To all the pro-lifers with the signsFollow

Wow, Shadowrelm...that was almost coherent. Go you.

Next time, try to apply that liberally-used shift button to the first letter in each sentence and not just the words you want to emphasize and you will really have come a long way.

I can get behind that Flea. In fact, I follow, justify *and* endorse your suggestion. Call me an aye.

Seconds until the universe explodes... 3... 2... 1... *boom*

Yeah. But now if you law passes, the universe will fly apart from the strains of paradox.

No pressure though folks. Vote your conscience on this one... ;)

I'm "pro-choice". That means that I believe it is up to the individual to choose if he wants to kill a random person on any given day. Clearly, that's a choice, right? And since we're all enntitled to our opinions, any law that opposes my right to choose to kill people is a violation of that choice and all of our freedoms...
---------------------------------------------------

wrong.

your argument is asserting a fetus is a life. this is hte whole sticking point behind both sides of the argument.

when does life begin? at birth? at conception? somewhere inbetween? where inbetween exactly?

want to use God as a platform? when does God say life begines? any mention in the bible of an unborn child being considered a life anywhere in the Bible?

no one knows but God.

which one of you thinks you KNOW what God wants? which one of you thinks you have the right to impose your INTERPETATION of Gods will on the rest of us?

and for the few of you who can say "i do", are you not justifying muslim extremist also?

freedom. freedom to choose. freedom to live as YOU believe you should live. freedom of persecution from people who want you to live as THEY feel you should live.

the morality of it can only be decided by answering the question, "when does life begin?"

the religious platform can only be decided by God.

the only clear choice is FREEDOM of choice. pro-choice. you can CHOOSE to not partake in an abortion. you have that right. that freedom. what rights and freedoms will you give up to take that freedom away from someone else?

Gbaji wrote:


If I am not mistaken, her original comment, which she wisely saw fit not to revisit, was that abortion was being forced upon those who don't believe in it. She improved somewhat afterward, but actually, yes, her arguments are inconsistent. What's more, they're insupportable.

She's not arguing for her right to NOT believe in abortion. She's arguing why abortion is wrong. And the arguments aren't holding water, in large part because they are rooted in religious dogma, but also because they're simply not logical.

Example 1: she argues that it's wrong to end a life, however incompletely formed, because God values all lives. However, she ignores the fact that regardless of its legality, abortion will always be a fact of life, and that illegal abortions carry a very significant toll in undeniably fully-formed lives.

Example 2: she argues that because of the presence of a soul, a fetus is considered a human being, rather than a parasite, and therefore it's a sin to deny it the right to incubate in a woman's body, however unwilling that woman may be to host it.

However, if I were dying of renal failure and commandeered one of your kidneys, I would be arrested for assualt, at the very least. Yet the implication of her argument is that God would be okay with me stealing one of your kidneys to insure my survival. After all, a human being has the right to survive using your body regardless of your consent in the matter.

I could go on, but I need to get dinner started. I will state for the record that I, too, am an anti-abortion pro-choicer. I think on an animal, instinctive level, we are compelled to feel particularly protective toward our young and therefore find infanticide repugnant. I cannot imagine a circumstance under which I would ever have an abortion, and I believe if I had a friend or relative who came up pregnant, I would encourage her to seek other options.

However, it's because of the circumstances I CAN'T imagine that abortion being legal is something I whole-heartedly support, because the only thing that repulses me more than the thought of abortion itself is the idea that I someday might need to have one and don't have that option.

Oh, and careful, Gbaji. If it gets out that you support a woman's right to choose, they'll take your membership to the Dubya fanclub away.



Edited, Tue Jun 28 19:18:33 2005 by Ambrya

(didnt read the rest of topic so might have been said before)

Lemme ask you something, do those anti abortion women (men have no say in it, its not their body they have to carry a child with for 9 months and then squeeze it out in the most painful event (wo)man as ever known!) have adopted children? are they willing to adopt children? if they answered no then they should shut the hell up because they are gonna be left with alot of kids with no homes.

Yeah. Again though, I think that's just her not wording what she was trying to say very well.

By "forced upon me", I took that to mean "I'm forced to abide by laws that I don't agree with". To take my murder analogy a step further, it would be like if the Supreme Court determined that a state making murder illegal was unconstitutional. Under those conditions, if you were someone who believed that murder should be illegal, would you not feel that you were being "forced" to abide by those rules? Would you not also feel that your opinion and voice on the matter was not being respected?



She's actually doing both in the original statement she made. She's saying she has a right to a belief that abortion is wrong, and that she *also* has a right to try to change the laws of the state/country she lives in to reflect that belief. The fact that she holds that belief because of religious dogma is irrelevant. You can't argue that a law can't be passed becase it also happens to parallel a religious belief. We'd have to constitutionally outlaw laws against theft and murder for starters...

