Hello Pro-Choice!!

[2Thick]

It did not take long.

NY judge rejects US abortion ban

A second US federal judge has ruled against a new US ban on late-term abortions, defying the measure backed by President George W Bush.
New York Judge Richard Casey granted a request by the National Abortion Federation and seven doctors to block enforcement of the ban.

Democracy is a wonderful thing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3248943.stm

 

[BO-DEN]

i agree thumbs up on that

 

[Dial_tone]

Can they do that?

 

[2Thick]

Can they do that?

Are you kidding?

 

[spentagn]

Are you kidding?

No shit.

Anyways, the SC will reprimand them, if not outright overrule it.

 

[2Thick]

No shit.

Anyways, the SC will reprimand them, if not outright overrule it.

Not likely.

Federal courts cannot tell state courts what to do.

 

[spentagn]

Not likely.

Federal courts cannot tell state courts what to do.

Oh really? Then why can state court decisions be appealed to federal courts?

 

[DepressiveJuice]

im pro choice but against late term abortion. they partially deliver the baby and then kill it. why would that be legal but assisted suicide be illegal?

 

[2Thick]

Oh really? Then why can state court decisions be appealed to federal courts?

They are appealled to the state supreme courts, not federal supreme courts unless it invloves federal law.

This is a federal law so this New York judge is a federal judge, so I was mistaken in my previous post. in any case, the SP will probably not hear it and let it stand.

 

[Lift Chief]

They are appealled to the state supreme courts, not federal supreme courts unless it invloves federal law.

This is a federal law so this New York judge is a federal judge, so I was mistaken in my previous post. in any case, the SP will probably not hear it and let it stand.

Yeah only particular types of appeals from the state courts can go to the supreme courts.

 

[spentagn]

They are appealled to the state supreme courts, not federal supreme courts unless it invloves federal law.

This is a federal law so this New York judge is a federal judge, so I was mistaken in my previous post. in any case, the SP will probably not hear it and let it stand.

Bingo.

And state cases can go federal if a federal court shares jurisdiction.

 

[chesty]

I see the beginning of the end for abortion. If it is a womans body and she can do with it as she pleases, then why can't men do the same? Or anyone? I mean, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, suicide, etc?

I mean really, why hasn't someone figured this out already and used it to legalize drugs, or assisted suicide etc?

I am against abortion which I see as murder in the first degree, pre-meditated and anti-human.

But that is me.

 

[velvett]

I see the beginning of the end for abortion. If it is a womans body and she can do with it as she pleases, then why can't men do the same? Or anyone? I mean, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, suicide, etc?

I mean really, why hasn't someone figured this out already and used it to legalize drugs, or assisted suicide etc?

I am against abortion which I see as murder in the first degree, pre-meditated and anti-human.

But that is me.

...and that's why you're man.




oh and you CAN do whatever you want.

No law against getting yourself a pistol licence and blowing your head off....unless of course you wanna get religious about it.

 

[chesty]

Actually we don't need a license to own a gun and actually it is against the law to kill yourself. If you fail they put you in the psych ward for a long time!

We can't use gear legally, we can't smoke where we want any more, etc.

But yeah, I am a man, but I do get cranky and bloated every now and then!

 

[DeepZenPill]

I wish they would just legalize infanticide so this would all be irrelevant.

 

[spentagn]

No law against getting yourself a pistol licence and blowing your head off....unless of course you wanna get religious about it.

yes there are.

 

[velvett]

Actually we don't need a license to own a gun and actually it is against the law to kill yourself. If you fail they put you in the psych ward for a long time!

We can't use gear legally, we can't smoke where we want any more, etc.

But yeah, I am a man, but I do get cranky and bloated every now and then!

Well, in NY you need a lic to own a pistol.

I don't see how you can compare smoking and birthing a dead child.


Which btw is what partial birth abortion is mainl used for.

 

[velvett]

Come to think of it.

People should be required to have a licence to bear children and those how have children without said licence should lose right to their child.

Perhaps people would learn how to use a condom.

 

[spentagn]

The last time I used a condom I became a father.

 

[velvett]

The last time I used a condom I became a father.

