and because I always wanted to make a slippery slope argument (though one must tragically note this is what is happening, so I guess the slope has already slipped)--- this is what begets heavy-handed intervention in private initimate desicions for women by government, and why the right to privacy and liberty that some here may regard as an obstacle to their inevitable, and misguided quest to feel better about themselves by "promoting life" without even understanding how to go about doing it, is so important. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...rriage-murder-roevwade-personhood?INTCMP=SRCH Is miscarriage murder? States that put fetal rights ahead of a mother's say so Lynn Paltrow recounts the tragic case of Angela Carder, who was ordered by a court to undergo caesarian surgery – against the advice of her doctors, her family, and her own wishes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges
Don't you think that crushing baby skulls (strange characterization by the way) should pretty much be an all-or-none approach? Pre-natal developoment is a splendid mixture of fact and theory and none of it can still, maybe ever, say for certain where the beginning point of life is. That can only by surmised and casual surmisals that lead to a death penalty are kind of bothersome! My thinking and motivation is humanistic: neither Scientific or Biblical. Maybe if those Bible writers knew as much as we know now, they would revise their considerations of the topic? Who knows?
Your fellow pro-lifer brought it up. It appears appeal to emotion is a huge factor running through pro-lifers who can't seem to figure out that the debate is not about whether or not abortions are good or bad, but how they are best managed. And yes, you need knowledge of the science to determine that, otherwise you have people arguing that cells with no CNS and no heart can survive outside the womb, and that fetuses are children. (???) Good. Let me know how criminalizing or banning abortion, and threatning the life, liberty and privacy of the mother (as states have already begun to do) is more humanistic than better education, more contraceptives, and better support for children.
I am not obligated to accept your standard or your timeline. I feel obliged to cling to the obvious: a human child has been conceived and will be born if (in a cruel and ironic twist) we don't stick our hostile noses into their business! How can you not be emotional about life and death-- especially an innocent life trod upon by a society without sufficient conscience. How does being Pro-Life preclude education or contraception or support for children? It doesn't. There is no preclusion there. Your side's blind spot is that you only see the humanity of the mother. Until your heart softens, you'll be stuck in that rut.
sigh, and way to turn it into an glass cage of emotions. Giddy, two can play at this game, but try to have at least some logical arguments. Again, I emphasize, the debate is not about if abortions are good or bad, it's about how to best manage them. Your argument does not explain how a ban would make things better---in fact it could make things worse for the mother and fetus. But we're stuck listening to you berate me instead. ex: Giddy, every time you eat beef or pork, you are being inefficient. You don't have to get emotional about it, but just know that the world has enough grain to feed the world, that pork and beef are incredibly inefficient and consume most of this grain, that this waste is compunded by the Western industrial system throwing out perfectly edible food, and that people are suffering as a result. vs. GIDDY you are a monster, you eat meat so you are not only an animal murderer, but a human murderer. I don't have to agree with you! Stop making arguments, you're not the boss of me! Stop the education! Good, you're starting to learn. Then again, maybe not. The options listed not only support the fetus---they support the mother, instead of stigmatizing her further, or applying heavy-handed force and criminal penalties. Further expansion of those policies will do more to reduce abortions without hurting women than an arbitrary and heavy-handed ban. Your problem is that you somehow associate loving a ban on abortion with having a heart. I'm stuck here repeating again and again that the debate is not about abortions being good or bad, but how to manage them properly.
What is NOT logical about my argument? The part where I reject your limitations on a solution?! Your ideas about better "managing" abortions does NOTHING for the dead ones. I think my notion of managing abortions is abundantly clear. It is UNIVERSALLY TRUE that the child in EVERY instant is TOTALLY INNOCENT, but with conflict I can abide by abortion rights in the cases of rape or incest. And in any case where the mother's life is at stake, she should have a choice as well. Pretty much every other circumstance is "live with what you've done here-- raise the child or give it up for adoption. Where did I ever say "stop the education?" Did you even read what I wrote or are you on auto-pilot with your haranguing?
