Abortion and Morality

[top gun]

palerider;20205]Well we have already examined your capacity as a psychologist, so you will pardon me if I express my complete lack of confidence in your ability to measure anything.

I don't know... I think I'm pretty close.


Spewing insults? That is your problem? Perhaps you should examine mare's posts before you accuse me of spewing anything.

I've read Mare's posts. What you refuse to accept is you are not the only intelligent person on the board and you are not the authority here. You have an opinion. Opinions are like assholes... everyone's got one. The thing that cranks this debate up to such a fever pitch is this. You proclaim to know more than you could possibly know. You don't know about RAPE. You don't know and don't care about what the woman is going through by being pregnant but you insist that your values be forced on her private, personal decisions.

Here's the truth and and if you think about it you know it's true... you do not know anything about it. You claiming to understand or be an expert about RAPE or the pain and emotional baggage of being pregnant is like Mare telling me how it feels to be kicked in the balls. She doesn't really know!

I am still waiting for you, or anyone else to produce a single argument that refutes the basic tenets of my position. Until you can, what you "think" is irrelavent.

Is that your "professional" opinion as a councelor? Tell me, should we leave everyone else alone as well and let them decide to kill innocent human beings for reasons of convenience as well? Your argument fails on every level. A rational argument can be applied equally to every one of us, no pro choice argument can make such a claim.

See we come back to this. You are not the winner of this decision. This topic has been dissected, hashed and rehashed and litigated. I know you'd like to make us believe that there's some knew earth shattering information but there isn't. People have always been on the same opposing sides for the exact same reasons.

So when it comes to stating the obvious it's your "opinion" against the standing law all across the United States of America. It's your minority "opinion" when you compare the number of countries and populations of the world that allow abortion.

You have to admit this. Choice is legal today. Choice was legal yesterday. Choice was legal last year. Choice was legal a decade ago. Choice was legal 34 years ago. So there's been a long time to overturn a woman's right to choose but it hasn't been for a plethora of good reasons.

As far as removing the woman's right to choose, making the Birth Control Pill illegal and start throwing women in prison for murder for an abortion or for taking the Pill... It's possible the South might once again try to secede from the Union. I'd say one of these things is just about as likely as the other.

You see the work is not for us to do. All this side has to do is support the current law.

[Coyote]

I will say this. I do not think Palerider is a misogynist, and niether do I think he hates women. His arguments have been respectful when he is treated with respect. He is consistent and clear in his views and seldom throws emotion into the argument (except he starts on how many babies are being murdered, compares the trauma of rape to that of barking dogs, or talks about abortion as mere convenience thus minimalizing the ordeals involved in my mind). I think sometimes he sees it as too black and white where as I can not.

I do wonder one thing though. I have very seldom heard women express the view that there should not be an exception for rape. Perhaps I have just not read enough of the opposing view. It seems to me that those who argue against it argue from a primarily theoretical point of view. If they are men the question is academic. They will never be forced to face an unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape. They will never be put in the position of having someone else determine the outcome and make decisions about their own body as a result of that violent act.

The fact that someone could minimize rape to the point of comparing it to the trauma inflicted by a barking dog to me shows an insensitivity on par with those who view a fetus as nothing more then a lump of flesh.

Why is rape so casually regarded?

[palerider]

And what if it kills the mother? Not only did she have no rights in the conception, but she has no rights in whether or not to keep it. What if she loses her job in the process? What rights does she have against a crime that was committed against her?

12 in 100,000 coyote. That isn't even a good argument. And being killed compared to the rest? You believe there is a contest? And are you saying that you believe all abortion except in the case of rape and the health of the mother should be banned?

When it comes to a person's life in pregnancy you have two competing and valid sets of rights. I don't agree that the right to life trumps all other rights in all cases.

What you believe isn't as important as what is. Can you make an argument for abortion that can be equally applied to all of us or do you find that you must single "them" out as a special group to be denied rights?

[palerider]

I don't know... I think I'm pretty close.{/quote]

We have also established that you don't think much either.

[QUOTE=top gun;20216] I've read Mare's posts. What you refuse to accept is you are not the only intelligent person on the board and you are not the authority here. You have an opinion. Opinions are like assholes... everyone's got one. The thing that cranks this debate up to such a fever pitch is this. You proclaim to know more than you could possibly know. You don't know about RAPE.

I am sure that there are other intelligent people on the board. They are the ones who are not in this discussion because they realise that my position is unassailable.

I know that unborns are human beings. I know that human beings have a right to live. And I know that all rights are secondary to the right to live. Those aren't opinions top gun, those are the facts. You are unable to assail my position because your position is based on emotion, opinion, misunderstood science, and pure fantasy. If you had facts, you could as easily invalidate my position as I invalidate yours.

You don't know and don't care about what the woman is going through by being pregnant but you insist that your values be forced on her private, personal decisions.

Not my values, the very basis for the founding of this country. All rights are secondary to the right to live. No amount of emotional trauma that you could cause me or anyone else trumps your right to live. Your right to live outweighs every right of every citizen in the entire country unless you are threatening another's life. Like it or not, that is the way it is.

Here's the truth and and if you think about it you know it's true... you do not know anything about it. You claiming to understand or be an expert about RAPE or the pain and emotional baggage of being pregnant is like Mare telling me how it feels to be kicked in the balls. She doesn't really know!

I know that all rights are secondary to the right to live and no amount of emotional hadwringing on your part will change it. No human being has the right to kill another because that other is either inconvenient or dredges up bad memories.

See we come back to this. You are not the winner of this decision. This topic has been dissected, hashed and rehashed and litigated. I know you'd like to make us believe that there's some knew earth shattering information but there isn't. People have always been on the same opposing sides for the exact same reasons.

Nothing new and nothing earthshattering. Just enough evidence to undermine the roe decision. There is a growing body of legal precedent for the personhood of unborns and even at the time roe was decided, the justices stated that if personhood is ever established, roe falls. Well, it has been established.

So when it comes to stating the obvious it's your "opinion" against the standing law all across the United States of America. It's your minority "opinion" when you compare the number of countries and populations of the world that allow abortion.

A court decision does not constitute standing law.

You have to admit this. Choice is legal today. Choice was legal yesterday. Choice was legal last year. Choice was legal a decade ago. Choice was legal 34 years ago. So there's been a long time to overturn a woman's right to choose but it hasn't been for a plethora of good reasons.

Slavery was legal till it was overturned. All sorts of things have been legal based on court decisions till they were overturned. The decisions were overturned because they became indefensible, just like roe. And most of the 200 reversals that the supreme court has made stood longer than 34 years.

You see the work is not for us to do. All this side has to do is support the current law.

You support the law. Personally, I don't want that much blood on my hands.

[Coyote]

12 in 100,000 coyote. That isn't even a good argument. And being killed compared to the rest? You believe there is a contest? And are you saying that you believe all abortion except in the case of rape and the health of the mother should be banned?


You asked me that before and believe it or not it has been going round and round in my mind. I am very close to thinking yes. But I am not there yet.


What you believe isn't as important as what is. Can you make an argument for abortion that can be equally applied to all of us or do you find that you must single "them" out as a special group to be denied rights?

I will use the same argument I used before - you are already singling out pregnant women as a special group.

Reality is - pregnant women and unborn fetus' ARE a unique group of humans very different then any other in that rights are so tightly intertwined.

[palerider]

The fact that someone could minimize rape to the point of comparing it to the trauma inflicted by a barking dog to me shows an insensitivity on par with those who view a fetus as nothing more then a lump of flesh.

First, I never said that rape was no worse than being barked at by a dog. It was suggested that the psychological trauma of rape should be an immediate and valid reason to kill a child that might result from the act. I pointed out that the trauma itself is less important than how deeply the victim is effected. I stand by that statement and await for you, or anyone else to prove that the source of a trauma is more important than how profoundly your psyche is affected.

[Coyote]

First, I never said that rape was no worse than being barked at by a dog. It was suggested that the psychological trauma of rape should be an immediate and valid reason to kill a child that might result from the act. I pointed out that the trauma itself is less important than how deeply the victim is effected. I stand by that statement and await for you, or anyone else to prove that the source of a trauma is more important than how profoundly your psyche is affected.

I see what you are saying. Trauma in and of itself is not sufficient reason to abort.

However - being impregnated against your will is.

[palerider]

You asked me that before and believe it or not it has been going round and round in my mind. I am very close to thinking yes. But I am not there yet.

I could say that I could compromize on the rape issue by way of getting along but such an agreement would be meaningless. The thing is that if roe is overturned because the case for personhood for the unborn is made (the only valid reason for doing so), it won't matter how the child is concieved, it will be a human being with 14th amendment protections. The very reason that abortificents will no longer be allowed. Human beings have a right to live that outweighs all other rights.

I will use the same argument I used before - you are already singling out pregnant women as a special group.

Reality is - pregnant women and unborn fetus' ARE a unique group of humans very different then any other in that rights are so tightly intertwined.

I am not singling out anyone. That is the flaw in your argument. My arguments apply equally to every single one of us. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

And every persecuted and murdered group has been unique for some reason. Any tyrant can come up with a good reason to deny protection to some group or another.

[palerider]

However - being impregnated against your will is.


If you can demonstrate why the child should be denied its one and only chance to live. Getting around that one is a corker isn't it?

[Coyote]

If you can demonstrate why the child should be denied its one and only chance to live. Getting around that one is a corker isn't it?

heh

I gotta run unfortunately, but will answer later tonight! ;)

[TruthAboveAll]

I see what you are saying. Trauma in and of itself is not sufficient reason to abort.

However - being impregnated against your will is.

Okay, I had to jump in for a bit here. Coyote, the whole intolerable part of a pregnancy resulting from rape is strictly due to the trauma. At least this is what so many here in this thread have stated.

If I understand your statement, you are saying the trauma itself is insufficient for abortion, but the impregnation under violence is? I'm having a hard time understanding that logic.

[vyo476]

It was suggested that the psychological trauma of rape should be an immediate and valid reason to kill a child that might result from the act.

That was not my intention and if you perceived my posts that way, I apologize for the misconception.