Well, that's a case of meant to be* if I ever heard it.

Can you show that law btw - not to be a wise ass - I am curious.

I know it is illegal to threaten the life of another while holding a pistol lic but I am not aware of any that states it's illegal to use on yourself.

 

[chesty]

It is dependant upon the state. Most states have you committed to a nut ward until they feel you are sane again and no longer a harm to yourself.

From what I have read about partial birth is that the child is partially delivered alive and then brutally executed. And this is allowed up through the 9th month.

I just think it is a mockery of human life for us to play the role of god to this extent. I am serving my country and possibly will die in that service. And for what? So that othes can be careless and dispose of a life like a used tampon? Those that get knocked up and didn't want to be should be sterilized to prevent such further incidences! And that goes for the guy who did it as well! You don't want the kid okay, we give you abortion. We also take your ovaries and give you a vasectomy. Case closed. At least they will never be in need of an eraser again.

And your not being a smart ass. It is a good question.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Come to think of it.

People should be required to have a licence to bear children and those how have children without said licence should lose right to their child.

Perhaps people would learn how to use a condom.

Remove the safeguard of abortion and I guarantee the rate of pill and condom usage would rise. Why deprive valid rights, the right to procreate, for the priviledge of some to kill?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

T the state has already rejected the "it's my body and I should be able to do what I want" stance, since the ingestion of many substances is prohibited by law. if it is "her body", then why do we jail her for using illegal drugs?


So why, again, should this be legal, in our current frameowrk? Someone tell me that. What am I overlooking?

 

[Shak]

on the cover of the chicago tribune yesterday, they had a picture of bush signing the bill surrounded by about 10 men...

it was an interesting sight...all these men, passing a law about a procedure that they could NEVER experience.

 

[2Thick]

T the state has already rejected the "it's my body and I should be able to do what I want" stance, since the ingestion of many substances is prohibited by law. if it is "her body", then why do we jail her for using illegal drugs?


So why, again, should this be legal, in our current frameowrk? Someone tell me that. What am I overlooking?

You are overlooking the fact that the consequences of unwanted and defective babies cost society more than reducing populations by abortion.

Also, you are overlooking the fact that you can ingest pretty much 99.9999999% of what you want in your body.

 

[Dial_tone]

I
I just think it is a mockery of human life for us to play the role of god to this extent. I am serving my country and possibly will die in that service. And for what? So that othes can be careless and dispose of a life like a used tampon?

In previous wars thousands of black men (and white men) gave their lives to defend the lives of Americans, some of whom didn't consider those same black men worthy of life at all. What's your point?
You serve your country defending people's freedom, and that freedom includes the right to do things you don't necessarily agree with.

 

[2Thick]

You serve your country defending people's freedom, and that freedom includes the right to do things you don't necessarily agree with.

wow...

 

[hellboy]

It's really a tough call. I believe in the woman's right to choose. But late term abortions are are really disgusting things. Medically they have far more risks to the mother than early terms. From a financial perspective late terms start at $4,000 and increase depending on situation, while a first trimester abortion will only set you back around $400ish. Why would the mother wait until that late in the game to make that decision? I dunno but it does happen. And since late terms are much more compicated would you rather have people doing these operations in the back alleys or by a real doctor under sanitary conditions? Do you think a real doctor would risk his entire career to do an illegal operation like this?

You can't assume that making abortion illegal will eliminate abortion. It will only criminalize it and make it more dangerous to those that get them.

 

[atlantabiolab]

on the cover of the chicago tribune yesterday, they had a picture of bush signing the bill surrounded by about 10 men...

it was an interesting sight...all these men, passing a law about a procedure that they could NEVER experience.

Experience of an act has nothing to do with understanding the consequences or ethics of it. Your reasoning implies that no President should ever declare war and mobilize troops, no matter how grave the threat, if he has never EXPERIENCED war himself.

Have you ever been raped? Without "experiencing" it, how can you know its wrong?

 

[Dial_tone]

I'm pro-choice but I don't have a problem with prohibiting late term abortions, as long as that's ALL they want to prohibit.