No, the part where you reject it without providing any reasoning for doing so, or alternative arguments. You haven't addressed why abortions are heading towards record lows lately---in fact you haven't addressed anything at all. Your emotional berating is doing even more nothing than my arguments. You should be coming out of this with a notion of why the 14th Amendment was applied and upheld multiple times by the Supreme Court to enforce and defend Roe v. Wade or what prenatal development actually looks like. All I'm coming out with is that you're really good at using caps on some of your words. cool, heavy handed bans because you believe that fetuses are children (they're not legally or scientifically) and because you think they are innocent (notwithstanding that, given your stance of enforcing your mores on others, it's probably a pretty good chance most will end up guilty somewhere along the line). Now what to do with illegal abortions that threaten woman and child? What criminal punishments should be assigned, if any, to abortion providers---or the users? Do you support criminal penalties and murder charges, and the presumption of guilt for women with miscarriages---as has before in several states (see my above posted article). In your heavy-handed attempt to enforce your view of rights upon others, where are you going to stop? What gives you the right to presume about the most intimate decisions of others, in order to force mores that were a passing fad in the late 1800s? That was me taking your incoherent mass of "don't apply your limits buddy! think of the children! you monster!" to what you probably mean. I figure someone who likes judging others and presumes to know so much about them should be able to stomach that.
No reason for doing so? Ha! I want to save lives and you seem content with crushing baby's skulls "against your will." Birthrates are lower than ever, too. The last figure I saw was from '09 or '10 I think and that "record low" was just down 6%-- while the birthrate was down 8% IIRC. Aren't we talking about changing the law? Bring up the current legality is ridiculous; that is what we are debating. The only scientists who don't think fetus' are not children are the pro-Choice ones. There's a whole other world out there. The best thing to do with any medical procedure that threatens mother or child is to AVOID it (caps for you!). This is an elective procedure, right? No one HAS to have one except perhaps the mother who is in a pregnancy-related health crisis and even she doesn't HAVE to have anything done. Saving an innocent life is the only thing that gives us a right to speak up about this matter. I literally said that all the education you can squeeze in is wonderful but that amount of education has NOTHING (you're welcome) to do whether or not the next baby should die of "crushed skull" tomorrow.
ok, this jumped all over the place, and got really emotional and dramatic at parts ("saving an innocent life is the only thing that gives us a right to speak up about this matter.") or full of blatant falsehoods---"the only scientists who think fetuses are not children are pro-choice (???). Let me know when you develop an argument for why a ban is a good way to manage this problem---illegal abortions still being preformed, and the slippery slope this implies for the right of pregnant women aside. Especially when solutions such as more contraceptives and more education hold a whole lot more promise if more focus were placed on them, rather than an obsessive focus on 1860s laws. seriously though--- calling a child a fetus and vice versa is just vernacular, and probably demonstrates an ignorance of how neonatal development works.
Mid-life is a stage as is adolescence as is being a "senior." A stage of life does not render one non-human. My "saving a life" comment was a direct response to this you wrote: "What gives you the right to presume about the most intimate decisions of others, in order to force mores that were a passing fad in the late 1800s?" You seem to imply that I have no right to have a dissenting opinion on the law and the common practice. All I am saying is that a motive to save lives is all I need to speak up. That "passing fad" is alive and well today. Promoting a pro-Life position takes nothing away from any other effort. Quit trying to pull that crap.
I am only implying that your arguments are, more or less, futile and simplistic since they don't address the issue at the heart of the whole conflict, and demonstrate a slight ignorance of the science and law behind it. I by no means want you to stop propagating your emotional tirades, but you do need to recognize them for what they are. Emotional tirades that don't address the actual issues. And in this case, it sadly does Giddy. We can see in that in states that are criminializing miscarriages, and attacking women (sometimes to the point of death) for a fetus and his/her/its' "rights". How are you supposed to educate and support women through such intimate and difficult decisions (leading to better outcomes for women and their fetuses) when people are trying to jail them?
The only way your side has succeeded with this travesty is to overly complicate it with secondary issues. You are like the IRS! I'm not a scientist but I'm not ignorant of the science. Your science PROVES NOTHING. It is only observation and conclusions. Have you yet proved that a first-trimester fetus is not a child? Catching a baseball is not proof BTW. I am not responsible for anything that anyone else does in regards to this matter but FOR SURE millions of innocent babies are dying every year. How am I supposed to be upset about any self-imposed outcome that occurs in the pursuit of all of those deaths? Will you quit this dishonest and desperate effort of your to ridicule my argument as being emotional? You should be above that.
uh, secondary issues? You mean prenatal development, and the legal reason why Roe v. Wade stands---yeah I could see how that could be a secondary issue in a debate about legalized abortion. Children are not fetuses and vice versa. This is a dictionary fact. It's like calling a wireframe a website. If you want me to stop characterizing your responses as emotional tirades, stop making them emotional tirades. Empirical or factual reasons why a heavy-handed government ban is the best solution to managing abortions? None. I mean, you're getting emotional about me calling you emotional. It's kinda really ironic, I might note.
