History already doesn't look kindly on the time when abortion was illegal in this country. That legal status isn't going to change, get used to it.
It isn't a "baby," it is a "fetus." I don't know a single liberal who wants to "euthanize" anyone. You need to check your sources, they are lying to you.
Choosing to stick your nose in someone else's uterus is horrible, particularly when they are a stranger to you.
If I would have been born into a household that wouldn't have wanted me, that would have mistreated me, or that wouldn't have been able to raise me, I would have preferred to be aborted. There are a myriad of reasons that women make that choice, but it is THEIR choice and you don't get any say, as it should be.
Yes, the doctor is also involved along with the woman in whom a clump of unwanted cells is developing. No, abortion is the removal of unwanted cells. Yes, the woman has a right to privacy, affirmed by the SCOTUS, and the decisions regarding what happens in her own body are her own. You're right, we don't get to pick and choose which civil rights we can violate, which is the reason that the SCOTUS affirmed a woman's right to make choices regarding what her own body is used for. If she doesn't want to use her uterus to bring a fetus to term and bear it, you have absolutely no right to force your morality, your definition of "life," or your own personal philosophy on her. The choice belongs to the woman, her doctor, and her God, you don't have any place in that process.
How is it determined when a child can live outside the uterus? But you just defined life earlier, when a baby can live outside the uterus. Legally there must be an agreed upon definition of life, forced upon all of us. Roe v Wade is celebrated every year. This insistence on treating a developing child as unwanted cells is dehumanizing, and willfull ignorance of biology. A heartbeat is detectable within 24 days of conception. Does the mother now have two hearts? When is it no longer ok to stop the heart of another human being? Marco Rubio on abortion: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xqUNZ-qwBsA#t=0m30s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is the truth, for better or worse. If I was truly passionate about an anti-abortion stance I would take real steps that could greatly reduce abortion: sex education, contraception, and real family planning. The Fresh Air show hosted a woman yesterday who is running a brand of Christian pregnancy centers, where they do non-medical ultrasounds and encourage (young, distraught) women to carry to term. It's a fine idea, but there's so much anti-science in it. They preach a kind of hysteria about what happens after an abortion, but with no medical literature or substance to support their claims -- it's just hysteria (yes, ironic word usage.) They preach abstinence only for birth control. That hasn't worked in the history of our species, as public policy, and it won't ever work. People like to have sex; even under the taliban, people found ways to have sex, and we don't even want a taliban-style government (most of us, that is.) It was crazy, in 2013, to hear this woman say that "abstinence is the only method that is 100% effective, and this is the only technique our clinics are allowed to teach." It felt like 1813. So, basically, by preaching ignorance, they have no hope for their cause. Ignorance can win for up to 50 years (DPRK) but it's super-depressing and it can't sustain itself. We could greatly reduce the number of abortions if we quit worrying about old, established, and mostly popular legal policy from decades ago, and started worrying about how desperate, young, and poor women keep getting knocked up. If they had education, a sense of self-worth, and a condom, we could decimate that number of pregnancies. But as long as a group of people focus on a fetus before they do legal adult women and teen girls (no matter how righteous and obvious the fight seems), as long as they focus on going backward and not forward, as long as they make stuff up medically, they will continue to lose votes in elections. The GOP leadership largely gets this now.
That was the crux of your argument. I hope I don't have to point out how painfully ironic it is in this thread considering your position.
At what % survival chance is the child worthy of legal protection? My argument was in order to affect politics you need to first change culture and public opinion, through Debate & Discussion
Technically, neither are zygotes or fetuses, especially if your definition of an agent of consent is someone or something that cannot reasonably be construed to consent one way or another at all. And the Supreme Court and most reasonable individuals would say that you were wrong, unfortunately. This is another red line where your attempt at debate essentially becomes; don't murder the children (even if they're not children, another red line you pooh pooh away). You'd be better off appealing to public opinion, to be honest, rather than trying for some weak appeal to emotion that clearly does not look at either the science or the mechanics of legalized abortion. Well, apparently the need to regulate, for example, carcinogenicity is not something you're too crazy about (disband the EPA!), and you clearly don't want to help anyone who has been afflicted---I can see how the state cost of a 3.8% surcharge on the upper income tiers could prevent you from violating your own principle. you know what else people have said has led to fewer murders--- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/416056.stm But the funny thing is, I actually don't disagree with you at all about your first point. I have evidence that debunks the claim I have just pushed here, for example. Nobody is arguing abortions in aggregate are good things. Or very few are anyways. It's how to DEAL with them in a regulatory and legislative context that is the issue. It's why your appeal to baby skulls is the simplest argument, and one that does not work at all for people who to debate and discuss the issue, not cry about it.
An infant can't consent to i's own demise, but we still protect them. Appeals to authority and popular opinion don't really work for me. Reveals an inability to make the argument what's not good about them? Nah, it just forces people to acknowledge what they are condoning. Baby skulls actually do get crushed, that isn't hyperbole.
src: http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2519354#.UP_8OEqje4b Spoiler <iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YEMnyiDKUJI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Wow, there are a lot of problems with your definition of privacy then, isn't there? Do we need another category? Maybe birth vs not born. Or viable---wait hasn't this been done already? Appeals to crushed skulls and a weak grasp of science don't really work for me. Reveals an inability to understand what the argument is about in the first place. Two can play at this game--- by condoning free market madness you are causing the deaths of millions of human beings who are starved to feed the saturation of inefficient meat that you are served every day, combined with the market folly of long-only on foodstuffs. By condoning the complete abandonment of responsible governmental intervention where the benefit outweighs the cost, you caused the deaths of 45,000 Americans including Paul--- insert picture of starving children and daughter without father. complete argument.
How do you rationalize calling the fetus a 'clump of cells' when it has a beating heart at around the 5 week mark?
I would still say that is a faith argument. A typical analogy brought up is whether an acorn is the same thing as an oak tree based on the criteria of what makes a tree a tree then an acorn isn't the same thing. Not saying that it is wrong to have that belief just that I find it an interesting position for an atheist to take.
Repped and good post. We are likely never going to get agreement about when life begins and emotional appeals regarding crushed skulls and the privacy of the womb won't change things. I think pretty much everyone can agree that having less abortions is a better things and we should address the root causes for why we have abortions. Conservatives frequently like to use shame and arguments of responsibility but really if those arguments worked none of us would ever drink, fap or do a lot of other things. What we need to do is address social issues such as access to contraception, sex ed, and empowering women to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place and then better health care, neo natal support, availability of day care and etc. to make it easier to raise children. Since you brought up how it relates to the gun control debate I agree also that arguments of banning guns outright or allowing all guns will never work but as I've said there this isn't an either/or situation. I and I think many others on the pro-choice side would agree to greater regulation including bans on late term abortions while also looking at addressing root causes.
I've still always felt this is a very poor determinant of life It's not that rare for people's hearts to stop beating because of injury or during surgery and have lived. At the same time a heart can keep beating for awhile even complete separated from the body.
This is another argument that is flawed. Yes I am glad my mother didn't abort me but consider if Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer's mom had aborted them how much better the world might be?
