Oppinions on abortion?

[Ceannairceach]

On a personal level, I am pro-life, but on a legal, statewide and nationwide level, I am pro-choice.

[Galloism]

However, the rich and middle class can afford to hop in their SUV and drive over to the next state to get their abortion.

The poor are fucked.

Other states are not my concern because they are not my state. I would like them to ban it as well, but whether they do or not has legally nothing to do with me. The federal government, on the other hand, does, because my state is a member and is bound to its laws.

So, from a practical standpoint...

Fuck the poor.

[Grave_n_idle]

Except men.

Do you honestly think if men could get pregnant that pro-lifers would support allowing them to get abortions?

I honestly do not think the pro-life platform would be nearly as vociferous if men could get pregnant.

[Farnhamia]

Do you honestly think if men could get pregnant that pro-lifers would support allowing them to get abortions?

I honestly do not think the pro-life platform would be nearly as vociferous if men could get pregnant.

There wouldn't be a "pro-life" platform. And birth control would be free, dispensed by the government and the churches.

[Grave_n_idle]

Practically, I'm sure many men wouldn't want to carry a child, just as many women don't in reality. But still, there are pro-life women, because it's viewed as an issue of right and wrong, more important than convenience...

I didn't say pro-life women didn't exist. But the majority who are pro-life are men.

Like the stories about atheists and foxholes. There are plenty of pro-life women until THEY are the ones pregnant with a pregnancy they don't want (or it's their daughter, or whatever). Men have an even greater margin of luxury, since they are NEVER the pregnant ones.

[Grave_n_idle]

Honestly, if you support the killing of a DEVELOPING human being, it would be just like saying that you support the killing of an adult whom you never knew.

Exactly like how eating an acorn is the same as eating a whole tree.

Oh, wait.

And if you think that its a bundle of cells, GO BACK TO BIOLOGY CLASS.

We are all bundles of cells. Save me a seat.

[Grave_n_idle]

Why do you need a non-utilitarian argument against fascism? What is wrong with a utilitarian argument?

I don't want to completely derail the thread into a debate about fascism, but your argument is bunk. Just because you believe something is wrong doesn't mean it is. If you cannot provide a sound logical reason WHY it is wrong, then you have no right to expect other people to agree with you and you have no right to expect other people to live by your moral code.

Why should I care what provides the most utility?

It's wrong because it takes away the God-given rights of property and life, among others. Don't like my reasoning, too bad. I'm not changing it for you.

There are no god-given rights. Shaky start.

[Bluth Corporation]

I am a Christian; therefore, I recognize that government should place no restrictions whatsoever on abortions.

[Wiztopia]

Your reasoning is false by definition. You cannot prove that 1. Your god exists, and 2. He is a rational basis for any legal system. Find a rational basis for your proposed legislation, or stop proposing it. It's that simple.

I can propose whatever I want for whatever reason I want. That's the nature of the system.

I'm not in favor of a federal ban on abortion, anyway. Merely the repeal of roe v wade, and a ban in my own state. Others are free to do what they want.

There is nothing wrong with Roe v Wade. So you want to ban abortion in your state? I guess you want the women to die in your state when they get unsafe abortions.

[Distruzio]

Pro-choice or pro-life? I personally am pro-choice because it is hard to call abortion murder when the baby isn't developed enough to think or feel.

Opinions?

Neither. I'm evictionist.

[Norstal]

You see right and wrong as being universal...and just so happening to align with your personal opinions.

Of course it does. It couldn't align with somebody else's opinion, that wouldn't make any sense. I don't think my beliefs are superior in any way, I just think they're right.

A turtle in a shell.

[Apollonesia]

.

[Norstal]

I am a Christian; therefore, I recognize that government should place no restrictions whatsoever on abortions.

I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I recommend that you explain this.

I'm hoping that your reasoning is something like: "G-d is supreme, not government. Therefore, we follow only Him." If not, well...

Oh he's not that kind of Christian.

[Distruzio]

I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I recommend that you explain this.

I'm hoping that your reasoning is something like: "G-d is supreme, not government. Therefore, we follow only Him." If not, well...

Oh he's not that kind of Christian.

I still have a hard time figuring his "kind of Christian" out. While I don't necessarily disagree with him... he confuses the hell out of me. Just like Volnotova.

[Norstal]

Oh he's not that kind of Christian.

