The Abortion debate: are you pro-life or pro-choice?

[DeletedUser]

How about being realistic for a change ? people will have sex, especially as most do it for pleasure. In fact im willing to bet pleasure is no 1 on list of reasons for having sex rather than anything else. You don't really advocate platonic partner relationships as seriously workable for society do you ?

Itll never catch on ...

People drink and drive for pleasure, that does not relieve them of personal responsibility. If you have sex you can get pregnant (or her pregnant). That is always a possibility and everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.

Even if you are sober if you get behind the wheel of a car you can kill someone. You are responsible for driving in a safe manner, and sometimes there is an accident and you suffer the consequence. That is just life and it is not always fair, but two wrongs don't make a right.

You cannot blame a child in the womb for killing the mother during birth. That is a self centered attitude and not logical. You cannot blame a deer for causing you to have an accident on the road because you decided to drive and it was in the way.

The fact that there are allot of irresponsible people does not relieve personal responsibility either. "Every one is doing it" is not a valid excuse.

 

[DeletedUser]

How about abstinence???

Lol, you are absolutely right. You hear that women? Please abstain from being raped or molested. And while you're at it, gain the confidence to say no to a man you want to spend the rest of your life with, despite the possibility he may misconstrue your unwillingness as rejection. And for those of you who are married, but don't want children, absolutely don't have sex. It's clearly something you should abstain from because, of course, you don't need it in a relationship.

/sarcasm off

Willy, you have got to be kidding... or playing devil's advocate.

You cannot blame a child in the womb for killing the mother during birth. That is a self centered attitude and not logical. You cannot blame a deer for causing you to have an accident on the road because you decided to drive and it was in the way.

Here we are using the word, "child." It is a fetus and prior to that it is a zygote. Referring to it as a child infers it can walk out of the womb and live on its own. That is clearly not the case with the vast majority of abortions.

As to blaming the fetus for the death of your loved one, you have obviously never lost someone to murder/accident. Let's put this very clear in your mind. If my friend's wife had never become pregnant with that specific fetus, they likely would have lived together for another 50 years. Her life was cut short precisely because of the pregnancy and precisely because of an allergic reaction to the fetus.

Sure I don't blame the fetus, I don't blame anyone, but you can hardly expect a grieving new husband to be rational through such a tremendous loss. He never got to know this stranger that intruded into their relationship and then resulted in his wife's death. It's kind of silly to argue logic in such a case.

The fact that there are allot of irresponsible people does not relieve personal responsibility either. "Every one is doing it" is not a valid excuse.

I will refrain from posing personal experiences, but let me say that there are a lot of instances where you do just about everything to prevent an "accident," yet it still sometimes happens. Worse, sometimes you do just about everything, or you "believe" your partner when he/she says they did everything, but sometimes the partner lets you down. You're acting like "pregnancy" is the result of irresponsible action from both parties and that is just bullocks and a gross oversimplification.

But, even if it were the case in every instance of pregnancy, it does not address the real point, which is that a woman's life is in danger when she is pregnant. You are arguing that because one or both persons was irresponsible, the woman should be forced to risk her life and health while the man looks for another "chick" to impregnate.

Once again, until a man is equally in danger of death, of obtaining high blood pressure, preeclampsia, organ damage, premature birth / fetal problems, postpartum depression/suicide, cancer, heart disease, Rh incompatibility, kidney disease, isolation/alienation (loss of job, loss of education, loss of income, loss of friends, loss of family, abandonment), anemia, gestational diabetes, hyperemesis gravidarum, miscarriage, placenta previa, placental abruption, bacterial vaginosis, cytomegalovirus, GBS, HBV, listeriosis, toxoplasmosis, etc, and unless he plans to be directly involved in the rearing of the child or the care of the woman in case she is permanently harmed by the pregnancy, he should just butt out.

And let's not forget that the risk of complications rises significantly when you're under 20 or over 30. So, what we have here, in the U.S. and other countries, are a buttload of men who are not participants in the conception, who wouldn't step up to care for the child or care for the woman were she to be harmed by the pregnancy (as demonstrated not merely by the high number of single-mothers, but also the actions and intentions of these same Men to remove healthcare, welfare, and WIC programs), but have the audacity to try and dictate that because a woman gets pregnant (regardless of who, if anyone, was irresponsible), she should be forced to risk her life and health.

 

[DeletedUser]

Lol, you are absolutely right. You hear that women? Please abstain from being raped or molested. And while you're at it, gain the confidence to say no to a man you want to spend the rest of your life with, despite the possibility he may misconstrue your unwillingness as rejection. And for those of you who are married, but don't want children, absolutely don't have sex. It's clearly something you should abstain from because, of course, you don't need it in a relationship.

