Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

libertyminded · Feb 11, 2004, 09:15 pm

This issue always seems to bring out the most absurd of arguments, for and against.

As an Athiest I bemoan the idea of arbitrary moral codes being forced on society, however I believe that there is a very pragmatic way to approach this issue without invoking arbitrary and narrowminded religious morality.

I'm against abortion on the grounds that it toys with the idea of fallible humans meading out death based on subjective reasoning.

Here are the scientific reasons I believe abortion is a tyrannical act.

1. People should always be held responsible for their actions. When you engage in sexual intercouse you are using your reproductive organs and you accept all of the risks that come along with it. It's not called the orgasm system.

2. While it might be difficult to determine exactly where a "human" is created in the conception/development process, I think that a reasonable argument can be made that the fertilized egg is not part of the mother specifically because it contains a seperate genetic code and that code is the DNA of an individual human being. If the argument is that a small conglomeration of cells does not consist a human then I would ask at what point it does become a human if not at the creation of a complete human genome.
If you want to define a human by the level of organ development then you start getting into a completely subjective argument of whatlooks like a human.
Just as in dealing with criminal courts I believe that if you are condemning a person to, essentially, no longer exist you must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to EVERYONE (not just yourself) that indeed it is not a human.

3. The issue of viability outside of the mother also comes into play because many claim that since a fetus cannot survive on it's own, it is a part of the mother. I believe this argument is flawed because the issue of viability ouside of the mother is dependant upon availible technology. At this point, with commonplace technology a fetus can be sustained outside of the mother's womb as early as 4 1/3 months and can be be sustained outside of the mother at conception with the most advanced technology availible.

On a personal note. I would have been the perfect candidate for abortion. My mother was in a relationship she hated and had already had 4 other children (2 of them twins) and we were dirt poor. Nevertheless she bore me and raised me and I've grown up to be a happy young man with a deep interest in life and knowledge.
Out of the 44 million abortions that have occured in this country since the inception of Roe vs. Wade. I wonder how many inventors, innovators and great thinkers have been snuffed out before they had a chance.
While I concede that there is ambiguity on when life begins I would also admonish all that support casual destruction of potential humans to agree that there's no definitive marker of when you are human and have the rights to life liberty and the persuit of happieness. Accordingly we should err on the side of caution giving the bennefit of the doubt to that "person" who cannot yet speak.
I think a quote from Benjamin Franklin applies soundly to my argument: "I would rather allow a thousand guilty men to walk free then imprison one innocent one."

SeanWah · Feb 11, 2004, 09:46 pm

Abortion is such a stupid issue, and I'm tired of it.

Politicians have seized on it to divert attention away from the civil liberties that their other policies are slowly eroding.

The ACLU actually wastes their resources standing up for it when there are such violent abuses going on unnoticed in this country that they won't even touch. It's ludicrous, and the epitome of the American "cause-du-jour" mentality.

And frankly, it can rot in Hell for all I care.

Sasha · Feb 12, 2004, 12:29 pm

A fetus has a seperate and distinct DNA from the mother or father, therefore I fail to understand why it is their "choice"

That said their is a correlation between the legalization of abortion and a reduction in crime rates.

Samildanach · Feb 12, 2004, 12:35 pm

Lifes cheap so who gives a crap if a few extra people don't make it. Its not like there is a shortage of us.

libertyminded · Feb 12, 2004, 02:25 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Samildanach
Lifes cheap so who gives a crap if a few extra people don't make it. Its not like there is a shortage of us. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There mignt not be any shortage of humans, but there's a massive shortage of intelligent ones, as evidenced by your callous attitutde. Tell me samildanach, who gets to be the arbitor of where death is handed out? What standards should we have to say who lives and who dies? If life is so cheap, why I think I'll start claening up by rubbing out warts like you from society. Do you like that idea, someone going around removing people they deem to be of little or no worth? Your kind has been around before, they were called Nazis and Communists (among others). Maybe you should go live in a society where they still kill to keep the population under control and see how horrific such an idea is.

damnrad · Feb 12, 2004, 02:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,)
Third trimester abortions are as ghoulish as anything done at Auschwitz

The end of the first trimester is sickening enough.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Why? What is the equivalence? Is a third-trimester fetus a full human person? I've seen no argument that establishes that. I HAVE suggested that a third-trimester fetus might be given the benefit of the doubt; but that still raises the question of its rights versus those of a woman who is undoubtedly a human person. So equating third-trimester abortion with the killing of a human person is doubtful, and comparing it to Auschwitz is ludicrous.