[TruthAboveAll]

You asked me that before and believe it or not it has been going round and round in my mind. I am very close to thinking yes. But I am not there yet.

Coyote, APPLAUSE APPLAUSE! I assume your remark is in response to Pale's question about no abortions except in cases of rape.

Personally, I agree totally with Pale that ALL rights are secondary to life, as he's stated so consistently. I would admit, however, that if we can even get to the point of this standard, it would be a huge step in the right direction. The basic right to and respect for life would start to prevail in our society.

Answering all questions, solving all problems? No. But a great place to start. I sincerely hope you will continue to think objectively on this.

BTW - LOVE your hat! ;)

[TruthAboveAll]

That was not my intention and if you perceived my posts that way, I apologize for the misconception.

VYO, I didn't single anyone out. I used the word MANY here as exactly that. The whole discussion has shifted from the general issue to the specific (primarily!) of pregnancy/abortion resulting from rape. For those advocating this, defending what they perceive as a woman's right to make this choice under this circumstance, trauma has been the foundational "logic" supplied for the majority of them.

Not all. I've been in and out of this thread as my time permits, and so I can't recall even where your position is. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it don't, it's most likely someone else's...:cool:

[TruthAboveAll]

In general, what happens when a woman is raped? I'm talking about the whole package of events, from the vicious violation to the - what exactly? - in the future? The rape can be a street crime, a drug crime, a result of date rape, a violent physical assault that leads to and ends in rape, the planned assault of a serial perpetrator, spousal abuse, etc. It can even be from a woman who was maybe out for the night, having a good time, things get out of hand, she says no and he won't have that. A wide variety of the original event.

The violent act is done in a limited period of time. The aftermath continues, and most of it is intertwined with the trauma. A woman is raped, may or may not want to report the rape. For the one who does, she is taken to the hospital and again suffers under the humility of an exam, pictures taken, swabs taken, police report, suspect arrested (if we all in society are fortunate!), woman views lineup, does or doesn't identify rapist, interviewed by prosecutor's office, DNA tests if available, testimony in court, cross-examination by a lawyer trying to get client off, trying to retain composure throughout the trial. Awaiting the verdict, which guilty or not-guilty carry their own string of issues. Support groups. Counseling. Supportive friends and family.

I'm a woman. I've known women who have had abortions, I've known women who were raped. Three to be exact. One of those did have a resulting pregnancy. She was married. Yeah, she was married to a man. Believe me, that many suffered damn near to what she did. He was with her every step of the way.

Do not assume that a man is incapable for having compassion and concern for a woman who is going through this, simple because he is a man. When they discovered she was pregnant, chronologically they were able to determine the pregnancy was nearly 100% probably resulting from the rape.

To make a long story short, the overweening fact determining their decision to follow through, have the baby, keep the baby, and raise the baby was the simple knowledge that regardless, it was HER child.

That daughter graduated from high school five years ago. And you know, I don't think there was a shred of the memory of the pain and violence of her forced impregnation. There was too much love, joy, pride and hope for this daughter.

The daughter was the second of four siblings. Her older sister and two younger brothers were loved no more than she. An additional and special irony is that this daughter is the one who gave the couple their first grandchild just a month ago.

From a woman devastated by a home breaking and entry, robbery, beating and rape, she is a testimony of all that is good, strong and worthwhile in humanity. In particular, she is a true "profile in courage" of the indomitable spirit of women throughout time in the very most dire of circumstances.

If it were me? I'd hope to have the courage to follow exactly in her steps, from start to finish.

[Coyote]

To make a long story short, the overweening fact determining their decision to follow through, have the baby, keep the baby, and raise the baby was the simple knowledge that regardless, it was HER child.

That is a wonderful story of human strength over a horrible event.

But...in my mind the important thing is this: she was able to make a choice.

Does anyone have that right to remove the choice from her under those circumstances?

[Coyote]

Coyote, APPLAUSE APPLAUSE! I assume your remark is in response to Pale's question about no abortions except in cases of rape.

Personally, I agree totally with Pale that ALL rights are secondary to life, as he's stated so consistently. I would admit, however, that if we can even get to the point of this standard, it would be a huge step in the right direction. The basic right to and respect for life would start to prevail in our society.

Answering all questions, solving all problems? No. But a great place to start. I sincerely hope you will continue to think objectively on this.

BTW - LOVE your hat! ;)

Thank you- that's my pimp hat :cool:
Thinking about life in regards to abortion, and respect for all life started with conversations with a person who is very Christian, conservative in most things, liberal in others - but feels all life is sacred. He opposes abortion, and the death penalty for that reason. I respect that. It's consistent.

[Coyote]

Okay, I had to jump in for a bit here. Coyote, the whole intolerable part of a pregnancy resulting from rape is strictly due to the trauma. At least this is what so many here in this thread have stated.

If I understand your statement, you are saying the trauma itself is insufficient for abortion, but the impregnation under violence is? I'm having a hard time understanding that logic.

The trauma of the event is horrible. But to me - my feeling is no woman should be forced to bear a child against her will ever. She should never be relegated to the status of a broodmare. Impregnation through rape is most definately against her will. There was nothing she could have done to prevent it, and she did nothing irresponsible or reckless. She committed no crime but she is being punished.

[Coyote]

If you can demonstrate why the child should be denied its one and only chance to live. Getting around that one is a corker isn't it?

No child should be denied it's chance to live.

No woman should be forced to bear a child against her will.

When those two rights clash, the woman's right to her body is stronger. The life within her has no sentience, no brain, no awareness of pain or what it is gaining or losing. She does.

She committed no crime to deserve this and no one is going to help her out of it, but herself. She should at least have a choice.

[USMC the Almighty]

Thank you- that's my pimp hat :cool:
Thinking about life in regards to abortion, and respect for all life started with conversations with a person who is very Christian, conservative in most things, liberal in others - but feels all life is sacred. He opposes abortion, and the death penalty for that reason. I respect that. It's consistent.

I still don't understand how you see any parallel between opposing killing innocent unborns and killing heinous rapists and murderers.

[Coyote]

I still don't understand how you see any parallel between opposing killing innocent unborns and killing heinous rapists and murderers.


Either life is sacred or it isn't. In the end do we have the right to judge and take the life of another for any reason?

If human life is sacred for some reason - if there is a "right" to life - then all life is sacred or none of it is.

Then one has to look further. Is all life sacred to some degree? Not just human life? It should be shouldn't it?

Of course I don't have an answer yet to all the questions.

[USMC the Almighty]

Either life is sacred or it isn't. In the end do we have the right to judge and take the life of another for any reason?

I believe we do. Life is sacred until you do something that makes it not sacred. If you rape and kill a 7 year old girl, your life is less sacred than the innocent unborn.

[palerider]

No child should be denied it's chance to live.

No woman should be forced to bear a child against her will.

When those two rights clash, the woman's right to her body is stronger. The life within her has no sentience, no brain, no awareness of pain or what it is gaining or losing. She does.[/quote]

The fact that it hasn't developed that far is irrelavent to the fact that it is a human being and only gets one chance to live. That fact is exactly why the right to live outweighs all other rights.

She committed no crime to deserve this and no one is going to help her out of it, but herself. She should at least have a choice.

It is simply not true to suggest that no one is going to help her out of it. No one goes through anything alone any more unless they choose to be alone. And going through a thing alone by choice or by mandate is still not a valid reason to deny a human being their one shot at life.

[palerider]

Either life is sacred or it isn't. In the end do we have the right to judge and take the life of another for any reason?

What sacred? The law is the law. If you like the idea of letting a killer have the chace to kill again, or like the idea of revenge killing, then strike the laws that make killing illegal off the books.

If human life is sacred for some reason - if there is a "right" to life - then all life is sacred or none of it is.

And if it isn't? The whole sacred argument fails for me and fails miserably. No one can prove that a human life is sacred. That being said, how do you justify executing, or even imprisoning a killer if he has killed a life that ethier is or is not sacred? The whole sacred issue is a strawman and is irrelavent to the issue of one human being killing another. If you don't believe in the sacred, then you find that you will have to fabricate some other reason to imprison or execute killers because we simply can not allow one human being to take it upon his or herself to kill another.

[Coyote]

No child should be denied it's chance to live.
The fact that it hasn't developed that far is irrelavent to the fact that it is a human being and only gets one chance to live. That fact is exactly why the right to live outweighs all other rights.

When you are measuring rights that conflict then I think it matters. It is her body and her life vs. it's body and it's life. She had no more choice in the situation then it did.

[quote
It is simply not true to suggest that no one is going to help her out of it. No one goes through anything alone any more unless they choose to be alone. And going through a thing alone by choice or by mandate is still not a valid reason to deny a human being their one shot at life.[/QUOTE]

That is an assumption. You don't know that.

In addition, many of the people who tend to vote "right to life" also tend to vote against government aid to individuals in need. Private aid is highly variable and can be contingent upon certain conditions. If you are middle class or better, maybe the impact is less. If you are poor, are your own means of support, have a job without benefits what exactly are you going to do? They don't have to grant you maternity leave do they? Estimates place the cost of pregnancy and bearing a child at around $10,000. Speaking only for myself...I could not come up with that money. Yet a woman who becomes pregnant by rape must.

[palerider]

. If you are middle class or better, maybe the impact is less. If you are poor, are your own means of support, have a job without benefits what exactly are you going to do? They don't have to grant you maternity leave do they? Estimates place the cost of pregnancy and bearing a child at around $10,000. Speaking only for myself...I could not come up with that money. Yet a woman who becomes pregnant by rape must.

So money, or lack of money is a valid reason to kill one's children? Are you pepared to make such a rule apply to us all or only to "them"?

[Coyote]

So money, or lack of money is a valid reason to kill one's children? Are you pepared to make such a rule apply to us all or only to "them"?

No. The reason I consistently give is no woman should be forced to bear a child against her will. Rape is clearly against her will.

[Coyote]

What sacred? The law is the law. If you like the idea of letting a killer have the chace to kill again, or like the idea of revenge killing, then strike the laws that make killing illegal off the books.


Why is the law what it is? Why does it place a higher premium on human life then the life of another species?