I still have a hard time figuring his "kind of Christian" out. While I don't necessarily disagree with him... he confuses the hell out of me. Just like Volnotova.

Basically, he believes everything, but the holy ghosts or the concept of the Christian god. He follows the human Jesus, until he became a zombie.

Though when you do think about it, Jesus do support abortion. Or, as I would put it, his policy of "leave everyone alone".

[Distruzio]

I still have a hard time figuring his "kind of Christian" out. While I don't necessarily disagree with him... he confuses the hell out of me. Just like Volnotova.

Basically, he believes everything, but the holy ghosts or the concept of the Christian god. He follows the human Jesus, until he became a zombie.

I feel so much better now, about Bluth. I didn't want to think of him as if he were a Bibliolater (protestant - I have a VERY low opinion of protestantism). Now I understand, I think, so much better all the answers he gave to me via TG. Thanks!

Though when you do think about it, Jesus do support abortion. Or, as I would put it, his policy of "leave everyone alone".

I hesitate to go that far. Although I would say that Christ would most definitely refuse to condemn the woman for getting an abortion. Her sin wouldn't necessarily be the removal of a fetus from her womb, but rather the rejection of the opportunity for relationship with a new life. Although the Church stands opposed to abortion as murder, it does not reject salvation (healing) for the women who get abortions. Individual Christians may vary. I'm one of the variances.

[Norstal]

Basically, he believes everything, but the holy ghosts or the concept of the Christian god. He follows the human Jesus, until he became a zombie.

I feel so much better now, about Bluth. I didn't want to think of him as if he were a Bibliolater (protestant - I have a VERY low opinion of protestantism). Now I understand, I think, so much better all the answers he gave to me via TG. Thanks!

Though when you do think about it, Jesus do support abortion. Or, as I would put it, his policy of "leave everyone alone".

I hesitate to go that far. Although I would say that Christ would most definitely refuse to condemn the woman for getting an abortion. Her sin wouldn't necessarily be the removal of a fetus from her womb, but rather the rejection of the opportunity for relationship with a new life. Although the Church stands opposed to abortion as murder, it does not reject salvation (healing) for the women who get abortions. Individual Christians may vary. I'm one of the variances.

I'm not sure if Christian atheists (which was my viewpoint) believe in sin, heaven, or hell. They shouldn't, but eh. With that in mind, a proper way to say it is that he supports choice. You'll be right that he'd condemn abortion, but when it's all said and done, they'd still have the choice. Free will and all that jazz. Now, as for the murder part, I think that's up to the local laws to classify abortion as murder or not.

[Nulono]

As long as the unborn fetus is dependant on its mother to survive (eg. nourishment, oxygen), abortion should be allowed.

That varies based on available medical technology? Why should someone's rights depend on their time period and/or location?

No, the fetus is a human being, a member of the species H. sapiens. A tumor is no more a human being than my tongue is.

Indeed. A foetus is no more a human life than your tongue is. Point well made, despite the fact that your wording got confused.

Do I really need to explain the difference between an organ and an organism?

Forbidden behavior, not compelled behavior. And it's forbidden for everyone.

Except men.

Only women are compelled to spend the 9 months tied to the punishment for their mistake. Your casual misogyny is tired, blindingly obvious, and vomit-worthy.

I'm no hypocrite. You are conflating two very different things. I don't have to adopt children to oppose killing them.

No, it's hypocrisy. You don't want these children (because you're 'not ready' or something) so you don't have to have them. But if you had a uterus, you'd have to.

You don't have to adopt a child if you don't want to, male or female. You mustn't kill a child, male or female. No hypocrisy, no misogyny.

Not necessarily. We had a rather cohesive society when the husband was considered head of the household, and spousal rape wasn't even considered rape. Many societies throughout history have allowed the killing of various segments of humanity that they deemed unworthy of legal protection, be they infants or slaves or certain races.

Yep and those societies fall, or some group rises up to fight on the behalf of the oppressed. In the end society works itself out, or collapses.

Apparently, when men ruled society there weren't women who'd kill their abuser either, and women had no power. :roll: Haven't you heard of the saying power behind the throne? Oh wait never mind women were on thrones!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome
http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/rulers.html

"[O]r some group rises up to fight on the behalf of the oppressed"? Um, that'd be the pro-life movement. FYI, there are still countries today with barbaric and immoral practices; abortion isn't the only one.