And why is end-of-first-trimester abortion sickening? Is this just you feeling? If so, that's fine; but it has no bearing on public policy. Or are you suggesting that a 10-week fetus (for example) is a full human person? If so, it's a rather-strange full human person, lacking a functioning brain, so having no consciousness, no ability to feel pain (as opposed to localized reactions to stimuli), and so on.

Or is it that you have religous beliefs that state that a first-trimester fetus has a soul, so his human? If so, that is fine, for you; but again it should have no bearing on public policy.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,)
We can "Cut" the strings that bind us to our genetic descendents - but those strings stay attached forever anyway. Ask anyone who has had an abortion and lived with it to old age.

The group that started aborting en-mass after 1970 are pushing fifty - ask them how they feel now.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The second is more-doable. The answer is 'that's in the past.' And it certainly has nothing to do with genetics, in any case. With regard to genetics, note that your sibling's child is almost as closely related to you genetically as your own child; but that the emotional distance is likely much, much greater. And note that those who adopt (from outside their families) form emotional relationships with their children that have nothing to do with genetics. Face it: being human is much more than genetics.

damnrad · Feb 12, 2004, 02:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Man Against Time,)
The problem here is the mania that men have allowed to infect their world; this obsession with "Civil rights" and "Choice" has led to this, among many other social ills. Obviously, we should seek the disease, not the symptoms. The disease is the belief that everyone with a head on their shoulders who has existed for a certain number of years is qualified and justified in making decisions by virtue of the fact that they have a head on their shoulders and have existed for a certain number of years. Crush that in this abominable upstart of a civilization and everything else will take care of itself.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Tell me: is your proposed utopia more like Joseph Stalin's, Adolf Hiller's, or the Spanish Inquisition's. I just wanted to know which hell you were wishing upon us.

damnrad · Feb 12, 2004, 02:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sasha,)
A fetus has a seperate and distinct DNA from the mother or father, therefore I fail to understand why it is their "choice"

That said their is a correlation between the legalization of abortion and a reduction in crime rates.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Is DNA all there is to being a human? Is our human dignity founded only upon our genetic makeup? I don't think so; and most people don't think so, no matter what side they are on with regard to abortion.

As an aside, what would be your position on a human clone? -- identical DNA as the parent, although the resulting person would not be identical.

Or let's assume that genetic treatments are developed to the point that I can change my DNA in some important respect: if I decide to undergo the treatment, could I later sue myself for having made a decision about the later me, even though the earlier me should have had no choice over the later me?

What if I am exposed to radiation and it creates mutations in parts of my body? Have I then lost my choice about those parts of my body?

No, I don't much like the separate-DNA criterion.

PeterAngelo · Feb 13, 2004, 08:57 pm

To claim that a fetus isn't human is denying the inexorable nature of life itself. If a fetus is not a person - no one is a person.

That wuld make more sense. In reality life is not only cheap - it is inconvenient to share the planet with anyone but those closest to us - and not all of them either.

We hate, fear, and try to hide from each other because we know (in our secret heart of hearts) what human nature really is - and it frightens even small furry animals.

MargoMe · Feb 14, 2004, 11:51 am

That may be so, but the point is that women shouldn't be told what to do with their bodies. If you don't want to get an abortion, that's fine, but some woman might. I was recently talking to a friend of mine who said that if she had been raped she would not get an abortion. And that's fine. It's her body and personally I wouldn't keep the baby. I wouldn't want a living reminder of something that only causes me grief. The whole point of being pro-choice is the right to choose. I hate how pro-life makes pro-choice sound like its pro-death. It's not. If you have a friend who is considering having an abortion and you feel she doesn't have good reason to, then talk to her calmly, but don't tell someone you don't even know what to do with her body.

percivale · Feb 14, 2004, 12:10 pm

What seems to me to be most often missed by both the pro-choice and anti-abortion factions, is that they are actually arguing about two different issues.

Issue #1 - Abortion.

