?

And again we disagree on your symbolic words that attempt to make all things the same. And when you're not busy doing that you tighten your blinders and say abortion is all about "crimping style" and nothing else. There are many reasons... and you're well aware of it. And since we aren't mind readers (at least I'm not) you have to leave the option open.

Big brother can't dictate to anyone what they can do in the scope of anything if they are determined to do it. The law is to provide punishment for those who go ahead and do it anyway.

And in this case they obviously should stay out of it all together as an individual decision not to be infringed on by government.

The child is never a part of its mother's body. If you are going to use biology in your argument, it would be best if you understood it. If your position is based in part on your faulty understanding of developmental biology, then your position is flawed.

Nice try... the bioplast or fetus cannot live outside of the host. If you prefer parasite over "part of" then that would be your choice. I prefer part of.

Right. And there was a time when folks confidently claimed that the law would never acknowledge that blacks were human beings with rights the same as anyone else as well. And you know as well as I that abortion on demand would not pass in even the most liberal state.

And yet again... the oranges to apples defense.

Well no... the fact is the majority of people in the United States do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

MEDIAMATTERS
FOR AMERICAN

A Gallup poll conducted June 24-26 found that nearly two-thirds of respondents want a new Supreme Court justice who would vote to uphold Roe. Gallup asked: "If one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices retired, would you want the new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion -- or vote to uphold it? "Sixty-five percent responded, "Vote to keep it," while 29 percent responded, "Vote to overturn."

palerider

07-15-2007, 12:43 PM

That's exactly what I did. I said there was a chain. That has no effect on the reality of the situation as it pertains removing a women's control over what's going on in her own body. Your only argument is on religious grounds which I fully addressed my opinions on in my recent reply to numinus. It's just faulty & controlling logic my friend.[/COLOR]

Actually, I never bring religion into this discussion. If I couldn't defeat any argument you can make with logic and the law, I wouldn't bother to enter the discussion.

[QUOTE=top gun;17324] Once again only a religious argument desperately trying to connect the differences between unborn bioplast & fetal circumstances and try to extrapolate that out to an individual that's been born. Nature itself creates the very same end reality you are railing against.

What are you talking about. Exactly how does pointing out that misscariages are natural deaths equal a religious argument? If a child dies before it is born due to natural causes, then it is no different than if you die before you live out your life expectancy. You must be really desperate if you are trying to make a religious argument out of a human being's natural life span vs a human being's life being cut short deliberately.

Again you are mixing oranges and apples (both are fruit... but still different).

You made the claim that we would not be able to stop abortion by making it illegal. I pointed out that we can't stop anything by making it illegal. Sorry if you don't understand analogy, but the one you are responding to is not a comparison of apples and oranges.

When you realize that your logic is failing, do you always turn to completely irrational arguments in an attempt to confuse the issue?

Not my suggestion. I was just trying to bring the reality of the situation home.

You seemed to be suggesting that there was no point in making abortion illegal because some women would do it anyway? If that was not your point, why did you make the statement? The reality is that nothing can be stopped by making it against the law but we have laws anyway.

I can go that way if you want. Then all killing for any reason is to be outlawed. No death penalty. No war involvement under any circumstance. If killing is wrong it's wrong as an absolute. To religiously try and pick and choose what "killing" is acceptable to you and then attempt to dictate to others your will upon them is unfortunate and of course wrong.

Again, you fail to understand even the basics. Your all or nothing attitude completely ignores the facts. People only get the death penalty after they have exausted their rights within the legal system. They get multiple opportunities to prove thier innocence. In short, they get due process. Unborns do not. By the same token, going to war is the result of the legal process. My argument is not based in religion and any attempt by you to make it into a religious argument is going to fail. My position is based in the law and iron clad logic.

You were doomed to lose this one as soon as you engaged me. It is becoming evident that you have brought a knife to an intellecutal gun fight.

Again trying very hard to get you to open your eyes to the reality on the ground. The desparate need for a safe option for millions of women.

A safe way to kill thier children? Is that what you are suggesting. That everything will be ok if they have a safe way to kill their children. Get a real argument. That is like arguing that all would be well for arsonists if there was just a safe way for them to start fires. This discussion is about stopping the killing, not providing a safe way to do it.

