America is "Pro-Life." Are You?

[Wildswanderer]

How many potential great minds are lost through war? If not in the immediate generation, the generations that might have followed if those who died in war throughout history had lived?

So? You are comparing abortion to war? It is a war against the innocent.

 

[MikeF]

So? You are comparing abortion to war? It is a war against the innocent.

Is that what you got out of my comment?

 

[Kenny]

Intent makes a world of difference. But even if it is a person that right to do what one wants with one's uterus still appears to be that of a woman and a woman only.

There have been examples given of a person needing to be attached to another for a matter of months to keep alive. and yet no anti-abortionist will say that person has a right to share their liver or kidneys. Yet for some reason it is different with a fetus. It appears to be a special pleading fallacy when one claims that the uterus is different.

IMV, the difference is in the biology. My points are as follows:

1) The child in the womb has a different brain, different blood, different heartbeat, different fingerprints and therefore a different person.
2) A child out of the womb needs just as much support as inside of the womb (both cannot exist without help) - in uterus or outside of uterus - it is the same
3) When life ceases to become important, we become calloused.

At least that is my position

 

[Wildswanderer]

Is that what you got out of my comment?

You were not comparing abortion to war?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Out of curiousity, what are the benefits to forcing somebody to die in horrible suffering and fear, rather than comfortably at a time of their choosing, when death is inevitable anyway?

Death is inevitable for everyone. That's a slippery slope...if I'm perfectly healthy but want to die, why is that different?

 

[Kenny]

Certainly, different world views. Should the matter be resolved in political compromise, or do you feel that there are other factors involved that more heavily tip the scales one way or the other?

I'm not sure it should be a political thing and I think that there are some things that are inalienable. Certainly we can say that between the two views, there isn't much compromise on both ends.

There are some things that are God given: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

I think it is in order of importance too with "life" on the top of the scale. Life before pursuing happiness. Like responsibility before happiness.

That being said, when both lives are on the line (like a fallopian tube pregnancy) - one still has to make the best choice it trying to save lives--even if it does mean at the expense of another.

 

[MikeF]

You were not comparing abortion to war?

Nope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

IMV, the difference is in the biology. My points are as follows:

1) The child in the womb has a different brain, different blood, different heartbeat, different fingerprints and therefore a different person.
2) A child out of the womb needs just as much support as inside of the womb (both cannot exist without help) - in uterus or outside of uterus - it is the same
3) When life ceases to become important, we become calloused.

At least that is my position

Sorry, but this is just a special pleading fallacy. Yes the uterus is different. So what?

Life is important. But so is freedom. I think that you have it backwards. The general actions oft eh prochoice and prolife people demonstrate that the prochoice people are more pro-life than the prolife people are. The prolife people only pick one very small area where they are prolife. The prochoice people are pro-life over a much broader spectrum. Remember, a government that can ban abortions can also order them. As China did at one point.

 

[MikeF]

I'm not sure it should be a political thing and I think that there are some things that are inalienable. Certainly we can say that between the two views, there isn't much compromise on both ends.

Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on the issue and ones particular take on it) there is nothing in life that is inalienable except what we collectively agree is inalienable.

As for compromise, I certainly see accepting restrictions at viability, or restrictions to first trimester as compromise and concession on the pro-choice side.

There are some things that are God given: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

I thought Thomas Jefferson gave us that.

And who's understanding and definition of the word 'God' legally controls in this situation? Upon what grounds? I do not see a unified acceptance of what anyone might mean when using that word. Nor does it acknowledge the plurality of its use. Invoking that word solves nothing. Political compromise is still required. Although some wish that it were, the United States is not a theocracy.

Thomas Jefferson was not expressing an idea that had historically been considered self-evident and true. It is instead, an expression of an imagined better state of affairs, and a declaration that he and his fellow colonists intended to make that imagined state a reality.

As has always been the case, it is we human beings that have been making up the rules as we go along.

 

[Heyo]

if I'm perfectly healthy but want to die, why is that different?

If you are perfectly healthy and you want to die, you are not perfectly healthy.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry, but this is just a special pleading fallacy. Yes the uterus is different. So what?

Life is important. But so is freedom. I think that you have it backwards. The general actions oft eh prochoice and prolife people demonstrate that the prochoice people are more pro-life than the prolife people are. The prolife people only pick one very small area where they are prolife. The prochoice people are pro-life over a much broader spectrum. Remember, a government that can ban abortions can also order them. As China did at one point.

I took note that you really didn't refute my positions.

Freedom doesn't mean I am free to do whatever I want.

 

[Kenny]

Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on the issue and ones particular take on it) there is nothing in life that is inalienable except what we collectively agree is inalienable.

As for compromise, I certainly see accepting restrictions at viability, or restrictions to first trimester as compromise and concession on the pro-choice side.

I would go for the heartbeat position. One should know whether they want the child or not by then.

I thought Thomas Jefferson gave us that.

And who's understanding and definition of the word 'God' legally controls in this situation? Upon what grounds? I do not see a unified acceptance of what anyone might mean when using that word. Nor does it acknowledge the plurality of its use. Invoking that word solves nothing. Political compromise is still required. Although some wish that it were, the United States is not a theocracy.

Thomas Jefferson was not expressing an idea that had historically been considered self-evident and true. It is instead, an expression of an imagined better state of affairs, and a declaration that he and his fellow colonists intended to make that imagined state a reality.

As has always been the case, it is we human beings that have been making up the rules as we go along.

LOL... That is a viewpoint but all signers agreed with Thomas Jefferson.

But all of that is another thread

 

[Subduction Zone]

I took note that you really didn't refute my positions.

Freedom doesn't mean I am free to do whatever I want.

Noting your use of a logical fallacy is a refutation. It demonstrates that your argument had no merit.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Kind of like "every person that supports abortion has already been born...
Ronald Reagan


The next Einstein or someone who could have cured cancer, diabetes, or helped greatly with global warming could have been aborted.
We will never know.

Or who accidentally blows up the planet. We'll never know.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thinking positive is a plus.
Thinking negative is a drag.

And wishful thinking is a waste.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would go for the heartbeat position. One should know whether they want the child or not by then.

Then by that "logic" you should be a vegetarian. If not then you are not being consistent in your reasoning.

LOL... That is a viewpoint but all signers agreed with Thomas Jefferson.

But all of that is another thread

Clearly there was no unanimous vote, but why would you think that makes a difference? Perhaps you should review the first peace treaty that went through the US senate (the treaty with England was before the Constitution) that one passed unanimously in the US Senate and there it was declared that the US was not a Christian nation.

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

IMV, the difference is in the biology. My points are as follows:

1) The child in the womb has a different brain, different blood, different heartbeat, different fingerprints and therefore a different person.
2) A child out of the womb needs just as much support as inside of the womb (both cannot exist without help) - in uterus or outside of uterus - it is the same
3) When life ceases to become important, we become calloused.

At least that is my position

But Ken, you only focus on one of the two presumed "persons" involved. You have not once allowed that the woman should have anything to do with the matter, once conception has concerned. Is she now redundant? Or just a means to an end?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Death is inevitable for everyone. That's a slippery slope...if I'm perfectly healthy but want to die, why is that different?

I don't know, why is it different? If you have a gun, and want to die, who's going to stop you?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I don't know, why is it different? If you have a gun, and want to die, who's going to stop you?

So you are ok with suicide? You know there's people who tried to kill themselves but now have good lives? Why would a society encourage suicide?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are ok with suicide? You know there's people who tried to kill themselves but now have good lives? Why would a society encourage suicide?

Was that a Chevy? A Ford?? No, I am pretty sure that was a Dodge.