/sarcasm off

Willy, you have got to be kidding... or playing devil's advocate.


Here we are using the word, "child." It is a fetus and prior to that it is a zygote. Referring to it as a child infers it can walk out of the womb and live on its own. That is clearly not the case with the vast majority of abortions.

As to blaming the fetus for the death of your loved one, you have obviously never lost someone to murder/accident. Let's put this very clear in your mind. If my friend's wife had never become pregnant with that specific fetus, they likely would have lived together for another 50 years. Her life was cut short precisely because of the pregnancy and precisely because of an allergic reaction to the fetus.

Sure I don't blame the fetus, I don't blame anyone, but you can hardly expect a grieving new husband to be rational through such a tremendous loss. He never got to know this stranger that intruded into their relationship and then resulted in his wife's death. It's kind of silly to argue logic in such a case.

I will refrain from posing personal experiences, but let me say that there are a lot of instances where you do just about everything to prevent an "accident," yet it still sometimes happens. Worse, sometimes you do just about everything, or you "believe" your partner when he/she says they did everything, but sometimes the partner lets you down. You're acting like "pregnancy" is the result of irresponsible action from both parties and that is just bullocks and a gross oversimplification.

But, even if it were the case in every instance of pregnancy, it does not address the real point, which is that a woman's life is in danger when she is pregnant. You are arguing that because one or both persons was irresponsible, the woman should be forced to risk her life and health while the man looks for another "chick" to impregnate.

Once again, until a man is equally in danger of death, of obtaining high blood pressure, preeclampsia, organ damage, premature birth / fetal problems, postpartum depression/suicide, cancer, heart disease, Rh incompatibility, kidney disease, isolation/alienation (loss of job, loss of education, loss of income, loss of friends, loss of family, abandonment), anemia, gestational diabetes, hyperemesis gravidarum, miscarriage, placenta previa, placental abruption, bacterial vaginosis, cytomegalovirus, GBS, HBV, listeriosis, toxoplasmosis, etc, and unless he plans to be directly involved in the rearing of the child or the care of the woman in case she is permanently harmed by the pregnancy, he should just butt out.

And let's not forget that the risk of complications rises significantly when you're under 20 or over 30. So, what we have here, in the U.S. and other countries, are a buttload of men who are not participants in the conception, who wouldn't step up to care for the child or care for the woman were she to be harmed by the pregnancy (as demonstrated not merely by the high number of single-mothers, but also the actions and intentions of these same Men to remove healthcare, welfare, and WIC programs), but have the audacity to try and dictate that because a woman gets pregnant (regardless of who, if anyone, was irresponsible), she should be forced to risk her life and health.

So you should throw out logic and rely on emotion when someone's life is on the line? As far as it being only the woman's decision, its not only the woman's child. If she agreed to have sex then the consequences are her responcibility. I know responcibility is not a popular thing but it is a fact of life.

 

[DeletedUser16628]

I'm a Pro-Lifer.One must always be allowed to make a choice.Isn't it surprising that today we have become so morally blind (for wickedness blinds) that we save the baby whales at great cost, and murder millions of unborn children

 

[DeletedUser]

As far as it being only the woman's decision, its not only the woman's child.

Once again, fetus or zygote, not child. Also, in the vast majority of instances in which a man impregnates a woman and the woman vies for abortion, the man either abdicates responsibility, demonstrates through behavior that he will abdicate responsibility, or has already extricated himself from the situation so as to effectively abdicate responsibility.

And, once again, it is not the man's life or health that is endangered by pregnancy. Indeed, his future is likely not to become impacted by her pregnancy, particularly if he abdicates responsibility (62% of custodial mothers do not receive child support).

If she agreed to have sex then the consequences are her responcibility. I know responcibility is not a popular thing but it is a fact of life.

Right, so now you're focusing on the instances where a woman agrees to have sex, which I can only surmise means you concede all other instances.

So, arguing this instance alone, where a woman agrees to have sex, where is the man's responsibility? On the second point, are you arguing that responsibility trumps self preservation?

So you should though out logic and rely on emotion when someone's life is on the line?

Right, okay you demonstrated you're only trolling, since you took my comment about my friend's personal feelings on the issue as a generalized dictation on my part on how to address the issue as a whole. Talk about stretching it...

 

[DeletedUser]

Once again, fetus or zygote, not child. Also, in the vast majority of instances in which a man impregnates a woman and the woman vies for abortion, the man either abdicates responsibility, demonstrates through behavior that he will abdicate responsibility, or has already extricated himself from the situation so as to effectively abdicate responsibility.

An unborn child is still a child. 1) he/she is alive. 2) he/she is human.