 

[atlantabiolab]

You are overlooking the fact that the consequences of unwanted and defective babies cost society more than reducing populations by abortion.

And you have fallen for a great socialistic mindtrap. Instead of man being beholden to himself only, and all his actions, his responsibility, your assertion turns the individual into "cattle" of the state, who's value is only what he/she can provide to the "society", with all rights boiling down to cost/benefit analyses. If you can be shown to be costly in some statistical analysis, then you have lost your claim to life, liberty, property, etc.

You are a hodge-podge of conflicting ideas.

 

[Shak]

Have you ever been raped? Without "experiencing" it, how can you know its wrong?

LAME.

 

[Shak]

what are the benefits of bringing more unwanted babies into this world?

 

[atlantabiolab]

In previous wars thousands of black men (and white men) gave their lives to defend the lives of Americans, some of whom didn't consider those same black men worthy of life at all. What's your point?
You serve your country defending people's freedom, and that freedom includes the right to do things you don't necessarily agree with.

Your argument falters in using "freedom" synonomously with "rights". There are freedoms which would be deleterious to others, such as the "freedom" to enslave black men, or the "freedom" to rape women. Rights imply freedom, but define the limits of freedom. The argument boils down to rights and not freedom.

 

[atlantabiolab]

what are the benefits of bringing more unwanted babies into this world?

What was the benefit of bringing you into the world?

What cost/benefit analysis was performed to show that you were worthy of life?

 

[hellboy]

What was the benefit of bringing you into the world?

What cost/benefit analysis was performed to show that you were worthy of life?

Why do you think this is about cost? The decision to have an abortion is a personal decision made by individuals. I can guarantee you that the folks who get abortions are not congratulating themselves on saving the state a few extra bucks by having one less mouth to feed.

 

[atlantabiolab]

You can't assume that making abortion illegal will eliminate abortion. It will only criminalize it and make it more dangerous to those that get them.

Laws against murder, theft, rape, embezzlement, bribery, etc. don't prevent them from happening do they? Should we discard them too?

 

[Dial_tone]

And you have fallen for a great socialistic mindtrap. Instead of man being beholden to himself only, and all his actions, his responsibility, your assertion turns the individual into "cattle" of the state, who's value is only what he/she can provide to the "society", with all rights boiling down to cost/benefit analyses. If you can be shown to be costly in some statistical analysis, then you have lost your claim to life, liberty, property, etc.

You are a hodge-podge of conflicting ideas.

The "nitpicking with the semantics" response I've come to expect from you. So exchange the word freedom for rights and I still stand by my response to his statement. Soldiers defend our rights to do what we choose, within the law. Abortion isn't illegal...whether he agrees with it or not doesn't change his job function.

 

[hellboy]

Laws against murder, theft, rape, embezzlement, bribery, etc. don't prevent them from happening do they? Should we discard them too?

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.

An early trimester abortion is not a crime against anyone. Partial birth abortions are certainly arguable. But making them illegal will not solve the problem - it will only make it worse. 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.

 

[Shak]

Why do you think this is about cost? The decision to have an abortion is a personal decision made by individuals. I can guarantee you that the folks who get abortions are not congratulating themselves on saving the state a few extra bucks by having one less mouth to feed.

exactly.


i wasn't an unplanned accident whose mother planned on giving me away. there are a lot of women who chose to have abortions because they don't want a baby. if they were to give birth, they still wouldn't want the baby.

what about those four boys that were just found starving to death in the home of their foster parents. the 19 year old weighed 40 pounds. what a great life this kid is having, huh? good thing the mother decided to give birth to him instead of having an abortion so that he could be brutally abused in foster homes.

what about the mother's whose health/lives are in jeopardy...then whose rights are at stake?

 

[velvett]

Remove the safeguard of abortion and I guarantee the rate of pill and condom usage would rise. Why deprive valid rights, the right to procreate, for the priviledge of some to kill?

In theory I totally agree with you but I doubt as a reality that would happen.

But if you look back in history pre - 1969 - women still got pregnant without planning.

Again - abortion and partial birth abortion are totally different procedures done for different reasons.

