How am I reaching? Did you not say "In your scenario, pro choice wins either way, because the choice is made to either end the baby's life, or end the mother's life."???? Does that specific sentence not imply pro-choicers devalue the life of a person (the mother)? As for the millions that do die of pregnancy, that's tragic, but irreverent to that particular statement. Sheesh... really? Please, just tell me you've misspoken.
Yes, that specific sentence does NOT imply pro choicers devalue the life of a person. I never thought you devalued the mother. I don't know why you think that I think that. I didn't say it. And I didn't misspeak. At the end of the day, pro choicers can't make a good argument for abortion. They just choose to be wrong. It's the same as a person eating, say, junk food all the time, even though they know it is wrong thing to do.
"In your scenario, pro choice wins either way, because the choice is made to either end the baby's life, or end the mother's life." I'm trying to read this upside down and backwards... I just don't know what else this can imply. Wow... Junk food eh?...
Not the womb, the child. Killing a child is not a private act, since more than one party is involved. You're overcomplicating the issue. Violence against innocent human beings is wrong (except in self defense). If you believe in that basic principle, as I do, then you logically must be pro life, since abortion is the physical destruction of another human being. You keep bringing up vaginas for some reason, as if this is a puritanical argument. It's about human rights. You are entitled to your own definition of life as a personal philosophy. But legally it doesn't work like that. You can't decide when it is or isn't legal to murder someone. We pass laws to define what murder is and by extension what a person is. I'm more pluralistic than anyone on this board when it comes to private activity. But we don't get to pick and choose whose civil rights we can violate (with the right to our own existence being the most important).
Seriously, there is no "private act" if your definition of it is that "more than one party is involved". For an example of how absurd this definition is---sex is not private; last I checked it takes (at least) two to do it right. What happens in a woman's womb is as private as private can get. And stop referring to fetuses as children, that's just scientifically wrong, and obviously loaded. A child is defined from birth onwards, period. First of all, defining fetuses and zygotes as human life or not is the crux of the debate---so you're already making a loaded assumption. This is the whole line of contention for most people. Your arguments on this have followed the typical pro-life science-illiterate babble about organisms with unique human DNA, ignoring the fact that cancer cells also share this trait. At least follow it with "potential for development into a child", so we can engage in that classical "your sperms have potential too!" debate. Anyways, noble of you to never (intentionally) commit murder, but to allow for death through your action or lack of action. I can see how someone who loves being principled towards the preservation of life and the protection of innocents from violence would love that. Overriding force is needed to prevent violence against innocents, but we can't do anything about countless deaths due to organizational dysfunction because, well, govment bad. unless it's pulling down a ban of abortion---when abortions are being reduced by less heavy-handed methods of handing out contraceptives. let's opt for the ban. Bans have a terrific history of working.
People can argue about abortion until Hell freezes over around here. What remains is that the country seems to support Choice more strongly than it did a few years ago, and the United States may even be more progressive, both very good things, in my opinion.
It took maybe 4 posts before some douchelord suggested that people "like" or are "pro" Abortion. Let's be honest, nobody thinks abortions are desirable or great. We just disagree on the option of having a choice. Keep the language accurate, please. It's obnoxious to be called pro-abortion. Use your brain and realize that it's called pro-choice. There is a huge difference.
but that's consensual, voluntary the child is not choosing to be killed how are you defining birth? head breached? any part of the body breached? entire body breached? as long as you don't breach you can kill it? even if it's physically the same in or out? or perhaps it can be killed as long as the umbilical cord is still attached? If you were obligated to sustain every life you'd be a slave in perpetuity. You aren't a slave to others, but you can't kill them either. Bans on killing others have been effective, yes.
Yes, there is a huge difference, but good luck getting the more ardent Anti-Choice members here to admit it.
what's undesirable about them? Your appeal to popular opinion is commendable, but don't be afraid to Debate & Discuss the issue.
So, let's recap--- privacy is only applicable to voluntary and consensual acts, even if the agent in question cannot reasonably consent. If you had sex with an animal, for example, that could not be private because there are more than two agents involved, and one cannot be reasonably construed as consenting. lolwut. Yes, I hear support for late-late-late term abortions are a huge issue. Last minute abortions for all! Stop calling fetuses children. srsly. You are erasing another line that is crucial in the debate about viability being already set as a legal compromise to define when the state's rational interest outweighs the heavy cost, but whatever. I don't want to over-complicate things. How noble. I'm willing to do my part to sustain life by moralizing over other people's lives, and judging their most private and intimate decisions at no cost (I can't physically have a baby myself, so it's not like this will ever be a problem for me)---but HELL NO if it costs me a 3.8% surcharge on capital gains, and I am already fortunate enough to be in the upper tax tier. That is the definition of slavery in perpetuity. Oh, wow, zero murders. Zero abortions too! bans are always effective, especially when there are reasonable and practical alternatives already being implemented to reduce the problem at hand (i.e unwanted pregnancies resulting in abortions).
nah, animals aren't people All I'm saying is killing your child is not an act of privacy. No more complicated than that. No state interest or cost can justify the taking of an innocent life. It's wrong to kill an unborn child. You come up with these creepy societal cost/benefit arguments to confuse the issue, but the principal remains. not zero, just less (outlawing murder has led to fewer murders)
Quite the opposite. I said Clooney and Pitt need to engage in Debate and Discussion to change public opinion, rather than complain about the NRA. Notice Clooney/Pitt declaring the NRA to be extreme/fringe and therefore not worthy of engaging their arguments. Deckard tried to do the same thing by appealing to popular opinion. It's lazy and easier than trying to persuade and win the argument.
First off, as par the course, you skipped the real question to fit your answer. If a prosecutor wrongfully convicts a man of murder and said individual is then executed does that make the prosecutor a murderer? Id be curious if you said no, how your Christian beliefs finds Pontius Pilate in regards to ultimately sending Jesus off to his death. Regardless of him "washing his hands" and "finding no fault". Funny how you nuts want less gov't when it comes to certain agenda's that save lives...gun control, but want more gov't when it comes to restricting gay's and abortion. Leads me to believe you nuts wave around your patriotism to suit an agenda only. Your not patriots, merely a religious cult trying to force your religious ideals on everyone. Back to Commodore. So there is no reason to execute, but you lose to right to life due to circumstance? Got it. So there are circumstances to weigh before we as a nation decide.
How can in choosing abortion one not be considered pro-Abortion? This is the classic, gigantic deception in your side's argument. It doesn't mean you have to choose Abortion every time either. What we disagree on is the range of choice. Your side is mother-only. My side, admittedly by proxy, recognizes that the child has an innate will and right to life. Someone has to have the courage and integrity to speak for those silent voices. They are easy to dismiss in selfish pursuit since the vast majority of abortions are motivated by lifestyle preferences not health matters.
It isn't a "life" until it is born. Until it can live outside the uterus, it exists at the discretion of the woman in whom it is developing. You don't get to force your definition of "life" on any other person. [/QUOTE] The destruction of a human existence is a sad thing. It's disheartening that some would celebrate it.[/QUOTE] Who exactly has celebrated an abortion, ever? That would be like me saying that you celebrate all the women's lives that were lost when abortion was illegal.