And, once again, it is not the man's life or health that is endangered by pregnancy. Indeed, his future is likely not to become impacted by her pregnancy, particularly if he abdicates responsibility (62% of custodial mothers do not receive child support).

Parental responsibility is not something you can abdicate, its an obligation one risks assuming every time he or she decides to have sex.

Right, so now you're focusing on the instances where a woman agrees to have sex, which I can only surmise means you concede all other instances.

So, arguing this instance alone, where a woman agrees to have sex, where is the man's responsibility? On the second point, are you arguing that responsibility trumps self preservation?

1) Sex always includes risk. One of those risks is pregnancy. 2) Even if the woman does not agree to the sex it is not the fault of the unborn child, and accountability resides with the perpetrator. The perpetrator is blood guilty if death results from a failed birth, and should be punished accordingly; as I said before two wrongs don't equal a right. If the mother decides to give the child up for adoption that is acceptable as the motherhood was not consensual.

Right, okay you demonstrated you're only trolling, since you took my comment about my friend's personal feelings on the issue as a generalized dictation on my part on how to address the issue as a whole. Talk about stretching it...

"For awhile he felt like the child murdered his wife (logically, that's what happened)."

I am merely drawing logical conclusions from your posts. Maybe you should be more clear of what your argument includes and excludes.

 

[DeletedUser]

An unborn child is still a child. 1) he/she is alive. 2) he/she is human.

Biologically, a human child is between birth and puberty. Legally, a child is defined as between infancy and adulthood, have less rights, are unable to make legal decisions, and must be under the care of an adult. It is only in the social spectrum, of people arguing abortion, that the definition stretches to encompass the fetus and only recently, due to pressures from pro-life advocacy groups, have some dictionaries included fetus in the definition of child.

Parental responsibility is not something you can abdicate, its an obligation one risks assuming every time he or she decides to have sex.

So then, those figures of 62% not paying child support means what?!?

Exactly...

Even if the woman does not agree to the sex it is not the fault of the unborn child, and accountability resides with the perpetrator. The perpetrator is blood guilty if death results from a failed birth, and should be punished accordingly; as I said before two wrongs don't equal a right.

Oho, and what do you deem an accorded punishment for a failed birth? And seriously, are you claiming that if a rapist impregnates their victim, they're supposed to take responsibility for the rearing of that child?!?

If the mother decides to give the child up for adoption that is acceptable as the motherhood was not consensual.

And here you completely bypassed the entire pregnancy issue, the threat to life, the endangerment imposed to the female for carrying a fetus, and jump right into the notion of adoption, as if somehow that poses no harm to either the woman or the child, and poses no hardship on society (particularly entertaining when Republicans, at both the State and Federal level in the U.S., have reduced funding for foster care, adoption services, and orphanages).

Can you provide a more honest debate?

I am merely drawing logical conclusions from your posts. Maybe you should be more clear of what your argument includes and excludes.

Ah, I see, okay... my posts contain common sense and a factual analysis. Sorry if that confused you.

 

[DeletedUser]

Biologically, a human child is between birth and puberty. Legally, a child is defined as between infancy and adulthood, have less rights, are unable to make legal decisions, and must be under the care of an adult. It is only in the social spectrum, of people arguing abortion, that the definition stretches to encompass the fetus and only recently, due to pressures from pro-life advocacy groups, have some dictionaries included fetus in the definition of child.

In war soldiers call the oposition by nicknames to dehumanise them, such as "skinnies," "chinks," "sand ni," and ect... Calling a unborn child zygote or fetus amounts to the same. It may take some of the psychological inhibition away but the result is criminal.

So then, those figures of 62% not paying child support means what?!?

Exactly...

It Means they are not fulfilling their obligations...

Oho, and what do you deem an accorded punishment for a failed birth? And seriously, are you claiming that if a rapist impregnates their victim, they're supposed to take responsibility for the rearing of that child?!?

No they are liable as any criminal who commits a crime...

And here you completely bypassed the entire pregnancy issue, the threat to life, the endangerment imposed to the female for carrying a fetus, and jump right into the notion of adoption, as if somehow that poses no harm to either the woman or the child, and poses no hardship on society (particularly entertaining when Republicans, at both the State and Federal level in the U.S., have reduced funding for foster care, adoption services, and orphanages).

Can you provide a more honest debate?

So politics makes it okay to murder? Can you provide a more intelligent debate?

Ah, I see, okay... my posts contain common sense and a factual analysis. Sorry if that confused you.

You post contained an emotional response not a factual one.

 

[DeletedUser]

Here we are using the word, "child." It is a fetus and prior to that it is a zygote. Referring to it as a child infers it can walk out of the womb and live on its own. That is clearly not the case with the vast majority of abortions.