You've cited before that otherwise we revert to the "law of the jungle". Why shouldn't we? Because perhaps there is something inherently more valuable in a human life then a non-human life? Or, by extension all life - the value being in life itself? Something we are completely unable to replicate? We can destroy but we sure can't create.


And if it isn't? The whole sacred argument fails for me and fails miserably. No one can prove that a human life is sacred.

The only thing that makes it sacred is us.


That being said, how do you justify executing, or even imprisoning a killer if he has killed a life that ethier is or is not sacred?

I don't support the death penalty, though the reason is not so much the sacredness of life then other reasons. So I won't justify it. Imprisonment is either for punishment or for the protection of society or both. I am not sure what you are asking me.


The whole sacred issue is a strawman and is irrelavent to the issue of one human being killing another. If you don't believe in the sacred, then you find that you will have to fabricate some other reason to imprison or execute killers because we simply can not allow one human being to take it upon his or herself to kill another.

Why is it a strawman?

If it were not important (ie sacred) then why protect it at all? Or are you saying that law is the what makes it "sacred" and only law?

If that is the case then...if the law is revised to say that only white people are protected - would that be "right"?

Am I misunderstanding you?

[top gun]

palerider;20224]
I am sure that there are other intelligent people on the board. They are the ones who are not in this discussion because they realise that my position is unassailable.

I believe there's been numerous great points in opposition to your opinion. People are in line with the law. The law has stood for decades and stands at this time for a reason. Until it is changed your "opinion" has not reached the level to be considered legal. That speaks for itself. Your whole case is based on... "IF" hoping against hope that someday the Supreme Court might somehow see things your way. If not women would be in your "sex" prison already.

I know that unborns are human beings. I know that human beings have a right to live. And I know that all rights are secondary to the right to live. Those aren't opinions top gun, those are the facts. You are unable to assail my position because your position is based on emotion, opinion, misunderstood science, and pure fantasy. If you had facts, you could as easily invalidate my position as I invalidate yours.

You know full well personhood in regard to a woman's right to choose has not been established before viability. You've said that yourself.

There is that distinction for good reason.

Why not hunt down and try for murder every solider and their commander that commits collateral damage when full blown innocent women & children are killed? The reason isn't because it's an accident. Everyone knows collateral damage is a fact of bombing. The reason is that there are many circumstances (this is just one) where there are surrounding mitigating circumstances that allow for the ending of life. And they are far more reaching than stopping 2 cells from developing with a Birth Control Pill or having an abortion before there are even brain waves. In an imperfect world the law must be allowed to make these distinctions... and they do.

Nothing new and nothing earthshattering. Just enough evidence to undermine the roe decision. There is a growing body of legal precedent for the personhood of unborns and even at the time roe was decided, the justices stated that if personhood is ever established, roe falls. Well, it has been established.

Come on now you know there is nothing biological new at all. You know it... everyone knows it. I can go back to the time of the original decision and find all the same "it's a human being" arguments there are now. And you also know personhood has never been established in regard to a woman's right to choose.

There's not even a case before the Supreme Court considering the overturning of Roe. Cite me the case? It's been 34 years surly some case has had time to work its way through the courts in 34 years. The truth is that the country will never allow Roe to be overturned. This genie is out of the bottle... but you're entitled to believe the South will rise again if you want.

A court decision does not constitute standing law.

Roe established that it was unconstitutional to prohibit a women the right to choose. Laws from that point on had to be in line with that United States Supreme Court decision.

Slavery was legal till it was overturned. All sorts of things have been legal based on court decisions till they were overturned. The decisions were overturned because they became indefensible, just like roe. And most of the 200 reversals that the supreme court has made stood longer than 34 years.

Well you may have a decent analogy here. The odds that slavery will be reinstated is probably the same as the odds America is going to make abortion illegal and start throwing American women into prison for murder for taking the current Birth Control Pill. If you just stop for one second and think how ridiculous that sounds and also take into consideration the real number of voting age adults (women & men) that would infuriate... even you know that's never really going to happen.

You support the law. Personally, I don't want that much blood on my hands.

I believe that we are a nation of laws. It would be anarchy if we weren't. This case was litigated in full all the way to the court of last resort. I give the high court my support on this issue. I'm pleased women can choose their own path. Choose not to have an abortion, but also not be jailed because they refuse to have their bodies hijacked by the government forced to be government incubators.

[palerider]

No. The reason I consistently give is no woman should be forced to bear a child against her will. Rape is clearly against her will.

So killing another human being to avoid doing a thing against your will is OK with you? And again, does that apply to all of us or just "them"?

[Coyote]

So killing another human being to avoid doing a thing against your will is OK with you? And again, does that apply to all of us or just "them"?

No. It is not to avoid "doing a thing" against my will.

No one has the right to usurp and use my body against my will.

[palerider]

I believe there's been numerous great points in opposition to your opinion. People are in line with the law. The law has stood for decades and stands at this time for a reason. Until it is changed your "opinion" has not reached the level to be considered legal. That speaks for itself.

I have challenged you and then defied you to bring forward any point that invalidates just one of the three legs of my positon. So far, nothing.

And simply waving the decision when you can not defend the decision illustrates the weakness of your position.

You know full well personhood has not been established before viability. You've said that yourself. There is a distinction in the law for good reason.

So now you begin to lie blatantly? I have never suggested that personhood has anything to do with viability. And precedent has been established and continues to accumulate for the personhood of the unborn. People are in prison today having been charged with both murder and manslaughter for killing unborns. One can be charged with neither if one has not killed a person.

Why not hunt down and try for murder every solider and their commander that commits collateral damage when full blown innocent women & children are killed? The reason isn't because it's an accident. Everyone knows collateral damage is a fact of bombing. The reason is that there are many circumstances (this is just one) where there are surrounding mitigating circumstances that allow for the ending of life. And this is far more than stopping 2 cells from developing with a Birth Control Pill or having an abortion before there are even brain waves. In an imperfect world the law must be allowed to make these distinctions... and they do.

The deliberate and premeditated killing of an innocent is a crime even during war time.

Come on you know there is nothing biological new at all. You know it... everyone knows it. I can go back to the time of the original decision and find all the same "it's a human being" arguments there are now. And you also know personhood has never been established in regard to a woman's right to chose.

They were arguments then with little science to back them up. Today, they are backed by the entire scientific community as no credible scientist would suggest that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

There's not even a case before the Supreme Court considering the overturning of Roe. Cite me the case? It's been 34 years surly some case has had time to work its way through the courts in 34 years. The truth is that the country will never allow Roe to be overturned. The genie is out of the bottle my friend. But you're entitled to believe the South will rise again if you want.

There are no less than 15 cases working their way through the superior courts that challenge roe. If you are interested, feel free to do the research on your own, or sit back smugly and be surprised as roe is eroded until it falls.

And while you are at it, research the couple of hundred times the court has reversed itself. Most of those cases stood over 34 years before they were overturned. The amount of time a case stands means nothing.

Roe established that it was unconstitutional to prohibit a women the right to chose. Laws from that point on had to be in line with that United States Supreme Court decision.

Show me a right to kill one's child in the constitution. Hell, show me something that can be construed to be a right to kill one's child in the constitution. I have asked this before and then, as now, you will be quite unable to defend the decison because no such right may be found within the constitution.

Well you may have a decent analogy here. The odds that slavery will be reinstated is probably the same as the odds America is going to make abortion illegal and start throwing American women into prison for murder for taking the current Birth Control Pill. If you just stop for one second and think how ridiculous that sounds and also take into consideration the real number of voting age adults (women & men) that would infuriate... even you know that's never really going to happen.

Here is another place where your reason fails. America didn't make abortion legal. Nine unelected, and unaccountable judges did and it was a very liberal court that did it. Roe rests entirely on how liberal the court is. A court that is concerned more with constitutional integrity than liberal social engineering can overturn the decision as easily as the liberal cout found it.

If America had legalized abortion, then law would have been written and legislated by the houses of congress. If America had legalized abortion, then this argument wouldn't exist because it would be very difficult to ever change the law. Of course, you know as well as I that in spite of your claim that the majority's approval of roe that abortion on demand woud have a snowball's chance in hell of making it through the house and senate.

I believe that we are a nation of laws. It would be anarchy if we weren't. This case was litigated in full all the way to the court of last resort. I give the high court my support on this issue. I'm pleased women can choose their own path. Choose not to have an abortion, but also not be jailed because they refuse to have their bodies hijacked by the government forced to be government incubators.

But it isn't law and is entirely dependent upon the relative liberalism or conservativism of the court. The present court is quite a different creature than the one that decided roe.

And be pleased all you like but the fact remains that you are quite unable to defend the roe decision. If there were a good defense of it, it would be well circulated by the pro choice movement and you would have little difficulty knocking at least one of the legs from my position rather than finding yourself reduced to personal attacks against me and sanctimonious platitudes proclaiming the righteousness of abortion.

[palerider]

No. It is not to avoid "doing a thing" against my will.

Of course it is to avoid doing a thing against your will.

No one has the right to usurp and use my body against my will.

You don't have the right to kill another human being unless they represent a real and present threat to your life.

[top gun]

palerider;20349]I have challenged you and then defied you to bring forward any point that invalidates just one of the three legs of my positon. So far, nothing.
And simply waving the decision when you can not defend the decision illustrates the weakness of your position.

Nothing weak about it. How can it be weak when it's already been debated and litigated all the way up to the highest level of the United States court system and my position is the standing rule? The fact is that the Supreme Court does not give personhood until viability. Everyone including them knows every biological reason you state and still they recognize the varying degrees of development and weigh that with the rights of the woman involved. Sometimes in law there is the reality of compromise verdicts. I see that as a good thing in this instance, you don't. But the ruling is the ruling until it changes. So as of now you are not winning. If you were abortion would be illegal. Just isn't gonna happen. The vast majority of the American people believe women should be allowed the choice. Even Bush as slow as he is recognized the numbers. When asked about overturning Roe he said quote, America isn't ready for that.