That never happens so it wouldn't matter if abortion is legal for whatever reason.

Actually, and to beat one of my favorite dead horses, abortion IS ALWAYS BIRTH CONTROL. Always, every single time, without exception, no matter what. Because, duh, terminating a pregnancy is a way of controlling when/if you're going to have birth. Abortion is ALWAYS, always, always birth control.

People who say they don't want abortion "used as birth control" are simply saying "I reserve the right to force women to bear pregnancies against their wishes for whatever reasons I think are good enough." The fact that they are sometimes willing to let women off the hook if they get themselves decently raped (not like those sluts who slut around and deserve to be forced to endure childbirth to teach them a lesson) doesn't really make them any less assholish on this count.

It has nothing to do with teaching anyone any lesson. It's about simple nonviolence.

You want men to die from rape because you want to keep rape hard to do. You want people to die from arson because you want to make arson harder to commit.Actually, it happens. It's not at all commonplace, but it happens.
PRO-TIP: It's generally a bad idea to say something "never" happens, as one example can prove you wrong.

Your argument is shit. Your anthology doesn't work at all. It has nothing to do with what I said. I like how you think The Sun is a reliable source.

You honestly think abortion is never, ever, ever used as birth control? I'm not claiming it's common. I'm only claiming that it is not completely and utterly nonexistent.

Do you honestly think if men could get pregnant that pro-lifers would support allowing them to get abortions?

Men would be all for abortion if they carried the fetus. Being pregnant isn't easy. :)

But then women would be against it. Irony is funny like that.

Right, that's why there are no pro-life women. Wait, no, women are MORE likely to be against abortion than men are. :palm:

Except men.

Do you honestly think if men could get pregnant that pro-lifers would support allowing them to get abortions?

:bow:

Practically, I'm sure many men wouldn't want to carry a child, just as many women don't in reality. But still, there are pro-life women, because it's viewed as an issue of right and wrong, more important than convenience...

I didn't say pro-life women didn't exist. But the majority who are pro-life are men.

[citation needed]

1. I fail to see how woman's rights could be used to justify killing outside of abortion. A born child isn't taking resources and nutrients directly from the mother. ANd if the parents do not feel capable of raising the child they can give it up for adoption. Unlike in pregnancy, were no alternatives exist beyond abortion. I'm not arguing the ethics, I'm arguing what I think the role of the government should be in determining the fate of someones body; namely none. I have no interest in who's morally correct.
2. Indeed.
4. It doesn't. My point is that fetal cells are less human than born people because they lack the full development of humans, even those who are mentally handicapped and what not.
7. The child being there unwanted is a violation of the woman's rights. So....the question who's rights are more important? I say the woman's, because she's more of a human than her fetus. AND FOR THE LAST GODDAM TIME; the whole what the law says thing is not an argument. Just forget about;as I said it's unnecessary anyway.

1. If you hold that a woman has a right to kill her child, that right could CERTAINLY be used to defend killing her child. I am arguing what the government's role should be in protecting the lives of people under its jurisdiction.
2. Then you take back your claim that the idea that life begins in conception is "subjective" and "not based in fact"?
4. I never claimed "fetal cells" were people. Together, they make up a person, but they are not people. Is an infant less human than an adult because he is not aware of his existence?
7. Being unwanted is NOT a violation of anyone's rights. Being killed, on the other hand, is.

Pro choice, of course; anti-abortion isn't pro-life, because something actually has to be living before it can be classified as "Life".

Uh, a fetus is living. :eyebrow:

I personally am against it and I think it shouldn't be allowed except in certain circumstances, but I also am torn with my sympathy for the woman who is forced to bear a child she isn't prepared for. I guess pro-life, though I'm torn between my personal beliefs and this strange emotion I have called empathy.

Having empathy with someone does not necessitate giving them a license to kill. It is entirely possible to care about the mother and the child.

I personally am against it and I think it shouldn't be allowed except in certain circumstances, but I also am torn with my sympathy for the woman who is forced to bear a child she isn't prepared for. I guess pro-life, though I'm torn between my personal beliefs and this strange emotion I have called empathy.

Not even in places in Zimbabwe, where the child is either born unloved or have no place to stay?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphanage#Africa

Ah, right. I guess we should kill all the kids in those orphanages, because being unloved means you forfeit any right to live.

Pro-choice isn't necessarily for abortion, I'm not "for abortion" per se, I really don't like the idea of it, but at the end of the day it's not up to me what a woman does with her body.