This is so classic. The heavy-handedness is on the part of a ruling (which only dates back 40 years) and its supporters that crushes skulls of babies in utero. Now that's heavy! It's all vernacular. Stages of life. You draw a line where you please and de-humanize the creature when it serves your purpose. If the law is wrong, it doesn't matter why it's supporters think it's right.
Imagine a healthcare debate---"I'm right, because your policies kill people! I don't actually know anything about the healthcare budget, or healthcare itself. Ok, bye!" But even if one were to accept that all fetuses and zygotes are alive and have rights--- What is to be done now? Should the woman be imprisoned? The abortion provider? What does one do with illegal abortions? Should all miscarriages be investigated for murder, as states have tried to do? What is the penalty associated with abortions---if equivalent to murder, does this not imply at minimum a life sentence, and the possibility of the death penalty? Should the police step into situations where they believe there has been fetal abuse? Should women be tracked as soon as they are pregnant, and given separate privacy rules than what governs other constitutional persons? To what extent is this ban beneficial to both woman and fetus? To what extent would the same amount of abortions reduced have been provided by expanded focus on contraceptives and sexual education? I hear a lot of chirping about "abortions are wrong! period! I don't know anything about the science and law surrounding them, but I'm right!" and a whole lot less about the questions here.
Maybe it's not a healthcare debate? You want to keep it there because that is your playground... One does not have to wade into that territory as it is only a healthcare debate when the mother's health is at risk. It's not that hard to rationalize doing the wrong thing. If people were to value life and take care of their own responsibilities, 25,000 children in utero would not die just about every month in the US. Collectively these victims don't get a fraction of the sympathy that the victims get when one family member slaughters his own family or kids die in a school shooting. Talk about emotions being manipulated.... Is this the only policy that would be constructed on the premise of NOT killing people? Seems like a good thing to embrace most of the time.
I was applying your argument to other fields. Take what you are saying to any other field, and you might be able to see how ridiculous it is at the moment. "I don't know anything about the topic, but I am right!" ok, tell me how a ban helps these 25,000 children in utero with illegal abortions and the possibility of criminal penalties for their mothers. What point is there having the fetus born if the mother is sentenced to life in prison, for example?
It's not about your magic "stages" of biology. It's about Life, period. Why do you keep retreating to this crap? I'm way past that. 1. If abortions are not so available, the practice of safe sex should go up since most abortions are family "planning" choices and not healthcare issues. 2. The point of the fetus being born is that s/he has a Right to Life. 3. Why would the mother be in prison for Life if her child were to be born? And who said anything about Lifetime prison sentences except you? Maybe Community Service and/or fines that go toward Sex Education would be a better option. I know lots of abortions are sought by poor women so fines wouldn't be universally optional. Maybe reduce their governmental support? That would motivate them! So glad to see that you approach this subject with such reasoned consideration.
You're way past science? okay then. Proof of 1.? Empirical evidence? are we forced to rely on heresay? the majority of abortions are planned measures premeditated weeks after the sex. People have unprotected sex despite the diseases because they know their backup plan is an abortion society is trained to stigmatize them for. cool, nice to know. 2. cool. Did not relate at all to how a ban would preserve this, but cool. 3. Yay, way to think it out. First of all, it is not me saying this. This is being done. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...murder-charges Quote: Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges Women's rights campaigners see the creeping criminalisation of pregnant women as a new front in the culture wars over abortion Quote: Rennie Gibbs is accused of murder, but the crime she is alleged to have committed does not sound like an ordinary killing. Yet she faces life in prison in Mississippi over the death of her unborn child. Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence. Gibbs is the first woman in Mississippi to be charged with murder relating to the loss of her unborn baby. But her case is by no means isolated. Across the US more and more prosecutions are being brought that seek to turn pregnant women into criminals. "Women are being stripped of their constitutional personhood and subjected to truly cruel laws," said Lynn Paltrow of the campaign National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW). "It's turning pregnant women into a different class of person and removing them of their rights." Secondly, according to your own principle, the fetus has a right to life. So, abortion should equal murder, no? Why would you assign lesser penalties? Is it because a heavy-handed ban might not work well in this situation---because you can't treat abortions as a criminal act like a murder? What are abortions then? A minor felony? You rabbled on and on about doing anything to preserve life, and now anything turns out to be acknowledging abortions are IN NO WAY equivalent to murder (taking of a life). Therefore, you either have a different definition of life for fetuses than you do for those born (please elaborate if so) or are just muddled and confused. nice of you to say people should cut off government benefits for those who have abortions. That's decidedly pro-life. Really makes sure there never will be abortions again---because, it's not like you're fostering desperate conditions for anybody.