This is the heart of this debate. Human life is not defined as ability to live on its own. By that logic paraplegics, mentally challenged, elderly, the infirmed, and anyone who cannot meet their own needs would not be considered human. Some people are a drain on societies' resources; however it is not moral to kill them regardless of the inconvenience they might pose to you or society.

So basically it comes down to this: is the "fetus" alive? Is the "fetus" human?
I would answer yes to both and there fore he/she is a human life and should be afforded the same protections as anyone. The fact that they cannot protect themselves is more of a reason we are morally obligated to provide that protection for them. Killing someone who is defenseless is even worse than killing someone who can defend themselves.

As to blaming the fetus for the death of your loved one, you have obviously never lost someone to murder/accident. Let's put this very clear in your mind. If my friend's wife had never become pregnant with that specific fetus, they likely would have lived together for another 50 years. Her life was cut short precisely because of the pregnancy and precisely because of an allergic reaction to the fetus.

Let me put this clearly into your mind, abortion is murder, and you are trying to defend the act of taking a defenseless human life.
There is no way of knowing what will happen in the future. They might have had the child and lived happily for many many years. They might have aborted the child and she could have committed suicide out of guilt. You cannot predict what will happen. You should not go around killing people because they might accidentally cause you harm.

 

[DeletedUser]

In war soldiers call the oposition by nicknames to dehumanise them, such as "skinnies," "chinks," "sand ni," and ect... Calling a unborn child zygote or fetus amounts to the same. It may take some of the psychological inhibition away but the result is criminal.

That's your opinion, but it's not based on biological evidence. Zygotes and fetus are incapable of surviving out of a woman's womb and are, effectively, parasitical. They are not nicknames, but scientific definitions for the state of development.

As to criminality, the law dictates what is criminal, not you or some ignorant extremists waving pro-life, anti-gay signs at a soldier's funeral.

It Means they are not fulfilling their obligations...

Right, so address that before you pose such inane arguments. Ignoring it because it's inconvenient to your arguments does not give you any credibility.

No they are liable as any criminal who commits a crime...

Indeed, and once again what do you advocate as their "liability" and their "punishment?" Dancing around this as well doesn't give you any credibility.

You post contained an emotional response not a factual one.

My friend felt what he felt, that is a fact, and you have the audacity to condemn him for having that feeling when he just lost his wife. I recommend you cease this particular argument, as it's incredibly insensitive and dismissive. For a person advocating absolutist pro-life for a fetus, you sure don't seem to care about the living victims, the women, or the children after birth.

So politics makes it okay to murder? Can you provide a more intelligent debate?

Once again the "murder" allegation, which you have failed to prove. In any event, it is not necessarily politics, but hypocrisy. Advocates of ignoring the dangers imposed on women, as well demonstrate they do not support their proscribed alternatives to abortion.

At what point are you just going to confess you're pushing this subject because it keeps you busy, like a video game, and you frankly couldn't care less one way or the other? Because, if you truly cared, you would stop banging away on this argument in a forum and put a physical effort to helping all the starving, the brutalized, the bludgeoned, and the enslaved due to corporate greed advocated by consumer purchasing and overall ambivalence.

This is typical hypocritical fare... and it gets old. Perhaps we should impose some liability on you, mister consumer and corporation advocate.

 

[DeletedUser]

IF there is no conception, there will be no baby- no human life created. So why is it that when there is conception, the idea of human life- a baby- is thrown out the window in order to justify killing an unborn child or what would would likely become a born child should the pregnancy come to term?

Why is it that anyone can be charged with murder or manslaughter if they purposely cause a miscarriage in a pregnant women after she knows she is pregnant? Wouldn't a complete defense be it is not a life, it is a Zygotes and/or fetus which is not human so you cannot claim a human was harmed in the death of it?

It seems that the labels are there to clear the conscience more then anything. They are convenient when attempting to justify a position that not everyone agrees with.

 

[DeletedUser]

That's your opinion, but it's not based on biological evidence. Zygotes and fetus are incapable of surviving out of a woman's womb and are, effectively, parasitical. They are not nicknames, but scientific definitions for the state of development.

A lot of people are parasitic, that does not grant the okay to kill them.

As to criminality, the law dictates what is criminal, not you or some ignorant extremists waving pro-life, anti-gay signs at a soldier's funeral.

Now you are just being silly, what does some inappropriate zealot have to do with the debate? There are laws beyond the legal system the US imposes against its own constitution (right to LIFE, liberty...).

Right, so address that before you pose such inane arguments. Ignoring it because it's inconvenient to your arguments does not give you any credibility.

Pot this is kettle, black over.

Indeed, and once again what do you advocate as their "liability" and their "punishment?" Dancing around this as well doesn't give you any credibility.