Why don't you like the idea of it? If it's really only "her body", and not another human being, that is killed, why should you be against it at all?

Honestly, if you support the killing of a DEVELOPING human being, it would be just like saying that you support the killing of an adult whom you never knew. And if you think that its[sic] a bundle of cells, GO BACK TO BIOLOGY CLASS.

Actually, it is a bundle of cells. So are you. So are all multicellular organisms. Maybe it's you who needs to "GO BACK TO BIOLOGY CLASS". ;)

Not even in places in Zimbabwe, where the child is either born unloved or have no place to stay?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphanage#Africa

I'm not sure how killing it is a solution, though that kind of brings us back to the point of when life begins, viability and all that jazz. I don't know if I buy the "moment of conception" bit, but I know that Roe v. Wade was based on a 1970s understanding of viability and that has changed significantly.

Does when a fetus gets rights change when viability changes? Why not use conception?

My opinion on abortion is that nobody's opinion on abortion matters save for the person in the position to make that decision.

Personally, I wouldn't get one unless carrying the pregnancy through to term endangered my life and would risk the chance of removing me as a parent to the kid I already have. That's pretty much the only instance I would consider having one.

Why should only her opinion matter? Should only her opinion matter on a very late-term abortion? On infanticide? On child abuse?

I'm not sure how killing it is a solution, though that kind of brings us back to the point of when life begins, viability and all that jazz. I don't know if I buy the "moment of conception" bit, but I know that Roe v. Wade was based on a 1970s understanding of viability and that has changed significantly.

It's very much a solution despite where life began. In the end, it actually doesn't matter where life began when either:

1. You won't be able to afford for your kid, so they'll die.
2. You abandon your kid, they'll still die.

Obviously, abortion would be "painless"; I don't see why anyone would oppose to it. Course, that's not what's happening in the majority of places in the U.S (note: majority), but it's a reality for people who lives in the third world.

Why stop at birth, then? Why not kill infants or teenagers in third-world countries, so save them from the same fate?

An interesting fact:

(Image)

Ah, nice, and ad hominem attack. Haven't seen one of those in a while. :palm:

Point already made and irrelevant. Right and wrong isn't determined by who claims it.

Isn't it easier for women to know what's right for women? :)

I suppose we should only let husbands vote on wife rape, and only let white southerners vote on slavery, and only let parents vote on child abuse too. The poster is nothing but a big steaming pile of Bulverism.

And I disagree. I'm skeptical of both of your points. Simply because a problem exists does not mean the automatic solution is death. Should we euthanize homeless people because they have no job and no home? How about the physically and mentally (or both) impaired and disabled? The argument that they won't be able to afford it or will abandon it and therefore should die is silly. Should infanticide be allowed?

Because those are not fetuses. Fetuses don't have a choice; their mothers do. We are simply giving their mothers the choice of wanting a child or not. The same reason we make war: we do not target ALL human beings, just a subset of human beings. My point is that preventing the women in Zimbabwe to have an abortion might be dangerous to her, the economy, and to the future child. She doesn't have to get one. Just as a terminally ill patient doesn't have to be killed. We are just opening the possibility that maybe, just maybe, some people are better with no children of their own and that it might benefit society altogether if we allow them the choice.

I mean really, it's actually sadistic to think allowing abortion is a green-light to kill everyone. The justification is to let mothers have a choice.

Okay, so why not let mothers CHOOSE whether to kill their infants or not?

As an extra bonus, abortions doesn't necessarily kill the fetus, only termination of pregnancy.

First, that's not true. If the child lives, it's not an abortion by definition, just a birth. Second, That doesn't solve the problem brought up of orphanages and being unloved.

I don't see any reason why someone has to go through pregnancy. We have the technology to grow fetuses outside of the womb.

Uh, no we don't. I'm pretty sure I would've heard about that.

And when that's all said and done, neither the fetus nor the woman nor you and I inherently have rights. No one was born with a bill of rights in their hands. If it was a right, we would have the right to be born AND unborn, something that pro-lifers missed. However, we do have choices. The ability to have choices however, is not granted until the fetus is independent of the mother, in which case, it will become a baby.

1. If we don't have rights, why not allow infanticide?
2. What do you mean "we would have the right to be born AND unborn"? Are you suggesting some sort of quantum superimposition of states? You're either one or the other.
3a. The fetus isn't dependent upon her after viability.
3b. The fetus is a baby even before viability.

