Abortion for sheepies - Logic and Reason

[ThomasJ]

A good logic argument for pro-choice....

Should a woman be able to choose to have an abortion? (will respond yes ML)

Should a woman be able to choose to not have an abortion (will respond yes ML)

Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be legal? (will respond yes ML)

Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be illegal?

If they respond yes then they agree with Dr. Paul's stance on abortion and just inform them of such.

If they respond no then ask if they are truly pro choice?


If they still are in conflict ask them this.
Is it just for the Federal government to tell all people in this country how they should live? if yes then
What if the Federal Government said that abortion is now illegal, how would that make you feel.
If no then
If they respond no then they agree with Dr. Paul's stance on abortion and just inform them of such.

If they still are in conflict ask them if it is acceptable to have an abortion with a fetus that is seven months old.

 

[Janet0116]

Me likey

 

[Xenophage]

This is unnecessary. As a pro-choicer myself, I'm able to support Paul simply because I agree with him on so many other issues that are more important to me. I do not support overturning Roe v Wade, however.

If you're going to talk to a pro-choicer, simply try to stress that he doesn't want *any* federal regulation of the matter one way or the other. He isn't going to make abortion illegal (of course, the result would be that you'd eventually have it illegal in about half the states). After you have that established, turn the discussion to other issues like the economy or the war.

 

[mrkurtz]

A good logic argument for pro-choice....

Should a woman be able to choose to have an abortion? (will respond yes ML)

Should a woman be able to choose to not have an abortion (will respond yes ML)

Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be legal? (will respond yes ML)

Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be illegal?

If they respond yes then they agree with Dr. Paul's stance on abortion and just inform them of such.

If they respond no then ask if they are truly pro choice?


If they still are in conflict ask them this.
Is it just for the Federal government to tell all people in this country how they should live? if yes then
What if the Federal Government said that abortion is now illegal, how would that make you feel.
If no then
If they respond no then they agree with Dr. Paul's stance on abortion and just inform them of such.

If they still are in conflict ask them if it is acceptable to have an abortion with a fetus that is seven months old.

Good post.

The major major problem that I've been unable to get by is the inevitable question regarding Roe v Wade. We have to be honest here, both pro-life and pro-choice movements hinge on that court ruling. Bringing up the state's rights issue with abortion is much like suggesting the Civil War was fought over state's rights and not slavery.

It's very touchy and by no means easy to confront. I think Ron Paul's set up on his interview on "The View" is about as close as you can get to speaking with a heavy pro-choice person. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPysYWw34T8 (0:50-1:15)

 

[FunkBuddha]

My brother is pro-choice and went through this same logic on his own. He agrees with Ron Paul 100% on the abortion issue now even though Paul is pro-life.

My poor brother, he's been a Democrat all his life, now he's chasing rabbits on how the Federal Reserve system works and the viability of the Gold Standard and eliminating the IRS.

Oh, and my dad called me this morning to tell me that him and my mother early voted for Ron Paul in the Tennessee primary.

 

[ThomasJ]

Ok wtf why did this get moved from grass roots? How is this NOT grass roots

 

[John E]

The best way to answer this is to simply state the obvious -- Ron Paul wants LESS government involvement in your life.

 

[libertarianbob01]

"Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be illegal?"

A problems here: this presumes stateism. A better reason for the assertion of State's rights is that the Federal Constitution does not confer implied powers to the central government. Roe vs Wade was ruled on the basis of such and thus is bad law.
****************************
"...ask them if it is acceptable to have an abortion with a fetus that is seven months old."

This commits the naturalistic fallacy by assuming something is good. In this case the life of a human fetus. Since good is indefinable, no moral value can be assigned to the life of any organism. Further it presumes that an ought is derivable from an is. But no moral prescription is valid since it is impossible to define an ought in terms of a state of being.
***********************************
The only workable basis of morality is outcome based utilitarianism stemming from the golden rule. But since a fetus is incapable of exchange participation and since it is not a human being (but rather only a potential human being), the golden rule does not apply. Hence, the only reason to keep one's baby is because one wants too.