So now you begin to lie blatantly? I have never suggested that personhood has anything to do with viability. And precedent has been established and continues to accumulate for the personhood of the unborn. People are in prison today having been charged with both murder and manslaughter for killing unborns. One can be charged with neither if one has not killed a person.

That's not what I said. I said the Supreme Court looks at viability as personhood. All the "precedents" you talk about are not on the issue of abortion. We've already been over this. There are many instances in law where the circumstances surrounding a situation or a crime affect the definitions. You can be a driver of a get away car and if someone you drove killed somebody when you weren't even around you can be still be charged with murder. This is the question you have to answer. Is it the long standing and current ruling that personhood starts at conception in regard to a woman's right to choose? You know it's not. It's not going to be. All the other cases you cite do not affect the abortion issue in any way. Those laws have been on the books for years now. No overturn of Roe.

The deliberate and premeditated killing of an innocent is a crime even during war time.

Again not what I said. Collateral damage of innocent civilians is a given in bombing raids. We know it. It is no accident. Yet it is not murder. There are allowances in the law for circumstances and conflicting needs and rights. As it should be.

They were arguments then with little science to back them up. Today, they are backed by the entire scientific community as no credible scientist would suggest that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

Again absolutely nothing new. Same thing they said in 73.

There are no less than 15 cases working their way through the superior courts that challenge roe. If you are interested, feel free to do the research on your own, or sit back smugly and be surprised as roe is eroded until it falls.

Left foot in... left foot out... Again cite me a case that is under consideration for being heard by The United States Supreme Court. There is none.

If America had legalized abortion, then law would have been written and legislated by the houses of congress. If America had legalized abortion, then this argument wouldn't exist because it would be very difficult to ever change the law. Of course, you know as well as I that in spite of your claim that the majority's approval of roe that abortion on demand woud have a snowball's chance in hell of making it through the house and senate.

Actually I think there is some sense to be made out of this statement... can't believe I said that :D. I think people see the neo-con agenda as much more sinister than they did before Bush. Even though like I've said multiple times the American people and the American voting system would never allow abortion to be taken away permanently there is the Supreme Court appointment issue to always be concerned about. Yet another reason the Dems will continue to win for some time.

But all that aside I think that as soon as the votes present themselves and there is a Democratic President the issue should be cast into law. The majority does favor it 65% to 29%. Let the neo-con sabre rattling about taking away the right be the inspiration to set the course. I'm all for it! Carry on!

I'm just going to stay very relaxed. Watch the elections see which way they continue to go and wait and see if there's ever even a test case that the Supreme Court agrees to hear. In the mean time... all is good.

[Coyote]

Of course it is to avoid doing a thing against your will.


No. It is having my body used against my will with the possibility of damage or mortality.


You don't have the right to kill another human being unless they represent a real and present threat to your life.

No other human being has rights to my body against my will.

[vyo476]

Nothing weak about it. How can it be weak when it's already been debated and litigated all the way up to the highest level of the United States court system and my position is the standing rule? The fact is that the Supreme Court does not give personhood until viability. Everyone including them knows every biological reason you state and still they recognize the varying degrees of development and weigh that with the rights of the woman involved. Sometimes in law there is the reality of compromise verdicts. I see that as a good thing in this instance, you don't. But the ruling is the ruling until it changes. So as of now you are not winning. If you were abortion would be illegal. Just isn't gonna happen. The vast majority of the American people believe women should be allowed the choice. Even Bush as slow as he is recognized the numbers. When asked about overturning Roe he said quote, America isn't ready for that.

Two words, Top Gun: "Dred Scott."

[TruthAboveAll]

etc..... There are no less than 15 cases working their way through the superior courts that challenge roe. If you are interested, feel free to do the research on your own, or sit back smugly and be surprised as roe is eroded until it falls.

Just an interesting side note, Pale. When you consider that at best there were 20 major opinions issued by the Supremes between 1973 and today, the 15 cases that could possibly make it to the top (probably within 2-4 years) is a stunning number.


And while you are at it, research the couple of hundred times the court has reversed itself. Most of those cases stood over 34 years before they were overturned. The amount of time a case stands means nothing.

So true. One excellent book to read is titled oddly enough The Supreme Court, by William Rehnquist. Yes, that would be Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist. This is a great historical journey of the SC.

Another is Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, by Mark Levin. He being firmly in Constitutional-ism, armed with substantiated facts and case histories, he's written a tough read. It's hard to realize how powerful these men and women are, and how many of the majority opinions truly have been unconstitutional.


Here is another place where your reason fails. America didn't make abortion legal. Nine unelected, and unaccountable judges did and it was a very liberal court that did it. Roe rests entirely on how liberal the court is. A court that is concerned more with constitutional integrity than liberal social engineering can overturn the decision as easily as the liberal cout found it.

Roe v Wade was a slim majority decision, 5-4. Dissenting opinions were very strong. And the Supremes are not totally unaccountable. They actually can be impeached and/or censured. In actuality, they are only as powerful as our elected officials allow them to be.

If America had legalized abortion, then law would have been written and legislated by the houses of congress. If America had legalized abortion, then this argument wouldn't exist because it would be very difficult to ever change the law. Of course, you know as well as I that in spite of your claim that the majority's approval of roe that abortion on demand woud have a snowball's chance in hell of making it through the house and senate.

But it isn't law and is entirely dependent upon the relative liberalism or conservativism of the court. The present court is quite a different creature than the one that decided roe.



Which represents the major flaw in the SC, our judicial system in general. The judiciary is purposed to make rulings of and by laws, not legislate from the bench. This is where Roe v Wade is fundamentally flawed. You are absolutely correct. There IS no law legalizing abortion.

Please, if any of you abortion supporters can, please PLEASE supply me with the LAW. I will gladly eat crow if you can produce it. Where Roe was a "landmark" decision, it literally eclipsed all abortion-related issues, lumping all of them into one broad, bench-originated legislative piece. To undo that will take steps, an issue at a time.

Fear not all you dead baby advocates. You are not going to wake up tomorrow and find that Roe has been fully reversed. It doesn't work that way. At least it shouldn't work that way. And with the latest trend in the SC back toward Constitutional law, it won't happen... all at once anyway...

And be pleased all you like but the fact remains that you are quite unable to defend the roe decision. If there were a good defense of it, it would be well circulated by the pro choice movement and you would have little difficulty knocking at least one of the legs from my position rather than finding yourself reduced to personal attacks against me and sanctimonious platitudes proclaiming the righteousness of abortion.

The whole defense of Roe is built upon flawed judicial review. "Evidence" was manufactured, situations exaggerated, abortion industry involvement. A case that was propped up, prodded and promoted by a pair of overly-ambitious lawyers. The defense of Roe is a chimera. Those who defend it based on the SC ruling itself, are allying themselves to a case whose whole history is fabricated and flawed.

But then they'd probably choose to demonize and attempt to discredit Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe.

[top gun]

Two words, Top Gun: "Dred Scott."

There are major differences in Dred Scott and the Choice issue though. And I certainly never said that the Supreme Court has not overturned decisions. What I'm saying to Pale is I'm not going to post every single thing in the Roe decision every time he asks me to just to make the same point. I believe in the Roe decision on its merits (we know what those are) and it has not been overturned.

Abortion is a lot more interpretive than Dred Scott. In Dred Scott you had born individuals. I've posted evidence several times that in the era that these laws were written with the exception of the Catholics (which by the way were specifically disliked by our founders) life was considered birth or something very close to birth like crowning. That was the definition of life. These Rights were established on the understanding at the time. You can't just automatically take the legal leap and say... well "IF" they had known this they would have done that. No one knows that because it didn't happen that way. That's not what the law "Right" was. It was just what it was at the time. Nothing more.

That's why there is modern day interpretation. Things are much different now than back then. Things evolve and they often evolve toward the wants and needs of society. That's where Pro-Choice stands at 65% approval v. 29% disapproval. And world wide the gap is huge for Pro-Choice with all major industrialized countries on board. So it's quite different than a slave issue circa 1857.

Legal justice has come a long way since Dred Scott. The case can even be made that the Roe decision freed women from one method of control by men and established their privacy protection under the law.

Like I said it really comes down to this. If at least 65% already even while it's legal believe Roe should not be overturned (and I've posted that recent poll) and the Justices do the interpreting, and the President appoints Justices, and the people vote for the President... It's not hard to do the math an see that a major change that would create a situation where even the Birth Control Pill would be outlawed and American women would be thrown into prison for murder isn't going to happen.

That's just my opinion. I respect your right to hold your own. Time will tell who's right.

[TruthAboveAll]

top gun wrote:


Actually I think there is some sense to be made out of this statement... can't believe I said that :D. I think people see the neo-con agenda as much more sinister than they did before Bush. Even though like I've said multiple times the American people and the American voting system would never allow abortion to be taken away permanently there is the Supreme Court appointment issue to always be concerned about. Yet another reason the Dems will continue to win for some time.

But all that aside I think that as soon as the votes present themselves and there is a Democratic President the issue should be cast into law. The majority does favor it 65% to 29%. Let the neo-con sabre rattling about taking away the right be the inspiration to set the course. I'm all for it! Carry on!

1) Bush is not neo-conservative. In actuality, Bush is not strongly conservative at all. If people see it as sinister, it is based on lack of understanding and the blatant misuse of the term.

2) The American people and the American voting system? Right. You have no idea what they will or will not "allow." Dems will win, if they win, because they are feeding the electorate lies, half-truths and using class envy and fear tactics. Nuff said there - that is going off subject.

3) Please cite your source for your 65%-29% margin of support for abortion. I've no doubt that the status quo of "legalized" abortion in the past 34 years has resulted in a growing acceptance of it. 34 years basically represents a generation which has basically lived up to nearly half their expected lifespans with it in place. But then again, many of the respondents to these polls can't even tell you who their state senators are, who the candidates were in the last presidential election, and think that oral sex isn't sex.

Strolling along the ether-highway, a few poll results I found:

L.A. Times poll
-41% favored making abortion illegal with a few exceptions.
-24% favored making abortion always legal
-19% favored making abortion legal most of the time.
-12% favored making abortion totally illegal.
(A local poll, in a strongly liberal area)

-53% with leanings toward making abortion illegal
-43% with leanings toward abortion legality
(Interesting that only 24% favored unrestricted, legal abortion.)