That's the point though. Why she believes abortion is wrong is irrelevant. The issue is whether the state agrees with her. And the state, ultimately, is made up of the people. Thus, she's certainly within her rights to try to argue that abortion should be illegal. Just as you have a right to argue that eating food with your left hand should be illegal. Doesn't mean that the laws will reflect that, but you certainly have a right to try...



Ok. Not sure I'm getting what you are saying. You're still trying to argue that her opinion is wrong because of *why* she believes it, and not whether the opinion itself is or is not valid. Remove the "because blah blah blah" from the argument. She's saying that abortion is wrong. She's saying it's wrong because it's a living person inside that womb. And legally, she's not 100% wrong. The SC, when making the Roe v. Wade decision did establish some guidlines as to when the pregnancy is considered a separate human life. That's why we have laws that establish when in the pregnancy you can abort for which reasons.


Point here is that we're not arguing absolutes. We're arguing degrees. The law already establishes that at some point *before* birth a fetus does become a life, and gains some of the rights and priviledges of being a human life. That's really not a matter of debate. The only issue is whether or not you agree with the currently held timeframe for that. While I personally agree that the SC's guidlines are pretty reasonable with regards to what we know medically about the development from zygote to embryo to fetus to child, it would be wrong to automatically assume anyone who disagreed with me should not be allowed to voice that disagreement, or attempt to change that definition.

Certainly, if someone holds a belief in a human soul, and that this soul is what gives us "human life", then it's certainly well within that persons belief structure to argue that life begins much sooner then the medical professionals (who as far as I know, have not yet been able to measure the presense of a soul in adults let alone fetuses) state. I may not personally agree with that, but at the same time I cannot insist legally that someone else may not both have that belief *and* attempt to change the laws to avoid violating that belief.

To pull out the murder analogy again. What if you believe that "murder" is any deliberate act that results in someone's death, while I believe that it's only murder if the act is premeditated. We really only disagree about the degrees of the acts, right? I happen to believe that a "heat of the moment" act that results in death should recieve a lesser sentence then that of murder. You don't agree with me. Is your opinion any less valid if the source of your belief comes from a religion? I don't think so. It's still a "valid" position to take on the issue, and it's perfectly ok for you to attempt to make your opinon the law (as it's mine to do the opposite).


My problem isn't with the disagreement. It's the absolute assumption that someone ele's opinion is "wrong" either due to semantics (It's "pro-choice", so that means we get to choose), or purely because their opinion happens to come from a religious belief. We should determine our laws based on the value and applicability of the laws themselves to our society. Period.



So saying that a pro-life position is wrong because the current guidlines for abortion is based on the current medical understanding of the development of a future child in a mother's womb, and therefore our abortion laws represent the best compromise between the rights of the mother, the future child, and society as a whole is valid. Arguing that since we can't measure the soul, so we can't say if it exists and/or when it appears is valid. Arguing that previous legal definitions of a "citizen" include someone "born of another citizen, or born within the boundaries of the US", establishes that our "rights" are gained at birth is another valid argument.

Saying "you're wrong because your opinions are based on your religious belief" is a horrible arguement IMO. I have to seriously question the validity of anyone who can't come up with something better then that...

Huh? They placed a bunch of small crosses on their front lawn, right? And a sign indicating what they meant, right? I'm curious about your "children shouldn't be exposed to that" argument. If a child is so young as to not understand the issue adequately, then they're probably not going to "get" the message of the display either.

It's not children that are going to have a problem with this. And they're certainly not going to have nightmares because they saw some crosses on a lawn. You see the same everytime you drive past a cemetary. Should we make them illegal too? Heck. I'm pretty sure if the kids can manage to see a crucifix without needing therapy, then they can manage some crosses on a lawn.

It's about you as an adult not agreeing with the message they're saying. It's 100% about free speech. There's nothing about that display as it was described that represented any sort of thing that children shouldn't be allowed to view (unless of course, you are an adult and you don't want children to be exposed to opinions on issues that you don't agree with). You aren't arguing this "for the children". You're arguing it for your own political position on the issue. Dragging children into it is silly. Parent's most certainly have the right to raise their children with whatever beliefs they wish.


Certainly, if my concern is the maximum freedom of our citizens (which it is), I'm far more worried about the idea that we as a society should *not* allow children to view such things, then those who put them on display.

Actually, no. I pointed out a number of reasons why her arguments are invalid throughout the course of this thread and only once mentioned her motivation. You have an interesting and unique ability to overlook the actual facts of a discussion when it suits your purposes to do so.

Furthermore, addressing WHY she holds the belief that abortion is wrong is a perfectly valid tactic, because her entire argument is based upon that "why." Frankly, the idea of conducting a debate without addressing the reasons behind the beliefs being espoused is absurd, as the conversation would essentially go like this:

"I believe abortion is wrong."
"I believe it's not wrong."
"It is wrong."
"No, it's not."
"Is."
"Not."

