Abortion for sheepies - Logic and Reason

[Pepsi]

What about One Child Policy's?

 

[ThomasJ]

four words: "or to the people."

Correct - Or means that either has the right.

If a state (a state being the government representing the populace of that state) decide that they do not want abortion in that state then the state has the power to regulate accordingly.


Just because it says "Or to the people" Does not mean a state cannot constitutionally regulate things not expressly forbidden in it.

 

[Kade]

Correct - Or means that either has the right.

If a state (a state being the government representing the populace of that state) decide that they do not want abortion in that state then the state has the power to regulate accordingly.


Just because it says "Or to the people" Does not mean a state cannot constitutionally regulate things not expressly forbidden in it.

The people express that they desire reproductive rights, including the right to plan pregnancy, and the right to expel a inviable fetus from a body at an early stage.

That another large percentage of people disagree does nothing to amend the fact that people view it as a right.

 

[ThomasJ]

Which people? Perhaps the people of Oregon want abortion, Perhaps Mass. Try Georgia and tell me how the "People" feel

 

[ErikBlack]

There is no group: "the people". Even in the most conservative Bible-thumping states some people will be pro-choice, and they should be allowed to make that choice. If 90% of Georgians don't want to get an abortion then they have the right not to, but they do not have the right to prevent their neighbors from getting an abortion. That is my personal position on the issue. But I realize that I may not have all the answers and my position is not necessarily correct. I know that there are people who care deeply about preventing abortion and saving the lives of unborn babies. So in the spirit of compromise I support Ron Paul's position of allowing the states to outlaw abortion if they so choose under the condition that residents of states not be disallowed from traveling to other states to get abortions. I actually think this is a good thing because it should be a "hassle" to get an abortion. It shouldn't be something you just go do on the weekend and forget about. Its a big decision and shouldn't be taken lightly. As long as people remain polarized on this issue, neither side willing to give an inch, things will stay the way they are, which is that abortion is federally protected. That's fine by me because I support abortion. But pro-lifers need to realize that if they ever want to get their way they are going to have to soften their tone and ease up on the righteous indignation, because right now they are just a small group of loud-mouthed fundamentalists yelling into the wind and nobody wants to hear what they have to say except other members of their own group.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Abortion is considered a natural right.

So is health care by some. Does that make it so? The right to life (of all humans) precedes all other rights - without life, liberty and all that follow are nullified.

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.

What i will simply argue is that the issue is far more complex and the "coercion vs choice" dichotomy alot of pro-choice people like to bring up, as well as the "life vs death" dichotomy alot of pro-life people like to bring up. I contend that the morality if the situation depends on the definition of life, or at least the point where the human fetus "gains" its natural rights. My first arguement is that the role of government is to defend life, liberty, and property. Some may believe government should have no role at all, perhaps, but let us discuss within the framework of our current situation. If government is indeed supposed to protect life, liberty, and property, than if a human fetus is indeed a human life (id like to see the scientific evidence that it is anything but, at least past a few weeks in). If this is so, should there not be some sort of protection for the lives of the unborn? Of course, it would have to be far more complex and just a law than most, with some room for exceptions. I think state-level laws could be crafted as such, indeed - ones that would factor in the many concerns that abound as related to abortion. Either way, if you believe the role of government is indeed to protect life and liberty, then i hardly see it as an unfounded intiation of force any more abhorrent than anything else the government does to protect life and liberty (whehter it actually does this is a wholly seperate question), so why make an "exception" for abortion? Because it is force against a woman who has made some lifestyle mistakes?

From this point, one may argue that a fetus is not a human with natural rights, but that hardly pertains to the actual debate over whether it is a violation of the liberties of the woman or homicide of the fetus, at least if it assumed as being human - this assumption is important, as many pro-choice people use the arguement that they are personally against abortion and would never commit one, but are for the "right to choose", which is a very inconsistent position to take. Either abortion is a form of homicide (not murder) or it is not. If it is not, it is only becuase a fetus is not deemed "human", but again, that is a seperate issue. When discussing abortion, these terms must be set beforehand, or the arguement will proceed nowhere.

Pro-lifers are statists, and they mask themselves under the guise of "caring" for an uborn life, regardless of what it really means.

Do not presume to speak for all. Ignorant blanket statements like these undermine the grounds of your arguement. Also, i am against all intitations of force, not just from government. It might be "statist" to wish to have a government that protects life, but it is certainly more morally libertarian than believing that abortion is a morally justifiable action, assuming a human fetus does indeed have a claim to 'natural rights' at all. if it, in your view, does not have such rights, than your arguement as constituted is consistent, though not necesarily right (or wrong).