But we again return to that point of viability, you say it's painless, but that is debatable and dependent on the term or/and our understanding of when the fetus is viable. Simply because it doesn't make a noise, doesn't yell or scream and is unable to call the police, doesn't mean it has no feeling, that it doesn't suffer. That's your assumption and that is the assumption which helped frame Roe v. Wade, but it was based on that, not the socioeconomic status of the mother, nor an indifference towards when life begins...

I do believe that more research must be done to fully conclude this, so I will concede that point.

Roe v. Wade wasn't based on fetal pain to my knowledge, and feeling pain isn't what grants you a right to live.

I guess the thing is that i see right and wrong as universal. Generally, I don't think government has the responsiblity to regulate moral issues, but when they have a direct impact on the rights of others, that changes things.

You see right and wrong as being universal...and just so happening to align with your personal opinions. :P

I'm pretty sure he'd change his opinions if he saw them as immoral. :p

Morality is by no means universal.

Of course not. I just always find it funny that the people who claim to believe in universal morality are also arrogant enough to believe that they are totally in tune with said objective morality.

It's not really arrogance. You believe what you believe until something gives you a reason to believe otherwise. I don't think I'm infallible; I just haven't found sufficient reason to think I'm wrong on this issue. I've changed my mind on quite a few things.

You see right and wrong as being universal...and just so happening to align with your personal opinions. :P

Of course it does. It couldn't align with somebody else's opinion,[sic] that wouldn't make any sense. I don't think my beliefs are superior in any way,[sic] I just think they're right. :lol2:

It could align with someone else's opinion if they agree with you. ;)

Wait, are you saying being right doesn't make a belief superior?

I think the very concept of natural rights and limited government is dependent on universal morality. Without it, there is no non-utilitarian argument against fascism, for example. I believe fascism is not only ineffective, but wrong. I hold nothing against those with different ideas from myself, but I personally can't see things any other way.

And that's where you will fail. I can play the devil's advocate on most issues. :) I argue with myself until I find the most practical, logical, humane political ideas possible.

I hope abortion is one of those issues, because all the personal attacks get us nowhere.

I guess the thing is that i see right and wrong as universal. Generally, I don't think government has the responsiblity to regulate moral issues, but when they have a direct impact on the rights of others, that changes things.

Fetuses don't deserve rights.

Rights are something you have inherently; you don't have to earn or deserve them. You're thinking of privileges.

If they didn't try to kill her, but tried to kill baby? Maybe assault with deadly force? :unsure:

They put that under the Fetal homicide law. It isn't murder though.

I'm pretty sure fetal homicide laws count it as murder. At least my state's does, anyway.

I think the very concept of natural rights and limited government is dependent on universal morality. Without it, there is no non-utilitarian argument against fascism, for example. I believe fascism is not only ineffective, but wrong. I hold nothing against those with different ideas from myself, but I personally can't see things any other way.

Why do you need a non-utilitarian argument against fascism? What is wrong with a utilitarian argument?

I don't want to completely derail the thread into a debate about fascism, but your argument is bunk. Just because you believe something is wrong doesn't mean it is. If you cannot provide a sound logical reason WHY it is wrong, then you have no right to expect other people to agree with you and you have no right to expect other people to live by your moral code.

I dispute the assumption that morality and logic are mutually exclusive.

Why should I care what provides the most utility?

It's wrong because it takes away the God-given rights of property and life, among others. Don't like my reasoning, too bad. I'm not changing it for you.

It doesn't take away any "God-given rights" since it is just a fetus that is killed. Now that you have revealed you are arguing from religion your argument is invalid.

A fetus is killed, yes. A fetus with the inherent right to life.
And using the phrase "God-given" doesn't necessitate arguing from religion. He has still made a case against abortion using human rights, which can be believed in with or without a deity. "God-given" is just an expression, not necessarily an argument.

Nope.

Yep. Arguing from religion to say abortion is wrong is a shitty argument so it is invalid.

I would say it's invalid so it's a shitty argument.

I didn't ask why fascism was wrong. I asked why you need a non-utilitarian argument.

Because there's no clear basis for why utility matters. I'm not saying utility is worthless, only that it alone doesn't really make the case.