Yet again not bothering to face the issue only turning the argument on me.

My friend felt what he felt, that is a fact, and you have the audacity to condemn him for having that feeling when he just lost his wife. I recommend you cease this particular argument, as it's incredibly insensitive and dismissive. For a person advocating absolutist pro-life for a fetus, you sure don't seem to care about the living victims, the women, or the children after birth.

You brought this particular arguement up not me. If you did not want to discuss it you need to leave it at the door, otherwise trying to rest your argument on FEELINGS is not a logical argument.

Once again the "murder" allegation, which you have failed to prove. In any event, it is not necessarily politics, but hypocrisy. Advocates of ignoring the dangers imposed on women, as well demonstrate they do not support their proscribed alternatives to abortion.

Failed to prove??? Are you serious? I said an unborn child is human and alive, that makes it a human life! Taking a human life is murder! You have a very selective memory...

At what point are you just going to confess you're pushing this subject because it keeps you busy, like a video game, and you frankly couldn't care less one way or the other? Because, if you truly cared, you would stop banging away on this argument in a forum and put a physical effort to helping all the starving, the brutalized, the bludgeoned, and the enslaved due to corporate greed advocated by consumer purchasing and overall ambivalence.

Yet again AD Hominem. You attack me because you cannot debate the issue!

This is typical hypocritical fare... and it gets old. Perhaps we should impose some liability on you, mister consumer and corporation advocate.

Yet again AD Hominem MR FALLACY.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

So when is a bean not a bean ? when is a foetus a human baby ? when a sperm fertilizes the egg apparently...

And here we go again

 

[DeletedUser]

Before you continue with that argument, Willy and kidkade, do realize that there are literally hundreds of women imprisoned or under trial in the backwoods midwest U.S. for still births. This is the ridiculous argument you are imposing, the one that results in a horrible direction for any nation to go, where the woman is being imprisoned for suffering a stillbirth, due to no direct action of their own, no medical evidence, and instead an inference of irresponsibility (which goes back to the huge influx of inference laws and thought crimes that have assaulted the U.S. during the Bush administration) imposed by fundamentalists that have wriggled their way into prosecutorial positions (exploiting fundamentalist populations to serve as jurors).

There you are, the state of zygote, embryo, fetus, child (birth). It is argued by prolifers that fetuses are unborn children. Even if we are to accept that argument, we are still dealing with only 2nd and 3rd trimesters, where abortions are not allowed unless it is demonstrated there are documented medical complications (2nd trimester) or the woman's life is in danger (2nd & 3rd trimesters). So this argument you two are running with is a red herring.

And how do I know it is a red herring? By this:

That is a 2004 report on abortions in the United States and the UK, respectively.


Oh, and Willy, would you like to present to me an adult that is parasitical? Try not to argue financial, as that is clearly a ridiculous route for your argument. As you can see, by examination of the 1st image, our present medical advances provide only a 50% chance of survival for a fetus for early childbirth at the beginning of the 3rd trimester, with survival rates dropping dramatically prior to that. By examining the first image, you see that viability is the determining factor for most laws pertaining to feticide, and the penalties are not equal to homicide. Regardless, none of them legally conflict with abortion, for both exception and the fact they do not cover the timeframe in which abortions are performed (as illustrated in the 2nd image).

So... seriously, you want to continue this debate? By legal standards, by laws pertaining to feticide, by common sense, by relevance to the safety of a woman, by the recognition that abortion is applied at the 1st trimester (with previously noted exceptions), and by recognition that laws intended to protect the fetus from abuse from men are instead being used by fundamentalists to imprison women for "natural" stillbirths, it's rather clear you don't have a valid argument.

 

[DeletedUser]

Before you continue with that argument, Willy and kidkade, do realize that there are literally hundreds of women imprisoned or under trial in the backwoods midwest U.S. for still births. This is the ridiculous argument you are imposing, the one that results in a horrible direction for any nation to go, where the woman is being imprisoned for suffering a stillbirth, due to no direct action of their own, no medical evidence, and instead an inference of irresponsibility

Actually, in all the cases of charges brought against a woman for a still birth, they tested positive for high concentrations of illegal drugs like meth amphetamines and cocaine. I would say this is hardly no fault of their own and there is ample evidence of what these types of drugs do to babies- many of them which do not survive as much as 100 days after birth.

Or is it your position that illegal drugs is a right that a mother should be entitled to during pregnancy. Still, in many states, if you are doing something illegal (like past the legal alcohol limit) when you are involved in a wreck and someone dies, regardless of who's fault the wreck is, you are charged and usually convicted of a homicide. Speeding can get you the same in my area. I do not see any difference between that and charging someone for a homicide when they do drugs and end up losing a baby.