May 2007 CNN Poll http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/05/09/rel6e.pdf

A total of 1028 respondents polled:

-66% thought government should make "partial birth" abortions illegal
-28% thought it should be legal
-50% said they were pro-life
-45% said they were pro-choice
-2% said they didn't know what the terms meant (HUH?)
-2% said they were mixed/both/neither (Must be the Independents)
-1% had no opinion
(Interesting again, that 5% had such ambiguous responses to the actual question With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life? without being able to answer A or B. Thats 51.4 people out of 1028. Quite amazing, really...)

[top gun]

TruthAboveAll;20372]

1) Bush is not neo-conservative. In actuality, Bush is not strongly conservative at all. If people see it as sinister, it is based on lack of understanding and the blatant misuse of the term.

I agree with you that even Bush is not at the neo-con level. But that just goes to show even those slightly more moderate than neo-cons but in the same general gene pool realize and have stated that the country would not accept a ban on abortion and all that curtails.

2) The American people and the American voting system? Right. You have no idea what they will or will not "allow." Dems will win, if they win, because they are feeding the electorate lies, half-truths and using class envy and fear tactics. Nuff said there - that is going off subject.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I'll not cite all the major headline reasons why but I strongly believe the country has Republican fatigue and will continue to allow Democratic numbers to build. Just today in my state Republican Debora Pryce announced she would not run for re-election and I saw on the Daily Kos another long timer, I think from Mississippi, just announced the same. They're already looking for other jobs because I believe they see the handwriting on the wall.

3) Please cite your source for your 65%-29% margin of support for abortion. I've no doubt that the status quo of "legalized" abortion in the past 34 years has resulted in a growing acceptance of it. 34 years basically represents a generation which has basically lived up to nearly half their expected lifespans with it in place. But then again, many of the respondents to these polls can't even tell you who their state senators are, who the candidates were in the last presidential election, and think that oral sex isn't sex.

You'd have to look for it. I posted it a looooong time back. It was from a web search I did and it was a fairly recent poll. It was on just one straight up or down question. Do you support the overturning of Roe v. Wade (the woman's right to have an abortion). 65% NO... 29% yes. On one question polls on this it usually tracks 60% or better in favor of keeping Roe... high 20's low 30's for overturning it. It gets screwy when you add in multiple choice because it splits the vote all up. The other major thing no one ever mentions is this. As soon as you add in the question that mentions that the current Birth Control Pill would also become illegal under a conception on ruling the numbers go through the sky.

Personally I'm for more education. More birth control of all kinds and less abortions. But I can't ever see sending women back to the coat hanger like they were in the 50's and 60's.

[palerider]

Just an interesting side note, Pale. When you consider that at best there were 20 major opinions issued by the Supremes between 1973 and today, the 15 cases that could possibly make it to the top (probably within 2-4 years) is a stunning number.

Yes. It is a stunning number. If they had no merit based upon the Roe decision, they would be stricken down in the inferior courts. The pro choice side sits back in their confidence that roe will never change and really don't have any real idea of exactly how precariously Roe stands.

[palerider]

Nothing weak about it. How can it be weak when it's already been debated and litigated all the way up to the highest level of the United States court system and my position is the standing rule? The fact is that the Supreme Court does not give personhood until viability. Everyone including them knows every biological reason you state and still they recognize the varying degrees of development and weigh that with the rights of the woman involved. Sometimes in law there is the reality of compromise verdicts. I see that as a good thing in this instance, you don't. But the ruling is the ruling until it changes. So as of now you are not winning. If you were abortion would be illegal. Just isn't gonna happen. The vast majority of the American people believe women should be allowed the choice. Even Bush as slow as he is recognized the numbers. When asked about overturning Roe he said quote, America isn't ready for that.

Everything about your argument is weak. I do appreciate that you dropped the personal attacks, but your sanctimonious plattitudes remain entirely uninteresting.

You can not defend the roe decision, you can only hold it up in the face of an argument that exposes its unconstitutionality. That is, by definition, weak.

Let me know if you ever develop a real argument, I would be happy to rip that one to shreds for you also.


That's not what I said.

Of course it is what you said, and I quote:

"You know full well personhood in regard to a woman's right to choose has not been established before viability. You've said that yourself. "

I have never said any such thing myself.

[palerider]

What I'm saying to Pale is I'm not going to post every single thing in the Roe decision every time he asks me to just to make the same point. I believe in the Roe decision on its merits (we know what those are) and it has not been overturned.

To date, you have not posted a SINGLE thing from the roe decision that you have been able to defend, much less "every singl thing". Again, very weak. If you support the decision, and have even a rudimentary understanding of how it relates to the constitution, you should be able to defend it. I know that I can certainly defend any court decision that I agree with without ever having to even mention the decision itself.

The thing that is mos sad about your position is not that it is so inherently weak. What is sad is that you don't even realize how weak it is.

Legal justice has come a long way since Dred Scott. The case can even be made that the Roe decision freed women from one method of control by men and established their privacy protection under the law.

You couldn't even begin to make such a case. The roe decision gives men far more power over women than they previously had. Modern technology could establish without a doubt who fathered a child and the law certainly has the power to force the father to either support his child or face severe punishment if he doesn't. The roe decision allows men to take advantage of women and then terrorize them into killing their children by threatening a bleak future of single motherhood if they don't follow his advice.

This is evidenced in the very arguments that pro choicers give for abortion eternally stating the hardships for women because men won't support thier children. That very argument demonstrates that the roe decision has given men easier access to women's panties than they had before roe and an easy out if they don't care to be responsible for the children they father.

[palerider]

No. It is having my body used against my will with the possibility of damage or mortality.

No other human being has rights to my body against my will.

You keep saying that. It is really about time that you provide some real evidence that proves that under our legal system all rights are not secondary to the right to live or stop using the argument.

[top gun]

palerider;20391]Everything about your argument is weak. I do appreciate that you dropped the personal attacks, but your sanctimonious plattitudes remain entirely uninteresting.

You're entitled to your opinion. I personally don't like seatbelt laws for adults much. I think it's a good idea but I don't think an adult should be pulled over and fined for not wearing one. All that said I obey the law and I understand that law, although I personally don't agree with it, it has been adjudicated and a binding decision has been made. I'm glad in the case of Choice I am on the side of the long standing ruling to allow it. I have no doubt that if Roe was ever truly threatened there would be a ground swell of independent and even previously unregistered voters that would become active voters if only because of the issue of the removal of the Birth Control Pill would be on the table. The Republicans had total power... the Presidency and both houses for a very long time and Roe wasn't overturned. A law wasn't past making abortion illegal. They knew what would happen. Now with the swing in power in process I'm confident that women's rights will continue to be protected.

It's never been a goal of mine to "attack" you personally. I many instances you come across as let's say... overbearing ;) and I have no problem confronting you in kind. I also feel that it's honorable to support the women in America. Hey, I have two daughters in their 20's. My sister in law is a past president of the Illinois chapter of NOW. That just happens in this case to bring us to loggerheads.

You can not defend the roe decision, you can only hold it up in the face of an argument that exposes its unconstitutionality. That is, by definition, weak.

It's a correct decision. It's the standing ruling. Maybe if it changes I'll have to come up with new reasons to defend it. For now I'm just in agreement.

Of course it is what you said, and I quote:

"You know full well personhood in regard to a woman's right to choose has not been established before viability. You've said that yourself. "

You must somehow be misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm saying you've said many times that one of the reasons Roe stands is because "personhood is not being granted" in that decision. I'm not disagreeing with you.

Let me know if you ever develop a real argument, I would be happy to rip that one to shreds for you also.

:) Have a nice day.

[top gun]

palerider;20392]

You couldn't even begin to make such a case. The roe decision gives men far more power over women than they previously had. Modern technology could establish without a doubt who fathered a child and the law certainly has the power to force the father to either support his child or face severe punishment if he doesn't. The roe decision allows men to take advantage of women and then terrorize them into killing their children by threatening a bleak future of single motherhood if they don't follow his advice.

It's unfortunate that you refuse see that it's women that most want the right to choose and access to the Birth Control Pill for innumerable good reasons. I think the most telling thing is this. If "women" were the ones being "victimized" by Roe they probably wouldn't be the ones in organized support of it... just a thought.:)

[Coyote]

You keep saying that. It is really about time that you provide some real evidence that proves that under our legal system all rights are not secondary to the right to live or stop using the argument.

Where in our legal system does anyone have the right to appropriate and use another person's body against their will?

All rights are not secondary to the right to live when it comes to capital punishment.

[top gun]

Coyote;20425]Where in our legal system does anyone have the right to appropriate and use another person's body against their will?

Hi Coyote... there is of course nowhere.

All rights are not secondary to the right to live when it comes to capital punishment.

And there have even been innocent people killed by capital punishment. Furthermore we all know there are many other circumstances where this is the case also.

That's why we don't hunt down and try for murder every solider and their commander that commits collateral damage when full blown living breathing innocent women & children are killed? The reason isn't because it's an accident. Everyone knows before hand collateral damage is going to be a fact of the bombing. In this scenario the example is that it's OK to kill innocents as long as they aren't the main target in an attempt to kill an enemy.

There are many circumstances (this is just one) where there are surrounding mitigating circumstances that allow for the ending of life. And they are far more reaching than stopping 2 cells from developing with a Birth Control Pill or having an abortion before there are even brain waves or could survive on its own. In an imperfect world the law must be allowed to make these distinctions... and they do.

[Coyote]

Hi Coyote... there is of course nowhere.



And there have even been innocent people killed by capital punishment. Furthermore we all know there are many other circumstances where this is the case also.

That's why we don't we hunt down and try for murder every solider and their commander that commits collateral damage when full blown living breathing innocent women & children are killed? The reason isn't because it's an accident. Everyone knows before hand collateral damage is going to be a fact of the bombing. In this scenario the example is that it's OK to kill innocents as long as they aren't the main target in an attempt to kill an enemy.