This is a pretty much a black or white issue. It is either NEVER okay to have an abortion, under ANY circumstances ...or... sometimes it IS okay, and we as a society have to determine what those rare cases of exception are. I personally find all abortion to be distasteful (especially "abortions of covenience), but I do accept that there are rare circumstances when it might be the best thing (rape, incest, endangerment of the life of the mother, etc.).

But, there is another issue here...

Issue #2 - Choice and Government Control.

Control of human sexuality and reproduction does not, to me, seem to be a valid function of government. If the government can tell you that you HAVE to have a baby, then logically, it can also tell you that you CANNOT have one. Ultimately, I feel that it is wrong for government to tell anyone that they CAN or CANNOT have a medical procedure performed on them, based on moral and religious grounds (as opposed to health reasons). I may not like abortions, but who the heck am 'I' to tell a woman how or when she CAN or CANNOT (as opposed t should or should not) have a baby. There may very well be a spiritual consequence to having an abortion, but I think that that is between the (potential) mother (and father) and their "god." If (and I stress "if") there is a punishment to be dealt out for having an abortion, then "god" will levy it.

As for the issue of "life at conception" vs. "life at birth," I am of the opinion that if the life in question can sustain itself without the body of the "mother," then it is no longer the decision of the mother to end that life. But, until then, it is the life and decision of the mother that takes precedence.

IMHO,
percivale

m5lange1 · Feb 14, 2004, 12:22 pm

I think to point to any time along the timeline from conception to old age and say "I know that is when it is a person" is arrogant and presumptive. Having said that:

I also embrace the conservative philosophy that believes the less involvement the government has in my private life the better.

We cannot have it both ways. I don't want the federal government dictating my decisions on abortion, smoking, wearing seatbelts, assisted suicide, where I place my bodyparts, who I can marry.

Abortion is like all the other "regulated beliefs". I oppose any who say "I only want government interference to inforce MY beliefs." That is dangerous ground.

PeterAngelo · Feb 14, 2004, 06:57 pm

I never in my posts - EVER - said that the choice isn't for a woman to make - she will anyway.

I only propose that it remain legal and safe - but educate and tell people of the long term costs - and admit it is the deliberate ending of a human being that would grow up - for good or evil.

Tick Tom · Sep 7, 2005, 08:05 pm

“I may not like abortions, but who the heck am 'I' to tell a woman how or when she CAN or CANNOT (as opposed to should or should not) have a baby.”

“I am of the opinion that if the life in question can sustain itself without the body of the "mother," then it is no longer the decision of the mother to end that life. But, until then, it is the life and decision of the mother that takes precedence.”

Percivale I attribute you with both of these ill-founded arguments. The first argument states that you do not have the right to tell a woman when or how she can or cannot (as opposed to should or should not) have a baby. By the same logic I would like to make a different argument. Who the heck are you to tell me how or when I can or cannot (as opposed to should or should not) kill everyone in my neighborhood.

So get the John Kerry out of your head and think as an individual!

The second statement leads me to believe that I should be able to kill all the people who cannot sustain themselves with out some sort of support. Such as people on life support, or people who are paralyzed. We should have the right to kill anyone in a wheel chair, or even with a broken leg by your logic!

“I think to point to any time along the timeline from conception to old age and say "I know that is when it is a person" is arrogant and presumptive. Having said that:” This is a quote from mlange5

In that case it is also arrogant and presumptive to say “I know that is when it is NOT a person” Which means that you are unsure to the child’s status as a human being. You however seem to want people to take the risk at killing what could be a person.

By the way, a person is determined by their traits as a human, specifically those traits are found on DNA which the child has at the moment of conception. If you think I’m being arrogant and presumptuous look it up in a book.

“We cannot have it both ways. I don't want the federal government dictating my decisions on abortion, smoking, wearing seatbelts, assisted suicide, where I place my bodyparts, who I can marry.”

I could just as easily say I don’t want the federal government dictating my decisions on coming into your house and stealing all your stuff. The government should dictates these decisions to protect the rights of its citizens born or not.

“Abortion is like all the other "regulated beliefs". I oppose any who say "I only want government interference to inforce MY beliefs." That is dangerous ground.”

Terrorists BELIEVE that they should kill as many Americans as possible. Do not want the government to stop them?