There you are, the state of zygote, embryo, fetus, child (birth). It is argued by prolifers that fetuses are unborn children. Even if we are to accept that argument, we are still dealing with only 2nd and 3rd trimesters, where abortions are not allowed unless it is demonstrated there are documented medical complications (2nd trimester) or the woman's life is in danger (2nd & 3rd trimesters). So this argument you two are running with is a red herring.

Actually, prolifers argue that _life_ starts at conception. Reframing their argument to suit your fancy does not change their argument nor does it make you more correct. It is the pro choice people injecting the terms zygote and fetus because they mean something to them when they are clearing your conscience.

(which goes back to the huge influx of inference laws and thought crimes that have assaulted the U.S. during the Bush administration) imposed by fundamentalists that have wriggled their way into prosecutorial positions (exploiting fundamentalist populations to serve as jurors).

hmm.. some of the most liberal states like California and Massachusetts has had these fetal homicide laws in place for a lot longer then Bush had been around. There are 38 states that have fetal homicide laws and about half of them were in place before 1999.

Oh yea, my uncle is sitting right here with me as I write this before anyone tries to shut me down again.

 

[DeletedUser]

Before you continue with that argument, Willy and kidkade, do realize that there are literally hundreds of women imprisoned or under trial in the backwoods midwest U.S. for still births. This is the ridiculous argument you are imposing, the one that results in a horrible direction for any nation to go, where the woman is being imprisoned for suffering a stillbirth, due to no direct action of their own, no medical evidence, and instead an inference of irresponsibility (which goes back to the huge influx of inference laws and thought crimes that have assaulted the U.S. during the Bush administration) imposed by fundamentalists that have wriggled their way into prosecutorial positions (exploiting fundamentalist populations to serve as jurors).

Appeal to consequences

Oh, and Willy, would you like to present to me an adult that is parasitical? Try not to argue financial, as that is clearly a ridiculous route for your argument.

Semantics, this is Definist fallacy.

So... seriously, you want to continue this debate? By legal standards, by laws pertaining to feticide, by common sense, by relevance to the safety of a woman, by the recognition that abortion is applied at the 1st trimester (with previously noted exceptions), and by recognition that laws intended to protect the fetus from abuse from men are instead being used by fundamentalists to imprison women for "natural" stillbirths, it's rather clear you don't have a valid argument.

Appeal to authority.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why is it that often the same people who advocate the death penalty, the right to bear arms and use lethal force in self-defence, support military interventions abroad and are ethusiastically carnivorous and enjoy hunting and fishing suddenly become all misty-eyed over the right of a foetus to life?

And why is it that someone like me, a vegetarian (almost vegan) Buddhist who does not even take insect life or kill the snails in their garden, who supports strict gun-control, the criminilsation of blood-sports and who is against the death-penalty or all forms of military aggression supports a woman's right to choose the termination of her own pregnancy?

I suggest that it's because this debate is not really about some supposed compassion for the unborn but more about controlling and judging other people - primarily women but also absent fathers. The "pro-life" banner is just a convenient prop for some haters and judgers to hide their motives behind. I would look at their other views to decide how sincere I thought they were being.

 

[DeletedUser]

On Eli's points, I am in full agreement. When you can advocate the death penalty, despite clear evidence of innocence in many that were put to death, we can only ponder at the duality in thoughts associated, the cognitive dissonance one must endure by running the numbers, by gambling with other people's lives.

Willy, as previously requested by you, and for which I have repeatedly provided since, to claim a fallacy you must demonstrate how and where. Your rebuttal was a cop-out and you know it, so step up or step out.

Kidkade, Sumdumass, uncle, whatever you want to call yourself this week, you are incorrect on four fronts: the first front is that not all were tested positive for drugs at the time, the second is that in most every case the medical examiners determined there was insufficient evidence to connect the drug use with the cause of death, third is the percentage of stillbirths corresponds to the national average, demonstrating standard fare, not exception, and the fourth relates specifically to the reasons those laws were instituted (as stated in every senatorial argument), which was to penalize men who abused women to the point they caused harm or death to the fetus, or to penalize people for additional crimes if they kill a pregnant woman. It was never intended to prosecute the grieving woman who experienced a traumatizing stillbirth.

It is also important to point out that, in almost every case, the woman was a minority prosecuted by all-white or mostly-white jurors (ACLU, all cases under appeal). And last on this argument, only "one" man has ever been charged with this crime, demonstrating a gross misrepresentation and misuse of the laws' intent.

As to what pro-lifers believe, who cares? This isn't a theological debate. Ultimately the vast majority of pro-lifers and pro-choice agree that an abortion is acceptable if the woman's life or health is in danger. So the problem comes about when a pro-lifer consciously "ignores" the very real fact that a woman's life and health is in very real danger due to pregnancy.

