Abortion

[palerider]

So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?

[Coyote]

Oh dear....you knew I would have to answer this ....


Despite my inability to refute the logic of our last conversation - I still believe in a seperation of "person" and "human being". I do not think abortion should ever be something undertaken lightly and I do not think most women do so. However until the fetus has brainwaves, the mother's rights overide any presumed rights it might have. It's her body and no other person has any right to force an unwanted choice on her - whether it's the government of China forcing abortions on mothers to be or a group of strangers preventing abortion in the US.

[palerider]

Oh dear....you knew I would have to answer this ....


Despite my inability to refute the logic of our last conversation - I still believe in a seperation of "person" and "human being". I do not think abortion should ever be something undertaken lightly and I do not think most women do so. However until the fetus has brainwaves, the mother's rights overide any presumed rights it might have. It's her body and no other person has any right to force an unwanted choice on her - whether it's the government of China forcing abortions on mothers to be or a group of strangers preventing abortion in the US.

By "forcing" an unwanted choice on her, are you talking about rape? Because if you aren't, then you aren't talking about "forcing" anything but are instead, calling the natural consequeces of a consentual act force which is simply not a valid argument. We know that less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape.

[Coyote]

By "forcing" an unwanted choice on her, are you talking about rape? Because if you aren't, then you aren't talking about "forcing" anything but are instead, calling the natural consequeces of a consentual act force which is simply not a valid argument. We know that less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape.



Rape, consentual sex where a condom failed or, yes - "inconvenience". It's her body, no one has the right to control decisions regarding it except for her. On the part of rape though - the majority of rapes go unreported.

[palerider]

the majority of rapes go unreported.


How could you know that without statistics?

[JavaBlack]

I tend to think that the idea of using abortion as a form of birth control is pretty disturbing. But there are cases where I can see reasons to abort:
1. rape
2. the child will be born with a terrible dysfunction that will kill it or keep it from living any kind of real life.
3. the woman's health is heavily and long-term endangered by the birth.

But even when abortions are illegal, infanticide and garage abortions are common.
I think it is more important to focus on the causes of abortion and what can be done to remove social causes than to criminalize abortion...
And at any rate, it should be up to the states.

After all not everyone seems to agree a fetus is a living human being. If we cannot agree on that point, no argument will work for either side.

[Coyote]

I tend to think that the idea of using abortion as a form of birth control is pretty disturbing. But there are cases where I can see reasons to abort:
1. rape
2. the child will be born with a terrible dysfunction that will kill it or keep it from living any kind of real life.
3. the woman's health is heavily and long-term endangered by the birth.

I do not like the idea of using abortion as birth control either but making it illegal except for the most stringent circumstances is a bit of a slippery slope.

For one thing -if it is only legal in cases of rape then that makes the aguement against "killing a human being" hypocritical - you still choosing to kill something you deem innocent (you in general, not you specific). You're making some sort of determination that the mother's rights outweigh the fetus. For me personally, I feel no woman should have to bear a child conceived against her will.

With number 2, I see another slippery slope and this one bothers me tremendously. Where do you draw a line in respect to defects? Spina Bifida? Many children with this defect go on to live good and productive and happy lives. Down's syndrom? These are still children capable of joy, life, and love.

With 3 - I agree.


But even when abortions are illegal, infanticide and garage abortions are common.
I think it is more important to focus on the causes of abortion and what can be done to remove social causes than to criminalize abortion...
And at any rate, it should be up to the states.

After all not everyone seems to agree a fetus is a living human being. If we cannot agree on that point, no argument will work for either side.

Exactly...criminalizing it won't stop it. It should be safe, legal, and rare.

[Coyote]

How could you know that without statistics?

Unreported to law enforcement.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html
http://www.sccadvasa.org/articles/63.pdf

[USMC the Almighty]

Rape, consentual sex where a condom failed or, yes - "inconvenience". It's her body, no one has the right to control decisions regarding it except for her. On the part of rape though - the majority of rapes go unreported.

The problem is -- it's not her body. It's the baby's body. That's like saying that if someone store's their things in your garage, then they by definition, are your things.

[Coyote]

The problem is -- it's not her body. It's the baby's body. That's like saying that if someone store's their things in your garage, then they by definition, are your things.

A person's body is not like a garage.

[USMC the Almighty]

A person's body is not like a garage.

Okay, a dumpster.

[steveox]

A woman should serve 10 years in prison if she aborts her baby. Her doctor should get 25 years in prison for performing an abortion.If Dr Kevorkian served time for assited suicides then abortion doctors should get the same sentence Dr Kevorkian got.

[Coyote]

A woman should serve 10 years in prison if she aborts her baby. Her doctor should get 25 years in prison for performing an abortion.If Dr Kevorkian served time for assited suicides then abortion doctors should get the same sentence Dr Kevorkian got.


What should the man get?

[Coyote]

Okay, a dumpster.

Well...considering the crap men dump into it, maybe you're right:D

[steveox]

What should the man get?

Scott Peterson is getting the chair. Is that fair when a girl put her baby in a dumpster and not get a murder charge?

[Coyote]

Scott Peterson is getting the chair. Is that fair when a girl put her baby in a dumpster and not get a murder charge?

I believe Peterson murdered his wife.

You have to point out the specific case in regards to the latter.


So, what should the man get? I find it interesting you seem to focus only on penalties for the woman.

[top gun]

So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?

The reality is no one can really control what another does with their own body. Women miscarry everyday. Endangering a womans life by making a safe medical procedure go back into the alley is something that should never even be considered again.

It's a tough decision but in the end it's a decision the pregnant woman must be allowed to make. Not the government.

[USMC the Almighty]

The reality is no one can really control what another does with their own body.

We're not trying to tell her what to do with her own body, only the baby's body. If she wants to get fat by overeating, or get a thousand tatoos or piercings -- power to her, but she has no right to kill an innocent child.

Women miscarry everyday. Endangering a womans life by making a safe medical procedure go back into the alley is something that should never even be considered again.

It's a tough decision but in the end it's a decision the pregnant woman must be allowed to make. Not the government.

Or perhaps the women should exercise a little bit of responsibility.

[Coyote]

We're not trying to tell her what to do with her own body, only the baby's body. If she wants to get fat by overeating, or get a thousand tatoos or piercings -- power to her, but she has no right to kill an innocent child.



Or perhaps the women should exercise a little bit of responsibility.

Or maybe the man should keep his pants zipped.

[USMC the Almighty]

Or maybe the man should keep his pants zipped.

Or just slip a condom on. But then again, this is supposedly about "women's right to chose" thus apparently men have no say so their responsibility isn't an issue.

[Coyote]

Or just slip a condom on. But then again, this is supposedly about "women's right to chose" thus apparently men have no say so their responsibility isn't an issue.


They're part of the problem and they form a significant portion of those attempting to legislate a woman's body.

[palerider]

Unreported to law enforcement.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html
http://www.sccadvasa.org/articles/63.pdf

And if these rapes are unreported, on what are they based. If these rapes were reported to anyone and whoever recieved the information didn't forward it to law enforcement, then the one who recieved the information became a criminal.

[palerider]

The reality is no one can really control what another does with their own body. Women miscarry everyday. Endangering a womans life by making a safe medical procedure go back into the alley is something that should never even be considered again.

It's a tough decision but in the end it's a decision the pregnant woman must be allowed to make. Not the government.


In reality, no one can be prevented from killing another if they set their mind to it. Should we strike all laws that pertain to killing off the books because we can't really stop the killing anyway?..or are those laws on the books to punish killers more than to actually stop killers?

It is a tough decision to kill anyone but in the end, it is the decision of the one who kills. Are you suggesting that it is a decision between the one who kills and the one being killed and the government shoud simply get out of the business of punishing killers?

[Coyote]

And if these rapes are unreported, on what are they based. If these rapes were reported to anyone and whoever recieved the information didn't forward it to law enforcement, then the one who recieved the information became a criminal.

Not if the victim refuses to press charges, which is often the case.

[palerider]

Not if the victim refuses to press charges, which is often the case.


It is a crime not to report it. The victim doesn't have to press charges, but if someone else learns of it, and fails to report it, they, in reality, become an accessory.

Statistics on the number of times a crime was not reported seem very dubious and subject to the whims of the one who is creating the statistic. There is little there to be believed and no evidence to support them.

It calls back to the myth of the "coathanger" and the thousands who died in back alley abortions. Decades later, the one who started the myth stepped up and admitted that it was all just made up. That there was little evidence, if any, to support the claim and that the vast majority of abortions were performed in doctor's offices, by licenced doctors who were willing to perform them. The very doctors who dropped their regular practices and became abortion clinics the day after roe was decided.

[Coyote]

It is a crime not to report it. The victim doesn't have to press charges, but if someone else learns of it, and fails to report it, they, in reality, become an accessory.


Whether it is a crime or not, and whether some fails to report it or not - is irrelevant. Rape is traumatic, violent, and frightening. Many women choose not to report it because it is a violation of the most intimate nature or because they are frightened or have been threatened. If a woman was raped, and her life or family and the rapist made threats against her life or -more important - her family should she report it, she may think twice about making an official report.


Statistics on the number of times a crime was not reported seem very dubious and subject to the whims of the one who is creating the statistic. There is little there to be believed and no evidence to support them.



You consider the USDoJ subject to whims?