Feb 11, 2004, 09:15 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
libertyminded Molten Ash Location: Seattle, Washington USA Posts: 69	This issue always seems to bring out the most absurd of arguments, for and against. As an Athiest I bemoan the idea of arbitrary moral codes being forced on society, however I believe that there is a very pragmatic way to approach this issue without invoking arbitrary and narrowminded religious morality. I'm against abortion on the grounds that it toys with the idea of fallible humans meading out death based on subjective reasoning. Here are the scientific reasons I believe abortion is a tyrannical act. 1. People should always be held responsible for their actions. When you engage in sexual intercouse you are using your reproductive organs and you accept all of the risks that come along with it. It's not called the orgasm system. 2. While it might be difficult to determine exactly where a "human" is created in the conception/development process, I think that a reasonable argument can be made that the fertilized egg is not part of the mother specifically because it contains a seperate genetic code and that code is the DNA of an individual human being. If the argument is that a small conglomeration of cells does not consist a human then I would ask at what point it does become a human if not at the creation of a complete human genome. If you want to define a human by the level of organ development then you start getting into a completely subjective argument of whatlooks like a human. Just as in dealing with criminal courts I believe that if you are condemning a person to, essentially, no longer exist you must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to EVERYONE (not just yourself) that indeed it is not a human. 3. The issue of viability outside of the mother also comes into play because many claim that since a fetus cannot survive on it's own, it is a part of the mother. I believe this argument is flawed because the issue of viability ouside of the mother is dependant upon availible technology. At this point, with commonplace technology a fetus can be sustained outside of the mother's womb as early as 4 1/3 months and can be be sustained outside of the mother at conception with the most advanced technology availible. On a personal note. I would have been the perfect candidate for abortion. My mother was in a relationship she hated and had already had 4 other children (2 of them twins) and we were dirt poor. Nevertheless she bore me and raised me and I've grown up to be a happy young man with a deep interest in life and knowledge. Out of the 44 million abortions that have occured in this country since the inception of Roe vs. Wade. I wonder how many inventors, innovators and great thinkers have been snuffed out before they had a chance. While I concede that there is ambiguity on when life begins I would also admonish all that support casual destruction of potential humans to agree that there's no definitive marker of when you are human and have the rights to life liberty and the persuit of happieness. Accordingly we should err on the side of caution giving the bennefit of the doubt to that "person" who cannot yet speak. I think a quote from Benjamin Franklin applies soundly to my argument: "I would rather allow a thousand guilty men to walk free then imprison one innocent one." "Any man willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Feb 12, 2004, 12:35 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	Lifes cheap so who gives a crap if a few extra people don't make it. Its not like there is a shortage of us. I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Feb 12, 2004, 02:25 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
libertyminded Molten Ash Location: Seattle, Washington USA Posts: 69	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Samildanach Lifes cheap so who gives a crap if a few extra people don't make it. Its not like there is a shortage of us. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There mignt not be any shortage of humans, but there's a massive shortage of intelligent ones, as evidenced by your callous attitutde. Tell me samildanach, who gets to be the arbitor of where death is handed out? What standards should we have to say who lives and who dies? If life is so cheap, why I think I'll start claening up by rubbing out warts like you from society. Do you like that idea, someone going around removing people they deem to be of little or no worth? Your kind has been around before, they were called Nazis and Communists (among others). Maybe you should go live in a society where they still kill to keep the population under control and see how horrific such an idea is. "Any man willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Feb 12, 2004, 02:46 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,) Third trimester abortions are as ghoulish as anything done at Auschwitz The end of the first trimester is sickening enough.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why? What is the equivalence? Is a third-trimester fetus a full human person? I've seen no argument that establishes that. I HAVE suggested that a third-trimester fetus might be given the benefit of the doubt; but that still raises the question of its rights versus those of a woman who is undoubtedly a human person. So equating third-trimester abortion with the killing of a human person is doubtful, and comparing it to Auschwitz is ludicrous. And why is end-of-first-trimester abortion sickening? Is this just you feeling? If so, that's fine; but it has no bearing on public policy. Or are you suggesting that a 10-week fetus (for example) is a full human person? If so, it's a rather-strange full human person, lacking a functioning brain, so having no consciousness, no ability to feel pain (as opposed to localized reactions to stimuli), and so on. Or is it that you have religous beliefs that state that a first-trimester fetus has a soul, so his human? If so, that is fine, for you; but again it should have no bearing on public policy. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,) We can "Cut" the strings that bind us to our genetic descendents - but those strings stay attached forever anyway. Ask anyone who has had an abortion and lived with it to old age. The group that started aborting en-mass after 1970 are pushing fifty - ask them how they feel now.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The second is more-doable. The answer is 'that's in the past.' And it certainly has nothing to do with genetics, in any case. With regard to genetics, note that your sibling's child is almost as closely related to you genetically as your own child; but that the emotional distance is likely much, much greater. And note that those who adopt (from outside their families) form emotional relationships with their children that have nothing to do with genetics. Face it: being human is much more than genetics.

