Republicans succeed in ploy to increase unsafe abortions

Post Reply New Topic

You forgot, though, about all of the potential serial killers, totalitarian dictators, day traders, and politicians which were also aborted. Give that their mothers didn't want them, they're probably the majority.

BS. I'm differentiating between human as an adjective and human as a noun because those are valid distinctions. A tube of blood can be human blood, but it is not a human. A human heart is composed of human tissue, but it is not a human. We routinely take both from one human and put them into another, but there's nothing mystical about that; it served one human, and then it serves the other.


It's not in the US constitution. It's not even in the 10 commandments. It's not in the magna carta. As for 'natural law,' why then is nature constantly offing humans by the hundreds of thousands with earthquakes, tsunamis, etc? As far as I can see, "Nature" doesn't give a damn one way or the other about humanity as compared to any other species.

Ahh, the good old 'pregnancy and childbirth are a mere inconvenience' argument.


How's this: I would not willingly be a parent to someone with Kanner's autism nor someone with Down's syndrome, and neither would most of the adoptive parents out there; thus, even if I were to give birth to such an infant, it would almost certainly end up in foster care (and statistically would be even more likely to be severely abused than the average foster child) until it hit 18, and then...?

Abortion is a very personal issue for me. I'm usually a very composed fellow, but these sorts of debates make me lose faith in the human race much more than environmental issues or corrupt governments.

It comes down to this:
I only sympathize with an infinitesimally small percent of terminated pregnancies that guarantee a woman's death. However, for the other 99% of abortions, it comes down to an argument of what we value more - the woman's right to relieve 9 months of inconvenience, or the child's right to 80 possible years of life. My point is, I feel for the women who don't want to go through the pregnancies, but 9 months vs 80 years? The math is clear.

You're correct, an unborn child cannot defend itself and will not tell you in the womb "hey, I don't really agree with this". The ones who are terminated never get a chance to speak up. However, those who grow up DO speak up and they are trying to defend the "fetus".

People have tried to "rationalize" with me by using every argument in the book. However, the right to take innocent lives should never be a diplomatic issue. It should never be a choice for anyone but the innocents to make. Calling the innocents "inhuman" does not solve the problem. Calling the defenders of the innocent "bigots" and "stupid Christians" does not solve the problem. When we start solving our problems by helping people, as opposed to terminating selected people - at war, in the justice system, in public or in the womb - then we start picking up the pieces of a morally shattered human society; and trust me, we are in a very morally shattered society right now.

Anyway, that's just a bit of my 16-year old wisdom. I'm sick of this argument, goodbye.

Ah. That's it. Your 16.

I'm not a whole lot older, but I've done a lot of growing over the past four years. You probably will too.

I would argue it's fallacious to assume that because someone is younger than you, they are wrong.

It's about life experience in this case. I've seen my friends lives destroyed because they didn't get an abortion, and I've seen the child suffering because of poverty, ill prepared parents, fathers running out, etc. I'm sure he will too.

No if they were valuable distinctions you would be able to use the proper language of property and entity in order to establish a difference between them. You are using noun and adjective, and not even properly, to equivocate between the two subjects. A fetus is an unborn human (noun, it is an entity), there is no point along the development cycle where a human being is not an entity. Citing that it is 'in development' is irreverent, I am still 'in development' a pre-pubecent is still 'in development', nothing about this deprives the entity of it's status as an entity, much less justifies it's destruction or any right to kill: the unborn are what they are, they are alive, they certainly are not dead, since killing it is exactly what this whole discussion is about: It is about stopping it's development, not stopping it from matastasizing.

"There was a time when the feminist movement replied to this with militant indignation. What “individual”? What “person”? The most famous title of the period—Our Bodies, Ourselves—captures the tone to perfection. If we need to remove an appendix or a tumor from our own personal spaces, then it’s nobody else’s goddamn business. I used to cringe when I heard this, not so much because in the moral sense fetuses aren’t to be compared to appendixes, let alone tumors, but because it is obvious nonsense from the biological and embryological points of view." - Christopher Hitchens

This, I think, kind of sums up the response the average person has to the rhetoric of the pro-abortion position. Those who agree that abortion is entirely the responsibility of the mother, period: Are forced into this sort of radical rhetoric, because it is a radical position. It means that every piece of evidence that the unborn are in fact human ('what else are they?' asks Hitchens with justification) destroys the argument. Give an inch on this, and suddenly, the whole house of cards falls in. Sorry, LKL, this position does not convince people any more, the vast majority of Americans think that abortion is immoral and they have believed it for a very long time now (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/ameri ... lines.aspx). So obviously, your rhetoric just does not cut the mustard anymore. Why should I be surprised, hysteria is after all the ancient ancient Greek word for uterus.