 

[hellboy]

Again - abortion and partial birth abortion are totally different procedures done for different reasons.

They really are. And it's the pb abortions that make this such a hard issue to debate with your conscience. The thought of them is hard to stomach. But you know that if you give the 'religious right' a foothold they will take it all away.

 

[IHateBrolies]

Firstly, I don't think it is valid at all to simply claim that abortion is "a personal decision". That is the thesis, and you need to make points to support it.

Secondly, the womens' rights angle is best kept in another argument.

Thirdly, this issue hinges on two major points of variation:
1. definition of a person under the ethics of the state and/or society
2. balance between historically objective and subjective motivation and definition

I differ in opion with atlantabiolab on both. These kinds of differences can usually be reduced to basic arbitraty, preferential or idiological bases. It is really tiring to argue about this issue.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

what about those four boys that were just found starving to death in the home of their foster parents. the 19 year old weighed 40 pounds. what a great life this kid is having, huh? good thing the mother decided to give birth to him instead of having an abortion so that he could be brutally abused in foster homes.

I am not necessarily against abortion, but this (like so many of the arguments) is an appeal to emotion.

Those boys have been found, and will get other opportunities now. Many people have overcome tremendous adversity to accomplish great things. At least these poor kids will now have a chance at that.

If we followed your logic, we would disallow poor people to have kids, because after all, "what kind of life is that?"

Are you in favor of that?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

You are overlooking the fact that the consequences of unwanted and defective babies cost society more than reducing populations by abortion.

Is societal cost your argument for the worthiness of policy?

You know what would be a huge cost saver? Machine-gunning people over 65. No Social Security, no Medicare to speak of. We'd save $1T annually right there.

Are you for that?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

it was an interesting sight...all these men, passing a law about a procedure that they could NEVER experience.

This is silly.

Oddly, many legislators have never been murdered either, yet I bet you they are 100% in favor of laws prohitibing murder.

 

[IHateBrolies]

Is societal cost your argument for the worthiness of policy?

You know what would be a huge cost saver? Machine-gunning people over 65. No Social Security, no Medicare to speak of. We'd save $1T annually right there.

Are you for that?

How about just realizing that the good of society can be one of the deciding factors in policymaking, and won't necessarily lead to machine-gunning senior citizens?

 

[Shak]

I am not necessarily against abortion, but this (like so many of the arguments) is an appeal to emotion.

Those boys have been found, and will get other opportunities now. Many people have overcome tremendous adversity to accomplish great things. At least these poor kids will now have a chance at that.

If we followed your logic, we would disallow poor people to have kids, because after all, "what kind of life is that?"

Are you in favor of that?

if a woman does not want to raise a child, i don't think she should be forced to BY LAW into giving birth. like these kids, there are too many unwanted children already in this world that need good, decent homes.

you're not following my logic by saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed to have kids. people that don't want to RAISE children should not be giving BIRTH to children.

a poor family can still raise a child in a loving and caring environment.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

How about just realizing that the good of society can be one of the deciding factors in policymaking, and won't necessarily lead to machine-gunning senior citizens?

2Thick mentioned "cost to society". I just wanted to put his remarks in context.

If you've read the Constitution at all, you'd see that it provides for the safeguard of individual rights, not societal good.

 

[Shak]

This is silly.

Oddly, many legislators have never been murdered either, yet I bet you they are 100% in favor of laws prohitibing murder.

no, this is silly. abortion is a woman's issue. period.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

if a woman does not want to raise a child, i don't think she should be forced to BY LAW into giving birth. like these kids, there are too many unwanted children already in this world that need good, decent homes.

you're not following my logic by saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed to have kids. people that don't want to RAISE children should not be giving BIRTH to children.

a poor family can still raise a child in a loving and caring environment.

babies don't come from the stork. I don't want a child. So I make sure I don't get women pregnant.

No woman is ever forced into giving birth. ever.

 

[hellboy]

Firstly, I don't think it is valid at all to simply claim that abortion is "a personal decision". That is the thesis, and you need to make points to support it.

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.

Secondly, the womens' rights angle is best kept in another argument.

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.