And here's another interesting circumstance. Believing what you say in it's entirety you are saying that if a bioplast or fetus were to cause the death of the mother... then that bioplast or fetus is a murderer. I'm willing to bet you'll say the sword doesn't cut both ways.

I have repeated over and over that if the mother's life or long term health is in danger, she has every right to defend her life by terminating the pregnancy. You have the right to defend your life even if the one who is threatening you is not doing so with any intent. So what was the bet for and where do I pick up my winnings?

And again we disagree on your symbolic words that attempt to make all things the same. And when you're not busy doing that you tighten your blinders and say abortion is all about "crimping style" and nothing else. There are many reasons... and you're well aware of it. And since we aren't mind readers (at least I'm not) you have to leave the option open.

Give me a couple of reasons that don't involve the mother's life or long term health that don't amount to convenience.

And in this case they obviously should stay out of it all together as an individual decision not to be infringed on by government.

Are you arguing that killing another human bieng for whatever reason you chose is just an individual decision and the government should butt out, or only when this particular group decides to kill members of that particular group. If you can't put together an argument that applies equally to all human beings, then you are no different than all the others in history who had what they claimed were valid reasons for killing millions of "them".

Nice try... the bioplast or fetus cannot live outside of the host. If you prefer parasite over "part of" then that would be your choice. I prefer part of.

Unborns are not parasites either. Should I list half a dozen specific biological reasons that they aren't? Words mean what they mean and if you find that you can't form a coherent argument using words properly, then it is your argument that is wanting, not the words. If you are going to use biology to support your argument, then you should take some time to learn the biology.

Unborns are neither part of their mothers nor are they parasites.

And yet again... the oranges to apples defense.

Explain the logic by which you arive at that conclusion.

Well no... the fact is the majority of people in the United States do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

The only way to get those results in a poll now, and since the roe decision is to not offer the option of termination if the mother's life or long term health is in danger. When polls offer the option of terminating a pregnancy if the mother's life or health are in danger, then the numbers vastly favor overturning roe. If you are here, you should be mature enough to realize that poll numbers are worthless because you can get whatever results you want by manipulating the questions.

Coyote

07-15-2007, 04:18 PM

So long as you recognize that an injustice is being carried out.

I agree that under our current laws allowing virtually unrestricted abortion that yes - a grave injustice is being carried out.

When it comes to a fertalized egg and the Pill...no...

top gun

07-15-2007, 05:18 PM

palerider;17337]Actually, I never bring religion into this discussion. If I couldn't defeat any argument you can make with logic and the law, I wouldn't bother to enter the discussion.

But that's actually what you're doing in a vialed sort of way. You're bringing in moral values. And if you want to go by the law... abortion has been legal for decades now.

And to address another previous point comparing slavery as a bad legal rendering and comparing that to Roe v. Wade I would submit that the injustice like slavery was the older more primitive law that Roe overturned.

What are you talking about. Exactly how does pointing out that misscariages are natural deaths equal a religious argument? If a child dies before it is born due to natural causes, then it is no different than if you die before you live out your life expectancy. You must be really desperate if you are trying to make a religious argument out of a human being's natural life span vs a human being's life being cut short deliberately.

No... I'm saying death is part of life in nature. The consequence of a miscarriage and and abortion are the same. Some possible opportunity at life has not succeeded. When you put "moral" trappings on how that happens then you are going off into some religious direction.

You made the claim that we would not be able to stop abortion by making it illegal. I pointed out that we can't stop anything by making it illegal. Sorry if you don't understand analogy, but the one you are responding to is not a comparison of apples and oranges.

I understood what you said and in my opinion that's just plain comparing two completely different things. You can allow a woman control over their own body and everything therein and still have laws for crimes committed by an adult. The two are not mutually exclusive.

When you realize that your logic is failing, do you always turn to completely irrational arguments in an attempt to confuse the issue?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You seemed to be suggesting that there was no point in making abortion illegal because some women would do it anyway? If that was not your point, why did you make the statement? The reality is that nothing can be stopped by making it against the law but we have laws anyway.