It calls back to the myth of the "coathanger" and the thousands who died in back alley abortions. Decades later, the one who started the myth stepped up and admitted that it was all just made up. That there was little evidence, if any, to support the claim and that the vast majority of abortions were performed in doctor's offices, by licenced doctors who were willing to perform them. The very doctors who dropped their regular practices and became abortion clinics the day after roe was decided.


Just because someone started what they believed was a "myth" doesn't mean it was a myth. Doctors providing illegal abortions charged a tremendous financial price, limiting avaiability to those who could afford to pay. For a poor woman, that wasn't an option and I'm sure dirty, cheap alternatives with a high mortality risk were all that was available. This is reflected today in many third world countries where abortion is either illegal or medical facilities scarce.

I looked to try and find some relatively unbiased sources (from neither pro-choice or pro-life camps) and came up with the following on "back alley" abortions.

From http://www.answers.com/topic/unsafe-abortion:

Unsafe abortion is a significant cause of maternal mortality and morbidity in the world, especially in developing countries (95% of unsafe abortions take place in developing countries).

Every year, 40 million induced abortions occur globally (IPAS) and according to the 2000 estimates (WHO) 19 million unsafe abortions take place each year. According to WHO around 68,000 women die as a result of complications of unsafe abortion and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus).(IPAS) According to WHO statistics, one in ten pregnancies ends in an unsafe abortion. The risk rate for unsafe abortion is 1/270, but according to other sources unsafe abortion is responsible for one in eight maternal deaths.

Unsafe Abortion: Mortality and Risk Estimates of Death data from WHO press, Geneva, 1997 Region

[palerider]

Whether it is a crime or not, and whether some fails to report it or not - is irrelevant. Rape is traumatic, violent, and frightening. Many women choose not to report it because it is a violation of the most intimate nature or because they are frightened or have been threatened.

The point is that statistics about unreported events are hardly reliable enough to base a position upon.

Just because someone started what they believed was a "myth" doesn't mean it was a myth. Doctors providing illegal abortions charged a tremendous financial price, limiting avaiability to those who could afford to pay. For a poor woman, that wasn't an option and I'm sure dirty, cheap alternatives with a high mortality risk were all that was available. This is reflected today in many third world countries where abortion is either illegal or medical facilities scarce.

Once again, you have no evidence that coud be claimed to be even remotely reliable to back up such a statement. The fact that you continue to believe in the myth when the man who invented it admitted to making it up is testament to the strength of myth.

I looked to try and find some relatively unbiased sources (from neither pro-choice or pro-life camps) and came up with the following on "back alley" abortions.

All abortions are unsafe. It is a dangerous proceedure and a startling number of women die or experience permanant injury every year in this country and yet, pro choice advocates continue to champion the "cause" because their god requires the sacrifice.

It is interesting, and ironic, to note that many of those who champion pro choice can be also found among those who would make restaurants and businesses smoke free, and put a fat tax on certain foods, and champion all sorts of activities that they woud claim are unsafe.

The question was, however, "Does one human being's fabricated "right" to not be inconvenienced outweigh another human being's very real right to live?

[Coyote]

The point is that statistics about unreported events are hardly reliable enough to base a position upon.


I think the source has to be considered. Just because it isn't reported to law enforcement doesn't mean it does not get reported to rape and domestic crisis counseling agencies for example, or other groups. I tend to think that statistics from the DoJ are likely to be a fairly accurate estimate - certainly enough to base a position in when considering rape.


Once again, you have no evidence that coud be claimed to be even remotely reliable to back up such a statement. The fact that you continue to believe in the myth when the man who invented it admitted to making it up is testament to the strength of myth.


I provided modern day evidence of what happens when abortionis illegal and/or medical facilities are sparse. What makes you think the situation would have been any different for poor or even middle class women prior to Roe vs. Wade, in the US? Thus far, I think I have provided more evidence then you have.

All abortions are unsafe. It is a dangerous proceedure and a startling number of women die or experience permanant injury every year in this country and yet, pro choice advocates continue to champion the "cause" because their god requires the sacrifice.


Mortality and health risks from abortion is appreciably lower than that of childbirth (the risks depend on gestational age).

For example:

In American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
January 2006
Dr. David Grimes (MD) notes the following:

The comparative safety of pregnancy outcomes has clinical and public health importance. Using national statistics for 1991 to 1999, I estimated the risk of maternal death associated with various outcomes. Abortion (legal and spontaneous) was associated with the lowest risk, live birth intermediate risk, and ectopic pregnancy and fetal death the highest risk.

Mortality and health risks have also significantly diminished over the years (particulary after 1980) with better anesthesia and practices and remain less then those associated with childbirth until you get into later gestational age.

What god? We're talking about a diety here?


It is interesting, and ironic, to note that many of those who champion pro choice can be also found among those who would make restaurants and businesses smoke free, and put a fat tax on certain foods, and champion all sorts of activities that they woud claim are unsafe.

Irrelevent to this debate. A logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well".



(are you suggesting I don't have a right to sue McDonalds because I can't stop stuffing supersized baconcheeseburgerfrenchfriechocolateshake combo meals in my face?)

[Coyote]

The question was, however, "Does one human being's fabricated "right" to not be inconvenienced outweigh another human being's very real right to live?

No. The question was: Does a person have a right to control their what happens to their own body? Who owns your body? You? The state? Some religious group? The baby growing inside you?

[top gun]

In reality, no one can be prevented from killing another if they set their mind to it. Should we strike all laws that pertain to killing off the books because we can't really stop the killing anyway?..or are those laws on the books to punish killers more than to actually stop killers?

It is a tough decision to kill anyone but in the end, it is the decision of the one who kills. Are you suggesting that it is a decision between the one who kills and the one being killed and the government shoud simply get out of the business of punishing killers?

There is legal killing in our society. There is war. There is the death penalty. There is even euthanasia in some medical cases. I could make a case right there and say all or none but that is really not where I draw my conclusion from.

My conclusion comes from this. Abortions especially early term abortions (which I personally would hope all abortions would be) are a situation where life cannot exist outside of the womb. The womb is the mothers ergo the deciding factor. And once again the difference and proof of intent between throwing yourself down the stairs and accidentally tripping can produce the exact same result.

I think abortion is a burden that must always be left to the mind of the mother. Not me... not you... not the government... the person presented with the condition.

[Sgt Schultz]

If society as a whole was to outlaw abortion then society needs to take on the burden of ensuring that those children have a basic level of care and support from society. That may entail providing welfare support to the parent(s), adequate housing, education, etc. I know quite a few people who oppose abortion yet at the same time complain about their tax dollars supporting people on welfare or who have a lot of children.

[palerider]

So as a group, pro choicers believe that one human being's fabricated right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human beings very real right to live. Have I got that right?

[Sgt Schultz]

So as a group, pro choicers believe that one human being's fabricated right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human beings very real right to live. Have I got that right?

I did not claim to speak for any group, only myself. On that I believe the woman who is pregnant should have every right to make the decision concerning her body, period. That is not a fabricated right. The fabricated right is those who claim that they have the right to tell a woman that they must carry the pregnancy to term. You nor I do not know all of the circumstances/decision making process as to why any woman would have an abortion.

[USMC the Almighty]

On that I believe the woman who is pregnant should have every right to make the decision concerning her body, period.

We're not trying to tell her what to do with her body.

I don't care what a given woman does to her body. If she wants to get fat by overeating -- I say eat up. If she wants to get a thousand tatoos or piercings -- power to her.

But she has no right to do whatever she wants to her baby's body.

[Coyote]

So as a group, pro choicers believe that one human being's fabricated right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human beings very real right to live. Have I got that right?

Nope.

[Coyote]

If society as a whole was to outlaw abortion then society needs to take on the burden of ensuring that those children have a basic level of care and support from society. That may entail providing welfare support to the parent(s), adequate housing, education, etc. I know quite a few people who oppose abortion yet at the same time complain about their tax dollars supporting people on welfare or who have a lot of children.

Good point!

[Coyote]

See...here is where it comes down to me.

If life is sacred, then all life should be sacred.

If human life is sacred, then all human life should be sacred and that means no death penalty. It either is or it isn't.

I am unable to see a creature with no brain or nervous system as a person - or as more worthy of preservation than many other creatures that exhibit sentience. Logic and law alone do not convince me. Therefore to regard it as sacred, I must regard similar life as sacred - at the very least, that of higher mammels and birds.

In addition, when it comes to abortion the very real rights of the mother collide with the percieved rights of what she is carrying and the fact that - in the end - her body belongs to no one but her and she is the one that must ultimately live with her choices.

Consider the following - if a fetus is considered a full life, a full person, with all the rights guaranteed by that definition.

What happens when a couple has invitro fertilization or takes fertility drugs? Typically - many embryos are implanted because not all will prove viable. At some point however, some have to be removed because the mother usually can not carry that many to term. That would be murder. Yet allowing them to remain means that all will die.

What happens to stored embryos? Damaged embryos? What are their rights? They are damaged..but alive....you can't murder them.

What if the mother's life is in danger through toxemia? Do you have the right to remove the baby and kill it? If it's a person - no - it's right to life is equal to that of the mother.

[drippinhun]

Barabara Bush Sr. Poster child for why abortion should be legal. Case closed.

[palerider]

I did not claim to speak for any group, only myself. On that I believe the woman who is pregnant should have every right to make the decision concerning her body, period. That is not a fabricated right. The fabricated right is those who claim that they have the right to tell a woman that they must carry the pregnancy to term. You nor I do not know all of the circumstances/decision making process as to why any woman would have an abortion.