 

[ThomasJ]

"Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be illegal?"

A problems here: this presumes stateism. A better reason for the assertion of State's rights is that the Federal Constitution does not confer implied powers to the central government. Roe vs Wade was ruled on the basis of such and thus is bad law.
****************************
"...ask them if it is acceptable to have an abortion with a fetus that is seven months old."

This commits the naturalistic fallacy by assuming something is good. In this case the life of a human fetus. Since good is indefinable, no moral value can be assigned to the life of any organism. Further it presumes that an ought is derivable from an is. But no moral prescription is valid since it is impossible to define an ought in terms of a state of being.
***********************************
The only workable basis of morality is outcome based utilitarianism stemming from the golden rule. But since a fetus is incapable of exchange participation and since it is not a human being (but rather only a potential human being), the golden rule does not apply. Hence, the only reason to keep one's baby is because one wants too.

"Since good is indefinable, no moral value can be assigned to the life of any organism."
Good is definable. A=A. What is good is what allows you to profit, to live, and to be happy. Good is value. Good is quality. Good is virtue.
Evil is the sacrifice of your own value for the sake of another.

As for "The only workable basis of morality is outcome based utilitarianism stemming from the golden rule."

Utilitarianism is the ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome—the ends justify the means. Utility — the good to be maximized — has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), though preference utilitarians like Peter Singer define it as the satisfaction of preferences. In simpler terms, it's for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And interestingly, perhaps like most thoughtful ethical theories, utilitarianism primarily evaluates proposed actions and courses of action, rather than directly evaluating whether a person is virtuous or has good character.

The ends never justify the means if the means implies the denial of reality or your own ability to exist.

According to science the fetus is life. That does not mean it is Human though. A human is achieved after 8 weeks usually as that is when the heart is beating and the brain of the baby is emitting brain waves.

So I say before 8 weeks I would agree with the general premise of your statement but after that point I would not.
A 9 week old child in the womb is human in every sense of the word. Just like a 1 year old child. Yes there is a potential that the 9 week old will be dead before birth but the same is true for the 1 year old before adulthood.

 

[Sey.Naci]

This is unnecessary. As a pro-choicer myself, I'm able to support Paul simply because I agree with him on so many other issues that are more important to me. I do not support overturning Roe v Wade, however.

If you're going to talk to a pro-choicer, simply try to stress that he doesn't want *any* federal regulation of the matter one way or the other. He isn't going to make abortion illegal (of course, the result would be that you'd eventually have it illegal in about half the states). After you have that established, turn the discussion to other issues like the economy or the war.

QFT

 

[Wendi]

I find it much more useful to convince people that they don't need to agree with every single idea a candidate has if the candidate truly supports the Constitution, which is a hard concept to grasp when we've been so long with the opposite. But I don't agree with Paul on everything. In fact there are a couple of major issues where I disagree with him. But I have always hoped that he would run for President (again), and planned to support him if/when he did long before this campaign was even dreamed of.

 

[tsetsefly]

This is unnecessary. As a pro-choicer myself, I'm able to support Paul simply because I agree with him on so many other issues that are more important to me. I do not support overturning Roe v Wade, however.

If you're going to talk to a pro-choicer, simply try to stress that he doesn't want *any* federal regulation of the matter one way or the other. He isn't going to make abortion illegal (of course, the result would be that you'd eventually have it illegal in about half the states). After you have that established, turn the discussion to other issues like the economy or the war.

+1, dont try to convince people that they are wrong on one issue(in your opinoin) and they cannot/can, suport paul because of it, just show them how they can agree with paul on so many other issues...

 

[ThomasJ]

Some will stop at abortion and thats it. Yes you will not convert all but you should be able to convert family and friends.

 

[nike]

Whether to choose reproductive health care should not be up to the feds, state, or any political body. The only person who should have a say is the person seeking health care. It's flawed logic to say let people choose the health care they want, then say except for women who want to choose reproductive health care.

