I do not see how you would not consider it 2 murders. The baby is due to be born at any moment. It is completely viable outside the womb. You, yourself, admit that you are against abortion IF the baby is viable outside the womb. It is unbelieveable to me how anyone would not see this as a double murder. I am not trying to trap anyone into admitting that if this were the case then doctors should be charged with murder. I am offering a simple scenario in which there is no question that a healthy baby is due to be delivered the same day it and its mother are murdered. On the issue of the abortion split, here is Major's quote followed by yours: Major:andy -- this just in..the country is split on abortion...neither side has an overwhelming majority in their camp. reasonably intelligent people disagree on this issue all the time. supreme court justices disagree...politicians disagree...doctors disagree...biologists disagree. let's not act like we're arguing from leftfield here...because we're not. that's just not so. You: What are you talking about?!? You don't even have the majority of the Republican party, much less the majority of the country. Every poll I have seen recently puts the split at around 65-35.
Good lord, what does it matter WHEN the poll was? That is still 1997, not exactly the dark ages. I still have not seen any polls (recent or not) indicating that a solid majority (not the 65% I showed, just a majority) support an outright ban on abortion. FYI - IMO, this debate is pointless as y'all won't respond to logic and facts. You have not addressed the problems with banning abortion, nor will you since the only way to mitigate these problems is by allowing legal abortions to continue. You have not addressed the constitutional privacy issues that seem to be getting more entrenched every time the Supreme Court makes a decision regarding privacy (like in the one last week). You are insistant that your ASSUMPTION trumps the right of women and that is something I cannot overcome since it is an opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just thank God that your opinion carries about as much weight with the court as the opinion of "Roe" in this case. We are too progressive a society to return to a time when medical procedures are performed by unlicensed personnel in substandard conditions because the government is too caught up in morality to see reality. And with that, I will sign off of this thread. No use wasting more of my time on you closed-minded individuals.
you won't see it because you won't respond with facts and science and so you're closed-minded...and fetuses aren't viable...but even if they were alive, you can still kill 'em if they inconvenience you...and privacy rights are so sacred that even if they are alive they allow you to kill people...and you haven't addressed what I believe god says about this in relation to karma...
What facts are there to support that abortion is a good thing? Your whole argument appears to be that if abortion was illegal then unlicensed practitioners would perform them. What kind of argument is that? I find it interesting that since we do not agree with you then we are the ones that are "closed minded". Face it - abortion is a decisive issue that is basically split across this country. I'm not going to change your mind and you won't change mine. The vast majority of people in this country are AGAINST abortion BUT are for a woman's right to choose. The Clintons said it, Gore said it, millions say it. Are you going to say you are actually FOR the killing of an unborn child or a "mass of cells" as you so eloquently put it? I will sign off this thread because I cannot waste my time with someone who would not consider the cold blooded murder by a mugger of a soon to be born, full term baby a murder, or with someone who finds that people who celebrate or commemorate the death of an unborn child on a regular basis "unreasonable" simply because it is something you wouldn't do. Regardless of your feelings, if you are that heartless there is no discussing this. Read your words. People who don't agree with you are "closed minded". People who do something that you choose not to are "unreasonable". You know, folks who disagree can be "open minded". Folks who do things you don't, can be "reasonable". Good luck with the impending birth of your child.
MM, Didn't you forget "and since a slight majority of people agree with me, it must be right and unchallengeable...except for the Iraq war....a majority supported war with Iraq, but since my side has the more intelligent individuals, the majority was wrong in that case....but the majority is right in this case....can't you see that if the majority says it's true, then that must be accepted as fact?"
Andymoon, I want to see this timeline you say you have. Please post it and the source of it. You have had several days now to post it, but you still haven't. Please post it or concede the point. I'd like to find out who is the source of faulty info, even if it were on the pro-life side.
Fact: there are children out there who will prostitute themselves, whether or not it's legal. Fact: there are adults out there who will go to child prostutites, whether or not it's legal. Fact: There is a lot of crime and suffering assosciated with child prostitution which is directly attributable to the fact that it's illegal. Conclusion: Make child prostitution legal, because people suffer from it's being illegal, and will do it anyways??!?!