But it isn't her body that is being torn limb from limb. This whole question isn't about her body it is about the body being killed. Claiming that it is about her body is no more than a meaningless diversion from the fact of the death of the "other" human being.

[palerider]

See...here is where it comes down to me.

If life is sacred, then all life should be sacred.

If human life is sacred, then all human life should be sacred and that means no death penalty. It either is or it isn't.

The law.

Logic and law alone do not convince me.

So you are operating from a postion of faith? Need I remind you of your philosophical slip on the other thread?

In addition, when it comes to abortion the very real rights of the mother collide with the percieved rights of what she is carrying and the fact that - in the end - her body belongs to no one but her and she is the one that must ultimately live with her choices.

Percieved right of a human being? They are called human rights for a reason.

What happens when a couple has invitro fertilization or takes fertility drugs? Typically - many embryos are implanted because not all will prove viable. At some point however, some have to be removed because the mother usually can not carry that many to term. That would be murder. Yet allowing them to remain means that all will die.

As I have said, I don't believe IVF clinics should be allowed to fertilize more than one egg at a time. If the cost becomes prohibitive, then couples can adopt.

What if the mother's life is in danger through toxemia? Do you have the right to remove the baby and kill it? If it's a person - no - it's right to life is equal to that of the mother.

We have the right to protect our lives. If your life is being threatened, you have the legal right to kill in order to protect it. The one you kill doesn't have to be harming you with intent either. You don't, however, have the right to kill another human because that human might cause you some inconvenience. We are talking about killing here. There is a death. A living human being is killed most often for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.

[Sgt Schultz]

We're not trying to tell her what to do with her body.

I don't care what a given woman does to her body. If she wants to get fat by overeating -- I say eat up. If she wants to get a thousand tatoos or piercings -- power to her.

But she has no right to do whatever she wants to her baby's body.

Actually you are by telling her that she must carry the pregnancy to term. As I posted before if society is going to force that upon a woman then society needs to ensure that that all children are given a basic level of care and protection. Regardless of the circumstances that the parent(s) are in. That means food, shelter, education, medical care, etc.

Unfortunately for many that care suddenly stops as soon as birth happens. Then they're on their own.

[palerider]

So Sgt. Are you suggesting that every class who is a burden on society be subject to indescriminate killing, or just this particular class? And if you only feel that this class be killed at will, by what logic do you support continued protection of other classes?

[Coyote]

The law.

So you are operating from a postion of faith? Need I remind you of your philosophical slip on the other thread?


What is your definition of faith? Gypsies and necromancers? It is not the "law" that places value on human life, the law is merely the formal expression of the ethics which lie behind it. Those values aren't science...so they are what?

Ya...remind me...that other thread went on a long time and I forget some of what I said. :o

I still maintain that there is a distinction between a "person" and a human being. The only thing that denies such a distinction is the legal dictionary's definition of "person". Although I couldn't argue against the strict logic of your points, I don't find that strong enough by itself.


Percieved right of a human being? They are called human rights for a reason.


So you are saying that they are persons with rights fully equal to the mother, at every stage? See...this is a different argument then stemcell research because there - only the rights of one being is discussed. Here, they are weighed against the rights of another and here, I feel - is where the concept of what exactly a "person" is is important - legal definition be damned.


We have the right to protect our lives. If your life is being threatened, you have the legal right to kill in order to protect it. The one you kill doesn't have to be harming you with intent either. You don't, however, have the right to kill another human because that human might cause you some inconvenience. We are talking about killing here. There is a death. A living human being is killed most often for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.

What if your health is threatened?

Fertility drugs produce multiples - it's not implantation - what about that?

What about the other cases I mentioned?

[palerider]

What is your definition of faith?

Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

It is not the "law" that places value on human life, the law is merely the formal expression of the ethics which lie behind it. Those values aren't science...so they are what?

We place a value on human life and express it via the law. We also acknowledge that there are actions that can require the payment of a life and express that via the law as well.

Ya...remind me...that other thread went on a long time and I forget some of what I said. :o

You didn't forget. You just exposed a conflict within your philosophy that you probably didn't even know was there until you saw it in black and white. I commend you for recognizing it and not deleting it.

I still maintain that there is a distinction between a "person" and a human being. The only thing that denies such a distinction is the legal dictionary's definition of "person". Although I couldn't argue against the strict logic of your points, I don't find that strong enough by itself.

In matters of killing, the law is all we have. As things stand today, abortion is as unconstitutional as slavery was. Blacks were enslaved because a court said that they were not human beings and unborns may be killed for the very same reason.

Refer to the definition of faith. You reqire something beyond logic and whatever you care to call it, it is faith.

So you are saying that they are persons with rights fully equal to the mother, at every stage? See...this is a different argument then stemcell research because there - only the rights of one being is discussed. Here, they are weighed against the rights of another and here, I feel - is where the concept of what exactly a "person" is is important - legal definition be damned.

If the one has the right not to be killed for medical research, why would that one not have the right not to be killed for reasons that amount to no more than convenience? Do you have some special circumstance that would make you more worthy of being protected by the law than me?

And once again, the law says that a person is simply a human being without qualification.

What if your health is threatened?

If your long term health is threatened then yes, you have the right to defend yourself. That is what the law says. A short term threat is not, however a valid reason to kill.

Fertility drugs produce multiples - it's not implantation - what about that?

I am not aware of women who use fertility drugs aborting one or more of the children. I am not sure that an abortion can be performed that will targed individuals iin a multiple pregnancy. Unless you are talking about surgury.

[Sgt Schultz]

So Sgt. Are you suggesting that every class who is a burden on society be subject to indescriminate killing, or just this particular class? And if you only feel that this class be killed at will, by what logic do you support continued protection of other classes?

I believe I have made my position on abortion quite clear, and the responsibility of society if it is ever outlawed.

[USMC the Almighty]

I believe I have made my position on abortion quite clear, and the responsibility of society if it is ever outlawed.

i.e. the question he asked was too hard so you're just going to retreat into your talking points.

[Sgt Schultz]

i.e. the question he asked was too hard so you're just going to retreat into your talking points.

No, the question was not too hard and I didn't retreat to talking points. This discussion is about abortion and I made my position on abortion quite clear. Or was it too hard to understand?

[USMC the Almighty]

No, the question was not too hard and I didn't retreat to talking points. This discussion is about abortion and I made my position on abortion quite clear. Or was it too hard to understand?

Then answer his question.

[Sgt Schultz]

Then answer his question.

Let me quote myself from post #33.


I did not claim to speak for any group, only myself. On that I believe the woman who is pregnant should have every right to make the decision concerning her body, period. That is not a fabricated right. The fabricated right is those who claim that they have the right to tell a woman that they must carry the pregnancy to term. You nor I do not know all of the circumstances/decision making process as to why any woman would have an abortion.

The bolded part is my answer. It doesn't get much clearer than that

[USMC the Almighty]

The question was this:

Are you suggesting that every class who is a burden on society be subject to indescriminate killing, or just this particular class? And if you only feel that this class be killed at will, by what logic do you support continued protection of other classes?

and your response is this?

On that I believe the woman who is pregnant should have every right to make the decision concerning her body, period.

Talk about a cop out.

[Sgt Schultz]

The question was this:



and your response is this?



Talk about a cop out.

That is correct, that was my response and it's pretty damn clear on my position on abortion:

I believe the woman who is pregnant should have every right to make the decision concerning her body, period.


That answers the question plain and simple. What more do you want? A paragraph, two pages, etc. What is it that I didn't make clear in that statement?

[top gun]

So as a group, pro choicers believe that one human being's fabricated right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human beings very real right to live. Have I got that right?

No you do not... not at all.

You have no moral authority to dictate what someone does to their own body. And as it has stood for decades no legal authority either. And that includes anything inside said body.

Things are not always perfect. There are literally hundreds of examples. Say two conjoined twins must be separated so that one can live... but one will also die. Termination of any life is always a serious decision. But again even in the twin scenario I want the family & their doctor to decided... not me... not you... not the government.

The bottom line is different people have differing opinions on when viable life starts in the begining... and then you could go all the way to... could said life live outside the womb for and actual viable life scenario.

No one is forcing you or anyone else to have an abortion. I would in most cases recommend against it myself. But my opinion is light years away from those who think they are the ones to say when... or to say never.

[USMC the Almighty]

That answers the question plain and simple. What more do you want? A paragraph, two pages, etc. What is it that I didn't make clear in that statement?

That's not answering the question. You're just providing a blanket statement on abortion.

Palerider asks: Are you suggesting that every class who is a burden on society be subject to indescriminate killing, or just this particular class? And if you only feel that this class be killed at will, by what logic do you support continued protection of other classes?

I don't see how "a woman get do whatever she wants with her own body" is an answer to that question.

He doesn't say anything about women or their bodies in fact. He is asking what classes of people do you believe ought to be subject to indiscriminate murder for the convenience of women? Saying she can do whatever she wants with her body is not a sufficient answer.

[Sgt Schultz]

That's not answering the question. You're just providing a blanket statement on abortion.

Palerider asks:

I don't see how "a woman get do whatever she wants with her own body" is an answer to that question.

He doesn't say anything about women or their bodies in fact. He is asking what classes of people do you believe ought to be subject to indiscriminate murder for the convenience of women? Saying she can do whatever she wants with her body is not a sufficient answer.