Keep your laws off MY BODY

 

[DAFTEK]

Me and my wife are Pro-Choice but in todays times WHO GIVES A CRAP? Our economy is dead, the world hates us, and our future is unknown, for all we know we can get hit by that asteroid tomorrow and all this would be over with. So Vote Ron Paul while you still can

 

[jeffrey7]

most people on both sides of the issue are wrong. The real question is when does a fetus have legal rights, in other words when does it become a person, the moral equivalent of you and me. i am sort of pro-choice, but Roe vs. wade is a terrible decision. It totally ignores this issue instead relying on "privacy" rights and viability of the fetus. Someone else's right to privacy is trumped by my right to live. I don't believe a mass of cells not capable of thought is morally equivalent to a human being. i believe abortion should be legal up to about the end of the first trimester at which point the fetus's brain develops, according to science. Ron Paul's view is based on religion as are most of the pro-life crowd, and they are wrong. This issue will never be resolved until their is a consensus on the issue of God, which will probably never happen given the evolutionary advantage of religion. All this said, I will never associate myself with the pro-choice crowd because they are wrong as well.

 

[Kade]

Should a woman be able to choose to have an abortion? (will respond yes ML)

Yes.

Should a woman be able to choose to not have an abortion (will respond yes ML)

This is grossly misleading. Question should be, "should woman be forced to have an abortion?", as that is in essence the opposite of this position. No, no woman should be forced to by the state, organization, or person to obtain an abortion. This includes her parents.

Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be legal? (will respond yes ML)

It is not up to the States. Because certain states *cough, Texas, cough* decided to go apeshit with people's liberties, the Hammer of Thor was struck, effectively making abortion a privacy issue and a reproductive rights issue, falling under protection of unenumerated Constitutional rights.

For those who are not familiar, unenumerated rights refer to rights that are considered Natural Rights, even if they are not coded as such. An example of a Natural Right can be many a number of things you take for advantage everyday. In the 1700s, these rights included Representative Taxation, Freedom of the Press, Assembly, Religion, and gun ownership. Some rights have simply been understood, for instance, your right to actually Marry another person. To engage in sexual acts, to have children, ...etc.

The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Abortion is considered a natural right. If you want to argue that point, consider it worthy. Otherwise, some people maintain that the value of an unborn child's life is of lesser value than the woman's way of life. The argument is actually a strong one. Without invoking the concepts of a soul, it is also scientifically sound. That most people agree with it makes it an a non-issue of aversion, that only a few people may consider such a right. Pro-lifers are statists, and they mask themselves under the guise of "caring" for an uborn life, regardless of what it really means. It has no influence on their own lives, why are not people marching to the millions of children who die naturally in the womb? 60% or more of all pregnancies end in miscarriages... where is the mourning, where is the fighting? Where is the laws?!

Seriously, pro-lifers, get a life of your own, and stop worrying about others. Ron Paul's stance is flawed.

Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be illegal?

No. Surprise! Because your previous logic was flawed, this inevitably led to the destruction of this flawed question. People do not have the right to vote away other people's rights. Sorry. That is the foundational structure of a republic built on strong freedoms.

If they respond yes then they agree with Dr. Paul's stance on abortion and just inform them of such.

I responded no.

If they respond no then ask if they are truly pro choice?

I am pro-liberty. This sort of logic "gotcha" is classic of the Christian quizzes about whether you are going to hell or not... (http://www.wayofthemaster.com/)

Ooooh my superior logic tricked ya!!! No way to go to heaven except to accept the zombie! Surprise! Get real.

If they still are in conflict ask them this.
Is it just for the Federal government to tell all people in this country how they should live? if yes then
What if the Federal Government said that abortion is now illegal, how would that make you feel.
If no then
If they respond no then they agree with Dr. Paul's stance on abortion and just inform them of such.

If they still are in conflict ask them if it is acceptable to have an abortion with a fetus that is seven months old.

