Baby Rowan

My wife is pretty much pro-life but had to have an abortion when she had complications with the pregnancy. The fetus, which was as good as dead, was unlikely to come out on its own until the term was over. The procedure she was pretty bad, and its the one that everyone in Washington is all worked up about. Personally, I'm glad that the govt couldnt tell us to sit around and wait "1 week to 3 months" until she delivered our dead child. Knowing that your child had zero chance of survival is bad enough.

Everything isn't black and white.
Or red and blue.
Or whatever.

I wish the Rockets were playing so this thread would die out.

 

I don't know why people take such a vested interest in what other people do with their foetuses. Why don't you take care of your foetus, I'll worry about my foetus, and everyone will get along splendidly.

 

A lot of people consider those fetuses to be living babies. That's why they care.

 

Yeah, exactly. Some people consider them to be living babies, other people consider them to be something less than that. The debate can never be resolved, so everybody should just mind their own business and take care of their own affairs, and stay out of other people's business.

 

You weren't listening. I said that the debate about whether an unborn foetus is a human life, or at what point it attains such status can never be resolved. Therefore, it cannot be comparable to human organisms after they are born.

 

I believe the Amityville Horror was based on a true story as well.

 

It won't be resolved so we should just go with your definition? Excuse me if I value human life more than your preference for a lack of debate regarding abortion.

 

Your definition of "life" is just different than other peoples. You go with your definition and I'll go with mine, everybody mind's there own business. You take care of your foetus in the manner that you see fit, and I'll take care of mine in the manner that I see fit. There's no "we" in this equation...

 

You set 'em up Drummer, and I'll KNOCK 'em down

Lets explore this debate further...HYPOCRITICAL, lets see...you throw my arguments back in my face with no other explanation other than reversing the issue. Sorry D, you don't get a free pass to work backwards from my statement.

Firstly, I AM pro-death penalty AND pro-choice. I do believe that the death penalty can be used effectively and justly as long as more restrictions are placed on it. Make no mistake about it, this state is out of control when it comes to executions and the faster we rush to cut down death-row inmates, the more chance there is for innocent to be killed. These are sentient, living and breathing men--not a collection of cells inside a woman's body.

Secondly, a "pro-choice", "sanctity of life" pro-lifer that advocates/supports the death penalty is far more out of line with their own beliefs. Jesus wasn't a big advocate of retribution, more like turning the other cheek. I know, he isn't as interesting as Job or Leviticus and that whole "loving your neighbor as yourself" proclamation isn't NEAR as interesting as smiting the infidels. "People", are of course, where this debate is derived from as Martian Man enlightened us early in the thread. That is, someone who is pro-choice does NOT believe that life is a zygote or an underformed fetus that cannot exist out the mother's womb.

Furthermore, I am wholeheartedly, AGAINST late term abortions unless the mother is in MORTAL peril--partly because it is a disgusting process and partly because, at that point, a child can survive on it's own outside of the womb.

Your turn D, tell me how I am the Hypocrite.

 

That works fine from the pro-choice perspective. The babies that get aborted aren't lives and those that don't are babies (pro-choice doesn't have anything against babies). You have to look at the other side. To someone like me, you are saying that since people disagree about when life begins, I should not care that babies are being murdered. That is why the Pro-life side doesn't just "stay out of other peoples' business." That is what giddyup was trying to get across to you.

 

A couple of points.

First -

This article as a complaint against abortion is a classic example of rhetorical slight of hand, in that you are attempting to put down the subject at hand based on peripheral related issues that are not germane to the issue itself. This is the same as the style of political rhetoric that seeks to downplay an issue by attacking the personal attributes of the champion of the issue.

If you were seeking to argue in favor of a greater degree of oversight for abortions, this article would make perfect sence. Instead, it is the same as attacking democrats by bringing up Bill Clinton's philandering. It's not germane, and strikes me as a fundimentally deceptive arguement. When people try to decieve me I tend to reflex toward the opposite position.

If you want to convince me, provide me with clear proof in an honest and clear way.

Secondly -

Your first supposition in this thread strikes me as remarkably simplistic. My response to this would come directly from my signature -

Because something strikes you as evident from a simple, linear point of view bears no effect on the way it may really play out. If you wish to claim that abortion should be banned on the basis of some moral calculus, you should do the calculus in plain sight.

There is a body of evidence that people tend to see linear relationships between variables that don't exist in the real world.

Finally -

I don't expect this to actually register. From my experience, when people get to the point that they are willing to take rhetorical shortcuts, they are beyond any reasonable debate on the subject. Furthermore, such arguements tend to cement sides on the issues.

In other words, the process of posting these articles and the sideways direction with which you attack only tend to cement existing positions. You are making pro-abortion people more pro-abortion, and anti-abortion people more anti-abortion, in the same way that political debates become so entrenched.