I'm not going to play the game that he is trying to bait me into. If my position on abortion is not to his or your satisfaction that is not my problem. I have made it quite clear what it is.

[USMC the Almighty]

I'm not going to play the game that he is trying to bait me into. If my position on abortion is not to his or your satisfaction that is not my problem. I have made it quite clear what it is.

The entire purpose of coming to a place like this is to discuss your positions on various issues and have them challenged by people from the other side of aisle. But when you refuse to allow other posters to challenge your position by retreating into your "don't tell a woman what to do with 'her' body" talking point, then you really defeat the purpose of discussing the issues here.

He asked a question that exposes the inherent problem with your philosophy and you refuse to answer it because you do not want your predetermined beliefs to be challenged.

[Coyote]

Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

We place a value on human life and express it via the law. We also acknowledge that there are actions that can require the payment of a life and express that via the law as well.

You didn't forget. You just exposed a conflict within your philosophy that you probably didn't even know was there until you saw it in black and white. I commend you for recognizing it and not deleting it.

In matters of killing, the law is all we have. As things stand today, abortion is as unconstitutional as slavery was. Blacks were enslaved because a court said that they were not human beings and unborns may be killed for the very same reason.

Refer to the definition of faith. You reqire something beyond logic and whatever you care to call it, it is faith.



...you may be right...


If the one has the right not to be killed for medical research, why would that one not have the right not to be killed for reasons that amount to no more than convenience? Do you have some special circumstance that would make you more worthy of being protected by the law than me?


That is not the same thing. You are not growing inside of me.


And once again, the law says that a person is simply a human being without qualification.


Yes...but the law is not and has not always been logical. I am unable to come to terms with the concept that a blastocyst is a person in any fashion.


If your long term health is threatened then yes, you have the right to defend yourself. That is what the law says. A short term threat is not, however a valid reason to kill.

What's a short term threat? Bearing in mind that the mortality rate for childbirth is still higher than that for abortion except in the later stages of gestation.


I am not aware of women who use fertility drugs aborting one or more of the children. I am not sure that an abortion can be performed that will targed individuals iin a multiple pregnancy. Unless you are talking about surgury.

It is surgery to remove selected fetus' - but abortion is surgery after a certain point.


You have competing rights.

A woman's right to determine what happens to her own body. No one else has the right to decide that for her because no one but her has to live with the choice. I don't believe in unlimited right of abortion but neither will I let another person make choices on my body - it is the most intimate, important thing I own. It is the only thing I own. It's the one thing that is wholey mine. That doesn't mean I would choose abortion. In the end - for me personally - it comes down to this. My body belongs to me.

[Sgt Schultz]

The entire purpose of coming to a place like this is to discuss your positions on various issues and have them challenged by people from the other side of aisle. But when you refuse to allow other posters to challenge your position by retreating into your "don't tell a woman what to do with 'her' body" talking point, then you really defeat the purpose of discussing the issues here.

He asked a question that exposes the inherent problem with your philosophy and you refuse to answer it because you do not want your predetermined beliefs to be challenged.

The only inherent "problem" with my philosophy is that you both disagree with it. That is not my problem, it is yours. Neither of you have made any arguments to convince me to change my position and I'm pretty sure the feeling is mutual. I fail to see how that is refusing to allow you to challenge my position.

[palerider]

I believe I have made my position on abortion quite clear, and the responsibility of society if it is ever outlawed.

Right. You made it perfectly clear. You implied that it was better to kill them because they would be a burden on society. I asked you if you thought that all who were burdens on society should be killed or just these potential burdens and you failed to answer the question.

You made yourself perfectly clear.

[Sgt Schultz]

Right. You made it perfectly clear. You implied that it was better to kill them because they would be a burden on society. I asked you if you thought that all who were burdens on society should be killed or just these potential burdens and you failed to answer the question.

You made yourself perfectly clear.

I guess it wasn't clear. You assume that I believe abortion is ok because those born would be a burden on society. I said no such thing and you know it. I'm not going to play your little game that you are trying to bait me into.

[palerider]

You have no moral authority to dictate what someone does to their own body. And as it has stood for decades no legal authority either. And that includes anything inside said body.

We are not talking about the woman's body. She is not the one being killed. And we are not talking about a "thing" inside of the woman's body, we are talking about a human being. If you can't even bring yourself to discuss the topic in real terms and must hide behind vague phrases like "her body" and "anything" you really aren't prepared for this discussion.

Things are not always perfect. There are literally hundreds of examples. Say two conjoined twins must be separated so that one can live... but one will also die. Termination of any life is always a serious decision. But again even in the twin scenario I want the family & their doctor to decided... not me... not you... not the government.

So you support killing human beings for no better reason than convenience without consequence because "things" aren't always perfect? Were you born into a perfect family, with perfect finances, with a perfect place for you?

In the case of conjoined twins, if an organ is shared and not strong enough to support both, then an effort is made to save one at the expense of the other. If, by this example, you are saying that you only support abortion when the mother's life is in danger and by default the child's life as well and only one can be saved, then I am with you. The mother has the right to protect her life and shouldn't have to share her body if it is going to kill her exactly as the conjoined twin who has the organ that isn't strong enough to support both children has the right to not share if it is going to kill him.

The bottom line is different people have differing opinions on when viable life starts in the begining... and then you could go all the way to... could said life live outside the womb for and actual viable life scenario.

An opinion that is not supported by fact is worthless. When our lives begin is an inarguable today as a result of scientific advances as an argume that the world is flat.

And if the child is not viable, it is miscarried. If it is viable, it continues to live until it dies of natural causes or someone kills it. Again, hiding behind vague expressions like "viable" doesn't strengthen your position in this discussion. A human in early development requires a certain environment to live. Removing him or her from that environment will cause death, but has nothing to do with viability. You require a certain environment. If you were removed from that environment and put 1000 feet deep in the ocean or in the vaccum of space without protection, you would die. Does that mean that you weren't viable or that someone killed you by removing you from the environment you required to live?

No one is forcing you or anyone else to have an abortion. I would in most cases recommend against it myself. But my opinion is light years away from those who think they are the ones to say when... or to say never.

If I don't like abortions then I shouldn't have one. Just like a bumper sticker.

Tell me, if you had lived a hundred years ago, would you have had a bumper sticker on your wagon that said:

If you don't like slavery, then don't own one?

Is that how you justify everything in your life? If you don't like arson, then don't set fires? If you don't like wife beating, then don't beat your wife? If you don't like child abuse, then don't abuse your children? You think that if we don't like certain things, we should just not do them and laws that protect us really aren't necessary?

[palerider]

I'm not going to play the game that he is trying to bait me into. If my position on abortion is not to his or your satisfaction that is not my problem. I have made it quite clear what it is.

I am not playing a game. I am asking you a question that logically follows the answer you gave to another question. If you can't answer such questions, it is because your position is weak and you don't want to expose the weakness.

You have said what your postion is, but by not being able to answer questions, you have completely failed to defend your position. Of what possible value is a position that you can't defend and if you are not prepared to defend it, why did you get involved in this discussion?

[palerider]

...you may be right...

Thank you.

That is not the same thing. You are not growing inside of me.

Am I there because I needed a place to be and invaded you somehow, or am I there as a result of no fault of my own but due to your actions?

Yes...but the law is not and has not always been logical. I am unable to come to terms with the concept that a blastocyst is a person in any fashion.

Person and human being are interchangable according to the law at this time. If that were not the case, I would not be making this argument. I would still have an argument, but it would not be this one. 150 years ago, there were plenty of people who were unable to come to terms with the concept that blacks were just as human as whites and deserving of the same rights under the constitution. In fact, there are still people who are having a hard time coming to terms with that concept. Do you know what we call such people today?


What's a short term threat? Bearing in mind that the mortality rate for childbirth is still higher than that for abortion except in the later stages of gestation.

Fat ankles, the possibility of an episiotomy scar, stretch marks, temporary anemia, etc. In fact, according to insurance actuarial tables, ( which are very thoroughly researched) a normal pregnancy is considered a short term health risk.

If short term risks are a problem for you and you are going to argue that killing human beings is acceptable because of short term risks, you are going to open up a very large can of worms and expose more, and more blatant ,inconsistancies in your position.

It is surgery to remove selected fetus' - but abortion is surgery after a certain point.

And what right does the one(s) who are killed not have that the one(s) who are left to live do have?

You have competing rights.

Our inalienable rights, and their order of hierarchy are laid out in our founding documents. The right to live is at the top because without that one, none of the others has any value at all.


A woman's right to determine what happens to her own body. No one else has the right to decide that for her because no one but her has to live with the choice.

In 98% of cases, the woman exercised that right when she dropped her panties. You make the decision before you take the action, not after. If you step off a tall building, once you have taken the step, you have exercised your right to determine what happens to you. After she is pregnant, she is determining what is happening to the body of another human being.

And you are right, no one but her has to live with her choice. The other human being involved dies because of her choice. Exactly what gives her the right to kill that other human being. Exactly how is it that her right to not be inconvenienced outweighs that other human being's very right to live.

Explain the logic of that position in such a way that it carries over to all human beings and not just a specific class of human beings.


I don't believe in unlimited right of abortion but neither will I let another person make choices on my body - it is the most intimate, important thing I own. It is the only thing I own. It's the one thing that is wholey mine. That doesn't mean I would choose abortion. In the end - for me personally - it comes down to this. My body belongs to me.