There are many circumstances (this is just one) where there are surrounding mitigating circumstances that allow for the ending of life. And they are far more reaching than stopping 2 cells from developing with a Birth Control Pill or having an abortion before there are even brain waves or could survive on its own. In an imperfect world the law must be allowed to make these distinctions... and they do.


That's a good point!

[numinus]

Where in our legal system does anyone have the right to appropriate and use another person's body against their will?

How about the prohibition on the use of illegal substances?

All rights are not secondary to the right to live when it comes to capital punishment.

Nope.

Capital punishment crimes are those that relate to the rights of others to live.

[palerider]

You're entitled to your opinion. I personally don't like seatbelt laws for adults much. I think it's a good idea but I don't think an adult should be pulled over and fined for not wearing one. All that said I obey the law and I understand that law, although I personally don't agree with it, it has been adjudicated and a binding decision has been made.

And for those who thought that you couldn't possibly be wrong about everything you speak to, you have done it again.

In the case of seatbelts, there is actually law that covers it. Written, debated, legislated and duely voted on law. Not to be confused with a court decision.

It's never been a goal of mine to "attack" you personally. I many instances you come across as let's say... overbearing ;) and I have no problem confronting you in kind. I also feel that it's honorable to support the women in America. Hey, I have two daughters in their 20's. My sister in law is a past president of the Illinois chapter of NOW. That just happens in this case to bring us to loggerheads.

I don't call names in lieu of argument topgun. I may goad you in the course of an argument, but don't resort to calling names because I am unable to rationally prove my point. Of course, I don't find myself unable to rationally prove my points, but that is a different argument.

You keep saying that you have daughters. So what? I have a daughter also but she has nothing to do with the discussion, and neither do your daughters. The fact that you have daughters doesn't distract or change the fact that you can't defend your position, or defend the constitutionality of roe.

It's a correct decision. It's the standing ruling. Maybe if it changes I'll have to come up with new reasons to defend it. For now I'm just in agreement.

You keep saying that but you can't defend it and to date, you have not expressed a single defense of it, much less "new" reasons to defend it. Simply stating that roe won does not constitute any sort of defense.


You must somehow be misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm saying you've said many times that one of the reasons Roe stands is because "personhood is not being granted" in that decision. I'm not disagreeing with you.

When roe was decided, there were no people sitting in jail having been charged with manslaughter and murder for killing unborns. At that time, there was no precedent for the personhood of unborns. That is no longer true. And personhood isn't a thing that is granted which is one of the fatal flaws in the framework of roe. In the eyes of the law, the only requirement for being a person is that one be a human being. The words are interchangable.

[palerider]

It's unfortunate that you refuse see that it's women that most want the right to choose and access to the Birth Control Pill for innumerable good reasons. I think the most telling thing is this. If "women" were the ones being "victimized" by Roe they probably wouldn't be the ones in organized support of it... just a thought.:)

I didn't deny that it has been a clever campaign, but then making people believe one thing when something else entirely is going on is the hallmark of a clever campaign isn't it?

Would you deny that men get more and easier sex now than ever?

[palerider]

Where in our legal system does anyone have the right to appropriate and use another person's body against their will?

All rights are not secondary to the right to live when it comes to capital punishment.

Of course they are. Law is written that specifically enumerates which right (the right to live) is being denied, why it is being denied (capital crimes are described) and from whom it is being denied (those found guilty of comitting capital crimes).

If one takes another's life, then one has forfieted one's right to live. Had the victim killed the killer, the victim would have been within his or her rights in the name of self defense and capital punishment is self defense for the rest of us.

[Coyote]

How about the prohibition on the use of illegal substances?


How does that involve another person using your body against your will?



Nope.

Capital punishment crimes are those that relate to the rights of others to live.

It still means that the right to live is not always primary. There are exceptions.

[Coyote]

Of course they are. Law is written that specifically enumerates which right (the right to live) is being denied, why it is being denied (capital crimes are described) and from whom it is being denied (those found guilty of comitting capital crimes).

If one takes another's life, then one has forfieted one's right to live. Had the victim killed the killer, the victim would have been within his or her rights in the name of self defense and capital punishment is self defense for the rest of us.

What you are saying then is that the right to live is not always primary. There are exceptions.

[palerider]

What you are saying then is that the right to live is not always primary. There are exceptions.

As I have always maintained, if an unborn represents a real and present threat to its mother's life or long term health, she has the right to defend her life. Executing convicted murderers is a self defense mechanism on behalf of the entire society.

All rights are secondary to your right to live up until the point that you are a real threat to someone eles's life. We have covered this ad nauseum and you aren't any more likely to defeat the point this time than you were on any of the dozen or so occasions that I have explained this to you before.

Face it coyote, my argument is iron clad and in order to hold a differing opinion, you have to accept that you are holding it in spite of obvious flaws in reasoning. If you are content to hold a position that you know has obvious flaws then by all means, hold it, but don't argue it as if it doesn't.

[r0beph]

As I have always maintained, if an unborn represents a real and present threat to its mother's life or long term health, she has the right to defend her life. Executing convicted murderers is a self defense mechanism on behalf of the entire society.

All rights are secondary to your right to live up until the point that you are a real threat to someone eles's life. We have covered this ad nauseum and you aren't any more likely to defeat the point this time than you were on any of the dozen or so occasions that I have explained this to you before.

Face it coyote, my argument is iron clad and in order to hold a differing opinion, you have to accept that you are holding it in spite of obvious flaws in reasoning. If you are content to hold a position that you know has obvious flaws then by all means, hold it, but don't argue it as if it doesn't.

As I've said before, these arguments, from either side of the debate, are only ironclad up and to ones assumed moral imperatives and beliefs. I for one do not consider a fetus to be a human person until it is self-sustainable and viable. You don't agree, that's fine, but to me you're wrong, and to you I'm wrong. Nothing changes this... this thread can now be over, because we're all right in our arguments as per our beliefs on the subject. Stay in your box, I'll stay in mine... thank you come again.

[palerider]

As I've said before, these arguments, from either side of the debate, are only ironclad up and to ones assumed moral imperatives and beliefs. I for one do not consider a fetus to be a human person until it is self-sustainable and viable. You don't agree, that's fine, but to me you're wrong, and to you I'm wrong. Nothing changes this... this thread can now be over, because we're all right in our arguments as per our beliefs on the subject. Stay in your box, I'll stay in mine... thank you come again.

My arguments are based in the law and reason, not morals.

It is completely irrelavent what you "consider" a fetus to be if I can provide credible science that states explicitly that they are human beings. Unless, of course, you can provide equally credible science that states explicitly that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. By the way, I am quite confident that you can not.

Your position is faith based. You believe unborns are not human beings even though you can present no evidence to prove it and you disregard evidence that disproves it. Your argument is on par with, and no more valid than those of red faced bible thumpers. I know that you are wrong because I can prove you wrong. Your faith tells you that I am wrong, but you are entirely unable to prove it.

If you feel that you can invalidate any part of my argument using reason that can rightly be applied to all human beings rather than a particular group, by all means step up and do it. I am not interested in your faith based arguments though. They are unprovable and unsupportable.


I know that you wish offering up your uncorroborated and unsupported faith based arguments could "end" a thread so easily, but if you can't prove your position, you are just one more who is completely unable to assail my position in any way.

[vyo476]

My arguments are based in the law and reason, not morals.


And...you've blatantly violated the challenge of the original post. Here it is, in case you forgot:

So, if Palerider, you would be so Kind to explain why Abortion is wrong, without resorting to law.

That's why the title of the thread is "Abortion and Morality."

[palerider]

And...you've blatantly violated the challenge of the original post. Here it is, in case you forgot:
That's why the title of the thread is "Abortion and Morality."

I forgot nothing. I won that one as well. Why do you think that armchair general abandoned his own thread? He set the rules, laid out the parameters of the discussion, and lost it anyway but he, unlike many, knows when he has lost and doesn't continue to make a fool of himself.

[vyo476]

I forgot nothing. I won that one as well. Why do you think that armchair general abandoned his own thread? He set the rules, laid out the parameters of the discussion, and lost it anyway but he, unlike many, knows when he has lost and doesn't continue to make a fool of himself.

Forget it. This isn't worth starting another derailing argument over.

[Coyote]

As I have always maintained, if an unborn represents a real and present threat to its mother's life or long term health, she has the right to defend her life. Executing convicted murderers is a self defense mechanism on behalf of the entire society.


I agree with your first statement. But - there are other means of handling convicted murderers and protecting society that don't inolve taking life.


All rights are secondary to your right to live up until the point that you are a real threat to someone eles's life. We have covered this ad nauseum and you aren't any more likely to defeat the point this time than you were on any of the dozen or so occasions that I have explained this to you before.


We didn't really cover this. You just qualified your statement - up to the point...

There are other ways of protecting society that don't involve taking the convicted murderers life.


Face it coyote, my argument is iron clad and in order to hold a differing opinion, you have to accept that you are holding it in spite of obvious flaws in reasoning. If you are content to hold a position that you know has obvious flaws then by all means, hold it, but don't argue it as if it doesn't.

No. I'm seeing some flaws in yours. The right to life doesn't come first in all cases. There are exceptions.

[palerider]

I agree with your first statement. But - there are other means of handling convicted murderers and protecting society that don't inolve taking life.

Should I put together a small list of people who were convicted of killing that were let out of prison only to kill again? It happens far too often. And life without the possibility of parole only means something as long as there are no bleeding heart liberals who are willing to convince someone that they are changed and rehabilitated and should be let out. In short, it means nothing.

There are other ways of protecting society that don't involve taking the convicted murderers life.

Maybe you should tell that to the families of victims of killers who were imprisoned and then let out. Explain to them how the idea of imprisioning and rehabilitating them is in the best interest of society.

No. I'm seeing some flaws in yours. The right to life doesn't come first in all cases. There are exceptions.

Like I said, all rights are secondary to your right to live right up to the point that you threaten someone elses. If it is a flaw in my argument, by all means, do your best to exploit it.

By the way, those "exceptions" as you like to call them, are enumerated in excruciating detail in the form of law legislated by our duely elected representatives. No such law has been written in the case of abortion.