Feb 12, 2004, 02:49 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Man Against Time,) The problem here is the mania that men have allowed to infect their world; this obsession with "Civil rights" and "Choice" has led to this, among many other social ills. Obviously, we should seek the disease, not the symptoms. The disease is the belief that everyone with a head on their shoulders who has existed for a certain number of years is qualified and justified in making decisions by virtue of the fact that they have a head on their shoulders and have existed for a certain number of years. Crush that in this abominable upstart of a civilization and everything else will take care of itself.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Tell me: is your proposed utopia more like Joseph Stalin's, Adolf Hiller's, or the Spanish Inquisition's. I just wanted to know which hell you were wishing upon us.

Feb 11, 2004, 09:46 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
SeanWah Molten Ash Posts: 47	Abortion is such a stupid issue, and I'm tired of it. Politicians have seized on it to divert attention away from the civil liberties that their other policies are slowly eroding. The ACLU actually wastes their resources standing up for it when there are such violent abuses going on unnoticed in this country that they won't even touch. It's ludicrous, and the epitome of the American "cause-du-jour" mentality. And frankly, it can rot in Hell for all I care.

Feb 12, 2004, 12:29 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
Sasha Molten Ash Posts: 47	A fetus has a seperate and distinct DNA from the mother or father, therefore I fail to understand why it is their "choice" That said their is a correlation between the legalization of abortion and a reduction in crime rates.

Feb 12, 2004, 02:55 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sasha,) A fetus has a seperate and distinct DNA from the mother or father, therefore I fail to understand why it is their "choice" That said their is a correlation between the legalization of abortion and a reduction in crime rates.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Is DNA all there is to being a human? Is our human dignity founded only upon our genetic makeup? I don't think so; and most people don't think so, no matter what side they are on with regard to abortion. As an aside, what would be your position on a human clone? -- identical DNA as the parent, although the resulting person would not be identical. Or let's assume that genetic treatments are developed to the point that I can change my DNA in some important respect: if I decide to undergo the treatment, could I later sue myself for having made a decision about the later me, even though the earlier me should have had no choice over the later me? What if I am exposed to radiation and it creates mutations in parts of my body? Have I then lost my choice about those parts of my body? No, I don't much like the separate-DNA criterion.

Feb 13, 2004, 08:57 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	To claim that a fetus isn't human is denying the inexorable nature of life itself. If a fetus is not a person - no one is a person. That wuld make more sense. In reality life is not only cheap - it is inconvenient to share the planet with anyone but those closest to us - and not all of them either. We hate, fear, and try to hide from each other because we know (in our secret heart of hearts) what human nature really is - and it frightens even small furry animals.

Feb 14, 2004, 11:51 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
MargoMe Sedimentary Rock Posts: 4	That may be so, but the point is that women shouldn't be told what to do with their bodies. If you don't want to get an abortion, that's fine, but some woman might. I was recently talking to a friend of mine who said that if she had been raped she would not get an abortion. And that's fine. It's her body and personally I wouldn't keep the baby. I wouldn't want a living reminder of something that only causes me grief. The whole point of being pro-choice is the right to choose. I hate how pro-life makes pro-choice sound like its pro-death. It's not. If you have a friend who is considering having an abortion and you feel she doesn't have good reason to, then talk to her calmly, but don't tell someone you don't even know what to do with her body.