Of course your body is yours. But do you own the body of the human being you are killing? Is that body yours to do with as you wish as was the case with slaves?

[palerider]

I guess it wasn't clear. You assume that I believe abortion is ok because those born would be a burden on society. I said no such thing and you know it. I'm not going to play your little game that you are trying to bait me into.

You said:

"As I posted before if society is going to force that upon a woman then society needs to ensure that that all children are given a basic level of care and protection. Regardless of the circumstances that the parent(s) are in. That means food, shelter, education, medical care, etc. "


Does that, or does that not imply that you support abortion (killing unborns) because they may be a burden on society?

[palerider]

The only inherent "problem" with my philosophy is that you both disagree with it. That is not my problem, it is yours. Neither of you have made any arguments to convince me to change my position and I'm pretty sure the feeling is mutual. I fail to see how that is refusing to allow you to challenge my position.

Your inability to honestly answer a very simple question that was a logical follow up to an answer that you made shoud indicate to you that there is a problem with your position. A weakness that you can't defend.

Tell me, why would you hold a position that you can not defend?

[Sgt Schultz]

You said:

"As I posted before if society is going to force that upon a woman then society needs to ensure that that all children are given a basic level of care and protection. Regardless of the circumstances that the parent(s) are in. That means food, shelter, education, medical care, etc. "


Does that, or does that not imply that you support abortion (killing unborns) because they may be a burden on society?

No it doesn't. I support a woman's right to have an abortion because of her right to control what happens to her body.

[Sgt Schultz]

Your inability to honestly answer a very simple question that was a logical follow up to an answer that you made shoud indicate to you that there is a problem with your position. A weakness that you can't defend.

Tell me, why would you hold a position that you can not defend?

Who said I can't defend my position? You? I have no problem defending my position and I made it clear what it was in regards to abortion. You on the other hand keep making assumptions.

[palerider]

No it doesn't. I support a woman's right to have an abortion because of her right to control what happens to her body.


Then why did you inject the whole "burden on society" argument?

And women choose what happens to "their" bodies before they drop their panties. Pregnancy is a risk when one engages in sex. Once she is pregnant, it is no longer just her body. The one who dies has his or her own body.

[palerider]

Who said I can't defend my position? You? I have no problem defending my position and I made it clear what it was in regards to abortion. You on the other hand keep making assumptions.


Yes. I say that you can't defend your position. This is evidenced by the fact that you can't answer very simple questions and then attempt to distance yourself from what you said when the answers expose the weakness of your position.

I have made no assumptions. You tell me why you injected the whole burden on society argument if it is of no importance to you.

[Sgt Schultz]

Yes. I say that you can't defend your position. This is evidenced by the fact that you can't answer very simple questions and then attempt to distance yourself from what you said when the answers expose the weakness of your position.

I have made no assumptions. You tell me why you injected the whole burden on society argument if it is of no importance to you.

Nice try but I in no way distanced myself from what I said. I did not say the children would be a burden upon society. I did bring up the argument because in my experience the vast majority of people I know who oppose abortion also oppose welfare and other social programs. Those people believe that paying taxes to ensure a basic level of survival for others is a burden upon them. They only care about the womb, after the birth the child is no longer a concern to society, only the parent(s). I've been told as much by some of these very people.

You are trying to take what I said about abortion and apply it to other issues that are not about abortion. I'm pretty sure I know where you are trying to lead me but I'm not going to fall for that trap.

[palerider]

Nice try but I in no way distanced myself from what I said. I did not say the children would be a burden upon society. I did bring up the argument because in my experience the vast majority of people I know who oppose abortion also oppose welfare and other social programs. Those people believe that paying taxes to ensure a basic level of survival for others is a burden upon them. They only care about the womb, after the birth the child is no longer a concern to society, only the parent(s). I've been told as much by some of these very people.

So you do support abortion (killing unborns) because they might grow up to be a burden on society.

I'm pretty sure I know where you are trying to lead me but I'm not going to fall for that trap.

In case you didn't notice, I am following you, not leading. I am responding to your statements, not the other way around. Either you believe that possibly supporting those who don't get aborted is an issue or you don't and it makes absolutely no sense to bring it up if it isn't part of the foundation of your position. It is telling that you now are trying to distance yourself from your own words.

[Sgt Schultz]

So you do support abortion (killing unborns) because they might grow up to be a burden on society.

No, I have never said that. My position is that it should ultimately up to the woman if she wants to carry the pregnancy to term, no one elses. I have made that quite clear. I said nothing about them being a burden to society.

In case you didn't notice, I am following you, not leading. I am responding to your statements, not the other way around. Either you believe that possibly supporting those who don't get aborted is an issue or you don't and it makes absolutely no sense to bring it up if it isn't part of the foundation of your position. It is telling that you now are trying to distance yourself from your own words.

Again I am not distancing myself from my own words. I made a statement to point out that from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that most people I know who oppose abortion also oppose helping children out once they are born. My position was that if abortion is to be outlawed then society needs to ensure that all children need to be taken care of and offered a basic, decent standard of life. Caring should not stop after birth. Is that clear enough?

[Beetle Bailey]

Then why did you inject the whole "burden on society" argument?

And women choose what happens to "their" bodies before they drop their panties. Pregnancy is a risk when one engages in sex. Once she is pregnant, it is no longer just her body. The one who dies has his or her own body.

Thin logic. Ever notice how the most dogmatic of abortion opponents are usually men? I suppose when you bare no actual responsibility for giving birth it's easy to spout infantile rhetoric. Easy to decide what's right for people when you are so detached from the issue.

[palerider]

Again I am not distancing myself from my own words. I made a statement to point out that from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that most people I know who oppose abortion also oppose helping children out once they are born. My position was that if abortion is to be outlawed then society needs to ensure that all children need to be taken care of and offered a basic, decent standard of life. Caring should not stop after birth. Is that clear enough?

I oppose helping people who could work but don't. I don't support killing them because they are a burden none the less.

And once again. It is not the woman's body that is being killed. That whole line of logic is faulty since it is not she who dies.

[palerider]

Thin logic. Ever notice how the most dogmatic of abortion opponents are usually men? I suppose when you bare no actual responsibility for giving birth it's easy to spout infantile rhetoric. Easy to decide what's right for people when you are so detached from the issue.

Whether or not I am male or female is irrelavent to the fact that one human being's right to not be inconvenienced does not outweigh another human being's very right to live.

Talk about think logic. Suggesting that I have no place in the discussion based on no more than my sex is some of the shallowest reasoning that I have heard to date and you followed it up with an equally meager line of drivel.

Since half of the children who are being killed by their mothers are male and the vast majority of the females would not grow up and commit suicide because their mothers didn't do the job for them I have every possible right to argue on their behalf.

Now can you explain why a woman's invented right to not be inconvenienced outweighs her child's very real right to live? Or is empty rhetoric all you have to offer?

[Sgt Schultz]

I oppose helping people who could work but don't. I don't support killing them because they are a burden none the less.

Did I ever say that I did? :confused:

And once again. It is not the woman's body that is being killed. That whole line of logic is faulty since it is not she who dies.

But it is the woman's body who is involved and she who has to carry it. I believe it is her decision to make because of that. Because you do not share that point of view does not make my line of logic faulty.

[Beetle Bailey]

Whether or not I am male or female is irrelavent to the fact that one human being's right to not be inconvenienced does not outweigh another human being's very right to live.

Talk about think logic. Suggesting that I have no place in the discussion based on no more than my sex is some of the shallowest reasoning that I have heard to date and you followed it up with an equally meager line of drivel.

Since half of the children who are being killed by their mothers are male and the vast majority of the females would not grow up and commit suicide because their mothers didn't do the job for them I have every possible right to argue on their behalf.

Now can you explain why a woman's invented right to not be inconvenienced outweighs her child's very real right to live? Or is empty rhetoric all you have to offer?

The fact that you will never be faced with making that choice is entirely relavent. Since you don't really face the consequences of an unwanted birth, it's easy to reduce it to a purely academic argument. It's funny to watch people pretend to be concerned about human life. Particularly when it's all obviously in the context of their own social/religious/political ideology. Funny how they don't seem to be able to muster nearly as much concern for people who have already been born.

[palerider]

But it is the woman's body who is involved and she who has to carry it. I believe it is her decision to make because of that. Because you do not share that point of view does not make my line of logic faulty.

Your logic is faulty because one's right to not be inconvienienced does not outweigh another's right to live.

[palerider]

The fact that you will never be faced with making that choice is entirely relavent. Since you don't really face the consequences of an unwanted birth, it's easy to reduce it to a purely academic argument. It's funny to watch people pretend to be concerned about human life. Particularly when it's all obviously in the context of their own social/religious/political ideology. Funny how they don't seem to be able to muster nearly as much concern for people who have already been born.

Since you have no idea what I think with regard to people who are already born, your statement is pointless.

Can you or can you not explain the reasoning by which you believe one's right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another's right to live. Explain it in such a way so that it applies equally to all human beings or face up to your very shallow reasoning.

[Sgt Schultz]

Your logic is faulty because one's right to not be inconvienienced does not outweigh another's right to live.

Not all abortions are done as a matter of convenience. There are many reasons why they are done and that is a decision to be made between the woman and the doctor. You may believe that convenience is the reason but that does not make it a fact.