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?!

People being thrown in Guantanamo Bay or tortured has no influence on my own life, so of course, i shouldn't give two shits about what happens to some brown skinned people in a secret prison. Also, that 60% figure was pulled out of your ass - do a search for "percent of pregnancies miscarriage" and youll find it ranged from 10-40%. Before you argue with vitrol and tell people to shove it, at least cite your sources please. And finally, the you are being disingenious by pretending that there is no difference between abortion and miscarriage, just as there is no difference between homicide and accidental death.

 

[Kade]

Which people? Perhaps the people of Oregon want abortion, Perhaps Mass. Try Georgia and tell me how the "People" feel

I spent most of my life in Cobb County. The people do wish to maintain their reproductive rights, and when confronted with the decision to ban those rights from others, even reasonable pro-lifers concede that it isn't appropriate for the government to go in that direction. Try again.

 

[Kade]

So is health care by some. Does that make it so? The right to life (of all humans) precedes all other rights - without life, liberty and all that follow are nullified.

A right to life does not assume a right to use another person's body.

What i will simply argue is that the issue is far more complex and the "coercion vs choice" dichotomy alot of pro-choice people like to bring up, as well as the "life vs death" dichotomy alot of pro-life people like to bring up. I contend that the morality if the situation depends on the definition of life, or at least the point where the human fetus "gains" its natural rights. My first arguement is that the role of government is to defend life, liberty, and property. Some may believe government should have no role at all, perhaps, but let us discuss within the framework of our current situation. If government is indeed supposed to protect life, liberty, and property, than if a human fetus is indeed a human life (id like to see the scientific evidence that it is anything but, at least past a few weeks in). If this is so, should there not be some sort of protection for the lives of the unborn? Of course, it would have to be far more complex and just a law than most, with some room for exceptions. I think state-level laws could be crafted as such, indeed - ones that would factor in the many concerns that abound as related to abortion. Either way, if you believe the role of government is indeed to protect life and liberty, then i hardly see it as an unfounded intiation of force any more abhorrent than anything else the government does to protect life and liberty (whehter it actually does this is a wholly seperate question), so why make an "exception" for abortion? Because it is force against a woman who has made some lifestyle mistakes?

I can grant you all of these opinions. Still, they are opinions. It is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. (besides when has anyone on the social conservative side taken with science?) All of these points fail to express the argument that many people do not believe that a fetus has a right to life. Period.

From this point, one may argue that a fetus is not a human with natural rights, but that hardly pertains to the actual debate over whether it is a violation of the liberties of the woman or homicide of the fetus, at least if it assumed as being human - this assumption is important, as many pro-choice people use the arguement that they are personally against abortion and would never commit one, but are for the "right to choose", which is a very inconsistent position to take. Either abortion is a form of homicide (not murder) or it is not. If it is not, it is only becuase a fetus is not deemed "human", but again, that is a seperate issue. When discussing abortion, these terms must be set beforehand, or the arguement will proceed nowhere.

You can't spell to save your life. There is nothing inconsistent with agreeing with a person's retained liberties.

Do not presume to speak for all. Ignorant blanket statements like these undermine the grounds of your arguement. Also, i am against all intitations of force, not just from government. It might be "statist" to wish to have a government that protects life, but it is certainly more morally libertarian than believing that abortion is a morally justifiable action, assuming a human fetus does indeed have a claim to 'natural rights' at all. if it, in your view, does not have such rights, than your arguement as constituted is consistent, though not necesarily right (or wrong).

You are a basket case of blanket statements. For ex: "is far more complex and the "coercion vs choice" dichotomy alot of pro-choice people like to bring up,"

Look, I have no problem with pro-lifers. If you believe a blastocyst is a human life, with equal value as your own, that is your prerogative, and frankly, I believe in your right to not have to support abortion, or get one. My argument still stands. Many people, including myself, do not believe a fetus has a right to life. We do not believe they are fully human. I don't believe the government has a compelling interest in maintaining a position that has so divided people. Just look at how angry you are getting. I wouldn't worry though, the Fed will soon be defining marriage for you, and when life starts for you. And when they do that, a simple matter of time until they can negotiate with themselves when you ought to die, or even if you can die.

People being thrown in Guantanamo Bay or tortured has no influence on my own life, so of course, i shouldn't give two shits about what happens to some brown skinned people in a secret prison. Also, that 60% figure was pulled out of your ass - do a search for "percent of pregnancies miscarriage" and youll find it ranged from 10-40%. Before you argue with vitrol and tell people to shove it, at least cite your sources please. And finally, the you are being disingenious by pretending that there is no difference between abortion and miscarriage, just as there is no difference between homicide and accidental death.