Feb 14, 2004, 12:10 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
percivale Sedimentary Rock Posts: 17	What seems to me to be most often missed by both the pro-choice and anti-abortion factions, is that they are actually arguing about two different issues. Issue #1 - Abortion. This is a pretty much a black or white issue. It is either NEVER okay to have an abortion, under ANY circumstances ...or... sometimes it IS okay, and we as a society have to determine what those rare cases of exception are. I personally find all abortion to be distasteful (especially "abortions of covenience), but I do accept that there are rare circumstances when it might be the best thing (rape, incest, endangerment of the life of the mother, etc.). But, there is another issue here... Issue #2 - Choice and Government Control. Control of human sexuality and reproduction does not, to me, seem to be a valid function of government. If the government can tell you that you HAVE to have a baby, then logically, it can also tell you that you CANNOT have one. Ultimately, I feel that it is wrong for government to tell anyone that they CAN or CANNOT have a medical procedure performed on them, based on moral and religious grounds (as opposed to health reasons). I may not like abortions, but who the heck am 'I' to tell a woman how or when she CAN or CANNOT (as opposed t should or should not) have a baby. There may very well be a spiritual consequence to having an abortion, but I think that that is between the (potential) mother (and father) and their "god." If (and I stress "if") there is a punishment to be dealt out for having an abortion, then "god" will levy it. As for the issue of "life at conception" vs. "life at birth," I am of the opinion that if the life in question can sustain itself without the body of the "mother," then it is no longer the decision of the mother to end that life. But, until then, it is the life and decision of the mother that takes precedence. IMHO, percivale <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:purple'>It is better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you are not. ...Andre Gide</span></span>

Feb 14, 2004, 12:22 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
m5lange1 Igneous Magma Posts: 654	I think to point to any time along the timeline from conception to old age and say "I know that is when it is a person" is arrogant and presumptive. Having said that: I also embrace the conservative philosophy that believes the less involvement the government has in my private life the better. We cannot have it both ways. I don't want the federal government dictating my decisions on abortion, smoking, wearing seatbelts, assisted suicide, where I place my bodyparts, who I can marry. Abortion is like all the other "regulated beliefs". I oppose any who say "I only want government interference to inforce MY beliefs." That is dangerous ground. Protester against the culture war!!!!

Feb 14, 2004, 06:57 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	I never in my posts - EVER - said that the choice isn't for a woman to make - she will anyway. I only propose that it remain legal and safe - but educate and tell people of the long term costs - and admit it is the deliberate ending of a human being that would grow up - for good or evil.

Sep 7, 2005, 08:05 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
Tick Tom Sedimentary Rock Posts: 1	“I may not like abortions, but who the heck am 'I' to tell a woman how or when she CAN or CANNOT (as opposed to should or should not) have a baby.” “I am of the opinion that if the life in question can sustain itself without the body of the "mother," then it is no longer the decision of the mother to end that life. But, until then, it is the life and decision of the mother that takes precedence.” Percivale I attribute you with both of these ill-founded arguments. The first argument states that you do not have the right to tell a woman when or how she can or cannot (as opposed to should or should not) have a baby. By the same logic I would like to make a different argument. Who the heck are you to tell me how or when I can or cannot (as opposed to should or should not) kill everyone in my neighborhood. So get the John Kerry out of your head and think as an individual! The second statement leads me to believe that I should be able to kill all the people who cannot sustain themselves with out some sort of support. Such as people on life support, or people who are paralyzed. We should have the right to kill anyone in a wheel chair, or even with a broken leg by your logic! “I think to point to any time along the timeline from conception to old age and say "I know that is when it is a person" is arrogant and presumptive. Having said that:” This is a quote from mlange5 In that case it is also arrogant and presumptive to say “I know that is when it is NOT a person” Which means that you are unsure to the child’s status as a human being. You however seem to want people to take the risk at killing what could be a person. By the way, a person is determined by their traits as a human, specifically those traits are found on DNA which the child has at the moment of conception. If you think I’m being arrogant and presumptuous look it up in a book. “We cannot have it both ways. I don't want the federal government dictating my decisions on abortion, smoking, wearing seatbelts, assisted suicide, where I place my bodyparts, who I can marry.” I could just as easily say I don’t want the federal government dictating my decisions on coming into your house and stealing all your stuff. The government should dictates these decisions to protect the rights of its citizens born or not. “Abortion is like all the other "regulated beliefs". I oppose any who say "I only want government interference to inforce MY beliefs." That is dangerous ground.” Terrorists BELIEVE that they should kill as many Americans as possible. Do not want the government to stop them?