Thirdly, this issue hinges on two major points of variation:
1. definition of a person under the ethics of the state and/or society
2. balance between historically objective and subjective motivation and definition

See above.

 

[Shak]

No woman is ever forced into giving birth. ever.

suppose abortion is made illegal. suppose a woman is raped and becomes pregnant. suppose she doesn't want this baby.

if she's a law-abiding citizen, wouldn't this force her into giving birth?

 

[IHateBrolies]

2Thick mentioned "cost to society". I just wanted to put his remarks in context.

If you've read the Constitution at all, you'd see that it provides for the safeguard of individual rights, not societal good.

I also know that, barring the direct infringement of peoples' rights, the good of society/groups/interests can and will be a deciding factor in policymaking and voting.

 

[Dial_tone]

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.



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.



See above.

Greatest post ever.

 

[hellboy]

if a woman does not want to raise a child, i don't think she should be forced to BY LAW into giving birth...

Absolutely.

Edit - I mean absolutely as in great point. Not absolutely as in she absolutely should be forced to have the baby.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

suppose abortion is made illegal. suppose a woman is raped and becomes pregnant. suppose she doesn't want this baby.

if she's a law-abiding citizen, wouldn't this force her into giving birth?

If I were king, in cases of demonstrable/prosecuted rape, I would allow abortions. I'd have to - a system of laws fails as soon as someone breaks them, if there is not a redress of consequences.

My understanding (and it is signifcant) of this medical issue is that the trauma of rape makes conception extremely unlikely. It;s kind of a red herring in this argument.

To be fair, partial birth abortion is also a red herring. They comprise an extremely small percentage of all abortions, yet are always harped on by anti-abortion people.

 

[john937]

While I agree late term abortion is at best disgusting,
it is missleading to think late term abortions are performed just because someone whimsically decided they didn't want to be a parent.
For the most part late term abortions are performed on defective/deformed pregnancies
that can't be detected early on,
for example aborting a Downs-Syndrome baby.

 

[IHateBrolies]

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.

People can be emotional all they want. But if they don't present valid arguments, then they are just basically screaming.

To clarify, I am just asking people to argue *why* abortion is a personal choice, and not suppose it a priori. Otherwise, to me, it looks like a pissing contest.

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.

Ok good point. In my view, more fundamental questions supercede this angle. But that is obviously just my view.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

no, this is silly. abortion is a woman's issue. period.

Not if legislation is involved it isn't. And if taxpayer dollars are used to fund it (they are) then it is not a single gender issue.

 

[Shak]

Not if legislation is involved it isn't. And if taxpayer dollars are used to fund it (they are) then it is not a single gender issue.

exactly why i thought the picture on the cover of the tribune was funny.


there is really no point in arguing over the abortion issue. people have very strong beliefs one way or another...it is such a complex issue affecting gender, personal rights, religion, ethics, etc. that the arguments could go on eternally.

personally, i would never have an abortion. however, i would never make that decision for another woman.

 

[hellboy]

I'm reversing the order to which I answer these cause I think it flows better. Not trying to change any content.

Ok good point. In my view, more fundamental questions supercede this angle. But that is obviously just my view.

Even when people agree (for or agains) they usually don't have the same reasons. As I said it encompasses so *many* different issues and there are innumerable angles you can look at it from.

To clarify, I am just asking people to argue *why* abortion is a personal choice, and not suppose it a priori. Otherwise, to me, it looks like a pissing contest.

Ok. Well considering what I said above. *MY* opinion is that abortion only directly affects the person actually having the procedure. I feel that it is VERY WRONG for the government to pass laws that force women to give birth to children that they don't want to have. Women should not be forced to give birth to children they do not want to have. I know. I said it twice. I feel that it's that important.

 

[Shak]

*MY* opinion is that abortion only directly affects the person actually having the procedure.

agreed.

do men bleed between their legs 7 days out of each month?
do they deal with severe cramps during that time?
do they have rollercoaster emotions that they can't control?
do they carry a baby in their wombs for nine months?
do they experience the pain of labor?
do they go through the difficulties of menapause?

men can father a child, but they will never give birth.
abortion affects those people who can give birth. women.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

agreed.

do men bleed between their legs 7 days out of each month?
do they deal with severe cramps during that time?
do they have rollercoaster emotions that they can't control?
do they carry a baby in their wombs for nine months?
do they experience the pain of labor?
do they go through the difficulties of menapause?

men can father a child, but they will never give birth.
abortion affects those people who can give birth. women.