I don't believe I am limited to a single reason why abortion should remain legal and why I feel it serves the greater good. I think there are many reasons. The inability to ever enforce is of some note I think.

Again, you fail to understand even the basics. Your all or nothing attitude completely ignores the facts. People only get the death penalty after they have exausted their rights within the legal system. They get multiple opportunities to prove thier innocence. In short, they get due process. Unborns do not. By the same token, going to war is the result of the legal process. My argument is not based in religion and any attempt by you to make it into a religious argument is going to fail. My position is based in the law and iron clad logic.

You were doomed to lose this one as soon as you engaged me. It is becoming evident that you have brought a knife to an intellecutal gun fight.

When I was a boy there were some other boys that played a similar "mine is bigger game". But ironically in the showers at gym class it was painfully obvious that their bark was always much greater than their bite. :) A man needs to know his limitations my friend.

A safe way to kill thier children? Is that what you are suggesting. That everything will be ok if they have a safe way to kill their children. Get a real argument. That is like arguing that all would be well for arsonists if there was just a safe way for them to start fires. This discussion is about stopping the killing, not providing a safe way to do it.

There you go again. If something is going to be done to ones own body (or anything therein) then I would prefer the safest proceedure for the woman involved.

I have repeated over and over that if the mother's life or long term health is in danger, she has every right to defend her life by terminating the pregnancy. You have the right to defend your life even if the one who is threatening you is not doing so with any intent. So what was the bet for and where do I pick up my winnings?

Then your position is hypocritical my friend... because under the law you cannot defend that way. If someone is beating you almost to death but then breaks off the attack you cannot legally kill him for what he did or might resume. At anytime conditions might change for a pregnant woman. So what you'd be saying is... as the lady goes into final cardiac arrest or intense gross hemorrhaging ... then it's OK to do the abortion. (Please don't respond I'm sure you'd have some tricky time line you'd use just for abortion)

As far as the "bet"... The bet was that you would not agree that the bioplast or fetus was a murderer if a women died due to it.

Give me a couple of reasons that don't involve the mother's life or long term health that don't amount to convenience.

Mother is dieing of AIDS.
Mother is alcoholic and incapably of properly maintaining a child.
Mother is a drug addict .................................................. .
Mother is a prostitute .................................................. ..
Mother is homeless.......................................... ...............
Mother is a rape victim............................................ .......
Mother is a victum of incest............................................ .
Mother is a battered woman.............................................
Mother has psychological problems....................................
Fetus is severely handicapped
Fetus is severely retarded
Fetus has a life threatening disease
I could go on forever...

Are you arguing that killing another human bieng for whatever reason you chose is just an individual decision and the government should butt out, or only when this particular group decides to kill members of that particular group. If you can't put together an argument that applies equally to all human beings, then you are no different than all the others in history who had what they claimed were valid reasons for killing millions of "them".

No I'm saying you are trying hard to lump all things into one basket calling it the same thing and saying because you believe it we all must believe it. I don't... most people don't... and neither does the law of the land.

Unborns are not parasites either. Should I list half a dozen specific biological reasons that they aren't? Words mean what they mean and if you find that you can't form a coherent argument using words properly, then it is your argument that is wanting, not the words. If you are going to use biology to support your argument, then you should take some time to learn the biology.

Allow me...

Is a Fetus Part of a Woman's Body?
Yesterday's Best of the Web Today expressed puzzlement about the difference between a "baby" and a "fetus." Andrew Coulson of The Ganteloupe wrote in to offer an answer:

Many supporters of abortion rights consider self-ownership to be the most elementary and inviolable right of all: We are all the owners of our own bodies. The difference between a fetus and an infant is that a fetus is a part of a pregnant woman's body whereas an infant is not. Libertarians do not want the very visible hand of government rooting around in women's uteruses, telling them what they can or can't do with any fetuses that happen to reside there. Any rights of a fetus are secondary because its existence is secondary to (and until late in the pregnancy, entirely dependent on) the woman in whose womb it is located.

par·a·site Pronunciation[par-uh-sahyt]
noun: an organism that lives on or in an organism, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

The only way to get those results in a poll now, and since the roe decision is to not offer the option of termination if the mother's life or long term health is in danger. When polls offer the option of terminating a pregnancy if the mother's life or health are in danger, then the numbers vastly favor overturning roe. If you are here, you should be mature enough to realize that poll numbers are worthless because you can get whatever results you want by manipulating the questions.