Actually it is in the US Constitution, it is called the equal protection clause. It is also under the ninth amendment. It is also in the UNDHR and the EU formulation as well. Now you place yourself in the situation of denying that there are 'natural rights' in order to protect what... abortion on demand, talk about moral inversion. From where then do you get the position that the right to choose is the highest of all rights? Pro-abortion people will say just about anything to justifiy the continuing of what they want; shred human rights, deny that human life has intrinsic value, quibble over biological minutea while ignoring that the benefit of the doubt ought to be with life and certainly not with a right to kill. In the space of a half-a-dozen posts, you have created a moral inversion and what, I am suppose to bow to your judgement? Hardly.

You can deny fundamental human rights all you like. I for one accept that this is a matter of rights. That a woman does have a right to chose but that all rights are fundamentally drawn from the right to life: a choice means nothing, if you have no right to live to make it. A vote is irrelevant if you can be killed before you cast it. Search seizure of your property is irrelevant too, if your life is not inviolate. This is a matter of comparing one right to another and I chose life; because it is the first, best and really only decent starting point when it comes to human rights.

Further, it also seems that you are equivocating again. 'Natural' rights do not come from 'nature', it means that they are intrinsic: Not that they are imparted by the trees and justified by the flowers.

rhetoric does not make reality

Last I checked, you don't lose empathy as a result of age. Moreover, I think I'm perfectly qualified to debate this issue otherwise I would not.

My mother was told by doctors to terminate her pregnancy otherwise she was very likely to die giving birth to my twin siblings. She went through with the pregnancy and survived, this was when I was five.

Then there was my friend last year, one year older than me, she got pregnant. Kids at school as well as her parents harassed her over it for the duration of the pregnancy, but rather than terminate it, her friends and I supported her through it.

I've gone to pro-life conferences and met two speakers who were the offspring of rape victims. I completed volunteer service hours toward my high school diploma by helping build a home for unsupported single moms.

I have not a single clue what four years is going to change at this point, I get my opinions from experience. Don't tell me that my age changes anything.

Wait a second, do you mean to say you don't even support abortion in the case of rape?

Do you expect to taken seriously?

Nope, not even in cases of rape, you've never met an abortion survivor who was born of a rape victim? Buddy, unless you've met these people and the families they've started, you haven't even seen half the argument! But hey, I'm some dumb 16 year-old who apparently has no experience with the topic. OH MIGHTY TWENTY-YEAR OLD, BESTOW UPON ME YOUR FOUR EXTRA YEARS OF WISDOM *bows* *bows* *bows*.

The minute you try to tell me that a woman MUST keep the child is a rapist impregnates her, you lose all credibility. You argument stops being about logic and it is purely based on your own knee jerk reaction and as such should never be considered as fact or law.

W00T, NO MORE CIVIL LIBERTIES, HEY EVERYONE, THE ALL-KNOWING TWENTY-YEAR OLD HAS DECLARED FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND CERTAIN ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID. YOUR ARGUMENT MUST NOW BE SUBMITTED FOR AUDITING AND WITHIN 2-4 WEEKS THE ALL-MIGHTY TWENTY-YEAR OLD WILL TELL YOU IF IT IS A REAL ARGUMENT OR NOT. NOW YOU CAN USE THE BRAND NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUDITING SERVICES, KGB OPERATIVES ARE STANDING BY!

And now you're grasping at straws

When you have an argument supported by logic showing why you have the right to tell people what they can and can not do with their bodies, I will listen.

Oh, then I guess you missed my last 10 or so posts, don't worry, I'm sure it was just a stupid mistake