The remaining argument becomes "how much danger to a woman's life?" Unfortunately, this particular argument then becomes a "measure of a woman's life," arguing that a woman's life is worth risking if there's a possibility that a child will be born. And the reason this is unfortunate is because it then enters into the realm of gambling with "other" people's lives when you force a woman to risk going to full-term.

Once again, we return to the burden posed by the duality in thought, the cognitive dissonance.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your premise is lacking in some thought.

Why is it that often the same people who advocate the death penalty, the right to bear arms and use lethal force in self-defence, support military interventions abroad and are ethusiastically carnivorous and enjoy hunting and fishing suddenly become all misty-eyed over the right of a foetus to life?

Lets look at it. Death penalty is, punishment for a crime where society says we are safer without the convicted being alive, right to keep and bear arms and self defense is your right to self preservation. You can give it up if you want, but do not expect others to commit suicide. We can lump being a carnivore and hunting and fishing in the same category- self preservation. If you do not eat, you do not live. Military intervention abroad is more in line with the first, punishment for a crime or to stop something worse from happening. Although it can happen to secure a resource the country is in need of or to protect friendly countries which is more in line with self preservation.

There is a pattern there. Self preservation, safety, so why is it a stretch that some of those same people would want to protect, to ensure the safety of unborn children? Seems the logical thing to me.

And why is it that someone like me, a vegetarian (almost vegan) Buddhist who does not even take insect life or kill the snails in their garden, who supports strict gun-control, the criminilsation of blood-sports and who is against the death-penalty or all forms of military aggression supports a woman's right to choose the termination of her own pregnancy?

Let's look at this. First, your religion (and almost ability to practice it) has nothing to do with this as it does not elevate you above anyone else. Your inability to harm an animal or insect seems a little off the subject of human life too, unless you somehow think the life of a human and insects are somehow the same. Supporting strict gun control doesn't mean much either. I know people who own guns and have never taken a life with them- animal or human. As for being against the death penalty and blood sports, well, that is your choice but it doesn't really support a call to kill unborn children at the mothers will.

I suggest that it's because this debate is not really about some supposed compassion for the unborn but more about controlling and judging other people - primarily women but also absent fathers. The "pro-life" banner is just a convenient prop for some haters and judgers to hide their motives behind. I would look at their other views to decide how sincere I thought they were being.

I suggest that it's because you simply have not thought it through or have let your ideology blind you making it impossible for real thought on the subject.

Kidkade, Sumdumass, uncle, whatever you want to call yourself this week,

You will know who is posting by looking at the name at the top of the post. It does seem apparent that what my uncle said was true, there is an amount of collusion going on here despite the guarantees there wasn't.

the first front is that not all were tested positive for drugs at the time,

Either the mother or the baby tested positive for drugs of abuse. Of course if you can show some cases where they weren't, I might be persuaded to change my mind. My guess is that you cannot.

the second is that in most every case the medical examiners determined there was insufficient evidence to connect the drug use with the cause of death,

Already addressed. People are convicted of homicide all the time when they are doing something illegal and involved in the death of another person without being the direct cause of that death. I even put examples of this in my post had you bothered to read it.

third is the percentage of stillbirths corresponds to the national average, demonstrating standard fare, not exception,

Makes absolutely no difference at all. The charge against them is not because they had a miscarriage or a live birth that couldn't make it. The charge against them is because they participated in an illegal act known to be harmful to the baby and the baby died.

and the fourth relates specifically to the reasons those laws were instituted (as stated in every senatorial argument), which was to penalize men who abused women to the point they caused harm or death to the fetus, or to penalize people for additional crimes if they kill a pregnant woman. It was never intended to prosecute the grieving woman who experienced a traumatizing stillbirth.

This is nothing more then a fabricated load of bull. The laws were created to penalize anyone who caused the death of an unborn child. That includes men abusing women and additional crimes if they caused the death of a pregnant women but the laws were never intended to be limited to those two situations.

It is also important to point out that, in almost every case, the woman was a minority prosecuted by all-white or mostly-white jurors (ACLU, all cases under appeal). And last on this argument, only "one" man has ever been charged with this crime, demonstrating a gross misrepresentation and misuse of the laws' intent.

Insignificant to the issue at hand. The conviction or strength of the conviction has nothing to do with the charging and prosecuting of someone. The evidence either exists to charge them or it doesn't. Arguing that the jury was tainted does not make the usage of the law any less valid.

As to what pro-lifers believe, who cares? This isn't a theological debate.