I get it... it's the old WOW I sure hate that poll... OK then polls don't mean anything defense. Very good. :)

palerider

07-16-2007, 02:01 AM

I agree that under our current laws allowing virtually unrestricted abortion that yes - a grave injustice is being carried out.

When it comes to a fertalized egg and the Pill...no...

There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg". There is an egg which is of no more importance than your toenail clippings or there is a human being which is of exactly the same importance as any of the rest of us.

palerider

07-16-2007, 02:47 AM

But that's actually what you're doing in a vialed sort of way. You're bringing in moral values. And if you want to go by the law... abortion has been legal for decades now.

No. That is exactly what I am not doing. I know that you would rather argue against religion than icy logic, but if that is the argument you want, you are going to have to find it somewhere else.

Stick to the words I use and what I say. If I mean to say something other than what I write, I will write something different.

And to address another previous point comparing slavery as a bad legal rendering and comparing that to Roe v. Wade I would submit that the injustice like slavery was the older more primitive law that Roe overturned.

Submit all you like, but you will continue to be wrong. Slaves were considered to be less than human beings and therefore not worthy of the protection of the law. Their owners could kill them, or nurture them at thier slightest whim and the law allowed it because it considered them not to be human beings. There isn't a whit of difference between slavery and abortion. The fact that unborns are human beings is undeniable. Any law that allows them to be killed for any or no reason while protecting all other human beings is a miscarriage of the law. Protecting the lives of human beings doesn't make a slave out of anyone. It is the lack of protection that makes one vaulnerable to the whims of others.

No... I'm saying death is part of life in nature. The consequence of a miscarriage and and abortion are the same. Some possible opportunity at life has not succeeded. When you put "moral" trappings on how that happens then you are going off into some religious direction.

Of course they are the same. And the consequence of your dying of old age and dying today because a mugger puts a gun to your temple and pulls the trigger are exactly the same. Do you believe that the law that makes it a crime for the mugger to kill you is religious in nature and therefore not worthy of being on the books?

I understood what you said and in my opinion that's just plain comparing two completely different things. You can allow a woman control over their own body and everything therein and still have laws for crimes committed by an adult. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Human beings are human beings. If you separate a group out and deny them the protection of the law, and allow them to be killed on a whim, you are no different than any other figure in history who had reason to see a particular group persecuted to death.

If it is your opinion that I am comparing two completely different things, the onus falls upon you to demonstrate that you are something different than an unborn is besides older and more mature. Failure to do that renders your argument invalid. Law that protects the lives of some who are innocent of a crime that does not protect the lives of others that are innocent is, by definition, exculusive.

I have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]

Your whole "fruit" argument was flawed.

I don't believe I am limited to a single reason why abortion should remain legal and why I feel it serves the greater good. I think there are many reasons. The inability to ever enforce is of some note I think.

This particular reason, which most pro choicers list is the perfect example of the flawed logic upon which your position is based. If you are going to make an argument that a thing should remain illegal because some will break the law then you are arguing that no law is worth keeping because some will break it. The problem with your arguments is that they only apply to this particular group of human beings and such arguments are not valid. An argument that denies protection from one group is no different than the arguments that denied protection to blacks here, to gypsys in russia, to jews in europe, and any other case in which one group found that they did not have the protection of the law while other groups did. If your arguments don't apply equally to everyone, then they are pointless. There is no difference between an ageist argument and a racist argument.

When I was a boy there were some other boys that played a similar "mine is bigger game". But ironically in the showers at gym class it was painfully obvious that their bark was always much greater than their bite. :) A man needs to know his limitations my friend.

We aren't in the shower room, we are here and your arguments are failing on every level. Your arguments are ageist in nature and sound exactly like the arguments that racists made when there was talk of giving blacks the protection of the law. If you want to prove that "yours is bigger" here, then you are going to have to come up with an argument that is orders of magnitude better than the tired old debunked crap you are spewing.

There you go again. If something is going to be done to ones own body (or anything therein) then I would prefer the safest proceedure for the woman involved.