That's one of the problems I have of people saying utility is better than morality. You still need morality to say that things that provide more utility are right, and those that provide less are wrong.

Yep. Arguing from religion to say abortion is wrong is a shitty argument so it is invalid.

Argument from secular humanism to say that abortion is acceptable is a shitty argument so it is invalid.

Secular humanism != utilitarianism

Argument from secular humanism to say that abortion is acceptable is a shitty argument so it is invalid.

Except I don't. Unless you think arguing from logic and science is secular humanism. Any time religion is used in an argument such as to be against abortion or gay marriage is invalid. Especially when the bible or such other books don't even mention abortion.

To be fair, the Bible does say things that could be applied to abortion, but of course there are parts that go one way and parts that go the other, like the Bible is prone to.

It isn't a person and is only killing a fetus.

Got it. Not changing my opinion, but I think you knew you wouldn't be able to.

I'm willing to change my opinion if someone brings up a good enough argument for why I should. If that's not the case, dialog becomes pointless.

Because there's no clear basis for why utility matters. I'm not saying utility is worthless, only that it alone doesn't really make the case.

Utility isn't always completely clear cut, but it's a lot clearer than "God-given rights" and your arbitrarily defined "universal morality." Why do you think having a non-utilitarian argument helps your case? How does it make your argument any stronger? With a utilitarian argument, you can explain your reasoning to someone who doesn't already agree with you, and even if they don't agree, they'll at least be able to understand where your beliefs come from. With an unsupported assertion of morality, nobody has any friggin' clue where your morals came from or why we should give a crap.

The same can be said of other systems as well. Actually, any system if you're good enough at explaining things.

I'm not forcing my beliefs on you. But if they weren't my beliefs, I wouldn't use them. Since they are, it would require congitive dissonance for me to not rely on them.

Abortion is wrong because its the taking of innocent life. You're free to say otherwise, but don't expect me to follow your values.

Long as you completely support legal access to abortion, no problem.

Completely, up until birth is totally complete? :eyebrow:
Why would he "completely support legal access to" something he considers taking an innocent life?

Except I don't. Unless you think arguing from logic and science is secular humanism. Any time religion is used in an argument such as to be against abortion or gay marriage is invalid. Especially when the bible or such other books don't even mention abortion.

I have seen a lot of abortion threads on NSG, and I have never yet seen an argument either for or against abortion that was based entirely on logic and science with no elements of religion, philosophy, emotion, or political ideology.

You can't make an argument as to something being right or wrong without appealing to some form of philosophy.

It didn't explain it at all. You said "innocent life" not "innocent life because the bible says so".

If I didn't believe my beliefs were fact, they wouldn't be beliefs. Again, you're expecting cognitive dissonance. I can't provide that.

Actually, I have plenty of beliefs that aren't fact. I believe ice cream is delicious. I believe Tetris is fun. I believe MLP FIM is the best show eve... wait, that last one is a fact. ;)

If I didn't believe my beliefs were fact, they wouldn't be beliefs. Again, you're expecting cognitive dissonance. I can't provide that.

You can argue from anything else besides religion and it would have more validity.

Anything? Anything at all?
*whips out notebook to come up with ridiculous arguments that are worse than religion*

Your reasoning is false by definition. You cannot prove that 1. Your god exists, and 2. He is a rational basis for any legal system. Find a rational basis for your proposed legislation, or stop proposing it. It's that simple.

I can propose whatever I want for whatever reason I want. That's the nature of the system.

I'm not in favor of a federal ban on abortion, anyway. Merely the repeal of roe v wade, and a ban in my own state. Others are free to do what they want.

You believe abortion is tantamount to murder, yet you'd be fine with it being legalized as long as it's in another state? :shock:

Actually, I did and you didn't accept it. I can't make you accept it. The onus is on you to accept or reject the argument, not on me to provide another which is inconsistent with my beliefs.

I asked you a question that you didn't answer. Instead of explaining why you think it helps your cause to have a non-utilitarian argument, you just said you were standing by your beliefs and were sorry for offending me -- even though I actually wasn't that offended. I guess it's one of those things where it's hard to read emotions if you can't hear someone's voice or see the look on their face. Anyway, a statement that you are standing by your beliefs is not an argument or an explanation.

I thought that was odd too; I didn't detect any offense taken.

However, the rich and middle class can afford to hop in their SUV and drive over to the next state to get their abortion.

The poor are fucked.

