Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would look at this way remove FEDERAL roe vs wade and let the states decide if they want abortion or not and you can elect those who oppose it or support it.
Nobody anywhere gets to vote on anybody's Constitutional rights. Those are entirely off limits to the passions and vagaries of local majorities. If you have a right of free speech under the Constitution, then you have that right in every state, no matter how backward or perverse its legislature might be.
No, we don't want to make it legal to murder. That is the issue here.
Issues exist where competing valid propositions exist. You have nothing but dogma, emotions, and opinions to bring to the table. These are not valid propositions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronK
Your appeal to emotion evades scientific fact, plus morality.
What YOU take from questionable sources to be scientific fact, and what YOU take from questionable sources to be morality. If we take YOU and your questionable sources out of the equation, the argument falls immediately to pieces.
And I honestly can not get my mind to grasp how anyone can believe that 9 months of pregnancy is not worth the 80 years of life that the unborn child could have.
The point might have some relevance if it were proposed that women collectively should stop reproduction altogteher. This is not the case.
Women, typically in cooperation with others who are significant in their lives, make their own decisions as to when and whether they will bear children. We are not suffering from any shortage of children as the result. Your argument suggests that such decision-making should be replaced by a compulsion upon every woman to produce as many offspring as she physically can, up to and including the point where she literally dies from the attempt to have one more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LML
I don't get it.
Yes, I noticed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LML
That kind of egocentric selfishness just doesn't fit into anything I believe. And that is from a fairly liberal feminist.
Then you are something of an embarassment to most fairly liberal feminists. Without expending very much effort at all, the majority of those would be able to understand fully that women's decisons not to have any or any more children at any given point in time are made for reasons that go far beyond the limited realm of "egocentric selfishness" that seems to be all you are willing to recognize. Perhaps it is the case that you are not so liberal, not so feminist, and not so fair as you may think.
and don't forget, got to produce a few more, so those that want to adopt have a bigger choice... I hear blond haired, blue eyed, white infants are especially sought after.
Yes, yes...what's a little commandeering of other women's bodies for a year or so at a time in order to pump out those upscale sort of babies that the rest of us are so eager to adopt. That wouldn't come under the heading of "egocentric selfishness", would it...nah, I didn't think so...
The point might have some relevance if it were proposed that women collectively should stop reproduction altogteher. This is not the case.
Women, typically in cooperation with others who are significant in their lives, make their own decisions as to when and whether they will bear children. We are not suffering from any shortage of children as the result. Your argument suggests that such decision-making should be replaced by a compulsion upon every woman to produce as many offspring as she physically can, up to and including the point where she literally dies from the attempt to have one more.
Yes, I noticed.
Then you are something of an embarassment to most fairly liberal feminists. Without expending very much effort at all, the majority of those would be able to understand fully that women's decisons not to have any or any more children at any given point in time are made for reasons that go far beyond the limited realm of "egocentric selfishness" that seems to be all you are willing to recognize. Perhaps it is the case that you are not so liberal, not so feminist, and not so fair as you may think.
Thanks! Great post and I especially like the part I bolded...I couldn't believe this poster thought she was a feminist!
Well boys, don't like abortion, USE birth control. I'm a bit tired of men complaining about the womens right to choose. Men also have the right to choose by using birth control. Simple isn't it?
Well anyone who has gone through puberty and health education in the past 7 years has only been taught abstinence, so they really don't know.
Where in the hell do you get that? You are always trying to tie in women having twenty five babies with the anti abortion movement? I mean, wtf?
Whether or not you realize it, the entirely unqualified insistence that 9 months (even though it's actually more than that) out of a woman's life can only selfishly be claimed for purposes other than reproduction when considered against the potential for 80 years of life that might be enjoyed by another directly implies that if they are not already engaged in the process of reproduction, women are only being selfish if they do not undertake to become engaged in reproduction as quickly as possible. A moment's hesitation after all can result in the loss of yet another potential 80-year old.
Unless you accept the compulsion to 25 children, you accept the established premise that a woman has the right at her discretion to decide which, if any, of those 35-40 years of her fertility will in fact be devoted to the actual production of offspring. If you accept that right, then you need (but do not have) a powerful argument for seeking to interfere with that right by forcing a woman to exercise it against her wishes and interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camping!
Talk about an extreme argument that is based not in one iota of fact.
Talk about an excess of hyperbole employed to diguise and cover for a lack of ability to deal with the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camping!
Because, and forgive me but I do believe we went over this many times, birth control is not abortion.
Various forms are. Ask any member of the Cult of the Fetus...they'll tell you. The Pill is. EC is. IUD's are. Various foams and the like may be as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camping!
And finally, zygotes and fetus' are not the mongol hordes sweeping over the uterine plains, ready to impregnant unwary women at a moments notice.
It is only you who retreats into such emotional characterizations. I only asked why an intruder's unbidden invasion of the personal domain of one's uterus should be seen differently from an intruder's unbidden invasion of the personal domain of one's home. You have still not answered the question. You have instead assiduously avoided it. What are, and what is the source of, the rights enjoyed by a uterine invader that are not enjoyed by a domestic invader? Do you have any actual argument to make on this point, or should we merely expect more hyperbole and emotionalism?
A little out of order due to your reluctance simply to use the Quote button in reply...
Quote:
Originally Posted by camping!
I hope neither you nor LML mind, but I couldn't resist helping you out here, since you seem to be a bit confused about reproduction...
No, not confused on reproduction. And not confused either by your dash off into extensive discussion of it. You are uncomfortable in dealing with the issues that have been set out for you, and so select different ones to deal with instead. It's a common enough, but entirely transparent, tactic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camping!
Well, a zygote isn't exactly uninvited, is it?
An unwanted one most definitely is. But let me go back to an earlier analogy that you also did not manage any response to. Sex is a normal part of adult human life. So is walking to the convenience store to pick up a quart of milk. The latter act comes with the small and unknowable but still very real risk of being mugged. In the event of a mugging, do we blame the mugger or do we blame the victim for having invited it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by camping!
Back it up with data, baby!
Data on unintended pregnancy are widely available. It seems odd for you to claim authoritative speech on this topic without knowing them. Google unintended pregnancy rates and learn for yourself.
This also applies to people who over look dogs because they want puppies. I absolutly hate it.
If it makes you feel any better, my last four dogs were adopted from shelters and they were not puppies. Two were about 7 years old, one was estimated to be at least 10 years old. The lab was a 1 1/2 years old but badly abused by his first owner.
I think that I know what you are saying... many people seem to be all about saving every baby and have some image of them being all cute and cuddly. But the older children needing families are less appealing to those looking to adopt. And also the non-white babies or the ones (of all colours) that may have been born to mothers addicted to illegal drugs or have medical issues. The older a human gets, the less people want to reach out and help them. Finally you get to the level of the adult homeless person who is an alcoholic or schizophrenic, kind of scary looking and smelly, and you don't find these same militant pro-life people picketing for their right to a quality life.
There are plenty of human babies. There never will be any shortage of them. Instead of fighting the right to have abortions in the states the better battle is to help the unwanted children of all ages that are already born. The bulk of your outrage should be how women and children are treated in other parts of the world. Stop only focusing on what happens in the affluent (compared to the rest of the world) United States of America. Instead, start looking at our planet as one entity. Follow the U.N. reports on human rights and put your efforts into helping those overseas. Reading the U.N. reports on how many children are treated in other parts of the world is way more disturbing that worrying about aborted fetuses. Priorities people! Pick your battles more wisely. These children are already living on this planet and suffering so much more than what was going on in those links that were first posted about aborted fetuses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