The flaw in this argument is that it is not the woman's body that is being torn apart. Your premise is false. You are completely dishonest. You are asking for the safest way possible for the woman to have another's body torn to pieces.

If you want to argue pro choice, why not just be honest. Why not simply state that you favor women being allowed to kill another, completely innocent, human being for any or no reason at all. Is it because the truth is just a bit too distasteful for you?

Then your position is hypocritical my friend... because under the law you cannot defend that way. If someone is beating you almost to death but then breaks off the attack you cannot legally kill him for what he did or might resume. At anytime conditions might change for a pregnant woman. So what you'd be saying is... as the lady goes into final cardiac arrest or intense gross hemorrhaging ... then it's OK to do the abortion. (Please don't respond I'm sure you'd have some tricky time line you'd use just for abortion)

There is nothing hypocritical in my position as it applies equally to every human being. You, on the other hand are a blatant hypocrit as you want to offer the protection of the law to some but not others.

Learn something. We aren't living in the 18th century any more. Medical technology recognizes risky pregnancies long before they seriously threaten the mother. If a pregnany is threatening the mother's life, then the child isn't attacking and then backing off. In fact, the child has no intent at all which renders your argument invalid again. A medical board can identify risk factors and make recomendations long before the woman's life is in danger.

I can tell you before you step off a tall building that it is very dangerous to your health to do so. There is no need for me to wait until you have fallen 35 floors to measure your speed and test the hardness of the sidewalk to tell you that you are going to die and recommend that you shouldn't have jumped.

Your entire position is based on flawed logic, misunderstood biology, and bad analogies. Is this deliberate on your part in which case, learning something might change your position, or is this a series of deliberate deceptions on your part?

As far as the "bet"... The bet was that you would not agree that the bioplast or fetus was a murderer if a women died due to it.

Murder requires intent. Are you saying that an unborn has intent? Either way, you lose. What were we betting?

Mother is dieing of AIDS.
Mother is alcoholic and incapably of properly maintaining a child.
Mother is a drug addict .................................................. .
Mother is a prostitute .................................................. ..
Mother is homeless.......................................... ...............
Mother is a rape victim............................................ .......
Mother is a victum of incest............................................ .
Mother is a battered woman.............................................
Mother has psychological problems....................................
Fetus is severely handicapped
Fetus is severely retarded
Fetus has a life threatening disease
I could go on forever...

Convenience - n. - 1. the quality of being convenient 2. anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc 3. a convenient situation or time 4. advantage or accommodation

You can go on forever but would just be listing reasons that amount to convenience. The reasons you list that aren't conveniences are the result of terribly flawed logic or blatant hypocricy. If mom is the victim of rape or incest, why is the child put to death instead of the rapist? And since you suggest killing children who are retarded or handicapped, do you advocate going around killing all who are retarded or handicapped,or just those who belong to this particular group?

There is one valid reason to kill another human being without the due process of the law and that is if your life or long term health is being threatened. Any other reason amounts to convenience.

I will get to the rest of this later.

Coyote

07-16-2007, 06:57 AM

There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg". There is an egg which is of no more importance than your toenail clippings or there is a human being which is of exactly the same importance as any of the rest of us.

I would disagree. You showed me old text book quotes (I believe...?) on that, but I disagree.

An egg is an egg.
When a sperm enters it - it is fertilized.
It is then a fertilized egg.

As they say...a rose is a rose by any other name.

I submit, and still do to your logic that it is a human being. No question about that.

But not a person yet. And it is that which makes it have value - more value then a toenail clipping or my dog. And yes, there is no clear line of demarcatin, yet - no definitive answer. But I look at a fertilized egg and see nothing but potential. Is it a unique life form in the making? Yes. What gives it any sort of "right to life"? Our law. But our law does not give it rights over the rights of the person carrying it. Why? Perhaps because it recognizes that not all humans are equal or CAN be equal just as not all life forms are equal or CAN be equal.

A child does not have the same rights as an adult. Rights do come and change with development - that's evident in the law now and through out history.

palerider

07-16-2007, 07:42 AM

I would disagree. You showed me old text book quotes (I believe...?) on that, but I disagree.