If we were strictly to adhere to this, then we would really need a system of laws that accounts for everyone's unique biology. The beautiful thing about the statue of Justice is the blindfold.

I always thought it was a Golden Rule issue. Do unto others...

I would never advise anyone to get an abortion. If someone did it to me when I was in the womb, I'd be royally pissed.

Since we all went through that fetal stage of development, doing unto others seems appropriate.

But anyway, agreeing to disagree seems to be par for the course so....

I'd settle for an agreement that not a penny of taxpayer dolalrs be spent on this procedure.

 

[IHateBrolies]

*MY* opinion is that abortion only directly affects the person actually having the procedure.

If everyone agreed on that, there would be much less argument. Many people would then accept the concequences that you described of your opinion. Therefore, the only useful thing to do is try to support your opinion.

This is related to point 1 in my original post.

I agree that there are different angles to look at the issue from. But some angles supercede others by definition. Although, I do agree that my original post went overboard and missed the fact that there are angles out of my line of sight.

EDIT: Did I totally miss your point or something?

 

[velvett]

While I agree late term abortion is at best disgusting,
it is missleading to think late term abortions are performed just because someone whimsically decided they didn't want to be a parent..

THANK YOU!


Finally.

 

[hellboy]

If we were strictly to adhere to this, then we would really need a system of laws that accounts for everyone's unique biology.

Matt - she's making points. Giving examples. She's not setting down a set of rigid laws and saying that we should 'strictly adhere' to them.

I'd settle for an agreement that not a penny of taxpayer dolalrs be spent on this procedure.

That would probably apease some people. Obviously not all of em though.

I missed my workout today because of this fucking thread. Dammit.

 

[big_bad_buff]

So, If I come kill your pregnant wife 8 months along, should I be charged with murder, or a double murder? I'v never heard a response to this question before

 

[hellboy]

If everyone agreed on that, there would be much less argument. Many people would then accept the concequences that you described of your opinion. Therefore, the only useful thing to do is try to support your opinion.

This is related to point 1 in my original post.

I agree that there are different angles to look at the issue from. But some angles supercede others by definition. Although, I do agree that my original post went overboard and missed the fact that there are angles out of my line of sight.

EDIT: Did I totally miss your point or something?

I'm not sure. I'm losing track to be honest. But let me try this.

You said: "But some angles supercede others by definition."

My assertation is that this is not true. Or that it is different for each person. I can give MY opinion as to why it's a personal (woman's) decision all day long. That was the question that I thought you originally asked. To state WHY it's a personal decision.

If you believe that everyone's angle should be viewed equally (as I do in this case) then you will see why it can't really be resolved by traditional mean of debate and can only boil down to one opinion vs the other.

If you do believe that some angles supercede others then I think you should prioritize these angles that YOU feel are the most important. BUT - if you do this - you still will not be proving your point. You will be only be posting your own opinion - as I have done - about what angles have priority over others.

Sigh. I hope that made a little sense. I also skipped lunch today.

I do not think this is an issue that can ever be argued or defended logicallyso it's hard to get my point across.

 

[hellboy]

Can't we go back to the old republicans vs democrats argument? Or bitch about the economy or something? At least those don't involve dead babies.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Matt - she's making points. Giving examples. She's not setting down a set of rigid laws and saying that we should 'strictly adhere' to them.

That's how most people discuss things - they find an example where they are right, and then ignore completely the consequences of that example when it is applied to all people.

It happens on both sides. The anti-abortion people talk about partial birth abortions as this heinous act - but in reality that is a very small percentage of total abortions.

The pro-abprtion people talk about rape, or "health of the motehr", both are issues which are invovled in an overwlhlenmingly small percentage of abrotions.