Other states are not my concern because they are not my state. I would like them to ban it as well, but whether they do or not has legally nothing to do with me. The federal government, on the other hand, does, because my state is a member and is bound to its laws.

The SCotUS recognized that if the fetus is a person, the fetus's right to live is protected under the Constitution, so in fact it would still be a federal issue.

Pro Choice fo sho

Care to elaborate? If that's all you're gonna contribute to the conversation, you could've just voted in the poll and moved on.

On a personal level, I am pro-life, but on a legal, statewide and nationwide level, I am pro-choice.

Why are you pro-life on a personal level. If it's because the fetus has a right to live, why shouldn't that right be protected under the law like everyone else's?

Other states are not my concern because they are not my state. I would like them to ban it as well, but whether they do or not has legally nothing to do with me. The federal government, on the other hand, does, because my state is a member and is bound to its laws.

So, from a practical standpoint...

Fuck the poor.

He doesn't want anyone to have an abortion, but he seems to be under the impression that he can't do anything about it if it doesn't happen in his state. I doubt free states were cool with all the slavery in the South, but their state governments only had jurisdiction over their own states.

Do you honestly think if men could get pregnant that pro-lifers would support allowing them to get abortions?

I honestly do not think the pro-life platform would be nearly as vociferous if men could get pregnant.

Well, that's an unprovable and irrelevant statement. Something doesn't become right or wrong based on who believes it; that would be an ad hominem argument.

I didn't say pro-life women didn't exist. But the majority who are pro-life are men.

Like the stories about atheists and foxholes. There are plenty of pro-life women until THEY are the ones pregnant with a pregnancy they don't want (or it's their daughter, or whatever). Men have an even greater margin of luxury, since they are NEVER the pregnant ones.

Holy crap, people under emotional stress don't always make decisions based on their moral compasses. Stop the presses! :palm:

Something doesn't become morally acceptable just because some people who are opposed to it still do it.

Honestly, if you support the killing of a DEVELOPING human being, it would be just like saying that you support the killing of an adult whom you never knew.

Exactly like how eating an acorn is the same as eating a whole tree.

Oh, wait.

Eating an acorn is different from eating a full-grown tree, and eating a sapling is different from eating a full-grown tree, but all are the same organism and the same species. When I was 1 month old, 9 months old, and 10 years old, I was the same person, and I was just as human as I am now.

I am a Christian; therefore, I recognize that government should place no restrictions whatsoever on abortions.

Huh? Could you perhaps elaborate on your reasoning?

I can propose whatever I want for whatever reason I want. That's the nature of the system.

I'm not in favor of a federal ban on abortion, anyway. Merely the repeal of roe v wade, and a ban in my own state. Others are free to do what they want.

There is nothing wrong with Roe v Wade. So you want to ban abortion in your state? I guess you want the women to die in your state when they get unsafe abortions.

I doubt he WANTS anyone to die. If you think he does, I guess I could say that you WANT children to die from abortions.

I don't want anyone to get hurt, but some actions are wrong, and are more dangerous when illegal. I don't WANT rapists to get STIs from raping women in the back alley, but I also don't think the government should legalize rape, and set up centers where men can rape clean, restrained/sedated women, at taxpayer expense, in order to make it safer to rape someone.

Pro-choice or pro-life? I personally am pro-choice because it is hard to call abortion murder when the baby isn't developed enough to think or feel.

Opinions?

Neither. I'm evictionist.

What's that mean? :?

Of course it does. It couldn't align with somebody else's opinion, that wouldn't make any sense. I don't think my beliefs are superior in any way, I just think they're right. :lol2:

A turtle in a shell.

A knight in shining armor. Why are we naming animals and their exoskeletons again?

I still have a hard time figuring his "kind of Christian" out. While I don't necessarily disagree with him... he confuses the hell out of me. Just like Volnotova.

Basically, he believes everything, but the holy ghosts or the concept of the Christian god. He follows the human Jesus, until he became a zombie.

Though when you do think about it, Jesus do support abortion. Or, as I would put it, his policy of "leave everyone alone".

I'm pretty sure killing someone isn't leaving them alone.

Basically, he believes everything, but the holy ghosts or the concept of the Christian god. He follows the human Jesus, until he became a zombie.

8) I feel so much better now, about Bluth. I didn't want to think of him as if he were a Bibliolater (protestant - I have a VERY low opinion of protestantism). Now I understand, I think, so much better all the answers he gave to me via TG. Thanks!