[palerider]

Forget it. This isn't worth starting another derailing argument over.

If you believe that you have a point to make, by all means try and make it. These threads go from one derailing to another so don't let that stop you if you believe that you have a valid point to make.

[top gun]

palerider;20646]Should I put together a small list of people who were convicted of killing that were let out of prison only to kill again? It happens far too often. And life without the possibility of parole only means something as long as there are no bleeding heart liberals who are willing to convince someone that they are changed and rehabilitated and should be let out. In short, it means nothing.

That's not the point. Your premise is life is life... killing is killing. We have a legal system that puts people to death. Has even put innocent people to death. In an imperfect world you have to be allowed to make some choices. And that's exactly what our legal system does.

In addition there's no denying that we militarily commit collateral damage all the time killing innocent women & children knowing full well it's going to happen. We weigh the ambition of getting the "enemy" against the predictable, inevitable loss of innocent lives. And of course the law totally allows for it.

Like I said, all rights are secondary to your right to live right up to the point that you threaten someone elses. If it is a flaw in my argument, by all means, do your best to exploit it.

Well then you have no grounds for killing in many allowed situations... of which just a couple of have been posted above. The innocent man wrongly put to death or the woman or the little child who dies from colateral damage isn't threatening anybody. It was a matter of......... what.............here it comes............CHOICE! :)

[Coyote]

Should I put together a small list of people who were convicted of killing that were let out of prison only to kill again? It happens far too often. And life without the possibility of parole only means something as long as there are no bleeding heart liberals who are willing to convince someone that they are changed and rehabilitated and should be let out. In short, it means nothing.


Enforce or change the law so that life means life in prison. One can also argue that innocent people have been executed but that's a whole 'nother debate.

In the end - it still doesn't change the fact that the right to life is not always primary.


Maybe you should tell that to the families of victims of killers who were imprisoned and then let out. Explain to them how the idea of imprisioning and rehabilitating them is in the best interest of society.


Now who's throwing emotion into the debate?


Like I said, all rights are secondary to your right to live right up to the point that you threaten someone elses. If it is a flaw in my argument, by all means, do your best to exploit it.


UP TO A POINT. And that point isn't even just self defense anymore or even a direct threat to another life - just a possible threat. Incarceration for life would deal with the threat. There are exceptions to when the right to life is primary.


By the way, those "exceptions" as you like to call them, are enumerated in excruciating detail in the form of law legislated by our duely elected representatives. No such law has been written in the case of abortion.

I don't think it matters. It is still clear that there are exceptions to the primacy of the right to life. I think rape is another such exception.

[palerider]

Well then you have no grounds for killing in many allowed situations... of which just a couple of have been posted above. The innocent man wrongly put to death or the woman or the little child who dies from colateral damage isn't threatening anybody. It was a matter of......... what.............here it comes............CHOICE! )

If an innocent man has ever been executed by the state, he at least has had his due process.

And if a child dies in war when no one intended to kill him or her, then exactly who do you blame? If a soldier targets the child and kills it, then the soldier should rightly be charged for murder.

Don't you find it telling that you are reduced to comparing unborns to casualties of war and convicted murderers in an attempt to make your invalid point? If I ever found myself in such a weak position that I had to make such comparisons, I would reconsider my position as it would obviously be indefensible.

[palerider]

Enforce or change the law so that life means life in prison. One can also argue that innocent people have been executed but that's a whole 'nother debate.

A change in the law is meaningless. Life is a long time (if your mother doesn't kill you that is) and the political landscape changes. There will always be a certain group working endlessly to let killers out of jail and they always succeed to a degree.

And the 14th amendment only promises due process. It doesn't promise that a jury will always make the right decision or that the evidence might make an overwhelming case against you.

In the end - it still doesn't change the fact that the right to life is not always primary.

Of course it is; right up to the time you become a threat to someone else's life.

Now who's throwing emotion into the debate?

Is the point true or not? Is it an appeal to emotion that has no bearing on the point it was to address? If so, then you have a valid complaint. If not, what are you complaining about?

UP TO A POINT. And that point isn't even just self defense anymore or even a direct threat to another life - just a possible threat. Incarceration for life would deal with the threat. There are exceptions to when the right to life is primary.

History makes it clear that incarceration for life doesn't prevent killers from getting out to kill again. And capital punishment is a just punishment for someone who has, with forethought and malice, taken the life of another.

And there are no exceptions coyote. Your argument has failed. If, for no other reason that you have been reduced to comparing unborns to convicted killers in an attempt to make some sort of point that I doubt that even you could describe accurately.

I don't think it matters. It is still clear that there are exceptions to the primacy of the right to life. I think rape is another such exception.

Look at the laws coyote. They answer your question and expose the weakness of your argument.

And I don't have a problem with making violent rape a capital crime. Killing a child for the crimes of his father, however, is not a rational response to the crime.

[top gun]

palerider;20659]If an innocent man has ever been executed by the state, he at least has had his due process.

Killing innocents is killing innocents. Trying to say it's the "procedure" to do that that makes it OK is more than weak it's perposterous... but you know that.

And if a child dies in war when no one intended to kill him or her, then exactly who do you blame? If a soldier targets the child and kills it, then the soldier should rightly be charged for murder.

Nice wiggle but you're not citing what I said... but you know that. When the military plans a bombing raid they have a predetermined "assessment" (keep in mind my wife ex-US Army Military Intelligence). That "assessment already has factored in collateral damage and loss of life to innocent civilians.

There is nothing unforeseen about it... but you know that too. Again you cite the procedure to kill as you like as an allowable reason.

And we haven't even got to the situation where drafted soldiers adamantly against war some who even tried but were denied conscientious objector status have been forced by the government to kill. And of course the list of good examples goes on... but you know that.

Don't you find it telling that you are reduced to comparing unborns to casualties of war and convicted murderers in an attempt to make your invalid point? If I ever found myself in such a weak position that I had to make such comparisons, I would reconsider my position as it would obviously be indefensible.

I think what we find telling for all to see is the leaking sieve of your reasoning. The picking and choosing of just how and who you think should be in your words "killed". It appears as long as you are allowed to be the arbitrator of death things are fine.

Innocent wrongly convicted people... fine. The women and little children unfortunate enough to be in the proximity of a bombing run... fine. People forced to kill by the government when they absolutely do not want to... fine. And of course this is just the short list.

It would be a much more obtainable goal and much fairer to women to fight your overwhelming temptation to dominate and control women with your wish list of female control policies over what they are allowed to do with their own bodies, and maybe focus on some man decisions of killing of innocents... as you like to put it.

It's not hard to see the irony. You would immediately pull the Birth Control Pill off the market if you could ever have your way because it prevents the progress "kills" 2 cells. Bombing and killing a 2 year old, a young mother or an old lady you brush off with... Well, even if we know it's going to happen in advance as we weren't specifically targeting them alone it's fine. :eek:

Weak my brother... very, very weak.

[palerider]

Nice rant. But completely irrelavent. It does nothing to invalidate any part of my position, that being:

Unborns are human beings.

Human beings have a right to live.

All rights are secondary to the right to live.

Your whole statement is nothing more than an hysterical appeal to emotion. Let me know when you develop a real argument.

Comparing war to one woman deciding to kill her child. That isn't even a good try top gun.

And you should stay away from any comparisons to the judicial system. There is no question with regard to a woman's guilt if she has an abortion, and no doubt that she may do so without legal consequence because of an unconstitutional decision that in essence said that she could do so because what she was killing was not a human being.

[top gun]

Nice rant. But completely irrelavent. It does nothing to invalidate any part of my position...

So sad. You're all over the place, just look...

Killing is killing... life is life... Oh wait a second not always. Sometimes it's fine if I get to pick when. It's those bad, bad women. They're the bad ones. Not that other stuff that's all OK. Besides Roe wasn't about comparisons... yada, yada, yada...

Hey my friend all I'm doing is pointing out that all that life is life no matter how small stuff you want to spread doesn't even hold up to living breathing people. There's precedent all over the place for abortion to be a legal exception.

Sorry...

[Coyote]

A change in the law is meaningless. Life is a long time (if your mother doesn't kill you that is) and the political landscape changes. There will always be a certain group working endlessly to let killers out of jail and they always succeed to a degree.

Of course there will but why should that affect what is just and right?

If the right to life is paramount and a method exists that will limit the threat to society that does not involve killing the person aren't we legally obliged to use that method?

I also wonder: of those convicted killers who get life in prison, what percentage get freed to kill again? What percentage of the population is that? Is it statistically greater than the possibility of mortality from pregnancy?

In addition - there are innocent people on death row and innocent people have been executed. What about their right to life? Not only are they losing it, but they know it and they know exactly what is happening to them and they know they are innocent.


And the 14th amendment only promises due process. It doesn't promise that a jury will always make the right decision or that the evidence might make an overwhelming case against you.


Does due process mean a thing if you are innocent and falsely sentanced to death? Shouldn't the right to life trump due process?


Is the point true or not? Is it an appeal to emotion that has no bearing on the point it was to address? If so, then you have a valid complaint. If not, what are you complaining about?

Well, what I notice is that when others appeal to emotion - for example in the issue of rape and pregnancy - you call them on it. But I've seen you do it as well. In some cases the point is true, in others the emotion is obscuring what is probably a weak case. I think that in the issue of "right to life" and capital punishment your case is weaker. You are killing a person based on a statistical possibility that he will be freed and will commit another crime. Yet that same statistical point is not given to a woman who is forcably impregnated against her will, and faces the prospect of bearing a child against her will, and facing attendent risks including mortality.


History makes it clear that incarceration for life doesn't prevent killers from getting out to kill again. And capital punishment is a just punishment for someone who has, with forethought and malice, taken the life of another.


Again - what proportion of truely dangerous ones do get out and commit more killings? We tend to hear about them because they are sensational - but how many really in relation to the entire population of our country? Is it enough to take their life? If so, then why should a woman have to face the unwanted statistical risk of mortality from an forced pregnancy?


And there are no exceptions coyote. Your argument has failed. If, for no other reason that you have been reduced to comparing unborns to convicted killers in an attempt to make some sort of point that I doubt that even you could describe accurately.