[USMC the Almighty]

Not all abortions are done as a matter of convenience. There are many reasons why they are done and that is a decision to be made between the woman and the doctor. You may believe that convenience is the reason but that does not make it a fact.

Well why else would you have an abortion if not for convenience?

But the thing that I'm more interested in is why you believe that the decision is to be made solely between the woman and the doctor? Shouldn't the father have some say?

[Sgt Schultz]

Well why else would you have an abortion if not for convenience?

But the thing that I'm more interested in is why you believe that the decision is to be made solely between the woman and the doctor? Shouldn't the father have some say?

Should the father have some input? Certainly but the ultimate decision should still be between the woman and the doctor.

[Beetle Bailey]

Since you have no idea what I think with regard to people who are already born, your statement is pointless.

Can you or can you not explain the reasoning by which you believe one's right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another's right to live. Explain it in such a way so that it applies equally to all human beings or face up to your very shallow reasoning.

See what I mean? Nothing but an academic argument. Nothing but contempt for women. So detached from life's little inconvenient realities. Sounds like someone who hasn't lived life. Never had to face any hard decisions. That must be why it's so easy to speak in theoretical terms. What choice do you have?

[top gun]

palerider;14753]We are not talking about the woman's body. She is not the one being killed. And we are not talking about a "thing" inside of the woman's body, we are talking about a human being. If you can't even bring yourself to discuss the topic in real terms and must hide behind vague phrases like "her body" and "anything" you really aren't prepared for this discussion.

But we are talking about a womens body. You know the Catholic church believes even taking birth control pills is taking life. The truth is what we are talking about are developing cells that if left to term could become sustainable human life. Could die off as a miscarriage. Could have terrible medical issues causing much pain and suffering before inevitable death. Many things "could" happen.

I think the truth is once you're confronted with the fact that it is a woman's body in control of this... and you have zero power over it... you become hostile to the obvious. Let the woman decide.


So you support killing human beings for no better reason than convenience without consequence because "things" aren't always perfect? Were you born into a perfect family, with perfect finances, with a perfect place for you?

Those are your words my friend I never said any such thing.I said it's a personal decision that should be considered very seriously by the person involved. There could well be medical reasons pertaining to the fetus or for the woman. There could be any number of reasons and I think you are aware of that. I'm presuming you are a man like me and thusly I know that you don't know the physiological effects of being in this situation. I think I may have said this before... Everyone talks a good fight. ;)

In the case of conjoined twins, if an organ is shared and not strong enough to support both, then an effort is made to save one at the expense of the other. If, by this example, you are saying that you only support abortion when the mother's life is in danger and by default the child's life as well and only one can be saved, then I am with you. The mother has the right to protect her life and shouldn't have to share her body if it is going to kill her exactly as the conjoined twin who has the organ that isn't strong enough to support both children has the right to not share if it is going to kill him.

See that's what I had hoped you would say. You just stepped in it my friend because it's the same thing. The reasoning behind the "murder" as you put it does not in fact vary do to these circumstances at all. For your position to be consistent you would have to say it's God's will let whoever has to die, die. You can't be the orbiter of life & death. What your position does is it makes you "feel" you are being gallant when the choice is presented in a certain way. But death is death... killing is killing if not by complete and utter accident. Look at it you'll see what your mind just tried to spin.


An opinion that is not supported by fact is worthless. When our lives begin is an inarguable today as a result of scientific advances as an argume that the world is flat.

But the "fact" has been proven my friend and the Supreme Court has upheld it for decades. Even many other countries have accepted the practice since the United States has. I think the difference is the world is evolving and you might prefer the middle ages.

And if the child is not viable, it is miscarried. If it is viable, it continues to live until it dies of natural causes or someone kills it. Again, hiding behind vague expressions like "viable" doesn't strengthen your position in this discussion. A human in early development requires a certain environment to live. Removing him or her from that environment will cause death, but has nothing to do with viability. You require a certain environment. If you were removed from that environment and put 1000 feet deep in the ocean or in the vaccum of space without protection, you would die. Does that mean that you weren't viable or that someone killed you by removing you from the environment you required to live?

Who's hiding. I'm openly telling you you are wrong. :)

If I don't like abortions then I shouldn't have one. Just like a bumper sticker.

There you go! Now you're getting the idea.

Tell me, if you had lived a hundred years ago, would you have had a bumper sticker on your wagon that said:

If you don't like slavery, then don't own one?

Interesting concept but I think that analogy actually applies much more to your own position. You want to be the slave master and dictate what a woman must do to something in her own body that is TOTALLY under her control. If she does not do as you have chosen you want to punish her. I'm sorry but I just don't agree with that.

Is that how you justify everything in your life? If you don't like arson, then don't set fires? If you don't like wife beating, then don't beat your wife? If you don't like child abuse, then don't abuse your children? You think that if we don't like certain things, we should just not do them and laws that protect us really aren't necessary?

Of course not. I judge everything on an individual basis. I do agree that if you don't like those things you mentioned you shouldn't do them because in doing so you set a bad example. Much like I would not expect you to have an abortion (if that were possible) because you feel strongly against it. And I don't think anyone should force one on you. In the same way I don't think you should force your opinion and interpretations on the majority of woman out there that disagree with you. I believe the courts have decided this matter correctly.

[Coyote]

We are not talking about the woman's body. She is not the one being killed. And we are not talking about a "thing" inside of the woman's body, we are talking about a human being. If you can't even bring yourself to discuss the topic in real terms and must hide behind vague phrases like "her body" and "anything" you really aren't prepared for this discussion.


Unless you can remove the embryo form the woman's body and raise it in another environment you can not avoid talking about her body and her rights pertaining to it. It's a package deal here.


In the case of conjoined twins, if an organ is shared and not strong enough to support both, then an effort is made to save one at the expense of the other. If, by this example, you are saying that you only support abortion when the mother's life is in danger and by default the child's life as well and only one can be saved, then I am with you. The mother has the right to protect her life and shouldn't have to share her body if it is going to kill her exactly as the conjoined twin who has the organ that isn't strong enough to support both children has the right to not share if it is going to kill him.



What right? From where? The twins together will survive - maybe not as long as one that is seperated - yet if seperated one will surely die. Someone is making a decision here to kill it.


And if the child is not viable, it is miscarried. If it is viable, it continues to live until it dies of natural causes or someone kills it. Again, hiding behind vague expressions like "viable" doesn't strengthen your position in this discussion. A human in early development requires a certain environment to live. Removing him or her from that environment will cause death, but has nothing to do with viability. You require a certain environment. If you were removed from that environment and put 1000 feet deep in the ocean or in the vaccum of space without protection, you would die. Does that mean that you weren't viable or that someone killed you by removing you from the environment you required to live?


We're talking about an environment that is someone elses body - that belongs to someone else.



If I don't like abortions then I shouldn't have one. Just like a bumper sticker.

Tell me, if you had lived a hundred years ago, would you have had a bumper sticker on your wagon that said:

If you don't like slavery, then don't own one?

Is that how you justify everything in your life? If you don't like arson, then don't set fires? If you don't like wife beating, then don't beat your wife? If you don't like child abuse, then don't abuse your children? You think that if we don't like certain things, we should just not do them and laws that protect us really aren't necessary?


The difference here though - is you are talking about rights pertaining to only one entity. Here you have competing rights.

[Coyote]

Again I am not distancing myself from my own words. I made a statement to point out that from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that most people I know who oppose abortion also oppose helping children out once they are born. My position was that if abortion is to be outlawed then society needs to ensure that all children need to be taken care of and offered a basic, decent standard of life. Caring should not stop after birth. Is that clear enough?

That is also the issue I have with the anti-abortion movement. Many of them lose interest once the child is born. What happens to those children? What support is there for parents? What support for parents carrying disabled children (adoption is unlikely)....what happens and does anyone care? I never see protesters lined up marching along with signs saying "stop child abuse", "adopt a crack baby" etc.

[Coyote]

Now can you explain why a woman's invented right to not be inconvenienced outweighs her child's very real right to live? Or is empty rhetoric all you have to offer?

That is a false statement. The issue is not an "invented right to not be inconvenienced" - it's the very real right to be able to control choices affecting her body.

[Coyote]

Well why else would you have an abortion if not for convenience?

But the thing that I'm more interested in is why you believe that the decision is to be made solely between the woman and the doctor? Shouldn't the father have some say?

There are a lot of reasons beyond "convenience".

Should the father have some say? If it's a married couple, yes. Otherwise I think the female has the stronger rights - she is the one that will have carry it to term, and raise it, and suffer the financial burden and any health costs associated with it. In this day and age - the man's ability to take responsibility is still largely voluntary. He could start out wanting the baby, change his mind and disappear and by then, it is too late to terminate.

[USMC the Almighty]

There are a lot of reasons beyond "convenience".

Like what? Other than sheer barbarity, I can't think of any reasons aside from its future potential inconvenience.

Should the father have some say? If it's a married couple, yes. Otherwise I think the female has the stronger rights - she is the one that will have carry it to term, and raise it, and suffer the financial burden and any health costs associated with it. In this day and age - the man's ability to take responsibility is still largely voluntary. He could start out wanting the baby, change his mind and disappear and by then, it is too late to terminate.

But the man is always the one who is financially responsible for the child.

[Coyote]

Like what? Other than sheer barbarity, I can't think of any reasons aside from its future potential inconvenience.


Rape and incest come to mind - not an "inconvenience".