The WHY is pretty much all-important, because an argument exists based upon the strength of its rationale. Thus, if she introduces the belief in God as the rationale for her argument, it's perfectly valid to counter with the fact that God can be interpretted a number of ways, or might not exist at all. That's what debate is all about. The claim that the why doesn't matter is absurd.



Considering that isn't what I said at all (what I ACTUALLY said is that a part of why her arguments are weak is because they are founded in dogma rather than fact) I don't see a point in continuing this conversation. My primary point, which I have iterated a number of times now, has been all along that legalized abortion saves women's lives and that due to that fact, claiming abortion should be illegal because "all life is sacred" is a huge ball of illogic. To this date, she has not seem fit to address this point, but rather digressed into a rather nonsensical discussion of church and state and how the lack of a state sanctioned religion is a blow for atheism.

She doesn't have a logical leg to stand upon, so really what can you possibly be defending? Considering you have made a 10,000+ post career of telling people they are wrong, I find this claim that no one has a right to tell her she's wrong ironic, to say the least.



Edited, Wed Jun 29 08:23:19 2005 by Ambrya

Is this a trick question or are you that far off base; you mean do people that use violence, such as murder, to enforce religion, right? Cause in terms of the christian and muslim religions those jackasses are heretics, not religious. OR, are you saying belief in a divine entity automatically nullifies one ability to participate in democracy?

Sorry, dude, I'm going to have to call bs on this one. You use the term 'impose' like you have to spend a semester in catholic school and do penance everytime some religious person dissagrees with you. Are you so weak minded that you can't walk by a monument of the ten commandments without completely losing the ability to form your own opinion? Like some murderer is ever going to be marched by the ten commandments on the way to prison, read, "Thou shall not kill," and be like, "Oh, ****, I understand everything now. How did I ever chose the path of wickedness and woe? /repent" WTF dude, grow a spine.



What about the americans that believe that you should live by not aborting fetuses? Don't they have as much right to voice their opinion and vote for their beliefs just as much as anyone else? Isn't that how democracy works?

Not that I agree with any of the non-sensical crap the religious right come up with, but seriously, disagree, but don't come off like having a different opinion then you is a threat to your freedom.

P.S. For those of you that think men shouldn't have a say in abortion, kindly STFU. Women can trivialize mens existance in the reproduction process when they start conceiving without our donation. What, women have to carry the child, not men? Yeah, I missed the meeting where women volunteered for that illustious position. So, how did that go?

Men: So, who's going to carry the fetus while it develops?
Women: We should, we have a much higher tolerance for pain then men, thus we'd be the best choice for delivering a child.
Men: Okay.

(nine months later)

Woman: OMFG, get this thing out of me! IT'S KILLING ME! YOU! (points to man) YOU DID THIS TO ME! I WILL F453ING KILL YOU!

Good job handling the pain. Suppose that's why doctors offer epidurals, huh?

You women got a problem with being the ones that carry children? Take it up with god. Heathen? Take it up with Mother Nature. Thanks

If that opinion comforts you in your support for abortion, more power to you. If that makes you feel better about the whole concept, then I guess you have found a loophole for yourself to make you feel less guilty about the situation. The basic undeniable fact of people who support abortion is, I don't want to have to deal with the consequences of my actions. I am irresponsible and I want a quick fix for my problems. That is all. Forget the lame arguments about whether or not you were raped (insignificant), which none of you in here were raped and became pregnant I guarantee. Forget the argument that back before Roe v. Wade that women were willing to do it illegaly with improper procedures that could kill the mother. The bottom line is that you do not want to face the fact that your behavior could lead to you getting pregnant, and you would not want to stop your behavior, so you have abortions made legal.

That is all that pro-choice people are really about. They do not want to deal with the fact that in the future my behavior, my irresponsiblity, could lead to me becoming pregnant for 9 months, and having a child to take care of. You aren't noble, you don't have a cause, you don't speak for freedom, you have no valid argument supporting your opinion. You have no integrity, and you want a quick fix for all the things you should not be doing. There are so many ways to prevent pregnancy, its unbelievable. But please please stop preeching about freedom and your cause and all the bullsh't, the bottom line and why you really support abortion is because you don't want to have to deal with your own irresponsiblity.

It's my body! My body! I shouldn't have to put up with having a child! I don't want a child! I just want to keep having fun, I don't want to have to deal with this!

/hurray for the feminist movement, look at its creation. Women screaming for death instead of owning up to their actions. I guess this signifies that women are more independent, look what control they have today over their own destiny! Wonderful job. /golfclap


Edited, Wed Jun 29 14:11:24 2005 by PraetorianX

Thanks!