Abortion

[palerider]

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

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

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

 

[palerider]

...you may be right...

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have competing rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[palerider]

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

You said:

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


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

 

[palerider]

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

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

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

 

[Sgt Schultz]

You said:

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


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

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

 

[Sgt Schultz]

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

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

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

 

[palerider]

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

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

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

 

[palerider]

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

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

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

 

[Sgt Schultz]

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

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

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

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

 

[palerider]

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

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

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

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

 

[Sgt Schultz]

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

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

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

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

 

[Beetle Bailey]

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

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

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

 

[palerider]

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

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

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

 

[palerider]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sgt Schultz]

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

Did I ever say that I did?

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

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