Affordability - if you don't have insurance, you can anticipate an average hospital bill of $5,000-$10,000 for a vaginal delivery. Add at least $2,000 if you need a c-section. These figures do not include the medical costs associated with nine months of prenatal visits, ultrasound costs and other lab costs. If your baby is born premature or with health problems, neonatal costs can range from a few thousand for a short stay to more than $200,000 if you baby is born more than 15 weeks early. $200,000 is not an "inconvenience" considering a frequent reason for choosing abortion is the loss of job and income.

If the mother is young - a teenager, she is little more then a child herself. Pregnant teens are more at risk for certain health problems, such as high blood pressure or anemia. They also are more likely to go into labor too early. Abortion could be the better choice. Again, it's only an "inconvenience" if YOU don't have to bear the burden.




But the man is always the one who is financially responsible for the child.

Not necessarily.

[USMC the Almighty]

Rape and incest come to mind - not an "inconvenience".

How the unborn was conceived has nothing to do with the abortion, but I'll give you this. In cases of rape and incest, I do tend to favor allowing the woman to have the abortion.



Affordability - if you don't have insurance, you can anticipate an average hospital bill of $5,000-$10,000 for a vaginal delivery. Add at least $2,000 if you need a c-section. These figures do not include the medical costs associated with nine months of prenatal visits, ultrasound costs and other lab costs. If your baby is born premature or with health problems, neonatal costs can range from a few thousand for a short stay to more than $200,000 if you baby is born more than 15 weeks early. $200,000 is not an "inconvenience" considering a frequent reason for choosing abortion is the loss of job and income.

If the mother is young - a teenager, she is little more then a child herself. Pregnant teens are more at risk for certain health problems, such as high blood pressure or anemia. They also are more likely to go into labor too early. Abortion could be the better choice. Again, it's only an "inconvenience" if YOU don't have to bear the burden.

These two are examples of an inconvenience.

[Coyote]

How the unborn was conceived has nothing to do with the abortion, but I'll give you this. In cases of rape and incest, I do tend to favor allowing the woman to have the abortion.



These two are examples of an inconvenience.


Good thing you'll never have to worry about getting pregnant.

[Coyote]

$200,000 is an awful lot of money to come up with for an "inconvenience".

[palerider]

Not all abortions are done as a matter of convenience. There are many reasons why they are done and that is a decision to be made between the woman and the doctor. You may believe that convenience is the reason but that does not make it a fact.

Convenience - noun - 1. anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc. 2. a convenient situation or time 3. freedom from effort or difficulty 4. advantage or accommodation.

You describe a reason for having an abortion that does not involve the life or long term health of the mother that does not fit the definition of convenience and you might have a valid point. My bet, however, is that you aren't going to be able to do it.

[palerider]

What right? From where? The twins together will survive - maybe not as long as one that is seperated - yet if seperated one will surely die. Someone is making a decision here to kill it.

In cases where twins are separated and it is known that one will die, the circumstance is always (as far as I can tell) one in which there is a shared organ but it is not strong enough to support both twins. This sort of surgury is usually done very early. If there is no risk that both will die if they are left conjoined, the decision is left to the twins when they get older.

We're talking about an environment that is someone elses body - that belongs to someone else.

Who is responsible for placing the child in such a position?

The difference here though - is you are talking about rights pertaining to only one entity. Here you have competing rights.

Right you are. The right to not be inconvenienced is competing with the right to live. Explain the logic by which the right to not be inconvenienced outweighs the right to live and explain it in such a way as it applies to all human beings and not a particular class of human beings.

[palerider]

See what I mean? Nothing but an academic argument. Nothing but contempt for women. So detached from life's little inconvenient realities. Sounds like someone who hasn't lived life. Never had to face any hard decisions. That must be why it's so easy to speak in theoretical terms. What choice do you have?

No explanation huh? Exactly what I thought. Double talk. Shuck and jive. Evasion. But no explanation. And there is nothing theoretical about my position and I don't have to shuck and jive around issues to explain it.

[USMC the Almighty]

$200,000 is an awful lot of money to come up with for an "inconvenience".

It doesn't matter. The fact is that the reason for the abortion is that the baby would provide a financial inconvenience.

Well wouldn't it be nice if we could just kill off anything that posed an inconvenience, financial or otherwise.

[Coyote]

In cases where twins are separated and it is known that one will die, the circumstance is always (as far as I can tell) one in which there is a shared organ but it is not strong enough to support both twins. This sort of surgury is usually done very early. If there is no risk that both will die if they are left conjoined, the decision is left to the twins when they get older.


Regardless - a choice is deliberately made to end one innocent life prematurely.


Who is responsible for placing the child in such a position?


Depends on the situation doesn't it?


Right you are. The right to not be inconvenienced is competing with the right to live. Explain the logic by which the right to not be inconvenienced outweighs the right to live and explain it in such a way as it applies to all human beings and not a particular class of human beings.

It is not about the right to be "inconvenienced". It is about the right of a person to control decisions regarding their own body.

[palerider]

But we are talking about a womens body. You know the Catholic church believes even taking birth control pills is taking life. The truth is what we are talking about are developing cells that if left to term could become sustainable human life. Could die off as a miscarriage. Could have terrible medical issues causing much pain and suffering before inevitable death. Many things "could" happen.

Using birth control pills does cause the child to die. Birth control pills are not contraception, they are abortifacients.

The truth is that from the time fertilization is complete, the unborn is a human being. Exactly as human as you and science supports my position. Once fertilization is complete, you have a potential ball player, or pianist, or judge, or serial killer, but not a potenital human being.

I think the truth is once you're confronted with the fact that it is a woman's body in control of this... and you have zero power over it... you become hostile to the obvious. Let the woman decide.

Another error in your position. From the time fertilization is complete, the child begins chemical communication with the mother's body, directing her to prepare for pregnancy. The child is in control even to the point of telling the woman when to go into labor.


[QUOTE=top gun;14818]Those are your words my friend I never said any such thing.I said it's a personal decision that should be considered very seriously by the person involved. There could well be medical reasons pertaining to the fetus or for the woman. There could be any number of reasons and I think you are aware of that. I'm presuming you are a man like me and thusly I know that you don't know the physiological effects of being in this situation. I think I may have said this before... Everyone talks a good fight. ;)

Barely 1% of all abortions are due to medical reasons and I have no problem at all with those if the mother's life, or long term health is in danger because we do have the right to defend our lives, even if the one who is threatening us does not have any intent to harm us.

[QUOTE=top gun;14818]See that's what I had hoped you would say. You just stepped in it my friend because it's the same thing. The reasoning behind the "murder" as you put it does not in fact vary do to these circumstances at all. For your position to be consistent you would have to say it's God's will let whoever has to die, die. You can't be the orbiter of life & death. What your position does is it makes you "feel" you are being gallant when the choice is presented in a certain way. But death is death... killing is killing if not by complete and utter accident. Look at it you'll see what your mind just tried to spin.

I never bring God into this discussion. Pro choicers seem to have to do it. If I couldn't win without bringing God into it, I wouldn't join the conversation. My logic is flawless and entirely consistent. Let me see if I can explain it to you in more simple terms.

In the case of the conjoined twins. Suppose they share a heart and that heart is not strong enough to support both. If left alone, they will die. The one who has no heart of his or her own is going to cause the death of the one who has a heart. The one who has the heart has every right to defend his or her life even if the other twin has no intent to harm. If the mother's life or health is in danger, she has the right to defend her life as surely as she has the right to defend her life from anyone who might do her harm.

My argument, as is the case with every defense of my position, applies equally to all human beings and excludes none. Your argument only works for unborns and fails when applied to any other class of human beings.

But the "fact" has been proven my friend and the Supreme Court has upheld it for decades. Even many other countries have accepted the practice since the United States has. I think the difference is the world is evolving and you might prefer the middle ages.

No. The supreme court has proven nothing. Did the supreme court "prove" that blacks were not human beings when they ruled in Dred Scott that blacks were not, in fact, human beings but were property? Did they prove anything or simply make a terrrible mistake?

The scientific fact is that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. If you believe I am mistaken, I challenge you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

Who's hiding. I'm openly telling you you are wrong. :)

But completely failing to prove it in any way.

Interesting concept but I think that analogy actually applies much more to your own position. You want to be the slave master and dictate what a woman must do to something in her own body that is TOTALLY under her control. If she does not do as you have chosen you want to punish her. I'm sorry but I just don't agree with that.

Since you are suggesting that the woman "owns" the child like property and can therefore do with it whatever she wishes, my analogy to slavery is spot on.

Of course not. I judge everything on an individual basis. I do agree that if you don't like those things you mentioned you shouldn't do them because in doing so you set a bad example. Much like I would not expect you to have an abortion (if that were possible) because you feel strongly against it. And I don't think anyone should force one on you. In the same way I don't think you should force your opinion and interpretations on the majority of woman out there that disagree with you. I believe the courts have decided this matter correctly.

So you are a relativist?

[palerider]

That is also the issue I have with the anti-abortion movement. Many of them lose interest once the child is born. What happens to those children? What support is there for parents? What support for parents carrying disabled children (adoption is unlikely)....what happens and does anyone care? I never see protesters lined up marching along with signs saying "stop child abuse", "adopt a crack baby" etc.

So you favor killing them because they "might" be disabled, or they "might" not get adopted, or they "might have any number of problems? Which newborn from any economic class "might" not grow up to live a perfect life?