Now you are exposed, because I have shown that you are willing to have the federal government limit a freedom that some people believe in... There is no conflict, only whether you believe in the freedom or not... and on this case, ironically, I happen to side with the pro-lifer in believing that their tax money should not go to supporting abortions. Because some people believe abortion is morally wrong, I believe that their tax money should be exempt completely from supporting the procedure at all. You have a natural right, in my opinion, to avoid supporting through your hard work and effort what you deem murder, (this logic should also be applied to war).

Ron Paul is wrong here. It is not fighting for a freedom, and I showed you why. You do not have a freedom to take away another person's freedom; because people have effectively supported their arguments on a public stage, that an unborn life is of less value, it will, and should, always remain a right. Sorry.

Stop getting angry over what women do with their bodies, you guys sound like a bunch of Saudis and Iranians getting pissed off at the "immorality" of our culture.

We, the people, retain the right to control our bodies, including the right to end a pregnancy that is dependent on the bodies functions. ...And with that, your argument is utterly rejected.

Shove it.

 

[ThomasJ]

It is not up to the States. Because certain states *cough, Texas, cough* decided to go apeshit with people's liberties, the Hammer of Thor was struck, effectively making abortion a privacy issue and a reproductive rights issue, falling under protection of unenumerated Constitutional rights.

The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You forgot the Tenth Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The power to regulate any issue that is not expressly forbidden in the constitution is delegated to the States or the people to regulate as they see fit.

A state has the Power to regulate Abortion. This would mean that some states would allow abortion and some would not. This does not "Force" a woman to have a pregnancy or to abort one because that woman is free to leave that state and get an abortion across state lines.

Dr. Paul's stance is that the people of a state should regulate this and most other contentious issues as the state sees fit. This is the Constitutional position.


The intention of this thread is not my personal opinion on abortion, but if you wish to debate me on that I will give you this.

From conception to 8 weeks abortion should be legal in my opinion. After 8 weeks a fetus becomes a Human. It has a Heart Beat, It has Brain waves and it also will move its arms and legs. Is it fully a human? No but neither is an 8 year old.

In my opinion Abortion should be considered murder if performed after 6 months of pregnancy period whether it is because of rape or incest or whatever. If performed before that point but after 8 weeks it should be a fine of one quarter of the Doctor's yearly earnings.

Honestly though my opinion is really irrelevant because this is something for the State to decide.
A state may choose to not regulate at all. It may choose to Outlaw all abortions for any reason. It may do whatever the people of that state want to do. Those in the minority if strongly opposed still retain their rights because they still have the Right of freedom of travel.

So anyways.....

 

[Kade]

The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You forgot the Tenth Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The power to regulate any issue that is not expressly forbidden in the constitution is delegated to the States or the people to regulate as they see fit.

A state has the Power to regulate Abortion. This would mean that some states would allow abortion and some would not. This does not "Force" a woman to have a pregnancy or to abort one because that woman is free to leave that state and get an abortion across state lines.

Dr. Paul's stance is that the people of a state should regulate this and most other contentious issues as the state sees fit. This is the Constitutional position.


The intention of this thread is not my personal opinion on abortion, but if you wish to debate me on that I will give you this.

From conception to 8 weeks abortion should be legal in my opinion. After 8 weeks a fetus becomes a Human. It has a Heart Beat, It has Brain waves and it also will move its arms and legs. Is it fully a human? No but neither is an 8 year old.

In my opinion Abortion should be considered murder if performed after 6 months of pregnancy period whether it is because of rape or incest or whatever. If performed before that point but after 8 weeks it should be a fine of one quarter of the Doctor's yearly earnings.

Honestly though my opinion is really irrelevant because this is something for the State to decide.
A state may choose to not regulate at all. It may choose to Outlaw all abortions for any reason. It may do whatever the people of that state want to do. Those in the minority if strongly opposed still retain their rights because they still have the Right of freedom of travel.

So anyways.....

four words: "or to the people."

 

[RonPaulFTFW]

I don't agree with Paul on abortion and don't need to.

I respect the man.
that's the important part.

His view comes from reasonable consideration of law. Not crazy nutty bible logic.