Now see - here you are the one making an appeal to emotion by accusing me of comparing unborns to convicted killers. I am not. I am looking at two things: right to life and humans and I unlike you, in this particular example I am not distinguishing any one group of humans from another and dehumanizing them.

[palerider]

So sad. You're all over the place, just look...

Killing is killing... life is life... Oh wait a second not always. Sometimes it's fine if I get to pick when. It's those bad, bad women. They're the bad ones. Not that other stuff that's all OK. Besides Roe wasn't about comparisons... yada, yada, yada...

Hey my friend all I'm doing is pointing out that all that life is life no matter how small stuff you want to spread doesn't even hold up to living breathing people. There's precedent all over the place for abortion to be a legal exception.

Sorry...

It appears that your inability to actually understand what you have read hs brought you down further than I ever could.

Tell you what, why don't you bring forward quotes by me that illustrate contradictions in my position to illustrate your point. You sound like mare, gibbering like a monkey and never proving a bit of it.

[palerider]

Of course there will but why should that affect what is just and right?

So which are you saying? That killing the unborn is just and right or that whatever hardships that you have claimed that women endure during pregnancy are irrelavent because allowing them (unborns) to have their one and only chance at life is just and right?

If the right to life is paramount and a method exists that will limit the threat to society that does not involve killing the person aren't we legally obliged to use that method?

Name it. Name a method that will assure that no killer ever kills again, and I include among his potential victims people who have been incarcerated for lesser crimes.

I also wonder: of those convicted killers who get life in prison, what percentage get freed to kill again? What percentage of the population is that? Is it statistically greater than the possibility of mortality from pregnancy?

If you want to make such an argument, wondering does'nt cut it. Lets see some figures. And we know from the time of conviction that a murderer represents a real and present threat to the rest of society, we don't know any such thing about all unborns.

In addition - there are innocent people on death row and innocent people have been executed. What about their right to life? Not only are they losing it, but they know it and they know exactly what is happening to them and they know they are innocent.

I have looked and can find no evidence of an innnocent being executed. Statistically, it is possible, but hard evidence? I haven't found it. Each and every one who has been executed, however, has had their due process. I could accept some percentage of error in evidence and proceedure if each and every unborn got his or her day in court before they were found unworthy of living.

Does due process mean a thing if you are innocent and falsely sentanced to death? Shouldn't the right to life trump due process?

Would you be willing to toss out due process in favor of the sort of legal system that unborns live and die under? If due process doesn't mean a thing, then you should answer emphatically, yes.

You are killing a person based on a statistical possibility that he will be freed and will commit another crime. Yet that same statistical point is not given to a woman who is forcably impregnated against her will, and faces the prospect of bearing a child against her will, and facing attendent risks including mortality.

No, that person is being killed according to the laws that have been legislated and passed by the duely elected representatives of the people. As I have said before, if such laws existed that denied the right of unborns to live for explicit reasons, we would not be having this discussion at all. My argument has nothing to do with statistics, it has to do with the law and the constitution.

Again - what proportion of truely dangerous ones do get out and commit more killings? We tend to hear about them because they are sensational - but how many really in relation to the entire population of our country? Is it enough to take their life? If so, then why should a woman have to face the unwanted statistical risk of mortality from an forced pregnancy?

A quick search yielded these results and this is just talking about serial killers which are a very small percentage of the population of killers:

http://books.google.com/books?id=sisDoumVfWIC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=%22have+been+released+to+kill+again%22&source=web&ots=24eYF2uHRV&sig=l5WzYzz4f3g4xc96XRYHS2P20Ig

2% continue to kill behind bars with guards, fellow inmates, and even visitors being among thier victims.

5% have managed jailbreaks

30 serial killers have been released to kill again.

A frightening number manage to get paroled because our legal system allows them to plea down the charges in order save the taxpayer's money.

And then there is the fact that juvenile killers nearly always get out at age 18 or 21 with their juvenile court records sealed.

And lets not forget the "insanity" plea by which any killer can eventually get free.

I don't think that you will be able to make a case out of this angle coyote but feel free to try.

Now see - here you are the one making an appeal to emotion by accusing me of comparing unborns to convicted killers. I am not. I am looking at two things: right to life and humans and I unlike you, in this particular example I am not distinguishing any one group of humans from another and dehumanizing them.

This discussion is about abortion and killing unborns without legal consequence. In order for convicted killers to even enter the conversation, a comparison must be made. I made no appeal to emotion, I only pointed out how flawed your argument was in that you are now comparing unborns to killers. I suppose it brought out some emotion on your part, but that really isn't my fault.

[Coyote]

So which are you saying? That killing the unborn is just and right or that whatever hardships that you have claimed that women endure during pregnancy are irrelavent because allowing them (unborns) to have their one and only chance at life is just and right?


I have never said that killing a fetus is "just" or "right". That has never been my contention.

My position is simple: No one has the right to force a woman to become pregnant against her will and carry the pregnancy. Our constitution and our laws don't state don't say that. Sure, the fetus has a right to life but pregnancy creates conflicting rights - the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn fetus. You have stated that this reasoning creates a special class of humans for whom some rights don't apply but I contend that your argument also creates a separate class of humans - pregnant women for whom some rights don't apply.


Name it. Name a method that will assure that no killer ever kills again, and I include among his potential victims people who have been incarcerated for lesser crimes.


First off - nothing is guaranteed 100% fool proof. Is that what you are looking for? Is there any method of enforcing the death penalty - in practice - that will make 100% sure that no innocent people are killed and all violent criminals are? I doubt it. Either way - innocent end up getting killed. At least with incarcerated criminal we are only talking possibilities - that they might do something. If an innocent man is executed, it is a certainty.


If you want to make such an argument, wondering does'nt cut it. Lets see some figures. And we know from the time of conviction that a murderer represents a real and present threat to the rest of society, we don't know any such thing about all unborns.


Do we really? Incarceration for murder covers people who may have committed a crime in the heat of the moment and may never do so again to hardened gang killers and psychopaths. It's a matter of probabilities. I agree it's more likely a higher probability then the probability that an unborn will turn out to be a criminal but it is still probabilities. Just like mortality in pregnancy.


I have looked and can find no evidence of an innnocent being executed. Statistically, it is possible, but hard evidence? I haven't found it. Each and every one who has been executed, however, has had their due process. I could accept some percentage of error in evidence and proceedure if each and every unborn got his or her day in court before they were found unworthy of living.


Part of the problem is that once they are executed - the process to prove them innocent comes to a halt. In addition - many on death row are poor and their families don't have the resources to pursue it. Given the large number of people that are being exonerated based on new forensics techniques I would say that it is pretty near a certainty that innocent people have been executed. It is no less a compelling argument then your argument of birth control pills killing unborns where there is a similar lack of hard evidence (it's theoretically possible but there is no evidence that it HAS happened).


Would you be willing to toss out due process in favor of the sort of legal system that unborns live and die under? If due process doesn't mean a thing, then you should answer emphatically, yes.


No. Due process is important. But if an innocent person is executed then due process has failed. However - when you have competing rights to one body the inhabitant of that body has greater rights - absolutely no other human has a right to a woman's body against her will.


No, that person is being killed according to the laws that have been legislated and passed by the duely elected representatives of the people. As I have said before, if such laws existed that denied the right of unborns to live for explicit reasons, we would not be having this discussion at all. My argument has nothing to do with statistics, it has to do with the law and the constitution.


The constitution and law grants no human rights to use another human's body. There are also exceptions where the right to life is superceded. This means it's not always paramount. You also have a unique situation with pregnant women and unborn children with clearly competing rights. I concede a woman does not have a right to kill her unborn child for "convenience". Birth control exists to prevent that. I am uncertain about the pill at this point.

I absolutely do not concede however, that when a woman is impregnanted through rape that the resulting fetus' rights over rule hers. If there are exceptions to the right to life that include the execution of innocent "criminals" then surely there is an exception in the case of a criminal act of rape.

[Coyote]

A quick search yielded these results and this is just talking about serial killers which are a very small percentage of the population of killers:

http://books.google.com/books?id=sisDoumVfWIC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=%22have+been+released+to+kill+again%22&source=web&ots=24eYF2uHRV&sig=l5WzYzz4f3g4xc96XRYHS2P20Ig

2% continue to kill behind bars with guards, fellow inmates, and even visitors being among thier victims.

5% have managed jailbreaks

30 serial killers have been released to kill again.

A frightening number manage to get paroled because our legal system allows them to plea down the charges in order save the taxpayer's money.

And then there is the fact that juvenile killers nearly always get out at age 18 or 21 with their juvenile court records sealed.

And lets not forget the "insanity" plea by which any killer can eventually get free.

I don't think that you will be able to make a case out of this angle coyote but feel free to try.


That is still a small number of all, and laws can certainly be changed and tightened up.

If you are a 40 year old woman, you face a 5.3% chance of mortality in pregnancy or childbirth.


This discussion is about abortion and killing unborns without legal consequence. In order for convicted killers to even enter the conversation, a comparison must be made. I made no appeal to emotion, I only pointed out how flawed your argument was in that you are now comparing unborns to killers. I suppose it brought out some emotion on your part, but that really isn't my fault.

You made an appeal to emotion. If a "convicted killer" is innocent - nothing is going to change that fact. I am comparing an unborn to an innocent born human being. I am also pointing out that the right to life is inconsistent.

[top gun]

It appears that your inability to actually understand what you have read hs brought you down further than I ever could.

Tell you what, why don't you bring forward quotes by me that illustrate contradictions in my position to illustrate your point. You sound like mare, gibbering like a monkey and never proving a bit of it.

And just when you think it couldn't happen... an even more sad response.

You clearly have acted out in your preachings as if there are no situations where the right to live doesn't take precedent... yet clearly there are now many that have been posted.

It all makes the reality just that much more clear that Roe and/or legislation to protect women's rights will always prevail.

Your combination of fanatic religious doctrine (although adamantly denied for the sake of your posts) and your relatively low self esteem driving your need to dominate women isn't as scary as i