Actually that figure was a rough estimate of the total number of pregnancies that don't come full term, excluding abortions. That also includes the amount of fertilized eggs that simply don't attach. I apologize for the association with miscarriages only. You are also correct that it is disingenuous to consider that they are the same. I am often insensitive about other people's beliefs... I empathize with your belief that a fetus is a human being deserving of the right to life. I disagree. I do not think abortion is murder. Murder implies malicious intent. In many cases, depending on the specific argument used, I can debate a specific reason. Abortion is a complex issue. I believe woman maintain the right to decide their reproductive future. That people secure in their households and families, in different states and regions, and religions, disagree, does not take away the belief that it is still a right that the government should not mess with...

With that said, I'll emphasize this as clearly as I can... I do not believe that a potential baby has a higher value than a woman's body or life.

 

[Theocrat]

Have We Forgotten What the Issue Is?

We are dealing with the issue of the sanctity of life, people. Simply put, abortion is murder!

 

[Kade]

We are dealing with the issue of the sanctity of life, people. Simply put, abortion is murder!

So woman maliciously kill human cells on purpose, cells that deserve life because you said so... Yea, that makes sense.

 

[ThomasJ]

If a doctor kills a baby 1 minute before birth it is called abortion. If a doctor kills the baby after birth it is called murder. If the doctor had not killed the baby 1 minute before birth would it have survived?

If a woman wants to chop off her own arm that is her choice. If a woman wants to cut off a finger that is her choice. If a woman wants to shave off a bit of skin that is her choice.

When a woman has sex and gets pregnant that is not her choice after 8 weeks. That is life. It is life not her own. It is not her body. It is the child's body.
We have to much technology now that can prevent pregnancy to allow the use of abortion as a birth control method. As for the life of the woman I personally feel that should be one of the few times where it is allowed after 8 weeks. My opinion still is of little importance because constitutionally this should be a matter for a State to decide Or for the people.

A human exists in that womb. A human that is functional. A human that will live if you take it out of that womb if you assist it with the things it needed in that womb.

Earliest Surviving baby

If 90% of Georgia wants to outlaw abortion they have the right to do so. The 10% that does not has the right to move to another state more in line with their views.


As a side note. In 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."

This Constitutionally would allow all 50 states to have their own rules on most of the controversial issues of our time.

This is preferable because that will allow people to find a state that most suites their own personal beliefs and that will enhance or detract from their life depending on the belief.

I have no problem with people screwing themselves over with overtly fascist laws. At the same time I do not want those laws imposed on me.

There is no state I can move into that would free me from the regulations of the Federal government.

The minority on any stance is screwed when the Federal government regulates.

So if the Supreme Court over ruled Roe V Wade next week, your view that abortion should be legal would now be screwed. Is that Justice? Is that how free people should live together?



Kade this has been an enjoyable debate. Thanks I deal with a lot of people that cannot debate anything with a reasoned approach. I still do not agree with your stance and I feel that your logic is flawed. On the other hand I do enjoy that you have reason and logic to back up your stance.

 

[Kade]

If a doctor kills a baby 1 minute before birth it is called abortion. If a doctor kills the baby after birth it is called murder. If the doctor had not killed the baby 1 minute before birth would it have survived?

If a woman wants to chop off her own arm that is her choice. If a woman wants to cut off a finger that is her choice. If a woman wants to shave off a bit of skin that is her choice.

When a woman has sex and gets pregnant that is not her choice after 8 weeks. That is life. It is life not her own. It is not her body. It is the child's body.
We have to much technology now that can prevent pregnancy to allow the use of abortion as a birth control method. As for the life of the woman I personally feel that should be one of the few times where it is allowed after 8 weeks. My opinion still is of little importance because constitutionally this should be a matter for a State to decide Or for the people.

A human exists in that womb. A human that is functional. A human that will live if you take it out of that womb if you assist it with the things it needed in that womb.

Earliest Surviving baby

If 90% of Georgia wants to outlaw abortion they have the right to do so. The 10% that does not has the right to move to another state more in line with their views.


As a side note. In 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."

This Constitutionally would allow all 50 states to have their own rules on most of the controversial issues of our time.

This is preferable because that will allow people to find a state that most suites their own personal beliefs and that will enhance or detract from their life depending on the belief.

I have no problem with people screwing themselves over with overtly fascist laws. At the same time I do not want those laws imposed on me.

There is no state I can move into that would free me from the regulations of the Federal government.

The minority on any stance is screwed when the Federal government regulates.