An egg is an egg.
When a sperm enters it - it is fertilized.
It is then a fertilized egg.

When fertilization is complete, the egg no longer exists as an egg.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc (fertilized egg) is not used in this book."
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

But not a person yet. And it is that which makes it have value - more value then a toenail clipping or my dog. And yes, there is no clear line of demarcatin, yet - no definitive answer. But I look at a fertilized egg and see nothing but potential. Is it a unique life form in the making? Yes. What gives it any sort of "right to life"? Our law. But our law does not give it rights over the rights of the person carrying it. Why? Perhaps because it recognizes that not all humans are equal or CAN be equal just as not all life forms are equal or CAN be equal.

Since you can't even define what personhood is adequately to yourself, you are saying that you just hope that we aren't killing actual persons since you have no idea when personhood happens. And clearly, what you see is irrelavent to the reality of what it is. Most folks couldn't tell the difference under a microscope of a living skin cell and a zygote but it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

Once again, you are doing what all of the great monsters of the past have done in stating that all humans aren't equal, or that all are equal but some are more equal than others. A rose by any other name, as you say.

A child does not have the same rights as an adult. Rights do come and change with development - that's evident in the law now and through out history.

Children have the same rights but not the same privledges. The only right a child does not have would be second amendment rights which are clearly enumerated in the law. I don't advocate privledges to the unborn, just basic human rights that apply to all of us human beings EXCEPT them.

Keep trying, you may get something to stick to the wall yet.

palerider

07-16-2007, 08:06 AM

No I'm saying you are trying hard to lump all things into one basket calling it the same thing and saying because you believe it we all must believe it. I don't... most people don't... and neither does the law of the land.

Science is clearly on my side here. I can provide credible science that states explicitly that unborns at any stage are human beings while you can't provide a single piece of credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. Since we are all human beings, it is perfectly acceptable to "lump"us all into the same group. What people believe is irrelavent to what is.

Your position resembles a religious argument much more than mine since yours depends upon faith. You continue to claim that unborns are not human beings in the face of science that says otherwise. You must be arguing from a position of faith.

By the way, a court case does not constitute the "law" of the land. The law of the land is duely legislated and voted on by the representatives of the people.

Allow me...

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Is a Fetus Part of a Woman's Body?
Yesterday's Best of the Web Today expressed puzzlement about the difference between a "baby" and a "fetus." Andrew Coulson of The Ganteloupe wrote in to offer an answer:

Andrew Colson is a journalist, an accountant, and is involved in developing educational systems. He is hardly an authority of any sort on human developmental biology.

Immunological studies have demonstrated beyond cavil that when a pregnancy implants itself into the wall of the uterus at the eighth day following conception the defense mechanisms of the body, principally the white blood cells, sense that this creature now settling down . . . is an intruder, an alien, and must be expelled. Therefore an intense immunological attack is mounted on the pregnancy . . . and through an ingenious and extraordinarily efficient defense system the unborn child succeeds in repelling the attack . . . Even in the most minute microscopic scale the body has trained itself, or somehow in some inchoate way, knows how to recognize self from nonself. --Dr. Bernard Nathanson, The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality (New York: Frederick Fell, 1983), p.150.

To argue that the unborn is part of its mother is to say that the mother possesses four legs, four arms, four eyes, two heads and, in the case of a male child, a penis and two testicles

As I have said, if you are going to use biology as a basis for your argument, knowing biology would help.

par·a·site Pronunciation[par-uh-sahyt]
noun: an organism that lives on or in an organism, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

Once again, learn some biology. Here is why an unborn is not a parasite.

First and foremost, a parasite is, by definition, organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species. A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother. This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, and in no way parasitic.

A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source. A human embryo or fetus is formed from inside the mother-- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized.

A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite. A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not, except in very rare cases, cause harm to the mother.

A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved. A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will often respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue. When the human embryo or fetus attaches to the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

I get it... it's the old WOW I sure hate that poll... OK then polls don't mean anything defense. Very good. :)

Truth is truth. People who quote polls do so because they don't have any real argument. Just look at yours and it is clear why you NEED to quote polls; as if a poll could be a valid reason to allow one human being to kill another for reasons of convenience.