Come on, MacBeth, you are way, WAY too smart to try this argument. What is the miniscule percentage of children who end up as prostitutes in this country (especially compared to countries where it is legal)? Compare that to the estimated numbers of women who had illegal abortions before 1973. What is the miniscule percentage of people in this country who think that child prostitution should be legal? Compare that to the number of people who think that first trimester abortions should remain legal (64% as posted in this thread). This time, I really am going to stop replying for the aforementioned reasons, but this one was too silly not to refute. You are better than this, Mac!
andymoon Since you have steadfastly refused to post the timeline you mentioned I can only surmise that you were mistaken about having it or it contradicts what you said. Here is your quote from 06/26: "My OB/GYN gave me a very different timeline. It is good to see that the anti abortion crowd will simply make up "evidence" to use." From later that same morning: "I'll get the one my wife and OB showed me when I get home." "Again, I saw a VERY different timeline, one not influenced by abortion politics." Before leaving this discussion, please post your timeline so we can see how different it was compared to the evidence the "anti-abortion" corwd provided.
But in a way, I think he is. I think he intends to show the ludicrousness of the principles upon which andymoon built his pro-Choice argument. Agreed that he's not calling for the legalization of child prostitution.
Still waiting for that "VERY different" timeline that you have andymoon which proves YOUR assertion that the anti-abortion crowd "makes up" evidence. Were you lying about this evidence?
Yeah, giddyup. I meant he wasn't giving a serious argument for the legalization of child prostitution.
The real tragedy is that rich people will just fly to Thailand to have sex with little kids, it's the poor pedophiles that have to suffer from these barbaric intrusions into our privacy.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030701-115636-9509r.htm Pro-life women shift to majority By Grant Schulte THE WASHINGTON TIMES The balance between pro-choice women and women who say abortion should be outlawed or severely restricted is shifting toward the pro-life side, bumping that group into the majority in the debate over reproductive rights, according to a new national poll. Fifty-one percent of women surveyed by the Center for the Advancement of Women said the government should prohibit abortion or limit it to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications. The findings, with a 3 percent margin of error for the 1,000 women surveyed, tips the scale from the last sampling in 2001, when 45 percent of women sided against making abortion readily available or imposing only mild restrictions. Only 30 percent support making it generally available, down from 34 percent in 2001, the survey found. The New York-based center that sponsored the survey is a nonpartisan advocacy group for pro-choice women's rights. The center's president, Faye Wattleton, headed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for 14 years. "While we do have a certain point of view on women's issues, we don't believe we should suppress information," Mrs. Wattleton said in an interview yesterday with The Washington Times. "You don't want to create false or artificial data." The results, announced with a series of women's responses to issues such as domestic violence and affirmative action, found that fewer women — 41 percent — consider protecting abortion a top priority, an 8 percent drop from 2001. Of the 12 top priorities, keeping abortion legal was second to last, beating only the percentage of women who want to increase the number of girls participating in organized sports. Eighty percent of women also reported having no second thoughts about their views on abortion. Mrs. Wattleton, a women's rights activist in the 1970s, called the survey's results a "disturbing" step against the pro-choice perspective. She pointed to another part of the survey in which 50 percent of women said they believe the Supreme Court will let current abortion laws stand. Women who predicted the court would change the law said by a 2-to-1 margin that the court would make getting an abortion more difficult instead of easier, the survey said. At issue during the high court's recent session was whether one or several of the justices would step down, opening the door to a President Bush appointee. The Bush administration has been tightening the restrictions on certain types of abortions after President Clinton undid many limitations from previous administrations. "It's a broader issue now than mere reproductive rights," said Mrs. Wattleton, adding that changing administrations shouldn't seesaw on what she considers an inalienable right. "I've always felt it struck at the status of women in society. "But even if we hold our noses at it, we want to be sure we show women's true perspective." Pro-life groups applauded that portion of the survey, saying they were glad the organization did not skew results in its favor. "They're concerned about the shift, and rightfully so," said Ann Scheidler, executive director of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League. "We are winning. It's by no means going to be in a year are two, but our effort is to eventually make abortion unthinkable." The survey findings come just after the Supreme Court decided not to hear a case in which a federal appeals court barred anti-abortion groups from publishing Internet "wanted" posters for doctors who perform abortions. The lower court's judge ruled a year ago that although the posters contained no threatening language, the criminal-style look amounted to "true threats" not protected by the First Amendment. The poll also found that 43 percent of women reported facing prejudice or discrimination in the workplace because of their sex, although only 50 percent said affirmative-action programs should continue. Roughly one-third said affirmative action should either be phased out or ended immediately. The center's poll, titled "Progress and Perils: New Agenda for Women," was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, an independent research company specializing in social and policy work. The center's Web site and survey is located at www.advancewomen.org.
Interesting. I never thought something like this would happen in my lifetime. I guess people can't ignore science.