So if the Supreme Court over ruled Roe V Wade next week, your view that abortion should be legal would now be screwed. Is that Justice? Is that how free people should live together?



Kade this has been an enjoyable debate. Thanks I deal with a lot of people that cannot debate anything with a reasoned approach. I still do not agree with your stance and I feel that your logic is flawed. On the other hand I do enjoy that you have reason and logic to back up your stance.

What the law calls it, I care not. The law is a tool for ideologues to abuse. There are natural rights. I believe personally that at the point of viability, abortion should be reconsidered. 22 weeks is 5.5 months. If that is the earliest, than let that be the cutoff. In my arguments, I am referring to a person discovering that they have become pregnant, and deciding at that moment to terminate the pregnancy. Most women should know by 3 months... Late term abortions are debatable, and I'm open to opposing arguments on either side. I do not believe in a soul, I've seen unborn fetuses, I am not impressed with arguments that these fetuses "deserve" a right to life, being mostly inanimate, without reason, without pain, and absolutely dependent on the body of the woman.

That said, I'm also willing to listen to arguments about state rights. Overturning Roe v. Wade allows for such absurd amendments to the Constitution that would define life... again, it is seen as a natural right by many people... you disagree with that right, which is your prerogative. People have disagreed with many people's rights throughout time. Your beliefs don't change a thing. We both know that you have no vested interest in a woman who decides to get an abortion. You should have no say. I'm not saying that you shouldn't go out and protest on behalf of potential babies all you want, but isn't there much more disturbing and outrageous things going on in the world... like perhaps, the suffering of people who have emotions, and feelings, and real life experiences....

Just a thought.

I know Ron Paul's stance on the matter. Unfortunately many people here refuse to admit obvious things.. for example, as an OB-GYN Ron Paul is in a less than 10% minority of the profession that is pro-life.

I trust a woman's biology. Nature teaches us that woman instinctively know if they are capable of raising a healthy child. Other animals simply abandon or eat their young if they cannot provide. As a man, what right do I have to even consider such a thing, I am not the owner of their bodies. If there were an outstanding number of woman trying to ban masturbating, we would probably be up in arms, women don't tend to understand a man's natural desire for sexual gratification, (although that can be disputed)... my point is, I'm not giving birth anytime soon, how can I possibly allow a law that will force woman to use their bodies to effect incubate a potential human child, simply because I happen to believe that potential child is a full human life with a right to life... even if it was everything you say it is, a human does not have the right to borrow another human against their will to live off them for 9 months. That is a charity. We do not force charity in this country, nor should we.... Abortion does kill a potential human. No doubt about it. But it is not the intention of the mother to kill a life, or deprive a human of life, it deprives them the use of her body. The deprivation will kill the fetus. You cannot by law force a woman to not be allowed to receive the best possible medical procedure to do so... time and history have taught us, women WILL always have abortions, ALWAYS. Nothing changes that.... outlawing it is not going to change it. Woman know when they are ready to be mothers. If the current culture were not so messed up, there would be early sex education and preventive measures, and far less abortions. However, the same group advocating that they are pro-life, also seems to advocate a lack of knowledge on the subject, which has proven to lead to unprotected sex and embarrassment.

Most abortions are done by Christians. Most are done by evangelical Christians. Most are not reported to their parents. Do the math.

Again, the value of a woman's body, life and way of life and experience is greater than the value of a potential human. This is unshakable in it's sheer power of clarity.

 

[ThomasJ]

We both know that you have no vested interest in a woman who decides to get an abortion. You should have no say.

So if I kill my 2 year old child. You have no vested interest in that? Should the government be able to try me for murder?

a human does not have the right to borrow another human against their will to live off them for 9 months.

With the exception of rape a woman knows full well what the possibilities of having sex are. How is that against their will.

Should investors not be able to invest because it is possible they could loose or gain money?

Should a person not be able to drive a car because it is possible they could die?

Most abortions are done by Christians. Most are done by evangelical Christians. Most are not reported to their parents. Do the math

I would love to see some statistics on that one.

Again, the value of a woman's body, life and way of life and experience is greater than the value of a potential human. This is unshakable in it's sheer power of clarity.

This is the crux of our disagreement. I believe if someone has sex willingly and gets pregnant and lets the fetus mature into a baby (8 weeks or more) then they should have the baby, period.
They can give it up for adoption or whatever. They got themselves into the problem by their own choice. They have to take personal responsibility and deal with it.

Most women will know that they are pregnant after 5 weeks max. This is your standard late period sign. This does not work on all women as some have irregular period frequency. Most should know by then though. In reality I knew that my wife was pregnant before she knew. I could see the signs long before she examined her own behavior.