Then, on either side, people get on these narrow narrow bandwagons and talk about how the existence of those statistically irrelevant cases means that everyone should be governed by rules that accommodate those few instances.

Listen to most people when they articulate a point. It's all they do.

That would probably apease some people. Obviously not all of em though.

I missed my workout today because of this fucking thread. Dammit.

Appeasement is not a means to set policy either. You missed your workout because you're lazy.

 

[velvett]

I don't know why everyone is debating abortion when the topic of this thread is regarding partial birth abortion which AGAIN is not the same as abortion.

 

[Dial_tone]

The pro-abprtion people talk about rape, or "health of the motehr", both are issues which are invovled in an overwlhlenmingly small percentage of abrotions.

Actually I see it as the woman's choice and little else.

 

[hellboy]

Appeasement is not a means to set policy either. You missed your workout because you're lazy.

Heh. True. I woke up this morning and the first thought that went through my mind was "Shit, I have to go to the gym today."

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I don't know why everyone is debating abortion when the topic of this thread is regarding partial birth abortion which AGAIN is not the same as abortion.

that's been made clear like 5 times already.

good of you to go for 6 though.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Actually I see it as the woman's choice and little else.

Intellectual laziness is the path of least resistance.

Do you consider yourself a beneficiary of someone's choice not to have an abortion?

 

[Robert Jan]

I am for abortion till age 40, and for euthanasia from age 40.

 

[velvett]

that's been made clear like 5 times already.

good of you to go for 6 though.

I hope you find yourself a nice passive little wifey that likes to be told what and how to do it.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I hope you find yourself a nice passive little wifey that likes to be told what and how to do it.

So do I. I get enough stimulation from the other areas of my life.

Side note: keeping the tasks simple precludes having to tell her how to do them.


If not I'll stay single for a while. Treats me well enough.

Hope you find what you're looking for too.

 

[hellboy]

I hope you find yourself a nice passive little wifey that likes to be told what and how to do it.

Ouch. That even hurt me.

 

[Dial_tone]

Intellectual laziness is the path of least resistance.

Do you consider yourself a beneficiary of someone's choice not to have an abortion?

I consider myself the beneficiary of someone's choice to have a child. A choice to do one if automatically a choice not to do the other. What's your point?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I consider myself the beneficiary of someone's choice to have a child. What's your point?

A different way of saying "You are a consequence of someone else's choice not to abort you."

Aren't you glad that they did not abort you?

 

[velvett]

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.

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.

 

[hellboy]

A different way of saying "You are a consequence of someone else's choice not to abort you."

Aren't you glad that they did not abort you?

Which is like saying "arent you glad they decided to have sex"

or "aren't you glad your grandma got knocked up by your grand-dad and had to have a baby"

or "aren't you glad the earth has an oxygen based atmosphere and humans can live and procreate here...."

You can take it back as far as you want. I don't think it's a useful way to make your point.

 

[Dial_tone]

A different way of saying "You are a consequence of someone else's choice not to abort you."

Aren't you glad that they did not abort you?

Yes, but if they did it would still have been their choice and I wouldn't be around to not be glad about it.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Which is like saying "arent you glad they decided to have sex"

or "aren't you glad your grandma got knocked up by your grand-dad and had to have a baby"

or "aren't you glad the earth has an oxygen based atmosphere and humans can live and procreate here...."

You can take it back as far as you want. I don't think it's a useful way to make your point.

If DT's Mom decided to abort him, no DT.

So for him to say he has no opinion on it (he said "It's a woman's issue") ignores the fact that said issue has impacted him. DT is a man. Hence it is not merely a woman's issue.

Sorry if too complex for you.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Yes, but if they did it would still have been their choice and I wouldn't be around to not be glad about it.

Same is true if they drowned you at age 1.

What's the difference as far YOU (your life) are concerned?

 

[hellboy]

Sorry if too complex for you.

Not that. I'm just saying that the old "same as if" routine is not a really good way to make a point. Because eventually it's not the same as if...

 

[Dial_tone]

Same is true if they drowned you at age 1.

What's the difference as far YOU (your life) are concerned?

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)

 

[velvett]

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)

 

[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.