[palerider]

That is a false statement. The issue is not an "invented right to not be inconvenienced" - it's the very real right to be able to control choices affecting her body.

Do you have the right to kill another human who might cause you inconvenience?

Your argument only carrys weight if you include the death involved in the choice and can apply it equally across all classes of human beings and not just one.

[palerider]

Rape and incest come to mind - not an "inconvenience".

Why should the child forfiet its life because of the crimes of its father?
[/QUOTE]

[palerider]

Regardless - a choice is deliberately made to end one innocent life prematurely.

No. A choice is made to defend the life of the twin who is being threatened since it can not defend itself.



Depends on the situation doesn't it?

98% of all aborted pregnancies are the result of consensual sex. In any event, is the child responsible?

It is not about the right to be "inconvenienced". It is about the right of a person to control decisions regarding their own body.

It is about convenience and acting without accepting the responsibility for one's actions. Tell me a situation that does not involve the mother's life, or long term health that doesn't fit the definition of convenience.

[Coyote]

Using birth control pills does cause the child to die. Birth control pills are not contraception, they are abortifacients.

No, that is incorrect. Birth control pills work by preventing ovulation.


Another error in your position. From the time fertilization is complete, the child begins chemical communication with the mother's body, directing her to prepare for pregnancy. The child is in control even to the point of telling the woman when to go into labor.


That is also not entirely correct and deceptive. For one thing - what the fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo etc. does is mindless and mechanical there is no will behind it whatsoever - it is an automated process no different then a rabbit's or a mouse's. In addition it does not completely control the mother's body. In times of stress, the mother's body can shut it down and abort or reabsorb the fetus.


In the case of the conjoined twins. Suppose they share a heart and that heart is not strong enough to support both. If left alone, they will die. The one who has no heart of his or her own is going to cause the death of the one who has a heart. The one who has the heart has every right to defend his or her life even if the other twin has no intent to harm.


Typically, they both have a shared organ - a choice is made end one's life prematurely - it's not a matter of one defending his or her life because left unchanged they would both live for a period of time - short or long.

[Coyote]

Why should the child forfiet its life because of the crimes of its father?


Should the woman have to pay for the crimes of the father?

[Coyote]

No. A choice is made to defend the life of the twin who is being threatened since it can not defend itself.

It is not threatened. It may have a shorter life expectency but it would still be longer then the one that was murdered.


98% of all aborted pregnancies are the result of consensual sex. In any event, is the child responsible?


Like I said, depends on the situation.


It is about convenience and acting without accepting the responsibility for one's actions. Tell me a situation that does not involve the mother's life, or long term health that doesn't fit the definition of convenience.

Tell me a situation that does not involve someone besides the woman trying to control decisions made about her own body?

[Coyote]

Do you have the right to kill another human who might cause you inconvenience?

Your argument only carrys weight if you include the death involved in the choice and can apply it equally across all classes of human beings and not just one.

I have the right to control decisions involving my own body - any human being that is growing within my body does not have equal rights to make that choice - my rights supercede it's. My own rights come first because it is my body. Even if it is housing another - it is still mine. The other - in a sense, is little more then a parasite.

[Coyote]

So you favor killing them because they "might" be disabled, or they "might" not get adopted, or they "might have any number of problems? Which newborn from any economic class "might" not grow up to live a perfect life?


Did I say that?

[palerider]

No, that is incorrect. Birth control pills work by preventing ovulation.

Better do your research. I wouldn't have said it if I weren't pretty sure I knew what I was talking about.

http://uffl.org/vol10/colliton10.pdf

http://www.ethicalhealthcare.org/articles/larimore_birth_control.pdf

I can provide more but these are thoroughly referenced and most of what I could provide will be found in the references. You can find most in any med school library.

That is also not entirely correct and deceptive. For one thing - what the fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo etc. does is mindless and mechanical there is no will behind it whatsoever - it is an automated process no different then a rabbit's or a mouse's. In addition it does not completely control the mother's body. In times of stress, the mother's body can shut it down and abort or reabsorb the fetus.

I never claimed that there was intelligence behind it. The fact remains, that the child is in control of the pregnancy. The stress case you describe is a failing on the part of the mother's body, not the child's.

Typically, they both have a shared organ - a choice is made end one's life prematurely - it's not a matter of one defending his or her life because left unchanged they would both live for a period of time - short or long.

When this sort of separation is performed, it is known that both will die in short order. It is a very serious operation and some legality is involved because the surgury is killing a human being. The case has to be made for self defense.

[palerider]

Should the woman have to pay for the crimes of the father?

What do you mean "pay"?

[Coyote]

What do you mean "pay"?

By having control of her body taken away from her without her consent?

[palerider]

It is not threatened. It may have a shorter life expectency but it would still be longer then the one that was murdered.

No. If one dies, they both die. If they are in danger because they share an organ and it is not strong enough to support both, the organ fails and both die.

Tell me a situation that does not involve someone besides the woman trying to control decisions made about her own body?

Every single abortion involves the woman hiring a hit man to kill her child. It isn't about her body, it is about the dead child she leaves at the clinic.

[palerider]

I have the right to control decisions involving my own body - any human being that is growing within my body does not have equal rights to make that choice - my rights supercede it's. My own rights come first because it is my body. Even if it is housing another - it is still mine. The other - in a sense, is little more then a parasite.

Should I describe the difference between parasites and unborns to you? That line of logic is a loser.

Explain how your right to live supercedes the right of another human being who is not threatening your life. And explain it so that it applies to all humans and not just one class of humans.

[palerider]

By having control of her body taken away from her without her consent?

Control of her body? You mean she can't decide what to eat? Or she can't go to the mall? Or can't paint her fingernails? Exactly what control is she losing that outweighs the right of the child (who is innocent in all of this) to live?

Got to go to bed. I will pick up tomorrow. Good night all.

[Coyote]

Better do your research. I wouldn't have said it if I weren't pretty sure I knew what I was talking about.

http://uffl.org/vol10/colliton10.pdf

http://www.ethicalhealthcare.org/articles/larimore_birth_control.pdf

I can provide more but these are thoroughly referenced and most of what I could provide will be found in the references. You can find most in any med school library.



You cite two articles from 2000 - both writing from a strongly religious perspective?????? Their ideas don't seem to mesh with the mainstream scientific consensus and they are not definate.


I did do my research.

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/sexual_health/ssc/bcps.htm
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/youth/health/contraceptives/pill.htm
http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/femalehormone1.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PWH/is_2005_March_16/ai_n17209756


I never claimed that there was intelligence behind it. The fact remains, that the child is in control of the pregnancy. The stress case you describe is a failing on the part of the mother's body, not the child's.


No, it's not a failing - it's the ability of the mother to control it in order to preserve her own life OVER that of the fetus in times of need.

[Coyote]

Control of her body? You mean she can't decide what to eat? Or she can't go to the mall? Or can't paint her fingernails? Exactly what control is she losing that outweighs the right of the child (who is innocent in all of this) to live?

Got to go to bed. I will pick up tomorrow. Good night all.


Are you trying to say that a pregnancy is the equivalent of peircing your navel and that rape is the nothing more then consensual sex?

Night :)

[Coyote]

This is a guess on my part, and it might be grossly unfair of me but I have to wonder and I have to ask.

Rape is a horrible and violent crime - should a woman be forced to bear a pregnancy that comes out of it if she neither wants it nor can afford it, nor psychologically handle it?

This is a situation that a man will never encounter - oh men can get raped, but they will never become pregnant from it and have the constant reminder of it for the duration of the pregnancy and maybe even after - not to mention the attendent health risks and possibility of mortality.

I don't think I have ever heard many women saying that they would NOT support an abortion in the event of rape or incest.

Is it mainly men who feel thus?

[Coyote]

For heaven's sakes - here is a quote from one of your articles....this is hardly scientific and it includes biblical books in it's list of sources...

Simple logic demands that those who respect the sanctity of human
life from fertilization until natural death should also respect those actions
which give rise to that life. They were designed by the same Creator who
infuses the soul into each and every new conceptus. As 1 Samuel 2:6
informs us, “The Lord puts to death and gives life.”


I also found this in regards to the idea that BC pills are abortion:

http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-1-93-35-4130-1-P,00.html

Anti-Pill doctors and pharmacists base their stand on the fact that the Pill isn't perfect: Although it is designed to suppress ovulation and prevent fertilization, both can--and do--occur in rare cases. About 1 woman in every 1,000 who takes the Pill exactly as directed becomes pregnant in a given year. But while mainstream experts say ovulation happens only 2 to 3 percent of the time and fertilization is rare, anti-Pill groups claim both happen frequently. They say most of these fertilized eggs--in their view, nascent human lives--are unable to attach to the hormonally altered uterine lining. Instead of implanting and growing, they slough off. This theoretical action, which scientists can't confirm, is called the post-fertilization effect.

[Beetle Bailey]

No explanation huh? Exactly what I thought. Double talk. Shuck and jive. Evasion. But no explanation. And there is nothing theoretical about my position and I don't have to shuck and jive around issues to explain it.

You should review your posts on this thread. A psychiatrist could make a case study out of you. He could write his thesus based entirely on you. You absolutely crawl with cues. It's more than obvious that you don't even like women. Let alone understand anything about them. I wonder how you imagine you can speak for them?

[palerider]

You cite two articles from 2000 - both writing from a strongly religious perspective?????? Their ideas don't seem to mesh with the mainstream scientific consensu