Though when you do think about it, Jesus do support abortion. Or, as I would put it, his policy of "leave everyone alone".

I hesitate to go that far. Although I would say that Christ would most definitely refuse to condemn the woman for getting an abortion. Her sin wouldn't necessarily be the removal of a fetus from her womb, but rather the rejection of the opportunity for relationship with a new life. Although the Church stands opposed to abortion as murder, it does not reject salvation (healing) for the women who get abortions. Individual Christians may vary. I'm one of the variances.

I would think the sin would be the killing of the fetus, or else anyone who's given birth would have sinned. :p

8) I feel so much better now, about Bluth. I didn't want to think of him as if he were a Bibliolater (protestant - I have a VERY low opinion of protestantism). Now I understand, I think, so much better all the answers he gave to me via TG. Thanks!



I hesitate to go that far. Although I would say that Christ would most definitely refuse to condemn the woman for getting an abortion. Her sin wouldn't necessarily be the removal of a fetus from her womb, but rather the rejection of the opportunity for relationship with a new life. Although the Church stands opposed to abortion as murder, it does not reject salvation (healing) for the women who get abortions. Individual Christians may vary. I'm one of the variances.

I'm not sure if Christian atheists (which was my viewpoint) believe in sin, heaven, or hell. They shouldn't, but eh. With that in mind, a proper way to say it is that he supports choice. You'll be right that he'd condemn abortion, but when it's all said and done, they'd still have the choice. Free will and all that jazz. Now, as for the murder part, I think that's up to the local laws to classify abortion as murder or not.

I don't think Jesus would've been cool with murder, even if he wouldn't judge the woman. Love the sinner, hate the sin and all that jazz. And I'm pretty sure he'd work against a law he believed to be unjust.

How he'd feel about abortion is anyone's guess, what with his first-century understanding of embryology and such.

[Distruzio]

Neither. I'm evictionist.

What's that mean?

Evictionism, the third choice.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

I suppose we should only let husbands vote on wife rape, and only let white southerners vote on slavery, and only let parents vote on child abuse too. The poster is nothing but a big steaming pile of Bulverism.

Except that's not how that example works. It would be letting slaves vote on slavery, not the other way around. ^.-

[Nulono]

What's that mean?

Evictionism, the third choice.

Um, that's still pro-choice. You're still defending the killing of the child.

[Nulono]

I suppose we should only let husbands vote on wife rape, and only let white southerners vote on slavery, and only let parents vote on child abuse too. The poster is nothing but a big steaming pile of Bulverism.

Except that's not how that example works. It would be letting slaves vote on slavery, not the other way around. ^.-

It would be better letting slaves vote, but that wouldn't be analogous. If we're going to claim that only those considering an action can decide whether to do it, we should only let white southerners vote on slavery.

[Distruzio]

Evictionism, the third choice.

Um, that's still pro-choice. You're still defending the killing of the child.

Not quite. It's a transitioning philosophy that views the survival of nearly 20% of babies when evicted as opposed to aborted, as a fundamental good. And with the advancement of medical technology, more babies will be saved. Eventually, we will approach a level of technology that will assure a near 100% survival rate for evicted babies. Surely 20% alive is better than 0%?

[Nulono]

Um, that's still pro-choice. You're still defending the killing of the child.

Not quite. It's a transitioning philosophy that views the survival of nearly 20% of babies when evicted as opposed to aborted, as a fundamental good. And with the advancement of medical technology, more babies will be saved. Eventually, we will approach a level of technology that will assure a near 100% survival rate for evicted babies. Surely 20% alive is better than 0%?

It's better than 0%, but pro-life gives a much bigger rate. I dispute your 20% figure, considering when most abortions take place. I don't disagree with removing a fetus alive.

[Marcheria]

Not quite. It's a transitioning philosophy that views the survival of nearly 20% of babies when evicted as opposed to aborted, as a fundamental good. And with the advancement of medical technology, more babies will be saved. Eventually, we will approach a level of technology that will assure a near 100% survival rate for evicted babies. Surely 20% alive is better than 0%?

It's better than 0%, but pro-life gives a much bigger rate. I dispute your 20% figure, considering when most abortions take place. I don't disagree with removing a fetus alive.

But why do we need those fetuses?!? This world doesn't need any more people, unless you want the human race to die out!