Sorry you deleted your point, Major. I admire Andy's tenacity with all this, but DAMN I DISAGREED WITH THE FIRST THING HE SAID MUCH LESS ALL HIS BACK-TRACKING AND DISTRACTING.
Thank you for teaching me an invaluable lesson: Most people who identify themselves as "pro-life" are so entrenched in their way of thinking that they cannot even make an attempt to see things from a logical point of view that reflects the reality of the situation. I was, once upon a time, just as "pro-life" as many of y'all. I grew up and over the course of the years, began to look at this issue from every perspective that I could (the only way I know to truly explore an issue), despite the fact that what I found shook me to my very foundation. I actually looked at what a ban on abortion would do to women, to our society, and to me and found that there was no way that I could, in good conscience, take someone else's rights away, no matter the cost. I certainly hope that y'all have the strength to actually examine your beliefs and see that you can be pro-life without making it your quest to force that belief on others. You can believe what you believe down to your core without making every womb in America YOUR business. If YOU don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Pretty simple, don't you think?
unless of course you firmly suspect it's actually a living human in there. please get off the highhorse...stop pretending you're the only one with the key to logic. that's absolutely ridiculous, and you know it. a great way to argue in junior high, but worthless here. i have attempted to see your points...i truly have...you really lost me when you said it didn't matter to you if it was life or not, though. that's where you lost me. because what you're essentially saying is that a woman can murder the life inside her if it inconveniences her. i readily admit, i have a very emotional response to that line of thinking. i went to law school and argued with some very intelligent people on this issue...there are many who made cases that it's not alive...but none of them make the point you're making here. i find it to be absolutely heartless, as you find my position to be ignorant. fair enough. i'd rather be ignorant than heartless.
Andy, I've had this discussion many, many times before. Remember how Batman popped in and popped out? He mocks me because my argument doesn't change. Well, I'm not surprised it doesn't change. Mine is a simple, straight-forward point that will never change. Don't overvalue your brilliance and don't understimate me. I carry this argument forward for the sake of those ONLY reading not for the sake of seeing your mind changed.
Sort of like, if children are going to be an inconvenience in your life then don't participate in the act that will create them. Pretty simple, don't you think? Also, I am still waiting for the definitive clarification on my example of the woman who is in her 9th month and due at any time to deliver an expected healthy child. She gets shot and both she and the baby (completely viable if delivered that day) are both killed. Should the person be charged with one or two murders? If not 2, why not?
did i mistake your position?? sorry if i did... No not at all... I was going to start going through and following the circular arguments and showing the argument-hopping and decided it just wasn't worth it right now. Maybe when I get home from work and have more time.
am, What should I be charged with (a real, existing law) if I came over and aborted your wife's fetus? Just curious.
SM, I think andy already answered that. From what he said I believe that he would say 2 counts of murder because his wife intended to have the baby. Not sure if that means that if a woman is torn and can't decide, that life then turns on and off depending on her mood.....
Actually, at least to me, he did not make it very clear. I believe he wrote that the guy should be charged with some sort of injury to the mother but nothing to the unborn child. That is whay I have been trying to get him to answer if it would be 2 murders or 1 if a woman and unborn child were murdered in her 9th month of pregnancy.
I never said you didn't reply to this...YOU said And I was pointing out the quote for you. That was the first one I saw, but there were a couple timelines and a link or two posted. None by you. To paraphrase your post from another thread: Facts and science: Pro-life - 5 Andymoon - 0 (If you can't tell, we're still waiting on your timeline....which you said you'd post last night.)
Andy...suppose that I maintained that parents ought to have the right to kill their children, up to a certain age. Now there are precednets for this...in ancient Rome it was the father's right to kill his child for life... So suppose that I said that parents should be allowed to kill their children...after all, the children are a product of their bodies...and the parents are legally responsible for those children...so who is anyone else to say that the parents in question can't? The apply your arguments...Imagine the suffering of parents who feel the need to kill their children, and don't argue with them...if you don't beleive in killing your children, then don't...is it so difficult?, etc. Can you imagine making these arguments in this situation? Ok, forget about whether you see a fetus as a life for a moment, and consider you argument from the point of view of someone who does...your argument sounds to them as an exaclt parallel to that mentioned above. Now consider that there is not anything close to a consensus on fetal life status, and consider what the risk is either way...and if you are going to continue, as I have no doubts you will, that abortion ought to be legal, and try and make arguments which are more relvant. If you are wrong about when life begins...if a fetus is a human being...if that is just a semantic argument...yoiu are supporting killing millions of children a year with arguments exactly equivalent to those I mentioned above.
Here you go! http://www.gallup.com/poll/guest_scholar/gs000112.asp Over 60% of respondants said that they thought abortion should be legal in the first trimester.
<b>andymoon</b>: There it went.... that's a 7 (s-e-v-e-n) year-old poll......... but thanks for the update! Where's your timeline?
Didn't you question one of the posters who wrote that pro-life/pro-choice was basically even and you said it was more like 65-35 in favor of pro-choice? If so, the same gallup web page you cited, put pro-choice at 48% and pro-life at 42% which is essentially even when you take in marin of error. Also, just to clarify - if a woman is going to the hospital to deliver a seemingly healthy child and is killed by a mugger who also kills the soon to be born child, should the mugger be charged with 1 murder or 2? If not 2, why not?
If I said that, I misremembered the stat. This poll, however, supports my assertion that 65% of people support a woman's right to choose in the first trimester. It would be one case of murder. I would not be opposed to legislation that punishes the criminal for terminating a pregnancy (and no, this doesn't apply if the woman WANTS the pregnancy terminated) in order to punish the criminal for the pain he causes the woman or her family.
Andy, I was asking you for the timeline...this information (actually, more updated polls that show a more pro-life slant as we get closer to 2003) were given by bobrek on 6-26-03.