You should care what prolifers believe if you are interested in a valid debate and discussion on the topic. However, I've been convinced for a while now, along with others, that you are not interested in that and only interested in imposing your own ideology. You are right, it is not a theological debate, however, you imposing concepts and ignoring the reality of the situation suggest you are demanding your theology is the only one that matters.

Ultimately the vast majority of pro-lifers and pro-choice agree that an abortion is acceptable if the woman's life or health is in danger. So the problem comes about when a pro-lifer consciously "ignores" the very real fact that a woman's life and health is in very real danger due to pregnancy.

The women's health or the child's health is cited as a reason for an abortion in about 3% of all abortions performed in the US each year. Depending on where you look, between 1% and 7% of all abortions each year performed in the US are the result of rape or incest. So adding them together, it is safe to say that less then 15% of abortions are for what most of everyone would consider to be a valid reason. The other 75-85% of abortions are basically for reasons birth control is taken for.

Now you keep bringing up this woman's life in danger as if you think you are on to something. Well, it seems that women who have abortions are 4 times more likely to die then women who give birth to their child. But all in all, it seems your chances of dieing from a car accident is greater then the chances of dieing from either birth or abortion. So I think you are making more of it then needs be. The safest route seems to be not getting pregnant at all which goes back to a comment a few days ago concerning making the decision to have a baby before become pregnant.

The CDC says that there are 12.7 maternal deaths per 100,000 births. The reality is that comes down to around a .0127% chance of the women giving birth losing their life.

 

[DeletedUser]

On Eli's points, I am in full agreement. When you can advocate the death penalty, despite clear evidence of innocence in many that were put to death, we can only ponder at the duality in thoughts associated, the cognitive dissonance one must endure by running the numbers, by gambling with other people's lives.

This is pretty much a gambler's fallacy. You are taking something that is highly unlikely and pretending it is the norm. Most pregnancies end up with the baby and mother alive. You are supposing that the risk to the mother and the mother's rights to live outweigh the child's right to live. One person's right to live cannot be used to take away another's, this is the two wrongs make a right fallacy.

As far as Eli's post is concerned its just a AD HOMINEM fallacy. Now you are just attacking the opposition rather than debating the issue.

Willy, as previously requested by you, and for which I have repeatedly provided since, to claim a fallacy you must demonstrate how and where. Your rebuttal was a cop-out and you know it, so step up or step out.

No actually you kept using the WORD "fallacy" as a rebuttal with out naming the actual fallacy you are referring to, and I was the one who said that was a cop-out and you know it.

That is like a lawyer saying "objection" and the judge asking "on what grounds?" and the lawyer replying "you know what a objection is go look it up..."

Kidkade, Sumdumass, uncle, whatever you want to call yourself this week, you are incorrect on four fronts: the first front is that not all were tested positive for drugs at the time, the second is that in most every case the medical examiners determined there was insufficient evidence to connect the drug use with the cause of death, third is the percentage of stillbirths corresponds to the national average, demonstrating standard fare, not exception, and the fourth relates specifically to the reasons those laws were instituted (as stated in every senatorial argument), which was to penalize men who abused women to the point they caused harm or death to the fetus, or to penalize people for additional crimes if they kill a pregnant woman. It was never intended to prosecute the grieving woman who experienced a traumatizing stillbirth.

Still arguing an appeal to consequence.

It is also important to point out that, in almost every case, the woman was a minority prosecuted by all-white or mostly-white jurors (ACLU, all cases under appeal). And last on this argument, only "one" man has ever been charged with this crime, demonstrating a gross misrepresentation and misuse of the laws' intent.

appeal to consequence and appeal to emotion. Now you are arguing the possible consequences of racism and appealing to the emotion around that issue instead of dealing with this issue.

As to what pro-lifers believe, who cares? This isn't a theological debate. Ultimately the vast majority of pro-lifers and pro-choice agree that an abortion is acceptable if the woman's life or health is in danger. So the problem comes about when a pro-lifer consciously "ignores" the very real fact that a woman's life and health is in very real danger due to pregnancy.

Strawman fallacy. Most pro-lifers do not equal this debate.

The remaining argument becomes "how much danger to a woman's life?" Unfortunately, this particular argument then becomes a "measure of a woman's life," arguing that a woman's life is worth risking if there's a possibility that a child will be born. And the reason this is unfortunate is because it then enters into the realm of gambling with "other" people's lives when you force a woman to risk going to full-term.

Unfortunately this is an appeal to consequence and a fallacy. The possible consequence to the mother does not equal evidence of taking away another's right to live.

Once again, we return to the burden posed by the duality in thought, the cognitive dissonance.

Now we are turning to the Burden of proof fallacy. You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the defense instead of arguing the issue.

Your arguments are so chalked full of fallacies that its difficult to find any part that is an actual logical argument.