Hello Pro-Choice!!

[MattTheSkywalker]

Soo.......if I decide to go have a vasectomy tomorrow that affects my unborn children too. Should I not be able to do that?

(I do see your point, however it's clearly your weakest ever)

You cannot affect something that does not exist. A vasectomy affects only you - you exist.

When the decision was made not to abort you, you existed.

To compare the two would be to say that you were never in the fetal stage. Clearly, like all of us, you were.


Related item

Maybe the perceived strength of the point is derived not from the weakness or strength of the point, but the intelligence of the audience.

Just a thought.

 

[velvett]

OK folks.

Is this a circle jerk or what?


Jesus - it's no wonder there was a women's movement.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

OK folks.

Is this a circle jerk or what?


Jesus - it's no wonder there was a women's movement.

Don't bring Jesus into this. This post has remained Curling-free and should stay that way.

 

[velvett]

Don't bring Jesus into this. This post has remained Curling-free and should stay that way.

I'm going to bite you one day.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I'm going to bite you one day.

check your PM

 

[Dial_tone]

You cannot affect something that does not exist. A vasectomy affects only you - you exist.

When the decision was made not to abort you, you existed.

To compare the two would be to say that you were never in the fetal stage. Clearly, like all of us, you were.

Okay, nice closing statement.

Related item

Maybe the perceived strength of the point is derived not from the weakness or strength of the point, but the intelligence of the audience.

Just a thought.

or the intelligence of the deliverer, biatch.......

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Okay, nice closing statement.




or the intelligence of the deliverer, biatch.......

Peace.

I gotta hang it upon this thread. Have a good weekend.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Not at all. These are crimes that hurt other people. These are crimes that deny citizens of their rights. These are crimes that cost the taxpayers money everyday.

Thus you have essentially undercut your argument, for abortion is the action against another, if it were not, then there would be no need to abort. The idea of abortion implies a human being aborted.

An early trimester abortion is not a crime against anyone. Partial birth abortions are certainly arguable.

You must have been taught logic by 2Thick. If it were not a "crime" or infringement upon another's freedom, then why do we use court's to decide such issues? Are there court cases deciding whether people can have their tonsils removed?

But making them illegal will not solve the problem - it will only make it worse.

Incorrect. Removing the absolute "right" of abortion would alter the actions of men and women to be more responsible. Not everyone, but a significant number, which would again place the burden of responsibility on the adults and not the new individual.

This is not an issue of "Is abortion right or wrong." In a perfect world there would be no need for it. But since it aint perfect we have to deal with it.

OK...I see that you were the star pupil of the 2Thick school of logic. It is ALL ABOUT THE MORALITY OF ABORTION. We don't enact legislation about peoples favorite choice of ice cream, we make laws regarding the "right and wrong" actions of individuals. Because we are not perfect is WHY we have laws. But your argument states that we should discard all laws that don't work perfectly. Why punish people for shooting old ladies for their money, they will do it anyway.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here. This is not a formal debate about a cut-and-dried topic. This is a highly emotional issue that will never be resolved. Ever. Even if it's eventually made illegal it will still be done behind closed doors and will still be argued by lawmakers and lobbyists until it's made legal again and then it will still be argued until it's illegal again. Etc.

To disagree with this, implying that there will be some who disagree with something means nothing. There is nothing in the world that someone does not disagree with, the only question is "which one is correct". Communist China believes its OK to subjugate it's citizens under a tyranny, we disagree. Although there is disagreement, do you not believe based on reason and evidence that we are correct? If all other ideas can be validated in the face of disagreement, then this one can also.

Once again I disagree. To many people the woman's right to choose is at the center of this argument. To others its ethical/moral reasons. To yet others it's your next (below) quoted point. All of them must be considered.

To make this concise, the "women's right to choose" is a moral/ethical argument. These arguments are not separate. If you have a right to do something, then you are morally validated in performing said action. The issue of abortion is that of the overlap of conflicting rights, the right of life of the child or the right to terminate said life by the mother. There are instances which validate the rights of the mother over the child: self-defense, in the case of threat to mother's life, and rape, the instance where the mother did not consent to the act of sex, thus the rights of the child were derived from a crime.

The right not to be inconvenienced by pregnancy or the right not to accept responsibility is not a right.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Having a baby is a selfish act.
The baby did not request life.
Therefore having a child is a choice as is not having one.

Correct.

Then of course the real excitement begins when there hadn't been a choice made and POOF there he or she is in the world - or not.

Are you now talking about "immaculate conception"? A choice is made every time a child is created. In some instances a child is desired, in some it is not but still accepted. In the cases of abortion, the choice was made to deny the consequences of the actions and then cry victim when confronted with the consequence of their choice.