 

[Theocrat]

Who Mentioned Anything About Cells?

So woman maliciously kill human cells on purpose, cells that deserve life because you said so... Yea, that makes sense.

I never said nor implied that killing human cells is murder. No, I stated that abortion is murder, which means it's an unlawful killing of a human being, an that's what a fetus is. It has God-given and legal rights to life, period. Fetal homicide laws attest to this, for instance. So, your straw man argument is useless in that I never made a claim of killing human cells--that's your assumption of what a fetus is.

With all due respect, Kade, if you can look at the pictures on the link I posted and conclude that they are just human cells, then you are just blind. Any person can tell that those aborted fetuses are human persons. Shame on you.

 

[ThomasJ]

There is no need for - "Shame on you"

That does not enable debate that shuts it down.

 

[Kade]

I never said nor implied that killing human cells is murder. No, I stated that abortion is murder, which means it's an unlawful killing of a human being, an that's what a fetus is. It has God-given and legal rights to life, period. Fetal homicide laws attest to this, for instance. So, your straw man argument is useless in that I never made a claim of killing human cells--that's your assumption of what a fetus is.

With all due respect, Kade, if you can look at the pictures on the link I posted and conclude that they are just human cells, then you are just blind. Any person can tell that those aborted fetuses are human persons. Shame on you.

Murder is malicious homocide. Abortion is not malicious. Abortion expulsion of a fetus from a woman's body. It does kill the fetus. I've looked at the pictures, many, many times. I'm from the deep south. We had people like you standing on the corners of our high school all year. I'm not going to budge. God-given rights once included the right to own slaves.

While I draw breath, the state will not force a woman to carry full term a pregnancy, I don't care how infuriated it makes you or people like you. I don't care how much you think you are fighting for someone's rights. You are only fighting for what you perceive as evil and malicious. I don't think you have considered all the facts, nor have you considered the reasons why people like me are pro-choice.

You may think we are uninformed. I am not heartless. I've been called many things on these boards.

I've been called too analytical, yet blind. I've been called a socialist yet too anti-government. I've been called heartless, and a bleeding heart liberal.

I'm many things. Cold and emotionless is not one of them. I can add nothing more in this debate because I believe I made a very clear argument. Step back, and think about why someone like me, and others supports abortion as a humane solution. Consider that we are human too, and our feelings and emotions on the matter should not just be summarily dismissed. I've thought about the debate most of my life. I worked my way through school and through college, a private Catholic University, where, despite the best efforts of the administration, a large minority of us were pro-choice leaning. There is a reason why the most educated among us in America choose this stance. Consider these reasons, at the very least, tread lightly on the soil you seek to fertilize. Your protection of fetuses does not transcend beyond picket lines... people consider it a natural right, a fundamental right, to have privacy and medically available options for parenting. You suggest this right should be taken, by force, by the very tool you should be fighting against.


Pregnancy and parenting is not a punishment to be enacted on someone. I believe in planned parenting. I believe children brought up in the best possible environment gives us a better society.

An adoption is not an answer for some people. They want their children to themselves.

Just because your farm life was happy and fruitful, does not mean that every single new mom can find a way to support a child. If you did think about it, you would come to some conclusion on the quality of life of that child and consider that instead of a selfish desire to save the life of a cluster of cells.


If you think abortion is wrong, go, convince a desperate young woman to stop and rethink what she is doing. I ask that you also help her. Don't preach, don't wag your finger at her for making the mistake of having sex. (Because we all know that isn't a natural right). Just help. I'll prevent abortions my way, with sex education, and disease and pregnancy prevention techniques, and you can talk them out of it... let's leave the government out of this.

 

[Indy Vidual]

"Abortion for sheepies - Logic and Reason"

Female sheep have the right to decide for themselves.

 

[ThomasJ]

The sheepies was to imply a good debate that a person could have with Pro-choice that would tell them that Dr. Paul is not Pro choice or Pro life. He is Pro states rights which means both Pro Life and Pro choice can profit.

A sheep is an un-awakened member of society that has not become aware of the insanity that is collectivism.

 

[JenaS62]

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

You know what? I totally agree with you. Who gives a crap? I lean more towards prolife but I fully understand that some women will choose an abortion and there is a not a damn thing we can do about it. If there is no legalized abortion - women who want abortions will simply return to back alley abortions and that's not cool. With everything else going on in this world - this is just not high on the list of my priorities right now. I have 3 teenage sons and keeping them from getting drafted is my 1st priority right now - followed closely by the economy and immigration. Those are the 3 things that lured me to Ron Paul and that is why I am going to vote for him tomorrow.